books, records, papers and other public property in the War Department, of which the following is a copy :

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C., February
21, 1868.-Sir:-The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having
been removed from office as Secretary of War, you
are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secre-
tary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter
upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that
office. Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to
you all records, books, papers and other public pro-
perty intrusted to his charge. Respectfully yours,
(Signed)
ANDREW JOHNSON.

To Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-
General United States Army, Washington, D. C.

(Official copy.)

Respectfully furnished to Hon. Edwin M. Stanton. (Signed)

L. THOMAS,

Secretary of War ad interim.

Upon the evidence collected by the committee, which is hereafter presented, and in virtue of the powers with which they have been invested by the House, they are of the opinion that Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors. They therefore recommend to the House the adoption of the accompanying resolution.

THADDEUS STEVENS,

C. T. HURLBURD,

Dodge,

Miller,

Washburne (Ill.),

Driggs,

Moore,

Washburn (Mass)

Eckley,

Moorhead,

Welker,

Morrell,

Williams (Pa.)

Eliot.

Mullins,

Wilson (Iowa),

H. E. PAINE.

Farnsworth,

Myers,

Wilson (Ohio),

Resolved, That Andrew Johnson, President of

Ferris,

Newcomb,

Ferry,

Nunn,

the United States, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors.

In

The report having been read, Mr. Stevens said: "Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention, in the first instance, to discuss the question, and if there be no desire on the other side to discuss it, we are willing that the question shall be taken on the knowledge which the House already has. deed, the fact of removing a man from office while the Senate is In session, without the consent of the Senate, is of itself, if there was nothing else, always considered a high crime and misdemeanor, and was never practiced. But I will not discuss this question unless gentlemen on the other side desire to discuss it."

Gentlemen on the other side did anxiously desire to discuss the question; and a very lively debate ensued, terminating at quarter after eleven o'clock at night. The debate was reopened at ten o'clock on Monday morning and continued until five in the afternoon, when the House proceeded, amid great but suppressed excitement, to vote on the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That a committee of two be appointed to go to the Senate, and at the bar thereof, in the name of the House of Representatives and of all the people of the United States, to impeach Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and acquaint the Senate that the House of Representatives will, in due time, exhibit particular articles of impeachment against him, and make good the same, and that the committee do de The vote resulted-yeas, 126; nays, 47, as lidmand that the Senate take the order for the appear ance of said Andrew Johnson to answer to said im Lows:peachment.

-The Speaker stated that he could not consent that his constituents should be silent on so grave an occasion, and therefore, as a member of the House, he voted yea.

Williams (Pa.),

Windom,

Woodbridge,

And Speaker-126.

Niblack,

Archer,

Haight,

Nicholson,

Axtell,"
Barnes,

Holman,

Phelps.

Hotchkiss,

Pruyn,

Barnum,

Hubbard (Conn.),

Randall,

Beck,

Humphrey,

Ross,

Boyer,

Johnson,

Sitgreaves,

Stewart,

Kerr,

Stone,

Knott,

Taber,

Trimble (Ky.)

McCormick,

Van Auken,

McCullough,

Morrissey,

i

Second, Resolved, that a committee of seven be appointed to prepare and report articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, with power to send for persons, papers and records, and to take testimony under oath.

The Democratic members attempted to resort to fillibustering, but were cut off, after an ineffectual effort, by a motion to suspend the rules, SD as to bring the House immediately to a vote on the resolutions. The rules were suspended, and the resolutions were adopted. Yeas, 124; nays,

42.

The Speaker then announced the two commitees as follows:

Committee of two to announce to the Senate

the action of the House-Messrs. Stevens (Pa.), and Bingham (Ohio.)

of Messrs. Boutwell

The committee of seven to prepare articles of mpeachment, consists (Mass.), Stevens (Pa.), Bingham, (Ohio), Wilson, (a), Logan, (Ill.), Julian, (Ind.), and Ward (N. Y.)

The House at twenty minutes past six adjourned.

Impeachment Under the Constitution.

The views and opinions of the fathers of the Republic on the subject of impeaching and removing from office the Executive of the government, may be readily gathered from the following debate in the Federal Convention:

In the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, on June 2, 1787, Mr. Williamson, seconded by Mr. Davie, moved that the President be removed on impeachment and conviction of malpractice or neglect of duty, Which was agreed to.

On July 20, Mr. Pinckney and Mr. Gouverneu, Morris moved to strike out this provision. Mr. Pinckney observed that the President ought not to be impeachable while in office.

Mr. Davie said: If he be not impeachable while in office, he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected. He considered this as an essential security for the good behavior af the Executive. Mr. Williamson concurred in making the Executive impeachable while in office.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris said:-He can do no criminal act without coadjutors, who may be punished. In case he should be re-elected that will be a sufficient proof of his innocence. Besides, who is to impeach? Is the impeachment to suspend his functions? If it is not, the mischief will go on. If it is, the impeachment will be nearly equivalent to a displacement, and will render the Exeentive dependent on those who are to impeach. Colonel Mason remarked:-No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice? Above all, shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice? When great crimes were committed, he was for punishing the principal as well as the coadjutors. There had been much debate and difficulty as to

t

the mode of choosing the Executive. He approved of that which had been adopted at first, namely, of referring the appointment to the National Legislature. One objection against electors was the danger of their being corrupted by their candidates, and this furnished a peculiar reason in favor of impeachments while in office. Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by re peating his guilt?

