Daily evening bulletin. (Philadelphia, Pa.) 1856-1870, March 31, 1868, Image 2

Ti 4 14.; IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
OPEWO ARGUMENT. OP AM. XIVTLKII, OP 3iAB4ACIIII
- BpaTl4, ONEO TOE IMNAGILIEd ON TUB iIdPEACIIMLN r
OP TUB PRE,IDENT. • •
M. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN or TUE ` SENATE:
" The onerous duly has fallen to my fortune to present
to yen, imperfectly as I must, the eeveinal propositions
Of fact aria of law upon which the House of Repre
eentatives will endeavor to sustain the cease of the
people against the President of the United Btates,now
-pending at your bar
The bleb station of
the accuSedi - thetioveltyrof the
proceeding, the gravity of the boldness, the import
ance of the questions to be presentee to your adj adt
cation, the possible momentoue result or the issues,
each and all intuit plead for me to claim your atten
tion for as long a time as your patience may endure.
Now, for the first time in the history of the world,
bits anatlon brought before its highest tribunal tte.
Chid Executive Magistrate for trial and possible sirs-
from office, upon charges of maisdnen smi
tten of the powers and duties of that office. In other
time., and in other lands, it has been found that de
positions could only be tempered by assassination, and
nations living under constitutional goverrim.ints even,
have found no mode by which to rid themselves of
a tyrannical, imbecile, or faithless ruler, a ive by over
turning the very-foundation and frame work of the
government itself. And, but recently, in one of the
most civilized and powerful governments of the
world, from whic our own institutions have been
largely modeled. have seen a nation submit for
years to the rule of an insane king,because its constitu
tion contained no method for his removaL
Onr fathers, more wisely, founding our goveiErnent,
have provided for such and 'all similar exigencies a
conservative, effectual, and practical remedy by the
constitutional provision that the "President, 'Vice -
President, and all civil officers of the United States
0110 be removed from office on impeachment, for and
conviction of treason. bribery, or other high , crimes
and miedemeanors." The Constitution leaves nothing
to implication, either as to the persons upon whom,
or the body by whom, or the tribunal before which, or
the offenses for which, or the manner in which t his
high power ehould be exercised; each and all are pro
vided for by express words of imperative corn' and
The House of Representatives shall solely impeach;
the Senate only shall try: and in case of conviction
the judgment shall alone be removal from office and
disqualification for office, one or b. th. Three manda
tory provisions became neceesary to adapt a well.
known procediire of the mother country to the few i
tutions of the then infant republic. BM a single in
cident only Of the business was left to construction,
and that 'concerns ' l the offenses or incapacities whtca
are the groundworikof impeachment. This was wise
ly done, because human foresight is inadeuuate, nud
human intelligence falls in the task of anticipating
and providing for, by positive enactment, all the in
finite gradations of a human wrong and sin, by which
thehhertles of a people and the safety of a nation
may be endangered from the imbecility, corruption
and unhallowed ambition of its rulers. '
It inay not be uninstractive to obaerve that the
framers of the Constitution, while engaged in their
glotions; and I trust, ever-enduring work, had their
attention aroused and their minds quickened most
signally upon this very topic. In, the previous sear
only Mr. Burke, from his place in the House of Com-
MIMS, in-England; had preferred charges for impeacu
ment against Warren Hastings, and three days before
our conventionsat he was impeached at the bar of the
House of Lords for misbehavior in office as she ruler
of a peoole when numtera were counted by millions.
The mails were then bringing across the Atlantic,
week by week, the eloquent accusations of Berke, the
burning denunciations of Sheridan, in behalf of the
oppressed people of India. against one who had wield
ed over them more than regal power. May it not have
been that the trial then in progress was the determin
ing cause why the framers of the Constitution left the
description of offenses, because of which the conduct
of an officer might be inquired of, to be defined by the
laws and usages of Parliament as found iu the pre
cedents of the mother country, with which our fathers
were 8, familiar as we are with our own ?
In the light, therefore, of these precedents, the
question arises, what are impeachable offenses under
the provisions of our Constitution ?
To analyze, to compare,to reconcile theseprecedents,
is a work rather for the closet than the forum. In
order, therefore, to spare your attention, I have pre
ferred to state the result to which I have arrived, and.
that you may see the authorities and dlscrissions,buth
in this country and in England,from which we deduce
our propositions, so far as applicable to this case, I
pray leave to lay before you, at the close of my argu
ment, a brief of alt the precedents and auth unities
upon this subject, in both countries, for which I am
indebted to the exhaustive and learned limbers of my
friend, the Hon. William Lawrence, of Ohio, member
of the Judiciary Committee of theßouse of Repre
sentatives, in which I fully concur and which I adopt.
We define, therefore, an impeachable high crime
or misdemeanor to be one in its nature or consequen
ces initiversive of some fundamental or essential prin
ciple of government, or highly prejudicial to the pub
lic interest, and this may consist of a violation of the
Constitution, of law, of an official oath, or of duty,
by an act committed or omitted, or, without violating
a poeitive law, by the abuse of discretionary powers
from improper motives, or fur any improper purpose.
. The first criticism which will strike the mind on a
cursory examination of this definition is, that some of
the-enumerated acts are not within the common-law
definition of crimes. It is but common learning that
in the English precedents the words "high crimes and
misdemeanors" are universally need: but any malver
sation in office, highly prejudicial to the publid inter
est, or subversive of some fundamental principle of
government by which the safety of a people may be in
danger, is a high crime against the nation; as the term
is used in parliamentary law.
Hallam, in his Constitutional His , Ory of England,
certainly deduces this doctrine from the precedents,
and especially Lord Denby, case 11, State Trials, 600,
of which he says:
The Commons, in impeaching Lord Denby, went a
great way towards establishing the principle that no
minister can shelter himself behind the throne by
pleading obedience to the orders of his sovereign. He
is answerable for the justice, the honesty, the utility
of all measures emanating from the Crown, as well as
for their legality; and thus the executive admitestra
tion is, or ought to be, subordinate in all great initters
of policy to the superintendence and virtual control of
the two boasts of Parliament.
Mr. Christian, in hia notes to the commentaries of
Blackstone, explains the collocation and use of the
words crimes and miedameanore" by eayins:
When the words "high crimes and misdemeanors"
are ti Bed in prosecutions by impeachment, the words
• 'high crimes" have no definite signification, but are
need merely to give greater so enmity to the eburg...
like interpretation must have been given by the
framers of the Constitution, because a like definition
to aura was in the mind of Madison, to whom more
than to any other are we indebted for the phraseolo ,, y
of our Oonstitutipn, for in the first Congress, wheu
sllsetisOng • the pp w to remove an officer by the Prqs.
ident, which is one pi the very material questions be
fore the Senate at this moment, he uses the UP) wing
words:.
The danger consists mainly in. this: That the Pres
ideut'can displace from office a man whose inerlrs re
quire be should be continued in It. In the first place,
he will be impeachable by the house for such an act of
maladministration, for I contend that the wanton re
moval of meritorious ofilcers would subject him t ) im
peachment and removal from his own high trust.
Strengthening this view, we find that within ten
yearsafterwarde,impeachment was applied by the very
men who framed the Constitution to the acts of pub
lic (Accra, which under no common law definition
could be justly called crimes or misdemeanors, either
high or low. Leaving, however, tho correctness of
our proposition to be sustained by the authorities we
furnish, we are naturally brought to the consideration
of the method of the proceednre, and the nature of the
proceediugs in Cases of impeachment, and the charac
ter and powers of the tribunal by which high crimes
and misdemeanors are to be adjudged or determlued.
One of the Impudent questions which meets us at
the Ontset is, Is this proceeding a trial, as 'that term
is understood so far as relates to the rights and duties
of a court and jury upon an indictment for crimes? Is
it not rather more in the nature of an inquest of
office? '
The Constitution seems to have determined it to be
the latter, because, under its provisions the rights to
retain and hold office its the only subject that can be
finally adjudicated; all preliminary inquiry being car
ried.en solely to determine that question; and that
alone.
All investigations of facts are in some sense trials,
but not in the, sense in which the word is used by
courts.
Again, as a correlative question—
Is this body, now sitting to determine the accusa
tion of the House of Representatives against the Prise -
'dent of the United States, the Senate of the Milted
Stater, or a coast?
I trust, Mr. President and Senators, I may be par
doned fur making some suggestions upon these topics,
because to us it 'seems these are questions not of
forme, but of substance. If this body here is a court
in any manner as contra-distingatehed from the Sea
ate, then we agree that many, if not all the analogies
of the procedures of courts must obtain; that the
common-law incidents of a trial in court must have
place; that you may be bound in your proceedings and
adjudication by the roles and precedents of the com
mon or statute law; that the interest', bias or precon
ceived opinions or afilnitiee to the party, of the
judges, may be open to inquiry, and even the rules of
order and precedents in courts should have effect;
that thenumagers of the louse of Representati ves
must conform to those rates as they would be appli
cable to public or private proseeatoris of crime in
courts, and that Ile accused may claim the beneat ot
the rule in criminal cases, that he may only be con
victed when the evidence makes the fact clear beyond
reasonable doubt, instead of by a preponderance of
the evidence.
We claim and respectfully theist that this tribunal
has none of the attributes of a judicial court, as they
are commonly received and understood. Of course,
this question must be largely determined by the ex
press provisions of the Constitution, and in it there is
no word, as is well known.to yoo, Senators, which
givee the slightest coloring to the bins that ,thie is a
(Knot, gave that in the trial of this particulax respond
ent, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must ore
side. lint even this pn,vision can have no deterroln
ingeffeet upon the question, bemuse, in not tuts the
same.tribunal ha all its powers, incidents and dunes,
sdienther civil'ofticere are brought to itebar for trial,
when' be Vico-President (( riot a jud'cial o ffi cer) must
peel gCan,tt be contended for a moment that this
fe thoWBtateAtd the 'United states when sittincon the
illo
trial abnlMr offtekra. and a court only w 'en the
PlefliillBl4lllltilthe ber i asolely twause in this ease, the
ritrfe)sil 'lO
"iivekre bsfl
eitoto ill II) 12').41
670 V.C14,57 Ti
Constitution has designated the Chief Justice as the
presidia g r Meer?
The tact that Senators acre sitting for this purpose
.00 oath or affirmation, does' not influence the argu
ment, because it is well tinders odd that thiS was buts
_enbelitate , ler the oh iirallon of: honor under which.
hy the thy rv, entire Baverreeikihititatioo, the peers of
Beg and werestiPpbsed tO sit in like cases. '' '.
a peer of angland makes answer Ina court of chea
t My up n heater, when a common person must an
menu, n oath. But our fathersi, sweeping away all
diet inction er or caste, require every malts ike, acting
in a solemn proceeding like this, to take sheath. Our
--renstlintion holdsallarood nien:alikejtOnerrable,.and
entitled to boner.
The idea that this tribunal was a court seethe to
have c.ept in because of the analogy to similar pro-.
ccet loge in trials before the Donee of oords
Analogies have ever been found deceptive and
illusory. Before such analogy Is invoked we must
net forget that the Houses of Parliament at first, and
latterly the House of Lords, claimed and exercised
jurisdiction over all crimes,. even where the punish
ment extended to life and limb. fly express provision
of our Constitution all such jurisdiction hi taken from
the Senate, and "the judicial power of the United
States is vested in one Supreme Court. and such in
, ferior courts as from time to time Congress may or
dain and establish " We suggest, therefore, that
we are in the presence of the Senate 'of the United
States, convened as a constitutional tribunal, to in
qbire into and determine whether Andrew Johnson,
because of malvereatlon in office, is longer fit to re
tain the office of President of the United States, or
hereafter to hold any office of honor or profit.
I d sgepectfully submibthat thus far your mede of tiro
"ceeditig.' has no analogy to Hort of a court Voir
issue a summons to give the respondent notice of
the case pending against him. You do not sequester
hisperso.n y r unto not require his personal appearance
even ; you proceed against him, and will will .o onto
dereireir e his cause in his absence, and make the
final order therein. How different is each step from
those ef ordierry criminal procedure.
A constitutional tribunal solely, you are bound by
no law, either etatute or common, which may limit
your constitutional prerogative. You c insult no
Precedents, save those of the law and custom of par
liaMentary bodice. You are a law unto yourselves,
bound only by the natural principles of equity and
justice, and that salus populi supntiam.e4 lex.
riMiu therm principles and parliamentary law no
judges can aid you, and, indeed, in late years, the
jucees of England in the trial of iinpeaeliment, de
claimed to speak to a question of parliamentary law,
even ut the n quiet of the Douse of Peers, although
they attended on them in their robes of office.
Nearly live hundred pars ago. in 1338, the House of
Lords resolved, in the case of Belknap and the other
judges, "teat these matters, when brought before
them, shall be discussed and adjudged by the
course of Parliament, and not by the civil law, nor by
the common law of the land 'used in other inferior
courts." And that regulation, which was in contra
venti.n of the opinion of all the judges of England.
and.against the remonstrance of Richard 11, remains
the unquestioned law of England to this day.
Another determining quality of the tribunal, dis
tineteshing it from a court and the analogies of ordi,
nary legal procterlinge, and showing that it is a Sen
ate only, is that there can be no right of challenge by
either puny to any of its members for favor or malice,
affinity or interest.
this has been held from the earliest times in Par
liament, even when that was the high court of judt
catureiif the realm, sitting to punish all crimes against,
the..peace.
In the case of the Duke of Somerset (1 Howell's
State Trials, p. 621), as early as 1511, it was held that
the Duke of Northumberland and the Marquis of
Northampton, and the Earl of Pembroke, for au at
tempt uf,on whose lives Somerset was on trial, should
sit in judgment upon him against the objection of the
accused because " &peer of the . realm might not be
chalk nged."
Again, the Duke of Northumberland. (ibid.,lst State
Trials. p. 65,) Marquis of Northampton and Earl of
Warwick, on trial far their crimes, A. D. 1533, before
the Court of the Lord High Ste Nerd of ' England. be
ing cue or the prisoners, inquired whether any such
pascals ris were equally culpable in that crime, and
those by whose letters and commandinents he was di
rected in all his doings, might be his judges or pass
upon his trial at his death. It warianawered that.-
-It any were ea deeply to be touched as himself in
that case, yet as lonneas no attainder of record were
against them, they were, nevertheless persons able in
the law to pass upon anftrial, and not to be challenged
therefor, but at the Prim 9 pleasure.
Again, on the trial of th Earls of Essex and South
ampton/ (ibid.. 1 State Tit 1.5.3 f. 1385,) for high trea
sure, before all the justices of EnglandA. D. 1600, the
Earl of Essex desired to know of my'Lord Chief Jus
tice whether he might challenge any of the peers or
no. Whereunto the Lord Chief Justice answered
Again, in Lord Audley's case (ibid 3 State Trials,
page 462, A. D 1631), it was questioned whether a
peer might challenge his peers, as in the case of com
mon jurors. It was answered by all the judges, after
consultation, "he might not." [This case was of
mere, value, because it was an indictment for being
accessory to rape upon his own wife, and nad no po
litical Influence in it whatever.l The same point was
ruled in the Countess of Essex's case, on trial for
treason. [Moore's Reports, 621.]
In the Earl of Portland's case, A. D. 1701 (ibid,
State Trials, page 288), the Commons objectedltbat
void Sommers, the Earl of Oxford and Lord Halifax,
who had been impeached by the Commons before the
House of Lords for being concerned in the same acts
for which Portland was being brought to trial, voted
and acted with the House of Lords in the preliminary
proceedings of said trial, and were upon a committee
of conference in relation thereto. But the lords, after
discussion, solemnly resolved "That no Lord of Par
liament, impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors,
can he precluded from voting on any occas on except
on his own trial."
In the trial of Lord Viscount Melville, A. D. 1806,
(ibid. 29 State Trials, p. 1398), some observations
having been made as ;o the possible bias of some por
tion of the Deere (by the counsel for the defendant).
Mr. Whitebread, one of the managers on the part of
the Commons, answered as follows: .
