Litchfield enquirer., 1868-06-04
OPINION OF ORRIS s. FERRY, OF
 CONNECTICUT. sza
ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF TAE PRESIDENT

Eleven articles of impeachment are pro
 ferred by the House, of Representativ'
 against the President of the United State The first, second, third, eighth, an
 eleventh depend wholly, or in part, upo the validity and construction of the act , March 2, 1867, regulating the tenure
 certain civil offices," and will be conside ed together in & subsequent portion of thi
 opinion.
 The fourth, fifth, sixth and sevent
 charge the commissions of the offenc
 technically known as conspiracy, eithe
 as defined by statute, or by common law
 It is sufficient to say in regard to these ar lticles, that the proof does not sustain tn lcharge. No testimony has been adduce
 to show 'Econspiracy' by the Presiden
 with any person other than Lorenzo Thom as, and the evidence exhibited is substan tially confined to the letter of authority o February 2l, 1868, signed by the former and the acceptance of the place of Secreta ry of War, ad Interim by the latter Hi conduct of General Thomas seems to have been influenced by 8 mistaken idea of tn obligation of military obedience, Ito whicl indeed, the phraseology of the letter of au thorlty affords some countenance,) whil the President treats him as subordinate rather than as a confederate.
 So, also, the proof fails to sustain tn, ninth article, which is based upon the con versation between the President and Gen Emory on the 22d of February, 1868. The ] only evidence before us is tho testimony oI Gen. Emory himself, which discloses tht declaration by the President of his opin ion of the validity of an act of Congress but affords no reason to infer that it was given as charged, "with intent thereby tc induce said Emory, as commander of tho the department Washington, to violate trie provisions of said act" &c
 1 The specifications of the tenth article, as to the delivery of the speeches, are sub lstantially proved, but the legal conclusion that thereby 'said Andrew Johnson Presi- dent of the United States, did commit, and was then and there guilty of high misde. meanor in office,' does not result from the establishment of the truth of the specified. tions. The speeches proved were certain. lly not indictable, either at common law o1 by statute, nor were they in any sense, acts of official misconduct. or omissions of off. clal duty. They were vain, foolish, vulgar, and unbecoming, but the Constitution does not provide that President may be impeached for the exhibition of these qualities.
 Contenting myself with these observa- tions upon the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, and tenth articles of impeachment, 1 find the respondent not guilty upon each and all of them.
 The first, second, third, eighth and eleventh articles remain to be considered, and upon these am constrained to arrive rily, the construction given by the Chief Justice to the eleventh article:
 '"The gravaman of this article seems to be- that the President attempted to defeat the execution of the tenure-of-ofice .Se
 The single substayant matter charged is the attempt tooce act. the execution of the tenure-of matter connected with the other gd S'?sS, is cbareed peed ously and subsequently, aI!eeoff' of which w the pres;dent s ene mign o1agad been guilty Tha nennras aI nestia ao guilty or not guilty af Ho I e,"i dnesSl1or da"1or as charged, seems fu,lv % 1, In te oonaS tII Whole charge Remarks of the T Chief If: :J,4tice. Impeachment Trial, r. If f4u an oct tM violation of the tenure-of-of. f;oo ont M ;.a high misdemeanor, as declared vo hv th hoD ct itself, then, in my judgement, tIo 'aSempt to ssdefeat," to prevent" the eexes1tion of that act by the President of t,e United States, charged with the whole of executive duty, is high in office, for whose commis- sion the Constitution subjects him to i'm peachment and removal from office.
 With this preliminary statement ob- serve that my opinion upon the second, third, eighth, and eleventh articles arises out of and must stand or fall with the opinion which I have formed upon the first. The greater portion of my remaining observations will therefore De directed to that article.
 The substantive charge in the first article is the removal of MT. Stanton, contrary to of the tenure-of- office act. It is true that the removal is alleged only in- directly, but it is familiar law that the technicality of an indictment is unnecessa- " in articles of impeachment. The first article states in detail what the President did and the intent with which it swas done viz: to violate the act; and the facts stated constitute ill effect an actual removal, with which statement the evidence also &C., cords.
 On the 21st of February, 1868 the Pres ident sends written notice to MT. Stanton stating to him ''you are hereby removed. , Ou tiIC tuO luIOLu Lorenzo Thomas that MT. Stanton has | ''been this day removed" and appoints 1 the Adjutant General Secretary ad interim. The secretary ad interim is invited to take and does take his place as Secretary of Wa, in the cabinet councils from that day to the present is recognized there as Secretary by the President and cabinet, and MT. Stan ton is carefully excluded; and finally two nominations of a permanent Secretary have been sent to the Senate by the President
 Gin place of Edwin M Stanton, removed. By these acts the President must stand O
 fall; according to them he is to be tried |! and he accepts the issue.
 Was, then, the removal of MT. Stanton a high misdemeanor as charged? I'm
 sixth section of the tenure, of office act is a ! follows:
 'sEvery removal, appointment, or em lployment, made, had, or exercised, contra
 " to the provisions of this act, and tn
 making, signing. sealing, countersignine or issuing of any commission or letter c authority for or in respect to any such ap
 appointment or employment, shall
 deemed, and are hereby declared to be
 high misdemeanors, and, upon trial an
 conviction thereof, every person guilt
 thereof shall be punis " fine not e,
 ceeding ten thousa1 lrs, or by in | o& c~r e. ~,>>su