The Sun.
London, England, 1868-03-13 00:00:00

PRINCIPAL RILLS INTRODUCED INTO

CONGRESS.

NEW CONDITIONS FOR ALABAMA, PROPOSED BY MR.
BINGHAM, OF OHIO.
Whereas, a large majority of the votes given at an elec-
tion held in February, 1868, were for the Constitution
presented by the Convention of the people of the State of
Alabama; and, whereas, a certain combination of citizens
within said State refused to vote, with the intent thereby
to defeat the efforts of the friends of the Union to restore
said State to its proper relation to the Union ; therefore,
be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America, in Congress as-
sembled, That the State Legislature elect, under the new
constitution of Alabama, be convened at the capital of
said State as soon as practicable, by order of the United
States military commander within said State of Alabama,
andupon the ratification by said Legislature of the four-
teenth Article of the amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and
the re-establishment by law of an impartial suffrage
within said State, as authorized by said Constitution of
Alabama, said State shall be admitted to representation in
the Congress of the United States, in accordance with the
laws of the United States.
NEW BILL FOR THE PROTECTION OF AMERICAN CITIZENS.
Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and in-
herent 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; and whereas in the recogniti n
of this principle this Government has freely received emi-
grants from all nations, and invested them with the rights
of citizenship ; [and whereas it is claimed that all such
American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of
foreign States, owing allegiance to the Governments
thereof ; and, whereas, it is necessary to the maintenance
of the public peace, that this claim of foreign allegiance
should be promptly and finally disavowed ; therefore be
it enacted, &c., that any declaration, instruction, opinion,
order, or decision, of any officers of this Government
which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the rights
of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with
the fundamental principles of the Government, and there-
fore null and void. Section 2. That all naturalized citizens
of the United States, while in foreign States, shall be en-
titled to and shall receive from this Government the same
protection of person and property that is accorded to native-
born citizens, in like situation and circumstances. Section
3. That 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 obedience to his native sove-
reign ; or if any citizen shall have been arrested and de-
tained, whose release, upon demand, shall be unreason-
ably delayed or refused, the President shall be and hereby
is empowered to order the arrest, and detain in custody any
subject or citizen of such foreign Government who may be
found within the jurisdiction of the United States, and the
President shall, without delay, give information to Con-
gress of any such proceeding under this Act.
BILL FOR RESTORING CIVIL RIGHTS.
Bo it enacted, &c., that the several persons hereinafter
named be, and they are hereby severally relieved from all
disabilities imposed upon them, or either of them, by the
laws of the United States, to wit : William H. Holden and
C. J. Rogers of Wake County, North Carolina; William
A. Smith of Johnson County, North Carolina ; Calvin J.
Cowles of Wilkes County, North Carolina ; T. Settle of
Rockingham County, North Carolina ; Luke Blackmer of
Rowena County, North Carolina ; Robert W. Flournoy of
Pontotoc County, Mississippi ; Joshua J. Morrissey of
Claiborne County, Mississippi ; James R. Berry of Little
Rock, Arkansas ; Victor C. Benninger of North Carolina ;
General James Longstreet of Louisiana; Robert B. Kings-
bury of Texas ; Thomas J. Mackey and James L. Orr of
South Carolina; and Joseph G. Brown of De Kalb County,
Georgia.
SENATOR EDMUNDS' BILL ON THE VETO POWER.
A bill reported lin the Senate, by Mr. Edmunds, of
Vermont, provides that the ten days within which the
President is required by the Constitution to return a bill
not approved by him, shall be deemed the ten calendar
days (Sundays excepted) next after its receipt, and shall
be computed by excluding the day on which ho receives
it, and including the tenth day thereafter. The adjourn-
ment of Congress, which shall prevent the return by the
President of any such bill to the House in which it is origi-
nated, shall be construed to be the final adjournment of a
session. In case of the adjournment of either House to a
particular day, it shall be lawful for the President to return
a bill with objections, or send a message announcing its
signature to the office of the Secretary of the Senate or the
Clerk of the House; and such return, or sending of mes-
sage, shall be considered to have the same effect as if
he House in which the bill originated were in session.

