The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-05-15
II,e EleYenth Arllele.

The indications are that the
Eleventh Article of Impeachment is
the one which will concentrate the
strength of the Senators in favor of
conviction. Several members Of the
Court have expressed the conviction
that they can only vote to sustain that
article. It's importance at this stage
of the trial, makes the history Of its
adoption one of interest asanl
On the I'd of March, when the
Managers had reported the articles
prepared and agreed upon by them,
Mr.. STEVENS, in a speech advocating
their adoption, said @
by some unacoountabIe misunder-
standing, the article which hold in nay
hand, and which we may call one and
half, mas been dropped out, for do not
ind 1t in the articles in distinct language.
l propose il as an amendment. Mr.. Stew
ems then read substantially the eleventh
article of the series This charge is
noL here contained in tx ARTICLES retOrted
by the committee, and unless 1t be inserted
there can be no trial on II. IJtheTe De
sbTe1Cd tutCyeTS as I k7lOGO there null, and
they do not deqttft him, they are greelter than
eUer tg0S lCben commenced to pTdc' ice esI the
Court Of Quarter Sessions. If that article
be Inserted il will show both the removal
= nd the attempt to defeat the reinstate-
ment, and although the Senate should de-
eide the other charges in his favor, now
coulo he escape from this one2 1t is worth
all the others put together"
Mr.. STEVENS then went on to show
that the article could not be contro-
verted, except upon the ground that
the Tenure of Office Act is unconsti-
tutional, and that the Senate, having
four times voted by more than two
thirds majority IN favor of that act,
could not now disgrace itself in the
face of the nation by denying the act
to ce constitutional. No vote was
taken upon the amendment proposed
by Mr.. STEvFNs on that day, but on
the next, March Sd, the eleventh ar
ticle, substantially as presented in
Mr.. STEVENS speech, was written by
Mr. STEVENS, agreed to BY the Mana
gers, offered in the House by Mr..
BINGHAM, and adopted.
The article does not charge the re-
mOval of Mr. STANTON or the appoint
meut OF THOMAS as offenses, and thus
escapes the technical objections
raised on the ground that Mr.. STAN
TON was not covered by the Tenure
of-Offee act or the proviso attached
to it, but it charges that the Pres
ident, having declared that Congress
was a Congress of only part Of the
States, thereby intending to deny that
its legislation was binding upon him,
had unlawfully attempted to contrive
means to prevent Mr.. STANTON from
resuming the Secretaryship after the
Senate had refused to concur in his
suspension. The Presidents IAN
guage, in the Washington speech, is
in evidence. Its intent can hardly be
disputed by any man. And the at
tempt to prevent Mr.. STANTON from
resuming the Secrearyship is proved
by Mr.. JoHNsoN's own statement, il
his letter to General GRANT, as fol-
lows:
First of all. you here admit that from
the very beginning Of what you term -'the
whole history" OF your connection with
Mr. StantOn's suspension, you intended to
Giro umyept the President. 1t as to carry
out that intent that you accepted the APP
pOlntmect. his was in your mind at the
TINE OF YOU acceptance. Il was not, then,
iii obedience to the order OF your super or,
~ has heretofore been supposed. that You
assumed use duties of the Office You
knew IT. was the residents purpose to
prevent Mr.. Stanton from Iesuming the
office of ~ecretary OF War.
Thus the oferse charged in the
eleventh article Is clearly proved, and
it is clearly violation of the Presi-
dents Obligation to see that the laws
are faithfully executed.