address the said grand jury as aforesaid, did, in a manner highly unwarrantable, endeavor to excite the odium of the said Grand Jury, and of the good people of Maryland, against the Government of the United States, by delivering opinions which, even if the judiciary were competent to their expression, on a suitable occasion and in a proper manner, were, at that time, and as delivered by him, highly indecent, extra-judicial, and tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested to the low purpose of an electioneering partisan." The first article against Humphreys was as follows:That, regardless of his duties as a citizen of the United States, and anmindful of the duties of his said office, and in violation of the sacred obligation of his official oath, to administer justice without respect to persons,' and aith. fully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon him as Judge of the District Court of the United States for the several districts of the State of Tennessee, agreeable to the Constitution and laws of the United States,' the said West H. Humphreys, then being a citizen of the United States, and owing allegiance thereto, and then and there being Judge of the District Court of the United States for the several districts of said State, at a public meeting, on the day and year last aforesaid, held in said city of Nashvslle, and in the hearing of divers persons then and there present, did endeavor, by public speech, to incite revolt and rebellion within said State against the Constitution land Government of the United States, and did then and there publicly declare that it was the right of the people of said State, by an ordinance of Secession, to absolve themselves from all allegiance to the Government of the United States, the Constitution and laws thereof." The offense with which Humphreys is charged in this article was committed on the 29th of December, 1860. be. fore the fall of Sumter, and when only one State had passed an ordinance of secession. The declaration was merely a declaration in a public speech that the State of Tennessee had the right to secede from the Union. The President, in his speech of the 18th of August, 1866, at Washington, says: "We have witnessed in one department of the government every effort, as it were, to prevent the restoration of peace, harmony and union; we have seen, as it were, hanging upon the verge of the government, as it were, a body calling or assuming to be the Congress of the United States, when it was but a Congress of a part of the States; we have seen Congress assuming to be for the Union when every step they took, was to perpetuate dissolution, and make dissolution permanent. We have seen every step that has been taken, instead of bringing about reconciliation and harmony, has been legislation that took the character of penalties, retaliation and revenge. This has been the course; this has been the poilcy of one department of your government." These words have been repeated so frequently, and the public ear is so much accustomed to them, that they have apparently lost their influence upon the public mind. But it should be observed that these words, as has been proved by the experience of two years, were but the expression of a fixed purpose of the President. His design was to impair, to undermine, and, if possible, to destroy the influence of Congress in the country. Having accomplished this result, the way would then have been open to him for the prosecution of his criminal design to reconstruct the government in the interest of the Rebels, and, through his Influence with them, to secure his own 'election to the Presidency in 1868. It must, however, be apparent that the words in the speech of Mr. Johnson are of graver import than the words which were spoken by Judge Chase to the Grand Jury at Baltimore, or those uttered by Judge Humphreys to the people of Tennessee. And yet the latter was convicted by a unanimous vote of this Senate; and the former escaped conviction by four votes only. These words are of graver import, not merely in the circumstance that they assail a department of the government, but in the circumstance that they were uttered by the Pressdent of the United States in the Executive Mansion, and in his capacity as President of the United States, when receiving the congratulations and support of a portion of the people of the country, tendered to him in his office as Chief Magistrate. Judge Chase, although a high officer of the government, was without political influence and without patronage; his personal and official relations were limited, and his remarks were addressed to the grand jury of a judicial district of the country merely. Judge Humphreys was comparatively unknown; and although his words were calculated to excite the citizens of Tennessee, and induce them to engage in unconstitutional undertakings, his influence was limited measurably to the people of that State. Mr. Johnson addressed the whole country; and holding in his hands the immense patronage and influence belonging to the office of President, he was able to give practical effect to the declarations he then made. Moreover, in the case of Judge Chase, as is stated by Mr. Dana in his Abridgement," (vol. 7, chap. 222):- "On the whole evidence, it remained in doubt what words he did utter. The proof of seditious intent rested solely on the words themselves; and as the words were not clearly proved, the intent was in doubt." proved. un tional Amendment, in his annual message of December, 1866, and numerous other declarations, he has questioned, and substantially denied, the legality of the Congress of the United States. In the trial of Judge Chase it was admitted by the respondent "that for a judge to utter seditious sentiments with intent to excite sedition, would be an impeachable offense." (Dana's Abridgement, vol. 7, c. 222). And this, not under the act known as "the sedition act:" for that had heen previously repealed; but upon the general prin ciple that an officer, whose duty it is to administer the law, has no right to use language calculated to stir up resistance to the law. If this be true of a judge, with stronger reason it is true of the President of the United States, that he should set an example of respect for all the departments of the government, and of reverence for and obedience to the laws of the land. The speeches made by the President at Cleveland and St. Louis, which have been proved and are found in the record of the case, contain numerous passages similar in character to that extracted from his speech of the 18th of August, 1866, and all calculated and designed to impair the just authority of Congress. While these declarations have not been made the basis of substantive charges in the arti cles of impeachment, they furnish evidence of the unlawful intent of the President in his utterance of the 18th of August, and also of the fact that that utterance was not due to any temporary excitement or transient purpose which passed away with the occasion that had called it forth. it was a declaration made in accordance with a fixed design, which had obtained such entire control of his nature that whenever he addressed public assemblies he gave expression to it. The evidence which has been submitted