Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-05-05

nue. the acquiescence Of the American
people to the unconstitutional and iniqui-
tous fugitive slave law until its abnoga-
ton. In this connection he dWelt at length
on the subject Of slavery, with its various
characters. He spoke Of the counsers in
reference to President Lincoln that he
had violated the laws of his country, and
furnished many precedenis for President
JohnsOn's crimes, az bold, eliminating
ISLANDERS on his memory; that the snspen
sion Of the habeas corpus was not
made but by the civil war, which
rendered it necessary. In regard to
the passage Of the indemnity act, he said
the purpose of Congress in such legisia-
ton was to furnish authority 10 the courts
to dismiss cases brought against the Presi-
dents agents for what they had done, in
pursuance Of the Constitution il their acts
had been unwarranted TIE indemnify laws
would have been Of no avail
At this point the Senate took the usual
recess.
On reassembling Mr.. 3. resumed, aud re-
ferred to the argument of Mr.. Evarts, based
on the successful resistance to the brokers'
tax Law in New York as an insult 70 the
Senate, and said, that one capable Of max
ing it was not fit 10 argue grave laws, and
in short, he could destroy the framework
of our constitutional government, but
whether he shall be allowed 10 DO this is
the question now to be determined, and for
righteous decision the prayers Of millions
now ascend to the throne on high. As TO
what crimes can be considered impeacha-
BILE, he said all the ofenses under the COM
mon law are indictable in the District Of
Columbia, and the same class are also inn
peachable. II this proposition were not
self evident, he need not argue it. As to
the offenses specified in the articles, he
said no one could deny that the open yio-
lation of law by the President was an inn
peachable crime. He said the defense of
the President, as exhibited in his answer,
rests on the assumption that he possesses
the right TO resist and bring to judicial de-
cision any law which he supposes to trench
upon his constitutional prerogatives. This
assumption could be made pretext for re-
fusing to execute any law. Referring to the
position assumed on this question by Mr..
Evarts, he read from pamphlet written by
Mr.. Curtis in 1862, the expression of a con-
tray view, which he commended as good
law. He went on TO assert that no man
who did not admit the assumption that the
President possessed judicial as well as eX-
ecutive powers could deny his written or
ders could show clearly his viol alton of
law and prove him worthy of conviction.
Mr.. Bingham then cited legal authorities
to show that a warrant and proof of evil
intent are not necessary in proceedings
against any class of persons, except judi
cial officers, and in their case alone
can ignorance of the law be admit
ted as an excuse. With regard to
the defense that the President suspended
Mr.. Stanton under the Constitution, and
supplied the vacancy under the law 1875,
he claimed the Presidents answer showed
a violation Of the laws, for that limited
the tenure of such APPLICATIONS six months
and the President appointed Gen. Thomas
for an indefinite period. He then spoke
Of the argument that a President il bound
to intervene to protect the people from the
unconstitutional laws, and said it was a
falaeious position. The people are guardi-
ans OF their own honors, and Congress- is
responsible to them. At this point he
yielded to the motion to adjourn the
court, and the Sente adjourned accordingly
at fifty minutes past three.