"My lords, as to your own court. something has
been thrown out about the possibility of a challenge
Upon such a subject tt will not be necessary to sty
mo e than thisov hi ch has been admitted—that an order
was given by the House of Commons to prosecute
Lord Metvihe in a court of law where ho would have,
the right to challenge his juror?. * * What did
the noble Viscount then do by the means of one of his
friends? * • • *
From the mouth of that learned gentleman came at
last the successful motion, 'that Henry, Viscount 01
' Melville be impeached of high crimes and mistime:lo.
ors.' lam justified, then, in saying that he is here
M Ills own option * hut, my lords, u
challenge to your lordships S is not every individual
peer tie guardian of his own honor?'!
In the trial of Warren Hastings the same point wat
ruled, or, more properly speaking, taken for granted,
for of the more than one hundred and seventy peers
who commenced the trial, but twenty-nine sat and
pronounced the verdict at the close, and sonic of these
were peers created since the trial began, and had not
beard either the opening or much of the evidence; and
dining the trial there bad been by death, succession
and creation, more than , one hundred and eighty
changes in the House of Peers, who were his judges.
We have abundant authority, also, on this point in
our own country In the case of Judge Pickering,
who was tried March, 1804, for drunkenness In (Alice,
although undefended in form, yet ho had all his rights
preserved. This trial being postponed a session.
three Senatrrs—Samuel Smith of Maryland, Israel
.Smith of Vermont, and John Smith of New York—
who had all been members of the House of Repre
sentatives, and there voted in favor of impeaching
Judge Pickering, were Senators when his trial came
off.
Mr Smith, of New York, raised the question ask
ing to be excused from voting. Mr. Smith. of Mary
hied, declared "he would not be influenced from his
duty by any ta , se delicacy; that he, for his part,felt no
delicacy upon the subject: the vote he htagiyen in
the other house to impeach Judge Pickering would
have no.intinence upon him in the court; hie constit
uents had a right to his vote, and he would not,by any
act of. his, deprive, or consent to deprive, them of
their right, but N% ould claim and exercise it upon this
asepon every other question that might be submitted
to the Senate p Idle he had thy honor of a seat."
A vote beitig bad upon the question.' it was deter
mined t tneee gentlemen *Mould eit and vote on the
trial. This past td in the affirmative, by a vote of 19 to
7, end all the gentlemen eat and voted on every clues.
ton during the trial.
On the trial of Samuel Chase, before the Senate of
the United States, no challenge was attempted, al
thoh the case, ye:A deckled by an almost strict party
voter high part p• times, and doubties,many • of the.
Senators and formed and expressed opinions upon leis
cenduet That. arbitrary judge, bat learned lawyer,
knew tem much to at , empt any Such futile movement
as o challenge to a Senator. Certein it is that the
propritt , es of the occasion were not marred by the
Norse than anomalous proceeding of the challenge of
ouo fienatA r to another, especially befuro the di:tend
ont had appeare , .
Nor did the managers exercise the right of challenge,
although Sena , 4,0 smith and Mitchell, of New York,
were menthe's of the Senate on the trial and voted
not quitty on every article, who had been members of
the Rouse when the articles were' found, and had there
voted steadily against the whole proceeding,
Judge Peek's case, which was tried in 1831, affords
another intlanee U, noint. ' •
Tee condlet of Judge Peck had been the subject of
much animadverrieu and cotomtnt by the public, and
had been for fur years pending before the Congress
of the United state S before it finally canto to trial. It
nag not pa settle but that many of the Senate had bed&
lthrut d mind expressed opinions upon Peck's proceed
ings; and yet it never °united to that good lawyer to
matte ebiectous to lila triers. Nor did the managers
chsl'enge, although Webster, of Massachusetts, was a
member of the committee of the Rouse of Represent&
to , v-hom the petition for impeachment was to
ft:i it el, and which, after C2aMitiation, reported thereon
"love to witton ow. " and Sprague. of Maine, voted
againtt the Troceedlngs in the now, while Liv.
ingstnn, of Louisiana, yoted for them."
All of these gentlemen sat upon the trial, and voted
as they did in the Rouse. A very remarkable dud
• instructive use was; that of Judge Addison, of Penn
sylvania, In 1804. note, al tar the articles of ire
penchc em, were framed. the trial was postooned to
Session of the Legislature. Meanwhile,three
ineMbete of the Ilonse.ot Representatives Who had
volftt /Or the article Sot ini,pettellment•w, ire elected to
tit Serial and bewared tab Mere 'of the 'articles of
hneeschMet t otwhich they bad solemnly voted the
reeponden'tto tie guilty. . •
•
THE DAILY EVENING BULLETIN.--PHILADELPHIA, TUESDAY, MARdif 31. 1868.
To their sitting on the trial Judge Addison objected,
but atter an'exhaustive argument his objection was
overruled. 17 to 6. Two (,f the minority were Ibe ge.n
xlen en who had voted him guilty, and who themselves
objected to sittine on the trial.
"bus stands the case upon anthOrity. How does it
stnrid noon principle?
Ind conference held in 1691, between the lords and
commove, on a proposition to limit the number of
judges, the lords made answer
"That in the case of impeachment, Which are the
groans of the people, and for the highest crimes, and
carry with them a greater supposition, of guilt than
arl r accusation , there all the Lords mast itidgel ,
°.TCht t ir h e e bave been many instances in England where
this necessity, that no peer be excused from sitting
on such trials, has produced curious results. Brothers
have sat upon the trials of brothers; fathers upon the
trials of eons and daughters; uncles upon the trials of
nephews and nieces: no excuse being admitted.
One, and a most peculiar and painful instance, will
suffice upon this point to illtistrate the strength o (the
rule. In the trial of Anne Boleyn, the wife of one
sovereign of England, and the mother of another, her
father, Lord Rochefort, and her uncle, the Duke of
Norfolk, sat as judges and voted guilty, although one
of the charges against daughter and niece was a crim
inal intimacy with her brother, the son and nephew
of the judges.
t would seem impossible that in a proee&ling be.
fore such a tribunal so constituted. there could be a
challenge, because as the number of triers is !Meted
by law, and as there are not now, and never has been,
any provisions, either in England or in this country.
for substituting another for the chal.engcd party, as a
talesman re mama uted in a jury, the accused might
erenpo punishment altogether by challenging a sutil
dent number to prevent a quorum; or the accusers
might oppress the respondent by challenging all per
sons favorable to him until the necessary unanimity
for conviction was secured.
This proceeding being hut an inquest of office, and,
except in a few rare instances, always partaking, mnrc
or lees, of political considerations, and required to be
discussed, before presentation to the triers, by the co
ordinate branch of the Legislature, it is impossible
that'benators should not have opinions and convic
tions upon the stioject-matter more or lees decidedly
formed before the case reaches them. therefore,
challenger could be allowed because of such opinions,
as in the case of jurors, no trig! could go forward, tra
cause every intelligent Senator could be objected to
upon one side or the other.
1 should have hardly dared to trouble the Benne
with such minuteness of citation and argument upon
this point, were it not that certain persons and papore
outside of this body, by sophistries drawn from the
analogies of the proceedings in courts before juries,
have endeavored, in advance, to prejudice the public
mind, but little Instructed in this topic, because of
the infrequency of impeachments, against the regal
validity and propriety of the proceedings upon this
I may be permitted, without offense,further to state,
that these and similar reasons have prevented the
managers from objecting, by challenge or otherwise,
to the competency of one of the triers, of near affinity
to the accused.
We believe it is his right, nay, his duty, to the
State he represents, to sit upon the trial as he would
upon any otter matter which should come before the
Senate. Ills seat and vote belongs to his constitu
ents, and not to himself, to be used, according to
his best judgment, upon every .grave matter that
comes helort the Senate.
Again, as political considerations are in thin trial,
"raising questions of interest to - the constituents of
every senator, it is his right and duty to express him
self as fully and freely upon ench questions as upon
any other, even to express a belief in tne guilt or inno
cence of the r.ccused, or to say he will sustain him In
the course he is taking, although he so says after ac
cusation brought. .
Let me illustrate? Suppose that after this impeach-
ment had been voted by the House of Representatives,
the constituents of any Senator had called a pahlic
meeting to sustain the President against what they
were pleased to term the "tyrannical acts of Congress
towards him in impeaching him," and should call
upon their Senator to attend and take part in such
meeting, I do not conceive that it would or ought to
be legally objected against him as a disqualification to
sit upon this trial, upon the principles I have stated, if
he should attend the meeting or favor the object, or
if his engagements in the Senate prevented his leav
ing.
I have not been able to find any legal objection in
the books to his writing a letter of such meeting, con
taining, among other things, statements like the fol
lowing:
SENATE. CHAMBER, February 24, 1968.
GENTLEMEN: My public and professional engage
ment, will be such on the 4th of. March that I am re
luctantly compelled to decline your invitation to be
present and address the meeting to he held in your
city on that day. * * a a
That the President of the United States has sin
cerely endeavored to preserve those (our free institu
tions) from violation 1 have no doubt, and I have,
theiefore, throughout the.• unfortunate difference of
opinion between him and Congress sustained him.
And this I shall continue to do so long as he shall
prove faithful to duty. With my best thanks for the
honor you have done me by your invitation, and re
gretting that it is not in my power to accept it,
remain, with regard, your obedient servant,
REVERDT JOEINBOti.
We should have as much right to expect his vote on
a clearly proven case of guilty, as had King, Henry
the Eighth to hope for the vote of her father against
his Nvife. Ile got It.
Ring Henry knew the strength of his case, and we
know the strength of ours against this respondent.
It it is said that this is an infelicity, it is a suffi
cient and decisive answer that it is the infelicity of a
precise constitutional provision, which provides that
the Senate shall have the sole power to try impeach
ment, and the only security against bias or prejudice
on the part of any Senator is that two-thirds of the
Senators present are necessary for conviction.
To tide rule there is but one possible exception,
founded on both reason and authority, that a Senator
may not he a judge in hie own case. I have thought
it necessary to determine the nature and attributes of
the tribunal, before we attend to the scope and mean
ing of the accusation before it.
The first eight articles Set out in several distinct
forms the ails of the respondent in removing Mr.
Stanton from office, and appointing Mr. Thomas ad
intti.;ill, differing in legal effect in the purposes for
which and the intent with which either or both of the
sets were done, and the legal duties 'and rights in
fringed, and the acts of Congress violated in so doing.
All the articles allege these acts to be in contraven
tion of his oath of office, and in disregard of the du
ties thereof.
If they are eo, h9wever, the President might have
the power to don them under the law: still, being so
done, they are acts of official misconduct, and, as we
have seen, impeachable.
The President has the legal power to do many sets,
which, it done in disregard of his duty, or for inn.
proper purposes, then the exercise of that power is an
official misdemeanor.
Ea% fir: he has the power of pardon; if exercised in
agiven case for a corrupt motive, as for the payment
of money, or wantonly pardoning all criminals, it
would bee misdemeanor. Examples might be multi
plied indefinitely.
Article first, stripped of legal verbiage, alleges that,
having suspended Mr. Stanton and reported the same
to the Senate, which refused to concur in the suspen
sion, and Stanton baring righttully resumed the du
ties of hie office, the respondent, with knowledge of
the facts, issued an order, which Is recited, for Stan
ton's removal, with intent to violate the act of March
2, 1967, to regulate the tenure of certain civil offices,
and with the further intent to remove Stanton from
the office of S , cretary of War, then in the lawful dis
chcrge of its duties, in contravention of said act with
out the advice and consent of the Senate, and agaiust
the Constitution of the United States.
the
2 charges that the President, without au
thority of law, on the 2let of February, 1868, issued
letter of authority to Lorenzo Thomas to act as Secre
tary of War ad interim, the Senate being in session,
in violation of the tenor -of-office act, and with in
tent to violate it and the Constitution. there being no
vacancy in the office of Secretary of • War. '
Article 8 alleges the Sam , : act as done without au
thority of law, and alleges an intent to violate the Con.
stitution.
Article 4 charges that the President conspired with
Lorenzo Thomas and divers other persons, with in
tent, by intimidation and threats, to prevent Hr.
Stanton from holding the office of Secretary of War,
in violation of the Constitlit ion and of the act of July
31, 1861.
Article 6 charges the same conspiracy with Thomas
to prevent Mr. Stanton's holding his office, and there
by to prevent the execution of the civil tenure act.
Article 6 charges that the President conspirod with
Thomas to seize and possess the 'property under the
control of the War Department 'by force, In contra
vt ntion of the act of July 81, 1861, and with intent to
disregard the civil tenure-of-ofilce act.
Artic'e 7 charges the same conspiracy, with intent
only to violate the civil tenure. of•ollice act.
Artlcles 3d. 4th, 11th, 6th, and 7th may be considered
together, as to the proof to support them.
It will be shown that, having removed Stanton and
appointed Thomas, the President sent 'Thomas to the
War Office to obtain possession; that having been
met by Stanton with a denial of his rig hts, Thomas
retired, and, after consultation with the President,
Thomas asserted his purpose to take possession of
the War Office by force, making his boast in several
public places of his intention so to do, but was pro
vented by being promptly arrested by process from the
Court.
This will be shown by the evidence of Bon. Mr.
VIM Born, a member of the House, who was present
when the demand for rossession of the War Office
. Ayes ...made .13y.. General Thomas, already made - public.
By the testimony of the lion. Mr. Barleigh, who,
after that, In the evening of the twenty • first of Feb
ruary, was told by Thomas that he intended to take
possession of the War Office by force the following
morning, and invited him op to see the performance.
Mr. Burleigh attended, but the act did not come off,
fonThomits had been arrested and held to bail.
By Thomas boasting at Willard's hotel, On the
same evening, that he should call on General Grant
for military force to put him in possession.of the
cam and he did not see bow Grant could refuse it.
Article 8 charges that the appointment of Thomas
was made for the purpose of getting control of the
.dishursement of the moneys appropriated for the
military service and Department. of War.
In addition to the proof already adduced, it will be
ahOwn that after tbe appointment of Thomas, which
must have been known toxi: members of hie Gablnet.
ther'restdent caused a formal malice to be. served on
tbe:Becretary of the Treasury, to the end , that the
Sectetary might answer the requisitions for money of
Thomas, and this was only prevented by the firmness
'with which Stanton retained•posseeffion of the, books
at d pain re of tho War Offic,o.
It will bo seen that every fact charged *Article i t s
admitted by the answer of the respondent;•.the inteat
is also admitted ae charged; that is to say, to set iteple
the civil ten; , f-taffice net, and to terpove. fir . , Btait.
on from the ;O lice for the Setret4ly of; the Depar
ntent of War witnt the advice and atoned of the
Senate, and if net Instilled, contrary to the provielohs
of the COD rftltutihn itself. •.' r• ,
The only question remainingis, does the respondent
Justify iihnselebY the Conatitution and laterfl
On this he avers, that by'ithe Consettaltioni there ie
"conferred on the President, as a part of the execu
tive power, tho power at any and all times of remov
ing from office all exceptive officers for cause, tobe
judged or by the President alone, and that he verily
believes that the efecuttve power of removal front of
fice, confided to him by the Constitution, as aforesaid,
includes the power of suspension from office indefi
nitely."
Now, thee° offices, so vacated, must be filled. tem
porarily at tenet, by hie appointment„ because govern.
went must go on; there can be no interregnum in the
• execution of the laws in an organized government;
he claims, there: ore, of necessity the right to fill
their places with appointnients of his choice and that
this power cannot be restrained or limited In any de
gree by any law of Congress; because he avers, "that
the power was conferred, and the duty of exercising
itin fit cases was imposed on the President by the
Constitution of the United States, and that the rival
dent could not he deprived of this power, or relieved
or this duty, nor could the same bo vested, by law in
the President and the Senate jointly, either in part or'
whole."
This, then. is the plain and inevitable issue before
the Senate end the American people:
Has the President, under the Constitution, the
more than kingly prerogative at will to remove from
(Ace and suspend from office indefinitely, all execu
tive officers of the United States, either civ 1, military
or naval, at any and all times, and fill the vacancies
with creatures of hie own appointment, for his 'own
purp see, without any restraint whatever, or possi
bility of restraint by the Senate or by Congress
through laws duly enacted?
