Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1868-05-01
rnE PREsIDENr AND rnE LAw.

I =
full view, and we presume no one who seri-
ously wishes that the legitimate results Of
the war shall be secured, has supposed that
such result would be possible while man
who is doggedly bent upon committing the
political power in the late rebel States ex-
clusively to the rebels is in the Executive
chair. Yet he ingeniously avoided commit
ting the technical overt act which would
bring him by the letter as well as by the
spirit wholly within the constitutional con-
ditions of impeachment Consequently the
country, willing to impeach, did not demand
impeachment. It was felt to be better to
endure to the end of his term, and then re-
place him by loyal intelligent Magistrate,
who would cooperate with the representa-
tiyos of the people, instead Of thwarting
them upon every opportunity. But, as
often hanpens to men in his position, the
Presidents cunning sophisticated and be-
Wayed him. He deliberately violated the
law. Instantly public opinion assented to
the constitutional remedy, The dominant
party in Congress, which in December had
au,,i4atiaally rogaaaa TO inreach, in Fehru-
airy promptly and unanimously presented
articles Of impeachment.
The public interest in the trial has been
unaagging. Its daily progress has been
most carefully studied. and its significance
can not be overestimated. That amidst the
profound agitations, aerimonies. and party
heats that necessarily follow a civil war, the
Chief Magistrate of the nation can be tran
gully tried with perfect assent upon his
part, and with entire conformity to the fun
damental law, is the most signal illustration
Of the advance of civilization. There is
nothing that would so mark the actual gain
ofpolitieal society in the perfect supremacy
of law, and nothing, consequently, that
would so essentially weaken every govern
ment resting upon privilege and force as,
after trial and conviction, the pcaceable
deposition Of the President and the quiet
progress of the Government, 1t would
then appear that whether the head Of the
Government be assassinated or lagally re-
moved, the political structure does not rest
upon a person, but upon all the people, and
that the system is not even Jared by any
personal fortune.
The President S defence has been wholly
conducted by Mr.. Stanbery, Mr.. Curtis, and
Mr.. EYarts, and with decorum and dig
nifty equal to their ability aud beftting the
gravity of the cause. The case for the
Managers has been mainly intrusted to Gen.
Butler. His skill, coolness, prompttude,
and knowledge have been conspicuous; but,
unhappily, his want Of tact and courtesy
and his peculiar training in the courts have
been not less so. Inevitable as we believe
the result Of the trial to be, we cannot but
think it has been often harmed both by the
manner of Gen. Butler and by the method
of conducting their case adopted by the
Managers. 1twas desirable, within proper
limits, to allow testimony, in so exceptional
a case and before SO exceptional tribunal
to take a wide range, and it was therefore a
mistake to contest every point with the per-
tinacity of criminal lawyer in a doubtful
trial. The Senate, however, wisely resolved
not to make any stringent rule upon the
subject deciding that it was better to settle
each question of admissibility as it arose.
The effort Of the defense was to prove
that the President acted under competent
advice, and that his design was simply to
test the constitutionality Of the law This
was the substance of the contest upon the
admission of the testimony ofGeneral Sher-
man and of the Cabinet. The President S
counsel evidently hoped to show that the
| chief officers of the army were of opinion
that Mr. Stanton should be removed for the
good Of the service, aud that the President
acted only after consultation with the Cabi-
net and for the highest public welfare. Gen.
/ Sherman $ evidence was at last admitted
But, of course, whatever the General might
have testified that the President declared,
the declaration itself could not be Of the
! least Importance. On the 22d Of February
/ the President removed the Secretary of
War On the 1st and the 3lst of January
he told Gen. Sherman that be wanted to
remove the Secretary merely to bring the
matter into the courts. Very well; we are
| then obliged by the President antecedents
and character to ask whether his word upon
such a point must necessarily be trusted;
whether we believe his sole object was what
he declared it to be; whether his dispatch
to Governor Parsons, for instance, or, in
fact, his whole career, does not reveal an
animus which forbids the theory that be
was merely an honest magistrate troubled
about the validity ofal law Or, again, sup
posing that he wished to thrust Secretary
Stanton out and an agent Of his own in, for
the purpose Of organizing opposition to the
laws, would he be likely to announce it to
the Lieutenant-G -Generar Would he not,
of course, declare that his purpose was as
pure as purity
During the discussion upon admitting
evidence Mr. Evarts made very remarka-
able observation He said that he hoped
the case was not to turn upon the mere
formal technical infraction of the Tenure-of-
| Office Act, In other words, he hoped that
the President was not impeached for viola
ting a law, and he went on to say that the
defense hoped to prove that the President
had done nothing against the public welfare
with bad motives and improper purposes.
This is very remarkable observation, be-