Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-05-05
IMPEACHMENT.
WASHINGTON, May
SENATE.

the laws, he spoke of their majestic su-
premacy In our form of Government, and
clalmed that the President was equally
subject to their authority with the hum
blest frontier settler. He dwelt on the high
trust committed to the Senate, and asserted
that the issues of life and death to the re-
public hung on their decision.
lie asked how the charge of violation of
the supreme law was met by the counsel
who for hire defended the treason of the
criminal respondent 1t was by the out
rageous assertion that each branch of the
Government had a right to Judge of the
constitutionality of laws, and obey them
or not at pleasure. This was the defense
MADE for his highness, the first King of our
nation.
Mr.. Bingham held that the Senate, by up-
holding this proposition, would lay the
foundation for monarchy first, and anarchy
next; reign OF chaotic darkness. On
this issue, which in spite of lawyers trifles
and special pleas, was the real question in
volved, their decision must stand for
trial by the people. He repeated that the
question was whether the President could
be held to answer to violation of law. He
held first, that the Senate had sole power
to decide every question of law or fact
arising. They were also the final arbiters,
and the frequent attempts of counsel to
bring the Senate and courts in opposition
were miserable devices to divert attention.
He could not initiate the eloquent coun-
sci Mr.. Evarts), who had shown himself
an eater of syllables. a snapper up OF trifies,
who had displayed more latin than law
more rhetoric than logic, and more INTEL
lectual pyrotechnics than either. He also
referred to the length of Mr.. EVarts'speech
by saying he tried to render it immortal by
making it eternal.
Mr.. Bingham held simply that the Sem
ate was the supreme and final judicial tri-
bunal of the United States, and as to the
argument which had been made at such
lnterminable length that the Supreme
Court was the court OF last resort for de-
cision of Constitutional questions, he held
1t had no more to do with the present ques-
tion than the court of st. Petersburgh, and
that the judgments of this tribunal could
not be affected by decisions of the Supreme
Court, made on, before or after the i'm
peachment trial. He argued the original
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court did not
extend to impeachment, and therefore the
references to its decisions were irrelevant
and their arguments on this point without
colorado excuse.
He then considered the proposition ad-
vanced by counsel that heads of Depart
ments were merely the registering Secre-
taries of the President; bound to do his will.
Reading from decision of the Supreme
Court in the case quoted by Evarts, he
claimed that it was therein plainly laid
down that such officers were bound by law
1 and not by the Presidents will. He also
claimed that the other position assumed
by counsel that he could sit in judgment
on the validity of laws was overthrown by
decisions of the same tribunal 80 years ago,
which decisions had never been questioned
and proceeded to read extracts from them.
He further asserted that the eX-Attorney
General was wholly ineXcusable in at
i tempting to force into this trial as an au-
thorlty the decision OF the present presid-
ing officer in the Mississippi case, and ar
gued it had no relevancy whatever to the
question in dispute. He claimed then, it
was proved that we could not allow the
President, discretion as to which law he
would execute with interpolating words
into the Constitution.
He referred to the act of Washington in
suppressing the whisky insurrection, and
that of jackson in crushing out nullifica-
ton, as instances in which obnoxious laws
were executed by Presidents who enter
tanned grave doubts of their constitutions
ality. He also spoke of the acquiescence
of the American people in the unconstitu-
tional and iniquitous slave law until its ab-
rogation, and in this connection dwelt at
length on the subject of slavery, with its
various characteristics.
He spoke of counsel's reference to Presi-
dent Lincoln, that he had violated the laws
of his country and furnished many prece-
dents for President Johnson's crimes, as
Il bold calumniating slanders on his memo
ry- The suspension of the hdbeGs corpus
was not made bv him, but by civil war,
which rendered it necessary.
In regard to the passage of the indemnity
act, he said the purpose of Congress in such
legislation was to furnish authority to the
courts to dismiss cases brought against the
Presidents agents for what they had done
in pursuance of the Constitution. 1t their
acts had been unwarranted, indemnity laws
would have been of no avail.
/ Recess.
On re-assembling,
Mr.. Bingham resumed and referred to
argument of Evart's, based on the success
full resistance of the brokers' tax law in
New York, as an insult to the Senate, and
since one capable of making 1t was not fit
to argue grave Constitutional provisions
relating to passages of bills over veto, and
maintaining that every one who had learn
ed to read can plainly settle the qestion
whether or not the President broke a law
Referring to the citation by Mr.. Nelson,
he contended it had no bearing on the case;
besides its author (Jefferson) was not au-
thoritative in regard to the Constitution,
which he did not help to frame. Reading
the list of powers granted to the President
by the Constitution, he called attention TO
the fact that no power of suspending laws
until their validity is tested is anl where
given him, and held that such claim of
both legislative and executive function was
in contravention of the express terms of
; the instrument.
He insisted that this claim involved also
an assumption Of judicial powers, and char
acteriZed the entire proposition as too ab-
surd to be submitted to children. By the
exercise of this assumed power the Presi-
dent could suspend legislation of all kinds.
He could prevent the creation OF judicial
districts, the erection of States and election
of Representatives, the enactment of reve-
nue. laws, and, in short, he could destroy
the framework of our Constitutional Gov
ernment. Whether he should be allowed
to do this is the question now to be deter
mined. For righteous decision the prayers
of millions now ascend.
AS to what crimes can be considered i'm
peachable, he said all offeDses under COM
mon law are indictable in the District of
, Columbia, and the same class are also i'm
peachable. If this proposition was not
self-evident he need not argue it. for as to
the offenses specified in the articles he held
, that no one could deny that the open vio-
lation of law by the President was an inn
: peachable crime, who vas not destitute of
duty. He said the defense of the President,
, as exhibited in his answer, rests on the as
!, sumption that he possesses the right to re-
sist and bring to judicial decision any law
: which he supposes to trench on his Consti-
tutiouaI prerogatives. This assumption
could be made pretended excuse for re-
r fusing to execute any law whatever.
, Referring to the position assumed on
: this question by Mr.. Evarts, he read
from piece written by Mr.. Curtis
: in 1862, the expressions of a contrary
view, which he commended as good law.
He went on to assert that no man who did
not admit the assumption that the Presi-
dent possessed judicial as well as executive
powers could deny that his violation of
law proved him worthy of conviction.
Mr. Bingham then cited legal authorities
to show that argument and proof of criminal
= intent are not necessary in prOceedin pS