The Portland daily press., 1868-06-05
SCHUYLER COLFAX,
Impeachment md senator Fesse udeu.

both sides of this question, perhaps the most
widely and deeply interesting one that has
ever been presented to the people of Maine.
Such have been the communications of "X"
and W and such your own editorial COM
ments. 1t has occurred to me, however that
the true apology for our Senator's vote is to be
sought in somewhat different direction from
that indicated by either of your correspond.
ents, perhaps in a middle ground between
them.
1t is not strange that in the first exquisite
disappointment which every Republican in
our State, with rare exceptions, experienced
at the probable failure of impeachment by the
vote of one of our own Senators, the only
negative Republican vote of all the eleven
from New England, it is not strange that ex-
| travagant expressions escaped many of our best
| and most moderate citizens But every reason
able man soon saw that it was unfair to at
tempt to intimidate Senator in the discharge
of his constitutional duty; that.his freedom of
action was unquestionabe, and that his deni-
al of conscious deviation from his duty was
not lightly to be disputed
Those who familiar with human motives
aud actions viii lot find it difficult to ex-
| plain the vote of the twelve Democratic Sen.
ators, who voted in solemn column for the
| President for three months, of the thirty-fiye
Republicans who finally voted for his convic-
tion, and of majority at least of the seven
Republicans who united with the Democrats
in voting and laboring for his acquittal with
out charging bribery, corruption or perjury;
accusations easy to make and very difficult to
| establish.
To begin with, do not believe that either of
| the Democratic Senators, or the thirty five
Republicans were bribed, or voted against
their convictions of duty. My reasons are
that have seen no evidence of so heinous
an offence on the part of either of them, and
l am able to account for their votes without
resorting to so uncharitable hypothesis.
No fair-minded man can deny that there
were two sides 10 the impeachment question
as to most political questions, and experience
shows that where there are two sides, men
usually eonscientiousy believe in the justice
of that side whose maintenance most nearly
comedies with their previous habits of mind,
education, associations, wishes, and personal
interests. There are occasional exceptions.
but everybody knows that this is the general
rule, and l am irreverent enough to suspect
that United States Senators are pretty much
like ordinary mortals i'm this respect Now
the American people had reason to expect the
| twelve Democratic Senators to vote in a body
for johnson and the thirty Republicans
to vote for his conviction, for the very same
habits of thought, education, associations,
wishes and sense OF personal interest which
'--'-aA ar d have kept them Democrats or Re
publicans, tended, 10 say the fesses, tessaryv
them with their party and its measures. Of
which impeachment was undeniabIy and ne
cessarily one. That most If not all of those
Senators were more or less influenced. uncon-
sciously it may be, Iy just such motive, is
too evident, l think, to admit of denial In
deed, to assert the contrary, would be to AFRO
gate to United States Senators mental and
moral constitution quite unearthly But how
| about the seven Republican Senators who
alone of all the Senate voted against their
party for the defeat of the great political re-
form of the century l think they were no
wiser nor better, no holier nor purer, no less
selfish nor iree- from prejudice than their
Democratic or Republican brethren. Neither
do see any sufficient occasion for imputipe
to majority of them, certainly not to our
Senator, bribery, corruption or perjury Like
their colleagues they are probable neither
gods nor devils, but hnman beings, with all
the infirmities, falliblity, prejudice, selfish
ness, AMI narrowness, which fall to the lot of
men and Senators. How is it them that II ese
few men. l mean our Senator and two or
three others of the prominent dissenting Re-
publieans (ior have my own opinion of Ross
and Henderson, happen TO be found in this Pc
| cuha1 and antagOnistic relation TO their party
on this great question? A natural suggestion
would be that there was probably something
in their personal habits of thought associa-
| tions, desires, personal interests, likes or dis
likes, which proved stronger than their party
and political affinities In regard TO Senator
Fowler for example, it had been currently re-
ported that he was (as he had perfect right
to be) on terms of personal intimacy with the
President, and indeed contemplated marriage
with one of his daughters.
| Mr.. Grimes has has been pretty generally
supposed to be somewhat disappointed and
soured politically, and retires next March from
| the Senate.
The Chief Justice, whose want of sympathy
| for impeachment if not positive sympathy
| for the President, has been tolerably conspicu-
Gus, is suspected by his enemies of a slight
| Jealousy of his friend Senator Wade and to be
| tinctured with whatever degree of ambition
for the Presidency may be allowable and be-
coming in the head of the national judiciary.
Finally how stands our own distinguished
| Senator? Is not his whole mental constitution
conservative? Has not he ever since the be-
ginning of the war sympathized with the ex-
treme conservative wing of the Republican
| party? Did he not oppose the expulsion of
Senator Bright, of Indiana for treason in re-
commencing man with new kind of rifle to
President Davis" early in the war?
Has he ever pretended any affiliation with
or confidence in the radical measures of The
party? Has he ever made a speech since 81,
which has been circulated as a campaign doc
ument, except perhaps his report as chairman
OF TIE Reconstruction Committee? Did he not
in his place in the Senate pronounce Andrew
johnson, bot& "bonest and patriotic" imme-
diately after his famous or infamous speech
of Feb. %, 1866? Has he not long been a per-
sonal enemy Of Senator Summer, or if you
please, has not Mr.. Sumner long been his
enemy?
Was he not candidate for Mr.. Wade's
post, the Presidency of the Senate, at the time
Fessenden's associations and friendships man
ifestly with the conservative, and not with the
radical wing of the party? But it is said
that his interests at least were in favor of con-
vction. am not quite so sure of that. In the
first place, it should not be forgotten that Mr.
johnson had nine and half months more to
serve. Since the tenure of office act no Dem.
ocrat could hope for confirmation by the Sem
ate, and certainly any Republican who voted
for conviction, must wear a brazen front
indeed to ask. much less except the APP
polntment ofany aspirant sugges ed by him.
1t is perfectly obvious that practically, the
whole patronage, that is to say, the govern
ment OF the United States, is in the hands of
the seven Republicans, to every one of whom
the President is under personal obligations of
a character such as few men ever become sub
iected to- Is all this immense power and