The New York Herald Newspaper, April 16, 1868, Page 3

WASHINGTON THE IMPEACHMENT RIAL. Admission of Documentary Evidence Pre- sented by the President’s Counsel. Manager Butler Again Rebuked by Mr. Evarts. PROCEEDINGS OF SONGRESS. Seerete.ry Forney's Accounts With the Senate to Be Investigated. Dedication of the Lincoln Monument. THE IMPEACHMENT, SPECIAL TELEGRAM TO THE HERALD, WASHINGTON, April 15, 1868. ‘The impeachment trial to-day was confined to the giving in of documentary evidence, the principal share of which related to the practice of the govern- ment in the matter of making appointments and iasuing commissions, regular and ad interim, The ‘Message of the President in reply to the resolution of the Senate of the 22d of February, protesting against the removal of Secretary Stanton, was re- Jected as incompetent evidence by the Chief Justice. All the other documentary testimony was admitted. All over town this evening a change of opinion seems to have taken place, and the acquittal of the President appears to be the prevailing tmpression. ‘The way opinion changes on this question is quite wonderful. Impeachment seems to be like a game of see-saw— 1¢ 1s constantly up and down and down and up with the President and his radical opponents. People, even the few who generally have the opportunity for being well posted, are in a puzzle over the matter, not knowing for twenty-four hours what to think, and catching at every little straw that is blown ; about in their eagerness to reach some satisfactory conclusion. There never before was a.question be- fore the national legislature about which there ex- Asted somuch uncertainty and mystery. One day the Senate seems all one way, and the next in a direction Quite the opposite. But in all this strange dubity one thing may safely be taken as a guide, and that is the plotting and planning for the Presidential suc- cession. The result of the trial seems to hang more upon this than upon any conviction that may be ar- rived at as tothe guilt or innocence of the accused. A week ago it seemed to be all fixed that the Prest- dent should be removed as a political necessity; but since Monday a hitch in the programme has occurred, ‘and this hitch may be the saving of the offending anti-radical obstacle. General Butler, who has ‘thrown his managerial colleagues into the shade since ‘the hard work of the trial commenced, and who has ™made Bingham, Boutwell, Wilson, Williams, and Old ‘Thad himself, so many mere bobs to his high soaring kite, seems to have become the occasion of the hitch. Benjamin of Lowell has his one eye keenly after ‘the Treasury Department,.and is known to be ambi- ‘tious to succeed Secretary McCulloch in case Mr. Johnson should be doomed to.an early retirement to ‘the shades of private life in Tennessee, Senator ‘Wade, in this event, will owe his elevation to the ‘Chief Magistracy principally to the audacity and in- genuity of Butler, who fully understands his worth, and will not scruple to exact his full remuneration to the last. penny. It is believed that Butler settled ‘this point with Wade a few weeks ago, and that the latter, in patting on the back both Boutwell, of Mas- ‘sachusetts, and Senator Morgan, of New York, has ‘only been playing a smart little game of his own to keep them quiet while there is danger. Bout- well and Morgan both yearn for McCulloch's boots quite as much as Butler, be it known; but Butler, for his superior services, was ‘to carry off the prize. Such was the writing in the bond; but now it appears General Grant’s friends are beginning to figure out how the patronage will be arranged in case Wade gets in. If Wade lets But- jer in, the latter will so manipulate as to secure a powerful influence for himself, and Grant’s friends foresee trouble ahead through this arrangement. It is being debated, therefore, whether {t is worth while to remove President Johnson, through General Grant's aid, only to promote Butler’s interests at the risk of the chances of the General-in-Chief. This new feature of the play behind the scenes Is decided- ly In favor of acquittal, notwithstanding the sound and fury before the footlights. The jealousies of the mival factions may result in breaking down the whole Tadical plot, and the true policy of the President is mow undoubtedly “ divide et impera.” By following this policy he can smash up the deep laid plan fora military dictatorship and perpetuation of radical rule foreshadowed in yesterday's despatches. PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUR‘. Fifteenth Day. : UNITED STATES SENATE CHAMBER, WASHINGTON, April 15, 1868. } ‘Tie court was opened in due form, and the Map- agers and members of the House were announced and took their places. Messrs. Stevens and Williams were absent at the opening, but appeared shortly afterward. Mr. Stanb ery was also absent. PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE RULES, After the journal was read the Cuier Jvsmice atated the queation to be an the order of Senator Sumner, submitted yesterday, which was read, as follows:— Ordered, That in answer to the motien of the Man- agers, under the rule limiting the arguments to two on @ side, unlese otherwise ordered, such other Managers and counse) as choose may print and file arguments at any time before the argument of the closing Managers. Senator EpMUNDs—I move to amend the order so that it will read “may print and fie arguments at any time before the argument of the opening Man- ager shail be conciuded, in order that the counsel for the defence may see it and reply to it.” Senator ScwNeR—I have no objection tothat. ‘The order as amended was read, Mr. EVARTS—Mr. Chief Justice, may I be allowed ‘to ask aquestion? The amendment offered and ac- cepted places, I suppose, the proper restriction upon the arguments to be flied on the part of the Man- agers? Several SENATORS—We cannot hear. Mr. Evauys (in a louder tone)—The restriction pro- posed to be placed on this kherty by the amendment puts the matter in a proper basis, as I suppose, as fegards the printed briefs that may be put in on the part of the Managers—that ta, that they sball be filed before we make our reply. On our part it would be proper that we should have the opportu- nity to Oli the brief at any time before the closing Manager makes his reply, 80 that we may have an Opportunity of replying in our brief to that of the Managers. Mr. BixGnamM—Mr. President, I desire to say that if would seein that ifthe order is made as it ts sug- gested, additional arguments made by the eoun- sel in behaifof the President peed not be filed until the close of the arguments made orally to the Senate. The Managers, on behalf of the people, would have No opportunity to see these argumenta. T would ask the Senate to consider whether it is right to give the counsel for the President an opportunity to review anil to reply to the arguments of the counsel for the people before any argument whatever may be flied were on behalf of the President, Wr, Evants—Undoubtedly there are inconveniences im this enlargement of the rule, however applied; but there seems to be @ propriety in requiring the Managers to file their arguments before the reply of the counse) for the President, The same rule would be applied to us that by the present aif piment would be apptied to the Manager of the jnpe. ment, or they are not requires to file UW sirs except the very moment shat they close tie’, oral argu and then we are obliged to comw-nce our or