The New York Herald Newspaper, April 14, 1868, Page 3

IMPEACHMENT. Trial of President Andrew Johnson for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Admission of General Sher- man’s Testimony. The President’s Motive in He- moving Secretary Stanton. Manager Butler Rebuked by Sena- tor Johnson, SPECIAL TELEGRAM TO THE HERALD. WasHINGTON, April 13, 1868. In the impeachment proceedings of to-day a por- tion of the morning was consumed debating the question of admitting more than two speeches on either side in the final argument. It was evifent from the manner in which the Senate received the Proposition, and by the vote cast on the mot! of Senator Williams to lay the subject on the » that there is very little disposition to relax the twenty-firat rule and gratify the ambition of those members of the immortal Board of Managers who are anxious that remote posterity should be acquainted with the style of their rhetoric, Another attempt ‘will probably be made to-morrow to modify the rule, but to all appearances it will hardly meet with any better success than the effort of to-day. When this matter was disposed of Mr. Stanbery Made another ineffectual attempt to put a question 3m as to the opinion of the witness (General Sher- map), whether he considered the good of the service required that another man besides Mr. Stanton should be at the head of the War Ofice. Thereupon @ long and lively debate ensued between Messrs. Butler and Bingham on the one side and Messrs, Evarts and Stanbvery on the other. It was the most skilfally conducted discussion on an interlocutory point that has yet occurred. Butler was adroit and argumentative, Bingham plausible and declamatory, Stanbery expostulatory and convincing, and Evarts, as usual, keen, terse and vigorous. Other questions of a substantially similar import were ruled out in turn, and in despair the counsel for the President surrendered their witness, When the Court reassembled General Sherman was recalled, on motion of Reverdy Johnson, and the question put to him by the Senator as to the purpose of the President in offering him the appointment of Secretary of War ad interim. The vote on admitting this question was very close indeed, being twenty- six to twenty-flve—a remarkable and significant change, as the question was intrinsically the same as had been ruled out four times on Saturday and three times to-day. There might have been a feeling of compunction, of pity for the Presidents counsel, who pease at the time General Sherman descended from the witness stand, hopelessly embarrassed in thelr forts to place the President in the light in which he was justly and properly entitled to be Tepresented. However, the ‘‘sober second thought” of the Senate endorsed at last the competency of the question so often put and as oftentimes rejected; and here came the entering wedge the counsel for the defence so gallantly but unsuccessfully struggied to accomplish. The sealed book of their testimony ‘was opened, and with this as a precedent of the competency of such evidence ag throws a light on the motive and object of the accused, they are at liberty now, perhaps, to put forward other evidence which had been threatened with exclusion, calcu- lated to show that the President's intentions were diametrically opposite to what the articles of im- peachment charge him with—the contravention of Jaw and the usurpation of power. ‘The question, being finally allowed, was put to General Sherman amid profound silence in the Senate Chamber. The General threw his head back refiectively for a few moments, then glanced down at a slip of paper before him, and proceeded with cautious and measured accents to state the purpose of his interview with President Johnson. His inter- views with the President being lengthy, embracing Many subjects, and being confined by the question to give a specific answer, he deemed it necessary to state a few preliminary points to place the character of his reply ina clearer light. He began by stating that the President said to him that the relations which had grown up between himself and Secretary Stanton were of such a nature that he could no longer transact oMicial business with the suspended chief of the War Ofiice. Here Mr. Butler objected, and General Sherman became irritated, replying rather sharply that it was essential for him to make one or two preliminary re- marks to come at the gist of his answer. * “The Chief Justice ruled in favor of the witness, and the General proceeded to relate the Preside t's re- Marks as to his purpose in offering hii the War Omce. Every word of tne withess was carefully ut- tered and clearly heard throughout the chamber. His statement was decidedly favorable to the Prest- dent. It disclosed no other purpose on the part of the latter than a desire to get “rid of a troublesome and uncongenial Cabinet counsellor, and to make him seek redress in the Courts, where the constitu- tienality of the law under which he sought to hold oMce despite the wishes of his superior might be tested. As the President's counsel did not recall the wit- nese they deemed it their right to put a question to hum now, as the door had been opened for just such testimony as they had hitherto been seeking for. Mr. Butler got up at this juncture and entered into an argument against the right or propriety of the counsel for the President putting any additional ques- tions to the witness after having -finally dismissed bim a short time before; then, branching off to his favorite and characteristic style of argument, Butler, covertiy addressing himself to Reverdy -Johnson, accused that Senator of coming down his post- tion as @ judge and actifig as counsel for the President—of, in fact, *prostituting his charac- ter as a man and a Senator. This was too much for human nature to stand, but especially un- bearable when coming from one of Butler’s antece- dents. The Senator from Maryland rose promptly to his feet, his face more than usuaily fushed and his very hair bristling on his head. “If the Honorable Manager meant to impute tome that I have been acting as counsel for the President he does not know the man whom he accuses.” These words were ut- tered with a depth of earnestness and a peculiar and unusual emotion of voice that touched the feclings of the entire auditory. He proceeded to say he Was “ust as well acquainted with law as the Man- ager himself, and after administering a well deserved rebuke to his assailant sat down amid the sympathy of his hearers, It ‘was provoking indeed for a learned, venerable and hightoned gentleman like Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, to whom his very opponents accord ad- miration and respect, to be dragged forward by But- der and accused before the Senate and world of com- promising his honor and dignity and tampering with the case he has been sworn to try. Butier will hardly venture on @ similar task in the same direction again. He has already been allowed a iatitude of fiippant abuse pettifogging dodge which has seriously detracted from the character of the High ourt of Impeachment. ‘There is no question but that the Chief Justice has rendered Hilmseif unpopular with a good many radi- cals of the Sonate. His rulings thus far do not suit their wishes. Me has exhibited too mach fairness and impartiality to be acceptable; but he is evidently not the man to be intimidated by adverse opinion of fis course, or to sacriiice to party bis ignity as Chief Justice, It would be curious to know what motive induces nator Drake, of Missieurt, to leeve his accustomed it, which ia near enough to cue Chair for all aurien- jar purposes, every morning, and plant himself rectly in front of the Chief Justice, within earshot # Ben Butler, From the peremtency with which NEW YORK HERALD, TUESDAY, a nn a nn rn Dra® occupies that position every day there would be nothing inappropriate, though