free from tax; the tax is not exacted on that part of it which is exported, but in order to collect the domestic tax burdens are thrown upon this expertation which the country can well afford to rid them of. In order to insure the collection of the tax on that which is consumed at home the whole system is loaded with the same provisions which we have just gone over in reference to tobacco and distilled spirits. Those articles are mere luxuries and should be taxed high, and if they are taxed high means must be resorted to in order to secure the collection of the tax. The are also looked upon by many as having an ill effect upon the morals of the community. I see that clergymen now are beginning to discountenance the use of tobacco as they have of whisky for some time past. That shows, at any rate, in what esteem it is held by many of our citizens.

But, sir, nothing of this kind can apply to the mineral oil. It is not an article of luxury by any means. It is found in the family of every poor man, perhaps, in the country. It furnishes him a cheaper light than he has ever had before. It furnishes him at the same time, perhays, a better light for the quantity of oil used. The considerations that may lead to imposing these heavy burdens on tobacco and whisky would argue a different way in reference to petroleum. And yet, sir, in order to collect this tax upon the oil that is consumed at home the export trade is heavily burdened; and it is necessary that a host of officers, inspectors, gaugers, and I know not what you call them, should be appointed. The manufacturers of oil are compelled to employ extra clerks to make regular returns, and are incumbered in that way with an additional expense which must affect them even in reference to their export trade, although nominally no tax is placed upon that.

One

Without attempting or wishing to detain the Senate one moment longer than is necessary, I ask them to take into consideration the fact I have last stated, that this article is a most valuable export; that it is one of our largest exports; and that this export trade, valuable as it is, is to a certain extent injured by means of the arrangements made for the simple collection tax on the home supply. For the fiscal year ending in June last the tax amounted to something short of five million dollars. half of that is reduced, which would leave it considerably less than two and a half million dollars, and I apprehend, as the production has somewhat diminished during the last year, that it cannot be stated at over two million dollars. This is an amount, considered by itself it is true, large; but in proportion to the whole of our taxes it is a light amount. I have the opinion of the Special Commissioner of the Revenue that it can be dispensed with, and he thinks it ought to be dispensed with. I have the authority of at least a majority of the Finance Committee that they believe the tax might and should be dispensed with. I understand that the same opinion prevails in the Committee of Ways and Means, and that this amendment would probably have been made in the House, except for their strict rules, which after it was offered would have compelled it to go back to the Committee of the Whole. I trust, therefore, that this amendment will be fairly considered by the Senate, and that this relief may be given to so valuable a branch of manufacture.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not propose to controvert particularly what the Senator has said as to the necessity or justice of removing this tax; but the Committee on Finance did not consider it expedient to attach this amendment to the bill, as this bill is confined exclusively to whisky and tobacco; and it was partly upon that ground that those sections providing for the taxation of banks were stricken out of the bill, so that this legislation might be exclusively upon the two subjects of whisky and tobacco. If one amendment is proposed introducing another subject into this bill another amendment introducing another subject may be proposed; and so the bill may

be incumbered. All the various interests in the country, that are complaining of taxation, will of course claim a right to be considered in connection with this bill, and the consequence will be that the bill will be burdened down with these numerous amendments, and probably defeated. The interest which the Senator represents is not the only interest in the country that complains that taxation is too high; it is not the only interest that is demanding relief; and if we allow this amendment to go upon this bill then no objection can be made to any amendment that may be proposed affecting any other interest; and instead of being a bill which was intended by the House to be a bill to regulate the tax upon whisky and tobacco, taken out of the tax bill that was reported by the Committee of Ways and Meaus expressly for the purpose of legislating upon that subject, it will become a bill regulating the tax upon all the various subjects in the country upon which it is said the taxes ought to be modified or repealed.

It is upon that ground, without taking time to go into the discussion, that I oppose the amendment. I am not disposed now to say that if the proposition made by the Senator was in a different form or upon a general tax bill I should not be willing to support it; but at this late day in the session, when there is no time to discuss these various propositions, the only way to save this bill and pass it at all is to confine it exclusively to the two subjects which are contained in it.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I think I can say to the Senator from Oregon, with perfect propriety and with great truth, that there is no parallel interest to this in the country. In the second place, I may say, as I have already said, that it is in some sense germane to this bill, as it has the same apparatus and body of officers that these other articles have.

Again, the Senator's remarks might well apply in the House of Representatives, where the committee were ordered to bring in a bill in relation to tobacco and distilled spirits only; but I think the Senate has the right, and has independence enough when a good proposition like this is offered to it, to pass it without being cowed by any consideration of that kind. It is the only manufacture, as I have already said, of its class that is now taxed at all.

