New-York tribune., 1868-03-25
THE PRESIDENTS EXCUSE.

To ne Editor otTRe Trituz>
SIR: President johnson swOre to support the
Constitution and execute the laws. He thinks law un'
constitutional He refuses 20 execute H. II uncon,ttn
tona did he swear 70 execute it til proved sol H. JB
Ansrer.-A proposition essentially just can
alwavs be clothed in fit language without re-
yolting the sense of the candid auditor. Let
MS suppose now, THAT Nh. johnson, when he
presented himself before Chief-Justicc Chase
TO take the oath of Office as President, had
proposed to phrase it thus:
al. Andrew Johnson do hereby promise and swear to
support aud uphold the Constitution as understand IT,
and TO obey and enforce all such laws and acts Of Con
grcss a. shall accord with my Interpretation Of said Con
stItutiOn"-
does II. j. f. imagine that the Chief Justice
would have accepted that oath rs sufficient
Yet that, according to H. j. b., is Just what
Mr.. johnson meant, or should have meant, by
his oath. We cannot assent.
Try another illustration:
The Constitution originally prescribed that
the House of Representatives should consist OF
one member for every thirty thousand OF our
(FederaD population. The first Congress pro-
ceeded to apportion representatives. accordingly:
dividing the whole population Ucderal num-
I
whole number of representatives 10 be chosen,
giving each State one member for every
thirty thousand as aforesaid and then allottng
the remaining representatives to those states
which had the largest remaindcrs or fractions
respectively. Gen. Washington vetoed thls us
unconstitutional; holding that the major frac-
tions should not he represented at all-that
each State should have one representative Tor
| every full thirty thousand of its Federal num-
bcrs. and no more. We hold that Congress
was clearly right and Washington palpably
! wrong i'm the premises-that this veto was
| founded in error and should have been over
ruled. as il in practice has since been. Well:
suppose Congress had proceeded to pass tho
bill over the veto, can II. j. B. imagine Wash
ington refusing to execute this law, because
his opinion was adverse to its cOnstitutiOnality
We cannot
Whoever sees fit to disObey an enactment
a statute-does so at his own proper peril. If
he succeeds in upsetting or nulliiying 1t, so he
it if he fails, he pays the penalty II this
were otherwisc--if every citizen, every func-
tionary, could set the law at defiance, on the
plea of his disbelief in it's constitutionality-
the result would be general anarchy or chaos
| come again. 1t won't do.
"Butn asks another correspondent, how is
" the President to obtain an adjudication OH
the consttutionality Of an act Of Congress,
Except by violating it ~ Why, Sir, it is not
our business to devise easy and safe methods
of subverting the laws. We leave this to those
who wish to subvert them. When the Federal
merchants of New-Engand songht to upset
Jefferson's embargo, they made case, went to
law, and were beaten, though, on its face their
position was plausible, TO say the least. Did
any one over suggest that--since they had
broken the law expressly TO test its constitutional
valdity-they should therefore be exempted or
excused fr0p bearing its penolty9
No, gentlemen! this excuse will never an
swer. "Let him who jeers the Tartar beware
! of the dirk !"