« AnteriorContinuar »
the United States, acting and speaking in their behalf, presented a copy of the proceedings of the convention, and addressed the President of the United States in a speech, of which a copy (according to a published report of the same, and, as the respondent believes, substantially a correct report) is hereto annexed as a part of this answer, and marked Exhibit C.
third specification of the tenth article; but this respondent does not admit that the passages therein set forth, as if extracts from a speech of this respondent on said occasion, correctly or justly present his speech or address upon said occasion; but, on the contrary, this respondent demands and insists that if this honorable court shall deem the said article and the said third specification thereof to contain allegation of
high misdemeanor in office, within the intent and meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and shall receive or allow proof in support of the same, that proof shall be required to be made of the actual speech and address of this respondent on said occasion, which this respondent denies that the said article and specification contain or correctly or justly represent.
And this respondent, further answering the tenth article, protesting that he has not been unmindful of the high duties of his office, or of the harmony or courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, denies that he has ever intended or designed to set aside the rightful authority or powers of Congress, or attempted to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, or reproach the Congress of the United States or either branch thereof, or to impair or destroy the regard or respect of all or any of the good people of the United States for the Congress or the rightful legislative power thereof, or to excite the odium or resentment of all or any of the good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted. This respondent further says, that at all times he has, in his official acts as President, recog nized the authority of the several Congresses of the United States as constituted and organized during his administration of the office of President of the United States.
That thereupon, and in reply to the address of said committee by their chairman, this respond-matter cognizable by this honorable court as a ent addressed the said committee so waiting upon him in one of the rooms of the Executive Mansion; and this respondent believes that this his address to said committee is the occasion referred to in the first specification of the tenth article; but this respondent does not admit that the passages therein set forth, as if extracts from a speech or address of this respondent upon said occasion, correctly or justly present his speech or address upon said occasion, but, on the contrary, this respondent demands and insists that if this honorable court shall deem the said article and the said specification thereof to contain allega tion of matter cognizable by this honorable court as a high misdemeanor in office, within the intent and meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and shall receive or allow proof in support of the same, that proof shall be required to be made of the actual speech and address of this respondent on said occasion, which this respondent denies that said article and specification contain or correctly or justly represent. And this respondent, further answering the tenth article and the specifications thereof, says that at Cleveland, in the State of Ohio, and on the 3d day of September, in the year 1866, he was attended by a large assemblage of his fellow-citizens, and in deference and obedience to their call and demand he addressed them upon matters of public and political consideration; and this respondent believes that said occasion and address are referred to in the second specification of the tenth article; but this respond- And this respondent, further answering, says ent does not admit that the passages therein set that he has, from time to time, under his constiforth, as if extracts from a speech of this respond-tutional right and duty as President of the ent on said occasion, correctly or justly present his speech or address upon said occasion; but, on the contrary, this respondent demands and insists that if this honorable court shall deem the said article and the second specification thereof to contain allegation of matter cognizable by this honorable court as a high misdemeanor in office, within the intent and meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and shall receive or allow proof in support of the same, that proof shall be required to be made of the actual speech and address of this respondent on said occasion, which this respondent denies that said article and specification contain or correctly or justly represent.
And this respondent, further answering the tenth article and the specifications thereof, says that at St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, and on the 8th day of September, in the year 1866, he was attended by a numerous assemblage of his fellow-citizens, and in deference and obedience to their call and demand he addressed them upon matters of public and political consideration; and this respondent believes that said occasion and address are referred to in the
United States, communicated to Congress his views and opinions in regard to such acts or resolutions thereof as, being submitted to him as President of the United States in pursuance of the Constitution, seemed to this respondent to require such communications; and he has, from time to time, in the exercise of that freedom of speech which belongs to him as a citizen of the United States, and, in his political relations as President of the United States to the people of the United States, is upon fit occasions a duty of the highest obligation, expressed to his fellowcitizens his views and opinions respecting the measures and proceedings of Congress; and that in such addresses to his fellow-citizens and in such his communications to Congress he has expressed his views, opinions, and judgment of and concerning the actual constitution of the two houses of Congress without representation therein of certain States of the Union, and of the effect that in wisdom and justice, in the opinion and judgment of this respondent, Congress, in its legislation and proceedings, should give to this political circumstance; and whatsoever he has thus communicated to Congress (
addressed to his fellow-citizens or any assemblage thereof, this respondent says was and is within and according to his right and privilege as an American citizen and his right and duty as President of the United States.
