ident of the nation. But the suggestion has been made on this floor that his conduct involves a mere question of the construction of a law. Sir, it is the question of the construction of vital provisions of that which is antecedent to and underlies the law-the Constitution of our country and of its express provisions. Nor, even if the arraignment depended upon the provisions of the Tenure-of-Office Act, would the issue be a mere question of the construction of law. That question was referred to the Senate yesterday, and that body advised the President that they regarded his action as unconstitutional. It was again referred to-day to the courts of the country, and is marked for adjudication for Wednesday next, and the of fender, who, I fear, will hereafter be known as the St. Arnaud of our army and country, is under $5,000 bail to respond to the demands of the law and abide its peaceable determination. And yet, sir, after the action of the Senate and the reference of the question to the judicial tribunals of the country-and let me say, in passing, that I speak not from the report of the honorable gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Bingham), who referred to the fact, but from my own observation-escaping from the magistrate's office, and coming, as I am informed, through the office of the President and his Attorney-General, Adjutant-General Lorenzo Thomas appeared in the War Department at noon to-day, and, in my presence, demanded to exercise the functions of Secretary of War; and when ordered courteously, but positively, to take his place in the office of the Adjutant-General, and attend to his duties, he protested that he was Secretary of War ad interim, and was there in obedience to the orders of the President of the United States, and, in his name, demanded possession of the mails of the department, with all its books and papers. "Sir, this extraordinary procedure on the part of the President is not necessary for the adjudication of a legal question. The question gentlemen attempt to raise can be decided very speedily. These proceedings are necessary only for a usurper whom the people have repulsed and thwarted time and again, but who hopes, by the absolute possession of the War Department, to use the army, and thus overcome the contumacy of the people, and who attempts, on the 22d of February, 1868, to execute by cunning that which he hoped mob violence would execute for him on the 22d of February, 1866. "It is not well, Mr. Speaker, that the institutions of this broad but infant nation should depend upon the virtue or life of one or two of its citizens. Lincoln was murdered, and other distinguished patriots may be. It is known that men ascend to power over bloody steps, and that they may do it in this country and yet be tolerated. Therefore, the hour has come when Congress owes it not only to itself, but to the safety of the country, to warn Mr. Johnson that he cannot perpetuate his power, and bring him, as hastily as the forms and spirit of law will permit, to trial and degradation. The army of France obeyed the orders of St. Arnaud as Minister of War, and the army of the United States owe obedience to the orders of the President, issued by the Secretary of War. On the integrity of that officer in this crisis depend the peace and life of the nation!" Mr. Beck, of Kentucky, followed, saying: "Mr. Speaker, disguise it as we may, and call this proceeding by what name we will, it is at last apparent that the leaders of this Congress are prepared to take the fatal plunge into the sea of revolution, and, fearing that the more timid or conservative of the members of the majority may halt before they leap, the leaders are determined to dash them on while they are yet blind with rage, lest the sight of the frightful precipice should make them shudder and retrace their steps. Defeated twice in their impeachment schemes since this session began, once in the House, after all the acts, public and private, of the President had been ferreted out for six months, through perjured spies and informers, and again before the Reconstruction Committee, with all the acts and correspondence between General Grant and the President (see PUBLIC DOCUMENTS) before it, the foiled and baffled leaders, desperate and reckless, have now taken advantage of the insane furore created by a legitimate effort of the President to test, before the courts of the country, his constitutional and legal right to remove an obnoxious, and, as he asserts, faithless subordinate, who is a spy upon his actions, and an obstacle in the way of the faithful performance of his constitutional obligation to 'see that the laws are faithfully executed'— to remove him from his high position and place there a pliant tool of the dominant faction; and this, too, is to be done with an indecent haste that would be disgraceful to the proceedings in the lowest and most insignificant magistrate's court in the country. The matter was referred to the Reconstruction Committee late yesterday evening. A sub-committee of three, all of whom were known to favor the scheme, were to-day charged by that committee to take proof and prepare the report, carefully excluding therefrom either of the members who were known to oppose it. Sitting after this House met, in violation of the rules of the House, and against the protest of the minority of the committee, the articles of impeachment are now hurried before this body." Mr. Logan, of Illinois, followed, saying: "Now, Mr. Speaker, let us examine this question for a moment. It seems to me very plain and easy of solution. It is not necessary, in order to decide whether this action of the President of the United States comes within the purview and meaning of this statute, for us to talk about