so, too, it may be slow in decay. Such has been the process here. I will not pretend to say what acts or omissions have broken up this relation. They are hardly susceptible of statement, and still less of formal proof. Nevertheless no one can read the correspondence of the 5th of August without being convinced that this relation was effectually gone on both sides, and that, while the President was unwilling to allow Mr. Stanton to remain in his administration, Mr. Stanton was equally unwilling to allow the President to carry on his administration without his presence. In the great debate which took place in the House of Representatives in 1789, on the first organization of the principal Departments, Mr. Madison spoke as follows:

"It is evidently the intention of the Constitution that the First Magistrate should be responsible for the executive department. So far, therefore, as we do not make the officers who are to aid him in the duties of that department responsible to him, he is not responsible to the country. Again, is there no danger that an officer, when he is appointed by the concurrence of the Senate, and his friends in that body, may choose rather to risk his establishment on the favor of that branch than rest it upon the discharge of his duties to the satisfaction of the executive branch, which is constitutionally authorized to inspect and control his conduct? And if it should happen that the officers connect themselves with the Senate, they may mutually support each other, and for want of efficacy, reduce the power of the President to a mere vapor, in which case his responsibility would be annihilated, and the expectation of it is unjust. The high executive officers joined in cabal with the Senate would lay the foundation of discord, and end in an assumption of the executive power, only to be removed by a revolution of the Government.

Mr. Sedgwick, in the same debate, referring to the proposition that a head of Department should only be removed or suspended by the concurrence of the Senate, uses this language:

"But if proof be necessary, what is then the consequence? Why, in nine cases out of ten, where the case is very clear to the mind of the President that the man ought to be removed, the effect cannot be produced, because it is absolutely impossible to produce the necessary evidence. Are the Senate to proeced without evidence? Some gentlemen contend not. Then the object will be lost. Shall a man, under these circumstances, be saddled upon the President, who has been appointed for no other purpose but to aid the President in performing certain duties? Shall he be continued, I ask again, against the will of the President? If he is, where is the responsibility? Are you to look for it in the President, who has no control over the officer, no power to remove him if he acts unfeelingly or unfaithfully? Without you make him responsible, you weaken and destroy the strength and beauty of your system. What is to be done in cases which can only be known from a long acquaintance with the conduct of an officer?" I had indulged the hope that upon the assembling of Congress Mr. Stanton would have ended this unpleasant complication according to the intimation given in his note of August 12. The duty which I have felt myself called upon to perform was by no means agreeable; but I feel that I am not responsible for the controversy, or for the consequences.

Unpleasant as this necessary change in my Cabinet has been to me, upon personal considerations, I have the consolation to be assured that, so far as the public interests are involved, there is no cause for regret. Salutary reforms have been introduced by the Secretary ad interim, and great reductions of expenses have been effected under his administration of its War Department, to the saving of millions to the Treasury.

ANDREW JOHNSON.
WASHINGTON, December 12, 1867.

EXHIBIT C.

Address to the President by Hon. Reverdy Johnson, August 18, 1866.

Mr. PRESIDENT: We are before you as a committee of the National Union Convention, which met in Philadelphia, on Tuesday, the 14th instant, charged with the duty of presenting you with an authentic copy of its proceedings.

Before placing it in your hands, you will permit us to congratulate you that in the object for which the convention was called, in the enthusiasm with which in every State and Territory the call was responded to, in the unbroken harmony of its deliberations, in the unanimity with which the principles it has declared were adopted, and more especially in

the patriotic and constitutional character of the principles themselves, we are confident that you and the country will find gratifying and cheering evidence that there exists among the people a public sentiment which renders an early and complete restoration of the Union as established by the Constitution certain and inevitable. Party faction, seeking the continuance of its misrule, may momentarily delay it, but the principles of political liberty, for which our fathers successfully contended, and to secure which they adopted the Constitution, are so glaringly inconsistent with the condition in which the country has been placed by such misrule, that it will not be permitted a much longer duration.

We wish, Mr. President, you could have witnessed the spirit of concord and brotherly affection which animated every member of the convention. Great as your confidence has ever been in the intelligence and patriotism of your fellow-citizens, in their deep devotion to the Union, and their present determination to reinstate and maintain it, that confidence would have become a positive conviction could you have seen and heard all that was done and said upon the occasion. Every heart was evidently full of joy, every eye beamed with patriotic animation; despondency gave place to the assurance that, our late dreadful civil strife ended, the blissful reign of peace, under the protection not of arms, but of the Constitution and laws, would have sway, and be in every part of our land cheerfully acknowledged and in perfect good faith obeyed. You would not have doubted that the recurrence of dangerous domestic insurrections in the future is not to be apprehended.

If you could have seen the men of Massachusetts and South Carolina coming into the convention on the first day of its meeting hand in hand, amid the rapturous applause of the whole body, awakened by heart-felt gratification at the event, filling the eyes of thousands with tears of joy, which they neither could nor desired to repress, you would have felt as every person present felt, that the time had arrived when all sectional or other perilous dissensions had ceased, and that nothing should be heard in the future but the voice of harmony proclaiming devotion to a common country, of pride in being bound together by a common Union, existing and protected by forms of government proved by experience to be eminently fitted for the exigencies of either war or peace.

In the principles announced by the convention and in the feeling there manifested, we have every assurance that harmony throughout our entire land will soon prevail. We know that, as in former days, as was eloquently declared by Webster, the nation's most gifted statesman, Massachusetts and South Carolina went "shoulder to shoulder through the Revolution," and stood hand in hand around the administration of Washington, and felt his own great arm lean on them for support," so will they again, with like magnanimity, devotion, and power stand round your Administration, and cause you to feel that you may also lean on them for support.

