Each of the articles commences with a preamble to the effect that the

President, “unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath

of office, and of the requirements of the Constitution that he should

take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully and in

violation of the laws and Constitution of the United States, perform

the several acts specified in the articles respectively;” closing

with the declaration: “Whereby the said Andrew Johnson, President of

the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a high

misdemeanor in office.” The phraseology is somewhat varied. In some

cases the offense charged is designated as a “misdemeanor,” in others

as a “crime.” The whole closes thus:

“And the House of Representatives, by protestation, saving to

themselves the liberty of exhibiting at any time hereafter any further

articles or other accusation or impeachment against the said Andrew

Johnson, President of the United States, and also of replying to his

answers which he shall make to the articles herein preferred against

him, and of offering proof to the same and every part thereof, and to

all and every other article, accusation, or impeachment which shall be

exhibited by them as the case shall require, do demand that the said

Andrew Johnson may be put to answer the high crimes and misdemeanors

in office herein charged against him, and that such proceedings,

examinations, trials, and judgments may be thereupon had and given as

may be agreeable to law and justice.”

The following is a summary in brief of the points in the articles of

impeachment, legal and technical phraseology being omitted:

_Article 1._ Unlawfully ordering the removal of Mr. Stanton

as Secretary of War, in violation of the provisions of the

Tenure-of-Office Act.—_Article 2._ Unlawfully appointing General

Lorenzo Thomas as Secretary of War _ad interim_.—_Article 3_ is

substantially the same as Article 2, with the addition that there was

at the time of the appointment of General Thomas no vacancy in the

office of Secretary of War.—_Article 4_ charges the President with

“conspiring with one Lorenzo Thomas and other persons, to the House

of Representatives unknown,” to prevent, by intimidation and threats,

Mr. Stanton, the legally-appointed Secretary of War, from holding that

office.—_Article 5_ charges the President with conspiring with General

Thomas and others to hinder the execution of the Tenure-of-Office

Act; and, in pursuance of this conspiracy, attempting to prevent Mr.

Stanton from acting as Secretary of War.—_Article 6_ charges that the

President conspired with General Thomas and others to take forcible

possession of the property in the War Department.—_Article 7_ repeats

the charge, in other terms, that the President conspired with General

Thomas and others to hinder the execution of the Tenure-of-Office Act,

and to prevent Mr. Stanton from executing the office of Secretary of

War.—_Article 8_ again charges the President with conspiring with

General Thomas and others to take possession of the property in the War

Department.—_Article 9_ charges that the President called before him

General Emory, who was in command of the forces in the Department of

Washington, and declared to him that a law, passed on the 30th of June,

1867, directing that “all orders and instructions relating to military

operations, issued by the President or Secretary of War, shall be

issued through the General of the Army, and, in case of his inability,

through the next in rank,” was unconstitutional, and not binding upon

General Emory; the intent being to induce General Emory to violate the

law, and to obey orders issued directly from the President.

The foregoing articles of impeachment were adopted on the 2d of March,

the votes upon each slightly varying, the average being 125 ayes to

40 nays. The question then came up of appointment of managers on the

part of the House to conduct the impeachment before the Senate. Upon

this question the Democratic members did not vote; 118 votes were cast,

60 being necessary to a choice. The following was the result, the

number of votes cast for each elected manager being given: Stevens, of

Penn., 105; Butler, of Mass., 108; Bingham, of Ohio, 114; Boutwell,

of Mass., 113; Wilson, of Iowa, 112; Williams, of Penn., 107; Logan,

of Ill., 106. The foregoing seven Representatives were, therefore,

duly chosen as Managers of the Bill of Impeachment. The great body of

the Democratic members of the House entered a formal protest against

the whole course of proceedings involved in the impeachment of the

President. They claimed to represent “directly or in principle more

than one-half of the people of the United States.” This protest was

signed by forty-five Representatives.

On the 3d the Board of Managers presented two additional articles of

impeachment, which were adopted by the House. The first charges, in

substance, that

“The President, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of

the harmony and courtesies which ought to be maintained between the

executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United

States, designing to set aside the rightful authority and powers of

Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace the Congress of the United

States and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the

regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the

Congress and legislative power thereof, and to excite the odium and

resentment of all the good people of the United States against Congress

and the laws by it enacted; and in pursuance of his said design openly

and publicly, and before divers assemblages convened in divers parts

thereof to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate

of the United States, did on the 18th day of August, in the year of

our Lord 1866, and on divers other days and times, as well before as

afterward, make and deliver with a loud voice certain intemperate,

inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and did therein utter loud

threats and bitter menaces as well against Congress as the laws of the

United States duly enacted thereby.”

To this article are appended copious extracts from speeches of Mr.

Johnson. The second article is substantially as follows:

[Illustration: GENERAL ULYSSES S. GRANT.]

“The President did, on the 18th day of August, 1866, at the City of

Washington, by public speech, declare and affirm in substance 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, but, on the contrary, was a Congress of only

a part of the States, thereby denying and intending to deny that

the legislation of said Congress was valid or obligatory upon him,

except in so far as he saw fit to approve the same, and did devise

and contrive means by which he might prevent Edwin M. Stanton from

forthwith resuming the functions of the office of Secretary for the

Department of War; and, also, by further unlawfully devising and

contriving 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;

and also 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, did commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.”

On the 4th of March the Senate notified the House that they were ready

to receive the Managers of the Impeachment. They appeared, and the

articles were formally read. The Senate had meanwhile adopted the rules

of procedure. Chief Justice Chase sent a communication to the Senate

to the effect that this body, when acting upon an impeachment, was

a Court presided over by the Chief Justice, and that all orders and

rules should be framed by the Court. On the 5th the Court was formally

organized. An exception was taken to the eligibility of Mr. Wade as

a member of the Court, on the ground that he was a party interested,

since, in the event of the impeachment being sustained, he, as

President of the Senate, would become Acting President of the United

States. This objection was withdrawn, and Mr. Wade was sworn as a

member of the Court. On the 7th the summons for the President to appear

was formally served upon him. On the 13th the Court was again formally

reopened. The President appeared by his counsel, Hon. Henry Stanbery,

of Ohio; Hon. Wm. M. Evarts, of New York; Hon. Wm. S. Groesbeck, of

Ohio; Hon. Benjamin R. Curtis, of Massachusetts; Hon. Thomas A. R.

Nelson, of Tennessee, who asked for forty days to prepare an answer

to the indictment. This was refused, and ten days granted; it being

ordered that the proceedings should reopen on the 23d. Upon that day

the President appeared by his counsel, and presented his answer to the

articles of impeachment. This reply was in substance as follows:

The first eight articles in the Bill of Impeachment, as briefly summed

up in our last record, are based upon the action of the President in

ordering the removal of Mr. Stanton, and the temporary appointment

of General Thomas as Secretary of War. The gist of them is contained

in the first article, charging the unlawful removal of Mr. Stanton;

for, this failing, the others would fail also. To this article a

considerable part of the President’s answer is devoted. It is mainly

an amplification of the points put forth in the Message of February

24th, in which he gave his reasons for his orders. The President

cites the laws by which this department of the administration was

created, and the rules laid down for the duties pertaining to it;

prominent among which are: that the Secretary shall “conduct the

business of the department in such manner as the President of the

United States shall from time to time order and instruct;” and that

he should “hold the office during the pleasure of the President;”

and that Congress had no legal right to deprive the President of the

power to remove the Secretary. He was, however, aware that the design

of the Tenure-of-Office Bill was to vest this power of removal, in

certain cases, jointly in the Executive and the Senate; and that,

while believing this act to be unconstitutional, yet it having been

passed over his veto by the requisite majority of two-thirds, he

considered it to be his duty to ascertain in how far the case of Mr.

Stanton came within the provisions of this law; after consideration,

he came to the conclusion that the case did not come within the

prohibitions of the law, and that, by that law he still had the right

of removing Mr. Stanton; but that, wishing to have the case decided by

the Supreme Court, he, on the 12th of August, issued the order merely

suspending, not removing, Mr. Stanton, a power expressly granted by

the Tenure-of-Office Act, and appointed General Grant Secretary of

War _ad interim_. The President then recites the subsequent action in

the case of Mr. Stanton; and, as he avers, still believing that he

had the constitutional power to remove him from office, issued the

order of February 21st, for such removal, designing to thus bring the

matter before the Supreme Court. He then proceeds formally to deny that

at this time Mr. Stanton was in lawful possession of the office of

Secretary of War; and that, consequently, the order for his removal was

in violation of the Tenure-of-Office Act; and that it was in violation

of the Constitution or of any law; or that it constituted any official

crime or misdemeanor.

In regard to the seven succeeding articles of impeachment the

President, while admitting the facts of the order appointing General

Thomas as Secretary of War _ad interim_, denies all and every of the

criminal charges therein set forth. So of the ninth article, charging

an effort to induce General Emory to violate the law, the President

denies all such intent, and calls attention to the fact that while,

for urgent reasons, he signed the bill prescribing that orders to the

army should be issued only through the General, he at the same time

declared it to be, in his judgment, unconstitutional; and affirms that

in his interview with General Emory he said no more than he had before

officially said to Congress—that is, that the law was unconstitutional.