And this respondent, not waiving or at all disparaging his right of freedom of opinion and of freedom of speech, as herein before or herein after more particularly set forth, but claiming and insisting upon the same, further answering the said tenth article, says that the views and opinions expressed by this respondent in his said addresses to the assemblages of his fellow-citizens, as in said article or in this answer thereto mentioned, are not and were not intended to be other or different from those expressed by him in his communications to Congress-that the eleven States lately in insurrection never had ceased to be States of the Union, and that they were then entitled to representation in Congress by loyal Representatives and Senators as fully as the other States of the Union, and that, conse quently, the Congress, as then constituted, was not, in fact, a Congress of all the States, but a Congress of only a part of the States. This respondent, always protesting against the unauthorized exclusion therefrom of the said eleven States, nevertheless gave his assent to all laws passed by said Congress which did not, in his opinion and judgment, violate the Constitution, exercising his constitutional authority of returning bills to said Congress with his objections when they appeared to him to be unconstitutional or inexpedient.
and political motives and tendencies; and within and as a part of such right and duty to form, and on fit occasions to express, opinions of and concerning the public character and conduct, views, purposes, objects, motives, and tendencies of all men engaged in the public service, as well in Congress as otherwise, and under no other rules or limits upon this right of freedom of opinion and of freedom of speech, or of responsi bility and amenability for the actual exercise of such freedom of opinion and freedom of speech, than attend upon such rights and their exercise on the part of all other citizens of the United States, and on the part of all their public servants.
And this respondent, further answering said tenth article, says that the several occasions on which, as is alleged in the several specifications of said article, this respondent addressed his fellow-citizens on subjects of public and political consideration, were not, nor was any one of them, sought or planned by this respondent; but, on the contrary, each of said occasions arose upon the exercise of a lawful and accustomed right of the people of the United States to call upon their public servants and express to them their opinions, wishes, and feelings upon matters of public and political consideration, and to invite from such, their public servants, an expression of their opinions, views, and feelings on matters of public and political consideration; and this respondent claims and insists before this honorable court, and before all the people of the United States, that of or And, further, this respondent has also ex- concerning this his right of freedom of opinion pressed the opinion, both in his communications and of freedom of speech, and this his exercise of to Congress and in his addresses to the people, such rights on all matters of public and political that the policy adopted by Congress in reference consideration, and in respect of all public serto the States lately in insurrection did not tend vants or persons whatsoever engaged in or conto peace, harmony, and union, but, on the connected therewith, this respondent, as a citizen or trary, did tend to disunion and the permanent as President of the United States, is not subject disruption of the States; and that in following to question, inquisition, impeachment, or inculits said policy, laws had been passed by Con-pation in any form or manner whatsoever. gress in violation of the fundamental principles of the government, and which tended to consolidation and despotism; and, such being his deliberate opinions, he would have felt himself unmindful of the high duties of his office if he had failed to express them in his communications to Congress, or in his addresses to the peotional or legal duties or responsibilities; but ple when called upon by them to express his opinions on matters of public and political consideration.
And this respondent, further answering the tenth article, says that he has always claimed and insisted. and now claims and insists, that both in his personal and private capacity of a citizen of the United States, and in the political relations of the President of the United States to the people of the United States, whose servant, under the duties and responsibilities of the Constitution of the United States, the President of the United States is, and should always re main, this respondent had and has the full right, and in his office of President of the United States is held to the high duty of forming, and, on fit occasions, expressing, opinions of and concerning the legislation of Congress, proposed or completed, in respect of its wisdom, expediency, justice. worthiness, objects, purposes, and public
And this respondent says that neither the said tenth article nor any specification thereof, nor any allegation therein contained, touches or relates to any official act or doing of this respondent in the office of President of the United States or in the discharge of any of its constitu
said article and the specifications and allegations thereof, wholly and in every part thereof, question only the discretion or propriety of freedom of opinion or freedom of speech as exercised by this respondent as a citizen of the United States in his personal right and capacity, and without allegation or imputation against this respondent of the violation of any law of the United States touching or relating to freedom of speech or its exercise by the citizens of the United States or by this respondent as one of the said citizens or otherwise; and he denies that, by reason of any matter in said article or its specifications alleged, he has said or done anything indecent or unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, or that he has brought the high office of the President of the United States into contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, or that he has committed or has been guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.