In the proceedings, Mr. President, which we are to place in your hands, you will find that the convention performed the grateful duty imposed upon them by their knowledge of your "devotion to the Constitution and laws and interests of your country," as illustrated by your entire presidential career, of declaring that in you they “recognize a Chief Magistrate worthy of the nation and equal to the great crisis upon which your lot is cast;" and in this declaration it gives us marked pleasure to add, we are confident that the convention has but spoken the intelligent and patriotic sentiment of the country.. Ever inaccessible to the low influences which often control the mere partisan, governed alone by an honest opinion of constitutional obligations and rights, and of the duty of looking solely to the true interests, safety, and honor of the nation, such a class is incapable of resorting to any bait for popu larity at the expense of the public good.

In the measures which you have adopted for

the restoration of the Union the convention saw only a continuance of the policy which for the same purpose was inaugurated by your immediate predecessor. In his reëlection by the people, after that policy had been fully indicated and had been made one of the issues of the contest, those of his political friends who are now assailing you for sternly pursuing it are forgetful or regardless of the opinions which their support of his reëlection necessarily involved. Being upon the same ticket with that much-lamented public servant, whose foul assassination touched the heart of the civilized world with grief and horror, you would have been false to obvious duty if you had not endeavored to carry out the same policy; and, judging now by the opposite one which Congress has pursued, its wisdom and patriotism are indicated by the fact that that of Congress has but continued a broken Union by keeping ten of the States in which at one time the insurrection existed (as far as they could accomplish it) in the condition of subjugated provinces, denying to them the right to be represented, while subjecting their people to every species of legislation, including that of taxation. That such a state of things is at war with the very genius of our Government, inconsistent with every idea of political freedom, and most perilous to the peace and safety of thr country, no reflecting man can fail to believe.

We hope, sir, that the proceedings of the convention will cause you to adhere, if possi ble, with even greater firmness to the course which you are pursuing, by satisfying you that the people are with you, and that the wish which lies nearest to their heart is that a perfect restoration of our Union at the earliest moment be attained, and a conviction that the result can only be accomplished by the meas ures which you are pursuing. And in the discharge of the duties which these impose upon you we, as did every member of the convention, again for ourselves individually tender to you our profound respect and assurance of our cordial and sincere support.

With a reunited Union, with no foot but that of a freeman treading or permitted to tread our soil, with a nation's faith pledged forever to a strict observance of all its obligations, with kindness and fraternal love everywhere prevailing, the desolations of war will soon be removed; its sacrifices of life, sad as they have been, will, with Christian resignation, be referred to a providential purpose of fixing our beloved country on a firm and enduring basis, which will forever place our liberty and happiness beyond the reach of human peril. Then, too, and forever, will our Government challenge the admiration and receive the respect of the nations of the world, and be in no danger of any efforts to impeach our honor.

And permit me, sir, in conclusion, to add, that, great as your solicitude for the restoration of our domestic peace and your labors to that end, you have also a watchful eye to the rights of the nation, and that any attempt by an assumed or actual foreign power to enforce an illegal blockade against the Government or cit izens of the United States, to use your own mild but expressive words, "will be disallowed." In this determination I am sure you will receive the unanimous approval of your fellow-citizens.

Now, sir, as the chairman of this committee, and in behalf of the convention, I have the honor to present you with an authentic copy of its proceedings.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Senators, you have heard the answer submitted by the counsel for the President of the United States. Those of you who are in favor of receiving and ordering this answer to be filed will say “ay," and those who are of the contrary opinion will say "no." [Having put the question.] It is so ordered; the answer is received and will be filed.

Mr. Manager BOUTWELL. Mr. President and gentlemen of the Senate, in behalf of the House of Representatives, and as directed by the Managers, I have the honor to request of the honorable Senate a copy of the answer filed

by Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, to the articles of impeachment presented against him by the House of Representatives, and to say that it is the expectation of the Managers that they will be able at one o'clock tomorrow afternoon, after consultation with the House, to present a fit replication to the answer filed.

Mr. EVARTS. Mr. Chief

and Sen

ators, the counsel for the Justice think it proper, unless some objection should now be made, to bring to the attention of the honorable court the matter of provision for the allowance of the time for preparation for the trial which shall be accorded to the President and his counsel after the replication of the House of Representatives to the answer of the President shall have been submitted to this court. In the application, which was made on the 13th instant, for time for the preparation and submission of the answer, as then presented to the court, we had included in our consideration of that time for which we so asked the expectation and intention of carrying on with all due diligence and at one and the same time the preparation of the answer and the preparation for the trial. The action of the court and its determination of the time within which the answer should properly be presented has obliged us, as may be well understood by this court, to devote our whole time and thought in this brief interval to the preparation of the answer; and we have had no time to consider the various questions of law and of fact and of evidence and the forms and means of the production of the same which rest upon the responsibility and lie within the duty of counsel in all matters of forensic and judicial consideration. We, therefore, if the honorable court please, submit now a request that the President and his counsel may be allowed the period of thirty days after the filing of the replication on the part of the House of Representatives to the answer of the President for preparation for the trial and before it shall actually proceed; and I beg leave to send to the Chief Justice a written minute of that proposition signed by the counsel,

The CHIEF JUSTICE. It is not for the present in order. The question before the Senate is the motion submitted on the part of the Managers of the impeachment, that a copy of the answer be furnished to the House of Representatives, and that the House have time to file a replication.

