The Portland daily press., 1868-05-23
The Impeachment Verdict.

The Impeachment Verdict.
Mr.. EDIroR,-The impeachment of the Pres.
ident of the United States has already passed
into history. The verdict has been rendered
and long suffering public would gladly turn
from the dreary maze of articles, evidence
arguments and opinions to living issues An.
tiquarians will probably continue to take an
interest in the threadbare discussions which
for two or three months have furnished the
staple of editorials and dispatches, but Burr's
trial would be as interesting to the general
reader as Johnson's, aud more because to this
generation it would have the charm of novel
ty. 1t an old rule which allows the lawyer
who has lost his case twenty-four hours to
curee the judge, but that limit has already
been considerably exceeded. lsHs .e
The only conceivable reason for prolonging
the discussion Of this settled question, is to
show that it had but one side and that Sena-
tors who voted ON the other side were fools or
worse. That suppose is the charitable moral
which TX" who appears to be reviewing Mr.
Fessenden's opinion point by point, is endeav-
oring to convey. If he can do it fairly, it will
not be wholly useless performance. If Mr..
iOooChuCAo opihiou 10 uuO WHCu uO Ialf-
minded man could accept, the people of Maine
ought TO know it. To show that it may be
plansibly controverted is not enough We
know already that thirty five Senators voted
in opposition to it, and it is to be supposed
that they had plausible reasons for their votes.
Both sides could not be right, but on the 9TH
er hand it is probable that neither side was
broadly and absurdly wrong. Yet unless
this can be shown the public has no further in
terest in the controversy. Legal refinements
in a case already decided have not much val
ue to unprofessonsl readers.
If "X" could have the field to himself no
doubt he could make out an ad captandune
case to suit himself Any ingenious lawyer
can do that. 1t is easy, for example, to make
Mr. .Fessenden say that because "the acts of
the President were inop erative, they const-
tuted no crime" and then to add the sarcas-
tic comment that "the idea that an act is
saved from being criminal for the single rea-
son that it is Illegal is novel one" OF
course Mr.. Fessenden never uttered any such
nonsense as this, but then most readers will
SO that the point is just as effective as if it
were well taken. The position which Mr..
Fessenden takes is that Mr. Stanton holding
his Office by virtue of a commission issued
during Mr.. Lincoln's first term and running
during the pleasure of the President for the
time being, was not covered by the proviso of
the civil tenure act, defining the term of the
Secretary of War to be the term of the Presi-
dent by whom he is appointed and one month
thereafter. Mr.. Lincoln's first term and the
month thereafter expired ON the 4th of April,
1865. No matter whether Mr.. johnson was
serving in his own term or Mr.. Lincoln's; he
is not serving in the term during which Mr..
Stanton was appointed; the terms of the,
President by whom that appointment was
made expired on the 4th of March, 1866, as alb
solutely as if Mr. Lincoln had not been re-
elected. Mr.. Stanto1.'s tenure was not there
fore affected by the civil-tenure act, but re-
mained under his commission subject to the
pleasure of the President for the time being
1t follows of course that the removal of STAN
ton and appointment of Thomas were lawful
acts. The conclusion is unwelcome but true
AS said before, it is only important to show
that this reasoning is respectable. To me,
am sorry to say it is absolutely convincing
Even tx" will hardly deny that this
OF Mr.. Fessenden's arguments, which he cley-
erly avoids, is at least respectable, Thaddeus
Stevens declared before the trial began that
he had no confidence in any of the articles ex-
cept the eleventh. 1t appears that he was
wiser than the rest of us. Mr.. Fessenden pro.
ceeds to say that even if his opinion as stated
above were erroneous, the least that could be
said would be that the application of the civ
il tenure act to Mr.. Sta nton's case is doubtful
If it was doubtful, the Presidents attempt was
one which he might well believe he had a right
to make. There was no evidence of any de-
sign to use force. To construe misapprehen-'
sion on so doubtful point as a high crime or
Mr.. Fessenden thought would
be scandalous and ridiculous. This is the sup
position, not substantive part of Mr.. Fes-
sendens opinion at all, which "X" travesties
IN such an amusing manner. His citation of
IS equai'y misleading. The key to Mr.. Fes-
sehaeh position is his statement of Mr. Stan
ton 5 tenure. Until that is exploded he can
not De disiodged. If Stanton held at the pleas
ure OF the President his removal was legal
and left a vacancy which the President had
as clear a right to fill by an appointment od
Interim as he had to fill the vacancy occasion
ed by the resignation of Attorney Genaral
stanbery, which he did by the appointment
of Mr. Browning ad interim without the slight
est objection. The illegality of the appoint
ment turns wholly upon the illegality of the
removal u.