history of the impeachment of andrew johnson-第38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！


　Howe；　Morgan；　Morrill　of　Maine；　Morrill　of　Vermont；　Patterson　of　New　Hampshire；　Pomeroy；　Ramsay　Sherman；　Sprague；　Stewart；　Thayer；　Tipton；　Williams；　Wilson；　and　Yates29all　Republicans。

So　this　testimony　was　rejected。

No。　21。

Counsel　for　Defense　offered　to　prove：

That　at　the　meetings　of　the　Cabinet　at　which　Mr。　Stanton　was　present；　held　while　the　tenure…of…civil…office　bill　was　before　the　President　for　approval；　the　advice　of　the　Cabinet　in　regard　to　the　same　was　asked　by　the　President　and　given　by　the　Cabinet；　and　thereupon　the　question　whether　Mr。　Stanton　and　the　other　Secretaries　who　had　received　their　appointment　from　Mr。　Lincoln　were　within　the　restrictions　upon　the　President's　power　of　removal　from　office　created　by　said　act　was　considered；　and　the　opinion　expressed　that　the　Secretaries　appointed　by　Mr。　Lincoln　were　not　within　such　restrictions。

The　yeas　and　nays　were　ordered；　and　the　vote　was：

YeasAnthony；　Bayard；　Buckalew；　Davis；　Dixon；　Doolittle；　Fessenden；　Fowler；　Grimes；　Henderson；　Hendricks；　Johnson；　McCreery；　Patterson　of　Tennessee；　Ross；　Saulsbury；　Sherman；　Sprague；　Trumbull；　Van　Winkle；　Vickers；　and　Willey2211　Republicans　and　11　Democrats。

NaysCameron；　Cattell；　Chandler；　Cole。　Conness。　Corbett；　Cragin；　Drake；　Edmunds；　Ferry；　Frelinghusen；　Harlan；　Howard；　Howe；　Morgan；　Morrill　of　Maine；　Morrill　of　Vermont；　Patterson　of　New　Hampshire；　Pomeroy；　Ramsay；　Stewart；　Thayer；　Tipton；　Williams；　Wilson；　and　Yates26all　Republicans。

So　this　testimony　was　rejected。

No。　25。

Counsel　for　defense　offered　to　prove：

That　at　the　Cabinet　meetings　between　the　passage　of　the　tenure…of…civil　office　bill　and　the　order　of　the　21st　of　February；　1868；　for　the　removal　of　Mr。　Stanton。　upon　occasions　when　the　condition　of　the　public　service；　as　affected　by　the　operation　of　that　bill；　came　up　for　the　consideration　and　advice　of　the　Cabinet；　it　was　considered　by　the　President　and　Cabinet　that　a　proper　regard　to　the　public　service　made　it　desirable　that　upon　some　proper　case　a　judicial　determination　of　the　constitutionality　of　the　law　should　be　obtained。

The　question　being　taken　by　yeas　and　nays；　resulted：

YeasAnthony；　Bayard；　Buckalew；　Davis；　Dixon；　Doolittle；　Fessenden；　Fowler；　Grimes；　Henderson；　Hendricks；　Johnson；　McCreery；　Patterson　of　Tennessee；　Ross；　Saulsbury　Trumbull；　Van　Winkle；　and　Vickers198　Republicans　and　11　Democrats。

NaysCameron；　Cattell；　Chandler；　Cole；　Conkling；　Conness；　Corbett；　Cragin；　Drake；　Edmunds；　Ferry；　Frelinghuysen；　Harlan；　Howard；　Howe；　Morgan；　Morrill　of　Maine；　Morrill　of　Vermont；　Patterson　of　New　Hampshire；　Pomeroy；　Ramsay；　Sherman；　Sprague；　Stewart；　Thayer；　Tipton；　Willey；　Williams；　Wilson　and　Yates30all　Republicans。

So　the　proffered　testimony　was　rejected。

No。　26。

Counsel　for　defense　put　this　question　to　witness；　（Mr。　Welles；　then　Secretary　of　the　Navy。）

Was　there；　within　the　period　embraced　in　the　inquiry　in　the　last　question；　and　at　any　discussions　or　deliberations　of　the　Cabinet　concerning　the　operation　of　the　tenure…of…civil…office　act　and　the　requirements　of　the　public　service　in　regard　to　the　service；　any　suggestion　or　intimation　whatever　touching　or　looking　to　the　vacation　of　any　office　by　force　or　getting　possession　of　the　same　by　force？

