New-York tribune., 1868-05-01
PRICE FOUR CENTS.


loose views which have been presented in debate here
UnuOuDtey question of very grave consideration
now FOR the different departments OF the Government
legislative judicial and executive at liberty 10 act In
haps paln-to wait case tovoiuntcer no advice
exercise superyson but between the legislature
passed upon question II is OF the gravest consttu
tonal points for public to determine where and how
law law against the decision Of the Supreme Court aud
whether the Executive may raise the question by under
taking an executive duty under the Constitution against
the decision OF the Supreme Court and against the det
nineton of Congress- We. in this case, have been no
cused OF insisting extravagant pretens0ns. We have
suggested anything further than this for the case
only requires IL, that whatever may De inc aon9tn % OF
debatabe region in the coordinate authority Tor the d
ferent Departments OF the Government 10 Judge lnen
selves Of the constitutionay or 4i
common with the hunlblest citizen. finds law passed
over his right and binding on his action IN the matter o.
g theE1 public to the Constitution. on. ,roiS 70
Of judicial decision in order that light Of the serene
wisdom OF the Supreme Court may be shed upon ~ 10
and retaet its on the CONSTITUTION But
Senators will not have forgotten that Gen Jackson N
that department Of the Government should receive ts
final and necessary and perpetual exclusion and conelu
of the Supreme Court and that under the obligation OF
each ones OATH yourselves as Senators yourselves as
each must act 10 juncture in reference to
matter arising to raise again the question OF eonstt
which Gen jackson in his protest, sets this forth
as Conducted IN this BODY in the year ss2 when the hon
nrable Senator from Massachusetts, Nir. Sumner was
spokesman and champion Of the right Of each Depart
ment Of the Government to Judge OF the consuutonalty
of law aud OF duty But whatever may be the influence
Of this Judgment that is the Judgment Of the Supreme
Court in the case Of Prgg rule for the Judiciary il
cannot arrest duty legislators Here adopt Win
memorable veto in 1882 the Bank of the Unied States
IL the opinion OF the Supreme Court covers the whole
~ % M S S 0 10 @ e tbe @
ecutve and the Court must each for Itself be guided by
who takes an oath to support the Constitution
swears that he will support it as he I'M
by oheqs Is sna much the duy of the House Of Repre-
sentatves OF the Senate and OF the President to decide
may be presented to them for passage approval as II
Of the Supreme Judges, when it may be brought before
preme Court must not therefore be permitted TO
troll Congress the Executive but TO have only such
With these authoritative words OF Andrew Jackson
dismiss the subject Now times change and we change
remain. the powers Of the Government remain, their
coordination, remains, the conscience OF sh men
everybody who is subject TO the Constitution without
taking oath in peaceful means has right to reverse
the Constitution in derogatlon OF Constitutional law,
and any legislative law any judicial authority which
shall deny the supremacy & OF the @ IN s
raise questions for determination In conflict between
the Constitution and the law will not be consistent with
the written Constitution or with the Of the
liberties or the people as established by ana depcndent
the preservation OF written Constitutions. Now LET
us see whether on every ethical constitutional and legal
rule the President OF the United States was not the per
exectiye officer to carry out law bat as one Of the co
ordinate Departments OF the Government, over whom IN
to be asserted The language is general: Every re-
oya from Office contrary 70 the provisions OF this act
office but the President Of the United satesi Who had
authority Who could be governed by the law but he
And it was not an official constitutional duty, not
personal right, not matter OF personal
value choice interest with him, that he acted:
When therefore IL sought and claimed that by force OF
the legislative enactment the President of the United
states shall not remove from office whether the act OF
prohibited from removing from oice although the Con.
sttuton allowed him to do So The Constitution could
protect him for the act but that the act OF Congress
seizing upon hum, could draw him In here by lmpcach-
ment and subject him TO Judgment for violating the Law,
although maintaining the Constitution and that the Con.
strtiOn pronounced sentence of condemnation and D-
sought maintain It, and that the authority OF Congress
has that power and extent then you practically tear
miss this President from this Court convicted and de;
posed you dismiss him the victim OF the Congress and
Judgment and you throw open for the masters all,
In the great debates Of intelligent instructed fear
shake this country its The onnipotenceo OF
Congress as the rallyiag cry on the one side and tho
supremacy OF the Constitution Oh the other
The Court o'clock took Of quarter of an hOur
After recess, Mr.. EVARTs continued
There is but other topic that need to insist upon
here as bearing upon that part OF my argument wehs
intended to exhibit to the clear apprehension and hope
adoption OF this Courtthe view that all here that pos
weight and dignity that really presents the ag
tting contest that has been proceeding between the
cDIdi suitable for judicial cognzanct and that is
what to me TO be decisive on your Judgment and
occupies toward this subject Why the Con.
and cOnstran the conscences and the duties of
bring them into the position ot judges between
themselves another branch of the Government In re
gard TO matters OF difficulty between themselves and
considered wholly in partition under the Constitution,
between themselves and another department of the Gov
ernment The eternal principles OF Justice are ped IA
flac ton Of
nutabe more inevitable principles than these that
shall be judge in matter in which he has already
given judgment IL Is abhorent TO tile natural sense of
that shall judge in their own cause IL Is IN.
consistent with itself that should assume on
OATH and assume to perform II, OF being Impartial III ms
own Judgment when he has already formed IT, Now, the
that the President may have Imputed 70 him. that
may bring him to the Judgment OF the senate; are
involving turpitude or personal delinquency, lhey
are crimes in which it Is reasonable 10 IN.
party az ALI they are crimes which, however much the
necessary reflection of political opinions may Dias ne
personal Judgment OF this and mat ana an the members
the body yet must be possible only they should
give color turn and not be themselves the very
basis the substance OF the Judgment TO be rendered.
When therefore, show you from the records OF this
Senate that yourselves have voted upon thus law whose
eonsttutOnay is TO be determined and that the ques
ton is upon the consuOnalty or Judgment OF the con
sttuonality when you have IN yoar capacity OF Sen
ate undertaken after the act Is committed as an act
suitable your Judgment to be performed by you IN your
relation TO the executive authority ana your ay , nue
this Government t9 pronounce as you uu, Dy r.souo
that the removal 0tr. stanton, and the appointment OF
Gen Thomas, was not not authorized Dy the Constitution
ana the laws, you either did aid not regard that as
matter OF political action and II you regarded II as
matter OF political action, then you regarded u as
matter that could possibly be brought before you In
judicial capacity for you 10 determine on any per
sonal consequences TO the Executive. How was lt
matter for political action unless was matter OF ms
political action, and the controversy was wholly OF
political naturef II you the other hand had IN your
minds possibility OF this extraordinary Jurisdiction
being brought into play by complaint to be made by
the House Representatives against him. what an ex-
spectacle should you present to yourselves
and this country no, the controlling the necessary feel
ing upon which you acted, must have been that IL Is
stage and step in governmental action, concerning
which we made this suggestion and this reproof.
The great matter OF the Presidents fault Is that lie
claims them the very matter of his condemnation that
had right TO them. and aided BY the llsl.