The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1868-04-28
serving out new term Of his own, but the

serving on! new term Of his own, but the
uuexpired term Of his predecessor.
Mr.. Stevens said that in the impeachment,
more than in the indictment, the averring OF
facts charged with il made it necessary 70 say
that he went further than some, and said no
corrupt or wicked motive need attach 70 the
acts fo- which impeachment is brought it
was enough that they were official revelations
of law. The President justified himself by
asserting that al previous Presidents had
exercised the same right Of removing officers;
but now there were express laws against IT.
SO the cases we're not parallel. The Presi-
dent said he removed Stanton 10 test the con-
stitutionality of the law. He had already
seen it tested and decided by votes since
given BY 273 of the Senate and House OF
Representatives. 1t stood - law upon tbs
statute book. The President asserted that be
did not remove Mr.. Stanton under the Ten
uresof- Office act; this was direct contra
diction of his own letter to the Secretary Of
the Treasury. The President denies his ats
tempt to prevent the execution OF this law,
vet in his correspondence with General Grant
he reproached the General by the assertion
that be (the General) knew bis object was to
prevent Stanton from forthwith resuming the
functions of his Office, notwithstanding the
Senate might decide 10 his favor
Mr.. Stevens then referred to the claim Of
the President to violate the Tenure>of-ofice
law, because he considered it invalid, and
considered the position of the President in
accepting the oath, TO take care that the laws
are faithfully executed He ALSO detailed the
action Of Congress on the law, examined its
provisions and criticised the claim Of the
President to disregard them. He then took
up the action of the Senate on the message
oil the President informing that body Of the
suspension of Mr.. Stanton and appointing
Mr. Thomas Secretary Of War ddfnt<rfm.
This offspring of assassination, said Mr..
Stevens, turns upon the Senate who have
thus rebuked him in 9 constitutional manner
and bids them defiance. Mr.. Stevens then
discussed the article charging the President
with usurping the legislative powers, and
proceeded To show how he had interfered
with the work OF reconstruction. Heihen
briefly reviewed the whole case and compared
the services Of Mr. Stanton with those Of
Mr.. Johnson: noticed the claim Of
his counsel that no removal of MIR. Stanton
had taken place, because Mr.. Stanton held
on 10 the Office, ard concluded by saying,
If The President is not willing 10 exeeuta the
laws of Congress. let him resign and return
to his village in obscurity.
"
ter speaking of the august character Of the
tribunal, proceeded to state that the matter
now presented for discussion vas not quar-
rel between two officials. but an issue between
the Exscrtive and the American people. He.
too, would ask who is Andrew johnson
Mr.. w. held that his conduct ~ President was
desire TO favor and uphold traitors, and
force the rebel States into the Union on his
plan, against the expressed viii Of Congress
and the loyal people, and went on 10 recite
the number Of acts which he claimed we're
usurpation and ofenses, explicable only on
the above supposition, . elimination Of a
long series Of usurpations Of his cath of Of
nee and indecencies, and his attemp. to re-
move Stanton in contempt of the Tenure>of-
Office Law. Mr.. w. took up the answer
made by the Presidents counsel to the
charge Of violating that law, and drst dis
cussed the provIso which il was alleged ex.
cluded Stanton frem its operation. He had,
himself, suggested the amendment and ex
piained it's meaning, and bad never dreamed
that such construction would be put on it as
was read by the Presidents counsel. Ii
would be contrary to the purpose of the bill.
Stanton's case was meant to be covered if it
was not the originating cause Of ito nsroduc-
tion. He claimed that the principles Of
construction requires the proviso to be con-
sirued in the light Of the purpose of law.
The Senate then took = recess.
On re-assembling Mr.. w. considered the
point set up by the defense, that the law is
unconstitutional, which he charaeterised as
defiance and charge to Congress, from the
fact that the Constitution does not provide for
removals except by impeachment. He drew
the Interference that legislative body must
possess some power of Judging when good
behavior ceases and when removals should
be made. lie also claimed that the right to
remove in certain cases was either q power
delegated to the Executive by Congress or
merei implied by the Constitution, and there.
fore not to be extended 10 spply to all cases.
He discussed the jndiciai authorities cited by
the Presidents counsel arguing that ;hey
afforded no eountengnte to his views, bnt
settles the point that Congress may fix the
Tenure of Office so as TO prevent removals BY
the President, and that his power 10 remove,
so far as it existed, was only implied from his
power TO appoint, against the legisias
i've construction which Was sddaeed 10
support of the Presidents theory on
the subject. He cited the passages from
Webster and Caihoun's speeches snd the
writings of Kent and Story, to show The in
terpretation put on the Constitution By the
Congress of 1889 was erroneous and worthy
of reversal, and called attention TO the fact
that the laws referred 10 we're passed By q
small rpsjori;y in the House, and in the Sem
ate By the vote Of the Yice-President, who
had direct interest in their passage. He
denied that all the wisdom had died with our
fathers, and declared that Congress had a.
good righ. to consirue its construction as
its predecessors.
AT this point a o clock on motion Of Mr..
Morrill,, Of Vermont, who said that Mr.. Will
liams was nnwell, and would not be able to
finish his speech to-day, the court adjourned,
and the Senate. after receiving several execu-
tive communications, adjourned soon af,er>
wards.