_Assistant Adjutant-General_.
Official:
-------- --------,
_Assistant Adjutant-General_.
General Emory not only called the attention of respondent to this order,
but to the fact that it was in conformity with a section contained in an
appropriation act passed by Congress. Respondent, after reading the
order, observed:
This is not in accordance with the Constitution of the United States,
which makes me Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, or of the
language of the commission which you hold.
General Emory then stated that this order had met the respondent's
approval. Respondent then said in reply, in substance:
Am I to understand that the President of the United States can not give
an order but through the General in Chief, or General Grant?
General Emory again reiterated the statement that it had met
respondent's approval, and that it was the opinion of some of the
leading lawyers of the country that this order was constitutional. With
some further conversation, respondent then inquired the names of the
lawyers who had given the opinion, and he mentioned the names of two.
Respondent then said that the object of the law was very evident,
referring to the clause in the appropriation act upon which the order
purported to be based. This, according to respondent's recollection,
was the substance of the conversation had with General Emory.
Respondent denies that any allegations in the said article of any
instructions or declarations given to the said Emory then or at any
other time contrary to or in addition to what is hereinbefore set forth
are true. Respondent denies that in said conversation with said Emory he
had any other intent than to express the opinion then given to the said
Emory, nor did he then or at any time request or order the said Emory
to disobey any law or any order issued in conformity with any law,
or intend to offer any inducement to the said Emory to violate any
law. What this respondent then said to General Emory was simply the
expression of an opinion which he then fully believed to be sound,
and which he yet believes to be so, and that is that by the express
provisions of the Constitution this respondent, as President, is made
the Commander in Chief of the armies of the United States, and as such
he is to be respected, and that his orders, whether issued through the
War Department, or through the General in Chief, or by any other channel
of communication, are entitled to respect and obedience, and that such
constitutional power can not be taken from him by virtue of any act of
Congress. Respondent doth therefore deny that by the expression of such
opinion he did commit or was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office;
and the respondent doth further say that the said Article IX lays no
foundation whatever for the conclusion stated in the said article, that
the respondent, by reason of the allegations therein contained, was
guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.
In reference to the statement made by General Emory that this respondent
had approved of said act of Congress containing the section referred to,
the respondent admits that his formal approval was given to said act,
but accompanied the same by the following message, addressed and sent
with the act to the House of Representatives, in which House the said
act originated, and from which it came to respondent:
WASHINGTON, D.C., _March 2, 1867_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
The act entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of
the Army for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes,"
contains provisions to which I must call attention. These provisions
are contained in the second section, which in certain cases virtually
deprives the President of his constitutional functions as Commander in
Chief of the Army, and in the sixth section, which denies to ten States
of the Union their constitutional right to protect themselves in any
emergency by means of their own militia. These provisions are out of
place in an appropriation act, but I am compelled to defeat these
necessary appropriations if I withhold my signature from the act.
Pressed by these considerations, I feel constrained to return the bill
with my signature, but to accompany it with my earnest protest against
the sections which I have indicated.
Respondent, therefore, did no more than to express to said Emory the
same opinion which he had so expressed to the House of Representatives.
_Answer to Article X_.--And in answer to the tenth article and
specifications thereof the respondent says that on the 14th and 15th
days of August, in the year 1866, a political convention of delegates
from all or most of the States and Territories of the Union was held
in the city of Philadelphia, under the name and style of the National
Union Convention, for the purpose of maintaining and advancing certain
political views and opinions before the people of the United States, and
for their support and adoption in the exercise of the constitutional
suffrage in the elections of Representatives and Delegates in Congress
which were soon to occur in many of the States and Territories of the
Union; which said convention, in the course of its proceedings, and
in furtherance of the objects of the same, adopted a "Declaration of
principles" and "An address to the people of the United States," and
appointed a committee of two of its members from each State and of one
from each Territory and one from the District of Columbia to wait upon
the President of the United States and present to him a copy of the
proceedings of the convention; that on the 18th day of said month of
August this committee waited upon the President of the United States
at the Executive Mansion, and was received by him in one of the rooms
thereof, and by their chairman, Hon. Reverdy Johnson, then and now
a Senator of the United States, acting and speaking in their behalf,
presented a copy of the proceedings of the convention and addressed the
President of the United States in a speech of which a copy (according
to a published report of the same, and, as the respondent believes,
substantially a correct report) is hereto annexed as a part of this
answer, and marked Exhibit C.
