ment, was arrested nearly three years ago and is not yet tried, the Republican court and district-attorney concurring in all the postponements that have occurred, and one Republican, at least, becoming his bail. Mr. Johnson's trial is hurried on before the Court of Impeachment with indecent haste, by a party vote, not allowing him and his counsel time to prepare his defence. The crime charged against Mr. Davis is, that he believed the secession States were legally out of the Union, and he tried to keep them out, and thus committed treason. Mr. Johnson's crime is, in substance and effect, that he believes they were not legally out of the Union, and he seeks to restore and keep them in, and for this he is, in substance and effect, impeached. The Republicans have ceased to denounce Mr. Davis, and heap curses mountains high upon Mr. Johnson for seeking to do what we fought for, to restore the Union. Such are the inconsistencies of Republicanism.

ACTUAL TRIAL.-The managers on the part of the House so conducted the trial as to disgust the honest men of the country. They scarcely discussed the issues at all, but gave over a hundred columns in the newspapers of bitter rant against the President, having nothing to do with the matters charged in the articles of impeachment. They made it clear that the object was to get rid of him, without reference to the charges they had presented. At their instance, the Senate excluded the evidence of the President's good intentions. They were answered by the President's counsel in a calm, dignified, forcible, and conclusive manner. They left no question of doubt open.

The Republican press and politicians came to the assistance. of the managers, seeking to induce the Senate to convict at all hazards. The following from the New-York Tribune is a fair specimen of their efforts. It was aimed at Senator Fessenden:

"To vote in favor of impeachment is merely to repeat votes that have been given a hundred times. If it were wise to assail Mr. Johnson for his policy, it is just to punish him. His impeachment is the logical consequence of Republicanism, and no Republican can vote against it without making himself infamous. The only alternative is IMPEACHMENT OR INFAMY. If Johnson is ac quitted, then the whole course of these men is a LIE, and their

deception is INFAMOUS. They led the party to this issue. They educated it to the work. They echoed every denunciation, and emphasized every criticism of the President's policy. If they have been honest in this, then impeachment is as sure as the sun.

"It is because we believe in their honesty that we rest assured of a favorable verdict. American history has had one Benedict Arnold. Money is precious, and sweet is the revenge of disappointed ambition. We are certain that neither money nor revenge will seduce any Senator into an infamous association with America's most degraded son.”

The following was issued by the same paper to deter Senators generally from voting according to their convictions:

The

"The Republican Senator who rises in his seat to-morrow and votes 'not guilty,' virtually says, 'I am the same as Andrew Johnson. I am his defender and apologist. I go into history as his companion. His deeds are my deeds-his speeches are my speeches. I give to his past career my approval. I accept the responsibility of any thing he may do in times to come. pardons of unrepentant rebels, the massacres in New Orleans and Memphis, the unpunished murders in the South, the frauds in the revenues, the anarchy in many parts of the South, his indecent and incoherent speeches, so justly called, even by his counsel, Mr. Evarts, "the voice of the beaten rebellion," now receive my commendation." For remember that Senators are not merely jurors but statesmen! If this were a charge against Mr. Johnson affecting his own personal safety and comfort, and of consequence to no one else, we might pardon a verdict of release."

The members of the House of Representatives from Missouri disgraced themselves and dishonored their State by sending to one of its Senators a letter in these words:

Hon. JOHN B. HENDERSON, United States Senate

WASHINGTON, May 12, 1868.

SIR: On a consultation of the Republican members of the House of Representatives from Missouri, in view of your position on the impeachment articles, we ask you to withhold your vote on any article upon which you cannot vote affirmatively. The request is made because we believe the safety of the loyal people of the United States demands the immediate removal of Andrew Johnson from the office of President of the United States. Respectfully, C. A. NEWCOMB, JOHN F. BENJAMIN,

GEO. W. ANDERSON,
Jos. W. MCCLURG,
JOSEPH J. GRAVELY.

WM. A. PILE,
BENJAMIN F. LOAN,

A noble decision:

WASHINGTON, D. C., May 13.

To E. W. Fox, St. Louis:

Say to my friends that I am sworn to do impartial justice according to law and the evidence, and I will try to do it like an honest man.

J. B. HENDERSON.

The chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means in the House sent this to West Virginia:

WASHINGTON, D. C., May 12, 1868. Great danger to the peace of the country and the Republican cause if impeachment fails. Send to your Senators public opinion by resolutions, letters, and delegations. ROBERT C. SCHENCK, Chairman.

Wade, president pro tempore of the Senate, and who is one of the triers of the President and expects his place, telegraphed thus: TO JAMES M. SCOVEL: It is all right. The President will be impeached. Nothing can prevent it. B. F. WADE. He was asked by a political friend if he should vote on the trial, and replied, "If I had twenty votes I would give them all."

