At the outset the _Evening Post_ and the _Times_ were irritated by two assertions of the anti-Johnson radicals. The first was that the President might and should be suspended from office pending the outcome of the trial. Not only was there no constitutional warrant for such action, wrote Bryant, but the question had been discussed in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and it had voted that Congress should have no such power of suspension. The _Tribune_ held also that if the Senate, sitting as a High Court upon the President’s disobedience to the Tenure of Office Act, declared the act unconstitutional, then its decision became forever binding. The Supreme Court would have no authority to pass upon the constitutionality of the act, and if it presumed to do so and to differ from the High Court, Congress would be justified in impeaching or removing the judges. This was too much for the _Nation_ as well as the _Evening Post_, and Godkin promptly demolished the assertion. It should be said that Greeley at this time was absent in the West, and the _Tribune_ was under the charge of John Russell Young, whose harshness Greeley later disapproved. On Feb. 27, three days after the impeachment, the _Evening Post_ declared that “the general impression is that the case is essentially prejudged, and that Mr. Johnson will be removed by the Senate.” This was the opinion of all the city’s organs, from the radical _Nation_ on the one side to the _World_ on the other. The _World_, in fact, made an appeal for a fund of $10,000,000, with which to bribe those Senators who could hardly hope for reëlection anyhow; and while this was a bit of humor--the _Tribune_ alone took it seriously--its point lay in the _World’s_ conviction that the Republican Senators were all so prejudiced that only millions could win over a few of them. Like the _Nation_, the _Post_ devoted an editorial to a scrutiny of the qualifications of Benjamin Wade, who as President pro tem. of the Senate would succeed Johnson. Bryant admitted Wade’s honesty, courage, and frankness, but regretted that in impetuosity, narrowness, and prejudice he would be too much like the man he replaced. His manners, too, must be mended, for he recalled a Scotch lady’s remark: “Our Jock sweers awfu’, but nae doot it’s a great set-off to conversation.”