THE UNITED STATES _vs_. ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT.
The Chief Justice stated that in compliance with the desire of the
Senate he had prepared the question to be addressed to Senators upon
each article of impeachment, and that he had reduced his views thereon
to writing, which he read, as follows:
SENATORS: In conformity with what seemed to be the general wish of the
Senate when it adjourned last Thursday, the Chief Justice, in taking the
vote on the articles of impeachment, will adopt the mode sanctioned by
the practice in the cases of Chase, Peck, and Humphreys.
He will direct the Secretary to read the several articles successively,
and after the reading of each article will put the question of guilty or
not guilty to each Senator, rising in his place, in the form used in the
case of Judge Chase:
Mr. Senator ----, how say you? Is the respondent, Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, guilty or not guilty of a high
misdemeanor, as charged in this article?
In putting the question on Articles IV and VI, each of which charges a
crime, the word "crime" will be substituted for the word "misdemeanor."
The Chief Justice has carefully considered the suggestion of the Senator
from Indiana (Mr. Hendricks), which appeared to meet the approval of the
Senate, that in taking the vote on the eleventh article the question
should be put on each clause, and has found himself unable to divide the
article as suggested. The article charges several facts, but they are so
connected that they make but one allegation and they are charged as
constituting one misdemeanor.
The first fact charged is, in substance, that the President publicly
declared in August, 1866, that the Thirty-ninth Congress was a Congress
of only part of the States and not a constitutional Congress, intending
thereby to deny its constitutional competency to enact laws or propose
amendments of the Constitution; and this charge seems to have been made
as introductory, and as qualifying that which follows, namely, that the
President, in pursuance of this declaration, attempted to prevent the
execution of the tenure-of-office act by contriving and attempting to
contrive means to prevent Mr. Stanton from resuming the functions of
Secretary of War after the refusal of the Senate to concur in his
suspension, and also by contriving and attempting to contrive means to
prevent the execution of the appropriation act of March 2, 1867, and
also to prevent the execution of the rebel States governments act of
the same date.
The gravamen of the article seems to be that the President attempted
to defeat the execution of the tenure-of-office act, and that he
did this in pursuance of a declaration which was intended to deny
the constitutional competency of Congress to enact laws or propose
constitutional amendments, and by contriving means to prevent Mr.
Stanton from resuming his office of Secretary, and also to prevent the
execution of the appropriation act and the rebel States governments act.
The single substantive matter charged is the attempt to prevent the
execution of the tenure-of-office act, and the other facts are alleged
either as introductory and exhibiting this general purpose or as showing
the means contrived in furtherance of that attempt.
This single matter, connected with the other matters previously and
subsequently alleged, is charged as the high misdemeanor of which the
President is alleged to have been guilty.
The general question, guilty or not guilty of a high misdemeanor as
charged, seems fully to cover the whole charge, and will be put as to
this article as well as to the others, unless the Senate direct some
mode of division.
In the tenth article the division suggested by the Senator from New York
(Mr. Conkling) may be more easily made. It contains a general allegation
to the effect that on the 18th of August and on other days the
President, with intent to set aside the rightful authority of Congress
and bring it into contempt, delivered certain scandalous harangues, and
therein uttered loud threats and bitter menaces against Congress and the
laws of the United States enacted by Congress, thereby bringing the
office of President into disgrace, to the great scandal of all good
citizens, and sets forth in three distinct specifications the harangues,
threats, and menaces complained of.
In respect to this article, if the Senate sees fit so to direct, the
question of guilty or not guilty of the facts charged may be taken in
respect to the several specifications, and then the question of guilty
or not guilty of a high misdemeanor, as charged in the article, can also
be taken.
The Chief Justice, however, sees no objection to putting the general
question on this article in the same manner as on the others; for,
whether particular questions be put on the specifications or not, the
answer to the final question must be determined by the judgment of the
Senate whether or not the facts alleged in the specifications have been
sufficiently proved, and whether, if sufficiently proved, they amount
to a high misdemeanor within the meaning of the Constitution.
On the whole, therefore, the Chief Justice thinks that the better
practice will be to put the general question on each article without
attempting to make any subdivision, and will pursue this course if no
objection is made. He will, however, be pleased to conform to such
directions as the Senate may see fit to give in this respect.