History of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson,

E >> Edumud G. Ross >> History of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson,

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21

What shall I say of this man? He is no theoriest; he is no
reformer; I have looked over his life. He has ever walked in
beaten paths, and by the light of, the Constitution. The mariner,
tempest-tossed in mid-sea, does not more certainly turn to his
star for guidance than does this man in trial and difficulty to
the star of the Constitution. He loves the Constitution. It has
been the study of his life. He is not learned and scholarly like
many of you; he is not a man of many ideas or of much speculation
but by a law of the mind he is only the truer to that he does
know. He is a patriot, second to no one of you in the measure of
his patriotism. He loves his country; he may be full of error; I
will not canvass now his views; but he loves his country; he has
the courage to defend it, and I believe to die for it if need be.
His courage and patriotism are not without illustration. My
colleague (Mr. Nelson) referred the other day to the scenes which
occurred in this Chamber when he alone of twenty-two Senators
remained; even his State seceded, but he remained. That was a
trial of his patriotism, of which many of you, by reason of your
locality and of your life-long associations, know nothing. How
his voice rang out in this hall in the hour of alarm for the good
cause, and in denunciation of the rebellion! But he did not
remain here; it was a pleasant, honorable, safe, and easy
position; but he was wanted for a more difficult and arduous and
perilous service. He faltered not, but entered upon it. That was
a trial of his courage and patriotism of which some of you who
now sit in judgment on more than his life, know nothing. I have,
often thought that those who, dwelt at the North, safely distant
from the collisions and strifes of the war, knew little of its
actual, trying dangers. We who lived on the border know more. Our
horizon was always red with flame; and it sometimes burned so
near us that we could feel its heat upon the outstretched hand.
But he was wanted for a greater peril, and went into the very
furnace of the war, and there served his country long and well.
Who of you have done more? Not one. * * * It seems cruel,
Senators, that he should be dragged here as a criminal, or that
any one who served his country and bore himself well and bravely
through that trying ordeal, should be condemned upon miserable
technicalities.

If he has committed any gross crime, shocking alike and
indiscriminately the entire public mind, then condemn him; but he
has rendered services to the country that entitle him to kind and
respectful consideration. He has precedents for everything he has
done, and what excellent precedents! The voices of the great dead
come to us from the grave sanctioning his course. All our past
history approves it. How can you single out this man, now in this
condition of things, and brand him before the world, put your
brand of infamy upon him because he made an ad interim
appointment for a day, and possible may have made a mistake in
attempting to remove Stanton? I can at a glance put my eye on
Senators here who would not endure the position he occupied. You
do not think it is right yourselves. You framed this civil tenure
law to give each President his own Cabinet, and yet his whole
crime is that he wants harmony and peace in his.

Senators, I will not go on. There is a great deal that is
crowding on my tongue for utterance, but it is not from my head;
it is rather from my heart; and it would be but a repetition of
the vain things 1 have been saying the past half hour But I do
hope you will not drive the President out and take possession of
his office. I hope this, not merely as counsel for Andrew
Johnson, for Andrew Johnson's administration is to me but as a
moment, and himself as nothing in comparison with the possible
consequences of such an act. No good can come of it, Senators,
and how much will the heart of the nation be refreshed if at last
the Senate of the United States can, in its judgment upon this
case, maintain its ancient dignity and high character in the
midst of storms, and passion, and strife.

A somewhat startling incident, which for the moment threatened
unpleasant results, occurred in the course of the trial. In his
opening speech for the prosecution, Mr. Manager Boutwell used
this language, speaking of the President:

The President is a man of strong will, of violent passions, of
unlimited ambition, with capacity to employ and use timid men,
adhesive, subservient men, and corrupt men, as the instruments of
his designs. It is the truth of history that he has injured every
person with whom he has had confidential relations, and many have
escaped ruin only by withdrawing from his society altogether. He
has one rule of his life: he attempts to use every man of power,
capacity, or influence within his reach. Succeeding in his
attempts, they are in time, and usually in a short time, utterly
ruined. If the considerate flee from him, if the brave and
patriotic resist his schemes or expose his plans, he attacks
them with all the energy and patronage of his office, and
pursues them with all the violence of his personal hatred. He
attacks to destroy all who will not become his instruments, and
all who become his instruments are destroyed in the use. He
spares no one. * * * Already this purpose of his life is
illustrated in the treatment of a gentleman who was of counsel
for the respondent, but who has never appeared in his behalf.

