history of the impeachment of andrew johnson-第47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！


e　correspondence　was　to　be　received。　But　whether　or　not　Mr。　Johnson　had　the　right　to　the　testimony　in　his　behalf　which　it　was　claimed　these　enclosures　contained；　he　certainly　had　the　right　to　resist　the　introduction　of　mutilated　testimony　against　him。　The　purpose　of　the　trial　was　to　ascertain　the　facts　in　the　caseall　the　facts　bearing　on　either　side。　The　Court　was　sitting　and　the　witnesses　were　called　for　that　purpose；　and　no　other。

This　record　shows；　that　in　but　three　instances　out　of　twenty…one；　did　a　majority　of　the　Republicans　of　the　Senate　vote　to　receive　testimony　offered　in　the　President's　behalfthat　on　one　interrogatory　there　was　an　equal　divisionthat　on　seventeen　of　the　twenty…one　interrogatories　put　by　the　Defense；　a　majority　of　the　Republicans　voted　to　exclude　testimony；　in　several　cases　by　a　two…thirds　voteand　that　but　nine　of　the　twenty…one　interrogatories　put　in　behalf　of　the　President　were　by　Republican　votes　permitted　to　be　answeredalso　that；　as　a　rule　which　had　very　rare　exceptions；　such　interrogatories　in　behalf　of　the　President　as　were　permitted　answer；　were　so　permitted　by　very　close　majorities。

It　is　undoubted　that　every　Republican　member　of　the　Senate　entered　upon　that　trial　in　the　expectation　that　the　allegations　of　the　Prosecution　would　be　sustained；　but　it　was　also　expected　that　a　fair；　free；　full；　open　investigation　of　all　the　charges　preferred　would　be　had；　and　that　all　the　information　possible　to　be　obtained　bearing　upon　the　case；　pro　and　con；　would　be　admitted　to　testimonybut　that　expectation　was　not　realized。

To　sum　up　this　feature　of　the　proceedingthe　Republican　majority　of　the　Senate　placed　themselves　and　their　party　in　the　attitude　of　prosecutors　in　the　caseinstead　of　judges　sworn　to　give　the　President　an　impartial　trial　and　judgment　that　their　course　had　the　appearance；　at　least；　of　a　conspiracy　to　evict　the　President　for　purely　partisan　purposes；　regardless　of　testimony　or　the　facts　of　the　case…that　public　animosity　against　Mr。　Johnson　had　been　manufactured　throughout　the　North　by　wild　and　vicious　misrepresentations　for　partisan　effectthat　practically　the　entire　Republican　Party　machinery　throughout　the　country　was　bent　to　the　work　of　prosecution。　The　party　cry　was　〃Crucify　him！〃　〃Convict　him　anyway；　and　try　him　afterwards！〃　With　rare　exceptions；　the　Republican　Party　of　the　country；　press　and　people；　were　a　unit　in　this　insensate　cry。

They　were　ready　to　strike；　but　not　to　hear。

There　can　be　but　one　conclusion　from　these　premises；　established　by　the　record　of　the　trialthat　the　entire　proceeding；　from　its　inception　in　the　House　of　Representatives　to　its　conclusion　in　the　Senate；　was　a　thoroughly　partisan　prosecution　on　the　part　of　the　majority　in　both　Houses；　and　that　the　country　was　saved　from　the　shameful　spectacle；　and　the　dangerous　consequences　of　such　a　proceeding；　by　the　intervention　and　self…sacrifice　of　a　few　gentlemen　who　proposed　to　respect　the　obligation　of　their　oath；　and　give　Mr。　Johnson；　so　far　as　in　their　power；　a　fair　trial　and　judgmentand　not　having　had　such　a　trialto　give　him　the　benefit　of　what　he　claimed　he　could　prove　in　his　own　behalf　and　was　not　permitted　toand　a　verdict　of　〃Not　Guilty；〃　regardless　of　consequences　to　themselves。

