Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-04-30

IMPEAC CHMENT.
WASHINGTON, April 20.
SENATE 7r

uuei, anu ulsrespectIul TO the court, ne ue-
served the censure of the Senate.
Mr.. SHERMAN objected to the consid-
GRAFTON of the resolution, and III
Mr.. SUMNER objected to Mr.. Nelson
making any remarks except in explana-
tion, but the Senate allowed him to read a
portion of the letters bearing on the ques-
| tion of dates. .e.- -
Mr.. NELSON then explained what pur-
ported to be the original letter, signed by
Messrs. Butler, Logan and Garfield, dated
March 9th; also letter to the President
by Mr.. Chancey Black, March 10th, enclo-
sing copy with additional signatures.
| Mr.. CAMERON offered an order for
night sessions, which went over.
Mr.. EVARTS then resumed his argu
.ments. He assumed it to be already shown
that this tribunal is Court, and that the
President is to be tried only ON charges
supported by law and evidence and by
common fame. He said much that had
been elaborately advanced by the mana
gers must fall to the ground. So must TALL
the articles. based on charges which had
repeatedly been rejected as fair grounds
for impeachment.
He referred to the conduct of the case
/ by the prosecution as similar to the prac-
tice of the Chinese, who make great noise
in the vicinity of the object to be attacked,
or like to the explosion of some 250 tons OF
gunpowder at safe distance from the walls
of a fort. He said in this case, where evil
dence had been suppressed, the enlarge
ment OF the defamation invected was more
than unusually improper.
He also spoke in strain of sarcasm in
regard to Mr.. Boutwell's reference to the
| Presidents counsel as attorneys whose
minds had been sharpened but not enlarged
| by practice.
He then considered Mr. Boutwell's def
milton of impeachable offenses, and argued
at length that no action could be SO con-
strued which did not proceed from malice
and evil intent, supporting his views by
quotations from the records of the Hun
| phrey trial, and also by the language of
Burke, in accusing Warren Hastings, when
he expressly stated that the assertion and
proof of evil intent were indispensable.
Mr.. Evarts held that the best way to de-
| termine the nature OF offenses, which may
be deemed high crimes and misdemeanors.
is to consider the punishment prescribed
for them. He referred to the belittling
epithets applied by the managers to the
punishment of deposition, and in torcible
terms described the character and magni-
tude of the disgrace which such punish
ment involves. He claimed that the de-
scription of penalties provided in the tenure
of office law for its infraction showed the
comparatively trivial nature of the offense.
A maximum but not minimum of punish
ment is provided. So, in the discretion of
the court before whom an indictment should
be tried, the offender could be let off with
a fine of six cents and Imprisonment for
one day.
i He read from the debates on this subject,
at the time when this bill was prepared.
in which Mr.. Williams and other Senators
said there should be no minimum fixed.
because the offense might arise, from mad
vertence, and would not probably in any
case have character of moral guilt
Mr.. Evarts then considered the general
debates on the bill. and proceeded to prove
that the offenses charged were not made or
to be considered penal, but were of po-
litical nature, and then that even the al
legged infractions did not take place. He
claimed that all belief of the Presidents
, former personal turpitude must be laid
, aside, and it must be considered that he
was unimpeachable before II o'clock on
February 2lst.
He then argued that even If the removal
of Mr.. Stanton had been actually effected
b. change in the relations of the War De-
, partment to the rest of the Government
would have ensued, and hence that the
, mere act could not be considered as dang.
erous to the public safety. On the contrary
it would have been benefited by it, because
the relation existing between the President
and Mr.. Stanton were prejudicial to prop.
er working OF the Government. Hence il
resulted that the crime consisted in the
, technical infraction of the law, If it shall
f be so held. The law applied only in it
restrictions to himself. He believed it tt
I be unconstitutional. 1t relates t, offenses
, not penal, and under those circumstance!
his action could not be deemed crime.
He then briefly considered the question
of what was meant by demonstrations
aw, and said it was a paradox. 1t can be
) no offense to violate the provisions of such
mere piece of paper. He claimed nc
greater right for the President than for &
private Individual, to test the constitution
ality of statute. Thus he argued-tht
President 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
: tion, against the assertion that formal VIC.
J lations are impeachable, without reference
. to the intention. He cited authority anC
J argued at some length that the principles o.
common sense were opposed to any such
views.
At this hour the Court took recess.
On reassembling,
Mr. EVARTS expressed his surprise a
the managers denunciation of those whC
had fully resisted laws which they be-
. lieved unconstitutional. 1t was the duty
r of every ministerial officer to raise ques
ton in favor of the Constitution, and in tn,
/. highest degree was it the duty of the spe
cial defenders of the Constitution.
, He referred to the case OF Newell agains
: the Auditor OF the State of New York, il
which the latter success :fullv resisted the
, issue of loan of S6,000,000; also to tn
} New York law imposing tax On brokers
/ sales, which was resisted and pronounced
void by the United States Supreme court
7 and to the action of Mr.. Lincoln in suspend
! ing the habeas corpus in Florida, in caus
: ing the arrest of the Maryland Legislature
aud creating military commission in
/. time of peace.
: Congress, by endorsing all these acts
confirmed the doctrine that the motiv
= must be considered, and that mere infrac
: tion of law was not in itself a ground 70
: punishment, suggested by Mr.. Boutwell, a
proper for the President. He said If tn
honorable and astronomical manager coult
. get over the laws of nations, the Constitu
6 ton would not stand in his way, for the re
O moval from office was prescribed withou
. limit as to the distance to which the cul
i prit should be removed. [Great laughter.
8 He went OH for some time describing, in
: manner which elected roars of laughter,
g supposed flight of Boutwell,, as bailiff, wit
: the criminal in charge, to his hole in tn
sky.
Mr.. EVARTS then took up the subjec
of the position and powers of the Presi
dent, and held he was the direct represen
!. tative of the people who elected and sup
y , ported him, and from whom he held hi
l. power in trust. Evils and disturbance
always result from the accession to tina
q office of one elected by the people and des
= titute of personal or political support
This exceptional weakness for the Presi
:, Dental office is now heightened by the ex
traordinary divisions of party strength il
Congress, and so the constitutional safe
guard to its independence is uDavailin
to urge the unequal contest nor would b
claim it would be fatal to the maintainanc
s hereafter of the true position under tn
II constitution.
Mr.. Evarts next spoke of the peculia
3; situation of the country from which hay
sprung the present proceedings. He refer
'e red to the chaos caused by the rebellion an
- oIo 81,