Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1868-05-01
GOOD MOTIVE no EXCUSE.


GOOD MOTIVE no EXCUSE
public officer can neither plead nor prove
good motives to refute or control his own admis-
sion that he has Intentionally violated public
law.
Take the case of the President; with reference
to his duty under his oath to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed, he can enter into no
inquiry as to whether those laws are expedient
or constitutional, or otherwise And inasmuch
as it is not possible for him, under the Consttu-
ton, to enter lawfully into any such inquiry, it
is alike impossible for him to plead or to prove
that, having entered into such inquiry, which
was in itself unlawful, he was governed by a good
motive IN the result which he reached, and in
his action thereupon Having 10 right to in
qulre whether the laws were expedent or con-
stitutional, or otherwise, if he did so inquire,
and If upon such inquiry he came to the conclu-
sion that, for any reason, he would not execute
the law according to the terms of the law, then
he willfully violated his oath Of office and the
Constitution Of the United States The neces-
sary, the inevitable presumption in law Is, that
he acted under the influence of bad motives ! 50
doing, and no evidence can be introduced con-
trolling or coloring in any degree this necessary
presumption Of the law.
Having, therefore, no right to entertain any
motive contrary to his constitutional obligation to
execute the laws, he cannot plead his motive
Inasmuch as ne can neither plead nor prove his
motive, the presumption Of the law must remain
that in violating his oath of office and the Con-
stitution Of the United States he was Influenced
by bad motive The magistrate who willfully
breaks the laws, in violation of his oath to exc
cute them, insults and outages the common
nature Of his cOuntrymen when he asserts that |
their laws are so bad that they deserve to be
broken. This is the language Of defiant usur-
per, or Of a man who has surrendered himself to
the counsel and control Of the enemies Of his !
country.
THE TENTH ARTICLE.
The learned counsel who opened the case for
the President seems not to have comprehended |
the nature Of the ofense set forth in the 10Th ar
tice. His remarks upon that article proceeded /
upon the idea that the House Of Representatives /
arIaign the President for slandering or libeling |
the Congress Of the United States No such Of !
fense Is charged nor Is it claimed by the man
ayers that 1t would be possible for Mr. johnson.
or any other person, to libel or slander the gov
erument. It is for no purpose Of protection or
or punishment that We arrairn Mr..
johnson for words spoken in Washington, Cleve-
land and St. Louis. We DO not arrai.,n him for
the words spoken hut the charge in substance
is, that 4 man who could utter the words. which
as is proven, were uttered by him, Is unfit for
the oitce he holds. We claim that the common
law Of crimes, as understood and enforced bv
Parliament in cases Of impeachment, is in sub
stance this that no person ia office shall do
any net contrary 20 the good morals Of the Office
and that when any officer is guilty Of any act
contrary to the good morals Of the Office which
be- holds, that act is q misiemeanor for the pur-
pose ct impeachment and removal from Office.