Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-04-26
LATEST 1'ELEGRAMS.
MIDNIGHT DISPATCHES.
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
Speech Of MIR. GrOeSbeek.
CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS.

CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS
senate.
WASHINGTON, April 25.-The Chief
Justice stated that the first business in or
der was the order offered by Mr.. Edmunds
yesterday, to admit official reporters to re-
port the proceedings on the final question.
Mr.. Edmunds, at the suggestion of sew
eral Senators, moved its postponement
until Monday.
Mr.. Drake moved an indefinite post
ponement, which wac objected TO by vote
of twenty against twenty
The motion to postpone to Monday was
agreed to.
Mr.. Sumner offered two additional rules,
which went over.
Mr.. Groesbeck then addressed the Senate
on the part Of the President. After a few
Introductory remarks he proceeded to con-
slider the question whether or notthe Senate
is now sitting as court, and said that he
would not discuss in it the light of English
precedents, but with reference to our own
Constitution, which countenanced neither
the bill of altainder nor irresponsible tri-
bunaIs to be laws unto Themselves,
He first called attention to the fact that
the provisions Of the Constitution, as first
drafted, contemplated the impeachment as
formal practice and neglect of duty in
office, but those adopted peremptorially
for treason, bribery, and similar high
crimes and misdemeanors. He then chal-
lenges the proof to show that during any
of the trials which form our precedents of
the idea, that the Senate was not court or
- hoa,, 4 ,o1 10 rod from
the records of each their language, in
which the Senate on all those occasions
styled itself the court. He also quoted
Story and other authorities to show the
judicial character of the Senate and the
qualifications they must bring to the dis
charge of their obligations. In reference
to their Jurisdiction, he held that the only
question for them TO decide was that of
crime or no crime, and further, that no
action could be so considered in connection
with which evil intention was not brought.
He illustrated this proposition by con-
sidering homicide committed by a mad
man; the suppositiOn that the President
should violate the law after losing his
reason, and by reference to the acts of Mr..
Lincoln in constituting military tribunal
| in the loyal States, which conduct, though
pronounced destitute of warrant by the
Supreme Court, had been upheld by Con-
gress on the ground that the motive was
good. Having thus, as he claimed, shown
the falsity of the doctrine advanced by the
managers on that subject, he said he should
| consider the question whether the Presi-
| nent had right TO remove Mr. Stanton
| and grant letter of authority TO General
| Thomas, for on those two issues hung the
| fate of eight of the articles. As to the first
| point, he held that the civil tenure law did
not apply to Mr.. Stanton, because he
was not appointed by Mr.. johnson !;
| but even if Mr.. johnson did not serve his
| own but Mr.. Lincoln's term, Mr.. Stanton's
| tenure of office expired one month after
the expiration of his first term, and if Mr..
Lincoln was now living, Mr.. Stanton could
be removed by him. In support of his
| proposition that the President had power
| to remove Mr.. Stanton under the law of
| 1889, Mr. Groesbeck quoted the letter OF
Mr.. Adams to Mr.. Picking announ cling to
| him not that he was to be removed, but
| that he was actually removed and a sue
cessOr appointed. He said his feeble
health to-day obliged him to pass by with
| a mere reference to the utterances of Sena-
tors at the time of the passage of the
tenure Of Office bill, and the fact
| that it did not profess to repeat the act
| of 1889, and went on to argue that as all
| admitted there was room for doubling the
constitutionality of the law, and that the
President had availed himself of the conn
sci of those specially designated by the
Constitution to give it to him, he must
be held guiltless of crime. 10 constituting
il as he did, in regard to the constitution
ality Of that law, he adverted to the fact
that those who framed it he could not ad-
dress with much hope of changing their
| opinion, but he would make the inquiry
| whether, assuming its constitutionality, the
! Presidents action could be deemed crim-
nal In abiding to portion of Mr.. Bout
| wells speech, he denied that the President
was merely the servant of Congress to
execute their lava; his oath of office re-
/ quired him first to maintain the Constitu-
| ton. He further combatted the position
assumed by the honorable managers that
the President ia required to execute all
laws, even if they are pronounced unconsti-
| tutional by the Supreme Court, claiming
| that in such cases he was bound by his
higher obligation.
He recited various well known princi-
| pies of Interpretation one of which was
| that long settled practice determined the
construction Of law. He claimed that the
meaning of the act of 1889, was so de-
termined and fixed by government usage
| and judicial decisions, that the President
had the right to challenge the constitu-
tionality of law in conflict with, and yet
not repeating the old law, which had been
framed and 30 long construed as embody-
ing the principles of the Constitution re-
| gaTding the power of removal. At this
| point the Senate took a recess.
On reassembling Mr.. Groesbeck resumed.
| His argument maintaining the debates in
| Congress in 1889, proved the CORRECTNESS of
| the Presidents construction laws then
| passed. He then cited the acts of 1879 in
| relation to the Postoftice Department, and
those of 1925 and 1849, creating the NAVY,
Postofice and Interior Departments, al a.
| Stunning or affirming the right of removal
| by the President as sci forth in the acts of
1889.
Against all this preponderance Of con
stru ction and precedent, there was opposed
only the act Of 1867, and Mr. Groesbeck
claimed there was truly ground for doubt
| and hesitation on the part Of the President
| sufficient to induce him to resist it with a
view of having the matter determined by
the Supreme Court. He asked if the Presi-
dent was to be convicted because be had
acted on the Interpretation sanctioned By
his constitutional advisers, by the thirty
eighth Congress and Supreme Court, aud
| by the uniform practice Of the government?
Describing the character Of the relations be-
tween the President and Mr.. Stanton, Mr..
| Groesbeck insisted that it was shown by
| the testimony of General Sherman and
others that the President acted in the pub
| lie interest in removing him He also