Des Arc weekly citizen., 1868-05-16

question of guilty or not guilty, each Senator rising iu his place as in the form used in the case Of Judge Chase: "Senator, how say you. Is the respond ent, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, guilty ornot guilty of high misdemeanor, as charged in this article ?" In putting tlie question on articles four and six, each of which charges crime, the word crime will be substituted for the word misdemea- nor.
 The Chief Justice has carefully con sidered the suggestion of the Senator from Indiana, (Mr. Hendricks,) which appeared to meet the approval of the Senate, that in taking the vote on the eleventh article, the question should be put on each clause. In this l find my elfunable to divide the articles as sug
 gested. Tho article charges several facts, but they are so connected that they make but one altogether, and they are charged as making one misdemean- or. The first fact charged is in sub stance that the President publicly de- clared, in August, 1866, that the Thirty ninth Congress was Congress of only part of the States, and not a constitu- tional Congress, intending thereby to deny it's constitutional competency to enact laws, or propose amendments to the Constitution, and this charge seems to have been made as introducing and as qualifying that which follows, viz !: that the President in pursuance of this declaration, attempted to prevent the execution of the Tenure-of-o act, by contriving and attempting to con trol means to prevent Mir. Stanton from assuming the functions of Secretary of | War, after the refusal of the Senate to concur in his suspension and also by contriving and attempting to contrive means to prevent the execution of the l appropriation act of March 2d, 1867 :; and also to prevent the execution of the act relative to the government of the rebel States of the same datc The I grievance of the article seems to be ! that the President attempted to defeat the execution of the Tenure-of- office act, and that he did this in pursuance of declaration which was intended to invade the constitutional competen- cy of Congress to enact laws or pro- 1 pose constitutional amendments. and 1 by corAriving means to prevent Mr. stanton from resuming his office of Secretary of War, and also to prevent the execution of the Appropriation act, and the rebel State Government act. The single substantive matter charged therein is the attempt to prevent the execution of the Tenure-of-ofiice act. Do the other facts alleged, either as in- troductory and exhibiting the general purpose, or showing the means intend, to frustrate that attempt. Is this sim ! gle matter connected with tho other matter-previously and subsequently alleged-charged as high misdemean- or, of which the President is alleged to have been guilty? The general ques- tion of guilty or not guilty seems fully to cover the charge, and will be put in this article as well as in the others, to | the Senate direct, in the same mode of 1 division as in atherz m the tenth ar4 ticle, the division suggested by the the Senator from New York (Conkhng) may be more easily made, as it contains more general allegation to the effect that on the Sth of August. the Presi- dent, with the intention to set aside the rightful authority of Congress, and to bring it into contempt, delivered cer- 1 tain scandalous harrangues and therein uttered loud threats and bitter names | against Congress and the laws of the 1 United States, enacted by Congress. thereby bringing the office or the Pres ident in disgrace, to the great scandal ofall good citizens, as set forth in these distinc, specifications, and the remedies complained of in the respective speci- ficatious; then the question of guilty or not guilty of e high misdemeanor, as charged in the article. can also be taken. The Chief Justice, however. sees no injustice in putting the general questions in this article in the same manner as the others. For whether the particular question be put on the spe- citicatfons or not, the answer to the final question must be determined bv the judgment of the Senate-whether the facts alleged in the specification have been sufficiently proved that they amount to high misdemeanor within the meaning of the Constitution. On the whole, therefore, the Chief Justice thinks the better practice would be to put the general questions in each arti- cle without attempting to make any subdivision, and will pursue this course If no objections be made. He will be pleased, however, to conform to such directions as the Senate may see fit in this matter" Whereupon MT. Sumner submitted the following order which was considered by unanimous consent and agreed upon; Ordered, the questions be put as proposed by the presiding officer of the Senate, and each Senator shall rise in his place and answer guilty or not guilty.
 HOUSE.
 Bills and resolutions were introduced and referred declaring it inexpedient ~ |