history of the impeachment of andrew johnson-第15部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


　to　the　rebel　cause？

AnswerNo。　I　did　not　have　that　opinion　of　the　letter　exactly。　From　what　I　recollect　of　it；　the　thing　was　that　he　was　making　a　proposition　making　suggestions　as　to　what　their　policy　should　be。

Ques。And　if　they　accepted　it？

Ans。If　they　accepted　it；　my　impression　was　that　he　was　going　with　them。

Ques。With　the　rebels？

Ans。Yes　sir。

Question　by　the　Chairman。If　there　are　any　other　letters　that　you　have　seen　of　Mr。　Johnson's　written　by　him　to　any　person　connected　with　the　Confederate　Government；　or　proposing　to　change　the　Administration　of　the　Government　in　their　favor　after　he　became　President；　or　anything　of　a　public　nature　affecting　the　interests　of　the　United　States；　please　state　it　and　state　all　you　know　about　such　letters。

Ans。I　do　not　know　of　any　letters　of　that　characteror　of　any　other　letters。

This　constituted　the　substance　of　Gen。　Baker's　testimony。　His　examination　was　very　lengthy；　embracing　more　of　this　character　of　testimony；　and　about　pardon　brokerage；　and　other　alleged　corrupt　practicesall　evidencing　a　determination　and　expectation　to　fix　upon　Mr。　Johnson　a　disposition　to　disloyalty　and　corruption；　both　before　and　after　his　succession　to　the　Presidency；　but　no　such　testimony　was　obtained。

A　considerable　portion　of　the　investigation　was　devoted　to　Mr。　Johnson's　business　and　personal　affairs；　such　as　could　have　no　possible　connection　with　or　indicate　implication　in　corrupt　or　disloyal　practices　of　any　sort。

A　strenuous　effort　appears　to　have　been　made　by　the　Committee　throughout　a　long　and　searching　examination　of　witnesses；　and　constitutes　a　conspicuous　feature　of　that　investigation；　to　establish　the　charges　of　corruption　and　disloyalty　in　the　sale　of　public　property；　railways；　etc。；　that　had　been　constructed　and　equipped；　or　seized　and　operated；　by　the　Government　in　connection　with　its　military　operations　in　the　South。　Such　an　accusation　had　been　made　with　great　pertinacity　by　Mr。　Johnson's　opponents；　and　was　also　then　believed　by　a　great　many　people　to　be　true。

Among　the　parties　examined　by　the　committee；　were　Mr。　James　and　Mr。　Burns；　of　Nashville；　Tenn。；　and　Senator　Fowler；　of　that　State；　and　also　the　Secretary　of　war；　Mr。　Stanton。　No　facts　whatever　were　elicited　showing　a　privity　to　corruption　in　these　matters　on　the　part　of　Mr。　Johnson。

The　information　obtained　from　Mr。　Stanton；　however；　put　an　effectual　estoppel　to　further　investigation　of　the　charge　of　corrupt　or　disloyal　disposal　of　public　property　by　the　President。　The　following　are　extracts　from　Mr。　Stanton's　testimony；　as　given　on　February　11；　1867：

Shortly　after　the　surrender　of　the　rebel　armies；　the　attention　of　the　War　Department　was　directed　to　the　proper　disposition　to　be　made　of　the　railroads　and　railroad　stock　throughout　the　rebel　States　which　came　into　our　possession；　either　by　capture　or　construction。　It　was　the　subject　of　a　good　deal　of　consultation　and　conference　between　the　Secretary　of　War　and　the　Quartermaster　General。　It　was　the　opinion　of　the　Secretary　of　War　that　it　was　wholly　impracticable　for　the　General　Government　to　operate　these　roads　under　any　system；　and　that　it　would　be　greatly　to　the　advantage　of　the　country　to　make　such　disposition　as　would　allow　them；　its　speedily　as　possible；　to　become　what　they　were　designed　for　channels　of　commerce　and　trade　between　the　States；　and　that　any　terms　on　which　that　could　be　done　would　be　advantageous。　This　was　especially　the　case　in　regard　to　the　Western　and　Southwestern　roads；　where　it　was　said　there　were　large　amounts　of　cotton　that　would　be　available　to　remove　North；　in　exchange　for　supplies　to　go　South；　of　which　it　was　said　they　were　greatly　in　want。

