- _-',...... ..., '"41.....i., - ",..."'"`• • ',.. -"•*...".*:` 7 - ' . , _ , - 1:- "."---*---• - _ _ _ ____ ____ • ''', • J . 7,"a.;.,t Vr7 . ' , 1 '. 0 r• - ,7, , f.4t.! :If r" '7: I',;','"..r ::... ... : - -,- ~ . . : '. . :.. . , . . , : Ir I" .t A :L. , ... ~ , . , • .. - . :'.;•--- • _ :,.. ..,- Q.'".l. • .„ . ... ,' ' ~ .„,,..,., ....1 . ,..1'' ; ;%; 4 4', .. ...., ,• I V t,.'. . : j,' .' : , • 7: • . r , I. 1) . .. .; : ; •i : . . i..1 ._ :., , - C• '''. ~.", i r''' .lT :. . r . ,., 11, ''',...:• .`. *:. ll' ii. '• 1: 1 . ' s . • ~. . 1- .' ,• i , .. . - 1 ~. :, - ~:;',., u• '1: . , igi l • ' ‘,. ...: u 7 ; -1 .: - 7. ' ' l l :,. ..; '• ~ ~."...,;. f . : l- ‘ , , .. i 1 . II 'IA 1!.., fi. .; '.. -, Ace'. it 2. . ' :',.. - 1. - Z.:-.F 4,1 1 ' ,r, ,, ,1 1..17" : ,, .1. 11.SV 1,.7. • - f ~ 04. . . ... " MitatERRITSON; Proprietor. I \tatintertt ktflelleittit 't. .- ,- ..,;•••ltn,peachment. • The follOwink is the opinion of Senator TnitribUjl ip. I: l WiAlte)tehilleet!e4dt;plelt Saturday, May 16. , -:To ittinartinljnitiee in all things oil pertaiiiingAo tbepreseat, trial, according to tise,Conatitution and laws is the duty imposed on each Senator by the position he holds and the oath be has taken, and he Vhtt jfititers itv =the discharge:- of duty, either from personal or party con siderations; is-unworthy 'his 'pesition, and merits the scorn and contempt of all just • ri The question e decided is not whether. Andrew Johnson is 'a - proper per- Son to fill '..the'Presideptial ' office,: nor whether it is fit that he should remain in it, ncir, indeed,. Whether he has violated' the Constitution and, laws in other re spects than those alleged against him. As well might any 'other fifty four persons .take„upon .themselves by violence to rid the country of Andrew -Johnson'-because they believed him ,a bad man as to call tipon,fifty four Senators, in violation of their sworn duty, to convict and depose himfor any other canses than those, al leged in the articles of impeachment. As well might any citizen: take tke law into his own - hands, and become its execution 'or,'"as-to lisk . ,,the Senate to convict outside ..of the case. -made. To • sanction such a principle would, be destructive of ' all law -aid all liberty worth the name ; since lib- ertinniegidated law is, but another ' , name for anarchy. , I ::lLT.ii*Vt - fir Et esideht Tits ahe 71:iefile Mak regard Andrew Johnson, and much as 1 they may desire hiS 'removal , in a legal and they Way, all save' the un principled ,and ; detiraved a would brand with id . fatny , and contempt the name of any Senator who should violate his sworn convictions of duty to accomplish such a result. Keeping in' view the principles by which, as honest men, we are to be gui ded, let us invire what the case is. • Thufirst article charges Andrew John son, President of the United States, with' unlawfully issuing= an Airder, while the Senate was in session, and without its .the, , . ad vice and consent, with e, intent to re move Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary 'for the Department of war, contrary to the Constitution and the "act, regulating the tenure of certain civil offi ces,"-passed March 2, 1887. It wilthe observed that this article. does not charge a removal of the Seeretary,hut onit . an intent to remove, which is not madean offense .by the tenure of office act or any other statute, hut, *treating it as if the President's order had been obeyed, and an actual removal bad taken place, would such removal, hid it been consummated,' have been a violation of the - Constitution irrespective of the tenure of office act ? The quesitin of the power to remove from officearose m. 1789, in the first Congress which assembled under the Constitution, and exCept, as to offices whose" tenure was fixed by-that instrument, was then recog nized as belonging to the President; but whether as a constitutional right, or one which the COegreas might eonfer, was left an open question. Under this reccmi tion by the Congress of 1789,, every Pres ident, from th'a't day, till' 1867, had exer ciBed this tiOtier'of remoVal; and its exer cise daring all that time had 'been acqui esced in by the other departments of the gove.rame.nt, both 'legislative and judicial. Nor was this power of removal by the President exercised only in . - the reces'of the Senate, as some have supposed, but it was frequently exercised' when the Senate was in session, and without its consent. Indeed, there is not an instance on rec ord prior tp the paLsage of the tenure of office act, in whi ch the consent of the Sen ate- had been invoked simply for the re moval ofan officer. Itis :appointments to and' not removals from office that the Conatitution:requires to be Made 'by and , with the advice and consent of the Sen. I ate. , t,lt istrue that an appointment-toile; office, when the _appointee becomes duly qualified, utherizes ;him to onst.the.Triorl incumbent, if there be one, and in that way effects his removal; but. this 4ifferent thing from a simple removal. The *Cod : - stitetien makes no - hetween the power of tbe•Preiiident to" remove ring the , recess .and the • Beilsionsof_tha Senate / 119r .theie . been any praer ace. The elder Adams, on the , 12th' of December,:ll . 