The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1868-02-27
0neqntelliQerreer.
WHY JOHNSON SHOULD re M.
PEAOHED.
From the. N. Y. zhfbuns

impeachment is not desirable pro.
ceeding. 1t is cumbersome and te.
dious. It may arrest legislation, and
present new issue to the country at a
time when new issues are not wanted.
1t Is not, perhaps, wise precedent to
make. Itgives to power a temptation
which passion cannot always resist,
1t Is high. solemn, sacred trust. onIv
to be used, when absolutely necessary
for the salvation of the country.
We believe the satuatton of the country
demands the Impeachment of the Presi.
dent. We have all along felt that we
might submit to Mr.. Johnson's Admin.
tstration, evil as 1t has been, rather
than force an angry and doubtful oues.
ton upon the country. With the Con.
gress overwhelming Republican, there
was no reason why we should not com.
pei the President to pursue a wise pol
Icy. We reasoned upon the presump.
tion that it was better to have impeach-
ment held over him as a check than to
begin trial that might be as long as
that of Warren Hastings. It was de.
batable question. The evidence was
far from being conclusive. Morally
there was no doubt that Mr.. johnson
should be impeached. But impeach-
ment is question of law and evidence.
not of moral belief. AS Republican,
there were a hundred reasons whv he
should be removed. This would be a
good plea In Republican Convention.
not before the Senate of the United
States. Until impeachment became an
inevitable, overwhelming necessity.
without doubt as to the meaning of the
law, and the force of the evidence. to
enter upon 1t was only to give the
President chance to make himself a
martyr before the country. There
fore we have constantly opposed i'm
peachment, although at times we stood
alone among the Republican press.
There is no longer any doubt. The
issue.is as clear as 1t was when Gen.
Beauregard opened his batteries upon
Fort Sumter. Andrew johnson, Presi-
dent of the United States, tramples
upon a law, defies the authority of
Congress, and claims to exercise abso.
Lutte and despotio power. Congress
must impedch him Immediately.
All other questions sink before the
present. A law is passed, which de-
fines 1t to be the duty of the President
to consult with the Senate before re-
moving a certain officer. This law may
or may not be constitutional. The
President has no business with that. 1t
is constitutional until the Supreme
Court decides otherwise. 1t is law un-
til the Court interposes and invalidates
1t. The. Presidents sworn duty is
TO eEecute ito obey tito see that it is
carefully and studiously obeyed. He
may not like 1t. But chief-magis-
trates have been compelled to exc
cute laws they did not prefer. Hemay
think it itunconstItutional.T That Is of no
more consequence than the opinion of
any private citizen. His duty is not to
execute laws which he may think con-
StitutionGL, but to EXECUTE THE LAWS.
If he had been clothed with judiciary
power, If the founders of the Constitu-
tion had felt that it was wise to give the
President any option in the matter,
they would have SO expressed it and de-
clared that he might execute all laws
only when the Supreme Court decided
their constitutionality. II the Presi-
dent has the right to select his laws,
and say 'This act will execute be-
"cause it suits me, and the other will
"not enforce because it strikes me to be
"unconsLitutional," )" then Congress and
the Supreme Court might as well ad-
journ without day. For the right to
do as he pleases with any law,
to assume to be it's sole arbiter
and judge, may become a ty-
ranny more absolute than that of
the Emperor of Russia. It is a COM
paratively small matter. Apparently,
it affects only the right of Mr.. Stanton
to hold the War Office, and of the Pres.
ident TO select his constitutional ad vi
sers. This is not thequestion, but only
the merest incident of it. II the Pres
ident has the right to remove Mr..
Stanton in defiance of law, he may re-
move Mr.. Chief Justice Chase and Gen.
Grant, and indeed the whole Senate.
For the law by which Mr.. Stanton
holds his place is as much law, as sa.
cred and as binding, as that by which
Mr.. Chase presides over the Supreme
Court, and Gen. Grant commands the
army. II he may with impunity order
Lorenzo Thomas to take possession of
the War Dspartment-ab building which
is not the property of Mr.. johnson,
but of the American people-he
may also direct Mr.. Coyle to open
the next Supreme Court, and
Gen. Hancock to assume command
of the army. Itmay be said that there
is law which provides the form in
which Mr.. Chase may be removed, and
another law which directs the manner
for the removal of Gen. Grant. To this
we reply that there is also a law which
provides how Mr.. Stanton may be re-
moved, that one law is as binding as
the other, and that If we permit the
President to violate one, he may with
impunity violate all.
There is no avoiding this conclusion.
There is no explaining 1t away. There
ia no middle course. The President has
nssuDed the Tesponsi bility of breaking a
Ldw. Congress must assume ths resP0"-
sibilIty of impeaching him. Not to do SO
in the face of this flagrant and insolent
proceeding is to become partner In
the crime. 1t is NO time to con-
slider the party influence of impeach-
ment, or its e6ect upon Presiden-
tial candidates. We would rather