ment. rou. Mr. Neison, of counsel lor the President, after | making some remarks #& un mandible tone uti! ra. | monished by Senators % speak louder, proceeded as follows:—In eonsegeuece of the anputation made by the Managers that we desired unnec ity to cou- sume the time of fhe cc urt, those of us who, under this arrangement had not intended to armic the case di not iutend, either by ourselves or by <e@ any application to the Senate for an enlargement of the rule; but since that application has been made on the yar. of the Managers I desire to say to the Senate that if we are permitted to argue at all I think it wouid be more fair to the two coun- sel who did not expect to argue the case to permit us to make an extemporaneous argument before the Senate. We have not made any preparation in view of the written arguments whatever; We supposed that the Managers on the part of the House, who have bad this subject before them for a much longer period than we have, are more familiar with it end are better prepared to make written arguments; so that if this rule be extended we respectfully ask the Senate to allow us to address the Senate in such a mode, either oral or written, as we desire. I do not expeet to be able to imterest the Senate as = much as the learned gentleman to whom the management of the case has hitherto been confided on the part of the President; and as I have practised my profession ‘tn the town of his domicile for the last thirty years, and as he has thought proper to ask my services in his behaif, and as I fully conenr with hun in the Jeading measures of his administration, I desire, tf 1 may be heard at all, to be heard in the manner which Thave suggested. Senator Coxxess made a motion in writing to strike out all after the word “ordered” and insert the following as a substitute:— That the twenty-first rule shail bo so amended 80 as to allow as many of the Managers and of the counsel for the President to speak on the final argument as shall choose to do xo, pro- viden that not more than four days on each side shall be al- lowed; but the Managers shall make the opening and the closing argument. Senator DRAKE asked the yeas and nays, and the substitute was lost by the following vote:— YRAs—Senators Cameron, Conness, Cragin, Dixon, Doo- litle, Fowler, Hatlany Henderson, Hendricks, MeCreery, Pate terscn of Ténn., Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, Wilson, Yates—19, Nays—-Senators Anthony, Buckalew, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Davis, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Freling: huysen, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill of Me., Morril!’of Vi, Morton, Patterson ‘of NH, Pomeroy, Koss, Saulsbury, Sumner, ‘Thayer, Tipton, Vickers and Wil: iams—22 The question was stated to be on the order. Senator DoorirtLe—Mr. Chief Justice, I prefer oral arguments to printed ones, and I submit the following, notwithstanding that there are but four— (cries of “Order, order!’)—of the counsel for the resident and six of the Managers of the House. (“Order, order!) Ihave sent to the Chair an order which I will ask to have read, It was read as follows:— Strike out all after the word “ordered” and insert, “That upon the final argument the Managers of the House open, two of the counsel for the respondent reply, then two of the Managers speak, and they to be foilowed by the two other counsel for the reepondent, and they in turn to be followed by the other two Managers of the House, who shail conclude the argument,” Mr. DRAKE—Mr. President, I move the indefinite postponement of the whole proposition, together with the subject, Mr. SUMNER called for the ibe and nays, and the motion was carried by the following vote:— YEAs—Senators Anthony, Buckalew, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, ‘Grimes, Harlab, Henderson, ‘Hendrick: Howard, Howe, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill of Me., Morrill o} Vt., Morton, Patterson of N. H., Pomeroy, Ross, Sauisbury, Sherman, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williams and Yates--31. Nayé—Senators Cameron, N, Cragin, Dooutte, Fow- Jer, Frelinghu MoCreery, Patt f Tena, damsey, Sunes, Frumbull, Van Widkie, Vickers, Willey’ and Wit So the subject was indeanitely postponed. Senator Fexky offered the following order:-- Ordered, That the twelfth rule be so amended as that the hour of the day at which the Senate shail ait upon the trlal now pending shail be, uniess otherwise ordered, cleven o'eiock in the forenoon, and that there shall be a recess of thirty min- utes each day, Commencing at two o'clock P. M. The order was rejected by the following vote:— YeAs—Senators Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conk- Ing, Conness, Corbett, C Drake, Ferry, Frlingh sen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Me., Morrill of Vt., Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Williams and Wilson—24. Navs—Senators Anthony, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Henderson, son of N. H., ‘Tipton, Truml Bayard, Buckalew, Di Hendricks, Jobi ton ates aaa Ps lendri johnson, ‘s atter™ ‘aitereon of Tenn., Pomeroy,’ Ross. Saiulabury, bull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey and YatesS6- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. The Carer Justice directed the counsel to proceed with the case. Mr. EvarTs—Mr. President and Senators:— Although I am not able to announce, as I should be very glad to do, that our’ associate, Mr. Stanbery, ac- cording to the ho] we entertained, has been able to come out to day, yet I am nappy to say that he is guite convalescent cannot be long kept giving the case his attention. Under these circumstances, and from a desire to do what- ever we may properly do in advancing the trial of this cause, we propose to pr to put in docu- mentary evidence, hoping that we will not be called upon to put in any oral testimony until to-morrow. Mr. Curtis said he would have to call upon the Executive Clerk of the Senate to produce the nomi- nation of Thomas Ewing, Sr., of Ohio, to the ofice of Secrecary of War on the 2ist of February, 1863. The CHIEF Justice was understood to express a doubt as to whether, under the rules of the Senate, nominations were not under the injunction of se- crecy. Senator EDMUNDS asked the unanimous consent of the Senate to show that the fact of nominations being made was considered not subjected to the in- junction of secrecy. Mr. Curtis said he was so instructed, and there- fore he had supposed that no motion to remove the injunction of secrecy was necessary. Senator SHERMAN said that if a motion was con- sidered necessary he would move that the Executive Clerk of the Senate be sworn as a witness in the case. The motion was agreed to, and the Executive Clerk of the Senate, Dewitt C. Clarke, was sworn and examined by Mr. Curtis as follows: Q. State what document you have before you? A. I have the original nomination by the President of eae Ewing, Sr., as Secretary of the Department ol ‘* Mr. Curtis—Please to read it, Witness read as follows:. a THE bene 's Sng Ms —_ eK _ he nominate Thom: wing, Sr. of Ohio, to be Secretary for the Department of Wi AN NSON, Haro DG. Feb, een DEEW JOUNEON Q. On what ‘was that actually received by you? scOn these onvetrun. eta Mr. Curtis said—I now desire to put in evidence & copy of the message from the President of the United States to the Senate of the United States, Which bears date of the 24th of February, 1868. i