by the respondent bearing upon the tenth article, indicates a purpose, in argument, to excuse the President upon the ground that the remarks of the people stimulated, irritated and excited him to such an extent that he was not wholly responsible for what he said. If this were true, it would exhibit great weakness of character; but as a matter of fact it is not true. The taunts and gibes of the people whom he insulted served only to draw from him those de clarations which were in accord with the purpose of his life. This is shown by the fact that all his political de clarations made at Cleveland and St. Louis, though made under excitement, are in entire harmony with the declara tions made by him in the East Room of the Executive Mansion, on the 18th of August, 1866, when he was free from any disturbing influence, and expressed himself with freedom and without excitement. The blasphemous utterances at St. Louis cannot be aggravated by me, nor can they be extenuated by anything which counsel for the respondent can offer. They exhibit the character of the speaker. Upon these facts, thus proved, and the views presented. we demand the conviction of the respondent of the misdemeanors set forth in article ten. the Article eleven sets forth that the object of the President in most of the offenses alleged in the preceding articles was to prevent the execution of the act passed March 2 1867, entitled, "An act for the more efficient government of the Rebel States." It is well known, officially and publicly, that on the 29th of May, 1865, Mr. Johnson issued a proclamation for the reorganization of Government of North Carolina, and that that proclamation was followed by other proclamations, is ssued, during the next four months, for the government of the several States which had been engaged in the Rebellion. Upon the death of Mr. Lincoln Mr. Johnson entered upon the office of President in a manner which indicated that, in his judgment, he had been long destined to fill the lace, and that the powers of the office were to be exercised by him without regard to the other departments of the government. In his proclamation of the 29th of May, and in all the proclamacions relating to the same subject, he had assumed that in his office as President, he was the "United States," for the purpose of deciding whether under the Constitution the government of a State was republican in form or not; although by a decision of the Supreme Court it is declared that this power is specially vested in the two Houses of Congress. In these proclamations he assumed, without authority of law, to appoint, and he did appoint, Governors of the several States, thus organized. In fine, between the 29th of May, 1865, and the assembling of Congress in December of that year, he exercised sovereign power over the territory and people of the eleven States which have been engaged in rebellion. On the assembling of Congress, in the month of December, he informed the Senate and House of Representatives that the Union was restored, and that nothing remained for the two Houses but severally to accept as Senators and Representatives such loyal men as had been elected by the Legislatures and people of the several States. Congress refused to ratify or to recognize those proceedings upon the part of the President as legal or proper proceedings, and from that time forward he has been engaged in various projects for the purpose of preventing the reconstruction of the Union on any other plan than that which he had inaugurated. In the execution of this design he attempted to deprive Congress of the confidence of the people of the country; hence it was that, among other things, on the 18th day of August, 1866, at the city of Washington, as set forth in the tenth and eleventh articles, he did, in a public speech, declare and affirm in substance that the Thirtyninth Congress of the United States was not a Congress authorized by the Constitution to exercise legislative power under the same; but, on the contrary, was a Con In the case of Mr. Johnson there is no doubt about the words uttered: they have been fully and explicitly, Indeed, they are not denied by the respondent. Jawful intent with which he uttered the words not only appears from the character of the language employed, but it is proved by the history of his administration. In his message of the 222 of June, 1866, relating to the Constituess of only a part of the States, In the further execution of his purpose to prevent the reconstruction of the Union upon any plan except that which he had inaugurated, he attempted to prevent the ratification by the several States of the amendment to the Constitution kuown as article fourteen. By the Constitution the President has no power to participate in amendments or in propositions for amendments thereto; yet, availing himself of the circumstance of the passage of a resolution by the House of Representatives on the 13th day of June, 1866, requesting the President to submit to the Legislatures of the several States the said additional article to the Constitution of the United States he sent to the Senate and House of Representatives a message in writing. in which he says: "Even in ordinary times any question of amending the Constitution must be justly regarded as of paramount importance. This importance is at the present time enhanced by the fact that the joint resolution was not submitted by the two houses for the approval of the President, and that of the thirty-six States which constitute the Union eleven are excluded from representation in either House of Congress, although, with the single excention of Texas, they have been entirely restored to all their functions as States, in conformity with the organic law of the land, and have appeared at the national capital by Senators and Representatives, who have applied for and have been refused admission to the vacant seats, Nor have the sovereign people of the nation been afforded an opportunity of expressing their views upon the important question which the amendment involves. Grave doubts, therefore, may naturally and justly arise as to whether the action of Congress is in harmony with the sentiments of the people, and whether the State Legislatures, elected without reference to such an issue, should be called upon by Congress to decide respecting the ratification of the proposed amendment." He also says: "A proper appreciation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution, as well as of the interests of national order, harmony and union, and a due deference for an enlightened public judgment, may at this time well suggest a doubt whether any amendment to the Constitution ought to be proposed by Congress and pressed upon the Legislatures of the several States for final decision, until after the admission of such loyal Senators and Representatives of the now unrepresented States as have been, or as may hereafter be, chosen in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States." This message was an extra-official proceeding, inasmuch as his agency in the work of amending the Constitution is not required; and it was also a very clear indication of an opinion on his part that, inasmuch as the eleven States were not iepresented, the Congress of the United States had no