The New York Herald Newspaper, April 12, 1868, Page 3

IMPBACHMENT, Trial of President Andrew Johnson for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Examination of Adjutant General Thomas and Lieutenant General Sherman. General Thomas Corrects His Previous Testimony. General Sherman’s Conversations With thé President Ruled Out. Argument of Counsel on the Admis- sibility of the Bvidence. WASHINGTON, April 11, 1868, General Thomas made his appearance first to-day, and desired to make some few explanations about hisevidence yesterday, His explanations were not of any very great importance; but Mr, Butler caught hold of him, and by some sort of management in his questions so muddled the mind of Thomas that the latter blundered into the strangest answers; yet any- body could see poor Thomas meant to deliver an honest statement of his share in the transaction of the 22d of February; but by some confusion of ideas he stumbled by the way and gave Butler an apparent triumph. ‘When General Sherman came on the witness stand there was an immense flurry in the audience to see the hero of the Great March. Opera glasses were levelled upon him and heads protruded over the galleries to get a good look at the distinguished witness. General Sherman behaved himself in character with his reputation. Cool as a cucumber, , @fect like a soldier, and cautious and deliberative in @xpression, he gave the few brief answers he was lowed to give very calm, clear and solid. During the long discussion which ensued upon the admissi- bility of his evidence regarding his conversation with the President he sat leaning back in his chair seem- ingly weary of his position as a witness, The summary rebuff which the Chief Justice re- ceived to-day, in his ruling upon the admissibility of that portion of General Sherman’s testimony relating to declarations made by the President in reference to @ proffered appointment as Secretary of War ad in- terim, was a manifestation of feeling which struck everybody as a very plain index of the partisan nature ofthe proceedings now going on for the deposition of Mr. Johnson. The Chief Justice having decided such declarations of the President to be in order, and that ‘very emphatically, and with which he coupled an opinion, the Senate reversed the decision on the Spot. This islooked upon as the beginning ofa line of conduct which will terminate adversely to the inter- ests of the President. This action is virtually shutting off the most valuable testimony the counsel for the defence had to present. Such arbitrary action on the part of the Senate completely disconcerted the coun- sel, and for a time there was a complete suspension of the trial. Unless the Senate relaxes its rule, ita action to-day disposes of the larger portion of the testimony which was pr sosed to be taken by the’ defence, It ig very evident that the Senators and the Man- agers, finding their case a weak one as it now stands, are determined not to “allow any minute testimony from the other side. This will only serve to present still more clearly the trivial grounds upon which this great injustice is intended to be perpetrated. The Chief Justice felt most keenly this conduct of the Senate, and appeared intensefy agitated during all the remainder of the day’s proceedings. PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT. Twelfth Day. UNITED STATES SENATE CHAMBER, WASHINGTON, April 11, 1868. The Managers and some elght or ten members of the Honse were in attendance this morning. After the reading of the journal, Mr. BinaHaM rose and made a motion on the part of the Managers, speaking in an inaudible t8ne, to which fact Senator CoNKLING called attention. By the direction of the Chief Justice Mr. Bingham then reduced the motion to writing, as follows:— ‘The Managers move that the Senate do so amend rule twenty-one as to allow such of the Managers as desire to be heard, and also such of the counsel of the President as desire to be heard, to speak on the final argument; and object to the provision of the rule that the final argument shall be opened and closed by the Managers on the part of the House. The Cuter Justice stated the question. Senator Pomeroy—If that is in the nature of a res- olution, under our general rules it should lie over one day for consideration. ‘The CugF JUSTICE was understood to coincide in the opinion. Senator BUCKALEW moved that it be laid over until Monday. Senator Epmunps inquired of the Chair whether the cwenty-first rule does not provide by its terms that this privilege may be extended to the Managers and counsel in order; and whether, therefore, any amend- ment of the rule is necessary? The Cer Justice replied in the affirmative, and said he had heard no motion to that effect. Senator FRELINGHUSEN moved that such an order be adopted. Senator PomeRoy—I have no objection to taking the vote now. The Cuter Justice—The Senator will reduce his fhotion tb writing. Senator SHERMAN—If it is in order I shall move that the twenty-first rule shall be relaxed so as to allow persons on each side to speak in the final argu- ment. . The Cater Justice decided the motion out of order for the present, and Senator Frelinghuysen having reduced his motion to writing, it was read as foliows:— Ordered, That as many of the Managers and coun- sel for the President be permitted to speak on the final argument as shall choose to do so. Senator Howarp hoped that it would lie over until Monday. Several Senators—No, no! Let us vote on it. Senator Howarp—I object to it. Senator Trumpunt said it did not change the rule, and therefore could not be required to lie over. The Cater Justice decided that, objection having been made, it must lie over, Senator CONKLING—May I inquire under what rule it is that this must lie over upon the objection of a single Senator? The Carr Justick—The Chief Justice conducting the business of the Court adopts for his general guidance the rules of the Senate sitting in legislative session as far as they are applicable. That is the reason. Senator ConKiinG called attention to the fact that the very rule under discussion provided for the case by the use of the words, “uniess otherwise ordered.” The Curer Justicr—It is competent for the Sena- tor to appeal from the decision of the Chair. Senator ConKLING—Oh, no, sir, That is not my purpose, Senator Jonxson—Mr. Chief Justice — The Cu1Er Justice—Debate is not in order. Senator Jonson said he did not desire to debate the question, and was aes to make a remark about the order when fhe was cut sliort by the Chief Justice directing the counsel for the President to proceed. THE EXAMINATION OF GENERAL THOMAS RESUMED. Mr. STANBERY said that General Thomas desired to make some corrections in his testimony. General Thomas ¢ took the stand and said:—1 wish to correct my testimony. Yesterday I read a letter signed by Mr. Stanton addressed to me on the 2ist of February, I did not receive the copy of that letter until the next day after I had made the demand for the office. The Secretary came in and handed me the original. impression is that I noted in the original the pts; I then handed it to General Townsend to make the copy I read here and hand ft to me; I had it not until the 22a of February. Q. Then when you saw the President on the after noon of the 2ist you had not yet received that letter drom Ms, Stanton? A. I had not: the next correc. 4 (Lan Q NEW YORK HERALD, SUNDAY, APRIL 12, 1868.—TRIPLE SHEET. tion I want to make is this:—I said that the Presi- take posession of the office; he ex- pressed it “take office.’ ye that was the expression? A. Tam positive, Iwas asked if I could give the date of my brevet commission. I do not know whether it is important or not. I have it here, What is the date? A. Brevet Major General, 12th of March, 1865, Q. Upon whose recommendation was that? A. Mr, Stanton gave it to me, De ee. him for it, or did he volunteer it? A. He more than once intended to give it to me; but on this occasion, when I returned from my duty, the time had arrived when I ought to have the com- mission, and he gave it to me. There is another point I want to state. When I was before the Com- mittee of the House Managers, General Butler asked the Clerk, I think it was, for the testimony of Dr. Burleigh. He said he had it not, that it was at home. 1 don’t know whether he said or I said it makes no difference. He asked of me a number of questions in reference to that, I assented to them all. I never heard that testimony read. . You never heard Dr. Burleigh’s testimony read? A.No, sir; nor do I recollect the nestions excert that they were asked me, and I said Dr. Burleigh no doubt would recollect the conversation better than I. Cross-examined by Mr. BUTLER:— Q. General how many times did you answer qeaeeray the President told you at that time to possession of the office? A. Well, [have not read over my testimony; but Ido not know how many times, Q. Was that untrue each time? A. If I said so it was; take ‘ ”” was the word used. Q. Have you any memorandum by which you can correct thatexpression? If 80, produce it. Ihave ae memorandum with me here; I don’t know that I ave any. Q. Have you looked at one since you were on the stand? A. I have not. Q. How can you state better to-day than you did yesterday? A. Because J saw and read that order as You Teported. ve it yourself? A. Idid. R And you ie eae what it was by reading it than when you testified to it? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you sre s0x0 the words were “charge of?!” A. “Take cl Q. And the ‘times when you reported to him that Stanton would not go out—refused to go out— each time he said “charge of the office?” A. He did. Nee goe atteption at the time he said that to the difference between the beg ye cl of the office” and ‘take mn of bt”? A. My attention was not called to it. . How, then, do you recollect so distinctly now? A use I know that was the expression. ae Aspe he) always known that was the expres- mn es, sir. Q How, then, did you come tomake that mistake? A. I think the words were put into my mouth. “Put into mouth’ just as Mr. Karsener did? sir. 1¢ habit when marnecy ats words of taking them? A, I don’t know am always in the habit of it. After you and er were summoned here as witnesses did you go and quarrel with him? A. I had some words with him in the room here adjoin- (indicating the door behind him). Did you call him a@ liar and perjurert A. (promptly) I did. (Laughter.) 2 Liar ane pete A. I think I did both. I did certainly @ liar. And a perjurer? A, I think it is probable I Q. You knew that you and he were both in the wit- ness room waiting to be called? A. I did. . And you knew he was here for that purpose? A. juppose I did. os And while he was there you undertook to talk to him about his testimony? A. I stated to him in two instances—I will give them to you. Mr. BUTLER—Answer my question, I asked you the question whether you undertook to talk to about the testimony? A. I don’t know who intro- OE Certainly it. Did he? A. . inly not you speak first, or That I don’t recollect. Q. Did you tell him that he wag a liarand a perjurer atthat time? A. I did tell him he wasa liar; Imay have said he wasa perjurer. Q. Did you offer violence tohim? A. I did not, ex- cept in that way. (Laughter.) a Were yon then in full uniform? A. As I am now; in a major general's uniform. . Another question I want to ask you which was omitted. Do you still intend to take charge or ne the office of Secretary of War? A. (1 * .) 0. . Have you sald, sir, to any mn, within a few days, that “we will have that fellow (meaning Stan- ton) out if it sinks the ship?’ Did you say so to Mr, Johnson? A. I did not. Q. Anything to that effect? A. Not that I have recollection of. Do you know whether you did or not? A. What Mr. Johnson do you mean? Mr. BuTLER—D. B. Johnson? A. There wasa Mr. Johnson came to see me at my house in reference to another matter; we may have had some conversa- tion about it. Q. When was that that Mr. Johnson came to your rir eer — ; hardly wee i 1 ut how long ago? A. I am trying to recol- lect now. He came to me about the business of — 9 Never mind what the business was; what'was said? A. I want to call itto mind. I have aright to do that, I think. it. Ys, Q. But not to state A. (after & panse) I can bey ty) but recently, not New & long ago. ithin two or three days? No, sir. Before that—within a week? A. I think it is me nett e give you date—as Frid: eek? A. I me give youa we a ce ek that. od oo Was tel than that? A. I did not chi as not cl my bemetian with it? It was a family conversation that we * OF ‘Were you jokingthen? A. Certainly. (Laugh- . You were joking, were you? A. Yes. Did you jokingly or otherwise use these words, “We will have Stanton out if we have to sink the ship?’ A. I have no recollection of using any such expression. ci Did you make use of expression equivalent toit? A. I have no recollection of it. Q. Have you such recollection of what ee did say as to know what you did not ? A, [have not; I would rather Mr. Johnson would testify himself as to that you said so? A. Well, I won't the conversation. Q. Do Pe de deny it, use I don’t know that I did. (Laughter.) & You say you would rather he would testify. We will try and oblige you in that respect; but if you did say 80 was it true or merely brag? A. You may call it what you n please, What do you call it? A. I do not call it brag. What was it? A. It was a mere conversation, whatever was said. me Ts you ga what baler coy . in IT did not ean to use any violence against Mr. ton aah ena Si y you mean by the ression that you would have him out if you had to sink the ship? < i that I do not know that I used that expres- sion. Mr. BUTLER—We will show that by Mr. Sonn- son; but I am assuming that you did use it, and ask you what meaning did you have? Mr. EvakTs.—You have no right to assume that Mr, Johnson will testify to that, He has not said so % Goal ° ‘Witness—T cannot say what the conversation was; Mr. Johnson was then on official business connected with the dismissal of an officer from the army. Mr. BUTLER—Then you were joking on the subject? A. Certainly. Q. Did you ever see Mr. Johnson before? A, 140 not recollect. Possibly I may have seen him before. Q. Have you ever seen him? A, Possibly not. Not to my knowledge. ‘Here was a stranger who called upon you on oficial business, and did you go to joking with him in that way? A. Not a total stranger; [knew him as the lawyer employed by Colonel Belger to have him reinstated. Q. Who was a stranger to you? A. I think he was, oe did you go to joking with a stranger on Po subject? A. Certainly; we had quite a familiar Q. And that is the only explanation yon can give of that conversation? A. It is sufficient, I think. Q. Sufficient or — is it the only answer you can give? A. It is the only one I do give. Q. And is it the only one you can give? A. Yes. Q. Did anybody talk to you about your testimon since you left the stand yesterday? A. I suppose have talked with a dozen persons. C Such as whom? A. Several persons met me and said they were very glad to hear my testimony; 1 was met to-day ha several who spoke to me jocu- larly about my taking an equal rank with the Secre- bo a4 War; I have talked with my own family about it. Q. Has anybody talked with you about this point— when you changed your testimony? A. I came here this morning and saw the Managers, and told them, Mr. BUTLER—You don't mean the Managers ? Mr. Evarts suggested that he meant the counsel for