3o6,itii Senate having been in session' 'front-. the 17th of . November preedding s 'biaconuiihnitiglitin toTiniOthi , :Pickering, used this Jangingei. ",..You ate hereby discharged front- any farther ser vitteas Secret ary . -cf:State." . :State." . :-Is ere was a vositivtidistnew4af 'Cabinet-officer ; !),k thePrelideat;'livlitelbe:- , -Setai4.s.witaitt. session,4ol , othotttitttittintient- - At answer to say that...President'Adams the` ' same day nominated+. John Marshall to be . Becrietary of State lAipirte!eiOf - Rebating, reirtoved!'..., 2 ' `';''' , - ...She nomination o f 4. person ~f or;aii of data tot, ,1 . 41.4 never Alidi Alt thei:re- MOil'itt,W , fficntabent,';., And - `"snob "in cumbent, uniese removed by adistinct or der, holds on till-the-oomitme is confirm ed-end qualified.: ',The Senate-Miglitnev-' eilut** . gilietriteadlice anti' mega& <to, thesppointiient ! of John Mats'halkano mot in hat &Vito:Wilt de 'following 40. Thtketnoval cor,FiciteAto was complete before Marshall was nommateattatttilfiinvt. • . , ate, asthemesana pornmating,bun ahotsrs; but wbetber, , tbid.was eo or,„not wo know Lht,,a office,, is never Tel movecl, by thQ Mier& nomina%iati - of a BUG. censor: ; . ; . , Thomas Eastin, Navy Agent, at Pensa e.)la, was. retttovnd , from office by Presi: dent. Van Buren on the 1901 of Deem bet, 1840, while the Senate ; was in seasion, and thavffice,the same day. placed, tem porarily in chtir,ge,of Dudley :Walker, Ond it .was, not, till the sth of. January_follow- log thOt Oeorge Johnson was, by and with, the advice and.. consent, of the Sen nteoppointed ,Navy Agent to mimed Eaitin.i • ;June 29,,064„,0nd ,while the. Senate was in session, President Lincoln, remov- ed Isaae Henderson, Navy• agent at New York, ; an officer appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and placed the, office in charge temporarily of -Paytuaater John D. Gibson. Isanc : V. Fowler, . postmaster at New York;;Samuel F. iolarks, Postmaster., at New Orleans, and Mitchell Stever, post master at Milimukee, all cf whom -bad previously ben appointed , by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, were sev erally removed by .the: President during the sessions of the senate in 1860 and 1861, the nfi&aitlaeedAempotarily in charge o special agents, and it was not till some time after, the semovals that nominations were made to fill the vacancies. Otther cases, during other , administra tions, might be referred to, but _these are sufficient,to show that removals from office by. the President during the session of the Senate have been no unusuel thing in the, history of the Government. Ofithe power of Congress to define the tenure „the Offices it establishes and Make them deterininible,' either at. the will .of the President alone, of the Presi dent and Senate Together, or at the expi ration of a fixed period, I entertain no doubt., The Constitution is silent on the i lliliject of removals except by impeach merit, which it must be admitted only ap plies to removals for crimes and misde meanors, and if the Constitution admits of removals in no other way, then a person once in office would hold for life unless impeephedo construction which all would admit to be inadmissible under our form of government., The right; Of removal mast, then, / exist somewhere. : : The first Congress, in th'e creation, of !.hp Depart men*: of War, in 1789 , , recognised it as existing in the ' President by .providing that the chief Cipik should ' perform the du ties of the principal officer, called a Secre tary, " whenever thefiid principal officer shall be removed from office by the Pres ident of the United States, or in any oth er case of vacancy." Under this act the power of the President to remove - the Sec retary of War, either during the yecess Gr session .of the Senate, is ,manifest. The layi makes, no distinction in that respect, and whether , it was an inherent power be longing to the, Presideut, under the Con stitutioa as 'President, or was derived from the statute creating the - office, is not. material so far as relates to the power of the President to remove that officer. This continued to be the law until the passage'of the; tenure of office act, March 2, 1807; "and bad the President issued the order for the removal of the