The New Orleans crescent., 1868-05-19

The following ia a brief abstract of Fessenden's
speech in the secret session OF the Senate:
Mr. Fessenden reviewed the whole case, article
by article. He opposed the construction put by
the managers upon the first article which charges
the president with attempting to evade the tenure
of-ofce act, as leading to life-tenure Of office,
arguing that the power OF removal belonged to
the executive, and contending that having been
appointed by President Lincoln, Mr.. Stanton did
not come within the scope OF law in question and
that the president had clear right to remove
him, and consequently cannot be held guilty
under the first article. Even, however, if | were
not satisfied Of the construction given herein Of
the act Of March 2, 1867, should still hesitate TO
convict the president of high mlsdemeanor for
what was done by him on the 2lst OF February.
The least that could be said of the application of
the first section OF that act to the case Of Mr..
stanton is, that its application is doubtful.
II in fact, Mr.. Stanton comes within H. the act
done by the president does not remove him, and
he is still secretary Of war. Il at most an at
tempt on the part Of the president which he might
well believe he had a right to make. The evi.
dence utterly fails to show any design on the part
of the president to eaeot his purpose by force or
violence. Il was but the simple Issuance of a
written order, which failed Of its intended effect.
70 dePose constitutional chief magistrate OF a
great natien, elected by the people, on grounds
so slight, would, in my Judgment be an abuse Of
the power conferred upon the Senate which could
Eot be justified to the country or the werd. To
construe such an act az high crime or misde-
meanor, in the meaning Of the Constitution would,
when the passions of the hour had time to cool be
looked upon with wonder, if not derision worse
than this, it would infiict wound upon the very
structure OF our government which time would
fail 10 cure, and which might eventually destroy it,
Mr.. Fessenden next argued against the second
article, showing that a vacancy having been le-
gslly made, the president had legal right te
make temporary appointments, even without the
consent of the Senate. II, consequently, Stanton
does not come within the first section Of the civil
II n tad nd
terial part Of the accusation in the second article
Is gone. The first two articles failing, the third
fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth must fail
with them. Article nine is, in my judgment, dis.
proved by the evidence In regard TO the speeches
OF the president.
Mr.. Fessenden held that the president could not
be convicted for an assertion of even an unconsti.
tutional doctrine, If he has not made any attempt
to give practical effect to thai doctrine by sc-
tion on ii.
he then proceeded to discuss same of the points
made In the arguments, saying there was q great
diversity Of opinion relative to the nature OF what
constitutes crimes and misdemeanors, and the
power OF impeachment as conferred by the Con-
sttution Is in very general terms considering the
cases OF impeachment, and ID vaguely provided
for by Law.
he sinks the case of impeachlng the elective
chief magistrate of q great nation, for political
causes, an unnecessarily harsh measure, and one
hardly worth resorting TO-, except upon clear and
unquestionable grounds. There is more at stake
than the lndlvlduAl-that which tends TO weaken
the respect of the people for the Office Of chief
magistrate, and break down barriers surrounding
that Office, TO make il the mere sport OF temporary
msjori,ies tends TO the great injury Of our whole
government and wounds constitutional liberty
He. does not consider the charge against the
president sufficient to Justify his removal especi-
ally as the Office is to be transferred TO the hands
OF those removing him. He contended that the
ofenses jnstifying the removal from Office should
be OF such character as 10 commend themselves
20 the people. The removal should be free from
taint OF party, and should leave no reasonable
grounds OF suspicion upon the motives of those
iuiiicting the penalty. Anything less than this,
where the defense is not defined by any law
would not, In his Judgment be justified by con.
s'derate public opinion, and its tendency would
be TO shake the faith Of the friends OF oonsIitu.
uonal liberty in the permanency of our free in.
stitutoDs.
In reply to the suggestion that popular opinion
demands the conviction of the president be said
the people have not heard the evidence as we
have heard IL The responsibility is not upon
them, but upon Us. They have not taken an oath
to do impartial justice. | have taken that OATH
| cannot render Judgment upon their convictions,
nor can they transfer to themselves my punish.
ment II violated my oath. | should consider
myself undeserving the confidence Of my people
and unworthy Of place among honorable men.
The consequences are not for me 10 consider The
future Is in the hands of Him who made and gov.
erns the universe. and the fear that He will not
govern il wisely and well would not excuse me
for violation Of His law.