The motion of the Managers on the part of the House was agreed to.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair will now receive any motion on the part of the counsel for the President.

Mr. EVARTS. I now beg to ask for the action of this honorable court upon the presentation in writing of a request for thirty days after the filing of the replication for the defense to prepare for the trial.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will report the order asked on the part of the counsel for the President.

The Secretary read as follows: To the Senate of the United States

sitting as a Court of Impeachment : And now, on this 23d day of March, in the year 1868, the counsel for the President of the United States, upon reading and filing his answer to the articles of impeachment exhibited against him, respectfully represent to this honorable court that after the replication shall have been filed to the said answer, the due and proper preparation of and for the trial of the cause will require, in the opinion and judgment of such counsel, that a period of not less than thirty days should be allowed to the President of the United States and his counsel for such preparation, and before the said trial should proceed. HENRY STANBERY,

B. R. CURTIS,

THOMAS A. R. NELSON, WILLIAM M. EVARTS, W. S. GROESBECK,

Of Counsel.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, if it be in order I will now move that that application lie upon the table until the replication of the House of Representatives shall come in.

Mr. Manager BINGHAM. Mr. President, before the vote is taken I ask leave to state that, if it be the pleasure of the Senate, the Managers on the part of the House are ready to consider this "PUSTICE. application now.

Senators, it is moved by the Senator from Michigan that the application on the part of the counsel for the President lie upon the table until the replication shall be filed.

Mr. HOWARD. I withdraw that motion for the moment if the Managers wish to be heard.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator from Michigan withdraws his motion. Do the Managers desire to be heard?

Mr. Manager LOGAN. Mr. President and Senators, I am instructed by the Managers on the part of the House of Representatives to resist the granting of this application, not on account of the time at which it is presented, but for the reason that it does not contain such matter as in our opinion will justify the Senate in giving further time for preparation on the part of the respondent's counsel for the trial of this cause. We do not desire to force this trial any more rapidly than the necessities of the case demand, but desire that such rules as have heretofore been observed, or as would be observed in a court at law, may be adhered to in the testing of the sufficiency of this application. What reasons are given in the application here presented for the time to be extended? None more than that counsel shall have an opportunity to prepare themselves for oratorical displays before this august body. They have had the same opportunites that the Managers on the part of the House of Representatives have had for preparation. They can and will have the same during the whole progress of this trial. It is not stated that any witness who will prove any material fact is not present, or whose presence cannot any day be procured. It is not stated that delay is necessary for the procurement of records, documents, persons, or papers material or immaterial in this case. Why, then, Mr. President, grant further time when no good cause under the rule is shown? The answer herein filed admits the order of removal of the Secretary of War and the order appointing a Secretary ad interim. The President knew what the law was when these orders were made, and knowing it violated it, for which violation we charge him with high misdemeanors in office. In the many trials we have reported in this and other countries this application has no precedent.

In the case of Judge Chase his application stated, in substance, that it was not in his power to obtain information respecting facts alleged against him to have taken place in Philadelphia and Richmond, in time to prepare and put in his answer and proceed to trial before the 5th day of March then next following; and further that he could not get his witnesses or counsel nor prepare his answer at the same time, disclaiming that this was done for delay. This application was sworn to by the respondent; he was given time, and the facts show that his answer was filed and his trial had, and he acquitted in five days' less time than he swore it would take him to prepare for trial.

In Judge Peck's case his application stated his difficulties in obtaining witnesses, the distance they lived from Washington, the time it would require them to travel from St. Louis to Washington, the necessity for copying and obtaining records; that four years had elapsed since the transpiring of the acts complained of against him. This application was also sworn

to.

If the learned counsel remember the trial of Queen Caroline before the Parliament of Great Britain, when time was granted for the procurement of evidence the learned attorney general then and there protested against this granting of time becoming a precedent for any future trial, this application being granted

merely through courtesy to the queen, when witnesses were deemed absolutely necessary to protect, if possible, her reputation. This application differs in form and substance from any that our attention has been directed to, made by the counsel, signed by themselves, and sworn to by no one.

Mr. President, the rule in courts of law in applications for a continuance of the cause or the extension of time, is that reasons good and sufficient must be stated; if for want of a witness or witnesses you must give the name or names, the residence, and what you expect to prove by said witness or witnesses, and that you know of no other witnesses present by whom you can prove the same facts, and also that you have used due diligence to procure the evidence. This application certainly does not come under that rule. No evidence is stated that is expected to be produced. The name of no witness is given that is expected to be subpoenaed. No distance is mentioned that must be traveled. No residence is mentioned. It is not stated that any attempt has been made to obtain any evidence or to even have witnesses subpoenaed. But, sir, for what is this application made, and upon what is it based? It is based upon no urgent necessity for time, that justice may be done in the premises, but merely indicates to the Senate that time is desired to examine authorities, to prepare arguments, and for naught else can we discover that it is made.

Sirs, we insist, as Managers on the part of the House of Representatives and the people, that no more time shall be given in this case than is absolutely necessary to try it; there is no necessity for the extension for counsel to prepare on either side; none for the procurement of witnesses, as none has been asked on that ground. If time be now given on this application, perhaps when issue is joined and the time now extended elapses we may be met by an affidavit asking more time for the procurement of witnesses in some distant part of the country. In my judgment time should not be granted for the trial of the President of the United States on any different application from that required to give time for the trial of the poorest and humblest citizen in the land; he should be tried by the same rules and held amenable to the same laws that apply to any other citizen. Let it not be said that no harm may come to the country by postponement of this cause. If we are correct in our charges against him harm may come by a postponement.

