The great event in President Johnson’s career, however, was his impeachment trial, which lasted from March 5 until May 26, 1868. He was arraigned at the bar of the Senate, which was presided over by the Chief Justice of the United States, the Hon. Salmon P. Chase. The counsel of the President were Attorney-General Henry Stanberry, who resigned his position to defend the President, ex-Judge Benjamin R. Curtis, William S. Groesbeck, who acted as substitute for Judge “Jerry” Black, and Hon. Wm. M. Evarts. General Benjamin F. Butler made the opening argument against the President, accusing him of high crimes and misdemeanors. Hon. Wm. Lawrence, of Ohio, posted him on the law of impeachment. The chief charge in the articles of impeachment was the removal of Mr. Stanton from the office of Secretary of War, in alleged violation of the Tenure-of-office Act. According to this act Stanton had a right to hold office during the term of the President by whom he was appointed, and a month longer. He was appointed by President Lincoln. The question to be decided then was whether Johnson was serving out Lincoln’s unexpired term, or whether he was President _de facto_. Judge Curtis took the latter ground, and argued, therefore, that Stanton’s term had expired. At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate was addressed against the President by General John A. Logan and Mr. Boutwell. Thaddeus Stevens attempted to read a speech, but was too weak. He handed his manuscript to General Butler, who read it to the Senate, but it fell comparatively flat. The Hon. Thomas Williams, of Pennsylvania, read a speech in favor of impeachment, which was well received. The case on behalf of the Senate was summed up by Hon. John A. Bingham, who arrayed all the charges against the President in a very strong and unfavorable light. His concluding sentences were, “I ask you, Senators, how long men would deliberate upon the question whether a private citizen arraigned at the bar of one of your private tribunals of justice, for criminal violation of law, should be permitted to interpose a plea in justification of his criminal act that his only purpose was to interpret the Constitution and laws for himself; that he violated the law in the exercise of his prerogative to test it hereafter, at such day as might suit his own convenience, in the courts of justice? Surely, Senators, it is as competent for the private citizen to interpose such justification in answer to his crime as it is for the President of the United States to interpose it, and for the simple reason that the Constitution is no respecter of persons, and vests neither in the President nor in the private citizen judicial power. For the Senate to sustain any such plea would, in my judgment, be a gross violation of the already violated constitution and laws of a free people.”