352 



IMPEACHMENT. 



IMPEACHMENT. Proceedings of the Senate 

 sitting for the trial of ANDKEW JOHNSON, 

 President of the United States, on Articles 

 of Impeachment exhibited l>y the House of 

 Representatives. 



ON Monday, February the 24th, 1868, the 

 House of Eepresentatives of the Congress of 

 the United States resolved to impeach Andrew 

 Johnson, President of the United States, of 

 high crimes and misdemeanors, of which the 

 Senate was apprised, and arrangements were 

 made for the trial. On Monday, the 3d of 

 March, articles of impeachment were agreed 

 upon by the House of Eepresentatives, and on 

 the 4th the following letter of Chief-Justice 

 Chase was presented to the Senate : 



To the Senate of the United States : 



Inasmuch as the sole power to try by impeachment 

 is vested by the Constitution in the Senate, and it is 

 made the duty of the Chief Justice to preside when 

 the President is on trial, I take the liberty of sub- 

 mitting, very respectfully, some observations in re- 

 spect to the proper mode of proceeding upon the im- 

 peachment which has been preferred by the House 

 of Eepresentatives against the President now in office. 

 That, when the Senate sits for the trial of an impeach- 

 ment, it sits as a court, seems unquestionable : that 

 for the trial of an impeachment of the President this 

 court must be constituted of the members of the 

 Senate, with the Chief Justice presiding, seems 

 equally unquestionable. The "Federalist" is re- 

 garded as the highest contemporary authority in tho 

 construction of the Constitution ; and in the sixty- 

 fourth number the functions of the Senate, sitting in 

 their judicial capacity as a court, for the trial of an 

 impeachment, are examined. 



In a paragraph explaining the reasons for uniting 

 the Supreme Court with the Senate in the formation 

 of the court of impeachment, it is observed that, to a 

 certain extent, the benefits of that union will be ob- 

 tained from making the Chief Justice of the Supreme 

 Court the president of the court of impeachment, as 

 is proposed in the plan of the convention ; while the 

 inconveniences of an entire incorporation of the for- 

 mer into the latter will thus be substantially avoided. 

 This was perhaps the prudent measure. This au- 

 thority seems to leave no doubt upon either of the 

 propositions just stated ; and a statement of them 

 will serve to introduce the question, upon which I 

 think it my duty to state the result of my reflections 

 to the Senate ; namely, at what period, in the case of 

 the impeachment of the President, should the court 

 of impeachment be organized, under oath, as directed 

 in the Constitution ? 



It will readily suggest itself to any one who re- 

 flects on the abilities and learning in the law which 

 distinguished so many of the Senators, besides the 

 reason assigned in the "Federalist," that there must 

 have been still another for the provision requiring 

 the Chief Justice to preside in the court of impeach- 

 ment. Under the Constitution, in the case of a va- 

 cancy in the office of President, the Vice-President 

 succeeds ; and it was doubtless thought prudent and 

 befitting that the next in succession "should not pre- 

 side in a proceeding through which a vacancy might 

 be created. It _was not doubted that the Senate, 

 while sitting in its ordinary capacity, must necessa- 

 rily receive from the House of Representatives some 

 notice of its intention to impeach the President at its 

 bar ; and it does not seem to me an unwarrantable 

 opinion, in view of this constitutional provision, that 

 the organization of the Senate, as a court of impeach- 

 ment under the Constitution, should precede the 

 actual announcement of the impeachment on the part 

 of the House, and it may be thought a still less un- 

 warrantable opinion that articles of impeachment 



should only be presented to a court of impeachment, 

 that no summons or other process should issue ex- 

 cept from the organized court, and that the rules for 

 the government of the proceedings of such a court 

 should be framed only by the court itself. 



I have found myself unable to come to any other 

 conclusions than these. I can assign no reason for re- 

 quiring the Senate to organize a court under any other 

 than its ordinary presiding officer for the latter pro- 

 cedings upon an impeachment of the President, which 

 does not seem to me to apply equally to the earlier. 

 I am informed that the Senate nas proceeded upon 

 other views, and it is not my purpose to contest what 

 its superior wisdom may have directed. All good cit- 

 izens will fervently pray that no occasion may ever 

 arise when the grave proceedings now in progress will 

 be cited as a precedent. But it is not impossible that 

 such an occasion may come. 



Inasmuch, therefore, as the Constitution has charged 

 the Chief Justice with an important function in 

 the trial of an impeachment of the President, it has 

 seemed to me fitting and obligatory, when he is un- 

 able to concur in the views of the Senate concerning 

 matters essential to the trial, that his respectful dis- 

 sent should appear. S. P. CHASE, 



Chief Justice of the United States. 



On the 5th the articles of impeachment were 

 presented to the Senate by the managers on 

 the part of the House, who were accompanied 

 by the House, the grand inquest of the nation, 

 as a Committee of the Whole on the state of 

 the Union. Mr. Bingham, chairman of the 

 managers, read the articles as follows : 



Articles exhibited by the House of Representatives of tM 

 United States, in the name of themselves and ail the 

 people of the United States, against ANDREW JOHNSON, 

 President of the United States, in maintenance and sup- 

 port of their impeachment against him for high crimes 

 and misdemeanors. 



ABTIOLE I. 



That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United 

 States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of 

 our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of X3o- 

 lumbia, unmindful of the nigh duties of his office, of 

 his oath of office, and of the requirement of the Con- 

 stitution that he should take care that the laws be 

 faithfully executed, did unlawfully and in violation 

 of the Constitution and laws of the United States 

 issue an order in writing for the removal of Edwin M. 

 Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Depart- 

 ment of War, said Edwin M. Stanton having been 

 theretofore duly appointed and commissioned, by and 

 with the advice and consent of the Senate of the 

 United States, as such Secretary, and said Andrew 

 Johnson, President of the United States, on the 12th 

 day of August, in the year of our Lord 1867, and during 

 the recess of said Senate, having suspended by his 

 order Edwin M. Stanton from said office, and within 

 twenty days after the first day of the next meeting of 

 said Senate, that is to say, on the 12th day of Decem- 

 ber, in the year last aforesaid, having reported to 

 said Senate such suspension, with the evidence and 

 reasons for his action in the case and the name of the 

 person designated to perform the duties of such office 

 temporarily until the next meeting of the Senate, and 

 said Senate thereafterward, on the 13th day of Jan- 

 uary, in the year of our Lord 1868, having duly con- 

 sidered the evidence and reasons reported by said 

 Andrew Johnson for said suspension, and "having re- 

 fused to concu* in said suspension, whereby and by 

 force of the provisions of an act entitled "An act 

 regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed 

 March 2, 1867, said Edwin M. Stanton did forthwith 

 resume the functions of his office, whereof the said 

 Andrew Johnson had then and there due notice, and 

 said Edwin M. Stanton, by reason of the premises, 

 on said 21st day of February, being lawfully entitled 

 to hold said office as Secretary for the Department of 