That thereupon, and in reply to the address of said committee by their
chairman, this respondent addressed the said committee so waiting upon
him in one of the rooms of the Executive Mansion; and this respondent
believes that this his address to said committee is the occasion
referred to in the first specification of the tenth article; but this
respondent does not admit that the passages therein set forth, as if
extracts from a speech or address of this respondent upon said occasion,
correctly or justly present his speech or address upon said occasion,
but, on the contrary, this respondent demands and insists that if
this honorable court shall deem the said article and the said first
specification thereof to contain allegation of matter cognizable by
this honorable court as a high misdemeanor in office within the intent
and meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and shall receive
or allow proof in support of the same, that proof shall be required
to be made of the actual speech and address of this respondent on
said occasion, which this respondent denies that said article and
specification contain or correctly or justly represent.
And this respondent, further answering the tenth article and the
specifications thereof, says that at Cleveland, in the State of Ohio,
and on the 3d day of September, in the year 1866, he was attended by a
large assemblage of his fellow-citizens, and in deference and obedience
to their call and demand he addressed them upon matters of public and
political consideration; and this respondent believes that said occasion
and address are referred to in the second specification of the tenth
article; but this respondent does not admit that the passages therein
set forth, as if extracts from a speech of this respondent on said
occasion, correctly or justly present his speech or address upon said
occasion, but, on the contrary, this respondent demands and insists that
if this honorable court shall deem the said article and the said second
specification thereof to contain allegation of matter cognizable by this
honorable court as a high misdemeanor in office within the intent and
meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and shall receive or
allow proof in support of the same, that proof shall be required to be
made of the actual speech and address of this respondent on said
occasion, which this respondent denies that said article and
specification contain or correctly or justly represent.
And this respondent, further answering the tenth article and the
specifications thereof, says that at St. Louis, in the State of
Missouri, and on the 8th day of September, in the year 1866, he was
attended by a numerous assemblage of his fellow-citizens, and in
deference and obedience to their call and demand he addressed them upon
matters of public and political consideration; and this respondent
believes that said occasion and address are referred to in the third
specification of the tenth article; but this respondent does not admit
that the passages therein set forth, as if extracts from a speech of
this respondent on said occasion, correctly or justly present his speech
or address upon said occasion, but, on the contrary, this respondent
demands and insists that if this honorable court shall deem the said
article and the said third specification thereof to contain allegation
of matter cognizable by this honorable court as a high misdemeanor in
office within the intent and meaning of the Constitution of the United
States, and shall receive or allow proof in support of the same, that
proof shall be required to be made of the actual speech and address of
this respondent on said occasion, which this respondent denies that the
said article and specification contain or correctly or justly represent.
And this respondent, further answering the tenth article, protesting
that he has not been unmindful of the high duties of his office or of
the harmony or courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between
the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United
States, denies that he has ever intended or designed to set aside the
rightful authority or powers of Congress, or attempted to bring into
disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, or reproach the Congress of the
United States, or either branch thereof, or to impair or destroy the
regard or respect of all or any of the good people of the United States
for the Congress or the rightful legislative power thereof, or to excite
the odium or resentment of all or any of the good people of the United
States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally
enacted. This respondent further says that at all times he has, in his
official acts as President, recognized the authority of the several
Congresses of the United States as constituted and organized during his
administration of the office of President of the United States.
And this respondent, further answering, says that he has from time
to time, under his constitutional right and duty as President of the
United States, communicated to Congress his views and opinions in
regard to such acts or resolutions thereof as, being submitted to him
as President of the United States in pursuance of the Constitution,
seemed to this respondent to require such communications; and he has
from time to time, in the exercise of that freedom of speech which
belongs to him as a citizen of the United States, and, in his political
relations as President of the United States to the people of the United
States, is upon fit occasions a duty of the highest obligation, expressed
to his fellow-citizens his views and opinions respecting the measures
and proceedings of Congress; and that in such addresses to his
fellow-citizens and in such his communications to Congress he has
expressed his views, opinions, and judgment of and concerning the actual
constitution of the two Houses of Congress, without representation
therein of certain States of the Union, and of the effect that in wisdom
and justice, in the opinion and judgment of this respondent, Congress
in its legislation and proceedings should give to this political
circumstance; and whatsoever he has thus communicated to Congress
or addressed to his fellow-citizens or any assemblage thereof this
respondent says was and is within and according to his right and
privilege as an American citizen and his right and duty as President
of the United States.
