The New York Herald Newspaper, April 23, 1868, Page 5

< IMPEACHMENT, Summing Up Argument by Mr. Boutwell for the Prosecution. SM the Offences Charged Against the President Claimed to be Proved. MR. JOHNSON’S PLOT FOR A RE-ELECTION. How the Democratic Party Was to Regain Power. SPECIAL TELEGRAM TO THE HERALD. WASHINGTON, April 22, 1868. crowded house to-day witnessed a very dull and ‘uninteresting spectacle. The announcement that the summing up was to begin at the opening of the court attracted the gayest, best dressed and best looking assemblage since the commencement of the mem- erable impeachment trial. The galleries were re- splendent with ladies in the most gorgeous of cos- tumes, and the gentlemen present displayed their Gnery ina degree little below that of the fair sex, + The first part of the proceedings was taken up with a discussion about speaking—that is, allowing Managers and counsela better chance for display and a finer opportunity for handing themselves down to posterity than would be had under the rigor of Rule 21. A variety of propositions looking to this end were offered and rejected, but finally one introduced by Mr. Trumbull, and granting both sides the widest possible latitude im the speaking line, was adopted. By this all the Managers and all the President's counsel are permitted to speak t their heart’s content, each and every one of them being guaranteed the right to fle or speak arguments for or against impeachment. The trial, consequently, will not be over so soon as anticipated, and may drag along until the end of next week instead of terminating on Monday next, as was confidently predicted a few duys ago. Mesars. Logan, Stevens, Williams, Wilson, Nelson and Groesbeck, as well as Messrs. Stanbery and Evarts, may avail themselves of the liberality of the Senate and speak their pieccs as briefly or as fully as ‘they list. ,S8hould Mr. Stanbery’s illness continue so as to prevent him from delivering the closing argument, it is probable Mr. Evarts wil! be assigned the post of honor and will close the addresses on t if of the defence. Under this new arrangement Judge on will follow Mr. Boutwell. ‘The argument of Manager Boutwell to-day fell very fat upon his audience. He commenced to read it at ten minutes to one and concluded at four o'clock, The honorable Manager proved scarcely a better reader than Mr. Butler. Half an hour after his open- ing Senators showed unmistakable evidence of drow- siness or other lack of attention, the only one dis- Playing the slightest interest being the venerable Ben Wade, of Ohio, whose anxiety for the result had doubtless much to do with the activity of his optics and auriculars. During the delivery of Mr. Boutweil’s speech the galleries were rusiling, ‘lkative, and generally noisy and busy eyeing each other through telescopic media. ‘The ladies used ‘their glasses as much as they would have done in the theatre or opera house, and carried ou telescopic flir- tations with refreshing coolness. Indced, since the commencement of the trial the Senate galleries have afforded a better fleld for this kind of coquetry than either the churches or the theatres, - During the intervals of his illness Mr. Stanbery has from time to time, by leave of his physician, dictated ‘to his secretary positions and points which he had in contemplation for his speech on the impeachment trial. As there is some doubt whether he will be able personally to appear before the Senate, his argu- ment will be filed. Mr. Stanbery’s health is much improved to-day. PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT. Twentieth Day. WASHINGTON, April 22, 1868, Fhe court was opened with the usual formalities at eleven o’clock. The Chief Justice stated the first business in order to be the consideration of the fol- lowing order offered by Senator Sumner:— Ordered, That the Managers on the part of the House of Representatives and the counsel for the dent have leave to file written or printed argu- ments before the oral argument commences. Senator ViCKERs offered an amendment, proposing to allow such ofthe Managers as are not authorized to speak to file written or printed arguments or make oral addresses, and the counsel of the Presi- dent to alternate with them in so doing. Mr. Curtis—Mr. Chief Justice, it may have some bearing upon the decision of this proposition if 1 state what I am authorized to state : that the counsel for the President, Mr. Stanbery’s indisposition fs such ‘that it will be impracticable for him to take any fur- ‘ther part in the proceedings. The substitute was agreed to by the following vote:— YE ators Buckalew, Cragin, Davis, Doolittle, Eam' Fessenden, Fowler, hig Grimes, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Me., Mor- ton, Norton, Patterson of N. H., Patterson of Tenn., ‘Sprague, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey, Wil d Yates—26, ers, ison and Yates—2 Nava’-Senalore Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Con- ness, Corbett, Drake, Ferry, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Vt., Pomeroy, Ramse; Ross, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer and W Hams—20, ‘The question recurring on the order as amended it ‘was lost by the following vote:— YRas—Senators Buckalew, Cragin, Davis, Doolittle, Fowler, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morton, Nor- ton, ron of N. H., Patterson of Tenn., Sauls- bury, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vick- ‘Willey, Wilson and Yates—21. Ays—Senators Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conness, Corbett, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessen- den, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Me., Morrill of Vt., Pome- roy, Ramsey, ' Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer, Van Winkle and Williams— 26. Mr. STEVENS—Mr. President, | desire to make an inquiry, and that is, whether there is any impropriety tm the Managers publishing short arguments. After the motion made here on Saturday some few ef us, I among the rest, commenced to write out a short argument, which I expect to finish by to- night, and which, if the first order had passed, I should have filed. Ido not know that there is any impropriety in it except that it will not go into the proceedings. 1 do not like to do anything improper, and hence I make the inquiry. Senator Fexry—Mr. Presideent, | would inquire ‘whether it would be in order to move the original order, on which we have taken no vote ¢ The Cuter Justick—it would not, as the Chief Justice understands the matter has been disposed of. The reading of the order submitted by S Stewart some days ago was read, as follows: ‘That one of the Managers on the part of the House be permitted to file his printed argument before the adjournment to-day, and that after an oral opening ‘by a Manager and the reply of one of the President's counsel another of the President's counsel shall have the privilege of filing 4 written or of making an oral reas, to be followed by the closing speech of one Of the President's counsel and the first reply of a Manager under the existing rule, The Carer Justice said that it could be considered by ananimous consent. No objection was made. Senator Conness offered the following as a sub- stitute:— That such of the Managers and counsel for the President as may choose to do so have leave to file their argument on or before Friday, April 24. Senator Sumyer—Phat is right. Senator BuckaLew moved to lay the order and améndment on the table, which rejected with- out a division. , Senator Con ness’ amendment was rejected by the following vote:— Yras—Senators Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conk- ing, —— Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Ferry, Hender- gon, Howard, Morrill of Vt:, Patterson of N. H., Fomeroy,. Le 8 Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Fb ipton, Willey, Williams, Wilson and Yates— Navs—Senators Anthony, Bayard, ol ‘vis, Dixon, Doolittie, Ramahde y Rg