The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-03-16
CONGRESS. .IoNAh PROCEEDINGS
The Impeachment Discus
sion IL the. House.
A Spicy Dsbats- -Ths Cur
rency Question, &c.
WAsHINGroN. March IA.

preparations for carrying out the
treaty stipulations He held that the
treaty making power was lodged ex-
clusively In the President and Senate,
and that their action was final
Maynard, Wood, and Washburne,
Of Wisconsin, and Bromweli contend
ed to the contrary. The latter also
argued in. favor of the expansion Of
the currency.
Dawes remarked that he saw by one
of the Cincinnati papers, that it was
proposed to issue 81, 600 in
green backs, and divide it up among
all the people of the country, fgur-
ing out that that would give to every
man, woman and child in the cOun-
try $400 each. He suggested whether
the member from Illinois would not
go that bid better by $50, as it would
be necessary to go above that, or lose
the popular majority.
Washburne, Of Wis, quoted Mil
kens Micawber in this memorandum,
eancelling his debt to Thomas Trad
dies, by giving him an / o u for the
amount. as the original authority for
the financial proposition to which the
gentleman from Massachusetts, had
referred
Mr.. Dawes thought it very likely.
The discovery did not date back so
far, but Cincinnati was applying for a
reissue of the patent, and he had only
wanted to know whether the gentle
man from Illinois wanted to go for an
Aextension. Laughter.
Mr.. Bromwell could not under
stand what that had to do with the
question of plentifulness, or scarcity
of the currency, which he had been
discussing The ether matter referred
to the question whether he was going
to pay its debts in good faith.
Mr.. Dawes suggested the question
was whether the debt should be paid
IN good faith or promises to pay.
Bromwell said he had never advo-
Gated the idea Of paying the debt in
irredeemable currency. He had said
nothing about paying anything
Seely advocated his bill to amend
the currency act. He favored the
removal of the present restrictions on
banking and currency, and argued for
contraction as a means for the return
to specie payment.
Jones addressed the House on the
sub ject Of impeachment, arguing that
the Impeachment of the President on
the charges made was absurd and
prep0sterous, and that the President
had acted In the conscientious dis
| charge of his duty, and his impeach-
ment was simply to remove an obsta-
! Gle from the path of designing men,
and crafty their hatred and malignity.
Boyer called attention to the man.
ner In which this most important
measure had passed the House on
| Thursday, solely, he said, because it
/ was introduced in amanner calculated
| to deceive and lull suspicion. He
proceeded to read from the Globe the
report Of the proceedings In eOnnec-
ton with che adoption of an amend
ment to a bill, which amendment
depriyes the Supreme Court of its
/ jurisdiction.
Maynard said that Schenck, who
had taken the principal part in those
proceedings, was absent
Boyer proceeded with his quota
tions from the Globe. While he was
speaking Schenck took his seat.
Boyer went on to say that the OBJ
| iect Of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa, Wilson, and
| adopted, was to deprive the Supreme
! CouUof jurisdiction In the McCaTd!e
/ case; that the amendment would
never have been suffered without OBJ
/ lection had its real character been ex-
planned. or if the House had not been
! disarmed by remarks by the gentle
man from Ohio; that this matter re-
/ lates to appeals to the Supreme Court
/ in cases Of Revenue Collectors, and
/ that it was not intended for any other
purpose.
Blaine said that the gentleman ;
I position was simply that his side of
/ the House was not wide awake to see
the point and bearing Of the amend
/ ment.
Boyer admitted that the minority
i never suspected, in that way. that the
majority would effect an escape from
what they must believe to be a pend
ing judgment of condemnation from
the Supreme Court; it must proceed
/ trOuA iconscientiOusness that the re-
con %~Ern acts are illegal, and
outside Of the Constitution, but should
+ have passed an act openly that should
f have been introduced IN such way
that it might have been objected to
and fairly discussed.
Blame SAID the supreme Court OBJ
tanned jurisdiction by act Of Congress.
about a year ago; was that illegal?
Boyer said the gentleman misun-
derstoOd and misinterpreted him.
He( Boyer admitted tnat whatever
fraud there may be IN the case, it is
not punishable by the laws; the act
passed cannot be, therefore, violated,
as an act Of legislation. What is done
i In the House should be done. cour-
Il l. r. -