The Sun.
London, England, 1868-05-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, 'TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 19, 1868.

PROGRESS OF IMPEACHMENT.

April 25.—The attendance was much larger as
the Hon. AV. S. Groesbeck was to speak as counsel
for the President. The business commenced by
postponing till Monday the previous motion to ad-
mit official reporters during the final debate.
Senator Sumner proposed an order that the Senate
vote on each article at noon on the day following
the close of the argument, but being objected to by
Reverdy Johnson it was laid over for one day.
Senator Sumner then proposed two new rules with
reference to the verdict, the first directing the vote
when taken by the presiding officer shall be separate
upon each article, each Senator when called by
name, " Mr. -- how say you, is the respondent
Guilty or Not Guilty, as charged in -- Article of
Impeachment?" rising, and answering Guilty or Not
Guilty. The second proposes that on a conviction
by the Senate, it shall be the duty of the presiding
officer forthwith to pronounce the removal from
office of the convicted person according to the re-
quirements of the Constitution, and any further
judgment shall be on the order of the Senate. Mr.
Sumner asserted that he derived the proposed rules
from the practice of the Senate in previous Ameri-
can Impeachment trials. Again, Reverdy Johnson
objected and they were laid over. Mr. Groesbeck
laboured under a severe cold, which injuriously
affected the delivery. Although a native of New
York, his practice being confined to the West, he
was not well known in the Eastern States, and
many came to hear him. He commenced as usual
with the President's counsel by rebutting the argu-
ment of the Managers, that the Senate is not on
such an occasion a Court, but a Senate bound by
no laws, but a law unto itself. In each of the five
Impeachment trials the Senate had been uniformly
described as a Court. He then took up the main
question—the President's right to remove Mr. Stan-
ton, notwithstanding the Civil Tenure Act. He
went over the same ground as the preceding counsel
for the defence. He showed that the effect of the
Civil Tenure Act was to eject Mr. Stanton from
office when passed, and the President by that Act
had a right to name a person for the post thus va-
cated. If the Act does not apply to Cabinet officers
appointed by Mr. Lincoln, he argued that Mr.
Johnson's right was clear to remove such officers,
thus affirming the position that under any circum-
stances the Tenure-of-Office Act gave Mr. Johnson
in Mr. Stanton's case the power of removal, either
applying to him, in which case it removed him, or
not applying to him, in which case the President
was not bound by it, and therefore could not be
impeached for violating it. He then discussed Mr.
Johnson's motives, showing that he could have no
criminal intent, as he had used every means to
bring the case before the Courts, being foiled by
Mr. Stanton's trickery and the duplicity of a
corrupt judge. He directed the attention of the
Court to the exclusion of the evidence of the Cabinet
Ministers while they admitted that of an obscure
man from Delaware, and had taken the vague
hints of an egotistical old man like Adjutant-General
Thomas. By what law, he asked, were the utterances
of a President as a private citizen made criminal?
Did Congress desire to set up a standard of taste in
the matter of speech ? He passed a glowing eulo-
gium on the character of Andrew Johnson, whose
only crime was to pluck a thorn out of his heart
which the Senate had fastened there, and he thus
concluded, after an address of four hours, "Andrew
Johnson has ever walked in the path and by the
light of the Constitution. The mariner, tempest-
tossed on the seas, is not more sure to turn to the
stars for guidance than that man in the trials of public
life to look to the star of the Constitution. He does
love the Constitution. It has been the study of
his life. He is not learned or scholarly, like many
of you. Ile is not a man of many ideas or much
speculation, but he is a man of intelligence. He is
a patriot second to no one in the measure of his
patriotism. He may be full of errors. I will not canvass
now his views. He loves his country, and, I be-
lieve, would die for it if need be. His courage and
his patriotism are not without illustration. Mr.