Wg Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson, MoOreery, , Morton, Norton, Patterson of NEW YORK HERALD, THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1868—QUADRUPLE SHEET. A vi Tenn, Rom, Soumer: Sprague, Trumbull, Van ‘The question recurred em the order offered by Senator Stewart, On motion of Mr. Johnson it was amended by striking out the word “one” in the first line and inserting “two.” ¢ Mr. Manager WILLIAMS suggested that the order would leave the matter substantially as it stood be- fore; but as one of the Managers was prepared with a printed argument, if it was amended so as to allow them to file written or printed argutments, it would be satisfactory. On motion of Senator SHERMAN the order was 80 modified. Senator Grimes inquired how it would be for the counsel for respondent, if the printed or written ar- guments were filed to-day, to examine them so as to reply to-morrow morning ? Senator HowARD—It is not necessary. Senator CorBBTT moved to strike out the word “another,” and insert the word “two” before the words “of the President’s counsel,” Mr. EvarTs—Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, if you will allow me to say one word on this question. As the rule now stands, two of the President's coun- sel are permitted to make oral arguments. By the amendment, without the modification of inserting “two” instead of another, we understand that three of the President’s counsel will be enabled to make ora arguments to the Senate. That is as many under the circumstances as we could wish or be enabled to do, At the suggestion of Mr. TRUMBULL Senator Cor- bett withdrew his amendment. Mr. SreveNs—Mr, President, this would embarrass the Managers very much, Would not it do to say that the Managers and counsel of the President may file written or printed arguments between this time and the meeting of the court to-morrow? That would relieve us from all the dimcuity, Senator CONNESS, at the instance, he said, of one of the Managers, moved to amend by striking out the Words “before the adjournment to-day” and in- serting ‘‘beforé noon to-morrow.” Agreed to. Senator HENDERSON offered the following substi- tute:— Ordered, That all ‘the Managers not delivering oral arguments may be peemliven to file written argu- ments at any time before the 24th inst., and the counsel of the President not making oral arguments may file written arguments at any time before eleven o'clock on Monday, the 27th inst. Senator THAYER moved to lay the whole subject on. the table, Rejected by 13 to 37, Mr. NELSON, of counsel, sald he had felt an irresistl- ble repugnance to say anything to the Senate on this subject. He was averse to addressing an unwilling audience, the Senate having indicated by a rule that they were unwilling to allow any farther argu- ment. Three of the President's counsel, by consent of the rest, had assumed the direction of the case, and to them had been committed the task of arguing it. As the probabilities were now, however, it was not likely that Mr, Stan- bery would be able to make the fina! argument, and he (Mr. Nelson) would ask permission to address the Senate on behalf of the President. He thought the rule should be so enlarged as to allow the privilege to all the President's counsel who chose to exercise it. Under the circumstances they had not prepared written arguments, and it was too late now to do so. He was prepared from memoranda, however, to make an oral argument, and hoped he would be allowed to do so, He had lived too long to be animated by any spirit of idle vanity. In making the request he was aware that sometimes more was gained by silence than by speech. He was satisfied t the President de- sired that the case should be atgued by all the coun- sel. He hadno objection that the same privilege should be extended to all the Managers. In the case of the impeachment of Judge Chase six Managers and five counsel were heard. He trusted that in such a momentous case no limit would be placed on the argument. Senator Howarp inquired whether the proper construction of the amendment of the Senator from Missouri (Henderson) would not leave the door open and repeat the twenty-first rule; in short, whether it would not allow all the counsel on the part of the accuses) an@ all the Managers, should they see fit, tO make oral arguments on the final summing up. Senator Conwess proposed, in order to make it en- tirely clear, to insert in the amendment the words, “subject to the twenty-first rule.’ The proposition was agreed to, Senator 'RRUMBULL moved the fol!owing as a sub- stitute:— Ordered, That as many of the Managers and of the counsel for the President as desire to do so be per- mitted to file arguments or to address the Senate orally. The substitute was agreed to—yeas 29, nays 20, as follows:— YE, enators Anthony, Buckalew, Conkling, Cragin, Davis, Doolittie, Edmunds, Ferry, Fresse: imes, Henderson, Hendricks, Jon Morrill of Me., Norton, Patterson of nm of Tenn., Ramsey, Saulsbury, Sher- Sprague, Tipton, Willey) Trumbull, Van le, Vickers and Yates—29. d nators Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Con- ness, Corbett, Dixon, Drake, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Vt. Morton, Pomeroy, Ross, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer and Wil- liams—20, Senator BUCKALEW moved to amend the substi- tute by adding to it the following words:—“But the concluding oral argument shall be made by one Man- ager, as provided by the twenty-first rule.” Various other amendments were offered and voted down ; and, finally, after nearly two hours spent in attempts to settle the question, the substitute offered by Senator Trumbull, as amended on motion of Senator Buckalew, was adopted instead of the origi- nal order. Speech of Mr. Boutwell on Behalf of the Prosecution. Mr. BOUTWELL then, at ten minutes before one o'clock, proceeded to make his argument to the Senate, as follows:— Mr. PRESIDENT, SENATORS—You may now antici- pate the speedy conclusion of your arduous labors. The importance of this occasion is due to the unex- ampled circumstance that the Chief Magistrate of he princtpal republic of the world is on trial upon the charge that he is guilty of high crimes and mis- demeanors in office. The solemnity of this occasion is due to the circumstance that this trial is anew test of our public national virtue and also of the strength and vigor of popular government. The trial of a great criminal is not an extraorainary event, even when followed by conviction and the severest penalty known to the laws. This respond- ent is not to be deprived of life, liberty or property. The object of this proceeding is not the punishment of the offender, but the safety of the State. As the daily life of the wise and just magistrate is an ex- ample for good, cheering, encouraging and strength- ening all others, so the trial and conviction of a dis- honest or an unfaithful officer is a warning to all men, and especially to sach as occupy places of pub- lic trust, The issues of record between the House of Representatives and Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, are technical and limited, We have met the issues, and, a8 we believe, maintained the cause of the House of Representatives by evidence direct, clear and conclusive, Those issues require yon to ascertain and declare whether Andrew John- son, President of the United States, is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, as set forth in the several articles of impeachment exhibited against him, and especially whether he has, violated the laws or the country in the attempt which he made on the 21st of February last to remove Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary forthe Department of War and to appoint Lorenzo Thomas Secretary of War ad in- terim, These are the issues disclosed by the record. They appear in the statement to be limited in their nature and character; but your final action thereon involves and settles questions of public policy of greater magnitude than any considered in the politi- cal or judicial proceedings