Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-04-30
ritz MPEACnMENT TRIAL.

lnE lmh EhOhmnNA
In the Senate, yesterday, Mr.. Sumner
offered resolutions that Mr.. Nelson,
HAVING used improper language In this
tribunal, calculated 10 provoke a duel,
and disrespectful TO the Court, therefore
he deserves the ceusure Of the Senate.
Mr.. Sherman objected TO the eonsidera-
ton of the resolutions, and Mr.. Sumner
Objected to Mr. Nelson being allowed to
make any remarks, except in explana.
ton. but the Senate allowed him to read
portion of the letter bearing on the
question OF dates. Mr.. Nelson then ex-
blamed what purported TO be the original
az the letter. signed by Messrs. Butler,
Logan and Garfield, dated March 9, and
also n letter 10 the President, by Mr.
Chauncey Black, March lo, inclosing n
copy, with additional signatures: Mr.
Cameron offered an order for night SEES
sions hereafter, which went over. 3.
Mr.. Eyarts then resumed his argument
he assumed it to be already shown that
This tribunal is a Court, and that the
President is to be tried only on the
charges which are supported by law and
evidence, and by common fame. de
said much that had been deliberately
advanced BY the Managers must tall to
the ground, so must fall the articles
based on charges which had been repeat
edly rejected, as false grounds for i'm
parchment. He referred to the conduct
Of the case by the prosecution, as being
similar to the practice Of the Cninese,
who make great noise in. the vicinity
Of the object to be attacked, or like the
explosion of some $50 tons Of gunpow-
der AT a safe distance from the walls to
he demolished. In this case he said,
evidence had been suppressed, and the
enlargement Of declanatory inyective
was unu sually improper. BE also spoke
in a strain OF sarcasm in answer 70 Mr..
Boutwelps reference to the Presidents
counsel as attorneys whose minds had
not been sharpeued, but enlarged by
nractice." he then considered Mr..
Boutwell's definition Of impeachable
ofenses, and argued at length that no
action could be so construed, which did
not proceed from malice and evil inten-
ton supporting his views by quotations
from the records Of Humphreys trial,
and also by the language of Burke In
accusing Warren Hastings, where he ex-
pressly stated that the assertion and
nroof of evil intents we're indispensable.
Mr.. Evarts held that the best way to
determine the nature Of ofenses which
NAV be deemed high crimes and misde-
meanors. is to consider the punishment
prescribed for them.
He referred to the epithets applied by
the managers to the punishment OF des..
potism, aud in fercible terms described
the character and magnitude of the dis
grace which this punishment involves.
BE claimed that the description OF the
penalties provided in the Tenure OF
Office law for its infraction showed the
comparatively trivial nature OF the
offense. A maximum but no minimum
of punishment is provided; and so in
the discretion Of the court before whom
the indictment should be tried, the
offender could be let of with tiue of
six cents and Imprisonment for one day.
He read from the debates on this subject
at the time when this bill was prepared,
| in which Mr.. Williams and other SEN
ators said there should be no minimum
6xed. because the offense might arise
from inadvertence, and would not IN any
case fix a character Of moral guilt
Mr. Eyarts then considered the gene.
| raj debates on the bill, and proposed to
prove that the offense charged was not
| made, or to be considered penal, but
more of political nature, and then that
even the alleged infraction did not take
| plaee. He claimedthat all belief OF the
| Presidents former turpitude must be
| laid aside, and it must be considered
that be was unimpeachable before twelve
o'clock on Friday, February I'll; and
then argued that even if the removal OF
| Stanton had been actually effected, no
| change in the relations of the War
| Department to the rest of the Govern
ment would have ensued, and henae that
the mere aet could not be considered as
dangerous to the public safety; but, on
the contrary, 1t would have been bene-
| flied by it, because the relations exist
ing between the President and Stanton
were prejudicial to proper working of
the Government; hence it resulted that
the crime consisted in the technical in
fraction of the law, and applied only in
its restrictions TO himself, and be
believed it to be unconstitutional and,
moreover, il relates TO an ofense not
penal; and under these circumstances
his action could not be deemed crime.
He then briefly considered the ques-
| ton of what was meant by an unconsti-
tutional law, and said it was a paradox,
as it could be no offense to violate the
provisions of such mere piece of paper.
He claimed, he said, no greater right for
| the President than for private indlvid-
ual TO test the constitutionality of a stat
ute thus. BE argued that the President
had made paper removal, without force
or violence, in order to assert his right to
act under the Constitution, which, as he
believed, was violated by the law in ques-
ton, against the assertion that final vio-
lations are impeachsble, without refer
ence to intention. He cited authority
and argued at some length that the prin.
ciples Of common sense were opposed to
any such views $3.50
At this point the Court took recess.
On reassembling, Mr., Eyarts expressed
bis surprise at the managers denuncla-
ton Of those peacefully resisted laws
which they decided unconstitutional. 1t
was the duty Of every ministerial officer
to raise question in favor Of the Con-
stitutiou, and in the highest degree Il
was the duty Of the special defendant Of
the Constitution. He referred to the
case of Newell VS.. the Auditor Of the
State of New York, in which the latter
successfully resisted the loan Of six mill
| lions, and also the New York law inn
posing tax on brokers' sales, which
was resisted and pronounced void BY the
United States Supreme Court, and to the
action Of Mr.. Lincoln in suspsnding
habeas corpus iu Florida, in causing the