it might be irrever- ent, in calling him “the watchdog of impeachment.” There he sits all day, dividing his gaze be- tween the witness on the stand, the counsel for the President and the Chief Justice. On the latter he especially rivets his attention, and every decision rendered by the distinguished presiding oMcer is ‘watched with intense earnestness by the zealous and sleepless Drake. Ever and anon he throws in a sug- gestion to Butler sotto voce; and, taken altogether, this vigilant sentinel of the impeachers is a remark- able feature in the coup d’cil of the High Court. It would be algo curious to know, even though the Senate be “‘a law unto themselves,” what kind of advice some of its members deem it proper to give to the Managers when they invite them out in the corridors for a quiet chat. Did Senator Conness to-day mean to retaliate for what he supposed Senator Johnson did when he talked with Butler during the progress of the trial and invited him out for more extended conversa- tion? Truly the Senate is ‘a law unto themselves.” ‘The object of the counsel for the President in ask- ing the question of General Sherman as to the crea- tion of the Department of the Atlantic by the President was to show that General Sherman himself ‘Was the person who first suggested the formation of such departmént, and consequently that the Execu- tive had no such idea in contemplation as the erec- tion of anew military department for the purpose of using the commander thereof for sinister purposes. ‘SPECIAL CORRESPONDENCE OF THE HERALD. The Radicals Originally in Doubt as to the Propriety of the Tenure of Office Act— The Board of Managers in High Spirits Over the Action of the Senate on Saturday. WASHINGTON, April 13, 1868. It is singular in reviewing radical legislation for the past two years to observe the numerous doubts which existed as to the propriety of enacting the law regulating the tenure of certain civil offices, and now known as the Tenure of OMice act. The alleged violation of this act now constitutes the leading feature in the articles of impeach- ment upon which the President of the United States is being tried. At the time of its passage it was only with the most zealous and persevering efforts of its author that the measure attained its wtimate success. In February, 1867, Judge Thomas Williams, of Pennsylvania, prepared a bill which was desfgned to meet a defect which he considered had sprung up in latter years in regard to the relations between the President and his Cabinet officers, In the days of Washington it is known the Executive had’ exclusive control of all mea- sures emanating from the law making power, and = could accept or disagree to all laws which were presented to him for his considera- tion, and, if acceptable, give them his sanction. In points of doubt in reference to any law he was authorized to ask of the heads of executive depart- ments a written opinion, which he was at liberty to adept or disallow as he felt disposed. Later, how- ever, a8 a matter of convenience or prudence, the holding of Cabinet meetings was instituted, in which all laws and measures of a national character were presented and deliberated upon. The success of this system at once made it one of general practice. The tenure of ofice of these Cabinet officers being entirely within the power of the President, compelled such officers to yield an unrestrained deference to his rea- son, principally of men being of his own appoint- ment and gubject to his will for their official term. This condition of things placed the Cabinet entirely within his control in adopting or rejecting any measure, as it might suit the fancy of the Executive, This practice, it is as- serted by thé radicals, has since been perverted to an assumption of quasi legislative -functions, which within the past few years has been grossly misapplied. This council, with the Chief Magistrate at its head, it is charged, had undertaken to dictate a line of policy in total disregard of the law making power. The creation of heads of depart- ments, originally designed as an _ assistance to the Executive in carrying into force the laws of Congress, had become a sort of supreme executive council, not only over- ruling or attempting to defeat the laws of Congress, but also undertaking to carry out @ system of laws of thetr own, at variance with those enacted by the representatives of the people. ‘§ The precedent of Cabinet councils held on stated days having been inaugurated, it is asserted that the President, by his power over those composing such councils placed in a position to dictate or regulate the action of such councys, in order to break up this increase of executive power, it was proposed to maks the heads of departments independent of the Execu- tive, so that in these Cabinet meetings officers had, if in their power, to act free from any other restraint than a sense of duty and right. To provide for this Judge Williams drew up his bill, which he submitted to the Committee on the Judiciary. The bill was adopted and reported by him to the House. In the House, however, a storm of opposition was raised against that clause which related to the beads of departments. It is now understood for the first time that Mr. Stanton addressed a note to Judge Williams asking him to withdraw the clause. Mr. Willams refused to recognize this proposition, and declared if the bill could not be passed as it came from the committee he thought there was no ob- Ject in passing the bill at all. Mr. Stanton next conversed with Schenck and Bingham, of Ohio, who took sides with the opposi- tion. After a stubborn controversy the question of rejecting the clause in relation to Cabinet ofiicers ‘was put toa vote. When the result was ready to be announced it was discovered that the vote was a fe and depended upon the action of the er. fore, powever, had time to record his vote Mr. Alley chi from yea and the to mi clause insisted upon by Mr. Winams was . Mr. Farquar of Indiana now moved to reconsider the vote by which the proposition of Mr. ‘Williams was rejected, and Mr. Hale moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. The House re- fused to lay the motion on the table, when Thad ead off any further action, moved to ad- Journ, which was carried. The following day, Febru- ary 3, as the unfinished business, the House again took = J — us ep was agreed ir. jams then e at some ih upon his clause, which he wishen | now to fuser, and it was finally ad by @ majority of nineteen. ‘The bill then |. On the same day the bill came up in the Senate, when Mr. Edmunds moved to dit to the Williams which was carried. Several later Edmunds again called up bill, the pa motion being to concur in the amendment made in the House to include Cabinet ministers among those officers who may not be removed with- out the consent of the Senate, Mr. Sherman, while admitting the constitutional right of the pro amendment, doubted its propriety, saying that there were reasons for permitting the President to change his Cabinet oficers, which did not apply to minor officers. When brought to a vote the Senate rejected the amendment, and again called a commitve of conference. In this committee Messrs, Williams, of Oregon, and Sherman, of Ohio, represented the Senate-and Messrs, Schenck, of Ohio, and Williams, of Pennsylvania, the House of Representatives. In this conference Senator Williams, of Oregon, wag dis- = to yield, but Sherman adhered his objec- Hons. Finding this opposition and unwilling to accept any terms but the introduction of his amendment, Judge Williams to modify his proposition by the introduction of a proviso “that the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of the Navy, of War, of the Interior, the Postmaster General and Attorney General shail hold their offices ring the term of the President bi whom they n have been appornted and one month