EIVM=I=%=Me
MEMIMEN
A. J. GERRITSON, Proprietor.'
How Negro Inajoritiet are Secured,
The world never witnessed such a com
plete farce at the electidts in the South
ern States have •been• since the negroes
were enfranchised. Not only has their
utter unfitness to vote intelligently been
demonstrated in every instance, not only
have they been controlled and manipula
ted at will by a few interested and un
scrupulous political adventurers, but all
rules governing elections in this country
have been discarded, and the grossest and
most bare faced fratids,have been unblush
ingly committed. Whenever it , was
found that the radicals bad oot a sufficien
cy of votes polled in any State or district
to suit their purposes the polls were" re
opened again and again by the satraps in
command, but as soon as the required
number is reached by the revoting ne
groes, the ballot box is, presto hermit wally
sealed. This game has Just been pract iced
in 'Alabama. When it was discovered
that not enough negro votes ha been
polled in the four days alloted to that bus
iness, and that the constitution establish.
ing negro supremacy was in danger, an
order was issued for the negroes to coo
tinue on voting. •
This device has failed in the case of Al
shams, and not enough votes have been
cast for the negro supremacy Constitution
to ensue its ~adoption according to the law
passed by Congress. What will the Rad
icals •of Congress do in such a case ? Will
they be controlled by the restrictions im
posed •by themselves ? Not they. Al
ready they openly declare their purpose of
recognizing the tiew constitution and en•
forcing its provisions, though it has been
defeated, instead of being adopted How
long can our government be expected to
endure under such a state of affairs ?
it not a cheat and a lie to style this a Re
public ? Let us, for the future,call it
what is a despotism. Over one-half of it a
despotism:has been established—a despot
ism controlled by the fraudulent votes of
a horde of barbarian negroes, by means of
which deSpicable a gency a set of reckless
fanatics expect to defeat the will of a vast
majority of the white men of the United
States at till coming Presidential election.
A capital story is told of a recent
church rate raised in. Kent. A leading
fanner of the parish having refused to pay
the church wardens resolved to make an
example of him. A summons was there
fore taken out against the . farmer. and in
due course a: warrant of distress was lodg
ed in the hands of the officers, from whom
he Was informed he might expect a vi-it
in a day or two. Our, farmer accordingly
toot: the precaution of removing from his
yard all the stock which' it would he in
convenient to have sold under such disad
•antageons circumstances as.a church rate
action. A saw happening to wander into
the premises was, however, suffered to re
main, and the bailiffs and police hauled it
off in triumph. The animal was present
ly soil for abour a third of its value, and
the church wardin waited upon the Ihr
mer with the trilling, surplus that remain
ed after - deaticting the elite and the costs.
fold yon," said he, pompously, to the
delinquent, "'should be obliged to make
an example of yon; this is what comes of
disobeying the law. "Ali," replied the
former, "they've sold your sow, so you'd
better keep the balance."
RA-rtisn Spqr.--A lady being invited
to send in a lOast_to be read 'at the anni
versary'eelebration of the Pilgrim Fathers
furnishes_ the_ to:lowing._ It_ is_ spiey en
ough fo favor half-a dozen 'anniversary
dinners
“The Pilgrim Fathers,' forsooth !
What, had they to endure in comparison
to the Pilgrim Mothers ? It is true they
had hunger, and cold, and ricliness, and
danger—foes without and within—but
the unfortunate Pilgrim Mothers ! They
had not only these to endure, but they
had theillgrim Fathers, also ! And yet
their names are never mentioned. Who
ever heard of,thePilgrim Mothers? Who- I
ever gave a dinner in honor _of them ?
Whoever writes songs, drinks - toasts and
niiikes speeches in recollection of them ?
This self_snfficiency of the men is beyond
enduracne.- One would - actually. soppoftef
that New England had been colonized by
men, and posterity provided for.byspechtl,
providenee.” •
14 bariami , —"
Last Spring...while i.he aeerge,'s fleet Were,
ou,tbe bank, pima' ttie vesselsbioke adrift,'
and tame rapidly down: towards another.
