history of the impeachment of andrew johnson-第34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！


ge　of　the　Tenure…of…Office　Act；　March　2nd；　1867；　for　the　reason　that　Mr。　Lincoln's　term　expired　at　his　death。　This　is　false　reasoning；　the　Constitution　fixed　the　term　of　the　President　at　four　years；　and　by　law　the　commencement　of　his　term　is　the　4th　of　March。　Will　it　be　said　that　when　Mr。　Johnson　is　deposed　by　a　verdict　of　the　Senate；　that　the　officer　who　will　succeed　him　will　serve　for　four　years？　Certainly　not。　Why？　Because　he　will　have　no　Presidential　term；　and　will　be　merely　serving　out　a　part　of　the　unexpired　term　of　Mr。　Lincoln；　and　will　go　out　of　office　on　the　4th　of　March；　1869；　at　the　time　Mr。　Lincoln　would　have　retired　by　expiration　of　his　term；　had　he　lived。　*　*　*

The　only　question；　then；　which　remains；　is　simply　this：　Has　the　accused　violated　that　（Tenure…of…Office）　Act？　No　one　knows　better　than　this　accused　the　history　of；　and　the　purpose　to　be　secured　by；　that　Act。　It　was　ably　and　exhaustively　discussed　on　both　sides；　in　all　aspects。　In　the　debates　of　Congress　it　was　subsequently　reviewed　and　closely　analyzed　in　a　Veto　Message　of　the　respondent。　No　portion　of　that　Act　escaped　his　remark；　and　no　practical　application　which　has　been　made　of　it　since　did　he　fail　to　anticipate。　He　knew　before　he　attempted　its　violation　that　more　than　three…fourths　of　the　Representatives　of　the　people　in　Congress　assembled　had　set　their　seal　of　disapprobation　upon　the　reasons　given　in　the　Veto　Message　and　had　enacted　the　law　by　more　than　the　constitutional　number　of　votes　required。　Nay；　more；　he　was　repeatedly　warned；　by　investigations　made　looking　toward　just　such　a　proceeding　as　now　being　witnessed　in　this　court；　that　the　people　had　instructed　their　Representatives　to　tolerate　no　violation　of　the　laws　constitutionally　enacted。

Mr。　Groesbeck；　in　behalf　of　the　defense；　said　in　closing　his　argument：

What　is　to　be　your　judgment；　Senators；　in　this　case？　Removal　from　office　and　perpetual　disqualification？　If　the　President　has　committed　that　for　which　he　should　be　ejected　from　office　it　were　judicial　mockery　to　stop　short　of　the　largest　disqualifications　you　can　impose。　It　will　be　a　heavy　judgment。　What　is　his　crime　in　its　moral　aspects；　to　merit　such　a　judgment？　Let　us　look　to　it。

He　tried　to　pluck　a　thorn　out　of　his　very　heart；　for　the　condition　of　things　in　the　War　Department；　and　consequently　in　his　Cabinet；　did　pain　him　as　a　thorn　in　his　heart。　You　fastened　it　there；　and　you　are　now　asked　to　punish　him　for　attempting　to　extract　it。　What　more？　He　made　an　ad　interim　appointment　to　last　for　a　single　day。　You　could　have　terminated　it　whenever　you　saw　fit。　You　had　only　to　take　up　the　nomination　which　he　had　sent　to　you；　which　was　a　good　nomination；　and　act　upon　it　and　the　ad　interim　vanished　like　smoke。　He　had　no　idea　of　fastening　it　upon　the　department。　He　had　no　intention　of　doing　anything　of　that　kind。　He　merely　proposed　that　for　the　purpose；　if　the　opportunity　should　occur；　of　subjecting　this　law　to　a　constitutional　test。　That　was　all　the　purpose　it　was　to　answer。　It　is　all　for　which　it　was　intended。　The　thing　was　in　your　hands　from　the　beginning　to　the　end。　You　had　only　to　act　upon　the　nomination；　and　the　matter　was　settled。　Surely　that　was　no　crime。

I　point　you　to　the　cases　that　have　occurredof　ad　interim　appointment　after　ad　interim　appointment；　but　I　point　especially　to　the　case　of　Mr。　Holt；　where　the　Senate　in　its　legislative　capacity　examined　it；　weighed　it；　decided　upon　it；　heard　the　report　of　the　President　and　received　it　as　satisfactory。　That　is；　for　the　purpose　of　this　trial；　before　the　same　tribunal；　res　adjudicate；　I　think；　and　it　will　be　so　regarded。

What　else　did　he　do？　He　talked　with　an　officer　about　the　law。　That　is　the　Emory　Article。　He　made　intemperate　speeches；　though　full　of　honest；　patriotic　sentiments；　when　reviled；　he　should　not　revile　again；　when　smitten　upon　one　cheek　he　should　turn　the　other。

〃But；〃　the　gentleman　who　spoke　last　on　the　part　of　the　managers；　〃he　tried　to　defeat　pacification　and　restoration。〃　I　deny　it　in　the　sense　in　which　he　presented　itthat　is；　as　a　criminal　act。　Here；　too；　he　followed　precedent　and　trod　the　path　in　which　were　the　footsteps　of　Lincoln；　and　which　was　bright　with　the　radiance　of　his　divine　utterance；　〃charity　for　all；　malice　toward　none。〃　He　was　eager　for　pacification。　He　thought　that　the　war　was　ended。　The　drums　were　all　silentthe　arsenals　were　all　shut；　the　roar　of　the　canon　had　died　away　to　the　last　reverberation；　the　armies　were　disbanded；　not　a　single　army　confronted　us　in　the　field。　Ah；　he　was　too　eager；　too　forgiving；　too　kind。　The　hand　of　conciliation　was　stretched　out　to　him　and　he　took　it？　It　may　be　he　should　have　put　it　away；　but　was　it　a　crime　to　take　it？　Kindness；　forgiveness　a　crime！　Kindness　a　crime！　Kindness　is　omnipotent　for　good；　more　powerful　than　gunpowder　or　canon。　Kindness　is　statesmanship。　Kindness　is　the　highest　statesmanship　of　heaven　itself。　The　thunders　of　Sinai　do　but　terrify　and　distract；　alone　they　accomplish　little；　it　is　the　kindness　of　Calvary　that　subdues　and　pacifies。

