The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1868-04-25
BY TELEGRAPH.
WASHINGTON, April "a.
SENATE.

At The opening of the Court, Chief
| Justice Chase stated that the first busl-l
ness was the order offered for consider
alton yesterday by Mr.. Grimes, that
the meeting of the Senate shall be at II
o'clock. The order was adopted, q
against l3.
Mr.. Edmunds offered an order to ad-
| NIT official reporters to report the
speeches on the final deliberations OF
the Senate, which was objected to by
Mr.. Sumner, and went over under the
rule.
Mr.. Nelson resumed his speech, and
concluded his argument OF yesterday
i'll support OF the position that no Of
fences are impeachable except those
which were deemed crimes and misde-
meanors by the common law at the
time the Constitution was framed.
Referring to that portion OF Mr.. Bout
wells speech which illustrates the
! Presidents alleged perverse nature by
his treatment OF gentleman who was
to have been one OF his counsel, Mr..
Nelson made a statement that Judge
Black withdrew from the case simply
because the President refused to send
vessels to seize Alta Nela, refusal
made on the ground of public duty,
against the solicitations of friends and
| the implied threats OF enemies. Quoting
expressions of Mr.. Boutwell,, that the
advice given to the President by his
Cabinet was that of serfs to their lord,
or council offered in the fear OF losing
| their places, he reminded the managers
that they had put in evidence message
which showed that their friend Stanton
had preferred the advice thus charac'
| terized, and that he now might cry,
save me from my friends" il they
made him out the servlle serf. AL
luding briefly to the high commenda-
ton Of the President written by Stan
ton in 1865, and to the strangeness OF
I,n f1
only impeached for offences against
the defunct thirty-ninth Congress,
Mr.. Nelson proceeded to consider the
articles OF impeachment separately.
He held in the first place that there was
distinction made by both common
and statute law, between a crime and
an attempt to commit a crime; and as
the civil tenure bill relates only to an
actual removal from office, and the
President having made none, the
charges made in most OF the articles
fail. But aside from this objection,
claimed to have weight, he would name
three propositions, namely, that the
tenure of office law Is void; IL 1t is not,
Mr.. Stantou's case Is not covered by II,
and that even If il is legal and applica'
BILE, the President is not guilty of crime,
because he acted from lauda6le mo-
tiVes. He quoted at great length from
debates on the formation of the Constt-
tuition, and on the passage of the act OF
1889, and from numerous legal anthori-
ties, to show that the question of the
Presidents power of removal was deh-
nitely settled by the action of
Congress at that time, and claim
ed, therefore, that he had grounds
for honestly forming the opinion on
which he acted from the constitutional
requirement that the Attorney Gener-
al is to furnish the President with opin-
ions in writing, and the fact that such
opinions are collected and bound by the
authority of Congress.
Mr.. Nelson argued that they have a
quasi authoritative character for the
| Presidents action. He then cited
large number OF opinions in writing by
various Attorney Generals since the
formation of the government, in which
they place the same construction on the
| law of 1879, and express the same views
regarding the power OF removal as
| President johnson. he referred also to
the opinions OF Mr.. Jefferson, to the ac-
ton of President Jackson, and to that
| of the Senate in expungtng Its resolu-
ton of censure on him, and then re-
capitulating the authorities and prece-
dents for Mr.. Johnson's course and
policy, insisted that the presumption
| of honest intent was clearly made out.
He next considered the position that
Congress has, by implication superior
power to the Executive, and maintain
| ed that no greater powers were grant
| ed in that way to the Legislature than
to the Executive branch of the govern
ment.
At this point the Senate took recess
| of fifteen minutes, and on reassembling,
Mr.. Nelson continued the citation OF
authorities in support OF the Presi-
dents views on the question OF his
power of removal, and proceeded to ar
que that the President had the same
power to construe the acts OF Congress
as Congress itself. Again, In support
| ing his Views by numerous quotation ms
from all the preceding arguments, he
| held that it proved the tenure-ot-ohce
law unconstitutional and void. AT
considerable length Mr.. Nelson then
elaborated the proposition that
no charge can be mai ntain.
ed which does not alle&e criminal
intent which he said was not done ex-
in the 5th article. In the course oil his
remarks he spoke of the friendly en-
brace of Mr.. Stanton and Gen. Thomas,
lfduor between them, as the most re-
markable exhibition of force on record.
f0reat laughter.) And while eulogi-
ling the honesty and simplicity OF
General Thomas, explained MS IAN
guage to Mr.. BurleiRh and others. as
caused not only by his pride of othce,
but by the enliyening effects OF the
good liquor then consumed. on the
appearance of the supplemental battle,
he proceeded 70 give humorouS and
satiricaI account OF the arrest and SUBJ
seouent discharge of General Thomas,
ridiculing the idea that any one be-
lieved that he designed to use force.
Passing to the consideration OF the
I'd and Sd articles, he adopted the
statement in the Presidents answer as
a sufficient reply to them. With re-
gard to the 4th article, which charges |
Conspiracy to obtain possession OF the
War office by intimidation and threats |
he claimed it was not covered by the
act of 1861, which it claimed was Yto-
lated. The fifIh article, alleging tnten-
ded employment of force, he held was
not supported by the testimony. The
sixth, in which the violation OF the
tenure-oEoffice law is also alleged, ne
considered to be disposed OF by the
argument of the constitutionality OF
that law. The seventh article was pass
ed over with the denials that the fresi-
dents oath of Office was violated py tne
offence charged. The eighth article ne
met by the argument that the alleged
endeavor to obtain possession OF the
monies in the War Department, even
IN made, was not in violation of the
tenure-of-ofnce law as statediwi refer
ence to the ninth article he held that
the President was in the line OF his
duty when comforting with Gen. Emory
about the disposition of troops, and
that no evidence whatever had been
adduced to prove his purpose in that
interview was evil. Considering tie /
tenth article he claimed it was based