Collisioaappreared.and certain.
deatb- all'en‘ board wouldIollocy; The
Captainifiheillifting craft. Shouted, "Cut
a waN'and Pg/4 1 .0Q.eihe-caMeal 2ol mc.ho.r.r.
In the midst °Abe excitement pnd danger,.
uPt , u the.UPl4k 'W . ag,aialkt;.; l o .comply
with the. order, one 'of •tbe - emw -hallooed.
oat; " Don't do ireopt( '
ilti' nukes ker'll give
it to. ypn..ip piet.+Captain was so
streek aback that he..wafted' a .a.:lPemelti in
oraei,i67comprebeid the matter,.and just
then the went. by them Witbopt
striking. : Tbeyery idea of allndingto fen
and ink,.tusder,Sneh eiNnmstanees, *ski!.
ited_a degree of coolness most remarkable,
aeti , the captskP and agliAn 4 is tII9yARI 2
hearty: 00 4:lTerlt.7altheug,loass,,eses
Prig frWr 4 lo.*.irTig* - 0, OtistgOttirg:z-''
Cape ~Ann Advertiser.
IMPEACHMENT.
Speech of Ron. Gao. W. Woodward. of
Pennsylvania, delivered in the House
of Representatives, February 24th,
1868.
Mr. Woodward. Mr. Speiker, tide is
the third attempt to impeach the Presi
dent. The first, founded on his alleged
usurpation of powers which the Constitu
tion had delegated to the legislative de
partment, was crushed to death by the
ponderous volume of testimony of more
than twelve hundred pages which was
brought in with the impeaching resolu
tion. The second attempt, founded on the
Johnson Grant correspondence, was stran
gled in the birth, and the issue of fact, rais
ed between those distinguished correspon
dents was left to be decided by each man
fur himself upon evidence that was alto
get her favorable to the President.
Now comes, for the third time during
our present session, another resolution of
impeachment, founded on the President's
removal of E. M. Stanton from the War
department, in violation of the sixth sec
t* of • the act of the second of
March, 1807, entitled " an act regulating
the tenure of certain civil offices."
I shall call the attention of the House
very particularly to that section in cbn—
nection with other sections of the same
statute for the purpose of showing that
this resolution is fbunded in a mistake,
and that any impeachment of the Presi
dent on the idea that Secretary Stanton is
within the protection of the tenure of
office bill is what. Fouche, the chief of the
01.1 French police, would have cared worse
than a critne—a"blunder. But before ex
amining the enactment I beg leave to re
mind the house that the President re
moved Mr. Stanton by virtue of powers
he derived front the Constitution, which
is a higher law than the pet statute on
which the impeachers have placed them
selves. The President's constitutional
powers in the premises must be stated.
The Constitution distributes the powers
delegated 'to the Federal Government
among three great and co ordinate de
partments—the legislative, the executive,
and the judicial. To the legislative de
partment are given 'all the legislative
powers herein granted" Article two, sec
tion one, r e ads :
"The execut ive power shall be vested
in a President of the United States of
America."
And, says article three :
" The judicial power of the United
States shad be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such inferior courts as the
Congress may frdln time to time ordain
and esfabli!.h."
The power is vested—all the power del
emnted to the Federal Government.
What powers these are must he seen in
thi. Constitution or learned from political
science applicable .to a conf.deracy of
States in union a Federal Constitution.
But whatever executive power the
Ft..deral gnvernmett possesses is vested
in the President. Ile is made the sole
trustee of the people in this regard. In
the matter of appointments to office and
the treaty making function a check. is im
posed upon the President, by the provis
ions which require the consent and con
currence of the Senate; but, even in these
instances the power exercised is the Pres
ident's. IThe concurrence of the Senate is
only a regulation for the exercise of the
nower. It is a mere advisory discretion
—not atr executive power. The Senate
possesses not ap iota of executive power.
