The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1868-05-07

resu:ned his argument, beginning with
a re-statement of his proposition that
the acts of 1889 and 1895 have ceased
to be lava, and maintained that said
acts gave The President no power to I'LL
vacancies in the offices of the heads of
departments without the consent of
the Senate. The act OF l159 permitted
him TO create q vacancy in one depart
ment, but restricted him to the choice
of the chief clerk to fill it. Tho act of
1875 went further, applying to other
departments, but limiting the commits
sion to tenure of six months, and was
thus clearly grant Ot power aud that,
too, a restricted grant. The act of 1863
abTngates the statutes of l7c9 and 1895
and again restricts him in his choice of
adj interim appointees. 1t thus appears
in all legislation on the subject that the
entire control of Congress over 1t Is
assumed and illustrated.
Mr.. Bingham then cited portions
orthe tenure Of office act TO snow that
they superseded the previous acts re.
ferred to. He also claimed that 'he ar
pumeut of Mr.. Curtis asserted that
heads of departments appointed by
President Lincoln were not within the
proviso, and adopting this interrreta-
ton, he said it followed that they were
covered by the body of the section. He
proceeded to argue this point nj length,
maintaining that the Presidential term
of four years continued, notwithstand-
ing Presidents death OF disability,
his successor serving out the unexpired
portion. Otherwise the appOintees Of
a Vice President would have TO vaeate
their offices one month after the Gtisa-
bility of the President should be re-
moved. But the working of the act is
not the term during which they were
appointed, bntthe term Of the Prcsl-
dent by whom they were appointed.
There was No such intention in the
minds of the trainers, and tue act can
not be so construed.
He argued that the proviso was not
of retrospective action, and did not for
the purposes of the act make a new
term. Then, combating the position of
Mr.. Groesbeck, that If Stanton was not
protected by the Tenure OF office act the
first eight articles must fail, lie argued
that whether Stanton was affected by it
81 not the President had committed i'm
of appointment granted him by the acts
of l7-9 and 1898 was abrOgated by the
act of 1867; but, he asked, why were
such lengthy arguments made in the at
tempt tn prove the uncUDstitutiOnality
OF that law, If the counsel did not feel
and know that Stanton was protected
BY it aud that it repealed all former
grants of power 10 remove and apfolut
heads of departments. He alluded To
conferences having been held between
the President aud General Thomas In
relation to the advisability of suspend
ing the execution of their schemes uu
til the result of the trial should be
known, and referring to the language of
Mr.. Nelson, who said the President was
willing TO abide the trial, he regretted
that His Highness had not siguitied his
pleasure to abide the Judgment as well.
Mr.. Bingham characterized the Prtsi-
den; iutiuatiou, through his counsel,
that Ee did not believe the Senate was
duly constituted to sit as COurt SO
long as States were unreprcSeu,ed as a
piece of arrogance, and he (Bngham)
would not be surprised if the President
Tomorrow should issue 4 military order
their answer would DO the words Of
Mirabeau, which he proceeded to recite.
Ho then referred 10 the Presidents
language TO Emory rs suggestion to
the Commander IN Chief that he would
stand Icy him in violation of law.
This, taken in connection with his de-
claTation TO General GraUt, would in
any other couutry have been sufficient
to have cost hini Ills head. 1t was not
a charge to be SACRED at, Us lie be-
lievcd the counsel had done.
Mr. Bingham took up article tenth,
and argued that t.e Presidents Ian
guagc uOt Uuly violated dccency but
was tho language o. seditioH. lie also
claimed that the Sedit:on law. SO often
referred To as unconstitutional, had
never been so pronounced 10y Courts. 1t
il necessary in times of danger, and I'M
der Mr. Jefferson its PROV is;Ons had been
re-euactcd so far as to apply to persons
in the military or naval service, which
provisions remain in force. He further
claimed that sedltiouS utterances by any
Executive officer arc indiCtable under
the00mm0n law in the District of Co.
lumbia. He stood for virtuous consti-
tutional liberty of speech but against u
scditiouS liceuse which would shake the
security of peaceful Government and
reach even the dead in their graves.
Reviewing the charges of tie eleventh
article, he said Mr.. Parsons telegram
was introduced to prove violation of
the Reconstruction act, which vas in
deed, passed six months suuseQuent-
ly, but in support of the allegation that
he q 4, 81
stitntional amendment. Reading that
telegram he claimed that the President,
IN RETIRING TO Congress as a set OF indi-
viduals, used the language of conspi-
ratOr and not an honest man. His whole
purpose III opposing the amendment was
to revive the lost cause. Eulogizng
what he 'deemed the beuifcent chayaU.
ter az the fourteenth article he aninad
verted on the president in severe terms
for his opposition to it, and said the
people had judged of bis intentions. lie
reminded Senators that many of the
Offences charged in the eleventh article !
Were indictable in the District of Co. |
lumbia aud also that the ayerments were
Assuming, then, that he had made it |
stance of the averuients Of all the arti-
cles were established on evidence ad-
duced ard law admitted, b. claimed |
that the American people would coin
eide III his opinion, and went on to con
slider the character of the confessions
made in the Presidents answer, which |
he held wero of themselves sufficient TO |
warrant his convection.
Referring to his previous arguments, |
he insisted that the Presidents assumu-
ton of judicial prerogatives was
crime in violation OF the Constitution
which called for his deposition, and |
that the Pre- sidentby his own confession
was guilty of nsuIpation.
Mr. BiHgham then argued the deter
miuation of the people to, see that the
Constitution was maintained, aud pass
ing an elaborate eulogiHm upon the
majesty and divine character of the
law, he proceeded to draw parallel be-
tween James the Second and Andrew
johnson, claiming that as his usurpa.
tions were similar the Presidents pun
al mant sh0plH olcn Iva nnalaOnuS nnl