Newspaper Page Text
TERMS OF PUBLICATION.
THE BEDFORD GAZETTE is published every Fri day morning by MEYERS A MINGEL, at $2.00 per annum, if paid strictly in advance ; $2.50 if paid within six months; $3.00 if not paid within six months. All subscription accounts MUST be settled annually. No paper ffill be sent out of the State unless paid for is ADVASCE. and all such subscriptions will invariably be discontinued at the expiration of the time for which they are paid. All ADVERTISEMENTS for a less term than three months TEN CENTS per line for each in sertion. Special notices one-half additional All resolutions of Associations; communications of limited or individual interest, and notices of mar riages and deaths exceeding five line?, ten cents per line. Editorial notices fifteen cents per line. All legal Notices of every kind, and Orphans' Court and Judicial Sales, are required by laic to be published in both papers published in this place. Lir All advertising due after first insertion. A liberal discount is made to persons advertising by the quarter, half year, or year, as follows : 3 months. 6 months. 1 year. ♦Onesquaro - - - $4 50 $6 00 $lO 00 Two squares ... 600 900 16 00 Three squares - - - 8 00 12 00 20 00 Quarter column - - 14 00 20 00 35 00 Half column - - - 18 00 25 00 45 00 One column - - - - 30 00 45 00 80 00 ♦One square to occupy one inch of space. JOB PRINTING, of every kind, done with neatness and dispatch. THE GAZETTE OFFICE has just been refitted with a Power Press and new type, and everything in the Printing line can be execu ted in the most artistic manner and at the lowest rates —TERMS CASH. Is 1 All letters should.be addressd to MEYERS A MEXGEL, Publishers. 2Vttorimts at £au\ S. L. RUSSELL. V J- H. LONGENKCKER. RUSSELL & LOXGENECKER, ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW, BEDFORD. PA., Will attend promptly and faithfully to all busi ness entrusted to their care. Special attention given to collections and the prosecution ot claims for Back Pay. Bounty, Pensions, Ac OFFICE, on Juliana Street, south of the Court House. apra, 67tf J. MCI). SHARPS. E - F - J*®*®* QIIARPE A KERR, ATTORNE\B O AT LAW BEDFORD, PA., will practice in the courts of Bedford and adjoining counties Of- j tiee on Juliana St., opposite the Banking House of Keed A Schell. (March 2,'66. j J. R. DURBORROW. | JOHN LUTZ. DU RBOR RO W A LUT Z, i ATTORNEYS AT LAW, BEDFORD, PA., Will attend promptly to all business intrusted to their care. Collections made on the shortest no ' They are, also, regularly licensed Claim Agents and will give special attention to the prosecution of claims against tho Government for Pensions, .Back Pay. Bounty, Bounty Lands, Ac Office on Juliana street, one door South of the "Mengel House," and nearly opposite the Inquirer office. rOHNP.REED, ATTORNEY AT fj LAW, BEDFORD, PA. Respectfully tenders his services to tho public. Office second door North of the Mengel House. Bedford. Aug, 1, 1861. IJISPY MALSIP, ATTORNEY AT 'j LAW, BEDFORD, PA. Will faithfully and . promptly attend to all business entrusted to his care in Bedford and adjoining counties. Military •laims, back pay. bounty, Ac., speedily collected. Office with Mann A Spang, on Juliana street, t .o doors South of the Mengel House. Jan. 22, 1864, F. If. KIMMELL. | J- W. LtNGENFF.LTKR. KIMMELL A LLNGENFELTER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, BEDFORD, PA., Have formed a partnership in the practice of the Law. Office on Juliana street, two doors South of the 'Mengel House," jr. SPANG, ATTORNEY AT " JR. LAW BEDFORD. PA. Will promptly at tend to collections and all business entrusted to his care in Bedford and adjoining counties. Office on Juliana Street, three doors south of the "Mengel House," opposite tho residence of Mrs. Tate. Msyljl, 1864. B. F. MEYERS j J- W. DICKERSON. MEYERS A DICKEIISON, AT TORNEYS AT LAW, Bedford. Pa., office same as formerjy occupied by lion. S. L Russell, a few doors south ot the Court House, will practice in the several courts of Bedford county. Pensions, bounty and back pay obtained and the purchase and sale of real estate attended to. | may! 1,'86. HAYS IRVINE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Bloody Run, Pa. Office in Harris' New Building. marl 3 68 DR. CHASE'S RECIPES, or Infor mation tor Kveryhoily ."—An invaluable collection of about 800 practical recipes for Mer chants, Grocers. Saloon keepers, Physicians. Drug gists, Tanners, Shoemakers. Harness-makers, Pain ters, Jewelers, Blacksmiths, Titmers. Gunsmiths, Farriers, Barbers, Bakers, Dyers, Renovators, Farmers, and Families Generally. To which has been added a Rational Treatment of Pleurisy, Inflammation of the Lungs and Inflam matory Diseases, and also for General Female Debil ity and Irregularities. The undersigned is agent for Bedford county.