power to act in the matter of amending the Constitution. The proposed amendment to the Constitution contained provisions which were to be made the basis of reconstruction. The laws subsequently passed by Congress recognize the amendment as essential to the welfare and safety of the Union. It is alleged in the eleventh article that one of the purposes in the various unlawful acts charged in the several articles of impeachments, and proved against him, was to prevent the execution of the act entitled "An act for the more efficient government of the Rebel States," passed March 2, 1867. In the nature of the case it has not been easy to obtain testimony upon this point, nor upon any other point touching the misconduct and crimes of the President. His declarations and his usurpations of power have rendered a large portion of the office-holders of the country, for the time being, subservient to his purposes; they have been ready to conceal, and reluctant to communicate, any evidence calculated to implicate the President. His communications with the South have been generally, and it may be said almost exclusively, with the men who had participated in the Rebellion, and who are now hoping for final success through his aid. They have looked to him as their leader, by whose efforts and agency in the office of President of the United States they were either to accomplish the objects for which the war was undertaken, or at least to secure a restoration to the Union under such circumstances that, as a section of the country and an interest in the country, they should possess and exercise that power which the slaveholders of the South possessed and exercised previous to the Rebellion. These men have been bound to him by strong bonds of hope, fear and ambition. The corruptions of the public service have enriched multitudes of his adherents and quickened and strengthened the passion of avarice in multitudes more. These classes of men, possessing wealth and influence in many cases, have exerted their power to close up every avenue of information. Hence the efforts of the committee of the House of Representatives and the efforts of the managers to ascer tain the truth and to procure testimony which they were satisfied was in existence, have been defeated often by the devices and inachinations of those who in the North and in the South are allied to the President, There can, how ever, be no doubt that the President in every way open to him, used his personal and official influence to defeat the ratification of the Constitutional Amendment. Evidence of such disposition and of the fact is also found in the telegraphic correspondence of January, 1867, between Mr. Johnson and Lewis E. Parsons, who had been previously appointed Governor of Alabama by the President. It is as follows: MONTGOMERY, Ala., January 17, 1867.-Legislature in Bession. Efforts making to reconsider vote o Constitutional Amendment. Reports from Washington say it is probable an enabling act will pass. We do not know what to believe. I find nothing here. LEWIS E. PARSONS, Exchange Hotel. His Excellency ANDREW JOHNSON, President. UNITED STATES MILITARY TELEGRAPH, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., January 17, 1867.-What possible good can be obtained by reconsidering the Constitu tional Amendment? I know of none in the present posture of affairs; and I do not believe the people of the whole country will sustain any set of individuals in attempts to change the whole character of our government by enabling acts or otherwise. 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 co-ordinate departments of the government in accordance with its original design. Hon. LEWIS E. PARSONS, Montgomery, Ala. ANDREW JOHNSON. This correspondence shows his fixed purpose to defeat the Congressional plan of reconstruction. Pursuing the subject further, it is easy to discover and comprehend his entire scheme of criminal ambition. It was no less than this:-To obtain command of the War Department and of the army, and by their combined power to control the elections of 1866 in the ten States not yet restored to the Union. The Congressional plan of reconstruction contained as an essential condition, the extension of the elec tive franchise to all loyal male citizens, and the exclusion from the franchise of a portion of those who had been mest active in originating and carrying on the Rebellion. The purpose of Mr, Johnson was to limit the elective franchise to white male citizens, and to permit the exercise of it by all such persons, without regard to their disloyalty. If he could secure the control of the War Department and of the army it would be entirely practicable, and not only practicable but easy for him in the coming elections quietly to inaugurate a policy throughout the ten States by which the former Rebels, strengthened by the military support of the Executive here, and by the military forces distributed over the South, would exclude from the polls every colored man, and to permit the exercise of the elective franchise by every white Rebel. By these means he would be able to control the entire vote of the ten Rebel States; by the same means, or indeed by the force of the.. facts, he would be able to secure the election to the Democratie National Convention, of delegates favorable to his own nomination to the Presidency. The vote of these ten States in the Convention, considered in connection with the fact that he and his friends could assure delegates from other sections of the country that, if he were nominated, he could control beyond peradventure the electoral vote of these ten States, would have secured his nomination. This he confidently anticipated. Nor, indeed. can there be much doubt that this scheme would have been successful; but it was apparent that there was no possibility of his obtaining the control of the War Department and of the army unless he could disregard and break down the act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices, passed March 2, 1867. If, however, he could annul, or disregard, or set aside the provisions of that act, then the way open for the successful consummation of his plan. With thousands and tens of thousands of office-holders, scattered all over the country. depending upon him for their offices and for the emoluments of their offices, he would be able to exert a large influence, if not absolutely to control the nominations of the Democratic party in every State of the Union. With the War Departinent in his hands, and the Tenure of Office act broken down, he would be able to remove Gen. Grant, General Sherman, General Sheridan, or any other officer, high or low, who, in his opinion, or upon the facts, might be an obstacle in the way. With the army thus corrupted and humiliated, its trusted leaders either driven from the service or sent into exile in distant parts of the country, he would be able to wield the power of that vast organization for his own personal advantage. Under these circumstances it was not probable merely, but it was as certain as anything in the future could be, that he would secure, first, the nomination of the Democratic party in the national nominating convention, and, secondly, that he would secure the electoral votes of these ten States. This being