of the country since the adoption of the constitution. Mr. Johnson attempts to defend his conduct in the matter of the removal of Mr. Stanton by an assertion of “the power at any and all times of removing from office all executive officers for cause to be judged of by the President alone.” This claim manifestly extends to the officers of the army and of the navy, of the civil and the ai) lomatic service. In this claim he assumes and de- mands for himself and for all his suc sors absolute control over the vast yearly increasing patronage of this govern- ment. This claim has never been before asserted, and surely It haa never been sanctioned; nor is there a law or which furnishes any ground for justification, even the least. Heretofore the Senate has always been consulted in to ha rotg and during the sessions of the Senate it haa always been consul in regard to removais from office. The claim now made, if sanctioned, strips the Senate of ali practical power in the prem: inom, abd seayes the patronage af office, the re vegnes | im the hands of the i be re moved from his office at once without the advice and ? Ifthis claim shall be con- ceded the President is clothed with power to remove every who refuses to become his instrument. An évil-minded President may remove ail loyal and tic oMcers from the army, the navy, the civil and the diplomatic service, ‘and nominate only his adherents and friends. None but his friends can re- main in ofice; none but his friends can be aj pointed ‘What security remains for the lity of army and navy? W! re for the collect of ‘the public revenues? hat accountability remains in any branch of the public ser- Every public oMcer is henceforth @ mere. dependent upon the Executive. Here- tofore the Senate could say to the President you shall not remove a faithful, honest pubite officer. is power the Senate nas and exercised for nearly eighty years, under and by virtue of express authority granted in the constitution, Is this autho- rity to be surrendered? Is this power of the Senate, oe ee we may almost call it, to be aban- doned? Has the country, has the Senate, in the ex- ercise of its legislative, executive or judicial func- tions, fully considered these broader and graver issues touching and atnoting vitally our institutions and system of government? The House of Repre- sentatives has brought Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, to the bar of this just tribunal, and has here charged him with high crimes and mis- demeanors in office. He meets the charge by deny- ing and assailing the ancient, undoubted, constitu- tional powers of the Senate. is is the Pag na- tional, historical, constitutional issue. hen you decide the issues of record, which appear narrow and technical, you decide these greater issues also. The Managers on the er of the House of Repre- sentatives, as time and their abilities may pees in- tend to deal with the criminal, and with these his camer ans also toexamine the constitutional powers of the President and of the Senate, I shall first in- Ni your attention, Senators, to the last mentioned topics. mE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT. ‘The Manager then proceeded to consider the char- acter of the government and especially the distribu- tion of powers and the limitations placed by the con- stitution upon the executive, judicial and legislative departments, There was, he said, a dtterence in the phraseology employed, and that the legislative branch alone is entrusted with discretionary author- ity. The first section of the first article provides that “all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representa- tives.” The first section of the second article says that “the executive power shall be vested in a Presi- dent of the United States of America;” and the first section of the third article provides that “the judi- cial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and estab- lish.” The words “herein granted,” as used in the first section of the first article, are of themselves a limitation upon the legislative powers of Congress, but the absence of these words in the provision re- lating to the executive and judicial departments does not justify the inference that unlimited author- ity is conferred upon them, An @xamination of the constitution shows that they have no inherent vigor by which, under the constitution, they are enabled to perform the functions delegated to them, while the legislative department, in noticeable contrast, ta clothed with authority ‘to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carfying into éxXecution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States or any department thereof.” FULL POWERS VESTED IN CONGRESS. By virtue of this provision the constitution de- volves upon Congress the duty of providing by legis- lation for the full execution, not only of the powers vested in Congress, but also of providing by legisla- hi tion for the ution of the powers which by the constitution are vested fn the uiive and judicial departments, ‘The — legislati artinent has original power derived from the constitution, by whieh it can set and keep itself in moticn as a branch of the government, while the executive and judi¢ departinents have no self-executing constitutiol 0 constantly dependent upon the legislative department. Nor’ does it follow, as might upon slight attention be assumed, that the executive power given to the President isan unlimited power, or that it answers gr corresponds to the powers which have been or may be exercised by the executive of an The President of the United 8 not endowed by the constitution with ecutive power which was possessed by Henry VIII. or Queen Eiiza- beth or by any ruler in any other country or time, but only with the powel pressly granted to him by the Constitution, and with such’ other powers as have been conferred upon him by Congress, for the purpose of carrying into effect the powers which are ranted to the President by the constitution. Hence it may be asserted that whenever the President at- tempts to exercise any power he must, if his right be questioned, find a specific authority in the constitu- fon or laws. By ithe constitution he ts Commander- in-Chief of the army and navy; but it is for Congress: to decide, in the first ogi) whether there shall be an army or navy, and the President must command the army or navy as it is created by Congress, aud subject, as is every other officer of the army or navy, to such rules and regulations as Congress may from time to time establish. The President “may require the opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the executive departments upon any subject relat- ing to the duties of their respective offices,” but the executive offices themselves are created by Congress and the duties of each oMcer are prescribed by law. In fine, the power to set the government in motion and to keep it in motion is lodged exclusively in Congress, under the provisions of the constitution. RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND CONGRESS. By our system of government the sovereignty is in the people of the United States, and that sovereign- ty is fully expressed in the p ble to the constitu. uon. By the constitation the people have’ vested discretionary power—limited, it is trae—in the Con- gress of the United States, while they have denied to cutive and judicial departments all discre- power whatever, After quoting the opinions of the Supreme Court in the case of Me yeh vs. the State of Maryiand, which admitted that the na- tional! legislature was allowed discretionary powers to enable that body to perform its duties in a manner most beneficial to the people. It is worthy of remark that this article of Congress declares thai ail legi: tive powers shall be vested in Congress, while it de- clares that the executive powers shall be vested in @ President of the United States. The constitution de- nies to Con; various powers, as it also does to the United les and the Sta separately, while the only