— For agencies address L. M. STATLER, apr24tf Stoystown, Pa. TJAILEY, FARRELL A CO., LEAD PIPE, SHEET AND BAR LEAD MANUFACTURERS, ALSO Pig Lead. Iron Pipe, Rubber Hose. Steam Gauges. Whistles and Valves, Iron and Oopper Sinks and Bath' Tubs, Steam Pumps, Farm Pumps and Force Pumps. And every description of goods for WATER, GAS A STEAM. NO. 167 SMITIIFIELD STREET. Send for a Price List. PITTSBURG, PA. apr24'6Byl B.J. WILLIAMS & SONS, . No. 16 North Sixth Street, Philadelphia LARGEST MANUFACTURERS OF VENETIAN BLINDS 'WINDOW SHADES, AT THE LOWEST PRICES Blinds Repaired. Store Shades, Trimmings, Fixtures, Plain Shades ot all kinds. Curtain Cor nices, Pioture Tassels, Oord Bell Pulls, Ac. apr24m2 • D BEER'S warranted fresh and gen uine GARDEN SEEDS, and a full assort ment Spades, Spading Forks, Hoes, Rakes. Shov els, Ac., Ac., oon be bought at HABTLEY A METZGER'SJ very low, for cash. apr3tf IF you want to get the best Reaper, Mower, Grain Drill, or any other Farm Imple ment that is made, am! at the lowest price, always go to HARTLEY A METZGER'S old established agency. As their businsss is a permanent one, they will always keep extras, which may be need ed for any farm implement they sell. [apr3tf S IR JOHN FRANKLIN orCHAM BERSBURU COOKING STOVE —This cele brated stove is now offered to the public by HART LEY" A METZGER, agents for Bedford county, who will always have on hand a full supply, for wood or oo&l. apr3tf 17ULLIES, SHAFTS, Poles, Spokes, ami Hubs, are sold by HARTLEY A METZ GER at manufacturer's prices. apr3tf ITCH ! ITCH !! ITCH !— Scratch! Scratch '. .' Scratch.' '■ .'—ln from 10 48 hour* YVHEATON'S OINTMENT cures THE ITCH. WnBATON'S OINTMENT cures SALT RHEUM. YVHEATON'S OINTMENT cures TETTER. YVHEATON'S OINTMENT cures Barbers' 1 Itch. WHBATON'S OINTMENT cures Old Sores. WHEATON'S OINTMENT cures - Every kind of Humor like Magic. Price. 50 cents a box ; by mail, 60 cents. Ad dress WEEKS A POITER, No. 170 Washington Street, Boston, Mass. For sale by all Druggists sep'2o,"67y I CANCER, SCROFULA, <SX\, CURED.— Persons afflicted with Cancer, Scrofula. Tu mors, Eruptions, Ao., are CURED by the use of Dr. GREENE'S ELECTRO-MEDICATED BATHS and Indiau Vegetable remedies which cleanse the blood of all Humors, Mercury, Lead. Ac., and restore health to invalids afflicted with every variety of disease. A book describing Cancer, Scrofula, Hu mors and other diseases, with their proper means of cure, may ue obtained free at the Medical Insti tute, or by mail. Address Dr. R. GREENE, 16 Temple place, Boston, Mass. BY MEYERS & MENGEL. flu feiferil (Dinette. THE GRIAT SPEECH OF THE IM PEACHMENT TBI A!.! Remark* or Hon. W. *. Oroesbeck. of Ohio.' before tbe High Court ot !m -peaebnent! The Patriot President Completely Vin ilieaieil! The CHIEF JUSTICE then directed the President's counsel to proceed, and Mr. GHOESBECK, of counsel, com uynced his remarks. He referred pri marily to the fact that in this country we have had five cases of impeach ment —four of judges and one of a Sen ator. He laid it down as a first propo sition, that impeachment was never intended, except as a remedy for the removal of an obnoxious officer who held his position for life. But this case was now here and it must he met. He then referred to the argument of the managers, tiiat this body was sit ting as a Senate and not as a Court, and lie proceeded to argue that it was sitting as a Court. He then reviewed some of the authorities upon this sub ject. Referring to the trial of Senator Blount, lie said the tribunal had held j in solemn determination that it was ; a Court. The next case was the Pick ering case, and in that case the last act was whether the Court wasoftheopinion that Pickering should he removed, and the question was not is the Senate of opinion that Judge Pickering shall he removed. So in the Peck case, and in every other, and in every instance the tribunal solemnly declared itself to bo a Court. In what spirit, then, Sena tors, should you try this case? And upon this point he would refer to the language of Judge Story. He then read from that author relative to the duties of Senators sitting as a Court of Impeachment. This, said Mr. Groes heck, is not my language, but the lan guage of a distinguished jurist, whose ability is recognized by all. The oath you took as a Senator was a political aath. The oath that is now upon you is a purely judicial oath. You are here, therefore, Senators, as a Court, and as a Court you must act. You are to try this case upon the evidence brought here, and not upon common fame, or common rumor, as was said by one of the managers. Your juris diction here is estopped, after you try the question whether the President lias been guilty of high crimes or misde meanors. In every count there must he the unlawful purpose and intent, and when that is wanting there can t>e no crime. Suppose a-President should become deranged, and, while in that condition, should break law after law. You would have no jurisdiction to try him for high crimes and misdemeanors. But let us state another case. President j Lincoln by court martial arrested and imprisoned citizens