ment in the case. It was carefully
prepared, well written, and throughout logical in its analysis. It
was uncompromisingly pungent in tone and severe in its method of
dealing with President Johnson. "The world," said General Logan, "in
after times will read the history of the depth to which political and
official perfidy can descend. His great aim and purpose has been to
subvert law, usurp authority, insult and outrage Congress, reconstruct
the rebel States in the interest of treason, and insult the memories
and resting-places of our heroic dead."

Mr. Boutwell on the two succeeding days made a strong arraignment of
the President. Indeed he made all that well could be made out of
the charges preferred by the House. He exhibited throughout his
address the earnestness and the eloquence which come from intense
conviction. He believed that the President had committed high crimes
and misdemeanors, and he believed that the safety of the Republic
required his removal from office. With this belief his argument was
of course impressive. "The House of Representatives," said he in
closing, "have presented this criminal at your bar with equal
confidence in his guilt and in your disposition to administer exact
justice between him and the people of the United States. I do not
contemplate his acquittal: it is impossible. Therefore I do not
look beyond; but, senators, the people of the United States of America
will never permit an usurping Executive to break down the securities
for liberty provided in the Constitution. The cause of the Republic
is in your hands. Your verdict of _Guilty_ is PEACE to our beloved
country." Mr. Nelson of Tennessee followed Mr. Boutwell with a long
and earnest plea in behalf of the President, somewhat effusive in its
character but distinguished for the enthusiasm with which he defended
his personal friend.

Mr. Groesbeck next addressed the Senate on behalf of the President. He
made a clear, forcible presentation of the grounds of defense. Mr.
Boutwell had asserted "that the President cannot prove or plead the
motive by which he professes to have been governed in his violation of
the laws of the country. . . . The necessary, the inevitable
presumption in law is that he acted under the influence of bad motives
in so doing, and no evidence can be introduced controlling or coloring
in any degree this necessary presumption of the law." In reviewing
this position, Mr. Groesbeck reminded the Sen