history of the impeachment of andrew johnson-第46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！


；　in　the　removal　of　Mr。　Stanton；　after　refusing　to　hear　testimony　in　his　behalf　on　that　charge。

The　next　interrogatory；　No。　9；　was　〃when　the　President　asked　the　witness　（Gen。　Sherman；）　to　accept　the　War　Office；　was　anything　further　said　in　reference　to　it？〃　This　was　objected　to　by　the　prosecution；　and　the　vote　thereon　was　23　to　29。　Twenty…eight　of　the　twenty…nine　gentlemen　thus　refusing　answer　to　this　question；　afterwards　voting　to　convict　the　President；　after　refusing　to　bear　the　testimony　of　a　very　important　witness　in　his　behalf；　which　his　counsel　proposed　to　produce　and　tried　in　vain　to　get　before　the　Senate。

On　the　tenth　interrogatory；　by　Defense；　〃whether　the　President　had　stated　to　the　witness；　（General　Sherman）；　his　object　in　asking　him　to　accept　the　War　Office；〃　the　vote　was　7　to　44　against　receiving　it；　and　thirty…one　of　the　gentlemen　voting　not　to　hear　this　testimony；　at　the　close　of　the　hearing　voted　to　convict　Mr。　Johnson　of　a　high　misdemeanor　in　office　in　the　removal　of　Mr。　Stanton；　after　refusing　to　hear　his　defense。

The　next；　No。　11；　was　as　to　the　President's　attempt　to　get　a　case　before　the　Supreme　Court　for　a　judicial　determination　of　Mr。　Stanton's　right　to　retain　the　War　Office　against　the　President's　wish。　This　testimony　was　refused　by　a　vote　of　25　to　27every　nay　vote　being　cast　by　a　Republican；　every　one　of　whom　at　the　close　of　the　trial；　voting　in　effect　to　convict　Mr。　Johnson　of　a　high　misdemeanor　in　office　in　seeking　resort　to　the　courts　to　test　the　legality　of　an　act　of　Congress　passed　for　the　practically　sole　purpose　of　restricting　an　executive　function　never　before　questioned。

The　next　interrogatory；　No。　12；　was　whether　the　witness；　（General　Sherman；　had　formed　an　opinion　whether　the　good　of　the　service　required　a　Secretary　of　War　other　than　Mr。　Stanton。　It　was　well　understood　that　General　Sherman　believed　that　for　the　good　of　the　service　Mr。　Stanton　ought　to　retire；　and　as　the　Chief　Officer　of　the　Army　his　opinion　was　certainly　entitled　to　weight；　and　the　President　had　a　right　to　the　benefit　of　his　judgment。　This　interrogatory　was　objected　to　by　the　Prosecution；　and　was　rejected　by　a　vote　of　18　to　35thirty…one　of　the　thirty…five　being　Republicans；　who　at　the　close　of　the　trial　voted　to　convict　Mr。　Johnson　of　a　high　misdemeanor　in　the　removal　of　Mr。　Stanton；　after　refusing　him　the　benefit　of　the　opinion　of　the　Chief　Officer　of　the　Army　on　a　question　affecting　the　military　service；　and　to　which　he　was　in　all　fairness　clearly　entitled。

No。　13；　General　Sherman　was　asked　whether　he　had　advised；　the　President　to　appoint　a　successor　to　Mr。　Stanton。　（It　was　well　understood　that　he　had。）　Answer　to　this　was　refused；　18　to　32thirty　of　the　latter；　all　Republicans；　voting　at　the　close　of　the　trial　to　convict　Mr。　Johnson；　after　refusing　to　hear　this　important　testimony　in　his　behalf。　No。　16。　The　answer　to　the　last　interrogatory；　（〃if　he　did；　state　what　his　purpose　was；〃）　was　received　by　a　majority　of　one；　26　to　25every　nay　vote　being　a　Republican；　and　constituting　a　majority　of　the　Republicans　of　the　Senate。

