Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-04-28
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
Argument OF Mr.. Stevens.
CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS.


MT. stevens SaiQ ne sn00lu discuss but u
single article, the one that was finally
adopted upon his earnest solicitation, and
which, if proved, he considered quite suf-
6cient for the conviction Of the dis
tinguished respondent. He desired to dis
cuss the charges in no mean spirit Of
viturperatiou, but to argue them in a man
ner worthy of the high tribunal before
which he appeared and of the exalted posi-
ton of the accused The trial of the Chief
Magistrate of the nation, which was in
tensely interesting 10 millions of men could
not be belittled and reduced to mercy, when
Andrew johnson took upon himself, when
he swore 10 take care that the laws ahould
be faithfully executed, the duties of legis-
lation and the adjudicating of laws fell in
no way to his lot To obey the commands
of the sovereign power of the nation, and
to see that others obeyed, was his whole
duty. His attempt to escape that duty
will be misprison of perjury. Mr.. Stevens
said he accuse hind in the name Of the
House of Representatives of having per.
petrated that foul offense Mr.. Stevens
reviewed the question of the Secretary of
War, and charged that the President had
plainly violated law which he swore to
see faithfully executed. Mr.. Stevens ri
diculed the plea set up by the respondent
that the case did not come under the ten
ure of Office law because Stanton was ap-
pointed by Lincoln. He claimed that by
the Constitution the Vice President was
called to the Presidency, which wes not
serving out the new term of his own, but
only the next fixed term of his prede-
cessor. Relative to the matter of intent,
Mr.. Stevens said that in impeachments
more than in indictments the aveTring Of
the fact charged carried with it all that
was necessary to say about intent. He
went further than some, and contended
that no corrupt or wicked motive need in
vest the acts for which the impsacf-
ment is wrought. 1t was enough that they
were official violations of the law. The
President justified himself by asserting
that all the previous Presidents had exer.
cised the same right of removing officers,
but there were no expressions against, SO
long as the cases were not parallel,
The President said he removed Mr.. Stan
ton to test the constitutionality of the law
He had already seen it tested and decided
by the votes twice given by two-thiSds of
the Senators and House of Representatives.
1t stood as law upon the statute-book. In
stead of enforcing that law, he took adj
vantage of thename and funds of the United
States to resist it, and TO induce others TO
resist it. The President asserted that he did
not remove Stanton under tenure of office
law, this was direct contradiction of his
own letter to the Secretary of the Treasury.
How necessary that man should have a
good conscience or good memory. The
President denies that he attempted TO pre-
vent the execution of the tenure of Office
law, aud yet, in his correspondence with
Gen. Grant he reprOached the latter by
asserting that he (Gen. Grant, knew his
object was to prevent Edwin NJ. Stanton
from forthwith resuming the functions of
his office, Notwithstanding the Senate
might deeide in his favor. A question of
Veraeity grew out of this correspondence,
the President asserting that Gen. Grant
had promised 10 aid him in defeating the
execution OF the laws by preventing the
immediate resumption of the functions of
Secretary of War by Mr.. Stanton, and that
the General violated his promise. This
the General denies, though he agrees with
the President that the President did induce
him to make such promise, and enter into
such arrangement; he maintained that the
President had been guilty of misprison and
of official perjury. Mr.. Stevens then re-
ferred TO the claim of the President to
violate the tenure Of office law because he
considered it invalid, and considered the
position of the President in accepting the
oath to take care that the laws are faith
fully executed He also detailed the acr
ton of Congress on the law, expounded its
provisions, and criticised the claim of the
President to disregard them. He then
looked over the action of the Senate on the
message of the President informing that
body of the suspension of Mr.. Stanton, and
afterwards its action on the removal of Mr..
Stanton and the appointment of Thomas
ad interim, notwithstanding the Senate
had declared he had no power to remove
the Secretary of War and designate any
other officer to perform the duties ad in
term. This offspring of assassination,
said Mr.. Stevens, turns upon the Senate,
who have rebuked him in a constitutional
manner, and bids them defiance.
Mr.. Stevens then discussed the ar
ticle charging the President with usurp-
ing legislative powers, and proceeded to
show how he had interiered with the work
of reconstruction. He then briefly re-
viewed the whole case and compared the
services Of Mr.. Stanton with those of Mr..
johnson noted the claim of the counsel
that no removal Of Mr. Stanton had taken
place, because Mr. S. still held on to the
Office, and concluded by saying that if the
President is not willing to execute the laws
of Congress, let him resign and retire 10
his village home in obscurity.
Mr.. Williams then took the floor, and
after speaking Of the august chatact er of
the tribunal and the intense interest which
is felt all over the country by the entire
people, who, he said, we're awaiting with
anxiety the verdict which is either to send
thrill Of joy to an afflicted land, or rock
it anew with the throes Of anarchy aud de-
spair, he proceeded to state that the matter
now presented for discussion was not quar-
rel between two officials, but an issue bet Reen
the Executive and the American people.
He, too, would ask who is Andrew johnson
and would answer the question in differ
ent manner from the Presidents counsel.
He then intimated that Johnson's Oppo-
sition to secession in the Senate, was per.
maps pFOmptcu ~ a GOubt HhNeAC4 AuN hecP
was admissible at that particular time.
But however that might be, be would con-
slider him as he is now, and as be had been
since he came into power. Mr.. II. held
that the master help TO all his conduct az
President, was his desire TO favor and Ep-
hold traitors, and to force the Rebel States
into the Union on his own plan, against
the expressed will OF Congress and the
loyal people, and went on to cite a great
number of acts Of the President, which
be claimed we're usuTpations and ofienses
applicable only on the above superstition;
the elimination Of long series Of usurpa-
tons Of his oath Of Office, and indecencies
was his attempt to dispiaee Stanton, in
contempt Of the tenure Of office Law.
Mr.. W. took up the answers made
By the Presidents counsel TO the
charge Of violating that law, and first
discussed the proyiso which II was
alleged excluded Stanton from its ope-
ration He had himself suggested that
amendment aud explained its meaning,
and be had never dreamed such a con
struction would be put upon ii as that read
by the Presidents counsel. Ii would be
contrary 10 the purpose CT the bill Mr. |
StantoH's csse was certainly meant to be |
covered, II il was not the originating cause