The last paragraph of the above quotation manifestly referred to
a disagrement between the President and Judge Black, which led to
the retirement of that gentleman from the Management of the
Defense of the President, a few days prior to the beginning of
the trial.

To this criticism of the President, Judge Nelson, of Counsel for
Defense, responded a few days later, with the following
statement:

It is to me, Senators, a source of much embarassment how to speak
in reply to the accusation which has thus been preferred against
the President of the United States. * * *

In order that you may understand what I have to say about it I
desire to refer the Senate to a brief statement which I have
prepared on account of the delicacy of the subject; and, although
I have not had time to write it out as I would have desired to
do, it will be sufficient to enable you to comprehend the facts
which I am about to state. You will understand, Senators, that I
do not purport to give a full history of what I may call the Alta
Vela case, as to which a report was made to the Senate by the
Secretary of State upon your call. A mere outline of the case
will be sufficient to explain what I have to say in reference to
Judge Black:

Under the guano act of 1856, William T. Kendal on the one side,
and Patterson and Marguiendo on the other, filed claims in the
Secretary of State's office to the island which is claimed by the
government of St. Domingo.

On the 17th of June, 1867, the examiner of claims submitted a
report adverse to the claim for damages against the Dominican
government. On the 22d of July, 1867, Mr. Black addressed a
letter to the President, (page 10) and another on the 7th of
August, 1867. On page 13 it is said that Patterson and Marguiendo
acquiesce in the decision. On page 13 it is shown that other
parties are in averse possession. On page 15 it is asserted that
the contest is between citizens of the United States, and can be
settled in the courts of the United States. The contest now seems
to be between Patterson and Marguiendo and Thomas B. Webster &
Co.

On the 14th of December, 1859, Judge Black, as Attorney General,
rejected the claim of W. J. Kendall to an island in the Carribean
Sea, called Cayo Verde, and Mr. Seward seems to regard the two
cases as resting on the same principle in his report of 17th of
January, 1867.

On the 22d of July, 1867, Judge Black addressed a letter to the
President enclosing a brief. On the 7th of August, 1867, he
addressed another communication to the President. On the 7th of
February, 1868, an elaborate an able communication was sent to
the President, signed by W. J. Shaffer, attorney for Patterson
and Marguiendo, and Black, Lamon &, Co., counsel, in which they
criticised with severity the report of Mr. Seward and asked the
President to review his decision.

According to the best information I can obtain, I state that ON
THE 9TH OF MARCH, 1868, General Benjamin F. Butler addressed a
letter to J. W. Shaffer, in which he stated that he was "clearly
of the opinion that, under the claim of the United States its
citizens have the exclusive right to take guano there," and that
he had never been able to understand why the executive did not
long since assert the rights of the government, and sustain the
rightful claims of its citizens to the possession of the island
IN THE MOST FORCIBLE MANNER consistent with the dignity and honor
of the Nation.

The letter was concurred in and approved of by John A. Logan, J.
A. Garfield, W. H. Koontz, J. K. Moorhead and John A. Bingham, on
the same day, 9th of March, 1868.

This letter expressing the opinion of Generals Butler, Logan and
Garfield was placed in the hands of the President by Chauncey F.
Black, who, on the 16th of March, 1868, addressed a letter to him
in which he enclosed a copy of the same with the concurrence of
Thaddeus Stevens, John A. Bingham, J. G. Blaine, J. K. Moorhead
and William H. Koontz.

After the date of this letter, and while Judge Black was the
counsel of the respondent in this cause, he had an interview with
the President, in which he urged immediate action on his part and
the sending an armed vessel to take possession of the island; and
because the President refused to do so, Judge Black, on the 19th
of March, 1868, declined to appear further as his counsel in this
case.

