The Vermont transcript. [volume] (St. Albans, Vt.) 1864-1870, 1868-03-06
The Impeachment Question.
REMARKS OF MR.. POLAND OF VERMONT,
FEBRUARY "a. 1868.

members Ofthis House, to my constitu-
ents, and to the country, that / voted
against preferring the articles of inn
parchment of the President which were
reported by majority of the judiciary
Committee at the commencement Of the
present session. Is it not needful that |
enter into any detailed statement of the
reasons upon which the vote was given
But | will say that from a careful ex-
animation of all the evidence taken and
reported to us by the Judiciary Commit
tee | was not satisfied that the President
had been guilty of any such express and
specific violations of law, or of sany such
willful and corrupt official misconduct
as would legally authorize conviction
by the Senate.
| was not, perhaps, as much affected
by the political aspects and consequent
ces ofthe question as some other persons,
here and elsewhere; but could not re-
sist the beliefthat under the circumstan-
ces prosecution of impeachmenta against
the President would be regarded by the
people a. persecution, and prove disas-
trous to the party upon whom must rest
its responsibility.
Besides these reasons, / desired, if pos
sible, to avoid the disgrace and obloquy
which such proceeding would bring
upon republican institutions and govern
ment among other nations and peoples
of The earth.
/ have not been able to approve the
course of the President for the last two
years more than other members of my
political party. | considered that in
Congress, as the law making department
of the Government, rested the power
Al nd duty of prescribing the forms, terms
no
ing and rebelling States should again be
restored 10 their places in the Union.
and when the determination of Con-
gress had been expressed on that sub
ject by the constitutional majority over
the objections OF the President, that il
was his duty to fOrego his own private
views and in good faith to execute their
law as the will Of the people. That he
did not do so, but, on the contrary. so
far as was in his power without express
~ violating the law desired and de-
signed that the legislation of Congress
should prove frutile and unavailing, |
was forced TO believe. NOtwithstand-
ing this, believed il was safer and wiser
to endure the evil for the short remain
der of the Presidents term than TO risk
the perils incidental to this new trial Of
our system of government by an attempt
IA.
| was gratified that my own view OF
the proper action TO be taken proved to
be in harmony with majority of NV
political friends in this House. have
reason to believe, too, that my own i'm
mediate constituents very few ofwhom
are admirers of the President or of his
policy concurred in the judgment by
which | was governed.
| am still fully satisfied with the rea.
sons and conclusions Of my own mind,
feel neither conjunction or regret even
when gentlemen who took the opposite
view somewhat triumphantly and COM
placently vaunt their superior wisdom
~ demonstrated by more recent events.
did most earnestly hope that no new
cause of irritation would arise, and that
al least no juster and more imperative
reason for Impeachment proceedings
against the President would be afforded.
But in this hope have been dissappoint-
ed. The President has openly and pur-
posely detied and set at naught a law
passed by ourselves according to all the
forms and requirements of the Constitu-
ton. In attempting the removal of the
Secretary Of War and the devOlution Of
the duties upon another without the
consent OF the Senate, he has commit
ted an act which we have declared by "A
law OF Congress to be high misdemean-
or, to be punished by a severe fine and
imprisonment. | do not understand
that this has been done by the President
upon any claim of doubt or doubtful in
depreciation Of the law, upon which diff
ferent minds might come honestly to
different results as 10 his right and pow
er under and by the law, but upon the |
broad ground that the law itselfis inval- !
id o. cJntravening the presidential pow
er TO remove persons from under the |
Constitution.
Since this discussion has been pending,
| have heard it suggested by friends OF /
ure OF Office act or March, 1867 because |
heY'as appointed to office and confirmed |
the President that he claimed, and had |
been advised, that the Secretary OF War !
wasnot within the provisions of the "ten |
by the senate during Mr.. LincoIn's first |
term in the,presidential Office, and had |
never been formally reappointed and |
confirmed since the commencement |
of his second term. | have not exam |
ined the question sufficiently to satisfy |
myself whether there is any reasonable |
ground TO make such question. | |
think il clear that the President has not |
in fact acted upon any such ground, but |
for the reason set forth in his veto mes |
sage-that the law itself was invalid |
The President treated the Secretary of |
War as within the provisions of the act, |
and suspended him for alleged cause ar |
he might properly do, and submitted his |
reasons for the suspension to the Senate. |
! have seen nothing from the President /
himself, either in his official utterances /
or those of more private character, |
which have become public through the |
press, which claim any other justifica
ton for his recent action than the law
itself was not binding upon him. | feel |
very sure that ii his action in this re-
spect is allowed to pass unrebuked it
will be claimed by him and his friends
as a triumph over the law itself, and
surrender by Congress to the President |
of the constitutional question involved
in the passage OF The law. | cannot
therefore, allow myself to treat this as "A
question of honest difference of opinion |
between the President and Congress on
the construction OF the law, which |
agree would not, in my judgment, be a
good ground of Impeachment. / treatit
rs | think the President has treated it,
as involving the question whether the
President is bound by the laws enacted
by Congress by the constitutional ma
jority over his constitutional objections.
i am aware LIlAI Lnt extent OF the
presidential power to remove officers, to
whose appointment the consent of the
Senate was requisite, has been from the
formation of the Constitution, a much
debated and controverted subject. In
passing the tenure-of-office act, Congress
attempted to settle and define the presi-
Dental power in this respect. They
acted in the light Of the Constitution it
self, and all the discussions and practice
and presidents under it. They deter
mined that by the Constitution the pow
er of removal was coextensive with the
power of appointment, and that where
the consent of the Senate was necessary
to the appointment it was equally neces-
sary in order TO a removal and the law
was enacted in accordance with that
view.
The President honestly believed |
have no doubt, that the law trenched
upon his constitutional power of remov-
al and he returned the bill to Congress,
stating his views and his objections to
its constutionality. On solemn recon-
sideration of the bill, with the objections
of the President before them, both
Houses of Congress, by more than two
thirds of each branch, reenactedit. The
,,rouidao th at in a,ich ayauf |