Johnson went into the very borders of the war, and
there he served his country long and well. Which
of you have done more ? Not one. There is one
among you whose service, as I well know, cannot be
overestimated, and I withdraw all comparison ; but
IL utiough LO :say that hiz bervices were greatly
needed, and it seems hard, it seems cruel, that he
should be struck here upon these miserable techni-
calities, or that anybody who has served his country,
and borne himself well and bravely, should be
treated as a criminal and condemned upon these
miserable charges. Even if he had committed a crime
against the laws, his services entitle him to some
consideration. but he has precedents for every-
thing he has done, excellent precedents. The voices
of the great dead come to us from their graves
sanctioning his course. All our past history ap-
proves it. How can you single out this man now,
in this condition of things, and brand him before
the country?" The Senate then adjourned to
Monday.
April 27.—The Chamber was crowded to hear
the speech which Thad. Stevens has made so strong
a point of delivering. Business commenced by
calling up for consideration the proposed rules.
To the first, admitting reporters to the final debate
in the Senate, an amendment was offered to allow
15 minutes for remarks on each charge to each
Senator, but it was defeated by 30 to 19. It was
then moved that each Senator should get half an
hour—defeated by 34 to IG—and the final conside-
ration of this, as well as of the rules offered by
Senator Sumner, as to the method of voting on the
tinal decision, were postponed till the arguments of
lawyers had been heard. At first Mr. Stevens,
who stood up at the Secretary's desk, spoke firmly,
but he soon faltered, and in ten minutes he wa
compelled to sit down, though he continued to
read from his chair for a quarter of an hour, when,
being fairly exhausted, General Butler took up
the reading and finished the speech within the
hour. It was solely devoted to the eleventh
charge added to the Articles of Impeachment by
the earnest advice of that Manager. He considered
that all required for a conviction was to show that
the President had violated a law. He then proved
that the law had been violated by the President,
who had sworn to obey the Constitution and take
care that the laws were faithfully executed. He
was neither a lawmaker nor a judge, his business
being " to obey the commands of the sovereign
power of the nation, and to see that others should
obey them, and any attempt to escape obedience
was in direct violation of his official oath, in other
words, a misprison of perjury. I accuse him, in the
name of the House of Representatives, of having
perpetrated that foul offence against the laws and
interest of his country." The respondent " might
as well call on the Managers to prove the shape,
size, and colour of the devil, as to prove the
President's intention." The acts of the President
were shown to be full of contradiction, sometimes
recognizing the law, at others attempting to nul-
lify it. Andrew Johnson had illegally usurped the
powers of Congress, assumed dictatorial powers in
the South, and would, had he been permitted, have
made himself absolute. He described him as a
political trickster, the offspring of assassination,
and from the hon. Manager's description, his term
was likely to end, as it had commenced, in assassi-
nation. " Wretched man," said Mr. Stevens,
" standing at bay surrounded by a cordon of living
men each with the axe of the executioner uplifted
for his just punishment." Appealing to the Senate,
he asked, will any Senator vote for his acquittal on
the ground of the unconstitutionality of the Act.
Not for anything would any of them suffer them-
selves to be tortured on the gibbet of everlasting
obloquy. How long and dark would be the track
of infamy which must mark his name and that of his
posterity. He eulogized Secretary Stanton, and
maintained that the permission to continue in the
office on Mr. Johnson's accession was tantamount
to a nomination. The Senators elected by Re-
publicans who had sustained the President's policy
were said to be the leaders of a new rebellion, to
have put on the faded uniform of grey and become
Johnsonrh eisc
Whiler
bu i
ut r
si
tnhtguhosi
fmsergeantsgo indignationforse
treacheryJohnson'swawas
Doolittle,
cow
as
nh
ab
nb
dy
others,ar m
y
reservedto h fors
p a
iltnyd Andrew
1 Manager declared to be km than the betrayal by

Judas Iscariot, who betrayed only a single indi-
vidual, while Johnson had betrayed a whole na-
tion. Mr. Stevens concluded with these words :
" In what part of the Constitution or laws does he
find it to be his duty to search out for defective laws
that stand recorded upon the statutes, in order that
he may advise their infraction? Who was ag-
grieved by the Tenure-of-Office Bill that he was
authorized to use the name and the funds of the
Government to relieve ? Will he be so good as to
tell us by what authority be became the obstructor
of an unrepealed law, instead of its executor, espe-
cially a law whose constitutionality he had twice
tested ? If there were nothing else than his own
statement he deserves the contempt of the American
people and the punishment of its highest tribunal.