Such are the facts in regard to the withdrawal of Judge Black,
according to the. best information I can obtain.

The island of Alta Vela, or the claim for damages, is said to
amount in value to more than a million dollars, and it is quite
likely that an extensive speculation is on foot. I have no
reason to charge that any of the managers are engaged in it,
and presume that the letters were signed, as such communications
are often signed, by members of Congress, through the importunity
of friends.

Judge Black no doubt thought it was his duty to other clients to
press this claims but how did the President view it?

Senators, I ask you for a moment to put yourself in the place of
the President of the United States, and as this is made a matter
of railing accusation against him, to consider how the President
of the United States felt it.

There are two or three facts to which I desire to call the
attention of the Senate and the country in connection with these
recommendations. They are, first, that they were all gotten up
after this impeachment proceeding was commenced against the
President of the United States.

Another strong and powerful fact to be noticed in vindication of
the President of the United States, in reference to this case
which has been so strongly preferred against him, is that these
recommendations were signed by four of the honorable, gentlemen
to whom the House of Representatives have intrusted the duty of
managing this great impeachment against him.

Of course exception was taken to this statement, and to the
revisal inferences therefrom, and the authenticity of the
signatures mentioned at first denied, and then an effort made to
explain them away, but it is unsuccessful.

The incident left a fixed impression, at least in the minds of
many of the Senators, that an effort had been made to coerce the
President, in fear of successful impeachment, into the
perpetration of a cowardly and disgraceful international act, not
only by his then Chief of Counsel, but also by a number of his
active prosecutors on the part of the House.

It would be difficult to fittingly characterize this scandalous
effort to pervert a great State trial into an instrumentality for
the successful exploitation of a commercial venture which was by
no means free from the elements of international robbery.

Yet to Mr. Johnson's lasting credit, he proved that he possessed
the honesty and courage to dare his enemies to do their worst--he
would not smirch his own name and disgrace his country and his
great office, by using its power for the-promotion of an
enterprise not far removed from a scheme of personal plunder, let
it cost him what it might. It was a heroic act, and bravely,
unselfishly, modestly performed.

CHAPTER IX. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES AND THEIR TESTIMONY.

The initial proceedings to the taking of testimony, while to a
degree foreshadowing a partisan division in the trial, also
demonstrated the presence of a Republican minority which could
not at all times, be depended upon to register the decrees of the
more radical portion of the body. The first development of this
fact came in the defeat of a proposition to amend the rules in
the interest of the prosecution, and again on the examination of
Mr. Burleigh, a delegate from Dakota Territory in the House of
Representatives and a witness brought by the prosecution on March
31st. Mr. Butler, examining the witness, asked the question:

Had you on the evening before seen General Thomas? * * * Had you
a communication with him?

Answer. Yes sir.

Mr. Stanbery objected, and the Chief Justice ruled that the
testimony was competent and would be heard "unless the Senate
think otherwise."

To this ruling Mr. Drake objected and appealed from the decision
of the Chair to the Senate. It appeared to be not to the ruling
per se, that Mr. Drake objected, but to the right of the Chair to
rule at all upon the admissibility of testimony. Mr. Drake
representing the extremists of the dominant side of the Chamber.
There seemed to be apprehension of the effect upon the Senate of
the absolute judicial fairness of the rulings of the Chief
Justice, and the great weight they would naturally have, coming
from so just and eminent a jurist. After discussion, Mr. Wilson
moved that the Senate retire for consultation.

The vote on this motion was a tie, being twenty-five for and
twenty-five against retiring, whereupon the Chief Justice
announced the fact of a tie and voted "yea;" and the Senate
retired to its consultation room, where, after discussion and
repeated suggestions of amendment to the rules, the following
resolution was offered by Mr. Henderson:

Resolved, That rule 7 be amended by substituting therefor the
following:

The presiding officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary
preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the presiding officer in
the trial shall direct all the forms of proceeding while the
Senate are sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and
all forms during the trial not otherwise provided for. And the
presiding officer on the trial may rule all questions of of
evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as
the judgment of the Senate, unless some member of the Senate
shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it
shall be submitted to the Senate for decision; or he may, at his
option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote
of the members of the Senate.

