The Portland daily press., 1868-04-24
DAILY PRESS.
PORT'LAND
Friday Morning, April "a, 1858.
Mr.. BoutweiI's Argument.

|
Mr.. BoutweII's Argument.
Among the impeachment managers ther,
is no one who commands greater respect fo
his legal ability, the intensity of his con
victions Of right and the general worth o
his character than Boutwell, of Massachusetts
who, on Wednesday, made the first CLOSING
argument for the prosecution in the trial o
Andrew johnson. That argument, of which
we have published pretty full abstract, i:
PROBABLY the best presentation of the legal as.
poets OF the case which will be made on the
SIDE OF the people, though all the managers
have obtained leave to speak. Bingham is
perhaps as good Il lawyer as Boutwell,, but
has the fortune or. the misfortune to be an
orator as well as lawyer, and consequently
will be likely to indulge in considerable
rhetoric in his closing argument.
Mr.. Boutwells argument is very long, but
Is nevertheless rather compact than diffuse.
The articles which charge a violation of the
tenure-of-office act are attacked in so many
ways by the defense, and the questions aris-
ing thereon are so recondite, that though
many OF them are unimportant, considerable
time was necessary to meet them one by one.
They are met in such way that those per-
sons who have had doubts as to the strength
OF the case against the President must now
be fully satisfied. 1t is in fact, as presented
by Mr.. Boutwell,, one of the p,ainest cases
that ever came before any tribunal for adiudi-
cation. The gossamer veil that the Presi-
dents counsel had woven over the gros
criminality of their client in ignoring the
tenure-otoffice act is torn away, and the great
offender of the century stands revealed.
We have only space to notice few of the
more striking points made by the manager
In the beginning his discussion of the rela-
ton OF the coordinate branches of the govern
ment is ingenious and strikes us as present.
ing some new and valuable suggestions in
constitutional Interpretation. 1t has often
occurred to most people that, though each
branch or the government is independent
within its own prescribed sphere, yet in case
OF conflic. between them the supremacy
must be lodged some where Mr.. Boutwell,
claims this controlling authority for Congress
and sustains his position by references to and
skilful verbal criticism of the constitution. He
marks the fact that legislative power is grant
ed to Congress while executive power is pest
ed in the President; further, that all legisla-
tive power belongs to Congress, while the ex-
ecutlve power belongs to the President
The inference from these differences in
the language of the constitution is that
to Congress alone is given discretionary pow-
er, while to the Executive and to the Ju-
dietary it is denied. Neither of the
latter branches of the government has
in itself any inherent energy by which
it may transact the part in the ad-
mlnistration OF the national affairs appro-
pirate to is design, until certain powers are
vested in it by Congress. Their authority
is found by considering simply what is given
TO them in the constitution, while to Con-
gress is given power to make all laws that
are necessary and proper for carrying into
execution the foregoing powers, and all
other poacers rested by this constitution in
the government of the United States, or any
"eP|"teHC UT queer tnefe0J.
This point is elaborated at considerable
length and is made so plain as to afford COM
plete relief to persons who hava been troiib-
led by the idea that this is a government oil
checks aud balances to such an extent as to
lead possibly to occasional dead-locks.
Another question is set at rest by MIR.
Boutwell,; he boldly declares that not only is
1t incompetent for the President to set aside
law on the ground of its unconstitutional
ty, but that when the President is on trial
the Senate itself may not properly take in
to consideration the constitutionality or the
uncoDstitutionality of the law he has violat
ed. What the Senate or the Supreme Court
may decide with reference to the tenure-of-
office act is altogether irrelevant as to the gull
or innocence of the Presid ent. The reason
for this view OF the case may be concisely
stated thus: IF the President have the pow.
er claimed, he may set at defiance every law
on the statute book the validity of which
has not been affirmatively declared by the
Supreme Court.
Among the other particularly satisfactory
arguments of Mr.. Boutwell, is that by which
he shows that the removal of Stanton was in
violation of the constitution itself, irrespect
i've of the civil Tenure bill; that there are NJ
preceients whatever for the removal of al
officer while the Senate is in session withou
the consent of that body; that the law O
1889, which has been relied upon by the de
fence as an early legislative construction o
the constitution recognizing the power OF thu
President to remove absolutely and withou
the consent of the Senate, applied at the ver
best only to removals made during the reces
of that body.
Equally ingenious and instructive is Mr.
BoutwelPs manner of showing that even
granting that the ad interim appointment ol
Thomas was otherwise consistent with thu
law of 1875, he violated that provision of the
same statute which forbids the continuanc,
of temporary appointments for more than 81,
months. Best of all in his refutation of tha
charge that has been So damaging to the pros
ecuti1n, that at the time of the passage of tn
civil tenure act it was regarded by both tn
House and Senate as inapplicable to the Cab
met of Mr.. Johnson. The passages quoted
from the speeches of Mr.. Schenek of tn
House and Mr.. Sherman of the Senate ar
conclusive upon this point, and prevent tn
further use of this argument by the defence
|
| Hints 10 Poulferers.
A writer in the Rural New Yorker give
the following directions to the breeders o