ANDREW JOHNSON.

Mr. Stanbery then submitted the following motion:

In the matter of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the

United States.

Henry Stanbery, Benjamin R. Curtis, Jeremiah S. Black, William M.

Evarts, and Thomas A.R. Nelson, of counsel for the respondent, move the

court for the allowance of forty days for the preparation of the answer

to the articles of impeachment, and in support of the motion make the

following professional statement:

The articles are eleven in number, involving many questions of law

and fact. We have during the limited time and opportunity afforded us

considered as far as possible the field of investigation which must be

explored in the preparation of the answer, and the conclusion at which

we have arrived is that with the utmost diligence the time we have asked

is reasonable and necessary.

The precedents as to time for answer upon impeachments before the Senate

to which we have had opportunity to refer are those of Judge Chase and

Judge Peck.

In the case of Judge Chase time was allowed from the 3d of January until

the 4th of February next succeeding to put in his answer--a period of

thirty-two days; but in this case there were only eight articles, and

Judge Chase had been for a year cognizant of most of the articles, and

had been himself engaged in preparing to meet them.

In the case of Judge Peck there was but a single article. Judge Peck

asked for time from the 10th to the 25th of May to put in his answer,

and it was granted. It appears that Judge Peck had been long cognizant

of the ground laid for his impeachment, and had been present before the

committee of the House upon the examination of the witnesses, and had

been permitted by the House of Representatives to present to that body

an elaborate answer to the charges.

It is apparent that the President is fairly entitled to more time than

was allowed in either of the foregoing cases. It is proper to add that

the respondents in these cases were lawyers, fully capable of preparing

their own answers, and that no pressing official duties interfered with

their attention to that business; whereas the President, not being a

lawyer, must rely on his counsel. The charges involve his acts,

declarations, and intentions, as to all which his counsel must be fully

advised upon consultation with him, step by step, in the preparation of

his defense. It is seldom that a case requires such constant

communication between client and counsel as this, and yet such

communication can only be had at such intervals as are allowed to the

President from the usual hours that must be devoted to his high official

duties.

We further beg leave to suggest for the consideration of this honorable

court that, as counsel careful as well of their own reputation as of

the interests of their client in a case of such magnitude as this, so

out of the ordinary range of professional experience, where so much

responsibility is felt, they submit to the candid consideration of the

court that they have a right to ask for themselves such opportunity to

discharge their duty as seems to them to be absolutely necessary.

HENRY STANBERY,

B.R. CURTIS,

JEREMIAH S. BLACK, \__ Per H.S.

WILLIAM M. EVARTS, /

THOMAS A.R. NELSON,

_Of Counsel for the Respondent_.

The above motion was denied, and the Senate adopted the following orders:

_Ordered_, That the respondent file answer to the articles of

impeachment on or before Monday, the 23d day of March instant.

_Ordered_, That unless otherwise ordered by the Senate, for cause shown,

the trial of the pending impeachment shall proceed immediately after

replication shall be filed.

A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. Volume 6, part 2: Andrew Johnson · 第 779 / 803 题