of the loyal States, and the Supreme Court lias since do- j cided his acts had no warrant in the Constitution ; hut will it he claimed that if President Lincoln were living he could be tried for a violation of law when his intentions and motives were honest ? If the evil intent and motive j are absent there can he no crime. With these preliminary observations, lie would proceed to note the articles of impeachment as presented. The first eight articles charge hut two acts based upon the removal of Mr. Stanton. If the President had the right to remove Stanton and to give a letter of authori ty to Thomas, then these eight arti cles fall to the ground and are of no a vail. We therefore have but two in quiries to make. Ist. Had the Presi- ! dent tiie right to remove Stanton ? and 1 had he the right to issue the letter of authority to Thomas? and upon these two questions he proposed to : peak. j With regard to the first question, he would view it in the light of the Ten ure of Office act itself. It was claimed on one hand that this law did not ap ply to Mr. Stanton, and if this is so, then the President had a right to make the removal. The act was passed on March 3, 18(57. Stanton's commission was dated on January 15th, 18(52, and this commission was given to him by Mr. Lincoln to hold office during the pleasure of the President for the time being. Mr. Johnson became President in 18(55, and lie has not commissioned Mr. Stanton at all, and Stanton there fore does not come under the terms of this act. Stanton was not appointed at,all during the enrrent Presidential term. The commission says he is ap pointed for the current term, and Mr. Johnson never appointed Mr. Stan ton, and this should settle the question of Mr. Johnson's right to make the re moval. A dead man has no estate and can have no office, and it cannot there fore he said that lie holds the office in Mr. Lincoln's term. He contended that it was not in the power of Con gress to extend the term of an office which was to he held at pleasure. Again, it would be noticed that the Tenure of Office act contained no re pealing clause, and we are therefore at liberty to look hack to the provisions of the law creating the office of Secre tsrry of War, and under that law Mr. I Stanton could only hold his office dur ing the pleasure of the President ap | pointing him. At this point Mr. FESSENDEN arose ! and said it was evident that Mr. Groes j heck was laboring in speech, and that j he had a severe cold, and he would , suggest that one of the managers go on, if Mr. Groesbeek desired it. Mr. GROESBECK was much obliged to the Senator, hut lie had no hope that his bronchial difficulty would be aijy better after a day or two, and he must therefore beg the attention of the Sen ! ate, and he would proceed as well as he could under his difficulty. Again referring to Ihe old law crea ting the office, Mr. G. read to show that the original bill was enacted by the casting vote of John Adams, and that he clearly recognized the Presi dent's power of removal of an incum bent of the office at his pleasure. If he was right in his view that Mr. Stan ton was not covered by law, and that the law of 1789 was in force, then what becomes of the first eight articles of impeachmentV Take out the single question of the power of the removal of Stanton from the eight articles, and they have no other support. Suppose Mr. Stanton is within the Tenure of Office act. What then? Why the question is, whether the President was guilty for removing him when he hon estly believed that Mr. Stanton's case did not come within the terms of the act. This is not exactly a question of the constitutionality of this law, hut it is a question of the construction of- the act, and in this Senate, among tiiese intelligent Senators themselves, there is a diversity of opinion relative to the construction of that act. A law of doubtful construction as it is, yet if tlie President construed it differently from the Senate, lie lias been guilty of no crime and of no misdemeanor. It was in evidence before you, Senators, that at a Cabinet meeting the subject was discussed, and the very question of construction came up, and the Presi dent and his Cabinet all agreed upon the construction. But suppose the law does apply to Mr. Stanton, the ques tion still arises whether the conduct of the President was criminal. Ho did not propose to argue now the constitu tionality of the law, hut he would in quire whether in the present aspect of the case the President was guiltless of criminality in removing Mr. Stanton, lie started from the point that the question was at least doubtful. Our Government has been divided into three departments, each independent of the other, and no one department is responsible to the other. All this is clearly set out in the Constitution. At the head of the Executive Department the President of the United States stands, and is sworn to protect and de fend the Constitution of the United