The Sun.
London, England, 1867-01-25 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PITBLIO JOURNALS.

TIMES.—The more we become acquainted with
the circumstances which have led to the proposal to
impeach President Johnson, the more grave does the
fact itself appear. It was just possible to believe,
when the news first came to us through our corre-
spondent's telegram, that the proposal was a mere
ebullition of passionate resentment on the part of the
House of Representatives, which would die away and
be forgotten when the occasion of it had become a
few days older. It is true that in order to arrive at
this conclusion it was necessary to attribute to the
house a feeble and almost feminine fretfulness ; it
was necessary to believe that the members of a re-
sponsible chamber were ready to sacrifice their own
dignity and to forget the respect due to the nation
they representedfor the sake of indulging in a threat
never meant to be carried into effect ; and, strange to
say, there were not wanting professed admirers of
the dominant party in Congress who endeavoured in
this way to explain what appeared to be a revolu-
tionary act. This defence is now no longer tenable.
The course commenced by Mr. Stevens and his im-
mediate followers may be violent, but it is not an
evanescent freak. They are determined to carry
through what they have begun. They have resolved
upon removing from office a President who dissents
from their policy of reconstruction, and to reduce
the Executive Department to be the humble servant
of the Legislature. The more daring spirits among
them strike atyet higher game. The Supreme Court,
the ark of the Constitution, has interfered with the
supremacy of the fluctuating majority of Congress,
and its destruction is threatened as a sequel to the
deposition of the President. Immediately before its
short Christmas vacation Congress passed the Dis-
trict of Columbia Suffrage Bill. On the 26th ult.
this bill was presented to the President. On the
7th inst. it was returned by him to the Senate,
where it first originated. His reasons for rejecting
the bill are expressed in a State paper, the abi-
lity of which few will deny. The District of Co-
lu►abia consists of a small territory around Wash-
ington, originally lying in the States of Mary-
land and Virginia, but, for the purpose of avoiding
clashing jurisdictions, long since ceded to the Fe-
deral Government. It has municipal institutions of
its own, but no State Legislature is interposed be-
tween it and Congress. The population of the dis-
trict is about 130,000, a quarter of whom are negroes.
The bill provided that in all municipal elections the
franchise should be exercised without distinction of
colour. Upon the policy or impolicy of such a bill
we do not say a word ; we are only concerned with
the reasons advanced by Mr. Johnson for putting his
veto on it, and with the subsequent action of Con-
gress. Mr. Johnson's argument was simple. The
district of Columbia was, he admitted, subject to the
supreme and exclusive control of the Federal Govern-
ment, but it was never intended that the municipal
institutions of the district should be set at naught by
Congress. If it were, the inhabitants of Columbia
would be deprived of all security for freedom. They
would be at the mercy of a Legislature in which they
had no representative to defend their liberties. Con-
gress is bound, he declared, to look upon itself as
the State Legislature of Columbia, and, though not
elected by it, to defer to the wishes of its inhabitants
in matters of local concern. Congress had always
acted in this spirit, and Mr. Johnson quoted the lan-
guage of successive Presidents to prove this position.
What, then, were the views of the municipalities of
Columbia on the proposed change on their electoral
law? A vote was taken upon the subject twelve
months since, and iu Washington, out of 6,556
voters—the largest number with but two exceptions
ever polled in the city--only 35 supported thealtera-
tion ; in Georgetown, out of 813—an unusual:y large
number—there was only one in favour of it. It is
evident that if ever legislation conflicted with the
spirit 'of the Constitution the Suffrage Bill did. It
was a stretch of arbitrary and irresponsible power--
the act of wise despots possibly—but on a similar
plea Congress might have endeavoured to force a
similar bill on the States of Kentucky and Missouri.