have a printed copy, which is an ‘authorized and I suppose it will not be objected to. Mr. BUTLER—The article proof is not objected to, but the proof itself ts objected to for a very plain reason. jis message was sent after the tent was iinpeached by the House, and of course his de- clarations put in, or attempted to be put in, after the impeachment, whether directed to Senate or to anybody else, cannot be given in evidence. The exact order of tine may not be in the minds of Sen. ators, and I will therefore state it. On the 2ist of February a resolution was offered in the House look- ing to the impeachment of the President, and it was referred to a committee, On the 22d of February the comamittee reported and the impeachment was ac- tually voted. Then intervened Sunday, the 23d. Any mnessage sent on the 24th of Febr must have ac to the President to be after his impeach- men' Mr. Cuntis—It will be recollected that the honora- ble Managers put in evidence a resolution of the Senate, to which this message is @ response, so that the question is whether the honorable Managers can put in evidence a resolve of the Senate transmitted to the Senate of the United States with reference to the removal of Mr. Stanton, and refuse to receive a reply which the President made to that resolve, ir. BUTLER—TI have only to say that this is an ar- gument to prejudice and not to law. Will my learned friends opposite dare to say that they have read of @ case When after indictment of the criminal, the respondent was allowed to put in evidence his statement of his own defence? If so when does that right cease? We put in the resolution referred to because it is a part of the trans- action of Mr. Stanton—it was made before the im- ‘peachment was determined upon—and now we are asked to admit the crimipal's declarations made after that day. I only ask the Senate to consider it as a precedent hereafter, a8 well as being a great wrong pe pn Lath gd indictment, after im- chment, the aid can send ij essay bas 35 a be ky ¥ ae a ratiacira hf . EYARTS—The learned Managers we dare to do something. We have not b been eens habit of considering the measure for the conducting of ferensio disputation to be a question of daring; we are not in the abit of applying such épithets to op- nents, nor hitherto in the habit of receiving hem from them. The measure of duty of counsel is the measure which we shall strive to obey, and not the measure of daring, if for no other reason than this: that on rules of laws, of fatt and evidence we May perhaps expect some oapeerny, ‘bat on mena- ures of daring. (Langhter.) Is the learned Manager entireiy right in sa ing that the tinpeachment was voted on the 22d of February? The zd was Satur- day, and, uniess 1 am mistaken, a vote was not taken aulil tie following Monday. Mr. BuTLEn—The vote was taken on Saturday, the mi of Fevruaty. at i Y. EVARTS—That is, that articles of i Sigil be brought in? ee rGre | Mr. BUTLER—Yes, sir. Mr, EvAkTs—The articles, however, were not voted until the 24th. Now, it is sald that because the vote that the timpeachinent should proceed was taken on the 220 of February, that linpugns the adiniasibility of the evidence proposed to be tall fore the Senate, My learned associate haa dis- tinctly stated the situation of the matter, Perhaps both of those trausactions—the vote in the Senate uW and this messagé—jnay be within the range of ment. but Managers have put in evider this transaction of the Senate, What bearing that lias as a part of the res ges | the removal of Mr. Stanton, w took ¢ Wetore the resviyyou Was pia before & notwitastnad- upon tae Pyerwenb on February, he 10 ‘Thomas us se ng after Lint Loren but lis desicn Lo inke possession of the ofl force. We offered it in onder fo shaw that the Presi- dent of the tnited pettes 3 determened on ab obeying th. vof the | ‘tno! Was served upon him for the purpos having hima kuow the action of the Senate, so that he might slay hts hand. Now, can a prepared article made after that, and after he was impeached by the House of Representatives, be put in evidence | An ounce of action, in obedience to the law and the resolution of the Sennie, would have been a great deal betier tian pages of argument. 1 will not use he word dare, for | know Chat counsel would dare doall eked are at egies dare do in favor of their client; hut T will say that tie gentlemen have not shown any sound reason on which this can be done, ‘The CHigF JUSTICE directed: the counsel for the President to put in- writing what they proposed to prove, While {hey were engagod in doing s0 Mr, BuTLEr said that.to prevent mistake he hid sent the Clerk of the House for. the record of the proceedings on im- peachment. McPherson, Clerk of tie, House, cauie mm soo} Mterwarus word hunted: the House Journal to Mr, Butisr, k Mr..BUrLEH sail—I find upon examination that the state of the record ts thi8:—On the 21st of Febru- ary the resolution of impeachment was prepared and referred to acommittee; on the 22d the committee |: Operation reported, and that report was debated through the 22d and into Monday, the 24th, and the actual vote Was taken on Monday, the 24th, Mr. Evarts—Late in the afternoon—five o’clock— #0 that I was correct. Mr. BINGHAM—I rise to state.a further reason why we insist upon this objection, The House of Repre- sentatives, as appears by the journal now furnished, voted on the 22d of February that Andrew Johnson be impeached of high crimes and misdeimeanors. On the day preceding the 22d of February it appears that the Senate of the United States eded to consider another message of the President, in which he had reported to the Senate that he had removed from the Department of War Edwin M. Stanton, then Lee ae War vy previous action ol the Senate. Senate refused to concur in the suspension, refused to acquiesce in the reasons assigned by the President, under the Tenure of Office act, having given the President notice thereof. The President j pire thereupon to remove him and to appoint Lorenzo Thomas Secretary of War ad inderim, m direct contravention of the express words of the act itself, and of the action of the Senate. The record shows that on the 2ist of February, 1868, the Senate of the United States passed # resolution re- citing the action of the President in the premises, to wit—the removal of the Secretary of War and his ap- pointment of a secretary ad interém, and igharoerte that under the constitution and lawe of the Unit States the President had no power to make the re- moval or to make the appointment of a secretary ad tntertm, That was the action of the Senate, and notice of that action was served on the President on the night of the 2ist of February. Now what takes place? Here is @ presentment made on the 2ist or 22d of February, 1868, against the President before the grand inquest of the nation. After that presentment he was within the power of the people. Although he had fled to the remotest ends of the earth he could not have stopped fora moment the proper course of this inquiry to final judgment, even though personal process had never en served upon him. It is 60 provided in the text of the constitution that it isto be chailenged by no man, After these pe thus instituted, and two days after the effect of the action of the Senate being made known to him, and three days after the effect of the commission of his crime, the President enters deliberately on the task of justifying himscif before the nation for a violation of its laws, of