THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. high command which he knew would await him Now, sirs, how is this extraordinary inter- a key which unlocks his treasonable designs. "This is not in conformity with the Constitution of the United States, which makes me Commander-inChief, or with the terms of your commission." General Emory replied, speaking of the order which promulgated that law: "That is the order which you have approved and issued to the Army for our government.' The Commander-in-Chief being thus baffled by his subordinate, made this reply: "Am I to understand that the President of the United States cannot give an order except through the General of the Army, or General Grant?" This last answer is a complete portraiture of the President's motives, and his disappointment in not finding in Emory a willing tool through whom he might prosecute his designs. To put this in other phrase it would read: "Then, General Emory, I am to understand you will not obey my orders unless I communicate them through General Grant?" General Emory felt himself called upon to say that with regard to this law the Army were a unit. Of its meaning the President could have no doubt, for after listening to General Emory a moment longer, he remarked, with apparent disappointment at the result of the interview, "The object of the law is evident," and they then separated. When we remember that this is but one of the links in the chain being forged by the ac cused with which to manacle the Secretary of War and bind a great department of the Government to the Juggernaut used by him to crush all opposition to executive will, the of fense appears in hideous distinctness. That it was such a link to be thus used I am forced to believe, and I leave it to await the judgment of this high court. I am disinclined, after this protracted discussion, to dwell at any length upon the tenth and eleventh articles; and yet I beg not to be 66 one who phers; they defined a good prince as 1166 and endeavors to render his subjects happy;" a tyrant,' on the contrary, aims at his own private advantage.' 66 one who only An example of the first we had in the lamented Lincoln, and of the latter in Mr. Johnson. understood as derogating from their importance or their gravity. The accused is here charged not only with improprieties and indecencies of speech; he is not only called to answer intemperate, disgraceful, incendiary, and riotous language, but he is charged with Mr. Lincoln was endowed with one of the following up the purposes avowed in these speeches by overt acts looking directly to the most genial souls that Heaven ever gave to man His power. obstruction of the laws which he had sworn to and an intellect of most wonderful take care should be faithfully executed. If His mind was suflithe conduct of this accused, in his official capa-apprehension was quick, his judgment sound, city, in word, act, and deed, has not shown his conclusions correct. ciently capacious to comprehend all the vast conclusively his guilt under both of these artirange of thought to which occasion gave scope. cles then there could be no proof adduced, He met the critical hour of duty to his country He sustained however strong, that would be sufficient. like a statesman and a man. loyalty and gave all his strength in crushing treason. Instead of denouncing your Congress, he consulted and advised with them for the good of the country. Instead of vetoing every law, he aided and assisted in giving them force. Instead of openly violating the plain provisions of your enactments, he executed them faithfully, as was his duty. The proof does show his unlawful attempt to touch his loftiest thought," and yet not be "O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts, The defense have not, by their evidence, other Administration had violated the law, Certainly not. If so, a murderer Even the advice of his Cabinet cannot excuse him. By advising a crime they cannot shield their chief, but may be impeachable themselves for advising a disobedience of law. But it is all of record, and I will not pur. sue it further. We have laid bare his offenses. In all that has been proven, or aught of his conduct since President, which is a matter of history, there is not to be found a good motive for his conduct. He is found without any of the elements necessary to fit him for any offi. cial position. How a Government is to be administered while peace is smiling is one thing, and how war is quite another thing. Mr. Lincoln had it is to be administered amid the horrors of wants hourly multiplying upon his hands that The diffibefore or since were unheard of. culties with which the war on our hands was complicated were almost interminable; but with each new-found difficulty he found new strength, hope, and energy, until all obstacles were overcome and the war ended. But at the very dawn of the nation's new birth, resting from his labors and contemplating that peace that was then breaking through the dark, angry clouds of war, he fell by the hand of an assassin. Yes, his sun has set forever. Loyalty's gentle voice can no longer wake thrills of joy heart. Yet the patriots and lovers of liberty, along the tuneless chords of his moldering who still linger on the shore of time, rise and bless his memory; and millions yet unborn will in after times rise up to deplore his fate and cherish as a household word his deathless name. Mr. President and Senators, what patriots that linger behind will rise up and bless the