"I do not know of a single person who either feels or contemplates any resistance to the government of the United States, or, indeed any opposition to it." He gave this assurance to the committee: "The people entirely acquiesce in the government of the United States and are for co-operating with President Johnson in his policy."
The payment of the public debt had not been a topic of discussion in his presence, but the people were disposed to pay such taxes as were imposed and they were struggling to get money for that purpose.
He was of the opinion that the people made no distinction between the Confederate debt and the debt of the United States—that they were disposed to pay both debts, and would pay both if they had the power. For himself, however, he had no expectation that the indebtedness of the Confederacy would ever be paid.
General Lee manifested a kindly spirit for the freedmen, but he was unwilling to accept them as citizens endowed with the right of suffrage. Of the feeling in Virginia, General Lee said: "Every one with whom I associate expresses kind feelings toward the freedmen. They wish to see them get on in the world, and especially to take up some occupation for a living."
He rejected the suggestion that there was anywhere within the State any combinations having in view, "the disturbance of the peace, or any improper or unlawful acts." He characterized the negroes as "an amiable, social race, who look more to the present than to their future condition."
In answer to the question whether the South would support the government in case of a war with France or England, General Lee was distinctly reserved: "I cannot speak with any certainty on that point. I do not know how far they might be actuated by their feelings. I have nothing whatever to base an opinion upon. So far as I know they contemplate nothing of the kind now. What may happen in the future I cannot say." He then added this remark: "Those people in Virginia with whom I associate express a hope that the country may not be led into war."
As to an alliance during the war he said that he knew nothing of the policy of the Confederate government: "I had no hand or part of it," was his remark. It was his opinion during the war that an alliance with a foreign country was desirable, and he had assumed that the authorities were of the same opinion. His ideas were those of General Grant, and he avoided responsibility for the measures of the government on the civil side.
With kind feelings for the colored people of Virginia General Lee favored the substitution of a white class of laborers, if an exchange could be made, of which however, he had neither plan nor hope. Nor could he give any assurance that Northern men would be received upon terms of equality and friendship, if they avowed the opinions that then prevailed generally in the North: "The manner in which they would be received would depend entirely upon the individuals themselves —they might make themselves obnoxious, as you can understand," was the statement of General Lee. His testimony as a whole indicated an opinion that it was more important to secure capital for business, than it was to rid the State of the negro laborer. In his opinion, most of the blacks were willing to work for their former masters, but they were unwilling to make engagements for a year, a form of engagement which the farmers and planters preferred, that they might be sure of help when it would be most needed. The negroes may have been influenced by one or both of two reasons. Their unthrifty habits—the outcome of slavery—or an apprehension that a formal engagement for a year was a kind of bondage that might lead to a renewal of the old system.
When General Lee was pressed by Senator Howard as to the feeling in the South in regard to the National Government, he said: "I believe that they will perform all the duties that they are required to perform. I think that is the general feeling. . . . I do not know that there is any deep-seated dislike. I think it is probable that there may be some animosity still existing among some of the people of the South. . . . They were disappointed at the result of the war."
General Lee was of the opinion that a Southern jury would not find an accused guilty of treason for participation in the war. Indeed his doctrine of State Rights excused the citizen and placed the sole responsibility on the State. Of the common sentiment in the South he said: "So far as I know, they will look upon the action of the State, in withdrawing itself from the government of the United States, as carrying the individuals of the State along with it; that the State was responsible for the act, not the individual." This was the framework of his own defence. Speaking of the advocates of secession, he said: "The ordinance of secession, or those acts of a State which recognized a condition of war between the State and the General Government, stood as their justification for their bearing arms against the Government of the United States. They considered the act of the State as legitimate. That they were merely using the reserved right, which they had a right to do."
From these views General Lee was led to a specific statement of his own position:
Question: "State, if you please, what your own personal views on that question were?"
Answer: "That was my view; that the act of Virginia in withdrawing herself from the United States carried me along as a citizen of Virginia, and that her laws and her acts were binding on me.'
Question: "And that you felt to be your justification in taking the course you did?"
Answer: "Yes, sir."
In the course of the examination General Lee expressed the opinion that the "trouble was brought about by the politicians of the country."
General Lee disclaimed all responsibility for the care and treatment of prisoners of war. He had always favored a free exchange of prisoners, knowing that the proper means for the care and comfort of prisoners could not be furnished in the Confederacy. He thought that the hardships and neglects had been exaggerated. As to himself, he had never had any control over prisoners, except as they were captured on the field of battle. He sent his prisoners to Richmond where they came under the command of the provost-marshal-general. His orders to surgeons on the field were to treat all the wounded alike.
In the examinations that were made by the committee I read a large number of reports of surgeons connected with the prisons and hospitals and I may say that in all cases they exhibited humanity and in many cases specific means of relief for the sufferings of the soldiers were recommended. Their reports were forwarded from officer to officer, but in a large majority of cases the reports were neglected.
In a letter written by General Lee to his sister a few days before he abandoned the service of the United States, he expressed the opinion that there was no sufficient cause for the rebellion. This opinion, in connection with his opinion that the rebellion was the work of politicians demonstrates the power which the doctrine of State Rights had obtained over a man of experience and of admitted ability. Upon his own admission, he subordinated his conduct to the action of his State, and in disregard of his personal obligation through his oath of office. If he had followed his own judgment as to what was wise and proper he would have remained in his place as an officer in the army of the United States.
If in 1861 an officer of the army had entertained the opinion that the North was in the wrong and that the South was in the right, it could be claimed, fairly, that that officer might forswear his obligations to the old Government and accept service in the Confederacy.
Moral obliquity is not to be assumed in the case of General Lee. His pecuniary and professional interests must have invited him to remain in the army. General Scott, a Virginian, was at the head of the army, and General Scott was his friend. His promotion was certain, and important commands were probable. His large estates in the vicinity of the city of Washington were exposed to the ravages of war if not to confiscation. These sacrifices, some certain, and others probable were present when he left Washington and entered into the service of the Confederacy under the superior authority of the State of Virginia in disregard of his own opinion, and in disregard, not to say violation, of his oath as a soldier who had sworn to support the Constitution of the United States. General Lee was unable to say whether he had taken an oath to support the Confederate States. He could not recall the fact of taking the oath, but he said he should have taken the oath if it had been tendered to him.
The full report of the testimony of General Lee should appear in any complete biography of the man. It reveals his character, explains the leading influences to which he was subjected, and it sheds light upon the state of public opinion in the South at the end of the contest in arms.
