history of the impeachment of andrew johnson-第36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！



Had　you　on　the　evening　before　seen　General　Thomas？　*　*　*　Had　you　a　communication　with　him？

Answer。　Yes　sir。

Mr。　Stanbery　objected；　and　the　Chief　Justice　ruled　that　the　testimony　was　competent　and　would　be　heard　〃unless　the　Senate　think　otherwise。〃

To　this　ruling　Mr。　Drake　objected　and　appealed　from　the　decision　of　the　Chair　to　the　Senate。　It　appeared　to　be　not　to　the　ruling　per　se；　that　Mr。　Drake　objected；　but　to　the　right　of　the　Chair　to　rule　at　all　upon　the　admissibility　of　testimony。　Mr。　Drake　representing　the　extremists　of　the　dominant　side　of　the　Chamber。　There　seemed　to　be　apprehension　of　the　effect　upon　the　Senate　of　the　absolute　judicial　fairness　of　the　rulings　of　the　Chief　Justice；　and　the　great　weight　they　would　naturally　have；　coming　from　so　just　and　eminent　a　jurist。　After　discussion；　Mr。　Wilson　moved　that　the　Senate　retire　for　consultation。

The　vote　on　this　motion　was　a　tie；　being　twenty…five　for　and　twenty…five　against　retiring；　whereupon　the　Chief　Justice　announced　the　fact　of　a　tie　and　voted　〃yea；〃　and　the　Senate　retired　to　its　consultation　room；　where；　after　discussion　and　repeated　suggestions　of　amendment　to　the　rules；　the　following　resolution　was　offered　by　Mr。　Henderson：

Resolved；　That　rule　7　be　amended　by　substituting　therefor　the　following：

The　presiding　officer　of　the　Senate　shall　direct　all　necessary　preparations　in　the　Senate　Chamber；　and　the　presiding　officer　in　the　trial　shall　direct　all　the　forms　of　proceeding　while　the　Senate　are　sitting　for　the　purpose　of　trying　an　impeachment；　and　all　forms　during　the　trial　not　otherwise　provided　for。　And　the　presiding　officer　on　the　trial　may　rule　all　questions　of　of　evidence　and　incidental　questions；　which　ruling　shall　stand　as　the　judgment　of　the　Senate；　unless　some　member　of　the　Senate　shall　ask　that　a　formal　vote　be　taken　thereon；　in　which　case　it　shall　be　submitted　to　the　Senate　for　decision；　or　he　may；　at　his　option；　in　the　first　instance；　submit　any　such　question　to　a　vote　of　the　members　of　the　Senate。

Mr。　Morrill；　of　Maine；　moved　to　amend　the　proposed　rule　by　striking　out　the　words　〃which　ruling　shall　stand　as　the　judgment　of　the　Senate；〃　which　was　rejected　without　a　division。

Mr。　Sumner　then　moved　to　substitute　the　following：

That　the　chief　justice　of　the　United　States；　presiding　in　the　Senate　on　the　trial　of　the　President　of　the　United　States；　is　not　a　member　of　the　Senate；　and　has　no　authority　under　the　Constitution　to　vote　on　any　question　during　the　trial；　and　he　can　pronounce　decision　only　as　the　organ　of　the　Senate；　with　its　assent。

It　is　not　insisted　here　that　there　was　any　sinister　purpose　in　this　proposition；　yet　the　possibilities；　in　case　of　its　adoption；　were　very　grave。　Like　the　wasp；　the　sting　was　in　the　tail〃he　（the　chief　justice；）　can　pronounce　decision　only　as　the　organ　of　the　Senate；　WITH　ITS　ASSENT！　Had　that　rule　been　adopted；　suppose　the　Senate；　with；　its　vote　of　forty…two　Republicans　and　twelve　Democrats；　upon　failure　of　conviction　by　a　two…thirds　vote　had　refused　or　refrained　on　a　party　vote　from　giving　〃its　assent〃　to　a　judgment　of　acquittal？