No。　21。　Mr。　O。　E。　Perrin　on　the　stand；　was　asked　as　to　the　President's　statement　that　Mr。　Stanton　would　relinquish　the　office　at　once　to　General　Thomas〃that　it　was　only　a　temporary　arrangement〃that　he　would　〃send　to　the　Senate　at　once　the　name　of　a　good　man；〃　（which　he　did）。　This　testimony　was　rejected　by　a　vote　of　9　to　37thirty　of　the　latter　number　being　Republicans　who　at　the　close　of　the　trial　voted　to　convict　Mr。　Johnson　of　a　high　misdemeanor　in　sending　to　the　Senate　the　name　of　Thomas　Ewing；　Senior；　for　appointment　as　Secretary　of　War；　vice　Stanton　removed　in　assumed　violation　of　the　Tenure…of…Office　Act。

The　next　offer　of　testimony　to　be　rejected　was　No。　23Mr。　Gideon　Welles；　Secretary　of　the　Navy；　on　the　stand；　to　prove　that　the　Cabinet　had　advised　the　President　to　veto　the　Tenure…of…Office　Bill　as　unconstitutional。　The　Chief　Justice　ruled　the　testimony　admissible　for　the　purpose　of　showing　the　intent　with　which　the　President　had　acted　in　the　transaction。　Prosecution　objected；　and　by　a　vote　of　20　to　29；　the　decision　of　the　Chief　Justice　was　overruled。　No　answer　to　this　interrogatory　was　permitted；　every　vote　to　refuse　this　testimony　being　cast　by　a　Republican；　every　one　of　whom；　at　the　close　of　the　trial；　voting　to　convict　and　remove　Mr。　Johnson　for　alleged　violation　of　a　law　which　he　believed　to　be　unconstitutionalwhich　he　was　advised　by　the　head　of　the　Law　Department　of　the　Government　was　unconstitutional　and　therefore　not　a　law　which　he　had　sworn　to　execute；　and　the　constitutionality　of　which　he　had　endeavored　to　get　before　the　courts　for　adjudicationthose　29　Republicans　so　voting　after　having　refused　to　hear　testimony　in　his　defense　on　these　identical　points。

The　next　disputed　interrogatory　was　No。　24that　Mr。　Johnson's　Cabinet　had　advised　him　that　the　Secretaries　who　had　been　appointed　by　Mr。　Lincoln　and　still　holding；　（Mr。　Stanton；　Mr。　Seward；　and　Mr。　Welles；）　were　removable　by　the　President；　notwithstanding　the　assumed　restriction　of　the　Tenure…of…Office　Act。　The　Chief　Justice　ruled　this　testimony　to　be　admissible。　Objection　was　made　by　the　Prosecution；　and　a　vote　taken；　and　the　interrogatory　was　rejected22　to　26every　nay　vote　being　a　Republican；　every　one　of　whom　at　the　close　of　the　trial；　voting　to　convict　and　remove　Mr。　Johnson　from　office；　after　having　refused　to　hear　this　very　important　testimony　in　his　behalf。

Defense　next　offered　to　prove　（No。　25）　that　it　was　determined　by　the　President；　with　the　concurrence　of　the　Cabinet；　that　an　agreed　case　for　the　determination　of　the　constitutionality　of　the　Tenure…of…Office　Act　should　be　made。　This　testimony　was　objected　to；　and　a　vote　taken；　which　was　19　to　30。　Every　one　of　the　gentlemen　voting　to　reject　this　testimony；　Mr。　Johnson's　right　to　which　cannot　with　any　possible　showing　of　fairness　be　successfully　disputed；　were　Republicans；　and　after　so　voting；　at　the　close　of　the　trial；　declared　by　their　several　verdicts　that　he　had　been　fairly　proven　guilty　of　a　high　misdemeanor　in　office；　by　violation　of　the　Tenure…of…Office　Act　in　seeking　a　judicial　determination　of　the　validity　of　a　disputed　Act　of　Congress；　and　should　be　expelled　from　office。

No。　26；　was　as　to　any　suggestion　by　the　President　of　the　employment　of　force　for　the　vacation　of　any　office；　（relating　of　course；　to　the　War　Office。）　Mr。　Johnson　had　been　charged　with　seeking　the　removal　of　Mr。　Stanton　by　force；　should　he　resist。　Knowing　perfectly　that　the　answer　would　be　in　the　negative；　the　Senate　refused　to　permit　answer　to　this　interrogatory；　by　a　vote　of　18　to　26；　every　one　of　the　twenty…six　gentlemen　at　the　close　of　the　trial　in　effect　voting　that　the　President　was　guilty　as　charged；　of　seeking　to　remove　Mr。　Stanton　by　violence；　after　refusing　to　hear　either　his　denial　or　witnesses　in　his　behalf　on　that　point。