single instance denied the President is in the provision to give him authority ‘to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United states, except in cases of impeachment.” The powers of the President are specified, while Congress is vested with powers of legisia‘ion ample for all the ties of national life; ne President, acting under the constitution, can exer- cise those powers only which are specifically con- ferred upon him, and can take nothing by construc- tion, by implication, or by what is sometimes termed the necessity of the case. POWER OF CONGRESS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. By a provision of the constitution authorizing Con- gress “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers (i. ¢., the powers given to Congress), aud all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any depart- ment or officer thereof.” Thereby given that body the capacity to adapt the administration of afairs to the changing condition of national life. It is made the duty of the President to inform Congress of the state of the Union and recommend to their considera- tion the measures he may deem necessary and ex- dient. Provision is aiso made for his co-operation in the enactment of laws, and in fact he may be said to be governed by the principles which govern a judge ma court of law, and take the constitution and law as they are and administer them and be gov- erned strictly by them without any inquiry. He may discuss the constitutionality of existing or pro- posed legisiation, and may retnrn bills to the two jouses; but if Congress by a two third majority of both houses should pass the same, it is then his duty to obey and execute them. Congress may repeal an anconstitatiqnal law whigh is a legislative act and the declaration of such by the court is a ju act. er government. THE TENURE OF OFFICE LAW. It follows, from the authorities already qnoted, and the positions founded thereon, that there can be no inquiry here and now by this tribunal whether the act in question—the act entitled “An act reguiating the tenure of certain civil ofices*—is in faet consti tutional or not. It was and is the law of the land, It was enacted by a strict adherence to consitut ul forms, It was, and is, binding upon all the officers and departments of the government, The Senate, for the purpose of deciding whether the respondent is Innocent or guilty, can enter into no inquiry as to the constitutionality of the act, which it was the President's duty to execute, and which, upon his own answer, and by repeated oficial confessions and admissions, he intent.onaliy, wilfully, deliberately set aside and violated, THE DUTIES OF THE PRESIDENT. Tf the President, in the discharge of his duty “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’ may inquire whether the laws are constitutional, and execute those only which he be! to be so, then, for the purposes of government, his will or opinion is substituted for the action of the law-making power, and the gover ent is no longer a government of laws, but the government of | one man. This is also true, ff, when ar- | raigned, he may justify by shgwing that he | has acted upon advice that the law was unconstitu- tional. Farther, if the Senate, sitting for the trial of / the President, may inquire and decide whether the Jaw is in fact constitational, and convict the Presi- dent if he has violated an act believed to be consti tutional and acquit him if the Senate think the | unconstitutional, then the President is in fact trie for his judgment, to be acquitted if in the opinion of the Senate it was a correct judgment and convicted ig the opinion of the Senate his jadgment was er- roneous, This doctrine offends every principle of justice. His offence is that he intentionally violated alaw. Knowing its terms and requirements he dis- regarded them. With deference [ matntain still further that it is not the right of any Senator in this trial to be governed by ay, opinion he may enter- tain of the constitutionality or expediency of the Jaw in question. For the purposes of this trial the atatute which the President, upon his own confes- sion, has repeatedty violated a the law of the land, His crime is that he violated the law. It has not } persons to fil the various ofiees so establish wen ealed by Congress; it has not been annulled ly the Supreme Court; it stands opon the statute book as the law, and for the purposes of this trial tt is to be treated by every Senator as a constitutional law. Otherwise it follows that the President of the United States, supported by a minority exceeding b; one @ third of tw Beuste, may set aside, igregagsl this respondent it "nothing to this ‘Senate, sting no! Hace 20 eran 0 Sy one fades ee respondent, that the Senators in the passage of this act, or that the respondent, in the exercise of a con- stitutional power, retumed the bill to the Senate with his ol thereto, The bill itself is as bind- ing, 1s as constitutional, is as sacred in the eye of the constitution as the bills that were passed in the first seasion of the first Congress. If the President may refuse to execute a law because in his opinion it is ‘unconstitut or for the reason that, in the judg- ment of his friends and advisers, it is unconstitu- tional, then he and his successors in ofice may refuse to execute any statute the constitutionality of which has not been affirmatively settled by the Supreme Court of the United States. If a minority exnpading one-third of this Senate by one may relieve the Presi- dent from all responsibility for this violation of his oath of ofice because they concur with him in the opin- ion that this lation is either unconstitutional or of doubtful constitutionality, then there is no security for the execution of the laws. The constitutional injunc- tion upon the President is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and upon him no power whatso- ever is conferred by the constitution to inquire whether the law that he is charged to execute is or 48 not constitutional, The constitutional injunction upon you, in gene present capacity, is to hold the pecpondand faithfully to the execution of the consti- tutional trusts and duties imposed upon him. If he wilfully disregards the obligation resting upon him, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, then the constitutional duty imposed upon you 18 to convict him of the crime of wilfully disregarding the Jaws of the land and violating his oath of ofice. I indulge, Senators, in great piainness of spasch, and pure @ line of remark which, were the subject less important or the duty resting upon us less solemn, I should studiously avoid, But I speak with every feeling and sentiment of respect for this body and this place of which my nature is capable, In my boyhood, from the gallery of the old chamber of the Senate, I looked not with admiration merely, but with something of awe upon the men of that genera- tion who were then in the seats which you now fill. Time and experience may have modified and chas- tened those impressions, but they are not, they cannot. be, obliterated, They will remain with me while life remains. But, with my convictions of my own duty, with ny convictions of your duty, with my convic- tions of the danger, the imminent pert! to our coun- try if you should not render a judgment of guilty against this respondent, I have no alternative but. to 8) with all the plainness an4 directness which the most earnest convictions of the truth of what I tee cone Nor can the President prove or plead the motive by which he professes to have been governor in hus violation of the laws of the country. Where Pe nomare specific duty ts imposed upon a ublic oficer his motives cannot be good if he wil- ‘ully neglects or refuses to discharge his duty in the manner in which it is tmposed upon him. in other words, it 18 Bot possible for a public officer, and es- President of the United States, who is under a special constitutional injunction to discharge his duty faithiully, to have any motive