Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

of the District agree with the people of that State, I do not well see how a Senator can impose such a law upon the people of the District. "It is not my purpose to discuss the question, but simply to call attention to the fact that the expression of opinion in the Northern States in the recent elections has been very emphatic against this policy. Notwithstanding the bill passed at the last session, it is not necessary that we should now pass it, for the pleasure of the people had not then been so emphatically made known as it now has been." Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, followed, saying: "But the objections to the measure upon your table, sir, in my view, are much stronger than those which were applicable to the other question of granting them the right of suffrage. From the consequences of the exercise of that right there is comparatively, as far as the general public is concerned, little to be apprehended. The large numerical majority of white people in the United States is perhaps a security against any serious disadvantage which might happen to the country at large. But that is not the case as far as concerns the measure upon your table. In that we and all our constituents of the white race have a very direct interest. We are to be tried civilly and criminally, we and our constituents, if we are charged with having violated any right, private or public; and the question for the Senate to decide is whether we are willing to have ourselves tried by a jury of black men for the most part just emerged from slavery, without the capacity absolutely necessary to a faithful and intelligent discharge of that duty. And it is more especially important in relation to criminal cases, because in cases of that description the jury may, in the exercise of its power, decide conclusively for itself, disregarding the opinion of the court; and thus our citizens and ourselves may be subjected to a judgment over which there is no revising power, practically pronounced by twelve ignorant black men.

"But that is not all. The number of the black race in this District is very large and promises to become larger. It may be able to elect out of its own numbers to every office, judicial or otherwise, that is not now to be filled by the Executive with the consent of the Senate. We may give them the authority to elect their magistrates; we may give them the authority to elect their judges; there is nothing to paevent it; and then we should be placed in the condition of having a tribunal to decide upon our rights, civil and criminal, constituted of persons of that race alone. Now, for one, although, as I said in the beginning, I would secure them in the possession of every right which a man has the authority to claim as a right, I am against giving to them a privilege which may be exercised to the detriment of the rest of the public, and which is not at all necessary to the vindication of all of their own rights."

Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, in reply, said: "Mr. President, I only wish to remark that if what has been said be true, as I think it is, that the colored people are very numerous in this District, it is worthy of consideration that they, too, have rights. They are to be tried by somebody, and it may be quite as objectionable to them to have their rights adjudicated by twelve ignorant white men as it is for white men to have their rights adjudicated by twelve ignorant black men. If this argument is good for any thing as against the negro, it is equally so as against the white man, because intelligence, loyalty, or patriotism, is not confined in this District, nor anywhere, to any class or any color. If a Senator is in favor of giving to this class of persons all the rights that are given to white men, then this is one of the rights certainly to be given. There is no State in the Union where a man has the right to be an elector, where he has a right to vote, that he cannot be voted for. In the nature of the case the man who carries the ballot, in all the States of this Union outside of this District, has the right himself to be elected. This is one of the facts that stare us in the face, that under our own legislation we have made electors of a class, and yet they are not allowed to hold office themselves. This bill remedies that defect."

The bill was subsequently passed by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Harlan, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, Williams, and Wilson-32.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Hendricks, Johnson, Norton, and Patterson of Ten

nessee-8.

ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Cole, Conness, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Guthrie, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Saulsbury, Sprague, Van Winkle, and Yates-13.

On December 9th, the bill was passed in the House, without debate, by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Arnell, James M. Ashley, Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Beaman, Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Blaine, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Butler, Churchill, Reader W. Clarke, Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Cullom, Dawes, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, Ela, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, Garfield, Halsey, Hamilton, Harding, Hawkins, Holman, Hooper, Hopkins, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Hunter, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Judd, Julian, Kelley, Kelsey, Ketcham, Koontz, Laflin, William Lawrence, Lincoln, Logan, Loughridge, Lynch, Maynard, MeClurg, Mercur, Moorhead, Mullins, Myers, Newcomb, Nunn, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Perham, Peters, Pike, Plants, Poland, Polsley, Price, Robertson, Sawyer, Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stewart, Stokes, Thomas, Schenck, Shanks, Smith, Starkweather, Aaron F. Trimble, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Robert T. Van Horn, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Thomas Williams, William Williams, James F. Wilson, John T. Wilson, and Windom-105.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Archer, Axtell, Barnes, Beck, Boyer, Brooks, Burr, Chanler, Eldridge, Getz,