These are specimens of what has been published to secure conviction. Senators are called upon, not to act judicially, honestly, and wisely, but to convict at all events. Even public meetings have been called to aid in the same object. Thousands of letters have been written for the same purpose, and an army of politicians have attended at Washington to control the votes of Senators. Never, in the history of man, have such efforts been resorted to for controlling judicial proceedings. No State or national court would consent to be thus insulted, and why should the Senate, sitting as the highest court in the world? We give the final action of the Senatorial Court as Appendix Number 2. This attempt to destroy the President will destroy the party engaged in it. The Republicans who refuse to lend themselves to this purpose, are among the ablest, wisest, and best men of that party, who have something to lose by doing wrong, which cannot be said of those who go for a judicial conviction upon grounds of mere political policy. Such men as Fessenden, Trumbull, Grimes, and others, though our political adversaries, are an honor to their party and country, and are not to be crushed out to gratify politicians who can only rise upon the downfall of men better than themselves.

127.-CONGRESS AND THE SUPREME COURT.

The legislation of Congress, concerning the Supreme Court, has been of an extraordinary character for the last few years. That Court had been severely censured and denounced for its decision in the Dred Scott case. The more ardent Republican partisans proposed, when Mr. Lincoln came in, to abolish the court, and thus get rid of those who decided it and appoint a full new court professing Republican principles. But as the judges were appointed during good behavior-during life-no repeal of the law under which they were appointed would deprive them of their commissions. The more prudent men thought it would have an ugly look to have two sets of Supreme Court judges, one on the bench performing duty, and the other off awaiting duty; and so this scheme was abandoned. But the leaders agreed that the court must be Republicanized. On the 3d of March, 1863, the court consisted of nine judges, six of whom were Democrats, or anti-Republicans. Congress then passed an act adding another judge, declaring six a quorum, and Mr. Lincoln appointed a political friend to the new office. On the 12th of October, 1864, Chief-Justice Taney died, and S. P. Chase was appointed in his place. The court then stood five Democrats and five Republicans, being equally divided. Soon after Chief-Justice Chase entered upon his duties-May 30, 1865-Mr. Justice Catron died, which left a majority of Republicans on the bench. Mr. Johnson proposed to fill his place with a political friend, and probably a Democrat, but the Senate would not consent. Had it done so, the court would have continued equally divided between the two political parties. To obviate this difficulty, and to secure a majority of Republican judges, Congress changed its policy, and on the 23d of July, 1866, passed an act to reduce the number of judges from ten down to six. The act provides that no vacancies in the office of justice of the Supreme Court shall be filled until the number shall be reduced to six. Hence the vacancy occasioned by the death of Justice Catron has not been filled, nor has Justice Wayne's, who died last year. The court now consists of eight members. five of whom are Republicans. These two acts present extraor

dinary shifts, which no one can call just or honest, to secure the political ascendency in our highest judicial tribunal. That the

judges were not able to attend and perform all their circuit duties, has long been known, and that was the excuse for raising the number of judges to ten, and constituting ten circuits. In the act reducing the number of judges, the circuits are reduced to nine. Hence there is now one circuit without a Supreme Court judge to preside, and, since the death of Judge Wayne, there have been two, and in the end there will be four. Such are some of the consequences of political manoeuvring with courts.

But even these changes do not satisfy the Republican leaders. Some of the Republican judges do not follow all their wild and reckless leaders, and occasionally hold the legislation of Congress unconstitutional and void, and some of the acts of Republican tribunals illegal. It is now gravely proposed to require three-fourths of the court to make a decision, and to withdraw certain questions from the consideration of the court-for instance, the constitutionality of the reconstruction and other acts of Congress-for fear that such acts may be held to be unconstitutional and void. They fear a court constituted of a majority of their own party-judges selected at their instance and appointed by a Republican President, with the consent of a Republican Senate. They see that the Court must take the back track, and reverse and condemn its own action, or it must refuse to uphold the action of Congress. A well-constituted court cannot follow the lead of a political party. Hence their desperation and extraordinary course on the subject of this court. The proceedings of Congress must be con demned either for increasing or diminishing the number of members of this court. The two positions are in conflict, and both cannot stand. If the new propositions are enacted, it will serve to increase the embarrassments of those who do it, instead of relieving them; it will be found unprofitable to try to use the courts as political machines, to decide according to order. But Congress is now taking a new tack. It proposes not only to control the Executive, but also to forbid the Judicial Department to act in cases before it, until it shall permit. It claims that it is the political department of the Government, and that it alone is competent to