THE PETIT JURY IMPANELED TO TRY JEFFERSON DAVIS. THIS WAS THE FIRST MIXED PETIT JURY EVER IMPANELED IN THE UNITED STATES. JUDGE UNDERWOOD,

NOT CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE, PRESIDED.

From Dixie After the War, by courtesy and permission of Myrta L. Avary and Doubleday, Page & Co.

dent with "usurpation of power and violation of law; in that he has corruptly used the appointing power; in that he has corruptly used the pardoning power; in that he has corruptly used the veto power; in that he has corruptly disposed of public property of the United States; in that he has corruptly interfered in elections, and committed acts which, in contemplation of the Constitution, are high are high crimes and misdemeanors."'* The President sent his annual message to the Fortieth Congress December 3, 1867, and "put forward a strong argument, couched in respectful language, against the policy and constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts," urging their repeal and the admission of representatives from the Southern States to their seats in Congress. At the close of his message, however, he introduced some ambiguous expressions as to whether it was the duty of the President to oppose or to enforce Congressional acts which he believed to be unconstitutional. These remarks were interpreted by the radicals to be a threat on the the President's part to violate the Reconstruction and Tenure-of-Office acts. Senator Sumner characterized the message as incendiary document, calculated to stimulate the rebellion once more, and to provoke civil war. It is a direct appeal to the worst passions and to

66

an

McPherson's Handbook of Politics, 1868, pp. 187-188; DeWitt, Impeachment, p. 153.

Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. vi., pp.

558-581.

391

the worst prejudices of those rebels who, being subdued on the battlefield, still resist through the aid of the President of the United States. It is the evidence of a direct coalition between the President and the former rebels.'*

The Judiciary Committee appointed by the last session of the Thirtyninth Congress† had now exhaustively investigated the charges against the President and reported that the evidence did not warrant impeachment proceedings, but they were sent back to their work for further consideration an order that was practically a command to hand down an indiétment, evidence or no evidence. Consequently on November 25, 1867, the Committee, by a majority of one, reported the following resolution: "Resolved: That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and misde

* DeWitt, Impeachment, pp. 311-312. Julian says: "Andrew Johnson was no longer merely a 'wrongheaded and obstinate man,' but a 'genius in depravity,' whose hoarded malignity and passion were unfathomable. He was not simply an irresolute mule' but was devil-bent upon the ruin of his country. No extravagance of speech or explosion of wrath was deemed out of order during this strange dispensation in our polities."- Political Recollections, p. 314 et seq.

The majority members were George S. Boutwell, of Massachusetts, Francis Thomas, of Maryland, Thomas Williams, of Pennsylvania. William Lawrence, of Ohio, and John C. Churchill. The minority members were James F. Wilson, of Iowa, and Frederick E. Woodbridge, of Vermont. There were also two Democratic members of the Committee Samuel S. Marshall, of Illinois, and Charles A. Eldridge, of Wisconsin-who submitted a separate report.

-

For the methods of securing evidence see DeWitt, Impeachment.

392

"The twelve hundred printed pages of evidence submitted were in reality, however, a signal vindication of Mr. Johnson; for the testimony of witnesses that ranged from as high as the cabinet officers to as low as convicted felons in prison disclosed nothing in either his public or his private life that even the bigoted Boutwell could say was an illegal act. Yet this typical exponent of the Puritan political conscience presented a resolution that the President be impeached. Though many of the moderate Republicans in both House and Senate believed that the removal of Johnson would be a good thing for the country, they hesitated to proceed to so serious a step till some specific act of a criminal character could be alleged as a reason." †

Hence the action of the House. On December 12 the President sent a message to Congress in which he gave his reasons for the removal of Secretary Stanton. These reasons were not satisfactory to the Senate, and a

* Globe, p. 68, 40th Congress, 2d session: MePherson, Political History, p. 264; Blaine, vol. ii., pp. 341-347; Dunning, Impeachment, pp. 148-149; DeWitt, Impeachment, pp. 288-314.

Reconstruction, Political and Economic, p. 100.
Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. vi., pp.

583-594.

66

Plaine, however, says (vol. ii., p. 349) that Johnson in his message certainly exhibited to an impartial judge, uninfluenced by personal or party motives, strong proof of the utter impossibility of Mr. Stanton and himself working together harmoniously in the administration of the govern ment. If the President of the United States has the right to constitutional advisers who are personally agreeable to him and who share his personal confidence, then surely Mr. Johnson gave unanswerable proof that Mr. Stanton should not remain a member of his cabinet." With regard to Stanton's reinstatement by the Senate against

month later (January 13, 1868), the Senate by a vote of 35 to 6 reinstated the former Secretary. General Grant thereupon quietly retired from the office. This act made the President very angry. He reproached Grant for yielding to the will of the Senate; and charged him with having broken his promise not to turn over the office to Stanton before notifying Johnson, as the latter wished to get the case before the courts.

This promise Johnson proved by the members of his Cabinet. But his action in this matter was most illadvised for he needed Grant's friendship at this time. Johnson was not prudent when crossed in his purposes and had not that keen foresight which would have told him that he would be worsted in the public mind in a contest with Grant, the popular hero. So he plunged headlong into the unfortunate controversy and made Grant his life-long enemy. In the correspondence that ensued, which found its way to the public, a question of veracity between Johnson and Grant arose; and finally Grant felt compelled to say to Johnson:

"When my honor as a soldier and my integrity as a man have been so violently assailed, pardon me for saying that I can but regard this whole matter, from beginning to end, as an attempt to

Johnson's earnest and repeated protests. Blaine says: "In the prima facie statement of this case the Senate was in the wrong. Upon the record of its votes and the expression of opinion by its own members, the Senate was in the wrong. The history of every preceding Administration and of every subsequent Administration of the Federal Government proves that the Senate was in the wrong."- p. 354.