THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT. •
[FROM ORR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.] New York, January 11, 1867. PRESIDENT JohNsoN will not be impeached. Many months ago, when the subject of his impeachment was first broached, I ex- pressed the same opinion in private letters to England, and I believe also in one to the Spectator. Since then the New Orleans riot, the President's hapless tour through the Northern States, the Iruitless Philadelphia Convention, the overthrow of the Democratic party in the Congressional election, the reassertion of his policy by Mr. Johnson, and last, not least, the veto of the Negro Suffrage Bill for the District of Columbia, have occurred, and the advanced Radicals in Congress, emboldened by the overwhelming majority which party discipline, if not unity of political convic- tion, enables them to command, and irritated by Mr. Johnson's unconciliatory and in fact immobile attitude, have become indifferent to all considerations except the removal of the political Mordecai, who is now in favour neither inside nor outside of the gate at which he sits with stiffened neck, and the first step toward the impeachment has been taken ; -and yet, taking all these circumstances into consideration, I venture to repeat my prediction that the President will not be impeached. To men careless of all things but the one end they have in view the temptation to impeachment is very great, for there being now no Vice-President (Senator Foster, President of the Senate, is only Acting Vice-President), the conviction of the President would make the majority in Congress the absolute rulers of the country, which is what they wish to be. For Con- gress being empowered by the Constitution under such circum- stances to declare what officer shall act as President until there is a new election, the majority could, and of course would, prescribe ,conditions and take guarantees, before placing any man in the chair of the deposed President. More than this, the extreme Radical agitators out of Congress have not hesitated to propose that immediately upon the impeachment of the President his place should be filled by Congress, because, as Wendell Phillips, their leader, says, it is absurd that an impeached officer should continue in the performance of the functions of his office. Should this view of the question be taken by the majority in Congress, and acted -upon (and there is nothing except that trifling piece of paper, the Constitution, to prevent such action), the mere impeachment of the President would attain the end in view, even if his hands were as clean as Washington's, and his soul as white as Lincoln's. For the trial would necessarily be a long one, and might easily be prolonged much more than necessity required, and by the time that the President was pronounced innocent the majority would have worked their will. I leave it for my readers to decide for themselves whether such a proceeding would be justifiable ; but I assure them that, should the President be impeached, it is possible. For there is a word, there are two words, in the Constitution which might be used at least to give colour to such a proceeding, and which, strange to say, Mr. Wendell Phillips and his fellow agitators have not seized upon—an omission that would be more remarkable, except for the fact that Mr. Phillips and his echoes have repeatedly renounced the Constitution and all its works. Con- gress is authorized to " provide for the case of removal, death, re- signation or inability, both of the President and the Vice-President," and the officer appointed in such case is authorized to act " until the disability be removed." Now, what is the inability, or yet more important, what is the disability of the President ? Who is to determine his disability for the functions of his office ? Plainly, Congress must decide that question. As to the inability or dis- ability intended by the Constitution, that would as plainly seem to be such grievous bodily or mental ailment as renders a man unable to attend to his daily duties. If the President were insane, he would clearly be thus disabled ; and if he should become a Spiritualist, and attempt to perform his duties by the assistance of Mr. Hume, or some other " meejurn," it would seem that there could be no doubt of such disability as is provided for in the Con- stitution. But disability has wider senses than these, and which are applicable Congress must decide. Suppose the majority in Congress saw reason of onekindor anotherfor declaring thePresident"morally insane " (for the existence of moral insanity is admitted by many people here), would not that be as great a disability as mental insanity ? And if the majority in Congress saw fit to declare that the being under impeachment was disability, who could say them
nay ? The people? The people could only do that by an armed insurrection against their own representatives. The only power to restrain the majority of Congress in such an attempt resides in the Supreme Court. Mr. Johnson would continue to discharge his duties, and if the validity of his acts were disputed, the question would immediately come before the Supreme Court, and be immediately decided. But since the recent decision in the Indiana conspiracy case, the leading Radical agitators out of Congress, Phillips and Garrison, scoff at the Supreme Court ; and the Radical leader of the House, Mr. Stevens, is not behind them. The Court, how- ever, will decide one question as another, without heeding thunder, left or right, and its decisions will all be executed. This question, however, will not come up ; for the President will not be im- peached—unless, indeed, acts hitherto nntalked of, and unknown even to those behind the scenes of State, can be brought home to him.
