The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1868-05-06
CONGRESSIONAL.
WASHINGTON, May 5.
SENATE.


Mr..Drake objected and the motion
was disagreed to. tls +,
Mr.. Bingham resumed his argument.
After recapitulating his arguments Of
yesterday, he took up the question
whether or not it is necessary in this
case to prove the evil intent He
read from records of English State
trials to show that such proof is not
needed. He would not argue the point
at any length, because 1t was too plain.
ly settled by common law and the prac-
tice of centuries. The arguments of the
counsel on this question were puerile
and unfit to be uttered in the presence
of the Senate
He then referred to the question of
the power of the President to fill va
cancies created by himself during the
sessions of the Senate, and insisted that
1 the fact of the intimate connection OF
the power of appointment with that OF
removal had been studieusly kept out
of sight by the counsel opposing him,
and went on to argue with reference to
all the provisions bearing on the sub
iect that the right to appoint Cabinet
officers without the consent of the Senate
was nowhere granted to the President
by the Constitution. 1t could not be
merely filled vacancy by tempo
rary appointment, for his letters OF au-
thority appointed General Thomas for
an indefinite time. To show that 1t was
not among the Presidents implied pow
ers under the Constitution to vacate and
fill offices with consent of the Senate, he
read from the writings of Hamilton aud
Webster. He further maintained that
the speeches of Sherman and other SEN
ators were not susceptible of the mean
ling put on them by the opposing
counsel.
In regard to the debate of l759, he
contended that too much weight was
given to the utterauces of partisan de-
bate at the time, but he argued the
powero of removal granted the President
in 1859 was restricted by subsequent
legislation. He held, also, that Presl-
dent Adams removed Mr.. Pickering be.
fore the Senate met, although on the
same day, and the record was not clear.
| He asked of what avail would be the
provision in the Constitution limiting
! the power TO fill vacancies during re-
cess of the Senate TO the issue OF a COM
mission to expire at the beginning of
the next session if the President could
create vacancies at will during the ses-
sion of the Senate.
Mr.. Bingham challenged the citation
| of any law or section OF the COnStltu-
ton which would limit the terms of
officers thus appointed by the President.
BY such appointments he could keep
men in office at his pleasure without re-
gard to the Constitution. On thlssub-
! iect, and on the question of what aret the
| Limitations of Executive power, Mr..
Bingham cited numerous authorities
and quoted from the speeches of Web
ster with regard to the Presidents de-
fence. He sought to test the validity
! of the tenure of Office law. He asserted
that there never had been a clear un-
euuivocal decision of the Supreme Court
against the constitutionality of the law
of Congress, and held it was only bold
pretence of the President to take upon
himself responsibility which the Court
itself had never assumed. The pre-
sumption was altogether in favor of
the laws validity.
Ts admit his possession of q discre-
tionary and judicial prerogative would
be to clothe the creature with power
saperiOr to the power which created
him aud would enable him at pleasure
to defy the will of the people, the Con-
stitutiou and laws. Abiding to an eX
preston of Mr.. Evarts, he denied having
! claimed the omnipotence of Congress.
He regarded that body equally with
the President, the servant of the people,
but neither Congress nor the judiciary
are anSwerable to the executive.
He would make no further answer to
4 the clamor of the learned gentleman on
this point, but must repel the charges
against the House of Representatives
as having brought and originated i'm
parchment in party hate, and against
the Senate, for having expressed an
opinion on the subject, which they were
afterwards tojudgc. 1t was their duty
to express that opinion, for they were
to try the President in an entirely diff
ferent capacity. He then rccited the
three laws which the President was
charged with having violated, claiming
that it had been already shown that
these violations were offences. He quo
ted Kent, that maladministratiOn in
Office was also ground for impeachment.
i He held that it was entirely inmate
rial whether or not the articles were
framed in the technical form of an in
dictment. Every child kuows his
offence was an assumption of power to
Judge of the validity of laws for him
self and to obey them or not at his
pleasure, aud it was not too much to
say that holder piece of effrontery was
never before known He held that the
elaborate argument of the counsel to
prove that the law of 1868 did not re-
peal the act of 1889, and admitted that
it was in the power of the President to
determine the tenure of office, and that
the subject was not determined by con-
sttutional provisions, and proceeded to
comment on the act of 1867 Ill order to
show that It was clear and explicit in
its terms.
Referring to Senator Sherman's
remarks, rho said he would consent to
the removal of a Cabinet officer who
should be SO destitute of honor as to re-
fuse to resign when requested by the
Senate, Mr.. Bingham said the remark
was natural enough at that time, for
circumstances had not then developed
the malignity and dangerous intentions
of the President besides, the express
sion showed that the consent of the
Senate was necessary. None doubted,
at that time, that Mr.. Stanton came
within the provisions of the act. The
President did not, for he had acknowl-
lodged as much By suspending Mr.. Stan
ton under the act. Now, how is the
power of suspension given himi Even
the wording of his message was in part
borrowed from the language of the act,
and this excuse was an after thought to
cover up his villainy.
He held that the President was re.
sponsible for having abused the power
granted him by the act to remove Stan
ton without alleging or proving that
the latter had become disqualified in
any way from exercising his duties.
Recess u.s..
On re-asSembliug, Mr.. Bingham claim
ed 1t had been already shown that the
President was self-convicted on the
charges contained in the first, second,
! third, eighth and eleventh articles, and