I wish in this connection to read a letter from the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means of the House. He says:

"Wo think, in my committee, that mineral oil ought to be put upon the footing of all other manufactures. If you can put this amendment in the bill in the Senate we can pretty certainly carry it through the House. It would have gone through to-day if we had not been limited to spirits and tobacco."

Now, sir, abstractedly considered, it may bea very nice thing not to have too many subjects in a bill; but when an interest like this, so great as I have shown, is suffering without occasion, for I may say it is without occasion that this interest should be put to so much expense in order to conduct it, when there can be no occasion for it either in reference to the amount of tax to be collected, or to any frauds that are taking place in it, or to the character of the commodity manufactured, I hope the Senate will not for that reason at least refuse to adopt this amendment.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. President, the former argument made in the Senate on this subject, which was indorsed by the vote of the Senate, would cover completely in the pages of the Congressional Globe the amendment which is now proposed by the Senator from West Virginia. We then had a full debate on the subject of the taxation of the products of petroleum or manufactures therefrom; and it was only, in my opinion, because the Senator from West Virginia then proposed his amendment in the form of a reduction of the tax to one half, instead of an amendment proposing to remove it altogether, that we have this question again before us moved upon the present bill.

It is a decisive argument in favor of his proposition that this is the only manufacturing

tax yet remaining in our revenue system, the only general tax, and that it is imposed upon a manufacture which, instead of being discouraged by us, ought to be encouraged by our legislation. The only effect of permitting this tax upon the products of petroleum to remain while the crude article is free from taxation is to push the manufacture out of our own country, to cause the raw article to be exported, and the capital and labor of Europe to be employed in its manufacture instead of the capital and labor of our own country. Therefore the clearest reasons of policy are against the retention of this tax; and it is manifestly an unjust and odious one when we have relieved other manufactures from similar burdens. This I consider to be a conclusive view of this subject, without going fully into that argument which was submitted upon a former occasion, and which then enlisted favorably the judgment of the Senate.

The only objection made by the Senator from Oregon is in regard to the time and place when this amendment is offered. He is averse to entertaining it and voting for it, although he does not object to it upon its merits, because if we adopt this amendment other amendments may possibly be offered. Now, sir, those of us who are in favor of this amendment can give a conclusive answer, a satisfactory answer, at least, to that suggestion. In the first place, these taxes are entirely unlike any others in our internal revenue system. In the next place, this question is connected with the simplification of the revenue system, which is one of the leading objects of this bill. We are to dispense as far as we can with the inspectors of revenue and with other subordinate officers under the Commissioner wherever we can. These taxes upon petroleum require a considerable number of officers for their administration. I am told that some of the inspectors have been receiving as high as eight or ten thousand dollars a year. It is made a matter of complaint and of odium that such features are permitted to exist in connection with our revenue law. I believe public opinion everywhere is tending to this ground: that our tax system should be simplified; that we should confine the burden to as few objects as possible; that we should dispense with all the offcers that we can, and should confine ourselves only to those necessary objects of revenue demanded in order to meet the public burdens.

I venture to say, in answer to the Senator from Oregon, that the adoption of this amendment by the Senate will not embarrass the Senate itself. No other amendments will be offered of a general nature leading to debate and producing delay. I venture to say, also, that the adoption of this amendment by the Senate will not produce a difference with the House. The Senator from West Virginia has already informed us that the House is disposed to it; that the Committee of Ways and Means are not only willing, but some of them at least anxious to accept this amendment and to incorporate it into the present bill.

The objection that this amendment will introduce a subject not in the purview of the bill as originally introduced in the House goes for nothing. Are we to have bills introduced into that House and sent here as they were originally formed? Have we no power of amendment? Are we not permitted to cast our eyes over the whole field of inquiry, and if we find a particular object deserving of our attention, exceptional in its character, and directly connected in its machinery with the measure sent to us, shall we not propose an amendment? And especially are we to be deterred from doing so when we have the best assurance that the House of Representatives will concur with us in our action, and that even if there should be objection in that House we can recede in a moment when the bill is returned with a nonconcurrence in the amendment?

