instruct the men and youth before him in their duty to obey the laws and to reverence their rulers, and to prize their institutions of government? Although he may have been mistaken in the aptness of the occasion for such didactic instructions, still good teaching is never thrown away. He shows, however, by his language, as he had shown at Cleveland, that he meant to adapt himself to the occasion. He had hardly opened his mouth, as we shall show you, when some one in the crowd cried, "How about our British subjects?"

The Chief Executive, supported by his Secretary of State, so that all the foreign relations and diplomatic service were fully represented, with a dignity that not even his counsel can appreciate, and with an amenity which must have delighted Downing street, answers: "We will attend to John Bull after awhile, so far as that is concerned." The mob, ungrateful, receive this bit of expression of opinion upon the justice, worthiness, objects, purposes and public and political motives and tendencies ot our relations with the Kingdom of Great Britain, as they fell from the honored lips of the President of the United States. with laughter, and the more unthinking, with cheers.

Having thus disposed of our diplomatic relations with the first naval and commercial nation on earth, the President next proceeds to instruct in the manner aforesaid and for the purpose aforesaid to this noisy mob, on the subject of the riots, upon which his answer says, it is the constitutional duty of the President to express opinion for the purposes aforesaid." A voice calls out "New Orleans! -go on After a graceful exordium, the President expresses his high opinion that a massacre, wherein his pardoned and unpardoned Rebel associates and friends deliberately shot down and murdered unarmed Union men, without provocation-even Horton, the minister of the living God, as his hands were raised to the Prince of Peace, praying, in the language of the great martyr:"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!" -was the result of the laws passed by the legislatíve department of your government in the words following, that is to say

"If you will take up the riot at New Orleans, and trace it back to its source, or to its immediate cause, you will find out who was responsible for the blood that was shed there.

"If you take up the riot at New Orleans, and take it back to the Radical Congress-."

This, as we might expect, was received by the mob, composed, doubtless, in large part of unrepentant Rebels, with great cheering, and cries of "Bully!" It was "bully" for them to learn, on the authority of the President of the United States, that they might shoot down Union men and patriots and lay the sin of the murder upon the Congress of the United States! And this was another bit of opinion, which the counsel say it was the high duty of the President to express upon the justice, the worthiness, objects, "purposes and public political motives and tendenceies of the legislation of your Congress." After some further debate with the mob some one, it seems, had called "Traitor." The President of the United States, on this fitting, constitutional occasion, immediately took this as personal, and replies to it: "Now, my countrymen, it is very easy to indulge in epithets; it is very easy to call a man a Judas, and cry out traitor; but when he is called upon to give arguments and facts, he is very often found wanting.' What were the "facts that were found wanting," which, in the mind of the President, prevented him from being a Judas Iscariot? He shall state the wanting facts in his own language on this occasion, when he is exercising his high constitutional prerogative.

Judas Iscariot! Judas! There was a Judas once; one of the twelve Apostles. Oh! yes; the twelve Apostles had a Christ. (A voice, and a Moses too; great laughter.) The twelve Apostles had a Christ, and he never could have had a Judas unless he had had the twelve Apostles. If I have played the Judas, who has been my Christ that I have played the Judas with? Was it Thad. Stevens? Was it Wendell Phillips? Was it Charles Sumner?"

If it were not that the blasphemy shocks us, we should gather from all this that it dwelt in the mind of the President of the United States, that the only reason why he was not a Judas was that he had not been able to find a Christ towards whom to play the Judas.

It would appear that this "opinion," given in pursuance of his constitutional obligation, was received with cheers and hisses. Whether the cheers were that certain patriotic persons named by him might be hanged, or the hissing was because of the inability of the President to play the part of Judas, for the reasons before stated, I am sorry to say the evidence will not inform us.

His answer makes the President say that it is his "duty to express opinions concerning the public characters, and the conduct, views, purposes, objects, motives and tendencies of all men engaged in the public service.".

