General Banks replied that they did not; the President of the United States never had such power. Mr. Donnelly (Republican), of Minnesota, said he was in favour of the Bill, but did not like some of its provisions. He objected to the retaliation clause, arguing that it would be an act of barbarity similar to that which had disgraced Napoleon when he issued his orders to seize all Englishmen in France. The true remedy, he thought, was that suggested by the proposed amendment of the hon. member from Ohio (Mr. Spalding), a declaration that such acts on the part of a foreign Government shall be just ground of war. Mr. Ward then said he sympathized fully with the objects of the Bill, but he was opposed to giving such extraordinary powers to the President; it was giving him the power to involve the nation at any time in war, and he thought that provision should be struck out, and that the President should report to Congress. Mr. Woodward (Democrat), of Pennsylvania, said he was in favour of the main features of the Bill, but thought it was defective in not providing for the expatriation of American citizens. The American Government was asking other Governments to provide for the expatriation of their subjects, and he thought it quite indispensable that this Government should begin by providing for the expatriation of its own citizens. He gave notice that at the proper time he would offer an amendment to meet this defect in the Bill. General Banks stated that the incorporation of such a provision would debar naturalized citizens of the right up to this date of claiming the protection of the Government. It was not necessary to proclaim the right of expatriation, for that already existed. Mr. Woodward replied that while the judiciary had not actually decided that there was no such right as expatriation, that was the inference from its decisions, and it could never be expected that foreign Governments would adopt the principle of the right of expatriation unless the United States declared that right to exist in its own citizens by statute. Mr. Wilson (Republican), of Iowa, said that this was a subject of grave public concern, and demanded care. Congress was not dealing with a mere question of elections, or playing a pleasing game for the votes of naturalized citizens. The great matter was that of expatriation, and in his judgment the Bill did not deal fairly with it. The first section provided that all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign States, shall be entitled to and receive from this Government the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like circumstances. The section thus far was direct and positive, and challenged the attention and practice of every nation from which the United States had drawn the foreign element of population. It was affirmative, aggressive, and boldly American, and in these regards commanded respect and admiration; but it was destroyed by the succeeding declaration of the section, which gave the President power to employ all the resources of the Government in just efforts to procure the recognition by other States of the American doctrine. This

he considered as a complete demolition of the section, and as destroying the affirmative and aggressive character of the Bill. This was diplomacy, and not legislation. It would be a mere declaration that the "principles of public law" which had been insisted upon by the United States with regard to naturalized citizens should continue as a rule of conduct of the Republic. Mr. Wilson then considered at length the doctrines laid down by various law writers on the subject of allegiance, and combated the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. He admitted, however, that neither the American law writers nor the American judiciary had ever asserted a different rule; nor had the American Executive advanced beyond an attempt to induce foreign States, by negotiation, to consent to the adoption of a new rule of international law upon this subject. Therefore he considered that the section as it now stood could bear nothing but deceptive fruit. He thought the Foreign Committee. intended, in preparing this Bill, to assert, in its broadest sense, the right of expatriation, and that they would assent to an amendment which would eliminate from it every vestige of our past observance of the indefensible feudal doctrine of indefeasible allegiance. Mr. Wilson concluded by stating that it was high time feudalism was driven from their shores and eliminated from their laws, and he hoped "our action upon the momentous question involved in this Bill may be such as will result in a thorough reversal of the past action of our Government, and in a legislative declaration which cannot be misunderstood by foreign Governments, or misinterpreted by that portion of our population who have become citizens by naturalization." Mr. Pile (Republican), of Missouri, expressed his fear that the Bill was simply to keep the word of promise to the ear and break it to the hope; and that it would leave four-fifths of their naturalized citizens from Prussia subject to arrest on their return to that country, because the Prussian military service was provided for by law. He denounced the retaliatory clause of the Bill as barbarous and inhuman. Mr. Myers (Republican), of Pennsylvania, stated that Mr. Wilson's objections were groundless, as the Foreign Committee had determined to amend the Bill in accordance with Mr. Wilson's views. He added that the objections made to the Bill seemed only for the purpose of making it more effectual in its main provisions; and he believed the House would unite and enact into a law a doctrine with regard to naturalization which uttered the sentiment of the American people. General Banks announced that the Committee had amended the Bill by striking out from the first section the words "insisted upon and maintained," and inserting the words "heretofore maintained." Also, that among the classes of persons declared to be not entitled to protection when abroad, the following were added:-Deserters from any military or naval conscription that might have been ordered in a foreign country, and citizens resident abroad who should fail to make reports of their property to the tax-collectors in the United States for taxation.