thereafter, subject to removal by and with the ad- vice of the Senate.” A protracted debate ensued over the report of the Committee of Conference when presented to the Senate, but it was finally adopted by @ majority of twelve, The success which the measure now received in the Senate was inet by a greater unanimity in the House. the report of the committee being adopted by a ma! Jority of seventy-three, a strict party vote, It is understood during: the pre ‘ation of the articles of impeachment against the President a strong eifort was made to incorporate a number of additional charges which it is considered by many radicals have more force in them than those which are now undergoing a sifting before the High Court. ‘The first of these related to the appointment esident of Provisional Governors in the ates without the authority of law, which was an assumption of power not appertaining to the Executive; the payment of these officers out of the contingent func the War Department. In this charge the fact of Stanton’s administration of the War Department at that time seems to be ignored; third, the turning over of property captured in the Southern States to rebel owners; fourth, the levying of taxes to carry on the provisional government of the South, and, jastiy, the suepension of the “test oath? in order to place ¢x-rebels In power, The Board of Managers stil! place a yreat deal of etress upon the article in relation to the President's speeches, and it is understvod the final atgmnent will give this fea- ture of tie “igh crimes and misdemeanors fuil scope, The Manogers are in high spirits as to the reentt of thelr cause, and feel parileularly encouraged Of, te Senate on Sarusday last. 1 4 gg the Senate, language of Sumner, “stick” the telat must ie completa ia ton day, PROCEEDINGS OF THE Thirteenth Day. UNITED STATES SENATE CHAMBER, WasHIN@ToN, April 13, 1868, The court was opened in due form and the Mana- gers were announced at five minutes past twelve, Messrs. Bingham, Butler and Williams only appear- ing. Mr. Stevens was in his chair before the court was opened. The other Managers entered shortly afterwards, “ DEBATE ON THE LIMITATION OP THE CLOSING ARGU- ‘MENTS. The Curr Justice stated that the first business in order was the consideration of the following order of Senator Frelinghuysen, being an amendment of Tule twenty-one:— Ordered, That as many of the Managers and the counsel for the President permitted to speak on the final argument as shall choose to do 80. Senator SumwgzR—I send to the Chair an amend- ment to that order, to come in al the end. It was read, as follows:— Provided that the trial shall proceed without further delay or postponement on this account. tl Senator FRELINGHUYSEN accepted the amendment. Mr. Manager WILLIAMS rose and asked the indul- gence of the Senate fora moment. He said he did not propose to contest the right of the Senate to adopt a rule reasonably limiting the debate on the final argument of thie question, in conformity with the universal rule in the trial of civil actions and criminal indictments. He was not here to oppose such reasonable limitation as the intereats of jus- tice may require or a8 may be necessary to facilitate a just decision, He. thought, how- ever, that the rule was calculated in some degree to embarrass the gentlemen sent here to con- duct this case on the part of the people. The House having devolved this duty upon seven of its mem- bers, in which they had not departed from the ordi- nary course, the effect of the rule would be to ex- clude from the final debate on tne articies submitted by them at least four ofthe Managers. He was not opposed to a reasonable limit. It would have been im accordance with the rule in regard to interlocutory questions, and would have avoided the difficulty if the Senate had said that the public convenience and the ple juired that a cer- vided among the The rule did not meet the appro- the Managers first instance. Porte thought it unusual, and they had directed their chairman to make this application. There had been five cases of Impeachment before the Senate of the United States. Mr. Williams recited the circum. COURT. stances attending each of the impeachments of. Blount, Pickering, Chase, Peck and Humphreys, claiming that in all these cases, analogous to the ——— all the Managers were allowed he final argument save in one instance, where there ‘were seven Mant , and, one of them speck. Mr. Randolph, their chairman, spoke twice. le (Mr, Williams) might be mistaken, but he thought the right of the House of Representatives to be heard through all its Man: never been questioned. One case in British history was familiar to the school- boy recollections of every man in this nation, or who is familiar with the English language—a case made memorable, not so much b; great interests in- volved as by this fact, the genius of the greatest men that England had ever produced and that it had continued for seven years. In the latter ben nn he hoped this would not resemble it; but it would be remembered that the labor in that case was distributed amongst all the Managers, The present case was not an ordinary one. Nothing in our history fontperes with it. They were making history to-day, and they should appre- clate the magnitude of the interests involved. He felt the difficulty of realizing its magnitude and rising to the height of this tt argument. It was not the case of a district judge or @ custom house officer, bat of a Chief Maglatrate of a great people, and its Hous pf people. waiting forthe. verdict, "Such 8 ple Wi for the verdict, Suc! a imitation. could be accounted for in only only one way, namely:—That the case was of small consequence, or that it was so plain that the judges required no research and no argument from anybody. He had not, in what he had said, been moved by any considerations personal to him- self, He had lived in a time of life when the ambi- tion to be heard did not rest heavily upon him or, at all events, he had lived too long to attempt to press an argument upon an unwilling audience. If they allowed an extension of time he did not know whether he would speak on the final argument or not; it would depend upon his strength and upon what was sald by others. He concluded by warn- ing the Senate that if they placed such a limit upon a case of such magnitude it night hereafter be used as a precedent in less important cases for reducing the number of the counsel to one, or perhaps dis- Pensing with them altogether. Mr. STEVENS, one of the Managers, rose and said:—I have but a few words to say, and < hose are of very little ee I do not expect, ifthe rule be relaxed, to’Say many words in the poo argument. There is a single article which I am held somewhat respon- sible for introducing, on which I wish to address the Senate fora very brief space; but I do desire that my colleagues inay have a full opportunity to exercise such liberty as they deem proper in the argument. I have no objection (i do not speak formy colleagues) if the Senate should limit the time that the Managers may have and let them divide it amon, themselves. However, this is a mere suggestion, merely wish to say thatI trust that some further time will be given, as I am somewhat anxious to give the reasons why I so pertinaciously in- sisted upon the adoption of an article that the Managers had reporied leaving that article out. I confess that I feel in that awful condition that I owe it to myself and the country to give the reasous why I insisted-with what is called obstinacy on having that article introduced; but I am willing to be confined to any length of time which the Senate may deem proper. What | have tosay,I can say very betefy. Indeed, I cannot, as a matter of fact, speak at any length if I would. I merely make this suggestion, and be; gna of the Senate for having intraded so long upoh its time. Senator SHERMAN moved to amend the order sub- mitted by Senator Frelinghuysen by striking out the Jast proviso and inserting in lieu of it another which he sent to the Clerk's desk, Senator FRELINGHUYSEN desired to modify his own resolution b: aiding another proviso that oniyone counsel on the part of the Managers shall be heard at the close. He sald it was not his purpose to change the rule excepting as to the number who should speak. ne Curr Justice directed the order, as modi- = by Senator Frelingluysen, to be read, as fol- Wi Ordered, That ax many Man agers and of counsel for the kK on the final argument as Preaident itted to ppeal shall choose {0 do ao, provided that the triai shall proceed Without any further delay or postponcinent ; and provided Further, that only one Manger shail be heard in the case. Senator Sherman's amendment was to add to the order the following:—“But any additional time allowed by this order to each side shall not exceed three hours.” 