history of the impeachment of andrew johnson-第50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！



So　desperate　were　the　inquisitors；　and　so　close　the　certainty　of　the　vote；　that　even　a　project　of　kidnapping　a　Senator　under　the　pretense　of　taking　a　trip　to　Baltimore　for　much　needed　rest；　where；　if　the　terms　to　be　there　proffered　were　refused；　a　vacancy　was　to　be　createdby　assassination；　if　necessarythen　a　recess　of　the　Senate　to　afford　time　for　the　appointment　by　the　Governor　of　that　Senator's　State　of　a　successor　who　would　vote　for　the　Impeachment；　of　the　Presidentwas　entered　upon　and　its　execution　attempted。　But　the　trip　to　Baltimore　for　〃rest〃　was　not　taken。

These　are　not　pleasant　facts　to　contemplate；　but　they　somewhat　conspicuously　characterized　the　conditions　of　that　time；　and　illustrate　the　real　nature　of　the　impeachment　scheme。　They　boded　the　control　of　the　Government　by　the　worst　element　of　American　politics。　It　is　unnecessary　to　say　here　what　that　control　would　have　involved。　During　all　the　previous　history　of　the　Governmentits　wars　and　political　turmoilsthe　Democratic…Republican　forms　that　characterize　its　administrations　have　never　faced　so　insidious　or　threatening　a　danger　as　during　that　hour。　It　was　a　crucial　test；　and　the　result　a　magnificent　vindication　of　the　wisdom　and　patriotism　of　the　founders　of　our　composite　form　of　Government。　Its　results　have　but　strengthened　those　forms　and　broadened　the　scope　of　the　beneficent　political。　institutions　that　have　grown　up　under　and　characterize　its　operation。

It　was　a　test　such　as　probably　no　other　form　of　Government　on　earth　could　have　successfully　passed；　and　it　is　to　be　hoped　that　its　like　may　never　return。



CHAPTER　XII。　WAS　IT　A　PARTISAN　PROSECUTION？

The　weakest　point　in　the　entire　record　of　the　Prosecution　of　President　Johnson；　from　the　indictment　by　the　House　of　Representatives　to　the　finish　in　the　Senate；　（except　the　Bill　of　Impeachment　itself；　was　the　refusal　of　the　more　than　three…fourths　Republican　majority　of　the　Senate　to　permit　the　reception　of　testimony　in　his　behalf。　That　majority　naturally　gave　them　absolute　control　of　the　proceedings；　and　they　should　have　realized　from　the　outset　that　they　could　not　afford　to　give　it　the　least　tinge　of　partisan　bias。

It　is　therefore　not　material　to　discuss　in　detail　the　instances　of　the　two　interrogatories　put　by　counsel　for　the　Prosecution　and　rejected；　Nos。　4　and　28；　because　it　was　shown　that　their　answer　would　prove　nothing　against　the　President；　but　rather　to　his　vindication；　and　their　rejection　could　not　have　occurred　but　for　the　intervention　of　many　more　nay　Republican　than　Democratic　votesbut　will　pass　to　the　analyzation　of　the　votes　on　the　twelve　interrogatories　propounded　by　counsel　for　Defense　and　rejected；　which　rejections　could　not　have　occurred　but　by　the　intervention　of　a　large　preponderance；　in　every　instance；　of　the　Republican　votes　cast　thereon；　and　many　of　them　by　a　unanimous　Republican　vote。

Without　doubt；　many　of　these　votes　on　the　admissibility　of　testimony　were　governed　by；　the　usual　rules　prevailing　in　the　courts；　but　it　was　deemed　by　others　that　every　question　not　manifestly　frivolous；　or　not　pertinent；　should　be　permitted　answer　without　objection；　regardless　of　such　rulesthat　the　Senate　sitting　for　the　trial　of　an　Impeachment　of　the　President　of　the　United　Statesthe　occasion　a　great　State　Trialshould　not　be　trammeled　or　belittled　by　the　technicalities　common　to　ordinary　court　practicethat　the　Senate　was　composed　supposedly　of　gentlemen　and　lawyers　of　high　standing　in　their　profession　and　familiar　with　public　affairs　and　public　lawthat　they　were　sitting　in　a　semi…judicial　capacitynot　merely　as　Senators　or　jurors；　but；　judges　alsojudges　of　fact　as　well　as　of　lawand　constituted　the　highest　trial　body　known　to　our　lawsa　tribunal　from　which　there　was　no　appealthat　each　of　its　members　had　taken　a　solemn　oath　to　〃do　impartial　justice〃　in　this　cause；　absolutely　unswerved　by　partisan　or　personal　considerations；　and　that　as　such　each　member　had　not　only　the　right；　but　it　was　his　duty　under　his　oath；　as　well；　to　hermit　no　obstacle　or　condition　to　unnecessarily　keep　from　him　a　knowledge　of　all　available　facts　pertinent　to　the　cause；　no　matter　on　which　side　they　might　weighto　help　or　to　hurt。　That　the　body；　each　member　for　himself；　was　the　proper　party　to　determine　the　admissibility　of　testimony；　as　Mr。　Manager　Boutwell　had　declared　in　his　opening　argument；　〃AFTER　HE　HAD　HEARD　IT；〃and　knew　its　trend　an　purport。　Every　member　of　that　body　had　the　right　to　know　all　the　witness　knew　about　the　case；　and；　moreover；　the　witnesses　were　brought　for　the　purpose；　and　for　the　sole　purpose；　of　telling　what　they　knew。