As to the tenth article, the first of the supplementary ones, the

President, while admitting that he made certain public speeches at the

times and places specified, does not admit that the passages cited are

fair reports of his remarks; denies that he has ever been unmindful of

the courtesies which ought to be maintained between the executive and

legislative departments; but he claims the perfect right at all times

to express his views as to all public matters.

The reply to the eleventh article, the second supplementary one, is

to the same general purport, denying that he ever affirmed that the

Thirty-ninth Congress was not a valid Congress of the United States,

and its acts obligatory only as they were approved by him; and denying

that he had, as charged in the article, contrived unlawful means for

preventing Mr. Stanton from resuming the functions of Secretary of

War, or for preventing the execution of the act making appropriations

for the support of the army, or that to provide for the more efficient

government of the rebel States. In his answer to this article the

President refers to his reply to the first article, in which he sets

forth at length all the steps, and the reasons therefor, relating to

the removal of Mr. Stanton. In brief, the answer of the President to

the articles of impeachment is a general denial of each and every

criminal act charged in the articles of impeachment.

The counsel for the President then asked for a delay of thirty days

after the replication of the managers of the impeachment should

have been rendered, before the trial should formally proceed. This

was refused, and the managers of the impeachment stated that their

replication would be presented the next day: it was that,

“The Senate will commence the trial of the President upon the articles

of impeachment exhibited against him on Monday, the 30th day of March,

and proceed therein with all dispatch under the rules of the Senate,

sitting upon the trial of an impeachment.”

The replication of the House of Representatives was a simple denial of

each and every averment in the answer of the President, closing thus:

“The House of Representatives ... do say that the said Andrew Johnson,

President of the United States, is guilty of the high crimes and

misdemeanors mentioned in the said articles, and that the said House of

Representatives are ready to prove the same.”

The trial began, as appointed, on March 30. There being twenty-seven

States represented, there were fifty-four Senators, who constituted

the Court, presided over by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, of

Ohio. SENATORS: _California_, Cole, Conness; _Connecticut_, Dixon,

Ferry; _Delaware_, Bayard, Saulsbury; _Indiana_, Hendricks, Morton;

_Illinois_, Trumbull, Yates; _Iowa_, Grimes, Harlan; _Kansas_, Pomeroy,

Ross; _Kentucky_, Davis, McCreery; _Maine_, Fessenden, Morrill (Lot

M.); _Maryland_, Johnson, Vickers; _Massachusetts_, Sumner, Wilson;

_Michigan_, Chandler, Howard; _Minnesota_, Norton, Ramsay; _Missouri_,

Drake, Henderson; _Nebraska_, Thayer, Tipton; _Nevada_, Nye, Stewart;

_New Hampshire_, Cragin, Patterson (J. W.); _New Jersey_, Cattell,

Frelinghuysen; _New York_, Conklin, Morgan; _Ohio_, Sherman, Wade;

_Oregon_, Corbett, Williams; _Pennsylvania_, Buckalew, Cameron; _Rhode

Island_, Anthony, Sprague; _Tennessee_, Fowler, Patterson (David);

_Vermont_, Edmunds, Morrill (J. S.); _West Virginia_, Van Winkle,

Willey; _Wisconsin_, Doolittle, Howe.

_Managers for the Prosecution_: Messrs. Bingham, Boutwell, Butler,

Logan, Stevens, Williams, Wilson.

_Counsel for the President_: Messrs. Curtis, Evarts, Groesbeck, Nelson,

Stanbery.

The following was the order of procedure: The Senate convened at 11 or

12 o’clock, and was called to order by the president of that body, who,

after prayer, would leave the chair, which was immediately assumed by

the Chief Justice, who wore his official robes. The prosecution was

mainly conducted by Mr. Butler, who examined the witnesses, and, in

conjunction with the others, argued the points of law which came up.

The defense, during the early part of the trial, was mainly conducted

by Mr. Stanbery, who had resigned the office of Attorney-General for

this purpose, but, being taken suddenly ill, Mr. Evarts took his place.

According to the rule at first adopted, the trial was to be opened by

one counsel on each side, and summed up by two on each side; but this

rule was subsequently modified so as to allow as many of the managers

and counsel as chose to sum up, either orally or by filing written

arguments.

THE PROSECUTION.

The whole of the first day (March 30) was occupied by the opening

speech of Mr. Butler. After touching upon the importance of the case,

and the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution in providing for its

possible occurrence, he laid down the following proposition, supporting

it by a copious array of authorities and precedents:

“We define, therefore, an impeachable high crime or misdemeanor to be

one, in its nature or consequences, subversive of some fundamental or

essential principle of government, or highly prejudicial to the public

interest, and this may consist of a violation of the Constitution, of

law, of an official oath, or of duty, by an act committed or omitted,

or, without violating a positive law, by the abuse of discretionary

powers from improper motives, or for any improper purpose.”

He then proceeded to discuss the nature and functions of the tribunal

before which the trial is held. He asked: “Is this proceeding a trial,

as that term is understood, so far as relates to the rights and

duties of a court and jury upon an indictment for crime? Is it not

rather more in the nature of an inquest?” The Constitution, he urged,

“seems to have determined it to be the latter, because, under its

provisions, the right to retain and hold office is the only subject

to be finally adjudicated; all preliminary inquiry being carried on

solely to determine that question, and that alone.” He then proceeded

to argue that this body now sitting to determine the accusation, is

the Senate of the United States, and not a court. This question is of

consequence, he argued, because, in the latter case, it would be bound

by the rules and precedents of common law statutes; the members of the

court would be liable to challenge on many grounds; and the accused

might claim that he could only be convicted when the evidence makes the

fact clear beyond reasonable doubt, instead of by a preponderance of

the evidence. The fact that in this case the Chief Justice presides,

it was argued, does not constitute the Senate thus acting a court; for

in all cases of impeachment, save that of the President, its regular

presiding officer presides. Moreover, the procedures have no analogy

to those of an ordinary court of justice. The accused merely receives

a notice of the case pending against him. He is not required to appear

personally, and the case will go on without his presence. Mr. Butler

thus summed up his position in this regard:

“A constitutional tribunal solely, you are bound by no law, either

statute or common, which may limit your constitutional prerogative. You

consult no precedents save those of the law and custom of parliamentary

bodies. You are a law unto yourselves, bound only by the natural

principles of equity and justice, and that _salus populi suprema est

lex_.”

Mr. Butler then proceeded to consider the articles of impeachment. The

first eight, he says, “set out, in several distinct forms, the acts of

the President in removing Mr. Stanton and appointing General Thomas,

differing, in legal effect, in the purposes for which, and the intent

with which, either or both of the acts were done, and the legal duties

and rights infringed, and the Acts of Congress violated in so doing.”

In respect to all of these articles, Mr. Butler says, referring to his

former definition of what constituted an impeachable high crime:

“All the articles allege these acts to be in contravention of his oath

of office, and in disregard of the duties thereof. If they are so,

however, the President might have the power to do them under the law.

Still, being so done, they are acts of official misconduct, and, as we

have seen, impeachable. The President has the legal power to do many

acts which, if done in disregard of his duty, or for improper purposes,

then the exercise of that power is an official misdemeanor. For

example, he has the power of pardon; if exercised, in a given case, for

a corrupt motive, as for the payment of money, or wantonly pardoning

all criminals, it would be a misdemeanor.”

Mr. Butler affirmed that every fact charged in the first article,

and substantially in the seven following, is admitted in the reply

of the President; and also that the general intent to set aside the

Tenure-of-Office Act is therein admitted and justified. He then

proceeded to discuss the whole question of the power of the President

for removals from office, and especially his claim that this power was

imposed upon the President by the Constitution, and that it could not

be taken from him, or be vested jointly in him and the Senate, partly

or in whole. This, Mr. Butler affirmed, was the real question at issue

before the Senate and the American people. He said:

“Has the President, under the Constitution, the more than royal

prerogative at will to remove from office, or to suspend from office,

all executive officers of the United States, either civil, military

or naval, and to fill the vacancies, without any restraint whatever,

or possibility of restraint, by the Senate or by Congress, through

laws duly enacted? The House of Representatives, in behalf of the

people, join issue by affirming that the exercise of such powers

is a high misdemeanor in office. If the affirmative is maintained

by the respondent, then, so far as the first eight articles are

concerned—unless such corrupt purposes are shown as will of themselves

make the exercise of a legal power a crime—the respondent must go, and

ought to go, quit and free.”

This point as to the legal right of the President to make removals

from office, which constitutes the real burden of the articles of

impeachment, was argued at length. Mr. Butler assumed that the Senate,

by whom, in conjunction with the House, the Tenure-of-Office Act had

been passed over the veto of the President, would maintain the law to

be constitutional. The turning point was whether the special case of

the removal of Mr. Stanton came within the provisions of this law. This

rested upon the proviso of that law, that—

“The Secretaries shall hold their office during the term of the

President by whom they may have been appointed, and for one month

thereafter, subject to removal by and with the advice and consent of

the Senate.”

