CONGRESS, 'UNITED STATES. 



143 



while not only warring with, each other, but 

 while the one has not only a spy, a common 

 informer, in the confidential counsels of the 

 other, hut a known and determined enemy, 

 holding his position against his own pro- 

 nounced convictions of constitutional right and 

 duty?" 



Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, said: "Mr. 

 Speaker, I agree with those gentlemen who 

 have gone before me, that this is a grave sub- 

 ject and should be gravely treated. It is im- 

 portant to the high official who is the subject 

 of these charges, and it is important to a na- 

 tion of forty million people, now free, and 

 rapidly increasing to hundreds of millions. 

 The official character of the Chief Executive 

 of this great nation being thus involved, the 

 charge, if falsely made, is a cruel wrong ; if, 

 on the other hand, the usurpations and misde- 

 meanors charged against him are true, he is 

 guilty of as atrocious attempts to usurp the 

 liberty and destroy the happiness of this nation 

 as were ever perpetrated by the most detestable 

 tyrant who ever oppressed his fellow-men. 

 Let us, therefore, discuss these questions in no 

 partisan spirit, but with legal accuracy and 

 impartial justice. The people desire no vic- 

 tim, and they will endure no usurper. 



"The charges, so far as I shall discuss them, 

 are few and distinct. Andrew Johnson is 

 charged with attempting to usurp the powers 

 of other branches of the Government; with 

 attempting to obstruct and resist the execu- 

 tion of the law ; with misprision of bribery ; 

 and with the open violation of laws which de- 

 clare his acts misdemeanors and subject him 

 to fine and imprisonment; and with removing 

 from office the Secretary of War during the 

 session of the Senate without the advice or 

 consent of the Senate ; and with violating the 

 sixth section of the act entitled ' An act regu- 

 lating the tenure of certain civil offices.' 

 There are other offences charged in the papers 

 referred to the committee, which I may con- 

 sider more by themselves. 



"In order to sustain impeachment under our 

 Constitution I do not hold that it is necessary 

 to prove a crime as an indictable offence, or 

 any act malum in se. I agree with the distin- 

 guished gentleman from Pennsylvania, on the 

 other side of the House, who holds this to be 

 a purely political proceeding. It is intended 

 as a remedy for malfeasance in office, and to 

 prevent the continuance thereof. Beyond that, 

 it is not intended as a personal punishment 

 for past offences or for future example. 



" What, then, are the official misdemeanors 

 of Andrew Johnson disclosed by the evidence? 

 On the 2d day of March, 1867, Congress passed 

 an act entitled 'An act regulating the tenure 

 of certain civil offices.' Among other provi- 

 sions it enacted that no officer who had been 

 appointed by and with the advice and consent 

 of the Senate should be removed from office 

 without the consent of the Senate, and that, if 

 during vacation a suspension should be made 



for cause, such cause should be reported to the 

 Senate within twenty days after their next meet- 

 ing. If the Senate should deem the reason of 

 the suspension sufficient, then the officer should 

 be removed and another appointed in his 

 stead ; but if the Senate should refuse to con- 

 cur with the President, and declare the reasons 

 insufficient, then the officer suspended should 

 forthwith resume the functions of his office and 

 the powers of the person performing its duties 

 should cease. It is especially provided that 

 the Secretary of War shall hold his office dur- 

 ing the term of the President by whom he may 

 have been appointed, and for one month there- 

 after, unless removed by and with the consent 

 of the Senate as aforesaid. On the 12th day 

 of August, 1867, during the recess of the Sen- 

 ate, the President removed the Secretary of 

 War, whose term of office had not expired, 

 requiring him to surrender the office with the 

 public property, and appointed General U. S. 

 Grant Secretary of War ad interim. 



"When Andrew Johnson assumed the office 

 of President, he took the oath to obey the Con- 

 stitution of the United States and to take care 

 that the laws be faithfully executed. This was 

 a solemn and enduring obligation, nor can he 

 plead exemption from it on account of his con- 

 dition at the time it was administered to him. 

 An attempt to obstruct the execution of the 

 law, not a mere omission amounting to negli- 

 gence which would have been a misdemeanor, 

 but a daring and bold conspiracy was attempted 

 by him to induce the General of the Army to 

 aid him in defeating the operation o this law ; 

 and, when he had suspended the Secretary of 

 War, he appointed General Grant Secretary ad 

 interim, with the avowed purpose of preventing 

 the operation of that law, if the Senate should 

 decide in favor of the Secretary ; and he says 

 that the General did enter into such conspiracy 

 to aid him in obstructing the return of the re- 

 jected Secretary, notwithstanding the Senate 

 might decide in his favor. This is denied by 

 the General, and a question of veracity, rather 

 angrily discussed, has arisen between them. 

 Those gentlemen seem to consider that that 

 question is one of importance to the public. In 

 this they are mistaken. Which is the man of 

 truth, and which the man of falsehood, is of no 

 more public importance than if it arose between 

 two obscure individuals. If Andrew Johnson 

 tells the truth, then he is guilty of a high official 

 misdemeanor, for he avows his effort to pre- 

 vent the execution of the law. If the General 

 commanding tells the truth, then the President 

 is guilty of a high misdemeanor, for he declares 

 the same thing of the President, denying only 

 his own complicity. No argument can make 

 this point plainer than the statement of the 

 culprit. If he and the General told the truth, 

 then he committed wilful perjury by refusing 

 to take care that the laws should be duly exe- 

 cuted. 



" To show the animus and guilty knowledge 

 with which this law was violated, we have only 



