Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-04-23

4 L TcSiGcui NOulA udhO UGH EuAtN1 Va
misdemeanor for issuing an order for the
| removal of Mr.. Stanton during the session
of the Senate; he was guilty Of high mis-
demeanor in appointing Gen. Thomas Sec
rotary of War ad interim, and his guilt 10
| fully established as charged 10 the first,
second and third articles of impeachment.
The tenure of Office act was then con-
| sidered, and shown to be in harmony with
the Constitution, and its provisions apply
| to Mr.. Stanton as Secretary of War. This
act was merely enacted on former practices
of the government, and the chief change
produced by it referred to removals during
| the recess of the Senate, and the applica-
| ton of the tenure of office act to the office
| of Secretary of War was enforced at con-
| siderable length, and Mr.. Boutwell, con-
tended that the Office could be only vacated
| by resignation, or confirmation by the
| Senate of a nomination by the President,
which would work a removal. Quotations
were made from the opening remarks of
| the Presidents counsel to enforce
| his position that the official term of the
| Secretary of War expires on March after
the term of the President by whom he has
been appointed, subject, however, to pre-
vious removal by and with the advice and
| consent of the Senate. The arguments of
the counsel for the President relative to the
intent of the President, were combated at
| length, and the manager maintaining that
| 10 the willful violation of the law the
President disclosed criminal intent which
cannot be qualified by any rebutting testi-
mony. He denied that the President had
| a right to violate the law to obtain judi
cial determination upon its constitutional
ity as claimed by the counsel, and the
| theory that such course is right is abhor-
rent to every Just principle of government
and dangerous to the existence of our in
situations. Articles are laid under the act
of July 81, 1861, known as the conspiracy
act
An examination Of articles four and FIVE
shows that the substance of the allegation
is the same in each article, the differences
being that article charges the conspi-
racy with intent by intimidation and
threats, unlawfully to hinder and prevent
Stanton from holding the Office of Secre-
tary of War. By the English common
law conspiracies are indictable and pun
ishable as misdemeanors. There is no
| doubt that under the English common
law, sanctioned by the United States statute
| in the District of Columbia, the fifth and
seventh articles are set forth as INSIDE
meanors by the laws of the district. The
sixth article was laid under the statute of
1861, and charged the respondent with
conspiracy with Thomas, to seize by force
upon property in the War Department, in
violation Of the tenure of Office act.
Mr.. Boutwell, argued in reply to counsel,
o1d otIrr1rrSod his r-sfk al
that though the District of Columbia was
not included by specific designation, the act
applied to the Drstrict on account of Con-
gress and the Constitution, which were
both laws, only the latter was of superior
authority. The 9TH article was laid on
the common law, and the charge is sub
stantially the same ofenses as those
charged in the 9th, and 9Th, and the 5th
and 9TH articles based on the common law
as set forth in the same offenses as the 4th
and 9th laid upon the act of July 81 1861,
and as there can be no doubt of the validi-
ty of the 9th and 9TH articles, it il imma-
terial whether the suggestion be made by
the counsel for the respondent, but the
conspiracy act of 1861 does not include the
District of Columbia, which Is a valid sug-
gestion or not.
Mr.. b. then proceeded to examine the
evidence. We find the President, if the
allegations are established, engaged in an
unlawful act, and if Lorenzo Thomas or
any one else is cooperating with him con-
spiracy is proved. 1t is then competent
to introduce the statements Of the parties
10 the conspiracy and upon this ground
the testimony was offered and received Of
the declarations made by Thomas. The
evidence of agreement between the res
pOndent and Thomas is found in the order
appointing General Thomas and the
conversation at the time the order
was placed in Thomas hands. Mr.. Bout
we'll here noticed the claim TO get
up by the respondents counsel that the
order was not a military order, but in
yoked the military spirit of obedience,
which he could have declined altogether
without subjecting himself to punishment
by military tribunal. The counsel has
admitted that if it was a purely military
order, his client would have been guilty of
violating law of March 2, 1867, and if
he declared it was not a military order,
then the transaction was in the nature Of
an agreement between the parties. The
President knew his purpose was unlawful,
and he induced Thomas to cooperate with
him. Gen. Thomas might he excused
from his ignorance, but there was no such
excuse for the President, it being proved
that the President was engaged in an I'M
lawful undertaking, and that the purpose
was also unlawful, the conspiracy is es-
tablished.
Mr.. Boutwell, then proceeded 10 review
the action of the President in removing
Mr.. Stanton, and the reason he had for re-
moving him, which was that Mr.. Stanton
was opposed to his schemes He knew
how in the suspension of Mr.. Stanton the
President had followed the provisions of
the tenure of Office act, and detailed the
act by the Senate. 1t was that the Presi-
dent had assumed that the act was invalid
and had no binding force. When Gen.
Grant yielded the Office the President was
filled with indignation, and from that day
he seemed to be under the influence of a
settled and criminal purpose to destroy
Gen. Grant and secure the removal of Mr..
Stanton.
Mr.. B. detailed the various efforts made
by Stanton out of the War Office, and failing
in every effort nothing -remained but
to seize the Office by an open, Eillful and
defiant violation of law, in which he sought
the aid of Lorenzo Thomas, and up to the
present time they are endeavoring to get
possession of the War Department Their
action has in view an unlawful purpose, and
is therefore conspiracy.
Mr.. Boutwell, referred to the testimony
of Gen. Emory as further evidence Of the
Presidents intent as to the nomination Of
Mr.. Ewing; that gentleman is in his 18th
year, and the President knew he would
yield the Office at any moment The Pre-
sident never sought to put a man there
who would or could hold the Office and
obey the Constitution and laws. Mr.. B.
pursued this strain of argument, 10 show
the evidence Of conspiracy, at considerable
length, and claimed that the evidence
showed that the President contemplated
getting possession, in some manner Of the
War Department. As TO the speeches Of
the President, that evidence was put in
simply to show that a man who could utter
such words Is unfit for the Office be holds,
and 10 this case he referred to the case of
Judges Chase and Humphrey.
Mr.. B., at much length, spoke upon aad
quoted from these cases. He claimed that