Dr. Franklin was for retaining the clause as favorable to the Executive. History furnishes one example of a first magistrate being brought formally to justice. Everybody cried out against this as unconstitutional. What was the practice before this in cases where the Chief Magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why, recourse was had to assassination, in which he was not only deprived of his life, but of the opportunity of vindicating his character. It would be the best way, therefore, to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive where his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal where he should be unjustly accused.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris would admit corruption and some other few offenses to be such as ought to be impeachable; but he thought the cases ought to be enumerated and defined.

Mr. Madison thought it indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service was not a sufficient seeurity. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers. The case of the executive magistracy was very distinguishable from that of the Legislature or any other public body holding offices of limited duration. It could not be presumed that all or even the majority of the members of an assembly would either lose their capacity for discharging or be bribed to betray their trust. Besides the restraints of their personal integrity and honor, the difficulty of acting in concert for purposes of corruption was a security to the public. And if one or a few members only should be seduced, the soundness of the remaining members would maintain the integrity and fidelity of the body. In the case of the executive magistracy, which was to be administered by a single man, loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the republic.

Mr. Pinckney did not see the necessity of impeachments. He was sure they ought not to issue from the Legislature, who would, in that case, hold them as a rod over the Executive, and by that means effectually destroy his independ

ence. His revisionary power, in particular, would ring to the Senate the trial of impeachment be rendered altogether insignificant. against the President, for treason and bribery, was taken up.

Mr. Gerry urged the necessity of impeachment. A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them. He hoped the maxim would not be adopted here that the Chief Magistrate could do no wrong.

Mr. Rufus King thought that unless the Executive was to hold his place during good behavior, he ought not to be liable to impeachment.

Mr. Randolph said the propriety of impeachments was a favorite principle with him. Guilt wherever found, ought to be punished. The Executive will have great opportunities for abusing his power, particularly in time of war, when the military force, and in some respects, the public money, will be in his hands. Should no punishment be provided, it will be irregularly inflicted by tumults and insurrections.

Dr. Franklin mentioned the case of the Prince of Orange during the late war. An arrangement was made between France and Holland, by which their two fleets were to unite at a certain time and place. The Dutch fleet did not appear. Everybody began to wonder at it. At length it was suspected that the Stadtholder was at the bottom of the matter. This suspicion prevailed more and more. Yet as he could not be impeached, and no regular examination took place, he remained in his office; and strengthening his own party, as the party opposed him became formidable, he gave birth to the most violent animosities and contentions. Had he been impeachable, a regular and peaceable inquiry would have taken place, and he would, if guilty, have been duly punished; if innocent, restored to the confidence of the public.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris remarked:-It will not be put in force, and can do no harın. An election every four years will prevent maladministration.

Colonel Mason withdrew "maladministration" and substituted "other high crimes and misdemeanors against the State." And the proposition as amended was adopted.

Mr. Madison objected to a trial of the President by the Senate, especially as he was to be impeached by the other branch of the Legislature, and for any act which might be called a misdemeanor. He would prefer the Supreme Court for the trial of impeachments; or rather, a tribunal of which that should form a part.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris thought no other tribunal than the Senate could be trusted. The Supreme Court were too few in number, and might be warped or corrupted. He was against a dependence of the Executive on the Legislature, considering legislative tyranny the great danger to be apprehended; but there could be no danger that the Senate would say untruly, on their oaths that the President was guilty of crimes or faults, especially as in four years he can be turned out.

After some further debate, the clause was amended by adding the words "and every member shall be on oath," and as adopted reads as follows:

"The Senate of the United States shall have

power to try all impeachments, but no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of twothirds of the members present, and every member shall be on oath."

After further remarks by Mr. King, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Pinckney, Mr. Gouverneur Morris said his opinion had been changed by the arguments used in the discussion. He was now sensible of the necessity of impeachment, if the Executive was to continue for any length of time in office. Our Executive was like a magistrate having a hereditary interest in his office. He may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust; and no one would say that we ought to expose ourselves to the danger of seeing our first magistrate in foreign pay, without being able to guard against it by displacing him. One would think the King of England well secured against bribery. He has, as it were, a fee simple in the whole kingdom. Yet Charles II was bribed by Louis XIV. The Executive ought, therefore, to be impeached for treachery. Corrupting his electors and incapacity were other causes of impeach-peachment Resolution (Tuesday, February 25), ment. For the latter he should be punished, not as a man, but as an officer, and punished only by degradation from his office. This magistrate is not the king, but the prime minister. The people are the king. When we make him amenable to justice, however, we should take care to provide some mode that will not make him dependent on the Legislature.

