The Portland daily press., 1868-04-30
XLth C0NaRESs-seoond Session.
The Impeachment Trial.
ARGUMENT OF MIR. EvARTS.

WASHINGTON. April 29.-After the reading
of the journal, Mr.. Sumner offered resolution
that MIR. Nelson having used improper Lam
guage in this tribunal, calculated to provoke
duel and disrespectful to the Court, he deserved
the censure of the Senate.
Mr.. Sherman objected to the consideration
of the resolution. s'H
Mr. Sumner objected to Mr.. Nelson making
any remarks except in explanation, but the
Senate allowed him to read a portion of the
letters bearing on the question of dates.
Mr.. Nelson then exhibited what purported to
be an original letter signed by Messrs. Butler,
Logan and Garfield, dated March 9th !; also q
letter sent to the President by Messrs. Chaun-
cey and Black, March 10th, enclosing copy
with additional signatures.
Mr.. Cameron offered an order for night SEES
sions, which went over under objection.
Mr.. Evarts then resumed his argument.
He assumed it to be already shown that this
tribunal is a Court and the President is to be
tried only on charges supported by the law
and evidence and by the common forms. He
said much that had been deliberately advanced
by the managers must fall to the ground so
must fall the articles based on charges which
had repeatedly been rejected as fair grounds
for impeachment. He referred to the conduct
OF the case by the prosecution as similar to the
practice of the Chinese who make a great
noise in the vicinity of an object to be attack
ed, or like the explosion of some $50 tons of
gunpowder at safe distance from the walls of
fort. He said in this case where the evidence
had been suppressed the enlargement of the
defamation and invective was more than usu-
ally improper. He also spoke in a strain of
sarcasm of Mr.. Boutwelrs reference to the
Presidents counsel as attorneys whose minds
had been sharpened but not enlarged by prac-
tice. He then considered Boutwells definition
of improbable offence and argued at length
that no actions could be SO construed which
did not proceed from malice and evil intent.
Supporting this view by quotation from the
records of the Humphrey trial and also by the
language of Burke in accusing Warren Hast
ings when he expressly stated that the asser-
ton and proof of evil intent were in dispute,
Mr.. Evarts held that the best way to deter
mine the nature of offences which may be
deemed high crimes and misdemeanors is to
consider the punishments prescribed for them.
He referred to the bullying epithets applied by
the managers to the punishment of deposition,
and in forcible terms described the character
and magnitude Of the disgrace which such pun
ishment involves. He claimed that the de-
scription of penalties provided in the tenure of
Office law for its infraction showed the compar-
atively trivial nature of the offence. A maxi
mum but not minimum of punishment is pro-
yided so that in the discretion of the court be-
fore whom the Indictment should be tried the
prisoner could be let off with fine of six cents
and imprisonment of one day. He also read
from the debate on this subject at the time when
the bill was prepared in which Mr.. Villa m
and other Senators said there should be no
minimum fixed, because the offence might arise
from inadvertance and would not probably in
any case have a character of moral force.
Mr.. Evarts then considered the general de-
bates on the bill and proposed to prove that
the offences charged were not made or to be
considered penal but were as political nature,
and then that even the alleged infractions did
not take place. He claimed that all belief of
the Presidents former personal turpitude must
be LAID aside and it must De considered that ne
was unimpeachable before IL o'clock on Feb.
2lst. He then argued that even if the removal
of Mr. Stanton had been actually effected no
change in the relations of the War Department
to the rest OF the government would have en-
sued, and hence that the mere act could not be
considered as dangerous to the public safety.
On the contrary it would have been benefited
by it because the relations existing between
the President and Mr.. Stanton were prejud-
cial to proper working of the government
Hence it resulted that the crime consisted in
the technical infraction of the law If it shall
be so held the law applied only in its restric-
stitutional 1t relates to offences not penal and
under these circumstances his action could not
b. deemed a crime.
Mr.. Evarts then briefly considered the ques-
ton of what was meant by unconstitutional
law, and said it was paradox. 1t can be no
offence to violate the provisions OF such mere
piece of paper. He claimed no greater night
for the President than for private individual
to test the constitutionality of statute. This,
he argued, the President made paper remov-
al without force and violence in order to assert
his night TO act under the constitution, which,
as he believed, was violated by the law In
question. Against the assertion that malvlo-
latlon OF statutes are Improbable without ref
erence to the intention he then cited authority
and argued at Some length that the principles
of common sense were opposed to any such
views.
AT this point the court took recess.
On reassemblng Mr.. Evarts expressed his
surprise at the managers denunciation Of
those who peacefully resisted laws which thew
deemed unconstitutional. 1t was the duty o,
every ministerial officer to raise question in
favor OF the Constitution, and in the highest
degree it was the duty of the special defender
of the Constitution. He referred to the ease
of Newell against the Auditor OF the State Of
New York, in which the latter successfully re
sisted the issue of loan of $6,OO0,O0O. Ais
TO the New York law imposing tax on bro
kers sales, which was resisted and pronounc
ed void by the q. s. Supreme Court, and +
the action of Mr., Lincoln in suspending tn