the President. » Witness—I meant the counsel for the President. Mr. BUTLER—Did you talk with anybody before that On these points? A. Yes. Q. With whom? A, With General Townsend, this morning. Q. The Assistant Adjutant General? A, Yes, q Anybody elise? A, No. Qa ae you sure? A. Ihave said no; I am sure, er.) id you not receive a letter—a copy order—from Mr. Stanton on the 2ist of February? A. I did not. a You said yesterday that he gave you the origi- J Haye you seen that original since? A. I have Q. The date was noted on the original? A. Yes, Q. When was that original given you? A. The one Tread here was given the 22d of February, It was handed to General Townsend and he made a copy. Q. That was on the 22d? A. It was dated the 2ist. “ It was prepared the day before? A. I suppose Q. Do you mean to take all back that was said in General Schriver’s room about your not going on with the office, or about their not obeying you on the after- hoon of the 2ist? A. Oh, yes. It was the 22d, I think. General Townsend was in there on the 2ist, Q. On the 2ist there was nothing said about any one obeying yout ‘ I think not. Q, Was there anything said about not obeyin, att@iaknoe waevapne Q. There was nothing said about not obeying you on the 2istatali’ A. | think not, Q. And you never reported to the President that Stanton said on the 2ist he would not obey you? A, I reported tothe President the two conversations I had with him. Q. Then ou the 21st there was no such conversation fa you testified to? A, Not in reference to that. . Was there any conversation at all as to General Townsend not obeyinu you on the Zist? A. None Q. Then when you told us yomeraay that you re- ported that to the President, and that you got his answer to it—all that was not so? Witns with emphasis)—Al) that was not so, . Now lor another matter. When were you ex- amined before the committee? A. What committee? 1 have been examined twice. Q. You were examined before the committee of the House, not the Managers, and in answer to this question, “Did you make arly report on Friday of What had transpired?’ did you not use these words:—* Yes, 3; 1 saw the sident, and told him what had occurred; he ‘Well, go along and administer the Department.’ When 1 stated what ad occurréd with Mr. Stanton, he saia to me:—You must just take jon of the department and carry on the business.’ Did you not swear that before the committee? A. 1 say, as I said before, that I was mistaken then. Q. That is not the question. The question is, did you swear it? A, If that is there I suppose I swore it. Q. Was it trae? A. No; I never used the words together. I wish to make one statement in reference to oa very Bing was ones oa hastily; a great many even: trans] 3 1 requ on two occasions that the committee would let me wait and consider; the committee refused, and would not let me and pressed me with questions, Mr. BUTLER—How is that? A. When I was called before that committee on the evening of the trial—— Mr. BUTLER (interrupting)—February 26? Witneas—Yes. I went there after pee through that trial; and on two occasions I requested the committee to posmons the examination until the next morni until I could go over the matter, but that was not allowed me. Did you make any such request? A.I did, ice. Q. From whom? A, From those who were there, The I think, was iy full. I do not know whether Mr. Stevens was there; he was there @ portion of the time, but Ido not know whether he ‘Was there at that pares time. Q. Do you tell the Senate on your oath that you requested the committee to give you time to answer 8 ener and that the committee refused? A. I juested that the examination ht be deferred ‘until the next morning, when I could have an op] tunity to go over the matter in my own mind. That was not There was not arefusal made, but - Lwas pressed with questions. ‘Then there is another matter that I want to say. I came in to correct that teal because there are two things conf in I founded Pra a Bs to the date of my appointment as pointment as mix I went there to correct the testimony I was told to read it over. I found this mi and I found that some of it was not English; I thought something was taken down, too, that did not say. The committee *would not permit me to correct the manuscript; but I put the correction on the bottom, just in a hasty way, and I sappiee it is on that paper that you hold in or hans . BUTLER—We will come to that, Have you got through with your statement? Witness—I have. Mr. BuTLER—Very well; did you not come and ask to see your testimony as it was taken down by the committee? A. I went to the clerk and saw him. Q Did he bgive you the report which Ihold in my hand? A. He was notin the first time, and I came the next day; that day he handed itto me, and he went twice, 1 think, to some member of the commit- tee—I do not know who—for instruction; I said that I wanted to make the report decent English, and I wanted to know whether I could not correct the manuscript, Q. And he reported to you that you might make your corrections in writing? A. Yes. Q. Did you read the whole testimony over? A. I think I did; I am not certain. . Do you not know that you did? A, No, Ido not know that I did. Q. What did you come for? A. I came to correct this first portion of it particularly; that was the rea- son I went there. Did you want to correct any other portion of it? A. No. 3 And the first part only referred to a mistake as to the time about your mixing up the SL etn of Adjutant General and Secretary of War ad inte- rim? A. I had reference to a notification given tome. Q. By the President to be Secretary of War or Adju- tant General? A. That was mixed up. I stated that I received that notification from Colonel Moore. Colonel Moore did give me notification that I would probably be put back as Adjutant General, but he did not give me notification that I would probably be ap- ted Secretary of War. Q. And it was that that you wished to correct? A. That was the principal correction. Q. You did not wish to correct hrf else? A, If anything else was wrong I did. I wis! to correct errors, whatever they might be. x5 You then went over your testimony and cor- rected such portions as you pleased? A. I had the privilege to do that, of course. Q. And you wrote out here on portions of two sheets your corrections? Is this El handwriting ? vot Sha you magnate Tyorense ‘Themas, Adjutant . ou $ nz0 Thor jutan aeheral ? ates: cae Q. Now, hai read over your testimony, did you correct any’ that portion of it where you are reported a8 saying that the President ordered you to go forthwith and take possession and administer the office. A. I do not think I made any such correction as that. % You swear that that was not true? A. I have Bald 80. Q Why didn’t you correct it? A. I have thought the matter over since. Re-direct examination by Mr. STANBERY:— . 1 find in the report of your testimony given yes- tel ~¢ that in your original examination you were asked this question, “ What occu between the President and yourself at the second interview on the 21st of February?” Your answer given is this—— Witness—I stated to the President that I had deliv- ered the communication, and that he gave this an- sewer, Mr. STANBERY—What answer? Witness—The answer, “Do you wish me to vacate at once, or will you give me ie to take private property?’ and that I answered, y! pleasure.” Ithen stated that after dellvering the copy of the letter to him he said, “I do not know whether I will obey your instructions or it them.’