Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-03-23
The Position Of the Impeachment Pro-
coedinRs.

make his formal answer TO the articles
Of impeachment is no indication as 10
the course of the ultimate trial, nor as to
the time when final judgment in the
premises will be reached. A fair inter-
probation Of the resolution does not JUS
tify the imputation that those who voted
for II will refuse to allow a fitting inter.
val after the answer Of the President aud
the response OF the managers to summon
witnesses and TO make such needtul
preparation as the then inspect OF the
case may warrant. But, on the contrary,
the reservation OF the power 10 postpone,
in advance Of any new application, in
dicates the sense Of the Senate that the
occasion will probably justify and call
for further time. The real issue between
the impeachers and the President will
not have been elected until that stage
| OF the case shall have been reached, nor
could il very we'll be determined what
would be q proper interval before trial
until il was apparent whether the defense
would be made 10 turn upon the broad
question of right and power arising In
the face Of the civil tenure law, or upon
collateral matters Of fact tending TO shed
light upon the motives which have con-
trolled the course Of action of the Presi-
dent either before or since his assump-
ton of the executive chair. 1t is easy to
see that a very wide range of inquiry
may become essential to the merits Of
the controversy, and as we are bound to
| assume that the managers of the i'm
parchment foresee the difficulties which
they must surmount before the final call
| for Judgment can take place, charity
| may require that we should not even i'm
pute to them the excessive zeal for swift
condemnation which the course of their
arguments on Friday last would suggest
| to the casual reader of that debate.
Ifthe Supreme Court is precluded de-
termining the validity ofthe Civil Tenure
bill by the adroit management OF. the
Court of the District Of Columbia, in
putting to sleep the prosecution against
Gen. Thomas for assuming the duties of
Secretary of War, still that question must
be met and decided by the Senate in its
character Of a court during the progress
of this impeachment, and Whatsoever
way that decision may be, it will proba'
bly become the binding law of the land,
as the resolution of the highest court
known to the Constitution. The present
anomalous condition of the War Depart
| ment will continue until the Court Of
Impeachment shall have determined the
validity of the title Of one or other claim.
ant. In the progress Of the trial 1T Will
become necessary for the Senate spe
officially to determine whether or not Mr..
Stanton 'or Gen. Thomas is the lawful
Secretary of War, and by what title Mr..
| Stanton holds; whether his original COM
mission from Mr.. Lincoln gives him
power to act as the Secretary of Mr..
johnson without any new appointment,
and whether, if duly commissioned under
Mr.. johnson, it was not still the consti-
tutional right of Mr.. Johnson to remove
him. Both these questions must be de-
cided as questions of law by the advice
of the Chief Justice, and his opinion as
lawyer and as judge must be spread
before the world after oil the light of
the great legal minds of Judges Curtis
and Black and Mr.. Stanbery shall have
been poured out upon it. Should the
opinion of the Chief Justice be that by
! the true construction Of the law and the
Constitution Mr.. Stanton either was never
so appointed as to be brought within the
provisions of the civil tenure law, or if 80
appointed, that the law itself is an en-
eroachment upon the constitutional right
of the President to remove without the
concurrence of the Senate, what effect
would such an opinion have upon the
Senates own judgment upon those ques'
tiops? Is it to be inferred that two
thirds of that body will repudiate the
opinion? If two.thirds do not repudiate
the opinion, then Mr.. Stanton's title to
the Office of Secretary falls, and the i'm
peachment of the President falls with it.
But let US suppose that two-thlrds OF
the Senate differ from the Chief Justice
upon the legal and constitutional ques'
ton, still will not the solemn Judgment
of the Chief Justice be itself a moral JUS
tifcatien for the action of the President,
and would it be possible for any tribu-
nal to convict man of knowingly and
willfully violating law which the highest
judicial functionary had pronounced
was not violated =? Would not such re.
suit be almost inconceivable Z More
over, if the Chief Justice should fail to
reach the conclusion that the President
was right in his construction OF his
power, it is impossible that he can fail
to say that the construction which the
trainers of the Constitution put upon it,
and which all public writer's have put
upon, and which has been sanctioned by
the action of every President from
George Washington to Andrew johnson
sixteen men who have successively ad-
ministered the ofice), had such color OF
truth about it that it repels the charge OF
knowingly and corruptly violating the
law2 1t will not be forgotten that the
Senate must not only reject the tradi.
tional Interpretation of the Constitution,
but it must reject the advice and
opinion which, as above suggested, may
fall from. the Chief Justice in the pro-
cress of the trial;s but it must go
further, and say that, in the face of all
these things, and of Mr.. Johnson's life
long profession of belief in the sound
ness of the old opinions, he nevertheless
knew them to be false and unsound, and
knowing them to be false and unsound,
corruptlY acted upon them, before they
can find him guilty on the imI each
....,t - R01ffxaor1 G.fu