New-York tribune., 1868-04-23

counsel for the respondent In support OF the
pcsSns poe tenure Of certain civil offices Here Is
section the IL body Of WHICH applies TO al eis onis Sn
tSeresfter be app dpted The body Of this section .,
contains deo ION d that s even S Glce, S tbst % II
ne shah hereafter ba appointed 70 Office entitled
70 hold until snecesH" t5s Sn 81 the section
This language Of the nent counsel s ~, not s only
admlson but 1t rs dsciSsn sssng 'sa. civil viz cicsp
as Is else where Admitted the grsecnt Of tse counsel
Tor the respondent is neiaded ~ ana a"u r. IL
further admission that IN Che absence OF the psov,so
the President over the sesrsy iSr to s hs
power any other civil ofcer which would merely
be the power 10 nonate Taoss nose he
Of the person in oce When the counsel for the
sponden proceeding p his argument enters M su
animation OF the pr0viso he maintains that tne ialREo
OF that prOvis0 does include the Secretary Tor tue E
partmsntof War included N the Ss % ..
cluded in the body Of ,he bin that for the o.
tr p he apples 20 I or no Il the prosiso
not apply Secretary for the Departnent Of War;
pressed I%e ed until y and with
and consent of the Senate. IL ne Is covered by the IAN
gli,ge of ths provso then limitation is fixed to lis
Office to wit that It is expire ono month after the
close OF the term Of the President by whom he had been
RpShse Win the adyiee and consent Of the senate
have already considered the question Of intent on the
Violation of the law he diseoses criminal inent which
cannot be controlled qualified by any testimony on Ihe
The counsel Tor the respondent however has dwet so
much the question Of intent, and such Efforts navs
been during tho trial TO Introduce testimony upon
this point justified in recurring to Tor Drel
confederation Of the arguments and Views Ca
be equiyocal ambiguous In its terms, the
being called upon tho 70 aases Gnes y him. or he he mag
seek from his official advisers OF other PROPER per
sonsand acting toerenpon WI f S
could he be held to answer as for III once
But this is not the case The question CONSIDERS Ds
Al Inhnon nnf
act He understood perfectly well the intention OF Con
grvss and he admitted Il In his veto MESSAGE tnao @ Una.
bic him to comprehend and state IT. In hs veo
OF the % Of March isG after aaos ,ns c oces he
says:
their .uy civil service not limited ~
law out the advice Of the United States
ILL., this respect cOuLet. in judgment "th the Constitution
Of the United stateS
His statement of The meaning OF tho bill relates to all
civil officers 10 the members OF his Cabinet as well az TO
others and Is declaration that under that BILL II IL be-
came law, Of those officers could De removed Will
out the adj aud consent Of the Senate lie was there
fore In no doubt as 10 the intention of Congress ex
pressed in the blsubmitted to him for his
said 10 the Senate II you pass the bill cannot remove
tho members Of my Cablnet." The Senate and ls she
House In effect said, I'VE so intend" and passed
the bin by "a twO-thrds majority. There was no
misunderstanding to the meaning or intention Oh
the act. His olicnSe, then, Is not that upon exam
inaOn OF the statute he misunderstood Its meaning ana
acted upon nisInterpretaton OF It's true Import put
aad s bg t6e Moe Of Represetaves today precisely
as is presented in articles OF Impeachment and by
onnion thai The same was unconstitutional deliberately
wifuly and Intentionally dsregarded It. The learned
nnrpose of obtaining judicial determination. This We
deny The constitutional duty Of the President Is 20
the Constitution, or by any law, to enter into any
schemes plans for the purpose Of testing the
or otherwise Every law Of Congress may be decided in
the Courts but it is not made the duty OF any person 10
son to 70 So et he laws ana the effort is especially often
sIye in Chief Magistrate Of the country 10 attempt oy
by his oath he is bound to execute Nor any
10 say s IL suggested by the counsel for the respon
deut that there could be judicial decision that
law s unconstitutional insmueh It is only By disre.
garding law that any question Gao be raised Judcay
opposite theory that the duty the right Of the
President TO disregard law Tor the purpose 1t @
Ing judicaly whether he has 1ght to violate law is
abhOlrent every just praclple of government ana
dangerous n the highest degree TO the existence Oh nee
But nS alleged purpose test the law in the courts s
shown to be prsekt merely Upon MS Own 'heoty @ or Ul
rights he could have instituted proceehngs oy nior-
nation In the nature of Io odTdnto against MI Stan
Y ton ON and he % done nothing whatever When
by Mr. Sianons action LOrenz0 Thomas was under ar
tes:d m The Iesaity 81 the Tenurecf oce act Mr Cox
the Presidents special counsel moved to have the pro
his own recOgnizance Can anybody believe thai ~
| was Mr.. JohnSon's purpose 20 test the act
| his duplcity, Is shown by the statement which he
made Gen. sherman III January last Sherman say
| not bring officer Into the controversy HIS
answer Was, that 1t Was found impossible or case &
case the courts 1t would not stand half an hour "
lie has object was to test the case Ia the courts
up but could be made up the law would not stand
haii an h"r nnsh m aes ." bssa to 0cf IL dsmisssd
Did audacity and dupcy more clearly appear III
The brief argument upon the question OF intent seems
to me conclusive, but shall incidentally refer 20 the
evidence upon this point In the further progress OF my
The House of representatives does not demand the
manner charged in the Articles OF Impeachment; nor
does the House expect the Managers to seek CONVICTION
judicial npariiaty. But am Obliged 20 declare that
nave capacity 10 understand those processes OF the
human mind by which this tribunal, any member OF
this tribunal can doubt can entertain Doubt
that Andrew johnson Is guty OF hlgh nsdelneanors IN
hbited against him by the House of Representatives..
We have charged and proved that Andrew Johnson,
for the Of Edwin NJ stanton from the Office OF
Secretary for the Department OF War while the Senate or
and consent OF the senate in violation the Consttu
ton United States aud OF hs oath OF olhee and OF
the proysIons OF act passed March p 1861, entitled
An act regulating the tenure of certain civil Offices,
and that he did thus with intent so TO do and therepon
demand his conviction under the nrs or the articles
Of impeachment exhibited against him by the House 0
Ne have charged and proved that Andrew Johnson
President OF the United States violated the Constitution
aud his oath q Office IN g M sn order M Cr ne a Ss
Department of War during the session OF the Senate and
without advice ana consent OF inc
without reference the Office act aud. there
upon, demand his conviction under the nrs OF the
articles OF Impeachment exhibited against him by tho
House of Representatives.
We have charged aud proved that Andrew johnson,
President OF the United States did issue and deliver TO
To one Lorenzo Thomas letter OF authority In writing.
authorizing and empowering said Thomas To act as secr
tary ad inter there being vacancy IN said 0ice, and
this we the Senate OF the United states in session.,
and without the advice and consent Of the Senate In vo
aton the Constitution OF the United Saes of his oath
Office aud OF the provisions Of act entitled An act
regulating the tenure OF certain civil Offices and al ths
with the intent TO do and, thereupon demand his
conviction under the second Of the articles of mpeao
exhibited against him BY the House of Representa-
tves.