Ques。In　case　of　the　construction　of　a　railroad　by　the　Government；　the　Government　furnishing　the　material　and　the　labor；　what　has　been　the　custom　of　the　Department　in　surrendering　such　roads　to　the　companies　claiming　them？

Ans。In　all　instances；　I　think　such　roads　have　been　surrendered　in　the　same　manner　as　if　they　had　been　constructed　by　the　companies。　That　subject　was　talked　of　a　good　deal　in　conference　between　myself　and　the　Quartermaster　General。　My　own　views；　that　the　great　object　on　the　part　of　the　Government；　was　to　get　these　roads　operated；　and　that　to　go　into　an　inquiry　as　to　the　cost　of　construction；　would　be　impracticable；　either　as　to　the　cost　of　construction　or　as　to　any　certain　rule　of　compensation；　because　many　of　them　were　constructed　under　the　pressure　of　war；　and　for　temporary　Purposes。　The　object　of　arriving　at　the　cash　value　or　equivalent　for　the　roads　was　not　only　impracticable；　but　really　of　very　little　practical　interest　in　comparison　with　the　great　end　of　having　the　channels　of　commerce　in　the　rebel　states　opened　and　carried　on；　with　a　view　of　getting　out　their　produce；　furnishing　supplies；　and　getting　commerce　in　its　regular　channels。　In　my　own　view；　that　appeared　to　be　the　most；　certain　and　most　speedy　system　of　reconstruction　we　could　adopt；　and　that　it　would　tend　more　to　establish　harmony　than　any　other　thing　that　could　be　done　by　the　Government。　In　view　of　all　this；　and　after　the　most　deliberate　consideration　we　could　give　it；　it　was　the　opinion　of　the　Quartermaster　General　and　myselfcertainly　my　ownthat　it　would　be　impracticable　to　make　any　distinction：　and　so　far　as　I　know；　no　distinction　was　made　in　any　part　of　the　country　in　reference　to　roads　built　by　the　Government　and　roads　that　had　been　constructed　by　Companies　before　the　war　commenced。

Mr。　Stanton　was　asked　this　question：

Suppose　the　Government；　at　his　own　expense；　had　constructed　seventy　miles　of　railroad　in　one　of　the　rebel　States；　and　that；　at　the　close　of　the　war；　a　company　should　apply　to　the　Executive　Department　of　the　Government　for　a　transfer　of　the　road　so　constructed　to　it；　by　what　authority　or　provision　of　law　would　Executive　Department　be　authorized　to　transfer　the　road　so　constructed　to　the　company　making　the　application？

