The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1868-04-03

q - Impeachment.
On Monday the Senate assembled 1t 1850
O'Clock and Ga. Buug at once ross and nd
dressed than. He rod about half Of the time
and spoks from memory during the balance.
Not only did the unusually crowded galleries listen
with much silence and attention, but the ssna-
tors and members, almost to man. paid their
undivided attention to his argument.
We give a digest Of his great speech which
contained % 900 thousand words. AL accounts
from Washington from both sides, agree that it
was, II not the greatest, one Of the greatest TO
rcnsic efforts before any American Bar. and that
IL !, evident he hit the mark, and the general
impression among all classes Is, that Johnson's
case is hopeless. The President Is said to be
gloomy and decidedly nervous. He Is convinced
tina, he will be removed, and his advisers tell
him 30.
At ff,een minutes before one o'clock, Gen.
Butler commenced his opening speech in behalf
Of the Board Of Managers by saying that II had
fallen to his lot to present the general PROPOSE
tons Of fact and the law upon which the House
Of Representatives will endeayor to sustain the
cause Of the people against the President Of the
United States, now pending at the bar Of the
Senate. Now, for the first time in the history
Of the world, has a nation brought before its
highest tribunal its chief executive magistrate
for trial and possible deposition from office, up
on charges Of mal-administration Of the powers
and duties Of that Office. Other nations have
found Il difficult to rid themselves Of tyrannical,
imbecile or faithless rulers, but our fathers. In
founding our government, provided conserva-
tive, etfcctual and practical remedy for such and
similar exigencies. The House Of Representa-
tiyes sN III solely impeach, the Senate shall only
try, and In case Of conviction tho Judgment shall
alone be removal from office and disqualification
from Office, one or both. The Constitution has
left the offences for which impeachment may be
resortei to, to be defined, and IN impeachable
high crime or misdemcanor may be thus defined;
II is one in its nature Of consequences subyer-
siye of some fundamental or essential principle
Of government, or highly prejudicial to the
public interest, and this may consist Of viola
ton Of the Constitution, Of law, Of m official
oath, or Of duty, by an act committed or omit
tel, or, without violating positive law, by the
abuse Of discretionary powers from improper
some citations explanatory of this definition Of
an impeachment offence, Mr.. Butler proceeded
to argue the question whether the body now sit
ting to determine the accusation Of the House of
Representatives against the President Of the
Unitel States is the Senate of the United States
or Court. He introduced references to pre-
yious State trials, both in England and this
country, to show that the body now sitting in
judgment is the Senate Of the United States,
convened rs constitutional tribunal, to inquire
into and determine whether Andrew johnson,
because Of malyersation in Office, Is longer fit to
retain the Office Of President Of the United
States, or hereafter to hold any office of honor
or profit. One of the points principally dwSt
upon to establish this position was that there Is
no right of challenge by either party to any Of
the Senator's for favor, or malice, affinity, or in
tercst. The proceeding being an inquest Of Of
fee, and almost always partaking moro or less
Of political considerations, it would be impossi-
bic that Senator's should not have opinions or
convictions upon the subject-matter more or less
decidedly formed before the case reaches them.
And II challenges could be allowed, rs in the
case Of Jurors, because Of such opinions, no
trial could 20 forward, because every intelligent
Senator could be objected to upon one side or
the other. The first eight articles Of impeach-
ment allege that the acts Of the respondent in
removing Mr.. Stanton from office, and appoint
ing Mr.. Thomas di interim, were in contrayen-
ton of his oath of office, and In disregard Of
the duties thereof. The President may have the
power, under the law, to do acts in contraven-
ton of his official oath, but, when they arc so
done, they are acts Of official misconduct, and
are impeachable.
In support Of the charges made In those eight
articles, the testimony Of Hon. Mr.. Van Horn
and of Hon Mr.. Durlcigh will be introduced,
also that of persons who heard Gen. Thomas
boast mt Williarl's Hotel that he should call ON
Gen. Grant for military force to put him In pos
session Of the office, and also the fact that the
President formally notified the Secretary Of the
Treasury to answer Thomas acquisitions for
money. The respondent admits both the facts
and the intent charged in article first, but
claims the power under the Constitution Of re-
moving from office all executive tiocers on his
own Judgment of grounds, and the question
then, upon which the first eight articles must
stand or fall. is simply this; Has the President,
under the Constitution, the more than kingly
prerogatiye Mt will to remove from Office indcf-
nitely the executive officers OF the United States,
either civil. military or naval, ut any and all
times, ami fill all the vacancies with creatures
OF his own appointment, for his own purposes,
without any restraint whatever, or possibility Of
restraint by the Senate or by Cognress through
laws duly enacted! These eight articles and
the answer thereto raise the momentous question
whether the Presidential office itself. il it has
prcrogatiyes and power claimed for 1t ought, in
fact, to exist as part Of the constitutional gov
eminent Of free people; while by the last
three articles the simpler and less important in
quiry is to be determined; whether Andrew
johnson has so conducted himself that he ought
longer to hold any constitutional office. The
former of these questions Is Of transcendant i'm
portance, and whoever votes "not guilty" upon
the first eight articles, votes to enchain our free
institutions and to prostratc them at the feet Of
any man, who, being President, may choose to
control them. The President claims that this
prerpgatiye was practically settled by the first
Congress Of the United States, but the power
which he claims from the legislative construc-
ton of our Congress by vote Of 81 to 70 in the
House and tic vote in the Senate, has been
denied by another House Of moro than three
times the number Of members by a vote Of 1873
to 80; and by Senate of more than double tho
number OF Senator's by a vote Of 80 to 10, and
this too after the President had presented to
them all the arguments in Its favor, that he
could find to sustain his claim Of power. SO
far rs the executive power Of removal is found
at all In the Constitution il is an impartial one,
either from the power of appointment, or be-
cause "the executive power is vested in the
President" AS the power Of appointment is
restrained by certain limitations, 1t is not rea-
sonable to suppose that the power OF removal is
unlimited Now II the earlier Presidents ever
claimed any such unlimited power Of removal
as has now been set up for by the President In
his most remarkable aud even criminal answer,
the power Of regulation Of the tenure Of Office,
and the manner Of removal has always been
exercised by Congress unquestioned until now,
and no bill was ever vetoed upon this account
until now.
Prccelents show that Congress has on different
occasions authorized the President to remove
military or naval officers for certain reasons,
plainly indicating power to dismiss such officers
at pleasure. But 50 far asremovals and dismis-
sails are concerned the Constitution makes no
difference between these officers and those in the
Al Of nN,eo hin aHs