history of the impeachment of andrew johnson-第44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！



In　his　remarks　on　this　occasion；　after　giving　a　history　of　the　enactment　of　the　Tenure…of…Office　law；　the　first　section　of　which　specifically　excepts　from　its　operation　such　members　of　Mr。　Johnson's　Cabinet　as　had　been　appointed　by　Mr。　Lincoln　and　still　remaining；　though　not　recommissioned　by　Mr。　Johnson；　Mr。　Sherman　said：

I　can　only　say　as　one　of　the　Senate　conferees；　under　the　solemn　obligations　that　now　rest　upon　us　in　construing　this　Act；　that　I　did　not　understand　it　to　include　members　of　the　Cabinet　not　appointed　by　the　President；　and　that　it　was　with　extreme　reluctance　and　only　to　secure　the　passage　of　the　bill　that；　in　the　face　of　the　votes　of　the　Senate　I　agreed　to　the　report　LIMITING　AT　ALL　the　power　of　the　President　to　remove　heads　of　Departments。　*　*　*　I　stated　explicitly　that　the　Act　as　reported　did　not　protect　from　removal　the　members　of　the　Cabinet　appointed　by　Mr。　Lincoln；　that　President　Johnson　might　remove　them　at　his　pleasure；　and　I　named　the　Secretary　of　war　as　one　that　might　be　removed。　*　*　*　I　could　not　conceive　a　case　where　the　Senate　would　require　the　President　to　perform　his　great　executive　office　upon　the　advice　and　through　heads　of　Departments　personally　obnoxious　to　him；　and　whom　he　had　not　appointed；　and；　therefore；　no　such　case　was　provided　for。　*　*　*　Can　I　pronounce　the　President　guilty　of　crime；　and　by　that　vote　aid　to　remove　him　from　his　high　office　for　doing　what　I　declared　and　still　believe　he　had　a　legal　right　to　do。　God　forbid：　*　*　*　What　the　President　did　do　in　the　removal　of　Mr。　Stanton　he　did　under　a　power　which　you　repeatedly　refused　to　take　from　the　office　of　the　Presidenta　power　that　has　been　held　by　that　officer　since　the　formation　of　the　Government。　and　is　now　limited　only　by　the　words　of　an　Act；　the　literal　construction　of　which　does　not　include　Mr。　Stanton。　*　*　*　It　follows；　that　as　Mr。　Stanton　is　not　protected　by　the　Tenure…of…Civil…Office　Act；　his　removal　rests　upon　the　Act　of　1789；　and　he　according　to　the　terms　of　that　Act　and　of　the　commission　held　by　him；　and　in　compliance　with　the　numerous　precedents　cited　in　this　cause；　was　lawfully　removed　by　the　President；　and　his　removal　not　being　contrary　to　the　provisions　of　the　Act　of　March　2nd　1867；　the　1st；　4th；　5th；　and　6th　Articles；　based　upon　his　removal；　must　fail。

On　this　point；　Mr。　Howe　said：


If　Mr。　Stanton　had　been　appointed　during　the　present　Presidential　term。　I　should　have　no　doubt　he　was　within　the　security　of　the　law。　But　I　cannot　find　that；　either　in　fact　or　in　legal　intendment；　he　was　appointed　during　the　present　Presidential　term。　It　is　urged　that　he　was　appointed　by　Mr。　Lincoln；　and　such　is　the　fact。　It　is　said　that　Mr。　Lincoln's　term　is　not　yet　expired。　Such　I　believe　to　be　the　fact。　But　the　language　of　the　proviso　is；　that　a　Secretary　shall　hold　not　during　the　term　of　MAN　by　whom　he　is　appointed；　but　during　the　TERM　of　the　PRESIDENT　by　whom　he　may　be　appointed。　Mr。　Stanton　was　appointed　by　the　President　in　1862。　The　term　of　that　President　was　limited　by　the　Constitution。　It　expired　on　the　4th　of　March；　1865。　That　the　same　incumbent　was　re…elected　for　the　next　term　is　conceded；　but　I　do　not　comprehend　how　that　fact　extended　the　former　term。