Glossbrenner, Golladay, Grover, Haight, Richard D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Knott, Mallory, Marshall, Morgan, Mungen, Niblack, Nicholson, Phelps, Pruyn, Randall, Robinson, Ross, Sitgreaves, Taber, Van Auken, Van Trump, Wood, and Woodward-38.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, Barnum, Blair, Cake, Cary, Sidney Clarke, Cornell, Covode, Finney, Fox, Gravelly, Griswold, Hill, Higby, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Kitchen, George V. Lawrence, Loan, Marvin, McCarthy, McCullough, Miller, Moore, Morrell, Morrissey, Pile, Pomeroy, Raum, Scofield, Selye, Shellabarger, Spalding, Stone, Taffe, Taylor, Twichell, Burt Van Horn, Van Wyck, Ward, Elihu B. Washburne, Stephen F. Wilson, and Woodbridge-44.

In the Senate, on January 8th, Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, offered the following resolution: Whereas Senate bill No. 141, entitled "An act for the further security of equal rights in the District of Columbia," having at this present session passed both Houses of Congress, was afterward, on the 11th day of December, 1867, duly presented to the President of the United States for his approval and signature; and whereas more than ten days, exclusive of Sundays, have since clapsed in this session without said bill' having been returned either approved or disapproved: Therefore,

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to inform the Senate whether said bill has been delivered to and received by the Secretary of State as provided by the second section of the act of the 27th day of July, 1789.

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to.

On January 23d, the President sent the following message to the Senate:

To the Senate of the United States:

I have received the following preamble and resolution, adopted by the Senate on the 8th instant:

As the act which the resolution mentions has no relevancy to the subject under inquiry, it is presumed that it was the intention of the Senate to refer to the law of the 15th September, 1789, the second section of which prescribes

That whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote of the Senate and House of Representatives, having been approved and signed by the President of the United States, or not having been returned by him with his objections, shall become a law or take effect, it shall forthwith thereafter be received by the said Secretary from the President; and whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote shall be returned by the President, with his objections, and shall, on being reconsidered, be agreed to, be passed, and be approved by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and thereby become a law or take effect, it shall, in such case, be received by the said Secretary from the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, in whichsoever House it shall last have been so approved.

Inasmuch as the bill "for the further securi

ty of equal rights in the District of Columbia" has not become a law in either of the modes designated in the section above quoted, it has not been delivered to the Secretary of State for record and promulgation. The Constitution expressly declares that "if any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he has signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law." As stated in the preamble to the resolution, the bill to which it refers was presented for my approval on the 11th day of December, 1867. On the 20th of the same month, and before the expiration of the ten days after the presentation of the bill to the President, the two Houses, in accordance with a concurrent resolution adopted on the 3d of December, adjourned until the 6th of January, 1868. Congress by their adjournment thus prevented the

return of the bill within the time prescribed by the Constitution, and it was therefore left in the precise condition in which that instrument positively delares a bill "shall not be a law."

If the adjournment in December did not cause the failure of this bill because not such an adjournment as is contemplated by the Constitution in the clause which I have cited, it must follow that such was the nature of the adjournments during the past year, on the 30th day of March until the first Wednesday in July, and from the 20th of July until the 21st of November. Other bills will, therefore, be affected by the decision which may be rendered in this case, among them one having the same title as that named in the resolution, and containing similar provisions, which, passed by both Houses in the month of July last, failed to become a law by reason of the adjournhad been allowed the Executive. ment of Congress before ten days for its consideration ANDREW JOHNSON. WASHINGTON, January 23, 1868.

Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, said: "I move that that communication be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and on its reference I have simply a word to say. It is perfectly manifest to me, from an examination that I have made of the subject since the resolution calling for that information was introduced, that the construction which the President puts upon the Constitution is altogether wrong, and that the transaction of public business would be vastly impeded if Congress were to acquiesce in such a construction; and I hope that we shall be able to adopt some measures which will put all the departments of the Government upon a common understanding upon that subject. Of course, this is in no sense a party question. Although it happens to arise now upon a bill which passed upon a division of parties, after all, the question has no political idea involved in it whatever; and I shall hope, therefore, when the matter comes to be considered in committee and reported upon, that we may consider it in a spirit which has no connection with and no incitement from the fact that this particular bill happens to be the subject of a difference of opinion. The same question exactly arose in the State of New Hampshire in 1863, under a constitution which, like most of our constitutions, contains the same provision, as was stated the other day by the honorable Senator from Maryland. I have examined the opinion in that case. It was an opinion pronounced by the court at the request of the Legislature of that State, under a provision of their constitution and laws for obtaining such opinions. The subject is carefully and elaborately discussed, evidently without any feeling about it, and I think any gentleman who will read that opinion, to be found in the forty-fifth volume, I think, of New-Hampshire Reports, cannot fail to be satisfied that this construction of the Constitution now held by the Executive is altogether erroneous, and would in practice lead to very serious inconveniences."

Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, said: "I am inclined to concur with the honorable member from Vermont. It is a question that I have

more than once considered, and I arrived at the same conclusion to which the court of New Hampshire arrived. The language of their constitution is precisely the same with that of the Constitution of the United States, except that the time is less than ten days. I think the time is three days."

Mr. Edmunds: "Five."

Mr. Johnson: "But the other words are identical. I also concur with the honorable member in thinking and I suppose as to that all departments of the Government will concur that it is very desirable that the question should be settled. I suppose there will be no difficulty in the Judiciary Committee coming to a conclusion, and I have every reason to suppose, without any actual knowledge, that whatever that conclusion may be it will be one in which the Executive will acquiesce."

Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, said: "It may be observed that Congress have already given the same construction to the Constitution which is stated by the President in his message. They have given it by their action upon a bill exactly similar to the present one. If there were any force in the reasoning now stated by the Senator from Vermont, it would have been appropriate for him to raise the point at the session in November. Instead of that being done, that session passed by, and a new bill was introduced and passed in the month of November.

"The language of the Constitution is very peculiar, different from that of most of the States. It says that if Congress by their adjournment prevent the return of a bill within ten days the bill shall not become a law. The language is positive. The phraseology is very different ordinarily in the State constitutions. Of course where either House of Congress adjourns during a period not exceeding three days no question would arise. Either House can adjourn for three days without the consent of the other. Such a partial or casual adjourn ment, which constantly takes place in practice, would not be such an adjournment as is intended by the clause in the Constitution; but where an adjournment for more than three days takes place by the joint action of both Houses, it seems to me it falls within the express letter of the Constitution, and that it is impossible to give any other construction to it. Now, sir, it seems to me, in view of the clearness of that provision, and the fact that Congress has already twice acted upon that construction, it would be best for the Committee on the Judiciary and for the Senate to acquiesce in what has already been established so far as congressional and executive action is concerned, and not raise this point."

which contained the same phraseology that the first did; but I am sure he will not claim that that should have the controlling weight of a precedent when we all know that it passed without this question being considered or adverted to at all, as a mere way of hastening the accomplishment of the thing that Congress had in view in that particular bill without waiting to leave it to be settled by the Departments or the courts, whether the previous bill was a law or not, because it would only be a piece of unnecessary legislation to pass the second bill if the first one had become law. So we have done nothing to commit ourselves to the view of the President.

"Now, one word (and I do not want to occupy the morning hour with extended debate) as to the other branch of my friend's proposition. He says that Congress is adjourned, in the language of the Constitution, when each body with the consent of the other adjourns for more than three days, and the bill is therefore prevented, in the language of the Constitution, from being returned. I wish to submit it to him whether the true construction of that phrase is not an adjournment of Congress as the legislative body, the practical termination of its legislative functions as such? whereas the language of the Constitution, touching the adjournment of each House, is simply a limitation upon the power of each House to adjourn itself for more than three days without the consent of the other; and, therefore, under the Constitution it would be perfectly lawful, I think, for the Senate, with the consent of the House of Representatives, to adjourn for a week, or two weeks, or two months, although the House might continue in session all the time. That would not be an adjournment of Congress. Now, suppose that the same resolution contains a mutual consent, which is the effect of these concurrent resolutions, how does that alter the case? It, therefore, appears to me to be far from an adjournment of Congress, because it happens that each House, consenting to the adjournment of the other, adjourns at the same time for the same length of time. That is the view on the other side. I merely state it now, that both views may be considered together."

Mr. Buckalew: "Mr. President, I suppose that in case one House only adjourns, after having asked the consent of the other, if the House in which the bill originated still continues in session the bill would have to be returned within ten days."

The motion to refer was agreed to.