No。　27。　Defense　proposed　to　prove　that　the　Cabinet　had　advised　the　President　that　the　Tenure…of…Office　Act　did　not　prevent　the　removal　of　those　members　who　had　been　originally　appointed　by　Mr。　Lincoln。　This　testimony；　which；　if　permitted　answer；　would；　in　the　minds　of　unprejudiced　people；　have　at　once　set　aside　the　entire　impeachment　scheme；　was　not　permitted　answer。　The　vote　was　20　to　26every　one　of　the　twenty…six　gentlemen　who　voted　to　reject　that　most　important　and　conclusive　testimony　in　Mr。　Johnson's　behalf；　at　the　close　of　the　examination　voting　to　convict　him　of　a　high　misdemeanor　in　office　by　violating　the　Tenure…of…Office　Act　in　removing　Mr。　Stanton　from　the　office　of　Secretary　of　Warafter　refusing　this　offer　to　prove　by　his　Cabinet　advisers；　the　witness　himself；　（Mr。　Welles；　and　his　testimony；　if　received；　was　to　be　followed　by　that　of　Mr。　Seward　and　Mr。　Stanton；　all　of　whom　had　been　appointed　by　Mr。　Lincoln　and　not　re…appointed　by　Mr。　Johnson；）　that　that　act　did　not　apply　to　or　protect　them　against　removal　at　the　pleasure　of　the　President。　So　that　on　eighteen　of　these　twenty…one　disputed　interrogatories　put　in　behalf　of　the　Defense；　a　majority　of　the　Republicans　of　the　Senate　refused　in　every　instance　to　hear　testimony；　after　having　sworn　to　give　Mr。　Johnson　a　fair　and　impartial　trial。

But　the　most　flagrant　case　of　unfairness　to　the　defendant　in　this　examination　of　witnesses　occurred　in　the　treatment　of　interrogatory　No。　3；　put　by　the　prosecution；　in　their　introduction　of　a　letter　from　the　President　to　General　Grant；　purporting　to　enclose　letters　from　different　members　of　the　Cabinet　in　substantiation　of　the　position　of　the　President　in　the　controversy　then　pending　between　Gen。　Grant　and　himself。　These　letters　were　enclosed　with；　and　specifically　referred　to　and　made　a　part　of　the　President's　communication；　and　were　necessary　to　a　correct　apprehension　of　the　controversy；　from　the　President's　or　any　other　standpoint。

Being　so　enclosed　and　referred　to　in　the　letter　transmitting　and　enclosing　them；　they　became　quite　as　much　a　part　of　the　President's　communication　as　his　own　letter　which　enclosed　them。　Counsel　for　Defense　objected　to　the　introduction　of　the　President's　letter　without　the　enclosures；　but　the　objection　was　not　sustained　and　the　letters　were　not　permitted　to　be　introduced；　but　the　letter　enclosing　and　referring　to　them　was。　The　vote　on　the　production　of　the　enclosures　was；　yeas　20；　nays　29twenty…eight　of　the　thirty…eight　Republicans　present；　voting　to　exclude　this　essential　testimony　in　the　President's　behalf；　and　twenty…seven　of　the　number　afterwards　voted　to　convict　him　of　a　high　misdemeanor　in　office　in　removing　Mr。　Stanton　from　the　War　Office；　after　refusing　him　the　benefit　of　the　testimony　of　his　Constitutional　Cabinet　advisers　in　this　important　matter。

It　is　possible　that　under　other　conditions　this　proceeding　might　have　been　legitimate　and　proper；　but　Mr。　Johnson　was　on　trial　under　grave　charges；　before　the　highest；　and　supposably　fairest　tribunal　on　earth；　and　had　a　right　to　the　benefit　of　the　testimony　of　his　cabinet；　in　full；　and　more　especially　when　that　testimony　was　presented　in　a　distorted　and　garbled　shape　by　his　accusers。　Moreover；　every　member　of　the　Court　had　the　right　to　know　what　was　in　those　letters；　if　any　part　of　the　correspondence　was　to　be　received。　But　whether　or　not　Mr。　Johnson　had　the　right　to　the　testimony　i