? This I mentioned to the President. His answer was, “Very well; goon and take charge of the office and perform the duties.” var “9 aacdaaieaga the President say that? A. ‘es, sir. ‘ Mr, BuTLER—Then you mean to far in answer to Mr. Stanbery, that you got it all right, and that in answer to me you got it all wrong? A. Yes; in reference to your examination. Mr. BUTLER—That is all. Mr. STaNBERY intimated that counsel would again call General Thomas, after they got in some record evidence. Mr. BuTLER said they might call him any time. EXAMINATION OF LIEUTENANT-GENERAL SHERMAN, Lieutenant-General W. T. Sherman, who a in the undress uniform of his rank, was next and examined by Mr. Stanbery. Were you in Washington last winter? A. I was. . What time did you arrive here? A. About the an tow lone dll hee? A. Two . How lor you iths—until the 3d or 4th remap bee \ |. On what business did you come here? A. I came as @ member of the Indian Peace Commis- ‘Q Had you other business here at that time? A. No other business at that time. Subse: quently, by order, Ao ged Finan Sop om- cers, organized under W of gress, to make articles of war and lations for the army. Q. What date was that assignment? A. pro- cure the order, which will be perfect evidence as to date. It was within ten days of my arrival here. I ———— 2 think it was about the middle of mber that the order was issned. = Then re had a double duty? A. I had a double duty for a few days. 5 that time, from the 4th of December to the 3d or 4th of February, had you several interviews with the ey 1 A. I did. Q. Did you see him alone when there were no ‘- sons present but the President and yourself, A. Yes. Q Did a see him also in company with General Grant? A. I saw him in company with General Grant once, and I think twice. Q. Had you several interviews with him in refer- ence to the case of Mr. Stanton? A. I had. Mr. BiInNcHaM—We desire without delay t fully to submit our objections to this, declining, how- ever, to eit. We submit our objection, believ- ing. fod our duty as Representatives of the House to Mr. STANBERY—Objection to what? Mr. BINcHAM—To the declarations of the President touching any matter involved in this issue not made at the time when we have called them out ourselves. They are not competent evidence, Mr. STANBERY—Allow me to come ta some ques- Ganon i i ae upon. ‘aan is merely intro- ye soon see the a nation ot donne Sherine, objectyof the exam. ir. BINGHAM—I understand the «sbject to ore be Mh the Prevost rig ¥ |USTICE—No questi been saked yee q lon of that kind has Mr. BiINGHAM—We understand /¢, Mr. SraNBERY—We will come ‘to that point. To the witnesa—While you were hi sre did the President ask you if you would take char ze of the office of the De} nent of War on the reir oval of Mr. Stanton? TLER—Stop @ mom mt, I object, and ast @ question be reduced to writing. Mr. STANBERY—Do you ¢ ject to the question be- oa is leading, or do you object to it in sub- ce Mr. BUTLER—I object torit for every reason? Pl put at question in we ra Si pipiens f. STANBERY (to the eon intervieway ‘witness)—At what time were — referred to, some memoranda to find the Mr. STANBERY—F a@ you interviews with him be- fore Mr. Sianton ¢' sme Hack into the office, and while General Grant wo g yet in it? A. Yes, sir—of a social nature entirely egore that time. nat. Had you it gerviews with him after that? A, 1 Q. How lon 4 ate 4 v iP ‘The day folic Aaa a 's coming back? A. Q. Were ' ou and the President alone at that inter eae day after? A. General Grant was also . WI id that interview relate to’? K—Stop a moment. Put the question in “— SPANBERY—The question is, what did it relate a ‘7. BUTLER—I object to that. , MM STANBERY (to Witness)—Well then, did it re- } ate to the vceupation of tie War Department by Mir, Santon? A, it did O Now what wae itt Mr. BUTLER—Stop a moment, I object to that, Put your question in writing. Q. What conversation passed between you and the Presiden .? Mr. BUTLER—Excuse me, I asked to have the question in writing. The Cuizr Justice—The counsel will please put the question in writing. ‘The question was reduced to writing, as follows: “At that interview what conversation took place between the President and you in reference to the removal of Mr, Stanton ?? Mr. BUTLER—To that we object. I suppose we can agree as to the date; it was the 14th of January. On the 13th Mr. Stanton was reinstated, and the 14th was the day after. Mr. STANBERY (to witness)—Can you give us the date of that conversation? A, According to a mem- orandum which Ihold, Mr. Stanton was reinstated in mn of his office as Secretary of War on Tues- , the 18th of January, and the conversation oc- curred on Wednesday, the 14th. The CuigF Justick—The Chief Justice thinks the question admissible within the principle of the de- cision already made by the Senate; but he will be Pleased igo the question to the Senate. Senator Conness demanded the yeas and nays on admission of the question. Mr. STANBERY rose to argue the point. He said:— The counsel for the President ask merely to state the und on which they claim to put this question. ley expect to prove by General Sherman—— . BUTLER (interrupt I object to 2008 stat! that. I did not ask that. That is an attempt to get before the court—I mean before the Senate—the tes- mony bs the statement of counsel. The question noly.] whether the declarations of the President can be given in evidence. What these declarations are it would be improper to state, because that would be ig the whole question and attempt to get them in in that way by a recital of the counsel The whole question is whether any declarations of the President can be competent evidence; therefore there be conasion me what the conv _ a ir. STANBERY—Do you propose to argue it now Mr. BUTLER—We do not want to acetate Mr. STANBERY—Then I will. Mr. O) the testimony which we expect to elicit from General Sherman I look upon as admissible, and as testimony which we are entitled to have, upon: grounds perfectly weli understood and an- swerable. I presume I can'say in ent what we set toprove. First of all, what is shown here? is the point which gentlemen assume to make against the dent ? t the gentlemen speak for themselves. First, I received from the honorable Manaeee yrno cyened Miie-cane (hae $f of his argu- ment):— Having shown that the President wilfully violated an act of Congress without justification, both in the removal of Stan- ton and the appointment of Thomas for the purpose of obtaining wrongfully the possession of the War Olilce, by force, 1 heed dhe, and certainly by intimidation, for the pur- ose of controlling its appropriations through ‘ts ad interim ghlet who, shall say that Andrew, Johnaon Je not gu crime and misdemeanors charged first elght articles? Then on page 109, speaking of the orders of remo- val, he says:— ‘These and his concurrent acts show conclusively that his attempt to get the control of the military force of the govern- ment by the seizing of the Department of War was done in pursuance of bie ceneral design, if t were posible to over. row the Cengress of the Snited States; and he now claims by his answer the right to control {t by his own will, for the execution of the very design, and every officer of the army, navy, civil and diplomatic service of the United States. ‘Then on page 99 he says:— Falling in ity of ithe his attempt to get full possession of the office through the Senate, be had determined, as he admits, to re- move Mr. Stanton at all hazards, and endeavored to prevail on the General to aid him in doing 80. He declines. For that the respondent q ith him, denounces him in the ewspapers and accuses him of bad faith and, untruthful- eas. | Thergupon, asserting his prerogative, of Commander- In-Chtef, he creatés a new Mil jepartment of the lantic. ‘He attempts to bribe Lieutenant General Sherman to take command of {t by promotion to the rank of general by brevet, trust “his military services would compel the that Senate to