The extended argument upon this point, made by Mr. Butler, was to the

effect that Mr. Stanton having been appointed by Mr. Lincoln, whose

term of office reached to the 4th of March, 1869, that of Mr. Stanton

existed until a month later, unless he was previously removed by

the concurrent action of the President and Senate. The point of the

argument is, that Mr. Johnson is merely serving out the balance of

the term of Mr. Lincoln, cut short by his assassination, so that the

Cabinet officers appointed by Mr. Lincoln held their places, by this

very proviso, during that term and for a month thereafter; for, he

argued, if Mr. Johnson was not merely serving out the balance of Mr.

Lincoln’s term, then he is entitled to the office of President for four

full years, that being the period for which a President is elected. If,

continues the argument, Mr. Stanton’s commission was vacated by the

Tenure-of-Office Act, it ceased on the 4th of April, 1865; or, if the

act had no retroactive effect, still, if Mr. Stanton held office merely

under his commission from Mr. Lincoln, then his functions would have

ceased upon the passage of the bill, March 2, 1867; and, consequently,

Mr. Johnson, in “employing” him after that date as Secretary of War,

was guilty of a high misdemeanor, which would give ground for a new

article of impeachment.

After justifying the course of Mr. Stanton in holding on to the

secretaryship in opposition to the wish of the President, on the

ground that “to desert it now would be to imitate the treachery of

his accidental chief,” Mr. Butler proceeded to discuss the reasons

assigned by the President in his answer to the articles of impeachment

for the attempt to remove Mr. Stanton. These, in substance, were, that

the President believed the Tenure-of-Office Act was unconstitutional,

and, therefore, void and of no effect, and that he had the right to

remove him and appoint another person in his place. Mr. Butler urged

that, in all of these proceedings, the President professed to act

upon the assumption that the act was valid, and that his action was

in accordance with its provisions. He then went on to charge that the

appointment of General Thomas as Secretary of War _ad interim_, was

a separate violation of law. By the act of February 20, 1863, which

repealed all previous laws inconsistent with it, the President was

authorized, in case of the “death, resignation, absence from the seat

of Government, or sickness of the head of an executive department,”

or in any other case where these officers could not perform their

respective duties, to appoint the head of any other executive

department to fulfill the duties of the office “until a successor be

appointed, or until such absence or disability shall cease.” Now,

urged Mr. Butler, at the time of the appointment of General Thomas

as Secretary of War _ad interim_, Mr. Stanton “had neither died nor

resigned, was not sick nor absent,” and, consequently, General Thomas,

not being the head of a department, but only of a bureau of one of

them, was not eligible to this appointment, and that, therefore, his

appointment was illegal and void.

The ninth article of impeachment, wherein the President is charged

with endeavoring to induce General Emory to take orders directly from

himself, is dealt with in a rather slight manner. Mr. Butler says, “If

the transaction set forth in this article stood alone, we might well

admit that doubts might arise as to the sufficiency of the proof;” but,

he adds, the surroundings are so pointed and significant as to leave no

doubt in the mind of an impartial man as to the intents and purposes of

the President—these intents being, according to Mr. Butler, “to induce

General Emory to take orders directly from himself, and thus to hinder

the execution of the Civil Tenure Act, and to prevent Mr. Stanton from

holding his office of Secretary of War.”

As to the tenth article of impeachment, based upon various speeches of

the President, Mr. Butler undertook to show that the reports of these

speeches, as given in the article, were substantially correct; and

accepted the issue made thereupon as to whether they are “decent and

becoming the President of the United States, and do not tend to bring

the office into ridicule and disgrace.”

After having commented upon the eleventh and closing article, which

charges the President with having denied the authority of the

Thirty-ninth Congress, except so far as its acts were approved by him,

Mr. Butler summed up the purport of the articles of impeachment in

these words:

“The acts set out in the first eight articles are but the culmination

of a series of wrongs, malfeasances, and usurpations committed by the

respondent, and, therefore, need to be examined in the light of his

precedent and concomitant acts to grasp their scope and design. The

last three articles presented show the perversity and malignity with

which he acted, so that the man as he is known may be clearly spread

upon record, to be seen and known of all men hereafter.... We have

presented the facts in the constitutional manner; we have brought the

criminal to your bar, and demand judgment for his so great crimes.”

The remainder of Monday, and a portion of the following day, were

devoted to the presentation of documentary evidence as to the

proceedings involved in the order for the removal of Mr. Stanton and

the appointment of General Thomas. The prosecution then introduced

witnesses to testify to the interviews between Mr. Stanton and General

Thomas. They then brought forward a witness to show that General Thomas

had avowed his determination to take forcible possession of the War

Office. To this Mr. Stanbery, for the defense, objected. The Chief

Justice decided the testimony to be admissible. Thereupon Senator

Drake took exception to the ruling, on the ground that this question

should be decided by the Senate—not by the presiding officer. The Chief

Justice averred that, in his judgment, it was his duty to decide,

in the first instance, upon any question of evidence, and then, if

any Senator desired, to submit the decision to the Senate. Upon this

objection and appeal arose the first conflict in the Senate as to

the powers of its presiding officer. Mr. Butler argued at length in

favor of the exception. Although, in this case, the decision was in

favor of the prosecution, he objected to the power of the presiding

officer to make it. This point was argued at length by the managers

for the impeachment, who denied the right of the Chief Justice to make

such decision. It was then moved that the Senate retire for private

consultation on this point. There was a tie vote—25 ayes and 25

nays. The Chief Justice gave his casting vote in favor of the motion

for consultation. The Senate, by a vote of 31 to 19, sustained the

Chief Justice, deciding that “the presiding officer may rule on all

questions of evidence and on incidental questions, which decision

will stand as the judgment of the Senate for decision, or he may, at

his option in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote

of the members of the Senate.” In the further progress of the trial

the Chief Justice, in most important cases, submitted the question

directly to the Senate, without himself giving any decision. Next

morning (April 1) Mr. Sumner offered a resolution to the effect that

the Chief Justice, in giving a casting vote, “acted without authority

of the Constitution of the United States.” This was negatived by

a vote of 27 to 21, thus deciding that the presiding officer had the

right to give a casting vote. The witness (Mr. Burleigh, delegate from

Dakotah), who had been called to prove declarations of General Thomas,

was then asked whether, at an interview between them, General Thomas

had said any thing as “to the means by which he intended to obtain,

or was directed by the President to obtain, possession of the War

Department.” To this question Mr. Stanbery objected, on the ground that

any statements made by General Thomas could not be used as evidence

against the President. Messrs. Butler and Bingham argued that the

testimony was admissible, on the ground that there was, as charged, a

conspiracy between the President and General Thomas, and that the acts

of one conspirator were binding upon the other; and, also, that in

these acts General Thomas was the agent of the President. The Senate,

by 39 to 11, decided that the question was admissible. Mr. Burleigh

thereupon testified substantially that General Thomas informed him

that he had been directed by the President to take possession of the

War Department; that he was bound to obey his superior officer; that,

if Mr. Stanton objected, he should use force, and if he bolted the

doors they would be broken down. The witness was then asked whether

he had heard General Thomas make any statement to the clerks of the

War Office, to the effect that, when he came into control, he would

relax or rescind the rules of Mr. Stanton. To this question objection

was made by the counsel of the President on the ground of irrelevancy.

The Chief Justice was of opinion that the question was not admissible,

but, if any Senator demanded, he would submit to the Senate whether it

should be asked. The demand having been made, the Senate, by a vote

of 28 to 22, allowed the question to be put, whereupon Mr. Burleigh

testified that General Thomas, in his presence, called before him the

heads of the divisions, and told them that the rules laid down by Mr.

Stanton were arbitrary, and that he should relax them—that he should

not hold them strictly to their letters of instruction, but should

consider them as gentlemen who would do their duty—that they could come

in or go out when they chose. Mr. Burleigh further testified that,

subsequently, General Thomas had said to him that the only thing which

prevented him from taking possession of the War Department was his

arrest by the United States marshal. Other witnesses were called to

prove the declarations of General Thomas. Mr. Wilkeson testified that

General Thomas said to him that he should demand possession of the War

Department, and, in case Mr. Stanton should refuse to give it up, he

should call upon General Grant for a sufficient force to enable him

to do so, and he did not see how this could be refused. Mr. Karsener,

of Delaware, testified that he saw General Thomas at the President’s

house, told him that Delaware, of which State General Thomas is a

citizen, expected him to stand firm; to which General Thomas replied

that he was standing firm, that he would not disappoint his friends,

but that, in a few days, he would “kick that fellow out,” meaning, as

the witness supposed, Mr. Stanton.

[Illustration: SCHUYLER COLFAX.]

_Thursday, April 2d._—Various witnesses were introduced to testify to

the occurrences when General Thomas demanded possession of the War

Department. After this General Emory was called to testify to the

transactions which form the ground of the ninth article of impeachment.

His testimony was to the effect that the President, on the 22d of

February, requested him to call; that, upon so doing, the President

asked respecting any changes that had been made in the disposition of

the troops around Washington; that he informed the President that no

important changes had been made, and that none could be made without

an order from General Grant, as provided for in an order founded upon

a law sanctioned by the President. The President said that this law

was unconstitutional. Emory replied that the President had approved of

it, and that it was not the prerogative of the officers of the army

to decide upon the constitutionality of a law, and in that opinion he

was justified by the opinion of eminent counsel, and thereupon the

conversation ended.

