TERMS OF PUBLICATION. THE BEDFORD GAZETTE is published every Fri day morning by MEYERS A MINGEL, at $2.00 per annum, if paid strictly in advance ; $2.50 if paid within six months; $3.00 if not paid within six months. All subscription accounts MUST be settled annually. No paper ffill be sent out of the State unless paid for is ADVASCE. and all such subscriptions will invariably be discontinued at the expiration of the time for which they are paid. All ADVERTISEMENTS for a less term than three months TEN CENTS per line for each in sertion. Special notices one-half additional All resolutions of Associations; communications of limited or individual interest, and notices of mar riages and deaths exceeding five line?, ten cents per line. Editorial notices fifteen cents per line. All legal Notices of every kind, and Orphans' Court and Judicial Sales, are required by laic to be published in both papers published in this place. Lir All advertising due after first insertion. A liberal discount is made to persons advertising by the quarter, half year, or year, as follows : 3 months. 6 months. 1 year. ♦Onesquaro - - - $4 50 $6 00 $lO 00 Two squares ... 600 900 16 00 Three squares - - - 8 00 12 00 20 00 Quarter column - - 14 00 20 00 35 00 Half column - - - 18 00 25 00 45 00 One column - - - - 30 00 45 00 80 00 ♦One square to occupy one inch of space. JOB PRINTING, of every kind, done with neatness and dispatch. THE GAZETTE OFFICE has just been refitted with a Power Press and new type, and everything in the Printing line can be execu ted in the most artistic manner and at the lowest rates —TERMS CASH. Is 1 All letters should.be addressd to MEYERS A MEXGEL, Publishers. 2Vttorimts at £au\ S. L. RUSSELL. V J- H. LONGENKCKER. RUSSELL & LOXGENECKER, ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW, BEDFORD. PA., Will attend promptly and faithfully to all busi ness entrusted to their care. Special attention given to collections and the prosecution ot claims for Back Pay. Bounty, Pensions, Ac OFFICE, on Juliana Street, south of the Court House. apra, 67tf J. MCI). SHARPS. E - F - J*®*®* QIIARPE A KERR, ATTORNE\B O AT LAW BEDFORD, PA., will practice in the courts of Bedford and adjoining counties Of- j tiee on Juliana St., opposite the Banking House of Keed A Schell. (March 2,'66. j J. R. DURBORROW. | JOHN LUTZ. DU RBOR RO W A LUT Z, i ATTORNEYS AT LAW, BEDFORD, PA., Will attend promptly to all business intrusted to their care. Collections made on the shortest no ' They are, also, regularly licensed Claim Agents and will give special attention to the prosecution of claims against tho Government for Pensions, .Back Pay. Bounty, Bounty Lands, Ac Office on Juliana street, one door South of the "Mengel House," and nearly opposite the Inquirer office. rOHNP.REED, ATTORNEY AT fj LAW, BEDFORD, PA. Respectfully tenders his services to tho public. Office second door North of the Mengel House. Bedford. Aug, 1, 1861. IJISPY MALSIP, ATTORNEY AT 'j LAW, BEDFORD, PA. Will faithfully and . promptly attend to all business entrusted to his care in Bedford and adjoining counties. Military •laims, back pay. bounty, Ac., speedily collected. Office with Mann A Spang, on Juliana street, t .o doors South of the Mengel House. Jan. 22, 1864, F. If. KIMMELL. | J- W. LtNGENFF.LTKR. KIMMELL A LLNGENFELTER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, BEDFORD, PA., Have formed a partnership in the practice of the Law. Office on Juliana street, two doors South of the 'Mengel House," jr. SPANG, ATTORNEY AT " JR. LAW BEDFORD. PA. Will promptly at tend to collections and all business entrusted to his care in Bedford and adjoining counties. Office on Juliana Street, three doors south of the "Mengel House," opposite tho residence of Mrs. Tate. Msyljl, 1864. B. F. MEYERS j J- W. DICKERSON. MEYERS A DICKEIISON, AT TORNEYS AT LAW, Bedford. Pa., office same as formerjy occupied by lion. S. L Russell, a few doors south ot the Court House, will practice in the several courts of Bedford county. Pensions, bounty and back pay obtained and the purchase and sale of real estate attended to. | may! 1,'86. HAYS IRVINE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Bloody Run, Pa. Office in Harris' New Building. marl 3 68 DR. CHASE'S RECIPES, or Infor mation tor Kveryhoily ."