States. This is not an oath merely to execute the laws for laws are not nam ed. Of all the officers of the Govern ment the oath to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States is administered to the President alone. In all doubts, in all difficulties, in all trials he must look alone to the Constitution of the United States. The honorable Manager Boutwell said that the President was only the executive officer of Congress; hut he (Mr. Groes beck) did not so interpret the Consti tution. The President was not the mere executive officer of Congress, but he is the head of one of the great co ordinate branches of the Government. Upon this question he took direct is sue with all that the honorable mana ger had said. He here quoted from Mr. Bout well's remarks upon this sub ject, and said the doctrine then enunci ated was the last Congressional theory he had heard. If a law be declared by the Supreme Court unconstitutional, the President dares not execute one jot or tittle of it, and if he executes that law afterwards he violates that higher law, the Constitution of the United States. This then explodes Mr. Bout well's theory that the President must execute all laws. Furthermore, if a law is passed manifestly unconstitutional, the President is not bound to execute that law, and need not await a decision of the Supreme Court. To follow the Constitution is the paramount duty of the President, and to protect the in tegrity of his department is also a du ty. After some further remarks upon this point, Mr. G. saiil he would now proceed to note the question, what was the duty of the President in con sideration of the state of the case, and what was the condition of the quesiion at the time this removal was affected. How stands the judicial question ? We have 110 direct opinion upon this ease, but we have decisions of the Su preme Court bearing upon the points presented in the Ten ure of Office act, and these decisions lie would now refer to. He then read a decision made in 1839 in relation to the power of appoint ment and removal, and which declared that the power of removal was vested alone in the President, although the appointment was made with the ad vice and consent of the Senate. I n this connnection Mr. G. quoted from a de cision previously rendered by Chief Justice Marshall upon this subject of appointment and removal. He also referred to the opinion of Chancellor Kent, who, in treating of the act of 17- 89, held that the power of removal was solely in the President, and all these showed that, doubtful as this question was, it had been practically passed up on. Ho referred then to the initiatory steps taken by the fathers of the coun try to have the rights and powers of the Executive Departments properly defined. At this point, 2.10, Court took a re cess for fifteen minutes. The Court was again called to order at 2.40, and Mr. Ukoesbeck resumed his remarks, and, in referring to the act of 1789, said he did not deem it nec essary to call the attention of the Sen ate at length to the debate upon the subject, for they must have all read the BEDFORD, PA., FRIDAY MORNING, MAY 8, 1868. debates. He thought, however, that the result of the legislation of 1789 was conclusive upon all; that body con sidered that the power of removal was vested absolutely in the President. With all respect to the honorable man ager lie must say that he did not think Mr. Boutwell's conclusions as to the re sult of that debate were at all author ized by the deflates themselves. The only question discussed and set tled in that debate was whether the power of removal was lodged in the President alone or lodged in the Presi dent and Senate, and it was decided that the power was vested in the Pres ident alone. The First Congress passed a number of acts upon this subject and ! among them three Sets establishing j the three Executive departments, and j in the language of Chief Justice- Mar- j shall, it had to avoid such legislation as would make the constitutional inter pretation unstable. These laws were in force to this day. They were pro- j fessedly interpretations of the Consti tution and had been so declared by the j Supreme Court; by all tiie Presidents | since the days of Washington; so de clared by the Congress that passed them, and so declared by all Congress es down to the Thirty-ninth. Mr. Groesbeck then came down nine years later, and reviewed the action of Con- j gross in 1798 when the Navy Depart-1 ment was formed, and when the pow- j or of removal was recognized as in the j President alone. Twenty-seven years later the Postoffice department was or-! ganized and this principle was also: recognized. It was also recognized in the establishment of the Interior de partment in the creation of the Attor ney General's office. All these officials j had taken their commissions for and \ during the pleasure of the President I for the time being. He also cited laws j relating to the appointment of Post- j masters and