though many reflective Americans were very greatly ashamed. Even the Democrats, against whom rather than against Mr Johnson individually the blow was aimed, were not greatly astonished that party feeling should carry their opponents to such an extreme length; for they knew tolerably well that, if they were in power, and had a chance of retaining it by the adoption of similar means against an adversary, they would not scruple to employ it. The Legislative power had become or was fast becoming supreme, and the necessary result was loss of liberty and breach of the Constitution. "True liberty," as observed by General James Williams of Tennessee, in his thoughtful history of the 'Rise and Fall of the Model Republic,'

"can never exist in a State where a single element may exercise absolute power. It matters not where that power may be deposited-whether in a single monarch, in an oligarchy acting as a unit, or in a majority of the people -it is still despotism. In point of fact, the last-named is the worst and the first the least objectionable; both have equal facilities for the exercise of tyranny, but it is far more easy to satisfy the demands of a single despot than many. To punish one may be accomplished, because a single hand may do it; and this fact being ever present to the mind of him who may, if he so wills, oppress his fellow-men, operates at least as a restraint upon the practice of tyranny; To punish the many is impossible, and therefore no fear of the consequences which may follow an act of oppression can deter the multitude from its commission. A slight concession from each may satisfy the demands of one supreme ruler, while the acquirement of all which a minority possesses cannot satiate the cupidity of a majority. One man naturally shrinks from the responsibility of doing a great wrong-the division of that responsibility amongst a multitude leaves so small a portion to each that the deed is done without creating in the minds of any a feeling of moral responsibility for the act committed. At the least, there are so great a number who do not feel the influence of this restraining cause that the minority is overborne."

The resolutions for the impeachment of Mr Johnson were introduced into the House of Representatives early in February; and in a full house, and by a strict party vote, in which only two Republicans were courageous enough to vote against impeachment, though eighteen were courageous enough to absent themselves, were carried by a majority of 126 against 47. The next step was to appoint managers on behalf of the House to present the articles of impeachment to the Senate; and accordingly, on Wednesday the 27th of February, these gentlemen, to the number of seven, presented themselves at the bar of the Senate. The only two of the seven whose names are well known in Europe were the notorious General Butler and Mr Thaddeus Stevens-the latter supporting himself painfully on a staff, being scarcely able, from physical debility, to crawl into the Chamber, presenting to the eyes of his friends the glorious spectacle of a strong soul in a weak body, and to those of his opponents the melancholy exhibition of hatred and rancour surviving to the brink of the grave, and lending vitality to a frame well-nigh exhausted, and vigour to a spirit that, without such stimulant, might have quitted the feeble tenement through which it infused a fire that was not of heaven. Mr Bingham was the spokesman of the seven, and as soon as silence could be obtained in the galleries, which were crowded with spectators, including many military officers, members of the diplomatic corps, and great numbers of ladies, addressed the President of the Sen

ate, Mr Wade, and said in a clear, sonorous voice, "The managers of the House of Representatives, by order of the House of Representatives, are ready, at the bar of the Senate, if it will please the Senate to hear them, to present the articles of impeachment in maintenance of the impeachment preferred against Andrew Johnson, President of the

United States, by the House of Representatives." The sergeant-atarms-for they have such an officer in America having made proclamation in the duly appointed form, Mr Bingham proceeded to read the "articles," all the managers remaining standing except Mr Stevens, who, on account of his age and infirmities, was accommodated with a seat. The articles were voluminous; but the real charges against the President, stripped of verbiage and repetition, amounted to six,-first, a violation of the Tenure of Office Act, in the dismissal of Mr Stanton; second, usurpation of power, by the appointment of General Thomas to an office not legally vacant, without the consent of the Senate, which was then in session; third, conspiring with General Thomas to intimidate Mr Stanton, to drive him from his office, and to obtain possession of books, papers, and records, the property of the United States, legally and for the time being in the custody and possession of Mr Stanton; fourth, ordering an officer of the army, General Emory, to disobey certain military laws and orders issued by competent authority; fifth, for uttering indecent, improper, and factious speeches in various parts of the country speeches that tended to excite popular ill feeling against the Legislature, and degraded the Presidential office-particularly citing one speech in which Mr Johnson, who had been called a Judas Iscariot, asked, if he were a Judas, whether Thaddeus Stevens or Charles Sumner was the Jesus Christ whom he had betrayed? At this passage all eyes were turned towards Mr Stevens, who was observed to exchange glances with Mr Wade, and to "grin maliciously." Sixth, preventing and endeavouring to prevent the execution of various Acts of Congress, especially those having for their object the reconstruction of the Union. The reading having concluded, the managers retired,

and the Senate proceeded with its ordinary business.