Now, as the character, motives, tendencies, purposes, objects and views of Judas alone had opinions expressed" about them on this fit occasion (although he seemed to desire to have some others, whose names he mentioned, hanged), I shall leave his counsel to inform you what were the public services of Judas Iscariot, to say nothing of Moses, which it was the constitutional duty and right of the President of the United States to discuss on this particularly "fit occasion."

But I will not pursue this revolting exhibition any further.

I will only show you at Cleveland he crowd and the President of the United States, in the darkness of night, bandying epithets with each other, crying:-"Mind your

dignity, Andy;" "Don't get mad, Andy:" "Bully for you, Andy.

I hardly dare shock, as I must, every sense of propriety by calling your attention to the President's allusion to the death of the sainted martyr, Lincoln, as the means by which he attained his office; and if it can be justified in any man, public or private, I am entirely mistaken in the commonest properties of life. The President shall tell his own story:

There was two years ago a ticket before you for the Presidency. I was placed upon that ticket with a distinguished citizen now no more. (Voices--'It's a pity! "Too bad!' 'Unfortunate!) Yes; I know there are some who say 'unfortunate!' Yes; unfortunate for some that God rules on high and deals in justice. (Cheers.) Yes, unfortunate; the ways of Providence are mysterious and incomprehensible, controlling all who exclaim unfortunate.'"

Article 11 charges that the President having denied in a public speech on the 18th of August, 1866, at Washington. that the Thirty-ninth Congress was authorized to exercise legislative power, and denying that the legislatlon of said Congress was valid or obligatory upon him, or that it had power to propose certain amendments to the Constitution, did attempt to prevent the execution of the act entitled "An act Regulating the Tenure of Certain Civil Offices," by unlawfully attempting to devise means by which to prevent Mr. Stanton from resuming the functions of the office of Secretary of the Department of War, notwithstanding the refusal of the Senate to concur in his suspension, and that he also contrived means to prevent the execution of an act of March 2, 1867, which provides that all military orders shall be issued through the General of the Army of the United States; and also another act of the same 2d of March, commonly known as the Reconstruction act. To sustain this charge proof will be given of his denial of the authority of Congress, as charged; also his letter to the General of the Army, in which he admits that he endeavored to prevail on him, by promises of pardon and indemnity, to disobey the requirements of the Tenure of Office act, and to hold the office of Secretary of War against Mr. Stanton after he had been reinstated by the Senate; that he chided the General for not acceding to his request, and declared that had he known that he (Grant) would not have acceded to his wishes, he would have taken other means to prevent Mr. Stanton from resuming his office; his admissions in his answer, was that his purpose was, from the first suspension of Mr. Stanton, on August 12, 1867, to oust him from his office, notwithstanding the decision of the Senate under the act; his order to General Grant to refuse to recognize any order of Mr. Stanton purporting to come from himself after he was so reinstated, and his order to General Thomas, as an officer of the army of the United States, to take possession of the War Office, not transmitted, as it should have been, through the General of the Army; and the declarations of General Thomas that, as an officer of the Army of the United States, he felt bound to obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.

To prove further the purpose and intent with which his declarations were made, and his denial of the power of Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution as one of the means employed by him to prevent the execution of the acts of Congress, we shall show he has opposed and hindred the pacification of the country and the return of the insurrectionary States to the Union, and has advised the Legislature of the State of Alabama not to adopt the Constitutional Amendment, known as the fourteenth article, when appealed to to know if it was best for the Legislature so to do, and this, to, after that amendment had been adopted by a majority of the loyal State Legislatures, and after, in the election of 1866, it had been sustained by an overwhelming majority of the loyal people of the United States. I do not propose comment further on this article, because, if the Senate shall have decided that all the acts charged in the preceding articles are justified by law, then so large a part of the intent and purposes with which the respondent is charged in this article would fail of proof, that it would be difficult to say whether he might not, with equal impu nity, violate the laws known as the Reconstruction acts, which in his message he declares "as plainly unconstitutional as any that can be inaugurated." If that be so, why should he not violate them. If, therefore, the judg ment of the Senate shall sustain us upon the other articles, we shall take judgment upon this by confession, as the respondent declares in the same message that he does not intend to execute them.