3 Mr. Boutwe.t, one of the Managers, rose and said:—Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, I should not have arisen to speak on this occasion had it not been for the qualification made by the honorable Senator from New Jersey. I ask the Senator to consider that in the case of Ju Peck, after the testimony was submitted to the Senate, it was first summed up by two Managers on the part of the House; that then the counsel for the respondent argued the case for the respondent by two of their number, and that then the case was closed on the part of the House of Representatives by two arguments made by the Managers, I ask the Senate to consider that in the trial of Judge Chase the argument on the part of the House of Representatives and the poole of the United States was ciosed by three Managers after the testimony had been submitted and the arguments in behalf of the respondent had been closed, TI also ask the Senate to consider that in the trial of Judge Prescott, in Massachusetts—which I venture to say in this presence was oner of the most ably conducted trials in the his of ben opened either in this country or Great Britain; on the part o! the Managers assisted by Chief Justice Shaw, on the part of the respondent by Mr, Webster—that two ar- guments were made by the Managers of the House of Representatives and on the part of the people of the Commonwealth after the case of the respondent had been absolutely closed, both upon the evidence and upon the arguments. I think the matter needs no further illustration to satisfy this tribunal that the case of ae le, the case of the House of Rep- resentatives, this trial is to be opened to full debate by jtiemen who represent the r ndent here, onght not to be left after the close of the re- spondent to a single counsel on the part of the House of Representatives, Mr. STANBERY, of counsel for the President, rose and said that the counsel for the President neither asked nor refused the order proposed. They had no objection to all seven of the Managers on the other side arguing the case; but he understood the amend- ment of the Senator from Ohio to fix a limit; whereas in the rule the time allowed for the closing up was unlimited. The rule only spoke of the number of the counse:, not of the time they should occupy. He de- sired to call the attention of the Senate to the endment, so tl there might be no misunder- atanding. le hoped that not one of the counsel for the President had any idea of lengthening out the trial. He spoke as one competent to know, and he knew that when the counsel were through they would stop and would only take as much time as they needed. They knew that if they went beyond thal they would not have the attention of the Senate. He could say that he spoke for his associates in saying they would not take a moment longer in the case than they considered nevessaty. They would take every moment that was but not a moment that was unnecessary, i to the fact that in the Supreme Court of the United States, when arguments are iimited to two hours, that limit is frequently in important cases re- moved, and he mentioned one case where he hhnseif had spoken for two days. If counset were limited to an exact time they would generally be em- harassed, because they were looking continually at the clock iustead of their case, and were afraid to begin wi acenment for fear they would exitaust too much time Upon it and be cut off from the more im. ja the ease, In conclusion, he not fo limit the time of couusel. vors cuate por bey APRIL 14, 1868.—TRIPLE SHEET. . 3 eesti Senator SHERMAN, after hearing the remarks of Mr. Stanbery, withtrew his amendment Mr. BUTLER desired the counsel for the President to say whether they wished this rule adopted, be- cause if they did not wish it that fact would have its upon the mind as to what time should be granted. He wanted to say, however, and he stated it without prejudice to anybody, that from the kind attention received from the Senate in the argument he did not intend to ti a single moment in the closing argument, but leave tt to the very much better argumentation of his associ- ates. He only wished, without any word on his part, that such argumentation should be had as should con- vince the country that the case had been fully stated on the one side and on the other. Senator SUMNER moved to strike ont the last pro- viso in the order and insert in lieu of it the follow- And provided further, That according to the practice in eaaca of impeachment ‘all the Managers who peak shall Jone. Senator CONKLING begged to ask the counsel for the President to answer the question asked by Mr. Manager Butler. Mr. Evarrs rose and said:—Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, I was about to say a word in reference to the question when the Senator from Massachusetts arose to offer his amendment. It will not be in the power of the counsel for the Prestdent, if the rule should now be enlarged, to contribute the aid of more than two additional advocates on the part of the President. The rule was early adopted and known to us, and the arrangement of the number of counsel was accommodated to the rule. If the rule should be enlarged, al! of us would wish to take ad- vantage of the liberality of the Senate. In regard, however, to the arguments of six against four, as would then be the odds, we naturally must feel some interest, particularly if all our opponents are to speak after we shall have concluded, The last 8] hn hitherto has been made in behalf of the President. If there 1s any value in debate it is that when it begins, and is a controversy between two sl that cach, as fairly as may be, shall have an oppor- tunity to know and reply to the arguments of the other. Now the renee rale—very properly as it to me, and wholly in accordance with the its in all matters of forensic debate—requires hat the Managers shall close by one of their number, and ian exneel fot. ae President ae be al- Lid Spee! 5 en the second Manager, sppearing in their behalf, shall close. §o if the rule shall be enlarged it would seem especially peaper, if there is to be such a disparity as that of six against bution o: for the Managers and for the President. ace r WILLIAMS moved to the order and amen it on the table, in order, he said, to have a test vote as to whether the rule should be enlarged. Senator DRAKE, rising to a question of order, sald that in the Senate, sitting for trial of an impeach- ment, there {s no authority to move to lay a proposi- tion on the table. The CHIEF Justice said he could not undertake to limit the Senate in its mode of determining ques- tions, and that he conceived the motion to lay on the table to be in order. Senator WILLIAMs called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered. ‘The vote was taken, and resulted—yeas 38, nays 10, as follows :— YRAs—Senators Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conners, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Harian, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Morgan. Norrill of Me., Morrill of Vé., Morton, Norton, Patterson of N. H., Pomeroy. Ramsey, Roas, Sherman, ark, Sumner, Thayer’ Tipton, Van Winkle, Vickers, Wil: Hams, Wilson and Yates—38, Nave-_Senatore Anthony, Davis, Dixon, Doolitile, Fowler, Grimes, MoCreery, Patterson of Tenn., Trumbull and Wil- ley | 0. on the order and amendment were laid on the le. During the vote Senator Anthony stated that his colleague, Mr. Sprague, was called away by telegraph to attend the deathbed of a friend. TESTIMONY OF LIKUTENANT GENERAL SHERMAN. Lientenant General W. T. Sherman was then re- called to the stand. Question by Mr. SranseRy—After the restoration of Mr. Stanton to the War Ofice did you form an opinion as to whether the good of the service re- quired another man in that ofice than Mr, Stanton ? Mr. BurtER—Stay a@ moment. We object. We want the question reduced to writing. Mr. STanBery saild—I am perfectly willing to reduce the question to writing, but I do not want to be compelled to do it at the demand of the learned Manager. I made a similar juest of him more than once, which he never complied with. Mr. BUTLER—I ask a thousand pardons. The Carer Justice said that the rules required questions to be reduced to writing. Mr. STANBERY said that his impression was that that was a request to be made by a Senator, and not by one of the Managers or one of the counsel. The Curgr Jusrice directed the fifteenth rule to be read, and it Was read as follows:— A}l motions made by the parties or their counsel shall be addressed to the presiding olficer, and if he or any Senator itted to writing and read at shall require they shall be commi the Secretary's table, The question, having been reduced to writing by Mr. Leper | was read as follows:—‘After the restoration of Mr, Stanton to the War Omice did you form an opinion as to whether the good of the service required a Secretary of War other than Mr. Stanton, and if so, did you communicate that fact to the President?” Mr. BINGHAM objected to the question, and stated the grounds of his objection, The first few sentences were entirely inauilible to the reporters, When he did become audiblg he was understood to say:—It is not to be sup} for & moment that there is a member of the Senate who can entertain the opinion that a question of this kind now present- ed, under any possibile circumstances, could be admitted in any criminal propeeding. It must occur to the Senate that the ordinary test of truth cannot be applied toitat all; and in saying that it has no relation at all to the truthful. ness or veracity of the witness. But there is nothing on which the Senate can pronounce any judgment whatever. Is the Senate to decide questions or the opinions of forty thousand or fifty thousand men as to what might be for the good of the service? ‘The mesiion invoived kere is a violation of the law of the land. It is a question of fact which is to be dealt with by witne and it is a question of law and fact which is to be'dealt with by the Senate. giving his opinion as is proposed by the question, the next thing in order would be his opinion as to the application of the law, the restorations of the law, the prohibitions of the law. Who can suppose that the Senate would entertain such a question for a moment? It must occur to the Senate that by pee. such a rule as this it would be impossible to limit the ingutry or end the investigation. If it be competent for this witness to give his opinion, it is equally competent for forty thousand other men in the country to give their plaice to the Senate, and when ts the inquiry to end? We object to it as utterly incompetent. Mr. Stanpery—Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, if ever there was 4 case involving the question of in- tent and how far acts which might be criminal or in- different, or might be re and actuated by intent, this is that ease; and it is on the question of intent that we propose to put this inquiry to the witness. With what intent did the President remove Mr. Stanton? The Managers say the intent was against public in way of usurpation, to get possession of the War Ofice, and to drive out a meritorious officer and put in a tool and a slave in his place. On that question what do we propose to offer? We propose to show that the second officer of the army, feeling the complications and difficulties in which that office was by the restoration of Mr. Stanton, formed an opinion that the good of the service required it to be filled by some other man. Who could be a better judge than the- distinguished oMicer now upon the stand? The Manager has asked what are his opinions more than other man's opinions, if Uy merely a8 abstract opinions, We do not intend to givegthem as abstract opinions. The gentieman did not read the whole question, or he would not have asked that. It is not merely what opinion had you, General Sherman, but, havin; formed an opinion, did you communicate to the Prese dent that the good of the service required Mr. Stanton to leave the office and wired some other man to be put in his pla ‘his 18 a communication made by General Sherman to the President to regu- late the President's conduct and to justify it—indeed, to call upon him, ong, at the good of the service, to get rid in some way if possibie of this confessed obstacle to the good of the service. Look what ap- pears in Mr. Stanton’s own statement—that from the 12th of August, 1867, he has never seen the President, has never visited the Executive Mansion, has never sat at the board where the President's legal ad- visers—the heads of departments—are to be. It may be said that the relations befween him and the President had got to the point that Mr. Stan- ton was unwilling to go there lest he might not be admitted. Mr. Stanton says in his communication to the House of Representatives on the 4th of March, when the Honse sent for the corres) jencé between the President and General Grant, that he not only had not seen the President, but had had no oficial come munication with him since the 12th of Auguste. How was the army to get along, and how was the service to be benefitted in that way? Certainly it is for the benefit of the service that the President should have in that office some one with whom to advise, What has the Secretary of War become? One of two things is inevitable—he is either to run the War Depart- ment without any advice of the Secretary, or hie is removed from the ofice, The President could not 03 out of the dificulty unless by humiliating himself fore Mr. Stanton and sending a note of apology to him for having suspended him. Would you ask him, enators, todo that? Now, when you are lookin into motives, when you consider the provocation that the President has had beyond that, you see the neces- sities of the public service; when you see that no longer could there be any communication between the Secretary of War an? the President, is it fit, T ask, that the service should be carriea on in that way which is to enable the Secretary of War to hold on to his office and become there a mere locum tenens? Then, when you are considering the conduct and intention and the matter in the mind of the President in the removal of Mr. Stanton, and when you find that he has not only been advised by General Sherman that the good of the service re- quired Mr. Stanton to be sus} «i that Gen- eral Sherman undertook to communic: 80 to him the opinion of General Grant to the same purport, and when we shall follow that up by the agreemen of these two distinguished Generals to go to Mr. Stanton and to him that for the good of the service he ought to resign, do we not show a reavon why this evidence, bearing upon the question of tent, should be admitted? Now, when you sre try- ing the President for motive, for