On the following day the Senate proceeded to adopt rules for the conduct of the trial, and decided that it would sit as a Senate and not as a Court. This, however, would have been an unconstitutional procedure, inasmuch as it is expressly laid down by the Constitution that in such a contingency as had unhappily arisen the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is not a member of the Senate, should preside at the trial. The reasons for this arrangement are as sound as they are obvious. Though there are many lawyers in the Senate, competent to decide on points of legal and constitutional knottiness, there are many members who are not lawyers. It is, therefore, desirable that the highest legal authority in the country should be present to assist in the deliberations, and to act as umpire in disputed points of law or equity, and in the relevancy and admissibility of evidence. Moreover, as the Vice-President is such by virtue of his other office of President of the Senate, and in the former capacity is directly and personally interested in the result of the trial, which, in case of verdict of guilty against the President, would seat him in the vacant chair, it is not seemly or conducive to the ends of impartial justice that he should preside. On Tuesday the 3d of March, on the re-assembling of the Senate, a letter was read from the Chief Justice, in which these facts and arguments were lucidly and temperately set forth. A committee of the Senate was forthwith appointed, the result of whose deliberations was that Mr Chase was formally invited to preside over the Senate, and to open the "Court" on the morrow. Mr Chase asked for a postponement of the trial, which was at first refused. Ultimately, Mr Chase obtained the delay of one day, and consented to

open the Court on Thursday the 5th.

At the appointed time the galleries of the Senate, sitting as a Court of Justice, and proceeding to the exercise of a self-imposed and very invidious as well as highly important duty, were crowded with the wives and daughters of senators and representatives, with all the beauty and fashion of Washington, and with every civil and military native and foreign celebrity in the city. At ten o'clock in the morning, the seven managers from the House of Representatives took their seats in front of the President's chair. The Republican members in a body were admitted into the hall to hear the proceedings, and the usual buzz and flutter of conversation that is heard on all occasions of public excitement when crowds are gathered together arose on every side. At a few minutes after ten the Chief Justice, a man of dignified and imposing presence, tall and well formed, with a broad high forehead, and looking every inch of him a gentleman as well as a statesman and judge, walked with stately pace up the middle aisle, and said in a loud but pleasant voice, Senators,-I am here in obedience to your notice for the purpose of proceeding with you in forming a court of impeachment for the trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States. I am now ready to take the oath." The oath was immediately administered to him in the following form, by Judge Nelson, of the Supreme Court :-"I do solemnly swear that in all things pertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, I will do impartial justice, according to the Constitution and laws. So help me God." The Secretary or Clerk of the Senate then called the names of the senators, one by one, in alphabetical order, from the roll of the House; and as each advanced he took the oath which the Chief Justice had previously taken, and

returned to his place. When the name of Mr Wade had been reached and he was all but last on the list-the course of procedure was interrupted by Senator Hendricks of Indiana, a member of the Democratic minority, who wished to ask the Senate and the Chief Justice a question. He said that the senator whose name had just been called, who was the presiding officer of their body when sitting as a Senate, would, under the Constitution and laws, become President of the United States, should the impeachment of the actual President be sustained. "The Constitution," he went on to say, "provides that in such case the possible successor cannot even preside in the body during the trial. I submit, for the consideration of the presiding officer of the court, the question whether, being a senator, representing a state, it is competent for him to take the oath and become thereby part of the court. I submit the ground that as the Constitution does not allow him to preside at the deliberations, because of his possible succession, he cannot, in view of the same result, be competent to sit as a member."

He

As was to have been anticipated, a long and animated if not angry debate ensued, of which the most remarkable incident-or, as it might more properly be called, the non-incident-was, that Mr Wade did not gracefully concede the point at issue, and withdraw from the trial. was, however, in the hands of his party; and his party insisted upon his right to vote. The discussion continued for four hours, and was not concluded at the adjournment of the Court. The Republicans contended that the Democratic senators had no right to object to the swearing-in of Mr Wade, however much they might afterwards object to his giving a vote; that every senator was a juror, and no juror could object to the qualifications of any other juror; and that if the plea of a personal interest were valid against Mr Wade, it would be

equally valid against Senator Paterson, the son-in-law of Mr Johnson. The Democrats, on the other hand, with Mr Reverdy Johnson of Maryland at their head, insisted that as the impeachment of Mr Johnson might, if sustained at all, be sustained by a majority of only one vote, and that vote Mr Wade's, it was not decent-it was not just that he should participate in the proceedings in any other capacity than that of a listener. The arguments were resumed on the following morning, and finally brought to a close by the withdrawal of the motion which Mr Hendricks had founded upon his question; and Mr Wade was duly sworn. The roll having been completed, the Court adjourned for a week, to Friday the 13th of March, having previously directed the sergeant-atarms to deliver to the President personally on the morrow a summons to appear by himself or counsel to answer the charges against him.

