Evening star., 1868-04-24


under the influence Of haste. Men often did
things which in cooler moments they would
rject. He would now review the articles OF
mpeeehment, one by one, briefly. What was
said i'm regard 10 the first article would apply
TO all; but he wonld eedeavor to avoid any
repetition. Although he knew that technictl
rules were not TO be observ' i'm this trial.
yet If they followed the prpcpdents in I'M
ps &C hment TRIALS in this case, and in Eng
land, the would require that there shou
81 least be lome substance in their charges.
There Is not Judge in this Sanate
who does not know that for two hundred
years there has been a broad distinction be-
tween crime and an attempt to commit crime
Now, vhen the Senate comes 10 consider this
as lawyers and Judges. will II not b. a solecism
TO say that the President has violated the tenure
of Office law by the removal OF attempted re-
movail The act only provides for a removal
from an office, not an attempted removal. and
he contended that the Managers had placed
III, mselves IA dilemma by charging that the
President had violated the tenure of Office act
by the removal of Mr. Stanton. when Mr.. Stan
ton has not been removed at all. He now adj
vancrd three propositions: First. that the ten
ure of office bill was not constitutional and
second, that If il was, Mr.. Stanton did not
come within its provisions; and third, if both
of these propositions fail, that the President
acted from honest and conscientious mo-
uyes, and was therefore void of guilty intent.
He would now be pardoned for reference
TO the debates of r19S, with which he did n Jt
doubt they Were all familiar, one of which he
contended. was authority 10 the President to act
az he had done. 1t had been the custom of the
Government for eighty years. This question
OF removal was settled eighty years ago, and
had never been authorized except in the one
case under President jackson. He maintained
that Congress in 17e9 had practically granted
this whole question. In the debates in l7sg. IL
was argued by Sedgwick, suppose a President
should discover that one of his Secretaries was
Ignorant, incapable of properly fulfilling his
duties; or suppose he was inimical to the Pres
Ident, nd here. said Mr.. N, the case Of Mr.
stanton looms up; suppose he was inimcal to
the President, what then, is the President to 60
to the Senate and give his reasons and await
their action before he can be rid of an unworthy
ofiicerl Where is the responsibility then, why
II destroyed our beautiful system of Govern
ment, when you impose ON the President as =
confidential adviser q man in whom he has no
confidence and who is distasteful TO him.
Mr.. n. further quoted from the debates to
prove that the Constitution gave the power Of
removal to the President. Chancellor Kent
said the action of Congress In 1859 was a legIs-
Iatiye construction of the Constitution, aud not
in the nature of a legislative grant. Judge
STORY said that the most Jealous ad yocates of
States rights had left this Just power of removal
untouched in the hands OF the President. Now,
If the President was wrong in his veto of the
tenuIe-of- Office bill. if he should not have
tn ken the advice OF his Cabinet officers vet the
question OF intent must be taken into consi der
alton. The President took the Interpretation Of
Kent and Story, men whose names are as IA
milIar "a household words with every lawyer
in the land, whose fame has gone over the
water and reached Westminster Hall, and al
though Senators may not accept this interpre-
of criminality because he accepts the interpre-
tatlUn of the Constitution as given by those two
eminent CONNIE ntaries and jurists. The learned
Manager Mr.. Butler had managed this case
with cons ummate skill, ard although he did
not always admire his language and the style
of the honorable Manager, he could saw this
much. The honorable Manager bad said that
he did not care much for the opinions of the
Attorney Generals after they had become pc
litiCal officers.
He mr.. N. y maintained that the opinions of
ttnr, shrw. ha, III
of judicial Interpretation. Under the act of
Is9 he maintained that the opinion of the At
torney General was sufficient 10 oe regarded by
the President as valid and proper authority
for him to act. The Constitution pro that
the President may take the advice OF these offi-
GERS in writing, and ne maintained that after
they Were Obtained they We're binding on the
President as legal decision, and acted rs a
shield TO him for any course he might take un-
der them. In ISIS Mr.. Writ gave as his opinion
that when the President issued a commission
To an office whose tenure was not directly spp-
Gifted by law the appointment was during The
pleasure OF the President, and the Presiden had
at any time the rght TO remove him and ap-
point his successor. MIR. Berrien in ls3O gave
The opinion that the Presidents right to remove
III the recess was under the Constitution and
not by virtue of act of 1St3. All of these opin-
ions have more or less bearing in the case now
now before the Senate. Mr.. Cnttenoen on
January %. 1851, held that the President had
power over all the civil officers appointed
by him whose tenure was not specified
in the Constitution. Mr.. Critenden said
that the question had long been settled
as 10 the Presidents entire power over officers
con n.mlssioned by him, by and with the ad vice
and consent of the Senate, whose tenure of Of
flee for good behavior was not specified IN the
Constitution. Mr.. Crittenden further said that
the power of removal was vested in the Presi-
dent for the public good Mr. Speed, who was
considered very high authority in certain
quarters of the United States, said, in May,
1e65, THAI If any law is repugnant to the Consi-
tutIou il is void. This was gwen in reply 10 2
request from the President, who is not a law
Yer. and of course had 10 RELY on his legal ad-
yisers. MIR. Speed says that it is the duty of
the President Lot 10 obey a law when il is in
conflict with the Constitution, and that the
President would abdicate his high Office il he
should obey such a law; and, Mr.. Chief JUS
tice, respectfully ask you, If you accede to
my request, TO deli yer a charge In this case, TO
lay down this opinion " Attorney General
Speed as sound Jaw. Mr.. Speed declares tta.,
IN the absence OF any judicial construction, the
President has right TO construe the law for
hims eli; and this, as Senators we'll knew,
Is no new doctrine. All remember An
drew Jackson. No name yet more
powerful in this Government OF ours.
There were giants in those days, when Andrew
Jackson was at the head of this Government
Andrew Jackson exercised this power of re-
moyal, and all know the controversy which
took place about it. Jackson insisted in his
right and he was censured by the resolution
O. the Senate, which was afterwards expunged
owing to the persistent efforts of Mr.. Benton,
md here is the last instance where there was
my controversy on this point. The Senate in
He now maintained that be had proved by all
these authorities that the President had the
power of removal. and even if he had not, the
precedent Of eighty years was sufficient to
throw protection around him. This Is not
rigid doctrine in the United States,
He had told them yesterday that present
President of the United States was
Democrat Of the strictest sect, and that
he was nomipa ated As a Democrat, and had SO
stated in accepting the nomination. He now
repeated, 60 to the stand point Of the Presi-
dent, ard look at things as he looked at
them; for they Were now determining
the question Of the motive. Mr.. Jeffer.
son and Mr.. johnson both claimed he power
TO construe the Constitution of the United States
and, regarding the training of the President,
il can easily be seen why he should take a sim.
liar view. Mr.. Jefferson said there was moth
ing more in the Constitution TO give the power
to the judicial branch to determine on laws
affecting the executive and Legislative We branches
tha n 10 the executive and legislative branches
themselves. The executive branch shall have
the power of determining the validity of laws
affecting that branch, and the legislative branch
on laws affecting that branch; ana this was
going much further than Mr.. Johnfon had in
his argument. Mr.. Jefferson further stated in
letter that his construction Of the Constitution
wrs, that each branch Of the Government
was independent of the other, and had the
right to decide for itself upon all questions
affecting il particularly. II this doctrine was
correct, then Mr.. johnson was justified in his