history of the impeachment of andrew johnson-第53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！


id：　〃Neither　the　Supreme　Court　nor　any　other　Court　can　question　or　review　this　judgment　of　the　Senate。〃

The　declaration　was　made　by　Messrs。　Stevens　and　Boutwell　in　the　House；　that　the　Senate　was　its　own　judge　of　the　validity　of　its　own　acts。

Mr。　Butler；　in　his　opening　speech　to　the　Senate；　at　the　beginning　of　the　trial；　used　this　language：

A　Constitutional　tribunal　solely；　you　are　bound　by　no　law；　either　Statute　or　Common；　which　may　limit　your　constitutional　prerogative。　You　consult　no　precedents　save　those　of　the　law　and　custom　of　parliamentary　bodies。　You　are　a　law　unto　yourselves；　bound　only　by　the　natural　principles　of　equity　and　justice；　and　salus　populi　suprema　est　lex。

Feb。　24；　1868；　Mr。　Stevens　said　in　the　House：

Neither　the　Executive　nor　the　Judiciary　had　any　right　to　interfere　with　it　（Reconstruction）　except　so　far　as　was　necessary　to　control　it　by　military　rule　until　the　sovereign　power　of　the　Nation　had　provided　for　its　civil　administration。　NO　POWER　BUT　CONGRESS　HAD　ANY　RIGHT　TO　SAY　WHETHER　EVER；　OR　WHEN；　they　（the　rebel　States）；　should　be　admitted　to　the　Union　as　States　and　entitled　to　the　privileges　of　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States。〃　*　*　*　〃I　trust　that　when　we　come　to　vote　upon　this　question　we　shall　remember　that　although　it　is　the　duty　of　the　President　to　see　that　the　laws　be　executed；　THE　SOVEREIGN　POWER　OF　THE　NATION　RESTS　IN　CONGRESS。

Mr。　Butler；　the　leading　spirit　of　the　impeachment　enterprise；　went　so　far　as　to　make　the　revolutionary　suggestion　of　the　abrogation　of　the　Presidential　office　in　the　event　of　final　failure　to　convict　the　Presidentset　out　in　the　8th　Chapter。

Mr。　Sumner　insisted　that　in　no　judicial　sense　was　the　Senate　a　Court；　and　therefore　not　bound　by　the　rules　of　judicial　procedure：

If　the　Senate　is　a　Court　bound　to　judicial　forms　on　the　expulsion　of　the　President；　must　it　not　be　the　same　in　the　expulsion　of　a　Senator？　But　nobody　attributes　to　it　any　such　strictures　in　the　latter　case。　*　*　In　the　case　of　Blount；　which　is　the　first　in　our　history；　the　expulsion　was　on　the　report　of　a　committee　declaring　him　guilty　of　a　high　misdemeanor。　At　least　one　Senator　has　been　expelled　on　simple　formal　motion。　Others　have　been　expelled　without　any　formal　allegations　or　formal　proofs。　*　*　*　The　Constitution　provides　that　〃Each　House　shall　determine　its　rules　of　proceeding。〃　The　Senate　on　the　expulsion　of　its　own　members　has　already　done。　this　practically　and　set　an　example　of　simplicity。　But　it　has　the　same　power　over　　its　rules　of　proceeding〃　on　the　expulsion　of　the　President；　and　there　can　be　no　reason　for　simplicity　in　the　one　case　not　equally　applicable　in　the　other。　Technicality　is　as　little　consonant　with　the　one　as　with　the　other。　Each　has　for　its　object　the　PUBLIC　SAFETY。　For　this　a　Senator　is　expelled；　for　this；　also；　the　President　is　expelled。　Salus　Populi　Suprema　Lex。　The　proceedings　in　each　case　must　be　in　subordination　to　this　rule。〃

Thus；　Mr。　Sumner　would　have　removed　the　President　by　an　ordinary　concurrent　resolution　of　Congress。

The　purpose　of　all　this　was　apparentthat　the　President　was　in　effect；　to　be　tried　and　judged　before　a　Court　of　Public　Opinion；　and　not　before　the　Senate　sitting　as　a　High　Court　of　Impeachment；　but　BY　the　Senate　sitting　in　its　legislative　capacityto　create　the　impression　in　the　minds　of　Senators　that　in　this　high　judicial　procedure　they　were　still　acting　as　a　legislative　bodysimply　as　Senators；　and　not　in　a　judicial　capacity；　as　judges　and　jurors；　and　therefore　not　bound　specifically　by　their　oaths　as　such；　to　convict　only　for　crime　denounced　by　the　law；　or　for　manifest　high　political　misdemeanors；　but　could　take　cognizance　of　and　convict　on　alleged　partisan　offenses　and　allegations　based　on　differences　of　opinion　and　partisan　prejudices　and　partisan　predilectionsthat　it　was　not　essential　that　the　judgment　of　Senators　should　be　confined　to　the　specific　allegations　of　the　indictment；　but　that　the　whole　range　of　alleged　political　and　partisan　misdemeanors　and　delinquencies　could　be　taken　into　account　in　seeking　a　pretext　for　Mr。　Johnson's　conviction。

