The Weekly Perrysburg journal. [volume] (Perrysburg, O. [Ohio]) 1861-1???, 1868-05-01
Seletted S)istellanp,
what the President is Inn
peacied fer, and what the
sEVide nee Proves. 30TI r.

| We are among those who do not con.
siaer the Court formed for'the trial Of the
President strictly oppsti titutional, hut as the
real trierS, the constitutional body fthe
Senate), are there, and will decide the case,
we consider dhe objection to the formation
OF the Court rather technical than sub.
stan TALL The Constitution does not make
! the Vice President on the death of the
President, President. but simply devolves
| lie p0lcerS 0ad duties Of President upon
hhnt Mrg gJohnsor.is si,nplyydctfag Presi.
dent, and Mr.. Wade acting Vice President.
How, it may he asked, came the present
practice ilsuch a case? Simply in conse.
Quence of tile hasty action of Mr.. Webster,
Secretary of State, on the death of Ilarri-
sor, Mr. Webster's doctrine was law to
the Wings, and the Democrats had no
particular motives for objecting TO that
construction. 1t was, however, obviously
an error Becanse one officer can not be
made into another simply by devolving
the p0lrerS and duties of that other upon
him. 1t is true, however, that though the
Constitution does not make the Vice Presi.
dent in such a ease President yet it does
make him acting President, and, therefore,
/ it may not be improper for the Chief Jus
tcc to preside, 1t eau. practically, make
! little difference. especially as the Senate
can and does overrue his decisions. The
Fiers of the President are the Senate, and
now let us see for iChat the President Is
ttried for, il seems to us, there is a good
deal of msapprehension about this. III the
! lirs place, we may say that there is moth
lug in the Constitution which requires the
! House of Representatives, to make any
] formal technical charges against any officer.
\ q, Il III 4,
! Parliament, which we are not bound by at
all, 1t is enough that the House makes
known in any why which can be under.
stood, what il does charge an officer with
and adduces some evidence to prove it.
General Bntler was entirely right when he
said the II ouse could vary it's charges al
any moment aud bring in new proof at any
! time. Bearing this in mind, we may all
swer the question: what the President is
impeached for j" without reference TO the
technical charges, or the technical proof
! 1t is entirely given upsnow, by Intelligent
men, that ,impeachnent need not be far
indictable offenses. 1t is precisely for
what is not indictable II is for offenses
| against the nation-uguiust the interests OF
tie nation--agaiHstl its insiitntOns-a against
| its political law-against its public morals
| is to get rid of what can not be gOtrid
of in another way. II is to punish the
vioator of political laws to remove al
obstruction (vhether by insanity, immoral
ity, dishonesty, or treasonl to the course OF
public business, or the performance OF
public laws. IN one word, Impeachment il
a continuance 10 avoid public evils, by the
DETECTION Of public officers. In this light
lot mo ask again, for what is the President
impeaehed Z? e.,
l. For clear vfoIaii6n Of Ltlo. There
is not and can llot be any doubt, then, 'tlIe
President deliberately violates the Tenure
Of Office law. What il the answerf That
tho law is unconstitutional and tls Pres
dent wished to test its cohstituhOnality
But this is no answer 10 the facL that the
law WAS violated. If it were an answer
available in law, then no criminal would
ever be convicted, Thesmurderer may say
the law Which Furnishes murder is uncon'
stitutional, because las some do say)soeiety
has no right to take life. There is- nc
principle clearer than that a law is a law
till il is declared tnconsiitutional by The
proper courts aud no man has a right to
violate it. Asa fact, tlien, the President
did violate tile law. Tie evidence on the
ipart of the defense shows that The counsel
lfur the President admit this, aud simply
lattempts to ecteRudfe the offense. The
evidence of the Secretaries, II admitted
only went to show that they advised the
President that the law was unconstitniion
ial. What of it? Was the fact changed