its constitution; for a violation of his oath of office, for ra veg ee the henoneng for his deflance Re ie people, sending & message to the Senate of the United States on the 2th day of February, 1868. What is it, Senator any More than the voluntary declaration of the criminal r the fact made in his own behalf? Does it alter the case in law? Does it alter the case in the reason or judgment of any man living, either within the Senate or outside of the Senate, that he chooses to put his declaration in his own defence in writing? ‘The law makes no such distinction. I undertake to as- sert here, rdiess of any attempt to contradict my statement, that there ts no law by which body ac- cused criminally after the fact can make declarations, either oral or in writing, either by a me: to the Senate, or a speech to a mob, that can be given in evidence to acquit himself or to affect in any manner his criminality within a tribunal of justice, or to make evidence which should be adiuitted upon any form of law, upon his own motion, to justify his own criminal conduct. I do not hesitate to ‘that every author- ity which the gentlemen can bring into court re- lating to rules of evidence in proceedings of this sort is directly be eto the proposition, and for the simple reason that this is a written declaration, made by the accused voluntarily after the fact in his own behalf. I read for the information of the Senate the testimony touching this fact of the service of the notice of the action had by the Senate, and of the conduct of the President whereof he stands accused. Mr. William H. McDonald, Chief Clerk of the Senate, testified, on page 148, ‘An attested copy of the foregoing resolu- ton was delivered by me into the hands of the Presi- dent of the United States, at his office in the Execu- tuve Mansion, about ten o’clock P. M. on the 21st of February, 1868.” And on the 24th of February, three days alterwards, the President voluntecrs a writien declaration, which his counsel now propose to make evidence in his behalf before this tribunal of justice. Of course it is evidence for no purpose whatever except for the purpose of exculpating him of the criminal accusation preferred against him. Sena- tors will bear with me while 1 make one further remark, The proposition ts to introduce this whole message—not Lelia what the President says for himself, not simply the ment which he chooses lo present in the form of a written declaration in vindication of bis criminal conduct, but the declara- tion of third persons. The Senate is asked to accept this, too, as evidence on the trial of the accused— the declaration of the third persons, whom he calls his constitutional advisers. je states their opinions without giving their language; he gives their conciu- sious, aud those conclusions are to be thrown before the Senate as purt of the eVidence. 1 beg leave to say here, in the presence of the Senate, that there ts no colorable excuse for the President or for his counsel coming before the Senate to aay that he has any right to attempt to shelter himself from a violation of the laws of his country under the opinion of any member of his Cabinet. The consti. tution never vested his Cabinet counsellors with ai such authority; it never vested the President wit authority to suspend the laws, or to violate the laws orto ¢ appointments in direct contravention of the laws and in defiance of the final action of the Senate, acting in express obedience to the law. There is no coiorable excuse for these proceedings. 1 say it with all respect for the learned and I challenge now the production of authority in any respectable court that ever allowed any man, high or low, officiaily or wnotti- clally, to introduce his own declarations, written or unwritten, made after the fact, in his defence. That is the point I take here. I beg jon of the Senate for having detained them so loug in the statement of @ proposition so simple, and the law of which is so clearly settled, running through centuries. 1 submit the question to the Senate. Mr. EVARTS—Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, the only apology which the learned Manager has made for the course of his remarks is an apology for the consumption of your time; and yet he has not hesl- tated to say, and again to repeat, that there is no color of justification for the attempt of the’ President of the United States to defend himself, or for the edort that his counsel make to defend him. We do not receive our laws from the learned Manager. ~y BINGHAM (rising)—Will the gentleman allow me Mr. Evanrts was proceeding with his remarks. Mr. BIncuam—The gentleman misrepresents me. Mr. Evants—I do not misrepresent the honorable Manager. Mr. Bincuam—I did not say that there was no color of excuse for the President's attempt to defend himself or for his counsel's attempt to defend him, but that there was no color of excuse for offeriug this testimony. Mr. EvAkTs—lIt all comes to the single thing. Everything that is admitted on our view or line of subject in controversy, except it conform to the pre- liminary view which the learued Mauagers choose to throw down, is regarded as wholly outside of the color of law and of right on the part of the Presideat, his counsel, and {t is so repeatediy charged. Now, if the erime was completed on the zist—which 4s not only the whole basis of this argument of the learned Manager, but of every other argument on the evidence which | had the honor of hearing from him—I sliouid like to know what application and relevancy the resolution bad which was passed by the Senate on the 2ist of February after the act of the President had been completed, and after the act had communicated fo the Senate. There can be po single principle of the law of evidence on wi that view can be proved on be- half of the Managers, and on which the BS of the Preside! can ve excluded. What would be thought in a criminal prosecution of the prosecutor giving in evidence what u magistrate ot @ sheriY had said to the accused concerning the deed, aud then shut the mouth of the accused as to what he Jad said then and there in reply? The only possible argument by which what Was sajd to lim could be given in evidence ts 1 unreplied to, it might be construed into an adinission or submission. t ur were to say to the prisoner, “You » * and that could be given in evideuce, tel and T given in age the Ser Mr. b ttl fou ite. Len wiso What bis LE abY | NEW YORK HERALD, THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 1868—TRIPLE SUERT. © be brought nad ind ont whatthe ant youn the Seuate to coutd wel Nave bi on answered sooner than the 246th —It was communicated on the 2ist of Evarts—! rstood you to say that you could not siate WheLier it Was the 2ist or the 220 Mr. BUTLER—It Was at ten o’ciock on the might of oo ayes 3 it was communicated at t of the 2st of February. © Was not in session ou the 22d more th au hour, it being a holiday, Then, Sunday interven- ing, } ask whether answer to that communi- cation, sent o1 Monday, the 24th, ts not anaw according to the Mary course of prompt and candid dealing betwecn the President ant the Senate concerning the matter. in dificulty? As far as the simile about the Pregdent being in prison Fo0% Ew remove that by ‘chin that he was not impeached uatit five o'clock P.M. on Monday, the 24th; but we uced not pursue these trivial Llustra- ... The. iatior isin the hands of the court, and muat be disposer Of by the court. Mr. Brnctram—I desire to say, once for all, that I have ‘sald no word, and intended to say no word, duriag the progress of the trial that woukt justify t1.