The　vote　upon　this　proposed　amendment　was　as　follows：

For　its　adoptionMessrs。　Cameron；　Cattell；　Chandler；　Conkling；　Conness；　Corbett；　Cragin；　Drake；　Howard；　Morgan；　Morrill　of　Maine；　Morton；　Nye；　Pomeroy；　Ramsay；　Stewart；　Sumner；　Thayer；　Tipton；　Trumbull；　Williams；　Wilson22all　Republicans。

Against　its　adoptionMessrs。　Bayard；　Buckalew；　Cole；　Davis；　Dixon；　Doolittle；　Edmunds；　Ferry；　Fessenden；　Fowler；　Frelinghuysen；　Henderson；　Hendricks；　Howe；　Johnson；　McCreery；　Morrill　of　Vermont；　Norton；　Patterson　of　New　Hampshire；　Patterson　of　Tennessee；　Ross；　Sherman；　Sprague；　Van　Winkle；　Vickers；　Willey2615　Republicans　and　11　Democrats。

So　the　resolution　was　rejectedevery　aye　vote　a　Republican；　and　all　but　one；　Mr。　Trumbull；　afterwards　voting　to　impeach　the　President　at　tHe　close　of　the　trialeleven　Democrats　and　fifteen　Republicans　voting　nay。

Mr。　Drake　then　offered　the　following：

It　is　the　judgment　of　the　Senate　that　under　the　Constitution　the　Chief　Justice　presiding　over　the　Senate　in　the　pending　trial　has　no　privilege　of　ruling　questions　of　law　arising　thereon；　but　that　all　such　questions　shall　be　submitted　to　a　decision　by　the　Senate　alone。

It　would　be　difficult　to　formulate　a　proposition　better　calculated　to　taint　the　proceedings　with　a　partisan　bias　than　this　one　by　Mr。　Drake。　The　impeachment　movement　was　in　a　very　large　sense；　if　not　entirely；　a　partisan　enterprise。　It　had　its　origin　in　partisan　differences；　and　was　based　mainly　on　differences　as　to　public　policies　at　issue　between　the　two　great　parties　of　the　countryand　while　it　was　expected　that　every　political。　friend　of　the　President　would　vote　against　the　impeachment；　it　was　DEMANDED；　and　made　a　test　of　party　fealty；　that　every　Republican　Senator　should　vote　for　his　conviction。　Therefore；　and　perhaps　it　was　not　illogical　from　these　premises；　party　leaders　of　Mr。　Drake's　inclination　should　not　relish　the　influence　the　legal；　unbiased　and　non…partisan　rulings　of　the　Chief　Justice　might　have　upon　his　more　conservatively　inclined　fellow　partisans　of　the　body。

Mr。　Drake　called　for　the　yeas　and　nays；　which　were　ordered；　and　the　vote　was　yeas　20；　nays　30。　The　personality　of　this　vote　was　very　much　the　same　as　on　the　previous　proposition。

The　rule　proposed　by　Mr。　Henderson　was　then　adopted。　The　conference　closed　shortly　after；　and　the　session　of　the　Senate　was　resumed。

The　next　day；　April　1st；　Mr。　Sumner　renewed　in　the　Senate　his　proposition　submitted　at　the　Conference　the　day　before　but　not　acted　upon；　to　change　the　rules　of　the　Senate　in　the　following　form：

It　appearing　from　the　reading　of　the　Journal　yesterday　that　on　a　question　where　the　Senate　were　equally　divided；　the　Chief　Justice；　presiding　on　the　trial　of　the　President；　gave　a　casting　vote；　it　is　hereby　ordered　that；　in　the　judgment　of　the　Senate；　such　vote　was　without　authority　under　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States。

The　proposition　was　put　to　vote　with　the　following　result：

YeasMessrs。　Cameron；　Chandler；　Cole；　Conkling；　Conness；　Cragin；　Drake；　Howard；　Howe；　Morgan；　Morrill　of　Maine；　Morton；　Norton；　Ramsay；　Stewart；　Sumner；　Thayer；　Tipton；　Trumbull；　Williams；　Wilson2110　Republicans　and　1　Democrat。