done, he had only to obtain enough votes from the States now represented in Congress to make a majority of electoral votes, and he would defy the House and Senate should they attempt to reject the votes of the ten States, and this whether those States had been previously restored to the Union or not. In a contest with the two Houses. he and his friends and supporters, including the War Department, the Treasury Department and the army and navy, would insist that he had been duly elected President, and by the support of the War Department, the Treasury Department, the army and the navy, he would have been inaugurated on the 4th of March next President of the United States for four years. That the President was and is hostile to Mr. Stanton, and that he desired his removal from office, there is no doubt; but he has not assumed the responsibility which now rests upon him, he has not incurred the hazard of his. present position, for the mere purpose of gratifying his personal feelings towards Mr. Stanton. He disregarded the Tenure of Office act; he first suspended and then removed Mr. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War; he defied the judgment of and the advice and authority of the Senate; he incurred the risk of impeachmeut by the House of Representatives, and trial and conviction by this tribunal, under the influence of an ambition unlimited and unscrupulous, which dares anything and everything necessary to its gratification. For the purpose of defeating the Congressional plan of reconstruction, he has advised and encouraged the people of the South in the idea that he would restore them to their former privileges and power; that he would estab lish a white man's government; that he would exclude the negroes from all participation in political affairs; and, finally, that he would accomplish in their behalf what they had sought by rebellion, but by rebellion had failed to secure. Hence, it is through his agency and by his influence the South has been given up to disorder, rapine, and bloodshed; hence it is that since the surrender of Lee and Johnston thousands of loyal men, black and white, have been murdered in cold blood or subjected to cruelties and tortures such as in modern times could have been perpetrated only in savage nations and in remote parts of the world; hence it is that 12,000,000 of people are without law, without order, unprotected in their industry or their rights; hence it is that ten States are without government and unrepresented in Congress; hence it is that the people of the North are even now uncertain whether the rebellion, vanquished in the field, is not finally to be victorious in the councils and in the Cabinet of the country; hence it is that the loyal people of the entire Union look upon Andrew Johnson as their worst enemy; hence it is that those who participated in the Rebellion, and still hope that its power may once more be established in the country, look upon Andrew Johnson as their best friend, and as the last and chief supporter of the views which they entertain. The House of Representatives has brought this great criminal to your bar for trial, for conviction, and for judg ment; but the House of Representatives, as a branch of the legislative department of the government, has no special interest in these proceedings. It entered upon them with great reluctance, after laborious and continued investigation, and only upon a conviction that the interests of the country were in peril, and that there was no way of relief except through the exercise of the highest constitutional power vested in that body. We do not appeal to this tribunal because any special right of the House of Representatives has been infringed, or because the just powers of the existence of the House are in danger, except as that body must always participate in the good or ill fortune of the country. They have brought this great criminal to your bar, and here demand his conviction in the belief, as the result of much investigation, of much deliberation, that the interests of this country are no longer safe in his hands. But the House of Representatives, representing the people of the country, may very properly appeal to this tribunal, constituted, as it is, exclusively of Senators representing the different States of this Union, to maintain the constitutional powers of the Senate. To be sure, nothing can injuriously affect the powers and rights of the Senate which does not affect injuriously the rights of the House of Representatives and of the people of the whole country; but it may be said, with great truth, that this contest is first for the preservation of the constitutional powers of this branch of the government. By your votes and action in concurrence with the House of Representatives, the bill "regulating the tenure of certain civil offices" was passed, and became a law, and this notwithstanding the objections of the President thereto, and his argument against its passage. On a subsequent occasion, when you considered the suspension of Mr. Stanton and the message of the President, in which by arguments and by statements he assailed the law in question, you asserted its validity and its constitutionality, by refusing to concur in the suspension of Mr. Stanton. On a more recent occasion, when he attempted to remove Mr. Stanton from office, you. by solemn resolu tion, declared that his action therein was contrary to the laws and to the Constitution of the country. From the beginning of the government this body has participated under the Constitution, and by virtue of the Constitution, in all matters pertaining to appointments to office; and, by the universal practice of the country, as well before the passage of the Tenure of Office act as since, no removal of any officer whose appointment was by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, has been made during a session of the Senate, with your knowledge and sanction, except by the nomination of a successor, whose nomination was confirmed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Mr. Johnson, in presence of this uniform practice of three-quarters of a century, and against the express provisions of the Tenure of Office act, made in this particular in entire harmony with that practice, asserts now, absolutely, the unqualified power to remove every officer in the country, without the advice or consent of the Senate. Never in the history of any free government has there been so base, so gross, so unjustifiable an attempt upon the part of any executive, whether Emperor. King, or President, to destroy the just authority of another department of the government. The House of Representatives has not been indifferent to this assault; it has not been unmindful of the danger to which you have been exposed; it has seen, what you must admit, that without its agency and support you were powerless to resist these aggressions, or to thwart, in any degree, the purposes of this usurper. In the exercise of their constitutional power of impeachment they have brought him to your bar; they have laid before you the evidence showing conclusively the nature, the extent and the depth of his guilt. You hold this great power in trust, not for yourselves merely, but for all your successors in these high