|
The Impeachment
of Andrew Johnson |
|
»Impeachment, Trial, and Acquittal |
back to
the Andrew Johnson Home Page
back to the intro to this section |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MR. EVARTS AND THE PARTY
The speech of Mr. Evarts in the Impeachment trial was very long, and very
ingeniously set forth his views upon the nature of the Government, and upon the rhetoric
and manners of the Managers, both in the debates of the House of Representatives and in
the conduct of the Impeachment. It was a very characteristic speech, and showed the
intellectual acuteness, the grave, polished, and sarcastic humor, and the ample and rather
diffuse rhetoric of the distinguished lawyer. But as any attempt to prove that the chief
executive magistrate of the United States may deliberately violate the laws under the plea
that he wishes to test their constitutionality, it was as hopelessly futile as every such
attempt must be. The checks and balances of our constitutional system are undoubtedly very
shrewdly designedthe independence of each branch of the Government within certain
limits is unquestionably necessarythe disadvantage of concentrating the legislative
and executive powers in one assembly is undeniable. But all these considerations are not
clearer nor more conclusive than the fact that the claim of the President to impose his
veto upon a law after his veto has been constitutionally set aside is a concentration of
power in the Executive that deranges all the checks and balances, destroys the
independence of the other chief branches of the Government, and subordinates Congress to
the will of one man. A more intolerable doctrine could not be urged. We are quite willing
to omit all the other late charges but this one for the purpose of the argument merely.
For if the position that Mr. Evarts assumed be correct, the Government is not the
Government which the people believe to be.It is, however, unnecessary now to pursue that inquiry. We differ,
and we have no doubt that the most thoughtful people in the country differ, from what may
be called the theory of the Government necessarily resulting from the argument of Mr.
Evarts. The special occasion of his argument has passed. But it has not passed without
some very severe strictures upon the course of Mr. Evarts from his party friends. His
consent to serve as one of the Presidents counsel has been apparently regarded by
some critics of warm imagination as a virtual renunciation of the Republican Party. Why,
it has been asked, should a man oppose the Presidents political policy in October
and then defend him from a charge of impeachment in the next April? But, we ask in turn,
why shouldnt he? It is one of the most precious principles of enlightened
civilization that no man shall be condemned without a fair hearing and trial. Let us look
at this case. The President, a renegade to his party, is impeached. His counsel are all
politically his friends. His judges are the Senate, politically his enemies. He asks one
of the most distinguished lawyers in the country, politically opposed to him, to help his
defense; and three considerations probably decided that lawyer to accept.
In the first place, as a lawyer he would
not decline a call to secure a legitimate defense to a political foe charged with the
gravest political offense any more than he would refuse to defend him from a charge of
murder. His professional honor binds him. Not, indeed, to strain the law, nor to distort
the fact, nor to special pleading, nor to any thing abnormal or unfair, but to a plain
defense upon such grounds as the case may afford, in order that the forms of law, which
are the safeguard of every citizen, be observed. If he goes beyondif he commits
himself to the political theories upon which the action has proceededhe then, of
course, becomes so far politically, and not only professionally, identified with his
client. We say, so far as the special question is concerned. But it by no means follows
that he has relinquished his political sympathies as to the proper general policy of the
Government, which is the point of party separation. Very possibly Mr. Evarts is of the
opinion that impeachment was not tenable upon the grounds alleged. But that does not show
that he approves of the Presidents theory of reconstruction, nor that he is opposed
to the Congressional policy of equal rights as the basis of reconstruction. It merely
shows, that in his judgment the Presidents removal of Mr. Stanton, although it may
have been a foolish act, was not in law properly an impeachable offense. Such an opinion
seems to us most erroneous and perilous in its tendency. But certainly a man may hold it
and be just as good a Republican as General Butler.
In the second place, it is very
conceivable that Mr. Evarts thought it to be desirable, even in a party view, that not the
most unimportant of the Presidents advisers, under the circumstances, should be of
the Republican Party. It preserved at least the air of impartiality. The Senate might well
be supposed willing to hear with candor from a political friend the argument which it
might naturally distrust in a political opponent. And in the third place, the very
imaginable desire of an able lawyer, who felt his adequacy to the occasion, to be
conspicuously associated with a most memorable and historic trial, may have had some
influence in persuading Mr. Evarts to appear for the President.
There is certainly nothing in the fact
that a great lawyer consents to appear upon either side of a great case, always supposing
a simple desire that there may be a fair hearing, and that justice may be done, which
should subject him to censure. Further, in this particular instance a man may, upon the
point in question, hold that the Presidents position is justifiable. Does he thereby
show himself recreant to his political principles or to the party with which he acts? Not
at all. Impeachment upon the grounds alleged has been indeed generally sustained by the
sympathy and by the profound conviction of the dominant party, but it is not rightfully a
party test. Sincerely as we have believed in its propriety and necessity, it is plainly
not of a nature to be made a party test. Even if the constitutional removal of the
President should have been made such, the particular occasion and the policy of any
particular effort must necessarily be left open to individual judgment
Nothing can be more fatal and sophistical
and inconsistent that the tone of the New York Tribune upon this subject. During
the delivery of the speech of Mr. Evarts the Tribune argued with unusual heat and
bitterness that the question was whether Mr. Johnson should not be removed for usurping
the authority of Congress on reconstruction, and declared that any Senator who should vote
for his acquittal would look for his future outside of the Republican party. Now, Mr.
Johnsons usurpations have been flagrant for two years and more; yet, down to the 22d
of February, the Tribune was opposed to impeachment. The Presidents
usurpation was no more evident in the violation of the Tenure-of-Office Act than it had
been for a long time before; and whether that offense offered the occasion which should be
improved for his constitutional removal was a question of expediency solely. Congress had
no doubt of it. Most Republican journals had no doubt of it. We certainly had no doubt of
it. But the Tribune had no more right to excommunicate Mr. Evarts because he did
not think impeachment expedient when the Tribune did, than General Butler and Mr.
Boutwell had to excommunicate the Tribune because it did not think impeachment
expedient when they did. Perhaps, however, the Tribune may see some reason for
moderating its censure of Mr. Evarts as a renegade Republican when it remembers that he at
least appears for the Government against Jefferson Davis, and not as his counsel or bail.
Articles Related to the Impeachment, Trial, and
Acquittal:
To see a list of the related
articles go back to the intro
section. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Website design © 1998-2005 HarpWeek, LLC
All Content © 1998-2005 HarpWeek, LLC
Please submit questions to webmaster@harpweek.com
|
|