The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-04-26

RULE "a on a conviction by the Senate II shall
oe e aas r o. 'ne nom Once Of be enye u PRO
son. according 20 the requirement of the constitution
and any further judgment snail be on the order OF
the Senate
Senator JOHNSON again objected and the rules went
over.
The CHIEF JUSTICE then notified the counsel for The
President to proceed with the argument.
Argument Of MIR. Groesbeck.
Mr.. GRoEsBRcK-Mr. Chief Justice and Senator's
am sorry that am not so well to-day as | should
like to be; but know the desire of the Senate to
get on with this argument and have therefore pre-
ferred TO come here this morning and attempt to
present an outline at least OF the views have
formed OF the respondent in this case. Since the
organization of our government we have had five
trials OF impeachment. One OF Senator ana four OF
judges, who have held their office by appointment,
and for tenure during life and good behavior 1t
has not been the practice is it the wise policy
republic or republican government to
avail itself of the remedy Of impeachment
for the regulation Of all elective officers.
Impeachment was not invented for that
purpose but rather to lay hold of Offices that were
held by inheritance and for life, and the true policy
Of republican government according to my appre-
hensiOn, Is to leave these matters to the people.
They the great and supreme tribunal to lay Just
such questions ana they assemble stately for that
purpose with the single object OF deciding whether
moved from Office. may be allowed, Senators, to
express my surprise that such case as this is before
you; but it rs here and 1t must be tried; and there
fore proceed as i promised at the outset, to say
what may be able to say on behalf OF the respond
slider the question whether or not the .; Senate
would not discuss it in the light Of
English precedents, but with reference to Our own
tatQ0erv tribunals
themselves. He first called attention to the fact that
the provisions Of the constitution as first drafted
contemplated impeachment for malpractice and neg
lect OF duty in office, but those adopted permit It
only for treason bribery and similar high crimes and
show that during any Of the tSat form
cedents the idea that the Senate was not court had
ever been advanced. He read from the records Of
those occasions styled itself 'the court" He also
quoted Story and other authorities to show the judi
cial character of the Senate and the qualifications
they must bring to the discharge Of their ob
cations Continuing, Mr.. Groesbeck said:-we
are, then, Senators in court. What are
Contained in these articles Of impeachment Ai and
nothing ese On what are you to try themp Not on
common fame; not on presumption OF guilt; not on
the evidence offered here and on nothing else, by
the obligations of your oaths. What Is the Issue
before you, SenatorsP Allow me to say 1t is not a
question whether this or that thing was done you
are not here to try mere issue OF fact BY the very
terms Of the constitution you can only try In this
treason bribery or otser Rs crimes or misde
meanors. The jurisdiction s comprised within that
language The only issue which this court can try
is the issue OF crime. What is crimef In every
crime there must be an unlawful purpose or inten-
lion. W en this Is wanting there can be no crime.
There psf be an unlawful purpose prompting it's
me illustrate:-Suppose crazy man should break
into this chamber and kill one of us; he has commit
ted the act of homicide but he has not committed
a crime. Suppose the President should become de-
ranged, and while in that condition alter Dt to bride
and to break law upon law, you have no jurisdiction
to try him on impeachment. Let me put another
case that is not suppostion:-ar. Lincoln claimed
and exercised the power to organize military
commissions under which to arrest and imprison
citizens within the loyal States. He had
act Of Congress warrantlng it, and the Supreme
Court of the United States has declared nat the act
ton. Suppose he did violate the express provisions
Of the constitutions; them according TO the argument
Of the Managers he might be impeacned and con.
the Managers on 1int subject. The homo able Mana
ger who addressed day before yesterday referred
to the motives OF the President, and declared that
the necessary inference OF the law is that he acted
under the indualce of bad motives; whereby the
gentleman seems to acknowledge that in order to
crime there must be motive; there can
be no crime without motive. But now, when the
President comes forward and offers to prove his
good motive, you will not allow him to make that
proof; when he comes forward and offers to
prove this from his warm and living heart,
the answer Is, Eve make up the motives out
Of the Prescriptions OF the law;" and you con-
clude on that point. 1--WE will not hear you; you
must be silent" Now, Senators, the jurisdiction OF
this body is to try crime. There Is crime without
unlawful intention and purpose You cannot get a
crime without showing the unlawful intent or pur-
pose behind the act ITSELF Whit is your verdict
Not that the President did this that act that is not
Il. But was he guilty OF high misdemean0r, 1t being
his purpose to commit itP With these preliminary
observations propose TO proceed TO brief exami.
you familiar with the arguments which have been
presented thus far in this case, and need not at
Tempt to 60 over them l have this to say, and you
will all concur with me, that the first eight articles
are built upon two acts Of the President-the one
being the removal OF Edwin M. Stanton, the other
the letter OF authority given to Lorenzo Thomas.
Now, II you will take those eight articles and notice
The substantial arguments around which they are
bound with all their associations Of good or bad
intent, and all their averments Of every kind, you
will find that there are but these two acts-the re-
moval OF Stanton and the letter OF authority to
Thomas; so that we have only to inquire In refer
ence to these two acts In order to ascertain the
merits Of this case, II the President OF the United
States had the right to remove Edwin M. Stanton,
hen these eight articles without support. IT. in
addition to that he had the right TO give the letter
Df authority to Lorenzo Thomas these articles fall
10 ruin. Now there no Senators who have studied
this case who will not see the application OF this
statement at Once and 1t relieves us from the neces-
,ty OF going over article by article step by STEP in
our progress. Give me those two propositlons-the
right to remove Stanton and the right to issue the
etter Of authority to Thomas, and the articles
all instantly. There , Is nothing Len q them; 80
hese articles, but two inquiries to make-had
he President the right to remove Mr.. Stanton, and
ldu Hc TlRHt ISSUE iettcT VI autnOrlty 10
Thomas. / propose now, as well as am able to
examine this question, Had the President the right
o remove Edwin M. StantonY propose to examine
hat question first in connection with the act regu-
ating the tenure OF civil Offices 1t is claimed on
he side that, by the action Of this law Mr. STAN
ON was withdrawn from his previous position ana
8 covered and protected here. II is claimed upon
he other SIDE that the law does not apply to his
,ase at all. think It will readily be ac-
by Senators that the President
had the right to remove him. Allow me
20 call your attention TO one section OF
his law in which the question seems 10 be involved.
L provides shat every person holding any civil Office
which he has been appointed by and with the advice
md consent OF the Senate, and every person who
hall hereafter he appointed TO any such Office and
hall become duly qualified to act therein" as eni
led to hold such Office, "until his successor shall
De appointed and duly qualified, except as herein
otherwise provided. Provided, That the Secretary