cannot set reason at defiance with impunity. Above all others those who would accomplish a revolution for their own benefit without bloodshed, must be calm and thoughtful. It behooves them to weigh all the circumstances, and by no means to lose sight of the tendency which opinion and feeling, like other things, have to change; they should remember that although weak minds are in general the most fickle, strong minds are the most likely to be influenced by the promptings of justice and truth. The former may, indeed, entertain the same notions for years; but the latter reject theirs as soon as they discover that they are wrong; they are not afraid to be accused of inconsistency, because they have the sense to understand that it reflects honour rather than discredit on them, as men and citizens, to be wiser to-day than they were yesterday.

The best men may be set aside in a day, or in an hour, by the sword, under pretence of their being the worst; but it is rarely that any who are not real criminals are treated as such, when the tribunal before which they are arraigned has had time for reflection; never we think when the tribunal is enlightened and impartial. Thus it is that the impeachers have injured themselves much more than the President whom they have impeached.

All who are in a passion fancy themselves stronger than they really are; they also fancy that the object of their wrath is worse than he is. For these reasons men of sense wait until their passion cools; then, if after due deliberation the things which first annoyed them have still the same aspect, it is but right they should pursue the course which their conscience and judgment prompt.

The impeachers have done the reverse, and now that they have had sufficient time for reflection, we feel convinced that they are by no means surprised themselves at the result. Certainly no one is really surprised who was not actuated by selfish motives, or by excessive partisan feeling, or who did not entertain a low opinion of the Senate. If the truth were known, the surprise of the most unprincipled of the impeachers was not that the President should be acquitted, but that so little could be proved against any man occupying so prominent a position; they might well say that not one of them would have been found so innocent of "high crimes and misdemeanors," had he been placed in the same position as Andrew Johnson.

It is not to be expected that men who have acted so

VOL. XVII.-NO. XXXIII. 10

rash and unwise a part would admit this, but it would certainly be more to their credit to do so than to attribute unworthy motives to the men of their party who had the manliness and honesty to prefer justice to partisan favour. In our opinion every American citizen, without distinction of party, should regard the acquittal of the President as a cause of congratulation, if for no other reason than that it has vindicated the honour of the Senate of the United States. We are well aware that there are many thousands who do not view it in this light, but the day will come when they will change their mind. Large numbers have changed already, brief as the time is since the trial was concluded. We indulge in no exaggeration when we say that nearly half of those among the public at large who were in favour of the removal of the President when he was first impeached, became his warmest friends during the progress of the trial; not because they liked his politics or himself better than they did previously, but because they were unwilling to see the President of the United States persecuted and insulted, for what was at worst but an error in judgment. All who had a thought beyond their daily task, asked themselves what would they say, or how would they feel, if any foreign nation had abused our Chief Magistrate as the impeachers did, ostensibly for the good of the country, but really for the purpose of gratifying their own ambition.

It is better, however, that the President should be brought even to a mock trial than that recourse should be had to bloodshed; but it is by no means certain that the impeachers are entitled to the credit of this. Those who make a great outcry, under any pretence whatever, are seldom endowed with courage; they are very much like women in this as in other respects. Mr. Butler, whom the managers fitly put forward as their representative, would much rather use his tongue, coarse and pointless, though rasping, as it is, than his sword, except he could hit with the latter from some dark, safe place.

But had he been even brave, and had all his accomplices been brave also-which, we admit, is rather an extravagant supposition-even then they would hardly have ventured on a bloody revolution. Not, indeed, that they would have much scruple to strike down any man or men who presented an obstacle to their ambitious projects and love of pelf; and, if we are to judge some of them from their conduct in the past, women would fare

no better, but rather worse, at their hands. Fortunately, our people are neither bloodthirsty nor fond of revolutions. They have demonstrated to the world that none are braver when their country needs their bravery, but their innate good sense and intelligence give no encouragement to conspirators. Catiline himself, could he have lived in our time, would not have dared to urge the Northern States to endanger the life of the Republic by bloodshed and plunder. In the South, indeed, he might have succeeded in an evil hour. This the late rebellion has shown, but, alas, how sad, how irreparable are the results even of that gigantic effort! It is an idle boast, therefore, for the impeachers to say that they had recourse to moral and legal means for the removal of the President. Had they attempted to use violence, they would have brought still more contempt on themselves than they have, if that were possible, and they would have endangered their precious lives at the same time.

