The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-02-28

--~~~
an erroneous construction, I submit whethe
it should bo characterized as violation OF Off
| cial duty and of law. I have deemed it proper
, in vindication OF the course which have con
sidered it my duty to take, to place before tn
Senate the reasons upon which have baset
my action.
Although have been advised by every mem
|, Der Of my cabinet that the Tenure Of Ofic
act is unconstitutional and therefore void, ant
although I have expressly concurred in tina
opinion in the veto message which had tht
honor to submit to Congress when returned
the bill for reconsideration, have refrainet
from making removal Of any officer contrary
to the provisions CT the law, and have only
exercised that power in the case Of Mr.. Stan
ton, which, in my judgment, did not come
within its provisions. I have endeavored tc
proceed with the greatest circumspection, and
have acted only in an extreme and exceptional
case, carefully following the course which
have marked out for myself, as general rule
faithfully to execute all laws, though passed
over my objections. on the SCORE OF constitu-
tionality. In the present instance have ap-
pealed, or sought to appeal, to that final arbi-
ter fixed by th3 constitution for the determine
Jlon of oil such questions. To this course
have been impelled by the solemn obligations
which rest upon me to sustain lnviolate the
powers of the high Office committed to my
merely personal to myself, could not allow
them to prevail against public duty 30 clear
to my own mind and 80 imperative. If what
was possible had been certain; il had been
fully advised when I removed Dir. Stanton
that in thus defending the trust committed to
my hands my own removal was sure to follow,
/ could not have hcsituted, aotuated by pub
lie considerations of the highest character. I
earnestly protest against the resolution of tho
Senate, which charges me in what have done
with violation of the Constitution and laws of
the United States.
ANDREW JOHNSON.
Washington D. c., February %, 1868.
THE SPEECH OF rHAD. STEVENS IN CLOSING THE
IMPEACHMENT DEBATE ON MONDAY.
The following is q full report Of the speech
delivered in The House Of Representatives, by
old Thad. Stevens, of Pennss lvania, just pre-
vious to the vote on impeachment:
MIR. Stevens.-I agree with the gentlemen
who have preceded mo that this is grave sub
ject and should be very gravely treated. 1t is
important 10 the high official who is the SUBJ
ject Of these charges, and it is important to
nation of forty millions of people, now free
and rapidly increasing to hundreds of millions.
The official character of the chief executive of
this great nation being involved, the charge,
if falsely made, is q cruel wrong.
II, on the othor hand, the misdemeanors and
usurpations charged against him arc true, he
is guilty of as atrocious attempts to usurp the
liberty and destroy the happiness of this na-
tion as were ever perpetrated by the most de-
testable tyrant who ever oppressed his fellow
mon. Lot us, therefore, discuss these ques-
tions, in no partisan spirit, but with legal
accuracy and impartial justice. The people
desire no victim and they will endure no
usurper.
Tho charges, so fur as shall discuss them,
arc few und distinct. Andrew Johnson is
charged with attempting to usurp the powers
oil other branches OF the government; with at
tcmots 10 obstruct and resist tho executo Of
the laws; with misprlson and bribery, and with
the open violation of laws which declare his
acts misdemeanors, and subject him to fine
aud Imprisonment, and with removing from Of
fee the Secretary Of War during the session Of
tho Senate without tho advice or consent of
the Senate aid with violating the sixth Sec
ton OF the act entitled s'an act regulating the
tenure of certain civil offices" There are other
offences charged in the papers referred to the
committee which may consider mole by
themselves.
LII ordc, to sustain impeachment under nur
constitution do not hold that 1LIs llecesSarS
10 prove crime, rs i'll all indlctable offence, or
III act nahum an Sc. agree with The distin-
guished gentleman from Pennsyyan On the
other side (Alr. oodward), who hola Is to
be purely political proceeding. II is l.. I'd
cd us u remedy for malfoasance in Office al 70
prevent the continuance thereof. Beyond l.
it is not intended as n personal punishment
past Offences or for future example,. Impeach
mcnt under our constitution is different from
an impeachment under the English law. The
framcrs of our constitution did not rely for
safety upon the avenying dagger of O Brutus,
but provided peaceful remedies which should
prevent the necessity. England had two sys
TENS ofjurisprudcnce for the trial and impeacli-
ment oil common Offenders and one for the trial
Of men oil. higher status, whom it was found
difficult to convict before tho ordinary trlbu-
nails.
This latter proceeding was by impeachment
or bills of attaindcr, generally practced to
punish official macfactors, bat the system soon
dcgeneratcd into personal and political perso-
cutIon, and men were tried, condemned and
executed BY the court from malignant motives.
Such was the condition OF the English laws
when the constitution was framed, and the con-
vention determined to provide against tho
abuse of that high power, SO that revenge and
punishment should not be Inflicted upon pOlit
Cal or personal cuemies. Hero the whole pun
isllment WAS mado to consist in removal from
Office, and bills OF attaindcr were wholly nro.
hibited. We arc TO treat this question. then,
as wholly political, in which, it any officer nf
the government abuses lns trust, or attempts
TO pcrvcrt 1T to improper purposes, whatever
might bo lis mOtlves he becomes subject to
impeachment and removal from Office
The offence being indictable does not prevent
impeachment, bat that Is no; ncccss ny to sus-
tain it, This is The opinion uf our elementary
writers, nor can any case of impeachment tried
in this cotniry be loun1 whero any attempt
WAS made 10 prove tie offence criminal and in
dictablc. What, then, arc the official msde-
mcanors OF Andrew Johnson, disclosed by tho
evidence? On TIC ID day OF March, 1867, Con-
cross passed an act entitled san act regulating
the tonurc of certain civil Offices Among
other provisions it enacted that no officer who
had boon appointed by and with the advice ard
consent of tho Senate should be removed from
Office without the consent OF the Senato, and
that il during the vacation suspension should
be made for cause, such cause should be re-
ported to the Senate within twenty days after
their ncxtmcetng. ii the Senaja should deem
the reason Of tho suspension sufficient, then
the officer should BIZ removed and another ap-
pointed in his stead; but if the Senate should
refuse to concur with tho President and de-
clare the reasons insufficient, then the officer
suspended should for, hwlth resume tho tunc-
tiuns Of his Office and tho powers OF tho person
performing its duties should cease. 1t IS
especially provided that vhe Secretary OF War
shall Eold his Office during the term Of the
Pro .idont by whom he -lay have been appoint
cd, aud ono month thereafter, unless removed
by and with the consent OF tho Senate as aforc-
said. On the 18th Of August, 1867, during tho
recess of the Senate, tho President removed
ihc Sccrc' ary Of War; whose term OF ottlco had
not expired, requiring him to surrender the
Office, with the public property, and appointed
General u. S. Grant Secretary OF War al Ll-