Counsel　for　prosecution　objected；　and　the　vote　was：

YeasAnthony；　Bayard；　Buckalew；　Davis；　Dixon；　Edmunds；　Fessenden；　Fowler；　Grimes；　Hendricks；　Johnson；　McCreery；　Patterson　of　Tennessee；　Ross；　Saulsbury；　Trumbull；　Van　Winkle；　and　Vickers188　Republicans　and　10　Democrats。

Nay…s…Cattell；　Chandler；　Cole；　Conkling；　Conness；　Corbett；　Cragin；　Ferry；　Frelinghuysen；　Harlan；　Howard；　Howe；　Morgan；　Morrill　of　Maine；　Morrill　of　Vermont；　Patterson　of　New　Hampshire；　Pomeroy；　Ramsay；　Sherman；　Stewart；　Thayer；　Tipton；　Willey；　Williams；　Wilson；　and　Yates26all　Republicans。

So　the　proffered　testimony　was　rejected。

No。　27。

Defense　offered　to　prove：

That　at　the　meetings　of　the　Cabinet　at　which　Stanton　was　present；　held　while　the　tenure…of…civil…office　bill　was　before　the　President　for　approval；　the　advice　of　the　Cabinet　in　regard　to　the　same　was　asked　by　the　President；　and　given　the　Cabinet；　and　thereupon　the　question　whether　Mr。　Stanton　and　the　other　Secretaries　who　had　received　their　appointments　from　　Mr。　Lincoln　were　within　the　restrictions　upon　the　President's　power　of　removal　from　office　created　by　said　act；　was　considered　and　the　opinion　expressed　that　the　Secretaries　appointed　by　Mr。　Lincoln　were　not　within　such　restrictions。

Mr。　Johnson：　I　ask　that　the　question　propounded　by　the　Senator　from　Ohio　（Mr。　Sherman）　shall　now　be　read。

The　Secretary　read　the　question　as　follows：

State　if；　after　the　2d　of　March；　1867；　the　date　of　the　passage　of　the　tenure…of…office　act；　the　question　whether　the　Secretaries　appointed　by　President　Lincoln　were　included　within　the　provisions　of　that　act　came　before　the　Cabinet　for　discussion；　and　if　so；　what　opinion　was　given　on　this　question　by　members　of　the　Cabinet　to　the　President。

The　yeas　and　nays　were　ordered；　and　being　taken　resulted：

YeasAnthony；　Bayard；　Buckalew；　Davis；　Dixon；　Doolittle；　Fessenden；　Fowler；　Grimes；　Hendricks；　Johnson；　McCreery；　Patterson　of　Tennessee；　Ross；　Saulsbury；　Sherman；　Trumbull；　Van　Winkle；　Vickers；　and　Willey209　Republican　and　11　Democrats。

NaysCameron；　Cattell；　Chandler；　Cole；　Conkling；　Conness；　Corbett；　Cragin；　Edmunds；　Ferry；　Frelinghuysen；　Harlan；　Howard；　Howe；　Morgan；　Morrill　of　Maine；　Morrill　of　Vermont；　Patterson　of　New　Hampshire；　Pomeroy；　Ramsay；　Stewart；　Thayer；　Tipton；　Williams；　Wilson；　and　Yates26all　Republicans。

So　the　proffered　testimony　was　rejected。

No。　28。

The　Prosecution　proposed　to　put　in　evidence　the　nomination　of　Lieutenant　General　Sherman；　to　be　General　by　brevet；　sent　to　the　Senate　on　the　13th　of　February；　1868；　also　the　nomination　of　Major　General　George　H。　Thomas　to　be　Lieutenant　General　by　brevet；　and　to　be　General　by　brevet；　sent　to　the　Senate　on　the　21st　of　February；　1868。

The　question　being　taken　by　yeas　and　nays；　resulted：　YeasAnthony；　Cole；　Fessenden；　Fowler；　Grimes；　Henderson；　Morton；　Ross；　Sumner；　Tipton；　Trumbull；　Van　Winkle；　Willey；　and　Yates14all　Republicans。

NaysBuckalew；　Cameron；　Cattell；　Chandler；　Conkling；　Conness；　Corbett；　Cragin；　Davis；　Dixon；　Doolittle；　Drake；　Edmunds；　Ferry；　Frelinghuysen；　Harlan；　Hendricks；　Howard；　Howe；　Johnson；　McCreery；　Morgan；　Morrill　of　Maine；　Morrill　of　Vermont；　Patterson　of　New　Hampshire；　Patterson　of　Tennessee；　Pomeroy；　Ramsay；　Sherman；　Sprague；　Stewart；　Thayer；　Vickers；　Williams；　and　Wilson3526　Republicans　and　9　Democrats。