other subordinate officers j as recognizing this same principle. If; all the laws of Congress were collected ! from 1789 to ISG7 which affirmed the j construction that the President had j the power of removal, they would av erage two or three to each Congress. The law of March, 1807, alone came in to break upon the concurrent chain of constitutional interpretation. But he would ask if human reason might not pause and human judgment, doubt at this time upon this question ? All the Presidents had affirmed this constitu tional interpretation and acted upon it for eighty years; the Supreme Court had affirmed it; thirty-eight Congress es had concurred in it. All this was on the one side of tjje question that the President had the constitutional right to make removals, whiie on the other side there was but the act of one Con gress. Might not, then, human reason pause and human judgment doubt up on the construction ? Was it criminal in the President to stand by that great mass of precedent, and to believe as thirty-eight Congresses had believ ed, and as the Supreme Court had affirmed, that the power of remov al from office was vested by the Constitution in tiie President? That was the question this Court must decide. Did the Senate believe if at the time Andrew Johnson honestly thought that the Constitution lodged the power of removal in the hands of the President, that he is guilty of crime for acting upon" the thought? What should be the effect of the long line of interpretation by every department of the Government? Stability was as much needed in regard to powers not explained in the Constitution as in re gard to those that are explained. If the construction of one of the Presi dent's powers was to he fixed by inter pretation and decision, when was it to he regarded as fixed? In five huiul years? In four hundred years? In one hundred years? All will agree to that. Well, here we have a Constitu tion and an interpretation existing for seventy-eight years, and this should establish it. The Thirty-ninth Con gress alone has given a different in terpretation of the Constitution, lie (Mr. G.) did not propose to institute any comparison between that Congress and the Congresses that had preceded it. He would not say that it was not just as able as any other congress, hut he did say that it was no better. And this brought us down to the question it the Senate would drive the President from office and convict him of crime because he believed as all his predecess ors believed, and as thirty-eight Con gresses believed? Was Mr. Johnson to lie down with his hands upon liis mouth and his mouth in the dust, and he deprived of his just powers; or was he to stand up as the Chief Magistrate of a mighty nation and defend the in tegrity of his Department ? It was for the President to execute laws, to exe cute even doubtful laws; but when lie was called upon to execute a law a gainst which all precedents were array ed, was he not justified in seeking to get a judicial interpretation of the question, and was the Senate to under take to brand bin with criminality he cause he proposed to g.o to the Supreme Court and have the question settled | forever ? Mr. GROESBECK, in continuation, adverted to the fact that the Court had shut out all testimony as to tiie opin ions of the Cabinet upon this question and the advice they gave the Presi dent. Suppose, he said, it had been brought to the attention of Senators that on a serious question like this the President had disregarded the advice of his Cabinet, and in defiance of their wishes lie had acted in the manner he had, can any one doubt that the managers would have put it in evi dence against him, and yet the facts which would have proved just the con trary state of the case, were excluded from testimony. What was Mr. John son's condition in the whole matter? He had a Cabinet officer who was un frendly to him personally and politi cally. All confidential relations be tween them had been broken off, and Mr. Stanton himself had admitted, in a message to Congress, that he had no communication with the* President since August 12, 13G7. He proposed to be an executive department of him self and to carry on his department without even recognizing the name of the President. In that contingency the President communicated with Gen eral Thomas relative to a change in the Department. [Mr. Groesbeek here read General Sherman's testimony to show that the President's sole pur pose was to have the War office well administered.] Resuming, Mr. GROESBECK said a change was necessary because the du ties of the office could not he properly performed while this wrangling was going on. It was the necessity of the cose that impelled Mr. Johnson to act. It is well known that if the President had attempted to get possession of the office by a <juo warranto lie would have been laughed at, because it would have taken at least a year to determine the case in that manner. All the Presi dent wanted was