The Senate Notified.

On the day following the passage of the Im

the House of Representatives officially notified the Senate of its action.

While Senator Garrett Davis (Ky.) was addressing the Chair, the Doorkeeper announced a committee of the House of Representatives, and Messrs. Stevens and Bingham entered and stood facing the President pro tem., while a large number of members of the House ranged themselves

On the 6th day of September the clause refer- in a semi-circle behind.

When order was restored, Mr. STEVENS read, in a firm voice, as follows:

Mr. President:--In obedience to the order of the House of Representatives, we have appeared before you; and in the name of the House of Representatives and of all the people of the United States, we do impeach Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors in office. And we further inform the Senate that the House of

Representatives will, in due time, exhibit particular articles of impeachment against him, and make good the same. And in their name we demand that the Senate take due order for the appearace of the said Andrew Johnson to answer to the said impeachment. The President pro tem.-The Senate will take order in the premises.

Mr. Stevens was then furnished with a chair, and sat in the spot whence he had addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOWARD (Mich.) addressed the Chair, but
Mr. DAVIS insisted that he had the floor, hav-

ing given way only for the reception of a message

from the House.

The Chair said the Senator certainly had the floor.

Mr. DAVIS said: "Mr. President, I was about to renew my remarks, when Mr. Howard asked whether this was not a question of privilege?" The Chair did not know that there was any rule about it.

Mr. DAVIS.-Mr. President, no question of privilege.

Mr. HOWARD.I call the Senator to order, and claim that this is a privileged question.

The President pro tem.-There is a question of order raised, which the Chair will submit to the Senate for its decision.

Mr. DAVIS-I will just ask

The President pro tem.-The question of order must be settled before the Senator can proceed.. Mr. JOHNSON-Mr. President, I should like to know what the question of order is.

The President pro tem.-The question is whether the Senator must give way to a privileged question.

Mr. HOWARD said the House of Representatives having sent a committee announcing that in due time they will present articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, and asking that the Senate take order in reference thereto, the message of the House had been received, and the subject-matter was now before the Senate, and his contemplated motion was the appointment of a select committee to whom it should be referred, and he thought that was a question of privilege.

Mr. DAVIS replied that he had given way in deference to the universal usage established by courtesy between the two Houses for the reception of a message from the House. When that message was delivered, he had a right to resume the floor, and the Senator could not take it from him to make a privileged motion, or any motion.

Mr. EDMUNDS thought the Senator from Kentucky was entitled to the floor, while he did not admit the propriety as a matter of taste, or the delicacy of his insisting upon it. (Laughter.)

Mr. DAVIS preferred to settle such questions for himself, without regard to the Senator's opinion or judgment. Had he been asked to yield the floor, he would not have hesitated for an instant, but when it was attempted to take the floor from him, he denied the right to it; and the Chair having decided in his favor, he would now complete his remarks. They were not long. (Laughter.

Mr. CONNESS hoped the Senator from Kentucky, always contentious, would yield his undoubted right on this occasion.

Mr. DAVIS said it must first be decided by the Senate whether he had the right or not, and then he would waive or not as seemed proper.

The Chair put the question, and the Senate voted to allow Mr. Davis to continue.

Mr. DAVIS, with much cheerfulness-I now yield the floor for the purpose indicated by the Senator from Michigan. (Laughter.)

Mr. HOWARD (Mich.) offered the following:

Resolved, That the message of the House of Repre sentatives relative to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be referred to a select committee of seven, to consider the same and report thereon.

Mr. BAYARD (Del.) had no objection to the that this was a mere notice that the House of Reresolution, but would call attention to the fact Impeachment could not be acted upon until arpresentatives intended to impeach the President, Senate had no authority as a legislative body to ticles of impeachment were presented, and the act in relation to a question of impeachment, the Constitution requiring them to be organized into a court, with the Chief Justice President when

the question of impeachment came before them.

in regard to the fact; that the court would be Until that time they could entertain no motion called upon to make its own orders, under the Constitution and laws.

Mr. HOWARD said the course pointed out by the Senator was not according to the precedent furnished by the case of Judge Peck, in the year 1830. In that case, according to the journals of the Senate, a message was brought from the House of Representatives by Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Henry Storrs, two of their members, and was in the following words :

"Mr. President:-We have been directed, in the name of the House of Representatives and of all the people of the United States, to impeach James H. Peck, Judge of the District Court of the United States for the District. of Missouri, of high misdemeanors in office, and to acquaint the Senate that the Heuse will against him, and make good the same. in due time exhibit particular articles of impeachmen We have also been directed to demand that the Senate take order for the appearance of the said James H. Peck to answer to said impeachment," and they withdrew.

"The Senate proceeded to consider the last men tioned message, and, on motion of Mr. Tazewell, it was resolved that it be referred to a select committee, to consist of three members, to consider and report thereon. Ordered, that Mr, Tazewell, Mr. Webster and Mr. Bell be the committee."

That was a preliminary proceeding, and this case was precisely similar to it.

Mr. POMEROY (Kan.) said the mode of preli