We have no disposition to increase the scorn which the impeachers have brought on themselves by what they pretend to regard as "moral and legal means," but which, as the world knows, were neither moral nor legal. Even Butler has had punishment enough. Like Thersites, his prototype, he has excited ridicule by his gravest efforts. Far be it from us to find fault with any one for the defects or infirmities of nature. But we cannot help being struck with the resemblance between the chief reviler of the President and the person on whom Ulysses inflicted such ignominious punishment for abusing his betters. First the poet describes him as squinting* and lame of one foot. Then he is addressed by Ulysses with the utmost scorn: "If I shall find thee any longer acting foolishly," says the hero, "as indeed no where no longer, then, be the head on the shoulders of Ulysses: not any longer may I be called the father of Telemachus, if, having taken thee, I do not strip thee of thy garments, both upper coat and tunic, and those which cover thy shame." In order to give due emphasis to these words, Ulysses struck the poor wight on the back, so that the boaster and reviler writhed and began to cry like a woman. Pope, in commenting on this, says:-"What is further observable is, that Thersites is never heard of after this, his first appearance; such a scandalous character is to be taken no more notice of

* φυλχός. Η χωλος δ' έτερον ποδα. † Iliad, II., ν. 259 et seq.

despised."

But there is

than just to show that it is another point of similarity. The Greeks had become very much dissatisfied with their leaders; they were almost in a mutinous condition when they were addressed on the subject by Thersites, who, be it observed, was well "versed in many and indecent terms;" in other words, he was a pretty fair specimen of a "stump orator," without principle, decency, or courage. Had he remained quiet, the probability was that the Greeks would withdraw and leave Agamemnon in the lurch, a ruined and degraded chieftain. But Thersites turns the scale at once in his favour; the gross and indecent abuse he received from so worthless a character awakened the sympathy of the whole army, and all were delighted at the chastise ment which the brawler received. Even Ulysses had never done any thing more popular than this. “He has done innumerable good things," said the Greeks, "but now, truly, he has done this, by far the best, by silencing this reproachful reviler from his harangues."**

Now, if Homer had only introduced some silver spoons, or other similar utensils, into his description, the parallel would have been almost perfect. At all events, the resemblance is sufficiently close. Thersites saved the glory of the Greeks by causing them to do the reverse of what he urged upon them: he made them be true to themselves and their country, instead of being false to both, as he advised them, with all the earnestness and scurrility of a smatterer in oratory. And certain it is that the conduct of Butler has had a similar effect on the the people of the United States. He has saved the American Senate, as Thersites saved the Greek army. No one, therefore, should have any feeling against Mr. Butler. True, it is against his will he saved the Senate from disgrace, but when one has accomplished a good result, it is ungracious to scrutinize too closely the means which he used.

But to extend the parallel a little farther, if the Greeks had reason to be grateful to the wise Ulysses for restraining the "reproachful reviler" and exhibiting him in his true character to his countrymen, the American people have equal reason to be grateful to Chief-Justice Chase. The latter did not, indeed, describe Butler from head to toe, as Ulysses described his prototype, nor did he inflict any blows on his posterior parts, but he chastised him

*Iliad, II., v. 275.

quite as severely as if he had done both. Some of those brief remarks which he occasionally addressed to the "honourable manager" were abundantly descriptive; it was evident that they hurt, too, sometimes, although Butler is by no means sensitive as long as he is in danger of no harder weapons than irony or rebuke. But there is an eloquence in silence, and in the expression of the countenance, and we have never seen it used with more powerful effect than by the Chief-Justice at the impeachment trial. In a word, our impression was, after having spent many weary hours listening to the managers, that no jurist of Europe or America could have conducted himself in a more dignified or impartial manner than ChiefJustice Chase did during this trial. All the managers were more or less offensive to him; Butler was particularly so. Neither the managers, nor their senatorial abettors ever addressed him by his proper title, but always as "Mr. President." He never made even a suggestion as to the law or propriety of any question evolved during the trial, for which he was not treated with rudeness in one form or another; yet never, for one moment, did he seem to lose his equanimity. We made the following remark in our last number, for we had never seen his Honour preside at any court: "If Chief-Justice Chase has the wisdom and moral courage to avail himself of it, he has now an opportunity of rendering himself quite as illustrious as Lord Abinger; he has an opportunity of causing himself to be quoted as an authority in favour of constitutional government and the rights of man, by the jurists of all future ages."*

He has proved to the world that he possessed both the wisdom and the moral courage to administer justice impartially, and oppose wrong, and we hold that he has rendered himself illustrious accordingly. The majority of even those who voted the President guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanours" will live long enough to see, if they do not already, that, after all, it was fortunate for the country that so wise a statesman and so impartial a jurist occupied the supreme bench at so momentous a crisis; not that he could compel any senator to Vote contrary to his inclination, but that the influence of a distinguished lawyer, combining with great forensic ability the wisdom of the statesman, could not fail to produce favourable results.

* No. XXXII., p. 380.