The Van Buren press., 1868-03-13

Anthony, II. j. Morrill,, Me.
lanerpn, Pa. Morton, Ind.
Cattell, My. Norton, Minn.
chandler. Mich. Nye, New.
Conkling. y. Y. Patterson, n. IL.
tonness, Cal. Pomeroy, Kan.
Cole. Cal RAMSEY, Mimi
Corbett. Oregon. Ross. kan.
tragin, y. ii. sherman, Ohio.
Drake. af No. Spraglie. Il. !.
Edmund,, Vt. Stewart, NeV.
berry, " Conn. SEmner. Mass.
ic,, cnden, Me- Thayer. Neb
Fowler. Tenn Upton, Ncb.
4Frelinghysen, Nd. Trumbul. H.
Grimes, 4a Iowa. Van Winklc. WV.
Harlan. Iowa Wade, Ohio
Henderson. No. Wiley. Wv.
Howard, Mich. Williams, Oregon
Howe, Wis. wilson, Mass.
Morgan. MY. Yates, H.
Morrill,, Vt. t...4
The following are Democratic or Con
servative :: - .s.-1-4s.
Bayarh. Del Hendricks Ind.
Nuckalcw, Penn. johnson. Md.
Davis. Ky. McCreery Nv.
Dixon. Conn. Patterson, Tenn.
Doolittle Wis Salisbury, Del.
The above shows that the Radicals
have majority of 80. The question pre-
sents itself, will all the Radicals vote for
conviction Ofthe President on the charges
made by the impeachersY A twO-thirds
vote is required to convict That would
require th;rty-siX votes, or seven less
than the full number of Radicals in the
Senate, showing abundant ability to con
vict and remove the President if mere
partizan Radicalism is the only element
to be considered in estimating probabili-
ties. But Messrs. Williams, Trumbull,
Sherman, Howe, Fessenden, are already
on record as vigorous opponents of the
provision Of the Tenure Of Office bill up
on which the President is arraigned
They resisted it to the last, and, only
when it was apparent that the Tenure. of
Office bill as whole would be lost if the
provision in question was not maintained
they voted for it, yet explaining that it
did not and could not trammel the Presi-
dent, and all of them insisting that the
measure was departure from established
wise usage and unconstitutional There
is not a lawyer in the Senate who does
not know that the provision in question
is null and void, and that no misdemean-
or has been committed in disregarding it.
We are now inclined to believe that
two thirds vote cannot be got to condemn
the President
In addition to the fact that so many
leading Radical lawyers are of the opin
ion that the law is unconstitutional, it is
apparent that no violent and defiant in
fraction of law has been intended by the
President. His correspondence with
Grant proves this conclusively He tle-
sired simply, by the only steps by which
i: could be done, to bring the matter to a
legal adjudication. Grant himself ad-
mits this in the correspondence, and the
President has distinctly stated, in his
communication Of the 22d ult to the Sen
ate, that he had no purpose to violate
law, but believed that in removing Stan
ton he was not prohibited by the law in
question Senator Sherman and others
distinctly stated in the debate of January
and February, 1867, that, so far as those
appointed by Mr.. Lincoln were concern
ed. they were not protected BY the law
The violation of the Tenure of Office
bill, therefore, cannot possibly be a Suf-
ficicnt ground for the removal Of the
President unless it is intended to make
this pretext for getting rid of Prcsi-
dent who is viewed as an obstacle to par
ty success. If Senators have no sense of
responsibility higher than this, then it
may be that they will convict him for the
sake of freeing their party of an impcdi
mcnt in their way.
"a - A good name will wear out, bad