Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-05-07
LATEST TELEGRAMS.
MIDNIGHT DISPATCHES
TIE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
Conclusion Of Mr.. Bingham'S
Speech.
CONVERSATIONAL. PRoCEEDrNCs.

Speech.
CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS.
senate.
WASHINGTON, May 6.-The court opened
with the usual formalities, and Mr.. Bing-
ham at once resumed his argument, begin
ing with a restatement.of his proposition,
that the acts Of 1889 and 1890 had ceased
to be laws, but maintaining that said acts
gave the President no power to I'LL yacaR-
cies in Offices Of head of departments
without the consent of the Senate. The
act of 1889 permitted him to create va
cancy in one department, but resisted him
from choosing the chief clerk to I'll it, The
act of 1895 went further applying to the
other departments, but limited to COM
mission to term of six months, and was
thus, clearly, grant of power, and that,
too, restricted the grant. The act of 1868
abrOgates the statues of 1889 and 1895, and
again restricts him in his choice of ad in-
term appointees. Ii thus appears that in
all the legislation on the subject, the en-
tire control of Congress over it, is assumed
and illustrated. He then cited nor
tions of the tenure of office act, to
show the previous acts referred to. He
also claimed that the argument of Mr.. Cur
It's asserted that the heads of departments
appointed by President Lincoln, are not
within the provisO, and adopting this in
depreciation, he said it followed they were
covered by the body of the section. He
proceeded TO argue this point at length,
maintaining that the Presidential term was
four years, or a Presidents death or disa-
bility, his successor serving the unexpired
portion, otherwise the appOintee vice-Pres-
ident would have to vacate the office one
month after the disability of the President
should be removed but the wording Of
the act is net the term during which they
we're appointed, but the term of the Presi-
dent BY whom they were appointed. There
was no such intention in the minds of its
trainers, and the act cannot be 80 construed.
He argued that the proVisO had no retro
speotiYe action, and did not, for certain
purposes of the art make new terms; then
combating the composition of Mr.. Groes-
beck that if MIR. Stanton was not protected
by the tennre of Office act, the first eight
articles must fail, he argued that whether
Mr.. Stanton was affected by il or not, the
President had committed an impeaehable
ofense, because all the power of appoint
ment granted him by the acts Of 1899 and
1895 was abrogated by the act of 1867
but, he asked, why were such lengthy ar
gnments made in attempting to prove the
unconstitutiOnality of that law, if the eoun-
sci did not feel and know Mr.. Stanton was
protested by it and that .it repealed all
former grants of power to remove and
appoint the heads of departments. He
alluded to the conferences having been held
between the President and Gen. Thomas
in relation to the advisability of suspend
ing the execution of their schemes until
the result of the trial should be known. Re-
ferring TO the language Of Mr.. Nelson, who
said the President was willing to abide by
the trial, he regretted his Highness had
not signifed his pleasure TO abide by the
judgment as we'll. Mr.. Bingham charac-
terized the Presidents iAtimatiou, through
his counsel, that he did not believe the Sen
ale was duly constituted to sit az court so |
long as some States were unrepresented, as |
a. piece Of arrogance, and he, Bingham,
would not be surprised if the President, |
tomorrow, should issue a military order |
dissOlving the court In such case, their |
answer would be the words of Mirabean,
which he proceeded TO recite. He then re. |
ferred TO the Presidents language to Gen. |
Emory, al a suggestion 10 the commander,
in-chief that he would stand by him in a vio- |
lation of law. This, taken in connection with |
his declaration to Grant, wOnld in any |
other country have been sufficient 10 have |
cost him his head II was not a charge to |
be sneezed at, as he believed that the |
counsel had done. Mr.. Bingham then
took up the tenth ARTICLE, and argued that |
the Presidents language not only Violated |
decency, but was the language Of sedition. |
He also claimed that the sedtion Law so /
often referred to as unconstitutional, had |
never been so pronounced by the courts. /
1t was necessary in times Of danger, and /
under Mr.. Jefferson its provisions had /
been re-enacted so far as to apply tc the
military and naval seryiQes, which provis-
ions remain in force. lie also claimed
that seditious utterances by any executive
officer are indictable under the common
law in the District of Columbia. He stood
for virluous constitutional liberty of
speech, but against a seditious license,
which would shake the security of peace
fnl government and reach even the dead
in their griYes. '
Reviewing the charge of the eleventh
ARTICLE, he said Mr.. Parsons telegram was
introduced not to prove a violation of the
reconstruction acts, which we're passed six
months subsequently, but in support of an
allegation that he opposed the ratification |
Of the Constitutional amendment. Read
ipg that telegram, he claimed that the |
President, in referring to Congress as set
Of individuals, used the language Of a CON
spirator and not an honest man. His
whole purpose in opposing the amendment
was to revive the Lost Cause. Eulogizing |
what be deemed the henefcent character
nt the 4th article, he animadgerted on the
President in sey I've terms for his opposition
to it, and said that the people o. a.. 81" Dnlted
States had indeed rightly Judged Of his
Intentions. He would remind the Senators
that many of the offenses charged in the
llth article, were indietable 10 the District |
of Columbia also chat the avermentsI
were Invisible. Assuming, then, that he
had made it clear to every Senator thatthe
substance of the averments of all the ar.
ticles were established on evidence adduced
and law administered, he then claimed
that the American people would coincide
in the opinion, and went on to consider the
4
Presidents answer, which he held were, of
sufficient 10 warrant his con-
viction. Referring to his previous argu-
ments, he insisted that the Presidents as
of Judicial prerogatives, was a
crime in violation of the Constitution,
which called for his deposition, and that
the President, by his own confession, was
guilty Of usurpation. Mr.. Bingham then
urged the determination Of the people
10 see that the Constitution was main
-ained, and passing an elaborate eul0gism
on the majesty and divine character Of law.
he proceeded to draw a parallel between
lanes the Second and Andrew johnson,
md claimed. as his usuupalions were SINH.
ar, the Presidents punishment should also
,e analogous and EQUALLY severe. Refer
ing TO the triumph Of liberty and law in I,
he struggle just ended, he said he could
rot believe its glorious fruits would now
,e thrown away, and the principles Of our 7
Constitution and free government denied.