intention, w or he acted In goud fatth or in bad faith, will you z ators, shut out the view of those two disiinguisled generals, and declare that his motive was to remove A faithful officer and to get some too! tn his place? Mr, BuTLeR—Mr. President ana Senators, | fore. saw that if we had remained in session on Saturday evening long enough to have finished this witness Wwe would have got rid of au these questions, | fore saw that the effort would be renewed again in some form to-day, with in‘ent to get in the declarations of the President or to the lent; and now the pro- position is to ask General Sherman whether he did not form an opinion that it was necessary that Mr. Stanton should be removed; whether the good of the service did not require a Secretary of War other than Mr. Stanton, and if so, whether he did not communteate that opinion to the Presi- dent. Well, of course there could not be any other Secretary than Mr. Stanton unless Mr. Stanton re- signed or was removed. It will be necessary, then, to ask him whether he indicated his opinion to Mr, Stanton, if his opinion is to be put gt all, be- cause— Mr. SranpERY—How is that? Mr. BuTLER—How long ts our patience to be tried in this way? Tam very tay that the Senate has been told that these tentative experiments are to on. For what purpose Senators themselves will ju tainly for no legal purpose. Now, it ts satd that it is necessary to put this in, or else that counsel cannot defend the President. Well, if the; cannot defend the President without another breac! of the law, added to his breach of the law, then I do not see the necessity of his being defended. They are breaking a law in defending him, because they are attempting to put in testimony which has no relevancy, no ecogency ard no competency under the law. It is easy to test It, very casy after you have let the question go in. Senators, if pee were to do so, will you allow me to ask General Sherman whether he had not come to an equally firm opinion that it was for the good of the service and the good of the country that Mr. Johnson should be removed? The learned Attorney General gays that General Sherman came to the opinion that the complications, as he called them, in the War De- [Sobrrigs Leaks that mee (ag Reta Mr. 101 occu omice, h e ask him whether he ald. we i. not think that these compll- cations required the removal of Mr. Johnson? tb House of Representatives has thought that .these complications could be got over by the removal of Mr. Johnson, and are you going to put in General Sherman to counterbalance the weight of the opin- jons of the House of Representatives? Is the Presi- dent be relieved of a wrong intent because General Sherman thought that Mr. Stanton was a bad man, and that therefore it was for the good of the service to put Stanton out? Is the President, I say, to be held in- nocent, therefore, te yale him out? Can we go into this origin of om inion? I speak wholly without reference to the witness and upon general princl- les, We would have to ask General Sherman as to ia relations with Mr. Stanton—whether he Telled with him, and whether these relations did not make him think that it would be for the good of the service to get rid of him. We would have to ask him, Is there not an unfortunate difficulty between you? If the Senate will allow opinions to go init cannot prevent our going into the various considera- tions which produced these opinions. It is a kind of egal into which I have no desire to enter, and I prey, the Senate not to enter into it for the good of e country and the integrity of the law. Another juestion would be, What were the grounds of eneral Sherman’s opinions? We should have to go further. We should have to call as mal men upon the other side as we could. If General Sherman is ae in asan expert we wonld have to call General Sheridan and General George H. Thomas and General Meade, and other men of equal expert- oe to say whether, on the whole, they did not think it would be better to keep Mr. Stanton in, I think that nothing can more clearly demonstrate the fact that this evidence cannot be putin, on the ground that General Sherman {s an expert as an army ofti- cer. If itis, we have army officers who, tf not quite 80 expert, are just as much experts in the eye of the law as he, and the struggle willbe on which side the weight of evidence would be. The counsel for the President say that they offer this to show that the President had not a wrong intent. There as been a good deal said about intent, as though intent had got to be proved by some body swearing that the President told him he had a wrong intent. That seems to be the Proposition here—that you must bring some man who heard the President say he had a bad intent, or heer gone that. The question before you is, did Mr. Johnson break the law of the land the removal of Mr. Stanton? Then the law sup- z ea the intent, and says that no man can do wrong intending to do right. If it were a faet that Mr. Stanton should have been put out, would that justify the President in breaking the law of the land in putting him out? Shall you do evil that good may come? The question is not whether it were better to have Mr. Stanton out. On that question Senators may be divided in opinion. There are, for aught [ know and for aught I care, many Senators here who think it would be better to have Mr. Stanton out; but that 18 not the question. Is it righo@hat the law of the land should be broken by the chief executive officer in order to get Mr. Stanton out? See where thi ing It would be admitting justification for the ident or any other executive officer to break the law of the land if he could show. that he did what he thought was a good thing, but a wicked one. I am aware that executive officers have often acted upon that idea. Let me illustrate:— You, Senators and the House of Representatives, agreeing together as the Congress of the United States, a law that no man could hold office in the Southern States who could not take the oath of loyalty. 1am aware that the President of the United States put men into office who could not take that oath, and yy to justify thatpefore the Senate and before the House on the ‘ground that he thought he was doing the best thing for the service. That was a breach of the law, and if we had time to follow the innumerabie things he has done in that way and brought them before the Senate we could have sus- tamed articles of impeachment upon them. One other thing I desire to call your attention to, e have heard here over and over again that Mr. Stanton could not have a Cabinet counsel since August 12, Whose fault was that? He attended every meeting up to within a week of August 12. He did his duty up to within a week of August 12, and he was then suspended until the 13th of January; aud when he came back into office tt wag not for the President to humble himself, but it was for the President to no- tify Mr. Stanton, at the head of the War Depaitment, to come and take his seat m the Cabinet. But that notification never came. It was not for Mr. Stanton to thus thrust himseif upon the President; but it was for him to go when he understood that his presence would be welcome. But it is put forward as if the country could not go on without a Cabinet board, and the learned counsel has just told us that it was a constitutional board. On that I want to take issue once for all. Senators, It 1s an unconstitutional board. There is not one word in the constitution about a Cabinet or about a board. The learned gentiemen have told us that a board was almost a shield for the President, and there has been an attempt made z some of the President's recent friends to get this board around them to shield them from the consequences of their acts, ‘The constitution says that the heads of departments may be called upon in reference to their respective offices to give opinion in