And this respondent, not waiving or at all disparaging his right
of freedom of opinion and of freedom of speech, as hereinbefore or
hereinafter more particularly set forth, but claiming and insisting upon
the same, further answering the said tenth article, says that the views
and opinions expressed by this respondent in his said addresses to
the assemblages of his fellow-citizens, as in said articles or in this
answer thereto mentioned, are not and were not intended to be other
or different from those expressed by him in his communications to
Congress--that the eleven States lately in insurrection never had
ceased to be States of the Union, and that they were then entitled
to representation in Congress by loyal Representatives and Senators
as fully as the other States of the Union, and that consequently the
Congress as then constituted was not in fact a Congress of all the
States, but a Congress of only a part of the States. This respondent,
always protesting against the unauthorized exclusion therefrom of the
said eleven States, nevertheless gave his assent to all laws passed by
said Congress which did not, in his opinion and judgment, violate the
Constitution, exercising his constitutional authority of returning bills
to said Congress with his objections when they appeared to him to be
unconstitutional or inexpedient.
And further, this respondent has also expressed the opinion, both in
his communications to Congress and in his addresses to the people, that
the policy adopted by Congress in reference to the States lately in
insurrection did not tend to peace, harmony, and union, but, on the
contrary, did tend to disunion and the permanent disruption of the
States, and that in following its said policy laws had been passed by
Congress in violation of the fundamental principles of the Government,
and which tended to consolidation and despotism; and such being his
deliberate opinions, he would have felt himself unmindful of the
high duties of his office if he had failed to express them in his
communications to Congress or in his addresses to the people when called
upon by them to express his opinions on matters of public and political
consideration.
And this respondent, further answering the tenth article, says that he
has always claimed and insisted, and now claims and insists, that both
in the personal and private capacity of a citizen of the United States
and in the political relations of the President of the United States to
the people of the United States, whose servant, under the duties and
responsibilities of the Constitution of the United States, the President
of the United States is and should always remain, this respondent had
and has the full right, and in his office of President of the United
States is held to the high duty, of forming, and on fit occasions
expressing, opinions of and concerning the legislation of Congress,
proposed or completed, in respect of its wisdom, expediency, justice,
worthiness, objects, purposes, and public and political motives and
tendencies, and within and as a part of such right and duty to form,
and on fit occasions to express, opinions of and concerning the public
character and conduct, views, purposes, objects, motives, and tendencies
of all men engaged in the public service, as well in Congress as
otherwise, and under no other rules or limits upon this right of
freedom of opinion and of freedom of speech, or of responsibility and
amenability for the actual exercise of such freedom of opinion and
freedom of speech, than attend upon such rights and their exercise on
the part of all other citizens of the United States and on the part of
all their public servants.
And this respondent, further answering said tenth article, says
that the several occasions on which, as is alleged in the several
specifications of said article, this respondent addressed his
fellow-citizens on subjects of public and political considerations were
not, nor was any one of them, sought or planned by this respondent, but,
on the contrary, each of said occasions arose upon the exercise of a
lawful and accustomed right of the people of the United States to call
upon their public servants and express to them their opinions, wishes,
and feelings upon matters of public and political consideration, and to
invite from such their public servants an expression of their opinions,
views, and feelings on matters of public and political consideration;
and this respondent claims and insists before this honorable court, and
before all the people of the United States, that of or concerning this
his right of freedom of opinion and of freedom of speech, and this
his exercise of such rights on all matters of public and political
consideration, and in respect of all public servants or persons
whatsoever engaged in or connected therewith, this respondent, as
a citizen or as President of the United States, is not subject to
question, inquisition, impeachment, or inculpation in any form or
manner whatsoever.
And this respondent says that neither the said tenth article nor any
specification thereof nor any allegation therein contained touches or
relates to any official act or doing of this respondent in the office
of President of the United States or in the discharge of any of its
constitutional or legal duties or responsibilities; but said article and
the specifications and allegations thereof, wholly and in every part
thereof, question only the discretion or propriety of freedom of opinion
or freedom, of speech as exercised by this respondent as a citizen of
the United States in his personal right and capacity, and without
allegation or imputation against this respondent of the violation of any
law of the United States touching or relating to freedom of speech or
its exercise by the citizens of the United States or by this respondent
as one of the said citizens or otherwise; and he denies that by reason
of any matter in said article or its specifications alleged he has said
or done anything indecent or unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate of the
United States, or that he has brought the high office of President of
the United States into contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, or that he has
committed or has been guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.