What　every　member　of　the　Court　had　sworn　to　do　was　〃impartial　justice〃　to　Andrew　Johnson；　and　nothing　less。　The　Counsel　on　neither　side　had　taken　that　oath；　but　the　Court　had；　and　its　performance　of　that　oath　was　impossible　without　possession　of　all　the　information　relating　to　and　bearing　upon　the　case　that　it　was　reasonably　possible　to　obtain。　That　is　the　essential　ingredient　and　characteristic　of　a　fair　trial。

THAT　ESSENTIAL　INGREDIENT　OF　JUDICIAL　FAIRNESS　WAS　NOT　SHOWN　TO　MR。　JOHNSON　IN　THIS　CASE　BY　THE　REPUBLICAN　MAJORITY　OF　THE　SENATE；　as　the　official　record　of　the　trial　clearly　establishes。　It　was　an　ill…disguised　and　malevolent　partisan　prosecution。



CHAPTER　XIII。　THE　CONSTITUTIONAL　POWER　OF　IMPEACHMENT。

The　power　conferred　by　the　Constitution　upon　Congress　to　impeach　and　remove　the　President　for　cause；　is　unquestionably　a　wise　provision。　The　natural　tendency　of　the　most　patriotic　of　men；　in　the　exercise　of　power　in　great　public　emergencies；　is　to　overstep　the　line　of　absolute　safety；　in　the　conscientious　conviction　that　a　departure　from　strict　constitutional　or　legal　limitations　is　demanded　by　the　public　welfare。

The　danger　in　such　departures；　even　upon　apparent　necessity；　if　condoned　or　permitted　by　public　judgment　is　in　the　establishment　of　precedents　whereby　greater　and　more　dangerous　infractions　of　organic　law　may　be　invited；　tolerated；　and　justified；　till　government　takes　on　a　form　of　absolutism　in　one　form　or　another；　fatal　to　free　institutions；　fatal　to　a　government　of　law；　and　fatal　to　popular　liberty。

On　the　other　hand；　a　too　ready　resort　to　the　power　of　impeachment　as　a　remedial　agentthe　deposition　of　a　public　officer　in　the　absence　of　proof　of　the　most　positive　and　convincing　character　of　the　impeachability　of　the　offense　alledged；　naturally　tends　to　the　other　extreme；　till　public　officers　may　become　by　common　consent　removable　by　impeachment　upon　insufficient　though　popular　chargeseven　upon　partisan　differences　and　on　sharply　contested　questions　of　public　administration。

The　power　of　impeachment　and　removal　becomes；　therefore；　a　two…edged　sword；　which　must　be　handled　with　consummate　judgment　and　skill；　and　resort　thereto　had　only　in　the　gravest　emergencies　and　for　causes　so　clearly　manifest　as　to　preclude　the　possibility　of　partisan　divisions　or　partisan　judgments　thereon。　Otherwise；　too　ready　resort　to　impeachment　must　inevitably　establish　and　bring　into　common　use　a　new　and　dangerous　remedy　for　the　cure　of　assumed　political　ills　which　have　their　origin　only　in　partisan　differences　as　to　methods　of　administration。　It　would　become　an　engine　of　partisan　intolerance　for　the　punishment　and　ostracism　of　political　opponents；　under　the　operation　of　which　the　great　office　of　Chief　Magistrate　must　inevitably　lose　its　dignity；　and　decline　from　its　Constitutional　rank　as　a　co…ordinate　department　of　the　Government；　and　its　occupant　no　longer　the　political　head　and　Chief　Executive　of　the　Nation；　except　in　name。

It　was　in　that　sense；　and　to　a　pointed　degree；　that　in　the　impeachment　and　trial　of　Andrew　Johnson　the　quality　of　coordination　of　the　three　great　Departments　of　Governmentthe　Executive；　Legislative；　and　Judicialwas　directly　involvedthe　House　of　Representatives　as　prosecutorthe　President　as　defendantthe　Senate　sitting　as　the　trial　court　in　which　the　Chief　Justice　represented　the　judicial　department　as　presiding　officer。

The　anomaly　of　the　situation　was　increased　and　its　gravity　intensified；　by　the　fact　that　the　President　pro　tempore　of　the　Senate；　who　stood　first　in　the　line　of　succession　to　the　Presidency　in　case　of　conviction；　was　permitted；　in　a　measure；　indeed；　forced　by　his　pro…impeachment　colleagues；　on　a　partisan　division　of　the　Senate；　to　sit　and　vote　as　such　President　pro　tempore　for　the　impeachment　and　removal　of　the　President　whom　he　was　to　succeed。

