第53章 ORGANIZATION OF THE COURT ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL(1)

On Thursday, March 5th, 1868, the Senate of the United States was organized for the trial of the charges brought against Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, by the House of Representatives--Honorable Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the United States, presiding.

The following gentlemen appeared as managers of the prosecution on the part of the House:

Hon. John A. Bingham, of Ohio; Hon. George S. Boutwell, of Massachusetts; Hon. James F. Wilson, of Iowa; Hon. John A. Logan, of Illinois; Hon. Thomas F. Williams, of Pennsylvania; Hon.

Benjamin F. Butler, of Massachusetts; and Hon. Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania.

The following gentlemen appeared as counsel for the President:

Messrs. Henry Stanbery, of Kentucky; Benjamin R. Curtis, of Massachusetts; Thomas A. R. Nelson, of Tennessee; William M.

Evarts, of New York, and William S. Groesbeck, of Ohio.

The following gentlemen comprised the United States Senate, sitting for the trial of the President:

California-Cornelius Cole, (R)-John Conness, (R).

Connecticut-James Dixon, (D)-Orris S. Ferry, (R).

Delaware-Willard Saulsbury, (D)-James A. Bayard, (D).

Illinois-Lyman Trumbull, (R)-Richard Yates, (R).

Indiana-Oliver P. Morton, (R)-Thomas A. Hendricks, (D).

Iowa-James W. Grimes, (R)-James Harlan, (R).

Kansas-Samuel C. Pomeroy, (R)-Edmund G. Ross, (R).

Kentucky-Thomas C. McCreary, (D)-Garrett Davis, (D).

Massachusetts-Charles Sumner, (R)-Henry Wilson, (R).

Maine-William Pitt Fessenden, (R)-Lot M. Morrill, (R).

Maryland-Reverdy Johnson, (D)-George Vickers, (D).

Michigan-Zachariah Chandler, (R)-Jacob M. Howard, (R).

Missouri-John B. Henderson, (R)-Charles D. Drake, (R).

Minnesota-Alexander Ramsay, (R)-Daniel S. Norton, (D).

New York-Roscoe Conkling, (R)-Edwin D. Morgan, (R).

Nevada-James W. Nye, (R)-William M. Stewart, (R).

Nebraska-Thomas W. Tipton, (R)-John M. Thayer, (R).

New Jersey-Alexander G. Cattell, (R)-F. T. Frelinghuysen, (R).

New Hampshire-Alexander H. Craigin, (R)-Jas. W. Patterson, (R).

Ohio-John Sherman, (R)-Benjamin F. Wade, (R).

Oregon-Henry W. Corbett, (R)-Geo. H. Williams, (R).

Pennsylvania-Simon Cameron, (R)-Charles R. Buckalew, (D).

Rhode Island-Henry B. Anthony, (R)-William Sprague, (R).

Tennessee--David T. Patterson, (D)-Joseph S. Fowler, (R).

Vermont-George F. Edmunds, (R)-Justin S. Morrill, (R).

West Virginia-W. T. Willey,(R)-Peter (3. Van Winkle, (R).

Wisconsin-James R. Doolittle, (D)-Timothy O. Howe, (R).

[Forty-two Republicans and twelve Democrats.]

The House bringing the Impeachment was three-fourths Republican--the Senate that tried it was more than threefourths Republican-the managers on the part of the House were all Republicans--the counsel for the President were three Democrats and one Republican--the President on trial was a Democrat--the interrogatories propounded to witnesses were generally received or rejected, according as their probable answers would make for or against the President--the people of the country at large were, as a rule, rigidly divided on party lines relative to the case, Republicans demanding the conviction of the President and Democrats urging his acquittal. The Chief Justice presiding in the trial was the only strictly nonpartisan factor in the case.

The answer of the President to the Articles of Impeachment having been presented on the 23rd of March, 1868--the replication of the House duly made, and all the preliminary steps completed, the proceedings in the actual trial commenced on the 30th day of March, 1868. Gen. Butler, one of the managers on the part of the House, made the opening argument for the prosecution, from which the following extracts are taken:

The first eight articles set out in several distinct forms the acts of the respondent removing Mr. Stanton from office, and appointing Mr. Thomas, ad interim, differing in legal effect in the purposes for which and the intent with which, either or both of the acts were done, and the legal duties and rights infringed, and the acts of Congress violated in so doing.

All the articles allege these acts to be in contravention of his oath of office, and in disregard of the duties thereof.

If they are so, however, the President might have the POWER to do them under the law; still, being so done, they are acts of official misconduct, and as we have seen, impeachable.

The President has the legal power to do many acts which, if done in disregard of his duty, or for improper purposes, then the exercise of that power is an official misdemeanor.

Ex. gr: he has the power of pardon; if exercised in a given case for a corrupt motive, as for the payment of money, or wantonly pardoning all criminals, it would be a misdemeanor. Examples might be multiplied indefinitely.

Article first, stripped of legal verbiage, alleges that, having suspended Mr. Stanton and reported the same to the Senate, which refused to concur in the suspension, and Stanton having rightfully resumed the duties of his office, the respondent, with knowledge of the facts, issued an order which is recited for Stanton's removal, with intent to violate the act of March 2, 1867, to regulate the tenure of certain civil offices, and with the further intent to remove Stanton from the office of Secretary of War, then in the lawful discharge of its duties, in contravention of said act without the advice and consent of the Senate, and against the Constitution of the United States.

Article 2 charges that the President, without authority of law, on the 21st of February, 1868, issued letter of authority to Lorenzo Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad interim, the Senate being in session, in violation of the tenure-of-office act, and with intent to violate it and the Constitution, there being no vancancy in the office of Secretary of War.

Article 3 alleges the same act as done without authority of law, and alleges an intent to violate the Constitution.