A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 6, part 2: Andrew Johnson
Author: Richardson, James D. (James Daniel), 1843-1914
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 6, part 2: Andrew Johnson" ***

A COMPILATION OF THE MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS

BY JAMES D. RICHARDSON

Andrew Johnson

April 15, 1865, to March 4, 1869

Andrew Johnson

Andrew Johnson was born in Raleigh, N.C., December 29, 1808. His parents
were very poor. When he was 4 years old his father died of injuries
received in rescuing a person from drowning. At the age of 10 years
Andrew was apprenticed to a tailor. His early education was almost
entirely neglected, and, notwithstanding his natural craving to learn,
he never spent a day in school. Was taught the alphabet by a
fellow-workman, borrowed a book, and learned to read. In 1824 removed to
Laurens Court-House, S.C., where he worked as a journeyman tailor. In
May, 1826, returned to Raleigh, and in September, with his mother and
stepfather, set out for Greeneville, Tenn., in a two-wheeled cart drawn
by a blind pony. Here he married Eliza McCardle, a woman of refinement,
who taught him to write, and read to him while he was at work during the
day. It was not until he had been in Congress that he learned to write
with ease. From Greeneville went to the West, but returned after the
lapse of a year. In 1828 was elected alderman; was reelected in 1829 and
1830, and in 1830 was advanced to the mayoralty, which office he held
for three years. In 1831 was appointed by the county court a trustee
of Rhea Academy, and about this time participated in the debates of a
society at Greeneville College. In 1834 advocated the adoption of a new
State constitution, by which the influence of the large landholders was
abridged. In 1835 represented Greene and Washington counties in the
legislature. Was defeated for the legislature in 1837, but in 1839 was
reelected. In 1836 supported Hugh L. White for the Presidency, and in
the political altercations between John Bell and James K. Polk, which
distracted Tennessee at the time, supported the former. Mr. Johnson was
the only ardent follower of Bell that failed to go over to the Whig
party. Was an elector for the State at large on the Van Buren ticket in
1840, and made a State reputation by the force of his oratory. In 1841
was elected to the State senate from Greene and Hawkins counties, and
while in that body was one of the "immortal thirteen" Democrats who,
having it in their power to prevent the election of a Whig Senator, did
so by refusing to meet the house in joint convention; also proposed that
the basis of representation should rest upon white votes, without regard
to the ownership of slaves. Was elected to Congress in 1843 over John A.
Asken, a United States Bank Democrat, who was supported by the Whigs.
His first speech was in support of the resolution to restore to General
Jackson the fine imposed upon him at New Orleans; also supported the
annexation of Texas. In 1845 was reelected, and supported Polk's
Administration. Was regularly reelected to Congress until 1853. During
this period opposed all expenditures for internal improvements that were
not general; resisted and defeated the proposed contingent tax of 10 per
cent on tea and coffee; made his celebrated defense of the veto power;
urged the adoption of the homestead law, which was obnoxious to the
extreme Southern element of his party; supported the compromise measures
of 1850 as a matter of expediency, but opposed compromises in general
as a sacrifice of principle. Was elected governor of Tennessee in 1853
over Gustavus A. Henry, the "Eagle Orator" of the State. In his message
to the legislature he dwelt upon the homestead law and other measures
for the benefit of the working classes, and earned the title of
the "Mechanic Governor." Opposed the Know-nothing movement with
characteristic vehemence. Was reelected governor in 1855, defeating
Meredith P. Gentry, the Whig-American candidate, after a most remarkable
canvass. The Kansas-Nebraska bill received his earnest support. In 1857
was elected to the United States Senate, where he urged the passage of
the homestead bill, and on May 20, 1858, made his greatest speech on
this subject. Opposed the grant of aid for the construction of a Pacific
railroad. Was prominent in debate, and frequently clashed with Southern
supporters of the Administration. His pronounced Unionism estranged him
from the extremists on the Southern side, while his acceptance of
slavery as an institution guaranteed by the Constitution caused him
to hold aloof from the Republicans on the other. At the Democratic
convention at Charleston, S.C., in 1860 was a candidate for the
Presidential nomination, but received only the vote of Tennessee, and
when the convention reassembled in Baltimore withdrew his name. In the
canvass that followed supported John C. Breckinridge. At the session
of Congress beginning in December, 1860, took decided and unequivocal
grounds in opposition to secession, and on December 13 introduced a
joint resolution proposing to amend the Constitution so as to elect the
President and Vice-President by district votes, Senators by a direct
popular vote, and to limit the terms of Federal judges to twelve
years, the judges to be equally divided between slaveholding and
non-slaveholding States. In his speech on this resolution, December 18
and 19, declared his unyielding opposition to secession and announced
his intention to stand by and act under the Constitution. Retained
his seat in the Senate until appointed by President Lincoln military
governor of Tennessee, March 4, 1862. March 12 reached Nashville, and
organized a provisional government for the State; March 18 issued a
proclamation in which he appealed to the people to return to their
allegiance, to uphold the law, and to accept "a full and complete
amnesty for all past acts and declarations;" April 5 removed the mayor
and other officials of Nashville for refusing to take the oath of
allegiance to the United States, and appointed others; urged the holding
of Union meetings throughout the State, and frequently attended them in
person; completed the railroad from Nashville to the Tennessee River;
raised twenty-five regiments for service in the State; December 8, 1862,
issued a proclamation ordering Congressional elections, and on the 15th
levied an assessment upon the richer Southern sympathizers "in behalf of
the many helpless widows, wives, and children in the city of Nashville
who have been reduced to poverty and wretchedness in consequence of
their husbands, sons, and fathers having been forced into the armies of
this unholy and nefarious rebellion." Was nominated for Vice-President
of the United States at the national Republican convention at Baltimore
June 8, 1864, and was elected on November 8. In his letter of acceptance
of the nomination Mr. Johnson virtually disclaimed any departure from
his principles as a Democrat, but placed his acceptance upon the ground
of "the higher duty of first preserving the Government." On the night of
the 14th of April, 1865, President Lincoln was shot by an assassin and
died the next morning. At 11 o'clock a.m. April 15 Mr. Johnson was sworn
in as President, at his rooms in the Kirkwood House, Washington, by
Chief Justice Chase, in the presence of nearly all the Cabinet officers
and others. April 29, 1865, issued a proclamation for the removal of
trade restrictions in most of the insurrectionary States, which, being
in contravention of an act of Congress, was subsequently modified.
May 9 issued an Executive order restoring Virginia to the Union. May 22
proclaimed all ports, except four in Texas, opened to foreign commerce
on July 1, 1865. May 29 issued a general amnesty proclamation, after
which the fundamental and irreconcilable differences between President
Johnson and the party that had elevated him to power became more
apparent. He exercised the veto power to a very great extent, but it was
generally nullified by the two-thirds votes of both Houses. From May 29
to July 13, 1865, proclaimed provisional governors for North Carolina,
Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, Alabama, South Carolina, and Florida, whose
duties were to reorganize the State governments. The State governments
were reorganized, but the Republicans claimed that the laws passed were
so stringent in reference to the negroes that it was a worse form of
slavery than the old. The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution
became a law December 18, 1865, with Mr. Johnson's concurrence. The first
breach between the President and the party in power was the veto of the
Freedmen's Bureau bill, in February, 1866, which was designed to protect
the negroes. March 27 vetoed the civil-rights bill, but it was passed
over his veto. In a message of June 22, 1866, opposed the joint
resolution proposing the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. In
June, 1866, the Republicans in Congress brought forward their plan of
reconstruction, called the "Congressional plan," in contradistinction
to that of the President. The chief features of the Congressional plan
were to give the negroes the right to vote, to protect them in this
right, and to prevent Confederate leaders from voting. January 5, 1867,
vetoed the act giving negroes the right of suffrage in the District
of Columbia, but it was passed over his veto. An attempt was made to
impeach the President, but it failed. In January, 1867, a bill was
passed to deprive the President of the power to proclaim general
amnesty, which he disregarded. Measures were adopted looking to the
meeting of the Fortieth and all subsequent Congresses immediately after
the adjournment of the preceding. The President was deprived of the
command of the Army by a rider to the army appropriation bill, which
provided that his orders should only be given through the General, who
was not to be removed without the previous consent of the Senate. The
bill admitting Nebraska, providing that no law should ever be passed in
that State denying the right of suffrage to any person because of his
color or race, was vetoed by the President, but passed over his veto.
March 2, 1867, vetoed the act to provide for the more efficient
government of the rebel States, but it was passed over his veto.
It embodied the Congressional plan of reconstruction, and divided the
Southern States into five military districts, each under an officer of
the Army not under the rank of brigadier-general, who was to exercise
all the functions of government until the citizens had "formed a
constitution of government in conformity with the Constitution
of the United States in all respects." On the same day vetoed the
tenure-of-office act, which was also passed over his veto. It provided
that civil officers should remain in office until the confirmation of
their successors; that the members of the Cabinet should be removed
only with the consent of the Senate, and that when Congress was not in
session the President could suspend but not remove any official, and in
case the Senate at the next session should not ratify the suspension the
suspended official should be reinducted into his office. August 5, 1867,
requested Edwin M. Stanton to resign his office as Secretary of War.
Mr. Stanton refused, was suspended, and General Grant was appointed
Secretary of War _ad interim_. When Congress met, the Senate
refused to ratify the suspension. General Grant then resigned, and Mr.
Stanton resumed the duties of his office. The President removed him and
appointed Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-General of the Army, Secretary of War
_ad interim_. The Senate declared this act illegal, and Mr. Stanton
refused to comply, and notified the Speaker of the House. On February
24, 1868, the House of Representatives resolved to impeach the
President, and on March 2 and 3 articles of impeachment were agreed upon
by the House of Representatives, and on the 4th were presented to the
Senate. The trial began on March 30. May 16 the test vote was had;
thirty-five Senators voted for conviction and nineteen for acquittal. A
change of one vote would have carried conviction. A verdict of acquittal
was entered, and the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment adjourned
_sine die_. After the expiration of his term the ex-President
returned to Tennessee. Was a candidate for the United States Senate, but
was defeated. In 1872 was an unsuccessful candidate for Congressman from
the State at large. In January, 1875, was elected to the United States
Senate, and took his seat at the extra session of that year. Shortly
after the session began made a speech which was a skillful but bitter
attack upon President Grant. While visiting his daughter near
Elizabethton, in Carter County, Tenn., was stricken with paralysis July
30, 1875, and died the following day. He was buried at Greeneville, Tenn.

INAUGURAL ADDRESS.

[From the Sunday Morning Chronicle, Washington, April 16, 1865, and
The Sun, Baltimore, April 17, 1865.]

GENTLEMEN: I must be permitted to say that I have been almost
overwhelmed by the announcement of the sad event which has so recently
occurred. I feel incompetent to perform duties so important and
responsible as those which have been so unexpectedly thrown upon me.
As to an indication of any policy which may be pursued by me in the
administration of the Government, I have to say that that must be left
for development as the Administration progresses. The message or
declaration must be made by the acts as they transpire. The only
assurance that I can now give of the future is reference to the past.
The course which I have taken in the past in connection with this
rebellion must be regarded as a guaranty of the future. My past public
life, which has been long and laborious, has been founded, as I in good
conscience believe, upon a great principle of right, which lies at the
basis of all things. The best energies of my life have been spent in
endeavoring to establish and perpetuate the principles of free
government, and I believe that the Government in passing through its
present perils will settle down upon principles consonant with popular
rights more permanent and enduring than heretofore. I must be permitted
to say, if I understand the feelings of my own heart, that I have long
labored to ameliorate and elevate the condition of the great mass of the
American people. Toil and an honest advocacy of the great principles of
free government have been my lot. Duties have been mine; consequences
are God's. This has been the foundation of my political creed, and I
feel that in the end the Government will triumph and that these great
principles will be permanently established.

In conclusion, gentlemen, let me say that I want your encouragement and
countenance. I shall ask and rely upon you and others in carrying the
Government through its present perils. I feel in making this request
that it will be heartily responded to by you and all other patriots
and lovers of the rights and interests of a free people.

APRIL 15, 1865.

PROCLAMATIONS.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas, by my direction, the Acting Secretary of State, in a notice to
the public of the 17th, requested the various religious denominations
to assemble on the 19th instant, on the occasion of the obsequies of
Abraham Lincoln, late President of the United States, and to observe the
same with appropriate ceremonies; but

Whereas our country has become one great house of mourning, where the
head of the family has been taken away, and believing that a special
period should be assigned for again humbling ourselves before Almighty
God, in order that the bereavement may be sanctified to the nation:

Now, therefore, in order to mitigate that grief on earth which can
only be assuaged by communion with the Father in heaven, and in
compliance with the wishes of Senators and Representatives in Congress,
communicated to me by resolutions adopted at the National Capitol,
I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do hereby appoint
Thursday, the 25th day of May next, to be observed, wherever in the
United States the flag of the country may be respected, as a day of
humiliation and mourning, and I recommend my fellow citizens then to
assemble in their respective places of worship, there to unite in solemn
service to Almighty God in memory of the good man who has been removed,
so that all shall be occupied at the same time in contemplation of his
virtues and in sorrow for his sudden and violent end.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, the 25th day of April, A.D. 1865, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-ninth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
W. HUNTER,
_Acting Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas by my proclamation of the 25th instant Thursday, the 25th day of
next month, was recommended as a day for special humiliation and prayer
in consequence of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, late President
of the United States; but

Whereas my attention has since been called to the fact that the day
aforesaid is sacred to large numbers of Christians as one of rejoicing
for the ascension of the Savior:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, do hereby suggest that the religious services recommended
as aforesaid should be postponed until Thursday, the 1st day of June
next.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 29th day of April, A.D. 1865, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-ninth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
W. HUNTER,
_Acting Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas it appears from evidence in the Bureau of Military Justice that
the atrocious murder of the late President, Abraham Lincoln, and the
attempted assassination of the Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of
State, were incited, concerted, and procured by and between Jefferson
Davis, late of Richmond, Va., and Jacob Thompson, Clement C. Clay,
Beverley Tucker, George N. Sanders, William C. Cleary, and other rebels
and traitors against the Government of the United States harbored in
Canada:

Now, therefore, to the end that justice may be done, I, Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, do offer and promise for the arrest of
said persons, or either of them, within the limits of the United States,
so that they can be brought to trial, the following rewards:

One hundred thousand dollars for the arrest of Jefferson Davis.

Twenty-five thousand dollars for the arrest of Clement C. Clay.

Twenty-five thousand dollars for the arrest of Jacob Thompson, late of
Mississippi.

Twenty-five thousand dollars for the arrest of George N. Sanders.

Twenty-five thousand dollars for the arrest of Beverley Tucker.

Ten thousand dollars for the arrest of William C. Cleary, late clerk of
Clement C. Clay.

The Provost-Marshal-General of the United States is directed to cause
a description of said persons, with notice of the above rewards, to be
published.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 2d day of May, A.D. 1865, and of
the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-ninth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
W. HUNTER,
_Acting Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas the President of the United States, by his proclamation of the
19th day of April, 1861, did declare certain States therein mentioned in
insurrection against the Government of the United States; and

Whereas armed resistance to the authority of this Government in the said
insurrectionary States may be regarded as virtually at an end, and the
persons by whom that resistance, as well as the operations of insurgent
cruisers, was directed are fugitives or captives; and

Whereas it is understood that some of those cruisers are still infesting
the high seas and others are preparing to capture, burn, and destroy
vessels of the United States:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, hereby enjoin all naval, military, and civil officers of
the United States diligently to endeavor, by all lawful means, to arrest
the said cruisers and to bring them into a port of the United States, in
order that they may be prevented from committing further depredations on
commerce and that the persons on board of them may no longer enjoy
impunity for their crimes.

And I do further proclaim and declare that if, after a reasonable time
shall have elapsed for this proclamation to become known in the ports of
nations claiming to have been neutrals, the said insurgent cruisers and
the persons on board of them shall continue to receive hospitality in
the said ports, this Government will deem itself justified in refusing
hospitality to the public vessels of such nations in ports of the United
States and in adopting such other measures as may be deemed advisable
toward vindicating the national sovereignty.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 10th day of May, A.D. 1865, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-ninth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
W. HUNTER,
_Acting Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas by the proclamation of the President of the 11th day of April
last certain ports of the United States therein specified, which had
previously been subject to blockade, were, for objects of public safety,
declared, in conformity with previous special legislation of Congress,
to be closed against foreign commerce during the national will, to be
thereafter expressed and made known by the President; and

Whereas events and circumstances have since occurred which, in my
judgment, render it expedient to remove that restriction, except as to
the ports of Galveston, La Salle, Brazos de Santiago (Point Isabel), and
Brownsville, in the State of Texas:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, do hereby declare that the ports aforesaid, not excepted
as above, shall be open to foreign commerce from and after the 1st day
of July next; that commercial intercourse with the said ports may from
that time be carried on, subject to the laws of the United States and in
pursuance of such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of
the Treasury. If, however, any vessel from a foreign port shall enter
any of the before-named excepted ports in the State of Texas, she will
continue to be held liable to the penalties prescribed by the act of
Congress approved on the 13th day of July, 1861, and the persons on
board of her to such penalties as may be incurred, pursuant to the laws
of war, for trading or attempting to trade with an enemy.

And I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do hereby declare
and make known that the United States of America do henceforth disallow
to all persons trading or attempting to trade in any ports of the United
States in violation of the laws thereof all pretense of belligerent
rights and privileges; and I give notice that from the date of this
proclamation all such offenders will be held and dealt with as pirates.

It is also ordered that all restrictions upon trade heretofore imposed
in the territory of the United States east of the Mississippi River,
save those relating to contraband of war, to the reservation of the
rights of the United States to property purchased in the territory of an
enemy, and to the 25 per cent upon purchases of cotton be removed. All
provisions of the internal-revenue law will be carried into effect under
the proper officers.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 22d day of May, A.D. 1865, and of
the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-ninth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
W. HUNTER,
_Acting Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas the President of the United States, on the 8th day of December,
A.D. 1863, and on the 26th day of March, A.D. 1864, did, with the object
to suppress the existing rebellion, to induce all persons to return to
their loyalty, and to restore the authority of the United States, issue
proclamations offering amnesty and pardon to certain persons who had,
directly or by implication, participated in the said rebellion; and

Whereas many persons who had so engaged in said rebellion have, since
the issuance of said proclamations, failed or neglected to take the
benefits offered thereby; and

Whereas many persons who have been justly deprived of all claim to
amnesty and pardon thereunder by reason of their participation, directly
or by implication, in said rebellion and continued hostility to the
Government of the United States since the date of said proclamations now
desire to apply for and obtain amnesty and pardon.

To the end, therefore, that the authority of the Government of the
United States may be restored and that peace, order, and freedom may
be established, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
do proclaim and declare that I hereby grant to all persons who have,
directly or indirectly, participated in the existing rebellion, except
as hereinafter excepted, amnesty and pardon, with restoration of all
rights of property, except as to slaves and except in cases where legal
proceedings under the laws of the United States providing for the
confiscation of property of persons engaged in rebellion have been
instituted; but upon the condition, nevertheless, that every such person
shall take and subscribe the following oath (or affirmation) and
thenceforward keep and maintain said oath inviolate, and which oath
shall be registered for permanent preservation and shall be of the tenor
and effect following, to wit:

I ---- ---- do solemnly swear (or affirm), in presence of Almighty
God, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect, and defend
the Constitution of the United States and the Union of the States
thereunder, and that I will in like manner abide by and faithfully
support all laws and proclamations which have been made during the
existing rebellion with reference to the emancipation of slaves.
So help me God.

The following classes of persons are excepted from the benefits of this
proclamation:

First. All who are or shall have been pretended civil or diplomatic
officers or otherwise domestic or foreign agents of the pretended
Confederate government.

Second. All who left judicial stations under the United States to aid
the rebellion.

Third. All who shall have been military or naval officers of said
pretended Confederate government above the rank of colonel in the army
or lieutenant in the navy.

Fourth. All who left seats in the Congress of the United States to aid
the rebellion.

Fifth. All who resigned or tendered resignations of their commissions in
the Army or Navy of the United States to evade duty in resisting the
rebellion.

Sixth. All who have engaged in any way in treating otherwise than
lawfully as prisoners of war persons found in the United States service
as officers, soldiers, seamen, or in other capacities.

Seventh. All persons who have been or are absentees from the United
States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion.

Eighth. All military and naval officers in the rebel service who were
educated by the Government in the Military Academy at West Point or the
United States Naval Academy.

Ninth. All persons who held the pretended offices of governors of States
in insurrection against the United States.

Tenth. All persons who left their homes within the jurisdiction and
protection of the United States and passed beyond the Federal military
lines into the pretended Confederate States for the purpose of aiding
the rebellion.

Eleventh. All persons who have been engaged in the destruction of the
commerce of the United States upon the high seas and all persons who
have made raids into the United States from Canada or been engaged in
destroying the commerce of the United States upon the lakes and rivers
that separate the British Provinces from the United States.

Twelfth. All persons who, at the time when they seek to obtain the
benefits hereof by taking the oath herein prescribed, are in military,
naval, or civil confinement or custody, or under bonds of the civil,
military, or naval authorities or agents of the United States as
prisoners of war, or persons detained for offenses of any kind, either
before or after conviction.

Thirteenth. All persons who have voluntarily participated in said
rebellion and the estimated value of whose taxable property is over
$20,000.

Fourteenth. All persons who have taken the oath of amnesty as prescribed
in the President's proclamation of December 8, A.D. 1863, or an oath of
allegiance to the Government of the United States since the date of said
proclamation and who have not thenceforward kept and maintained the same
inviolate.

_Provided_, That special application may be made to the President
for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes, and such
clemency will be liberally extended as may be consistent with the facts
of the case and the peace and dignity of the United States.

The Secretary of State will establish rules and regulations for
administering and recording the said amnesty oath, so as to insure its
benefit to the people and guard the Government against fraud.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, the 29th day of May, A.D. 1865, and
of the Independence of the United States the eighty-ninth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas the fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution of
the United States declares that the United States shall guarantee to
every State in the Union a republican form of government and shall
protect each of them against invasion and domestic violence; and

Whereas the President of the United States is by the Constitution made
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, as well as chief civil
executive officer of the United States, and is bound by solemn oath
faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and
to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and

Whereas the rebellion which has been waged by a portion of the people of
the United States against the properly constituted authorities of the
Government thereof in the most violent and revolting form, but whose
organized and armed forces have now been almost entirely overcome, has
in its revolutionary progress deprived the people of the State of North
Carolina of all civil government; and

Whereas it becomes necessary and proper to carry out and enforce the
obligations of the United States to the people of North Carolina in
securing them in the enjoyment of a republican form of government:

Now, therefore, in obedience to the high and solemn duties imposed upon
me by the Constitution of the United States and for the purpose of
enabling the loyal people of said State to organize a State government
whereby justice may be established, domestic tranquillity insured, and
loyal citizens protected in all their rights of life, liberty, and
property, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States and
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, do hereby
appoint William W. Holden provisional governor of the State of North
Carolina, whose duty it shall be, at the earliest practicable period, to
prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper for
convening a convention composed of delegates to be chosen by that
portion of the people of said State who are loyal to the United States,
and no others, for the purpose of altering or amending the constitution
thereof, and with authority to exercise within the limits of said State
all the powers necessary and proper to enable such loyal people of the
State of North Carolina to restore said State to its constitutional
relations to the Federal Government and to present such a republican
form of State government as will entitle the State to the guaranty of
the United States therefor and its people to protection by the United
States against invasion, insurrection, and domestic violence:
_Provided_, That in any election that may be hereafter held for
choosing delegates to any State convention as aforesaid no person shall
be qualified as an elector or shall be eligible as a member of such
convention unless he shall have previously taken and subscribed the oath
of amnesty as set forth in the President's proclamation of May 29, A.D.
1865, and is a voter qualified as prescribed by the constitution and
laws of the State of North Carolina in force immediately before the 20th
day of May, A.D. 1861, the date of the so-called ordinance of secession;
and the said convention, when convened, or the legislature that may be
thereafter assembled, will prescribe the qualification of electors and
the eligibility of persons to hold office under the constitution and
laws of the State--a power the people of the several States composing
the Federal Union have rightfully exercised from the origin of the
Government to the present time.

And I do hereby direct--

First. That the military commander of the department and all officers
and persons in the military and naval service aid and assist the said
provisional governor in carrying into effect this proclamation; and they
are enjoined to abstain from in any way hindering, impeding, or
discouraging the loyal people from the organization of a State
government as herein authorized.

Second. That the Secretary of State proceed to put in force all laws
of the United States the administration whereof belongs to the State
Department applicable to the geographical limits aforesaid.

Third. That the Secretary of the Treasury proceed to nominate for
appointment assessors of taxes and collectors of customs and internal
revenue and such other officers of the Treasury Department as are
authorized by law and put in execution the revenue laws of the United
States within the geographical limits aforesaid. In making appointments
the preference shall be given to qualified loyal persons residing within
the districts where their respective duties are to be performed; but if
suitable residents of the districts shall not be found, then persons
residing in other States or districts shall be appointed.

Fourth. That the Postmaster-General proceed to establish post-offices
and post routes and put into execution the postal laws of the United
States within the said State, giving to loyal residents the preference
of appointment; but if suitable residents are not found, then to appoint
agents, etc., from other States.

Fifth. That the district judge for the judicial district in which North
Carolina is included proceed to hold courts within said State in
accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress. The
Attorney-General will instruct the proper officers to libel and bring to
judgment, confiscation, and sale property subject to confiscation and
enforce the administration of justice within said State in all matters
within the cognizance and jurisdiction of the Federal courts.

Sixth. That the Secretary of the Navy take possession of all public
property belonging to the Navy Department within said geographical
limits and put in operation all acts of Congress in relation to naval
affairs having application to the said State.

Seventh. That the Secretary of the Interior put in force the laws
relating to the Interior Department applicable to the geographical
limits aforesaid.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 29th day of May, A.D. 1865, and
of the Independence of the United States the eighty-ninth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas it becomes necessary and proper to carry out and enforce the
obligations of the United States to the people of Mississippi in
securing them in the enjoyment of a republican form of government:

Now, therefore, in obedience to the high and solemn duties imposed upon
me by the Constitution of the United States and for the purpose of
enabling the loyal people of said State to organize a State government
whereby justice may be established, domestic tranquillity insured, and
loyal citizens protected in all their rights of life, liberty, and
property, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States and
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, do
hereby appoint William L. Sharkey, of Mississippi, provisional governor
of the State of Mississippi, whose duty it shall be, at the earliest
practicable period, to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be
necessary and proper for convening a convention composed of delegates
to be chosen by that portion of the people of said State who are loyal
to the United States, and no others, for the purpose of altering or
amending the constitution thereof, and with authority to exercise within
the limits of said State all the powers necessary and proper to enable
such loyal people of the State of Mississippi to restore said State to
its constitutional relations to the Federal Government and to present
such a republican form of State government as will entitle the State to
the guaranty of the United States therefor and its people to protection
by the United States against invasion, insurrection, and domestic
violence: _Provided_, That in any election that may be hereafter
held for choosing delegates to any State convention as aforesaid no
person shall be qualified as an elector or shall be eligible as a member
of such convention unless he shall have previously taken and subscribed
the oath of amnesty as set forth in the President's proclamation of
May 29, A.D. 1865, and is a voter qualified as prescribed by the
constitution and laws of the State of Mississippi in force immediately
before the 9th of January, A.D. 1861, the date of the so-called
ordinance of secession; and the said convention, when convened, or
the legislature that may be thereafter assembled, will prescribe the
qualification of electors and the eligibility of persons to hold office
under the constitution and laws of the State--a power the people of the
several States composing the Federal Union have rightfully exercised
from the origin of the Government to the present time.

And I do hereby direct--

Second. That the Secretary of State proceed to put in force all laws
of the United States the administration whereof belongs to the State
Department applicable to the geographical limits aforesaid.

Fifth. That the district judge for the judicial district in which
Mississippi is included proceed to hold courts within said State
in accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress. The
Attorney-General will instruct the proper officers to libel and bring to
judgment, confiscation, and sale property subject to confiscation and
enforce the administration of justice within said State in all matters
within the cognizance and jurisdiction of the Federal courts.

Seventh. That the Secretary of the Interior put in force the laws
relating to the Interior Department applicable to the geographical
limits aforesaid.

[SEAL.]

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this 13th day of June, A.D. 1865, and
of the Independence of the United States the eighty-ninth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas by my proclamation[1] of the 29th of April, 1865, all
restrictions upon internal, domestic, and commercial intercourse,
with certain exceptions therein specified and set forth, were removed
"in such parts of the States of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and so much of
Louisiana as lies east of the Mississippi River as shall be embraced
within the lines of national military occupation;" and

[Footnote 1: Executive order.]

Whereas by my proclamation of the 22d of May, 1865, for reasons therein
given, it was declared that certain ports of the United States which had
been previously closed against foreign commerce should, with certain
specified exceptions, be reopened to such commerce on and after the
1st day of July next, subject to the laws of the United States, and in
pursuance of such regulations as might be prescribed by the Secretary
of the Treasury; and

Whereas I am satisfactorily informed that dangerous combinations against
the laws of the United States no longer exist within the State of
Tennessee; that the insurrection heretofore existing within said State
has been suppressed; that within the boundaries thereof the authority of
the United States is undisputed, and that such officers of the United
States as have been duly commissioned are in the undisturbed exercise of
their official functions:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, do hereby declare that all restrictions upon internal,
domestic, and coastwise intercourse and trade and upon the removal of
products of States heretofore declared in insurrection, reserving and
excepting only those relating to contraband of war, as hereinafter
recited, and also those which relate to the reservation of the rights
of the United States to property purchased in the territory of an enemy
heretofore imposed in the territory of the United States east of the
Mississippi River, are annulled, and I do hereby direct that they be
forthwith removed; and that on and after the 1st day of July next all
restrictions upon foreign commerce with said ports, with the exception
and reservation aforesaid, be likewise removed; and that the commerce of
said States shall be conducted under the supervision of the regularly
appointed officers of the customs provided by law, and such officers of
the customs shall receive any captured and abandoned property that may
be turned over to them under the law by the military or naval forces of
the United States and dispose of such property as shall be directed by
the Secretary of the Treasury. The following articles, contraband of
war, are excepted from the effect of this proclamation: Arms,
ammunition, all articles from which ammunition is made, and gray
uniforms and cloth.

And I hereby also proclaim and declare that the insurrection, so far as
it relates to and within the State of Tennessee and the inhabitants of
the said State of Tennessee as reorganized and constituted under their
recently adopted constitution and reorganization and accepted by them,
is suppressed, and therefore, also, that all the disabilities and
disqualifications attaching to said State and the inhabitants thereof
consequent upon any proclamation issued by virtue of the fifth section
of the act entitled "An act further to provide for the collection of
duties on imports and for other purposes," approved the 13th day of
July, 1861, are removed.

But nothing herein contained shall be considered or construed as in any
wise changing or impairing any of the penalties and forfeitures for
treason heretofore incurred under the laws of the United States or any
of the provisions, restrictions, or disabilities set forth in my
proclamation bearing date the 29th day of May, 1865, or as impairing
existing regulations for the suspension of the _habeas corpus_ and
the exercise of military law in cases where it shall be necessary for
the general public safety and welfare during the existing insurrection;
nor shall this proclamation affect or in any way impair any laws
heretofore passed by Congress and duly approved by the President or any
proclamations or orders issued by him during the aforesaid insurrection
abolishing slavery or in any way affecting the relations of slavery,
whether of persons or property; but, on the contrary, all such laws and
proclamations heretofore made or issued are expressly saved and declared
to be in full force and virtue.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 13th day of June, A.D. 1865, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-ninth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas it becomes necessary and proper to carry out and enforce the
obligations of the United States to the people of Georgia in securing
them in the enjoyment of a republican form of government:

Now, therefore, in obedience to the high and solemn duties imposed upon
me by the Constitution of the United States and for the purpose of
enabling the loyal people of said State to organize a State government
whereby justice may be established, domestic tranquillity insured, and
loyal citizens protected in all their rights of life, liberty, and
property, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States and
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, do hereby
appoint James Johnson, of Georgia, provisional governor of the State of
Georgia, whose duty it shall be, at the earliest practicable period,
to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper
for convening a convention composed of delegates to be chosen by that
portion of the people of said State who are loyal to the United States,
and no others, for the purpose of altering or amending the constitution
thereof, and with authority to exercise within the limits of said State
all the powers necessary and proper to enable such loyal people of the
State of Georgia to restore said State to its constitutional relations
to the Federal Government and to present such a republican form of State
government as will entitle the State to the guaranty of the United
States therefor and its people to protection by the United States
against invasion, insurrection, and domestic violence: _Provided_,
That in any election that may be hereafter held for choosing delegates
to any State convention as aforesaid no person shall be qualified as an
elector or shall be eligible as a member of such convention unless he
shall have previously taken and subscribed the oath of amnesty as set
forth in the President's proclamation of May 29, A.D. 1865, and is a
voter qualified as prescribed by the constitution and laws of the State
of Georgia in force immediately before the 19th of January, A.D. 1861,
the date of the so-called ordinance of secession; and the said
convention, when convened, or the legislature that may be thereafter
assembled, will prescribe the qualification of electors and the
eligibility of persons to hold office under the constitution and laws
of the State--a power the people of the several States composing the
Federal Union have rightfully exercised from the origin of the
Government to the present time.

And I do hereby direct--

Second. That the Secretary of State proceed to put in force all laws
of the United States the administration whereof belongs to the State
Department applicable to the geographical limits aforesaid.

Fifth. That the district judge for the judicial district in which
Georgia is included proceed to hold courts within said State in
accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress. The
Attorney-General will instruct the proper officers to libel and bring to
judgment, confiscation, and sale property subject to confiscation and
enforce the administration of justice within said State in all matters
within the cognizance and jurisdiction of the Federal courts.

Seventh. That the Secretary of the Interior put in force the laws
relating to the Interior Department applicable to the geographical
limits aforesaid.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 17th day of June, A.D. 1865, and
of the Independence of the United States the eighty-ninth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas the President of the United States is by the Constitution
made Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, as well as chief civil
executive officer of the United States, and is bound by solemn oath
faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and
to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and

Whereas it becomes necessary and proper to carry out and enforce the
obligations of the United States to the people of the State of Texas in
securing them in the enjoyment of a republican form of government:

Now, therefore, in obedience to the high and solemn duties imposed upon
me by the Constitution of the United States and for the purpose of
enabling the loyal people of said State to organize a State government
whereby justice may be established, domestic tranquillity insured, and
loyal citizens protected in all their rights of life, liberty, and
property, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States and
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, do hereby
appoint Andrew J. Hamilton, of Texas, provisional governor of the State
of Texas, whose duty it shall be, at the earliest practicable period, to
prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper for
convening a convention composed of delegates to be chosen by that
portion of the people of said State who are loyal to the United States,
and no others, for the purpose of altering or amending the constitution
thereof, and with authority to exercise within the limits of said State
all the powers necessary and proper to enable such loyal people of the
State of Texas to restore said State to its constitutional relations to
the Federal Government and to present such a republican form of State
government as will entitle the State to the guaranty of the United
States therefor and its people to protection by the United States
against invasion, insurrection, and domestic violence: _Provided_,
That in any election that may be hereafter held for choosing delegates
to any State convention as aforesaid no person shall be qualified as an
elector or shall be eligible as a member of such convention unless he
shall have previously taken and subscribed the oath of amnesty as set
forth in the President's proclamation of May 29, A.D. 1865, and is a
voter qualified as prescribed by the constitution and laws of the State
of Texas in force immediately before the 1st day of February, A.D. 1861,
the date of the so-called ordinance of secession; and the said
convention, when convened, or the legislature that may be thereafter
assembled, will prescribe the qualification of electors and the
eligibility of persons to hold office under the constitution and laws of
the State--a power the people of the several States composing the
Federal Union have rightfully exercised from the origin of the
Government to the present time.

And I do hereby direct--

Second. That the Secretary of State proceed to put in force all laws
of the United States the administration whereof belongs to the State
Department applicable to the geographical limits aforesaid.

Fifth. That the district judge for the judicial district in which Texas
is included proceed to hold courts within said State in accordance with
the provisions of the act of Congress. The Attorney-General will
instruct the proper officers to libel and bring to judgment,
confiscation, and sale property subject to confiscation and enforce the
administration of justice within said State in all matters within the
cognizance and jurisdiction of the Federal courts.

Seventh. That the Secretary of the Interior put in force the laws
relating to the Interior Department applicable to the geographical
limits aforesaid.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 17th day of June, A.D. 1865, and of
the Independence of the United States the eighty-ninth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas it becomes necessary and proper to carry out and enforce the
obligations of the United States to the people of Alabama in securing
them in the enjoyment of a republican form of government:

Now, therefore, in obedience to the high and solemn duties imposed upon
me by the Constitution of the United States and for the purpose of
enabling the loyal people of said State to organize a State government
whereby justice may be established, domestic tranquillity insured, and
loyal citizens protected in all their rights of life, liberty, and
property, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States and
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, do hereby
appoint Lewis E. Parsons, of Alabama, provisional governor of the State
of Alabama, whose duty it shall be, at the earliest practicable period,
to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper
for convening a convention composed of delegates to be chosen by that
portion of the people of said State who are loyal to the United States,
and no others, for the purpose of altering or amending the constitution
thereof, and with authority to exercise within the limits of said State
all the powers necessary and proper to enable such loyal people of the
State of Alabama to restore said State to its constitutional relations
to the Federal Government and to present such a republican form of State
government as will entitle the State to the guaranty of the United
States therefor and its people to protection by the United States
against invasion, insurrection, and domestic violence: _Provided_,
That in any election that may be hereafter held for choosing delegates
to any State convention as aforesaid no person shall be qualified as an
elector or shall be eligible as a member of such convention unless he
shall have previously taken and subscribed the oath of amnesty as set
forth in the President's proclamation of May 29, A.D. 1865, and is a
voter qualified as prescribed by the constitution and laws of the State
of Alabama in force immediately before the 11th day of January, A.D.
1861, the date of the so-called ordinance of secession; and the said
convention, when convened, or the legislature that may be thereafter
assembled, will prescribe the qualification of electors and the
eligibility of persons to hold office under the constitution and laws of
the State, a power the people of the several States composing the
Federal Union have rightfully exercised from the origin of the
Government to the present time.

And I do hereby direct--

Second. That the Secretary of State proceed to put in force all laws
of the United States the administration whereof belongs to the State
Department applicable to the geographical limits aforesaid.

Fifth. That the district judge for the judicial district in which
Alabama is included proceed to hold courts within said State in
accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress. The
Attorney-General will instruct the proper officers to libel and bring to
judgment, confiscation, and sale property subject to confiscation and
enforce the administration of justice within said State in all matters
within the cognizance and jurisdiction of the Federal courts.

Seventh. That the Secretary of the Interior put in force the laws
relating to the Interior Department applicable to the geographical
limits aforesaid.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 21st day of June, A.D. 1865, and
of the Independence of the United States the eighty-ninth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas by the proclamations of the President of the 19th and 27th of
April, 1861, a blockade of certain ports of the United States was set on
foot; but

Whereas the reasons for that measure have ceased to exist:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, do hereby declare and proclaim the blockade aforesaid to
be rescinded as to all the ports aforesaid, including that of Galveston
and other ports west of the Mississippi River, which ports will be open
to foreign commerce on the 1st of July next on the terms and conditions
set forth in my proclamation of the 22d of May last.

It is to be understood, however, that the blockade thus rescinded was an
international measure for the purpose of protecting the sovereign rights
of the United States. The greater or less subversion of civil authority
in the region to which it applied and the impracticability of at once
restoring that in due efficiency may for a season make it advisable to
employ the Army and Navy of the United States toward carrying the laws
into effect wherever such employment may be necessary.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 23d day of June, A.D. 1865, and of
the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-ninth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
W. HUNTER,
_Acting Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas it has been the desire of the General Government of the United
States to restore unrestricted commercial intercourse between and in the
several States as soon as the same could be safely done in view of
resistance to the authority of the United States by combinations of
armed insurgents; and

Whereas that desire has been shown in my proclamations of the 29th of
April, 1865, the 13th of June, 1865, and the 23d of June, 1865; and

Whereas it now seems expedient and proper to remove restrictions upon
internal, domestic, and coastwise trade and commercial intercourse
between and within the States and Territories west of the Mississippi
River:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, do hereby declare that all restrictions upon internal,
domestic, and coastwise intercourse and trade and upon the purchase and
removal of products of States and parts of States and Territories
heretofore declared in insurrection, lying west of the Mississippi River
(excepting only those relating to property heretofore purchased by the
agents or captured by or surrendered to the forces of the United States
and to the transportation thereto or therein on private account of arms,
ammunition, all articles from which ammunition is made, gray uniforms,
and gray cloth), are annulled; and I do hereby direct that they be
forthwith removed, and also that the commerce of such States and parts
of States shall be conducted under the supervision of the regularly
appointed officers of the customs, [who] shall receive any captured and
abandoned property that may be turned over to them under the law by the
military or naval forces of the United States and dispose of the same in
accordance with instructions on the subject issued by the Secretary of
the Treasury.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this 24th day of June, A.D. 1865, and of
the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-ninth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
W. HUNTER,
_Acting Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas it becomes necessary and proper to carry out and enforce the
obligations of the United States to the people of South Carolina in
securing them in the enjoyment of a republican form of government:

Now, therefore, in obedience to the high and solemn duties imposed upon
me by the Constitution of the United States and for the purpose of
enabling the loyal people of said State to organize a State government
whereby justice may be established, domestic tranquillity insured, and
loyal citizens protected in all their rights of life, liberty, and
property, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States and
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, do hereby
appoint Benjamin F. Perry, of South Carolina, provisional governor of
the State of South Carolina, whose duty it shall be, at the earliest
practicable period, to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be
necessary and proper for convening a convention composed of delegates
to be chosen by that portion of the people of said State who are loyal
to the United States, and no others, for the purpose of altering or
amending the constitution thereof, and with authority to exercise within
the limits of said State all the powers necessary and proper to enable
such loyal people of the State of South Carolina to restore said State
to its constitutional relations to the Federal Government and to present
such a republican form of State government as will entitle the State to
the guaranty of the United States therefor and its people to protection
by the United States against invasion, insurrection, and domestic
violence: _Provided_, That in any election that may be hereafter
held for choosing delegates to any State convention as aforesaid no
person shall be qualified as an elector or shall be eligible as a member
of such convention unless he shall have previously taken and subscribed
the oath of amnesty as set forth in the President's proclamation
of May 29, A.D. 1865, and is a voter qualified as prescribed by
the constitution and laws of the State of South Carolina in force
immediately before the 17th day of November, A.D. 1860, the date of
the so-called ordinance of secession; and the said convention, when
convened, or the legislature that may be thereafter assembled, will
prescribe the qualification of electors and the eligibility of persons
to hold office under the constitution and laws of the State--a power the
people of the several States composing the Federal Union have rightfully
exercised from the origin of the Government to the present time.

And I do hereby direct--

Second. That the Secretary of State proceed to put in force all laws
of the United States the administration whereof belongs to the State
Department applicable to the geographical limits aforesaid.

Fifth. That the district judge for the judicial district in which
South Carolina is included proceed to hold courts within said
State in accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress. The
Attorney-General will instruct the proper officers to libel and bring to
judgment, confiscation, and sale property subject to confiscation and
enforce the administration of justice within said State in all matters
within the cognizance and jurisdiction of the Federal courts.

Seventh. That the Secretary of the Interior put in force the laws
relating to the Interior Department applicable to the geographical
limits aforesaid.

[SEAL.]

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this 30th day of June, A.D. 1865, and
of the Independence of the United States the eighty-ninth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas the fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution of
the United States declares that the United Stales shall guarantee to
every State in the Union a republican form of government and shall
protect each of them against invasion and domestic violence; and

Whereas it becomes necessary and proper to carry out and enforce the
obligations of the United States to the people of Florida in securing
them in the enjoyment of a republican form of government:

Now, therefore, in obedience to the high and solemn duties imposed upon
me by the Constitution of the United States and for the purpose of
enabling the loyal people of said State to organize a State government
whereby justice may be established, domestic tranquillity insured, and
loyal citizens protected in all their rights of life, liberty, and
property, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States and
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, do hereby
appoint William Marvin provisional governor of the State of Florida,
whose duty it shall be, at the earliest practicable period, to prescribe
such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper for convening
a convention composed of delegates to be chosen by that portion of the
people of said State who are loyal to the United States, and no others,
for the purpose of altering or amending the constitution thereof, and
with authority to exercise within the limits of said State all the
powers necessary and proper to enable such loyal people of the State of
Florida to restore said State to its constitutional relations to the
Federal Government and to present such a republican form of State
government as will entitle the State to the guaranty of the United
States therefor and its people to protection by the United States
against invasion, insurrection, and domestic violence: _Provided_,
That in any election that may be hereafter held for choosing delegates
to any State convention as aforesaid no person shall be qualified as an
elector or shall be eligible as a member of such convention unless he
shall have previously taken and subscribed the oath of amnesty as set
forth in the President's proclamation of May 29, A.D. 1865, and is a
voter qualified as prescribed by the constitution and laws of the State
of Florida in force immediately before the 10th day of January, A.D.
1861, the date of the so-called ordinance of secession; and the said
convention, when convened, or the legislature that may be thereafter
assembled, will prescribe the qualification of electors and the
eligibility of persons to hold office under the constitution and laws of
the State--a power the people of the several States composing the
Federal Union have rightfully exercised from the origin of the
Government to the present time.

And I do hereby direct--

Second. That the Secretary of State proceed to put in force all laws of
the United States the administration whereof belongs to the State
Department applicable to the geographical limits aforesaid.

Fifth. That the district judge for the judicial district in which
Florida is included proceed to hold courts within said State in
accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress. The
Attorney-General will instruct the proper officers to libel and bring to
judgment, confiscation, and sale property subject to confiscation and
enforce the administration of justice within said State in all matters
within the cognizance and jurisdiction of the Federal courts.

Seventh. That the Secretary of the Interior put in force the laws
relating to the Interior Department applicable to the geographical
limits aforesaid.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 13th day of July, A.D. 1865, and of
the Independence of the United States the ninetieth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas by my proclamations of the 13th and 24th of June, 1865, removing
restrictions, in part, upon internal, domestic, and coastwise
intercourse and trade with those States recently declared in
insurrection, certain articles were excepted from the effect of said
proclamations as contraband of war; and

Whereas the necessity for restricting trade in said articles has now in
a great measure ceased:

It is hereby ordered that on and after the 1st day of September, 1865.
all restrictions aforesaid be removed, so that the articles declared by
the said proclamations to be contraband of war may be imported into and
sold in said States, subject only to such regulations as the Secretary
of the Treasury may prescribe.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 20th day of August, A.D. 1865, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the ninetieth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas by a proclamation of the 5th day of July, 1864, the President of
the United States, when the civil war was flagrant and when combinations
were in progress in Kentucky for the purpose of inciting insurgent raids
into that State, directed that the proclamation suspending the privilege
of the writ of _habeas corpus_ should be made effectual in Kentucky
and that martial law should be established there and continue until said
proclamation should be revoked or modified; and

Whereas since then the danger from insurgent raids into Kentucky has
substantially passed away:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the
Constitution, do hereby declare that the said proclamation of the 5th
day of July, 1864, shall be, and is hereby, modified in so far that
martial law shall be no longer in force in Kentucky from and after the
date hereof.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 12th day of October, A.D. 1865, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the ninetieth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
W. HUNTER,
_Acting Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas it has pleased Almighty God during the year which is now coming
to an end to relieve our beloved country from the fearful scourge of
civil war and to permit us to secure the blessings of peace, unity, and
harmony, with a great enlargement of civil liberty; and

Whereas our Heavenly Father has also during the year graciously averted
from us the calamities of foreign war, pestilence, and famine, while our
granaries are full of the fruits of an abundant season; and

Whereas righteousness exalteth a nation, while sin is a reproach to any
people:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, do hereby recommend to the people thereof that they do
set apart and observe the first Thursday of December next as a day of
national thanksgiving to the Creator of the Universe for these great
deliverances and blessings.

And I do further recommend that on that occasion the whole people make
confession of our national sins against His infinite goodness, and with
one heart and one mind implore the divine guidance in the ways of
national virtue and holiness.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 28th day of October, A.D. 1865, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the ninetieth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas by the proclamation of the President of the United States of the
15th day of September, 1863, the privilege of the writ of _habeas
corpus_ was, in certain cases therein set forth, suspended throughout
the United States; and

Whereas the reasons for that suspension may be regarded as having ceased
in some of the States and Territories:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, do hereby proclaim and declare that the suspension
aforesaid and all other proclamations and orders suspending the
privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_ in the States and
Territories of the United States are revoked and annulled, excepting as
to the States of Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas,
and Texas, the District of Columbia, and the Territories of New Mexico
and Arizona.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 1st day of December, A.D. 1865, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the ninetieth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

EXECUTIVE CHAMBER,

_Washington, April 29, 1865_.

Being desirous to relieve all loyal citizens and well-disposed persons
residing in insurrectionary States from unnecessary commercial
restrictions and to encourage them to return to peaceful pursuits--

_It is hereby ordered_, I. That all restrictions upon internal,
domestic, and coastwise commercial intercourse be discontinued in such
parts of the States of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and so much of
Louisiana as lies east of the Mississippi River as shall be embraced
within the lines of national military occupation, excepting only such
restrictions as are imposed by acts of Congress and regulations in
pursuance thereof prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury and
approved by the President, and excepting also from the effect of this
order the following articles contraband of war, to wit: Arms,
ammunition, all articles from which ammunition is manufactured, gray
uniforms and cloth, locomotives, cars, railroad iron, and machinery for
operating railroads, telegraph wires, insulators, and instruments for
operating telegraphic lines.

II. That all existing military and naval orders in any manner
restricting internal, domestic, and coastwise commercial intercourse and
trade with or in the localities above named be, and the same are hereby,
revoked, and that no military or naval officer in any manner interrupt
or interfere with the same, or with any boats or other vessels engaged
therein under proper authority, pursuant to the regulations of the
Secretary of the Treasury.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WAR DEPARTMENT,

_Washington City, April 29, 1865_.

The Executive order of January 20, 1865, prohibiting the exportation of
hay, is rescinded from and after the 1st day of May, 1865.

By order of the President:

EDWIN M STANTON.

_Secretary of War_.

EXECUTIVE CHAMBER,

_Washington City, May 1, 1865_.

Whereas the Attorney-General of the United States hath given his opinion
that the persons implicated in the murder of the late President, Abraham
Lincoln, and the attempted assassination of the Hon. William H. Seward,
Secretary of State, and in an alleged conspiracy to assassinate other
officers of the Federal Government at Washington City, and their aiders
and abettors, are subject to the jurisdiction of and lawfully triable
before a military commission--

_It is ordered_:

First. That the assistant adjutant-general detail nine competent
military officers to serve as a commission for the trial of said
parties, and that the Judge-Advocate-General proceed to prefer charges
against said parties for their alleged offenses and bring them to trial
before said military commission; that said trial or trials be conducted
by the said Judge-Advocate-General, and as recorder thereof, in person,
aided by such assistant or special judge-advocate as he may designate,
and that said trials be conducted with all diligence consistent with the
ends of justice; the said commission to sit without regard to hours.

Second. That Brevet Major-General Hartranft be assigned to duty as
special provost-marshal-general for the purpose of said trial, and
attendance upon said commission, and the execution of its mandates.

Third. That the said commission establish such order or rules of
proceeding as may avoid unnecessary delay and conduce to the ends of
public justice.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

Official copy:

W.A. NICHOLS,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

WAR DEPARTMENT,

_Washington, D.C., May 3, 1865_.

Order Rescinding Regulations Prohibiting the Exportation of Arms,
Ammunition, Horses, Mules, and Live Stock.

The Executive order of November 21, 1862, prohibiting the exportation of
arms and ammunition from the United States, and the Executive order of
May 13, 1863,[2] prohibiting the exportation of horses, mules, and live
stock, being no longer required by public necessities, the aforesaid
orders are hereby rescinded and annulled.

By order of the President of the United States:

EDWIN M. STANTON,

_Secretary of War_.

[Footnote 2: Order of Secretary of War.]

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, May 4, 1865_.

This being the day of the funeral of the late President, Abraham
Lincoln, at Springfield, Ill., the Executive Office and the various
Departments will be closed at 12 m. to-day.

ANDREW JOHNSON,

_President of the United States_.

SPECIAL ORDERS, No. 211.

WAR DEPARTMENT,

ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

_Washington, May 6, 1865_.

* * * * *

4. A military commission is hereby appointed to meet at Washington,
D.C., on Monday, the 8th day of May, 1865, at 9 o'clock a.m., or as soon
thereafter as practicable, for the trial of David E. Herold, George A.
Atzerodt, Lewis Payne, Michael O'Laughlin, Edward Spangler, Samuel
Arnold, Mary E. Surratt, Samuel A. Mudd, and such other prisoners as may
be brought before it, implicated in the murder of the late President,
Abraham Lincoln, and the attempted assassination of the Hon. William H.
Seward, Secretary of State, and in an alleged conspiracy to assassinate
other officers of the Federal Government at Washington City, and their
aiders and abettors.

_Detail for the court_.

Major-General David Hunter, United States Volunteers.
Major-General Lewis Wallace, United States Volunteers.
Brevet Major-General August V. Kautz, United States Volunteers.
Brigadier-General Albion P. Howe, United States Volunteers.
Brigadier-General Robert S. Foster, United States Volunteers.
Brevet Brigadier-General Cyrus B. Comstock,[A] United States Volunteers.
Brigadier-General T.M. Harris, United States Volunteers.
Brevet Colonel Horace Porter,[B] aid-de-camp.
Lieutenant-Colonel David R. Clendenin, Eighth Illinois Cavalry.
Brigadier-General Joseph Holt, Judge-Advocate-General, United States
Army, is appointed the judge-advocate and recorder of the commission,
to be aided by such assistant or special judge-advocate as he may
designate.

The commission will sit without regard to hours.

By order of the President of the United States:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

[Footnote 3: Brevet Brigadier-General James A. Ekin substituted; see
Special Orders, No. 216.]

[Footnote 4: Brevet Colonel C. H. Tompkins substituted; see Special
Orders, No. 216.]

WAR DEPARTMENT, _Washington City, May 7, 1865_.

Brigadier-General Holt, Judge-Advocate-General, having designated the
Hon. John A. Bingham as a special judge-advocate, whose aid he requires
in the prosecution of Herold and others before the military commission
of which Major-General Hunter is presiding officer:

_It is ordered_, That the said John A. Bingham be, and he is hereby,
appointed special judge-advocate for the purpose aforesaid, to aid the
Judge-Advocate-General, pursuant to the order of the President in
respect to said military commission.

By order of the President:

EDWIN M. STANTON,

_Secretary of War_.

SPECIAL ORDERS. No. 216.

WAR DEPARTMENT,
ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,
_Washington, May 9, 1865_.

* * * * *

91. Brevet Brigadier-General Cyrus B. Comstock, United States
Volunteers, and Brevet Colonel Horace Porter, aid-de-camp, are hereby
relieved from duty as members of the military commission appointed in
Special Orders, No. 211, paragraph 4, dated "War Department,
Adjutant-General's Office, Washington, May 6, 1865," and Brevet
Brigadier-General James A. Ekin, United States Volunteers, and Brevet
Colonel C.H. Tompkins, United States Army, are detailed in their
places, respectively.

The commission will be composed as follows:

Major-General David Hunter, United States Volunteers.
Major-General Lewis Wallace, United States Volunteers.
Brevet Major-General August V. Kautz, United States Volunteers.
Brigadier-General Albion P. Howe, United States Volunteers.
Brigadier-General Robert S. Poster, United States Volunteers.
Brevet Brigadier-General James A. Ekin, United States Volunteers.
Brigadier-General T.M. Harris, United States Volunteers.
Brevet Colonel C.H. Tompkins, United States Army.
Lieutenant-Colonel David R. Clendenin, Eighth Illinois Cavalry.
Brigadier-General Joseph Holt, judge-advocate and recorder.

By order of the President of the United States:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

EXECUTIVE CHAMBER,

_Washington City, May 9, 1865_.

Executive Order to Reestablish the Authority of the United States and
Execute the Laws within the Geographical Limits Known as the State of
Virginia.

_Ordered_, first. That all acts and proceedings of the political,
military, and civil organizations which have been in a state of
insurrection and rebellion within the State of Virginia against the
authority and laws of the United States, and of which Jefferson Davis,
John Letcher, and William Smith were late the respective chiefs, are
declared null and void. All persons who shall exercise, claim, pretend,
or attempt to exercise any political, military, or civil power,
authority, jurisdiction, or right by, through, or under Jefferson Davis,
late of the city of Richmond, and his confederates, or under John
Letcher or William Smith and their confederates, or under any pretended
political, military, or civil commission or authority issued by them or
either of them since the 17th day of April, 1861, shall be deemed and
taken as in rebellion against the United States, and shall be dealt with
accordingly.

Second. That the Secretary of State proceed to put in force all laws of
the United States the administration whereof belongs to the Department
of State applicable to the geographical limits aforesaid.

Third. That the Secretary of the Treasury proceed without delay to
nominate for appointment assessors of taxes and collectors of customs
and internal revenue and such other officers of the Treasury Department
as are authorized by law, and shall put in execution the revenue laws of
the United States within the geographical limits aforesaid. In making
appointments the preference shall be given to qualified loyal persons
residing within the districts where their respective duties are to be
performed; but if suitable persons shall not be found residents of the
districts, then persons residing in other States or districts shall be
appointed.

Fourth. That the Postmaster-General shall proceed to establish
post-offices and post routes and put into execution the postal laws of
the United States within the said State, giving to loyal residents the
preference of appointment; but if suitable persons are not found, then
to appoint agents, etc., from other States.

Fifth. That the district judge of said district proceed to hold courts
within said State in accordance with the provisions of the act of
Congress. The Attorney-General will instruct the proper officers to
libel and bring to judgment, confiscation, and sale property subject to
confiscation, and enforce the administration of justice within said
State in all matters, civil and criminal, within the cognizance and
jurisdiction of the Federal courts.

Sixth. That the Secretary of War assign such assistant
provost-marshal-general and such provost-marshals in each district of
said State as he may deem necessary.

Seventh. The Secretary of the Navy will take possession of all public
property belonging to the Navy Department within said geographical
limits and put in operation all acts of Congress in relation to naval
affairs having application to the said State.

Eighth. The Secretary of the Interior will also put in force the laws
relating to the Department of the Interior.

Ninth. That to carry into effect the guaranty by the Federal
Constitution of a republican form of State government and afford the
advantage and security of domestic laws, as well as to complete the
reestablishment of the authority and laws of the United States and the
full and complete restoration of peace within the limits aforesaid,
Francis H. Peirpoint, governor of the State of Virginia, will be aided
by the Federal Government so far as may be necessary in the lawful
measures which he may take for the extension and administration of the
State government throughout the geographical limits of said State.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
W. HUNTER,
_Acting Secretary of State_.

WAR DEPARTMENT,

_Washington City, May 27, 1865_.

_Ordered_, That in all cases of sentences by military tribunals of
imprisonment during the war the sentence be remitted and that the
prisoners be discharged. The Adjutant-General will issue immediately the
necessary instructions to carry this order into effect.

By order of the President of the United States:

EDWIN M. STANTON,

_Secretary of War_.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE,

_Washington, D.C., May 31, 1865_.

To-morrow, the 1st of June, being the day appointed for special
humiliation and prayer in consequence of the assassination of Abraham
Lincoln, late President of the United States, the Executive Office and
the various Departments will be closed during the day.

ANDREW JOHNSON,

_President of the United States_.

GENERAL ORDERS, No. 107.

WAR DEPARTMENT,
ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,
_Washington, June 2, 1865_.

_Ordered_, That all military restrictions upon trade in any of the
States or Territories of the United States, except in articles
contraband of war--to wit, arms, ammunition, gray cloth, and all
articles from which ammunition is manufactured; locomotives, cars,
railroad iron, and machinery for operating railroads; telegraph wires,
insulators, and instruments for operating telegraphic lines--shall cease
from and after the present date.

By order of the President of the United States:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

_Washington, June 2, 1865_.

Whereas, pursuant to the order of the President and as a means required
by the public safety, directions were issued from this Department, under
date of the 17th of December, 1864, requiring passports from all
travelers entering the United States, except immigrant passengers
directly entering an American port from a foreign country; and

Whereas the necessities which required the adoption of that measure are
believed no longer to exist:

Now, therefore, the President directs that from and after this date the
order above referred to shall be, and the same is hereby, rescinded.

Nothing in this regulation, however, will be construed to relieve from
due accountability any enemies of the United States or offenders against
their peace and dignity who may hereafter seek to enter the country or
at any time be found within its lawful jurisdiction.

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., June 2, 1865_.

Whereas by an act of Congress approved March 3, 1865, there was
established in the War Department a Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and
Abandoned Lands, and to which, in accordance with the said act of
Congress, is committed the supervision and management of all abandoned
lands and the control of all subjects relating to refugees and freedmen
from rebel States, or from any district of country within the territory
embraced in the operations of the Army, under such rules and regulations
as may be prescribed by the head of the Bureau and approved by the
President; and

Whereas it appears that the management of abandoned lands and subjects
relating to refugees and freedmen, as aforesaid, have been and still
are, by orders based on military exigencies or legislation based on
previous statutes, partly in the hands of military officers disconnected
with said Bureau and partly in charge of officers of the Treasury
Department: It is therefore

_Ordered_, That all officers of the Treasury Department, all military
officers, and all others in the service of the United States turn over
to the authorized officers of said Bureau all abandoned lands and
property contemplated in said act of Congress approved March 3, 1865,
establishing the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, that
may now be under or within their control. They will also turn over to
such officers all funds collected by tax or otherwise for the benefit of
refugees or freedmen or accruing from abandoned lands or property set
apart for their use, and will transfer to them all official records
connected with the administration of affairs which pertain to said
Bureau.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

GENERAL ORDERS, No. 109.

WAR DEPARTMENT,
ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,
_Washington, June 6, 1865_.

ORDER FOR THE DISCHARGE OF CERTAIN PRISONERS OF WAR.

The prisoners of war at the several depots in the North will be
discharged under the following regulations and restrictions:

I. All enlisted men of the rebel army and petty officers and seamen of
the rebel navy will be discharged upon taking the oath of allegiance.

II. Officers of the rebel army not above the grade of captain and of
the rebel navy not above the grade of lieutenant, except such as have
graduated at the United States Military or Naval academies and such
as held a commission in either the United States Army or Navy at the
beginning of the rebellion, may be discharged upon taking the oath
of allegiance.

III. When the discharges hereby ordered are completed, regulations will
be issued in respect to the discharge of officers having higher rank
than captain in the army or lieutenant in the navy.

IV. The several commanders of prison stations will discharge each day as
many of the prisoners hereby authorized to be discharged as proper rolls
can be prepared for, beginning with those who have been longest in
prison and from the most remote points of the country; and certified
rolls will be forwarded daily to the Commissary-General of Prisoners of
those so discharged. The oath of allegiance only will be administered,
but notice will be given that all who desire will be permitted to take
the oath of amnesty after their release, in accordance with the
regulations of the Department of State respecting the amnesty.

V. The Quartermaster's Department will furnish transportation to all
released prisoners to the nearest accessible point to their homes, by
rail or by steamboat.

By order of the President of the United States:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, June 6, 1865_.

Whereas circumstances of recent occurrence have made it no longer
necessary to continue the prohibition of the departure for her
destination of the gunboat _Fusyama_, built at New York for the Japanese
Government, it is consequently ordered that that prohibition be removed.
The Secretary of the Treasury will therefore cause a clearance to be
issued to the _Fusyama_, and the Secretary of the Navy will not allow
any obstacle thereto.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[From the Daily National Intelligencer, June 13, 1865.]

CIRCULAR.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

_Washington, June 7, 1865_.

By direction of the President, all persons belonging to the excepted
classes enumerated in the President's amnesty proclamation of May 29,
1865, who may make special applications to the President for pardon are
hereby notified that before their respective applications will be
considered it must be shown that they have respectively taken and
subscribed the oath (or affirmation) in said proclamation prescribed.
Every such person desiring a special pardon should make personal
application in writing therefor, and should transmit with such
application the original oath (or affirmation) as taken and subscribed
before an officer authorized under the rules and regulations promulgated
by the Secretary of State to administer the amnesty oath prescribed in
the said proclamation of the President.

JAMES SPEED,

_Attorney-General_.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE,

_Washington, D.C., June 9, 1865_.

It is represented to me in a communication from the Secretary of the
Interior that Indians in New Mexico have been seized and reduced into
slavery, and it is recommended that the authority of the executive
branch of the Government should be exercised for the effectual
suppression of a practice which is alike in violation of the rights
of the Indians and of the provisions of the organic law of the said
Territory.

Concurring in this recommendation, I do hereby order that the heads
of the several Executive Departments do enjoin upon the subordinates,
agents, and employees under their respective orders or supervision in
that Territory to discountenance the practice aforesaid and to take all
lawful means to suppress the same.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL ORDERS, No. 356.

WAR DEPARTMENT,
ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,
_Washington, July 5, 1865_.

I. Before a military commission which convened at Washington, D.C.,
May 9, 1865, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Special Orders, No. 211,
dated May 6, 1865, and paragraph 91 of Special Orders, No. 216, dated
May 9, 1865, War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, Washington,
and of which Major-General David Hunter, United States Volunteers, is
president, were arraigned and tried David E. Herold, G.A. Atzerodt,
Lewis Payne, Mary E. Surratt, Michael O'Laughlin, Edward Spangler,
Samuel Arnold, and Samuel A. Mudd.

CHARGE I.

For maliciously, unlawfully, and traitorously, and in aid of the
existing armed rebellion against the United States of America, on or
before the 6th day of March, A.D. 1865, and on divers other days between
that day and the 15th day of April, A.D. 1865, combining, confederating,
and conspiring together with one John H. Surratt, John Wilkes Booth,
Jefferson Davis, George N. Sanders, Beverley Tucker, Jacob Thompson,
William C. Cleary, Clement C. Clay, George Harper, George Young, and
others unknown to kill and murder, within the Military Department of
Washington, and within the fortified and intrenched lines thereof,
Abraham Lincoln, late, and at the time of said combining, confederating,
and conspiring, President of the United States of America and Commander
in Chief of the Army and Navy thereof; Andrew Johnson, now
Vice-President of the United States aforesaid; William H. Seward,
Secretary of State of the United States aforesaid; and Ulysses S. Grant,
Lieutenant-General of the Army of the United States aforesaid, then in
command of the armies of the United States, under the direction of the
said Abraham Lincoln; and in pursuance of and in prosecuting said
malicious, unlawful, and traitorous conspiracy aforesaid, and in aid of
said rebellion, afterwards, to wit, on the 14th day of April, A.D. 1865,
within the Military Department of Washington aforesaid, and within the
fortified and intrenched lines of said military department, together
with said John Wilkes Booth and John H. Surratt, maliciously,
unlawfully, and traitorously murdering the said Abraham Lincoln, then
President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Army and
Navy of the United States as aforesaid; and maliciously, unlawfully, and
traitorously assaulting, with intent to kill and murder, the said
William H. Seward, then Secretary of State of the United States as
aforesaid; and lying in wait, with intent maliciously, unlawfully, and
traitorously to kill and murder the said Andrew Johnson, then being
Vice-President of the United States, and the said Ulysses S. Grant, then
being Lieutenant-General and in command of the armies of the United
States as aforesaid.

SPECIFICATION FIRST.

In this, that they, the said David E. Herold, Edward Spangler, Lewis
Payne, Michael O'Laughlin, Samuel Arnold, Mary E. Surratt, George A.
Atzerodt, and Samuel A. Mudd, together with the said John H. Surratt and
John Wilkes Booth, incited and encouraged thereunto by Jefferson Davis,
George N. Sanders, Beverley Tucker, Jacob Thompson, William C. Cleary,
Clement C. Clay, George Harper, George Young, and, others unknown,
citizens of the United States aforesaid, and who were then engaged In
armed rebellion against the United States of America, within the limits
thereof, did, in aid of said armed rebellion, on or before the 6th day
of March, A.D. 1865, and on divers other days and times between that day
and the 15th day of April, A.D. 1865, combine, confederate, and conspire
together at Washington City, within the Military Department of
Washington, and within the intrenched fortifications and military lines
of the said United States there being, unlawfully, maliciously, and
traitorously to kill and murder Abraham Lincoln, then President of the
United States aforesaid and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy
thereof; and unlawfully, maliciously, and traitorously to kill and
murder Andrew Johnson, now Vice-President of the said United States,
upon whom, on the death of said Abraham Lincoln, after the 4th day of
March, A.D. 1865, the office of President of the said United States and
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy thereof would devolve; and to
unlawfully, maliciously, and traitorously kill and murder Ulysses S.
Grant, then Lieutenant-General, and, under the direction of the said
Abraham Lincoln, in command of the armies of the United States
aforesaid; and unlawfully, maliciously, and traitorously to kill and
murder William H. Seward, then Secretary of State of the United States
aforesaid, whose duty it was by law, upon the death of said President
and Vice-President of the United States aforesaid, to cause an election
to be held for electors of President of the United States--the
conspirators aforesaid designing and intending by the killing and murder
of the said Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, and
William H. Seward, as aforesaid, to deprive the Army and Navy of the
said United States of a constitutional Commander in Chief, and to
deprive the armies of the United States of their lawful commander, and
to prevent a lawful election of President and Vice-President of the
United States aforesaid, and by the means aforesaid to aid and comfort
the insurgents engaged in armed rebellion against the said United States
as aforesaid, and thereby to aid in the subversion and overthrow of the
Constitution and laws of the said United States.

And being so combined, confederated, and conspiring together in the
prosecution of said unlawful and traitorous conspiracy, on the night of
the 14th day of April, A.D. 1865, at the hour of about 10 o'clock and 15
minutes p.m., at Ford's Theater, on Tenth street, in the city of
Washington, and within the military department and military lines
aforesaid, John Wilkes Booth, one of the conspirators aforesaid, in
pursuance of said unlawful and traitorous conspiracy, did then and there
unlawfully, maliciously, and traitorously, and with intent to kill and
murder the said Abraham Lincoln, discharge a pistol then held in the
hands of him, the said Booth, the same being then loaded with powder and
a leaden ball, against and upon the left and posterior side of the head
of the said Abraham Lincoln, and did thereby then and there inflict upon
him, the said Abraham Lincoln, then President of the said United States
and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy thereof, a mortal wound,
whereof afterwards, to wit, on the 15th day of April, A.D. 1865, at
Washington City aforesaid, the said Abraham Lincoln died; and thereby
then and there, and in pursuance of said conspiracy, the said defendants
and the said John Wilkes Booth and John H. Surratt did unlawfully,
traitorously, and maliciously, and with the intent to aid the rebellion
as aforesaid, kill and murder the said Abraham Lincoln, President of the
United States as aforesaid.

And in further prosecution of the unlawful and traitorous conspiracy
aforesaid and of the murderous and traitorous intent of said conspiracy,
the said Edward Spangler, on said 14th day of April, A.D. 1865, at about
the same hour of that day as aforesaid, within said military department
and the military lines aforesaid, did aid and assist the said John
Wilkes Booth to obtain entrance to the box in said theater in which said
Abraham Lincoln was sitting at the time he was assaulted and shot, as
aforesaid, by John Wilkes Booth; and also did then and there aid said
Booth in barring and obstructing the door of the box of said theater, so
as to hinder and prevent any assistance to or rescue of the said Abraham
Lincoln against the murderous assault of the said John Wilkes Booth, and
did aid and abet him in making his escape after the said Abraham Lincoln
had been murdered in manner aforesaid.

And in further prosecution of said unlawful, murderous, and traitorous
conspiracy, and in pursuance thereof, and with the intent as aforesaid,
the said David B. Herold did, on the night of the 14th of April, A.D.
1865, within the military department and military lines aforesaid, aid,
abet, and assist the said John Wilkes Booth in the killing and murder of
the said Abraham Lincoln, and did then and there aid and abet and assist
him, the said John Wilkes Booth, in attempting to escape through the
military lines aforesaid, and did accompany and assist the said John
Wilkes Booth in attempting to conceal himself and escape from justice
after killing and murdering said Abraham Lincoln, as aforesaid.

And in further prosecution of said unlawful and traitorous conspiracy
and of the intent thereof as aforesaid, the said Lewis Payne did, on the
same night of the 14th day of April, A.D. 1865, about the same hour of
10 o'clock and 15 minutes p.m., at the city of Washington, and within
the military department and the military lines aforesaid, unlawfully and
maliciously make an assault upon the said William H. Seward, Secretary
of State, as aforesaid, in the dwelling house and bedchamber of him, the
said William H. Seward, and the said Payne did then and there, with a
large knife held in his hand, unlawfully, traitorously, and in pursuance
of said conspiracy, strike, stab, cut, and attempt to kill and murder
the said William H. Seward, and did thereby then and there, and with the
intent aforesaid, with said knife, inflict upon the face and throat of
the said William H. Seward divers grievous wounds; and the said Lewis
Payne, in further prosecution of said conspiracy, at the same time and
place last aforesaid, did attempt, with the knife aforesaid and a pistol
held in his hand, to kill and murder Frederick W. Seward, Augustus H.
Seward, Emrick W. Hansell, and George F. Robinson, who were then
striving to protect and rescue the said William H. Seward from murder by
the said Lewis Payne, and did then and there, with said knife and pistol
held in his hands, inflict upon the head of said Frederick W. Seward and
upon the persons of said Augustus H. Seward, Emrick W. Hansell, and
George F. Robinson divers grievous and dangerous wounds, with intent
then and there to kill and murder the said Frederick W. Seward, Augustus
H. Seward, Emrick W. Hansell, and George F. Robinson.

And in further prosecution of said conspiracy and its traitorous and
murderous designs, the said George A. Atzerodt did, on the night of the
14th of April, A.D. 1865, and about the same hour of the night
aforesaid, within the military department and the military lines
aforesaid, lie in wait for Andrew Johnson, then Vice-President of the
United States aforesaid, with the intent unlawfully and maliciously to
kill and murder him, the said Andrew Johnson.

And in the further prosecution of the conspiracy aforesaid and of its
murderous and treasonable purposes aforesaid, on the nights of the 13th
and 14th of April, A.D. 1865, at Washington City, and within the
military department and military lines aforesaid, the said Michael
O'Laughlin did then and there lie in wait for Ulysses S. Grant, then
Lieutenant-General and commander of the armies of the United States as
aforesaid, with intent then and there to kill and murder the said
Ulysses S. Grant.

And in further prosecution of said conspiracy, the said Samuel Arnold
did, within the military department and military lines aforesaid, on or
before the 6th day of March, A.D. 1865, and on divers other days and
times between that day and the 15th day of April, A.D. 1865, combine,
conspire with, and aid, counsel, abet, comfort, and support the said
John Wilkes Booth, Lewis Payne, George A. Atzerodt, Michael O'Laughlin,
and their confederates in said unlawful, murderous, and traitorous
conspiracy and in the execution thereof, as aforesaid.

And in further prosecution of the said conspiracy, Mary B. Surratt did,
at Washington City, and within the military department and military
lines aforesaid, on or before the 6th day of March, A.D. 1865, and on
divers other days and times between that day and the 20th day of April,
A.D. 1865, receive, entertain, harbor and conceal, aid and assist, the
said John Wilkes Booth, David B. Herold, Lewis Payne, John H. Surratt,
Michael O'Laughlin, George A. Atzerodt, Samuel Arnold, and their
confederates, with knowledge of the murderous and traitorous conspiracy
aforesaid, and with intent to aid, abet, and assist them in the
execution thereof and in escaping from justice after the murder of the
said Abraham Lincoln, as aforesaid.

And in further prosecution of said conspiracy, the said Samuel A. Mudd
did, at Washington City, and within the military department and military
lines aforesaid, on or before the 6th day of March, A.D. 1865, and on
divers other days and times between that day and the 20th day of April,
A.D. 1865, advise, encourage, receive, entertain, harbor and conceal,
aid and assist, the said John Wilkes Booth, David B. Herold, Lewis
Payne, John H. Surratt, Michael O'Laughlin, George A. Atzerodt, Mary B.
Surratt, and Samuel Arnold, and their confederates, with knowledge of
the murderous and traitorous conspiracy aforesaid, and with intent to
aid, abet, and assist them in the execution thereof and in escaping from
justice after the murder of the said Abraham Lincoln, in pursuance of
said conspiracy, in manner aforesaid.

To which charge and specification the accused, David B. Herold, G.A.
Atzerodt, Lewis Payne, Mary B. Surratt, Michael O'Laughlin, Edward
Spangler, Samuel Arnold, and Samuel A. Mudd, pleaded "not guilty."

FINDINGS AND SENTENCES.

1. In the case of David B. Herold, the commission, having maturely
considered the evidence adduced, finds the accused as follows:

Of the specification, "Guilty, except combining, confederating, and
conspiring with Edward Spangler; as to which part thereof, not guilty."

Of the charge, "Guilty, except the words of the charge that he combined,
confederated, and conspired with Edward Spangler; as to which part of
said charge, not guilty."

And the commission does therefore sentence him, the said David B.
Herold, "To be hanged by the neck until he be dead, at such time and
place as the President of the United States shall direct; two-thirds of
the members of the commission concurring therein."

2. In the case of George A. Atzerodt, the commission, having maturely
considered the evidence adduced, finds the accused as follows:

Of the specification, "Guilty, except combining, confederating, and
conspiring with Edward Spangler; of this, not guilty."

Of the charge, "Guilty, except combining, confederating, and conspiring
with Edward Spangler; of this, not guilty."

And the commission does therefore sentence him, the said George A.
Atzerodt, "To be hung by the neck until he be dead, at such time and
place as the President of the United States shall direct; two-thirds of
the members of the commission concurring therein."

3. In the case of Lewis Payne, the commission, having maturely
considered the evidence adduced, finds the accused as follows:

Of the specification, "Guilty, except combining, confederating, and
conspiring with Edward Spangler; of this, not guilty."

Of the charge, "Guilty, except combining, confederating, and conspiring
with Edward Spangler; of this, not guilty."

And the commission does therefore sentence him, the said Lewis Payne,
"To be hung by the neck until he be dead, at such time and place as the
President of the United States shall direct; two-thirds of the members
of the commission concurring therein."

4. In the case of Mary B. Surratt, the commission, having maturely
considered the evidence adduced, finds the accused as follows:

Of the specification, "Guilty, except as to receiving, entertaining,
harboring, and concealing Samuel Arnold and Michael O'Laughlin, and
except as to combining, confederating, and conspiring with Edward
Spangler; of this, not guilty."

Of the charge, "Guilty, except as to combining, confederating, and
conspiring with Edward Spangler; of this, not guilty."

And the commission does therefore sentence her, the said Mary B.
Surratt, "To be hung by the neck until she be dead, at such time and
place as the President of the United States shall direct; two-thirds of
the members of the commission concurring therein."

5. In the case of Michael O'Laughlin, the commission, having maturely
considered the evidence adduced, finds the accused as follows:

Of the specification, "Guilty, except the words thereof as follows: 'And
in the further prosecution of the conspiracy aforesaid and of its
murderous and treasonable purposes aforesaid, on the nights of the 13th
and 14th of April, A.D. 1865, at Washington City, and within the
military department and military lines aforesaid, the said Michael
O'Laughlin did then and there lie in wait for Ulysses S. Grant, then
Lieutenant-General and commander of the armies of the United States,
with intent then and there to kill and murder the said Ulysses S.
Grant;' of said words, not guilty; and except combining, confederating,
and conspiring with Edward Spangler; of this, not guilty."

Of the charge, "Guilty, except combining, confederating, and conspiring
with Edward Spangler; of this, not guilty."

And the commission does therefore sentence him, the said Michael
O'Laughlin, "To be imprisoned at hard labor for life at such
penitentiary as the President of the United States shall designate."

6. In the case of Edward Spangler, the commission, having maturely
considered the evidence adduced, finds the accused as follows:

Of the specification, "Not guilty, except as to the words, 'The said
Edward Spangler, on said 14th day of April, A.D. 1865, at about the same
hour of that day as aforesaid, within said military department and the
military lines aforesaid, did aid and abet him (meaning John Wilkes
Booth) in making his escape after the said Abraham Lincoln had been
murdered in manner aforesaid;' and of these words, guilty."

Of the charge, "Not guilty, but guilty of having feloniously and
traitorously aided and abetted John Wilkes Booth in making his escape
after having killed and murdered Abraham Lincoln, President of the
United States, he the said Edward Spangler, at the time of aiding and
abetting as aforesaid, well knowing that the said Abraham Lincoln,
President as aforesaid, had been murdered by the said John Wilkes Booth,
as aforesaid."

And the commission does therefore sentence him, the said Edward
Spangler, "To be confined at hard labor for the period of six years at
such penitentiary as the President of the United States shall
designate."

7. In the case of Samuel Arnold, the commission, having maturely
considered the evidence adduced, finds the accused as follows:

Of the specification, "Guilty, except combining, confederating, and
conspiring with Edward Spangler; of this, not guilty."

Of the charge, "Guilty, except combining, confederating, and conspiring
with Edward Spangler; of this, not guilty."

And the commission does therefore sentence him, the said Samuel Arnold,
"To be imprisoned at hard labor for life at such penitentiary as the
President of the United States shall designate."

8. In the case of Samuel A. Mudd, the commission, having maturely
considered the evidence adduced, finds the accused as follows:

Of the specification, "Guilty, except combining, confederating, and
conspiring with Edward Spangler; of this, not guilty; and except
receiving, entertaining, harboring, and concealing Lewis Payne, John H.
Surratt, Michael O'Laughlin, George A. Atzerodt, Mary E. Surratt, and
Samuel Arnold; of this, not guilty."

Of the charge, "Guilty, except combining, confederating, and conspiring
with Edward Spangler; of this, not guilty."

And the commission does therefore sentence him, the said Samuel A. Mudd,
"To be imprisoned at hard labor for life at such penitentiary as the
President of the United States shall designate."

II. The proceedings, findings, and sentences in the foregoing cases
having been submitted to the President of the United States, the
following are his orders:

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 5, 1865_.

The foregoing sentences in the cases of David E. Herold, George A.
Atzerodt, Lewis Payne, Michael O'Laughlin, Edward Spangler, Samuel
Arnold, Mary E. Surratt, and Samuel A. Mudd are hereby approved, and it
is ordered that the sentences in the cases of David E. Herold, G.A.
Atzerodt, Lewis Payne, and Mary E. Surratt be carried into execution by
the proper military authority, under the direction of the Secretary of
War, on the 7th day of July, 1865, between the hours of 10 o'clock a.m.
and 2 o'clock p.m. of that day. It is further ordered that the prisoners
Samuel Arnold, Samuel A. Mudd, Edward Spangler, and Michael O'Laughlin
be confined at hard labor in the penitentiary at Albany, N.Y., during
the period designated in their respective sentences.

ANDREW JOHNSON, _President_.

III. Major-General W.S. Hancock, United States Volunteers, commanding
Middle Military Division, is commanded to cause the foregoing sentences
in the cases of David E. Herold, G.A. Atzerodt, Lewis Payne, and Mary E.
Surratt to be duly executed in accordance with the President's order.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 15, 1865_.

IV. The Executive order dated July 5, 1865, approving the sentences in
the cases of Samuel Arnold, Samuel A. Mudd, Edward Spangler, and Michael
O'Laughlin, is hereby modified so as to direct that the said Arnold,
Mudd, Spangler, and O'Laughlin be confined at hard labor in the military
prison at Dry Tortugas, Florida, during the period designated in their
respective sentences.

The Adjutant-General of the Army is directed to issue orders for the
said prisoners to be transported to the Dry Tortugas, and to be confined
there accordingly.

ANDREW JOHNSON, _President_.

V. Major-General W.S. Hancock, United States Volunteers, commanding
Middle Military Division, is commanded to send the prisoners Samuel
Arnold, Samuel A. Mudd, Edward Spangler, and Michael O'Laughlin, under
charge of a commissioned officer, with a sufficient guard, to the Dry
Tortugas, Florida, where they will be delivered to the commanding
officer of the post, who is hereby ordered to confine the said Arnold,
Mudd, Spangler, and O'Laughlin at hard labor during the periods
designated in their respective sentences.

VI. The military commission of which Major-General David Hunter is
president is hereby dissolved.

By command of the President of the United States:

E.D. TOWNSEND, _Assistant Adjutant-General_.

WASHINGTON, _August 7, 1865_.

An impression seems to prevail that the interests of persons having
business with the executive government require that they should have
personal interviews with the President or heads of Departments. As this
impression is believed to be entirely unfounded, it is expected that
applications relating to such business will hereafter be made in writing
to the head of that Department to which the business may have been
assigned by law. Those applications will in their order be considered
and disposed of by heads of Departments, subject to the approval of the
President. This order is made necessary by the unusual numbers of
persons visiting the seat of Government. It is impracticable to grant
personal interviews to all of them, and desirable that there should be
no invidious distinction in this respect. Similar business of persons
who can not conveniently leave their homes must be neglected if the time
of the executive officers here is engrossed by personal interviews with
others.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[From the Daily National Intelligencer, August 26, 1865.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

_Washington, August 25, 1865_.

Paroled prisoners asking passports as citizens of the United States, and
against whom no special charges may be pending, will be furnished with
passports upon application therefor to the Department of State in the
usual form. Such passports will, however, be issued upon the condition
that the applicants do not return to the United States without leave of
the President. Other persons implicated in the rebellion who may wish to
go abroad will apply to the Department of State for passports, and the
applications will be disposed of according to the merits of the several
cases.

By the President of the United States:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE, _September 7, 1865_.

_It is hereby ordered_, That so much of the Executive order bearing date
the 7th [2d] day of June, 1865, as made it the duty of all officers
of the Treasury Department, military officers, and all others in the
service of the United States to turn over to the authorized officers
of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands all funds
collected by tax or otherwise for the benefit of refugees or freedmen,
or accruing from abandoned lands or property set apart for their use,
be, and the same is hereby, suspended.

ANDREW JOHNSON,

_President_.

GENERAL ORDERS, No. 138.

WAR DEPARTMENT,
ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,
_Washington, September 16, 1865_.

To provide for the transportation required by the Bureau of Refugees,
Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands--

_It is ordered_, That upon the requisition of the Commissioner or the
assistant commissioners of the Bureau transportation be furnished such
destitute refugees and freedmen as are dependent upon the Government for
support to points where they can procure employment and subsistence and
support themselves, and thus relieve the Government, provided such
transportation be confined by assistant commissioners within the limits
of their jurisdiction.

Second. Free transportation on Government transports and United States
military railroads will be furnished to such teachers only of refugees
and freedmen, and persons laboring voluntarily in behalf of refugees and
freedmen, as may be duly accredited by the Commissioner or assistant
commissioners of the Bureau.

All stores and schoolbooks necessary to the subsistence, comfort, and
instruction of dependent refugees and freedmen may be transported at
Government expense, when such stores and books shall be turned over to
the officers of the Quartermaster's Department, with the approval of the
assistant commissioners, Commissioner, or department commander, the same
to be transported as public stores, consigned to the quartermaster of
the post to which they are destined, who, after inspection, will turn
them over to the assistant commissioners or Bureau agent for whom they
are intended for distribution.

All army officers traveling on public duty, under the orders of the
commissioners, within the limits of their respective jurisdictions, will
be entitled to mileage or actual cost of transportation, according to
the revised Army Regulations, when transportation has not been furnished
them by the Quartermaster's Department.

By order of the President of the United States:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_

SPECIAL ORDERS, NO. 503.

WAR DEPARTMENT,
ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,
_Washington, September 19, 1865_.

* * * * *

It has been represented to the Department that commanders of
military posts and districts in Georgia, and particularly Brevet
Brigadier-General C.H. Grosvenor, provost-marshal-general, and Brevet
Major-General King, commanding in the district of Augusta, have assumed
to decide questions of contracts and conflicting claims of property
between individuals, and to order the delivery, surrender, or transfer
of property and documents of title as between private persons, in which
the Government is not concerned.

All such acts and proceedings on the part of military authorities in
said State are declared by the President to be without authority and
null and void.

All military commanders and authorities within said State are strictly
ordered to abstain from any such acts, and not in any way to interfere
with or assume to adjudicate any right, title, or claim of property
between private individuals, and to suspend all action upon any orders
heretofore made in respect to the ownership or delivery of property and
the validity of contracts between private persons.

They are also forbidden from being directly or indirectly interested in
any sales or contracts for cotton or other products of said State, and
from using or suffering to be used any Government transportation for the
transporting of cotton or other products of said State for or in behalf
of private persons on any pretense whatever.

Military officers have no authority to interfere in any way in questions
of sale or contracts of any kind between individuals or to decide any
question of property between them without special instructions from this
Department authorizing their action, and the usurpation of such power
will be treated as a grave military offense.

Major-General Steedman, commanding the Department of Georgia,
is specially charged with the enforcement of this order, and
directed to make report as to any acts, proceedings, or orders
of Brevet Major-General King and Brevet Brigadier-General Grosvenor,
provost-marshal-general, in regard to contracts or conflicting claims
of individuals in relation to cotton or other products, and to suspend
all action upon any such orders until further instructions.

By order of the President of the United States.

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

GENERAL ORDERS, No. 145.

WAR DEPARTMENT,
ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,
_Washington, October 9, 1865_.

Whereas certain tracts of land, situated on the coast of South Carolina,
Georgia, and Florida, at the time for the most part vacant, were set
apart by Major-General W. T. Sherman's special field order No. 15 for
the benefit of refugees and freedmen that had been congregated by the
operations of war or had been left to take care of themselves by their
former owners; and

Whereas an expectation was thereby created that they would be able to
retain possession of said lands; and

Whereas a large number of the former owners are earnestly soliciting the
restoration of the same and promising to absorb the labor and care for
the freedmen:

_It is ordered_, That Major-General Howard, Commissioner of the
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, proceed to the
several above-named States and endeavor to effect an arrangement
mutually satisfactory to the freedmen and the landowners, and make
report. And in case a mutually satisfactory arrangement can be effected,
he is duly empowered and directed to issue such orders as may become
necessary, after a full and careful investigation of the interests of
the parties concerned.

By order of the President of the United States:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE, _October 11, 1865_.

Whereas the following-named persons, to wit, John A. Campbell, of
Alabama; John H. Reagan, of Texas; Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia;
George A. Trenholm, of South Carolina, and Charles Clark, of
Mississippi, lately engaged in rebellion against the United States
Government, who are now in close custody, have made their submission to
the authority of the United States and applied to the President for
pardon under his proclamation; and

Whereas the authority of the Federal Government is sufficiently restored
in the aforesaid States to admit of the enlargement of said persons from
close custody:

_It is ordered_, That they be released on giving their respective
paroles to appear at such time and place as the President may designate
to answer any charge that he may direct to be preferred against them,
and also that they will respectively abide until further orders in the
places herein designated, and not depart therefrom, to wit:

John A. Campbell, in the State of Alabama; John H. Reagan, in the State
of Texas; Alexander H. Stephens, in the State of Georgia; George A.
Trenholm, in the State of South Carolina; and Charles Clark, in the
State of Mississippi. And if the President should grant his pardon to
any of said persons, such person's parole will be thereby discharged.

ANDREW JOHNSON,

_President_.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE,

_Washington City, November 11, 1865_.

_Ordered_, That the civil and military agents of the Government transfer
to the assistant commissioner of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and
Abandoned Lands for Alabama the use and custody of all real estate,
buildings, or other property, except cotton, seized or held by them in
that State as belonging to the late rebel government, together with
all such funds as may arise or have arisen from the rent, sale, or
disposition of such property which have not been finally paid into
the Treasury of the United States.

ANDREW JOHNSON,

_President_.

GENERAL ORDERS, N0. 164.

WAR DEPARTMENT,
ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,
_Washington, November 24, 1865_.

_Ordered_, That--

I. All persons claiming reward for the apprehension of John Wilkes
Booth, Lewis Payne, G.A. Atzerodt, and David E. Herold, and Jefferson
Davis, or either of them, are notified to file their claims and their
proofs with the Adjutant-General for final adjudication by the special
commission appointed to award and determine upon the validity of such
claims before the 1st day of January next, after which time no claims
will be received.

II. The rewards offered for the arrest of Jacob Thompson, Beverley
Tucker, George N. Sanders, William G. Cleary, and John H. Surratt are
revoked.

By order of the President of the United States:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

FIRST ANNUAL MESSAGE.

WASHINGTON, _December 4, 1865_.

_Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives_:

To express gratitude to God in the name of the people for the
preservation of the United States is my first duty in addressing you.
Our thoughts next revert to the death of the late President by an act
of parricidal treason. The grief of the nation is still fresh. It finds
some solace in the consideration that he lived to enjoy the highest
proof of its confidence by entering on the renewed term of the Chief
Magistracy to which he had been elected; that he brought the civil war
substantially to a close; that his loss was deplored in all parts of the
Union, and that foreign nations have rendered justice to his memory.
His removal cast upon me a heavier weight of cares than ever devolved
upon any one of his predecessors. To fulfill my trust I need the support
and confidence of all who are associated with me in the various
departments of Government and the support and confidence of the people.
There is but one way in which I can hope to gain their necessary aid.
It is to state with frankness the principles which guide my conduct, and
their application to the present state of affairs, well aware that the
efficiency of my labors will in a great measure depend on your and their
undivided approbation.

The Union of the United States of America was intended by its authors to
last as long as the States themselves shall last. "The Union shall be
perpetual" are the words of the Confederation. "To form a more perfect
Union," by an ordinance of the people of the United States, is the
declared purpose of the Constitution. The hand of Divine Providence was
never more plainly visible in the affairs of men than in the framing and
the adopting of that instrument. It is beyond comparison the greatest
event in American history, and, indeed, is it not of all events in
modern times the most pregnant with consequences for every people of the
earth? The members of the Convention which prepared it brought to their
work the experience of the Confederation, of their several States, and
of other republican governments, old and new; but they needed and they
obtained a wisdom superior to experience. And when for its validity it
required the approval of a people that occupied a large part of a
continent and acted separately in many distinct conventions, what is
more wonderful than that, after earnest contention and long discussion,
all feelings and all opinions were ultimately drawn in one way to its
support? The Constitution to which life was thus imparted contains
within itself ample resources for its own preservation. It has power
to enforce the laws, punish treason, and insure domestic tranquillity.
In case of the usurpation of the government of a State by one man or
an oligarchy, it becomes a duty of the United States to make good the
guaranty to that State of a republican form of government, and so to
maintain the homogeneousness of all. Does the lapse of time reveal
defects? A simple mode of amendment is provided in the Constitution
itself, so that its conditions can always be made to conform to the
requirements of advancing civilization. No room is allowed even for the
thought of a possibility of its coming to an end. And these powers of
self-preservation have always been asserted in their complete integrity
by every patriotic Chief Magistrate--by Jefferson and Jackson not less
than by Washington and Madison. The parting advice of the Father of his
Country, while yet President, to the people of the United States was
that the free Constitution, which was the work of their hands, might be
sacredly maintained; and the inaugural words of President Jefferson
held up "the preservation of the General Government in its whole
constitutional vigor as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety
abroad." The Constitution is the work of "the people of the United
States," and it should be as indestructible as the people.

It is not strange that the framers of the Constitution, which had no
model in the past, should not have fully comprehended the excellence of
their own work. Fresh from a struggle against arbitrary power, many
patriots suffered from harassing fears of an absorption of the State
governments by the General Government, and many from a dread that the
States would break away from their orbits. But the very greatness
of our country should allay the apprehension of encroachments by the
General Government, The subjects that come unquestionably within its
jurisdiction are so numerous that it must ever naturally refuse to be
embarrassed by questions that lie beyond it. Were it otherwise the
Executive would sink beneath the burden, the channels of justice would
be choked, legislation would be obstructed by excess, so that there is
a greater temptation to exercise some of the functions of the General
Government through the States than to trespass on their rightful sphere.
The "absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority" was at the
beginning of the century enforced by Jefferson as "the vital principle
of republics;" and the events of the last four years have established,
we will hope forever, that there lies no appeal to force.

The maintenance of the Union brings with it "the support of the State
governments in all their rights," but it is not one of the rights of any
State government to renounce its own place in the Union or to nullify
the laws of the Union. The largest liberty is to be maintained in the
discussion of the acts of the Federal Government, but there is no appeal
from its laws except to the various branches of that Government itself,
or to the people, who grant to the members of the legislative and of the
executive departments no tenure but a limited one, and in that manner
always retain the powers of redress.

"The sovereignty of the States" is the language of the Confederacy, and
not the language of the Constitution. The latter contains the emphatic
words--

This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made
in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under
the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the
land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in
the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Certainly the Government of the United States is a limited government,
and so is every State government a limited government. With us this idea
of limitation spreads through every form of administration--general,
State, and municipal--and rests on the great distinguishing principle of
the recognition of the rights of man. The ancient republics absorbed
the individual in the state--prescribed his religion and controlled
his activity. The American system rests on the assertion of the equal
right of every man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to
freedom of conscience, to the culture and exercise of all his faculties.
As a consequence the State government is limited--as to the General
Government in the interest of union, as to the individual citizen in the
interest of freedom.

States, with proper limitations of power, are essential to the existence
of the Constitution of the United States. At the very commencement, when
we assumed a place among the powers of the earth, the Declaration of
Independence was adopted by States; so also were the Articles of
Confederation; and when "the people of the United States" ordained and
established the Constitution it was the assent of the States, one by
one, which gave it vitality. In the event, too, of any amendment to the
Constitution, the proposition of Congress needs the confirmation of
States. Without States one great branch of the legislative government
would be wanting. And if we look beyond the letter of the Constitution
to the character of our country, its capacity for comprehending within
its jurisdiction a vast continental empire is due to the system of
States. The best security for the perpetual existence of the States is
the "supreme authority" of the Constitution of the United States. The
perpetuity of the Constitution brings with it the perpetuity of the
States; their mutual relation makes us what we are, and in our political
system their connection is indissoluble. The whole can not exist without
the parts, nor the parts without the whole. So long as the Constitution
of the United States endures, the States will endure. The destruction of
the one is the destruction of the other; the preservation of the one is
the preservation of the other.

I have thus explained my views of the mutual relations of the
Constitution and the States, because they unfold the principles on
which I have sought to solve the momentous questions and overcome the
appalling difficulties that met me at the very commencement of my
Administration. It has been my steadfast object to escape from the
sway of momentary passions and to derive a healing policy from the
fundamental and unchanging principles of the Constitution.

I found the States suffering from the effects of a civil war. Resistance
to the General Government appeared to have exhausted itself. The United
States had recovered possession of their forts and arsenals, and their
armies were in the occupation of every State which had attempted to
secede. Whether the territory within the limits of those States should
be held as conquered territory, under military authority emanating from
the President as the head of the Army, was the first question that
presented itself for decision.

Now military governments, established for an indefinite period, would
have offered no security for the early suppression of discontent, would
have divided the people into the vanquishers and the vanquished, and
would have envenomed hatred rather than have restored affection. Once
established, no precise limit to their continuance was conceivable. They
would have occasioned an incalculable and exhausting expense. Peaceful
emigration to and from that portion of the country is one of the best
means that can be thought of for the restoration of harmony, and that
emigration would have been prevented; for what emigrant from abroad,
what industrious citizen at home, would place himself willingly under
military rule? The chief persons who would have followed in the train of
the Army would have been dependents on the General Government or men who
expected profit from the miseries of their erring fellow-citizens. The
powers of patronage and rule which would have been exercised, under the
President, over a vast and populous and naturally wealthy region are
greater than, unless under extreme necessity, I should be willing to
intrust to any one man. They are such as, for myself, I could never,
unless on occasions of great emergency, consent to exercise. The willful
use of such powers, if continued through a period of years, would have
endangered the purity of the general administration and the liberties of
the States which remained loyal.

Besides, the policy of military rule over a conquered territory would
have implied that the States whose inhabitants may have taken part in
the rebellion had by the act of those inhabitants ceased to exist. But
the true theory is that all pretended acts of secession were from the
beginning null and void. The States can not commit treason nor screen
the individual citizens who may have committed treason any more than
they can make valid treaties or engage in lawful commerce with any
foreign power. The States attempting to secede placed themselves in a
condition where their vitality was impaired, but not extinguished; their
functions suspended, but not destroyed.

But if any State neglects or refuses to perform its offices there is the
more need that the General Government should maintain all its authority
and as soon as practicable resume the exercise of all its functions.
On this principle I have acted, and have gradually and quietly, and by
almost imperceptible steps, sought to restore the rightful energy of the
General Government and of the States. To that end provisional governors
have been appointed for the States, conventions called, governors
elected, legislatures assembled, and Senators and Representatives chosen
to the Congress of the United States. At the same time the courts of the
United States, as far as could be done, have been reopened, so that the
laws of the United States may be enforced through their agency. The
blockade has been removed and the custom-houses reestablished in ports
of entry, so that the revenue of the United States may be collected. The
Post-Office Department renews its ceaseless activity, and the General
Government is thereby enabled to communicate promptly with its officers
and agents. The courts bring security to persons and property; the
opening of the ports invites the restoration of industry and commerce;
the post-office renews the facilities of social intercourse and of
business. And is it not happy for us all that the restoration of each
one of these functions of the General Government brings with it a
blessing to the States over which they are extended? Is it not a sure
promise of harmony and renewed attachment to the Union that after all
that has happened the return of the General Government is known only as
a beneficence?

I know very well that this policy is attended with some risk; that for
its success it requires at least the acquiescence of the States which it
concerns; that it implies an invitation to those States, by renewing
their allegiance to the United States, to resume their functions as
States of the Union. But it is a risk that must be taken. In the choice
of difficulties it is the smallest risk; and to diminish and if possible
to remove all danger, I have felt it incumbent on me to assert one other
power of the General Government--the power of pardon. As no State can
throw a defense over the crime of treason, the power of pardon is
exclusively vested in the executive government of the United States. In
exercising that power I have taken every precaution to connect it with
the clearest recognition of the binding force of the laws of the United
States and an unqualified acknowledgment of the great social change of
condition in regard to slavery which has grown out of the war.

The next step which I have taken to restore the constitutional relations
of the States has been an invitation to them to participate in the high
office of amending the Constitution. Every patriot must wish for a
general amnesty at the earliest epoch consistent with public safety. For
this great end there is need of a concurrence of all opinions and the
spirit of mutual conciliation. All parties in the late terrible conflict
must work together in harmony. It is not too much to ask, in the name of
the whole people, that on the one side the plan of restoration shall
proceed in conformity with a willingness to cast the disorders of the
past into oblivion, and that on the other the evidence of sincerity in
the future maintenance of the Union shall be put beyond any doubt by the
ratification of the proposed amendment to the Constitution, which
provides for the abolition of slavery forever within the limits of our
country. So long as the adoption of this amendment is delayed, so long
will doubt and jealousy and uncertainty prevail. This is the measure
which will efface the sad memory of the past: this is the measure which
will most certainly call population and capital and security to those
parts of the Union that need them most. Indeed, it is not too much to
ask of the States which are now resuming their places in the family of
the Union to give this pledge of perpetual loyalty and peace. Until it
is done the past, however much we may desire it, will not be forgotten.
The adoption of the amendment reunites us beyond all power of
disruption; it heals the wound that is still imperfectly closed; it
removes slavery, the element which has so long perplexed and divided the
country; it makes of us once more a united people, renewed and
strengthened, bound more than ever to mutual affection and support.

The amendment to the Constitution being adopted, it would remain for the
States whose powers have been so long in abeyance to resume their places
in the two branches of the National Legislature, and thereby complete
the work of restoration. Here it is for you, fellow-citizens of the
Senate, and for you, fellow-citizens of the House of Representatives,
to judge, each of you for yourselves, of the elections, returns, and
qualifications of your own members.

The full assertion of the powers of the General Government requires the
holding of circuit courts of the United States within the districts
where their authority has been interrupted. In the present posture of
our public affairs strong objections have been urged to holding those
courts in any of the States where the rebellion has existed; and it was
ascertained by inquiry that the circuit court of the United States would
not be held within the district of Virginia during the autumn or early
winter, nor until Congress should have "an opportunity to consider and
act on the whole subject." To your deliberations the restoration of
this branch of the civil authority of the United States is therefore
necessarily referred, with the hope that early provision will be made
for the resumption of all its functions. It is manifest that treason,
most flagrant in character, has been committed. Persons who are charged
with its commission should have fair and impartial trials in the highest
civil tribunals of the country, in order that the Constitution and the
laws may be fully vindicated, the truth clearly established and affirmed
that treason is a crime, that traitors should be punished and the
offense made infamous, and, at the same time, that the question may be
judicially settled, finally and forever, that no State of its own will
has the right to renounce its place in the Union.

The relations of the General Government toward the 4,000,000 inhabitants
whom the war has called into freedom have engaged my most serious
consideration. On the propriety of attempting to make the freed-men
electors by the proclamation of the Executive I took for my counsel the
Constitution itself, the interpretations of that instrument by its
authors and their contemporaries, and recent legislation by Congress.
When at the first movement toward independence, the Congress of the
United States instructed the several States to institute governments of
their own, they left each State to decide for itself the conditions for
the enjoyment of the elective franchise. During the period of the
Confederacy there continued to exist a very great diversity in the
qualifications of electors in the several States, and even within a
State a distinction of qualifications prevailed with regard to the
officers who were to be chosen. The Constitution of the United States
recognizes these diversities when it enjoins that in the choice of
members of the House of Representatives of the United States "the
electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for
electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature." After
the formation of the Constitution it remained, as before, the uniform
usage for each State to enlarge the body of its electors according to
its own judgment, and under this system one State after another has
proceeded to increase the number of its electors, until now universal
suffrage, or something very near it, is the general rule. So fixed was
this reservation of power in the habits of the people and so
unquestioned has been the interpretation of the Constitution that during
the civil war the late President never harbored the purpose--certainly
never avowed the purpose--of disregarding it; and in the acts of
Congress during that period nothing can be found which, during the
continuance of hostilities, much less after their close, would have
sanctioned any departure by the Executive from a policy which has so
uniformly obtained. Moreover, a concession of the elective franchise to
the freedmen by act of the President of the United States must have been
extended to all colored men, wherever found, and so must have
established a change of suffrage in the Northern, Middle, and Western
States, not less than in the Southern and Southwestern. Such an act
would have created a new class of voters, and would have been an
assumption of power by the President which nothing in the Constitution
or laws of the United States would have warranted.

