Mr.Trumbull, whose legal ability had been attested by his assignment to the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, believed with Mr.Fessenden, as did Mr.Grimes of Iowa, one of the strongest members of the Senate, and Mr.Henderson of Missouri, whose legal attainments have since given him a high professional reputation.

Let it be frankly admitted that lawyers of equal rank conscientiously believed in the President's guilt.

This only proves that there was ground for a substantial and fundamental difference of opinion, and that it could not therefore with certainty be charged that the President, "unmindful of the high duties of his office, did this act in violation of the Constitution of the United States." This was the very question in dispute,--the question in regard to which lawyers of eminent learning and impartial mind, members of the Republican party and zealous opponents of the President's policy, radically differed in judgment.

Opinions of distinguished lawyers on the Democratic side of the Senate, like Reverdy Johnson, are not quoted, because partisan motives would be ascribed to their conclusions.
Perhaps the best test as to whether the act of the President in removing Mr.Stanton was good ground for impeachment, would be found in asking any candid man if he believes a precisely similar act by Mr.Lincoln, or General Grant, or any other President in harmony with his party in Congress, would have been followed by impeachment, or by censure, or even by dissent.

It is hardly conceivable, nay, it is impossible, that under such circumstances the slightest notice would be taken of the President's action by either branch of Congress.