¢ th the counsel for the President in saying them the right to make defence of the ‘ hat I insist upon here, what | ask the senate to act upon, ts thai he shall make @ defece precisely as an unoficial citizen of the United States makes defence, according to the law of the laud, and not otherwise; that bo shall not, after the commission of @ crime, man-fac- tureevidence in his own behalf, etther oraily or im writing, by his own declaration, and incorporate into them the declarations of third persons. It has never been allowed in any respectable court in this country, When men stand on trial for their lives they never are permitted after the facts to manutac- ture testimony by thelr own declarations, etther written or unwritten, or on their owy motion intro- duce them inw a court of justice. have another word to say in the light of what has dropped from the li of counsel, that he has evaded most skilfully the point which I took occasion to make in the hearing of the Senate, that here is an attempt to introduce not only written declar- ations of the accused in his own behalf after the fact, but declarations of third persons not under oath, I venture to say that a proposition to the extent of this never was made before in any tribunal of justice im the United States where any man was accused of crune—a proposition: not merely to give his own deciarations, but to report the declarations of third persons in his own behaif and throw them before the court as evidence. The gentleman seems to think that the President had a right to senda m™ eto the Senate of the United States which should operate as evidence. I concede that the President of the United States has a right, under the constitution, to communicate from time to time to the two houses of Congress such matters as he thinks pertain to the public interests, and if he thinks this matter pertained to the public interest he might send a me 3 but 1 deny that there is any colorable excuse. I repeat my words here for intimating that the President of the United States, being charged with the commis- sion of acrime on the 2ist of February, 1868, being proved guilty—I undertake to say proved guilty by his written confession to the satisfaction of every intelligent and uupreyudiced mind, in or out of the Senate, in this country—can proceed to manufacture evidence in his own behalf in the form of message three days after the fact. That is the point that 1 make here. We are asked what importance, then, do We attach to the action of the Senate? I answer, that we attach precise!y this importance, to wit: That the law of the land enjoins upon the President of the United States the duty to notify the Senate of the suspension of an officer, and the reason therefor, and the evidence on which he made the suspension; and the law of the land enjoins upon the Senate the duty to act upon the report of the President so made, and to come to a decision upon that report, and upon the evidence accompanying it, in pursuance of the uirement of the second section of the Tenure of Otiice act. The Senate of the United States, by an almost unanimous decision, came to the conclusion that the reasons furnished by the President and the evidence adduced by him for the suspension of the Secretary of War were unsatisfactory. In accordance with the law the Senate non-concurred in the suspension. The law expressly provides that if the Senate concur the; shall notify the President. The law by every intend- ment provides that if the Senate non-concur they shall notify the Secretary of War, that he may, ip obedience to the express requirement of the act, forthwith resume the functions of his oMice, from which he was suspended. The Senate in this case did give that notice. Why should it not also notify the Executive, that he might know with whom to communicate and that he inight no longer communicate with a Secretary of War ad intervm. The gentleman, I trust, is auswered as to the importance and propriety of our anteonpine this evidence, But there was another reason for it: it was to leave the President without excuse before the Senate and before the people for persisting in his unlawful attempt in violatiag «law of the laud and executing the duties of the ofice of Secretary of War through another person than Edwin M. Stanton. It was his basiness to submit to the final decision of the Senate whether the suspen- sion sould become absolute or should be rejected, Kut here is @ man detining the action of the Senate, de+ying the express letter of the law. that the Sec- retary of War, in whose suspension the Senate had refused to concur, should forthwith resume his functions; Lepage | with his conspiracy with Thomas to confer the functions of that ofice on another, regardless of the law regulating the tenure of oftice, regardless of the constitution, regardiess of his oath, and regardless of the rights of the Ameri- can peopie; and he winds up the farce by coming before tie Senate with his written declaration, which is of no higher authority than his orai declarations made three days after the fact, aud he asks the Sen- ate to consider that as evidence. The Citkr Justice—Senators, there is no branch of the law where there is more difficulty to lay down precise rules than that which regards the intent with which an act is done, In the present case it appears that the Senate, on the 2ist of February, passed a resolution, which I will take the liberty of reading:— Whereas the Senate have received and considered the com- munication of the President stating that he bad removed . M. Stanton, Secretary of War, and had d the Adju- tant General of the Army to sct Secretary ar acd interun; therefore Resolved, by. the Senate of the United States, That, under the constitution and laws of the United States, the President has no power to remove tary of War and to desig- hate any other officer to perform the duties of that oiliee ud interim. That resolution was adopted on the 2ist of Feb- ruary, and was served on the evening of the same day. The message now proposed to be offered in evidence was sent to the Senate on the 24th of Feb- ruary. It does not appear to the Chief Justice that the resolution of the Senate called for an answer, and therefore the Chief Justice must regard the mes- sage of the 24th of February as a vindication of the President’s act addressed to the Senate. It does not appear to the Chief Justice that that comes within any of the rules of evidence which wouid ie its being recetved in evidence on this trial, The Chief Justice, however, will take the views of the Senate in regard to it. No vote being called for the Chief Justice ruled the evidence inadmissible, Mr. CURTIS then offered to put_in evidence a tabn- lar statement, compiled at the office of the Attorney neral, containing a list of executive officers of the ited States, with their statutory terms or act of Congress creating the office, the name or title of the office, Showing whether the tenure was for a definite term, at the pleasure of the President, or for a term indefinite. He sald that of course it was not strictly evidence; but it had been compiled as a matter of convenience, and he desired to have it printed, so that it might be used in argument by counsel on botn sides. After some objection and interlocutory remarks by Mr. BUTLER the paper was, on motion of Senator TRUMBULL, Ordered to be printed asa part of the procee Aime Curtis then offered in evidence papers in the case of the removal of Mr. Pickering by President Adams, remarking that it was substantially the sa: as lad been put im evidence by Mr. Butier, except that it Was more formal, ‘The witness (Mr. Dewitt C, Clarke) here desired to make a correction of his testimony to tue effect that the message of the President was not delivered to him on the 22d of February, but on the 24th of Fe! ruaty; that it was Lrought up by Mr. Moore, t Presiient'# private secretary, on the 22d of Februar’ but that the Senate not being in session, Mr. Moore returned with tt to the Executive Mansion, and brought It back again on the 24th, Mr. CUBTis—Do I understand your statement now to be that Colonel Moore brought it anil delivered it to you ou the 22d of February?’ A. He brought it up on the 221;-he did not deliver it to me, as the Senate was not in Session, 4: lig took it away and brought it back on the ath? A. Yes, Mr. BUPLER—How did you know that he brought it here on the 22d? A. Only by toformation from Col- one! Moure. Q. Thea you have been telling us what Colonel Moore told youf A. That is ail, Nr. BUrLER—Then we do not want anything more of what Colonel Moore told you. TESTIMONY OF THE PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE SECRETARY. Moore, the President's private secre- tary, led and exam ined as follow: rf. CURTIS—What is the document that you hold in your hand? A, The nomination of Thomas Ewing, senior, of Ohio, as Secretary for the Departinent of War. Did you receive that from the President of the United States? A. I did. q. On What day? A. On the 22d of February, 1968, 4) Avout What hour of the day?’ A. | (ituk tt was after twelve o'clock. q And ore What hour? A, Before one ofclor Q, Then it Waa between twelve aud one o'clo A. It @. Wiat did you do with ity A. By direction of the President Cbronglit it to the Capitol to present it | Wu tue SeleAdnm nthe sadof February | Jyon arrive here? A. Tean- | in the form in w we have thayeh® y, Dut Tt presume it was about a | venient—which n takes up less | ti space than the ner would—we then in session, or had it | m !y for and obtain them, If there is a afier a very biel ss }t mM that sort it ne which we ‘e, We propose when we have closed the of proot to ask the Senate to "to make a certificate from us he end of all sexs » Were y ‘apitol that the nob, apprised Senate had adjoarned ? document it to the Bx Vhat did you do wi Phe otlier p ident Gid Hot fol- per nominatio: it 'the gentleman pro- ‘lent did follow them up find undoubtedly nent, from whic! i no such thing. ed by the Pr is63, to deliver 7 } What did you do in consequence? A. f obeyed | orien, mined by Mr, BUPLER:— thal was it in a sealed } lar course that the right one, A. It was in a sealed envelope. ey Ought to fol The Managers wou ou put itin yourself? A. 1 did not. it as be: ast expression, so fi Q. Did You see it put I did not. d auticulty was | . Qs How do you kuow what was in the envelope * Ked thew if they objected to the testi- | A. It wus the only message that was to go that day. n, aud they made no objection, If | T gave if to the Clerk, who sealed it and handed it to ht have t more formal, They | me. went to the wroug vidence. ‘Those things Q. Did you ungea! it or examine tt till you delivered | Were lo be sought for only 1 State Departinens, it on the ith? A. Not to my recollection. where appeared ail the ct stances connected Q. Dit you show it to anybody here on the 22d? | with the removal or appotntime; officer by and A. No, sit; it was sealed, * with the advice and consent of the Senate, and they Q. Have you spoken this morning with Mr. Clark | could have got ali Chose particulars there precisely as onthe subject? A. He asked me on what date {had | given in the case of Mr. Vickering. delivered the message, aud I told him it was the 24th, Mr. Curtis—Does the honorzhie Manager under- stand that under the laws of the United States all of these officers must be comiuissioned t Ka retary of State, and the facis ar in lepart- ment, including the officers of tertor, the Trea- sury and the Navy Departmaenss Mr, BeTLeR—With) the: singie exception of the Treasury. do, and ft will so appear. Mr, Butler p ceeded to’ say that the cor issions of the persons: named in the memoranda as appointed conid have been found in the State Deparcment. If it was a niere matter of form he would nothing about tt, and if the counsel would say that they wort put in’ the exact dates of the — nominn- tious he would have no objection. Insteatl of that they sought to put in rt of @ transaction leaving the prosecution to look up the reat of tt. quoted from Brightiey’s Digest that all books, papers and documents of the War, Navy, Treasury and Post Office Departments ani the J enerals office may be copted and certitier the State Department, with th effect. This law of Fi that in regard to the dated September 15, copies of records, when pre evidence equally with the or) no right to make extracts like t gloss, the interpretation, the of the record to the cier' ‘The Curler Justice 31 the question to the Senaic. Senator HENDRICKS askod whether the Ma objected, on the ground that the paper sho given in full, 60 furas they relate to any particular question? Mr. BUTLER replied in the aftirmative. Mr. CONKLING sent the following question to tho Chair:—“Do the counsel for the respondent rey upon any statute other Uian that referred tor” Mr. Curtis sald they did not mean that any officer was authorized to state what he pleased as evidence. They did not offer these documents us copies of records relating to the 28 nimed in the docu- ments themselves. They were documents of the same character as that which the Managers had yut in. 5 Senator EpmMunps asked whether the evidence was offered as touching any question or final conclusion of fact, or merely as giving the Senate the history cf the practice under consideration ? Mr. Curtis—Eutirely for the last purpose. Mr. Butier said if this evidence did not go to any issue of fact the Managers would have no objection. Mr. CurTIS would say, lest there should be misap- that it went to matters of practice under Mr. Bernen—Thatas all. Mr. Ccrtis then put in evidence, without objec- tion, certified copies of the appointment by Presi- dent Tyler on the ’9th of Fels , is, of John Nelson, Attorney General, to discharge the duties of Secretaryof State ad bilerim- until a successor to ‘Mr. Upsttur sttonld be appointed, and of the subse: quent coniymation by the Senate on March 6, 1844, of Johu.C, Calhoun to that oitice; also the appoiit- ment by President Fillmore on. July 23, 1890, of Win- field Scott as Secretary of War ad interim, in place of George W. Crawford, and of the confirmation by the Senate on Apgust 15, 1860, Of Charles M. Conrad as Secretary of War. Mr. Ounris also offered in evidence the appoint- ment by Mr. Buchanan in January, 1861, of Moses Kelley as Secretary of the Interior. Mr. BUTLER inquired whether counsel had any record of what had become of the Secretary of the Interior at that time—whether he had resigned, or had run away, or what? (Laughter.) Mr. Curtis satd he was not informed, and could not speak elther from the record or from recollection. Mr. Curtis also offered in evidence the appointment by President Lincoln of Caleb B. Smith as Secretary of the Intertor. Mr. Curtis also offered in evidence a document relating to the removal from office of the Colfec‘or