Is it wonderful at all that such a speech, which seems to have been unprovoked and coolly uttered, should have elicited the single response from the orowd, "Bully for you?" I go no further. I might follow this ad nauseam. I grant the President of the United States further upon this disgraceful scene the mercy of my silence. Tell me, now, who can read this account of this exhibition, and reflect that the result of our institutions of government has been to place such a man, so lost to decency and propriety of conduct, so unfit, in the bigh office of ruler of this nation. without blushing and hanging his head in shame as the finger of corn and contempt for republican democracy is pointed at him by some advocate of monarchy in the old world?

What answer have you when an intelligent foreigner says, "Look! see! this is the culmination of the ballot unrestrained in the hands of a free people in a country where any man may aspire to the office of President. Is not our government of an hereditary king or emperor a better one, where at least our sovereign is born a gentleman, than to have such a thing as this for a ruler?"

Yes, we have an answer. We can say this man was not the choice of the people for the President of the United States. He was thrown to the surface by the whirlpool of a civil war, and carelessly, we grant, was elected to the second place in the government, without thought that he might ever fill the first. By murder most foul, he suceeeded to the Presidency, and is the elect of an assassin to that high office, and not of the people. "It was a grievous fault, and grievously have we answered it" but let me tell you, oh, advocate of monarchy, that our form of goverment gives us a remedy for such misfortune, which yours, with its divine right of kings, does not. We can remove, as we are about to do, from the office he has disgraced, by the sure, safe and constitutional method of impeachment; while your king, if he becomes a buffoon, or a jester, or a tyrant, can only be displaced through revolution, bloodshed and civil war. This this, oh monarchist! is the crowning glory of our institutions; because of which, if for no other reason, our form of government claims precedence over all other governments of the earth.

To the bar of this high tribunal, invested with all its great powers and duties, the House of Representatives has brought the President of the United States by the most solemn form of accusation, charging him with high crimes and misdemeanors in office, as set forth in the Beveral articles which I have thus feebly presented to your attention. Now, it seems necessary that I should briefly touch upon and bring freshly to your remembrance the history of some of the events of his administration of affairs in high office, in order that the intents with which and the purposes for which the respondent committed the acts alleged against him may be fully understood.

Upon the first reading of the articles of impeachment, the question might have arisen in the mind of some Senator, why are these acts of the President only presented by the House, when history informs us that others equally dangerous to the liberties of the people, if not more go, and others of equal usurpation of powers, if not greater, are passed by in silence?

To such possible inquiry we reply, that the acts set out in the first eight articles are but the culmination of a series of wrongs, malfeasances and usurpations committed by the respondent, and, therefore, need to be examined in the light of his precedent and concomitant acts, to grasp their scope and design. The last three articles presented show the perversity and malignity with which he acted, so that the mau, as he is known to us, may be clearly spread upon record, to be seen and known of all men hereafter.

What has been the respondent's course of administration? For the evidence we rely upon common fame and current history, as sufficient proof. Dy the common law, common fame, si oriatur apud bonos et graves, was ground of indictment even; more than two hundred and forty years ago it was determined in Parliament that common fame is a good ground for the proceeding of this House, either to inquire of here or to transmit to the complaint, if the House find cause, to the King or Lords."

Now, is it not well known to all good and brave men, (bonos et graves,) that Andrew Johnson entered the office of President of the United States at the close of an armed Rebellion, making loud denunciations, frequently and everywhere, "that traitors ought to be punished, and treason should be made odious; that the loyal and true men of the South should be fostered and encouraged; and, if there were but few of them, to such only should be given in charge the reconstruction of the disorganized States."