We say nothing of the so-called Southern States,
which placed themselves outside the Constitution
by their acts of secession, and having thus forfeited
their political rights are now mere subject terri-
tory awaitine. reorganization ; Columbia has suf-
fered no such penalty, its municipal autonomy can-
not be abrogated without violence, and the veto
of the President was but a vindication of the princi-
ples of the Constitution against a palpable infringe-
ment. The Veto was delivered, and the Suffrage
bill was immediately re-enacted by a sufficient ma-
jority, and, subject to the judgment of the Supreme

Court, is now law. It might be supposed that Con-
gress would havebeen content with this, but the oc-
casion was seized to push forward what had been be-
fore resolved upon. The managers of the Republican
party had become weary of Vetoes, even though
they amounted to nothing more than empty protests,
and forthwith commenced the process of impeach-
ment. " What is the use of passing acts in the pre-
sent state of the Government ?" said Mr. Thaddeus
Stevens to our correspondent, and while the reasons
for the Veto of the Columbia Suffrage Bill were
being read in the Senate, the instruction for the
impeachment of Mr. Johnson was introduced into
the House of Representatives, and " the previous
question" moved for the purpose of suppressing
de-
bate. The lengths to which a dominant party can
go when unchecked by an opposition were Inver
better exemplified. The instruction to the Judiciary
Committee was the most important step that could
be taken, yet the House of Representatives deter-
mined that it should be voted without hearing rea-
sons for or argument against it. It is true that not
all tliose who were ready to support the resolution
were prepared to stifle discussion. " The previous
question" was c trried by 75 to 4a, some not voting
and others siding on this issue with the mino-
rity, but immediately after this vote was taken,
the main resolution itself was adopted by 107
to 39. The Judiciary Committee-which is said
by one of the most active of the President's op-
ponents " to have been purposely constituted for
precisely such work," so decided is its animus
against the President-has entered upon its labours
and there is no doubt that it will report a series
of charges to the house which will be preferred
against Mr. Johnson at the bar of the .Senate.
The impeachment of Mr. Johnson is an assertion
of the principle that the will of the majority of Con-
gress must be henceforth unchecked, and that the
limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution are
a dead letter. There are, no doubt, charges advanced
to substantiate the Impeachment, but it is confessed
that they would never have been heard of had not
the President opposed the action of the dominant
party, and the Conservative Republicans acknow-
ledge that they would be dismissed at once in any
Court. We cannot, of course, pretend at this dis-
tance to give an opinion on this point, but
the presumption of the flimeiaess of the charges
made against Mr. Johnson is confirmed by the
language of the more thoughtful members of the
extreme Radical party itself. Timidly they hint their
fears of the wisdom of the process instituted by
their unflinching associates. " May we not," they
ask, "put a precedent upon our statute-books which
will give any Democratic majority of the Senate
and house in future years the right to revolutionise
the Government in the interest of slavery ?"
This is undoubtedly the danger. If Mr. John-
son is to be set aside because he interferes with
the will of the majority of the present Congress, no
future President will be able to defend the on-
stitution from the majority of the hour. Whatever
party be uppermost will wield a power without
limit. We should be glad to believe that the sense
of this danger will prove sufficient to arrest the
, course of the majority in Congress. Unhappily,
they can point to the majorities at the elections of
last autumn-majorities not large in themselves
but giving their party overwhelming strength
in House and Senate; and they are fortified by
the assurance that the popular sentiment approves
their action. Relying upon this support, they
will persevere in the course they have deter-
mined upon. On the 4th of March the present
Congress will expire, and, in accordance with an
Act passed last month, the new Congress will im-
mediately commence its sittings. The interval will
be consumed in preparing Articles of Impeachment.
Then, when the new Congress is inaugurated, and the
Radical party, strong now, becomes even stronger,
when, above all, the two-thirds majority in the Se-
nate will be secured beyond the possibility of doubt,
the impeachment will be presented, a condemnation
will be secured, and a precedent will be set by which
the main defence against the despotism of a tempor-
ary majority will be swept away.
Posse-Early in the session a bill to amend the
law of bankruptcy will be introduced by the Attor-
ney-General, and we believe the preparation of the
measure has been entrusted to the competent hands
of the gentleman who was secretary to the Bank-
ruptcy Commission in 1856, and who drew the
Bankruptcy Bill introduced by Lord Derby's Go-
vernment in 1859. It may be assumed that impri-
sonment for debt on final process will be entirely
abolished. The Act of 1861 paved the way for this
great and salutary change, by providing a system of
monthly gaol deliveries, under which no trader need
suffer a longer imprisonment than 14 days, and no
non-trader a longer period than two calendar
months. The effect of this provision has been to
flood the bankruptcy and county courts with a mass
of pauper cases, which are submitted to the same
dignified processes which are useful and necessary in
the realisation of estates showing some or consider-
able assets. We regard the abolition of imprison-
ment for debt as the sine qua non of bankruptcy re-
form, but we cannot the same time shut our eyes
to the fact that a very large portion of the trading
community consider the retention of this power
absolutely necessary as some kind of security for
the credit which they are compelled to give. If a
man can pay his debts and will not pay them, he
should be compelled to do so if he have the means.
The system of judgment summonses might be ex-
tended to all debts, and upon proof of the debtor's
ability to pay he should be committed to prison
for a specified period. The imprisonment would
not purge the debt, and during its continuance he
should not be allowed to petition against himself,
though creditors should be permitted to obtain
a hostile adjudication, and thus secure a rateable
division of the property amongst themselves.
