The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1868-05-02
XLth COEGREse-Second Session.
1he Impeachment Trial.
Arguments of NIessrs. Rvarfs and Stan
berry.

saying that he would claim their indulgence to
consider the power of the President to fill va
cancies under the acts of 1892. 1895 and 1868.
He admitted the act of 1868 limited the choice
for the appointment of Secretaries ad interim
in certain cases to the heads of other depart
ments, but he argued that under the act of
1898, which allowed him to choose from all the
officers employed in the departments, the Presi-
dent had full warrant for the appointment OF
Gen. Thomas, who was then Adjutant General.
Referring to the action of Mr.. Lincoln in ap-
pointing an ad interim successor to Mr. Blair,
Postmaster General, he said that the appoint
ment was made under authority only implied
of the acts of 1898 and 1885, which did not re-
late to the Post Office Department at all. He
asked why that conduct was not considered an
improbable affair. He then maintained that
it made no difference either in the theory or
practice of the government whether these tenn
porary appointments were made during ses-
sion or a recess of the Senate, and instanced
the four examples of Nelson in 1874 Scott in
1850, and Kelley and Holt in 1861, as ample
warrant for his assertion.
Passing to the first article he said he should
consider at the outset the nature of the posi-
tons occupied by the members of the Cabinet.
He would not again refer to the opinions OF
Mr.. Boutwell,, except to say that he might
name three more Senators before him who
toned on the opprobrium cast upon such posi-
tons by the honorable managers. He then
read the address to Mr.. Lincoln signed by thir-
ty Senators. which was written in 1862 to urge
the removal of Mr.. Blair as to secure unani-
nous action. The opinions therein expressed
by fifteen of the Senators now present on the
subject of Cabinet relations he (Evarts) fully
endorsed. He further quoted from the speech
es of Mr.. Sherman and others in the debate on
the passage of the tenure-of-office bill, and in
explanation of the report of the committee Of
conference various expressions and arguments,
which uncontradicted opinions and explana-
tons he claimed were received as the proper
Interpretation of the bill SO acted upon by the
President.
He held that it would be monstrous to con-
Wet the President of crime by the same voices
which gave utterance TO or concurred in these
authoritative declarations that the bill did not
reach or affect the relations of Mr.. Stanton and
the President. He also read from the report
of Messrs. Schenek & Williams on the SUBJ
ject which he claimed had bound the House
to the same conclusion the Senate. The
argument of Mr. Boutwell, that the practice
had always been to send in the name of the
appointee before making the removal he met
by the consideration that removals are general
ly made not because the incumbents are unfit
but because political favorites are to be put in.
The instances of the removal of Cabinet Off
GERS are only two, for the simple reason that a
polite hint is usually sufficient to induce
signation. He then referred to the instances
of the removal of various officers during the
session of the Senate, which had been put in
evidence, and went on to argue the necessity
for the existence of such power of instant
moval by several suppositious cases where de-
lay would lead to disastrous consequences.
A11n6inu tO tho cSOn N Mr. Rut1ar's
opening speech that if the President had pro-
perly notified the Senate of his intention, his
action would not probably have been deemed
ground enough for impeachment, Mr..
Evarts said it appeared that crime was not
found in his fortiter IN re but in the absence
of SUdUiteT an nOdo, he characterized the
assertion of Mr. Boutwell, that it made no
difference, whether laws which were broken
is constitutional or not as a desperate attempt
to escape from the force of the arguments of
the cousel for the President which he would
not now repeat. He also quoted the admission OF
Mr. Boutwell, that the President would have
been justified if he acted with honest intent
in violation of the law which, ambiguous or
equivocal, and claimed it was all they need af-
ter showing as they had done that the act was
ftly characterized by those very terms. TAX
ing up the question of the character of the of
fence of violating the tenure of Office law, he
said there was no punishment provided In the
law for attempts to remove, as there was for
the articles TO appoint; and, also, that the arti-
cles nowhere charged the removal, and hence
there was no indictable or Improbable Of
fence committed by the attempt to remove
Mr.. Stanton. He then maintained that no
tenure of office could be given by legislation
for any longer time than for which the officer
is appointed, and applying this doctrine to the
case of Mr.. Stanton, argued that he was not
appointed but held his Office by the sutferance
of the President from day to day, and there
fore could not in any way be effected by the
law in question. In reference to the argu-
ment that if Mr.. Stanton is not protected by
the proviso he is by the body of the sectlon
he said he must speak of the office and not of
the man, and if this Office is covered by the
section, we are led to the absurdity of admit
ting that its tenure can be made perpetual It
successive Senates adhere to the view. But II
the law is susceptible of two constructions, he
had the managers authority for claiming that
it would be abhorent to the sense of Justice to
convict the President He further argued that
there was no attempt to violate the statuary
right of Mr.. Stanton to hold his Office, but
merely to withdraw the tenure which he held
at the pleasure of the President. Briefly re-
viewing the evidence he ridiculed its insult
ficiency, as instanced in the testimony of Kors
ner the solitary to prove the attempted coup d
etate.
Mr.. Eyarts then reminded the Senators that
thew must treat each article separately, with
out anv reference to the character or force of
fine others, and always upon the presumption
of entire innocence. Iney must discard polit-
separate acts as they would of Mr.. Llncoln's
or of Gen. Grants. He called attention to
the former services of the President, and to
the circumstances of his early life and subse-
quent stormy career, which have made him
what he is He referred to his political train,
ing, unhinching loyalty in times OF trial and
unwavering devotion to the Constitution,
which he made the guide and study of his life,
and appealed to the Senate in earnest terms 10
grant these considerations the utmost weight
to which they were entitled, illustrating the
universal truth that unrghteous laws are al
ways eventually righted or set aside. By refer
ence to some OF the consequences of war and
Nv descriptions Of the march of the national
armies, he passed to the consideration of the
threatened dangers to the Constitution. and
closed with an eloquent peroration. invoking
the calm consideration and impartial iustice
which would be worthy of the successors ~
the great men who first dignifed the Senator
ill hall.
The Court then took a recess.
On re-assembling at 1926, Mr. Stanberry rose
and after few Introductory remarks, in which
he referred to the feeble state of his health
but said he felt impelled by an irresistible i'm
pulse to lift his voice in this just cause, ant
T1rOppndaH with 80, ant