IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 263, 4 June 1868, Page 3

IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON.

The President, through his counsel, takes up the articles of impeachment teriatim. He enters upon the consideration of each almost word by word, and is so elaborate, explicit, and precise in his statements and replies upon every point that the discussion of the whole must necessarily occupy a good deal of time. It will be remembered that of the eleven articles nine are variations upon the removal of Stanton. Every detail of these is gone over at length i? rigid legal form. His reply to the first article is a specimen of his way of treating them all ; and we cannot display more clearly his general method of meeting the charges than by inserting here the brief paragraph which condenses and sums up his response to each " substantive allegation" of this article. " He (the President) denies that the said Stanton, on the 21st day of February, 1868, was lawfully in possession of the said office of Secretary for the Department of War. He denies that the said Stanton on the day last mentioned was lawfully entitled to hold the said office against the will of the President of the United States. He denies that the said order for the removal of the said Stanton was unlawfully issued He denies that the said order was issued with intent to violate the act entitled ' An Act to regulate the tenure of certain civil

offices.' He denies that the said order was a violation of the last mentioned act. He denies that the said order was a violation of the Constitution of the United States, or of any law thereof, or of his oath of office. He denies that the sad order was issued with an intent to violate the Constitution of the United States, or any law thereof, or this respondent's oath of office. And he respectfully but earnestly insists that not only was it issued by him in the performance of what he believed to be an imperative official duty, but in the performance of what this honorable Court will consider was in point of fact an imperative official duty. And he denies that, any and all substantive matters in the said first article contained in manner and form a3 the same are thereiu stated and set forth, do by law constitute a high misdemeanor in office, within the true intent and meaning of the Constitution of the United States."

The charges of conspiracy with General Thomas, of attempts to hinder the execution of the acts of Congress, of seeking to use force to effect his purpose, of trying to induce General Emery to violate the law, are each and all directly denied and with circumstance. Mr Johnson repeats that the sole object of his proceedings in the Stanton case was to bring the matter before the courts, that he might obtain a legal decision as to the constitutionality of the law for regulating the tenure of civil office.

The Journal of Commerce says :—" It may take all day to read Butler's speech, but a few words will define tbe effect which it must produce upon the mind of every impartial person who has survived its perusal As a presentation of the " points" against Mr Johnson it is complete. Nothing remains for Butler or any one else to say on that side or Butler would have found it out and said it. It is adroit in flattering the Senate with the idea that that body is not a court sworn to do justice, but sits in political or senatorial capacity only, superior to precedents, and unbound by oaths. Butler and the admirers of the man probably consider this speech a strong one. So it is, in passionate invective; but, just in that respect, it will be regarded by most people as weak, for it discloses the animus of personal rancor which originated and sustains this partisan movement against the President. There is something ferocious in the way that Butler drives home his spear of satire, and turns it round in the wound he makes. Instead of being a "prosecution," in the ordinary legal sense of that word, the trial thus far looks very much like a " persecution," in vzhich seven or eight " Managers" are to be allowed to gratify their revenge upon the President by such refinements of insult as they have learned to employ through a considerable experience in the House of Eepresentatives. If Butler's speech is a sample of the style in which this impeachment business is to be conducted to the end, Mr Johnson may come out of it with a larger share of popular sympathy than he possessed at his entrance upon the ordeal. " One story is good till another is told." Let people, if there are such, who pin their faith on Butler, wait till he is dissected by Stanbery, Evarts, Groesbeck, Curtis, or some other of the President's counsel equal to the job."