If he were not willing to execute the laws passed by
the American Congress, and nnrepealed, let him
resign the office which was thrown upon him by
a horrible convulsion, and retire to his village
obscurity. Let him not be so swollen by pride and
arrogance, which sprang from the deep misfor-
tune of his country, as to attempt an entire revo-
lution of its internal machinery, and the disgrace of
the trusted servants of his lamented predecessor."
The Hon. Thomas Williams, of Pennsylvania, fol-
lowed. The galleries, crowded to hear Mr. Stevens,
rapidly thinned. Mr. Williams spoke for the re-
mainder of the day, and the Senate adjourned on
his complaining of fatigue. He began by compli-
menting the Assembly trying the case, and he de-
clared that the verdict would send thrills of joy to
an afflicted land, or rack it anew with throes of
anarchy and despair. This was not a quarrel be..
tween two officers, but an issue between the Execu-
tive and the American people. The great motive
of all Andrew Johnson's acts was to force the rebel
States into the Union on his own plan, though
against the express will of Congress and of the loyal
people. His offences and usurpations were de-
scribed, and the greatest crime, Mr. Williams con-
sidered, was the attempt to remove Mr. Stan-
ton in violation of the law of his oath. The
defence that the Act was unconstitutional was
a defiance and challenge to Congress, and he as-
serted it as settled that Congress had the right
to take away from the President the power
of removal from office. No precedent quoted by
the defence was of binding force ; but even if it
were, the present Congress had as good a right to
construe the Constitution as its predecessors, nor
could it be asserted that all wisdom had died with
their fathers. The general power of Congress he
showed by numerous laws fixing the tenure of cer-
tain offices at specified numbers of years, and at
great length he argued that it was no justification
for the President to assert that his acts were sup-
ported by his Cabinet. In removing a well-quali-
fied officer because he disliked him personally in
itself deserved impeachment. The President could
not play fast and loose with an Act, when it suits
him recognizing its validity, and when it does not,
deliberately violating it. He likened the Presi-
dent's disgraceful speeches to Nero fiddling when
Rome was in flames, exclaiming, "and our culprit
would find in the Senate a censor more stern than
Cato."

April 28.—Senator Sumner again proposed a rule
relative to the final decision, providing that, after
conviction by the two-thirds majority, a simple
majority only shall be required to decide the
punishment imposed on Andrew Johnson. The
Democratic Senators at once and strongly objected,
as this would leave to the extreme section in case
of conviction, even on a single charge, the power of
disqualifying for office in future as well as at pre-
sent removal ; and it was laid on the table. After
Mr. Williams had concluded his address, General
Altaßut v.lerde sac,
denyinguss discussed
the assertion that any of thedth e question of the guano island,
Managers had been connected with it. He allowed
that they had given professional opinions as to the
justice of the claim. But as we cannot see what the
Alta Vela affair has to do with the President's case,
which is long enough in itself, we prefer to treat that
matter elsewhere. Mr. Evarts then rose and spoke
on behalf of the President. The galleries were
crowded, and during the four days he continued to
speak he rivetted the attention of all. It was gene-
rally considered that in this address he had wore
regard to his own oratorical fame than to the inte-
rest of his client. But he excused himself_ anasssest
forcibly, for so lightly touching on the chief legal
points, by stating that his colleagues had already
minutely argued them out. He referred to the
grave nature of the case, and the impossibility of
human knowledge foreseeing the results which
would flow from it, and from these considerations
he urged circumspection, patience, and impartiality
on the Court. He sketched the former Impeach-
ment trials, showing their comparative insignifi-
cance. In case of acquittal, Congress, the Execu-
tive, and the Judiciary, resuming their functions,
will continue as before, but disturbances will arise
in case of conviction ; one branch of the Govern-
ment being divested of its prerogatives, and the
President succeeded by a member of the deposing
body, which was, in truth, the trial of the Consti-
tution. Referring to the Supreme Court as the
respected and cherished guardian of the people's
liberty, he said that Congress had recently pre-
vented the exercise of its rightful jurisdiction in
defence of a sacred right ; and that Congress also
was now attacking the other co-ordinate branch of