For these reasons I think there is no force in the point which has been made by the Senator from Oregon; and for the very satisfactory reasons which have already been stated by the

Senator from West Virginia, as well as for the reasons which were fully elaborated in the former debate and published to the country, I think we ought to adopt this amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment proposed by the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. VAN WINKLE and Mr. BUCKALEW called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 15, nays 17; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Cole, Conness, Cragin, Davis, Fowler, Henderson, McCreery, Ramsey, Ross, Sumner, Van Winkle, and Wilson-15.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Conkling, Corbett, Edmunds, Harlan, Howe, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Osborn, Sherman, Trumbull, Vickers, Wade, Welch, Williams, and Yates-17.

ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Chandler, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake, Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Hendricks, Howard, Johnson, Morrill of Maine, Morton, Norton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Rice, Saulsbury, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, and Willey-26.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. DAVIS. I offer an amendmentMr. CONNESS. I move that the Senate do now adjourn. It must be evident that we cannot pass this bill to-night.

Mr. SHERMAN. We can pass it in a little while now.

Mr. CONNESS. It cannot be passed tonight.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. tion is on the motion to adjourn.

The ques

Mr. SHERMAN. I call for the yeas and nays upon it.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I desire to state that my colleague [Mr. WILLEY] is confined to his room by indisposition.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 16, nays 16; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cameron, Cole, Conness, Cragin, Davis, Fowler, Harlan, Howe, McCreery, Ramsey, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, and Yates-16.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Cattell, Conkling, Corbett, Edmunds, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Osborn, Patterson of New Hampshire, Ross, Sherman, Wade, Welch, Williams, and Wilson-16. ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Chandler, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake, Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, Johnson, Morrill of Maine, Morton, Norton, Nye, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Rice, Saulsbury, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, and Willey-26.

So the Senate refused to adjourn.

Mr. SHERMAN. I now move that the Senate take a recess until half past seven o'clock. ["No!" "No!"]

Mr. SUMNER. I hope not.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 21, nays 12; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cameron, Cole, Conness, Cragin, Davis, Fowler, Harlan, Howe, MeCreery, McDonald, Osborn, Patterson of New Hampshire, Ramsey, Stewart, Summer, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Welch, and Yates-21.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Cattell, Conkling, Corbett, Edmunds, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Ross, Sherman, Wade, Williams, and Wilson-12.

ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Chandler, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake. Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson. Hendricks, Howard, Johnson, Morrill of Maine, Morton, Norton, Nye, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Rice, Saulsbury, Sprague, Thayer, Tipton, and Willey-25.

So the motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.

Mr. BAKER, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee of Claims be instructed to inquire what measure of relief is due to Isaac I. Richmond, of Alton, Illinois, for services rendered the Government as acting assistant assessor for the first division of the twelfth collection district of the State of Illinois during the months of December, 1866, and January, 1867, and to report by bill or otherwise.

TERMS OF VIRGINIA DISTRICT COURT.

Mr. BOUTWELL, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1370) to fix the time for holding the terms of the United States district court in Virginia; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Com. mittee on the Judiciary.

NIAGARA SHIP-CANAL.

Mr. VAN HORN, of New York. I ask unanimous consent to submit the following

Mr. CONNESS. On that motion I call for resolution: the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 14, nays 20; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Cattell, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Harlan, Henderson, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Sherman, Stewart, Wade, Williams, and Wilson-14.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cameron, Conness, Cragin, Davis, Edmunds, Fowler, Howe, McCreery, MeDonald, Osborn, Patterson of New Hampshire, Ramsey, Ross, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Welch, and Yates-20.

ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Chandler, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake, Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Hendricks, Howard, Johnson, Morrill of Maine, Morton, Norton, Nye, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Rice, Saulsbury, Sprague, Thayer, Tipton, and Willey-24.

So the motion was not agreed to.

Mr. CONNESS. I move that the Senate do now adjourn.

Mr. SHERMAN. We may as well close the bill first as last.

Mr. CONNESS. It is impossible to pass this bill to-night. The Senator ought to see that, I think.

Several SENATORS, (to Mr. SHERMAN.) Do not give it up.

Mr. SHERMAN. I do not give it up; but if the Senate choose to adjourn they can do so. The question being put, there were on a division-ayes twenty-one

Mr. SHERMAN. I think we may as well have the yeas and nays on this motion.

Resolved. That the bill now in the Committee of the Whole, providing for the construction of a ship-canal around the falls of Niagara, be postponed to, and made the special order for Thursday, the 10th day of December next, immediately after the morning hour, and continue as the special order from day to day until disposed of.

Mr. HOLMAN. I object.

LEGISLATIVE, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL.

The SPEAKER announced the appointment of Mr. WASHBURNE of Illinois, Mr. DELANO, and Mr. PHELPS as the committee of conference on the part of the House upon the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. R. No. 605) making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June, 1869.

