The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1868-04-11
BY TELEGRAPH.
CONGRESS.
WASHINGTON, April 10.
SENATE

WASHINGTON April 40.
SENATE.
Alter prayer the chair was vacated
for the Chief Justice and the Court waI
read. The gallery was about half filled
Gen: Sherman again occupied a seat or
the door. MIR. Curtis, of counsel for thC
PRESIDENT resumed his opening Mt II
minutes past IL.
Mr.. Curtis commenced Thy referring
to the statement made by Mr.: Butler
that the Presidents letter to the Secre.
tary of the Treasury notifying hin
Of the suspension of Mr.. Stanton and
claimed no justification of his authori.
ty under the Constitution. He read
the letter and claimed it did specify nm.
der what authority the President
acted.
Gle were then discussed by Mr.. Curtis
who proceeded to argue that Mr.. Stan
ton did not come within the provisions
of the section Rlledged to be violated,
He said the first two sections of the
tenure-of.otfc act referred to reno.
val and suspension arising from any
cause during recess OF the Senate.
but the third section applies only to
vacancies caused by death or resip-
nation; the penalties prescribed in the
htth section were directed solely against
violations of the third section, The
President's case, he claimed, was out
side of provisions; but, said Mr.. Curtis,
the main charge of this article is that
| the letter of authority was given with
out tho authority of law; reading the
act of 1895, he claimed it applied to VA
cancies of all kinds, and the act of
February 20, 1868. applied to vancies
arising from sickness and Temporary
Inability, and only to that extent re-.
pealed the former, under which the
pFnnf6R1f hnH f111 10
as referred to.
In reply to the charge mado in the
third article, that the resignation of
General Thomas as Secretary of War
Gd interim, was In violation of the Con-
stitut:On, Mr.. Curtis cited the act OF
1892. and others which authorized the
temporary filling of vacancies without
making any distinction between va
canctes occurring during recess or
when the Senate is in session, and said
the practice of the Government had
been uniform In filling vacancies as
soon as they occurred. He illustrated
a frequent necessity for immediate
action In such cases by another refer
ence to the appointment by Buchanan
of Holt in place OF Floyd The eighth
article, Mr.. Curtis claimed, was met By
his answer to the third, and he pro-
Ceeded to consider the fourth. The
charge made Of appointing General
L "1lnOuL lue huNlG9 Auu con-
| sent of the Senate, could not be sus.
tulned, because no appointment was
made; a simple commission to act was
not an appointment, and could not OF
course be submitted to the Senate. The
allegation that no vacancy then exist
ed is a begging of the question. The
vacancy was created as soon as Stanton
received the order removing him, and
the vacancy could properly be contem-
plated by the President at the time oI
his writing General Thomas letter oil
authority. AIR. Curtis then claimed
that he had shown that the Managers
could not maintain the charges oil
violation OF the constitution and laws
and proceeded to consider the various
charges of conspiracy. For this pur-
pose he said he would take up the 4th
9th and 9th and 7th articles together
the 4th and 9th, which charge conspira-
cy between the President and General
Thomas to obtain, by force aud intim
ldation, possession of the War Office
and government property, are based
| on the conspiracy act, which Dy It's
terms has noapplication TO any person
| In the District of Columbia, tor il
speaks only of the States and terrific
| rIes ofthe United States. But II wa!
| not necessary to rest the answer upoI
this technical ground. In II case O
private right It would deem the ust
/ 10 dHSeTI IL AZ SuLuGteQ
| basis for a charge of conspiracy; still
less could it be alleged of public
right that the order was based on tht
assumption of military subOrdinRtion
and the superior and inferior officers Il
conspire, because the latter obeyed tht
order directed to him by tho former
It was also impossible to show that TIL
President ever did, directly or by i'm
| plication, givC Gen. Thomas authority
/ fn T1aa fOrRn nr Standardization Tho 6Nl
and 7th articles would be answered bl
his argument against the 10th. Curti
then claimed that the charge made il
| the 9th article not only failed OF proof
but was absolutely disproyed by tn
testimony of Gen. Emory, who swOT
to having introduced the subject 4
draw out the President. It would ap
pear In proof that the President sen
for him for an entirely different pur
pose from that alleged in the article re
ferred to. Advancing to the 10th arti
Gle, Mr.. Curtis went into the question
of what are impeachable offenses. n
would not Ve1 the ear of the Senat
with Precedents from middle ages. bu
would refer to the provisions of tn
Constitution of the United States
whose trainers knew quite as much a
men who lived in the time of Planta
genists, and had made the subject s.
clear as to require no research beyonC
them. The language of the Constitu
tion was to allow Impeachment for trea
son, bribery and other high crimes ant
misdeIheanors must be equally grav
offenses, and be an offense against tn
United States, for the President Is else
where empowered to pardon all offens
es against the United States, except II
cases of impeachment. He recited va
rious provisions relating to the trial o
impeachment, and claimed it was fully
shown that that tribunal was constitu
ted for such purposes. "A court wa
bound by law, and was not law untl
Itself. II this were NOT SO there woulC
be no provision forbidding the passag
of bills Of attainder, nor would Sena
tors, before assuming the character o
Judges, be required to take an oath t
obev the Constitution and laws.
The complaint made In the 10th ar
ticle is, that the President spoke disre
spectful of Congress: 1t should havt
been said, of the dominant majority
But the charge Is brought forward IL
Jury Is one body OF Congress, and th
triers constitute another. The specta
lcle Is, however, that of Congress resolv
ing itself into q school of manners
Mr.. Curtis combatted the view put for
ward by Mr.. Butler, that 1t was imma
teriAl whether or not. the alleged indec
orous expressions were true, quoting
II from English statutes the seditioI
law passed during Mr.. Adams admin
istration, and the writings of Madison
passages In support OF the position tina
telling truth about officers OF the GOV
ernment Is not an offence against tn,
llaW. Mr.. Curtis then asked who werl
to be the judges OF the propriety o
i, speech. Twas the assumption of thil
4 very authority which had causeC
thousands of heads to fall In England
under the Tudors, and nearer our owl
time; In France; it was the freedom o
speech ordained by our Constitution