—An invaluable collection of about 800 practical recipes for Mer chants, Grocers. Saloon keepers, Physicians. Drug gists, Tanners, Shoemakers. Harness-makers, Pain ters, Jewelers, Blacksmiths, Titmers. Gunsmiths, Farriers, Barbers, Bakers, Dyers, Renovators, Farmers, and Families Generally. To which has been added a Rational Treatment of Pleurisy, Inflammation of the Lungs and Inflam matory Diseases, and also for General Female Debil ity and Irregularities. The undersigned is agent for Bedford county.— For agencies address L. M. STATLER, apr24tf Stoystown, Pa. TJAILEY, FARRELL A CO., LEAD PIPE, SHEET AND BAR LEAD MANUFACTURERS, ALSO Pig Lead. Iron Pipe, Rubber Hose. Steam Gauges. Whistles and Valves, Iron and Oopper Sinks and Bath' Tubs, Steam Pumps, Farm Pumps and Force Pumps. And every description of goods for WATER, GAS A STEAM. NO. 167 SMITIIFIELD STREET. Send for a Price List. PITTSBURG, PA. apr24'6Byl B.J. WILLIAMS & SONS, . No. 16 North Sixth Street, Philadelphia LARGEST MANUFACTURERS OF VENETIAN BLINDS 'WINDOW SHADES, AT THE LOWEST PRICES Blinds Repaired. Store Shades, Trimmings, Fixtures, Plain Shades ot all kinds. Curtain Cor nices, Pioture Tassels, Oord Bell Pulls, Ac. apr24m2 • D BEER'S warranted fresh and gen uine GARDEN SEEDS, and a full assort ment Spades, Spading Forks, Hoes, Rakes. Shov els, Ac., Ac., oon be bought at HABTLEY A METZGER'SJ very low, for cash. apr3tf IF you want to get the best Reaper, Mower, Grain Drill, or any other Farm Imple ment that is made, am! at the lowest price, always go to HARTLEY A METZGER'S old established agency. As their businsss is a permanent one, they will always keep extras, which may be need ed for any farm implement they sell. [apr3tf S IR JOHN FRANKLIN orCHAM BERSBURU COOKING STOVE —This cele brated stove is now offered to the public by HART LEY" A METZGER, agents for Bedford county, who will always have on hand a full supply, for wood or oo&l. apr3tf 17ULLIES, SHAFTS, Poles, Spokes, ami Hubs, are sold by HARTLEY A METZ GER at manufacturer's prices. apr3tf ITCH ! ITCH !! ITCH !— Scratch! Scratch '. .' Scratch.' '■ .'—ln from 10 48 hour* YVHEATON'S OINTMENT cures THE ITCH. WnBATON'S OINTMENT cures SALT RHEUM. YVHEATON'S OINTMENT cures TETTER. YVHEATON'S OINTMENT cures Barbers' 1 Itch. WHBATON'S OINTMENT cures Old Sores. WHEATON'S OINTMENT cures - Every kind of Humor like Magic. Price. 50 cents a box ; by mail, 60 cents. Ad dress WEEKS A POITER, No. 170 Washington Street, Boston, Mass. For sale by all Druggists sep'2o,"67y I CANCER, SCROFULA, e no crime. Suppose a-President should become deranged, and, while in that condition, should break law after law. You would have no jurisdiction to try him for high crimes and misdemeanors. But let us state another case. President j Lincoln by court martial arrested and imprisoned citizens of the loyal States, and the Supreme Court lias since do- j cided his acts had no warrant in the Constitution ; hut will it he claimed that if President Lincoln were living he could be tried for a violation of law when his intentions and motives were honest ? If the evil intent and motive j are absent there can he no crime. With these preliminary observations, lie would proceed to note the articles of impeachment as presented. The first eight articles charge hut two acts based upon the removal of Mr. Stanton. If the President had the right to remove Stanton and to give a letter of authori ty to Thomas, then these eight arti cles fall to the ground and are of no a vail. We therefore have but two in quiries to make. Ist. Had the Presi- ! dent tiie right to remove Stanton ? and 1 had he the right to issue the letter of authority to Thomas? and upon these two questions he proposed to : peak. j With regard to the first question, he would view it in the light of the Ten ure of Office act itself. It was claimed on one hand that this law did not ap ply to Mr. Stanton, and if this is so, then the President had a right to make the removal. The act was passed on March 3, 18(57. Stanton's commission was dated on January 15th, 18(52, and this commission was given to him by Mr. Lincoln to hold office during the pleasure of the President for the time being. Mr. Johnson became President in 18(55, and lie has not commissioned Mr. Stanton at all, and Stanton there fore does not come under the terms of this act. Stanton was not appointed at,all during the enrrent Presidential term. The commission says he is ap pointed for the