POTAWATTOMIE INDIAN LANDS.

Mr. JULIAN, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

Whereas a contract has been made which purports to be a treaty between certain commissioners acting in the name of the United States and the Potawattomie Indians, by which the unallotted lands of said Indians, amounting to three hundred and forty-two thousand acres, have been sold to the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fé Railroad Company, at the price of one dollar per acre; and whereas these lands are known to be valuable, and said price is believed to be in monstrous disproportion thereto, and said treaty, so called, is declared by prominent and respectable men in the State of Kansas to be similar

in character to the late Osage treaty, which has been emphatically condemned by this House: Therefore, Resolved, That the Committee on Indian Affairs be instructed to inquire into the facts and circumstances of said so-called treaty, that they have power to send for persons and papers, and that they report to this House by bill or otherwise.

REFERENCE OF BILLS, ETC.

Mr. UPSON. I move to reconsider the various votes taken this morning on the reference of bills; and also move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I rise to a question of privilege, and present a resolution, upon which, after it is read, I propose to submit some remarks.

The SPEAKER. The resolution will be read, after which the Chair will rule whether it is or is not a question of privilege. The Clerk read as follows:

Whereas a high court of impeachment has lately been in session to try Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors, and has adjourned without completing its judgment; and whereas it is proper that additional articles should be filed, if the House deem expedient; Therefore,

Resolved. That a committee of be appointed to prepare additional articles of impeachment, and report the same in substance as follows:

Additional articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives, in the name of themselves and all the people of the United States, against Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, in maintenance and support of their impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors in office.

First Additional Article.

That the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did abuse the patronage of the Government, which by virtue of his office had been intrusted to him, and did pervert it to improper and selfish purposes, inasmuch as he used it to corrupt the people of the United States, and to induce them to abandon and renounce the principles which they conscientiously held, and to adopt others which they did not approve, in order to promote the selfish purposes of said Andrew Johnson. The President of the United States came into power and received his office because he professed to hold the principles of the Republican party, and zealously avowed his determination to carry them into effect. When he came into power he found the offices of the Government, many thousands in number, filled with men professing the same Republican principles, and who had been appointed expressly to carry them into effect. When, by a fatal accident, he became the Chief Executive of the nation, he determined to seek an election for the same office at the next presidential term. He foresaw that it would become necessary to renounce the principles of the Repub lican party, and to establish a new personal party, specially devoted to himself, and he did not hesitate to apply to that object the profits of thousands of offices and of millions of revenue. He set deliberately about turning faithful officers out of their places because they would not renounce their principles, and of appointing others to office because they pledged themselves to support him and his principles. The removals and appointments were avowedly made for no cause of merit or demerit, but for the purpose of adding recruits to the new party.

Second Additional Article.

That the said Andrew Johnson, being the Chief Executive of the United States, and being assigned by law to the duties to take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed, and having no judicial or legislative powers confided to him by the Constitution, all his duties being strictly executive, did, on time, usurp to himself the powers of another branch the 29th day of May, 1865, and before and after that of the Government, and did do acts and exercise functions which belonged to the legislative branch alone; and in pursuance of such claim, having at the time the Army and Navy of the United States at his command, did establish and erect into a separate government that portion of the territory which had conquered by the United States from the lately so-called confederate States of America, and which was lately embraced within the boundaries of the State of North Carolina, and did, by his own usurped authority, create a State and form of government hitherto unknown to the United States, and did create an office hitherto unknown to our Constitution, and appointed thereto an officer whom he called provisional governor, and directed him how to construct and carry out said government. He fixed, and by his own will decreed, the qualification of electors, and who should be eligible to office in the new government, which he by proclamation declared was deprived of all civil government by the armed forces of the independent belligerents with whom we had been at war. And he appointed William W. Holden to the office of provisional governor of North Carolina, and directed him to administer the offices of the newly-created State.

On the 13th of June, 1865, he usurped the same powers, and without any direction from Congress, to whom alone it belonged, erected into an independent State that part of conquered territory for

merly known as the State of Mississippi, and appointed William L. Sharkey provisional governor thereof.

And on the 17th of June, 1865, he in like manner erected a portion of said territory into what he called the State of Georgia, and appointed James Johnson provisional governor thereof. On or about the 17th, 21st, and 30th of June and the 13th of July he, in like manner, created governments which he called the States of Texas, South Carolina, and Florida. And when afterward Congress declared such governments and institutions null and void, and prescribed other methods of governing said territory, and to enable it to enter the Union by the consent of Congress, the President declared such laws null and void, and advised the people to resist their execution; and he has never aided in carrying into effect, but has resisted, what are called the reconstruction laws."