Secretary of war prior to the passage of that act, it would hardly be contended by any one that, in so doing, he violated any, law, constitutional or statutory. The act of March'2, 1807, was passed to correct the previous practice, and - had there been no such practice there, would have, been no occasion for each ' alaW. Did - that. Sot, ,constitationel and valid,ms it - is, believed tobe,Ohange the,'l,.'u4. so far as it related 'to a SeoetarY:then ,in office by virtue of an appointment made by a former president inning a Presidential term which ended March 4, 1805 ? ' • `The lafigitage of the first section of the act • "That every ,person holding any civil 'office to, whiell:he has Oemi:,lPPoiPked and with the advice and 'consent-et the Senate, and every-person who shall here after be appointed-to atiyinch.office and, shall become ` duly ilitalified•.to' act , thlrein; is and shall be entitled' tio dinld 'such office until a successor shall have been manner appointed and '=duly qualified 'ex eeptas hemn. 'otherwise provided ;',Pro videdi That, the Secretaries a State, of the TrealmrYi oriVitr, , of the Nary, andof the Interior, the .Postmaster. Generaff and the Atteriet Geneisl; shall.bold,their offices respectively forturnd daring:the_ term - of the Priaident - by , :l whom ;they xuailloave Wen appoinuttand:otie ;month thereafter, subect to removal b y201'116(11 theatitike and consent orate Senate." strith 'the' •adVice an ()Rile Seiiste; ipPoinied Siatififaect+et of wai , .on the 15th ix bkllitibei'Offieti,ditririg.thepleasiire'ofthe T'iteddent'ef the tiOlipd , SttsToi . tho time bell:4e! never '4-e a pp o ifit,o;ei.• tbOr - by•Mr..Lhiciitlii 'lifter - big' re election, bY Mi/4ohntiba-eil.ice ;Mr: l o inColn'c death. The continuance of ihtiL. , AAistition is PfriPs: ) .?y 0 10 4 Afier his second or*-CCP by r jilfinitnl, of- 1 .01151 r.. Linpqbge., otrualis,3l-,ro;:liliimultn*P.t, 400 g.. *it, telIN AP4stiii l-4 4 6 *O l 4 ..‘,,app o cti 4 etest ;P, Oeleigiv P1.414134#,P01 4 )43 , 104-tied to sow& iegg_AlNPlPAel4l3l_44Fird, =TM MONTII,OSE; PA.; TUESDAN,: :JUNE 2, 1868. Only be made b„"tidiwith 'the advice and t . ti consent of the ,enate. The term of the President by W oni - Mr. Stanton was ap pointed, and thC one . month thereafter, expired nearly t l ito,years before the pas sage of the tenuker Office act. It will not do to say that *pause Mr. Lincoln was elected for a' s'epond term that there fore the term of theTtesident by whim Mr. Stanton ,11 , 88 aplidinted has not ex pired. The fact that *Lincoln was his own successor in 1865 Aid not make the two terms one any more4tin,if any other person had succeeded hit* and were he now alive the Presidential-Aerm during which he appointed Mr. Stilton, would long since have expired. Bugle . Lincoln in fact; deceased soon after`his second term commenced,. and ; was succeeded by the Vice President, elected for the same term, on whom the office of Priaident was by the Constitution devolved: • It has been argued that this is Mt:',Lin colu'a term. If this be so, it is his second term, and not , the term during which Mr. Stanton was appointed; but if this be Mr. Lincoln's and not Mr. Johnson's term, when, will the ” term of the Preifident" by whom Mr. Browning and the other Cabinet officers appointed since Mr. Lin cOin's death expire ? Mr. Lincoln never appointed them, and if they are to hold "during the term of the President by whom they were appointed and for one month thereafter" they . hold indefinitely, I because, ,according to this theory, Mr. Johnson, the President by whom they were appointed, never had a term, and we have the anomaly of a person on whom the j office of President is devolved, and who is impeached as Presieent, and whom the Senate is asked to convict as President, who has do term of office. The clause of the Constitution which declares that the President " shall hold his office during the term of four years" does not mean that the person holding the office shall not die, resign, or be removed during that period, but to fix a term or limit during which he may, but beyond which he mtnnot hold the office. If he die, resign, or be remov. I ed in the meantime, manifestly the term, so far as he is concerned, has come to au end. The term of the Presidential office is four years, but the Constitution ex pressly provides that different persons may fill the office during that period, and in popular language it is called the term of the person who happens for the time being to be in the office. , It is just as im possible for Mr.. Stanton . to now serve as Secretary of War for the term of the Pres- , ident by whom he was appointed as it is for Mr. Lincoln to serve out the second term for which he was elected. Both the presidential term of the President who ap pointed Mr. Stanton and the person who made the appointment have passed away, never to return; but the Presidential of fice remains, filled, however, by another person, and not Mr. Lincoln. 