Its functions are all legislative, except
when it, sits upon impeachment, when
they arejudicial. The separateness and
completeness of this executive power in
the hands of the President are a doctrine
that is very essential to the harmony of
our system and to the responsibility of
the President to the people. Ile is a trus
tee for them, and that, he may be held to
a strict account of his stewardship the in
dividuality and exclUsiveness of the pow
er with 'which be is clothed are not to be
questioned. And if Congress meddle
with it, they become trespassers—their
act 4---an -impertinent nallity, and the
President-is not to..be impeached for dis
regarding it. - - -
'Now,sir, see - what the Constitution
says about his 'appointing power. Arti
cle two, section two, says :
"-He shall have power, by and with the
advice : ;and consent' of the Senate, to make
treaiies, provided two thirds of the Sena
torspresent concur; and lie shad nonii
nate,'and, by and with the advice and Con
sen ofthe Senate, shall appoint, embassa,
dors, other public - ministers and consuls,
judges torthe Sopreme-COurt, and' all otli•
er.oflicers : of the United States, whoseop.
pointments are not • herein otherwise .pro
--Ada, for. and which shall; be established,
.by kiwi but the Congress may by laW
'vest ihtrappointment of such inferior of
fleets' as . theY . think proper in the' Presi
en
dt alone,:in-the courts of law, or in the
he . ',4li',6l,Depattniextte
•Ho is -to- nominate, and, by and with
the:adviee and:coisent of, the Senate, ap
point the'offiters ' designated' , and-all efti
.cers established by law whose -appointt
• mett,tbe Coniiiitqukdoies,pf4 otberwisa
But the appointment of" in-.
fa:44'l4ooa 7 MaYMiligo4l4 - by Aawitt
the. Petraidenv aioneOn . cthetonnalt(iatri
or hillielielde'ottrepartaisotti.
MP=EM
IVIONTOOSE, PA., TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1868.
In the first Con - gre sit that assembled un
der this Constitution several questions
were settled • as a ,Cotemporaneous con
struction 'of the abOve. provision that has
been acquiesced in ever since, or at least
until this ill contrived tenure of office law
came upon the atatat'e L book. For instance
on the 19th May, 1789;in the debate upon
the Executive departm4its, it was agreed
that, the " inferior officiiif mentioned in
the Constitution are clerkitcand other sub
ordinate persons." (See Debates of First
Congress, page 89) They2.Could not be
heads of Departments, fur the power to
appoint inferior officers rni*ltt be vested
in heads of deparunents, and the consti
tution was not guilty of the selecism of
making heads of Departments aftpoiuta
ble by themselves.
~
And in the same debate upon 60 exec
utive departments it was settled that the
President's power of appointment inclu
ded the power of removal as to all officers
except judges. On an amendment de
claratory of this power Mr. Smith, of
South of Carolina, said "he had doubts
whether the officer could be removed by
the President." To which Mr. Madison
replied :
" I do not concur with the gentleman
in his interpretation of the Constitution."
* * * * " I think it absolutely ne
cessary that the President should have
the power of removing from office; it will
make him in a peculiar mariner responsi
ble for their conduct and subject him to im
peachment himself if he suffers them to
perpetrate with impunity high crimes or
misdemeanors against the United States
or neglects to superintend their conduct
so as to cheek their excesses. On the
constitutionality of the declaration I have
no manner of doubt."
Let me observe, en passant, for the ben
efit of those gentlemen who doubted the
statement of the law of impeachment
which I had the honor of submitting to
the house some weeks since, that the
above extract shows that Mr. Madison en
tertained the same view, and a reference
to the debates, which I have before roe,
will show that 'every gentleman who
touched the point agreed with Mr. Mad
ison.
But on the point now before us, the.
power of the President to remove civil
officers without the concurrence of the
Senate, I beg leave to read a short extract
from the speech of Mr. Goodhue, a distin
guished member of that First Congress :
"Mr. Goodhue was decidedly against
combining the Senate in this business.
Ile wished to make the President as re
sponsible as possible tOr the condnct of
the officers who were to execute the du
ties of his own branch of the Government.