Third Additional Article.

For that Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, by his corrupt practices did attempt to induce the Senators-elect from the State of Colorado to perjure themselves, upon the condition of his signing the bill admitting Colorado into the Union as a State, and thereby admitting them as Senators of the United States.

He did also pardon and restore the rights of franchise to one hundred and ninety-three deserters who, during the war, had deserted from the United States Army, upon condition that they would vote for the Democratic party at the then immediately ensuing election; and they did thus vote, and give to the Democratic agent, Hon. Thomas B. Florence, the sum of $1,000 in cash.

He appointed numerous persons to office who could not take the test-oath, and did not take it, but were allowed to act and discharge the functions thereof in defiance of law.

He ordered agricultural scrip to be issued to the State of North Carolina, which scrip was issued under the act of 1862, when North Carolina was in armed warfare against the Union.

He restored, without authority of law, large tracts of forfeited property; enough, it is believed, to pay the national debt, which had been forfeited under act of Congress, approved July 17, 1862. By reason of all which outrages this Government became impoverished, the people embarrassed, the rebel raiders allowed to flourish, and the Constitution flagrantly violated.

He sold pardons for money, or allowed it to be done through pardon brokers.

Fourth Additional Article.

He did take from the Treasury of the United States large tracts of land and large amounts of money, sufficient, it is believed, to have paid our national debts, and which had been transferred to the United States by act of the 17th July, 1862, as enemies' property, to be applied to the expenses of the war and the debts of the United States. This was corruptly and unlawfully done without any authority of Congress.

Fifth Additional Article.

He did usurp the powers of other branches of the Government, and exercise the legislative power in defiance of the Constitution, in creating or attempting to create new governments out of the territory conquered from the "Confederate States of America," so called, and to govern them by his own mere power, by forms unknown to the Constitution, without consulting Congress, but defying their authority when they had spoken, and denying the constitutionality of the laws of Congress enacted to govern said conquered territory.

The SPEAKER. The Chair decides that this is a question of the highest privilege.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, when the English jurists undertook to establish forms of jurisprudence, they established two or more sets of tribunals-one for the trial of high criminal offenses against the good morals and the heart of society, in which trials the most rigid rules of law and evidence were observed, especially in the defense and protection of the accused, and when conviction was had, the most rigid punishments were inflicted to deter from future wrongs upon society, not simply as punishment, but as exampleexample being a large portion of the object, but punishment by no means overlooked.

But such was the structure of their unequal society that it was very difficult to bring large malefactors to conviction and punishment for offenses involving disgrace and capital inflictions. Hence, wrongs committed by public men against the mere administration of Government, if prosecuted as such, were apt to escape punishment. Still it was necessary that such public offenders should be deprived of the opportunity of longer injuring the community, and another tribunal was established for their trial, composed of men elevated above their sphere or dread of influence; and to secure success the punishment for political offenses on such conviction was in most cases reduced to mere removal from office, without fine or imprisonment or disgraceful inflictions suffered. Although the criminal feature was

still retained in England, it was very much modified, indeed entirely changed, under our Constitution.

66

as

But in England the objects of such trial were soon perverted. Passion, revenge, and malignity refused to let large malefactors escape from the hands of those who were persecuting them by impeachment, and they changed the punishment to one of criminal extent, and inflicted death by the block and gallows, as well as imprisonment and banishment upon many of the high as well as low offenders. Many found themselves arraigned and tried for the deepest crimes in this form of proceeding, while the acts they had done were merely of a political character. It was in this perverted state of the English law that our Revolution broke out and our Constitution was formed. So that our statesmen and judges, groping in the dark for the right reason of the law and seeing it through a glass darkly," so construed our law of impeachment that when the first cases under it came to be decided, and indeed all the sound cases, the judges, though somewhat mystified in the proper construction to put upon it, almost uniformly excluded from the essence of the impeachment all necessity for the charge of moral guilt, malignity, crime, and malum in se. They rejected the whole idea of the necessity of the commission of indictable offenses, and followed the text of Story, of Wharton, and the precedent of Peck's case as stated by Buchanan, Wharton, and Curtis, of the earlier case of Chase, in neither of which is there any attempt to prove "crimen and malum in se," all recog nizing the doctrine that the great offense was a political one purely, and the object of its punishment the prevention of further injury by the incumbent.