except a bad motive if he wilfully violates his duty. A judge, to be sure, in the exercise of a discretionary power, as in imposing a sentence upon a criminal where the penalty is not specitic, may err in the exercise of hat diseretion and plead properly his good motives m the discharge of his duty. That is, he may sa that he intended, under tie law, to impose a proper penalty; and inasmuch as that was his intention, though All other men may think that the penaity was either insuficient or excessive, he is fully justified by his motives. THE PRESIDENT'S OATH—PARDONS. So the President, having vested in him diseretiona- ry power im regard to granting pardons, might, if arraigned for the proper exercise of that power ina particular ease, plead and prove his good motives, ulthough his action mignt be untversaily ¢ ‘as improper and unwise in cular the circumstances of this ferent, The law which, ag he admits, he has tnten- tionally and deliberately violated, 8 mandatory upon him, and left m his hands no discretion as to whether he would, jn a given case, execute it or not. A public omicer cal <i nor prove good mo- tives to refute or ci n admission that he has intentionally viglated a public law. Take the case of the President, h¥® oath i#:—"i do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the ofice of Presidént o the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States.” One of the provisions of that con- stitution is, that the Pregicent shal “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” in this injunction there are no qualifying words, It is e his duty to take care that th laws, be. faithfully executed. A law is weil d fined to be “a rule jaid, set, or established by t law-making power of the country.” It is of such rules that the constitution speaks in this injanction to the President; and in obedience to that injunction, and with reference to his duty wader his h to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, he can enter into no inquiry as to whether those laws are expedient or constitutional, or otherwise. And inas- much a6 it is not possibie for him, under the consti- tution, to enter lawfully into any such inquiry, it is alike tmpossible for him to plead or to prove that having entered into such inquiry, which was in itself unlawful, he was governed by'a good motive in the result WI he reached, and in his ion there- ‘ing ho right to inquire whether the laws Ment or constitutional, or otherwise, if he did so inquire, and if upon such’ inquiry he came to the conclusion that, for any reason, fhe would not execute the law according to the terms of the law, then he wilfully violated his oath of ofice and the constitution of the United States. ‘The necessary, the table presumption in law is, that he acted urder the infuence of bad motives in so doing, and no evidence can be introduced con- trolling or coloring in any degree this necessary pre- sumption of the law. Having therefore no right to entertain any motive contrary to his constitutional obligation to execute the laws he cannot plead his motive. Inasmuch as he can peither piead nor prove his motive the presumption of the law must remain that in violating his oath of office and the constitu. tion of the Unit ates he was intluen by a bad motive. The ‘istrate who wilfully breaks the laws, in violation of his oath to execute them, insults and outrages the common sense and the common nature of his countrymen when he asserts that their t they deserve to be broken, ‘This. is the language of a defiant usurper, or of a man who has surrendered himself to the counsel and control of the enemies of his country. if a President, believing a Jaw unconstitutional, refuse to execute it then all your laws are dependent on the opinion of the Executive, and consequently the laws are to be execated only as the President believes in them. This respondent avers that his object in violating the Tenure of Office act was to ob- tain the opinion of the Supreme Court, thas vi lating a law for the purpose of ascertaining whether he could do so with impunity or not. If a private citizen violate the jaw he does so at his peril, 80 does the President, Vice President or any other civil officer; and this is the responsibility the respondent has incurred, The President’s conduct has been au- dacious, and, if allowed to pursue the same without interruption, he could, in a single day of his official life, raise questions which could not be disposed of for years. the numerous instances of the suspen- sion of officials he showed esire to contest the constitationality Of the Tenure of Office law. He could have tested the case of Mr. Stanton by a writ of quo warranto; bat he shrinks from it. His obyect was to seize the offices of the government for pur- — of corruption, and by their influence to enabie jim to reconstruct the Union in the interest of the rebellious States, THE POWER OF REMOVAL. Upon the premises already laid down it is clear that the power of removal from office is not vested in the President alone, but only in the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Ap- plying the provision of the constitution already cited to the condition of affairs existing at the time the government was organized, we find that the course pursued by the first Congress and by the first Presi- dent was the Inaitable result of the operation of this provision of the organic jaw. In the first in- stance, several executive departments were estab- lished by acts of Congress, and in those departments offices of various grades were created. The conduct of foreign affaira required appointment of am- bassadors, ministers and consuls, and consequently those necessary Offices were established by law. The President, in conformity with this provision of the constitution, made nominations to the Senate of ese nominations were considered and acted npon by the Senate, and when confirmed by the Senate the persons #0 nominated were appointed and authorized by compissions under ent to enter ‘upon the Nuties. In the nature of the case it was not the President, during a session Senate, to assign to duty in any of the offices so created any person who had not been by him nominated to the Senate and by that body contirmed, and there is no evidence that such an at pt was made, The persons thus nomt- nated and confirmed were in their ociies under the constitution, and by virtue of the concurrent action of the President and the Senate. There is not to be found in the constitution any provision contemplat- ing the removal of such persons from office, But in- asmuch as it 18 essential to the proper administra- tion of affalrs that there should be a power of re- moval, and inasmuch as the power of nomination and confirmation vested in the President and in the Senate Is a continuing power, not exhausted either by a single exercise or by a repeated exercise it ference to 4 particular oitice, it follows legitimately and properly that the President might at any time nominate to the Senate a person to fill a particular omice, and the Senate in the exercise of its constitu. tional power could confirm that nomination, that the person so nominated and contirmed would have a right to take and enjoy the office to which he had been so appointed, and thas to dispossess the pre- vious incumbent, If is apparent that no removal can be Made unless the President takes the initia. tive, and hence the expression, “removal by th President.” As, by a common and univers i principle of construction, ttrolling Whe 4 80 @ recent commissio' under an appointment made by and with the and consent of the Senate, supersedes a pre vious appoittment, although made in the same manner. Tt is thus apparent that there is, under and by virtue of the clause of the constitution quoted, no power of removal vested etther in the President or in the Senate, or in both of them together as an inde- pendent power; but it is rather a consequence of the power of appointment. And as the power of appoint: ment j# hot vested in the President, but