If the removal and appointment were
placed in the hands of a numerous body
the responsibbity would be lessened. Ile
admitted there was a propriety in allow
ing the Senate to advise the President. in
the choice of officers; but there could be
no real advantage arising from the con-
eurrence of the Senate to the removal, but
great disadvantages. It might beget
faction and partyy which would prevent
the Senate from paying proper attention
to the public business. Upon the whole,
be cone:tided, the community would be
served by the best men, when the Senate
concurred with the Presi.leut in the ap
pointment; but, if any oversight was com
mitted, it cou'd be corrected by the su
perintending agent. It was the peculiar
duty of the President to watch over the
executive officers; but of what avail would
be his impection unless he had a power to
correct the abuses he might discover?"
Mr. Clymer, of Pennsylvania, also said
in the same debate :
" The power of removal is an excutive
power, and belongs to the President. alone
by the express words of the Constitution
—the executive power shall be vested in
a President of the United States of Amer
ica. The Senato are not an executive
body, they are a legislative one. It is
tine, in some instances, they hold a quali
fied check over the executive power, but.
that is in consequence of an express dec
laration in the Constitution; without such
declaration they would not have been call
ed upon for advice and consent in the case
of appointments. Why, then, shall we
extend their power to control the remo
val, which is naturally in the executive,
unless it, is likewise expressly declared in
the Constitution."
The question on adding the words "by
and with the advice and consent, of the
Senate" and was put and lost. On the
the 24th June, 1789, when the war de- 1
partment was being formed, Mr. Benson
proposed, with respect to the Secretary's l
being removable by the President, a simi
lar amendment . to that which bad been
obtained in the bill establishidt the de.
parttnent of Foreign affairs.
11r. Sherrnan.thought it unnecessary to
load the bill with any words on that sub-
ject. Mr. Page was of the same opinion,
but the question was taken on the amend
tnent without further debate and carried
in the affirmative, 24 to 22. (See debates
of first Congress, 1 vol. pages 83, 89, 108:)
There, Mr. Speaker, in the very forma
tion of the executive departments, and
especially that of war, the First` Congress
,settled it that the power of removal was
absolute in the Presiffent without consent ,
.or.oonottirenisa:olAbeSeneW And•ttray
settled it, not as a legislative principle
which a subsequent legislature might
change, but as a constitutional principle
which the legislature could not change,
but were bound to respect and uphold.
They were forming the great Depart.
ments of government, the heads of which
were to be the principal ministers of
State—a collective body of confidential
advistrs of the President, and therefore
called his Cabinet, and over whom it was
all important he should possess the un
checked power of removal. Without this
he could not execute the trust confided to
him by the people. Without this he
could not be held to just: - accountability.
Without this the impeaching power
would become what Jefferson det laced it
had become in respect or the judges, Jess
than a scarecrow. Without this the De
partments would rush into contusion and
conflict as certainly as the planets if not
held strictly to their orbits. Without this
the disgrace, the danger, the injury which
now impend over our beloved couutry,frota
the divided counsels which the Senate iu•
sist on maintaining in the executive de
partment, would be of frequent recur-,
rence.
Mr. Speaker the words I have quoted
from the_first Congress settle , this ques
tion absolutely,,and demonstrates the ut
ter unconstitutionality, of the act of 2d
March, 1867. And they were not the
" big swelling words" of fanatics and dern
agogues, full of sound and fury, signify,
ing nothing, but the grave utterances of
venerable men, some of whom had assis
ted to form the Federal Constitution, and
all of whom were very competent witness
es to its contemporaneous construction.
They were the words and thoughts of
men whose purpose it. was to build up a
fabric of free Government instead of tear
ing down every landmark and safeguard
of human liberty.
