The St. Cloud journal. [volume] (St. Cloud, Minn.) 1866-1876, 1868-04-30

: ;. >.,s-,.,,;f-, ;-S::, So"
4
= M. D0UTvrnLL's ARGUMENT.
= So,
. Mr.. Boutwell,, Of tho Impeachment
Managers, commenced on last Wcdues-
day ana concluded on Thursday an
able aud convincing argument % sustain
tho charges preferred, against the Presi'
dent BY the Rou.e IF Representatives,
and to demonstrate to the Senate that
from the testimony presented, Mr..
johnson should be- convicted, in tho
name OF Justice aud for the safety of
the country. As our entire paper
would not furnish sufficient space for
the speech in, full, we'give our readers
tho following concise review Of it from
the New York Tribune: n".>""... .'~-
The argument Of Mr.. Boutwell, Is
elaborate and effective. It covers the
multiplicity Of small points raised by
the Presidents counsel, and yet clearly
lifts into the foreground the vital issues
IN the case, to which oil the others are
collateral the removal Of Stanton aud
the appointment Of Thomas. He opens
with clear statement Of the relation
which Congress sustains to all other de-
partnents Of the Government. The
Constitution gives the National Legis-
lature inherent supremacy over the
courts aud the President, by authoriz-
ing 1t ITO make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying it ill.,
to execution" not merely its own pow
ers, but "all other powers vested by the
Constitution in the Government Of the
United States, or any department or
c9iccr Mereef" This single clause
ends all claims to equality or rivalry
between the three departments Of the
Government, since no department or Of:
6cer can have any constitutional func-
ton or power which is not thereby plac.
ed under the control Of Congress-
Whatever powers Of appointment or
removal might be given to the Presi-
dent By other clauses Of the Gonstitu-
ton, are here brought under the legis-
lative control of Congress. Whether
the power of removal is an Executive
power, or is incidental to the power to
appoint, in either case Congress must
decide by laws in what manner the
President should carry it into execu-
zion. In pursuance Of this couprehen-
sive grant of power to Congress, they
have passed the Tenure-of:O Office law
Having enacted it, the President must
obey it. His functions are not legisla-
tive: Though His signature to an act
is sought in tho first instance, he is no
essential part Of the law.making power.
1fa bill pass BY Z two-thirds vote over
his veto, it becomes law. Hence, while
the legislative power III Great Britain
i vested in King, Lords, and Commons,
our Constitution declares that all legis-
lative powers are vested in Congress
alone, instead of ia Congress and the
President. Still less are his functions
judicial, for the Constitution vests the
whole judicial power in a Supreme
Court, and in such inferior courts as
Congress may establish, and in the SEN
ate sitting for the trial of impeachmeuts.
The Presidents functions are neither to
make the laws Or to adjudge their con-
stitutionality, but simply to obey them.
Since the President had no authority
to pass upon the constitutionality Of an
act, the Senate is not called on to de-
eide whether he construed it correctly,
and hence is not called on to consider
the question of its constitutiouality. If
it be true as claimed that there is no
way for the President to test whether
a law is unconstitutional except by dis
obeying it, it is equally true that if he
disobeys it there is no way to prove and
sindicate its constitutionality except to
impeach and remove him for his DISC
bedience. >, ''.'':
Since tho President Intentionally dis
obtyed the law, such intentional DISC
bedience involves all the criminal in
tent of which the nature of the case ad-
mits. He cannot evade the risk he as;
sumed by pleading that he thought the
law, ought to be broken This adds on
y insult to defiance. If he can anuul
one law, he can annul all. He can con-
'true the; Courts and Congress to be un-
constitutional bodies, and so defy ali at
tempts to cub his despotic usurpations.
This is absolute monarchy. Surely our
Fathers, fresh from their struggle for
liberty, and jealous against every insid-
nous approach Of despotism, did not in
tend to make the President the abso-
lutte dictator which johnson supposcs
him to be. We're there any merit in
the plea that the President violated the
law in order to test its constitutionality,
this cannot avail. He has shown no
desire to bring the question before the
Courts. A quo 1arranto can issue for
his purpose only on his application,
md he has not sought it. III the pro-
seedlings against Gen: Thomas the ques-
ion might have been tested: But they
we're dismissed on his own lhotion..-'
The Presidents sole aim, as indicated
y his acts, has been TO- get possession
# the War Department, not to test the
'onstitutionality Of the law. 's'. e.
No power Of removal is given to the
President by the Constitution. The
'nly power Of removal mentioned there.
10 is the power of Congress to remove
The President, and others, by impeach-
nent. But as the removal Of an officer
has always been effected by the ap-
Of . successor, the appoint
nent' was regarded as the Official act,
he removal as the incidental coonse:
Iuenee. The Senate in consentine to
The appointment of the nominee, taoitly
'ssented p the removal OF the last in
But Andrew Jshnson, for
he first time in our history, claims to
exercise an independent power to re-
move, without appointing any successor.
md Of course without asking the con-.