We have charged him with intentionally violating the law; we have charged him with obstructing the law. Our charges are of such a character as show him to be a dangerous person to remain the Chief Magistrate of the nation, inasmuch as he, instead of administering obstructs the law. It is said that time would be given to an ordinary criminal to prepare his defense. I may be pardoned for saying that we, as the Managers on the part of the House and the country, consider the President a criminal, but not an ordinary one. We charge him as a criminal, and are bound to so consider him until, by the verdict of his triers, he shall be acquitted of all the articles herein presented. The learned counsel for the respondent do not agree with us in this; nor do we ask the Senate to so adjudge until our charges are made good by competent testimony. The course in the case of ordinary criminals who commit crimes or misdemeanors is, or may be, different from the course in this case. But, sir, ordinary criminals are either arrested and put under bonds or imprisoned, that no further violations of law may be committed by them during the pendency of their trial. But, sir, in this case the President, who is charged with violating the law, has the same power to act to-day and still trample the laws and the Constitution under foot that he had the day we charged him with having committed these high crimes and misdemeanors; hence the reasons for not granting time in this case are stronger than could be urged in the case of an ordinary criminal.

In the one case you would give time where no danger might arise from doing so; but in this case danger to the people might arise, and hence the same reasoning does not operate in this that does in the case of an ordinary criminal; and we here enter our protest against any extension of time whatever in this case. What we desire is that the replication of the Managers may be filed to-morrow at one o'clock, and then we may be permitted to state our case to the Senate acting as a court of impeachment, and that we may follow it up with the evidence, and that the counsel for the respondent may then state their defense and produce their evidence, and that on the issue thus made the court may decide as to the guilt or innocence of the party accused.

This is what we ask, and this is what we have a right to expect. I presume no man will doubt that if an application of this kind were made to a court at law, the inquiry would be: "Have you issued your subpoenas; have you attempted to get your witnesses; have you attempted to make any preparation to try the cause?" And if the counsel would answer that they had made no preparation whatever; that they had issued no subpoenas; had made no attempt to procure witnesses or get ready for the trial of the cause, but merely desired time for thought and reflection, the application would certainly be denied. And against the granting of this, not made upon the oath of any person, not signed by the President, and merely intended for the benefit of counsel, we, the Managers, in the name of the House of Representatives and the whole people of this Republic, do most solemnly protest.

Mr. EVARTS. Mr. President, I may be allowed very briefly to call the attention of this honorable court to the attitude of the cause before them, as we conceive it to be. Other courts, except such as are called for a special trial upon a special and limited authority, have established regulations guarding the rights of defendants, either in civil or in criminal prosecutions, with established terms of court and well recognized and understood habits of the conduct of judicial business. In our estimate of the course of this proceeding before this honorable court we have not yet arrived at a time when it was the duty of counsel or was at the charge of the accused to know or consider what the issues were upon which he was to prepare on his side or expect on the other the production of proofs. Beyond that, we feel no occasion to present by affidavit to this honorable court a matter so completely within its cognizance that our time to plead was fixed so as to offer us but eight working days for that duty of counsel.

Obedient to the orders of the court, observant, as we propose at all times to be, of that public necessity and duty which require on the part of the President of the United States and his counsel, not less than on the part of the House of Representatives and its Managers, that dili gence should be used, and that we his counsel should be withdrawn from all other professional or personal avocations, we yet cannot recog nize in the presence of this court that that is an answer to an application for reasonable time to consider and prepare, to subpoena and produce, in all things to arrange and in all things to be ready, for the actual procedure of the trial. Nor, with great respect to the honorable Managers in this great procedure, do we esteem it a sufficient answer to our desire to be relieved from undue pressure of haste upon our part that equal pressure of haste may have been used on the other. We do not so understand the question of the just and orderly protection of public interests as that this compensation for haste required from the defendant may be demanded by equal haste being necessary on the part of the prosecution.

But, beyond this, the honorable Managers give us more professional credit than we are entitled to when they assume to say that our standard of our duty and our means and our needs for properly performing it are necessarily to be measured by theirs. Nor do they sulli

ciently attend, as I say with great respect, to the position of the accused and his counsel in reference to the preparation of a defense with that which is occupied by the Managers and by the House of Representatives in reference to the explorations and the provision and the preparation of the accusation and of its evidence; for during a very considerable period, with the coercive power of summoning wit nesses and calling for papers which rightfully belongs to the House of Representatives, all this matter upon the one side and the other, to a certain extent, may have been actually explored by them, and, as is known, to a very great extent, certainly has been.

Now, if this honorable court will give the counsel for the President of the United States due respect in regard to the position in which we present ourselves, due respect to our statement, it will understand that up to this time the consideration of the degree and measure, of the means and occasions, for proof has not yet possibly received our practical and responsible attention, and that within the limits of this accusation, unless it shall be narrowed more than we expect by the replication to be filed, there may be, there must be, a very considerable range of subjects and a very considerable variety of practical considerations that will need to come under the responsible judgment and for the responsible action of counsel.