Mr. Morrill, of Maine, moved to amend the proposed rule by
striking out the words "which ruling shall stand as the judgment
of the Senate," which was rejected without a division.

Mr. Sumner then moved to substitute the following:

That the chief justice of the United States, presiding in the
Senate on the trial of the President of the United States, is not
a member of the Senate, and has no authority under the
Constitution to vote on any question during the trial, and he
can pronounce decision only as the organ of the Senate, with its
assent.

It is not insisted here that there was any sinister purpose in
this proposition, yet the possibilities, in case of its adoption,
were very grave. Like the wasp, the sting was in the tail--"he
(the chief justice;) can pronounce decision only as the organ of
the Senate, WITH ITS ASSENT! Had that rule been adopted, suppose
the Senate, with, its vote of forty-two Republicans and twelve
Democrats, upon failure of conviction by a two-thirds vote had
refused or refrained on a party vote from giving "its assent" to
a judgment of acquittal?

The vote upon this proposed amendment was as follows:

For its adoption--Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling,
Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Howard, Morgan, Morrill of
Maine, Morton, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer,
Tipton, Trumbull, Williams, Wilson--22--all Republicans.

Against its adoption--Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, Davis,
Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler,
Frelinghuysen, Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson, McCreery,
Morrill of Vermont, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson
of Tennessee, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Van Winkle, Vickers,
Willey--26--15 Republicans and 11 Democrats.

So the resolution was rejected--every aye vote a Republican, and
all but one, Mr. Trumbull, afterwards voting to impeach the
President at tHe close of the trial--eleven Democrats and
fifteen Republicans voting nay.

Mr. Drake then offered the following:

It is the judgment of the Senate that under the Constitution the
Chief Justice presiding over the Senate in the pending trial has
no privilege of ruling questions of law arising thereon, but that
all such questions shall be submitted to a decision by the Senate
alone.

It would be difficult to formulate a proposition better
calculated to taint the proceedings with a partisan bias than
this one by Mr. Drake. The impeachment movement was in a very
large sense, if not entirely, a partisan enterprise. It had its
origin in partisan differences, and was based mainly on
differences as to public policies at issue between the two great
parties of the country--and while it was expected that every
political. friend of the President would vote against the
impeachment, it was DEMANDED, and made a test of party fealty,
that every Republican Senator should vote for his conviction.
Therefore, and perhaps it was not illogical from these premises,
party leaders of Mr. Drake's inclination should not relish the
influence the legal, unbiased and non-partisan rulings of the
Chief Justice might have upon his more conservatively inclined
fellow partisans of the body.

Mr. Drake called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and
the vote was yeas 20, nays 30. The personality of this vote was
very much the same as on the previous proposition.

The rule proposed by Mr. Henderson was then adopted. The
conference closed shortly after, and the session of the Senate
was resumed.

The next day, April 1st, Mr. Sumner renewed in the Senate his
proposition submitted at the Conference the day before but not
acted upon, to change the rules of the Senate in the following
form:

It appearing from the reading of the Journal yesterday that on a
question where the Senate were equally divided, the Chief
Justice, presiding on the trial of the President, gave a casting
vote; it is hereby ordered that, in the judgment of the Senate,
such vote was without authority under the Constitution of the
United States.

The proposition was put to vote with the following result:

Yeas--Messrs. Cameron, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Cragin,
Drake, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morton, Norton,
Ramsay, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Williams,
Wilson--21--10 Republicans and 1 Democrat.

