tenth and eleventh articles of impeach- ticle for the removal of Mr. Stanton, if ment, charging the President with endeav- executed, would have been a violation of oring to "set aside the rightful authority the Tenure-of-Office Act. of Congress," offered a telegraphic dispatch from the President to Mr. Parsons, at that time (January 17, 1867) Provisional Governor of Alabama, of which the follow-lation of the Tenure-of-Office Act. ing is the essential part:

"Second. That it was a violation of the Tenure-of-Office Act.

I do not believe the people of the whole country will sustain any set of individuals in the attempt to change the whole character of our Government by en,abling acts in this way. I believe, on the contrary, that they will eventually uphold all who have patriotism and courage to stand by the Constitution, and who place their confidence in the people. There should be no faltering on the part of those who are honest in their determination to sustain the several coördinate departments of the Government in accordance with its original design." The introduction of this was objected to by the counsel for the President, but admitted by the Senate, the vote being 27 to 17.

The whole Friday, and a great part of Saturday, (April 3d and 4th,) were occupied in the examination of the persons who reported the various speeches of the President which form the basis of the tenth article, the result being that the reports were shown to be either substantially or verbally accurate. Then, after some testimony relating to the forms in which commissions to office were made out, the managers announced that the case for the prosecution was substantially closed. The counsel for the President thereupon asked that three working days should be granted them to prepare for the defense. This, after some discussion, was granted by the Senate by a vote of 36 to 9, and the trial was adjourned to Thursday, April 9th.

"Third. That it was an intentional vio

"Fourth. That it was in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

“Fifth. That it was intended by the President to be so.

'Or, to draw all these into one sentence, which I hope may be intelligible and clear enough, I suppose the substance of this first article is that the order for the removal of Mr. Stanton was, and was intended to be, a violation of the Constitution of the United States. These are the allegations which it is necessary for the honorable managers to make out in order to support that article."

Mr. Curtis proceeded to argue that the case of Mr. Stanton did not come within the provisions of the Tenure-of-Office Act, being expressly excepted by the proviso that Cabinet officers should hold their places during the term of the President by whom they were appointed, and for one month thereafter, unless removed by the consent of the Senate. Mr. Stanton was appointed by Mr. Lincoln, whose term of office came to an end by his death. He argued at length against the proposition that Mr. Johnson was merely serving out the remainder of Mr. Lincoln's term. The object of this exception, he said, was evident. The Cabinet officers were to be "the immediate confidential assistants of the President, for whose acts he was to be responsible, and in whom he was expected to repose the gravest honor, trust, and confidence; therefore it was that this act has connected the tenure of office of these officers with that of the President by whom they were appointed." Mr. Curtis gave a The opening speech for the defense, oc- new interpretation to that clause in the cupying the whole of Thursday, and a Constitution which prescribes that the part of Friday, was made by Mr. Curtis. President "may require the opinion, in Reserving, for a time, a rejoinder to Mr. writing, of the principal officer in each of Butler's argument as to the functions of the executive departments upon any subthe Senate when sitting as a Court of Im-ject relating to the duties of their several peachment, Mr. Curtis proceeded to a con-offices." He understood that the word sideration of the articles of impeachment, in their order, his purpose being "to ascertain, in the first place, what the substantial allegations in each of them are, what is the legal proof and effect of these allegations, and what proof is necessary to be adduced in order to sustain them." The speech is substantially an elaboration of and argument for the points embraced in the answer of the President. The main stress of the argument related to the first article, which, as stated by Mr. Curtis, when stripped of all technical language, amounts exactly to these things:

THE DEFENSE.

