Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-04-27
IMPEACHMENT.
WASHINGTON, April 25
SENATE

iePoTIers CO report Ino proCeeuiuSS ou tns
Mr.. EDMUNDS, at the suggestion of tn.
several Senators, moved to postpone until
Monday. ---
Mr.. DRAKE moved an indefinite post
ponement, which was rejected-2O agaiEs
The motion to. postpone to Monday wa
agreed TO.
Mr.SUMNER offered the following order
Ordered, that the Senate, sitting tor the
trial of Andrew johnson, President of the
United States, will proceed to vote on the
several articles of mpeachmenta IL O'Clock
on the day alter the close of argument.
Senator JOHNSON objected, and it was
laid over. Il sfsf % ;'-,.s.r=.- s.t5.z-.f-.
Senator SUMNER-I send to the Chair
two additional rules, the first of which is
States Senate on the trial OF Judge Chase
and Judge Peck.
They were read as follows:
Rule 23-'In taking the vote of the Sen
ate on the article of impeachment, the pre-
siding officer shall call each Senator by his
name. and upon each article propose the
following question, in the manner follow
mg:-Mr.--, how say you, is the re-
spondent guilty or not guilty, as charged
in the article of impeachment? Whereup-
on each Senator shall rise in his place and
answer guilty or not guilty.n .a--
Rule 2lth-On conviction by the Senate,
it shall be the duty of the presiding officer
forthwith to pronounce the removal from
Office of the convicted person, according to
the requirement of the Constitution, and
any further Judgment shall be on the Or
der of the Senate,
Senator JOHNSON again objected, and
the rules went over.
Mr.. GROESBECK then addressed the
Senate on the part of the respondent. At
ter few Introductory remarks, he pro-
ceeded to consider the question whether or
not the Senate is now sitting as court
and said he would not discuss it in the
light of English precedents, but with ref
erence to our Constitution, which counte-
nanced neither bills of attainder nor ire
sponsible tribunals to be laws unto them
selves. He first called attention to the fact
that the provisions of the Constitution, as
first drafted, contemplated Impeachment
for NAL practice and neglect of duty in Of
flee, but those adopted permit it only fol
treason. bribery and similar high crimes
and misdemeanOrs. y.t
He then challenged the proof to show
that during any OF the trials which form
our precedents, the idea that the Senate
was not a court had ever been advanced
He read from the records of each of their
language in which the Senate, on all these
occasions, styled itself the court. He also
quoted Story and other authorities. to show
the Judicial character of the Senate, and
the qualifications they must bring to the
discharge of their obligations. In refer
ence to their Jurisdiction, he held that the
only question for them to decide was that
of crime or no crime; and further, that no
action could be so considered in connection
with which evil intention was not otbrought
He illustrated this proposition by con.
sidering homicide committed by mad
FL hot 81
should violate the law after losing his reason
and by reference to the acts of Mr.. Lincoln
in constituting military tribunals in loya
States, which conduct, though pronounced
destitute of legal warrant by the Supreme
Court, had been upheld by Congress on the
ground that the motive was good. Having
thus, as he claimed. shown the falSity of th,
doctrine advanced by the managers on tina
subject, he said he should consider the ques-
tion whether the President had right tC
remove Mr.. Stanton, and to grant letter
of authority to Gen. Thomas, for on these
two issues hung the fate of the right OF
this article. 5l as
AS to the first point, he held that thu
civil tenure law did not apply to Mr.. Stan
ton, because he was not appointed by Mr.
Johnson; but even if Mr.. johnson is not
serving his own but Mr.. Lincoln's term, Nj
Stanton's tenure of office expired one montf
after the expiration of his first term, anC
if Mr.. Lincon was now living Mr.. Stanton
could be removed by him, and so equally
can he be by Mr.. johnson, if the latter il
merely serving out the remainder of the
term.
In support of his proposition that the
President had power to remove Mr.. Stanton
under the law of 1889, Mr.. Groesbeck q1o
ted the letter of Mr.. Adams to Mr.. Picker
ing, announcing to him, not that he was tt
be removed, but that he was actually re
moved and a successor appointed.
He said his feeble health to-day obliged
him to pass by with mere reference thu
differences of Senators at the time of the
passage of the Tenure-of Office bill, and the
fact that it did not profess to repeal the ac
of 1888, and went on to argue that. as al
admitted, there was room for doubling tht
construction of the law, and the Presiden
had availed himself of the counsel of thost
specially designated by the Constitution tC
give it to him, he must not be held guilty
of crime in constituting it as he did.
In regard to the constitutions lity of tina
law, he adverted to the fact that those wht
framed it, he could not address with muci
hope of changing this opinion, but he woulC
make the inquiry whether, assuming it
cOnstitutionality, the Presidents actor
could be deemed criminal. Abiding to (;
portion of Mr.. BoutwelFs speech. he denied
that the President was merely the servan
of Congress, to execute their laws. Hi
oath of office required him, first, to main.
tain the Constitution.
Mr.Groesbeck further controverted the po
sition assumed by the honorable Managers,
that the President is required to execute
all laws, even if they are pronounced un-
constitutional by the Supreme Court
claiming that in such cases he was bound
by his higher obligation. After reciting
various we'll known principles of interpre
tation, one was that long settled practice
determined the construction of law. he
claimed that the meanin g of the act of It's!
was so determined and fixed by Govern
ment usage and judicial decisions that the
President had the right to challenge the
constitutionality of a law in conflict with
and yet not repeating the old law, which
had been framet and so long construed a;
embodying the principles of the Consti
tuition regarding the power of removal.
AT this point the Senate took recess.
On re- re-assembling,
I Mr.. GROESBECK resumed his argu-
ment, maintaining that the debates in Con-
gress in 1889 proved the correctness OF the
Presidents construction of the laws then
passed. He then cited the acts OF 1898 ot
the Postoff1ce Department. and those OF 1926
and 1S49. creating the Navy, Postoffice and
Interior Departments, all assuming or al
firming the right OF removal by the Presl-
dent, as set forth in the acts of 17S9.-
Against all this preponderance OF construc-
tion and precedent. there was opposed only
the act of 1867, and Mr.. Groesbeck claimed
there was truly ground for doubt and
hesitation on the part of the Presidentsu suf-
ficient to induce him to resist it with view
of having the matter determined by the
Supreme Court. tE~ -fa
He asked if the President was to be con-
victed and deposed because he had acted on
the interpretations sanctioned by his con-
stitutional advisers, by the 3Sth Congress,
the Supreme Court, and the uniform prac-
tice OF the Government? Describing the
character OF the relations between the Pres
ident and Mr.. Stanton, Mr.. g. said it was
shown by Gen. Sherman and others that
the President acted in the public interest
in removing Mr.. Stanton. He also claimed
that the President had issued a mn op1r-