Des Arc weekly citizen., 1868-05-09

tiVn tnau tnC SOuit VI htf n Nttaop0' Si and that the judgments of this tribunal should not be affected by decisions of the Supreme Court, made before or af- ter the impeachment trial. He argued that the criminal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court did not extend to i'm peachments, aud that the reference of the counsel to its decisions were irrele- ~ant, and their arguments on this point were without colorablc excuse. He then considered the proposition ad- vanced by the counsel, that the heads of departments were merely the regis tering Secretaries of the President, and bound to do his will, and reading from the decision of ffre Supreme Court quoted by Mir. Evarts, he claimed that it was therein plainly laid down that such officers were bound by the laws and net by the Presidents will. He also claimed that the other positions claimed by all the Presidents counsel, that he could sit in judgment on the validity of laws, was overthrown by the decision of the same tribunal thirty years ago, which decisions had never been questioned, and proceeded to read extracts from them, lie further assert. ed that tire ex-Attorney- General was wholly inexcusable in attempting to force into this trial the decision of the present presiding officer, in the Missis- sippi case, as an authority, and argued that it had no relevancy whatever to the question in dispute. He claimed that it was proved that we could not allow the President discretion as to which law he would execnte by inter- preting tho words of the Constitution, and referred to the act of Washington in suppressing the whiskey insurrec- ton, and that of Jackson in crushing out nullification, as instances in which obn oxious laws were executed by Pre- sideifts who entertained grave doubts as to their constitutionality, and also spoke of the constitutional question involved. He then discussed the con- stitutional provisions relative to the passage of bills over veto, maintain taining that every one who has learned to read can plainly settle the question, whether or not, the President broke a law. Referring to the recitation by Nelson, he contended that it had no bearing on the case, and that Jefferson, it's author, was not authority in regard | to the Constitution which he did not help to frame; and reading the list of powers granted to the President by the Constitution, he called attention to the fact, that no power ofsuspending laws, until their validity is tested, is any where given him, and held that such a claim of legislative and executive func- tions was in contravcntion of the ex- press terms of the instrument. He in- sisted that this claim involved also an assumption of judicial powers, and characterized the entire proposition as too absurd to be submitted to children, as by the exercise of this assumed pow CT the President could suspend legisla- ton of all kinds he could prevent the creation of Judicial Districts, the erec- ton of States, and the election of Re- prescntatives. He then spoke of the enactment of the revenue laws, and the acquiescence of the American people | in the unconstitutional aud iuiQuitous | c.. eI. la ,,,,gil sfc ohranagtnn and in this connection dwelt at length on the subject of slavery with its vari- ous characteristics.
 He spoke of the ccunscls reference to President Lincoln, and that he had violated the laws of his country, and furnished many precedents for Presi- dent Johnson's crimes as bold, calum- niating slandcr on his memory, and said the suspension of the habeas cor pus was not by him, but by the civil war, which rendered it necessary.
 In regard to the passage of the in- demnity act, he said the purpose Con- gress had in such legislation was to furnish authority to the courts to dis miss cases brought against the Presi- dents agents for what they had done in pursuance of the Constitution, and if their acts had been unwarranted, then the Indemnity law would have been of no avail.
 The Senate then took recess, and on reassembling, Mir. Bingham resum- ed, and referred to the argument of Mir. Evarts based on successful resistance to the Brokers Tax law, in New ' ork, as an insult to the Senate, and said the one capable of making it was not fit to argue great laws; and, in shorb he could destroy the framework of our constitutional Government, but wheth- CT he shall be allowed to do this, is the question now to be determined, and for a righteous decision the prayers of mil- lions now ascend, as to what crimes can be considered impeachable he said all offenses under the common law are in- dictable in the District of Columbia, and the same class are also impeacha- ble; if this proposition were not self evident then he need not argue it, for as to the offenses specified in the arti- cles, he held that no one could deny that an open violation of law, by the President, was an impeachable crime he said the defense of the President, as exhibited in his answer, rests on the assumption that he possesses the right to resist. and bring to a judicial deci- sion anyhow, which he supposes to trench on his constitutional preroga-