CLOSING SPEECH OF THADDEUS
STEVENS ON IMPEACHMEN7.

I agree with ;those gentlemen who have gone before
me, that this is a grave subject and should be gravely
treated. It is important to the high official who is the
subject of these charges, and it is important to a nation of
forty millions of people, now free and rapidly increasing to
hundreds of millions. The official character of the chief
executive of this grand nation being thus involved, the
charge, if falsely made, is a cruel wrong. If, on the other
hand, the misdemeanour and suspicions charged against
him are true, he is guilty of as atrocious attempts to usurp
the liberty and destroy the happiness of this nation as were
ever perpetrated by the most detestable tyrant that ever
oppressed his fellow-mon. Let us, therefore, discuss these
questions in no partisan spirit, but with legal accuracy
and impartial justice. Tho people desire no victim, and
they will endure no usurper. The charges, so far as I
shall discuss them, are few and distinct. Andrew John-
son is charged with attempting to usurp the power of
other branches of the Government, with attempting to
obstruct and resist the execution of the law, with mis-
prison of bribery, and in the open violation of laws
which declare his acts misdemeanours, and subject
him to fine and imprisonment, and with removing
from office the Secretary of War during the session of
the Senate, without the advice and consent of the
Senate, and with violation of the sixth section of
the Act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of
certain civil offices." There are other offences charged
in the papers referred to the committee, which I may con-
sider more by themselves, in order to sustain impeachment
under our Constitution. Ido not hold that it is necessary
to prove a crime is an indictable offence, or any act malunt
in se. 1 agree with the distinguished gentleman from
Pennsylvania on the other side of the House, who holds
this to be a purely political proceeding. It is intended for
a remedy for malfeasance in office, and to prevent the con-
tinuance thereof. Beyond that it is not intended as a per-
sonal punishment for past offences, or for future example.
Impeachment under our Constitution is very different
from impeachment under the English law. The framers
of our Constitution did not rely for safety upon the aveng-
ing dagger of a Brutus, but provided peaceful remedies
which should prevent that necessity. England had two
systems of jurisprudence—one for trial and punishment of
common offenders, and one for trial of mon in higher sta-
tions when it was found difficult to convict before the
ordinary tribunals. This latter proceeding was by im-
peachment or by bills of; attainder generally practised:to
punish official malefactors. But the system soon degene-
rated into political and personal persecution, and men
were tried, condemned, and executed by this court from
malignant motives. Such was the condition of the Eng-
lish laws when our Constitution was framed and the
Convention determined to provide against the abuse
of that high power, so that revenge and punish-
ment should not be inflicted upon political or personal
enemies. Hence the whole punishment was made to con-
sist in removal from office, and bills of attainder were
wholly prohibited. We are to treat this question then as
wholly political, in which, if an officer of the Government
abuses his trust or attempts to pervert it to improper pur-
poses, whatever be his motive, he becomes subject to im-
peachment and removal from office. The offence being
indictable does not prevent impeachment, but is not neces-
sary to maintain it. (See Strong's Commentaries on the
Constitution, Madison, and others.) Such is the opinion of
our elementary writers. Nor can any case of impeachment,
tried in this country, be found where any attempt
was made to prove the offence criminal and indictable.
What, then, are tho official misdemeanours of Andrew
Johnson disclosed by the evidence ? On the second day
of March, 1867, Congress passed an act entitled "An act
regulating the tenure of certain civil offices." Among
other provisions it enacted that no officer who had been
appointed by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate should be removed from office without the con-
sent of the Senate, and that if, during vacation, a sus-
pension should be made for cause, such cause should
be reported to the Senate within twenty days after
their next meeting. If the Senate should deem the
reason of the suspension sufficient, then the officer
should be removed and another appointed in his
stead; but if the Senate should refuse to concur with
the President, and declare the reasons insufficient,
then the officer suspended should forthwith resume the
functions of his office and the powers of the person per-
forming its duties should cease. It is especially provided
that the Secretary of War shall hold his office during the
term of the President by whom he may be appointed, and
for one month thereafter, unleso remov©d by and with the
consent of the Senate as aforesaid. On the 12th of August,
1867, during the recess of the Senate, the President re-
moved the Secretary of War, whose term of office had not
expired, requiring him to surrender the office, with the
public property, and appointed General U. S. Grant Sec-
retary of War, ad interim. When Andrew Jchnson as-
sumed the office of President, he took his oath to obey the
Constitution of the United States, and to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed. This was a solemn
and enduring obligation ; nor can he plead exemption
from it on account of his condition at the time it was ad-
ministered to him. An attempt to obstruct the execution
of the law, not a mere omission amounting to negligence
which would have been a misdemeanour, but a daring and
bold conspiracy was attempted by him to induce the

