Full Text Archive logoFull Text Archive — Free Classic E-books

A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents by James D. Richardson

Part 14 out of 14

Adobe PDF icon
Download this document as a .pdf
File size: 1.5 MB
What's this? light bulb idea Many people prefer to read off-line or to print out text and read from the real printed page. Others want to carry documents around with them on their mobile phones and read while they are on the move. We have created .pdf files of all out documents to accommodate all these groups of people. We recommend that you download .pdfs onto your mobile phone when it is connected to a WiFi connection for reading off-line.

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 President
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 hereinbefore 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 articles 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 further, this respondent has also expressed the opinion, both in
his communications to Congress and in his addresses to the people, that
the policy adopted by Congress in reference to the States lately in
insurrection did not tend to peace, harmony, and union, but, on the
contrary, did tend to disunion and the permanent disruption of the
States, and that in following its 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 people when called
upon by them to express his opinions on matters of public and political
consideration.

And this respondent, further answering the tenth article, says that he
has always claimed and insisted, and now claims and insists, that both
in the 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 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 responsibility 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 answering 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 political considerations 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 concerning this
his right of freedom of opinion and of freedom of speech, and this
his exercise of such rights on all matters of public and political
consideration, and in respect of all public servants or persons
whatsoever engaged in or connected therewith, this respondent, as
a citizen or as President of the United States, is not subject to
question, inquisition, impeachment, or inculpation 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
constitutional 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 unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate of the
United States, or that he has brought the high office of President of
the United States into contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, or that he has
committed or has been guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.

_Answer to Article XI_.--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 allegations so made
to the contrary thereof. But this respondent, in further answer to
and in respect of the said allegations of the said eleventh article
hereinbefore traversed and denied, claims and insists upon his personal
and official right of freedom of opinion and freedom of speech, and his
duty in his political relations as President of the United States to the
people of the United States in the exercise of such freedom of opinion
and freedom of speech, in the same manner, form, and effect as he has
in this behalf stated the same in his answer to the said tenth article,
and with the same effect as if he here repeated the same; and he further
claims and insists, as in said answer to said tenth article he has
claimed and insisted, that he is not subject to question, inquisition,
impeachment or inculpation, in any form or manner, of or concerning such
rights of freedom of opinion or freedom of speech, or his said alleged
exercise thereof.

And this respondent further denies that on the 21st day 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 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 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 obligations 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 this respondent, further answering the said eleventh article, says
that the same and the matters therein contained do not charge or allege
the commission of any act whatever by this respondent in his office of
President of the United States, nor the omission by this respondent of
any act of official obligation or duty in his office of President of
the United States; nor does the said article nor the matters therein
contained name, designate, describe, or define any act or mode or form
of attempt, device, contrivance, or means, or of attempt at device,
contrivance, or means, whereby this respondent can know or understand
what act or mode or form of attempt, device, contrivance, or means, or
of attempt at device, contrivance, or means, are imputed to or charged
against this respondent in his office of President of the United States,
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,
B.R. CURTIS,
THOMAS A.R. NELSON,
WILLIAM M. EVARTS,
W.S. GROESBECK,

_Of Counsel_.

[For Exhibits A and B see veto message of March 2, 1867, pp. 492-498,
and special message of December 12, 1867, pp. 583-594.]

EXHIBIT C.

ADDRESS TO THE PRESIDENT BY HON. REVERDY JOHNSON, AUGUST, 18, 1866.

Mr. PRESIDENT: We are before you as a committee of the National Union
Convention, which met in Philadelphia on Tuesday, the 14th instant,
charged with the duty of presenting you with an authentic copy of its
proceedings.

Before placing it in your hands you will permit us to congratulate
you that in the object for which the convention was called, in the
enthusiasm with which in every State and Territory the call was
responded to, in the unbroken harmony of its deliberations, in the
unanimity with which the principles it has declared were adopted, and
more especially in the patriotic and constitutional character of the
principles themselves, we are confident that you and the country will
find gratifying and cheering evidence that there exists among the people
a public sentiment which renders an early and complete restoration of
the Union as established by the Constitution certain and inevitable.
Party faction, seeking the continuance of its misrule, may momentarily
delay it, but the principles of political liberty for which our
fathers successfully contended, and to secure which they adopted the
Constitution, are so glaringly inconsistent with the condition in
which the country has been placed by such misrule that it will not
be permitted a much longer duration.

We wish, Mr. President, you could have witnessed the spirit of concord
and brotherly affection which animated every member of the convention.
Great as your confidence has ever been in the intelligence and
patriotism of your fellow-citizens, in their deep devotion to the Union
and their present determination to reinstate and maintain it, that
confidence would have become a positive conviction could you have seen
and heard all that was done and said upon the occasion. Every heart
was evidently full of joy; every eye beamed with patriotic animation;
despondency gave place to the assurance that, our late dreadful civil
strife ended, the blissful reign of peace, under the protection, not of
arms, but of the Constitution and laws, would have sway, and be in every
part of our land cheerfully acknowledged and in perfect good faith
obeyed. You would not have doubted that the recurrence of dangerous
domestic insurrections in the future is not to be apprehended.

If you could have seen the men of Massachusetts and South Carolina
coming into the convention on the first day of its meeting hand in hand,
amid the rapturous applause of the whole body, awakened by heartfelt
gratification at the event, filling the eyes of thousands with tears of
joy, which they neither could nor desired to repress, you would have
felt, as every person present felt, that the time had arrived when all
sectional or other perilous dissensions had ceased, and that nothing
should be heard in the future but the voice of harmony proclaiming
devotion to a common country, of pride in being bound together by a
common Union, existing and protected by forms of government proved by
experience to be eminently fitted for the exigencies of either war or
peace.

In the principles announced by the convention and in the feeling there
manifested we have every assurance that harmony throughout our entire
land will soon prevail. We know that as in former days, as was
eloquently declared by Webster, the nation's most gifted statesman,
Massachusetts and South Carolina went "shoulder to shoulder through the
Revolution" and stood hand in hand "around the Administration of
Washington and felt his own great arm lean on them for support," so will
they again, with like magnanimity, devotion, and power, stand round your
Administration and cause you to feel that you may also lean on them for
support.

In the proceedings, Mr. President, which we are to place in your hands
you will find that the convention performed the grateful duty imposed
upon them by their knowledge of your "devotion to the Constitution and
laws and interests of your country," as illustrated by your entire
Presidential career, of declaring that in you they "recognize a Chief
Magistrate worthy of the nation and equal to the great crisis upon
which your lot is cast;" and in this declaration it gives us marked
pleasure to add we are confident that the convention has but spoken the
intelligent and patriotic sentiment of the country. Ever inaccessible to
the low influences which often control the mere partisan, governed alone
by an honest opinion of constitutional obligations and rights and of the
duty of looking solely to the true interests, safety, and honor of the
nation, such a class is incapable of resorting to any bait for
popularity at the expense of the public good.

In the measures which you have adopted for the restoration of the Union
the convention saw only a continuance of the policy which for the same
purpose was inaugurated by your immediate predecessor. In his reelection
by the people, after that policy had been fully indicated and had been
made one of the issues of the contest, those of his political friends
who are now assailing you for sternly pursuing it are forgetful or
regardless of the opinions which their support of his reelection
necessarily involved. Being upon the same ticket with that much-lamented
public servant, whose foul assassination touched the heart of the
civilized world with grief and horror, you would have been false to
obvious duty if you had not endeavored to carry out the same policy;
and, judging now by the opposite one which Congress has pursued, its
wisdom and patriotism are indicated by the fact that that of Congress
has but continued a broken Union by keeping ten of the States in which
at one time the insurrection existed (as far as they could accomplish
it) in the condition of subjugated provinces, denying to them the right
to be represented, while subjecting their people to every species of
legislation, including that of taxation. That such a state of things is
at war with the very genius of our Government, inconsistent with every
idea of political freedom, and most perilous to the peace and safety of
the country no reflecting man can fail to believe.

We hope, sir, that the proceedings of the convention will cause you to
adhere, if possible, with even greater firmness to the course which you
are pursuing, by satisfying you that the people are with you, and that
the wish which lies nearest to their heart is that a perfect restoration
of our Union at the earliest moment be attained, and a conviction that
the result can only be accomplished by the measures which you are
pursuing. And in the discharge of the duties which these impose upon
you we, as did every member of the convention, again for ourselves
individually tender to you our profound respect and assurance of our
cordial and sincere support.

With a reunited Union, with no foot but that of a freeman treading or
permitted to tread our soil, with a nation's faith pledged forever to a
strict observance of all its obligations, with kindness and fraternal
love everywhere prevailing, the desolations of war will soon be removed;
its sacrifices of life, sad as they have been, will, with Christian
resignation, be referred to a providential purpose of fixing our beloved
country on a firm and enduring basis, which will forever place our
liberty and happiness beyond the reach of human peril.

Then, too, and forever, will our Government challenge the admiration and
receive the respect of the nations of the world, and be in no danger of
any efforts to impeach our honor.

And permit me, sir, in conclusion, to add that, great as is your
solicitude for the restoration of our domestic peace and your labors
to that end, you have also a watchful eye to the rights of the nation,
and that any attempt by an assumed or actual foreign power to enforce
an illegal blockade against the Government or citizens of the United
States, to use your own mild but expressive words, "will be disallowed."
In this determination I am sure you will receive the unanimous approval
of your fellow-citizens.

Now, sir, as the chairman of this committee, and in behalf of the
convention, I have the honor to present you with an authentic copy
of its proceedings.

Counsel for the respondent submitted the following motion:

_To the Senate of the United States sitting as a court of impeachment_:

And now, on this 23d day of March, in the year 1868, the counsel for
the President of the United States, upon reading and filing his answer
to the articles of impeachment exhibited against him, respectfully
represent to the honorable court that after the replication shall have
been filed to the said answer the due and proper preparation of and for
the trial of the cause will require, in the opinion and judgment of such
counsel, that a period of not less than thirty days should be allowed to
the President of the United States and his counsel for such preparation,
and before the said trial should proceed.

HENRY STANBERY,
B.R. CURTIS,
THOMAS A.R. NELSON,
WM. M. EVARTS,
W.S. GROESBECK,

_Of Counsel_.

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1868.

UNITED STATES _vs_. ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT.

REPLICATION BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES 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 Johnson in the said articles of
impeachment, or either of them, and for replication to the 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.

SCHUYLER COLFAX,

_Speaker of the House of Representatives_.

EDW'D McPHERSON,

_Clerk of the House of Representatives_.

The motion of the counsel for the respondent, submitted on March 23,
"that a period of not less than thirty days should be allowed to the
President of the United States and his counsel for such preparation and
before the said trial should proceed," was denied, and it was

_Ordered_. That the Senate will commence the trial of the President
upon the articles of impeachment exhibited against him on Monday, the
30th of March instant, and proceed therein with all convenient dispatch
under the rules of the Senate sitting upon the trial of an impeachment.

MONDAY, MAY 11, 1868.

THE UNITED STATES _vs_. ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT.

The Chief Justice stated that in compliance with the desire of the
Senate he had prepared the question to be addressed to Senators upon
each article of impeachment, and that he had reduced his views thereon
to writing, which he read, as follows:

SENATORS: In conformity with what seemed to be the general wish of the
Senate when it adjourned last Thursday, the Chief Justice, in taking the
vote on the articles of impeachment, will adopt the mode sanctioned by
the practice in the cases of Chase, Peck, and Humphreys.

He will direct the Secretary to read the several articles successively,
and after the reading of each article will put the question of guilty or
not guilty to each Senator, rising in his place, in the form used in the
case of Judge Chase:

Mr. Senator ----, how say you? Is the respondent, Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, guilty or not guilty of a high
misdemeanor, as charged in this article?

In putting the question on Articles IV and VI, each of which charges a
crime, the word "crime" will be substituted for the word "misdemeanor."

The Chief Justice has carefully considered the suggestion of the Senator
from Indiana (Mr. Hendricks), which appeared to meet the approval of the
Senate, that in taking the vote on the eleventh article the question
should be put on each clause, and has found himself unable to divide the
article as suggested. The article charges several facts, but they are so
connected that they make but one allegation and they are charged as
constituting one misdemeanor.

The first fact charged is, in substance, that the President publicly
declared in August, 1866, that the Thirty-ninth Congress was a Congress
of only part of the States and not a constitutional Congress, intending
thereby to deny its constitutional competency to enact laws or propose
amendments of the Constitution; and this charge seems to have been made
as introductory, and as qualifying that which follows, namely, that the
President, in pursuance of this declaration, attempted to prevent the
execution of the tenure-of-office act by contriving and attempting to
contrive means to prevent Mr. Stanton from resuming the functions of
Secretary of War after the refusal of the Senate to concur in his
suspension, and also by contriving and attempting to contrive means to
prevent the execution of the appropriation act of March 2, 1867, and
also to prevent the execution of the rebel States governments act of
the same date.

The gravamen of the article seems to be that the President attempted
to defeat the execution of the tenure-of-office act, and that he
did this in pursuance of a declaration which was intended to deny
the constitutional competency of Congress to enact laws or propose
constitutional amendments, and by contriving means to prevent Mr.
Stanton from resuming his office of Secretary, and also to prevent the
execution of the appropriation act and the rebel States governments act.

The single substantive matter charged is the attempt to prevent the
execution of the tenure-of-office act, and the other facts are alleged
either as introductory and exhibiting this general purpose or as showing
the means contrived in furtherance of that attempt.

This single matter, connected with the other matters previously and
subsequently alleged, is charged as the high misdemeanor of which the
President is alleged to have been guilty.

The general question, guilty or not guilty of a high misdemeanor as
charged, seems fully to cover the whole charge, and will be put as to
this article as well as to the others, unless the Senate direct some
mode of division.

In the tenth article the division suggested by the Senator from New York
(Mr. Conkling) may be more easily made. It contains a general allegation
to the effect that on the 18th of August and on other days the
President, with intent to set aside the rightful authority of Congress
and bring it into contempt, delivered certain scandalous harangues, and
therein uttered loud threats and bitter menaces against Congress and the
laws of the United States enacted by Congress, thereby bringing the
office of President into disgrace, to the great scandal of all good
citizens, and sets forth in three distinct specifications the harangues,
threats, and menaces complained of.

In respect to this article, if the Senate sees fit so to direct, the
question of guilty or not guilty of the facts charged may be taken in
respect to the several specifications, and then the question of guilty
or not guilty of a high misdemeanor, as charged in the article, can also
be taken.

The Chief Justice, however, sees no objection to putting the general
question on this article in the same manner as on the others; for,
whether particular questions be put on the specifications or not, the
answer to the final question must be determined by the judgment of the
Senate whether or not the facts alleged in the specifications have been
sufficiently proved, and whether, if sufficiently proved, they amount
to a high misdemeanor within the meaning of the Constitution.

On the whole, therefore, the Chief Justice thinks that the better
practice will be to put the general question on each article without
attempting to make any subdivision, and will pursue this course if no
objection is made. He will, however, be pleased to conform to such
directions as the Senate may see fit to give in this respect.

Whereupon it was

_Ordered_, That the question be put as proposed by the Presiding
Officer of the Senate, and each Senator shall rise in his place and
answer "guilty" or "not guilty" only.

SATURDAY, MAY 16, 1868.

THE UNITED STATES _vs_. ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT.

The Chief Justice stated that, in pursuance of the order of the Senate,
he would first proceed to take the judgment of the Senate on the
eleventh article. The roll of the Senate was called, with the following
result:

The Senators who voted "guilty" are 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, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy,
Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Wade,
Williams, Willey, Wilson, and Yates--35.

The Senators who voted "not guilty" are Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Davis,
Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks,
Johnson, McCreery, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury,
Trumbull, Van Winkle, and Vickers--19.

The Chief Justice announced that upon this article thirty-five Senators
had voted "guilty" and nineteen Senators "not guilty," and declared that
two-thirds of the Senators present not having pronounced him guilty,
Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, stood acquitted of the
charges contained in the eleventh article of impeachment.

TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1868.

THE UNITED STATES _vs_. ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT.

The Senate ordered that the vote be taken upon the second article of
impeachment. The roll of the Senate was called, with the following
result:

The Senators who voted "guilty" are 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, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy,
Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Wade, Willey,
Williams, Wilson, and Yates--35.

The Senators who voted "not guilty" are Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Davis,
Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks,
Johnson, McCreery, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury,
Trumbull, Van Winkle, and Vickers--19.

The Chief Justice announced that upon this article thirty-five Senators
had voted "guilty" and nineteen Senators had voted "not guilty," and
declared that two-thirds of the Senators present not having pronounced
him guilty, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, stood
acquitted of the charges contained in the second article of impeachment.

The Senate ordered that the vote be taken upon the third article of
impeachment. The roll of the Senate was called, with the following
result:

The Senators who voted "guilty" are 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, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy,
Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Wade, Willey,
Williams, Wilson, and Yates--35.

The Senators who voted "not guilty" are Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Davis,
Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks,
Johnson, McCreery, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury,
Trumbull, Van Winkle, and Vickers--19.

The Chief Justice announced that upon this article thirty-five Senators
had voted "guilty" and nineteen Senators had voted "not guilty," and
declared that two-thirds of the Senators present not having pronounced
him guilty, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, stood
acquitted of the charges contained in the third article.

No objection being made, the secretary, by direction of the Chief
Justice, entered the judgment of the Senate upon the second, third,
and eleventh articles, as follows:

The Senate having tried Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
upon articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of
Representatives, and two-thirds of the Senators present not having found
him guilty of the charges contained in the second, third, and eleventh
articles of impeachment, it is therefore

_Ordered and adjudged_, That the said Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, be, and he is, acquitted of the charges in said articles
made and set forth.

A motion "that the Senate sitting for the trial of the President upon
articles of impeachment do now adjourn without day" was adopted by a
vote of 34 yeas to 16 nays.

Those who voted in the affirmative are Messrs. Anthony, Cameron,
Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds,
Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill
of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey,
Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Van Winkle, Wade,
Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates.

Those who voted in the negative are Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Davis,
Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery,
Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury, Trumbull, and Vickers.

The Chief Justice declared the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment
for the trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, upon
articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of
Representatives, adjourned without day.

ADDENDA.

[An injunction of secrecy having been placed upon the following messages
by the Senate, they were not printed in the Executive Journal covering
their period, but were found in the imprinted Executive Journal of the
Forty-first Congress while searching for copy for Volume VII, and
consequently too late for insertion in their proper places in this
volume.]

WASHINGTON, _January 29, 1869_.

_To the Senate_:

Referring to the three Executive communications of the 15th instant,
with which were transmitted to the Senate, respectively, a copy of a
convention between the United States and Great Britain upon the subject
of claims, a copy of a convention between the same parties in relation
to the question of boundary, and a protocol of a treaty between the same
parties concerning the rights of naturalized citizens and subjects of
the respective parties, I now transmit a copy of such correspondence
upon those subjects as has not been heretofore communicated to the
Senate.

In the progress of the negotiation the three subjects became to such a
degree associated with each other that it would be difficult to present
separately the correspondence upon each. The papers are therefore
transmitted in the order in which they are mentioned in the accompanying
list.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 30, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

Referring to the Executive communication of the 15th instant, which
was accompanied by a copy of a convention between the United States
and Great Britain for the settlement of all outstanding claims, I now
transmit to the Senate the original of that instrument, and a report of
the Secretary of State pointing out the differences between the copy as
submitted to the Senate and the original as signed by the
plenipotentiaries.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 30, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

Referring to the Executive communication of the 15th instant, which was
accompanied by a copy of a convention between the United States and
Great Britain providing for the reference to an arbiter of the question
of difference between the United States and Great Britain concerning the
northwest line of water boundary between the United States and the
British possessions in North America, I now transmit to the Senate the
original of that instrument, and a report of the Secretary of State
pointing out the differences between the copy as submitted to the Senate
and the original as signed by the plenipotentiaries.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

Book of the day: