New-York tribune., 1868-04-27
MR. GROESBECK,S ARG UlIENT.

1
with the remarkable statement that it is not
wise TO apply the remedy of impeachment to
all elective officers, as it was invented for those
which are held by inheritance or for life. The
authors OF our Constitution thought otherwise
They provided expressly for impeachng q
President. Mr.. Groesbeck thinks We should
wait until the people can remove them by re-
fusing to reClect them. The indulgence OF a
private fancy of this kind on blr. Groesbeck's
part is perfectly innocent, though entirely un-
warranted, but is of no sort of consequence to
the Senate or to the world
Upon the question whether the Senate is to
be styled Court, Mr.. Groesbeck is very sue
ccssfu lie shows that the Senate has styled
itself Court in the course of the proceedings
| in each of the impeachment cases that have
| been tried before it. These he declares to be
five in number. though further research would
have satisfied him that they were six. We are
glad that Mr.. Groesbeck has succeeded in
showing that the body he addressed is "A Court,
for if so it must be Senate whereas the
speeches Of the President which are in evil
dcnce show that he regarded it merely as
something claiming to be a Senate"
We think Mr.. Groesbeck is in error in stating,
as he so frequently does, that the Senate can
| tIy the President only for crimes, when the
| Constitution declares that he may he removed,
not only for crimes but for misdemeanOrs,
which are defined to be ill-behayior, fault, or
mi,management. According to Mr.. Groes-
beck, if the President should become in
sane, and should in his insanity kill
Senators and violate every law, he could not
| be impeachcd or removed, because he would
have committed no crime. No illustration could
| show more forcibly the necessity of holding that
| the authors Of the Constitution did not use the
| term misdcmeauOrsr without meaning; but
| that they intended to provide for cases of mis-
behavior which might not amount to crimes,
| aud yet might render the Presidents removal
far more necessary than many crimes.
MIR. Groesbeck comedies that to obtain the
| acquittal of the President it must be shown
that he had the right to remove Stanton and
to appoint Thomas. The self-sacrificing devo-
ton with which he enters on this task is like
that of the colored saint and probable martyr
who declared that if the Lord should command
| him to jump through stone wall forty feet
thick, he would at least jump at it. The
| Tenure Office act provided that Stanton
should remain in his Office during the term
" of the President by whom he was appointed"
The President by whom he appointed"
was Abraham Lincoln, whose term ends March
4, 1869 Mr.. Groesbeck's point is that the dead
can have no term hence that Mr.. Linc0lns
term ended at his death. According to Mr.
Groesbeck's discovery, Harrison served to the
end Of his term. Taylor did not untimely die
in the first months of his term, but ut the close
of it. Lincoln expired 10y assassination only
after he had served ont in full his second term.
And Johnson, if he Senate shall remove him
tomorrow, can have no possible ground of
complaint, since they will have allowed him to
serve TO the end of his term and Washington
did not do more These instances of the alb
surdity of Mr. Groesbeck's definition of the
word term" show that the authors of the
Constitution understood the correct use of Ian
guage when they declared that the Presidents
term should be " four years" Mr. Johnson
therefore is serving out Mr.. Lincoln's second
term. and the term of the President by whom
Mr.. Stanton was appointed is not yet ended.
Mr. Groesbeck evinces how small IN esti-
mate the counsel for "A usllrping President may
set on the powers of Congress, by asserting
that if the Tenure of Office law did require the
consent of the Senate to the removal of Stanton,
it would enlarge the term of that body, which,
he says. would be unconstitutional! He does
not state what clause of the Constitution
would be violated. We assume, therefore, that
we are indebted for this new light to the same
private inspiration which reveals exclusively to
Mr. Groesbecl that elective officers ought not
to be impeached.
Mr.. Gr0esbeck argues that because the com
mission of Mr.. Stanton. as of all similar officers,
runs during the pleasure of the President"
Congress has no power to pass an act which
shall conflict with it. The commission is n
letter OF appointment mere credential or
certificate issued for the purpose ostensibly of
satisfying those who might be skeptical upon
the point that its bearer holds a certain office.
Its form is of so little moment that Congress
has never taken pains to prescribe it, but has
left it to the President and his Secretaries
Does Mr.. JOhnson's signature invest such
document with such potency that Congress can
pass 10 act in conflict with it2 The American
people are not in the mood for that kind of fe- |
itch worship which would make Presidents |
signature authority above the laws and on |
par with the Constitution. Mr.. Groesbeck is of |
opinion that because the Tenure off, Office Act |
contains no clause repeating prior laws incon-
sstent with it, TREY are still in force. Perhaps |
such assumptions are necessary to the making
of any argument for the President. IL they are,
let us hope that, in that plenitude of mercy on
which we all rely for the remission of our
otfenses, they will be forgiven.
On this basis Mr.. GrOosbeck cites the legis-
tion Of Congress and the appointments and re-
movals by the President to show that the
President has heretofore exercised the uower