The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-05-06
CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS.
THE MPEACHMENT COURT
SENATE.
WAsHINGroN. NAY

biCAetss saying IAeE mum DeEeu ABOUT Two
Drake objected, and the motion was dis
The Ways aud Means Committee are
considering proposition TO give instruc-
uOns to sub committees on the revision of
the tariff, to make provision by which TO
supply the dedency in the revenue caused
by the exemption of manufacturers from
tax.
ment of yesterday, took up the question,
whether or not II is necessary IN this case
to prove the evil intenL2 He read from
the records Of English state trials, TO show
that such proof is not needed. He could
not "a ggue the point at any length, because
II was plainly settled oy common law and
the practice OF centuries. The arguments
of the counsel on This question were pue-
riles and unnt TO be uttered In the pres
He then referred to the question Of The
power OF the President 10 MI vacancies
created by himself during sessions OF the
Senate, and insisted hat the fact Of the in
innate connection OF the power of APP
pointment with that Of removal had been
sJuolously kepJ ouL or slght Dy the counsel
opposing him. and went on 10 que with
reference to all the provisions bearing on
the suplec Jnal the right 10 appoint CAB
met officers without the consent OF the
Senate, was nowhere granted to the Pres1-
dent by the COustltu ion; il could not be
merely a filed vacancy by a tenn porary
appoint nent of hls letter of authOri
appofnting Gen. Thomas for an fudefi nf-e
time To show that II was not among the
Presidents implied powers, under the
Constitution, to yaeate and MI offices with
nom the writings Of Hamilton and Web
ster. He further maintained that the
speeches Of sherman and other senators
were not susceptible OF the meaning put
on chem by the opposing cOun -el.
In regard to the debate OF lTs9, he cOu-
tended that too much weight was given TO
the utterauces OF partisan debate at the
time, but he argued that 81 he power of re-
mOyal granted the President IN 1859. was
restricted By subsequent leg Station. lie
hrli, also, that Pres ldent 4 Adams's removal
OF Bir. Pickering. before the senate met.
was not clear. He asked OF what would
be the provision Of he Constitution limit
recess OF the senate, 10 the is .ue OF a Com
mission that VIII expire at the beginning
OF he next session, If the President could
session OF the Senate. Bingham chaI-
section Of the Constitution which
appointed bv the President. BY such APP
pointmeuts ne could keep men in tice az
stitusiOn on this sub ect.
On the question OF w hat are the limit
atiOns Of Executive pOwer2t Bingham
cited numerous aulnorlIles ana quoted
from { he speeches of Webster. With re-
gard 70 the EEesldehts delenSes laal ne
sought TO test the va ldlty OF the law, he
asserted there had never been an une-
quIv, cal decision Of the Supreme Court
against the cObstltutlOnaltTy Of a law Of
Congress, and beld that II was only bold
Dgstense OF the President to take
apcn himself a responsibility which
assumed. J he presumption WAS altogether
IN favor of the laws. Validity 10 admit
his possession Of discretionary and judi
cal prerOgaLiVe would be 10 clOthe the
. creature with power superior to The power
when created MN, ana WOuld enaDie MN
at pleasure . DEFY the VIII o. the people,
the Constitution and laws. Abiding TO an
expression of Eyarts, he denied having
claimed the OmntpOtence Of Congress. he
regarded that body equally with the Presi-
dent, the servant Of the people, but neither
Congress nor the judiciary We're answer4-
- % Executive a.
further answer to the clamor Of the learned
gentleman on this point but mu~L repei
the charges against the House OF Repre-
sentatiyes, as having brought and origin
a led mpeachmeut in party hate, and
against thesSenate for having expressed an
opinion on a subject Whicn ihey We're
Afterwards to judge. 1t was their duty to
express that opinion, Tor they We're % try
the President IN an entirely different
BE then cited The three laws which the
President was charged vi h having Ylo-
lated, claiming that il had been already
shown that the three violations were
Offenses. He quoted from Kent: That mall
administration in office was elsO groun d
for Impeachment. He held that II was
entirely immateriaI whether or not the
articles were framed in the technical form
of n Indictment. Every child knew his
often Sc was an assumption of power, 10
judge of the validity OF laws for himself,
and to obey them or not at MS pleasure
and il is 1ot too much to say that bOider
piece o. effrontery was never before
kn-yFn. he neia tnat the elao o9rsIe aTgu-
ment Of the counsel 80 p, owe that the law
of 1853 did not repea. the act or l7s9, and
admitted that It was not IN the power OF
the President 10 determine the tenure I
Office, and the subject was nos determined
by cOustitu loual PROVISIONS; and pro
cseded to C Jmmeut on the act o1 1907, in
order to show that L was clear and eX-
plIcit in its -erm.
Referring 70 senator sherman $ femarksf
he said ue Won consent TO the removal
of Cabinet officer who should be so destl-
rute of honor as to refuse % resign when
+ so requested by the senate.
Mr. Bingham stid the remarks were
natural at that time, for the clrcumsi ances
. had not then developed the malisnity and
dangerous intentions ofthe President; be-
sides, The expression showed tnat the con
sent of the the Senate was necessary. No
one doubted at that time that Mr: stan
! ton came within the PROVISION OF the act.
I The President did not. for ne had ac-
knOwiedged as much. BY suspeudiug Mr..
stanton under the act. how Is the power
ing o. his message was borrowed IN part
from the langu ge o. the act. and JuIs eE-
. erCi,e was 2 afterthOught 10 cover Up his
. vlIII9ny. He held that the President was
+ responsible for having abused the power
granted him, by the act OF re % OWING
stanton without alleging Or proving the
/ latter had become disqualified IN any way
/ from exercising MS duties.
( on re-assembHng. Bingham claimed il
had been already snOwa that the Presl-
+ dent was ss4*-c08vICted on tie charges
con aimed in the Is, "a, Sd, oth aud llth
article and proceeding 10 pr'h ~ tLe
Y. removal OF ME. : anton, PAID q glow lhs
. tribute to the pubic services and cnaTac er
or tnat calumuIateG 0tn-ets Y Ly 4dt J5eu
z proved faithful among the f8i- HESS. and
. who. IN all the Qu utleS when adOru ana
. ennObie human na u e. had no superior
. in any age; yet this dist -nSulsned paJrioi
3 had been removed wIthout c0lOIaDle eA-
. cuSe, in violation or law 70 Stdt1l4 tue
personal enmity OF the President
Bingham was glad 20 be able 20 agree
. with counsel on one point, VIz--tnat un-
! constitutional law was no LAYOUT IN
sisted that a law cannot pc cOpSl-ered un-
Z constitutional until IL has been 50 pro-