only the right to makéa nomination, which becomes an ap- intment only when the nomination has been con- Irmed by theSenate, the power of removing @ public oMcer cannot be deemed an executive power solely within the meaning of this provision of the constitu. tion. The Manager here quoted opinions coinckling with his own from the seventy-sixth number of the Federalist. He farther remarked that when the President has made @ nomination for a particular oftce, ald th noMIVABAD hap bar SODA Dy Nag spondent are wholly dif- Senate, the constitutional power of the President is exhausted with reference to that officer. In relation to THE CASE OF MR. STANTON. On the 2ist day of February last Mr. Stanton was ences got Eick Socwctary hie Depasimens of * Presid ir . St date, is evidence of this fact:— satis pi ae et i Exe ’ © Wasminoros, DCA Pes af, 1868 Srm—By virtue of the power and authority veated in me as President by the constitution and laws of the United. States you are hereby removed from oifice as Secretary for the De- partment of War, and your functions as such will terminate n receipt of this communication. You will transfer to Brevet Major General Thomas, Adju- tant General of the army, who haa this day been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, all records, books, papers and other public property now in your 4 wy you custody and charge, Respectfully ont | ow sonnson, Hon. Epwiy M. STanTON, Washington, D. 0, ‘This letter is an admission, not only that Mr. Stan- ton was Secretary of War on the 2ist of February, 1868, but also that the suspension of that officer of the 12th of August, A. D, 1867, whether made under the Tenure of Ofice act or not, was abrogated by the action of the Senate of the 13th of January, 1863, and that then Mr, Stanton thereby was restored law- fully to the ofice of Secretary for the Department of “War. On the 2ist day of February the Senate was in session, There was then | but one constitutional way for the removal of Mr. Stan- ton—a nomination by the President to the Senate of @ successor and his confirmation by that body, The President attempted to remove Mr, Stanton in a way not known to the constitution, and in violation thereof, by ssuing the said order for his removal. In the first ofthe articles it is set forth that this order Was issued “in violation of the constitution and of the laws of the United States.” If we show that he has vio ated (he constitution of the United States we show also that he has violated his oath of oMfce which pledged him to aunpors the constitution, Thus is the guilt of the President, under the constitution and upon adrnitted facts, established beyond a reasonable doubt. ‘Vhis view is suticient to justify and require at your hands a verdict of guilty under the first erti- cle, and this without any reference to the legisiation of the country and without reference to the constitu. tionality of the Tenure of Ofiice act or to the question whether the Secretary of War is included within its provisions or not, But I intend in the course of my argument to deal with all these questions of law and to apply the law as it shall appear to the facts proved or admitted, After referring to the arguments of the President’s counsel he said:—The President is as guilty in contemplation of law as he would have been if Mr. Stanton had submitted to his dernand and re- Chee from office as Secretary for the Department of ar, FILLING VACANCIES IN OFFICE. The second article of the constitution says:—“The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions, Which shall expire at the end of their next session.’ This clause grants power to the President which he may exercise, but nothing by construction or implication. If it be necessary and proper that provision should be madg for the stispen: sion or temporary removal of officers who, in the recess of the Senate, have proved to be incapable dishonest, or who in the judgment of the President are disqualified for the further discharge of the duties [ offices, it is clearly a legisiative right and doty, une the cleu of the constitution which author Congress “to make all laws necessary to carry into execution the foregoing powers vested in the government.” The arguments offered show that the President had not the power during session. of the Senate to remove the Secretary of War or any other civil oficer, Previous to the passage of the Tenure of Ofice act he had removed hundreds of faithful and patriotic oMecers, to the great detriment of the public service, and followed by an immense loss of the public revenues, At the time of the pas the act he was so far involved in his mad = schemes of ambition and revenge—that it was, view, impossible for him to retrace his 3! consequently determined, by various artifices and plans, to undermine that law and secure to himself, ce of the will of Congress and of the country, ntrol of the oficers in the civil service a rmy and the navy. He thus became gr: ally involved in an unlawful undertaking, f which he could not retreat. In the pre: of proceedings against him by the House of Represen- tatives he had no alternative but to assert that under he constitution power was vested in the President y, Without the advice 1 consent of the Senate, to remove from offlee person in the service of the country. In the presence of these evils, which were then only partially alized, the Congress of the United States passed the Tenure of Oftice act, as a barrier to their farther progr This act thus far has proved ineffectual as a complete ramedy; and now the President, by his answer to the articles of impeachment, asserts his right to violate it altogether, and by an mterpretation of the consti- tution which is alike hostile to its letter and to the peace and welfare of the country, he assumes to him- self absolute and unqualified power over al! the oMeces and officers of the country. The removal of Mr. Stanton, contrary to the constitution and the jaws, is the particular crime of the President for which we now demand his conviction, The extent, the evil character and the dangerous nature of the claims by which he seeks to justify his conduct are controlling considerations, By his ction you purify the government and restore it to its original character, By his acquittal you surrender the gov- erniment into the hands of a usurping and unscrupu- jous man, who will use all the vast power he now claims for the corruption of every branch of the public service apd the final overthrow of the public liberties, THE OPINIONS OF THE CABINET. The President, he went on to say, Was not excused by the that he had been advised by the Cabinet, whose opinions in such cases were only those of private individuals. The Cabinet responded to his re- quest for advice pretty much as Polonius did to Hamlet, the speaker quoting the portion of the play thus referred to. The President had said that he was responsible to his Cabinet, but they gave vice to him in fearand trembling. The ?' was & man of strong will, of violent passions and unlimited ambition, with capacity to employ nen of various qualities as instruinents of his designs. He attacks and destroys all who will not become his tools, but the military heroes deserved the thanks of the people for havyng withstood his blandishments, THE CLAIMS OF PRESIDENT: The speaker then went on to quote prec explain the act of 1789. Ne of the predecessors: of Mr. Jo ‘from General Washington to Mr. Lincoln, although the act of 1789 waa in existence during all that period, had ever ventured to claim that either under that act, or by virtue of the con- stitution, the President of the United states had power to remove a civil oMcer during @ session of the Senate, without its consent and advice, The utmost that can be said is, that for the last forty years it had been the practice of the Executive to remove civil officers at pleasure during the recess of the Senate. While it may be urged that this practice, in the absence of any direct hey bg upon the subject, had become the common law of the