It would seem to me that we are placed thus far in the attitude of a defendant in a civil or in a public prosecution who upon the issue joined desires time to prepare for trial. The ordinary course in such a case is that as matter of right, as matter of absolute and universal custom, one is not required or expected to give any cause of actual obstruction and difficulty in reference to a continuance to what is the term of the court, doubtless in most cases to occur within a brief period after the issue is joined. This court having no such arrangement and no such possible arrangement of its affairs in advance, we are obliged at each stage of regular proceeding to ask your attention as to what you will provide and consider in the particular case is, according to the general nature of the procedure and the understood attitude of both parties to it, a just and reasonable proposition to be made by us as to the time that should be allowed for the preparation in all respects for this trial after the issue shall have been joined. We do not ask any more time than in the interest of justice and duty under the actual circumstances of this case should be given to the poorest man in the country. The measure of justice and of duty has no respect whatever to poverty or station. The actual nature of the proceeding, the actual circumstances of the case are to furnish the rule for the exercise of whatever falls within the discretion of the court. If during the trial, on the part of the Managers, it should appear that, by accident or by any other just excuse, the attendance of a proper witness on their part was required, it would be the duty of this court, in the administration of justice, to allow proper time and delay for the production of the witness. And so, upon our part, if, foreseen or unforeseen, such an occasion should arise, it would be a necessary duty of the court to take it into consideration and provide for it as the occasion arose. The proposition that we now make to the court, and, unless there is to be a departure from the general habit of all courts in such a predicament of a procedure, what we expect their action according to and upon is this: that after issue joined we should have a reasonable time before we should be considered as bound to be in the condition of preparation for the proceeding in the cause.

Mr. Manager WILSON. Mr. President and Senators, the Managers on the part of the House of Representatives have determined, so far as may lie in their power, that this case shall not be taken out of the line of the precedents; therefore it is that we will resist all applications for unreasonable delay. The counsel for the respondent who has just taken his seat might well, in view of the remarks

which he submitted, have waited until issue joined before presenting this motion; but it is here, and we are prepared here and now to take the motion as we find it, and deal with it as its form and merit of substance require.

It will be remembered that the first step taken by the counsel for the respondent on the 13th instant was in violation of the precedent established by the cases which have been tried by the Senate of the United States. Looking into the case of Judge Chase, we find that on the return day of the summons he appeared and made application for time to answer; but he did not stop at this; he coupled with his motion for time to answer a request for time to prepare for his trial. He supported his application by his solemn affidavit stating that he could not possibly prepare his case for trial before the 5th day of the succeeding March, and therefore he asked an allowance of time for preparation for trial until the commencement of the next session of Congress, as the then session would expire on the 4th day of that month.

After

In his application he disclosed the necessities inducing his request, among which were the distances lying between the capital and the places where he was to ascertain the facts and circumstances necessary for his defense and to find the witnesses to support it. due consideration the Senate overruled his application and required him to answer on the 4th day of the succeeding February, thus allowing him, both for answer and preparation, thirty days instead of eleven months, as prayed for in his motion. And what was the result in that case? Why, that on the 1st day of March succeeding, four days before the time which he stated in his affidavit would be required for him to prepare for trial, the cause had been tried on such perfect preparation that it resulted in the acquittal of the respondent. The Senate judged better than he of the difficulties of his case and of the time required to overcome them. So in the case of Judge Peck, when he appeared on the return day of the writ, it having been served on him but three days prior to the return, he made his joint application for time to answer and time to prepare for trial, and supported it by his solemn affidavit. He was granted the time he desired to prepare his answer when, by an adjournment of Congress, his case went over for trial until the next session.

But we have had no such course pursued in this case. On the return day of the summons, notwithstanding the rule of the Senate required on that day and at that time the filing of the answer, we were met first with an application for forty days' leave in which to prepare an answer. The honorable Senate allowed ten days; and now, at the expiration of that time, we find a most elaborate answer presented by the counsel for the respondent; and in it is embodied the strongest argument against any delay in this case that has come from any source or is known to any person; and that is, that the respondent, by his answer, affirms as lying within his rightful powers under the Constitution, the right to do the very acts which we have charged against him at the bar of this Senate as criminal acts, and persists in his defiance of the laws and in the wickedness of the course which the Representatives of the people have challenged. That might not be a weighty consideration in an ordinary case. It might not weigh much if, instead of the present respondent, we had some other officer of the Government charged at the bar of the Senate with the offenses enumerated in the articles to which he has this day answered.

But in this case it is of weight, and should have due consideration. Why is it of weight? Because the respondent has devolved on him not only the duty which rests upon the citizen to obey the law, but also the higher duty to execute the law, and is clothed by the Constitution of the country with the whole executive power of the nation, that he may be enabled to discharge faithfully the duty thus imposed. He has not, in the judgment of the House of

Representatives, discharged this duty as his oath of office requires, but has disregarded the law and defied its authority. For his failure to discharge it, for his acts of positive transgression of the laws of the land, he is arraigned at the bar of the Senate, and presenting answer, justifies the acts which make up his grave offenses, claims the right to repeat and extend them, and now asks for time that he may further imperil the nation while he endeavors to make good his unlawful assumptions of power, in the meantime holding in his hands, under and by virtue of the Constitution, the executive power of the Republic. No provision having been made for its temporary surrender, he retains that power, disturbing the repose of the country and interfering with every interest of business and trade and commerce, by prolonging this unfortunate conflict between the two departments of the Government.

Mr. President and Senators, we feel it to be our most solemn duty to urge upon you, in the name of the Representatives of the people, and of the people themselves, that speedy progress toward a conclusion of this case which shall guard the rights and the interests of the people, their laws and their government, and at the same time observe with reasonable care the rights belonging to the respondent. The present application for delay is without precedent in the cases heretofore tried by the Senate; and were it not for the order adopted by this body on the 13th instant, which now must be regarded as a rule, this application could not be made, as that rule is the only thing which takes this case out of the line of precedents to which I have referred. It should have been coupled with the other motion made before the adoption of the rule, and the whole case so far as respects causes of delays in this proceeding • disclosed at the threshold. The following order constitutes the rule to which I refer:

"Ordered, That unless otherwise ordered by the Senate for cause shown, the trial of the pending impeachment shall proceed immediately after replication shall be filed."

