Year: 1868

ier II tne renure OF once act, and that tenure


OF ONCE Is secured to him; he thinks So secondly


because he believes that it would be udically de,


cided II the question could be raised that the law
| which deprived him Of the power OF removing an


officer at his pleasure is not constitutional law


lie Is OF opinion that in this he cannot allow
agent 70 execute the laws L he has the hover I'VE. 70
remove him. Under these circumstances he gives
this this order to General Thomas. Now, do not view
this as purely military order. The service there
involved was civil service, but a. the same time
Senator's will observe that the person who gave the
person to whom the order was given Is the Adjutant
| General OF the army that the sublect matter
OF te order relates 70 tne OF servce ers
fore, when such an order was given by the Com
mander Chief to the Adjutant General respecting
q subject OF this kind is 1t too much to say that
there was invoked that spirit Of military obedience
which constitutes the strength OF the servlces do
or that General Thomas would have been subject to
court martial for disobeyng It; but do say that the
was in the interest Of the service bound to accept
the appointment unless he saw or knew that It was
unlawful. do not know how the fact Island GER


any tnere Is no proof on the subject-but when the
distinguished General Of the army of the United
States on previous occasion accepted a similar
| duty such as those which have now alluded to-


And how and why Is 1t to be attributed to General


the laws Of the country when he simply did what
| the General Of the army had done beforea Take
You please In order to test the % question Of CON-
spiracy. Suppose one Of You has claim which he
he To g. wso


sion Of this property and deliver to him this order


S nt
Does not every lawyer know that the mo.


ment you introduce into any transaction Of
every criminal intention ceasesf This was case


Of public duty, Of public right, claimed upon cons


law which had been given to 1t by the lawmakers
themselves How, then, again ask, can the Presi-
dent OF the United States under such circumstances
be looked upon by any body aS guilty Of conspiracy
under this act9 These articles say the conspiracy
between the President and General Thomas was to
employ force, threats, intimidations: What they
prove against the President is that he issued this
face ey eas a no sDT
| for the assertion that 1t was the design Of


the that amy body at time
The order is to Mr. stanton to deliver up possession;
the order to General Thomas to receive possession
force in any direction Whatever There IS not only % no
authority, to apply for obtain anything but
| the order which was given him; and we shall prove
a desire to test the question Of law. We shall
show, you what advice the President received
ht hs sSpGs E Sas 6 views sv ne


but, Of course 1t is not my province to comment


upon the evidence. The evidence must be first ad-


The other two conspiracy articles will require very


little observation from me, because they make no


new allegations Of fact which are not in the fourth


and sixth articles to which at first adverted, the
| only distinction between them and the others being


that they not founded upon the conspiracy act Of


and leave the matter there. They do not


aet Se1 o facts to oSeps SSns tas case within


not allege force, threats, or intimidation.


shall detan the Senate for few moments on the


ninth article which is the relating to the CONVEX
sation with General Emory. The meaning of that


tice, as ! read IT. is that the President brought
Chief Of the army for the purpose OF instructing him
to dsobey the law with an intent to induce General
self unlawfully, and by the Of military force,
through General Emory, to prevent Mr. Stanton from


n nit that not V only 'e does 's this NSM ARTICLE fal


Of proof In Its substance as thus stated but that 1t is


it, IN the first place sppeas ee clear o@


General Emory's statement that the President ala


Srg @ S Sr amy RS With


army or the issuing OF orders relating to the army


1t y subject which General Emory introduced HIM


recarred to It himself, asking tho President permits


sion to bring 1t to his attention. Whatsoever there


FORE was said on that subject was said, not because


the President Of the United States had brought the


commander Of the troops in Washington there for that


another purpose, the Commanding General intro


duced the subject and conversed upon It, and gave


had his attention called to the act OF Congress and


the order under It, the President expressed precisely
the same opinion to General Emory he had pre-


vIousy publicly expressed to Congress itself at the
| time when the act was signed by him. 1t is found


report Of these proceedlngs what that opinion was


He considered that that provision OF the law inter-
mander-in- Chief Of the army and that is what he
| said to General Emory. There Is not even q


probable cause to, to believe that he said 4


reason that General Emory had introduced the sub.


ject. He asked leave to call the Presidents atten-


ton to It, evidently expecting and desiring that the


President should say something the subject, and
| II he said anything was he not to say the trutha
| as he apprehended II. IL will appear In proof as


am instructed, that the reason why the President


deavor to seduce that distinguished oiicer from his


allegiance to the laws and constitution OF his coun-


but because ne wished c to Obtain pa Information


rely and which he was bound to respect might re.
| article a. being one on which 1 ought not to detan


Senator's and l come to the last one, concerning


which shall have much to say, and that Is the tenth


article which Ii OF and concerning the speeches. In


the front Of this inquiry the question presents ITSELF


OF the United satess on this question dissertations
| have been written and printed One Of them Is an


% see s cae for Of e
| was written by one OF the honorable Man


ayers on the proceedings Of the House
| first attempt TO impeach the PRESIDENT and there


have been others written and published by learned


drawn from the Middle Ages. The trainers OF our
the person who up these dissertations, and the
| trainers Of our constitution, as | conceive, had
| drawn from tne1n lcSsOn WHICH tney emDOueu IN
their work. propose, therefore, instead Of seeking
precedents which were made In the times Of the
Plantagenets, Tudors and the Stuarfs, and which
| have been repeated since, to come much nearer
/ home and see what the provisions Of the constu
/ ton OF the United States are bearing up0n this
| question. My first proposition Is that when
the constitution speaks OF treason bribery and other
| high crimes and msdemeanors II refers to and In
| cidcs only high criminal offences against the


United States against some law of the United States


existing when the acts complained Of were commit


ted and say that that Is plainly to be inferred from


each and every provision OF the constitution on the


subject. Nobody will deny that treason and bribery
| are high crimes against the United states, made
| such by the laws OF the United States, or which
| the trainers OF the constitution knew must be
provided for In the laws, because these are high
crimes which strike at the existence OF the gov
| ernment. Now what is meant by sother
| high crimes and misdemeanorsY' No seizure a
socies They are high crimes and misdemeanors; 30
| high that they belong in the same company With
treason and bribery That Is clear on the