On the other hand, every danger of conflict is avoided when the
settlement of the question is referred to the several States. They can,
each for itself, decide on the measure, and whether it is to be adopted
at once and absolutely or introduced gradually and with conditions. In
my judgment the freedmen, if they show patience and manly virtues, will
sooner obtain a participation in the elective franchise through the
States than through the General Government, even if it had power to
intervene. When the tumult of emotions that have been raised by the
suddenness of the social change shall have subsided, it may prove that
they will receive the kindest usage from some of those on whom they have
heretofore most closely depended.

But while I have no doubt that now, after the close of the war, it
is not competent for the General Government to extend the elective
franchise in the several States, it is equally clear that good faith
requires the security of the freedmen in their liberty and their
property, their right to labor, and their right to claim the just return
of their labor. I can not too strongly urge a dispassionate treatment
of this subject, which should be carefully kept aloof from all party
strife. We must equally avoid hasty assumptions of any natural
impossibility for the two races to live side by side in a state of
mutual benefit and good will. The experiment involves us in no
inconsistency; let us, then, go on and make that experiment in good
faith, and not be too easily disheartened. The country is in need of
labor, and the freedmen are in need of employment, culture, and
protection. While their right of voluntary migration and expatriation
is not to be questioned, I would not advise their forced removal and
colonization. Let us rather encourage them to honorable and useful
industry, where it may be beneficial to themselves and to the country;
and, instead of hasty anticipations of the certainty of failure,
let there be nothing wanting to the fair trial of the experiment.
The change in their condition is the substitution of labor by contract
for the status of slavery. The freedman can not fairly be accused of
unwillingness to work so long as a doubt remains about his freedom
of choice in his pursuits and the certainty of his recovering his
stipulated wages. In this the interests of the employer and the employed
coincide. The employer desires in his workmen spirit and alacrity, and
these can be permanently secured in no other way. And if the one ought
to be able to enforce the contract, so ought the other. The public
interest will be best promoted if the several States will provide
adequate protection and remedies for the freedmen. Until this is in some
way accomplished there is no chance for the advantageous use of their
labor, and the blame of ill success will not rest on them.

I know that sincere philanthropy is earnest for the immediate
realization of its remotest aims; but time is always an element in
reform. It is one of the greatest acts on record to have brought
4,000,000 people into freedom. The career of free industry must be
fairly opened to them, and then their future prosperity and condition
must, after all, rest mainly on themselves. If they fail, and so perish
away, let us be careful that the failure shall not be attributable to
any denial of justice. In all that relates to the destiny of the
freedmen we need not be too anxious to read the future; many incidents
which, from a speculative point of view, might raise alarm will quietly
settle themselves. Now that slavery is at an end, or near its end, the
greatness of its evil in the point of view of public economy becomes
more and more apparent. Slavery was essentially a monopoly of labor, and
as such locked the States where it prevailed against the incoming of
free industry. Where labor was the property of the capitalist, the white
man was excluded from employment, or had but the second best chance of
finding it; and the foreign emigrant turned away from the region where
his condition would be so precarious. With the destruction of the
monopoly free labor will hasten from all parts of the civilized world to
assist in developing various and immeasurable resources which have
hitherto lain dormant. The eight or nine States nearest the Gulf of
Mexico have a soil of exuberant fertility, a climate friendly to long
life, and can sustain a denser population than is found as yet in any
part of our country. And the future influx of population to them will
be mainly from the North or from the most cultivated nations in Europe.
From the sufferings that have attended them during our late struggle let
us look away to the future, which is sure to be laden for them with
greater prosperity than has ever before been known. The removal of the
monopoly of slave labor is a pledge that those regions will be peopled
by a numerous and enterprising population, which will vie with any in
the Union in compactness, inventive genius, wealth, and industry.

Our Government springs from and was made for the people--not the people
for the Government. To them it owes allegiance; from them it must derive
its courage, strength, and wisdom. But while the Government is thus
bound to defer to the people, from whom it derives its existence, it
should, from the very consideration of its origin, be strong in its
power of resistance to the establishment of inequalities. Monopolies,
perpetuities, and class legislation are contrary to the genius of free
government, and ought not to be allowed. Here there is no room for
favored classes or monopolies; the principle of our Government is that
of equal laws and freedom of industry. Wherever monopoly attains a
foothold, it is sure to be a source of danger, discord, and trouble. We
shall but fulfill our duties as legislators by according "equal and
exact justice to all men," special privileges to none. The Government is
subordinate to the people; but, as the agent and representative of the
people, it must be held superior to monopolies, which in themselves
ought never to be granted, and which, where they exist, must be
subordinate and yield to the Government.

The Constitution confers on Congress the right to regulate commerce
among the several States. It is of the first necessity, for the
maintenance of the Union, that that commerce should be free and
unobstructed. No State can be justified in any device to tax the transit
of travel and commerce between States. The position of many States is
such that if they were allowed to take advantage of it for purposes of
local revenue the commerce between States might be injuriously burdened,
or even virtually prohibited. It is best, while the country is still
young and while the tendency to dangerous monopolies of this kind is
still feeble, to use the power of Congress so as to prevent any selfish
impediment to the free circulation of men and merchandise. A tax on
travel and merchandise in their transit constitutes one of the worst
forms of monopoly, and the evil is increased if coupled with a denial of
the choice of route. When the vast extent of our country is considered,
it is plain that every obstacle to the free circulation of commerce
between the States ought to be sternly guarded against by appropriate
legislation within the limits of the Constitution.

The report of the Secretary of the Interior explains the condition of
the public lands, the transactions of the Patent Office and the Pension
Bureau, the management of our Indian affairs, the progress made in the
construction of the Pacific Railroad, and furnishes information in
reference to matters of local interest in the District of Columbia. It
also presents evidence of the successful operation of the homestead act,
under the provisions of which 1,160,533 acres of the public lands were
entered during the last fiscal year--more than one-fourth of the whole
number of acres sold or otherwise disposed of during that period. It is
estimated that the receipts derived from this source are sufficient to
cover the expenses incident to the survey and disposal of the lands
entered under this act, and that payments in cash to the extent of from
40 to 50 per cent will be made by settlers who may thus at any time
acquire title before the expiration of the period at which it would
otherwise vest. The homestead policy was established only after long and
earnest resistance; experience proves its wisdom. The lands in the hands
of industrious settlers, whose labor creates wealth and contributes to
the public resources, are worth more to the United States than if they
had been reserved as a solitude for future purchasers.

The lamentable events of the last four years and the sacrifices made by
the gallant men of our Army and Navy have swelled the records of the
Pension Bureau to an unprecedented extent. On the 30th day of June last
the total number of pensioners was 85,986, requiring for their annual
pay, exclusive of expenses, the sum of $8,023,445. The number of
applications that have been allowed since that date will require a large
increase of this amount for the next fiscal year, The means for the
payment of the stipends due under existing laws to our disabled soldiers
and sailors and to the families of such as have perished in the service
of the country will no doubt be cheerfully and promptly granted.
A grateful people will not hesitate to sanction any measures having
for their object the relief of soldiers mutilated and families made
fatherless in the efforts to preserve our national existence.

The report of the Postmaster-General presents an encouraging exhibit
of the operations of the Post-Office Department during the year. The
revenues of the past year, from the loyal States alone, exceeded the
maximum annual receipts from all the States previous to the rebellion
in the sum of $6,038,091; and the annual average increase of revenue
during the last four years, compared with the revenues of the four
years immediately preceding the rebellion, was $3,533,845. The revenues
of the last fiscal year amounted to $14,556,158 and the expenditures
to $13,694,728, leaving a surplus of receipts over expenditures of
$861,430. Progress has been made in restoring the postal service in the
Southern States. The views presented by the Postmaster-General against
the policy of granting subsidies to the ocean mail steamship lines upon
established routes and in favor of continuing the present system, which
limits the compensation for ocean service to the postage earnings, are
recommended to the careful consideration of Congress.

It appears from the report of the Secretary of the Navy that while at
the commencement of the present year there were in commission 530
vessels of all classes and descriptions, armed with 3,000 guns and
manned by 51,000 men, the number of vessels at present in commission is
117, with 830 guns and 12,128 men. By this prompt reduction of the naval
forces the expenses of the Government have been largely diminished, and
a number of vessels purchased for naval purposes from the merchant
marine have been returned to the peaceful pursuits of commerce. Since
the suppression of active hostilities our foreign squadrons have been
reestablished, and consist of vessels much more efficient than those
employed on similar service previous to the rebellion. The suggestion
for the enlargement of the navy-yards, and especially for the
establishment of one in fresh water for ironclad vessels, is deserving
of consideration, as is also the recommendation for a different location
and more ample grounds for the Naval Academy.

In the report of the Secretary of War a general summary is given of the
military campaigns of 1864 and 1865, ending in the suppression of armed
resistance to the national authority in the insurgent States. The
operations of the general administrative bureaus of the War Department
during the past year are detailed and an estimate made of the
appropriations that will be required for military purposes in the fiscal
year commencing the 1st day of July, 1866. The national military force
on the 1st of May, 1865, numbered 1,000,516 men. It is proposed to
reduce the military establishment to a peace footing, comprehending
50,000 troops of all arms, organized so as to admit of an enlargement
by filling up the ranks to 82,600 if the circumstances of the country
should require an augmentation of the Army. The volunteer force has
already been reduced by the discharge from service of over 800,000
troops, and the Department is proceeding rapidly in the work of further
reduction. The war estimates are reduced from $516,240,131 to
$33,814,461, which amount, in the opinion of the Department, is adequate
for a peace establishment. The measures of retrenchment in each bureau
and branch of the service exhibit a diligent economy worthy of
commendation. Reference is also made in the report to the necessity of
providing for a uniform militia system and to the propriety of making
suitable provision for wounded and disabled officers and soldiers.

The revenue system of the country is a subject of vital interest to its
honor and prosperity, and should command the earnest consideration of
Congress. The Secretary of the Treasury will lay before you a full and
detailed report of the receipts and disbursements of the last fiscal
year, of the first quarter of the present fiscal year, of the probable
receipts and expenditures for the other three quarters, and the
estimates for the year following the 30th of June, 1866. I might content
myself with a reference to that report, in which you will find all the
information required for your deliberations and decision, but the
paramount importance of the subject so presses itself on my own mind
that I can not but lay before you my views of the measures which are
required for the good character, and I might almost say for the
existence, of this people. The life of a republic lies certainly in the
energy, virtue, and intelligence of its citizens; but it is equally true
that a good revenue system is the life of an organized government. I
meet you at a time when the nation has voluntarily burdened itself with
a debt unprecedented in our annals. Vast as is its amount, it fades away
into nothing when compared with the countless blessings that will be
conferred upon our country and upon man by the preservation of the
nation's life. Now, on the first occasion of the meeting of Congress
since the return of peace, it is of the utmost importance to inaugurate
a just policy, which shall at once be put in motion, and which shall
commend itself to those who come after us for its continuance. We must
aim at nothing less than the complete effacement of the financial evils
that necessarily followed a state of civil war. We must endeavor to
apply the earliest remedy to the deranged state of the currency, and not
shrink from devising a policy which, without being oppressive to the
people, shall immediately begin to effect a reduction of the debt, and,
if persisted in, discharge it fully within a definitely fixed number of
years.

It is our first duty to prepare in earnest for our recovery from the
ever-increasing evils of an irredeemable currency without a sudden
revulsion, and yet without untimely procrastination. For that end we
must each, in our respective positions, prepare the way. I hold it the
duty of the Executive to insist upon frugality in the expenditures, and
a sparing economy is itself a great national resource. Of the banks to
which authority has been given to issue notes secured by bonds of the
United States we may require the greatest moderation and prudence, and
the law must be rigidly enforced when its limits are exceeded. We may
each one of us counsel our active and enterprising countrymen to be
constantly on their guard, to liquidate debts contracted in a paper
currency, and by conducting business as nearly as possible on a system
of cash payments or short credits to hold themselves prepared to return
to the standard of gold and silver. To aid our fellow-citizens in the
prudent management of their monetary affairs, the duty devolves on us to
diminish by law the amount of paper money now in circulation. Five years
ago the bank-note circulation of the country amounted to not much more
than two hundred millions; now the circulation, bank and national,
exceeds seven hundred millions. The simple statement of the fact
recommends more strongly than any words of mine could do the necessity
of our restraining this expansion. The gradual reduction of the currency
is the only measure that can save the business of the country from
disastrous calamities, and this can be almost imperceptibly accomplished
by gradually funding the national circulation in securities that may be
made redeemable at the pleasure of the Government.

Our debt is doubly secure--first in the actual wealth and still greater
undeveloped resources of the country, and next in the character of our
institutions. The most intelligent observers among political economists
have not failed to remark that the public debt of a country is safe in
proportion as its people are free; that the debt of a republic is the
safest of all. Our history confirms and establishes the theory, and is,
I firmly believe, destined to give it a still more signal illustration.
The secret of this superiority springs not merely from the fact that in
a republic the national obligations are distributed more widely through
countless numbers in all classes of society; it has its root in the
character of our laws. Here all men contribute to the public welfare and
bear their fair share of the public burdens. During the war, under the
impulses of patriotism, the men of the great body of the people, without
regard to their own comparative want of wealth, thronged to our armies
and filled our fleets of war, and held themselves ready to offer their
lives for the public good. Now, in their turn, the property and income
of the country should bear their just proportion of the burden of
taxation, while in our impost system, through means of which increased
vitality is incidentally imparted to all the industrial interests of
the nation, the duties should be so adjusted as to fall most heavily
on articles of luxury, leaving the necessaries of life as free from
taxation as the absolute wants of the Government economically
administered will justify. No favored class should demand freedom from
assessment, and the taxes should be so distributed as not to fall unduly
on the poor, but rather on the accumulated wealth of the country. We
should look at the national debt just as it is--not as a national
blessing, but as a heavy burden on the industry of the country, to be
discharged without unnecessary delay.

It is estimated by the Secretary of the Treasury that the expenditures
for the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1866, will exceed the
receipts $112,194,947. It is gratifying, however, to state that it is
also estimated that the revenue for the year ending the 30th of June,
1867, will exceed the expenditures in the sum of $111,682,818. This
amount, or so much as may be deemed sufficient for the purpose, may be
applied to the reduction of the public debt, which on the 31st day of
October, 1865, was $2,740,854,750. Every reduction will diminish the
total amount of interest to be paid, and so enlarge the means of still
further reductions, until the whole shall be liquidated; and this, as
will be seen from the estimates of the Secretary of the Treasury, may be
accomplished by annual payments even within a period not exceeding
thirty years. I have faith that we shall do all this within a reasonable
time; that as we have amazed the world by the suppression of a civil war
which was thought to be beyond the control of any government, so we
shall equally show the superiority of our institutions by the prompt and
faithful discharge of our national obligations.

The Department of Agriculture under its present direction is
accomplishing much in developing and utilizing the vast agricultural
capabilities of the country, and for information respecting the details
of its management reference is made to the annual report of the
Commissioner.

I have dwelt thus fully on our domestic affairs because of their
transcendent importance. Under any circumstances our great extent of
territory and variety of climate, producing almost everything that is
necessary for the wants and even the comforts of man, make us singularly
independent of the varying policy of foreign powers and protect us
against every temptation to "entangling alliances," while at the present
moment the reestablishment of harmony and the strength that comes from
harmony will be our best security against "nations who feel power and
forget right." For myself, it has been and it will be my constant aim to
promote peace and amity with all foreign nations and powers, and I have
every reason to believe that they all, without exception, are animated
by the same disposition. Our relations with the Emperor of China, so
recent in their origin, are most friendly. Our commerce with his
dominions is receiving new developments, and it is very pleasing to find
that the Government of that great Empire manifests satisfaction with our
policy and reposes just confidence in the fairness which marks our
intercourse. The unbroken harmony between the United States and the
Emperor of Russia is receiving a new support from an enterprise designed
to carry telegraphic lines across the continent of Asia, through his
dominions, and so to connect us with all Europe by a new channel of
intercourse. Our commerce with South America is about to receive
encouragement by a direct line of mail steamships to the rising Empire
of Brazil. The distinguished party of men of science who have recently
left our country to make a scientific exploration of the natural history
and rivers and mountain ranges of that region have received from the
Emperor that generous welcome which was to have been expected from his
constant friendship for the United States and his well-known zeal in
promoting the advancement of knowledge. A hope is entertained that our
commerce with the rich and populous countries that border the
Mediterranean Sea may be largely increased. Nothing will be wanting on
the part of this Government to extend the protection of our flag over
the enterprise of our fellow-citizens. We receive from the powers in
that region assurances of good will; and it is worthy of note that a
special envoy has brought us messages of condolence on the death of our
late Chief Magistrate from the Bey of Tunis, whose rule includes the old
dominions of Carthage, on the African coast.

Our domestic contest, now happily ended, has left some traces in our
relations with one at least of the great maritime powers. The formal
accordance of belligerent rights to the insurgent States was
unprecedented, and has not been justified by the issue. But in the
systems of neutrality pursued by the powers which made that concession
there was a marked difference. The materials of war for the insurgent
States were furnished, in a great measure, from the workshops of Great
Britain, and British ships, manned by British subjects and prepared for
receiving British armaments, sallied from the ports of Great Britain to
make war on American commerce under the shelter of a commission from the
insurgent States. These ships, having once escaped from British ports,
ever afterwards entered them in every part of the world to refit, and so
to renew their depredations. The consequences of this conduct were most
disastrous to the States then in rebellion, increasing their desolation
and misery by the prolongation of our civil contest. It had, moreover,
the effect, to a great extent, to drive the American flag from the sea,
and to transfer much of our shipping and our commerce to the very power
whose subjects had created the necessity for such a change. These events
took place before I was called to the administration of the Government.
The sincere desire for peace by which I am animated led me to approve
the proposal, already made, to submit the question which had thus arisen
between the countries to arbitration. These questions are of such moment
that they must have commanded the attention of the great powers, and are
so interwoven with the peace and interests of every one of them as to
have insured an impartial decision. I regret to inform you that Great
Britain declined the arbitrament, but, on the other hand, invited us to
the formation of a joint commission to settle mutual claims between the
two countries, from which those for the depredations before mentioned
should be excluded. The proposition, in that very unsatisfactory form,
has been declined.

The United States did not present the subject as an impeachment of the
good faith of a power which was professing the most friendly
dispositions, but as involving questions of public law of which the
settlement is essential to the peace of nations; and though pecuniary
reparation to their injured citizens would have followed incidentally
on a decision against Great Britain, such compensation was not their
primary object. They had a higher motive, and it was in the interests of
peace and justice to establish important principles of international
law. The correspondence will be placed before you. The ground on which
the British minister rests his justification is, substantially, that the
municipal law of a nation and the domestic interpretations of that law
are the measure of its duty as a neutral, and I feel bound to declare my
opinion before you and before the world that that justification can not
be sustained before the tribunal of nations. At the same time, I do not
advise to any present attempt at redress by acts of legislation. For the
future, friendship between the two countries must rest on the basis of
mutual justice.

From the moment of the establishment of our free Constitution the
civilized world has been convulsed by revolutions in the interests of
democracy or of monarchy, but through all those revolutions the United
States have wisely and firmly refused to become propagandists of
republicanism. It is the only government suited to our condition; but
we have never sought to impose it on others, and we have consistently
followed the advice of Washington to recommend it only by the careful
preservation and prudent use of the blessing. During all the intervening
period the policy of European powers and of the United States has, on
the whole, been harmonious. Twice, indeed, rumors of the invasion of
some parts of America in the interest of monarchy have prevailed; twice
my predecessors have had occasion to announce the views of this nation
in respect to such interference. On both occasions the remonstrance of
the United States was respected from a deep conviction on the part of
European Governments that the system of noninterference and mutual
abstinence from propagandism was the true rule for the two hemispheres.
Since those times we have advanced in wealth and power, but we retain
the same purpose to leave the nations of Europe to choose their own
dynasties and form their own systems of government. This consistent
moderation may justly demand a corresponding moderation. We should
regard it as a great calamity to ourselves, to the cause of good
government, and to the peace of the world should any European power
challenge the American people, as it were, to the defense of
republicanism against foreign interference. We can not foresee and are
unwilling to consider what opportunities might present themselves, what
combinations might offer to protect ourselves against designs inimical
to our form of government. The United States desire to act in the
future as they have ever acted heretofore; they never will be driven
from that course but by the aggression of European powers, and we
rely on the wisdom and justice of those powers to respect the system of
noninterference which has so long been sanctioned by time, and which by
its good results has approved itself to both continents.

The correspondence between the United States and France in reference to
questions which have become subjects of discussion between the two
Governments will at a proper time be laid before Congress.

When, on the organization of our Government under the Constitution, the
President of the United States delivered his inaugural address to the
two Houses of Congress, he said to them, and through them to the country
and to mankind, that--

The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the
republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as
_deeply_, as _finally_, staked on the experiment intrusted to the hands
of the American people.

And the House of Representatives answered Washington by the voice of
Madison:

We adore the Invisible Hand which has led the American people, through
so many difficulties, to cherish a conscious responsibility for the
destiny of republican liberty.

More than seventy-six years have glided away since these words were
spoken; the United States have passed through severer trials than were
foreseen; and now, at this new epoch in our existence as one nation,
with our Union purified by sorrows and strengthened by conflict and
established by the virtue of the people, the greatness of the occasion
invites us once more to repeat with solemnity the pledges of our fathers
to hold ourselves answerable before our fellow-men for the success of
the republican form of government. Experience has proved its sufficiency
in peace and in war; it has vindicated its authority through dangers and
afflictions, and sudden and terrible emergencies, which would have
crushed any system that had been less firmly fixed in the hearts of the
people. At the inauguration of Washington the foreign relations of the
country were few and its trade was repressed by hostile regulations; now
all the civilized nations of the globe welcome our commerce, and their
governments profess toward us amity. Then our country felt its way
hesitatingly along an untried path, with States so little bound together
by rapid means of communication as to be hardly known to one another,
and with historic traditions extending over very few years; now
intercourse between the States is swift and intimate; the experience of
centuries has been crowded into a few generations, and has created an
intense, indestructible nationality. Then our jurisdiction did not reach
beyond the inconvenient boundaries of the territory which had achieved
independence; now, through cessions of lands, first colonized by Spain
and France, the country has acquired a more complex character, and has
for its natural limits the chain of lakes, the Gulf of Mexico, and on
the east and the west the two great oceans. Other nations were wasted by
civil wars for ages before they could establish for themselves the
necessary degree of unity; the latent conviction that our form of
government is the best ever known to the world has enabled us to emerge
from civil war within four years with a complete vindication of the
constitutional authority of the General Government and with our local
liberties and State institutions unimpaired.

The throngs of emigrants that crowd to our shores are witnesses of the
confidence of all peoples in our permanence. Here is the great land of
free labor, where industry is blessed with unexampled rewards and the
bread of the workingman is sweetened by the consciousness that the cause
of the country "is his own cause, his own safety, his own dignity." Here
everyone enjoys the free use of his faculties and the choice of activity
as a natural right. Here, under the combined influence of a fruitful
soil, genial climes, and happy institutions, population has increased
fifteen-fold within a century. Here, through the easy development of
boundless resources, wealth has increased with twofold greater rapidity
than numbers, so that we have become secure against the financial
vicissitudes of other countries and, alike in business and in opinion,
are self-centered and truly independent. Here more and more care is
given to provide education for everyone born on our soil. Here religion,
released from political connection with the civil government, refuses to
subserve the craft of statesmen, and becomes in its independence the
spiritual life of the people. Here toleration is extended to every
opinion, in the quiet certainty that truth needs only a fair field to
secure the victory. Here the human mind goes forth unshackled in the
pursuit of science, to collect stores of knowledge and acquire an
ever-increasing mastery over the forces of nature. Here the national
domain is offered and held in millions of separate freeholds, so that
our fellow-citizens, beyond the occupants of any other part of the
earth, constitute in reality a people. Here exists the democratic form
of government; and that form of government, by the confession of
European statesmen, "gives a power of which no other form is capable,
because it incorporates every man with the state and arouses everything
that belongs to the soul."

Where in past history does a parallel exist to the public happiness
which is within the reach of the people of the United States? Where in
any part of the globe can institutions be found so suited to their
habits or so entitled to their love as their own free Constitution?
Every one of them, then, in whatever part of the land he has his home,
must wish its perpetuity. Who of them will not now acknowledge, in the
words of Washington, that "every step by which the people of the United
States have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to
have been distinguished by some token of providential agency"? Who will
not join with me in the prayer that the Invisible Hand which has led us
through the clouds that gloomed around our path will so guide us onward
to a perfect restoration of fraternal affection that we of this day may
be able to transmit our great inheritance of State governments in all
their rights, of the General Government in its whole constitutional
vigor, to our posterity, and they to theirs through countless
generations?

ANDREW JOHNSON.

SPECIAL MESSAGES.

WASHINGTON, _December 11, 1865_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:

I transmit a report of this date from the Secretary of State, and the
papers referred to therein, concerning the Universal Exposition to be
held at Paris in the year 1867, in which the United States have been
invited by the Government of France to take part. I commend the subject
to your early and favorable consideration.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 13, 1865_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 11th instant,
requesting information on the subject of a decree of the so-called
Emperor of Mexico of the 3d of October last, I transmit a report from
the Secretary of State and the documents by which it was accompanied.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 14, 1865_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
11th instant, requesting information relative to a so-called decree
concerning the reestablishment of slavery or peonage in the Republic
of Mexico, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the
documents by which it was accompanied.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _December 18, 1865_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:

In compliance with the requirements of the third section of the act
approved March 3, 1865, I transmit herewith a communication from the
Secretary of War, with the accompanying report and estimates of the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 18, 1865_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In reply to the resolution adopted by the Senate on the 12th instant,
I have the honor to state that the rebellion waged by a portion of the
people against the properly constituted authority of the Government of
the United States has been suppressed; that the United States are in
possession of every State in which the insurrection existed, and that,
as far as it could be done, the courts of the United States have been
restored, post-offices reestablished, and steps taken to put into
effective operation the revenue laws of the country.

As the result of the measures instituted by the Executive with the view
of inducing a resumption of the functions of the States comprehended in
the inquiry of the Senate, the people of North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee have
reorganized their respective State governments, and "are yielding
obedience to the laws and Government of the United States" with more
willingness and greater promptitude than under the circumstances could
reasonably have been anticipated. The proposed amendment to the
Constitution, providing for the abolition of slavery forever within the
limits of the country, has been ratified by each one of those States,
with the exception of Mississippi, from which no official information
has been received, and in nearly all of them measures have been adopted
or are now pending to confer upon freedmen the privileges which are
essential to their comfort, protection, and security. In Florida and
Texas the people are making commendable progress in restoring their
State governments, and no doubt is entertained that they will at an
early period be in a condition to resume all of their practical
relations with the General Government.

In "that portion of the Union lately in rebellion" the aspect of affairs
is more promising than, in view of all the circumstances, could well
have been expected. The people throughout the entire South evince a
laudable desire to renew their allegiance to the Government and to
repair the devastations of war by a prompt and cheerful return to
peaceful pursuits, and abiding faith is entertained that their actions
will conform to their professions, and that in acknowledging the
supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States their
loyalty will be unreservedly given to the Government, whose leniency
they can not fail to appreciate and whose fostering care will soon
restore them to a condition of prosperity. It is true that in some of
the States the demoralizing effects of the war are to be seen in
occasional disorders; but these are local in character, not frequent in
occurrence, and are rapidly disappearing as the authority of civil law
is extended and sustained. Perplexing questions are naturally to be
expected from the great and sudden change in the relations between the
two races; but systems are gradually developing themselves under which
the freedman will receive the protection to which he is justly entitled,
and, by means of his labor, make himself a useful and independent member
in the community in which he has a home.

From all the information in my possession and from that which I have
recently derived from the most reliable authority I am induced to
cherish the belief that sectional animosity is surely and rapidly
merging itself into a spirit of nationality, and that representation,
connected with a properly adjusted system of taxation, will result in
a harmonious restoration of the relation of the States to the National
Union.

The report of Carl Schurz is herewith transmitted, as requested by the
Senate. No reports from the Hon. John Covode have been received by the
President. The attention of the Senate is invited to the accompanying
report from Lieutenant-General Grant, who recently made a tour of
inspection through several of the States whose inhabitants participated
in the rebellion.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 20, 1865_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In reply to the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting
that the President, if not inconsistent with the public service,
communicate to the Senate the "report of General Howard of his
observations of the condition of the seceded States and the operation of
the Freedmen's Bureau therein," I have to state that the report of the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands
was yesterday transmitted to both Houses of Congress, as required by the
third section of the act approved March 3, 1865.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 21, 1865_.

_To the Senate_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 11th instant,
respecting the occupation by the French troops of the Republic of Mexico
and the establishment of a monarchy there, I transmit a report from the
Secretary of State and the documents by which it was accompanied.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 5, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 19th ultimo,
requesting information in regard to any plans to induce the immigration
of dissatisfied citizens of the United States into Mexico, their
organization there with the view to create disturbances in the United
States, and especially in regard to the plans of Dr. William M. Gwin and
M.F. Maury, and to the action taken by the Government of the United
States to prevent the success of such schemes, I transmit a report from
the Acting Secretary of State and the papers by which it was
accompanied.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 5, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I have received the following preamble and resolution, adopted by the
Senate on the 21st ultimo:

Whereas the Constitution declares that "in all criminal prosecutions
the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial by an
impartial jury of the State or district wherein the crime shall have
been committed;" and

Whereas several months have elapsed since Jefferson Davis, late
president of the so-called Confederate States, was captured and confined
for acts notoriously done by him as such, which acts, if duly proved,
render him guilty of treason against the United States and liable to the
penalties thereof; and

Whereas hostilities between the Government of the United States and the
insurgents have ceased, and not one of the latter, so far as is known to
the Senate, is now held in confinement for the part he may have acted in
the rebellion except said Jefferson Davis: Therefore,

_Resolved_, That the President be respectfully requested, if compatible
with the public safety, to inform the Senate upon what charges or for
what reasons said Jefferson Davis is still held in confinement, and why
he has not been put upon his trial.

In reply to the resolution I transmit the accompanying reports from the
Secretary of War and the Attorney-General, and at the same time invite
the attention of the Senate to that portion of my message dated the 4th
day of December last which refers to Congress the questions connected
with the holding of circuit courts of the United States within the
districts where their authority has been interrupted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 5, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of
the 18th ultimo, requesting information in regard to steps taken by the
so-called Emperor of Mexico or by any European power to obtain from the
United States a recognition of the so-called Empire of Mexico, and what
action has been taken in the premises by the Government of the United
States, I transmit a report from the Acting Secretary of State and the
papers by which it was accompanied.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 10, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 8th
instant, asking for information in regard to the alleged kidnaping in
Mexico of the child of an American lady, I transmit a report from the
Acting Secretary of State, to whom the resolution was referred.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _January 12, 1866_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a communication addressed to me by Messrs. John
Evans and J.B. Chaífee as "United States Senators elect from the State
of Colorado," together with the accompanying documents.

Under authority of the act of Congress approved the 21st day of
March, 1864, the people of Colorado, through a convention, formed a
constitution making provision for a State government, which, when
submitted to the qualified voters of the Territory, was rejected.

In the summer of 1865 a second convention was called by the executive
committees of the several political parties in the Territory, which
assembled at Denver on the 8th of August, 1865. On the 12th of that
month this convention adopted a State constitution, which was submitted
to the people on the 5th of September, 1865, and ratified by a majority
of 155 of the qualified voters. The proceedings in the second instance
for the formation of a State government having differed in time and mode
from those specified in the act of March 21, 1864, I have declined to
issue the proclamation for which provision is made in the fifth section
of the law, and therefore submit the question for the consideration and
further action of Congress.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE, _January 20, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I communicate to the Senate herewith, for its constitutional action
thereon, the several treaties[5] with the Indians of the Southwest
referred to in the accompanying communication from the Secretary of
the Interior.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 5: With the confederated tribes of the Arapahoe and Cheyenne
Indians, concluded October 14, 1865; with the Apache, Cheyenne, and
Arapahoe tribes, respectively, concluded October 17, 1865; with the
several bands of the Comanche tribe, concluded October 18, 1865.]

EXECUTIVE OFFICE, _January 20, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I communicate to the Senate herewith, for its constitutional action
thereon, the several treaties with bands of the Sioux Nation of Indians
which are referred to in the accompanying communication from the
Secretary of the Interior.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 20, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I communicate to the Senate herewith, for its constitutional action
thereon, the treaties with the Omaha and Winnebago Indians referred to
in the accompanying communication from the Secretary of the Interior.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 26, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 11th instant,
requesting information in regard to a negotiation for the transit of
United States troops in 1861 through Mexican territory, I transmit a
report from the Acting Secretary of State and the papers by which it
was accompanied.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 26, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to
ratification, a convention between the United States and the Empire of
Japan for the reduction of import duties, which was signed at Yedo the
28th of January, 1864.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 26, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to
ratification, a convention between the Empire of Japan and the
Governments of the United States, Great Britain, France, and Holland,
providing for the payment to said Governments of the sum of $3,000,000
for indemnities and expenses, which was signed by the respective parties
at Yokohama on the 22d of October, 1864.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 26, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 17th instant,
requesting the President "to communicate to the Senate, if in his
opinion not inconsistent with the public interest, any letters from
Major-General Sheridan, commanding the Military Division of the Gulf,
or from any other officer of the Department of Texas, in regard to the
present condition of affairs on the southeastern frontier of the United
States, and especially in regard to any violation of neutrality on the
part of the army now occupying the right bank of the Rio Grande,"
I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of War, bearing date
the 24th instant.

Concurring in his opinion that the publication of the correspondence
at this time is not consistent with the public interest, the papers
referred to in the accompanying report are for the present withheld.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 26, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
22d instant, requesting the communication of any correspondence or other
information in regard to a demonstration by the Congress of the United
States of Colombia, or any other country, in honor of President Juarez,
of the Republic of Mexico, I transmit herewith a report from the Acting
Secretary of State, with the papers by which it was accompanied.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 26, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 8th
instant, asking for information in regard to the reported surrender of
the rebel pirate vessel called the _Shenandoah_, I transmit a report
from the Acting Secretary of State, to whom the resolution was referred.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 30, 1866_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

Believing that the commercial interests of our country would be promoted
by a formal recognition of the independence of the Dominican Republic,
while such a recognition would be in entire conformity with the settled
policy of the United States, I have with that view nominated to the
Senate an officer of the same grade with the one now accredited to the
Republic of Hayti; and I recommend that an appropriation be made by
Congress toward providing for his compensation.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 1, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
10th ultimo, requesting information in regard to the organization in the
city of New York of the "Imperial Mexican Express Company" under a grant
from the so-called Emperor of Mexico, I transmit a report from the
Secretary of State and the papers by which it was accompanied.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 2, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

The accompanying correspondence is transmitted to the Senate in
compliance with its resolution of the 16th ultimo, requesting the
President, "if not inconsistent with the public interest, to communicate
to the Senate any correspondence which may have taken place between
himself and any of the judges of the Supreme Court touching the holding
of the civil courts of the United States in the insurrectionary States
for the trial of crimes against the United States."

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 2, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 30th ultimo, requesting
the President, "if not incompatible with the public interests, to
communicate to the Senate a copy of the late report of Major-General
Sherman upon the condition of the States in his department, in which he
has lately made a tour of inspection," I transmit herewith a copy of a
communication, dated December 22, 1865, addressed to the Headquarters of
the Army by Major-General Sherman, commanding the Military Division of
the Mississippi.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 9, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In reply to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
10th ultimo, requesting the President of the United States, "if not
incompatible with the public interest, to communicate to the House
any report or reports made by the Judge-Advocate-General or any other
officer of the Government as to the grounds, facts, or accusations upon
which Jefferson Davis, Clement C. Clay, jr., Stephen R. Mallory, and
David L. Yulee, or either of them, are held in confinement," I transmit
herewith reports from the Secretary of War and the Attorney-General,
and concur in the opinion therein expressed that the publication of
the papers called for by the resolution is not at the present time
compatible with the public interest.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 10, 1866_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit, for the consideration of Congress, a correspondence between
the Secretary of State and the minister of France accredited to this
Government, and also other papers, relative to a proposed international
conference at Constantinople upon the subject of cholera.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 5, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit the accompanying report from the Secretary of War, in answer
to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 27th ultimo,
requesting information in regard to the distribution of the rewards
offered by the Government for the arrest of the assassins of the late
President Lincoln.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 5, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 27th ultimo, I
transmit, herewith a communication from the Secretary of War, together
with the reports of the assistant commissioners of the Freedmen's Bureau
made since December 1, 1865.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 6, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolutions of the Senate of the 5th of January and
27th of February last, requesting information in regard to provisional
governors of States, I transmit reports from the Secretary of State and
the Secretary of War, to whom the resolutions were referred.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _March 6, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon, a
treaty with the Utah, Yampah-Ute, Pah-Vant, San-Pete-Ute, Tim-p-nogs,
and Cum-um-bah bands of the Utah Indians, referred to in the
accompanying papers from the Secretary of the Interior.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 6, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
12th of January last, requesting information in regard to provisional
governments of certain States, I transmit a report from the Secretary
of State, to whom the resolution was referred.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 6, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 27th
ultimo, requesting certain information in relation to President Benito
Juarez, of Mexico, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 8, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit, for the consideration of the Senate, a copy of a letter of
the 21st ultimo from the governor of the Territory of Colorado to the
Secretary of State, with the memorial to which it refers, relative to
the location of the Pacific Railroad.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 12, 1866_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit, for your consideration, a copy of two communications from
the minister of the United States at Paris, in regard to a proposed
exhibition of fishery and water culture, to be held at Arcachon, near
Bordeaux, in France, in July next.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 15, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 5th instant, upon the
subject of the supposed kidnaping of colored persons in the Southern
States for the purpose of selling them as slaves in Cuba, I transmit a
report from the Secretary of State, to whom the resolution was referred.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _March 19, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives dated
January 5, 1866, requesting information as to the number of men and
officers in the regular and volunteer service of the United States,
I transmit a report from the Secretary of War, with the papers by which
it was accompanied.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 20, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
11th of December last, requesting information upon the present condition
of affairs in the Republic of Mexico, I transmit a report from the
Secretary of State and the papers by which it was accompanied.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 21, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
a treaty made with the Great and Little Osage Indians on the 29th
September, 1865, together with the accompanying papers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 21, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon, a
treaty made with the Woll-pah-pe tribe of Snake Indians on the 12th of
August, 1865, together with the accompanying papers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _March 26, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate a memorial of the legislature of Alabama,
asking an extension of time for the completion of certain railroads in
said State.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 30, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith, for the constitutional action of the Senate,
a treaty negotiated with the Shawnee Indians, dated March 1, 1866,
with supplemental article, dated March 14, 1866, with accompanying
communications from the honorable Secretary of the Interior and
Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 3, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a report by the Secretary of War, in compliance with
the Senate resolution of the 7th March, 1866, respecting the improvement
of the Washington City Canal, to promote the health of the metropolis.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _April 3, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, dated the
22d ultimo, together with a letter addressed to him by the governor of
Alabama, asking that the State of Alabama may be allowed to assume and
pay in State bonds the direct tax now due from that State to the United
States, or that delay of payment may be authorized until the State can
by the sale of its bonds or by taxation make provision for the
liquidation of the indebtedness.

I concur in the opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury "that it is
desirable that the State of Alabama and the other Southern States should
be allowed to assume and pay their proportion of the direct taxes now
due," and therefore recommend the necessary legislation by Congress.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 4, 1866_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit to Congress a report from the Secretary of State, with the
accompanying papers, relative to the claim on this Government of the
owners of the British vessel _Magicienne_, and recommend an
appropriation for the satisfaction of the claim, pursuant to the award
of the arbitrators.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 5, 1866_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I herewith transmit communications from the Secretary of the Treasury
and the Postmaster-General, suggesting a modification of the oath of
office prescribed by the act of Congress approved July 2, 1862. I fully
concur in their recommendation, and as the subject pertains to the
efficient administration of the revenue and postal laws in the Southern
States I earnestly commend it to the early consideration of Congress.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 6, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit, for the constitutional action of the Senate, a supplemental
article to the Pottawatomie treaty of November 15, 1861, concluded on
the 29th ultimo, together with the accompanying communications from the
Secretary of the Interior and Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _April 7, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I transmit a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, with the
accompanying papers, in reference to grants of land made by acts of
Congress passed in the years 1850, 1853, and 1856 to the States of
Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, and Louisiana, to aid in
the construction of certain railroads. As these acts will expire by
limitation on the 11th day of August, 1866, leaving the roads for
whose benefit they were conferred in an unfinished condition, it is
recommended that the time within which they may be completed be extended
for a period of five years.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 11, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 27th ultimo,
in relation to the seizure and detention at New York of the steamship
_Meteor_, I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State and
the papers by which it was accompanied.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 13, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith, for the constitutional action of the Senate, a
treaty concluded with the Bois Forte band of Chippewa Indians on the
7th instant, together with the accompanying communications from the
Secretary of the Interior and Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 13, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 10th
instant, requesting information in regard to the rights and interests
of American citizens in the fishing grounds adjacent to the British
Provinces, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, to whom the
resolution was referred.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 20, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the Senate's resolution of the 8th January, 1866, I
transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of War of the 19th
instant, covering copies of the correspondence respecting General
Orders, No. 17,[6] issued by the commander of the Department of
California, and also the Attorney-General's opinion as to the question
whether the order involves a breach of neutrality toward Mexico.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 6: Instructing commanders on the southern frontiers within the
Department of California "to take the necessary measures to preserve the
neutrality of the United States with respect to the parties engaged in
the existing war in Mexico, and to suffer no armed parties to pass the
frontier from the United States, nor suffer any arms or munitions of war
to be sent over the frontier to either belligerent," etc.]

WASHINGTON, D.C., _April 20, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In reply to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 2d
instant, requesting information respecting the collection of the remains
of officers and soldiers killed and buried on the various battlefields
about Atlanta, I transmit herewith a report on the subject from the
Secretary of War.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 21, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a communication of this date from the Secretary
of War, covering a copy of the proceedings of a board of officers in
relation to brevet appointments in the Regular Army, requested in the
Senate's resolution of the 18th April, 1866.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 23, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to
ratification, a convention which was signed at Tangier on the 31st of
May last between the United States and other powers on the one part and
the Sultan of Morocco on the other part, concerning the administration
and maintenance of a light-house on Cape Spartel.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 23, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 16th
instant, requesting information relative to the proposed evacuation of
Mexico by French military forces, I transmit a report from the Secretary
of State and the documents by which it was accompanied.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., April 24, 1866_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I submit herewith, for the consideration of Congress, the accompanying
communication from the Secretary of the Interior, in relation to the
Union Pacific Railroad Company, eastern division.

It appears that the company were required to complete 100 miles of
their road within three years after their acceptance of the conditions
of the original act of Congress. This period expired December 22, 1865.
Sixty-two miles had been previously accepted by the Government. Since
that date an additional section of 23 miles has been completed.
Commissioners appointed for that purpose have examined and reported
upon it, and an application has been made for its acceptance.

The failure to complete 100 miles of road within the period prescribed
renders it questionable whether the executive officers of the Government
are authorized to issue the bonds and patents to which the company would
be entitled if this as well as the other requirements of the act had
been faithfully observed.

This failure may to some extent be ascribed to the financial condition
of the country incident to the recent civil war. As the company appear
to be engaged in the energetic prosecution of their work and manifest a
disposition to comply with the conditions of the grant, I recommend that
the time for the completion of this part of the road be extended and
that authority be given for the issue of bonds and patents on account of
the section now offered for acceptance notwithstanding such failure,
should the company in other respects be thereunto entitled.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _April 28, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith, for the constitutional action of the Senate, a
treaty this day concluded with the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations of
Indians.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 30, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 25th
instant, requesting information in regard to the rebel debt known as the
cotton loan, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, to whom
the resolution was referred.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _May 2, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In reply to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 23d
ultimo, I transmit a report from the Secretary of War, from which it
will be perceived that it is not deemed compatible with the public
interests to communicate to the House the report made by General Smith
and the Hon. James T. Brady of their investigations at New Orleans, La.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _May 4, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 5th
of March, 1866, requesting the names of persons worth more than $20,000
to whom special pardons have been issued, and a statement of the amount
of property which has been seized as belonging to the enemies of the
Government, or as abandoned property, and returned to those who claimed
to be the original owners, I transmit herewith reports from the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of
War, and the Attorney-General, together with a copy of the amnesty
proclamation of the 29th of May, 1865, and a copy of the warrants issued
in cases in which special pardons are granted. The second, third, and
fourth conditions of the warrant prescribe the terms, so far as property
is concerned, upon which all such pardons are granted and accepted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _May 4, 1866_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

Referring to my message of the 12th of March last, communicating
information in regard to a proposed exposition of fishery and water
culture at Arcachon, in France, I communicate a copy of another dispatch
from the minister of the United States in Paris to the Secretary of
State, and again invite the attention of Congress to the subject.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _May 7, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 19th ultimo,
I transmit herewith a report from Benjamin C. Truman, relative to the
condition of the Southern people and the States in which the rebellion
existed.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _May 9, 1866_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit to Congress a copy of a correspondence between the Secretary
of State and the acting chargé d'affaires of the United States at
Guayaquil, in the Republic of Ecuador, from which it appears that the
Government of that Republic has failed to pay the first installment of
the award of the commissioners under the convention between the United
States and Ecuador of the 25th November, 1862, which installment was due
on the 17th of February last.

As debts of this character from one government to another are justly
regarded as of a peculiarly sacred character, and as further diplomatic
measures are not in this instance likely to be successful, the
expediency of authorizing other proceedings in case they should
ultimately prove to be indispensable is submitted to your consideration.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _May 10, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of the Treasury, in
answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 3d
instant, requesting information concerning discriminations made by the
so-called Maximilian Government of Mexico against American commerce,
or against commerce from particular American ports.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _May 11, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, in answer to that part
of the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 7th instant
which calls for information in regard to the clerks employed in the
Department of State.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _May 16, 1866_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit to Congress a copy of the correspondence between the
Secretary of State and Cornelius Vanderbilt, of New York, relative to
the joint resolution of the 28th of January, 1864, upon the subject of
the gift of the steamer _Vanderbilt_ to the United States.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, May 7, 1866_.

Hon. SCHUYLER COLFAX,

_Speaker of the House of Representatives_.

SIR: I have the honor to submit herewith a communication of the
Secretary of War, inclosing one from the Lieutenant-General, relative
to the necessity for legislation upon the subject of the Army.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _May 17, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In further response to the resolution of the House of Representatives of
the 7th instant, calling for information in regard to clerks employed in
the several Executive Departments, I transmit herewith reports from the
Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Interior and the
Postmaster-General.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _May 22, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of the Treasury, made in
compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
7th instant, calling for information in respect to clerks employed in
the several Executive Departments of the Government.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _May 22, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 27th
ultimo, requesting a collation of the provisions in reference to
freedmen contained in the amended constitutions of the Southern States
and in the laws of those States passed since the suppression of the
rebellion, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, to whom the
resolution was referred.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _May 24, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Postmaster-General, made in answer
to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 14th instant,
calling for information relative to the proposed mail steamship service
between the United States and Brazil.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _May 25, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
21st instant, I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of War,
with the accompanying papers, in reference to the operations of the
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _May 30, 1866_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

With sincere regret I announce to Congress that Winfield Scott, late
Lieutenant-General in the Army of the United States, departed this life
at West Point, in the State of New York, on the 29th day of May instant,
at 11 o'clock in the forenoon. I feel well assured that Congress will
share in the grief of the nation which must result from its bereavement
of a citizen whose high fame is identified with the military history of
the Republic.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _May 30, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit a communication from the Secretary of War, covering a
supplemental report to that already made to the House of
Representatives, in answer to its resolution of the 21st instant,
requesting the reports of General Steedman and others in reference to
the operations of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 5, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to
ratification, a convention between the United States and the Republic of
Venezuela on the subject of the claims of citizens of the United States
upon the Government of that Republic, which convention was signed by the
plenipotentiaries of the parties at the city of Caracas on the 25th of
April last.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 9, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Acting Secretary of the Interior,
communicating the information requested by a resolution of the House of
Representatives of the 21st ultimo, in relation to the removal of the
Sioux Indians of Minnesota and the provisions made for their
accommodation in the Territory of Nebraska.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 9, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with a call of the Senate, as expressed in a resolution
adopted on the 6th instant, I transmit a copy of the report of the Board
of Visitors to the United States Naval Academy for the year 1866.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 11, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 10th
ultimo, calling for information relative to the claims of citizens of
the United States against the Republic of Venezuela, I transmit a report
from the Secretary of State.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 11, 1866_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

It is proper that I should inform Congress that a copy of an act of the
legislature of Georgia of the 10th of March last has been officially
communicated to me, by which that State accepts the donation of lands
for the benefit of colleges for agriculture and the mechanic arts, which
donation was provided for by the acts of Congress of the 2d of July,
1862, and 14th of April, 1864.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 11, 1866_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I communicate and invite the attention of Congress to a copy of joint
resolutions of the senate and house of representatives of the State
of Georgia, requesting a suspension of the collection of the
internal-revenue tax due from that State pursuant to the act of Congress
of the 5th of August, 1861.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 13, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 11th
instant, requesting information concerning the provisions of the laws
and ordinances of the late insurgent States on the subject of the rebel
debt, so called, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the
document by which it was accompanied.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 14, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 28th
of May, requesting information as to what progress has been made in
completing the maps connected with the boundary survey under the treaty
of Washington, with copies of any correspondence on this subject not
heretofore printed, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State
and the documents which accompanied it.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 15, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 13th instant,
calling for information in regard to the departure of troops from
Austria to Mexico, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and
the documents by which it was accompanied.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 16, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I communicate herewith a report from the Acting Secretary of the
Interior, furnishing, as requested by a resolution of the Senate of the
25th ultimo, information touching the transactions of the executive
branch of the Government respecting the transportation, settlement,
and colonization of persons of the African race.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 18, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In reply to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 11th
instant, requesting information in regard to the dispatch of military
forces from Austria for service in Mexico, I transmit a report from the
Secretary of State on the subject.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _June 20, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
21st ultimo, requesting information as to the collection of the direct
tax in the States whose inhabitants participated in the rebellion, I
transmit a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, accompanied
by a report from the Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _June 22, 1866_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I submit to Congress a report of the Secretary of State, to whom was
referred the concurrent resolution of the 18th instant, respecting a
submission to the legislatures of the States of an additional article to
the Constitution of the United States. It will be seen from this report
that the Secretary of State had, on the 16th instant, transmitted to the
governors of the several States certified copies of the joint resolution
passed on the 13th instant, proposing an amendment to the Constitution.

Even in ordinary times any question of amending the Constitution must be
justly regarded as of paramount importance. This importance is at the
present time enhanced by the fact that the joint resolution was not
submitted by the two Houses for the approval of the President and that
of the thirty-six States which constitute the Union eleven are excluded
from representation in either House of Congress, although, with the
single exception of Texas, they have been entirely restored to all their
functions as States in conformity with the organic law of the land, and
have appeared at the national capital by Senators and Representatives,
who have applied for and have been refused admission to the vacant
seats. Nor have the sovereign people of the nation been afforded an
opportunity of expressing their views upon the important questions which
the amendment involves. Grave doubts, therefore, may naturally and
justly arise as to whether the action of Congress is in harmony with
the sentiments of the people, and whether State legislatures, elected
without reference to such an issue, should be called upon by Congress
to decide respecting the ratification of the proposed amendment.

Waiving the question as to the constitutional validity of the
proceedings of Congress upon the joint resolution proposing the
amendment or as to the merits of the article which it submits through
the executive department to the legislatures of the States, I deem it
proper to observe that the steps taken by the Secretary of State, as
detailed in the accompanying report, are to be considered as purely
ministerial, and in no sense whatever committing the Executive to an
approval or a recommendation of the amendment to the State legislatures
or to the people. On the contrary, a proper appreciation of the letter
and spirit of the Constitution, as well as of the interests of national
order, harmony, and union, and a due deference for an enlightened public
judgment may at this time well suggest a doubt whether any amendment to
the Constitution ought to be proposed by Congress and pressed upon the
legislatures of the several States for final decision until after the
admission of such loyal Senators and Representatives of the now
unrepresented States as have been or as may hereafter be chosen in
conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 22, 1866_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

In further answer to recent resolutions of the Senate and House of
Representatives, requesting information in regard to the employment of
European troops in Mexico, I transmit to Congress a copy of a dispatch
of the 4th of this month addressed to the Secretary of State by the
minister of the United States at Paris.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 22, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the
18th instant, calling for information in regard to the arrest and
imprisonment in Ireland of American citizens, I transmit herewith
a report from the Secretary of State on the subject.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON CITY, _June 23, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of the Interior,
communicating in part the information requested by a resolution of the
House of Representatives of the 23d of April last, in relation to
appropriations and expenditures connected with the Indian service.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _June 28, 1866_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit a communication from the Secretary of the Navy and the
accompanying copy of a report and maps prepared by a board of examiners
appointed under authority of the joint resolution approved June 1, 1866,
"to examine a site for a fresh-water basin for ironclad vessels of the
United States Navy."

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _June 28, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith reports from the heads of the several Executive
Departments, made in answer to the resolution of the House of
Representatives of the 4th instant, requesting information as to whether
any of the civil or military employees of the Government have assisted
in the rendition of public honors to the rebel living or dead.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 7, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

The accompanying report of the Secretary of the Treasury is transmitted
to the Senate in compliance with its resolution of the 20th ultimo,
calling for a statement of the expenditures of the United States for the
various public works of the Government in each State and Territory of
the Union and in the District of Columbia from the year 1860 to the
close of the year 1865.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _July 7, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith, for the constitutional action of the Senate, a
treaty concluded with the Seminole Nation of Indians on the 21st day of
March, 1866, together with the accompanying communications from the
Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _July 7, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith, for the constitutional action of the Senate, a
treaty concluded with the Creek Nation of Indians on the 14th day of
June, 1866, together with the accompanying communications from the
Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 17, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of yesterday,
requesting information relative to proposed international movements in
connection with the Paris Universal Exposition for the reform of systems
of coinage, weights, and measures, I transmit a report from the
Secretary of State and the documents by which it was accompanied.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 17, 1866_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I herewith transmit to Congress a report, dated 12th instant, with the
accompanying papers, received from the Secretary of State, in compliance
with the requirements of the eighteenth section of the act entitled "An
act to regulate the diplomatic and consular systems of the United
States," approved August 18, 1856.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 20, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit, for the constitutional action of the Senate, certain
articles of agreement made at the Delaware Agency, Kans., on the 4th
instant between the United States and the Delaware Indians.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 20, 1866_.

_To the Senate_:

I herewith submit, for the constitutional action of the Senate, a treaty
negotiated at the city of Washington, D.C., on the 19th instant, between
the United States, represented by Dennis N. Cooley, Commissioner of
Indian Affairs, and Elijah Sells, superintendent of Indian affairs for
the southern superintendency, and the Cherokee Nation of Indians;
represented by its delegates, James McDaniel, Smith Christie, White
Catcher, L.H. Benge, J.B. Jones, and Daniel H. Ross.

The distracted condition of the Cherokee Nation and the peculiar
relation of many of its members to this Government during the rebellion
presented almost insuperable difficulties to treating with them. The
treaty now submitted is a result of protracted negotiations. Its
stipulations are, it is believed, as satisfactory to the contracting
parties and furnish as just provisions for the welfare of the Indians
and as strong guaranties for the maintenance of peaceful relations with
them as under the circumstances could be expected.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _July 24, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I hereby transmit, for the constitutional action of the Senate, a treaty
concluded on the 15th of November, 1865, between the United States and
the confederate tribes and bands of Indians of middle Oregon, the same
being amendatory and supplemental to the treaty with said Indians of the
25th of June, 1855.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _July 24, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

The following "Joint resolution, restoring Tennessee to her relations in
the Union," was last evening presented for my approval:

Whereas in the year 1861 the government of the State of Tennessee was
seized upon and taken possession of by persons in hostility to the
United States, and the inhabitants of said State, in pursuance of an act
of Congress, were declared to be in a state of insurrection against the
United States; and

Whereas said State government can only be restored to its former
political relations in the Union by the consent of the lawmaking power
of the United States; and

Whereas the people of said State did, on the 22d day of February, 1865,
by a large popular vote, adopt and ratify a constitution of government
whereby slavery was abolished and all ordinances and laws of secession
and debts contracted under the same were declared void; and

Whereas a State government has been organized under said constitution
which has ratified the amendment to the Constitution of the United
States abolishing slavery, also the amendment proposed by the
Thirty-ninth Congress, and has done other acts proclaiming and denoting
loyalty: Therefore,

_Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States in Congress assembled_, That the State of Tennessee is hereby
restored to her former proper practical relations to the Union, and is
again entitled to be represented by Senators and Representatives in
Congress.

The preamble simply consists of statements, some of which are assumed,
while the resolution is merely a declaration of opinion. It comprises no
legislation, nor does it confer any power which is binding upon the
respective Houses, the Executive, or the States. It does not admit to
their seats in Congress the Senators and Representatives from the State
of Tennessee, for, notwithstanding the passage of the resolution, each
House, in the exercise of the constitutional right to judge for itself
of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members, may, at
its discretion, admit them or continue to exclude them. If a joint
resolution of this kind were necessary and binding as a condition
precedent to the admission of members of Congress, it would happen, in
the event of a veto by the Executive, that Senators and Representatives
could only be admitted to the halls of legislation by a two-thirds vote
of each of the Houses.

Among other reasons recited in the preamble for the declaration
contained in the resolution is the ratification by the State government
of Tennessee of "the amendment to the Constitution of the United States
abolishing slavery, also the amendment proposed by the Thirty-ninth
Congress." If, as is also declared in the preamble, "said State
government can only be restored to its former political relations in the
Union by the consent of the lawmaking power of the United States," it
would really seem to follow that the joint resolution which at this late
day has received the sanction of Congress should have been passed,
approved, and placed on the statute books before any amendment to the
Constitution was submitted to the legislature of Tennessee for
ratification. Otherwise the inference is plainly deducible that while,
in the opinion of Congress, the people of a State may be too strongly
disloyal to be entitled to representation, they may nevertheless, during
the suspension of their "former proper practical relations to the
Union," have an equally potent voice with other and loyal States in
propositions to amend the Constitution, upon which so essentially depend
the stability, prosperity, and very existence of the nation.

A brief reference to my annual message of the 4th of December last will
show the steps taken by the Executive for the restoration to their
constitutional relations to the Union of the States that had been
affected by the rebellion. Upon the cessation of active hostilities
provisional governors were appointed, conventions called, governors
elected by the people, legislatures assembled, and Senators and
Representatives chosen to the Congress of the United States. At the same
time the courts of the United States were reopened, the blockade
removed, the custom-houses reestablished, and postal operations resumed.
The amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery forever within the
limits of the country was also submitted to the States, and they were
thus invited to and did participate in its ratification, thus exercising
the highest functions pertaining to a State. In addition nearly all of
these States, through their conventions and legislatures, had adopted
and ratified constitutions "of government whereby slavery was abolished
and all ordinances and laws of secession and debts contracted under the
same were declared void." So far, then, the political existence of the
States and their relations to the Federal Government had been fully and
completely recognized and acknowledged by the executive department of
the Government; and the completion of the work of restoration, which had
progressed so favorably, was submitted to Congress, upon which devolved
all questions pertaining to the admission to their seats of the Senators
and Representatives chosen from the States whose people had engaged in
the rebellion.

All these steps had been taken when, on the 4th day of December, 1865,
the Thirty-ninth Congress assembled. Nearly eight months have elapsed
since that time; and no other plan of restoration having been proposed
by Congress for the measures instituted by the Executive, it is now
declared, in the joint resolution submitted for my approval, "that the
State of Tennessee is hereby restored to her former proper practical
relations to the Union, and is again entitled to be represented by
Senators and Representatives in Congress." Thus, after the lapse of
nearly eight months, Congress proposes to pave the way to the admission
to representation of one of the eleven States whose people arrayed
themselves in rebellion against the constitutional authority of the
Federal Government.

Earnestly desiring to remove every cause of further delay, whether real
or imaginary, on the part of Congress to the admission to seats of loyal
Senators and Representatives from the State of Tennessee, I have,
notwithstanding the anomalous character of this proceeding, affixed
my signature to the resolution. My approval, however, is not to be
construed as an acknowledgment of the right of Congress to pass laws
preliminary to the admission of duly qualified Representatives from any
of the States. Neither is it to be considered as committing me to all
the statements made in the preamble, some of which are, in my opinion,
without foundation in fact, especially the assertion that the State of
Tennessee has ratified the amendment to the Constitution of the United
States proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress. No official notice of such
ratification has been received by the Executive or filed in the
Department of State; on the contrary, unofficial information from the
most reliable sources induces the belief that the amendment has not yet
been constitutionally sanctioned by the legislature of Tennessee. The
right of each House under the Constitution to judge of the elections,
returns, and qualifications of its own members is undoubted, and my
approval or disapproval of the resolution could not in the slightest
degree increase or diminish the authority in this respect conferred
upon the two branches of Congress.

In conclusion I can not too earnestly repeat my recommendation for the
admission of Tennessee, and all other States, to a fair and equal
participation in national legislation when they present themselves in
the persons of loyal Senators and Representatives who can comply with
all the requirements of the Constitution and the laws. By this means
harmony and reconciliation will be effected, the practical relations of
all the States to the Federal Government reestablished, and the work of
restoration, inaugurated upon the termination of the war, successfully
completed.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 25, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I nominate Lieutenant-General Ulysses S. Grant to be General of the Army
of the United States.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 26, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to two resolutions of the House of Representatives of the 23d
instant, in the following words, respectively--

_Resolved_, That the House of Representatives respectfully request the
President of the United States to urge upon the Canadian authorities,
and also the British Government, the release of the Fenian prisoners
recently captured in Canada;

_Resolved_, That this House respectfully request the President to cause
the prosecutions instituted in the United States courts against the
Fenians to be discontinued, if compatible with the public interest--

I transmit a report on the subject from the Secretary of State, together
with the documents which accompany it.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

VETO MESSAGES.

WASHINGTON, _February 19, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I have examined with care the bill, which originated in the Senate and
has been passed by the two Houses of Congress, to amend an act entitled
"An act to establish a bureau for the relief of freedmen and refugees,"
and for other purposes. Having with much regret come to the conclusion
that it would not be consistent with the public welfare to give my
approval to the measure, I return the bill to the Senate with my
objections to its becoming a law.

I might call to mind in advance of these objections that there is no
immediate necessity for the proposed measure. The act to establish a
bureau for the relief of freedmen and refugees, which was approved in
the month of March last, has not yet expired. It was thought stringent
and extensive enough for the purpose in view in time of war. Before it
ceases to have effect further experience may assist to guide us to a
wise conclusion as to the policy to be adopted in time of peace.

I share with Congress the strongest desire to secure to the freedmen
the full enjoyment of their freedom and property and their entire
independence and equality in making contracts for their labor, but the
bill before me contains provisions which in my opinion are not warranted
by the Constitution and are not well suited to accomplish the end in
view.

The bill proposes to establish by authority of Congress military
jurisdiction over all parts of the United States containing refugees and
freedmen. It would by its very nature apply with most force to those
parts of the United States in which the freedmen most abound, and it
expressly extends the existing temporary jurisdiction of the Freedmen's
Bureau, with greatly enlarged powers, over those States "in which the
ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the
rebellion." The source from which this military jurisdiction is to
emanate is none other than the President of the United States, acting
through the War Department and the Commissioner of the Freedmen's
Bureau. The agents to carry out this military jurisdiction are to be
selected either from the Army or from civil life; the country is to be
divided into districts and subdistricts, and the number of salaried
agents to be employed may be equal to the number of counties or parishes
in all the United States where freedmen and refugees are to be found.

The subjects over which this military jurisdiction is to extend in every
part of the United States include protection to "all employees, agents,
and officers of this bureau in the exercise of the duties imposed" upon
them by the bill. In eleven States it is further to extend over all
cases affecting freedmen and refugees discriminated against "by local
law, custom, or prejudice." In those eleven States the bill subjects any
white person who may be charged with depriving a freedman of "any civil
rights or immunities belonging to white persons" to imprisonment or
fine, or both, without, however, defining the "civil rights and
immunities" which are thus to be secured to the freedmen by military
law. This military jurisdiction also extends to all questions that may
arise respecting contracts. The agent who is thus to exercise the office
of a military judge may be a stranger, entirely ignorant of the laws of
the place, and exposed to the errors of judgment to which all men are
liable. The exercise of power over which there is no legal supervision
by so vast a number of agents as is contemplated by the bill must, by
the very nature of man, be attended by acts of caprice, injustice, and
passion.

The trials having their origin under this bill are to take place without
the intervention of a jury and without any fixed rules of law or
evidence. The rules on which offenses are to be "heard and determined"
by the numerous agents are such rules and regulations as the President,
through the War Department, shall prescribe. No previous presentment is
required nor any indictment charging the commission of a crime against
the laws; but the trial must proceed on charges and specifications. The
punishment will be, not what the law declares, but such as a
court-martial may think proper; and from these arbitrary tribunals there
lies no appeal, no writ of error to any of the courts in which the
Constitution of the United States vests exclusively the judicial power
of the country.

While the territory and the classes of actions and offenses that are
made subject to this measure are so extensive, the bill itself, should
it become a law, will have no limitation in point of time, but will form
a part of the permanent legislation of the country. I can not reconcile
a system of military jurisdiction of this kind with the words of the
Constitution which declare that "no person shall be held to answer
for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or
indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or
public danger," and that "in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall
enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the
State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." The
safeguards which the experience and wisdom of ages taught our fathers
to establish as securities for the protection of the innocent, the
punishment of the guilty, and the equal administration of justice are
to be set aside, and for the sake of a more vigorous interposition in
behalf of justice we are to take the risks of the many acts of injustice
that would necessarily follow from an almost countless number of agents
established in every parish or county in nearly a third of the States of
the Union, over whose decisions there is to be no supervision or control
by the Federal courts. The power that would be thus placed in the hands
of the President is such as in time of peace certainly ought never to be
intrusted to any one man.

If it be asked whether the creation of such a tribunal within a State is
warranted as a measure of war, the question immediately presents itself
whether we are still engaged in war. Let us not unnecessarily disturb
the commerce and credit and industry of the country by declaring to the
American people and to the world that the United States are still in a
condition of civil war. At present there is no part of our country in
which the authority of the United States is disputed. Offenses that may
be committed by individuals should not work a forfeiture of the rights
of whole communities. The country has returned, or is returning, to a
state of peace and industry, and the rebellion is in fact at an end.
The measure, therefore, seems to be as inconsistent with the actual
condition of the country as it is at variance with the Constitution of
the United States.

If, passing from general considerations, we examine the bill in detail,
it is open to weighty objections.

In time of war it was eminently proper that we should provide for
those who were passing suddenly from a condition of bondage to a state
of freedom. But this bill proposes to make the Freedmen's Bureau,
established by the act of 1865 as one of many great and extraordinary
military measures to suppress a formidable rebellion, a permanent branch
of the public administration, with its powers greatly enlarged. I have
no reason to suppose, and I do not understand it to be alleged, that
the act of March, 1865, has proved deficient for the purpose for which
it was passed, although at that time and for a considerable period
thereafter the Government of the United States remained unacknowledged
in most of the States whose inhabitants had been involved in the
rebellion. The institution of slavery, for the military destruction of
which the Freedmen's Bureau was called into existence as an auxiliary,
has been already effectually and finally abrogated throughout the whole
country by an amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and
practically its eradication has received the assent and concurrence of
most of those States in which it at any time had an existence. I am not,
therefore, able to discern in the condition of the country anything to
justify an apprehension that the powers and agencies of the Freedmen's
Bureau, which were effective for the protection of freedmen and refugees
during the actual continuance of hostilities and of African servitude,
will now, in a time of peace and after the abolition of slavery, prove
inadequate to the same proper ends. If I am correct in these views,
there can be no necessity for the enlargement of the powers of the
Bureau, for which provision is made in the bill.

The third section of the bill authorizes a general and unlimited grant
of support to the destitute and suffering refugees and freedmen, their
wives and children. Succeeding sections make provision for the rent or
purchase of landed estates for freedmen, and for the erection for their
benefit of suitable buildings for asylums and schools, the expenses to
be defrayed from the Treasury of the whole people. The Congress of the
United States has never heretofore thought itself empowered to establish
asylums beyond the limits of the District of Columbia, except for the
benefit of our disabled soldiers and sailors. It has never founded
schools for any class of our own people, not even for the orphans of
those who have fallen in the defense of the Union, but has left the care
of education to the much more competent and efficient control of the
States, of communities, of private associations, and of individuals.
It has never deemed itself authorized to expend the public money for
the rent or purchase of homes for the thousands, not to say millions,
of the white race who are honestly toiling from day to day for their
subsistence. A system for the support of indigent persons in the United
States was never contemplated by the authors of the Constitution; nor
can any good reason be advanced why, as a permanent establishment,
it should be founded for one class or color of our people more than
another. Pending the war many refugees and freedmen received support
from the Government, but it was never intended that they should
thenceforth be fed, clothed, educated, and sheltered by the United
States. The idea on which the slaves were assisted to freedom was that
on becoming free they would be a self-sustaining population. Any
legislation that shall imply that they are not expected to attain a
self-sustaining condition must have a tendency injurious alike to their
character and their prospects.

The appointment of an agent for every county and parish will create an
immense patronage, and the expense of the numerous officers and their
clerks, to be appointed by the President, will be great in the
beginning, with a tendency steadily to increase. The appropriations
asked by the Freedmen's Bureau as now established, for the year 1866,
amount to $11,745,000. It may be safely estimated that the cost to be
incurred under the pending bill will require double that amount--more
than the entire sum expended in any one year under the Administration of
the second Adams. If the presence of agents in every parish and county
is to be considered as a war measure, opposition, or even resistance,
might be provoked; so that to give effect to their jurisdiction troops
would have to be stationed within reach of every one of them, and thus a
large standing force be rendered necessary. Large appropriations would
therefore be required to sustain and enforce military jurisdiction in
every county or parish from the Potomac to the Rio Grande. The condition
of our fiscal affairs is encouraging, but in order to sustain the
present measure of public confidence it is necessary that we practice
not merely customary economy, but, as far as possible, severe
retrenchment.

In addition to the objections already stated, the fifth section of the
bill proposes to take away land from its former owners without any
legal proceedings being first had, contrary to that provision of the
Constitution which declares that no person shall "be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law." It does not appear
that a part of the lands to which this section refers may not be owned
by minors or persons of unsound mind, or by those who have been faithful
to all their obligations as citizens of the United States. If any
portion of the land is held by such persons, it is not competent for
any authority to deprive them of it. If, on the other hand, it be found
that the property is liable to confiscation, even then it can not be
appropriated to public purposes until by due process of law it shall
have been declared forfeited to the Government.

There is still further objection to the bill, on grounds seriously
affecting the class of persons to whom it is designed to bring relief.
It will tend to keep the mind of the freedman in a state of uncertain
expectation and restlessness, while to those among whom he lives it will
be a source of constant and vague apprehension.

Undoubtedly the freedman should be protected, but he should be protected
by the civil authorities, especially by the exercise of all the
constitutional powers of the courts of the United States and of the
States. His condition is not so exposed as may at first be imagined.
He is in a portion of the country where his labor can not well be
spared. Competition for his services from planters, from those who
are constructing or repairing railroads, and from capitalists in his
vicinage or from other States will enable him to command almost his own
terms. He also possesses a perfect right to change his place of abode,
and if, therefore, he does not find in one community or State a mode of
life suited to his desires or proper remuneration for his labor, he can
move to another where that labor is more esteemed and better rewarded.
In truth, however, each State, induced by its own wants and interests,
will do what is necessary and proper to retain within its borders all
the labor that is needed for the development of its resources. The laws
that regulate supply and demand will maintain their force, and the wages
of the laborer will be regulated thereby. There is no danger that the
exceedingly great demand for labor will not operate in favor of the
laborer.

Neither is sufficient consideration given to the ability of the freedmen
to protect and take care of themselves. It is no more than justice to
them to believe that as they have received their freedom with moderation
and forbearance, so they will distinguish themselves by their industry
and thrift, and soon show the world that in a condition of freedom they
are self-sustaining, capable of selecting their own employment and
their own places of abode, of insisting for themselves on a proper
remuneration, and of establishing and maintaining their own asylums and
schools. It is earnestly hoped that instead of wasting away they will by
their own efforts establish for themselves a condition of respectability
and prosperity. It is certain that they can attain to that condition
only through their own merits and exertions.

In this connection the query presents itself whether the system proposed
by the bill will not, when put into complete operation, practically
transfer the entire care, support, and control of 4,000,000 emancipated
slaves to agents, overseers, or taskmasters, who, appointed at
Washington, are to be located in every county and parish throughout the
United States containing freedmen and refugees. Such a system would
inevitably tend to a concentration of power in the Executive which would
enable him, if so disposed, to control the action of this numerous class
and use them for the attainment of his own political ends.

I can not but add another very grave objection to this bill. The
Constitution imperatively declares, in connection with taxation, that
each State _shall_ have at least one Representative, and fixes the rule
for the number to which, in future times, each State shall be entitled.
It also provides that the Senate of the United States _shall_ be
composed of two Senators from each State, and adds with peculiar force
"that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal
suffrage in the Senate." The original act was necessarily passed in the
absence of the States chiefly to be affected, because their people were
then contumaciously engaged in the rebellion. Now the case is changed,
and some, at least, of those States are attending Congress by loyal
representatives, soliciting the allowance of the constitutional right
for representation. At the time, however, of the consideration and the
passing of this bill there was no Senator or Representative in Congress
from the eleven States which are to be mainly affected by its
provisions. The very fact that reports were and are made against the
good disposition of the people of that portion of the country is an
additional reason why they need and should have representatives of their
own in Congress to explain their condition, reply to accusations,
and assist by their local knowledge in the perfecting of measures
immediately affecting themselves. While the liberty of deliberation
would then be free and Congress would have full power to decide
according to its judgment, there could be no objection urged that the
States most interested had not been permitted to be heard. The principle
is firmly fixed in the minds of the American people that there should be
no taxation without representation. Great burdens have now to be borne
by all the country, and we may best demand that they shall be borne
without murmur when they are voted by a majority of the representatives
of all the people. I would not interfere with the unquestionable right
of Congress to judge, each House for itself, "of the elections, returns,
and qualifications of its own members;" but that authority can not be
construed as including the right to shut out in time of peace any State
from the representation to which it is entitled by the Constitution.
At present all the people of eleven States are excluded--those who
were most faithful during the war not less than others. The State of
Tennessee, for instance, whose authorities engaged in rebellion, was
restored to all her constitutional relations to the Union by the
patriotism and energy of her injured and betrayed people. Before the war
was brought to a termination they had placed themselves in relations
with the General Government, had established a State government of their
own, and, as they were not included in the emancipation proclamation,
they by their own act had amended their constitution so as to abolish
slavery within the limits of their State. I know no reason why the State
of Tennessee, for example, should not fully enjoy "all her
constitutional relations to the United States."

The President of the United States stands toward the country in
a somewhat different attitude from that of any member of Congress.
Each member of Congress is chosen from a single district or State;
the President is chosen by the people of all the States. As eleven
States are not at this time represented in either branch of Congress, it
would seem to be his duty on all proper occasions to present their just
claims to Congress. There always will be differences of opinion in the
community, and individuals may be guilty of transgressions of the law,
but these do not constitute valid objections against the right of a
State to representation. I would in no wise interfere with the
discretion of Congress with regard to the qualifications of members; but
I hold it my duty to recommend to you, in the interests of peace and the
interests of union, the admission of every State to its share in public
legislation when, however insubordinate, insurgent, or rebellious its
people may have been, it presents itself, not only in an attitude of
loyalty and harmony, but in the persons of representatives whose loyalty
can not be questioned under any existing constitutional or legal test.
It is plain that an indefinite or permanent exclusion of any part of the
country from representation must be attended by a spirit of disquiet and
complaint. It is unwise and dangerous to pursue a course of measures
which will unite a very large section of the country against another
section of the country, however much the latter may preponderate. The
course of emigration, the development of industry and business, and
natural causes will raise up at the South men as devoted to the Union as
those of any other part of the land; but if they are all excluded from
Congress, if in a permanent statute they are declared not to be in full
constitutional relations to the country, they may think they have cause
to become a unit in feeling and sentiment against the Government. Under
the political education of the American people the idea is inherent and
ineradicable that the consent of the majority of the whole people is
necessary to secure a willing acquiescence in legislation.

The bill under consideration refers to certain of the States as though
they had not "been fully restored in all their constitutional relations
to the United States." If they have not, let us at once act together to
secure that desirable end at the earliest possible moment. It is hardly
necessary for me to inform Congress that in my own judgment most of
those States, so far, at least, as depends upon their own action, have
already been fully restored, and are to be deemed as entitled to enjoy
their constitutional rights as members of the Union. Reasoning from the
Constitution itself and from the actual situation of the country, I feel
not only entitled but bound to assume that with the Federal courts
restored and those of the several States in the full exercise of their
functions the rights and interests of all classes of people will,
with the aid of the military in cases of resistance to the laws,
be essentially protected against unconstitutional infringement or
violation. Should this expectation unhappily fail, which I do not
anticipate, then the Executive is already fully armed with the powers
conferred by the act of March, 1865, establishing the Freedmen's Bureau,
and hereafter, as heretofore, he can employ the land and naval forces of
the country to suppress insurrection or to overcome obstructions to the
laws.

In accordance with the Constitution, I return the bill to the Senate,
in the earnest hope that a measure involving questions and interests so
important to the country will not become a law, unless upon deliberate
consideration by the people it shall receive the sanction of an
enlightened public judgment.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _March 27, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I regret that the bill, which has passed both Houses of Congress,
entitled "An act to protect all persons in the United States in their
civil rights and furnish the means of their vindication," contains
provisions which I can not approve consistently with my sense of duty to
the whole people and my obligations to the Constitution of the United
States. I am therefore constrained to return it to the Senate, the House
in which it originated, with my objections to its becoming a law.

By the first section of the bill all persons born in the United States
and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are
declared to be citizens of the United States. This provision comprehends
the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the
people called gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks,
people of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood. Every
individual of these races born in the United States is by the bill made
a citizen of the United States. It does not purport to declare or confer
any other right of citizenship than Federal citizenship. It does not
purport to give these classes of persons any status as citizens of
States, except that which may result from their status as citizens of
the United States. The power to confer the right of State citizenship is
just as exclusively with the several States as the power to confer the
right of Federal citizenship is with Congress.

The right of Federal citizenship thus to be conferred on the several
excepted races before mentioned is now for the first time proposed to be
given by law. If, as is claimed by many, all persons who are native born
already are, by virtue of the Constitution, citizens of the United
States, the passage of the pending bill can not be necessary to make
them such. If, on the other hand, such persons are not citizens, as may
be assumed from the proposed legislation to make them such, the grave
question presents itself whether, when eleven of the thirty-six States
are unrepresented in Congress at the present time, it is sound policy
to make our entire colored population and all other excepted classes
citizens of the United States. Four millions of them have just emerged
from slavery into freedom. Can it be reasonably supposed that they
possess the requisite qualifications to entitle them to all the
privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States? Have the
people of the several States expressed such a conviction? It may also be
asked whether it is necessary that they should be declared citizens in
order that they may be secured in the enjoyment of the civil rights
proposed to be conferred by the bill. Those rights are, by Federal as
well as State laws, secured to all domiciled aliens and foreigners, even
before the completion of the process of naturalization; and it may
safely be assumed that the same enactments are sufficient to give like
protection and benefits to those for whom this bill provides special
legislation. Besides, the policy of the Government from its origin to
the present time seems to have been that persons who are strangers to
and unfamiliar with our institutions and our laws should pass through
a certain probation, at the end of which, before attaining the coveted
prize, they must give evidence of their fitness to receive and to
exercise the rights of citizens as contemplated by the Constitution of
the United States. The bill in effect proposes a discrimination against
large numbers of intelligent, worthy, and patriotic foreigners, and in
favor of the negro, to whom, after long years of bondage, the avenues to
freedom and intelligence have just now been suddenly opened. He must of
necessity, from his previous unfortunate condition of servitude, be less
informed as to the nature and character of our institutions than he who,
coming from abroad, has, to some extent at least, familiarized himself
with the principles of a Government to which he voluntarily intrusts
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Yet it is now proposed,
by a single legislative enactment, to confer the rights of citizens upon
all persons of African descent born within the extended limits of the
United States, while persons of foreign birth who make our land their
home must undergo a probation of five years, and can only then become
citizens upon proof that they are "of good moral character, attached to
the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well
disposed to the good order and happiness of the same."

The first section of the bill also contains an enumeration of the rights
to be enjoyed by these classes so made citizens "in every State and
Territory in the United States." These rights are "to make and enforce
contracts; to sue, be parties, and give evidence; to inherit, purchase,
lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property," and to have
"full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of
person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens." So, too, they are
made subject to the same punishment, pains, and penalties in common with
white citizens, and to none other. Thus a perfect equality of the white
and colored races is attempted to be fixed by Federal law in every State
of the Union over the vast field of State jurisdiction covered by these
enumerated rights. In no one of these can any State ever exercise any
power of discrimination between the different races. In the exercise of
State policy over matters exclusively affecting the people of each State
it has frequently been thought expedient to discriminate between the
two races. By the statutes of some of the States, Northern as well
as Southern, it is enacted, for instance, that no white person shall
intermarry with a negro or mulatto. Chancellor Kent says, speaking of
the blacks, that--

Marriages between them and the whites are forbidden in some of the
States where slavery does not exist, and they are prohibited in all the
slaveholding States; and when not absolutely contrary to law, they are
revolting, and regarded as an offense against public decorum.

I do not say that this bill repeals State laws on the subject of
marriage between the two races, for as the whites are forbidden to
intermarry with the blacks, the blacks can only make such contracts as
the whites themselves are allowed to make, and therefore can not under
this bill enter into the marriage contract with the whites. I cite this
discrimination, however, as an instance of the State policy as to
discrimination, and to inquire whether if Congress can abrogate all
State laws of discrimination between the two races in the matter of real
estate, of suits, and of contracts generally Congress may not also
repeal the State laws as to the contract of marriage between the two
races. Hitherto every subject embraced in the enumeration of rights
contained in this bill has been considered as exclusively belonging to
the States. They all relate to the internal police and economy of the
respective States. They are matters which in each State concern the
domestic condition of its people, varying in each according to its own
peculiar circumstances and the safety and well-being of its own
citizens. I do not mean to say that upon all these subjects there are
not Federal restraints--as, for instance, in the State power of
legislation over contracts there is a Federal limitation that no State
shall pass a law impairing the obligations of contracts; and, as to
crimes, that no State shall pass an _ex post facto_ law; and, as to
money, that no State shall make anything but gold and silver a legal
tender; but where can we find a Federal prohibition against the power
of any State to discriminate, as do most of them, between aliens and
citizens, between artificial persons, called corporations, and natural
persons, in the right to hold real estate? If it be granted that
Congress can repeal all State laws discriminating between whites and
blacks in the subjects covered by this bill, why, it may be asked, may
not Congress repeal in the same way all State laws discriminating
between the two races on the subjects of suffrage and office? If
Congress can declare by law who shall hold lands, who shall testify, who
shall have capacity to make a contract in a State, then Congress can by
law also declare who, without regard to color or race, shall have the
right to sit as a juror or as a judge, to hold any office, and, finally,
to vote "in every State and Territory of the United States." As respects
the Territories, they come within the power of Congress, for as to them
the lawmaking power is the Federal power; but as to the States no
similar provision exists vesting in Congress the power "to make rules
and regulations" for them.

The object of the second section of the bill is to afford discriminating
protection to colored persons in the full enjoyment of all the rights
secured to them by the preceding section. It declares--

That any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance,
regulation, or custom, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any
inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right
secured or protected by this act, or to different punishment, pains, or
penalties on account of such person having at any time been held in a
condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, or by reason
of his color or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of white
persons, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction
shall be punished by fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment not
exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court.

This section seems to be designed to apply to some existing or future
law of a State or Territory which may conflict with the provisions of
the bill now under consideration. It provides for counteracting such
forbidden legislation by imposing fine and imprisonment upon the
legislators who may pass such conflicting laws, or upon the officers or
agents who shall put or attempt to put them into execution. It means an
official offense, not a common crime committed against law upon the
persons or property of the black race. Such an act may deprive the black
man of his property, but not of the _right_ to hold property. It means
a deprivation of the right itself, either by the State judiciary or
the State legislature. It is therefore assumed that under this section
members of State legislatures who should vote for laws conflicting with
the provisions of the bill, that judges of the State courts who should
render judgments in antagonism with its terms, and that marshals and
sheriffs who should, as ministerial officers, execute processes
sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges in execution of
their judgments could be brought before other tribunals and there
subjected to fine and imprisonment for the performance of the duties
which such State laws might impose. The legislation thus proposed
invades the judicial power of the State. It says to every State court or
judge, If you decide that this act is unconstitutional; if you refuse,
under the prohibition of a State law, to allow a negro to testify; if
you hold that over such a subject-matter the State law is paramount, and
"under color" of a State law refuse the exercise of the right to the
negro, your error of judgment, however conscientious, shall subject
you to fine and imprisonment. I do not apprehend that the conflicting
legislation which the bill seems to contemplate is so likely to occur as
to render it necessary at this time to adopt a measure of such doubtful
constitutionality.

In the next place, this provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary,
as adequate judicial remedies could be adopted to secure the desired end
without invading the immunities of legislators, always important to be
preserved in the interest of public liberty; without assailing the
independence of the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of
individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial
officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and
order. The remedy proposed by this section seems to be in this respect
not only anomalous, but unconstitutional; for the Constitution
guarantees nothing with certainty if it does not insure to the several
States the right of making and executing laws in regard to all matters
arising within their jurisdiction, subject only to the restriction that
in cases of conflict with the Constitution and constitutional laws of
the United States the latter should be held to be the supreme law of the
land.

The third section gives the district courts of the United States
exclusive "cognizance of all crimes and offenses committed against the
provisions of this act," and concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit
courts of the United States of all civil and criminal cases "affecting
persons who are denied or can not enforce in the courts or judicial
tribunals of the State or locality where they may be any of the rights
secured to them by the first section." The construction which I have
given to the second section is strengthened by this third section, for
it makes clear what kind of denial or deprivation of the rights secured
by the first section was in contemplation. It is a denial or deprivation
of such rights "in the courts or judicial tribunals of the State." It
stands, therefore, clear of doubt that the offense and the penalties
provided in the second section are intended for the State judge who, in
the clear exercise of his functions as a judge, not acting ministerially
but judicially, shall decide contrary to this Federal law. In other
words, when a State judge, acting upon a question involving a conflict
between a State law and a Federal law, and bound, according to his own
judgment and responsibility, to give an impartial decision between the
two, comes to the conclusion that the State law is valid and the Federal
law is invalid, he must not follow the dictates of his own judgment, at
the peril of fine and imprisonment. The legislative department of the
Government of the United States thus takes from the judicial department
of the States the sacred and exclusive duty of judicial decision, and
converts the State judge into a mere ministerial officer, bound to
decide according to the will of Congress.

It is clear that in States which deny to persons whose rights are
secured by the first section of the bill any one of those rights all
criminal and civil cases affecting them will, by the provisions of the
third section, come under the exclusive cognizance of the Federal
tribunals. It follows that if, in any State which denies to a colored
person any one of all those rights, that person should commit a crime
against the laws of a State--murder, arson, rape, or any other
crime--all protection and punishment through the courts of the State are
taken away, and he can only be tried and punished in the Federal courts.
How is the criminal to be tried? If the offense is provided for and
punished by Federal law, that law, and not the State law, is to govern.
It is only when the offense does not happen to be within the purview of
Federal law that the Federal courts are to try and punish him under any
other law. Then resort is to be had to "the common law, as modified and
changed" by State legislation, "so far as the same is not inconsistent
with the Constitution and laws of the United States." So that over this
vast domain of criminal jurisprudence provided by each State for the
protection of its own citizens and for the punishment of all persons who
violate its criminal laws, Federal law, whenever it can be made to
apply, displaces State law. The question here naturally arises, from
what source Congress derives the power to transfer to Federal tribunals
certain classes of cases embraced in this section. The Constitution
expressly declares that the judicial power of the United States "shall
extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,
the laws of the United States, and treaties made or which shall be made
under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers, and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a
party; to controversies between two or more States, between a State and
citizens of another State, between citizens of different States, between
citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different
States, and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign
states, citizens, or subjects." Here the judicial power of the United
States is expressly set forth and defined; and the act of September 24,
1789, establishing the judicial courts of the United States, in
conferring upon the Federal courts jurisdiction over cases originating
in State tribunals, is careful to confine them to the classes enumerated
in the above-recited clause of the Constitution. This section of the
bill undoubtedly comprehends cases and authorizes the exercise of powers
that are not, by the Constitution, within the jurisdiction of the courts
of the United States. To transfer them to those courts would be an
exercise of authority well calculated to excite distrust and alarm on
the part of all the States, for the bill applies alike to all of
them--as well to those that have as to those that have not been engaged
in rebellion.

It may be assumed that this authority is incident to the power granted
to Congress by the Constitution, as recently amended, to enforce, by
appropriate legislation, the article declaring that--

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

It can not, however, be justly claimed that, with a view to the
enforcement of this article of the Constitution, there is at present any
necessity for the exercise of all the powers which this bill confers.
Slavery has been abolished, and at present nowhere exists within the
jurisdiction of the United States; nor has there been, nor is it likely
there will be, any attempt to revive it by the people or the States.
If, however, any such attempt shall be made, it will then become the
duty of the General Government to exercise any and all incidental powers
necessary and proper to maintain inviolate this great constitutional law
of freedom.

The fourth section of the bill provides that officers and agents of the
Freedmen's Bureau shall be empowered to make arrests, and also that
other officers may be specially commissioned for that purpose by the
President of the United States. It also authorizes circuit courts of the
United States and the superior courts of the Territories to appoint,
without limitation, commissioners, who are to be charged with the
performance of _quasi_ judicial duties. The fifth section empowers the
commissioners so to be selected by the courts to appoint in writing,
under their hands, one or more suitable persons from time to time to
execute warrants and other processes described by the bill. These
numerous official agents are made to constitute a sort of police,
in addition to the military, and are authorized to summon a _posse
comitatus_, and even to call to their aid such portion of the land
and naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, "as may be
necessary to the performance of the duty with which they are charged."
This extraordinary power is to be conferred upon agents irresponsible to
the Government and to the people, to whose number the discretion of the
commissioners is the only limit, and in whose hands such authority might
be made a terrible engine of wrong, oppression, and fraud. The general
statutes regulating the land and naval forces of the United States, the
militia, and the execution of the laws are believed to be adequate for
every emergency which can occur in time of peace. If it should prove
otherwise, Congress can at any time amend those laws in such manner as,
while subserving the public welfare, not to jeopard the rights,
interests, and liberties of the people.

The seventh section provides that a fee of $10 shall be paid to each
commissioner in every case brought before him, and a fee of $5 to his
deputy or deputies "for each person he or they may arrest and take
before any such commissioner," "with such other fees as may be deemed
reasonable by such commissioner," "in general for performing such other
duties as may be required in the premises." All these fees are to be
"paid out of the Treasury of the United States," whether there is a
conviction or not; but in case of conviction they are to be recoverable
from the defendant. It seems to me that under the influence of such
temptations bad men might convert any law, however beneficent, into an
instrument of persecution and fraud.

By the eighth section of the bill the United States courts, which sit
only in one place for white citizens, must migrate with the marshal and
district attorney (and necessarily with the clerk, although he is not
mentioned) to any part of the district upon the order of the President,
and there hold a court, "for the purpose of the more speedy arrest and
trial of persons charged with a violation of this act;" and there the
judge and officers of the court must remain, upon the order of the
President, "for the time therein designated."

The ninth section authorizes the President, or such person as he may
empower for that purpose, "to employ such part of the land or naval
forces of the United States, or of the militia, as shall be necessary
to prevent the violation and enforce the due execution of this act."
This language seems to imply a permanent military force, that is to be
always at hand, and whose only business is to be the enforcement of this
measure over the vast region where it is intended to operate.

I do not propose to consider the policy of this bill. To me the details
of the bill seem fraught with evil. The white race and the black race of
the South have hitherto lived together under the relation of master and
slave--capital owning labor. Now, suddenly, that relation is changed,
and as to ownership capital and labor are divorced. They stand now each
master of itself. In this new relation, one being necessary to the
other, there will be a new adjustment, which both are deeply interested
in making harmonious. Each has equal power in settling the terms, and
if left to the laws that regulate capital and labor it is confidently
believed that they will satisfactorily work out the problem. Capital, it
is true, has more intelligence, but labor is never so ignorant as not to
understand its own interests, not to know its own value, and not to see
that capital must pay that value.

This bill frustrates this adjustment. It intervenes between capital and
labor and attempts to settle questions of political economy through the
agency of numerous officials whose interest it will be to foment discord
between the two races, for as the breach widens their employment will
continue, and when it is closed their occupation will terminate.

In all our history, in all our experience as a people living under
Federal and State law, no such system as that contemplated by the
details of this bill has ever before been proposed or adopted. They
establish for the security of the colored race safeguards which go
infinitely beyond any that the General Government has ever provided for
the white race. In fact, the distinction of race and color is by the
bill made to operate in favor of the colored and against the white race.
They interfere with the municipal legislation of the States, with the
relations existing exclusively between a State and its citizens, or
between inhabitants of the same State--an absorption and assumption of
power by the General Government which, if acquiesced in, must sap and
destroy our federative system of limited powers and break down the
barriers which preserve the rights of the States. It is another step,
or rather stride, toward centralization and the concentration of all
legislative powers in the National Government. The tendency of the
bill must be to resuscitate the spirit of rebellion and to arrest the
progress of those influences which are more closely drawing around the
States the bonds of union and peace.

My lamented predecessor, in his proclamation of the 1st of January,
1863, ordered and declared that all persons held as slaves within
certain States and parts of States therein designated were and
thenceforward should be free; and further, that the executive government
of the United States, including the military and naval authorities
thereof, would recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons.
This guaranty has been rendered especially obligatory and sacred by the
amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery throughout the United
States. I therefore fully recognize the obligation to protect and
defend that class of our people whenever and wherever it shall become
necessary, and to the full extent compatible with the Constitution of
the United States.

Entertaining these sentiments, it only remains for me to say that I will
cheerfully cooperate with Congress in any measure that may be necessary
for the protection of the civil rights of the freedmen, as well as those
of all other classes of persons throughout the United States, by
judicial process, under equal and impartial laws, in conformity with the
provisions of the Federal Constitution.

I now return the bill to the Senate, and regret that in considering the
bills and joint resolutions--forty-two in number--which have been thus
far submitted for my approval I am compelled to withhold my assent from
a second measure that has received the sanction of both Houses of
Congress.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _May 15, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I return to the Senate, in which House it originated, the bill, which
has passed both Houses of Congress, entitled "An act for the admission
of the State of Colorado into the Union," with my objections to its
becoming a law at this time.

First. From the best information which I have been able to obtain
I do not consider the establishment of a State government at present
necessary for the welfare of the people of Colorado. Under the existing
Territorial government all the rights, privileges, and interests of the
citizens are protected and secured. The qualified voters choose their
own legislators and their own local officers, and are represented in
Congress by a Delegate of their own selection. They make and execute
their own municipal laws, subject only to revision by Congress--an
authority not likely to be exercised unless in extreme or extraordinary
cases. The population is small, some estimating it so low as 25,000,
while advocates of the bill reckon the number at from 35,000 to 40,000
souls. The people are principally recent settlers, many of whom are
understood to be ready for removal to other mining districts beyond
the limits of the Territory if circumstances shall render them more
inviting. Such a population can not but find relief from excessive
taxation if the Territorial system, which devolves the expenses of the
executive, legislative, and judicial departments upon the United States,
is for the present continued. They can not but find the security of
person and property increased by their reliance upon the national
executive power for the maintenance of law and order against the
disturbances necessarily incident to all newly organized communities.

Second. It is not satisfactorily established that a majority of the
citizens of Colorado desire or are prepared for an exchange of a
Territorial for a State government. In September, 1864, under the
authority of Congress, an election was lawfully appointed and held for
the purpose of ascertaining the views of the people upon this particular
question. Six thousand one hundred and ninety-two votes were cast, and
of this number a majority of 3,152 was given against the proposed
change. In September, 1865, without any legal authority, the question
was again presented to the people of the Territory, with the view of
obtaining a reconsideration of the result of the election held in
compliance with the act of Congress approved March 21, 1864. At this
second election 5,905 votes were polled, and a majority of 155 was given
in favor of a State organization. It does not seem to me entirely safe
to receive this, the last-mentioned, result, so irregularly obtained, as
sufficient to outweigh the one which had been legally obtained in the
first election. Regularity and conformity to law are essential to the
preservation of order and stable government, and should, as far as
practicable, always be observed in the formation of new States.

Third. The admission of Colorado at this time as a State into the
Federal Union appears to me to be incompatible with the public interests
of the country. While it is desirable that Territories, when
sufficiently matured, should be organized as States, yet the spirit of
the Constitution seems to require that there should be an approximation
toward equality among the several States composing the Union. No State
can have less or more than two Senators in Congress. The largest State
has a population of 4,000,000; several of the States have a population
exceeding 2,000,000, and many others have a population exceeding
1,000,000. A population of 127,000 is the ratio of apportionment of
Representatives among the several States.

If this bill should become a law, the people of Colorado, 30,000 in
number, would have in the House of Representatives one member, while New
York, with a population of 4,000,000, has but thirty-one; Colorado would
have in the electoral college three votes, while New York has only
thirty-three; Colorado would have in the Senate two votes, while New
York has no more.

Inequalities of this character have already occurred, but it is believed
that none have happened where the inequality was so great. When such
inequality has been allowed, Congress is supposed to have permitted it
on the ground of some high public necessity and under circumstances
which promised that it would rapidly disappear through the growth and
development of the newly admitted State. Thus, in regard to the several
States in what was formerly called the "Northwest Territory," lying east
of the Mississippi, their rapid advancement in population rendered it
certain that States admitted with only one or two Representatives in
Congress would in a very short period be entitled to a great increase
of representation. So, when California was admitted, on the ground of
commercial and political exigencies, it was well foreseen that that
State was destined rapidly to become a great, prosperous, and important
mining and commercial community. In the case of Colorado, I am not aware
that any national exigency, either of a political or commercial nature,
requires a departure from the law of equality which has been so
generally adhered to in our history.

If information submitted in connection with this bill is reliable,
Colorado, instead of increasing, has declined in population. At an
election for members of a Territorial legislature held in 1861, 10,580
votes were cast; at the election before mentioned, in 1864, the number
of votes cast was 6,192; while at the irregular election held in 1865,
which is assumed as a basis for legislative action at this time, the
aggregate of votes was 5,905. Sincerely anxious for the welfare and
prosperity of every Territory and State, as well as for the prosperity
and welfare of the whole Union, I regret this apparent decline of
population in Colorado; but it is manifest that it is due to emigration
which is going on from that Territory into other regions within the
United States, which either are in fact or are believed by the
inhabitants of Colorado to be richer in mineral wealth and agricultural
resources. If, however, Colorado has not really declined in population,
another census or another election under the authority of Congress would
place the question beyond doubt, and cause but little delay in the
ultimate admission of the Territory as a State if desired by the people.

The tenor of these objections furnishes the reply which may be expected
to an argument in favor of the measure derived from the enabling act
which was passed by Congress on the 21st day of March, 1864. Although
Congress then supposed that the condition of the Territory was such as
to warrant its admission as a State, the result of two years' experience
shows that every reason which existed for the institution of a
Territorial instead of a State government in Colorado at its first
organization still continues in force.

The condition of the Union at the present moment is calculated to
inspire caution in regard to the admission of new States. Eleven of the
old States have been for some time, and still remain, unrepresented
in Congress. It is a common interest of all the States, as well those
represented as those unrepresented, that the integrity and harmony of
the Union should be restored as completely as possible, so that all
those who are expected to bear the burdens of the Federal Government
shall be consulted concerning the admission of new States; and that
in the meantime no new State shall be prematurely and unnecessarily
admitted to a participation in the political power which the Federal
Government wields, not for the benefit of any individual State or
section, but for the common safety, welfare, and happiness of the whole
country.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _June 15, 1866_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

The bill entitled "An act to enable the New York and Montana Iron Mining
and Manufacturing Company to purchase a certain amount of the public
lands not now in market" is herewith returned to the Senate, in which it
originated, with the objections which induce me to withhold my approval.

By the terms of this bill the New York and Montana Iron Mining and
Manufacturing Company are authorized, at any time within one year after
the date of approval, to _preempt_ two tracts of land in the Territory
of Montana, not exceeding in the aggregate twenty sections, and not
included in any Indian reservation or in any Government reservation for
military or other purposes. Three of these sections may be selected from
lands containing _iron ore and coal_, and the remainder from _timber_
lands lying near thereto. These selections are to be made under
regulations from the Secretary of the Interior and be subject to his
approval. The company, on the selection of the lands, may acquire
immediate possession by permanently marking their boundaries and
publishing description thereof in any two newspapers of general
circulation in the Territory of Montana. Patents are to be issued on
the performance, within two years, of the following conditions:

First. The lands to be surveyed at the expense of the company, and each
tract to be "as nearly in a square form as may be practicable."

Second. The company to furnish evidence satisfactory to the Secretary of
the Interior that they have erected and have in operation in one or more
places on said lands iron works capable of manufacturing at least 1,500
tons of iron per annum.

Third. The company to have paid for said lands the minimum price of
$1.25 per acre.

It is also provided that the "patents shall convey no title to any
mineral lands except iron and coal, or to any lands held by right of
possession, or by any other title, _except Indian title_, valid at
the time of the selection of the said lands." The company are to have
the privileges of _ordinary preemptors_ and be subject to the same
restrictions as such preemptors with reference to wood and timber on the
lands, with the exception of so much as may be necessarily used in the
erection of buildings and in the legitimate business of manufacturing
iron.

The parties upon whom these privileges are conferred are designated in
the bill as "The New York and Montana Iron Mining and Manufacturing
Company." Their names and residence not being disclosed, it must be
inferred that this company is a corporation, which, under color of
corporate powers derived from some State or Territorial legislative
authority, proposes to carry on the business of mining and manufacturing
iron, and to accomplish these ends seeks this grant of public land in
Montana. Two questions thus arise, viz, whether the privileges the bill
would confer should be granted to any person or persons, and, secondly,
whether, if unobjectionable in other respects, they should be conferred
upon a corporation.

The public domain is a national trust, set apart and held for the
general welfare upon principles of equal justice, and not to be bestowed
as a special privilege upon a favored class. The proper rules for the
disposal of public land have from the earliest period been the subject
of earnest inquiry, grave discussion, and deliberate judgment. The
purpose of _direct_ revenue was the first object, and this was attained
by public sale to the highest bidder, and subsequently by the right of
private purchase at a fixed minimum. It was soon discovered that the
surest and most speedy means of promoting the wealth and prosperity of
the country was by encouraging actual settlement and occupation, and
hence a system of preemption rights, resulting most beneficially, in all
the Western Territories. By progressive steps it has advanced to the
homestead principle, securing to every head of a family, widow, and
single man 21 years of age and to every soldier who has borne arms for
his country a landed estate sufficient, with industry, for the purpose
of independent support.

Without tracing the system of preemption laws through the several
stages, it is sufficient to observe that it rests upon certain just
and plain principles, firmly established in all our legislation. The
object of these laws is to encourage the expansion of population and
the development of agricultural interests, and hence they have been
invariably restricted to settlers. Actual residence and cultivation are
made indispensable conditions; and, to guard the privilege from abuses
of speculation or monopoly, the law is rigid as to the mode of
establishing claims by adequate testimony, with penalties for perjury.
Mining, trading, or any pursuit other than culture of the soil is
interdicted, mineral lands being expressly excluded from preemption
privileges, excepting those containing coal, which, in quantities not
exceeding 160 acres, are restricted to individuals in actual possession
and commerce, with an enhanced minimum of $20 per acre.

For a quarter of a century the quantity of land subject to agricultural
preemption has been limited so as not to exceed a quarter section, or
160 acres; and, still further to guard against monopoly, the privilege
of preemption is not allowed to any person who owns 320 acres of land in
any State or Territory of the United States, nor is any person entitled
to more than one preemptive right, nor is it extended to lands to which
the Indian usufruct has not been extinguished. To restrict the
privilege within reasonable limits, credit to the ordinary preemptor on
_offered_ land is not extended beyond twelve months, within which time
the minimum price must be paid. Where the settlement is upon _unoffered_
territory, the time for payment is limited to the day of public offering
designated by proclamation of the President; while, to prevent
depreciation of the land by waste or destruction of what may constitute
its value, penal enactments have been made for the punishment of persons
depredating upon public timber.

Now, supposing the New York and Montana Iron Mining and Manufacturing
Company to be entitled to all the preemption rights which it has been
found just and expedient to bestow upon natural persons, it will be seen
that the privileges conferred by the bill in question are in direct
conflict with every principle heretofore observed in respect to the
disposal of the public lands.

The bill confers preemption right to _mineral lands_, which, excepting
coal lands, at an enhanced minimum, have heretofore, as a general
principle, been carefully excluded from preemption. The object of the
company is not to cultivate the soil or to promote agriculture, but is
for the sole purpose of mining and manufacturing iron. The company is
not limited, like ordinary preemptors, to one preemptive claim of a
quarter section, but may preempt two bodies of land, amounting in
the aggregate to twenty sections, containing 12,800 acres, or eighty
ordinary individual preemption rights. The timber is not protected, but,
on the contrary, is devoted to speedy destruction; for even before the
consummation of title the company are allowed to consume whatever may be
necessary in the erection of buildings and the business of manufacturing
iron. For these special privileges, in contravention of the land policy
of so many years, the company are required to pay only the minimum price
of $1.25 per acre, or one-sixteenth of the established minimum, and are
granted a credit of two years, or twice the time allowed ordinary
preemptors on offered lands.

Nor is this all. The preemption right in question covers three sections
of land containing iron ore and _coal_. The act passed on the 1st of
July, 1864, made it lawful for the President to cause tracts embracing
coal beds or coal fields to be offered at public sale in suitable legal
subdivisions to the highest bidder, after public notice of not less than
three months, at a minimum price of $20 per acre, and any lands not thus
disposed of were thereafter to be liable to private entry at said
minimum. By the act of March 3, 1865, the right of preemption to coal
lands is granted to any citizen of the United States who at that date
was engaged in the business of coal mining on the public domain for
purposes of commerce; and he is authorized to enter, according to legal
subdivisions, at the minimum price of $20 per acre, a quantity of land
not exceeding 160 acres, to embrace his improvements and mining
premises. Under these acts the minimum price of three sections of coal
lands would be thirty-eight thousand four hundred dollars ($38,400).