"their" included the President, so that he might call upon Cabinet officers for advice "relating to the duties of the office of these principal officers, or relating to the duties of the President himself." This, at least, he affirmed, had been the practical interpretation put upon this clause from the beginning. To confirm his position as to the intent of the Tenure-of-Office Act in this respect, Mr. Curtis quoted from speeches made in both houses at the time when the act was passed. Thus, Senator Sherman said that the act, as passed—

"Would not prevent the present Presi"First. That the order set out in the ar-dent from removing the Secretary of War,

The reply to the eleventh article was very brief. The managers had "compounded it of the materials which they had previously worked up into others," and it "contained nothing new that needed notice." Mr. Curtis concluded his speech by saying that

spicuous instance that has ever been, or even can be expected to be found, of American justice or of American injustice; of that justice which is the great policy of all civilized States; of that injustice which is certain to be condemned, which makes even the wisest man mad, and which, in the fixed and unalterable order of God's providence, is sure to return and plague the inventor."

the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary Constitution, or of any law existing at the of State; and, if I supposed that either of time when they were made, and were not these gentlemen was so wanting in man- therefore, impeachable offenses. hood, in honor, as to hold his place after the politest intimation from the President of the United States that his services were no longer needed, I certainly, as a Senator, would consent to his removal at any time, and so would we all." Mr. Curtis proceeded to argue that there"This trial is and will be the most conwas really no removal of Mr. Stanton; he still held his place, and so there was "no case of removal within the statute, and, therefore, no case of violation by removal." But, if the Senate should hold that the order for removal was, in effect, a removal, then, unless the Tenure-of-Office Act gave Mr. Stanton a tenure of office, this removal would not have been contrary to the provisions of this act. He proceeded to argue that there was room for grave doubt whether Mr. Stanton's case came within the provisions of the Tenure-of-Office Act, and that the President, upon due consideration, and having taken the best advice within his power, considering that it did not, and acting accordingly, did not, even if he was mistaken, commit an act "so wilful and wrong that it can be justly and properly, and for the purposes of this prosecution, termed a high misdemeanor." He argued at length that the view of the President was the correct one, and that "the Senate had nothing whatever to do with the removal of Mr. Stanton, whether the Senate was in session or not."

Mr. Curtis then went on to urge that the President, being sworn to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, must carry out any law, even though passed over his vetc, except in cases where a law which he believed to be unconstitutional has cut off a power confided to him, and in regard to which he alone could make an issue which would bring the matter before a court, so as to cause "a judicial decision to come between the two branches of the Government, to see which of them is right." This, said he, is what the President has done. This argument, in effect, was an answer to the first eight articles of impeachment.

The ninth article, charging the President with endeavoring to induce General Emory to violate the law by receiving orders directly from him, was very briefly touched upon, it being maintained that, as shown by the evidence, "the reason why the President sent for General Emory was not that he might endeavor to seduce that distinguished officer from his allegiance to the laws and Constitution of his country, but because he wished to obtain information about military movements which might require his personal attention."

As to the tenth article, based upon the President's speeches, it was averred that they were in no way in violation of the

At the close of this opening speech for the defense, General Lorenzo Thomas was brought forward as a witness. His testimony, elicited upon examination and crossexamination, was to the effect that, having received the order appointing him Secretary of War ad interim, he presented it to Mr. Stanton, who asked, "Do you wish me to vacate the office at once, or will you give me time to get my private property together?" to which Thomas replied, "Act your pleasure." Afterward Stanton said, "I don't know whether I will obey your instructions." Subsequently Thomas said that he should issue orders as Secretary of War. Stanton said he should not do so, and afterward gave him a written direction, not to issue any order except as Adjutant-General. During the examination of General Thomas a question came up which, in many ways, recurred upon the trial. He was asked to tell what occurred at an interview between himself and the President. Objection was made by Mr. Butler, and the point was argued. The question was submitted to the Senate, which decided, by a vote of 42 to 10, that it was admissible. The testimony of General Thomas, from this point, took a wide range, and, being mainly given in response to questions of counsel, was, apparently, somewhat contradictory. The substance was that he was recognized by the President as Secretary of War; that, since the impeachment, he had acted as such only in attending Cabinet meetings, but had given no orders; that, when he reported to the President that Mr. Stanton would not vacate the War Department, the President directed him to "take possession of the office;" that, without orders from the President, he had intended to do this by force, if necessary; that, finding that this course might involve bloodshed, he had abandoned this purpose, but that, after this, he had, in several cases, affirmed his purpose to do so, but that these declara