writti to the Presi- Gent; and the rule of the early sidents was to call upon the Cabinet omicers for their opinions im writing. I have on my table here an opinion in writing, given by Thomas Jetferson vo George Washington about his right to appoint ambassadors. Heads of depart- ments are not to sit down and consult with the President; they are not to have Cabinct counsels. That is an assumption of executive power which has grown up, little by little, formed upon the Cabinets of the Oid World. The ers of the conotitution weil knew that from the Cabinet counseis in England came that celebrated word ‘‘cabal,” which has been the synonym of all that is evil in political combina- tions from that time to this, and it was not mere capriciousness on their part that they required, not that there should be verbal consultatious semt- weekly and that secret conclaves might be held, but that there should be written opinions asked and ven. Think of it; picture to yourselves, Leet President Johnson and Lorenzo Thomas in Cabii consultation to shield the President, and of Lorenzo Thomas stating to him that it was for the good of the service that he should be appointed! If they have a right to put in one Cabinet oficer they have a right to put in another. If they have a right to put inthe opinion of one Attorney General, who is not by the way @ Cabinet oMicer, and if they have the right to wit in the opinion of one head of a department, they Rave ‘a right to put in the opinion of another; if of @ rmanent Cabinet officer, then of a temporary one; if of a temporary one, then of one ad interim. There- fore I find no dereliction of ow on the part of Mr, Stanton in not aftending the Cabinet counsels, Let them show that the President has ever asked from Mr. Stanton an opinion in writing as to the duties of his department, or that he has ever sent an order to him which he has disobeyed and that will show a reason: bat I pray the Senate not to let us go into thé region of opinion. T have taken this much time, Senators, because I think it wit save time to come to a right decision on this question. This case 1s to be tried by your opinion, not by the oplulon of bigs | whether Mr, Stanton was apood or bad officer. It ts to be tried upon the opinion whether the President broke the Jaw in removing Mr, © jon; and he must take the consequence of that breach of the law. It is said that he broke the law in order to get the matter into court. Tagree in that, and if bia counsel is correct | as to the character of the Senate the President has got the matter Into court, where he will have the of law. veeenator CoNKLING submitted the following propo- sition in writing:—"Do the counsel for the respond- ent offer at this point to show by the witness that he advised the President to remove Mr. Stanton in the manner adopted by the President, or merely that he advised the ‘President to designate for the action of the Senate some person other than Mr. Stanton?” M ARTS rose and sald:—Mr, Chief Justice and senators, 1 do not propose to discuss the coustitu- tional relations of the President of the United States with his Cabinet, nor do I propose to enter into the consideration of the merits of the case, aa it will be presented on the final argument. If the accusations against the President of the United States on which he is on trial here, and conviction on which must re- suit in his depositionfrom hia great office, turned only on the mere question of whether the President has been guilty of aformal violation of ‘a statate Jaw, Which might subject him, if indicted for it, to a fine of six centa or imprisonment for ten days, there might be some reason for these technical objec- tions; but f think that the honorable Mana- wer (Mr. Williams) who 80 amide and warmiy pressed upon your consiqeration tos day that the case of Warren Hastings was noth! compared to thiS was rather a little out of place ii the trial is to turn on the mere formal, technical in- fraction of the Tenure of Office act. W, Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, you cannot fail to see that General Sherman is not called here as an expert to give an opinion whether Mr. Stanton was a good Sec- retary of War or not, He is not called here as an expert to assist your judgment in determining the armies of the United States, to show an opinion on his pert asa military man, and in that position to show that the military service required that a Secre- tary should take the place of Mr. Stanton whose re- lations to the service and to the Commander-in-Chief were not such as these of Mr. Stanton’s were, and thet that opinion was communicated to the President; and we shall enlarge the area by showing that the opinion was concurred in by these sompersas mary authorities, And now, if the President of the United States, when brought on trial before a Court of Impeachment, is not at liberty to show that the acts which are brought in question a8 against the public interest, and as belng done With bad motive to obstruct the iaw and disturb the mblic e—if, I say, he cannot show in his de- lence that in the judgment of those most competent to advise, most responsible to the country in every sense for their opinion and their advice, how 4s he to defend himself? We propose to show that he was furnished with those opin- fons and supported by those opinions, Now, Senators, depeche you are taking part in a solemn transaction, which is to effect, if your judgment be unfavorable, @ removal of the Chief Magistrate of the hation for some Lets ood which he has made against the public Welfare with bad motives and improper purposes. We offer to show you that on consultation and delib- eration under advice from those who are unconnected with any motives of personal controversy or politi- cal controversy, how he acted and desire: to accom- Plish this change. We cannot prove everyth once, nor is it a criticism poh the tentinaaeel is excluded that it does not itself prove all. Bul It should be followed, as it would be, by evidence of equal authority and weight, and by efforts of the President or authority to make eiforts given by the resident to secure a change in the control of that office which the military service of the country then demanded, we shall show you by an absolute n tive that thisintention, this motive, this public. Inf ry so vehemently, so pertinaciousty imputed in the course of the argument, did not exist at all. Mr, BINGHAM rose to reply, and was, as usual, for the first sentence entirely inaudible in the Reporter's Gallery. He went on to say:—The suggestion made y the honorable Senator from New York (Mr. onkling) showe the utter incompetency and @b- surdity of the proposition, It was whetlier counsel for the President propose to ask a witness whether he advised the removal of the Secretary of War, and the mode and manuer in which the President did re- move him or attempted to remove him, Is there one here bold enough to say that if the. witness formed an opinion about the legality of the proceed- ing, and had 80 expressed himself to the President, it would be competent for us to introduce such mate ter in evidence? The reason, Mr. Chief Justice, why I arise now ts that I might venture the reply to the utterances of the gentlemall who has taken his seat (Mr. Evarts), and who has enunciated here the extraordinary opinion that the rules of evi- dence which would eres in a court of justice in the prosecution of a beggar arrested in your sireets for acrime punishable with six cents due or five hours of imprisonment, are not the rules of evijience which would hold good when you came to present the Chief Magistrate of the nation. The American people will entertain no opinions of that sort; nor will their Senators. We have the same rule of jus- tice and the same rule of evidence for the trial of the President of the United States that we have for the most