ahd Appraiser of Merchandise in Philadel- 2 Mr. BUTLER objected to put in evidence the letter of removal by McClintock Young, Acting Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. Curtis inquired whether the Manager wanted evidence that McClintock Young was Acting Secre- tary of the Treasury? ir. BUTLER replied that he did not. Mr. Curtis remarked that the documents were certified by the Secretary of the Treasury as coming from the ‘records of that department. They were otfered in evidence to show the fact of the removal by Mr. Young, who stated that it was by direction of the President. Mr. BUTLER—The difficulty ts not removed. It is anattempt by Mr. McClintock Young, admitted to have been Acting Secretary of the Treasury, to re- move officers by reciting that he is directed by the President so todo. Ifthis is evidence we have got to go into the question of the right of Mr. Young to do this act, and whether an appratser 1s one of the Interior officers whom wie Secretary of the Treasury may remove or whom the President may remove without the advice and consent of the Senate. It!s not an actof the President in re- moving the head of a department, and it is remark- able as the only case to be rounh Wy waren any ae Braheuslony val. ene It oF roves the a < rule by | Py Lessin one sinha Mr. BUTLER—Well, ff it goes to matters of facts we Mr. Curtis—I understand the wena r me admit } ob; rey (ped, iat ropes SE che Iii ete Eo ER Pts . Cul Itake this act of his, therefore, as ret o' 'e put in eviden bid ee eee che by the Beoretary of the, Treasury, | He read the letter heretofore publisiied in Tegard to aud he says he proceeded by order of the Prest- | the appointment of heads of departments, f dent. I take it to be well settled, judicially, that | | Senator Howanp submitted the following ant of that de; nes ° head of a department says he | tlo ‘Do the counsel regard the memoranda as Mee ae of the President he 1s presumed le ovillence Riot =a wale of the government and ol to tell the truth, and it requires no evidence to show | all the that he acts by order of the President. No such evi- Mr. cunts replied that the documents were not dence was ever given. No record 1s ever made of | full eoples of any record, and were not, therefore, the directions which the President gives to any one | Strictly he evidence for any purpose; they — of the heads of departments to proceed in a transac- | extracts of evidence from the records. By way 0! tion of this kind, but when the head of a department | illustration he read as follows:—‘Isaac eid says that he acts by order of the President all courts | Was, by direction of the President, remov. m and all bodies presume that he tells the truth, the office of Navy Agent at New York, and instructed ‘The CHIEF JUSTICE ruled the act of the Secretary | to transfer to Paymaster John D. Gibson, of the of the Treasury was the act of the President, but said | United States Navy, all the public funds and other 5 roperty in his charge.” That was not offered he wonld put’ the question to the Senate if any Sena- pr pees i the sens a ‘cus as ‘ - | removal at imply show the — prac- OS is Deine AIR Oe: OA, Herren tice ol . ae ives hd the (of Mr. Curtis—I_ now offer in evidence a document | instead of putting tn the whole of the documents in the case. They had taken the only fact of any im- Tne oe MAYy De Doran tie inquiry. Should the Senate decide to adhere to the technical rule of evidence the coun- sel for the President must go to the records and have them copied in full. ! Mr. BOUTWELL, of the Managers, said that if tie counsel did not prove the document it did not prove any record, The first thing to prove a Practice was to prove one or more cases under it. Tne vital ob- jection to this evidence was that it related to a class of officers—navy agenta—who were then and are ap- ointed under a special provision of the law creating he oMice, and which takes them entirely out of the ling of precedents for the purposes of vhis trial. Naval officers were created under a statute of the year 1820, in which @ tenure of office was established for the office so created—four years, removable at pleagure. It was unnecessary to go into the circumstances that lead to that provision betug made, but the practice under it could not in any degree enlignten this tribu- nal upon the issues upon which it is called upon to ass, The counsel could that it was no evidence in regard to the practice relative to removals not made under that statute. Mr. Curtis sald the counsel might have been under a misapprehension respecting the views of the Managers in conducting this prosecution, but they osed the Mauagers meant to attempt to RECEES. ' While the document was being examined by Mr. Butler, Senator CONKLING moved that the court take a re- cess for fifteen minutes. Senator SUMNER moved as an amendment that business shall be resumed forthwith after the expira- Uon of the fifteen minutes. The question was put on Senator Sumner’s amend- ment and tt was rejected. ‘The court then, at fifteen minutes past two o'clock, took a recess for fifteen minutes, Upon the reassembling of the court Mr. BUTLER objected to the admission of the document. Mr. Butler proceeded to state the ground of his objec- tion. He said the certificate was not a copy of a record from the Navy Department, but simply that “the annexed {3 a true statement from the records of this department,” under the head of “Memoranda;”’ it was a statement made up by the Chief Clerk of the Navy Department of matters that he had been asked or volunteered to furnish, leaving out many things that would be necessary in order to show the bear- ings of the case. He read one of the cases enumerated—the appointment of Mr. Morton as Navy Agent at Pensacola—and sald the er did not show what the | had supp consequent eed on was, nor whether the Senate was | Maintain that even If Stanton at the tine when he then in session, nor whether the President sent | Was removed held at the pteasure of the President, even ifee was not within the Tenure of Ofice act.) inasmuch as the senate was in session, it was not competent for the President to remove him, and that aithoug Stanton might have been removed, that tne President, being within the Tenure of OMice act, his place could not be even temporartly supplied by an order of General Thomas, the Senate being in session. It was offered to show what, whether the Senate was in session or not, the President could make an ad tuerim appointinent. If the Managers would agree that if Stanton was not within the Tenure of Office act the President might remove lim during the session of the Senate, and might lawfully make an ad (nterim appointment, they (the counsel) did not desire to put in tus evi- dence. Senator SuzRMAN—I would like to ask the counsel whether the papers now offered tn evidence contain bey date of the appointment and the character of the office? Mr. BUTLER—To that we say that they only contain the date of the removal, but do not give us the date of the nomination. another appointment to the Senate at the same mo- ment. It was merely @ statement verified as being made from the record by somebody not under oath, and on it there were occasional memoranda in pencil, apparently made by other persons. ir. CURTIS—Apply india rubber to that. Mr. BuTLER—Yes, sir; but it is not so much what is stated here as what is left out. Everything that is of value is left out, There are memoranda made up from the records