_Answer to Article XI_.--And in answer to the eleventh article this
respondent denies that on the 18th day of August, in the year 1866, at
the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, he did, by public
speech or otherwise, declare or affirm, in substance or at all, that the
Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States was not a Congress of the
United States authorized by the Constitution to exercise legislative
power under the same, or that he did then and there declare or affirm
that the said Thirty-ninth Congress was a Congress of only part of the
States in any sense or meaning other than that ten States of the Union
were denied representation therein, or that he made any or either of
the declarations or affirmations in this behalf in the said article
alleged as denying or intending to deny that the legislation of said
Thirty-ninth Congress was valid or obligatory upon this respondent
except so far as this respondent saw fit to approve the same; and as to
the allegation in said article that he did thereby intend or mean to be
understood that the said Congress had not power to propose amendments
to the Constitution, this respondent says that in said address he said
nothing in reference to the subject of amendments of the Constitution,
nor was the question of the competency of the said Congress to propose
such amendments, without the participation of said excluded States,
at the time of said address in any way mentioned or considered or
referred to by this respondent, nor in what he did say had he any
intent regarding the same; and he denies the allegations so made
to the contrary thereof. But this respondent, in further answer to
and in respect of the said allegations of the said eleventh article
hereinbefore traversed and denied, claims and insists upon his personal
and official right of freedom of opinion and freedom of speech, and his
duty in his political relations as President of the United States to the
people of the United States in the exercise of such freedom of opinion
and freedom of speech, in the same manner, form, and effect as he has
in this behalf stated the same in his answer to the said tenth article,
and with the same effect as if he here repeated the same; and he further
claims and insists, as in said answer to said tenth article he has
claimed and insisted, that he is not subject to question, inquisition,
impeachment or inculpation, in any form or manner, of or concerning such
rights of freedom of opinion or freedom of speech, or his said alleged
exercise thereof.
And this respondent further denies that on the 21st day of February,
in the year 1868, or at any other time, at the city of Washington, in
the District of Columbia, in pursuance of any such declaration as in
that behalf in said eleventh article alleged, or otherwise, he did
unlawfully, and in disregard of the requirement of the Constitution that
he should take care that the laws should be faithfully executed, attempt
to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act regulating the
tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867, by unlawfully
devising or contriving, or attempting to devise or contrive, means by
which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the
functions of Secretary for the Department of War, or by unlawfully
devising or contriving, or attempting to devise or contrive, means to
prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act making appropriations
for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868,
and for other purposes," approved March 2, 1867, or to prevent the
execution of an act entitled "An act to provide for the more efficient
government of the rebel States," passed March 2, 1867.
And this respondent, further answering the said eleventh article, says
that he has in his answer to the first article set forth in detail the
acts, steps, and proceedings done and taken by this respondent to and
toward or in the matter of the suspension or removal of the said Edwin
M. Stanton in or from the office of Secretary for the Department of War,
with the times, modes, circumstances, intents, views, purposes, and
opinions of official obligations and duty under and with which such
acts, steps, and proceedings were done and taken; and he makes answer to
this eleventh article of the matters in his answer to the first article
pertaining to the suspension or removal of said Edwin M. Stanton, to the
same intent and effect as if they were here repeated and set forth.
And this respondent, further answering the said eleventh article,
denies that by means or reason of anything in said article alleged this
respondent, as President of the United States, did, on the 21st day of
February, 1868, or at any other day or time, commit or that he was
guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.
And this respondent, further answering the said eleventh article, says
that the same and the matters therein contained do not charge or allege
the commission of any act whatever by this respondent in his office of
President of the United States, nor the omission by this respondent of
any act of official obligation or duty in his office of President of
the United States; nor does the said article nor the matters therein
contained name, designate, describe, or define any act or mode or form
of attempt, device, contrivance, or means, or of attempt at device,
contrivance, or means, whereby this respondent can know or understand
what act or mode or form of attempt, device, contrivance, or means, or
of attempt at device, contrivance, or means, are imputed to or charged
against this respondent in his office of President of the United States,
or intended so to be, or whereby this respondent can more fully or
definitely make answer unto the said article than he hereby does.
And this respondent, in submitting to this honorable court this
his answer to the articles of impeachment exhibited against him,
respectfully reserves leave to amend and add to the same from time to
time, as may become necessary or proper, and when and as such necessity
and propriety shall appear.