The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1868-05-21

IN It's keeping.
The Dissenting Senators.
Mr.. EDIroR,-In your issue of Monday you
inform your readers that "the Press is not like
ly to question the motives of Senator Fessen-
den" You also publish an article from the
Chicago Tribune, in which we are told that
"their (Senators) motives can no more be
questioned than those of other jurors or
judges" and the Tribune then argues that be-
cause certain Senators voted to acquit man
toward whom they are personally and politi-
cally hostile" their motives must of necessity
be good. The evidence of personal hostility"
is wanting. But what need of this defence of
Senators motives before accusation is brought?
The loyal element of the whole country the
men who stood by the government all through
the rebellion, freely offering their money and
their lives in its defence, with singular unan-
unity demand Johnson's removal. They feel
that the great victory achieved by their sacri-
fees is being deprived of its completeness by
his wicked perverseness. Feeling this, they
are sorely disappointed at the action of few
of their Senators, and they will most natural
ly examine the acts and question the motives
of these Senators. Hence the necessity of
this premature defence.
The attempt, SO frequently made, to sur
round a mans motives with the halo of sane
tity, is simply idle. Acts spring from motives
Where considering the one, we naturally seek
for the other. Under this false notion that
er may strike down his victim and claim that
his motive was pure and must not, therefore,
be assailed; but the law says that the intent
is gathered from the act; that it was felon-
ious.
The Chicago Tribune says that "when such
lawyers as Trumbull and FeSsenden declare
that high crimes and misdemeanors have not
been proved against the accused, it is not for
laymen to assume that they are mistaken"
Does the Tribune suppose that the peope
c fhAIr inf md hair
honest convictions into the keeping of these
Senators? Or does it suppose that these two
men embody all the legal ability of the coun-
try? Unfortunately for either supposition, there
are as learned and able lawyers out of Con-
gresS as in 1T, and a few chosen rulers can not
do the whole thinking and governing under
our government as they might have done in
a9 d MI MI t Trnm5ui are human and liable
to err. Thirty-five other Senators, and among
them men equal in ability, learning and integ-
rity to either of those mentioned, voted for
conviction. The evidence was mostly docu-
menJary. 1t has passed into history, and has
been published, together with the arguments
to the country.
There has been an error somewhere. Is it
more reasonable to suppose the error to be-
long to the seven dissenting Republican Sena-
tors, or to the thirty-five who voted for conyic-
ton and to nine hundred and ninety=nine of
every thousand of the thinking, loyal people?
The people are the government. If seven of
their servants have erred in this great crisis,
they will be arraigned before the great tri
bnnal OF the people, and must stand or fall as
their acts deserve. 1t is useless for the public
press to beg suspension of judgment in their
behalf REPUBLICAN,
Remarks of the Press.
Our friend has rendered the public a service
by presenting a clear and temperate statement
of views which are widely and honestly held
and which challenge fair and frank discussion.
The assertion that no accusation has been
brought against the Republican Senators who
differed from their friends on the points of law
involved in the recent trial, would not have
been made by any man who was fam iliar. with
the newspapers of the country. 1t is true that
the Boston Advertiser, the Providence Jour
nal, the Hartford Post, the New York Post,
the Buffalo Express, the Cincinnati CONNER
cial, the Chicago Tribune, ana others of the
ablest and truest Republican papers in the
country have strenuously insisted that this
was question of law and not of party expedi-
ency. But it is no less true that the New
York Tribune and the Phila' elphia Press
with large number of other journals Have
violently assailed the motives of the dissent
ing Senators. Here for instance is para
graph which we select at random from col
umn in the Philadelphia Press of Monday:
One month ago Chase, TrumbuIl. Fessen-
den, Henderson. Grimes, Ross, Fowler, and
Van Wrinkle were men, and not afraid to look
their tellow-men in the face; but they have
been transformed by the savory food of trea-
son into towards, and impotently whine in the
kennel of their master, the scott of loyalty,
and the loathed of freemen.
W. IL -
to say that we shall not assail any m an in this
style because his opinion on question of law
disapponts our expectations. 1t is reasonable,
as our friend suggests, to supsose that the err
ror is ON the part of the minority who voted
for acquittal and not on the part of the major
ity who voted for conviction, Nevertheless
the constitution requires the proof to be so
clear and convincing as to secure the assent
not of majority but of two-thirds of the SEN
ate, and if the accusation of the people fails for
lack of even one vote we must not abandon
ourselves to childish wrath. The chances of
the law are proverbally uncertain. No i'm
portant case, before the most disnterested
court, was ever decided without one or more
dissenting opinions. A strict party vote on
this question was neither to be expected or de-
sired. 1t is discreditable to the Demo-, ratio
Senators that they have been so obviously in
huenced by PARTISAN motives. But we can
not condemn them without in the same breath
acquitting the Republican Senators who voted
against their associates. The large majority
voting for conviction sufficiently iustifies our
representatives for bringing this accusation
before the Senate. The result has all the NOR
al effect of a conviction, and right or wrong
mnst be accepted as final till next November,
when the case comes up on an appeal TO the
whole people.
This brings us to the question of motives
mon confusion of ideas. He says very truly
that the intent of the murderer is gathered
from his act; the law holds that he intends
what he does. In this case it is to be observed
that the act is bad. If a man commits a crime
neither law nor common sense will allow him
to plead a good motive as an excuse. No NOR
alist takes such absurd ground as this. But if
the act itself be good or Indifferent, then the
gratuitous imputatioL of bad motives becomes
a crime against society. The formation and
expression of an opinion on the construction
Vi q law is in itself neither good nor bad. 1t
may De creditable or discreditabe to the learn
my ana Judgment of the author, but ii it is
Sincere anu honest it cannot be wicked
When an opinion is so formed and declared
we hold that no man has any right to question
the motives OF the person by whom it is form
ed, unless for cause either special circum-
stances or previous bad character iustifyipg
suspicion. Nobody pretends that any such
cause exists in the cases of Trumbun, or Fes-
sender, or Henderson. Whoever under such
ascribes to another base mo-
tlves, of which in the nature of things he
knows nothing, utterng as truth that which
Tor aught he knows is false, is at least in dan
ger OF committing great wrong.