Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-05-05
LATEST 1'ELEGRAMS.
MIDNIGHT DISPATCHES.
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
Speech Of Mr.. Bingham.
CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS


WASHINGTON, May AFTER the read
ing of the journal, Mr.. Bingham com
menced the final argument for the prosecu-
ton. He took part in these proceedings
from no partisan feelings, but with a
weighty sense of their solemnity AID true
meaning. He proceeded to sketch the
events attendant upon the assassination of
President lincoln, and the accession of
Andrew johnson to the Presidency. Re
terring to his oath to execute the laws, he
spoke Of their majestic supremacy in our
form of government, and claimed that the
President was equally subject to their au-
thOrity with the humblest frontier settler.
lie dwelt on the high trust committed to
the Senate, and asserted that the issue of
life and death Of the republic depended on
their decision. He asked how the charge
of violation of the supreme law was met
by the counsel, who for hire defend the
criminal respondent? 1t was by the ont
rageous assertion, that each branch of the
government had the right to Judge Of
the cOnstitutiunality Of the laws, and obey
them or not at pleasure-this was the de-
Tense. Mr. Bingham held that the Senate
nv upholding this proposition would
lay the formation for n monarchy first
and an anarchy neXt-a reign of chronic
darkness. On this issue, which, in spite
of lawyers tricks and special pleas, was
the real question involved, their decision
must stand for trial by the people. He re-
peated that the question was whether the
President could be held 10 answer 10 a
violation of the law He held first that
the Senate had sole power to decide every
question of law or fact arising, and that
they were also the final arbiters and the
frequent attempts of the counsel 10 bring
the Senate and courts in opposition were
miserable devices TO divert attention. He
would no initiate the eloquent counsel, Mr..
Evarts, vino had shown himself an eater
mp of syllahles and n snapper up of trihes
who had displayed more latin than law;
more rhetoric than logic and more intel
leciual pretentions than either. He also
referred to the length of Mr.. Eyarts' speech
by saying he tried to render il immortal
by making it eternal.
Mr.. Bingham held simply that the SEN
ate was the supreme and final judicial
tribunal of the United States. As TO the
argument which had been made at such
interminable length, that the Supreme
Court was the court of last resort for the
decision of constitutional questions, he
held it had no more TO do with the present
question than the Court of st. Petersburg.
and that the judgments Of this tribunal
could not be affected by the decisions of
the Supreme Court, made before or after
the impeachment trial. He argued that
the original jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court did not extend TO impeaehments, and
81 H.. 4. 4 :
evant, their arguments on this point with
Out colorado excuse. He then considered
the proposition of the counsel that heads Of
departments were merely the registering
Secretaries of the President. bound to do
his will. Reading from the decisions of
the Supreme Court in the case quoted by
Mr.. Evarts, he claimed that it was there
in plainly laid down that such officers
were bound by law, and not by the Presi-
dents will. He also claimed that the
other positions assumed by all ofthe Presi- |
dents counsel that he could sit 10 indg- |
ment on the validity of laws. was over
thrown by the decision of the same tribunal |
thirty years ago, which decision had never
been questioned, and proceeded 10 read ex-
tracts from them. He further asserted |
that the ex-Altorney General was wholly |
inexcussable in attempting 10 force into |
this trial as an authority, the decision of |
the present presiding officer in the Missis- |
sippi case, and argued IL had no relevancy
whatever TO the question in dispute He |
claimed then 1t was proved that we could |
not allow the President discretion "a to |
which law be would, with interpoiating |
words into the Constitution. He referred |
to the act Of Washington in sup
pressing the whisky insnrreetion. and |
that of Jackson in crushing out multi |
location as an instance in which obnoxious
laws were executed by the President who en-
teFtained doubts az to their constitution /
aliiy. lie also spoke of the constitutional
question. He then discussed the cOnstitu-
honai provisions relating to the passage Of
bills over veto, and maintaining that
every one who has learned to read can |
plainly settle the question whether or not
the President broke p law. Referring to
the recitation by Mr.. Nelson, be contendad
IL had no hearing on the case and besides,
Its author, MIR. Jefferson, was not anthofi-
tatiye m regard 20 the constitution, which
be dad not help to frame Ia regard 10
the list Of powers granted 60 the President
by the Constitution, he called attention 10
the TACT that no power Of snspending laws,
until their validity Is tested, is anywhere
given him. Ii Is held that such A claim Of
both Legislative and Executive functions
was in contragention on the express terms
of the instrument He insisted that this
claim involved also an assumption Of the
judicial powers, and characterized the en-
tire proposition as too absurd 10 be sub
mitled TO children. BY the exercise Of this
assumed power the President could sns-
pend legislation Of all kinds. He could
prevent the creation Of judicial districts;
the erection Of States aue the eleIeciion of
and the enactment Of reve-