Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-05-05
Y uout. ~ NV heo'e'
CONGRESSIONAL.

lot be QOuc. IN not nhbte'
! CONGRESSIONAL.
In the Senate, May 4, after the reading
,f the Journal, Mr., Bingham commenced
he final argument for the prosecution.
Protesting that he took part in these
from no partisan feeling,
but with weighty sense Of their
and true meaning, he then
proceeded to sketch the events attending
upon the assassination Of President Lin
coin and the accession Of Andrew john
SON to the Presidency, and referring to
his oath to execute the laws, spoke OF
their majestic supremacy in our form OF
and claimed that the Presi-
dent was equally subject to their
authority with the humblest frontier
settler. He dwelt on the high trust
to the Senate, and asserted
that the issues of life and death hung on
their decision; he asked how the charge
of violation of supreme law was met by
the counsel, who for hire defend the
treason Of the criminal respondent 1t
was by the outrageous assertion that each
branch of the Government had the right
10 Judge Of the constituuonality OF Laws,
and obey them or not at pleasure. This
WAS the defense. Mr.. Bingham held that
the Senate, by upholding this PROPOSE
ton. would lay the foundation for mon
arcby first and anarchy next, reign OF
chronic darkness on this issue which. IN
snite of lawyers tricks and special pleas,
was the real question involved; and
their decision must stand for trial by the
people. He repeated that the question
was whether the President could be held
TO answer for violation of law. He
held first, that the. Senate had the
sole power to decide every ques-
tion of law or fact arising there
from, and also that they were the
final arbiters, and the frequent attempts
of the counsel to bring the Senate and
Court into opposition to each other were
miserable devices to divert attention. He
would not, he said, initiate the eloquent
counsel (Mr. Evarts) who had shown
himself an eater up of syllables, snap
ner up of trihes, and who had displayed
more Latin than law, more, rhetoric than
logic: and referring to the length of Mr..
Evarts' speech, said that he tried to
render it immortal by making it eternal
Mr. Bingham said be simply held that
tha Senate was the supreme and final
;uHcial tribunal of the United States,
and as to the argument which had
been made at such intermlnable
length that the Supreme Court
was the Court of the last resort
of the decisions of constitutional
questions, he held that be had no more
to do with the present question thaa the
court of St Petersburg, and that the
judgments of this tribunal should not be
affected by the decisions of the Supreme
Court. made before or after the inn
parchment trial. He argued that the
original jurisdiction Of the Supreme
Court did not extend to impeach nents,
and that the reference of the counsel to
its decisions we're irrelevant, and their
arguments on this point were without
colorable excuse. He then considered
the proposition advanced by the counsel,
that the heads Of departments we're
merely the registering secretaries of the
President and bound TO do his will, and
reading from the decisions OF the Su-
preme Court quoted by Mr.. Evarts, he
claimed that it was therein plainly
laid down that such officers were bound
bv the LAYS and not by the Presidents
will. He also claimed that the other
positions claimed by all the Presidents
counsel, that he could sit in judgment
on the validity of laws, was oyeFthrown
BIZ the decision of the same tribunal
thirty years ago, which decision bad
never been questioned, and proceeded to
read extracts from them. He further
asserted that the ex- Attorney General
was wholly ineKcpsable in attempting to
force into this trial the decision of the
present presiding officer, IL the Mlssls-
sippi case, as an authority, and argued
that 1t had no relevancy whatever
to the question in dispute. de
claimed that it was proved that we
could not allow the President dis
erection as to which law he would
execute by interpreting the words of the
Constitution, and referred to the act of
Washington in suppFessing the whisky
and that of jackson in
crushing out notification, as instances in
which obnoxious laws were executed by
Presidents who entertained grave doubts
as to their constitutionality, and also
spoke of the constitutional question in
yolved. He then discussed the constitu-
tional provisions relative to the passage
of bills over a veto, maintaining that
every ore Who has learned to read can
plainly settle the question whether or
not the President broke a lay. Refer
ring to the recitation by Nelson, he com
tended that it had no bearing on the
case, and that Jefferson, its author, was
not authority in regard to the Constitu-
ton which he did not help to frame; and
reading the list Of powers granted to
the President by the Constitution, he
called attention to the fact that
no power of suspending laws, until their
validity is tested, is anywhere given him,
and held that such claim of legislative
and executive functions was in contra
gention of the express terms OF the IN
,trument. He insisted that this claim
involved also an assumption of judicial
powers. and characterized the entire
proposition as too absurd to be So bmit-
ted to children, as by the exercise OF
his assumed power the President could
suspend legislation of all kinds; he
could prevent the creation of Judicial
Districts, the erection of States, and the
election of Representatives. he then
spoke of the ENACTMENT of the revenue
avs. and the acquiescence Of the
American people in the unconstitu-
.ional and iniquitous fugitive slave
aw until its abrogstiou, and in
his connection dwelt at length on the
subject Of slavery with its various char
acteristics. He spoke Of the counsefs
reference to President Lincoln, aud that
-. &c he Qou ufrV-