The }louse of Representatives in behalf of the peo
ple, join this Setae by affirming that the exercise of
such powers iff a high misdemeanor In office.
ift he affirmation 18 maintained by the respondent,
then, so tar as the first eight articles are concerned
uniess such corrupt purposes are shown as will of
themselves make the exercise of a legal power a crime
--the respondent must go and ought to go quit and
ft ee.
'therefore, by these articles and the answers thereto,
the momentous question, here and now, Is raised
whether the Presidential office itself (If It has the
prerogatives and power claimed for it) ought, in fact,
to exist as a part of the constitutional government of
a free people, while by the last three articles thq
simpler and less important inquiry is to be deter
mined, whether Andrew Johnson has so conducted
himself that he ought longer to hold any constitu
tional office whatever. The latter sinks to merited
insignificance compared with the gtandeur of the
former.
If that is sustained, then a right and power hitherto
unclaimed and unknown to the people of the country
le engrafted on the Constitution, .most alarming in
its extent, most corrupting in its influence, most
dangerous .in its tendencies,. amlnaost...tyr:uaracaLin
its exercise. .
Wheever,. therefore, votes "not guilty" on these
articles, votes to enchain our free institutions, and to
prostrate them at the feet of any mun \ who, being
President; may choose to control them. .
Fur this moot stupendou, and unllmitd preroga
tive the respondent cites to line and q
adduc;qls. to word jlti,
of Constitutional enactment—indeed he cdfi not,
for the only mention or removal from office n the
Constitution is as a part of the judgment in case of
impeachment, and the only power of appointment is
by nomination to the Senate of officers to he an
pointed by their adVice and coneent, save a quadded
and limited power of appointment by the • President
when the Senate is not in session. Whence • then
does the respondent by hie answer claim to have de
rived this power? I give him the benefit of ids own
words, "that it was practically settled by the first
Congress of the United States. r ' again, I . give him
the benefit of his own phrases .as set fnrrh in his
message to the Senate of 20 of March, 1867, made a
part of his answer.--" The question was decided
by the House of Representatives by a vote of
31 to :JO. (in this, however, he is mistaken,) and in
the Senate by thecastinrvote of the Vice-President."
In the same answer he admits that before he undertolk
the exercise of this most dangerous and stupendous
power, after seventy-five years of study and examina.
than of the Constitution by the people living under it,
another Congress has decided that there was no such
unlimited power. So that be admits that this tre
mendous power which he claims from the legislative
construction of one Congress by a vote of 31 is 2U in
the House, and a tie vote in the Senate. has been de
nied by another House of more than three times .the
number of members by a vote of 133 to 37; and by a
Senate of more than double the number of Senat,)rs
by a vote of 38 to 10, and this, too, after he had pre
sented to them all the arguments in its favor that he
could find to sustain 'disclaim of power._ ,
If Le derives this power from the practical settle
ment of one Congress of a legislative construction of
the constitutional provisions, way may not such
construction be as practically settled more authorita
tively by the greater unanimity of another Congress—
yen, as we shall see, of many other Congreeses ?
The great question, however, still returns upon us—
when cecomes this power ?--how derived or conferred'
Is it mil omi•ed and unrestrained? illimitable and unre
strait:table, as the President claims it to be?
In presenting this topic it will be my ditty, and I
shall attempt to do nothing more, than to state the
propositions of law and the authorities to support
them so far as they maAcome to 153 V knowledge, Wav
ing the argument and illustrations of the Question to
be extended in the close by abler and better hands.
If apovcer of removal in the Ixecntive ts found at
all in the Constitution, it is admitted to be an implied
one, either from the power of a,.pointment, or be
cause "the executive power is vested in the Presi
dent."
Has the executive powergranted by the Constitution
by these words any limitations? Does the Constitu
tion invest the President with all executive power,
prerogatives, privileges and immunities enjoyed by
executive officers of other countries -kings and em
perms—without limitation? if so, then the Constitu
tion has been much more liberal In granting powers
to the Executive than to the legislative branch of
the government, as that inis only "all legislative
rev, era herein granted (which) shall be vested in the
Corgress of the United States," not all uncontrollable
legislative powers, as there are many limitations upon
that power as exercised by the Parliament of .Bu ,, land
for example. So there aro many executive powers
expressly limited In the Constitution, such as de
claring war, making rules and regulations for the
government of the army and navy, and coining
money.
As some executive powers are limited by the Con
etitution itself, is it not clear that the words "the ex
ecutive power is vested in the President," do not con
fer on him all executive powers, bet must be con
strued with reference -to other constitutional provis
ions granting or regulating specific powers? The ex
ecutive power of appointment is clearly limited by the
words "he shall nominate, and by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors,
S and all other officers of the United
ktates whose appointments are not herein otherwise
provided for, and which shall be established by law."
le it not, therefore, more In accordance with the
theory of the Constitution to imply the power of re
moval from the power of appointment, restrained by
like limitations, than to imply it solely as a prerogas;
tiveauf executive power, and therefore illimitable and
uncontroPable? Have the people anywhere else in the
Constitution granted illimitable and uncontrollable
power ether to the executive or any other branch of
the government`? Is not the power of the government
one of checks, balances, and limitations? It it to be
believed that our fathers, Met escaping from the op
pressione of monarchical power, and so dreading it
that they feared the very name of king,gave this more
than kingly power to the Executive, illimitable and
incontrollable, and that too by implication merely?
Upon this point our proposition. is, that the Senate
being in at salon, and an office, not an' inferior one,
within the terms of the Constitution being tilled, the
President has the Implied power of inaugurating the
removal Only by nomination of a successor to the
Senate, which, when consented to. works the full re
'novel and tupersedeas of the incumbent. Such has
been, it is believed, the practice of the goVernment
from the beginning, down to the act about which we
are inouhing. Certain it is that Mr. Webster, in the
Serate, in 184, so attested without contradiction,
using the following language:
".,f one man be beeretary of State, and another
be appointed, the first goes out by the mere force of
the appointment of the other, without any previous
act of removal whatever. !mud this is the practice of
the government, and has been from the first. In all
the removals which have been made they have gen
erally been effected simply by making other appoint
ments. I cannot find a case to the contrary. There
is no such thing as any distinct official act of removal.
I have looked into the practice, and caused inquiries
to be made into the departments, and I do not learn
that any such proceeding is known as an entry or
record of the removal of an officer from office,
and the President would only act in • such
cases by causing someporoper record or entry
be inside as proof of the fact of removal.
1 am aware that there have been some cases in which
'notice has been sent to liersons in office that their
services arc or will be, after a certain day, dispensed
with. These are usually cases in which the object is,
not to inform the incumbent that he it removed, but._
to tell him that - a succetstireltifer
named. will be, appointed. If there he any instance
in which notice it given, without express reference to
the appointinent of a successor, they are few; and
even in these such reference must be implied, because
in no case is there any distinct official act of removal,
as l can find, unconnected wititthe act of appoint
ment. "
This would seem to reconcile all the provisions of
the Censtitutieu, the right of removal being in the
President, to be executed sub mod°, as is the power
of appointment, the appointment, when consummat
ed, making the removal. •
This power was elaborately debated in the first Con
gress upon the, bills establishing a Department of
Foreign Affairs and the War Departuf ent. The debate
armee an 'the motion in Conunittee et the Whole, to
sty lice out, after the title of the officer. the words, "to
be removable from office by `the Presir ent of the
ed States." It was four days discussed in Com
mittee of the Whole in the House, and the clause re
tail:led by a vote of 20 yeas to a 4 nays, Which
seemed to establish the power of removal as either by
a tesislative grant or construction or the Constitution.
,But the triumph of its friends wasOtihort lived, for
,Nthell the bill came up in the Herten Mr,Henson
. footed to amend it by altering the second section of
the bib, so no to imply only the power Of removal:to
be inthe President, byinseettrig. that ftwheneeter SRO
prinelpid °Dicer obeli Atin tenoved from office : by the •
President of the United State& or iii• any other cluso
Of vadancy, the chief All*le ihall, during sucheincancy,
libave(ekterge mid cruOdy or "rill rodents, Wks, and
apernaPPertaining to:tkie fieliartmentd"
her. Benton "eleilaredt,heitypitldniotte to .strikii out
the•words in the first elltheatO, s ird ,Yeiritivrible by the
Preatdent, which - appearnd -- sminewhat-like a grant,—
Now the mode he toolattvittAtyitivie . that .point and
establish a Jegialative,constinetion of the Constitu
tion. He also hoped his '"amendment would sneeeed
in reconciling both sides of the. House to the decision
and quieting the minds of the gentlemen."
.Airer debate the amendment was carried, 80 to 18.
Mr. Benson then moved to strike out the Words "to be
removable by the President of the United States,"
which was carried, 31 to 19; and eo • the hill Was on
grossed and sent to the Senate.
The debates of that body being' in secret session, we
have no record of the discussion which arose on,tho
motionnf Mr. Benson establishing the implied power
of removal; bat after very elaborate censtderation, on
several successive days, the words implying this power
in the President were retained by the casting vote of
the elder .Aderne, the . Vice-President. •Itio, this
claimed "legislative settlement" was only established
by the vote of the second executive officer of the gov
ernment. Alas I most of oar woes In. this govern
ment have come from Vice-Presidents. When the
bill establishing the War Department came up,
the same words, "to be removable by. the Presi
dent" were struck out, on the motion of one
of the opponents of the recognition .of the
power. by a vote of 24 to 2r2. a like amend.
merit to that of the second section of the act clash-
Selling the Department of State being inserted.
When, six years al terwarde, the Department of the
Navy was established, no such recognition of the
power of President to remove was . inserted; find
as the measure passed by a strict party vote. 47 yeas
to 41 nays, it may well be conceived that its advocate:a
did not cake to lead it with this constitutional ques
tion, when the executive power was about passing
into other bands, for one cannot read the debates up
on this question without being impressed with the
belief that reverence for the character of Wohlngton
largely determined the argument in the first Congrees.
Neither party did or meld have looked forward to
such on executive administration as we have this day,
It has geni.rally been conceded in subsequent dis
eneelons that there was a legislative determmatfon of
this qneetion; but I humbly submit that, taking the
whole actien of Congress together, it is very far from
being determined. I should hardly have dared, in
vlew of the eminent names of Delmer , Clay, Webster
and Calhoun, that have heretofore Horde the admits- '
slop, to have ventured the assertion, were it not that
in every case they, en do the President • and his
counsel, rely on the first vote in the Committee of
the Whole, sustaining the words "to be removable
by the President," and in no instance take any
notice of the subsequent proceedings in the
Borne by which three words were taken out of
the bill. This may have happened bee there
"Eliots Debates," winch is the authority most fre
quently cited in these (Secessions. stops with the vote
in committee, and takes no notice of the further d is
ctireion. whatever may be the effect of Site leg
islative construction, the contemporaneorni and Euheo
quent practice:of the goventmentehewe that the Pree
ident merle no removals e3cept by nominations to the
Senate when in seesion, and superseding officers he a
new COD Illit.Eioll to the confirmed nominee. Mr.
Ademe, in I hat remarkable letter to Mr. Pickering, in
which he desires his resignation, requests him to send
it early, in order that he may nominate to the Senate,
then about to sit; and he, in fact, removes Mr. Pick
ering by a nomination Certainly to unlimited power
bus ever been claimed by ally of the earlier Presidents,
as has now been yet up for the President by his most
remart.ahle, aye, criminal answer.
It will not have escaped attention that no determi •
ration was made by that Legislative construction as to
how the removal, If In the Pre•ident's power. should
be made, which is now the question In cispate. That
has been determined by the universal practice of the
cosora flielr, with exceptions, if any. so rare as not to
he worthy of consideration; so that we now claim the
law to be what the practice has ever been. If, how
ever, we concede the power of removal to be in the
President as an implied power, yet we believe It can
not he successfully contended upon any authorities or
corttant practice of the government tnnt the execu
tion of that power may not be regulated by the Con
gress of the United Kates, under the clause in the
Constitution which "vests in Congress the power to
make all laws which shall be neceesary mid proper for
carriing. into execution • • • all powere vested
by this Constitution in the government of the United
813102. or in any department or office thereof."
The power 01 regulation of the tenure of office. and
the manlier of removal, has. always beam. exerrtsPd by
Corgress ut questioned until now.
on the 15, n of May, 184 (Vol. 3, Stat. at Large, p.
Concress provided for the term of °aye of .cer
tain officers therein named to be for four years, but
made them removable at pleasure. By the second sec
tion of the same act Congress rernelved from office all
the officers therein commissioned, In providing a date
when each corm:l7oE6ton should expire, thus 'asserting
a legislative power of removal from office; sometimes
by riming acts which appear to concede the power to
the President to remove at pleasure, sometimes re
stricting that power in their acts by the moat stringent
provisions. Sometimes conferring the power of re
moval, and sometimes that of appointment —the acts
establishing the territorial officers being most maple
liolls in this regard.
Upon the whole, no claim of e=cinsive right over
removals or appointments seems to have been made
either by the taxecutive or ov Coppola. No bill was
ever vetoed on this account until con•.
In 1818, Mr. Wirt. then Attorney. General. giving
the earliest official opinion on this question coming
from that office, Bald that only where Congress had
not undertaken to restrict the tenure of office, by the
act creating it, would commission issue to run Mah ,
the pleasure of the President; but if the tenure was
fixed by law, then commission must conform to the
law. No constitutional scruples as to the power of.
Congress to limit the tenure of office seem to have
disturbed the mind of that great lawyer. Dot this was
before any attempt had been made by any President
to arrogate to himself the official patronage for the
purpose of party or personal aggrandizement, which
glvt s the only value to this opinion as an authority.
since the Attorney-General's office has become a pO.
Mica] one I shall not trouble the Senate with citing
or examining the opinions of its occupants.
In 1886, a committee of the Senate, consisting of
Mr. Benton, of Missouri, chairman; Mr. Macon, of
North Carolina •, Mr. Van Buren, of New York ; Mr.
Dickerson, of New Jersey; Mr. Johnson. of Ken
tucky ! Mr. White, of Tennessee; Mr. Holmes, of
Maine; Mr. Bayne, of South Carolina, and Mr. Find
lay, of Pennsylvania, was appointed to take into con
sideration the question or restraining the power of
the President over removals from office, who made a
report through their, chairman. Mr. Benton, Betting
forth the extent of the evils arising from the power
of appointment to and removal from of by
the President, declaring that the Constitution
had been changed in this regard, and that '"cou
struction and legislation have accomplished
this change," and submitted two amendments
to the Constitution. one providing a direct election of
the President by the people, and another "that no
Senator or Representative should beisppointed to any
place until the expiration of. the Presidential term in
which such person shall have served as Senator or Rep
resentative,' as remedies for some of the evils com
plained of ; but the committee say, that "not being
able to reform the Constitution, in the election of
President, they must go to work upon his powers,
and trim down these by statutory enactments, when
ever it can be done by slaw, and with a just
regard to the proper eflic!ency of government,
and for this purpose reported six Mlle—one, to rega -
late the publication of the laws and public advertise
ments: another, to secure in office faithful collectors'
and disbursers of the 'revenues, and to displace de
limiters—the first section tit which vacated the com
missions of "all officers, after a given date, charged
Ishii the collection and disbursement of the public
moneys who bad failed to account for such moneys,
un or before the 130th day of September preceding;"
and the second section enacted that "at the same time
a nomination is made to till a vacancy occasioned by,
the exercise of the President's power to remove from
office, the fact of the removal shall be stated to the
tie- taste with a report of the reasons for which such
officers may have bean removed; also, a bill to regu
late the appointment of postmasters. and a bill to
prevent military and Lekval officers from being dis
missed the service at the pleasure of the President,
by inserting a clause in the commission of each oat
cere that 'it is to continue in force daring good beha
vior," and "that no officer shall ever hereafter be ells
miesed the service except in pursuance of the sentence
of a court martial, or upon address to the President
from the two houses of Congress."