General of the Army to aid him in defeating the opera-
tion of this law; and when he had suspended the Secre-
tary of War he appointed General Grant Secretary, ad
interim, with the avowed purpose of preventing the opera-
tion of the law if the Senate should decide in favour
of the Secretary, and he says that the General did enter
into such a conspiracy to aid him in obstructing the
return of the rejected Secretary, notwithstanding the
Senate might decide in his favour. This is denied by the
general, and a question of veracity rather angrily discussed
has arisen between those gentlemen who consider that that
question is one of importance to the public. In this they
are mistaken. Which is the man of truth and which is the
man of falsehood is of no more public importance than if it
occurred between two obscure individuals. If Andrew
Johnson tells the truth, then he is guilty of a high official
misdemeanour, forhe avows his effort to prevent the execu-
tion of the laws. If the General Commanding tells the

truth, then the President is guilty of a high misdemeanour,
for he declares the same thing of the President, denying
only his own complicity. No argument can make this
point plainer than the statement of the culprit. If he and
the General told the truth, then he committed wilful per-
jury by refusing to take care that the laws should be duly
execute 1. To show the animus and guilty knowledge
with which this law was violated, we have only to turn to

the proceedings of the Senate notifying him of his illegal
and void conduct, and then to consider that ho has
since persevered in attempting to enforce it. Indeed
to show his utter disregard of the laws of his country
we have only to turn to his annual message, in which
ho proclaimed to the people that the laws of Con-
gress are unconstitutional and not binding on the
people. Who after that can say that such a man is
fit to occupy the Executive Chair, whose duty it is to
vindicate obedience to and see that those very laws
are faithfully obeyed ? Then the great beauty of the
remedial and primitive process is clearly demonstrated.
He is dull and blind who cannot see hs necessity and the
beneficial results and purposes of the trial and impeach-
ment. By the sixth section of the act referred to, it is
provided that every removal, appointment, or employment
made or exercised contrary to the provisions of this act,
or the making, sealing, countersigning, or issuing
of any commission or letter of authority for or in respect of
any such appointment or employment, shall be deemed and
are hereby declared to be high misdemeanours, and upon
trial and conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding $lO,OOO, or by imprisonment not exceeding five

years, or Loth, said punishment in the discretion of the
Court. Now, in defiance of this law, Andrew Johnson
on the 21st day of February, 1868, issued his commissionary
letter of authority to Lorenzo Thomas, appointing him
Secretary of War, ad interim, and commanding him to take
possession of the Department of War, and to eject the
itAcumbent, E. M. Stanton, then in lawful possession of
said office.

After further stating the grounds upon which the
charges againt the President rest, he said, "As we deal
with the first great political malefactor, so will be the
result of our efforts to perpetuate the happiness and good
government of tho human race. The God of our fathers,
who inspired them with the thought of universal freedom,
will hold us responsible for the noble institutions which
they projected and expected us to carry out.