ANSWER TO ARTICLE XI.
of Secretary for the Department of War; or by unlawfully devising or contriving, or attempting to devise or contrive, means to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of the army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes," approved March 2, 1867, or to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States," passed March 2, 1867.
And this respondent, further answering the said eleventh article, says that he has, in his answer to the first article, set forth in detail the acts, steps, and proceedings done and taken by this respondent to and toward or in the matter of the suspension or removal of the said Edwin M. Stanton in or from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, with the times, modes, circumstances, intents, views, purposes, and opinions of official obligation and duty under and with which such acts, steps, and proceedings were done and taken; and he makes answer to this eleventh article of the matters in his answer to the first article, pertaining to the suspension or removal of said Edwin M. Stanton, to the same intent and effect as if they were here repeated and set forth.
And in answer to the eleventh article, this respondent denies that on the 18th day of August, in the year 1866, at the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, he did, by public speech or otherwise, declare or affirm, in substance or at all, that the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States was not a Congress of the United States authorized by the Constitution to exercise legislative power under the same, or that he did then and there declare or affirm that the said Thirty-Ninth Congress was a Congress of only part of the States in any sense or meaning other than that ten States of the Union were denied representation therein; or that he made any or either of the declarations or affirmations in this behalf, in the said article alleged, as denying or intending to deny that the legislation of said Thirty-Ninth Congress was valid or obligatory upon this respondent, except so far as this respondent saw fit to approve the same; and as to the allegation in said article, that he did thereby intend or mean to be understood that the said Congress had not power to propose amendments to the Constitution, this respondent says that in said address he said nothing in reference to the subject of amendments of the Constitution, nor was the question of the competency of the said Congress to propose such amendments, without the participation of said excluded States, at the time of said address, in any way mentioned or considered or referred to by this respondent, nor in what be did say had he any intent regarding the same, and he denies the allegation so made to the contrary thereof. And this respondent, further answering the But this respondent, in further answer to, and said eleventh article, says that the same and the in respect of the said allegations of the said matters therein contained do not charge or eleventh article herein before traversed and de- allege the commission of any act whatever by nied, claims and insists upon his personal and this respondent, in his office of President of the official right of freedom of opinion and freedom United States, nor the omission by this respondof speech, and his duty in his political relations ent of any act of official obligation or duty in as President of the United States to the people his office of President of the United States; nor of the United States in the exercise of such does the said article nor the matters therein confreedom of opinion and freedom of speech, in tained name, designate, describe, or define any the same manner, form, and effect as he has in act or mode or form of attempt, device, conthis behalf stated the same in his answer to the trivance, or means, or of attempt at device, consaid tenth article, and with the same effect as if trivance or means, whereby this respondent can he here repeated the same; and he further claims know or understand what act or mode or form and insists, as in said answer to said tenth article of attempt, device, contrivance or means, or of he has claimed and insisted, that he is not sub- attempt at device, contrivance, or means, are ject to question, inquisition, impeachment, or in- imputed to or charged against this respondent, culpation, in any form or manner, of or concern-in his office of President of the United States, ing such rights of freedom of opinion of freedom of speech or his said alleged exercise thereof.
And this respondent further denies that on the 21st of February, in the year 1868, or at any other time, at the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, in pursuance of any such declaration as is in that behalf in said eleventh article alleged, or otherwise, he did unlawfully, and in disregard of the requirement of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws should be faithfully executed, attempt to preVelt the execution of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," pas ed March 2, 1867, by unlawfully devising or contriving, or attempting to devise or contrive, means by which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the functions
And this respondent, further answering the said eleventh article, denies that by means or reason of anything in said article alleged, this respondent, as President of the United States, did, on the 21st day of February, 1868, or at any other day or time, commit, or that he was guilty of, a high misdemeanor in office.
or intended so to be, or whereby this respondent can more fully or definitely make answer unto the said article than he hereby does.
