The Tiffin weekly tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1859-1868, 1868-05-14
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
Mr.. BINGHAM'S SPEECH.
[coNTINUED FROM LAST WEEK. I
WAzHINoToN. Nav a.

I
cision Of all questions arising under
the constitution. The proposition is
too broadly stated. The judicial pow
er of the United States, whether ex.
ercised by the supreme or inferior
courts of the United States, is by the
terms Of the constitution restricted to
cases in claw aud equity arising
under the constitution of the United
States, or treaties made or which shall
be made under their authority to all
cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers, and consuls to all
cases Of admiralty and maritime juris-
diction to controversies to which the
United States shall be a party; to
controversies between two or more
States between a state and citizens
Of another state between citizens of
the same state claiming lands under
grants of different states, aud between
state OF the citizens thereof and for.
eign states, citizens or subjects. icon.
art. 3, sec. 2.
l admit that the judicial power of
the United States, by this provision
Of the constitution, extends, or may
by law be extended, to all cases ain
law and equity" arising under the
constitution and within the limitations
specified.
But on the question of the liability
of the President, Vice President, and
other civil officers Of the United
States to answer for treason, bribery,
or other crimes and misdemeanors
upon impeachment. l venture to say
that tie Senate Of the United States
is the exclusive judge of law and fact,
aud that its decisions are final, subject
to no review by tho Supreme Court,
aud subject to no reversal Executive
pardon, So it is written in the Con-
stitution. An impeachment is not a
case "in law or equity" within the
meaning Of the third article defining
1.-THE judicial power" Of the United
States.
While no one is bold enough or
weak enough to assert that the Su-
lpreme Court can try inpedchments, it is
nevertheless true that the defense set
up for the President-that he is not
to be held to answer by impeachment
for the deliberate violation of the
laws of the United States, if he &C.
companies it either at the time or after
the declaration of his purpose to test
the declaration of the authority Of
the courts of the United States to re-
strict the power of impeachment
vested in the House, and to control
the trial of impcachments vested ex-
clusively in the Senate,
The Supreme Court cannot, by any
possibility, have any control over this
question, because, first, it is not of
its original jurisdiction, which, by
the express words of the Constitution
is restricted to cases affecting embas-
sadors, other public ministers and
consuls, aud those in which State
shall be party. As the accused is
neither an ambassador or public min.
lister, or consul, nor "tbe State, as
yet, it is clear the original jurisdic
ton of the Supreme Court does not
conclude q case Of impeachment
against the President of the United
States for high crimes and misde-
meauors in office. Neither, secondly,
can it be claimed that the Supreme
Court has appellate jurisdiction of
the case, for that, by the terms of the
Constitution, extends only to the
cases enumerated in the third article,
aud above cited, subject to such ex-
ceptions and under such regulations
as Congress shall make; and among
the cases enumerated, Of appellate
jurisdiction, impeachment is not mem
toned, either expressly, by intend
ment, or by implication. What color
Of excuse, therefore, is there for any
pretense that the President nay set
aside all or any laws passed by Con-
gress under the pretext of defending
the Constitution by a subsequent
judicial inquiry in the courts Of the
United States? Is it not written in
that instrument that the President
shall take care that the laws be faith
fully executed? Are we to inter-
polate into the text Of the Constitu-
tion the words that the President
shall take care that the laws which he
approves shall be faithfully executed
This seems to be the position assumed
for him by his learned counsel, and is
it saying too much to declare that the
assumption is in direct conflict with
the express words of the Constitu-
ton, which declares that
"All legislative powers herein gran.
ted shall be vested in a Congress of
the United States, which shall consist
of a Senate and House of Reprcsen.
tatives."
Il is useless to multiply words to
make plain self.evijent proposition.
SO il is useless for men, however, in
genious, however skilled in the gilt.
teriDg fence of rhetoric, of in the sub.
tie arts of casuistry, to attempt to
imply power in the President to set
aside the laws, in the face Of the ex-
press words of the Constitution that
all-not some, but all-legislative
power herein granted shall be vested
in the Cangress, ard the President
shall take care that the laws which
Congress may enact shall be faithfully
executed. Conceding the ability aud
learning of the distinguished gentle
men who have argued for the accused,
may be pardoned for saying that no
man has the power to argue tho seal
from the bond, nor the plain, clear
words from the text of the Constitu-
ton, that all laws shall be enacted by
Congress, and all laws shall be exc
cuted by the President.
1t may not be out of place to say
that other provisions Of the Consti-
tuition do not demonstrate the truth
of NV nnCitinn atmk Al.