Nays--Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Corbett, Davis, Dixon,
Doolittle, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen,
Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of
Vermont, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Van
Winkle, Vickers, Willey--26--16 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

So the proposed order was rejected. The trial then proceeded. The
answers to a very large proportion of the interrogatories
propounded to the witnesses, on both sides, were unimportant,
having very little bearing, either way, upon the case.
Twenty-eight of those interrogatories, however, were more or less
important, and were challenged, seven by the defense, and
twenty-one by the prosecution. For convenience of reference,
these interrogatories are numbered from one to twenty-eight,
inclusive, with the answers thereto, when permitted to be
answered, as follows:

Question submitted by Mr. Butler, of the prosecution, April 1st,
1868, to Mr. Walter A. Burleigh, witness on the stand, called for
the prosecution:

No. 1.

You said yesterday, in answer to my question, that you had a
conversation with General Lorenzo Thomason the evening of the
21st of February last. State if he said anything as to the means
by which he intended to obtain or was directed by the President
to obtain possession of the War Department. If so, state all he
said, as nearly as you can?

Mr. Stanbery objected.

Mr. Drake called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and
the vote was as follows:

Yeas--Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling,
Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden,
Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morgan,
Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of
New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart,
Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, Williams,
Wilson--39--all Republicans.

Nays-Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Hendricks,
Johnson, McCreery, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Vickers--
11--all Democrats.

So, the Senate decided that the question should be answered.

General Butler repeated the interrogatory, and Mr. Burleigh's
answer was as follows:

On the evening of February 21st last, I learned that General
Thomas had been appointed Secretary of War ad interim, I think
while at the Metropolitan Hotel. I invited Mr. Leonard Smith, of
Leavenworth, Kas., to go with me up to his house and see him. We
took a carriage and went up. I found the General there ready to
go out with his daughters to spend the evening at some place of
amusement. I told him I would not detain him if he was going out;
but he insisted on my sitting down and I sat down for a few
moments. I told him I had learned he had been appointed Secretary
of War. He said he had; that he had been appointed that day, I
think; that after receiving his appointment from the President he
went to the War Office to show his authority, or his appoiniment,
to Secretary Stanton, and also his order to take possession of
the office; that the Secretary remarked to him that he supposed
he would give him time to remove his personal effects, or his
private papers, or something to that effect; and the answer was
"certainly." He said that in a short time the Secretary asked him
if he would give him a copy of his order, and he replied
"certainly," and gave it to him. He said that it was no more
than right to give him time to take out his personal effects. I
asked him when he was going to assume the duties of the office.
He remarked that he should take possession the next morning at
ten o'clock, which would be the 22nd; and I think in that
connection he stated that he had issued some order in regard to
the observance of the day; but of that I am not sure. I remarked
to him that I should be up at that end of the avenue the next
day, and he asked me to come in and see him. I asked him where I
could find him. and he said in the Secretary's room up stairs. I
told him I would be there. Said he, "be there punctually at 10
o'clock." Said I, "you are going to take possession to-morrow?"
"Yes." Said he, "suppose Stanton objects to it--resists?" "Well,"
said he,"I expect to meet force by force. Or use force."

Mr. Conkling: "Repeat that."

The witness. I asked him what he would do if Stanton objected, or
resisted. He said he would use force, or resort to force. Said I,
"Suppose he bars the doors?" His reply was. "I will break them
down." I think that was about all the conversation that we had
there in that connection.

No. 2.

The next disputed interrogatory put by General Butler to the
witness was:

Shortly after this conversation about which you have testified,
and after the President restored Major General Thomas to the
office of Adjutant General, if you know the fact that he was so
restored, were you present in the War Department, and did you
hear Thomas make any statements to the officers and clerks, or
either of them, belonging to the War Office, as to the rules and
orders of Mr. Stanton or of the War Office which he, Thomas,
would make, revoke, relax, or rescind, in favor of such officers
or employes when he had control of the affairs therein? If so,
state as near as you can when it was such conversation occurred,
and state all he said, as near as you can.

Mr. Howard demanded the yeas and nays and they were ordered and
were as follows:

Yeas--Anthony Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling,
Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Henderson Howard, Howe, Morgan,
Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire,
Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton,
Trumbull, Wilson--28--all Republicans.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21