The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1868-05-01
CONGRESSIONAL.
WASHINGTON, April 80.
SENATE.

After Mr. Nelson had made some re-
marks disavowing any intentional dis-
resuect for the Senate, but admitting
that he referred to a duel, Mr.. johnson
moved TO Law the resolution on the
table. which was agreed to-S5 to 10.
Mr. Caneron's order for night ses-
sions was considered.
Nr Sumner offered to amend by max
inc the hours from ten to six.
On motion of Mr.. Trumbull, the whole
subject was tabled-37 to Ia.
MIR. Evarts resumed his argument.
Mr.. Evarts held that it was grave
reproach upon the wisdom and fore
sight of the trainers of our Government,
to claim that a decision in this case in
favor of the President would result in
monarchy. In his view the danger was OF
the balances of the Constitution, namely,
the relations of the weight of numbers
and equality of States, irrespective OF
population. From the principles Ofthe
Constitution, and the utterances OF
foremost distinguished statesmen, 1T
was evident that to make the Senate
executive, instead Of advisory, was
to rob the peoples majority of their
rightful power. In this manner the
small and thinly populated States would
control the working of the Government
against the will Of those which cast
the overwhelming majority of votes,
and the Presidential election would be-
come farce.
In support Of this position he quoted
writings of the elder Adams, Roger
Sherman and others, and enforced 1t by
considering various emergencies which
might arise under the tenure of office
act which makes certain offices perma-
neut and renders removal during the
session of the Senate difficult If not
impracticable. He proceeded TO quote
from debates in the Senate when the
bill was under consideration, the Ian"
guage of Williams, Howard and others
to show it's effect was to revolutIonIZe
the practice of the Government, and
quoted an expression TO the effect that
while the legislative construction had
little weight, yet the decision of con-
stitutional questions by the supreme
laws were authoritative.
Mr.. Evarts continued, however, that
the decisions Of Congress of 1889 were
not only authoritative because confirm
I'd by the Supreme Court, but carried
an immense weight of themselves.
He referred to the debates of 1879 as
exhaustive of the subject 0f the power
of removal, and claimed that the point
at issue was settled and firmly estab'
lished then by the trainers of DIR Gov
ernmcnt and by the practice OF success
sive administrations afterwards. lie
also referred to Mr.. Webster's declara-
ton in 1885, t.at the question was set
tied, and to the endorsement of Presi'
dent Jaekson's removal of Duane by the
people, the superior power of all.
In regard to the suggestion that the
Congress of 1889 was influenced by high
confidence in President Washington
Mr.. Eyarts askA if it were not posi-
BILE that the present Congress bad been
influenced in an opposition by its opin-
ions on the incumbent. President. lie
read from various cOtcmpOraneous
writer's 10 show that the Importance OF
the question was deeply felt at the
time, and that the effect of the decision
reached in 1888 was thoroughly under.
stood. He claimed that the recent law
had been in direct cOntravcntion oil
the doctrine and practice of the Gov
eminent for eighty years, and having
in itself no biBding effect on constituting
the Constitution, doubts as TO its con
stitutiOnality might naturally arise II
the mind of the President, for which II;
could not rightfully he impeachcd.
Referring te his argument OF yester
day respecting the right aud power u
the President to resist uncOustltutiOna
laws so as to bring them before tho Sn
preme Court, he read from the debate:
on the fugitive slave law in l~52, the
language of Mr.. Sumner, in which hC
quoted and endorsed President Jack
sons declaration that each department
of the Government had u right to judge
of the cOnStitutiOnality of acts and in
functions not already covered by Su
preme Court decisions. TO dismiss and
deposc the President for an attempt Il
maintain the supremacy of the COusti
tutiOn would make him the victim OF
Congress and martyr.
Recess.
On reasSembling, Mr.. Evarts consid'
cred the attitude which Senators hel(
in reference to this subject, and salt
that nothing was mole abhOTTent to
sense of justice than that man Shouit
be q Judge in his case or decide ques
ton which he had already prciudged
He held that if the Senate in passing
the resolution of cenSure on the 2lst o.
February had pronounced on the sub
iect of the cOnstitutiUnality of the Law
rs q political action then they cOnld
not consider it as judicial question
It wonld be extraordinary, almost in
conceivable, to suppose they did not sc
consider it. With The prospect of hav'
ing to try the matter, lift were judicial
as Court of Impeachment, it could bC
possible that they did not regard it rs 4
political question.
He reminded that the largest votes
for conviction, in Humphreys case,
were on the articles charging thim with
having prejudged a case and having al
lowed juryman to sit who acknOwl
edged he had formed an opinion
Again, they had al interest in the result
Twenty million dollars of the patron
age, and the powers of tho Executiv,
office, were the prizes offered them fol
conviction. Their political prejudice,
too, he argued, joined with other con
Sl0eratlOnS, caused Iuelu 10 cast OUT IL
improper for theirSlecision charges nj
leging violation Of their own law.
Passing then to the general considera
ton of the evidence introduced in sup
port of the articles of impeachment
he characterized it as absurdiy Insult
cient, although the Managers had pos
sessed every considerable advantage il
the preliminary privileges of eXaminin.
witnesses and in q hundred other ways
In support of the charges of ObStruct
ing reconstruction, there was the Par
sons dispatch, while Wood, the cllict
seeker, was the only witness TO nphOlC
the accusation Of the abuse of the ap
pointing power. The staple of thei
speeches consisted of matter twice re
iected by the House as not warrantin!
impeachment, yet Mr.. Stevens though
the introduction of the eleventh article
indispensable to conviction, rs he said
the Court would De green not to acqui
on tho other ten.
Mr.. Butlernow conteuded that if con
victiOn failed on the first, it would be
useless to look to the eleventh
To the articles about the President