The Portland daily press., 1868-05-07
The Impeachment Trial
ARGUMENT or MR.. BINGHAM.


WASHINGTON, Nav 6-The Court opened
with the usual form '''rs and Mr. Bingham
at once resumed his nent, beginning with
the re-statement proposition that the
acts of 1889 and 1875 u,tsed to be laws. Int
maintaining also said acts gave the President
no power to fiji vacancies in offices of hoods Of
department without the consent of the Sem
ate. The act of 1883 permitted him to create
vacancies IN one department but restricted
MN 10 the choice of chief clerk to fill it. The
act Oh 100 went further, applying to other de-
parlnents, put limited the commission to
Term OF SIX months, and thus clearly the grant
OF power Mr. Bingham then cited portions OF
the tenure OF office act to show that they SUI
perceded all previous acts referred to-. He also
CLAIMED that the argument of Mr.. Curtis as
serted that the heads of departments appoint
ed by Mr. Lincoln were not within the provi-
so, and adopting this Interpretation, he said il
followed that they were covered by the BODY of
the section. He proceeded to argue this point
at length, maint lining that the Presidential
term of four years continued on the Prasi
dents death or inability, his successor serving
out the unexplred portion, otherwise the an
pointees of the Vice President would have to
Vacate thelr Offices one month after the disa-
I plllty OF the PRESIDENT should be removed, but
the wording of the act is not the term during
winch they were appointed, but the term Of
Ine PRESIDENT by whom they were appointed
There was no such intention in the minds of
1Is trainers, and the act cannot be so construed
He also argued that the proviso had no retro
spective. Combating the position of Mr.
Groesbeck that if Mr. Stanton wa not pro-
tected by the tenure of office act the first eight
articles must fail He argued that whether
Mr.. Stanton was effected by it or NOT the
President in his appointment of Thomas had
committed an Improbable offence, because all
the power of appointment granted him by the
acts of 1889 and 1895 was abrogated by the act
OF 1901; But he asked why such lengthy ar
guments were made in an attempt to prove
the unconstitutionalty of that law if the coun.
sci did not feel and know that Mr.. Stanton was
protected by it, and that it repealed II former
grants OF power to remove and appoint heads
OF departments. he alluded to conferences
having been held between the President and
Thomas in relation to the ACCESSIBILITY of sus
pending the eX cution of their schemes until
the result of the trial should be known; and
referring to the language of Mr.. Nelson who
said the President was willing to abide by the
trial, he regretted that his highness had not
slgnltied his pleasure to abide by the Judgment
as well. Mr.. Bingham characterized the Pres
1dents intimaton, through his counsel that he
did not believe the Senate duly constituted to
sit as Court so long as States were unrepre-
scented asplres of arrogance, and he (Bingham)
would not be surprised if the President to-
morrow should issue military orders to dis
solve the Court. In such case his answer
would be IN the words of Mirabeau, which he
proceeded to recite. He then referred to the
Presidents language to Gen. Emory. as a suo-
gestlon OF the Communicating Chief to his SUI
bordlnate, that he would stand by him in yio-
latlon OF law. This taken in connection with
ms declaration to Gen. Grant would in any
other country have been sufficient to cost him
his head 1t was no charge to be sneered at,
as ne believed the counsel had DONE
Mr. Bingham then took up article TO- and
argued that the Presidents language not only
violated decency but was the language of sedi-
ton; he also claimed that the sedition law, so
often referred to as unconstitutional had new
er been so pronounced by the court; it was
necessary in times of danger, and under Mr..
