Year: 1868

The Presidents answer to the Articles of I'M
peachment presents no new points, but places
the issues of law and of fact so definitely be-
fore the Senate that hardly any reply from
the Impeachment Managers can be necessary.
We can now separate the questions of fact from
those of law, and see upon what points testi-
mony will be brought, and what will afford
themes for argument merely. The answer to
the first article (that based upon the attempted
removal of Secretary Stanton in viola
ton of the Tenure-Of- Office law, does
not seem to deny any distinct statement
of fact contained in the article, but simply
raises the issue of law whether the Tenure-Of-
Office act is constitutional. If this be correct,
no testimony can be necessary on either side
under the first article.


We judge also, that the answer TO the sec
Ond and third articles denies no statement of
fact contained i'll them, and therefore calls for
no testimony. The answer to the fourth
article Charging conspiracy with Gen.
Thomas to employ force in obtain
ing possession of the War Department.
raises question of fact, upon which testimony
will be necessary. But the testimony would be
confined to the language and acts of the Presi-
dent and Gen. Thomas, and must necessarily be
brief. The answer to the fifth, sixth, seventh,
and eighth articles presents no issue of fact
whatever. In answer to the ninth article, which
charges an attempt to induce Gen. Emory to
violate the Tenure of Office law the President
denies the fact, and states that he merely de-
signed to express his private opinion that the
law is unconstitutional. The answer to the
tenth and eleventh articles, based on his
speeches made in Swinging around the cir
a" "clen raises no issue of fact except upon the
correctness of the published reports, and no
very serious question can arise on that point.
The testimony on the trial, therefore, seems
to be narrowed down to the Presidents in
structons to or interviews with Gems. Thomas
and Emory relative to the employment of force,
and to the correctness of the published reports
of his speeches in swinging around the circle.
The speeches will be proven by the reporters,
whose accuracy is unimpeachable. The inter-
views with Thomas and Emory, and the eyi-
dence of intent to use force, should occupy
but few hours. All the other issues are of
law, and rest on argument merely, and are
mainly comprised in the single point of the
constitutionality of the Tenure of Office act.


The Senate having discussed the whole ques-
ton OF the Il lCnurc-O1-OI1ce law lar HlOIc luIly
and ably before passing it than the counsel for
the President are likely to do, it is absolutely
impossible that any argument on this point can
be brought before the Senators with which
they are not already familiar. The Presidents
point, so frequently reiterated, that he only de-
sired to test the constitutonality of the act,
has no very great force, as this end would be
as fully accomplished by his conviction and
removal from Office as by any other judgment.
As the Presidents counsel have shown that
they could prepare an answer in eight days,
for the preparation of which they had asked
forty, we trust that the manifest simplicity of
the case in all its issues of law and of fact, will
cause the Senate to push the trial to speedy
conclusion. Delay can really be of no benefit
to Mr.. johnson, and must be seriously detri-
mental to the progress of public business and
the interests of the country. The course of the
Opposition in the House in raising question
as to the authority of the Managers to file their
replication without previously submitting it to
the House, is but another effort to obstruct the
trial. But it will fail, for nothing is clearer
than that the Managers have been clothed with
full powers in the premises.