current term, and Mr. Johnson never appointed Mr. Stan ton, and this should settle the question of Mr. Johnson's right to make the re moval. A dead man has no estate and can have no office, and it cannot there fore he said that lie holds the office in Mr. Lincoln's term. He contended that it was not in the power of Con gress to extend the term of an office which was to he held at pleasure. Again, it would be noticed that the Tenure of Office act contained no re pealing clause, and we are therefore at liberty to look hack to the provisions of the law creating the office of Secre tsrry of War, and under that law Mr. I Stanton could only hold his office dur ing the pleasure of the President ap | pointing him. At this point Mr. FESSENDEN arose ! and said it was evident that Mr. Groes j heck was laboring in speech, and that j he had a severe cold, and he would , suggest that one of the managers go on, if Mr. Groesbeek desired it. Mr. GROESBECK was much obliged to the Senator, hut lie had no hope that his bronchial difficulty would be aijy better after a day or two, and he must therefore beg the attention of the Sen ! ate, and he would proceed as well as he could under his difficulty. Again referring to Ihe old law crea ting the office, Mr. G. read to show that the original bill was enacted by the casting vote of John Adams, and that he clearly recognized the Presi dent's power of removal of an incum bent of the office at his pleasure. If he was right in his view that Mr. Stan ton was not covered by law, and that the law of 1789 was in force, then what becomes of the first eight articles of impeachmentV Take out the single question of the power of the removal of Stanton from the eight articles, and they have no other support. Suppose Mr. Stanton is within the Tenure of Office act. What then? Why the question is, whether the President was guilty for removing him when he hon estly believed that Mr. Stanton's case did not come within the terms of the act. This is not exactly a question of the constitutionality of this law, hut it is a question of the construction of- the act, and in this Senate, among tiiese intelligent Senators themselves, there is a diversity of opinion relative to the construction of that act. A law of doubtful construction as it is, yet if tlie President construed it differently from the Senate, lie lias been guilty of no crime and of no misdemeanor. It was in evidence before you, Senators, that at a Cabinet meeting the subject was discussed, and the very question of construction came up, and the Presi dent and his Cabinet all agreed upon the construction. But suppose the law does apply to Mr. Stanton, the ques tion still arises whether the conduct of the President was criminal. Ho did not propose to argue now the constitu tionality of the law, hut he would in quire whether in the present aspect of the case the President was guiltless of criminality in removing Mr. Stanton, lie started from the point that the question was at least doubtful. Our Government has been divided into three departments, each independent of the other, and no one department is responsible to the other. All this is clearly set out in the Constitution. At the head of the Executive Department the President of the United States stands, and is sworn to protect and de fend the Constitution of the United States. This is not an oath merely to execute the laws for laws are not nam ed. Of all the officers of the Govern ment the oath to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States is administered to the President alone. In all doubts, in all difficulties, in all trials he must look alone to the Constitution of the United States. The honorable Manager Boutwell said that the President was only the executive officer of Congress; hut he (Mr. Groes beck) did not so interpret the Consti tution. The President was not the mere executive officer of Congress, but he is the head of one of the great co ordinate branches of the Government. Upon this question he took direct is sue with all that the honorable mana ger had said. He here quoted from Mr. Bout well's remarks upon this sub ject, and said the doctrine then enunci ated was the last Congressional theory he had heard. If a law be declared by the Supreme Court unconstitutional, the President dares not execute one jot or tittle of it, and if he executes that law afterwards