Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1868-03-04

tional Legislature humiliation, by racking
the country, and filling every home, with
anxiety and pain, and he must abide the
consequence. There is no avoiding this
conclusion. There is no explaining it a.
way. There is no middle course. The
President has assumed the responsibility of
breaking a lac. Congress must assume the
responsibility Of in.peaching him. Not to
do so in the face of this fragrant and inso-
lent proceeding is to become partner in
the crime. 1t is no time to consider the
party influence of impeachment, or its eff
feet upon Presidential candidates. We would
rather see tie Republican party. candidates
and ALL driven into the deserts of Arabia
than to have them tremble one moment in
the presence of this high duty. Questions
of expediency were all well enough 50 long
as the President stood within the pale of
the law. But now when he presumes to be
the executive, legislative, and judicial pow
er when he claims to decide which laws
Congress may pass, and what acts are con-
stitutlonal, to hesitate moment Is criminal
1t is conceded by Mr.. johnson and his
apologists and friends everywhere that his
order removing Secretary Stanton was vi
olatlon of the Tenure Civil Office law
that it was such violation as that law
makes criminal, and that his violation of it
was intentional, and with a clear recognition
of its character. But, say they, he violate /
the law simply to test its constltutIonallty.
The same plea might be made for Jefferson
Davis He believed State had the con-
stitutional right to secede, and he led the
Rebellion In order to vindicate his belief.
Mr.. johnson may have clear views Of the
constitutionallty of the Tenure of Office law.
But we will assume that he believes the law
is unconstitutional, and disobeys it in order
to test it. 1t must be admitted that in so
doing he exposes himself equally to the pun
ishment due to the disobedIencc of the law,
provided his belief mas no foundation. He
cannot claim that the Congress which pas
sed the law by two-thirds vote over his
veto, and over all he and his Attorney Gen
eral had to advance against its constitution
allty, should reverse their own belIeI IN Its
constltutlonallty thus clearly expressed, and
allow the only person tor whose restraint 1t
was made to disobey it with impunity. He
must expect botn houses of Congress to act
upon their own we'll known views, not upon
his. Acting on their views, his act is the
crowning high crime in long series of u
Surpations. Legally, it can have no justifi
cation in their sight, fer they have already
decided that it is constitutional. The log
ical effect Of such decision is that he is
criminal, and it is their duty to impeach
aud remove him. 1t may be unfortunate
for Mr.. johnson that his case is not trlabe
before some other triDunal-the Supreme
Court, for instance. But it is not, and at
the time he committed the ofense he knew it
was not. He knew then as well as he does
now that the tribunal which would pass up
on his innocence or guilt had already settled
beyond discussion before it that the la W was
constitutional Hence his only chance Of
escape was in the reliance of the bully upon
the supposed cowardice Of his adversary.
If in place of cowardice he meets with
prompt, signal, overwhelming punishment,
this, too, is "a risk he assumed in violating
the law
But it is asked, Why should not the Sen
ate wait until the Supreme Court has pas
sed upon tn; constitutionality of the la W
We answer, Because in all that pertains to
impeachment, the Senate, sitting as a
High Court of impeachment, is the su-
3)reme tribunal, and is clothed by the Con-
stItution with powers which the authors o.
our government dared not intrust to the
Supreme Court. The High Court of I'M
parchment becomes a court so tar above the
Supreme Court In every required quality of
constitutional power as well as of learning,
political wisdom, and dignity, that the lat
ter has no jurisdiction of the subject matter,
or of the parties, and least OF all would its
opinions be any authority on the questions
of law or of fact involved 1t would be con-
tempt of this High of Court Impeachment,
which would render the Judges OF the Su-
preme Court themselves liable to impeach-
ment and removal, were they to Interfere In
any manner with the impeachment, arrest,
conviction, or removal of President John
son, or with the decision of the questions of
law or of fact on which his conviction de-
pends From the moment this High Court
of Impeachment Is organized, 1t becomes, as
to the particular case it has in hand "a who'll
ly superior, and, indeed absolutely supreme
tribunal; and whatever the ordinary Su-
preme Court may think of the constitution
ality of law is of no more consequence to
the High Court of Impeachment than
would be the opinion of our Court of Com
mon Pleas All this Mr. johnson must
have well known when he, as his admirers
claim took the responsibility of disobeying
the Tenure of Office Law.
But suppose Mr.. Stanton had obeyed the
President order of removal. The constitu-
tionality of the law would not then have
come in question and could not have been
tested in this case. 1t is as necessary, there
fore, in order to test the cOnsttutlonahty OF
the law, that Stanton should disobey the
Presidents order as that the President
should issue the order and disobey the law.
If, then the President intended to test the
constitutionality of the law, he must have
intended that Stanton should disobey his
order Does anybody claim that he so in
tended If he had so intended, he might
have accomplished his intention by simply
preceding his order by note informing
Stanton that he would issue such an order
in form, but solely in order to bring the
question before the courts, and that SLr.