The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1868-05-19

inc the DOSitIOnS assumed dS Tue lOuuudIlOn
Tor The Charges in these articles, they must
fail if the act which the President proposed to
do was lawful act, and he did not propose to
accomplish it by unlawful means. The re,
moval of Mr. Stanton is the means proposed
in order to prevent him from holding his OF,
fee, as charged in the fifth, and to take ana
possess the property of the United Stats? In
his custody, as charged in the seventh
The right to remove him, therefore, uisposes vi
both articles
Outsida nj anv of these considerations, l
lave been unable to look upon either of these
four articles as iustifying charge OF conspir-
Acy. The legal idea OF a conspiracy is totally
in3nnlicable to the facts proved The Presi-
dent. if YOU please, intends to remove a per-
son from office by an open exercise of power,
against the provisions OF a law, contending
that he has a right so to do, notwithstanding
the law, and temporarily to supply the vacan-
cy thus created. He issues an order 10 thar ell
1ect, and at the same time orders another per
ton TO take charge of the office, VINO ~ IeeS W
DO so. How these acts done under cIaim OF
right, can be tortured into conspiracy, IN
the absence of any speehc PROVISION OF law
declaring them to be such, Is beyond my com
Article eight is disposed of by what has
been said upon the preceding articles.
Article nine is, in my Judgment, not only
without proof to support it but actually dis
proved by the evidence.
THE PRESIDENTS SPEECHES.
tications are established by proof. They are
ten in number, and are extracts from speeches
OF the President on different occasions. 1t is
not pretended that in speaking any OF these
words the President violated the Constitution
or any provision of the statute or common law
either in letter or spirit. If such utterances
were misdemeanor, it must be found in the
nature OF the words themselves.
l am not prepared TO say that the Presidcat
might not within the meaning OF the Consti
I'm Tart In
OF words. Being sworn ito preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution" if he should in
words pecslstentiY deny its authority, and en-
deavor by derisive and contemptuOus Ian
guage to bring it into contempt, and impair
the respect and regard of the people for their
form of government he might, perhaps. justly
be considered guilty of Il high mistemeanor
in office. Other cases might be supposed of a
like character and leading to similar results
1t remains to inquire what was the character
of the words proved
Those spoken on the 18th day OF August,
1866, contained nothing calculated to impair
tine confidence of the country in our form of
government, or in our cherished institutions.
They did contain severe reflections up
on the Conduct of coordinate branch OF the
government. They were not an attack upon
Congress as branch of the government, but
upon the conduct OF the individuals compos
ing the Thirty ninh Congress. He did not
speak of Congress generally as hanging upon
the verge OF the government, as it were" but
of particular Congress, of which he spoke as
assuming to be "a Congress OF the United
States, while in tact it is Congress Of only n
part OF the States" and which particular Con-
gress he accused of encroaching upon eopst-
tutona rights, and violating the fundamental
principles of government.
1t may be remarked that these words were
not official. They We're spoken in reply to an
address made to him by committee of his
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. Of the Congress, and
not 10 1t. The words did not in terms deny
that it was a constitutional Congress assert
that 1t had no power to pass laws. He assert
ed what was true IN point OF fact, that it was a
Congress OF only part OF the States. Grant
ing that the words spoken would seem to i'm
ply that he had doubts TO some extent of the
true character of that Congress, and the ex.
tent OF ITS powers, so long as several States
were excluded from representation, he did not
in fact or in substance, deny its constitutional
existence; while in all his official communica-
lions with that Congress he has ever treated it
as constitutional body. Is there another
man in the Republic, i'll office or out of office
who had not on that day perfect right to say
what the President said? Would any one
think 0f Furnishing any member of Congress
for saying out of doors precisely the same
things OF the body of which he was mem
Der? is the President alone excluded from
the privilege OF expressing his opinions of the
constitution OF particular Congress, and of
denounclng its acts as encroachments upon
constitutional rights" and "the fundamental
pIlHClp1GS VI government! IN process Oh
time there might possibly be a Congress which
would be justly liable to the same crimina-
tons OF President In such case, is he to
remain silent, and is he forbidden by the Con-
stltutlon, on pain of removal from Office, to
warn the people OF the United States OF their
danger?
