The New York Herald Newspaper, April 17, 1868, Page 3

IMPEACHMENT Trial of President Andrew Johnson for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENCE. Many Objections of Manager Butler Overruled by the Senate. MR. STANBERY STILL ABSEN SPECIAL TELEGRAM TO THE HERALD. Wasuinaron, April 16, 1868, Nothing particularly striking marked the impeach- -Ment proceedings of to-day. There was some docu- mentary evidence offered, and several witnesses were called to testify as to the expressed intentions of the President relative to the removal of Secretary Stanton. The lawyers, Messrs. Cox and Merrick, were allowed, by various rulings of the Senate, to @ive their evidence in full; but E. 0. Perrin, who held @ conversation with the Executive on the 2lst of February last, was debarred from delivering him- self of the dialogue which took place on that occasion. Mr. Butler made a very violent harangue at the close of the evidence for the defence, contending that the counsel for the President were consuming the public time by useless argumentation and irrelevant testi- mony. Mr. Evarts responded very sharply that the gentleman might easily discover, in looking over the report of the trial, that in the various debates on in- terlocutory points where the counsel for the Presi- dent occupied but a paragraph the Managers in- aulged themselves to the extent of a column. ‘There is already on record a pyramid of evidence going to show the absence of all criminal intent on the part of the Executive, . Joseph H. Bradiey, attorney, of this city, and Edgar Welles, the son of Secretary Welles, were this morn- ing summoned as witnesses for the President. PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT. Sixteenth Day. UNivrep STaTes SENATE CHAMBER, WASHINGTON, April 16, 1868. ‘Tho court opened in due form. -All the Managers were present. Mr. Stanbery was again absent. On motion the reading of the m&nutes was dis- pensed with, Senator SuMNER rose and sald—Mr. Chief Justice, Tsend to the Chair a declaration of opinion to be adopted by the Senate as an answer to the con- stanly recurring questions on the admissibility of testimony. ‘The paper was read by the Clerk, expressing the opinion that, considering the character of this pro- ceeding, being a trial of impeachment before the Senate of the United States, and not a proceeding by indictment in an inferior court, Senators are Judges of law as weil as of fact, from whose decision there is no appeal; that, therefore, the ordinary reasons for the exclusion of testimony do not exist; therefore, it 1s deemed advisable that all evidence not trivial or obviously irrelevant shall be admitted, Mt being understood that in order to decide its value it shall be carefully considered on its final judgment. Sengtor ConNess moved to lay the paper on the table, which was ‘eed to by the following vote:— YRAB—{cnators Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Gole, Conk ting, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, essenden, Frelinghuysen, L Harlan, Howard, Howe, 5 ‘of Me, Morrill of Vt., Patterson of bury, Stewart, Thayer, Tipto Naya—senators Anthony, Fowler, Grimes, Morton, Patter- fon of Tenn., Sherman, Sumner, Van Winkle, Vickers, Wil- ley and Wilson—11. The CulEF Justice directed the court to proceed. Mr. Evanrs—Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, I am not able to announce the recovery of Mr. Stanbery, but I think, had not the weather been so entirely un- favorable, he would have been able to be present perhaps to-day. He Is, however, convalescent. But neverthelsss the situation of his health and proper care for its restoration prevent us from hav- ing much opportunity for consultations during this session of the court. We shall desire to proceed to- day with such evidence as may be properly produced in his absence, and may occupy the session of the court with that evidence. We shall not desire to protract the examination with any such object or view, and if before the close of the ordinary period of the session we shall come to the end of that testi- mony we shail a&k for an adjournment. Mr. CurTis—Mr. Chief Justice, I offer two docu- ments received this morning, coming from the De- partment of State, in character precisely similar.to some of those received yesterday. They are con- tinuations of what was put in yesterday, so as to bring the evidence of the practice of the government down to a more recent period, They were considered read. Mr. Curtis—I will now put in evidence, so that they will be printed with this documentary evidence, two statements, furnished by the Secretary of the Senate, under the order of the Senate, one showing the peeraniig s0 ending of each legislative session of Congress from 1789 to 1868; the other being the beginning and ending of each special session of the Benate from 1789 to 1868. ‘They were considered read. TESTIMONY OF WALTER 8. COX. Mr, Walter S. Cox was sworn in behalf of the re- spondent, and examined by