By the bill now in question these sections containing _coal and iron_
are bestowed on this company at the nominal price of $1.25 per acre, or
two thousand four hundred dollars ($2,400), thus making a gratuity or
gift to the New York and Montana Iron Mining and Manufacturing Company
of thirty-six thousand dollars ($36,000).

On what ground can such a gratuity to this company be justified,
especially at a time when the burdens of taxation bear so heavily upon
all classes of the people?

Less than two years ago it appears to have been the deliberate judgment
of Congress that tracts of land containing coal beds or coal fields
should be sold, after three months' notice, to the bidder at public
auction who would give the highest price over $20 per acre, and that
a citizen engaged in the business of actual coal mining on the public
domain should only secure a tract of 160 acres, at private entry, upon
payment of $20 per acre and formal and satisfactory proof that he in all
respects came within the requirements of the statute. It can not be that
the coal fields of Montana have depreciated nearly twenty fold in value
since July, 1864. So complete a revolution in the land policy as is
manifested by this act can only be ascribed, therefore, to an
inadvertence, which Congress will, I trust, promptly correct.

Believing that the preemption policy--so deliberately adopted, so long
practiced, so carefully guarded with a view to the disposal of the
public lands in a manner that would promote the population and
prosperity of the country--should not be perverted to the purposes
contemplated by this bill, I would be constrained to withhold my
sanction even if this company were, as natural persons, entitled to the
privileges of ordinary preemptors; for if a corporation, as the name and
the absence of any designation of individuals would denote, the measure
before me is liable to another fatal objection.

Why should incorporated companies have the privileges of individual
preemptors? What principle of justice requires such a policy? What
motive of public welfare can fail to condemn it? Lands held by
corporations were regarded by ancient laws as held in mortmain, or by
"dead hand," and from the time of Magna Charta corporations required
the royal license to hold land, because such holding was regarded as in
derogation of public policy and common right. Preemption is itself a
special privilege, only authorized by its supposed public benefit in
promoting the settlement and cultivation of vacant territory and in
rewarding the enterprise of the persons upon whom the privilege is
bestowed. "Preemption rights," as declared by the Supreme Court of the
United States, "are founded in an enlightened public policy, rendered
necessary by the enterprise of our citizens. The adventurous pioneer,
who is found in advance of our settlements, encounters many hardships,
and not unfrequently dangers from savage incursions. He is generally
poor, and it is fit that his enterprise should be rewarded by the
privilege of purchasing the spot selected by him, not to exceed 160
acres."

It may be said that this company, before they obtain a patent, must
prove that within two years they "have erected and have in operation
in one or more places on the said lands iron works with a capacity for
manufacturing at least 1,500 tons of iron per annum." On the other hand,
they are to have possession for two years of more than 12,000 acres of
the choice land of the Territory, of which nearly 2,000 acres are to
contain _iron ore and coal_ and over 10,000 acres to be of _timber_
land selected by themselves. They will thus have the first and exclusive
choice. In fact, they are the only parties who at this time would have
any privilege whatever in the way of obtaining titles in that Territory.
Inasmuch as Montana has not yet been organized into a land district, the
general preemption laws for the benefit of individual settlers have not
yet been extended to that country, nor has a single acre of public
land in the Territory yet been surveyed. With such exclusive and
extraordinary privileges, how many companies would be willing to
undertake furnaces that would produce 5 tons per day in much less time
than two years?

It is plain the pretended consideration on which the patent is to issue
bears no just proportion to that of the ordinary preemptor, and that
this bill is but the precursor of a system of land distribution to a
privileged class, unequal, unjust, and which ought not to receive the
sanction of the General Government. Many thousand pioneers have turned
their steps to the Western Territories, seeking, with their wives and
children, homesteads to be acquired by sturdy industry under the
preemption laws. On their arrival they should not find the timbered
lands and the tracts containing iron ore and coal already surveyed and
claimed by corporate companies, favored by the special legislation of
Congress, and with boundaries fixed even in advance of the public
surveys--a departure from the salutary provision requiring a settler
upon unsurveyed lands to limit the boundaries of his claim to the lines
of the public survey after they shall have been established. He receives
a title only to a legal subdivision, including his residence and
improvements. The survey of the company may not accord with that which
will hereafter be made by the Government, while the patent that issues
will be descriptive of and confer a title to the tract as surveyed by
the company.

I am aware of no precedent for granting such exclusive rights to a
manufacturing company for a nominal consideration. Congress have made
concessions to railway companies of alternate sections within given
limits of the lines of their roads. This policy originated in the belief
that the facilities afforded by reaching the parts of the country remote
from the great centers of population would expedite the settlement and
sale of the public domain. These incidental advantages were secured
without pecuniary loss to the Government, by reason of the enhanced
value of the reserved sections, which are held at the double minimum.
Mining and manufacturing companies, however, have always been
distinguished from public-improvement corporations. The former are, in
law and in fact, only private associations for trade and business on
individual account and for personal benefit. Admitting the proposition
that railroad grants can stand on sound principle, it is plain that such
can not be the case with concessions to companies like that contemplated
by this measure. In view of the strong temptation to monopolize the
public lands, with the pernicious results, it would seem at least of
doubtful expediency to lift corporations above all competition with
actual settlers by authorizing them to become purchasers of public lands
in the Territories for any purpose, and particularly when clothed with
the special benefits of this bill. For myself, I am convinced that the
privileges of ordinary preemptors ought not to be extended to
incorporated companies.

A third objection may be mentioned, as it exemplifies the spirit in
which special privileges are sought by incorporated companies.

Land subject to Indian occupancy has always been scrupulously guarded by
law from preemption settlement or encroachment under any pretext until
the Indian title should be extinguished. In the fourth section of this
act, however, lands held by "Indian title" are excepted from prohibition
against the patent to be issued to the New York and Montana Iron Mining
and Manufacturing Company.

The bill provides that the patent "shall convey no title to any mineral
lands _except iron and coal_, or to any lands held by right of
possession, or by any other title, _except Indian title_, valid at
the time of the selection of the said lands." It will be seen that by
the first section lands in "Indian reservations" are excluded from
individual preemption right, but by the fourth section the patent may
cover any Indian title except a _reservation_; so that no matter what
may be the nature of the Indian title, unless it be in a reservation,
it is unprotected from the privilege conceded by this bill.

Without further pursuing the subject, I return the bill to the Senate
without my signature, and with the following as prominent objections to
its becoming a law:

First. That it gives to the New York and Montana Iron Mining and
Manufacturing Company preemption privileges to iron and coal lands on a
large scale and at the ordinary minimum--a privilege denied to ordinary
preemptors. It bestows upon the company large tracts of _coal_ lands at
one-sixteenth of the minimum price required from ordinary preemptors.
It also relieves the company from restrictions imposed upon ordinary
preemptors in respect to _timber lands_; allows double the time for
payment granted to preemptors on offered lands; and these privileges are
for purposes not heretofore authorized by the preemption laws, but for
trade and manufacturing.

Second. Preemption rights on such a scale to private corporations are
unequal and hostile to the policy and principles which sanction
preemption laws.

Third. The bill allows this company to take possession of land, use it,
and acquire a patent thereto before the Indian title is extinguished,
and thus violates the good faith of the Government toward the aboriginal
tribes.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _July 16, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

A careful examination of the bill passed by the two Houses of Congress
entitled "An act to continue in force and to amend 'An act to establish
a bureau for the relief of freedmen and refugees, and for other
purposes'" has convinced me that the legislation which it proposes would
not be consistent with the welfare of the country, and that it falls
clearly within the reasons assigned in my message of the 19th of
February last, returning, without my signature, a similar measure which
originated in the Senate. It is not my purpose to repeat the objections
which I then urged. They are yet fresh in your recollection, and can be
readily examined as a part of the records of one branch of the National
Legislature. Adhering to the principles set forth in that message, I now
reaffirm them and the line of policy therein indicated.

The only ground upon which this kind of legislation can be justified is
that of the war-making power. The act of which this bill is intended
as amendatory was passed during the existence of the war. By its own
provisions it is to terminate within one year from the cessation of
hostilities and the declaration of peace. It is therefore yet in
existence, and it is likely that it will continue in force as long
as the freedmen may require the benefit of its provisions. It will
certainly remain in operation as a law until some months subsequent to
the meeting of the next session of Congress, when, if experience shall
make evident the necessity of additional legislation, the two Houses
will have ample time to mature and pass the requisite measures. In the
meantime the questions arise, Why should this war measure be continued
beyond the period designated in the original act, and why in time of
peace should military tribunals be created to continue until each
"State shall be fully restored in its constitutional relations to the
Government and shall be duly represented in the Congress of the United
States"?

It was manifest, with respect to the act approved March 3, 1865, that
prudence and wisdom alike required that jurisdiction over all cases
concerning the free enjoyment of the immunities and rights of
citizenship, as well as the protection of person and property, should
be conferred upon some tribunal in every State or district where the
ordinary course of judicial proceedings was interrupted by the
rebellion, and until the same should be fully restored. At that time,
therefore, an urgent necessity existed for the passage of some such
law. Now, however, war has substantially ceased; the ordinary course of
judicial proceedings is no longer interrupted; the courts, both State
and Federal, are in full, complete, and successful operation, and
through them every person, regardless of race and color, is entitled to
and can be heard. The protection granted to the white citizen is already
conferred by law upon the freedman; strong and stringent guards, by way
of penalties and punishments, are thrown around his person and property,
and it is believed that ample protection will be afforded him by due
process of law, without resort to the dangerous expedient of "military
tribunals," now that the war has been brought to a close. The necessity
no longer existing for such tribunals, which had their origin in the
war, grave objections to their continuance must present themselves to
the minds of all reflecting and dispassionate men. Independently of the
danger, in representative republics, of conferring upon the military,
in time of peace, extraordinary powers--so carefully guarded against
by the patriots and statesmen of the earlier days of the Republic,
so frequently the ruin of governments founded upon the same free
principles, and subversive of the rights and liberties of the
citizen--the question of practical economy earnestly commends itself to
the consideration of the lawmaking power. With an immense debt already
burdening the incomes of the industrial and laboring classes, a due
regard for their interests, so inseparably connected with the welfare of
the country, should prompt us to rigid economy and retrenchment, and
influence us to abstain from all legislation that would unnecessarily
increase the public indebtedness. Tested by this rule of sound political
wisdom, I can see no reason for the establishment of the "military
jurisdiction" conferred upon the officials of the Bureau by the
fourteenth section of the bill.

By the laws of the United States and of the different States competent
courts, Federal and State, have been established and are now in full
practical operation. By means of these civil tribunals ample redress is
afforded for all private wrongs, whether to the person or the property
of the citizen, without denial or unnecessary delay. They are open to
all, without regard to color or race. I feel well assured that it will
be better to trust the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizen
to tribunals thus established, and presided over by competent and
impartial judges, bound by fixed rules of law and evidence, and where
the right of trial by jury is guaranteed and secured, than to the
caprice or judgment of an officer of the Bureau, who it is possible
may be entirely ignorant of the principles that underlie the just
administration of the law. There is danger, too, that conflict of
jurisdiction will frequently arise between the civil courts and these
military tribunals, each having concurrent jurisdiction over the person
and the cause of action--the one judicature administered and controlled
by civil law, the other by the military. How is the conflict to be
settled, and who is to determine between the two tribunals when it
arises? In my opinion, it is wise to guard against such conflict by
leaving to the courts and juries the protection of all civil rights
and the redress of all civil grievances.

The fact can not be denied that since the actual cessation of
hostilities many acts of violence, such, perhaps, as had never been
witnessed in their previous history, have occurred in the States
involved in the recent rebellion. I believe, however, that public
sentiment will sustain me in the assertion that such deeds of wrong are
not confined to any particular State or section, but are manifested over
the entire country, demonstrating that the cause that produced them
does not depend upon any particular locality, but is the result of
the agitation and derangement incident to a long and bloody civil war.
While the prevalence of such disorders must be greatly deplored, their
occasional and temporary occurrence would seem to furnish no necessity
for the extension of the Bureau beyond the period fixed in the original
act.

Besides the objections which I have thus briefly stated, I may urge upon
your consideration the additional reason that recent developments in
regard to the practical operations of the Bureau in many of the States
show that in numerous instances it is used by its agents as a means of
promoting their individual advantage, and that the freedmen are employed
for the advancement of the personal ends of the officers instead of
their own improvement and welfare, thus confirming the fears originally
entertained by many that the continuation of such a Bureau for any
unnecessary length of time would inevitably result in fraud, corruption,
and oppression. It is proper to state that in cases of this character
investigations have been promptly ordered, and the offender punished
whenever his guilt has been satisfactorily established.

As another reason against the necessity of the legislation contemplated
by this measure, reference may be had to the "civil-rights bill," now a
law of the land, and which will be faithfully executed so long as it
shall remain unrepealed and may not be declared unconstitutional by
courts of competent jurisdiction. By that act it is enacted--

That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any
foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to
be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race
and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or
involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right in every
State and Territory in the United States to make and enforce contracts;
to sue, be parties, and give evidence; to inherit, purchase, lease,
sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal
benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and
property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like
punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.

By the provisions of the act full protection is afforded through the
district courts of the United States to all persons injured, and whose
privileges, as thus declared, are in any way impaired; and heavy
penalties are denounced against the person who willfully violates the
law. I need not state that that law did not receive my approval; yet its
remedies are far more preferable than those proposed in the present
bill--the one being civil and the other military.

By the sixth section of the bill herewith returned certain proceedings
by which the lands in the "parishes of St. Helena and St. Luke, South
Carolina," were sold and bid in, and afterwards disposed of by the tax
commissioners, are ratified and confirmed. By the seventh, eighth,
ninth, tenth, and eleventh sections provisions by law are made for the
disposal of the lands thus acquired to a particular class of citizens.
While the quieting of titles is deemed very important and desirable, the
discrimination made in the bill seems objectionable, as does also the
attempt to confer upon the commissioners judicial powers by which
citizens of the United States are to be deprived of their property in a
mode contrary to that provision of the Constitution which declares that
no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law." As a general principle, such legislation is unsafe,
unwise, partial, and unconstitutional. It may deprive persons of their
property who are equally deserving objects of the nation's bounty as
those whom by this legislation Congress seeks to benefit. The title to
the land thus to be portioned out to a favored class of citizens must
depend upon the regularity of the tax sales under the law as it existed
at the time of the sale, and no subsequent legislation can give
validity to the right thus acquired as against the original claimants.
The attention of Congress is therefore invited to a more mature
consideration of the measures proposed in these sections of the bill.

In conclusion I again urge upon Congress the danger of class
legislation, so well calculated to keep the public mind in a state of
uncertain expectation, disquiet, and restlessness and to encourage
interested hopes and fears that the National Government will continue to
furnish to classes of citizens in the several States means for support
and maintenance regardless of whether they pursue a life of indolence or
of labor, and regardless also of the constitutional limitations of the
national authority in times of peace and tranquillity.

The bill is herewith returned to the House of Representatives, in which
it originated, for its final action.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _July 28, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return, without my approval, the bill entitled "An act
erecting the Territory of Montana into a surveying district, and for
other purposes."

The bill contains four sections, the first of which erects the Territory
into a surveying district and authorizes the appointment of a
surveyor-general; the second constitutes the Territory a land district;
the third authorizes the appointment of a register and receiver for said
district; and the fourth requires the surveyor-general to--

select and survey eighteen alternate odd sections of nonmineral timber
lands within said district for the New York and Montana Iron Mining and
Manufacturing Company, incorporated under the laws of the State of New
York, which lands the said company shall have immediate possession of on
the payment of _$1.25_ per acre, and shall have a patent for the same
whenever, within two years after their selection, they shall have
furnished evidence satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior that
they have erected and have in operation on the said lands iron works
with a capacity for manufacturing 1,500 tons of iron per annum:
_Provided_, That the said lands shall revert to the United States in
case the above-mentioned iron works be not erected within the specified
time: _And provided_, That until the title to the said lands shall have
been perfected the timber shall not be cut off from more than one
section of the said lands.

To confer the special privileges specified in this fourth section
appears to be the chief object of the bill, the provisions of which are
subject to some of the most important objections that induced me to
return to the Senate with my disapproval the bill entitled "An act to
enable the New York and Montana Iron Mining and Manufacturing Company
to purchase a certain amount of the public lands not now in market."
That bill authorized the same corporation to select and survey in the
Territory of Montana, in square form, twenty-one sections of land, three
of which might contain coal and iron ore, for which the minimum rate of
$1.25 per acre was to be paid. The present bill omits these sections of
mineral lands, and directs the surveyor-general to select and survey the
timber lands; but it contains the objectionable feature of granting
to a private mining and manufacturing corporation exclusive rights and
privileges in the public domain which are by law denied to individuals.
The first choice of timber land in the Territory is bestowed upon a
corporation foreign to the Territory and over which Congress has no
control. The surveyor-general of the district, a public officer who
should have no connection with any purchase of public land, is made the
agent of the corporation to select the land, the selections to be made
in the absence of all competition; and over 11,000 acres are bestowed
at the lowest price of public lands. It is by no means certain that
the substitution of alternate sections for the compact body of lands
contemplated by the other bill is any less injurious to the public
interest, for alternate sections stripped of timber are not likely
to enhance the value of those reserved by the Government. Be this as
it may, this bill bestows a large monopoly of public lands without
adequate consideration; confers a right and privilege in quantity
equivalent to seventy-two preemption rights; introduces a dangerous
system of privileges to private trading corporations; and is an unjust
discrimination in favor of traders and speculators against individual
settlers and pioneers who are seeking homes and improving our Western
Territories. Such a departure from the long-established, wise, and just
policy which has heretofore governed the disposition of the public funds
[lands] can not receive my sanction. The objections enumerated apply to
the fourth section of the bill. The first, second, and third sections,
providing for the appointment of a surveyor-general, register, and
receiver, are unobjectionable if any necessity requires the creation
of these offices and the additional expenses of a new surveying land
district. But they appear in this instance to be only needed as a part
of the machinery to enable the "New York and Montana Iron Mining and
Manufacturing Company" to secure these privileges; for I am informed by
the proper Department, in a communication hereto annexed, that there is
no public necessity for a surveyor-general, register, or receiver in
Montana Territory, since it forms part of an existing surveying and land
district, wherein the public business is, under present laws, transacted
with adequate facility, so that the provisions of the first, second, and
third sections would occasion needless expense to the General
Government.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

PROCLAMATIONS.

ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

_To all whom it may concern_:

An exequatur, bearing date the 13th day of October, 1864, having been
issued to Esteban Rogers, recognizing him as consul _ad interim_ of the
Republic of Chile for the port of New York and its dependencies and
declaring him free to exercise and enjoy such functions, powers, and
privileges as are allowed to consuls by the law of nations or by the
laws of the United States and existing treaty stipulations between the
Government of Chile and the United States; but as it is deemed advisable
that the said Esteban Rogers should no longer be permitted to continue
in the exercise of said functions, powers, and privileges:

These are therefore to declare that I no longer recognize the said
Esteban Rogers as consul _ad interim_ of the Republic of Chile for
the port of New York and its dependencies and will not permit him to
exercise or enjoy any of the functions, powers, or privileges allowed to
a consular officer of that nation; and that I do hereby wholly revoke
and annul the said exequatur heretofore given and do declare the same
to be absolutely null and void from this day forward.

In testimony whereof I have caused these letters to be made patent and
the seal of the United States of America to be hereunto affixed.

[SEAL.]

Given under my hand, at Washington, this 12th day of February, A.D.
1866, and of the Independence of the United States of America the
ninetieth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

_To all whom it may concern_:

An exequatur, bearing date the 7th day of October, 1864, having been
issued to Claudius Edward Habicht, recognizing him as consul of Sweden
and Norway at New York and declaring him free to exercise and enjoy such
functions, powers, and privileges as are allowed to consuls by the law
of nations or by the laws of the United States and existing treaty
stipulations between the Government of Sweden and Norway and the United
States; but as it is deemed advisable that the said Claudius Edward
Habicht should no longer be permitted to continue in the exercise of
said functions, powers, and privileges:

These are therefore to declare that I no longer recognize the said
Claudius Edward Habicht as consul of Sweden and Norway at New York and
will not permit him to exercise or enjoy any of the functions, powers,
or privileges allowed to a consular officer of that nation; and that I
do hereby wholly revoke and annul the said exequatur heretofore given
and do declare the same to be absolutely null and void from this day
forward.

In testimony whereof I have caused these letters to be made patent and
the seal of the United States of America to be hereunto affixed.

[SEAL.]

Given under my hand, at Washington, the 26th day of March, A.D. 1866,
and of the Independence of the United States of America the ninetieth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

_To all whom it may concern_:

An exequatur, bearing date the 1st day of July, 1865, having been issued
to S.M. Svenson, recognizing him as vice-consul of Sweden and Norway at
New Orleans and declaring him free to exercise and enjoy such functions,
powers, and privileges as are allowed to vice-consuls by the law of
nations or by the laws of the United States and existing treaty
stipulations between the Government of Sweden and Norway and the United
States; but as it is deemed advisable that the said S.M. Svenson should
no longer be permitted to continue in the exercise of said functions,
powers, and privileges:

These are therefore to declare that I no longer recognize the said S.M.
Svenson as vice-consul of Sweden and Norway at New Orleans and will
not permit him to exercise or enjoy any of the functions, powers, or
privileges allowed to a consular officer of that nation; and that I do
hereby wholly revoke and annul the said exequatur heretofore given and
do declare the same to be absolutely null and void from this day
forward.

In testimony whereof I have caused these letters to be made patent and
the seal of the United States of America to be hereunto affixed.

[SEAL.]

Given under my hand, at Washington, the 26th day of March, A.D. 1866,
and of the Independence of the United States of America the ninetieth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas by proclamations of the 15th and 19th of April, 1861, the
President of the United States, in virtue of the power vested in him by
the Constitution and the laws, declared that the laws of the United
States were opposed and the execution thereof obstructed in the States
of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana,
and Texas by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary
course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshals
by law; and

Whereas by another proclamation, made on the 16th day of August, in the
same year, in pursuance of an act of Congress approved July 13, 1861,
the inhabitants of the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia,
North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas,
Mississippi, and Florida (except the inhabitants of that part of the
State of Virginia lying west of the Alleghany Mountains and of such
other parts of that State and the other States before named as might
maintain a loyal adhesion to the Union and the Constitution or might be
from time to time occupied and controlled by forces of the United States
engaged in the dispersion of insurgents) were declared to be in a state
of insurrection against the United States; and

Whereas by another proclamation, of the 1st day of July, 1862, issued in
pursuance of an act of Congress approved June 7, in the same year, the
insurrection was declared to be still existing in the States aforesaid,
with the exception of certain specified counties in the State of
Virginia; and

Whereas by another proclamation, made on the 2d day of April, 1863, in
pursuance of the act of Congress of July 13, 1861, the exceptions named
in the proclamation of August 16, 1861, were revoked and the inhabitants
of the States of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee,
Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia
(except the forty-eight counties of Virginia designated as West Virginia
and the ports of New Orleans, Key West, Port Royal, and Beaufort, in
North Carolina) were declared to be still in a state of insurrection
against the United States; and

Whereas the House of Representatives, on the 22d day of July, 1861,
adopted a resolution in the words following, namely:

_Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United
States_, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the
country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against
the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in
this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion
or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that
this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for
any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or
interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States,
but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to
preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the
several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are
accomplished the war ought to cease.

And whereas the Senate of the United States, on the 25th day of July,
1861, adopted a resolution in the words following, to wit:

_Resolved_, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon
the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt
against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital;
that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feeling of
mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole
country; that this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit
of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor
purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established
institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy
of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to
preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of
the several States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are
accomplished the war ought to cease.

And whereas these resolutions, though not joint or concurrent in form,
are substantially identical, and as such may be regarded as having
expressed the sense of Congress upon the subject to which they relate;
and

Whereas by my proclamation of the 13th day of June last the insurrection
in the State of Tennessee was declared to have been suppressed, the
authority of the United States therein to be undisputed, and such United
States officers as had been duly commissioned to be in the undisturbed
exercise of their official functions; and

Whereas there now exists no organized armed resistance of misguided
citizens or others to the authority of the United States in the States
of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee,
Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida, and the laws can
be sustained and enforced therein by the proper civil authority, State
or Federal, and the people of said States are well and loyally disposed
and have conformed or will conform in their legislation to the condition
of affairs growing out of the amendment to the Constitution of the
United States prohibiting slavery within the limits and jurisdiction of
the United States; and

Whereas, in view of the before-recited premises, it is the manifest
determination of the American people that no State of its own will has
the right or the power to go out of, or separate itself from, or be
separated from, the American Union, and that therefore each State ought
to remain and constitute an integral part of the United States; and

Whereas the people of the several before-mentioned States have, in the
manner aforesaid, given satisfactory evidence that they acquiesce in
this sovereign and important resolution of national unity; and

Whereas it is believed to be a fundamental principle of government that
people who have revolted and who have been overcome and subdued must
either be dealt with so as to induce them voluntarily to become friends
or else they must be held by absolute military power or devastated so as
to prevent them from ever again doing harm as enemies, which last-named
policy is abhorrent to humanity and to freedom; and

Whereas the Constitution of the United States provides for constituent
communities only as States, and not as Territories, dependencies,
provinces, or protectorates; and

Whereas such constituent States must necessarily be, and by the
Constitution and laws of the United States are, made equals and placed
upon a like footing as to political rights, immunities, dignity, and
power with the several States with which they are united; and

Whereas the observance of political equality, as a principle of right
and justice, is well calculated to encourage the people of the aforesaid
States to be and become more and more constant and persevering in their
renewed allegiance; and

Whereas standing armies, military occupation, martial law, military
tribunals, and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of _habeas
corpus_ are in time of peace dangerous to public liberty, incompatible
with the individual rights of the citizen, contrary to the genius and
spirit of our free institutions, and exhaustive of the national
resources, and ought not, therefore, to be sanctioned or allowed except
in cases of actual necessity for repelling invasion or suppressing
insurrection or rebellion; and

Whereas the policy of the Government of the United States from the
beginning of the insurrection to its overthrow and final suppression has
been in conformity with the principles herein set forth and enumerated:

Now, therefore, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do
hereby proclaim and declare that the insurrection which heretofore
existed in the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North
Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and
Florida is at an end and is henceforth to be so regarded.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 2d day of April, A.D. 1866, and of
the Independence of the United States of America the ninetieth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

_To all whom it may concern_:

Whereas the exequatur of Claudius Edward Habicht, recognizing him as
consul of Sweden and Norway at New York, and that of S.M. Svenson as
vice-consul of Sweden and Norway at New Orleans were formally revoked on
the 26th day of March last; and

Whereas representations have been made to me since that date which have
effectually relieved those gentlemen from the charges of unlawful and
unfriendly conduct heretofore entertained against them:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of
the United States of America, do hereby annul the revocation of the
exequaturs of the said Claudius Edward Habicht and S.M. Svenson and
restore to them the right to exercise the functions and privileges
heretofore granted as consular officers of the Government of Sweden
and Norway.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto signed my name and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 30th day of May, A.D. 1866, and of
the Independence of the United States the ninetieth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas it has become known to me that certain evil-disposed persons
have, within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, begun
and set on foot and have provided and prepared, and are still engaged in
providing and preparing, means for a military expedition and enterprise,
which expedition and enterprise is to be carried on from the territory
and jurisdiction of the United States against colonies, districts, and
people of British North America, within the dominions of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with which said colonies,
districts, and people and Kingdom the United States are at peace; and

Whereas the proceedings aforesaid constitute a high misdemeanor,
forbidden by the laws of the United States as well as by the law of
nations:

Now, therefore, for the purpose of preventing the carrying on of the
unlawful expedition and enterprise aforesaid from the territory and
jurisdiction of the United States and to maintain the public peace as
well as the national honor and enforce obedience and respect to the laws
of the United States, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
do admonish and warn all good citizens of the United States against
taking part in or in any wise aiding, countenancing, or abetting said
unlawful proceedings; and I do exhort all judges, magistrates, marshals,
and officers in the service of the United States to employ all their
lawful authority and power to prevent and defeat the aforesaid unlawful
proceedings and to arrest and bring to justice all persons who may be
engaged therein.

And, pursuant to the act of Congress in such case made and provided,
I do furthermore authorize and empower Major-General George G. Meade,
commander of the Military Division of the Atlantic, to employ the land
and naval forces of the United States and the militia thereof to arrest
and prevent the setting on foot and carrying on the expedition and
enterprise aforesaid.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 6th day of June, A.D. 1866, and of
the Independence of the United States the ninetieth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas a war is existing in the Republic of Mexico, aggravated by
foreign military intervention; and

Whereas the United States, in accordance with their settled habits and
policy, are a neutral power in regard to the war which thus afflicts the
Republic of Mexico; and

Whereas it has become known that one of the belligerents in the said
war, namely, the Prince Maximilian, who asserts himself to be Emperor in
Mexico, has issued a decree in regard to the port of Matamoras and other
Mexican ports which are in the occupation and possession of another of
the said belligerents, namely, the United States of Mexico, which decree
is in the following words:

The port of Matamoras and all those of the northern frontier which have
withdrawn from their obedience to the Government are closed to foreign
and coasting traffic during such time as the empire of the law shall not
be therein reinstated.

ART. 2. Merchandise proceeding from the said ports, on arriving at any
other where the excise of the Empire is collected, shall pay the duties
on importation, introduction, and consumption, and, on satisfactory
proof of contravention, shall be irremissibly confiscated. Our minister
of the treasury is charged with the punctual execution of this decree.

Given at Mexico, the 9th of July, 1866.

And whereas the decree thus recited, by declaring a belligerent blockade
unsupported by competent military or naval force, is in violation of the
neutral rights of the United States as defined by the law of nations as
well as of the treaties existing between the United States of America
and the aforesaid United States of Mexico:

Now, therefore, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do
hereby proclaim and declare that the aforesaid decree is held and will
be held by the United States to be absolutely null and void as against
the Government and citizens of the United States, and that any attempt
which shall be made to enforce the same against the Government or the
citizens of the United States will be disallowed.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, the 17th day of August, A.D. 1866, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-first.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas by proclamations of the 15th and 19th of April, 1861, the
President of the United States, in virtue of the power vested in him
by the Constitution and the laws, declared that the laws of the United
States were opposed and the execution thereof obstructed in the States
of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana,
and Texas by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary
course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals
by law; and

Whereas by another proclamation, made on the 16th day of August, in the
same year, in pursuance of an act of Congress approved July 13, 1861,
the inhabitants of the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia,
North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas,
Mississippi, and Florida (except the inhabitants of that part of the
State of Virginia lying west of the Alleghany Mountains, and except also
the inhabitants of such other parts of that State and the other States
before named as might maintain a loyal adhesion to the Union and the
Constitution or might be from time to time occupied and controlled by
forces of the United States engaged in the dispersion of insurgents)
were declared to be in a state of insurrection against the United
States; and

Whereas by another proclamation, of the 15th day of September, 1863,
made in pursuance of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863, the
rebellion was declared to be still existing and the privilege of the
writ of _habeas corpus_ was in certain specified cases suspended
throughout the United States, said suspension to continue throughout
the duration of the rebellion or until said proclamation should, by
a subsequent one to be issued by the President of the United States,
be modified or revoked; and

Whereas the House of Representatives, on the 22d day of July, 1861,
adopted a resolution in the words following, namely:

_Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United
States_, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon
the country by the dis-unionists of the Southern States now in revolt
against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital;
that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of
mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole
country; that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of
oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor
purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established
institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy
of the Constitution and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity,
equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as
soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.

And whereas the Senate of the United States, on the 25th day of July,
1861, adopted a resolution in the words following, to wit:

And whereas these resolutions, though not joint or concurrent in form,
are substantially identical, and as such have hitherto been and yet are
regarded as having expressed the sense of Congress upon the subject to
which they relate; and

Whereas the President of the United States, by proclamation of the 13th
of June, 1865, declared that the insurrection in the State of Tennessee
had been suppressed, and that the authority of the United States therein
was undisputed, and that such United States officers as had been duly
commissioned were in the undisturbed exercise of their official
functions; and

Whereas the President of the United States, by further proclamation,
issued on the 2d day of April, 1866, did promulgate and declare that
there no longer existed any armed resistance of misguided citizens or
others to the authority of the United States in any or in all the States
before mentioned, excepting only the State of Texas, and did further
promulgate and declare that the laws could be sustained and enforced in
the several States before mentioned, except Texas, by the proper civil
authorities, State or Federal, and that the people of the said States,
except Texas, are well and loyally disposed and have conformed or will
conform in their legislation to the condition of affairs growing out of
the amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting
slavery within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States;

And did further declare in the same proclamation that it is the manifest
determination of the American people that no State, of its own will, has
a right or power to go out of, or separate itself from, or be separated
from, the American Union; and that, therefore, each State ought to
remain and constitute an integral part of the United States;

And did further declare in the same last-mentioned proclamation that
the several aforementioned States, excepting Texas, had in the manner
aforesaid given satisfactory evidence that they acquiesce in this
sovereign and important resolution of national unity; and

Whereas the President of the United States in the same proclamation did
further declare that it is believed to be a fundamental principle of
government that the people who have revolted and who have been overcome
and subdued must either be dealt with so as to induce them voluntarily
to become friends or else they must be held by absolute military power
or devastated so as to prevent them from ever again doing harm as
enemies, which last-named policy is abhorrent to humanity and to
freedom; and

Whereas the President did in the same proclamation further declare
that the Constitution of the United States provides for constituent
communities only as States, and not as Territories, dependencies,
provinces, or protectorates;

And further, that such constituent States must necessarily be, and by
the Constitution and laws of the United States are, made equals and
placed upon a like footing as to political rights, immunities, dignity,
and power with the several States with which they are united;

And did further declare that the observance of political equality, as
a principle of right and justice, is well calculated to encourage the
people of the before named States, except Texas, to be and to become
more and more constant and persevering in their renewed allegiance; and

Whereas the President did further declare that standing armies,
military occupation, martial law, military tribunals, and the suspension
of the writ of _habeas corpus_ are in time of peace dangerous to public
liberty, incompatible with the individual rights of the citizen,
contrary to the genius and spirit of our free institutions, and
exhaustive of the national resources, and ought not, therefore, to be
sanctioned or allowed except in cases of actual necessity for repelling
invasion or suppressing insurrection or rebellion;

And the President did further, in the same proclamation, declare that
the policy of the Government of the United States from the beginning
of the insurrection to its overthrow and final suppression had been
conducted in conformity with the principles in the last-named
proclamation recited; and

Whereas the President, in the said proclamation of the 13th of June,
1865, upon the grounds therein stated and hereinbefore recited, did then
and thereby proclaim and declare that the insurrection which heretofore
existed in the several States before named, except in Texas, was at an
end and was henceforth to be so regarded; and

Whereas subsequently to the said 2d day of April, 1866, the insurrection
in the State of Texas has been completely and everywhere suppressed and
ended and the authority of the United States has been successfully and
completely established in the said State of Texas and now remains
therein unresisted and undisputed, and such of the proper United States
officers as have been duly commissioned within the limits of the said
State are now in the undisturbed exercise of their official functions;
and

Whereas the laws can now be sustained and enforced in the said State of
Texas by the proper civil authority, State or Federal, and the people
of the said State of Texas, like the people of the other States before
named, are well and loyally disposed and have conformed or will conform
in their legislation to the condition of affairs growing out of the
amendment of the Constitution of the United States prohibiting slavery
within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States; and

Whereas all the reasons and conclusions set forth in regard to the
several States therein specially named now apply equally and in all
respects to the State of Texas, as well as to the other States which
had been involved in insurrection; and

Whereas adequate provision has been made by military orders to enforce
the execution of the acts of Congress, aid the civil authorities, and
secure obedience to the Constitution and laws of the United States
within the State of Texas if a resort to military force for such purpose
should at any time become necessary:

Now, therefore, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do
hereby proclaim and declare that the insurrection which heretofore
existed in the State of Texas is at an end and is to be henceforth so
regarded in that State as in the other States before named in which the
said insurrection was proclaimed to be at an end by the aforesaid
proclamation of the 2d day of April, 1866.

And I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at an end and
that peace, order, tranquillity, and civil authority now exist in and
throughout the whole of the United States of America.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 20th day of August, A.D. 1866, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-first.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

A PROCLAMATION.

Almighty God, our Heavenly Father, has been pleased to vouchsafe to us
as a people another year of that national life which is an indispensable
condition of peace, security, and progress. That year has, moreover,
been crowned with many peculiar blessings.

The civil war that so recently closed among us has not been anywhere
reopened; foreign intervention has ceased to excite alarm or
apprehension; intrusive pestilence has been benignly mitigated; domestic
tranquillity has improved, sentiments of conciliation have largely
prevailed, and affections of loyalty and patriotism have been widely
renewed; our fields have yielded quite abundantly, our mining industry
has been richly rewarded, and we have been allowed to extend our
railroad system far into the interior recesses of the country, while
our commerce has resumed its customary activity in foreign seas.

These great national blessings demand a national acknowledgment.

Now, therefore, I, Andrew Johnson. President of the United States, do
hereby recommend that Thursday, the 29th day of November next, be set
apart and be observed everywhere in the several States and Territories
of the United States by the people thereof as a day of thanksgiving and
praise to Almighty God, with due remembrance that "in His temple doth
every man speak of His honor." I recommend also that on the same solemn
occasion they do humbly and devoutly implore Him to grant to our
national councils and to our whole people that divine wisdom which
alone can lead any nation into the ways of all good.

In offering these national thanksgivings, praises, and supplications we
have the divine assurance that "the Lord remaineth a king forever; them
that are meek shall He guide in judgment and such as are gentle shall He
learn His way; the Lord shall give strength to His people, and the Lord
shall give to His people the blessing of peace."

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 8th day of October, A.D. 1866, and
of the Independence of the United States the ninety-first.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

[From the Daily National Intelligencer, April 9, 1866.]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _April 7, 1866_.

It is eminently right and proper that the Government of the United
States should give earnest and substantial evidence of its just
appreciation of the services of the patriotic men who when the life of
the nation was imperiled entered the Army and Navy to preserve the
integrity of the Union, defend the Government, and maintain and
perpetuate unimpaired its free institutions.

_It is therefore directed_--

First. That in appointments to office in the several Executive
Departments of the General Government and the various branches of
the public service connected with said Departments preference shall
be given to such meritorious and honorably discharged soldiers and
sailors--particularly those who have been disabled by wounds received
or diseases contracted in the line of duty--as may possess the proper
qualifications.

Second. That in all promotions in said Departments and the several
branches of the public service connected therewith such persons shall
have preference, when equally eligible and qualified, over those who
have not faithfully and honorably served in the land or naval forces
of the United States.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

_Washington, April 13, 1866_.

On the 14th of April, 1865, great affliction was brought upon the
American people by the assassination of the lamented Abraham Lincoln,
then President of the United States. The undersigned is therefore
directed by the President to announce that in commemoration of that
event the public offices will be closed to-morrow, the 14th instant.

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

GENERAL ORDERS, No. 26.

WAR DEPARTMENT,
ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE.
_Washington, May 1, 1866_.

ORDER IN RELATION TO TRIALS BY MILITARY COURTS AND COMMISSIONS.

Whereas some military commanders are embarrassed by doubts as to the
operation of the proclamation of the President dated the 2d day of
April, 1866, upon trials by military courts-martial and military
officers; to remove such doubts--

_It is ordered by the President_, That hereafter, whenever offenses
committed by civilians are to be tried where civil tribunals are in
existence which can try them, their cases are not authorized to be, and
will not be, brought before military courts-martial or commissions, but
will be committed to the proper civil authorities. This order is not
applicable to camp followers, as provided for under the sixtieth article
of war, or to contractors and others specified in section 16, act of
July 17, 1862, and sections 1 and 2, act of March 2, 1863. Persons and
offenses cognizable by the Rules and Articles of War and by the acts of
Congress above cited will continue to be tried and punished by military
tribunals as prescribed by the Rules and Articles of War and acts of
Congress hereinafter cited, to wit:

[Sixtieth of the Rules and Articles of War.]

60. All sutlers and retainers to the camp, and all persons whatsoever
serving with the armies of the United States in the field, though not
enlisted soldiers, are to be subject to orders, according to the rules
and discipline of war.

[Extract from "An act to define the pay and emoluments of certain
officers of the Army, and for other purposes," approved July 17, 1862.]

SEC. 16. _And be it further enacted_, That whenever any contractor for
subsistence, clothing, arms, ammunition, munitions of war, and for every
description of supplies for the Army or Navy of the United States, shall
be found guilty by a court-martial of fraud or willful neglect of duty,
he shall be punished by fine, imprisonment, or such other punishment as
the court-martial shall adjudge; and any person who shall contract to
furnish supplies of any kind or description for the Army or Navy, _he_
shall be deemed and taken as a part of the land or naval forces of the
United States for which he shall contract to furnish said supplies, and
be subject to the rules and regulations for the government of the land
and naval forces of the United States.

[Extract from "An act to prevent and punish frauds upon the Government
of the United States," approved March 2, 1863.]

_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled_, That any person in the land or
naval forces of the United States, or in the militia in actual service
of the United States in time of war, who shall make or cause to be made,
or present or cause to be presented for payment or approval to or by any
person or officer in the civil or military service of the United States,
any claim upon or against the Government of the United States, or
any department or officer thereof, knowing such claim to be false,
fictitious, or fraudulent; any person in such forces or service who
shall, for the purpose of obtaining or aiding in obtaining the approval
or payment of such claim, make, use, or cause to be made or used, any
false bill, receipt, voucher, entry, roll, account, claim, statement,
certificate, affidavit, or deposition, knowing the same to contain any
false or fraudulent statement or entry; any person in said forces or
service who shall make or procure to be made, or knowingly advise the
making of, any false oath to any fact, statement, or certificate,
voucher or entry, for the purpose of obtaining or of aiding to obtain
any approval or payment of any claim against the United States, or any
department or officer thereof; any person in said forces or service who,
for the purpose of obtaining or enabling any other person to obtain
from the Government of the United States, or any department or officer
thereof, any payment or allowance, or the approval or signature of any
person in the military, naval, or civil service of the United States
of or to any false, fraudulent, or fictitious claim, shall forge or
counterfeit, or cause or procure to be forged or counterfeited, any
signature upon any bill, receipt, voucher, account, claim, roll,
statement, affidavit, or deposition; and any person in said forces or
service who shall utter or use the same as true or genuine, knowing the
same to have been forged or counterfeited; any person in said forces or
service who shall enter into any agreement, combination, or conspiracy
to cheat or defraud the Government of the United States, or any
department or officer thereof, by obtaining or aiding and assisting to
obtain the payment or allowance of any false or fraudulent claim; any
person in said forces or service who shall steal, embezzle, or knowingly
and willfully misappropriate or apply to his own use or benefit, or who
shall wrongfully and knowingly sell, convey, or dispose of any ordnance,
arms, ammunition, clothing, subsistence stores, money, or other property
of the United States, furnished or to be used for the military or naval
service of the United States; any contractor, agent, paymaster,
quartermaster, or other person whatsoever in said forces or service
having charge, possession, custody, or control of any money or other
public property used or to be used in the military or naval service of
the United States, who shall, with intent to defraud the United States,
or willfully to conceal such money or other property, deliver or cause
to be delivered to any other person having authority to receive the same
any amount of such money or other public property less than that for
which he shall receive a certificate or receipt; any person in said
forces or service who is or shall be authorized to make or deliver any
certificate, voucher, or receipt, or other paper certifying the receipt
of arms, ammunition, provisions, clothing, or other public property so
used or to be used, who shall make or deliver the same to any person
without having full knowledge of the truth of the facts stated therein,
and with intent to cheat, defraud, or injure the United States; any
person in said forces or service who shall knowingly purchase or
receive, in pledge for any obligation or indebtedness, from any soldier,
officer, or other person called into or employed in said forces or
service, any arms, equipments, ammunition, clothes, or military stores,
or other public property, such soldier, officer, or other person not
having the lawful right to pledge or sell the same, shall be deemed
guilty of a criminal offense, and shall be subject to the rules and
regulations made for the government of the military and naval forces of
the United States, and of the militia when called into and employed in
the actual service of the United States in time of war, and to the
provisions of this act. And every person so offending may be arrested
and held for trial by a court-martial, and if found guilty shall be
punished by fine and imprisonment, or such other punishment as the
court-martial may adjudge, save the punishment of death.

SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That any person heretofore called
or hereafter to be called into or employed in such forces or service who
shall commit any violation of this act, and shall afterwards receive his
discharge or be dismissed from the service, shall, notwithstanding such
discharge or dismissal, continue to be liable to be arrested and held
for trial and sentence by a court-martial in the same manner and to the
same extent as if he had not received such discharge or been dismissed.

* * * * *

By order of the Secretary of War:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 29, 1866_.

The President with profound sorrow announces to the people of the United
States the death of Winfield Scott, the late Lieutenant-General of the
Army. On the day which may be appointed for his funeral the several
Executive Departments of the Government will be closed.

The heads of the War and Navy Departments will respectively give orders
for paying appropriate honors to the memory of the deceased.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[From the Daily National Intelligencer, June 6, 1866.]

ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

_Washington, D.C., June 5, 1866_.

By direction of the President, you[7] are hereby instructed to cause
the arrest of all prominent, leading, or conspicuous persons called
"Fenians" who you may have probable cause to believe have been or may
be guilty of violations of the neutrality laws of the United States.

JAMES SPEED,

_Attorney-General_.

[Footnote 7: Addressed to district attorneys and marshals of the United
States.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

_Washington, June 18, 1866_.

The President directs the undersigned to perform the painful duty
of announcing to the people of the United States that Lewis Cass,
distinguished not more by faithful service in varied public trusts than
by exalted patriotism at a recent period of political disorder, departed
this life at 4 o'clock yesterday morning. The several Executive
Departments of the Government will cause appropriate honors to be
rendered to the memory of the deceased at home and abroad wherever the
national name and authority are acknowledged.

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., October 26, 1866_.

Hon. EDWIN M. STANTON,

_Secretary of War_.

SIR: Recent advices indicate an early evacuation of Mexico by the French
expeditionary forces and that the time has arrived when our minister to
Mexico should place himself in communication with that Republic.

In furtherance of the objects of his mission and as evidence of the
earnest desire felt by the United States for the proper adjustment of
the questions involved, I deem it of great importance that General Grant
should by his presence and advice cooperate with our minister.

I have therefore to ask that you will request General Grant to proceed
to some point on our Mexican frontier most suitable and convenient for
communication with our minister, or (if General Grant deems it best) to
accompany him to his destination in Mexico, and to give him the aid of
his advice in carrying out the instructions of the Secretary of State,
a copy of which is herewith sent for the General's information.

General Grant will make report to the Secretary of War of such matters
as, in his discretion, ought to be communicated to the Department.

Very respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., October 30, 1866_.

Hon. EDWIN M. STANTON,

_Secretary of War_.

SIR: General Ulysses S. Grant having found it inconvenient to assume
the duties specified in my letter to you of the 26th instant, you will
please relieve him from the same and assign them in all respects to
William T. Sherman, Lieutenant-General of the Army of the United States.
By way of guiding General Sherman in the performance of his duties, you
will furnish him with a copy of your special orders to General Grant,
made in compliance with my letter of the 26th instant, together with a
copy of the instructions of the Secretary of State to Lewis D. Campbell,
esq., therein mentioned. The Lieutenant-General will proceed to the
execution of his duties without delay.

Very respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., November 1, 1866_.

Hon. EDWIN M. STANTON,

_Secretary of War_.

SIR: In the report of General Grant of the 27th ultimo, inclosed in your
communication of that date, reference is made to the force at present
stationed in the Military Department of Washington (which embraces the
District of Columbia, the counties of Alexander and Fairfax, Va., and
the States of Maryland and Delaware), and it is stated that the entire
number of troops comprised in the command is 2,224, of which only 1,550
are enumerated as "effective." In view of the prevalence in various
portions of the country of a revolutionary and turbulent disposition,
which might at any moment assume insurrectionary proportions and lead to
serious disorders, and of the duty of the Government to be at all times
prepared to act with decision and effect, this force is not deemed
adequate for the protection and security of the seat of Government.

I therefore request that you will at once take such measures as will
insure its safety, and thus discourage any attempt for its possession
by insurgent or other illegal combinations.

Very respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., November 2, 1866_.

Hon. EDWIN M. STANTON,

_Secretary of War_.

SIR: There is ground to apprehend danger of an insurrection in Baltimore
against the constituted authorities of the State of Maryland on or about
the day of the election soon to be held in that city, and that in such
contingency the aid of the United States might be invoked under the acts
of Congress which pertain to that subject. While I am averse to any
military demonstration that would have a tendency to interfere with the
free exercise of the elective franchise in Baltimore or be construed
into any interference in local questions, I feel great solicitude that
should an insurrection take place the Government should be prepared to
meet and promptly put it down. I accordingly desire you to call General
Grant's attention to the subject, leaving to his own discretion and
judgment the measures of preparation and precaution that should be
adopted.

Very respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

SECOND ANNUAL MESSAGE.

WASHINGTON, _December 3, 1866_.

_Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives_:

After a brief interval the Congress of the United States resumes its
annual legislative labors. An all-wise and merciful Providence has
abated the pestilence which visited our shores, leaving its calamitous
traces upon some portions of our country. Peace, order, tranquillity,
and civil authority have been formally declared to exist throughout the
whole of the United States. In all of the States civil authority has
superseded the coercion of arms, and the people, by their voluntary
action, are maintaining their governments in full activity and complete
operation. The enforcement of the laws is no longer "obstructed in any
State by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary
course of judicial proceedings," and the animosities engendered by the
war are rapidly yielding to the beneficent influences of our free
institutions and to the kindly effects of unrestricted social and
commercial intercourse. An entire restoration of fraternal feeling
must be the earnest wish of every patriotic heart; and we will have
accomplished our grandest national achievement when, forgetting the sad
events of the past and remembering only their instructive lessons, we
resume our onward career as a free, prosperous, and united people.

In my message of the 4th of December, 1865, Congress was informed of the
measures which had been instituted by the Executive with a view to the
gradual restoration of the States in which the insurrection occurred to
their relations with the General Government. Provisional governors had
been appointed, conventions called, governors elected, legislatures
assembled, and Senators and Representatives chosen to the Congress
of the United States. Courts had been opened for the enforcement of
laws long in abeyance. The blockade had been removed, custom-houses
reestablished, and the internal-revenue laws put in force, in order that
the people might contribute to the national income. Postal operations
had been renewed, and efforts were being made to restore them to their
former condition of efficiency. The States themselves had been asked to
take part in the high function of amending the Constitution, and of thus
sanctioning the extinction of African slavery as one of the legitimate
results of our internecine struggle.

Having progressed thus far, the executive department found that it had
accomplished nearly all that was within the scope of its constitutional
authority. One thing, however, yet remained to be done before the work
of restoration could be completed, and that was the admission to
Congress of loyal Senators and Representatives from the States whose
people had rebelled against the lawful authority of the General
Government. This question devolved upon the respective Houses, which
by the Constitution are made the judges of the elections, returns, and
qualifications of their own members, and its consideration at once
engaged the attention of Congress.

In the meantime the executive department--no other plan having been
proposed by Congress--continued its efforts to perfect, as far as was
practicable, the restoration of the proper relations between the
citizens of the respective States, the States, and the Federal
Government, extending from time to time, as the public interests seemed
to require, the judicial, revenue, and postal systems of the country.
With the advice and consent of the Senate, the necessary officers were
appointed and appropriations made by Congress for the payment of their
salaries. The proposition to amend the Federal Constitution, so as to
prevent the existence of slavery within the United States or any place
subject to their jurisdiction, was ratified by the requisite number
of States, and on the 18th day of December, 1865, it was officially
declared to have become valid as a part of the Constitution of the
United States. All of the States in which the insurrection had existed
promptly amended their constitutions so as to make them conform to the
great change thus effected in the organic law of the land; declared null
and void all ordinances and laws of secession; repudiated all pretended
debts and obligations created for the revolutionary purposes of the
insurrection, and proceeded in good faith to the enactment of measures
for the protection and amelioration of the condition of the colored
race. Congress, however, yet hesitated to admit any of these States to
representation, and it was not until toward the close of the eighth
month of the session that an exception was made in favor of Tennessee
by the admission of her Senators and Representatives.

I deem it a subject of profound regret that Congress has thus far
failed to admit to seats loyal Senators and Representatives from the
other States whose inhabitants, with those of Tennessee, had engaged
in the rebellion. Ten States--more than one-fourth of the whole
number--remain without representation; the seats of fifty members in the
House of Representatives and of twenty members in the Senate are yet
vacant, not by their own consent, not by a failure of election, but by
the refusal of Congress to accept their credentials. Their admission,
it is believed, would have accomplished much toward the renewal and
strengthening of our relations as one people and removed serious cause
for discontent on the part of the inhabitants of those States. It would
have accorded with the great principle enunciated in the Declaration
of American Independence that no people ought to bear the burden of
taxation and yet be denied the right of representation. It would have
been in consonance with the express provisions of the Constitution that
"each State shall have at least one Representative" and "that no State,
without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the
Senate." These provisions were intended to secure to every State and
to the people of every State the right of representation in each House
of Congress; and so important was it deemed by the framers of the
Constitution that the equality of the States in the Senate should be
preserved that not even by an amendment of the Constitution can any
State, without its consent, be denied a voice in that branch of the
National Legislature.

It is true it has been assumed that the existence of the States was
terminated by the rebellious acts of their inhabitants, and that, the
insurrection having been suppressed, they were thenceforward to be
considered merely as conquered territories. The legislative, executive,
and judicial departments of the Government have, however, with great
distinctness and uniform consistency, refused to sanction an assumption
so incompatible with the nature of our republican system and with the
professed objects of the war. Throughout the recent legislation of
Congress the undeniable fact makes itself apparent that these ten
political communities are nothing less than States of this Union. At the
very commencement of the rebellion each House declared, with a unanimity
as remarkable as it was significant, that the war was not "waged upon
our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or
subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights
or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain
the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance
thereof, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality,
and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these
objects" were "accomplished the war ought to cease." In some instances
Senators were permitted to continue their legislative functions, while
in other instances Representatives were elected and admitted to seats
after their States had formally declared their right to withdraw from
the Union and were endeavoring to maintain that right by force of arms.
All of the States whose people were in insurrection, as States, were
included in the apportionment of the direct tax of $20,000,000 annually
laid upon the United States by the act approved 5th August, 1861.
Congress, by the act of March 4, 1862, and by the apportionment of
representation thereunder also recognized their presence as States in
the Union; and they have, for judicial purposes, been divided into
districts, as States alone can be divided. The same recognition appears
in the recent legislation in reference to Tennessee, which evidently
rests upon the fact that the functions of the State were not destroyed
by the rebellion, but merely suspended; and that principle is of course
applicable to those States which, like Tennessee, attempted to renounce
their places in the Union.

The action of the executive department of the Government upon this
subject has been equally definite and uniform, and the purpose of the
war was specifically stated in the proclamation issued by my predecessor
on the 22d day of September, 1862. It was then solemnly proclaimed and
declared "that hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for
the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between
the United States and each of the States and the people thereof in which
States that relation is or may be suspended or disturbed."

The recognition of the States by the judicial department of the
Government has also been clear and conclusive in all proceedings
affecting them as States had in the Supreme, circuit, and district
courts.

In the admission of Senators and Representatives from any and all of the
States there can be no just ground of apprehension that persons who are
disloyal will be clothed with the powers of legislation, for this could
not happen when the Constitution and the laws are enforced by a vigilant
and faithful Congress. Each House is made the "judge of the elections,
returns, and qualifications of its own members," and may, "with the
concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." When a Senator or
Representative presents his certificate of election, he may at once
be admitted or rejected; or, should there be any question as to his
eligibility, his credentials may be referred for investigation to the
appropriate committee. If admitted to a seat, it must be upon evidence
satisfactory to the House of which he thus becomes a member that
he possesses the requisite constitutional and legal qualifications.
If refused admission as a member for want of due allegiance to the
Government and returned to his constituents, they are admonished that
none but persons loyal to the United States will be allowed a voice
in the legislative councils of the nation, and the political power
and moral influence of Congress are thus effectively exerted in the
interests of loyalty to the Government and fidelity to the Union. Upon
this question, so vitally affecting the restoration of the Union and the
permanency of our present form of government, my convictions, heretofore
expressed, have undergone no change, but, on the contrary, their
correctness has been confirmed by reflection and time. If the admission
of loyal members to seats in the respective Houses of Congress was wise
and expedient a year ago, it is no less wise and expedient now. If this
anomalous condition is right now--if in the exact condition of these
States at the present time it is lawful to exclude them from
representation--I do not see that the question will be changed by the
efflux of time. Ten years hence, if these States remain as they are, the
right of representation will be no stronger, the right of exclusion will
be no weaker.

The Constitution of the United States makes it the duty of the President
to recommend to the consideration of Congress "such measures as he shall
judge necessary and expedient." I know of no measure more imperatively
demanded by every consideration of national interest, sound policy,
and equal justice than the admission of loyal members from the now
unrepresented States. This would consummate the work of restoration
and exert a most salutary influence in the reestablishment of peace,
harmony, and fraternal feeling. It would tend greatly to renew the
confidence of the American people in the vigor and stability of their
institutions. It would bind us more closely together as a nation and
enable us to show to the world the inherent and recuperative power of a
government founded upon the will of the people and established upon the
principles of liberty, justice, and intelligence. Our increased strength
and enhanced prosperity would irrefragably demonstrate the fallacy of
the arguments against free institutions drawn from our recent national
disorders by the enemies of republican government. The admission of
loyal members from the States now excluded from Congress, by allaying
doubt and apprehension, would turn capital now awaiting an opportunity
for investment into the channels of trade and industry. It would
alleviate the present troubled condition of those States, and by
inducing emigration aid in the settlement of fertile regions now
uncultivated and lead to an increased production of those staples which
have added so greatly to the wealth of the nation and commerce of the
world. New fields of enterprise would be opened to our progressive
people, and soon the devastations of war would be repaired and all
traces of our domestic differences effaced from the minds of our
countrymen.

In our efforts to preserve "the unity of government which constitutes
us one people" by restoring the States to the condition which they held
prior to the rebellion, we should be cautious, lest, having rescued
our nation from perils of threatened disintegration, we resort to
consolidation, and in the end absolute despotism, as a remedy for the
recurrence of similar troubles. The war having terminated, and with it
all occasion for the exercise of powers of doubtful constitutionality,
we should hasten to bring legislation within the boundaries prescribed
by the Constitution and to return to the ancient landmarks established
by our fathers for the guidance of succeeding generations.

The constitution which at any time exists till changed by an explicit
and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all.
* * * If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification
of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be
corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates;
but let there be no change by usurpation, for * * * it is the customary
weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

Washington spoke these words to his countrymen when, followed by their
love and gratitude, he voluntarily retired from the cares of public
life. "To keep in all things within the pale of our constitutional
powers and cherish the Federal Union as the only rock of safety" were
prescribed by Jefferson as rules of action to endear to his "countrymen
the true principles of their Constitution and promote a union of
sentiment and action, equally auspicious to their happiness and safety."
Jackson held that the action of the General Government should always be
strictly confined to the sphere of its appropriate duties, and justly
and forcibly urged that our Government is not to be maintained nor our
Union preserved "by invasions of the rights and powers of the several
States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong we make
it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as
much as possible to themselves; in making itself felt, not in its power,
but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not
in binding the States more closely to the center, but leaving each to
move unobstructed in its proper constitutional orbit." These are the
teachings of men whose deeds and services have made them illustrious,
and who, long since withdrawn from the scenes of life, have left to
their country the rich legacy of their example, their wisdom, and their
patriotism. Drawing fresh inspiration from their lessons, let us emulate
them in love of country and respect for the Constitution and the laws.

The report of the Secretary of the Treasury affords much information
respecting the revenue and commerce of the country. His views upon
the currency and with reference to a proper adjustment of our revenue
system, internal as well as impost, are commended to the careful
consideration of Congress. In my last annual message I expressed my
general views upon these subjects. I need now only call attention to the
necessity of carrying into every department of the Government a system
of rigid accountability, thorough retrenchment, and wise economy.
With no exceptional nor unusual expenditures, the oppressive burdens of
taxation can be lessened by such a modification of our revenue laws as
will be consistent with the public faith and the legitimate and
necessary wants of the Government.

The report presents a much more satisfactory condition of our finances
than one year ago the most sanguine could have anticipated. During the
fiscal year ending the 30th June, 1865 (the last year of the war), the
public debt was increased $941,902,537, and on the 31st of October,
1865, it amounted to $2,740,854,750. On the 31st day of October, 1866,
it had been reduced to $2,551,310,006, the diminution during a period of
fourteen months, commencing September 1, 1865, and ending October 31,
1866, having been $206,379,565. In the last annual report on the state
of the finances it was estimated that during the three quarters of the
fiscal year ending the 30th of June last the debt would be increased
$112,194,947. During that period, however, it was reduced $31,196,387,
the receipts of the year having been $89,905,905 more and the
expenditures $200,529,235 less than the estimates. Nothing could more
clearly indicate than these statements the extent and availability of
the national resources and the rapidity and safety with which, under
our form of government, great military and naval establishments can be
disbanded and expenses reduced from a war to a peace footing.

During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1866, the receipts were
$558,032,620 and the expenditures $520,750,940, leaving an available
surplus of $37,281,680. It is estimated that the receipts for the fiscal
year ending the 30th June, 1867, will be $475,061,386, and that the
expenditures will reach the sum of $316,428,078, leaving in the Treasury
a surplus of $158,633,308. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1886, it
is estimated that the receipts will amount to $436,000,000 and that the
expenditures will be $350,247,641, showing an excess of $85,752,359 in
favor of the Government. These estimated receipts may be diminished
by a reduction of excise and import duties, but after all necessary
reductions shall have been made the revenue of the present and of
following years will doubtless be sufficient to cover all legitimate
charges upon the Treasury and leave a large annual surplus to be applied
to the payment of the principal of the debt. There seems now to be no
good reason why taxes may not be reduced as the country advances in
population and wealth, and yet the debt be extinguished within the
next quarter of a century.

The report of the Secretary of War furnishes valuable and important
information in reference to the operations of his Department during the
past year. Few volunteers now remain in the service, and they are being
discharged as rapidly as they can be replaced by regular troops. The
Army has been promptly paid, carefully provided with medical treatment,
well sheltered and subsisted, and is to be furnished with breech-loading
small arms. The military strength of the nation has been unimpaired
by the discharge of volunteers, the disposition of unserviceable or
perishable stores, and the retrenchment of expenditure. Sufficient war
material to meet any emergency has been retained, and from the disbanded
volunteers standing ready to respond to the national call large armies
can be rapidly organized, equipped, and concentrated. Fortifications on
the coast and frontier have received or are being prepared for more
powerful armaments; lake surveys and harbor and river improvements are
in course of energetic prosecution. Preparations have been made for the
payment of the additional bounties authorized during the recent session
of Congress, under such regulations as will protect the Government from
fraud and secure to the honorably discharged soldier the well-earned
reward of his faithfulness and gallantry. More than 6,000 maimed
soldiers have received artificial limbs or other surgical apparatus,
and 41 national cemeteries, containing the remains of 104,526 Union
soldiers, have already been established. The total estimate of military
appropriations is $25,205,669.

It is stated in the report of the Secretary of the Navy that the naval
force at this time consists of 278 vessels, armed with 2,351 guns. Of
these, 115 vessels, carrying 1,029 guns, are in commission, distributed
chiefly among seven squadrons. The number of men in the service is
13,600. Great activity and vigilance have been displayed by all the
squadrons, and their movements have been judiciously and efficiently
arranged in such manner as would best promote American commerce and
protect the rights and interests of our countrymen abroad. The vessels
unemployed are undergoing repairs or are laid up until their services
may be required. Most of the ironclad fleet is at League Island, in the
vicinity of Philadelphia, a place which, until decisive action should be
taken by Congress, was selected by the Secretary of the Navy as the most
eligible location for that class of vessels. It is important that a
suitable public station should be provided for the ironclad fleet.
It is intended that these vessels shall be in proper condition for any
emergency, and it is desirable that the bill accepting League Island for
naval purposes, which passed the House of Representatives at its last
session, should receive final action at an early period, in order that
there may be a suitable public station for this class of vessels, as
well as a navy-yard of area sufficient for the wants of the service
on the Delaware River. The naval pension fund amounts to $11,750,000,
having been increased $2,750,000 during the year. The expenditures
of the Department for the fiscal year ending 30th June last were
$43,324,526, and the estimates for the coming year amount to
$23,568,436. Attention is invited to the condition of our seamen and the
importance of legislative measures for their relief and improvement. The
suggestions in behalf of this deserving class of our fellow-citizens are
earnestly recommended to the favorable attention of Congress.

The report of the Postmaster-General presents a most satisfactory
condition of the postal service and submits recommendations which
deserve the consideration of Congress. The revenues of the Department
for the year ending June 30, 1866, were $14,386,986 and the expenditures
$15,352,079, showing an excess of the latter of $965,093. In
anticipation of this deficiency, however, a special appropriation was
made by Congress in the act approved July 28, 1866. Including the
standing appropriation of $700,000 for free mail matter as a legitimate
portion of the revenues, yet remaining unexpended, the actual deficiency
for the past year is only $265,093--a sum within $51,141 of the amount
estimated in the annual report of 1864. The decrease of revenue compared
with the previous year was 1-1/5 per cent, and the increase of
expenditures, owing principally to the enlargement of the mail service
in the South, was 12 per cent. On the 30th of June last there were in
operation 6,930 mail routes, with an aggregate length of 180,921 miles,
an aggregate annual transportation of 71,837,914 miles, and an aggregate
annual cost, including all expenditures, of $8,410,184. The length of
railroad routes is 32,092 miles and the annual transportation 30,609,467
miles. The length of steamboat routes is 14,346 miles and the annual
transportation 3,411,962 miles. The mail service is rapidly increasing
throughout the whole country, and its steady extension in the Southern
States indicates their constantly improving condition. The growing
importance of the foreign service also merits attention. The post-office
department of Great Britain and our own have agreed upon a preliminary
basis for a new postal convention, which it is believed will prove
eminently beneficial to the commercial interests of the United States,
inasmuch as it contemplates a reduction of the international letter
postage to one-half the existing rates; a reduction of postage with
all other countries to and from which correspondence is transmitted
in the British mail, or in closed mails through the United Kingdom;
the establishment of uniform and reasonable charges for the sea
and territorial transit of correspondence in closed mails; and an
allowance to each post-office department of the right to use all mail
communications established under the authority of the other for the
dispatch of correspondence, either in open or closed mails, on the same
terms as those applicable to the inhabitants of the country providing
the means of transmission.

The report of the Secretary of the Interior exhibits the condition
of those branches of the public service which are committed to his
supervision. During the last fiscal year 4,629,312 acres of public
land were disposed of, 1,892,516 acres of which were entered under the
homestead act. The policy originally adopted relative to the public
lands has undergone essential modifications. Immediate revenue, and not
their rapid settlement, was the cardinal feature of our land system.
Long experience and earnest discussion have resulted in the conviction
that the early development of our agricultural resources and the
diffusion of an energetic population over our vast territory are objects
of far greater importance to the national growth and prosperity than the
proceeds of the sale of the land to the highest bidder in open market.
The preemption laws confer upon the pioneer who complies with the terms
they impose the privilege of purchasing a limited portion of "unoffered
lands" at the minimum price. The homestead enactments relieve the
settler from the payment of purchase money, and secure him a permanent
home upon the condition of residence for a term of years. This liberal
policy invites emigration from the Old and from the more crowded
portions of the New World. Its propitious results are undoubted, and
will be more signally manifested when time shall have given to it a
wider development.

Congress has made liberal grants of public land to corporations in
aid of the construction of railroads and other internal improvements.
Should this policy hereafter prevail, more stringent provisions will
be required to secure a faithful application of the fund. The title to
the lands should not pass, by patent or otherwise, but remain in the
Government and subject to its control until some portion of the road has
been actually built. Portions of them might then from time to time be
conveyed to the corporation, but never in a greater ratio to the whole
quantity embraced by the grant than the completed parts bear to the
entire length of the projected improvement. This restriction would not
operate to the prejudice of any undertaking conceived in good faith
and executed with reasonable energy, as it is the settled practice to
withdraw from market the lands falling within the operation of such
grants, and thus to exclude the inception of a subsequent adverse right.
A breach of the conditions which Congress may deem proper to impose
should work a forfeiture of claim to the lands so withdrawn but
unconveyed, and of title to the lands conveyed which remain unsold.

Operations on the several lines of the Pacific Railroad have been
prosecuted with unexampled vigor and success. Should no unforeseen
causes of delay occur, it is confidently anticipated that this great
thoroughfare will be completed before the expiration of the period
designated by Congress.

During the last fiscal year the amount paid to pensioners, including the
expenses of disbursement, was $13,459,996, and 50,177 names were added
to the pension rolls. The entire number of pensioners June 30, 1866,
was 126,722. This fact furnishes melancholy and striking proof of
the sacrifices made to vindicate the constitutional authority of the
Federal Government and to maintain inviolate the integrity of the Union.
They impose upon us corresponding obligations. It is estimated that
$33,000,000 will be required to meet the exigencies of this branch of
the service during the next fiscal year.

Treaties have been concluded with the Indians, who, enticed into armed
opposition to our Government at the outbreak of the rebellion, have
unconditionally submitted to our authority and manifested an earnest
desire for a renewal of friendly relations.

During the year ending September 30, 1866, 8,716 patents for useful
inventions and designs were issued, and at that date the balance in
the Treasury to the credit of the patent fund was $228,297.

As a subject upon which depends an immense amount of the production and
commerce of the country, I recommend to Congress such legislation as
may be necessary for the preservation of the levees of the Mississippi
River. It is a matter of national importance that early steps should
be taken, not only to add to the efficiency of these barriers against
destructive inundations, but for the removal of all obstructions to the
free and safe navigation of that great channel of trade and commerce.

The District of Columbia under existing laws is not entitled to that
representation in the national councils which from our earliest history
has been uniformly accorded to each Territory established from time to
time within our limits. It maintains peculiar relations to Congress, to
whom the Constitution has granted the power of exercising exclusive
legislation over the seat of Government. Our fellow-citizens residing
in the District, whose interests are thus confided to the special
guardianship of Congress, exceed in number the population of several of
our Territories, and no just reason is perceived why a Delegate of their
choice should not be admitted to a seat in the House of Representatives.
No mode seems so appropriate and effectual of enabling them to make
known their peculiar condition and wants and of securing the local
legislation adapted to them. I therefore recommend the passage of a
law authorizing the electors of the District of Columbia to choose a
Delegate, to be allowed the same rights and privileges as a Delegate
representing a Territory. The increasing enterprise and rapid progress
of improvement in the District are highly gratifying, and I trust that
the efforts of the municipal authorities to promote the prosperity of
the national metropolis will receive the efficient and generous
cooperation of Congress.

The report of the Commissioner of Agriculture reviews the operations of
his Department during the past year, and asks the aid of Congress in
its efforts to encourage those States which, scourged by war, are now
earnestly engaged in the reorganization of domestic industry.

It is a subject of congratulation that no foreign combinations
against our domestic peace and safety or our legitimate influence
among the nations have been formed or attempted. While sentiments of
reconciliation, loyalty, and patriotism have increased at home, a more
just consideration of our national character and rights has been
manifested by foreign nations.

The entire success of the Atlantic telegraph between the coast of
Ireland and the Province of Newfoundland is an achievement which has
been justly celebrated in both hemispheres as the opening of an era in
the progress of civilization. There is reason to expect that equal
success will attend and even greater results follow the enterprise for
connecting the two continents through the Pacific Ocean by the projected
line of telegraph between Kamchatka and the Russian possessions in
America.

The resolution of Congress protesting against pardons by foreign
governments of persons convicted of infamous offenses on condition of
emigration to our country has been communicated to the states with which
we maintain intercourse, and the practice, so justly the subject of
complaint on our part, has not been renewed.

The congratulations of Congress to the Emperor of Russia upon his escape
from attempted assassination have been presented to that humane and
enlightened ruler and received by him with expressions of grateful
appreciation.

The Executive, warned of an attempt by Spanish American adventurers to
induce the emigration of freedmen of the United States to a foreign
country, protested against the project as one which, if consummated,
would reduce them to a bondage even more oppressive than that from
which they have just been relieved. Assurance has been received from
the Government of the State in which the plan was matured that the
proceeding will meet neither its encouragement nor approval. It is
a question worthy of your consideration whether our laws upon this
subject are adequate to the prevention or punishment of the crime
thus meditated.

In the month of April last, as Congress is aware, a friendly
arrangement was made between the Emperor of France and the President
of the United States for the withdrawal from Mexico of the French
expeditionary military forces. This withdrawal was to be effected in
three detachments, the first of which, it was understood, would leave
Mexico in November, now past, the second in March next, and the third
and last in November, 1867. Immediately upon the completion of the
evacuation the French Government was to assume the same attitude of
nonintervention in regard to Mexico as is held by the Government of the
United States. Repeated assurances have been given by the Emperor since
that agreement that he would complete the promised evacuation within
the period mentioned, or sooner.

It was reasonably expected that the proceedings thus contemplated would
produce a crisis of great political interest in the Republic of Mexico.
The newly appointed minister of the United States, Mr. Campbell, was
therefore sent forward on the 9th day of November last to assume his
proper functions as minister plenipotentiary of the United States to
that Republic. It was also thought expedient that he should be attended
in the vicinity of Mexico by the Lieutenant-General of the Army of the
United States, with the view of obtaining such information as might be
important to determine the course to be pursued by the United States in
reestablishing and maintaining necessary and proper intercourse with the
Republic of Mexico. Deeply interested in the cause of liberty and
humanity, it seemed an obvious duty on our part to exercise whatever
influence we possessed for the restoration and permanent establishment
in that country of a domestic and republican form of government.

Such was the condition of our affairs in regard to Mexico when, on the
22d of November last, official information was received from Paris that
the Emperor of France had some time before decided not to withdraw a
detachment of his forces in the month of November past, according to
engagement, but that this decision was made with the purpose of
withdrawing the whole of those forces in the ensuing spring. Of this
determination, however, the United States had not received any notice
or intimation, and so soon as the information was received by the
Government care was taken to make known its dissent to the Emperor of
France.

I can not forego the hope that France will reconsider the subject and
adopt some resolution in regard to the evacuation of Mexico which will
conform as nearly as practicable with the existing engagement, and thus
meet the just expectations of the United States. The papers relating
to the subject will be laid before you. It is believed that with the
evacuation of Mexico by the expeditionary forces no subject for serious
differences between France and the United States would remain. The
expressions of the Emperor and people of France warrant a hope that the
traditionary friendship between the two countries might in that case be
renewed and permanently restored.

A claim of a citizen of the United States for indemnity for spoliations
committed on the high seas by the French authorities in the exercise of
a belligerent power against Mexico has been met by the Government of
France with a proposition to defer settlement until a mutual convention
for the adjustment of all claims of citizens and subjects of both
countries arising out of the recent wars on this continent shall
be agreed upon by the two countries. The suggestion is not deemed
unreasonable, but it belongs to Congress to direct the manner in which
claims for indemnity by foreigners as well as by citizens of the United
States arising out of the late civil war shall be adjudicated and
determined. I have no doubt that the subject of all such claims will
engage your attention at a convenient and proper time.

It is a matter of regret that no considerable advance has been made
toward an adjustment of the differences between the United States and
Great Britain arising out of the depredations upon our national commerce
and other trespasses committed during our civil war by British subjects,
in violation of international law and treaty obligations. The delay,
however, may be believed to have resulted in no small degree from the
domestic situation of Great Britain. An entire change of ministry
occurred in that country during the last session of Parliament. The
attention of the new ministry was called to the subject at an early day,
and there is some reason to expect that it will now be considered in a
becoming and friendly spirit. The importance of an early disposition of
the question can not be exaggerated. Whatever might be the wishes of the
two Governments, it is manifest that good will and friendship between
the two countries can not be established until a reciprocity in the
practice of good faith and neutrality shall be restored between the
respective nations.

On the 6th of June last, in violation of our neutrality laws, a military
expedition and enterprise against the British North American colonies
was projected and attempted to be carried on within the territory and
jurisdiction of the United States. In obedience to the obligation
imposed upon the Executive by the Constitution to see that the laws are
faithfully executed, all citizens were warned by proclamation against
taking part in or aiding such unlawful proceedings, and the proper
civil, military, and naval officers were directed to take all necessary
measures for the enforcement of the laws. The expedition failed, but it
has not been without its painful consequences. Some of our citizens who,
it was alleged, were engaged in the expedition were captured, and have
been brought to trial as for a capital offense in the Province of
Canada. Judgment and sentence of death have been pronounced against
some, while others have been acquitted. Fully believing in the maxim of
government that severity of civil punishment for misguided persons who
have engaged in revolutionary attempts which have disastrously failed is
unsound and unwise, such representations have been made to the British
Government in behalf of the convicted persons as, being sustained by
an enlightened and humane judgment, will, it is hoped, induce in their
cases an exercise of clemency and a judicious amnesty to all who were
engaged in the movement. Counsel has been employed by the Government to
defend citizens of the United States on trial for capital offenses in
Canada, and a discontinuance of the prosecutions which were instituted
in the courts of the United States against those who took part in the
expedition has been directed.

I have regarded the expedition as not only political in its nature, but
as also in a great measure foreign from the United States in its causes,
character, and objects. The attempt was understood to be made in
sympathy with an insurgent party in Ireland, and by striking at a
British Province on this continent was designed to aid in obtaining
redress for political grievances which, it was assumed, the people of
Ireland had suffered at the hands of the British Government during a
period of several centuries. The persons engaged in it were chiefly
natives of that country, some of whom had, while others had not, become
citizens of the United States under our general laws of naturalization.
Complaints of misgovernment in Ireland continually engage the attention
of the British nation, and so great an agitation is now prevailing in
Ireland that the British Government have deemed it necessary to suspend
the writ of _habeas corpus_ in that country. These circumstances must
necessarily modify the opinion which we might otherwise have entertained
in regard to an expedition expressly prohibited by our neutrality laws.
So long as those laws remain upon our statute books they should be
faithfully executed, and if they operate harshly, unjustly, or
oppressively Congress alone can apply the remedy by their modification
or repeal.

Political and commercial interests of the United States are not unlikely
to be affected in some degree by events which are transpiring in the
eastern regions of Europe, and the time seems to have come when our
Government ought to have a proper diplomatic representation in Greece.

This Government has claimed for all persons not convicted or accused or
suspected of crime an absolute political right of self-expatriation and
a choice of new national allegiance. Most of the European States have
dissented from this principle, and have claimed a right to hold such of
their subjects as have emigrated to and been naturalized in the United
States and afterwards returned on transient visits to their native
countries to the performance of military service in like manner as
resident subjects. Complaints arising from the claim in this respect
made by foreign states have heretofore been matters of controversy
between the United States and some of the European powers, and the
irritation consequent upon the failure to settle this question increased
during the war in which Prussia, Italy, and Austria were recently
engaged. While Great Britain has never acknowledged the right of
expatriation, she has not for some years past practically insisted
upon the opposite doctrine. France has been equally forbearing, and
Prussia has proposed a compromise, which, although evincing increased
liberality, has not been accepted by the United States. Peace is now
prevailing everywhere in Europe, and the present seems to be a favorable
time for an assertion by Congress of the principle so long maintained by
the executive department that naturalization by one state fully exempts
the native-born subject of any other state from the performance of
military service under any foreign government, so long as he does not
voluntarily renounce its rights and benefits.

In the performance of a duty imposed upon me by the Constitution
I have thus submitted to the representatives of the States and of the
people such information of our domestic and foreign affairs as the
public interests seem to require. Our Government is now undergoing its
most trying ordeal, and my earnest prayer is that the peril may be
successfully and finally passed without impairing its original strength
and symmetry. The interests of the nation are best to be promoted by the
revival of fraternal relations, the complete obliteration of our past
differences, and the reinauguration of all the pursuits of peace.
Directing our efforts to the early accomplishment of these great
ends, let us endeavor to preserve harmony between the coordinate
departments of the Government, that each in its proper sphere may
cordially cooperate with the other in securing the maintenance of
the Constitution, the preservation of the Union, and the perpetuity
of our free institutions.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

SPECIAL MESSAGES.

WASHINGTON, _December 8, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In reply to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 5th
instant, inquiring if any portion of Mexican territory has been occupied
by United States troops, I transmit the accompanying report upon the
subject from the Secretary of War.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 8, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I have the honor to communicate a report of the Secretary of State
relating to the discovery and arrest of John H. Surratt.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _December 11, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith reports from the Secretary of War and the
Attorney-General, in compliance with a resolution of the 3d instant,
requesting the President to communicate to the House, "if not in his
opinion incompatible with the public interests, the information asked
for in a resolution of this House dated the 23d June last, and which
resolution he has up to this time failed to answer, as to whether any
application has been made to him for the pardon of G.E. Pickett, who
acted as a major-general of the rebel forces in the late war for the
suppression of insurrection, and, if so, what has been the action
thereon; and also to communicate copies of all papers, entries,
indorsements, and other documentary evidence in relation to any
proceeding in connection with such application; and that he also inform
this House whether, since the adjournment at Raleigh, N.C., on the
30th of March last, of the last board or court of inquiry convened to
investigate the facts attending the hanging of a number of United States
soldiers for alleged desertion from the rebel army, any further measures
have been taken to bring the said Pickett or other perpetrators of that
crime to punishment."

In transmitting the accompanying papers containing the information
requested by the House of Representatives it is proper to state that,
instead of bearing date the 23d of June last, the first resolution was
dated the 23d of July, and was received by the Executive only four days
before the termination of the session.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 14, 1866_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I communicate a translation of a letter of the 17th of August last
addressed to me by His Majesty Alexander, Emperor of Russia, in reply to
the joint resolution of Congress approved on the 16th day of May, 1866,
relating to the attempted assassination of the Emperor, a certified copy
of which was, in compliance with the request of Congress, forwarded to
His Majesty by the hands of Gustavus V. Fox, late Assistant Secretary of
the Navy of the United States.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 15, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of the Interior, in
answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 10th
instant, in relation to the Atchison and Pikes Peak Railroad Company.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 20, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of
December 4 last, requesting information "relating to the attempt of
Santa Anna and Ortega to organize armed expeditions within the United
States for the purpose of overthrowing the National Government of the
Republic of Mexico," I transmit a report from the Secretary of State
and the papers accompanying it.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 21, 1866_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 19th
instant, calling for a copy of certain correspondence relating to the
joint occupancy of the island of San Juan, in Washington Territory,
I transmit a report from the Secretary of State on the subject.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 3, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I have the honor to communicate an additional report of the Secretary of
State relating to the discovery and arrest of John H. Surratt.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 8, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of War and the
accompanying papers, in reply to the resolution of the House of
Representatives of the 13th ultimo, requesting copies of all official
documents, orders, letters, and papers of every description relative to
the trial by a military commission and conviction of Crawford Keys and
others for the murder of Emory Smith and others, and to the respite
of the sentence in the case of said Crawford Keys or either of his
associates, their transfer to Fort Delaware, and subsequent release
upon a writ of _habeas corpus_.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 8, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit the accompanying report from the Attorney-General as a
partial reply to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
10th ultimo, requesting a "list of names of all persons engaged in the
late rebellion against the United States Government who have been
pardoned by the President from April 15, 1865, to this date; that said
list shall also state the rank of each person who has been so pardoned,
if he has been engaged in the military service of the so-called
Confederate government, and the position if he shall have held any civil
office under said so-called Confederate government; and shall also
further state whether such person has at any time prior to April 14,
1861, held any office under the United States Government, and, if so,
what office, together with the reasons for granting such pardons and
also the names of the person or persons at whose solicitation such
pardon was granted."

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 9, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of the Navy, in
answer to a resolution of the House of the 19th ultimo, requesting a
statement of the amounts charged to the State Department since May 1,
1865, for services rendered by naval vessels.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 9, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of the Navy,
with the accompanying documents, in answer to a resolution of the Senate
of the 5th ultimo, calling for copies of orders, instructions, and
directions issued from that Department in relation to the employment of
officers and others in the navy-yards of the United States, and all
communications received in relation to employment at the Norfolk
Navy-Yard.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 10, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit to the House of Representatives, in answer to a resolution of
the 17th ultimo, calling for information relative to the revolution in
Candia, a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying documents.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, January 14, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of the 19th ultimo,
requesting information regarding the occupation of Mexican territory by
the troops of the United States, I transmit a report of the Secretary of
State and one of the Secretary of War, and the documents by which they
were accompanied.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 18, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with a resolution of the 19th ultimo, requesting certain
information in regard to the Universal Exposition to be held at Paris
during the present year, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State
and the documents to which it refers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _January 19, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith communicate a report from the Secretary of the Interior,
in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 16th
instant, in relation to the clerks of the Federal courts and the marshal
of the United States for the district of North Carolina.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of War and the
accompanying papers, in compliance with the resolution of the House of
Representatives of the 19th ultimo, requesting copies of all papers in
possession of the President touching the case of George St. Leger
Grenfel.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

JANUARY 21, 1867.

WASHINGTON, _January 23, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 21st
instant, a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying
papers.[8]

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 8: Correspondence with Mr. Motley, envoy extraordinary
and minister plenipotentiary at Vienna, relative to his reported
resignation.]

WASHINGTON, _January 28, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a report[9] from the Secretary of State, with
accompanying papers, in answer to the Senate's resolution of the
7th instant.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 9: Relating to an alleged emigration of citizens of the United
States to the dominions of the Sublime Porte for the purpose of settling
and acquiring landed property there.]

WASHINGTON, _January 28, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the
7th instant, in relation to the attempted compromise of certain suits
instituted in the English courts in behalf of the United States against
Fraser, Trenholm & Co., alleged agents of the so-called Confederate
government, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the
documents by which it was accompanied.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 29, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a report[10] from the Secretary of State, in answer
to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 24th instant.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 10: Stating that the Department of State has received no
information concerning the removal of the Protestant Church or religious
assembly meeting at the American embassy from the city of Rome by an
order of that Government.]

WASHINGTON, _January 29, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
12th ultimo and its request of the 28th instant for all correspondence,
reports, and information in my possession in relation to the riot which
occurred in the city of New Orleans on the 30th day of July last, I
transmit herewith copies of telegraphic dispatches upon the subject,
and reports from the Secretary of War, with the papers accompanying
the same.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 29, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
4th of December last, requesting information upon the present condition
of affairs in the Republic of Mexico, and of one of the 18th of the same
month, desiring me to communicate to the House of Representatives copies
of all correspondence on the subject of the evacuation of Mexico by the
French troops not before officially published, I transmit a report from
the Secretary of State and the papers accompanying it.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 31, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith reports from the heads of the several Executive
Departments, containing the information in reference to appointments
to office requested in the resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives on the 6th of December last.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 31, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report by the Secretary of War of January 30,
containing the information asked for in a resolution of the House of
Representatives of January 25, 1867, hereto annexed, respecting the
execution of "An act providing for the appointment of a commissioner to
examine and report upon certain claims of the State of Iowa," approved
July 25, 1866.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 31, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

The accompanying reports from the heads of the several Executive
Departments of the Government are submitted in compliance with a
resolution of the Senate dated the 12th ultimo, inquiring whether any
person appointed to an office required by law to be filled by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, and who was commissioned during
the recess of the Senate, previous to the assembling of the present
Congress, to fill a vacancy, has been continued in such office and
permitted to discharge its functions, either by the granting of a new
commission or otherwise, since the end of the session of the Senate on
the 28th day of July last, without the submission of the name of such
person to the Senate for its confirmation; and particularly whether a
surveyor or naval officer of the port of Philadelphia has thus been
continued in office without the consent of the Senate, and, if any such
officer has performed the duties of that office, whether he has received
any salary or compensation therefor.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 7, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
a treaty concluded the 29th day of August, 1866, between Alexander
Cummings, governor of Colorado Territory and _ex officio_ superintendent
of Indian affairs, Hon. A.C. Hunt, and D.C. Oakes, United States Indian
agent, duly authorized and appointed as commissioners for the purpose,
and the chiefs and warriors of the Uintah Jampa, or Grand River, bands
of Utah Indians.

A letter of the Secretary of the Interior of the 31st of January, with
copy of letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs of the 28th of
January, 1867, together with a map showing the tract of country claimed
by said Indians, accompany the treaty.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 4, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 2d instant, requesting
the Secretary of State to report what steps have been taken him to
secure to the United States the right to make the necessary surveys for
an interoceanic ship canal through the territory of Colombia, I transmit
herewith the report of the Secretary of State.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 4, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith communicate a report from the Secretary of the Interior of
this date, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of the 31st ultimo,
in relation to the deputy marshals, bailiffs, and criers in the District
of Columbia who have received compensation for the year 1866.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 4, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit a report of the Secretary of the Treasury, in answer to a
resolution of the Senate of the 31st ultimo, on the subject of a treaty
of reciprocity with the Hawaiian Islands.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 5, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith, in answer to the Senate's resolution of the 2d
instant, a report from the Secretary of State, with an accompanying
document.[11]

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 11: Copy of the letter on which the Secretary of State founded
his inquiries addressed to Mr. Motley, United States minister at Vienna,
with regard to his reported conversation and opinions.]

WASHINGTON, _February 5, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, in answer to a
resolution of the House of Representatives of yesterday, making inquiry
as to the States which have ratified the amendment to the Constitution
proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 7, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
4th instant, requesting me to communicate to that body any official
correspondence which may have taken place with regard to the visit of
Professor Agassiz to Brazil, I transmit herewith the report of the
Secretary of State and the papers accompanying it.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 7, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith communicate a report of the Secretary of the Interior,
in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 22d
ultimo, requesting information relative to the condition, occupancy,
and area of the Hot Springs Reservation, in the State of Arkansas.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 9, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith, in answer to the Senate's resolution of the 7th
instant, a report[12] from the Secretary of State, with an accompanying
document.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 12: Relating to the reported transfer of the United States
minister from Stockholm to Bogota.]

WASHINGTON, _February 11, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 6th of February,
1867, requesting me to transmit copies of all correspondence not
heretofore communicated on the subject of grants to American citizens
for railroad and telegraph lines across the territory of the Republic of
Mexico, I submit herewith the report of the Secretary of State and the
papers accompanying it.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 16, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, in answer to a
resolution of the House of Representatives of yesterday, making further
inquiry as to the States which have ratified the amendment to the
Constitution proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 16, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 27th of July last,
relative to the practicability of establishing equal reciprocal
relations between the United States and the British North American
Provinces and to the actual condition of the question of the fisheries,
I transmit a report on the subject from the Secretary of State, with
the papers to which it refers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 18, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I have received a resolution of the Senate dated the 8th day of January
last, requesting the President to inform the Senate if any violations of
the act entitled "An act to protect all persons in the United States in
their civil rights and furnish the means of their vindication" have come
to his knowledge, and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken by him
to enforce the law and punish the offenders.

Not being cognizant of any cases which came within the purview of the
resolution, in order that the inquiry might have the fullest range I
referred it to the heads of the several Executive Departments, whose
reports are herewith communicated for the information of the Senate.

With the exception of the cases mentioned in the reports of the
Secretary of War and the Attorney-General, no violations, real or
supposed, of the act to which the resolution refers have at any time
come to the knowledge of the Executive. The steps taken in these cases
to enforce the law appear in these reports.

The Secretary of War, under date of the 15th instant, submitted a series
of reports from the General Commanding the armies of the United States
and other military officers as to supposed violations of the act alluded
to in the resolution, with the request that they should be referred to
the Attorney-General "for his investigation and report, to the end that
the cases may be designated which are cognizant by the civil authorities
and such as are cognizant by military tribunals." I have directed the
reference so to be made.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 18, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit a letter of the 26th ultimo, addressed to me by W.F.M. Arny,
secretary and acting governor of the Territory of New Mexico, with the
memorials to Congress by which it was accompanied, requesting certain
appropriations for that Territory. The attention of the House of
Representatives is invited to the subject.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 19, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit the accompanying reports from the Secretary of the Treasury
and the Secretary of War, in answer to the resolution of the House of
Representatives of the 28th May last, requesting certain information in
regard to captured and forfeited cotton.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 20, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, giving information of
States which have ratified the amendment to the Constitution proposed by
the Thirty-ninth Congress in addition to those named in his report which
was communicated in my message of the 16th instant, in answer to a
resolution of the House of Representatives of the 15th instant.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 21, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 11th
instant, a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying
documents.[13]

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 13: Correspondence relative to the refusal of the United
States consul at Cadiz, Spain, to certify invoices of wines shipped
from that port, etc.]

WASHINGTON, _February 21, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 31st ultimo,
a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying documents.[14]

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 14: Correspondence with foreign ministers of the United States
relative to the policy of the President toward the States lately in
rebellion.]

WASHINGTON, _February 21, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 19th
instant, a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying
documents.[15]

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 15: Correspondence relative to the salary of the United States
minister to Portugal.]

WASHINGTON, _February 21, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit to the House of Representatives, in answer to their
resolution of the 14th instant, a report[16] from the Secretary of
State of this date.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 16: Stating that the correspondence relative to the refusal of
the United States consul at Cadiz, Spain, to certify invoices of wines
shipped from that port had been sent to the Senate.]

WASHINGTON, _February 21, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

For the reasons stated[16] in the accompanying communication from the
Secretary of the Interior, I withdraw the treaty concluded with the
New York Indians in Kansas and submitted to the Senate in the month of
December, 1863, but upon which I am informed no action has yet been
taken.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 16: For the purpose of concluding a new treaty.]

WASHINGTON CITY, D.C., _February 23, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
a treaty concluded in the city of Washington on the 19th of February,
1867, between the United States and the Sac and Fox tribes of Indians
of Missouri.

A letter of the Secretary of the Interior of the 23d and copy of a
letter of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs of the 19th of February,
1867, accompany the treaty.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON CITY, D.C., _February 23, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
a treaty concluded in the city of Washington on the 18th February, 1867,
between the United States and the Sac and Fox tribes of Indians of the
Mississippi.

A letter of the Secretary of the Interior of the 23d and a copy of a
letter of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs of the 19th February, 1867,
accompany the treaty.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON CITY, D.C., _February 23, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
a treaty concluded on the 19th February, 1867, between the United States
and the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands of Indians.

A letter of the Secretary of the Interior of the 23d instant and
accompanying copies of letters of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs
and Major T.R. Brown, in relation to said treaty, are also herewith
transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 23, 1867_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit a copy of a letter of the 12th instant addressed to me by His
Excellency Lucius Fairchild, governor of the State of Wisconsin, and of
the memorial to Congress concerning the Paris Exposition adopted by the
legislature of that State during its present session.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 25, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of the Interior, in
reply to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 11th
instant, calling for certain information relative to removals and
appointments in his Department since the adjournment of the first
session of the Thirty-ninth Congress.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _February 26, 1867_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit to Congress a copy of a correspondence between the Secretary
of State and G.V. Fox, esq., relative to the presentation by the latter
to the Emperor of Russia of the resolution of Congress expressive of
the feelings of the people of the United States in reference to the
providential escape of that sovereign from an attempted assassination.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 26, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, with a view to ratification, a general
convention of amity, commerce, and navigation and for the surrender of
fugitive criminals between the United States and the Dominican Republic,
signed by the plenipotentiaries of the parties at the city of St.
Domingo on the 8th of this month.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _February 27, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of the Navy,
in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 21st
instant, calling for a copy of a letter addressed by Richard M. Boynton
and Harriet M. Fisher to the Secretary of the Navy in the month of
February, 1863, together with the indorsement made thereon by the Chief
of the Bureau of Ordnance.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 2, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report of the Attorney-General, additional to the
one submitted by him December 13, 1866, in reply to the resolution of
the House of Representatives of December 10, 1866, requesting "a list of
names of all persons who have been engaged in the late rebellion against
the United States Government who have been pardoned by the President
from April 15, 1865, to this date; that said list shall also state the
rank of each person who has been so pardoned, if he has been engaged
in the military service of the so-called Confederate States, and the
position if he shall have held any civil office under said so-called
Confederate government; and shall also further state whether such person
has at any time prior to April 14, 1861, held any office under the
United States Government, and, if so, what office, together with the
reasons for granting such pardons, and also the names of the person or
persons at whose solicitation such pardon was granted."

ANDREW JOHNSON.

MARCH 2, 1867.

_To the House of Representatives_:

The act entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of the
Army for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes" contains
provisions to which I must call attention. Those provisions are
contained in the second section, which in certain cases virtually
deprives the President of his constitutional functions as Commander in
Chief of the Army, and in the sixth section, which denies to ten States
of this Union their constitutional right to protect themselves in any
emergency by means of their own militia. Those provisions are out of
place in an appropriation act. I am compelled to defeat these necessary
appropriations if I withhold my signature to the act. Pressed by these
considerations, I feel constrained to return the bill with my signature,
but to accompany it with my protest against the sections which I have
indicated.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

VETO MESSAGES.

WASHINGTON, _January 5, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I have received and considered a bill entitled "An act to regulate the
elective franchise in the District of Columbia," passed by the Senate
on the 13th of December and by the House of Representatives on the
succeeding day. It was presented for my approval on the 26th ultimo--six
days after the adjournment of Congress--and is now returned with my
objections to the Senate, in which House it originated.

Measures having been introduced at the commencement of the first session
of the present Congress for the extension of the elective franchise to
persons of color in the District of Columbia, steps were taken by the
corporate authorities of Washington and Georgetown to ascertain and make
known the opinion of the people of the two cities upon a subject so
immediately affecting their welfare as a community. The question was
submitted to the people at special elections held in the month of
December, 1865, when the qualified voters of Washington and Georgetown,
with great unanimity of sentiment, expressed themselves opposed to
the contemplated legislation. In Washington, in a vote of 6,556--the
largest, with but two exceptions, ever polled in that city--only
thirty-five ballots were cast for negro suffrage, while in Georgetown,
in an aggregate of 813 votes--a number considerably in excess of the
average vote at the four preceding annual elections--but one was given
in favor of the proposed extension of the elective franchise. As these
elections seem to have been conducted with entire fairness, the result
must be accepted as a truthful expression of the opinion of the people
of the District upon the question which evoked it. Possessing, as an
organized community, the same popular right as the inhabitants of a
State or Territory to make known their will upon matters which affect
their social and political condition, they could have selected no more
appropriate mode of memorializing Congress upon the subject of this
bill than through the suffrages of their qualified voters.

Entirely disregarding the wishes of the people of the District of
Columbia, Congress has deemed it right and expedient to pass the measure
now submitted for my signature. It therefore becomes the duty of the
Executive, standing between the legislation of the one and the will of
the other, fairly expressed, to determine whether he should approve the
bill, and thus aid in placing upon the statute books of the nation a law
against which the people to whom it is to apply have solemnly and with
such unanimity protested, or whether he should return it with his
objections in the hope that upon reconsideration Congress, acting as
the representatives of the inhabitants of the seat of Government, will
permit them to regulate a purely local question as to them may seem best
suited to their interests and condition.

The District of Columbia was ceded to the United States by Maryland and
Virginia in order that it might become the permanent seat of Government
of the United States. Accepted by Congress, it at once became subject to
the "exclusive legislation" for which provision is made in the Federal
Constitution. It should be borne in mind, however, that in exercising
its functions as the lawmaking power of the District of Columbia the
authority of the National Legislature is not without limit, but that
Congress is bound to observe the letter and spirit of the Constitution
as well in the enactment of local laws for the seat of Government as
in legislation common to the entire Union. Were it to be admitted that
the right "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever"
conferred upon Congress unlimited power within the District of Columbia,
titles of nobility might be granted within its boundaries; laws might be
made "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances." Despotism would thus reign at
the seat of government of a free republic, and as a place of permanent
residence it would be avoided by all who prefer the blessings of liberty
to the mere emoluments of official position.

It should also be remembered that in legislating for the District of
Columbia under the Federal Constitution the relation of Congress to
its inhabitants is analogous to that of a legislature to the people
of a State under their own local constitution. It does not, therefore,
seem to be asking too much that in matters pertaining to the District
Congress should have a like respect for the will and interest of its
inhabitants as is entertained by a State legislature for the wishes
and prosperity of those for whom they legislate. The spirit of our
Constitution and the genius of our Government require that in regard to
any law which is to affect and have a permanent bearing upon a people
their will should exert at least a reasonable influence upon those who
are acting in the capacity of their legislators. Would, for instance,
the legislature of the State of New York, or of Pennsylvania, or of
Indiana, or of any State in the Union, in opposition to the expressed
will of a large majority of the people whom they were chosen to
represent, arbitrarily force upon them as voters all persons of the
African or negro race and make them eligible for office without any
other qualification than a certain term of residence within the State?
In neither of the States named would the colored population, when acting
together, be able to produce any great social or political result.
Yet in New York, before he can vote, the man of color must fulfill
conditions that are not required of the white citizen; in Pennsylvania
the elective franchise is restricted to white freemen, while in Indiana
negroes and mulattoes are expressly excluded from the right of suffrage.
It hardly seems consistent with the principles of right and justice that
representatives of States where suffrage is either denied the colored
man or granted to him on qualifications requiring intelligence or
property should compel the people of the District of Columbia to
try an experiment which their own constituents have thus far shown
an unwillingness to test for themselves. Nor does it accord with our
republican ideas that the principle of self-government should lose its
force when applied to the residents of the District merely because their
legislators are not, like those of the States, responsible through the
ballot to the people for whom they are the lawmaking power.

The great object of placing the seat of Government under the exclusive
legislation of Congress was to secure the entire independence of the
General Government from undue State influence and to enable it to
discharge without danger of interruption or infringement of its
authority the high functions for which it was created by the people.
For this important purpose it was ceded to the United States by Maryland
and Virginia, and it certainly never could have been contemplated
as one of the objects to be attained by placing it under the exclusive
jurisdiction of Congress that it would afford to propagandists or
political parties a place for an experimental test of their principles
and theories. While, indeed, the residents of the seat of Government are
not citizens of any State and are not, therefore, allowed a voice in the
electoral college or representation in the councils of the nation, they
are, nevertheless, American citizens, entitled as such to every guaranty
of the Constitution, to every benefit of the laws, and to every right
which pertains to citizens of our common country. In all matters, then,
affecting their domestic affairs, the spirit of our democratic form of
government demands that their wishes should be consulted and respected
and they taught to feel that although not permitted practically to
participate in national concerns, they are, nevertheless, under a
paternal government regardful of their rights, mindful of their wants,
and solicitous for their prosperity. It was evidently contemplated that
all local questions would be left to their decision, at least to an
extent that would not be incompatible with the object for which Congress
was granted exclusive legislation over the seat of Government. When the
Constitution was yet under consideration, it was assumed by Mr. Madison
that its inhabitants would be allowed "a municipal legislature for local
purposes, derived from their own suffrages." When for the first time
Congress, in the year 1800, assembled at Washington, President Adams, in
his speech at its opening, reminded the two Houses that it was for them
to consider whether the local powers over the District of Columbia,
vested by the Constitution in the Congress of the United States, should
be immediately exercised, and he asked them to "consider it as the
capital of a great nation, advancing with unexampled rapidity in arts,
in commerce, in wealth, and in population, and possessing within itself
those resources which, if not thrown away or lamentably misdirected,
would secure to it a long course of prosperity and self-government."
Three years had not elapsed when Congress was called upon to determine
the propriety of retroceding to Maryland and Virginia the jurisdiction
of the territory which they had respectively relinquished to the
Government of the United States. It was urged on the one hand that
exclusive jurisdiction was not necessary or useful to the Government;
that it deprived the inhabitants of the District of their political
rights; that much of the time of Congress was consumed in legislation
pertaining to it; that its government was expensive; that Congress was
not competent to legislate for the District, because the members were
strangers to its local concerns; and that it was an example of a
government without representation--an experiment dangerous to the
liberties of the States. On the other hand it was held, among other
reasons, and successfully, that the Constitution, the acts of cession
of Virginia and Maryland, and the act of Congress accepting the grant
all contemplated the exercise of exclusive legislation by Congress,
and that its usefulness, if not its necessity, was inferred from the
inconvenience which was felt for want of it by the Congress of the
Confederation; that the people themselves, who, it was said, had been
deprived of their political rights, had not complained and did not
desire a retrocession; that the evil might be remedied by giving them a
representation in Congress when the District should become sufficiently
populous, and in the meantime a local legislature; that if the
inhabitants had not political rights they had great political influence;
that the trouble and expense of legislating for the District would not
be great, but would diminish, and might in a great measure be avoided
by a local legislature; and that Congress could not retrocede the
inhabitants without their consent. Continuing to live substantially
under the laws that existed at the time of the cession, and such changes
only having been made as were suggested by themselves, the people of the
District have not sought by a local legislature that which has generally
been willingly conceded by the Congress of the nation.

