Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-05-05
F0RTIETH CONGRESS.
This Afternoons Proceedings.
Impeachment,
CONTINUATION OF MANAGER BING-
HAMS ARGUMENT.
TTEspAY. Nav ISes


Senator Morrill, (Vt) asked how many men,
oers there were of the association.
u nator Cameron said about 300.
Senator Drake objected TO the resolution, as
under II any man could present himself to the
ooorkeeper and claim admission under the plea
that ne was a member Of the ASSOCIATION. Ii
the grace OF The Senate, they should be provided
with tickets.
Senator Grimes asked what hour was set for
the Court OF Impeachment to convene.
The President pro TEN. said II O'clock, and
tnen pnt the motion OF Senator Cameron, when
il was disagreed to.
The President pro TEN then surrendered the
chair 70 the Chief Justice, and the Court of I'm
peachment was opened with the usual formali-
ties.
The Chief Justice notified Mr.. Bingham to
proceed.
Mr.. Bingham would do Injustice to the peo
pie he represented if he did not acknowledge
his Indebtedness to the Senate for the kind at
hntion that had been paid to his remarks
When ne had the honor TO close his remarks on
yesterday he was speaking as TO whether the
President had the power to remove a Head of a
Department, and to fill the vacancy then
created by himself during the session of the
Senate, without an express law giving him the
authority so to do. If there was no such au-
thority, then the President was guilty as
charged in the lst, 2d, 3D., sth, and l1th arti-
cles. He had violated the express letter of the
Constitution, and was criminally guilty, and his
intent was criminal. The act has been proved
TO have been done, and has been proved to be
n
tent was criminal-that Is the regular form of
the Indictment. 1t is impossible TO go into the
hidden recesses of a mans mind and discover
ms Intent but mans purposes are always
judged of by his actions. The same question
has been before raised in a case similar to this,
and StraffOrd knelt before the assembled ma
jesty Of England, and made such ans wer as TO
forever settle the question. Mr.. Il. here quoted
from the language of Strafford that no unlaw-
ful acts could ever be justified by any plea of
good intentions. On this subject of intent, he
(Mr. b. might illustrate the utter inuulty of
the position assumed by the counsel by in.
stanclng the conduct of certain fanatics in the
reign of Frederick the Second. who put little
children TO death that they might 60 to heaven:
put ne had not heard that this plea for thus
treating these sunny hearts and sunny faces
had any effect in the courts of Justice. He dis
missed this idea as not being worthy of further
notice. He ought TO ask the pardon of Senator's
for dwelling at all on this proposition of in
tent, and with all respect to the distinguished
gentleman who made it. he thought it un worthy
them and unworthy of the place.
He now returned to his proposition whether
the President had any right to violate this law.
II not then he was guilty of violating the Con-
sntution. Every line and word of the argu-
ments uttered by the learned counsel was TO en-
deayor TO connect the power of removal and ap-
pointment during the session of the Senate and
this was confession of guilty in their part of
their client. There was an appointment made
here in direct violation of the law and the
Constitution, and in violation of any contrac-
non put upon 1t, and he denied that
any word had escaped from the lips of his
learned and accomplished friend who repre-
sented Ohio on this floor, Mr.. Sherman.) in
reference to any power Of the President TO
remove during the session of the Senate
and with all their ability they had been unable
to find any out of ell which thew had quoted
The Constitution, after providing for the APP
polntment OF certain officers, goes on To saw
that Congress may vest the absolute appoint
ment OF other inferior officers in the President.
And who will say that Cabinet officers are in
ferior officers But, say the learned counsel.
he only made temporary appoinl lment. Well,
the counsel are not strong enough for their
cHent He (Mr. b. would not, however. stand
upon QuIbbles and technicalities: he stood
upon the broad ground of the Constitution and
maintained that the President had not the
slightest power TO appoint or remove any off,
Ger, high or low, without express authority OF
law for II. and that there was no power
whatever given him to judicially deter
mine upon any law. Mr.. b. here read
from the answer of the President claiming
the power Of removal under the Constitution
In answer TO this he would say that il was
well known that when the Constitution was
on trlai before the people it was not dreamed
that any such power of removal was conferred
upon the President; and the power was Ri ven
TO the representatives of the people to impeach
him for violating the Constitution and the laws
and no earthly tribunal had the right to inter-
fere, and for the proof of this he referred TO
Hamilton, i'll the nth number of the FederdIist
He agreed with Hamilton. that it was utter alb
surdity for any man. no matter hsw great his
learning and attainments, TO contend that the
executive power OF removal and appointment
was absolutely vested in the President Web.
ster SAID the appointing power was vested in the
PRESIDENT and the Senate, and the power of re-
moval was connected with it. Whatanswerc can
be given TO those interpretations of the Consti.
tuition by Hamilton and Webster! None except
a reference 10 the acts of 1889 and I.o5, and the
debates Of 's9, but neither the acts themselves
nor the debates bear out any construction Civ.
ing the President the power of removal during
the session OF the Senate. 1t has been long ago
Q6 hy no Sn ,ha.
guape Of any individual member is not to be-
considered as the proper construction Of any
law, and it will be a sorry day for this country
wheu language used in the heat of debate rs to
De accepted as pfoper construction Of a law
IL Is folly TO think that the President can be
justified in violating the express letter of the
constitution, and in controlling the whole vast
patronage of the Government, amounting TO
many millions, by filling mp the offices with
his supple tools. The power Of removal is a
legislative grant, and he admitted that il had
ate, and it might be allowed in a Presi.
dent who could be trusted, but not with
who had betrayed his trust. Such one should
be removed from office. No such power had
ever been claimed by any President Mr.
Adams, in his letter to his Secretary of State
asked him to resign before the session of
the Senate. The record Of this matter was
very obscure. but he Mr.. b. thought il but
due to the memory Of that great man to saw
that he did not believe Mr.. Adams issued the
order Of removal after the session Of the Senate
sent In the name
Of John Marshall as the successor, thus show
ing his Interpretation of and reverence for the
Con stitution. All the subtleties of the counsel
could not torture this action of the patriot
Adams into any precedent TO excuse the acts of
the President. In the words Of John Marshall.
II the President has unlimited power to fill
vacanciss, your Constitution is but a
splendid bauble, and is not worth the paper
1t is printed upon. If the Constitution
means what IT says. that the PresI-
dents power of appointment is limited
to vacancies arising during the recess, then the
Presidents removal and appointment of a
head Of Department in the utter absence Of
any law. he is guilty Of plain violation of the
Constitution. II the President can make re-
movals and Issue new commissions during the
session of the Senate, then such commits sious
cannot be terminated except during the pleas
ure of the President and then what becomes
of the Senate's ordinary power. He repeated
this proposition, and il any man could answer
1t he desired him TO answer it now. No man
can can answer it. None but this aecursed and
guilty President w0uld claim such power the
enormity of which has no parallel for centu-
riet. No man, no human ingenuity can torture
this provision Of the Constitution into grant
Of power. If such a construction is followed
to the end, what becomes Of your Constitution
and your Government Is IL not expressly
written in the Constitution that the exclusive
legislative power Is vested in Congress and the
iu dicial power shall be vested in one SuureDca
Court, and such other inferior courts As the
Congress may establish, and does anv man
claim that this gives the courts the seclusi ve
power 10 regulate and determine ali the In Al.
cial questions which may arise in the country.
or thaf the supreme Court has any power TO
impeach, when the sole power OF impeach-