memory of Andrew Johnson? Who will in after times rise up to deplore the fate that now surely awaits him? Who will cherish as a household word his dishonored name? None, No, sir; none, Mr. President; no, not one! the virtues that should adorn a Chief Magistrate fled on the induction of this criminal into that high office. In sadness and sorrow did the people witness this man succeed to the executive chair-not by their spontaneuos voice, not by their free accord, but by the ministration of the murderer's missive. They witnessed him, who had acquired power by such a sorrowful and inauspicious chance, bending blindly to the behests of those whose adherents, if not they themselves, had lately been in rebellious arms against that Constitution which he had sworn to protect and maintain. They saw him, flushed with arrogance and pride, despise the warnings of the people and deride the mandates of their When an act of the legislative legislators. department of the Government would not inure to his advantage politically they saw him openly violate and trample it under foot. When loyalty was supported and peace attempted to be perpetuated they saw him disregard their will and throw all manner of obstructions in the way. When the officers of the Government would not bend the knee and cry "great and good prince," they saw him attempt to hurl them When the commander of the from his courts. Army would not do his bidding they have seen him conspire to destroy his good name and fame before the country. When the country was at ease they have seen him give it grief and pain. When at peace and rest they have seen his attempt to give it revolution and blood. They saw him with a ruthless and heavy hand This was the idea of the heathen philoso-attempt to seize the nation's purse and the Goodness, clemency, and a proper liberality should be among the virtues that adorn a Chief Magistrate. With the aid of these he should be able to greatly assist in the amelioration of the condition of the whole people. The chief end of all his actions should be to promote peace, safety, prosperity, and happiness to the nation. nation's sword, and thus, by clutching in his longing grasp all the attributes of power, place himself in a condition where he might with safety announce his views and enforce his designs. They felt the weight of his great office fall like an enshrouding pall over a suffering people. They marked with alarm and consternation his rapid strides to that point where his sway would have been autocratic and his reign irresistible. It was not alone by force that this was to be accomplished. By appeals which were designing, and all the more dangerous because of apparent candor, he drew to him the careless and unsuspecting. By pledges, all the more reprehensible because of plighted honor, he soothed the suspicions of the cautious and the wise. By profuse disposition of rewards in his hands he gained the mercenary and attracted the unscrupulous; and where the pliant arts of flattery and persuasion failed to accomplish his intended views, by the stern show of his power and authority he awed the timid and overbore the weak. These, sirs, we have manifested, if by our proof we have made aught manifest. And to all this what does he reply? That, though his acts were bad, his motives were good; that, though his course was unlawful, his heart was well-meaning; that he trampled on the law in order that he might uphold the law; that he disregarded his oath the better to enable him to keep it. When we ask him why he set aside the law of the land he replies that it was because it was opposed to the Constitution of the land; and when we again inquire as to the Constitution of the land we are assured that it is his prerogative to construe it even in violation of the laws of the land. Have I stated this beyond the line of his defense? Have I wronged him by one unjust description of his conduct or his claim? If not, shall this state of things longer exist? Shall we snap the chains that bind us or continue in them longer? Shall we vindicate the law or crouch at the usurper's frown? Shall we vindicate to-day the principle that underlies the very foundation of this Government or allow the laws to be trampled under foot at the will of every tyrant? It is a fundamental principle of this Government that there shall be a known rule and law by which not only the conduct of the citizen, but all officers, including the Chief Magistrate of the nation, shall be regulated and governed. This is a Government of laws and not of men. It is this principle which distinguishes this republican form of Government of ours from the monarchies of the Old World. I repeat, sirs, this is a Government of laws and not of men. Never before, I believe, was it known in this enlightened country that the executive head of the nation had the arrogance to take upon himself not only the executive, but the judicial functions of the Government. No, sir; under the smiles of that merciful Providence who had watched over and guided the destinies of the people, we have hitherto been exempt, and I trust in God shall hereafter continue to be, from the affliction of that most direful scourge, a Chief Executive with full discretionary powers to execute a law or declare it unconstitutional at will. It is not that which pleaseth nor that which is most consonaut with the humor and inclination of the President, but the law, which should be the rule of his conduct. I trust, sirs, that the time will never again come in the