The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1868-04-23

is demanded. BY his conviction the
Government will be purified and re-
stored. By his acQuittal the Govern
ment will be surrendered into usurp-
ing and unScrupulus men who will use
all the vast power he claims for it to
the corruption of every branch of the
public service, and to the final over
throw of the public liberties. The ex-
cuse ofthe President that he acted un-
der the advice Of his cabinet, was cited
as not tenable as he had no right to
such advice on anything outside of
their special departments. The act OF
l7S9, establishing Department of
Foreign Affairs, which was put in by
the defence, was then considered,
and reference made to certain
correlatiye documents; the action of
the Congress of1IS9 in passing that bill
developed the fact that that body was
ofthe opinion that the power OF removal
was not in the President absolutely,
and during the session of the Senate
was vested in that body and the Presi-
dent concnrrently, and the debate then
held and the votes cast indicate that the
power ofthe President to remove dur
ing vacation OF the Senate was at best
doubtful power under the Constitu-
ton. The practice OF government rela-
tive to removal subsequent TO the
passage of the above act was then re-
viewed and a speech made by Mr..
johnson in the Senate in 1851, in which
he claimed that the administration was
powerless without the concurrent ac-
ton of the Senate was quoted; but the
act of 17s9 is no security to the Presi-
dent; none OF his predecessors, from
Washington TO Lincoln, ever ventured
to claim under that act the power to
remove civil ofhcer during the session
of the Senate and appoint a successor;
hence he is held guilty OF q vio-
lation of the Constitution and his
oath of Office. The act Of February Is,
1875, on which the President relies for
justification for appointing Thomas as
Secretary of War dd interim, was then
considered at length. and It was con-
tended il that statute was applicable
to a vacancy created by suspension or
removal, then the President has viola
ted it by that appointment; but if that
statute is not applicable TO a vacancy
occasioned by removal, then the ap-
pointment Is without the authority of
law, but that statute was repealed. The
act of February 20, 1868, which provides
for filling all vacancies under any cir
cumstances, 1t is apparent, says Mr..
Boutwell,, the Presidents conduct finds
no support either in the Constitution,
in the act of 1883, or of the legislation of
1895. Ifthe tenure-of-office act had not
been passed, the President would have
been guilty of high misdemeanOrs in
issuing an order for the removal of Mr..
Stanton during th9 session of the Sem
ate, he was guilty of high misdemean-
or in appointing Mr.. Thomas as Secre-
tary War dd interim; his guilt is fully
proved and established as charged in
the lst, I'd and Sd articles OF impeach-
ment. The tenure of office act was
then considered, and shown to be in
harmony with the Constitution, and
its provisions apply to Mr.. Stanton as
~ l..
acted former practices OF the Govern.
ment, and the chief change produced
by It referred to removals during the
recess of the Senate. The application
of the tenure of office act to the Office
of Secretary of War was enforced al
considerable length, and Mr.. Boutwell,
contended that the Office could only be
| by the Senate of nomination by the
President, which would work a remo-
val, Quotations were made from thC
opening remarks of the Presidenps
counsel to enforce his position, that the
official term of the Secretary of Wal
] expires one month after the term of thC
| President by whom he has been ap
\ pointed, subject, however, to previous
removal by and with the advice auC
consent OF the Senate. The argu
ments of the counsel for th(
! President, relative to the inten
of the President were combatted
at length, and. the Manager maintain.
ing'that in the willful violation of thC
law, the President disclosed n crimina
| intent which cannot be qualified by any
| rebutting testimony. He denied that
the President had right to violate the
law to obtain a judicial determination
upon its COustitutionality, as claimed
by the counsel, and the theory tina
such course is right, is abhorrent 4
every Just principle of the government
and dangerous TO the existence of oul
Institutions.
Articles 4, 5, and were then con
sidered; articles 4 and are laid un
der the act OF July 81, 1861, known a
the conspiracy act; an examination o
| articles and shows that the sub
stantive allegation is the same in eacE
article. The differences being that atriclt
4 charges conspiracy with intent by in
/ timidation and threats, unlawfully Il
hinder and prevent Mr. Stanton from
holding the office of Secretary of War
Article was laid under the statute
of 1851, and charged respondent will
conspiracy with Thomas to seize, By
force upon the property of the War De
partment in violation of the tenure o
| Office act.
Mr.. Boutwell, argued in reply tt
counsel, and supported his argument
with citations. That though the Dis
trict OF Colum bia was not included by
specific designation. the act applied tC
| the District. An act of Congress and
the Constitution were both laws, only
the latter was of superior authority.
! The 7th article was laid on common
law, and charged substantially the
same offences as those charged In the
9Th. The 9th and 9th articles, based on
common law, set forth the same of
fences as the 4th. The 9th was laid
upon the act of July 81, 1851, and as
there can be no doubt of the validity OF
the 5th and 7th articles, 1t is isimmaterial
whether the suggestion made by the
counsel for the respondent, that the
conspiracy act of 1861 does not include
the District of Columbia, is valid sue-
gsstion or not.
Mr.. Boutwell, then proceeded to exam
inc the evidence supporting the charge.
We find the President, the allegations
are established, engaged In an unlaw-
ful act; If Lorenzo Thomas, or any one
else, is cooperating with him
conspiracy is proved; IL is then compe-
tent TO introduce statements of parties
to the conspiracy, and upon this
ground. testimony was offered and re-
ceiyed of declarations made by Thomas.
The evidence of agreement between
the respondent and Thomas is found in
the order appointing Thomas and the
conversation at the time the order was
placed in Thomas hands. Mr.. Bout
well here noticed the claim set up by
the respondents counsel that the order
was not military orderi but invoked
the military spirit of obedience, the
counsel said, letter TO General Thorn
as, which he could have declined alto
gether without subjecting himself to
punishment by a military tribunal. If
the counsel had admitted 1t was
purely military order, his client would
have baen ryuflty of Violating the law
of March ID, 1867, and II he declar ed Ii