The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1868-04-27
BY TELEGRAPH.
CONGRESS.
WASHINGTON, April 25.
SENATE.

| several Senators, moved to poSpone 1t
until Monday.
ponement, which was rejected-20
against 81.
The motion to postpone it until Mon
| day was agreed to.
Mr.. Sumner offered the folling order:
"Ordered, that the Senate, sitting for
the trial of Andrew johnson, President
of the United States, will proceed TO
vote on the several articles OF impeach-
ment at II o'clock on the day after the
close OF argument.
Senator johnson objected, and twas
laid over.
Mr.. Sumner-I send 10 the Chair two
additional rules, the first of which is
derived from the practice of the Senate
on the trials of Judge Chase and Judge
Peck.
They were read as follows:
Rule 23-In taking the vote of the
Senate on the articles of impeachment,
the presiding officer shall call each Sen
ator by his name, and upon each arti-
Gle propose the following question in
the manner following: "Mr.-How
say you, is the respondent guilty or
not guilty as charged in the article OF
impeachment" Whereupon each
Senator shall rise in his place and an
swer, guilty" or, mot guilty"
Rule 24-That on conviction by the
Senate, it shall be the duty of the pre-
siding officer forthwith, to announce
the removal from office of the convic-
ted person. According to the require
ments of the Constitution, any further
judgment shall be on the order OF the
Senate.
Senator johnson again objected, and
the rules went over.
Mr.. Groesbeck then addressed the
Senate on the part of the respondent.
After few Introductory remarks he
proceeded to consider the question
whether or not the Senate Is now sit
ting as Court, and said he would not
discuss It in the light of English pre-
cedents, but with reference to our con-
stitution, which countenanCed neither
bills of attainder nor irresponsible
tribunals to be laws unto themselves.
He first called attention to the fact that
the provisions OF the Constitution as
first drafted, contemplated impeach-
ment for malpractice and neglect of
duty in Office, but those adopted permit
it only for treason, bribery and
similar high crimes and misde-
meanors. He then challenged the
proof to show that during any of the
trials, which from our precedents, the
idea that the Senate was not Court
had ever been advanced. he read
from the records of each of their lam
guage, in which the eSenRte in all those
occasions styled itself the Court. He
also quoted Story and other authoIi-
ties to show the judicial characters of
the Senate and the qualifications they
must bring to the discharge of their OBJ
legations in reference to their jurisdic-
ton. He held that the only question
for them to decide was that OF crime or
no crime; and further that no
action could be so considered in con-
nection with which evil intention
was not brought. He illustrated this
proposition by considering a homicide
committed by madman, by the sup
position that the President should vlo'
late the law after losing his reason,
and by reference to the acts of Mr..
Lincoln in constituting the military
tribunals in the loyal states, which con-
duct though pronounced destitute of
warrant by the Supreme Court, had
been upheld by Congress on the ground
that the motive was good; having thus,
as he claimed, shown the falsity OF
the doctrine advanced by the Mama
gers on that subject. He said he should
consider the question whether the
President had u right to remove Mr..
Stanton and grant letter of authori-
ty General Thomas, for on these two
issues hung the fate OF eight of the ar
ticles. AS TO the first points he held
that the civil tenure law did not apply
to Mr.. Stanton because he was not ap-
pointed by Mr.. johnson, but even If
Mr.. johnson Is not serving his own
but Mr.. Lincoln.S term, MIR. StaDtOn's
tenure office expired one month after
the expiration OF his first term, and II
Mr.. Lincoln was now living Mr.. Stan
ton could be removed by him, and so
equally can he be removed by Mr..
johnson if the latter is merely serving
out the remainder of the term. In
support OF his proposition that the
President had power TO remove Mr..
Stanton under the law of 1883, Mr..
Groesbeck quoted the letter OF Mr.. Ad-
fnIr NNRfFN tn
him not that he was to be removed, but
that he was actually removed and
successor appointed. He said his fee
BILE health to-day obliged him to pass
by with mere reference TO
the utterances of the Senators at
the time. of the passage OF the
tenure of Office bill, and the fact
that it did not not profess to repeal the
act of 1850, and went on to argue that,
as admitted, there was room for doubt
ing the construction OF the law, ana
as the President had ayailed himself of
the counsel of those specially destgna-
ted by the Constitution to give 1t to him,
he must be held guiltless OF crime in
constituting it as he did in regard to
the conEtitutionality of that law, He
adverted to the fact that those who
framed 1t, he could not address with
much hope of changing their opinion,
but he would make the inquiry wheth-
er in assuming its constituttonal1ty, the
Presidents action could be deemed
criminal. Abiding to Mr.. BoutwelPs
speech, he denied that the President
was merely the servant OF Congress TO
execute their laws; his oath of office re-
auired him first to maintain the Con-
stitution.
position assumed by the honorable
Manager, that the President is required
to execute all laws, even If they are
pronounced unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court, claiming that in such
cases he was bound by his higher obIt-
cations. After reciting various well
known principles of Interpretation,
one of which was that the long settled
practice determined the construction
of the law, he claimed that the
meauinE of the act of 1TS9 was
SO determined and fixed by past usage
and judicial decisions that the Presi-
dent had the right to challenge the
constitutionality of law In conflict
with and yet not repeating the old law
which had been framed and so long
construed as embodying the principles
of the Constitution regarding the pow
er of removal.
cess.
On reassembling, Mr.. Groesbeck re-
sumed his argument, maintaining that
the debates in Congress in 1889 proved
the correctness of the Presidents con-
structfon of the laws then passed. he
then cited the acts of 1873 of the post
Office Department, and those of 1928
and 1s49, creating the Navy, Post office,
and Interior departments, all as
suming or affirming the right OF re-
moval by the President as set forth in
I oil 10