history of this nation when, by elevation to the Presidency, any one will become so infatuated as to imagine himself independent of that rule, or to set up his own private judgment or opinions as the only standard by which he will be guided or governed. Then, sirs, whether we shall in the future witness this attempt in other Executives depends upon your decision upon the issues in this case involved. Being the grand tribunal from which there can be no appeal, you should properly reflect the law and the testimony. The pure stream of public justice should flow gently along, undisturbed by any false pretense on the part of the defendant or false sympathy upon your part. The President should not be permitted to play the necromancer with this Senate as he did with the country through the law department of the executive branch of the Government, whereby he raised a tempest that he himself could not control. Well might he have exclaimed: "I am the rider of the wind, The stirrer of the storm; The hurricane I left behind Is yet with lightning warm.” But, thanks to the wisdom of our far-seeing patriot sires, you, Senators, are, by our Constitution, made the great power that shall calm the tempest and so direct the lightning that its strokes shall be warded off from the people and fall only upon the head of their oppressor. Yes, Senators, we fervently hope and confidently rely upon you to calm the storm, and prevent the Temple of Liberty being dashed to earth by the hurricane. We cannot, will not believe that we are or will be mistaken in those in whom we now place our trust. Methinks I hear a voice coming up from the lowly pillows of patriotism's immortal martyrs, saying, "Be of good cheer, all will yet be well." We cannot, will not believe that the respondent's unjust appeals will avail him now. He appeals to the truth of history to vindicate him in the acts of former Executives; but truth itself rises up from the midst of the mass of testimony here adduced, and says, even in this appeal, he has polluted God's holy sanctuary; and when on justice he relies to protect him, and lift him up out of his difficulties, justice comes forward in all her majesty and declares that he has not only trampled the laws of man but of God under foot. When he indirectly asks that the mantle of charity shall by you be thrown over his shortcomings and violations of law clemency steps forward, and with a loud voice cries, "Forbearance has ceased to be a virtue; Mercy to this criminal would be cruelty to the State." From the 14th day of April, 1865, to this day, as shown by the testimony, he has been consistent only with himself and the evil spirits of his Administration. False to the people who took him from obscurity and conferred on him splendor; who dug him from that oblivion to which he had been consigued by the treason of his State, and gave him that distinction which, as disclosed by his subsequent acts, he never merited and has so fearfully scandalized, disgraced, and dishonored; false to the memory of him whose death made him President; false to the principles of our contest for national life; false to the Constitution and laws of the land and his oath of office; filled with all vanity, lust, and pride; substituting, with the most disgusting self-complacency and ignor auce, his own coarse, brutalized will for the will of the people, and substituting his vulgar, vapid, and ignorant utterances for patriotism, statesmanship, and faithful public service, he has completed his circle of high crimes and misdemeanors; and, thanks to Almighty God, by the imbedded wisdom of our fathers found in the Constitution of our country, he stands to-day, with all his crimes upon his head, uncovered before the world, at the bar of this the most august tribunal on earth, to receive the awful sentence that awaits him as a fitting punishment for the crimes and misdemeanors of which he stands impeached by the House of Representatives, in the name and on behalf of all the people. Here, Senators, we rest our case; here we leave the great criminal of the age. In your hands, as wisely provided by the charter of our liberties, this offender against the Constitution, the laws, liberty, peace, and public decency of our country is now left to be finally and, in the name of all the people, we humbly trust, disposed of forever, in such manner as no more to outrage the memories of an heroic and illustrious past, nor dim the hopes, expectations, and glories of the coming future. Let us, we implore you, no more hear his resounding footfalls in the temple of American constitutional liberty, nor have the vessels of the ark of the covenant of our fathers polluted by his unholy hands. Let not the blood of a half million of heroes who went to their deaths on the nation's battle-fields for the nation's life cry from the ground against us on account of the crimes permitted by us, and committed by him whom we now leave in your hands. Standing here to-day for the last time with my brother Managers, to take leave of this case and this great tribunal, I am penetrated and overwhelmed with emotion. Memory is busy with the scenes of the years which have intervened between March 4, 1861, and this day. Our great war, its battles and ten thousand incidents, without mental bidding and beyond control, almost pass in panoramic view before me. As in the presence of those whom I have seen fall in battle as we rushed to victory, or die of wounds or disease in hospital far from home and the loved ones, to be seen