The Sun.
London, England, 1868-05-25 00:00:00

PROGRESS OF IMPEACIDIENT

May I.—The Hon. Henry Stanbery began his
argument after Mr. Evarts had concluded. He read
from a printed document ; but as he was too weak
after his recent illness to speak long, his secretary
was allowed to continue his able and exhaustive
argument during a large portion of the time. It
fills twenty newspaper columns, and is mainly
directed to summing up the points of the defence.
He commenced by showing that the case of Mr.
Stanton did not enter into the Tenure-of-Office Act:;
even if it did, as the Act was unconstitutional
it must be void. To prove that the President had
a right to construe laws, Presidents Jefferson,
Jackson, and Van Buren were cited, their acts
having been sanctioned by Congress. Et was the
President's duty to defend the Constitution against
such encroachments as that attempted in this Act;
that if he erred in judgment, such an error was not an
impeachable offence ; and he concluded this portion
of his argument by asserting that Mr. Stanton had
not been removed as charged in the Articles, as he
still held possession of the War Department.
Thus he discussed the first eight charges, the ninth
being wholly unsupported by evidence was un-
worthy of notice, and the tenth and eleventh inter-
fered with the citizen's right of freedom of speech,
a right guarded by the Constitution with jealous
care, and provided for in the Bill of Rights ap-
pended to that document. The prosecution had
failed in making out a case sufficient for the con-
viction of the President. He rnaintainea that this
was clearly recugnized by the country, which gave
no support whatever to Impeachment, people
being disappointed in thu wretched evidence
brought forward by the Managers, and dis-
gusted with the proceedings. He pronounced a
warm eulogium on the President's character and
services. Then he alluded to the open state-
ments made, that the Senate had been canvassed,
and the matter arranged previous to the trial—
concluding an eloquent address in these words :
" But if, Sanatlrs, as I cannot believe, but as has
been boldly said with almost official sanction, your
votes have been canvassed and the doom of the Pre-
sident is sealed, then let that judgment not be pro-
nounced in this Senate Chamber ; not here, where
our Camillus, in the hour of our greatest peril, sin-
gle-handed, met and baffled the enemies of the Re-
public; not here, where he stood faithful among the
faithless; not here, where he fought the good fight for
the Union and the Constitution ; not in this Cham-
ber, whose walls echo with that clarion voice that
in the days of our greatest danger, carried hope
and comfort to many a desponding heart, strong as
an army with banners. No, not here. Seek out
rather the darkest and gloomiest chamber in the
subterranean recesses of this Capitol, where the
cheerful light of day never enters. There erect the
altar and immolate the victim." Mr. Stanbery ended
his argument on the 2d May, and closed the Pre-
sident's defence, when the trial was adjourned till
the 4th instant.

May 4.--The galleries were filled to overflowing
to hear the closing speech of the prosecution by the
Hon. John A. Bingham, chairman of the Managers.
He said he did not approach the discussion in a
partizan spirit, but as a Representative of the people
sworn to deal justly. He then noted the fact briefly
of the termination of the war and the subsequent
assassination of Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Johnson's
inauguration. The people had overlooked Mr.
Johnson's conduct in the Senate on the day
of his inauguration, and believed he would obey
the oath of office, and they demanded on his part
obedience to the laws, and it was because he had
violated the law that the Managers were here to-
day. He cared not what demagogues and others
might say, the whole issues joined, and the whole
question to be decided by the Senate was whether
Andrew Johnson violated the law, and whether he
had the power to interpret the laws only as he
understood them. The Senate could decide in the
case as questions of law and fact, and yet although
this proposition would appear self-evident, hours
had been spent here upon this very point. The
Senate is sole and final arbiter between the Presi-
dent and the people, and is made solely the Court,
and he did not therefpre see what necessity there
was for so much discussion upon that point. He
conceded once for all that the Senate sitting as a
Court of Impeachment was the highest of all courts,
and ibis was all that was necessary to be said. The
Court, he repeated, gave the Senate all the power
over the law and fact,
and what then became of
Mr. Evarts' rhetoric to show that the President
wanted the Supreme Court to decide upon this case
before the Senate did so, and when the Senate has
the sole power to try impeachment? Referring inci-
dentally to Mr. Evarts' speech, Mr. Bingham said
that the gentleman seemed to think that the best
way to make his speech immortal was to make it
eternal. (Laughter.) He then proceeded to argue
that the Judiciary of the United States had not the
power over all questions arising under the Consti-
tution. He then proceeded to controvert the pro-
position of some of the counsel that the heads of
departments were mere recording scribes, and must
execute the will of the Executive, and he denied the
proposition, quoting the case of Marbury v. Madi-
son. As the Senate has sole power to try impeach-
ment, so it has sole power to decide all questions
under impeachment, and it is in no sense within the
judicial power of the United States. If the theory
is admitted that a President may violate a law in
order to have it tested in the courts, then the Senate
is depriyed Of its original right to try impeachment.