Year: 1868

Judge Curtiss citations of historical precc-
dents on the second day of his argument wero
somewhat incongruous Because Secretary
Floyd and others resigned while the Senate
was in session, and before the Tenure-of-O Office
law was passed, does it follow that after the
| law to prevent removal from Office was enacted
Secretaries could be removed with impunlty ]
Having argued so clearly on the first day that
the President was innocent because bis attempt
to remove Stanton had failed, why did Judge
Curtis spoil the point by arguing on the second
day, to justify the appointment OF Thomas, that
the Presidents letter created vacancy whether
Stanton obeyed it or not.


His point that the law against conspiracics
Gin any State or Territory of the Union" docs
not apply to the President, because he resides
i'm the District of Columbia, is a new way of
proving an alibi-by admitting the presence of
the criminal and the perpetration OF the crime,
but pleading the absence of the statute, which
was Just across the Potomac-law for Arlington
Hights but not for the White House The
smallest point President ever attempted to
escape upon is the question whether tho word
Territory in statute should be spelled with a
"T" or "t.n If with q capital, then the
President is innocent but if with little t.
then he is guilty, for the District of Columbia
is certainly territory" though not "Terri-
toryr of the United States.


The effort to justify Thomas's acceptance of
the Office by Grants acceptance of it during
the recess of the Senate, and when nominated
in compliance with the Tenure-of- Office law is
ridiculous. The simple difference is Grant
obeyed the law, Thomas deiied it.


Judge Curtis could not avoid bringing out
plainly in his speech the fact that the President
ordered Thomas to take possession Immediately;
that the next step taken was to send for Gen.
Emory, commanding the troops at Washington;
and that not until he informed the President
distinctly that he would obey no orders for
troops unless they came through Gen. Grant,
was the design to use force abandoned.


If Judge Curtis thinks it incongruous for the
very House whom the President denounced to
impeach him for doing so, and for the very
Senate whom he denounced to try him for do
ing so, on the ground that they are interested
parties, how much stronger would the interest
and the incongruity be if the President had
turned Congress out of doors, as The NelC- York
Herald advised him TO do, or hung Sumner,
Stevens, and several members Of both Houses,
as he asked the mob to do, when swinging
around the circle Evidently then, according
to Judge Curtis, they could not have tried
him at all The pretense that the i'm
peachment of the President for his incendiary
and revolutionary language is Furnishing "free-
dom of speech" il absurd. Impeachment is
not mode of punishment, but a means of Sc
curity and of avoiding political maladmnistra-
| ton. The grounds on which the President
stands impeached are his misdemeanors of the
past three years. But the motive and effect of
| impeaching them are not to punish those acts,
but to secure the country against similar or
worse misgovernment during the next year.
The Constitution leaves to the Courts tho pun
isment of the acts for which President may
be removed and Congress will leave their pun
ishment to the tribunal of public opinion and
4, impartial history.