Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1867-12-05

SubltCtlhS Hii1 W lmptuCuultuLs OCE'
tainly II this is not the only question
referred to the committee 1t is the only
one which the committee as such can in.
vestieate. The political purpose OF the
acts of the President has not for one mo-
ment engaged the attention of the com
mittee. We most certainly have no other
motive or interest than to serve our
country and do our duty in the matter
referred to us. We have never once, In
the taking of testimony or the examina.
tiOn of witnesses, supposed that any
question other than the Impeachment
was properly before us. The impeach-
ment of the President, the chief officer
Of this great republic, the bare inquiry
with view to ascertain whether he had
committed any otfense for which he
ought or might be put upon trial before
the most august tribunal OF the world,
impressed us from the beginning with
most solemn awe. We endeavored in the
investigation to exclude from our minds
every question of mere politics, and, as
far as possible, to be unnhuenced by
party bias. We were admonished that
s. some sense the nation, the people, in
the person of their executive head, were
on trial before the world, aud that per.
snual animosity aud party politics
should be infexibly and scrupulously
forgotten and ignored. For any cause to
have shrnnk from full and careful iu.
vesiigatiUu of the great question Of i'm
peachmcnt was cOwardice To have
pursued it in the spirit of party, TO have
degraded it into a mere Investigation of
political policy, with reference to parti.
san success would have been meanGess
aud disgraCcd the nation itself by scan.
daliZing the nations constitutional head.
We repeat, therefore, that the invcstiga-
ton Of the committee was, so far as We
took part In il, with the sole view to as.
certain whether the President under the
charges preferred against him, was
guilty Of any impeachable offeDse. Not
only so, but with the belief that It was
the only question we were authorized or
expected 10 inquire into. Not witness
was called or examined with ahy view
to proving case for merely ceusuring
or cOndeming The political sCtion of the
President. No suggestion was made or
inttmatiou given by the majority of the
committee until the resolution OF censure
was Of red that there was auV purpose
OF consdtriug as committee any but
the question ot lmpeaCbment; nor WAS
there t7eu, as We unCerstO0i IT, A.y
purpose nfrep0rting such resolutions in
the House for its official seton. We
think, therefore, that We are warranted
In saying that, although much testimony
irrelevA"t, Illegal and experimental was
taken much that had no bearing upon
the Qnt>'iOn OF Impeachment, snd much
mort l;ay was not testimony 10 any case
or for soy purpOse-nOue was taken
with y view except the Impeachment;
hence we insist that, il the committee
had the right OF jurisdiction, which we
deny, 10 inquire into the political dis
cretionary power OF the President with
view to his condemnation, it has not
in auy legitimate and proper manner in.
vestigated or attempted to consider the
subject.
We do not impugn the personal
motives OF any member of the committee
who differ with Us. Our intercourse
while on the committee has been pleas.
ant, and the courtesy with which we
have been treated uniform and uuinter-
rupted. We entertain none but the most
kindly feelings toward every member;
but candor aud sense of duty compel
us to declare that we can find no war
rant or excuse for this travelling outside
or beyond the subject with which the
committee was charged, to censure and
condemn the President, except in the
prejudice and zeal Of over heated party.
ism. The President needs and can ask
no defense from as upon party grounds,
or upon any other than those swhich
spring from official obligations and duty.
He was not the President of our choice,
and was not elected by our votes; nor
is 1t necessary that we should agree with
him, or justify or approve all he has
done; neither do we feel called upon to
review all the great mass OF testimony
taken by the committee to show that his
censure and condemnation are not war
ranted by it, though taken as 1T has
been, and unchallenged as it was; in
that regard we do not, however, believe
the unbiased, the unprtiudiced mind
will be able in the testimony to discover
any just or reasonable cause for
cOndemning or impugning the motives
by which he was actuated. Indeed,
differing with him in opinion, as we
have, as to the policy and propri.
ETY. of many things he has done, and
many more that he has left undone, we
feel compelled to declare that the proofs
before us will not warrant a charge that
he was in any instance controlled by
motives other than pure and patriotic.
His greatest otfense, we apprehend, will
be found to be that he has not been able
to follow those who elected him to his
Office in their mad assault upon and de-
parture from the constitutional govern
ment OF the fathers of the republic; and
that, standing where most of his party
professed to stand when they elevated
him to his present exalted position, he
has dared to differ with the majority of
Congress upon great and vital questions.
He has believed In the continuing and
binding obligations OF the constitution
the constitution that the suppression
of the rebellion against the Union was
the preservation of the Union and the
States comprising it-and that when the
h.