When lately I mean by the Committee on the Judiciary-Andrew Johnson was impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, which meant simply high political offenses, a grand opportunity was presented, for the first time in this country, for great judicial minds to lay down broadly and forever the law of impeachments, so that on the one hand they would not allow political offenders to escape for abusing their high trust, and on the other hand would not allow heated and malignant demagogues to persecute political opponents and rivals so as to carry their punishments to the bloody marge of hatred and vengeance.

If further punishment were found necessary there would be no advantage from political ascendancy, for then the prosecution would proceed according to the impartial principles of the common law, where justice could be administered between man and man. I had hoped that these great principles would have been so elucidated by the learned Judiciary Committee of this House that no future time would produce the risk of judicial persecutions and murders.

Of all prosecutions which I have ever witnessed, either in civil or military affairs, that result was to me the most unsatisfactory. I speak of the first prosecution. I have nothing to say of the last one, and I beg my remarks will be so understood throughout. But hav ing my own views I must utter them in good faith, without regard to the position which the listener may happen to occupy. When that prosecution was first commenced, I believed it then, as I believe it now, to be the deep-seated conviction of nine tenths of the honest men of the party that the respondent was guilty and ought to be convicted.

I admit that after the election of the new President of the Senate there was a cooling off in certain quarters, from motives which I have never been able to fathom, and do not now intend to scan. When the Republicans of the House came to scrutinize the acts of the President preparatory to taking evidence I believe that none were of the opinion that the time occupied in taking testimony would extend over a period of more than twenty days.

To their minds the whole question was so patent, so clear, lay so completely upon the surface of events, that to seize it with the clear

intention to drag it into daylight was among the things which it was impossible to evade, for the slightest exposure would make everything apparent to the naked eye.

But the Republican party fell into a great error. In a short time it became apparent that this was to be a work of very considerable magnitude, if the course pointed out were to be pursued. Instead of investigating charges of impeachment against the President of the United States on specific allegations, charges extending to every crime and every folly which a wicked, bad man could be guilty of were eagerly sought for and gravely investigated, or the investigation entered upon with a malignity and feeling which could do no credit to so high a tribunal.

To my mind the whole question of the guilt of the respondent, the whole question of malfeasance in office by the President of the United States, the whole question of his official "high crimes and misdemeanors" lay within thirtysix hours of the examination of the testimony in chief if it had been properly confined to that testimony.

But these innumerable eggs were thrown into the nest of this investigation, until it was more than full, and their was great danger of their becoming addled.

They thought to break the elephant's back, broad as it was, by piling upon it straws and chaff bags, out of which was to be extracted the heavy metal of decomposition; and especially, if that would not prove sufficient, to mount upon it two or three buxom damsels seated on pillions; Mrs. Cobb proved too light.

Now, sir, I merely wished to lay before the House and the committee a few reasons why I was so wholly dissatisfied, as I have been and am still.

That a misdemeanor is triable by a common law court in England, and a felony is triable as a high crime before a common jury, no one doubts who has paid the least attention to the common law. But no one can, and so far as I know, no one does pretend that either of those offenses can be tried under the law of Congress at common law, there being no common law in the United States.

Why, then, is it pretended that any common law offense can be brought before a judicial tribunal of the nation? Why is it pretended that any of the offenses charged against Jefferson Davis and his associates can be tried as criminal offenses before the Government on impeachment? Whether they could now be tried for riots and mutiny I give no opinion, having always held that the sovereignty, when it once reconquered its sovereign power, could inflict just such punishment, and through just such tribunals as it saw proper, not by virtue of its old tribunals, but by virtue of its eminent domain, or by virtue of its remnant of municipal power.

Instead of alleging that impeachment can only be instituted where there is an indictable offense, I contend that the great object of impeachment was to punish for malfeasance in office-where there was no actual crime committed-no malfeasance against which an indictment would hold, and against which no allegation of evil intention need be made. In other words, that proceedings in impeachment should be had mainly where the true distinction was made between a charge against a party with malice aforethought in it, and a charge against a party with no evil intention, but with great injury to the country; in short, that they could be had mainly for political offenses; and that the grade of high crimes and misdemeanors spoken of by the Constitution as subjecting the party to impeachment, did not involve the guilt of malum in se or wickedness of heart, so that the highest official in the land can be impeached, convicted, and punished without having committed a single offense which involved malignity of heart.