no more until the grave gives up its dead, have endeavored to discharge my humble part in this great trial. The world in after times will read the history of the administration of Andrew Johnson as an illustration of the depth to which political and official perfidy can descend. Amid the unhealed ghastly scars of war; surrounded by the weeds of widowhood and cries of orphanage; associating with and sustained by the soldiers of the Republic, of whom at one time he claimed to be one; surrounded by the men who had supported, aided, and cheered Mr. Lincoln through the darkest hours and sorest trials of his sad yet immortal administration-men whose lives had been dedicated to the cause of justice, law, and universal liberty-the men who had nominated and elected him to the second office in the nation at a time when he scarcely dared visit his own home because of the traitorous instincts of his own people; yet, as shown by his official acts, messages, speeches. conversations, and associations, almost from the time when the blood of Lincoln was warm on the floor of Ford's theater, Andrew Johnson was contemplating treason to all the fresh fruits of the overthrown and crushed rebellion, and an affiliation with and a practical official and hearty sympathy for those who had cost hecatombs of slain citizens, billions of treasure, and an almost ruined country. His great aim and purpose has been to subvert law, usurp authority, insult and outrage Congress, reconstruct the rebel States in the interests of treason, insult the memories and resting-places of our heroic dead; outrage the feelings and deride the principles of the living men who aided in saving the Union, and deliver all snatched from wreck and ruin into the hands of unrepentent, but by him pardoned, traitors. But, all honor to the servants of a brave and loyal people, he has been in strict conformity to the Constitution arrested in his career of crime, impeached, arraigned, tried, and here awaits your sentence. We are not doubtful of your verdict. Andrew Johnson has long since been tried by the whole people and found guilty, and you can but confirm that judgment already pronounced by the sovereign American people. Henceforth our career of greatness will be unimpeded. Rising from our baptism of fire and blood, purified by our sufferings and trials under the approving smiles of Heaven, and freed, as we are, from the crimes of oppression and wrong, the patriot heart looks outward and onward for long and ever-increasing national prosperity, virtue, and happiness. Hon. GEORGE S. BOUTWELL, on behalf of the Managers, addressed the Senate, as follows: Mr. PRESIDENT, SENATORS: The importance of this occasion is due to the unexampled cir cumstance that the Chief Magistrate of the principal Republic of the world is on trial upon the charge that he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors in office. The solemnity of this occasion is due to the circumstance that this THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. The trial is a new test to our public national virtue and also of the strength and vigor of popular government. The trial of a great criminal is not an extraordinary event, even when followed by conviction and the severest penalty known to the laws. This respondent is not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property. 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 example for good, cheering, encouraging, and strengthening all others, so the trial and conviction of a dishonest or an unfaithful officer is a warning to all men, and especially to such as occupy places of public trust. ISSUES. 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, as we believe, maintained the cause of the House of Representatives by evidence direct, clear, and conclusive. Those issues require you to ascertain and declare whether Andrew Johnson, 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 Constitution of the country in the attempt which he made on the 21st of February last to remove Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War. and to appoint Lorenzo Thomas Secretary of War ad interim. 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 which have been considered in the political or judicial proceedings of the country since the adoption of the Constitution. DEFENSE. 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 diplomatic service. He thus assumes and demands for himself and for all his successors absolute control over the vast and yearly increasing patronage of this Government. This, claim has never been before asserted, and surely it has never been sanctioned; nor is there a law or usage which furnishes any ground for justification, even the least. Heretofore the Senate has always been consulted in regard to appointments, and during the sessions of the Senate it has always been consulted in regard to removals from office. The claim now made, if sanctioned, strips the Senate of all practical power in the premises, and leaves the patronage of office, the revenues and expenditures of the country in the hands of the President alone. Who does not see that the power of the Senate to act upon and confirm a nomination is a barren power, as a means of protecting the public interests, if the person so confirmed may be removed from his office at once without the advice and consent of the Senate? If this claim shall be conceded the President is clothed with power to remove every person who refuses to become his instrument. An evil-minded