The　superiority　of　the　Legislative　branch　was　thus　openly。　advocated　and　insisted；　and　uncontroverted　by　any　Republican　supporting　the　impeachment。　Mr。　Johnson；　according　to　these　oft　repeated　declarations；　was　to　be　tried　and　convicted；　not　necessarily　for　any　specific　violation　of　law；　or　of　the　Constitution；　but　by　prevailing　public　opinionpublic　clamor…in　a　word；　on　administrative　differences　subsisting　between　the　President　and　the　leaders　of　the　dominant　party　in　and　out　of　Congress；　and　that　public　opinion；　as　concurrent　developments　fully　establish；　was　industriously　manufactured　throughout　the　North；　on　the　demand　of　leaders　of　the　impeachment　movement　in　the　House；　through　the　instrumentality　of　a　partisan　press　and　partisan　public　meetings；　and　in　turn　reflected　back　upon　the　Senate；　in　the　form　of　resolutions　denunciatory　of　the　President　and　demanding　his　impeachment　and　removal。

That　was　in　fact；　and　in　a　large　sense；　the　incentive　to　the　impeachment　movement；　and　it　wasnot　confined　to　a　faction；　but　characterized　the　dominant　portion　of　the　political　party　then　in　the　ascendancy　in　and　out　of　Congress。

In　this　state　of　facts　lay　largely　the　vice　of　the　impeachment　movement；　and　it　illustrated　to　a　startling　degree　the　danger　in　the　departure　from　established　forms　of　judicial　procedure　in　such　cases。

It　became　apparent；　long　before　the　close；　that　it　was　but　little　if　anything　more　than　a　partisan　prosecutionand　that　fact　became　more　generally　and　firmly　fixed；　from　day　to　day；　as　the　trial　approached　conclusion。

In　that　state　of　facts；　again；　and　in　that　sense；　the　impeachment　of　the　President；　was　an　assault　upon　the　principle　of　coordination　that　underlies　our　political　system　and　thus　a　menace　to　our　established　political　forms；　as；　if　successful；　it　would；　logically；　have　been　the　practical　destruction　of　the　Executive　Departmentand；　in　view　of　previous　legislation　out　of　which　the　impeachment　movement　had　to　a　degree　arisen；　and　of　declarations　in　the　House　and　Senate　quoted　in　this　connection；　the　final　and　logical　result　of　conviction　would　have　been　the　absorption　of　the　Executive　functions　of　the　Government　by　the　Legislative　Department；　and　the　consequent　declension　of　that　Department　to　a　mere　bureau　for　the　registration　of　the　decrees　of　the　Legislature。

Conscious　of　the　natural　tendency　to　infringement　by　a　given　Department　of　the　Government　upon　the　functions　of　its　coordinates；　the　framers　of　the　Constitution　wisely　defined　the　respective　spheres　of　the　several　departments；　and　those　definitions　constitute　unmistakable　admonition　to　each　as　to　trespass　by　either　upon　the　political　territory　of　its　coordinates。

As　John　C。　Calhoun　wrote；　in　the　early　days　of　the　Republic：

〃The　Constitution　has　not　only　made　a　general　delegation　of　the　legislative　power　to　one　branch　of　the　Government；　of　the　executive　to　another；　and　of　the　judicial　to　the　third；　but　it　has　specifically　defined　the　general　powers　and　duties　of　each　of　those　departments。　This　is　essential　to　peace　and　safety　in　any　Government；　and　especially　in　one　clothed　only　with　specific　power　for　national　purposes　and　erected　in　the　midst　of　numerous　State　Governments　retaining　exclusive　control　of　their　local　concerns。*　*　*　Were　there　no　power　to　interpret；　pronounce　and　execute　the　law；　the　Government　would　perish　through　its　own　imbecility；　as　was　the　case　with　the　Articles　of　Confederation；　or　other　powers　must　be　assumed　by　the　legislative　body；　to　the　destruction　of　liberty。〃　Again；　as　was　eloquently　and　forcefully　said　by　Daniel　Webster　in　the　U。　S。　Senate　in　1834：

〃The　first　object　of　a　free　people　is　the　preservation　of　their　liberty；　and　liberty　is　only　to　be　preserved　by　maintaining　constitutional　restraints　and　just　division　of　political　power。　Nothing　is　more　deceptive　or　more　dangerous　than　the　pretense　of　a　desire　to　simplify　government。　The　simplest　governments　are　despotisms；　the　next　simplest；　limited　monarchies；　but　all　republics；　all　governments　of　law；　must　impose　numerous　limitations　and　qualifications　of　authority　and　give　many　positive　and　many　qualified　rights。　In　other　words；　they　must　be　subject　to　rule　and　regulation。　This　is　the　very　essence　of　free　political　institutions。　The　spirit　of　liberty　is；　indeed；　a　bold　and　fearless　spirit；　but　it　is　also　a　sharp…sighted　spirit：　it　is　a　cautious；　sagacious；　discriminating；　far…seeing　intelligence；　it　is　jealous　of　encroachment；　jealous　of　power；　jealous　of　man。　It　demands　checks；　it　seeks　for　guards；　it　insists　on　securities；　it　entrenches　itself　behind　strong　defenses；　and　fortifies　itself　with　all　possible　care　against　the　assaults　of　ambition　and　passion。　It　does　not　trust　the　amiable　weaknesses　of　human　nature；　and；　therefore；　it　will　not　permit　power　to　overstep　its　prescribed　limits；　though　benevolence；　good　intent；　and　patriotic　purpose　come　along　with　it。　Neither　does　it　satisfy　itself　with　flashy　and　temporary　resistance　to　illegal　authority。　Far　otherwise。　It　seeks　for　duration　and　permanence；　it　looks　before　and　after；　and；　building　on　the　experience　of　ages　which　are　past；　it　labors　diligently　for　the