Mr. Curtis. Mr. Cox, will Fi. please to state what Is your ce and profession? A. I reside in George- town; I am a lawyer by profession. Q How long have you been engaged in the prac- tice of law? A. Ten years. ¢ In this city? A. Yes, sir. trict. hnsin, Morgan, ‘Morri! H., Pomeroy,’ Rams %, Williams and Yates In what courte? A. In the courts of the Dis- . Were you connected professionally with the tor of General Thomas before the Criminal Court of this District? A. I was. Q. When and under what circumstances did your connection with that matter begin? A. On Saturday, the 220 of February, Mr. ButTtex—If I have heard the question cor- rectly, the question was, “When and under what cirenmstances did your connection with the case of General Thomas before the Supreme Court of this District commence?’ To that we object. It is im- ible to see how the employment of Mr. Cox to lefend General Thomas could have anything to do with this case. We put in that Mr. Thomas said that if tt had not been for the arrest he should have taken possession by force of the War Onice. ‘They then produced the record and the affidavit. Now Ido not propose to argue, but I ask the atten- tion of the Senate to the question whether the em- ployment of Mr. Cox by Mr. Thomas as counsel, the circumstances under which he was employed and the declaration of Mr. Thomas to his counsel can be put in evidence under anyrule, The circum- stances are too trivial, if it was legally competent. Mr. Curtis—I understand the question to be that ‘we cannot show that General Thomas employed Mr. Cox as his counsel, and that we cannot show the declarations made by General Thomas to Mr. Cox as Dis counsel. We do not propose to prove either of these facts. If the gentleman will wait long enongh to see what we do propose he will see that this objec- tion is not relevant. (To the witness.) Now state when and by whom and under what circumstances you were employed in this matter, Mr. BUTLER—Stop a moment. I object to the why and the by whom and underwhat circumstances this pntleman was employed. If he was employed by e President, that worse, in my judgmentt, than if he was employed by the other. I desire the ques- tion to be put in writing. The Cuter Justice—The Chief Justice sees no ob- fore to the question as an introductory question, ut he will put itto the Senate if any Senators de- sire tt. No vote being called for the Chief Justice directed the witness to answer the question, Witness—On Saturday, February 22, & messenger called at my house and stated to me that Mr. Seward desired to see me immediately. Mr. BuTLER—I object to ihe declaration of any- ‘The Crrer Jvetice intimated to the witness that he need not state what Mr. Seward said, Witness—The messenger stated further that he was to take me immediately to the President's house, TI accompanied him to the President's house pa ce the President and General Thomas alone ere. a proce ghey hour was fiat A. Aponte A oe ie afternoon, was sea! ie President stated — = mented Mr. BUTLER—Stop a moment. I object to state- ments of the President at five o'clock P. M. (A titter $n court, some Senators ieaghing we Senator EDMUNDS asked that the offer of evidence may be put ip writing, so that Senators might under- stand it precisely. soe OO ar eee ta "We o at Mr. Cox Was empl rofessionaly by the President, in the presenoe of eneral Thomas, to take such legal proceedings in ¢ case that had been commenced against General ag Would be effectual te raise judicially the Stanton's legal it to have and to beg a it the aut of the President, and also an of warranio for the = avidence of what was done by the eamaanee, of the above employment.” e Boacuang saked what Was the date of this iterview ‘Mr. Curtis replied that it was the 22d of February. Mr. Gureen This testimony has two obj eotlone, Mr. President and Senators. The first is that after the act was done, and after the impeachment pro- ceedings were upon before the House, and after Mr. Stanton sought to protect himself from being turned out of office by force, the President then sends, as it is proy to prove, for Mr. Cox, the witness, and gives him certain directions. It is alleged that those directions were that he should sue out a writ of quo warranto, 1 had su) that a writ of quo warranto was to be filed, if at all, by the ident, But as that writ has gone out of use an information in the form of a quo warranto is @ proper yeccenting. Now, let us see just here how the case stands. The President bad told General Sherman that the reason why he did not apply to the lawyers was that it was {inj ‘ible to make up a case. One of the Senators asked him to repeat his answer, and he repeated it, He says the President said—‘“‘I ain told by the lawyers that it is impossible to make up acase.” Now, after he had been told that, and after he had been convinced of that, he still undertakes to show you here that the removal of Mr, Stanton was in order to make up a case, which he himself has declared