This subject of removal came up again
in General Jackson's administration in
1834, and in his protest of April 15 of
that year there is the same luminous
statement of the argument and conetusive
reasoning, which characterized all his
State papers, showing that the concurrent
authority of Washington, of the Senate,
and the house had fired the sense of the
Constitution and the practice of the Gov
eminent from the year 1789 up to that
time. To that period we have now to
add the years that elapsed from 1834 to
the passage of the act of 1867, making
in all seventy eight years of uniform prac
tice upon this interpretation of the Con
stitution.
Having now, sir, demonstrated from the
highest authority the world can afford
that the tenure of office bill is a gross vio
lation of the Constitution and an impeach.
able usurpation of executive power by the
legislative department, I now say that, if
the palpable unconstitutionality of the en
actment were not a reason for the Presi
dent disregarding it, it is a final and con
clusive reason against impeaching him.
But a void law binds nobody; and in the
first instance the Presidenl, determines
what laws he is bound to execute. The
judicial department is the final arbiter of
the constitutionality of statutes, but ne
cessarily the executive must primarily
pass upon the question, subject always, of
course, to the just responsibilities of his
office. If Congress, by a constitutional
majority, should require him to abdicate
the office, or to do any other thing which
all sane men would agree was ultra vires f
I hold it would be his right and duty to
disregard. it in advance of a judicial de
cree. Nor would a mere mistake in such
a matter subject him to • impeachment,
much less disregard of a statute so mani
festly unconstitutional that there is no
room for mistake. He would rather have
been impeachable for executing such a
I proceed now to show that Mr. Stan
ton is not within the purview of that en
actment. lie was appointed Secretary of
War by Mr. Lincoln, and continued in of
fice under Mr. Johnson without reap
pointment by bun. He was the incum
bent when this law was enacted. I have
seen it, stated whhout contradiction that
he advised the President it was unconsti
tutional, and I can credit the statement,
for if he were fir less a lawyer than I well
know him to be I would expect him to be
of that opinion. If it, werecarried around
to every lawyer in the country, absolute
unanimity of opinion on this point might
be expected. Indeed, from the course of
events in Congress, I conclude •no law
yer in either,house doubts its unconstitu
tionality, else the nervous dread of the
Supreme Court would not be so appa
rent.
But constitutional or unconstitutional is
of no consequence if Mr. Stanton be not
within it, and that he is not, is, what I
have undertaken to show. The report of
the committee and gentlemen in debate,
put, the impeachable offense of the Presi
dent upon the sixth section of the act. I
quoteit
" That every removal, appointment, or
employment tnad4, had, or exercised con•
trary to the provisions - of this act, and the
making, signing, sealing, countersigning,
or issuing of any commission or letter of
authority for or in respect to any such
appointment or em"pliiyment, shall be
deemed,, and , are hereby declared -to be.
high Mistietheafiere,, qn4 upon trial = and
csorivicaion thereof Weit4pereen, glOy
thereof shall be punished tie' cot es
ceeding 810,000, or by imprisonment not
exceeding five years, or both said punish
ments, in the discretion of the court."
Now, sir observe it is the removal of
Mr. Stanton that. is complained of, but the
removal which the sixth section con
demns is every removal " contrary to the
provisions of this act." If Mr. Stanton is
not within the act then the removal of
him is not contrary to it. Is he within
it ? The first section reads :
"That every person holding any civil
office to which he has been appointed by
and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, and every person who shall here
after be appointed to any office, and shall
become duly qualified to act therein, is,
and shall be, entitled to hold such office
until a eticcessOr shall have been m like
manner appointed and duly qualified, ex
cept as herein otherwise provided : Pro.
vided, that the Secretaries of State, of the
Treasury of War, of the Navy, and of the
Interior, the Postmaster General, and the
Attorney General shall bold their offices
respectively for and during the term of
the President by whonkt hey have been
appointed, and for one Tnonth thereafter,
subject to removal by and with the ad
vice and consent of the Senate."
The first clause of this section continues .
every civil officer.iippninted by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate in
in offide until hiti.sticcessot shall have been
like manner appointed and qualified,ex
cept the "Cabinet ministers. They are ex
pressly excepted, because they are ex
pressly named in.the proviso directly fol
lows the first clause. As to them a dif
ferent rule is_provided; and what is it ?