Do not all men know that soon afterwards he changed his course, and only made treason odious, so far as he was concerned, by appointing traitors to office, and by indiscriminate pardon to all who came in unto him?" Who does not know that Andrew Johnson initiated, of his own will, a course of reconstruction of the Rebel States, which, at at the time, he claimed was provisional only, and until the meeting of Congress an its action thereon?

Who does not know that when Congress met and undertook to legislate upon this very subject of reconstruction, of which he had advised them in his message, which they alone had the power to do, Andrew Johnson, last aforesaid, again changed his course, and declared that Congress had no power to legislate upon that subject, but that the two houses had only the power separately to judge of the qualifications of the members who might be sent to each by rebellious constituencies, acting under State organizations which Andrew Johnson had called into existence by his late fiat, the electors of which were voting by his permission and under his limitations?

Who does not know that when Congress, assuming its rightful power to propose amendments to the Constitution, had passed such an amendment, and had submitted it to the States as a measure of pacification, Andrew Johnson advised and counseled the Legislatures of the States lately in Rebellion, as well as others, to reject the amendment. so that it might not operate as law and thus establish equality of suffrage in all the States and equality of rights in the number of the Electoral College and in the number of the Representatives to the Congress of the United States. Lest any one should doubt the correctness of this piece of history, or the truth of this common fame, we shall show you that, while the Legislature of Alabama was deliberating upon the reconsideration of the vote whereby it had rejected the constitutional amendment, the fact being brought to the knowledge of Andrew Johnson, and his advice asked, he, by a telegraphic message under his own hand, here to be produced, to show his intent and purposes, advised the Legislature against passing the amend ment, and to remain firm in their opposition to Congress.

We shall show like advice of Andrew Johnson upon the same subject to the Legislature of South Carolina, and this, too, in the winter of 1867, after the action of Congress in proposing the constitutional amendments had been sustained in the previous election by an overwhelming majority. Thus we charge that Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, not only endeavors to thwart the constitutional action of Congress, and bring it to naught but, also to hinder and oppose the execution of the will of the loyal people of the United States, expressed in the only mode in which it can be done, through the ballot box, in the election of their representatives. Who does not know that from the hour he began these, his usurpations of power, he everywhere denounced Congress, the legality and constitutionality of its action, and defied its legitimate power; and for that purpose announced his intention and carried out his purpose, as far as he was able, of removing every true man from office who sustained the Congress of the United States? And it is to carry out this plan of action that he claims the unlimited power of removal, for the illegal exercise of which he stands before yon to-day. Who does not know that in pursuance of the same plan he used his veto power indiscriminately to prevent the passage of wholesome laws, enacted for the pacification of the country, and when laws were passed by the constitutional majorities over his vetoes he made the most determined opposition, both open and covert, to them; and for the purpose of making that opposition effectual he endeavored to array, and did array, all the people lately in rebellion to set themselves against Congress, and against the true and loyal men, their neighbors, so that murders, assassinations and massacres were rife all over the Southern States, which he encouraged by his refusal to consent that a single murderer should be punished, though thousands of good men have been slain; and, further, that he attempted, by military orders, to prevent the execution of acts of Congress by the military commanders who were charged therewith. These, and his concurrent acts show conclusively that his attempt to get control of the military force of the government. by the seizure of the Department of War, was done in pursuance of his general design, if it were possible, to overthrow the Congress of the United States, and he now claims, by his answer, the right to control at his own will, for the execution of this very design, every officer of the army, navy, civil and diplomatic service of the United States. He asks you here, Senators, by your solemn adjudication, to confirm him in that right-to invest him with that power, to be used with the intents and for the purposes which he has already shown.

The responsibility is with you; the safeguards of the Constitution against usurpation are in your hands; the interests and hopes of free institutions wait upon your action. The House of Representatives has done its duty. We have presented the facts in the constitutional manner; we have brought the criminal to your bar, and demand judgment at your hands for his great crimes.

