The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1868-05-07
BY TELEGRAPH.
CONGRESS.
wAsHINeroN, May
aREhrE

OpEneu Will lue
malities and Mr.. Bingham at once re-
su med his argument, beginning with a
re-statement of his proposition that the
acts of 1889 and 1895 have ceased to be
laws; but maintaining that the said
acts gave the President no power to fill
vacancies in the Offices of the heads of
departments without consent OF the
Senate. The act OF 1TS9 permitted him
to create vacancy In one department,
but restricted him to the choice OF the
chief clerk to fill 1t. The act of 1875
went further in applying to other de-
partments but limited the commission
10 term of six months and was thus
clearly grant of power, and that too
restricted grant. The act of 1868 abb
rogates the statutes of 1859 and 1875
and again restricts him in his choice of
dd interim appointees. 1t thus appears
in all legislation on the subject the en-
tire control of Congress over IL is as
assumed and illustrated. Mr.. Bing-
ham then cited portions of the tenure
of-office act to show they superseded
the previous acts referred to. He also
serted that the heads of departments
appointed by MIR. Lincon were not with
in the proYiso, and adopting this
interpretation, he said it followed that
they were covered by the body OF the
section. He proceeded to argue this
NJ 16uRlIa AAhb GAO
presidential term of four years con-
tinued after a Presidents death or disa-
bIlity, his successor serving out the
unexpired portion; otherwise, the ap-
pointees of a vice-president would have
| TO Vacate their Offices one month after
the disability OF the President should
be removed; but the wording of the act
is not the term during which they were
appointed, but the term of the Presi-
dent by whom they were appointed.
There was no such intention in the
minds of its trainers, and the act can
not be SO construed. He argued that
the proviso has no retrospective ac-
ton, and did not for the purpose of the
act make a new term. Then, combat
ting the position of Mr.. Groesoeck that
II Stanton was not protected by the
tenure of Office act the first eight arti-
cles must fail, he argued whether Stan.
ton was affected by il or not, the
President had committed impeachable
offences, because the power or appoint
ment granted him by the acts of 17S0
and 1895 was abrogated by the act OF
1867; but he asked why were such
lengthy arguments made in the at
tempt 10 prove the unconstitutionality
of that law il counsel did not feel and
know Mr.. Stanton was protected by 1t,
and that it repealed all former grants
| of power to remove and appoint heads
of departments. he alluded TO the
conferences having been held between
the President and Thomas In relation
to the advisablllty of suspending the
execution of their schemes until the
result of the trial should be known; and
referring to the language OF Mr.. Nelson,
who said the President was willing to
abide by the trial, he regretted that his
highness had not signified his pleasure
TO abide the judgment as we'll.
Mr.. Bingham characterized the Pres.
ident's intImation through his counsel
that he did not believe the Senate was
duly constituted toIsit as Court so
long as States were unrepresented as a
niece OF arrogance, and he (Blngham)
would not be surprised If the President
tomorrow should issue military
order dissolving the Court. In such
case their answer would be tho words
of Mirabeau, which he proceeded TO
recite. He then referred tothe- Prest-
dents language to Gen. Emory as. as a
suggestion to the Commander-in-Chie
that he would stand by him in viola
tion of law. This in connection with
his declaration to Grant, would, in any
other country have been sufficient TO
have cost him his head. 1t was not a
charge to be sneered at as he believed
the counsel had. -s-..I
Mr., Bingham took up article 10Th,
and argued that the Presidents Ian
guage not only violated decencyi but
was the Language of sedition. He also
claimed thai the sedition law SO often
referred to as unconstitutional, had
never been SO pronounced by the
Courts; It was necessary in times o.
danger, and under Mr.. Jefferson, Its
provisions had been re.enaoted so faI
/ as to apply to persons in the military ol
| naval service, which provision remains
| in force. He further claimed that sedi-
tious utterances by any executive ofh
| Ger are indictable under the common
law In the District of Columbia. He
stood for virtuous constitutional liber'
ty of speech, but against a seditioui
| license, which would shake the securi
ty of a peaceful government, and reach
| even the dead in ntheir graves.
Reviewing charges of the 11th article
he said that Mr.. Parsons telegram was
not introduced to prove violation o.
the reconstruction act, which was, In
deed, passed subsequently,, but in sup
port OF the allegation that he opposed
the ratification of the Constitutions
| Amendment. Reading that telegram
he claimed that the President in refer
ring to Congress as a set of individuals
used the language of a conspirator anC
not that OF an honest man; his who'll
purpose in opposing the amendment
was to revive the lost cause. Eulo
pizfnC what he deemed the benifcen
character of the 18th article, Ia
1 animadyerted on the President IL
severe terms for his opposition to
and said the people had judged OF hi
Intentions. He reminded the Senators
that many of the offenses charged II
| the llth article were indictable in th'
| District of Columbia; also the aver
1 ments were divisible. Assuming theI
i that he had made it clear to every Sen
ator shat the substance OF the aver
ments of all the articles were esta6lish
ed on the evidence adduced and law
| admitted. he claimed the American
people would coincide in the opinion
and went on to consider the character
of the confessions made in the Presl
| dents answer, which he held we're o.
themselves sufficient to warrant hli
conviction. And referring 70 MS Pre-
vious arguments he insisted that th'
Presidents assumption of Judicial pre-
ro9atiye was crime in violation o.
the Constitution which called for his
deposition, and that the President pJ
his own confession was guilty OF usur
pations. Mr.. Bingham then urged tht
determination OF the people to see thaI
the Constitution was maintained, ano
passing an elaborate eulog1um upoL
| the majesty and divine characteE, "
between James IL and Andrew John-
son. He claimed as his susurpat1onsW WeIt
similar the Presidents punishment
should also be analogous ana equaaliSS y
severe. Referring to the triumph y
i liberty and law in the struggle JUS
ended he said, he said he could not De,
lieYe its glorious fruits would now Is Ds
thrown away and the principles OF oui
i Constitution and free government 4e
MED by countenancing assumption ~
i the President of the legislative, Judlclai
1 and executive functions and the Pom