Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1868-04-24
Intentional Andrew

Andrew johnson is guilty by his own
confession. To the charges made against
b N pleads not denial but justidca-
tion. he acknowledges that he Pur=
pOsaly and knowingly violated the law.
and to justly the deed merely alleges
an intention TO Try Whether the law was
constitutional.
II ihIs Is 8 sufhcient excuse for law
breaking any and every scoandrsi in the
land mHy easily svuds the penalties u
crime and go IN ahipt by justice. The
aTraigned Culprit need only prove de-
elaratiOns before and AFTER the fact
showing his doubts whether the law was
valid and that It was his intention lo
have L tested in the courts. One may
claim thissort OfimmuhIty as rightfuIIy
as another and persons who rob, steal
and murder giu make themselves out
the most honest meaning people in the
orld, having simply ia view the sOlu-
tiun of constitutional scruples.
This sort OF defense will NOS exculpata
Mr.. johnson. Entering upon the Pres
dental Office be took a solemn oath to
take care that tho laws are faithfully ex-
eeuted, and no saving clause In the con-
stiluti0n or in his oath Of ofEioe permits
him TO evade that duty By pretending
TO believe certain laws uncons .itutiOnaI.
such discretion would make the Presi-
dent q despOt and clothe him with powa
or unhesTd of outside Of absolute mon
archy. His Functions are not judicial
bat ex ecutiveg not TO adIudRe law but
to exec ute It, and when he asserts the
privilege OF choosing to execute such
laws as he believes to be constitutional
and not to execute such as ne believes
unconstitutional he violates his oath aud
arrnRates all the powers Of government.
But giving him all due credit for his
in .entiOns the acting President fares no
better. The testimony does not show
that mis- purpose in Violating the law
was to have the courts determine whe' h
er it Was constitutional. II rather indi-
Gates the determination to remove Stan
ton without regard to law or cnnsequen-
ces, and that baving removed hiIn he
intended no longer to trouble himself
or the courts with tho matter. It would
be q strange PTUoet ding indeed FOR she
President after he had performed an
act and acct nplished his purpose to 20
and beg of the courts to let him know
whet her his conduct hsd been cOnstilu-
tional or not. Aud there is no extraor-
dinary irtue In Andrew johnson which
ia slifies the belief that he meant to pur-
sue a course OF con duct so unusual.
But suppose he had brought tbs mat
ter into court, IS there any tribunal in
the land having authority in such a case
10 pronounce judgement for the Execu-
i've and indemnify him in refusing to
execute law Of Congress? Can any
court justly the President in violating
law? Can any judicial authority
shield him from impeachment for such
violation ? Clearly not, and the Su-
prene Court has already so decided
Had AIR. Johnson, after the removal Of
stanton, taken his case into court, Con-
gress might still have iDpeaohed him for
violating the law and certainly no de-
cisiUn of the Supreme Court could
have been any bar to the higher court
of Impeachment. The Court could
the President from Office or arrest its
proceedings in impeachment. If IL
cOuld, then any impeached officer might
appeal from the Senate to the Supreme
Court, a privilege not conferred by the
constitution which, on the contrary,
vests in the Senate ''the sole power to
try all impeachments."
a eN.. 81
Johnson's intention to try the law in
The courts to be immaterial and irrels-
want. Such an intention, if be could
prove it, wOu d not excuse him, and il
carried into effect would be utterly fh-
lille. The President has but one method
of restraining the legislation Of Congress
and that is by his veto. Here he stops
by constitutional limit, aud the snom-
ally of his going TO the Supreme Court
with every law he does not like ano
asking an excuse from executing it II
purely an invention Of the present ad-
mInistration.
There can be no possible good in was
ting words or time about Mr.. JOhnson's
intentions. Il is enough for the people
20 know that he fully and deliberately
intended to do Just what he has done,
that is, to grossly violate the law Of the
land and set the power of Congress at
defiance. It is enough to know that the
constitutiOnality Of the Law thus infring-
ed has not been disalIOw0d by the courts
that it has been approved by the wisest
statesman and that Mr.. Johnson has
himself repeatedly recognized its val
idity and binding force. Whatever he
may allege TO have been his intentions
in overriding this law as he has In effect
many others, public opinion viii attri-
butte to him but one single purpose, and
that the restoration of a whipped rebel
lion and the oppression of a loyal peO-
pie. There is twenty-fdId more gYi-
dence that such was his object than that
he had any good end in view, and all
his bratinE about the constitution win
be set down as thlnly disguised bali
for catching gudgeOus. It Is the invari-
able resort Of denagogues to declaim
about liberty and the constitution
when they have any mischeyOus Pur-
pose TO serve, and even if we Concede
In spite of this, tilat the acting President
is sincere in motive, he is too danger
ous in action to sit in the Executive
chair. To use the language Of con-
temporary writer, the road to he'll IL
paved with eoOd intentioDs-f'tr more
hon, st than those whi5h have Influenced
Andrew johnson, and the nation needs
in his place man of not only good mo-
tives, bat good deeds, man who is not
only honest but honestly a0ht and, In
whose hands the blood bought inieres
of human freedom win not be in dan
ger OF betrayal. By our next writing
we hope to announce that by the peace
ful and constitutional process Of in-
peachment the nation has acquired
such p President,