Year: 1868

with much tact, mainly to the important work
of getting his audience into a good humor
with himself, and, incidentally, with his client.
Apart from the success won by his humorous
illusions, Mr.. Evarts's speech could have
produced no novel impression. The Ia
milar points were doubtless well presented,
but to do no more in the present stage Of the
trial is to follow in q beaten path. Mr.. Evarts
argued that those grounds Of impeachment
which had been once considered by the House
and abandoned could not now be reconsidered.
Where the President pleads innocence of intent,
it is surely admissible to show that the acts for
which he stands impeached are the culmina-
ton of a long and persistent disobedience OF
all unwelcome laws, and contempt for
all restraining authority. Behind, every crime
stand the antecedents of the criminal The
former cannot be fairly judged without the
letter. The gathering storm OF impcaci-
ment was rising, and its preliminary
flashes and threatenings were seen and
heard for two years before the tempest
finally burst over the Presidents head. The
XXXIXth Congress expired, believing that
Andrew Johnson deserved Impeachment, but
preferring that a new Congress should be
elected with that issue distinctly before the
people The XLth Congress, accordingly, con
sists of men, the majority of whom stand cX-
pressly instructed by their constituents to
resist the encroaclments of Andrew Johnson,
and, if need be, to impeach and remove him
from Office Because Congress has proceeded
to mpeach HIM only after the causes which
Justify impeachment have been fagrantly and
often repeated, it does not lie in the mouth ol
Mr.. Evartsl 10 ignore history, and claim that
his client shall be regarded in the same light
As if the violation of the Tenure of Office act
were his first otiense If we are to accept the
vote of the House on the former occasions,
when they refused to impeach as conclusive
that the President was innocent, by the same
rule we must accept its subsequent vote, when
it did impeach. as conclusive that the Pres
ident is guilty.


If Mr.. Evartss argument be good, ithat the
removal of Stanton did not endangcr the pub
lie safety, and was therefore proper, then the
removal of the President which is essential to
the public safety, is far more proper. Mr. stan
ton had committed no oliense. The Presidents
only excuse for desiring TO remove him was
that he disliked him. If the inability of supe-
rior officers to preserve harmonious relations
with their subordinatcs is a good reason why
the latter should be removed. II Is a sufficient
reason why Congress should remove Andrew
johnson. He stands in the same relation to
Congress as Stanton does To him. Ii has
been his duty To obey Congress rs IT
was the duty of Stanton to obey him. The
power by which he would remove Stanton Is
conveyed lin the Constitution only 10y implica-
ton and is shared with the Senate. while the
power by which Congress should remove him
is conveyed expressly and absolutely. Stanton
has offended the President only by loyalty
TO law. The President has offended Congress
by crimes and msdcmeanors. Harmony be-
tween Congress and all the officers and depart
partments of the Government is far more inn
portant than harmony between the President
and single officer Every reason OF public
welfare which can he urged for the removal of
Stanton is a far more powerful argument for
removing the President


Mr. Evarts reiterates the exploded pretensc
that the President designed only TO test the
constitutionality of the law. Had this been
true, Gen. Thomas would not have been 50
determined that Secretary Stanton should obey
the order of removal. TO test the law it was
as necessary that Stanton should disobey his
order as that Mr.. Johnson should issue it. For
if Stanton had quietly gone out Of office, there
would have been no opportunity to test the
law. 1t would have been simply nulhiied
All the facts show that this plea is an insincere
afterthOught.


Mr. Evarts holds of course, that II is the
duty of the President 10 disObey a law in order
to test its consttutionality. However this may
be- he who disobeys laws to test their constl-
tutionality must expect to endure the penalties
they impose if the proper tribunal decides the
law to be constitutional. Mr.. Evarts declares
that "evils and dissensions always result from
"the accession TO the Presidency of one BOS
elected by the people and destitute of per
sonal and political support" We have found
that to be lamentably true in the case of An
drew Johnson, who was lifted into the Pfcsi-
dency by assassination. Bu5 in such case the
constitutional mode of getting an acceptable
in place of mischevous President is exactly
that which Congress is now pursuing.


1t is also argued that the President ought not
to be convicted and removed by Congress be-
cause the majority who remove him are his
political opponents 1t should be remembered
however, that it was upon this very principle
and duty of opposing the Presidents usurpa-
tions that the present Congress was elected.
They are doing precisely what the people
elected them to do. IL is the Presidents blum
ders which have caused the majority in Con-
gress to be his political opponents. Three
years ago they were his friends. If Andrew
Johnson commits crimes and blunders which
unite the people in hostility to him, and cause
thnnn 70 donaand hia rnmoual fhat is cnrta ainlu