The chief reason for the failure of the attempt by Mr. Ashley to procure the impeachment is that the President, even granting that his course has been as injurious to the best interests of the country as it is alleged to be by his accusers, has done nothing whatever that'll; even prima facie evidence of the " treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours" for which only he can be impeached. I do not hesitate a moment at saying that although Mr. Johnson's accusers denounce his conduct as infamous, not one of them could put his finger upon a single act which Chief Justice Chase, Radical as he is, presiding at the trial (the Chief Justice's highest function) would pronounce either treason, bribery, crime, or misdemeanour within the purview of the Constitution. It is alleged that President Johnson has used the appointing power to sustain himself, and that he has attempted to influence elections. So probably he has, and so has every President, for half the existence of the Government; and no one of them more than Mr. Lincoln himself. There is nothing unconstitutional or illegal in such a course ; and there is the precedent of nine administrations for it. The practice is pernicious ; it saps political morality, and deranges the orderly administration of government. But the law is rather for than against it, and it is supported by precedent hitherto unquestioned. Mr. Johnson is also accused of having used his influence to encourage the States lately in rebellion to reject the pending constitutional amendment. Well, suppose he has done so. His course may have been deplor- ably unwise and detestably bigoted, but what of that ? He acted according to his convictions, if he did so act, and in doing so he merely did what every other citizen of the United States had an undisputed right to do ; and it would seem that the officer who is required to recommend such measures to Congress as he may deem necessary and expedient, had not lost any advisory or hortatory privilege which belongs to all his fellow-citizens. It may have been in bad taste for the President to work against Congress in the Legislatures or with the people of the States (if he did so), but perhaps he regards the emergency as one the importance of which over-rides the dictates of taste ; and if he had used his influence in favour of the majority, and against the minority, in Congress, should we have heard anything from the former about either his bad taste or his usurpation? Nothing of the kind, we may be sure. This project of impeachment is a mere device for the removal of an otherwise immovable obstacle by men who desire, perhaps with the best motives, that, for the present at least, the Government should be administered, not by the President and Congress under the Constitution, but by the majority in Congress alone, and absolutely.
The examination of the subject of the impeachment, which must be made in the House Committee on the Judiciary, although eight of the nine members of that Committee are Radical Republicans, must make it clear that, unless, as I said before, there are unsuspected acts of Mr. Johnson's to be brought to light, no bill of impeachment that will hold water can be framed. A bill palpably defective would cover its authors with mingled ridicule and disgrace, and operate in favour of the President. All the President's opponents who have not lost their heads see this already ; and Mr. Ashley and his co-labourers are hearing from the country that they are at least superserviceable. That the New York Times, republican and anti-slavery although it is, and always has been, should oppose the impeachment, might be attributed by some people on both sides of the water to lack of earnestness ; but the New York Tribune, the leader of the Radical advance, urgently discourages the project. The Springfield Republican, a leading Massachusetts paper, says that " it is so obvious, as Judge Spalding, of Ohio, confessed in the caucus, that no serious charge can be sustained, that it is worse than a waste of time for Congress to occupy itself with the gist of all of which is in this passage, taken from one of them the mere act of voting, that its importance has become super- persistent vetoing. The highest argument, however, against im- object a priori to its possession by women. But I think that peachment is that the people do not desire it." But in the English women in general have not yet reached the stage of develop- Tribune's article is one question, prudent, yet naively exposing meat at which it would be useful, either to themselves or others, the motive of the whole movement. It is this :—" May we not and that, while striving for it as they are now doing, they are but pat a precedent upon our statute-books which will give any too likely to lose sight of the preliminary work which can alone Democratic majority in the Senate or the House, in future years, make that and all other franchises of any value.