The prosecution then endeavored to introduce testimony as to the

appointment of Mr. Edmund Cooper, the Private Secretary of the

President, as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, in support of the

eighth and eleventh articles of impeachment, which charge the President

with an unlawful attempt to control the disposition of certain public

funds. This testimony, by a vote of 27 to 22, was ruled out.

The prosecution now, in support of the tenth and eleventh articles of

impeachment, charging the President with endeavoring to “set aside

the rightful authority of Congress,” offered a telegraphic dispatch

from the President to Mr. Parsons, at that time (January 17, 1867)

Provisional Governor of Alabama, of which the following is the

essential part:

“I do not believe the people of the whole country will sustain any set

of individuals in the attempt to change the whole character of our

Government by enabling acts in this way, I believe, on the contrary,

that they will eventually uphold all who have patriotism and courage

to stand by the Constitution, and who place their confidence in the

people. There should be no faltering on the part of those who are

honest in their determination to sustain the several coördinate

departments of the Government in accordance with its original design.”

The introduction of this was objected to by the counsel for the

President, but admitted by the Senate, the vote being 27 to 17.

The whole of Friday, and a great part of Saturday, (April 3d and

4th,) were occupied in the examination of the persons who reported

the various speeches of the President which form the basis of the

tenth article, the result being that the reports were shown to be

either substantially or verbally accurate. Then, after some testimony

relating to the forms in which commissions to office were made out, the

managers announced that the case for the prosecution was substantially

closed. The counsel for the President thereupon asked that three

working days should be granted them to prepare for the defense. This,

after some discussion, was granted by the Senate by a vote of 37 to 9,

and the trial was adjourned to Thursday, April 9th.

THE DEFENSE.

The opening speech for the defense, occupying the whole of Thursday,

and a part of Friday, was made by Mr. Curtis. Reserving, for a time, a

rejoinder to Mr. Butler’s argument as to the functions of the Senate

when sitting as a Court of Impeachment, Mr. Curtis proceeded to a

consideration of the articles of impeachment, in their order, his

purpose being “to ascertain, in the first place, what the substantial

allegations in each of them are, what is the legal proof and effect of

these allegations, and what proof is necessary to be adduced in order

to sustain them.” The speech is substantially an elaboration of and

argument for the points embraced in the answer of the President. The

main stress of the argument related to the first article, which, as

stated by Mr. Curtis, when stripped of all technical language, amounts

exactly to these things:

“_First._ That the order set out in the article for the removal of

Mr. Stanton, if executed, would have been a violation of

the Tenure-of-Office Act.

“_Second._ That it was a violation of the Tenure-of-Office Act.

“_Third._ That it was an intentional violation of the

Tenure-of-Office Act.

“_Fourth._ That it was in violation of the Constitution

of the United States.

“_Fifth._ That it was intended by the President to be so.

“Or, to draw all these into one sentence, which I hope may be

intelligible and clear enough, I suppose the substance of this first

article is that the order for the removal of Mr. Stanton was, and was

intended to be, a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

These are the allegations which it is necessary for the honorable

managers to make out in order to support that article.”

Mr. Curtis proceeded to argue that the case of Mr. Stanton did not come

within the provisions of the Tenure-of-Office Act, being expressly

excepted by the proviso that Cabinet officers should hold their places

during the term of the President by whom they were appointed, and for

one month thereafter, unless removed by the consent of the Senate. Mr.

Stanton was appointed by Mr. Lincoln, whose term of office came to an

end by his death. He argued at length against the proposition that Mr.

Johnson was merely serving out the remainder of Mr. Lincoln’s term. The

object of this exception, he said, was evident. The Cabinet officers

were to be “the immediate confidential assistants of the President,

for whose acts he was to be responsible, and in whom he was expected

to repose the gravest honor, trust, and confidence; therefore it was

that this act has connected the tenure-of-office of these officers

with that of the President by whom they were appointed.” Mr. Curtis

gave a new interpretation to that clause in the Constitution which

prescribes that the President “may require the opinion, in writing, of

the principal officer in each of the executive departments upon any

subject relating to the duties of their several offices.” He understood

that the word “their” included the President, so that he might call

upon Cabinet officers for advice “relating to the duties of the

office of these principal officers, or relating to the duties of the

President himself.” This, at least, he affirmed, had been the practical

interpretation put upon this clause from the beginning. To confirm his

position as to the intent of the Tenure-of-Office Act in this respect,

Mr. Curtis quoted from speeches made in both houses at the time when

the act was passed. Thus, Senator Sherman said that the act, as passed—

“Would not prevent the present President from removing the Secretary

of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of State; and, if

I supposed that either of these gentlemen was so wanting in manhood,

in honor, as to hold his place after the politest intimation from the

President of the United States that his services were no longer needed,

I certainly, as a Senator, would consent to his removal at any time,

and so would we all.”

Mr. Curtis proceeded to argue that there was really no removal of Mr.

Stanton; he still held his place, and so there was “no case of removal

within the statute, and, therefore, no case of violation by removal.”

But, if the Senate should hold that the order for removal was, in

effect, a removal, then, unless the Tenure-of-Office Act gave Mr.

Stanton a tenure-of-office, this removal would not have been contrary

to the provisions of this act. He proceeded to argue that there was

room for grave doubt whether Mr. Stanton’s case came within the

provisions of the Tenure-of-Office Act, and that the President, upon

due consideration, and having taken the best advice within his power,

considering that it did not, and acting accordingly, did not, even if

he was mistaken, commit an act “so willful and wrong that it can be

justly and properly, and for the purposes of this prosecution, termed a

high misdemeanor.” He argued at length that the view of the President

was the correct one, and that “the Senate had nothing whatever to do

with the removal of Mr. Stanton, whether the Senate was in session or

not.”

Mr. Curtis then went on to urge that the President, being sworn to take

care that the laws be faithfully executed, must carry out any law,

even though passed over his veto, except in cases where a law which he

believed to be unconstitutional has cut off a power confided to him,

and in regard to which he alone could make an issue which would bring

the matter before a court, so as to cause “a judicial decision to come

between the two branches of the Government, to see which of them is

right.” This, said he, is what the President has done. This argument,

in effect, was an answer to the first eight articles of impeachment.

The ninth article, charging the President with endeavoring to induce

General Emory to violate the law by receiving orders directly from him,

was very briefly touched upon, it being maintained that, as shown by

the evidence, “the reason why the President sent for General Emory was

not that he might endeavor to seduce that distinguished officer from

his allegiance to the laws and Constitution of his country, but because

he wished to obtain information about military movements which might

require his personal attention.”

As to the tenth article, based upon the President’s speeches, it was

averred that they were in no way in violation of the Constitution, or

of any law existing at the time when they were made, and were not,

therefore, impeachable offenses.

The reply to the eleventh article was very brief. The managers had

“compounded it of the materials which they had previously worked up

into others,” and it “contained nothing new that needed notice.” Mr.

Curtis concluded his speech by saying that—

“This trial is and will be the most conspicuous instance that has ever

been, or even can be expected to be found, of American justice or of

American injustice; of that justice which is the great policy of all

civilized States; of that injustice which is certain to be condemned,

which makes even the wisest man mad, and which, in the fixed and

unalterable order of God’s providence, is sure to return and plague the

inventor.”

At the close of this opening speech for the defense, General Lorenzo

Thomas was brought forward as a witness. His testimony, elicited upon

examination and cross-examination, was to the effect that, having

received the order appointing him Secretary of War _ad interim_, he

presented it to Mr. Stanton, who asked, “Do you wish me to vacate the

office at once, or will you give me time to get my private property

together?” to which Thomas replied, “Act your pleasure.” Afterward

Stanton said, “I don’t know whether I will obey your instructions.”

Subsequently Thomas said that he should issue orders as Secretary of

War. Stanton said he should not do so, and afterward gave him a written

direction, not to issue any order except as Adjutant-General. During

the examination of General Thomas a question came up which, in many

ways, recurred upon the trial. He was asked to tell what occurred at

an interview between himself and the President. Objection was made by

Mr. Butler, and the point was argued. The question was submitted to the

Senate, which decided, by a vote of 42 to 10, that it was admissible.

The testimony of General Thomas, from this point, took a wide range,

and, being mainly given in response to questions of counsel, was,

apparently, somewhat contradictory. The substance was that he was

recognized by the President as Secretary of War; that, since the

impeachment, he had acted as such only in attending Cabinet meetings,

but had given no orders; that, when he reported to the President that

Mr. Stanton would not vacate the War Department, the President directed

him to “take possession of the office;” that, without orders from the

President, he had intended to do this by force, if necessary; that,

finding that this course might involve bloodshed, he had abandoned this

purpose, but that, after this, he had, in several cases, affirmed his

purpose to do so, but that these declarations were “merely boast and

brag.” On the following day General Thomas was recalled as a witness,

to enable him to correct certain points in his testimony. The first

was the date of an unimportant transaction; he had given it as taking

place on the 21st of February, whereas it should have been the 22d. The

second was that the words of the President were that he should “take

charge,” not “take possession” of the War Department. In explanation of

the fact that he had repeatedly sworn to the words “take possession,”

he said that these were “put into his mouth.” Finally, General Thomas,

in reply to a direct question from Mr. Butler, said that his testimony

on these points was “all wrong.”