Now, I submit that the "cause shown" in this application is not such cause as will justify the Senate in the exercise of a sound discretion in granting the time which has been asked for by the respondent to enable him to prepare for trial. It does not show cause of substance, and presents mere questions of convenience.

Mr. HOWARD. Will the Manager please read that order again?

Mr. Manager WILSON. Ordered, That unless otherwise ordered by the Senate for cause shown, the trial of the pending impeach ment shall proceed immediately after replica tion shall be filed."

It will be observed-the interruption suggests it to my mind-that in view of this rule the Senate cannot, with due regard to its own action, grant this extension of time, because a sound discretion cannot be exercised under the rule and upon this application until issue be joined between the people and their Representatives and the respondent, though we waive this objection in the interest of the economy of time. But, as I have said, this application, considered now or at any other time, must be addressed to the sound discretion of the Senate, and it is for us to remember that a sound discretion acts not without rule to guide it. The discretion to which such motions are addressed must be directed by law-"it must be governed by rule, not by humor; it must not be arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and regular.'

And I therefore deny that the application and the statements therein contained do or can convey to the mind of this Senate that view of this case which must be presented by the respondent in order to justify you in saying, upon the exercise of a sound discretion, that one hour's delay should be granted; for there is nothing of a substantive character affecting the merits of the case disclosed upon which it

can act.

What is the application? It is substantially that counsel have not had time to prepare and

become familiar with the case, therefore they must be allowed opportunity to educate themselves in the particular matter committed to their charge. I apprehend that that is not good cause upon which this Senate may act and grant the prayer of this present application. More than that, it will be observed that the respondent has been carefully kept out of this case on these motions. In all other cases in this country of which I have any knowledge, the respondent has asked in his own name, supporting his request by his affidavit, for delay of proceedings; judges summoned from the bench and brought to this bar have presented their petitions in person, supported by their solemn affidavits, and asked upon the facts stated by them, covering and disclosing all of the features of their cases, and unfolding their line of defense, a reasonable time in which to prepare answer and to prepare for trial. But it is not so here; and we have to ask that while this case is thus kept out of the ordinary rule and uniform practice of former cases, the Senate will regard in some degree the voice of the Representatives as presented by the Managers, and put this respondent upon his speedy trial, to the end that peace may be restored to the country by the healing efficacy of a determination of this prosecution-the restoration of harmony between the two contending departments of the Government, and to the further end that all things may again move on in this land as they were accustomed in the times before this unfortunate conflict and its disturbing results occurred. Therefore, Senators, in the name of the House of Representatives, and of the people in whose names they have acted in this behalf, we ask that this application, as it is now presented and considered, may be denied by the Senate.

Mr. STANBERY. Mr. Chief Justice, on the 13th instant, when we entered our appearance, and when we supposed we had nothing to do but to enter our appearance and ask for time to answer, the honorable court made an order that we should have until the 23d, this day, to file our answer. They gave to the Managers leave to file replication, without limiting them at all as to time, but provided that upon the filing of the replication the case should proceed to trial unless reasonable cause should be shown for further delay. Then the honorable court meant us to have time to prepare for trial if we reasonably showed that it

was necessary.

Now, what has happened, Mr. Chief Justice? What has been stated to this honorable court, composed in a great measure of members of the bar, by members of the bar that I hope have sufficient standing with this court to have some credit, at least, for professional statements made upon their honor? What have we stated? That since we had this leave every hour and every moment has been occupied with the pleadings; not an instant lost, not a counsel absent. We have refused all other occupation; we have devoted ourselves exclusively to this day and night, and I am sorry to be obliged to say two days sacred to other duty. There has been not a moment's delay. And how has this time been occupied, Mr. Chief Justice? Occupied, every instant of it, in the preparation of this answer. Allow me to say to the honorable court that it was not until fifteen minutes before we came here that our document was ready.

Certainly it was intended on the 13th to give us time not merely to prepare our answer, but to prepare for that still more material thing, the trial. And now I hope I shall obtain credit with the honorable court when I say that we have been so pressed with this duty of making up the issue and preparing the answer that we have not had an opportunity of asking the President "What witnesses will you have?" Nay, we have been so pressed that to the communications which we have received from the honorable Managers in regard to admissions and to facilitate proof we have been obliged to say, in reply, "We have not, gentlemen, as yet, a moment's time to consider your com

munications." All we know of this case is that it refers to transactions not only here, but at Cleveland and St. Louis, at distant points. They have sent us a list of witnesses who are to come from these various places as to matters in regard to which they expect to make proof against us as to what was said and done at those places, and as yet I do not know a single witness whom the President wants to call in his defense. I know that he wants to call witnesses, but I have not yet had an opportunity of knowing who those witnesses are. We have not subpoenaed one. We do not know the name of any one except those who happen to live here whom we shall want, nor which of

them.

I

Now mark, all this time the advantage that the honorable Managers have had over us. As understand it, and I suppose it will not be denied, almost every day since they have been engaged in the preparation for the trial. Their articles were framed long ago. While we were engaged in preparing our answer they have been, as I understand, most industriously engaged in preparing the witnesses. Day after day witnesses have been called before them and testimony taken. We have had no such power; we have had no such opportunity-not the slightest. We are here without any preparation in the way of witnesses, without having had a moment to consult with our client or among ourselves.

