- _-',...... ..., '"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