These　facts　of　condition　attending　and　characterizing　the　trial　of　President　Johnson；　pointedly　accentuate　the　danger　to　our　composite　form　of　government　which　the　country　then　faced。　That　danger；　as　it　had　found　frequent　illustration　in　the　debates　in　the　House　of　Representatives　on　the　several　propositions　for　the　President's　impeachment　preceding　the　bringing　of　the　indictment；　lay　in　the　claim　of　superiority　of　political　function　for　the　Legislative　branch　over　the　Executive。　The　quality　of　co…ordination　of　these　departments　was　repeatedly　and　emphatically　denied　by　conspicuous　and　influential　members　of　that　body　during　the　initial　proceedings　of　the　impeachment　movement；　and　even　on　the　floor　of　the　Senate　by　the　managers　of　the　impeachment。　To　illustrate：

Mr。　Bingham；　in　the　House；　Feb。　22nd；　1868；　announced　the　extraordinary　doctrine　that　〃there　is　no　power　to　review　the　action　of　Congress。〃　Again；　speaking　of　the　action　of　the　Senate　on　the　21st　of　February；　on　the　President's　message　announcing　the　removal　of　Mr。　Stanton；　he　said：　〃Neither　the　Supreme　Court　nor　any　other　Court　can　question　or　review　this　judgment　of　the　Senate。〃

The　declaration　was　made　by　Messrs。　Stevens　and　Boutwell　in　the　House；　that　the　Senate　was　its　own　judge　of　the　validity　of　its　own　acts。

Mr。　Butler；　in　his　opening　speech　to　the　Senate；　at　the　beginning　of　the　trial；　used　this　language：

A　Constitutional　tribunal　solely；　you　are　bound　by　no　law；　either　Statute　or　Common；　which　may　limit　your　constitutional　prerogative。　You　consult　no　precedents　save　those　of　the　law　and　custom　of　parliamentary　bodies。　You　are　a　law　unto　yourselves；　bound　only　by　the　natural　principles　of　equity　and　justice；　and　salus　populi　suprema　est　lex。

Feb。　24；　1868；　Mr。　Stevens　said　in　the　House：

Neither　the　Executive　nor　the　Judiciary　had　any　right　to　interfere　with　it　（Reconstruction）　except　so　far　as　was　necessary　to　control　it　by　military　rule　until　the　sovereign　power　of　the　Nation　had　provided　for　its　civil　administration。　NO　POWER　BUT　CONGRESS　HAD　ANY　RIGHT　TO　SAY　WHETHER　EVER；　OR　WHEN；　they　（the　rebel　States）；　should　be　admitted　to　the　Union　as　States　and　entitled　to　the　privileges　of　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States。〃　*　*　*　〃I　trust　that　when　we　come　to　vote　upon　this　question　we　shall　remember　that　although　it　is　the　duty　of　the　President　to　see　that　the　laws　be　executed；　THE　SOVEREIGN　POWER　OF　THE　NATION　RESTS　IN　CONGRESS。

Mr。　Butler；　the　leading　spirit　of　the　impeachment　enterprise；　went　so　far　as　to　make　the　revolutionary　suggestion　of　the　abrogation　of　the　Presidential　office　in　the　event　of　final　failure　to　convict　the　Presidentset　out　in　the　8th　Chapter。

Mr。　Sumner　insisted　that　in　no　judicial　sense　was　the　Senate　a　Court；　and　therefore　not　bound　by　the　rules　of　judicial　procedure：

If　the　Senate　is　a　Court　bound　to　judicial　forms　on　the　expulsion　of　the　President；　must　it　not　be　the　same　in　the　expulsion　of　a　Senator？　But　nobody　attributes　to　it　any　such　strictures　in　the　latter　case。　*　*　In　the　case　of　Blount；　which　is　the　first　in　our　history；　the　expulsion　was　on　the　report　of　a　committee　declaring　him　guilty　of　a　high　misdemeanor。　At　leas