Year: 1868

The Senate, sitting for the trial of i'm


peachments, is unques tionably the highest ju-


dicial tribunal of the land. The higher the fri


buna, as we understand, the greater freedom


from the narrowness of strict technical pro


cedrre. The rules relating to the admissible


ity OF evidence, and the methods of its pro-
duction which are enforced in an ordinary
court of law, are chiefly for the purpose of
preventing the unframed minds of an ordi-
nary jury from being diverted from the real
matter at issue, or being unduly influenced
oy testimony of an unimportant or irrelevant
character. The strict rules of pleading are
manly for the purpose of keeping the case
within proper bounds-for narrowing it
down to the exact point in dispute between
the parties. The accuracy to which a prose-
cutting attorney is held in framing an indict-
ment is to protect the accused from all posi-
Die danger of injustice at the hands of an Or
binary court and jury.


The accused does not need all these safe
guards before the Senate of the United States.
theoretically, at least, its members are Sc
lected from "jury list' of MANY millions of
people, on account of their special capability
for this duty of trying impeachments and the
other duties that constitutionally devolve up
on them. They are men who are able to
lofm an opinion of a case presented to them,
without the constant employment of the en-
oarrassing and dlatory machinery of an ine-
rior court. The merits of the case can be
made to appear 10 such body of men in the
most convenient way, without reference to
strict technical accuracy.


Ii this view of the case is at all correct, the
conduct Of the President and his counsel so
far during the impeachment trial will inevi-
tably subject them to the imputation of petit
logging which does not belong to their oppo-
nents. A pettifogger, among his other excel
lencies of character, strives to obscure the
real merits of case by burying them up in
legal formulas. The truth and the right are
sometimes evaded by special pleading and by
taking advantage of microscopic technical ir-
regularities. Delays and vexatious restric-
tlons are insisted upon by the pettilogger,
and he avails himself of all the thimble-rig-
ging devices which seem inseparable from Or
dinary judicial proceedings.


This course is exactly the one adopted
by Messrs. Stanbery & Co. in the great case
OF the People of the United States against
Andrew johnson. The House of Repre-
sentatives has presented the President for
trial before the Senate for the alleged COM
mission of high crimes and misdemeanors.
If he is guilty, and if, as alleged, he is still
animated by criminal impulses and deter
mination to resist the execution of the laws,
1t is due to the country that he should be
deprived of the power to do further mis-
chief at once. If he is innocent, it is due to
the President and to the people alike, that
the proceedings against him shall be as brief
as possible in order that the public interests
may not suffer on account of the diverted
attention of the three great departments of
the government. Having in mind these
considerations the House of Represent
atives embraced in their articles of i'm
peachment only few of the Presidents
crimes which have been held impeachable.
But the managers have been met at every
step by dilatory proceedings. They are held
most rigidly and pertinaciously to the ar
rangements of strict legal formality, And
this is the way in which Andrew johnson
is to be defended, The Senators are to be
treated like petit jury, and the great GRIM
inal allowed to escape, if his counsel can
secure obedience to their requirements, not
because he is innocent, but on some trivial
matter of legal technicalitv There is too
much reason to fear that the Chief Justice
of the United States will cooperate with
the Presidents counsel in their pettifogging,
and the only hope remaining to the people is
in the integrity and patriotism of the Sen