the Government; and that the people looked to this
trial fora decision which would restrain the aggres-
sive Legislature within its limits. The President's
oath of office was not merely the common oath, faith-
fully to discharge its duties, but included the sus
preme obligation to preserve, protect, and defend
the Constitution. The people have formed and
will adhere to the determination that this oath shall
not be taken in vain. They are converts to no
theories of Congressional omnipotence, and when
they hear that this sword of impeachment is drawn,
they wish to know what the crime is with which the
President is charged, and for which it is sought to
depose him. They find his crime to be the removal
of a member of his Cabinet, and are told it became a
crime, because Congress, for the first time in the
history of the Government, has made it so. They
also find that na force was employed, and no re-
moval made, excepting on paper, and this, too, for
the express purpose of obtaining a decision of the
Supreme Court, to prevent which vigorous action is
at once taken by those who bring the accusation.
" In short," said Mr. Evarts," the people see that
it is a question of supremacy between Congress and
the Constitution. They did not hold to the idea that
the Constitution was made only for our infancy,
but felt that it was to be the guide and bond of our
natural manhood, and were determined that law
should continue to be the guardian of liberty."
" Nobody is wiser thin the intrepid manager (Gen.
Butler) who assumed the first assault on this
Court, and who knew the only way he could pre-
vent his case from being
turned out of Court was
to turn the Court out of his case. (Laughter.)
it was said there is no word in the Constitu-
tion which gives the slightest colouring to the idea
that this is a Court, excepting that in this particu-
lar case the Chief Justice must preside. So that
the Chief Justide's gown is the only shred or patch
even that is here, and
owing to the character of
of justice that there is within these walls. But it
was only accidental that
the inculpated offender.
This, it was said, is a Senate, to hold an inquest of
office on Andrew Johnson. But it had not been ob-
served in the rules, that each Senator is to rise in his
place, and say, Office found,' or, Office not
found ;' for, probably, every Senator does not ex-
pect to find it. (Laughter.) If this is not an altar
of justice, it is merely an altar of sacrifice. The
Managers had taken no pains to conceal the party
spirit and party hate which had hurried them
through the
preparations for this procedure. One of
the Managers had spoken of the Senators as heads-
men standing on the scaffold with their swords
ready, they having already tried the culprit on the
night of February 21, when the Senate passed the
Resolutions declaring Stanton's removal illegal." He
read front the debates on the formation of the Consti-
tution to show that the power to impeach and try
the President was granted with hesitation to the
Senate, and that only because of the reliance placed
upon their observance of a judicial oath. The furies
in old mythology had charge of the sanctity of an
oath. The imaginations of the prophets of the
wax jam glactiaedtieiolemigty of as oath, sad
_

have peopled the places of punishment with oath-
breakers. All the tortures and torments of history
are applied to public servants who, in betrayal of
sworn trusts, have disobeyed this high, this neces-
sitous obligation, without which the whole fabric
of society falls into pieces. He knew not how it
was, in our moral constitution, that an oath lifted
to Heaven can draw from the great swollen cloud
of passion, interest, and bate, its charge. He knew
not why, but so it was ; and he was sure that loud
and long as these honourable Managers may talk,
although they speak in the voice of all the people of
the United States, with their bold persuasions that
Senators should not obey a judicial oath, he could
bring against it but a single sentence and a single
voice, but that sentence is a commandment, and
that voice speaks with awe: "Thou shalt not take
the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the
Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His
name in vain." The moth may consume the ermine
of that Supreme Court whose robe the Chief Jus-
tice wears ; rust may corrode the centre of the
Senate's power ; time even shall devour the people,
whose presence, beating against the doors of the
Senate-house, the Managers so much love to taunt
and menace ; but as to the word he had spoken,
heaven and earth may pass away, but no jot or tittle
of it will fail. He discussed the way in which the case
had been opened for the Managers by Gen. Butler, who
had used invective for argument, and had attempted
to make it stand in the place of law and of fact.