Mr Johnson placed no difficulty in the way of impeachment, but quietly accepted the summons, and as quietly prepared his reply to the articles presented against him. The demand of his counsel for a delay of thirty days to prepare an answer was unceremoniously-even uncourteously-rejected; one senator, Mr Charles Sumner, pompously declaring, that the delay of even a single day was unnecessary. Ultimately, as a compromise, ten days instead of thirty were allowed Mr Johnson to prepare his defence; and on the 23d of March Mr Stansbery, formerly AttorneyGeneral under Mr Johnson, and who had resigned that appointment to act as the leading counsel for the President, presented himself at the bar of the Senate, and represented that between the 13th and the 23d of March the interval allowed by the Court for filing the answers to the articles of impeachment "every hour, every moment of the counsel's and of Mr

Johnson's time had been occupied in preparing it. Not an instant had been lost." Once more he asked for delay, which was granted grudgingly and with bad grace for seven days. Accordingly, on the 30th of March the trial commenced, before a court every member of which was supposed to have prejudged the issue, and from which, if party tactics were to prevail in the future as they had prevailed in the past, it was useless to expect any verdict upon the evidence or the merits, or any other decision but that of the condemnation and removal of the President. Mr Johnson's replies to the several charges were distinct and emphatic. He resorted to no quirks or quibbles, did not even contest the competency of a Senate in which ten States are unrepresented, as he might have done, to try any case in behalf of the whole Union, but broadly pleaded not guilty to every charge. The document was a masterpiece of forensic argument, and, whether wholly the work of Mr Johnson himself, or partly inspired and shaped by his legal advisers, reflected the highest credit upon its authors. As regards the greatest of all the charges brought against him-the illegal and unconstitutional dismissal of Mr StantonMr Johnson asserted that he did not violate the Tenure of Office Act, inasmuch as that Act only gave the Secretary of War, or any other, the right to hold office after approval by the Senate, during the term of the President who appointed him, and for one month afterwards; that consequently Mr Stanton, having been appointed by Mr Lincoln, ceased de jure to be Secretary of War one month after Mr Lincoln's death; and that he, Mr Johnson, had a right to dismiss him at any time afterwards, and appoint (always subject to the approval of the Senate) another Secretary, in whom he had more confidence. If, as he alleged, there were any doubt as to the real mean

ing of the Act, Mr Stanton and his friends should have appealed to the Supreme Court for a final decision. Had this decision been unfavourable to the President's interpretation, the President would have yielded, and accepted Mr Stanton, and made the best of him. As for conspiracy, or an attempt to employ force against Congress, he unequivocally denied the allegation, and defied its proof. With respect to his speeches during his tour in the West, while denying that they were correctly reported, he affirmed his right as an American citizen to utter his opinions on the conduct of men in power, believing that he was as free to denounce his factious opponents as they were on their parts free to denounce and vilify him. The whole composition was clear, concise, and forcible, and produced throughout the country a very favourable impression, and a reaction against the tyranny of Congress. But when

party fights with party in America, and the prizes of victory are power, place, and pelf, the voice of reason, like the still small voice of conscience, may be heard for a little while above the din of passionate conflict. The small voice, however, is soon silenced. The wellmeaning President stood throughout the trial in the unhappy position of one who had offended and exasperated his foes, but had not very particularly satisfied or gratified his friends. The one side was virulent against him; the other was but lukewarm in his favour; and, at the best, his warmest adherents would have been glad if they had had a more popular champion to fight their battle.

The broad columns of the American journals were inadequate to report in extenso either the evidence or the arguments of this great trial. In the much more limited space at our disposal, we cannot attempt to note otherwise than in the briefest manner the salient points of the inquiry. As

regards evidence, the facts were few; as regards the legal and constitutional arguments pro and con, they were many, and of the very highest importance to the American people. Though the case opened amid a great flourish of trumpets, and many issues were presented for the decision of the Senate, all the interest very speedily centred upon a single point. Had Mr Johnson a constitutional right to dismiss an obnoxious Minister? And if that were conceded, had not the Tenure of Office Act, carried against his veto, reformed or altered the Constitution, and deprived him of a right that had belonged to all former Presidents? And if so, ought not the Supreme Court to have been appealed to for its decision whether such reform was void by reason of its unconstitutionality? The prosecution argued that Mr Johnson had broken the law. The defence argued that the law was either no valid law, or so doubtful in its validity that it was the President's duty not only in his own interest and in that of all his successors in the Presidential chair, but in that of the whole American people, to appeal to the Supreme Court for an authoritative decision. Presuming that the President had wilfully broken a law which he was bound to obey, the prosecution sought to prove a conspiracy between Mr Johnson, General Lorenzo Thomas, and other persons, to expel the War Secretary vi et armis. On this point the "managers" of the impeachment broke down signally at a very early period of the trial. According to the special correspondents of the American press, whose shadowy facts were faintly reproduced in Europe through Mr Reuter's agency, Mr Stanton was so thoroughly impressed with the idea that force would be used against him, that he barricaded and intrenched himself in his office-sat at his desk with revolvers at each elbow-had guards at his outer and inner doors-slept as it were in a coat of mail, and had