confirm him. If the réspondent can get a general by brevet Spapt! he can then by a simple order put him on duty {ing to his brevet rank, and thus have a general of the army in command at Washington, through whom he a a his orders, oa comply Links| os ane not dare transgress, as he had aj and get rid of the General = Pape The dent, Matiisccanest copeintet Maier Ge a rf respondent ‘appointed Major General George H. Thomas, ‘to the same brevet rank, but Thomas declin What stimulated the ardor of the President just at that time— three the war closed; but just after the Senate bad reinstated Stanton—to rew; military service by the appointment of generals by brevet? Why did his zeal of promotion take that form and no other Other meritorious office: set as he had quarrelled, either by force or fraud, either In conformity with orin spite of the act of Congress, and control the military power of the country. On the 2ist of February—for all these ‘events cluster nearly about the same point of time—he ap- points Lorenzo Thomas Secretary of War and orders Stanton ‘out of the office. Stanton refuses to go; Thomas {a about the declaring that he will put him out by force, “kick him out.” He has caught his master's word. Still more clearly to the point 4s the at reference to the admission of Mr. Chand! mony, which we find on Mr. Cooper to show President to t Mr. Chandler into the Treasury ment, in the carrying out of his fan cade, by controlling the re- e) quisitions of the Treas trolling the purse as well as the sword of the nation. “The only question is," says the learned Manager, ‘4 this competent if we can show it was one of the ways and means?” The difficulty that rests in the minds of my learned friends on the other side is that ee cluster everything about the 2ist of February, 1868. They seem to forget that the act of the 2ist of February, 1868, was only the culmination of a purpose formed long before, as, in the President’s answer, he sets forth—to wit, as early as the 12th of a 1967. To carry it out there are various things to do. le must t control But what good does that do if he cannot get somebody who shall be his servant, his slave, og rp on his breath to answer the requisi- tions of his pseudo oMcer whom he may appoint? and therefore he began when Stanton was sus- — and as early asthe 12th of December. He ad got to put that sus] jon and the reasons for it before the Senate, and he knew it would not live there one moment after it got fairly considered. Now he begins. What is.the first thing he does? “To get somebody in the Treasury Department that will mind me precisely as Thomas will, if I can get him in the War Department.” That is the first thing; and thereupon, without any vacancy, he must make an appointment. The diMeuity t we find is that we are obliged to argue our case, step by step, upon a single point of evidence. It is one of the in- felicities always of putting in @ case that sharp, keen, ingenious counsel can ins! it all steps on im- pas you upon a point of evidence, and, refore, have Got to proceed a little further. Now, our evi- dence, if you allow it to come in, is, first, that he made this appointment; that this failing he sent it to the Senate, and Cooper was rejected. Still deter- mined to have Cooper in, he appointed him ad inte- rum, precisely as this ad @ im was appointed, without law and against right. We put itas a part of the whole machinery 4 which to get hold, to fe Te ment in ler’s testi- if he could, his hand in the Treasury of the Uni States, although Mr. Chandler has just stated {| was no way to i it except a in thro the War 7 al ie same Momeht, to shoW that this was a part of the same fle Cg te we show you that although Mr. Me h, rel of Treasury, must have kpown that Thomas was appointed, yet the Presi- dent took pains (we have put it in the ) to serve on Mr. McCulloch an attested copy of the porns ment of Thomas ad interim in order that he and Cooper might ize his warrants. This is to recogn! show that the intention of the President begun as early as the 12th of August, 1867; that it was pro- genes in by the appointment of Mr. Cooper in the I of 1867, gor rough all the subsequent time until it at last culminated,” say the gentlemen, “on the 2ist of Feb by the President finding the r tool to put in the War Office.” Accord- Tngto this argument he was looki for a r tool, for a servant, for one who would do his ling; and after that search they say he found the proper one in @ person whom they have called “ea — c Mr. one Lay: ice and Sena- tors, especially those of you who are lawyers, what case yn pting to make against the Presi- aent? Not yd a he did certain acts? That does not make him guilty. But he did those acts with an unlawful intent and criminal ‘mey do not, therefore, attempt to prove at i & presumption of criminal intent. This being to, whet’ is to rebut this pre- sumption? When a prosecution is allowed to raise presumption of the intent of the acts by proving cir- cumstances may not that presumption be rebutted by proof of other circumstant tw show that the accused had no such intention? ‘a8 anything ever plainer than that? Consider in what attitude the ron is charged with ing counterfeit money. ‘ou must prove his intent; you must prove circa stances from which the presumption arises that he knew that the bill was a counterfelt bill; that he had been told s0, that he had seen other money of the same kind; and you must inthis way raise the pre- sumption of a criminal intent. How may he rebut that presumption? Inthe first place, he may do it by proving @ good character, and that is allowed to rebut a presumption of guilt. Not that he did what was right in that transaction; not that he did certain things or made certain declarations about the same time which explain that his intent was honest; but going beyond that and through the whole field of presumption, he may rebut the pre- sumption of guilt by proof of general good clar- acter. Mr. BuTLeR—I have no objection to your proving good character. ir. STaNBERY—You would admit such general proof as that, and yet you object to this. Now, what evidence can be given against a person charged with acrime where it is necessary to make out intent against him, and when the intent is not positively roved by his own declarations, but is to be gathered yy proot of other facta? What was allowed against him to. raise the presumption of uit? Proof of the facts from which the mind itself infers guilt intended, But when the prosecution may make such @ case against him by such testi- mony, Why may he not rebut the case by exactly the same sort of testimony? If it is a declaration on which they rely a8 made by him at one time, may he not meet it by declarations made about the same time, in reference to the same transaction? They can be too remote, [ admit; but if they are about the same time, if they are connected with the tran- sactions, then’ the declarations of defendant, from which the inference of innocence is to be presumed, are just as admissible aa his declarations frot which the rosecntion has attempted deduce the inference of guilt, In this ection Mr. Stanbery read from the State trials in the case of Lord Hardy, quoting the remarks of Mr. Erskine, who defended Hardy, and in which refer: ence was made to other celebrated cases, including those of Lord George Gordon and Lord William Rus- sell, Having finished his citations Mr, Stanbery proceeded to say We vronnae to prove that, 80 far from there being any intent on the part of the Presi- dent to select a tool to take possession of the War Office, he asked first the General of the army, General Grant, to take possession, and next the most honored soldier of the army, General Sherman. The Manager who opened the case