The Portland daily press., 1868-05-01
ARGUMENT OF MA. EvARTs,

WASHINGTON, April 30.-After the reading
OF the journal Mr.. Summers resolution censur.
Ing Mr. Nelson came up in regular order OF
business and after Mr.. Nelson made some re-
marks disavowing any intentional disrespect
for the Senate, but admitting that he referred
to u duel III what he said, Mr.. johnson moved
TO lay The resolution on the table, which was
Hgleed io-35 TO 10.
MIR. Camcron's order for night sessions was
was then considered.
Mr.. Sumner offered to amend by making the
hours from 10 A. NJ. 10 6 T. NJ. E
On motion of Mr.. Trumbul The whole sub.
jet was tablcd-32 to II.
Mr.. Evarts then resumed his argument.
He held it was grave reproach upon the
wi'dom and foresight of the trainers of out
government 10 clam that decision in this case
IN favor OF the President would result in Il
monarchy. In his view danger was threatened
TO another of the balances of the Constitution.
namely the relations of weight of members
and equality of States irrespective of popula-
ton. From the principles of The Constitution
and the utteraDces Of our most disung uishcd
states men it was evident that to make the Sem
ate executive instead Of advisory was to rob
the ptopc's majority of their rightful power.
In this manner small ard thlnly populated
Sta:es would control the government agains,
the will OF those which cast an Overwhelming
majority Of votes, and the Presidential election
would become II farce. In support Of his po-
tition he quot d the writings of the elder Ad-
ans, Sherman and Others, and enforced it b,
COM htidtring various emergencies which might
arise under the tenure-of-othce act, which
makes certain Offices permanent, and would
IT ndcr removal duung the tssion OF the Senate
tXtIcmely difficult If not imprac cticable. He
procee d. TO quote from the debates in the
Senate when the bill was under consideration
the language Of Mcssrs. Williams, Howard and
Others, to show that its effect was to recognize
the Practice OF government, and also quoted
an expression 10 the effect that while legi~ls-
tive construction had little weight yet the de-
cision OF constitutional questions by the Su-
pr me CouIt were authoritative.
Mr.. Evarts contended however that the deci-
sions of Congress Of 1889 were not only author
itative because confirmed by the Supreme court
but carried an immense weight of themselves.
He referred 10 the debate of 1889 as exhaustive
of The subject of the power OF removal, and
claim that the points at issue were settled and
finally established by the trainers Of our gov
crnment and by the practice of successive ad-
ministrations afterwards TO WebsteI's declara
tion in 1885 that the question was settled and
TO the endorsement of President Jackson's re-
moval of Duane by the people, the superior
power Of all. In regard to the suggestion that
the'Congre>s of 1889, influenced by their high
confidence in President Washington, Mr.. Evarts
asked II it were not possible that the present
Congress had been influenced in an opposite
manner by opinions on the incumbent Presi.
dent.
lie read from various contemporaneous
writers to show that the importance of the
question was deeply felt at the time and that
the ttfect OF the decision REACHED in 1889 was
thoroughly understood. lie then claimed that
the recent law being in direct contravention of
the doctrine and practice of the government
for eighty years and having in itself no bind
ing ,ftct on constituting it, doubts as to its
constitutionality might naturally have arisen
in the mind OF the President, for which he
could not rightfuily be impeached Referring
10 his argument of yesterday respecting the
right and power of the President to resist un-
constitutional laws so as to bring them before
the Supreme Court, he read from the debates
on the fugitive slave law in 1852 the language
Of Mr.. Sumner, in which he quoted and EN-
dorsed Jackson's declaration that each depart
ment If government had right to judge OF the
consIitutlonality OF its acts in junclures not al
ready covered by Supreme Court decisions.
To dismiss and deposc the President for an at
tempt to maintain the supremacy of the con-
stitution would he to make him u victim of
Congress and martyr of the constitution.
On reassembliny Mr.. ETarts consider ID the
attitude which Senators occupy in reference
to this subject, and said nothing was more alb
horen; to the natural sense of Justice than
that man should be a judge in his own cause
or decide question which he had already pre-
judged. He held that if the Senate in pass ne
the resolution OF censure on the 21st of Ee,
rury last had pronounced on the subj c,
OF the COZ sttuiionality of the law as a po It'll
cal action then they could not now consider it
judicial question. 1t would be extraordna-
Iy-almcst inconceivable to suppose they did
not So consider it, with the prospect of having
TO try the matter. ii il were judicial as
Court of Impeachment, it could not be Dossi-
BILE that they did not regard it as political
question. He reminded Them that the largest
votes for the convi.tion of Humphreys were
Oh the articles charging him with having pre-
Judged Il ca.e, and allowing juryman to sit
who acknowledged he had formed opinion.
Again, they had an interest in the result.
Twenty millions of dollars of patronage aud
the powers of the executive office were the
prizes offered them for conviction. Their po-
lltical prelude ices too, he argued, Joined with
other Considerations, TO cause them TO cast out
as improper for their decision, the charges al
lsging violation of their own law. Passing
then 10 the general consideration OF the evl-
aehce introduced in support OF the articles OF
impeachment, he characterized it as absolute,
~ lnsunclent, although the managers had
posse esseu every conceivable advantage IN the
preliminary privileges of examanjnr witness
es and IN hundred ways. In support of the
elarie OF obStructirg reconstruction, there
was rarson son -, alspatch, while Wood, the office
cusartion; OF the abuse Of the appointing pow.
cr. the staple ct their spteches consisted of
matter twice rejected by the House as not war
rantlng impeachment yet Mr.. Stevens thought
lie int oIuction Of the article Indispensable IN
conviction, as, lie said, the court would be oreen
not to acquit on the other ten. MIR. Bntler
however, contended that if conviction tailed
he first, it would be useless to look 10
even. ...-
Ia The articles about the Presidents speechcs
Mr.. Evars held that there were two fatal OBJ
iections. First, the speeches had reference only
to a dofunct Congress; and second, they were
offences only against rhetoric and good sense
He then adyerted in sarcastic terms TO the Ian
euage and conduct of the champion of pro
prietv and decorum in the cause, and said a
lie Mr.. Butler) bad claimed that the practice
Of this tribunal was a standard, he would reat
from certain debate which had occurred somt