Weekly Trinity journal. [volume] (Weaverville, Calif.) 1857-1972, 1868-05-02
From the New York Tribune.1
The Case for Impeachment.

/
the law and the facts upon which the Represen-
tatives of the United States demand the removal
of the President General Butler refers briefly
to the constitutional right of impeachment and
the nature of the offenses which are properly
Improbable. He argues that the tribunal be-
fore which the present question is under debate
is not court o. law, but simply the Senate of
the United States, bound only by the rules of the
Senate aud not subject to the restrictions of or
binary judicial bodies that no member is dis
qualified or indeed ought even to be excused on
the plea of prejudice; and that the proceeding
is not so much trial as an inquest of office"
Having laid down these principles, which NAV
prove highly important as the trial goes on, Mr.
Butler takes up each article, and shows that the
question is not so much whether Andrew John
son is fit to retain Office as whether the Presi-
dency itself, with the powers and prerogatves
which Mr.. johnson claims for it, is consistent
with the safety of a free republican government
The President demands more than kingly priv
ilege of removing all civil officers at will, and
thus virtually takes into his hands the control
OF the State. He claims this by virtue Of the
constitutional Executive power-as if that power
were not only unlimited, but ilimitable-as if
the fundamental law which places bounds to the
authority of the legislative and judicial depart
ments could have designed leaving the co-ordi-
nate branch of the Government entirely without
restriction. 1t is claimed that the action of the
first Congress settled the point that the power of
removal was necessary part of the Executive
power but General Butler shows that Congress
has never actually decided the question, and
that in any event resolution of the first Con-
greSs has no force as against opposing reso-
luton of the thirty Moreover, since the
beginning of the Government, the power of re-
moval has invariably been recognized in prac-
tice concomitant not of simple executive
authority, but of the power of appointment.
The same limitations which restrict the one have
been held to restrict the other. Ne President
has ever before asserted the right to remove an
officer by his own simple will. The records of
the departments contain no mention of the dis
placement of any appontee, except in the
doubedly legal and regular way of sending in
to the Senate new nomination, by the confirm
alton of which the old appointment was held to
terminate. Thus the advice and consent of the
Senate has always been deemed essential for the
removal of an officer who by their advice and
consent had been appointed.
But even granting that the Executive power
of removal is not limited by the Constitution, it
does not follow that Congress cannot limit it by
legislation. On the contrary, the clause provid-
ing that Congress shall have power " to make
all laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into execution all powers vest
ed by this Constitution in the Government of the
United States, in any department or office
thereof" expressly confers this power, and it
has been several times executed without being
called in question. The Act of July II, 1862,
authorized the President to dismiss officers of
the army, navy, marine corps, and volunteers,
thus implying that he had not the power before.
The Act of July 10, 1866, forebade him to dis
miss officers of the army and navy in time of
peace; and this bill received the approval of
Andrew Johnson. The Act of February %, 1868,
providing for a national currency, stipulated
that the Controller of the Currency should be re-
movable only with the advice and consent OF the
! Senate. Beside all this the Managers of the
Impeachment are prepared with evidence to
show that the President has admitted the validity
of the very Tenure-of- Office bill which he
declares unconstitutional, and that he never had
a word to say against it until he wanted to get
rid of Mr.. Stanton. Nay, he plainly admitted
its binding force when he first suspended Mr..
Stanton, and sent his reasons for doing to the
Senate; and it only when the Senate refused
to concur that he suddenly discovered the law
was void, and he could do as pleased in spite of
it. If he believed the law to be void, he COM
mitted offense in appointing Grant Secretary
of War ad interim, because the only authority
for such appointment is found in that very
law, and he insulted the Senate by asking of
them a decision by which he did not mean to
abide. If he believed it valid, he was equally
guilty in appointing Thomas, for the law ex-
pressly forbids any such appointment without
the advice and consent of the Senate. The d.
lemma is well put there is no escape from it.
The fallacy that the President had right to
Gisobey the law in order to bring its constitu.
tionality to q judicial test General Bntler very
clearly disposes of; and then he passes to
the question of criminal intent, which forms the
second part of his speech. The interview with
General Emory, the inquiries respecting the
strength of the garrison of Washington, the
artful insnuatons that the army was bound to
obey the President rather than the laws of Con-
gress, the incorporate speeches, the denuncia-
ations of the popular representatives. are cited
evidence TO nIa tbo lar;c
lntive in strict subordnaton to the executive
department, and to usurp functions which the
Constitution has forbidden him. We reed not
analyze this portion of the speech, for the de-
tails are already familiar to our readers, and
they admit of very little dispute. Our purpose
has been to exhibit in brief the legal points
which form the real strength of General Buffers
argument and upon which the historical i'm
portance we'll the practical issue of the i'm
parchment proceedings will principally depend
General Butler is right when he says that a great
constitutional question is involved in this trial,
and that beside it the personal fortunes of the
respondent entirely Insignificant The issue
has now been joined in the only regular way
known to our laws and with full confidence in
the wisdom and uprightness of the judges, we
await the decision.
NEW SHEET MUsIc.-By last mail we received
from Root Cady, the Chicago publishers, fine
selection of lately published sheet music, vocal
and instrumental. Persons desiring to buy the
most popular music now published can obtain it
by sending their orders to Root L Cady Fol-
lowing is the music received:
Grand inaugural Polonasc as performed by the ,iIwau
kie Musical Society
Kind Smiles for All. Song and chorus.
Only One Crossing Song and chorus.
Come While the Morning is Breaking. Duet and chorus
Anyhow Song.
Soft be thy Pillow, my Darling. Song
Albumleaf. Instrumental.
| The Soldiers Last Request. Song.
| First Blossom Waltz.
| Mary Fermoy. Answer to Pat. Maloy
Ida Waltz.
A Little Longer Song.
Loving Thee Ever. Song and chorus.
Hurrah Polka HERDS March Arstocratic Polka and
Pond Lilly Shottische
AMONG the letters said to have been showered
On "A. D., is one Nasty did not mention. 1t is
one dated Wheatland, Penn, February 25th
signed "Pub. Func and raads os foIIovs