OCR Interpretation

The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, May 08, 1868, Image 1

Image and text provided by Penn State University Libraries; University Park, PA

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82005159/1868-05-08/ed-1/seq-1/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for

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
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
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
2Vttorimts at £au\
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*®*®*
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
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
fj LAW, BEDFORD, PA. Respectfully tenders
his services to tho public.
Office second door North of the Mengel House.
Bedford. Aug, 1, 1861.
'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,
Have formed a partnership in the practice of
the Law. Office on Juliana street, two doors South
of the 'Mengel House,"
" 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.
Msyljl, 1864.
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.
LAW, Bloody Run, Pa. Office in Harris'
New Building. marl 3 68
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.
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
Send for a Price List. PITTSBURG, PA.
. No. 16 North Sixth Street, Philadelphia
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
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 Barbers' 1 Itch.
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
Persons afflicted with Cancer, Scrofula. Tu
mors, Eruptions, Ao., are CURED by the use of Dr.
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.
flu feiferil (Dinette.
Remark* or Hon. W. *. Oroesbeck. of
Ohio.' before tbe High Court ot !m
The Patriot President Completely Vin
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
—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.

xml | txt