s the chief article that was
submitted to a vote in the Senate. The question raised by that article
is this in substance: Is the President of the United States guilty in
manner and form as set forth in this article? On that question thirty-
five Senators voted that he was guilty, and nineteen Senators voted
that he was not guilty. Under the Constitution the President was found
not guilty of the offences charged, but the majority given may be
accepted, and probably will be accepted, as the judgment of the Senate
that the President of the United States is liable to impeachment and
removal from office for acts and conduct that do not subject him to the
process of indictment and trial in the criminal courts. At this point
I express the opinion that something has been gained, indeed that much
has been gained, by the decision of the House of Representatives,
supported by the opinions of a large majority in the Senate.

The answer of the respondent, considered in connection with the
arguments that were made by his counsel, sets forth the ground upon
which the Republican members of the Senate may have voted that the
President was not guilty of the two principal offences charged, viz:
that in his speeches he had denounced and brought into contempt,
intentionally, the Congress of the United States; and, second, that his
attempted removal of Edwin M. Stanton was a violation of the Tenure
of Office Act. In the President's answer to article ten, which
contained the allegation that in his speech at St. Louis, in the year
1866, he had used certain language in derogation of the authority of
the Congress of the United States, it was averred that the extracts did
not present his speech or address accurately. Further than that, it
was claimed that the allegation under that article was not "cognizable
by the court as a high misdemeanor in office." Finally, it was claimed
that proof should be made of the "actual" speech and address of the
President on that occasion. The managers were not able to meet the
demand for proof in a technical sense. The speech was reported in the
ordinary way, and the proof was limited to the good faith of the
reporters and the general accuracy of the printed report in the
newspapers. In this situation as to the charges and the answer, it is
not difficult to reach the conclusion that members of the Senate had
ground for the vote of not guilty upon the several charges in regard
to the speeches that were