places, and for all the people of this country. You cannot fail to discharge your duty; that duty is clear. On the one hand it is your duty to protect, to preserve, and to defend your own constitutional rights, but it is equally your duty to preserve the laws and the institutions of the country. It is your duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the rights of the people under it; it is your duty to preserve and to transmit unimpaired to your successors in these places all the constitutional rights and privileges guaranteed to this body by the form of government under which we live On the other hand it is your duty to try, to convict, to pronounce judgment upon this criminal, that all his suc cessors, and all men who aspire to the office of President, in time to come, may understand that the House of Repre sentatives and the Senate will demand the strictest ob servance of the Constitution; that they will hold every man in the Presidential office responsible for a rigid performance of his public duties. Nothing, literally nothing, can be said in defense of this criminal. Upon his own admissions he is guilty in sub stance of the gravest charges contained in the articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Re presentatives. In his personal conduct and character he presents no quality or attribute which enlists the sympathy or the regard of men. The exhibition which he made in this Chamber on the 4th of March, 1865, by which the nation was humiliated and republican institutions dis graced, in the presence of the representatives of the civi lized nations of the earth, is a truthful exhibition of his character. His violent, denunciatory, blasphemous decla rations made to the people on various occasions, and proved by the testimony submitted to the Senate, illus trate other qualities of his nature. His cold indifference to the desolation, disorder and crimes in the ten States of the South exhibit yet other and darker features. Can any one entertain the opinion that Mr. Johnson is not guilty of such crimes as justify his removal from office and his disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit under the Government of the United States? William Blount, Senator of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives and declared guilty of a high misdemeanor, and though not tried by the Senate, the Senate did, nevertheless, expel him from his seat by a vote of twenty-five to one, and in the resolution of expulsion declared that he had been guilty of a high misdemeanor. The crime of William Blount was, that he wrote a letter and participated in conversations, from which it appeared probable that he was engaged in an immature scheme to alienate the Indians of the Southwest from the President and the Congress of the United States; and also, incident ally, to disturb the friendly relations between this government and the Governments of Spain and Great Britain. This, at most, was but an arrangement, never consumma ted into any overt act, by which he contemplated, under possible circumstances which never occurred, that he would violate the neutrality laws of the United States. Andrew Johnson is guilty, upon the proof in part and upon his own admissions, of having intentionally violated a public law, of usurping and exercising powers not exer cised nor even asserted by any of his predecessors in office. Judge Pickering, of the District Court of New Hamp shire, was impeached by the House of Representatives, convicted by the Senate, and removed from office, for the crime of having appeared upon the beneh in a state of intoxication. I need not draw any parallel be between Judge Pickering and this respondent. Judge Prescott, of Massachusetts, was impeached and removed from office for receiving illegal fees in his office to the amount of ten dollars and seventy cents ($1070) only Judge Prescott belonged to one of the oldest and most emi nent families of the State, and he was himself a distin guished lawyer. But such was the respect of the Senate of that State for the law, and such the public opinion that it was the duty of the magistrates to obey the law, that they did not hesitate to convict him and remove him from office. The Earl of Macclesfield was impeached and convicted for the misuse of his official powers in regard to trust funds, an offense in itself of a grave character, but a trivial crime compared with the open, wanton and defiant violation of law by a Chief Magistrate whose highest duty is the execution of the laws. If the charges preferred against Warren Hastings had been fully sustained by the testimony, he would be regarded in history as an unimportant criminal when com pared with the respondent. Warren Hastings, as Gov ernor-General of Bengal, extended the territory of the Bri tish empire, and brought millions of the natives of India under British rule. If he exercised power in India for which there was no authority in British laws or British customs-if in the exercise of that power he acquired wealth for himself or permitted others to accumulate fortunes by outrages and wrongs perpetrated upon that dis tant people, he still acted in his public policy in the interest of the British empire and in harmony with the ideas and purposes of the British people. Andrew Johnson has disregarded and violated the laws and Constitution of his own country. Uuder his adminis tration the government has not been strengthened, but weakened. Its reputation and influence at home and abroad have been injured and diminished. He has not outraged a distant people, bound to us by no ties but those which result from conquest and the exercise of arbitrary power on our part; but through his violation of the laws and the influence of his evil example upon the men of the South, in whose hearts the purposes and passions of the war yet linger, he has brought disorder, confusion and bloodshed to the homes of twelve millions of people, many of whom are of our own blood, and all of whom are our own countrymen. Ten States of this Union are without law, without security, without safety; public order everywhere violated, public justice nowhere respected; and all in consequence of the evil purposes and machinations of the President. Forty millions of people have been rendered anxious and uncertain as to the preservation of public peace and the perpetuity of the institutions of freedom in this country. There is no limits to the consequences of this man's evil example. A member of his Cabinet, in your presence, avows, proclaims indeed. that he suspended from office, Indefinitely, a faithful public officer who was appointed by your advice and consent; an act which he does not attempt to justify by any law or usage, except what he is pleased to call the law of necessity. Is it strange that in the presence of these examples the ignorant, the vicious and the criminal are everywhere swift to violate the laws? Is it strange that the loyal people of the South, most of them poor, dependent, not yet confident of their newly acquired rights, exercising their just privileges in fear and trembling, should thus be made the victims of the worst passions of men who have freed themselves from all the restraints of civil governments? Under the influence of these examples good men in the