Year: 1868

a Question Answered.


The Gazette puts a very plain qaes-
ton to rs, namely, Whether we believe
the President, or any other government
official, or any otherIman, has right 10
violate law which he assumes to be
unconstitutional Taking the ques-
ton in the direct form ia which 1T IS
put, we answer, No, we do not. At the
same time. if the President, or any
other official, or any other man, be-
lieves law to be unconstitutional,
We should hesitate to say that he has
not the right to set in operation such
a train of causes or circumstances as
will raise an issue for judicial determl-
nation and decision. For instance, the
Ohio Legislature has just passed law
disfranchising persons having visible
mixture of African blood: If such d
person offers to vote, believing the law
unconstitutional, he does so knowing
the act to be in violation of law. Should
his vote be accepted he would be sub
ject to arrest and Imprisonment under
the law. But he lhight do it for the
purpose of testing the validity of the
law, and we should not hesitate TO de-
fend his conduct. He seeks to recover
a right of which he believes the Legis-
lature to have unjustly and unconstltu-
tionally deprived him.


The President, through his counsel,
asserts that this was his motive in is
suing the order removing Mr.. Stanton
and the commission appointing General
Thomas Secretary of War, qd interim.
He did not, perhaps, pursue the
wisest course, and certainly made
very infelicitous selection of a
successor. But that does not affect the
real issue. We have no sympathy for
Mr.. johnson. He has been unfaithful
to party, unfaithful to his professions
unfaithful to his friends. He is a mar
row, obstinate, foolish old man, and his
administration has been An unquestion-
able calamity to the whole country. 1t
was mainly to the fact that his profess
sions are not to be trusted, that he is
deceitful and treacherous, and that the
people have lost faith in him, that the
charge of of an intention to seize the
War Office by force, with an ulterior
purpose of intimidating Congress by a
show of military violence, was accepted
as possibly true, and at least as worthy
of investigation.


But the President has all along dis
claimed any such intention, and de-
clared that his very purpose was to
bring the law into court, and, If posi-
BILE, recover an Executive prerogative
Of which he believed himself unjustly
and unconstitutionally deprived by the
Tenure of office Act. All that we have
claimed for the President was that, on
the trial, he should be allowed to intro
duce evidence going to show his intent;
and, ihasmnch as the Senate is the jury
to determine the value of the evidence,
we believed, as matter of policy, no
harm could result even were evidence
of declarations after the act, admitted.


The Gazette is aware that an unceas-
ing clamsr has been kept mp, since the
trial commenced, by the friends of the
President and the Democratic press,
that the case was predetermined, and
that it was not the intention to give
Mr.. Johnson fair hearing. We are ap-
prehensive that the temper displayed
by the Managers in conducting the case,
and some of the rulings of the Senate
Oh the admissability of evidence, give
sufficient color to the accusation to make
it available for partisan purposes.
When, as is inevitable, the case comes
to be tried over before the people, we
could wish the Republican party to be
in such position as not to be embar-
rassed by this charge and the too-a -abun-
dant proof substantiating it to be found
in the proceedings of the trial. All the
circumstances considered, we should
prefer that the Senate, in its desire to
impartially and fairly try the case,
should err upon the side of liberality,
rather than give O shadow of offence i'll
the other direction.


In expressing what we have had to
say on this subject, we may have failed
TO make ourselves perfectly understood,
and therefore set down our cOtempOr-
ary's misconception of what we have
said rather to our infelicity of language
than TO desire on its part TO place us
in q false position. But we can not
agree with our cotemporary that there
has been too great latitude given to the
defence. AS to the Presidents respon-
sibility for the defeat of the Recon-
struction Laws and the anarchy that
prevails in the South, all that the Ga
zette alleges may be true. But the
President, it is sufficient to say, is not
upon trial for that. 1t forms no part of
the articles of impeachment. If it is
upon that ground the Gazette would
have him turned out of office, it should
bring its guns to bear upon the Mana
gers for their failure to make it part
of the indictment. That is all.