the right to revolutionize the Government in the interests of There are four classes of argument used in this movement, which slavery ?" May we not, indeed ? I have much mistaken the comprise nearly every suggestion I have heard in favour of female intelligence and the temper of my countrymen, if in the long run suffrage. (I have omitted to discuss Mr. Mill's view,—that
—it may not be this year, or possibly the next—the inevitable " the accident of sex" is of no account in political rights,—
pondering upon that suggestion, and the point it touches, will not because it has usually been avoided by the promoters of the settle the whole question now before the country, in a manner present movement,—which only asks for the enfranchisement somewhat different from that now looked for by people who seem of female householders and ratepayers,—and also because ,a to think that the political system of this country was framed in a critical analysis of the Democratic theory would far exceed my generation, and may be destroyed in half a decade. If that poll- present limits.) 1. Female interests need female representation.
teal system has any strength, or is at-all worthy of the sacrifices 2. Those women who are already competent to vote would, by that were made to obtain, and have been made: to maintain it, it enfranchisement, be enabled to utilize their knowledge on social is so because it is so contrived that no majority, Democratic or problems, which is often very valuable. 3. Those women who are
Republican, in Congress can revolationki the Government in any not now competent to exercise political functions would soon be interests whatever. Revolution may of course be needed here, made competent by " the educating power of the vote." 4. Certain and is easily to be effected by peaceful means, if it is demanded by social advantages would accrue to women from the exercise of the the people. But willing as the majority in the late Free States vote.
are to take strong measures, and to make great sacrifices, to pre- That female interests would be better promoted if the female vent the return of the Democratic party to power, they may be thought of the country were duly represented, I heartily admit, trusted in the end, I believe, to refrain from a revolution which and that there are already women fully competent to represent would establish a system under which any majority in Congress the needs of their sex is an undoubted fact, of which we may all might hereafter declare the people of any State who resisted its be proud. But there are two ways of representing your convic- will out of the Union, and unentitled to representation, and to tions,—the direct way, by publishing facts, or reasonings, and the relieve itself by impeachment of a President who, wisely or un- indirect way, by giving the 200th or 20,000th fraction of a decision wisely, opposed its measures—a system, in brief, which would as to whether A. B. or C. 1.). shall be your mouthpiece in Parlia- leave the minority of the States and the minority of the people to meat. The direct mode of representation is that which alone the unconstitutional mercies of the majority in Congress. gives voice to individual thought or suggestion ; the indirect mode The present condition of affairs does not surprise me. Let me becomes expressive only when it represents classes of persons,— be egotistical enough to remind the readers of the Spectator that nouns of multitude, who share a common conviction. Has not in the darkest hours of our civil war I told them not only that the Harriet Martineau represented herself by her Illustrations of rebellion would certainly be put down, but some time beforehand Political Economy far more effectively than by any vote? Every some events that would happen in putting it down ; and that two wise plan carried out, every pamphlet or newspaper article years ago, when even our friends were wondering what we should written by a sensible woman, has a chance of affecting the do with our armies and how we should pay our debt when the war " collective wisdom " of the nation ; her vote, unless when was over, I told them that the armies would be quietly disbanded, multiplied by a large class of the same kind, would produce that we should neither invade Canada nor quarrel with France, no effect whatever. It is urged, however, that an elector has and that the debt would not be too much either for our ability or the right of instructing his M.P., and is thus enabled to bring our honesty, but that the straggles of our politicians after the matters before Parliament which would otherwise be ignored. war would test the strength of our Government even more than The noble but often frustrated labours of the Workhouse Visiting the war itself. Therefore, I now venture to assure them, even in Society have been pointed out as illustrating the mischief which the teeth of present circumstances, that the events of the last five arises from the absence of the electoral link between women and years will not, as a part of their consequences, make Congress the Legislature ; but with great respect for that excellent Society, " the sovereign power " of the Republic in any sense in which it I must reluctantly object that the case is scarcely one in point, if was not sovereign six years ago. In the end, which is not yet, we may judge from their apologist in the Morning.Post, who (in a they will have secured the indivisibility of the Republic and the letter dated November 16, and signed, " One of the Disabled ") constitutional abolition of slavery, and will have firmly established, admits that the members did not avail themselves of their rights of as the cardinal principle of our Government, national sovereignty parochial action, as female householders, to attempt the removal in national affairs; local independence in all matters not com- of the workhouse abuses. "Perhaps," says the writer, " they mitted to the control of Congress by the Constitution. may have cherished a hope that by careful abstinence from a form
Previous page
