按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
id： 〃Neither the Supreme Court nor any other Court can question or review this judgment of the Senate。〃
The declaration was made by Messrs。 Stevens and Boutwell in the House； that the Senate was its own judge of the validity of its own acts。
Mr。 Butler； in his opening speech to the Senate； at the beginning of the trial； used this language：
A Constitutional tribunal solely； you are bound by no law； either Statute or Common； which may limit your constitutional prerogative。 You consult no precedents save those of the law and custom of parliamentary bodies。 You are a law unto yourselves； bound only by the natural principles of equity and justice； and salus populi suprema est lex。
Feb。 24； 1868； Mr。 Stevens said in the House：
Neither the Executive nor the Judiciary had any right to interfere with it （Reconstruction） except so far as was necessary to control it by military rule until the sovereign power of the Nation had provided for its civil administration。 NO POWER BUT CONGRESS HAD ANY RIGHT TO SAY WHETHER EVER； OR WHEN； they （the rebel States）； should be admitted to the Union as States and entitled to the privileges of the Constitution of the United States。〃 * * * 〃I trust that when we come to vote upon this question we shall remember that although it is the duty of the President to see that the laws be executed； THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE NATION RESTS IN CONGRESS。
Mr。 Butler； the leading spirit of the impeachment enterprise； went so far as to make the revolutionary suggestion of the abrogation of the Presidential office in the event of final failure to convict the Presidentset out in the 8th Chapter。
Mr。 Sumner insisted that in no judicial sense was the Senate a Court； and therefore not bound by the rules of judicial procedure：
If the Senate is a Court bound to judicial forms on the expulsion of the President； must it not be the same in the expulsion of a Senator？ But nobody attributes to it any such strictures in the latter case。 * * In the case of Blount； which is the first in our history； the expulsion was on the report of a committee declaring him guilty of a high misdemeanor。 At least one Senator has been expelled on simple formal motion。 Others have been expelled without any formal allegations or formal proofs。 * * * The Constitution provides that 〃Each House shall determine its rules of proceeding。〃 The Senate on the expulsion of its own members has already done。 this practically and set an example of simplicity。 But it has the same power over its rules of proceeding〃 on the expulsion of the President； and there can be no reason for simplicity in the one case not equally applicable in the other。 Technicality is as little consonant with the one as with the other。 Each has for its object the PUBLIC SAFETY。 For this a Senator is expelled； for this； also； the President is expelled。 Salus Populi Suprema Lex。 The proceedings in each case must be in subordination to this rule。〃
Thus； Mr。 Sumner would have removed the President by an ordinary concurrent resolution of Congress。
The purpose of all this was apparentthat the President was in effect； to be tried and judged before a Court of Public Opinion； and not before the Senate sitting as a High Court of Impeachment； but BY the Senate sitting in its legislative capacityto create the impression in the minds of Senators that in this high judicial procedure they were still acting as a legislative bodysimply as Senators； and not in a judicial capacity； as judges and jurors； and therefore not bound specifically by their oaths as such； to convict only for crime denounced by the law； or for manifest high political misdemeanors； but could take cognizance of and convict on alleged partisan offenses and allegations based on differences of opinion and partisan prejudices and partisan predilectionsthat it was not essential that the judgment of Senators should be confined to the specific allegations of the indictment； but that the whole range of alleged political and partisan misdemeanors and delinquencies could be taken into account in seeking a pretext for Mr。 Johnson's conviction。
The superiority of the Legislative branch was thus openly。 advocated and insisted； and uncontroverted by any Republican supporting the impeachment。 Mr。 Johnson； according to these oft repeated declarations； was to be tried and convicted； not necessarily for any specific violation of law； or of the Constitution； but by prevailing public opinionpublic clamor…in a word； on administrative differences subsisting between the President and the leaders of the dominant party in and out of Congress； and that public opinion； as concurrent developments fully establish； was industriously manufactured throughout the North； on the demand of leaders of the impeachment movement in the House； through the instrumentality of a partisan press and partisan public meetings； and in turn reflected back upon the Senate； in the form of resolutions denunciatory of the President and demanding his impeachment and removal。
That was in fact； and in a large sense； the incentive to the impeachment movement； and it wasnot confined to a faction； but characterized the dominant portion of the political party then in the ascendancy in and out of Congress。
In this state of facts lay largely the vice of the impeachment movement； and it illustrated to a startling degree the danger in the departure from established forms of judicial procedure in such cases。
It became apparent； long before the close； that it was but little if anything more than a partisan prosecutionand that fact became more generally and firmly fixed； from day to day； as the trial approached conclusion。
In that state of facts； again； and in that sense； the impeachment of the President； was an assault upon the principle of coordination that underlies our political system and thus a menace to our established political forms； as； if successful； it would； logically； have been the practical destruction of the Executive Departmentand； in view of previous legislation out of which the impeachment movement had to a degree arisen； and of declarations in the House and Senate quoted in this connection； the final and logical result of conviction would have been the absorption of the Executive functions of the Government by the Legislative Department； and the consequent declension of that Department to a mere bureau for the registration of the decrees of the Legislature。
Conscious of the natural tendency to infringement by a given Department of the Government upon the functions of its coordinates； the framers of the Constitution wisely defined the respective spheres of the several departments； and those definitions constitute unmistakable admonition to each as to trespass by either upon the political territory of its coordinates。
As John C。 Calhoun wrote； in the early days of the Republic：
〃The Constitution has not only made a general delegation of the legislative power to one branch of the Government； of the executive to another； and of the judicial to the third； but it has specifically defined the general powers and duties of each of those departments。 This is essential to peace and safety in any Government； and especially in one clothed only with specific power for national purposes and erected in the midst of numerous State Governments retaining exclusive control of their local concerns。* * * Were there no power to interpret； pronounce and execute the law； the Government would perish through its own imbecility； as was the case with the Articles of Confederation； or other powers must be assumed by the legislative body； to the destruction of liberty。〃 Again； as was eloquently and forcefully said by Daniel Webster in the U。 S。 Senate in 1834：
〃The first object of a free people is the preservation of their liberty； and liberty is only to be preserved by maintaining constitutional restraints and just division of political power。 Nothing is more deceptive or more dangerous than the pretense of a desire to simplify government。 The simplest governments are despotisms； the next simplest； limited monarchies； but all republics； all governments of law； must impose numerous limitations and qualifications of authority and give many positive and many qualified rights。 In other words； they must be subject to rule and regulation。 This is the very essence of free political institutions。 The spirit of liberty is； indeed； a bold and fearless spirit； but it is also a sharp…sighted spirit： it is a cautious； sagacious； discriminating； far…seeing intelligence； it is jealous of encroachment； jealous of power； jealous of man。 It demands checks； it seeks for guards； it insists on securities； it entrenches itself behind strong defenses； and fortifies itself with all possible care against the assaults of ambition and passion。 It does not trust the amiable weaknesses of human nature； and； therefore； it will not permit power to overstep its prescribed limits； though benevolence； good intent； and patriotic purpose come along with it。 Neither does it satisfy itself with flashy and temporary resistance to illegal authority。 Far otherwise。 It seeks for duration and permanence； it looks before and after； and； building on the experience of ages which are past； it labors diligently for the