Entertaining　these　views；　and　because　the　first　Article　of　the　Impeachment　charges　the　order　of　removal　as　a　violation　of　the　Tenure…of…Office　Act；　I　am　constrained　to　hold　the　President　not　guilty　upon　that　Article。

These　declarations；　coming　from　two　gentlemen　of　distinction　and　influence　in　the　party　councils；　both　of　whom　Had　actively　participated　in　framing　the　Tenure…of…Office　Act；　became　at　once　the　occasion　of　genuine　and　profound　surprise；　and　it　is　unnecessary　to　say　that　they　tended　largely　to　strengthen　the　doubts　entertained　by　others　as　to　the　sufficiency　of　all　the　other　allegations　of　the　indictment。　They　naturally　and　logically　reasoned　that　the　removal　of　Mr。　Stanton；　set　out　in　the　first　Article；　constituted；　in　effect；　the　essence　of　the　indictment；　and　that　all　that　followed；　（save　the　10th　Article　was　more　in　the　nature　of　specifications；　or　a　bill　of　particulars；　than　otherwisethat　if　no　impeachable　offense　were　set　out　in　the　first　Article；　then　none　was　committed；　as　that　Article　constituted　the　substructure　of　all　the　restits　essence　and　logic　running　through　and　permeating　practically　alland　that　without　that　Article；　there　was　no　coherence　or　force　in　any　of　them；　and　consequently　nothing　charged　against　the　President　that　was　impeachable；　as　he　had　not　violated　the　Tenure…of…Office　law；　and　was　not　charged　with　the　violation　of　any　other　law。

That　conference　developed；　further；　that　a　large　majority　of　the　Articles　of　Impeachment　were　objectionable　to　and　would　not　be　supported　by　a　number　of　Republican　Senators。

Mr。　Edmunds　would　not　support　the　4th；　8th；　9th；　and　10th　Articles；　being　〃wholly　unsustained　by　proof；〃　but　would　support　the　11th；　though　apparently　doubtful　of　its　efficiency。

Mr。　Ferry　could　not　support　the　4th；　5th；　6th；　7th；　9th；　or　10th　Articles。

Mr。　Howard　declared　that　he　would　not　support　the　9th　Article。

Mr。　Morrill　of　Vermont；　would　not　support　the　4th；　6th；　9th；　or　10th　Articles；　as　they　were　unproven。

Mr。　Morrill；　of　Maine；　Mr。　Yates；　Mr。　Harlan；　and　Mr。　Stewart；　would　vote　to　convict　on　the　Articles　relating　to　the　removal　of　Mr。　Stantonuncommitted　on　all　others。

Mr。　Fessenden；　Mr。　Fowler；　Mr。　Grimes；　Mr。　Henderson；　Mr。　Trumbull；　and　Mr。　Van　Winkle；　each　declared；　at　that　conference；　their　opposition　to　the　entire　list　of　the　Articles　of　Impeachment。

But　eighteen　Republicans　committed　themselves　at　that　conference；　for　conviction；　out　of　twenty…four　who　filed　opinions。　While　it　was　taken　for　granted　that　the　six　Democrats　who　had　failed　to　declare　their　position　at　that　conference　would　oppose　conviction；　the　position　of　the　eighteen　Republicans　who　had　failed　to　declare　themselves　became　at　once　a　source　of　very　grave　concern　in　impeachment　circles。　Out　of　that　list　of　eighteen　uncommitted　Republicans；　but　one　vote　was　necessary　to　defeat　the　impeachment。　This　condition　was　still　farther　intensified　by　the　fact　that　eight　of　the　eleven　Articles　of　Impeachment　were　already　beaten　in　that　conference；　and　practically　by　Republican　committals；　and　among　them　the　head　and　front　and　foundation　of　the　indictmentthe　First　Articleby　Messrs。　Sherman　and　Howe；　two　conspicuous　Republican　leaders。