This Bill was however abandoned, and a new one on the same subject was reported to the House of Representatives by General Banks on the 20th of February. The preamble declared, "The right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for the protection of which the Government of the United States was established;" that "in the recognition of this principle the Government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship;" that "it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign States, owing allegiance to the Governments thereof;" and that "it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance to the Governments thereof should be promptly and finally disavowed."

The Bill, as finally passed by the House of Representatives, enacted" that all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign States, shall be entitled to and shall receive protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances.

"And whenever it shall be duly made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been arrested, and is detained by any foreign Government in contravention of the intent and purposes of this Act, upon the allegation that naturalization in the United States does not operate to dissolve his allegiance to his native Sovereign; or if any citizen shall have been arrested and detained, whose release upon demand shall have been unreasonably delayed or refused, the President shall be and hereby is empowered to suspend in part, or wholly, commercial relations with the said Government, or, in case no other remedy is available, order the arrest, and to detain in custody, any subject or citizen of the said foreign Government who may be found within the jurisdiction of the United States, except Ambassadors and other public Ministers and their domestics and domestic servants, and who has not declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States; and the President shall, without delay, give information to Congress of any such proceedings under this Act."

On the 24th of February the House of Representatives adopted a resolution by 126 votes against 41 to impeach the President, Mr. Johnson, of high crimes and misdemeanours, and appointed Mr. Thaddeus Stevens and Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, as a committee to impeach him at the Bar of the Senate. Messrs. Stevens, Boutwell, Bingham, Wilson, Logan, and Ward were selected as the Committee to prepare the articles of impeachment.

President Johnson sent a Message to the Senate in which he stated that the Tenure of Office Act prohibited the removal without the consent of the Senate of any Cabinet officer during the term of office of the President by whom he was appointed. He did not appoint Mr. Stanton, and therefore his removal was no violation of the Act. But all the Cabinet, including Mr. Stanton, had

pronounced the Tenure of Office Act to be unconstitutional, and he wished the matter to be tested by the Courts of the nation. He had honestly endeavoured to discharge his solemn obligation to defend the Constitution and the high office entrusted to him. He had acted with great circumspection, but regardless of consequences to himself.

At the end of February the Committee reported to the House of Representatives that they had agreed upon the articles of impeachment. The first of them charged the President with violating the Tenure of Office Act by removing Mr. Stanton from the Office of Secretary of War without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States. The order complained of was in the following

"Executive Mansion, Washington, D.C., Feb. 21, 1868. "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 the office of Secretary for the Department of War, and your functions as such will terminate upon receipt of this communication. You will transfer to Brevet Major-General L. Thomas, Adjutant-General of the Army, who has this day been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, all books, papers and other public property now in your custody and charge.

"Respectfully yours,

"To the Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War."

"ANDREW JOHNSON.

The other articles except the last varied the form of the charge. The last article charged the President with having told General Emery, who was in military command of the Department of Washington, that a certain Act, passed in March, 1867, "for making appropriations for the support of the army" was unconstitutional, and therefore not binding upon him as an officer of the army of the United States.

These articles were adopted by the House, and Messrs. Thaddeus Stevens, Butler, Bingham, Boutwell, Wilson, Williams, and Logan were appointed managers of the impeachment. General Butler then proposed an additional article, which charges that the President had attempted "to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach the Congress of the United States; . . . and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly, and before divers assemblages of citizens of the United States, convened in divers parts thereof, to meet and receive the said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the eighteenth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterwards, make and declare, with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues, and 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 in hearing."

The article then quoted long passages from several speeches made by the President, in one of which he had said, "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 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 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, if allowed to be consummated, would result in despotism or monarchy itself."

In another, "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, that which 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, and He never could have had a Judas unless He 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? They are the men that stop and compare themselves with the Saviour, and every body that differs with them in opinion, and tries 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 chancesoldiers and citizens-to participate in these offices, God be 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 is what I intended to say; I was not provoked into this, and care not for their menaces, the taunts and the jeers. I care not for threats, I do not intend to be bullied by enemies, nor overawed by my friends. But, God willing, with your help, I will veto their measures whenever any of them come to me."