President may remove all loyal and patriotic officers from the Army, the Navy, the civil and the diplomatic service, and nominate only his adherents and friends. None but his friends can remain in office; none but his friends can be appointed to office. What security remains for the fidelity of the Army and the Navy? What security for the collection of the public revenues? What accountability remains in any branch of the public service? Every public officer is henceforth a mere dependent upon the Executive. Heretofore the Senate could say to the President, "You shall not remove a faithful, honest public officer." This power the Senate has possessed and exercised for nearly eighty years, under and by virtue of express authority granted in The House of Representatives has brought The Managers on the part of the House of Representatives, as time and their abilities may permit, intend to deal with the criminal and with these his crimes, and also to examine the constitutional powers of the President and of the Senate. I shall first invite your attention, Senators, to the last-mentioned topics. It is necessary, in this discussion, to consider the character of the Government, and especially the distribution of powers and the limitations placed by the Constitution upon the executive, judicial, and legislative depart ments. TENTH AMENDMENT. The tenth amendment to the Constitution provides that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This provision is not to be so construed as to defeat the objects for which the Constitution itself was established; and it follows, necessarily, that the three departments of the Government possess sufficient power collectively to accomplish those objects. It will be seen from an examination of the The first section of the second article pro- By virtue of this provision the Constitution in the executive and judicial departments. The President "may require the opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices," but the executive offices themselves are created by Congress, and the duties of each officer 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. By our system of Government the sovereignty is in the people of the United States, and that sovereignty is fully expressed in the preamble to the Constitution. By the Constitution the people have vested discretionary power-limited, it is true-in the Congress of the United States, while they have denied to the executive and judicial departments all discretionary or implied power whatever. The nature and extent of the powers conferred by the Constitution upon Congress have been clearly and fully set forth by the Supreme Court. (McCulloch vs. The State of Maryland, The court, 4 Wheaton, pp. 409 and 420.) in speaking of the power of Congress, say: "The Government, which has a right to do an act, and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means.' Again, they say: "We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that these limits are not to be transcended; but we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national Legislature that discretion, with respect to tho means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the thing be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to the end, which are not prohibited, and consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.' It is also worthy of remark, in this connec tion, that the article which confers legislative powers upon the Congress of the United States declares that all legislative powers herein granted-that is, granted in the Constitutionshall be vested in the Congress of the United States; while in the section relating to the powers of the President it is declared that the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. The inference from this distinction is in harmony with what has been previously stated. "The executive power" spoken of is that which is conferred upon the President by the Constitu tion, and it is limited by the terms of the Constitution, and must be exercised in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. The words used are to be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning. It is also worthy of remark that the Constitution, in terms, denies to Congress various legislative powers specified. It denies also to the United States various powers, and various powers enumerated are likewise denied to the States. There is but one denial of power to the President, and that is a limitation of an express power granted. The single instance of a denial of power to the President is in that provision of the Constitution wherein he is authorized "to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." As the powers granted to the President are specified, and as he takes nothing by implication or inference, there was no occasion to recite or enumerate powers not delegated to him. As the Constitution clothes Congress with powers of legislation which are ample for all the necessities of national life, wherein there is opportunity for the exercise of a wide discretion, it was necessary to specify such powers as are prohibited to Congress. The powers of Congress are ascertained by considering as well what is prohibited as what is granted, while the powers of the Executive are to be ascertained clearly and fully by what is granted. Where there is nothing left to inference, implication, or discretion, there is no necessity for clauses or provisions of inhibition. In the single case of the grant of the full power of