Year: 1868

IEACLuEUL ElACLGDl. anu Ak0 10 BD4lAlA ~
execute that which the law-making
power DEGREES to be the law of the
land. Whatever may be his opinion
as a mere Individual member of the
national family, he is bound to yield
to that higher duty which the Con-
stitutiOn imposes upon him as an Of
! ficer of the State. If his conscience
fOrbids, he may resign the trust, but
he has no right to retain the power
of public Office and subordinate that
to the judgment of a mere individu-
al member of the community or ma
. ton which has clothed him with the
executive power for the enforcement
of its laws. AS a public officer, no
such plea can be properly entered in
his behalf, because he is not only
sworn to execute the law, but possess
es the right of resignation. If his
conscience viii not permit him to eX-
ecute a given law, he may resign his
trust, and leave to his successor the
j performance Of a duty which his
i judgment as an individual will not
surrender to his obligations as a pub
lie officer. A willingness to submit
to the penalty prescribed for a viola
ton of the law, may to some extent
excuse disObedienee 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 resig-
nation, become a private citizen; but
the former can not become a public
officer in this country except by the
suffrage Of his fellOw-citizens. If he
accepts the result of their suffrage he
merges 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 acceptance
removes him from the sphere Of the
right Ofprivate judgment to the place
of the public officer, and binds him to
obey the law, his judgment to the
contrary Notwithstanding.


The Constitution invests the Presi-
dent with executive power in order
that he may take care that the laws
he faithfully executed. Every abuse
of this power, whether it be an i'm
proper nse Of it or by neglect, or refus-
\ al to exercise, Is a breach of official
duty. But it is not every breach of
official duty that can be charged as
crime or misdemeanOr against the de-
linquent officer. Whatever doubt
may have arisen in other cases of the
criminal character in the official con-
duct involved, this one we are now
considering presents no basis on which
to rest a doubt. Deliberately the
President has violated a penal statute
of the United States, and thereby COM
mitted a high misdemeanOr, which
the law says shall be punished by a
! fine not exceeding ten thousand dol
lars, or by imprisonment not exceed
ing five years, or by both said pun


shments, in the discretion of the
court, (Act of March % 1867 The
circumstances attendant upon this
case show that the Presidents action
was deliberate and wilIful. There is
not a shade of excuse or palliatiou
in the case as it is presented to US.
Perversely he has rushed upon his
own destruction; Obstinately he has
forced upon US an issue which we
must join, or prove ourselves un-
worthy representatives of a free peo-
pie We have not sought this issue,
but have resorted to every legitimate
means to avoid it. We have mani
tested no undue desire to exercise the
impeaching power which is vested in
this House exclusively by the express
terms of the Constitution. Guided
by a sincere desire to pass this cup of
bitterness from our determined
not to drink it if escape were not cut
off by the presence. ola palpable duty
we at last find ourselves compelled
to take its very dregs. A decent re-
spect for the executive Office, a patri-
otic effort to avoid collision between
the two departments of the Govern
ment, ever manifested by this House,
seem to have been most strangely
misunderstood by the President. Our
refusal to abuse the power or to re-
sort to it even while mere doubt as
to the right to exercise it could be
urged i'm opposition thereto, seems to
have been construed by him into a
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 dishon-
Ors his constitutional obligation to
take care that the laws be faithfully
executed. Substantially he affirns
that the oath of Office may be quail
fed by the conclusions of his private
Judgment. He defiantly casts before
the representatives of the people his
gauge and declares that he will decide
what laws are constitutional, and that
such only as stand the test of his
Judgment will he respect, enforce or
obey.


This is his case and he has elected
to base it on penal statute. 1t is for
US to traverse this case and put it to
the country. Any thing less than this
would be a shamful abuse of high
trust and criminal abandonment of
duty. To my charge shall neither Of
these offences be placed.


Mr.. Speaker, it has been urged in
this debate that the Presidents sole
object is to secure a judgment of the
courts as to the constitutiOnality Of
the act regulating the tenure Of GER
tain civil officers. Such an intent
will not Justify the commission of
high crime or misdemeanOr. Sup
pose the courts should hold the act to
be constitutional, would the fact that
his intent was to have that question
decided be a good plea to an indict-
ment for a violation of its provisions?
Who is so insane as to assert so prepOs-
terOus proposition? Whoever acts in
the way, and for the purpose suggest
ed, does at his peril. The risk be-
longs to the President in this case,
not to the law. The plea in his de-
fence was not the result of inadver-
tence or mistaken Judgment. 1t is
that with calculation and deliberate
purpose, he committed high misde-
meanor in order to secure a judgment