The Plymouth weekly Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1860-1869, 1868-02-20
ThRd. Stevens On Rn pea Ga na eI
His DenunCiatiOn Ofssac Pres
fdcnt, Gr:sat ana tao Ccyy.trds d

Thad. stevens ora an peacsssaens
His DenunCiattOR Oftsae Pres
fdent, Grant and ts.e towards of
Congress.
The Washington correspondent of the
New York World, after giving an account
of the failure Of the last attempt ut i'm
parchment in the reconstruction commit
tee, details the following conversation had
with him Immediately thereafter:
After the rush Of members and politi-
clans into Mr.. Stevens room at the capt.
tol had ceased, and very soon after the de-
feated "great commoner" had been borne
in his chair from the capitol to his home,
the writer of these dispatches, who had
also been a witness examined in the pres
ence Of Mr.. Stevens, called upon him.
He was received in chamber where Mr..
Stevens, the dying leader Of once pow
erful but now fallen national party, leaned
back in an easy chair alone. looking almost
utter y exhausted. Nevertheless his wei
come was cordial, and his expressed re-
greet that Mr. Stevens might not feel
strong enough to converse upon the sub
jcct in view was alleviated at once by Mr..
Stevens outspoken frankress.
"I'll say this" proceeded Mr.. Stevens,
"not particularly for publication Aud
yet" he continued, Il don't object to your
publishing anything l say. l'llsay this,
that the whole question Of impeachment
lies almost in a nutshell. As to the first
part of the Grant and johnson CORES
pondence (Johnsor's letters chiefly al
Jude to, l think there is enough evil
dence to impeach dozen men. The
main point is, was the president guilty of
a violation of the tenure of Office act?
He is explicit enough himself on this sub
ject. Although he states in one place
that he did not remove Stanton and put
Grant in with any reference to the tenure
of Office act, but upon the author-
ty granted him by the constitution, what
is to be said in his defense for his reaui-
ring Grant, as they both agree to in all
their letters, to arrange with hint johnson
to keep Stanton out of office against the
will Of the senate? The senate had con-
irmed the tenure of Office law. What
right had president to deny, defy, or
seek to disobey, or circulnvsut that law
Damn it, don't both the president and
General Grant subscribe to this fatal fact,
that Grant had at least considered, and
that johnson had insisted upon, the prop
osition that Grant should help johnson
to keep Stanton out Of Office anyway not
withstanding the tenure of office act2 Ii
this direct attempt of the president to vi
olate law made by the congress of the
United States doesn't render him liable to
be impeached, what does?"
81 am, as you see, Mr.. Stevens, only a
respectful listener"
"Well, then there's the whole thing, it's
as simple as day. What the devil do
care about the question of veraci.y, as
they call it, between johnson and Grant
That's nothing to do with the law. Both
of them may call each other liars, if they
want to, perhaps they both do lie little,
or let us say, equivocato, though the pres
ident certainly has the weight of evidence
on his side. But johnson being right or
Grant wrong, it makes no difference. If
they want to settle the question between
them, they nay poti 80 out III the Dack
yard and settle it alone. OF course have
q slight objection to having that area soil
ed by either of them, but wouldn't OBJ
ject if they would only fix it so that we
should have no more talk. What I am
after is, that the law of these United
States, as made by the congress of the
United States. shall be obeyed by the
president as we'll as by all men beside.
There was plenty of evidence, God knows,
to convict johnson last year. It's all
nonsense and folly to argue against the
self evident proposition that there is more
than nlenty of evidence now"