General Scott and General George H. Thomas were Virginians, but they acted in defiance of the State-Rights doctrines of the South. In April, 1861, General Scott gave me an account of the efforts that had been made to induce him to follow the fortunes of Virginia, and he spoke with a voice of emotion of his veneration for the flag, and of his attachment to the Union.
Of the soldiers of the Northern army in the war of the Rebellion, General George H. Thomas takes rank next after the first three—Grant, Sherman and Sheridan. When Grant became President and Sherman was general of the army the President was unwilling to appear to neglect either Sheridan or Thomas. With high appreciation of Thomas as a soldier, the President gave higher rank to Sheridan. He said to me that he placed Sheridan above every other officer of the war. He gave Sheridan credit for two supreme qualities—great care in his plans and great vigor in execution.
Yet, although the President acted upon a sound basis of opinion, the choice left a painful impression upon his memory.
General Thomas and General Lee were alike in personal appearance, and they resembled each other in their mental characteristics. In one important particular they differed—General Thomas had no respect for State-Rights doctrines. He was a native of Virginia, but there was no indication in his testimony, nor were there rumors, that he had ever hesitated in his course when the rebellion opened.
General Thomas was examined by the Committee on Reconstruction January 29, and February 2, 1866. He was then in command of the Military Division of the Tennessee which included the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. It was the main object of the committee to obtain information as to the public sentiment touching the treatment of the negroes and the re-establishment of civil government in the States that had been in rebellion. The Union sentiment was stronger in Tennessee than in any other State of the Confederacy. The inhabitants of the mountainous districts of eastern and middle Tennessee had been loyal from the opening of the contest in 1860 and 1860. Yet in 1866 General Thomas advised the committee that it would "not be safe to remove the national troops from Tennessee, or to withdraw martial law; or to restore the writ of habeas corpus to its full extent." At that time the peace of eastern Tennessee was disturbed by family feuds and personal quarrels, the outcome of political differences. In west Tennessee and in portions of middle Tennessee there was a deep seated hostility to Union men, and especially to Southern men who had served in the Union army.
General Thomas said of them: "They are more unfriendly to Union men natives of the State of Tennessee or of the South, who have been in the Union army, than they are to men of Northern birth."
At that time the contract system of labor had been introduced, and the contracts were regarded as binding both by whites and blacks.
General Thomas advised the admission of Tennessee into the Union as a State, and his advice was acted upon favorably by its admission in the summer of that year. His recommendations were based upon the facts that Tennessee had "repudiated the rebel debt, had abolished slavery, had adopted the Constitutional amendment upon that subject, had passed a franchise law prohibiting from voting every man who had been engaged in the rebellion" and had "passed a law allowing negroes to testify."
His opinion of the four other States of his command was not as favorable. "I have received communications from various persons in the South that there was an understanding among the rebels and perhaps organizations formed or forming, for the purpose of gaining as many advantages for themselves as possible; and I have heard it also intimated that these men are very anxious and would do all in their power to involve the United States in a foreign war, so that if a favorable opportunity should occur, they might then again turn against the United States."
At the end of his first examination he gave this opinion as the result of his experience:
Question: "In what could those advantages consist in breaking up the government?"
Answer: "They would wish to be recognized as citizens of the UnitedStates, with the same rights they had before the war."
Question: "How can they do that? By wishing us in a war with England or France, in which they would take part against us?"
Answer: "In that event their desire is to establish the Southern Confederacy. They have not yet given up their desire for a separate government, and if they have an opportunity to strike for it again they will do so."
When asked what he knew of secret organizations he said that he had received several communications to that effect but the parties were unwilling to have their names made public. He added: "The persons communicating with me are reliable and truthful and I believe their statements are correct in the main.
"The nature and object of the organizations," he said, "are the embarrassment of the Government of the United States in the proper administration of the affairs of the county, and if possible, to repudiate the national debt, or to gain such an ascendency in Congress as to make provision for the assumption by Congress of the debt incurred by the rebel government; also, in case the United States Government can be involved in a foreign war to watch their opportunity and take advantage of the first that comes to strike for the independence of the States lately in rebellion."
These extracts from the testimony of General Thomas are a fair exposition of the condition of public sentiment in the Confederate States with the exception in a degree of the border States. It is apparent also that General Thomas had not the degree of confidence in the good purposes of those who had been in the rebellion that was entertained by Northern officers including Grant, Sherman and Sheridan.
As the loyal men of the South were greater sufferers from the war, their hostility was more intense against those who were responsible for the war.
If we cannot say that Thomas was a great soldier in the large use of the phrase, it can be said that he was a good soldier and that without qualifying words. He should live in history as a true patriot and a man of the highest integrity.
Of the men who occupied places in Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet, no one was more free from just criticism affecting unfavorably the value of his public services than Secretary Stanton.
Of those who were nearest to him, no one ever received the impression from his acts or his conversation that he thought of the Presidency as a possibility under any circumstances. Seward, Chase and Bates had been candidates at Chicago in 1860, and whatever may have been the fact in regard to Seward and Bates, it is quite certain that ambition for the Presidency never lost its hold upon Mr. Chase, even when he became Chief Justice of the United States.
Coupled with the absence of ambition, or perhaps in a degree incident to the absence of ambition, Mr. Stanton was the possessor of courage for all the emergencies of the place that he occupied—a courage that was always available, whether in its exercise the wishes of individuals or the fortunes of the country were involved.
It was understood by those who frequented the War Office in the gloomy days of 1862 and '63 that a card signed "A. L." would not always command full respect from Secretary Stanton. He was a believer in the rigid principles of the army, and although he was a humane man he smothered or subdued his sympathy for heart-broken mothers whose sons had deserted the cause of the country, in his determination to save the country through the strictest enforcement of the rules and regulations of the army. Mr. Lincoln, in his abounding good nature, could not resist the appeals of disconsolate wives and heart-stricken mothers, and it was often Mr. Stanton's fortune to resist such appeals even when supported by the President's card in the form of a request which in ordinary times and upon ordinary men would be treated as an order.
Hence there may have been a foundation for the report that an unsuccessful user of one of the President's cards returned to the President for a reinforcement of the order. The President insisted upon a full report of the Secretary's answer. The applicant repeated the Secretary's remark, which was not complimentary to the President's good sense. The President hesitated, and then declined to renew the order, saying: "Stanton is generally right."
Mr. Stanton's testimony was taken February 11, 1867, and on subsequent days. The record of the text and the accompanying documents cover more than two hundred printed pages. The evidence was taken by the Committee on the Judiciary, and it had special reference to the charges that had been made against President Johnson. At that time, the separation between Mr. Stanton and the President had become irreconcilable, but there are no indications of hostility in the answers given by the Secretary. Indeed, he assumed, without reserve, full responsibility for acts that had been charged on the President by others.