he violates that higher law, the Constitution of the United States. This then explodes Mr. Bout well's theory that the President must execute all laws. Furthermore, if a law is passed manifestly unconstitutional, the President is not bound to execute that law, and need not await a decision of the Supreme Court. To follow the Constitution is the paramount duty of the President, and to protect the in tegrity of his department is also a du ty. After some further remarks upon this point, Mr. G. saiil he would now proceed to note the question, what was the duty of the President in con sideration of the state of the case, and what was the condition of the quesiion at the time this removal was affected. How stands the judicial question ? We have 110 direct opinion upon this ease, but we have decisions of the Su preme Court bearing upon the points presented in the Ten ure of Office act, and these decisions lie would now refer to. He then read a decision made in 1839 in relation to the power of appoint ment and removal, and which declared that the power of removal was vested alone in the President, although the appointment was made with the ad vice and consent of the Senate. I n this connnection Mr. G. quoted from a de cision previously rendered by Chief Justice Marshall upon this subject of appointment and removal. He also referred to the opinion of Chancellor Kent, who, in treating of the act of 17- 89, held that the power of removal was solely in the President, and all these showed that, doubtful as this question was, it had been practically passed up on. Ho referred then to the initiatory steps taken by the fathers of the coun try to have the rights and powers of the Executive Departments properly defined. At this point, 2.10, Court took a re cess for fifteen minutes. The Court was again called to order at 2.40, and Mr. Ukoesbeck resumed his remarks, and, in referring to the act of 1789, said he did not deem it nec essary to call the attention of the Sen ate at length to the debate upon the subject, for they must have all read the BEDFORD, PA., FRIDAY MORNING, MAY 8, 1868. debates. He thought, however, that the result of the legislation of 1789 was conclusive upon all; that body con sidered that the power of removal was vested absolutely in the President. With all respect to the honorable man ager lie must say that he did not think Mr. Boutwell's conclusions as to the re sult of that debate were at all author ized by the deflates themselves. The only question discussed and set tled in that debate was whether the power of removal was lodged in the President alone or lodged in the Presi dent and Senate, and it was decided that the power was vested in the Pres ident alone. The First Congress passed a number of acts upon this subject and ! among them three Sets establishing j the three Executive departments, and j in the language of Chief Justice- Mar- j shall, it had to avoid such legislation as would make the constitutional inter pretation unstable. These laws were in force to this day. They were pro- j fessedly interpretations of the Consti tution and had been so declared by the j Supreme Court; by all tiie Presidents | since the days of Washington; so de clared by the Congress that passed them, and so declared by all Congress es down to the Thirty-ninth. Mr. Groesbeck then came down nine years later, and reviewed the action of Con- j gross in 1798 when the Navy Depart-1 ment was formed, and when the pow- j or of removal was recognized as in the j President alone. Twenty-seven years later the Postoffice department was or-! ganized and this principle was also: recognized. It was also recognized in the establishment of the Interior de partment in the creation of the Attor ney General's office. All these officials j had taken their commissions for and \ during the pleasure of the President I for the time being. He also cited laws j relating to the appointment of Post- j masters and other subordinate officers j as recognizing this same principle. If; all the laws of Congress were collected ! from 1789 to ISG7 which affirmed the j construction that the President had j the power of removal, they would av erage two or three to each Congress. The law of March, 1807, alone came in to break upon the concurrent chain of constitutional interpretation. But he would ask if human reason might not pause and human judgment, doubt