The Chinese method of warfare was the science of
concussion, the blowing of trumpets, the sounding
of gongs, shrieks and groans, but it had been re-
served for our day to see an attempt at another
kind of concussion. It was first directed against
the stone walls of Fort Fisher, and was utterly in-
effective. Not satisfied with that, the Manager
who opened the case tried an ineffectual concussion
against the walls of the Senate. The defence had
shown, however, that the power of concussicn had
given way to discussion. Mr. Evarts then consi-
dered the Manager's definition of impeachable of-
fences, and argued at length to show that no actions
could be so considered which did not proceed from
malice and an evil intention, quoting, among
others, the language of Burke at the trial of War-
ren Hastings, that the assertion and proof of evil
intent were indispensable. From this he proceeded
to the discussion of what he termed the chief charge
in the indictment against the President—the breach
of the "Tenure-of-Office Act." Quoting from
the debates in the Senate on the passage of this Act
be argued that that body did not look upon it as a
penal measure which might result in the impeach-
ment of an officer who might disregard it. He con-
tended that a breach of the statute was not impeach-
able, and was not subject to jurisdiction in the
Senate, but only in the great forum of the people
upon the hustings. If the Senate could be convinced
of this, then it was evident that the Managers had at-
tempted to mix what was purely political with what
was essentially judicial. He next urged that the
Tenure-of-Office Act did not cover Stanton's case,
and that under it the President clearly had power to
remove Cabinet officers appointed by Mr. Lincoln.
But even if the law did cover Stanton's case, and if
the removal of that officer had been actually
effected, no change in the relations of the War De-
partment to the rest of the Government would have
ensued, and hence the mere act could not be consi-
dered as dangerous to the public safety. On the
contrary, the public safety would have been bene-
fited, because the relations existing between the Pre-
sident and Stanton were prejudicial to a proper
working of the Government. The crime therefore
consisted only in the technical infraction of a law
which was belieied to be unconstitutional, and
which relating only to offences not penal, the Presi-
dent's action under it could not be considered even
as a crime. Mr. Evarts then considered the ques-
tion of what was meant by an " unconstitutional
law," and said it was a paradox. There could be
no offence in violating the provisions of such a
mere piece of paper. The Supreme Court had held
that an unconstitutional law was void from its pas-
sage, and any one had the right to initiate proceed-
ings to test the constitutionality of a doubtful
statute. In this he claimed no greater right for the
President than for a private individual. 110 aaauea
that the President had made a proper removal,
without force or violence, in order to assert his
right to act under the Constitution, which, Ls
he believed, was violated by the law in questian.
Numerous authorities were cited to disprove the
assertion that a formal violation of stattites is im-
peachable; and the counsel added that the principles
of common sense were opposed to any such view.
He was surprised at the Managers' denunciation
of those who peacefully resisted laws which they
deemed unconstitutional. It was the duty of every
Ministerial officer to raise a question in favour of
the Constitution, and this was in the highest degree
the duty of the President, the sworn special de-
fender of the Constitution. Mr. Evarts then went
on to say that this tribunal being a Court the Pre-
sident was to be tried only on charges supported by
law and evidence, and not by common rumour.