pardon to the President, a power unlimited in its very nature, the denial of the power to pardon in case of impeachment became necessary. This example fully illustrates and establishes the position to which I now ask your assent. If this view be correct it follows necessarily, as has been before stated, that the President, acting under the Constitution, can exercise those powers only which are specifically conferred upon him, and can take nothing by construction, by implication, or by what is sometimes termed the necessity of the case. But in every Government there should be in its constitution capacity to adapt the administration of affairs to the changing conditions of national life. In the Government of the United States this capacity is found in Congress, in virtue of the provision already quoted, by which Congress is authorized "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, (i. e., the powers given to Congress,) and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." It is made the duty of the President. "from time to time, to give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Provision is also made in the Constitution for his coöperation in the enactment of laws. Thus it is in his power to lay before Congress the reasons which, in his opinion, may at any time exist for legislative action in aid of the executive powers conferred by the Constitution upon the President; and under the ample legislative powers secured to Congress by the provisions already quoted there is no reason in the nature of the Government why the constitutional and lawful powers of the Executive may not be made adequate to every emergency of the country. In fine, the President may be said to be governed by the principles which govern the judge in a court of law." He must take the law and administer it as he finds it without any inquiry on his part as to the wisdom of the legislation. So the President, with reference to the measure of his own powers, must take the Constitution and the laws of the country as they are, and be governed strictly by them. If, in any particular, by implication or construction, he assumes and exercises authority not granted to him by the Constitution or the laws he violates his oath of office, 66 by which, under the Constitution, it is made cuted," may inquire whether the laws are constitutional, and execute those only which he believes to be so, then, for the purposes of government, his will or opinion is substituted for the action of the law-inaking power, and the Government is no longer a Government of laws, but the Government of one man. This is also true, if, when arraigned, he may justify by showing that he has acted upon advice that the law was unconstitutional. Further, if the Senate sitting for the trial of the President may inquire and decide whether the law is in fact constitutional, and convict the President if he has violated an act believed to be constitutional, and acquit him if the Senate think the law unconstitutional, then the President is in fact tried for his judgment, to be acquitted if in the opinion of the Senate it was a correct judgment, and convicted if in the opinion of the Senate his judgment was erroneous. This doctrine offends every principle of justice. His offense is that he intentionally violated a law. Knowing its terms and requirements, he disregarded them. With deference I maintain still further that it is not the right of any Senator in this trial to be governed by any opinion he may entertain of the constitutionality or expediency of the law in question. For the purposes of this trial the statute which the President, upon his own confession, has repeatedly violated is the law of the land. His crime is that he violated the law. It has not been repealed by Congress; it has not been annulled by the Supreme Court; it stands upon the statute-book as the law; and for the purposes of this trial it is to be treated by every Senator as a constitutional law. Other wise it follows that the President of the United States, supported by a minority exceeding by one a third of this Senate, may set aside, disregard, and violate all the laws of the land. It is nothing to this respondent, it is nothing to this Senate, sitting here as a tribunal to try and judge this respondent, that the Senators participated in the passage of the act, or that the respondent, in the exercise of a constitutional power, returned the bill to the Senate with his objections thereto. The act itself is as bind If a law be in fact unconstitutional it may be repealed by Congress, or it may, possibly, when a case duly arises, be annulled in its unconstitutional features by the Supreme Court of the United States. The repeal of the law is a legislative act; the declaration by the court that it is unconstitutional is a judicial act; but the power to repeal or to annul or to set aside a law of the United States is in no aspect of the case an executive power. It is made the duty of the Executive to take care that the laws be faithfully executed-an injunction wholly inconsistent with the theory that it is in the power of the Executive to repeal or annul or dispense with the laws of the land. To the President in the performance of his executive duties all laws are alike. He can enter into no inquiry as to their expediency or constitutionality. All laws are presumed to be constitutional, and, whether in fact constitutional or not, it is the duty of the Executive so to regard them while they have the form of law. When a statute