And this respondent, in submitting to this honorable court this his answer to the Articles of Impeachment exhibited against him, respectfully reserves leave to amend and add to the same from time to time, as may become necessary or proper, and when and as such necessity and propriety shall appear.
Same day-The President's counsel asked for April 22-Argument begun, and continued on thirty days for preparation before the trial shall April 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, May 1, 2, 4, 5, proceed; which was debated and disagreed to- and 6. yeas 12, nays 41. May 7 and 11 spent in determining rules, March 24-The Managers presented the rep-form of question, &c. May 12, adjourned in lication adopted-yeas 116. nays 36-by the consequence of the sickness of Senator Howard, House of Representatives, as follows: till May 16.
IN THE HOUSE OF Representatives, UNITED STATES, March 24, 1868. Replication by the House of Representatives of the Unitel Stutes to the answer of Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, to the Articles of Impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives of the United States have considered the several answers of Audrew Johnson, President of the United States, to the several articles of impeachment against him by them exhibited in the name of themselves and of all the people of the United States, and reserving to themselves all advantage of exception to the insufficiency of his answer to each and all of the several articles of impeachment exhibited against said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do deny each and every averment in said several answers, or either of them, which denies or traverses the acts, intents, crimes, or misdemeanors charged against said Andrew Johnson in the said articles of impeachment, or either of them; and for replication to said answer do say that said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, is guilty of the high crimes and
misdemeanors mentioned in said articles, and that the
House of Representatives are ready to prove the same.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Clerk of the House of Representatives. Same day-An order was adopted, finally without a division, that the Senate will commence the trial on the 30th inst., and proceed with all convenient despatch.
March 30-Opening argument by Mr. Butler, one of the Managers, and some testimony introduced.
March 31, April 1, 2, 3, and 4, the testimony for the prosecution continued, and the case on the part of the House substantially closed. Adjourned till April 9, at the request of the President's counsel.
April 9 and 10-Occupied by Judge Curtis's opening argument for the defence, and in presenting testimony.
April 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, testimony presented.
The Judgment of the Senate.
May 16-By a vote of 34 to 19, it was ordered that the question on the eleventh article be taken first. [For Article XI, see page 10.]
The vote was 35 "guilty," 19 "not guilty," as follow:
GUILTY Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermout, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy. Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart,umner. Thayer, Tipton, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, Yates-35.
NOT GUILTY-Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dizon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers-19.
May 26-The second and third articles were voted upon, with the same result as on the eleventh GUILTY 35; NOT GUILTY, 19.
A motion that the court do now adjourn sine die was then carried-yeas 34, nays 16, as follow:
Conkling. Corbett, Cragin, Drake. Edmunds, Ferry, Freling YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, huysen, Harlan, Howard, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner,
Thayer, Tipton, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, Yates-34.
NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dizon, DooNorion. Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury, Trumlittle, Fowler, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, bull, Vickers-16.
NOT VOTING-Conness, Fessenden, Grimes, Howe-4.
Judgment of acquittal was then entered by the Chief Justice on the three articles voted upon, and the Senate sitting as a court for the trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, upon Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives, was declared adjourned without day.
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN GEN. GRANT AND PRESIDENT JOHNSON,
GROWING OUT OF SECRETARY STANTON'S SUSPENSION.
WASHINGTON CITY, February 4, 1868. SIR: In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 3d instant, I transmit herewith copies furnished me by General Grant of correspondence between him and the President, relating to the Secretary of War, and which he reports to be all the correspondence he has bad with the President on the subject.
I have had no correspondence with the Presi dent since the 12th of August last. After the
action of the Senate on his alleged reason for my suspension from the office of Secretary of War, I resumed the duties of that office as required by the act of Congress, and have continued to discharge them without any personal or written communication with the President. No orders have been issued from this department in the name of the President, with my krowledge, and I have received no orders from him.
The correspondence sent herewith einbraces all the correspondence known to me on the subiect
referred to in the resolution of the House of Representatives.
I have the honor to be, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant, EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War.