During the war the railroads that fell within our lines were appropriated to the use of the United States, and heavy outlays had been made upon some of them for repairs and improvements. In many cases expenses had been incurred, that in the hands of the corporation would not have been chargeable to a construction account. In a majority of cases, if not in all, the roads had been surrendered without compensation, and the rolling stock had been transferred for very slight consideration.
Mr. Stanton assumed the responsibility of the policy, upon the ground that it was important to the South and to the country that the channels of commerce should be made available without delay and that the army could not be used wisely in commercial traffic. As the President was interested in one of the railroads that received a large benefit by the restoration of its property much improved, he was relieved of all responsibility for a policy that had been much condemned.
Through the testimony of Secretary Stanton the committee was enabled to find the origin and to trace with a degree of accuracy the history of President Johnson's plan of reconstruction. At a time not many days prior to Mr. Lincoln's death, Secretary Stanton prepared an order which contained aprojetfor the government of the States that had been in rebellion. The paper was submitted to President Lincoln and it was considered by him in a cabinet meeting that was held during the day preceding the night of the assassination.
As this paper became the basis for the proclamations for the government of the States that had been in rebellion, its history, as given by Mr. Stanton, is worthy of exact report in his own words:
"On the last day of Mr. Lincoln's life, there was a Cabinet meeting, at which General Grant, and all the members of the Cabinet, except Mr. Seward, were present. General Grant at that time made a report of the condition of the country, as he conceived it to be, and as it would be on the surrender of Johnston's army, which was regarded as absolutely certain. The subject of reconstruction was talked of at considerable length. Shortly previous to that time I had myself, with a view of putting into a practicable form the means of overcoming what seemed to be a difficulty in the mind of Mr. Lincoln, as to the mode of reconstruction, prepared a rough draft of a form or mode by which the authority and laws of the United States should be re-established, and governments reorganized in the rebel States under the Federal authority, without any necessity whatever for the intervention of rebel organizations or rebel aid.
In the course of that consultation Mr. Lincoln alluded to the paper, went into his room, brought it out, and asked me to read it, which I did, and explained my ideas in regard to it. There was one point which I had left open; that was as to who should constitute the electors in the respective States . . . I left a blank upon that subject to be considered. There was at that time nothing adopted about it, and no opinions expressed; it was only aprojet."
At the request of Mr. Lincoln and the Cabinet, the order was printed and a copy was given to each member, and a copy was given to Mr. Johnson when he had become President.
The plan was further considered in Mr. Johnson's Cabinet, and some alterations were made. The point of chief difference related to the elective franchise—whether it should be extended to the negro race.
Mr. Stanton said: "There was a difference of opinion upon that subject. The President expressed his views very clearly and distinctly. I expressed my views, and other members of the Cabinet expressed their views. The objection of the President to throwing the franchise open to the colored people appeared to be fixed, and I think every member of the Cabinet assented to the arrangement as it was specified in the proclamation relative to North Carolina. After that I do not remember that the subject was ever again discussed in the Cabinet."
Thus from Mr. Stanton's testimony we gather the important facts as to the origin of a measure which became the subject of bitter controversy between President Johnson and the Republican Party. The framework of the North Carolina proclamation was furnished by Mr. Stanton. When alterations had been made the proclamation was agreed to by the Cabinet but without a declaration or even an understanding upon the point which, without much delay, became the vital point: was the policy of government that was announced in the proclamation a permanent policy or was it a temporary expedient, a substitute for military government, and subject to the approval or disapproval of Congress?
General Grant was of the opinion that the organizations which the President set up in the States were temporary and that they were subject to the action of Congress.
Mr. Stanton's opinion is expressed carefully, in his own words: "My opinion is, that the whole subject of reconstruction and the relation of the State to the Federal Government is subject to the controlling power of Congress; and while I believe that the President and his Cabinet were not violating any law, but were faithfully performing their duty in endeavoring to organize provisional governments in those States, I supposed then, and still suppose, that the final validity of such organizations would rest with the law-making power of the government."
In an official letter, dated January 8, 1866, Secretary Stanton gave his reasons for the payment of the salaries of the provisional governors: "The payments were made from the appropriation of army contingencies because the duties performed by the parties were regarded of a temporary character ancillary to the withdrawal of military force, and to take the place of the armed forces in the respective States."
On the other hand the President chose to treat the governments that had been set up as permanent governments and beyond the control of Congress. On this point, the contest between President Johnson and the Republican Party was made up. It ended in an appeal to the people, who rendered a judgment againstthe Presidentby a two-thirds majority. The testimony of Secretary Seward, and official papers that were issued by the Department of State in the year 1865, may warrant the conclusion that President Johnson was not then prepared to treat the new state organizations as final and binding upon Congress and the country.
Under date of July 8, 1865, Secretary Seward said, in an official letter to Governor Holden of North Carolina: "It is understood here that besides cotton which has been taken by the Secretary of the Treasury under Act of Congress there were quantities of resin, and other articles, as well as funds, lying about in different places in the State and not reduced into possession by United States officers as insurgent property. The President is of the opinion that you can appropriate these for the inevitable and indispensable expenses of the civil government of the State during the continuance of the provisional government."
On the 14th day of November, 1865, Mr. McCulloch authorized Mr. Worth, acting as treasurer in North Carolina, to use the fragments of rebel property that might be gathered to defray the expenses of the provisional government of the State.
In answer to a question put to Secretary Seward, he said: "I do not remember that any provisional governor held a military office, except Mr. Johnson."
In the further examination of Mr. Seward, May 16, 1867, he indicated his concurrence with President Johnson in this remark: "The object was to proceed with the work of the restoration of the Union as speedily and effectively and wisely as possible, having no reference as to whether Congress would be in session or not."
This question was put to Mr. Seward:
"Did not he (the President) urge these parties to be prepared to be at the doors of Congress by the time of its next meeting?"
The answer was: "Very likely he did. I do not know of the fact. I know that I was very anxious that these States should be represented in Congress, and that he was equally so, that they should be provided with representatives who could be admitted."
The policy of the administration, July 24, 1865, is set forth in a despatch from Secretary Seward to Governor Sharkey, of Mississippi (he is addressed as Provisional Governor): "The President sees no occasion to interfere with General Slocum's proceedings. The government of the State will be provisional only until the civil authorities shall be restored with the approval of Congress."
Upon the united testimony of General Grant, Secretary Stanton and Secretary Seward, it may be claimed fairly that the governments that were set up under proclamations of the President were treated in the beginning as provisional governments and subject to the final judgment of Congress.