Never again, if Andrew Johnson go quit and free this day, can the people of this or any other country, by con stitutional checks or guards, stay the usurpation of Executive power. I speak, therefore, not the language of exaggeration, but the words of truth and soberness, in saying that the future political welfare and liberties of all men hang trembling on the decision of the hour.

Recess.

At five minutes before three o'clock, Senator WILSON interrupted Mr. Butler to move that the Senate take a recess of ten minutes.

Mr. BUTLER-I am very much obliged to the Senator.

The Chief Justice put the question on the motion and declared it adopted, and the Senate took a recess accordingly.

Business Resumed.

The Chief Justice promptly called the Senate to order at the expiration of the ten minutes, and Mr. Butler concluded his opening at seventeen minutes before four. His description of the scenes at St. Louis caused several audible titters in the gallery, particularly, when bowing low to the President's counsel, he reiterated with emphasis the words "high constitutional prerogative.'

Mr. BINGHAM of the managers, then rose and said: Mr. President, the managers on the part of the House are ready to proceed with the testimony to make good the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against the President of the United States, and my associate, Mr. Wilson, will present the testimony.

Mr. WILSON-I wish to state in behalf of the mana

gers that, notwithstanding the meaning of the document which we deem important to be presented in evidence have been set out in the exhibits accompanying the answers, and also in some of the answers, we still are of the opinion that it is proper for us to produce the documents originally, by way of guarding against any mishap that might arise from imperfect copies set out in the answer.

I offer. first, on behalf of the managers, a certified

Q. How long have you known him? A. I have known him six or seven years.

Q. Were you employed by the Secretary of the Senate to serve on him a notice of the proceedings of the Senate ? A. I was.

Q. Looking at this memorandum, when did you attempt to make the service? A. On the 21st of February, 1868.

Where "Ad Interim" was Found.

Q. Where did you find him? A. I found him at the Marines' Hal! Masked Ball.

Q. Was he masked? A. He was.

Q. How did you know it was he? A. I saw his shoulder-straps and asked him to uumask.

Q. Did he do so? A. He did.

Q. After ascertaining that it was he, what did you do? A. I handed him a copy of the resolution of the Senate.

Q. About what time of the day or night? A. About eleven o'clock at night.

Q. Did you make the service then? A. I did.
Q. Have you certified the facts? A. Yes.
Q. Is that certificate there? A. It 18.

Q. Will you read it? A. Witness said as follows:Certified copy of the foregoing resolution has been deliyered to Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-General of the United States Army, and the same was by me delivered to the hands of General Thomas, about the hour of eleven o'clock P. M. on the 21st of February, 1868. J. W. JONES.

Q. Is that certificate true? A. It is. Mr. WILSON then read the proceedings in Executive Session of the Senate on February 21, 1868, the copy of which was served on General Thomas.

Mr. Creecy on the Stand.

The next witness called was Charles C. Creecy, who was examined by Mr. BUTLER, as follows:

Q. State your full name and official position. A. James C. Creecy, Appointing Clerk of the Treasury Department.

Q. Look at this bundle of papers and give me the form of commission used in the Treasury Department before the passage of the act of March 2, 1867. Witness produced and handed the paper to Mr. Butler.

Q. Was this the ordinary form, or one used without any exception? A. It was the ordinary form.

Complaints were made on the part of Senators and of the counsel for the President, that it was impossible to hear what was said by the witness, and Mr. BUTLER suggested that, if it were not considered improper, he would repeat the witness' answers.

Mr. EVARTS replied that the counsel preferred that the witness should speak out so as to be heard.

Senator TRUMBULL suggested that the witness should stand further from the counsel, and the witness accordingly took his position at the right-hand side of the Secretary's desk, when the examination was continued.

Q. For the class of appointments for which such commissions would be issued, was there any other form used before that time? A. I think that is the form for a permanent commission.

Q. Now give the form that has been used in the Treasury Department since the passage of the act of March 2, 1867.

Mr. STANBERY, counsel for the President, asked Mr. Butler to be kind enough to state the object of the testimony.