Much that had been advanced by the Managers
must therefore fall to the ground, and so must fall
the articles based on charges which had been re-
peatedly rejected by the House as fair grounds of
impeachment. In this case, where evidence had
been so frequently suppressed, the enlargement of
declamation and invective was more than usually
improper. Congress had endorsed acts of Mr.
Lincoln quite as much without the warrant of law
as those of Mr. Johnson—such as suspending the
Habeas Corpus in Florida, arresting the Maryland
Legislature, and creating military commissions in
time of peace. By endorsing these Acts Congress
had confirmed the doctrine that motive must always
be considered, and that the mere infraction of law
was not in itself ground for punishment. Mr.
Manager Boutwell had desired the President to be
punished by being removed from earth to " a hole in
the sky." This " astronomical punishment " might
be proper, and if the Manager could get over the
laws of nature he was sure the Constitution would
not stand in the way, for removal from office was
prescribed without limit as to the distance to which
the culprit should be removed. (Laughter.) "I
can think of no method but that of a convulsion of
the earth that should project the deposed President
to this infinitely distant space ; but a shock of na-
ture of so vast an energy and so great a result must
unsettle even the so firm members of Congress.
(Laughter.) How shall we accomplish it? Why,
in the first place, nobody knows where that space is
but the learned Manager himself—(laughter)—and
he is the necessary deputy to execute the judgment
of the Court. Let it then be provided that in case
of your sentence of deposition and removal from
office, the honourable the astronomical Manager
shall take into his own hands the execution of the
sentence, the President made fast to his broad and
strong shoulders, and having essayed the flight by
imagination, better prepared to execute it in form,
taking advantage of ladders as far as ladders would
go, to the top of this high Capitol, and spurning
then with his feet the Goddess of Liberty, let him
set out upon his flight (laughter), while the Houses
of Congress and all the people of the United States
shall shout sic itur ad astra.' (Laughter, long and
continued.)" Mr. Evarts then considered the posi-
tion and powers of the President, and said that he
was the direct representative of the people, from
whom he held his trust. Broils and disturbances al ways
result from accession to the Presidency. The excep-
tional weakness in the Presidential office is at present
heightened by the extraordinary division of party
strength in Congress, and of the constitutional safe-
guard of Executive independence is unavailing. To
urge the unequal contest any further would be fatal
to the true position of the Executive under the Con-
stitution. Dwelling at length upon the complica-
tion caused by political exasperations, he claimed
that all these considerations were motives to delay
impeachment as a cure for evils which political ac-
tion itself would remedy. He quoted au article from
the AelV York Tribune as an example of the feeling
entertained by many that impeachment was war-
ranted for political reasons, and argued to refute the
view thus taken. Speaking of the unexampled
political condition of the country, out of which
have sprung the present proceedings, he referred to
the chaos caused by rebellion and the unprecedented
social condition wrought by the emancipation. of
four millions of slaves. The question as to the part
o be taken by the. different branches of the Cvo-

vernment and the proper application of the Consti-
tution and laws to the work of restoration were un-
tried, immensely difficult, and readily productive of
honest differences of opinion. The essence of the
Constitution was the authority of the people, and its
arrangement of the relative power of the different
branches of Government was based on the idea that
the terms of authority granted were so short that
evils could be patiently endured for a few years
until tne people could by the ballot remedy them.