to get the question before the Courts. He therefore issued his letter of authority to Thomas, and Thomas was arrested. Here was the President's opportunity, and it is in evidence how eagerly he clutched at it; and it is also in evidence how quickly the opportunity was snatched away from him. Ile resorted to no force to obtain possession ofthe Department. All of the force used was tiie cordial embrace of Stanton and Thomas when they drank together, and when Stan ton affectionately ran his fingers through the old man's grey locks, and that was all. Yet upon this point the Court would not hear the President's Cabinet officers, who could have shown that no force was ever attempted, and all of the force intended was left to conjecture upon the testimony of the man from Delaware, and the street and midnight masquerade conversa tions of an old man clothed with a lit tle brief authority. The Senate was asked to let in the testimony of the Cabinet officers upon the point of force, but it was not admitted, and there is no rescuing this trial from the mani fest imperfections of the testimony up on that point. The President could do nothing less than give the letter ol authority to Thomas, because there was no other way, as a nomination to the Senate would have left the case jusl as it ha been before. In this whole movement the President's sole intent and purpose was to get rid of his un friendly, defiant Cabinet officer. That this was the purpose, Mr. Groesbeck referred to the fact that the President had applied in turn to Sherman and George 11. Thomas, tiie men of all oth ers who could command the respect and confidence of the nation. \ou cannot, said Mr. Groesbeck, make a crime of this, Senators. The President had hut one purpose in view, and that was to change the head of the De partment, and it would have delight ed him to make the change and to pul there permanently any competent man. Mr. GROESBECK then referred to a message to Congress in relation to Mr. Stanton's ease, to siiow that the Presi dent had to some extent recognized the law, and had not, as was charged, torn it to pieces and trampled it under foot. He (Mr. Groesbeck) had care fully listened to all the testimony in the case anil lie could not see how the Pres ident could possibly he convicted of any criminality. Where is the evi dence of force? Where is the threat or the intimidation used? Is he crim inal because lie did not surrender the convictions of his mind or his consti tutional rights and make them con form to your interpretation of the act of 1867 ? Then so were Washington and Adams and all the earlier Presi- ! dents criminal, for they had interpre ted their powers just as Andrew John- j son interpreted his. Referring to the right to make an ad interim appointment, Mr. Groes beck said the President found His war rant for that in the act of February 13th, 1795. And the act of February 20, 18G3, partially covers some of the ground of the act first referred to.— But the latter does not repeal the | former, and there cannot be a repeal of a law by implication. Now, in the law of 1803 Ureases provided for when the President may make ad interim ap pointments are those of death, resig nation, or absence from the city.— Two cases are not provided for, and these are removal from office and ex piration of term of service. These are both provided for in the act of 1795, and it was therefore under the latter act that the President in this case made the ad interim appointment. To show the practice of the Government upon | this point, reference was made to cases I that had occurred, including the re moval of John B. Floyd from the War Olfice by President Buchanan, and the appointment of Mr. Holt.— ' This case was inquired into by the then Senate, but they found that they had no power over the subject. With regard to article 9, which charges an illegal act by the President VOL. 62.™ WHOLE No. 5,442. in his conversation with General Emory, Mr. Groesbeck said lie would dismiss that with a word, lie read the testimony of General Emory, and said it must appear clear to all that the President's whole purpose in sending for Emory, was to ascertain why certain unusual changes were be ing made among the troops in his de partment. The 10th article he would leave to his colleagues to discuss; but he would ask whether the right of freedom of speech in this country belonged only to the private individual? Is it denied the officers of the Govern ment? Can't the Presidentjdiscuss the measures of any department of the Government? May Congress set itself up as a standard of good taste ? Is it for Congress to prescribe rules of Presiden tial decorum? Will it not be enough for Congress to preserve its own digni ty ? Can it prescribe a form of express ion which may he used, and punish by impeachment that which it cannot reach by any form of law ? Jle would not dwell further upon the subject than to say that the sedition law of 1798 was very much like article 