Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1868-03-04

II - =.
York furnished miniature specimen, may excite
TO opposition aud violence, ay, even TO the she'd
ding Of blood, and, IL so, upon those who make
them must rest the responsibility. But let me as
sure the gentleman that II such shall be the result,
which may God forbid, ten thousand swords will
leap from their scabbards, million bayonets, at
the first bugle-call, will giisten in the sunshine:
Brave heroes will fill up the ranks the honor OF
the old flag will be maintained peace and quiet
will be restored and the nations of the earth will
again learn that ours is a government Of law.
For Judge Polands remarks see second page.
REMARKS OF MIR. STEVENS OF PENN.
Mr.. Stevens Of Penn. closed the debate as fol-
lows;
/ agree with those gentlemen who have gone
before me that this is a grave subject and should
be gravely treated II is important to the high
official who is the subject Of these charges and it
is important TO nation Of forty millions OF people
now free and rapidly increasing to hundreds Of
millions The official character Of the Chief Ex-
ecutiye Of this grand nation being thus involved
the charge il falsely made is civil one. II on the
other hand misdemeanors and usurpations charged
against him are true, he is guilty OF serious
attempt 10 usurp the Liberty and destroy The
happiness Of this nation as was ever perpetraied
by the most detestable tyrant who ever oppressed
his fellow men. Let therefore discuss these
questions in partisan spirit, but with legal ac-
curacy and impartial justice. The people desire
no victim, and they will endure no usurper. The
charges SO far as shall discuss them are few and
distinct. Andrew johnson is charged with at
tempting to usurp the powers Of other bran ches o
the Government; with attempting to obstruch
and resist the execution of the law with mispris-
ion Of bribery and in open violation Of laws, which
declare bis acts misdemeanor, and subject him
to fine and imprisonment; with removing from Of
fee the Secretary Of War during the session Of the
Senate, without the advice or consent Of the Sen
ate and with violation Of the 9th section of the
act entitled An act regulating the tenure Of GER
tain civil Offices There are other offences charg-
ed in the papers referred to the Committee which
may consider more by themselves. In order to
sustain impeachment under out constitution, do
not hold that it is necessary to prove crime as
an indictable offence. agree with the distinguish
ed gentleman from Pennsylvani on the other side
of the House, who holds this to be purely politi
cal proceeding. 1t is intended for remedy for
malfeasance in Office, and to prevent the continu-
ance thereof. Beyond that it is not intended as
personal punishment for past offences or for future
example Impeachment under our Constitution is
very different from impeachment under English
law. The trainers Of our Constitution did not re-
ly for safety upon the avenging dagger OF Bru-
tus, but provided peaceful remedies which should
prevent that necessity. England had two systems
Of jurisprudence-one for the trial and punishment
Of common offenders and one for the trial Of men
in higher stations whom it was found difficult TO
convict before ordinary tribunals. This latter pro-
ceedng was by impeachment or bills OF attander
generally practioed to punish official malefactors
But the system degenerated into political and
personal prosecution, and men were tried, con-
demned and executed by this court from malignant
motives. Such was this condition Of English laws
when our Constitution was framed, and the Con-
vention determined to provide against the abuse
OF that high power, so that revenge aud punish
ment should not be inflicted upon political or
uI,,lo
made to consist in removal from office, and bills
Of attander were wholly prohibited. We are to
treat this question then wholly POLITICAL IN which,
If an officer Of the Government abuses his trust, or
attempts to pervert it to improper purposes, what
ever be his motive, he becomes subject to impeach-
ment and removal from Office The offence being
indctable does not prevent Impeachment, nor is not
necessary to sustain it, See Story's Commenta-
ries the Constitution, Madison, and others.
Such is the opinion OF our elementary writers. Nor
can any Of impeachment, tried in this country,
be found whereby an attempt was made to prove
the offence criminal and indictable. What then
are the official msdemeanors of Andrew johnson,
disclosed by the evidencel On the second day of
March, 1867, Congress passed an act entitled IAN
act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices"
Among other provisions it enacted that no officer
who had been appointed by ard With the advice
and consent Of the Senate should be removed from
office without the consent of the Senate, and that
| II, during lIe NhGallOus nuspeHelOh shOuiu pS
made for cause, such cause should be reported to
the Senate within twenty days after their next
meeting. II the Senate should deem the reason of
suspension sufficient, then the officer should be
moved and another appointed in his place. But If
the Senate refused to concur with the President,
and declare the reasons insufficient, the officer
suspended should further assume the functions of
his office and the powers OF the person performing
his duties should cease. 1t is expressly provided
that the Secretary Of War shall hold his office dur
ing the term Of the President by whom he may
have been appointed, and for one month thereaf-
ter unless removed by and with the consent OF the
Senate as aforesaid On the 18th of August, 1867,
during the recess of the Senate, the President re-
moved the Secretary of War, whose term of office
had not expired, requiring him TO surrender the
office, with the public property, and appointed
General U. s. Grant Secretary of War ad interim.
When Andrew johnson assumed the office OF Pres
dent he took an oath to obey the Constitution OF
the United States, and to take care that the laws
be faithfully executed This was solemn and
enduring obligation. Nor can he plead exemp-
ton from it on account of his condition at the time
it was administered to him. An attempt to OBJ
struct the execution OF the law-not mere oms
sisn amounting to negligence which would have
been a msdemeanor but daring and bold con-
spiracy was attempted by him to induce the Cen
eral OF the Army to aid him in defeating the oper-
alton OF the law and when he had suspended tbs
Secretary of War he appointed Gen Grant Secre-
tary ad interim, with the avowed purpose"of pre-
venting the operation OF that law il the Senate
should. decide in favor Of the Secretary; and he
says that the General did enter into such a con-
spiracy to aid him in obstructing the return of the
rejected Secretary Notwithstanding the Senate
might decide in his favor. This is denied by the
General, and aquestion of yeracity rather angrily
discussed has arisen between them, and those gem
tlemen seem to consider that that question is one
of importance to the public. i, this they mis-
taken Which is a man of truth and which is a man
Of faIsehood is OF no more public importance than
if it occurred between two obscure individuals.
If Andrew johnson tells the truth, then he is
guilty Of high official misdemeanor for he avows
his effort to prevent the execution OF the laws.
II the General commanding tells the truth, the
!, President is guilty OF high misdemeanors for he
declares the same thing, the President denying
only his own completely. No argument can make
this point palmer than the statement OF the cul-
prit. II he and the General told the truth, then
he committed wilful perjury by refusing to take
care that the laws should be faithfully executed,
! To show the animus and guilty knowledge with
which the law was violated we have only to turn
D to the proceedings of the Senate, notifying him
Of his illegal and void conduct, and then to con
slider that he has since persevered in attempting to
. enforce it. Indeed, to show his utter disregard
Of the laws Of his country we have only TO turn tC
his last annual message, in which he proclaimed
to the public that the laws Of Congress are uncon
s stitutional and not binding on the people. Who