In 1866, when the rupture between Congress and the President had taken form, the President with the support of Mr. Seward announced the doctrine that the governments which had been set up were valid governments, and that claimants for seats in Congress from those who could prove their loyalty were entitled to admission.
Thus was a foundation laid for the impeachment of President Johnson by the House of Representatives, and his trial by the Senate.
The nomination of Andrew Johnson to the Vice-Presidency in 1864, by theRepublican Party, was a repetition of the error committed by the WhigParty in 1840, in the nomination of John Tyler for the same office.
In each case the nomination was due to an attempt to secure the support of a body of men who were not in accord in all essential particulars with the party making the nomination.
John Tyler was opposed to the administration of Mr. Van Buren, but he was opposed also to a national bank, which was then an accepted idea and an assured public policy of the Whig Party. Hence, it happened that when Mr. Tyler came to the Presidency, he resisted the attempt of Congress to establish a national bank, and by the exercise of the veto- power, on two occasions, he defeated the measure. This controversy caused the overthrow of the Whig Party, and it ended the contest in behalf of a United States bank.
In the case of John Tyler and in the case of Andrew Johnson there was an application, in dangerous excess, of a policy that prevails in all national conventions. When the nomination of a candidate for the Presidency has been secured, the dominant wing of the party turns to the minority with a tender of the Vice-Presidency. In 1880, when the nomination of General Garfield had been made, the selection of a candidate for the Vice-Presidency was tendered to the supporters of General Grant, and it was declined by more than one person.
Mr. Johnson never identified himself with the Republican Party; and neither in June, 1864, nor at any other period of his life, had the Republican Party a right to treat him as an associate member. He was, in fact, what he often proclaimed himself to be—a Jacksonian Democrat. He was a Southern Union Democrat. He was an opponent, and a bitter opponent, of the project for the dissolution of the Union, and a vindictive enemy of those who threatened its destruction.
His speeches in the Senate in the Thirty-sixth and the Thirty-seventh Congress were read and much approved throughout the North, and they prepared the way for the acceptance of his nomination as a candidate of the Republican Party in 1864.
Mr. Johnson was an earnest supporter of the Crittenden Compromise. That measure originated in the House of Representatives. It was defeated in the Senate by seven votes and six votes of the seven came from the South. The provisions of the bill were far away from the ideals of Republicans generally, although the measure was sustained by members of the party. By that scheme the Fugitive Slave Law was made less offensive in two particulars, but the United States was to pay for fugitives from slavery whenever a marshal failed to perform his duty. As an important limitation of the powers of Congress, the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia was to be dependent upon the consent of the States of Maryland and Virginia.
Mr. Johnson gave voice to his indignation when he spoke of the Southern men whose votes contributed to the defeat of the Crittenden Compromise. "Who, then," said he, "has brought these evils upon the country? Whose fault is it? Who is responsible for it? With the help we had from the other side of the chamber, if all those on this side had been true to the Constitution and faithful to their constituents, and had acted with fidelity to the country, the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire could have been voted down. Whose fault was it? Who did it? Southern traitors, as was said in the speech of the Senator from California. They did it. They wanted no compromise."
These extracts show the style of speech in which Mr. Johnson indulged, and they prove beyond question that in the winter of 1861 he had no sympathy with the Republican Party of 1856 and 1860. These facts explain, and in some measure they palliate, the peculiarities of his career, which provoked criticism and an adverse popular judgment when he came to the Presidency. Nor is there evidence within my knowledge that he ever denied the right of secession. However that may have been, he disapproved of the exercise of the right at all stages of the contest.
In the Thirty-sixth Congress Mr. Johnson proposed amendments to the Constitution which gave him consideration in the North. By his proposition the Fugitive Slave Law was to be repealed, and in its place the respective States were to return fugitives or to pay the value of those that might be retained.
Slavery was to be abolished in the District of Columbia with the consent of Maryland and upon payment of the full value of the slaves emancipated. The Territories were to be divided between freedom and slavery. His scheme contemplated other changes not connected necessarily with the system of slavery. Of these I mention the election of President, Vice-President, Senators, and Judges of the Supreme Court by the people, coupled with a limitation of the terms of judges to twelve years.
The Crittenden Resolution contained these declarations of facts and policy:
1. The present deplorable war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States.
2. Congress has no purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the established rights of those States.
Upon a motion to include disunionists in the North under the first charge, Mr. Johnson voted in the negative with Sumner, Wilson, Wade, and other Republicans.
This brief survey of Mr. Johnson's Congressional career at the opening of the war may indicate the characteristics of his mind in controversy and debate, and furnish means for comprehending his actions in the troublous period of his administration.
Some conclusions are deducible from this survey. First of all it is to be said that he never assumed to be a member of the Republican Party. Next, I do not find evidence which will justify the statement that he was a disbeliever in the right of a State to secede from the Union. It is manifest that he was not an advocate of the doctrine of political equality as it came to be taught by the leaders of the Republican Party. When he became President, he was an opponent of negro suffrage.
This record, though not concealed, was not understood by the members of the convention that placed him in nomination for the second office in the country.
This analysis prepares the way for an extract from the testimony of Mr. Stanley Matthews, who was afterwards a justice of the Supreme Court, and who was examined by the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives when engaged in investigating the doings of the President previous to his impeachment. Mr. Johnson was appointed Military Governor of Tennessee the third day of March, 1862. Colonel Matthews was provost-marshal at Nashville, where Johnson resided during his term as Governor. In that term Matthews and Johnson became acquainted. When Johnson was on his way to Washington to take the oath of office, he stopped at the Burnet House in Cincinnati. Matthews called upon him. Matthews had been a Democrat until the troubles in Kansas. In the conversation at the Burnet House Mr. Johnson made these remarks, after some personal matters had been disposed of. I quote from the testimony of Judge Matthews:
"I inquired as to the state of public feeling on political matters in Tennessee at that time. He remarked that very great changes had taken place since I had been there, that many of those who at first were the best Union men had turned to be the worst rebels, and that many of those who had originally been the worst rebels were now the best Union men. I expressed surprise and regret at what he said in reference to the matter.
"We were sitting near each other on the sofa. He then turned to me and said, 'You and I were old Democrats.' I said, 'Yes.' He then said,'I will tell you what it is, if the country is ever to be saved, it is to be done through the old Democratic Party.'
"I do not know whether I made any reply to that, or, if I did, what it was; and immediately afterwards I took my leave."
The larger part of this quotation is only important as leading up to the phrase that is emphasized, and which may throw light upon Mr. Johnson's policy and conduct when he came to the Presidency.
