But to return to the struggle between the President and Congress.
Trumbull, Sumner, Wade, and the leaders were bound in one way or another to get the necessary two-thirds. The vote was taken in the Senate: "Shall the Civil Rights bill pa.s.s the veto of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?" It was well understood that the vote would be very close, and the result uncertain.
The excitement was intense. The galleries were crowded; members of the House were on the Senate floor. The result seemed to depend entirely upon the vote of Senator Morgan, of New York, and he seemed to be irresolute, uncertain in his own mind which way he would vote. The call of the roll proceeded. When his name was reached there was profound silence. He first voted nay, and then immediately changed to yea. A wonderful demonstration burst forth as it was then known that the bill would pa.s.s over the veto of the President, and that the Republican party in Congress at last had complete control. Senator Trumbull made a remarkable speech on that occasion, and I was never prouder of any living man.
So the struggle went on from day to day and year to year, growing all the time more intense. I have always been disposed to be conservative; I was then; and it was with profound regret that I saw the feeling between the President and Congress becoming more and more strained.
I disliked to follow the extreme radical element, and when the row was at its height, Judge Orth, a colleague in the House from Indiana, and I concluded to go and see the President and advise with him, in an attempt to smooth over the differences. I will never forget that interview. It was at night. He received us politely enough, and without mincing any words he gave us to understand that we were on a fool"s errand and that he would not yield. We went away, and naturally joined the extreme radicals in the House, always voting with them afterwards.
The row continued in the Fortieth Congress. Bills were pa.s.sed, promptly vetoed, and the bills immediately pa.s.sed over the President"s veto. Many of the bills were not only unwise legislation but were unconst.i.tutional as well. We pa.s.sed the Tenure of Office bill; we attempted to restrict the President"s pardoning power; and as I look back over the history of the period, it seems to me that we did not have the slightest regard for the Const.i.tution. Some of President Johnson" veto messages were admirable. He had the advice and a.s.sistance of one of the ablest lawyers of his day, Jeremiah Black.
To make the feeling more intense, just about this time Johnson made his famous "swing around the circle," as it was termed. His speeches published in the opposition press were intemperate and extreme.
He denounced Congress. He threatened to "kick people out of office,"
in violation of the Tenure of Office act. He was undignified in his actions and language, and many people thought he was intoxicated most of the time, although I do not believe this.
The radicals in both the House and Senate determined that he should be impeached and removed from office. They had the votes in the House easily, and they thought they could muster the necessary number in the Senate, as we had been pa.s.sing all sorts of legislation over the President"s veto. When the subject was up, I was doubtful, and I really believe, strong Republican that I was, that had it not been for Judge Trumbull I would have voted against the impeachment articles. I advised with the Judge, for whom I had profound respect.
I visited him at his house. I explained to him my doubts, and I recall very clearly the expression he used in reply. He said: "Johnson is an obstruction to the Government and should be removed."
Judge Trumbull himself changed afterwards, much to the astonishment of every one, and denounced the impeachment proceeding as unworthy of a justice of the peace court.
It seems to me difficult to realize that it was as far back as March 2, 1868, that I addressed the House in favor of the impeachment articles. I think I made a pretty good speech on that occasion and supported my position very well. I took rather an extreme view in favor of the predominance of the legislative department of the Government, contending that the executive and judiciary departments of the Government, while they are finally responsible to the people, are directly accountable to the legislative department.
The first and princ.i.p.al article in the impeachment proposed by the House was the President"s issuance of an order removing Edwin M.
Stanton as Secretary of War, he having been duly appointed and commissioned by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the Senate having been in session at the time of his removal.
I contended then, on the floor of the House, that such a removal was a violation of the Const.i.tution and could not be excused on any pretext whatever, in addition to being a direct violation of the Tenure of Office act.
I do not intend to go into the details of the various articles proposed by the House; suffice it to say that they were mainly based on the attempted removal of Mr. Stanton, and the appointment of Mr. Thomas as Secretary of War.
I was very serious in concluding my speech. My words were:
"Mr. Chairman: The administration of Mr. Johnson since he became President of the United States has been characterized by an utter disregard of the laws and Const.i.tution of the United States. And, sir, I am of the opinion that there should be another article adopted by this House, and sent to the Senate, upon which he should be tried, the substance of which should be that Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, is guilty of high crimes in office, in that he violated the Const.i.tution and laws of the United States, by using his influence, patronage and power of said office to hinder, delay and prevent a restoration of the States lately in rebellion against the Government, to their proper practical relations to the Union. Congress provided by law for the reconstruction of the rebel States. The President, from whatever motives it matters not, stands in his Executive Office, and by all his influence and power opposes restoration according to law. As an Executive Officer, he has no such right, and his opposition to the laws of Congress on the subject of reconstruction has cost this Nation thousands of loyal men who have been murdered in the South on account of their devotion to the Flag, and millions of money which is to be added to the enormous public debt to be cast upon the necks of the people.
