The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1868-04-24
THE IMPEACHMENT.



Argunsas Of Hen. Janaes =. Wilson.
In the Impeachment Trial on the 10th,
Hon. James F. Wilson spoke as to the I'D
INSTABILITY of the testimony Of the members
of the Cabinet in extennation of the Presi-
dents violation OF the Tenure~of- Office law.
Mr.. Wilson spoke to the whole merits of the
Impeachment case The New York Tribune
says: .tHe rose at 11:25. and continued to
speak, or rather to read-for he read from
mauuscript-until 1918. His speech was
listened to with much attention and was censid-
cred very able argument. 1t was not confined
to the particular point before the Court, but
embraced the whole subject of impeachment.
1t had been prepared IN the expectation that
the rule limiting the number of speakers
would ba 80 modified "a TO allow more than
two to speak on the summing up.n
Itisa powerful and comprehensive pre-
sentation of the case, clearly and briefly
made, and we hope oil will read it:
Manager WILSON--As this question con.
fronts one OF the mos, important questions
involved in this case, / wish to present the
views of the Managers respecting it with
such care and exactness as | may be able TO
command. Tho respondent now offers TO
prove, doubtless as foundation for other
Cabinet advice of more recent date, that he
was adsised by the members of his Cabinet
that the act of Congress npon which rest sew
erat OF tne articles 70 when ne mad made
answer, to-wh' An ACT regulating the ten
ure OF certein civlt omcels, passed MArch Z,
1861, vas ana y unconstitutional, ana there.
fore VOID. that he Was 60 ADVISED he has al
Legged N ms answer. whether he Was 50 adj
vised or DOT IS immaterlai 70 this case and ir.
reievent g the issue joined. ne noase OF
Representatives, were not to be entrapl ed IN
the preparation OF thss replication BY any
such cunn.ns device, nor y the k,ndred one
whefeey tne Respondent afhtms tnas ne waa
not oouno 70 execute Ine acs oeesase ne De
ifeved u 20 De unconstitutional. he repii-
cation says;
The house OF representatives do deny
eacn ana every aVefment IN the said several
ansTers, o. either o. them, winch dentes o.
tfaserses the acts, intents, crimes or INSIDE
neanors enhigeo sgAinst tue faio ANDREW
johnson IN the said articles ofimpeachment
or either 81 them, and Tor replication TO the
sara answer 40 say tnat the eaio AndreS
Johnson Is gniity OF me nigh crimes ana mis-
oemeaho.s mehiionea 10 'he sara articles,
1hefe Is NC acceptance mere OF Inc issue
tenuefea ~ the respondent, ana IN support
OF which We object The advice which be
may nave iorneo toucnihg .ne CONSTITUTION
hhty OF the SAID act cannot be allowed 70
ahieia him from Inc consequences OF his
crim,nai scts, nor can his smtsiaken view Of
the consultation reiaiiye 70 ms night to re-
qnire the opinion OF the heads OF the several
executive departments upon certain guess
mons, aid nls ehofis 70 escape from the just
demands Of sioiated law. In his answer TO
the tirst articles be alleges that
This respondent had, in pursuance ofthe
Constitution, required the opinion Of each
principal officer OF The executive departments
upon thus question OF Constitutional execu-
tive power and duty, and had been advised
BY each OF them. including the said Stanton,
Secretary tor the Department OF War, that
under the Constitution OF the United States
this power OF removal was lodged by the
Constitution IN the Presldept of the United
States. and that consequently it could be
lawfully exercised BY him, and the Congress
could not deprive him thereof
The respondent found no provision in the
Constitution authorizing him to pursue any
such course. The Constitution says.
.'The President may require the opinion in
writing of the principal in each ofthe execu-
tive departments upon any subject relating tc
the duties Of their respective Offices Gar
.lcie z, section 2
Not OF bis oitce, not OF the legislative depart
ment, nor OF the Judicial department But
when did he require the opinions and receive
the ADVICE under cover Of which be now seeks
m 1raV INF Al >.
all TRANSFERRED prior 10 bis veto OF the bill re-
gnlating the tenure of certain civil Offices
Upon these unwriiten opinions and that ad
wee be based his veto OF said bill and fashion
ed the character OF his message. He coro.
municaied nus objections 10 Congress; the;
were overfu.ea ey both Houses. and the bill
Vas cnacted INTO Law In manner and form
IS prescribed W tins Ionsetation. He doe
Rot say that since the hnai passage Of the ac
ne mas ossn inflner aasisea % the principa
omeefs OF esch ~ tne executive department
that ne - ponDd not TO enforce it; and if b.
nse done 20 ne Wouid have achieved fesul
OF no possiois dement, to bimsslf, but danger
Gus TO his admirers; far 1t will be borne II
mind that the articles charge that he .die
unla~iutiy conspirs With Que Lorenzo Thom.
% <pd with Other pefsons to the House o
REPRESENTATIVES unknown He might hay,
disci0eed shas tnese UNKNOWN persons wers
the members OF tne Caolnet. This disclosur,
might nave placed them 10 jeopardy withon
diminishing the peril which attends upon hi
own prs0icamen- - not uIihcalttn ~
tnAs tae line Of daiense to which We ha~e al
rected tue present objection involves tn,
ereet quesuon % this case. ltteads TO mat
.ers more we'ghty than mere resolution o
sne tecneieai oHenses which hoat on the sur
20 .a.s prosecution. whoever attempt