As a general rule sound policy requires that the legislature should
yield to the wishes of a people, when not inconsistent with the
constitution and the laws. The measures suited to one community might
not be well adapted to the condition of another; and the persons best
qualified to determine such questions are those whose interests are
to be directly affected by any proposed law. In Massachusetts, for
instance, male persons are allowed to vote without regard to color,
provided they possess a certain degree of intelligence. In a population
in that State of 1,231,066 there were, by the census of 1860, only 9,602
persons of color, and of the males over 20 years of age there were
339,086 white to 2,602 colored. By the same official enumeration there
were in the District of Columbia 60,764 whites to 14,316 persons of the
colored race. Since then, however, the population of the District has
largely increased, and it is estimated that at the present time there
are nearly 100,000 whites to 30,000 negroes. The cause of the augmented
numbers of the latter class needs no explanation. Contiguous to Maryland
and Virginia, the District during the war became a place of refuge for
those who escaped from servitude, and it is yet the abiding place of a
considerable proportion of those who sought within its limits a shelter
from bondage. Until then held in slavery and denied all opportunities
for mental culture, their first knowledge of the Government was acquired
when, by conferring upon them freedom, it became the benefactor of their
race. The test of their capability for improvement began when for the
first time the career of free industry and the avenues to intelligence
were opened to them. Possessing these advantages but a limited time--the
greater number perhaps having entered the District of Columbia during
the later years of the war, or since its termination--we may well
pause to inquire whether, after so brief a probation, they are as a
class capable of an intelligent exercise of the right of suffrage and
qualified to discharge the duties of official position. The people
who are daily witnesses of their mode of living, and who have become
familiar with their habits of thought, have expressed the conviction
that they are not yet competent to serve as electors, and thus become
eligible for office in the local governments under which they live.
Clothed with the elective franchise, their numbers, already largely in
excess of the demand for labor, would be soon increased by an influx
from the adjoining States. Drawn from fields where employment is
abundant, they would in vain seek it here, and so add to the
embarrassments already experienced from the large class of idle persons
congregated in the District. Hardly yet capable of forming correct
judgments upon the important questions that often make the issues
of a political contest, they could readily be made subservient to the
purposes of designing persons. While in Massachusetts, under the census
of 1860, the proportion of white to colored males over 20 years of age
was 130 to 1, here the black race constitutes nearly one-third of the
entire population, whilst the same class surrounds the District on all
sides, ready to change their residence at a moment's notice, and with
all the facility of a nomadic people, in order to enjoy here, after a
short residence, a privilege they find nowhere else. It is within their
power in one year to come into the District in such numbers as to have
the supreme control of the white race, and to govern them by their own
officers and by the exercise of all the municipal authority--among
the rest, of the power of taxation over property in which they have
no interest. In Massachusetts, where they have enjoyed the benefits
of a thorough educational system, a qualification of intelligence
is required, while here suffrage is extended to all without
discrimination--as well to the most incapable who can prove a
residence in the District of one year as to those persons of color who,
comparatively few in number, are permanent inhabitants, and, having
given evidence of merit and qualification, are recognized as useful and
responsible members of the community. Imposed upon an unwilling people
placed by the Constitution under the exclusive legislation of Congress,
it would be viewed as an arbitrary exercise of power and as an
indication by the country of the purpose of Congress to compel the
acceptance of negro suffrage by the States. It would engender a feeling
of opposition and hatred between the two races, which, becoming deep
rooted and ineradicable, would prevent them from living together in
a state of mutual friendliness. Carefully avoiding every measure that
might tend to produce such a result, and following the clear and
well-ascertained popular will, we should assiduously endeavor to promote
kindly relations between them, and thus, when that popular will leads
the way, prepare for the gradual and harmonious introduction of this
new element into the political power of the country.

It can not be urged that the proposed extension of suffrage in the
District of Columbia is necessary to enable persons of color to protect
either their interests or their rights. They stand here precisely as
they stand in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana. Here as elsewhere, in all
that pertains to civil rights, there is nothing to distinguish this
class of persons from citizens of the United States, for they possess
the "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security
of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens," and are made
"subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other,
any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary
notwithstanding." Nor, as has been assumed, are their suffrages
necessary to aid a loyal sentiment here, for local governments already
exist of undoubted fealty to the Government, and are sustained by
communities which were among the first to testify their devotion to the
Union, and which during the struggle furnished their full quotas of men
to the military service of the country.

The exercise of the elective franchise is the highest attribute of an
American citizen, and when guided by virtue, intelligence, patriotism,
and a proper appreciation of our institutions constitutes the true basis
of a democratic form of government, in which the sovereign power is
lodged in the body of the people. Its influence for good necessarily
depends upon the elevated character and patriotism of the elector, for
if exercised by persons who do not justly estimate its value and who are
indifferent as to its results it will only serve as a means of placing
power in the hands of the unprincipled and ambitious, and must eventuate
in the complete destruction of that liberty of which it should be the
most powerful conservator. Great danger is therefore to be apprehended
from an untimely extension of the elective franchise to any new class
in our country, especially when the large majority of that class, in
wielding the power thus placed in their hands, can not be expected
correctly to comprehend the duties and responsibilities which pertain
to suffrage. Yesterday, as it were, 4,000,000 persons were held in a
condition of slavery that had existed for generations; to-day they are
freemen and are assumed by law to be citizens. It can not be presumed,
from their previous condition of servitude, that as a class they are as
well informed as to the nature of our Government as the intelligent
foreigner who makes our land the home of his choice. In the case of
the latter neither a residence of five years and the knowledge of our
institutions which it gives nor attachment to the principles of the
Constitution are the only conditions upon which he can be admitted to
citizenship; he must prove in addition a good moral character, and thus
give reasonable ground for the belief that he will be faithful to the
obligations which he assumes as a citizen of the Republic. Where a
people--the source of all political power--speak by their suffrages
through the instrumentality of the ballot box, it must be carefully
guarded against the control of those who are corrupt in principle and
enemies of free institutions, for it can only become to our political
and social system a safe conductor of healthy popular sentiment when
kept free from demoralizing influences. Controlled through fraud and
usurpation by the designing, anarchy and despotism must inevitably
follow.

In the hands of the patriotic and worthy our Government will be
preserved upon the principles of the Constitution inherited from our
fathers. It follows, therefore, that in admitting to the ballot box
a new class of voters not qualified for the exercise of the elective
franchise we weaken our system of government instead of adding to its
strength and durability.

In returning this bill to the Senate I deeply regret that there should
be any conflict of opinion between the legislative and executive
departments of the Government in regard to measures that vitally affect
the prosperity and peace of the country. Sincerely desiring to reconcile
the States with one another and the whole people to the Government of
the United States, it has been my earnest wish to cooperate with
Congress in all measures having for their object a proper and complete
adjustment of the questions resulting from our late civil war. Harmony
between the coordinate branches of the Government, always necessary for
the public welfare, was never more demanded than at the present time,
and it will therefore be my constant aim to promote as far as possible
concert of action between them. The differences of opinion that have
already occurred have rendered me only the more cautious, lest the
Executive should encroach upon any of the prerogatives of Congress,
or by exceeding in any manner the constitutional limit of his duties
destroy the equilibrium which should exist between the several
coordinate departments, and which is so essential to the harmonious
working of the Government. I know it has been urged that the executive
department is more likely to enlarge the sphere of its action than
either of the other two branches of the Government, and especially in
the exercise of the veto power conferred upon it by the Constitution. It
should be remembered, however, that this power is wholly negative and
conservative in its character, and was intended to operate as a check
upon unconstitutional, hasty, and improvident legislation and as a means
of protection against invasions of the just powers of the executive and
judicial departments. It is remarked by Chancellor Kent that--

To enact laws is a transcendent power, and if the body that possesses
it be a full and equal representation of the people there is danger of
its pressing with destructive weight upon all the other parts of the
machinery of Government. It has therefore been thought necessary by the
most skillful and most experienced artists in the science of civil
polity that strong barriers should be erected for the protection and
security of the other necessary powers of the Government. Nothing has
been deemed more fit and expedient for the purpose than the provision
that the head of the executive department should be so constituted as
to secure a requisite share of independence and that he should have a
negative upon the passing of laws; and that the judiciary power, resting
on a still more permanent basis, should have the right of determining
upon the validity of laws by the standard of the Constitution.

The necessity of some such check in the hands of the Executive is shown
by reference to the most eminent writers upon our system of government,
who seem to concur in the opinion that encroachments are most to be
apprehended from the department in which all legislative powers are
vested by the Constitution. Mr. Madison, in referring to the difficulty
of providing some practical security for each against the invasion of
the others, remarks that "the legislative department is everywhere
extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its
impetuous vortex." "The founders of our Republic * * * seem never to
have recollected the danger from legislative usurpations, which by
assembling all power in the same hands must lead to the same tyranny as
is threatened by Executive usurpations." "In a representative republic,
where the executive magistracy is carefully limited both in the extent
and the duration of its power, and where the legislative power is
exercised by an assembly which is inspired, by a supposed influence over
the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength, which
is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a
multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the
objects of its passions by means which reason prescribes, it is against
the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to
indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions." "The
legislative department derives a superiority in our governments from
other circumstances. Its constitutional powers being at once more
extensive and less susceptible of precise limits, it can with the
greater facility mask, under complicated and indirect measures, the
encroachments which it makes on the coordinate departments." "On the
other side, the Executive power being restrained within a narrower
compass and being more simple in its nature, and the judiciary being
described by landmarks still less uncertain, projects of usurpation
by either of these departments would immediately betray and defeat
themselves. Nor is this all. As the legislative department alone has
access to the pockets of the people and has in some constitutions full
discretion and in all a prevailing influence over the pecuniary rewards
of those who fill the other departments, a dependence is thus created in
the latter which gives still greater facility to encroachments of the
former." "We have seen that the tendency of republican governments is
to an aggrandizement of the legislative at the expense of the other
departments."

Mr. Jefferson, in referring to the early constitution of
Virginia, objected that by its provisions all the powers of
government--legislative, executive, and judicial--resulted to the
legislative body, holding that "the concentrating these in the same
hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no
alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands,
and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would
surely be as oppressive as one." "As little will it avail us that they
are chosen by ourselves. An elective despotism was not the government we
fought for, but one which should not only be founded on free principles,
but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced
among several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their
legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the
others. For this reason that convention which passed the ordinance of
government laid its foundation on this basis, that the legislative,
executive, and judicial departments should be separate and distinct,
so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them
at the same time. But no barrier was provided between these several
powers. The judiciary and executive members were left dependent on the
legislative for their subsistence in office, and some of them for their
continuance in it. If, therefore, the legislature assumes executive and
judiciary powers, no opposition is likely to be made, nor, if made, can
be effectual, because in that case they may put their proceedings into
the form of an act of assembly, which will render them obligatory on the
other branches. They have accordingly in many instances decided rights
which should have been left to judiciary controversy; and the direction
of the executive, during the whole time of their session, is becoming
habitual and familiar."

Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, reviews the
same subject, and says:

The truth is that the legislative power is the great and overruling
power in every free government. * * * The representatives of the people
will watch with jealousy every encroachment of the executive magistrate,
for it trenches upon their own authority. But who shall watch the
encroachment of these representatives themselves? Will they be as
jealous of the exercise of power by themselves as by others? * * *

There are many reasons which may be assigned for the engrossing
influence of the legislative department. In the first place, its
constitutional powers are more extensive, and less capable of being
brought within precise limits than those of either the other
departments. The bounds of the executive authority are easily marked
out and defined. It reaches few objects, and those are known. It can
not transcend them without being brought in contact with the other
departments. Laws may check and restrain and bound its exercise. The
same remarks apply with still greater force to the judiciary. The
jurisdiction is, or may be, bounded to a few objects or persons; or,
however general and unlimited, its operations are necessarily confined
to the mere administration of private and public justice. It can not
punish without law. It can not create controversies to act upon. It can
decide only upon rights and cases as they are brought by others before
it. It can do nothing for itself. It must do everything for others. It
must obey the laws, and if it corruptly administers them it is subjected
to the power of impeachment. On the other hand, the legislative power
except in the few cases of constitutional prohibition, is unlimited. It
is forever varying its means and its ends. It governs the institutions
and laws and public policy of the country. It regulates all its vast
interests. It disposes of all its property. Look but at the exercise
of two or three branches of its ordinary powers. It levies all taxes;
it directs and appropriates all supplies; it gives the rules for the
descent, distribution, and devises of all property held by individuals;
it controls the sources and the resources of wealth; it changes at its
will the whole fabric of the laws; it molds at its pleasure almost all
the institutions which give strength and comfort and dignity to society.

In the next place, it is the direct visible representative of the will
of the people in all the changes of times and circumstances. It has the
pride as well as the power of numbers. It is easily moved and steadily
moved by the strong impulses of popular feeling and popular odium. It
obeys without reluctance the wishes and the will of the majority for the
time being. The path to public favor lies open by such obedience, and it
finds not only support but impunity in whatever measures the majority
advises, even though they transcend the constitutional limits. It has no
motive, therefore, to be jealous or scrupulous in its own use of power;
and it finds its ambition stimulated and its arm strengthened by the
countenance and the courage of numbers. These views are not alone those
of men who look with apprehension upon the fate of republics, but they
are also freely admitted by some of the strongest advocates for popular
rights and the permanency of republican institutions. * * *

* * * * *

* * * Each department should have a will of its own. * * * Each should
have its own independence secured beyond the power of being taken away
by either or both of the others. But at the same time the relations of
each to the other should be so strong that there should be a mutual
interest to sustain and protect each other. There should not only be
constitutional means, but personal motives to resist encroachments of
one or either of the others. Thus ambition would be made to counteract
ambition, the desire of power to check power, and the pressure of
interest to balance an opposing interest.

* * * * *

* * * The judiciary is naturally and almost necessarily, as has been
already said, the weakest department. It can have no means of influence
by patronage. Its powers can never be wielded for itself. It has no
command over the purse or the sword of the nation. It can neither lay
taxes, nor appropriate money, nor command armies, nor appoint to office.
It is never brought into contact with the people by constant appeals and
solicitations and private intercourse, which belong to all the other
departments of Government. It is seen only in controversies or in trials
and punishments. Its rigid justice and impartiality give it no claims to
favor, however they may to respect. It stands solitary and unsupported,
except by that portion of public opinion which is interested only in the
strict administration of justice. It can rarely secure the sympathy or
zealous support either of the Executive or the Legislature. If they
are not, as is not unfrequently the case, jealous of its prerogatives,
the constant necessity of scrutinizing the acts of each, upon the
application of any private person, and the painful duty of pronouncing
judgment that these acts are a departure from the law or Constitution
can have no tendency to conciliate kindness or nourish influence. It
would seem, therefore, that some additional guards would, under the
circumstances, be necessary to protect this department from the absolute
dominion of the others. Yet rarely have any such guards been applied,
and every attempt to introduce them has been resisted with a pertinacity
which demonstrates how slow popular leaders are to introduce checks upon
their own power and how slow the people are to believe that the
judiciary is the real bulwark of their liberties. * * *

* * * * *

* * * If any department of the Government has undue influence or
absorbing power, it certainly has not been the executive or judiciary.

In addition to what has been said by these distinguished writers,
it may also be urged that the dominant party in each House may, by the
expulsion of a sufficient number of members or by the exclusion from
representation of a requisite number of States, reduce the minority to
less than one-third. Congress by these means might be enabled to pass a
law, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding,
which would render impotent the other two departments of the Government
and make inoperative the wholesome and restraining power which it was
intended by the framers of the Constitution should be exerted by them.
This would be a practical concentration of all power in the Congress
of the United States; this, in the language of the author of the
Declaration of Independence, would be "precisely the definition of
despotic government."

I have preferred to reproduce these teachings of the great statesmen
and constitutional lawyers of the early and later days of the Republic
rather than to rely simply upon an expression of my own opinions.
We can not too often recur to them, especially at a conjuncture like
the present. Their application to our actual condition is so apparent
that they now come to us a living voice, to be listened to with more
attention than at any previous period of our history. We have been and
are yet in the midst of popular commotion. The passions aroused by a
great civil war are still dominant. It is not a time favorable to that
calm and deliberate judgment which is the only safe guide when radical
changes in our institutions are to be made. The measure now before me is
one of those changes. It initiates an untried experiment for a people
who have said, with one voice, that it is not for their good. This alone
should make us pause, but it is not all. The experiment has not been
tried, or so much as demanded, by the people of the several States for
themselves. In but few of the States has such an innovation been allowed
as giving the ballot to the colored population without any other
qualification than a residence of one year, and in most of them the
denial of the ballot to this race is absolute and by fundamental law
placed beyond the domain of ordinary legislation. In most of those
States the evil of such suffrage would be partial, but, small as it
would be, it is guarded by constitutional barriers. Here the innovation
assumes formidable proportions, which may easily grow to such an extent
as to make the white population a subordinate element in the body
politic.

After full deliberation upon this measure, I can not bring myself to
approve it, even upon local considerations, nor yet as the beginning of
an experiment on a larger scale. I yield to no one in attachment to that
rule of general suffrage which distinguishes our policy as a nation.
But there is a limit, wisely observed hitherto, which makes the ballot
a privilege and a trust, and which requires of some classes a time
suitable for probation and preparation. To give it indiscriminately to
a new class, wholly unprepared by previous habits and opportunities to
perform the trust which it demands, is to degrade it, and finally to
destroy its power, for it may be safely assumed that no political truth
is better established than that such indiscriminate and all-embracing
extension of popular suffrage must end at last in its destruction.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 28, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I return to the Senate, in which House it originated, a bill entitled
"An act to admit the State of Colorado into the Union," to which I can
not, consistently with my sense of duty, give my approval. With the
exception of an additional section, containing new provisions, it is
substantially the same as the bill of a similar title passed by Congress
during the last session, submitted to the President for his approval,
returned with the objections contained in a message bearing date the
15th of May last, and yet awaiting the reconsideration of the Senate.

A second bill, having in view the same purpose, has now passed both
Houses of Congress and been presented for my signature. Having again
carefully considered the subject, I have been unable to perceive any
reason for changing the opinions which have already been communicated to
Congress. I find, on the contrary, that there are many objections to the
proposed legislation of which I was not at that time aware, and that
while several of those which I then assigned have in the interval gained
in strength, yet others have been created by the altered character of
the measures now submitted.

The constitution under which the State government is proposed to be
formed very properly contains a provision that all laws in force at the
time of its adoption and the admission of the State into the Union shall
continue as if the constitution had not been adopted. Among those laws
is one absolutely prohibiting negroes and mulattoes from voting. At the
recent session of the Territorial legislature a bill for the repeal of
this law, introduced into the council, was almost unanimously rejected;
and at the very time when Congress was engaged in enacting the bill now
under consideration the legislature passed an act excluding negroes and
mulattoes from the right to sit as jurors. This bill was vetoed by the
governor of the Territory, who held that by the laws of the United
States negroes and mulattoes are citizens, and subject to the duties, as
well as entitled to the rights, of citizenship. The bill, however, was
passed, the objections of the governor to the contrary notwithstanding,
and is now a law of the Territory. Yet in the bill now before me, by
which it is proposed to admit the Territory as a State, it is provided
that "there shall be no denial of the elective franchise or any other
rights to any person by reason of race or color, excepting Indians not
taxed."

The incongruity thus exhibited between the legislation of Congress and
that of the Territory, taken in connection with the protest against the
admission of the State hereinafter referred to, would seem clearly to
indicate the impolicy and injustice of the proposed enactment.

It might, indeed, be a subject of grave inquiry, and doubtless will
result in such inquiry if this bill becomes a law, whether it does not
attempt to exercise a power not conferred upon Congress by the Federal
Constitution. That instrument simply declares that Congress may admit
new States into the Union. It nowhere says that Congress may make new
States for the purpose of admitting them into the Union or for any other
purpose; and yet this bill is as clear an attempt to make the
institutions as any in which the people themselves could engage.

In view of this action of Congress, the house of representatives of the
Territory have earnestly protested against being forced into the Union
without first having the question submitted to the people. Nothing could
be more reasonable than the position which they thus assume; and it
certainly can not be the purpose of Congress to force upon a community
against their will a government which they do not believe themselves
capable of sustaining.

The following is a copy of the protest alluded to as officially
transmitted to me:

Whereas it is announced in the public prints that it is the intention
of Congress to admit Colorado as a State into the Union: Therefore,

_Resolved by the house of representatives of the Territory_, That,
representing, as we do, the last and only legal expression of public
opinion on this question, we earnestly protest against the passage of a
law admitting the State without first having the question submitted to
a vote of the people, for the reasons, first, that we have a right to a
voice in the selection of the character of our government; second, that
we have not a sufficient population to support the expenses of a State
government. For these reasons we trust that Congress will not force upon
us a government against our will.

Upon information which I considered reliable, I assumed in my message of
the 15th of May last that the population of Colorado was not more than
30,000, and expressed the opinion that this number was entirely too
small either to assume the responsibilities or to enjoy the privileges
of a State.

It appears that previous to that time the legislature, with a view
to ascertain the exact condition of the Territory, had passed a law
authorizing a census of the population to be taken. The law made it
the duty of the assessors in the several counties to take the census
in connection with the annual assessments, and, in order to secure
a correct enumeration of the population, allowed them a liberal
compensation for the service by paying them for every name returned,
and added to their previous oath of office an oath to perform this
duty with fidelity.

From the accompanying official report it appears that returns have been
received from fifteen of the eighteen counties into which the State is
divided, and that their population amounts in the aggregate to 24,909.
The three remaining counties are estimated to contain 3,000, making a
total population of 27,909.

This census was taken in the summer season, when it is claimed that the
population is much larger than at any other period, as in the autumn
miners in large numbers leave their work and return to the East with the
results of their summer enterprise.

The population, it will be observed, is but slightly in excess of
one-fifth of the number required as the basis of representation for a
single Congressional district in any of the States--the number being
127,000.

I am unable to perceive any good reason for such great disparity in the
right of representation, giving, as it would, to the people of Colorado
not only this vast advantage in the House of Representatives, but an
equality in the Senate, where the other States are represented by
millions. With perhaps a single exception, no such inequality as this
has ever before been attempted. I know that it is claimed that the
population of the different States at the time of their admission has
varied at different periods, but it has not varied much more than the
population of each decade and the corresponding basis of representation
for the different periods.

The obvious intent of the Constitution was that no State should be
admitted with a less population than the ratio for a Representative at
the time of application. The limitation in the second section of the
first article of the Constitution, declaring that "each State shall have
at least one Representative," was manifestly designed to protect the
States which originally composed the Union from being deprived, in
the event of a waning population, of a voice in the popular branch of
Congress, and was never intended as a warrant to force a new State into
the Union with a representative population far below that which might at
the time be required of sister members of the Confederacy. This bill, in
view of the prohibition of the same section, which declares that "the
number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000," is at
least a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution.

It is respectfully submitted that however Congress, under the pressure
of circumstances, may have admitted two or three States with less than
a representative population at the time, there has been no instance in
which an application for admission has ever been entertained when the
population, as officially ascertained, was below 30,000.

Were there any doubt of this being the true construction of the
Constitution, it would be dispelled by the early and long-continued
practice of the Federal Government. For nearly sixty years after the
adoption of the Constitution no State was admitted with a population
believed at the time to be less than the current ratio for a
Representative, and the first instance in which there appears to have
been a departure from the principle was in 1845, in the case of Florida.
Obviously the result of sectional strife, we would do well to regard it
as a warning of evil rather than as an example for imitation; and I
think candid men of all parties will agree that the inspiring cause of
the violation of this wholesome principle of restraint is to be found
in a vain attempt to balance these antagonisms, which refused to be
reconciled except through the bloody arbitrament of arms. The plain
facts of our history will attest that the great and leading States
admitted since 1845, viz, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, and
Kansas, including Texas, which was admitted that year, have all come
with an ample population for one Representative, and some of them with
nearly or quite enough for two.

To demonstrate the correctness of my views on this question, I subjoin
a table containing a list of the States admitted since the adoption
of the Federal Constitution, with the date of admission, the ratio of
representation, and the representative population when admitted, deduced
from the United States census tables, the calculation being made for the
period of the decade corresponding with the date of admission.

Colorado, which it is now proposed to admit as a State, contains, as has
already been stated, a population less than 28,000, while the present
ratio of representation is 127,000.

There can be no reason that I can perceive for the admission of
Colorado that would not apply with equal force to nearly every other
Territory now organized; and I submit whether, if this bill become a
law, it will be possible to resist the logical conclusion that such
Territories as Dakota, Montana, and Idaho must be received as States
whenever they present themselves, without regard to the number of
inhabitants they may respectively contain. Eight or ten new Senators and
four or five new members of the House of Representatives would thus be
admitted to represent a population scarcely exceeding that which in any
other portion of the nation is entitled to but a single member of the
House of Representatives, while the average for two Senators in the
Union, as now constituted, is at least 1,000,000 people. It would surely
be unjust to all other sections of the Union to enter upon a policy with
regard to the admission of new States which might result in conferring
such a disproportionate share of influence in the National Legislature
upon communities which, in pursuance of the wise policy of our fathers,
should for some years to come be retained under the fostering care
and protection of the National Government. If it is deemed just and
expedient now to depart from the settled policy of the nation during
all its history, and to admit all the Territories to the rights and
privileges of States, irrespective of their population or fitness
for such government, it is submitted whether it would not be well to
devise such measures as will bring the subject before the country for
consideration and decision. This would seem to be eminently wise,
because, as has already been stated, if it is right to admit Colorado
now there is no reason for the exclusion of the other Territories.

It is no answer to these suggestions that an enabling act was passed
authorizing the people of Colorado to take action on this subject. It is
well known that that act was passed in consequence of representations
that the population reached, according to some statements, as high as
80,000, and to none less than 50,000, and was growing with a rapidity
which by the time the admission could be consummated would secure a
population of over 100,000. These representations proved to have been
wholly fallacious, and in addition the people of the Territory by a
deliberate vote decided that they would not assume the responsibilities
of a State government. By that decision they utterly exhausted all power
that was conferred by the enabling act, and there has been no step taken
since in relation to the admission that has had the slightest sanction
or warrant of law.

The proceeding upon which the present application is based was in the
utter absence of all law in relation to it, and there is no evidence
that the votes on the question of the formation of a State government
bear any relation whatever to the sentiment of the Territory. The
protest of the house of representatives previously quoted is conclusive
evidence to the contrary.

But if none of these reasons existed against this proposed enactment,
the bill itself, besides being inconsistent in its provisions in
conferring power upon a person unknown to the laws and who may never
have a legal existence, is so framed as to render its execution almost
impossible. It is, indeed, a question whether it is not in itself a
nullity. To say the least, it is of exceedingly doubtful propriety to
confer the power proposed in this bill upon the "governor elect," for as
by its own terms the constitution is not to take effect until after the
admission of the State, he in the meantime has no more authority than
any other private citizen. But even supposing him to be clothed with
sufficient authority to convene the legislature, what constitutes the
"State legislature" to which is to be referred the submission of the
conditions imposed by Congress? Is it a new body to be elected and
convened by proclamation of the "governor elect," or is it that body
which met more than a year ago under the provisions of the State
constitution? By reference to the second section of the schedule and to
the eighteenth section of the fourth article of the State constitution
it will be seen that the term of the members of the house of
representatives and that of one-half of the members of the senate
expired on the first Monday of the present month. It is clear that if
there were no intrinsic objections to the bill itself in relation to
purposes to be accomplished this objection would be fatal, as, it is
apparent that the provisions of the third section of the bill to admit
Colorado have reference to a period and a state of facts entirely
different from the present and affairs as they now exist, and if carried
into effect must necessarily lead to confusion.

Even if it were settled that the old and not a new body were to act, it
would be found impracticable to execute the law, because a considerable
number of the members, as I am informed, have ceased to be residents of
the Territory, and in the sixty days within which the legislature is to
be convened after the passage of the act there would not be sufficient
time to fill the vacancies by new elections, were there any authority
under which they could be held.

It may not be improper to add that if these proceedings were all regular
and the result to be obtained were desirable, simple justice to the
people of the Territory would require a longer period than sixty days
within which to obtain action on the conditions proposed by the third
section of the bill. There are, as is well known, large portions of the
Territory with which there is and can be no general communication, there
being several counties which from November to May can only be reached by
persons traveling on foot, while with other regions of the Territory,
occupied by a large portion of the population, there is very little more
freedom of access. Thus, if this bill should become a law, it would be
impracticable to obtain any expression of public sentiment in reference
to its provisions, with a view to enlighten the legislature, if the old
body were called together, and, of course, equally impracticable to
procure the election of a new body. This defect might have been remedied
by an extension of the time and a submission of the question to the
people, with a fair opportunity to enable them to express their
sentiments.

The admission of a new State has generally been regarded as an epoch in
our history marking the onward progress of the nation; but after the
most careful and anxious inquiry on the subject I can not perceive that
the proposed proceeding is in conformity with the policy which from the
origin of the Government has uniformly prevailed in the admission of new
States. I therefore return the bill to the Senate without my signature.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

States Admitted. Ratio. Population.
Vermont................................... 1791 33,000 92,320
Kentucky.................................. 1792 33,000 95,638
Tennessee................................. 1796 33,000 73,864
Ohio...................................... 1802 33,000 82,443
Louisiana................................. 1812 35,000 75,212
Indiana................................... 1816 35,000 98,110
Mississippi............................... 1817 35,000 53,677
Illinois.................................. 1818 35,000 46,274
Alabama................................... 1819 35,000 111,150
Maine..................................... 1820 35,000 298,335
Missouri.................................. 1821 35,000 69,260
Arkansas.................................. 1836 47,700 65,175
Michigan.................................. 1837 47,700 158,073
Florida................................... 1845 70,680 57,951
Texas..................................... 1845 70,680 189,327 [17]
Iowa...................................... 1846 70,680 132,527
Wisconsin................................. 1848 70,680 250,497
California................................ 1850 70,680 92,597
Oregon.................................... 1858 93,492 44,630
Minnesota................................. 1859 93,492 138,909
Kansas.................................... 1861 93,492 107,206
West Virginia............................. 1862 93,492 349,628
Nevada.................................... 1864 127,000 Not known.

[Footnote 17: In 1850.]

WASHINGTON, _January 29, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I return for reconsideration a bill entitled "An act for the admission
of the State of Nebraska into the Union," which originated in the Senate
and has received the assent of both Houses of Congress. A bill having in
view the same object was presented for my approval a few hours prior to
the adjournment of the last session, but, submitted at a time when there
was no opportunity for a proper consideration of the subject, I withheld
my signature and the measure failed to become a law.

It appears by the preamble of this bill that the people of Nebraska,
availing themselves of the authority conferred upon them by the act
passed on the 19th day of April, 1864, "have adopted a constitution
which, upon due examination, is found to conform to the provisions and
comply with the conditions of said act, and to be republican in its form
of government, and that they now ask for admission into the Union."
This proposed law would therefore seem to be based upon the declaration
contained in the enabling act that upon compliance with its terms the
people of Nebraska should be admitted into the Union upon an equal
footing with the original States. Reference to the bill, however, shows
that while by the first section Congress distinctly accepts, ratifies,
and confirms the Constitution and State government which the people of
the Territory have formed for themselves, declares Nebraska to be one
of the United States of America, and admits her into the Union upon an
equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever, the
third section provides that this measure "shall not take effect except
upon the fundamental condition that within the State of Nebraska there
shall be no denial of the elective franchise, or of any other right,
to any person by reason of race or color, excepting Indians not
taxed; and upon the further fundamental condition that the legislature
of said State, by a solemn public act, shall declare the assent of
said State to the said fundamental condition, and shall transmit to
the President of the United States an authentic copy of said act, upon
receipt whereof the President, by proclamation, shall forthwith announce
the fact, whereupon said fundamental condition shall be held as a part
of the organic law of the State; and thereupon, and without any further
proceeding on the part of Congress, the admission of said State into the
Union shall be considered as complete." This condition is not mentioned
in the original enabling act; was not contemplated at the time of its
passage; was not sought by the people themselves; has not heretofore
been applied to the inhabitants of any State asking admission, and is in
direct conflict with the constitution adopted by the people and declared
in the preamble "to be republican in its form of government," for in
that instrument the exercise of the elective franchise and the right
to hold office are expressly limited to white citizens of the United
States. Congress thus undertakes to authorize and compel the legislature
to change a constitution which, it is declared in the preamble, has
received the sanction of the people, and which by this bill is
"accepted, ratified, and confirmed" by the Congress of the nation.

The first and third sections of the bill exhibit yet further
incongruity. By the one Nebraska is "admitted into the Union upon an
equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever,"
while by the other Congress demands as a condition precedent to her
admission requirements which in our history have never been asked of
any people when presenting a constitution and State government for the
acceptance of the lawmaking power. It is expressly declared by the third
section that the bill "shall not take effect except upon the fundamental
condition that within the State of Nebraska there shall be no denial of
the elective franchise, or of any other right, to any person by reason
of race or color, excepting Indians not taxed." Neither more nor less
than the assertion of the right of Congress to regulate the elective
franchise of any State hereafter to be admitted, this condition is in
clear violation of the Federal Constitution, under the provisions of
which, from the very foundation of the Government, each State has been
left free to determine for itself the qualifications necessary for
the exercise of suffrage within its limits. Without precedent in our
legislation, it is in marked contrast with those limitations which,
imposed upon States that from time to time have become members of the
Union, had for their object the single purpose of preventing any
infringement of the Constitution of the country.

If Congress is satisfied that Nebraska at the present time possesses
sufficient population to entitle her to full representation in the
councils of the nation, and that her people desire an exchange of a
Territorial for a State government, good faith would seem to demand that
she should be admitted without further requirements than those expressed
in the enabling act, with all of which, it is asserted in the preamble,
her inhabitants have complied. Congress may, under the Constitution,
admit new States or reject them, but the people of a State can alone
make or change their organic law and prescribe the qualifications
requisite for electors. Congress, however, in passing the bill in the
shape in which it has been submitted for my approval, does not merely
reject the application of the people of Nebraska for present admission
as a State into the Union, on the ground that the constitution which
they have submitted restricts the exercise of the elective franchise to
the white population, but imposes conditions which, if accepted by the
legislature, may, without the consent of the people, so change the
organic law as to make electors of all persons within the State without
distinction of race or color. In view of this fact, I suggest for the
consideration of Congress whether it would not be just, expedient, and
in accordance with the principles of our Government to allow the people,
by popular vote or through a convention chosen by themselves for that
purpose, to declare whether or not they will accept the terms upon which
it is now proposed to admit them into the Union. This course would
not occasion much greater delay than that which the bill contemplates
when it requires that the legislature shall be convened within thirty
days after this measure shall have become a law for the purpose of
considering and deciding the conditions which it imposes, and gains
additional force when we consider that the proceedings attending the
formation of the State constitution were not in conformity with the
provisions of the enabling act; that in an aggregate vote of 7,776 the
majority in favor of the constitution did not exceed 100; and that it is
alleged that, in consequence of frauds, even this result can not be
received as a fair expression of the wishes of the people. As upon them
must fall the burdens of a State organization, it is but just that they
should be permitted to determine for themselves a question which so
materially affects their interests. Possessing a soil and a climate
admirably adapted to those industrial pursuits which bring prosperity
and greatness to a people, with the advantage of a central position
on the great highway that will soon connect the Atlantic and Pacific
States, Nebraska is rapidly gaining in numbers and wealth, and may
within a very brief period claim admission on grounds which will
challenge and secure universal assent. She can therefore wisely and
patiently afford to wait. Her population is said to be steadily and
even rapidly increasing, being now generally conceded as high as 40,000,
and estimated by some whose judgment is entitled to respect at a still
greater number. At her present rate of growth she will in a very short
time have the requisite population for a Representative in Congress,
and, what is far more important to her own citizens, will have realized
such an advance in material wealth as will enable the expenses of a
State government to be borne without oppression to the taxpayer. Of new
communities it may be said with special force--and it is true of old
ones--that the inducement to emigrants, other things being equal, is in
almost the precise ratio of the rate of taxation. The great States of
the Northwest owe their marvelous prosperity largely to the fact that
they were continued as Territories until they had growth to be wealthy
and populous communities.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 2, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I have carefully examined the bill "to regulate the tenure of certain
civil offices." The material portion of the bill is contained in the
first section, and is of the effect following, namely:

That every person holding any civil office to which he has been
appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and every
person who shall hereafter be appointed to any such office and shall
become duly qualified to act therein, is and shall be entitled
to hold such office until a successor shall have been appointed
by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and duly
qualified; and that the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War,
of the Navy, and of the Interior, the Postmaster-General, and the
Attorney-General shall hold their offices respectively for and during
the term of the President by whom they may have been appointed and for
one month thereafter, subject to removal by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate.

These provisions are qualified by a reservation in the fourth section,
"that nothing contained in the bill shall be construed to extend the
term of any office the duration of which is limited by law." In effect
the bill provides that the President shall not remove from their places
any of the civil officers whose terms of service are not limited by law
without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States. The
bill in this respect conflicts, in my judgment, with the Constitution
of the United States. The question, as Congress is well aware, is by no
means a new one. That the power of removal is constitutionally vested
in the President of the United States is a principle which has been not
more distinctly declared by judicial authority and judicial commentators
than it has been uniformly practiced upon by the legislative and
executive departments of the Government. The question arose in the House
of Representatives so early as the 16th of June, 1789, on the bill for
establishing an Executive Department denominated "the Department of
Foreign Affairs." The first clause of the bill, after recapitulating
the functions of that officer and defining his duties, had these words:
"To be removable from office by the President of the United States."
It was moved to strike out these words and the motion was sustained
with great ability and vigor. It was insisted that the President could
not constitutionally exercise the power of removal exclusively of the
Senate; that the Federalist so interpreted the Constitution when arguing
for its adoption by the several States; that the Constitution had
nowhere given the President power of removal, either expressly or by
strong implication, but, on the contrary, had distinctly provided for
removals from office by impeachment only.

A construction which denied the power of removal by the President was
further maintained by arguments drawn from the danger of the abuse of
the power; from the supposed tendency of an exposure of public officers
to capricious removal to impair the efficiency of the civil service;
from the alleged injustice and hardship of displacing incumbents
dependent upon their official stations without sufficient consideration;
from a supposed want of responsibility on the part of the President, and
from an imagined defect of guaranties against a vicious President who
might incline to abuse the power. On the other hand, an exclusive power
of removal by the President was defended as a true exposition of the
text of the Constitution. It was maintained that there are certain
causes for which persons ought to be removed from office without being
guilty of treason, bribery, or malfeasance, and that the nature of
things demands that it should be so. "Suppose," it was said, "a man
becomes insane by the visitation of God and is likely to ruin our
affairs; are the hands of the Government to be confined from warding off
the evil? Suppose a person in office not possessing the talents he was
judged to have at the time of the appointment; is the error not to be
corrected? Suppose he acquires vicious habits and incurable indolence or
total neglect of the duties of his office, which shall work mischief to
the public welfare; is there no way to arrest the threatened danger?
Suppose he becomes odious and unpopular by reason of the measures he
pursues--and this he may do without committing any positive offense
against the law; must he preserve his office in despite of the popular
will? Suppose him grasping for his own aggrandizement and the elevation
of his connections by every means short of the treason defined by the
Constitution, hurrying your affairs to the precipice of destruction,
endangering your domestic tranquillity, plundering you of the means of
defense, alienating the affections of your allies and promoting the
spirit of discord; must the tardy, tedious, desultory road by way of
impeachment be traveled to overtake the man who, barely confining
himself within the letter of the law, is employed in drawing off the
vital principle of the Government? The nature of things, the great
objects of society, the express objects of the Constitution itself,
require that this thing should be otherwise. To unite the Senate with
the President in the exercise of the power," it was said, "would involve
us in the most serious difficulty. Suppose a discovery of any of those
events should take place when the Senate is not in session; how is the
remedy to be applied? The evil could be avoided in no other way than by
the Senate sitting always." In regard to the danger of the power being
abused if exercised by one man it was said "that the danger is as great
with respect to the Senate, who are assembled from various parts of the
continent, with different impressions and opinions;" "that such a body
is more likely to misuse the power of removal than the man whom the
united voice of America calls to the Presidential chair. As the nature
of government requires the power of removal," it was maintained "that it
should be exercised in this way by the hand capable of exerting itself
with effect; and the power must be conferred on the President by the
Constitution as the executive officer of the Government."

Mr. Madison, whose adverse opinion in the Federalist had been relied
upon by those who denied the exclusive power, now participated in the
debate. He declared that he had reviewed his former opinions, and he
summed up the whole case as follows:

The Constitution affirms that the executive power is vested in the
President. Are there exceptions to this proposition? Yes; there are.
The Constitution says that in appointing to office the Senate shall be
associated with the President, unless in the case of inferior officers,
when the law shall otherwise direct. Have we (that is, Congress) a
right to extend this exception? I believe not. If the Constitution has
invested all executive power in the President, I venture to assert
that the Legislature has no right to diminish or modify his executive
authority. The question now resolves itself into this: Is the power of
displacing an executive power? I conceive that if any power whatsoever
is in the Executive it is the power of appointing, overseeing, and
controlling those who execute the laws. If the Constitution had not
qualified the power of the President in appointing to office by
associating the Senate with him in that business, would it not be clear
that he would have the right by virtue of his executive power to make
such appointment? Should we be authorized in defiance of that clause
in the Constitution, "The executive power shall be vested in the
President," to unite the Senate with the President in the appointment
to office? I conceive not. If it is admitted that we should not be
authorized to do this, I think it may be disputed whether we have a
right to associate them in removing persons from office, the one power
being as much of an executive nature as the other; and the first one is
authorized by being excepted out of the general rule established by the
Constitution in these words: "The executive power shall be vested in the
President."

The question, thus ably and exhaustively argued, was decided by the
House of Representatives, by a vote of 34 to 20, in favor of the
principle that the executive power of removal is vested by the
Constitution in the Executive, and in the Senate by the casting vote
of the Vice-President.

The question has often been raised in subsequent times of high
excitement, and the practice of the Government has, nevertheless,
conformed in all cases to the decision thus early made.

The question was revived during the Administration of President Jackson,
who made, as is well recollected, a very large number of removals, which
were made an occasion of close and rigorous scrutiny and remonstrance.
The subject was long and earnestly debated in the Senate, and the early
construction of the Constitution was, nevertheless, freely accepted as
binding and conclusive upon Congress.

The question came before the Supreme Court of the United States in
January, 1839, _ex parte_ Hennen. It was declared by the court on that
occasion that the power of removal from office was a subject much
disputed, and upon which a great diversity of opinion was entertained in
the early history of the Government. This related, however, to the power
of the President to remove officers appointed with the concurrence of
the Senate, and the great question was whether the removal was to be
by the President alone or with the concurrence of the Senate, both
constituting the appointing power. No one denied the power of the
President and Senate jointly to remove where the tenure of the office
was not fixed by the Constitution, which was a full recognition of the
principle that the power of removal was incident to the power of
appointment; but it was very early adopted as a practical construction
of the Constitution that this power was vested in the President alone,
and such would appear to have been the legislative construction of the
Constitution, for in the organization of the three great Departments of
State, War, and Treasury, in the year 1789, provision was made for the
appointment of a subordinate officer by the head of the Department, who
should have charge of the records, books, and papers appertaining to the
office when the head of the Department should be removed from office
by the President of the United States. When the Navy Department was
established, in the year 1798, provision was made for the charge and
custody of the books, records, and documents of the Department in case
of vacancy in the office of Secretary by removal or otherwise. It is not
here said "by removal of the President," as is done with respect to the
heads of the other Departments, yet there can be no doubt that he holds
his office with the same tenure as the other Secretaries and is
removable by the President. The change of phraseology arose, probably,
from its having become the settled and well-understood construction of
the Constitution that the power of removal was vested in the President
alone in such cases, although the appointment of the officer is by the
President and Senate. (13 Peters, p. 139.)

Our most distinguished and accepted commentators upon the Constitution
concur in the construction thus early given by Congress, and thus
sanctioned by the Supreme Court. After a full analysis of the
Congressional debate to which I have referred, Mr. Justice Story comes
to this conclusion:

After a most animated discussion, the vote finally taken in the House
of Representatives was affirmative of the power of removal in the
President, without any cooperation of the Senate, by the vote of 34
members against 20. In the Senate the clause in the bill affirming the
power was carried by the casting vote of the Vice-President. That the
final decision of this question so made was greatly influenced by the
exalted character of the President then in office was asserted at the
time and has always been believed; yet the doctrine was opposed as well
as supported by the highest talents and patriotism of the country. The
public have acquiesced in this decision, and it constitutes, perhaps,
the most extraordinary case in the history of the Government of a power
conferred by implication on the Executive by the assent of a bare
majority of Congress which has not been questioned on many other
occasions.

The commentator adds:

Nor is this general acquiescence and silence without a satisfactory
explanation.

Chancellor Kent's remarks on the subject are as follows:

On the first organization of the Government it was made a question
whether the power of removal in case of officers appointed to hold
at pleasure resided nowhere but in the body which appointed, and, of
course, whether the consent of the Senate was not requisite to remove.
This was the construction given to the Constitution, while it was
pending for ratification before the State conventions, by the author of
the Federalist. But the construction which was given to the Constitution
by Congress, after great consideration and discussion, was different.
The words of the act [establishing the Treasury Department] are: "And
whenever the same shall be removed from office by the President of
the United States, or in any other case of vacancy in the office, the
assistant shall act." This amounted to a legislative construction of the
Constitution, and it has ever since been acquiesced in and acted upon
as a decisive authority in the case. It applies equally to every other
officer of the Government appointed by the President, whose term of
duration is not specially declared. It is supported by the weighty
reason that the subordinate officers in the executive department ought
to hold at the pleasure of the head of the department, because he is
invested generally with the executive authority, and the participation
in that authority by the Senate was an exception to a general principle
and ought to be taken strictly. The President is the great responsible
officer for the faithful execution of the law, and the power of removal
was incidental to that duty, and might often be requisite to fulfill it.

Thus has the important question presented by this bill been settled, in
the language of the late Daniel Webster (who, while dissenting from it,
admitted that it was settled), by construction, settled by precedent,
settled by the practice of the Government, and settled by statute. The
events of the last war furnished a practical confirmation of the wisdom
of the Constitution as it has hitherto been maintained in many of its
parts, including that which is now the subject of consideration. When
the war broke out, rebel enemies, traitors, abettors, and sympathizers
were found in every Department of the Government, as well in the civil
service as in the land and naval military service. They were found in
Congress and among the keepers of the Capitol; in foreign missions; in
each and all the Executive Departments; in the judicial service; in the
post-office, and among the agents for conducting Indian affairs. Upon
probable suspicion they were promptly displaced by my predecessor, so
far as they held their offices under executive authority, and their
duties were confided to new and loyal successors. No complaints against
that power or doubts of its wisdom were entertained in any quarter. I
sincerely trust and believe that no such civil war is likely to occur
again. I can not doubt, however, that in whatever form and on whatever
occasion sedition can raise an effort to hinder or embarrass or defeat
the legitimate action of this Government, whether by preventing the
collection of revenue, or disturbing the public peace, or separating the
States, or betraying the country to a foreign enemy, the power of
removal from office by the Executive, as it has heretofore existed and
been practiced, will be found indispensable.

Under these circumstances, as a depositary of the executive authority of
the nation, I do not feel at liberty to unite with Congress in reversing
it by giving my approval to the bill. At the early day when this
question was settled, and, indeed, at the several periods when it has
subsequently been agitated, the success of the Constitution of the
United States, as a new and peculiar system of free representative
government, was held doubtful in other countries, and was even a subject
of patriotic apprehension among the American people themselves. A trial
of nearly eighty years, through the vicissitudes of foreign conflicts
and of civil war, is confidently regarded as having extinguished all
such doubts and apprehensions for the future. During that eighty years
the people of the United States have enjoyed a measure of security,
peace, prosperity, and happiness never surpassed by any nation. It can
not be doubted that the triumphant success of the Constitution is due
to the wonderful wisdom with which the functions of government were
distributed between the three principal departments--the legislative,
the executive, and the judicial--and to the fidelity with which each
has confined itself or been confined by the general voice of the nation
within its peculiar and proper sphere. While a just, proper, and
watchful jealousy of executive power constantly prevails, as it ought
ever to prevail, yet it is equally true that an efficient Executive,
capable, in the language of the oath prescribed to the President, of
executing the laws and, within the sphere of executive action, of
preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United
States, is an indispensable security for tranquillity at home and peace,
honor, and safety abroad. Governments have been erected in many
countries upon our model. If one or many of them have thus far failed in
fully securing to their people the benefits which we have derived from
our system, it may be confidently asserted that their misfortune has
resulted from their unfortunate failure to maintain the integrity of
each of the three great departments while preserving harmony among
them all.

Having at an early period accepted the Constitution in regard to the
Executive office in the sense in which it was interpreted with the
concurrence of its founders, I have found no sufficient grounds in the
arguments now opposed to that construction or in any assumed necessity
of the times for changing those opinions. For these reasons I return
the bill to the Senate, in which House it originated, for the further
consideration of Congress which the Constitution prescribes. Insomuch as
the several parts of the bill which I have not considered are matters
chiefly of detail and are based altogether upon the theory of the
Constitution from which I am obliged to dissent, I have not thought
it necessary to examine them with a view to make them an occasion of
distinct and special objections.

Experience, I think, has shown that it is the easiest, as it is
also the most attractive, of studies to frame constitutions for the
self-government of free states and nations. But I think experience has
equally shown that it is the most difficult of all political labors to
preserve and maintain such free constitutions of self-government when
once happily established. I know no other way in which they can be
preserved and maintained except by a constant adherence to them through
the various vicissitudes of national existence, with such adaptations
as may become necessary, always to be effected, however, through the
agencies and in the forms prescribed in the original constitutions
themselves.

Whenever administration fails or seems to fail in securing any of the
great ends for which republican government is established, the proper
course seems to be to renew the original spirit and forms of the
Constitution itself.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 2, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I have examined the bill "to provide for the more efficient government
of the rebel States" with the care and anxiety which its transcendent
importance is calculated to awaken. I am unable to give it my assent,
for reasons so grave that I hope a statement of them may have some
influence on the minds of the patriotic and enlightened men with whom
the decision must ultimately rest.

The bill places all the people of the ten States therein named under the
absolute domination of military rulers; and the preamble undertakes to
give the reason upon which the measure is based and the ground upon
which it is justified. It declares that there exists in those States no
legal governments and no adequate protection for life or property, and
asserts the necessity of enforcing peace and good order within their
limits. Is this true as matter of fact?

It is not denied that the States in question have each of them
an actual government, with all the powers--executive, judicial, and
legislative--which properly belong to a free state. They are organized
like the other States of the Union, and, like them, they make,
administer, and execute the laws which concern their domestic affairs.
An existing _de facto_ government, exercising such functions as these,
is itself the law of the state upon all matters within its jurisdiction.
To pronounce the supreme law-making power of an established state
illegal is to say that law itself is unlawful.

The provisions which these governments have made for the preservation
of order, the suppression of crime, and the redress of private injuries
are in substance and principle the same as those which prevail in the
Northern States and in other civilized countries. They certainly have
not succeeded in preventing the commission of all crime, nor has this
been accomplished anywhere in the world. There, as well as elsewhere,
offenders sometimes escape for want of vigorous prosecution, and
occasionally, perhaps, by the inefficiency of courts or the prejudice of
jurors. It is undoubtedly true that these evils have been much increased
and aggravated, North and South, by the demoralizing influences of civil
war and by the rancorous passions which the contest has engendered. But
that these people are maintaining local governments for themselves which
habitually defeat the object of all government and render their own
lives and property insecure is in itself utterly improbable, and the
averment of the bill to that effect is not supported by any evidence
which has come to my knowledge. All the information I have on the
subject convinces me that the masses of the Southern people and those
who control their public acts, while they entertain diverse opinions
on questions of Federal policy, are completely united in the effort to
reorganize their society on the basis of peace and to restore their
mutual prosperity as rapidly and as completely as their circumstances
will permit.

The bill, however, would seem to show upon its face that the
establishment of peace and good order is not its real object. The fifth
section declares that the preceding sections shall cease to operate in
any State where certain events shall have happened. These events are,
first, the selection of delegates to a State convention by an election
at which negroes shall be allowed to vote; second, the formation of a
State constitution by the convention so chosen; third, the insertion
into the State constitution of a provision which will secure the right
of voting at all elections to negroes and to such white men as may
not be disfranchised for rebellion or felony; fourth, the submission
of the constitution for ratification to negroes and white men not
disfranchised, and its actual ratification by their vote; fifth, the
submission of the State constitution to Congress for examination and
approval, and the actual approval of it by that body; sixth, the
adoption of a certain amendment to the Federal Constitution by a vote
of the legislature elected under the new constitution; seventh, the
adoption of said amendment by a sufficient number of other States to
make it a part of the Constitution of the United States. All these
conditions must be fulfilled before the people of any of these States
can be relieved from the bondage of military domination; but when they
are fulfilled, then immediately the pains and penalties of the bill are
to cease, no matter whether there be peace and order or not, and without
any reference to the security of life or property. The excuse given for
the bill in the preamble is admitted by the bill itself not to be real.
The military rule which it establishes is plainly to be used, not for
any purpose of order or for the prevention of crime, but solely as
a means of coercing the people into the adoption of principles and
measures to which it is known that they are opposed, and upon which
they have an undeniable right to exercise their own judgment.

I submit to Congress whether this measure is not in its whole character,
scope, and object without precedent and without authority, in palpable
conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly
destructive to those great principles of liberty and humanity for which
our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood and
expended so much treasure.

The ten States named in the bill are divided into five districts.
For each district an officer of the Army, not below the rank of a
brigadier-general, is to be appointed to rule over the people; and he
is to be supported with an efficient military force to enable him to
perform his duties and enforce his authority. Those duties and that
authority, as defined by the third section of the bill, are "to protect
all persons in their rights of person and property, to suppress
insurrection, disorder, and violence, and to punish or cause to be
punished all disturbers of the public peace or criminals." The power
thus given to the commanding officer over all the people of each
district is that of an absolute monarch. His mere will is to take the
place of all law. The law of the States is now the only rule applicable
to the subjects placed under his control, and that is completely
displaced by the clause which declares all interference of State
authority to be null and void. He alone is permitted to determine what
are rights of person or property, and he may protect them in such way as
in his discretion may seem proper. It places at his free disposal all
the lands and goods in his district, and he may distribute them without
let or hindrance to whom he pleases. Being bound by no State law, and
there being no other law to regulate the subject, he may make a criminal
code of his own; and he can make it as bloody as any recorded in
history, or he can reserve the privilege of acting upon the impulse of
his private passions in each case that arises. He is bound by no rules
of evidence; there is, indeed, no provision by which he is authorized or
required to take any evidence at all. Everything is a crime which he
chooses to call so, and all persons are condemned whom he pronounces to
be guilty. He is not bound to keep any record or make any report of his
proceedings. He may arrest his victims wherever he finds them, without
warrant, accusation, or proof of probable cause. If he gives them a
trial before he inflicts the punishment, he gives it of his grace and
mercy, not because he is commanded so to do.

To a casual reader of the bill it might seem that some kind of trial was
secured by it to persons accused of crime, but such is not the case.
The officer "may allow local civil tribunals to try offenders," but
of course this does not require that he shall do so. If any State or
Federal court presumes to exercise its legal jurisdiction by the trial
of a malefactor without his special permission, he can break it up and
punish the judges and jurors as being themselves malefactors. He can
save his friends from justice, and despoil his enemies contrary to
justice.

It is also provided that "he shall have power to organize military
commissions or tribunals:" but this power he is not commanded to
exercise. It is merely permissive, and is to be used only "when in his
judgment it may be necessary for the trial of offenders." Even if the
sentence of a commission were made a prerequisite to the punishment
of a party, it would be scarcely the slightest check upon the officer,
who has authority to organize it as he pleases, prescribe its mode of
proceeding, appoint its members from his own subordinates, and revise
all its decisions. Instead of mitigating the harshness of his single
rule, such a tribunal would be used much more probably to divide the
responsibility of making it more cruel and unjust.

Several provisions dictated by the humanity of Congress have
been inserted in the bill, apparently to restrain the power of the
commanding officer; but it seems to me that they are of no avail for
that purpose. The fourth section provides: First. That trials shall not
be unnecessarily delayed; but I think I have shown that the power is
given to punish without trial; and if so, this provision is practically
inoperative. Second. Cruel or unusual punishment is not to be inflicted;
but who is to decide what is cruel and what is unusual? The words have
acquired a legal meaning by long use in the courts. Can it be expected
that military officers will understand or follow a rule expressed in
language so purely technical and not pertaining in the least degree
to their profession? If not, then each officer may define cruelty
according to his own temper, and if it is not usual he will make it
usual. Corporal punishment, imprisonment, the gag, the ball and chain,
and all the almost insupportable forms of torture invented for military
punishment lie within the range of choice. Third. The sentence of
a commission is not to be executed without being approved by the
commander, if it affects life or liberty, and a sentence of death must
be approved by the President. This applies to cases in which there has
been a trial and sentence. I take it to be clear, under this bill, that
the military commander may condemn to death without even the form of a
trial by a military commission, so that the life of the condemned may
depend upon the will of two men instead of one.

It is plain that the authority here given to the military officer
amounts to absolute despotism. But to make it still more unendurable,
the bill provides that it may be delegated to as many subordinates as he
chooses to appoint, for it declares that he shall "punish or cause to be
punished." Such a power has not been wielded by any monarch in England
for more than five hundred years. In all that time no people who speak
the English language have borne such servitude. It reduces the whole
population of the ten States--all persons, of every color, sex, and
condition, and every stranger within their limits--to the most abject
and degrading slavery. No master ever had a control so absolute over the
slaves as this bill gives to the military officers over both white and
colored persons.

It may be answered to this that the officers of the Army are too
magnanimous, just, and humane to oppress and trample upon a subjugated
people. I do not doubt that army officers are as well entitled to this
kind of confidence as any other class of men. But the history of the
world has been written in vain if it does not teach us that unrestrained
authority can never be safely trusted in human hands. It is almost sure
to be more or less abused under any circumstances, and it has always
resulted in gross tyranny where the rulers who exercise it are strangers
to their subjects and come among them as the representatives of a
distant power, and more especially when the power that sends them is
unfriendly. Governments closely resembling that here proposed have been
fairly tried in Hungary and Poland, and the suffering endured by those
people roused the sympathies of the entire world. It was tried in
Ireland, and, though tempered at first by principles of English law,
it gave birth to cruelties so atrocious that they are never recounted
without just indignation. The French Convention armed its deputies with
this power and sent them to the southern departments of the Republic.
The massacres, murders, and other atrocities which they committed show
what the passions of the ablest men in the most civilized society will
tempt them to do when wholly unrestrained by law.

The men of our race in every age have struggled to tie up the hands
of their governments and keep them within the law, because their own
experience of all mankind taught them that rulers could not be relied
on to concede those lights which they were not legally bound to respect.
The head of a great empire has sometimes governed it with a mild and
paternal sway, but the kindness of an irresponsible deputy never yields
what the law does not extort from him. Between such a master and the
people subjected to his domination there can be nothing but enmity; he
punishes them if they resist his authority, and if they submit to it
he hates them for their servility.

I come now to a question which is, if possible, still more important.
Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like
this? I answer, Certainly not, if we derive our authority from the
Constitution and if we are bound by the limitations which it imposes.

This proposition is perfectly clear, that no branch of the Federal
Government--executive, legislative, or judicial--can have any just
powers except those which it derives through and exercises under the
organic law of the Union. Outside of the Constitution we have no legal
authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so
much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our
functions and applies to all subjects. It protects not only the citizens
of States which are within the Union, but it shields every human being
who comes or is brought under our jurisdiction. We have no right to do
in one place more than in another that which the Constitution says we
shall not do at all. If, therefore, the Southern States were in truth
out of the Union, we could not treat their people in a way which the
fundamental law forbids.

Some persons assume that the success of our arms in crushing the
opposition which was made in some of the States to the execution of the
Federal laws reduced those States and all their people--the innocent as
well as the guilty--to the condition of vassalage and gave us a power
over them which the Constitution does not bestow or define or limit.
No fallacy can be more transparent than this. Our victories subjected
the insurgents to legal obedience, not to the yoke of an arbitrary
despotism. When an absolute sovereign reduces his rebellious subjects,
he may deal with them according to his pleasure, because he had that
power before. But when a limited monarch puts down an insurrection, he
must still govern according to law. If an insurrection should take place
in one of our States against the authority of the State government and
end in the overthrow of those who planned it, would that take away the
rights of all the people of the counties where it was favored by a part
or a majority of the population? Could they for such a reason be wholly
outlawed and deprived of their representation in the legislature? I have
always contended that the Government of the United States was sovereign
within its constitutional sphere; that it executed its laws, like
the States themselves, by applying its coercive power directly to
individuals, and that it could put down insurrection with the same
effect as a State and no other. The opposite doctrine is the worst
heresy of those who advocated secession, and can not be agreed to
without admitting that heresy to be right.

Invasion, insurrection, rebellion, and domestic violence were
anticipated when the Government was framed, and the means of repelling
and suppressing them were wisely provided for in the Constitution; but
it was not thought necessary to declare that the States in which they
might occur should be expelled from the Union. Rebellions, which were
invariably suppressed, occurred prior to that out of which these
questions grow; but the States continued to exist and the Union remained
unbroken. In Massachusetts, in Pennsylvania, in Rhode Island, and in New
York, at different periods in our history, violent and armed opposition
to the United States was carried on; but the relations of those States
with the Federal Government were not supposed to be interrupted or
changed thereby after the rebellious portions of their population were
defeated and put down. It is true that in these earlier cases there was
no formal expression of a determination to withdraw from the Union, but
it is also true that in the Southern States the ordinances of secession
were treated by all the friends of the Union as mere nullities and are
now acknowledged to be so by the States themselves. If we admit that
they had any force or validity or that they did in fact take the States
in which they were passed out of the Union, we sweep from under our feet
all the grounds upon which we stand in justifying the use of Federal
force to maintain the integrity of the Government.

This is a bill passed by Congress in time of peace. There is not
in any one of the States brought under its operation either war or
insurrection. The laws of the States and of the Federal Government are
all in undisturbed and harmonious operation. The courts, State and
Federal, are open and in the full exercise of their proper authority.
Over every State comprised in these five military districts, life,
liberty, and property are secured by State laws and Federal laws, and
the National Constitution is everywhere in force and everywhere obeyed.
What, then, is the ground on which this bill proceeds? The title of the
bill announces that it is intended "for the more efficient government"
of these ten States. It is recited by way of preamble that no legal
State governments "nor adequate protection for life or property" exist
in those States, and that peace and good order should be thus enforced.
The first thing which arrests attention upon these recitals, which
prepare the way for martial law, is this, that the only foundation
upon which martial law can exist under our form of government is not
stated or so much as pretended. Actual war, foreign invasion, domestic
insurrection--none of these appear; and none of these, in fact, exist.
It is not even recited that any sort of war or insurrection is
threatened. Let us pause here to consider, upon this question of
constitutional law and the power of Congress, a recent decision of
the Supreme Court of the United States in _ex parte_ Milligan.

I will first quote from the opinion of the majority of the court:

Martial law can not arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity
must be actual and present, the invasion real, such as effectually
closes the courts and deposes the civil administration.

We see that martial law comes in only when actual war closes the courts
and deposes the civil authority; but this bill, in time of peace, makes
martial law operate as though we were in actual war, and becomes the
_cause_ instead of the _consequence_ of the abrogation of civil
authority. One more quotation:

It follows from what has been said on this subject that there are
occasions when martial law can be properly applied. If in foreign
invasion or civil war the courts are actually closed, and it is
impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, _then_, on
the theater of active military operations, where war really prevails,
there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority
thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as
no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial
rule until the laws can have their free course.

I now quote from the opinion of the minority of the court, delivered by
Chief Justice Chase:

We by no means assert that Congress can establish and apply the laws of
war where no war has been declared or exists. Where peace exists, the
laws of peace must prevail.

This is sufficiently explicit. Peace exists in all the territory to
which this bill applies. It asserts a power in Congress, in time of
peace, to set aside the laws of peace and to substitute the laws of war.
The minority, concurring with the majority, declares that Congress does
not possess that power. Again, and, if possible, more emphatically, the
Chief Justice, with remarkable clearness and condensation, sums up the
whole matter as follows:

There are under the Constitution three kinds of military
jurisdiction--one to be exercised both in peace and war; another to be
exercised in time of foreign war without the boundaries of the United
States, or in time of rebellion and civil war within States or districts
occupied by rebels treated as belligerents; and a third to be exercised
in time of invasion or insurrection within the limits of the United
States, or during rebellion within the limits of the States maintaining
adhesion to the National Government, when the public danger requires its
exercise. The first of these may be called jurisdiction under military
law, and is found in acts of Congress prescribing rules and articles of
war or otherwise providing for the government of the national forces;
the second may be distinguished as military government, superseding
as far as may be deemed expedient the local law, and exercised by
the military commander under the direction of the President, with
the express or implied sanction of Congress; while the third may be
denominated martial law proper, and is called into action by Congress,
or temporarily, when the action of Congress can not be invited, and in
the case of justifying or excusing peril, by the President, in times of
insurrection or invasion or of civil or foreign war, within districts
or localities where ordinary law no longer adequately secures public
safety and private rights.

It will be observed that of the three kinds of military jurisdiction
which can be exercised or created under our Constitution there is but
one that can prevail in time of peace, and that is the code of laws
enacted by Congress for the government of the national forces. That body
of military law has no application to the citizen, nor even to the
citizen soldier enrolled in the militia in time of peace. But this bill
is not a part of that sort of military law, for that applies only to the
soldier and not to the citizen, whilst, contrariwise, the military law
provided by this bill applies only to the citizen and not to the
soldier.

I need not say to the representatives of the American people that their
Constitution forbids the exercise of judicial power in any way but
one--that is, by the ordained and established courts. It is equally well
known that in all criminal cases a trial by jury is made indispensable
by the express words of that instrument. I will not enlarge on the
inestimable value of the right thus secured to every freeman or speak
of the danger to public liberty in all parts of the country which must
ensue from a denial of it anywhere or upon any pretense. A very recent
decision of the Supreme Court has traced the history, vindicated the
dignity, and made known the value of this great privilege so clearly
that nothing more is needed. To what extent a violation of it might be
excused in time of war or public danger may admit of discussion, but we
are providing now for a time of profound peace, when there is not an
armed soldier within our borders except those who are in the service
of the Government. It is in such a condition of things that an act of
Congress is proposed which, if carried out, would deny a trial by the
lawful courts and juries to 9,000,000 American citizens and to their
posterity for an indefinite period. It seems to be scarcely possible
that anyone should seriously believe this consistent with a Constitution
which declares in simple, plain, and unambiguous language that all
persons shall have that right and that no person shall ever in any case
be deprived of it. The Constitution also forbids the arrest of the
citizen without judicial warrant, founded on probable cause. This bill
authorizes an arrest without warrant, at the pleasure of a military
commander. The Constitution declares that "no person shall be held to
answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment
by a grand jury." This bill holds every person not a soldier answerable
for all crimes and all charges without any presentment. The Constitution
declares that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law." This bill sets aside all process of law,
and makes the citizen answerable in his person and property to the
will of one man, and as to his life to the will of two. Finally, the
Constitution declares that "the privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_
shall not be suspended unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion,
the public safety may require it;" whereas this bill declares martial
law (which of itself suspends this great writ) in time of peace, and
authorizes the military to make the arrest, and gives to the prisoner
only one privilege, and that is a trial "without unnecessary delay."
He has no hope of release from custody, except the hope, such as it is,
of release by acquittal before a military commission.

The United States are bound to guarantee to each State a republican form
of government. Can it be pretended that this obligation is not palpably
broken if we carry out a measure like this, which wipes away every
vestige of republican government in ten States and puts the life,
property, liberty, and honor of all the people in each of them under
the domination of a single person clothed with unlimited authority?

The Parliament of England, exercising the omnipotent power which it
claimed, was accustomed to pass bills of attainder; that is to say, it
would convict men of treason and other crimes by legislative enactment.
The person accused had a hearing, sometimes a patient and fair one, but
generally party prejudice prevailed instead of justice. It often became
necessary for Parliament to acknowledge its error and reverse its own
action. The fathers of our country determined that no such thing should
occur here. They withheld the power from Congress, and thus forbade its
exercise by that body, and they provided in the Constitution that no
State should pass any bill of attainder. It is therefore impossible for
any person in this country to be constitutionally convicted or punished
for any crime by a legislative proceeding of any sort. Nevertheless,
here is a bill of attainder against 9,000,000 people at once. It is
based upon an accusation so vague as to be scarcely intelligible and
found to be true upon no credible evidence. Not one of the 9,000,000 was
heard in his own defense. The representatives of the doomed parties were
excluded from all participation in the trial. The conviction is to be
followed by the most ignominious punishment ever inflicted on large
masses of men. It disfranchises them by hundreds of thousands and
degrades them all, even those who are admitted to be guiltless, from
the rank of freemen to the condition of slaves.

The purpose and object of the bill--the general intent which pervades it
from beginning to end--is to change the entire structure and character
of the State governments and to compel them by force to the adoption of
organic laws and regulations which they are unwilling to accept if left
to themselves. The negroes have not asked for the privilege of voting;
the vast majority of them have no idea what it means. This bill not only
thrusts it into their hands, but compels them, as well as the whites, to
use it in a particular way. If they do not form a constitution with
prescribed articles in it and afterwards elect a legislature which will
act upon certain measures in a prescribed way, neither blacks nor whites
can be relieved from the slavery which the bill imposes upon them.
Without pausing here to consider the policy or impolicy of Africanizing
the southern part of our territory, I would simply ask the attention of
Congress to that manifest, well-known, and universally acknowledged rule
of constitutional law which declares that the Federal Government has no
jurisdiction, authority, or power to regulate such subjects for any
State. To force the right of suffrage out of the hands of the white
people and into the hands of the negroes is an arbitrary violation of
this principle.

This bill imposes martial law at once, and its operations will begin
so soon as the general and his troops can be put in place. The dread
alternative between its harsh rule and compliance with the terms of this
measure is not suspended, nor are the people afforded any time for free
deliberation. The bill says to them, take martial law first, _then_
deliberate. And when they have done all that this measure requires them
to do other conditions and contingencies over which they have no control
yet remain to be fulfilled before they can be relieved from martial law.
Another Congress must first approve the Constitution made in conformity
with the will of this Congress and must declare these States entitled to
representation in both Houses. The whole question thus remains open and
unsettled and must again occupy the attention of Congress; and in the
meantime the agitation which now prevails will continue to disturb all
portions of the people.

The bill also denies the legality of the governments of ten of the
States which participated in the ratification of the amendment to the
Federal Constitution abolishing slavery forever within the jurisdiction
of the United States and practically excludes them from the Union. If
this assumption of the bill be correct, their concurrence can not be
considered as having been legally given, and the important fact is made
to appear that the consent of three-fourths of the States--the requisite
number--has not been constitutionally obtained to the ratification of
that amendment, thus leaving the question of slavery where it stood
before the amendment was officially declared to have become a part of
the Constitution.

That the measure proposed by this bill does violate the Constitution
in the particulars mentioned and in many other ways which I forbear
to enumerate is too clear to admit of the least doubt. It only remains
to consider whether the injunctions of that instrument ought to be
obeyed or not. I think they ought to be obeyed, for reasons which I will
proceed to give as briefly as possible.

In the first place, it is the only system of free government which we
can hope to have as a nation. When it ceases to be the rule of our
conduct, we may perhaps take our choice between complete anarchy, a
consolidated despotism, and a total dissolution of the Union; but
national liberty regulated by law will have passed beyond our reach.

It is the best frame of government the world ever saw. No other is or
can be so well adapted to the genius, habits, or wants of the American
people. Combining the strength of a great empire with unspeakable
blessings of local self-government, having a central power to defend the
general interests, and recognizing the authority of the States as the
guardians of industrial rights, it is "the sheet anchor of our safety
abroad and our peace at home." It was ordained "to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, promote the
general welfare, provide for the common defense, and secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity." These great
ends have been attained heretofore, and will be again by faithful
obedience to it; but they are certain to be lost if we treat with
disregard its sacred obligations.

It was to punish the gross crime of defying the Constitution and to
vindicate its supreme authority that we carried on a bloody war of four
years' duration. Shall we now acknowledge that we sacrificed a million
of lives and expended billions of treasure to enforce a Constitution
which is not worthy of respect and preservation?

Those who advocated the right of secession alleged in their own
justification that we had no regard for law and that their rights of
property, life, and liberty would not be safe under the Constitution as
administered by us. If we now verify their assertion, we prove that they
were in truth and in fact fighting for their liberty, and instead of
branding their leaders with the dishonoring name of traitors against a
righteous and legal government we elevate them in history to the rank
of self-sacrificing patriots, consecrate them to the admiration of the
world, and place them by the side of Washington, Hampden, and Sidney.
No; let us leave them to the infamy they deserve, punish them as they
should be punished, according to law, and take upon ourselves no share
of the odium which they should bear alone.

It is a part of our public history which can never be forgotten that
both Houses of Congress, in July, 1861, declared in the form of a solemn
resolution that the war was and should be carried on for no purpose of
subjugation, but solely to enforce the Constitution and laws, and that
when this was yielded by the parties in rebellion the contest should
cease, with the constitutional rights of the States and of individuals
unimpaired. This resolution was adopted and sent forth to the world
unanimously by the Senate and with only two dissenting voices in the
House. It was accepted by the friends of the Union in the South as well
as in the North as expressing honestly and truly the object of the war.
On the faith of it many thousands of persons in both sections gave their
lives and their fortunes to the cause. To repudiate it now by refusing
to the States and to the individuals within them the rights which the
Constitution and laws of the Union would secure to them is a breach of
our plighted honor for which I can imagine no excuse and to which I
cannot voluntarily become a party.

The evils which spring from the unsettled state of our Government will
be acknowledged by all. Commercial intercourse is impeded, capital is in
constant peril, public securities fluctuate in value, peace itself is
not secure, and the sense of moral and political duty is impaired. To
avert these calamities from our country it is imperatively required that
we should immediately decide upon some course of administration which
can be steadfastly adhered to. I am thoroughly convinced that any
settlement or compromise or plan of action which is inconsistent with
the principles of the Constitution will not only be unavailing, but
mischievous; that it will but multiply the present evils, instead of
removing them. The Constitution, in its whole integrity and vigor,
throughout the length and breadth of the land, is the best of all
compromises. Besides, our duty does not, in my judgment, leave us a
choice between that and any other. I believe that it contains the remedy
that is so much needed, and that if the coordinate branches of the
Government would unite upon its provisions they would be found broad
enough and strong enough to sustain in time of peace the nation which
they bore safely through the ordeal of a protracted civil war. Among the
most sacred guaranties of that instrument are those which declare that
"each State shall have at least one Representative," and that "no
State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in
the Senate." Each House is made the "judge of the elections, returns,
and qualifications of its own members," and may, "with the concurrence
of two-thirds, expel a member." Thus, as heretofore urged, "in the
admission of Senators and Representatives from any and all of the
States there can be no just ground of apprehension that persons who are
disloyal will be clothed with the powers of legislation, for this could
not happen when the Constitution and the laws are enforced by a vigilant
and faithful Congress." "When a Senator or Representative presents his
certificate of election, he may at once be admitted or rejected; or,
should there be any question as to his eligibility, his credentials may
be referred for investigation to the appropriate committee. If admitted
to a seat, it must be upon evidence satisfactory to the House of which
he thus becomes a member that he possesses the requisite constitutional
and legal qualifications. If refused admission as a member for want of
due allegiance to the Government, and returned to his constituents, they
are admonished that none but persons loyal to the United States will be
allowed a voice in the legislative councils of the nation, and the
political power and moral influence of Congress are thus effectively
exerted in the interests of loyalty to the Government and fidelity to
the Union." And is it not far better that the work of restoration should
be accomplished by simple compliance with the plain requirements of the
Constitution than by a recourse to measures which in effect destroy the
States and threaten the subversion of the General Government? All that
is necessary to settle this simple but important question without
further agitation or delay is a willingness on the part of all to
sustain the Constitution and carry its provisions into practical
operation. If to-morrow either branch of Congress would declare that
upon the presentation of their credentials members constitutionally
elected and loyal to the General Government would be admitted to seats
in Congress, while all others would be excluded and their places remain
vacant until the selection by the people of loyal and qualified persons,
and if at the same time assurance were given that this policy would be
continued until all the States were represented in Congress, it would
send a thrill of joy throughout the entire land, as indicating the
inauguration of a system which must speedily bring tranquillity to the
public mind.

While we are legislating upon subjects which are of great importance to
the whole people, and which must affect all parts of the country, not
only during the life of the present generation, but for ages to come, we
should remember that all men are entitled at least to a hearing in the
councils which decide upon the destiny of themselves and their children.
At present ten States are denied representation, and when the Fortieth
Congress assembles on the 4th day of the present month sixteen States
will be without a voice in the House of Representatives. This grave
fact, with the important questions before us, should induce us to pause
in a course of legislation which, looking solely to the attainment of
political ends, fails to consider the rights it transgresses, the law
which it violates, or the institutions which it imperils.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

PROCLAMATIONS.

ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

_To all whom it may concern_:

Whereas exequaturs were heretofore issued to the following-named persons
at the dates mentioned and for the places specified, recognizing them as
consular officers, respectively, of the Kingdom of Hanover, of the
Electorate of Hesse, of the Duchy of Nassau, and of the city of
Frankfort, and declaring them free to exercise and enjoy functions,
powers, and privileges under the said exequaturs, viz:

FOR THE KINGDOM OF HANOVER.

Julius Frederich, consul at Galveston, Tex., July 28, 1848.
Otto Frank, consul at San Francisco, Cal., July 9, 1850.
Augustus Reichard, consul at New Orleans, La., January 22, 1853.
Kauffmann H. Muller, consul at Savannah, Ga., June 28, 1854.
G.C. Baurmeister, consul at Charleston, S.C., April 21, 1856.
Adolph Gosling, consul-general at New York, November 7, 1859.
G.W. Hennings, vice-consul at New York, July 2, 1860.
George Papendiek, consul at Boston, November 3, 1863.
Francis A. Hoffmann, consul at Chicago, July 26, 1864.
Carl C. Schöttler, consul at Philadelphia, Pa., September 23, 1864.
A. Rettberg, consul at Cleveland, Ohio, September 27, 1864.
A.C. Wilmaus, consul at Milwaukee, Wis., October 7, 1864.
Adolph Meier, consul at St. Louis, Mo., October 7, 1864.
Theodor Schwartz, consul at Louisville, Ky., October 12, 1864.
Carl F. Adae, consul at Cincinnati, Ohio, October 20, 1864.
Werner Dresel, consul at Baltimore, Md., July 25, 1866.

FOR THE ELECTORATE OF HESSE.

Theodor Wagner, consul at Galveston, Tex., March 7, 1857.
Clamor Friedrich Hagedorn, consul at Philadelphia, February 14, 1862.
Werner Dresel, consul at Baltimore, Md., September 26, 1864.
Friedrich Kuhne, consul at New York, September 30, 1864.
Richard Thiele, consul at New Orleans, La., October 18, 1864.
Carl Adae, consul at Cincinnati, Ohio, October 20, 1864.
Robert Barth, consul at St. Louis, Mo., April 11, 1865.
C.F. Mebius, consul at San Francisco, Cal., May 3, 1865.

FOR THE DUCHY OF NASSAU.

Wilhelm A. Kobbe, consul-general for the United States at New York,
November 19, 1846.
Friedrich Wilhelm Freudenthal, consul for Louisiana at New Orleans,
January 22, 1852.
Franz Moureau, consul for the western half of Texas at New Braunfels,
April 6, 1857.
Carl C. Finkler, consul for California at San Francisco, May 21, 1864.
Ludwig von Baumbach, consul for Wisconsin, September 27, 1864.
Otto Cuntz, consul for Massachusetts at Boston, October 7, 1864.
Friedrich Kuhne, consul at New York, September 30, 1864.
Carl F. Adae, consul for the State of Ohio, October 20, 1864.
Robert Barth, consul for Missouri, April 18, 1865.

FOR THE CITY OF FRANKFORT.

John H. Harjes, consul at Philadelphia, Pa., September 27, 1864.
F.A. Reuss, consul at St. Louis, Mo., September 30, 1864.
A.C. Wilmanns, consul for Wisconsin at Milwaukee, October 7, 1864.
Francis A. Hoffmann, consul for Chicago, Ill., October 12, 1864.
Carl F. Adae, consul for Ohio and Indiana, October 20, 1864.
Jacob Julius de Neufville, consul in New York, July 3, 1866.

And whereas the said countries, namely, the Kingdom of Hanover, the
Electorate of Hesse, the Duchy of Nassau, and the city of Frankfort,
have, in consequence of the late war between Prussia and Austria, been
united to the Crown of Prussia; and

Whereas His Majesty the King of Prussia has requested of the President
of the United States that the aforesaid exequaturs may, in consequence
of the before-recited premises, be revoked:

Now, therefore, these presents do declare that the above-named consular
officers are no longer recognized, and that the exequaturs heretofore
granted to them are hereby declared to be absolutely null and void from
this day forward.

In testimony whereof I have caused these letters to be made patent and
the seal of the United States of America to be hereunto affixed.

[SEAL.]

Given under my hand at the city of Washington, this 19th day of
December, A.D. 1866, and of the Independence of the United States
of America the ninety-first.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

_To all whom it may concern_:

An exequatur, bearing date the 22d day of March, 1866, having been
issued to Gerhard Janssen, recognizing him as consul of Oldenburg for
New York and declaring him free to exercise and enjoy such functions,
powers, and privileges as are allowed to consuls by the law of nations
or by the laws of the United States and existing treaty stipulations
between the Government of Oldenburg and the United States, and the said
Janssen having refused to appear in the supreme court of the State of
New York to answer in a suit there pending against himself and others on
the plea that he is a consular officer of Oldenburg, thus seeking to use
his official position to defeat the ends of justice, it is deemed
advisable that the said Gerhard Janssen should no longer be permitted to
continue in the exercise of said functions, powers, and privileges.

These are therefore to declare that I no longer recognize the said
Gerhard Janssen as consul of Oldenburg for New York and will not permit
him to exercise or enjoy any of the functions, powers, or privileges
allowed to consuls of that nation; and that I do hereby wholly revoke
and annul the said exequatur heretofore given and do declare the same
to be absolutely null and void from this day forward.

In testimony whereof I have caused these letters to be made patent and
the seal of the United States of America to be hereunto affixed.

[SEAL.]

Given under my hand at Washington, this 26th day of December, A.D. 1866,
and of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-first.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas satisfactory evidence has been received by me from His Imperial
Majesty the Emperor of France, through the Marquis de Montholon, his
envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, that vessels belonging
to citizens of the United States entering any port of France or of its
dependencies on or after the 1st day of January, 1867, will not be
subjected to the payment of higher duties on tonnage than are levied
upon vessels belonging to citizens of France entering the said ports:

Now, therefore, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States
of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by an act of
Congress of the 7th day of January, 1824, entitled "An act concerning
discriminating duties of tonnage and impost," and by an act in addition
thereto of the 24th day of May, 1828, do hereby declare and proclaim
that on and after the said 1st day of January, 1867, so long as vessels
of the United States shall be admitted to French ports on the terms
aforesaid, French vessels entering ports of the United States will be
subject to no higher rates of duty on tonnage than are levied upon
vessels of the United States in the ports thereof.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 28th day of December, A.D. 1866,
and of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-first.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas, in virtue of the power conferred by the act of Congress
approved June 22, 1860, sections 15 and 24 of which act were designed by
proper provisions to secure the strict neutrality of citizens of the
United States residing in or visiting the Empires of China and Japan, a
notification was issued on the 4th of August last by the legation of the
United States in Japan, through the consulates of the open ports of that
Empire, requesting American shipmasters not to approach the coasts of
Suwo and Nagato pending the then contemplated hostilities between the
Tycoon of Japan and the Daimio of the said Provinces; and

Whereas authentic information having been received by the said legation
that such hostilities had actually commenced, a regulation in
furtherance of the aforesaid notification and pursuant to the act
referred to was issued by the minister resident of the United States in
Japan forbidding American merchant vessels from stopping or anchoring at
any port or roadstead in that country except the three opened ports,
viz, Kanagawa (Yokohama), Nagasaki, and Hakodate, unless in distress or
forced by stress of weather, as provided by treaty, and giving notice
that masters of vessels committing a breach of the regulation would
thereby render themselves liable to prosecution and punishment and also
to forfeiture of the protection of the United States if the visit to
such nonopened port or roadstead should either involve a breach of
treaty or be construed as an act in aid of insurrection or rebellion:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States of America, with a view to prevent acts which might
injuriously affect the relations existing between the Government of the
United States and that of Japan, do hereby call public attention to the
aforesaid notification and regulation, which are hereby sanctioned and
confirmed.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 12th day of January, A.D. 1867, and
of the Independence of the United States the ninety-first.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas by an act of the Congress of the United States of the 24th of
May, 1828, entitled "An act in addition to an act entitled 'An act
concerning discriminating duties of tonnage and impost' and to equalize
the duties on Prussian vessels and their cargoes," it is provided that,
upon satisfactory evidence being given to the President of the United
States by the government of any foreign nation that no discriminating
duties of tonnage or impost are imposed or levied in the ports of the
said nation upon vessels wholly belonging to citizens of the United
States or upon the produce, manufactures, or merchandise imported in the
same from the United States or from any foreign country, the President
is thereby authorized to issue his proclamation declaring that the
foreign discriminating duties of tonnage and impost within the United
States are and shall be suspended and discontinued so far as respects
the vessels of the said foreign nation and the produce, manufactures, or
merchandise imported into the United States in the same from the said
foreign nation or from any other foreign country, the said suspension
to take effect from the time of such notification being given to the
President of the United States and to continue so long as the reciprocal
exemption of vessels belonging to citizens of the United States and
their cargoes, as aforesaid, shall be continued, and no longer; and

Whereas satisfactory evidence has lately been received by me from
His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, through an official
communication of His Majesty's minister of foreign relations under date
of the 10th of December, 1866, that no other or higher duties of tonnage
and impost are imposed or levied in the ports of the Hawaiian Islands
upon vessels wholly belonging to citizens of the United States and upon
the produce, manufactures, or merchandise imported in the same from the
United States and from any foreign country whatever than are levied on
Hawaiian ships and their cargoes in the same ports under like
circumstances:

Now, therefore, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States of
America, do hereby declare and proclaim that so much of the several acts
imposing discriminating duties of tonnage and impost within the United
States are and shall be suspended and discontinued so far as respects
the vessels of the Hawaiian Islands and the produce, manufactures,
and merchandise imported into the United States in the same from the
dominions of the Hawaiian Islands and from any other foreign country
whatever, the said suspension to take effect from the said 10th day
of December and to continue thenceforward so long as the reciprocal
exemption of the vessels of the United States and the produce,
manufactures, and merchandise imported into the dominions of the
Hawaiian Islands in the same, as aforesaid, shall be continued on the
part of the Government of His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, the 29th day of January, A.D. 1867, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-first.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas the Congress of the United States did by an act approved on
the 19th day of April, 1864, authorize the people of the Territory
of Nebraska to form a constitution and State government and for the
admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the
original States upon certain conditions in said act specified; and

Whereas said people did adopt a constitution conforming to the
provisions and conditions of said act and ask admission into the Union;
and

Whereas the Congress of the United States did on the 8th and 9th days
of February, 1867, in mode prescribed by the Constitution, pass a
further act for the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union,
in which last-named act it was provided that it should not take effect
except upon the fundamental condition that within the State of Nebraska
there should be no denial of the elective franchise or of any other
right to any person by reason of race or color, excepting Indians not
taxed, and upon the further fundamental condition that the legislature
of said State, by a solemn public act, should declare the assent of
said State to the said fundamental condition and should transmit to
the President of the United States an authenticated copy of said act
of the legislature of said State, upon receipt whereof the President,
by proclamation, should forthwith announce the fact, whereupon said
fundamental condition should be held as a part of the organic law of
the State, and thereupon, and without any further proceeding on the
part of Congress, the admission of said State into the Union should
be considered as complete; and

Whereas within the time prescribed by said act of Congress of the 8th
and 9th of February, 1867, the legislature of the State of Nebraska did
pass an act ratifying the said act of Congress of the 8th and 9th of
February, 1867, and declaring that the aforenamed provisions of the
third section of said last-named act of Congress should be a part of
the organic law of the State of Nebraska; and

Whereas a duly authenticated copy of said act of the legislature of the
State of Nebraska has been received by me:

Now, therefore, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States of
America, do, in accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress
last herein named, declare and proclaim the fact that the fundamental
conditions imposed by Congress on the State of Nebraska to entitle that
State to admission to the Union have been ratified and accepted and that
the admission of the said State into the Union is now complete.

In testimony whereof I have hereto set my hand and have caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 1st day of March, A.D. 1867, and of
the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-first.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

[Note.--The Fortieth Congress, first session, met March 4, 1867,
in accordance with the act of January 22, 1867, and on March 30, in
accordance with the concurrent resolution of March 29, adjourned to
July 3. The Senate met in special session April 1, in conformity to the
proclamation of the President of the United States of March 30, and on
April 20 adjourned without day. The Fortieth Congress, first session,
again met July 3, and on July 20, in accordance with the concurrent
resolution of the latter date, adjourned to November 21; again met
November 21, and on December 2, 1867, in accordance with the concurrent
resolution of November 26, adjourned without day.]

SPECIAL MESSAGES.

MARCH 11, 1867.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 28th of
July last, a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying
documents.[18]

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 18: Correspondence since March 4, 1857, touching the claim to
military service asserted by France and Prussia in reference to persons
born in those countries, but who have since become citizens of the
United States.]

WASHINGTON CITY, _March 13, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
a treaty concluded this day between the United States and the chiefs and
headmen of the Kickapoo tribe of Indians.

A letter of the Secretary of the Interior and a copy of a letter of the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs, explanatory of said treaty, are also
herewith transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON CITY, D.C., _March 13, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
a treaty concluded in this city on the 15th instant [ultimo] between the
United States and the Stockbridge and Munsee tribes of Indians.

A letter of the Secretary of the Interior of the 25th instant [ultimo]
and a copy of a communication from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs of
the 19th instant [ultimo], explanatory of the said treaty, are also
herewith transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON CITY, D.C., _March 13, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
a treaty concluded in this city on the 23d instant [ultimo] between the
United States and the following tribes of Indians, viz: The Senecas,
the confederated Senecas and Shawnees, the Quapaws, the Ottawas, the
confederated Peorias, Kaskaskias, Weas and Piankeshaws, and the Miamis.

A letter of the Secretary of the Interior of the 26th instant [ultimo]
and a copy of a letter of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs of the 25th
instant [ultimo], explanatory of said treaty, are also herewith
transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON CITY, D.C., _March 13, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
a treaty concluded on the 2d March, 1866, between the United States and
the Shawnee tribe of Indians of Kansas.

A letter of the Secretary of the Interior of the 6th instant and a copy
of a communication from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs of the 2d
instant, explanatory of the said treaty, are also herewith transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON CITY, D.C., _March 13, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
a treaty concluded on the 27th instant [ultimo] between the United
States and the Pottawatomie tribe of Indians.

A letter of the Secretary of the Interior of the 28th instant [ultimo]
and a copy of a communication from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs of
the 27th instant [ultimo], explanatory of the said treaty, are also
herewith transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON CITY, D.C., _March 13, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon
a treaty concluded in this city on the 13th instant [ultimo] between the
United States and the Kansas or Kaw tribe of Indians.

A letter of the Secretary of the Interior of the 25th instant [ultimo]
and a copy of a communication of the 19th instant [ultimo] from the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs, explanatory of said treaty, are also
herewith transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON CITY, _March 13, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
a treaty this day concluded between the United States and the Cherokee
Nation of Indians, providing for the sale of their lands in Kansas,
known as the "Cherokee neutral lands."

A letter of the Secretary of the Interior and accompanying copy of a
letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs of this date, in relation
to the treaty, are also herewith transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 14, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, in further
answer to the resolution[19] of the House of Representatives of the 24th
of January last.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 19: Requesting information "in relation to a removal of the
Protestant Church or religious assembly meeting at the American embassy
from the city of Rome by an order of that Government."]

WASHINGTON, _March 15, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in further answer to their resolution of the
31st of January last, a report from the Secretary of State, with
accompanying documents.[20]

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 20: Dispatch from the United States consul at Geneva, with an
inclosure, refuting charges against his moral character, etc.]

WASHINGTON, _March 20, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit to the House of Representatives, in answer to their resolution
of the 18th instant, a report[21] from the Secretary of State, with its
accompanying papers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 21: Relating to trials in Canada of citizens of the United
States for complicity in the Fenian invasion of that country.]

WASHINGTON, _March 20, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit to the House of Representatives, in answer to their
resolution of the 18th instant, a report[22]from the Secretary of State,
with an accompanying paper.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 22: Relating to the withdrawal of French troops from the
Mexican Republic.]

WASHINGTON, _March 20, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 15th
instant, reports[23] from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
the Treasury, with accompanying papers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 23: Relating to the fees of consular agents within the
districts of salaried consuls, etc.]

WASHINGTON, _March 20, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 7th
instant, relative to the arrest, imprisonment, and treatment of American
citizens in Great Britain or its Provinces, I transmit a report from the
Secretary of State on the subject.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _March 21, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
a treaty concluded on the 19th of March, 1867, between the United States
and the Chippewa tribe of Indians of the Mississippi.

A letter of the Secretary of the Interior and a copy of a letter of Hon.
Lewis V. Bogy, special commissioner, of the 20th instant, explanatory of
the said treaty, are also herewith transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _March 30, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In giving my approval to the joint resolution providing for the expenses
of carrying into full effect an act entitled "An act to provide for the
more efficient government of the rebel States," I am moved to do so for
the following reason: The seventh section of the act supplementary to
the act for the more efficient government of the rebel States provides
that the expenses incurred under or by virtue of that act shall be paid
out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. This
provision is wholly unlimited as to the amount to be expended, whereas
the resolution now before me limits the appropriation to $500,000. I
consider this limitation as a very necessary check against unlimited
expenditure and liabilities. Yielding to that consideration, I feel
bound to approve this resolution, without modifying in any manner any
objections heretofore stated against the original and supplemental acts.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 30, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to
ratification, a treaty between the United States and His Majesty the
Emperor of all the Russias upon the subject of a cession of territory by
the latter to the former, which treaty was this day signed in this city
by the plenipotentiaries of the parties.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

PROCLAMATION.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas objects of interest to the United States require that the Senate
should be convened at 12 o'clock on Monday, the 1st day of April next,
to receive and act upon such communications as may be made to it on the
part of the Executive.

Now, therefore, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, have
considered it to be my duty to issue this my proclamation, declaring
that an extraordinary occasion requires the Senate of the United States
to convene for the transaction of business at the Capitol, in the city
of Washington, on Monday, the 1st day of April next, at 12 o'clock on
that day, of which all who shall at that time be entitled to act as
members of that body are hereby required to take notice.

[SEAL.]

Given under my hand and the seal of the United States, at Washington,
the 30th day of March, A.D. 1867, and of the Independence of the United
States of America the ninety-first.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

SPECIAL MESSAGES.

[The following messages were sent to the special session of the Senate.]

WASHINGTON, _March 28, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 20th
instant, a report[24] from the Secretary of State, with accompanying
documents.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 24: Relating to the exequatur of the consul of the Grand Duchy
of Oldenburg residing at New York.]

WASHINGTON, _April 12, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 10th
instant, calling for information relative to prisoners of war taken by
belligerents in the Mexican Republic, a report from the Secretary of
State, with accompanying papers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 13, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 28th of January
last, requesting certain information in regard to governors,
secretaries, and judges of Territories, I transmit herewith reports[25]
from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Interior, and the
Attorney-General.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 25: Relating to the absence of Territorial officers from their
posts of duty.]

WASHINGTON, _April 15, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 13th
instant, a report[26] from the Secretary of State.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 26: Relating to the absence of Governor Alexander Cumming from
the Territory of Colorado since his appointment as governor.]

WASHINGTON, _April 16, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith reports from the heads of the several Executive
Departments, in answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 11th
instant, requesting "copies of any official opinions which may have been
given by the Attorney-General, the Solicitor of the Treasury, or by any
other officer of the Government on the interpretation of the act of
Congress regulating the tenure of office, and especially with regard to
appointments by the President during the recess of Congress."

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[The following messages were sent to the Fortieth Congress, first session.]

WASHINGTON, _July 5, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to
ratification, a convention for commercial reciprocity between the
United States and His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, which
convention was signed by the plenipotentiaries of the parties in the
city of San Francisco on the 21st day of May last.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 5, 1867_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit to Congress a copy of a convention between the United States
and the Republic of Venezuela for the adjustment of claims of citizens
of the United States on the Government of that Republic. The
ratifications of this convention were exchanged at Caracas on the 10th
of April last. As its first article stipulates that the commissioners
shall meet in that city within four months from that date, the
expediency of passing the usual act for the purpose of carrying the
convention into effect will, of course, engage the attention of
Congress.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 6, 1867_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit to Congress a copy of a treaty between the United States and
His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, the ratifications of which
were exchanged in this city on the 20th day of June last.

This instrument provides for a cession of territory to the United States
in consideration of the payment of $7,200,000 in gold. The attention of
Congress is invited to the subject of an appropriation for this payment,
and also to that of proper legislation for the occupation and government
of the territory as a part of the dominion of the United States.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 6, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to
ratification, a convention between the United States, Great Britain,
France, the Netherlands, and Japan, concluded at Yedo on the 25th of
June, 1866.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 8, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Attorney-General, additional to
the reports submitted by him December 31, 1866, and March 2, 1867, in
reply to a resolution of the House of Representatives of December 10,
1866, requesting "a list of names of all persons engaged in the late
rebellion against the United States Government who have been pardoned by
the President from April 15, 1865, to this date; that said list shall
also state the rank of each person who has been so pardoned, if he has
been engaged in the military service of the so-called Confederate
government, and the position if he shall have held any civil office
under said so-called Confederate government; and shall also further
state whether such person has at any time prior to April 14, 1861, held
any office under the United States Government, and, if so, what office,
together with the reasons for granting such pardon, and also the names
of the person or persons at whose solicitation such pardon was granted."

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 9, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
5th of July, requesting the President "to inform the House what States
have ratified the amendment to the Constitution of the United States
proposed by concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, June
16, 1866," I transmit a report from the Secretary of State.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 10, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with so much of the resolution of the House of
Representatives of the 8th instant as requests information in regard to
certain agreements said to have been entered into between the United
States, European and West Virginia Land and Mining Company and certain
reputed agents of the Republic of Mexico, I transmit a report from the
Secretary of State and the papers accompanying it.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 11, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
3d instant, requesting me to transmit all the official correspondence
between the Department of State and the Hon. Lewis D. Campbell, late
minister to Mexico, and also that with his successor, I communicate a
report from the Secretary of State and the papers accompanying it.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 12, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 8th instant,
requesting me to transmit "all the official correspondence between the
Department of State and the Hon. Lewis D. Campbell, late minister
of the United States to the Republic of Mexico, from the time of his
appointment, also the correspondence of the Department with his
successor," I communicate herewith a report on the subject from the
Secretary of State, from which it appears that the correspondence
called for by the Senate has already been communicated to the House
of Representatives.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _July 15, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith reports from the Secretary of War and the
Attorney-General, containing the information called for by the
resolution of the Senate of the 3d instant, requesting the President "to
communicate to the Senate copies of all orders, instructions, circular
letters, or letters of advice issued to the respective military officers
assigned to the command of the several military districts under the act
passed March 2, 1867, entitled 'An act to provide for the more efficient
government of the rebel States,' and the act supplementary thereto,
passed March 23, 1867; also copies of all opinions given to him by the
Attorney-General of the United States touching the construction and
interpretation of said acts, and of all correspondence relating to the
operation, construction, or execution of said acts that may have taken
place between himself and any of said commanders, or between him and the
General of the Army, or between the latter and any of said commanders,
touching the same subjects; also copies of all orders issued by any of
said commanders in carrying out the provisions of said acts or either of
them; also that he inform the Senate what progress has been made in the
matter of registration under said acts, and whether the sum of money
heretofore appropriated for carrying them out is probably sufficient."

In answer to that portion of the resolution which inquires whether the
sum of money heretofore appropriated for carrying these acts into effect
is probably sufficient, reference is made to the accompanying report
of the Secretary of War. It will be seen from that report that the
appropriation of $500,000 made in the act approved March 30, 1867, for
the purpose of carrying into effect the "Act to provide for the more
efficient government of the rebel States," passed March 2, 1867, and the
act supplementary thereto, passed March 23, 1867, has already been
expended by the commanders of the several military districts, and that,
in addition, the sum of $1,648,277 is required for present purposes.

It is exceedingly difficult at the present time to estimate the probable
expense of carrying into full effect the two acts of March last and the
bill which passed the two Houses of Congress on the 13th instant. If the
existing governments of ten States of the Union are to be deposed and
their entire machinery is to be placed under the exclusive control and
authority of the respective district commanders, all the expenditures
incident to the administration of such governments must necessarily be
incurred by the Federal Government. It is believed that, in addition to
the $2,100,000 already expended or estimated for, the sum which would
be required for this purpose would not be less than $14,000,000--the
aggregate amount expended prior to the rebellion in the administration
of their respective governments by the ten States embraced in the
provisions of these acts. This sum would no doubt be considerably
augmented if the machinery of these States is to be operated by the
Federal Government, and would be largely increased if the United States,
by abolishing the existing State governments, should become responsible
for liabilities incurred by them before the rebellion in laudable
efforts to develop their resources, and in no wise created for
insurrectionary or revolutionary purposes. The debts of these States,
thus legitimately incurred, when accurately ascertained will, it is
believed, approximate $100,000,000; and they are held not only by our
own citizens, among whom are residents of portions of the country which
have ever remained loyal to the Union, but by persons who are the
subjects of foreign governments. It is worthy the consideration of
Congress and the country whether, if the Federal Government by its
action were to assume such obligations, so large an addition to our
public expenditures would not seriously impair the credit of the nation,
or, on the other hand, whether the refusal of Congress to guarantee
the payment of the debts of these States, after having displaced or
abolished their State governments, would not be viewed as a violation of
good faith and a repudiation by the national legislature of liabilities
which these States had justly and legally incurred.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 18, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 8th instant,
requesting me to furnish to that body copies of any correspondence on
the files of the Department of State relating to any recent events in
Mexico, I communicate a report from the Secretary of State, with the
papers accompanying it.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 18, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with that part of the resolution of the House of
Representatives of the 8th instant which requests me to transmit to
the House of Representatives any official correspondence or other
information relating to the capture and execution of Maximilian and
the arrest and reported execution of Santa Anna in Mexico, I inclose
herewith a report from the Secretary of State, from which it appears
that the correspondence called for by the House of Representatives has
already been communicated to the Senate of the United States.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 20, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I have received a resolution adopted by the House of Representatives
on the 8th instant, inquiring "whether the publication which appeared
in the National Intelligencer and other public prints on the 21st of
June last, and which contained a statement of the proceedings of the
President and Cabinet in respect to an interpretation of the acts of
Congress commonly known as the reconstruction acts, was made by the
authority of the President or with his knowledge and consent," and
"whether the full and complete record or minute of all the proceedings,
conclusions, and determinations of the President and Cabinet relating to
said acts of Congress and their interpretation is embraced or given in
said publication," and also requesting that "a true copy of the full
and complete record or minute of such proceedings, conclusions, and
determinations in regard to the interpretation of said reconstruction
acts" be furnished to the House.

In compliance with the request of the House of Representatives, I have
to state that the publication to which the resolution refers was made
by proper authority, and that it comprises the proceedings in Cabinet
relating to the acts of Congress mentioned in the inquiry, upon which,
after taking the opinions of the heads of the several Executive
Departments of the Government, I had announced my own conclusions. Other
questions arising from these acts have been under consideration, upon
which, however, no final conclusion has been reached. No publication in
reference to them has, therefore, been authorized by me; but should it
at any time be deemed proper and advantageous to the interests of the
country to make public those or any other proceedings of the Cabinet,
authority for their promulgation will be given by the President.

A correct copy of the record of the proceedings, published in the
National Intelligencer and other newspapers on the 21st ultimo, is
herewith transmitted, together with a copy of the instructions based
upon the conclusions of the President and Cabinet and sent to the
commanders of the several military districts created by act of Congress
of March 2, 1867.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

IN CABINET, _June 18, 1867_.

Present: The President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
the Treasury, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, the
Postmaster-General, the Attorney-General, the Acting Secretary of
the Interior.

The President announced that he had under consideration the two opinions
from the Attorney-General as to the legal questions arising upon the
acts of Congress commonly known as the reconstruction acts, and that in
view of the great magnitude of the subject and of the various interests
involved he deemed it proper to have it considered fully in the Cabinet
and to avail himself of all the light which could be afforded by the
opinions and advice of the members of the Cabinet, to enable him to see
that these laws be faithfully executed and to decide what orders and
instructions are necessary and expedient to be given to the military
commanders.

The President said further that the branch of the subject that seemed to
him first in order for consideration was as to the instructions to be
sent to the military commanders for their guidance and for the guidance
of persons offering for registration. The instructions proposed by the
Attorney-General, as set forth in the summary contained in his last
opinion, will therefore be now considered.

The summary was then read at length.

The reading of the summary having been concluded, each section was then
considered, discussed, and voted upon as follows:

1. The oath prescribed in the supplemental act defines all the
qualifications required, and every person who can take that oath is
entitled to have his name entered upon the list of voters.

All vote "aye" except the Secretary of War, who votes "nay."

2. The board of registration have no authority to administer any other
oath to the person applying for registration than this prescribed
oath, nor to administer any oath to any other person touching the
qualifications of the applicant or the falsity of the oath so taken
by him.

No provision is made for challenging the qualifications of the applicant
or entering upon any trial or investigation of his qualifications,
either by witnesses or any other form of proof.

All vote "aye" except the Secretary of War, who votes "nay."

3. As to citizenship and residence:

The applicant for registration must be a citizen of the State and of the
United States, and must be a resident of a county or parish included in
the election district. He may be registered if he has been such citizen
for a period less than twelve months at the time he applies for
registration, but he can not vote at any election unless his citizenship
has then extended to the full term of one year. As to such a person, the
exact length of his citizenship should be noted opposite his name on the
list, so that it may appear on the day of election, upon reference to
the list, whether the full term has then been accomplished.

Concurred in unanimously.

4. An unnaturalized person can not take this oath, but an alien who has
been naturalized can take it, and no other proof of naturalization can
be required from him.

All vote "aye" except the Secretary of War, who votes "nay."

5. No one who is not 21 years of age at the time of registration can
take the oath, for he must swear that he has then attained that age.

Concurred in unanimously.

6. No one who has been disfranchised for participation in any rebellion
against the United States or for felony committed against the laws of
any State or of the United States can take this oath.

The actual participation in a rebellion or the actual commission of a
felony does not amount to disfranchisement. The sort of disfranchisement
here meant is that which is declared by law passed by competent
authority, or which has been fixed upon the criminal by the sentence of
the court which tried him for the crime.

No law of the United States has declared the penalty of disfranchisement
for participation in rebellion alone; nor is it known that any such law
exists in either of these ten States, except, perhaps, Virginia, as to
which State special instructions will be given.

All vote "aye" except the Secretary of War, who dissents as to the
second and third paragraphs.

7. As to disfranchisement arising from having held office followed by
participation in rebellion:

This is the most important part of the oath, and requires strict
attention to arrive at its meaning. The applicant must swear or affirm
as follows:

"That I have never been a member of any State legislature, nor held any
executive or judicial office in any State, and afterwards engaged in an
insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid or
comfort to the enemies thereof; that I have never taken an oath as a
member of Congress of the United States, or as an officer of the United
States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or
judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United
States, and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
United States or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Two elements must concur in order to disqualify a person under these
clauses: First, the office and official oath to support the Constitution
of the United States; second, engaging afterwards in rebellion. Both
must exist to work disqualification, and must happen in the order of
time mentioned.

A person who has held an office and taken the oath to support the
Federal Constitution and has not afterwards engaged in rebellion is not
disqualified. So, too, a person who has engaged in rebellion, but has
not theretofore held an office and taken that oath, is not disqualified.

