130 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



the floor. Before the gentleman proceeds with 

 his remarks, the Chair desires to make an an- 

 nouncement to the House and the spectators in 

 the gallery. 



"In view of the disorderly manifestations 

 made last week when the report of the com- 

 mittee on this subject was presented, the Chair 

 desires now to say that if such demonstrations 

 be repeated in the galleries he shall order them 

 to he cleared, although he knows that thereby 

 the innocent will suffer with the guilty. He is 

 determined that the order of this House shall 

 be maintained, and a proper respect be paid to 

 this body by those who are allowed to witness 

 its deliberations. If, therefore, any manifesta- 

 tion of approbation or disapprobation be made 

 in the galleries, the Chair will order to be 

 cleared that part where it occurs, or the whole 

 of the galleries. And the Chair will state fur- 

 ther, that if, as was the case last week, mem- 

 bers upon the floor indulge in manifestations of 

 approval or disapproval, either during the de- 

 bate or its termination, however the question 

 may be decided, the Chair, if he can ascertain 

 what gentlemen are guilty of such violation of 

 the rules, will state their names to the House, 

 the effect of which will be to bring the mat- 

 ter before the House for such action as it may 

 see fit to adopt in view of the contempt of its 

 rules." 



Mr. Bout well, of Massachusetts, from the 

 majority of the committee, urged the adoption 

 of the resolution, saying: "If the position I 

 have taken is sound, that the meaning of the 

 phrase ' high crimes and misdemeanors ' is to 

 be ascertained by reference to the principles 

 of the English common law of crimes, Black- 

 stone's definition, 'that a crime or misdemeanor 

 is an act committed or omitted in violation of 

 a public law either forbidding or commanding 

 it,' becomes important. I stand upon this defi- 

 nition of the great writer upon English law as 

 the connecting link between the theory of the 

 law that I maintain and the facts which in this 

 case are proved. 



" It is to be observed in connection with 

 Blackstone's definition that in our system the 

 Constitution and the statutes are the ' public 

 law ' of which he speaks, and any act done by 

 the President which is forbidden by the law or 

 "by the Constitution, or the omission by him to 

 do what is by the law or the Constitution com- 

 manded, is a ' high crime and misdemeanor,' 

 and renders him liable to impeachment and 

 removal from office. 



" He is amenable to the House and the Sen- 

 ate in accordance with the great principles of 

 public law of which the Constitution of the 

 United States is the foundation. And it is true, 

 in a higher and better sense than it is true of 

 the statutes, that the President of the United 

 States is bound to. support the Constitution, 

 the vital part of which, in reference to the pub- 

 lic affairs of the country, is that he shall take 

 care that the laws be faithfully executed, and 

 lie violates that great provision of the Consti- 



tution, especially when he himself disregards 

 the law either by doing that which is forbid- 

 den or neglecting that which he is commanded 

 to do. 



" Sir, in approaching the discussion of the 

 transactions of which we complain, I labor un- 

 der great difficulties, such as are incident to 

 the case. The President has in his hands the 

 immense patronage of the Government. Its 

 influence is all-pervading. The country was 

 disappointed, no doubt, in the report of the 

 committee, and very likely this House partici- 

 pated in the disappointment, that there was no 

 specific, heinous, novel offence charged upon 

 and proved against the President of the United 

 States. It is in the very nature of the case 

 that no such heinous offence could be proved. 

 If we understand the teachings of the succes- 

 sive acts which are developed in the voluminous 

 report of the testimony, and if we understand 

 the facts which are there developed, they all 

 point to one conclusion, and that is that the 

 offence with which the President is charged, 

 and of which I believe by history he will ulti- 

 mately be convicted, is that he used as he had 

 the opportunity, and misused as necessity and 

 circumstances dictated, the great powers of 

 the nation with which he was intrusted, for 

 the purpose of reconstructing this Government 

 in the interest of the rebellion, so that hence- 

 forth this Union, in its legitimate connection, 

 in its relations, in its powers, in its historical 

 character, should be merely the continuation 

 of the Government which was organized at 

 Montgomery and transferred to Kichmond. 



" 1^ sir, this statement unfolds the nature of 

 the case, there would not be found any partic- 

 ular specific act which would disclose the whole 

 of the transaction. It was only by a series of 

 acts, by a succession of events, by participation 

 direct or indirect in numerous transactions, 

 some of them open and some of them secret, 

 that this great scheme was carried on and far 

 on toward its final consummation. Hence it 

 happens that when we present a particular 

 charge, it is one which for a long time has been 

 before the public. The country has heard of it 

 again and again. Men do not see in that par- 

 ticular offence any great enormity. Then we 

 are told that this particular act was advised by 

 this Cabinet officer, and that act assented to 

 another Cabinet officer. This matter was dis- 

 cussed in Cabinet meeting, the other was con- 

 sidered in a side-chamber, and therefore the 

 President is not alone responsible for any thing 

 that has been done. But, sir, I assert that 

 whoever else may be responsible with him, he 

 is responsible for himself. Any other theory 

 is destructive to public liberty. We under- 

 stand the relations which subsisted between 

 the President and his Cabinet officers. The 

 tenure-of-office act gave the latter a degree of 

 independence. But, whatever were the sub- 

 sisting relations, the President cannot shield 

 himself by their counsel, and claim immunity 

 for open, known, and wilful violations of the 