What　shall　I　say　of　this　man？　He　is　no　theoriest；　he　is　no　reformer；　I　have　looked　over　his　life。　He　has　ever　walked　in　beaten　paths；　and　by　the　light　of；　the　Constitution。　The　mariner；　tempest…tossed　in　mid…sea；　does　not　more　certainly　turn　to　his　star　for　guidance　than　does　this　man　in　trial　and　difficulty　to　the　star　of　the　Constitution。　He　loves　the　Constitution。　It　has　been　the　study　of　his　life。　He　is　not　learned　and　scholarly　like　many　of　you；　he　is　not　a　man　of　many　ideas　or　of　much　speculation　but　by　a　law　of　the　mind　he　is　only　the　truer　to　that　he　does　know。　He　is　a　patriot；　second　to　no　one　of　you　in　the　measure　of　his　patriotism。　He　loves　his　country；　he　may　be　full　of　error；　I　will　not　canvass　now　his　views；　but　he　loves　his　country；　he　has　the　courage　to　defend　it；　and　I　believe　to　die　for　it　if　need　be。　His　courage　and　patriotism　are　not　without　illustration。　My　colleague　（Mr。　Nelson）　referred　the　other　day　to　the　scenes　which　occurred　in　this　Chamber　when　he　alone　of　twenty…two　Senators　remained；　even　his　State　seceded；　but　he　remained。　That　was　a　trial　of　his　patriotism；　of　which　many　of　you；　by　reason　of　your　locality　and　of　your　life…long　associations；　know　nothing。　How　his　voice　rang　out　in　this　hall　in　the　hour　of　alarm　for　the　good　cause；　and　in　denunciation　of　the　rebellion！　But　he　did　not　remain　here；　it　was　a　pleasant；　honorable；　safe；　and　easy　position；　but　he　was　wanted　for　a　more　difficult　and　arduous　and　perilous　service。　He　faltered　not；　but　entered　upon　it。　That　was　a　trial　of　his　courage　and　patriotism　of　which　some　of　you　who　now　sit　in　judgment　on　more　than　his　life；　know　nothing。　I　have；　often　thought　that　those　who；　dwelt　at　the　North；　safely　distant　from　the　collisions　and　strifes　of　the　war；　knew　little　of　its　actual；　trying　dangers。　We　who　lived　on　the　border　know　more。　Our　horizon　was　always　red　with　flame；　and　it　sometimes　burned　so　near　us　that　we　could　feel　its　heat　upon　the　outstretched　hand。　But　he　was　wanted　for　a　greater　peril；　and　went　into　the　very　furnace　of　the　war；　and　there　served　his　country　long　and　well。　Who　of　you　have　done　more？　Not　one。　*　*　*　It　seems　cruel；　Senators；　that　he　should　be　dragged　here　as　a　criminal；　or　that　any　one　who　served　his　country　and　bore　himself　well　and　bravely　through　that　trying　ordeal；　should　be　condemned　upon　miserable　technicalities。

If　he　has　committed　any　gross　crime；　shocking　alike　and　indiscriminately　the　entire　public　mind；　then　condemn　him；　but　he　has　rendered　services　to　the　country　that　entitle　him　to　kind　and　respectful　consideration。　He　has　precedents　for　everything　he　has　done；　and　what　excellent　precedents！　The　voices　of　the　great　dead　come　to　us　from　the　grave　sanctioning　his　course。　All　our　past　history　approves　it。　How　can　you　single　out　this　man；　now　in　this　condition　of　things；　and　brand　him　before　the　world；　put　your　brand　of　infamy　upon　him　because　he　made　an　ad　interim　appointment　for　a　day；　and　possible　may　have　made　a　mistake　in　attempting　to　remove　Stanton？　I　can　at　a　glance　put　my　eye　on　Senators　here　who　would　not　endure　the　position　he　occupied。　You　do　not　think　it　is　right　yourselves。　You　framed　this　civil　tenure　law　to　give　each　President　his　own　Cabinet；　and　yet　his　whole　crime　is　that　he　wants　harmony　and　peace　in　his。

Senators；　I　will　not　go　on。　There　is　a　great　deal　that　is　crowding　on　my　tongue　for　utterance；　but　it　is　not　from　my　head；　it　is　rather　from　my　heart；　and　it　would　be　but　a　repetition　of　the　vain　things　1　have　been　saying　the　past　half　hour　But　I　do　hope　you　will　not　drive　the　President　out　and　take　possession　of　his　office。　I　hope　this；　not　merely　as　counsel　for　Andrew　Johnson；　for　Andrew　Johnson's　administration　is　to　me　but　as　a　moment；　and　himself　as　nothing　in　comparison　with　the　possible　consequences　of　such　an　act。　No　good　can　come　of　it；　Senators；　and　how　much　will　the　heart　of　the　nation　be　refreshed　if　at　last　the　Senate　of　the　United　States　can；　in　its　judgment　upon　this　case；　maintain　its　ancient　dignity　and　high　character　in　the　midst　of　storms；　and　passion；　and　strife。


A　somewhat　startling　incident；　which　for　the　moment　threatened　unpleasant　results；　occurred　in　the　course　of　the　trial。　In　his　opening　speech　for