defenceless or the weakest of ovr citizens. Mr. EvarTs—The honorabie Manager will allow me to hn that the only illustration [ used was that of an indictment against the Chief Magistrate on triai vefore a police court. Mr. BiINGHAM—I supposed myself that when the gentleman made use of the remark he intended certainly to have the Senate understand that thero was a different rule of evidence and of adininistra- tive justice in the prosecution of an indictment where penalty was elx cents from that which should prevail in the prosecution of the President, Mr. Evarts—When the issues are diferent the evi- dence will be different. It does not depend on the dignity of the defendant. Mr. BincuaM—It is very difficult to see how the gentleman can escape from the dificulty by making the remark that he supposed the President to be under prosecution. It is a very grave question whether the President of the United States can be prosecuted for an indictable offence before his im- peachment; but I do not stop to argue that question now. Ido not care who is prosecuted on an indict- ment—whether President or beg ‘ar—the same rule of evidence applies to each. not care who is impeached, whether the Presidefit of the United States, or the lowest civil oMtcer in the service of the United States; the same rule of evidence obtains, and the common law maxim that where an offence is charged which {s unlawfal in itself, and which is proved to have been committed4-as I ven- ture to say have been pene in respect to all of those articles—the law itself declares that the intent was criminal, and it is for the accused to show jus- tiflcation. That is the language of the books; I 80 read it in the volume-before be. The legality of the President’s conduct is not to be settled by opinions of any witness called to this bar; it is to be settled on the judgment of the Senate, to the exclusion of any other tribunal on earth; for go it 18 written in the constitution. The law and the judges of the law will determine whether the act was unlawful, The opinions of third , although ever so often formed and ex} cannot make an unlawful act & lawful one, and cannot get rid of the intention which the law itself necessarily attaches to the com- mission of an unlawful act. Well, say the gentle- men again, the President has taken the advice of honored and honorable —_ General. The constitution, as the Senate well knows, indicates who shall be the President's advisers in such a case as this—the removal of the head of a department. ‘That constitution expressly deciares that he may ap- joint, and thereby necessarily remove, an incumbent hy and with the advice and consent of the Senate. the ‘Tenure of Office act, following the constitution, rovides further that he may for suMcient reasons to im appearing suspend an incumbent and take tho advice of the Senate, laying the facts before the Senate and tie evidence on which he acted, w! er the suspension should be made absolute. The Presl- dent did take the advice of the Senate, and did sas- nd this oMcer, whose removal he now undertakes prove the public service required. He sent it to the Senate, and the Senate, as his constitutional ad- viser, acted upon it and gave him notice that it ad- vised him not to attempt any further interference with the Secretary for the Department of War. The Senate gave him notice that under the law he must not go a step further, and thereupon he falls back upon his reserved rights aud undertaXes to defy the constitution, to defy the Tenure of Oulc , w defy the Senate and remove the secretary of appoint another In his place without the advice and consent of anybody except such outsiders as he chose to call into his conneil ; and now he attempts to justify his acts by having witnesses to swear to thetr opinions, We protest against it in the name of the coustitution, We protest against 1t inthe name of the laws enacted in pursuance of the constitution, and we protest against it in the name of that great people whom we this day represent, wiiuse righ s have been outrage- ously betrayed and who are vow being audaciousty defied before this tribunal. “a proceeded to vote by y n the admission of the question, as follows: After the restoration of Mr, Sianton to the War Office did you form an opinion wicther the good of the service required a Secretary of War, other than Mr. Stanton? If so, did you coinmunicate that opin- fon to the Presilent?” ‘The vote resulted—yeas, 15; nays, 35, as fol- lows :— Anthony, Bayard, Buckalow, Dixon, Doo- he Fowlers Mirimen: Hen tricky, Johnasn, McCreary, Patter. son, of Tenn., Ross, Tromvuil, Yan Winkle and Viekers—ib. Nays—Senators Cameron, Cattell, ing, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Feasenden, Frelinghuysen, Hat ard. Howe, Morgin, Morrill of "Me, lorton, Norton, Nye, Patterson of N.H., Pomeroy, Rainsey, Sher pan, Slewart, ‘Thayer, Tipton, Willey, Wiiliains, Wiladn and faten — So the question was not admitted. Senator JOHNSON pro} dto ask the witness the following question:—‘Did you at any time before the President gavé the order for the removal of Mr. Stanton as Secretary of War advise the President to sagoint some other person than Mr. Stanton?” ir. BUTLER—I have the honor to object to the question as being leading in form as being covered by the decision just made. Mr. EVARTS—An objection to a question as leading in form cannot be made when the question is put by @ member of a court. Senator Davis inquired whether one of the Mana- = or one of the counsel for the defence contd in- of an objection to a question put by a member the court? The Caigr Jvsrice ruled that the objection must be made by a member of the Court. Senator Drakk renewed the objection. ‘The Carer Justicn satd:—The only mode In whieh the question can be decided Is rule whether it is admissible or inadmissible. The question of the Senator from Maryland has been Fy pin undoubt- edly in (faith, and it is for the Sgnate to deter. mine whether the question siiali be addressed to the witness or not. The vote was taken by yeas and nays, and resulted— yeas, 18; nays, 32, as tollows:— YRAR,—Senatora Anthony, Bayard, Buekalew, Dixon, Doo- little, Edmunds, Fessenven, Fowltr, Grimes, Henderson, Hendrick: eCredry, Patterson of ‘Tenn, Hoes, Trumbu jeckers —| Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conk. NAYS. ling, Con y , Davis,” Drake, Peery, Brelinge huyten, wo, Howard, Howe, Mor, of Mey Morrill’ of Vt, Morton, Nortow, Nye, Paiterson of Ne Huy Pomeroy, Ramevy, Sher: boy , an, Stew, Willinins, Wilsowand Yates232. So the question Senator Suimue! ‘on either of the questions. ‘The Caine Justicr asked the President's counsel whether a had any further questions to propose to the witnes+ Mr, STAs seRY replied that they ha not. ‘The Cuter Justics then inquired of the Managers whether they proposed to cross-examine General Sherman? Mr, BiNcHAM replied that they had no questions to ask the witness. ‘The Catse Justice inquired whether the counsel bo the Lape ow ry would require General Sherman to again called? i Mr. Stahbery stepped np to General Sherman ae nad ‘a brief conversation with him: and Mr, Bu “<4 ‘also stepped up and had a conversation with General Sherman. gh i While they were conversing tye Senate, K. 3 motion of genator Cole, at five minutes past two o°el lock took ct ninntes. @ recess for fifteen min fe 3. METAS XAMINATION. After t 0 recess it. J. Meigs was called and aworn on behalf of the President and examined by Mr, | 4 AA Wnt ones do you hold? A, Glerk gf the Sn- preme Court of the District of Columbia. Q. Were you Clerk of tue Court in February last ? Whether of not.Jt was for the public interests that Mr, Stanton should be removed. In sense of deter- mining whether thie form of femoval was legal or not, he is mtreduced. aa the second in command of «Yes, sit. Al ave you with you the aM@davit and warrant CONTINUED ON TENTH PAGE