Hon. SCHUYLER COLFAX,
1.-GENERAL GRANT TO THE PRESIDENT. HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES,
WASHINGTON, January 24, 1868. SIR: I have the honor, very respectfully, to request to have, in writing, the order which the President gave me verbally on Sunday, the 19th instant, to disregard the orders of the Hon. E. M. Stanton, as Secretary of War, until I knew, from the President himself, that they were his orders. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your Ú. S. GRANT,
His Excellency A. JOHNSON,
2. GENERAL GRANT TO THE PRESIDENT.
general principle, and if I should change my mind in this particular case would inform him of the fact.
Subsequently, on reading the tenure of office bll closely, I found that I could not, without violation of the law, refuse to vacate the office of Secretary of War the moment Mr. Stanton was reinstated by the Senate, even though the President should order me to retain it, which he never did.
Taking this view of the subject, and learning on Saturday, the 11th instant, that the Senate had taken up the subject of Mr. Stanton's suspension, after some conversation with Lieutenant in which I stated that the law left me no disGeneral Sherman and some members of my staff, cretion as to my action, should Mr. Stanton be reinstated, and that I intended to inform the President, I went to the President for the sole purpose of making this decision known, and did so make it known.
In doing this I fulfilled the promise made in our last preceding conversation on the subject.
The President, however, instead of accepting my view of the requirements of the tenure of HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES, office bill, contended that he had suspended Mr. WASHINGTON, D. C., January 28, 1868. Stanton under the authority given by the ConSIR: On the 24th instant, I requested you to stitution, and that the same authority did not give me in writing the instructions which you preclude him from reporting, as an act of courthad previously given me verbally, not to obey esy, his reasons for the suspension to the Senate. any order from Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary That, having appointed me under the authority of War, unless I knew that it came from yourself. given by the Constitution, and not under any To this written request I received a message act of Congress, I could not be governed by the that has left doubt in my mind of your inten- act. I stated that the law was binding on me, tions. To prevent any possible misunderstand constitutional or not. until set aside by the ing, therefore, I renew the request that you will proper tribunal. An hour or more was congive me written instructions, and, till they are re-sumed, each reiterating his views on this subject, ceived, will suspend action on your verbal ones. until, getting late, the President said he would I am compelled to ask these instructions in see me again. writing, in consequence of the many and gross nisrepresentations affecting my personal honor, circulated through the press for the last fortnight, purporting to come from the President, of conversations which occurred either with the President privately in his office, or in cabinet meeting. What is written admits of no misun-position, namely, that if the Senate refused to derstanding.
In view of the misrepresentations referred to, it will be well to state the facts in the case.
Some time after I assumed the duties of Secretary of War ad interim, the President asked me my views as to the course Mr. Stanton would have to pursue, in case the Senate should not concur in his suspension, to obtain possession of his office. My reply was, in substance, that Mr. Stanton would have to appeal to the courts to reinstate him, illustrating my position by citing the ground I had taken in the case of the Balti more police commissioners.
In that case I did not doubt the technical right of Governor Swann to remove the old commissioners and to appoint their successors. the old commissioners refused to give up, how ever, I contended that no resource was left but to appeal to the courts.
Finding that the President was desirous of keeping Mr. Stanton out of office, whether sustained in the suspension or not, I stated that I had not looked particularly into the tenure of office bill, but that what I had stated was a
I did not agree to call again on Monday, nor at any other definite time, nor was I sent for by the President until the following Tuesday.
From the 11th to the cabinet meeting on the 14th instant, a doubt never entered my mind about the President's fully understanding my
concur in the suspension of Mr. Stanton, my powers as Secretary of War ad interim would cease, and Mr. Stanton's right to resume at once the functions of his office would under the law be indisputable, and I acted accordingly. With Mr. Stanton I had no communication, direct nor indirect, on the subject of his reinstatement, during his suspension.
I knew it had been recommended to the President to send in the name of Governor Cox, of Ohio, for Secretary of War, and thus save all embarrassment a proposition that I sincerely hoped he would entertain favorably; General Sherman seeing the President at my particular request to urge this, on the 13th instant.
On Tuesday, (the day Mr. Stanton re-entered the office of the Secretary of War.) General Comstock, who had carried my official letter announcing that, with Mr. Stanton's reinstatement by the Senate, I had ceased to be Secretary of War ad interim, and who saw the President open and read the communication, brought back to me from the President a message that he wanted to see me that day at the cabinet meet