country, protecting the Executive in a policy corresponding to that practice, it is also true, for stronger reasons, that Mr. Johnson was bound by his oath of aftice to adhere to the practice of his predecessors in other particulars, none of whom had ever ventured to re- move a civil officer from his ofice during the session of the Senate and appoint a successor, either perma- nent or ad interim, and authorize that successor to enter upon the discharge of the duties of such office. THE TENURE OF CIVIL OFFICES. After quoting from the several acts relating to vacancies, this gentleman said that the President and counsel used great ee in trying to give them a different meaning to what they really bore, and that the President was guilty of misdemeanor in the ap- pointment of Lorenzo Thomas as Secretary of War ad interim, and his guilt is fully proved and estab- lished. The body of the first section of the act regn- Jating the tenure of certain civil offices is in these words:— 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 hereafter be appointed to any such office, and shall alified to act therein, ix and shall Be entitled to hold » until a successor shall have been in like manner appointed and duly qualified, ex cept as herein otherwise provided, Omitting for the moment to notice the exception, there can be no doubt that this provision would have applied to the Secretary of War, and to every other efi officer under the government; nor can there be any doubt that the removal of Mr, Stanton during a sesvion of the Senate is a misdemeanor by the law, and punishable aa under the sixth section of the act unless the body of the section quoted iso controlled by the proviso as to take the y of War out of iis grasp. The proviso Is in the ‘That the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy, of the Interior, the Postmaster General, and the Attorney General shall hold their offices respectively for and during the term of the President by whom they may have been appointed, and one month thereaiter, tubject to removal by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. We maintain that Mr. Stanton, as Secretary of n the 2d day of March, 1867, within and ine jer the language of the proviso, and was to hold his office for and during the term of the Pre t by whom he had been appointed, and ¢ month thereafter, subject to removal, however, and with the advice and consent of the Senate, |W maintain that Mr. Stanton was then holding the office of Secretary of War, for and in the term of President Lincoln, by whom he had been big og that that term commenced on the 4th of March, 1865, and would end on the 4th of March, 186% The constitu. tion defines the meaning of the word “term.” When apeaking of the Prestdent it «ays:—“IHe shall hold his office during the term of four years, and together with the Vice President, ¢ for the same term, ed as follows.”’ Now, then, although the President first elected may die during his term, the office and the term of the office still remain. Having been established by the constitution itis not in any degree dependent upon the circumstance whether the person elected to the term shall survive to the end or not. It still is @ Presidential term. It still is in law the term gf the President who was elected to the offic he Vice President was chosen at the same time and elected for the same term, But it is the term of a different ofice from that of President the term of the office of Vice President. Mr. John- son was elected to the office of Vice President for the term of four years, Mr. Lincoin was elected to the oflice of President for the term of four years. Mr. Lincoln died in the second month of his term and Mr. dohnson succeeded to the office. It was not a new office; it was nota new term. He succeeded to Mr. Lincoln's office and for the remainder of Mr. "8 term of office. He is serving out Mr. Lin- coin’s term as President. The law says that the Sec- retaries shall hold their offices respectively for and during. the term of the President by whom they may have been appointed, Mr. Lincoin's term commenced on the étii of March, 1865. Mr. Stanton was appointed by Mr. Lincoln; he was in office in Mr. Lincoln's term, when the act regulati: the tenure of certain civil officers was passed; ai by the peoviso of that act he was entitied to hold that until one month after the 4th of Mareh, 1869, hig Fynaved tuarelrom, by Be Bhould be aogner dents and ——— Be ny wt March i 1703, : oho eneanions act o ch 1, concern: case the office of President and Vice President become vacant, four years ag the constitutional term. understand that in President and Vice President, and in case of @ election by the people, that it would be make the election for the possi course in the section which provides that the term shall be elected (that election, of Representatives, 5 one case of vacancy in office desirable inder of the But the act of 1792 rec bility of four years for which @ ident and Vice is, in case of @ ne as stated) shall mence on the 4th day ceeding the day on which the vote of the electo1 shall have been given, It is thus seen that by ai election to fll a vacancy the government would 80 far changed in its practical working that the sul sequent elections of President, except by an amen ment to the constitution, could never again oceur ii the years divisible by four, as at present, and Not answer to the election of members of the House) for the Presidential elections} might occur in the years not divisible by two, The, Congress of 1792 acted upon the constitutional doc- trine that the Presidential term is four years | cannot be changed by law. On the 21st of Februal 1868, while the Senate of the United States was session, Mr. Johnson, in violation of the law— which, as we have already seen, is in strict harmony in this particular with te constitution and with the practice of every administra- tion under the constitution from the begin- ning of the government—iasued an order for the re- moval of Mr. Stanton from his office as Secre for the Department of War. If, however, it be claim that the proviso does not apply to the Secretary o! War, then he does not come within the only excep- tion made in the statute to the general provision ts the body of the first section already quoted; and Mr. Stanton having been appointed to office originally by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, coulda only be removed yg the nomination and appoint. ment of a successor by and with the advice and cone sent of the Senate. Hence, upon either theory it ia plain that the President violated the Tenure of OMca act in the omer which he issued on the 21st day of February, A. D. 1863, for the removal of Mr, Stanton from the office of eens for the Department of War, the Senate of the United States being then in session. After referring to the details of the framing of the bill he said the object and effect of the chief qualification of the provision for which tha House contended, was to avoid fastening, by operation of law, upon an incoming President the cabinet of his predecessor, with no means of re- Heving himself from them unless the Senate of the United States was disposed to concur in their re- moval. In short, they were to retire by operation of law at the end of one month after the expiration of the term ofthe President by whom they had been appointed, and in this particular their tenure of of- fice was distinguished by the proviso, frofn the tenure by which other civil ofticers mentioned in the body of the section were to hold their ofives, and their tenure of ofice Is distinguished tn no othe: ‘The strength of the view entertained t agers of the meaning and scope of the Tenure of Onice act is nowhere more satisfactorily domonstrated than in the inconsistencies of the arguments of the President’s counsel, aft viewing which he chided this portion of his nent by refer the President and asking duplicity more clearly appear in the excuses criminal ? WHAT IS EXPECTED AND WHAT TS PROVED. The speaker declared that