This conversation occurred in the month of February, 1865, and it must be accepted as evidence, quite conclusive, that Mr. Johnson was then opposed to the policy of the Republican Party, whose honors he had accepted. In a party sense Mr. Johnson was not a Republican: he was a Union Democrat. He was opposed to the dissolution of the Union, but not necessarily upon the ground that the Union had a supreme right to exist in defiance of what is called "State sovereignty." This with the Republican Party was a fundamental principle. Under the influence of the principles of the old Democratic Party Mr. Johnson advanced to the Vice-Presidency, and while under the influence of the same idea he became President.
When the Republican Party came to power, the State of Maryland, that portion of Virginia now known as West Virginia, the State of Kentucky, and the State of Missouri were largely under the influence of sympathizers with the eleven seceding States of the South. It was necessary in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri to maintain the ascendency of the National Government by the exhibition of physical force, and in some instances by its actual exercise. Mr. Lincoln's policy in regard to the question of slavery was controlled, up to the month of July, 1862, by the purpose to conciliate Union slave-holders in the States mentioned. Of his measures I refer to the proposition to transfer the free negroes to Central America, for which an appropriation of $25,000 was made by Congress. Next, Congress passed an act for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia upon the payment of three hundred dollars for each slave emancipated.
Without representing in his history or in his person the slave-holding interests of the South, Mr. Johnson was yet a Southern man with Union sentiments. The impression was received therefrom that his influence would be considerable in restraining, if not in conciliating slave- holders in what were called the "border States." These facts tended to his nomination for the Vice-Presidency. I have no means for forming an opinion that is trustworthy as to the position of Mr. Lincoln in reference to the nomination of Mr. Johnson. His nomination may justify the impression that the Republican Party was in doubt as to its ability to re-elect Mr. Lincoln in 1864. From the month of July, 1862, to the nomination in 1864, I had frequent interviews with Mr. Lincoln, and I can only say that, during the period when the result of the election was a subject of thought, he gave no intimation in the conversations that I had with him that the element of doubt as to the result existed in his mind.
From what has been said, the inference may be drawn that Mr. Johnson came to the Vice-Presidency in the absence of any considerable degree of confidence on the part of the Republican Party, although there were no manifestations of serious doubt as to his fitness for the place, or as to his fidelity to the principles of the party.
The incidents of the inauguration of Mr. Johnson in the Senate Chamber, and especially his speech on the occasion, which was directed, apparently, to the diplomatic corps, excited apprehensions in those who were present, and the confidence of the country was diminished materially concerning his qualifications for the office to which he had been elected. Without delay these apprehensions circulated widely, and they were deepened in the public mind by the assassination of Mr. Lincoln and the elevation of Mr. Johnson to the Presidency.
The public confidence received a further serious shock by his proclamation of May 29, 1865, for the organization of a State government in North Carolina. That proclamation contained provisions in harmony with what has been set forth in this paper concerning the political principles of Mr. Johnson. First of all, he limited the franchise to persons "qualified as prescribed by the constitution and laws of the State of North Carolina in force immediately before the 20th day of May, 1861, the date of the so-called Ordinance of Secession." This provision was a limitation of the suffrage, and it excluded necessarily the negro population of the State. It was also a recognition of the right of the State to reappear as a State in the Union. It was, indeed, an early assertion of the phrase which afterwards became controlling with many persons—"Once a State, always a State." He further recognized the right of the State to reappear as a State in the organization and powers of the convention which was to be called under the proclamation. As to that he said: "The convention when convened, or the legislature which may be thereafter assembled, will prescribe the qualification of electors and the eligibility of persons to hold office under the constitution and laws of the State, a power the people of the several States composing the Union have rightfully exercised from the origin of the Government to the present time." There were further instructions given in the proclamation as to the duties of various officers of the United States to aid Governor Holden, who, by the same proclamation, was appointed "Provisional Governor of the State of North Carolina."
Upon the publication of this proclamation I was so much disturbed that I proceeded at once to Washington, but without any definite idea as to what could be done to arrest the step which seemed to me a dangerous step towards the re-organization of the Government upon an unsound basis. At that time I had had no conversation with Mr. Johnson, either before or after he came to the Presidency, upon any subject whatever. The interview which I secured upon that visit was the sole personal interview that ever occurred between us. I called upon Senator Morrill of Vermont, and together we made a visit to the President. I spoke of the features of the proclamation that seemed to be objectionable. He said that "the measure was tentative" only, and that until the experiment had been tried no other proclamation would be issued. Upon that I said in substance that the Republican Party might accept the proclamation as an experiment, but that it was contrary to the ideas of the party, and that a continuance of the policy would work a disruption of the party. He assured us that nothing further would be done until the experiment had been tested. With that assurance we left the Executive Mansion.
On the 13th day of June, 1865, a similar proclamation was issued in reference to the State of Mississippi, and on the 17th of June, corresponding proclamations were issued in reference to the States of Georgia, Texas, Alabama, South Carolina, and Florida. In each State a person was named as Provisional Governor. This action led to a division of the party and to its subsequent reorganization against the President's policy.
In his letter of acceptance of the nomination made by the Union Convention, Mr. Johnson endorsed, without reserve, the platform that had been adopted. The declarations of the platform did not contain a reference to the reorganization of the Government in the event of the success of the Union arms. The declarations were enumerated in this order: the Union was to be maintained; the war was to be prosecuted upon the basis of an unconditional surrender of the rebels; and slavery, as the cause of the war, was to be abolished. The added resolutions related to the services of the soldiers and sailors, and to the policy of Abraham Lincoln as President. It was further declared that the public credit should be maintained, that there should be a vigorous and just system of taxes, and that the people would view with "extreme jealousy," and as enemies to the peace and independence of the country, the efforts of any power to obtain new footholds for monarchical government on this continent. Such being the character of the platform, it cannot be said that Mr. Johnson challenged its declarations in the policy on which he entered for the reorganization of the Government. In Mr. Johnson's letter of acceptance he preserved his relations to the Democrats by the use of this phrase: "I cannot forego the opportunity of saying to my old friends of the Democratic Party proper, with whom I have so long and pleasantly been associated, that the hour has come when that great party can justly indicate its devotion to the Democratic policy in measures of expediency."