All vote "aye" except the Secretary of War, who votes "nay."

8. Officers of the United States:

As to these the language is without limitation. The person who has at
any time prior to the rebellion held any office, civil or military,
under the United States, and has taken an official oath to support the
Constitution of the United States, is subject to disqualification.

Concurred in unanimously.

9. Militia officers of any State prior to the rebellion are not subject
to disqualification.

All vote "aye" except the Secretary of War, who votes "nay."

10. Municipal officers--that is to say, officers of incorporated cities,
towns, and villages, such as mayors, aldermen, town council, police, and
other city or town officers--are not subject to disqualification.

Concurred in unanimously.

11. Persons who have prior to the rebellion been members of the Congress
of the United States or members of a State legislature are subject to
disqualification, but those who have been members of conventions framing
or amending the constitution of a State prior to the rebellion are not
subject to disqualification.

Concurred in unanimously.

12. All the executive or judicial officers of any State who took an
oath to support the Constitution of the United States are subject
to disqualification, including county officers. They are subject to
disqualification if they were required to take as a part of their
official oath the oath to support the Constitution of the United States.

Concurred in unanimously.

13. Persons who exercised mere employments under State authority are
not disqualified; such as commissioners to lay out roads, commissioners
of public works, visitors of State institutions, directors of State
institutions, examiners of banks, notaries public, commissioners to
take acknowledgments of deeds.

Concurred in unanimously; but the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
the Treasury, and the Secretary of War express the opinion that lawyers
are such officers as are disqualified if they participated in the
rebellion. Two things must exist as to any person to disqualify him from
voting: First, the office held prior to the rebellion, and, afterwards,
participation in the rebellion.

14. An act to fix upon a person the offense of engaging in rebellion
under this law must be an overt and voluntary act, done with the intent
of aiding or furthering the common unlawful purpose. A person forced
into the rebel service by conscription or under a paramount authority
which he could not safely disobey, and who would not have entered such
service if left to the free exercise of his own will, can not be held
to be disqualified from voting.

All vote "aye" except the Secretary of War, who votes "nay" as the
proposition is stated.

15. Mere acts of charity, where the intent is to relieve the wants of
the object of such charity, and not done in aid of the cause in which he
may have been engaged, do not disqualify; but organized contributions
of food and clothing for the general relief of persons engaged in the
rebellion, and not of a merely sanitary character, but contributed to
enable them to perform their unlawful object, maybe classed with acts
which do disqualify. Forced contributions to the rebel cause in the form
of taxes or military assessments, which a person was compelled to pay or
contribute, do not disqualify; but voluntary contributions to the rebel
cause, even such indirect contributions as arise from the voluntary loan
of money to the rebel authorities or purchase of bonds or securities
created to afford the means of carrying on the rebellion, will work
disqualification.

Concurred in unanimously.

16. All those who in legislative or other official capacity were engaged
in the furtherance of the common unlawful purpose, where the duties of
the office necessarily had relation to the support of the rebellion,
such as members of the rebel conventions, congresses, and legislatures,
diplomatic agents of the rebel Confederacy, and other officials whose
offices were created for the purpose of more effectually carrying on
hostilities or whose duties appertained to the support of the rebel
cause, must be held to be disqualified; but officers who during the
rebellion discharged official duties not incident to war, but only such
duties as belong even to a state of peace and were necessary to the
preservation of order and the administration of law, are not to be
considered as thereby engaging in rebellion or as disqualified. Disloyal
sentiments, opinions, or sympathies would not disqualify, but where a
person has by speech or writing incited others to engage in rebellion he
must come under the disqualification.

All vote "aye" except the Secretary of War, who dissents to the second
paragraph, with the exception of the words "where a person has by speech
or by writing incited others to engage in rebellion he must come under
the disqualification."

17. The duties of the board appointed to superintend the elections.

This board, having the custody of the list of registered voters in the
district for which it is constituted, must see that the name of the
person offering to vote is found upon the registration list, and if such
proves to be the fact it is the duty of the board to receive his vote if
then qualified by residence. They can not receive the vote of any person
whose name is not upon the list, though he may be ready to take the
registration oath, and although he may satisfy them that he was unable
to have his name registered at the proper time, in consequence of
absence, sickness, or other cause.

The board can not enter into any inquiry as to the qualifications of
any person whose name is not on the registration list, or as to the
qualifications of any person whose name is on that list..

Concurred in unanimously.

18. The mode of voting is provided in the act to be by ballot. The board
will keep a record and poll book of the election, showing the votes,
list of voters, and the persons elected by a plurality of the votes cast
at the election, and make returns of these to the commanding general of
the district.

Concurred in unanimously.

19. The board appointed for registration and for superintending the
elections must take the oath prescribed by the act of Congress approved
July 2, 1862, entitled "An act to prescribe an oath of office."

Concurred in unanimously.

IN CABINET, _June 20, 1867_.

Present: The same Cabinet officers as on the 18th, except the Acting
Secretary of the Interior.

The President announced to the Cabinet that after full deliberation he
concurred with the majority upon the sections of the summary upon which
the Secretary of War expressed his dissent, and that he concurred with
the Cabinet upon those sections approved by unanimous vote; that as it
appeared the military commanders entertained doubts upon the points
covered by the summary, and as their action hitherto had not been
uniform, he deemed it proper, without further delay, to communicate in
a general order[27] to the respective commanders the points set forth
in the summary.

[Footnote 27: See Executive order of June 20, 1867, pp. 552-556.]

VETO MESSAGES.

WASHINGTON, _March 23, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I have considered the bill entitled "An act supplementary to an act
entitled 'An act to provide for the more efficient government of the
rebel States,' passed March 2, 1867, and to facilitate restoration,"
and now return it to the House of Representatives with my objections.

This bill provides for elections in the ten States brought under the
operation of the original act to which it is supplementary. Its details
are principally directed to the elections for the formation of the State
constitutions, but by the sixth section of the bill "all elections"
in these States occurring while the original act remains in force are
brought within its purview. Referring to these details, it will be found
that, first of all, there is to be a registration of the voters. No one
whose name has not been admitted on the list is to be allowed to vote at
any of these elections. To ascertain who is entitled to registration,
reference is made necessary, by the express language of the supplement,
to the original act and to the pending bill. The fifth section of the
original act provides, as to voters, that they shall be "male citizens
of the State, 21 years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or
previous condition, who have been residents of said State for one
year." This is the general qualification, followed, however, by many
exceptions. No one can be registered, according to the original act,
"who may be disfranchised for participation in the rebellion"--a
provision which left undetermined the question as to what amounted to
disfranchisement, and whether without a judicial sentence the act
itself produced that effect. This supplemental bill superadds an oath,
to be taken by every person before his name can be admitted upon the
registration, that he has "not been disfranchised for participation in
any rebellion or civil war against the United States." It thus imposes
upon every person the necessity and responsibility of deciding for
himself, under the peril of punishment by a military commission if
he makes a mistake, what works disfranchisement by participation in
rebellion and what amounts to such participation. Almost every man--the
negro as well as the white--above 21 years of age who was resident in
these ten States during the rebellion, voluntarily or involuntarily, at
some time and in some way did participate in resistance to the lawful
authority of the General Government. The question with the citizen to
whom this oath is to be proposed must be a fearful one, for while the
bill does not declare that perjury may be assigned for such false
swearing nor fix any penalty for the offense, we must not forget that
martial law prevails; that every person is answerable to a military
commission, without previous presentment by a grand jury, for any charge
that may be made against him, and that the supreme authority of the
military commander determines the question as to what is an offense
and what is to be the measure of punishment.

The fourth section of the bill provides "that the commanding general of
each district shall appoint as many boards of registration as may be
necessary, consisting of three loyal officers or persons." The only
qualification stated for these officers is that they must be "loyal."
They may be persons in the military service or civilians, residents of
the State or strangers. Yet these persons are to exercise most important
duties and are vested with unlimited discretion. They are to decide what
names shall be placed upon the register and from their decision there is
to be no appeal. They are to superintend the elections and to decide all
questions which may arise. They are to have the custody of the ballots
and to make return of the persons elected. Whatever frauds or errors
they may commit must pass without redress. All that is left for the
commanding general is to receive the returns of the elections, open the
same, and ascertain who are chosen "according to the returns of the
officers who conducted said elections." By such means and with this
sort of agency are the conventions of delegates to be constituted.

As the delegates are to speak for the people, common justice would seem
to require that they should have authority from the people themselves.
No convention so constituted will in any sense represent the wishes of
the inhabitants of these States, for under the all-embracing exceptions
of these laws, by a construction which the uncertainty of the clause as
to disfranchisement leaves open to the board of officers, the great body
of the people may be excluded from the polls and from all opportunity of
expressing their own wishes or voting for delegates who will faithfully
reflect their sentiments.

I do not deem it necessary further to investigate the details of this
bill. No consideration could induce me to give my approval to such an
election law for any purpose, and especially for the great purpose of
framing the constitution of a State. If ever the American citizen should
be left to the free exercise of his own judgment it is when he is
engaged in the work of forming the fundamental law under which he is to
live. That work is his work, and it can not properly be taken out of his
hands. All this legislation proceeds upon the contrary assumption that
the people of each of these States shall have no constitution except
such as may be arbitrarily dictated by Congress and formed under the
restraint of military rule. A plain statement of facts makes this
evident.

In all these States there are existing constitutions, framed in the
accustomed way by the people. Congress, however, declares that these
constitutions are not "loyal and republican," and requires the people to
form them anew. What, then, in the opinion of Congress, is necessary to
make the constitution of a State "loyal and republican"? The original
act answers the question: It is universal negro suffrage--a question
which the Federal Constitution leaves exclusively to the States
themselves. All this legislative machinery of martial law, military
coercion, and political disfranchisement is avowedly for that purpose
and none other. The existing constitutions of the ten States conform to
the acknowledged standards of loyalty and republicanism. Indeed, if
there are degrees in republican forms of government, their constitutions
are more republican now than when these States, four of which were
members of the original thirteen, first became members of the Union.

Congress does not now demand that a single provision of their
constitutions be changed except such as confine suffrage to the white
population. It is apparent, therefore, that these provisions do not
conform to the standard of republicanism which Congress seeks to
establish. That there may be no mistake, it is only necessary that
reference should be made to the original act, which declares "such
constitution shall provide that the elective franchise shall be enjoyed
by all such persons as have the qualifications herein stated for
electors of delegates." What class of persons is here meant clearly
appears in the same section; that is to say, "the male citizens of said
State 21 years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or previous
condition, who have been resident in said State for one year previous
to the day of such election."

Without these provisions no constitution which can be framed in any one
of the ten States will be of any avail with Congress. This, then, is the
test of what the constitution of a State of this Union must contain to
make it republican. Measured by such a standard, how few of the States
now composing the Union have republican constitutions! If in the
exercise of the constitutional guaranty that Congress shall secure to
every State a republican form of government universal suffrage for
blacks as well as whites is a _sine qua non_, the work of reconstruction
may as well begin in Ohio as in Virginia, in Pennsylvania as in North
Carolina.

When I contemplate the millions of our fellow-citizens of the South
with no alternative left but to impose upon themselves this fearful
and untried experiment of complete negro enfranchisement--and white
disfranchisement, it may be, almost as complete--or submit indefinitely
to the rigor of martial law, without a single attribute of freemen,
deprived of all the sacred guaranties of our Federal Constitution, and
threatened with even worse wrongs, if any worse are possible, it seems
to me their condition is the most deplorable to which any people can be
reduced. It is true that they have been engaged in rebellion and that
their object being a separation of the States and a dissolution of the
Union there was an obligation resting upon every loyal citizen to treat
them as enemies and to wage war against their cause.

Inflexibly opposed to any movement imperiling the integrity of the
Government, I did not hesitate to urge the adoption of all measures
necessary for the suppression of the insurrection. After a long and
terrible struggle the efforts of the Government were triumphantly
successful, and the people of the South, submitting to the stern
arbitrament, yielded forever the issues of the contest. Hostilities
terminated soon after it became my duty to assume the responsibilities
of the chief executive officer of the Republic, and I at once endeavored
to repress and control the passions which our civil strife had
engendered, and, no longer regarding these erring millions as enemies,
again acknowledged them as our friends and our countrymen. The war had
accomplished its objects. The nation was saved and that seminal
principle of mischief which from the birth of the Government had
gradually but inevitably brought on the rebellion was totally
eradicated. Then, it seemed to me, was the auspicious time to commence
the work of reconciliation; then, when these people sought once more our
friendship and protection, I considered it our duty generously to meet
them in the spirit of charity and forgiveness and to conquer them even
more effectually by the magnanimity of the nation than by the force of
its arms. I yet believe that if the policy of reconciliation then
inaugurated, and which contemplated an early restoration of these people
to all their political rights, had received the support of Congress,
every one of these ten States and all their people would at this moment
be fast anchored in the Union and the great work which gave the war all
its sanction and made it just and holy would have been accomplished.
Then over all the vast and fruitful regions of the South peace and its
blessings would have prevailed, while now millions are deprived of
rights guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen and after nearly
two years of legislation find themselves placed under an absolute
military despotism. "A military republic, a government founded on mock
elections and supported only by the sword," was nearly a quarter of a
century since pronounced by Daniel Webster, when speaking of the South
American States, as "a movement, indeed, but a retrograde and disastrous
movement, from the regular and old-fashioned monarchical systems;" and
he added:

If men would enjoy the blessings of republican government, they must
govern themselves by reason, by mutual counsel and consultation, by a
sense and feeling of general interest, and by the acquiescence of the
minority in the will of the majority, properly expressed; and, above
all, the military must be kept, according to the language of our bill of
rights, in strict subordination to the civil authority. Wherever this
lesson is not both learned and practiced there can be no political
freedom. Absurd, preposterous is it, a scoff and a satire on free forms
of constitutional liberty, for frames of government to be prescribed by
military leaders and the right of suffrage to be exercised at the point
of the sword.

I confidently believe that a time will come when these States will again
occupy their true positions in the Union. The barriers which now seem so
obstinate must yield to the force of an enlightened and just public
opinion, and sooner or later unconstitutional and oppressive legislation
will be effaced from our statute books. When this shall have been
consummated, I pray God that the errors of the past may be forgotten and
that once more we shall be a happy, united, and prosperous people, and
that at last, after the bitter and eventful experience through which the
nation has passed, we shall all come to know that our only safety is in
the preservation of our Federal Constitution and in according to every
American citizen and to every State the rights which that Constitution
secures.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _April 10, 1867_.[28]

The first session of the Fortieth Congress adjourned on the 30th day
of March, 1867. This bill,[29] which was passed during that session,
was not presented for my approval by the Hon. Edmund G. Ross, of the
Senate of the United States, and a member of the Committee on Enrolled
Bills, until Monday, the 1st day of April, 1867, two days after the
adjournment. It is not believed that the approval of any bill after
the adjournment of Congress, whether presented before or after such
adjournment, is authorized by the Constitution of the United States,
that instrument expressly declaring that no bill shall become a law the
return of which may have been prevented by the adjournment of Congress.
To concede that under the Constitution the President, after the
adjournment of Congress, may, without limitation in respect to time,
exercise the power of approval, and thus determine at his discretion
whether or not bills shall become laws, might subject the executive and
legislative departments of the Government to influences most pernicious
to correct legislation and sound public morals, and--with a single
exception, occurring during the prevalence of civil war--would be
contrary to the established practice of the Government from its
inauguration to the present time. This bill will therefore be filed
in the office of the Secretary of State without my approval.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 28: Pocket veto. Was never sent to Congress, but was deposited
in the Department of State.]

[Footnote 29: Joint resolution placing certain troops of Missouri on an
equal footing with others as to bounties.]

WASHINGTON, D.C., _July 19, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I return herewith the bill entitled "An act supplementary to an act
entitled 'An act to provide for the more efficient government of the
rebel States,' passed on the 2d day of March, 1867, and the act
supplementary thereto, passed, on the 23d day of March, 1867," and will
state as briefly as possible some of the reasons which prevent me from
giving it my approval.

This is one of a series of measures passed by Congress during the last
four months on the subject of reconstruction. The message returning the
act of the 2d of March last states at length my objections to the
passage of that measure. They apply equally well to the bill now before
me, and I am content merely to refer to them and to reiterate my
conviction that they are sound and unanswerable.

There are some points peculiar to this bill, which I will proceed at
once to consider.

The first section purports to declare "the true intent and meaning,"
in some particulars, of the two prior acts upon this subject.

It is declared that the intent of those acts was, first, that the
existing governments in the ten "rebel States" "were not legal State
governments," and, second, "that thereafter said governments, if
continued, were to be continued subject in all respects to the military
commanders of the respective districts and to the paramount authority
of Congress."

Congress may by a declaratory act fix upon a prior act a
construction altogether at variance with its apparent meaning, and
from the time, at least, when such a construction is fixed the original
act will be construed to mean exactly what it is stated to mean by the
declaratory statute. There will be, then, from the time this bill may
become a law no doubt, no question, as to the relation in which the
"existing governments" in those States, called in the original act "the
provisional governments," stand toward the military authority. As those
relations stood before the declaratory act, these "governments," it is
true, were made subject to absolute military authority in many important
respects, but not in all, the language of the act being "subject to the
military authority of the United States, as hereinafter prescribed."
By the sixth section of the original act these governments were made
"in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United
States."

Now by this declaratory act it appears that Congress did not by the
original act intend to limit the military authority to any particulars
or subjects therein "prescribed," but meant to make it universal. Thus
over all of these ten States this military government is now declared to
have unlimited authority. It is no longer confined to the preservation
of the public peace, the administration of criminal law, the
registration of voters, and the superintendence of elections, but
"in all respects" is asserted to be paramount to the existing civil
governments.

It is impossible to conceive any state of society more intolerable than
this; and yet it is to this condition that 12,000,000 American citizens
are reduced by the Congress of the United States. Over every foot of the
immense territory occupied by these American citizens the Constitution
of the United States is theoretically in full operation. It binds all
the people there and should protect them; yet they are denied every
one of its sacred guaranties.

Of what avail will it be to any one of these Southern people when
seized by a file of soldiers to ask for the cause of arrest or for the
production of the warrant? Of what avail to ask for the privilege of
bail when in military custody, which knows no such thing as bail? Of
what avail to demand a trial by jury, process for witnesses, a copy of
the indictment, the privilege of counselor that greater privilege, the
writ of _habeas corpus_?

The veto of the original bill of the 2d of March was based on two
distinct grounds--the interference of Congress in matters strictly
appertaining to the reserved powers of the States and the establishment
of military tribunals for the trial of citizens in time of peace.
The impartial reader of that message will understand that all that
it contains with respect to military despotism and martial law has
reference especially to the fearful power conferred on the district
commanders to displace the criminal courts and assume jurisdiction to
try and to punish by military boards; that, potentially, the suspension
of the _habeas corpus_ was martial law and military despotism. The act
now before me not only declares that the intent was to confer such
military authority, but also to confer unlimited military authority over
all the other courts of the State and over all the officers of the
State--legislative, executive, and judicial. Not content with the
general grant of power, Congress, in the second section of this bill,
specifically gives to each military commander the power "to suspend or
remove from office, or from the performance of official duties and
the exercise of official powers, any officer or person holding or
exercising, or professing to hold or exercise, any civil or military
office or duty in such district under any power, election, appointment,
or authority derived from, or granted by, or claimed under any so-called
State, or the government thereof, or any municipal or other division
thereof."

A power that hitherto all the departments of the Federal Government,
acting in concert or separately, have not dared to exercise is here
attempted to be conferred on a subordinate military officer. To him,
as a military officer of the Federal Government, is given the power,
supported by "a sufficient military force," to remove every civil
officer of the State. What next? The district commander, who has thus
displaced the civil officer, is authorized to fill the vacancy by the
detail of an officer or soldier of the Army, or by the appointment of
"some other person."

This military appointee, whether an officer, a soldier, or "some
other person," is to perform "the duties of such officer or person so
suspended or removed." In other words, an officer or soldier of the Army
is thus transformed into a civil officer. He may be made a governor,
a legislator, or a judge. However unfit he may deem himself for such
civil duties, he must obey the order. The officer of the Army must, if
"detailed," go upon the supreme bench of the State with the same prompt
obedience as if he were detailed to go upon a court-martial. The
soldier, if detailed to act as a justice of the peace, must obey as
quickly as if he were detailed for picket duty.

What is the character of such a military civil officer? This bill
declares that he shall perform the duties of the civil office to which
he is detailed. It is clear, however, that he does not lose his position
in the military service. He is still an officer or soldier of the Army;
he is still subject to the rules and regulations which govern it, and
must yield due deference, respect, and obedience toward his superiors.

The clear intent of this section is that the officer or soldier
detailed to fill a civil office must execute its duties according to the
laws of the State. If he is appointed a governor of a State, he is to
execute the duties as provided by the laws of that State, and for the
time being his military character is to be suspended in his new civil
capacity. If he is appointed a State treasurer, he must at once assume
the custody and disbursement of the funds of the State, and must perform
those duties precisely according to the laws of the State, for he is
intrusted with no other official duty or other official power. Holding
the office of treasurer and intrusted with funds, it happens that he is
required by the State laws to enter into bond with security and to take
an oath of office; yet from the beginning of the bill to the end there
is no provision for any bond or oath of office, or for any single
qualification required under the State law, such as residence,
citizenship, or anything else. The only oath is that provided for in the
ninth section, by the terms of which everyone detailed or appointed to
any civil office in the State is required "to take and to subscribe the
oath of office prescribed by law for officers of the United States."
Thus an officer of the Army of the United States detailed to fill a
civil office in one of these States gives no official bond and takes
no official oath for the performance of his new duties, but as a civil
officer of the State only takes the same oath which he had already taken
as a military officer of the United States. He is, at last, a military
officer performing civil duties, and the authority under which he acts
is Federal authority only; and the inevitable result is that the Federal
Government, by the agency of its own sworn officers, in effect assumes
the civil government of the State.

A singular contradiction is apparent here. Congress declares these local
State governments to be illegal governments, and then provides that
these illegal governments shall be carried on by Federal officers, who
are to perform the very duties imposed on its own officers by this
illegal State authority. It certainly would be a novel spectacle if
Congress should attempt to carry on a _legal_ State government by the
agency of its own officers. It is yet more strange that Congress
attempts to sustain and carry on an _illegal_ State government by the
same Federal agency.

In this connection I must call attention to the tenth and eleventh
sections of the bill, which provide that none of the officers or
appointees of these military commanders "shall be bound in his action by
any opinion of any civil officer of the United States," and that all the
provisions of the act "shall be construed liberally, to the end that all
the intents thereof may be fully and perfectly carried out."

It seems Congress supposed that this bill might require construction,
and they fix, therefore, the rule to be applied. But where is the
construction to come from? Certainly no one can be more in want of
instruction than a soldier or an officer of the Army detailed for a
civil service, perhaps the most important in a State, with the duties of
which he is altogether unfamiliar. This bill says he shall not be bound
in his action by the opinion of any civil officer of the United States.
The duties of the office are altogether civil, but when he asks for an
opinion he can only ask the opinion of another military officer, who,
perhaps, understands as little of his duties as he does himself; and as
to his "action," he is answerable to the military authority, and to the
military authority alone. Strictly, no opinion of any civil officer
other than a judge has a binding force.

But these military appointees would not be bound even by a judicial
opinion. They might very well say, even when their action is in conflict
with the Supreme Court of the United States, "That court is composed of
civil officers of the United States, and we are not bound to conform our
action to any opinion of any such authority."

This bill and the acts to which it is supplementary are all founded upon
the assumption that these ten communities are not States and that their
existing governments are not legal. Throughout the legislation upon this
subject they are called "rebel States," and in this particular bill they
are denominated "so-called States," and the vice of illegality is
declared to pervade all of them. The obligations of consistency bind a
legislative body as well as the individuals who compose it. It is now
too late to say that these ten political communities are not States of
this Union. Declarations to the contrary made in these three acts are
contradicted again and again by repeated acts of legislation enacted by
Congress from the year 1861 to the year 1867.

During that period, while these States were in actual rebellion, and
after that rebellion was brought to a close, they have been again and
again recognized as States of the Union. Representation has been
apportioned to them as States. They have been divided into judicial
districts for the holding of district and circuit courts of the United
States, as States of the Union only can be districted. The last act on
this subject was passed July 23, 1866, by which every one of these ten
States was arranged into districts and circuits.

They have been called upon by Congress to act through their legislatures
upon at least two amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
As States they have ratified one amendment, which required the vote
of twenty-seven States of the thirty-six then composing the Union.
When the requisite twenty-seven votes were given in favor of that
amendment--seven of which votes were given by seven of these ten
States--it was proclaimed to be a part of the Constitution of the United
States, and slavery was declared no longer to exist within the United
States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. If these seven States
were not legal States of the Union, it follows as an inevitable
consequence that in some of the States slavery yet exists. It does not
exist in these seven States, for they have abolished it also in their
State constitutions; but Kentucky not having done so, it would still
remain in that State. But, in truth, if this assumption that these
States have no legal State governments be true, then the abolition of
slavery by these illegal governments binds no one, for Congress now
denies to these States the power to abolish slavery by denying to them
the power to elect a legal State legislature, or to frame a constitution
for any purpose, even for such a purpose as the abolition of slavery.

As to the other constitutional amendment, having reference to suffrage,
it happens that these States have not accepted it. The consequence is
that it has never been proclaimed or understood, even by Congress, to be
a part of the Constitution of the United States. The Senate of the
United States has repeatedly given its sanction to the appointment of
judges, district attorneys, and marshals for every one of these States;
yet, if they are not legal States, not one of these judges is authorized
to hold a court. So, too, both Houses of Congress have passed
appropriation bills to pay all these judges, attorneys, and officers of
the United States for exercising their functions in these States. Again,
in the machinery of the internal-revenue laws all these States are
districted, not as "Territories," but as "States."

So much for continuous legislative recognition. The instances cited,
however, fall far short of all that might be enumerated. Executive
recognition, as is well known, has been frequent and unwavering. The
same maybe said as to judicial recognition through the Supreme Court of
the United States. That august tribunal, from first to last, in the
administration of its duties _in banc_ and upon the circuit, has never
failed to recognize these ten communities as legal States of the Union.
The cases depending in that court upon appeal and writ of error from
these States when the rebellion began have not been dismissed upon any
idea of the cessation of jurisdiction. They were carefully continued
from term to term until the rebellion was entirely subdued and peace
reestablished, and then they were called for argument and consideration
as if no insurrection had intervened. New cases, occurring since the
rebellion, have come from these States before that court by writ of
error and appeal, and even by original suit, where only "a State" can
bring such a suit. These cases are entertained by that tribunal in the
exercise of its acknowledged jurisdiction, which could not attach to
them if they had come from any political body other than a State of the
Union. Finally, in the allotment of their circuits made by the judges at
the December term, 1865, every one of these States is put on the same
footing of legality with all the other States of the Union. Virginia
and North Carolina, being a part of the fourth circuit, are allotted to
the Chief Justice. South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and
Florida constitute the fifth circuit, and are allotted to the late Mr.
Justice Wayne. Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas are allotted to the sixth
judicial circuit, as to which there is a vacancy on the bench.

The Chief Justice, in the exercise of his circuit duties, has recently
held a circuit court in the State of North Carolina. If North Carolina
is not a State of this Union, the Chief Justice had no authority to hold
a court there, and every order, judgment, and decree rendered by him in
that court were _coram non judice_ and void.

Another ground on which these reconstruction acts are attempted to be
sustained is this: That these ten States are conquered territory; that
the constitutional relation in which they stood as States toward the
Federal Government prior to the rebellion has given place to a new
relation; that their territory is a conquered country and their citizens
a conquered people, and that in this new relation Congress can govern
them by military power.

A title by conquest stands on clear ground; it is a new title acquired
by war; it applies only to territory; for goods or movable things
regularly captured in war are called "booty," or, if taken by individual
soldiers, "plunder."

There is not a foot of the land in any one of these ten States which
the United States holds by conquest, save only such land as did not
belong to either of these States or to any individual owner. I mean such
lands as did belong to the pretended government called the Confederate
States. These lands we may claim to hold by conquest. As to all other
land or territory, whether belonging to the States or to individuals,
the Federal Government has now no more title or right to it than
it had before the rebellion. Our own forts, arsenals, navy-yards,
custom-houses, and other Federal property situate in those States we
now hold, not by the title of conquest, but by our old title, acquired
by purchase or condemnation for public use, with compensation to
former owners. We have not conquered these places, but have simply
"repossessed" them.

If we require more sites for forts, custom-houses, or other public use,
we must acquire the title to them by purchase or appropriation in the
regular mode. At this moment the United States, in the acquisition of
sites for national cemeteries in these States, acquires title in the
same way. The Federal courts sit in court-houses owned or leased by the
United States, not in the court-houses of the States. The United States
pays each of these States for the use of its jails. Finally, the United
States levies its direct taxes and its internal revenue upon the
property in these States, including the productions of the lands within
their territorial limits, not by way of levy and contribution in the
character of a conqueror, but in the regular way of taxation, under the
same laws which apply to all the other States of the Union.

From first to last, during the rebellion and since, the title of each of
these States to the lands and public buildings owned by them has never
been disturbed, and not a foot of it has ever been acquired by the
United States, even under a title by confiscation, and not a foot of
it has ever been taxed under Federal law.

In conclusion I must respectfully ask the attention of Congress to the
consideration of one more question arising under this bill. It vests in
the military commander, subject only to the approval of the General of
the Army of the United States, an unlimited power to remove from office
any civil or military officer in each of these ten States, and the
further power, subject to the same approval, to detail or appoint any
military officer or soldier of the United States to perform the duties
of the officer so removed, and to fill all vacancies occurring in those
States by death, resignation, or otherwise.

The military appointee thus required to perform the duties of a
civil office according to the laws of the State, and, as such, required
to take an oath, is for the time being a civil officer. What is his
character? Is he a civil officer of the State or a civil officer of the
United States? If he is a civil officer of the State, where is the
Federal power under our Constitution which authorizes his appointment by
any Federal officer? If, however, he is to be considered a civil officer
of the United States, as his appointment and oath would seem to
indicate, where is the authority for his appointment vested by the
Constitution? The power of appointment of all officers of the United
States, civil or military, where not provided for in the Constitution,
is vested in the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, with this exception, that Congress "may by law vest the
appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the
President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of Departments."
But this bill, if these are to be considered inferior officers within
the meaning of the Constitution, does not provide for their appointment
by the President alone, or by the courts of law, or by the heads of
Departments, but vests the appointment in one subordinate executive
officer, subject to the approval of another subordinate executive
officer. So that, if we put this question and fix the character of this
military appointee either way, this provision of the bill is equally
opposed to the Constitution.

Take the case of a soldier or officer appointed to perform the office
of judge in one of these States, and, as such, to administer the
proper laws of the State. Where is the authority to be found in the
Constitution for vesting in a military or an executive officer strict
judicial functions to be exercised under State law? It has been again
and again decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that acts
of Congress which have attempted to vest _executive_ powers in the
_judicial_ courts or judges of the United States are not warranted by
the Constitution. If Congress can not clothe _a judge_ with merely
_executive_ duties, how can they clothe _an officer_ or _soldier_ of the
Army with _judicial_ duties over citizens of the United States who are
not in the military or naval service? So, too, it has been repeatedly
decided that Congress can not require a State officer, executive or
judicial, to perform any duty enjoined upon him by a law of the United
States. How, then, can Congress confer power upon an executive officer
of the United States to perform such duties in a State? If Congress
could not vest in a judge of one of these States any judicial authority
under the United States by direct enactment, how can it accomplish the
same thing indirectly, by removing the State judge and putting an
officer of the United States in his place?

To me these considerations are conclusive of the unconstitutionality
of this part of the bill now before me, and I earnestly commend their
consideration to the deliberate judgment of Congress.

Within a period less than a year the legislation of Congress has
attempted to strip the executive department of the Government of some
of its essential powers. The Constitution and the oath provided in it
devolve upon the President the power and duty to see that the laws are
faithfully executed. The Constitution, in order to carry out this power,
gives him the choice of the agents, and makes them subject to his
control and supervision. But in the execution of these laws the
constitutional obligation upon the President remains, but the power
to exercise that constitutional duty is effectually taken away. The
military commander is as to the power of appointment made to take the
place of the President, and the General of the Army the place of the
Senate; and any attempt on the part of the President to assert his own
constitutional power may, under pretense of law, be met by official
insubordination. It is to be feared that these military officers,
looking to the authority given by these laws rather than to the letter
of the Constitution, will recognize no authority but the commander of
the district and the General of the Army.

If there were no other objection than this to this proposed legislation,
it would be sufficient. Whilst I hold the chief executive authority of
the United States, whilst the obligation rests upon me to see that all
the laws are faithfully executed, I can never willingly surrender that
trust or the powers given for its execution. I can never give my assent
to be made responsible for the faithful execution of laws, and at the
same time surrender that trust and the powers which accompany it to any
other executive officer, high or low, or to any number of executive
officers. If this executive trust, vested by the Constitution in the
President, is to be taken from him and vested in a subordinate officer,
the responsibility will be with Congress in clothing the subordinate
with unconstitutional power and with the officer who assumes its
exercise.

This interference with the constitutional authority of the executive
department is an evil that will inevitably sap the foundations of our
federal system; but it is not the worst evil of this legislation. It is
a great public wrong to take from the President powers conferred on him
alone by the Constitution, but the wrong is more flagrant and more
dangerous when the powers so taken from the President are conferred upon
subordinate executive officers, and especially upon military officers.
Over nearly one-third of the States of the Union military power,
regulated by no fixed law, rules supreme. Each one of the five district
commanders, though not chosen by the people or responsible to them,
exercises at this hour more executive power, military and civil, than
the people have ever been willing to confer upon the head of the
executive department, though chosen by and responsible to themselves.
The remedy must come from the people themselves. They know what it is
and how it is to be applied. At the present time they can not, according
to the forms of the Constitution, repeal these laws; they can not remove
or control this military despotism. The remedy is, nevertheless, in
their hands; it is to be found in the ballot, and is a sure one if
not controlled by fraud, overawed by arbitrary power, or, from apathy
on their part, too long delayed. With abiding confidence in their
patriotism, wisdom, and integrity, I am still hopeful of the future, and
that in the end the rod of despotism will be broken, the armed heel of
power lifted from the necks of the people, and the principles of a
violated Constitution preserved.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _July 19, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

For reasons heretofore stated in my several veto messages to Congress
upon the subject of reconstruction, I return without my approval the
"Joint resolution to carry into effect the several acts providing for
the more efficient government of the rebel States," and appropriating
for that purpose the sum of $1,000,000.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

PROCLAMATIONS.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas by the Constitution of the United States the executive power is
vested in a President of the United States of America, who is bound by
solemn oath faithfully to execute the office of President and to the
best of his ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of
the United States, and is by the same instrument made Commander in Chief
of the Army and Navy of the United States and is required to take care
that the laws be faithfully executed; and

Whereas by the same Constitution it is provided that the said
Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in
pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges
in every State shall be bound thereby; and

Whereas in and by the same Constitution the judicial power of the United
States is vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish, and the aforesaid
judicial power is declared to extend to all cases in law and equity
arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and the
treaties which shall be made under their authority; and

Whereas all officers, civil and military, are bound by oath that they
will support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign
and domestic, and will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and

Whereas all officers of the Army and Navy of the United States, in
accepting their commissions under the laws of Congress and the Rules and
Articles of War, incur an obligation to observe, obey, and follow such
directions as they shall from time to time receive from the President or
the General or other superior officers set over them according to the
rules and discipline of war; and

Whereas it is provided by law that whenever, by reason of unlawful
obstructions, combinations, or assemblages of persons or rebellion
against the authority of the Government of the United States, it shall
become impracticable, in the judgment of the President of the United
States, to enforce by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings the
laws of the United States within any State or Territory, the Executive
in that case is authorized and required to secure their faithful
execution by the employment of the land and naval forces; and

Whereas impediments and obstructions, serious in their character, have
recently been interposed in the States of North Carolina and South
Carolina, hindering and preventing for a time a proper enforcement there
of the laws of the United States and of the judgments and decrees of a
lawful court thereof, in disregard of the command of the President of
the United States; and

Whereas reasonable and well-founded apprehensions exist that such
ill-advised and unlawful proceedings may be again attempted there or
elsewhere:

Now, therefore, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do
hereby warn all persons against obstructing or hindering in any manner
whatsoever the faithful execution of the Constitution and the laws; and
I do solemnly enjoin and command all officers of the Government, civil
and military, to render due submission and obedience to said laws and to
the judgments and decrees of the courts of the United States, and to
give all the aid in their power necessary to the prompt enforcement and
execution of such laws, decrees, judgments, and processes.

And I do hereby enjoin upon the officers of the Army and Navy to assist
and sustain the courts and other civil authorities of the United States
in a faithful administration of the laws thereof and in the judgments,
decrees, mandates, and processes of the courts of the United States; and
I call upon all good and well-disposed citizens of the United States
to remember that upon the said Constitution and laws, and upon the
judgments, decrees, and processes of the courts made in accordance with
the same, depend the protection of the lives, liberty, property, and
happiness of the people. And I exhort them everywhere to testify their
devotion to their country, their pride in its prosperity and greatness,
and their determination to uphold its free institutions by a hearty
cooperation in the efforts of the Government to sustain the authority of
the law, to maintain the supremacy of the Federal Constitution, and to
preserve unimpaired the integrity of the National Union.

In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States to be
affixed to these presents and sign the same with my hand.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, the 3d day of September, in the year
1867.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas in the month of July, A.D. 1861, the two Houses of Congress,
with extraordinary unanimity, solemnly declared that the war then
existing was not waged on the part of the Government in any spirit of
oppression nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose
of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established
institutions of the States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy
of the Constitution and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity,
equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired, and that as soon
as these objects should be accomplished the war ought to cease; and

Whereas the President of the United States, on the 8th day of December,
A.D. 1863, and on the 26th day of March, A.D. 1864, did, with the
objects of suppressing the then existing rebellion, of inducing all
persons to return to their loyalty, and of restoring the authority of
the United States, issue proclamations offering amnesty and pardon to
all persons who had, directly or indirectly, participated in the then
existing rebellion, except as in those proclamations was specified and
reserved; and

Whereas the President of the United States did on the 29th day of May,
A.D. 1865, issue a further proclamation, with the same objects before
mentioned, and to the end that the authority of the Government of the
United States might be restored and that peace, order, and freedom might
be established, and the President did by the said last-mentioned
proclamation proclaim and declare that he thereby granted to all persons
who had, directly or indirectly, participated in the then existing
rebellion, except as therein excepted, amnesty and pardon, with
restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves, and except
in certain cases where legal proceedings had been instituted, but upon
condition that such persons should take and subscribe an oath therein
prescribed, which oath should be registered for permanent preservation;
and

Whereas in and by the said last-mentioned proclamation of the 29th
day of May, A.D. 1865, fourteen extensive classes of persons therein
specially described were altogether excepted and excluded from the
benefits thereof; and

Whereas the President of the United States did, on the 2d day of April,
A.D. 1866, issue a proclamation declaring that the insurrection was at
an end and was thenceforth to be so regarded; and

Whereas there now exists no organized armed resistance of misguided
citizens or others to the authority of the United States in the
States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee,
Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Florida, and Texas, and the
laws can be sustained and enforced therein by the proper civil
authority, State or Federal, and the people of said States are well and
loyally disposed, and have conformed, or, if permitted to do so, will
conform in their legislation to the condition of affairs growing out
of the amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting
slavery within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States; and

Whereas there no longer exists any reasonable ground to apprehend within
the States which were involved in the late rebellion any renewal thereof
or any unlawful resistance by the people of said States to the
Constitution and laws of the United States; and

Whereas large standing armies, military occupation, martial law,
military tribunals, and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
_habeas corpus_ and the right of trial by jury are in time of peace
dangerous to public liberty, incompatible with the individual rights of
the citizen, contrary to the genius and spirit of our free institutions,
and exhaustive of the national resources, and ought not, therefore,
to be sanctioned or allowed except in cases of actual necessity for
repelling invasion or suppressing insurrection or rebellion; and

Whereas a retaliatory or vindictive policy, attended by unnecessary
disqualifications, pains, penalties, confiscations, and disfranchisements,
now, as always, could only tend to hinder reconciliation among the people
and national restoration, while it must seriously embarrass, obstruct,
and repress popular energies and national industry and enterprise; and

Whereas for these reasons it is now deemed essential to the public
welfare and to the more perfect restoration of constitutional law and
order that the said last-mentioned proclamation so as aforesaid issued
on the 29th day of May, A.D. 1865, should be modified, and that the full
and beneficent pardon conceded thereby should be opened and further
extended to a large number of the persons who by its aforesaid
exceptions have been hitherto excluded from Executive clemency:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, do hereby proclaim and declare that the full pardon
described in the said proclamation of the 29th day of May, A.D. 1865,
shall henceforth be opened and extended to all persons who, directly or
indirectly, participated in the late rebellion, with the restoration
of all privileges, immunities, and rights of property, except as to
property with regard to slaves, and except in cases of legal proceedings
under the laws of the United States; but upon this condition,
nevertheless, that every such person who shall seek to avail himself of
this proclamation shall take and subscribe the following oath and shall
cause the same to be registered for permanent preservation in the same
manner and with the same effect as with the oath prescribed in the said
proclamation of the 29th day of May, 1865, namely:

I, ---- ----, do solemnly swear (or affirm), in presence of Almighty
God, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect, and defend
the Constitution of the United States and the Union of the States
thereunder, and that I will in like manner abide by and faithfully
support all laws and proclamations which have been made during the late
rebellion with reference to the emancipation of slaves. So help me God.

The following persons, and no others, are excluded from the benefits of
this proclamation and of the said proclamation of the 29th day of May,
1865, namely:

First. The chief or pretended chief executive officers, including the
President, the Vice-President, and all heads of departments of the
pretended Confederate or rebel government, and all who were agents
thereof in foreign states and countries, and all who held or pretended
to hold in the service of the said pretended Confederate government a
military rank or title above the grade of brigadier-general or naval
rank or title above that of captain, and all who were or pretended to be
governors of States while maintaining, aiding, abetting, or submitting
to and acquiescing in the rebellion.

Second. All persons who in any way treated otherwise than as lawful
prisoners of war persons who in any capacity were employed or engaged in
the military or naval service of the United States.

Third. All persons who at the time they may seek to obtain the benefits
of this proclamation are actually in civil, military, or naval
confinement or custody, or legally held to bail, either before or after
conviction, and all persons who were engaged, directly or indirectly, in
the assassination of the late President of the United States or in any
plot or conspiracy in any manner therewith connected.

In testimony whereof I have signed these presents with my hand and have
caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, the 7th day of September, A.D. 1867, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-second.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas it has been ascertained that in the nineteenth paragraph of
the proclamation of the President of the United States of the 20th of
August, 1866, declaring the insurrection at an end which had theretofore
existed in the State of Texas, the previous proclamation of the 13th of
June, 1865, instead of that of the 2d day of April, 1866, was referred
to:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, do hereby declare and proclaim that the said words
"13th of June, 1865," are to be regarded as erroneous in the paragraph
adverted to, and that the words "2d day of April, 1866," are to be
considered as substituted therefor.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 7th day of October, A.D. 1867, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-second.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

In conformity with a recent custom that may now be regarded as
established on national consent and approval, I, Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, do hereby recommend to my
fellow-citizens that Thursday, the 28th day of November next, be set
apart and observed throughout the Republic as a day of national
thanksgiving and praise to the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with whom are
dominion and fear, who maketh peace in His high places.

Resting and refraining from secular labors on that day, let us
reverently and devoutly give thanks to our Heavenly Father for the
mercies and blessings with which He has crowned the now closing year.
Especially let us remember that He has covered our land through all
its extent with greatly needed and very abundant harvests; that He has
caused industry to prosper, not only in our fields, but also in our
workshops, in our mines, and in our forests. He has permitted us to
multiply ships upon our lakes and rivers and upon the high seas, and at
the same time to extend our iron roads so far into the secluded places
of the continent as to guarantee speedy overland intercourse between
the two oceans. He has inclined our hearts to turn away from domestic
contentions and commotions consequent upon a distracting and desolating
civil war, and to walk more and more in the ancient ways of loyalty,
conciliation, and brotherly love. He has blessed the peaceful efforts
with which we have established new and important commercial treaties
with foreign nations, while we have at the same time strengthened our
national defenses and greatly enlarged our national borders.

While thus rendering the unanimous and heartfelt tribute of national
praise and thanksgiving which is so justly due to Almighty God, let us
not fail to implore Him that the same divine protection and care which
we have hitherto so undeservedly and yet so constantly enjoyed may be
continued to our country and our people throughout all their generations
forever.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 26th day of October, A.D. 1867, and
of the Independence of the United States the ninety-second.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

GENERAL ORDERS, No. 10.

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,
_Washington, March 11, 1867_.

* * * * *

II. In pursuance of the act of Congress entitled "An act to provide for
the more efficient government of the rebel States," the President
directs the following assignments to be made:

First District, State of Virginia, to be commanded by Brevet
Major-General J.M. Schofield. Headquarters, Richmond, Va.

Second District, consisting of North Carolina and South Carolina, to be
commanded by Major-General D.E. Sickles. Headquarters, Columbia, S.C.

Third District, consisting of the States of Georgia, Florida, and
Alabama, to be commanded by Major-General G.H. Thomas. Headquarters,
Montgomery, Ala.

Fourth District, consisting of the States of Mississippi and Arkansas,
to be commanded by Brevet Major-General E.O.C. Ord. Headquarters,
Vicksburg, Miss.

Fifth District, consisting of the States of Louisiana and Texas, to be
commanded by Major-General P.H. Sheridan. Headquarters, New Orleans, La.

The powers of departmental commanders are hereby delegated to the
above-named district commanders.

By command of General Grant:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

GENERAL ORDERS, No. 18.

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,
_Washington, March 15, 1867_.

The President directs that the following change be made, at the request
of Major-General Thomas, in the assignment announced in General Orders,
No. 10, of March 11, 1867, of commanders of districts, under the act of
Congress entitled "An act to provide for the more efficient government
of the rebel States," and of the Department of the Cumberland, created
in General Orders, No. 14, of March 12, 1867:

Brevet Major-General John Pope to command the Third District, consisting
of the States of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama; and Major-General George
H. Thomas to command the Department of the Cumberland

By command of General Grant:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

WAR DEPARTMENT,
ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,
_Washington, June 20, 1867_.

Whereas several commanders of military districts created by the acts of
Congress known as the reconstruction acts have expressed doubts as to
the proper construction thereof and in respect to some of their powers
and duties under said acts, and have applied to the Executive for
information in relation thereto; and

Whereas the said acts of Congress have been referred to the
Attorney-General for his opinion thereon, and the said acts and the
opinion of the Attorney-General have been fully and carefully considered
by the President in conference with the heads of the respective
Departments:

The President accepts the following as a practical interpretation of the
aforesaid acts of Congress on the points therein presented, and directs
the same to be transmitted to the respective military commanders for
their information, in order that there may be uniformity in the
execution of said acts:

1. The oath prescribed in the supplemental act defines all the
qualifications required, and every person who can take that oath is
entitled to have his name entered upon the list of voters.

2. The board of registration have no authority to administer any other
oath to the person applying for registration than this prescribed oath,
nor to administer an oath to any other person touching the
qualifications of the applicant or the falsity of the oath so taken by
him. The act, to guard against falsity in the oath, provides that if
false the person taking it shall be tried and punished for perjury.

No provision is made for challenging the qualifications of the applicant
or entering upon any trial or investigation of his qualifications,
either by witnesses or any other form of proof.

3. _As to citizenship and residence_:

The applicant for registration must be a citizen of the State and of the
United States, and must be a resident of a county or parish included in
the election district. He may be registered if he has been such citizen
for a period less than twelve months at the time he applies for
registration, but he can not vote at any election unless his citizenship
has _then_ extended to the full term of one year. As to such a person,
the exact length of his citizenship should be noted opposite his name on
the list, so that it may appear on the day of election, upon reference
to the list, whether the full term has then been accomplished.

4. An unnaturalized person can not take this oath, but an alien who has
been naturalized can take it, and no other proof of naturalization can
be required from him.

5. No one who is not 21 years of age at the time of registration can
take the oath, for he must swear that he has then attained that age.

6. No one who has been disfranchised for participation in any rebellion
against the United States or for felony committed against the laws of
any State or of the United States can take this oath.

7. _As to disfranchisement arising from having held office followed by
participation in rebellion_:

This is the most important part of the oath, and requires strict
attention to arrive at its meaning. The applicant must swear or affirm
as follows:

That I have never been a member of any State legislature, nor held any
executive or judicial office in any State, and afterwards engaged in
an insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid or
comfort to the enemies thereof; that I have never taken an oath as a
member of Congress of the United States, or as an officer of the United
States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive
or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the
United States, and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion
against the United States or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof.

8. _Officers of the United States_:

As to these the language is without limitation. The person who has at
any time prior to the rebellion held an office, civil or military, under
the United States, and has taken an official oath to support the
Constitution of the United States, is subject to disqualification.

9. _Militia officers_ of any State prior to the rebellion are not
subject to disqualification.

10. _Municipal officers_--that is to say, officers of incorporated
cities, towns, and villages, such as mayors, aldermen, town council,
police, and other city or town officers--are not subject to
disqualification.

11. Persons who have prior to the rebellion been members of the Congress
of the United States or members of a State legislature are subject to
disqualification, but those who have been members of conventions framing
or amending the Constitution of a State prior to the rebellion are not
subject to disqualification.

12. All the executive or judicial officers of any State who took an oath
to support the Constitution of the United States are subject to
disqualification, including county officers. They are subject to
disqualification if they were required to take as a part of their
official oath _the oath to support the Constitution of the United
States_.

13. Persons who exercised mere employment under State authority are not
disqualified; such as commissioners to lay out roads, commissioners of
public works, visitors of State institutions, directors of State
institutions, examiners of banks, notaries public, and commissioners to
take acknowledgments of deeds.

ENGAGING IN REBELLION.

Having specified what offices held by anyone prior to the rebellion come
within the meaning of the law, it is necessary next to set forth what
subsequent conduct fixes upon such person the offense of engaging in
rebellion. Two things must exist as to any person to disqualify him from
voting: First, the office held prior to the rebellion, and, afterwards,
participation in the rebellion.

14. An act to fix upon a person the offense of engaging in the rebellion
under this law must be an overt and voluntary act, done with the intent
of aiding or furthering the common unlawful purpose. A person forced
into the rebel service by conscription or under a paramount authority
which he could not safely disobey, and who would not have entered such
service if left to the free exercise of his own will, can not be held
to be disqualified from voting.

Forced contributions to the rebel cause in the form of taxes or military
assessments, which a person was compelled to pay or contribute, do not
disqualify; but voluntary contributions to the rebel cause, even such
indirect contributions as arise from the voluntary loan of money to
rebel authorities or purchase of bonds or securities created to afford
the means of carrying on the rebellion, will work disqualification.

But officers who during the rebellion discharged official duties not
incident to war, but only such duties as belong even to a state of peace
and were necessary to the preservation of order and the administration
of law, are not to be considered as thereby engaging in rebellion or as
disqualified. Disloyal sentiments, opinions, or sympathies would not
disqualify, but where a person has by speech or by writing incited
others to engage in rebellion he must come under the disqualification.

17. _The duties of the board appointed to superintend the elections_:

The board can not enter into any inquiry as to the qualifications of any
person whose name is not on the registration list, or as to the
qualifications of any person whose name is on the list.

18. _The mode of voting_ is provided in the act to be _by ballot_. The
board will keep a record and poll book of the election, showing the
votes, list of voters, and the persons elected by a plurality of the
votes cast at the election, and make returns of these to the commanding
general of the district.

By order of the President:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, August 12, 1867_,

Hon. EDWIN M. STANTON,

_Secretary of War_.

SIR: By virtue of the power and authority vested in me as President by
the Constitution and laws of the United States, you are hereby suspended
from office as Secretary of War, and will cease to exercise any and all
functions pertaining to the same.

You will at once transfer to General Ulysses S. Grant, who has this day
been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War _ad interim_,
all records, books, and other property now in your custody and charge.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., August 12, 1867_.

General ULYSSES S. GRANT,

_Washington, D.C._

SIR: The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day suspended as
Secretary of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as
Secretary of War _ad interim_, and will at once enter upon the discharge
of the duties of the office.

The Secretary of War has been instructed to transfer to you all the
records, books, papers, and other public property now in his custody
and charge.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., August 17, 1867_.

Major-General George H. Thomas is hereby assigned to the command of the
Fifth Military District, created by the act of Congress passed on the 2d
day of March, 1867.

Major-General P.H. Sheridan is hereby assigned to the command of the
Department of the Missouri.

Major-General Winfield S. Hancock is hereby assigned to the command of
the Department of the Cumberland.

The Secretary of War _ad interim_ will give the necessary instructions
to carry this order into effect.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., August 26, 1867_.

General U.S. GRANT,

_Secretary of War ad interim_.

SIR: In consequence of the unfavorable condition of the health of
Major-General George H. Thomas, as reported to you in Surgeon Hasson's
dispatch of the 21st instant, my order dated August 17, 1867, is hereby
modified so as to assign Major-General Winfield S. Hancock to the
command of the Fifth Military District, created by the act of Congress
passed March 2, 1867, and of the military department comprising the
States of Louisiana and Texas. On being relieved from the command
of the Department of the Missouri by Major-General P. H. Sheridan,
Major-General Hancock will proceed directly to New Orleans, La.,
and, assuming the command to which he is hereby assigned, will, when
necessary to a faithful execution of the laws, exercise any and all
powers conferred by acts of Congress upon district commanders and any
and all authority pertaining to officers in command of military
departments.

Major-General P.H. Sheridan will at once turn over his present command
to the officer next in rank to himself, and, proceeding without delay
to Fort Leavenworth, Kans., will relieve Major-General Hancock of the
command of the Department of the Missouri.

Major-General George H. Thomas will until further orders remain in
command of the Department of the Cumberland.

Very respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., August 26, 1867_.

Brevet Major-General Edward R.S. Canby is hereby assigned to the command
of the Second Military District, created by the act of Congress of March
2, 1867, and of the Military Department of the South, embracing the
States of North Carolina and South Carolina. He will, as soon as
practicable, relieve Major-General Daniel E. Sickles, and, on assuming
the command to which he is hereby assigned, will, when necessary to a
faithful execution of the laws, exercise any and all powers conferred by
acts of Congress upon district commanders and any and all authority
pertaining to officers in command of military departments.

Major-General Daniel E. Sickles is hereby relieved from the command of
the Second Military District.

The Secretary of War _ad interim_ will give the necessary instructions
to carry this order into effect.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., September 4, 1867_.

The heads of the several Executive Departments of the Government are
instructed to furnish each person holding an appointment in their
respective Departments with an official copy of the proclamation of the
President bearing date the 3d instant, with directions strictly to
observe its requirements for an earnest support of the Constitution of
the United States and a faithful execution of the laws which have been
made in pursuance thereof.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Note.--The Fortieth Congress, second session, met December 2, 1867, in
conformity to the Constitution of the United States, and on July 27,
1868, in accordance with the concurrent resolution of July 24, adjourned
to September 21; again met September 21, and adjourned to October 16;
again met October 16, and adjourned to November 10; again met November
10 and adjourned to December 7, 1868; the latter meetings and
adjournments being in accordance with the concurrent resolution of
September 21.]

THIRD ANNUAL MESSAGE.

WASHINGTON, _December 3, 1867_.

_Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives_:

The continued disorganization of the Union, to which the President has
so often called the attention of Congress, is yet a subject of profound
and patriotic concern. We may, however, find some relief from that
anxiety in the reflection that the painful political situation, although
before untried by ourselves, is not new in the experience of nations.
Political science, perhaps as highly perfected in our own time and
country as in any other, has not yet disclosed any means by which civil
wars can be absolutely prevented. An enlightened nation, however, with a
wise and beneficent constitution of free government, may diminish their
frequency and mitigate their severity by directing all its proceedings
in accordance with its fundamental law.

When a civil war has been brought to a close, it is manifestly the first
interest and duty of the state to repair the injuries which the war has
inflicted, and to secure the benefit of the lessons it teaches as fully
and as speedily as possible. This duty was, upon the termination of the
rebellion, promptly accepted, not only by the executive department, but
by the insurrectionary States themselves, and restoration in the first
moment of peace was believed to be as easy and certain as it was
indispensable. The expectations, however, then so reasonably and
confidently entertained were disappointed by legislation from which
I felt constrained by my obligations to the Constitution to withhold
my assent.

It is therefore a source of profound regret that in complying with the
obligation imposed upon the President by the Constitution to give to
Congress from time to time information of the state of the Union I am
unable to communicate any definitive adjustment, satisfactory to the
American people, of the questions which since the close of the rebellion
have agitated the public mind. On the contrary, candor compels me to
declare that at this time there is no Union as our fathers understood
the term, and as they meant it to be understood by us. The Union which
they established can exist only where all the States are represented in
both Houses of Congress; where one State is as free as another to
regulate its internal concerns according to its own will, and where the
laws of the central Government, strictly confined to matters of national
jurisdiction, apply with equal force to all the people of every section.
That such is not the present "state of the Union" is a melancholy fact,
and we must all acknowledge that the restoration of the States to their
proper legal relations with the Federal Government and with one another,
according to the terms of the original compact, would be the greatest
temporal blessing which God, in His kindest providence, could bestow
upon this nation. It becomes our imperative duty to consider whether
or not it is impossible to effect this most desirable consummation.

The Union and the Constitution are inseparable. As long as one is obeyed
by all parties, the other will be preserved; and if one is destroyed,
both must perish together. The destruction of the Constitution will be
followed by other and still greater calamities. It was ordained not only
to form a more perfect union between the States, but to "establish
justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity." Nothing but implicit obedience to its
requirements in all parts of the country will accomplish these great
ends. Without that obedience we can look forward only to continual
outrages upon individual rights, incessant breaches of the public peace,
national weakness, financial dishonor, the total loss of our prosperity,
the general corruption of morals, and the final extinction of popular
freedom. To save our country from evils so appalling as these, we should
renew our efforts again and again.

To me the process of restoration seems perfectly plain and simple. It
consists merely in a faithful application of the Constitution and laws.
The execution of the laws is not now obstructed or opposed by physical
force. There is no military or other necessity, real or pretended, which
can prevent obedience to the Constitution, either North or South.
All the rights and all the obligations of States and individuals
can be protected and enforced by means perfectly consistent with the
fundamental law. The courts may be everywhere open, and if open their
process would be unimpeded. Crimes against the United States can be
prevented or punished by the proper judicial authorities in a manner
entirely practicable and legal. There is therefore no reason why the
Constitution should not be obeyed, unless those who exercise its powers
have determined that it shall be disregarded and violated. The mere
naked will of this Government, or of some one or more of its branches,
is the only obstacle that can exist to a perfect union of all the
States.

On this momentous question and some of the measures growing out of it
I have had the misfortune to differ from Congress, and have expressed
my convictions without reserve, though with becoming deference to the
opinion of the legislative department. Those convictions are not only
unchanged, but strengthened by subsequent events and further reflection.
The transcendent importance of the subject will be a sufficient excuse
for calling your attention to some of the reasons which have so strongly
influenced my own judgment. The hope that we may all finally concur in a
mode of settlement consistent at once with our true interests and with
our sworn duties to the Constitution is too natural and too just to be
easily relinquished.

It is clear to my apprehension that the States lately in rebellion are
still members of the National Union. When did they cease to be so? The
"ordinances of secession" adopted by a portion (in most of them a very
small portion) of their citizens were mere nullities. If we admit now
that they were valid and effectual for the purpose intended by their
authors, we sweep from under our feet the whole ground upon which we
justified the war. Were those States afterwards expelled from the Union
by the war? The direct contrary was averred by this Government to be its
purpose, and was so understood by all those who gave their blood and
treasure to aid in its prosecution. It can not be that a successful
war, waged for the preservation of the Union, had the legal effect of
dissolving it. The victory of the nation's arms was not the disgrace
of her policy; the defeat of secession on the battlefield was not the
triumph of its lawless principle. Nor could Congress, with or without
the consent of the Executive, do anything which would have the effect,
directly or indirectly, of separating the States from each other.
To dissolve the Union is to repeal the Constitution which holds it
together, and that is a power which does not belong to any department
of this Government, or to all of them united.

This is so plain that it has been acknowledged by all branches of the
Federal Government. The Executive (my predecessor as well as myself) and
the heads of all the Departments have uniformly acted upon the principle
that the Union is not only undissolved, but indissoluble. Congress
submitted an amendment of the Constitution to be ratified by the
Southern States, and accepted their acts of ratification as a necessary
and lawful exercise of their highest function. If they were not States,
or were States out of the Union, their consent to a change in the
fundamental law of the Union would have been nugatory, and Congress in
asking it committed a political absurdity. The judiciary has also given
the solemn sanction of its authority to the same view of the case. The
judges of the Supreme Court have included the Southern States in their
circuits, and they are constantly, _in banc_ and elsewhere, exercising
jurisdiction which does not belong to them unless those States are
States of the Union.

If the Southern States are component parts of the Union, the
Constitution is the supreme law for them, as it is for all the other
States. They are bound to obey it, and so are we. The right of the
Federal Government, which is clear and unquestionable, to enforce the
Constitution upon them implies the correlative obligation on our part
to observe its limitations and execute its guaranties. Without the
Constitution we are nothing; by, through, and under the Constitution we
are what it makes us. We may doubt the wisdom of the law, we may not
approve of its provisions, but we can not violate it merely because it
seems to confine our powers within limits narrower than we could wish.
It is not a question of individual or class or sectional interest, much
less of party predominance, but of duty--of high and sacred duty--which
we are all sworn to perform. If we can not support the Constitution with
the cheerful alacrity of those who love and believe in it, we must give
to it at least the fidelity of public servants who act under solemn
obligations and commands which they dare not disregard.

The constitutional duty is not the only one which requires the States
to be restored. There is another consideration which, though of minor
importance, is yet of great weight. On the 22d day of July, 1861,
Congress declared by an almost unanimous vote of both Houses that the
war should be conducted solely for the purpose of preserving the Union
and maintaining the supremacy of the Federal Constitution and laws,
without impairing the dignity, equality, and rights of the States or of
individuals, and that when this was done the war should cease. I do not
say that this declaration is personally binding on those who joined in
making it; any more than individual members of Congress are personally
bound to pay a public debt created under a law for which they voted.
But it was a solemn, public, official pledge of the national honor,
and I can not imagine upon what grounds the repudiation of it is to
be justified. If it be said that we are not bound to keep faith with
rebels, let it be remembered that this promise was not made to rebels
only. Thousands of true men in the South were drawn to our standard by
it, and hundreds of thousands in the North gave their lives in the
belief that it would be carried out. It was made on the day after the
first great battle of the war had been fought and lost. All patriotic
and intelligent men then saw the necessity of giving such an assurance,
and believed that without it the war would end in disaster to our cause.
Having given that assurance in the extremity of our peril, the violation
of it now, in the day of our power, would be a rude rending of that good
faith which holds the moral world together; our country would cease to
have any claim upon the confidence of men; it would make the war not
only a failure, but a fraud.

Being sincerely convinced that these views are correct, I would be
unfaithful to my duty if I did not recommend the repeal of the acts of
Congress which place ten of the Southern States under the domination of
military masters. If calm reflection shall satisfy a majority of your
honorable bodies that the acts referred to are not only a violation of
the national faith, but in direct conflict with the Constitution, I dare
not permit myself to doubt that you will immediately strike them from
the statute book.

To demonstrate the unconstitutional character of those acts I need do no
more than refer to their general provisions. It must be seen at once
that they are not authorized. To dictate what alterations shall be made
in the constitutions of the several States; to control the elections of
State legislators and State officers, members of Congress and electors
of President and Vice-President, by arbitrarily declaring who shall
vote and who shall be excluded from that privilege; to dissolve State
legislatures or prevent them from assembling; to dismiss judges and
other civil functionaries of the State and appoint others without regard
to State law; to organize and operate all the political machinery of the
States; to regulate the whole administration of their domestic and local
affairs according to the mere will of strange and irresponsible agents,
sent among them for that purpose--these are powers not granted to the
Federal Government or to any one of its branches. Not being granted, we
violate our trust by assuming them as palpably as we would by acting in
the face of a positive interdict; for the Constitution forbids us to do
whatever it does not affirmatively authorize, either by express words or
by clear implication. If the authority we desire to use does not come to
us through the Constitution, we can exercise it only by usurpation, and
usurpation is the most dangerous of political crimes. By that crime the
enemies of free government in all ages have worked out their designs
against public liberty and private right. It leads directly and
immediately to the establishment of absolute rule, for undelegated
power is always unlimited and unrestrained.

The acts of Congress in question are not only objectionable for their
assumption of ungranted power, but many of their provisions are in
conflict with the direct prohibitions of the Constitution. The
Constitution commands that a republican form of government shall be
guaranteed to all the States; that no person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law, arrested without a
judicial warrant, or punished without a fair trial before an impartial
jury; that the privilege of _habeas corpus_ shall not be denied in time
of peace, and that no bill of attainder shall be passed even against a
single individual. Yet the system of measures established by these acts
of Congress does totally subvert and destroy the form as well as the
substance of republican government in the ten States to which they
apply. It binds them hand and foot in absolute slavery, and subjects
them to a strange and hostile power, more unlimited and more likely to
be abused than any other now known among civilized men. It tramples down
all those rights in which the essence of liberty consists, and which a
free government is always most careful to protect. It denies the _habeas
corpus_ and the trial by jury. Personal freedom, property, and life, if
assailed by the passion, the prejudice, or the rapacity of the ruler,
have no security whatever. It has the effect of a bill of attainder or
bill of pains and penalties, not upon a few individuals, but upon whole
masses, including the millions who inhabit the subject States, and even
their unborn children. These wrongs, being expressly forbidden, can not
be constitutionally inflicted upon any portion of our people, no matter
how they may have come within our jurisdiction, and no matter whether
they live in States, Territories, or districts.

I have no desire to save from the proper and just consequences of their
great crime those who engaged in rebellion against the Government, but
as a mode of punishment the measures under consideration are the most
unreasonable that could be invented. Many of those people are perfectly
innocent; many kept their fidelity to the Union untainted to the last;
many were incapable of any legal offense; a large proportion even of the
persons able to bear arms were forced into rebellion against their will,
and of those who are guilty with their own consent the degrees of guilt
are as various as the shades of their character and temper. But these
acts of Congress confound them all together in one common doom.
Indiscriminate vengeance upon classes, sects, and parties, or upon whole
communities, for offenses committed by a portion of them against the
governments to which they owed obedience was common in the barbarous
ages of the world; but Christianity and civilization have made such
progress that recourse to a punishment so cruel and unjust would meet
with the condemnation of all unprejudiced and right-minded men. The
punitive justice of this age, and especially of this country, does not
consist in stripping whole States of their liberties and reducing all
their people, without distinction, to the condition of slavery. It deals
separately with each individual, confines itself to the forms of law,
and vindicates its own purity by an impartial examination of every case
before a competent judicial tribunal. If this does not satisfy all our
desires with regard to Southern rebels, let us console ourselves by
reflecting that a free Constitution, triumphant in war and unbroken in
peace, is worth far more to us and our children than the gratification
of any present feeling.

I am aware it is assumed that this system of government for the
Southern States is not to be perpetual. It is true this military
government is to be only provisional, but it is through this temporary
evil that a greater evil is to be made perpetual. If the guaranties
of the Constitution can be broken provisionally to serve a temporary
purpose, and in a part only of the country, we can destroy them
everywhere and for all time. Arbitrary measures often change, but they
generally change for the worse. It is the curse of despotism that it has
no halting place. The intermitted exercise of its power brings no sense
of security to its subjects, for they can never know what more they will
be called to endure when its red right hand is armed to plague them
again. Nor is it possible to conjecture how or where power, unrestrained
by law, may seek its next victims. The States that are still free may be
enslaved at any moment; for if the Constitution does not protect all, it
protects none.

It is manifestly and avowedly the object of these laws to confer upon
negroes the privilege of voting and to disfranchise such a number of
white citizens as will give the former a clear majority at all elections
in the Southern States. This, to the minds of some persons, is so
important that a violation of the Constitution is justified as a means
of bringing it about. The morality is always false which excuses a wrong
because it proposes to accomplish a desirable end. We are not permitted
to do evil that good may come. But in this case the end itself is evil,
as well as the means. The subjugation of the States to negro domination
would be worse than the military despotism under which they are now
suffering. It was believed beforehand that the people would endure any
amount of military oppression for any length of time rather than degrade
themselves by subjection to the negro race. Therefore they have been
left without a choice. Negro suffrage was established by act of
Congress, and the military officers were commanded to superintend the
process of clothing the negro race with the political privileges torn
from white men.

The blacks in the South are entitled to be well and humanely governed,
and to have the protection of just laws for all their rights of person
and property. If it were practicable at this time to give them a
Government exclusively their own, under which they might manage their
own affairs in their own way, it would become a grave question whether
we ought to do so, or whether common humanity would not require us to
save them from themselves. But under the circumstances this is only a
speculative point. It is not proposed merely that they shall govern
themselves, but that they shall rule the white race, make and administer
State laws, elect Presidents and members of Congress, and shape to a
greater or less extent the future destiny of the whole country. Would
such a trust and power be safe in such hands?

The peculiar qualities which should characterize any people who are fit
to decide upon the management of public affairs for a great state have
seldom been combined. It is the glory of white men to know that they
have had these qualities in sufficient measure to build upon this
continent a great political fabric and to preserve its stability for
more than ninety years, while in every other part of the world all
similar experiments have failed. But if anything can be proved by known
facts, if all reasoning upon evidence is not abandoned, it must be
acknowledged that in the progress of nations negroes have shown less
capacity for government than any other race of people. No independent
government of any form has ever been successful in their hands. On the
contrary, wherever they have been left to their own devices they have
shown a constant tendency to relapse into barbarism. In the Southern
States, however, Congress has undertaken to confer upon them the
privilege of the ballot. Just released from slavery, it may be doubted
whether as a class they know more than their ancestors how to organize
and regulate civil society. Indeed, it is admitted that the blacks of
the South are not only regardless of the rights of property, but so
utterly ignorant of public affairs that their voting can consist in
nothing more than carrying a ballot to the place where they are directed
to deposit it. I need not remind you that the exercise of the elective
franchise is the highest attribute of an American citizen, and that when
guided by virtue, intelligence, patriotism, and a proper appreciation of
our free institutions it constitutes the true basis of a democratic form
of government, in which the sovereign power is lodged in the body of the
people. A trust artificially created, not for its own sake, but solely
as a means of promoting the general welfare, its influence for good must
necessarily depend upon the elevated character and true allegiance of
the elector. It ought, therefore, to be reposed in none except those who
are fitted morally and mentally to administer it well; for if conferred
upon persons who do not justly estimate its value and who are
indifferent as to its results, it will only serve as a means of placing
power in the hands of the unprincipled and ambitious, and must eventuate
in the complete destruction of that liberty of which it should be the
most powerful conservator. I have therefore heretofore urged upon your
attention the great danger--

to be apprehended from an untimely extension of the elective franchise
to any new class in our country, especially when the large majority of
that class, in wielding the power thus placed in their hands, can not be
expected correctly to comprehend the duties and responsibilities which
pertain to suffrage. Yesterday, as it were, 4,000,000 persons were held
in a condition of slavery that had existed for generations; to-day they
are freemen and are assumed by law to be citizens. It can not be
presumed, from their previous condition of servitude, that as a class
they are as well informed as to the nature of our Government as the
intelligent foreigner who makes our land the home of his choice. In the
case of the latter neither a residence of five years and the knowledge
of our institutions which it gives nor attachment to the principles of
the Constitution are the only conditions upon which he can be admitted
to citizenship; he must prove in addition a good moral character, and
thus give reasonable ground for the belief that he will be faithful to
the obligations which he assumes as a citizen of the Republic. Where
a people--the source of all political power--speak by their suffrages
through the instrumentality of the ballot box, it must be carefully
guarded against the control of those who are corrupt in principle and
enemies of free institutions, for it can only become to our political
and social system a safe conductor of healthy popular sentiment when
kept free from demoralizing influences. Controlled through fraud and
usurpation by the designing, anarchy and despotism must inevitably
follow. In the hands of the patriotic and worthy our Government will be
preserved upon the principles of the Constitution inherited from our
fathers. It follows, therefore, that in admitting to the ballot box
a new class of voters not qualified for the exercise of the elective
franchise we weaken our system of government instead of adding to its
strength and durability.

* * * * *

I yield to no one in attachment to that rule of general suffrage which
distinguishes our policy as a nation. But there is a limit, wisely
observed hitherto, which makes the ballot a privilege and a trust,
and which requires of some classes a time suitable for probation
and preparation. To give it indiscriminately to a new class, wholly
unprepared by previous habits and opportunities to perform the trust
which it demands, is to degrade it, and finally to destroy its power,
for it may be safely assumed that no political truth is better
established than that such indiscriminate and all-embracing extension
of popular suffrage must end at last in its destruction.

I repeat the expression of my willingness to join in any plan within
the scope of our constitutional authority which promises to better the
condition of the negroes in the South, by encouraging them in industry,
enlightening their minds, improving their morals, and giving protection
to all their just rights as freedmen. But the transfer of our political
inheritance to them would, in my opinion, be an abandonment of a duty
which we owe alike to the memory of our fathers and the rights of our
children.

The plan of putting the Southern States wholly and the General
Government partially into the hands of negroes is proposed at a time
peculiarly unpropitious. The foundations of society have been broken
up by civil war. Industry must be reorganized, justice reestablished,
public credit maintained, and order brought out of confusion. To
accomplish these ends would require all the wisdom and virtue of the
great men who formed our institutions originally. I confidently believe
that their descendants will be equal to the arduous task before them,
but it is worse than madness to expect that negroes will perform it for
us. Certainly we ought not to ask their assistance till we despair of
our own competency.

The great difference between the two races in physical, mental,
and moral characteristics will prevent an amalgamation or fusion
of them together in one homogeneous mass. If the inferior obtains the
ascendency over the other, it will govern with reference only to its own
interests--for it will recognize no common interest--and create such a
tyranny as this continent has never yet witnessed. Already the negroes
are influenced by promises of confiscation and plunder. They are taught
to regard as an enemy every white man who has any respect for the rights
of his own race. If this continues it must become worse and worse, until
all order will be subverted, all industry cease, and the fertile fields
of the South grow up into a wilderness. Of all the dangers which our
nation has yet encountered, none are equal to those which must result
from the success of the effort now making to Africanize the half of
our country.

I would not put considerations of money in competition with justice and
right; but the expenses incident to "reconstruction" under the system
adopted by Congress aggravate what I regard as the intrinsic wrong of
the measure itself. It has cost uncounted millions already, and if
persisted in will add largely to the weight of taxation, already too
oppressive to be borne without just complaint, and may finally reduce
the Treasury of the nation to a condition of bankruptcy. We must not
delude ourselves. It will require a strong standing army and probably
more than $200,000,000 per annum to maintain the supremacy of negro
governments after they are established. The sum thus thrown away would,
if properly used, form a sinking fund large enough to pay the whole
national debt in less than fifteen years. It is vain to hope that
negroes will maintain their ascendency themselves. Without military
power they are wholly incapable of holding in subjection the white
people of the South.

I submit to the judgment of Congress whether the public credit may not
be injuriously affected by a system of measures like this. With our debt
and the vast private interests which are complicated with it, we can not
be too cautious of a policy which might by possibility impair the
confidence of the world in our Government. That confidence can only be
retained by carefully inculcating the principles of justice and honor
on the popular mind and by the most scrupulous fidelity to all our
engagements of every sort. Any serious breach of the organic law,
persisted in for a considerable time, can not but create fears for the
stability of our institutions. Habitual violation of prescribed rules,
which we bind ourselves to observe, must demoralize the people. Our only
standard of civil duty being set at naught, the sheet anchor of our
political morality is lost, the public conscience swings from its
moorings and yields to every impulse of passion and interest. If we
repudiate the Constitution, we will not be expected to care much for
mere pecuniary obligations. The violation of such a pledge as we made on
the 22d day of July, 1861, will assuredly diminish the market value of
our other promises. Besides, if we acknowledge that the national debt
was created, not to hold the States in the Union, as the taxpayers were
led to suppose, but to expel them from it and hand them over to be
governed by negroes, the moral duty to pay it may seem much less clear.
I say it may _seem_ so, for I do not admit that this or any other
argument in favor of repudiation can be entertained as sound; but
its influence on some classes of minds may well be apprehended. The
financial honor of a great commercial nation, largely indebted and with
a republican form of government administered by agents of the popular
choice, is a thing of such delicate texture and the destruction of it
would be followed by such unspeakable calamity that every true patriot
must desire to avoid whatever might expose it to the slightest danger.

The great interests of the country require immediate relief from these
enactments. Business in the South is paralyzed by a sense of general
insecurity, by the terror of confiscation, and the dread of negro
supremacy. The Southern trade, from which the North would have derived
so great a profit under a government of law, still languishes, and can
never be revived until it ceases to be fettered by the arbitrary power
which makes all its operations unsafe. That rich country--the richest in
natural resources the world ever saw--is worse than lost if it be not
soon placed under the protection of a free constitution. Instead of
being, as it ought to be, a source of wealth and power, it will become
an intolerable burden upon the rest of the nation.

Another reason for retracing our steps will doubtless be seen by
Congress in the late manifestations of public opinion upon this subject.
We live in a country where the popular will always enforces obedience
to itself, sooner or later. It is vain to think of opposing it with
anything short of legal authority backed by overwhelming force. It can
not have escaped your attention that from the day on which Congress
fairly and formally presented the proposition to govern the Southern
States by military force, with a view to the ultimate establishment of
negro supremacy, every expression of the general sentiment has been more
or less adverse to it. The affections of this generation can not be
detached from the institutions of their ancestors. Their determination
to preserve the inheritance of free government in their own hands and
transmit it undivided and unimpaired to their own posterity is too
strong to be successfully opposed. Every weaker passion will disappear
before that love of liberty and law for which the American people are
distinguished above all others in the world.

How far the duty of the President "to preserve, protect, and defend
the Constitution" requires him to go in opposing an unconstitutional
act of Congress is a very serious and important question, on which
I have deliberated much and felt extremely anxious to reach a proper
conclusion. Where an act has been passed according to the forms of the
Constitution by the supreme legislative authority, and is regularly
enrolled among the public statutes of the country, Executive resistance
to it, especially in times of high party excitement, would be likely to
produce violent collision between the respective adherents of the two
branches of the Government. This would be simply civil war, and civil
war must be resorted to only as the last remedy for the worst of evils.
Whatever might tend to provoke it should be most carefully avoided.
A faithful and conscientious magistrate will concede very much to honest
error, and something even to perverse malice, before he will endanger
the public peace; and he will not adopt forcible measures, or such as
might lead to force, as long as those which are peaceable remain open to
him or to his constituents. It is true that cases may occur in which the
Executive would be compelled to stand on its rights, and maintain them
regardless of all consequences. If Congress should pass an act which is
not only in palpable conflict with the Constitution, but will certainly,
if carried out, produce immediate and irreparable injury to the organic
structure of the Government, and if there be, neither judicial remedy
for the wrongs it inflicts nor power in the people to protect themselves
without the official aid of their elected defender--if, for instance,
the legislative department should pass an act even through all the forms
of law to abolish a coordinate department of the Government--in such a
case the President must take the high responsibilities of his office and
save the life of the nation at all hazards. The so-called reconstruction
acts, though as plainly unconstitutional as any that can be imagined,
were not believed to be within the class last mentioned. The people were
not wholly disarmed of the power of self-defense. In all the Northern
States they still held in their hands the sacred right of the ballot,
and it was safe to believe that in due time they would come to the
rescue of their own institutions. It gives me pleasure to add that the
appeal to our common constituents was not taken in vain, and that my
confidence in their wisdom and virtue seems not to have been misplaced.

It is well and publicly known that enormous frauds have been perpetrated
on the Treasury and that colossal fortunes have been made at the public
expense. This species of corruption has increased, is increasing, and
if not diminished will soon bring us into total ruin and disgrace. The
public creditors and the taxpayers are alike interested in an honest
administration of the finances, and neither class will long endure the
large-handed robberies of the recent past. For this discreditable state
of things there are several causes. Some of the taxes are so laid as
to present an irresistible temptation to evade payment. The great sums
which officers may win by connivance at fraud create a pressure which is
more than the virtue of many can withstand, and there can be no doubt
that the open disregard of constitutional obligations avowed by some of
the highest and most influential men in the country has greatly weakened
the moral sense of those who serve in subordinate places. The expenses
of the United States, including interest on the public debt, are more
than six times as much as they were seven years ago. To collect and
disburse this vast amount requires careful supervision as well as
systematic vigilance. The system, never perfected, was much disorganized
by the "tenure-of-office bill," which has almost destroyed official
accountability. The President may be thoroughly convinced that an
officer is incapable, dishonest, or unfaithful to the Constitution, but
under the law which I have named the utmost he can do is to complain to
the Senate and ask the privilege of supplying his place with a better
man. If the Senate be regarded as personally or politically hostile to
the President, it is natural, and not altogether unreasonable, for the
officer to expect that it will take his part as far as possible, restore
him to his place, and give him a triumph over his Executive superior.
The officer has other chances of impunity arising from accidental
defects of evidence, the mode of investigating it, and the secrecy of
the hearing. It is not wonderful that official malfeasance should become
bold in proportion as the delinquents learn to think themselves safe.
I am entirely persuaded that under such a rule the President can not
perform the great duty assigned to him of seeing the laws faithfully
executed, and that it disables him most especially from enforcing that
rigid accountability which is necessary to the due execution of the
revenue laws.

The Constitution invests the President with authority to _decide_
whether a removal should be made in any given case; the act of Congress
declares in substance that he shall only _accuse_ such as he supposes to
be unworthy of their trust. The Constitution makes him _sole judge_ in
the premises, but the statute takes away his jurisdiction, transfers
it to the Senate, and leaves him nothing but the odious and sometimes
impracticable duty of becoming a _prosecutor_. The prosecution is to be
conducted before a tribunal whose members are not, like him, responsible
to the whole people, but to separate constituent bodies, and who may
hear his accusation with great disfavor. The Senate is absolutely
without any known standard of decision applicable to such a case. Its
judgment can not be anticipated, for it is not governed by any rule.
The law does not define what shall be deemed good cause for removal.
It is impossible even to conjecture what may or may not be so considered
by the Senate. The nature of the subject forbids clear proof. If the
charge be incapacity, what evidence will support it? Fidelity to the
Constitution may be understood or misunderstood in a thousand different
ways, and by violent party men, in violent party times, unfaithfulness
to the Constitution may even come to be considered meritorious. If the
officer be accused of dishonesty, how shall it be made out? Will it be
inferred from acts unconnected with public duty, from private history,
or from general reputation, or must the President await the commission
of an actual misdemeanor in office? Shall he in the meantime risk the
character and interest of the nation in the hands of men to whom he
can not give his confidence? Must he forbear his complaint until the
mischief is done and can not be prevented? If his zeal in the public
service should impel him to anticipate the overt act, must he move at
the peril of being tried himself for the offense of slandering his
subordinate? In the present circumstances of the country someone must be
held responsible for official delinquency of every kind. It is extremely
difficult to say where that responsibility should be thrown if it be
not left where it has been placed by the Constitution. But all just men
will admit that the President ought to be entirely relieved from such
responsibility if he can not meet it by reason of restrictions placed
by law upon his action.

The unrestricted power of removal from office is a very great one to be
trusted even to a magistrate chosen by the general suffrage of the whole
people and accountable directly to them for his acts. It is undoubtedly
liable to abuse, and at some periods of our history perhaps has been
abused. If it be thought desirable and constitutional that it should be
so limited as to make the President merely a common informer against
other public agents, he should at least be permitted to act in that
capacity before some open tribunal, independent of party politics, ready
to investigate the merits of every case, furnished with the means of
taking evidence, and bound to decide according to established rules.
This would guarantee the safety of the accuser when he acts in good
faith, and at the same time secure the rights of the other party. I
speak, of course, with all proper respect for the present Senate, but it
does not seem to me that any legislative body can be so constituted as
to insure its fitness for these functions.

It is not the theory of this Government that public offices are the
property of those who hold them. They are given merely as a trust for
the public benefit, sometimes for a fixed period, sometimes during good
behavior, but generally they are liable to be terminated at the pleasure
of the appointing power, which represents the collective majesty and
speaks the will of the people. The forced retention in office of a
single dishonest person may work great injury to the public interests.
The danger to the public service comes not from the power to remove,
but from the power to appoint. Therefore it was that the framers of the
Constitution left the power of removal unrestricted, while they gave
the Senate a right to reject all appointments which in its opinion were
not fit to be made. A little reflection on this subject will probably
satisfy all who have the good of the country at heart that our best
course is to take the Constitution for our guide, walk in the path
marked out by the founders of the Republic, and obey the rules made
sacred by the observance of our great predecessors.

The present condition of our finances and circulating medium is one to
which your early consideration is invited.

The proportion which the currency of any country should bear to
the whole value of the annual produce circulated by its means is a
question upon which political economists have not agreed. Nor can it
be controlled by legislation, but must be left to the irrevocable laws
which everywhere regulate commerce and trade. The circulating medium
will ever irresistibly flow to those points where it is in greatest
demand. The law of demand and supply is as unerring as that which
regulates the tides of the ocean; and, indeed, currency, like the
tides, has its ebbs and flows throughout the commercial world.

At the beginning of the rebellion the bank-note circulation of the
country amounted to not much more than $200,000,000; now the circulation
of national-bank notes and those known as "legal-tenders" is nearly
seven hundred millions. While it is urged by some that this amount
should be increased, others contend that a decided reduction is
absolutely essential to the best interests of the country. In view of
these diverse opinions, it may be well to ascertain the real value of
our paper issues when compared with a metallic or convertible currency.
For this purpose let us inquire how much gold and silver could be
purchased by the seven hundred millions of paper money now in
circulation. Probably not more than half the amount of the latter,
showing that when our paper currency is compared with gold and silver
its commercial value is compressed into three hundred and fifty
millions. This striking fact makes it the obvious duty of the
Government, as early as may be consistent with the principles of sound
political economy, to take such measures as will enable the holder of
its notes and those of the national banks to convert them without loss
into specie or its equivalent. A reduction of our paper circulating
medium need not necessarily follow. This, however, would depend upon
the law of demand and supply, though it should be borne in mind that
by making legal-tender and bank notes convertible into coin or its
equivalent their present specie value in the hands of their holders
would be enhanced 100 per cent.

Legislation for the accomplishment of a result so desirable is demanded
by the highest public considerations. The Constitution contemplates that
the circulating medium of the country shall be uniform in quality and
value. At the time of the formation of that instrument the country had
just emerged from the War of the Revolution, and was suffering from the
effects of a redundant and worthless paper currency. The sages of that
period were anxious to protect their posterity from the evils that they
themselves had experienced. Hence in providing a circulating medium they
conferred upon Congress the power to coin money and regulate the value
thereof, at the same time prohibiting the States from making anything
but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts.

The anomalous condition of our currency is in striking contrast with
that which was originally designed. Our circulation now embraces, first,
notes of the national banks, which are made receivable for all dues to
the Government, excluding imposts, and by all its creditors, excepting
in payment of interest upon its bonds and the securities themselves;
second, legal-tender notes, issued by the United States, and which the
law requires shall be received as well in payment of all debts between
citizens as of all Government dues, excepting imposts; and, third, gold
and silver coin. By the operation of our present system of finance,
however, the metallic currency, when collected, is reserved only for one
class of Government creditors, who, holding its bonds, semiannually
receive their interest in coin from the National Treasury. They are thus
made to occupy an invidious position, which may be used to strengthen
the arguments of those who would bring into disrepute the obligations
of the nation. In the payment of all its debts the plighted faith of
the Government should be inviolably maintained. But while it acts with
fidelity toward the bondholder who loaned his money that the integrity
of the Union might be preserved, it should at the same time observe good
faith with the great masses of the people, who, having rescued the Union
from the perils of rebellion, now bear the burdens of taxation, that the
Government may be able to fulfill its engagements. There is no reason
which will be accepted as satisfactory by the people why those who
defend us on the land and protect us on the sea; the pensioner upon the
gratitude of the nation, bearing the scars and wounds received while
in its service; the public servants in the various Departments of the
Government; the farmer who supplies the soldiers of the Army and the
sailors of the Navy; the artisan who toils in the nation's workshops,
or the mechanics and laborers who build its edifices and construct
its forts and vessels of war, should, in payment of their just and
hard-earned dues, receive depreciated paper, while another class of
their countrymen, no more deserving, are paid in coin of gold and
silver. Equal and exact justice requires that all the creditors of the
Government should be paid in a currency possessing a uniform value.
This can only be accomplished by the restoration of the currency to the
standard established by the Constitution; and by this means we would
remove a discrimination which may, if it has not already done so, create
a prejudice that may become deep rooted and widespread and imperil the
national credit.

The feasibility of making our currency correspond with the
constitutional standard may be seen by reference to a few facts derived
from our commercial statistics.

The production of precious metals in the United States from 1849
to 1857, inclusive, amounted to $579,000,000; from 1858 to 1860,
inclusive, to $137,500,000, and from 1861 to 1867, inclusive, to
$457,500,000--making the grand aggregate of products since 1849
$1,174,000,000. The amount of specie coined from 1849 to 1857 inclusive,
was $439,000,000; from 1858 to 1860, inclusive, $125,000,000, and from
1861 to 1867, inclusive, $310,000,000--making the total coinage since
1849 $874,000,000. From 1849 to 1857, inclusive, the net exports of
specie amounted to $271,000,000; from 1858 to 1860, inclusive, to
$148,000,000, and from 1861 to 1867, inclusive, $322,000,000--making the
aggregate of net exports since 1849 $741,000,000. These figures show an
excess of product over net exports of $433,000,000. There are in the
Treasury $111,000,000 in coin, something more than $40,000,000 in
circulation on the Pacific Coast, and a few millions in the national
and other banks--in all about $160,000,000. This, however, taking into
account the specie in the country prior to 1849, leaves more than
$300,000,000 which have not been accounted for by exportation, and
therefore may yet remain in the country.

These are important facts and show how completely the inferior currency
will supersede the better, forcing it from circulation among the masses
and causing it to be exported as a mere article of trade, to add to the
money capital of foreign lands. They show the necessity of retiring our
paper money, that the return of gold and silver to the avenues of trade
may be invited and a demand created which will cause the retention
at home of at least so much of the productions of our rich and
inexhaustible gold-bearing fields as may be sufficient for purposes
of circulation. It is unreasonable to expect a return to a sound
currency so long as the Government by continuing to issue irredeemable
notes fills the channels of circulation with depreciated paper.
Notwithstanding a coinage by our mints, since 1849, of $874,000,000,
the people are now strangers to the currency which was designed for
their use and benefit, and specimens of the precious metals bearing
the national device are seldom seen, except when produced to gratify
the interest excited by their novelty. If depreciated paper is to be
continued as the permanent currency of the country, and all our coin is
to become a mere article of traffic and speculation, to the enhancement
in price of all that is indispensable to the comfort of the people, it
would be wise economy to abolish our mints, thus saving the nation the
care and expense incident to such establishments, and let all our
precious metals be exported in bullion. The time has come, however, when
the Government and national banks should be required to take the most
efficient steps and make all necessary arrangements for a resumption
of specie payments at the earliest practicable period. Specie payments
having been once resumed by the Government and banks, all notes or bills
of paper issued by either of a less denomination than $20 should by law
be excluded from circulation, so that the people may have the benefit
and convenience of a gold and silver currency which in all their
business transactions will be uniform in value at home and abroad.

Every man of property or industry, every man who desires to preserve
what he honestly possesses or to obtain what he can honestly earn, has a
direct interest in maintaining a safe circulating medium--such a medium
as shall be real and substantial, not liable to vibrate with opinions,
not subject to be blown up or blown down by the breath of speculation,
but to be made stable and secure. A disordered currency is one of the
greatest political evils. It undermines the virtues necessary for the
support of the social system and encourages propensities destructive of
its happiness; it wars against industry, frugality, and economy, and it
fosters the evil spirits of extravagance and speculation.

It has been asserted by one of our profound and most gifted statesmen
that--

Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind,
none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper
money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich
man's fields by the sweat of the poor man's brow. Ordinary tyranny,
oppression, excessive taxation--these bear lightly on the happiness of
the mass of the community compared with a fraudulent currency and the
robberies committed by depreciated paper. Our own history has recorded
for our instruction enough, and more than enough, of the demoralizing
tendency, the injustice, and the intolerable oppression on the virtuous
and well disposed of a degraded paper currency authorized by law or in
any way countenanced by government.

It is one of the most successful devices, in times of peace or war,
expansions or revulsions, to accomplish the transfer of all the precious
metals from the great mass of the people into the hands of the few,
where they are hoarded in secret places or deposited in strong boxes
under bolts and bars, while the people are left to ensure all the
inconvenience, sacrifice, and demoralization resulting from the use
of a depreciated and worthless paper money.

The condition of our finances and the operations of our revenue
system are set forth and fully explained in the able and instructive
report of the Secretary of the Treasury. On the 30th of June, 1866,
the public debt amounted to $2,783,425,879; on the 30th of June last
it was $2,692,199,215, showing a reduction during the fiscal year of
$91,226,664. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1867, the receipts
were $490,634,010 and the expenditures $346,729,129, leaving an
available surplus of $143,904,880. It is estimated that the receipts for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, will be $417,161,928 and that the
expenditures will reach the sum of $393,269,226, leaving in the Treasury
a surplus of $23,892,702. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1869, it
is estimated that the receipts will amount to $381,000,000 and that the
expenditures will be $372,000,000, showing an excess of $9,000,000 in
favor of the Government.

The attention of Congress is earnestly invited to the necessity of a
thorough revision of our revenue system. Our internal-revenue laws and
impost system should be so adjusted as to bear most heavily on articles
of luxury, leaving the necessaries of life as free from taxation as
may be consistent with the real wants of the Government, economically
administered. Taxation would not then fall unduly on the man of moderate
means; and while none would be entirely exempt from assessment, all, in
proportion to their pecuniary abilities, would contribute toward the
support of the State. A modification of the internal-revenue system, by
a large reduction in the number of articles now subject to tax, would
be followed by results equally advantageous to the citizen and the
Government. It would render the execution of the law less expensive and
more certain, remove obstructions to industry, lessen the temptations to
evade the law, diminish the violations and frauds perpetrated upon its
provisions, make its operations less inquisitorial, and greatly reduce
in numbers the army of taxgatherers created by the system, who "take
from the mouth of honest labor the bread it has earned." Retrenchment,
reform, and economy should be carried into every branch of the public
service, that the expenditures of the Government may be reduced and the
people relieved from oppressive taxation; a sound currency should be
restored, and the public faith in regard to the national debt sacredly
observed. The accomplishment of these important results, together with
the restoration of the Union of the States upon the principles of
the Constitution, would inspire confidence at home and abroad in the
stability of our institutions and bring to the nation prosperity,
peace, and good will.

The report of the Secretary of War _ad interim_ exhibits the operations
of the Army and of the several bureaus of the War Department. The
aggregate strength of our military force on the 30th of September
last was 56,315. The total estimate for military appropriations is
$77,124,707, including a deficiency in last year's appropriation of
$13,600,000. The payments at the Treasury on account of the service
of the War Department from January 1 to October 29, 1867--a period of
ten months--amounted to $109,807,000. The expenses of the military
establishment, as well as the numbers of the Army, are now three
times as great as they have ever been in time of peace, while the
discretionary power is vested in the Executive to add millions to this
expenditure by an increase of the Army to the maximum strength allowed
by the law.

The comprehensive report of the Secretary of the Interior furnishes
interesting information in reference to the important branches of the
public service connected with his Department. The menacing attitude of
some of the warlike bands of Indians inhabiting the district of country
between the Arkansas and Platte rivers and portions of Dakota Territory
required the presence of a large military force in that region.
Instigated by real or imaginary grievances, the Indians occasionally
committed acts of barbarous violence upon emigrants and our frontier
settlements; but a general Indian war has been providentially averted.
The commissioners under the act of 20th July, 1867, were invested with
full power to adjust existing difficulties, negotiate treaties with the
disaffected bands, and select for them reservations remote from the
traveled routes between the Mississippi and the Pacific. They entered
without delay upon the execution of their trust, but have not yet made
any official report of their proceedings. It is of vital importance that
our distant Territories should be exempt from Indian outbreaks, and
that the construction of the Pacific Railroad, an object of national
importance, should not be interrupted by hostile tribes. These objects,
as well as the material interests and the moral and intellectual
improvement of the Indians, can be most effectually secured by
concentrating them upon portions of country set apart for their
exclusive use and located at points remote from our highways and
encroaching white settlements.

Since the commencement of the second session of the Thirty-ninth
Congress 510 miles of road have been constructed on the main line
and branches of the Pacific Railway. The line from Omaha is rapidly
approaching the eastern base of the Rocky Mountains, while the terminus
of the last section of constructed road in California, accepted by the
Government on the 24th day of October last, was but 11 miles distant
from the summit of the Sierra Nevada. The remarkable energy evinced by
the companies offers the strongest assurance that the completion of the
road from Sacramento to Omaha will not be long deferred.

During the last fiscal year 7,041,114 acres of public land were
disposed of, and the cash receipts from sales and fees exceeded by
one-half million dollars the sum realized from those sources during the
preceding year. The amount paid to pensioners, including expenses of
disbursements, was $18,619,956, and 36,482 names were added to the
rolls. The entire number of pensioners on the 30th of June last was
155,474. Eleven thousand six hundred and fifty-five patents and designs
were issued during the year ending September 30, 1867, and at that
date the balance in the Treasury to the credit of the patent fund
was $286,607.

The report of the Secretary of the Navy states that we have seven
squadrons actively and judiciously employed, under efficient and able
commanders, in protecting the persons and property of American citizens,
maintaining the dignity and power of the Government, and promoting the
commerce and business interests of our countrymen in every part of the
world. Of the 238 vessels composing the present Navy of the United
States, 56, carrying 507 guns, are in squadron service. During the year
the number of vessels in commission has been reduced 12, and there
are 13 less on squadron duty than there were at the date of the last
report. A large number of vessels were commenced and in the course of
construction when the war terminated, and although Congress had made the
necessary appropriations for their completion, the Department has either
suspended work upon them or limited the slow completion of the steam
vessels, so as to meet the contracts for machinery made with private
establishments. The total expenditures of the Navy Department for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1867, were $31,034,011. No appropriations
have been made or required since the close of the war for the
construction and repair of vessels, for steam machinery, ordnance,
provisions and clothing, fuel, hemp, etc., the balances under these
several heads having been more than sufficient for current expenditures.
It should also be stated to the credit of the Department that, besides
asking no appropriations for the above objects for the last two years,
the Secretary of the Navy, on the 30th of September last, in accordance
with the act of May 1, 1820, requested the Secretary of the Treasury to
carry to the surplus fund the sum of $65,000,000, being the amount
received from the sales of vessels and other war property and the
remnants of former appropriations.

The report of the Postmaster-General shows the business of the
Post-Office Department and the condition of the postal service in a
very favorable light, and the attention of Congress is called to its
practical recommendations. The receipts of the Department for the
year ending June 30, 1867, including all special appropriations for
sea and land service and for free mail matter, were $19,978,693. The
expenditures for all purposes were $19,235,483, leaving an unexpended
balance in favor of the Department of $743,210, which can be applied
toward the expenses of the Department for the current year. The increase
of postal revenue, independent of specific appropriations, for the year
1867 over that of 1866 was $850,040. The increase of revenue from the
sale of stamps and stamped envelopes was $783,404. The increase of
expenditures for 1867 over those of the previous year was owing chiefly
to the extension of the land and ocean mail service. During the past
year new postal conventions have been ratified and exchanged with the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands,
Switzerland, the North German Union, Italy, and the colonial government
at Hong Kong, reducing very largely the rates of ocean and land postages
to and from and within those countries.

The report of the Acting Commissioner of Agriculture concisely presents
the condition, wants, and progress of an interest eminently worthy the
fostering care of Congress, and exhibits a large measure of useful
results achieved during the year to which it refers.

The reestablishment of peace at home and the resumption of extended
trade, travel, and commerce abroad have served to increase the number
and variety of questions in the Department for Foreign Affairs. None of
these questions, however, have seriously disturbed our relations with
other states.

The Republic of Mexico, having been relieved from foreign intervention,
is earnestly engaged in efforts to reestablish her constitutional system
of government. A good understanding continues to exist between our
Government and the Republics of Hayti and San Domingo, and our cordial
relations with the Central and South American States remain unchanged.
The tender, made in conformity with a resolution of Congress, of the
good offices of the Government with a view to an amicable adjustment
of peace between Brazil and her allies on one side and Paraguay on the
other, and between Chile and her allies on the one side and Spain on the
other, though kindly received, has in neither case been fully accepted
by the belligerents. The war in the valley of the Parana is still
vigorously maintained. On the other hand, actual hostilities between
the Pacific States and Spain have been more than a year suspended.
I shall, on any proper occasion that may occur, renew the conciliatory
recommendations which have been already made. Brazil, with enlightened
sagacity and comprehensive statesmanship, has opened the great channels
of the Amazon and its tributaries to universal commerce. One thing more
seems needful to assure a rapid and cheering progress in South America.
I refer to those peaceful habits without which states and nations can
not in this age well expect material prosperity or social advancement.

The Exposition of Universal Industry at Paris has passed, and seems to
have fully realized the high expectations of the French Government. If
due allowance be made for the recent political derangement of industry
here, the part which the United States has borne in this exhibition of
invention and art may be regarded with very high satisfaction. During
the exposition a conference was held of delegates from several nations,
the United States being one, in which the inconveniences of commerce and
social intercourse resulting from the diverse standards of money value
were very fully discussed, and plans were developed for establishing
by universal consent a common principle for the coinage of gold. These
conferences are expected to be renewed, with the attendance of many
foreign states not hitherto represented. A report of these interesting
proceedings will be submitted to Congress, which will, no doubt, justly
appreciate the great object and be ready to adopt any measure which may
tend to facilitate its ultimate accomplishment.

On the 25th of February, 1862, Congress declared by law that Treasury
notes, without interest, authorized by that act should be legal tender
in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States.
An annual remittance of $30,000, less stipulated expenses, accrues
to claimants under the convention made with Spain in 1834. These
remittances, since the passage of that act, have been paid in such
notes. The claimants insist that the Government ought to require
payment in coin. The subject may be deemed worthy of your attention.

No arrangement has yet been reached for the settlement of our claims
for British depredations upon the commerce of the United States. I have
felt it my duty to decline the proposition of arbitration made by
Her Majesty's Government, because it has hitherto been accompanied by
reservations and limitations incompatible with the rights, interest, and
honor of our country. It is not to be apprehended that Great Britain
will persist in her refusal to satisfy these just and reasonable claims,
which involve the sacred principle of nonintervention--a principle
henceforth not more important to the United States than to all other
commercial nations.

The West India islands were settled and colonized by European States
simultaneously with the settlement and colonization of the American
continent. Most of the colonies planted here became independent nations
in the close of the last and the beginning of the present century. Our
own country embraces communities which at one period were colonies of
Great Britain, France, Spain, Holland, Sweden, and Russia. The people
in the West Indies, with the exception of those of the island of Hayti,
have neither attained nor aspired to independence, nor have they become
prepared for self-defense. Although possessing considerable commercial
value, they have been held by the several European States which
colonized or at some time conquered them, chiefly for purposes of
military and naval strategy in carrying out European policy and designs
in regard to this continent. In our Revolutionary War ports and harbors
in the West India islands were used by our enemy, to the great injury
and embarrassment of the United States. We had the same experience in
our second war with Great Britain. The same European policy for a long
time excluded us even from trade with the West Indies, while we were at
peace with all nations. In our recent civil war the rebels and their
piratical and blockade-breaking allies found facilities in the same
ports for the work, which they too successfully accomplished, of
injuring and devastating the commerce which we are now engaged in
rebuilding. We labored especially under this disadvantage, that
European steam vessels employed by our enemies found friendly shelter,
protection, and supplies in West Indian ports, while our naval
operations were necessarily carried on from our own distant shores.
There was then a universal feeling of the want of an advanced naval
outpost between the Atlantic coast and Europe. The duty of obtaining
such an outpost peacefully and lawfully, while neither doing nor
menacing injury to other states, earnestly engaged the attention of the
executive department before the close of the war, and it has not been
lost sight of since that time. A not entirely dissimilar naval want
revealed itself during the same period on the Pacific coast. The
required foothold there was fortunately secured by our late treaty with
the Emperor of Russia, and it now seems imperative that the more obvious
necessities of the Atlantic coast should not be less carefully provided
for. A good and convenient port and harbor, capable of easy defense,
will supply that want. With the possession of such a station by the
United States, neither we nor any other American nation need longer
apprehend injury or offense from any transatlantic enemy. I agree with
our early statesmen that the West Indies naturally gravitate to, and
may be expected ultimately to be absorbed by, the continental States,
including our own. I agree with them also that it is wise to leave the
question of such absorption to this process of natural political
gravitation. The islands of St. Thomas and St. John, which constitute
a part of the group called the Virgin Islands, seemed to offer us
advantages immediately desirable, while their acquisition could be
secured in harmony with the principles to which I have alluded. A treaty
has therefore been concluded with the King of Denmark for the cession of
those islands, and will be submitted to the Senate for consideration.

It will hardly be necessary to call the attention of Congress to the
subject of providing for the payment to Russia of the sum stipulated in
the treaty for the cession of Alaska. Possession having been formally
delivered to our commissioner, the territory remains for the present in
care of a military force, awaiting such civil organization as shall be
directed by Congress.

The annexation of many small German States to Prussia and the
reorganization of that country under a new and liberal constitution have
induced me to renew the effort to obtain a just and prompt settlement of
the long-vexed question concerning the claims of foreign states for
military service from their subjects naturalized in the United States.

In connection with this subject the attention of Congress is
respectfully called to a singular and embarrassing conflict of laws.
The executive department of this Government has hitherto uniformly held,
as it now holds, that naturalization in conformity with the Constitution
and laws of the United States absolves the recipient from his native
allegiance. The courts of Great Britain hold that allegiance to the
British Crown is indefeasible, and is not absolved by our laws of
naturalization. British judges cite courts and law authorities of the
United States in support of that theory against the position held by the
executive authority of the United States. This conflict perplexes the
public mind concerning the rights of naturalized citizens and impairs
the national authority abroad. I called attention to this subject in my
last annual message, and now again respectfully appeal to Congress to
declare the national will unmistakably upon this important question.