tions were "merely boast and brag." On the following day General Thomas was recalled as a witness, to enable him to correct certain points in his testimony. The first was the date of an unimportant transaction; he had given it as taking place on the 21st of February, whereas it should have been the 22d. The second was that the words of the President were that he should "take charge," not "take possession" of the War Department. In explanation of the fact that he had repeatedly sworn to the words "take possession," he said that these were "put into his mouth." Finally, General Thomas, in reply to a direct question from Mr. Butler, said that his testimony on these points was "all wrong."

views, was to the effect that the President
said that the relations between himself and
Mr. Stanton were such that he could not
execute the office of President without
making provision to appoint a Secretary
of War ad interim, and he offered that
office to him (General Sherman), but did
not state that his purpose was to bring the
matter directly into the courts. Sherman
said that, if Mr. Stanton would retire, he
might, although against his own wishes,
undertake to administer the office
ad
interim, but asked what would be done in
case Mr. Stanton would not yield. To
this the President replied, "He will
make no opposition; you present the or-
der, and he will retire. I know him bet-
ter than you do; he is cowardly." General
Sherman asked time for reflection, and
then gave a written answer, declining to
accept the appointment, but stated that
his reasons were mostly of a personal na-
ture.

Lieutenant-General Sherman was then called as a witness. After some unimportant questions, he was asked in reference to an interview between himself and the President which took place on the 14th of January: "At that interview what On the 14th the Senate adjourned, on conversation took place between the Presi- account of the sudden illness of Mr. Standent and you in reference to Mr. Stan-bery. It re-assembled on the 15th, but ton?" To this question objection was the proceedings touched wholly upon formade by Mr. Butler, and the point was mal points of procedure and the introducelaborately argued. The Chief Justice tion of unimportant documentary evidence. decided that the question was admissible On the 16th Mr. Sumner moved that all within the vote of the Senate of the pre- evidence not trivial or obviously irrelevant vious day; the question then was as to the shall be admitted, the Senate to judge of admissibility of evidence as to a conversa- its value. This was negatived by a vote tion between the President and General of 23 to 11. Thomas; the present question was as to a The 17th was mainly taken up by testiconversation between the President and mony as to the reliability of the reports of General Sherman. "Both questions," said the President's speeches. Mr. Welles, Secthe Chief Justice, are asked for the pur-retary of the Navy, was then called to tespose of procuring the intent of the President to remove Mr. Stanton." The question being submitted to the Senate, it was decided, by a vote of 28 to 23, that it should not be admitted. The examination of General Sherman was continued, the question of the conversation aforesaid being frequently brought forward, and as often ruled out by the Senate. The only important fact elicited was that the President had twice, on the 25th and 30th of January, tendered to General Sherman the office of Secretary of War ad interim.

On Monday, April 13th, after transactions of minor importance, the general matter of the conversations between the President and General Sherman again came up, upon a question propounded by Senator Johnson-"When the President tendered to you the office of Secretary of War ad interim, did he, at the very time of making such tender, state to you what his purpose in so doing was?" This was admitted by the Senate, by a vote of 26 to 22. Senator Johnson then added to his question, "If he did, what did he state his purpose was?" This was admitted by a vote of 25 to 26. The testimony of General Sherman, relating to several inter