is repealed for its unconstitutionality, or for any other reason, it ceases to be law in form and in fact. When a statute is annulled in whole or in part by the opinion of a competenting, is as constitutional, is as sacred in the eye judicial tribunal, from that moment it ceases to be law. But the respondent and the counsel for the respondent will seek in vain for any authority or color of authority in the Constitution or the laws of the country by which the President is clothed with power to make any distinction upon his own judgment, or upon the judgment of any friends or advisers, whether private or official persons, between the several statutes of the country, each and every one of which he is, by the Constitution and by his oath of office, required faithfully to execute. Hence it follows that the crime of the President is not, either in fact or as set forth in the articles of impeachment, that he has violated a constitutional law, but his crime is that he has violated a law, and in his defense no inquiry can be made whether the law is constitutional; for inasmuch as he had no constitutional power to inquire for himself whether the law was constitutional or not, so it is no excuse for him that he did unlawfully so inquire and came to the conclusion that the law was unconstitutional. It follows, from the authorities already quoted 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 regulating the tenure of certain civil offices"-is in fact constitutional or not. It was and is the law of the land. It was enacted by a strict adherence to constitutional 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 official confessions and admissions, he intentionally, willfully, deliberately set aside and violated. If the President, in the discharge of his duty "to take care that the laws be faithfully exe of the Constitution as the acts that were passed at the first session of the First Congress. If the President may refuse to execute a law tecause in his opinion it is unconstitutional, or for the reason that, in the judgment of his friends and advisers, it is unconstitutional, then he and his successors in office 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, exceeding one third of this Senate by one, may relieve the President from all responsibility for this violation of his oath of office, because they concur with him in the opinion that this legislation is either unconsi tutional or of doubtful constitutionality, then there is no security for the execution of the laws. The constitutional injunction upon the Presi dent is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and upon him no power whatsoever is conferred by the Constitution to inquire whether the law that he is charged to execute is or is not constitutional. The constitutional injunction upon you, in your present capacity, is to hold the respondent faithfully to the exe cution of the constitutional trusts and duties imposed upon him. If he has willfully disre garded the obligation resting upon him, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, then the constitutional duty imposed upon you is to convict him of the crime of having willfully disregarded the laws of the land and violated his oath of office. I indulge, Senators, in great-plainness of speech, and pursue a 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 boy hood, from the gallery of the old Chamber of the Senate, I looked, not with admiration merely, but with something of awe upon the THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. men of that generation who were then in the seats which you now fill. Time and experience may have modified and chastened 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 my convictions of your duty, with my convictions of the danger, the imminent peril, to our country if you should not render a judgment of guilty against this respondent, I have no alternative but to speak with all the plainness and directness which the most earnest convictions of the truth of what I utter can inspire. MOTIVE. Nor can the President prove or plead the motive by which he professes to have been governed in his violation of the laws of the country. Where a positive specific duty is imposed upon a public officer his motives cannot be good if he willfully neglects or refuses to discharge his duty in the manner in which it is imposed upon him. In other words, it is not possible for a public officer, and particularly for the President of the United States, who is under a special constitutional injunction to discharge his duty faithfully, to have any motive except a bad motive if he willfully 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 specific, may err in the exercise of that discretion and plead properly his good motives in the discharge of his duty; that is, he may say that he intended, under the law, to impose a proper penalty; and inasmuch as that was his intention, though all other men may think that the penalty was either insufficient or excessive, he is fully justified by his motives. So the President, having vested in him discretionary power in regard to granting pardons, might, if arraigned for the improper exercise of that power in a particular case, plead and prove his good motives, although his action might be universally condemned as improper But the ciror unwise in that particular case. cumstances of this respondent are wholly dif ferent. The law which, as he admits, he has intentionally and deliberately violated, was mandatory upon him, and left in his hands no discretion as to whether he would, in a given case, execute it or not. A public officer can neither plead nor prove good motives to refute or control his own admission that he has intentionally violated a public law. Take the case of the President; his oath is: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.' 