The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1868-05-06

held that the President was responsible for
having abused the powers granted him by the
act To remove Stanton without alleging or
proving that the latter had become disquali-
fied in any way from exercising his duties.
The Senate then took recess.
On reassembling Mr.. Bingham claimed
that it had already been shown that the
President was self-convicted on the charges
contained in the lst, I'd. Sd, 9Th and 11th ar
ticles, and, proceeding to speak Of the reno
val Of Stanton, paid glowing tribute to the
public services, character and virtues Of that
calumniated officer, who had been proved
faithful among the faithless, and who, IN all
the Qualities which adorn and enoble human
natufe, had no superior in any age. Yet this
distinguished patriot had been removed with
out b eolorable excuse, in violation Of law,
to GRITTY q personal enmity OF the President.
Ut. Bingham was glad TO be able TO agree
with the counsel in one point of law, namely:
That IN unconstitutional Law was no law, but
insisted that it cannot be considered uncon>
stitutional until it has been so pronounced in
Q proper way. He would also reiterate that
an evil intent IL to be presumed from evil
acts. This was not merely matter of sre-
sumption, but of confession. TO show this
Mr.. Bingham read from the Presidents let
ter TO General Grant, in which he says, ''you
know that It was my purpose TO prevent Mr.
Stanton from resnming the duties of the of
fee Of Secretary of War" And be claimed
further, that every one, not stupid or insane,
must ,see that if Mr.. Stanton bad been kept
out of his Office, be never could have got into
the cburt and q decision never eoad have
been obtained by the Presidents defense;
that he wanted TO obtain quo Narranto was
q mere bsbble in the ears OF the Senate. He
asked why, If the Presidents purpose, in all
be did, wss to secure decision Of the Su-
preme Court, he did not initiate proesedings2
IL was because 1t was impossible for him to
do so as he knew it would be from the be-
ginning. In reply to the defense, that it was
not cAnsummsted, he said it had been long
settled that an attempt to commit a misde-
meanor wasitself an indietable misdemeanor.
de also held that any ofenss under common
law was indictable in the District Of Column
biz, according % the laws Of 1901 and 1891.
According to the Tenure-of- Office Law il made
the REMOVAL OF Stanton and the appointment
OF General Thomas q nisdemeanor, and
no intelligent man could deny that they were
impeachable otfenses only. 1he question
which remained to be considered was the
eonstitntionality Of that Law. He might sim
ply say that was closed question, TO ac-
knowledge nov that the Tenure OF Office Law,
| which, alter long discussion had been passed,
and again passed over the Presidents veto
and again approved on February 2ad. ancon-
stitutionel. viii il do for the Senate TO deny
its decision three times made, and confess Il
IL the guilty party worthy of impeachment
Mr. Bingham then took up the charges Of
conspiracy, and argued that the joint aciioa
of the President and Gen. Thomas was indict-
able under the conzpiracy act Of 1861, bu,
said that toe indictmen. Of Gen. Thomas
would be useless until after the Presidents
impeachment and conviction, since the latter
would nuilify it By the Sse Of the pardoning
power.