1 It being apparent that so much of the proviso to the first section of the tenure I of civil office act of March 2, 1867, as au thorizes the Secretary of war to hold the office fOr and during the term of the Pres ident by whom be was appointed is inap plicable to the case of Mr. Stanton, by what tenure did he hold the office on the 21st of February last, when the President issued the order for his removal ? Originally appointed to hold office du ring the pleasure of the President for the time being, and as has already been shown removable at the will of the President, according to the act of 1789, there would seem to he no escape from the eenchrsion that the President had 'the right to issue the order for his removal.• 'lt has, howev er, been insisted that if the -proviso which secures to the Secretaries the righttO.tiold their respective offices daring the tern' Of the President by whom they may . have been appointed and for =one month there after does not - embrace Mr. Stanton, be canse.Mr.- 'Johnsen' did not appoint him, that thin, as a civil officer, he is within the body of the "first section of the act, and entitled to hold 'his office until by and with the advice ands consent of the Sen ate a successor shall bave been appointed and-duly qualified.. Not so; for the ,rea son that the body of the first section can have no reference .to the teure of an Office expressly. excepted from it by the wordS, "except as herein otherwise provided,"and the provision which fellows, fixing g dif . - ferentunurefor, the. Secretary of war. Can anyone doubt that tbe law was in tended to makeiand does makea, distino tion between; the,tenure of office giVen to the sectaries and that given to other civil officers.? How,.then, , eau it be said that the tentires,are the ,same, or the, same as to any. particular-Secretaries? The meaning of the section, is, net'Ait fereut from What it would-be if instead.of the:words "every person holding.anyoiv it office," there had .been , inserted , the words - tharshal, district' attorney, post ter, -and soon, enumeratingand fixing the tenure of all other civil officers except the Secretaries, and then. had proceeded to enumeratii,the'different S.e.eretaries and fix for them a different ;tenure from 'that 4iv ran;tol,he,ogier enumerated officers. Rad the seetion,heen tans .wrlteen,, " }would any one think, in, case a partieular, .Secretary .for,Oute, , personal -reaion. was unable to avail himself of ; the benefit 'of; the law se curing po*ri,Ptried.„B certain tenure' or -100e1140* .1-114::svo14:iiiitioreirO havfi the right to the &nogg' - of illiirasilO 'O4l I Secretaries were not mentioned, securing to mar4hals and others a different tenure of office ? The object 'of an exception or proviso in a statute is to limit or take something out, of the body of the act, and is usually resorted to for convenience, as a briefer mode of declaring the object than to enumerate everything . embraced in the general terms of the act, and then pro vide for the excepted matter. The fact that the terms of the proviso which fix the tenure of office of all Secretaries are such that a particular Secretary for reasons per sonal to himself, cannot take advantage of them, does not operate to take front the proviso the office of a Secretary, and the tenure attached to it, and transfer them to the body of the section which provides a tenure for holding office from which the office of Secretary is expressly excepted. Laying out of view what was said at the time of the passage of the tenure of office act, as to its not interfering with Mr. Johnson's right to remove the Secre taries appointed by 'his predecessor, and - the unreasonableness of a construction of the apt which would secure them in office longerthan the Secretaries he had himself appointed,' and fasten them for life on all future Presidents, unless the Senate con sented-tethaappointment of successors, the conclusion - seems inevitable, from the terms of the tentitiEfof office act itself that the President's right to - remove Stanton, the Secretary of warittppointed by:bis pre decessor, is not affected" by it, and that, havinn-the authority to remove that offi cer under the act of 1789, 'he (lid not vio late either the constitution or aby statute in issuing the order for that purpose. But even it' a different construction could lie put upon the law, I could never corisetit to convict the Chief Magistrate of a great' people of a high misdemeanor, and re move him from office for a misconstruc tion of what must be admitted to be a doubtful statute, and