Lieutenant-General Sherman was then called as a witness. After some

unimportant questions, he was asked in reference to an interview

between himself and the President which took place on the 14th of

January: “At that interview what conversation took place between

the President and you in reference to the removal of Mr. Stanton?”

To this question objection was made by Mr. Butler, and the point

was elaborately argued. The Chief Justice decided that the question

was admissible within the vote of the Senate of the previous day;

the question then was as to the admissibility of evidence as to a

conversation between the President and General Thomas; the present

question was as to a conversation between the President and General

Sherman. “Both questions,” said the Chief Justice, “are asked for the

purpose of procuring the intent of the President in the attempt to

remove Mr. Stanton.” The question being submitted to the Senate, it

was decided, by a vote of 28 to 23, that it should not be admitted.

The examination of General Sherman was continued, the question of the

conversation aforesaid being frequently brought forward, and as often

ruled out by the Senate. The only important fact elicited was that

the President had twice, on the 25th and 30th of January, tendered to

General Sherman the office of Secretary of War _ad interim_.

On Monday, April 13th, after transactions of minor importance,

the general matter of the conversations between the President and

General Sherman again came up, upon a question propounded by Senator

Johnson—“When the President tendered to you the office of Secretary

of War _ad interim_, did he, at the very time of making such tender,

state to you what his purpose in so doing was?” This was admitted by

the Senate, by a vote of 26 to 22. Senator Johnson then added to his

question, “If he did, what did he state his purpose was?” This was

admitted, by a vote of 25 to 26. The testimony of General Sherman,

relating to several interviews, was to the effect that the President

said that the relations between himself and Mr. Stanton were such that

he could not execute the office of President without making provision

to appoint a Secretary of War _ad interim_, and he offered that office

to him (General Sherman), but did not state that his purpose was to

bring the matter directly into the courts. Sherman said that, if Mr.

Stanton would retire, he might, although against his own wishes,

undertake to administer the office _ad interim_, but asked what would

be done in case Mr. Stanton would not yield. To this the President

replied, “He will make no opposition; you present the order, and he

will retire. I know him better than you do; he is cowardly.” General

Sherman asked time for reflection, and then gave a written answer,

declining to accept the appointment, but stated that his reasons were

mostly of a personal nature.

On the 14th the Senate adjourned, on account of the sudden illness

of Mr. Stanbery. It re-assembled on the 15th, but the proceedings

touched wholly upon formal points of procedure and the introduction of

unimportant documentary evidence. On the 16th Mr. Sumner moved that all

evidence not trivial or obviously irrelevant shall be admitted, the

Senate to judge of its value. This was negatived by a vote of 23 to 11.

The 17th was mainly taken up by testimony as to the reliability of

the reports of the President’s speeches. Mr. Welles, Secretary of the

Navy, was then called to testify to certain proceedings in Cabinet

Council at the time of the appointment of General Thomas. This was

objected to. The Chief Justice decided that it was admissible, and

his decision was sustained by a vote of 26 to 23. The defense then

endeavored to introduce several members of the Cabinet, to show that,

at meetings previous to the removal of Mr. Stanton, it was considered

whether it was not desirable to obtain a judicial determination of the

unconstitutionality of the Tenure-of-Office Act. This question was

raised in several shapes, and its admission, after thorough argument

on both sides, as often refused, in the last instance by a decisive

vote of 30 to 19. The defense considered this testimony of the utmost

importance, as going to show that the President had acted upon the

counsel of his constitutional advisers, while the prosecution claimed

that he could not plead in justification of a violation of the law

that he had been advised by his cabinet, or any one else, that the law

was unconstitutional. His duty was to execute the laws, and, if he

failed to do this, or violated them, he did so at his own risk of the

consequences. With the refusal of this testimony, the case, except the

final summings up and the verdict of the Senate, was virtually closed.

The case had been so fully set forth in the opening speeches of Messrs.

Butler and Curtis, and in the arguments which came up upon points of

testimony, that there remained little for the other counsel except to

restate what had before been said.

After the evidence had been closed the case was summed up, on the part

of the managers by Messrs. Boutwell, Williams, Stevens, and Bingham in

oral arguments, and Mr. Logan, who filed a written argument, and on

the part of the President by Messrs. Nelson, Groesbeck, Stanbery, and

Evarts. Many of these speeches were distinguished by great brilliancy

and power, but, as no new points were presented, we omit any summary.

The Court decided to take a vote upon the articles on Tuesday, the 12th

of May, at 12 o’clock, M. A secret session was held on Monday, during

which several Senators made short speeches, giving the grounds upon

which they expected to cast their votes. On Tuesday the Court agreed

to postpone the vote until Saturday, the 16th. Upon that day, at 12

o’clock, a vote was taken upon the eleventh article, it having been

determined to vote on that article first. The vote resulted in 35 votes

for conviction, and 19 for acquittal.

The question being put to each 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 the article?”—those who

responded guilty were Senators Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler,

Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry,

Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill, of Vermont,

Morrill, of Maine, O. P. Morton, Nye, Patterson, N. H. Pomeroy, Ramsey,

Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Wade, Willey,

Williams, Wilson, and Yates.

Those who responded not guilty were Senators Bayard, Buckalew, Davis,

Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks,

Johnson, M’Creery, Norton, Patterson, of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury,

Trumbull, Van Winkle, and Vickers.

The Constitution requiring a vote of two-thirds to convict, the

President was acquitted on this article. After taking this vote the

Court adjourned until Tuesday, May 26th, when votes were taken upon the

second and third articles, with precisely the same result as on the

eleventh, the vote in each case standing 35 for conviction and 19 for

acquittal. A verdict of acquittal on the second, third, and eleventh

articles was then ordered to be entered on the record, and, without

voting on the other articles, the Court adjourned _sine die_. So the

trial was ended, and the President acquitted.

THE CHICAGO PLATFORM, 1868.

The following is the platform as adopted:

“The National Republican Party of the United States, assembled in

National Convention, in the city of Chicago, on the 20th day of May,

1868, make the following declaration of principles:

“1. We congratulate the country on the assured success of the

reconstruction policy of Congress, as evinced by the adoption, in the

majority of the States lately in rebellion, of constitutions securing

equal civil and political rights to all; and it is the duty of the

Government to sustain those constitutions and to prevent the people of

such States from being remitted to a state of anarchy.

“2. The guarantee by Congress of equal suffrage to all loyal men at

the South was demanded by every consideration of public safety, of

gratitude, and of justice, and must be maintained, while the question

of suffrage in all the loyal States properly belongs to the people of

those States.

“3. We denounce all forms of repudiation as a national crime, and the

national honor requires the payment of the public indebtedness in

the utmost good faith to all creditors at home and abroad, not only

according to the letter but the spirit of the laws under which it was

contracted.

“4. It is due to the labor of the nation that taxation should be

equalized and reduced as rapidly as the national faith will permit.

“5. The national debt, contracted, as it has been, for the preservation

of the Union for all time to come, should be extended over a fair

period for redemption; and it is the duty of Congress to reduce the

rate of interest thereon whenever it can be honestly done.

“6. That the best policy to diminish our burden of debt is to so

improve our credit that capitalists will seek to loan us money at lower

rates of interest than we now pay, and must continue to pay, so long

as repudiation, partial or total, open or covert, is threatened or

suspected.

“7. The Government of the United States should be administered with the

strictest economy, and the corruptions which have been so shamefully

nursed and fostered by ANDREW JOHNSON call loudly for radical reform.

“8. We professedly deplore the untimely and tragic death of ABRAHAM

LINCOLN, and regret the accession of ANDREW JOHNSON to the Presidency,

who has acted treacherously to the people who elected him, and the

cause he was pledged to support—who has usurped high legislative and

judicial functions—who has refused to execute the laws—who has used

his high office to induce other officers to ignore and violate the

laws—who has employed his executive powers to render insecure the

property, the peace, liberty, and life of the citizen—who has abused

the pardoning power—who has denounced the National Legislature as

unconstitutional—persistently and corruptly resisted, by every measure

in his power, every proper attempt at the reconstruction of the States

lately in rebellion—who has perverted the public patronage into an

engine of wholesale corruption, and who has been justly impeached for

high crimes and misdemeanors, and properly pronounced guilty thereof by

the vote of thirty-five Senators.

“9. The doctrine of Great Britain and other European Powers, that

because a man is once a subject he is always so, must be resisted at

every hazard by the United States as a relic of the feudal times, not

authorized by the law of nations, and at war with our national honor

and independence. Naturalized citizens are entitled to be protected in

all their rights of citizenship as though they were native born; and

no citizen of the United States, native or naturalized, must be liable

to arrest and imprisonment by any foreign power for acts done or words

spoken in this country; and if so arrested and imprisoned it is the

duty of the Government to interfere in his behalf.

