Prescott journal. [volume] (Prescott, Wis.) 1861-1871, 1868-03-07

Of the law individually, as a member OF
The national family he is bound to
yield to that higher Outy which the
imposes upon him as an
officer of the state. If his conscience
forbid, he may resign the trust; but he
has no right 10 retain the power of a
public Office and subordinate that to
the Judgment of q mere individual, a
member of the community or nation
which has clothed him with executive
powers for the enforcement of Its laws
a public officer. No such plea can
Dc properly entered in his behalf be-
.ause he is not only sworn to execute
The law, but also possesses the right
of resignation. IL his conscience viii
not permit him to execute given law
he may resign his trust and leave to
his successor the performance OF duty
in which his judgment, as an indlvid-
ual, will not surrender to his obliga-
ton as a public officer. A willingness
to submit to the penalty subscribed
for the violation of the law, may to
some extent excuse disobedience on
the part of a private citizen and at the
same time avail nothing 70 the public
officer. The latter may at any time.
by resignation, become private c1tl-
zen, but the former cannot become a
public officer-in this country except by
the suffrage of his fellow-citizens. If
he accepts the results of their suffrages,
he merges his individuality into that
of an official creature, which binds
itself by an oath as an executive officer
to do that which, as a mere individual,
he may not believe Just, right or con-
stitutiOnal. Such an acceptance re-
moves him from the sphere of the right
of private judgment to the place OF the
private officer, and binds him to OBJ
serve the law, his judgment to the
contrary notwithstanding.
The Constitution invests the Presi-
dent with executive power in order
that he may take care that the laws be
faithfully executed. Every abuse of
this power, whether it be an improper
use or exercise of it, -oT by neglect or
refusal to exercise 1t, Is breach of
official duty; but it Is not every branch
of official duty that can be charged as
a crime or misdemeanor against the
official delinquent. Whatever doubt
may have arisen III other cases of the
criminal character of the official con-
duct involved, the one we are now con
sldeFing presents no basis upon which
TO rest a doubt. Deliberately, not to
say defiantly, the President has violat-
ed a penal statute. of the u. s., and
committed high misdemeanOr, which
the law says Is punished by fne
not exceeding $4,000, or by imprison-
ment not exceeding five years, or by
both of said punishments, in the dis
erection of the cOurt;" act of March 2,
1867, section 6. ali of The circnm-
stances attendant upon this case show
that the Presidents action was DELHI
crate and willful. There is not shade
of excuse or palliation in the case as it
is presented to us. he perversely has
rushed upon his own destruction
ObstinateIy be has forced upon us an
issue in which We must join or prove
ourselves unworthy representatives of
a tree people. We have not sought
this issue, but have resOrted to every
legitimate means to avoid it. We have
manifested no undue desire to exercise
tho impeaching power which is vested
in this House exclusively by the ex-
press terms of the Constitution. Guild
ed by a sincere desire to pass this cup
from our lips, determined not to drink
it If escape were not cut off
by the presence of palpable
duty, we at last find ourselves con-
pellt d to take its very dregs. A decent
respect for the executive office, a patri-
Otic effort to avoid collision between
the departments of the government,
ever manifested by this House, seem TO
have been most strangely misunder-
stood by the President. Our refusal To
abuse a power or to resort to it even
while a mere doubt as to the right to
it could be urged In opposition
thereto, seem to have been construed
by him into license to trample on even
the penal statutes of the nation. The
result is before us; the President chal-
leUges the supremacy of the law and
his constitutional obligation
10 take care that the laws be faithfully
substantially be affilms that
bis oath of Office may be qualified
by the conclusions of his private
he defantly casts be.
fore the representatives of the
people his gage. and declares that
he viii decide what laws are constitu-
and that such only as stand the
test of his Judgment will ne respect,
enforce or obey. This is his case. He
has been elected. To base it on penal
1t is for us to traverse this case,
and put it to the country. Anything
less than this would be shameful
abuse of high trust, and a criminal
of duty. To my charge
shall neither of these offenses be placed.
Mr.. Speaker, il has been urged in
this debate that the Presidents sole
object is to secure judgment in the
courts as to the coDstitutionality of the
act regulating the tenure of certain
civil offices. Such an intent will not
Justify the commission of high crime
or misdemeanor. Suppose the court
should hold the act to be constitutional,
would the fact that his intent was TO
have that question decided be good
plea TO an indictment for a viola
ton of its provisions? Who is
so insane as to assert so preposterous
a proposition ? Whoever acts in the
way and for other purposes does it at
his peril The risk belongs TO the
President in this case, and not to the
law. This plea IN his deficiency was
not the result of inadvertance or mis-
taken judgment, and that is the first
calculation, and with deliberate pur-
pose he committed high misdemeanor
in order TO secure a judgment of the
courts. Sir, We will crafty his desire
by referring his case to the highest
tribunal known to the constitution of
the republic, the high court of i'm
parchment. To that august tribunal
We will present this case, and with it