Is it not remarkable that exactly corelative meas
ures to these have been passed by the Thirty-ninth
Congress, and are now the subject of controversy at
this bar 1i
It does not seem to have occurred to this able com
mittee that Congress had not the power to curb the
Ext cutive in this regard, because they 'asserted the
practice of dismissing from office "to be a dangerous
violation of the Conetitution." ,
In 18811 Mr. Holmes introduced and discussed in the
Senate a series of resolutions which contained, among
other things, • "the right of the Senate to inquire, and
the duty of the President to inform them, when and
for what causes any officer has been removed in the
recess." In 1885 Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Southard, An
Bibb," Mr.'"witbsten, Mr. B - ent(Cliturffle.' King; - of --
Georgia, of the Senate, were elected a committee to
consider the subject of Executive patronage rffla the
means of limiting it. That committee, with ' but one
dissenting voice (Mr. Benton); reported "a bill which
provided in its third section "that in all nominstione
made by the President to the Senate, to fill vacancies
occasioned by removal from office, the fact of the res
movat obeli be Mated to the Senate at the same time
the nomination is made, witha statement of the rea
sons for such removal,". .
It will be observed that this is the preebae section
reported by Mr. Benton in 1 1 826, and passed to a sec
end rending In the Senate, Atter - much, discussion
the bill passed the Senate—Micas, 16 nays--an almost
twe-thirds vote. Thns it would scam that the ablest
alert ofilitit daY7lif
parties,- au bsexilaed _
to the power, of Congress , ; to, limit. and
control the
President in his removal fromool44 this I
0100 t mostinaltedbaStaneee of t parser n
Cougrese'will befound isi the act february /A 1868, ,
providing for
toblionatv terireeey';'etel• the 'bides of
comptroller. (Statute at Large r vol. 12, p. Thl6
e lure's both the appointment and the removed of that
officer, enacting dilate- shall be appointed en the
tominatiOrrof thpSeeretary of the Treasury, by and
ith the Advice ftri densent of tile Senate, and shall
hold his office foi therm of five years. unless sooner
removed by the President, by and with theadvice and
convent of dile :Senate. This was substantially re
enacted Jane J, 1864,2 with the addition that "he shall
be - rrnoved nponyeations to be communicated to the
8 1 1 17tc. were e the ° vigilant gentlemen. in both bonitos.
who now 'so deranince the power of (,onuses to regu
late the appointment and removal of oflicera by the
President 11/3_llllColl4ltEl itOlaq
It wilt he observed that the Constitution makes no
difference between the officers of the army and navy
and officers In the civil service, so far as their ap
pointments and. ,coentaissions, kettitafalanud
eels ' are concerned. Their Winn lesions have ever run
"to bold office duringthe pleasure of the PreeidentV
yet Congress, by the act of 17th July, 1862. (Steatites
at Large, volume 12. page .520,) enacted. ''that. the
Prevident of the United states he and hereby is - au
thorized and requeeted to dismiss and discharge frog
the military service, either in the army, navy, marine
corps. or volunteer force, in the United States service,
any officer for any came which. in his judgment, either
renders such officer unsuitable ft r, or whose dismission
would promote, the public service
Why was It necessary to authorize the President so
to do if he had the ettmaituttonal p ewer to dismiss a
military Meer at pleasurer—and his powers, whatever
they are, as is not doubted, are the suns as in a civil
office. The answer to tide suggestion may be that
this act was simply °noel au oererogation, only author
izing him to do what he was emuoweied already to
de, and therefore not specially pertinent to this dis
cussion.
But on the 13th of July, INa6. Congress enacted
"that no officer in the military or naval service shall,
in time of pear e, be dismissed from service, except
upon, and in pursuance of, the sentence of a court
martini to that effect " Whet becomes, then, of the
respondent's objection that Congrers cannot regulate
his power of removal from office In the snow storm
of his vetoes, why did no flake lignt down on this pro
vision ? It concludes the whole question here at
issue. It is approved, approval signed Andrew John
son.
It will not be claimed, however, if the tenure-of
office act is constitutional. (and that question I shall
not argue, except us has been done incidentally, for
11.0:10118 hereafter to be stated,) teat he could remove
Mr. Stanton. provided that the office of Secretary of
War comes within its provisions, and ono claim made
In re before you, by the answer, is that that office is
t xcepted by the terms of the law. Of course, I shall
not argue to the Senate, composed mostly
of those who pascal the bill, what their
wishes and intentions were. Upon that
point I cannot aid them, bat the construction of the
act turnielw s a few suggestion& First let us deter
mine the exact status of Mr. Stanton at the moment
of its paes3ge. The answer admits Mr. Stanton was
appointed and commissioned end duty qualified as
Secretary of War. under Mr. Lincoln, in pursuance of
the act of 170. in the absence of any other legisla
tion or action of the President . , be legally held his
(Ake durmg the term of kife natural life. This con
shit ration I. en answer to every suggestion as to the
Secretary holding over from one Presidential term to
another.
On the 2d of March, 1817, Vie tenure-ot-offica wit
provided In Sithetstice that all civil oaken, duty quail--
lied to act by appointment. with the advice and con
sent of the Senate, shall be ent tied to hod sigh bake
until a ALICCUEOr shall have been in like manner hp—
pointed and duly qualified, except as herein otherwise
provided, to wit: ••Provithd. that the Secretaries shill
hold their (Mee during the term of the President by
whom they may have been appointed, and for nne
month thereafter, Enbject to removal by arm with the
advice and consent of the Senate."
By iwircm eats Mr. Stanton appointed? .By Mr.
Lincoln. Whose Presidential term was he holding
under when the ballet of Booth became a proximate
cause of this trial? Was not his appointment in full
force at that hour? Has any act of the respondent
up to the 12th day of August last vitiated or Inter
fered with that appointment'? Whose Presidential
term is the ryspondent now serving out? His own in
31r Lincoln if his own be is entitled to four
years up to the annlveretry of the murder. because
i'resWential rem is four yeas by the Conatitif
tion, and the regular recurrence, of those terms is
fixed by the wit of May it, 1792. It ho is nerving oat
the rematnder of Mr - Lincoln's , term, then his term
of (ace expires on the 40.1 of March, 18119, if it does
net before.
Is not, the statement of these proposition their
Eufllcieta argument': If Mr. Branton e comm'sslon
was vacated in any way by the "tenure-of•offlee act."
then It mist have ceased one month after the fourth
of March; 19:!:. to wit : April 9, 16a5. Or, if the ten
tire-a.ulllce act had no retroactive effect, then his
commistioll'intat have ceased if it had the effect to
vacate his commission at all on the passage of the
act. to wit: 2d March, 1667; arid, in that care, from
that day to the present he must have been exerchring
his (ace in contravention of the second section of
the act, becanse he was not commissioned in
accordance with its 'provisions. And the
President. by "employing" him in so doing from 2d
March to 12th August, became guilty of a high nitride
meaner under the provision of the sixth section of said
act:: so that if the President Shall succeed in convinc
lug the Senate that Mr Mani in has been acting ea
Secretary of War against the tenure-of-office act.
which he will do if he convinces them that that act.
vacated in any way Mr. Stanton's commission, or that.
he himself was not serving tint the remainder of Mr.
,Lincoln's Presidential term, then the House of Repre
sentst Ives have but to report another article for this
misdemeanor to remove the President upon his own
It has been said, however, that in the discuseloc of
the time of the passage of this law, observations were
made by Senators tending to show that i t did not ap
ply to Mr. Stanton, because it was asserted that no
member of the Cabinet of the President, would wish
to hold his plane against the wishes of 'bit chief, by
whom he had been csked int.) council: and. these
areumenas have been made the ground work of attack
uton a meritorions officer, which may have so In
fluenced the minds of Senators that it fa my duty to
observe upon them, to meet arguments to the preju
dico of my cause.
'Without stopping to deny the correctness of the
general proposition, there stems to be at least two
patr.iit atoswe re to it.
The reepotdent did not call Mr. Stanton into his
council. The blow of the assassin did call the re
spondent ko preside over a Cabinet of which Mr.
stat ton was then an honored member. beloved of its
chief; and if the respondent deserted the principles
under which ho was elected. betrayed his true, and
sought to return rebels whom the valor oT our armies
had subdued. again into power, are not these reasons,
net only why Mr. Stanton should not desert his post.
but. as a true patriot. maintain it all the more firmly
tgairost this unlooked for treachery r
la It not known to you. &stators, and to the to:ln
tro., that Mr. Stanton retains this unpleasant and din
tasteful position not of his own will alone, but at the
behest of a majority of those who represent the peo
ple of the country in boil) houses of its Legislature,
and after the solemn decision of the Senate, that any
attempt to remove him without their concurrence la
unconstitutional and 'unlanful.
To &pert it now, therefore. would be to imitate the
treachery of his accidental Chief. But whatever may
be the construction of the tenure-of civil-office act by
others. or as regards others. Andrew Johmion, the re
epondent, is concluded upon it.
Be permitted Mr. Stanton to exercise the duties of
his office in spite of it, if that office were affected by it.
He suepeneed him tinder its provisions; he relented
t hat suspension to the Senate, with his reasons there
for, In accordance with its rrovisiona and the Senate.
acting under it, declined to concur with him, whereby
Mr. Stanton was reinstated. In the well-known lan
anege of the law, is not the respondent estop by
hie solemn official acts from denying the I ty and
er r
constitutional propriety of Mr eitanton's pee time
Before proceeding further, I desire most earnestly
to bring to the attention of the Sena'', the averments
of the President in hie answer, by which be mettles
his action in attempting to remove Mr. Stanton, and
the reasons whicu controlled him in so doing. Ho
claims that on thel2tb day of •August last he had be
ceme fully - of the opinion that he had the power to re
move Mr. btanton or any other executive officer, or
euepend him from office and to appoint any Other per- -
eon to act instead "indefinitely , and at his pleasure"
that he was fully advised and believed, ae he still be
liever; that the tenure-of-civil-office act was uncon
otltutional. Inoperative and void in all its provisions;
and that he bad then determined at all hazards, if
Stanton could not be otherwise gi t rid of, to remove
him from office in spite of the provisions of that act
atd the action of the Senate under it, if for no other
purpose, in order to rake for a judicial decision the
question effecting the lawful 'right of said Stanton to
persiet in refusing to quit the office
Thus it appears that with full intent to resist the
power of the Senate, to hold the tenure-Of-office act
void, and to exercise this illimitable power claimed by
:l e p e r r
h e n e ti d i d i n e him,eahca
ee tdah h e e e did w ith en t o u p e en pt d e M o
s r
I . 0
h il e m e n f to t n e , e
h tl y ie th in e e s e e ee t f
heetoditdhegiSveenhaiteerNeveeithetenetfheer t t i h m e e
s p e r ep es e c he rr ee
to the Senate, and argued them at lenUth, actompa-
Died by what he claimed to be the evidence of the of
ficial misconduct of Mr. Stanton, and thne invoked
the action of the Senate to assist him In displacing a
high (linear of the government under the provisions
of an act which he at that very moment believed
and_to
eeveotid,e th vl r d re ee h t
a to tive e
make
and the Senate of the United &atm+ as his tools fir
ebheew nn ie co g ri tt at e i t ti h it e lo w n e a e l, w i i mper
do that which he believed neither had any c.oestitu
tiounl power to do.
-rtd-every anember-otthe , Senate e when. that Ines
eau came in announcing the suspension of Mr. Stan
ton, uuderstand and believe that the President was
acting in this case as he had done in every other case
tinder the punk:lons of this act? Did not both ,sides
*dleceee the question under ire provielonin Would any
Senator upon this door, on either side, demean him
eelf as to consider the queetion ono moment if
be had known it wee then within the intent
and purpose of the United States to treat the
deliberations and action of the Senate as void and of
Lobe effect if .its decision did not comport with -
his views and pimpores ; and yet while acknowledg
ivg the ' intent was in his mind to hold an
naught the judgment of the Senate if it did,not con
cur will) his ftwn, and remove Mr. Stanton at ali haz—
erds, and an I claret) it upon him here, as in fact no - .
man can doubt, with the full knowledge also that the e ,
Senate nnderetood that he was meting under the pro-
visionsof the tenure-of-office act; still thus deceiving
them, when called to answer for a violation of that
act in his solemn answer he makes the shameletin '
avowal that he did not transmit to the• Senate of the
United States a "message wherein he made known
the orders afore-laid and the reasons which induced
the tame. eo far as the respondent then considered it
materiel and neceetrary thiet the same 'should be fret
forth."
True it , is, there isnot one word, oneletter, one im
.
plicatico in that message that the President was not
acting largood faith undut the tentiro-ot-office - act,
and deeirieg the Senate to do the same. So the Pres
" - • ident of the United States. with a determination to
assert at all hazards the tremendous power of remo
val of every officer, without the consent of the Sen
ate, did not deem it "material ernecesaary" that the
Senate should know that he had suspended Mr. Stan
ton indefinitely again et the tenure-of•office act with
full Intent at all hazards to remove him, and that the
relearn dent rations ef the Senate, which
ident of the United States was then calling upon them
to make it a matter of the highest governmental con
-cern, were only to be of nee in case they stilted his
purposes; that It wet vot material or necessary" for
the Senate to know that lie high decision was fettle
and useless: that the President was pia: lug fast and
loose with this branch of the' government -a sort of
"heads I win, tails you loose" game-which was never
before exercised save by thicable•riggers and aharpera.
If Andrew Johnson never committed any other
•offeese-if we knew nothing of him save front this
avowal--we should have a full picture of his mind
' — and heart, pained in colors (diking light, so that
no man will ever misiako hie mental and moral line.
aments hereafter.
Instead of open and frank dealing, as becomes het
bead of a great government in every relation of life,
and especially needful from the highest executive
caul of the government to the highest legislative
branch thereof; instead of a manly, straightforward
bearing.' claiming open and distinctly the rights
which he believed pertained to hie high office:and
yielding to the other branches, fairly and justly,
those which belong to them, we find him. upon
his own written confession, keeping back his
claims of power, concealing his motives, covering
hit purposes, attempting by indirection and sub
terfuge to do that as the rule, of a great nation which,
if it be done at all, should have been done boldly, In
the face of day; and upon this position he must stand
before the Senate and the country if they believe his
answer, which I do not, that he had at that time these
intents and purposes in his mind, and they are not the
tobterfue and evasion and after-tbought which a
criminal` brought to bay makes to escape the cense
•qtrenees of his acts.
Senators ! be asked yon for time in which to make
his answer. You gave him ten days, and this is the
answer he makes If he could do this in ten days,
what should we have bad if you had given him forty ?
You strew him a mercy in not extending the time for
answer.
In the.appointment of General Grant ad interim,he
acted nude r the act of February 13, 1795, and was sub
ject to its limitations. By the act of August 7, 1789,
creating the Department of War,(let Statutes at Large,
page 49), "in cement any vacancy" no provision is
made for any appointment of an acting or ad interim
Secretary. in that case the records and papers are to
be turned over for safe keeping to the custody of the
chief clerk. This apparent omission to provide fur an
executive emergency wr a attempted to be remedied by
C'engreas by the act of May 8,1.82, (Ist Statutes, 281),
which provides "that in case of deatb, absence from
the seat of government, or sickneis of the Secretary
of State, Secretary of the Treasury, or of the Secre
tary of the War Department, or of any officer of either
of the said departments whose appointment is not in
the head thereof, vete reby they cannot perform the
duties of their respective offices, it shall be lawful for
the President of the United States, in care he shall
think it necessary, to authorize anyperson or persons,
at his discretion. to perform the duties of the said re
spective offices until a success •r be appointed, or until
such absence or inability by sickne's's shall cease."
It will be observed that tele act provides for vacan
cies by death. absence, or sickness only, whereby the
head of a department or any officer in it cannot per
. form his duly, but makes no provision for vacancy or
removal. -
Two difficulties were found in that provision of law:
first, that it provided only for certain enumerated va
cancies; and also, it authorizes the President to make
an acting appointment of any ;Jenson for any length
of time. To meet them difileultietjthe act of lath
February. 1135, was pasted, (Ist Stat, at Large, 415,)
•
e bleb provides "In case of vacancy, whereby the
Secretaries air any officer in any of hie departments
cannot perform the duties of his office. the President
• may appoint any person to perform the duties for a
period not exceeding rex menthe."
