The Montana post. [volume] (Virginia City, Montana Territory [i.e. Mont.]) 1864-1869, 1868-05-09
NOT IuPEACHARLE.

the defense of the President his counsel
would exhaust all their legal acumen.
and that every subtlety known to law
would be used to break and bar .he force
of testimony against him, it still cannot
be but a surprise, to even his friends,
that the deed proven, they deny evil in.
tent, and both admitted, claim thst the
ofenses do not constituts the high
crimes and misdemeanors contempla-
ted as impeschable in the Constitution.
The closing argument, Mr. Stanberry's,
as telegraphed, is principally devoted to
the. pleas, that the President has the
right to construe law, to execute or vio~
lateit, and that having violated it, the
offense isnot an impeachable one. Than
this no more deadly blow was ever aimed
at the liberties of this nation. AS the
spirit and intent of an act is held IN law
to constitute the deed, so is the spirit
and intent of n law to be consulted and
obcyed; but he has disregarded both let.
ter and spirit. 1t will not be contro-
verted that an act of the Congress of the
United States, regularly enrolled among
the statutes of the United States. is q
law of the land which the Executive is
sworn to obey. 1t may be declared un-
constitutional by the Supreme Court
and become void, orsbe repealed by the
body that enacted It but there is no
authority whereby the Executive can
justly evade the duty of executing all
laws in force. Their constitutionality is
not for him to decide. The Tenure of
Office Law was in force, and he knew the
letter, spirit and intent of that law was
to prevent the removal of Stanton. The
appointment of Thomas, with the letter
of authority to take possession of the
War Office, was removal of Stanton in
so far as he had the power, and viewed
in whatever light it may be, was pre-
meditated and admitted violation of the
statute. Here the plea is set up that he
has the constitutional right to do this; to
ignore the laws of the corntry. If in
one instance, why not in all2 If in all,
was there ever an Absolutism more com
plete than that guaranteed by this here
tofore considered democratic Constitu.
ton. If the President. has given him
unrestricted power to judge, accept,
reject or trample under the iron heel of
Dictatorship the enactments of the rep
resentatives of the people, what need of
courts and Congresses? If he may do
this, where will his power end or have
curb? We regard this assumed author
ity and consequent action of the Presi-
dent, the most fagrant official outrage
ever perpetrated upon the people of this
country, and its attempted vindication
by Stanberry before the Senate of the
United States as adding insult TO the
crime. He next endeavors to convince
the court that this violation of law is no
impeachable crime as contemplated in
the Constitution that it must be for
treason, bribery or some misdemeanor
assimilated to those. 1t is the very
essence Of both, more reprehensible than
either. They might but lop branches
from the tree-this is blow at the very
root. He appeals to the constitution
and the proceedings of the Convention
| that framed it, to show that it does
not regard this as one of the
high crimes and misdemeanors for
which the President may be impeached.
We confess an inability to comprehend
why the term high" crimes was en-
ployed in this instance. A crime is a
crime, but if there is difference, while
the "learned COUNSEL were searching for
technical evasions, the plea that some
of the Presidents crimes have been
slow" rather than "high" might have
been entitled to consideration. The app
peal to the proceedings of the Conven-
ton which framed the Constitution, was
however most unhappy one, for the
! journals of that Convention give the
| following declaration OF Mr.. Madison
whose phraseology was adopted in the
Constitution in preparing the provision
on this very subject, as follows:
The danger consists mainly in this:
that the President can displace from Office
man whose merits require that he should be
continued in it. In the first place be will be
impeachable by the House for such an act of
mal-administration, for contend that the
wanton removal of meritorious officers, would
subject him TO impeachment, and removal
from his once high trust. .
Under either the Interpretation that
Mr.. Stanton is now holding his Office as a
continuance of Mr.. Lincoln's term. or as
an officer of Mr.. Johnson's term, the law
applies to him, and finding that the
eight articles of impeachment al hing
ing on his removal are made good be-
yond disputation, Mr.. Stanberry would
convince the court that the violation of
the law is not an .impeachable offense
If it is not, then should it be written on
the ballots that are cast for President:
1--WE choose this man to be Dictator,
above all law, our Despot for the ensu-
| ing four years" Each phase of this