purposes. General-in-chief, or by any other channel of communication, are entitled to respect and obedience; and that such constitutional power cannot be taken from him by virtue of any act of Congress. Respondent doth therefore deny that by the expression of such opinion he did commit or was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office. And this respondent doth further say that the said article nine lays no foundation whatever for the conclusion stated in the said article, that the respondent, by reason of the allegations therein contained, was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office. army for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other SEO. 2. And be it further enacted, That the headquarters of the General of the army of the United States shall be at the city of Washington, and all orders and instructions relating to military operations issued by the President or Secretary of War shall be issued through the General of the army, and in case of his inability, through the next in rank. The General of the army shall not be removed, suspended, or relieved from command or assigned to duty elsewhere than at said headquarters, except at his own request, without the previous approval of the Senate; and any orders or instructions relating to military operations issued contrary to the requirements of this section shall be null and void; and any officer who shall issue orders or instructions contrary to the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor in office; and any officer of the army who 8.all transmit, convey, or obey any orders or instructions so issued contrary to the provisions of this section, knowing In reference to the statement made by General that such orders were so issued, shall be liable to imprison- Emory, that this respondent had approved of ment for not less than two nor more than twenty years, said act of Congress containing the section re upon conviction thereof in any court of competent juris-ferred to, the respondent admits that his formal diction. Approved March 2, 1867. By order of the Secretary of War: E. D. TOWNSEND, approval was given to said act, but accompanied considerations, I feel constrained to return the bill with my General Emory not only called the attention of respondent to this order, but to the fact that it was in conformity with a section contained in an appropriation act passed by Congress. Respondent, after reading the order, observed: This is not in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, which makes me commander-in-chief of the army and navy, or of the language of the commission which you hold." General Emory then stated that this order had met respondent's approval. Respondent then said in reply, in substance, "Am I to understand that the President of the United States cannot give an order but through the General-in-chief, or General Grant?" General Emory again reiterated the statement that it Respondent, therefore, did no more than to had met respondent's approval, and that it was express to said Emory the same opinion which the opinion of some of the leading lawyers of he had expressed to the House of Representathe country that this order was constitutional.tives. With some further consideration, respondent then inquired the names of the lawyers who had given the opinion, and he mentioned the names of two. Respondent then said that the object of the law was very evident, referring to the clause in the appropriation act upon which the order purported to be based. This, according to respondent's recollection, was the substance of the conversation had with General Emory. Respondent denies that any allegations in the said article of any instructions or declarations given to the said Emory, then or at any other time, contrary to or in addition to what is hereinbefore set forth, are true. Respondent denies that, in said conversation with said Emory, he had any other intent than to express the opinions then given to the said Emory; nor did he then, or at any time, request or order the said Emory to disobey any law or any order issued in conformity with any law, or intend to offer any inducement to the said Emory to violate any law. What this respondent then said to General Emory was simply the expression of an opinion which he then fully believed to be sound, and which he yet believes to be so-and that is, that by the express provisions of the Constitution, this respondent, as President, is made the commander-in-chief of the armies of the United States, and as such he is to be respected; and that his orders, whether issued through the War Department or through the WASHINGTON, D. C., March 2, 1867. ANSWER TO ARTICLE X. And in answer to the tenth article and speci- the President of the United States and present the United States, acting and speaking in their b half, presented a copy of the proceedings of the convention, and addressed the President of the United States in a speech, of which a copy (according to a published report of the same, and, as the respondent believes, substantially a correct report) is hereto annexed as a part of this answer, and marked Exhibit C. That thereupon, and in reply to the address of said committee by their chairman, this respondent addressed the said committee so waiting upon him in one of the rooms of the Executive Mansion; and this respondent believes that this his address to said committee is the occasion referred to in the first specification of the tenth article; but this respondent does not admit that the passages therein set forth, as if extracts from a speech or address of this respondent upon said occasion, correctly or justly present his speech or address upon said occasion, but, on the contrary, this respondent demands and insists that if this honorable court shall deem the said article and the said specification thereof to contain allegation of matter cognizable by this honorable court as a high misdemeanor in office, within the intent and meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and shall receive or allow proof in support of the same, that proof shall be required to be made of the actual speech and address of this respondent on said occasion, which this respondent denies that said article and specification contain or correctly or justly represent. And this respondent, further answering the tenth article and the specifications thereof, says that at Cleveland, in the State of Ohio, and on the 3d day of September, in the year 1866, he was attended by a large assemblage of his fellow-citizens, and in deference and obedience to their call and demand he addressed them upon matters of public and political consideration; and this respondent believes that said occasion and address are referred to in the second specification of the tenth article; but this respondent does not admit that the passages therein set forth, as if extracts from a speech of this respondent on said occasion, correctly or justly present his speech or address upon said occasion; but, on the