Thus the law good as to acting appointments in all
Of the departments, (except the Navy and Interior,
which had no provision for any to act in place
of the Secretary), until_ the . h_of ••_Februare. 1899,_
when, by the second section of an act approved at
" that date. (13th State 646), it was " provided-that no
person acting or presuming to act as a civil, military,
or naval officer. shall have any money paid to him as
itlgin any office which is not authorized by some
oludy emitting lave." 'The state of the law upon
t hi...subject at that point of time is tlins Incase of,
''death: absence, or alekneee. or of any vacancy where
by a Secretary or Other officer of the State, War, or
Treasury Department could not perform the duties of
the office, any person could be authorized by the
President to perform thoee duties for the space of six
months.
For the Departments of the Interior and the Navy
provision had been made for the appointraent of an
assistant Secretary, but no provision In cue of va
cancy in his office, and a restriction put upon any
teem acting when not authorized by law, from re
ceiving any salary whatever.
To meet thossomissione, and to meet the case of
resigtation of any officer of, an executive department,
and also to meet what was found to be a defect in al
lowing the President to appoint any person to those
high offices for the Op/Mot six months, whether such
person had any acquaintance with the dirties of the
dep.:trot nt or no', an act was passed February 20,
1866. Stat ,p. 666, ) which provides that in case of
the death, reeignation, absence from the seat of gov
ernment, or sickeeta of the bead of an executive de
partment of the goyernment, or of any officer of either
of the said departments whose appointment is not in
the head thereof, whereby they cannot perform the
duties of their respective offices, it shall be lawful for
be President of the United Stater, in case he
shall think it necessary, to authorize the head of
any other executive department or other officer in
•either of said departments whose appointment is
vested In the President, at his discretion, to perform
the daft* of the said respective offices until a sue
•vereor be appointed, or until such absence or ina
bility shall cease. Therefore, in case of the death,
resignation, sickness or absence of a head of an ex
ecutive department, whereby the incumbent could
not perform the duties of his office, the President
might authorize the head of another executive de
partment to perform the duties of the vacant office,
and in case of like disability of any officer of an ex
ecutive departmentother than the head, the President
might authorize an officer of the same department to
perform his duties fur the space of six months.
It is remarkable that in ail these statutes, from 1789
down, no provision is made for the case of a removal.
or that anybody is empowered to act for the removed
• officer, thechief clerk being empowered to take charge
of the books and papers only.
Does not this series of acts conclusively demon
strate a legislative construction of the Constitution
that there could be no removal of the chief of an ex
ecutive department by the act of the President save
by the nomination and appointment of les successor,
if the Senate were in Berrien, or a qualified appoint
ment till the end of the next session, if the vacancy
happened or was made in recess?
Let us now apply this state of the law to the ap
inttnent of - Major-General Thomas Secretary of
War ad interim, by Executive order. Mr. Stanton had
neither died nor resigned, was not sick nor absent. If
' be had been underact of March 3, 1863 , which repeals
all Inconsistent ads, the President was authorized
only teeappoint the head of another Executive Depart
ment to fill his place ad interim. Such was not Gen
eral Thomas. Be was simply an officer of the army,
the head of a bureau or department of the War De
partment, and not eligible under the law to be ap-'
pointed. So that his appointment was an illegal and
void act.
There have been two cases of ad interim appoint
ments which illustrate and confirm this position; the
one was the appointment of Lieutenant-General
Scott, Secretaty of War ad interim and the other the
appointment of General Grant ad inferior, upon the
suspension of Mr. Stanton, in August last.
Theappoinirnent of General Scott was legal, be
cause that was done before the restraining act of
March 2,1863, which requires the detail of the head of
another department toact ad interim.
The appointment of General Grant to take the place
of Mr. Stanton during his suspension would have been
illegal under the acts I have cited. he being an officer
of the army and not the bead of a department, if it had
.not been authorized by the second meth:l of the
tenure-of office act, which provides that in case of
.suspension, and no other, the President may desig
nate "some suitable person to perform temporarily
the duties of such office until the next meeting Of the
'Senate." Now, General Grant was such "suitable per
son," and was properly enough appointed under • that
provision. -
This answers one ground of the defense which is
taken by the President that he did not suspend Mr.
Stanton under the tenure-of-office act, but by his
general newer of suspension and removal of an Mil
- cer. If the President did not suepend Stanton under
• • the tenure-0-office act, because be deemed it uncon
stitutional and void; then there was no law author
izing him to appoint General Grant, and that dpe
pointment was unauthorized by law and a violation of
his oath of office.
But the tenure-of-civil-office bill by its express
terms ferbids any employment, authorization or ap -
•pointment of any person in civil office, where the ac
- pointment is by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, while the Senate is in session. If this
act is constitutional, F. d., if iris not so far in conflict
-with the paramount law of the land as to be Inopera
tive and void, then the removal of Mr. Stanton and
the appointment of General Thomas are troth in direct
violation of it, and are declared by it to be high nits
demeanour. - •
•
e- 4 - • The intent with which the President has done this
is not doubtful, nor are we obliged to rely upon the
principle of lawthat 0 Man must ho held to intend the
legal consequences of all his acts-. ~„ • . •
The President admits that he, intend to t ter :aside
,t he tenurectf-Office act, and thus ietett2firethatCOtt•-
mitution, it - that law wee uncouttitatfo •
, having shown that the President wilfully yielded
an act.of Congrtate without justification, both in the
removal of Stanton and the appointment of. Thomas,
for the purposedf obtaining wrangfully the posses
sion of the Var. Office by force, if need be, and cer
tainly by threats andiintimidatione, for the purpose of
controlling its appropriations thrOugh,itel ad interim
chiet, who 'obeli say that Anilrew Johnsen' is dot
guiity of the high crime and nnsdemeanora charged
against him in 'dm first eight Articles?
The respondent snakes answer to this view that the
President, believing this civil tenure law to be name
stitutdonal; had a right to violate it, for the purpose of
bringing then atter before the Supreme Court for its
-adjudication,
We are obliged, in amine, to ask the attention of
the Senate to this consideration, that they may take
it with them as onr case goes forward.
We claim that the question of the constitutionality
of sty law of Congress is. upon this trial, a Vitally
irrelevant one; because all the power or right in the
President to judge upon any supposed conflict of an
act of Congress with the paramount law of the Con
stitution is exhausted when he has examined a bill
sent him and returned it with his objections. If then
pasted over his veto it becomes as valid as , if in fact
signed by him. '
The Constitution has provided three methods, all
equally potent, by which a hill brought into either
house may become a law.
itt. By passage by vote of both houses, in duo form,
with the President's signature;
2d. By passoge by vote of both houses, in due form,
and the President's neglect to return it within ten
days with his objections;
:M. By passage by vote of both houses. in due form
a veto by the P, eeident, a reconsideration of both
blouses, aid a passage by a two-thirds vote.
The Constitution substitutes this reconsideration
and passage as an euivalent to the President's sig
nature. After that ho and all other officers must ex
ecute the law, whetbur, in fact, constitutional or not.
For tbo President to refuse to execute a law dully
passed, because be thought it unconstitutional, after
be had vetoed it for that reason, would, in effect, he
for him to execute hie veto and leave the law unex
coned.
It may be said he may do this st hie peril. True, but
that peril is to be impeached for violating his oath of
office, as is now being done.
If, indeed; laws duly passed by Congress affecting
generally the welfare of any considerable portion of
the people had been commonly, or as a usage. declared
by the Supreme Court unconstitutional, and therefore
inoperative, there might seem to be some palliation,
if not justification, to the Executive, to refuse to ex
ecute a law in order to, have its constitutionality tested
by the Supreme Court.
It is possible to conceive of so flagrant a case of un
constitutionality as to be such a shadow of justifica
tion to the Bxecutive, provided at the same time one
conceives an equally flagrant case of stupidity, ignor
ance and Imbecility, ore, In the Representatives
of the people and in thrift- Mate of the United States:
but both conceptions are eo rarely possible and absurd
as not to furnish a ground of governmental action.
How stands the fact? Has the Supreme Court so
frequently declared the laws of Congress in conflict
with the Constitution as to afford the President just
ground for belief, or hope even, that the Court will
do so in a given Inetance? I think I may safely assert
as a legal fact that since the first decision of the Su
preme Court till the day of this arraignment, no law
passed by Congress affecting the general welfare has
ever, by the judgment of that Court, been set aside
or held for naught because of unconstitutionality as
the ground-work of its decision.
In three cases only has the judgment of that Court
been influenced by the supposed conflict between the
law and the Constitution and they were cases affect
ing the Court itself and its own duties, and where the
law seemed to interfere with Its own prerogatives.
Touching privileges and prerogatives have been the
shipwreck of many a wholesome law. It is the sore
spot, the sensitive nerve of all tribunals. parliamentary
or judicial.
The first case questioning the validity V a law of
Congress is Has burn's, (2 Dallas 409), where the Court
decided upon the unconstitutionality of the act of
March 23, 1792, Statues at Large. vol. 1, p. 211, which
conferred upon the Court the power to decide tIDOII
and grant certificates of invalid pensions. The Court
held that such power could not be conferred upon the
Court as an oiginal jurisdiction from the provisions
of the Constitution. This decision would be nearly
unintelligible were it not explained in a note to the
case in United Statoi vs. Ferreira, (13 Howard. p. 52, )
reporting United States vs. Todd, decided February
17, 11 kf.
We learn, however, from both cases, the cause of
this nnintelligibility of the decision in Haybarn's
case. When the same question came up at the Cir
cuit Court in New York. the judges being of opinion
that thd law could not be executed by them as judges,
because it was unconstitutional, yet determined to
obey it until the case could be adjudicated by the
whole Court. They therefore, not to violate the law,
did execute It as commissioners until it was repealed,
y.hich was done the next year.
The judges on the circuit in Pennsylvania all
united in a letter to the Executive, most humbly
apologizing, with great regret, that their convictions
of duty did not permit them to execute the law ac
cording to its terms, and took special care that thin
letter should accompany their decision, so that they
might not be misunderstood.
lioth examples it would have been well for this re
spondent to have followed before he undertook to set
himself to violate an act of Congress.
The next case where the Court decided upon any
conflict between the Constitution and the law, is Gor
don vs. United States, tried in April, 1865, seventy
one years afterwards, two justices dissenting, without
any opinion being delivered by the Court.
The Court here dismissed an appeal from the Court
of Claims, alleging that, under the Constitution, no
appellate ju Isdiction could be exercised over the
Court of Claims under an actof Congress which gave
revisory power to the Secretary of the Treasury over a
decision of the Court of Claims. This decision is little
satisfactory, as it is wholly without argument or
authority cited.
The next ease is ec parte Garland (4 Wallace, (Z 3),
known as the attorney's oath case, where the Court
decided that an attorney was not an officer of the
United States, and, therefore, might practice before
that Court without taking rho test oath.
The.reasoning of the Court in that case would
throw doubt on the constitutionality of the law of
Congress, but the decision of the invalidity of the law
was not necessary to the decision of the case, which
did not command a unanimity in the Court, as it cer
ta nly did not the assent of the Bar.
Yet in this case it will be observed that the Court
made a rule requiring the oath to be administered to
the attorneys in obedience of the law until it cam(
before them in a case duly brought up for decision
The bnpreme Court obeyed the law up to the time it
was set aside. • They did not violate it to make a test
CIPC.
Here is another example to this respondent, as
to his duty in the case, which he will wish he had
followed, I may venture to ray. when he hears thr
judgment of the Senate upon the impeachment now
pending.
There are several other cases wherein the validity of
acts of Congress have been discussed before the Su
preme Conti, but none where the decision has turned
on that point.
In Martian' vs. Madison (1 Cranch, 137), Chief Jus
tice Marshall dismissed the case for want of jurisdic
tion, took opportunity to deliver a chiding opinion
against the administration of Jefferson before he did
Win the Dred Scott case, so familiar to the public, the
Court decided it had no jurisdiction. but gave the gov
ernment and the people a lecture upon their political
duties.
in the case of Fisher vs. Blight (2 Cranch, 358), the
constitutionality of a law was'very much discussed,
but was held valid by the decision of the Court.
In United e tales vs. Coombs (12 Peters, 72), although
the power to declare a law or Congress in conflict with
the constitution was claimed in the opinion of the
Court arguendo, yet the Jaw itself was sustained.
She case of Pollard vs. Hagan (3 Howard, 212), and
the two cases ,Oecizitit e vs. Kibbe (9 Howard, 271),
Hallett vs. Beebe (13 Howard, 25), growing out of the
sump controversy, have been thought to impugn the
validity of two private acts of congress, but a careful
examination will show that it was the operation and
not the validity of the acts which came in question
and made thW basis of the decision.
Thus it will be it that the Supreme Conryn three
instances only, have apparently by its decision, im
pogned the validityof an act of Congress because of
a conflict with the Constitution, and in each case a
question of the rights and prerogatives of the Court
or its officers has been in controversy.
The cases where the constitutionality of an act of
Congress has been doubted in the obiter dicta of the
Court, but were - not the basis of decision. are open
to other , criticisms.
3laybUry vs. Madison, Chief Justice' 4ardhall
had just beereserving fez Secretary of State in an op
posing administration to the one whose acts he was
trying to overturn as Chief. J ustice.
In the Dred Scott case, Chief Justice Taney—select
ed by General Jackson to remove the deposits, because
his bitterpartisanship would carry him through where
Duane haired and was removed—delivered the opine
ion of the Court, whose obits?' dicta fanned the dame
of dissension which led to the civil war throngh
which the people have just passed, and against that
opinion the judgment of the country .has long been
recorded.
[Continued on the Last page.l
ILLth CONWILESS.-SECOND SESSION.
GLOBE ON VitiTZIWAY'S PHOOKEDINOIS.
SRNs.= —After the Court of Impeachment had ad:
burned. the President pro tem., Mr. Wade, called the
13enutt to order.
On motion of Mr. E herman, the Senate again took up the
report of the conference Committee on the bill to relieve
certain Infir ufacturen from internal tax.
Mr. ()times (Iowa) asked the chairman if the commit.
tee (Mr. Sherman). why they .had 'exempted flour and
lumber
Mr. Sherman replied that there was no reason, in hie
opinion, why these articles should not pay the tax. *To
euy that flour could not bear a tax of two cents a barrel
was a species of humbug, Mit he yielded rather than peril
the bill.
Ile explained the various chabgea in the amendments,
in reply to queries from Messrs. liondricks,Frelinghuysen
ar d others.
Mr..Morrill (Vt.) expressed surprise that the Senator
should call it a humbug to exempt' lumber and flour.
which had beemexempted [remit° beginning. it would
bo a humbug to fax them now.
Mr. Sherman retorted that an equally good argument
could be made for exemption' for, boots and clothing.
h ch erall knew that lumber was consumedmostly by the
ri,
Mr. Morrill said it was desirable to exempt lumber 'bo•
c' , Ußftit affected building, and that very little profit !Was
made on flour.
Mr. Grimes said the senator from Moe
? ill), had rf pealed sxactly the arguments used by himself
taal , year agair et the tariff on imported lumber. ,he lum.
bermen and millere are among the richest mon in the
colmtsy, and this would simply place them on a footing
with other manufacturers.
THE'DAILY EVENING BULLETIN.-P#ILADELPHIA, , TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1868.
•
Mr. Commis(Cal.) denied that the two or titre° dollars
of tat were ad ded to the pica of lumber.
Mr. esthete said It wee in hut [cotton.
Mr. Conkling (N. Y.) condemned the provision In regOrd
to whisky frauds, as more liable to abuse than any DEMl
oust one, the Attorney-tienetal would/ act erten the
mimes , ntetions of the DistrietAtiOrney;the ye, y officer
against whose malfeasance it was intended to provide. tie
se ills the becrebiry of the Treasury. and bit auberdinate , .
