and vested in a subordinate officer, the responsibility will be with Congress in clothing the subordinate with unconstitutional power and with the officer who assumes its exercise."

Ideas and

The radical Republicans interpreted this language, at once, as meaning that the President proposed to so interfere with the execution of the Reconsuspicions struction Acts as to avoid their intent and about the meaning of destroy their effect. And the talk about the message. impeachment was again revived. The President, however, meant nothing of the kind, and but for exaggerated suspicion and party hatred the language of the message would have been held to mean only an appeal to Congress to desist from its unlawful attempt to rob the Executive of his constitutional powers, and to the people to elect men to Congress who would obey the principles of the Constitution in their legislative acts.

The Houses passed the bill over the President's veto immediately, by an overwhelming majority, and almost The veto in a spirit of derision. The next day, July overridden. 20th, Congress adjourned to the 21st of the following November.

The unfortunate relations of Mr. Stanton with the President, and with the other members of the Cabinet were the thing which was destined to produce the catastrophe. He had become unbearable to the President, and to the most of his colleagues. He ought in all decency to have resigned his portfolio as Speed and Harlan and Dennison had done the year before. The President asked him to resign in a note of the 5th sion of Stan of August. Stanton, feeling sure of the support of the large majority in Congress, contemptuously refused. The President could now in the recess of Congress suspend him without violating the provisions of the Tenure-of-Office Act, or raising the

The

suspen

ton from of

fice.

question of its constitutionality. The President at last resolved to take the matter into his own hands and rid himself of Stanton's presence in his confidential counsels. On the 12th of August he sent an executive order to Stanton suspending him from the office of Secretary of War, and another to General Grant authorizing and empowering him to act as Secretary of War ad interim. Stanton yielded to this order under protest. He wrote the President that he could not legally suspend him from office and declared that he submitted only to superior physical force. Grant accepted the appointment, although he had, four days before, advised the President against disturbing Stanton. Grant entered upon the duties of the office at once, and Stanton went off to New England to recuperate health, spirits and courage for his battle with the President which was bound to come unless the President should yield and take him back again, so soon as Congress should assemble.

By a series of orders issued during the same month (August) General Hancock was substituted for General. Sheridan in the command of the fifth military district and General Canby for General Sickles in the command of the second district. Both of the generals thus relieved were great favorites at the North, especially Sheridan. The President felt that they were too much imbued with the military spirit to make good administrators of civil affairs. But the people of the North saw in these changes only the purpose of the President to place his political friends among the army officers in command of the military districts, and through them to modify the intent of the Reconstruction Acts in the course of their execution.

Changes

among the of the military

commanders

districts.

CHAPTER VIII

THE EXECUTION OF THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS

The Attempt to Prevent the Execution of the Reconstruction Acts in Mississippi and Georgia-The Case of Mississippi vs. Johnson -The Case of Georgia vs. Stanton-The Operations of the Commanders-The Registration-The Number Registered— The Change in the Electorate in the South-The Elections— Efforts of the Commanders to Get the Vote Out-The Result of the Elections-The Character of the Convention Delegates Chosen-The Work of the Conventions-The Vote upon Ratification-Fraudulent Voting and Unlawful Voting-The Recall of Pope and the Appointment of Meade in His Stead-Rejection of the Constitution in Alabama-The Statute of Congress Changing the Proportion of Votes to Registration in the Ratification of a Constitution-Criticism of the Statute-Ratification in Arkansas-Ratification in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Louisiana-Second Attempt in Georgia to Obstruct Reconstruction-Rejection of the Constitution in Mississippi.

The attempt to prevent the execution of

struction Acts

ALTHOUGH the Supreme Court of the United States had said, in the case of Kendall vs. the United States, in 1838, that so far as the President's power is derived from the Constitution the Recon he is beyond the reach of any other departin Mississippi ment, except in the mode prescribed by the Constitution, through the impeaching power, and had also indicated, in the cases of the Cherokee Nation vs. the State of Georgia, in 1831, and Luther vs. Borden, in 1849, that it had no jurisdiction over political questions, there still prevailed in many minds the idea that the Court was the ultimate in

and Georgia.

144

terpreter of the Constitution in all cases of whatever nature, and that no person was exempted from its jurisdiction on account of official station. Under the influence of this idea, W. L. Sharkey, the ex-provisional Governor of Mississippi, appointed by President Johnson in 1865, undertook to obtain from the Supreme Court of the United States an injunction restraining the President of the United States from carrying the Reconstruction Acts of March, 1867, into effect. He was aided in this attempt by the Hon. Robert J. Walker, and their client in the case, as set up by them, was the "State of Mississippi." In a powerful argument, noted for both clearness and frankness, Mr. Johnson's Attorney-General, Mr. Stanbery, demonstrated that the President of the United States cannot be made subject to the jurisdiction of any court, while in office, except only the Senate of the United States, as the constitutional court of impeachment. The plea of Mr. Stanbery is also notable for another thing, viz.: the frank way in which he notified the Southerners that the President's opposition to these laws ceased with their successful passage over his vetoes, and that the President intended to execute them in spirit and letter, as it was his sworn duty to do. The Court decided, in 1866, in the case of Mississippi vs. Johnson, that "a bill praying an injunction against the execution of an act of Congress by the incumbent of the presiden- Mississippi tial office cannot be received, whether it describes him as President or as a citizen of a State."

The case of

vs. Johnson.

Under the delusion that this decision was based entirely upon the official exemption from jurisdiction of the person sought to be made defendant, Hon. Charles J. Jenkins, Governor of Georgia, under the reconstructed constitution of 1865, undertook, as representing the "State of Georgia," to obtain an injunction against Stan

ton as Secretary of War, Grant as General of the army and Pope as commander of the third military district, restraining them from putting the Reconstruction Acts of March, 1867, into operation. Mr. Stanbery again came forward, in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Stanton, with a most able argument against the jurisdiction of the Court over the question involved, it beGeorgia vs. ing, as he contended, a political question Stanton. pure and simple, and the Court again sustained him, deciding that it possessed no jurisdiction over the subject-matter presented in the bill for relief.

The case of

The opera

The generals now had free hand to go ahead according, pretty much, to their own discretion. The law gave them, first until September, and then tions of the until October, to complete the registration, commanders: and they themselves appointed and extended the times of registration at will. They constituted the boards of registry chiefly of army officers, Freedmen's Bureau officers, discharged Union soldiers, and negroes. Where white residents could be found who could take the iron-clad oath, the oath prescribed by Congress July 2d, 1862, they were also used in constituting these boards. The registration was quite successful in bringing out most of those qualified to register. The reason for this was not ready acquiescence on the part of the whites in the Reconstruction Acts, but it was the calcuThe regis- lation that by registering and not voting on tration. the question of holding a convention, or on the question of constitutional ratification, one or both of these propositions might be defeated, since the act of March 23d provided, as we have seen, that a majority of the registered voters must vote in order to carry them in the affirmative.

In Alabama the registration reached the number of 165,813, of whom 104,518 were negroes or colored. In