The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1868-04-27
The Imp eaehment Evidence All
In.
The Weakness of the Case.
Correspondence Chicago Times.

Correspondence Chicago Times.
Washington, April Il, 1868.
The evidence on both sides in the impeach
ment trial is in, and the case is closed to
that extent But two points or questions
are involved in the case. and these comprise
the only serious legal charges brought
against the presid ent. The first is: Did
the president violate the tenure-of office law?
The second is: Did he violate it knowing
and believing it to be law? But the first
proposition involves two others. These are :
First-Is the tenure-ot-office law constitu-
tional? Second-Did it include the cabinet
officers in its provisions Third-Was Mr..
Stanton an appointee of Mr.. Johnson's, or
did he merely hold over from Mr.. Lincoln s
term? Now, all the above propositions
must be proven afirmatively before Mr..
johnson can be legally convicted. That is,
it must be proved first, that he violated
the tenure-of-office law /; second, that he vio-
lated it knowing and believing it to be law !;
third that it is constitutional law fourth,
that it includes the cabinet officers in its
provisions fifth. that Mr.. Stanton is an ap-
pointee of Mr.. johnson. It may, however,
be said that it is necessary to prove that the
case is absolutely constitutional. Admitted.
But 1t must be proved that it is such a law
that no reASOUaDtG doubt OF Its CONSTITUTIONS
ality can be entertained
Thus, it will be seen that, to prove the
president legally guilty, it will require an
amount of legal acumen sufficient to over
balance the paucity of proof on the part of the
prosecution; while, to prove him innocent,
on the other hand, will merely require that
the defence sum up the evidence put in by
them and by the prosecution, and which
sbundantly demonstrates tina the president
intended no violation of law; and that, in
the means which he used to test the legality
of the statute, he was particularly careful not
to initiate or undertake even the semblace of
q forcibae resistance thereto. The prosecution
attempted to prove conspiracy to violate the
statute, as well as an intention to use force
in said violation. But they totally failed to
do so by their own witnesses, each and all
of whom, as cross examined, denied all
knowledge of conspiracy and all authority to
use force. In the summing up, consequent
ly, the prosecution will find themselves at an
immense disadvantage in attempting to prove
an intent, on the part of the president, to VI
olate constitutional statute, not having the
fear of the law before his eyes. They will
then be driven to fall back on the proposi.
ton that q mere technical violation of the
statute with no evil intent, is not only Grim.
inal offence, but high crime according to
the constitution. Now, no lawyer, however
limited his capacity,--no court, however in
ferior its jurisdiction,-wiH admit that such
violation is simple misdemeanor, much
less big crime. But to establish this
principle is the proposition to which the
prosecution IN this case must bend all it's
energies while to combat it is all that is
needed by the defence. And, certainly, the
defence have an easy task before them, not.
withstanding that the majority of the senate,
on Saturday, refused to admit the testimony
of the presidents cabinet advisers,-of the
very men whom this tenure-of-offce law
compels him to keep about him as long as
1t is the pleasure of the senate that now
tries him.