_lle alluded to the New. York system of requiring mite
ecreselves to be granted innpen court, where both sititla
could he heard and reasons shown. He feared they
would be "hoisted with their own petard." by thus slid iv.
lug to be done by some clerk offthe Treasury LlopartmSat
in a closet what was not alloWed to ho done by n col)rt.
'.ihey should keep In the proper channel of justice.
He did rot feel like moving to send this report back
but hoped it would not be taken as a precedent, and tl a
it would he estranged better in a EU beequent bill.
Mr. Howard remarked to the donator that it has
oi l.
was° been in the power of district attorneys to en Cr
"71e le prownicc" and diem:Alums a case, which w do
of the greatest mom cos of corruption and abuse under fie
administration of our laws.
Mr. Conkling asked whether the Attorney General es
not as likely to be influenced by the representation of ilia
lbatcletAttorney as the court. .
Mr. Howard replied that the court had nothing to ado
with that. '1 he hiebict Attorney had the power of hijn.
self without asking the court, and then. if the court had
the power, It was general* , influenced by the DistrP t-
Aborney.
Mr. Norton said this did not change the existing lo al
laws. Putt eimply required in addition the supervision of
the Attorney-General and Secretary of the Treasury. ifs,
AA a remitter of the commito e, bad agreed to this as the
beat 11/ellllB he could obtait for the punishment of whim
frauds.
Mr. Cent:ling dissented; holding that this allowed eve y
question to be decided by the (tete dixf( of two
but as it was apt Cresar,otte nullfs, he supposed they nactat
acquiesce.
Isle. Hendricks said he would vo'e against the report
because cf the fifth and last sections. lie claimed Gila
its eflest would he to water the responsibility until theie
wee none; and there was more check on district attorne
In local public opinion. than by this mode. He also he d
that punishment by both lino and imprisonment would
k unjustly in many eases.
'I he report was agreed to, and at five minutes past five
o'clock. the Senate ftdjourued.
HOLM: OF REPRENENTATIVES.—The House reassembled
at twenty minutes past four.
Mr. Schenck said that the Conferenee . Committee on
the bill relieving manufactures from taxation had agreed
this morning on a report; that the report hail been insde
to the, Senate, and that he had been inf tmed by tue
thairman of the Final ce Committee that the Senate put..
posed to take up the report this evening and to dispose of
it. He trusted, therefore, that as the bill was to go into
effect on the let et A midthe House would meet tmmorrew
at 11 or haif-past l 0 in order to dispose of the conference
report.
The Speaker asked if there was any objection to the
proposition, and
Air. Kerr objected.
The dpeoker said tha house would new resume the
consideration of the matter which was being read _at the
time the House went into Committee of the Vt t
attend the Managers to the Senate, being the joint react •
lotion of the New Jersey Legislature withdrawing its as
sent to the Constitutional Amendment known us the
14 , 11 Article.
The rules were suspended, and the order made for an.ls
- to-morrow at half pact It o'clock.
Mr. V‘ ashburne (111. —1 move to suspend the rides for
the purpose of making the following order:
'Bri ,, lred..lhat the retolution of the Legislature of the
State of New Jereev. purporting to withdraw the assent
of said State to thesonetllutional amendment known Lai
the 14th article, be rettu tied by the Speaker of the 'louse
to the gentleman who presented it, for the reacoa that the
• Caine to diereepectful to the 110111513 and scandalous in cha
racter, and that Ito'title only shall he referred to in 'the
journal nd in the, Comore , no tut (laolg.
Mr. Haigh. (N. J.) Bald he supposed the Chair had at
ready decided that question.
'1 be Speaker said the motion row submitted was dif
ferent from that before euggeeted. If this were a eimple
resolitticn offered by the gentleman from Lonnie. he
would ride it mquestionably not in order. The rules
cold be suspended at any time for the ourpoee of taking
a petit.on from before a committee, and of ordering it to
le: returned to a member, er of taking any other paper
not before the Howie at all from the files of the House
and Bending it to the Senate. or transferring it to any
other place se hatever. rilig was a motion to suspend the
ruler, and was, therefore, in order.
Mr. Eldridge—The Chair has alr , ady decided that the
paper ft not before the House, and cannot be before the
House.
The Speaker—The paper is in the custody of the Douse,
and is exactly in the same position as if it had been re
f, lied by the Li u• e to a come)! tee.
Some discussion followed, the Democratic members
trying to have the paver read, to "know what it was., if
they v, ere to vote upon it as being scandalous and there
epectful."
'I he question was then taken on Mr. Washburne's Mo
tiou to suspend the rules and adopt his resolution. The
vote rerulted--yeae to. nays 17.
So the rules were suspended and the resolution
adopted. •
Ihe votee of the New Jersey members were: Yens—
lialrey, 11111 and Moore. Nay 2 —Mr. Haight.
Absent—Mr. bitgreaves.
When the name of Mr. Brooks was called. Mr. Brooke
raid: I decline to vote. The paper to be voted on has not
even been read.
'I he Bowie, at quarter past live, adjourned.
Philadelphia. Bank Statement.
The following is the weekly statement of tae Phila
delphia Banks, made up on Monday afternoon, which
presents the following aggregates:
Capital Stock-- .......... ........
Loans and Discounts... ...... ..... 53,450,6 TS
Due from other Banks
Due to other Banks..
.....
Q.J. Legal Tender and Demand Notes 14.348,391
Clearing; ........ ............ .............. . 32,184,344
Balance.— ........ .......... ...... 2,479.242
The following statement shows the condition of the
Banks of Philadelphia, at various times daring the last
feed •rnonths :
2867. Loans. Specie. Circulation.Depaiiita
Jan. 1.....52,312,825 903,633 10,389,820 41,808,327
Feb. 4.....52,551,130 874,564 10,430,893 39,592,713
Mar. 4.....51,979,173 826,873 10,581,800 39,367,396
April 1. ...50,780,P6 803,148 10,631,539 34,150,265
May 6....53,05-fM7 388.053 10,630,695 37,574,054
June 1..,5'',747,308 334,393 10,637,132 37,332,144
July 1<..52,538,962 365,187 10,641,311 36,616.847
A uLf. b.... 53,427,840 302,055 10,635,925 53,094,543
Sept. 2....53,734,687 307,658 10,625,356 39,323,354
Oct. 7....53.041,100 258,303 10 627,921 .34.857,40`
Nov. 4....52,584,077 273,590 10,640,820 53,604,001
Dec. 2...151,213.435 210,071 10,646,819 34,817,985
1868.
Jan. 6.....52,002,304 235,912 10,639,003 36,621,274
Fi b. 3....52 604,919 248,673 10,638,915 31,922,287
NI ar. 2....52,459,759 211.365 10,630,484 35,798,314
9. . . .53,041.665 232,140 10,633,713 34,626,86
' 16....53,367,611 '!51.051 10,634,399 34 523,550
" 23....53 677,337 229 516 10,643,613 33,836,996
" 511....55,450,875 192,853 .10,643,606 32,428 3111 r
The following is a detailed statement of the bust.
CIOES of the Philadelphia Clearing lions° for the past
week, furnished by G. E. Arnold. Esq., Manager:
Clearings. talaneet.
Mar. 23......... ........ $4,132 229 93 $422,469 0f
~24,
I.OI9ARTI OF TRADE.
SAMUEL E. STOKES,
GEORGE N. TATUAM, Movnnor Comiarrpal
ANDREW WHEELER,
QUTATIONS,
Reported or rhuadalpuia Evening Bulletin.
ZAZA—Sehr A Ryoreon, Ilonghton-352 lihde moliiesee
35 tee do S & W Weleh.
FONT SPAIN—Schr Clara Sawyer, Walla-133 hhdil
eugar ton do 51 punche inolaseoe J Maeou &
L(IAi $ *.V EI , jlI:IUW T4i.'c
_
TO AB.R.IVE.
6111111 ?EOI TOE DATE
Ca1ed0D1A............01A5E0VV..New York March 11
tiec1a................Liverp001—805t0u&N York _March 17
Palmyra Liverpool-24 Y via floston...)larch 17
Un ion' Sonth ampton. .N 0 w Yoi k...... —March IS
....... Liverpool—New York. ... .. ..March lb
City of Boston. ....LiVerpool—New Y0rk.........M arch 18
Peruvian Liverpool—Portland March 19
Tripoli ........ . .Liverpool—Boston&N York.. March
Cinibria ..Southampton..New York \larch 20
Australasian Liverpool—New York. ..... ..March 21
Cuba...... ....Liverpool—New York........ March 21
Ilanbattan.......Liverpool..New Y0rk........M arch 24
City of Antwerp..Liverpool..New,York........March 26
TO DEPART.
Java.... ... . ..... .New York.. Liverpool April 1
Arizona.... New York..ASpinwall.... ..... .April 1
Colorado... . ...... New Y0rk..Liverp001...........April 1
Morro Castle New York—Havana. April 2
Y0rk..8remen..,.........April 2
Borussia ............Now York—Hamburg April 4
York.. London..... ........April 4
Virgo New York.. Vera Cruz..to April 4
San FranciAco s .....Newl ork—Saa Juan. 4
Europe. New York.. ............April 4
Denmark, ----New York..Liverpoo • ...... April 4
Caledonia. —.. —New York.. Glasgow . ... ... April 4
City of llrashington..N. York..Liverp'lviailaPi..April 6
Guiding Star Now York..Aspinwall.... ... . . .April 7
Juniata.. .......Philadelphia..N. O. via 111avana.April
China........ New Y0rk..Liverp001..........A0r1l
A1epp0........ .. ... New York.. Live 001.. ..... April 9
Pioneer..........Philadelphia..Wi 9
dun foam 6 971 thin Bars, 61131 Mau •Wwrzs. 5 4U
ARRIVED YESTERDAY.
Steamer Ann Ella*, Richards, 24 hours from New York,
with sods(' to W al-Baird k co.
Steamer Frank, Pierce. 24 hours from New York: with
rodeo to W M Baird dr, Co.
Schr Clara !Sawyer, Walls, 19 days from Port Spain,
with auger and molasees to John Meson &Co. Expe
rienced heavy weather, during which carried away jib
boom foretopmast and sustained other damage.
Behr A Ryerson, Houghton, 22 dela fromlaza, with
molasses to S & W Welsh.
Schr Jas L Bavaria, Melvin. I day from Little Creek
Landing, Del. with grain to Jae L Bewley & Co. •
Schr B 1 0 Woolsey, Soper, 1 day from Lewes, Del. with
wrecked goods from bark D Nichols.
Salo Rattler, Beane, from Gloucester, with Sib to
captain.
my ARM) YESTERDAY.
Steamer A C Stimere, Knox, New York. W P Clyde&Co.
Steamer F Franklin, Pierson, Baltimore, A Groves, Jr.
steamer ( beater, Jones, New York, W r Clyde & Lo.
Schr J J Spencer, Fleming. Cardenas, D S Stetson & (M.
Seim A M ltdwarda. Linnet'. Richmond, Lathbury, Wick.
emblem & Co.
flebr i t al".9 o PIA .17. 3 ' , lnch...Bridgeport, Ct. J Rommol, Jr.
&he 4tsr. No 44. / rouser; Norwalk, do
Scht.S.tugek Warsvig".,New Haven. do
&he Cornelia, Carroll ~Red Rock. , do
Schr floo R Conover, Robertson, Washington. do
Schr 0 le'llawley. Providence, do
rezmo Rearm.
Steamer Flom er, Catharine, hence at Wilniington. NO.
yeeterday.
Steamer Ariee, gowns, cleared It Boston nth instant
for this port.
Steamer Allemanis, Rendus, for Hamburg, cleared at
New York
_yesterday.
Reamer Virgule. Sherwood. at Galveston gild instant
from New Yor
5,335,509 GS 333,163 29
6,551,608 74 365,356 69
5,553,564 10 379 117 97
5,188,141 48 489,985 0,
5,368,290 74 433,656 51
$34.184.314 57 $2 479,242
II;11V1 1;11 :1.1) 11 Dif C:11
psi: 'i J :: ..
, r aletuner Hibernia, Brown, sidled Dom Portland 28th
tor Lavergoot • ,
Llahtshipl.lromdr
Dade, Blizzard, from WHinington: Dol.
dt NeW Yorletfigh inst. Is intended to be placed on the
will -0 k by R i eniner Scotland. on the Outer Middle Ground.
Ship Ben Voirlich (Br), Je.nkina, from Padang Dec 4
;it New York yeAes day. 224 inat, lac 26 84 14, lon 23 43 W.
4 Pioke ship White Swallow, from Manila for Now York,
27 slaYsil out,
Ship Dreadnought, Callaghan., from New York for San
Francisco, was poised - 12th Mat. lat 29 60. lon 5450. - .
Bark Waabington But, her, Doane. cleared at Boston
Brigt for Portland
! )slyn. Tuthill, from Rio Janeiro. in Hampton
Ronda 29th Mot.
Brig Isabella Beurmann. Brown, cleared at Charleston
27th 'nat. for this , port with lumber.
&bud H Edwards. Bartlett, hence at Charleston 27th
instant.
SchrLizzle Evans,Evans, was loading at Savannah 27th
inst, for this port.
Schu John Stroup, Crawford, hence at Richmond 28th
instant.
. -
Schr David G 17ord, Kelly, from Newport 19th instant
for this port, was spoken on the 23d. lat 37, lon 76, with
rails slit and lose of mate overboard, on the Hat.
tichrilielle (of Boston), Howe)), from Boston for this
poll !truck on the middle channel. Hell Gate. at
on Saturday last, hut came off immediately with loss of
both anchors; hull uninjured.
lichrlatephen S Lee, Milton. cleared at Galveston Nat
inst. for thisport.
Behr J W Vanneman, Sharp, from Cienfuegos 4th inst.
at Boston
. -
Behr Sarah Gardner, Stacey, cleared at Boston 28th inst
for Lane's Cove to load for this port.
Si hr Rhoda D Shannon, DilkeS, from New Castle, Del
at Providence 21th inst.
8t hr, A Treat, Sawyer, cleared at New York yesterday
for this port.
Belir. Walter Lily, Lesnor, from Rio Janeiro 9th ult. for
Baltimore, at Fort M moo yesterday.
lichr Lottie. hence for t3oeton, was , poken :16th instant,
Absedom be ring NW 18 mike , lost foresail in the gale of
the:lllst info,
. .
Behr.% J E iiinnone, Young; N H Skinner. Thrasher,
and Lizzie Maul, Bilbao, eailed from Providence 27th
ink. for thin port.
. _
HcLie M R Heed, Benson, and Laniartine, Butler, eailed
from NOW Btdford 28th init. for this port.
MARINE MISCELLANY.
Bark John la attmea, jogam. from Guantanamo, at Now
York, reports March 21. lht 40 10, lon 74 60. bad a revolving
gale • Iran hove to for 50 hours; lost la lihds .molasses off
the deck.
Behr Tabitba 8 Grier, from T cbanon, Del. for N York,
ashore at I htle Egg Harbor, had been discharged 27th
toot. and will be gat off.
;A GENERAL ASSORTMENT
BUILDINGS
BUILDING F LUMBER
AND
HARD WOODS.
F. H. WILLIAMS,
Siventeenth and Spring Garden StreLts,
E m g
hi.t.th tin -
PHELAN & BUCKNELU
Twenty-third and Chestnut Sts.
LARGE STOCK OF
WALNI IT, ASH AND POPLAR.
ALL THICKNESSES,. CLEAN AND DRY.
FINE LOT WALNUT VENEERS.
CEDAR, CYPRESS AND WIII FE PINE SHINGLES.
L I SEASONED LUMBER.
BDCHIGAN CANA OA AND PENNSYLVANIA.
fo ALL SIZES AND QUALITIES.
F ORIN(' AND HEAVY 10 A E.OLI NA TIMBER.
SPRUCE AND HEMLOCK JOIST
BUILDING LUMBER OF ALL KINDS.
mh:6m
1 - BtB. 'ALVA. Ell CL7 AR PINE 1868
CHOICE PATTERN PINE.
SPANISH CED&R IJ R PATTERNS.
BROTHER dc
ZOO SOUTH STREET.
