Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-05-06
IMPEACHMENT,
WASHINGTON, May 5.
REN A srEs

Mr.. CAMERON moved to invite the
members of the Medical Convention, now
In session In the city, TO seats in the gallery
without tickets, saying they numbered
about 200.
Mr.: DRAKE objected, and the motion
was disageeed to,
Mr.. BINGHAM resumed his argument
Mr.. Bingham, after recapitulating his
arguments of yesterday, took up the ques-
ton whether or not iC is necessary in this
case to prove the-evil intent. He read
from records OF English state trials to
Show that such proofis not needed. he
would not argue the point at any length,
because it was plainly settled by common
law and the practice of centuries. The ar
guments of the counsel on this question
q were puerile and unfit to be uttered in the
presence OF the Senate. --.,
He then referred to the question of the
power of the President to fill vacancies
created by himself during the sessions OF
the Senate, and insisted that the TACT of the
intimate connection OF the power of APP
pointment with that of removal had been
studiously kept out OF sight by the counsel
opposing him, and went on to argue with
reference to all the provisions bearing on
the subject that the right to appoint Cabi-
net officers without the consent of the SEN
ate was no where granted to be used by
the Presidentby the Constitution. 1t could
be merely filled as a vacancy by tempo
rary appointment, for his letter of author
ity appointed General Thomas for an indefi-
mite time. - at-
To show that it was not among the Presi-
dents implied power, under the Constitu-
ton. TO vacate and fill offices with tie con-
sent of the Senate, be read from the writ
lings of Hamilton and Webster. He fur
/ ther maintained that the speeches of Sher-
man and other Senators were not suscepti-
BILE of the meaning put on them by the op-
posing counsel in regard to the debates of
1889. He contended too much weight was
i give to the utterance of partisan debate at
the time, but he argued that the power of
removal granted to the President in I7e9
was restricted by subsequent legislation.
| He held also that President Adams remov-
ed Mr.. Pickering before the Senate met.
although on the same day, and the record
was not clear. e
He asked of what avail would be the
provision of the Constitution limiting the
power to fill vacancies during recess of
| the Senate to the issue of a commission, to
expire at the beginning of the next ses-
sion, if the President could create vacan-
cies at will during the session OF the Sem
ate. .t- -.f-t
Bingham challenged the citation of any
law or section of the Constitution which
would limit the terms of officers thus ap-
pointed by the President, by such appoint
ments. He could keep men in office at his
1
tion on this subject, and on the question of
what are the limitations of executive pow
er, Bingham cited numerous authorities,
and quoted from speeches of Webster.
With regard to the Presidents defense
that he sought to test the validity of the
| tenure of office law, he asserted there had
never been a.clear unequivocal decision OF
the Supreme Court against the constitu-
tionality of the law of Congress, and held
it was only bold pretence of the Presi-
dent to take upon himself responsibility
which the President had never assumed
The presumption was altogether in favor
of the laws validity. To admit his possess
sion of discretionary and judicial prerog-
ative would be to clOthe the creature with
power superior to the power which created
him, and would enable him at pleasure to
defy the will OF the people, the Constitu-
| ton and laws.
Abiding to an expression of Mr.. Evarts,
he denied having claimed the omnipotence
of Congress. He regarded that body
equally with the President the servant of
| the people, but neither Congress nor the
judicial is answerable to the executive.
He would make no further answer to the
clamor of the learned gentleman on this
point. but must repel the charges against
| the House OF Representatives as having
brought and originated impeachment in
party hate, and against the Senate for hav-
ing expressed an opinion on the subject
which they were afterwards TO Judge. 1t
was their duty to express that opinion, for
they were to try the President in an entire
ly different capacity.
He then recited the three laws which the
President is charged with having violated,
claiming it had been already shown that
those violations were offenses. He quoted
Kent that mal-administration in office was
also ground for impeachment. He held
that it was entirely immaterial whether or
not the articles were framed in the technical
| form of an instrument. Every child knew
his offense was an assumption of power to
Judge of the validity of laws for himself,
and to obey them or not at his pleasure,
and it was too much to say that a bolder
piece of effrontery was never before
| known.
He held that the elaborate argument of
the counsel to prove that the law of 1868
did not repeal the act of 1899, and admitted
it was in the power of the President to de-
termine the tenure # office and the subject
was not determined by constitutional pro-
visions, and proceeded to comment ON the
act of 1867, in order to show that it was
clear and explicit In its terms.
Referring to Senator Sherman's remarks.
who said he would consent to.the removal
of Cabinet officer who should be so des-
titute of honor as to refuse to resign when
requested by the Senate, Mr.. Bingham said
that remark was natural at that time, for
circumstances had not then developed the
malignity and dangerous intentions of the
President. Besides, the expression showed
that the consent of the Senate was neces-
sary.
Mr.. Morgan doubted at that time that
Stanton was within the provisions of the
act. The President did not, for he had ac-
knowledged as much by suspending Mr.
Stanton under the act. Now how is the
power of suspension givon him? Even the
wording of his message was borrowed in
part from the language of the act, and this
excuse was an alter thought to cover uI
his villiany. - :
Heheld that the President was RESPONSE
BILE for having abused the powers granted
him by the act to remove Stanton without
alleging or proving the latter had become
disqualified in any way from exercising
his, duties. 5--..-..
Recess.
On reassembling,
Mr.. Bingham claimed it had been already
shown that the President was self-convict
ed on the charges contained in the first
second, third, eighth and eleventh articles
and proceeding to speak of the removal o.
Mr.. Stanton, paid glowing tribute to the
public services character and virtues o.
that calumniated officer, who had beer
proved faithful among the faithless, and
who. in all the qualities which adorn anC
ennoble human nature. had no superior ir
any age. Yet this distinguished patriot
had been removed without a colorado ex-
cuse, in violation of law, to crafty the
personal enmity of the President.
Mr.. Bingham was glad to be able to agree
with the counsel on one point OF law
namely, that an unconstitutional law was
no law, but insisted it cannot be consid.
cred unconstitutional until it has been sc
pronounced in the proper way. He woulC
oil 70 hot into lie fO ha