The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1868-04-30
CONGRESSIONAL.
WASHINGTON, April %.
SENATE.

|
Mr.. Summer offered a resolution that
Mr.. Nelson having used improper lam
guage in this tribunal, calculated to
provoke duel, and disrespectful to the
| Court, he deserved the censure of the
Senate.
Mr.. Sherman objected to the coRsia-
Grafton of the resolution.
| Mr.. Sumner objected to Mr.. Nelson
making any remarks except in sxplana.
ton, but the Senate allowed him to
read portion of the letters bearing on
the question of dates.
Mr.. Nelson then explained what pur-
ported to be the original letter signed
by Butler, Logan and Garfield, dated
March 9th. Also, letter sent to the
President by Chauncey +. Black, March
10th, enclosing copy with the add
tiOnal signatures.
Mr.. Cameron offered an order for q
night session, which went over.
Mr.. Evarts then resumed his argn-
ment.
He assumed it to be already shown
that this tribunal is a Court and that
the President is to be tried only on
charges supported by law aud evidence,
and by common fame. He said much
that had been deliberately advanced by
the Managers must fall to the ground
and so must fall the articles based on
charges which had repeatedly been re-
| iected as fair grounds for impeachment.
He referred to the conduct of the case
by the prosecution as similar 20 the
practice of the Chinese, who make Il
I IT, sa,, Of n n m
| to be attacked, or like the explosion OF
some $50 tons of gunpowder at safe
distance from the walls of a fort. he
said in this case where evidence had
| been suppressed, the enlargement oil tue
defamation invected was more than
unusually improper. He also spoke IN
q strain of sarcasm to MIR. Boutwell's
reference to the Presidents counsel, as
ATTORNEYS whose minds had been sharp
ened, bat not enlarged by practice.
He then considered Mr.. BoutwclPs
definition of impeachable otfenses, and
argued at length that no action could be
40 construed which did not proceed from
malice and evil intent, supporting his
view by quotations from the records OF
the Humphrey trial, and also by the
language of Burke in accusing Warren
Hastings, when he expressly stated that
the assertion aud proof of evil intent
were indispensable.
Mr.. Evarts held that the best way to
determine the nature of offences which
may be deemed high crimes and INSIDE
meanors is to consider the punishmentS
prescribed for them.
He referred to the belittliDg epithets
applied by the Managers to the punish
ment of deposition, and in forcibie
terms described the character and mag
nitude of the disgrace which such pun
ishment involves. He claimed that the
description of penalties provided In the
tenure of office law for its infraction,
showed the comparatively trivial ma
ture of the offence. A maximum, but
no minimum of punishment is provid-
ed. So in the discretion of the Court,
before whom an Indictment should be
tried. the offender could be let of with
fine ofsiN cents and Imprisonment OF
one day.
He read from the debate on this sub
iect at the time when this bill was pre-
pared in which Mr.. Williams and other
Senators said there should be no mini
mum fixed because the offence might
arise from inadyertence and would not
probably i'll any case have a character
of moral guilt.
Mr.. Evarts then considered the gener-
al debates on the bill and proposed to
nrove that the offence charged were not
made or To he considered penal, but
more of political nature and then that
even the alleged infraCtionsd did not take
place. He claimed that all belief of the
Presidents former personal turpitude
must be laid aside and it must be con-
sidered that he was unimpeachable be-
fore IL o'clock OH February 2lst.
He then argued that even if the re-
moval OF Mr.. Stanton had been actual
! " effected no change IN the relations of
| the War Department to the rest of the
government would have cnsued and
hence that The mere act could not be
considered as dangerous to the public
safety, OH the contrary it would have
been benefited by it, because the rela-
tions existing between the President
and Mr.. Stanton were prejudicial to
proper working of the government,
hence it resulted that the crime consist
ed in the technical infractiOn of the
law, if it shall be so held that the law
applied only i'll its restrictions to him
self. He believed il to be uncOnstitu-
tional. 1t relates to offences not penal,
and under these circumstances his
action could not be deemed GRIM. He
| then briefly considered the question of
what was meant by unconstitutional
! law, aud said it was Il paradox 1t can
be no offence to violate the provisions of
such mere piece OF paper. He claim
cd no greater right for the President
than for private individual to test the
constitutiOuality of q statute. Thus, he
argued, the President made paper re-
moval without force and violence in or
der to assert his right to act under the
Constitution, which, as he believed,
was violated by the law in question,
against the assertion that formal viola
tious are iIapeachable. Without refer
ence to the intention he cited authority
AMI argued at some length that the
principles of common sense were op-
posed to any such views.
At this hour the Court took recess
On rc-assembling Mr.. Evarts cx-
pressed his surprise at the Managers
denunciation of those who peacefully
resisted laws which they dscreed un-
constitutional. 1t was the duty of
every ministerial officer to raise ques-
ton in favor of the Constitution, and
in the highest degree was Il the duty
of the special defender OF The Constitu.
ton He referred to the case Of Newell
against the Auditor of the State of New
York, in which the latter successfully
opposed the issue of loan of $500, 900,
also to the New York law opposing
tax on brokers sales, which was resisted
and pronounced void by the United
States Supreme Court, and 10 the action
of Mr.. Lincoln in suspending the habeas
corpus in Florida, in causing the arrest
of the Maryland Legislature, and crea-
ting military commissions in time of
peace Congress by endorsing all these
acts, confirmed the doctrine that
the motive must he considered.
and that the mere infractiOn of a law
was not III itself q ground for the pun
ishinrpt sucUested hv Mr. Rontwall os