Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-05-01
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
s Speech Of Mr.. EVarts. = 81
CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS.
senate.

luton on the table, which was agreed to-
yeas 35, nays 10.
Mr.. Evarts resumed his speech. He
held that it was grave reproach on the
wisdom and foresight Of the trainers of our
government to claim that decision in this
case in favor Of the President would result
in anarchy. In his view, the danger was
to another of the balances of the Constitu-
ton, namely, the relations Of the weight OF
numbers and the equality Of States ire
spective of population. In this manner
the smallest and most thinly populated
States would control the working of the
government, against the will Of those who
cast the overwhelming majority Of voters,
and the Presidential election would be-
come force in support of this position.
He quoted the writings ofihe elder Adams,
Roger Sherman and others, and enforced
it by considering various emergencies
which might arise under the tenure OF Of
fee act, which makes certain offices per-
manent, and render removals during the
session of the Senate difficult, if not inn
practicable. He proceeded to quote from
debates in the Senate when the bill was
under consideration also from the Ian
guage of Messrs. Williams, Howard and
others to show that its effect was to
have revoIutionized the practice of the
government, and quoted an expression to
the effect that while the legislative con-
struction had little weight, yet the de-
cision of constitutional questions by the
Supreme laws were authorities. Mr.. T.
continued, however that the decisions oil
the Congress of 1889 were not only authori-
tatiye because confirmed by the Supreme
Court, but carried immense weightof them.
selves. He referred to the debates of 1889
as exhaustive Of the subject of the power
of removal, and claimed that the point al
issue was settled and firmly established
then by the trainers Of our government and
by the practice ofsuccessive administration;
afterwards. He also referred to Mr. Web
ster's declaration in 1885. That question
was settled by the Endorsement of Presi
dent Jackson's removal of Duane by the
people, the superior power of them all
In regard to the suggestion that The
Congress Of 1889 was influenced by the
high confidence in President Washington
Mr.. Evarts asked if it were not possible
that the present Congress had been infu
enced in an opposition by its opinions OF
the incumbent President. He read from
various contemporaneous writers to show
that the importance of the question wal
deeply felt at the time, and that the effec
of the decision reached in 1889 was
thoroughly understood. He claimed thai
the recent law had been an indirect contra
vention Of the doctrine and practice of tbs
government for eighty years, and having in
itself no binding effect on constituting the
Constitution. Doubts as to its Constitution
ality might naturally arise in the mind o.
the President, for which he could moi
rightly be impeached Referring to his
argument Of yesterday respecting the
right and power Of the President tC
resist unconstitutional laws so! as to bring
them before the Supreme Court. He read
from debates on the Fugitive Slave law
in 1852, the language of Mr.. Sumner, il
which he quoted and endorsed, President
Jackson's declaration that each department
of the government had the right to judgs
of the constitutionality of the acts of iniunc
lures not already covered by the Supreme
Court decisions, to dismiss and depose the
President for an attempt to mai6tain the
supremacy of the Constitution, and moved
to make him the victim to Congress, and
a martyr of the Constitution. The cour
took short recess.
On Te-assembling, Mr.. Evarts considered
the attitude which Senators took in refer
ence to this subject. He said nothing was
more abhorrent to a sense of justice than
that man should be Judge in his own
case, or decide a question which he mad al.
ready prejudged. He held that if the
Senate, in passing the resolution of censUre
on the 2lst of February, had pronounced
on the subject of the construction of the
law as political action, then they could
not consider it a judicial question. II
would be extraordinary, almost incon-
ceivable, TO suppose they did not 30 con-
slider it, with the prospect of having to try
the matter. If it were judicial as a court
Of impeachment, it could not be possible
that they regarded it as political question
He reminded them that the largest votes
for conviction in Humphies' case were on
the articles charging him with having
judged a case, and having allowed a jury
man to sit who acknowledged he had
formed an opinion. Again they had in
terest in the result to the amount of twenty
million dollars, and the patronage and the
power of the executive office we're the
prizes offered them for conviction. Their
political prejudices, too, he argued, Joined
with other considerations, caused them TO
cast out, as improper for their decision,
charges alleging violation of their own
law. Passing then to the general considera-
ton of the evidence introduced in support
of the articles Of impeachment, he charae-
terized it as absurdly insufficient, although
the managers had possessed very consid-
cradle advantage in the preliminary
privilege of examining witnesses and
in hundred other ways, in support of the
charges of obstructing reconstruction,
there was the Presidents dispatch, while
Wood, the office-seeker, was the only wit
ness in support of the accusation of abuse
of the appointing power. The staple Of
their speeches consisted of matter twice re-
jected by the House as not wsrranting inn
parchment. Yet Mr.. Stevens Thought the
introduction of the eleventh article indis-
pensable to conviction, as he said the court
would be green not to scquit on the other
ten. Mr.. Butler, however, contended that
if conviction failed on the FIRST ID would
be useless 10 look to the eleventh. AR.
Evarts held that there we're two fatal OBJ
jections; first the speeches had reference
to different Congress; and second, they
were ofenses only against rhetoric and
good taste. he then adverted, in sarcastic
terms, to the language and conduct of the
champion Of propriety and decorum in the
case, and said, as Mr.. Butler claimed the
practice Of this tribunal was a standard, he
would read from q certain debate some
time ago. Il appeared that Mr.. Sumner
had called the President the enemy of his
country, and INDUCED in further invectives.
whichsthe Senate had almost unanimously
declared was allowable, and not out of or.
der. Laughter. In illustration of the
G Jngressional standard Of propriety and
license of speech, Evarts also read the
language of Messrs. Bingham and Butler.
10 the House, when they accused each other
of variousscrimes, when the subject under
debate was charity to the South. He then
read the Apostles description of charity.
During all this portion Of his speech, be
was frequently interrupted by peals of
laughter. He also referred to the express.
sion of Mr.. Boutwell,, characierizin9 the
positions of Cabinet officers a. serf-Iike. and
argued at some length that the President
although deficient in rhetoric, had said no.
thing half so shocking TO taste and pro-