Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-05-02
IMPEACHMENT.
WAsHINGToN, May l, 1868.
SENATE.

pointment OF Secretary ad interim in GER
tain cases to the heads of other depart
ments, but he argued that under the act OF
l193. which allowed him to choose from all
the officers employed in the Departments,
the President had full warrant for
the appointment of General Thomas, who
was then Adjutant General.
Referring to the action of Mr.. Lincoln
IN appointing an ad interim successor to
MIR. Blair, Postmaster General, he said that
the appointment was made under autliori-
ty only implied, of the acts of 1892 and 1885,
which did not relate to the Postoffice De-
partment at all. He asked why that con-
Duct was not considered an impeachable
oifense. He then maintained it made no
olflerence either in the theory or practice
OF the Government whether the temporary
appointment were made during session
or recess OF the Senate, and instanced the
four EXAMPLES of Wilson in 1914, Scott in
1850, and Kelly 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 positions occupied by the members
| OF the Cabinet. He would again refer to
the opinion of Mr.. Boutwell,, to say he
| might name three more Senators before
him who would share with others what he
| had mentioned in the opprobrium upon
| such positions by the honoreble managers.
He then read the address to MIR. Lincoln,
signed by thirty Senators, written in 1862,
| to urge his removal of Mr.. Blair, so as to
secure harmonious action. The opinions
! therein expressed by fifteen of The Sena-
tors now present, on the subject of Cabinet
relations, he (Evarts) fully seconded. He
urther quoted from the speeches of Mr..
Sherman and others, in the debate on the
passage of the tenure of Office act, and in
explanation of the report of the committee
of conference, various expressions and ar
guments, which uncontradicted opinions
and explanations he claimed were accept
, ed as proper interpretations of the bill,
: icted upon by the President.
He held that it would be monstrous to
convict 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 effect the relations OF
Mr.. Stanton and the President:
He also read from the report of Messrs
Schenck and Williams, on the subject,
which he claimed had bound the House to
| the same conclusion as the Senate.
The argument of Mr.. Boutwell, that the
practice had always been to send in the
names of the appOintees before making the
| removal he met by the consideration that
removals are generally made, not because
the lncumbents are unfit. but because po-
litlcal favorites are to be put in.
The Instances of removals of Cabinet
|
! that polite hint is usually sufficient &c
| induce resignation.
| He then referred to the instances of the
| removals of various officers during the
session of the Senate, which have been put
| In evidence, and went on to argue the me-
cessity tor the existence of such power ol
| instant removal by the same suppositious
cases, when delay would lead to disastrous
| consequences.
Abiding to the concessions In Mr.. But.
ler's speech, that if the President had prop
erly notified the Senate of his intention his
action would not probably have been
deemed ground for Impeachment, Mr.
Evarts said it appeared crime was moi
found in his fortiter in re, but in the alb
sence of SuaUfter IN nlodo. He characterized
the assertion of Mr.. Boutwell, that it made
no difference. whether the law is broken is
| constitutional or not, as disp arative at.
tempt to escape from the force of the arglI-
ments of counsel 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 in
tent. in the violation of a law which was
| ambiguous or equivocal. and claimed ii
| was all they needed, after showing, as they
| had, that the act was fifty characterized by
| those very terms.
Taking up the question of the character
| of the offense OF violating the tenure Of
office law, he said there was no punish
ment provided in the law tor attempts to
remove or to appoint, and also that the ar
ticles now here charges removal; hence
| there was no Indictment or impeachable
offense committed by the attempted reno.
val of Stanton.
| He then maintained that no tenure OF
| office could be given by legislation for any
| longer time than for which the officer is
/ ri tn1. A Nlrr;s,o 3, IL -. Al
case OF Stanton, he argued that he was moi
| appointed, but held his Office by sufferance
of the President, and therefore could moi
in any case be affected by the case in ques-
ton.
In reference to the argument that il
| Stanton is not protected by that proviso he
is by the body of the section, he said, we
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 ad-
mitting that its tenure can be made per-
| petual, if succC ssive Senators adhere to the
same views; but if the law is susceptible Of
two constructions, he had the managers au.
! thority for claiming it would be abhorrent
to the sense of justice to convict the Pres
! ident.
He further argued that there was no at
tempt to violate the statutory right of MIR
Stanton to hold his office, but merely tc
| withdraw the tenure, which he held at the
/ pleasure of the President.
Briefly reviewing the evidence he ridi.
| culed its inefficiency, as instanced in the
testimony of karsner, the solitary witness
to prove the attempted coup de etat.
Mr.. Evarts then reminded the Senators
that they must treat each article separately
| without any reference to the character OF
force of the Others, and always upon the
presumption of entire innocence. They
must discard political considerations, and
judge of Mr.. JOhnson's separate acts a:
of Lincoln's or Grants.
| He called attention to the former service:
of the President, to the circumstances o.
his early life and subsequent stormy career
which have made him what he is, refer.
ring to his political training, unflinching
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 to
grant these considerations the utmost
Wright to which they were entitled.
| Illustrating the universal truth that un-
righteous laws are always eventually
righted or set aside by reference to some ol
| the consequences of war aud by descrip-
tions 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, invok.
| ing the calmest consideration and impartial
justice, which would be worthy of the sue
cessors of the great men who first digni.
| fled the Senatorial halls.
| Recess. .-..
On reassembling,
| Mr.. r.STANBERY rose, and after a few
introductory remarks, in which he refer
red to the feeble state of his health he
said he felt impelled by an irresistible i'm.
pulse to lift his voice in this just cause, and
proceeded with his argument. He said:
Mr.. Chief Justice and Senators:
| 1ti the habit of the advocate to magnify
his case, but this case best speaks for it.
self. For the first time in our political ex.
istence the three great Departments of our
Government are brought upon the scene
together, the House of Representatives as
the accusor, the President of the United
States as the accused, the Judiciary De-