Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-04-30
LATEST KILOGRAMS.
MIDNIGHT DISPATCHES.
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
Speech of Mr.. EVartS.
CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS.

WAsHIEGToN, April 29.-Mr. Sumner
offered a resolution that Mr.. Nelson, hav-
ing used improper language in this tri-
bunal calculated to provoke a duel, and
disrespectful to the court, and that he de-
serves censure of the Senate Mr.. Sher-
man obiected.StO the consideration of the
resolution, and Mr.. Sumner objected to
Mr. Nelson making any remarks except in
explanation; but the Senate allowed him
to read portion of letter bearing Oh the
question of dates. Mr.. Nelson then ex-
planned what purported to be an original
letter, signed by Messrs. Butler, Logan and
Carried, dated March 9th and also a let
ter from the Senate to the President, by
Chauncy Black, dated March 10th, enclos-
ing a copy, with additional signatures
Mr.. Cameron offered an order for night
session, which went over.
Mr.. Evarts then resumed his argument.
He assumed it TO be already shown that
this tribunal is a court, and that the Presi
dent is to be tried only on the charges sup
ported by law and the evidence and by
common fame. He said much that had
been deliberately advanced by the mana
gers must fall to the ground, so must fall
the articles, based on charges which had
been repeatedly rejected as fair grounds
for impeachment. He referred to the con-
duct of the case by the prosecution as SINH
lar to the Chinese, who make great noise
in the vicinity of an object to be attacked,
or like the explosion of some two hundred
and fifty tons of gunpowder at a safe dis
lance from the walls of fort.
He said that in this case where the evil
dence had been suppressed the enlargement
of defamation and invectiVe was more
than unusually improper. He also spoke
in strain of sarcasm TO Mr.. BoutwelPs
reference to the Presidents counsel as
attorneys, whose minds had been shsrpened
bat enlarged by practice. He then con-
sidered Mr.. BoutWePs definition of i'm.
peachable offenses, and argued at length,
that no action could be 80 constructed
which did not proceed from malice and
evil intention, supporting his view by
quotations from the records of the Hum
phrey trial, and also by the language of
Mr.. Burke, in accusing Warren Hastings,
when he expressly stated that the assertion
and proof of evil intent were indispensable.
Mr.. Eyarts held that the best way TO de-
termine the nature of the ofienses which
may be deemed as high crimes and
misdemeanors il to consider the punish
ments prescribed for them. He referred
to the epithets applied by the managers to
the punishment by deposition, and in forc-
Bile terms described the character and mag
nitude Of the disgraces which punishment
involves. He claimed that the description
of penalties, provided in the tenure of office
law, showed the comparatively trivial ma
tuTe of the otfense a maximum, but no min
umum of punishment ia provided to the
indiscretion of the court before whom the
indictment should be tried. The offender
could be let off With a fine of six cents
and imprisonment for one day. He read
from debates on this subject at the time the
bill was proposed, in which Mr.. Williams
and other Senators said there should be
no minimum fixed, because the ofense
might arise from inadvertence, and
would not in any case have character
of moaal guilt. Mr.. Evarts then considered
the general debates on the bill, and pro-
posed to prove that the offense charged was
not made or to be considered penal, but
was more of political nature, and then
that even the alleged infractioHs did not
take place. He claimed that all belief Of
the Presidents former personal terpitude
must be laid aside, and it must be con-
sidere6 that he was unimpeachable before
u o'clock on February Dist. He then ar
gued that even if the removal of Stanton
had been actually effected, no change IN
the relations of the War Department to
the rest of the government would have
ensued, and hence that the mere act could
not be considered as dangerous to the pub
lie safety, On the contrary, it would have
been benefited by 1t, because the relations
existing between the President and Mr..
Stanton are prejudicial to the proper
working of the government, since it re-
suited that the crime consisted in the
technical infraction of the law, if it shall
be so held the law applied only its re-
strictions to himself and he believed it 10
be unconstitutional, for it relates to an Of
tense not penal, and under these circum-
stances his action could not be deemed
crime. He then briefly considered the
question of what was meant by unconstitu-
tional law. and said it was paradox it
can be no offense to violate the provisions
of such mere piece Of paper. He claimed
no greater right for the President than for
a private individual, TO test the constitu-
tionality of a statute. Thus he argued
that the President made paper removal,
without force and violence, in order to as
sert hi rights to act under the Constitu-
ton, which as he believed was violated by
law. In the question against the assertion
that formal violence are improbable
without reference to intention, he
cited authority and urged at some
length, that principles of common sense
were opposed to any such views.
At this hour the court took a recess.
On Resembling Mr.. EVarts expressed
his surprise at the managers of those
peacefully resisted laws, which they de-
cried unconstitutional. 1t was the duty of
every ministerial officer to raise question
in favor of the Constitution and in the
highest degree it was the duty of the spe-
cial defender of the Constitution. He re-
ierred to the case of Newell against the
Auditor of the State of New York, in
which the latter successfully resisted loan
of six million dollars; also the New York
law imposing tax on brokers' sales, which
was resisted and pronounced void by the
United States Supreme Court, aud to the
action Of Mr.. Lincoln 10 suspending ha-
beas corpus in Florida, in causing
the arrest of the Maryland Legislature,
and creating military commissions ia a
time of peace. Congress, by indorsing all
these acts, confirmed the doctrine that the
motive must be considered, and that the
mere infraOtion of a law was in itself a sufii- |
cient ground for punishment a. suggested |
by Mr.. Boutwell,, a. proper for the Presi- |
dent He said that if the honorable and |
astronomical manager could get over the |
laws OF mature, the Constitution would not |
stand in his way, for the removal from Office |
was prescribed without limit az to the dis |
lance to which the cnlprit should be re-
moved. Great laughter. He went on for |
some time describing, in a manner which |
ELECTED roars of laughter, supposed fight |
of Mr.. Boutwell, as a bailif, with the
criminal in charge to an eagle in |
the sky. Mr.. Eyarts then took up |
the subject of the position and powers |
of the President, and held that he was
the direct representative Of the people who |
elected him and for whom he held his /
powers in trust. Evils and disturbances |
always result from the accession to that |
office OF one elected by the people and desti-
tuie of personal or political support. This
exceptional weakness for the Presidential /
office is now heightened by extraordinary /
divisions of party strength in Congress, and
so the constitutional safeguard 10 its in
Janandan,a IA t1povaflire, IN rtro-o tho