Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1868-05-06

Mr. Stanton had been actually effected, no
change in the relation Of the war department
to the rest Of the government, AMI hence that
the mere act could not be considered danger
ous to the public safety On the contrary, it
would have benefited by it, because the rcla-
tions existing between the President and Mr.
Stanton were prejudicial to a proper working
Of the governments hence il resulted that the
crime consisted in the technical infractiou Of
the law, if it shall be so held The law APP
piled only in its restrictions 70 himself, and he
believed il to be unconstitutional. Il relates
TO oflenses not penal, aud under these crcum-
stances his action could not be a crime Mr.
Eyarts then briefly considered the question Of
what was meant BY unconstitutional law, and
said it was paradox. II can be no oiieuse
violate the provisions Of such mere piece Of
paper lie then cited authority and argued
at some length that the principles Of common
sense were opposed to such views
Another spat occurred to day between Messrs.
Butler aud Nelson in regard to the Alta Vcla
claim which was closed by Mr.. Nelson hand
ing io the clerk for publication the paper. inhi.
procession in regard to the matter
WAsmvoroN, April 30
Altcr the reading of the journal Mr. Eyurts
resumed his argument lie held that it was
a grave reproach upon the wisdom and fore
sight of the trainers of our government to
claim that d decision in this case in favor of
The President would result in monarchy. In
bis view this danger was to another Of the
balances Of the constitution, namely, the rcla-
tions Of the weight Of numbers and the equal
ftlG s.f
the principles of the Constitution aud the ut-
torances ef our most distinguished statesmen,
il was evident that to make the Senate exec
utiyc instead Of advisory, was TO rob the peo-
pies majority of their rightlul power In
this manner the small and tlinly populated
States would control the working Of the gov
ernment against the viii of those which east
the overwhelming majority, and the Presiden-
tial election would become a farce. la sup
port Of this position he quoted the writings Of
the elder Adams, sherman and others, and
enforced it by considering various emergencies
which might arise under the tenure of office
act which makes certain officers permanent,
and would render removal during the session
Of the Senate extremely difficult if not im-
practicable
Mr.. Evarts contended, however, that the
decisions of the Congress Of 1871 were not
only authoritative because confirmed by the
supreme court but carried immense weight of
themselves He referred to the debates of
1889 Is explanatory of the subject Of the
power Of removal and claimed that the point
at issue was settled, aud firmly established
then by the trainers of our government and
by the practice of successive administrations
afterwards. In regard TO the suggestion that
the Congress Of 1889 was Influenced by their
high confidence in President Washington, Mr.
Evarts asked if it were not possible that the
present Congress had been Influenced in an
opposite manner by its opinions Of the incum-
bent President? He cited from various con-
temporaneous writer's to show that the im-
portance of the question was deeply felt at
that time, and that the effect of the decision
reached in 1889 was thoroughly understood
He then claimed that the recent law being in
direct controventon of the doctrine and
practice of the Government for eighty years.
and having in itself no benign effect on con-
STRUNG the Constitution, doubts as to its
constimtionality might naturally have arisen
in the mind of the President for which he
could not rightfuly be impeached.
To dismiss and depose the President for an
attempt to maintain the supremacy of the
Constitution, would be to make him the vie
tim Of Congress and martyr Of the Consti-
tuition.
The Court took recess.
On re-assembling at 2.35, Mr.. Eyarts coh-
tidered the attitude which Senators occupy in
reference to this subject, and said nothing
was more abhorrent to the nature, sense and
justice than that a man should be a judge in
his own ease and decide question which he
had already preudiced II would be extra
ordinary, almost inconceivabe, to suppose
they did not so consider it, with the prospect
Of having to try the matter Of it, were it ju-
dicial as a court of impeachment 1t could
not be possible that they did not regard it as
political question. Again, they had an III
terest in the result, Twenty millions of dol
lars of the patronage and powers of the ex-
ecutiye officer were the prizes offered them
for conviction. Their political prejudices,
too, he argued, joined with other considera-
tons to cause them to cast out as improper
the charges alleging violation of their own
law. Passing then to the general considera-
tion Of the evidence introduced in support of
the articles of impeachment, he characterized
it as absurdly insufficient, although the mana
gers had possessed every conceivable adyan-
tage in the preliminary privileges of examin-
ing witnesses, and in hundred different ways
As to the articles about the President 5
speeches, Mr. Eyarts held there were two IA
tai biections--irst, the speeches had refer
ence only to a defunct Congress, and Sec
ond, they were oienses only against rhetoric
cal good taste.