Mr。　Stanton　answered：

I　do　not　know　of　any　act　of　Congress　that　directly；　in　terms；　would　authorize　any　such　transfer；　but　regarding　the　construction　of　the　road；　in　time　of　war；　simply　as　a　means；　or　instrument；　of　carrying　on　war；　when　the　war　was　over　I　would　consider　it　strictly　proven　and　within　the　scope　of　the　power　of　the　General　Commanding；　or　especially　of　the　President　of　the　United　States；　as　the　Commander…in…Chief　of　the　Army；　to　render　that　instrument　as　available　for　peace　purposes　as　possible。　And　inasmuch　as　the　road　would　be　entirely　useless　unless　it　was　operated；　and　it　would　be　for　the　benefit　and　interest　of　the　public；　to　have　it　operated　as　speedily　as　possible；　I　think　it　would　be　in　the　interest　of　a　wise　discretion；　and　exercising　proper　authority；　to　turn　over　that　road　to　any　company　or　individual　who　would　operate　it；　for；　in　that　way；　he　would　be　applying　the　war　material　to　the　only　available　use　to　which　it　could　be　applied。　*　*　*　I　would　regard　the　rolling　stock　as　coming；　to　a　certain　extent；　within　the　same　principle。　*　*　*　No　transfer　of　title　was　at　any　time　made；　so　far　as　I　know；　or　could　be　made；　but　only　possession　turned　over。　When　the　military　use　was　no　longer　required；　the　railroads　were　turned　over　to　their　original　owners；　or　their　representatives；　with　permission　to　use　them。　These　railroads；　their　plant　and　track　fixtures；　real　property；　of　which　the　military　authorities　had　only　the　possessory　right　and　use；　but　the　rolling　stock　and　equipments；　and　iron　not　laid　down；　were　personal　property；　which；　by　capture；　or　purchase；　or　construction；　belonged　to　the　United　States。　Sale　could　be　made；　and　was　made；　of　the　personal　property　at　values　estimated　by　the　proper　officers。　That　which　constituted　real　estate；　to…wit；　the　railroad　track；　fixtures；　etc。；　the　military　authorities　might　abandon　altogether；　or　relinquish　control　and　turn　over　possession　to　those　who　would　make　a　beneficial　use　of　it　by　working　the　road。　Being　in　the　nature　of　real　estate；　no　title　of　the　Government　or　of　other　persons　could　be　divested　and　conveyed　by　military　authority；　but　only　the　control　relinquished　and　the　use　permitted　during　the　existence　of　military　authority　in　the　department　where　the　roads　were　situated。

The　trend　of　a　large　portion　of　the　testimony　of　witnesses　called　by　this　committee　to　testify　as　to　the　charges　preferred　against　Mr。　Johnson　and　relating　to　other　allegations　of　the　indictment；　quite　clearly　indicated　that　the　charges　were　based　solely　upon　common　street　rumor；　invented　and　given　currency　in　partisan　antagonism　and　for　partisan　purposes；　and　that　the　witnesses　were　called　in　the　hope　and　expectation；　on　the　part　of　the　majority　of　the　House；　of　developing　proof　of　disloyalty　and　corruption　on　the　part　of　the　President；　and；　if　not　criminal　connivance；　at　least；　criminal　knowledge　of　a　conspiracy　for　the　assassination　of　Mr。　Lincoln。

But　these　expectations　and　hopes；　in　all　respects；　were　so　utterly　disappointed；　that　there　was　pathos；　at　least；　as　the　investigation　was　protracted　from　month　to　month；　with　no　indication　of　the　hoped　for　development；　in　the　despondent　inquiry　of　Mr。　Thaddeus　Stevens　to　one　of　his　colleagues　of　the　Impeachment　Committee；　as　the　inquest　approached　a　close　without　results〃Well；　HAVE　YOU　GOT　ANYTHING；　ANYHOW？〃　It　was　more　an　ejaculation　of　anger　and　disgust　at　failure；　than　a　query　of　one　seeking　hoped　for　information。



CHAPTER　V。　THE　TENURE…OF…OFFICE　ACT。

ITS　HISTORY　AND　PURPOSETHE　PRESIDENTS　VETO　MESSAGE。

Mr。　Johnson's　alleged　violation　of　the　act　of　Congress　known　as　the　Tenure…of…Office　Act；　constituted　the　ostensible　basis　of　his　impeachment　in　1868。　As　stated；　it　had　been　passed　for　the　purpose　of　restricting　the　power　of　the　President　over　Executive　appointments。　That　Act；　therefore；　becomes　a　very　important　and　conspicuous　incident　in　the　impeachment　affair；　as　its　alleged　violation　constituted　the　only　material　accusation；　set　out　in　various　forms；　in　the　entire　list　of　charges。

The　proceedings　had　on　the　passage　of　that　bill　are　inserted　at　some　length　here；　as　a　technical　knowledge　of　its　history；　character　and　purpose；　is　essential　to　a　correct　apprehension　of　the　controversy　that　had　arisen　between　the　President　and　Congress。

The　Tenure…of…Office　bill　was