8. FLORIDA IFLOORING.
FLORIDA MLOORDIG. 1868
CAROLINA FLOORING.
VIRGINIA FLOORING.
DELAWARE FLOORING.
ASH FLOORING.
WALNUT FLOORING.
FLORI
PLA TEP
NK BOARDS.
RAIL
AT REDUCED PRICES.
1.868. lUgtrri "" P L
"1868 .
WALNUT BOARDS .
I • ' WALNUT PLANK.
• LARGE STOCK-SEASONED.
1868 UNDERKE RS RS' MILDER. 8
. UNDERTAKERS' LUMBER. 186
1868. SEASONED POPLAR.
SEASONED CHERRY
194 9en
4,131,731
7,609 325
32,420,390
10,643,606
ABIL
WHITE OAR PLS. AND BDB.
HICKORY.
1868• CIGAR BOX Id/UMBEL
BPAA? - I CErAft BOX BOARD& 1868
FOR BALE LOW.
CAROLINA SCANTLDIG.
1868. CAROLINA H. T. SILLS. lB6B,
NORWAY SCANTLING.
LARGE ASSORTMENT.
1868. CEDAR SHINGLES.
CEDAR SHINOLFR. 1868.
cIYYREFIS SHINGLES.
NY. PINE SHINGLES.
1868. R ED D CEDAR
POSTSS.
1868.
CHESTNUT POSTS.
CHESTNUT PLANK AND BOARDS.
1868. SPRUCE JOIST.
f3PUC lB6B.
PLASTERING LATH.
OAK SILLS.
SaADIE BROTHER df
fal-tt 2500 SOUTH STREET.
IF YOU WISH TO BE
BEAUTIFUL,
Cse Ostelia de Persia, or Victoria Begin, fa,
Beautifying the Complexion and
Preserving the Skin.
This invaluable toilet article was discovered by a eels
twitted chemist in France, and it is to him that the Ladles
,f the Courts of Europe owe their beauty. With all its
implicity and purity there is no article that will compare
wie
skin.th it as a beautifier of the complexion and preserver of
th
M. C..hfcClusky purchased the receipt of him some tee
years ago; he has since that time given it a perfect trills
among his personal friends and the aristocratic circles of
Philadelphia. New York. Baltimore Boston, Now Orleans
St. Louis, Savannah, Charleston., Wilminton, N. C., &a
They have used it with unqualified admiration, and
would consider the toilet imperfect without this delightful
And purely harmless preparation. Victoria Regia and
Oscelia de Persia has given ouch entire satisfaction it
every instance, that he is now compelled to offerit to the
public. This article is entirely different from anything of
the kind ever attempted, and is warranted
FREE FROM ALL POISONOUS SUBSTANCES.
After using Oscelta de Ponia and liktoriaßegie for s
short time, the skin will have a soft, satin like texture; i;
Imparts a freshness, smoothness and softness to the sklr
that can only be produced by using this valuable article
ft presents no vulgar liquid or other compounds, and it
are cannot possibly be detected by the closest observer.
FOB REMOVING TAN, FRECKLES, SUNBURN ANI
CUTANEOUS DISEASES FROM THE SKIN.
IT IS INVALUABLE,
M. C. McCluskey has every confidence in tecommendhis
his Victoria Regis and °scale de Persia to the Ladies
ea being the only perfect and reliable toilet article now ir
Oae.
Genuine Prepared only by
M. C. MeClusizey,
And his name stamped on each label—no other Is genuine,
Depot, No. 109 North Seventh Street,
Sold by all Drum:hit sand Perfumers in the United State
and Canada. oath a tam§
DR. HARTMAN'S
REEF, IRON AND BRANDY,
A Certain Cure for Consumption and all Disemee of tht
Lunge or Bronchial 'rubes.
Laboratory No. 5111 South FINTEEN'III Street.
JOHNSTON, HOLLOWAY dt COWDEN.
6141 ARCH Street,
ROBERT SHOEMAKER & CO.
FOURTH and /LACE dtreela tio.
General Agen
PAL DENTALLINA,—A dUPElilt)it
1 t
cleaning tTeeth, destroying animalcule which in
feet them , giv ingtone to the gums. and leaving a feellus
of fragrance an dperfect cleanliness in the mouth. It mal
be used daily. and will be found to strengthen weak and
bleeding gums, while the aroma and deteruiveness will
recommend it to every one. Being composed with the
mo b tans of the Dentist, Physicians and illeroscopkt, II
is confidently offered as a rellakie substitute for the on
certain washes formerly in vogue.
Eminent Dentists, acquainted with the constituents of
the Dentallltus. advocate its use; it ountahus nothing tt
Prevent its norestralited_emplument. Made only by
JAMES T. SHINN, Apothecary,
Broad and filmic° =elm
For sale by Druggists generally. and s ,
Fred. Brown. 11, Eitsckhtne,
Hansard & Robert O.' Davis,
G. It Keeley. Geo. O. Bowen
Isaac , H. Kay. BLUers. "
T. J. 11 eis O. Dusting.
Ambrose d ' as. 11, Eberle.
Edward ken*, James N. Marks,
Wm.' B. Webb. E. Brinshurst & Co.
James lA. Bistibsso. rat &
Hughes & Combo. . Bistro Bond,
Ile . A. Bower. eth& Bro.
• REMOVAL.
J., A,' xo.sr,.
e Kaauteteturer . of Children!' Carriage'',
has removed his Store from 314
( k ; 94l t-
rz:fxDocasketreAvettot2worlitharaNltlNTlistentreert,
1.1 - 1 - Ci/BEEC..
- -
RED CEDAR.
WALNUT AND ME.
IFIJEDICAL.
HED/OVA- 1 4*
- COPAIRTNESBIIII'S.
,
iiiiii46o CO-PARTNERSILEP.
? , *- - -:::;.i,
~ l, IC 'the the FIRST n
1,, r ~1,1 1 , tup ELK fil to introducethe
f-- - -
__ pa,' ^ manufacture of the now WELL.
111,, • -- ", KNOWN and MITCH-ADMIRED
-, iiiii ,..
. ,
MARBLEIZED SLATE MANTELS,
And other SLATE WORK,belng of the former firm of
ARNOLD & WILSON. tAIESTNUT street, haa T.D.d
DAY associated with him Mr. JUSEPIi B. MILLER, a
PRACTICAL MANTEL MAKER.
We aro now prepared to execute all work in our line in
the beat manner. All orders will be filled with care and
promPlner B.
AUCHITECTS, BUILDERS,
AND THE PUBLIC ARE INVITED TO EXAMINE OUR
WORK.
an NT: a rl t r ia ri t a V on afi v d air egi n n t tg . attended to with despatch,
by actors and Salesroom at the Old stand.
Nos. 401 and 403 R. SIXTIENTII St., above OILLOWIIIII.
JOHN W. WILSON.
WILSON & MILLER.
PHILADELPHIA, March P. Mi.
IifiILADII.PIIIA. FEBRUARY 1B?. lgla
Mr. J. H. Butler (brother of E. li. Butler) is a part
ner in our ti- m from and after this date.'
mhl4tff E. H. BUTLER & CO.
•
stIEWL: D. M N gpitt
CARRIAGE BUILDER.
respectfully invitee attention to his large stock of finished
Carriages; also, orders taken for Carriages of ever]
description, at
MANUFACTORY AND WAREROO2II3,
3482, 8434 and 8436 MARKET street,
Three 'squares west of rentorylvania Railroad Depot,
West Philadelphia. ja2B-to th e3mt
AB FIXTURE S. —MISERY. MERRILL &
G
THACRARn, No. 718 Chestnut street, manufacturers
of Gas Fixtures. Lamp &c., Aso , would call the attention
of tha public to their lar .,
ge and elegant assortment of Gas
Chandeliers, Pendants, Brackets. &c. Thelsalso Introduce
gas pipes into dwellings and public buildings, and attend
to extending, altering and repairing gas pipes. All work
warranted
Allitr.rium SALES.
BUNTING. DURBOROW & CO., AUCTIONEERS
Nos. 282 and 231 MARKET street corner Bank street
SUCCESSORS TO JOHN B. MYERS & CO
LARGE 'POSPLIVE TALE OF BRITISH, FRENCH
GERMAN AND DOMESTIC DRY GOODS.
ON FO•IM. MONTHS' CREOIT.
ON THURSDAY MORNING.
April 2. at 10 o'clock, embi acing about 1000 Package'
and Lots of Staple and Fancy Articles.
LARGE PEItEN PTORY SALE OF EUROPEAN AND
DOMESTIC DRY GOOOS.
• NOTlCF.—lnclud ed in our sale of 1 HURSDAY, April
2, will be found in part theOM ft Sowin S g, viz.:
D P.STIC.
Bales bleached and brown Sheetings, Shirting)! and
DOW..
do. all wool, Canton and Fancy Shirting Flannels.
Cases Cottonades. Kentucky and mixt Jeans Ginghams.
do. Linings. Cambric., Corset Jeans, madder Print'.
do. Bine stripes, Ticks, Denims. Checks, Silecias.
do. Cassimcree, Satinos, Tweeds , Coatings ; Kersey&
LINEN GOODS.
Cases flea. and W. B. Damasks, Table Clothe, Napkins,
Sheeting&
do. Irivil Shirting; Spanish, Big and Blouse Linens.
Co. Ducks. Plain and Fancy rills, Burlaps, Canvas,
Crash.
MERCHANT TAILORS' GOODS.
Pieces French, English and Saxony black and colored
Clothe.
do. English Menem!, French Cassimerea and Coat
ings.
do. Doeskin Twilled Cloth, Tricot., Palotots,
do. Black and Colored Italians, Satin de Chines,
• 1 )rap d'Ete.
DRESS GOODS, SIF.KS AND SHAWLS.
Pieces London Black and Colored Mohalre, Alpacas,
Pekin&
do. Poplin Alpacas, Empress Clothe, Mozambiques.
do. Paris Delainee. Leung. Scotch Gingham!. Lawns.
do. Black and Colored Silks, Fancy Spring Shawls,
Cloaks.
—ALSO— • •
Hoeiery, Gloves. Balmoral and Hoop Skirts, Traveling
and iinderett:rte and Drawers. Sowings, Marseilles and
Honeycomb Quiltr, French Piques, White Goods, Um.
brellas, Silk Ties, Shirt Fronts, Linen Cambric likle &c.
SPECIAL SALE OF 6000 PIECES 'SAXON b WOVEN
DRESS GOODS.
ON FRIDAY MORNING
April 3, at 10 o clock, on four months' credit, by order of
Messrs. BCIIIIIIEb ER BROS, '
Particulars hereafter.
1868
LARGE POSITIVE BALE OF CARPETING&
250 ROLLS CANTON MATTING& - .&c.
ON FRIDAY MORNING.
April 3. at 11 o'clock, bn FOUR MONTHS' CREDIT,
about at pieces Ingrain. venetian. List, Hemp, Cottage
and Rag Carpetings.. Mattings, &c.
LARGE PEREMPTORY SA LE OF FRENCH AND
OTHER EUROPEAN DRY GOODS, &c.
ON MONDAY MORNING.
April 6, at 10 o'clock, ON FOUR MONTHS' CREDIT,
900 lots of French. India. German and British Dry Goods,
By BABBITT & CO.. AUCTIONEERS.
CASH AUCTION HOUSE,
No. 3fARRET street, corner of BANK street
Cash advanced on consignments without extra charge.
NOTICE TO AULITL.N BUYER 3,
By Catalogue.
ON WFDNESDAY MORNING.
April 1 commencing at 10 o'clock.
600 PIEC1:8 GINGHAM, CHECKS. BLEACHED and
BROWN GOODS. Jeans, Cloths, Cassimerea. Satinets.
&c., &c.
Also. WO lots Hosiery. Gloves. Notions. ke.
UNDERWRITER'S SALE.
200 dozen Hose and Half 11 ose,damaged slightly by firs.
BOOT S, SHOES, HATS, STRAW G..01).6, &c.
Comprising It 0 cams Boob, Balmorvls, Felt ilats,Straw
Goods, Ac.
LINEN GOODS. LINEN GOODS .
Comprising Table Damasks, Towels. Napkins, &c.
CLOTHING. (ILO EtuNo.
Coats, Pants. Vesta, Suits, Blouses. Ac.
A ko, 150 dozen Hoop and Balmoral Skirts. of the latest
styles. Also.
WHITE AND FANCY DREAS SHIRTS.
A'so, invoices press Goods, Cutlery, Stacks from
Stores, &c.
BY B. SCOTT. Jn.
ButiTTl3 ART GALI ERN'.
No. 1020 CHESTNUT street. Philadelohia.
MESSRS. VITI BRO'd. FOURTH SALE OF _
ELEGANT ALABASTER VASES ANDORNAMENTS,
Large Urns and Columns, French Fire Gilt Twenty-one
Day Clocki, Candelabras, Bronze Grottoes and Figurer,
repreeenting the Three Graces, Uance of Venus, Venus
at the Bath,Diana do Cabo, the Four Seaeons, he.;
elegantly carved Baccanto Tazzas, for Fruit ana garde,
Biequet Ware, Parisian Fancy Hoods. dcc,
Will take place at the Art Gallery, No. ME Chestnut et.,
ON TUESDAY MuriNtwts
March 31, at 1i.34 o'clock, and con tuned at 736 o'clock in
the evening. In the above fine Collection of objects of
w t will algid be found four fin iv executed Carrara Mar
ble Statue, for monumental purposes, Just landed fro in
Italy.
Open for examination on Monday.
G. 11. BECHTEL'S GRAND SPECIAL SALE OF
TRIPLE ILV E it-PLATED 'WARE.
Also, In connection with the above rata of &levers. Viti
Brothers will be sold,
ON TUESDAY MORNING,
A full and general aeeort ent of beet quality Triple Silver
Pl.ted Ware, manufactured exp - eesly tor Mr. 11. 11.
NEC 'I EL'S retail cuetomere. All warranted as repre
tented or no sale.
11. THOMPSON dr CO. AUCTIONA
_ Ct..M.fibliT HALL AUCTION RHOS: lit
CHESTNUT street and 1219 and 1201 CLOVE... reel.
CARD. -We take pleasure in informing the nubile thai
our FURNITURE SALEa are c^nfined strictly to entirely
NEW and FIRST CLASS FURNITURE, al in perfew
order and guaranteed in every reepeet.
iiegular Balsa of. Furniture every WEDNESDAY.
Out-door sales promptly attended to.
LARGE AND ATTRATIVE HALE OF SUPERIOR
NEW HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE.
ON WEDNESDAY MORNINu.
April 1. 1868, at 10 o'clock, will bo mold. at theConcers
Hall Auctiey Rooms, a superior s'ock of New Household
Furniture, comprising Parlor butte, In plush, terry. rope
and • hair cloth: Chamber Suite, In oil and varnish
Wardrobes, Bookcases, Centre and Extension Tables'
Reception, Dining and Cottage Chairs, dm. hc.
Also, an invoice of Carpets,
do. do. - do. Mantle and Pier MirrOre.
do. do. do. Cedar Cheats.
do. do. do. Impor ed Cigars. •
do. do. do.' kramed German Lithographs.
D. MoWNWR & (X).
d'A
biLCCEBBOIII3 TO
MoCLELLAND & CO.. Auctioneers,
• • No. 606 MARKET etre.
LARGE SPRING SALE GP' 1700 CASES HOU rs:
• MORA BROGANS. BALMORALS, &c.
UN THURSDAY MORNING,
April' 2. commencing at ten o'clock, we will aell
catalogue, for cwt., 1700 cases Men's, Boys' and Youths'
Boota,tihosktrogans, Balmorala, &c.
Also, a Superior assortment of Women's, Minas' am'
Chlldren'e wedr.
Direct from City and Fasten' Manufacturers. •
To which the epectal attention of the traoe IS called.
L. ASHBELDOE At CO. Al CTIONEERS,
No. 505 MARKET street, above Fifth.
LARGE SPRING F.AI..EDF BOOTS, SHOES AND
HATS.
ON WEDNESDAY MORNING. .