The controversy with Mr. Johnson had its origin in the difference of opinion as to the nature of the Government. That difference led him to the conclusion that the rebellion had not worked any change in the legal relations of the seceding States to the National Government. His motto was this: "Once a State, always a State," whatever might be its conduct either of peace or war. There were, however, differences of opinion among those who adhered to the Republican Party. Mr. Stevens, who was a recognized, if not the recognized, leader of the Republican Party, advocated the doctrine that the eleven States were to be treated as enemy's territory, and to be governed upon whatever system might be acceptable to the States that had remained true to the Union. Mr. Sumner maintained the doctrine that the eleven States were Territories, and that they were to be subject to the General Government until Congress should admit the several Territories as State organizations. The fourth day of May, 1864, I presented a series of resolutions in the House of Representatives, in which I asserted this doctrine: The communities that have been in rebellion can be organized into States only by the will of the loyal people expressed freely and in the absence of all coercion; that States so organized can become States of the American Union only when they shall have applied for admission and their admission shall have been authorized by the existing National Government. A small number of persons who were identified with the Republican Party sustained the policy of Mr. Johnson. Others were of the opinion that the eleven States were out of their proper relation to the Union, as was declared by Mr. Lincoln in his last speech, and that they could become members of the American Union only by the organized action of each, and the concurrent action of the existing National Government. The Government was reorganized without any distinct declaration upon the question whether the States that had been in rebellion were to be treated as enemy's territory, or as Territories according to the usage of former times. The difference of opinion was a vital one with Mr. Johnson. Whatever view may be taken of his moral qualities, it is to be said that he was not deficient in intellectual ability, that his courage passed far beyond the line of obstinacy, and that from the first to last he was prepared to resist the claims of the large majority of the Republican Party. The issue began with his proclamation of May, 1865, and the contest continued to the end of his term. The nature of the issue explains the character and violence of his speeches, especially that of the twenty-second day of February, 1866, when he spoke of Congress as a "body hanging on the verge of the Government."
In the many speeches which he delivered in his trip through the West, he made distinct charges against Congress. He was accompanied by Mr. Seward, General Grant, Admiral Farragut, and some others. In a speech at Cleveland, Ohio, he said, among other things, "I have called upon your Congress, which has tried to break up the Government." Again, in the same speech he said, "I tell you my countrymen, that although the powers of Thad Stevens and his gang were by, they could not turn me from my purpose. There is no power that can turn me, except you and the God who put me into existence." He charged, also, that Congress had taken great pains to poison their constituents against him. "What had Congress done? Had they done anything to restore the Union in those States? No; on the contrary, they had done everything to prevent it."
In a speech made at St. Louis, Missouri, September 8, 1866, Mr. Johnson discussed the riot at New Orleans.* In that speech he said, "If you will take up the riot in New Orleans, and trace it back to its source, or its immediate cause, you will find out who was responsible for the blood that was shed there. If you will take up the riot at New Orleans and trace it back to the radical Congress, you will find that the riot at New Orleans was substantially planned." After some further observations, he says: "Yes, you will find that another rebellion was commenced, having its origin in the radical Congress."
These extracts from Mr. Johnson's speeches should be considered in connection with his proclamations of May, June, and July, 1865. They are conclusive to this point: that he had determined to reconstruct the Government upon the basis of the return of the States that had been engaged in the rebellion without the imposition of any conditions whatsoever, except such as he had imposed upon them in his proclamations. In fine, that the Government was to be re-established without the authority or even the assent of the Congress of the United States. In his proclamations he made provision for the framing of constitutions in the respective States, their ratification by the people, excluding all those who were not voters in April, 1861, and for the election of Senators and Representatives to the Congress of the United States without the assent of the Representatives of the existing States.
When I arrived in Washington to attend the meeting of Congress at the December session, 1866, I received a note from Mr. Stanton asking me to meet him at the War Office with as little delay as might be practicable. When I called at the War Office, he beckoned me to retire to his private room, where he soon met me. He then said that he had been more disturbed by the condition of affairs in the preceding weeks and months than he had been at any time during the war. He gave me to understand that orders had been issued to the army of which neither he nor General Grant had any knowledge. He further gave me to understand also that he apprehended an attempt by the President to re-organize the Government by the assembling of a Congress in which the members from the seceding States and the Democratic members from the North might obtain control through the aid of the Executive. He then said that he thought it necessary that some act should be passed by which the power of the President might be limited. Under his dictation, and after such consultation as seemed to be required, I drafted amendments to the Appropriation Bill for the Support of the Army, which contained the following provisions: The headquarters of the General of the Army were fixed at Washington, where he was to remain unless transferred to duty elsewhere by his own consent or by the consent of the Senate. Next, it was made a misdemeanor for the President to transmit orders to any officer of the army except through the General of the Army. It was also made a misdemeanor for any officer to obey orders issued in any other way than through the General of the Army, knowing that the same had been so issued. These provisions were taken by me to Mr. Stevens, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. After some explanation, the measure was accepted by the committee and incorporated in the Army Appropriation Bill. The bill was approved by the President the second day of March, 1867. His approval was accompanied by a protest on his part that the provision was unconstitutional, and by the statement that he approved the bill only because it was necessary for the support of the army.
At the time of my interview with Mr. Stanton, I was not informed fully as to the events that had transpired in the preceding months, nor can I say now that everything which had transpired of importance was then known to Mr. Stanton. The statement that I am now to make was derived from conversations with General Grant. At a time previous to the December session of 1866, the President said to General Grant, "I may wish to send you on a mission to Mexico." General Grant replied, "It may not be convenient for me to go to Mexico." Little, if anything, further was said between the President and General Grant. At a subsequent time General Grant was invited to a Cabinet meeting. At that meeting Mr. Seward read a paper of instruction to General Grant as Minister of some degree to Mexico. The contents of the paper did not impress General Grant very seriously, for in the communication that he made to me he said that "the instructions came out very near where they went in." At the end of the reading General Grant said, "You recollect, Mr. President, I said it would not be convenient for me to go to Mexico." Upon that a conversation followed, when the President became heated, and rising from his seat, and striking the table with some force, he said "Is there an officer of the army who will not obey my instructions?" General Grant took his hat in his hand, and said, "I am an officer of the army, but I am a citizen also; and this is a civil service that you require of me. I decline it." He then left the meeting. It happened also that previous to this conversation the President had ordered General Sherman, who was in command at Fort Leavenworth, to report at Washington. General Sherman obeyed the order, came to Washington, and had a conference with General Grant before he reported to the President. In that situation of affairs General Sherman was sent to Mexico upon the mission which had been prepared for General Grant.
The suggestion that Mr. Johnson contemplated the re-organization of the Government by the admission of the States that had been in rebellion, and by the recognition of Senators and Representatives that might be assigned from those States, received support from the testimony given by Major-General William H. Emory, and also from the testimony of General Grant. In the latter part of the year 1867 and the first part of the year 1868, General Emory was in command of the Department of Washington. When he entered upon the command, he called upon the President. A conversation, apparently not very important, occurred between them, as to the military forces then in that department. In February, 1868, the President directed his secretary to ask General Emory to call upon him as early as practicable. In obedience to that request General Emory called on the twenty-second day of February. The President referred to the former conversation, and then inquired whether any changes had been made, and especially within the recent days, in the military forces under Emory's command. In the course of the conversation growing out of these requests for information, General Emory referred to an order which had then been recently issued which embodied the provisions of the act of March, 1867, in regard to the command of the army and the transmission of orders. The President then said to Emory:
"What order do you refer to?"