In the House, on December 5th, the following resolution, reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, was taken up:

Resolved, That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors."

Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, said: "I think my friend from Pennsylvania is mistaken in supposing that Congress has given the same construction to the Constitution that the President does. It is true that in one instance it The Speaker said: "On this question the genappears we have passed a bill a second time tleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boutwell) has

[blocks in formation]

the floor. Before the gentleman proceeds with his remarks, the Chair desires to make an announcement to the House and the spectators in the gallery.

"In view of the disorderly manifestations made last week when the report of the committee on this subject was presented, the Chair desires now to say that if such demonstrations be repeated in the galleries he shall order them to be cleared, although he knows that thereby the innocent will suffer with the guilty. He is determined that the order of this House shall be maintained, and a proper respect be paid to this body by those who are allowed to witness its deliberations. If, therefore, any manifestation of approbation or disapprobation be made in the galleries, the Chair will order to be cleared that part where it occurs, or the whole of the galleries. And the Chair will state further, that if, as was the case last week, members upon the floor indulge in manifestations of approval or disapproval, either during the debate or its termination, however the question may be decided, the Chair, if he can ascertain what gentlemen are guilty of such violation of the rules, will state their names to the House, the effect of which will be to bring the matter before the House for such action as it may see fit to adopt in view of the contempt of its rules."

Mr. Boutwell, of Massachusetts, from the majority of the committee, urged the adoption of the resolution, saying: "if the position I have taken is sound, that the meaning of the phrase 'high crimes and misdemeanors' is to be ascertained by reference to the principles of the English common law of crimes, Blackstone's definition, 'that a crime or misdemeanor is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law either forbidding or commanding it, becomes important. I stand upon this definition of the great writer upon English law as the connecting link between the theory of the law that I maintain and the facts which in this case are proved.

"It is to be observed in connection with Blackstone's definition that in our system the Constitution and the statutes are the 'public law' of which he speaks, and any act done by the President which is forbidden by the law or by the Constitution, or the omission by him to do what is by the law or the Constitution commanded, is a 'high crime and misdemeanor,' and renders him liable to impeachment and removal from office.

"He is amenable to the House and the Senate in accordance with the great principles of public law of which the Constitution of the United States is the foundation. And it is true, in a higher and better sense than it is true of the statutes, that the President of the United States is bound to support the Constitution, the vital part of which, in reference to the public affairs of the country, is that he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and he violates that great provision of the Consti

tution, especially when he himself disregards the law either by doing that which is forbidden or neglecting that which he is commanded to do.

"Sir, in approaching the discussion of the transactions of which we complain, I labor under great difficulties, such as are incident to the case. The President has in his hands the immense patronage of the Government. Its influence is all-pervading. The country was disappointed, no doubt, in the report of the committee, and very likely this House participated in the disappointment, that there was no specific, heinous, novel offence charged upon and proved against the President of the United States. It is in the very nature of the case that no such heinous offence could be proved. If we understand the teachings of the successive acts which are developed in the voluminous report of the testimony, and if we understand the facts which are there developed, they all point to one conclusion, and that is that the offence with which the President is charged, and of which I believe by history he will ultimately be convicted, is that he used as he had the opportunity, and misused as necessity and circumstances dictated, the great powers of the nation with which he was intrusted, for the purpose of reconstructing this Government in the interest of the rebellion, so that henceforth this Union, in its legitimate connection, in its relations, in its powers, in its historical character, should be merely the continuation of the Government which was organized at Montgomery and transferred to Richmond.

"If, sir, this statement unfolds the nature of the case, there would not be found any particular specific act which would disclose the whole of the transaction. It was only by a series of acts, by a succession of events, by participation direct or indirect in numerous transactions, some of them open and some of them secret, that this great scheme was carried on and far on toward its final consummation. Hence it happens that when we present a particular charge, it is one which for a long time has been before the public. The country has heard of it again and again. Men do not see in that particular offence any great enormity. Then we are told that this particular act was advised by this Cabinet officer, and that act assented to another Cabinet officer. This matter was discussed in Cabinet meeting, the other was considered in a side-chamber, and therefore the President is not alone responsible for any thing that has been done. But, sir, I assert that whoever else may be responsible with him, he is responsible for himself. Any other theory is destructive to public liberty. We understand the relations which subsisted between the President and his Cabinet officers. The tenure-of-office act gave the latter a degree of independence. But, whatever were the subsisting relations, the President cannot shield himself by their counsel, and claim immunity for open, known, and wilful violations of the