revolutions, or what this man or that man has said or decided. What has been the act of the President is the question? The law is plain. If the President shall appoint, or shall give a letter of authority, or issue a commission, to any person without the consent of the Senate, he is guilty of-what? The law says of a high misdemeanor. And, under and by virtue of the Constitution, the President can be impeached for-what? For high crimes or misdemeanors. This law declares the issuing a commission to, or giving a letter of authority to, or appointing to or removing from office, any person without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, shall be a high misdemeanor, which is within the meaning and within the pale of the Constitution of the United States. "Now, what is the evidence presented to this body by one of its committees? It is of this character: The Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton, has been declared by a solemn vote of the Senate to be the Secretary of War, by virtue of what? By virtue of an appointment to that office; by reason of the fact that Andrew Johnson did not relieve him from office when he had the right to present the name of somebody else-soon after his taking the presidential chair-not the right to turn him out, but the right to nominate some one else to the Senate and ask them to confirm him to that office. That the President failed to do. Then, acting under the provisions of this statute, the President suspended Mr. Stanton as Secretary of War, but the Senate passed upon that act, and decided that the reasons given by the President for suspending Mr. Stanton were not satisfactory; and, accordingly, by virtue of this law, Mr. Stanton was confirmed and reinstated in his position as Secretary of War. "Now, all this having been done, it cannot certainly be claimed that the President, in his recent course in regard to Mr. Stanton, has acted without any intention of violating the law. Nor can it be claimed that the President is ignorant of the law. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Beck) is too good a lawyer not to be aware of the fact that the law presumes every man to be acquainted with the laws. That may be a violent presumption in the case of Andrew Johnson, yet that is an axiom of the law. "That being, then, the presumption, that the President knows the law, having been notified by the Senate of its action, and of the consequent operation of the law, then if, in violation of that same law, Andrew Johnson did issue an order removing Secretary Stanton from the War Office, and, in the language of this statute, did 'issue a letter of authority' to Lorenzo Thomas to take possession of that office, and act as Secretary of War ad interim, I ask the gentleman from Kentucky, or any other lawyer in this House, to tell me, under this statute, what has the President done? Sir, he has violated its provisions, he has committed a high misdemeanor. Look at the evidence and then read the law." Mr. Holman, of Indiana, said: "What are the relations of the President of the United States to the executive powers of the Government, and especially, sir, what are his relations to the members of his Cabinet? The Constitution itself clearly defines these relations and renders him directly responsible for the manner in which the executive power of the Government is exercised. In the language of the Constitution, 'the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.' 'Before he enters on the execution of his office he shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States;' and he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' And again, he shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for.' Is it possible, after these eighty years of experience, that any gentleman can believe that the President of the United States can well execute the duties of his high office, and properly take care that the laws be faithfully executed,' without any control of the chief agencies-the heads of departments-by which the executive power to be exercised? is "Can the country justly hold the Chief Executive responsible and yet render him powerless by filling the high offices of his department with persons hostile to the success of his Administration? During these eighty years of our history, through all these Administra tions, has it ever been dreamed, sir, that the President of the United States could properly exercise his high functions and successfully administer the Government without a Cabinet in harmony with himself? No matter what party has been in power, Democrat or Federalist, Whig or Republican, and no matter whether the Congress and the Executive were in harmony or not, the common interests of the country have secured to the President a body of friendly counsellors, who as heads of departments have given unity and efficiency to the Administration. The public good demanded it, and hitherto party spirit has never been so intense or vindictive as to seek partisan advan tages at the expense of the interests of the country. The framers of the Constitution could not have intended, while imposing such high responsibilities on the President, that the very duties imposed upon him might be defeated by the unfriendly officers executing high official trusts. Mr. Madison, therefore, claimed the power of removal of an executive officer. The appointing power is in the Presi dent, with the right of the Senate to reject or confirm, but if the Senate refuses to confirm the nomination the powers of the office have been uniformly performed by some other offi cer of the Government. The first section of the Tenure-of-Office Law, which was passed on the 2d day of March, 1867, and manifestly intended to embarrass the administration of Mr. Johnson, is as follows: SEC. 1. Every person holding any official office to which he has been appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and every person who shall hereafter be appointed to such office, and shall become duly qualified to act therein, is and shall be entitled to hold such office until a successor shall have been in like manner appointed and duly qualified, except as herein otherwise provided: Provided, That the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy, and of the Interior, the Postmaster-General, and the Attorney-General, shall hold their offices respectively for and during the term of the President by whom they may have been appointed and for one month thereafter, subject to removal by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. "Edwin M. Stanton was appointed Secretary of War and the appointment confirmed by the Senate during the first term of Mr. Lincoln. He was never reappointed either by Mr. Lincoln or by Mr. Johnson. If the Tenure-ofOffice Law had been enforced when Mr. Lincoln's first term expired, it is manifest that the term of Mr. Stanton, as Secretary of War, would have expired one month after Mr. Lincoln's second term commenced, and would have expired one month after Mr. Lincoln ceased to be President. "This whole question, as I have already remarked, is therefore a question of construction. The proviso of the first section of this Tenure-of-Office Law certainly involves the very point here in dispute; the very question involved in this attempt at impeachment." Mr. Ingersoll, of Illinois, sent the following telegram to the Clerk to be read: SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, } EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, February 22, 1868. The usurpations of Andrew Johnson have created a profound sensation in this State. His last act is the act of a traitor. His treason must be checked. The duty of Congress seems plain. The people of Illinois attached to the Union, I firmly believe, demand his impeachment, and will heartily sustain such action by our Congress. The peace of the country is not to be trifled with by this presumptuous demagogue. We know the national Congress will proceed wisely and cautiously, but let it proceed. Millions of loyal hearts are panting to stand by the stars and stripes. Have no fear. All will be well. Liberty and order will again triumph. R. J. OGLESBY, Governor. Mr. Washburne, of Illinois, said: "In my judgment the safety of the country, the cause of good government, the preservation of constitutional right and of public liberty depend upon the prompt impeachment of the President of the United States. Let him be impeached for his last great crime that he has committed against the Constitution and laws of his country. Let him be promptly tried, and, if found guilty, let him be removed from the office he has disgraced. His longer retention in office is a perpetual and enduring menace against the peace and happiness and pros perity of the nation. His whole official career as President has been marked by a wicked disregard of all the obligations of public duty and by a degree of perfidy and treachery and turpitude unheard of in the history of the rulers of a free people; his personal and official character has made him the opprobrium of both hemispheres, and brought ineffable disgrace on the American name. As mendacious as he is malignant, he has used his high position in attempting to break down and destroy the noblest, the bravest, the best in the land. His administration has been a constant and prolonged warfare against all the material interests of the country; it has prostrated business; it has oppressed labor; it has destroyed values; it has impaired the public credit and sapped the public morals. Surrounded by redhanded rebels, advised and counselled by the worst men that ever crawled, like filthy reptiles, at the footstool of power, the President has used all the vast authority of the Government to prevent a reunion of the States, the restoration of harmony and peace and happiness to the country. He has brought the loyal men in the unreconstructed States to a condition from the contemplation of which all men must recoil with horror. Sustained and supported by the Administration, murder, rapine, incendiarism, robbery, and all the crimes stalk through that whole land with a bloody step; and every day he remains in office adds to the long list of victims of rebel vengeance, cruelty, and hate. "Under such a President nearly every department of the Government has become demoralized and corrupt to an extent which can find no parallel in the history of any country in any age. The Attorney-General, not satisfied with being the medium through which so many counterfeiters, mail-robbers, and public plunderers have been pardoned and turned loose upon the country, has, with ostentatious and boastful audacity, proclaimed in the very presence of the highest judicial tribunal of the land that he will not vindicate the laws of the country passed by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of Congress. Look, sir, at the Navy Department attempting, in the first instance, to impose upon this House fraudulent estimates of nearly twenty-five million dollars in order to render a Republican Congress amenable to the charge of extravagance; look at its imbecile management, its profligacy, its extravagance, its jobberies, and its corruptions and persecutions, under color of law, of some of our bravest and most distinguished naval officers. Look at the administration of the Treasury Department, characterized by the most monstrous and appalling frauds, with countless millions of revenue stolen to go into the pockets of thieves, partisans, and plunderers, or to make up a vast political fund to demoralize and corrupt the people, and to secure the election of a Democratic and semi-rebel President. Look at the Interior Department, with its land and railroad jobbing, its profligate Indian expenditures, and its fraudulent and corrupt extensions of patents; and the Post-Office Department, arraigned before the House by a committee of the House on charges of corruption; and the State Department, arraigned befor the nations of the world for not vindicating the rights of the nation and of the citizens of the nation! "Confronted as we are this day, Mr. Speaker, by this state of things, so threatening to our national existence and so destructive of all that is held dear by all good citizens, can there be any patriotic man of any political organization who does not call upon Congress to sternly do its whole duty, and purge this capitol of the crimes which defile the nation?" Mr. Woodward, of Pennsylvania, said: "I take it upon me to deny your right to impeach anybody, and the present Senate's right to try any impeachment. Says the Constitution: "The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment,' and the 'House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.' This House of Representatives is not so composed; but, on the contrary, the Representatives chosen from ten of the 'several States' have been and are excluded from these Halls. I do not say if they were absent voluntarily they could prevent your exercise of the impeaching power; for then they would form, though personally absent, a part of the composition of the House; but, so long as you prevent their entering into its composition, you are not the House of Representatives to whom the Constitution commits the 'sole power of impeachment.' Our functions in this regard have been likened to those of a grand jury which consists of twenty-three men. And suppose, sir, a majority of a grand jury should get possession of the jury-room and bar the door against a minority of their fellows, as well entitled to be there as the majority, would the findings of such a jury be respected? By no court in Christendom. On the contrary, their acts would be set aside, and very likely themselves punished for their contempt of the law. "Then, as to the Senate, the Constitution says 'the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments,' and that the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State.' The ten excluded States are entitled to twenty Senators upon that floor, and, until they are admitted and incorporated into the body, I deny that it is the Senate to whom the Constitution commits the power to try impeachments. What criminal was ever before arraigned before a court from which twenty of his legal triers had been excluded? Yet you propose to arraign the man who represents in his person thirty-five millions of freemen before just such a dismembered bench. You have no right to do it. Your might makes it not right. A giant's strength is good, but it is tyrannous to use it as a giant. "The flippant reply to this grave suggestion is that we pass laws, and therefore we are a House and Senate to impeach. But the answer is, your legislative powers have not been questioned, your impeaching powers are. I am not bound to take even a valid objection to the jurisdiction of a court which sits to adjudicate my.civil rights, nor is my objection to its jurisdiction to try me for crimes and misdemeanors impaired by my failure to make timely objection in behalf of my civil rights. The question of jurisdiction is raised now, and now is the time to decide it. It was never raised as to our legislative powers, and the time has gone by for that. But this is the very time to raise it as to our criminal jurisdiction. It could not be decided before it was raised, and hence I conclude all the legislation we have done does not constitute us the court to originate and try impeachments which the Constitution contemplates." Mr. Judd, of Illinois, presented the following telegram, which was read by the Clerk: CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, February 24, 1868. Mr. Eldridge, of Wisconsin, said: "Who believes that this is the movement of the lovers of the Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, for their defence and protection? Who believes that it is for the purpose of keeping the President in his legitimate executive sphere? "If any one doubts upon this point, let me ask him why it is that Mr. Stanton, who pronounces this Tenure-of-Office Bill unconstitu tional, is so anxious to hold on to this office? Why is it, when distinguished Senators declared that no gentleman, no man of honor, could hold on to a Cabinet office after an inti mation from the President that he was not wanted, that his resignation was desired? Why is it, when the personal and official relations of the Secretary and the President are admittedly such that they can have no intercourse or communication with each other? Is it, I repeat, to strengthen and aid the Executive in the legitimate and proper exercise of the executive power? "It is admitted upon all hands that the party for impeachment desire to keep Mr. Stanton there to oppose and circumvent the President. He is kept there in the interest of the legisla tive and not the executive power. He is kept in the interest of Congress and not the Presi dent. He is expected to execute the will of Congress, to do its bidding, to strengthen its power, to oppose and not to aid the President. the "Now, I put it to the gentlemen upon other side of this House, if they expect or believe that it is possible for this Government of several and coequal departments to exist while not only warring with each other, but while the one has not only a spy, a common informer, in the confidential counsels of the other, but a known and determined enemy, holding his position against his own pronounced convictions of constitutional right and duty?" Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, said: "Mr. Speaker, I agree with those gentlemen who have gone before me, that this is a grave subject and should be gravely treated. It is important to the high official who is the subject of these charges, and it is important to a nation of forty million people, now free, and rapidly increasing to hundreds of millions. The official character of the Chief Executive of this great nation being thus involved, the charge, if falsely made, is a cruel wrong; if, on the other hand, the usurpations and misdemeanors charged against him are true, he is guilty of as atrocious attempts to usurp the liberty and destroy the happiness of this nation as were ever perpetrated by the most detestable tyrant who ever oppressed his fellow-men. Let us, therefore, discuss these questions in no partisan spirit, but with legal accuracy and impartial justice. The people desire no victim, and they will endure no usurper. "The charges, so far as I shall discuss them, are few and distinct. Andrew Johnson is charged with attempting to usurp the powers of other branches of the Government; with attempting to obstruct and resist the execution of the law; with misprision of bribery; and with the open violation of laws which declare his acts misdemeanors and subject him to fine and imprisonment; and with removing from office the Secretary of War during the session of the Senate without the advice or consent of the Senate; and with violating the sixth section of the act entitled 'An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices.' There are other offences charged in the papers referred to the committee, which I may consider more by themselves. "In order to sustain impeachment under our Constitution I do not hold that it is necessary to prove a crime as an indictable offence, or any act malum in se. I agree with the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, on the other side of the House, who holds this to be a purely political proceeding. It is intended as a remedy for malfeasance in office, and to prevent the continuance thereof. Beyond that, it is not intended as a personal punishment for past offences or for future example. "What, then, are the official misdemeanors of Andrew Johnson disclosed by the evidence? On the 2d day of March, 1867, Congress passed an act entitled 'An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices.' Among other provisions it enacted that no officer who had been appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate should be removed from office without the consent of the Senate, and that, if during vacation a suspension should be made for cause, such cause should be reported to the Senate within twenty days after their next meeting. If the Senate should deem the reason of the suspension sufficient, then the officer should be removed and another appointed in his stead; but if the Senate should refuse to concur with the President, and declare the reasons insufficient, then the officer suspended should forthwith resume the functions of his office and the powers of the person performing its duties should cease. It is especially provided that the Secretary of War shall hold his office during the term of the President by whom he may have been appointed, and for one month thereafter, unless removed by and with the consent of the Senate as aforesaid. On the 12th day of August, 1867, during the recess of the Senate, the President removed the Secretary of War, whose term of office had not expired, requiring him to surrender the office with the public property, and appointed General U. S. Grant Secretary of War ad interim. "When Andrew Johnson assumed the office of President, he took the oath to obey the Constitution of the United States and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. This was a solemn and enduring obligation, nor can he plead exemption from it on account of his condition at the time it was administered to him. An attempt to obstruct the execution of the law, not a mere omission amounting to negligence which would have been a misdemeanor, but a daring and bold conspiracy was attempted by him to induce the General of the Army to aid him in defeating the operation of this law; and, when he had suspended the Secretary of War, he appointed General Grant Secretary ad interim, with the avowed purpose of preventing the operation of that law, if the Senate should decide in favor of the Secretary; and he says that the General did enter into such conspiracy to aid him in obstructing the return of the rejected Secretary, notwithstanding the Senate might decide in his favor. This is denied by the General, and a question of veracity, rather angrily discussed, has arisen between them. Those gentlemen seem to consider that that question is one of importance to the public. In this they are mistaken. Which is the man of truth, and which the man of falsehood, is of no more public importance than if it arose between two obscure individuals. If Andrew Johnson tells the truth, then he is guilty of a high official misdemeanor, for he avows his effort to prevent the execution of the law. If the General commanding tells the truth, then the President is guilty of a high misdemeanor, for he declares the same thing of the President, denying only his own complicity. No argument can make this point plainer than the statement of the culprit. If he and the General told the truth, then he committed wilful perjury by refusing to take care that the laws should be duly executed. "To show the animus and guilty knowledge with which this law was violated, we have only |