at this time upon this question ? All the Presidents had affirmed this constitu tional interpretation and acted upon it for eighty years; the Supreme Court had affirmed it; thirty-eight Congress es had concurred in it. All this was on the one side of tjje question that the President had the constitutional right to make removals, whiie on the other side there was but the act of one Con gress. Might not, then, human reason pause and human judgment doubt up on the construction ? Was it criminal in the President to stand by that great mass of precedent, and to believe as thirty-eight Congresses had believ ed, and as the Supreme Court had affirmed, that the power of remov al from office was vested by the Constitution in tiie President? That was the question this Court must decide. Did the Senate believe if at the time Andrew Johnson honestly thought that the Constitution lodged the power of removal in the hands of the President, that he is guilty of crime for acting upon" the thought? What should be the effect of the long line of interpretation by every department of the Government? Stability was as much needed in regard to powers not explained in the Constitution as in re gard to those that are explained. If the construction of one of the Presi dent's powers was to he fixed by inter pretation and decision, when was it to he regarded as fixed? In five huiul years? In four hundred years? In one hundred years? All will agree to that. Well, here we have a Constitu tion and an interpretation existing for seventy-eight years, and this should establish it. The Thirty-ninth Con gress alone has given a different in terpretation of the Constitution, lie (Mr. G.) did not propose to institute any comparison between that Congress and the Congresses that had preceded it. He would not say that it was not just as able as any other congress, hut he did say that it was no better. And this brought us down to the question it the Senate would drive the President from office and convict him of crime because he believed as all his predecess ors believed, and as thirty-eight Con gresses believed? Was Mr. Johnson to lie down with his hands upon liis mouth and his mouth in the dust, and he deprived of his just powers; or was he to stand up as the Chief Magistrate of a mighty nation and defend the in tegrity of his Department ? It was for the President to execute laws, to exe cute even doubtful laws; but when lie was called upon to execute a law a gainst which all precedents were array ed, was he not justified in seeking to get a judicial interpretation of the question, and was the Senate to under take to brand bin with criminality he cause he proposed to g.o to the Supreme Court and have the question settled | forever ? Mr. GROESBECK, in continuation, adverted to the fact that the Court had shut out all testimony as to tiie opin ions of the Cabinet upon this question and the advice they gave the Presi dent. Suppose, he said, it had been brought to the attention of Senators that on a serious question like this the President had disregarded the advice of his Cabinet, and in defiance of their wishes lie had acted in the manner he had, can any one doubt that the managers would have put it in evi dence against him, and yet the facts which would have proved just the con trary state of the case, were excluded from testimony. What was Mr. John son's condition in the whole matter? He had a Cabinet officer who was un frendly to him personally and politi cally. All confidential relations be tween them had been broken off, and Mr. Stanton himself had admitted, in a message to Congress, that he had no communication with the* President since August 12, 13G7. He proposed to be an executive department of him self and to carry on his department without even recognizing the name of the President. In that contingency the President communicated with Gen eral Thomas relative to a change in the Department. [Mr. Groesbeek here read General Sherman's testimony to show that the President's sole pur pose was to have the War office well administered.] Resuming, Mr. GROESBECK said a change was necessary because the du ties of the office could not he properly performed while this wrangling was going on. It was the necessity of the cose that impelled Mr. Johnson to act. It is well known that if the President had attempted to get possession of the office by a