the House does not de- mand the conviction of the President unless guilty {0 manner, That he was guilty the speaker was confl- dent, and he could not conceive how any member of the tribunal can doubt if, It has been proven that the President ordered the remov nton with- out advice or conseut of the Sen: eplace Stanton with Thotoas, and so on h of the articles of impeachment, which 1 been all prover. through the speaker o4 In reference to the charge of conspiracy he said that Uhe evidenee must be necessarily circumstantial. It was found that the President was en- gaged in an unlawfal act. If Lorenzo Thomas or aly other person were found co-operat- ing with him in the prosecution of such an un- lawful undertaking an actual conspiracy was proven. ‘The President's counsel was fearful of ad- mnitting that his order ‘homas was a military order, since his client, e been in such case liable to impeachment for having issued a military order without allowing it to pass through the hands of the General of the Arm, The admissions and Statements of the learned counsel are to the effect, on the whole, that the order was net a military order, nor do we claim that it was @ military order, but it was a letter addressed (o General Thoinas, which he yuld have declined altog Withoup subjecting himself to any punishment by itary tribunal. This is ac Il test of the che wuper which he re led to act. Igno ording to the old maxim, excuses no man; and whether General Thomas, at the first interview he had with the Presi- dent on the isth of Jannary, 1868, or his interview with him on the day when received the letter of appointment, knew that the President was then en- gagedin an unlawful act ts not material to this in- quiry, The President knew that his purpose was ar unlawful one, and he then and there induced Gen- eral Thomas to co-operate with Cote in the progecu- tion of the unlawful design, If General Thomas was ignorant of the illegal nature of the transaction’ that fact furnishes no legal deence for him, though morally lt might be an excuse for his conduct. But certainly the President, who did know the oped nature of the proceeding, cannot excuse himself by asserting that his coconspirator was at the time igno- rant of the illegal nature of the business in which they were engaged, It being proved that the respondent was engaged tn an unlawful undertaking in tus attempt to remove Mr. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, that by an agreement or understanding between General Thomas and himself they were to co-operate in. carrying this purpose into execution, and it bemg proved also that the purpose itself was unlawful, all the elements of a conspiracy ave fully established ; and it only remains to examine the testimony in order that the nature of the conspiracy may more clearly appear, and the means by which the purpose was to be accomplished may be more fully understood, The statement of the President in his nessage to the Senate under date of j2th December, 1867, discloses the depth of his fecling and the intensity of his purpose in regard to the re- moval of Stanton. TUE PRESIDENTS CRIMINAL SCHEMES. ‘The speaker then minutely fletaiied the events of the past in reference to the War Oilice, the resigna- tion of Grant and the successive appointinents made by the President and the refusat of the appol serve. The brightest names, according to th er’s argument, were shrewdly chosen by the Presi- dent, in order that they might honor his cause, or that he might have an aged man, such as Hon. Thomas Ewing, Sr., in position—one who would be a tool in his hands or who woukl in any event be ready to vacate the of ata moment's notice. On the afternoon of the 21st he informs his Cabinet that Stanton fs removed and that Thomas has possession of the oifice, He theft so believ Thomas had de- ceived or misted him. On the 22d instant he had dis- covered that Stanton held on to the place, and that Emory could not be relied upon for force. What was now his necessity? Simply a resort to his old policy. He saw that It was necessary to avoid impeachment if possible, and also to obtain the sanction of the Sen- ate to a nomination which would work the removal of Mr, Stanton, and thus he would triumph over his enemies and obtain condonation for his crimes of the 2ist of Febraary—a well laid scheme, but destined to fatl and furnish evidence of his own galley = yo With the oMce in the possession of Mr. Ewing, ¢ foresaw that for the prosecution of his own plans the place would always be vacant. Thus has this artful and criminal man pursued the great put of on the his life. Consider the other circumstances. Ist of September last General Emory was — to the command of the department of Washington. He has exhibited such sterling honesty and vi us patriotism in these recent troubles and dat tho war that he can bear a reference to his previous history. He was born in Maryiand, and in the early part of the war the public mind of the North ques- joned his fidelity to the Union. His great services and untarnished record during the war are a complete defence against all suspicion; but is it too much to believe that Mr. Johnson entertained the hope that General Emory might be made an instrument of his am ? Nobly has General Emory undeceived the President and gained additional renown in the country. in General Lorenzo Thomas the President was not deceived. His complicity in recent uniaw- ful pro dings justifies the tae entertained by the country m 1861 and 1862 Thomas and the sident are tain as counsel in the Stanton the men retained ouching his loyatt; accord, TI re- proceedings instituted by by Surratt in his defence: against the ¢! of complicity in the imurder of Mr. Is there not in all this evidence of the President's criminal intention? 1s not his whole course marked by dupttetty, deception and fraud? “All things are construed against the wrong-doer" is the wise and Just maxim of the law. Has he not trifled with and deceived the Senate’ Has he not attempted to accomplish an unlawful pur- pose by disingenuous, tortuous, criminal means? fis criminal intent isin his wilfal violation of the Jaw, and his crim. intent 18 moreover abundantly proved by all the circumstances attending the viola- tion of the law. His final resort for safety was to the Senate, praying for the confirmation of Mr. Ewing. On the 2ist of February he hoped that Stan- ton would yield willingly, or that Emory could be toremove him. On the 22d he knew that Stan- was determined to remain, that Emory would uot furnish assistance, that it Was useless to appeal to Grant. He returns to his old plan of filling the War OMlce by the appointment of a man who would yield the = plac at any moment; and now he asks you to accept as his justification an ac which was the last resort of a crimina! attempting to escape the judgment due to his crimes, Upon this view of the law and the facts, we demand a convic- tion of the Tesponmans upon articles four, five, six and seven exhibited against him by the House of Representatives, MIs PURPOSES. ‘The evidence introduced tending to. sho py | between Jolinson and Thomas to get posses sion of the War Department, tends also, conte : with other facts, to show the purpose of the Presil¢ i to obtain ssion of the Treasury Departinent. Bearing in mind his clatm that he can suspend ov re- move from office, without the advice and consent of the Senate, any civil officer, and bearing in mind also that the present Secretary of the, Treasti'y supports this claim, and every obstacle to eo of the Treasury Department ts removed. There is no re - son to suppose the present Secretary of the Treasury would not yield a cordial support to any schenio which Mr, Jobnaon might under’ ; butif the See- retary should decline fo co-operate, it would only be necessary for the President to remove him from office and place the Treasury Department hands of tment of Tres ut in the one of his own creatures. Upon the my Ma u ‘Thomas as Secretary of War ad dgnt caused potice ly be given thergef to