Shall the Nation endure it longer? Shall we struggle on and on until the welcome day comes when his term shall expire? The people say "No"; men struggling in business say "No"; men longing for peace and harmony in the land say "No"; the loyal men of the South, who have been abused and hunted by wicked rebels, say "No"; and I trust that the answer of all these may be the answer of this House to-day, and the answer of the Senate of the United States within a reasonable time after these articles shall be sent to them."
Needless for me to say, that as the subject continued feeling remained at a high pitch in the House. It was debated from day to day. Stevens was urging the impeachment with all the force at his command; some were doubtful and holding back, as I was; some changed --for instance, James G. Blaine, who was taunted by Stevens and sneered at for his change of front.
Under the law then existing the President of the Senate succeeded a Vice-President who became, by the death or removal of the President, President of the United States. The radicals in complete control --and I have no doubt that Stevens had a hand in it--elected the most radical of their number as President of the Senate--Ben Wade, of Ohio. Johnson removed, Wade would have been President, and the extreme radicals would have been in supreme control of the legislative and executive departments of the Government.
This condition is what made Mr. Blaine hesitate. He told me on one occasion: "Johnson in the White House is bad enough, but we know what we have; Lord knows what we would get with old Ben Wade there. I do not know but I would rather trust Johnson than Wade."
But in the end Blaine supported the impeachment articles, just as I did, and as Senator Allison and other somewhat conservative members did, all feeling at the same time not a little doubtful of our course.
Stevens, Logan, Boutwell, Williams, and Wilson were appointed managers on the part of the House, and solemnly and officially notified the Senate of the action of the House in impeaching the President of the United States. The Senate proceeded without long delay to resolve itself as a High Court of Impeachment, for the purpose of trying the President of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors. The most eminent counsel of the Nation were engaged. Mr. Evarts was President Johnson"s princ.i.p.al counsel.
He was ably a.s.sisted by lawyers of scarcely less renown.
The trial dragged along from day to day. Part of the time the Senate considered the matter in executive session. The corridors were crowded; and I remember with what astonishment we heard that Judge Trumbull had taken the floor denouncing the proceeding as unworthy of a justice of the peace court. The Illinois delegation held a meeting, and Logan, Farnsworth, and Washburne urged that we unite in a letter to Judge Trumbull, with a view to influencing his vote for conviction, or of inducing him to withhold his vote if he could not vote for conviction. A number of our delegation opposed it, and the letter was not sent.
I do not think that it would have made the slightest effect on Judge Trumbull had we sent it. All sorts of coercing methods were used to influence wavering Senators. Old Bob Schenck was the chairman of this movement, and he sent telegrams broadcast all over the United States to the effect that there was great danger to the peace of the country and the Republican cause if impeachment failed, and asking the recipients to send their Senators public opinion by resolutions and delegations. And responses came from all over the North, urging and demanding the impeachment of the President.
It is difficult now to realize the intense excitement of that period. General Grant was there, tacitly acknowledged as the next nominee of the Republican party for the Presidency. He took no active part, but it was pretty well understood, from the position of his friends such as Logan and Washburne, that the impeachment had his sympathy; and in the Senate Conkling was especially vindictive. Grimes, Fessenden, and Trumbull led the fight for acquittal. Many were noncommittal; but in the end the struggle turned on the one doubtful Senator, Edmund G. Ross of Kansas.
It was determined to vote on the tenth article first, as that article was the strongest one and more votes could be mustered for it than any other. It was well understood that the vote on that article would settle the matter.
More than forty-three years have pa.s.sed into history since that memorable day when the Senate of the United States was sitting as a Court of Impeachment for the purpose of trying the President of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors. The occasion is unforgettable. As I look back now, I see arising before me the forms and features of the great men who were sitting in that high court: I see presiding Chief Justice Chase; I see Sumner, cold and dignified; Wade, Trumbull, Hendricks, Conkling, Yates; I see Logan as one of the managers on the part of the House; I see old Thad Stevens, weak and wasted from illness, being carried in--all long since have pa.s.sed to the beyond, the accused President, the members of the high court, the counsel. Of all the eminent men who were present on that day, aside from the Hon. J. B. Henderson, I do not know of a single one now living.
As the roll was called, there was such a solemn hush as only comes when man stands in the presence of Deity. Finally, when the name of Ross was reached and he voted "No"; when it was understood that his vote meant acquittal, the friends of the President in the galleries thundered forth in applause.
And thus ended for the first, and I hope the last, time the trial of a President of the United States before the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.
CHAPTER X SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATURE, AND GOVERNOR 1871 to 1883
After my six years" service in the Lower House of Congress, I returned home, not expecting ever again to take office, or engage in politics. There was a contest going on in the State over the location of the State Capitol. The State had committed itself to the erection of a new Capitol building, and had really made considerable progress on its construction.
In the meantime, the question of changing the location from Springfield to some other city was agitated. Peoria made a very strong effort for the removal to that city. The work on the new building, as an immediate result, was stopped. The Legislature had adjourned, and another election of members was to occur. This condition of local affairs existed when I returned home after my service was finished in Washington.
