The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1868-04-30
BY TELEGRAPH
CONGRESS.
wAsH1SaroS, April %


SENATE.
/ Mr.. Sumner offered resolution that
4 Mr.. Nelson having used improper lam
guase in this tribunal calculated 10
| Court, he deserved censure OF the Sem
ate.
Mr.. Sherman objected TO The consid-
Y Grafton OF the resolution, and Mr..
/ Sumner objected TO Mr.. Nelson making
any remarks except in explanation,
I but the Senate allowed him TO read a
| portion OF the letters bearing on the
| question of dates.
Mr.. Nelson then explained what
purpOrted to be an original letter signed
I by Butler, Logan and Garfield, dated
March 9th; also a letter from the Senate
to the President by Chauncey +. Black,
March 10th, enclosing the copy with
additional signatures.
Mr.. Cameron offered an order fer
night sessions, which went over.
Mr.. EVarts then resumed his aTgu-
ment. He assumed IL to be already
shown that this tribunal is a court, and
/ that the President is to be tried only en-
/ charges supported by law and evidence,
and common fame. BE said much that
/ had been elaborately advanced by the
Managers must fail to the ground; SO
must fall the articles based on charges
which had repeatedly been rejected as
| fair grounds for Impeachment; he re-
I ferred to the conduct of the case by the
prosecution as similar to the practice
/ ofthe Chinese who make 4 great noise in
/ the vicinity of an object to be attacked,
! or like the explosion of some $50 tons
/ of guupowder Mt safe distance from
| the walls of a fort. He said in this case,
4 where eveidence had been suppressed,
/ the enlargement of the defamation in
yected was more than unusually i'm
I proper: he also spoke in strain OF sar-
casm 10 Mr.. BoutwelPs reference to the
/ Presidents counsel as attOrnies whose
minds had been sharpened, but not en-
| larged, by practice; he then considered
| Mr.. Boutwell's definition OF impeacha-
| BILE offences, and argued at length that
no action could be so construed which
did not proceed from malice and evil
/ intent, supporting his views by quota
| tions from the records ofthe Humphrey
/ trial, and also by the language OF
Burke, in accusing Warren Hastings
when he expressly stated that the asser-
ton and proof of evil intent were in
dispensable.
Mr., Evarts held that the best way to
determine the nature of ofTenses which
may be deemed high crimes and misde-
meapors is to consider the punishments
prescribed for them. He referred TO
belittlinG epiEhets applied by the man
ayers TO The punishment OF ueposllon,
and in forCible terms described the
character and magnitude OF the dis
grace which such punishment involved.
He claimed that the description OF the
penalties provided in the tenure OF
office law, Tor its infractiOn, showed Inc
comparatively trivial nature of the
ofFense. \ maximum, but no mini
mum of punishment is provided; so, in
the discretion of the court before whom
an indictment should be tried, the Of
fender could be let of with fine of six
cents and imprisonment OF one day.
He read from the debate on this SUD-
iect ut the time when this bill was pre-
pared, in which Mr.. Williams and other
Senators said there should be no mini
mum fixed, because the offence might
arise from inadvertance, and would not
probably in any case have a character
of moral guilt.
Mr.. Evarts then considered the gen
eral debates on the bilif and proposed
to prove that the offenses charged We're
not made or to be considered penal but
more of political nature, and then
that even the alleged infractions did
not take place. He claimed that all
belief ofthe Presidents former personal
turpitude must be laid aside, and 1t
must be considered that he was unim-
peachable before IL O'Clock on Feb.
2Ist. He then argued that even II the
removal of Mr.. Stanton had been
actually effected no change in the rela-
tions of the War Department TO the
rest of the government would nave en-
sued, and hence that the mere act could
not be considered as dangerous TO tne
public safety; on the contrary II would
have been benefited by 1t, because the
relations existing between the Presi-
dent and Mr.. Stanton were prejudicial
10 i proper working of the government.
Hence il resulted that the crime con-
sisted in the technical infraction OF the
law, if il shall be so held; the law ap'
g,,E ~ In hi Inn 9nI &.
He believed it to be unconstitutional
as II relates to offenses not penal, aud
under these circumstances his action
could not be deemed a crime. He then
briefly considered the question OF
what was meant by unconstitutional
laws, and said it was paradox, and
it can be no offense to violate the pro-
visions OF such mere piece of paper.
He claimed no greater right for the
President than a private Individual to
test the ConstitutiOnality OF statute.
Thus he argued the President made
paper removal without force and vto-
ience 10 assert his right to act under
the Constitution, which, as he believed, /,
was violated by the law in question.
Against the eassertion,that former viola
tions are impeRchable without refer
ence to the intention, he cited author
| ty and argued at some length that the
principles of common sense were OPP
DOseu 10 du 5uCA
At this hour the Court took recess.
on reassembling Mr.. Evarts express
ed his surprise at the Managers de-
nuucfation of those who peacefully
resisted laws which they decreed un-
| constitutional; IL WIS the duty OF every
ministerial officer to raise question in
favor OF the Constitution, and in the
highest degree was the duty OF the
special defender of the Constitution.
| He referred to the case Of Newell
against the Auditor of the State OF New
York, in which the latter successfully
resisted the issue of a loan OF S6OO,OOO;
also to the New York law opposing
tax on brokers' sales, which was resist
ed and pronounced void by the United
| States Supreme Court, and to the action
| of Mr., Lincoln in suspending the
| habeas corpus in Florida, in causing the
arrest OF the Maryland Legislature,
| and creating military commissions in a
time of peace. Congress by endorsing
| all these acts confined the doctrine that
the motive must be considered and that
| the mere infraction of law was not IN
itself a ground for punlshneht s1g- ls-
I gested by Mr.. Boutwell, as proper for
| the P resident. He said if the honorable
and astronomical managers could get
over the laws OF nature the Constitution
would not stand in his way, for the
removal from office was prescribed
without limit as to the distance TO which
/ the cuIprit should be removed. (Great
| iaughterl He went on for some time
| describing, In a manner which elected
roars of laughter, a supposed flight OF
\ Mr.. Boutwellias Bailiff, with the crimi-
nal in charge, to his hole in the sky.
Mr.. Evarts then took up the subject OF
the position and powers OF the Presi-
dent, and held he was the direct repre-
1 sentative OF the people who elected and
I -,,r,,,-rta.1 him and fnr whom he held