that A B was removed, but the cir- cumstance under which he was removed, wlio was nominated tn his place and when that person was nominated does not ar. It only appears that somebody was appoint at Pensecola. Senator JouNson—Are the dates given? Mr. BUTLER—The dates are given in this way: On the 19th of December such a person was moved; then on the Sth of January Johnson was informed that he was appointed. He must have been nominated to the Senate before that. Non-con- stat, he was nominated. If he was, then of what value is this? And then Johnson was lost on the ve and on the 29th of April another man was ~ sppel inted. But the whole or the value is gone Mr. Curtis again read the case of the removal of because they have not given us the record who has | I. Henderson by way of illustration, stating that iu contained the date of the removal. The Cu1e¥ Justice put the question to the Senate, stating that in his opinion the evidence was compe- tent in substance. Whether it was so in form was for the Senate to decide. The evidence waa admitted by the following vote:— Yras—Senators Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, Conk- any commission to make memoranda from the record a& evidence before the Senate; and the cer- tiffcate says “the word (copy) stricken out and written in is ‘a true statement from the record,’ "—a statement such as Mr. Edgar Welles or somebody else chose to make. I never heard that anybody had a right to come in and certify 4 memorandum from a record and put itin evidence. That is one pares Then, | ling, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Doolittie, Edmunds, Ferry, Fes- again, In the next paper, althongh it alleges they are | sendeny, Fowler, Frelicghise mes, Heniterson,) Hous true copies of record froin the office, they are letters | dricks, Howe, | cag toa rll of ‘Maine, Morrill about the appointuent and removal of oMficers— | Of fonuemee Ross, dautsbory, Sherman, Rewer, Suciver, navy agents. Again, being so removed and appoint- | Trambull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey, Wiiso1 8. portion of the correspondence is given Nayvs—Senatora ron, Cattell! hs Congess, ed, only @ when nominations were sent in. I do not mean to say that my friends on the other side chose to leave them out, but whoever prepared this forthem has chosen to leave out the material facts, whether the Senate was in session or whether others were sent in, Now, the question is whether ie are going to take a certificate from the records, want to call the at- C ” Chana Cragin, Drake, Harlan, Howard, Morgan, § ey, Thayer, Tipton, Wiiliamns—15. By consent the documents were considered as read. ir. CURTI8—There is another document from the Navy Department which ! suppose ts not distin- guishable from those which have just been admit- ted. gee to be a list of civil for ye. Pomeray, oficers tention of the Senate still further to the fact | appointes four years under the statute of the that all these pointments contained in these | loth of Ld 1820, and removable from office at plea- papers, and they have offered, are, by | supe. With their removals are indicated the portions the act of the 15th of May, 1820, appointing under the laws of the United States, for four years; all district attorneys, collectors of customs, &e,, pro: viding that they shall be removable at pleasure, so enacted by the laws which created them; and the counsel are going to show that under that law, in of the terms of their ofices which have got expired. Then comes a list giving the name of the officer, th date of nis general appotutinent and by whom re moved, in tabular form. Mr. BUTLER cailed attention to the fact that !t dit not contain the statement whether the Senate was in some particular instances, officers were removed at | session. pleasure, but not the manner of their removal, and Mr. Cuntis—We shati get that in another form. then they attempted to show that by memoranda No objection being made the paper was adimitted made up by Edgar M. Welles and certified by Gideon | in evidence, elles. Is that evidence? Mr. Curtis (producing further documents)—The:e Mr. Cunris—I understand the substance of the ob- | are documents from the Department of Sta:v Jections made to these documents to be two. The | showing the removai of heads of departments, 1: first objection is that these are only momoranda from | only faring the session of the Senate, bi the records, and it is said that it is not proper to | during recess, and covering all causes, tho udduce in evidence such statements of results, | purpose being to show a practice of the government made from the records; tat instead of giv- | co-extensive with the different cases that arose oul of ing @ paper containing the name of the | the different cases, death, resignations, sickfess, oiicer, the office that is held, the date when he was removed and the teen by whose order he was re- moved, there should be an extended Bory, of the en- tire act and all the papers relating to it. Now, in the first place, I wish the Senate to call to mind that the only document of this character reiating to removals from oftice which has been put in by the honorabie Managers ts a document from the Department of State, which contains exactiy those memoranda of facts (reading):—"Scheduie B—List of appointments absence, removal. It differs from the schedule Whit has been put in by the learned Manager (o cover (ie heads of departments only, because that appl 4 only to removals byt the session of the Senat It includes them, but it includes a great deal moe matter. Mr. BUTLER, In order, of Senate to their incompet the records, being the tempc during the absence of incumbents. he said, to cali the attention ney, read several of ary appointments All, he said, Were of beads of departments made by the Presi. | of that character, wit two exceptions— dent at any time during the session of the | one that frequently such am appointment Senate—Timothy Pickering, Postmasier Generai, | as he had read was given to cover , as when Mr. Ashbury Dickens act as Secretary 0) ‘reasury when that officer anal be steer sae, were {three ¢ Went Monroe's time, one in Pres cases, one in Presi ey beaten: dada June 1, 1794.7" This is a list extracted out of the records in the department of the Secretary of State, containing the names of the officers, the oifices they held, the date when they were removed and the possible contingenct authority by which they were removed. It is simp! ns’ time and one cortitied vy the Secretary of State. This is 8 copy | reciting that the appointment was under which [ hold in my ‘ands, and {| am not | the act of 17#2 All the others were temporary. repared tw say how it was certified. It is | Would the Senate admit @ ser es of acta done exactly in evidence, and 1 think will be found to be | in conform ty with the Jaw Of 1702 and 1795 us evie simply a letter from the Secretary of State, | dence in @case in violation of the act of March 4 saying there were found from the records of his | 1867, and the act of February 20, 1963? Wonid thas Hepariment these facts, ant wot any formal cert. | throw Any light pon what was admitted in ce | cate. If, however, the Senate should think that i . of the law if it comes within it? | absolutely necessary, or under the cireumst Wish to reply, taking It for | this case proper, to’ require this certet e Would not settle auy ques+ copies of the entire acts instead of taking CONTINUED ON T= daces aud other paruicuiars from the