The Portland daily press., 1868-05-05
XLth CONGRESs-Seoond Session.
The Impeachment Trial.
ARGUMENT OF MIR. BINGHAM.

WASHINGTON, May AFTER reading tn
journal Mr.. Bingham commenced the final ar
gument Tor the prosecution. Protesting tina
he took part in those proceedings from no par
tizan feelings, but with a mighty sense of thei
solemnity and true meaning, he proceeded
to sketch events attendant in the assassination
of Lincoln and accession of johnson to the
Presidency. Referring to his oath to execute
the laws, he spoke of their majestic supremacy
in our form of government and claimed thai
the President is equally subject to theil
authority with the humblest frontier settler.
He dwelt on the high trust committed to thu
Senate and asserted that the issues of life and
death to the Republic hung on their decision
He asked how the charge of violating the su.
preme law of the land was met by the counse
who for hire defend the treason of the crimi-
nal respondent. 1t was by an outrageous as
sertion that each branch of government had
the right to judge of the constitutionality of
laws and obey them or not at plesure. This
was the defence that was made for His High
ness the first King of our nation.
Mr.. Bingham held that the Senate by uphold
ing this proposition would lay the foundation
of monarchy first and anarchy afterward a
reign of chaotic darkness on the issue of which
In spite of lawyers tricks and special pleas was
the real question involved. Their decision
must stand for trial by the people. He repeat
ed that the question was whether the President
could be held to answer for a violation of law.
He held first that the Senate had sole power
to decide every question of law or fact arising
in issue. They were also final arbitres and the
frequent attempts of the counsel to bring the
Senate and courts in opposition were miserable
devices to divert attention. He would not i'm.
itate the eloquent counsel Mr.. Evarts, who
had shown himself an eater up of syllables a
snapper up of trifes, who had displayed more
Latin than law, more rhetoric than logic and
more intellectual pyrotechnics than either
He also referred to the length of Mr.. Evarts'
speech by saying he tried to render it immortal
by making it eternal. Mr.. Bingham held SIM
ply that the Senate was the supreme and final
judicial tribunal of the United States, and as to
the article which had been made at such inter-
minable length that the Supreme court was
court of last resort for the decision of the con-
stitutional question.
He held it has 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 either before or after the impeach-
ment trial. He argued that the original juris-
dlction Of the Supreme Court did not extend
to impeachment and that therefore their refer
ence to its decision was irrevelent and their ar
gument on this point without colorado excuse
He then considered the proposition advanced
by the counsel that the Heads of the Depart
ments were merely registering secretaries of the
President, bound to do his will. Reading from
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
quoted by Evarts, he claimed it was the view
plainly laid down that such officers are bound
by law and not by the Presidents will. He
also claimed that the other position assumed
by all of the Presidents counsel that he could
sit in judgment on the vilidity of laws is over
thrown by the decision of the same tribunal
80 years ago, which decisions had never since
been questioned, and proceeded to read extracts
from them.
He further asserted that the ex-Attorney
General was wholly inexcussble in attempting
to force into this trial as authority the decision
of the present presiding officer in the Missis-
sippi case, and argued that it had no relevancy
whatever to the question in dispute. He claim
ed then that 1t was proved that we could not
allow the Presidents discretion as to which
law he would execute without interpolating
words into the constitution. He referred to
the action of Washington in suppressing the
whiskey instruction and to that of Jackson
in crushing out notification as instances in
which obnoxious laws were executed by
President who entertained grave doubts of
their constitutionality.
He also spoke of the acquiesence of the
American people in the unconstitutional and
iniquitous fugitive slave law until its abroga-
ton, and in this connection dwelt at length on
the subject of slavery with its various charac-
teristics. He spoke of the counseis reference
to President Lincoln, saying he had violated
the laws of his country and furnished many
presidents for President Johnson's crimes as a
bold eliminating SANDER on his memory.
The suspension of the habeas corpus was not
made by him but by the civil war which rem ..
dered it necessary. In regard to the passage of
the indemnity act he said the purpose of Con-
gress in such legislation was to furnish author
lty to the court to dismiss cases brought against
the Presidents agents for what they had done
in pursuance of the constitution. If their acts
had been unwarranted the indemnity laws
would have been of no avail. The Senate then
took recess. .a
On reassembling at half-past two, Mr. Bing-
ham resumed, and referred to the argument of
Mr.. Evarts, based on a successful resistance
to the brokers' tax law in New York as an in
suit to the Senate, and said that one capable
of making it was not to argue grave Constitu-
tional provisions. Relating the passage of
bills over a veto, and maintaining that every
one who has learned to read can plainly settle
the question whether or not the President
broke law. Referring to a citation by Mr.
Nelson, he contended that it had no bearing
on the case and that besides its author (Jeffer
SOM was not authority in regard to the Con
stitution, which he did not help to frame
Reading the list of powers granted to the
President by the Constitution, he called atten
ton to the fact that no power of suspendinf
laws until their validity is tested is anywhere
given him; and he held that such a claim O
both legislative and executive functions was g
contravention of the express terms of the in
strument He insisted that this claim involv
ed also an assumption of judicial powers, an(
characterized the entire proposition as too alb
surd to be submitted to children. BY the ex
ercise of this assumed power, the Presiden
could suspend legislation of all kinds: III
could prevent the creation of judicial dis
tricts, the creation of States, the election
representatives, the enactment OF revenue
laws and, in short, he could destroy the frame
work of our Constitutional government
Whether he shall be allowed to do this is tn
question now to be determined, and for
righteous decision the prayers of millions nov
ascend. AS to what crimes can be CONSIDERS
impeachabe, he said that all offences unde
the common law are indictable in the Dlstrlc
of Columbia, and that the same class are ais
impeachable. If this proposition was not sell
evident, he need not argue it, for as to the Oh
fences specified in the articles he held that n
one could deny that the open violation of lay
by the President was an Improbable crime
who was not destitute of honor and sense Q
duty. He said the defence of the President
as exhibited in his answer, rests o.
the assumption that he possesses the right t
resist and bring to judicial decision any La,
decision which he supposes to trench on hi
constitutional prerogative. This assumption
could be made pretended excuse for refusin
to execute any law whatever. Referring I
the Dosition assumed on this question by M
Fvarts. he read from a pamphlet written
Mr.. Curtis in 1862, the expressions OF col
trary view which he commended as good lay
He went on to assert that no man who did M
admit the assumption that the President pc
sesged judicial as well as executive power
could deny that his written orders clear
showed his violation of law and proved hi
worthy of conviction. Mr.. Bingham then
ted legal authorities to show tnat aVerme
proofs of evil intent are not necessary III pr
ceedingS against any class OF persons exec
judicial officers, and in that case alone can ]
norance of the law be admitted as an excuse
With regard to the defence, that the Pre
dent suspended Mr.. Stanton under the const
tuition and supplied the vacancy under the Ia
OF l195, ne CLAIMED the Presidents ansW
showed violation of the laws for that limit
the tenure of such appointments T. six mont
~and the President appointed Gen. Thomas
an indefinite period.
Mr.. Bingham then spoke of the aroume
that the President is bound to Intervene
and said it was fallacious position the neor
are the guardians of their own honor al
Congress is responsible only to them
AZ this point Mr.. Bingham yielded to +
motion to adjourn. The Court and the Sen;
adjourned accordingly at three o'clock a
fifty minutes.
Mr.. Window rose to a question of privile
which was understood to be the resolution
the censure of Mr.. Washburne, of Illinois,
writing a letter TO Mr.. Folsom abusive of
colleague, Mr.. Donnelly.