laws of the land. I do not speak now of errors of judgment, but of open and avowed illegal acts personally done or authorized by himself. But he has not always had even the countenance of his Cabinet officers. The testoath was suspended by the President against the opinion of Attorney-General Speed. If Cabinet officers have been concerned in these illegal transactions, I have for them, to a large extent, the same excuse that I have for myself, the same that I have for the members of this House and for the people of this country. In the beginning they did not understand the President's character, capacity, and purposes. "His capacity has not been comprehended by the country. Violent sometimes in language, indiscreet in manner, impulsive in action, unwise often in declamation, he is still animated by a persistency of purpose which never yields under any circumstances, but seeks by means covert and tortuous as well as open and direct the accomplishment of the purpose of his life. "I care not to go into an examination-indeed, I have neither the time nor the taste for it now-of the tortuous ways by which he has controlled men who in the public estimation are superior to himself. But my excuse for Cabinet officers, for members of Congress, for the country, is that in 1865, when he issued his proclamation for the reorganization of North Carolina, no one understood him. General Grant in his testimony says that he considered the plan temporary, to be approved or annulled when Congress should meet in December. But when Congress assembled the President told us that the work was ended; that the rebellious States were restored to the Union. He then planted himself firmly upon the proposition laid down in his North Carolina proclamation in defiance of the Constitution; in defiance of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that the power was in Congress to decide whether the government of a State was republican or not; in defiance of the cardinal principle of the sovereignty of the people through Congress. He ratified substantially in his message that which he had assumed merely in the proclamation of the 29th of May, that he was the United States for the purpose of deciding whether the government of a State was republican or not.

"Sir, if this whole case rested merely upon that assumption, that exercise of power, I maintain that it would bring him specifically and exactly within the control of this House, for the purpose of arraigning him before the Senate upon the charge of seizing and usurping the greatest power of the legislative department of the Government, unless it be that of taxation, which he has also usurped and exercised in defiance of the Constitution. But even then the nature of the proceeding was not fully understood, and his motives were only partially disclosed. The public mind did not comprehend the character and extent of the usurpation.

"Thus it was that his motive was concealed. He was not understood, and the charity of the country silenced suspicions of evil. But he moved on step by step. The country in the mean while was under the influence of his bold declarations, made frequently from the 14th of April to about the 1st of July, 1865; declarations which, even in the coldest of us, made the blood kindle in our veins, as he set forth the punishment to which the rebels were entitled. Even the most violent of the Northern people, they who had suffered from the war, those who had offered their sons, their brothers, and their husbands in sacrifice for the Republic, shuddered when they listened to his declamation as to the power and duty of this Government to punish those who had been engaged in the rebellion. But from July, 1865, his conduct and his policy have been entirely opposed to the declarations made in the spring and early summer of that year. I see in those declarations only this: that they were designed and intended, when they were uttered, to conceal from the public the great purpose he had in view, which was, to wrest this Government from the power of the loyal people of the North and turn it over to the tender mercies of those who had brought upon the country all the horrors of civil war.

"I pass, sir, to the testimony of Judge Mathews, of Ohio, a person whom I never saw but once, and of whom I know nothing except what the record discloses. He was an officer of the Northern Army, and he has been a judge of some of the courts in Cincinnati or vicinity. He says that in the month of February, 1865, when Mr. Johnson was passing from Tennessee to Washington to take the oath of office as Vice-President, he called upon him at the Burnett House. The conversation was apparently unimportant, but it discloses a purpose on the part of Mr. Johnson. He said to Judge Mathews, 'You and I were old Democrats.' 'Yes,' replied Judge Mathews. Says Mr. Johnson, 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.' That was in February, 1865. He had then received the suffrages of a free and generous people. They had taken him from Tennessee, where he would have had no abiding-place but for the armies of the Republic that protected him in his person and property. He was then entering upon the second office in the gift of the people, chosen by the great party of power and of progress in the country, which had saved the Union in its days of peril. No act had been by them done which could possibly have alienated him from them. Jefferson Davis was still at Richmond. The armies of Lee menaced the capital of his country. Andrew Johnson was approaching that capital for the purpose of taking the oath of office. That capital was merely a fortified garrison. He then declares that the country cannot be saved except by the old Democratic party.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »