The New York herald., 1868-03-31
The Impeachment Trial-DIr. Butler's Open

The Impeachment Trinl-DIr. BatIer's Open
When cause is weak and bad we cannot
feel surprised if its supporters advocate by
defamation what they are not able to
prove by argument. After very careful
perusal of Mr.. Buffers opening speech, de-
livered in Washington yesterday, before
the High Court Of Impeachment, we have
failed to discover anything therein which
makes case against President johnson. MIR.
Butler opens his argument with the state
ment that he addresses Senate and not
court the Senate is bound by no law; no Judge
can aid in it's deliberations-in q word, the
Chief Justice of the United States is mere
tigurehead in this great proceeding. Such is
the opinion of the counsel for the prosecution,
and it becomes important from the fact that
the question of whether the Senate is or is
not court will probably be the subject of
much debate before the trial ends. The next
thing in order is a very lengthy and tiresome
attempt to prove that Mr.. Benjamin Wade is
entitled to sit as one of the jurors on the trial.
Mr.. Butler plunges into a sea of precedents,
which utterly fail to meet the point at issue.
In all Of his quotations from the
trials of others, before the British
House of Lords and the Senate of the United
States, il is nowhere shown that any Peer or
Senator had a direct interest in the conviction
Of the accused. We are told that the father
and uncle of Anne Boleyn aided In her trial,
and adjudged her guilty of intidelity to King
Henry the Eighth; but Mr.. Butler fails to men,
ton that the lives of both of those men de-
pended upon their verdict. The precedents
drawn from the British House of Lords are
ridiculous when applied to trial in this re-
public. Mr.. Butler forgets that the British
| Parliament is almost an absolute power; that
| il is untrammelled by any written con-
| stitution; and that the idea of lords
power rendering him eligible to sit upon
a trial where his own interests are in
volved is essentially monarchical and aristo-
cratic one utterly incompatible with our de-
mocratic ideas and institutions. Another point
is made that the right of Senator taking part
in the trial whether interested in the resul,
or not) cannot be challenged, because the
number of Senators is limited, and the people
must not be deprived of their right to repre-
sentation where case of such momentous
gravity is before the Senate. If this doctrine
holds good then the trial Is not only an eyre
| gious farce but an outrage upon the ten ex-rebe
States, whose Senators are not permitted t
represent them in the court
| After dwelling at length on Mr.. Wade's eligi
bity to aid in making himself President o
the United States, Mr.. Butler proceeds to dis
| cuss the articles Of impeachment. AT the yer,
opening of his argument Gf 1t can be stylet
such) he garbles Mr.. Johnson's language OF
the subject of removals, and distorts ant
fasifies history by asserting that IL the Presi
dent be sustained a new right and power viii
be given to the Executive. Every Chief Magis
trate Of this republic, from Washington t
Lincoln, has exercised the right of removing
obnoxious officials. If the constitution doe
not expressly grant the power of removal, IL
exercise for many years has made 1t, as
were, common law-one sanctifed by lonl
usage and custom. But Mr.. Butler is terribl
exercised at the idea of President removing
an official that he or his predecessor appoint
ed. He argues as If the creator shoul'
become the creature of his own creation
And here again the counsel for the prose
cution Is most unfortunate In his quotation
from past legislation, and in attempting t
prove that the accused has been guilty 9
"high crimes he really defends him. Re
ferring to the power of removal, he admit
that the First Congress, when II passed tn
act creating the Office Of Secretary Of War
implied the power ofremoval Did the Tenur
of Office bill repeal that act9 II it did, was nc
the Office Of Secretary Of War also abolished
We ind npusrQas qqQstati0as from lsgislAiQ