They shall hold their respective offices du
ring the term of the President by whom
they were appointed and for one month
thereafter, subject all the while, however,
to removal by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate.
Such is the tenure of Cabinet officers.
A month after - the expiration of the term
of the President by whom they were ap
pointed their tenure ezpiree, and they be
come tenants by sufferance. Until that
time they are removable by advice of the
Senate;
after that time they have no ti
tle, and their possession can be ousted at
the pleasure of the President.
Such is the plain letter of the enact
ment, and the only question that remains
is, whether Mr. Lincoln's term has ended,
and a month has elapsed. This is not a
difficult question. Nearly three years ago
he was cruelly assassinated, and Mr.
Johnson, as Vice President, succeeeded,
or in the language of the Constitution,
"the powers and duties of the said office'.'
devolved on.hina. What was the power
and duty of the office in respect to ten
ure? Again the. Constitution shall an
swer : "He shall hold his office during
the term of four years." It was Mr. Lin
coln's power and duty to hold his office
for the term of four years, and at his
death this power and duty, as far as they
were unperformed, devolved upon the
-Vice President by the very words of the
Constitution.
The term became Mr. Johnson's term
for its unfinished period, as much so as
the possession of the White House, the
right to the salary, or to any of the per
quisites or functions of the office. It
would_ be as unreasonable to call Mr.
Johnson's possession of these Mr. Lin
coln's possesolion, or Mr. Johnson's ad
ministration Mr. LincelOi administration,
as to call Johnson's term of office Lincoln's
term. • Neither in popular language nor
in constitutional phrase can such a misno
mer be found. It wont(' be as absurd
as to confound their names, or the
identity of their person.
Thus, then, it stands: the sixth election
punishes removals contrary to the act;
but Cabinet ministers can only be remov
ed contrary to the act by the President
who appointed them. Mr. Stanton was
appointed by President Lincoln, and his
title to office expired a month after Lin
coin's death ; from. that time he retained
his portfolio at the pleasure and will of
him upon whom all the powers and duties
of the office had devolved • he was a mere
locum teems; and when r.. Johnson re
moved him he acted within the strictest
bounds of the Constitution, and offended
not against the statute ; he went not
"contrary" to it, and so inenrred not the
penalties of the sixth section.
To this it may be answered that Presi
dent Johnson , removed him in the first in
stance, confessedly, under the provisions.
of the statute. Sir, the fact thaLthe Presi
der conformed himself to the statute
proves nothiiii-' more than a desire to si
lence cavils by complying with a law
whose validity lie at all times denied. • It
does not make that a law which was no
law; bet_it is a curious reason to urge in
favor of impeachment that the President
tried to 'execnti3 the verylaw, void though
it was, which you set up to condemn
him.
An idea hati got possession of gentle.
men's minds, ,iuirpired, no doubt, ,by the
tenure of office law that the peculiar
,en
ormity of the President's not consisted in
removing Stanton while the Senate was in
session., The Constitution does , not for.
biLt hint* do so,..but leaves birn free at all
imesi to. rid himself ,au , unticoeplahlo,
tatiuot ‘ iniu)stpt. _ tielqer 40nywhen,
Stn'airis"i4 n Asa wten it is fis
=7=2=l='
VOLUME XXV, NUMBEIt 13.
reoess, because the new nomination astl
be immediately considered without preju
dice to the public interests from delay of
a confirmation; and such has been the
practice of the government, from its fonts.
dation. Indeed, the Senate is always in
session when a new administration comes
in, and substitutes sew Cabinet officers for
'the old ones.
The Senate passed resolutions of • vio
lent censure against General Jackson
for removing Duane from the Treasury in
1833, but they did not question his right
to remove officers during the session.—
(See Benton's Thirty Years' View, Vol. 1,
pages 369 and 408.) And other officers
than Cabinet ministers have been remov
ed during the sitting of the Senate, as for
instance, Isaac V. Fowler, postmaster of
New York, who was removed 10th of
May, 1960, during the session of Con
gress, and an ag ent of the post office de.
pertinent place in charge. Neither in
Duane's or Fowler's case was the Senate
consulted, nor aro they ever consulted
about removing officers by a new incom
ing administration.