The　same　assurance　of　absolute　fairness　as　that　of　Mr。　Boutwell；　was　also　given　by　Mr。　Bingham；　another　of　the　Managers　of　the　Prosecution　on　the　part　of　the　House；　in　his　opening　plea　before　the　Senate：　〃It　is；〃　said　he；　〃certainly　very　competent　for　the　Senate；　as　it　is　competent　for　any　court　of　justice　in　the　trial　of　cases　where　questions　of　doubt　arise；　to　HEAR　THE　EVIDENCE；　and；　where　they　themselves　are　the　judges　of　both　the　law　and　the　fact；　to　DISMISS　SO　MUCH　OF　IT　AS　THEY　MAY　FIND　INCOMPETENT；　if　any　of　it　be　incompetent。　*　*　*　Under　the　Plea　of　Not　Guilty；　as　provided　in　the　rules；　every　conceivable　defense　that　the　accused　party　could　make　to　the　Articles　here　preferred；　can　be　admitted。〃

Mr。　Manager　Butler　also　said；　on　the　same　occasion：　〃Upon　this　so　great　trial；　I　pray　let　us　not　belittle　ourselves　with　the　analyses　of　the　common　law　courts；　or　the　criminal　courts；　because　nothing　is　so　dangerous　to　mislead　us。〃

These　and　other　like　assurances　were　given　of　the　widest　reasonable　latitude　in　the　reception　of　testimony　in　the　trial　then　opening。　There　was　thus　every　reason　to　expect　that　Mr。　Johnson　would　have　a　fair　trial。　But　no　sooner　had　the　Prosecution　completed　its　examination　of　witnesses；　in　which　but　seven　interrogatories　had　been　objected　to　of　the　long　list　proffered　by　the　Prosecution；　than　a　different　rule　seemed　to　have　been　established　for　the　treatment　of　proffered　testimony；　and　a　large　mass　of　relevant　and　valuable　testimony　in　behalf　of　the　President　was　ruled　out　on　objection　of　the　Prosecution；　as　inadmissible；　and；　as　a　rule　that；　had　very　few　exceptions；　on　partisan　divisions　of　the　Senate。

Of　course　it　will　not　be　admitted；　nor　is　it　here　charged；　that　these　refusals　to　hear　testimony　were　because　of　any　fear　that　the　answers　would　have　any　improper　force　or　effect　upon　the　Senate。　Nor　will　it　signify　to　say　that　the　President's　attorneys　could　not　have　proved　what　they　offered　to　prove。　They　hail　the　right　to　an　opportunity　to　so　prove；　and　the　denial　of　that　right　and　opportunity　was　not　only　a　denial　of　a　manifest　right　of　the　attorneys；　but　especially　in　this　case；　a　more　flagrant　denial　of　the　rights　of　the　accused；　and　not　only　that；　but　they　amounted　to　an　impugnment　of　the　discretion　of　the　Senate。

It　is　conspicuous；　too；　that　while　the　defense　objected　to　but　seven　of　the　interrogatories　submitted　by　the　Prosecution；　and　five　of　them　were　permitted　answer　by　the　vote　of　the　Senate；　twenty…one　of　the　proffers　of　testimony　by　the　defense　were　objected　to　by　the　prosecution　and　but　nine　of　them　permitted　answer：　and　that　condition　was　aggravated　by　the　fact　that　the　numerical　strength　of　the　majority　party　in　the　Senate　was　sufficient　to　determine　absolutely　the　disposition　of　every　question；　and　they　could　therefore　afford　to　be　strictly　fair　to　the　accused；　and　by　the　further　fact　that　the　objections　to　testimony　offered　in　behalf　of　the　defense　were　as　three　to　one　of　the　objections　to　testimony　offered　in　behalf　of　the　prosecution。

These　denials　of　testimony　in　behalf　of　the　defense　were　unfortunate。　That　practice　lowered　the　dignity　of　the　occasion　and　of　the　proceeding；　as　they　could　but　have　given　ground　for　criticism　of　partisan　bias　and　a　vindictive　judgment　in　case　of　successful　impeachment。　Most；　if　not　all　these　rejected　interrogatories　implied　important　information　in　possession　of　the　witnesses　which　the　Senate　had　a　right　to；　and　which　the　party　offering　had　the　right　to　have　produced。　Moreover；　it　was　the　right　and　the　duty　of　the　Senate　to　know　what　the　witness　was　presumed　to　know；　and　then　to　judge；　each　Senator　for　himself；　of　the　relevancy　of　the　testimony。

As　stated；　the　principal　averment　against　the　President；　was　his　alleged　violation　of　the　Tenure…of…Office　Act　in　the　removal　of　Mr。　Stanton　from　the　office　of　Secretary　of　War；　presented　in　various　phases　throughout　the　Articles　of　Impeachment。

In　illustration　of　the　treatment　of　testimony　offered　in　the　President's　behalf　by　a　majority　of　the　Republican　Senators；　the　record　shows　that　on　the　eighth　disputed　interrogatory；　the　second　put　by　the　defense；　General　Sherman　being　on　the　witness　stand：Defense　asked　as　to　a　certain　conversation　relating　to　that　removal；　had　between　the　General　and　the　President　at　an　interview　specified。　The　prosecution　objected　to　the　question　being　answered；　and　a　vote　of　the　Senate　was　demanded。　The　vote　wasfor　receiving　the　testimony；　23；　against　receiving　it；　28。　Of　the　latter　number；　twenty…seven；　all　Republicans；　voted　at　the　close　of　the　trial　to　convict　the　President　of　violating　the　Tenure…of…Office　Act；　in　the　remo