history of the impeachment of andrew johnson-第32节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


ould　refuse　it。　Article　8　charges　that　the　appointment　of　Thomas　was　made　for　the　purpose　of　getting　control　of　the　disbursement　of　the　moneys　appropriated　for　the　military　service　and　Department　of　War。

In　addition　to　the　proof　already　adduced；　it　will　be　shown　that；　after　the　appointment　of　Thomas；　which　must　have　been　known　to　the　members　of　his　cabinet；　the　President　caused　a　formal　notice　to　be　served　on　the　Secretary　of　the　Treasury；　to　the　end　that　the　Secretary　might　answer　the　requisitions　for　money　of　Thomas；　and　this　was　only　prevented　by　the　firmness　with　which　Stanton　retained　possession　of　the　books　and　papers　of　the　War　office。　It　will　be　seen　that　every　fact　charged　in　Article　1　is　admitted　by　the　answer　of　the　respondent；　the　intent　also　admitted　as　charged；　that　is　to　say；　to　set　aside　the　civil　tenure…of…office　act；　and　to　remove　Mr。　Stanton　from　the　office　of　the　Secretary　for　the　Department　of　War　without　the　advice　and　consent　of　the　Senate；　and；　if　not　justified；　contrary　to　the　provisions　of　the　Constitution　itself。

The　only　question　remaining　is；　does　the　respondent　justify　himself　by　the　Constitution　and　laws？

On　this　he　avers；　that　by　the　Constitution；　there　is　〃conferred　on　the　President　as　a　part　of　the　executive　power；　the　power　at　any　and　all　times　of　removing　from　office　all　executive　officers　for　cause；　to　be　judged　of　by　the　President　alone；　and　that　he　verily　believes　that　the　executive　power　of　removal　from　office；　confided　to　him　by　the　Constitution；　as　aforesaid；　includes　the　power　of　suspension　from　office　indefinitely。〃

Now；　these　offices；　so　vacated；　must　be　filled；　temporarily　at　least；　by　his　appointment；　because　government　must　go　on；　there　can　be　no　interregnum　in　the　execution　of　the　laws　in　an　organized　government；　he　claims；　therefore；　of　necessity；　the　right　to　fill　their　places　with　appointments　of　his　choice；　and　that　this　power　can　not　be　restrained　or　limited　in　any　degree　by　any　law　of　Congress；　because；　he　avers；　〃that　the　power　was　conferred；　and　the　duty　of　exercising　it　in　fit　cases　was　imposed　on　the　President　by　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States；　and　that　the　President　could　not　be　deprived　of　this　power；　or　relieved　of　this　duty；　nor　could　the　same　be　vested　by　law　in　the　President　and　the　Senate　jointly；　either　in　part　or　whole。〃

This；　then；　is　the　plain　and　inevitable　issue　before　the　Sehate　and　the　American　people：

Has　the　President；　under　the　Constitution；　the　more　than　kingly　prerogative　at　will　to　remove　from　office　and　suspend　from　office　indefinitely；　all　executive　officers　of　the　United　States；　either　civil；　military　or　naval；　at　any　and　all　times；　and　fill　the　vacancies　with　creatures　of　his　own　appointment；　for　his　own　purposes；　without　any　restraint　whatever；　or　possibility　of　restraint　by　the　Senate　or　by　Congress　through　laws　duly　enacted？

The　House　of　Representatives；　in　behalf　of　the　people　join　this　issue　by　affirming　that　the　exercise　of　such　powers　is　a　high　misdemeanor　in　office。

If　the　affirmative　is　maintained　by　the　respondent；　then；　so　far　as　the　first　eight　articles　are　concernedunless　such　corrupt　purposes　are　shown　as　will　of　themselves　make　the　exercise　of　a　legal　power　a　crimethe　respondent　must　go；　and　ought　to　go　quit　and　free。

Therefore；　by　these　articles　and　the　answers　thereto；　the　momentous　question；　here　and　now；　is　raised　whether　the　PRESIDENTIAL　OFFICE　ITSELF　（IF　IT　HAS　THE　PREROGATIVES　AND　POWER　CLAIMED　FOR　IT）　OUGHT；　IN　FACT；　TO　EXIST　AS　APART　OF　THE　CONSTITUTIONAL　GOVERNMENT　OF　A　FREE　PEOPLE；　while　by　the　last　three　articles　the　simpler　and　less　important　inquiry　is　to　be　determined；　whether　Andrew　Johnson　has　so　conducted　himself　that　he　ought　longer　to　held　any　constitutional　office　whatever。　The　latter　sinks　to　merited　insignificance　compared　with　the　grandeur　of　the　former。

If　that　is　sustained；　then　a　right　and　power　hitherto　unclaimed　and　unknown　to　the　people　of　the　country　is　engrafted　on　the　Constitution　most　alarming　in　its　extent；　most　corrupting　in　its　influence；　most　dangerous　in　its　tendencies；　and　most　tyrannical　in　its　exercise。

Whoever；　therefore；　votes　〃not　guilty〃　on　these　articles　votes　to　enchain　our　free　institutions；　and　to　prostrate　them　at　the　feet　of　any　man　who；　being　President；　may　choose　to　control　them。

A　few　days　after　this；　Judge　Curtis；　of　the　President's　counsel；　spoke　on　behalf　of　the　President。　The　first　and　principal　Goverment　of　the　Articles　of　Impeachment　against　Mr。　Johnson　was　violation　of　the　Office…Tenure　Act；　which　had　been　passed　the　year　before　for　the　undisguised　purpose　of　restricting　the　President's　power　to　remove　his　Cabinet　officers；　particularly；　his　War　Minister；　Mr。　Stanton。　It　was　apparent　that　Mr。　Butler　had　been　embarassed　in　his　plea　by　the　proviso　of　that　Act；　that　members　of　the　Cabinet　should　hold　〃during　the　term　of　the　President　by　WHOM　THEY　MAY　HAVE　BEEN　APPOINTED　and　for　one　month　longer。〃