“10. Of all who were faithful in the trials of the late war there were

none entitled to more especial honor than the brave soldiers and seamen

who endured the hardships of campaign and cruise, and imperiled their

lives in the service of the country. The bounties and pensions provided

by the laws for these brave defenders of the nation are obligations

never to be forgotten. The widows and orphans of the gallant dead are

the wards of the people, a sacred legacy bequeathed to the nation’s

protecting care.

“11. Foreign emigration, which in the past has added so much to the

wealth, development, and resources, and increase of power to this

nation, the asylum of the oppressed of all nations, should be fostered

and encouraged by a liberal and just policy.

“12. This Convention declares itself in sympathy with all the oppressed

people which are struggling for their rights.”

The following resolutions were also adopted unanimously, and are added

to the declaration of principles:

“_Resolved_, That we highly commend the spirit of magnanimity and

forgiveness with which the men who have served in the rebellion, but

now frankly and honestly coöperate with us in restoring the peace of

the country and reconstructing the Southern State governments upon

the basis of impartial justice and equal rights, are received back

into the communion of the loyal people. And we favor the removal of

the disqualifications and restrictions placed upon the late rebels in

the same measure as the spirit of loyalty will direct, and as may be

consistent with the safety of the loyal people.

“_Resolved_, That we recognize the great principles laid down in

the immortal Declaration of Independence as the true foundation of

Democratic government: and we hail with gladness every effort toward

making these principles a living reality on every inch of American

soil.”

THE HON. SCHUYLER COLFAX.

Schuyler Colfax, the popular candidate of the National Union Republican

party for the office of Vice-President, is a native of New York City.

He was born in North Moore Street, March 23, 1823, his father having

died but a short time previous. With but limited means, his widowed

mother could afford to keep him at school but a short time, and, at

the age of ten, he was placed in a mercantile establishment, where

he remained for three years, contributing materially from his small

salary to the support of both himself and mother. In 1836, he and his

mother, in company with others, left their home in this city, and

settled in St. Joseph County, Indiana. Shortly after his arrival in

the West he was appointed Deputy County Auditor for St. Joseph County,

and employed his leisure hours in the study of State law, in which he

is said soon to have become an acknowledged expounder. He read law

pretty thoroughly during these leisure hours, but not with a view to

adopting it as a profession. He had but little idea of what great

benefit the information he was then gaining would prove to him in after

years. In 1845, he started a weekly journal at South Bend, the county

seat of St. Joseph County, called the St. Joseph Valley Register,

becoming its sole proprietor and editor. Mr. Lanman, in his Dictionary

of Congress, says “he was bred a printer.” He never was apprenticed

to the printing business, and knew nothing of the practical part of

the “art preservative of all arts” until after he had commenced the

publication of the Register. With his ready tact and quick perception,

however, and great anxiety to economize, for his means were yet very

limited, he soon mastered the art sufficiently to “help out of the

drag,” but he never attained to any great proficiency in the business,

his editorial labors, the business of the office, and other duties

soon claiming his entire attention. The Register prospered, and soon

became a source of profit to its proprietor. It was ably edited, and

was a model of courtesy and dignity. Every paragraph, however small,

seemed to have passed under the supervision of and to reflect the mind

and elevated thoughts of its editor. He continued his connection with

this paper until three or four years ago, writing a regular weekly

letter for its columns during his first two terms in Congress. It was

during the early days of the Register that Mr. Colfax was laying the

foundation for the reputation he has since attained as a debater. A

debating club was formed, which held regular weekly meetings during

the winter season, and it was a rare occurrence, indeed, to find Mr.

Colfax absent from one of these stated gatherings. Politics, the

temperance reform, and other subjects were often as ably debated in

this society as kindred questions are in many deliberate bodies of

much greater pretensions of the present day. The Hon. John D. Defrees,

now Superintendent of Government Printing, and for many years editor

and proprietor of the Indianapolis Journal, to which Mr. Colfax was

also attached as Senate reporter for some time after he commenced

the publication of the Register, was also a participant in these

debates. They were both Whigs, both ardent and sincere advocates

of and believers in the temperance reform, and were, consequently,

seldom pitted against each other in these debates. The attachment

formed at this early day between those gentlemen still continues with

unabated fervor. In 1848, Mr. Colfax was chosen as a delegate, and

elected as secretary of the convention which nominated General Taylor

for the Presidency. In 1850, he represented St. Joseph County in the

convention which framed the present Constitution of Indiana. In this

convention he opposed, with all his ability, the adoption of the clause

prohibiting free colored men from settling in the State. His opposition

to this measure was the cause of his defeat the following year, when

nominated for Congress in opposition to Dr. Fitch. But, with all the

ability, tact, and shrewdness of this old political wireworker, he

only distanced his young competitor two hundred votes in a district

which had been strongly democratic for years. In 1852, he was again a

delegate to the Whig National Convention. He took an active part in the

campaign which followed, speaking often, and writing much. In 1854, he

was re-nominated, and elected to Congress, and was, consequently, more

active than ever before. His experience as a debater, and familiarity

with State and National politics, rendered him an overmatch for his

opponents, whom he was always anxious to meet in an open and fair

discussion before the people, where he was always certain of a victory.

In 1856, he was again nominated for Congress, and reëlected by a

handsome majority. His entrance into Congress was in the midst of the

great struggle over the Lecompton Constitution. A writer says of his

maiden speech in the House: “His first speech in Congress went forth

to repel the tide of terror which was sweeping over struggling Kansas,

and clearly showed that even then he was one of the best debaters in

the lower House.” Over 500,000 copies of this speech were printed and

circulated—a compliment, perhaps, never before received by any member

of Congress. He was first chosen Speaker of the Thirty-eighth Congress,

by a vote of 101 to 81. He has been thrice elected to the same

position, each time by an increased majority. He was appointed chairman

of the Committee on Post-offices and Post-roads, on the organization

of the Thirty-seventh Congress, and did much to extend mail facilities

throughout the West. He was one of the first advocates, and is still

one of the warmest friends of the Pacific Railroad. Indeed, he takes

a warm interest in any movement looking to the development of the

boundless resources of the great West. It was, doubtless, the interest

he feels in this section of the country which induced him to take his

celebrated trip “Across the Continent.” His trip was a perilous one,

but his welcome at “the other end of the line” was so spontaneous,

truly genuine, and heart-felt that it more than repaid him for all the

dangers and hardships he passed through. This trip prepared him for

one of the most entertaining lectures ever delivered in this country.

It has been listened to with rapt attention by the people of almost

every city in the North. Pecuniarily, however, it has profited him

but little, for, with that liberality which has ever been a marked

trait in his character, the entire proceeds of a lecture have as often

been donated to some charitable object as they have found their way

into his own pocket. He has now served, in succession, fourteen years

in the House. He was urged, but he declined to accept a seat in the

United States Senate, preferring his presiding chair in the House. As a

presiding officer, he is the most popular the House has had since Henry

Clay. A writer in Putnam’s Magazine truly observes that Mr. Colfax “Has

no eccentricities, but great tact. His talents are administrative and

executive rather than deliberative. He would make good appointments,

and adopt sure policies. He would make a better President or Speaker of

the House than Senator. He knows men well, estimates them correctly,

treats them all fairly and candidly. No man will get through his

business with you in fewer minutes, and yet none is more free from the

horrid _brusqueness_ of busy men. There are heart and kindness in Mr.

Colfax’s politeness. Men leave his presence with the impression that

he is at once an able, honest, and kind man. Political opponents like

him personally, as well as his political friends. We have never heard

that he has any enemies. The breath of slander has been silent toward

his fair, spotless fame. The wife of his youth, after being for a long

time an invalid, sank to her final rest several years ago, leaving him

childless. His mother and sister preside at his receptions, which for

many years have been, not the most brilliant, but the most popular of

any given at the Capital. Socially, Mr. Colfax is frank, lively, jolly.

The everlasting I-hood and us-ness of great men are forgotten in his

presence. His manners are not quite so familiar as those of Lincoln,

but nearly so. They are gentle, natural, graceful, with a bird-like

or business-like quickness of thought and motion. But they are very

far from the high and mighty style of Sumner, or the judicial coldness

of Fessenden, Sherman, and Trumbull. Though manly, they are genial

and winning. American mothers believe in Schuyler Colfax. There are

more babies named for him than for any public man since Clay.” The

intimacy and confidential relations of Mr. Colfax with Mr. Lincoln are

well known. They labored hand in hand as brothers in the cause of

the Union, holding frequent and protracted interviews on all subjects

looking to the overthrow of the rebellion, for there were no divisions

between the executive and legislative branches of the Government then

as there are now. During the darkest hours of that bloody drama which

shall ever remain a reproach upon the people of one section of the

nation, they were ever cheerful and hopeful. Confident in the justness

of the war waged for the preservation of the Union, and placing a

Christian reliance in that Providence which guides and shapes the

destiny of nations, great reverses, which caused others to fear and

tremble, at times, almost to despair, seemed only to inspire them with

greater zeal, and a firmer belief in the ultimate triumph of our cause.