The counsel considered that it was a grave reproach
upon the wisdom and foresight of the founders of
our Government to claim that a decision in favour
of the President in this case would result in a mo-
narchy. The real danger was another sort, of the
balances of the Constitution, whic!i are the relations
of the weights of numbers and equality of States
irrespective of population. He held that to make
the Senate exclusive, instead of advisory, was to rob
the people's majority of their rightful power. In
this way small and thinly populated States would
control the administration of the Government,
against the will of those which cast overwhelming
majorities of votes, an I the Presidential election
would become a farce. Mr. Evarts supported his
position by quotations from the elder Adams, Sher-
man, and others. He then considered various
emergencies which might arise under the Tenure-of-
Office Act, which makes certain officers permanent,
and would render removal during a session of the
Senate extremely difficult, if not impracticable. He
proceeded to quote from debates in the Senate, when
the bill was under consideration, the language of
Messrs. Williams, Howard, and others, to show
that its effect was to revolutionize the practice of
the Government, and also quoted expressions to the
effect that while the legislative construction had little
weight, yetthe decision of constitutional questions by
the supreme courts were authoritative. Mr. Evarts
held the decisions of the Congress of 1789 were autho-
ritative, because confirmed by the Supreme Court, and
also carried immense weight of themselves. He
claimed that the debates of 1789 were exhaustive
of the subject of the power of removal, and that the
question was finally and definitely settled at that
time. He also referred to Webster's declaration in
1835 that the question was settled; and in regard to
the suggestion that the Congress of 1789 was in-
fluenced in its declarations by their high confidence
in President Washington, Mr. Evarts asked if it
were not possible that the present Congress had
been influenced in the opposite manner by its
opinions of the incumbent President. Mr. Evarts
dwelt further upon the importance and the binding
force of the decision of 1789, and that, as the pre-
sent law directly controverted it and the uniform
practice of the last 80 years, doubts of its constitu-
tionality might naturally have arisen in the mind of
the President, for which he could not be impeached.
He read from the debates on the Fugitive Slave
Law, in 1852, the language of Mr. Sumner, in which
he quoted and indorsed Jackson's declaration that
each department of the Government had a right to
judge of the constitutionality of Acts in junctures
not already covered by the Supreme Court decisions.
To dismiss and depose a President for an attempt to
maintain the Constitution, would be to make him
the victim of Congress, and a martyr to the
Constitution. Mr. Evarts proceeded to consider
the attitude which the Senators occupy iu refer-
ence to this subject, and said that nothing was
more abhorrent to every sense of justice than that
a man should be a judge iu his own cause, or
decide a question on which he had already been pre-
judiced. He held that if the Senate, in passing the
resolution of concurrence the 21st of February,
had pronounced the subject of the constitutionality
of the law a political action, then they could not
now consider it a judicial question. It would be
extraordinary, almost inconceivable, to suppose they
did not so consider it with the prospect of having to
try the matter if ~it were judicial as a Court of Im-
peachment. It could not be possible that they did
not regard it as a political question. He reminded
them that the largest votes for the conviction of
Judge Humphrey were on the articles charging him
with having prejudiced a case and allowed a jury-
man to sit who acknowledged that he had formed
an opinion. Again, they had an interest in the re-
sult. Twenty millions of dollars of the patronage
and the powers of the Executive office were the
prizes offered them for Conviction. Their political
prejudices, too, he argued, joined with other con-
siderations to cause them to cast out as improper
for their decision the charges alleging violation of
their own law. Passing then to the general con-
sideration of the evidence introduced in support of
the Articles of Impeachment he characterized it as
absolutely insufficient, although the Managers had
possessed every conceivable ad vantage in the pre-
liminary privileges of examining witnesses and in a
hundred other ways. In support of the charge of
obstructing reconstruction, there was the Parsons'
despatch, while Wood, the office seeker, ',vas the only
witness to uphold the accusation of abuse of the
appointing power. The staple of their speeches
consisted of matter twice rejected by tug house as
not warranting impeachment. Yet Mr. Stevens
thought the introduction of the eleventh Article in-
dispensable to conviction, as he said the Court would
be green not to acquit on the other ten. Mr. But-
ler, however, contended that if conviction failed on
the first, it would be useless to look to the ten
others. To the Articles about the President's
speeches, Mr. Evarts said there were two fatal ob-
jections—first, the speeches had reference only to a
defunct Congress; and, second, they were offen-
sive only to rhetoric and good taste. He then ad-
verted in sarcastic terms to the language and con-
duct of the champion of propriety and decorum,
and said that as he (Mr. Butler) had claimed that
the practice of this tribunal was a standard, he
would read from a certain debate which had
occurred some time ago. it appeared that Mr.
