Year: 1868

VI The Eleventh Article.


The radical impeachers, having entirely and
dsastrously broken down in the attempt TO
convict Andrew Johnson of high crimes and
misdemeanors, are now striving to force a
technical conviction on the eleventh article,
for which they pretend some Of those Senators
can be secured who have made up their minds
to verdict of ''not guilty" on the main
charges Drowning men clutch at straws, and
this eleventh article is the impeachers' straw;
but it is the weakest in the entire bundle.
When first proposed it was rejected as wholly
pertinacity of Thad Stevens that at last pro-
cured it's adoption against the judgment of
majority Of his associates. Since the close of
the evidence on the trial the Managers them
selves, in their harangues before the court,
have virtually admitted that it is only on the
main charges of the removal of Stanton, the
appointment of Thomas, &c., the President
can be convicted, and that the others must fall
to the ground. Yet now that they find the
requisite number Of Senators are not prepared
to pronounce Andrew Johnson guilty of any Of
these high crimes and misdemeanors, they
trust to the very vagueness and absurdity of
the eleventh article to induce them on that to
reverse their judgment.


The charges in this fOrlorn hope of the radi-
Gals are that Andrew Johnson did, in the year
1866, make political stump speech at Wash
ington, in which he declared Gin substance"
that the Thirty ninth Congress was Congress
Of only part of the States, and that its legisla-
ton was only valid so far as he saw fit to
approve the same; and that, in pursuance of
that declaration, he proceeded, nearly two
years afterwards, in 1868, to attempt to pre-
vent the execution, first, of the Tenure of
Office law, by devising means to keep Stanton
out of the War Office, and next, of the Army
Appropriation act of 1868, by advising
General Emory that clause therein
was, in his judgment, unconstitutional.
There is not particle of evidence to connect
the foolish speech made by Andrew Johnson in
1866 with the official acts done by him in 1868,
as charged in the article; nor would it be pos
sible for any just and honest juror who had





crime and misdemeanor in removing Stanton
or in consulting with General Emory, to stul-
tify himself by afterwards pronouncing both
those acts criminal, when united with the
absurd accusation that they were part and
parcel of deep laid plot to overthrow Con-
gress, of which the stump speech of 1866 was
the opening act. The Senator who should
declare johnson not guilty of the main offences
charged against him and pronounce him
guilty on this eleventh article would be doubly
perjured and doubly disgraced.


But there is another interesting point in
volved, in which Chief Justice Chase may have
something to say. The constitution provides
that ''the President, Vice President and all
civil officers of the United States shall be re-
moved from Office on impeachment for and con-
viction of treason, bribery or other high crimes
and misdemeanors." The articles of impeach-
ment are in the form of a bill of indictment,
and some of them charge 'high crimes and
others ''misdemeanors" against the accused.
The eleventh article charges ''misdemeanor"
only. If the President should be declared
''not guilty of the high crimes charged against
him. and guilty of this misdemeanor only,
would it be verdict that would come within
the scope of the constitution, which requires
conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors
This would be question for Chief Justice
Chase to decide, and in the event of such
termination of impeachment, if he should con-
clude that it was not a constitutional
conviction, he would, as presiding Judge,
quilted.