it was impossible to make up. He was convinced that no case could by possibility be brought into court except from the declarations and threats of oficer Thomas to turn by force Mr. Stanton out of the War Department. He then sends for a ver} proper counsel—as I have no doubt the Senate will quite convinced before we get through—and, having got him there, he undertakes to make up a case for the Senate, before which he was about to be tried. Now, they say they expect to prove that the President wanted a case madg upto go into court, and that in pursuance of that Mr. Cox so acted. Mr. Cox cannot be allowed to testify to that for another reason. The counsel themselves have put in the record what imparts absolute verity aud what cannot be contradicted by parole or other evidence, that General Thomas was dismissed on motion of his counsel, and the case dismissed. Therefore we object, in the first place, that these declarations of the President to his lawyer, after the fact and after he was in process of being impeached, shall be put in evidence. We object then that what was done in court may not be proved except by the record, Then we object further that this whole proceeding was between other partics in the court. There is no evidence, so far as it is put in here, and the whole record is put in, to show that the President went into that court and asked tp have that case carried on, or that he made himseif apparent in it. He does not appear on the record; he does not appear as employing counsel. It looks on the record as though it was a case against General Thomas, and the court dealt with it as against General Thomas. If the President had decided to have the case decided as a great con- stitutional non obstra the court would have decided it. All that appears was that this witness appeared as counsel for General Thomas, and the question was as to whether General Thomas should be held under bond, or wh er, under the circumstances, he was likely to appear and answer when the Grand Jury sat, it being then found out that there was no danger from his personal action by violence. Mr. Evaxts—Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, 1 trust that I may be excused for saying that none of the suggestions by the learned and honorable Man- yer appear tous to have bearing on the question ol evidence now before us. He says that the Attor- ney General has by law no official function in any court except in the Supreme Court of the United States, and no quo warranto proceedings can be commenced there. Quo warranto proceedings, as has heretofore been contended on the part of the Managers, and in reference to which no dispute has arisen, can only be made by issuing on the part of the government and on the part of the officer who has been exciuded from office; and if it may appear that if this adhesion of the Attorney Ge Lor his approval that the proceedings should be taken by General Thomas, a professional adviser is required, we shail be able to produce that proof. Now, it is said that because the President told General Sher- Man that it was impossibie to make up a case it is therefore impossible for us to show that he did attempt to make up a case. ‘This, I suppose, is a new application of the doctrine of estoppel. But the fact is simply this, that in advance of the oficial action of the President toward the removal of Mr. Stanton, and when General Sherman had been asked to receive from the Chief Executive authority to dis- charge the duties of that oMlce ad interim, and while he (General Sherman) was revolving in his own mind what his duty as a citizen and asa friend and servant of the government was, he asked the President whether the question could not be de- cided by lawyers alone without making a deposit of the ad interim authority in any otticer; and the President replied that it was impossible to’ make up a case except by such executive action as to lay basis for judicial interference and determinatio: Then in advance the President did not auticipate the necessity of being driven to this judicial controversy, because in the alternative of General Sherman's av- cepting the trust tus reposed in him the expected the retireinent of Mr, Stanton, and tt his acquiescence no need would arise for further cou- troversy in court or elsewhere. That is the condi- tion of the proof as it now stands before tie Senate, or as we shall contend that it now stands, in reter- ence to what occurred between the President and General Sherman. We have already seen in the proot that General Sherman received from the President on the 2ist day of February this designation to take charge of the office from Mr. Stanton, if he retired, and his report to the President in the first instance of what was required as equivalent to an acquiescence by Mr. Stanton in that demand for the office and its surrender to General Thomas. It 1s then shown in evidence that General Thomas was arrested on the morning of the 224 of Febraary, and that before