THE PROBABILITY OF IMPEACHMENT
A Government is practically overthrown when its laws are unexecuted. The
Constitution of the United States, therefore, provides that for high crimes and
misdemeanors, the chief of which is failure to execute the laws, the President may be
impeached and removed. But it is of the highest importance that the evidence be so plain
as to convince the country; otherwise an impeachment merely excites instead of composing
trouble.It is unquestionably
becoming the public conviction that Mr. Ashley, (Representative James Ashley of Ohio)
although sincerely persuaded that the President was guilty of impeachable offenses, was
not so fully furnished with conclusive evidence as to satisfy the Judiciary Committee, and
justify a recommendation of impeachment. His specific charges were: corrupt abuse of the
appointing and pardoning power; corrupt disposition of the public property; corrupt
interference in elections; and, in general, that he had committed high crimes and
misdemeanors. These specific charges of corruption would undoubtedly be difficult to
prove. Nothing would be of avail but distinct evidence of overt acts; and of such evidence
there would be various acts; and of such evidence there would be various interpretations.
The guilty, treasonable intention would hardly be more than inferential; and except upon
the most incontrovertible proof the Senate would not convict.
But there is one point which, if evident,
would unite the country in a demand for impeachment; and that is, a refusal to execute the
laws. It is the duty of Congress to regulate by law the States in which as yet there is no
valid government. Those laws should be mild, temperate, and just. Congress should provide
adequately for their enforcement, and thus compel the President to reveal his intentions.
If he faithfully and honorably executed the laws, whether they had been passed over his
veto or not, the difficulty between him and Congress would disappear. If he failed to
execute them, Congress should demand his reasons. If those reasons were adequate, Congress
would be satisfied. If they were insufficient, then, as under the circumstances there
could be no question of the Executive intention to defeat the purpose of the people in
Congress, he would be promptly impeached and removed with the consent of the whole
country.
The most authentic information that we
have leads us to doubt if an impeachment can be carried upon the charges which have been
preferred. We have seen no reason to change our opinion that there must be plain proof of
a willful non-execution of the law before so grave a measure could be taken. Mr.
Phillips charge that the President is an "obstacle," although it has been
much derided, is all-sufficient if it can be proved. A President who will not execute the
law is precisely that obstacle to the fulfillment of the popular will which impeachment is
intended to remove. That the President is an obstacle of this kind, as Mr. Phillips
declared that his instincts assured him, is very possible. But let us bring it to the
proof. In certain parts of the West horse thieves are hung, not because they are known to
have stolen a particular horse, but upon their general bad reputation. And certainly if
general bad reputation were sufficient, a clear case could be made out against the
President. But the Constitution does not make an ill name an impeachable offense.
It is sometimes charged that the Civil
Rights bill is not enforced. If the President can be shown to have failed in his duty of
enforcing it let us have the evidence. We all know that he vetoed it. We all know that
civil rights are not respected in the Southern States. We all know that if there were a
President who was in sympathy with the people, those rights would not be generally
disregarded. But this kind of knowledge is not enough. We must know also when and how the
Executive failed or refused. And therefore the laws for the regulation of the Southern
States should be made so that his defection will be evident. If Congress orders a brigade
of the army to be kept in certain districts subject to the orders of certain specified
officers, and the President, as Commander-in-Chief, orders them away upon plea of the
public service, let him be compelled to show why the public service required their
removal, and if his reply is quibbling or evasive, he will be seen at once to have
intended to thwart the will of Congress. That will be enough for the Senate and for the
country.
Articles Related to Military Reconstruction:
News Items
January 19, 1867, page 35
Impeachment
January 26, 1867, page 50
Congress and
Impeachment
February 16, 1867, page 98
The Probability of
Impeachment
February 23, 1867, page 114
The Louisiana Bill
March 2, 1867, page 130
Reconstruction
March 9, 1867, page 146
The Thirty-Ninth
Congress
March 9, 1867, page 146
The Veto of the Reconstruction Bill
March 16, 1867, page 162
The Fortieth Congress
March 30, 1867, page 195
The Fortieth Congress
April 6, 1867, page 211
Sprats and Vetoes
April 6, 1867, page 210
Adjournment of Congress
April 13, 1867, page 226
Prometheus Bound
March 2, 1867, page 137
The Result
March 30, 1867, page 194
The Southern Commanders
April 6, 1867, page 218
The Debate upon Impeachment
March 23, 1867, page 178
We Accept the Situation (cartoon)
April 13, 1867, page 240
The Big Thing (cartoon)
April 20, 1867, page 256
The End of Impeachment
June 22, 1867, page 386
|
|