Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-04-10
IMPEACHMENT.
WASHINGTON, April 8, 1868.
SENATE,

tive. 4t-' .f...,.- 400 80"
Reading of the journal was dispensed
with.
Mr.. BUTLER, on the part of the mana
gers, then called w. II. Wood, who was
sworn Mr.. B. stated the design to be to
prove by this witness the Presidents hos
tilitY to Congress. The witness was from
Alabama. He testified that he served in
the Union army, and in December, 1866,
called on the President, seeking Govern
ment employment. The President told
him he could do nothing for him as his in
fiuence was on the side of Congress, while
those appointed must be with him.
Foster Blodgett testified. He was ap-
pointed postmaster at Augusta, Georgia, in
1865; was suspended in 1SGS by the Pres
ident, and does not know us the Senate had
been notified of this action. u
The letter of General Thomas accepting
the appointment of Secretary of War ad
interim was then put in evidence, and Mr..
BUTLER gave notice that the managers
would lie certificates of the proper off,
cials to show that no reasons for the sus-
pension of Blodgett had eyer been sent to.
the Senate.
Mr.. BUTLER then announced that the
case on behalf of the House was closed.
| Mr.. CURTIS then rose and commenced
the opening argument for the defence. Al
luding to the character of the trial and the
oath taken by Senators in the capacity of
Judges, he (Curtis) said the only appeal
he should make would be to the conscience
and reason of every Judge. Basing his
arguments solely on questions of law and
fact, he intlmated he would subsequently,
combat the position taken by the mana
| gers that this body was not essentially and
in tact a court, but at present would con-
slider the articles separately and in their
order and substance
The gravest of the charges of the first
/ artIcla a nf hQ nf
and that it was intended to be in violation
of the Tenure OF Office act and of the Con-
stitution. He argued to show that the
case OF Stanton did not come within the
scope and provisions of the Tenure of Of
flee act. maintaining that the descrip tion
of his Office and its tenure differed materi-
ally in section and proviso.
Stanton was appointed by Lincoln in
1862, to hold office during the term for
which he was elected, not TO hold during
a subsequent term for which he might be
elected. 1t could not he said that Mr..
johnson was serving out the term of Mr..
Lincoln.
The term for which President is elect
ed is not absolutely four years, but is limit
ed. His conditional term expiring, the
Vice President succeeds to a new term,
which consists of the remainder of the term
for which the Vice President was elected
As well might it be said that one sovereign
/
succeeded.
There was purpose in the difference of
the phraseology between the section and
its proviso. The Constitution authorizes
the President to call upon members of his
Cabinet for advice respecting matters con-
corning his own duties, as well as
respecting matters connected with
their practice. Since the foundation of
the Government they were the voice and
the hands of the President. In them he
was to repose confidence, and for them he
was responsible. For this reason they were
placed by the tenure of Office in the same
position as the President by whom they
were appointed. They were to serve out
his term of service, but as to others hold
ing over the case was different. ---
Mr.. Curtis proceeded to show what the
feeling and intention of both houses of
Congress was, in the framing and passage
of this bill, maintaining they were in ac-
cord with the views he just expressed. He
| quoted from speech explaining the report
of the committee of conference, made by
Schenck; also, from the speeches of Sher-
man, Williams and others, in the Senate, in
which they denied that either the purpose
or effect of the bill was to keep Stanton in
office. He read these, not as expressions
of individual opinion, but as explanations
| of the report of the committee of confer
ence. .ss--.. .-----,.-e- -
Returning to the consideration of the
articles, he said the 9th section for5ids any
removal contrary to the provisions OF the
act, but as Stanton did not yield there was
no removal and if he had been would not
have violated the act, since he had just
shown that Stanton did not come within its
provisions. . r. ....-..... .-..-.. ..--.. e.
/ The House of Representatives charged
the President with intentional violation of
this section, which unquestionably admits
of different constructions, but tailed to
prove he concurred in their Interpretation
and then acted in conformation of it. The
first duty of the President is to construe
an act and decide what is its true meaning.
This duty he performed as the Constitution
provided, by consultation with his Consti-
tutional advisers; and they all put the
same construction upon the action in ques-
ton as had been assigned to it by its fra
mers.
The case of Stanton is of actually holding
office under the law of 1889. Without ex-
pressly giving the President power to re-
move him, it implies it by directing what
shall be done by the President after re-
moval. Nothing in the Constitution for
bids the exercise of this power by the Pres
ident independently of the Senate. The
decision of Congress in 1889, affirmed by
implication that such power was granted
to the President by the Constitution, and
neither subsequent legislation nor amend
ments to the Constitution denied it.
The practice of the Government was in
conformity to this view. On the outbreak
of civil war the War Department was in
!, disloyal hands. President Buchanan told
Floyd he must give it up. and Floyd had
too much good sense and something else
to refuse. Without this immediate action
there is no telling what disastrous conse-
quences might have ensued.
Having argued the right of removal, Mr.
Curtis proceeded to argue its propriety
and necessity in this case. He recited the
circumstances attending the first cor
respendence with Stanton, and his sus-
pension, and went on to claim
chat there might be instances in which the
: highest patriotism and duty required cit.
> izen to raise a question of validity and
: binding force of law. Such would be the
: duty of trustee in the protection of the
rights of third parties, who were unable tc
: assert them, and assist them. Such was the
I duty nobly fulfilled by Hampden, when ht
!: opposed the payment of ship money.
The President took no extreme ground
but while believing it his duty to see thai
laws are faithfully executed, still in cases
= where portion of his prerogativeS ar,
: sought to be invaded and no one else car
:. raise a question, he must do it. Suppose
v law was passed depriving him of his powe
n as COMMUNICATING Chief, would it not b,
Il his duty to oppose it so as to bring about ;
a decision by the Court? A power derived
e by implication is as unassailabe as one di
/. rectly granted by the Constitution. Th
d counsel do-not conceive it to be essentia
n to their case to maintain this position, bu
/, deem it plainly proved.
Mr.. Curtis then enumerated some of th
considerations which had influenced tn,
4 President, and referred to Sturgis' Com
mentary on the Constitution and other au
v thorities to show the rule of the construc
!. ton. Practice is the best exponent of law
II From 1888 to 1857 every President and ev
r cry Congress has participated in and acteC
n under the Construction of the former year