Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1868-03-04
WHY THE PRESIDENT SHOULD
.s-w "a# BE IMPEACHED.


IS guilty to be a technical one, that is one
made by statute, still he should be treat
ed with ,lgor. There are large number
of things that are made criminal only by
express statute; but no government can
stand moment if it cannot hold viola
tors of these statutes as guilty criminals
and punish them as such. We noticed
not long since that two men living In
Northern New York went over the line
to their nearest store, and bought suit
OF clothes Piece, wearing them back.
They were fined heavily as smugglers
Now, surely there is nothing criminal in
itself, in a mans attempting to clothe
himself decently Bat if these two men
arasufered to de this, perhaps innocent
act so far as their iRtent was concerned,
then professional smugglers may walk
over the line and carry on their business,
and so here we have the entering wedge
tea general disregard Of the laws of the
United States, respecting the collection
of revenue. Then the credit Of the gov
eminent is at once broken down and the
government itself must soon follow In the
wakesoof its broken credit. Now the only
law making power the United States have
got has made a statute respecting the
Tenure-of-ofice It is law that so long
as it is law is to be obeyed just as the
revenue laws are.
Now, the excuse that the President
makes for violating this law is the worst
feature of his case He says that by
appointing Thomas as Secretary of War,
he was only trying to get the maker be
fore the court, SO that they could pass
upon its validity. But it is the Presi-
dents duty to see that laws are ececutsd
not TRY to make up cases by which
they may be pronounced unconstitutional
and evaded. In this very case, whenev-
er case is made up to try the constitu
tienality of this act before a court, it is
the Presidents duty to appear before that
court in the person of his Attorney Gen
eral and defend the act. The President
is then on both sides Of the question seek
ing to destroy law that at the same
time By virtue Of his Office he must de-
fend How hearty that kind Of defence
would be, we can imagine. Such meth
DDS of procedure would bring all law and
justice into contempt. If the President
does not know any more than to put him.
self in such position he should be i'm
peachedrfor utter imbecility. If he does
know better that is the last of the matter
The American people cannot visit with
too severe penalties the man who thus
perverts the functions of the Chief Exc
cutive Office in the nation, and leaves
the laws which they have enacted with
out defender. Whsn law is on the
statute book the first and only business of
the President is to enforce it and our
government is broken to pieces if we can
not hold Presidents rigidly to the rule
that they shall be above the suspicion of
connivance in an attempt to break down
the statutes of the nation If any citizen
IS personally injured by statute he may
appear in court, and demand Judgment
Oh the question of its constitutionality.
But whoever thus goes into court should
be made to understand that he will there
meet the representation of the Executive
who in good faith will seek to sustain the
statute which the people through their
properly constituted representatives have
enacted, else the very decision of the
court will come to be regarded farce.
The presumption is SO much in favor of
every law which the people enact that
they have appointed an executive whose
first and foremost duty is to defend that
law against all corners, and there in that
position of defence Of law let the Presi-
dent be found or let the full penalties
which pertain to malfeasance in office,
misdemeanors and crime fall upon him.