The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1853-1911, 1868-04-02
The National Inquest.

| norman or New ork made an exceed
ingly silly remark when he said that tn,
assassins of Abraham Lincoln and i'm
peachers of Andrew johnson will b,
equally infamous in history. Whethei
Mr.. Hoffman seriously thinks SO, or merely
said so under party necessity, he i!
equally to be pitied The immediate
and remarkable change OF opinion and ol
action upon the part of the House of Rep.
resentatives was sufficient to show that
impeachment was not a party measure
Indeed, however desirable it might have
been thought in an exclusive party view,
it was the almost unanimous conviction
of the dominant party that the offenses of
the President, however disastrous in their
consequences, were not such open and
absolute violations Of the law and of his
duty as imperatively to demand impeach-
ment. But when, emboldened by a wise
forbearance, the President pointedly vio-
lated the law and defed the Representa-
tives of the people, seizing with one hand
the prerogative of Congress and with the
other thatofthe Supreme Court, thus usurp
ing all the functions Of the Government
the remedy which the Constitution pro-
vides was instantly y applied, and he was
solemnly summoned to answer to the
country and declare the reasons of his
conduct.
The summons revealed the truth that
the President had no friends. No party,
in the country is responsible for him.
The Republicans elected him, and he has
striven in every way to defeat their poll
cy. The Democrats thought him rather
worse than Calgula's horse and although
he nominates one Of their advocates for
the mission to Austria, and their late
Presidential candidate Minister to Eng
land; although he consorts chiefly with
the most notorious Copperheads, and
halls Democratic successes at the polls as
vindications of his policy; although he
has struggled hard to deliver the late Re
bel States wholly into the power Of the
rebels, and to cause the abandonment and
betrayal of those to whom he promised to
be a Moses; yet the Democratic party
have seen his two chief Secretaryships
filed with old Wings and Republicans,
while the faithful have been kept from a
monopoly of the patronage. This is the
mortal sin which "the natural governors
of the country" never forgive, and the
Democrats, who were glad enough to use
him as party weapon against the Re-
publicans, turn quietly upon their heels
when he plainly transcends the law, and
without a word for him betake themselves
to maligning and falsifying those who
bring him to judgment.
But all the Democratic orators in Con
gress, all the newspapers which oppose
the impeachment, all the speakers at the
4" Conservative meeting of protest -
whether he was Mr.. Gerard, the consist
ent Mr. Brooks, or the foolish Mr.. Hof
man : say but two things: first, that
Mr.. Stanton was not appointed by the
President; and, second, that the Presi-
dent has a right to test the constitution
ality of the law. The first point is a very
small quibble. How did Mr.. Stanton
happen to be Secretary of War under the
present Administration Because the
President, finding him in office, invited
him to remain. 1t was the only way in
which, under the circumstances, he could
have been appointed; and it would be
very hard to show that the request 70 re
main was not a perfect appointment.
As to the second point, the simple and
sufficient answer is that if the President
chooses to test law he must do it as
every other citizen does : at the risk OF
consequences. The police do not release
sneak thief until the constitutionality Of
the law against larceny, which he de-
clares that he questions, can be deter
mined. He is tried for violating the law
The position taken by the opponents Of
impeachment is really that when the
President vetoes a proposed law for un-
constitutionality, and it is passed over his
veto by the constitutional two thirds, he
may still impose his veto, and refuse to
obey the law until the Court holds il
valid. If this be not fundamen Ia
change in our system of government, VIZ
should like to know what would be? i
this be not revolution, there is no such
thing.
One of the most persistent defamers o.
Congress says that I" it cannot be unlaw
full for the President to violate an uncon
stitutional law, which is simply no law a
all" If this means any thing, it is tina
the President may decide the question o
unconstitutionality; or may refuse to ex
ecute the law until he can have decis
ion of the Supreme Court, But if h,
may refuse to execute all laws, until h.
has such decision, and all Legislation
must wait, if he chooses to call it uncon
stitutional, until the Court pronounces
the Court, of course, taking its own time
When the people of the United States as
sent to such doctrine as this they will as
sent to the overthrow of their own power
and will have intrusted the Government t
one man elected for four years, aud I
nine men appointed for life,
Those who think impeachment an ex
citing disturbance are mainly the sup
porters- of the reaction which woul
place the country as nearly as posslbl
Just where it was before the war. Bu