Year: 1868

From the New York Journal OF Commerce


February a. independently


II must be evident to every candid OBJ
server that the Congressional party has
made a great mistake in forcing the issue
upon the particular point now most prom
inently 10 dispute. 1t is altogether the
weakest part of their whole case, and the
President has shown no little shrewdness
in selecting Mr. Stanton as the object ofat-
tack In the first place the general public
feel no personal sympathy for Mr.. Stanton.
Inscriptions, Overbearing, double-faced,
and greedily selfish, even the Radicals dis
like and mistrust him. Nor have those
who defend the tenure of office act any
strong ground to stand upon ia its support.
Its constilutionality is, to say the least,
very doubtful, and hence they are afraid TO
submit it TO the courts. All other consid-
erations are alike against it. Every one
must confess that it seems a great hardship
to insist that the President may not select
his own Cabinet, nor change those of his
constitutional advisers whose opinions are
directly adverse to the principles he is en-
deavoring TO establish and maintain. Fs-
pecially will the people sympathize with
him in this struggle TO free himself from
an obnoxious adviser, when it is remem-
bered that the Secretary he would displace
was not one of his own appointment, but
came TO him as a legacy from former in
cumbent Of the Office to which he has suc-
ceeded.


From the N. Evening Post, Feb. "a, radical.


But, having vetoed the bill, the Presi-
dent exhausted his constitutional remedies
against II, in every respect, save one. He
may test his difference of opinion with the
Congress by an appeal TO the only remain
ing department of the government. whose
appropriate function it is to determine the
validity of conflicting laws-the Judiciary.
Congress cannot we think, by any words
OF a law ITSELF or by any other device, de-
prlve him OF this privilege of self-defense
1t is due to the independence of his Office,
and TO his official oath, " to preserve, pro
tect and defend" the integrity of the CON
stitutiOn, that he should have the right TO
invoke the shelter and support of the Su-
preme Court. His proper mode of pro-
eeedIng was to apply for writ of quo
wd5TaHto against Mr.. Stanton, compelling
him TO show cause why he had undertaken
the duties OF an Office 10 which he was not
called by the usual authority. But the
President has taken another course, not so
regniar and not very courteous, but which
hardly changes the merits of the case


If the President in the removal of the
Secretary of War acted merely with the in
tent OF bringing the law before the courts,
he was right hut If he acted with view,
or shall act with view, of asserting his
own Interpretation of The law by force he
is not in his right, and will not be upheld
by public opinion. In the former case, we
hardly ace how be is liable 90 impeach-
ment; he is not opposing the law with a
view of annulling it, but with a view to
testing it; and while he confines his hos
tility to this limit he il at the most hut
technically guilty of breach of its pro-
visions. lf the courts should decide that
the law is unconstitutional, there is an end
to his ofense; but if they shonld decide
that it is constitutional, it will be time
enough then for Congress to inquire into
the nature and degree of his oiiense.


From the New York Sun, Feb. oath, (Repub-


lcnn)


So far as We can perceive, he has not
committed any overt act of a character
sufficiently fragrant to justify his condem-
nation and expulsion from office and until
he has gone as far as this, it is at least in
expedient to bring him to trial. For i'm
peachment is not properly political pro-
ceeding. II is most serious method for
correcting the most serious wrongs; and
il should never be undertaken unless the
cause be unquestionable, the evidence
ample, the law clear, and conviction GER
tain. Abova oil tho praai1apt o,,rbt not
TO he impeached so long as there is any
possible doubt as TO the eonstitutionality OF
the law he has sought to have transgressed.
That question is now in the way of being
settled by the courts; and at least till their
decision is rendered, we trust no conclu.
sive action will be taken in Congress.