Suppose
it to be successful. Suppose the Chicago Convention to insinuate, with the Tribune,
that the Republican Senators who vote according to their convictions are infamous
scoundrels who have been bought with money; or with the Philadelphia "boys in
blue," to resolve that "James W. Grimes, William P. Fessenden, and Lyman
Trumbull, purporting to represent the loyal people of the United States, as well as Iowa,
Maine, and Illinois, prompted by malice, jealousy, disappointment, and perhaps baser
motives which we blush to name, have conspired together to place the Government, which we
have saved from her armed foes, absolutely in control of its rebel enemies: that such a
crime is far more heinous than the surrender of an outpost to the enemy, and no punishment
would express our utter detestation of the three recreants who are today branded with an
infamous notoriety: and that it is far better to have died, as Senator Howard was willing
to do, rich in the esteem of his countrymen than to live a degraded outcast and friendless
like James W. Grimes, William P. Fessenden, and Lyman Trumbull." Suppose this kind of
resolution adopted by the Chicago Convention and sent to each Republican Senator. Suppose
that thereupon Senators Grimes, Trumbull, Fessenden, Ross, Henderson, Van Winkle, and
Fowler vote for conviction upon every article, and the President consequently to be
removed. Would the decision have any moral force? Would the Republican Party have
strengthened itself? Would the Senators mentioned be more worthy of respect, or would they
be more respected than they are now? Would not such a decision justly excite the derision
of the world and the contempt of history?
Or suppose that, refusing to perjure
themselves directly, these Senators resign and withdraw, thus securing the conviction of
the President, what is that but a shrinking from duty which is really indirect perjury?
They have sworn to do a certain duty conscientiously, and they recoil from it because of
intimidation, and recoil in a manner which, by their action, procures a result that they
believe to be contrary to law and subversive of justice. Can they escape their own
condemnation or hope to elude that of those who look to them to stand fast at all costs
for the moral freedom of the Senate, and for judicial integrity?
We observe that Ex-Governor Israel
Washburne, of Maine at a meeting in Portland, in speaking of Mr. Fessenden,
askedwith perfect courtesy, howeverwhether it might not be possible that one
man was wrong and seveny-five thousand men right? Surely Mr. Washburne upon reflection
will see that he has not fairly stated the situation. Is Mr. Fessenden the mouthpiece of
seventy-five thousand men of Maine, or is he a sworn judge in a particular case? Is he
merely in this matter a representative of the men of Maine who are hostile to the
President, or is he a representative of the State under oath to do justice according to
the evidence? Does not Mr. Washburne see that when we resolved to resort to impeachment we
renounced the removal of the President as a political or party measure, and aimed to
accomplish it by judicial methods? We engaged ourselves in honor to abide by those
methods; and if, fearing their failure, we attempt to coerce the court, we degrade our
cause and rob our success of all its meaning.
The Chicago Convention will have
adjourned when this paper is issued. The pressure upon it will be enormous to put the
party in a false position. But we believe that there will be good men enough among its
members to reflect that some victories cost too dear. A verdict extorted by a pistol held
at the head of the judge is not very valuable. Should this truth be forgotten in the heat
of the crisis, should the counsel of passionate rather than of sensible men prevail, and
the Convention pass a resolution of censure upon the Republican Senators who are unable to
believe that Mr. Stanton stands within the Tenure-of-Office Act, we shall regard it as the
expression of a momentary frenzy which the delegates themselves will some day profoundly
regret, and which will not be justified by the feeling of the most truly intelligent and
earnest Republicans.
But the duty of the Senators, with whom
we indeed differ, will be only the plainer. They must follow their sincere convictions,
conscious that in so doing they maintain the only permanent principle of a free
government; and their task will be the more difficult because they will maintain it
against the cry of the party which is its natural protector.