With short debate and with little delay the Senate passed a resolution declaring "that under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the President has no power to remove the Secretary of War and to designate any other officer to perform the duties of that office _ad interim_." The Senate could do nothing more than express and record this opinion, but it did that promptly, resentfully, almost passionately.
The House took up the matter in hot temper and in hot haste.

A flagrant offense against the Constitution and the laws had, in the judgment of a majority of its members, been committed by the President.
In defiance of the letter and spirit of the Tenure-of-office Act he had removed the Secretary of War from office.

He had done this under circumstances of peculiar aggravation, because the Senate had passed upon all his reason therefor when the question of Mr.Stanton's suspension was before that body; and if even the suspension was not justifiable, how very grave must be the offense of removing the Secretary from office! These views and the discussion to which they led engrossed the attention of the House as soon as it was known that the President had sent a message to the Senate communicating his action in regard to Mr.Stanton.

The Senate had no sooner recorded its dissent from the Executive power of removal than Mr.Covode of Pennsylvania, on the same day, rose to a privileged question in the House and offered a resolution that "_Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors_." The resolution was referred to the Committee on Reconstruction and the House adjourned.

On the next day (February 22d) Mr.Stevens, chairman of the Reconstruction Committee, reported the resolution back to the House with the recommendation that it pass, suggesting that the question might immediately be taken without debate.
-- Mr.Brooks of New York had hoped for time to prepare a minority report, but contented himself with a long speech earnestly protesting against the Impeachment.