A　forecast　of　the　vote　based　on　these　committals　as　to　the　several　Articles；　would　be　against　the　First　Article；　twelve　Democrats　and　eight　Republicans；　one　more　than　necessary　for　its　defeatthe　eight　〃not　guilty〃　votes　including　Messrs。　Sherman　and　Howe。

Against　the　Fourth　Articletwelve　Democrats　and　nine　Republicansincluding　Messrs。　Edmunds；　Ferry；　and　Morrill　of　Vermont。

Against　the　Fifth　Articletwelve　Democrats　and　eight　Republicans…including　Messrs。　Edmunds　and　Ferry。

Against　the　Sixth　Articletwelve　Democrats　and　nine　Republicans…including　Messrs。　Ferry；　Howe；　and　Morrill　of　Vermont。

Against　the　SeventhArticle…twelve　Democrats　and　seven　Republicansincluding　Mr。　Ferry。

Against　the　Eighth　Articletwelve　Democrats　and　seven　Republicansincluding　Mr。　Edmunds。

Against　the　Ninth　Articletwelve　Democrats　and　twelve　Republicansincluding　Messrs。　Sherman；　Edmunds；　Ferry；　Howe；　Howard；　and　Morrill　of　Vermont。

Against　the　Tenth　Articletwelve　Democrats　and　ten　Republicansincluding　Messrs。　Edmunds；　Sherman；　Ferry；　and　Morrill　of　Vermont。

It　is　somewhat　conspicuous　that　but　three　gentlemenMessrs。　Sumner；　Pomeroy；　and　Tipton；　in　their　arguments　in　the　Conference；　pronounced　the　President　guilty　on　all　the　chargesthough　five　others；　Messrs。　Wilson；　Patterson　of　New　Hampshire；　Frelinghuysen；　Cattell；　and　Williams；　pronounced　the　President　guilty　on　general　principles；　without　specification；　and　Messrs。　Morrill　of　Maine；　Yates　and　Stewart；　guilty　in　the　removal　of　Mr。　Stanton；　without　further　specification　of　charges。

As　but　one　vote；　in　addition　to　the　twelve　Democratic　and　the　six　Republican　votes　pledged　against　conviction　at　the　Conference；　was　necessary　to　defeat　impeachment　on　the　three　remaining　Articlesthe　2nd；　3rd；　and　11thand　as　nearly　a　half　of　the　Republicans　of　the　Senate　had　failed　to　commit　themselves；　at　least　in　any　public　way；　the　anxiety　of　the　advocates　of　Impeachment　became　at　once；　and　naturally；　very　grave。　How　many　of　the　eighteen　Republicans　who　had　failed　to　declare　themselves　at　that　Conference　might　fail　to　sustain　the　Impeachment；　became；　therefore；　a　matter　of　active　solicitude　on　all　sides；　especially　in　impeachment　circles　in　and　out　of　the　Senate。　Republican　committals　in　the　Conference　had　rendered　absolutely　certain　the　defeat　of　every　Article　of　the　Impeachment　except　the　Second；　Third；　and　Eleventh；　and　the　addition　of　but　a　single　vote　from　the　eighteen　uncommitted　Republicans　to　the　〃No〃　side；　would　defeat　them。

It　was　under　this　unfavorable　condition　of　the　Impeachment　cause；　that　the　Senate　assembled　on　May　16th；　1868；　for　the　purpose　of　taking　final　action　on　the　indictment　brought　by　the　House　of　Representatives；　the　trial　of　which　had　occupied　the　most　of　the　time　of　the　Senate　for　the　previous　three　months；　and　which　had　to　a　large　degree　engrossed　the　atte