Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-05-14


struction of the Constitution, and the
Thirty-ninth Congress was wrong, is il
strange that he should doubt or dispute the
constitutionality of the Tenure of Office
act? But all this is aside of the question
whether Mr.. Stanton's case is included in
the provisions of that act. II it was not
as think it clearly was not, then the ques-
tion of intent is not In issue, for he did no
unlawful act. If it was included, then
ask whether, in view of the facts, the Pres
ident's guilty intent to do an unlawful act
shines with such clear and certain light a.
to justify, to require US to pronounce him
guilty of a high constitutional crime or
misdemeanor? The Manager, Mr.. Bout
well, admits that "if law passed by Con-
gress be equivocal or ambiguous in its
terms, the Executive being called upon to
administer, NAV apply his own best judy
ment to the difficulties before him, or may
seek counsel of his advisers or other per-
sons, and acting thereupon, without
evil intent or purpose, he would be
ciple of right could he be held
TO answer as for misdemeanor in Office"
Does no: this admission cover the case? Is
there not doubt about the legal construc-
ton of the Tenure of Office act? Shall we
condemn the President for following the
counsel of his advisers and for putting pre-
ciSely the same construction upon the first
section of the act that was put upon it
when we enacted it into a law? 1t is not
necessary for me to refer to another state
ment by manager in order to sustain my
view of this case, but allude to it only to
put on record my reprobation of the doc
trine announced. 1t was said that the Sem
ate, for the purpose of deciding whether
the respondent is innocent or guilty, can,
enter into no inquiry as to the constitution
allty OF the act which it was the Presi-
dents duty to execute, and which upon his
own answer and by repeated official con-
fessions and admissions, he Intentionally.
wiltully, deliberately set aside and violated.
cannot believe it to be our duty to convict
the President of an infraction of law
when in our consciences we believe the
law itself to be invalid, and, therefore, hav-
ing no binding effect. If tn /, law is uncon-
stitutional, it is null and void, and the Pre-
sident has committed no offence and done
no act deserving impeachment. Again the
Manager said: 1.-The constitutional duty of
the President is to obey and execute the
laws. He has no authority under the con-
stitution or by any law to enter into any
schemes or plans for the purpose of
testing the validity of the laws of the
country, either judicially or otherwise
Every law of Congress may be test
ed in the courts, but it is not made
the duty of any person to SO
test the laws.'' Is this so ? 1t is
not denied. think, that the constitutional
validity of this law could not be tested
before the courts unless case was made
and presented to them. No such case
could be made unless the President made a
removal. That act of his would necessarily
be the basis on which the case would rest.
He is sworn to preserve, protect and de-
fend the Constitution OF the United States"
He must defend it against all encrOach-
ments from whatever quarter. A question
| q hatupon thQ lnUislQtiUo ayld pYapr1tivQ
departments as to their relative powers in
the matter of removals and appointments
| to Office. That question was: Does the Con-
sttution confer on the President the power
which the tenure of office act seeks to take
away? 1t was a question manifestly of
construction and inter probation. The Con-
sttution has provided common al bitter in
such cases OF controversy-the Supreme
Court of the United States. Before that
tribunal can take jurisdiction removal
must be made. The President attempted
| to give the court Jurisdiction in that way
for doing SO he is impeached, and for the
reason, as the Managers say, that ''he has
no authority under the Constitution, or
by any law to enter into any scheme
the validity of the laws of the coun-
try, ether judicially or otherwise." If this
| be true, then, if the two houses of Congress
should pass by two-thirds vote over the
Presidents veto an act depriving the
President of the right to exercise it only in
a single case for the purpose of testing the
constitutionality of the law, he would be
guilty of high crime and misdemeanor
and Impeachment accordingly. The Man.
ayers theory establishes at once the com.
plete supremacy of Congress over the Other
branches of Government. 1 can give my
assent to no such doctrine. This was 6
s'punitive'' statute. 1t was directed against
4 IL oil inf rod rrrit 2 l1e
prerogatives of his department, as recog.
nized from the foundation of the Govern
ment. 1t wrested from him powers which
according to the legislative and judicia
construction of eighty years, had been be-
slowed upon him by the Constitution itself
In my opinion it was not only proper, bu
| it was his duty to cause the disputed ques
ton to be determined in the manner an(
by the tribunal established for such pur
poses. This Government can only be pre-
served and the liberty of the people main
!, Ltained by preserving intact the co-ordinat
branches of it, legislative, executive. judi
cial. alike. l am no convert to any doctrine
of the omnipotence of Congress. But it il
!, said that in our legislative capacity we hav,
J several times decided this question, and tina
our judgments on this trial are theref Jr
foreclosed. AS for myself, l have done M
act, given no vote, uttered DO word, incon
sistent with my present position. l neve
believed Mr.. Stanton came within the pro
visions OF the tenure of office act, and
never did any act or gave any vote indicat
ing such belief. If / had done so 1 shoult
| not consider myself precluded from revis
= ing any Judgment then expressed, for | an
: now acting in another capacity, under th
5 sanction OF a new oath, after full eXami
t Lation of the facts and with the aid of
2 thorough discussion of the law as appli
cable to them. The hasty and inconsider
| eIoS afkO ff,n 01cf of Eoh
: ruary may have been and probably was
sufficient justification for the action of tn
} House or Representatives, as the grand in
e quest of the nation, in presenting their ar
e ticles of impeachment. But it furnishes NJ
e reason or apology to us for acting other
, wise than under the responsibilities of ou
: iudicial oath, since assumed. The tent
= article charges that, in order to sbring int
l disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt an
5 reproach the Congress of the Unite'
4 States and the several branche
, thereof, to impair and destroy tn
/ regard and respect of all the good peopl
of the United States for the Congress ant
, legislative power thereof, which all officer
of the Government ought inViolably to pre-
serve and maintain, and to excite the odiun
f and resentment of all the good people o
: the United States against Congress, and tn
/ laws by it duly and constitutionally enact
d. ed and in pursuance of his said design an
t intent, openly and publicly, and befor
2 divers assemblages of the citizens of tn
United States sconvenedin divers parts there
l of to meet and receive said Andrew Johnso
t as the Chief Magistrate of the United States
: did. on the eighteenth day of August, il
E the year of our Lord 1866, AMI on diver
t other days aud times as well before as at
e terward, make and deliver with lou
: voice certain incorporate, inf1ammator!
| and scandalOus harangues, and did therei
E utter loud threats and bitter menaces."-
These speeches were made in 1856; the.
were addressed to promiscuous popular AS
: sembies and were unattended by any of
, ficiaI act. They were made by the Presi
: dent in his character of a citizen. The.
t were uttered against the Thirty ninth Con
gress, which ceased to exist more than
5 year ago. That body deemed them t