The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-05-03
The Position Of Chief Justice Chase In thu
Impeachment Trial.


The Position Of Chief Justice Chase In the
Impeachment Trial.
The several attempts made by the Managers
and radical Senators to abridge the functions of
the Chief Justice in the impeachment trial
show their determination not only to ignore all
sense Of justice, but to set aside the constitu-
tional prerogative and duty of the judiciary in
this important case. From the Independent,
dignifed and impartial conduct of Mr.. Chase,
they are afraid he will perform his duty as
Judge over the High Court of Impeachment in
summing up the case and stating the facts and
the law upon which the Senate should render a
verdict They have endeavored to prevent
this by all the means in their power. In their
pleadings all through they have uniformly ad-
dressed the Chief Justice as presiding officer,
and not as judge, and have ignored the Sen
ate as a court in the proper sense of the term
The Senate, they say, is a law to ITSELF
and is not to be governed by the rules
of practice in the trial of other cases and
before other tribunals. They and their organs
have endeavored to ntimidate the Chief Justice
by base insinuatons and by threatening him
with party ostracsm. In fact, they have
resolved to make him a mere aut0maton-a
mere figurehead, without life or authority
simply to carry out their will and record their
DEGREES.
We shall see in the course of few days what
stuff Mr.. Chase is made of. We shall see if he
will permit himself to be unrobed and the judi
ciary struck down by these violent and unscr,l-
pulous partisans. The Judiciary is an indie
pendent branch of the government, and the
Chief Justice represents it on this trial. There
was profound object with the trainers of the
constitution in making the Chief Justice the
presiding Judge over the High Court of I'M
parchment for the trial of the President of the
United States. 1t was undoubtedly to bring
all the three divisions of the government to
bear in such an important case. The legisla-
tive department becomes the prosecutor of the
executive, and the judicial, in the person Of
the Chief Justice, becomes the expounder of
the law as applied to the evidence. This was
certainly the intention Of the trainers of our
constitution. That instrument cannot fairly be
interpreted in any other way. The trial
would be partial, one-sided and entirely
in the hands Of the prosecution if the Chief
Justice has no voice or authority in the de-
cision. Indeed, it would be sheer mockery.
The judicial department of the government
would have really nothing to do in the trial of
the Executive, and any Senator, or even the
Secretary of the Senate, for that matter, might
81 oil ID No bo int 10
bring the Supreme Court-the judicial depart
ment Of the governmental the person of the
| Chief Justice, into action in the trial of the
Executive. The constitution wisely provides
for these checks and balances in the govern
ment against usurpation or injustice, and the
Supreme Court in this conflict stands between
| the Legislature and the President to explain
the law and evidence, SO that Justice may be
done and the constitutional powers and rights
of each may be preserved. The Senate has
already decided in the course of the trial that
the Chief Justice had the right to decide in
then can it refuse to hear him sum up and
judicially decide the law and evidence in the
whole case? This, beyond all question, is his
duty, though the verdict must be left to Sena-
tors as the jury in the case.
In view of these facts, therefore, Mr. Chase
holds most important and delicate position
position that no Chief Justice ever held be-
fore him. He is not there to decide only upon
the mere technicalites of law, upon which the
case of the Managers solely rests, but upon the
broad issue of the conflict between the legis-
latve and executive branches of the govern
ment, the motives of the President in his
conduct, the question of constitutional prero
gative and the established precedents of execu-
tive action. He is there to prevent Congress
sional tyranny and usurpation, as much as to
prevent executive delinquency. He occupies,
as we said, in this great and unprecedented
case position that no Chief Justice ever held
before-a position which, according to his con-
duct, will bring eternal fame or infamy upon
MS name Let him insist, then, upon his right
and duty to sum up the case and to explain the
law ana evidence in it. Let him expose the
himsy charges Of the impeachment Man
ayers and the insuficiency of the evil
dence. Let him defend the government
from the assaults Of faction and Congress
sional usurpation. The responsibility will
then be upon the Senate he will have
done his duty to the country If the Senate
should render verdict in opposition to his
charge he will not be blamed, and the people
will honor him for his independence and sense
of justice. Tf the radical majority refuse to
hear his summing up of the case and should be
determined to make him mere automaton no
should gather up his judicial robes and leave
The Senate chamber. The court would be left