IMPEACHMENT
The subject of
impeachment has received fresh impulse from recent events. The later action of the
President has bee so flagrant in its hostility to the plain intent of the laws that many
persons who have hitherto steadily opposed the project of impeachment now begin to feel
that there is no other remedy for the situation. But it by no means follows that those who
have demanded impeachment were therefore right. It may be highly probable that a surly and
willful man will break the peace, but it would be a great mistake to punish him for
surliness. The criminal law must wait for overt acts. The same reasoning does not altogether apply, indeed, to the case
of impeachment, but its spirit does. When the cry for impeachment was first raised there
was no general demand for such action, because there was no general conviction of its
necessity. Certain persons were very sure that it would become a necessity, and therefore
they insisted upon the measure. But they could not expect that the country would share
their opinion without further evidence, and they probably did not. The wisest of them
confided sufficiently in their own sagacity to believe that the President would show
without much delay his intention to thwart the purpose of the people. The removal of
General Sheridan was popularly accepted as the final proof of that intention, and it was
understood, and even announced, that several prominent opponents of impeachment, including
Mr. Wilson, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, were converted to the belief of its
necessity
Yet, technically and verbally, up to the
present moment, the President has not violated the law. The law gave him authority to
remove General Sheridan. Indeed, it was on the objections urged against the Reconstruction
bill that the President might appoint whomsoever he chose under the express conditions of
the law; and when he named Sheridan, Sickles and the rest his action was regarded as a
sign of acquiescence, while it was not denied that he might have named others at his
pleasure. So with his suspension of Mr. Stanton. It is not a literal violation even of the
Civil Tenure bill, which was supposed to bind him so closely. The President has taken good
care to guard that point, at least to the present time. Should he go further and direct
the reopening of the registry, in order to admit those persons who are excluded by law,
then, of course, unless Congress intended to surrender the government of the country, it
would impeach the President for breaking the law.
But it is plain that a President may
properly be impeached and removed without any technical or literal violation of law upon
his part. The offenses for which he may be impeached are not criminal in the ordinary
sense, nor is his punishment such. He is impeached, if at all, for political offenses, and
his punishment is simply removal from a political office. His guilt must be determined.
Therefore, from the very nature of political offenses, not merely by verbal violations of
a law, but by a conceded and evident and perilous obstruction of the execution of a law.
If the plainly expressed sentiments of the President and his public action show that,
deeming the law unconstitutional, he proposes to defeat its execution, and if his conduct
accordingly exposes the nation to serious peril, Congress will undoubtedly act in the
spirit and not merely by the letter of the Constitution which authorizes impeachment. The
words of the fourth section of the second article of the Constitution of the United States
are: "The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States,
shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or
other high crimes and misdemeanors." What is a high crime in this sense? What is a
misdemeanor?
We would not strain the words of the
Constitution. We would not lightly interpret even so mild a word as misdemeanor, for the
precedent would be dangerous and it would be surely invoked. But while Andrew Johnson is
President it is impossible that the great work of reconstruction can properly proceed. The
experience of two years shows that in every way he will thwart and embarrass it, and that
he will not hesitate, as now, to hold the whole country in agitating suspense. The
question is whether his continuance in the Presidential office, watched by a permanent
Congress, is not a greater peril than the process of impeachment. If the conduct of the
President is such that Congress can not safely adjourn lest he should baffle the execution
of the laws, is not his conduct a misdemeanor within the intent of the Constitution? It is
useless to say that if the elections of last year most emphatically show the feelings the
people? And are we now any nearer peace that then? Is there any less necessity of a
permanent session of Congress than there was last year? Has not every election since the
Presidents policy was understood rebuked it, and has he changed his course?
The precedent of impeachment, when there
has been no technical violation of the law, is undoubtedly dangerous. But great political
offenders, as we have seen in the case of the rebel chiefs, protect themselves and mature
their designs under technicalities and literal interpretations. The part of a great
statesman in a great emergency is to determine when to rely upon the spirit of the law,
even without the letter. It is a risk, indeed, but in great emergencies risks must be
taken
.
We believe that public
sentiment would justify impeachment. But it is for the Judiciary Committee to determine
whether the case can be so presented as to make conviction a moral certainty. If it can
not, then the process should not be attempted. There must be something very different from
Mr. Ashleys charges as the ground of action. Acts must be fully proved which are a
violation of law, or which imply an unmistakable intention to thwart the honest execution
of the laws and to endanger the safety of the country.
Articles Related to Overt
Obstruction of Congress:
Congress
February 2, 1867, page 67
February 16, 1867, page 99
March 16, 1867, page 163
How Long?
June 29, 1867, page 402
Reconstruction and Obstruction
July 6, 1867, page 418
The Summer Session
July 6, 1867, page 418
The Fortieth Congress
July 17, 1867, page 467
Thanks to the District Commanders
July 27, 1867, page 467
Impeachment Postponed
July 27, 1867, page 467
A Desperate Man
August 13, 1867, page 546
The Secretary of War
August 24, 1867, page 530
Samson Agonistes at Washington (cartoon)
August 24, 1867, page 544
The Stanton Imbroglio (illustrated satire)
August 24, 1867, page 542
Secretary Grant
August 31, 1867, page 546
Southern Reconstruction
August 31, 1867, page 547
The Political Situation
September 7, 1867, page 562
General Thomas
September 7, 1867, page 563
Southern Reconstruction
September 7, 1867, page 563
The General and the President
September 14, 1867, page 578
General Sickles Also
September 14, 1867, page 579
Southern Reconstruction
September 21, 1867, page 595
The Presidents Intentions
September 28, 1867, page 610
Impeachment
October 5, 1867, page 626
The Main Question
October 5, 1867, pages 626-627
Suspension during Impeachment
October 19, 1867, page 658
"Disregarding" The Law
November 2, 1867, page 691
Impeachment
December 14, 1867, page 786
General Grants Testimony
December 14, 1867, page 786
The Presidents Message
December 14, 1867, page 787
General Grants Letter
January 1, 1868, page 2
Secretary Stantons Restoration
January 25, 1868, page 51
Reconstruction Measures
January 25, 1868, page 51
The President, Mr. Stanton and General Grant
February 1, 1868, page 66
Romeo (Seward) to Mercutio (Johnson) (cartoon)
February 1, 1868, page 76
The War Office
February 1, 1868, page 77
Secretarys Room in the War Department (illus)
February 1, 1868, page 77
The New Reconstruction Bill
February 8, 1868, page 83
|
|