The States and Union. [volume] (Ashland, Ohio) 1868-1872, 1868-05-06
shamefdI M1srepresenlatIon

the gross Injustice of the whole pro-
ceeding against the President, and the
u~n}rnthfnThess of the charges, it would.
5 ~:fnrnished by the ..audacious perver-
Ftos, OF the testimony on the part Of
the managers, and their wilful misrtF-
rsseentation, not only, Of, The facts dis
closed before the Senate, but of those
historical ~precedeptsc which are neces-
sar1y familiar. 10 every well Informed
public man. We. have already exposed
CD various occasions. the direct and
positiye. contradiction between the,
statements made by Manager Butler
and the evidence of witnesses which he
had deliberately misrepresented, by
placing before the public both the al
legations and The testimony, SO thatone
should, convict the other; b.+.s,ar.
This course might be pursued with
equal reason throughout the speech of
Manager Boutwell,, who although pre-
tsndipg 10 q higher character, than,
Butler, and perhaps enjoying more
public consideration, has been guilty
of the same Ratification. In his re-
cent harraneue, he had the assurance
z sayTi s4sv staa1:9i.1sr sdE -5.1s
cdercIOlOre the senate mas .oIW1NS Dc6n
Consulted In regard TO appointments, and
during the sessions of the Senate It has al
was been consulted in regard 70 the removals
The whole history of the Govern
ment, down to the tenure of Office bill,
fatty contraGiets this unwarranted as
seriion in regard, to. the power of reno
Nalr.EyerY President from Washing
ton .WJshnson exercised that power
/. SIqlesdoned5 and;the Supreme Court
aud thirty eight different, Congresses
affirmed it By decision and by Iesisla-
ton in the most emphatic manner. 1t
was never. doubted until faction sought,
BIZ. the hostile c~onfrivance called a law,
to. cripple the Executive authority,
AMI thus to outrage the Constitution.
And the fact is well known, that vari-
! Gus Radical Senators and members yo-.
rcd 5Ifhat bill as a political measure
entirely with a full belief that il was
unconstitutional IF anything may be
regarded as having been settled BY
practice and interpretation, in this
country, it is that the power Of removal
from Office is lodged in the Executive ;;
and yet Mr. Boutwell, does not Hesitate
to assert, in the face of this experience,
that during the sessions of the SEN
ate, it has always been consulted in re-.
gard to removals from Office" when,
in point of fact, the very nominations
which are sent to the Senate in such
cases. declare the contrary - T. oj4rrt
But, there is even a more glarring
disregard CT. truth shown in the treat
ment of the; testimony by Dir. Bout
WeH,yI which deserves attention, in or
der, that the country may appreciate
the; systematic frauds which. have been
praeticed indthis casa. Referring to
tho. effort of the: President to test the
constit utionality of the tenure-of of
fee bal, he said :zoiue 80 fra .lsisaf.,
AsWh hen, iby Mr.. 4Stanton's action, Lorenzo
Thomas was under arrest, and proceedings
were Instituted which might have tested the
Legality of the ten~HFe-oGoffice act, Mr. Cox,
Ael Rresidents special COUNSEL moved to
have The proceeding dismissed, although
Thomas was at large upon his own recogni-
zanee . - t~G%souIIT%J zV&4f.E has
JSE:Yben a easeEas made up which might
have tested the. law, he Makes haste to get
it dismissed fTll1si . 9iIft 5ao@AE q
osThat 1sthe statement of the mana
GER Now let as comIare it with the
Testimony of the witness referred to :'1d
The WITNESS, fMr. Cox The
Chief Jssrice having indicated an in
teption to postpone the examination,
We directed. General Thomas:.to decline
giving any bail for further az pearance
and to surrender himself into custody,
and then presept,d to. the 4CrlmiuaI
Court an application for a writ IF writ
of habcas corpus. TIE counsel Oh. The
Other side objected that Gener1l Thon.-
as could nat puf;hfmleT into custody.
and 1hGy did not desire that he should
be detained Tin custody. Tie Chicf
Jddge also declared Mdt he UouH not
reSfIm General Th6n1ds of his liberty,
and .rould not dHCt 10 him TO be held IN
.,cu2todyo. Supposing that he must eth
er be committed or finally discharged,
wethen claimed that he be discharged,
not isupposing that the counsel on the
other side would consent to it, and
supposipg that would brig about
his. commitment, and that we should
then5hSveean opportunity of getting a
babeas corpus. They made no objec.
ton however, to his final discharge,
andraccordingly the Chief Justice did
discharge him."3e2i stS1f - t-1l ,
Here is positive proof of Justification
with Intention, land il is more shame
less, because everybody knew that thu
arrest of Thomas and his subsequent
release was a disgracefnf transaction, m
which the course OF law was prevented
by Judge Carter, who ofhciated on that
occasion al othe convenient instrument
of Stanton, m order to PTtuent the case
fromobeiug carried before the Supreme
Court The Cnomeut it was discovered
what wouldcbe the practical effect of
the proceeding, which was eoneoeted
in a midnight caucus at the War De-
partners, it was abandoned to defeat
the ends of justice, just as the proviso
was asnuggledf hto revenue bill to
restrain the Supreme Court from de-
Gliding the McCardles case. The two
examples are worthy each other, and
of the men who were concerned in
both. sgyfW ION hio9 2s141
hat oisfo be said of a prosecution
w~hSeHIneedS such discreditabie exPedt-