Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1868-04-15
Mr. Inhnsnn,s nefanse.

The following article, in reference to the open
ing speech on behalf of President johnson, is
copied from the Pittsburg Gazette:
The opening argument of Mr.. Johnson's coun-
gel accords in its general drift, with the expecta-
tions of the public for ten days past But our in
telligent readers will concur with u. in the opin
ion that, far as it purports to embody the
Presidents in defense, it is essentially fail
ure. Making show of graphing boldly with
the IN ain issue which had alre ady been formally
made IN the pleadings, viz the CONSTITUTIONAL
ty of the Tenure of Office law the whole course
and the tenor of Judge Curtis argument Is no
more than a ceaselesS Kaleidoscope variation
from to the other of the opposite and most In
consistent extremes between which Mr.. johnson
is finding himself crucifed. At one moment his
counsel denies the constitutionality of tho law ;
at another he defends its spirit and endeavors to
show that the act of his client did not fall within
its scope. n breath he asserts the Presidents
unrestricted right of appointment and removal !;
at the next, he fortifes him within precedents
which he admits to be based upon no express law
whatever Now, he claims that Mr.. Stanton was
Justly removed; then he reminds the Senate that,
as no removal was perfected by the Seeretary's
assent no violation of the law can be Justly charg
ed. Here he gives good reasons why Secretary
should hold office during the term of the Presi-
dent who appoints him there, ignoring the fact
that the Secretary's Office was confirmed to him
by Mr.. Johnsons express act he asserts an abSo-
Lutte right to remove him at pleasure lie admits
that the suspension was in Difference to law
with which b is client aimed to avoid conflict;
he subsequently argues that it was his clients
duty to reject the enactment as binding in any
particular, and to make case for Judicial inter
probation. He declares that an individual may
plead and establish, for an adequate defense, the
unconstitutionality Of law which he Is arraign-
ed for violating, and boldly claims the same right
for the magistrate who is sworn to execute every
law when enacted.
The argument of Judge Curtis presents no new
view of his clients case Every point that he
takes has been already and quite as forcibly e.
laborated by the Democratic journalists and pol
itic ians who have generally volunteered ami
ca cuy1oe in the interests of pure justice, TO say
good word for their friend at the bar. The
gument abounds with the technical astuteness,
the bal criticisms the hair-spiltting distinc-
tions, the fine points and the plausible but shall
low exceptions of the mere lawyer, who is at the
head of his profession doubt, as to that of
ability, but it lacks the comprehensive breadth
of considerations the enlarged wise, liberal views
the just conceptions of public duty OF the neces-
sites of the State of the intentions OF the Fathers
and of the requirements of the future, which can
only animate the statesman. He has not risen to
| the higher plane upon which the merits Of i'm
| peachment are to be judged. 1t is State neoes-
sity, far more than any mere vindlcatlon efa law
violated in its letter. but to either one or the
other, has abundan justification in the facts nd
upon both GU nds the judgment of the Senate
| awaits the proper hour for delivery.