If an officer cannot be impeached except for an indictable offense, then you must wait until he has done some injurious act with malice aforethought. It cannot be, sir, that malice

the Army and Navy of the United States and to be transferred to the officers of the Freedmen's Bureau, in trust for the freedmen and those who were made destitute by the war. These laws, also, were absolute and unqualified, and admitted of no ambiguity, no doubt of their construction, and under them large amounts of property were seized.

was worth. The real estate of the rich belligerents over the value of $20,000 each would more than pay all our national debt and the damages done loyal citizens. To be sure, the expenditures which we have already incurred. probably exceeding $3,000,000,000, can never be regained from the enemy, for there is no trace of their amount. Let us see how the Under the first-named law the officers of the account would stand. The liquidated debt, as Government, as fast as our armies conquered reported by the Departments, is returned at the country, seized the lands and goods of the about $3,000,000,000, and if the Government enemy, and instituted proceedings for confisca is foolish enough to pay, under the pretense tion. No one, I suppose, doubts that had these set up by bondholders that it ought to be paid laws been fully carried out enough revenue in gold instead of money, it will probably reach would have been produced to pay the whole of $5,500,000,000-an enormous debt, which no our national debt, together with the damage nation ever incurred and survived. But taking done to loyal men by the enemy, both in south-it for granted that no Administration ever dared ern territory and in the northern States which they invaded, and that, too, without seizing one particle of property whose owners were worth less than twenty thousand dollars. No poor man, guilty or not guilty, would have been disturbed in his possessions, or, if the proceeding be a hard one, would have been unjustly punished for his offense. Fortunately for such a proceeding the South was a land of satraps and nabobs, and their estates were of almost indefinite extent. I once had an estimate by competent men in the Census Bureau, and I found that it would affect less than sixty thousand men out of a population of some six million. Now, it would seem that no one who desired the punishment of crime and a remuneration for wrong done could much object to such a proceeding, unless all his ideas of justice were perverted, and he would turn the punishment of the malefactor on the innocent and his reward on the guilty.

When the President had been commissioned, like the tormentor of Job, to deal with a nation to whatever devilish extent he chose, in order, I suppose, to try their virtue and the endurance of the fire of liberty, and had commenced his acts of torture and injustice, he began by pardoning the most lofty rebels, having first exonerated all of the lower grade, and ordered to be restored to them the land which had been seized as enemies' property by the conquering

power.

Of course I cannot now attempt to enumerate the one tenth part of the property which had been seized, and which, under the vain idea that a pardon restored it, the President ordered to be returned to his friends, the original owners. A few specimens may serve for the whole. General Sherman, in company with the Secretary of War, had seized Charleston and the adjacent mainland, together with the Sea Islands, so famous for cotton, and had set aside these islands and the margin of the water fronts as homesteads for the liberated freedmen, as some slight recompense for their lives of toil. On those islands more than forty thousand persons were thus provided with comfortable homes-made, as they thought and all thought, proprietors of the soil and independent landholders. The testimony shows that four hundred and fifty thousand acres of the mainland were laid off in a similar manner for the accommodation of these unhappy freedmen. The testimony also is that more than two thirds of Charleston were taken possession of on behalf of the United States, and for the same purpose.

Now, what those Sea Islands and Charleston were worth I have no means of knowingmany millions, says the testimony. I should think they were valued very low at a billion. And who were they given to? The testimony shows that they were given to the richest men in the South; Aiken, Trenholm, and Whaley, and others of the opulent, who were proved to have made vast amounts of money by blockade-running during the war. The estates of these three are estimated at from five to twenty millions each; taken altogether, but little short of a billion. The abandoned property in Vir ginia, Louisiana, and other provinces was proved to be very large, and would most probably carry up the aggregate to $1,500,000,000. But it matters not what the abandoned property

to give away of the people's money more than $1,500,000,000 or $2,000,000,000 that do not belong to the claimants, and taking it for granted that no clamor of bondholders or shavers or hired editors will ever induce an honest Secretary of the Treasury, or an honest Administration to pay the debt in anything but lawful money when it falls due, still I suppose the debt would amount to over $3,000,000,000.

Now, the property already seized as confiscated and abandoned, from the evidence taken before the Committee on Reconstruction and the various reports from the Freedmen's Bureau, could it have been all applied in that direction, would have nearly paid, if not quite, the obligations due by the United States to the various holders both in Europe and America, including the certified indebtedness and legal tenders. This property, you remember, is ordered by act of 17th of July, 1862, and other acts, to be reduced to money and paid to defray these very claims. And if that course had been pursued by the President, who was expressly commanded to see it executed, the debt which now by the weekly statements looms up to about twenty-five hundred million dollars would have been liquidated and paid. Why was not this done? By the law of nations and by the practice of every well-regulated Government, the conqueror compels the vanquished belligerent in an unjust war to pay not only the debt incurred by the victorious party, but all the damages caused by the invasion and inroads of the enemy.

