Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-04-25
FORTIETH CONGRESS,
This Afternoons Proceedings.
IMPEACHMENT.
DISCUSSION OF THE RULES
ARGUMENT OF MR.. GRoEsBEcs
SATURDAY, April IS

ne ntnM nour, ana after prayer, the Chief
Justice took the chair, and Court OF Impeach-
ment was opened with the usual formaIities
The Managers on the part Of the House. and
aftefwards the mem bers of the House were an =
nouneed, and took their accustomed positions
in the hall.
The journal Of yesterdays proceedings were
read.
The Chief Justice said the frs, business in
order was the consideration of the order sub
mltted yesterday by Senator Edmunds 20 admit
the omcial reporters to the deliberation of the
Senate after the arguments are closed.
Mr.. Edmunds said that at the req uest of seye-
raj Senators he would ask the postponement OF
the subject until Monday.
Mr.. Drake moved its indefinite postpone
ment, and upon that demanded the yeas and
Mr.. Sumner. That's the proper motion.
The yeas and nays we re ordered and resulted
Tas-Messrs Cameron. Chandler. ConkIine.
Corbett. Drake, Ferry, Harlan. Howard. Nor
rill, Me Morrill,, (Vt.) Morton, Nye, Pomeroy,
Ramsey, Ross, Stewart, Sumner. Thayer, Tip
Nays.-Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Cragin,
DAVIS, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds. Fessenden,
Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson,
Hendricks, Howe, johnson, McCreery, Nor
gan, Norton, Patterson, (Tenn.l salisbury,
sherman, Trumbull, Van Wrinkle, yickers
Wiley, Williams and Wiison-g7.
The motion TO indefinitely postpone was
therefore not agreed TO.
Mr.. Sumner submitted an order that the Sen
ate, sitting ss Court of Impeachment for the
j
upon the several articles at ~ m, the day
after the closing of the arguments.
Senator Johnson objected to present consid-
erat'on, and the order went over.
Mr.. Sumner also proposed two additional
rules; one TO be rule %, and to provide that in
taking the vote upon the several articles the
presiding officer shall call the name of each
Senator, and upon each article shall ask,
.'Mr. -, how say you, is the respondent
guilty or not guilty." and the Senator shall
respond guilty or not guilty. Rule 2ith pro-
yides that on conviction Of the President it
shall be the duty of the presiding officer to or
der his removal from Office forthwith. in ac-
cordance with the requirements OF the Consti-
tuition, &c.
Mr.. johnson objected, and the subject was
laid over.
The Chief Justice then directed the Presff
dents counsel 10 proceed, and
Mr.. Groesbeck, of counsel, commenced his
remarks. He referred primarily to the fact that
in this country we have had five cases of i'm
peachmert-four of Judges and one of a Sena-
tor He lad 1t down as first proposition that
impeachment was never intended except as q
remedy for the removal Of an obnoxious officer
who held his position for life. But thIs case
was now here, and II must be met. He then
referred TO the argument of the Managers that
this body was sitting as Senate and not as a
court; and be proceeded 10 argue that il was
sitting as a court. He then reviewed some of
the authorities upon this subject. Referring TO
the trial of Senator Blount, he said the tribunal
had held in solemn determination that it
was court. The next case was the
was " neither the Court was OF the opinion that
Pickering should be removed. and the question
was not is the Senate of the opinion that Judge
Pickering shall be removed. So in the Peck
case, and in every other, and in every instance
The tribunal solemnly declared itself to he a
Court. In what spirit then, Senators, should
you try this casel And upon this point he
would reler TO the language of Judge Story
He then read from that author relative TO tii-
duties OF Senators sitting as a Court of I'm
parchment. This, said Mr.. Groesbeck, is no
m l4r aytnan hta~~ la.,
guished jurlst, whose ability is recognized
by all. The oath you took as Senators was
a political oath. The oath that is now
upon You is a purely judicial oath.