charged that the President was looking out for @ tool; that he was looking to find @ man who could take a bribe by a brevet rank, and that he did find such @ tool in the person of General Thomas “ a di officer.” Weill, if that was his intent, then it mast have been with the same intent that the President would ~~ General Sherman in the office before he thought of Thomas or any other subordinate, It must have been with the same intent that he would take one of the most honored officers in the land and ask him to come in and take the office, not to carry it on as he had carried on the trusted ani honored man—but to become a tool and @ subor- dinate, Will the Managers dare to hat? Would the President in the Place have to make such a proposition to such a man as General Thomas? they raise a presumption that he intended to carry out an unlawful act by ap- inting General’ Thomas, how does tt Bapnen + they will not give him benefit of the presumption aris! from his intent to get Such @ man as meral Thomas to take the office? A man who would not be made a tool? Take the case, for instance, of Lord George Gor- don, who was indicted for a treasonable speech made upon a ce! day before a certain association. He Was allowed to go into prone, Funsing. duro a Period of two years before, to w thatin meet of that same association, instead of encouraging a rising and insurrection, he had set his face against it. rd George Gordon went back two years; but’ we propose to start from the very time that the Man- agers have fixed. We do not ask to give testimony as to the President's declarations or the President's except as to acta which the re have brought forward to raise a presumption of guilt. acts began, they say, in the fall of 1867, with the appointment of Mr.Cooper. The conversation, we propose fopnore, took lace in the subsequent winter, right in the middle of transaction. Do we want to show by the fact of his declarations to General Sher- man at that time that he was.seeking for an honor- able and high minded soldier to do what was unlaw- fal? No, but to do that which the President believed to be lawful. We will show you that he asked Gen- eral Sherman to take that ot on the removal of Mr, Stanton. Mr. BUTLER rose to object to Mr. Stanbery’s relat. bs, Aig) he intended to prove. ir. ‘ANBERY, byign a yield, said:—I insist npon it asa right. If the Senate choose to stop me I will stop; but I hope I shall be allowed to state what we expect to prove. I have been too long at the bar not to know that I havea perfect right to do i The rmay answer my argument; but I 0) pe he will not stop it, , BUTLER—If you look in the book of State which you hold in your hand, you will find that Mr. Erskino stop] an advocate, in the same case, who was pi to state what he intended to prove. . STANBERY—I have been saying what J shall expect to prove; but the gentleman, taking me up, does not know what he says. He puts an intent in my mind which I have not got, as he has a vei faculty for putting intents in other men’s min expect to show that the President not only asked General Sherman to take this office, and that he told him Cena what his purpose was, and that it was to put the office in such a@ situation as to drive Mr. Stanton into the courts of law. It is not necessary to argue the case. I ask any lawyer who ever tried a case where the question was one of intention, and where the case against his client was to prove the facts on which a presumption ‘was sought to be raised by the prosecution, whether he may not show contemporaneous facts, covering the same time as those used against him, and decla- rations within the same time as those used against him, and whether he will not be allowed to rebut the geueal presumption of guilt and to show that the tent was fair, honest and lawful? Mr. BUTLER—Mr. President and Senators, I was quite willing to leave this case to the judgment of both lawyers and laymen of the Senate without a word of argument, and I gay speak now to lawyers because the learned counsel for the President empha- Cag word, a8 though ue ae en ected Cones peculiar advantages on spe: lawyers. the rules of evidence are founded on the good sense of mankind as experienced in courts of law has shown what is most likely or most unlikely to be true and to elicit the truth. They address themselves just as much to laymen as they do to lawyers, use there are no gentlemen in the Senate—nay, there are no gentle- men anywhere—who cannot understand the rules of evidence. I agree that I labor, not under any great difficulty in the argument just made, but I do labor under great dimcuity in the opinion of the presiding officer and in his deciding, without argument, that in his opinion the question comes within the ruli of yesterday. If itdid Ishould not have trouble the Senate, because I have long since learned to bow to all decisions of the trib before which I act; but this is entirely another and a different case. What {a the exact question? It is, “In the interview—to wit, on the 14th of January—what conversation took place between the President and you in reference to the removal of Mr. Stanton? hat conversation ¢ They do not ask for acts. How is this offer of evi- dence attempted to be supported?’ I agree that the first part of the argument made by the learned At- torney General was the very best one he ever made in his life, because it consisted in his merely reading what I had said. (Laughter.) Ihavea right to say so without any immodesty, because he adopted all that I said, which is one of the highest compli- ments ever paid to me. (Laughter.) I thought it was a good argument at the time I made it, and I hoped to convince the Senate that I was right tn it, but failed. If the argument can do any better now in the mouth of the Attorney General, I desire to see the result. I was arguing about putting the Presi- dent's acts before the Senate, in his appointing mr. Cooper, and I tried im every way to con vince the Senate that it ee to admit them, but the Senate decided an almost solid vote that it would not. My argument failed to convince you. Will it do any better when read by the musical voice of my friend from Ohio? (Laugh- ter.) Ithink not. The point then was that 1 was trying to prove not a declaration of Mr. Johnson, but an act, Here they offer his declarations. The Senate decided that we could not put in any acts ex- cept such as were charged in the articles, 'e do not charge in the articles any attempt on the part of Mr. Johnson to bribe or to find a tool in the gentleman now on the stand, for whom we all have such a — respect. I do not think that we have that apprecia- tion of him. What do we charge? We charge that he used the man who was on the same stand an hour before as a tool, and judge ye whether he is not, on his appear- ‘ance here, a fit instrument. Judge ye, judge e. You saw him a weak, vacillating, vain old man, just fit to be pampered by a little bribe to do the thing which no brave man would dare do. Let me call your attention fora moment to him he ap- peared on the stand yesterday. He was going on that the sopvereat on with Mr. Karsener was play- but when he saw that did not put him in a dig- oe position Be 95 back and told us that he meant to have the office. Mr. Evarts—He stated exactly the contrary. Mr. BuTLeR—He said that he had made up his mind to use force. Mr. EVARTS—No; but to break the door, and when he thought of shedding blood he retrac Mr. BUTLER—And he remained of that mind till the next morning. What he found to change his mind in the masquerade ball or elsewhere he has not told us, nor can he tell us when he did change his mind, Pat I pass from that. Now, how is the attempt to be supported? The learned gentleman from Ohio says that in @ counterfeit case you have to prove the scienter acts. How? By showing the of other counterfeit bills. Yes, but, gentle- men, did you ever hear in the case of counterfeiters the counterfeiter prove that he did not know that the bill was bad by proving that at some other time he passed a one. We try the counterfeit bill, whieh ‘we nailed to the counter on the 2ist of Febru- ary, and in order to prove that Mr. Johnson did not issue it he wants to show that he passed @ good bill on the lth of January. It does not take any longer to understand that that is the exact proposition. What is the next ground that it is put upon? But before I pass from that, I will say further, we proved that the counterfeiter assed a bad bill. Iam following the illustration of he learned counsel before me, and he proposes to prove that at some other time he told somebody else— @ good man—that he would not pass bad money, and you are asked to admit that evidence. Is there any authority brought for it? No. What is the next ground on which it is put? The next ground is that it is competent, in order to show Andrew Johnson's character, Jf they put that in testimony, I will open thé door wide £ have no objection whatever that they shall offer it. (Laughter.) 1 will take evidence of his character, as to his loyalty, patriotism or any other matter that they may wish to prove to you; but how do they propose to prove good character? By showing what he said to another gen- tleman. Did you ever bave a character proved in that way, lawyers of the Senate? A man’s character is at issue, and he calls upon his neighbor and asks him to state what he himself told him of his cha- racter. That is not the way to prove character. Cha- racier is proved by general repyte in the community. ‘The learned counsel for the President then went on to quote from Lord Hardy's case. Now, I have never before seen cited in the course of a trial the argument of the counsel, thought that was never part of the record. Am I not right in that, lawyers of the Senate? And yet for page after page the counsel read the argument of Mr. Erskine, who was going as far as he could to save the life of his client. He cites that as @ precedent. So unprofes- sional an act I never knew, Mr. STANBERY (interrupting)—T read, and I wish the gentleman to attend to what lL now say—I read omy somuch of the argument of Mr. Erskine as showed the application of the case, . Mr. BuTLEN—L attended with care. I haa tho book in my hand and | followed the gentleman and the argument of the counsel in the case, only it was read by him. Now, what was the question there? It was:—What were the public declarations of Hardy? He was accused of having made a series of speeches which were held to be treasona- bie, and then the question was, What was his character as @ loyal man? and on that te ques- tion arose, and after argument it came down to this:—*‘After all that you have seen of him, what is his character for sincerity and trath?? Answer—“I have every reason to believe him a simple, sincere, honest man.’ The Attorney General then satd:— “If that had been stated at first, I do not see what possible objection there could have been to it.” And 80, if counsel will ask General Sherman, or any- body else, “What is Andrew Johnson’s character for sincerity and truth?’ I will not object, | assure you, (Laughter.) Now, what was Lord George Gordon's case? Lore orge Gordon was accused of treason, in leading a mob of Protestants against the Houses of Parliament, and tho cries the mob made. nublicty aud oveniy. were allowed to be 3 nt in evidence against him asa purt ofthe res geste, ‘ne defence was Insanity on the part of Lord George Gordon, and on that defence and on the whole case they went into the widest possibie range of evidence. Let the counsel in this case come on and plead that Andrew Johnson is insane, and we shall go into ail his conversatians to see if they were the act of asane man, but not otherwise. ‘The counsel then went into the Lord William Russell case, ‘That cage was one of those so eloquently denounced by the tle- man who opened for the President y ley as one of the cases of the Plantagenets and Tudors which he would not appeal to for authority, and they have to pick into these cases which yesterday they were to aside, The question there was, What was Lord William Russell’s character for loyalty? The answer was, “ ‘ How long have you known him? Ihave known him for along time. Did you ever hear him expreas him- self against the King and the government? No. Did you ever hear him express himself in favor of ingur- rection? No. That is precisely the evidence and the man’s character given, They were not arguing as to What Lord Russell said, but they were often told that he did not say anything treasonable. A, ‘ain, let me call your attention to another point on which thig is pressed, and it seems to be the strong point in the case, because my friend says it is vital, hoping, I suppose, to affright you from your propriety, Wine it is @ very important matter, you must pardon me for ing it at some length. Mr. STANBERY—The gentleman has fallen into an error in referring to my citation. Mr, BuTLER—I cannot allow you to interpolate any rel Mr. STANBERY—One moment if you please. Mr. BuTLER—I cannot spare @ moment for that pur- pose. Now then, Senators, what is the other point? and that is the only one I feel ene onto about. It is that some gentleman may think that this question comes within the ruling of the Senate of yesterday. Yesterday we objected to the dent's declarations after we said the conspinagy culminated, but the Senate decided that it be tin. Now, however, they pro} to go @ month prior to that time. We offered prove what Mr. and what Mr. Cooper was doing in December, .show the President's bad intent at that time; but the Senate of the United States ruled it out, and now the counsel! for the President propose to show what he satd to General Sherman in December. It has been re- marked that [have said the President was seeki foratool. Ihave sald so. At the same time I sai he never found one in General Sherman. What I do say is this, and what will supean © you and the country—that Mr. Johnson was seeking for some- body be whom he might get Mr. Stanton out. First he tried General Grant, then he tried General Sher- man, knowing that General Sherman, not wish- ing to have the cares of office, would be ready to get rid of them at sy time, and then the President could get in somebody else, He began with General Grant, and went down through Grant and Sherman, and from Sherman to General G. H. Thomas, and then down, down, down ‘until he got to General Lorenzo Thomas. Now, they Want to prove that because the President did not find a tool in General Sherman, therefore he did not find one in General Thomas. jose two things do not hold together. Does it convince you that be- cause he did not find a proper man to be made aad tnterim Secretary and to sit in his Cabinet ad in- terim in General Sherman, that therfore “he did not find the proper man in General Thomas? Then as to the vehicle of proof. They do not propose to prove this by his acts. I am willing that they should put in any act of the President about that time, or prior to it, or since, although the Senate ruled out an act which I offered to poe But how do they propose to prove it? By a conversation between the President and General Sherman. I know, Senators, that you are a law unto yourselves, and that you have aright to admit or reject any testimony; but you have no right to override the principle of justice and equity and allow the case of the people of the United States to be prejudiced by the proof of the criminal made in his own defence before the acts done which the people complain of. If