L is not alleged that the President did not
believed what he said on this occasion to be
true. Whether he did or not is ques-
ton between him and his COINCIDENCE. If
a .if =,
speak. If he did not his offence is against
good morals, and not against any human law
There is inmy judgment nothing in, these words
to prove the allegation that the Presidents
intent IN speaking them was to impair and
destroy the respect of the people for the legis-
latlve power OF Congress, or the laws by it du-
~ and consttutionally enacted, or to set aside
its rightiul authority and powers. 1t the
words were designed to bring that particular
Congress INTO contempt, and TO excite the re-
sentiment of the people against it, however
much may disapprove both words and in
tenton, do not think them an improbable
offence.
The remarks contained in the second and
third specifications presents themselves to my
mind IN the same light. They, too contain
severe Ieht ctions upon the Thirty-ninth Con-
gress; nothing more. L have not been able to
discover any menaces or threats against Con-
greSs, unless they are found in the declaration
That he would veto their ssseT5P nn anu TINS
W hlCdSuIcS Vi IL CbrJdll character. OF which he
had been speaking The speeches at Cleve-
land and st Louis, though highly objection
able IN style, and unbecoming a President of
United Stated, afford nothing to Justify
the allegation that they were nenacing to-
wards Congress or the laws of the country To
consider their utterance high misdemeanor
within the meaning of the Constitution would
ton.
SO highly did the people of this country es
nf ;I,nrt of -
free people, that not finding it to be specific
ally guaranteed in the Constitution, they pro-
Vlded for il in the first amendment of tn at in
strument Congress shall make no law X
abrldging the freedom of
speech" Undoubtedly there are great incon-
yenlenees, aud perhaps positive evils arising
from the too frequent abuse of that freedom;
more prehaps, and greater, from an equally
protected freedom Of the press. But the peo-
pie OF the United States consider both as es-
sentlal to the preservation of their rights and
liberties They, therefore have chosen to
l9lVe both entirely unrestrained, subjecting-
the abuse OF that liberty 1nly to remedies pro
vided by law fol- individual wrongs To DENY
the President righst to comment freely upon
the conduct of coordinate branches of the gov
eminent would not only be denyinghim right
secured TO every other citizen OF the Republic
put might deprive the people of the benefit OF
ms opinion OF pubic affairs, and of his watch
fulness OF their interests and welfare That
under circumstances where he was called nm
on by large body of his felow-citiz,ns to
address them, and when the was goaded bv
contumely and insult, he permitted himself to
transcend the limits Of proper and dignified
speech, such as was becoming the dignity of
his station, ismatter ofdeep regret, and highly
censura9le. But, i'll my opinion. it can receive
no other punishment than public sentiment
alone can intict.
THE ELEVENTH ARTICLE.
If L RICH ly understand the accusation com
tanned in the eleventh article, it is substantial
~ this: That on the 18th day of August
1866, the President by public speech declared
in substance that the Thirty-niEih CONGRESS-
was not Congress of the United States au-
thorlzed to exercise legislative power; thereby
intending to deny that the legislation of said
Congress was valid, or obligatory on him, ex-
cept so far rs he saw fit TO approve of the same
and thereby denying and intending to deny
the power of said Thirty-ninth CONGRESS- TO
propose amendments to the Constitution. and
in pursuance of said declaration, the Presi-
dent, on the 2lst day of February 1868 at
tempted to permit the execution Of the act of
March 3 1867. First-by unawfully attempting
to devise me ms to prevent Mr.. Stanton from ex.
ercislnS Tue functions of Secretary of Wars after
the Senate had refused to concur in his sns-
pension Secondly unlawiully attempfino
TO devise means to permit the execution of the
Appropriation act 10y the support of the army
Tor the hscal year ending June 30. 1868 and
that further, in pursuance of said declaration
he uniawtuiiy attempted to prevent the exc
cutlon of the so-called Reconstruction act of
March 2, 1866, whereby he was gniItv nj -
high msdemean0r in office on the Dist day Of
February 1863 / have already stated in
commenting on the 10th article, that | do not
consider the Presidents declarations on the
18th OF August, 1868, as fairly liable to the con-
struction there put upon it and repeated in
this article. There were no such words said,
% hn fair lrv 1.n1 ll,. IL,