10, and that as we all know, was one of the most offen sive laws ever enacted. It was in a short time repealed, and no attempt has ever been made to reiterate its pre cepts, hut it has been reserved for the House of Representatives of the Thir ty-ninth Congress, through its mana gers, to renew this questionable propo sition, and lie would take it upon him self to suggest that before any one was condemned in a court of impeachment, the country should have some law up on the subject. lie had therefore pre pared the draft of a law to meet the case. Mr. (JTROESHECK then read, amid much laughter,|aburlesque law contain ing a large number of preambles reciting thedutyof the President to observe offi cial decorum Ac., declaring that such ex pressions as "a body hanging upon the verge of the Govern inent"wero subjects for impeachment; and subjecting the President to fine and imprisonment for using such expresions or not observing the rules of decorum as there laid down. That, said Mr. Groesbeck, is article No. 10. [Laughter.] The 11th article,hesaid, would be investigated at length by his colleague. He would only say of it that there was nothing to support it except the telegram from Governor Parsons to President Johnson. He had heard the oration of one of the mana gers upon this article, sounding, sono rous and sensational, and he would ask if that was the sort of an article upon which a conviction was anticipated? 1 n reviewing the whole case he was glad that no political questions were invol ved in this. The questions are, where is the power of removal lodged by the Constitution? Is that power covered by the civil Tenure of officeact? Can the President make an ad interim ap pointment? Did he do anything mis chievousin his interview with Gen Em ory ? Is he to bejield accountable for ex ercising the right of freedom of speech ? Stripped of all verbiage these questions comprise the whole case. How meagre and miserable then isthiscase? Itissim ply a question of an ad interim appoint ment that may be terminated in a day and of an attempt to remove Edwin M. Stanton, who stood defiantly and poi soned all the channels of intercourse with the President. We have been referred to many pre cedents in the past history of England, but those precedents should be to you, Senators, nyt matters for imitation, but becon lights to warn you from the dan gerous rocks on which they stand.— What is to be your judgment, Sen ators? Removal from, office,- and perpetual disqualification? if the President has done anything for which he should be removed from office, he should also be disqualified from hold ingofficehereafter. What ishiscrime ? He tried to pluck a thorn out of his heart —for it had become a thorn there | —and the Senate had fastened it there. What more had he done? He had | made an ad interim appointment to last for a single day. You could have ter minated it whenever you saw fit. You had only to take up the nomination, which he sent to the Senate, aud which was a good nomination, and the ad in terim would have vanished like smoke. The thing was in your hands. You had only to act on the nomination and the matter wassettled. That was no crime. 1 can point you to cases that have oc curred, and I point especially to that case of Floyd's, where the Senate in its legislative capacity, weighed the ques tion, decided upon it, heard the report of the President and received it as sat isfactory. For the purpose of the trial that is res adjudicate). What else did the President do? He talked with an officer about the law. That is the Em ory article. What else did he do? He made in temperate speeches. When reviled he should not have reviled a gain. When smitten on the one cheek he should have turned the other also. Then he would have escaped impeach ment. But* said the gentleman who addressed you yesterday (Mr. Bout well), he was eager for pacification and to restore the South. I deny it—in the sense in which the gentleman presen ted it—as being criminal. Here, too, thejjPresident followed reason, and trod i the path on which were the footprints !of Lincoln, and which was lightened by the radiance of that deviue utter ance of Lincoln—"Charity toward all, malice towards none." He was eager for pacification. Ile knew the war was ended. The drums were all silent.