The substitution of this system for arrest on final
process would, we think, satisfy the trading com-
munity, and especially the small shopkeepers, whose
business depends so materially on credit. As the
punishment should only be inflicted by a judge of
one of the superior courts, or of the Court of Bank-
ruptcy where the debt exceeded £5O, the debtor
would not be at the mercy of his creditors, and the
latter would not possess this power of enforcing
credit except upon satisfactory proof that the
debtor could, but would not, pay. But if all the
pauper cases which now are the result of imprison-
ment were removed, as suggested, there would still
remain a large mass of insolvent business to be ad-
ministered either in the Court of Bankruptcy or by
means of trust deeds. It is therefore important to
consider what improvement can be made in the
machinery of that court. Here it may be observed
that Mr. Moffatt's committee of 1865 proposed the
entire abolition of the Court of Bankruptcy, and
that Sir Roundell Palmer's Bill of last year pro-
ceeded upon the principle of giving all control to the
creditors, according to the Scottish system, and
leaving in effect nothing for the commissioners and
registrars to do but to adjudicate and to settle dis-
putes between trustees and creditors. We do not
believe that the measure about to be introduced will
adopt the sweeping change
proposed by Mr. Moffatt
or proceed upon the plan of deofficialising the ad-
ministration of insolvent estates conceded by Sir
Roundell Palmer to the clamours of a few noisy
commercial agitators. Under the act of 1861
creditors can prescribe any mode of administration
that they prefer. They may keep the case in bank-
ruptcy, or by resolution may take it out of court;
and when they please, an arrangement by deed can
be made, which only requires the intervention of the
court for purposes of registration. The practical
result of the Act of 1861 has been to show that
creditors are the most helpless people in the world,
that they will not attend to their own business
(probably from a desire not to throw good money
after bad), and that as a necessary consequence the
conduct of their business has fallen to the lot of the
attorneys and accountants who, out of this negligence
on the part of creditors, reap no small advantage.
In illustration the following facts and figures may
be stated:-In one estate the gross assets were
£1,660 6s. 11d. ; the solicitor's bill, £246 15s. 9d. ;
the accountant's bill, £77 17s. 10d.; and after other
charges, including official assignee, £39 Os. 7d. ; and
messenger, £2B 125., the sum divisible among the
creditors was £1,135 ss. 3d. In another estate the
gross assets were £777 19s. 6d. ; the solicitor's bill,
£36615. 9d. ; accountant's bill, £6O 14s. 9d. ; offi-
cial assignee, £33 Bs. 9d.; messenger, £37 1 ls. id. ;
which, with other charges, left a sum of £254 17s.
2d. divisible amongst the creditors. In a third estate
the gross assets were £425 2s. 101 ; solicitor's bill,
£156 ls. 11d. ; accountant's bill, £25 ; messenger,
£2 12s. 11d. ; and the sum divisible was £93 103.
6d. _ln a fourth estate the gross assets were £336
12s. 9d. ; solicitor's bill, £46 18s. 7d. ; manager's
bill, £6l9s. 9d. ; messenger, £l6 18s. 6d., and other
expenses, leaving a balance of £lB7 Bs. 3d. In a
fifth estate the gross assets were £250 14s. 3d. ;
solicitor's bill, £143 3s. ; manager's bill, £45 19s.
10d. ; official ust,ignee, £1.2 17s. 2d ; messenger,
£8 9s. Bd.. leaving, with other expenses, a balance
divisible of £34 9s. 7d., which on the debts proved
gave the unfortunate creditors a dividend of exactly
34d. In a sixth estate the gross assets were £l3O
Os. 6d.; solicitor's bill, £4l 4s. Id.; official assignee,
X.ll 17.3. 51. ; messenger, £9 17e. 61. ; bankrupt's
allowance, £25 ; payments in full, £39 1 ls. 6d. ;
and the amount ultimately divided was £2 10s.,
yielding a dividend of 14d. In a seventh estate the
gross assets were £77 18s. sd. ; solicitor's bill, £39
Os. 7d. ; official assignee, £l3 9s. ld. ; messenger,
ls. ; the amount divided being £l9 7s. 9d. In
the last estate to which we refer the gross assets were
£72 14s. 11d. ; solicitor's bill, £37 2s. 5d., beingmore
than one-half of the entire assets •, official assignee,
£ll 05..4d. ; messenger, £l5 16s. 11d. ; which, after
deducting £3 11s. 6d. for auctioneer's bill, left a
balance of £ 4s. 7d,, giving a dividend of exactly