Mr。　Butler　had　askedBy　whom　was　Mr。　Stanton　appointed？　By　Mr。　Lincoln。　Whose　presidential　term　was　he　holding　tinder　when　the　bullet　of　Booth　became　a　proximate　cause　of　this　trial？　Was　not　this　appointment　in　full　force　at　that　hour。　Had　any　act　of　the　respondent　up　to　the　12th　day　of　August　last　vitiated　or　interfered　with　that　appointment？　Whose　Presidential　term　is　the　respondent　now　serving　out？　His　own；　or　Mr。　Lincoln's。　If　his　own；　he　is　entitled　to　four　years　up　to　the　anniversary　of　the　murder；　because　each　presidential　term　is　four　years　by　the　Constitution；　and　the　regular　recurrence　of　those　terms　is　fixed　by　the　Act　of　May　8；　1792。　If　he　is　serving　out　the　remainder　of　Mr。　Lincoln's　term；　then　his　term　of　office　expires　on　the　4th　of　March；　1869；　if　it　does　not　before。

Judge　Curtis　struck　his　first　blow　at　the　weak　point　of　General　Butler's　speech。　He　said：

There　is　a　question　involved　which　enters　deeply　into　the　first　eight　Articles　of　Impeachment　and　materially　touches　two　of　the　others；　and　to　that　question　I　desire　in　the　first　place　to　invite　the　attention　of　the　court；　namelywhether　MR。　STANTON'S　CASE　COMES　UNDER　THE　TENURE…OF…OFFICE　ACTS？　*　*　*　I　must　ask　your　attention　therefore　to　the　construction　and　application　of　the　first　section　of　that　act；　as　follows：　〃that　every　person　holding　an　official　position　to　which　he　has　been　appointed　by　and　with　the　advice　and　consent　of　the　Senate；　and　every　person　who　shall　hereafter　be　appointed　to　any　such　office　and　shall　become　duly　qualified　to　act　therein；　is　and　shall　be　entitled　to　hold　such　office　until　a　successor　shall　have　been　in　like　manner　appointed　and　duly　qualified；　except　as　herein　OTHERWISE　PROVIDED。〃　Then　comes　what　is　otherwise　provided。　PROVIDED；　HOWEVER；　That　the　Secretaries　of　State；　Treasury；　War；　Navy；　and　Interior　Departments；　the　Postmaster　General　and　Attorney　General；　shall　hold　their　offices　respectively　for　AND　DURING　THE　TERM　OF　THE　PRESIDENT　BY　WHOM　THEY　MAY　HAVE　BEEN　APPOINTED。〃

The　first　inquiry　which　arises　on　this　language；　is　as　to　the　meaning　of　the　words　〃for　and　during　the　term　of　the　President。〃　Mr。　Stanton；　as　appears　by　the　commission　which　has　been　put　in　the　case　by　the　Honorable　Managers；　was　appointed　in　January；　1862；　during　the　first　term　of　President　Lincoln。　Are　the　words　〃during　the　term　of　the　President；〃　applicable　to　Mr。　Stanton's　case？　That　depends　upon　whether　an　expounder　of　this　law；　judicially；　who　finds　set　down　in　it　as　a　part　of　the　descriptive　words；　〃DURING　THE　TERMS　OF　THE　PRESIDENT；〃　HAS　ANY　RIGHT　TO　ADD；　〃AND　DURING　ANY　OTHER　TERM　FOR　WHICH　HE　MAY　BE　AFTERWARDS　ELECTED。〃

I　respectfully　submit　no　such　judicial　interpretation　can　be　put　on　the　words。　Then；　if　you　please；　take　the　next　step：　〃During　the　term　of　the　President　by　whom　he　was　appointed；　〃At　the　time　when　this　order　was　issued　for　the　removal　of　Mr。　Stanton；　was　he　holding　the　term　of　the　President　by　whom　he　was　appointed？　The　Honorable　Managers　say　yes；　because；　as　they；　say；　Mr。　Johnson　is　merely　serving　out　the　residue　of　Mr。　Lincoln's　term。　But　is　that　so　under　the　provisions　of　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States？　*　*　Although　the　President；　like　the　Vice　President；　is　elected　for　a　term　of　four　years；　and　each　is　elected　for　the　same　term；　the　President　is　not　to　hold　the　office　absolutely　during　four　years。　The　limit　of　four　years　is　not　an　absolute　limit。　Death　is　a　limit。　〃A　conditional　limitation；〃　as　the　lawyers　call　it；　is　imposed　on　his　tenure　of　office。　And　when　the　President　dies　his　term　of　four　years；　for　which　he　was　elected　and　during　which　he　was　to　hold　provided　he　should　so　long　live；　terminates；　and　the　office　devolves　upon　the　Vice　President。　For　what　period　of　time？　FOR　THE　REMAINDER　OF　THE　TERM　FOR　WHICH　THE　VICE　PRESIDENT　WAS　ELECTED。　And　there　is　no　more　propriety；　under　the　provisions　of　the　Constitution　of　the　United　litates；　in　calling　the　term　during　which　Mr。　Johnson　holds　the　office　of　President；　after　it　was　devolved　upon　him；　a　part　of　Mr。　Lincoln's　term。　then　there　would　be　propriety　in　saying　that　one　sovereign　who　succeeded　another　sovereign　by　death；　holds　his　predecessor's　term。**　They　（the　Cabinet　officers）　were　to　be　the　advisers　of　the　President；　they　were　to　be　the　immediate　confidential　assistants