Now, what is the evidence presented to this body by one of its committees? It is of this character: The Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton, has been declared by a solemn vote of the Senate to be the Secretary of War, by virtue of--what? By virtue of an appointment to that office; by reason of the fact that Andrew Johnson did not relieve him from office when he had the right to present the name of somebody else--soon after his taking the presidential chair--not the right to turn him out, but the right to nominate some one else to the senate and ask them to confirm him to that office. That the President failed to do. Then, acting under the provisions of this statute, the President suspended Mr.
Stanton as Secretary of War, but the Senate passed upon that act, and decided that the reasons given by the President for suspending Mr. Stanton were not satisfactory; and accordingly, by virtue of this law, Mr. Stanton was confirmed and reinstated in his position as Secretary of War.
Now, all this having been done, it cannot certainly be claimed that the President, in his recent course in regard to Mr.
Stanton, has acted without any intention of violating the law.
Nor can it be claimed that the President is ignorant of the law.
* * *
Mr. Holman (Dem., Ind.) We have listened to much excited eloquence upon this question. It is too manifest that Congress, moving on with that impetus which is ever the result of excessive political power. seeks to usurp those powers which are by the Constitution vested in the other Departments of the Government. Ido not propose to discuss this subject or answer the speech of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Logan] with any words of my own.
I have before me a paper which is full of mature wisdom and patriotic counsel, a speech that comes from the solemn past, yet speaks to every heart that beats for the Union of these States, and the prosperity of the American people; a voice that is answered back from every battlefield of the Revolution, and from the grave of every soldier who has fallen in defense of American liberty. I ask that this speech may be read to the House, as appropriate to this day, the 22nd of February, a day once so venerated. I ask that this immortal address to the American people, a speech that needs no revision: a speech in which there can be no interruptions made in this moment of passion, be read to the American Congress, for I can well afford to be silent while that great voice speaks to the Representatives of the people of this Republic.
The Clerk commenced the reading of Washington's Farewell Address.
Mr. Peters: I rise to a question of order. I insist that that address is not germane to the question before the House.
Mr. Holman: I insist that it is exceedingly germane.
Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio: Allow me to suggest that it is germane, for the reason that it relates to retirement from office.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Peters: That is too remote.
The Speaker pro tempore, (Mr. Blaine, in the chair.) The Chair sustains the point of order.
Mr. Holman: I hope no gentleman will object to the completion of the reading: it will only occupy the time I am entitled to.
Mr. Peters: It is doubtless very instructive, and so would a chapter of the Bible be. but it has nothing to do with the question before the House, and I insist upon the point of order.
The Speaker pro tempore. Up to this point the discussion has been pertinent and germane to the question--very closely so--and the Chair is compelled to rule, the question of order being raised, that this is not germane or in order. The gentleman from Indiana will proceed in order.
Mr. Holman: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States would scarcely be in order. I will not ask to have it read.
The debate continued in the vein illustrated in the foregoing extracts, from the morning of February 22, notwithstanding it was a National Holiday, such was the haste of the impeachers, to the evening of the 24th, almost without interruption. It was at times illustrated by marked ability, and on the Republican side by intense bitterness and partisan malignity. A large number of the members of the House participated in the debate.
Mr. Thaddeus Stevens then closed the debate in the following arraignment of the President:
Now in defiance of this law. (the Office-Tenure Act) Andrew Johnson, on the 21st day of February, 1868, issued his commission or letter of authority to one Lorenzo Thomas, appointing him Secretary of War ad interim, and commanded him to take possession of the Department of War and to eject the incumbent. E M.
Stanton, then in lawful possession of said office. Here, if this act stood alone, would be an undeniable official misdemeanor--not only a misdemeanor per se, but declared to be so by the act itself, and the party made indictable and punishable in a criminal proceeding. If Andrew Johnson escapes with bare removal from office, if he be not FINED AND INCARCERATED IN THEPENITENTIARY AFTERWARD UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, he may thank the weakness or the clemency of Congress and not his own innocence.
We shall propose to prove on the trial that Andrew Johnson was guilty of misprision of bribery by offering to General Grant, if he would unite with him in his lawless violence, to assume in his stead the penalties and to endure the imprisonment denounced by the law Bribery is one of the offenses specifically enumerated for which the President may be impeached and removed from office.
By the Constitution, article two, section two, the President has power to nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint all officers of the United States whose appointments are not therein otherwise provided for and which shall be established by law, and to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their nest session.
