CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



135 



directed our attention, for, after all, upon these 

 must depend mainly the termination of this 

 case. The first things to which the gentleman 

 refers us are the acts of the President having 

 reference to the reconstruction of the rebel 

 States. 



" He excuses to some extent some of the ad- 

 visers of the President on the ground that they, 

 at the inauguration of the executive plan of 

 reconstruction, did not understand his motives 

 nor comprehend his wicked designs. How did 

 the plan originate and by whom was it prepared ? 

 The North Carolina proclamation, which was 

 followed in every other case, seems mainly to 

 have been the work of Mr. Stanton, and I am 

 sure we will not question his patriotism. The 

 President certainly did not use him as an instru- 

 ment to carry out his wicked designs. He 

 could not use him for any such purpose. But 

 it is said that the President's real motive was 

 to turn over the power of the Government to 

 the possession of the rebels who had made war 

 upon it, and that this was not discovered until 

 his first annual message was communicated to 

 Congress in December, 1865, when the motive 

 was disclosed and the plot became apparent. 

 Soon after this message had been delivered to 

 Congress, the contest between the executive 

 and legislative departments of the Govern- 

 ment commenced. Presidential vetoes came 

 in upon us. The Freedmen's Bureau Bill and 

 the Civil Eights Bill fell under his hand. The 

 notorious presidential speech of the 22d of 

 February, 1866, proclaimed the breach between 

 us and the President irreparable. The official 

 heads of our friends fell into the Executive 

 basket with astonishing rapidity. We were 

 outraged by this conduct of the man who had 

 been elevated to power by our votes. We 

 appealed to a deceived people, and they sus- 

 tained us, as, I doubt not, they will continue 

 to do. 



" More than six months after the date when 

 the gentleman from Massachusetts says he 

 discovered the real motive and criminal design 

 of the President in this matter of reconstruc- 

 tion, the report of the joint committee which 

 had been charged with that subject was made 

 to the two Houses of Congress. This report 

 was made on the 18th day of June, 1866, and 

 in it our agents told us of the wretched results 

 of the President's policy. They had carefully 

 surveyed the entire field, but gave us no notice 

 of the motive and design of the President, 

 which my friend from Massachusetts has just 

 told us he had discovered in December, 1865. 

 On the contrary, they said in that report : 



While your committee do not for a moment impute 

 to the President any such design [to destroy the 

 constitutional form of Government, and absorb its 

 powers in the Executive], but cheerfully concede to 

 him the most patriotic motives, they cannot but look 

 with alarm upon a precedent so fraught with danger 

 to the Kepublic. 



" And to that report the name of my friend 

 from Massachusetts is signed. This was months 



after the December discovery, and in the midst 

 of the bitter political contest which resulted 

 from the President's unjustifiable desertion of 

 the party which had trusted him and elevated 

 him to the second office in the Government. 



" Sir, I am not here to defend the President. 

 He must be a bold man who will undertake 

 that task. I have not boldness sufficient for 

 it, even if I had the inclination, which in the 

 remotest degree does not exist in my mind ; for 

 I believe him to be the worst of the Presidents. 

 But it does seem strange to me that any mem- 

 ber of that able, thorough, pertinacious Com- 

 mittee on Reconstruction should now demand 

 an impeachment of the President for doing the 

 acts which they reported to us he had done 

 from patriotic motives. Such motives, if they 

 did exist, will not support an allegation o'f 

 criminal intent. 



" It is affirmed that the testimony of Stan- 

 ley Mathews discloses that the President, from 

 the very date of his first association with the 

 Republican party, designed treachery. The 

 testimony of this witness and that of Hon. 

 Jeremiah S. Black show that the President 

 never was in earnest accord with the Republi- 

 can party. This will account for much of his 

 strange and reprehensible conduct. But it does 

 not establish a crime. It discloses a trait of 

 character bad almost beyond precedent, and 

 shows how cautious political parties should be 

 in selecting candidates for official positions. 

 We committed a terrible blunder, not to say a 

 political crime, when we selected Andrew 

 Johnson as our candidate for the vice-presi- 

 dential office. We trusted too much to his oft- 

 repeated utterances of devotion to the pro- 

 gressive principles of the Republican organi- 

 zation, and unfortunately forgot, for the time 

 being, his antecedents as a public man, and 

 the influences and associations which had 

 moulded his character, and would be likely, to 

 direct his action as a public officer. His 

 offences in this regard, sad and grave as they 

 are, must be tried by the suffrages of the peo- 

 ple, and not on impeachment before the Senate. 



" The next grand charge which is advanced in 

 support of the demand for an impeachment of 

 the President, is the surrender of property of 

 which the Government and its agents held 

 possession. In this charge the surrender of 

 railroads in the insurgent States occupies a con- 

 spicuous position. But the policy which led 

 to this did not originate with the President. 

 Secretary Stanton's testimony shows that with 

 himself and the Quartermaster-General this 

 policy originated. He regarded his action in 

 the premises as in consonance with the re- 

 quirements of a great public policy, which 

 demanded the opening of these great channels 

 of commerce to the trade and business of the 

 country, as tending to a renewal of prosperity 

 and as an effective means of reconstruction." 



Mr. Dawes : " And stands by it now," 



Mr. Wilson, of Iowa: "Yes, sir so far as 

 I have any information adheres to it yet.. 