South have everything to fear, and bad men have everything to hope. Caius Verres is the great political criminal of history. For two years he was prætor and the scurge of Sicily. The area of that country does not much exceed ten thousand square miles, and in modern times it has had a population of about two million souls. The criminal at your bar has been the scourge of a country many times the area of Sicily, and containing a population six times as great. Verres en riched himself and his friends; he seized the public paintings and statues and carried them to Rome. But at the end of his brief rule of two years he left Sicily as he had found it-in comparative peace, and in the possession of its industries and its laws. This respondent has not ravaged States nor enriched himself by the plunder of their treasures; but he has inaugurated and adhered to a policy which has deprived the people of the blessings of peace, of the protection of law, of the just rewards of honest industry. A vast and important portion of the Republic, a portion whose prosperity is essential to the prosperity of the coun try at large, is prostrate and helpless under the evils which his administration has brought upon it. When Verres was arraigned before his judges at Rome, and the exposure of his crimes began, his counsel abandoned his cause and the criminal fled from the city. Yet Verree had friends in Sicily, and they erected a gilded statue to 'his name in the streets of Syracuse. This respondent will look in vain, even in the South, for any testimonials to his virtues or to his public conduct. All classes are oppressed by the private and public calamities which he has brought upon them. They appeal to you for relief. The nation waits in anxiety for the conclusion of these proceedings. Forty millions of people, whose interest in public affairs is in the wise and just administration of the laws, look to this tribunal as a sure defense against the encroachments of a criminal Chief Magistrate. Will any one say that the heaviest judgment which you can give is any adequate punishment for these crimes? Your office is not punishment, but to secure the safety of the Republic. But human tribunals are inadequate to punish those criminals who, as rulers or magistrates, by their example, conduct, policy and crimes, become the Scourge of communities and nations. No picture, no power of the imagination, can illustrate or conceive the suffering of the poor but loyal people of the South. A patriotic, virtuous, law-abiding Chief Magistrate would have healed the wounds of war, soothed private and public sorrows, protected the weak, encouraged the strong, and lifted from the Southern people the burdens which are now greater than they can bear. Travelers and astronomers inform us that in the Southern heavens, near the Southern Cross, there is a vast space which the uneducated call the hole in the sky, where the eye of man, with the aid of the powers of the telescope has been unable to discover nebula, or asteroid, or cometor planet, or star, or sun. In that dreary, cold, dark re gion of space, which is only known to be less than infinite by the evidences of creation elsewhere, the Great Author of celestial mechanism has left the chaos which was in the beginning. If this earth were capable of the sentiments and emotions of justice and virtue, which in human mortal beings are the evidences and the pledge of our Divine, origin and immortal destiny, she would heave and throw, with the energy of the combined forces of air, fire, and water, and project this enemy of two races of men into that vast region, there forever to exist in a solitude eternal as life, emblematical of, if not really, that "outer darkness of which the Savior of man spoke in warning to those who are the enemies of themselves, of their race and of their God. But it is yours to relieve, not to punish. This done and our country is again advanced in the intelligent opinion of mankind. In other governments an unfaithful ruler can be removed only by revolution, violence or force. The proceeding here is judicial, and according to the forms of law. Your judgment will be enforced without the aid of a policeman or a soldier. What other evidence will be needed of the value of republican institutions? What other test of the strength and vigor of our government? What other assurance that the virtue of the people is equal to any emergency of national life? The contest which we carry on at your bar is a contest in defense of the constitutional rights of the Congress of the United States; representing the people of the United States, against the arbitrary, unjust, illegal claims of the Executive. This is the old contest of Europe revived in America. England, France and Spain have each been the theatre of this strife. In France and Spain the Executive triumphed. In England the people were victorious. The people of France gradually but slowly regain their rights. But even yet there is no freedom of the press in France; there is no freedom of the legislative will the Emperor is supreme. Spain is wholly unregenerated. England alone has a free Parliament and a government of laws emanating fram the people who are entitled to vote. These laws are everywhere executed, and a sovereign who should wilfully interpose any obstacle would be dethroned without delay. In England the law is more mighty than the king. In America a President claims to be mightier than the law. This result in England was reached by slow movements, and after a struggle which lasted through many centuries. John Hamden was not the first nor the last of the patriots who resisted executive usurpation, but nothing could have been more inapplicable to the present circumstances than the introduction of his name as an apology for the usurpa tions of Andrew Johnson. "No man will question John Hampden's patriotism, or the propriety of his acts, when he brought the question whether ship-money was within the Constitution of Eng land, before the courts:" but no man will admit that there is any parallel between Andrew Johnson and John Hampden. Andrew Johnson takes the place of Charles I, and seeks to substitute his own will for the laws of the land. In 1636 John Hampden resisted the demands of a usurping and unprincipled King, as does Edwin M. Stan ton to-day resist the claims and demands of an unprin cipled and usurping President. The people of England have successfully resisted an executive encroachment upon their rights. Let their example be not lost upon us. We suppressed the Rebellion in arms, and we are now to expel it from the Executive Councils. This done, republican institutions need no further illustration. All things relating to the national welfare and life are made as secure as can be by any future events. The freedom, prosperity and power of America are as sured. The friends of constitutional liberty throughout Europe will hail with joy the assured greatness and glory of the new republic. Our internal difficulties will rapidly disappear. Peace and prosperity will return to every por tion of the country. In a few weeks or months we shall celebrate a restored union upon the basis of the equal rights of the States, in each of which equality of the people will be recognized and established. This respond