The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-04-03

nnOt00
That the Executive is clearly subordinate to
the two Houses of Parliament. It was held in
case peculiarly applicable to the present case
that the removal of meritorious officer was q
sufficient cause for impeachment.
The managers claim and insist that this tri-
bunal has not the character or attributes of o
court and that only on this particular case is
the the Chief Justice Of the United States called
on 10 preside. Can it be contended that in all
other trials the Senate sits as the Senate, and
inst because the Chief Justice is presiding
now that it becomes court? The fact that
senator's are required to take On additional
oath or affirmation does not change it. The
analogy drawn between the Senate and the
House of Lords will not hold, because until
very lately the House OF Lords % assumed to ex,
| ercise Jurisdiction over all crimes committed
in the United Kingdom. This Senate, as sit
| ting now. is q constitutional tribunal for the
trial of Andrew johnson, President of the
United States, for high crimes and misde-
meanors. He alluded TO the case Of Senator
Smith, of Maryland, who, as q member Of TIE
House, voted to impeach Judge Pickering, and
the Senate on the trial, and, after lengthy
discussion, the Senate decided that he was en-
| titled to sit; that the State could not be de-
prived Of its representation.
The managers now maintained that no right
| inh cred in acy one to challengeany Senator on
|
of Judges Chase and Peck to prove that Sena-
tors had sat on the trial who had, as members
| OF the House, voted for articles OF impeach-
ment In the trial of Ann Mullen, her father,
| LORD Rockford, and her uncle, not only sat on
her trial, but had voted her guilty. Mr.. B.
further cited numerous precedents to prove
that in trials not only interested persons, but
blood relations, sat on the trial Of accused par
ties. He would not trouble the Senate with
these minute details but for the fact that par
| tial and improper statements had been pub
lished in the press as to the right OF Senator
(Mr. Wade) to sit on the trial.
These objections had been raised by parties
who did not understand the merits Of the case
at all. The managers considered it the bounden
no choice in this matter. 1t was the right OF
his State. Mr.. 3. then read from letter OF
| Hon. Reverdy Johnson in reply to an invita-
ton to address public meeting, and that he
(Mr. J.) supported the President in the diff
ference which sprung up between him and
Congress. He (Mr. b. maintained that by
the expression of this opinion Mr.. johnson
trial if challenges were to be resorted to.
Mr.. B. then recited the articles of impeach-
ment It would be shown by the testimony Of
MIR. Burley that Thomas had said that he in
| tended 10 get possession OF tho war office by
force, and that he invited MIR. Burley to attend,
which that gentleman did, but the show did
| not come off, Thomas having been arrested
and held to trial. It would be further shown
that q notice had been served on the Secretary
| OF the Treasury to honor the acquisitions OF
Thomas for money.
The House Of Representatives and the people
have Joined issue against Andrew Johnson as
to his right to act as he has done. Ii, after Q
full examination Of the facts it shall be found
that he has the right, let him 20 free; but II
| I, ho 1a5 10 1ph
place. This bill which he has violated received
the renewed sanction Of both the Senate and
House of Representatives, after full conside-
ration of his objections. II he is to be allowed
to exercise this dangerous power OF removal,
where is it to end? Does the constitution
invest the President with oil the legislative
power which is enjoyed by kings, and the
much more liberal to him than to the
legislative branch Of the government. The
executive power Of appointment is clearly
limited by the words of the constitution, which
renders the consent Of the Senate necessary.
The power which he has assumed to exercise Is
kingly. The power Of removal was very elabo.
rately debated in the first Congress, in the bill
| to create State Department. 1t was debated
for four days, and finally was so framed as to
imply the power Of removal in the President,
but the triumph Of its supporters was short
lived but when it came to the House, on mo-
tion of Mr.. Benson, the provision implying the
power of removal in the President was struck
out. 1t went back to the Senate, but as the
debates there were in secret session, we have
no means of Knowing what did take place, but
we learn from the journal that this provision
implying the power OF removal was retained by
the casting vote Of John Adams, the Vice
President. Alas! almost all our woes have
come from our Vice Presidents. Notwithstand-
ing this the facts show that the President made
no removal without notifying the Senate. MIR.
Adams removed Mr.. Pickering by nominating
q successor to the Senate.
None of the early Presidents had ever at
| tempted to exercise the unlimited power OF re-
moval now assrmed by the present occupant
of that chair. Congress has always asserted
legislative power in reference to removals from
Office sometimes in one way and sometimes in
another. Upon the whole, never, until now,
has the exclusive control over appointments to
Office ever been claimed either by the President
or by Congress. In 1926 the powers OF the
President were canvassed in Congress, and q
committee was appointed on the subject, who
reported that it was necessary TO tr'm down
his powers by statutory enactment, and re.
ported no less than eight different bills on the
subject, one Of them vacating within certain
time I'll Offices pertaining to the collection o.
the revenue. Here was O. tenure.of-Ottce act
reported by one Of the greatest minds OF the
country.
II did not seem to occur to Congress ther
that it had not the power to regulate appoint
meuts to. and removal from, Offices. Further
acts Of Congress relative to appointments to
Offices we're quoted. On the 18th OF July,
1866, Congress enacted that no person in the
military or naval service should be dismissed
unless by sentence Of court-martial. Here was
q distinct right of Congress to regulate ap'
pointments to Office, and answered all the re-
spondent's objection, as he had signed the bill.
Wby did he not think OF this in the snow
storm of his vetoes? In March, 1867, the ten
ure-of.office act was passed by Congress. Under
| whose administration was MIR. Stanton serving
when the bullet OF Booth made the proximate
cause of this trial? Was not MIR. Stanton now
serving out under the term Of MIR. Lincoln:
Was not the respondent serving out the unex-
pired term of Mr.. Lincoln? If this was not the
case. and if the respondent proved it was not
then, under that very tenure-of-ofhce act, nc
was guilty of high misdemeanor, and oil the
House had to do was to present another article
Of impeachment.
which had elected him, and wanted to restore
rebels TO power. then was it not Mr.. Stanton's
duty to remain at his post; to continue to re-
main at it now in defence of the constitution,
and in obedience to the voice OF the great
majority OF the American people? The act ol
the respondent in suspending MIR. Stanton last
August was ostenslbly under the tenure-of-of
flee act: and if he believed 1t null and void
was he not seeking to make tool OF thu
State. and does he not admit afterwards thai
he acted under that act so Tar as 1t suited him
If Andlew Johnson had committed no othel
act, this was sufficient to place MS character
in letters of living light before the country, tt
show his moral turpitude. Instead OF coming
| I1,,, xrhn