Virginia free press. (Charlestown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1832-1916, 1868-04-16
rRonr WARRINGTON.
IMPEACHMENT.

~ the usnal hour. Butler called otner VIII
Dasses f,r the managers including Blodgets,
ists postmaster at Augusta. He testified that
/ he knew nothing. except he had been suspen-
5sd Butler asked for certificates that no rea-
son had been given for removing Blodge:s.-
The defence made the point that the case Of
| Blodgets was outside Of the charge madeagsinst
! the President.
Among the witnesses introduced by Butler
was NJ. Fl. Wood, Of Alabama, who had been
/ in the Union army He testified regarding
President johnson refusing him an Office be-
cause he favored Congress
AT l245 O'clock, Judge Curtis opened his
argument for the defence.
Judge Curtis was listened to throughout
with marked attention, especially by the mem
bers Of the court Some Of his points were
startling. He left it with Senators to say
whether they were acting in legislative or judi
cial capacity. The substance Of the first, upon
which the eight succeeding charges were based,
was that the removal of Stanton and the ap-
pointment of Thomas was, and was intended
10 be in violation of the Tenure-oi-otiice act
and Of the Constitution
HIe denied both propositions, and among
other authorities, quoted the statements oi
members Of the conference committee. Mr..
Scheuck, in making his report to the House,
had used the words "terrnS Of service 1t
might as well be said that king completed
the term Of his predecessor, who had died. as
to say that Mr.. johnson was serving out MI
Lincoln's term He proceeded, showing that
the heads Of departments were the voice and
hands of the President. They did not and in
fact could not. come constitutionally under the
tenure-of-ofice BILL and that their exception
was well understood by Senators.
He noticed the absurdity Of charging the
President with high crimes and miSdemeanors
for acting in accordance with the publicly tx
pressed views of Senators. His argument that
! the Presidents action was in accordance with
precedents and with the constitution was too
compact in its elaboration for condensation -
He argued the necessity Of the power claimed
by the President, inStancing Secretary Floyd'S
DISPLACEMENT bv President Buchanan where
: DELAY would have led To deplorable results
He argued the Presidents duty to maintain his
prerogatveS. A trustee he said would combat
an unconstitutional law which worked injury
70 those whose rights he had in trust, and 1t
was much more the Presidents duty to guard
the trusts placed in his hands by all the people
Such was the duty molly fulfilled by Hampden
in resisting the payment of ship money. In
rccapitullting his argument, to prove that the
President could not he impeached for an act
designed toprucurea judicial decision, hequoted
Butler. IN show that the managers admitted this
view. who said the removal in itself was per-
haps not an improbable offence if made with
that motive, and not accompanied with def
, ant message 10 the Senate.
NJ nc n
how the Senate should be modified Heargued,
until adjournment the rules Of estopel. show
ing that the things the President had done and
said on these matters did not apply in this
case
Judge Curtis, spoke till nearly four o'clock,
when at his request 1.-THE hall being larger and
requiring more vocal exertinn than he was ac-
cus;omcd to- the court adjourned without
division.
WASHINGTON. April 10-Judge Curtis pro-
ceeded with his argument for the defence.
General Thomas will he the first witness for
the defence that will he examined.
Judge Curtis continued lis argument to-day
on the theory and practice in vacancies and
appointments. claiming thatfhe evidence would
show several instances in all points like that Of
Stanton and Thomas HciuSiSted that Thomas
was not appointed, an appointment requiring
the Presidents nomination and the Senate :
consent. and the Presidents commission. He
characterized the allegation that no vacancy
existed as hcCCing the question. The legal
vacancy existed the moment that Stanton re-
ceived the letter from the President. Recapit-
ulating his argument. Curtis claimed tine Man
ayers had not shown that the President had
violated the c. Institution and laws. He pro-
Cecded to argue the conspiracy charges in the
4th and 9Th articles. the charge If violation Of
the conspiracy laws Of 1861. He read the law
on the subject It's provisions apply To States
and Territories. and are imperative in the Dis
trict Of Columbia Judge Curtis did not. how
ever, rest on techncality, hut argued that in
law The preliminary movements Of principal
and agents to bring before court private
claim purged their actions Of conspiracy He
claimed that this is applicable, in broader
sense. to public rights The relations Of sure-
ror and inferior officers also precluded the idea
Of conspiracy
Judge Curtis answered the 18th and seventh
articles in connection with the tenth, in none
Of which is charged violation Of any law. The
ninth article not only failed Of proof. hut was
diSproved hv General Fmorv's swearing that
/ ne lTIFNiuCtO the NlIcfthNdIlt lNIlC dltl AItN
ont the Presidents opinion ltwoud he shown
in proof that the President sent for Emory for
different purpose from that alleged in the
article Arguing the tenth article. he discussed
improbable offences. Withou: vexinG the
ears of Senators with precederts from the mid
die ages. he would refer to the provisions of
the constitution. whose trainers knew quite as
much as men who lived in the time Of the
Plan tagenets ." Other high crimes" must be
equally grave with bribery and treason. or
must he offences agail st the United States
The President is empowered TO pardon all Of
fences against the United States, except in
cases Of impeachment
Curtis claimed that he had shown fully that
the court was bound Nv the law, and was not
itself law-makcr TIe cited the old English
laws and Federal sedition laws showing that
; truthful uttcrances, however offensive. were not
punishable. The peculiar manner in which
this charge had been brought showed that Con-
crcsS is resolving itself into a school Of manners
He insisted that telling the truth about officers
is not an offence against the law, and the truth
in This case had not been questioned
The testimony Of General Thomas, to-day,
told nothing new beyond that the President had
not instructed him to use force When he was
arrested he went first to the President, who
said that he was right the case was now in
court. whore he wanted it.
The ruling Of the Senate, AZ n 10. will let