The gentlemen say that our anxiety is to prepare ourselves, whereas they are already pre pared, completely prepared, so far as counsel need prepare themselves. I am very happy to hear that they are. I should be very far from saying that I am equally prepared. I have had no time to look to anything else except this necessary and all-absorbing duty which we have just completed. Now, if the Senate say we shall go on when this replication comes in, which, I am told, is to come in to-morrow, they will put me in a position that I have never been in before in all my practice anywhere, with a client and a case and a formidable array against me, and yet not a witness summoned, not a document prepared-all unarmed and defenseless.

I beg this honorable court to treat us with some leniency, to give us time. If you cannot give us all we ask give us, at least, some time within which, by the utmost diligence, we can make that preparation we deem to be useful, and without which we are unsafe and unprepared.

The gentlemen complain that we ought to have been ready on the 13th. They read against us a rule that that was the day fixed for not only the appearance but the filing of the answer. What! They read out of a rule that old formula that has come down to us for five hundred years, the order to " appear and answer" the same language which was adopted at that early time when pleadings were ore tenus and by parol, when the defendant was called and answered immediately. But even our old independent and sturdy ancestors would not answer on that day, although they were to answer by word of mouth; and we know that always they demanded time and always had time, "leave to imparl" a day

to answer.

We have preserved the same phraseology in our subsequent proceedings. The summons is still to a defendant "You are hereby summoned to appear on such a day and answer;" but whoever supposed he was then to file his answer? What lawyer that ever wrote a declaration does not recollect the beginning of it, "The defendant was summoned to appear and answer;" and yet every lawyer knows that the time for the defendant's answer has not yet come. Well, our answer has been presented, No day has yet peremptorily been fixed for trial. The Senate said to us, "You shall go to trial when the replication is filed, provided you do not show good cause." The cause we show is, may it please the honorable court, that we have not had one moment's time to prepare for trial.

Mr. HOWARD and Mr. Manager BINGHAM rose.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator from Michigan.

Mr. Manager BINGHAM. On the part of the Managers I beg to respond to what has just been said.

Mr. HOWARD. I beg to call the attention of the President to the rules that govern the body.

Mr. Manager BINGHAM. I will only say that we have used but thirty-five of the minutes of the time allowed us under the rule.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair announced at the last sitting that he would not undertake to restrict counsel as to number without the further order of the Senate, the rule not being very intelligible to him. He will state further that when counsel make a motion to the court the counsel who makes the motion has invariably the right to close the argument upon it.

Several SENATORS. Certainly.

Mr. Manager BINGHAM. Mr. President, with all respect touching the suggestion just made by the presiding officer of the Senate, I beg leave to remind the Senate, and I am instructed to do so by my associate Managers, that from time immemorial in proceedings of this kind the right of the Commons in Eng. land, and of the Representatives of the people in the United States, to close the debate has not been, by any rule, settled against them. On the contrary, in Lord Melville's case, if I may be allowed and pardoned for making reference to it, the last case, I believe, reported in England, Lord Erskine presiding, when the very question was made which has now been submitted by the presiding officer to the Senate, one of the managers of the House of Commons arose in his place and said he owed

the lips of the counsel for the accused, but deem it my duty not to proceed without the consent of the Senate, inasmuch as the presiding officer has already suggested to the Senate that the Managers could not be further heard; in other words, could not be permitted to make a final reply.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The motion of the Senator from Michigan is that

Mr. Manager BOUTWELL. Mr. President, will the Chair pardon me?

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Certainly.

Mr. Manager BOUTWELL. This seems to the Managers, and to myself especially, a matter of so much moment as to whether the Managers are to be heard finally

Mr. HOWARD. Excuse me a moment. It was not my intention to cut off debate or discussion on the part of the Managers or the counsel for the accused; and so I announced. If there is any desire on the part of either to proceed with the discussion, I withdraw my motion to lay the order on the table.

Mr. Manager BINGHAM. Now, Mr. President, if it be the pleasure of the SenateMr. JOHNSON. I ask for the reading of the twentieth rule.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The rule will be read.

The Secretary read rule twenty, as follows:

20. All preliminary or interlocutory questions, and all motions, shall be argued for not exceeding one hour on each side, unless the Senate shall by order extend the time."

Mr. Manager BINGHAM. We have used but thirty-five minutes of our time.

Mr. GRIMES. What is the question? The CHIEF JUSTICE. Do the managers desire to proceed?

Mr. Manager BINGHAM. Yes, sir; with the leave.

to prepare for trial. I take it that the counsel for the accused have quite as much time for preparation if this trial shall proceed to-morrow as have the Managers on behalf of the House of Representatives, who are charged by the people with duties from day to day in the other end of the Capitol which they are not permitted to lay aside.

But, sir, I think upon the answer made here this day by the President of the United States, unless very good cause be shown, and that, too, under the obligation of his own oath at the bar of this Senate, not another hour's continuance should be allowed him after the case shall have been put at issue. We ask leave to suggest to the Senate that we hoped on to-mor row, by leave of the people's Representatives, to put this case at issue by filing a replication. That is all the delay we desire. The accused has had the opportunity for process ever since the 13th instant, at least. He is guilty of grave negligence in this behalf-I do not speak of the counsel; I speak of the accused. If he had witnesses to subpoena why was he not about it? And yet, sir, not a single summons has been required by him under the rule and order of the Senate to bring to its bar a single witness to testify in his behalf. He totally neglects the whole issue, and comes here with an attempt at a confession and avoidance of the matter presented by the House of Representatives, and tells this Senate and tells the country that he defies their power, trifling-I repeat it in the hearing of the Senate-trifling with the great power which the people for wise purposes have placed in the hands of their Representatives and their Senators in Congress assembled..

