Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1868-04-15
The Impeachment Trial.

The Impeachment Trial.
The Court of impeachment met at twelve
O'Clock, April 9th, with the usual proclama-
ton. All the managers were present except
Mr.. Stevens. The counsel for the President
were also present.
At twelve o'clock and fifteen minutes the
members of the House of Representatives
entered in larger numbers than on recent
occasions.
The Chief Justice inquired whether the
managers had any further evidence to intro
duce, and Mr. Butler responded in the affirm
ative
The reading of the Journal was dispensed
with.
Mr.. Butler then, on the part of the man
ayers, called up W. II. Ward, who was
sworn.
Mr. Butler stated that the design was to
prove by this witness the Presidents hostil-
ity to Congress. The witness was from Ala
bama. He testified that he served in the
Union army land that in December, 1866,
called on the President seeking government
employment The President told him that
he could do nothing for him as his (the wit
ness's) influence was on the side of Con-
gress. while those he appointed must be
with him.
Foster Blodgett testified that he was APP
pointed Postmaster of Augusta, Ga, in 1865.
He was suspended in lS6s by the President
and does not know as the Senate has been no.
titled of his action.
The letter of Gen. Thomas accepting the
appointment as Secretary Of War ad interim
was then put in evidence. and Mr.. Butler
gave notice that the managers would file the
certificates Of the proper officers 10 show that
no reasons for the suspension Of Biodgett had
ever been given to the Senate.
Mr.. Curtis then rose and commenced the
opening argument for the defence. Alluding
to the character of the trial and to the oath
taken by senators in the capacity of Judges,
he said the only appeal he should make would
DO 70 <ho oorasoionco and reason Of every
Judge, basing his argument solely ON the
questions of law and fact. He intimated
that he would subsequently combat the posi-
ton taken by the managers. that this body
was not essentially and in fact court. but
at present would consider the articles scpa-
/ ratelv, and in order and substance.
/ The gravamen Of the charges of the first
article was of the removal of Mr.. Stanton,
and that it was intended to be IN violation OF
the tenure-Of- office act and Of the constitu-
! ton.
He then argued to show that the case o
Mr.. Stanton did not come within the scope
and provisions of the tcnure-of-ofIice act,
maintaining that the description Of his Office
and its tenure differed materially in its sec
tions and provisions. Mr.. Stanton was ap-
pointed by Mr.. Lincoln in 1862 to hold Office
during the term for which hc was elected
and not to hold during a subsequent term fol
which he might be elected. 1t could not b,
said that Mr.. johnson Is serving out the tern
Of Mr.. Lincoln. The term for which Pres
ident is elected Is not absolutely four years
but is limited by life and ability. His con
ditional term expiring, the Vice Presiden
succeeds to the new term which consists o
the remainder of the term for which the
Vice President was elected. As well NIGH
it be said that one sovereign served out tn,
term of another whom he succeeded
There purpose in the difference o.
the phraseolOgy between the section and it:
preyiso. The constitution authorizes the
President to call upon the members of hit
cabinet for advice respecting matters con
,erning his own duties well as rcspectin.
alters connected with their various depart
ment, and such had been the invariable prac
tice since the foundation Of the government
They were the voice and the hands of tn
President; in them he was to repose conf
dence, and for them he was to be responsible
For this reason they were placed by the
nure-of-Office in the same position tn
President, by whom they were appointed
They We're to serve out their term of services
but as to others holding over the case wa
different.
Mr. Curtis then proceeded to show wha
the feeling and intention of both Houses 0
Congress was in the framing and passage G
this bill, maintaining that they were in aC
cord with the view he had Just expressed
He quoted from speech explaining the rt
port of the Committee of Conference, mad
by Mr. Schenck; also from speeches O
/, Messrs. Sherman, Williams and other
in the Senate, in which they denied tina
either the purpose or effect Of the bill wa
to keep Mr. Stanton in office He read thes
= not as expressions of individual opinion, bu
!, as explanations of the report of the Commit
tee of Conference.
Returning to the consideration of the al
, ticles, he said that the sixth section forbid
any removal contrary to the provisions Of til
act, but as Mr.. Stanton did not yield ther
was no removal and if there had been
would not have violated the act since he ha
just shown that Mr.. Stanton did not com
within its provisions. The House of Rel
, resentatives charged the President with IL
territorial violotIon of this section, whic
unquestionably admits Of different constru'
tions, but they fail to prove that he concurrc
in their Interpretation and then wilfull
acted in c0ntravention of it
The first duty of the President is to cor
struc an act and decide what is its true mean
ing. This duty he perform rs the Cor
stitution provided by consulins with hi
constitutional adviser, and the. I'll put tn
same construction upon the act IL puestio
as had been assigned to it by its trainers
The case of Mr.. Stanton is of Sc, r'tar.
holding office under the law of 1913, wich
without expressly giving the President posa
to remove him, implies it by directing wha
shall be done by the President after removal
Nothing in the constitution forbids the ex
ercise of this power by the President inde
pendent of the Senate. The decision of con
gress in 1898 affirmed by implication tha
such power was granted to the President D.
the constitution, and neither subsequen
legislation nor amendments to the constitu
tiOn denied.