Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-05-06

ed that too much weight was given to the
utterance of partisan debate at the time,
but he argued that the power of removal
granted the President in 1889 was restrict
ed by subsequent legislation He held,
also, that President Adams removed Mr..
Pickering before the Senate met, although
on the same day, and the record was not
clear. He asked of what avail would be
the provisions of the Constitution limiting
the power to I'LL vacancies during a recess
of the Senate, to the issue of commissions
that expire at the beginning of the next
session, if the President could create va
cancies at will during the session of the
Senate. Mr.. Bingham challenged the
citation of any law or section of the Con-
stitution which would limit the term
of officers thus appointed by the President.
BY such appointments he could keep men
in office at his pleasure without regard to
the Constitution. On this subject, and on
the question of what are the Limitations of
the Executive power, Mr.. Bingham cited
numerous authorities, and quoted from
speeches of Mr.. Webster. With regard to
the Presidents defense that he sought to
test the validity of the tenure of office law,
IG dSHNllEA AAldb lhGAC lDhNA has DtGI al
unequivocal decision of the Supreme Court
against the constitutionality of the law Of
Congress, and held that it was only bold
pretense of the President to take upon
himself a responsibility which the court
itself had never assumed. The presump-
ton was altogether in favor of the law, and
to admit the validity of his possession of a
discretionary and judicial prerogative,
would be to clOthe the creature with a
power superior to the power which created
him, and would enable him at pleasure
to deny the will of the people to constitu-
tional laws. Abiding to an expression of
Mr.. Evarts, he denied having claimed the
omnipotence of Congress. He regarded
that body, equally with the President, the
servant of the people, but that neither
Congress nor the Judiciary was answer
able to the Executive He would make
no further answer to the clamor of the
learned gentleman on this point, but must
repel the charges against the House of
Representatives as having brought up and
organized impeachment in party hatred,
and against the Senate for having ex-
pressed an opinion on the subject which
they were afterwards to Judge 1t was
their duty to express that opinion, for they
were to try the President in an entirely
different capacity He then recited the
three laws with which the President was
charged with violating, claiming that it
had been already shown that these viola
tiOns were otienses.
He quoted from Kent to show that NAL
| administration in Office was also grounds
for Impeachment. He held that it was en-
tirely immaterial whether or not the arti-
Giles were framed in the technical form of
| Indictment. Every child knew that his Of
hce was an assumption of power, TO Judge
the validity of the laws for himself, and
to obey them or not at his pleasure, and
| 1t was not too much to ssy that a holder
piece of etfrontry was never before known.
| He held that the elaborate arguments of the
counsel to prove that the law of 1863 did
not repeal that of the act of 1889, and adj
mitted it was in the power of the Presi-
| dent to determine the tenure of Office, and
that the subject was not determined by
! constitutional provisions and he pro-
ceeded to comment on the act of 1867, in
order TO show that it was clear and expli-
cit in its terms Referring to Senator Sher-
mans remarks, he said that he would con-
sent to the removal of Cabinet officer
| who should be 80 destitute of honor
az to refuse to resign when requested by
the Senate. Mr.. Bingham said that the
| remark was natural at that time, for cir
cumsLances had not then developed the
malignity and dangerous intentions of the
| President besides, the expression showed
| that the consent of the Senate was neces-
| sary. No one doubted at that time that
Mr.. Stanton came within the provision OF
the act The President did not, for he had
acknowledged as much by suspending Mr..
Stanton under the act. Now how is the
power of suspension given him, when
even the wording of his message was Dor
rowed in part from the language of the act,
and this excuse was an after thought, to
| cover up his villany. He showed the
President was responsible for having
abused the powers granted him by the act
to remove Stanton, without alleging or
proving that the latter had become dis
| qualified in any way from executing his
| duties.
At this point the Senate took the usual
| recess.
On reassembling, Mr.. Bingham claimed
| il had been already shown that Che Presi-
dent was selEconvicted on the charges con-
tanned ia the LIST, ID, Sd, Sth and lllh ar
| ticles, and proceeding to speak of the re-
moval of Mr.. Stanton, he paid glowing
| tribute to the public service and character
and virtues of that calumnied officer, who
| had been proved faithful among the faith
| less, and who in all the qualities which
! adorn and enoble nature had no superior
in any act. Yet this distinguished patriot
| had been removed without a tolerable ex-
cuse. in violation of law, TO CRAFTY the per
sonal enmiiy Of the President. Mr.. Bing-
| ham was glad to be able to agree with the
counsel on one point, viz: that uneonslitu-
tionql law was no law but insisted it can
not be considered Unconstitutional until ithas
been pronounced 20 in the proper way. He
would also reiterate that evil intents are to
| be presumed from evil acts, but the Presi-
dents evil intention was not merely mat
| ter Of presumption, but of confession. 20
show this Blr. Bingham read from the Pre-
sident letter TO Gen. Grant, in which he
| says you know that il was my purpose to
prevent Mr.. Stanton from resuming the
duties Of Secretary Of War;" and he claimed
further, that every one not stupid or insane
out of his office he never could have got
into the court, and a decision never could
have.h been obtained. As stated by the Presi-
dents defense. that he wanted to obtain
quo warranto it was a mere babble in the
ears of the Senate. Hessked if the Pres
idents purpose, in all he did, was to
secure a decision in the Supreme
Court, why he did not institute the
proceedings. 1t was because it was
impossible for him to do 50, as he knew it
would be from the beginning. He then
read from Greenleaf to show that the
President must be held responsible for what
with ordinary intelligence Of his action.
In reply to the defense that the act was not
contaminated, ne said that it had been long
settled that the attempt to commit INSIDE
meanor vas itselfan indiciable misdemesn-
or. In support Of which proposition be
cited legal authority. He also held that