Jefferson It's provisions had been re-enacted so
Tar as to apply to all persons in the military
ana naval service, which provisions still remain
IN force; he further claimed that sedtious ut
terances by any Executive officers are indicta-
BILE under the common law in the District of
Columbia. He stood for virtuous constitution
al liberty of speech, but against seditious
abuse which would shake the serenity of
powerful government and reach even the dead
in their graves
Reviewing the charges of the 18th article, he
sad That Mr.. Parsons telegram was introduc-
ed not to prove a resolution of the reconstruc-
ton act, which was indeed passed six months
subsequently, but in support of the allegation
that he opposed the ratification of the consli-
tutional amendment. Reading that telegram.
ne claimed that the President, in referring to
Congress as set of individuals, used the Ian
guage of a conspirator and not an honest man:
his whole purpose in opposing the amendment
was to revive the lost cause. Eulogizing what
he deemed the beneficent character of the 14th
article, he animadverted on the President in
severe terms for his opposition to it, and said
the people had rightly judged of his intention
de reminded the Senators that many of the
offences charged in the 18th article were in
d1ctable in the District of Columbia and also
that the averments were desirable: ASSUMING
then, that he made it clear to every Senator
that the substance of the averments of all the
articles were established on the evidence adj
duced and on the law admitted, he claimed
that the American people would coincide in
thelr opinion, and went on to consider the char
acter of the confessions made in the Presidents
answer, which he held were of themselves suf-
hclent to warrant conviction. Referring to
ms powers, he insisted that the Presidents as
sumption of judicial prerogative was crime
in violation of the Constitution which called
Tor his deposition by the Senate, and that the
President, by his own confession, was guilty of
acts of usurpation.
Mr.. Bingham then argued the determination
OF the people to see that the supremacy of the
Constitution was maintained, and passing an
elaborate eulogium on the majestic and divine
character of law. He proceeded to draw
parallel between James II. and Andrew John
son, and claimed that as his usurpations were
similar, the Presidents punishment should
also be analogous and equally severe. Refer
ring to the recent triumph of liberty and law
in the struggle just ended he said he could not
believe that its glorious fruits would now be
OhiO"h away, anu blt Drl4ClpleS Oh our SOu-
stltutlon of free government denied by coun-
tenanclng the assumption by the President of
legislative, judicial and executive functions
and powers combined. In conclusion, he enum-
Grated in eloquent terms the considerations
which he claimed should influence the vote for
conviction, and expressed his assured conf
dence that such would be the happy result.
AS Mr. Bingham took his seat the galleries
broke out in prolonged and loud applause.
The Chief Justice Indignantly ordered the
room cleared which w done and ha rf
is now sitting with closed DOORS
At o'clock the doors were opened the Court
taking a recess.
In the mean time motion was offered by
Mr.. Morrill,, of Maine, to adjourn until Satur-
day. which was lost-22 to 20.
In reply to a question of Mr.. Conklng, the
Chief Justice here stated it had not been his
intention to exclude reporters, and he was just
going TO submit the question to the Senate
when Mr.. Conkling's inquiry was made.
Pending a consideration OF various orders
heretofore submitted, a motion in reference to
the mode OF voting on the question of admit
ting reporters to the final deliberations, the
recess was made and carried.
After some delay in re- assembling the Chief
Justice called the Court to order, and said that
the case would be considered closed on both
sides if neither had anything to offer.
Mr.. Hendricks then moved that the pending
order be considered in open session.
The Chief Justice said that it could be done
by unanimous consent
Several Senators objected.
Mr.. Edmunds moved to amend by providing
that the doors be closee for deliberation, which
was agreed to, and at 3.39 o'clock the doors
were again closed.
Directly after the doors were opened Mr..
Cragin made report in reference to Col For
ney's accounts, viz: That the total sum adj
vanced to Col. Forney, as Secretary of the Sem
ate, is $4,125,714, which is satisfactorily ac-
counted for by vouchers duly examined by the
committee. The actual control and disburse-
ment of the Senate contingent funds is with the
financial clerk, Saml Wagner, who is response
BILE for larger portion of the whole deficit of
$35,486 He acknowledges the misappropriation
of $4,000 and admits that he is responsible for
whatever deficiency existed at the date of his
resignation, but his explanations are not en-
tirely satisfactory, as they leave unaccounted
for $4,000. The Secretary incurs this loss,
and must bear it unless reimbursed by the
transfer of property by his subordinate. In
any event there is no loss to the Treasury.
The Court and Senate, at AS p. NJ ad-
journed.