The friends in my home county, in which the State Capitol is located, waited on me and expressed a desire that I should allow my name to be used as a candidate for the Legislature. I made known my resolve not to enter politics again; but they based the proposal upon a ground that made it extremely difficult and embarra.s.sing not to accede, to-wit: they had been with me for anything I had ever wanted, and now they wanted me to reciprocate, and do as _they_ desired. I did not feel that I could disregard their wishes, and so yielded to their demand; it was nothing less.
They then went to the Hon. Milton Hay, who was a great lawyer, and as good a man as I ever knew, and made the same demand upon him.
He was under no special obligation to yield to their wishes, for he had never asked for office at the hands of the people. He declined; but they also declined to take "No" for an answer. The result was that both Hay and I became candidates, were both elected, and the contest over the removal of the State Capitol was renewed.
I was chosen Speaker. Mr. Hay was the foremost lawyer of the Legislature. One million dollars was reported from the proper committee of the House, and pa.s.sed without opposition, and the work on the Capitol was once more taken up.
Finding myself again in politics, I determined to become a candidate for Governor. To be successful, it seemed to be important that I should go back into the Legislature, which I did. After my re- election I was supported by the Republican party for Speaker for my second term.
However, the House of Representatives was in control of the opposition, composed of Democrats and Independents, the latter being more generally wrong than the Democrats, and much less reliable. The combination organized the House, the Hon. Elijah Haines being elected Speaker, and the Republicans casting their united vote for me. This Legislature has ever since been known as the "Haines Legislature," the most notorious Legislature ever known in the State. Haines was a man of ability--especially, to stir up strife and produce confusion.
The Legislature convened in the Winter of 1875. I was nominated for Governor early in 1876, elected in November of the same year, and sworn in January, 1877.
On re-examining my inaugural address, I find much stated there that is at the present time, and must long remain, of historic interest to the people of Illinois; but since its length precludes reproduction here, I can merely touch upon certain points, more fully covered in the address, that offer many curious aspects and contrasts in the light of latter-day conditions.
To begin with, the Legislature of that year was the first to meet in the new Capitol. The effects of the financial panic of 1873 were still felt, but it was pointed out that the State"s resources were in no way impaired; that on the contrary--circ.u.mstances to be proud of--the volume of private indebtedness had been materially reduced, while the productive wealth of farms, buildings, factories, mines, and railroads had never before been so great.
Of matters educational, there had been enrolled as pupils the preceding year (1876) 687,446 persons, and appropriations for public- school purposes for the corresponding period had amounted to $8,268,539.58.
Among other matters of local interest adverted to, which to-day are as alive and momentous as they were then, were the subjects of navigation--particularly on the Illinois River and the ca.n.a.l--and the supervision of the railroads by the Railroad and Warehouse Commission. At that time there were 7,285 miles of railroad in the State--a greater mileage than any other State in the Union could boast of.
Only eleven years had elapsed since the close of the Civil War, and its after-effects still worked like an obnoxious ferment in the State"s political conditions; closely allied with this was the influence of the Hayes-Tilden contest, all of which commanded a large proportion of my speech.
One extract I wish to quote in full, since it was prelude to events which followed so soon afterwards:
"I desire to add one suggestion in reference to the affairs of our own State, by calling your attention to the Militia Law. I believe a more perfect law should be enacted, which will secure a more thorough organization of the State militia.
"The spirit of our inst.i.tutions and the temper of our people are hostile to a standing army, and I am opposed to any policy, State or National, looking to governing the people by bayonet; yet in the most highly civilized communities a trained militia, recruited from the intelligent and industrious cla.s.ses, is an almost indispensable auxiliary to the civil power in the interests of peace and good order."
Little did I dream that within six months of my inauguration the timeliness and force of the suggestions, and any recommendations contained in the closing paragraphs above, would find convincing ill.u.s.trations in conditions throughout the Nation, and especially in Illinois.
In July, 1877, the famous strike of the railway employees came on.
It was exceptionally strong in the cities of Illinois--Chicago, Decatur, Springfield, Galesburg, East St. Louis, and every other city of considerable size. The State was ill prepared for such a crisis. The strike ran along for several days with the State unready to bring the matter to a close. Having been in office but a few months, I had not yet secured any arms or other military equipment with which to combat organized violations of the law.
The Illinois National Guard was inchoate--in fact, scarcely organized at all, except in companies voluntarily formed, which were almost entirely without military equipment. Finally, however, I determined to order the National Guard to East St. Louis.
I telegraphed to Chicago for a locomotive and car to take me to East St. Louis about two o"clock on a specified night. After ordering the troops from different parts of the State to a.s.semble at East St. Louis on a given day, I went to East St. Louis myself, three or four gentlemen accompanying me. There I found several thousand men sitting about on the curbs of the sidewalks, apparently perfectly quiet and inoffensive, if not unconcerned, and I concluded that there was no reason why trains should not move.