particularly when the misconstruction was the same put up on it by the authors of the law at the time of its passage. The second article charges that the President, in violation of the Constitution and contrary to the tenure of office act, and with intent to violate the same issued to Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority empowering him to act as Secretary of war ad interim, there being no vacancy in the office of Secretary of war. There is nothing in the tenure of office act, or any other statute, prohibiting the issuing of such letter, mach less making it. a crime or misdemeanor.. The most that can be said is that it was issued without authori ty of law. The Senate is required to pass judgment upon each article separately, and each must stand or fall by itself. There is no allegation in this article of any design or attempt to use the letter of authority, or that any harm came from it; and any Sen ator might well hesitate to find the Presi dent guilty of a high misdemeanor for simply issuing such a letter, although is sued without authority of law. The proof, however, shows that the letter was issued by the President in connection with the order for the removal of Mr. Stanton, which as has already been shown, was a valid order. The question, then, arises whether the President was guilty of a high misdemeanor in issuing to the Adju tant General of the Army a letter author izing him, in view of the contemplated va cancy, temporarily to discharge the du- 1 ties of Secretary of war. Mr. Trumbull here quoted the several statutes providing for the temporary dis charge of the duties of an office by some other person in case of a vacancy, or when the'offieer himself is' unable - to' perform them- .- .. • • These statutes contain all thelegislation 01Congress, on the Subject to which they relate. It has been insisted chat, inas much as under the act of 1863 the Presi dent had no authority to designate any other person to perform the duties of sec retary of war than an officer in, that or some of the other executive departments, and then „in case of vacancy to supply such only as are occasioned .by, - . death or resig nation, his designation of the Adjutant Gpneral of the army to supply temporari ly a vacancy occasioned by remtval.was without authority, If the act of 1863 re pealed the act of 1795 this would doubt less be so; but Wit did not, repeal it, then the President clearly had the right,- under that act,which prordes for, the temporary discharge of the doties of secretary of war in any vacancy by any person, to author ize Geoeral Thomas temporarily to dis charge those duties.'" The law of 'lBO3, .and as ii does all the departments, and containing provisions from both the previous statutes, may, hoWeFer, be con strued, to' embfaee the whole subject on Which - it treats,and operate as ft repeal of all rior :I t actfa,. on the' same , subject. It must lieWever' be ''Attfitted that it is by .po Means' clear that the'act' of '1863 debts Lleirtil so mualicf thaiet of 1195 na i ad- Pa t • ,t, erlzes e, resten to ,provide fo r t h' teinporary'diichaige of the duties of an office froin which an inennibent has been l iretnoved, or whose term of office has ex hired' by:limitation before-the regniiir ap pointment of a shoimitior. '' It hag been argued th'at' the tenure of office act of , March. p, 186'4 repeated both the act ofPftq.ttp - itth4t of 1E163, authori ziegytki:Ultiptirityr,fst4l,Ying. of yams ciett-tifitailOsittr44oo.- IRAs is an en- tire misapprehension.' The eighth section of the tenure of-office act recognizes that authority ,by making ,it the duty-.of the President, when such designations are made, to notify the Secretary of the Treasury thereof; and' if any . one of the Secretaries were to die or resign to mor row, the authority of the President to de tail an officer in one of the Departments to temporarily perform the duties of the vacant office, under the act of 1803, wonld be unquestioned. This would not be the appointment of an officer while the. Sen ate was in session without its consent, but simply directing a--person already in I office to discharge I,emporarily, in no one case exceeding six months, the duties of another office not then filled. It is the issuing of a letter of authority in respect to a removal, appointment, or employment, "contrary to the provisions" of the tenure of office act that is made a high misdemeanor. As the order for the re moval of Mr. Stanton has already been shOwn not to have been "contrary to the provisions of this act" any letter of au thority in regard to it is not forbidden by the sixth section thereof. Admitting, however, that there was no statute in existence expressly authorizing tha President to designate the Adjutant General of the Army temporarily to dis charge the duties of the office of Secretary of war, made vacant by removal, till a sue cessnr, whose nomination - was proposed the next day, could be confirmed, does it follow that he was guilty of a high tuistle "Meaner in making such temporary desig nation when there was no law making it a penal offense Or prohibiting it ? Prior to 1863, as Mr. Lincoln's message shows, there was no law authorizing these tem -I:iniary designations in any other than the threePepartments of State, Treasury, and war; andlet President Lincoln himself, on the 22d ofSeptember 1862, prior to any law authorizing it; issued the folloiving letter of authority appointing a Postmas ter General ad initrim Thereby appoint St. John B. 1.. Skinner, now acting First Assistant Postmaster General, to be acting Post master General ad interim. in place of Hop. Montgom ery Blair, now temporarily absent. AIMAILaII\MVOLIg. Washington, September 22, 1862. To provide for temporary disabilities of vacancies in the-Navy Department, and for which no law at the time existed, Pres ident Jackson, during his, administration, made ten different designations. or ap pointments of Secretaries of the Navy ad interim. Similar ad interim designa tions in the Navy Department were made by Presidents Van Buren, Harrison, Ty ler, Polk, Fillrnore, and others; and these appointments were made indiscriminately during the sessions of the Senate as well as daring its recess. As no law authori zing them existed at the time these ad in terim appointments were made in the Na vy and Post office Departments, it must be admitted that they were made without authority of law; and yet, who then tho't or would now think, of impeaching for high crimes and misdemeandors the Presi dents, who made them ? Importance is sought to be given to the passage by the Senate, before the im peachment articles were found by the Hense of Representatives, of the following resolution : "Reeolved,by the Senate qf the United State's, That un der the Constitution and laws of the United Stet es. the President has no power to remove the Secretary of War and d6 , ignate any other officer to perform the duties of that oillee, ad interim"— as if Senators sitting as a Court on the trial of the President for high Criines and misdemeanors would feel bound infin enceffin any degmety'ri resolution intro duced and hastily passed before an ad journment on the very day the orders to Stanton 'arid Theme's were issued.. Let him , Who would be gOverned by such con siderations in' passing on the guilt or inno cence of the accused; and not by the law and the facts as they r have been developed on the trial, shelter himself under such a resollition. I am sure 'no honest man could. It is known however, that' the ,resolution coupled the two things, the re moval of the Secretary of war and the designation of an otPcer - ad interim, .to gether, so that those :who believed - either without authority were compelled to vote for the resolution. • My understanding at, the time was, that the act of 1863 repealed that 'of 1'795 au thorising the designation of a Sepretary of War ad interim in the plaCe of a Secre tary removed, but I never entertained the opinion that the President had not power to remove the Secretary:, of War appoint ed- bY 'Lineoln 'tinting his- first term. Believing the act of 1195 to have been re pealed, I was bound to vote that the President had no power 'under the law to designate a Secretary of War ad interim to fill - avacancy caused by removal, juin, as T would feel bound to vote for a reso lution that neither President Jackson nor any of his successors bad the povier, un der the lavi',to designate od'interimPost iii4s.terri'.General or Secretaries of the Na vy aria interior prier to the ant of 1863; but iilby . no means follows that they were guilty of high crimes 'and misdemeanors in making such temporary designatin. They acted . withciut the shadow of state-; tary authority in making such appoint ments. Johnson_ claims, and not without plans- ibility, that, be:bad authority under the net 'Of 795 to - anthoriii the adjutant gen &al tO perform temporarily the duties a Seeiettify Viter ; 'bet ii that'a>3t wo4t 11:11==iiii I VOLUME XXV, NUMBER 23, pealed, even then , he- Limply nefed- to bid predecessors bad done_ wttlr the AO:pew cence of the nation for forty years before: Considering that the facts charged against the 'President - hi the second article Lire no respect contrary to any protislons of the tenure of office-act - I - that-they do - not constitute a misdemeanor, and ttre not for. bidden by any statute ; that itis a matter of grave doubt whether so much of On act of 1795 as would expressly antheriie the issuing of the letter of authority, tq General Thomas is