, 1868-05-01
me Impeachment TrIal.
NE 0,eoonian Of Tuesday, has later dispatch
49,, -h;ch We take the following

ea from which we take INC iO"O"iuS
washington, April 25.-Nelson resumed his
speech, and concluded his argument In favor OF
tbe prouosition that no offenses are impeachable
srcent those deemed crimes and nisdemeanors
AZ the time the Constitution was framed.
In Nelson's argument to day in the impeach
r,ent trial. he stated that Judge Black had Withs
drawn from the case because the President had
refused to send vessels to seize the Islano of Atu
Vela. the President refusing on the ground of
public duty and against the solicitation of friends
and the implied threats of enemies.
Nelson proceeded to consider the articles of
Impeachment separately. He held that in the
first place there was distinction made by both
common and statue law between crime and ats
tempt As the civil tenure bill relates only to
actual removals from Office, and the President
had made none, the charges made in most of the
articles fail. Aside from this objection which,
though technical should have weight, be would
maintain these three propositions That the
Tenure of Office law is void if not, that Stanton
is not covered by it, and even if it is legal and
applicable, that the President is not guilty of
crime because be acted from laudable motives.
He quoted at great length from the debates on
the formation of the Constitution and the passage
of the act of 1898, and from numerous legal au-
thorities to show that the question of the Pres
idents power of removal was definitely settled
BY action of Congress at that time. He next con-
cation superior power to the Executive. He
maintained that 10 greater powers were granted
in that way TO the legislative than to the execu,
tive branch of the Government. AT this point
the Senate took recess of fifteen minutes.
On reassembling, Nelson continued the cita>
tion of authorities in support of the Presidents s
views on the question of his power Of removal.
He proceeded to argue that the President had
the same power to cOnstrue acts of Congress as
Congress itself, again supporting his views by
numerous quotations. All preceding arguments,
be held, proved that the tenure OF office law is
unconstitutional and void. Nelson then elabo-
ratey discussed the proposition that no charge
can be maintained which does not allege criminal
intent, which he said was not done except in the
fifth article.
Groesbeck then addressed the Senate He
proceeded to consider whether or not the Senate
is now sitting as Court. He said Ae would not
discuss it in the light of English precedents, but
with reference to our own Constitution which
countenanced neither bills of attainder nor ir.
responsible tribunals to be law unto themselves
He fret called attention to the fact that the pro-
visions of the Constitution as first drafted con-
templated impeachment for malpractice and
neglect of duty in the Office but those adopted
permit only for treason, bribery or similar high
crimes and misdemeanors. He then challenged
proof to show that during any of the trials
which form our precedents, the idea that the
Senate was not Court had ever been advanced.
he read from the records of each, their language
in which the Senate on those occasions STYLED
itself the Court. He also quoted Story and
other authorities to show the Judicial charac>
ter of the Senate, and the reasons they must
bring to the discharge of their obligations In
reference to their jurisdiction, be held that the
only question, for them TO decide was that OF
crime or no crime, and further, that no action
could be so considered in connection with which
evil intention was not brought. He illustrated
the opposition by considering a case of homicide
committed by madman, and the supposilion
that the President should violate the law after
losing his reason, and by reference TO acts of
Lincoln in constituting military tri Iunals in
loyal States, which ronduct, though pronounced
destitute of warrant by the Supreme Court
had been upheld by Congress on the ground that
the motive was good. Having thus, as he elaine
ed, shown the falsity of the doctrine advanced
by the Managers on the subject he would con-
slider the question whether the President had
right to remove Stanton, and grant a letter of
authority to Gen. Thomas, for on these two is.
sues hung the fate of the eight articles
AS TO the first point he held that the civil
tenure OF oihce law did not apply to Stanton.
because he was not appointed by johnson. bnt
even II johnson is not serving his own but Lin>
coins term, StantoD's tenure of office expired
one month after the expiration of his first Term
equally can he BY johnson, if the later is merely
serving out the remainder OF bis term,
IN support OF his proposition that the President
mad power to remove Stanton under the law of I7gS
UroeSoeck quosed the letter by Adams to Pickering
announcing not that he was to be removed but tLst
ne was actually removed ald his successor appointed
he said that his f'eble health to-day, obliged him
70 pass by with mere reference to tile utterunces of
Senators AT the time the passage of the Tenure f
Olnee Olnee miI' lie went on to argue that all admittei
tnere vas room for difference otopuion of law that
~ inc resident had avaed himself of those espe-
cially designated by the Constitution to be given
blIn, ne must be held gnlty of crimnality in con-
strneng 1t as he did. He held that sufficient doubt
Tl 'e oohsttutoualIty OF the law existed warrant
the President to take the measures he did Tn tost
tne matter Groesbeek proceeded to argue various
points relating to articles Of impeachment and CON
cnIaeu py expressing his confidence the iii al re-
SUIT he passed glowing euogy on the life char
acter and services OF the President
TINE hAcHINERY.-On Friday last our atten-