he went to the court he coumunicated the fact of his arrest to the President and reccived the President's response that that was as he wisied tt should be—tu have the matter in court. Now, we proceed to slow that on the evening of the same day, the matter be- ing thus th court, the President did take it up as his controversy, to be determined by the highest judicial tribunal of the country, by the most rapid method which the law and the competent auvisers us to the law could aiford. But we are met by the objection that the matter to be proved in tie slate of the record between the United States and General Thomas is not in that criminal complaint, but in the stave of facts as regards the action and purpose of the President of the United Staics in uttempting to produce before the wibunal of the country for solemn judicial determination the mat- ter in controversy; that becauge the record of criml- nal charge against General ‘Thomas does not con- tain the name or action of the President of we United States we cannot show, therefore, what the action of the President was, The learned Managers say it does not appear by the record that the Presi- dent made this lis controversy. Certainly it does not, and no lawyer can say how and by what pos- sible method the President could appear on the record of a prosecution against General Thomas. But tus is wholly aside from the point of inquiry here, Now, Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, we are not to be judged by the measure of proof we are able to offer through this witness as regards the efiect and value of ihe entire evidence bearing on this point, as it shall be drawn from this witnes and from other Witnesses, and from other forms of testimony. We state here distinctly, 80 as not to be misundcr- stood, that by this unexpected resistance of Mr. Stanton to this form of removal the President was obliged to tind resource in the law, which he had contemplated as a thing impossible without antece- dent proceediugs, on Which a proper footing could be had in court, and that then he did, with such promptness, and such decision, and such clear and unequivocal purpose, as will be indicated in the evideuce, assuine immediately that duty. It will appear that a method thus presented to lilin for a more speedy determination of the matter than a quo warrant, or information in the nature of 4 quo warranto would present, was provided by the action of Mr, Stanton, the prosecution, and the court on the movement of tie prosecution to get the case out of court as frivilous aud unimpor- taut in ils proceedings against General ‘Thomas, and becoming iurmidable and oifensive when it gave an opportunity to te President of the United Siates by hubeas corpus to get au instant decision in the Su- preme Court of the United States. We then propose Wo sow that this opportunity being thus evaded, the President proceeded to ey the only other resource of judicial determination by iaforimation in the na- ture of a quo warranto. Mr. BUTLER—I am very glad to have an opportun atforded me for the President to deal @ moment with in doctrine of estoppel. I deny that an argu- ment has becn founded to the prejudice of my case by use of the argument which Iimade in the opening of the case, and to which L wish to call the attention of the Senate as bearing on the doctrine of estoppel. 1 will not be long, and L pray you, Senators, to bear in mind that I never have referred to that argument. While I was discussing the obloquy thrown upon Stanton, I used the words, ‘to desert it now, therefore, would be to imi- tate the treachery of his accidental chief; but what- ever may be the construction of the 4#enure of the Civil Omice act by others, or as regards others, An- drew Johnson, the respondent, is concluded upon it, He permitted Mr. Stanton to exercise the duties of his office in spite of it, if that ofice were affected by it, He suspended him under its provisions. He reported that suspension to the Senate, with his reasons therefor, in accord- ance with its provisions, and the Senate, acting nnder tt, declined to concur with him, whereby Mr. Stanton was reinstated. In the well-known lan- nage of the law is not the respondent estopped by nis solemn official acts from denying the legality and constitutional propriety of Mr. Stanton’s posi- tion’? That is alli sata. I never said nor intended to say, nor would any word of mine honestly bear out any man in assuming that I said that the Presi- dent was estopped from trying this case before the Senate of the United States and showing the uncon- stitutionality of the law, as Was argued in the open- ing on his side, and has been more than once referred to since | said that, as between him and Mr. Stant his position was such that he was from denying the constkutional and _ legal effect of the provision. Therenpon it was argued that I claimed on the part of the Man: of the House of Representatives that the President w: estopped from denying the conatitutionality