Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-05-02
FORTIETH CONGRESS.
This Afternoons PROCEEDINGS.
IMPEACHMENT,

SATURDAY, Nav


g SATURDAY, MAYA
SKNATE.-The Court Of Impeachment was
op, ned at noon with the us ual formalltes
The Chief Justice notified Mr.. Stan berry 10
proceed. ed p, i.. -. go = :
Mr.. Stanbery said that first OF all he must re-
turn his thanks TO the Senate for their Kindness
yesterday. He was much refreshed by his rest
Before he entered upon Mis- is Gas Case 'he"nm he mus,
speak In adv ance, not that he hoped to carry
any thing before a body like this by any ex-
piesslon OF confidence, but he had examined
afhis matter from beginning, and. there was OF
enAy. nosa ease nads oot. but not q shadow Of
Mr. Stanbery's g argument then proceeded SUBJ
stantially as follows, from the point where he
LETT on yesterday, departing occasionally from
the text of the prepared speech:
But If Senators should be of opinion thar the
tenure-of-office act protected Mr.. Stanton, and
that me attempt TO remove hiE was eq uivalent
TO removal, he (Mr. Stanbery) would next
maintain. first. that the President had a right TO
consrue the law for himself and if in the ex =
ercise of that right, he committed an error of
construction. and acted under that error. he is
net 10 be held responsible. Second. If he had
so construed the law as to be of opinion that
Mr.. Stanton was intended to be projected by il
against his power OF removal, and was also of
opinion that the law in that respect was con-
rary 10 the Constitution, he is not to be held
responsible II he therein committed An error.
MI. Stanbery proceeded to argue these points
in the order in whi ch they were stated. With
regard 10 the first point he agreed that i-nor-
ance or misconception OF the law does not IN
general excuse party from civil or criminal
liability: but he cOntended that there were ex-
cepiions, and that this case fell within one Of
the exceptions. Where a law is passed " hieh
concerns the President and touches his onicial
duties, IL is not only his right but his duty to
determine for himself what is the true construc-
uon OF the law, and to act or refuse to act ac-
cordlng 10 that determination, whatever il may
be. He is invested with a discretion which is
not allowed TO a ministerial officer. The Presi-
dent Is not merely ministerial officer. 1t is
T1nn tn enref efyxra lov
cute them. The Constitution does not vest him
with judicial power, but it does in vest him with
discretion as to the mode of executing laws.
In support OF this point Mr.. Stanbery cited
the opinion of Chief Justice Chase, delivered
in the Supreme Court in April, 1867, upon
what was called tie Mississippi iniup cuon
case. Mr. > then argued that when this ten
u OF Office act came to be considered by the
President IN reference to his purpose 20 remove
Mr.. Stanton from office, he had a right, an d il
was his duty to decide for himself, whether
the proposed removal of Mr.. stanton was or
was not forbidden by the act. The act baI as
yet received no construction by the judicial de-
partment, and the President could rot settle
his doubts, If he entertained any, BY as king any
other opinions than those OF the heads of be-
partments
With regard to the second point Mr.. STAN
hery said II appeared that the Presidents opin-
ION upon this question was made up deliber-
ately. When the law was on lis pa. sage. apd
had been presented to him for approval. his
opinion was formed that il w.s IN violation of
the Cor stituuon. He reused to approve il,
and returned IL to Congress with a message IN
which this opinion was distinctly announced,
The exercise Of that veto power exhausted all
ms me?ns OF resistance to what be deemed an
unconstitutional act in his legislative capacity
But this law was directly AIMED at him and at
the Executive power. Wher, therefore, he
came second time TO consider ii, il was in the
discharge OF an Executive duty. Had he then
DO discretion! Was he then bound to act an an
altogether ministerial capacityl Having once
FINELY exercised a q discretion in his lcpIslati ye
capacity, 10 prCycrt the passage of the law
was he thereby deprived of his discretion in
MS executive capacity, when he was called
He Mr.. Stanbery) knew il had been sa id that
law passed over the PRESIDENTS veto by the
constitutional two-third has a greater sanction
thsn a law passed in the ordinary wav but
this is modern heresy. unsustained by any
reason or authority. II stands upon an equal
footing with other legislative acts and cannot
be put upon higher or lower ground. The
question then recUrs, is the President mves ed
with discretion in his executive Capacity
Mr.. Stanbery contended that he is, and in
support Of that assumption he quoted from
point. He then cited various authorities upon
the point, that law passed by Congress IN
violation OF the Constitution is totally void.