You are here, Therefore, Senators. as a court
and as a court you must act You are TO try
this case upon the evidence brought here, and
Dot upon common fame or common rumor, as
was saId by one of The Managers. Your yuris-
diction here is stopped after you try the aues-
tion whether the President has been guilty of
nigh crimes or misdemeanors. In every court
there must be the unlawful purpose and intent
and when that is wanting there can be no
crime. Suppose a President should become
deranged, and while in that condition should
break law after law, you would have no jurIs-
dictioD to try him for high crimes and misde-
meanors. But let us state another case. Pres
ident Lincoln, by court martial, arrested and
imprisoned citizens OF the loyal States,
and the supreme Court has since decided
ms acts had no warrant in the Constitution;
but Will IT be claimed that il President Lincoln
Were living he could be tried for a violation of
honest. If the evil int; MT and motive is alb
sent there can be no crime. With these pre-
limlnary observations be would proceed to
note the articles OF impeachment IS presented
The first eight articles charge but two acts
based upon the removal Of Mr Stanton. III
the President had the right to remove Stanton
and to give letter of authority to Thomas
then those eight articles fall to the ground and
are OF no avail. We therefore have but TIVE
inquiries 10 make-First, Had the President the
night to remove Stanton, and had he the right
no hk lQffQ of fhnrs 10
upon these two questions he proposed to speak
With regard to the first question, he would
view 1t IN the light of the ten of office act
III was claimed on one hand that the law did not
apply TO Mr.. Stanton; and il that is so, then the
President had right to make the removal.
Ihe act was passed March I'd, 1857. Stanton,s
commits sion was dated Jan uary 18th, 1862 and
This commission was given to him by Mr. Lin
coin, TO hold office during the pleasure of the
Presid for the time being. Mr. johnson be-
came President in 1s65, and he has not commits
stoned Mr. Stanton at all, and Stanton there
fore does not come under the terms Of this act
stanton was not appointed at all during tire
current Presidential term. The commission
gays he is appointed for the current term and
Mr. johnson never appointed Mr.. Stanton
and this should settle the question Of Mr.
Jch sons right to make the removal. dead
man Res TO estate, and can have no ONCE. and
II cannot therefore be SAID that he holds the
Office in Mr.. Lincoln's term. He contended
tnst II was was not in the power Of the Congress to
extend the tenure of an Office which was TO he
neid al pressure. Again, ii would be noticed
that the tenure -of-ofice act contained no re-
peaIng clause, and we are therefore AT liberty
TO look back to the provisions of the law Gre
aung the ONCE OF Secretary of War, and under
that law Mr Stanton could only hold his office
during the pleasure Of the President appoint
ing HIM.
At this point Senator Fessenden arose ard
said II was evident that Mr.. Groesbeck was Ia.
boring in speech, and that he had a severe cold,
60 on, il Mr. Groesbeck desired it,
Mr. Groesbeck YVES much obliged to the Sen.
ator, but he had no hope that his bronchial
dimcu1ty would be any better after a dav or
two, and he must therefore beg the attention
OF the Senate, and he would proceed as well .s
he could under his difficulty - - ~
Again referring TO the old law creating the
omce, Mr. Groesbeck read to show thaf the
original bill was enacted by the casting vote Of
John Adams, and that he clearly reco4uixed
the Ffesldent's power Of removal OF an incum-
oent OF the ONCE al his pleasure II he was
rlent IN his view that Mr.. Stanton was not
covered by the law, and that the law OF f7s9
was In force, then what becomes Of the first
eignt articles OF Impeachment Take out
the single question of the power Of the
removal OF Mr.. Stanton from their eight ar
uclee and they have no other support. Suppose
Mr. stanton is within the tenure Of ofioe &c
What thenf Why the question is whether the
he hoDesily believed that Mr. Stantons case
did NOT come within the terms Of the act. This
is not exactly question Of the constitutional.
ity Of this law, but IL Is q question Of the con.
struction Of the act: and In this Senate, among
these Intelligent Senators themselves there ID a
diversity Of opinion, relative to The consxruc.
tton OF mat Act. "A law OF doubtful construc-