ent is not to be convicted that these things may come, but justice being done these things are to come. At your bar the House of Representatives demands jus tice-justice for the people, justice to the accused. Justice is of God, and it cannot perish. By and through justice comes obedience to the law by all magistrates and people; by and through justice comes the liberty of the law, which is freedom without license. Senators, as far as I am concerned, the case is now in your hands, and it is soon to be closed by my associate, The House of Representatives has presented this criminal at your bar with equal confidence in his guilt and in your disposition to administer exact justice between him and the people of the United States. His conviction is the triumph of law, of order, of justice. I do not contemplate his acquittal-it is impossible. There fore, I do not look beyond. But, Senators, the people of America will never permit an usurping Executive to break down the securities for liberties provided by the Constitu tion. The cause of the country is in your hands. Your verdict of guilty is peace to our beloved land. When Mr. BOUTWELL had coucluded, at 1:05 P.M., on motion of Senator JOHNSON, the court took a recess of fifteen minutes. Judge Nelson's Address. At twenty minutes before two, Mr. NELSON took the floor on behalf of the President. His opening words were rather indistinct, but he spoke substan tially as follows: Mr. Chief Justice and Senators:-I have been engaged in the practice of my profession as a lawyer for the last twenty years, and I have, in the course of my somewhat diversified professional life, argued cases involving liberty, property and character; I have prosecuted and defended every species of crime known to the law, from murder in the first degree down to a simple assault, but in rising to address you to-day, I feel that all the cases in which I was ever concerned, sink into comparative insignificance when compared to this, and a painful sense of the magnitude of the case in which I am now engaged, and of my inability to meet and to defend, as it should be defended, oppresses me as I rise to address you; but I would humbly invoke the Great Dispenser of events to give me a mind to con ceive, a heart to feel, and a tongue to express those words which should be proper and fitting on this great occasion, I would humbly invoke the assistance which cometh from on high, for when I look at the results which may fol low from this great trial; when I endeavor to contemplate in imagination how it will affect our country and the world, I stand back, feeling that I am utterly incapable of comprehending its results, and that I cannot look into the future and foretell it. I feel, somehow, that it will be ne cessary upon this occasion for me to notice many things which, as I suppose, have but little bearing upon the specific articles of impeachment which have been presented, and in doing so, to follow the language of Mr. Wirt upon the trial of Judge Chase. If I follow the argument of the honorable manager more closely than would seem neces zary to some of the court, it will be remembered that it would seem presumptuous to slight any topic which the learned and honorable managers have deemed it proper to press upon the consideration of the court. It has been charged that the President was trifling with the Senate. Scarcely had he entered upon this trial be fore charges were made against him of seeking improperly to gain time, to effect an unworthy and improper procras tination. I shall dwell but a moment upon that. We supposed that there was nothing improper in our asking at the hands of the Senate a reasonable indulgence to prepare our defense. When the subject of impeachment had been before the House of Representatives in some form for more than a twelvemonth, and when the House or the managers were armed at all points, and ready to contest the case on the one hand, and we, upon the other, were suddenly summoned from our professional pursuits; we, who are not politicians, but lawyers, engaged in the practice of our profession, to measure arms with gentlemen who are skilled in political affairs, and who are well posted upon all the subjects that may be involved in this discussion. But it is not merely the complaint as to delaying and trifling with the Senate that it will become my duty to notice. A great many things have been said, and among the rest an attempt has been made to stigmatize the President as a traitor to his party, as disgracing the posi tion held by some of the most illustrious in the land, as a dangeroug person, "a criminal, but not an ordinary one," and as encouraging murder, assassination and robbery all over the Southern States, and finally, by way of proving that there is but one step between the sublime and the ridiculous, as bandying ribald epithets with a jeering mob. My excuse for noticing these charges, which have been made here in the progress of the investigation is, that nothing has been said in vindication of the President from them. It will be my duty, Senators, to pay some attention to them to-day. We have borne it long enough, and I propose, before I enter upon the investigation of the articles of impeachment, to pay some attention to those accusations which have been heaped upon us almost every day from the commencement of the trial, and which have been passed unanswered and unnoticed on the part of the President of the United States. If it is true, as is alleged, that the President is guilty of all these things; if he be guilty of one tithe of the offenses which have been imputed to him in the opening argument of yesterday and to-day, then I am willing to confess that he is a monster of such frightful mien "that to be hated needs but to be seen." I am willing to admit that if he was guilty of any of the charges which have been made against him, he is not only worthy of the censure of this Senate, but you should "Place a whip in every honest hand, To lash the scoundrel naked through the land." He should be pointed at everywhere as a monster to be banished from society, and his name should become a word to frighten children with throughout the land, from one end to the other, and when any one should meet him or see him, "Each particular hair should stand on end, like quills on the fretful porcupine. If he was, then I agree that neither I nor those associated with me can defend him. But who is Andrew Johnson? Who is this man that you have on trial now, in regard to whom the gaze, not "of little Delaware," but of the whole Union and of the civilized world is directed at the present moment; who is Andrew Johnson? That is a question which but a few short years ago many of those I now address could have answered with pleasure. Who be Andrew Johnson? Go to the town of Greenville, but a few short years ago, a little village in the mountains of East Tennessee, and you will see a poor boy entering that village--a stranger, without acquaintances or friends. following an humble mechanical pursuit, scarcely able to read, unable to write, but yet industrious in his profession, honest and faithful in his dealings, and having a mind Buch as the God of Heaven implanted in him, and which was designed to be called into exercise and play before the