New-York tribune., 1868-03-05
IMPEACHMENT AND PAR11SANSBIP.

We entirely agree with those journals which
deprecate a partisan" trial of the President
1t would be deplorable to have the Chief Magis-
trate of the country arraigned and condemned
upon charges that should have no standing
outside of Republican convention. We are
very sure this will not happen i'll the present
Senate.
The impeachment question has been Singh
larly free from partisanshp so far the Re
publican party is concerned. If there had been
the least desire to impeach Nh johnson be-
cause of his infdelity to that party, 1t could
have been done at any time. We had the
power, and certainly the temptation. Here was
the candidate of our chOice-our President
fresh in Office. with the sacred duty of recon-
structing the Union before us. 1t was
annoying to see him deliberately be-
gin his Administration by a conspiracy
against the party, by giving Offices to Demo-
Gratis, refusing aid to the Republicans in their
New-York canvass, and, finally, by his Phila-
delphia Convention cOntrivance-in itself per
fidious. If the Republican party had been
actuated by motives of partisanship, it might
easily have found pretexts for the impcach-
ment of the President. We believe not one
IN ten of us but felt that the New Orleans
riot was in itself an impeachable ofense,
as well as the swinging around the
circle expedition. These we're major griey-
ances. We knew they affected the cOnscien-
tious mind of Mr.. Bennett so acutely that he
clamOred for impeachment IN season and out
of season, while even Mr.. Raymond was
so concerned that he feared the safety
land unity of the Republic - demanded
"harsher means of restraint Our own feel
ing was-and we clung to it until we stood
almost alOne-that impeachment should be
avoided until it was necessary for the peace of the
country. Impeachmentfo for political differences OF
opinion, or for merely moral of1enses, would be
unwise, and so we constantly argued. We knew
the tremendous power of party holding almost
absolute possession of Congress, and under
high stress of party discipline, the temptation,
the danger, the impulses Of anger and revenge
! that surrounded it, To its praise be it said
that the Republican party held this power and
| patiently endured Mr.. Johnson for three years.
1t would have endured him until the end If ne
had not presumed upon its forbearance, and, re-
garding patience as cowardce, openly and
insolently defed the law.
Here was a plain transgressOn of the law.
Not one of his defenders denies it. Even the
Editor of The World, who has never scruDled
to defend everything Democratic, insists that
we must not judge the act but the mOtive-we
must not consider his deeds, but sit in in
scrutable judgment upon the intentions.
Instead of defending the President,
his best friends have apOlogzed for
him, and sought reasons for his con-
duct. lie did not mean to break the law. and
therefore should not be held to answer. He
wanted TO know whether the law was law, and
so transgressed. man may doubt the cOnsti-
tutionality of the criminal law, and test it by
stealing his neighbOr's watch. We fancy that
Recorder Hackett would not permit the pris-
Oner's legal scruples to induce stay OF
sentence. Robert j. Walker, Democrat high
in the party, and lawyer learned in the law,
fully expressed the opinion of every honest
Democrat. al told Gen. Thomas" said
Mr.. Walker, "that he had no right, nor
chad the President, to disobey law of Con-
" gress upon the assumption that it was uncon-
" stitutional and that if this were not so, the
" President might set aside all the laws of
Congress since the foundation of the Govern
"ment upon the ground that they were uncOn-
"stitutional. That the President possessed no
" such power because it was not nm executive,
"but exclusively judicial power and that all
" the laws of Congress must be Obeyed and
executed by the President, unless their execu-
" ton was restrained by the highest judicial
authority This is plain, logical, just. The
Republican party having twice rejected i'm
peachment because it might possibly have
partisan tinge, now finds itself com
PEELED to notice an Executive act which the
Democrats themselves admit to DO illegal.
Yet what course do the Democrats take
Certainly, if the President breaks the law, no
must answer for it, IT. as they contend, he has
done so unwittinely. or for wise purpose,
then they owe it to him that he should have
an opportunity Of making defense in a court
of impeachment. If the Democrats were true
TO their professions, they would most certainly
have voted for impeachment Conscious of the
Presidents innocence, strong in the knowledge
of his rectitude all they could desire would be
a court to hcquit him of the most serious
charge that can be brought against Chief
Magistrate.
This has not been done The Democrats
have acted in partisan manner In all the
debates of the House and Senate they have
voted as a party to delay, obstruct, and de-
feat this most solemn and righteous proceed
ing. Read tho speeches of Mr.. Brooks and
Judge Woodward as illustrating this tendency
They threaten defiance of the law, and advise
usurpation, while tho Senators from Kentucky
insist that the Senate should declare itself not
Senate. Nay, more, in the ordinary proceed
ings Of the House, such as counting ballot.