The Portland daily press., 1868-05-06
XLth CONeREss-seoond Session.
The Impeachment Trial.
ARGUMENT OF MIR. BINGHAM.

WASHINGTON, May 5.-Mr. Bingham re-
sumed. After recapitulating the arguments OF
yesterday he took up the question whether or
not it is necessary in this case to prove evil in
tent. He read from the records of English
state trials to show that such proof is not need
ed, and alluded to an instance where certain
English king had put some little children to
death in order to send them to heaven, as an
example of the absurdity of the Presidents
plea. lie would not argue the point at any
length because it was plainly settled by COM
mon law and the practice of centuries. The
arguments of the counsel on this question was
puerile and unfit to be uttered in the presence of
the Senate. He then referred to the question
of the power of the President to fill vacancies
created by himself during sessions of the SEN
ate, and insisted that the fact of intimate con-
nection of powers of appointment with that Of
removal had been studiously kept out of sight
by the adroit counsel opposing him and went
on to argue with reference to all provisions
bearing on the subject; that the right to ap-
point cabinet officers without the consent of
the Senate was nowhere granted to the Presi-
dent by the Constitution. 1t could not be
merely filled as vacancy by temporary APP
pointment, for his letters Of authority appoint
ed them as for an indefinite time.
To show that it was not among the Presi-
dents implied powers under the the constitu-
ton to vacate and fill offices without consent
OF the Senate, he read from the writings of
Hamilton and Webster. He further main
tanned that the speeches of Sherman and other
Senators are not susceptible of the meaning
put upon them by the opposing council. In
regard to the debates Of 1889 he contended
that too much weight was given to utterance
OF paTtizan debate at that time, but also
argued that the power of removal granted to
the President in 1889 was restricted by legisla-
ton. He held also that President Adams re-
moved Mr.. Pickering before the Senate met,
although it was on the same day, and the re-
cord was not clear. He asked of what avail
would be the provision of the constitution
limiting the power to fill vacancies during re-
cess of the Senate to the issue of commissions
to expire at the beginning of the next session
if the President could create vacancies at will
during the session of the Senate.
Mr.. Bingham challenged citation of any
law or section of the Constitution which would
limit the terms of officers thus appointed by
the President. By such appointments he could
keep men in office at his pleasure without re-
gard to the Constitution. On this subject and
on the question of what are the limitations of
the Executive power, Mr.. Bingham cited num-
erous legal authorities, and quoted from the
speeches of Mr. Webster. With regard to the
Presidents defence that he sought to test the
validity of the tenure of office law, he asserted
that there never had been clear, unequivocal
decision of the Supreme Court against the
constitutionality of the law of Congress. and
held 1t was only bold pretence of the Presi-
dent to take upon himself responsibility
which the court itself had never assumed; the
presumption was altogether in favor of the
laws validity. To admit his possession of a
discretionary and judicial prerogative would
be to clothe the creature with power superior
to the power which created him. and would
enable him at pleasure to defy the whole of
the people, the Constitution and laws. Allud-
ing to an expression of Mr.. Evarts, he denied
having claimed the omnipotence of Congress;
he regarded that body, equally with the Presi-
dent the servant of the people; but neither
Congress or the Judiciary were answerable to
the President He would make no further
answer to the clamor of the learned gentle
man on this point, but must repel his charges
against the House of Representatives, as hav-
ing brought and originated impeachment in a
party vote, and against the Senators for having
expressed an opinion on a subject which they
were afterwards to judge 1t was their duty
to express that opinion, for they were to try
the President in an entirely different capacity.
He then recited three laws which the Presi-
dent was charged with having violated, and
claiming that it had been already shown that
these violations were improbable offences
he quoted Kent, that maladministration in
Office was also ground for impeachment
He held it was entirely immaterial whether or
not the articles framed were in the technical
form OF an Indictment; every child knew that
his offence was the assumption of power. To
judge of the validity of the laws for himself,
and to obey them or not at his pleasure, it was
not too much to say that holder piece of eff
frontery wasi never before known. He held
that the elaborate argument of the counsel to
prove that the law OF 1868 did not repeal the
act Of 1889, and admitted that it was in the
power of Congress to determine the tenure OF
Office, and that the inject was not determined
by the consttutionality of the provision; and
proceeded to comment on the act of 1867, in
order to show that it was clear and explicit in
its terms. Referring to Senator Sherman's re-
marks, that he would consent to the removal
of Cabinet officer who should be so desti-
tute of honor as to refuse to resign when re-
quested by the Senate, Mr.. Bingham said that
the remarks were natural at that time for cir
cumsGances had not then developed the malig-
nifty and dangerous intentions of the President.
Besides, the expression showed that the con-
sent of the Senate was necessary, no one
doubling at that time that Mr. Stanton came
within the provisions of the act. The Presi-
dent himself had acknowledged as much by
suspending Mr.. Stanton under the act. No
where else is the power of suspension given
him. Even the wording of his me ssage was
borrowed In part from the language of the
act, and this excuse was an after thought to
cover up bis villainy He held that the Presi-
dent was responsible for having abused the
stanton without alleging or proving that the
latter had become disqualified in any way
from exercising his duties
The Senate then took recess
On Resembling, Mr.. Bingham claimed that
it bad been already shown that the President
was self convicted on the charges contained
in the LIST, I'd, Sd, 9Th and 18th articles, and
proceeded to speak of the removal of Mr.
Stanton. He paid a glowing tribute to the
public services, character and virtues of that
To1,, niafa c1o pbo ho1
been proved faithful among the faithless, and
who in all the qualities that adorn and emo
BILE human nature, had no superior in any age
yet this distinguished patriot had been re-
moved without colorado excuse, in vic
lation of the law, to crafty the personal ami
mostly of the President. Mr.. Bingham was
glad to be able to agree with the counsel Oh
one point of law, namely, that an unconstitu-
tional law was no law, but he insisted that il
cannot be considered unconstitutional until il
has been so pronounced in the proper way
He would also reiterate that evil intent is t.
be presumed from evil acts, but the Presi
dents evil intention was not merely matter
of presumption but of confession. To show
this. Mr.. Bingham read from the Presidents
letter to Gen. Grant, in which he says, "yor
know that it was my purpose to prevent Mr.
Stanton from resuming the duties OF the office
of Secretary of War" and he claimed further
that every one not stupid or insane, must SCI
that If Mr. Stanton had been kept out of hi
office he never could have got into the court
and decision could never have been obtained
by the President. The defence that he wanted
to obtain quo 0aTrdnto was mere babble il
the ears of the Senate. He asked why if tn,
Presidents purpose in all he did was to secure
a decision of the Supreme Court, he did no
institute the proceedings. 1t was because j
was impossible for him to do so, as he knew i
would be from the beginning. He then rea,
from Greeneaf to show that the Presiden
must be held responsible for what, with ord
nary intelligence, he must have seen would b
the consequence of his action.
In reply to the defence that the removal wa
not consummated, he said it had long been Sc
tied that the attempt to commit misdemear
was of itself an indictable misdemeanor; /
support of which proposition he cited legal al
thority; he also held that any offence undo
the common law was indictable in the Dlstrit
OF Columbia, according to the laws OF 1871 an
1901; according to the tenure OF ONCE law,
mace the removal of Mr.. Stanton and the al
and no intelligent man conld DENY that the
were lmpeachable offences The only uuestio
which remained to be considered was the COZ
stitutlonallty OF that law. He MIGHT sirnpl
say that was closed question. To acknow
edge now that the tenure of Office act wbicl
after long discussion had been passed, an
again passed oyer the Presidents veto on
again approved on February 22d. unconst;t,
tional, will be for the Senate to deny its deci.
ion three times made, and confess that it is M
guilty party worthy of impeachment
Mr.. Bingham then referred to his own oour,
and that of a majority of his party in opposr
impeachment until it was unavoidable; uni
the Gods had made him mad whom they wis
ed to destroy. In regard to the defence base
on the practice of the Government duriI
eighty years, he denied that such practice W
contrary tOffh n