Mr. BUTLER replied, the object of this testimony is to show that, prior to the passage of the act of March 2, 1867, known as the Civil Tenure of Office bill, a certain form of commission was used and issued by the President of the United States, and that after the passage of the Civil Tenure of Office bill, a new form was made conforming to the Civil Tenure of Office act, thus showing that the President acted on the Tenure of Office act as an actual valid law.

Mr. BUTLER resumed the examination as follows:Q. I see there are certain interlineations in this form. Do you speak of the form before it was interlined, or subsequently? A. This commission shows the changes that have been made conformably to the Tenure of Office bill.

Q. There is a portion of that paper in print and a portion in writing; do I understand you that the printed portion was the form before the Teunre of Office bill was passed? A. Yes.

Q. And the written portion shows the changes? A. Yes.

Read with a loud voice the printed portion of the commission.

Senator CONNESS suggested that the reading had better be done by the Clerk, and the commission, in its original and in its altered form, was read by the Secretary of the Senate.

In the original form the office was to be held "during the pleasure of the President of the United States fof the time being." In the altered form these words were struck out, and the following words substituted: "Until a successor shall have been appointed and duly qualified."

The examination was resumed.

Q. Since that act has any other form of commission been used than the one as altered for such appointments? A. No, sir.

Q. Have you now the form of the official bond of officers used prior to the Civil Tenure of Office act? A. I have.

sir.

Witness produces it.

Q. Has there been any change made in it? A. No

Q. Please give me a copy of the commission issued for temporary appointments since the Tenure of Office act.

Witness hands the paper to Mr. Butler.

Q. State whether the printed part of this paper was the part in use prior to the Tenure of Office act? A. It

was.

Q. Was any change made in the form of commission? A. Yes.

The commission was read by the Secretary of the Senate, showing that the words "during the pleasure of the President of the United States for the time being" were struck out, and the words "unless this commission is sooner revoked by the President of the United States for the time being," substituted.

Q. State whether before these changes were made the official opinion of the Solicitor of the Treasury was taken? A. It was.

Q. Have you it here? A. I have.

Witness hands the paper to Mr. Butler.

After a moment Mr. Butler said he withdrew the question.

Q. Do you know whether, since the alteration of this form, any commissions have been issued, signed by the President, as altered. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Has the President signed both the temporary and permanent forms of commissions, as altered? A, Yes, sir.

Mr. Edmund Cooper's Case.

Q. Look at this paper, last handed to you, and state what it is? A. It is a commission issued to Mr. Edmund Cooper, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

Q. Under what date? A. The third of November, 1867.

Q. Who was the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury at the time of issuing that commission? A. Mr. E. E. Chandler.

Q. Do you happen to remember, as a matter of memory, whether the Senate was then in session? A. I think it was not.

Q. State whether Mr. Cooper qualified and went into office under the first cominission? A. He did not qualify under the first commission.

Q. What is the second paper I handed to you? A. It is a letter of authority to Mr. Cooper to act as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. EVARTS asked whether the other paper was considered as read, and Mr. BUTLER replied that it

was.

Mr. EVARTS asked, when are we to know the contents of these papers, if they are not read? Mr. BUTLER stated that they were the same as read.

Mr. EVARTS responded, well, let it be so stated; we know nothing whatever about them.

The Secretary of the Senate read the comission of Mr. Cooper, dated November 3, 1867, which provides that he shall hold his office to the end of the next session of the Senate, and no longer, subject to the conditions prescribed by law. He also read the letter of authority of December 22, 1867, which recites that a vacancy had occurred in the office of Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and that in pursuance of the authority of the act of Congress of 1799, Edward Cooper is authorized to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury until a successor be appointed, or such vacancy be filled.

The examination was continued by Mr, BUTLER. Q. How did Mr. Chandler get out of office? A. He resigned.

Q. Have you a copy of his resignation? A. I have

not.