not in force, and if it is not, that President Johnson still had the same authority for issuing it as his prO decessors had exercised for many years!, without objection in the Navy, Intend and Postoffice departments, it is impossi; ble for, me to hold him guilty of a high misdemeanor under that article. To dO so would in my opinion be to disregard, rather than recognize, that impartial juH- tice I am sworn to administer. What has been said in ,regard to the second article applies with equal force to the third and eighth articles; there being no proof of an unlawful intent to control the disbursements of the moneys apprti propriate& for the military service, ao charged in the eighth article. Articles four, five, six and.seven taken together, charge in substance that the President conspired with Lorenzo Thom as and. other persons with intent, by in timidation and threats, to prevent Edwin M. Stanton from holding the office of Sec retary of War, and by force to seize. and possess the property of the United States in the department of war; also that he conspired to do the same things contrary to the tenure of office act, without any al legation of force or threatti. The record contains no sufficient proof of the intimi dation, threats, or force charged ; and as the. President had, in my opinion, a right to remove Mr. Stanton, his, order for that purpose, as also to,General Thomas to take possession, both peacefully issued, - haVe in my judgment none - of the fila ments of a conspiracy - about them. The ninth, article, #lown,as the Emory article, is wholly unsupported by , efi. deuce. The tenth article, relating to the speeches of the President, is substantially proven, but the speeches, although. die. creditable to the high (Ace he holds, de not in my opinion afford just ground for impeachment. So much of the eleventh article as re lates to the speech of the President made August 18,4866, is disposed of -by what, .bus been said on the tenth article. . The only proof to sustain the allegation :of unlawfully devising means to prevent Edwin M. Stanton from resuming the of fice of Secretary of War is to be found in a letter from the President to Gen. Grant, dated Feb. 10, 1858, written long after Mr. Stanton had been restored. This let ter, referring to a controversy between the President and General Grant in regard to certain communications, oral and 'writ ten, which had passed between theta { shows that it was the President's intent, in case the Senate did not concur in Stan ton's suspension, to resort to the courts to get possession of the War Department, with a view of obtaining a judicial decis ion on the validity of the tenure of office act; but the intention was never carried I out ; and Stanton took possession by the voluntary surrender of the office by Gen. Grant. Was this intent or purpose of the President, to obtain a judicial decision in the only way then practicable a high mis demeanor ? It is not necessary.to, inquire whether the President would have been justified in carrying his intention into effect. It was not done, and his entertaining an in tention to do it, constituted, in my opin ion, no offense. There is, however, to my mind another conclusive answer to, this , charge in the eleventh article. The Presi dent; in my view, had authority to remove Mr. Stanton, and this being so, be could by removal at any time have lawfully kept him from again taking posseision of the Office. There is no proof to sustain the other charges of the article. In coining to the conclusion that the President is not guil ty of any of the high crimes and misde meanors with which he stands charged, I have endeavored to be governed by the case made without reference to auy acts. of his not contained in the record, and with• out giving the least heed to the clamor of intemperate zealots who demand Abe Cen _viction of Andrew Johnson as -testa party faith, or seel; to identify with or make responsible for' his acts ithotie who, from convictions of duty, feel compelled on the case made to vote for his top& His speeches, and the general course of his administration, have been:as distaste ful to the as to. any one. Utile question was, is Andrew Johns - on a fit person for President ? In should answer no; but it is not, ir party question, nor:upon Andrew Johnson's deeds and acts, except 4o far as, they are made to appear in the record, that, l . am to decide. Painfuj, as it is to disagree with so ma-, ny political ' associates and friends whnea, conscientioni convictions have led theni to a different result, I mustoievettheless, in the discharge of the•high responsibility undei which I act, be governed by what my reason and judgment felt=oieas the - 1; r§6 , yptgth
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers