acts which are designed or calculated to overthrow, subvert, or
corrupt the Government of the United States, or any department or
office thereof; and whether the said Andrew Johnson has been
guilty of any act, or has conspired with others to do acts,
which, in contemplation of the Constitution, are high crimes and
misdemeanors, requiring the interposition of the constitutional
power of this House; and that said committee have power to send
for persons and papers, and to administer the customary oath to
witnesses.

The question was taken on agreeing to the Resolution; and it was
decided in the affirmative - yeas 107, nays 39, not voting 45.

On the 2nd of March, 1867, the subject of impeachment again came
up in the House, and the following proceedings were had:

Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, (Rep.) - I am directed by the Committee on
the Judiciary to present a report relative to the official
conduct of the President of the United States.

Mr. Eldridge, (Dem.) - Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of
order: I see by the clock that it is almost three o'clock in the
morning; and I believe this is the Sabbath day. I think we should
not do any more business tonight, except it be business of
necessity or charity.

The Speaker. - This, in parliamentary view, is Saturday. The clerk
will read the report submitted by the gentleman from Iowa.

The clerk read as follows:

The Committee on the Judiciary, charged by the House with
examination of certain allegations, of high crimes and
misdemeanors against the President of the United States, submit
the following report:

On the 7th day of January, 1867, the House, on the motion of the
Hon. James M. Ashley, a Representative from the State of Ohio,
adopted the following preamble and resolutions, to-wit:

The duty imposed upon this committee by this action of the House,
was of the highest and gravest character. No committee during the
entire history of the Government, has ever been charged with a
more important trust. The responsibility which it imposed was of
oppressive weight, and of a most unpleasant nature. Gladly would
the committee have escaped from the arduous labor imposed upon it
by the Resolution of the House; but once imposed, prompt,
deliberate, and faithful action, with a view to correct results,
became its duty, and to this end it has directed its efforts.

Soon after the adoption of the Resolution by the House, Hon.
James M. Ashley communicated to the committee, in support of his
charges against the President of the United States, such facts as
were in his possession, and the investigation was proceeded with,
and has been continued almost without, a day's interruption. A
large number of witnesses have been examined, many documents
collected, and everything done which could be done to reach a
conclusion of the case. But the investigation covers a broad
field, embraces many novel, interesting, and important questions,
and involves a multitude of facts, while most of the witnesses
are distant from the Capital, owing to which the committee, in
view of the magnitude of the interests involved in its action,
have not been able to conclude its labors, and is not therefore
prepared to submit a definite and final report. If the
investigation had even approached completeness, the committee
would not feel authorized to present the result of the House at
this late period of the session, unless the charges had been so
entirely negative as to admit of no discussion, which, in the
opinion of the committee, is not the case.

Certainly no affirmative report could be properly considered in
the expiring hours of this Congress.

The committee not having fully investigated all the charges
prepared against the President of the United States, it is deemed
inexpedient to submit any conclusion beyond the statement that
sufficient testimony has been brought to its notice to justify
and demand a further prosecution of the investigation.

The testimony which the committee has taken will pass into the
custody of the Clerk of the House, and can go into the hands of
such committee as may be charged with the duty of bringing this
investigation to a close, so that the labor expended upon it may
not have been in vain.

The committee regrets its inability definitely to dispose of the
important subject committed to its charge, and presents this
report for its own justification, and for the additional purpose
of notifying the succeeding Congress of the incompleteness of its
labors, and that they should be completed.

James F. Wilson, Chairman.
Francis Thomas,
D. Morris,
F. E. Woodbridge,
George S. Boutwell,
Thomas Williams,
Burton C. Cook,
William Lawrence,

Mr. Ancona, the only Democrat on the committee, presented a
minority report, as follows:

The subscriber, one of the Judiciary Committee, to which was
referred by the House the inquiry into the official conduct of
His Excellency, the President of the United States, with a view
to his impeachment upon certain charges made by Hon. James M.
Ashley, begs leave to submit the following report:

The Committee refuses to allow a Report to be made giving to the
House at this time upon grounds which are no doubt satisfactory
to themselves; therefore, I cannot report the evidence upon which
my conclusion is based, which I would gladly do did the Committee
deem it expedient. The examination of witnesses and the records
was commenced, as appears by the majority report, about the time
of the reference, to-wit: on the 7th day of January, 1867, and
continued daily. A large number of witnesses has been examined,
and everything done that could be, to bring the case to a close,
as appears by the majority report: and the majority have come to
the conclusion "that sufficient testimony had been brought to its
notice to justify and demand a further prosecution of the
investigation." I have carefully examined all the evidence in the
case, and do report that there is not one particle of evidence to
sustain any of the charges which the House charged the Committee
to investigate, and that the case is wholly without a particle of
evidence upon which impeachment could be founded, and that with
all the effort that has been made, and the mass of evidence that
has been taken; the case is entirely void of proof. I furthermore
report that the most of the testimony that has been taken is of a
secondary character, and such as would not be admitted in a court
of justice.

In view of this conclusion I can see no good in a continuation of
the investigation. I am convinced that all the proof that can be
produced has been before the Committee, as no pains have been
spared to give the case a full investigation. Why, then, keep the
country in a feverish state of excitement upon this question any
longer, as it is sure to end, in my opinion, in a complete
vindication of the President, if justice be done him by the
committee, of which I have no doubt,

A. J. Rogers.

The two reports were ordered printed and laid on the table.

This session of the House, and with it the Thirty-Ninth Congress,
ended a few hours later, the legislative day continuing till
twelve o'clock, noon, on Sunday, March 3rd. The House adjourned
sine die at that hour, when all unfinished business lapsed.

RENEWAL OF THE IMPEACHMENT.

The first session of the Fortieth Congress began on Monday, March
4th, 1867, and on the 7th, in the House of Representatives, Mr.
Ashley (Rep.) offered the following Preamble and Resolutions:

Whereas the House of Representatives of the Thirty-Ninth Congress
adopted, on the 7th of January, 1867, a Resolution authorizing an
inquiry into certain charges preferred against the President of
the United States; and whereas the Judiciary Committee, to whom
said Resolution and charges were referred, with authority to
investigate the same, were unable for want of time, to complete
said investigation before the expiration of the Thirty-Ninth
Congress; and whereas in the report submitted by said Judiciary
Committee on the 2nd of March they declare that the evidence
taken is of such a character as to justify and demand a
continuation of the investigation by this Congress; therefore:

Be it Resolved by the House of Representatives, That the
Judiciary Committee, when appointed, be, and they are hereby,
instructed to continue the investigation authorized in said
Resolution of Jan. 7th, 1867, and that they have power to send
for persons and papers, and to administer the customary oath to
witnesses; and that the committee have authority to sit during
the sessions of the House and during any recess which Congress or
this House may take.

Resolved, That the Speaker be requested to appoint the Committee
on the Judiciary forthwith, and that the Committee so appointed
be directed to take charge of the testimony taken by the
Committee of the last Congress; and that said Committee have
power to appoint a clerk at a compensation not to exceed six
dollars per day, and employ the necessary stenographers.

At the close of the debate on Mr. Ashley's Resolution, it was
adopted without a division, its form being changed to the
following:

Resolved, That the Committee on Judiciary be requested to report
on the charges against the President as aforesaid, on the first
day of the meeting of the House after the recess hereafter to be
determined.

Congress adjourned a few days later. It re-assembled on the 3rd
of July, and on the 11th the following resolutions was offered by
Mr. Stevens, (Rep.) of Pennsylvania:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was
referred the Resolution and Documents relative to the Impeachment
of the President, be directed to report the evidence at this
session, with leave to make further report if they shall deem
proper.

That the impeachment enterprise was waning, and that its forces
had received little encouragement during the recess of the
Congress that had just closed, was evidenced by the fact that
there could not be mustered ayes enough to put the resolution to
a vote, and Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, moved the following substitute:

Resolved, That the Committee on Judiciary be, and they are
hereby, authorized and directed to have the usual number of
copies of the evidence taken by said committee relative to the
Impeachment of the President, printed and laid on the desks of
Members of the House on the first day of the next Congress,
whether adjourned or regular.

The Resolution was adopted by a vote of 85 to 48, whereupon Mr.
Stevens dejectedly remarked that, "after the vote which had been
taken on this resolution, indicating the views of a majority of
the House in regard to it, I am willing to abandon it. I
therefore move that the Resolution as amended be laid on the
table," which motion was agreed to.

On the 15th of July, 1867, Mr. Farnsworth, (Rep.) of Illinois,
offered the following resolution and demanded the previous
question thereon:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from
the further consideration of the question of the Impeachment of
the President of the United States, and that the testimony
already taken by said committee be printed for the use of the
House.

The resolution was not seconded, and went over under the rules.

On the 25th of Nov. 1867, Mr. Boutwell (Rep.), on behalf of the
Judiciary Committee, submitted the report of the majority of that
committee, of the testimony taken in behalf of the proposed
impeachment of the President. The report recommended his
impeachment.

Mr. Wilson, submitted the report of the minority of the Committee
(himself and Mr. Woodbridge), and moved the adoption of the
following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from
the further consideration of the proposed impeachment of the
President of the United States, and that the subject be laid upon
the table.

Mr. Marshall, on behalf of himself and Mr. Eldridge, the two
Democratic members of the committee, stated that though they had
not signed the minority report submitted by Mr. Wilson, they
joined in support of the resolution submitted by him, and asked
leave to introduce and have printed separate views.

This, the first session of the Fortieth Congress, then adjourned,
Dec. 2nd, 1867.

The second session of the Fortieth Congress was begun on the same
day, and on the 5th, the impeachment question came up in its
order in the House, on the resolution reported from the Judiciary
Committee:

That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached
of high crimes and misdemeanors.

After a brief discussion of the order of business, the House
adjourned for that day.

The debate was closed on the 6th, by Messrs. Boutwell and Wilson,
the members of the Committee on the Judiciary having Charge of
the impeachment measure. The closing passages of Mr. Boutwell's
speech were as follows:

What is our position to-day? Can this House and the Senate, with
the knowledge they have of the Presidents purposes and of the
character of the men who surround him, give him the necessary
power? (to remove alleged dishonest officials.) Do they not feel
that if he be alloyed such power these places will be given to
worse men? Hence, I say that with Mr. Johnson in office from this
time until the 4th of March, 1869, there is no remedy for these
grievances. These are considerations why we should not hesitate
to do that which justice authorizes us to do if we believe that
the President has been guilty of impeachable offenses.

Mr. Speaker, all rests here. To this House is given by the
Constitution the sole power of impeachment; and this power of
impeachment furnishes the only means by which we can secure the
execution of the laws, and those of our fellow citizens who
desire the administration of the law ought to sustain this House
while it executes that great law which is in its hands and which
is nowhere else, while it performs a high and solemn duty resting
on it by which that man who has been the chief violator of law
shall be removed, and without which there can be no execution of
the law any where. Therefore the whole responsibility, whatever
it may be, for the non-execution of the laws of the country, is,
(in the presence of these great facts) upon this House. * * * I
think that we can not do otherwise than believe, that he has
disregarded that great injunction of the Constitution to take
care that the laws be faithfully executed, that there is but one
remedy. The remedy is with this House, and it is nowhere else. If
we neglect or refuse to use our powers when the case arises
demanding decisive action, the Government ceases to be a
Government of law and becomes a Government of men.

Mr. Wilson, Chairman of the Committee, closed the debate in the
following remarks:

The gentleman from Massachusetts has remarked that the President
may interfere with the next Presidential election in the Southern
States; that he may station soldiers at the voting places and
overawe the loyal people of those States, especially the colored
vote: and we must, I suppose, guard against the possibility of
this by his impeachment and removal from office. This position,
if I state it correctly, is startling. Are we to impeach the
President for what he may do in the future? Do our fears
constitute in the President high crimes and misdemeanors? Are we
to wander beyond the record of this case and found our judgment
on the possibilities of the future? This would lead us beyond the
conscience of this House.

Sir, we must be guided by some rule in this grave
proceeding - something more certain than an impossibility to
arraign the President for a specific crime - and when the
gentleman from Massachusetts, in commenting on one of the alleged
offenses of the President, that we could not arraign him for the
specific crime, he disclosed the weakness of the case we are now
considering. If we cannot arraign the President for a specific
crime, for what are we to proceed against him? For a bundle of
generalities such as we have in the volume of testimony reported
by the committee to the House in this case? If we cannot state
upon paper a specific crime, how are we to carry this case to the
Senate for trial?

At the close of his speech, Mr. Wilson moved to lay the subject
of impeachment on the table, and the yeas and nays were ordered.

Several motions were then made - to adjourn, to adjourn to a day
certain, etc. - which with roll calls practically consumed the
day, and the motion of Mr. Wilson went over.

The next day, Dec. 7th, the question again came up in its order,
and after several unsuccessful attempts to procure a vote on Mr.
Wilson's motion to lay the Impeachment Resolution on the table,
Mr. Wilson, by agreement, withdrew his motion, and called for the
yeas and nays on the adoption of the resolution:

That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached
for high crimes and misdemeanors.

The yeas and nays were ordered, and the vote was yeas 57, nays
108.

So the resolution to impeach the President was rejected by the
very emphatic vote of 67 to 108 - nearly two to one - and by a
House two-thirds Republican.

So ended the first effort to impeach the President - the first
formal action to that end having been taken on January 7, 1867,
and the final vote at the close, and its abandonment, December 7,
1867.

For eleven months the overwhelming Republican majority of the
House had been vigorously active in its search for evidence of
criminality on the part of the President that would warrant the
basing of an impeachment. No effort was left untried - no resource
that promised a possible hope of successful exploitation was
neglected. Republican partisans were set to the work of
sleuth-hounds in the search for testimony in maintenance of the
charges preferred, and an ever ready partisan press teemed from
the beginning to the end of that time with animadversions upon
Mr. Johnson's administration and denunciation of his alleged
desertion of Mr. Lincoln's plan of restoration, of treachery to
the party that had elected him, and a demand for his impeachment.

To be lukewarm in that controversy, or even to fail to join in
the popular denunciation of Mr. Johnson was to put one's self at
once under suspicion with the great mass of the dominant party,
and without the pale of its consideration.

For eleven months the country was kept in the throes of partisan
turmoil - and for what? Simply to depose a President who had
disappointed the partisan and personal expectations and schemes
of a rule or ruin faction which was able, under the peculiar
conditions of the time, to subordinate to its purposes a large
proportion of the dominant party of that day.

The following are the material portions of the testimony taken by
the House Committee on the Judiciary under authority of the
resolutions passed by the House of Representatives on March 7,
1867, for the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.

Eighty-nine witnesses were summoned before the committee. All of
them were rigidly examined, and several of them were called and
examined the second and third times. Their testimony fills more
than twelve hundred octavo pages of print.

The first witness was Gen. L. C. Baker, of the War Department.
His testimony related principally to a certain letter alleged to
have been written by Mr. Johnson, in 1864.

The first question propounded to him by Mr. Ashley, was as
follows:

I wish you to state to the committee the contents, as nearly as
you can, of a letter which you have in your possession, written
by Andrew Johnson, some time in the early part of 1864, to a
Southern man, giving information as to the troops about the
Capitol and elsewhere, and advice to Jefferson Davis. State where
that letter is, and give the contents as nearly as you can, the
history of it.

Mr. Baker answered that he knew there was a letter of that kind,
purporting to have been written by Andrew Johnson, when he was
acting Governor of Tennessee. That the letter was dated at
Nashville and directed to Jefferson Davis, and related to some
declared policy that had been adopted by the Confederacy - that
the letter was being used to secure an appointment - that
reference was made to troops, but nothing about localities where
stationed, or numbers, and nothing about shipment of armor, and
that the letter was stolen from Andrew Johnson's table and never
sent.

The question was then asked of the witness by Mr. Ashley:

State whether the whole import of the letter written by Mr.
Johnson, was not to turn the whole power which he possessed in
Tennessee, in a certain contingency, over to the rebel cause?

Answer - No. I did not have that opinion of the letter exactly.
From what I recollect of it, the thing was that he was making a
proposition making suggestions as to what their policy should be.

Ques. - And if they accepted it?

Ans. - If they accepted it, my impression was that he was going
with them.

Ques. - With the rebels?

Ans. - Yes sir.

Question by the Chairman. - If there are any other letters that
you have seen of Mr. Johnson's written by him to any person
connected with the Confederate Government, or proposing to change
the Administration of the Government in their favor after he
became President, or anything of a public nature affecting the
interests of the United States, please state it and state all you
know about such letters.

Ans. - I do not know of any letters of that character - or of any
other letters.

This constituted the substance of Gen. Baker's testimony. His
examination was very lengthy, embracing more of this character of
testimony, and about pardon brokerage, and other alleged corrupt
practices - all evidencing a determination and expectation to fix
upon Mr. Johnson a disposition to disloyalty and corruption, both
before and after his succession to the Presidency, but no such
testimony was obtained.

A considerable portion of the investigation was devoted to Mr.
Johnson's business and personal affairs, such as could have no
possible connection with or indicate implication in corrupt or
disloyal practices of any sort.

A strenuous effort appears to have been made by the Committee
throughout a long and searching examination of witnesses, and
constitutes a conspicuous feature of that investigation, to
establish the charges of corruption and disloyalty in the sale of
public property, railways, etc., that had been constructed and
equipped, or seized and operated, by the Government in connection
with its military operations in the South. Such an accusation had
been made with great pertinacity by Mr. Johnson's opponents, and
was also then believed by a great many people to be true.

Among the parties examined by the committee, were Mr. James and
Mr. Burns, of Nashville, Tenn., and Senator Fowler, of that
State, and also the Secretary of war, Mr. Stanton. No facts
whatever were elicited showing a privity to corruption in these
matters on the part of Mr. Johnson.

The information obtained from Mr. Stanton, however, put an
effectual estoppel to further investigation of the charge of
corrupt or disloyal disposal of public property by the President.
The following are extracts from Mr. Stanton's testimony, as given
on February 11, 1867:

Shortly after the surrender of the rebel armies, the attention of
the War Department was directed to the proper disposition to be
made of the railroads and railroad stock throughout the rebel
States which came into our possession, either by capture or
construction. It was the subject of a good deal of consultation
and conference between the Secretary of War and the Quartermaster
General. It was the opinion of the Secretary of War that it was
wholly impracticable for the General Government to operate these
roads under any system, and that it would be greatly to the
advantage of the country to make such disposition as would allow
them, its speedily as possible, to become what they were designed
for channels of commerce and trade between the States, and that
any terms on which that could be done would be advantageous. This
was especially the case in regard to the Western and Southwestern
roads, where it was said there were large amounts of cotton that
would be available to remove North, in exchange for supplies to
go South, of which it was said they were greatly in want.

Ques. - In case of the construction of a railroad by the
Government, the Government furnishing the material and the labor,
what has been the custom of the Department in surrendering such
roads to the companies claiming them?

Ans. - In all instances, I think such roads have been surrendered