Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-04-10
LATEST TELEGRAMS.
MIDNIGHT DISPATCHES.
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDISGs
Senate.

Senate.
WASHINGTON, April 9.-The Court of
Impeachment was opened at II o'clock.
The Chief Justice inquired whether the
managers had any further evidence to in
troduce, and Mr.. Butler responded in the
affirmative.
The reading of the journal was dispensed
with.
Mr. Butler, on the part Of the managers,
then called w. II. Wood, who was worn.
Mr.. Butler stated that he designed to prove
by this witness the Presidents hostility to
| Congress.
Witness was from Alabama. He testi-
fed that he served in the Union army, and
that in December, 1866, he called on the
President, seeking government employ.
ment the President told him he could do
nothing for him, as his influence was only
on one side of Congress, and that those he
appointed must be with him.
Foster Blodgett testified that he was APP
pointed Postmaster at Augusta, Ga, in
1865; was suspended in 1866 by the Presi-
dent, and does not know that the Senate has
been notified of this action.
The letter of Gen. Thomas accepting the
appointment of Secretary of War adj in
term was then put in evidence, and Mr..
Butler gave notice that the managers would
file the certificates of proper officers to show
that no reasons for the suspension of Mr..
Blodgett had ever been sent to the Senate.
Mr.. Butler then announced that the case
on behalf of the House was closed.
Mr.. Curtis then arose and commenced
the opening argument for the defense. AL
luding to the character of the trial and the
oath taken by Senators in the capacity Of
Judges, he said the only appeal he should
make would be TO the conscience and reason
of every Judge, basing his argument on
questions of law and fact. He intimated
that he would subsequently combat the po-
sition taken by the managers that this
body was not essentially and in fact court.
but at present he would consider the arti-
Giles separately in their order and substance.
The gravamen of the charges of the first
article was that of the removal of Stanton.
and that it was intended to be in violation
of the tenure of Office act and the Consti-
tuition. He argued to show that the case of
Stanton did not come within the scope
and provisions of the tenure of Office act,
maintaining that the duties of his Office
ton and proviso. Stanton was appointed
by Mr.. Lincoln in 1862, to hold the Office
during the term for which he was elected
not to hold it during subsequent term
for which he might be elected. It could
not be said that Mr.. johnson, 50 serving
out the time of Mr.. Lincoln, the term for
which a President is elected is not alb
solutely four years, but is limited by life
and ability, and his conditional term of ex-
ercising the Office of Vice President sue
ceeds to new term, which consists of the |
remainder of the term for which the Vice |
President was elected. As we'll might it be |
said that one sovereign served out the term
of another who he succeeded. There was
a purpose in the difference of the phrase
ology between the section and its proyiso. |
The Constitution authorizes the President |
to call upon the members of his Cabinet |
for advice respecting matters concerning |
his own duties, as well as respecting matters |
connected with their various departments. |
and such had been invariably the practice |
since the foundation of the government. |
they were the voice and hands of the |
President. In them he was to repose con-
fdence and for them he was to be re- |
sponsible, forthis reason-they were placed |
by the tenure of Office in the same position |
as the President by whom they were ap-
pointed. They were to serve out his term |
OF service, but as to others holding over the |
case was different
Mr.. Curtis proceeded to show that the |
feeling and intention of both Houses of |
Congress was in framing and passage of |
this bill, maintaining they were in accord |
ance with the views he just expressed. He |
quoted from speech explaining the report /
OF the Committee of Conference, made by
Mr.. Schenck, also from speeches of Messrs
Sherman, Williams, and others in the
Senate, which they deemed Stanton in
Office. He read these not as expressions of
individual opinion, but as an explanation
of the report of the Committee of Con-
ference. Returning the consideration Oft the
articles, he said the sixth section forbids
any removal contrary to the provisions of
the act, but as Stanton did not yield, there
was no removal, and if there had been, he
would not have violated the act, since he
had just shown that Stanton did not come
within its provisions. The House of Rep
resentatives charges the President with in
territorial violation Of this section, which
unquestioably admits Of different construc-
tons, but fail to prove that he concurred
in their Interpretation and then willfully
acted in contravention of it. The |
first duty of the President is to construe an
act and decide what is its true meaning.
This duty he performed az the Constitution
provides, by consultation with his consti-
tutional advisers, and they all put the same
construction on the act in question az
had been assigned to it by its trainers. The
case of Stanton is of actually holding office
under the law of 1889, without expressly
giving the President the power to remove
him, implies by directing what shall be
done by the President after removal.
Nothing in the Constitution forbids the
exercise of this power by the President in
dependently of the Senate.
The decision of Congress in 1889, affirm
ed this implication, that such power was
granted to the President by the Constitu-
ton, and neither subsequent legislation
nor amendments to the Constitution denied
it. The practice of the government also
was in conformity to,this view. On the out
break of the civil war the War Depart |
ment was in disloysl hands President |
Buchanan told Floyd he must give it up, |
Floyd had too much good sense and some
thing else to refuse. Without this immedi- |
ate action there is no telling what disaster
Gus consequences might have ensued had |
he the right of removal.
Mr.. Curtis proceeded to argue its pro-
priety and necessity in this case He re-
cited the circumstances attending the first
with Stanton and his sus-
pension, and went On to claim that there /
might be instances in which the right Of {
patriotism and duty required a citizen to G
raise question Of the validity and binding | I
force of law such would be the duty Of 7
4 trustee in protecting the rights Of third ]
parties who were unable to assert them and 5
assist them. Such was the duty nobly d
Untitled by Lord Hsmpden when he OPP 7
posed the payment Of ship money. The /
President took no extreme ground, but | f
while believing it his duty to see that the
avs are faithfully executed, still, in Il
,ases where portion of his prerogatives S
ire sought to be invaded and no one else | il
AN raise a question, he must do it. Sup u
,ose Law was passed depriving him of b
lis power a. Commander-in-C Chief, would
t not be his duty TO oppose it 30 as 70 o
ring about discussion by the courts A i:
power derived by implicatiOusis IA unas- Ii