and as 20 the discretion vested in the President
to decide for himself the question of the Va
lidity of such law.
Mr.. Stanbery then proceeded to call attention
TO the other articles, AID first the conspiracy
articles which he said all relate to the same
subject matter, the war office, the Secretary of
the War office, and the public property therein
And this is all that is necessary to be said
acout these articles for not a sclntilla Of proof
hes been adduced iE their support. Next as To
the Sth article usually known as the Emory
article. This had no substance in itself from
the beginning and since the testimony of Mr.
Wells r. mains without the slightest founda-
uon. Next as to the 10th article relative to the
speeches made at the Executive Mansion. at
Cleveland, and at ST. Louis. 1t is in the name
Of all the people of the United States that Sena
tors are in this article called upon to hold the
President Of the United States guilty for sneak.
ing as the article has 1t, with a loud voice TO
assemblages OF American citizens what is called
scandalous matter touching the 39th Congress
OF the United States.
In the first place, that political body did not
deem 1t necessary to guard its own honor and
privileges by taking notice of charges so made
against themselves. Every word charged had
been brorgnt 10 their notice, but they deliber.
ately declined to interfere, and SO the slander
If slander it was, spoken, and the oh lect against
Whlch IT was spoken. have all passed away,
and new Congress finds it necessary TO vim
Glcate the honor OF its detunct predecessor by
DONG that which its predecessor refused to do
for ITSELF 1t passes comprehension that such
an article as this should be graveIy presented
In the name of the American people. II there
is any one precious right which our people
value as jewel beyond price, it is the right of
free speech, with the corresponding right of a
Tree press. Muzzle the one gag the other
was no such body in the States as the people.
Mr.. Stanbery then referred at length TO the
Jealousy with which the people Of Great Brit
ain had guarded this right He quoted the
Constitution upon the subject, and referred TO
the odium that attached TO the sedition laws of
July IA, 179e.
With regard to the l1th article, Mr.. Stanpery
confessed his inability to make anythiny
out OF v. and he did not feel justified in taking
mp the time of the Senate in the copsiderati ton
of this anomalous article.
And now, after this review of the articles
Mr. Stanbery asked where was the mischief or
where was the injury to any individual or any
onicer OF the Government, brought about by
the action OF the PRESIDENT To all this. il is
said, that 1t is enough that the law has been
violated, that pc vers have been assumed by
the President not con nferred upon him by the
Constitution of the United States. 1t is in the
order of February 21st, 1865, that it. is claimed
that the President usurpeda pow wer not granted
by the Constitution; but he (Mr Stanbery,
maintained that the order issued on the 9lst OF
February, was issued by the President in the
exercise Of an undoubted power vested IN him
by the Constitution of the United states. "a
far as this question stands upon authority, il
may be said to be more thoroughly and salts
factorily settled than any one that has at any
time agitated this county aAa8Ess az -
Mr.. Stanbery then argued upon the Constitu.
honal power to make removals, and insisted
that he was only exercising that Constitution.
81 power when he removed Mr.. Stanton. III il
is Constitutional power which he possesses
how can 1t be taken away by any mode short of
. Constitutional amendmentf Ne fther ia the
primitive clauses Of the second section ef the
Military .Apprupriaton act nor in the sixth