66 66 One of the provisions of that Constitution is that the President shall take care that the In this injunc laws be faithfully executed." tion there are no qualifying words. It is made his duty to take care that the laws. the laws, be A law is well defined to faithfully executed. be a rule laid, set, or established by the lawIt is of such making power of the country." rules that the Constitution speaks in this injunction to the President; and in obedience to that injunction, and with reference to his duty under his oath 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 inasmuch as it is not possible for him, under the Constitution, to enter lawfully into any such inquiry, it is alike impossible 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 which he reached and in his action thereupon. Having no right to inquire whether the laws were expedient or constitutional, or otherwise, if he did so inquire, and if upon such inquiry he came to the conclusion that, for any reason, he would not execute the law according to the terms of the law, then he willfully violated his oath of office and the Constitution of the United States. The necessary, the inevitable presumption in law Having, therefore, no right to entertain any If a President, believing the law to be un- States, your laws for the collection of the in- acts. moval of Mr. Stanton on the 21st of February last he might have instituted proceedings by a writ of quo warranto, and by this time have obtained, probably, a judicial opinion covering all the points of the case. But he shrinks from the test he says he sought. Thus is the pretext of the President fully exposed. The evidence shows that he never designed to test the law in the courts. His object was to seize the offices of the Government for purposes of corruption, and by their influence to enable him to reconstruct the Union in the interest of the rebellious States. In short, he resorted to this usurpation as an efficient and necessary means of usurping all power and of restoring the Government to rebel hands. No criminal was ever arraigned who offered a more unsatisfactory excuse for his crimes. The President had no right to do what he says he designed to do, and the evidence shows that he never has attempted to do what he now assigns as his purpose when he trampled the laws of his country under his feet. 66 66 These considerations have prepared the way in some degree, I trust, for an examination of the provisions of the Constitution relating to the appointment of embassadors and other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and other officers of the United States, for whose appointment provision is made in the second section of the second article of the Constitution. It is there declared that the Presi dent shall nominate," and, by and with the consent of the Senate, shall appoint embas sadors and other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for and which shall be established by law." The "are not herein otherwise provided phrase, for," is understood to refer to Senators, who, under the Constitution, in case of a vacancy, may be appointed by the Governors of the sev eral States, and to those appointments which might be confided by law to the courts or to the heads of Departments. It is essential to notice the fact that neither in this provision of the Constitution nor in any other is power given to the President to remove any officer. The only power of removal specified in the Constitution is that of the Senate, by its verdict of guilty, to remove the President, Vice President, or other civil officer who may be impeached by the House of Representatives and presented to the Senate for trial. 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. Applying 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 But it is not easy to comprehend the audacity, the criminal character of a proceeding by which the President of the United States attempts systematically to undermine the Gov-pursued by the First Congress and by the first ernment itself by drawing purposely into controversy, in the courts and elsewhere, the validity of the laws enacted by the constituted authorities of the country, who, as much as himself, are individually under an obligation to obey the Constitution in all their public With the same reason and for the same object he might violate the reconstruction laws, tax laws, tariff acts, or the neutrality laws of the country; and thus, in a single day of his official life, raise questions which could not be disposed of for years in the courts of the coun try. The evidence discloses the fact that he has taken no step for the purpose of testing the constitutionality of the law. He suspended numerous officers under, or, if not under, at least, as he himself admits, in conformity with the tenure-of-office law, showing that it was not his sole object to test its constitutionality. He has had opportunity to make application through the Attorney General for a writ of quo warranto, which might have tested the validity This writ is the writ of the law in the courts. of the Government, and it can never be granted President was the inevitable result of the |