It was the duty of the President, and which he had sworn to perform, to convert this property into money and pay off this debt. Had he not been guilty of official perjury the whole of the bonded debt, which is now a lien upon every man's property, would have been paid or be in process of payment out of the confiscated funds of rebels.

But he preferred to grant them pardons, and then order that the property seized, either as belligerent or abandoned property, should be restored to its rebel owners. How much the restoration cost those whose influence was used to gain their pardons and procure their restoration I do not undertake to argue. I should be very sorry if any man's reputation were to depend upon the testimony of the Cobbs, Davises, and Bakers upon such points as these. That they were probably right in their account of his social intercourse with them I think likely; but that would no further implicate him in high crimes and misdemeanors, or be relevant evidence, than as it went to show a looseness of morals which would induce honest and upright men to give but little faith and credit to any of his acts.

If the property to which we have already referred had paid off the national debt and relieved the United States from its burdens, it is clearly proved that a very large amount of surplus remained to the large land-holding belligerents after the war was ended. In all the slaveholding States, farms, instead of occupying two or three hundred acres, were manors of from three to thirty thousand acres. The brothers of Jeff. Davis, it is shown, were owners of hundreds of thousands of acres of the richest bottom lands of Mississippi, and too proud to ask for pardon that they might save them. They bade defiance to the conqueror, and their relations had to

make the application for them. When one of these high culprits was pardoned, the President invariably ordered a restoration of his property by a clear violation of the Constitution. He has the pardoning power, but that power does not take from the Treasury any property of the United States and bestow it on the convict.

Where an act of Parliament or of the legis lative power of a nation declares the forfeiture, and orders its application for the purposes of the Government, it is beyond the pardoning power of the Executive. It is not a case that comes within the law of forfeiture at common law, but it is one that requires precisely the same power to restore it that it did to take it away. I feel no doubt, therefore, that the restoration of this property was all a nullity, and it is the duty, and has been the duty, of the Executive ever since he has seized this property to convert it into money and apply it to the payment of the national debt. If we are right in this, is it not the duty of every member of this body who has any respect for his constituents or any regard for his oath to put the respondent upon his trial and see how far he is guilty? Any other course, it seems to me, savors so much of party corruption and party demoralization that it can be accounted for in no other way than, in looking over this body, to suppose we are beholding not an amphictyonic council, but an assembly of cowards. I will not, therefore, believe that any adverse vote will be had until I have heard the responses as the parties are called.

There is but one thing further on this branch of the subject which I deem it necessary or even proper to touch. For if the fact be as I suppose, and its exhibition do not induce this body to vote for impeachment, then all effort. were vain, and we should not obey, though one were to raise from the dead to instruct us. After all the governments in the ten or eleven conquered States which had formed the confederate States of America had been subdued, crushed, conquered, by the United States, and were admitted to be subject to their disposal and lying prostrate at their mercy, the question, a grave though not difficult one, arose: in what way shall they be governed? The conqueror had a right to impose just such laws as he chose, within the bounds of humanity. He had a right to give them new forms of government, new constitutions and laws, to obliterate their old boundaries and make new ones. Who did I say had that right? The conqueror, the nation, the Government, that had subdued them. That conqueror, in every nation claiming to be free, consists of the legislative power of the empire. The Commander-in-Chief of its armies, its judiciary, had nothing to do with the permanent governments to be set up, except to obey and execute any laws which the legislative power might deem proper to pass. That was resolved and decreed, not once simply, but more than once, by a two-thirds vote, until every person belonging to either branch of the Government was fully aware of it. And until those governments were established it was just as clear that the conquered provinces had no lot in Israel. And, in order to give them any right, they must petition the conquering power and receive whatever terms it might deem fit to give.

Whatever might have been the doubt of ignorance and ambition immediately after the contest, no one not entirely destitute of the proper knowledge of the law of nations and the decrees passed by this Government can now be in ignorance of the fact that such is the law which this nation determined to enforce. But the executive officers thought themselves superior to the sovereign power of the nation, and instead of consulting them and obeying their instructions they proceeded to institute gov ernments of their own, to dictate the kind of laws and constitutions under which their subjects should act, and how they should demean themselves so as to be represented in the nation. The sovereign legislative power rejected this proceeding, and ordered new governments to