Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-05-01
IMPEACHMENT.
WASHINGTON, April 80.

/
Nelson came up. % .
After Mr.. NELSON had made.som re-
marks disavowing any intentional disre-
spect for the Senate, but admitting that lie
referred to duel,
Mr.JOHNSON moved to lay the resolu-
80 to 10.
Mr.. CAMERON'S order for night ses-
sious was considered. sos 3u
Mr.SUMNER offered to amend by max
ing the hours from 10 o'clock to 6.
On motion of Mr.. TRUMBULL, the
whole subject was tabled-32 to 10.
Mr.. EVARTS resumed bis argument.
Mr.. Evarts held that it was grave re-
proach upon the wisdom and foresight OF
the trainers of our Government to claim
that a decision in this case in favor OF the
President would result in monarchy H.
| his view the danger was TO another of the
balances of the Constitution, namely. the
relations of the weight of numbers and
equality of States, irrespective OF popula-
ti0n. From the principles of the Constitution
and utterances of the foremost distinguish
ed statesmen, it was evident that to make
| the Senate executive instead of advisory,
was to rob the peoples majority of then
rightful power. In this manner the small
and thinly populated States would control
| the working of the Government against
the will of those which cast the overwhelm-
ing majority of votes, and the Presidential Il
election would become farce.
In support OF this position he quoted
writings of the elder Adams. Roger Sher-
man and others. and enforced it by consid-
ering various emergencies which might
arise under the tenure of office act, which
makes certain offices permanent, and rem
der removal dur;ng the session of the Sen
ate difficult, If not mpracticable.
He proceeded to quote from debates in
the Senate when the bill was under con-
sideration, the language of Williams, How
ard and others, to show its effect was to
revolutionize the practice of the Govern
ment, and quoted an expression to the et-
feet that while the legislative construction
had little weight, yet the decision OF con-
stitutional questions by the Supreme laws
were authoritative.
Mr.. EVARTS contended, however, that
the decisions of the Congress of 1889 were
not only authoritative, because confirmed
by the Supreme Court, but carried the i'm
mense weight of themselves. He referred
to the debates of 1889 as explanation of the
subject OF the power of removal, and claim
ed that the point at issue was settlell and
firmly established by the trainers of our
Government, and by the practice of succes-
sive administrations afterwards.
He also referred to Mr.. Webster's declar-
alton in 1885, by the endorsement of Presi-
dent Jackson's removal of Duane by the
people, the superior power OF all.
In regard to the suggestion that the Con-
gress OF 1879 was influenced by high con-
fidence in President Washington, Mr..
Evarts asked if it were not possible that
the present Congress had been influenced
in an opposition by its opinions on the in
cumbent President. He read from various
cotemporaneous writers to show that the
Importance of the question was deeply felt
at the time, and that the effect of the decis-
ion reached in 1889 was thoroughly under-
l. 4lA., 4, 1.,,,, L 4
been in direct contravention of the doc
trine and practice of the Government for
eighty years, and having in itself no bind
ing effect on constituting the Constitution.
Doubts as to its constitutionality might
naturally arise in the mind of the Presi-
dent, for which he could not righttully be
impeached.
Referring to his argument of yesterday
respecting the right and power of the
President to resist unconstitutional laws.
he rea from debates on the fugitive slave
law of 1852, the language of Mr.. Sumner,
in which he quoted and endorsed President
Jackson's declaration that each department
of the Government had the right to judge
of the constitutionality of acts and injunc-
lures not already covered by the Supreme
Court decisions, to diamiss and dPpose.
The President. for an attempt to maintain
the supremacy of the Constitution, moved
him to make him the victim of Congress
and martyr of the Constitution.
Recess.
On reassembling. Mr.. EvARTS consid-
cred the attitude which the Senators took
in reference to this subject. He said moth
ing was more abhorent to a sense of Justice
than that man should be judge in his
case or decide question which he had al
ready preadjudged. He held that If the
Senate, in passing the resolution of censure
on the 21st of February, had pronounced on
q c m hIlot Of 10 20
law as political action, then they could
not consider it a judicial question. would
be extraordinary, almost inconceivable, to
suppose they did not consider it,
with the prospect OF having to try
the matter, if it were judicial as court of
impeachment. 1t could be possible they
did not regard it as a political Question:
He reminded them that the largest votes
for conviction in Humphreys case were on
the articles charging him with having
prejudiced a case, having allowed jury
man to sit who acknowledged he had form
ed an opinion.
Again, they had an interest in the result
Two million dollars of the patronage and
powers OF the executive office were the
prizes offered them for conviction. Their
political prejudices, too, he argued, Joined
with other considerations, cause them to
cast out as improper tor their decision
charges alleging violation of theirown laws
Passing, then, to the general considera-
tion of the evidence introduced in support
of the articles of impeachment, he char
| acteriZed it as absolutely insufficient, al
though the managers had possessed every
considerable advantage in the preliminary
! privileges of examining witnesses, and in
hundred other ways. In support of the
charge of obstructing reconstruction, there
was the Parsons dispatch. while Wood. the
office holder, was the only witness to up
L. Il f;a., Of fbao ht,sa oe fI,
pointing power.
| The staple of their peeches consisted of
matter twice rejected by the House as not
| warranting Impeachment Yet MIR. Stevens
thought the introduction of the 11th arti-
Gle indispensable to conviction, as he said
the court would be green not to acquit on
| the other ten. Mr.. Butler, however, con-
tended that if conviction failed on the first
| it would be useless to look to the l1th.
| In regard to the articles about the Presi-
dents speeches, Mr.. Evarts held there were
| two fatal objections. First, the speeches
| had reference only to defunct Congress;
and second, they were ofenses only against
rhetoric and good taste.
He then alluded in sarcastic terms to the
language and conduct of the champion of
propriety and decorum in the cause, and
said as he (Mr. Butler) had claimed the
| practice of the tribunal was standard, he
| would read from a certain debate, some
| time ago. 1t appeared That Mr.. sumner
had called the President the enemy of his
country and INDUCED in further invective,
which the Senate had almost unanimously
declared was allowable and not out of or
der. Laughter.
In illustration of the congressional STAN
dard of propriety and license of speech,
Mr.. Evarts also read the language of Mr..
Bingham and Mr.. Butler, in the House,
when they accused each other of various
| cr:poac uhan tho snhipct un6ar ta ne
charity to the South. He then recited the
Apostles description of charity.
During all this portion of his speech he
was frequently Interrupted by peals OF
laughter.
He also referred to the expression ol Mr..