Why, sir, what is this power of impeachment worth if the President of the United States, holding whole executive power of

na

memorial usage being denied to the Commons of England to be heard in reply to whatever might be said on behalf of the accused at the bar of the Peers. In that case the language of the manager, Mr. Giles, was:

My lords, it was not my intention to trouble your lordships with any observations upon the arguments you have heard; and if I now do so, it is only for the sake of insisting upon and maintaining that right which the Commons contend is their acknowledged and undoubted privilege, the right of being heard after the counsel for the defendant has made his observations in reply. It has been invariably admitted when required."-State Trials, vol. 29, p.762; 44 to 46 George III.

Lord Erskine "responded the right of the Commons to reply was never doubted or disputed."

Following the suggestion of the learned gentleman who has just taken his seat, I believe that when that utterance was made it had been the continued rule in England for nearly five hundred years.

In this tribunal, in the first case of impeachment that ever was tried before the Senate of the United States under the Constitution, (I refer to the case of Blount,) the Senate will sce by a reference to it that although the accused had the affirmative of the issue, although he interposed a plea to the jurisdiction, the argument was closed in the case by the manager of the House, Mr. Harper. (Wharton's State Trials of the United States, pp. 314-15.)

When I rose, however, at the time the honorable Senator spoke, I rose for the purpose of making some response to the remarks last made for the accused; but as the presiding officer has interposed the suggestion to the Senate whether the Managers can further reply I do not deem it proper for me to proceed further until the Senate shall pass upon this question.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, if the discussion is closed on the part of the Managers, and the counsel

Mr. Manager BINGHAM. I desire to have the question submitted.

Mr. HOWARD. I was about to move that this motion be laid on the table.

Mr. Manager BINGHAM. I desire, if the Senator from Michigan will excuse me, to be heard in response to what has just fallen from

that the counsel for the accused have made any intimation here that question is made or intended to be made by the Managers touching the entire sincerity with which they act before this tribunal. I am sure that it was furthest from the purpose of my associates, as I know it was entirely foreign to any purpose of mine, to question for a moment their sincerity. The gentleman who took his seat spoke of their having presented this application upon their honor.

No man questions their honor; no man who knows them will question their honor; but we may be pardoned for saying that it is unusual, altogether unusual, on questions of this sort to allow continuances to be obtained upon a mere point of honor! The rule of the Senate, which was adopted on the 13th instant, is a rule well understood, and is in the language of the ordinary rule which obtains in courts of law; that is to say, the trial shall proceed, upon replication filed, except, for cause shown, further time be allowed.

I submit that a question of this magnitude has never been decided upon a mere presentation of a statement of counsel, in this country or in any country. To speak more plainly, a motion for continuance arising on a question of this sort, I venture to say, has never been decided affirmatively upon such an issue on a mere statement of counsel. If Andrew Johnson, the accused at this bar, has witnesses that were not within the process of this court up to this day, but whose attendance he can hope to procure if time be allowed him, he can make affidavit before this tribunal that they are material and set forth in his affidavit what he expects to prove by them. I concede that upon such a showing there would be something upon which the Senate might properly act.

But, sir, instead of that he throws himself back upon his counsel, and they make their statement here that they will require thirty days of time in which to prepare for trial. He sent these gentlemen to the bar of this tribunal on the 13th instant upon their honor to notify the Senate that it would require him forty days to prepare an answer. Now, he sends them back upon their honor to notify the Senate that it will require him thirty days

of the Senate in the name of all the people and charged with high crimes and misdemeanors, in that he has violated his oath, in that he has violated the Constitution of the country, in that he has violated the people's laws, and attempted by his violation of the laws to lay hands upon the people's Treasury; what is this great defensive power reposed by the people in their Representatives worth if the President, upon a mere statement of his counsel, is permitted to postpone the further inquiry for thirty days, until he prepares to do what? Until he prepares to make good his elaborate statement set forth in his answer, that the Constitution is but a cobweb in his hands, and that he defies your power to restrain him.

I remember very well, sir, it suggested itself to me when I heard this discussion going on, the weighty words of that great man (Chancellor Kent) whose luminous intellect shed luster upon the jurisprudence of his country in the State of New York for more than a third of a century, which he wrote down in his Commentaries upon the laws, and which will live as long as our language lives, that to prevent the abuse of the executive trust

"The Constitution has rendered the President directly amenable, by law, for maladministration. The inviolability of any officer of Government is incompatible with the republican theory as well as with the. principles of retributive justice.'

"If, then, neither the sense of duty, the force of publie opinion, nor the transitory nature of the seat are sufficient to secure a faithful discharge of the executive trust, but the President will use the authority of his station to violate the Constitution or law of the land, the House of Representatives can arrest him in his career by resorting to the power of impeachment."-1 Kent, p. 313, sec. 289.

Faithful to the duty imposed upon us by our oaths as the Representatives of the people, we have interposed that remedy to arrest this man, and he comes to-day to answer, saying, "I defy your impeachment; by the executive power reposed in me under the Contitution"and I believe I quote almost the words of the answer laid before us-"by the executive power reposed in me by the Constitution, I claim in the presence of the Senate, I claim in the presence of the country, the power, with out challenge, let, or hinderance, to suspend every executive officer of this Government at