contrary, this respondent demands and insists that if this honorable court shall deem the said article and the second specification thereof to contain allegation of matter cognizable by this honorable court as a high misdemeanor in office, within the intent and meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and shall receive or allow proof in support of the same, that proof shall be required to be made of the actual speech and address of this respondent on said occasion, which this respondent denies that said article and specification contain or correctly or justly represent. And this respondent, further answering the tenth article and the specifications thereof, says that at St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, and on the 8th day of September, in the year 1866, he was attended by a numerous assemblage of his fellow-citizens, and in deference and obedience to their call and demand he addressed them upon matters of public and political consideration; and this respondent believes that said occasion and address are referred to in the third specification of the tenth article; but this respondent does not admit that the passages therein set forth, as if extracts from a speech of this respondent on said occasion, correctly or justly present his speech or address upon said occasion; but, on the contrary, this respondent demands and insists that if this honorable court shall deem the said article and the said third specification thereof to contain allegation of matter cognizable by this honorable court as a high misdemeanor in office, within the intent and meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and shall receive or allow proof in support of the same, that proof shall be required to be made of the actual speech and address of this respondent on said occasion, which this respondent denies that the said article and specification contain or correctly or justly represent. And this respondent, further answering the tenth article, protesting that he has not been unmindful of the high duties of his office, or of the harmony or courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, denies that he has ever intended or designed to set aside the rightful authority or powers of Congress, or attempted to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, or reproach the Congress of the United States or either branch thereof, or to impair or destroy the regard or respect of all or any of the good people of the United States for the Congress or the rightful legislative power thereof, or to excite the odium or resentment of all or any of the good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted. This respondent further says, that at all times he has, in his official acts as President, recognized the authority of the several Congresses of the United States as constituted and organized during his administration of the office of President of the United States. And this respondent, further answering, says that he has, from time to time, under his constitutional right and duty as President of the United States, communicated to Congress his views and opinions in regard to such acts or resolutions thereof as, being submitted to him as President of the United States in pursuance of the Constitution, seemed to this respondent to require such communications; and he has, from time to time, in the exercise of that freedom of speech which belongs to him as a citizen of the United States, and, in his political relations as President of the United States to the people of the United States, is upon fit occasions a duty of the highest obligation, expressed to his fellowcitizens his views and opinions respecting the measures and proceedings of Congress; and that in such addresses to his fellow-citizens and in such his communications to Congress he has expressed his views, opinions, and judgment of and concerning the actual constitution of the two houses of Congress without representation therein of certain States of the Union, and of the effect that in wisdom and justice, in the opinion and judgment of this respondent, Congress, in its legislation and proceedings, should give to this political circumstance; and whatsoever he has thus communicated to Congress or addressed to his fellow-citizens or any assemblage thereof, this respondent says was and is within and according to his right and privilege as an American citizen and his right and duty as Presi dent of the United States. And this respondent, not waiving or at all disparaging his right of freedom of opinion and of freedom of speech, as herein before or hereinafter more particularly set forth, but claiming and insisting upon the same, further answering the said tenth article, says that the views and opinions expressed by this respondent in his said addresses to the assemblages of his fellow-citizens, as in said article or in this answer thereto mentioned, are not and were not intended to be other or different from those expressed by him in his communications to Congress-that the eleven States lately in insurrection never had ceased to be States of the Union, and that they were then entitled to representation in Congress by loyal Representatives and Senators as fully as the other States of the Union, and that, consequently, the Congress, as then constituted, was not, in fact, a Congress of all the States, but a Congress of only a part of the States. This respondent, always protesting against the unauthorized exclusion therefrom of the said eleven States, nevertheless gave his assent to all laws passed by said Congress which did not, in his opinion and judgment, violate the Constitution, exercising his constitutional authority of returning bills to said Congress with his objections when they appeared to him to be unconstitutional or inexpedient. and political motives and tendencies; and within and as a part of such right and duty to form, and on fit occasions to express, opinions of and concerning the public character and conduct, views, purposes, objects, motives, and tendencies of all men engaged in the public service, as well in Congress as otherwise, and under no other rules or limits upon this right of freedom of opinion and of freedom of speech, or of responsi bility and amenability for the actual exercise of such freedom of opinion and freedom of speech, than attend upon such rights and their exercise on the part of all other citizens of the United States, and on the part of all their public servants. And this respondent, further anewering said tenth article, says that the several occasions on which, as is alleged in the several specifications of said article, this respondent addressed his fellow-citizens on subjects of public and politi cal consideration, were not, nor was any one of them, sought or planned by this respondent; but, on the contrary, each of said occasions arose upon the exercise of a lawful and accustomed right of the people of the United States to call upon their public servants and express to them their opinions, wishes, and feelings upon matters of public and political consideration, and to invite from such, their public servants, an expression of their opinions, views, and feelings on matters of public and political consideration; and this respondent claims and insists before this honorable court, and before all the people of the United States, that of or And, further, this respondent has also ex- concerning this his right of freedom of opinion pressed the opinion, both in his communications and of freedom of speech, and this his exercise of to Congress and in his addresses to the people, such rights on all matters of public and political that the policy adopted by Congress in reference consideration, and in respect of all public ser to the States lately in insurrection did not tend vants or persons whatsoever engaged in or conto peace, harmony, and union, but, on the connected therewith, this respondent, as a citizen or trary, did tend to disunion and the permanent as President of the United States, is not subject disruption of the States; and that in following to question, inquisition, impeachment, or inculits said policy, laws had been passed by Congress in violation of the fundamental principles of the government, and which tended to consolidation and despotism; and, such being his deliberate opinions, he would have felt himself unmindful of the high duties of his office if he had failed to express them in his communications to Congress, or in his addresses to the peo ple when called upon by them to express his opinions on matters of public and political con sideration. And this respondent, further answering the tenth article, says that he has always claimed and insisted, and now claims and insists, that both in his personal and private capacity of a citizen of the United States, and in the political relations of the President of the United States to the people of the United States, whose servant, under the duties and responsibilities of the Constitution of the United States, the President of the United States is, and should always remain, this respondent had and has the full right, and in his office of President of the United States is held to the high duty of forming, and, on fit occasions, expressing, opinions of and concerning the legislation of Congress, proposed or completed, in respect of its wisdom, expediency, justice. worthiness, objects, purposes, and public pation in any form or manner whatsoever. And this respondent says that neither the said tenth article nor any specification thereof, nor any allegation therein contained, touches or relates to any official act or doing of this respondent in the office of President of the United States or in the discharge of any of its constitu tional or legal duties or responsibilities; but said article and the specifications and allegations thereof, wholly and in every part thereof, question only the discretion or propriety of freedom of opinion or freedom of speech as exercised by this respondent as a citizen of the United States in his personal right and capacity, and without allegation or imputation against this respondent of the violation of any law of the United States touching or relating to freedom of speech or its exercise by the citizens of the United States or by this respondent as one of the said citizens or otherwise; and he denies that, by reason of any matter in said article or its specifications alleged, he has said or done anything indecent or unbe coming in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, or that he has brought the high office of the President of the United States into contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, or that he has com mitted or has been guilty of a high misdemeanor in office. ANSWER TO ARTICLE XI. of Secretary for the Department of War; or by unlawfully devising or contriving, or attempting to devise or contrive, means to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of the army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes," approved March 2, 1867, or to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States," passed March 2, 1867. And this respondent, further answering the said eleventh article, says that he has, in his answer to the first article, set forth in detail the acts, steps, and proceedings done and taken by this respondent to and toward or in the matter of the suspension or removal of the said Edwin M. Stanton in or from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, with the times, modes, circumstances, intents, views, purposes, and opinions of official obligation and duty under and with which such acts, steps, and proceedings were done and taken; and he makes answer to this eleventh article of the matters in his answer to the first article, pertaining to the suspension or removal of said Edwin M. Stanton, to the same intent and effect as if they were here repeated and set forth. And this respondent, further answering the said eleventh article, denies that by means or reason of anything in said article alleged, this respondent, as President of the United States, did, on the 21st day of February, 1868, or at any other day or time, commit, or that he was guilty of, a high misdemeanor in office. And in answer to the eleventh article, this respondent denies that on the 18th day of August, in the year 1866, at the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, he did, by public speech or otherwise, declare or affirm, in substance or at all, that the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States was not a Congress of the United States authorized by the Constitution to exercise legislative power under the same, or that he did then and there declare or affirm that the said Thirty-Ninth Congress was a Congress of only part of the States in any sense or meaning other than that ten States of the Union were denied representation therein; or that he made any or either of the declarations or affirmations in this behalf, in the said article alleged, as denying or intending to deny that the legislation of said Thirty-Ninth Congress was valid or obligatory upon this respondent, except so far as this respondent saw fit to approve the same; and as to the allegation in said article, that he did thereby intend or mean to be understood that the said Congress had not power to propose amendments to the Constitution, this respondent says that in said address he said nothing in reference to the subject of amendments of the Constitution, nor was the question of the competency of the said Congress to propose such amendments, without the participation of said excluded States, at the time of said address, in any way mentioned or considered or referred to by this respondent, nor in what he did say had he any intent regarding the same, and he denies the allegation so made to the contrary thereof. And this respondent, further answering the But this respondent, in further answer to, and said eleventh article, says that the same and the in respect of the said allegations of the said matters therein contained do not charge or eleventh article herein before traversed and de- allege the commission of any act whatever by nied, claims and insists upon his personal and this respondent, in his office of President of the official right of freedom of opinion and freedom United States, nor the omission by this respondof speech, and his duty in his political relations ent of any act of official obligation or duty in as President of the United States to the people his office of President of the United States; nor of the United States in the exercise of such does the said article nor the matters therein confreedom of opinion and freedom of speech, in tained name, designate, describe, or define any the same manner, form, and effect as he has in act or mode or form of attempt, device, conthis behalf stated the same in his answer to the trivance, or means, or of attempt at device, consaid tenth article, and with the same effect as if trivance or means, whereby this respondent can he here repeated the same; and he further claims know or understand what act or mode or form and insists, as in said answer to said tenth article of attempt, device, contrivance or means, or of he has claimed and insisted, that he is not sub- attempt at device, contrivance, or means, are ject to question, inquisition, impeachment, or in- imputed to or charged against this respondent, culpation, in any form or manner, of or concern-in his office of President of the United States, ing such rights of freedom of opinion of freedom of speech or his said alleged exercise thereof. And this respondent further denies that on the 21st of February, in the year 1868, or at any other time, at the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, in pursuance of any such declaration as is in that behalf in said eleventh article alleged, or otherwise, he did unlawfully, and in disregard of the requirement of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws should be faithfully executed, attempt to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867, by unlawfully devising or contriving, or attempting to devise or contrive, means by which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the functions or intended so to be, or whereby this respondent can more fully or definitely make answer unto the said article than he hereby does. And this respondent, in submitting to this honorable court this his answer to the Articles of Impeachment exhibited against him, respectfully reserves leave to amend and add to the same from time to time, as may become necessary or proper, and when and as such necessity and propriety shall appear. ANDREW JOHNSON HENRY STANBERY, THOMAS A. R. NELSON, Same day-The President's counsel asked for thirty days for preparation before the trial shall proceed; which was debated and disagreed to— yeas 12, nays 41. March 24-The Managers presented the replication adopted—yeas 116, nays 36-by the House of Representatives, as follows: IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, UNITED STATES, March 24, 1868. Replication by the House of Representatives of the United Stutes to the answer of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, to the Articles of Impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives of the United States have considered the several answers of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, to the several articles of impeachment against him by them exhibited in the name of themselves and of all the people of the United States, and reserving to themselves all advantage of exception to the insufficiency of his answer to each and all of the several articles of impeachment exhibited against said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do deny each and every averment in said several answers, or either of them, which denies or traverses the acts, intents, crimes, or misdemeanors charged against said Andrew Johuson in the said articles of impeachment, or either of them; and for replication to said answer do say that said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, is guilty of the high crimes and misdemeanors mentioned in said articles, and that the House of Representatives are ready to prove the same. Speaker of the House of Representatives. EDWARD MCPHERSON, Clerk of the House of Representatives. Same day An order was adopted, finally without a division, that the Senate will commence the trial on the 30th inst., and proceed with all convenient despatch. March 30-Opening argument by Mr. Butler, one of the Managers, and some testimony introduced. March 31, April 1, 2, 3, and 4, the testimony for the prosecution continued, and the case on the part of the House substantially closed. Adjourned till April 9, at the request of the President's counsel. April 9 and 10-Occupied by Judge Curtis's opening argument for the defence, and in presenting testimony. April 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, testimony presented. | April 22-Argument begun, and continued on April 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, May 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. May 7 and 11 spent in determining rules, form of question, &c. May 12, adjourned in consequence of the sickness of Senator Howard, till May 16. The Judgment of the Senate. that the question on the eleventh article be taken May 16-By a vote of 34 to 19, it was ordered first. [For Article XI, see page 10.] The vote was 35 "guilty," 19 "not guilty," as follow: GUILTY-Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patter son of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, Yates-35. NOT GUILTY-Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Norton, Putterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers-19. voted upon, with the same result as on the May 26-The second and third articles were eleventh GUILTY 35; NOT GUILTY, 19. A motion that the court do now adjourn sine die was then carried-yeas 34, nays 16, as fol low: YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, huysen, Harlan, Howard, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Mor Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelingrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, ayer, Tipton, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wil son, Yates-34. NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doo Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury, Trumlittle, Fowler, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnsm, McCreery, bull, Vickers-16. NOT VOTING-Conness, Fessenden, Grimes, Howe―4. Judgment of acquittal was then entered by the Chief Justice on the three articles voted upon, and the Senate sitting as a court for the trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, upon Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives, was declared adjourned without day. 1 D XXV. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN GEN. GRANT AND PRESIDENT JOHNSON, GROWING OUT OF SECRETARY STANTON'S SUSPENSION. |