The Portland daily press., 1868-04-28
ARGUMENTS OF MESSRs. STEVENS
AND WILLIAMS.

WASHINGTON, April 27.-Debate arose on an
order which was offered relative to the adms-
sion of reporters. Several propositions were
made and rejected when the whole subject went
over.
The Chief Justice directed the argument to
proceed and at 1890 Mr.. Stevens mounted to
the Clerks desk and read his argument in
pretty firm voice from printed slips. After
about ten minutes he took chair and read sit
ting. At five minutes before one his voice
showed signs of weakness and MIR. Butler read
the remainder of the argument. Mr.. Stevens
said he should discuss but single article, that
finally adopted upon his earnest solicitation,
and which, if proved, he considered as quite
sufficient for the conviction Of the distinguished
respondent. He desired to discuss the charges
in no mean spirit Of vltuperation but to argue
them in manner worthy of the high tribunal
before which he appeared and of the exalted
position of the accused. The trial of the Chief
Magistrate of the nation, which was intensely
interesting to millions of men, could not be be-
Titled and reduced to mockery. Mr. Stevens,
after comparing the system of impeachment in
England with that described in the American
constitution, passed on. The only question to
be considered was, was the respondent vio-
lating the lawse The single charge which he
(Stevens) had the honor to suggest, he was
now expected to maintain. The duty was
light one, but he apprehended the respondent
would find it difficult to evade it. When Mr..
Johnson took upon himself the duties of his Of
flee he swore to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed. The duties of legislation
and adjudicating laws fall in no way to his
lot. To obey the commands of the sovereign
power of the nation and to see that others obeyed
them was his whole duty. His attempt to
escape that duty would be misprison of perjury.
MIR. Stevens said, 81 accuse him in the name
OF the House of Representatives of having per-
petrated that foul offence Mr. Stevens then
reviewed the question of Secretaryship of
War and charged that the President had plain
ly and wi!fully violated a law which he had
sworn to see faithfully executed Mr.. Stevens
rldlcIled the idea set up by the respondent
that the case did not come under the Tenure
of-Ofioe law, because Stanton was appointed
by Lincoln. He claimed by the Constitution
that the Vice President when called to the
Presidency is not serving out new term of his
own, but only the unexpired term of his pre-
decessor. Relative to the matter of intent Mr..
Stevens says in impeachment more than in in
dictments avowing that the fact charged car
ried with it all that is necessary to say about
intent. He went further than some and con-
tended that no corrupt or wicked motive need
lnstlgate acts for which impeachment is brought.
Its enough that they official violations of the
law. The President justified himself by assert
ing that all previous Presidents had exercised
the same right of removing officers, but there
were now express laws against it SO the cases
we've not parallel.
The President said that he removed Stanton
to test the constitutionality of the law. He
had already seen it tested and decided by votes
twice given by two thirds of the Senators and
fhn # Dox1, t.
law upon the statute book. Instead of enforc-
ing that law he took advantage of the name
and funds of the United States to resist it and
to induce Others to resist it. The President
asserted that he did not remove Mar. Stanton
under the tenure of Office law. This was d.
rect contradiction of his own letter to the
Secretary of Treasury. How necessary that
a man should have good conscience or good
memory.
The President denies that he attempted to
prevent the execution of the tenure of office
law, end yet in his correspondence with Gen.
Grant he reproached the General by the asser-
ton that the General knew that his (the Presi-
dent's) object was to prevent Mr.. Stanton from
forthwith resuming the functions of his office,
Notwithstanding the Senate might decide IN mis-
favor. A question of veracity grew out of this
correspondence, the President asserting that
the General had promised to aid him in defeat
ing the execution of the laws by preventing the
immediate resumption of the functions of the
Secretary of War by Mr.. Stanton, and that the
General violated his promise. This the General
denied, though he agrees with the President that
the President did attempt to induce him to
make such promise and enter into such an ar
rangement. He maintained that the President
had been guilty of violating the law and of
misprison of official perjury.
Mr.. Stevens then referred to the claim of the
President to violate the tenure of Office law be-
cause he considered it invalid, and at length
considered the position of the President in ac-
cepting the oath to take care that the laws are
faithfully executed. He also detailed the ac-
ton of Congress on the law, expounding its
provisions and criticised the claim of the Presi-
dent to disregard them. He then took up the
action of the Senate on The message of the
President informing that body ofthe suspension
of Mr.. Stanton and afterwards its action upon
the removal of Mr.. Stanton and the appoint
ment of Thomas ad interim.
Notwithstanding the Senate declared he had
no power to relieve the Secretary of war and
designate any other officer to perform the du-
ties Of the Office dd interim he continued Thomas
in Office. This offspring of assassination, said
MIR. s., turns upon the Senate who have thus
rebuked him in constitutional manner, and
bids them defiance. Mr. Stevens then discuss
ed the article charging the President with usur-
ping legislative powers, and proceeded to show
how he had interfered with the work of recon.
struction. He then briefly reviewed the whole
case compared the service of Mr.. Stanton with
those OF Mr.. johnson, noticed the claim of the
counsel that no removal of Mr.. Stanton had
taken place because Mr.. S. still held on the
office, and concluded by saying that it the Pre-
sident is not willing to execute the laws OF
Congress let him resign and return 20 his viii
lage obscurity.
After the death of Mr. Lincoln, instead Of
being content with the position the people had
given him, johnson sought to become thereaf
ter, as well as then, the Chief Executive OF the
nation. This he knew could only be done by
changing his principles and creating a new
party to sustain him. After some little hesl'
tahon he resolved upon that course, and per,
petrate9 betrayal of the party that elected
hlm ana tne principles he professed. Greater
than the betrayal by Judas Iscariot, who be-
trayed only single individual. johnson sac.
rticed whole nation and the hottest princi.
piles.
Mr. Williams then took the floor. After
speaking OF the august character of the tribu.
nal and the intense interest which is felt al
over the country by the people, who were
awaiting with anxiety the verdict which i,
either to send thrill of joy to our afflicted
land, or rack it with 9he throes of anarchy anf
despair, he proceeded to state that the matte
now present for discussion was not quarre
between two officials, but an issue between tn
Executive and the American people. He, toe
you'd ask who is Andrew Johnson, and woul
answer the question in different manner fror
the Presidents counsel. He then intimate
that Mr.. Johnson's opposition to secession i
the Senate was, perhaps, prompted by dout
whether the step was advisable at that partlt
ular time; but however that might be, b
would consider him as he is now, and as b
had been since he came into power. Mr. Wi