Sumner had called the President the enemy of
his country, and indulged in invective which the
Senate had almost unanimously declared was allow-
able and not out of order. (Laughter.) In illus-
tration of the Congressional standard of propriety
and license of speech, Mr. Evarts also read the lan-
guage of Mr. Bingham and Mr. Butler in the House,
when they accused each other of various crimes
when the subject under debate was charity to the
South. He then recited the apostle's description of
charity. During all this portion of his speech, he
was frequently interrupted by peals of laughter.
He also referred to the expression of Mr. Bout-
well, characterizing the positions of Cabinet offi-
cers as serf-like, and argued at some length that
the President, although deficient in rhetoric, had
said nothing half so shocking to taste and pro-
priety as had been countenanced in the writings
and speeches of Managers and others in official posi-
tions. He then took up the Emory Article, but
gave it very brief attention, saying that it merited
scarcely any, and passed to the Articles charging
conspiracy. He ridiculed the idea of there being
any suggestion of conspiracy in the communica-
tion of the President to General Thomas, when
giving him his commission to uphold the Constitu-
tion and laws. Just as much hidden meaning was
in the words as in " chops and tomato sauce,"
but he claimed there was no application to this
case of the laws under which the Articles are
drawn. No proof was adduced of the employment
of force or use of threats. He further combated
the position of Mr. Boutwell, that the common law
reached the case. In relation to the Articles setting
forth the appointment of General Thomas, he
argued that ad interim appointments do not rest
upon the constitutional provisions relating to per-
manent appointments, but are controlled by the
legislative enactments of 1795 and 1863, which he
claimed fully warranted the President's action, ad-
vancing substantially the same arguments on this
point as those presented by Messrs. Curtis and
Groesbeck. He held further that even if the
President was not acting under the laws, he com-
mitted no penal offences, for they provided no
penalty, and the most that could be said would
be that he was not supported by positive law, and
that General Thomas could not hold his office.
Mr. Evarts considered at length the laws of 1795
and 1863, bearing upon the appointments of ad
interim officers, arguing that they gave the Presi-
dent full power to appoint an ad interim Secretary
of War. President Lincoln had, in a precisely simi-
lar manner, appointed a Postmaster-General:ad
interim, yet it :wad not regarded ae an impeachable

offence; but, on the contrary, 30 Senators had signed
a petition to President Lincoln asking him to do
what he did. He quoted from speeches by Senator
Sherman and others, when the " Tenure-of-Office"
Act was under consideration, to show that they
said it did not reach the case of any Cabinet
officer. Upon this the President had acted,
and it would be monstrous to convict him of crime
by the same voices which gave utterance to and con-
curred in these authoritative declarations that the
bill did not affect Stanton's case. This view 31r.
Evarts advocated at length, and he also read a re-
port to the House, by Messrs. Schenck and others of
the Judiciary Committee, taking the same ground
as the Senators he quoted, and this, he said, bound
the House to the same view of the scope of the bill
as that announced in the Senate. In conclusion, be
=dean eloquen t a ppeal for the President's acquittal,
describing Andrew Johnson's humble origin, hie
manly efforts to rise in life, and his success, his
consistency as a politician, his tried unionism, and
his extraordinary reverence for the Constitution•
Party passions must be put aside, the Articles ex"
atnined one by one, and Mr. Johnso❑ dealt with 5
if he had been Prezident Washington or President
Lincoln. Mr. Evarts concluded on Friday, let
May, having previously apologized for so long oc-
cupying the Court, as he had commenced on the
28th, c ontinned the 29th and 3(lth April, and
finished only on that day.