New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-02-25


the time he committed the offense he knew 1t
was not. He knew then as well as he does
now that the tribunal which would pass upon
his innocence or guilt had already settled be-
yond discussion before it that the law was
constitutional. Hence his only chance of es-
cane was in the reliance of the bully
upon the supposed cowardce of his adversary.
If in place of cOwardice he meets with prompt,
signal, overwhelming punishment, this, too, is
risk he assumed in violating the law.
But it is asked, Why should not the Senate
wait until the Supreme Court has passed upon
the constitutionality Of the lawP We answer,
Because in all that pertains to impeachment,
the Senate, sitting as a High Court OF I'm
parchment, is the supreme tribunal, and is
clothed by the Constitution with powers which
the authors Of our Government dared not in
trust to the Supreme Court. The High Court
of Impeachment becomes q court so far above the
| Supreme Court in every required quality OF
constitutional power IA well as OF learning,
political wisdom, and dignity, that the latter
has no jurisdiction of the subject matter; or OF
the parties, and least of all would its opinions
be any authority on the questions OF law or OF
fact involved. 1t would be n contempt of this
High Court of impeachment, which would
render the Judges of the Supreme Court
themselves liable to impeachment and re-
moval, were they to interfere in any
manner with the impeachment, arrest, con-
yiction, or removal Of President johnson,
or with the decision of the questions
of law or of fact on which his conviction de-
pends From the moment this High Court OF
Impeachment is organized, it. becomes, as TO
| the particular case it has i'll hand, wholly
superior and indeed, absolutely supreme tnb-
unal; and whatever the ordinary Supreme
| Court may think Of the constitutiOnality OF a
law is of no more consequence to the High
| Court of Impeachment than would DO the
opinion of our Court of Common Pleas. ALI
this Mr.. Johnson must have we'll known when
he, as his admirers claim, took the RESPONSE
| bity of disobeying the Tenure f-Ofce law.
But suppose Mr.. Stanton had obeyed the
| Presidents order of removal The constitution
atty of the law would not then have come IN
question: and could not have been tested in
| this case. 1t is as necessary, therefore, in order
| to test the cOnstitutionality OF the law, that
Stanton should disObey the Presidents order
as that .he President should issue the order
and disobey the law. If, then, the President
| intended to test the cOnstitutionality of the
| law, he must have intended that Stanton should
| dsobey his order Does anybody claim that
! he so intended? If he had so intended, he
might have accomplished his intention by
simply preceding his order by note informing
| Stanton that he would issue such an order IN
| form, but solely in order to bring the question
before the courts, and that Mr.. Stanton would
not be expected to obey the order until the
| courts had decided the question in the PreE-
dents favor This would have avoided all
misconceptions and would have screened the
| President from blame, in or out OF Congress.
| But instead of this, he orders Secretary Stan
| ton to deliver physical possession OF the Office
Immediately, aud Gen. Thomas not only de-
mands possession without any pretense that
| he makes the demand as IA means OF
! appealing To the courts, but he issues
| orders rs Secretary of War, orders Stan
| ton out of the office, and threatens to
turn him out at the point of the bayonet. AS
we have no evidence that Gen. Thomas is
dishonest, we may safely infer from his con-
duct that he did not learn from the President
| that his appointment was designed as means
| of getting the question into court until after
! his arrest, when he called upon johnson and
was so informed, the case being then already
in court We may safely set down the story
! that JohnsOn's sole object was to test the ques
ton in the courts as Misrepresentation.
But il il clear that Johnson intended to get
possession of the War Department as means
of controlling the army. His tenders of pro-
| motion and command TO prominent military
! officers like Sherman and Thomas, who have
| spurned his offers with such honest and patri-
otto contempt, and his overtures to minor Off
| GERS TO ascertain whether they would put their
troops under his orders in defiance of those
of Gen. Grant, all show that Johnson wanted,
not TO test the cOnsttutionality of the law, but
to get control of the army, or at least con-
| siderable portion of it, TO employ it in resist
ance to the measures Of Congress and the
| orders of Gen. Grant and Secretary Stanton.
Finding himself foed in this, he now talks of
| testing the constitutionality of the law. If he
did not know that the tribunal before which
| his acts would come for judgment was the
| same which passed the law, and that before
such a tribunal he could subject it TO no new
test, he deserves impeachment for his stupidity.
| Were this the first step in the Presidents
career of official crimes and usurpatiOns, Con-
gress and the country would have regarded 1t
with infinite fOrbearance. But designed as the
| climax of long series of offenses and crimes
which he calls his policy he can claim no
such forbearance. Ii was not TO test the con-
stitutionality OF any law that he vio-
lated from the outset the act of Congress
forbidding the appointment of Rebels
like Gen. Humphreys and Gov. Sharkey
to Office He did it as clear violation of law,
because he thought the law unwise And Con-
n IL A. .1fl