The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1875-04-08
SPEECH OF
ANDREW JOHNSON

"A N DhLW CO11N DON
The following is brief telegraphic
synopsis of the recent speech of Sena-
tor Johnson, which has made the Rad
icals very unhappy:
The consideration of unfinished
business, the resolution approving the
action of the President in regard to
Louisiana, was resumed, and Mr..
johnson. of Tennessee, being entitled
to the floor, began to speak at ten
minutes past l2.
Mr.. Johnson said: This resolution
proposes to cover acts and measures
which think clearly in violation of
the organic law of the land, and with
out authority. That being SO, can
not give my consent to the resolution,
and will be compelled to vote against
it. 1 think it proper that should give
some few reasons why can not give
it my vote:
In the first place, Mr.. President, it
seems to me that coEsideratisn of a
resolution embracing questions of
such grave importance is not legiti-
mately before this body. In other
words, it is not legitimate to consider
it before Senate convened, as this
has been convened, to act solely upon
business pertaining to the Executive
Department. 1t is not legitimate to
act upon the measure now under con-
sideration by this body. 1t is legiti-
mate to consider every act and every
question on which the Administra-
ton has acted since it's advent into
power. A -t
1t does not seem to me to be travel
ing much further cut Of the record fer
the Executive to come forward and
presume to act in defiance of the Leg
islature, than for the Legislature to
come forward and approve the acts Of
the President. Ordinary measures
are presented for the consideration of
Congress, and when they are acted on
it is the duty of the President to con-
slider them and to approve or reject
them. +
Mr.. johnson argued at length that
the Senate had no authority to act on
the resolution, especially in the abb
sence Of the other House. He con-
tended that the resolutions of Messrs.
Morton and Frelinghuysen were the
same in substance, with mere modi-
fication in the matter Of verbiage to
suit the party views of some indiyid-
uals. He next referred to the trouble
in the Tennessee Legislature in 1866,
and the action of the Federal Govern
ment instructing Gen. Geo. H.Thomas,
in command of the Federal forces
there, to strictly abstain from any in
reference. His instructions, he said
were as follows:
WASHINGTON, July II, 1866.
General Grant will instruct Gener-
al Thomas that the facts stated in his
telegram do not warrant the interfer-
ence of the military. The administra-
ton of the laws and the preservation
of peace in Nashville belong properly
to the State authorities, and the duty
of the United States authorities is not
to interfere in any controversy be-
tween the public authorities of the
State !; and General Thomas will strict
ly abstain from any interference be-
tween them.'
Here is a precise case, and that was
the action of the Government. 1t was
believed that it was q civil strife, a
contest between two divisions of the
civil Government, and was case, as
stated in the telegram sent back to
General Thomas, similar to the one in
Louisiana. That dispatch was signed
by the Secretary of War, and was
written in the presence of the Presi-
dent and sent to General Grant to
send to General Thomas. He was
told that this was not a case calling
for the interference of the military,
and he General Thomas) should alb.
stain from interference under any cir
cumsiances whatever. 1t would seem
that this marks the line between the
civil and military authority. There is
a precedent of the Government in that
case and the cases are almost paral-
lei, and that was what the Govern
ment did then.
| What are we told now? We see,
then, that the present President of the
United States was familiar with and
Government in cases of this kind, and
of the duty OF the military and civil
authorities. We see, then, that the
! question was not unknown to him,
and he has not acted without proper
and sufficient Information upon the
subject. If he has been informed of
and acted and carried out the order or
telegram that have read, he must
have understood it, and known that it
was the true doctrine and principle
upon which cases OF this kind should
be managed by the military.
He then referred to the removal of
/ Gen. p. H. Sheridan from the COM
mand of the Fifth Military District,
August 26, 1867, and said it was in
consequence Of the wall which came
up from the people of that section.
Why was it that this man Sheridan
! had been selected and sent back to
those people who before condemned
him and prayed for his removal? He
| (Johnson) knew the determination of
the people of the South. Their great
lie would tell some of those that were
acting behind the curtain that if they
expected to stir up another civil strife,
and amid the warcry and strife have