Mr. Colfax is rather under the medium height, with a form firmly and

compactly molded. His hair is brown, now slightly sprinkled with gray;

eyes blue; forehead high and arching, indicating great perceptive

faculties, and deep veneration. His face is open and frank, and as

yet unmarked by age. He possesses great vitality, and can endure an

extraordinary amount of labor with but little fatigue. This, coupled

with his temperate habits, has caused him to wear his age so well that

but few persons would place him even at forty. He is yet in the prime

and vigor of manhood, with all his cares and responsibilities, as

buoyant as most people at thirty.

DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM.

The Democratic party, in National Convention assembled, reposing its

trust in the intelligence, patriotism, and discriminating justice

of the people, standing upon the Constitution as the foundation and

limitation of the powers of the Government and the guarantee of the

liberties of the citizen, and recognizing the questions of slavery and

secession as having been settled for all time to come by the war or the

voluntary action of the Southern States in Constitutional Conventions

assembled, and never to be revived or re-agitated, do, with the return

of peace, demand:

1. The immediate restoration of all the States to their rights in the

Union under the Constitution of the civil Government and the American

people.

2. Amnesty for all past political offenses; the regulation of the

elective franchise in the States by their citizens.

3. Payment of the public debt of the United States as rapidly as

practicable, all money drawn from the people by taxation, except so

much as is requisite for the necessities of the Government economically

administered being honestly applied to such payment, and where the

obligations of the Government do not expressly state upon their face or

the law under which they were issued does not provide that they shall

be paid in coin they ought, in right and in justice, to be paid in the

lawful money of the United States.

4. Equal taxation of every species of property according to the value;

reducing Government bonds and other public securities.

5. One currency for the Government and the people, the laborer and

the office-holder, pensioner and the soldier, the producer and the

bondholder.

6. Economy in the administration of the Government; the reduction of

the standing army and navy; the abolition of the Freedmen’s Bureau, and

all political instrumentalities designed to secure negro supremacy;

simplification of the system and discontinuance of inquisitorial

modes of assessing and collecting internal revenue, that the burden

of taxation may be equalized and lessened, and the credit of the

Government and the currency made good; the repeal of all enactments for

enrolling the State militia into a national force in time of peace;

and a tariff for revenue upon foreign imports and such equal taxation

under the internal revenue laws as will afford incidental protection

to domestic manufactures as well, without impairing the revenue,

impose the least burden upon and best promote and encourage the great

industrial interests of the country.

7. Reform of abuses in the Administration; the expulsion of corrupt

men from office; the abrogation of useless offices; the restoration

of the rightful authority to and the independence of the Executive

and Judicial Departments of the Government; the subordination of the

military to the civil power, to the end that the usurpation of Congress

and the despotism of the sword may cease.

8. Equal rights and protection for naturalized and native born

citizens at home and abroad; the assertion of American nationality,

which will command the respect of foreign powers, furnish an example

and encouragement to people struggling for national integrity,

constitutional liberty, and individual rights; and the maintenance of

the rights of naturalized citizens against the absolute doctrine of

immutable allegiance and the claims of foreign powers to punish them

for alleged crimes committed beyond their jurisdiction. In demanding

these measures and reforms, we arraign the radical party for its

disregard of right and the unparalleled oppression and tyranny which

have marked its career, after the most solemn and unanimous pledge

of both houses of Congress to prosecute the war exclusively for the

maintenance of the Government and the preservation of the Union under

the Constitution. It has repeatedly violated that most sacred pledge

under which was rallied that noble volunteer army which carried our

flag to victory. Instead of restoring the Union it has, so far as it is

in its power, dissolved it, and subjected ten States in time of peace

to military despotism and negro supremacy. It has nullified there the

right of trial by jury; it has abolished the writ of habeas corpus,

that most sacred writ of liberty; it has overthrown the freedom of

speech and of the press; it has substituted arbitrary seizures and

arrests, military trials, secret star chambers and inquisitions for

constitutional tribunals; it has disregarded, in time of peace, the

right of the people to be free from search and seizure; it has entered

the post-office and telegraph office, and even the private rooms

of individuals and seized there their private papers and letters,

without any specification or notice of affidavit, as required by the

organic law. It has converted the American Capitol into a bastile;

it has established a system of spies and official espionage to which

the constitutional monarchies of Europe never dare to resort. It has

abolished the right of appeal on important constitutional questions

to the supreme judicial tribunals, and threatens to curtail or

destroy its original jurisdiction, which is irrevocably vested by the

Constitution; while the learned Chief Justice has been subjected to the

most atrocious calumnies merely because he would not prostitute his

high office to the support of the false and partisan charges against

the President. Its corruption and extravagance have exceeded any thing

known in history, and by its frauds and monopolies it has nearly

doubled the burden of the debt created during the war. It has stripped

the President of his Constitutional power of appointment even of his

own Cabinet. Under its repeated assaults the pillars of the Government

are rocking to their base; and should it succeed in November next, and

inaugurate its President, we will meet as a subjected and conquered

people amid the ruins of liberty and the scattered fragments of the

Constitution; and we do declare and resolve that ever since the people

of the United States threw off all subjection to the British crown,

the privilege and trust of suffrage have belonged to the several

States, and have been granted, regulated, and controlled exclusively

by the political power of each State respectively, and any attempt

by Congress, on any pretext whatever, to deprive any State of this

right, or interfere with this exercise, is a flagrant usurpation of

power which can find no warrant in the Constitution, and if sanctioned

by the people will subvert our form of Government, and can only end

in a single, centralized and consolidated Government, in which the

separate existence of the States will be entirely absorbed, and an

unqualified despotism then be established in place of a Federal Union

of coequal States, and that we regard the reconstruction acts so-called

of Congress such usurpations and unconstitutional, revolutionary and

void: that our soldiers and sailors who carried the flag of our country

to victory against a most gallant and determined foe must ever be

gratefully remembered, and all the guarantees given in their favor must

be faithfully carried into execution; that the public lands should be

distributed widely among the people and should be disposed of either

under the preëmption of the homestead lands and sold in reasonable

quantities, and to none but actual occupants, at the price established

by the Government. When the grants of the public lands may be allowed

necessary for the encouragement of important public improvements, the

proceeds of the sale of such lands, and not the lands themselves,

should be so applied; that the President of the United States, Andrew

Johnson, exercising the power of his high office in resisting the

aggressions of Congress on the constitutional rights of the States and

the people, is entitled to the gratitude of the whole American people,

and on behalf of the Democratic party, we tender him our thanks for his

patriotic efforts in that regard.

Upon this platform the Democratic party appeal to every patriot,

including all the conservative element, and all who desire to support

the Constitution and restore the Union, forgetting all past differences

of opinion, to unite with us in the present great struggle for the

liberties of the people; and that to all such, to whatever party they

may have heretofore belonged, we extend the right hand of fellowship,

and hail all such coöperating with us as friends and brothers.

HON. HORATIO SEYMOUR,

The nominee of the Democratic National Convention for the office of

President of the United States, is a native of the State of New York,

having been born in Onondaga County, some time during the year 1811.

He is consequently fifty-seven years of age at the present writing.

His father being a gentleman of wealth, Mr. Seymour received an

excellent education, and after his graduation engaged in the study of

the law. Upon being admitted to the bar, he commenced the practice of

his profession in the town of Utica, Oneida County, and soon became a

popular lawyer. He did not long pursue this occupation, however. The

death of his father made him successor to a large and valuable estate,

attention to the interests of which compelled him to abandon all

professional and public labors. He never after resumed practice.

[Illustration: HORATIO SEYMOUR.]

Mr. Seymour’s political predilections were, it may be said, inherited

from his ancestors, all or nearly all of whom were and had been

Democrats from the first formation of the party. To this political

organization the subject of this sketch gave in his adhesion, and has

ever since adhered to and been a prominent member of it. He first

appeared before the public as a candidate for the suffrages of his

fellow-citizens as the Democratic nominee for the office of mayor of

the city of Utica. Although that city had been one of the firmest Whig

strongholds, he was elected by a fair majority, as much owing, though,

to the feeling of dissatisfaction with the opposing candidate, as to

his personal popularity. The election took place in 1842, before he

had quite attained his thirty-first year. During the same year, he

was elected to the lower house of the State Legislature, and served

until 1845, when he declined a reëlection. His ability as a legislator

brought him considerable reputation, and had the effect of extending

his popularity, which had hitherto been confined to a rather limited

extent of territory.

From 1845 to 1850, Mr. Seymour does not appear to have held any

political office, although he took an active part in politics, stumping

the State for other candidates, and doing all that he could to

further the interests and insure the success of the Democracy. During

the latter year, however, he had attained to sufficient prominence

to warrant his nomination for the office of Governor. His opponent

was Washington Hunt, and after a very exciting contest, Mr. Hunt

was elected by a majority of 262, in a total of 428,966 votes cast.

The balance of the Democratic ticket was elected, and this fact had

the effect of temporarily obscuring Mr. Seymour’s prospects. Still,

he soon recovered from this reverse of fortune, and in 1852, was

re-nominated for the same office. As before, his competitor was Mr.