The abuse of our laws by the clandestine prosecution of the African
slave trade from American ports or by American citizens has altogether
ceased, and under existing circumstances no apprehensions of its renewal
in this part of the world are entertained. Under these circumstances
it becomes a question whether we shall not propose to Her Majesty's
Government a suspension or discontinuance of the stipulations for
maintaining a naval force for the suppression of that trade.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

SPECIAL MESSAGES.

WASHINGTON, _December 3, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit, for consideration with a view to ratification, a treaty
between the United States and His Majesty the King of Denmark,
stipulating for the cession of the islands of St. Thomas and St. John,
in the West Indies.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 3, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit, for consideration with a view to ratification, a treaty of
friendship, commerce, and navigation between the United States and the
Republic of Nicaragua, signed at the city of Managua on the 21st day of
June last. This instrument has been framed pursuant to the amendments
of the Senate of the United States to the previous treaty between the
parties of the 16th of March, 1859.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 4, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a final report from the Attorney-General, additional
to the reports submitted by him December 31, 1866, March 2, 1867, and
July 8, 1867, in reply to a resolution of the House of Representatives
December 10, 1866, requesting "a list of the names of all persons
engaged in the late rebellion against the United States Government who
have been pardoned by the President from April 15, 1865, to this date;
that said list shall also state the rank of each person who has been
so pardoned, if he has been engaged in the military service of the
so-called Confederate government, and the position if he shall have held
any civil office under said so-called Confederate government; and shall
also state whether such person has at anytime prior to April 14, 1861,
held any office under the United States Government, and, if so, what
office, together with the reason for granting such pardon, and also the
names of the person or persons at whose solicitation such pardon was
granted."

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 4, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 26th
ultimo, a report[30] from the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 30: Relating to the removal of J. Lothrop Motley from his post
as minister of the United States at Vienna.]

WASHINGTON, _December 5, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
17th July last, requesting me to communicate all information received
at the several Departments of the Government touching the organization
within or near the territory of the United States of armed bodies of men
for the purpose of avenging the death of the Archduke Maximilian or of
intervening in Mexican affairs, and what measures have been taken to
prevent the organization or departure of such organized bodies for the
purpose of carrying out such objects, I transmit a report from the
Secretary of State and the papers accompanying it.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 5, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I submit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to
ratification, a commercial treaty between the United States of America
and Her Majesty the Queen of Madagascar, signed at Antananarivo on the
14th of February last.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 10, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 25th
ultimo, a report[31] from the Secretary of State, with accompanying
papers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 31: Relating to the formation and the functions of the
Government of the united States of North Germany.]

WASHINGTON, _December 10, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit a copy of a dispatch of the 17th of July last, addressed to
the Secretary of State, and of the papers which accompanied it, from
Anson Burlingame, esq., minister of the United States to China, relating
to a proposed modification of the existing treaty between this
Government and that of China.

The Senate is aware that the original treaty is chiefly _ex parte_
in its character. The proposed modification, though not of sufficient
importance to warrant all the usual forms, does not seem to be
objectionable; but it can not be legally accepted by the executive
government without the advice and consent of the Senate. If this
should be given, it may be indicated by a resolution, upon the adoption
of which the United States minister to China will be instructed to
inform the Government of that country that the modification has been
assented to.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 12, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

On the 12th of August last I suspended Mr. Stanton from the exercise of
the office of Secretary of War, and on the same day designated General
Grant to act as Secretary of War _ad interim_.

The following are copies of the Executive orders:

EXECUTIVE MANSION,
_Washington, August 12, 1867_.

Hon. EDWIN M. STANTON,
_Secretary of War_.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,
_Washington, D.C., August 12, 1867_.

General ULYSSES S. GRANT,
_Washington, D.C._

The Secretary of War has been instructed to transfer to you all the
records, books, papers, and other public property now in his custody and
charge.

The following communication was received from Mr. Stanton:

WAR DEPARTMENT,
_Washington City, August 12, 1867_.

The PRESIDENT.

SIR: Your note of this date has been received, informing me that by
virtue of the powers and authority vested in you as President by the
Constitution and laws of the United States I am suspended from office
as Secretary of War, and will cease to exercise any and all functions
pertaining to the same, and also directing me at once to transfer to
General Ulysses S. Grant, who has this day been authorized and empowered
to act as Secretary of War _ad interim_, all records, books, papers, and
other public property now in my custody and charge.

Under a sense of public duty I am compelled to deny your right under
the Constitution and laws of the United States, without the advice and
consent of the Senate and without any legal cause, to suspend me from
office as Secretary of War or the exercise of any or all functions
pertaining to the same, or without such advice and consent to compel
me to transfer to any person the records, books, papers, and public
property in my custody as Secretary.

But inasmuch as the General Commanding the armies of the United States
has been appointed _ad interim_, and has notified me that he has
accepted the appointment, I have no alternative but to submit, under
protest, to superior force.

The suspension has not been revoked, and the business of the War
Department is conducted by the Secretary _ad interim_.

Prior to the date of this suspension I had come to the conclusion that
the time had arrived when it was proper Mr. Stanton should retire from
my Cabinet. The mutual confidence and general accord which should exist
in such a relation had ceased. I supposed that Mr. Stanton was well
advised that his continuance in the Cabinet was contrary to my wishes,
for I had repeatedly given him so to understand by every mode short of
an express request that he should resign. Having waited full time for
the voluntary action of Mr. Stanton, and seeing no manifestation on his
part of an intention to resign, I addressed him the following note on
the 5th of August:

SIR: Public considerations of a high character constrain me to say
that your resignation as Secretary of War will be accepted.

To this note I received the following reply:

WAR DEPARTMENT,
_Washington, August 5, 1867_.

SIR: Your note of this day has been received, stating that public
considerations of a high character constrain you to say that my
resignation as Secretary of War will be accepted.

In reply I have the honor to say that public considerations of a high
character, which alone have induced me to continue at the head of this
Department, constrain me not to resign the office of Secretary of War
before the next meeting of Congress.

This reply of Mr. Stanton was not merely a disinclination of compliance
with the request for his resignation; it was a defiance, and something
more. Mr. Stanton does not content himself with assuming that public
considerations bearing upon his continuance in office form as fully
a rule of action for himself as for the President, and that upon so
delicate a question as the fitness of an officer for continuance in his
office the officer is as competent and as impartial to decide as his
superior, who is responsible for his conduct. But he goes further, and
plainly intimates what he means by "public considerations of a high
character," and this is nothing else than his loss of confidence in his
superior. He says that these public considerations have "alone induced
me to continue at the head of this Department," and that they "constrain
me not to resign the office of Secretary of War before the next meeting
of Congress."

This language is very significant. Mr. Stanton holds the position
unwillingly. He continues in office only under a sense of high public
duty. He is ready to leave when it is safe to leave, and as the danger
he apprehends from his removal then will not exist when Congress is
here, he is constrained to remain during the interim. What, then, is
that danger which can only be averted by the presence of Mr. Stanton or
of Congress? Mr. Stanton does not say that "public considerations of a
high character" constrain him to hold on to the office indefinitely. He
does not say that no one other than himself can at any time be found to
take his place and perform its duties. On the contrary, he expresses a
desire to leave the office at the earliest moment consistent with these
high public considerations. He says, in effect, that while Congress is
away he must remain, but that when Congress is here he can go. In other
words, he has lost confidence in the President. He is unwilling to leave
the War Department in his hands or in the hands of anyone the President
may appoint or designate to perform its duties. If he resigns, the
President may appoint a Secretary of War that Mr. Stanton does not
approve; therefore he will not resign. But when Congress is in session
the President can not appoint a Secretary of War which the Senate does
not approve; consequently when Congress meets Mr. Stanton is ready to
resign.

Whatever cogency these "considerations" may have had on Mr. Stanton,
whatever right he may have had to entertain such considerations,
whatever propriety there might be in the expression of them to others,
one thing is certain, it was official misconduct, to say the least of
it, to parade them before his superior officer.

Upon the receipt of this extraordinary note I only delayed the order of
suspension long enough to make the necessary arrangements to fill the
office. If this were the only cause for his suspension, it would be
ample. Necessarily it must end our most important official relations,
for I can not imagine a degree of effrontery which would embolden the
head of a Department to take his seat at the council table in the
Executive Mansion after such an act; nor can I imagine a President so
forgetful of the proper respect and dignity which belong to his office
as to submit to such intrusion. I will not do Mr. Stanton the wrong to
suppose that he entertained any idea of offering to act as one of my
constitutional advisers after that note was written. There was an
interval of a week between that date and the order of suspension, during
which two Cabinet meetings were held. Mr. Stanton did not present
himself at either, nor was he expected.

On the 12th of August Mr. Stanton was notified of his suspension and
that General Grant had been authorized to take charge of the Department.
In his answer to this notification, of the same date, Mr. Stanton
expresses himself as follows:

It will not escape attention that in his note of August 5 Mr. Stanton
stated that he had been constrained to continue in the office, even
before he was requested to resign, by considerations of a high public
character. In this note of August 12 a new and different sense of public
duty compels him to deny the President's right to suspend him from
office without the consent of the Senate. This last is the public duty
of resisting an act contrary to law, and he charges the President with
violation of the law in ordering his suspension.

Mr. Stanton refers generally to the Constitution and laws of the "United
States," and says that a sense of public duty "under" these compels him
to deny the right of the President to suspend him from office. As to his
sense of duty under the Constitution, that will be considered in the
sequel. As to his sense of duty under "the laws of the United States,"
he certainly can not refer to the law which creates the War Department,
for that expressly confers upon the President the unlimited right to
remove the head of the Department. The only other law bearing upon
the question is the tenure-of-office act, passed by Congress over the
Presidential veto March 2, 1867. This is the law which, under a sense
of public duty, Mr. Stanton volunteers to defend.

There is no provision in this law which compels any officer coming
within its provisions to remain in office. It forbids removals--not
resignations. Mr. Stanton was perfectly free to resign at any moment,
either upon his own motion or in compliance with a request or an order.
It was a matter of choice or of taste. There was nothing compulsory in
the nature of legal obligation. Nor does he put his action upon that
imperative ground. He says he acts under a "sense of public duty," not
of legal obligation, compelling him to hold on and leaving him no
choice. The public duty which is upon him arises from the respect which
he owes to the Constitution and the laws, violated in his own case.
He is therefore compelled by this sense of public duty to vindicate
violated law and to stand as its champion.

This was not the first occasion in which Mr. Stanton, in discharge of
a public duty, was called upon to consider the provisions of that law.
That tenure-of-office law did not pass without notice. Like other acts,
it was sent to the President for approval. As is my custom, I submitted
its consideration to my Cabinet for their advice upon the question
whether I should approve it or not. It was a grave question of
constitutional law, in which I would, of course, rely most upon the
opinion of the Attorney-General and of Mr. Stanton, who had once been
Attorney-General.

Every member of my Cabinet advised me that the proposed law was
unconstitutional. All spoke without doubt or reservation, but Mr.
Stanton's condemnation of the law was the most elaborate and emphatic.
He referred to the constitutional provisions, the debates in Congress,
especially to the speech of Mr. Buchanan when a Senator, to the
decisions of the Supreme Court, and to the usage from the beginning of
the Government through every successive Administration, all concurring
to establish the right of removal as vested by the Constitution in the
President. To all these he added the weight of his own deliberate
judgment, and advised me that it was my duty to defend the power of
the President from usurpation and to veto the law.

I do not know when a sense of public duty is more imperative upon a head
of Department than upon such an occasion as this. He acts then under the
gravest obligations of law, for when he is called upon by the President
for advice it is the Constitution which speaks to him. All his other
duties are left by the Constitution to be regulated by statute, but this
duty was deemed so momentous that it is imposed by the Constitution
itself.

After all this I was not prepared for the ground taken by Mr. Stanton in
his note of August 12. I was not prepared to find him compelled by a new
and indefinite sense of public duty, under "the Constitution," to assume
the vindication of a law which, under the solemn obligations of public
duty imposed by the Constitution itself, he advised me was a violation
of that Constitution. I make great allowance for a change of opinion,
but such a change as this hardly falls within the limits of greatest
indulgence.

Where our opinions take the shape of advice, and influence the action
of others, the utmost stretch of charity will scarcely justify us in
repudiating them when they come to be applied to ourselves.

But to proceed with the narrative. I was so much struck with the full
mastery of the question manifested by Mr. Stanton, and was at the time
so fully occupied with the preparation of another veto upon the pending
reconstruction act, that I requested him to prepare the veto upon this
tenure-of-office bill. This he declined, on the ground of physical
disability to undergo at the time the labor of writing, but stated his
readiness to furnish what aid might be required in the preparation of
materials for the paper.

At the time this subject was before the Cabinet it seemed to be taken
for granted that as to those members of the Cabinet who had been
appointed by Mr. Lincoln their tenure of office was not fixed by the
provisions of the act. I do not remember that the point was distinctly
decided, but I well recollect that it was suggested by one member of the
Cabinet who was appointed by Mr. Lincoln, and that no dissent was
expressed.

Whether the point was well taken or not did not seem to me of any
consequence, for the unanimous expression of opinion against the
constitutionality and policy of the act was so decided that I felt no
concern, so far as the act had reference to the gentlemen then present,
that I would be embarrassed in the future. The bill had not then become
a law. The limitation upon the power of removal was not yet imposed, and
there was yet time to make any changes. If any one of these gentlemen
had then said to me that he would avail himself of the provisions of
that bill in case it became a law, I should not have hesitated a moment
as to his removal. No pledge was then expressly given or required.
But there are circumstances when to give an expressed pledge is not
necessary, and when to require it is an imputation of possible bad
faith. I felt that if these gentlemen came within the purview of the
bill it was as to them a dead letter, and that none of them would ever
take refuge under its provisions.

I now pass to another subject. When, on the 15th of April, 1865, the
duties of the Presidential office devolved upon me, I found a full
Cabinet of seven members, all of them selected by Mr. Lincoln.
I made no change. On the contrary, I shortly afterwards ratified a
change determined upon by Mr. Lincoln, but not perfected at his death,
and admitted his appointee, Mr. Harlan, in the place of Mr. Usher, who
was in office at the time.

The great duty of the time was to reestablish government, law, and order
in the insurrectionary States. Congress was then in recess, and the
sudden overthrow of the rebellion required speedy action. This grave
subject had engaged the attention of Mr. Lincoln in the last days of his
life, and the plan according to which it was to be managed had been
prepared and was ready for adoption. A leading feature of that plan was
that it should be carried out by the Executive authority, for, so far as
I have been informed, neither Mr. Lincoln nor any member of his Cabinet
doubted his authority to act or proposed to call an extra session of
Congress to do the work. The first business transacted in Cabinet after
I became President was this unfinished business of my predecessor.
A plan or scheme of reconstruction was produced which had been prepared
for Mr. Lincoln by Mr. Stanton, his Secretary of War. It was approved,
and at the earliest moment practicable was applied in the form of a
proclamation to the State of North Carolina, and afterwards became the
basis of action in turn for the other States.

Upon the examination of Mr. Stanton before the Impeachment Committee he
was asked the following question:

Did any one of the Cabinet express a doubt of the power of the executive
branch of the Government to reorganize State governments which had been
in rebellion without the aid of Congress?

He answered:

None whatever. I had myself entertained no doubt of the authority of the
President to take measures for the organization of the rebel States on
the plan proposed during the vacation of Congress and agreed in the plan
specified in the proclamation in the case of North Carolina.

There is perhaps no act of my Administration for which I have been more
denounced than this. It was not originated by me, but I shrink from no
responsibility on that account, for the plan approved itself to my own
judgment, and I did not hesitate to carry it into execution.

Thus far and upon this vital policy there was perfect accord between the
Cabinet and myself, and I saw no necessity for a change. As time passed
on there was developed an unfortunate difference of opinion and of
policy between Congress and the President upon this same subject and
upon the ultimate basis upon which the reconstruction of these States
should proceed, especially upon the question of negro suffrage. Upon
this point three members of the Cabinet found themselves to be in
sympathy with Congress. They remained only long enough to see that the
difference of policy could not be reconciled. They felt that they should
remain no longer, and a high sense of duty and propriety constrained
them to resign their positions. We parted with mutual respect for the
sincerity of each other in opposite opinions, and mutual regret that the
difference was on points so vital as to require a severance of official
relations. This was in the summer of 1866. The subsequent sessions of
Congress developed new complications, when the suffrage bill for the
District of Columbia and the reconstruction acts of March 2 and March
23, 1867, all passed over the veto. It was in Cabinet consultations upon
these bills that a difference of opinion upon the most vital points was
developed. Upon these questions there was perfect accord between all the
members of the Cabinet and myself, except Mr. Stanton. He stood alone,
and the difference of opinion could not be reconciled. That unity of
opinion which, upon great questions of public policy or administration,
is so essential to the Executive was gone.

I do not claim that a head of Department should have no other opinions
than those of the President. He has the same right, in the conscientious
discharge of duty, to entertain and express his own opinions as has the
President. What I do claim is that the President is the responsible head
of the Administration, and when the opinions of a head of Department are
irreconcilably opposed to those of the President in grave matters of
policy and administration there is but one result which can solve the
difficulty, and that is a severance of the official relation. This in
the past history of the Government has always been the rule, and it is a
wise one, for such differences of opinion among its members must impair
the efficiency of any Administration.

I have now referred to the general grounds upon which the withdrawal
or Mr. Stanton from my Administration seemed to me to be proper and
necessary, but I can not omit to state a special ground, which, if it
stood alone, would vindicate my action.

The sanguinary riot which occurred in the city of New Orleans on the
30th of August, 1866, justly aroused public indignation and public
inquiry, not only as to those who were engaged in it, but as to those
who, more or less remotely, might be held to responsibility for its
occurrence. I need not remind the Senate of the effort made to fix that
responsibility on the President. The charge was openly made, and again
and again reiterated all through the land, that the President was warned
in time, but refused to interfere.

By telegrams from the lieutenant-governor and attorney-general of
Louisiana, dated the 27th and 28th of August, I was advised that a body
of delegates claiming to be a constitutional convention were about to
assemble in New Orleans; that the matter was before the grand jury, but
that it would be impossible to execute civil process without a riot; and
this question was asked:

Is the military to interfere to prevent process of court?

This question was asked at a time when the civil courts were in the full
exercise of their authority, and the answer sent by telegraph on the
same 28th of August was this:

The military will be expected to sustain, and not to interfere with,
the proceedings of the courts.

On the same 28th of August the following telegram was sent to Mr.
Stanton by Major-General Baird, then (owing to the absence of General
Sheridan) in command of the military at New Orleans:

Hon. EDWIN M. STANTON,
_Secretary of War_:

A convention has been called, with the sanction of Governor Wells, to
meet here on Monday. The lieutenant-governor and city authorities think
it unlawful, and propose to break it up by arresting the delegates.
I have given no orders on the subject, but have warned the parties that
I could not countenance or permit such action without instructions to
that effect from the President. Please instruct me at once by telegraph.

The 28th of August was on Saturday. The next morning, the 29th, this
dispatch was received by Mr. Stanton at his residence in this city. He
took no action upon it, and neither sent instructions to General Baird
himself nor presented it to me for such instructions. On the next day
(Monday) the riot occurred. I never saw this dispatch from General Baird
until some ten days or two weeks after the riot, when, upon my call for
all the dispatches, with a view to their publication, Mr. Stanton sent
it to me.

These facts all appear in the testimony of Mr. Stanton before the
Judiciary Committee in the impeachment investigation.

On the 30th, the day of the riot, and after it was suppressed, General
Baird wrote to Mr. Stanton a long letter, from which I make the
following extract:

SIR: I have the honor to inform you that a very serious riot has
occurred here to-day. I had not been applied to by the convention
for protection, but the lieutenant-governor and the mayor had freely
consulted with me, and I was so fully convinced that it was so strongly
the intent of the city authorities to preserve the peace, in order to
prevent military interference, that I did not regard an outbreak as a
thing to be apprehended. The lieutenant-governor had assured me that
even if a writ of arrest was issued by the court the sheriff would not
attempt to serve it without my permission, and for to-day they designed
to suspend it. I inclose herewith copies of my correspondence with the
mayor and of a dispatch which the lieutenant-governor claims to have
received from the President. I regret that no reply to my dispatch to
you of Saturday has yet reached me. General Sheridan is still absent
in Texas.

The dispatch of General Baird of the 28th asks for immediate
instructions, and his letter of the 30th, after detailing the terrible
riot which had just happened, ends with the expression of regret that
the instructions which he asked for were not sent. It is not the fault
or the error or the omission of the President that this military
commander was left without instructions; but for all omissions, for
all errors, for all failures to instruct when instruction might have
averted this calamity, the President was openly and persistently held
responsible. Instantly, without waiting for proof, the delinquency of
the President was heralded in every form of utterance. Mr. Stanton knew
then that the President was not responsible for this delinquency. The
exculpation was in his power, but it was not given by him to the public,
and only to the President in obedience to a requisition for all the
dispatches.

No one regrets more than myself that General Baird's request was not
brought to my notice. It is clear from his dispatch and letter that if
the Secretary of War had given him proper instructions the riot which
arose on the assembling of the convention would have been averted.

There may be those ready to say that I would have given no instructions
even if the dispatch had reached me in time, but all must admit that
I ought to have had the opportunity.

The following is the testimony given by Mr. Stanton before the
impeachment investigation committee as to this dispatch:

Q. Referring to the dispatch of the 28th of July by General Baird, I ask
you whether that dispatch on its receipt was communicated?

A. I received that dispatch on Sunday forenoon. I examined it carefully,
and considered the question presented. I did not see that I could give
any instructions different from the line of action which General Baird
proposed, and made no answer to the dispatch.

Q. I see it stated that this was received at 10.20 p.m. Was that the
hour at which it was received by you?

A. That is the date of its reception in the telegraph office Saturday
night. I received it on Sunday forenoon at my residence. A copy of the
dispatch was furnished to the President several days afterwards, along
with all the other dispatches and communications on that subject, but it
was not furnished by me before that time. I suppose it may have been ten
or fifteen days afterwards.

Q. The President himself being in correspondence with those parties upon
the same subject, would it not have been proper to have advised him of
the reception of that dispatch?

A. I know nothing about his correspondence, and know nothing about any
correspondence except this one dispatch. We had intelligence of the riot
on Thursday morning. The riot had taken place on Monday.

It is a difficult matter to define all the relations which exist between
the heads of Departments and the President. The legal relations are well
enough defined. The Constitution places these officers in the relation
of his advisers when he calls upon them for advice. The acts of Congress
go further. Take, for example, the act of 1789 creating the War
Department. It provides that--

There shall be a principal officer therein to be called the Secretary
for the Department of War, who shall perform and execute such duties
as shall from time to time be enjoined on or intrusted to him by the
President of the United States; and, furthermore, the said principal
officer shall conduct the business of the said Department in such manner
as the President of the United States shall from time to time order and
instruct.

Provision is also made for the appointment of an inferior officer by the
head of the Department, to be called the chief clerk, "who, whenever
said principal officer shall be removed from office by the President
of the United States," shall have the charge and custody of the books,
records, and papers of the Department.

The legal relation is analogous to that of principal and agent. It is
the President upon whom the Constitution devolves, as head of the
executive department, the duty to see that the laws are faithfully
executed; but as he can not execute them in person, he is allowed to
select his agents, and is made responsible for their acts within just
limits. So complete is this presumed delegation of authority in the
relation of a head of Department to the President that the Supreme Court
of the United States have decided that an order made by a head of
Department is presumed to be made by the President himself.

The principal, upon whom such responsibility is placed for the acts
of a subordinate, ought to be left as free as possible in the matter
of selection and of dismissal. To hold him to responsibility for an
officer beyond his control; to leave the question of the fitness of
such an agent to be decided _for_ him and not _by_ him; to allow such
a subordinate, when the President, moved by "public considerations of
a high character," requests his resignation, to assume for himself an
equal right to act upon his own views of "public considerations" and to
make his own conclusions paramount to those of the President--to allow
all this is to reverse the just order of administration and to place
the subordinate above the superior.

There are, however, other relations between the President and
a head of Department beyond these defined legal relations, which
necessarily attend them, though not expressed. Chief among these is
mutual confidence. This relation is so delicate that it is sometimes
hard to say when or how it ceases. A single flagrant act may end
it at once, and then there is no difficulty. But confidence may be
just as effectually destroyed by a series of causes too subtle for
demonstration. As it is a plant of slow growth, so, too, it may be
slow in decay. Such has been the process here. I will not pretend to say
what acts or omissions have broken up this relation. They are hardly
susceptible of statement, and still less of formal proof. Nevertheless,
no one can read the correspondence of the 5th of August without being
convinced that this relation was effectually gone on both sides, and
that while the President was unwilling to allow Mr. Stanton to remain
in his Administration, Mr. Stanton was equally unwilling to allow the
President to carry on his Administration without his presence.

In the great debate which took place in the House of Representatives
in 1789, in the first organization of the principal Departments, Mr.
Madison spoke as follows:

It is evidently the intention of the Constitution that the first
magistrate should be responsible for the executive department. So far,
therefore, as we do not make the officers who are to aid him in the
duties of that department responsible to him, he is not responsible
to the country. Again: Is there no danger that an officer, when he is
appointed by the concurrence of the Senate and has friends in that body,
may choose rather to risk his establishment on the favor of that branch
than rest it upon the discharge of his duties to the satisfaction of the
executive branch, which is constitutionally authorized to inspect and
control his conduct? And if it should happen that the officers connect
themselves with the Senate, they may mutually support each other, and
for want of efficacy reduce the power of the President to a mere
vapor, in which case his responsibility would be annihilated, and the
expectation of it is unjust. The high executive officers, joined in
cabal with the Senate, would lay the foundation of discord, and end in
an assumption of the executive power only to be removed by a revolution
in the Government.

Mr. Sedgwick, in the same debate, referring to the proposition that
a head of Department should only be removed or suspended by the
concurrence of the Senate, used this language:

But if proof be necessary, what is then the consequence? Why, in nine
cases out of ten, where the case is very clear to the mind of the
President that the man ought to be removed, the effect can not be
produced, because it is absolutely impossible to produce the necessary
evidence. Are the Senate to proceed without evidence? Some gentlemen
contend not. Then the object will be lost. Shall a man under these
circumstances be saddled upon the President who has been appointed for
no other purpose but to aid the President in performing certain duties?
Shall he be continued, I ask again, against the will of the President?
If he is, where is the responsibility? Are you to look for it in the
President, who has no control over the officer, no power to remove him
if he acts unfeelingly or unfaithfully? Without you make him responsible
you weaken and destroy the strength and beauty of your system. What is
to be done in cases which can only be known from a long acquaintance
with the conduct of an officer?

I had indulged the hope that upon the assembling of Congress
Mr. Stanton would have ended this unpleasant complication according
to his intimation given in his note of August 12. The duty which I have
felt myself called upon to perform was by no means agreeable, but I feel
that I am not responsible for the controversy or for the consequences.

Unpleasant as this necessary change in my Cabinet has been to me upon
personal considerations, I have the consolation to be assured that so
far as the public interests are involved there is no cause for regret.

Salutary reforms have been introduced by the Secretary _ad interim_, and
great reductions of expenses have been effected under his administration
of the War Department, to the saving of millions to the Treasury.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 14, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
9th instant, I transmit herewith a copy of the papers relating to the
trial by a military commission of Albert M.D.C. Lusk, of Louisiana.
No action in the case has yet been taken by the President.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 17, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit for the information of the House of Representatives a report
from the Secretary of State, with an accompanying paper.[32]

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 32: Report of George H. Sharpe relative to the assassination
of President Lincoln and the attempted assassination of Secretary
Seward.]

WASHINGTON, _December 17, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 6th instant,
concerning the International Monetary Conference held at Paris in
June last, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, which
is accompanied by the papers called for by the resolution.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 17, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit, for the consideration of the Senate, an agreement between
the diplomatic representatives of certain foreign powers in Japan,
including the minister of the United States, on the one part, and
plenipotentiaries on the part of the Japanese Government, relative
to the settlement of Yokohama.

This instrument can not be legally binding upon the United States unless
sanctioned by the Senate. There appears to be no objection to its
approval.

A copy of General Van Valkenburgh's dispatch to the Secretary of State,
by which the agreement was accompanied, and of the map to which it
refers, are also herewith transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _December 18, 1867_.

_Gentlemen of the Senate and of the House of Representatives_:

An official copy of the order issued by Major-General Winfield S.
Hancock, commander of the Fifth Military District, dated headquarters in
New Orleans, La., on the 29th day of November, has reached me through
the regular channels of the War Department, and I herewith communicate
it to Congress for such action as may seem to be proper in view of all
the circumstances.

It will be perceived that General Hancock announces that he will make
the law the rule of his conduct; that he will uphold the courts and
other civil authorities in the performance of their proper duties, and
that he will use his military power only to preserve the peace and
enforce the law. He declares very explicitly that the sacred right of
the trial by jury and the privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_ shall
not be crushed out or trodden under foot. He goes further, and in one
comprehensive sentence asserts that the principles of American liberty
are still the inheritance of this people and ever should be.

When a great soldier, with unrestricted power in his hands to oppress
his fellow-men, voluntarily foregoes the chance of gratifying his
selfish ambition and devotes himself to the duty of building up the
liberties and strengthening the laws of his country, he presents an
example of the highest public virtue that human nature is capable of
practicing. The strongest claim of Washington to be "first in war,
first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen" is founded
on the great fact that in all his illustrious career he scrupulously
abstained from violating the legal and constitutional rights of his
fellow-citizens. When he surrendered his commission to Congress, the
President of that body spoke his highest praise in saying that he had
"always regarded the rights of the civil authorities through all dangers
and disasters." Whenever power above the law courted his acceptance, he
calmly put the temptation aside. By such magnanimous acts of forbearance
he won the universal admiration of mankind and left a name which has no
rival in the history of the world.

I am far from saying that General Hancock is the only officer of the
American Army who is influenced by the example of Washington. Doubtless
thousands of them are faithfully devoted to the principles for which the
men of the Revolution laid down their lives. But the distinguished honor
belongs to him of being the first officer in high command south of the
Potomac, since the close of the civil war, who has given utterance to
these noble sentiments in the form of a military order.

I respectfully suggest to Congress that some public recognition of
General Hancock's patriotic conduct is due, if not to him, to the friends
of law and justice throughout the country. Of such an act as his at such
a time it is but fit that the dignity should be vindicated and the virtue
proclaimed, so that its value as an example may not be lost to the nation.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 19, 1867_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in answer to a resolution of that body
of the 16th instant, a report[33] from the Secretary of State, with
accompanying papers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 33: Relating to the removal of Governor Ballard, of the
Territory of Idaho.]

WASHINGTON, _December 20, 1867_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I herewith transmit to Congress a report, dated the 20th instant,
with the accompanying papers, received from the Secretary of State in
compliance with the requirements of the eighteenth section of the act
entitled "An act to regulate the diplomatic and consular systems of
the United States," approved August 18, 1856.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 31, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the
18th instant, requesting information concerning alleged interference
by Russian naval vessels with whaling vessels of the United States,
I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the papers referred
to therein.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 6, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith transmit to the Senate a report from the Secretary of the
Treasury, containing the information requested in their resolution of
the 16th ultimo, relative to the amount of United States bonds issued to
the Union Pacific Railroad Company and each of its branches, including
the Central Pacific Railroad Company of California.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 7, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, in answer to a
resolution of the House of Representatives of yesterday, making inquiry
how many and what State legislatures have ratified the proposed
amendment to the Constitution of the United States known as the
fourteenth article.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 7, 1868_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

A Spanish steamer named _Nuestra Señora_ being in the harbor of Port
Royal, S.C., on the 1st of December, 1861, Brigadier General T.W.
Sherman, who was in command of the United States forces there, received
information which he supposed justified him in seizing her, as she was
on her way from Charleston to Havana with insurgent correspondence on
board. The seizure was made accordingly, and during the ensuing spring
the vessel was sent to New York, in order that the legality of the
seizure might be tried.

By a decree of June 20, 1863, Judge Betts ordered the vessel to be
restored, and by a subsequent decree, of October 15, 1863, he referred
the adjustment of damages to amicable negotiations between the two
Governments.

While the proceeding in admiralty was pending, the vessel was appraised
and taken by the Navy Department at the valuation of $28,000, which sum
that Department paid into the Treasury.

As the amount of this valuation can not legally be drawn from the
Treasury without authority from Congress, I recommend an appropriation
for that purpose.

It is proposed to appoint a commissioner on the part of this Government
to adjust, informally in this case, with a similar commissioner on the
part of Spain, the question of damages, the commissioners to name an
arbiter for points upon which they may disagree. When the amount of the
damages shall thus have been ascertained, application will be made to
Congress for a further appropriation toward paying them.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _January 14, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of War _ad
interim_, with the accompanying papers, prepared in compliance with a
resolution of the House of Representatives of March 15, 1867, requesting
information in reference to contracts for ordnance projectiles and small
arms.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _January 14, 1868_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith the report made by the commissioners appointed under
the act of Congress approved on the 20th day of July, 1867, entitled
"An act to establish peace with certain hostile Indian tribes," together
with the accompanying papers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 14, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of yesterday, calling for
information relating to the appointment of the American minister at
Pekin to a diplomatic or other mission on behalf of the Chinese
Government by the Emperor of China, I transmit a report from the
Secretary of State upon the subject, together with the accompanying
papers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON CITY, _January 14, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
the following treaties, concluded at "Medicine Lodge Creek," Kansas,
between the Indian tribes therein named and the United States, by their
commissioners appointed by the act of Congress approved July 20, 1867,
entitled "An act to establish peace with certain hostile Indian tribes,"
viz:

A treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche tribes, concluded October 21, 1867.

A treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache tribes, concluded October
28, 1867.

A treaty with the Arapahoe and Cheyenne tribes, dated October 28, 1867.

A letter of this date from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting
said treaties, is herewith inclosed.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 17, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

With reference to the convention between the United States and Denmark
for the cession of the islands of St. Thomas and St. John, in the West
Indies, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State on the subject
of the vote of St. Thomas on the question of accepting the cession.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _January 23, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the request of the Senate of yesterday, I return
herewith their resolution of the 21st instant, calling for information
in reference to James A. Seddon, late Secretary of War of the so-called
Confederate States.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 23, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I have received the following preamble and resolution, adopted by the
Senate on the 8th instant:

Whereas Senate bill No. 141, and entitled "An act for the further
security of equal rights in the District of Columbia," having at this
present session passed both Houses of Congress, was afterwards, on the
11th day of December, 1867, duly presented to the President of the
United States for his approval and signature; and

Whereas more than ten days, exclusive of Sundays, have since elapsed in
this session without said bill having been returned, either approved or
disapproved: Therefore,

_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be requested to
inform the Senate whether said bill has been delivered to and received
by the Secretary of State, as provided by the second section of the act
of the 27th day of July, 1789.

As the act which the resolution mentions has no relevancy to the subject
under inquiry, it is presumed that it was the intention of the Senate to
refer to the law of the 15th September, 1789, the second section of
which prescribes--

That whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote of the Senate and
House of Representatives, having been approved and signed by the
President of the United States, or not having been returned by him with
his objections, shall become a law or take effect, it shall forthwith
thereafter be received by the said Secretary from the President; and
whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote shall be returned by the
President with his objections, and shall, on being reconsidered, be
agreed to be passed, and be approved by two-thirds of both Houses of
Congress, and thereby become a law or take effect, it shall in such
case be received by the said Secretary from the President of the Senate
or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, in whichsoever House it
shall last have been so approved.

Inasmuch as the bill "for the further security of equal rights in the
District of Columbia" has not become a law in either of the modes
designated in the section above quoted, it has not been delivered to
the Secretary of State for record and promulgation. The Constitution
expressly declares that--

If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days
(Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the
same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless
the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case
it shall not be a law.

As stated in the preamble to the resolution, the bill to which it refers
was presented for my approval on the 11th day of December, 1867. On the
20th of same month, and before the expiration of the ten days after the
presentation of the bill to the President, the two Houses, in accordance
with a concurrent resolution adopted on the 3d [13th] of December,
adjourned until the 6th of January, 1868. Congress by their adjournment
thus prevented the return of the bill within the time prescribed by the
Constitution, and it was therefore left in the precise condition in
which that instrument positively declares a bill "shall not be a law."

If the adjournment in December did not cause the failure of this bill,
because not such an adjournment as is contemplated by the Constitution
in the clause which I have cited, it must follow that such was the
nature of the adjournments during the past year, on the 30th day of
March until the first Wednesday of July and from the 20th of July until
the 21st of November. Other bills will therefore be affected by the
decision which may be rendered in this case, among them one having the
same title as that named in the resolution, and containing similar
provisions, which, passed by both Houses in the month of July last,
failed to become a law by reason of the adjournment of Congress before
ten days for its consideration had been allowed the Executive.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 27, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

In answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the
22d instant, calling for a copy of the report of Abram S. Hewitt,
commissioner of the United States to the Paris Universal Exhibition of
1867, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the papers
which accompany it.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 27, 1868_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the documents to
which it refers, in relation to the formal transfer of territory from
Russia to the United States in accordance with the treaty of the 30th
of March last.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 28, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit, for the consideration of the Senate with a view to its
ratification, an additional article to the treaty of navigation and
commerce with Russia of the 18th of December, 1832, which additional
article was concluded and signed between the plenipotentiaries of the
two Governments at Washington on the 27th instant.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 3, 1868_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit to Congress a report from the Secretary of State, suggesting
the necessity for a further appropriation toward defraying the expense
of employing copying clerks, with a view to enable his Department
seasonably to answer certain calls for information.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 3, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 27th
ultimo, directing the Secretary of State to furnish information in
regard to the trial of John H. Surratt, I transmit a report from the
Secretary of State.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 3, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report[34] from the Secretary of State, in answer
to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 28th of January.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 34: Relating to the famine in Sweden and Norway.]

WASHINGTON, _February 10, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of the Navy,
relative to depredations upon and the future care of the reservations
of lands for the "purpose of supplying timber for the Navy of the
United States."

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _February 10, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In reply to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 1st
instant, I transmit herewith a report from the Postmaster-General, in
reference to the appointment of a special agent to take charge of the
post-office at Penn Yan, in the State of New York.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 10, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, with the accompanying
papers, on the subject of a transfer of the Peninsula and Bay of Samana
to the United States. The advice and consent of the Senate to the
transfer, upon the terms proposed in the draft of a convention with the
Dominican Republic, are requested.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 10, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I submit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to
ratification, the accompanying consular convention between the
United States and the Government of His Majesty the King of Italy.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _February 10, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Attorney-General, prepared
in compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 30th ultimo,
requesting information as to the number of justices of the peace now
in commission in each ward, respectively, of the city of Washington.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 10, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 25th
of November, 1867, calling for information in relation to the trial and
conviction of American citizens in Great Britain and Ireland for the
two years last past, I transmit a partial report from the Secretary of
State, which is accompanied by a portion of the papers called for by
the resolution.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _February 11, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution adopted yesterday by the House of
Representatives, requesting any further correspondence the President
"may have had with General U.S. Grant, in addition to that heretofore
submitted, on the subject of the recent vacation by the latter of the
War Office," I transmit herewith a copy of a communication addressed
to General Grant on the 10th instant, together with a copy of the
accompanying papers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 10, 1868_.

General U.S. GRANT,

_Commanding Armies of the United States, Washington, D.C._

GENERAL: The extraordinary character of your letter of the 3d instant[35]
would seem to preclude any reply on my part; but the manner in which
publicity has been given to the correspondence of which that letter
forms a part and the grave questions which are involved induce me to
take this mode of giving, as a proper sequel to the communications which
have passed between us, the statements of the five members of the
Cabinet who were present on the occasion of our conversation on the 14th
ultimo. Copies of the letters which they have addressed to me upon the
subject are accordingly herewith inclosed.

You speak of my letter of the 31st ultimo[36] as a reiteration of the
"many and gross misrepresentations" contained in certain newspaper
articles, and reassert the correctness of the statements contained in
your communication of the 28th ultimo,[37] adding--and here I give your
own words--"anything in yours in reply to it to the contrary
notwithstanding."

When a controversy upon matters of fact reaches the point to which this
has been brought, further assertion or denial between the immediate
parties should cease, especially where upon either side it loses
the character of the respectful discussion which is required by the
relations in which the parties stand to each other and degenerates in
tone and temper. In such a case, if there is nothing to rely upon but
the opposing statements, conclusions must be drawn from those statements
alone and from whatever intrinsic probabilities they afford in favor of
or against either of the parties. I should not shrink from this test in
this controversy; but, fortunately, it is not left to this test alone.
There were five Cabinet officers present at the conversation the detail
of which in my letter of the 28th [31st[37]] ultimo you allow yourself
to say contains "many and gross misrepresentations." These gentlemen
heard that conversation and have read my statement. They speak for
themselves, and I leave the proof without a word of comment.

I deem it proper before concluding this communication to notice some of
the statements contained in your letter.

You say that a performance of the promises alleged to have been made by
you to the President "would have involved a resistance to law and an
inconsistency with the whole history of my connection with the
suspension of Mr. Stanton." You then state that you had fears the
President would, on the removal of Mr. Stanton, appoint someone in his
place who would embarrass the Army in carrying out the reconstruction
acts, and add:

"It was to prevent such an appointment that I accepted the office of
Secretary of War _ad interim_, and not for the purpose of enabling you
to get rid of Mr. Stanton by withholding it from him in opposition to
law, or, not doing so myself, surrendering it to one who would, as the
statements and assumptions in your communication plainly indicate was
sought."

First of all, you here admit that from the very beginning of what
you term "the whole history" of your connection with Mr. Stanton's
suspension you intended to circumvent the President. It was to carry out
that intent that you accepted the appointment. This was in your mind at
the time of your acceptance. It was not, then, in obedience to the order
of your superior, as has heretofore been supposed, that you assumed the
duties of the office. You knew it was the President's purpose to prevent
Mr. Stanton from resuming the office of Secretary of War, and you
intended to defeat that purpose. You accepted the office, not in the
interest of the President but of Mr. Stanton. If this purpose, so
entertained by you, had been confined to yourself; if when accepting
the office you had done so with a mental reservation to frustrate the
President, it would have been a tacit deception. In the ethics of some
persons such a course is allowable. But you can not stand even upon
that questionable ground. The "history" of your connection with this
transaction, as written by yourself, places you in a different
predicament, and shows that you not only concealed your design from
the President, but induced him to suppose that you would carry out his
purpose to keep Mr. Stanton out of office by retaining it yourself after
an attempted restoration by the Senate, so as to require Mr. Stanton to
establish his right by judicial decision.

I now give that part of this "history" as written by yourself in your
letter of the 28th ultimo:[38]

"Some time after I assumed the duties of Secretary of War _ad interim_
the President asked me my views as to the course Mr. Stanton would have
to pursue, in case the Senate should not concur in his suspension, to
obtain possession of his office. My reply was, in substance, that
Mr. Stanton would have to appeal to the courts to reinstate him,
illustrating my position by citing the ground I had taken in the case
of the Baltimore police commissioners."

Now, at that time, as you admit in your letter of the 3d instant,[39]
you held the office for the very object of defeating an appeal to the
courts. In that letter you say that in accepting the office one motive
was to prevent the President from appointing some other person who would
retain possession, and thus make judicial proceedings necessary. You
knew the President was unwilling to trust the office with anyone who
would not by holding it compel Mr. Stanton to resort to the courts.
You perfectly understood that in this interview, "some time" after
you accepted the office, the President, not content with your silence,
desired an expression of your views, and you answered him that Mr.
Stanton "would have to appeal to the courts." If the President reposed
confidence _before_ he knew your views, and that confidence had been
violated, it might have been said he made a mistake; but a violation of
confidence reposed _after_ that conversation was no mistake of his nor
of yours. It is the fact only that needs be stated, that at the date of
this conversation you did not intend to hold the office with the purpose
of forcing Mr. Stanton into court, but did hold it then and had accepted
it to prevent that course from being carried out. In other words, you
said to the President, "That is the proper course," and you said to
yourself, "I have accepted this office, and now hold it to defeat that
course." The excuse you make in a subsequent paragraph of that letter
of the 28th ultimo,[38] that afterwards you changed your views as to
what would be a proper course, has nothing to do with the point now
under consideration. The point is that _before_ you changed your views
you had secretly determined to do the very thing which at last you
did--surrender the office to Mr. Stanton. You may have changed your
views as to the law, but you certainly did not change your views as
to the course you had marked out for yourself from the beginning.

I will only notice one more statement in your letter of the 3d
instant[39]--that the performance of the promises which it is alleged
were made by you would have involved you in the resistance of law. I
know of no statute that would have been violated had you, carrying out
your promises in good faith, tendered your resignation when you
concluded not to be made a party in any legal proceedings. You add:

"I am in a measure confirmed in this conclusion by your recent orders
directing me to disobey orders from the Secretary of War, _my superior_
and your subordinate, without having countermanded his authority to
issue the orders I am to disobey."

On the 24th[39] ultimo you addressed a note to the President requesting
in writing an order given to you verbally five days before to disregard
orders from Mr. Stanton as Secretary of War until you "knew from the
President himself that they were his orders."

On the 29th,[40] in compliance with your request, I did give you
instructions in writing "not to obey any order from the War Department
assumed to be issued by the direction of the President unless such order
is known by the General Commanding the armies of the United States to
have been authorized by the Executive."

There are some orders which a Secretary of War may issue without the
authority of the President; there are others which he issues simply as
the agent of the President, and which purport to be "by direction" of
the President. For such orders the President is responsible, and he
should therefore know and understand what they are before giving such
"direction." Mr. Stanton states in his letter of the 4th instant,[41]
which accompanies the published correspondence, that he "has had no
correspondence with the President since the 12th of August last;" and
he further says that since he resumed the duties of the office he has
continued to discharge them "without any personal or written
communication with the President;" and he adds, "No orders have been
issued from this Department in the name of the President with my
knowledge, and I have received no orders from him."

It thus seems that Mr. Stanton now discharges the duties of the War
Department without any reference to the President and without using his
name.

My order to you had only reference to orders "assumed to be issued by
the direction of the President." It would appear from Mr. Stanton's
letter that you have received no such orders from him. However, in your
note to the President of the 30th ultimo,[42] in which you acknowledge
the receipt of the written order of the 29th,[43] you say that you have
been informed by Mr. Stanton that he has not received any order limiting
his authority to issue orders to the Army, according to the practice
of the Department, and state that "while this authority to the War
Department is not countermanded it will be satisfactory evidence to
me that any orders issued from the War Department by direction of the
President are authorized by the Executive."

The President issues an order to you to obey no order from the War
Department purporting to be made "by the direction of the President"
until you have referred it to him for his approval. You reply that you
have received the President's order and will not obey it, but will obey
an order purporting to be given by his direction _if it comes from the
War Department_. You will not obey the direct order of the President,
but will obey his indirect order. If, as you say, there has been a
practice in the War Department to issue orders in the name of the
President without his direction, does not the precise order you have
requested and have received change the practice as to the General of
the Army? Could not the President countermand any such order issued to
you from the War Department? If you should receive an order from that
Department, issued in the name of the President, to do a special act,
and an order directly from the President himself not to do the act, is
there a doubt which you are to obey? You answer the question when you
say to the President, in your letter of the 3d instant,[44] the Secretary
of War is "my superior and your subordinate," and yet you refuse
obedience to the superior out of a deference to the subordinate.

Without further comment upon the insubordinate attitude which you
have assumed, I am at a loss to know how you can relieve yourself
from obedience to the orders of the President, who is made by the
Constitution the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, and is
therefore the official superior as well of the General of the Army
as of the Secretary of War.

Respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 35: See pp. 618-620.]

[Footnote 36: See pp. 615-618.]

[Footnote 37: See pp. 613-615.]

[Footnote 38: See pp. 613-615.]

[Footnote 39: See pp. 618-620.]

[Footnote 40: See p. 613.]

[Footnote 41: See p. 615.]

[Footnote 42: See pp. 612-613.]

[Footnote 43: See p. 615.]

[Footnote 44: See pp. 618-620.]

[Letter addressed to each of the members of the Cabinet present at the
conversation between the President and General Grant on the 14th of
January, 1868, and answers thereto.]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, D.C., February 5, 1868_.

SIR: The Chronicle of this morning contains a correspondence between the
President and General Grant reported from the War Department in answer
to a resolution of the House of Representatives.

I beg to call your attention to that correspondence, and especially to
that part of it which refers to the conversation between the President
and General Grant at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the 14th of
January, and to request you to state what was said in that conversation.

Very respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _February 5, 1868_.

The PRESIDENT.

SIR: Your note of this date was handed to me this evening. My
recollection of the conversation at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the
14th of January, corresponds with your statement of it in the letter of
the 31st ultimo[45] in the published correspondence.

The three points specified in that letter, giving your recollection of
the conversation, are correctly stated.

Very respectfully,

GIDEON WELLES.

[Footnote 45: See pp. 615-618.]

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, _February 6, 1868_.

The PRESIDENT.

SIR: I have received your note of the 5th instant, calling my attention
to the correspondence between yourself and General Grant as published in
the Chronicle of yesterday, especially to that part of it which relates
to what occurred at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the 14th ultimo, and
requesting me to state what was said in the conversation referred to.

I can not undertake to state the precise language used, but I have no
hesitation in saying that your account of that conversation as given in
your letter to General Grant under date of the 31st ultimo[45]
substantially and in all important particulars accords with my
recollection of it.

With great respect, your obedient servant,

HUGH McCULLOCH.

[Footnote 45: See pp. 615-618.]

POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT,

_Washington, February 6, 1868_.

The PRESIDENT.

SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 5th of February, calling my
attention to the correspondence published in the Chronicle between the
President and General Grant, and especially to that part of it which
refers to the conversation between the President and General Grant at
the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the 14th of January, with a request that
I state what was said in that conversation.

In reply I have the honor to state that I have read carefully the
correspondence in question, and particularly the letter of the President
to General Grant dated January 31, 1868.[45] The following extract from
your letter of the 31st January to General Grant is, according to my
recollection, a correct statement of the conversation that took place
between the President and General Grant at the Cabinet meeting on the
14th of January last. In the presence of the Cabinet the President
asked General Grant whether, "in conversation which took place after his
appointment as Secretary of War _ad interim_, he did not agree either
to remain at the head of the War Department and abide any judicial
proceedings that might follow the nonconcurrence by the Senate in Mr.
Stanton's suspension, or, should he wish not to become involved in such
a controversy, to put the President in the same position with respect to
the office as he occupied previous to General Grant's appointment, by
returning it to the President in time to anticipate such action by the
Senate." This General Grant admitted.

The President then asked General Grant if at the conference on the
preceding Saturday he had not, to avoid misunderstanding, requested
General Grant to state what he intended to do, and, further, if in reply
to that inquiry he (General Grant) had not referred to their former
conversations, saying that from them the President understood his
position, and that his (General Grant's) action would be consistent with
the understanding which had been reached.

To these questions General Grant replied in the affirmative.

The President asked General Grant if at the conclusion of their
interview on Saturday it was not understood that they were to have
another conference on Monday before final action by the Senate in the
case of Mr. Stanton.

General Grant replied that such was the understanding, but that he did
not suppose the Senate would act so soon; that on Monday he had been
engaged in a conference with General Sherman, and was occupied with
"many little matters," and asked if General Sherman had not called on
that day.

I take this mode of complying with the request contained in the
President's letter to me, because my attention had been called to the
subject before, when the conversation between the President and General
Grant was under consideration.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

ALEX W. RANDALL,

_Postmaster-General_.

[Footnote 45: See pp. 615-618.]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

_Washington, D.C., February 6, 1868_.

The PRESIDENT.

SIR: I am in receipt of yours of yesterday, calling my attention to
a correspondance between yourself and General Grant published in the
Chronicle newspaper, and especially to that part of said correspondence
"which refers to the conversation between the President and General
Grant at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the 14th of January," and
requesting me "to state what was said in that conversation."

In reply I submit the following statement: At the Cabinet meeting on
Tuesday, the 14th of January, 1868, General Grant appeared and took his
accustomed seat at the board. When he had been reached in the order of
business, the President asked him, as usual, if he had anything to
present.

In reply the General, after referring to a note which he had that
morning addressed to the President, inclosing a copy of the resolution
of the Senate refusing to concur in the reasons for the suspension of
Mr. Stanton, proceeded to say that he regarded his duties as Secretary
of War _ad interim_ terminated by that resolution, and that he could not
lawfully exercise such duties for a moment after the adoption of the
resolution by the Senate; that the resolution reached him last night,
and that this morning he had gone to the War Department, entered the
Secretary's room, bolted one door on the inside, locked the other on the
outside, delivered the key to the Adjutant-General, and proceeded to the
Headquarters of the Army and addressed the note above mentioned to the
President, informing him that he (General Grant) was no longer Secretary
of War _ad interim_.

The President expressed great surprise at the course which General
Grant had thought proper to pursue, and, addressing himself to the
General, proceeded to say, in substance, that he had anticipated such
action on the part of the Senate, and, being very desirous to have the
constitutionality of the tenure-of-office bill tested and his right
to suspend or remove a member of the Cabinet decided by the judicial
tribunals of the country, he had some time ago, and shortly after
General Grant's appointment as Secretary of War _ad interim_, asked the
General what his action would be in the event that the Senate should
refuse to concur in the suspension of Mr. Stanton, and that the General
had then agreed either to remain at the head of the War Department till
a decision could be obtained from the court or resign the office into
the hands of the President before the case was acted upon by the Senate,
so as to place the President in the same situation he occupied at the
time of his (Grant's) appointment.

The President further said that the conversation was renewed on the
preceding Saturday, at which time he asked the General what he intended
to do if the Senate should undertake to reinstate Mr. Stanton, in reply
to which the General referred to their former conversation upon the same
subject and said: "You understand my position, and my conduct will be
conformable to that understanding;" that he (the General) then expressed
a repugnance to being made a party to a judicial proceeding, saying that
he would expose himself to fine and imprisonment by doing so, as his
continuing to discharge the duties of Secretary of War _ad interim_
after the Senate should have refused to concur in the suspension of Mr.
Stanton would be a violation of the tenure-of-office bill; that in reply
to this he (the President) informed General Grant he had not suspended
Mr. Stanton under the tenure-of-office bill, but by virtue of the powers
conferred on him by the Constitution; and that, as to the fine and
imprisonment, he (the President) would pay whatever fine was imposed
and submit to whatever imprisonment might be adjudged against him (the
General); that they continued the conversation for some time, discussing
the law at length, and that they finally separated without having
reached a definite conclusion, and with the understanding that the
General would see the President again on Monday.

In reply General Grant admitted that the conversations had occurred, and
said that at the first conversation he had given it as his opinion to
the President that in the event of nonconcurrence by the Senate in the
action of the President in respect to the Secretary of War the question
would have to be decided by the court--that Mr. Stanton would have to
appeal to the court to reinstate him in office; that the _ins_ would
remain in till they could be displaced and the _outs_ put in by legal
proceedings; and that he _then_ thought so, and had agreed that if he
should change his mind he would notify the President in time to enable
him to make another appointment, but that at the time of the first
conversation he had not looked very closely into the law; that it had
recently been discussed by the newspapers, and that this had induced him
to examine it more carefully, and that he had come to the conclusion
that if the Senate should refuse to concur in the suspension Mr. Stanton
would thereby be reinstated, and that he (Grant) could not continue
thereafter to act as Secretary of War _ad interim_ without subjecting
himself to fine and imprisonment, and that he came over on Saturday to
inform the President of this change in his views, and did so inform him;
that the President replied that he had not suspended Mr. Stanton under
the tenure-of-office bill, but under the Constitution, and had appointed
him (Grant) by virtue of the authority derived from the Constitution,
etc.; that they continued to discuss the matter some time, and finally
he left, without any conclusion having been reached, expecting to see
the President again on Monday.

He then proceeded to explain why he had not called on the President on
Monday, saying that he had had a long interview with General Sherman,
that various little matters had occupied his time till it was late, and
that he did not think the Senate would act so soon, and asked: "Did not
General Sherman call on you on Monday?"

I do not know what passed between the President and General Grant on
Saturday, except as I learned it from the conversation between them at
the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, and the foregoing is substantially what
then occurred. The precise words used on the occasion are not, of
course, given exactly in the order in which they were spoken, but the
ideas expressed and the facts stated are faithfully preserved and
presented.

I have the honor to be, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant,

O.H. BROWNING.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

_Washington, February 6, 1868_.

The PRESIDENT.

SIR: The meeting to which you refer in your letter was a regular Cabinet
meeting. While the members were assembling, and before the President had
entered the council chamber, General Grant on coming in said to me that
he was in attendance there, not as a member of the Cabinet, but upon
invitation, and I replied by the inquiry whether there was a change in
the War Department. After the President had taken his seat, business
went on in the usual way of hearing matters submitted by the several
Secretaries. When the time came for the Secretary of War, General Grant
said that he was now there, not as Secretary of War, but upon the
President's invitation; that he had retired from the War Department. A
slight difference then appeared about the supposed invitation, General
Grant saying that the officer who had borne his letter to the President
that morning announcing his retirement from the War Department had told
him that the President desired to see him at the Cabinet, to which the
President answered that when General Grant's communication was delivered
to him the President simply replied that he supposed General Grant would
be very soon at the Cabinet meeting. I regarded the conversation thus
begun as an incidental one. It went on quite informally, and consisted
of a statement on your part of your views in regard to the understanding
of the tenure upon which General Grant had assented to hold the War
Department _ad interim_ and of his replies by way of answer and
explanation. It was respectful and courteous on both sides. Being in
this conversational form, its details could only have been preserved by
verbatim report. So far as I know, no such report was made at the time.
I can give only the general effect of the conversation. Certainly you
stated that, although you had reported the reasons for Mr. Stanton's
suspension to the Senate, you nevertheless held that he would not be
entitled to resume the office of Secretary of War even if the Senate
should disapprove of his suspension, and that you had proposed to have
the question tested by judicial process, to be applied to the person who
should be the incumbent of the Department under your designation of
Secretary of War _ad interim_ in the place of Mr. Stanton. You contended
that this was well understood between yourself and General Grant;
that when he entered the War Department as Secretary _ad interim_ he
expressed his concurrence in a belief that the question of Mr. Stanton's
restoration would be a question for the courts; that in a subsequent
conversation with General Grant you had adverted to the understanding
thus had, and that General Grant expressed his concurrence in it; that
at some conversation which had been previously held General Grant said
he still adhered to the same construction of the law, but said if he
should change his opinion he would give you seasonable notice of it,
so that you should in any case be placed in the same position in
regard to the War Department that you were while General Grant held
it _ad interim_. I did not understand General Grant as denying nor as
explicitly admitting these statements in the form and full extent to
which you made them. His admission of them was rather indirect and
circumstantial, though I did not understand it to be an evasive one.
He said that, reasoning from what occurred in the case of the police in
Maryland, which he regarded as a parallel one, he was of opinion, and so
assured you, that it would be his right and duty under your instructions
to hold the War Office after the Senate should disapprove of Mr.
Stanton's suspension until the question should be decided upon by the
courts; that he remained until very recently of that opinion, and that
on the Saturday before the Cabinet meeting a conversation was held
between yourself and him in which the subject was generally discussed.

General Grant's statement was that in that conversation he had stated
to you the legal difficulties which might arise, involving fine and
imprisonment, under the civil-tenure bill, and that he did not care to
subject himself to those penalties; that you replied to this remark that
you regarded the civil-tenure bill as unconstitutional and did not think
its penalties were to be feared, or that you would voluntarily assume
them; and you insisted that General Grant should either retain the
office until relieved by yourself, according to what you claimed was
the original understanding between yourself and him, or, by seasonable
notice of change of purpose on his part, put you in the same situation
which you would be if he adhered. You claimed that General Grant finally
said in that Saturday's conversation that you understood his views, and
his proceedings thereafter would be consistent with what had been so
understood. General Grant did not controvert, nor can I say that he
admitted, this last statement. Certainly General Grant did not at
any time in the Cabinet meeting insist that he had in the Saturday's
conversation, either distinctly or finally, advised you of his
determination to retire from the charge of the War Department otherwise
than under your own subsequent direction. He acquiesced in your
statement that the Saturday's conversation ended with an expectation
that there would be a subsequent conference on the subject, which he,
as well as yourself, supposed could seasonably take place on Monday.
You then alluded to the fact that General Grant did not call upon you
on Monday, as you had expected from that conversation. General Grant
admitted that it was his expectation or purpose to call upon you on
Monday. General Grant assigned reasons for the omission. He said he was
in conference with General Sherman; that there were many little matters
to be attended to; he had conversed upon the matter of the incumbency of
the War Department with General Sherman, and he expected that General
Sherman would call upon you on Monday. My own mind suggested a further
explanation, but I do not remember whether it was mentioned or not,
namely, that it was not supposed by General Grant on Monday that the
Senate would decide the question so promptly as to anticipate further
explanation between yourself and him if delayed beyond that day. General
Grant made another explanation--that he was engaged on Sunday with
General Sherman, and I think, also, on Monday, in regard to the War
Department matter, with a hope, though he did not say in an effort,
to procure an amicable settlement of the affair of Mr. Stanton, and
he still hoped that it would be brought about.

I have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _February 11, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

The accompanying letter from General Grant, received since the
transmission to the House of Representatives of my communication of this
date, is submitted to the House as a part of the correspondence referred
to in the resolution of the 10th instant.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES.

_Washington, D.C., February 11, 1868_.

His Excellency A. JOHNSON,

_President of the United States_.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication
of the 10th instant,[46] accompanied by statements of five Cabinet
ministers of their recollection of what occurred in Cabinet meeting on
the 14th of January. Without admitting anything in these statements
where they differ from anything heretofore stated by me, I propose to
notice only that portion of your communication wherein I am charged with
insubordination. I think it will be plain to the reader of my letter of
the 30th of January[47] that I did not propose to disobey any legal
order of the President distinctly given, but only gave an interpretation
of what would be regarded as satisfactory evidence of the President's
sanction to orders communicated by the Secretary of War. I will say here
that your letter of the 10th instant[48] contains the first intimation
I have had that you did not accept that interpretation.

Now for reasons for giving that interpretation. It was clear to me
before my letter of January 30[47] was written that I, the person having
more public business to transact with the Secretary of War than any
other of the President's subordinates, was the only one who had been
instructed to disregard the authority of Mr. Stanton where his authority
was derived as agent of the President.

On the 27th of January I received a letter from the Secretary of War
(copy herewith) directing me to furnish escort to public treasure from
the Rio Grande to New Orleans, etc., at the request of the Secretary
of the Treasury to him. I also send two other inclosures, showing
recognition of Mr. Stanton as Secretary of War by both the Secretary
of the Treasury and the Postmaster-General, in all of which cases the
Secretary of War had to call upon me to make the orders requested or
give the information desired, and where his authority to do so is
derived, in my view, as agent of the President.

With an order so clearly ambiguous as that of the President here
referred to, it was my duty to inform the President of my interpretation
of it and to abide by that interpretation until I received other orders.

Disclaiming any intention, now or heretofore, of disobeying any legal
order of the President distinctly communicated,

I remain, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

U.S. GRANT, _General_.

[Footnote 46: See pp. 603-610.]

[Footnote 47: See p. 615.]

[Footnote 48: See pp. 603-605.]

WAR DEPARTMENT,

_Washington City, January 27, 1868_.

General U.S. GRANT,

_Commanding Army United States_.

GENERAL: The Secretary of the Treasury has requested this Department
to afford A.F. Randall, special agent of the Treasury Department, such
military aid as may be necessary to secure and forward for deposit
from Brownsville, Tex., to New Orleans public moneys in possession of
custom-house officers at Brownsville, and which are deemed insecure
at that place.

You will please give such directions as you may deem proper to the
officer commanding at Brownsville to carry into effect the request of
the Treasury Department, the instructions to be sent by telegraph to
Galveston, to the care of A.F. Randall, special agent, who is at
Galveston waiting telegraphic orders, there being no telegraphic
communication with Brownsville, and the necessity for military
protection to the public moneys represented as urgent.

Please favor me with a copy of such instructions as you may give, in
order that they may be communicated to the Secretary of the Treasury.

Yours, truly,

EDWIN M. STANTON,

_Secretary of War_.

POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT, CONTRACT OFFICE,

_Washington, February 3, 1868_.

The Honorable the SECRETARY OF WAR.

SIR: It has been represented to this Department that in October last a
military commission was appointed to settle upon some general plan of
defense for the Texas frontiers, and that the said commission has made
a report recommending a line of posts from the Rio Grande to the Red
River.

An application is now pending in this Department for a change in the
course of the San Antonio and El Paso mail, so as to send it by way
of Forts Mason, Griffin, and Stockton instead of Camps Hudson and
Lancaster. This application requires immediate decision, but before
final action can be had thereon it is desired to have some official
information as to the report of the commission above referred to.

Accordingly, I have the honor to request that you will cause this
Department to be furnished as early as possible with the information
desired in the premises, and also with a copy of the report, if any has
been made by the commission.

Very respectfully, etc.,

GEO. W. McCLELLAN,

_Second Assistant Postmaster-General_.

FEBRUARY 3, 1868.

Referred to the General of the Army for report.

EDWIN M. STANTON,

_Secretary of War_.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, _January 29, 1868_.

The Honorable SECRETARY OF WAR.

SIR: It is represented to this Department that a band of robbers has
obtained such a foothold in the section of country between Humboldt and
Lawrence, Kans., committing depredations upon travelers, both by public
and private conveyance, that the safety of the public money collected by
the receiver of the land office at Humboldt requires that it should be
guarded during its transit from Humboldt to Lawrence. I have therefore
the honor to request that the proper commanding officer of the district
may be instructed by the War Department, if in the opinion of the
honorable Secretary of War it can be done without prejudice to the
public interests, to furnish a sufficient military guard to protect such
moneys as may be _in transitu_ from the above office for the purpose of
being deposited to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States. As
far as we are now advised, such service will not be necessary oftener
than once a month. Will you please advise me of the action taken, that
I may instruct the receiver and the Commissioner of the General Land
Office in the matter?

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

H. McCULLOCH,

_Secretary of the Treasury_.

Respectfully referred to the General of the Army to give the necessary
orders in this case and to furnish this Department a copy for the
information of the Secretary of the Treasury.

By order of the Secretary of War:

ED. SCHRIVER,

_Inspector-General_.

[The following are inserted because they have direct bearing on the two
messages from the President of February 11, 1868, and their inclosures.]

WAR DEPARTMENT,

_Washington City, February 4, 1868_.

Hon. SCHUYLER COLFAX,

_Speaker of the House of Representatives_.

SIR: In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
3d instant, I transmit herewith copies furnished me by General Grant of
correspondence between him and the President relating to the Secretary
of War, and which he reports to be all the correspondence he has had
with the President on the subject.

I have had no correspondence with the President since the 12th of August
last. After the action of the Senate on his alleged reason for my
suspension from the office of Secretary of War, I resumed the duties of
that office, as required by the act of Congress, and have continued to
discharge them without any personal or written communication with the
President. No orders have been issued from this Department in the name
of the President with my knowledge, and I have received no orders from
him.

The correspondence sent herewith embraces all the correspondence known
to me on the subject referred to in the resolution of the House of
Representatives.

I have the honor to be, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant,

EDWIN M. STANTON,

_Secretary of War_.

_General Grant to the President_.

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES,

_Washington, January 24, 1868_.

His Excellency A. JOHNSON,

_President of the United States_.

SIR: I have the honor very respectfully to request to have in writing
the order which the President gave me verbally on Sunday, the 19th
instant, to disregard the orders of the Hon. E.M. Stanton as Secretary
of War until I knew from the President himself that they were his
orders.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

U.S. GRANT, _General_.

_General Grant to the President_.

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES,

_Washington, D.C., January 28, 1868_.

His Excellency A. JOHNSON,

_President of the United States_.

SIR: On the 24th instant I requested you to give me in writing the
instructions which you had previously given me verbally not to obey any
order from Hon. E.M. Stanton, Secretary of War, unless I knew that it
came from yourself. To this written request I received a message that
has left doubt in my mind of your intentions. To prevent any possible
misunderstanding, therefore, I renew the request that you will give me
written instructions, and till they are received will suspend action on
your verbal ones.

I am compelled to ask these instructions in writing in consequence
of the many and gross misrepresentations affecting my personal honor
circulated through the press for the last fortnight, purporting to come
from the President, of conversations which occurred either with the
President privately in his office or in Cabinet meeting. What is written
admits of no misunderstanding.

In view of the misrepresentations referred to, it will be well to state
the facts in the case.

Some time after I assumed the duties of Secretary of War _ad interim_
the President asked me my views as to the course Mr. Stanton would have
to pursue, in case the Senate should not concur in his suspension,
to obtain possession of his office. My reply was, in substance, that
Mr. Stanton would have to appeal to the courts to reinstate him,
illustrating my position by citing the ground I had taken in the case
of the Baltimore police commissioners.

In that case I did not doubt the technical right of Governor Swann to
remove the old commissioners and to appoint their successors. As the old
commissioners refused to give up, however, I contended that no resource
was left but to appeal to the courts.

Finding that the President was desirous of keeping Mr. Stanton out of
office, whether sustained in the suspension or not, I stated that I had
not looked particularly into the tenure-of-office bill, but that what
I had stated was a general principle, and if I should change my mind in
this particular case I would inform him of the fact.

Subsequently, on reading the tenure-of-office bill closely, I found that
I could not, without violation of the law, refuse to vacate the office
of Secretary of War the moment Mr. Stanton was reinstated by the Senate,
even though the President should order me to retain it, which he never
did.

Taking this view of the subject, and learning on Saturday, the 11th
instant, that the Senate had taken up the subject of Mr. Stanton's
suspension, after some conversation with Lieutenant General Sherman and
some members of my staff, in which I stated that the law left me no
discretion as to my action should Mr. Stanton be reinstated, and that I
intended to inform the President, I went to the President for the sole
purpose of making this decision known, and did so make it known.

In doing this I fulfilled the promise made in our last preceding
conversation on the subject.

The President, however, instead of accepting my view of the requirements
of the tenure-of-office bill, contended that he had suspended Mr.
Stanton under the authority given by the Constitution, and that the same
authority did not preclude him from reporting, as an act of courtesy,
his reasons for the suspension to the Senate; that, having appointed me
under the authority given by the Constitution, and not under any act of
Congress, I could not be governed by the act. I stated that the law was
binding on me, constitutional or not, until set aside by the proper
tribunal. An hour or more was consumed, each reiterating his views on
this subject, until, getting late, the President said he would see me
again.

I did not agree to call again on Monday, nor at any other definite time,
nor was I sent for by the President until the following Tuesday.

From the 11th to the Cabinet meeting on the 14th instant a doubt never
entered my mind about the President's fully understanding my position,
namely, that if the Senate refused to concur in the suspension of Mr.
Stanton my powers as Secretary of War _ad interim_ would cease and Mr.
Stanton's right to resume at once the functions of his office would
under the law be indisputable, and I acted accordingly. With Mr. Stanton
I had no communication, direct nor indirect, on the subject of his
reinstatement during his suspension.

I knew it had been recommended to the President to send in the
name of Governor Cox, of Ohio, for Secretary of War, and thus save all
embarrassment--a proposition that I sincerely hoped he would entertain
favorably; General Sherman seeing the President at my particular request
to urge this on the 13th instant.

On Tuesday (the day Mr. Stanton reentered the office of the Secretary of
War) General Comstock, who had carried my official letter announcing
that with Mr. Stanton's reinstatement by the Senate I had ceased to be
Secretary of War _ad interim_, and who saw the President open and read
the communication, brought back to me from the President a message that
he wanted to see me that day at the Cabinet meeting, after I had made
known the fact that I was no longer Secretary of War _ad interim_.

At this meeting, after opening it as though I were a member of the
Cabinet, when reminded of the notification already given him that I was
no longer Secretary of War _ad interim_, the President gave a version of
the conversations alluded to already. In this statement it was asserted
that in both conversations I had agreed to hold on to the office of
Secretary of War until displaced by the courts, or resign, so as to
place the President where he would have been had I never accepted the
office. After hearing the President through, I stated our conversations
substantially as given in this letter. I will add that my conversation
before the Cabinet embraced other matter not pertinent here, and is
therefore left out.

I in no wise admitted the correctness of the President's statement of
our conversations, though, to soften the evident contradiction my
statement gave, I said (alluding to our first conversation on the
subject) the President might have understood me the way he said, namely,
that I had promised to resign if I did not resist the reinstatement.
I made no such promise.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

U.S. GRANT, _General_.

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES,

_January 30, 1868_.

Respectfully forwarded to the Secretary of War for his information.

U.S. GRANT, _General_.

[Indorsement of the President on General Grant's note of January 24,
1868.[49]]

JANUARY 29, 1868.

As requested in this communication, General Grant is instructed in
writing not to obey any order from the War Department assumed to be
issued by the direction of the President unless such order is known by
the General Commanding the armies of the United States to have been
authorized by the Executive.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 49: See p. 613.]

_General Grant to the President_.

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES,

_Washington, January 30, 1868_.

His Excellency A. JOHNSON,

_President of the United States_.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the return of my note of the 24th
instant,[49] with your indorsement thereon, that I am not to obey any
order from the War Department assumed to be issued by the direction of
the President unless such order is known by me to have been authorized
by the Executive, and in reply thereto to say that I am informed by the
Secretary of War that he has not received from the Executive any order
or instructions limiting or impairing his authority to issue orders to
the Army, as has heretofore been his practice under the law and the
customs of the Department. While this authority to the War Department is
not countermanded it will be satisfactory evidence to me that any orders
issued from the War Department by direction of the President are
authorized by the Executive.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

U.S. GRANT, _General_.

[Footnote 49: See p. 613.]

HEADQUARTERS ARMY UNITED STATES,

_January 30, 1868_.

Respectfully forwarded to the Secretary of War for his information.

U.S. GRANT, _General_.

_The President to General Grant_.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 31, 1868_.

General U.S. GRANT,

_Commanding United States Armies_.

GENERAL: I have received your communication of the 28th instant,[50]
renewing your request of the 24th,[49] that I should repeat in a written
form my verbal instructions of the 19th instant, viz, that you obey no
order from the Hon. Edwin M. Stanton as Secretary of War unless you have
information that it was issued by the President's directions.

In submitting this request (with which I complied on the 29th
instant[51]) you take occasion to allude to recent publications in
reference to the circumstances connected with the vacation by yourself
of the office of Secretary of War _ad interim_, and with the view of
correcting statements which you term "gross misrepresentations" give
at length your own recollection of the facts under which, without the
sanction of the President, from whom you had received and accepted the
appointment, you yielded the Department of War to the present incumbent.

As stated in your communication, some time after you had assumed the
duties of Secretary of War _ad interim_ we interchanged views respecting
the course that should be pursued in the event of nonconcurrence by the
Senate in the suspension from office of Mr. Stanton. I sought that
interview, calling myself at the War Department. My sole object in then
bringing the subject to your attention was to ascertain definitely
what would be your own action should such an attempt be made for his
restoration to the War Department. That object was accomplished, for
the interview terminated with the distinct understanding that if upon
reflection you should prefer not to become a party to the controversy or
should conclude that it would be your duty to surrender the Department
to Mr. Stanton upon action in his favor by the Senate you were to return
the office to me prior to a decision by the Senate, in order that if I
desired to do so I might designate someone to succeed you. It must have
been apparent to you that had not this understanding been reached it was
my purpose to relieve you from the further discharge of the duties of
Secretary of War _ad interim_ and to appoint some other person in that
capacity.

Other conversations upon this subject ensued, all of them having on my
part the same object and leading to the same conclusion as the first.
It is not necessary, however, to refer to any of them excepting that of
Saturday, the 11th instant, mentioned in your communication. As it was
then known that the Senate had proceeded to consider the case of Mr.
Stanton, I was anxious to learn your determination. After a protracted
interview, during which the provisions of the tenure-of-office bill were
freely discussed, you said that, as had been agreed upon in our first
conference, you would either return the office to my possession in time
to enable me to appoint a successor before final action by the Senate
upon Mr. Stanton's suspension, or would remain as its head, awaiting a
decision of the question by judicial proceedings. It was then understood
that there would be a further conference on Monday, by which time I
supposed you would be prepared to inform me of your final decision. You
failed, however, to fulfill the engagement, and on Tuesday notified me
in writing of the receipt by you of official notification of the action
of the Senate in the case of Mr. Stanton, and at the same time informed
me that according to the act regulating the tenure of certain civil
offices your functions as Secretary of War _ad interim_ ceased from
the moment of the receipt of the notice. You thus, in disregard of the
understanding between us, vacated the office without having given me
notice of your intention to do so. It is but just, however, to say that
in your communication you claim that you did inform me of your purpose,
and thus "fulfilled the promise made in our last preceding conversation
on this subject." The fact that such a promise existed is evidence of
an arrangement of the kind I have mentioned. You had found in our first
conference "that the President was desirous of keeping Mr. Stanton out
of office whether sustained in the suspension or not." You knew what
reasons had induced the President to ask from you a promise; you
also knew that in case your views of duty did not accord with his
own convictions it was his purpose to fill your place by another
appointment. Even ignoring the existence of a positive understanding
between us, these conclusions were plainly deducible from our various
conversations. It is certain, however, that even under these
circumstances you did not offer to return the place to my possession,
but, according to your own statement, placed yourself in a position
where, could I have anticipated your action, I would have been compelled
to ask of you, as I was compelled to ask of your predecessor in the War
Department, a letter of resignation, or else to resort to the more
disagreeable expedient of suspending you by a successor.

As stated in your letter, the nomination of Governor Cox, of Ohio, for
the office of Secretary of War was suggested to me. His appointment as
Mr. Stanton's successor was urged in your name, and it was said that
his selection would save further embarrassment. I did not think that
in the selection of a Cabinet officer I should be trammeled by such
considerations. I was prepared to take the responsibility of deciding
the question in accordance with my ideas of constitutional duty, and,
having determined upon a course which I deemed right and proper, was
anxious to learn the steps you would take should the possession of the
War Department be demanded by Mr. Stanton. Had your action been in
conformity to the understanding between us, I do not believe that the
embarrassment would have attained its present proportions or that the
probability of its repetition would have been so great.

I know that, with a view to an early termination of a state of affairs
so detrimental to the public interests, you voluntarily offered, both on
Wednesday, the 15th instant, and on the succeeding Sunday, to call upon
Mr. Stanton and urge upon him that the good of the service required his
resignation. I confess that I considered your proposal as a sort of
reparation for the failure on your part to act in accordance with an
understanding more than once repeated, which I thought had received your
full assent, and under which you could have returned to me the office
which I had conferred upon you, thus saving yourself from embarrassment
and leaving the responsibility where it properly belonged--with the
President, who is accountable for the faithful execution of the laws.

I have not yet been informed by you whether, as twice proposed by
yourself, you have called upon Mr. Stanton and made an effort to induce
him voluntarily to retire from the War Department.

You conclude your communication with a reference to our conversation at
the meeting of the Cabinet held on Tuesday, the 14th instant. In your
account of what then occurred you say that after the President had given
his version of our previous conversations you stated them substantially
as given in your letter; that you in no wise admitted the correctness of
his statement of them, "though, to soften the evident contradiction my
statement gave, I said (alluding to our first conversation on the
subject) the President might have understood me the way he said, namely,
that I had promised to resign if I did not resist the reinstatement.
I made no such promise."

My recollection of what then transpired is diametrically the reverse of
your narration. In the presence of the Cabinet I asked you--

First. If, in a conversation which took place shortly after your
appointment as Secretary of War _ad interim_, you did not agree either
to remain at the head of the War Department and abide any judicial
proceedings that might follow nonconcurrence by the Senate in Mr.
Stanton's suspension, or, should you wish not to become involved in such
a controversy, to put me in the same position with respect to the office
as I occupied previous to your appointment, by returning it to me in
time to anticipate such action by the Senate. This you admitted.

Second. I then asked you if, at our conference on the preceding
Saturday, I had not, to avoid misunderstanding, requested you to state
what you intended to do, and, further, if in reply to that inquiry you
had not referred to our former conversations, saying that from them I
understood your position, and that your action would be consistent with
the understanding which had been reached. To these questions you also
replied in the affirmative.

Third. I next asked if at the conclusion of our interview on Saturday
it was not understood that we were to have another conference on Monday
before final action by the Senate in the case of Mr. Stanton. You
replied that such was the understanding, but that you did not suppose
the Senate would act so soon; that on Monday you had been engaged in a
conference with General Sherman and were occupied with "many little
matters," and asked if General Sherman had not called on that day. What
relevancy General Sherman's visit to me on Monday had with the purpose
for which you were then to have called I am at a loss to perceive,
as he certainly did not inform me whether you had determined to retain
possession of the office or to afford me an opportunity to appoint a
successor in advance of any attempted reinstatement of Mr. Stanton.

This account of what passed between us at the Cabinet meeting on the
14th instant widely differs from that contained in your communication,
for it shows that instead of having "stated our conversations as given
in the letter" which has made this reply necessary you admitted that my
recital of them was entirely accurate. Sincerely anxious, however, to
be correct in my statements, I have to-day read this narration of what
occurred on the 14th instant to the members of the Cabinet who were then
present. They, without exception, agree in its accuracy.

It is only necessary to add that on Wednesday morning, the 15th instant,
you called on me, in company with Lieutenant-General Sherman. After some
preliminary conversation, you remarked that an article in the National
Intelligencer of that date did you much injustice. I replied that I had
not read the Intelligencer of that morning. You then first told me that
it was your intention to urge Mr. Stanton to resign his office.

After you had withdrawn I carefully read the article of which you had
spoken, and found that its statements of the understanding between us
were substantially correct. On the 17th I caused it to be read to four
of the five members of the Cabinet who were present at our conference on
the 14th, and they concurred in the general accuracy of its statements
respecting our conversation upon that occasion.

In reply to your communication, I have deemed it proper, in order to
prevent further misunderstanding, to make this simple recital of facts.

Very respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 49: See p. 613.]

[Footnote 50: See pp. 613-615.]

[Footnote 51: See p. 615.]

_General Grant to the President_.

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES,

_Washington, D.C., February 3, 1868_.

His Excellency A. JOHNSON,

_President of the United States_.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication
of the 31st ultimo,[52] in answer to mine of the 28th ultimo[53]. After
a careful reading and comparison of it with the article in the National
Intelligencer of the 15th ultimo and the article over the initials
J.B.S. in the New York World of the 27th ultimo, purporting to be based
upon your statement and that of the members of your Cabinet therein
named, I find it to be but a reiteration, only somewhat more in detail,
of the "many and gross misrepresentations" contained in these articles,
and which my statement of the facts set forth in my letter of the 28th
ultimo[53] was intended to correct; and I here reassert the correctness
of my statements in that letter, anything in yours in reply to it to the
contrary notwithstanding.

I confess my surprise that the Cabinet officers referred to should so
greatly misapprehend the facts in the matter of admissions alleged to
have been made by me at the Cabinet meeting of the 14th ultimo as to
suffer their names to be made the basis of the charges in the newspaper
article referred to, or agree in the accuracy, as you affirm they do,
of your account of what occurred at that meeting.

You know that we parted on Saturday, the 11th ultimo, without any
promise on my part, either express or implied, to the effect that I
would hold on to the office of Secretary of War _ad interim_ against the
action of the Senate, or, declining to do so myself, would surrender it
to you before such action was had, or that I would see you again at any
fixed time on the subject.

The performance of the promises alleged by you to have been made by me
would have involved a resistance to law and an inconsistency with the
whole history of my connection with the suspension of Mr. Stanton.

From our conversations and my written protest of August 1, 1867,
against the removal of Mr. Stanton, you must have known that my greatest
objection to his removal or suspension was the fear that someone would
be appointed in his stead who would, by opposition to the laws relating
to the restoration of the Southern States to their proper relations
to the Government, embarrass the Army in the performance of duties
especially imposed upon it by these laws; and it was to prevent such an
appointment that I accepted the office of Secretary of War _ad interim_,
and not for the purpose of enabling you to get rid of Mr. Stanton by my
withholding it from him in opposition to law, or, not doing so myself,
surrendering it to one who would, as the statement and assumptions in
your communication plainly indicate was sought. And it was to avoid this
same danger, as well as to relieve you from the personal embarrassment
in which Mr. Stanton's reinstatement would place you, that I urged the
appointment of Governor Cox, believing that it would be agreeable to you
and also to Mr. Stanton, satisfied as I was that it was the good of the
country, and not the office, the latter desired.

On the 15th ultimo, in presence of General Sherman, I stated to you that
I thought Mr. Stanton would resign, but did not say that I would advise
him to do so. On the 18th I did agree with General Sherman to go and
advise him to that course, and on the 19th I had an interview alone with
Mr. Stanton, which led me to the conclusion that any advice to him of
the kind would be useless, and I so informed General Sherman.

Before I consented to advise Mr. Stanton to resign, I understood
from him, in a conversation on the subject immediately after his
reinstatement, that it was his opinion that the act of Congress entitled
"An act temporarily to supply vacancies in the Executive Departments in
certain cases," approved February 20, 1863, was repealed by subsequent
legislation, which materially influenced my action. Previous to this
time I had had no doubt that the law of 1863 was still in force, and,
notwithstanding my action, a fuller examination of the law leaves a
question in my mind whether it is or is not repealed. This being the
case, I could not now advise his resignation, lest the same danger
I apprehended on his first removal might follow.

The course you would have it understood I agreed to pursue was in
violation of law and without orders from you, while the course I did
pursue, and which I never doubted you fully understood, was in
accordance with law and not in disobedience of any orders of my
superior.

And now, Mr. President, when my honor as a soldier and integrity as a
man have been so violently assailed, pardon me for saying that I can but
regard this whole matter, from the beginning to the end, as an attempt
to involve me in the resistance of law, for which you hesitated to
assume the responsibility in orders, and thus to destroy my character
before the country. I am in a measure confirmed in this conclusion by
your recent orders directing me to disobey orders from the Secretary of
War, my superior and your subordinate, without having countermanded his
authority to issue the orders I am to disobey.

With the assurance, Mr. President, that nothing less than a vindication
of my personal honor and character could have induced this
correspondence on my part,

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

U.S. GRANT, _General_.

Respectfully forwarded to the Secretary of War for his information, and
to be made a part of correspondence previously furnished on same subject.

U.S. GRANT, _General_.

[Footnote 52: See pp. 615-618.]

[Footnote 53: See pp. 613-615.]

WASHINGTON, _February 17, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

In reply to the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives on
the 19th of December last, calling for correspondence and information
in relation to Russian America, I transmit reports and accompanying
documents from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury,
respectively.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 18, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

In answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 17th of
January last, calling for information in regard to the execution of the
treaty of 1858 with China, for the settlement of claims, I transmit a
report of the Secretary of State and the papers which accompany it.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _February 19, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Attorney-General, prepared in
compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
26th November, 1867, requesting a list of all pardons "granted since
the 14th day of April, 1865, to any person or persons charged with or
convicted of making or passing counterfeit money, or having counterfeit
money or tools or instruments for making the same in his or their
possession, or charged with or convicted of the crime of forgery or
criminal alteration of papers, accounts, or other documents, or of the
crime of perjury, and that such list be accompanied by a particular
statement in each case of the reasons or grounds of the pardon, with a
disclosure of the names of persons, if any, who recommended or advised
the same."

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _February 19, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Attorney-General, prepared in
compliance with a resolution adopted by the Senate on the 2d day of
December last, requesting "a full list of the names of all persons
pardoned by the President since May 1, 1865, who have been convicted of
counterfeiting United States bonds, greenbacks, national-bank currency,
fractional currency, or the coin of the United States, with the date of
issuing each pardon, reasons for issuing it, and by whom recommended."

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 20, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to a resolution of the Senate of the 18th of December last,
requesting information in regard to the island of San Juan, on Puget
Sound, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the papers
which accompanied it.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 20, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

With reference to the convention between Denmark and the United States
concluded on the 24th of October last, I transmit to the Senate a copy
in translation of a note of the 19th instant addressed to the Secretary
of State by His Danish Majesty's chargé d'affaires, announcing the
ratification of the convention by the Government of Denmark and stating
his readiness to proceed with the customary exchange of ratifications.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 21, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a communication from the Chief of the Engineer Corps
of the Army, accompanied by a report, in reference to ship canals around
the Falls of the Ohio River, called for by the resolution of the House
of Representatives of the 18th instant.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _February 21, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

On the 12th day of August, 1867, by virtue of the power and authority
vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United
States, I suspended Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary of
War.

In further exercise of the power and authority so vested in the
President, I have this day removed Mr. Stanton from office and
designated the Adjutant-General of the Army to act as Secretary
of War _ad interim_.

Copies of the communications upon this subject addressed to Mr. Stanton
and the Adjutant-General are herewith transmitted for the information of
the Senate.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _February 22, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I have received a copy of the resolution adopted by the Senate on the
21st instant, as follows:

Whereas the Senate have received and considered the communication of
the President stating that he had removed Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary
of War, and had designated the Adjutant-General of the Army to act as
Secretary of War _ad interim_: Therefore,

_Resolved by the Senate of the United States_, That under the
Constitution and laws of the United States the President has no power
to remove the Secretary of War and designate any other officer to
perform the duties of that office _ad interim_.

This resolution is confined to the power of the President to remove the
Secretary of War and to designate another officer to perform the duties
of the office _ad interim_, and by its preamble is made expressly
applicable to the removal of Mr. Stanton and the designation to act
_ad interim_ of the Adjutant-General of the Army. Without, therefore,
attempting to discuss the general power of removal as to all officers,
upon which subject no expression of opinion is contained in the
resolution, I shall confine myself to the question as thus limited--the
power to remove the Secretary of War.

It is declared in the resolution--

That under the Constitution and laws of the United States the President
has no power to remove the Secretary of War and designate any other
officer to perform the duties of that office _ad interim_.

As to the question of power under the Constitution, I do not propose at
present to enter upon its discussion.

The uniform practice from the beginning of the Government, as
established by every President who has exercised the office, and the
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States have settled the
question in favor of the power of the President to remove all officers
excepting a class holding appointments of a judicial character. No
practice nor any decision has ever excepted a Secretary of War from this
general power of the President to make removals from office.

It is only necessary, then, that I should refer to the power of the
Executive, under the laws of the United States, to remove from office a
Secretary of War. The resolution denies that under these laws this power
has any existence. In other words, it affirms that no such authority is
recognized or given by the statutes of the country.

What, then, are the laws of the United States which deny the President
the power to remove that officer? I know but two laws which bear upon
this question. The first in order of time is the act of August 7, 1789,
creating the Department of War, which, after providing for a Secretary
as its principal officer, proceeds as follows:

SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That there shall be in the said
Department an inferior officer, to be appointed by the said principal
officer, to be employed therein as he shall deem proper, and to be
called the chief clerk in the Department of War, and who, whenever the
said principal officer shall be removed from office by the President of
the United States, or in any other case of vacancy, shall during such
vacancy have the charge and custody of all records, books, and papers
appertaining to the said Department.

It is clear that this act, passed by a Congress many of whose members
participated in the formation of the Constitution, so far from denying
the power of the President to remove the Secretary of War, recognizes
it as existing in the Executive alone, without the concurrence of the
Senate or of any other department of the Government. Furthermore, this
act does not purport to confer the power by legislative authority, nor
in fact was there any other existing legislation through which it was
bestowed upon the Executive. The recognition of the power by this act is
therefore complete as a recognition under the Constitution itself, for
there was no other source or authority from which it could be derived.

The other act which refers to this question is that regulating the
tenure of certain civil offices, passed by Congress on the 2d day of
March, 1867. The first section of that act is in the following words:

That every person holding any civil office to which he has been
appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and every
person who shall hereafter be appointed to any such office, and shall
become duly qualified to act therein, is and shall be entitled to hold
such office until a successor shall have been in like manner appointed
and duly qualified, except as herein otherwise provided: _Provided_,
That the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy,
and of the Interior, the Postmaster-General, and the Attorney-General
shall hold their offices, respectively, for and during the term of
the President by whom they may have been appointed and for one month
thereafter, subject to removal by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate.

The fourth section of the same act restricts the term of offices to the
limit prescribed by the law creating them.

That part of the first section which precedes the proviso declares that
every person holding a civil office to which he has been or may be
appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall hold
such office until a successor shall have been in like manner appointed.
It purports to take from the Executive, during the fixed time
established for the tenure of the office, the independent power of
removal, and to require for such removal the concurrent action of the
President and the Senate.

The proviso that follows proceeds to fix the term of office of the seven
heads of Departments, whose tenure never had been defined before, by
prescribing that they "shall hold their offices, respectively, for and
during the term of the President by whom they may have been appointed
and for one month thereafter, subject to removal by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate."

Thus, as to these enumerated officers, the proviso takes from the
President the power of removal except with the advice and consent of the
Senate. By its terms, however, before he can be deprived of the power to
displace them it must appear that he himself has appointed them. It is
only in that case that they have any tenure of office or any independent
right to hold during the term of the President and for one month after
the cessation of his official functions. The proviso, therefore, gives
no tenure of office to any one of these officers who has been appointed
by a former President beyond one month after the accession of his
successor.

In the case of Mr. Stanton, the only appointment under which he
held the office of Secretary of War was that conferred upon him by my
immediate predecessor, with the advice and consent of the Senate. He has
never held from me any appointment as the head of the War Department.
Whatever right he had to hold the office was derived from that original
appointment and my own sufferance. The law was not intended to protect
such an incumbent of the War Department by taking from the President the
power to remove him. This, in my judgment, is perfectly clear, and the
law itself admits of no other just construction. We find in all that
portion of the first section which precedes the proviso that as to civil
officers generally the President is deprived of the power of removal,
and it is plain that if there had been no proviso that power would just
as clearly have been taken from him so far as it applies to the seven
heads of Departments. But for reasons which were no doubt satisfactory
to Congress these principal officers were specially provided for, and as
to them the express and only requirement is that the President who has
appointed them shall not without the advice and consent of the Senate
remove them from office. The consequence is that as to my Cabinet,
embracing the seven officers designated in the first section, the act
takes from me the power, without the concurrence of the Senate, to
remove any one of them that I have appointed, but it does not protect
such of them as I did not appoint, nor give to them any tenure of office
beyond my pleasure.

An examination of this act, then, shows that while in one part of the
section provision is made for officers generally, in another clause
there is a class of officers, designated by their official titles, who
are excepted from the general terms of the law, and in reference to whom
a clear distinction is made as to the general power of removal limited
in the first clause of the section.

This distinction is that as to such of these enumerated officers as hold
under the appointment of the President the power of removal can only be
exercised by him with the consent of the Senate, while as to those who
have not been appointed by him there is no like denial of his power to
displace them. It would be a violation of the plain meaning of this
enactment to place Mr. Stanton upon the same footing as those heads of
Departments who have been appointed by myself. As to him, this law gives
him no tenure of office. The members of my Cabinet who have been
appointed by me are by this act entitled to hold for one month after the
term of my office shall cease; but Mr. Stanton could not, against the
wishes of my successor, hold a moment thereafter. If he were permitted
by that successor to hold for the first two weeks, would that successor
have no power to remove him? But the power of my successor over him
could be no greater than my own. If my successor would have the power to
remove Mr. Stanton after permitting him to remain a period of two weeks,
because he was not appointed by him, but by his predecessor, I, who have
tolerated Mr. Stanton for more than two years, certainly have the same
right to remove him, and upon the same ground, namely, that he was not
appointed by me, but by my predecessor.

Under this construction of the tenure-of-office act, I have never
doubted my power to remove Mr. Stanton.

Whether the act were constitutional or not, it was always my opinion
that it did not secure him from removal. I was, however, aware that
there were doubts as to the construction of the law, and from the first
I deemed it desirable that at the earliest possible moment those doubts
should be settled and the true construction of the act fixed by decision
of the Supreme Court of the United States. My order of suspension in
August last was intended to place the case in such a position as would
make a resort to a judicial decision both necessary and proper. My
understanding and wishes, however, under that order of suspension were
frustrated, and the late order for Mr. Stanton's removal was a further
step toward the accomplishment of that purpose.

I repeat that my own convictions as to the true construction of the law
and as to its constitutionality were well settled and were sustained
by every member of my Cabinet, including Mr. Stanton himself. Upon the
question of constitutionality, each one in turn deliberately advised me
that the tenure-of-office act was unconstitutional. Upon the question
whether, as to those members who were appointed by my predecessor,
that act took from me the power to remove them, one of those members
emphatically stated in the presence of the others sitting in Cabinet
that they did not come within the provisions of the act, and it was
no protection to them. No one dissented from this construction, and
I understood them all to acquiesce in its correctness. In a matter of
such grave consequence I was not disposed to rest upon my own opinions,
though fortified by my constitutional advisers. I have therefore sought
to bring the question at as early a day as possible before the Supreme
Court of the United States for final and authoritative decision.

In respect to so much of the resolution as relates to the designation
of an officer to act as Secretary of War _ad interim_, I have only to
say that I have exercised this power under the provisions of the first
section of the act of February 13, 1795, which, so far as they are
applicable to vacancies caused by removals, I understand to be still
in force.

The legislation upon the subject of _ad interim_ appointments in the
Executive Departments stands, as to the War Office, as follows:

The second section of the act of the 7th of August, 1789, makes
provision for a vacancy in the very case of a removal of the head of the
War Department, and upon such a vacancy gives the charge and custody
of the records, books, and papers to the chief clerk. Next, by the act
of the 8th of May, 1792, section 8, it is provided that in case of a
vacancy occasioned by death, absence from the seat of Government, or
sickness of the head of the War Department the President may authorize
a person to perform the duties of the office until a successor is
appointed or the disability removed. The act, it will be observed, does
not provide for the case of a vacancy caused by removal. Then, by the
first section of the act of February 13, 1795, it is provided that in
case of any vacancy the President may appoint a person to perform the
duties while the vacancy exists.

These acts are followed by that of the 20th of February, 1863, by the
first section of which provision is again made for a vacancy caused by
death, resignation, absence from the seat of Government, or sickness of
the head of any Executive Department of the Government, and upon the
occurrence of such a vacancy power is given to the President--

to authorize the head of any other Executive Department, or other
officer in either of said Departments whose appointment is vested in
the President, at his discretion, to perform the duties of the said
respective offices until a successor be appointed or until such absence
or inability by sickness shall cease: _Provided_, That no one vacancy
shall be supplied in manner aforesaid for a longer term than six months.

This law, with some modifications, reenacts the act of 1792, and
provides, as did that act, for the sort of vacancies so to be filled;
but, like the act of 1792, it makes no provision for a vacancy
occasioned by removal. It has reference altogether to vacancies arising
from other causes.

According to my construction of the act of 1863, while it impliedly
repeals the act of 1792 regulating the vacancies therein described, it
has no bearing whatever upon so much of the act of 1795 as applies to a
vacancy caused by removal. The act of 1795 therefore furnishes the rule
for a vacancy occasioned by removal--one of the vacancies expressly
referred to in the act of the 7th of August, 1789, creating the
Department of War. Certainly there is no express repeal by the act of
1863 of the act of 1795. The repeal, if there is any, is by implication,
and can only be admitted so far as there is a clear inconsistency
between the two acts. The act of 1795 is inconsistent with that of 1863
as to a vacancy occasioned by death, resignation, absence, or sickness,
but not at all inconsistent as to a vacancy caused by removal.

It is assuredly proper that the President should have the same power to
fill temporarily a vacancy occasioned by removal as he has to supply
a place made vacant by death or the expiration of a term. If, for
instance, the incumbent of an office should be found to be wholly unfit
to exercise its functions, and the public service should require his
immediate expulsion, a remedy should exist and be at once applied, and
time be allowed the President to select and appoint a successor, as is
permitted him in case of a vacancy caused by death or the termination of
an official term.

The necessity, therefore, for an _ad interim_ appointment is just as
great, and, indeed, may be greater in cases of removal than in any
others. Before it be held, therefore, that the power given by the act
of 1795 in cases of removal is abrogated by succeeding legislation an
express repeal ought to appear. So wholesome a power should certainly
not be taken away by loose implication.

It may be, however, that in this, as in other cases of implied repeal,
doubts may arise. It is confessedly one of the most subtle and debatable
questions which arise in the construction of statutes. If upon such a
question I have fallen into an erroneous construction, I submit whether
it should be characterized as a violation of official duty and of law.

I have deemed it proper, in vindication of the course which I have
considered it my duty to take, to place before the Senate the reasons
upon which I have based my action. Although I have been advised by
every member of my Cabinet that the entire tenure-of-office act is
unconstitutional, and therefore void, and although I have expressly
concurred in that opinion in the veto message which I had the honor
to submit to Congress when I returned the bill for reconsideration,
I have refrained from making a removal of any officer contrary to the
provisions of the law, and have only exercised that power in the case of
Mr. Stanton, which, in my judgment, did not come within its provisions.
I have endeavored to proceed with the greatest circumspection, and have
acted only in an extreme and exceptional case, carefully following the
course which I have marked out for myself as a general rule, faithfully
to execute all laws, though passed over my objections on the score of
constitutionality. In the present instance I have appealed, or sought
to appeal, to that final arbiter fixed by the Constitution for the
determination of all such questions. To this course I have been impelled
by the solemn obligations which rest upon me to sustain inviolate the
powers of the high office committed to my hands.

Whatever may be the consequences merely personal to myself, I could not
allow them to prevail against a public duty so clear to my own mind, and
so imperative. If what was possible had been certain, if I had been
fully advised when I removed Mr. Stanton that in thus defending the
trust committed to my hands my own removal was sure to follow, I could
not have hesitated. Actuated by public considerations of the highest
character, I earnestly protest against the resolution of the Senate
which charges me in what I have done with a violation of the
Constitution and laws of the United States.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 25, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In further answer of the resolution of the Senate of the 13th of January
last, relative to the appointment of the Hon. Anson Burlingame to a
diplomatic or other mission by the Emperor of China, I transmit a report
from the Secretary of State and the communication which accompanied it.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _February 26, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a report from the General Commanding the Army of the
United States, prepared in compliance with the resolution of the Senate
of the 4th instant, requesting copies of all instructions relating to
the Third Military District issued to General Pope and General Meade.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 4, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 17th February ultimo,
concerning the alleged interference of the United States consul at Rome
in the late difficulty in Italy, I transmit a report from the Secretary
of State, containing the information called for by the resolution.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 5, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit a report of this date from the Secretary of State, and the
accompanying papers, in regard to the revolution in the Dominican
Republic.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 5, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 21st of February last,
in relation to the abduction of one Allan Macdonald from Canada, I
transmit a communication from the Secretary of State, accompanied by the
papers relating to that subject.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 5, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
7th of January last, in relation to the claim of the late Benjamin W.
Perkins against the Russian Government, I transmit a communication from
the Secretary of State, which is accompanied by the papers called for
by the resolution.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 6, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate the accompanying report[54] of the Secretary of
State, in answer to their resolution of the 13th January,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 54: Relating to a claim, under the act of Congress of August
18, 1856, of citizens of the United States to guano on Alta Vela, an
island in the vicinity of Santo Domingo.]

WASHINGTON, _March 10, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit, for the consideration of the Senate with a view to
ratification, a treaty between the United States and His Majesty the
King of Prussia, in the name of the North German Confederation, for the
purpose of regulating the citizenship of those persons who emigrate from
the Confederation to this country and from the United States to the
North German Confederation.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 11, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In further answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of
the 25th of November, 1867, calling for information in relation to the
trial and conviction of American citizens in Great Britain and Ireland
for the last two years, I transmit a continuation of the report from the
Secretary of State upon the subject.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 14, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 27th of January
last, in relation to the arrest and trial of the Rev. John McMahon,
Robert B. Lynch, and John Warren by the Government of Great Britain, and
requesting to be informed what action has been taken by this Government
in maintaining the rights of American citizens abroad, I transmit a
report of the Secretary of State, which is accompanied by a copy of
the papers called for by that resolution.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _March 18, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
a treaty made on the 2d day of March, 1868, by and between Nathaniel G.
Taylor, Commissioner of Indian Affairs; Alexander C. Hunt, governor and
_ex officio_ superintendent of Indian affairs of Colorado Territory, and
Kit Carson, on the part of the United States, and the representatives
of the Tabeguache, Muache, Capote, Weeminuche, Yampa, Grand River, and
Uintah bands of Ute Indians.

A letter of the Secretary of the Interior of the 17th instant and the
papers therein referred to are also herewith transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 24, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to
ratification, a convention, signed on the 23d instant, for the surrender
of criminals, between the United States and the Government of Italy.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 24, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report[55] and accompanying documents, in answer
to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 18th ultimo.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 55: Relating to unexpended appropriations for contingent
expenses of foreign intercourse; amount remaining on deposit with
Baring Brothers & Co. September 30, 1867, etc.]

WASHINGTON, _March 25, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit to the House of Representatives, in answer to a resolution
of the 9th instant, the accompanying report[56] from the Secretary of
State.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 56: Declining to transmit copies of correspondence,
negotiations, and treaties with German States since January 1, 1868,
relative to the rights of naturalized citizens.]

WASHINGTON, _March 25, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report and accompanying document,[57] in answer
to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 18th ultimo.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 57: Statement of amounts paid for legal services by the
Department of State during each year since 1860, with names of persons
to whom paid.]

WASHINGTON, _March 25, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

In answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 18th
ultimo, relating to the report of Mr. Cowdin, I transmit a report of
the Secretary of State and the document[58] to which it refers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 58: Report of Elliot C. Cowdin, United States commissioner
to the Paris Exposition of 1867, on silk and silk manufactures.]

WASHINGTON, _April 2, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit to the House of Representatives, in further answer to their
resolution of the 9th ultimo, the accompanying report[59] from the
Secretary of State.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 59: Transmitting correspondence pertaining to the convention
of February 22, 1868, with the North German Confederation, relative to
naturalization.]

WASHINGTON, _April 2, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In further reply to the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives
on the 19th of December, 1867, calling for correspondence and information
in relation to Russian America, I transmit a report from the Secretary of
State and the papers which accompanied it.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 3, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the papers
accompanying it, in answer to a resolution of the House of
Representatives of the 10th of February last, requesting information
relative to the imprisonment and destruction of the property of Antonio
Pelletier by the people and authorities of Hayti.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 13, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 5th of February last,
calling for the correspondence upon the subject of the murder by the
inhabitants of the island of Formosa of the ship's company of the
American bark _Rover_, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State
and a report from the Secretary of the Navy, with accompanying papers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 18, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 14th of April instant,
calling for information relative to any application by any party for
exclusive privileges in connection with hunting, trading, and the
fisheries in Alaska, I transmit herewith the report of the Secretary
of State on the subject, with its accompanying papers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _April 22, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 28th ultimo,
requesting information as to the number and designations of military
departments formed since the 1st day of August, 1867, and as to the
statute or other authority under which they have been established,
I transmit a report from the Adjutant-General's Office showing the
organization since that date of the Department of Alaska and the
Military Division of the Atlantic.