In reply Emory said: "Order No. 17 of the Series of 1867."
The order was produced and read by the President, who said:
"This is not in conformity with the Constitution of the United States, that makes me commander-in-chief, or with the terms of your commission."
General Emory said: "That is the order which you have approved and issued to the army for our government."
The President then said: "Am I to understand that the President of the United States cannot give an order except through the head of the army, or General Grant?"
In the course of the conversation, General Emory informed the President that eminent lawyers had been consulted, that he had consulted Robert J. Walker, and that all of the lawyers consulted had expressed the opinion that the officers of the army were bound by the order whether the statute was constitutional or unconstitutional.
When General Grant was before the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives during the impeachment investigation, this question was put to him:
"Have you at any time heard the President make any remark in regard to the admission of members of Congress from rebel States in either House?"
"I cannot say positively what I have heard him say. I have heard him say as much in his public speeches as anywhere else. I have heard him say twice in his speeches that if the North carried the election by members enough to give them, with the Southern members, the majority, why should they not be the Congress of the United States? I have heard him say that several times."
That answer was followed by this question:
"When you say the North, you mean the Democratic Party of the North, or, in other words, the party advocating his policy?"
General Grant replied:
"I meant if the North carried enough members in favor of the admission of the South. I did not hear him say that he would recognize them as the Congress, I merely heard him ask the question, 'Why would they not be the Congress?'"
At this point, and without further discussion of the purpose of Mr. Johnson in regard to the reorganization of the Government, I think it may be stated without injustice to him, that while he was opposed to secession at the time the Confederate Government was organized, and thenceforward and always without change of opinion, yet he was also of opinion that the act of secession by the several States had not disturbed their legal relations to the National Government. Acting upon that opinion, he proceeded to reorganize the State governments, and with the purpose of securing the admission of their Senators and Representatives without seeking or accepting the judgment of Congress upon the questions involved in the proceeding. On one vital point he erred seriously and fundamentally as to the authority of the President in the matter. From the nature of our Government there could be no escape in a legal point of view from the conclusion that, whatever the relations were of the seceding States to the General Government, the method of restoration was to be ascertained and determined by Congress, and not by the President acting as the chief executive authority of the nation. In a legal and constitutional view, that act on his part, although resting upon opinions which he had long entertained, and which were entertained by many others, must be treated as an act of usurpation.
The facts embodied in the charges on which Mr. Johnson was impeached by the House and arraigned before the Senate were not open to doubt, but legal proof was wanting in regard to the exact language of his speeches. The charges were in substance these: That he had attacked the integrity and the lawful authority of the Congress of the United States in public speeches made in the presence of the country. The second charge was that he had attempted the removal of Mr. Stanton from the office of Secretary of War, and that, without the concurrence of the Senate, he had so removed him, contrary to the act of Congress, known as the Tenure of Office Act. In the first investigation into the conduct of Andrew Johnson, he was described in the resolution as "Vice-President of the United States, discharging at present the duties of President of the United States." The resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives the seventh day of March, 1867. A large amount of testimony was taken, and the report of the committee, in three parts, by the different members, was submitted to the House the fourth day of the following December. The majority of the committee, consisting of George S. Boutwell, Francis Thomas, Thomas Williams, William Lawrence, and John C. Churchill, reported a resolution providing for the impeachment of the President of the United States, in these words: "Resolved, that Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors." It will be observed that in the resolution for his impeachment he is described as "President of the United States," while in the resolution authorizing the inquiry into his conduct he is described as "Vice- President, discharging at present the duties of the President of the United States." This question received very careful consideration by the committee, and the conclusion was reached that he was the President of the United States, although he had been elected only to the office of Vice-President. As that question was not raised at the trial by demurrer or motion, it may now be accepted as the established doctrine that the Vice-President, when he enters upon the duties of President, becomes President of the United States. The extended report that was made by the majority of the committee was written by Mr. Williams. The summary, which was in the nature of charges, was written by myself. That summary set forth twenty-eight specifications of misconduct on the part of the President, many of which, however, where abandoned when the articles of impeachment were prepared in February, 1868.
In the discussion of the committee there were serious differences of opinion upon provisions of law. The minority of the committee, consisting of James F. Wilson, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Frederick E. Woodbridge, S. S. Marshall, and Charles R. Eldridge, maintained the doctrine that a civil officer under the Constitution of the United States was not liable to impeachment except for the commission of an indictable offence. This doctrine had very large support in the legal profession, resting on remarks found in Blackstone. On the other hand, Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, had given support to the doctrine that a civil officer was liable to impeachment who misdemeaned himself in office. The provision of the Constitution is in these words:
"The President, Vice-President, and all Civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
The majority of the Judiciary Committee, in the controversy which arose in the committee and in the House of Representatives, maintained that the word "misdemeanors" was used in a political sense, and not in the sense in which it is used in criminal law. In support of this view attention was called to the fact that the party convicted was liable only to removal from office, and therefore that the object of the process of impeachment was the purification and preservation of the civil service. In the opinion of the majority, it was the necessity of the situation that the power of impeachment should extend to acts and offences that were not indictable by statute nor at common law. The report of the Judiciary Committee, made the twenty-fifth day of November, was rejected by the House of Representatives.
The attempt of the President to remove Mr. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War revived the question of impeachment, and on Monday, the twenty-fourth day of February, 1868, the House of Representatives "resolved to impeach Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors." The articles of impeachment were acted on by the House of Representatives the second day of March, and on the fourth day of March they were presented to the Senate through Mr. Bingham, chairman of the managers, who was designated for that duty.
The articles were directed to the following points, namely: That the President, by his speeches, had attempted "to set aside the rightful authority and powers of Congress"; that he had attempted "to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach the Congress of the United States and the several branches thereof"; and "that he had attempted to incite the odium and resentment of all the good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by them duly and constitutionally enacted." Further, it was alleged that he had declared in speeches that the "Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States was not a Congress of the United States authorized by the Constitution of the United States to exercise legislative power in the same."
A further charge, and on which greater reliance was placed, was set forth in these words: "That he had denied and intended to deny the power of the Thirty-ninth Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States." These articles were in substance the articles that had been rejected by the House of Representatives in 1867. Finally, as the most important averment of all, the President was charged with an "attempt to prevent the execution of the act entitled 'An Act Regulating the Tenure of Certain Civil Offices,' passed March 2, 1867, by unlawfully devising and contriving and attempting to contrive means by which he could prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the function of the office of the Secretary for the Department of War, notwithstanding the refusal of the Senate to concur in the suspension theretofore made by said Andrew Johnson of the said Edwin M. Stanton from said office of Secretary for the Department of War." In various forms of language these several charges were set forth in the different articles of impeachment—eleven in all. The eleventh article, which was prepared by Mr. Stevens, embodied the summary of all the charges mentioned. It is to be observed that in the eleventh article there is no allegation that the President had committed an offence that was indictable under any statute of the United States or that would have been indictable at common law. It may be assumed, I think, that for this country, at least, the question that was raised at the beginning and argued with great force, and by which possibly the House of Representatives may have been influenced in the year 1867, has been settled in accord with the report of the majority of the Judiciary Committee. The House decided that the President was impeachable for misdemeanors in office. With stronger reason it may be said that every other civil officer is bound to behave himself well in his office. He cannot do any act which impairs his standing in the place which he holds, or which may bring discredit upon the public, and especially he may not do any act in disregard of his oath to obey the laws and to support the Constitution of the country. The eleventh article was the chief article that was submitted to a vote in the Senate. The question raised by that article is this in substance: Is the President of the United States guilty in manner and form as set forth in this article? On that question thirty- five Senators voted that he was guilty, and nineteen Senators voted that he was not guilty. Under the Constitution the President was found not guilty of the offences charged, but the majority given may be accepted, and probably will be accepted, as the judgment of the Senate that the President of the United States is liable to impeachment and removal from office for acts and conduct that do not subject him to the process of indictment and trial in the criminal courts. At this point I express the opinion that something has been gained, indeed that much has been gained, by the decision of the House of Representatives, supported by the opinions of a large majority in the Senate.
The answer of the respondent, considered in connection with the arguments that were made by his counsel, sets forth the ground upon which the Republican members of the Senate may have voted that the President was not guilty of the two principal offences charged, viz: that in his speeches he had denounced and brought into contempt, intentionally, the Congress of the United States; and, second, that his attempted removal of Edwin M. Stanton was a violation of the Tenure of Office Act. In the President's answer to article ten, which contained the allegation that in his speech at St. Louis, in the year 1866, he had used certain language in derogation of the authority of the Congress of the United States, it was averred that the extracts did not present his speech or address accurately. Further than that, it was claimed that the allegation under that article was not "cognizable by the court as a high misdemeanor in office." Finally, it was claimed that proof should be made of the "actual" speech and address of the President on that occasion. The managers were not able to meet the demand for proof in a technical sense. The speech was reported in the ordinary way, and the proof was limited to the good faith of the reporters and the general accuracy of the printed report in the newspapers. In this situation as to the charges and the answer, it is not difficult to reach the conclusion that members of the Senate had ground for the vote of not guilty upon the several charges in regard to the speeches that were imputed to the President.
Judge Curtis, in his opening argument, furnished a technical answer to the article in which the President was charged with the violation of the Tenure of Office Act, in his attempt to remove Mr. Stanton from the office of Secretary of the Department of War. Judge Curtis gave to the proviso to that statute an interpretation corresponding to the interpretation given to criminal statutes. Mr. Stanton was appointed to the office in the first term of Mr. Lincoln's administration. The proviso of the statute was in these words: "Provided that the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, etc., shall hold their offices for and during the term of the President by whom they may have been appointed, and for one month thereafter, subject to their removal by and with the advice of the Senate." The proviso contained exceptions to the body of the statute, by which all civil officers who held appointments by and with the advice and consent of the Senate were secure in their places unless the Senate should assent to their removal. It was the object of the proviso to relieve an incoming President of Secretaries who had been appointed by his predecessor. The construction of the proviso, as given by Judge Curtis, was fatal to the position taken by the managers. It was claimed by the managers that the sole object of the proviso was the relief of an incoming President from the continuance of a Secretary in office beyond thirty days after the commencement of his term, and that it had no reference whatever to the right of the President to remove a Secretary during his term.
There were incidents in the course of the proceedings that possess historical value. By the Constitution the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is made the presiding officer in the Senate when the President is put upon trial on articles of impeachment. Chief Justice Chase claimed that he was to be addressed as "Chief Justice." That claim was recognized by the counsel for the President and by some members of the Senate. The managers claimed that he was there as the presiding officer, and not in his judiciary capacity. He was addressed by the managers and some of the Senators as "Mr. President."
There was a difference of opinion in the Senate, and a difference between the managers and the counsel for the respondent, as to the right of the presiding officer to rule upon questions of law and evidence arising in the course of the trial. Under the rule of the Senate as adopted, the rulings of the President were to stand unless a Senator should ask for the judgment of the Senate.
Other instances occurred which do not possess historical value, but were incidents unusual in judicial proceedings. When the Judiciary Committee of the House was entering upon the investigation of the conduct of President Johnson, General Butler expressed the opinion that upon the adoption of articles of impeachment by the House the President would be suspended in his office until the verdict of the Senate. As this view was not accepted by the committee, I made these remarks in my opening speech to the House after a review of the arguments for and against the proposition:
"I cannot doubt the soundness of the opinion that the President, even when impeached by the House, is entitled to his office until he has been convicted by the Senate."
This view was accepted.
At the first meeting of the managers I was elected chairman by the votes of Mr. Stevens, General Logan, and General Butler. Mr. Bingham received the votes of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Williams. Upon the announcement of the vote, Mr. Bingham made remarks indicating serious disappointment and a purpose to retire from the Board of Managers. I accepted the election, and acted as chairman at the meeting. At the next meeting, and without consultation with my associates, I resigned the place and nominated Mr. Bingham. The nomination was not objected to, and Mr. Bingham took the chair without comment by himself, nor was there any comment by any other person. The gentlemen who had given me their votes and support criticized my conduct with considerable freedom, and were by no means reconciled by the statement which I made to them. Having reference to the nature of the contest and the condition of public sentiment, I thought it important that the managers should avoid any controversy before the public, especially as to a matter of premiership in the conduct of the trial. It seemed to be important that the entire force of the House of Representatives should be directed to one object, the conviction of the accused. Beyond this, Mr. Bingham and Mr. Wilson had been opposed to the impeachment of Mr. Johnson when the attempt was first made in the House of Representatives. I thought it important to combine the strength that they represented in support of the proceeding in which we were then engaged. If Mr. Stevens had been in good health, he would have received my support and the support of General Butler and General Logan. At that time his health was much impaired, but his intellectual faculties were free from any cloud.