Mineral Point weekly tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1859-1868, 1868-03-25
THE PRECEDENT OF IMPEACHMENT.

L ieeiueuI can De removed, say some.
" 1t Is pity to make a precedent
that will lead every Congressional
opposition in the majority to remove
the Executive, say others. To the
ilrst remark we reply that the re-
moval Of President for a clear vio-
latlon # law is no easier a process
than the Constitution intended it to
be. And which is the greater pity
that the Executive should continue
to impose his veto after its constitu-
tional expiration until he can pro
cure the judgment of the Supreme
Court, or that an Executive which
refuses to obey the law should be le-
gally removed? And if the Presi-
drnt should be removed, is it q easily
done! Let US see:
" hen the proposition was origin
alIay made more than year ago, the
universal feeling among those who
had elected Mr.. Johnson was that al
though he was strenuouslv endeayor-
ing to battle the intentions of the PEG
pie as expressed by their representa-
tlves, yet he was ingeniouslv keen
ing within the letter of the law !,
while TO make sure of a successful
impeachment, TECHNICAL guilt was
necessary. His conduct in connec-
ton with the New Orleans massacre F.:
his reeling tour and maudlin speeches
IN the summer of 1866, might, of them
selves-as it seemed to many-have
justified charge Of :" misdemeanor. p"
II nothing more. But 1t was remark
ed that while he coarsely insulted
Congress he yet recognized its au-
thorlty; and the good sense of the
country concluded that it was cxpe-
dent TO await the ordinary method of
an election to remove an obstacle to
its Will. This conclusion was more
emphatically declared afterward by
the enormous majority against i'm
parchment at the opening Of the pres
ent SESSION, when the laws that had
been passed over the veto Of the Pres
| ident had made his efforts to parvlvze
the equitable reconstruction of the
Union still more abortive. His ma
leyOlence was evident: but although
a great misfortune to every national
interest by perpleXing and prolong-
ing national paci6cation, it was bet
ter endure it to the end than to i'm
peach without palpable and technical
guilt which should satisfy every one
who was not skeptical of every thing
that Congress could do.
Under plea Of testing the constitu-
tionaiJy of a law 5y making case
for the Supreme Court, the President
violated the law lie had now sup
piled the technical olfense. His
whole career, and the immediate cir.
cumstances q the case, tended to
show that, Hls act was tentative
merely. There could be no reason
able doubt that, if not arrested
in his course. the President would
not hesitate to take steps still more
daring; and the same House that a
little more than two months before
had so decidedly opposed imreach-
ment now by the whole Republican
vote impeached. We ask those who
think the Impeachment Will show
how easily a President NAV be re-
moved, what else could Congress
have done? If it be said that if
might have awaited the opinion of
the Court. we reply that it could
not have done so. if at all when il
had reason to believe in the honest
purpose OF the President; even if it
had been sure Of that purpose. it
might properly have said that the
precedent was too dangerous. For
if the Executive may continue to i'm
pose his veto when it has deem con
stitutionally overruled, in one case.
may do so IN every case.
If, indeed President Lincoln had
vetoed any law passed by the Thirty
ninth Congress, upon the ground of
mconstItutjonalitv, and it had been
passed over his veto. we can verv
we'll understand that he might have
crranged with Congress that it should
be judicjally determined by a case
mutually agreed upon; but only be-
cause OF the extraordinary circum-
stances of the time and Of the re-
markable cohdence that was reposed
in him personally But if Brecken-
ridge, or Pendleton. or Seymour had
been President at the time. and had
directly violated the law under plea
of awaiting Judgment of the Court.
we can not imagine that Congress
would have delayed impeachment for
single week. The declared opin-
ions and antecedents of those three
persons would have furnished a con
elusive presumption against the 10y
atty of their intentions. Congress
could not safely have trusted them
# an Executive were ever to be re
moved by impeachment, the case
would have arisen.
1t is so with the President. The
only thing consistently clear in his
brief story is the intention to thwart
the policy of Congress. Hostility to
Congress is his monomania, and when
having opposed its will by his veto he
continues to defy the two-thirds vote.
Congress IS brought to the alternat.
i've of impeachFng him, or of suffering
IT'S vote to of two-thirds to be wholly
disregarded bv the Executive until the
Supreme Court has decided whether
the law passed by that vote Is consti-
tuti0nal. In case Of conviction we
can not think that the President Is
easily" removed because he is guilty
0f -urb an rfraD-a Is -Ja Low - E -