The orders issued by me upon this subject are in accordance with
long-established usage and hitherto unquestioned authority. This will be
readily seen from the accompanying report, which shows that, employing
the authority vested by the Constitution in the President as Commander
in Chief of the Army, it has been customary for my predecessors to
create such military divisions and departments as from time to time
they deemed advisable.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _April 27, 1868_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I submit a report of the Secretary of State, concerning the
naturalization treaty recently negotiated between the United States
and North Germany.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _May 5, 1868_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit to Congress the accompanying documents, which I deem it
proper to state are all the papers[60] that have been submitted to the
President relating to the proceedings to which they refer in the States
of South Carolina and Arkansas.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 60: Constitutions of South Carolina and Arkansas.]

WASHINGTON, _May 6, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in further answer to their resolution of the
14th of April last, the accompanying report[61] from the Secretary of
State.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 61: Relating to application for exclusive privileges in
connection with hunting, trading, and the fisheries in Alaska.]

WASHINGTON, D.C., _May 8, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith reports from the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Secretary of the Navy, prepared in compliance with a resolution of the
House of Representatives of the 12th of December last, requesting
information respecting the sale of public vessels since the close of the
rebellion. No report upon the subject has yet been received from the
Department of War.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _May 9, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit to the House of Representatives, in answer to their resolution
of the 14th ultimo, a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying
papers.[62]

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 62: Report of Freeman H. Morse, United States consul at
Condon, on "The Foreign Maritime Commerce of the United States: Its
Past, Present, and Future," etc.]

WASHINGTON, _May 9, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith reports from the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Attorney-General, prepared in compliance with the resolution of the
Senate of the 17th December last, requesting information in reference to
the seizure and confiscation of property. No report upon this subject
has yet been received by me from the War Department.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _May 11, 1868_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit to Congress the accompanying documents,[63] which embrace
all the papers that have been submitted to me relating to the proceedings
to which they refer in the States of North Carolina and Louisiana.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 63: Constitutions of North Carolina and Louisiana.]

WASHINGTON, _May 15, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit to the House of Representatives, in answer to their
resolution of the 8th instant, a report[64] from the Secretary of State,
with accompanying papers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 64: Relating to the detention, at the request of the House
of Representatives, of the ironclad monitors _Oneoto_ and _Catawba_,
purchased from the United States by Swift & Co., and supposed to be
intended for the Government of Peru, then at war with a power friendly
to the United States.]

WASHINGTON, D.C., _May 18, 1868_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit to Congress the accompanying document,[65] which is the
only paper which has been submitted to me relating to the proceedings
to which it refers in the State of Georgia.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 65: Constitution of Georgia.]

WASHINGTON, _May 23, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate a report from the Secretary of State, with
accompaniments, in relation to recent events in the Empire of Japan.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _May 27, 1868_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit to Congress the accompanying documents,[66] which are the
only papers which have been submitted to me relating to the proceedings
to which they refer in the State of Florida.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 66: Letter from the president of the constitutional convention
of Florida, transmitting a copy of the constitution of that State.]

WASHINGTON, _May 29, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, in reply
to the resolution of the House of Representatives adopted on the 26th
instant, making inquiries relative to a naval force at Hayti.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 2, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I communicate, for the information of the Senate, in confidence, a
report of the Secretary of State, accompanied by a copy of a dispatch
recently received from the acting consul of the United States at San
Jose, Costa Rica.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 2, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I communicate, for the consideration of the Senate, a report from
the Secretary of State, accompanied by a copy of a dispatch recently
received from the acting United States consul in charge of the legation
at San Jose, Costa Rica.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 5, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In further answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of
the 25th of November, 1867, calling for information in relation to the
trial and conviction of American citizens in Great Britain and Ireland
for the last two years, I transmit the accompanying report from the
Secretary of State upon the subject.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 8, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 28th ultimo, I
transmit herewith a communication from the Postmaster-General, with a
copy of the correspondence recently had with the authorities of Great
Britain in relation to a new postal treaty.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C. _June 10, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In reply to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
1st instant, I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of the
Interior, in reference to a treaty now being negotiated between the
Great and Little Osage Indians and the special Indian commissioners
acting on the part of the United States.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C. _June 13, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith submit to the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
a treaty concluded on the 27th ultimo between commissioners on the part
of the United States and the Great and Little Osage tribe of Indians of
Kansas, together with a communication from the Secretary of the Interior
suggesting an amendment to the fourteenth article, and a copy of the
report of the commissioners.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _June 15, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of the Interior, made in
reply to the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives on the
13th instant.

The treaty recently concluded with the Great and Little Osage Indians,
to which the accompanying report refers, was submitted to the Senate
prior to the receipt of the resolution of the House upon the subject.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to its
ratification, a treaty between the United States and His Majesty the
King of Bavaria, signed at Munich on the 26th ultimo, concerning the
citizenship of persons emigrating from Bavaria to the United States and
from the United States to the Kingdom of Bavaria. I transmit also a copy
of the letter of the United States minister communicating the treaty, of
the protocol which accompanied it, and a translation of the Bavarian
military law referred to in the latter paper.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _June 20, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith transmit to the Senate, for its constitutional action
thereon, a treaty concluded at Fort Sumner, N. Mex., on the 1st instant,
between Lieutenant-General W. T. Sherman and Colonel Samuel F. Tappan,
on the part of the United States, and the chiefs and headmen of the
Navajo Indians, on the part of the latter. I also transmit a communication
upon the subject from the Secretary of the Interior, with the accompanying
papers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 22, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 28th
ultimo, a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying
papers.[67]

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 67: Correspondence relative to the act of Congress of March
27, 1867, prohibiting persons in the diplomatic service of the United
States from wearing any uniform or official costume not previously
authorized by Congress.]

WASHINGTON, _June 23, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, in answer to a
resolution of the House of Representatives of the 15th instant, upon the
subject of Messrs. Warren and Costello, who have been convicted and
sentenced to penal imprisonment in Great Britain.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 23, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate a copy of a dispatch addressed to the
Department of State by the consul of the United States at Bangkok,
Siam, dated December 31, 1867, with a view to its consideration and
the ratification thereof, of the modification proposed by the royal
counselors of the Kingdom of Siam in Article I of the general
regulations which form a part of the treaty between the United States
and that Kingdom concluded May 29, 1856, of which a printed copy is
also herewith transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _June 29, 1868_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit to Congress a copy of a dispatch from the United States
consul at Elsinore, and of an instruction from the Secretary of State
to the United States minister at Copenhagen, relative to an alleged
practice of the Danish authorities to banish convicts to this country.
The expediency of making it a penal offense to bring such persons to
the United States is submitted to your consideration.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 2, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State of the 2d
instant, together with accompanying papers.[68]

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 68: Petitions of merchants and shipowners of New York and
Boston relative to the detention, at the request of the House of
Representatives, of the ironclad monitors _Oneoto_ and _Calawba_,
purchased from the United States by Swift & Co., and supposed to be
intended for the Government of Peru, then at war with a power friendly
to the United States.]

WASHINGTON, D.C., _July 7, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
a treaty concluded at Fort Laramie, Dakota Territory, on the 7th of May,
1868, between the United States and the chiefs and headmen of the Crow
Indians of Montana, and a treaty concluded at Fort Lyaramie, Dakota
Territory, on the 10th of May, 1868, between the United States and the
chiefs and headmen of the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapahoe tribes
of Indians.

A letter from the Secretary of the Interior suggesting amendments to
said treaties, and the papers to which he refers in his communication,
are also herewith transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _July 7, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
a treaty made and concluded at Ottawa, Kans., on the 1st day of June,
1868, between the United States and the Swan Creek and Black River
Chippewas and the Munsee or Christian Indians of the State of Kansas.

Accompanying the treaty is a letter from the Secretary of the Interior,
dated the 30th ultimo, together with the papers therein designated.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 9, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for consideration with a view to ratification,
additional articles to the treaty between the United States and His
Majesty the Emperor of China of the 18th June, 1858, signed in this city
on the 4th instant by the plenipotentiaries of the parties.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 10, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for consideration with a view to ratification,
a convention between the United States and the Mexican Republic, signed
in this city by the plenipotentiaries of the parties on the 4th instant,
providing for an adjustment of claims of citizens of the United States
on the Mexican Government and of Mexican citizens on the Government of
the United States.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 10, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

Referring to my message to the Senate of the 23d of May last, I herewith
transmit a further report from the Secretary of State, with an
accompanying document, relative to late occurrences in Japan.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 14, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate a report from the Secretary of State, inclosing
a list of the States of the Union whose legislatures have ratified the
proposed fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, and also a copy of the resolutions of ratification, as
called for in the Senate's resolution of the 9th instant, together with
a copy of the respective resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New
Jersey purporting to rescind the resolutions of ratification of said
amendment which had previously been adopted by the legislatures of these
two States, respectively, or to withdraw their consent to the same.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 15, 1868_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I hereby transmit to Congress a report, with the accompanying
papers, received from the Secretary of State, in compliance with the
requirements of the eighteenth section of the act entitled "An act to
regulate the diplomatic and consular systems of the United States,"
approved August 18, 1856.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 15, 1868_.

_To the Congress of the United States_:

I submit herewith a correspondence between the Secretary of State and
Mr. Robert B. Van Valkenburgh, minister resident of the United States
in Japan. It seems to show the importance of an amendment of the law
of the United States prohibiting the cooly trade.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 17, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in compliance with its resolution of the 9th
instant, a report from the Secretary of State, communicating a copy of a
paper received by him to-day, purporting to be a resolution ratifying on
the part of the State of Louisiana the proposed amendment to the
Constitution of the United States known as Article XIV.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 18, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in compliance with its resolution of the 9th
instant, a report from the Secretary of State, communicating a copy of a
paper received by me on the 18th instant, purporting to be a resolution
of the senate and house of representatives of the State of South
Carolina, ratifying the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the
United States known as Article XIV.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _July 18, 1868_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

Experience has fully demonstrated the wisdom of the framers of the
Federal Constitution. Under all circumstances the result of their
labors was as near an approximation to perfection as was compatible
with the fallibility of man. Such being the estimation in which the
Constitution is and has ever been held by our countrymen, it is not
surprising that any proposition for its alteration or amendment should
be received with reluctance and distrust. While this sentiment deserves
commendation and encouragement as a useful preventive of unnecessary
attempt to change its provisions, it must be conceded that time has
developed imperfections and omissions in the Constitution, the
reformation of which has been demanded by the best interests of the
country. Some of these have been remedied in the manner provided in
the Constitution itself. There are others which, although heretofore
brought to the attention of the people, have never been so presented
as to enable the popular judgment to determine whether they should
be corrected by means of additional amendments. My object in this
communication is to suggest certain defects in the Constitution which
seem to me to require correction, and to recommend that the judgment
of the people be taken on the amendments proposed.

The first of the defects to which I desire to direct attention is in
that clause of the Constitution which provides for the election of
President and Vice-President through the intervention of electors, and
not by an immediate vote of the people. The importance of so amending
this clause as to secure to the people the election of President and
Vice-President by their direct votes was urged with great earnestness
and ability by President Jackson in his first annual message, and the
recommendation was repeated in five of his subsequent communications to
Congress, extending through the eight years of his Administration. In
his message of 1829 he said:

To the people belongs the right of electing their Chief Magistrate; it
was never designed that their choice should in any case be defeated,
either by the intervention of electoral colleges or by the agency
confided, under certain contingencies, to the House of Representatives.

He then proceeded to state the objections to an election of President
by the House of Representatives, the most important of which was that
the choice of a clear majority of the people might be easily defeated.
He then closed the argument with the following communication:

I would therefore recommend such an amendment of the Constitution as
may remove all intermediate agency in the election of the President and
Vice-President. The mode may be so regulated as to preserve to each
State its present relative weight in the election, and a failure in the
first attempt may be provided for by confining the second to a choice
between the two highest candidates. In connection with such an amendment
it would seem advisable to limit the service of the Chief Magistrate to
a single term of either four or six years. If, however, it should not be
adopted, it is worthy of consideration whether a provision disqualifying
for office the Representatives in Congress on whom such an election may
have devolved would not be proper.

Although this recommendation was repeated with undiminished
earnestness in several of his succeeding messages, yet the proposed
amendment was never adopted and submitted to the people by Congress. The
danger of a defeat of the people's choice in an election by the House of
Representatives remains unprovided for in the Constitution, and would
be greatly increased if the House of Representatives should assume the
power arbitrarily to reject the votes of a State which might not be
cast in conformity with the wishes of the majority in that body.

But if President Jackson failed to secure the amendment to the
Constitution which he urged so persistently, his arguments contributed
largely to the formation of party organizations, which have effectually
avoided the contingency of an election by the House of Representatives.
These organizations, first by a resort to the caucus system of
nominating candidates, and afterwards to State and national conventions,
have been successful in so limiting the number of candidates as to
escape the danger of an election by the House of Representatives.

It is clear, however, that in thus limiting the number of candidates
the true object and spirit of the Constitution have been evaded and
defeated. It is an essential feature in our republican system of
government that every citizen possessing the constitutional
qualifications has a right to become a candidate for the office of
President and Vice-President, and that every qualified elector has a
right to cast his vote for any citizen whom he may regard as worthy of
these offices. But under the party organizations which have prevailed
for years these asserted rights of the people have been as effectually
cut off and destroyed as if the Constitution itself had inhibited their
exercise.

The danger of a defeat of the popular choice in an election by the House
of Representatives is no greater than in an election made nominally by
the people themselves, when by the laws of party organizations and by
the constitutional provisions requiring the people to vote for electors
instead of for the President or Vice-President it is made impracticable
for any citizen to be a candidate except through the process of a party
nomination, and for any voter to cast his suffrage for any other person
than one thus brought forward through the manipulations of a nominating
convention. It is thus apparent that by means of party organizations
that provision of the Constitution which requires the election of
President and Vice-President to be made through the electoral colleges
has been made instrumental and potential in defeating the great object
of conferring the choice of these officers upon the people. It may be
conceded that party organizations are inseparable from republican
government, and that when formed and managed in subordination to the
Constitution they may be valuable safeguards of popular liberty; but
when they are perverted to purposes of bad ambition they are liable
to become the dangerous instruments of overthrowing the Constitution
itself. Strongly impressed with the truth of these views, I feel
called upon by an imperative sense of duty to revive substantially the
recommendation so often and so earnestly made by President Jackson,
and to urge that the amendment to the Constitution herewith presented,
or some similar proposition, may be submitted to the people for their
ratification or rejection.

Recent events have shown the necessity of an amendment to the
Constitution distinctly defining the persons who shall discharge the
duties of President of the United States in the event of a vacancy in
that office by the death, resignation, or removal of both the President
and Vice-President. It is clear that this should be fixed by the
Constitution, and not be left to repealable enactments of doubtful
constitutionality. It occurs to me that in the event of a vacancy in the
office of President by the death, resignation, disability, or removal of
both the President and Vice-President the duties of the office should
devolve upon an officer of the executive department of the Government,
rather than one connected with the legislative or judicial departments.
The objections to designating either the President _pro tempore_ of
the Senate or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, especially
in the event of a vacancy produced by removal, are so obvious and so
unanswerable that they need not be stated in detail. It is enough
to state that they are both interested in producing a vacancy, and,
according to the provisions of the Constitution, are members of the
tribunal by whose decree a vacancy may be produced.

Under such circumstances the impropriety of designating either
of these officers to succeed the President so removed is palpable.
The framers of the Constitution, when they referred to Congress the
settlement of the succession to the office of President in the event of
a vacancy in the offices of both President and Vice-President, did not,
in my opinion, contemplate the designation of any other than an officer
of the executive department, on whom, in such a contingency, the powers
and duties of the President should devolve. Until recently the
contingency has been remote, and serious attention has not been called
to the manifest incongruity between the provisions of the Constitution
on this subject and the act of Congress of 1792. Having, however, been
brought almost face to face with this important question, it seems an
eminently proper time for us to make the legislation conform to the
language, intent, and theory of the Constitution, and thus place the
executive department beyond the reach of usurpation, and remove from the
legislative and judicial departments every temptation to combine for the
absorption of all the powers of government.

It has occurred to me that in the event of such a vacancy the duties of
President would devolve most appropriately upon some one of the heads of
the several Executive Departments, and under this conviction I present
for your consideration an amendment to the Constitution on this subject,
with the recommendation that it be submitted to the people for their
action.

Experience seems to have established the necessity of an amendment
of that clause of the Constitution which provides for the election of
Senators to Congress by the legislatures of the several States. It would
be more consistent with the genius of our form of government if the
Senators were chosen directly by the people of the several States.
The objections to the election of Senators by the legislatures are
so palpable that I deem it unnecessary to do more than submit the
proposition for such an amendment, with the recommendation that it
be opened to the people for their judgment.

It is strongly impressed on my mind that the tenure of office by
the judiciary of the United States during good behavior for life is
incompatible with the spirit of republican government, and in this
opinion I am fully sustained by the evidence of popular judgment upon
this subject in the different States of the Union.

I therefore deem it my duty to recommend an amendment to the
Constitution by which the terms of the judicial officers would be
limited to a period of years, and I herewith present it in the hope that
Congress will submit it to the people for their decision.

The foregoing views have long been entertained by me. In 1845, in the
House of Representatives, and afterwards, in 1860, in the Senate of the
United States, I submitted substantially the same propositions as those
to which the attention of Congress is herein invited. Time, observation,
and experience have confirmed these convictions; and, as a matter of
public duty and a deep sense of my constitutional obligation "to
recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures as I deem
necessary and expedient," I submit the accompanying propositions, and
urge their adoption and submission to the judgment of the people.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

JOINT RESOLUTION proposing amendments to the Constitution of the
United States.

Whereas the fifth article of the Constitution of the United States
provides for amendments thereto in the manner following, viz:

"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States,
shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which in either case
shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution
when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode
of ratification may be proposed by the Congress: _Provided_, That no
amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner
affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first
article, and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of
its equal suffrage in the Senate:"

Therefore,

_Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of both Houses
concurring_), That the following amendments to the Constitution of the
United States be proposed to the legislatures of the several States,
which, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States,
shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution:

"That hereafter the President and Vice-President of the United States
shall be chosen for the term of six years, by the people of the
respective States, in the manner following: Each State shall be divided
by the legislature thereof in districts, equal in number to the whole
number of Senators and Representatives to which such State may be
entitled in the Congress of the United States; the said districts to
be composed of contiguous territory, and to contain, as nearly as may
be, an equal number of persons entitled to be represented under the
Constitution, and to be laid off for the first time immediately after
the ratification of this amendment; that on the first Thursday in August
in the year 18--, and on the same day every sixth year thereafter, the
citizens of each State who possess the qualifications requisite for
electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures shall
meet within their respective districts and vote for a President and
Vice-President of the United States; and the person receiving the
greatest number of votes for President and the one receiving the
greatest number of votes for Vice-President in each district shall
be holden to have received one vote, which fact shall be immediately
certified by the governor of the State to each of the Senators in
Congress from such State and to the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Congress of the United
States shall be in session on the second Monday in October in the year
18--, and on the same day in every sixth year thereafter; and the
President of the Senate, in the presence of the Senate and House of
Representatives, shall open all the certificates, and the votes shall
then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes for
President shall be President, if such number be equal to a majority of
the whole number of votes given; but if no person have such majority,
then a second election shall be held on the first Thursday in the month
of December then next ensuing between the persons having the two highest
numbers for the office of President, which second election shall be
conducted, the result certified, and the votes counted in the same
manner as in the first, and the person having the greatest number of
votes for President shall be President. But if two or more persons shall
have received the greatest and an equal number of votes at the second
election, then the person who shall have received the greatest number of
votes in the greatest number of States shall be President. The person
having the greatest number of votes for Vice-President at the first
election shall be Vice-President, if such number be equal to a majority
of the whole number of votes given; and if no person have such majority,
then a second election shall take place between the persons having the
two highest numbers on the same day that the second election is held for
President, and the person having the highest number of the votes for
Vice-President shall be Vice-President. But if there should happen to
be an equality of votes between the persons so voted for at the second
election, then the person having the greatest number of votes in the
greatest number of States shall be Vice-President. But when a second
election shall be necessary in the case of Vice-President and not
necessary in the case of President, then the Senate shall choose a
Vice-President from the persons having the two highest numbers in the
first election, as now prescribed in the Constitution: _Provided_,
That after the ratification of this amendment to the Constitution the
President and Vice-President shall hold their offices, respectively, for
the term of six years, and that no President or Vice-President shall be
eligible for reelection to a second term."

Sec. 2. _And be it further resolved_, That Article II, section I,
paragraph 6, of the Constitution of the United States shall be amended
so as to read as follows:

"In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death,
resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of said
office, the same shall devolve on the Vice-President; and in the case of
the removal, death, resignation, or inability both of the President and
Vice-President, the powers and duties of said office shall devolve on
the Secretary of State for the time being, and after this officer, in
case of vacancy in that or other Department, and in the order in which
they are named, on the Secretary of the Treasury, on the Secretary of
War, on the Secretary of the Navy, on the Secretary of the Interior, on
the Postmaster-General, and on the Attorney-General; and such officer,
on whom the powers and duties of President shall devolve in accordance
with the foregoing provisions, shall then act as President until the
disability shall be removed or a President shall be elected, as is or
may be provided for by law."

Sec. 3. _And be it further resolved_, That Article I, section 3, be
amended by striking out the word "legislature," and inserting in lieu
thereof the following words, viz: "Persons qualified to vote for members
of the most numerous branch of the legislature," so as to make the third
section of said article, when ratified by three-fourths of the States,
read as follows, to wit:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from
each State, chosen by the persons qualified to vote for the members of
the most numerous branch of the legislature thereof, for six years, and
each Senator shall have one vote."

Sec. 4. _And be it further resolved_, That Article III, section I, be
amended by striking out the words "good behavior," and inserting the
following words, viz: "the term of twelve years." And further, that said
article and section be amended by adding the following thereto, viz:
"And it shall be the duty of the President of the United States, within
twelve months after the ratification of this amendment by three-fourths
of all the States, as provided by the Constitution of the United States,
to divide the whole number of judges, as near as may be practicable,
into three classes. The seats of the judges of the first class shall be
vacated at the expiration of the fourth year from such classification,
of the second class at the expiration of the eighth year, and of the
third class at the expiration of the twelfth year, so that one-third may
be chosen every fourth year thereafter."

The article as amended will read as follows:

Article III.

Sec. I. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Congress from time to time
may ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior
courts, shall hold their offices during the term of twelve years, and
shall at stated times receive for their services a compensation which
shall not be diminished during their continuance in office; and it shall
be the duty of the President of the United States, within twelve months
after the ratification of this amendment by three-fourths of all the
States, as provided by the Constitution of the United States, to divide
the whole number of judges, as near as may be practicable, into three
classes. The seats of the judges of the first class shall be vacated at
the expiration of the fourth year from such classification; of the
second class, at the expiration of the eighth year; and of the third
class, at the expiration of the twelfth year, so that one-third may be
chosen every fourth year thereafter.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _July 18, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives
on the 13th instant, requesting "copies of all instructions, records,
and correspondence connected with the commission authorized to negotiate
the late treaty with the Great and Little Osage Indians, and copies of
all propositions made to said commission from railroad corporations or
by individuals," I transmit the accompanying communications from the
Secretary of the Interior, together with the papers to which they have
reference.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 20, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in compliance with its resolution of the 9th
instant, a report from the Secretary of State, communicating a copy of
a paper received by me this day, purporting to be a resolution of the
senate and house of representatives of the State of Alabama ratifying
the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States known
as Article XIV.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 24, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, inclosing a
report of a board of naval officers appointed in pursuance of an act of
Congress approved May 19, 1868, to select suitable locations for powder
magazines.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 27, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit to the House of Representatives, in answer to their
resolution of the 24th instant, the accompanying report[69] from the
Secretary of State.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 69: Relating to absence from his post of the consul at Panama.]

VETO MESSAGES.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _March 25, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I have considered, with such care as the pressure of other duties has
permitted, a bill entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to
amend the judiciary act, passed the 24th of September, 1789.'" Not being
able to approve all of its provisions, I herewith return it to the
Senate, in which House it originated, with a brief statement of my
objections.

The first section of the bill meets my approbation, as, for the purpose
of protecting the rights of property from the erroneous decision of
inferior judicial tribunals, it provides means for obtaining uniformity,
by appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, in cases which have
now become very numerous and of much public interest, and in which such
remedy is not now allowed. The second section, however, takes away the
right of appeal to that court in cases which involve the life and
liberty of the citizen, and leaves them exposed to the judgment of
numerous inferior tribunals. It is apparent that the two sections were
conceived in a very different spirit, and I regret that my objections
to one impose upon me the necessity of withholding my sanction from the
other.

I can not give my assent to a measure which proposes to deprive
any person "restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the
Constitution or of any treaty or law of the United States" from
the right of appeal to the highest judicial authority known to our
Government. To "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity" is one of the declared objects of the Federal Constitution.
To assure these, guaranties are provided in the same instrument, as well
against "unreasonable searches and seizures" as against the suspensions
of "the privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_, * * * unless when, in
cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." It
was doubtless to afford the people the means of protecting and enforcing
these inestimable privileges that the jurisdiction which this bill
proposes to take away was conferred upon the Supreme Court of the
nation. The act conferring that jurisdiction was approved on the 5th day
of February, 1867, with a full knowledge of the motives that prompted its
passage, and because it was believed to be necessary and right. Nothing
has since occurred to disprove the wisdom and justness of the measures,
and to modify it as now proposed would be to lessen the protection of
the citizen from the exercise of arbitrary power and to weaken the
safeguards of life and liberty, which can never be made too secure
against illegal encroachments.

The bill not only prohibits the adjudication by the Supreme Court
of cases in which appeals may hereafter be taken, but interdicts its
jurisdiction on appeals which have already been made to that high
judicial body. If, therefore, it should become a law, it will by its
retroactive operation wrest from the citizen a remedy which he enjoyed
at the time of his appeal. It will thus operate most harshly upon those
who believe that justice has been denied them in the inferior courts.

The legislation proposed in the second section, it seems to me, is not
in harmony with the spirit and intention of the Constitution. It can
not fail to affect most injuriously the just equipoise of our system
of Government, for it establishes a precedent which, if followed, may
eventually sweep away every check on arbitrary and unconstitutional
legislation. Thus far during the existence of the Government the Supreme
Court of the United States has been viewed by the people as the true
expounder of their Constitution, and in the most violent party conflicts
its judgments and decrees have always been sought and deferred to with
confidence and respect. In public estimation it combines judicial wisdom
and impartiality in a greater degree than any other authority known to
the Constitution, and any act which may be construed into or mistaken
for an attempt to prevent or evade its decision on a question which
affects the liberty of the citizens and agitates the country can
not fail to be attended with unpropitious consequences. It will be
justly held by a large portion of the people as an admission of the
unconstitutionally of the act on which its judgment may be forbidden or
forestalled, and may interfere with that willing acquiescence in its
provisions which is necessary for the harmonious and efficient execution
of any law.

For these reasons, thus briefly and imperfectly stated, and for others,
of which want of time forbids the enumeration, I deem it my duty to
withhold my assent from this bill, and to return it for the
reconsideration of Congress.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _June 20, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without my signature a bill entitled "An act to admit the State
of Arkansas to representation in Congress."

The approval of this bill would be an admission on the part of the
Executive that the "Act for the more efficient government of the rebel
States," passed March 2, 1867, and the acts supplementary thereto were
proper and constitutional. My opinion, however, in reference to those
measures has undergone no change, but, on the contrary, has been
strengthened by the results which have attended their execution. Even
were this not the case, I could not consent to a bill which is based
upon the assumption either that by an act of rebellion of a portion
of its people the State of Arkansas seceded from the Union, or that
Congress may at its pleasure expel or exclude a State from the Union,
or interrupt its relations with the Government by arbitrarily depriving
it of representation in the Senate and House of Representatives. If
Arkansas is a State not in the Union, this bill does not admit it as
a State into the Union. If, on the other hand, Arkansas is a State
in the Union, no legislation is necessary to declare it entitled
"to representation in Congress as one of the States of the Union." The
Constitution already declares that "each State shall have at least one
Representative;" that the Senate "shall be composed of two Senators from
each State," and "that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived
of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

That instrument also makes each House "the judge of the elections,
returns, and qualifications of its own members," and therefore all that
is now necessary to restore Arkansas in all its constitutional relations
to the Government is a decision by each House upon the eligibility of
those who, presenting their credentials, claim seats in the respective
Houses of Congress. This is the plain and simple plan of the
Constitution; and believing that had it been pursued when Congress
assembled in the month of December, 1865, the restoration of the States
would long since have been completed, I once again earnestly recommend
that it be adopted by each House in preference to legislation, which I
respectfully submit is not only of at least doubtful constitutionality,
and therefore unwise and dangerous as a precedent, but is unnecessary,
not so effective in its operation as the mode prescribed by the
Constitution, involves additional delay, and from its terms may be taken
rather as applicable to a Territory about to be admitted as one of the
United States than to a State which has occupied a place in the Union
for upward of a quarter of a century.

The bill declares the State of Arkansas entitled and admitted to
representation in Congress as one of the States of the Union upon the
following fundamental condition:

That the constitution of Arkansas shall never be so amended or changed
as to deprive any citizen or class of citizens of the United States of
the right to vote who are entitled to vote by the constitution herein
recognized, except as a punishment for such crimes as are now felonies
at common law, whereof they shall have been duly convicted under laws
equally applicable to all the inhabitants of said State: _Provided_,
That any alteration of said constitution, prospective in its effect,
may be made in regard to the time and place of residence of voters.

I have been unable to find in the Constitution of the United States any
warrant for the exercise of the authority thus claimed by Congress.
In assuming the power to impose a "fundamental condition" upon a State
which has been duly "admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with
the original States in all respects whatever," Congress asserts a right
to enter a State as it may a Territory, and to regulate the highest
prerogative of a free people--the elective franchise. This question is
reserved by the Constitution to the States themselves, and to concede
to Congress the power to regulate the subject would be to reverse the
fundamental principle of the Republic and to place in the hands of the
Federal Government, which is the creature of the States, the sovereignty
which justly belongs to the States or the people--the true source of all
political power, by whom our Federal system was created and to whose
will it is subordinate.

The bill fails to provide in what manner the State of Arkansas is to
signify its acceptance of the "fundamental condition" which Congress
endeavors to make unalterable and irrevocable. Nor does it prescribe the
penalty to be imposed should the people of the State amend or change the
particular portions of the constitution which it is one of the purposes
of the bill to perpetuate, but as to the consequences of such action
leaves them in uncertainty and doubt. When the circumstances under which
this constitution has been brought to the attention of Congress are
considered, it is not unreasonable to suppose that efforts will be made
to modify its provisions, and especially those in respect to which this
measure prohibits any alteration. It is seriously questioned whether the
constitution has been ratified by a majority of the persons who, under
the act of March 2, 1867, and the acts supplementary thereto, were
entitled to registration and to vote upon that issue. Section 10 of
the schedule provides that--

No person disqualified from voting or registering under this
constitution shall vote for candidates for any office, nor shall be
permitted to vote for the ratification or rejection of the constitution
at the polls herein authorized.

Assumed to be in force before its adoption, in disregard of the law of
Congress, the constitution undertakes to impose upon the elector other
and further conditions. The fifth section of the eighth article provides
that "all persons, before registering or voting," must take and
subscribe an oath which, among others, contains the following clause:

That I accept the civil and political equality of all men, and agree
not to attempt to deprive any person or persons, on account of race,
color, or previous condition, of any political or civil right,
privilege, or immunity enjoyed by any other class of men.

It is well known that a very large portion of the electors in all the
States, if not a large majority of all of them, do not believe in or
accept the political equality of Indians, Mongolians, or negroes with
the race to which they belong. If the voters in many of the States of
the North and West were required to take such an oath as a test of their
qualification, there is reason to believe that a majority of them would
remain from the polls rather than comply with its degrading conditions.
How far and to what extent this test oath prevented the registration of
those who were qualified under the laws of Congress it is not possible
to know, but that such was its effect, at least sufficient to overcome
the small and doubtful majority in favor of this constitution, there
can be no reasonable doubt. Should the people of Arkansas, therefore,
desiring to regulate the elective franchise so as to make it conform to
the constitutions of a large proportion of the States of the North and
West, modify the provisions referred to in the "fundamental condition,"
what is to be the consequence? Is it intended that a denial of
representation shall follow? And if so, may we not dread, at some future
day, a recurrence of the troubles which have so long agitated the
country? Would it not be the part of wisdom to take for our guide the
Federal Constitution, rather than resort to measures which, looking only
to the present, may in a few years renew, in an aggravated form, the
strife and bitterness caused by legislation which has proved to be
so ill timed and unfortunate?

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _June 25, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In returning to the House of Representatives, in which it originated,
a bill entitled "An act to admit the States of North Carolina, South
Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida to representation
in Congress," I do not deem it necessary to state at length the reasons
which constrain me to withhold my approval. I will not, therefore,
undertake at this time to reopen the discussion upon the grave
constitutional questions involved in the act of March 2, 1867, and
the acts supplementary thereto, in pursuance of which it is claimed,
in the preamble to this bill, these States have framed and adopted
constitutions of State government. Nor will I repeat the objections
contained in my message of the 20th instant, returning without my
signature the bill to admit to representation the State of Arkansas,
and which are equally applicable to the pending measure.

Like the act recently passed in reference to Arkansas, this bill
supersedes the plain and simple mode prescribed by the Constitution
for the admission to seats in the respective Houses of Senators and
Representatives from the several States. It assumes authority over six
States of the Union which has never been delegated to Congress, or is
even warranted by previous unconstitutional legislation upon the subject
of restoration. It imposes conditions which are in derogation of the
equal rights of the States, and is founded upon a theory which is
subversive of the fundamental principles of the Government. In the case
of Alabama it violates the plighted faith of Congress by forcing upon
that State a constitution which was rejected by the people, according to
the express terms of an act of Congress requiring that a majority of the
registered electors should vote upon the question of its ratification.

For these objections, and many others that might be presented, I can not
approve this bill, and therefore return it for the action of Congress
required in such cases by the Federal Constitution.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _July 20, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I have given to the joint resolution entitled "A resolution excluding
from the electoral college the votes of States lately in rebellion which
shall not have been reorganized" as careful examination as I have been
able to bestow upon the subject during the few days that have intervened
since the measure was submitted for my approval.

Feeling constrained to withhold my consent, I herewith return the
resolution to the Senate, in which House it originated, with a brief
statement of the reasons which have induced my action. This joint
resolution is based upon the assumption that some of the States whose
inhabitants were lately in rebellion are not now entitled to
representation in Congress and participation in the election of
President and Vice-President of the United States.

Having heretofore had occasion to give in detail my reasons for
dissenting from this view, it is not necessary at this time to repeat
them. It is sufficient to state that I continue strong in my conviction
that the acts of secession, by which a number of the States sought to
dissolve their connection with the other States and to subvert the
Union, being unauthorized by the Constitution and in direct violation
thereof, were from the beginning absolutely null and void. It follows
necessarily that when the rebellion terminated the several States which
had attempted to secede continued to be States in the Union, and all
that was required to enable them to resume their relations to the Union
was that they should adopt the measures necessary to their practical
restoration as States. Such measures were adopted, and the legitimate
result was that those States, having conformed to all the requirements
of the Constitution, resumed their former relations, and became entitled
to the exercise of all the rights guaranteed to them by its provisions.

The joint resolution under consideration, however, seems to assume that
by the insurrectionary acts of their respective inhabitants those States
forfeited their rights as such, and can never again exercise them except
upon readmission into the Union on the terms prescribed by Congress.
If this position be correct, it follows that they were taken out of the
Union by virtue of their acts of secession, and hence that the war waged
upon them was illegal and unconstitutional. We would thus be placed in
this inconsistent attitude, that while the war was commenced and carried
on upon the distinct ground that the Southern States, being component
parts of the Union, were in rebellion against the lawful authority of
the United States, upon its termination we resort to a policy of
reconstruction which assumes that it was not in fact a rebellion, but
that the war was waged for the conquest of territories assumed to be
outside of the constitutional Union.

The mode and manner of receiving and counting the electoral votes
for President and Vice-President of the United States are in plain
and simple terms prescribed by the Constitution. That instrument
imperatively requires that "the President of the Senate shall, in the
presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the
certificates, and the votes shall then be counted." Congress has,
therefore, no power, under the Constitution, to receive the electoral
votes or reject them. The whole power is exhausted when, in the presence
of the two Houses, the votes are counted and the result declared.
In this respect the power and duty of the President of the Senate are,
under the Constitution, purely ministerial. When, therefore, the joint
resolution declares that no electoral votes shall be received or counted
from States that since the 4th of March, 1867, have not "adopted a
constitution of State government under which a State government shall
have organized," a power is assumed which is nowhere delegated to
Congress, unless upon the assumption that the State governments
organized prior to the 4th of March, 1867, were illegal and void.

The joint resolution, by implication at least, concedes that these
States were States by virtue of their organization prior to the 4th of
March, 1867, but denies to them the right to vote in the election of
President and Vice-President of the United States. It follows either
that this assumption of power is wholly unauthorized by the Constitution
or that the States so excluded from voting were out of the Union by
reason of the rebellion, and have never been legitimately restored.
Being fully satisfied that they were never out of the Union, and that
their relations thereto have been legally and constitutionally restored,
I am forced to the conclusion that the joint resolution, which deprives
them of the right to have their votes for President and Vice-President
received and counted, is in conflict with the Constitution, and that
Congress has no more power to reject their votes than those of the
States which have been uniformly loyal to the Federal Union.

It is worthy of remark that if the States whose inhabitants were
recently in rebellion were legally and constitutionally organized and
restored to their rights prior to the 4th of March, 1867, as I am
satisfied they were, the only legitimate authority under which the
election for President and Vice-President can be held therein must be
derived from the governments instituted before that period. It clearly
follows that all the State governments organized in those States under
act of Congress for that purpose, and under military control, are
illegitimate and of no validity whatever; and in that view the votes
cast in those States for President and Vice-President, in pursuance
of acts passed since the 4th of March, 1867, and in obedience to the
so-called reconstruction acts of Congress, can not be legally received
and counted, while the only votes in those States that can be legally
cast and counted will be those cast in pursuance of the laws in force in
the several States prior to the legislation by Congress upon the subject
of reconstruction.

I can not refrain from directing your special attention to the
declaration contained in the joint resolution, that "none of the
States whose inhabitants were lately in rebellion shall be entitled to
representation in the electoral college," etc. If it is meant by this
declaration that no State is to be allowed to vote for President and
Vice-President _all_ of whose inhabitants were engaged in the late
rebellion, it is apparent that no one of the States will be excluded
from voting, since it is well known that in every Southern State there
were many inhabitants who not only did not participate in the rebellion,
but who actually took part in the suppression, or refrained from giving
it any aid or countenance. I therefore conclude that the true meaning of
the joint resolution is that no State a _portion_ of whose inhabitants
were engaged in the rebellion shall be permitted to participate in the
Presidential election, except upon the terms and conditions therein
prescribed.

Assuming this to be the true construction of the resolution, the
inquiry becomes pertinent, May those Northern States a portion of
whose inhabitants were actually in the rebellion be prevented, at the
discretion of Congress, from having their electoral votes counted? It is
well known that a portion of the inhabitants of New York and a portion
of the inhabitants of Virginia were alike engaged in the rebellion; yet
it is equally well known that Virginia, as well as New York, was at all
times during the war recognized by the Federal Government as a State
in the Union--so clearly that upon the termination of hostilities it
was not even deemed necessary for her restoration that a provisional
governor should be appointed; yet, according to this joint resolution,
the people of Virginia, unless they comply with the terms it prescribes,
are denied the right of voting for President, while the people of
New York, a portion of the inhabitants of which State were also in
rebellion, are permitted to have their electoral votes counted without
undergoing the process of reconstruction prescribed for Virginia. New
York is no more a State than Virginia; the one is as much entitled to
representation in the electoral college as the other. If Congress has
the power to deprive Virginia of this right, it can exercise the same
authority with respect to New York or any other of the States. Thus the
result of the Presidential election may be controlled and determined
by Congress, and the people be deprived of their right under the
Constitution to choose a President and Vice-President of the United
States.

If Congress were to provide by law that the votes of none of the States
should be received and counted if cast for a candidate who differed in
political sentiment with a majority of the two Houses, such legislation
would at once be condemned by the country as an unconstitutional and
revolutionary usurpation of power. It would, however, be exceedingly
difficult to find in the Constitution any more authority for the passage
of the joint resolution under consideration than for an enactment
looking directly to the rejection of all votes not in accordance with
the political preferences of a majority of Congress. No power exists
in the Constitution authorizing the joint resolution or the supposed
law--the only difference being that one would be more palpably
unconstitutional and revolutionary than the other. Both would rest upon
the radical error that Congress has the power to prescribe terms and
conditions to the right of the people of the States to cast their votes
for President and Vice-President.

For the reasons thus indicated I am constrained to return the joint
resolution to the Senate for such further action thereon as Congress
may deem necessary.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _July 25, 1868_

_To the Senate of the United States_:

Believing that a bill entitled "An act relating to the Freedmen's
Bureau, and providing for its discontinuance," interferes with the
appointing power conferred by the Constitution upon the Executive, and
for other reasons, which at this late period of the session time will
not permit me to state, I herewith return it to the Senate, in which
House it originated, without my approval.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

PROCLAMATIONS.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas in the month of July, A.D. 1861, in accepting the condition
of civil war which was brought about by insurrection and rebellion in
several of the States which constitute the United States, the two Houses
of Congress did solemnly declare that that war was not waged on the
part of the Government in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose
of conquest or subjugation, nor for any purpose of overthrowing or
interfering with the rights or established institutions of the States,
but only to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution of the
United States and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality,
and rights of the several States unimpaired, and that so soon as those
objects should be accomplished the war on the part of the Government
should cease; and

Whereas the President of the United States has heretofore, in the spirit
of that declaration and with the view of securing for it ultimate and
complete effect, set forth several proclamations offering amnesty and
pardon to persons who had been or were concerned in the aforenamed
rebellion, which proclamations, however, were attended with prudential
reservations and exceptions then deemed necessary and proper, and which
proclamations were respectively issued on the 8th day of December, 1863,
on the 26th day of March, 1864, on the 29th day of May, 1865, and on the
7th day of September, 1867; and

Whereas the said lamentable civil war has long since altogether ceased,
with an acknowledgment by all the States of the supremacy of the Federal
Constitution and of the Government thereunder, and there no longer
exists any reasonable ground to apprehend a renewal of the said civil
war, or any foreign interference, or any unlawful resistance by any
portion of the people of any of the States to the Constitution and laws
of the United States; and

Whereas it is desirable to reduce the standing army and to bring to a
speedy termination military occupation, martial law, military tribunals,
abridgment of the freedom of speech and of the press, and suspension
of the privilege of _habeas corpus_ and of the right of trial by jury,
such encroachments upon our free institutions in time of peace being
dangerous to public liberty, incompatible with the individual rights of
the citizen, contrary to the genius and spirit of our republican form
of government, and exhaustive of the national resources; and

Whereas it is believed that amnesty and pardon will tend to secure a
complete and universal establishment and prevalence of municipal law
and order in conformity with the Constitution of the United States,
and to remove all appearances or presumptions of a retaliatory or
vindictive policy on the part of the Government attended by unnecessary
disqualifications, pains, penalties, confiscations, and
disfranchisements, and, on the contrary, to promote and procure complete
fraternal reconciliation among the whole people, with due submission to
the Constitution and laws:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of
the United States, do, by virtue of the Constitution and in the
name of the people of the United States, hereby proclaim and declare,
unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person
who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or
rebellion, excepting such person or persons as may be under presentment
or indictment in any court of the United States having competent
jurisdiction upon a charge of treason or other felony, a full pardon
and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of
adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of
all rights of property, except as to slaves, and except also as to any
property of which any person may have been legally divested under the
laws of the United States.

In testimony whereof I have signed these presents with my hand and have
caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, the 4th day of July, A.D. 1868, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-third.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas by an act of Congress entitled "An act to admit the States of
North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida
to representation in Congress," passed on the 25th day of June, 1868,
it is declared that it is made the duty of the President, within ten
days after receiving official information of the ratification by the
legislature of either of said States of a proposed amendment to the
Constitution known as article fourteen, to issue a proclamation
announcing that fact; and

Whereas the said act seems to be prospective; and

Whereas a paper purporting to be a resolution of the legislature of
Florida adopting the amendment of the thirteenth and fourteenth articles
of the Constitution of the United States was received at the Department
of State on the 16th of June, 1868, prior to the passage of the act of
Congress referred to, which paper is attested by the names of Horatio
Jenkins, jr., as president _pro tempore_ of the senate, and W.W. Moore
as speaker of the assembly, and of William L. Apthoop, as secretary of
the senate, and William Forsyth Bynum, as clerk of the assembly, and
which paper was transmitted to the Secretary of State in a letter dated
Executive Office, Tallahassee, Fla., June 10, 1868, from Harrison Reed,
who therein signs himself governor; and

Whereas on the 6th day of July, 1868, a paper was received by the
President, which paper, being addressed to the President, bears date of
the 4th day of July, 1868, and was transmitted by and under the name of
W.W. Holden, who therein writes himself governor of the State of North
Carolina, which paper certifies that the said proposed amendment, known
as article fourteen, did pass the senate and house of representatives of
the general assembly of North Carolina on the 2d day of July instant,
and is attested by the names of John H. Boner, or Bower, as secretary
of the house of representatives, and T.A. Byrnes, as secretary of the
senate; and its ratification on the 4th of July, 1868, is attested by
Tod R. Caldwell, as lieutenant-governor, president of the senate, and
Jo. W. Holden, as speaker house of representatives:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States of America, in compliance with and execution of the act of
Congress aforesaid, do issue this proclamation, announcing the fact of
the ratification of the said amendment by the legislature of the State
of North Carolina in the manner hereinbefore set forth.

In testimony whereof I have signed these presents with my hand and have
caused the seal of the United States to be hereto affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 11th day of July, A.D. 1868, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-third.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas by an act of Congress entitled "An act to admit the States of
North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida
to representation in Congress," passed the 25th day of June, 1868,
it is declared that it is made the duty of the President, within ten
days after receiving official information of the ratification by the
legislature of either of said States of a proposed amendment to the
Constitution known as article fourteen, to issue a proclamation
announcing that fact; and

Whereas on the 18th day of July, 1868, a letter was received by the
President, which letter, being addressed to the President, bears date of
July 15, 1868, and was transmitted by and under the name of R.K. Scott,
who therein writes himself governor of South Carolina, in which letter
was inclosed and received at the same time by the President a paper
purporting to be a resolution of the senate and house of representatives
of the general assembly of the State of South Carolina ratifying the
said proposed amendment, and also purporting to have passed the two said
houses, respectively, on the 7th and 9th of July, 1868, and to have been
approved by the said R.K. Scott, as governor of said State, on the 15th
of July, 1868, which circumstances are attested by the signatures of
D.T. Corbin, as president _pro tempore_ of the senate, and of F.J.
Moses, jr., as speaker of the house of representatives of said State,
and of the said R.K. Scott, as governor:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States of America, in compliance with and execution of the act of
Congress aforesaid, do issue this my proclamation, announcing the fact
of the ratification of the said amendment by the legislature of the
State of South Carolina in the manner hereinbefore set forth.

In testimony whereof I have signed these presents with my hand and have
caused the seal of the United States to be hereto affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 18th day of July, A.D. 1868, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-third.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas a paper was received at the Department of State on the 17th day
of July, 1868, which paper, bearing date of the 9th day of July, 1868,
purports to be a resolution of the senate and house of representatives
of the State of Louisiana in general assembly convened ratifying the
aforesaid amendment, and is attested by the signature of George E.
Bovee, as secretary of state, under a seal purporting to be the seal
of the State of Louisiana:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States of America, in compliance with and execution of the act of
Congress before mentioned, do issue this my proclamation, announcing the
fact of the ratification of the said amendment by the legislature of the
State of Louisiana in the manner hereinbefore set forth.

In testimony whereof I have signed these presents with my hand and have
caused the seal of the United States to be hereto affixed,

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 18th day of July, A.D. 1868, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-third.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas by an act of Congress entitled "An act to admit the States of
North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida
to representation in Congress," passed the 25th day of June, 1868,
it is declared that it is made the duty of the President, within ten
days after receiving official information of the ratification by the
legislature of either of said States of a proposed amendment to the
Constitution known as article fourteen, to issue a proclamation
announcing that fact; and

Whereas a letter was received this day by the President, which letter,
being addressed to the President, bears date of July 16, 1868, and was
transmitted by and under the name of William H. Smith, who therein
writes himself governor of Alabama, in which letter was inclosed and
received at the same time by the President a paper purporting to be a
resolution of the senate and house of representatives of the general
assembly of the State of Alabama ratifying the said proposed amendment,
which paper is attested by the signature of Charles A. Miller, as
secretary of state, under a seal purporting to be the seal of the State
of Alabama, and bears the date of approval of July 13, 1868, by William
H. Smith, as governor of said State:

In testimony whereof I have signed these presents with my hand and have
caused the seal of the United States to be hereto affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 20th day of July, A.D. 1868, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-third.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas by an act of Congress entitled "An act to admit the States of
North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida
to representation in Congress," passed the 25th day of June, 1868,
it is declared that it is made the duty of the President, within ten
days after receiving official information of the ratification by the
legislature of either of said States of a proposed amendment to the
Constitution known as article fourteen, to issue a proclamation
announcing that fact; and

Whereas a paper was received at the Department of State this 27th day of
July, 1868, purporting to be a joint resolution of the senate and house
of representatives of the general assembly of the State of Georgia,
ratifying the said proposed amendment and also purporting to have passed
the two said houses, respectively, on the 21st of July, 1868, and to
have been approved by Rufus B. Bullock, who therein signs himself
governor of Georgia, which paper is also attested by the signatures of
Benjamin Conley, as president of the senate, and R.L. McWhorters, as
speaker of the house of representatives, and is further attested by the
signatures of A.E. Marshall, as secretary of the senate, and M.A.
Hardin, as clerk of the house of representatives:

In testimony whereof I have signed these presents with my hand and have
caused the seal of the United States to be hereto affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 27th day of July, A.D. 1868, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-third.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

In the year which is now drawing to its end the art, the skill, and the
labor of the people of the United States have been employed with greater
diligence and vigor and on broader fields than ever before, and the
fruits of the earth have been gathered into the granary and the
storehouse in marvelous abundance. Our highways have been lengthened,
and new and prolific regions have been occupied. We are permitted to
hope that long-protracted political and sectional dissensions are at no
distant day to give place to returning harmony and fraternal affection
throughout the Republic. Many foreign states have entered into liberal
agreements with us, while nations which are far off and which heretofore
have been unsocial and exclusive have become our friends.

The annual period of rest, which we have reached in health and
tranquillity, and which is crowned with so many blessings, is by
universal consent a convenient and suitable one for cultivating personal
piety and practicing public devotion.

I therefore recommend that Thursday, the 26th day of November next, be
set apart and observed by all the people of the United States as a day
for public praise, thanksgiving, and prayer to the Almighty Creator and
Divine Ruler of the Universe, by whose ever-watchful, merciful, and
gracious providence alone states and nations, no less than families and
individual men, do live and move and have their being.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 12th day of October, A.D. 1868,
and of the Independence of the United States the ninety-third.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
_Secretary of State_.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

EXECUTIVE ORDER.

WASHINGTON, _December 17, 1867_.

It is desired and advised that all communications in writing intended
for the executive department of this Government and relating to public
business of whatever kind, including suggestions for legislation,
claims, contracts, employment, appointments, and removals from office,
and pardons, be transmitted directly in the first instance to the head
of the Department to which the care of the subject-matter of the
communication properly belongs. This regulation has become necessary
for the more convenient, punctual, and regular dispatch of the public
business.

By order of the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

_Secretary of State_.

GENERAL ORDERS, No. 104.

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,

ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

_Washington, December 28, 1867_.

By direction of the President of the United States, the following orders
are made:

I. Brevet Major-General E.O.C. Ord will turn over the command of the
Fourth Military District to Brevet Major-General A.C. Gillem, and
proceed to San Francisco, Cal., to take command of the Department of
California.

II. On being relieved by Brevet Major-General Ord, Brevet Major-General
Irvin McDowell will proceed to Vicksburg, Miss., and relieve General
Gillem in command of the Fourth Military District.

III. Brevet Major-General John Pope is hereby relieved of the command
of the Third Military District, and will report without delay at the
Headquarters of the Army for further orders, turning over his command
to the next senior officer until the arrival of his successor.

IV. Major-General George G. Meade is assigned to the command of
the Third Military District, and will assume it without delay. The
Department of the East will be commanded by the senior officer now
on duty in it until a commander is named by the President.

V. The officers assigned in the foregoing orders to command of military
districts will exercise therein any and all powers conferred by acts of
Congress upon district commanders, and also any and all powers
pertaining to military-department commanders.

* * * * *

By command of General Grant:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

GENERAL ORDERS, No. 10.

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,

ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

_Washington, February 12, 1868_.

The following orders are published for the information and guidance of
all concerned:

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., February 12, 1868_.

General U.S. GRANT,

_Commanding Armies of the United States, Washington, D.C._

GENERAL: You will please issue an order creating a military division, to
be called the Military Division of the Atlantic, to be composed of the
Department of the Lakes, the Department of the East, and the Department
of Washington, and to be commanded by Lieutenant-General William T.
Sherman, with his headquarters at Washington.

Until further orders from the President, you will assign no officer to
the permanent command of the Military Division of the Missouri.

Respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

Major-General P.H. Sheridan, the senior officer in the Military Division
of the Missouri, will temporarily perform the duties of commander of the
Military Division of the Missouri, in addition to his duties of department
commander.

By command of General Grant:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., February 21, 1868_.

Hon. EDWIN M. STANTON,

_Washington, D.C._

SIR: By virtue of the power and authority vested in me as President by
the Constitution and laws of the United States, you are hereby removed
from office as Secretary for the Department of War, and your functions
as such will terminate upon the receipt of this communication.

You will transfer to Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas,
Adjutant-General of the Army, who has this day been authorized and
empowered to act as Secretary of War _ad interim_, all records, books,
papers, and other public property now in your custody and charge.

Respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., February 21, 1868_.

Brevet Major-General LORENZO THOMAS,

_Adjutant-General United States Army, Washington, D.C._

SIR: The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office
as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and
empowered to act as Secretary of War _ad interim_, and will immediately
enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office.

Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records,
books, papers, and other public property now in his custody and charge.

Respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

GENERAL ORDERS, No. 17.

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,

ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

_Washington, March 28, 1868_.

By direction of the President of the United States, Major-General W.S.
Hancock is relieved from command of the Fifth Military District and
assigned to command of the Military Division of the Atlantic, created
by General Orders, No. 10, of February 12, 1868.

By command of General Grant:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., May 28, 1868_.

The chairman of the committee of arrangements having requested that
an opportunity may be given to those employed in the several Executive
Departments of the Government to unite with their fellow-citizens in
paying a fitting tribute to the memory of the brave men whose remains
repose in the national cemeteries, the President directs that as far as
may be consistent with law and the public interests persons who desire
to participate in the ceremonies be permitted to absent themselves from
their duties on Saturday, the 30th instant.

By order of the President:

WM. G. MOORE,

_Secretary_.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., June 1, 1868_.

Major-General John M. Schofield having been appointed, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, Secretary for the Department of War,
is hereby relieved from the command of the First Military District,
created by the act of Congress passed March 2, 1867.

Brevet Major-General George Stoneman is hereby assigned, according
to his brevet rank of major-general, to the command of the said First
District and of the Military Department of Virginia.

The Secretary of War will please give the necessary instructions to
carry this order into effect.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

GENERAL ORDERS, No. 25.

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,

ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

_Washington, June 1, 1868_.

I. The following order of the President has been received from the War
Department:

WASHINGTON, _June 2, 1868_.

The President with deep regret announces to the people of the United
States the decease, at Wheatland, Pa., on the 1st instant, of his
honored predecessor James Buchanan.

This event will occasion mourning in the nation for the loss of an
eminent citizen and honored public servant.

As a mark of respect for his memory, it is ordered that the Executive
Departments be immediately placed in mourning and all business be
suspended on the day of the funeral.

It is further ordered that the War and Navy Departments cause suitable
military and naval honors to be paid on this occasion to the memory of
the illustrious dead.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

II. In compliance with the instructions of the President and of the
Secretary of War, on the day after the receipt of this order at each
military post the troops will be paraded at 10 o'clock a.m. and the
order read to them, after which all labors, for the day will cease.

The national flag will be displayed at half-staff.

At dawn of day thirteen guns will be fired, and afterwards, at intervals
of thirty minutes between the rising and setting sun, a single gun, and
at the close of the day a national salute of thirty-seven guns.

The officers of the Army will wear crape on the left arm and on their
swords and the colors of the several regiments will be put in mourning
for the period of six months.

By command of General Grant:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

SPECIAL ORDER.

NAVY DEPARTMENT,

_Washington, June 3, 1868_.

The death of ex-President James Buchanan is announced in the following
order of the President of the United States:

[For order see preceding page.]

In pursuance of the foregoing order, it is hereby directed that thirty
minute guns be fired at each of the navy-yards and naval stations on
Thursday, the 4th instant, the day designated for the funeral of the
late ex-President Buchanan, commencing at noon, and on board the
flagships in each squadron upon the day after the receipt of this order.
The flags at the several navy-yards, naval stations, and marine barracks
will be placed at half-mast until after the funeral, and on board all
naval vessels in commission upon the day after this order is received.

GIDEON WELLES,

_Secretary of the Navy_.

GENERAL ORDERS, No. 33.

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,

ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

_Washington, June 30, 1868_.

By direction of the President of the United States, the following orders
are made:

I. Brevet Major-General Irvin McDowell is relieved from the command of
the Fourth Military District, and will report in person, without delay,
at the War Department.

II. Brevet Major-General Alvan C. Gillem is assigned to the command of
the Fourth Military District, and will assume it without delay.

By command of General Grant:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

GENERAL ORDERS, No 44.

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,

ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

_Washington, July 13, 1868_.

By direction of the President, Brigadier and Brevet Major-General Irvin
McDowell is assigned to the command of the Department of the East.

The headquarters of the department will be transferred from Philadelphia
to New York City.

By command of General Grant:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

GENERAL ORDERS, No. 55.

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,

ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

_Washington, July 28, 1868_.

The following orders from the War Department, which have been approved
by the President, are published for the information and government of
the Army and of all concerned:

The commanding generals of the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Military
Districts having officially reported that the States of Arkansas, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida have
fully complied with the acts of Congress known as the reconstruction
acts, including the act passed June 22, 1868, entitled "An act to admit
the State of Arkansas to representation in Congress," and the act passed
June 25, 1868, entitled "An act to admit the States of North Carolina,
South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida to
representation in Congress," and that, consequently, so much of the act
of March 2, 1867, and the acts supplementary thereto as provides for the
organization of military districts, subject to the military authority of
the United States, as therein provided, has become inoperative in said
States, and that the commanding generals have ceased to exercise in said
States the military powers conferred by said acts of Congress: Therefore
the following changes will be made in the organization and command of
military districts and geographical departments:

I. The Second and Third Military Districts having ceased to exist, the
States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida
will constitute the Department of the South, Major-General George G.
Meade to command. Headquarters at Atlanta, Ga.

II. The Fourth Military District will now consist only of the State of
Mississippi, and will continue to be commanded by Brevet Major-General
A.C. Gillem.

III. The Fifth Military District will now consist of the State of Texas,
and will be commanded by Brevet Major-General J.J. Reynolds.
Headquarters at Austin, Tex.

IV. The States of Louisiana and Arkansas will constitute the Department
of Louisiana, Brevet Major-General L.H. Rousseau is assigned to the
command. Headquarters at New Orleans, La. Until the arrival of General
Rousseau at New Orleans, Brevet Major-General Buchanan will command the
Department.

V. Brevet Major-General George Crook is assigned, according to his
brevet of major-general, to command the Department of the Columbia,
in place of Rousseau, relieved.

VI. Brevet Major-General E.R.S. Canby is reassigned to command the
Department of Washington.

* * * * *

By command of General Grant:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

Under and in pursuance of the authority vested in the President of the
United States by the provisions of the second section of the act of
Congress approved on the 27th day of July, 1868, entitled "An act to
extend the laws of the United States relating to customs, commerce, and
navigation over the territory ceded to the United States by Russia, to
establish a collection district therein, and for other purposes," the
port of Sitka, in said Territory, is hereby constituted and established
as the port of entry for the collection district of Alaska provided for
by said act; and under and in pursuance of the authority vested in him
by the fourth section of said act the importation and use of firearms,
ammunition, and distilled spirits into and within the said Territory,
or any portion thereof, except as hereinafter provided, is entirely
prohibited, under the pains and penalties specified in said last-named
section; _Provided, however_, That under such regulations as the
Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, in accordance with law, such
articles may, in limited quantities, be shipped coastwise from United
States ports on the Pacific coast to said port of Sitka, and to that
port only in said Territory, on the shipper giving bonds to the
collector of customs at the port of shipment, conditioned that such
articles will on their arrival at Sitka be delivered to the collector of
customs, or the person there acting as such, to remain in his possession
and under his control until sold or disposed of to such persons as
the military or other chief authority in said Territory may specially
designate in permits for that purpose signed by himself or a subordinate
duly authorized by him.

Done at the city of Washington, this 22d day of August, A.D. 1868,
and of the Independence of the United States the ninety-third.

ANDREW JOHNSON,

_President_.

SPECIAL ORDERS, ORDERS, No. 219.

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,

ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

_Washington, September 12, 1868_.

* * * * *

18. By direction of the President, Brevet Major-General L.H. Rousseau,
brigadier-general, commanding Department of Louisiana, is hereby
assigned to duty according to his brevet rank of major-general. This
order to take effect when General Rousseau assumes command.

19. By direction of the President, paragraph 12 of Special Orders, No.
70, May 23, 1868, from this office, assigning Brevet Major-General R.C.
Buchanan, colonel First United States Infantry, to duty according to
his brevet rank of major-general, is hereby revoked, and he is hereby
assigned to duty according to his brevet rank of brigadier-general,
in order that he may command the District of Louisiana. This order to
take effect when General Rousseau assumes command of the Department of
Louisiana.

By command of General Grant:

J.C. KELTON,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

GENERAL ORDERS, No. 82.

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,

ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

_Washington, October 10, 1868_.

The following order has been received from the President, and by his
direction is published to the Army:

The following provisions from the Constitution and laws of the United
States in relation to the election of a President and Vice-President
of the United States, together with an act of Congress prohibiting all
persons engaged in the military and naval service from interfering in
any general or special election in any State, are published for the
information and government of all concerned:

[Extract from Article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.]

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States
of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years,
and, together with the Vice-President, chosen for the same term, be
elected as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may
direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but
no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or
profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

[Extract from Article XII, amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.]

The electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by ballot
for President and Vice-President, one of whom at least shall not be an
inhabitant of the same State with themselves. They shall name in their
ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the
person voted for as Vice-President; and they shall make distinct lists
of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as
Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they
shall sign and certify and transmit sealed to the seat of the Government
of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The
President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House
of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then
be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes for President
shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number
of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from
the persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list
of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall
choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the
President the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from
each State having one vote. A quorum for this purpose shall consist of
a member or members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of
all the States shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of
Representatives shall not choose a President, whenever the right of
choice shall devolve upon them, before the 4th day of March next
following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the
case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

[Extract from "An act relative to the election of a President and
Vice-President of the United States, and declaring the officer who shall
act as President in case of vacancies in the offices both of President
and Vice-President," approved March 1, 1792.]

Sec. 1. _Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That * * *
electors shall be appointed in each State for the election of a
President and Vice-President of the United States * * * in every
fourth year succeeding the last election, which electors shall be
equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which the
several States may by law be entitled at the time when the President
and Vice-President thus to be chosen should come into office:
_Provided always_, That where no apportionment of Representatives
shall have been made after any enumeration at the time of choosing
electors, then the number of electors shall be according to the
existing apportionment of Senators and Representatives.

["An act to establish a uniform time for holding elections for electors
of President and Vice-President in all the States of the Union,"
approved January 23, 1845.]

_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled_, That the electors of President
and Vice-President shall be appointed in each State on the Tuesday next
after the first Monday in the month of November of the year in which
they are to be appointed: _Provided_, That each State may by law provide
for the filling of any vacancy or vacancies which may occur in its
college of electors when such college meets to give its electoral vote:
_And provided also_, When any State shall have held an election for the
purpose of choosing electors, and shall fail to make a choice on the day
aforesaid, then the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in
such manner as the State shall by law provide.

[Extracts from "An act relative to the election of a President and
Vice-President of the United States, and declaring the officer who shall
act as President in case of vacancies in the offices both of President
and Vice-President," approved March 1, 1792.]

Sec. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That the electors shall meet and
give their votes on the said first Wednesday in December, at such place
in each State as shall be directed by the legislature thereof; and the
electors in each State shall make and sign three certificates of all the
votes by them given, and shall seal up the same, certifying on each that
a list of the votes of such State for President and Vice-President is
contained therein, and shall, by writing under their hands or under the
hands of a majority of them, appoint a person to take charge of and
deliver to the President of the Senate, at the seat of Government,
before the first Wednesday in January then next ensuing, one of the said
certificates; and the said electors shall forthwith forward by the
post-office to the President of the Senate, at the seat of Government,
one other of the said certificates, and shall forthwith cause the other
of the said certificates to be delivered to the judge of that district
in which the said electors shall assemble.

Sec. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That the executive authority of
each State shall cause three lists of the names of the electors of such
State to be made and certified, and to be delivered to the electors on
or before the said first Wednesday in December, and the said electors
shall annex one of the said lists to each of the lists of their votes.

Sec. 4. _And be it further enacted_, That if a list of votes from any
State shall not have been received at the seat of Government on the said
first Wednesday in January, that then the Secretary of State shall send
a special messenger to the district judge in whose custody such list
shall have been lodged, who shall forthwith transmit the same to the
seat of Government.

Sec. 5. _And be it further enacted_, That Congress shall be in session
on the second Wednesday in February, 1793, and on the second Wednesday
in February succeeding every meeting of the electors, and the said
certificates, or so many of them as shall have been received, shall then
be opened, the votes counted, and the persons who shall fill the offices
of President and Vice-President ascertained and declared agreeably to
the Constitution.

Sec. 6. _And be it further enacted_, That in case there shall be no
President of the Senate at the seat of Government on the arrival of the
persons intrusted with the list of the votes of the electors, then such
persons shall deliver the lists of votes in their custody into the
office of the Secretary of State, to be safely kept and delivered over
as soon as may be to the President of the Senate.

* * * * *

Sec. 8. _And be it further enacted_, That if any person appointed to
deliver the votes of the electors to the President of the Senate shall,
after accepting of his appointment, neglect to perform the services
required of him by this act, he shall forfeit the sum of $1,000.

[Extract from "An act making compensation to the persons appointed by
the electors to deliver the votes for President and Vice-President,"
approved February 11, 1825.]

_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled_, That the person appointed by
the electors to deliver to the President of the Senate a list of the
votes for President and Vice-President shall be allowed, on delivery of
said list, 25 cents for every mile of the estimated distance by the most
usual route from the place of meeting of the electors to the seat of
Government of the United States, going and returning.

Sec. 12. _And be it further enacted_, That the term of four years for
which a President and Vice-President shall be elected shall in all cases
commence on the 4th day of March next succeeding the day on which the
votes of the electors shall have been given.

["An act to prevent officers of the Army and Navy, and other persons
engaged in the military and naval service of the United States, from
interfering in elections in the States," approved February 25, 1865.]

_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled_, That it shall not be lawful
for any military or naval officer of the United States, or other person
engaged in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States,
to order, bring, keep, or have under his authority or control any troops
or armed men at the place where any general or special election is
held in any State of the United States of America, unless it shall be
necessary to repel the armed enemies of the United States or to keep the
peace at the polls. And that it shall not be lawful for any officer of
the Army or Navy of the United States to prescribe or fix, or attempt
to prescribe or fix, by proclamation, order, or otherwise, the
qualifications of voters in any State of the United States of America,
or in any manner to interfere with the freedom of any election in any
State or with the exercise of the free right of suffrage in any State of
the United States. Any officer of the Army or Navy of the United States,
or other person engaged in the civil, military, or naval service of the
United States, who violates this section of this act shall for every
such offense be liable to indictment as for a misdemeanor in any court
of the United States having jurisdiction to hear, try, and determine
cases of misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall pay a fine not
exceeding $5,000 and suffer imprisonment in the penitentiary not less
than three months nor more than five years, at the discretion of the
court trying the same; and any person convicted as aforesaid shall,
moreover, be disqualified from holding any office of honor, profit,
or trust under the Government of the United States: _Provided_, That
nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent any
officers, soldiers, sailors, or marines from exercising the right of
suffrage in any election district to which he may belong, if otherwise
qualified according to the laws of the State in which he shall offer
to vote.

Sec. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That any officer or person in
the military or naval service of the United States who shall order or
advise, or who shall, directly or indirectly, by force, threat, menace,
intimidation, or otherwise, prevent or attempt to prevent any qualified
voter of any State of the United States of America from freely
exercising the right of suffrage at any general or special election
in any State of the United States, or who shall in like manner compel
or attempt to compel any officer of an election in any such State to
receive a vote from a person not legally qualified to vote, or who shall
impose or attempt to impose any rules or regulations for conducting such
election different from those prescribed by law, or interfere in any
manner with any officer of said election in the discharge of his duties,
shall for any such offense be liable to indictment as for a misdemeanor
in any court of the United States having jurisdiction to hear, try, and
determine cases of misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall pay a
fine of not exceeding $5,000 and suffer imprisonment in the penitentiary
not exceeding five years, at the discretion of the court trying the
same; and any person convicted as aforesaid shall, moreover, be
disqualified from holding any office of honor, profit, or trust under
the Government of the United States.

By command of General Grant:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

WAR DEPARTMENT,
_Washington City, November 4, 1868_.

By direction of the President, Brevet Major-General E.R.S. Canby is
hereby assigned to the command of the Fifth Military District, created
by the act of Congress of March 2, 1867, and of the Military Department
of Texas, consisting of the State of Texas. He will, without unnecessary
delay, turn over his present command to the next officer in rank and
proceed to the command to which he is hereby assigned, and on assuming
the same will, when necessary to a faithful execution of the laws,
exercise any and all powers conferred by acts of Congress upon district
commanders and any and all authority pertaining to officers in command
of military departments.

Brevet Major-General J.J. Reynolds is hereby relieved from the command
of the Fifth Military District.

J.M. SCHOFIELD,

_Secretary of War_.

FOURTH ANNUAL MESSAGE.

WASHINGTON, _December 9, 1868_.

_Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives_:

Upon the reassembling of Congress it again becomes my duty to call your
attention to the state of the Union and to its continued disorganized
condition under the various laws which have been passed upon the subject
of reconstruction.

It may be safely assumed as an axiom in the government of states that
the greatest wrongs inflicted upon a people are caused by unjust and
arbitrary legislation, or by the unrelenting decrees of despotic rulers,
and that the timely revocation of injurious and oppressive measures is
the greatest good that can be conferred upon a nation. The legislator or
ruler who has the wisdom and magnanimity to retrace his steps when
convinced of error will sooner or later be rewarded with the respect and
gratitude of an intelligent and patriotic people.

Our own history, although embracing a period less than a century,
affords abundant proof that most, if not all, of our domestic troubles
are directly traceable to violations of the organic law and excessive
legislation. The most striking illustrations of this fact are furnished
by the enactments of the past three years upon the question of
reconstruction. After a fair trial they have substantially failed and
proved pernicious in their results, and there seems to be no good reason
why they should longer remain upon the statute book. States to which the
Constitution guarantees a republican form of government have been
reduced to military dependencies, in each of which the people have been
made subject to the arbitrary will of the commanding general. Although
the Constitution requires that each State shall be represented in
Congress, Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas are yet excluded from the
two Houses, and, contrary to the express provisions of that instrument,
were denied participation in the recent election for a President and
Vice-President of the United States. The attempt to place the white
population under the domination of persons of color in the South has
impaired, if not destroyed, the kindly relations that had previously
existed between them; and mutual distrust has engendered a feeling of
animosity which, leading in some instances to collision and bloodshed,
has prevented that cooperation between the two races so essential to the
success of industrial enterprise in the Southern States. Nor have the
inhabitants of those States alone suffered from the disturbed condition
of affairs growing out of these Congressional enactments. The entire
Union has been agitated by grave apprehensions of troubles which might
again involve the peace of the nation; its interests have been
injuriously affected by the derangement of business and labor, and the
consequent want of prosperity throughout that portion of the country.

The Federal Constitution--the _magna charta_ of American rights, under
whose wise and salutary provisions we have successfully conducted all
our domestic and foreign affairs, sustained ourselves in peace and in
war, and become a great nation among the powers of the earth--must
assuredly be now adequate to the settlement of questions growing out of
the civil war, waged alone for its vindication. This great fact is made
most manifest by the condition of the country when Congress assembled in
the month of December, 1865. Civil strife had ceased, the spirit of
rebellion had spent its entire force, in the Southern States the people
had warmed into national life, and throughout the whole country a
healthy reaction in public sentiment had taken place. By the application
of the simple yet effective provisions of the Constitution the executive
department, with the voluntary aid of the States, had brought the work
of restoration as near completion as was within the scope of its
authority, and the nation was encouraged by the prospect of an early
and satisfactory adjustment of all its difficulties. Congress, however,
intervened, and, refusing to perfect the work so nearly consummated,
declined to admit members from the unrepresented States, adopted
a series of measures which arrested the progress of restoration,
frustrated all that had been so successfully accomplished, and, after
three years of agitation and strife, has left the country further from
the attainment of union and fraternal feeling than at the inception of
the Congressional plan of reconstruction. It needs no argument to show
that legislation which has produced such baneful consequences should
be abrogated, or else made to conform to the genuine principles of
republican government.

Under the influence of party passion and sectional prejudice, other acts
have been passed not warranted by the Constitution. Congress has already
been made familiar with my views respecting the "tenure-of-office bill."
Experience has proved that its repeal is demanded by the best interests
of the country, and that while it remains in force the President can not
enjoin that rigid accountability of public officers so essential to an
honest and efficient execution of the laws. Its revocation would enable
the executive department to exercise the power of appointment and
removal in accordance with the original design of the Federal
Constitution.

The act of March 2, 1867, making appropriations for the support of the
Army for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes, contains
provisions which interfere with the President's constitutional functions
as Commander in Chief of the Army and deny to States of the Union
the right to protect themselves by means of their own militia. These
provisions should be at once annulled; for while the first might, in
times of great emergency, seriously embarrass the Executive in efforts
to employ and direct the common strength of the nation for its
protection and preservation, the other is contrary to the express
declaration of the Constitution that "a well-regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It is believed that the repeal of all such laws would be accepted by
the American people as at least a partial return to the fundamental
principles of the Government, and an indication that hereafter the
Constitution is to be made the nation's safe and unerring guide. They
can be productive of no permanent benefit to the country, and should not
be permitted to stand as so many monuments of the deficient wisdom which
has characterized our recent legislation.

The condition of our finances demands the early and earnest
consideration of Congress. Compared with the growth of our population,
the public expenditures have reached an amount unprecedented in our
history.

The population of the United States in 1790 was nearly 4,000,000 people.
Increasing each decade about 33 per cent, it reached in 1860 31,000,000,
an increase of 700 per cent on the population in 1790. In 1869 it is
estimated that it will reach 38,000,000, or an increase of 868 per cent
in seventy-nine years.

The annual expenditures of the Federal Government in 1791 were
$4,200,000; in 1820, $13,200,000; in 1850, forty-one millions; in 1860,
sixty-three millions; in 1865, nearly thirteen hundred millions; and
in 1869 it is estimated by the Secretary of the Treasury, in his last
annual report, that they will be three hundred and seventy-two millions.

By comparing the public disbursements of 1869, as estimated, with those
of 1791, it will be seen that the increase of expenditure since the
beginning of the Government has been 8,618 per cent, while the increase
of the population for the same period was only 868 per cent. Again,
the expenses of the Government in 1860, the year of peace immediately
preceding the war, were only sixty-three millions, while in 1869, the
year of peace three years after the war, it is estimated they will be
three hundred and seventy-two millions, an increase of 489 per cent,
while the increase of population was only 21 per cent for the same
period.

These statistics further show that in 1791 the annual national expenses,
compared with the population, were little more than $1 per capita, and
in 1860 but $2 per capita; while in 1869 they will reach the extravagant
sum of $9.78 per capita.

It will be observed that all these statements refer to and exhibit the
disbursements of peace periods. It may, therefore, be of interest to
compare the expenditures of the three war periods--the war with Great
Britain, the Mexican War, and the War of the Rebellion.

In 1814 the annual expenses incident to the War of 1812 reached their
highest amount--about thirty-one millions--while our population slightly
exceeded 8,000,000, showing an expenditure of only $3.80 per capita.
In 1847 the expenditures growing out of the war with Mexico reached
fifty-five millions, and the population about 21,000,000, giving only
$2.60 per capita for the war expenses of that year. In 1865 the
expenditures called for by the rebellion reached the vast amount of
twelve hundred and ninety millions, which, compared with a population
of 34,000,000, gives $38.20 per capita.

From the 4th day of March, 1789, to the 30th of June, 1861, the entire
expenditures of the Government were $1,700,000,000. During that period
we were engaged in wars with Great Britain and Mexico, and were involved
in hostilities with powerful Indian tribes; Louisiana was purchased from
France at a cost of $15,000,000; Florida was ceded to us by Spain for
five millions; California was acquired from Mexico for fifteen millions,
and the territory of New Mexico was obtained from Texas for the sum of
ten millions. Early in 1861 the War of the Rebellion commenced; and
from the 1st of July of that year to the 30th of June, 1865, the public
expenditures reached the enormous aggregate of thirty-three hundred
millions. Three years of peace have intervened, and during that time the
disbursements of the Government have successively been five hundred and
twenty millions, three hundred and forty-six millions, and three hundred
and ninety-three millions. Adding to these amounts three hundred and
seventy-two millions, estimated as necessary for the fiscal year ending
the 30th of June, 1869, we obtain a total expenditure of $1,600,000,000
during the four years immediately succeeding the war, or nearly as much
as was expended during the seventy-two years that preceded the rebellion
and embraced the extraordinary expenditures already named.

These startling facts clearly illustrate the necessity of
retrenchment in all branches of the public service. Abuses which were
tolerated during the war for the preservation of the nation will not be
endured by the people, now that profound peace prevails. The receipts
from internal revenues and customs have during the past three years
gradually diminished, and the continuance of useless and extravagant
expenditures will involve us in national bankruptcy, or else make
inevitable an increase of taxes, already too onerous and in many
respects obnoxious on account of their inquisitorial character. One
hundred millions annually are expended for the military force, a large
portion of which is employed in the execution of laws both unnecessary
and unconstitutional; one hundred and fifty millions are required each
year to pay the interest on the public debt; an army of taxgatherers
impoverishes the nation, and public agents, placed by Congress beyond
the control of the Executive, divert from their legitimate purposes
large sums of money which they collect from the people in the name of
the Government. Judicious legislation and prudent economy can alone
remedy defects and avert evils which, if suffered to exist, can not fail
to diminish confidence in the public councils and weaken the attachment
and respect of the people toward their political institutions. Without
proper care the small balance which it is estimated will remain in the
Treasury at the close of the present fiscal year will not be realized,
and additional millions be added to a debt which is now enumerated by
billions.

It is shown by the able and comprehensive report of the Secretary of
the Treasury that the receipts for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868,
were $405,638,083, and that the expenditures for the same period were
$377,340,284, leaving in the Treasury a surplus of $28,297,798. It is
estimated that the receipts during the present fiscal year, ending June
30, 1869, will be $341,392,868 and the expenditures $336,152,470,
showing a small balance of $5,240,398 in favor of the Government. For
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1870, it is estimated that the receipts
will amount to $327,000,000 and the expenditures to $303,000,000,
leaving an estimated surplus of $24,000,000.

It becomes proper in this connection to make a brief reference to our
public indebtedness, which has accumulated with such alarming rapidity
and assumed such colossal proportions.

In 1789, when the Government commenced operations under the Federal
Constitution, it was burdened with an indebtedness of $75,000,000,
created during the War of the Revolution. This amount had been reduced
to $45,000,000 when, in 1812, war was declared against Great Britain.
The three years' struggle that followed largely increased the national
obligations, and in 1816 they had attained the sum of $127,000,000. Wise
and economical legislation, however, enabled the Government to pay the
entire amount within a period of twenty years, and the extinguishment
of the national debt filled the land with rejoicing and was one of the
great events of President Jackson's Administration. After its redemption
a large fund remained in the Treasury, which was deposited for
safe-keeping with the several States, on condition that it should be
returned when required by the public wants. In 1849--the year after the
termination of an expensive war with Mexico--we found ourselves involved
in a debt of $64,000,000; and this was the amount owed by the Government
in 1860, just prior to the outbreak of the rebellion. In the spring of
1861 our civil war commenced. Each year of its continuance made an
enormous addition to the debt; and when, in the spring of 1865, the
nation successfully emerged from the conflict, the obligations of the
Government had reached the immense sum of $2,873,992,909. The Secretary
of the Treasury shows that on the 1st day of November, 1867, this amount
had been reduced to $2,491,504,450; but at the same time his report
exhibits an increase during the past year of $35,625,102, for the debt
on the 1st day of November last is stated to have been $2,527,129,552.
It is estimated by the Secretary that the returns for the past month
will add to our liabilities the further sum of $11,000,000, making a
total increase during thirteen months of $46,500,000.

In my message to Congress December 4, 1865, it was suggested that a
policy should be devised which, without being oppressive to the people,
would at once begin to effect a reduction of the debt, and, if persisted
in, discharge it fully within a definite number of years. The Secretary
of the Treasury forcibly recommends legislation of this character,
and justly urges that the longer it is deferred the more difficult
must become its accomplishment. We should follow the wise precedents
established in 1789 and 1816, and without further delay make provision
for the payment of our obligations at as early a period as may be
practicable. The fruits of their labors should be enjoyed by our
citizens rather than used to build up and sustain moneyed monopolies in
our own and other lands. Our foreign debt is already computed by the
Secretary of the Treasury at $850,000,000; citizens of foreign countries
receive interest upon a large portion of our securities, and American
taxpayers are made to contribute large sums for their support. The idea
that such a debt is to become permanent should be at all times discarded
as involving taxation too heavy to be borne, and payment once in every
sixteen years, at the present rate of interest, of an amount equal to
the original sum. This vast debt, if permitted to become permanent and
increasing, must eventually be gathered into the hands of a few, and
enable them to exert a dangerous and controlling power in the affairs of
the Government. The borrowers would become servants to the lenders, the
lenders the masters of the people. We now pride ourselves upon having
given freedom to 4,000,000 of the colored race; it will then be our
shame that 40,000,000 of people, by their own toleration of usurpation
and profligacy, have suffered themselves to become enslaved, and merely
exchanged slave owners for new taskmasters in the shape of bondholders
and taxgatherers. Besides, permanent debts pertain to monarchical
governments, and, tending to monopolies, perpetuities, and class
legislation, are totally irreconcilable with free institutions.
Introduced into our republican system, they would gradually but surely
sap its foundations, eventually subvert our governmental fabric, and
erect upon its ruins a moneyed aristocracy. It is our sacred duty to
transmit unimpaired to our posterity the blessings of liberty which were
bequeathed to us by the founders of the Republic, and by our example
teach those who are to follow us carefully to avoid the dangers which
threaten a free and independent people.

Various plans have been proposed for the payment of the public debt.
However they may have varied as to the time and mode in which it should
be redeemed, there seems to be a general concurrence as to the propriety
and justness of a reduction in the present rate of interest. The
Secretary of the Treasury in his report recommends 5 per cent; Congress,
in a bill passed prior to adjournment on the 27th of July last, agreed
upon 4 and 4-1/2 per cent; while by many 3 per cent has been held to be
an amply sufficient return for the investment. The general impression as
to the exorbitancy of the existing rate of interest has led to an
inquiry in the public mind respecting the consideration which the
Government has actually received for its bonds, and the conclusion is
becoming prevalent that the amount which it obtained was in real money
three or four hundred per cent less than the obligations which it issued
in return. It can not be denied that we are paying an extravagant
percentage for the use of the money borrowed, which was paper currency,
greatly depreciated below the value of coin. This fact is made apparent
when we consider that bondholders receive from the Treasury upon each
dollar they own in Government securities 6 per cent in gold, which is
nearly or quite equal to 9 per cent in currency; that the bonds are
then converted into capital for the national banks, upon which those
institutions issue their circulation, bearing 6 per cent interest; and
that they are exempt from taxation by the Government and the States, and
thereby enhanced 2 per cent in the hands of the holders. We thus have an
aggregate of 17 per cent which may be received upon each dollar by the
owners of Government securities. A system that produces such results is
justly regarded as favoring a few at the expense of the many, and has
led to the further inquiry whether our bondholders, in view of the
large profits which they have enjoyed, would themselves be averse to
a settlement of our indebtedness upon a plan which would yield them a
fair remuneration and at the same time be just to the taxpayers of the
nation. Our national credit should be sacredly observed, but in making
provision for our creditors we should not forget what is due to the
masses of the people. It may be assumed that the holders of our
securities have already received upon their bonds a larger amount than
their original investment, measured by a gold standard. Upon this
statement of facts it would seem but just and equitable that the 6 per
cent interest now paid by the Government should be applied to the
reduction of the principal in semiannual installments, which in sixteen
years and eight months would liquidate the entire national debt. Six per
cent in gold would at present rates be equal to 9 per cent in currency,
and equivalent to the payment of the debt one and a half times in a
fraction less than seventeen years. This, in connection with all the
other advantages derived from their investment, would afford to the
public creditors a fair and liberal compensation for the use of their
capital, and with this they should be satisfied. The lessons of the past
admonish the lender that it is not well to be overanxious in exacting
from the borrower rigid compliance with the letter of the bond.

If provision be made for the payment of the indebtedness of the
Government in the manner suggested, our nation will rapidly recover its
wonted prosperity. Its interests require that some measure should be
taken to release the large amount of capital invested in the securities
of the Government. It is not now merely unproductive, but in taxation
annually consumes $150,000,000, which would otherwise be used by our
enterprising people in adding to the wealth of the nation. Our commerce,
which at one time successfully rivaled that of the great maritime
powers, has, rapidly diminished, and our industrial interests are
in a depressed and languishing condition. The development of our
inexhaustible resources is checked, and the fertile fields of the South
are becoming waste for want of means to till them. With the release of
capital, new life would be infused into the paralyzed energies of our
people and activity and vigor imparted to every branch of industry. Our
people need encouragement in their efforts to recover from the effects
of the rebellion and of injudicious legislation, and it should be the
aim of the Government to stimulate them by the prospect of an early
release from the burdens which impede their prosperity. If we can not
take the burdens from their shoulders, we should at least manifest
a willingness to help to bear them.

In referring to the condition of the circulating medium, I shall merely
reiterate substantially that portion of my last annual message which
relates to that subject.

The proportion which the currency of any country should bear to
the whole value of the annual produce circulated by its means is a
question upon which political economists have not agreed. Nor can it
be controlled by legislation, but must be left to the irrevocable laws
which everywhere regulate commerce and trade. The circulating medium
will ever irresistibly flow to those points where it is in greatest
demand. The law of demand and supply is as unerring as that which
regulates the tides of the ocean; and, indeed, currency, like the tides,
has its ebbs and flows throughout the commercial world.

At the beginning of the rebellion the bank-note circulation of the
country amounted to not much more than $200,000,000; now the circulation
of national-bank notes and those known as "legal-tenders" is nearly
seven hundred millions. While it is urged by some that this amount
should be increased, others contend that a decided reduction is
absolutely essential to the best interests of the country. In view of
these diverse opinions, it may be well to ascertain the real value of
our paper issues when compared with a metallic or convertible currency.
For this purpose let us inquire how much gold and silver could be
purchased by the seven hundred millions of paper money now in
circulation. Probably not more than half the amount of the latter;
showing that when our paper currency is compared with gold and silver
its commercial value is compressed into three hundred and fifty
millions. This striking fact makes it the obvious duty of the
Government, as early as may be consistent with the principles of sound
political economy, to take such measures as will enable the holders of
its notes and those of the national banks to convert them, without loss,
into specie or its equivalent. A reduction of our paper circulating
medium need not necessarily follow. This, however, would depend upon the
law of demand and supply, though it should be borne in mind that by
making legal-tender and bank notes convertible into coin or its
equivalent their present specie value in the hands of their holders
would be enhanced 100 per cent.

Legislation for the accomplishment of a result so desirable is demanded
by the highest public considerations. The Constitution contemplates that
the circulating medium of the country shall be uniform in quality and
value. At the time of the formation of that instrument the country had
just emerged from the War of the Revolution, and was suffering from the
effects of a redundant and worthless paper currency. The sages of that
period were anxious to protect their posterity from the evils which they
themselves had experienced. Hence in providing a circulating medium they
conferred upon Congress the power to coin money and regulate the value
thereof, at the same time prohibiting the States from making anything
but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts.

The anomalous condition of our currency is in striking contrast with
that which was originally designed. Our circulation now embraces, first,
notes of the national banks, which are made receivable for all dues to
the Government, excluding imposts, and by all its creditors, excepting
in payment of interest upon its bonds and the securities themselves;
second, legal tender, issued by the United States, and which the law
requires shall be received as well in payment of all debts between
citizens as of all Government dues, excepting imposts; and, third, gold
and silver coin. By the operation of our present system of finance,
however, the metallic currency, when collected, is reserved only for one
class of Government creditors, who, holding its bonds, semiannually
receive their interest in coin from the National Treasury. There is no
reason which will be accepted as satisfactory by the people why those
who defend us on the land and protect us on the sea; the pensioner upon
the gratitude of the nation, bearing the scars and wounds received while
in its service; the public servants in the various departments of the
Government; the farmer who supplies the soldiers of the Army and the
sailors of the Navy; the artisan who toils in the nation's workshops,
or the mechanics and laborers who build its edifices and construct
its forts and vessels of war, should, in payment of their just and
hard-earned dues, receive depreciated paper, while another class of
their countrymen, no more deserving, are paid in coin of gold and
silver. Equal and exact justice requires that all the creditors of the
Government should be paid in a currency possessing a uniform value.
This can only be accomplished by the restoration of the currency to the
standard established by the Constitution, and by this means we would
remove a discrimination which may, if it has not already done so, create
a prejudice that may become deep-rooted and widespread and imperil the
national credit.

The feasibility of making our currency correspond with the
constitutional standard may be seen by reference to a few facts derived
from our commercial statistics.

The aggregate product of precious metals in the United States from 1849
to 1867 amounted to $1,174,000,000, while for the same period the net
exports of specie were $741,000,000. This shows an excess of product
over net exports of $433,000,000. There are in the Treasury $103,407,985
in coin; in circulation in the States on the Pacific Coast about
$40,000,000, and a few millions in the national and other banks--in all
less than $160,000,000. Taking into consideration the specie in the
country prior to 1849 and that produced since 1867, and we have more
than $300,000,000 not accounted for by exportation or by returns of the
Treasury, and therefore most probably remaining in the country.

These are important facts, and show how completely the inferior
currency will supersede the better, forcing it from circulation among
the masses and causing it to be exported as a mere article of trade, to
add to the money capital of foreign lands. They show the necessity of
retiring our paper money, that the return of gold and silver to the
avenues of trade may be invited and a demand created which will cause
the retention at home of at least so much of the productions of our
rich and inexhaustible gold-bearing fields as may be sufficient for
purposes of circulation. It is unreasonable to expect a return to a
sound currency so long as the Government and banks, by continuing to
issue irredeemable notes, fill the channels of circulation with
depreciated paper. Notwithstanding a coinage by our mints since 1849 of
$874,000,000, the people are now strangers to the currency which was
designed for their use and benefit, and specimens of the precious metals
bearing the national device are seldom seen, except when produced to
gratify the interest excited by their novelty. If depreciated paper is
to be continued as the permanent currency of the country, and all our
coin is to become a mere article of traffic and speculation, to the
enhancement in price of all that is indispensable to the comfort of the
people, it would be wise economy to abolish our mints, thus saving the
nation the care and expense incident to such establishments, and let our
precious metals be exported in bullion. The time has come, however, when
the Government and national banks should be required to take the most
efficient steps and make all necessary arrangements for a resumption of
specie payments. Let specie payments once be earnestly inaugurated by
the Government and banks, and the value of the paper circulation would
directly approximate a specie standard.

Specie payments having been resumed by the Government and banks, all
notes or bills of paper issued by either of a less denomination than $20
should by law be excluded from circulation, so that the people may have
the benefit and convenience of a gold and silver currency which in all
their business transactions will be uniform in value at home and abroad.
Every man of property or industry, every man who desires to preserve
what he honestly possesses or to obtain what he can honestly earn, has a
direct interest in maintaining a safe circulating medium--such a medium
as shall be real and substantial, not liable to vibrate with opinions,
not subject to be blown up or blown down by the breath of speculation,
but to be made stable and secure. A disordered currency is one of the
greatest political evils. It undermines the virtues necessary for the
support of the social system and encourages propensities destructive of
its happiness; it wars against industry, frugality, and economy, and it
fosters the evil spirits of extravagance and speculation.

It has been asserted by one of our profound and most gifted statesmen
that--

Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind,
none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper
money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich
man's fields by the sweat of the poor man's brow. Ordinary tyranny,
oppression, excessive taxation--these bear lightly on the happiness of
the mass of the community compared with a fraudulent currency and the
robberies committed by depreciated paper. Our own history has recorded
for our instruction enough, and more than enough, of the demoralizing
tendency, the injustice, and the intolerable oppression on the virtuous
and well-disposed of a degraded paper currency authorized by law or in
any way countenanced by government.

It is one of the most successful devices, in times of peace or war,
of expansions or revulsions, to accomplish the transfer of all the
precious metals from the great mass of the people into the hands of the
few, where they are hoarded in secret places or deposited under bolts
and bars, while the people are left to endure all the inconvenience,
sacrifice, and demoralization resulting from the use of depreciated and
worthless paper.

The Secretary of the Interior in his report gives valuable information
in reference to the interests confided to the supervision of his
Department, and reviews the operations of the Land Office, Pension
Office, Patent Office, and Indian Bureau.

During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, 6,655,700 acres of public
land were disposed of. The entire cash receipts of the General Land
Office for the same period were $1,632,745, being greater by $284,883
than the amount realized from the same sources during the previous year.
The entries under the homestead law cover 2,328,923 acres, nearly
one-fourth of which was taken under the act of June 21, 1866, which
applies only to the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas,
and Florida.

On the 30th of June, 1868, 169,643 names were borne on the pension
rolls, and during the year ending on that day the total amount paid for
pensions, including the expenses of disbursement, was $24,010,982, being
$5,391,025 greater than that expended for like purposes during the
preceding year.

During the year ending the 30th of September last the expenses of the
Patent Office exceeded the receipts by $171, and, including reissues
and designs, 14,153 patents were issued.

Treaties with various Indian tribes have been concluded, and will be
submitted to the Senate for its constitutional action. I cordially
sanction the stipulations which provide for reserving lands for the
various tribes, where they may be encouraged to abandon their nomadic
habits and engage in agricultural and industrial pursuits. This policy,
inaugurated many years since, has met with signal success whenever it
has been pursued in good faith and with becoming liberality by the
United States. The necessity for extending it as far as practicable in
our relations with the aboriginal population is greater now than at any
preceding period. Whilst we furnish subsistence and instruction to the
Indians and guarantee the undisturbed enjoyment of their treaty rights,
we should habitually insist upon the faithful observance of their
agreement to remain within their respective reservations. This is the
only mode by which collisions with other tribes and with the whites can
be avoided and the safety of our frontier settlements secured.

The companies constructing the railway from Omaha to Sacramento have
been most energetically engaged in prosecuting the work, and it is
believed that the line will be completed before the expiration of
the next fiscal year. The 6 per cent bonds issued to these companies
amounted on the 5th instant to $44,337,000, and additional work had
been performed to the extent of $3,200,000.

The Secretary of the Interior in August last invited my attention
to the report of a Government director of the Union Pacific Railroad
Company who had been specially instructed to examine the location,
construction, and equipment of their road. I submitted for the opinion
of the Attorney-General certain questions in regard to the authority of
the Executive which arose upon this report and those which had from time
to time been presented by the commissioners appointed to inspect each
successive section of the work. After carefully considering the law of
the case, he affirmed the right of the Executive to order, if necessary,
a thorough revision of the entire road. Commissioners were thereupon
appointed to examine this and other lines, and have recently submitted a
statement of their investigations, of which the report of the Secretary
of the Interior furnishes specific information.

The report of the Secretary of War contains information of interest and
importance respecting the several bureaus of the War Department and the
operations of the Army. The strength of our military force on the 30th
of September last was 48,000 men, and it is computed that by the 1st of
January next this number will be decreased to 43,000. It is the opinion
of the Secretary of War that within the next year a considerable
diminution of the infantry force may be made without detriment to the
interests of the country; and in view of the great expense attending the
military peace establishment and the absolute necessity of retrenchment
wherever it can be applied, it is hoped that Congress will sanction the
reduction which his report recommends. While in 1860 sixteen thousand
three hundred men cost the nation $16,472,000, the sum of $65,682,000
is estimated as necessary for the support of the Army during the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1870. The estimates of the War Department for
the last two fiscal years were, for 1867, $33,814,461, and for 1868
$25,205,669. The actual expenditures during the same periods were,
respectively, $95,224,415 and $123,246,648. The estimate submitted in
December last for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1869, was $77,124,707;
the expenditures for the first quarter, ending the 30th of September
last, were $27,219,117, and the Secretary of the Treasury gives
$66,000,000 as the amount which will probably be required during the
remaining three quarters, if there should be no reduction of the
Army--making its aggregate cost for the year considerably in excess
of ninety-three millions. The difference between the estimates and
expenditures for the three fiscal years which have been named is thus
shown to be $175,545,343 for this single branch of the public service.

The report of the Secretary of the Navy exhibits the operations of that
Department and of the Navy during the year. A considerable reduction of
the force has been effected. There are 42 vessels, carrying 411 guns, in
the six squadrons which are established in different parts of the world.
Three of these vessels are returning to the United States and 4 are used
as storeslips, leaving the actual cruising force 35 vessels, carrying
356 guns. The total number of vessels in the Navy is 206, mounting 1,743
guns. Eighty-one vessels of every description are in use, armed with 696
guns. The number of enlisted men in the service, including apprentices,
has been reduced to 8,500. An increase of navy-yard facilities is
recommended as a measure which will in the event of war be promotive
of economy and security. A more thorough and systematic survey of the
North Pacific Ocean is advised in view of our recent acquisitions, our
expanding commerce, and the increasing intercourse between the Pacific
States and Asia. The naval pension fund, which consists of a moiety of
the avails of prizes captured during the war, amounts to $14,000,000.
Exception is taken to the act of 23d July last, which reduces the
interest on the fund loaned to the Government by the Secretary, as
trustee, to 3 per cent instead of 6 per cent, which was originally
stipulated when the investment was made. An amendment of the pension
laws is suggested to remedy omissions and defects in existing
enactments. The expenditures of the Department during the last fiscal
year were $20,120,394, and the estimates for the coming year amount
to $20,993,414.

The Postmaster-General's report furnishes a full and clear exhibit of
the operations and condition of the postal service. The ordinary postal
revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, was $16,292,600,
the total expenditures, embracing all the service for which special
appropriations have been made by Congress, amounted to $22,730,592,
showing an excess of expenditures of $6,437,991. Deducting from the
expenditures the sum of $1,896,525, the amount of appropriations for
ocean-steamship and other special service, the excess of expenditures
was $4,541,466. By using an unexpended balance in the Treasury of
$3,800,000 the actual sum for which a special appropriation is required
to meet the deficiency is $741,466. The causes which produced this large
excess of expenditure over revenue were the restoration of service in
the late insurgent States and the putting into operation of new service
established by acts of Congress, which amounted within the last two
years and a half to about 48,700 miles--equal to more than one-third
of the whole amount of the service at the close of the war. New postal
conventions with Great Britain, North Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands,
Switzerland, and Italy, respectively, have been carried into effect.
Under their provisions important improvements have resulted in reduced
rates of international postage and enlarged mail facilities with
European countries. The cost of the United States transatlantic ocean
mail service since January 1, 1868, has been largely lessened under the
operation of these new conventions, a reduction of over one-half having
been effected under the new arrangements for ocean mail steamship
service which went into effect on that date. The attention of Congress
is invited to the practical suggestions and recommendations made in his
report by the Postmaster-General.

No important question has occurred during the last year in our
accustomed cordial and friendly intercourse with Costa Rica, Guatemala,
Honduras, San Salvador, France, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Portugal,
the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, Rome, Greece, Turkey,
Persia, Egypt, Liberia, Morocco, Tripoli, Tunis, Muscat, Siam, Borneo,
and Madagascar.

Cordial relations have also been maintained with the Argentine and the
Oriental Republics. The expressed wish of Congress that our national
good offices might be tendered to those Republics, and also to Brazil
and Paraguay, for bringing to an end the calamitous war which has so
long been raging in the valley of the La Plata, has been assiduously
complied with and kindly acknowledged by all the belligerents. That
important negotiation, however, has thus far been without result.

Charles A. Washburn, late United States minister to Paraguay, having
resigned, and being desirous to return to the United States, the
rear-admiral commanding the South Atlantic Squadron was early directed
to send a ship of war to Asuncion, the capital of Paraguay, to receive
Mr. Washburn and his family and remove them from a situation which was
represented to be endangered by faction and foreign war. The Brazilian
commander of the allied invading forces refused permission to the _Wasp_
to pass through the blockading forces, and that vessel returned to
its accustomed anchorage. Remonstrance having been made against this
refusal, it was promptly overruled, and the _Wasp_ therefore resumed
her errand, received Mr. Washburn and his family, and conveyed them to
a safe and convenient seaport. In the meantime an excited controversy
had arisen between the President of Paraguay and the late United States
minister, which, it is understood, grew out of his proceedings in
giving asylum in the United States legation to alleged enemies of
that Republic. The question of the right to give asylum is one always
difficult and often productive of great embarrassment. In states well
organized and established, foreign powers refuse either to concede or
exercise that right, except as to persons actually belonging to the
diplomatic service. On the other hand, all such powers insist upon
exercising the right of asylum in states where the law of nations is
not fully acknowledged, respected, and obeyed.

The President of Paraguay is understood to have opposed to Mr.
Washburn's proceedings the injurious and very improbable charge of
personal complicity in insurrection and treason. The correspondence,
however, has not yet reached the United States.

Mr. Washburn, in connection with this controversy, represents that two
United States citizens attached to the legation were arbitrarily seized
at his Side, when leaving the capital of Paraguay, committed to prison,
and there subjected to torture for the purpose of procuring confessions
of their own criminality and testimony to support the President's
allegations against the United States minister. Mr. McMahon, the newly
appointed minister to Paraguay, having reached the La Plata, has been
instructed to proceed without delay to Asuncion, there to investigate
the whole subject. The rear-admiral commanding the United States South
Atlantic Squadron has been directed to attend the new minister with a
proper naval force to sustain such just demands as the occasion may
require, and to vindicate the rights of the United States citizens
referred to and of any others who may be exposed to danger in the
theater of war. With these exceptions, friendly relations have been
maintained between the United States and Brazil and Paraguay.

Our relations during the past year with Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru,
and Chile have become especially friendly and cordial. Spain and the
Republics of Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador have expressed their willingness
to accept the mediation of the United States for terminating the war
upon the South Pacific coast. Chile has not finally declared upon the
question. In the meantime the conflict has practically exhausted itself,
since no belligerent or hostile movement has been made by either party
during the last two years, and there are no indications of a present
purpose to resume hostilities on either side. Great Britain and France
have cordially seconded our proposition of mediation, and I do not
forego the hope that it may soon be accepted by all the belligerents and
lead to a secure establishment of peace and friendly relations between
the Spanish American Republics of the Pacific and Spain--a result
which would be attended with common benefits to the belligerents
and much advantage to all commercial nations. I communicate, for
the consideration of Congress, a correspondence which shows that the
Bolivian Republic has established the extremely liberal principle of
receiving into its citizenship any citizen of the United States, or
of any other of the American Republics, upon the simple condition of
voluntary registry.

The correspondence herewith submitted wall be found painfully
replete with accounts of the ruin and wretchedness produced by recent
earthquakes, of unparalleled severity, in the Republics of Peru,
Ecuador, and Bolivia. The diplomatic agents and naval officers of the
United States who were present in those countries at the time of those
disasters furnished all the relief in their power to the sufferers, and
were promptly rewarded with grateful and touching acknowledgments by
the Congress of Peru. An appeal to the charity of our fellow-citizens
has been answered by much liberality. In this connection I submit an
appeal which has been made by the Swiss Republic, whose Government and
institutions are kindred to our own, in behalf of its inhabitants, who
are suffering extreme destitution, produced by recent devastating
inundations.

Our relations with Mexico during the year have been marked by an
increasing growth of mutual confidence. The Mexican Government has
not yet acted upon the three treaties celebrated here last summer for
establishing the rights of naturalized citizens upon a liberal and just
basis, for regulating consular powers, and for the adjustment of mutual
claims.

All commercial nations, as well as all friends of republican
institutions, have occasion to regret the frequent local disturbances
which occur in some of the constituent States of Colombia. Nothing has
occurred, however, to affect the harmony and cordial friendship which
have for several years existed between that youthful and vigorous
Republic and our own.

Negotiations are pending with a view to the survey and construction
of a ship canal across the Isthmus of Darien, under the auspices of
the United States. I hope to be able to submit the results of that
negotiation to the Senate during its present session.

The very liberal treaty which was entered into last year by the United
States and Nicaragua has been ratified by the latter Republic.

Costa Rica, with the earnestness of a sincerely friendly neighbor,
solicits a reciprocity of trade, which I commend to the consideration
of Congress.

The convention created by treaty between the United States and Venezuela
in July, 1865, for the mutual adjustment of claims, has been held,
and its decisions have been received at the Department of State. The
heretofore-recognized Government of the United States of Venezuela has
been subverted. A provisional government having been instituted under
circumstances which promise durability, it has been formally recognized.