— The arsenals were all shut. The noise of cannon had (lied away. The army was disbanded. Not a siugle enemy confronted us in the field. Aud he was eager for pacification. The hand of reconciliation was stretched out to him, and he took it. Was this kind ness, this forgiveness, a crime ? Kind ness a crime! Kindness is omnipo tent for good, more powerful than gun powder or cannon. Kindness is states manship. Kindness is the high states manship of heaven itself. The thun der of Sinai did but terrify and distract. It is the kindness of Calvary that sub dues and pacifies. What shall I say of that man? lie has ever walked in the patli and by tlie light of the Con stitution. The mariner, tempest tossed on the sea, is not moresure to turn to the stars for guidance than this man in the trials of public life, to look to the star of the Constitution. He does love the Constitution. It has been the study of his life. He is not learned or scholarly like many of you. He is not a man of many ideas or much specula tion ; but he is a man of intelligence. He is a patriot second to no one of you in the measure of his patriotism. He may be full of errors. I will not can vass now his views. He loves his country and 1 believe would die for it if need be. His courage and his pat ri otism are not without illustration. My colleague referred the other day to the scenes which occurred in this chain - her, where he alone of all the Senators from his section, remained, and even when his own State had seceeded.— That was a trial to which many of you, by reason of your locality and your life long associations, know nothing. How his voice rung out in this hall on that occasion in the hour of alarm, and in denunciation of the rebellion ! Hut he did not remain here. This was a plea sant and easy position. He chose a more difficult and arduous and peril ous service. That was a trial of his courage and patriotism of which some of yo.u who now sit in judgment upon him, know nothing. I have thought that those who dwelt at the north, at a safe distance from the collision of war, knew but little of its actual trying dan gers. We who lived upon the border know it. Our horizon was always red with flame, and it was sometimes borne so near us that we felt the heat upon the outstretched hand. Mr. Johnson went into the very borders of the war and there he served his country long and well. Which of you has done more'? Xot one. There is one among you whose services,as I well know, can not be overstimated, and 1 withdraw all comparison. Hut it is enough to say that his services were greatly need - eel, and it seems hard, it seems* cruel, that he should be struck here upon these miserable technicalities, or that anyone who has served his country and borne himself well and bravely, should be treated as a criminal and condemned upon these miserable char ges. Even if he had comrnitttedacrlino against thelaws, his serviccsto thecoun try entitle him to some consideration. Hut lie has precedents for everything that he has done—excellent precedents. The voices of the great dead come to us from their graves sanctioning his course. All our past history approves it. How can you single out this man now, in this condition of things, and brand him before the country? Will you put your hand upon him because he made an ad interim appointment, and attempted to remove Edwin M. Stanton? I can at a single glance, Senators, fix my eye on many of you who would not endure the position which the President occupied. You did not tnink it right yourselves ; you framed this very Civil Tenure act to give every President his own Cabinet, and now the President's whole crime is that he wants an officer in the War Department with whom he can com municate on public business and enter | tain friendly relations. Senators, I am tired, and no doubt you are. There is a great deal crowd ing on me for utterance; but it is not from my head, it is rather from my heart, and would be but a repetition of what I have been saying this last half h-.ur. Andrew Johnson, administra tor of the Presidential office, is to me as nothing in comparison with the possible consequence of your action to the Government of this country. No good can come of conviction on these articles of impeachment, but how much will the heart of the country be rejoic ed if it learns that the Senate of the United States was not unmindful, amid the storm and passion and strife of this hour, of the constitution of its country and of its own dignity ! —A gatigof negroes murdered a white man at Hurricane Bottom, Mississippi, a few nights ago. Of course their a pologists say the victim was a member of tiie Ku Klux Klan, as that is the way the black leaguers now manage to escape punishment for their crimes. —The London Star says that In the London district there are nine branches of the Mormon church, one hundred and seven elders of conference, fifty three priests, twenty-four teachers, thirty deacons—in all eleven hundred and seventy-two Mormons in the Lon don Conference. —lt is a noteworthy fact that all the intimate and truest friends and advis ers of Abraham Lincoln are now in op position to the Rump leaders and their infernal "policy" of reconstructing the Union for the benefit of politicians on ly' —The second trial of John H. Sur ratt is to begin ou the I2tli of May. It is understood that Judge Black will be one of the counsel for the defence. —Eight men were killed and four others seriously injured by the explo sion of a boiler in a saw mill at Miam stee, Michigan, on Wednesday. —Election tickets in Ohio must here after be printed on white paper, as well as be voted by white men.