they have aright to put in Byidence @ conversation with General Sherman, have they not a right to put in evidence the conversation of the President with reporters and correspondents, and call “Mack” and “John,” and “Joe” and “J. B.S.” as witnesses I think there is no law which makes the President's conversations with General Sherman any more competent than his conversations with any other man. And where are ron going to bi tbs you admit it? They will get the forty, the sixty, the ninety or a hundred days that they asked for by simply reporting the President's conversations, for | thin! may 83} without offence that he ts a great conversationalist We will have reporters an‘ everybody else to tell us about what he has said, Allow me to say one thing further. I stated that I did not think it right for the learned counsel to state what he expected to peers. and in order to prevent his stating ft said that he might imagine any ible conversation. I thought it an unprofessional thing that he should go on and state what he expe to prove, and I sald if he would examine the book he held in his hand, he would find that in Hardy’s case the Attorney General of England offered to read a letter found in ee possession, and began to read it, when Mr. Erskine objected, and said, ‘You must not read it until it is allowed and given in evidence.” The Attorney Gen- eral said he wished the court to understand what the letter was. Mr. Erskine said it could not be read for that purpose. ‘The counsel for the President stated in this cage that he wanted to show that the Presi- dent had tried to get this officer of the army to take possession of the War Department, so that he could t Stanton out. That 1s what we charge. e charge that he would take anybody or do any thing to get Stanton out. That is the very thing we chat He would be glad to get General Sherman, or glad to get General Grant tn, and, failing in both and failing in Major General George H. Thomas, the hero of he took Lorenzo Thomas to get Stanton out. What for? In order, says the Attor- ney General, to drive Stanton into the courts, He knew, what his counsel knew, that Stanton would not go into the courts to get back the office. There ig no process by which Mr. Stanton could, through the courts, be reinstated in his office. I think they will find it difficult to show that where a general law applies to States and Territories of the United States it does not also apply to the District of Colum- bia, Now, then, the simple question, aud the only one in which you are expected to rule, is whether the conversations of the President with General Sherman are evidence, and if they are evidence, why are not all the conversations which he has had at any time, with anybody, evidence? Where is the dis- tinction to be drawn? Mr. EvarTs—Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, as questions of ordinary propriety have been raised and been discussed at some length by the learned Man- ager, allow me to read from page 108 of the record of this trial on this question of stating what 1s to be roved. Pir. Manager BUTLER—The object is to show the intent and purpose with which General Thomas went to the War De- partment on the morning of the 224 of February; that he ent with the intent and purpose of taking possesst force; that he alleged that intent and purpose; that in quence of that allegation Mr. Burletgh tuvited General Moor- ‘and went up to the War Office. The conversation which Texpect to prove ls this:—After the President of the Unitedt iree- States had appointed General Thomas and given tions to take the War Oflice, and after he tad uiet, visit there on the 2st, on the evening of the 2l Mr. Burleigh that the’ next he was 40 take ponsession by force. Mr. Burlelh eaid to him— ‘Mr. STANBERY—No matter about that, We object to that testimony. *'Mr. Manager BUTELRR—You do not know what you object to if you do not hear what I offer. Mr. BUTLER made some remark to the effect that Mr. Evarte was misrepresenting bim. Mr. Evants—In the case of Hardy, stated by my tearned associate, I understand the question related exclusively to the introduction of conversation be- tween the accused and the witness profeased|ly ante- cedent to the period of the all treason, and even that was allowed. And now, Mr. and Senators, asto the merits of this question o! evidence, this isa very peculiarjone. Whenever evidence 1s stated to be made applicable to it, then it 1s a crime of the narrowest dimensions and of the most puny proportions. It consists for its complete- ness, for ite guilt, on the delivery of a writen paper lent. to General Thomas to be com- m the Secretary of ‘ar, that noe, if hone! to a valid law, and if done with intent to violate that law, may be punished by @ fine of six cents. That is the mere imensions of a mere technical statutory offence, and it is concluded within the mere act of the delivery of the paper, unattended ll ee public consequence, which should bring it into judgment here. But when we come tothe magnificence of the accusation, as found on page seventy-seven, we will see what it is. ‘We suggest, therefore, that we are in the presence of the Senate of the United States convened as a consti- tutional tribunal to inquire into and determine whether Andrew Johnson, because of malversation in office, is longer fit to retain the office of Presi- dent of the United States or hereafter to hold any office of honor or profit. On page 97 we come a little nearer, and I beg the attention of Senators to what is said there bearing upon this question, However, it may be said that’the President removed Mr, Stanton for the very purpose of testing the constitutlonallty of this law before the courta, and the question is, will you con- demn him for a crime for so doing? If this plea were « true fone itonght to avail, but itis a subterfuge, We shall show you that he has taken no step to submit the question to aay court, although more thaa a year las elapsed since the pas sage Of the act. ‘Then upon page 108 we are told:— Upon the first reading of the articles of impeachment the question might bave arisen in the mind of atorn, why are those acts of the Presinent only p y House when history informs us that others ous to the liberties of the people, if not more s ot greater, are iry we reply w Dut the celmination of a f mi usurpations comm! by epondent, any fore, need to be examined in the of his precedent and coucowitaut acts io show thelr i scope andilesign. ; nd history are referred to, Then common fame at h' phn Britist confirmed by citations 240 years o} courts, to show that these are good grounds to pro- ceed upon. Then, bringing this to a head, he rg ‘ Who does not Know that from the'hour he began these ble usurpations of power he everywhere denounced Einarens bn Jogality and consiitional Tis nctions, and deed ie legit mate powers, and for that purpose announced bis fave tes and carried out {ts purpose, as far as be was obit eo of equal usurpation of powers, in silence? Wo auch posnibie net Gut in the first ing every true man {ron ollie who sista: r the United Ktates? And It is to carry 0 his plan of 3 that he claims this ullinate power of removal ‘exercise of which be standa before you t ‘ow, those are the intentions of pubitc inculpation of tne Uhiet Magistrate ed Lay Sy ‘are of t import, from the Inten' ioe fer involving the public taterest and prin- ciples of government, that they are worthy of the at- tention of this great tribunal. If this evidence be pertinent under any one of the eleven articles it is rtinent and admissible now. The speech of At t s, 1400, is alleged as laying the foundation of gal pul which culminated in 1868. Ale ae in t Re unallty which i# made the subject bP CONTINUED ON TENTH PAGE Raitt |