So　the　proffered　testimony　was　refused。

GENERAL　EMORY'S　TESTIMONY。

The　Ninth　Article　of　the　Impeachment　was　based　upon　alleged　military　changes　in　the　City　of　Washington　whereby　the　number　of　troops　on　duty　there　was　rumored　to　have　been　largely　increased；　with　a　view　to　their　use　in　the　controversy　between　the　President　and　Congress；　and　more　especially　for　the　expulsion　of　Mr。　Stanton　from　the　War　Office　in　case　of　his　resistance　to　the　order　of　the　President　for　his　retirement。　The　wildest　rumors　of　that　character　prevailedthat　Mr。　Johnson　proposed　to　throw　off　all　disguise　and　assume　direct　military　control　and　the　establishment　of　practically　a　military　dictatorship。　Congress　had　some　months　previously　enacted　that　all　military　orders　from　the　President　should　be　issued　through　the　General　of　the　Armythe　Congress　thereby　assuming　to　practically　abrogate　a　constitutional　function　of　the　Chief　Executive。

There　was　considerable　confidence　among　the　supporters　of　the　impeachment　that　they　would　be　able　to　prove　these　allegations　by　General　Emory；　then　in　local　command　of　the　troops　and　Department　of　Washington。　General　Emory　was　called　by　the　prosecution；　and　the　following　was　his　testimony。

Examined　by　Mr。　Butler：

Question：　Will　you　have　the　kindness　to　state；　as　nearly　as　you　can　what　took　place　then？　（Referring　to　an　interview　with　the　President　at　the　Executive　Mansion。）

Answer：　I　will　try　and　state　the　substance　of　it；　but　the　words　I　can　not　undertake　to　state　exactly。　The　President　asked　me　if　I　recollected　a　conversation　he　had　had　with　me　when　I　first　took　command　of　the　department。　I　told　him　that　I　recollected　the　facts　of　the　conversation　distinctly。　He　then　asked　me　what　changes　had　been　made。　I　told　him　no　material　changes；　but　such　as　had　been　made　I　could　state　at　once。　I　went　on　to　state　that　in　the　fall　six　companies　of　the　29th　infantry　had　been　brought　to　this　City　to　winter；　but　as　an　offset　to　that；　four　companies　of　the　12th　infantry　had　been　detached　to　South　Carolina　on　the　request　of　the　Commander　of　that　District；　that　two　companies　of　artillery　had　been　detached　by　my　predecessor；　one　of　them　for　the　purpose　of　siding　in　putting　down　the　Fenian　difficulties；　had　been　returned　to　the　command；　that　although　the　number　of　companies　head　been　increased；　the　numerical　strength　of　the　command　was　very　much　the　same；　growing　out　of　an　order　reducing　the　artillery　and　infantry　companies　from　the　maximum　of　the　war　establishment　to　the　minimum　of　the　peace　establishment。　The　President　said：　〃I　do　not　refer　to　those　changes。〃　I　replied　that　if　he　would　state　what　changes　he　referred　to；　or　who　made　the　report　of　the　changes；　perhaps　I　could　be　more；　explicit。　He　said；　〃I　refer　to　recent　changes　within　a　day　or　two；〃　or　something　to　that　effect。　I　told　him　I　thought　I　could　assure　him　that　no　changes　had　been　made；　that　under　a　recent　order　issued　for　the　government　of　the　armies　of　the　United　States；　founded　upon　a　law　of　Congress；　all　orders　had　to　be　transmitted　through　General　Grant　to　the　army；　and　in　like　manner　all　orders　coming　from　General　Grant　to　any　of　his　subordinate　officers　must　necessarily　come；　if　in　my　department；　through　me；　that　if　by　chance　an　order　had　been　given　to　any　junior　officer　of　mine　it　was　his　duty　at　once　to　report　that　fact。　The　President　asked　me。　〃What　order　do　you　refer　to？〃　I　replied；　〃To　order　number　17　of　the　series　of　1867。〃　He　said；　〃I　would　like　to　see　the　order；〃　and　a　messenger　was　dispatched　for　it。　At　this　time　a　gentleman　came　in　who　I　supposed　had　business　in　no　way　connected　with　the　business　I　had　in　hand；　and　I　withdrew　to　the　farther　end　of　the　room；　and　while　th