Hunt, whom he defeated, after an exciting canvass, by a majority of

24,385, in a total vote of 503,857. This victory added considerably to

his popularity, as it was believed to presage a long lease of power

to the Democratic party. His administration was distinguished by

his veto of the Maine Liquor Law bill, which had passed both houses

of the Legislature, and which action on the part of the Governor was

regarded at the time as a bold stroke of policy. But it was not fated

that the Democratic party should longer remain in power. In 1854, four

candidates for gubernatorial honors appeared in the field—Horatio

Seymour, regular Democrat; G. C. Bronson, hard shell Democrat; Myron

H. Clark, Republican, and D. Ullman, Know-Nothing. The split in the

Democratic party resulted in its defeat by a remarkably small majority.

Nearly half a million votes were cast, of which Mr. Clark and Mr.

Seymour received the highest, the former being elected by 309 majority.

After this defeat, Mr. Seymour returned to private life, nor was his

name mentioned again in connection with public offices until 1856, when

he was spoken of as one of the possible candidates of the Democracy

for the Presidency. The movement, however, came to nothing. He still

took an active part in politics, so far as a vigorous support of all

Democratic candidates was concerned. When the rebellion broke out, Mr.

Seymour took an active part in furthering its suppression, and served

as chairman of the War Committee in his county, aiding in forwarding

troops to the seat of war. In 1862, he was once more nominated by the

Democrats for the office of Governor, and was elected by a majority

of over ten thousand. During his administration he had quite an angry

controversy with the general government on the subject of the draft,

he claiming that the quota of troops from the southern portion of

the State, which gives immense Democratic majorities, was larger in

proportion to the voting population, than that of the northern or

republican sections. The matter was finally settled by a revision of

the draft list. In 1863, the draft riots broke out in New York city,

and Mr. Seymour immediately left Albany for that place. Arriving there,

he addressed the rioters, urging them to disperse and go home quietly,

and promising to do all that he could to stay the execution of the law.

At the same time he organized a force of citizens, which he armed and

kept on duty, until the arrival of troops from Pennsylvania restored

order. In 1864, he was for the fifth time nominated for the office of

Governor, and was defeated by Mr. Fenton by a majority of over eight

thousand.

Since the close of the war Mr. Seymour has taken an active part

in politics, although he has never been a candidate. In personal

appearance he is quite dignified, and is said to be a very sociable and

hospitable gentleman. As a public speaker he is fluent, eloquent, and

argumentative, and wherever he takes the stump he is always received by

large crowds. Until a late day of the Convention he positively asserted

that he would not accept the nomination of the Democracy for the

Presidency, but it is natural to suppose that he will now reconsider

this resolution after the unanimous vote by which he was nominated.

GENERAL FRANCIS PRESTON BLAIR, JR.

This gentleman, the Democratic nominee for the Vice-Presidency, is a

native of Lexington, Ky., where he was born, in 1821. He received an

excellent education at Princeton College, N. J., and, after graduation,

returned to his home at St. Louis, Mo., where he soon became actively

engaged in politics. He was the political associate of Thomas Benton,

and was the first man in Missouri to denounce the institution of

slavery in his State. Being elected to the State Legislature, he soon

became distinguished for his opposition to all measures tending to

benefit slavery, and did much toward revolutionizing public sentiment

in St. Louis, where he resided. In 1856, he was elected to Congress

as a Republican, and was reëlected by increased majorities in 1858

and 1860. Throughout these years he never ceased his efforts against

slavery, and the Kansas Territory difficulty found him an earnest

advocate of free-soil doctrines. At the commencement of the Rebellion

of 1861, he was among the first to organize troops for the defense of

St. Louis and Missouri; and, in conjunction with Captain, afterward

General Lyon, raised the forces known as the Missouri Home Guards, one

of the most important Union organizations at that eventful period of

civil disturbances in that State. He was made commander of the First

Regiment, and assisted in the capture of Camp Jackson, St. Louis, on

May 10, 1861, which capture was among the first of the severe blows

struck at the Rebellion after the fall of Fort Sumter, inasmuch as it

was certainly the first important one. Colonel Blair also took part in

the battle of Boonville, under General Lyon, on June 17, 1861, during

which contest he commanded his regiment. It was at this point that the

rebels, under General Price and Governor Jackson, met with their first

decided defeat in Missouri. His regiment took a very active part in

the battle of Wilson’s Creek, where General Lyon was slain, on August

10, 1861, but, in consequence of his having to occupy his seat in the

special session of Congress, Colonel Blair was not present during that

action.

[Illustration: FRANCIS P. BLAIR, JR.]

During the sessions of Congress in 1861-2, Colonel Blair was Chairman

of the Committee on Military Affairs, and, as such, did good service

to the country. Upon the close of the session he returned to Missouri,

and commenced the organization of a regiment of artillery, and

afterward, at the request of the Secretary of War, he raised a brigade

of infantry, of which he was placed in command, and commissioned a

brigadier-general in August, 1862. The brigade became attached to the

Fourth Division of the Thirteenth Army Corps, but, subsequently,

upon a reconstruction of General Grant’s forces, was assigned to the

Fifteenth Corps, then commanded by General W. T. Sherman. While under

the command of that brilliant officer, General Blair had charge of

the First Brigade, of General Steele’s division, at the attack upon

the defenses in the rear of Vicksburg, on the 29th of December, 1862.

During the assaults upon the works, General Blair greatly distinguished

himself for his bravery, being the last to leave the heights, although

the main army had been severely repulsed. General Blair commanded his

brigade in General Sherman’s wing of McClernand’s army during the

assault upon and capture of Fort Hindman, on the Arkansas River, on

the 10th and 11th of January, 1863. For the gallantry he displayed at

these last mentioned contests he was promoted to be a major-general of

volunteers, with a commission dating from November 29, 1862. During

the month of April, 1863, Major-General Blair was placed in command

of a division of Sherman’s corps, formerly commanded by General

David Stuart, who, in consequence of his appointment not having been

confirmed by the Senate, had resigned the service. At the head of

this division, he took part in all the operations in the vicinity of

Vicksburg and in the siege, and further established his character for

bravery.

During the remainder of the war General Blair took an active and

conspicuous part in nearly all the great battles of the West. His

division gained distinction in the attack on and capture of Jackson,

Miss., and, on the 2d of October, 1863, General Sherman appointed him

to the command of the corps formerly commanded by himself. In his new

capacity he again exhibited many high traits of generalship, and, from

the advance of the army from the Mississippi to the terrible battles

of Missionary Ridge, his corps participated with distinguished valor,

and won for its commander considerable reputation. In the early part of

1864, being desirous of taking his seat in Congress, to which he had

been elected in 1862, General Blair presented his resignation to Mr.

Lincoln, at the request of that gentleman, who urged him to be present

and aid in the organization of the House. During the month of March

following, he reëntered the service, and was placed in command of the

Seventeenth Army Corps. Until the war ended he remained in the field,

serving under General Sherman in the celebrated campaign to Atlanta and

the sea, and winning fresh laurels as a military leader. On the 11th of

July, 1865, he bade farewell to his corps at Louisville and retired to

private life.

As soon as the war was over and General Blair perceived that the

people of the South were honestly disposed to abide the result of the

conflict in good faith, he urged a liberal and generous treatment

of the ex-rebels. At first he continued his connection with the

republican party, and endeavored to change its course in his State to

a policy of conservatism. The Legislature of Missouri had passed a law

disfranchising all who participated in or gave aid and comfort to the

Rebellion, and another law requiring all the citizens of the State to

take a test oath. Both of these measures were opposed by General Blair

as proscriptive and unconstitutional. He urged that, the war being

over, there was no need of any further rigor toward the men who had

engaged in rebellion, and regarded it as dangerous to the peace and

prosperity of the State to deprive them of the right to vote. With

regard to the test oath, he absolutely refused to subscribe to it,

and, upon presenting himself at the polls in St. Louis, his vote was

refused for that reason. For this act he brought a suit before the

courts for the purpose of testing the constitutionality of the law.

The case is now before the Supreme Court of the United States, and is

not yet decided. Gradually General Blair severed his connection with

the Republican party, after having been a member of that organization

from its incipiency. When the present reconstruction laws of Congress

were passed, he denounced them as despotic, revolutionary, and

unconstitutional, and declared that the people of the South would not

be in the wrong if they resisted their execution. He opposed, with

great earnestness, the policy of universal negro suffrage as a disgrace

and an outrage upon the people, and, in a recent letter, declared that

the first duty of a Democratic President, if elected, would be to

overthrow the present radical governments in the South, and restore

the States to the rule of the whites. This declaration of his has

been severely commented upon by the radical organs, while, from its

boldness, the Democratic papers have scarcely ventured to offer an

opinion.

General Blair’s military reputation has gained him considerable

popularity in the West, and particularly among the late Union soldiers

in that section of the country. His recent adhesion to the Democratic

party and his bitter opposition to negro suffrage created for a time

considerable surprise when his views were made known, they being

regarded as singular when compared with his former denunciations of

slavery and the Democracy. Indeed, nothing could more fully exemplify

what revolutions sometimes occur in politics and men’s opinions than

his unanimous and enthusiastic nomination.