Year: 1868

his trust, and leave to his successor
the performance of duty in which
his Judgment as an individual will
not surrender to his obligations as a
public officer. A willingness to
submit to the penalty prescribed for
violation of the law, may to some
some extent excuse disobedience on
the part of a private citizen, and
at the same time avail nothing to
the public officer. The latter may,
at any time, by resignation, become
a private citizen; but the former
can not become public officer in
this country except by the suffrage
of his fellow citizens. If he accepts
the result of their suffrages he marg-
es his. individuality into that of the
official creature which binds itself
by oath, as an executive officer, to
do that which, as a mere individual,
he may not believe to be just, right
or constitutional. Such an accept
ance removes him from the sphere
Of the right of private judgment to
the place. Of the public officer, and
binds him to obey the law, his
Judgment to the contrary notwith


standing. ....-


The Constitution invests the Pres
ident with executive power in order
that he may take care that the laws
be faithfully executed. Every abuse
of this power, whether, it be an i'm
proper use of it or by neglect, or re-
fusal to exercise, is a breach Of Off
cial duty. But it is not every breach
of official duty that can be charged
as crime or misdemeanor against
the delinquent officer. Whatever
doubt may have arisen in other ca
ses of the criminal character of the
official conduct involved, this one
we are now considering presents no
basis on which to rest a doubt De
liberately the President has violated
penal statute of the United States,
and thereby committed a high mis-
demeanor, which the law says shall
be punished by a fine not exceeding
ten thousand dollars, or by impris-
onment not exceeding five years, or
by both said punisEments, in the dis
cretien of the court. Act Of March
%, 1861 The circumstances at
tendant upon this case show that
the Presidents action was deliber-
ate and willful. There is not a
shade Of excuse or palliation in the
case as it is presented to us. Per


versely he has rushed upon his own
destruction; obstinately he has for
ced upon us an issue which we must
join or prove ourselves unworthy
representatives of II free people
We have not sought this issue, but
have resorted to every legitimate
mans to avoid it. We-have mani
tested no undue desire to exercise
the impeaching power which is vest
ed in this House exclusively by the
express terms Of the Constitution.
Guided by sincere desire to pass
this cup from our lips-determined
not to drink it it escape were not
cut off by the presence of a palpable
duty-we at last find ourselves com
PEELED to tske its very dregs. A de-
cent respect for the Executive office
"a patriotic effort to avoid collision
between the two departments of the
Government ever manifested by this
House, seem to have been most
strangely misunderstood by the
President, Our refusal to abuse the
power or to resort to it even while
q mere doubt as to the right to ex-
ercise it could be urged in opposition
thereto, seems to have been con


strued by him into q license to
trample on even the penal statutes
of the nation. The result is before
US. The President challenges the
supremacy of the law and dishenors
his constitutional obligation to take
care that the laws be faithfully exc
cuted. Substantially he affirms thai
the oath of Office may be qualified
by the conclusions Of his private
judgment. He defiantly casts before
the representatives OF the people his
gage aud declares that he will de
eide what laws are constitutional


and that such only as stand the tes


of his judgment will he respect, en-


force or obey.


This is his case and he has elected
to base it on a penal statnte. 1t i:
for us to traverse this case and pu


it to the country. Anything less
than this would be shameful abuse
of high trust and criminal abandon


ment Of duty. To my charge shall


neither of these offenses be placed.


Mr.. Speaker, it has been urged il
this debate that the Presidents soil
Objects to secure judgment of th'
courts as to the constitrtionality o


the act regulating the tenure of Ger
tain civil officers. Such an inten


will not justify the commission of


high crime or misdemeanor. Sup
}. pose the courts should hold the ac


to be constitutional, would the fac


that his intent was to have that ques


ton decided be q good plea to al
!, indictment for a violation Of its pro


visions? Who is so insane as t.


assert SO preposterous a PROPOSE


tion? Who ever acts in the way


and for the purpose suggested, doe


it at his peril. The risk belongs t.


the President in this case, not tn
law. The plea in his defense wa


not the result Of inudvertance o
mistaken Judgment. 1t is that wit
calculation and deliberate purpose
he committed a high misdemeano
in order to secure judgment of th
courts. Sir, we will crafty his de
I sire by referring his case to the high
est tribunal known to the Constitu
ton Of the Republic-the hig
! ea...4 &c t. .I4 ~,