I have been reluctantly obliged to ask explanation and satisfaction
for national injuries committed by the President of Hayti. The political
and social condition of the Republics of Hayti and St. Domingo is very
unsatisfactory and painful. The abolition of slavery, which has been
carried into effect throughout the island of St. Domingo and the entire
West Indies, except the Spanish islands of Cuba and Porto Rico, has
been followed by a profound popular conviction of the rightfulness
of republican institutions and an intense desire to secure them.
The attempt, however, to establish republics there encounters many
obstacles, most of which may be supposed to result from long-indulged
habits of colonial supineness and dependence upon European monarchical
powers. While the United States have on all occasions professed a
decided unwillingness that any part of this continent or of its adjacent
islands shall be made a theater for a new establishment of monarchical
power, too little has been done by us, on the other hand, to attach the
communities by which we are surrounded to our own country, or to lend
even a moral support to the efforts they are so resolutely and so
constantly making to secure republican institutions for themselves.
It is indeed a question of grave consideration whether our recent and
present example is not calculated to check the growth and expansion of
free principles, and make those communities distrust, if not dread,
a government which at will consigns to military domination States that
are integral parts of our Federal Union, and, while ready to resist any
attempts by other nations to extend to this hemisphere the monarchical
institutions of Europe, assumes to establish over a large portion of
its people a rule more absolute, harsh, and tyrannical than any known
to civilized powers.

The acquisition of Alaska was made with the view of extending national
jurisdiction and republican principles in the American hemisphere.
Believing that a further step could be taken in the same direction,
I last year entered into a treaty with the King of Denmark for the
purchase of the islands of St. Thomas and St. John, on the best terms
then attainable, and with the express consent of the people of those
islands. This treaty still remains under consideration in the Senate.
A new convention has been entered into with Denmark, enlarging the time
fixed for final ratification of the original treaty.

Comprehensive national policy would seem to sanction the acquisition and
incorporation into our Federal Union of the several adjacent continental
and insular communities as speedily as it can be done peacefully,
lawfully, and without any violation of national justice, faith, or
honor. Foreign possession or control of those communities has hitherto
hindered the growth and impaired the influence of the United States.
Chronic revolution and anarchy there would be equally injurious. Each
one of them, when firmly established as an independent republic, or when
incorporated into the United States, would be a new source of strength
and power. Conforming my Administration to these principles, I have on
no occasion lent support or toleration to unlawful expeditions set on
foot upon the plea of republican propagandism or of national extension
or aggrandizement. The necessity, however, of repressing such unlawful
movements clearly indicates the duty which rests upon us of adapting our
legislative action to the new circumstances of a decline of European
monarchical power and influence and the increase of American republican
ideas, interests, and sympathies.

It can not be long before it will become necessary for this Government
to lend some effective aid to the solution of the political and social
problems which are continually kept before the world by the two
Republics of the island of St. Domingo, and which are now disclosing
themselves more distinctly than heretofore in the island of Cuba. The
subject is commended to your consideration with all the more earnestness
because I am satisfied that the time has arrived when even so direct a
proceeding as a proposition for an annexation of the two Republics of
the island of St. Domingo would not only receive the consent of the
people interested, but would also give satisfaction to all other foreign
nations.

I am aware that upon the question of further extending our
possessions it is apprehended by some that our political system can not
successfully be applied to an area more extended than our continent; but
the conviction is rapidly gaining ground in the American mind that with
the increased facilities for intercommunication between all portions
of the earth the principles of free government, as embraced in our
Constitution, if faithfully maintained and carried out, would prove of
sufficient strength and breadth to comprehend within their sphere and
influence the civilized nations of the world.

The attention of the Senate and of Congress is again respectfully
invited to the treaty for the establishment of commercial reciprocity
with the Hawaiian Kingdom entered into last year, and already ratified
by that Government. The attitude of the United States toward these
islands is not very different from that in which they stand toward the
West Indies. It is known and felt by the Hawaiian Government and people
that their Government and institutions are feeble and precarious; that
the United States, being so near a neighbor, would be unwilling to see
the islands pass under foreign control. Their prosperity is continually
disturbed by expectations and alarms of unfriendly political
proceedings, as well from the United States as from other foreign
powers. A reciprocity treaty, while it could not materially diminish
the revenues of the United States, would be a guaranty of the good will
and forbearance of all nations until the people of the islands shall of
themselves, at no distant day, voluntarily apply for admission into the
Union.

The Emperor of Russia has acceded to the treaty negotiated here
in January last for the security of trade-marks in the interest
of manufacturers and commerce. I have invited his attention to the
importance of establishing, now while it seems easy and practicable,
a fair and equal regulation of the vast fisheries belonging to the
two nations in the waters of the North Pacific Ocean.

The two treaties between the United States and Italy for the regulation
of consular powers and the extradition of criminals, negotiated and
ratified here during the last session of Congress, have been accepted
and confirmed by the Italian Government. A liberal consular convention
which has been negotiated with Belgium will be submitted to the Senate.
The very important treaties which were negotiated between the United
States and North Germany and Bavaria for the regulation of the rights of
naturalized citizens have been duly ratified and exchanged, and similar
treaties have been entered into with the Kingdoms of Belgium and
Wurtemberg and with the Grand Duchies of Baden and Hesse-Darmstadt.
I hope soon to be able to submit equally satisfactory conventions of
the same character now in the course of negotiation with the respective
Governments of Spain, Italy, and the Ottoman Empire.

Examination of claims against the United States by the Hudsons Bay
Company and the Puget Sound Agricultural Company, on account of certain
possessory rights in the State of Oregon and Territory of Washington,
alleged by those companies in virtue of provisions of the treaty
between the United States and Great Britain of June 15, 1846, has been
diligently prosecuted, under the direction of the joint international
commission to which they were submitted for adjudication by treaty
between the two Governments of July 1, 1863, and will, it is expected,
be concluded at an early day.

No practical regulation concerning colonial trade and the fisheries can
be accomplished by treaty between the United States and Great Britain
until Congress shall have expressed their judgment concerning the
principles involved. Three other questions, however, between the United
States and Great Britain remain open for adjustment. These are the
mutual rights of naturalized citizens, the boundary question involving
the title to the island of San Juan, on the Pacific coast, and mutual
claims arising since the year 1853 of the citizens and subjects of the
two countries for injuries and depredations committed under the
authority of their respective Governments. Negotiations upon these
subjects are pending, and I am not without hope of being able to lay
before the Senate, for its consideration during the present session,
protocols calculated to bring to an end these justly exciting and
long-existing controversies.

We are not advised of the action of the Chinese Government upon the
liberal and auspicious treaty which was recently celebrated with its
plenipotentiaries at this capital.

Japan remains a theater of civil war, marked by religious incidents
and political severities peculiar to that long-isolated Empire. The
Executive has hitherto maintained strict neutrality among the
belligerents, and acknowledges with pleasure that it has been frankly
and fully sustained in that course by the enlightened concurrence and
cooperation of the other treaty powers, namely, Great Britain, France,
the Netherlands, North Germany, and Italy.

Spain having recently undergone a revolution marked by extraordinary
unanimity and preservation of order, the provisional government
established at Madrid has been recognized, and the friendly intercourse
which has so long happily existed between the two countries remains
unchanged.

I renew the recommendation contained in my communication to Congress
dated the 18th July last--a copy of which accompanies this message--that
the judgment of the people should be taken on the propriety of so
amending the Federal Constitution that it shall provide--

First. For an election of President and Vice-President by a direct vote
of the people, instead of through the agency of electors, and making
them ineligible for reelection to a second term.

Second. For a distinct designation of the person who shall discharge
the duties of President in the event of a vacancy in that office by the
death, resignation, or removal of both the President and Vice-President.

Third. For the election of Senators of the United States directly by
the people of the several States, instead of by the legislatures; and

Fourth. For the limitation to a period of years of the terms of Federal
judges.

Profoundly impressed with the propriety of making these important
modifications in the Constitution, I respectfully submit them for
the early and mature consideration of Congress. We should, as far
as possible, remove all pretext for violations of the organic law,
by remedying such imperfections as time and experience may develop,
ever remembering that "the constitution which at any time exists until
changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly
obligatory upon all."

In the performance of a duty imposed upon me by the Constitution, I have
thus communicated to Congress information of the state of the Union and
recommended for their consideration such measures as have seemed to me
necessary and expedient. If carried into effect, they will hasten the
accomplishment of the great and beneficent purposes for which the
Constitution was ordained, and which it comprehensively states were
"to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity." In Congress are vested all legislative powers, and upon them
devolves the responsibility as well for framing unwise and excessive
laws as for neglecting to devise and adopt measures absolutely demanded
by the wants of the country. Let us earnestly hope that before the
expiration of our respective terms of service, now rapidly drawing
to a close, an all-wise Providence will so guide our counsels as to
strengthen and preserve the Federal Union, inspire reverence for the
Constitution, restore prosperity and happiness to our whole people,
and promote "on earth peace, good will toward men."

ANDREW JOHNSON.

SPECIAL MESSAGES.

WASHINGTON, _December 8, 1868_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit a copy of a note of the 24th of November last addressed to
the Secretary of State by the minister of Great Britain, communicating
a decree of the district court of the United States for the southern
district of New York ordering the payment of certain sums to the
defendants in a suit against the English schooner _Sibyl_, libeled as a
prize of war. It is requisite for the fulfillment of the decree that an
appropriation of the sums specified therein should be made by Congress.
The appropriation is recommended accordingly.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 11, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 7th
instant, relating to the correspondence with the American minister at
London concerning the so-called _Alabama_ claims, I transmit a report
on the subject from the Secretary of State.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 16, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 14th
December instant, I transmit the accompanying report[70] of the Secretary
of State.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 70: Relating to the sending of a commissioner from the United
States to Spain.]

WASHINGTON, _December 16, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 14th
instant, requesting the correspondence which has taken place between the
United States minister at Brazil and Rear-Admiral Davis touching the
disposition of the American squadron at Rio Janeiro and the Paraguay
difficulties, I transmit a report of the Secretary of State upon that
subject.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 16, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 8th instant, concerning
recent transactions in the region of the La Plata affecting the
political relations of the United States with Paraguay, the Argentine
Republic, Uruguay, and Brazil, I transmit a report of the Secretary of
State, which is accompanied by a copy of the papers called for by the
resolution.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _December 18, 1868_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith communicate a report of the Secretary of the Interior, in
answer to a resolution adopted by the House of Representatives on the
16th instant, making inquiries in reference to the Union Pacific
Railroad and requesting the transmission of the report of the special
commissioners appointed to examine the construction and equipment of
the road.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 4, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in compliance with the request contained
in its resolution of the 15th ultimo, a report from the Secretary of
State, communicating information in regard to the action of the mixed
commission for the adjustment of claims by citizens of the United
States against the Government of Venezuela.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 4, 1869_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit to the House of Representatives a report from the Secretary
of State, with accompanying papers, in relation to the resolution of
Congress approved July 20, 1867, "declaring sympathy with the suffering
people of Crete."

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[The same message was sent to the Senate.]

WASHINGTON, _January 4, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to
ratification, an additional article to the convention of the 24th of
October, 1867, between the United States and His Majesty the King of
Denmark.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 5, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to
ratification, a convention between the United States and His Hawaiian
Majesty, signed in this city on the 28th day of July last, stipulating
for an extension of the period for the exchange of the ratifications of
the convention between the same parties on the subject of commercial
reciprocity.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 7, 1869_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith, in answer to a resolution of the House of
Representatives of the 16th of December last, a report[71] from the
Secretary of State of the 6th instant.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 71: Giving reasons why reductions in the number of officers
and employees and in the salaries and expenses of the Department of
State should not be made.]

WASHINGTON, D.C., _January 8, 1869_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

In conformity with the requirements of the sixth section of the act of
the 22d of June, 1860, to carry into effect provisions of the treaty
with China and certain other Oriental nations, I transmit to Congress a
copy of eight rules agreed upon between the Chinese Imperial Government
and the minister of the United States and those of other foreign powers
accredited to that Government, for conducting the proceedings of the
joint tribunal in cases of confiscation and fines for breaches of the
revenue laws of that Empire. These rules, which are accompanied by
correspondence between our minister and Secretary of State on the
subject, are commended to the consideration of Congress with a view
to their approval.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 8, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 17th
ultimo, a report[72] from the Secretary of State, with an accompanying
paper.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 72: Relating to the exercise or claim by United States consuls
in Japan of judicial powers in cases arising between American citizens
and citizens or subjects of any foreign nation ether than Japan, etc.]

WASHINGTON, _January 11, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to
ratification, a convention between the United States and Belgium upon
the subject of naturalization, which was signed at Brussels on the 16th
of November last.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 11, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to
ratification, a convention between the United States and Belgium
concerning the rights, privileges, and immunities of consuls in the
two countries, signed at Brussels on the 5th ultimo.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 11, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to
ratification, an additional article of the treaty of commerce and
navigation between the United States and Belgium of the 17th of July,
1858, which was signed at Brussels on the 20th ultimo.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 12, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit a copy of a convention between the United States and Peru,
signed at Lima on the 4th of last month, stipulating for a mixed
commission for the adjustment of claims of citizens of the two
countries. An extract from that part of the dispatch of the minister of
the United States at Lima which accompanied the copy referred to, and
which relates to it, is also transmitted. It will be seen from this
extract that it is desirable that the decision of the Senate upon
the instrument should be given as early as may be convenient. It is
consequently recommended for consideration with a view to ratification.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _January 13, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
a treaty concluded at Washington, D.C., August 13, 1868, between the
United States and the Nez Perce tribe of Indians, which treaty is
supplemental to and amendatory of the treaty concluded with said tribe
June 9, 1863. A communication from the Secretary of the Interior of the
12th instant, inclosing a copy of a report of the Commissioner of Indian
Affairs of the 11th instant, is also herewith transmitted.[73]

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 73: Note by the Executive Clerk of the Senate.--"The
communication from the Secretary of the Interior and this report of the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs did not accompany the above communication
from the president."]

WASHINGTON, _January 14, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of War, together with
the original papers accompanying the same, submitted in compliance
with the resolution of the Senate of the 5th instant, requesting such
information as is furnished by the files of the War Department in
relation to the erection of fortifications at Lawrence, Kans., in 1864
and 1865.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 15, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit, for the opinion of the Senate as to the expediency of
concluding a convention based thereupon, a protocol, signed at London on
the 9th of October last, for regulating the citizenship of citizens of
the United States who have emigrated or who may emigrate from the United
States to the British dominions, and of British subjects who have
emigrated or who may emigrate from the British dominions to the United
States of America.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 15, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for consideration with a view to its
ratification, a copy of a treaty between the United States and Great
Britain, signed yesterday at London, 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. It is
expected that the original of the convention will be forwarded by the
steamer which leaves Liverpool to-morrow. Circumstances, however, to
which it is unnecessary to advert, in my judgment make it advisable to
communicate to the Senate the copy referred to in advance of the arrival
of the original instrument.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 15, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for consideration with a view of its
ratification, a copy of a convention between the United States and
Great Britain, signed yesterday at London, providing for the adjustment
of all outstanding claims of the citizens and subjects of the parties,
respectively. It is expected that the original of the convention
will be forwarded by the steamer which leaves Liverpool to-morrow.
Circumstances, however, to which it is unnecessary to advert, in my
judgment make it advisable to communicate to the Senate the copy
referred to in advance of the arrival of the original instrument.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _January 18, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

The resolution adopted on the 5th instant, requesting the President "to
transmit to the Senate a copy of any proclamation of amnesty made by him
since the last adjournment of Congress, and also to communicate to the
Senate by what authority of law the same was made," has been received.

I accordingly transmit herewith a copy of a proclamation dated the 25th
day of December last. The authority of law by which it was made is set
forth in the proclamation itself, which expressly affirms that it was
issued "by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the
Constitution, and in the name of the sovereign people of the United
States," and proclaims and declares "unconditionally and without
reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly,
participated in the late insurrection or rebellion, a full pardon and
amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States, or of
adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of
all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the
laws which have been made in pursuance thereof."

The Federal Constitution is understood to be and is regarded by the
Executive as the supreme law of the land. The second section of article
second of that instrument provides that the President "shall have power
to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States,
except in cases of impeachment." The proclamation of the 25th ultimo is
in strict accordance with the judicial expositions of the authority thus
conferred upon the Executive, and, as will be seen by reference to the
accompanying papers, is in conformity with the precedent established by
Washington in 1795, and followed by President Adams in 1800, Madison in
1815, and Lincoln in 1863, and by the present Executive in 1865, 1867,
and 1868.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 20, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of War, made in
compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 19th ultimo,
requesting information in reference to the payment of rent for the use
of the building known as the Libby Prison, in the city of Richmond, Va.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 22, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to
ratification, an additional article to the convention between the United
States and His Majesty the King of Italy for regulating the jurisdiction
of consuls.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 22, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 23, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for the constitutional action of
that body, a treaty concluded at the council house on the Cattaraugus
Reservation, in Erie County, N.Y., on the 4th day of December, 1868,
by Walter R. Irwin, commissioner on the part of the United States, and
the duly authorized representatives of the several tribes and bands of
Indians residing in the State of New York, A copy of a letter from the
Secretary of the Interior, dated the 22d instant, and the papers therein
referred to, in relation to the treaty, are also herewith transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 26, 1869_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit for the consideration of Congress, in conformity with the
requirements of the sixth section of the act of the 22d of June, 1860,
a copy of certain regulations for the consular courts in China,
prohibiting steamers sailing under the flag of the United States from
using or passing through the Straw Shoe Channel on the river Yangtse,
decreed by S. Wells Williams, chargé d'affaires, on the 1st of June, and
promulgated by George F. Seward, consul-general at Shanghai, on the 25th
of July, 1868, with the assent of five of the United States consuls in
China, G.H. Colton Salter dissenting. His objections to the regulations
are set forth in the accompanying copy of a communication of the 10th of
October last, inclosed in Consul-General Seward's dispatch of the 14th
of the game month to the Secretary of State, a copy of which is also
transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _January 26, 1869_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit to Congress a report from the Secretary of State, with
accompanying documents, in relation to the gold medal presented to Mr.
George Peabody pursuant to the resolution of Congress of March 16, 1867.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 27, 1860_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit to the House of Representatives, in answer to their
resolution of the 23d instant, the accompanying report[74] from
the Secretary of State.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 74: Relating to buildings occupied in Washington by
Departments of the Government.]

WASHINGTON, _January 27, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of War, upon the
subject of the resolution of the Senate of the 21st instant, requesting
a copy of the report of Brevet Major-General William S. Harney upon the
Sioux and other Indians congregated under treaties made with them by the
special peace commission.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _January 29, 1869_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I transmit to the House of Representatives, in answer to a resolution
of the House of Representatives without date, received at the Executive
Mansion on the 10th of December, calling for correspondence in relation
to the cases of Messrs. Costello and Warren, naturalized citizens of the
United States imprisoned in Great Britain, a report from the Secretary
of State and the papers to which it refers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 29, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its consideration in connection
with the treaty with the New York Indians concluded November 4, 1868,
which is now before that body for its constitutional action, an
additional article of said treaty as an amendment.

A communication, dated the 28th instant, from the Secretary of the
Interior, and a copy of a report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs,
explaining the object of the amendment, are also herewith transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 1, 1869_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 16th
of December last, in relation to the arrest of American citizens in
Paraguay, I transmit a report of the Secretary of State.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 1, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In further answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 8th of December
last, concerning recent transactions in the region of the La Plata
affecting the political relations of the United States with Paraguay,
the Argentine Republic, Uruguay, and Brazil, I transmit a report from
the Secretary of State.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 2, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
two treaties made by the commissioners appointed under the act of
Congress of 20th July, 1867, to establish peace with certain hostile
tribes, viz:

A treaty concluded at Fort Laramie, Dakota Territory, on the 2Qth April,
1868, with various bands of the Sioux or Dakota Nation of Indians.

A treaty concluded at Fort Bridger, Utah Territory, on the 3d day of
July, 1868, with the Shoshone (eastern band) and Bannock Indians.

A communication from the Secretary of the Interior, dated the 2d
instant, inclosing a copy of a letter to him from the Commissioner of
Indian Affairs of the 28th ultimo, together with the correspondence
therein referred to, relating to said treaties, are also herewith
transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 3, 1869_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit, for the consideration of Congress, a report from the
Secretary of State, and the papers which accompany it, in relation to
the encroachments of agents of the Hudsons Bay Company upon the trade
and territory of Alaska.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 4, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for the constitutional action of that
body thereon, the following treaties, concluded with various bands and
tribes of Indians by William I. Cullen, special agent for Indians in
Montana, viz:

Treaty concluded at Fort Hawley on the 13th July, 1868, with the Gros
Ventres.

Treaty concluded at Fort Hawley on the 15th July, 1868, with the River
Crow Indians.

Treaty concluded at Fort Benton September 1, 1868, with the Blackfeet
Nation (composed of the tribe of that name and the Blood and Piegan
tribes).

Treaty with the mixed bands of Shoshones, Bannocks, and Sheepeaters,
concluded at Virginia City September 24, 1868.

A letter of the Secretary of the Interior, dated the 3d instant, and
the report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, dated the 2d instant,
explaining the provisions of the several treaties and suggesting an
amendment of some of them, and submitting maps and papers connected with
said treaties, are also herewith transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 4, 1869_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 23d
January ultimo, I transmit a report[75] of the Secretary of State, which is
accompanied by a copy of the correspondence called for by the resolution.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

[Footnote 75: Relating to the claim of William T. Harris, a United
States citizen, to property withheld by the Brazilian Government.]

WASHINGTON, _February 8, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

Referring to my communications of the 16th of December, 1868, and of
the 1st of February instant, addressed to the Senate in answer to the
resolution of that body of the 8th of December last, concerning recent
transactions in the region of the La Plata, I transmit a report of the
Secretary of State and the papers which accompany it.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 9, 1869_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 13th
ultimo, requesting information as to expenditures by the northwestern
boundary commission, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State on
the subject, and the papers which accompanied it.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 9, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for the constitutional action of that
body thereon, a treaty concluded on the 2d day of September, 1868,
between the United States and the Creek Nation of Indians by their duly
authorized delegates.

A letter from the Secretary of the Interior, dated the 8th instant, and
a report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, dated the 6th instant,
in relation to said treaty, are also herewith transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 11, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 21st
ultimo, a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers,
in relation to the establishment of the Robert College at
Constantinople.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _February 13, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for their action thereon, a mutual
relinquishment of the agreement between the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians
of Kansas, which agreement is appended to a treaty now before the Senate
between the United States and the Swan Creek and Black River Chippewas
and the Munsee or Christian Indians, concluded on the 1st of June, 1868.

A letter of the Secretary of the Interior of the 11th instant, together
with the papers therein referred to, is also herewith transmitted.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 15, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit, for the consideration of the Senate with a view to
ratification, a convention between the United States of America arid the
United States of Colombia for facilitating and securing the construction
of a ship canal between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans through the
continental isthmus lying without the jurisdiction of the United States
of Colombia, which instrument was signed at Bogota on the 14th instant.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 17, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith lay before the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon,
a treaty concluded on the 11th instant, in the city of Washington,
between the United States and the Sac and Fox Indians of the Missouri
and the Iowa tribe of Indians. A letter of the Secretary of the Interior
of the 16th instant, together with the letters therein referred to,
accompany the treaty. For reasons stated in the accompanying
communications, I request to withdraw from the Senate a treaty with the
Sac and Fox Indians of the Missouri, concluded February 19, 1867, now
pending before that body.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 17, 1869_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit to Congress a report from the Secretary of State, with
accompanying documents, in relation to the gold medal presented to Mr.
Cyrus W. Field pursuant to the resolution of Congress of March 2, 1867.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 17, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith present, for the consideration of the Senate in connection
with the treaty with the Brule and other bands of Sioux Indians now
pending before that body, a communication from the Secretary of the
Interior, dated the 16th instant, and accompanying letters from the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs and P. H. Conger, United States Indian
agent for the Yankton Sioux, requesting that the benefits of said treaty
may be extended to the Yankton Sioux and all the bands and individuals
of the Dakota Sioux.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 17, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 19th
ultimo, relating to fisheries, a report from the Secretary of State and
the documents which accompanied it.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _February 18, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its constitutional action, a treaty
concluded on the 13th instant between the United States and the Otoe and
Missouria tribe of Indians, together with the accompanying papers.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 19, 1869_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit to Congress a copy of a correspondence which has taken place
between the Secretary of State and the minister of the United States at
Paris, in relation to the use of passports by citizens of the United
States in France.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 20, 1869_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit an additional report from the Secretary of State,
representing that Messrs. Costello and Warren, citizens of the United
States imprisoned in Ireland, have been released.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _February 23, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of the Treasury, on
the subject of the resolution of the Senate of the 13th January last,
requesting "that the President direct the Secretary of the Treasury to
detail an officer to select from the public lands such permanent points
upon the coast of Oregon, Washington Territory, and Alaska as in his
judgment may be necessary for light-house purposes, in view of the
future commercial necessity of the Pacific Coast, and to reserve the
same for exclusive use of the United States."

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 23, 1869_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

Referring to my communication to Congress of the 26th ultimo, concerning
a decree made by the United States chargé d'affaires in China, on 1st
of June last, prohibiting steamers sailing under the flag of the United
States from using or passing through the Straw Shoe Channel on the
Yangtse River, I now transmit a copy of a dispatch of the 22d of August
last, No. 25, from S. Wells Williams, esq., and of such of the papers
accompanying it as were not contained in my former communication. I also
transmit a copy of the reply of the 6th instant made by the Secretary of
State to the above-named dispatch.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 24, 1869_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit to Congress a copy of a convention between the United States
and the Mexican Republic, providing for the adjustment of the claims of
citizens of either country against the other, signed on the 4th day of
July last, and the ratifications of which were exchanged on the 1st
instant.

It is recommended that such legislation as may be necessary to carry
this convention into effect shall receive early consideration.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, _March 1, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the request of the Senate of the 27th ultimo,
I return herewith their resolution of the 26th February, calling for a
statement of internal-revenue stamps issued by the Government since the
passage of the act approved July 1, 1862.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

VETO MESSAGES.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _February 13, 1869_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

The bill entitled "An act transferring the duties of trustees of colored
schools of Washington and Georgetown" is herewith returned to the
Senate, in which House it originated, without my approval.

The accompanying paper exhibits the fact that the legislation which the
bill proposes is contrary to the wishes of the colored residents of
Washington and Georgetown, and that they prefer that the schools for
their children should be under the management of trustees selected by
the Secretary of the Interior, whose term of office is for four years,
rather than subject to the control of bodies whose tenure of office,
depending merely upon political considerations, may be annually affected
by the elections which take place in the two cities.

The colored people of Washington and Georgetown are at present not
represented by a person of their own race in either of the boards of
trustees of public schools appointed by the municipal authorities.
Of the three trustees, however, who, under the act of July 11, 1862,
compose the board of trustees of the schools for colored children, two
are persons of color. The resolutions transmitted herewith show that
they have performed their trust in a manner entirely satisfactory to
the colored people of the two cities, and no good reason is known to
the Executive why the duties which now devolve upon them should be
transferred as proposed in the bill.

With these brief suggestions the bill is respectfully returned, and the
consideration of Congress invited to the accompanying preamble and
resolutions.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., _February 22, 1869_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

The accompanying bill, entitled "An act regulating the duties on
imported copper and copper ores," is, for the following reasons,
returned, without my approval, to the House of Representatives, in which
branch of Congress it originated.

Its immediate effect will be to diminish the public receipts, for the
object of the bill can not be accomplished without seriously affecting
the importation of copper and copper ores, from which a considerable
revenue is at present derived. While thus impairing the resources of the
Government, it imposes an additional tax upon an already overburdened
people, who should not be further impoverished that monopolies may be
fostered and corporations enriched.

It is represented--and the declaration seems to be sustained by
evidence--that the duties for which this bill provides are nearly or
quite sufficient to prohibit the importation of certain foreign ores of
copper. Its enactment, therefore, will prove detrimental to the shipping
interests of the nation, and at the same time destroy the business, for
many years successfully established, of smelting home ores in connection
with a smaller amount of the imported articles. This business, it is
credibly asserted, has heretofore yielded the larger share of the copper
production of the country, and thus the industry which this legislation
is designed to encourage is actually less than that which will be
destroyed by the passage of this bill.

It seems also to be evident that the effect of this measure will be to
enhance by 70 per cent the cost of blue vitriol--an article extensively
used in dyeing and in the manufacture of printed and colored cloths. To
produce such an augmentation in the price of this commodity will be to
discriminate against other great branches of domestic industry, and by
increasing their cost to expose them most unfairly to the effects of
foreign competition. Legislation can neither be wise nor just which
seeks the welfare of a single interest at the expense and to the injury
of many and varied interests at least equally important and equally
deserving the consideration of Congress. Indeed, it is difficult to find
any reason which will justify the interference of Government with any
legitimate industry, except so far as may be rendered necessary by the
requirements of the revenue. As has already been stated, however, the
legislative intervention proposed in the present instance will diminish,
not increase, the public receipts.

The enactment of such a law is urged as necessary for the relief of
certain mining interests upon Lake Superior, which, it is alleged,
are in a greatly depressed condition, and can only be sustained by an
enhancement of the price of copper. If this result should follow the
passage of the bill, a tax for the exclusive benefit of a single class
would be imposed upon the consumers of copper throughout the entire
country, not warranted by any need of the Government, and the avails of
which would not in any degree find their way into the Treasury of the
nation. If the miners of Lake Superior are in a condition of want, it
can not be justly affirmed that the Government should extend charity to
them in preference to those of its citizens who in other portions of the
country suffer in like manner from destitution. Least of all should the
endeavor to aid them be based upon a method so uncertain and indirect as
that contemplated by the bill, and which, moreover, proposes to continue
the exercise of its benefaction through an indefinite period of years.
It is, besides, reasonable to hope that positive suffering from want,
if it really exists, will prove but temporary in a region where
agricultural labor is so much in demand and so well compensated. A
careful examination of the subject appears to show that the present
low price of copper, which alone has induced any depression the mining
interests of Lake Superior may have recently experienced, is due to
causes which it is wholly impolitic, if not impracticable, to contravene
by legislation. These causes are, in the main, an increase in the
general supply of copper, owing to the discovery and working of
remarkably productive mines and to a coincident restriction in the
consumption and use of copper by the substitution of other and cheaper
metals for industrial purposes. It is now sought to resist by artificial
means the action of natural laws; to place the people of the United
States, in respect to the enjoyment and use of an essential commodity,
upon a different basis from other nations, and especially to compensate
certain private and sectional interests for the changes and losses which
are always incident to industrial progress.

Although providing for an increase of duties, the proposed law does not
even come within the range of protection, in the fair acceptation of the
term. It does not look to the fostering of a young and feeble interest
with a view to the ultimate attainment of strength and the capacity
of self-support. It appears to assume that the present inability for
successful production is inherent and permanent, and is more likely
to increase than to be gradually overcome; yet in spite of this it
proposes, by the exercise of the lawmaking power, to sustain that
interest and to impose it in hopeless perpetuity as a tax upon the
competent and beneficent industries of the country.

The true method for the mining interests of Lake Superior to
obtain relief, if relief is needed, is to endeavor to make their great
natural resources fully available by reducing the cost of production.
Special or class legislation can not remedy the evils which this bill
is designed to meet. They can only be overcome by laws which will effect
a wise, honest, and economical administration of the Government, a
reestablishment of the specie standard of value, and an early adjustment
of our system of State, municipal, and national taxation (especially the
latter) upon the fundamental principle that all taxes, whether collected
under the internal revenue or under a tariff, shall interfere as little
as possible with the productive energies of the people.

The bill is therefore returned, in the belief that the true interests
of the Government and of the people require that it should not become
a law.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

PROCLAMATION.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas the President of the United States has heretofore set forth
several proclamations offering amnesty and pardon to persons who
had been or were concerned in the late rebellion against the lawful
authority of the Government of the United States, which proclamations
were severally issued on the 8th day of December, 1863, on the 26th
day of March, 1864, on the 29th day of May, 1865, on the 7th day of
September, 1867, and on the 4th day of July, in the present year; and

Whereas the authority of the Federal Government having been
reestablished in all the States and Territories within the jurisdiction
of the United States, it is believed that such prudential reservations
and exceptions as at the dates of said several proclamations were deemed
necessary and proper may now be wisely and justly relinquished, and that
an universal amnesty and pardon for participation in said rebellion
extended to all who have borne any part therein will tend to secure
permanent peace, order, and prosperity throughout the land, and to renew
and fully restore confidence and fraternal feeling among the whole
people, and their respect for and attachment to the National Government,
designed by its patriotic founders for the general good:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the
Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United
States, do hereby proclaim and declare, unconditionally and without
reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly,
participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and
amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of
adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration
of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and
the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.

In testimony whereof I have signed these presents with my hand and have
caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, the 25th day of December, A.D. 1868, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-third.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:
F.W. SEWARD,
_Acting Secretary of State_.

IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

On the 24th of February, 1868, the House of Representatives of the
Congress of the United States resolved to impeach Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, of
which the Senate was apprised, and arrangements were made for the trial.
On the 2d and 3d of March articles of impeachment were agreed upon by
the House of Representatives, and on the 4th they were presented to the
Senate by the managers on the part of the House, Mr. John A. Bingham,
Mr. George S. Boutwell, Mr. James F. Wilson, Mr. Benjamin F. Butler, Mr.
Thomas Williams, Mr. John A. Logan, and Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, who were
accompanied by the House as a Committee of the Whole. The articles are
as follows:

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, UNITED STATES, _March 2, 1868_.

ARTICLES EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES,
IN THE NAME OF THEMSELVES AND ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES,
AGAINST ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN MAINTENANCE
AND SUPPORT OF THEIR IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS IN OFFICE.

ARTICLE I. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
on the 21st day of February, A.D. 1868, at Washington, in the District
of Columbia, unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath
of office, and of the requirement of the Constitution that he should
take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully and in
violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States issue an
order in writing for the removal of Edwin M. Stanton from the office
of Secretary for the Department of War, said Edwin M. Stanton having
been theretofore duly appointed and commissioned, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate of the United States, as such Secretary;
and said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 12th
day of August, A.D. 1867, and during the recess of said Senate, having
suspended by his order Edwin M. Stanton from said office, and within
twenty days after the first day of the next meeting of said Senate--that
is to say, on the 12th day of December, in the year last aforesaid--having
reported to said Senate such suspension, with the evidence and reasons
for his action in the case and the name of the person designated to
perform the duties of such office temporarily until the next meeting of
the Senate; and said Senate thereafterwards, on the 13th day of January,
A.D. 1868, having duly considered the evidence and reasons reported by
said Andrew Johnson for said suspension, and having refused to concur
in said suspension, whereby and by force of the provisions of an act
entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed
March 2, 1867, said Edwin M. Stanton did forthwith resume the functions
of his office, whereof the said Andrew Johnson had then and there due
notice; and said Edwin M. Stanton, by reason of the premises, on said
21st day of February, being lawfully entitled to hold said office of
Secretary for the Department of War; which said order for the removal
of said Edwin M. Stanton is in substance as follows; that is to say:

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., February 21, 1868_.

Hon. EDWIN M. STANTON,

_Washington, D.C._

Respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

which order was unlawfully issued with intent then and there to violate
the act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil
offices," passed March 2, 1867, and with the further intent, contrary,
to the provisions of said act, in violation thereof, and contrary to the
provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and without the
advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, the said Senate
then and there being in session, to remove said Edwin M. Stanton from
the office of Secretary for the Department of War, the said Edwin M.
Stanton being then and there Secretary for the Department of War, and
being then and there in the due and lawful execution and discharge of
the duties of said office; whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of
the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a high
misdemeanor in office.

ART. II. That on said 21st day of February, A.D. 1868, at Washington, in
the District of Columbia, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United
States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of
office, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and
contrary to the provisions of an act entitled "An act regulating the
tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867, without the
advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, said Senate then
and there being in session, and without authority of law, did, with
intent to violate the Constitution of the United States and the act
aforesaid, issue and deliver to one Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority
in substance as follows; that is to say:

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., February 21, 1868_.

Brevet Major-General LORENZO THOMAS,

_Adjutant-General United States Army, Washington, D.C._

Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records,
books, papers, and other public property now in his custody and charge.

Respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

then and there being no vacancy in said office of Secretary for the
Department of War; whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United
States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor
in office.

ART. III. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on
the 21st day of February, A.D. 1868, at Washington, in the District of
Columbia, did commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office in
this, that without authority of law, while the Senate of the United
States was then and there in session, he did appoint one Lorenzo Thomas
to be Secretary for the Department of War _ad interim_, without the
advice and consent of the Senate, and with intent to violate the
Constitution of the United States, no vacancy having happened in said
office of Secretary for the Department of War during the recess of the
Senate, and no vacancy existing in said office at the time, and which
said appointment, so made by said Andrew Johnson, of said Lorenzo
Thomas, is in substance as follows; that is to say:

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., February 21, 1868_.

Brevet Major-General LORENZO THOMAS,

_Adjutant-General United States Army, Washington, D.C._

Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records,
books, papers, and other public property now in his custody and charge.

Respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

ART. IV. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
unmindful of the high duties of his office and his oath of office, in
violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, on the 21st
day of February, A.D. 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia,
did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons
to the House of Representatives unknown, with intent, by intimidation
and threats, unlawfully to hinder and prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and
there the Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed under the
laws of the United States, from holding said office of Secretary for the
Department of War, contrary to and in violation of the Constitution of
the United States and of the provisions of an act entitled "An act to
define and punish certain conspiracies," approved July 31, 1861; whereby
said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there
commit and was guilty of a high crime in office.

ART. V. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office,
on the 21st day of February, A.D. 1868, and on divers other days and
times in said year before the 2d day of March, A.D. 1868, at Washington,
in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo
Thomas, and with other persons to the House of Representatives unknown,
to prevent and hinder the execution of an act entitled "An act
regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867,
and in pursuance of said conspiracy did unlawfully attempt to prevent
Edwin M. Stanton, then and there being Secretary for the Department
of War, duly appointed and commissioned under the laws of the United
States, from holding said office; whereby the said Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty
of a high misdemeanor in office.

ART. VI. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office,
on the 21st day of February, A.D. 1868, at Washington, in the District
of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas by force
to seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the
Department of War, and then and there in the custody and charge of Edwin
M. Stanton, Secretary for said Department, contrary to the provisions
of an act entitled "An act to define and punish certain conspiracies,"
approved July 31, 1861, and with intent to violate and disregard an act
entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed
March 2, 1867; whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United
States, did then and there commit a high crime in office.

ART. VII. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, on
the 21st day of February, A.D. 1868, at Washington, in the District of
Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas with intent
unlawfully to seize, take, and possess the property of the United States
in the Department of War, in the custody and charge of Edwin M. Stanton,
Secretary for said Department, with intent to violate and disregard the
act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,"
passed March 2, 1867; whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, did then and there commit a high misdemeanor in office.

ART. VIII. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office,
with intent unlawfully to control the disbursement of the moneys
appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War,
on the 21st day of February, A.D. 1868, at Washington, in the District
of Columbia, did unlawfully, and contrary to the provisions of an act
entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed
March 2, 1867, and in violation of the Constitution of the United
States, and without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United
States, and while the Senate was then and there in session, there being
no vacancy in the office of Secretary for the Department of War, and
with intent to violate and disregard the act aforesaid, then and there
issue and deliver to one Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority, in
writing, in substance as follows; that is to say:

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, D.C., February 21, 1868_.

Brevet Major-General LORENZO THOMAS,

_Adjutant-General United States Army, Washington, D.C._

Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records,
books, papers, and other public property now in his custody and charge.

Respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then
and there commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.

ART. IX. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on
the 22d day of February, A.D. 1868, at Washington, in the District of
Columbia, in disregard of the Constitution and the laws of the United
States duly enacted, as Commander in Chief of the Army of the United
States, did bring before himself then and there William H. Emory, a
major-general by brevet in the Army of the United States, actually in
command of the Department of Washington and the military forces thereof,
and did then and there, as such Commander in Chief, declare to and
instruct said Emory that part of a law of the United States, passed
March 2, 1867, entitled "An act making appropriations for the support
of the Army for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes,"
especially the second section thereof, which provides, among other
things, that "all orders and instructions relating to military
operations issued by the President or Secretary of War shall be issued
through the General of the Army, and in case of his inability through
the next in rank," was unconstitutional and in contravention of the
commission of said Emory, and which said provision of law had been
theretofore duly and legally promulgated by general order for the
government and direction of the Army of the United States, as the said
Andrew Johnson then and there well knew, with intent thereby to induce
said Emory, in his official capacity as commander of the Department of
Washington, to violate the provisions of said act and to take and
receive, act upon, and obey such orders as he, the said Andrew Johnson,
might make and give, and which should not be issued through the General
of the Army of the United States, according to the provisions of said
act, and with the further intent thereby to enable him, the said Andrew
Johnson, to prevent the execution of the act entitled "An act regulating
the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867, and to
unlawfully prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then being Secretary for the
Department of War, from holding said office and discharging the duties
thereof; whereby said "Andrew Johnson, President of the United States"
did then and there commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in
office.

And the House of Representatives, by protestation, saving to themselves
the liberty of exhibiting at any time hereafter any further articles
or other accusation or impeachment against the said Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, and also of replying to his answers
which he shall make unto the articles herein preferred against him, and
of offering proof to the same, and every part thereof, and to all and
every other article, accusation, or impeachment which shall be exhibited
by them, as the case shall require, _do demand_ that the said Andrew
Johnson may be put to answer the high crimes and misdemeanors in office
herein charged against him, and that such proceedings, examinations,
trials, and judgments may be thereupon had and given as may be agreeable
to law and justice.

SCHUYLER COLFAX,

_Speaker of the House of Representatives_.

Attest:

EDWARD McPHERSON,

_Clerk of the House of Representatives_.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, UNITED STATES, _March 3, 1868_.

The following additional articles of impeachment were agreed to, viz:

ART. X. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
unmindful of the high duties of his office and the dignity and
proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to
exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches
of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to
set aside the rightful authority and powers of Congress, did attempt
to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach the
Congress of the United States and the several branches thereof, to
impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of
the United States for the Congress and legislative power thereof (which
all officers of the Government ought inviolably to preserve and
maintain), and to excite the odium and resentment of all the good
people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and
constitutionally enacted; and, in pursuance of his design and intent,
openly and publicly, and before divers assemblages of the citizens of
the United States, convened in divers parts thereof to meet and receive
said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did,
on the 18th day of August, A.D. 1866, and on divers other days and
times, as well before as afterwards, make and deliver with a loud voice
certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and did
therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress
as the laws of the United States, duly enacted thereby, amid the cries,
jeers, and laughter of the multitudes then assembled and in hearing,
which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written
in substance and effect; that is to say:

_Specification first_.--In this, that at Washington, in the District of
Columbia, in the Executive Mansion, to a committee of citizens who
called upon the President of the United States, speaking of and
concerning the Congress of the United States, said Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, heretofore, to wit, on the 18th day of
August, A.D. 1866, did in a loud voice declare in substance and effect,
among other things; that is to say:

So far as the executive department of the Government is concerned, the
effort has been made to restore the Union, to heal the breach, to pour
oil into the wounds which were consequent upon the struggle, and (to
speak in common phrase) to prepare, as the learned and wise physician
would, a plaster healing in character and coextensive with the wound.
We thought and we think that we had partially succeeded; but as the work
progresses, as reconstruction seemed to be taking place and the country
was becoming reunited, we found a disturbing and marring element
opposing us. In alluding to that element I shall go no further than your
convention and the distinguished gentleman who has delivered to me the
report of its proceedings. I shall make no reference to it that I do not
believe the time and the occasion justify.

We have witnessed in one department of the Government every endeavor
to prevent the restoration of peace, harmony, and union. We have seen
hanging upon the verge of the Government, as it were, a body called, or
which assumes to be, the Congress of the United States, while in fact it
is a Congress of only a part of the States. We have seen this Congress
pretend to be for the Union, when its every step and act tended to
perpetuate disunion and make a disruption of the States inevitable.
* * * We have seen Congress gradually encroach, step by step, upon
constitutional rights, and violate, day after day and month after month,
fundamental principles of the Government. We have seen a Congress that
seemed to forget that there was a limit to the sphere and scope of
legislation. We have seen a Congress in a minority assume to exercise
power which, allowed to be consummated, would result in despotism or
monarchy itself.

_Specification second_.--In this, that at Cleveland, in the State
of Ohio, heretofore, to wit, on the 3d day of September, A.D. 1866,
before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress
of the United States, did in a loud voice declare in substance and
effect, among other things; that is to say:

I will tell you what I did do. I called upon your Congress that is
trying to break up the Government.

In conclusion, besides that, Congress had taken much pains to poison
their constituents against him. But what had Congress done? Have they
done anything to restore the Union of these States? No. On the contrary,
they have done everything to prevent it. And because he stood now where
he did when the rebellion commenced, he had been denounced as a traitor.
Who had run greater risks or made greater sacrifices than himself? But
Congress, factious and domineering, had undertaken to poison the minds
of the American people.

_Specification third_.--In this, that at St. Louis, in the State of
Missouri, heretofore, to wit, on the 8th day of September, A.D. 1866,
before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress
of the United States, did in a loud voice declare in substance and
effect, among other things; that is to say:

Go on. Perhaps if you had a word or two on the subject of New Orleans
you might understand more about it than you do. And if you will go
back--if you will go back and ascertain the cause of the riot at New
Orleans, perhaps you will not be so prompt in calling out "New Orleans."
If you will take up the riot at New Orleans and trace it back to its
source or its immediate cause, you will find out who was responsible
for the blood that was shed there. If you will take up the riot at New
Orleans and trace it back to the Radical Congress, you will find that
the riot at New Orleans was substantially planned. If you will take up
the proceedings in their caucuses, you will understand that they there
knew that a convention was to be called which was extinct by its power
having expired; that it was said that the intention was that a new
government was to be organized, and on the organization of that
government the intention was to enfranchise one portion of the
population, called the colored population, who had just been
emancipated, and at the same time disfranchise white men. When you
design to talk about New Orleans, you ought to understand what you are
talking about. When you read the speeches that were made and take up
the facts on the Friday and Saturday before that convention sat, you
will there find that speeches were made, incendiary in their character,
exciting that portion of the population--the black population--to arm
themselves and prepare for the shedding of blood. You will also find
that that convention did assemble, in violation of law, and the
intention of that convention was to supersede the reorganized
authorities in the State government of Louisiana, which had been
recognized by the Government of the United States; and every man engaged
in that rebellion in that convention, with the intention of superseding
and upturning the civil government which had been recognized by the
Government of the United States, I say that he was a traitor to the
Constitution of the United States; and hence you find that another
rebellion was commenced, _having its origin in the Radical Congress_.

* * * * *

So much for the New Orleans riot. And there was the cause and the origin
of the blood that was shed; and every drop of blood that was shed is
upon their skirts, and they are responsible for it. I could test this
thing a little closer, but will not do it here to-night. But when you
talk about the causes and consequences that resulted from proceedings
of that kind, perhaps, as I have been introduced here, and you have
provoked questions of this kind--though it does not provoke me--I will
tell you a few wholesome things that have been done by this Radical
Congress in connection with New Orleans and the extension of the
elective franchise.

I know that I have been traduced and abused. I know it has come in
advance of me, here as elsewhere, that I have attempted to exercise an
arbitrary power in resisting laws that were intended to be forced upon
the Government; that I had exercised that power; that I had abandoned
the party that elected me, and that I was a traitor, because I exercised
the veto power in attempting and did arrest for a time a bill that was
called a "Freedmen's Bureau" bill; yes, that I was a traitor. And I have
been traduced, I have been slandered, I have been maligned, I have been
called Judas Iscariot and all that. Now, my countrymen, here to-night,
it is very easy to indulge in epithets; it is easy to call a man a Judas
and cry out "traitor;" but when he is called upon to give arguments and
facts he is very often found wanting. Judas Iscariot--Judas. There was
a Judas, and he was one of the twelve apostles. Oh, yes; the twelve
apostles had a Christ. The twelve apostles had a Christ, and he never
could have had a Judas unless he had had twelve apostles. If I have
played the Judas, who has been my Christ that I have played the Judas
with? Was it Thad. Stevens? Was it Wendell Phillips? Was it Charles
Sumner? These are the men that stop and compare themselves with the
Savior, and everybody that differs with them in opinion, and to try
to stay and arrest their diabolical and nefarious policy, is to be
denounced as a Judas.

* * * * *

Well, let me say to you, if you will stand by me in this action, if you
will stand by me in trying to give the people a fair chance--soldiers
and citizens--to participate in these offices, God being willing I will
kick them out. I will kick them out just as fast as I can.

Let me say to you in concluding that what I have said I intended to say.
I was not provoked into this, and I care not for their menaces, the
taunts and the jeers. I care not for threats. I do not intend to be
bullied by my enemies nor overawed by my friends. But, God willing, with
your help I will veto their measures whenever any of them come to me.

which said utterances, declarations, threats, and harangues, highly
censurable in any, are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming in the Chief
Magistrate of the United States, by means whereof said Andrew Johnson
has brought the high office of the President of the United States into
contempt, ridicule, and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good
citizens; whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
did commit and was then and there guilty of a high misdemeanor in
office.

ART. XI. That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office,
and in disregard of the Constitution and laws of the United States, did
heretofore, to wit, on the 18th day of August, A.D. 1866, at the city of
Washington, in the District of Columbia, by public speech, declare and
affirm in substance 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, but, on the contrary, was
a Congress of only part of the States; thereby denying and intending to
deny that the legislation of said Congress was valid or obligatory upon
him, the said Andrew Johnson, except in so far as he saw fit to approve
the same, and also thereby denying and intending to deny the power of
the said Thirty-ninth Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution
of the United States; and in pursuance of said declaration the said
Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, afterwards, to wit,
on the 21st day of February, A.D. 1868, at the city of Washington,
in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully, and in disregard of the
requirement of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws
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 and contriving, and attempting to
devise and contrive, means by which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton
from forthwith resuming the functions of the office of Secretary for the
Department of War, notwithstanding the refusal of the Senate to concur
in the suspension theretofore made by said Andrew Johnson of said Edwin
M. Stanton from said office of Secretary for the Department of War, and
also by further unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to
devise and contrive, means then and there 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, and also 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, whereby the said Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, did then, to wit, on the 21st day of
February, A.D. 1868, at the city of Washington, commit and was guilty
of a high misdemeanor in office.

SCHUYLER COLFAX,

_Speaker of the House of Representatives_.

Attest:

EDWARD McPHERSON,

_Clerk of the House of Representatives_.

IN THE SENATE, _March 4, 1868_.

The President _pro tempore_ laid before the Senate the following letter
from the Hon. Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States:

WASHINGTON, _March 4, 1868_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

Inasmuch as the sole power to try impeachments is vested by the
Constitution in the Senate, and it is made the duty of the Chief Justice
to preside when the President is on trial, I take the liberty of
submitting, very respectfully, some observations in respect to the
proper mode of proceeding upon the impeachment which has been preferred
by the House of Representatives against the President now in office.

That when the Senate sits for the trial of an impeachment it sits as a
court seems unquestionable.

That for the trial of an impeachment of the President this court must be
constituted of the members of the Senate, with the Chief Justice
presiding, seems equally unquestionable.

The Federalist is regarded as the highest contemporary authority on the
construction of the Constitution, and in the sixty-fourth number the
functions of the Senate "sitting in their judicial capacity as a court
for the trial of impeachments" are examined.

In a paragraph explaining the reasons for not uniting "the Supreme Court
with the Senate in the formation of the court of impeachments" it is
observed that--

To a certain extent the benefits of that union will be obtained from
making the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court the president of the court
of impeachments, as is proposed by the plan of the Convention, while the
inconveniences of an entire incorporation of the former into the latter
will be substantially avoided. This was, perhaps, the prudent mean.

This authority seems to leave no doubt upon either of the propositions
just stated; and the statement of them will serve to introduce the
question upon which I think it my duty to state the result of my
reflections to the Senate, namely, At what period, in the case of
an impeachment of the President, should the court of impeachment be
organized under oath, as directed by the Constitution?

It will readily suggest itself to anyone who reflects upon the abilities
and the learning in the law which distinguish so many Senators that
besides the reason assigned in the Federalist there must have been still
another for the provision requiring the Chief Justice to preside in the
court of impeachment. Under the Constitution, in case of a vacancy in
the office of President, the Vice-President succeeds, and it was
doubtless thought prudent and befitting that the next in succession
should not preside in a proceeding through which a vacancy might be
created.

It is not doubted that the Senate, while sitting in its ordinary
capacity, must necessarily receive from the House of Representatives
some notice of its intention to impeach the President at its bar,
but it does not seem to me an unwarranted opinion, in view of this
constitutional provision, that the organization of the Senate as
a court of impeachment, under the Constitution, should precede the
actual announcement of the impeachment on the part of the House.

And it may perhaps be thought a still less unwarranted opinion that
articles of impeachment should only be presented to a court of
impeachment; that no summons or other process should issue except
from the organized court, and that rules for the government of the
proceedings of such a court should be framed only by the court itself.

I have found myself unable to come to any other conclusions than these.
I can assign no reason for requiring the Senate to organize as a court
under any other than its ordinary presiding officer for the latter
proceedings upon an impeachment of the President which does not seem
to me to apply equally to the earlier.

I am informed that the Senate has proceeded upon other views, and it is
not my purpose to contest what its superior wisdom may have directed.

All good citizens will fervently pray that no occasion may ever arise
when the grave proceedings now in progress will be cited as a precedent;
but it is not impossible that such an occasion may come.

Inasmuch, therefore, as the Constitution has charged the Chief Justice
with an important function in the trial of an impeachment of the
President, it has seemed to me fitting and obligatory, where he is
unable to concur in the views of the Senate concerning matters essential
to the trial, that his respectful dissent should appear.

S.P. CHASE,

_Chief Justice of the United States_.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE SITTING FOR THE TRIAL OF THE IMPEACHMENT
OF ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1868.

THE UNITED STATES _vs_. ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT.

The Chief Justice of the United States entered the Senate Chamber and
was conducted to the chair by the committee appointed by the Senate for
that purpose.

The following oath was administered to the Chief Justice by Associate
Justice Nelson, and by the Chief Justice to the members of the Senate:

I do solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of
the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, now
pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and
laws. So help me God.

FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 1868.

THE UNITED STATES _vs_. ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT.

To accord with the conviction of the Chief Justice[76] that the court
should adopt its own rules, those adopted on March 2 by the Senate
sitting in its legislative capacity were readopted by the Senate sitting
as a court of impeachment. The rules are as follows:

[Footnote 76: See letter from the Chief Justice, pp. 718-720.]

RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON THE TRIAL
OF IMPEACHMENTS.

I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of
Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to conduct an
impeachment against any person, and are directed to carry articles of
impeachment to the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately
inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive
the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment
agreeably to said notice.

II. When the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced at the bar
of the Senate and shall signify that they are ready to exhibit articles
of impeachment against any person, the Presiding Officer of the Senate
shall direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after
making proclamation, repeat the following words, viz:

All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment,
while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the
United States articles of impeachment against -------- --------.

after which the articles shall be exhibited; and then the Presiding
Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers that the Senate will
take proper order on the subject of the impeachment, of which due notice
shall be given to the House of Representatives.

III. Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall,
at 1 o'clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such
presentation, or sooner if so ordered by the Senate, proceed to the
consideration of such articles, and shall continue in session from day
to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless
otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered,
and so much longer as may in its judgment be needful. Before proceeding
to the consideration of the articles of impeachment the Presiding
Officer shall administer the oath hereinafter provided to the members of
the Senate then present, and to the other members of the Senate as they
shall appear, whose duty it shall be to take the same.

IV. When the President of the United States, or the Vice-President
of the United States upon whom the powers and duties of the office of
President shall have devolved, shall be impeached, the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of the United States shall preside; and in a case
requiring the said Chief Justice to preside notice shall be given to him
by the Presiding Officer of the Senate of the time and place fixed for
the consideration of the articles of impeachment as aforesaid, with a
request to attend; and the said Chief Justice shall preside over the
Senate during the consideration of said articles and upon the trial
of the person impeached therein.

V. The Presiding Officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself
or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and
precepts authorized by these rules or by the Senate, and to make and
enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate
may authorize or provide.

VI. The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses,
to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs, precepts, and
judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary way contempts
of and disobedience to its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts,
or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules, and regulations
which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice; and the
Sergeant-at-Arms, under the direction of the Senate, may employ such aid
and assistance as may be necessary to enforce, execute, and carry into
effect the lawful orders, mandates, writs, and precepts of the Senate.

VII. The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary
preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the presiding officer upon the
trial shall direct all the forms of proceeding while the Senate are
sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment and all forms during
the trial not otherwise specially provided for. The presiding officer
may, in the first instance, submit to the Senate, without a division,
all questions of evidence and incidental questions; but the same shall,
on the demand of one-fifth of the members present, be decided by yeas
and nays.

VIII. Upon the presentation of articles of impeachment and the
organization of the Senate as hereinbefore provided, a writ of summons
shall issue to the accused, reciting said articles and notifying him to
appear before the Senate upon a day and at a place to be fixed by the
Senate, and named in such writ, and file his answer to said articles of
impeachment, and to stand to and abide the orders and judgments of the
Senate thereon, which writ shall be served by such officer or person as
shall be named in the precept thereof such number of days prior to the
day fixed for such appearance as shall be named in such precept, either
by the delivery of an attested copy thereof to the person accused or,
if that can not conveniently be done, by leaving such copy at the last
known place of abode of such person or at his usual place of business,
in some conspicuous place therein; or, if such service shall be, in the
judgment of the Senate, impracticable, notice to the accused to appear
shall be given in such other manner, by publication or otherwise, as
shall be deemed just; and if the writ aforesaid shall fail of service
in the manner aforesaid, the proceedings shall not thereby abate, but
further service may be made in such manner as the Senate shall direct.
If the accused, after service, shall fail to appear, either in person or
by attorney, on the day so fixed therefor as aforesaid, or, appearing,
shall fail to file his answer to such articles of impeachment, the trial
shall proceed, nevertheless, as upon a plea of not guilty. If a plea of
guilty shall be entered, judgment may be entered thereon without further
proceedings.

IX. At 12 o'clock and 30 minutes afternoon of the day appointed for the
return of the summons against the person impeached the legislative and
executive business of the Senate shall be suspended and the Secretary of
the Senate shall administer an oath to the returning officer in the form
following, viz:

I, -------- --------, do solemnly swear that the return made by me
upon the process issued on the ---- day of ---- by the Senate of the
United States against -------- -------- is truly made, and that I have
performed such service as herein described.

So help me God.

which oath shall be entered at large on the records.

X. The person impeached shall then be called to appear and answer the
articles of impeachment against him. If he appear, or any person for
him, the appearance shall be recorded, stating particularly if by
himself or by agent or attorney, naming the person appearing and the
capacity in which he appears, If he do not appear, either personally
or by agent or attorney, the same shall be recorded.

XI. At 12 o'clock and 30 minutes afternoon of the day appointed for the
trial of an impeachment the legislative and executive business of the
Senate shall be suspended and the Secretary shall give notice to the
House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to proceed upon the
impeachment of -------- --------, in the Senate Chamber, which chamber
is prepared with accommodations for the reception of the House of
Representatives.

XII. The hour of the day at which the Senate shall sit upon the trial of
an impeachment shall be (unless otherwise ordered) 12 o'clock m., and
when the hour for such sitting shall arrive the Presiding Officer of the
Senate shall so announce; and thereupon the presiding officer upon such
trial shall cause proclamation to be made, and the business of the trial
shall proceed. The adjournment of the Senate sitting in said trial shall
not operate as an adjournment of the Senate, but on such adjournment the
Senate shall resume the consideration of its legislative and executive
business.

XIII. The Secretary of the Senate shall record the proceedings in cases
of impeachment as in the case of legislative proceedings, and the same
shall be reported in the same manner as the legislative proceedings of
the Senate.

XIV. Counsel for the parties shall be admitted to appear and be heard
upon an impeachment.

XV. All motions made by the parties or their counsel shall be addressed
to the presiding officer, and if he or any Senator shall require it they
shall be committed to writing and read at the Secretary's table.

XVI. Witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf of the party
producing them and then cross-examined by one person on the other side.

XVII. If a Senator is called as a witness, he shall be sworn and give
his testimony standing in his place.

XVIII. If a Senator wishes a question to be put to a witness, or to
offer a motion or order (except a motion to adjourn), it shall be
reduced to writing and put by the presiding officer.

XIX. At all times while the Senate is sitting upon the trial of an
impeachment the doors of the Senate shall be kept open, unless the
Senate shall direct the doors to be closed while deliberating upon
its decisions.

XX. All preliminary or interlocutory questions and all motions shall be
argued for not exceeding one hour on each side, unless the Senate shall
by order extend the time.

XXI. The case on each side shall be opened by one person. The final
argument on the merits may be made by two persons on each side (unless
otherwise ordered by the Senate, upon application for that purpose),
and the argument shall be opened and closed on the part of the House
of Representatives.

XXII. On the final question whether the impeachment is sustained the
yeas and nays shall be taken on each article of impeachment separately,
and if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles presented, be
sustained by the votes of two-thirds of the members present a judgment
of acquittal shall be entered; but if the person accused in such
articles of impeachment shall be convicted upon any of said articles by
the votes of two-thirds of the members present the Senate shall proceed
to pronounce judgment, and a certified copy of such judgment shall be
deposited in the office of the Secretary of State.

XXIII. All the orders and decisions shall be made and had by yeas and
nays, which shall be entered on the record, and without debate, except
when the doors shall be closed for deliberation, and in that case no
member shall speak more than once on one question, and for not more than
ten minutes on an interlocutory question, and for not more than fifteen
minutes on the final question, unless by consent of the Senate, to be
had without debate; but a motion to adjourn may be decided without the
yeas and nays, unless they be demanded by one-fifth of the members
present.

XXIV. Witnesses shall be sworn in the following form, viz:

You, -------- --------, do swear (or affirm, as the case maybe) that
the evidence you shall give in the case now depending between the
United States and -------- -------- shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God.

which oath shall be administered by the Secretary or any other duly
authorized person.

Form of subpoena to be issued on the application of the managers of
the impeachment, or of the party impeached, or of his counsel:

_To_ -------- --------; _greeting_:

You and each of you are hereby commanded to appear before the Senate of
the United States on the ---- day of ----, at the Senate Chamber, in
the city of Washington, then and there to testify your knowledge in the
cause which is before the Senate in which the House of Representatives
have impeached -------- --------.

Fail not.

Witness -------- --------, and Presiding Officer of the Senate, at
the city of Washington, this ---- day of ----, A.D. ----, and of the
Independence of the United States the ------.

Form of direction for the service of said subpoena:

_The Senate of the United States to_ -------- --------, _greeting_:

You are hereby commanded to serve and return the within subpoena
according to law.

Dated at Washington, this ---- day of ----, A.D. ----, and of the
Independence of the United States the ------.

_Secretary of the Senate_.

Form of oath to be administered to the members of the Senate sitting in
the trial of impeachments:

I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things
appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of -------- --------, now
pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and
laws. So help me God.

Form of summons to be issued and served upon the person impeached.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, _ss_:

_The Senate of the United States to_ -------- --------, _greeting_:

Whereas the House of Representatives of the United States of America did
on the ---- day of ---- exhibit to the Senate articles of impeachment
against you, the said -------- --------, in the words following:

[Here insert the articles.]

And demand that you, the said -------- --------, should be put to
answer the accusations as set forth in said articles, and that such
proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgments might be thereupon
had as are agreeable to law and justice:

You, the said -------- --------, are therefore hereby summoned to be
and appear before the Senate of the United States of America, at their
chamber, in the city of Washington, on the ---- day of ----, at 12
o'clock and 30 minutes afternoon, then and there to answer to the said
articles of impeachment, and then and there to abide by, obey, and
perform such orders, directions, and judgments as the Senate of the
United States shall make in the premises, according to the Constitution
and laws of the United States.

Hereof you are not to fail.

Witness -------- --------, and Presiding Officer of the said Senate, at
the city of Washington, this ---- day of ----, A.D. ----, and of the
Independence of the United States the ------.

Form of precept to be indorsed on said writ of summons:

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, _ss_:

_The Senate of the United States to_ -------- --------, _greeting_:

You are hereby commanded to deliver to and leave with -------- --------,
if conveniently to be found, or, if not, to leave at his usual place of
abode or at his usual place of business, in some conspicuous place, a
true and attested copy of the within writ of summons, together with a
like copy of this precept; and in whichsoever way you perform the
service, let it be done at least ---- days before the appearance day
mentioned in said writ of summons.

Fail not, and make return of this writ of summons and precept, with your
proceedings thereon indorsed, on or before the appearance day mentioned
in the said writ of summons.

Witness -------- --------, and Presiding Officer of the Senate, at
the city of Washington, this ---- day of ----, A.D. ----, and of the
Independence of the United States the ------.

All process shall be served by the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate unless
otherwise ordered by the court.

XXV. If the Senate shall at any time fail to sit for the consideration
of articles of impeachment on the day or hour fixed therefor, the Senate
may by an order, to be adopted without debate, fix a day and hour for
resuming such consideration.

On March 31 Rule VII was amended to read as follows:

VII. The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary
preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the presiding officer on the
trial shall direct all the forms of proceeding while the Senate are
sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during
the trial not otherwise specially provided for, and the presiding
officer on the trial may rule all questions of evidence and incidental
questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate,
unless some member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken
thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision;
or he may, at his option, in the first instance submit any such question
to a vote of the members of the Senate.

On April 3 Rule VII was further amended by inserting at the end thereof
the following:

Upon all such questions the vote shall be without a division, unless the
yeas and nays be demanded by one-fifth of the members present, when the
same shall be taken.

On March 13 Rule XXIII was amended to read as follows:

XXIII. All the orders and decisions shall be made and had by yeas and
nays, which shall be entered on the record, and without debate, subject,
however, to the operation of Rule VII, except when the doors shall be
closed for deliberation, and in that case no member shall speak more
than once on one question, and for not more than ten minutes on an
interlocutory question, and for not more than fifteen minutes on the
final question, unless by consent of the Senate, to be had without
debate; but a motion to adjourn may be decided without the yeas and
nays, unless they be demanded by one-fifth of the members present.

On May 7 Rule XXIII was further amended by adding thereto the following:

The fifteen minutes herein allowed shall be for the whole deliberation
on the final question, and not to the final question on each article of
impeachment.

FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 1868.

THE UNITED STATES _vs_. ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT.

Mr. Henry Stanbery, in behalf of Andrew Johnson, the respondent, read
the following paper:

In the matter of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE: I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
having been served with a summons to appear before this honorable court,
sitting as a court of impeachment, to answer certain articles of
impeachment found and presented against me by the honorable the House
of Representatives of the United States, do hereby enter my appearance
by my counsel, Henry Stanbery, Benjamin R. Curtis, Jeremiah S. Black,
William M. Evarts, and Thomas A.R. Nelson, who have my warrant and
authority therefor, and who are instructed by me to ask of this
honorable court a reasonable time for the preparation of my answer
to said articles. After a careful examination of the articles of
impeachment and consultation with my counsel, I am satisfied that at
least forty days will be necessary for the preparation of my answer,
and I respectfully ask that it be allowed.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

Mr. Stanbery then submitted the following motion:

In the matter of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States.

Henry Stanbery, Benjamin R. Curtis, Jeremiah S. Black, William M.
Evarts, and Thomas A.R. Nelson, of counsel for the respondent, move the
court for the allowance of forty days for the preparation of the answer
to the articles of impeachment, and in support of the motion make the
following professional statement:

The articles are eleven in number, involving many questions of law
and fact. We have during the limited time and opportunity afforded us
considered as far as possible the field of investigation which must be
explored in the preparation of the answer, and the conclusion at which
we have arrived is that with the utmost diligence the time we have asked
is reasonable and necessary.

The precedents as to time for answer upon impeachments before the Senate
to which we have had opportunity to refer are those of Judge Chase and
Judge Peck.

In the case of Judge Chase time was allowed from the 3d of January until
the 4th of February next succeeding to put in his answer--a period of
thirty-two days; but in this case there were only eight articles, and
Judge Chase had been for a year cognizant of most of the articles, and
had been himself engaged in preparing to meet them.

In the case of Judge Peck there was but a single article. Judge Peck
asked for time from the 10th to the 25th of May to put in his answer,
and it was granted. It appears that Judge Peck had been long cognizant
of the ground laid for his impeachment, and had been present before the
committee of the House upon the examination of the witnesses, and had
been permitted by the House of Representatives to present to that body
an elaborate answer to the charges.

It is apparent that the President is fairly entitled to more time than
was allowed in either of the foregoing cases. It is proper to add that
the respondents in these cases were lawyers, fully capable of preparing
their own answers, and that no pressing official duties interfered with
their attention to that business; whereas the President, not being a
lawyer, must rely on his counsel. The charges involve his acts,
declarations, and intentions, as to all which his counsel must be fully
advised upon consultation with him, step by step, in the preparation of
his defense. It is seldom that a case requires such constant
communication between client and counsel as this, and yet such
communication can only be had at such intervals as are allowed to the
President from the usual hours that must be devoted to his high official
duties.

We further beg leave to suggest for the consideration of this honorable
court that, as counsel careful as well of their own reputation as of
the interests of their client in a case of such magnitude as this, so
out of the ordinary range of professional experience, where so much
responsibility is felt, they submit to the candid consideration of the
court that they have a right to ask for themselves such opportunity to
discharge their duty as seems to them to be absolutely necessary.

HENRY STANBERY,
B.R. CURTIS,
JEREMIAH S. BLACK, \__ Per H.S.
WILLIAM M. EVARTS, /
THOMAS A.R. NELSON,

_Of Counsel for the Respondent_.

The above motion was denied, and the Senate adopted the following orders:

_Ordered_, That the respondent file answer to the articles of
impeachment on or before Monday, the 23d day of March instant.

_Ordered_, That unless otherwise ordered by the Senate, for cause shown,
the trial of the pending impeachment shall proceed immediately after
replication shall be filed.

MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1868.

THE UNITED STATES _vs_. ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT.

The answer of the respondent to the articles of impeachment was
submitted by his counsel, as follows:

Senate of the United States, sitting as a court of impeachment for the
trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States.

THE ANSWER OF THE SAID ANDREW JOHNSON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED AGAINST HIM BY THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES.

_Answer to Article I_.--For answer to the first article he says that
Edwin M. Stanton was appointed Secretary for the Department of War on
the 15th day of January, A.D. 1862, by Abraham Lincoln, then President
of the United States, during the first term of his Presidency, and was
commissioned, according to the Constitution and laws of the United
States, to hold the said office during the pleasure of the President;
that the office of Secretary for the Department of War was created by an
act of the First Congress in its first session, passed on the 7th day of
August, A.D. 1789, and in and by that act it was provided and enacted
that the said Secretary for the Department of War shall perform and
execute such duties as shall from time to time be enjoined on and
intrusted to him by the President of the United States, agreeably to the
Constitution, relative to the subjects within the scope of the said
Department; and, furthermore, that the said Secretary shall conduct the
business of the said Department in such a manner as the President of the
United States shall from time to time order and instruct.

And this respondent, further answering, says that by force of the act
aforesaid and by reason of his appointment aforesaid the said Stanton
became the principal officer in one of the Executive Departments of the
Government within the true intent and meaning of the second section
of the second article of the Constitution of the United States and
according to the true intent and meaning of that provision of the
Constitution of the United States; and, in accordance with the settled
and uniform practice of each and every President of the United States,
the said Stanton then became, and so long as he should continue to hold
the said office of Secretary for the Department of War must continue to
be, one of the advisers of the President of the United States, as well
as the person intrusted to act for and represent the President in
matters enjoined upon him or intrusted to him by the President touching
the Department aforesaid, and for whose conduct in such capacity,
subordinate to the President, the President is by the Constitution and
laws of the United States made responsible.

And this respondent, further answering, says he succeeded to the office
of President of the United States upon and by reason of the death of
Abraham Lincoln, then President of the United States, on the 15th day
of April, 1865, and the said Stanton was then holding the said office
of Secretary for the Department of War under and by reason of the
appointment and commission aforesaid; and not having been removed from
the said office by this respondent, the said Stanton continued to hold
the same under the appointment and commission aforesaid, at the pleasure
of the President, until the time hereinafter particularly mentioned,
and at no time received any appointment or commission save as above
detailed.

And this respondent, further answering, says that on and prior to the
5th day of August, A.D. 1867, this respondent, the President of the
United States, responsible for the conduct of the Secretary for the
Department of War, and having the constitutional right to resort to
and rely upon the person holding that office for advice concerning
the great and difficult public duties enjoined on the President by
the Constitution and laws of the United States, became satisfied that
he could not allow the said Stanton to continue to hold the office
of Secretary for the Department of War without hazard of the public
interest; that the relations between the said Stanton and the President
no longer permitted the President to resort to him for advice or to be,
in the judgment of the President, safely responsible for his conduct of
the affairs of the Department of War, as by law required, in accordance
with the orders and instructions of the President; and thereupon, by
force of the Constitution and laws of the United States, which devolve
on the President the power and the duty to control the conduct of the
business of that Executive Department of the Government, and by reason
of the constitutional duty of the President to take care that the laws
be faithfully executed, this respondent did necessarily consider and did
determine that the said Stanton ought no longer to hold the said office
of Secretary for the Department of War. And this respondent, by virtue
of the power and authority vested in him as President of the United
States by the Constitution and laws of the United States, to give effect
to such his decision and determination, did, on the 5th day of August,
A.D. 1867, address to the said Stanton a note of which the following
is a true copy:

SIR: Public considerations of a high character constrain me to say that
your resignation as Secretary of War will be accepted.

To which note the said Stanton made the following reply:

WAR DEPARTMENT,

_Washington, August_ 5, _1867_.

SIR: Your note of this day has been received, stating that "public
considerations of a high character constrain" you "to say that" my
"resignation as Secretary of War will be accepted."

Very respectfully, yours,

EDWIN M. STANTON.

This respondent, as President of the United States, was thereon of
opinion that, having regard to the necessary official relations and
duties of the Secretary for the Department of War to the President of
the United States, according to the Constitution and laws of the United
States, and having regard to the responsibility of the President for
the conduct of the said Secretary, and having regard to the permanent
executive authority of the office which the respondent holds under
the Constitution and laws of the United States, it was impossible,
consistently with the public interests, to allow the said Stanton to
continue to hold the said office of Secretary for the Department of War;
and it then became the official duty of the respondent, as President of
the United States, to consider and decide what act or acts should and
might lawfully be done by him, as President of the United States, to
cause the said Stanton to surrender the said office.

This respondent was informed and verily believed that it was practically
settled by the First Congress of the United States, and had been so
considered and uniformly and in great numbers of instances acted on by
each Congress and President of the United States, in succession, from
President Washington to and including President Lincoln, and from the
First Congress to the Thirty-ninth Congress, that the Constitution of
the United States conferred on the President, as part of the executive
power and as one of the necessary means and instruments of performing
the executive duty expressly imposed on him by the Constitution of
taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, the power at any and
all times of removing from office all executive officers for cause to be
judged of by the President alone. This respondent had, in pursuance of
the Constitution, required the opinion of each principal officer of the
Executive Departments upon this question of constitutional executive
power and duty, and had been advised by each of them, including
the said Stanton, Secretary for the Department of War, that under
the Constitution of the United States this power was lodged by
the Constitution in the President of the United States, and that,
consequently, it could be lawfully exercised by him, and the Congress
could not deprive him thereof; and this respondent, in his capacity of
President of the United States, and because in that capacity he was both
enabled and bound to use his best judgment upon this question, did, in
good faith and with an earnest desire to arrive at the truth, come to
the conclusion and opinion, and did make the same known to the honorable
the Senate of the United States by a message dated on the 2d day of
March, 1867 (a true copy whereof is hereunto annexed and marked A), that
the power last mentioned was conferred and the duty of exercising it in
fit cases was imposed on the President by the Constitution of the United
States, and that the President could not be deprived of this power
or relieved of this duty, nor could the same be vested by law in the
President and the Senate jointly, either in part or whole; and this has
ever since remained and was the opinion of this respondent at the time
when he was forced as aforesaid to consider and decide what act or acts
should and might lawfully be done by this respondent, as President of
the United States, to cause the said Stanton to surrender the said
office.

This respondent was also then aware that by the first section of "An act
regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867,
by a constitutional majority of both Houses of Congress, it was enacted
as follows:

That every person holding any civil office to which he has been
appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and every
person who shall hereafter be appointed to any such office and shall
become duly qualified to act therein, is and shall be entitled to hold
such office until a successor shall have been in like manner appointed
and duly qualified, except as herein otherwise provided: _Provided_,
That the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy,
and of the Interior, the Postmaster-General, and the Attorney-General
shall hold their offices, respectively, for and during the term of the
President by whom they may have been appointed and one month thereafter,
subject to removal by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

This respondent was also aware that this act was understood and intended
to be an expression of the opinion of the Congress by which that act
was passed that the power to remove executive officers for cause might
by law be taken from the President and vested in him and the Senate
jointly; and although this respondent had arrived at and still retained
the opinion above expressed, and verily believed, as he still believes,
that the said first section of the last-mentioned act was and is wholly
inoperative and void by reason of its conflict with the Constitution of
the United States, yet, inasmuch as the same had been enacted by the
constitutional majority in each of the two Houses of that Congress, this
respondent considered it to be proper to examine and decide whether the
particular case of the said Stanton, on which it was this respondent's
duty to act, was within or without the terms of that first section of
the act, or, if within it, whether the President had not the power,
according to the terms of the act, to remove the said Stanton from the
office of Secretary for the Department of War; and having, in his
capacity of President of the United States, so examined and considered,
did form the opinion that the case of the said Stanton and his tenure of
office were not affected by the first section of the last-named act.

And this respondent, further answering, says that although a case thus
existed which, in his judgment, as President of the United States,
called for the exercise of the executive power to remove the said
Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War; and
although this respondent was of opinion, as is above shown, that under
the Constitution of the United States the power to remove the said
Stanton from the said office was vested in the President of the United
States; and although this respondent was also of the opinion, as is
above shown, that the case of the said Stanton was not affected by
the first section of the last-named act; and although each of the
said opinions had been formed by this respondent upon an actual case,
requiring him, in his capacity of President of the United States, to
come to some judgment and determination thereon, yet this respondent,
as President of the United States, desired and determined to avoid, if
possible, any question of the construction and effect of the said first
section of the last-named act, and also the broader question of the
executive power conferred upon the President of the United States by
the Constitution of the United States to remove one of the principal
officers of one of the Executive Departments for cause seeming to him
sufficient; and this respondent also desired and determined that if,
from causes over which he could exert no control, it should become
absolutely necessary to raise and have in some way determined either
or both of the said last-named questions, it was in accordance with the
Constitution of the United States, and was required of the President
thereby, that questions of so much gravity and importance, upon which
the legislative and executive departments of the Government had
disagreed, which involved powers considered by all branches of the
Government, during its entire history down to the year 1867, to have
been confided by the Constitution of the United States to the President,
and to be necessary for the complete and proper execution of his
constitutional duties, should be in some proper way submitted to that
judicial department of the Government intrusted by the Constitution
with the power, and subjected by it to the duty, not only of
determining finally the construction and effect of all acts of Congress,
but of comparing them with the Constitution of the United States
and pronouncing them inoperative when found in conflict with that
fundamental law which the people have enacted for the government of
all their servants. And to these ends, first, that through the action
of the Senate of the United States the absolute duty of the President
to substitute some fit person in place of Mr. Stanton as one of his
advisers, and as a principal subordinate officer whose official conduct
he was responsible for and had lawful right to control, might, if
possible, be accomplished without the necessity of raising any one
of the questions aforesaid; and, second, if this duty could not
be so performed, then that these questions, or such of them as might
necessarily arise, should be judicially determined in manner aforesaid,
and for no other end or purpose, this respondent, as President of the
United States, on the 12th day of August, 1867, seven days after the
reception of the letter of the said Stanton of the 5th of August,
hereinbefore stated, did issue to the said Stanton the order
following, namely:

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

_Washington, August 12, 1867_.

Hon. EDWIN M. STANTON,

_Secretary of War_.

You will at once transfer to General Ulysses S. Grant, who has this day
been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War _ad interim_,
all records, books, papers, and other public property now in your
custody and charge.

To which said order the said Stanton made the following reply:

WAR DEPARTMENT,

_Washington City, August 12, 1867_.

The PRESIDENT.

SIR: Your note of this date has been received, informing me that by
virtue of the powers vested in you as President by the Constitution
and laws of the United States I am suspended from office as Secretary
of War, and will cease to exercise any and all functions pertaining to
the same; and also directing me at once to transfer to General Ulysses
S. Grant, who has this day been authorized and empowered to act as
Secretary of War _ad interim_, all records, books, papers, and other
public property now in my custody and charge.

Under a sense of public duty, I am compelled to deny your right under
the Constitution and laws of the United States, without the advice and
consent of the Senate and without legal cause, to suspend me from office
as Secretary of War, or the exercise of any or all functions pertaining
to the same, or without such advice and consent to compel me to transfer
to any person the records, books, papers, and public property in my
custody as Secretary.

And this respondent, further answering, says that it is provided in and
by the second section of "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil
offices" that the President may suspend an officer from the performance
of the duties of the office held by him, for certain causes therein
designated, until the next meeting of the Senate and until the case
shall be acted on by the Senate; that this respondent, as President
of the United States, was advised, and he verily believed, and still
believes, that the executive power of removal from office confided to
him by the Constitution as aforesaid includes the power of suspension
from office at the pleasure of the President; and this respondent, by
the order aforesaid, did suspend the said Stanton from office, not until
the next meeting of the Senate or until the Senate should have acted
upon the case, but, by force of the power and authority vested in him by
the Constitution and laws of the United States, indefinitely and at the
pleasure of the President; and the order, in form aforesaid, was made
known to the Senate of the United States on the 12th day of December,
A.D. 1867, as will be more fully hereinafter stated.

And this respondent, further answering, says that in and by the act of
February 13, 1795, it was, among other things, provided and enacted that
in case of vacancy in the office of Secretary for the Department of
War it shall be lawful for the President, in case he shall think it
necessary, to authorize any person to perform the duties of that office
until a successor be appointed or such vacancy filled, but not exceeding
the term of six months; and this respondent, being advised and believing
that such law was in full force and not repealed, by an order dated
August 12, 1867, did authorize and empower Ulysses S. Grant, General of
the armies of the United States, to act as Secretary for the Department
of War _ad interim_, in the form in which similar authority had
theretofore been given, not until the next meeting of the Senate and
until the Senate should act on the case, but at the pleasure of the
President, subject only to the limitation of six months in the said
last-mentioned act contained; and a copy of the last-named order was
made known to the Senate of the United States on the 12th day of
December, A.D. 1867, as will be hereinafter more fully stated; and in
pursuance of the design and intention aforesaid, if it should become
necessary, to submit the said questions to a judicial determination,
this respondent, at or near the date of the last-mentioned order, did
make known such his purpose to obtain a judicial decision of the said
questions, or such of them as might be necessary.

And this respondent, further answering, says that in further pursuance
of his intention and design, if possible, to perform what he judged to
be his imperative duty, to prevent the said Stanton from longer holding
the office of Secretary for the Department of War, and at the same time
avoiding, if possible, any question respecting the extent of the power
of removal from executive office confided to the President by the
Constitution of the United States, and any question respecting the
construction and effect of the first section of the said "Act regulating
the tenure of certain civil offices," while he should not by any act of
his abandon and relinquish either a power which he believed the
Constitution had conferred on the President of the United States to
enable him to perform the duties of his office or a power designedly
left to him by the first section of the act of Congress last aforesaid,
this respondent did, on the 12th day of December, 1867, transmit to the
Senate of the United States a message, a copy whereof is hereunto
annexed and marked B, wherein he made known the orders aforesaid and
the reasons which had induced the same, so far as this respondent then
considered it material and necessary that the same should be set forth,
and reiterated his views concerning the constitutional power of removal
vested in the President, and also expressed his views concerning the
construction of the said first section of the last-mentioned act, as
respected the power of the President to remove the said Stanton from
the said office of Secretary for the Department of War, well hoping that
this respondent could thus perform what he then believed, and still
believes, to be his imperative duty in reference to the said Stanton
without derogating from the powers which this respondent believed were
confided to the President by the Constitution and laws, and without
the necessity of raising judicially any questions respecting the same.

And this respondent, further answering, says that this hope not having
been realized, the President was compelled either to allow the said
Stanton to resume the said office and remain therein contrary to the
settled convictions of the President, formed as aforesaid, respecting
the powers confided to him and the duties required of him by the
Constitution of the United States, and contrary to the opinion formed
as aforesaid that the first section of the last-mentioned act did not
affect the case of the said Stanton, and contrary to the fixed belief
of the President that he could no longer advise with or trust or be
responsible for the said Stanton in the said office of Secretary for the
Department of War, or else he was compelled to take such steps as might
in the judgment of the President be lawful and necessary to raise for a
judicial decision the questions affecting the lawful right of the said
Stanton to resume the said office or the power of the said Stanton to
persist in refusing to quit the said office if he should persist in
actually refusing to quit the same; and to this end, and to this end
only, this respondent did, on the 21st day of February, 1868, issue the
order for the removal of the said Stanton, in the said first article
mentioned and set forth, and the order authorizing the said Lorenzo
Thomas to act as Secretary of War _ad interim_, in the said second
article set forth.

And this respondent, proceeding to answer specifically each substantial
allegation in the said first article, says: He denies that the said
Stanton, on the 21st day of February, 1868, was lawfully in possession
of the said office of Secretary for the Department of War. He denies
that the said Stanton, on the day last mentioned, was lawfully entitled
to hold the said office against the will of the President of the United
States. He denies that the said order for the removal of the said
Stanton was unlawfully issued. He denies that the said order was issued
with intent to violate the act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of
certain civil offices." He denies that the said order was a violation of
the last-mentioned act. He denies that the said order was a violation of
the Constitution of the United States, or of any law thereof, or of his
oath of office. He denies that the said order was issued with an intent
to violate the Constitution of the United States, or any law thereof, or
this respondent's oath of office; and he respectfully but earnestly
insists that not only was it issued by him in the performance of what he
believed to be an imperative official duty, but in the performance of
what this honorable court will consider was, in point of fact, an
imperative official duty. And he denies that any and all substantive
matters in the said first article contained, in manner and form as the
same are therein stated and set forth, do by law constitute a high
misdemeanor in office within the true intent and meaning of the
Constitution of the United States.

_Answer to Article II_.--And for answer to the second article this
respondent says that he admits he did issue and deliver to said Lorenzo
Thomas the said writing set forth in said second article, bearing
date at Washington, D.C., February 21, 1868, addressed to Brevet
Major-General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-General United States Army,
Washington, D.C., and he further admits that the same was so issued
without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, then
in session; but he denies that he thereby violated the Constitution of
the United States or any law thereof, or that he did thereby intend to
violate the Constitution of the United States or the provisions of any
act of Congress; and this respondent refers to his answer to said first
article for a full statement of the purposes and intentions with which
said order was issued, and adopts the same as part of his answer to this
article; and he further denies that there was then and there no vacancy
in the said office of Secretary for the Department of War, or that he
did then and there commit or was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office;
and this respondent maintains and will insist--

1. That at the date and delivery of said writing there was a vacancy
existing in the office of Secretary for the Department of War.

2. That notwithstanding the Senate of the United States was then in
session, it was lawful and according to long and well-established usage
to empower and authorize the said Thomas to act as Secretary of War
_ad interim_.

3. That if the said act regulating the tenure of civil offices be held
to be a valid law, no provision of the same was violated by the issuing
of said order or by the designation of said Thomas to act as Secretary
of War _ad interim_.

_Answer to Article III_.--And for answer to said third article this
respondent says that he abides by his answer to said first and second
articles in so far as the same are responsive to the allegations
contained in the said third article, and, without here again repeating
the same answer, prays the same be taken as an answer to this third
article as fully as if here again set out at length; and as to the new
allegation contained in said third article, that this respondent did
appoint the said Thomas to be Secretary for the Department of War _ad
interim_, this respondent denies that he gave any other authority to
said Thomas than such as appears in said written authority, set out in
said article, by which he authorized and empowered said Thomas to act
as Secretary for the Department of War _ad interim_; and he denies
that the same amounts to an appointment, and insists that it is only
a designation of an officer of that Department to act temporarily as
Secretary for the Department of War _ad interim_--until an appointment
should be made. But whether the said written authority amounts to an
appointment or to a temporary authority or designation, this respondent
denies that in any sense he did thereby intend to violate the
Constitution of the United States, or that he thereby intended to
give the said order the character or effect of an appointment in the
constitutional or legal sense of that term. He further denies that there
was no vacancy in said office of Secretary for the Department of War
existing at the date of said written authority.

_Answer to Article IV_.--And for answer to said fourth article this
respondent denies that on the said 21st day of February, 1868, at
Washington aforesaid, or at any other time or place, he did unlawfully
conspire with the said Lorenzo Thomas, or with the said Thomas and any
other person or persons, with intent, by intimidations and threats,
unlawfully to hinder and prevent the said Stanton from holding said
office of Secretary for the Department of War, in violation of the
Constitution of the United States or of the provisions of the said act
of Congress in said article mentioned, or that he did then and there
commit or was guilty of a high crime in office. On the contrary thereof,
protesting that the said Stanton was not then and there lawfully the
Secretary for the Department of War, this respondent states that his
sole purpose in authorizing the said Thomas to act as Secretary for the
Department of War _ad interim_ was, as is fully stated in his answer to
the said first article, to bring the question of the right of the said
Stanton to hold said office, notwithstanding his said suspension, and
notwithstanding the said order of removal, and notwithstanding the said
authority of the said Thomas to act as Secretary of War _ad interim_, to
the test of a final decision by the Supreme Court of the United States
in the earliest practicable mode by which the question could be brought
before that tribunal.

This respondent did not conspire or agree with the said Thomas, or any
other person or persons, to use intimidation or threats to hinder or
prevent the said Stanton from holding the said office of Secretary for
the Department of War, nor did this respondent at any time command
or advise the said Thomas, or any other person or persons, to resort
to or use either threats or intimidation for that purpose. The only
means in the contemplation or purpose of respondent to be used are set
forth fully in the said orders of February 21, the first addressed to
Mr. Stanton and the second to the said Thomas. By the first order the
respondent notified Mr. Stanton that he was removed from the said office
and that his functions as Secretary for the Department of War were to
terminate upon the receipt of that order; and he also thereby notified
the said Stanton that the said Thomas had been authorized to act as
Secretary for the Department of War _ad interim_, and ordered the said
Stanton to transfer to him all the records, books, papers, and other
public property in his custody and charge; and by the second order this
respondent notified the said Thomas of the removal from office of the
said Stanton, and authorized him to act as Secretary for the Department
of War _ad interim_, and directed him to immediately enter upon the
discharge of the duties pertaining to that office and to receive the
transfer of all the records, books, papers, and other public property
from Mr. Stanton then in his custody and charge.

Respondent gave no instructions to the said Thomas to use intimidation
or threats to enforce obedience to these orders. He gave him no
authority to call in the aid of the military or any other force to
enable him to obtain possession of the office or of the books, papers,
records, or property thereof. The only agency resorted to, or intended
to be resorted to, was by means of the said Executive orders requiring
obedience. But the Secretary for the Department of War refused to obey
these orders, and still holds undisturbed possession and custody of that
Department and of the records, books, papers, and other public property
therein. Respondent further states that in execution of the orders so by
this respondent given to the said Thomas he, the said Thomas, proceeded
in a peaceful manner to demand of the said Stanton a surrender to him of
the public property in the said Department, and to vacate the possession
of the same, and to allow him, the said Thomas, peaceably to exercise
the duties devolved upon him by authority of the President. That, as
this respondent has been informed and believes, the said Stanton
peremptorily refused obedience to the orders so issued. Upon such
refusal no force or threat of force was used by the said Thomas, by
authority of the President or otherwise, to enforce obedience, either
then or at any subsequent time.

This respondent doth here except to the sufficiency of the allegations
contained in said fourth article, and states for ground of exception
that it is not stated that there was any agreement between this
respondent and the said Thomas, or any other person or persons, to use
intimidation and threats, nor is there any allegation as to the nature
of said intimidation and threats, or that there was any agreement to
carry them into execution, or that any step was taken or agreed to be
taken to carry them into execution; and that the allegation in said
article that the intent of said conspiracy was to use intimidation and
threats is wholly insufficient, inasmuch as it is not alleged that the
said intent formed the basis or became part of any agreement between the
said alleged conspirators; and, furthermore, that there is no allegation
of any conspiracy or agreement to use intimidation or threats.

_Answer to Article V_.--And for answer to the said fifth article this
respondent denies that on the said 21st day of February, 1868, or at
any other time or times in the same year before the said 2d day of
March, 1868, or at any prior or subsequent time, at Washington
aforesaid, or at any other place, this respondent did unlawfully
conspire with the said Thomas, or with any other person or persons,
to prevent or hinder the execution of the said act entitled "An act
regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," or that, in pursuance
of said alleged conspiracy, he did unlawfully attempt to prevent the
said Edwin M. Stanton from holding the said office of Secretary for the
Department of War, or that he did thereby commit, or that he was thereby
guilty of, a high misdemeanor in office. Respondent, protesting that
said Stanton was not then and there Secretary for the Department of War,
begs leave to refer to his answer given to the fourth article and to his
answer to the first article as to his intent and purpose in issuing the
orders for the removal of Mr. Stanton and the authority given to the
said Thomas, and prays equal benefit therefrom as if the same were here
again repeated and fully set forth.

And this respondent excepts to the sufficiency of the said fifth
article, and states his ground for such exception that it is not alleged
by what means or by what agreement the said alleged conspiracy was
formed or agreed to be carried out, or in what way the same was
attempted to be carried out, or what were the acts done in pursuance
thereof.

_Answer to Article VI_.--And for answer to the said sixth article this
respondent denies that on the said 21st day of February, 1868, at
Washington aforesaid, or at any other time or place, he did unlawfully
conspire with the said Thomas by force to seize, take, or possess the
property of the United States in the Department of War, contrary to
the provisions of the said acts referred to in the said article, or
either of them, or with intent to violate either of them. Respondent,
protesting that said Stanton was not then and there Secretary for the
Department of War, not only denies the said conspiracy as charged, but
also denies any unlawful intent in reference to the custody and charge
of the property of the United States in the said Department of War, and
again refers to his former answers for a full statement of his intent
and purpose in the premises.

_Answer to Article VII_.--And for answer to the said seventh article
respondent denies that on the said 21st day of February, 1868, at
Washington aforesaid, or at any other time and place, he did unlawfully
conspire with the said Thomas with intent unlawfully to seize, take, or
possess the property of the United States in the Department of War, with
intent to violate or disregard the said act in the said seventh article
referred to, or that he did then and there commit a high misdemeanor in
office. Respondent, protesting that the said Stanton was not then and
there Secretary for the Department of War, again refers to his former
answers, in so far as they are applicable, to show the intent with which
he proceeded in the premises, and prays equal benefit therefrom as
if the same were here again fully repeated. Respondent further takes
exception to the sufficiency of the allegations of this article as to
the conspiracy alleged upon the same grounds as stated in the exception
set forth in his answer to said article fourth.

_Answer to Article VIII_.--And for answer to the said eighth article
this respondent denies that, on the 21st day of February, 1868, at
Washington aforesaid, or at any other time and place, he did issue
and deliver to the said Thomas the said letter of authority set forth
in the said eighth article with the intent unlawfully to control the
disbursements of the money appropriated for the military service and
for the Department of War. This respondent, protesting that there was
a vacancy in the office of Secretary of War, admits that he did issue
the said letter of authority, and he denies that the same was with any
unlawful intent whatever, either to violate the Constitution of the
United States or any act of Congress. On the contrary, this respondent
again affirms that his sole intent was to vindicate his authority as
President of the United States, and by peaceful means to bring the
question of the right of the said Stanton to continue to hold the said
office of Secretary of War to a final decision before the Supreme Court
of the United States, as has been hereinbefore set forth; and he prays
the same benefit from his answer in the premises as if the same were
here again repeated at length.

_Answer to Article IX_.--And for answer to the said ninth article
the respondent states that on the said 22d day of February, 1868, the
following note was addressed to the said Emory by the private secretary
of the respondent:

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

WASHINGTON, D.C.,

_February 22, 1868_.

GENERAL: The President directs me to say that he will be pleased to have
you call upon him as early as practicable.

Respectfully and truly yours,

WILLIAM G. MOORE,

_United States Army_.

General Emory called at the Executive Mansion according to this request.
The object of respondent was to be advised by General Emory, as
commander of the Department of Washington, what changes had been made in
the military affairs of the department. Respondent had been informed
that various changes had been made which in no wise had been brought to
his notice or reported to him from the Department of War or from any
other quarter, and desired to ascertain the facts. After the said Emory
had explained in detail the changes which had taken place, said Emory
called the attention of respondent to a general order which he referred
to, and which this respondent then sent for, when it was produced. It is
as follows:

GENERAL ORDERS, No, 17.

WAR DEPARTMENT,

ADJUTANT-GENERALS OFFICE,

_Washington, March 14, 1867_.

The following acts of Congress are published for the information and
government of all concerned:

* * * * * * *

"II.--PUBLIC--No. 85.

"An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year
ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes.

* * * * * * *

"SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That the headquarters of the
General of the Army of the United States shall be at the city of
Washington, and all orders and instructions relating to military
operations issued by the President or Secretary of War shall be issued
through the General of the Army, and in case of his inability through
the next in rank. The General of the Army shall not be removed,
suspended, or relieved from command, or assigned to duty elsewhere than
at said headquarters, except at his own request, without the previous
approval of the Senate; and any orders or instructions relating to
military operations issued contrary to the requirements of this section
shall be null and void; and any officer who shall issue orders or
instructions contrary to the provisions of this section shall be deemed
guilty of a misdemeanor in office; and any officer of the Army who shall
transmit, convey, or obey any orders or instructions so issued contrary
to the provisions of this section, knowing that such orders were so
issued, shall be liable to imprisonment for not less than two nor more
than twenty years upon conviction thereof in any court of competent
jurisdiction.

* * * * * * *

"Approved, March 2, 1867."

* * * * * * *

By order of the Secretary of War:

E.D. TOWNSEND,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

Official:

-------- --------,

_Assistant Adjutant-General_.

General Emory not only called the attention of respondent to this order,
but to the fact that it was in conformity with a section contained in an
appropriation act passed by Congress. Respondent, after reading the
order, observed:

This is not in accordance with the Constitution of the United States,
which makes me Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, or of the
language of the commission which you hold.

General Emory then stated that this order had met the respondent's
approval. Respondent then said in reply, in substance:

Am I to understand that the President of the United States can not give
an order but through the General in Chief, or General Grant?

General Emory again reiterated the statement that it had met
respondent's approval, and that it was the opinion of some of the
leading lawyers of the country that this order was constitutional. With
some further conversation, respondent then inquired the names of the
lawyers who had given the opinion, and he mentioned the names of two.
Respondent then said that the object of the law was very evident,
referring to the clause in the appropriation act upon which the order
purported to be based. This, according to respondent's recollection,
was the substance of the conversation had with General Emory.

Respondent denies that any allegations in the said article of any
instructions or declarations given to the said Emory then or at any
other time contrary to or in addition to what is hereinbefore set forth
are true. Respondent denies that in said conversation with said Emory he
had any other intent than to express the opinion then given to the said
Emory, nor did he then or at any time request or order the said Emory
to disobey any law or any order issued in conformity with any law,
or intend to offer any inducement to the said Emory to violate any
law. What this respondent then said to General Emory was simply the
expression of an opinion which he then fully believed to be sound,
and which he yet believes to be so, and that is that by the express
provisions of the Constitution this respondent, as President, is made
the Commander in Chief of the armies of the United States, and as such
he is to be respected, and that his orders, whether issued through the
War Department, or through the General in Chief, or by any other channel
of communication, are entitled to respect and obedience, and that such
constitutional power can not be taken from him by virtue of any act of
Congress. Respondent doth therefore deny that by the expression of such
opinion he did commit or was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office;
and the respondent doth further say that the said Article IX lays no
foundation whatever for the conclusion stated in the said article, that
the respondent, by reason of the allegations therein contained, was
guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.

In reference to the statement made by General Emory that this respondent
had approved of said act of Congress containing the section referred to,
the respondent admits that his formal approval was given to said act,
but accompanied the same by the following message, addressed and sent
with the act to the House of Representatives, in which House the said
act originated, and from which it came to respondent:

WASHINGTON, D.C., _March 2, 1867_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

The act entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of
the Army for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes,"
contains provisions to which I must call attention. These provisions
are contained in the second section, which in certain cases virtually
deprives the President of his constitutional functions as Commander in
Chief of the Army, and in the sixth section, which denies to ten States
of the Union their constitutional right to protect themselves in any
emergency by means of their own militia. These provisions are out of
place in an appropriation act, but I am compelled to defeat these
necessary appropriations if I withhold my signature from the act.
Pressed by these considerations, I feel constrained to return the bill
with my signature, but to accompany it with my earnest protest against
the sections which I have indicated.

Respondent, therefore, did no more than to express to said Emory the
same opinion which he had so expressed to the House of Representatives.

_Answer to Article X_.--And in answer to the tenth article and
specifications thereof the respondent says that on the 14th and 15th
days of August, in the year 1866, a political convention of delegates
from all or most of the States and Territories of the Union was held
in the city of Philadelphia, under the name and style of the National
Union Convention, for the purpose of maintaining and advancing certain
political views and opinions before the people of the United States, and
for their support and adoption in the exercise of the constitutional
suffrage in the elections of Representatives and Delegates in Congress
which were soon to occur in many of the States and Territories of the
Union; which said convention, in the course of its proceedings, and
in furtherance of the objects of the same, adopted a "Declaration of
principles" and "An address to the people of the United States," and
appointed a committee of two of its members from each State and of one
from each Territory and one from the District of Columbia to wait upon
the President of the United States and present to him a copy of the
proceedings of the convention; that on the 18th day of said month of
August this committee waited upon the President of the United States
at the Executive Mansion, and was received by him in one of the rooms
thereof, and by their chairman, Hon. Reverdy Johnson, then and now
a Senator of the United States, acting and speaking in their behalf,
presented a copy of the proceedings of the convention and addressed the
President of the United States in a speech of which a copy (according
to a published report of the same, and, as the respondent believes,
substantially a correct report) is hereto annexed as a part of this
answer, and marked Exhibit C.

That thereupon, and in reply to the address of said committee by their
chairman, this respondent addressed the said committee so waiting upon
him in one of the rooms of the Executive Mansion; and this respondent
believes that this his address to said committee is the occasion
referred to in the first specification of the tenth article; but this
respondent does not admit that the passages therein set forth, as if
extracts from a speech or address of this respondent upon said occasion,
correctly or justly present his speech or address upon said occasion,
but, on the contrary, this respondent demands and insists that if
this honorable court shall deem the said article and the said first
specification thereof to contain allegation of matter cognizable by
this honorable court as a high misdemeanor in office within the intent
and meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and shall receive
or allow proof in support of the same, that proof shall be required
to be made of the actual speech and address of this respondent on
said occasion, which this respondent denies that said article and
specification contain or correctly or justly represent.

And this respondent, further answering the tenth article and the
specifications thereof, says that at Cleveland, in the State of Ohio,
and on the 3d day of September, in the year 1866, he was attended by a
large assemblage of his fellow-citizens, and in deference and obedience
to their call and demand he addressed them upon matters of public and
political consideration; and this respondent believes that said occasion
and address are referred to in the second specification of the tenth
article; but this respondent does not admit that the passages therein
set forth, as if extracts from a speech of this respondent on said
occasion, correctly or justly present his speech or address upon said
occasion, but, on the contrary, this respondent demands and insists that
if this honorable court shall deem the said article and the said second
specification thereof to contain allegation of matter cognizable by this
honorable court as a high misdemeanor in office within the intent and
meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and shall receive or
allow proof in support of the same, that proof shall be required to be
made of the actual speech and address of this respondent on said
occasion, which this respondent denies that said article and
specification contain or correctly or justly represent.

And this respondent, further answering the tenth article and the
specifications thereof, says that at St. Louis, in the State of
Missouri, and on the 8th day of September, in the year 1866, he was
attended by a numerous assemblage of his fellow-citizens, and in
deference and obedience to their call and demand he addressed them upon
matters of public and political consideration; and this respondent
believes that said occasion and address are referred to in the third
specification of the tenth article; but this respondent does not admit
that the passages therein set forth, as if extracts from a speech of
this respondent on said occasion, correctly or justly present his speech
or address upon said occasion, but, on the contrary, this respondent
demands and insists that if this honorable court shall deem the said
article and the said third specification thereof to contain allegation
of matter cognizable by this honorable court as a high misdemeanor in
office within the intent and meaning of the Constitution of the United
States, and shall receive or allow proof in support of the same, that
proof shall be required to be made of the actual speech and address of
this respondent on said occasion, which this respondent denies that the
said article and specification contain or correctly or justly represent.

And this respondent, further answering the tenth article, protesting
that he has not been unmindful of the high duties of his office or of
the harmony or courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between
the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United
States, denies that he has ever intended or designed to set aside the
rightful authority or powers of Congress, or attempted to bring into
disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, or reproach the Congress of the
United States, or either branch thereof, or to impair or destroy the
regard or respect of all or any of the good people of the United States
for the Congress or the rightful legislative power thereof, or to excite
the odium or resentment of all or any of the good people of the United
States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally
enacted. This respondent further says that at all times he has, in his
official acts as President, recognized the authority of the several
Congresses of the United States as constituted and organized during his
administration of the office of President of the United States.

And this respondent, further answering, says that he has from time
to time, under his constitutional right and duty as President of the
United States, communicated to Congress his views and opinions in
regard to such acts or resolutions thereof as, being submitted to him
as President of the United States in pursuance of the Constitution,
seemed to this respondent to require such communications; and he has
from time to time, in the exercise of that freedom of speech which
belongs to him as a citizen of the United States, and, in his political
relations as President of the United States to the people of the United
States, is upon fit occasions a duty of the highest obligation, expressed
to his fellow-citizens his views and opinions respecting the measures
and proceedings of Congress; and that in such addresses to his
fellow-citizens and in such his communications to Congress he has
expressed his views, opinions, and judgment of and concerning the actual
constitution of the two Houses of Congress, without representation
therein of certain States of the Union, and of the effect that in wisdom
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 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:

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.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 6, part 2: Andrew Johnson" ***

Home