NaysMessrs。　Anthony；　Bayard；　Buckalew；　Corbett；　Davis；　Dixon；　Doolittle；　Edmunds；　Ferry；　Fessenden；　Fowler；　Frelinghuysen；　Grimes；　Henderson；　Hendricks；　Johnson；　McCreery；　Morrill　of　Vermont；　Patterson　of　Tennessee；　Ross；　Sherman；　Sprague；　Van　Winkle；　Vickers；　Willey2616　Republicans　and　10　Democrats。

So　the　proposed　order　was　rejected。　The　trial　then　proceeded。　The　answers　to　a　very　large　proportion　of　the　interrogatories　propounded　to　the　witnesses；　on　both　sides；　were　unimportant；　having　very　little　bearing；　either　way；　upon　the　case。　Twenty…eight　of　those　interrogatories；　however；　were　more　or　less　important；　and　were　challenged；　seven　by　the　defense；　and　twenty…one　by　the　prosecution。　For　convenience　of　reference；　these　interrogatories　are　numbered　from　one　to　twenty…eight；　inclusive；　with　the　answers　thereto；　when　permitted　to　be　answered；　as　follows：

Question　submitted　by　Mr。　Butler；　of　the　prosecution；　April　1st；　1868；　to　Mr。　Walter　A。　Burleigh；　witness　on　the　stand；　called　for　the　prosecution：

No。　1。

You　said　yesterday；　in　answer　to　my　question；　that　you　had　a　conversation　with　General　Lorenzo　Thomason　the　evening　of　the　21st　of　February　last。　State　if　he　said　anything　as　to　the　means　by　which　he　intended　to　obtain　or　was　directed　by　the　President　to　obtain　possession　of　the　War　Department。　If　so；　state　all　he　said；　as　nearly　as　you　can？

Mr。　Stanbery　objected。

Mr。　Drake　called　for　the　yeas　and　nays；　which　were　ordered；　and　the　vote　was　as　follows：

YeasAnthony；　Cameron；　Cattell；　Chandler；　Cole；　Conkling；　Conness；　Corbett；　Cragin；　Drake；　Edmunds；　Ferry；　Fessenden；　Fowler；　Frelinghuysen；　Grimes；　Henderson；　Howard；　Howe；　Morgan；　Morrill　of　Maine；　Morrill　of　Vermont；　Morton；　Nye；　Patterson　of　New　Hampshire；　Pomeroy；　Ramsay；　Ross；　Sherman；　Sprague；　Stewart；　Sumner；　Thayer；　Tipton；　Trumbull；　Van　Winkle；　Willey；　Williams；　Wilson39all　Republicans。

Nays…Bayard；　Buckalew；　Davis；　Dixon；　Doolittle；　Hendricks；　Johnson；　McCreery；　Norton；　Patterson　of　Tennessee；　Vickers　11all　Democrats。

So；　the　Senate　decided　that　the　question　should　be　answered。

General　Butler　repeated　the　interrogatory；　and　Mr。　Burleigh's　answer　was　as　follows：

On　the　evening　of　February　21st　last；　I　learned　that　General　Thomas　had　been　appointed　Secretary　of　War　ad　interim；　I　think　while　at　the　Metropolitan　Hotel。　I　invited　Mr。　Leonard　Smith；　of　Leavenworth；　Kas。；　to　go　with　me　up　to　his　house　and　see　him。　We　took　a　carriage　and　went　up。　I　found　the　General　there　ready　to　go　out　with　his　daughters　to　spend　the　evening　at　some　place　of　amusement。　I　told　him　I　would　not　detain　him　if　he　was　going　out；　but　he　insisted　on　my　sitting　down　and　I　sat　down　for　a　few　moments。　I　told　him　I　had　learned　he　had　been　appointed　Secretary　of　War。　He　said　he　had；　that　he　had　been　appointed　that　day；　I　think；　that　after　receiving　his　appointment　from　the　President　he　went　to　the　War　Office　to　show　his　authority；　or　his　appoiniment；　to　Secretary　Stanton；　and　a