It is, however, unnecessary now to pursue that inquiry. We differ, and we have no doubt that the most thoughtful people in the country differ, from what may be called the theory of the Government necessarily resulting from the argument of Mr. Evarts. The special occasion of his argument has passed. But it has not passed without some very severe strictures upon the course of Mr. Evarts from his party friends. His consent to serve as one of the President’s counsel has been apparently regarded by some critics of warm imagination as a virtual renunciation of the Republican Party. Why, it has been asked, should a man oppose the President’s political policy in October and then defend him from a charge of impeachment in the next April? But, we ask in turn, why shouldn’t he? It is one of the most precious principles of enlightened civilization that no man shall be condemned without a fair hearing and trial. Let us look at this case. The President, a renegade to his party, is impeached. His counsel are all politically his friends. His judges are the Senate, politically his enemies. He asks one of the most distinguished lawyers in the country, politically opposed to him, to help his defense; and three considerations probably decided that lawyer to accept.

In the first place, as a lawyer he would not decline a call to secure a legitimate defense to a political foe charged with the gravest political offense any more than he would refuse to defend him from a charge of murder. His professional honor binds him. Not, indeed, to strain the law, nor to distort the fact, nor to special pleading, nor to any thing abnormal or unfair, but to a plain defense upon such grounds as the case may afford, in order that the forms of law, which are the safeguard of every citizen, be observed. If he goes beyond—if he commits himself to the political theories upon which the action has proceeded—he then, of course, becomes so far politically, and not only professionally, identified with his client. We say, so far as the special question is concerned. But it by no means follows that he has relinquished his political sympathies as to the proper general policy of the Government, which is the point of party separation. Very possibly Mr. Evarts is of the opinion that impeachment was not tenable upon the grounds alleged. But that does not show that he approves of the President’s theory of reconstruction, nor that he is opposed to the Congressional policy of equal rights as the basis of reconstruction. It merely shows, that in his judgment the President’s removal of Mr. Stanton, although it may have been a foolish act, was not in law properly an impeachable offense. Such an opinion seems to us most erroneous and perilous in its tendency. But certainly a man may hold it and be just as good a Republican as General Butler.

In the second place, it is very conceivable that Mr. Evarts thought it to be desirable, even in a party view, that not the most unimportant of the President’s advisers, under the circumstances, should be of the Republican Party. It preserved at least the air of impartiality. The Senate might well be supposed willing to hear with candor from a political friend the argument which it might naturally distrust in a political opponent. And in the third place, the very imaginable desire of an able lawyer, who felt his adequacy to the occasion, to be conspicuously associated with a most memorable and historic trial, may have had some influence in persuading Mr. Evarts to appear for the President.

There is certainly nothing in the fact that a great lawyer consents to appear upon either side of a great case, always supposing a simple desire that there may be a fair hearing, and that justice may be done, which should subject him to censure. Further, in this particular instance a man may, upon the point in question, hold that the President’s position is justifiable. Does he thereby show himself recreant to his political principles or to the party with which he acts? Not at all. Impeachment upon the grounds alleged has been indeed generally sustained by the sympathy and by the profound conviction of the dominant party, but it is not rightfully a party test. Sincerely as we have believed in its propriety and necessity, it is plainly not of a nature to be made a party test. Even if the constitutional removal of the President should have been made such, the particular occasion and the policy of any particular effort must necessarily be left open to individual judgment