The conceit, then, that Stanton could
not be removed at this time because the
Senate was in session, has no foundation
in the Constitution or any law or usage of
the government, except the tenure of of-
Ece act, and that is So - plainly void and so
certainly does not apply to Stanton that
it can furnish no rule for the occasion.
The idea is baseless.
Having now shown on authority that
you are bound to respect, that the tenure
of office law is an unconstitutional aggres
sion upon the executive powhr, and that
Mr. Stanton's case is not within its pur
view, I cliqgh my conclusions by quoting
the speech of Senator Sherman, of Ohio;
when this bill was on Passage in the Sen
ate, who urged, and it is fair to prestime
obtained, the passage of the bill on the
ground that it would not touch Mr. John
son's control over any of his Secretaries
whom he had not appointed :
"That the Senate had no such purpose
is shown by its vote twice to make this
exception. That this provision does not
apply to the present case is Chown by the
fact that its languagels so framed as not.
to apply to the present President. The
Senator shows that himself, and argnei
truly that it would not prevent the pre
sent President from removing the Secre
tary of War, the Secretary of the_Treas
cry, and the Secretary of State. And if
supposed that either of these gentlemen
was so wanting in manhood, in honor, as
to hold his place after the politest intima
tion of the President of the United States
that his services were no longer needed, I
certainly as a Senator would consent to
his removal at any time, and'so would w •
all."
Mr. Speaker, Ohio is a great State, and
fertile in great legislators. Here we have
an Obio Senator pleading for the legal..
tenure bill on the ground that Stanton is
not within it, and two Ohio representa
tives on this floor [Mr. Spalding and Mr.
Bingham] pleading for the impeachment
of the President. because Stanton is with
in it.
But what makes this display more riah
is that these gentlemen take great credit
to themselves for resisting impeachment
hitherto, but now they are constrained to
surrender. They could not go with the
venerable chairman of the Reconstruction
Committee when he , had a colorable case
to urge against, the President—oh, no t
they were too conservative for that—ebut
they can go with him now, when he 13135
not a shade of a sisadoW of a case. They
can eulogise a law as worthy of rever
ence and obedience above all laws that
have been enacted since Sinai thundered,
which Stanton hipselrpronounced uncon
stitutional, and Which was passed because
it did not include the very case weich has
converted these conservative represents),
lities of Obio. Well, sir, we see and hear
:utirange things now-a-days, and special
*enders overcome us in this House fre
quently.
But let me ask, will not the majority
pause long enough in their hot pursuit of
the President to discover that they are
being misled by cross lights and false
lights ? That they are blundering in law
and fact ? I suppose not. Probably not
one single man among the intelligent gen
tlemen who make up that tneprity, can
be persuaded to the truth of- this case.
They will not reverence the sages Of 1786 ,
who laid the foundations of our Govern
ment, while they fall down and :worship
this Dagou of impeachment. They will
not, respect the text of the Constitutlen,
nor even the neeessar,y Constructicn of •
this tenure of'office law in their fiensied
pursuit of theeirecutiVepaytvittige. If it.
be so it is very, veri sitd.g - Ritibetokens
the ascendency- of pail' pasSlOns over
reason and law. I etril4: this hem
were better employed :; )(Viet With' the,
distractions and aliensitione r of our day.
our deht'suitf taxes which'are eating Ont.
not only the•substantial wealth, but the
moral sensed, the' country; the prostrs z _
tion of labor and trade which are crying ,
for help from all quarters, we might` find-
Something.to do which would be snort
useful to the country than impeaching
Vresident Johnson. lie is the man ,of
your oin . , choosing, .and Y. verily,.
be is trying - to restokthe w l ,trnt.tkpor
Micethe runnitry* ** i x
Mice with faithful regard to the o gir