American people. He enters the State of Tennessee, arriving poor, penniless, without the favor of the great, but scarce had "he set his foot upon her soil, when he was seized and carressed with parental fondness, embraced as though he had been a favorite child, and patronized with liberal and fond beneficence. In the first place, the people of his county honor him by giving him a seat in the lower Legislature; next he ascends to a seat in the Senate, then to the House of Representatives of the American Congress: then, by the voice of the people. he was elected Governor of the State; then he was sent to the Senate of the United States, and his whole career thus far has been a career in which he has been honored and respected by the people, and it has only been within two or three years that charges have been preferred against him, such as those which are presented now. Never since the charges of Warren Hastings, never since the charges of Sir Walter Raleigh, has any man been stigmatized with more severe reprobation than the President of the United States. All the powers of invective which the able and ingenious managers can command have been brought into requisition to fire your hearts and to prejudice your minds against him. A perfect storm has been raised around him. All the elements have been agitated. "From peak to peak, the rattling crags along. Not from one lone crowd, But every mountain now hath found a tongue. No This storm is playing around him, the pitiless rain is beating upon him, the lightnings are flashing upon him, and I have the pleasure to state to you, Senators, to-day, and I hope my voice will reach the whole country, that he still stands firm, unbroken, unawed, unterrified. words of menace at the Senate of the United States, threatening no civil war to deluge the country with blood. but feeling a proud consciousness of his own integrity, appealing to Heaven to witness the purity of his motives in his public administration, and calling upon you, Senators, in the name of the living God, to whom you have made a pledge that you will do equal and impartial justice in this case according to the Constitution and the laws, to pronounce him innocent of the offenses charged against him. Are there not Senators here whose minds go back to the stirring times of 1860 and 1861, when treason was rife in this Capital-when men's faces turned pale-when despatch after despatch was sent from this Chamber to fire the heart of the Southern people and prepare the Southern mind for that revolution which agitated our country, and which cost the lives and treasures of the nation to such an alarming extent? Where was Andrew Johnson then? Standing here almost within ten feet of the place at which I now stand, solitary and alone in this magnificent Chamber, when bloody treason flourished o'er us, his voice was heard arousing the nation. Some of you heard its notes as they rolled from one end of the land to the other, arousing the patriotism of our country-the only man from the South who was disposed to battle against treason then, and who now is called a traitor himself. He who has periled his life in a thousand forms to put down treason; he who has been reckless of danger; he who has periled his life, his fortune and his sacred honor to save its life from destruction and ruin, now is stigmatized and denounc d as a traitor, and from one end of the land to the other that accusation has rung until the echoes even come back to the capital here. intending if possible to influence the judgment of the Se nate. Is Andrew Johnson a man who is disposed to betray any trust reposed in him? A man who has on all occasions been found standing by his neighbors, standing by his friends, standing by his country; who has been found on all occasions worthy of the high confidence and trust that has been reposed in him. I know, Senators, that when state these things in your presence and in your hearing, may extort but a smile of derision among some of those who differ with him in opinion. I know that an unfortu nate difference of opinion exists between the Congress of the United States and the President; and in attempting to address you upon some of the very questions through which this difficulty arose, I pray Almighty God to di rect me and lead me aright, for I believe in this presence to-day that my distinguished client is innocent of the charges preferred against him, and I hope that God's bless ing, which has followed him so far in life, will follow him now, and that he will come out of the fiery furnace unscathed. Who is Andrew Johnson? Why, Senators, when the battle of Manassas-as we call it at the South, or of Bull Run, as I believe it is called in the North, was foughtwhen our troops were driven back defeated, and were pursued in haste and confusion to the capital-when men's faces turned pale and their hearts faltered-where was Andrew Johnson then? With a resolution undismayed, and unfalteringly believing in the justice of the great cause in which the country was engaged, his voice was heard here, proclaiming to the whole country and to the whole world the objects and purposes of the war. Then it was that his voice was heard among the boldest of those who declared it the purpose of Congress to stand by and defend the Constitution, and to maintain and uphold the government. One word more Senators, in regard to the President of the United States. It is urged upon all hands, that we are addressing gentlemen of the highest intelligence and posi tion in the land, many of whom, as has been repeatedly said, are judges and lawyers well versed in the law. What has been your rule of conduct heretofore as judges or law yers, when you came to pronounce judgment upon the conduct of a fellow-man? You have endeavored to place yourselves in his position, and to judge from his standpoint, and when you thus acted, you were enabled, under standingly, to determine in regard to a man's conduct, whether it was right or wrong. I may ask you if it is possible for you to do it; to place yourselves in Andrew Johnson's place and judge a little from his standpoint, and in the manner in which he would judge. I know that this is asking a great deal at your hande. It is asking a great deal of men who have fixed opinions like those which you hold, to ask them to review their opinions, and especially where they differ from those of the man whom they are to judge. But I know I am not addressing such a Senate as the honorable managers spoke of the other day. I am not addressing politicians. I feel that I am addressing judges-the most eminent judges known to law and the Constitution of the country-judges sitting upon the greatest trial known to the Constitution; and though we all know and feel what is the power of passions and prejudices and preconceived opinion, and how difficult it is to lay their influence aside, yet, Senators, I would respectfully and most humbly invoke you, in the name of that God before whom you have sworn to judge im partially, to endeavor to banish, as far as possible, all preconceived opinions and all politics, and rise to the dignity of judges and the high dignity of this great occasion. would even ask you to rise to that superhuman Godlike effort which shall enable you to banish these opinions, and |