April lost K o'clock. we will sell by catalogue, gbstar
1500 cases Moots and Shoes, embracing a • Sae assort
ment of first class city at d Eastern made geode, tt
thich the attention of the trade in called
Also, 50 cases Men's Fur and Wool Dabs and Clots
111 - 1311 (PRINCIPAL MONEY EBTABLIBMIENT.; B. g
.1. corner of snail and RACE streete.
Money'' advanced on Merchandise ilinenally— WWII%
Jon WI,
_Diamonds, Gold and Sliver eloyeTßate.egret and onALE al
articles of valuth
_for any length of d' on.
%PAWNER, AND JEVMLNY T rr.
Fiz t t ;told /Utak* Casti, Double A BO time K= and z
Opon Faet
gug America* and, -Awls,: , Patent , Leiter Wstctros
Pine Go d Itunting Case and %sn'itracek u tne Witches
Irke ( I T PUPA* oif •Iller Watehee t Silver Hunt
Lng C %lid Upon ate. .ftAlisn. A.mertean,ana Suitt
Patent. yet and I Itrpin4
.WO..*H. 11.1doilble Oise Englist
gaartrer and o er watotrm : Lotus. ripply Watcties
Dlastiond ' Bream I Rigor Rinse; Ear Rlngs i :Ruda
T rager
"" t , I=-= %VOA, Medallions; 'Bracelets; Bear
Nast t Ringo ;Pencil Cases and (revel'',
ge it i nALE.: 4 4.\latitil 'und 7 villuable Fireproof Chest
suitable for a Jewelers cost data
rk&VIS & HARVEY, AUCTIONEERa.
.1 5 • Late with M. Thomas it Sous.
Wre No. 4111 WALNU eltroat.
FURNITURE SALES at the Store every TUESDAY.
BALER AT itERIDENCES will twelve tositioulat
attention. •
ea:ifiefaiolEs.
GAS FIXTURES.
rra), 0 , „
M THOMAS & SONG, AUCTION
Nos. 129 and 141 12kutttirjbliAreet.
SALES OF STooKS AND REAL, AWL
I vabilo aides at the Philadelada Knits/We MIMIC
Tl ESDAY, at 12 o'clock. • • -
1119 - Handbills of eachproverb" Doe 1 1119 *WI
addition to which we publish, on the antra
to each sale., one thousand catalogues in pato alli k
Piv ng fultdestuiptione of all the property** -
the
P itLLOWING TUESDAY, and a List o[ 482011
at ate Sale.
( Our. Sales are also advertised in the follt ia lleig
newspapersNOßTH RAIERIOAN. PEEBB, LEDGER, EL
INTELLIOENGEI4 inenzints. ACM. Evzane Relines.
tVENING TELEGRAPH, GEEJKAN DEMOCRAT, me.
I Furniture Bales at the Auction Stare WEST
THURSDAY. •,
Vitr Bales at residences receive especial attentingt.
ON TUESDAY ilt''l'EßNoo l4 . -
March 31. at 4 o'clock, _Private Library, Drama* alit
Mlreellaneoue.
Also. works relating to America and the late rebeinalL,
,
Salo on the Prenifsea, N. E. cornet of' Eighteenth WI
Summer streets. •
LARGE AND ELEGANT RESIDENCE AIN D If&ND
SOME PURNITURFA
ON WEDNESDAY WANING.
April 1. at hi o'flock preciselY. on, the mit„. large -at
corner Eighteenth and Summer streets. G t hat 6 &mg
elegant itcaldence, four etorle high, containing i rat
on Eighteenth street 76 fe.-t and extending in depthoat
ir g on Summer street 216 feet. widening at the distance el
150 feet from 1 ighteenth street to 116 feet. and extendfai
in that with to Winter street. Hm Alt the modern tow
vc al nces.
May be examined any day previous to eat% bbtweea
the hours of 10 and 3 o'clock. _
HANDSOME WA LN FUR kITMVE. FINE I&Still
Min ore Rosewood Plano. Haridenine ewes Carpal.
El eproof Safe, &c.
Immediately after the Halo of the tosidcinee. totetita.
Mane. including haudaome walnut and green plusti tustsr
log room suit. superior Walnut Chamber Fartitlgral, ben
fine large Mantel Mirror-, Rosewood Piano it °rte. , hr
("bickering, ; handsome Chandeliers, Farrel & UMW&
ire.proof Safe, handsome t civet and Bruee•de
China and taionware, Oak Dining Table. Kitchen Fogg
tare, &e.
MO be
aeon early on the morning of oak •
•
Public Sale on League Island. lower end of Brood et
MULES. HAY WeGONB, BAGGAGE WAGONa
Ha RI , EBB, MOWIN G MACHINES, FARMIN.
U'IENDILe &c. • ' • - -
ON •
THURSDAY. MORNING. ,
April 2 at 10 o'clock, bo sold at public Balm Without
reserve, on L ague Island,. lower end of Broad street,
Four pair Mules, Hay Wagons, Farm' Wag Ono. Bagg: i ge
wagcus Double and r ingle Harnella ektlltiArlvfir
chive Ploughs, Horkirpowery Hiurrows Boot atter.
Corn Sheller, Heed Sower, Com Mill HatTed,det. dttlog
Box, Bquare and Hoe Harrow, Hay Press. Steel Tooth
Corse Rake, large Iron Roller, Grindstone. Shovel. Hoes.
Hay Forks, Cow Chains, 'Fools for filling Ice Houses.
Ph. ugh Hooka, large Iron and Wooden • Blocks. with
Popes; large and small Sealer, Milk Troughs Ladders". Or.
Chains: lot Lumber. Old Iron, am., &c.
Also, 3. . 0 Nets Gove rn ment Garneas.
gar - Bale positive. the r 'cent tenant being about to
give Posaeasion of the property to the United fat
the Navy Yard.
Terms, easit.
ENGLISH AND AMERICAN KNEE.
ON WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON. •
April L at 4 o'clock, choice English and. Americium
Boolsorom a library, including Appleton'. Enovisboadia.
22 vols.: Jeremy Taylor's Works, 18 vole. ' • Knight's a rag
land, h vols. ; McKinney dic Halle ndianTribt a. 20 mum.
bore; Wood's Natural History. 8 vole. ; Irving's Works. 26
vole.; Burke's Works. 3 vole ; Harper's Magardne.l6
vole. ; Doro'a Elaine, Perrault, &c,
Hal. at Noe. 138 and 141 South Fourth str oet.
ET FDA o T FURNITURF. kt Ao DS 0M Et CABINET
ORGAN, ROSEWOOD PIANO EDSTE, PINE MIR
ROR., HANDSOME VELVET AND BRUSSELS
CARPET B.
ON &c.
THURSDAY MORNING. • ,
- - -
At 9 o'clock. at the auction rooms, handsome,astiort
ment of Furniture. including handsome Walnut. and
Plush Drawing.room Furniture, handsome Library Snit.
superior Parlor Furniture, five Bugs handsome Walnut
Chamber Furniture. Buff t Bideboardt line toned Reis'
sv( nn tiano Fo te eleg. nt Cabinet Organ (double bank).
by Mason dr. Hamlin ; fine French Plate Mirrors, Fireproof
safe, tine hair Mairesees. Feather Bode, handsome
Velvet and Brussels Carpets. China and Oh Beware. &e.
SODA WATER APPARATUS.
Also, superior apparatus' for manufacturing Bode
Water, complete.
Sale No. 721 Spruce street.
SUPERIOR HOUSEHOLD FrRNITURE, FINE
BRUSSELS CARPET & ace. '
ON FRIDAY MORNING.
April 3, at 10 o'clock, at No. 721 Spruce a rect, by seta'
logos. superior Parlor Chamber and Dinin&room Stunk
tura,
tura, Ire.ther Beds, Hair Matreetwe, Pine Bmasela Car
pets. Kitchen U ten , Ile, &c.
May be examined on the morning of sale.
Executors' Sale N 0.1004 Pleeeet.
SUPERIOR HOUSEHOLD FUENrrUItE.ITNE
• CARPETS. SATURDAY MORNING?.
dse.
ON SATURDAY MORNING.
April 4, at 1U o'clock. at,No. 11.104 Pine etreet i by order
of I , xecutore, by catalogue, entire Furniture, tt_atudioft
enberior Pa•lar and Chamber Furniture, 13.114 UMW/.
Evicting, Kitchen (Renate. &c.
TO DENTISTS.
Superior Lathe, Dentin Uttar, Inttruments,lse.
Sale at Miller's Hotel; No. 831 Cbeibnit street
ENTIB E FURNITURE OF 60 CHAMBERS, DINING/
BOOM FURNITURE, =BOB& BMA CARPETS.
.he., dm. .
ON MONDAY MORNING.,
Am it 6, at 10 o'clock, at IVlfileris Hotel; No.'Blll Chestnut
street, by catalogue, the entire Furniture, in w rinitle
Bedsteads. 60jFealher Beds,6o Hair Mattresses's, She to.
120 Blankets. 120 t omfortat les. Dlning_room Punitive:
China and Glassware, Mirrors, Bars, Bar Flaturea,
grain and Imperial Carpets, Kitchen Utensils, lot Ternary
Baggage, Ac.
May be examined early anther morning of said,
Sale No. 566 East Norris street, formerly the Fair Hall
Factory.
VALUABLE COTTON MACHINERY. - • • '
ON WEDNESDAY -AFTERNOON..
April 8, at 2 o'clock, a{ No. 666 East Norris street, Meg
Berke stieer. (formerly the Pair Bill Factory) by pit*,
logue, the Valuable Cotton Machinery, incsding,S6ightgLa
Looms, 80 three box looms, made by Jenks; Spreader aed
Picker, b.y Jenks; 2 Danforth Frames UM Wades; Ring
Frame, Belt, Speeders, Banding M.chlne, Platforms
Scales. Grinding Boller, Dye Tubs. O ffi ce Desks. Drying
Cylinders Sizing Trough, die.
Can be seen any time previous to sale.
Executor's Sale at Bridgewater Iron Worics—Estata of
Hiram Stanhope. deceased:
VALUABLE MACHINERY, STEAM ENHINEB,
PATTE RN 8, dtc.
ON WEDNESDAY ISORNIN(k ' •
April 22, at 10 o'clock. at the Bridgewater Iron Workirc
Frankiord road, opposite .GasWorits, Frankford,' the en ,
tire Machinery, 'loots, &c., comprising 18 side and It sad
Lathes. 4 Planers, Boring Mill with Drill Presses. Bolt
and r ipe Cutting Machines, Boiler and Blacksmith Shop
Tools. Foundry Fixtures valuable Patterns, &e.
Also, Ave Steam Enginvs, finished and partly fildehed.
from 8 to 150 horse power each.
tale peremptory, by order of Executor. '
gilir Full particulars in catalogues ten days previous to
sale.
THOMAS BIRCH & SON AUCTIONEERS AND.
COMMISSION MERGIIANTS,
No. MU CHESTNUT Street.
Rear Entrance 11(17 ransom street.
HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE: OF EVERY DESCIRIP
'r lON RECEIVED ON CONSI GN MEN T,
Sales of Furniture at Dwellings attented to on ther Meet '
reasonable terms.
SALE ON' A SPUNDID COLLECTION OF COSTLY
AND ATI RACTIVE CARItARA MARBLE - STATH-
ARV. ALABASTER ORNAMENTS, BRONZES AND
CLOCKS. the importation of Signor ZANNONI &
CO.' of Florence.
On TUESDAY, March 34 and WEDNESDAY, `ANSI.
At 10 o'clock. at the auction atom No. 1110 Cheistate .
street, will be sold—
One of the most beautiful collections of the aboye goods/
ever offered at auction in this city. In addition to thirty '
new venues and tlguree of statuary Carrara. marble for
parlors, chinches and monuments, will be found I largo
assortment of Alabaster and Verdi di prat* Statuary. -
executed in Florence: Columns and 14destals, largo
Etruscan Vanes and Roman Tazaruf. antique Urns and
other Vases of entirely now styles and dem& s, for flow.
em end cards. Also, Bronze I !gums and Groupers; four
and five feet blgb, for gas and mantle ornaments; eight
day and forty day Clocks, In bronze and gilt, by the bust
Paris manufacturers.
•
Also, a fine assortment of Silver Plated Ware and'l'sble
Cutlery.
FLORENTINE mnsAics.
Also, several genuine Florentine Mosaic, Table, Topa and
Albun 8. •
he goods will be ready for examination an Menai
ith c italoguee, and are worthy the apeciai attention et
Bale at No. 252 South Nhrtli street.
110178blIO tailkßE,ul.4lPKTil. skc..
ON WEDNESDAY fdORNiNG.
By catalogue, at 10 o'clock. at No. 253 South Ninth that.
will be sold, tho Furniture of a family declining house.
keeping, comp , fang, : The Furniture of Parlor, eight
Bedrooms, Dining-room, Kitchen. gm.
Cs taloguee can be bad at the auction store.
The Furniture can be examined after 8 o'clock on tke
morning of sale. • ' '
JAMES A. FILEXMAE. AVOT/ONEEE,____
tB WAL,r4 irc stmt.
ASSIGNEE'S SALE.
ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1.
At 12 o'clock noon, at the auction atom will be sold. bV
order of Assignee—
-1 share Marcy Oil. Lumber and Mining Co.
IN NEW YORK.
1)Y lIENItY H. ,I.SEDS. At MINER, AUCTIONEERS&
.1/ Special and uppoktant Salo of FIRST-04A$8 gittr,
TURES, the recent importation of
• BEtt.UMONT,, , .
to be eold at Auction br
HENRY it Lb.r.ps az MINER. on the EEN B 4 '
TBURSDAY, 2d, and FitiDAY, Sd Ap r il , at e
"LREod ART OALL,EIttEd. . • . ~
N()13, 817 AND 819 BROADWAY. NEW YORK, 80 1 0'r*,
WES' CORDER TWELFTH oTREET, at 7}i f I.
.. i
r
o'clock each evening,, ,
~,
The collection hse been recendy mach surfeit
purchases of many important worts. made, ,' rt
Itenuu ones residence in Paris. at the time -, is
Exhibition, as well as from the various ether7 i gigt4
of Europe, in the selection of which he has been^
by his long artistic experience of more thin:L*l year&
aided by an ample expenditure of capital, end oimisaii
among ethers, specimens by the followhkif tiletbigathdaiiall,
painters. vin : „,„,. _ ~. ..
ihiveeettx, usaenclever, Deasake,. i f
A. Cluillemin, M. thairoh,
Louis Meyer. Pe kitioyvel„ ' 03 1 1 gr.
Sell:nue. Fanny' tioefia.. , : air,
en, Otto Erdman, , it j , 7 . , ... )i . •
IR V ,
c: c
d r: d.
r a tt le s
tr 1
. 1 [ o b o e: ,
C ill o g u e n lim t dely ' ' lands,' ' E • tre l ' '
m Le r Tl ic le, neenbooro. 13 z h e a tan. ver„Br„ . zr,,
~t +,., ,
'I erbegge AY. Hamm cl, Ten st i ii ~
t
1.,, idigoot. "AO ~, lin
F. Trayer. . lath& . 0,
~ , i , J, •
Orrelkolisp, A. A o', ' ia. .
Nordenberg. ' Wu, ,E* , t, A' ,1 1 ' 7 ' - , .. , 00 , i , "
A 4
schiewnw mi s othime,„„ . ,..,,
Klombett," ',. ' . P.' c'l .' ,--, V* • ) 1 .
A. Dillens. , .W. stalk. . ek!
*hi
a.. Bleretadt ~, .. . - 7 -,- .7 - 1 ,, , , i -. 4, i,l
NEW EtOLANtg%EN I Briry P Vigej,) Ir. •'k
lINS Etig- b. LV t.'
ME VRE 0 V CARL II aGlCßA pinx ,, u
A NIGHT MARKET, BY P. VAN SO
P.W
AN INTERIOR. BY ILLRAIR AND Wr1i471147/1.
and others of great celobrlty.
day 4 , xhibition on and time u 1
nutkeeenLog, until time Of aele. Ir=