tify to certain proceedings in Cabinet Council at the time of the appointment of General Thomas. This was objected to. The Chief Justice decided that it was admissible, and his decision was sustained by a vote of 26 to 23. The defense then endeavored to introduce several members of the Cabinet, to show that, at meetings previous to the removal of Mr. Stanton, it was considered whether it was not desirable to obtain a judicial determination of the unconstitutionality of the Tenure-ofOffice Act. This question was raised in several shapes, and its admission, after thorough argument on both sides, as often refused, in the last instance by a decisive vote of 30 to 19. The defense considered this testimony of the utmost importance, as going to show that the President had acted upon the counsel of his constitutional advisers, while the prosecution claimed that he could not plead in justification of a violation of the law that he had been advised by his Cabinet, or any one else, that the law was unconstitutional. His duty was to execute the laws, and, if he failed to do this, or violated them, he did so at his own risk of the consequences. With the refusal of this testimony, the

The Republican National Convention met at Chicago, Ill., May 20th, 1868, and nominated with unanimity, Ulysses S. Grant, of Illinois, for President, and Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, for Vice President. The Democratic Convention met in New York City, July 4th, and after repeated ballots finally compromised on its presiding officers,* notwithstanding repeated and ap

* The following is a correct table of the ballots in the New York Democratic Convention:

parently decided declarations on his part, Horatio Seymour, of New York, was therefore nominated for President, and Francis P. Blair, Jr., of Missouri, for Vice President.*

The 41st Congress met in extra session March 4th, 1869, with a large Republican majority in both branches. In the Senate there were 58 Republicans, 10 Democrats and 8 vacancies; in the House 149 Republicans, 64 Democrats and 25 vacancies, Mississippi, Texas, Virginia and Georgia not being represented. James G. Blaine, for several years previous its leading parliamentarian and orator, was Speaker of the House. All of Grant's nominations for Cabinet places were confirmed, except A. T. Stewart, of New York, nominated for Secretary of the Treasury, and being en

An active canvass followed, in which the brief expression-"let us have peace"-in Grant's letter of acceptance, was liberally employed by Republican journals and orators to tone down what were regarded as rapidly growing race and sectional differerences, and with such effect that Grant carried all of the States save eight, receiving an electoral vote of 214 against 80. Grant inaugurated, and the Congres-gaged in foreign commerce he was ineligi sional plan of reconstruction was rapidly pushed, with at first very little opposition save that manifested by the Democrats in Congress. The conditions of readmission were the ratification of the thirteenth and fourteenth constitutional amendments.

66

ble under the law, and his name was withdrawn. The names of the Cabinet will be found in the list of all Cabinet officers elsewhere given. Their announcement at first created the impression that the Grant administration was not intended to be parOn the 25th of February, 1869, the fif- tisan, rather personal, but if there ever teenth amendment was added to the list by was such a purpose, a little political exits adoption in Congress and submission to perience on the part of the President quickthe States. It conferred the right of suf-ly changed it. A political struggle soon frage on all citizens, without distinction of race, color or previous condition of servitude." By the 30th of March, 1870, it was ratified by twenty-nine States, the required three-fourths of all in the Union. There was much local agitation in some of the Northern States on this new advance, and many who had never manifested their hostility to the negroes before did it now, and a portion of these passed over to the Democratic party. The issue, however, was shrewdly handled, and in most instances met Legislatures ready to receive it. Many of the Southern States were specially interested in its passage, since a denial of suffrage would abridge their representation in Congress. This was of course true of all the States, but its force was indisputable in sections containing large colored populations.

followed in Congress as to the admission of Virginia, Mississippi and Texas, which had not ratified the Fourteenth Amendment or been reconstructed. A bill was passed April 10th, authorizing their people to vote on the constitutions already prepared by the State conventions, to elect members of Congress and State officers, and requiring before readmission to the Union, their Legislatures to ratify both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. This work done, and the extra session adjourned.

In all of the Southern States, those who then prided themselves in being "unreconstructed" and "irreconcilable," bitterly opposed both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and on these issues excited new feelings of hostility to the "carpet baggers" and negroes of the South. With the close of the war thousands of North