of the , and the learned counsel, running back to Coke and coming down to the present time endeavored to show that the doc 1 did not apply to law. Who ever thought that itdid? I SaF Biot Se En Si eum eereees exto] app! a +4 counsel Abe from ting the an ich of eirappepeni nd uy akg an ee the remarks of the learned counsel | YORK HERALD, FRIDAY, tion of the doctrine of whieh I want carried — this I have not said that tt Was estopped by his declara- eneral Sherman from siteeapted to bet Sy man forward that the Thave only fact eral and said to him that it was impossil to make up a case, shows that he shall not be allowed after the fact to attempt to get up a defence for him- self hy calling in sis counsel. Now it is sald what lawyer would suppose that it would appear upon the record in the case Inst General Thomas that the President of the ms Sryrcrd K in AY contro- versy? Isay that ing, honesty of purpose, iezhtness ‘of action, and frankness of official posi- tion would have made him appear tn that case, The President of the United States, if he had employed counsel for General Thomas in the case, should have sent his counsel into court, who should then have Bt i ir. Chief Justice, we are here oa aring at the instance of the President of the Unit tates for the pur} of trying the great constitutional ques- tion which he has endeavored to raise here, and for that bpaspoee, we want to it into the Supreme Cou the United States; and then if the Chief Justice of this District had refused to hear that case there might have been some ground for the use of the harsh word of evasion which the counsel applied to him. The counsel has said that that ques- tea was evaded, By whom? It must have been by the Chief Justice of the District, for he alone made the decision. He said Mr. Stanton had this case conducted so as to evade a decision. The record of the court shows that this man Thomas was dis- charged on motion of his own counsel. If this coun- sel had not moved his discharge I venture to say he would not have been discharged. Certainly there is no evidence that he would have been. Now, therefore, in that view that Thomas was discharged on the motion of his counsel, could they go back to-day and tell us what they thought in order to show through Mr, Cox that the Chief Justice evaded the point? If you allow Mr. Cox to come in here and put in declarations made to him by the President, then { suppose we must enter into the mers of Mr. A B, and all sorts of counsel whom the President brings about him, We will have to bring before you the Chief Justice to get his account of the matter, They are won 3 ae side bar issue to try whether the procee ings in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia were regular or other- wise. 1 will not say that this is ol cig done, but I may say it is artistically contrived for the purpose of leading us away from the real issue, never heard such a proposition in any court. A single word as to this matter of quo warranto, 1 have hada reasonable degree of practice on this (poy and I undertake to say that every lawyer knows that an information in the nature of a quo warranto cannot be prosecuted except in the name of the Attorney General for any public oMce. If any such case can be found and shown in this country, where it has been prosecuted differently, I would ny friend's pardon—a thing which I do not like to do, (Laughter.) Do they say that a quo warranto, Chee by Mr. Cox or by Mr, Stanbery, has ever been presented to any court in this case? Not at all. Has anybody ever heard of this quo warranto until they came to the necessity of the defence? Aye; and until | put it in the opening speech, which has taught my friends so much? (Laughter.) Never! never! I will not object to evidence of any writ ol quo warranto, or of evidence in the nature of information of quo warranto, filed in any court, from that of a justice of the neace up to the Supreme Court, if they will show that it was filed before the 2ist of February, or prepared before that time; but [ want it to come from the record, and not from the memory of Mr. Cox. You may Y, tors, that am taking too much time in really, it 1s atding you; because if you open this door of the declarations of the President he can Keep you going on from now until next July—aye, until next March—precisely as his friends in the House, of Representatives threatened they would do if the impeachinent was carried” here, Fore- warned, forearmed, Senators. His defenders in the House of Representatives, when arguing against this linpeachment, said:—* If you bring it to the Sen- ate we Will make you follow all the forms, and his oiticial life will be ended before you can get through the trial of impeachment.” That was the threa when your summons reguired the President, summons does, to come in and fie his answer, he asked for forty days todo so. He got ten, He then asked for further delay, 80 \uat forty-three days have been expended since he Sled his answer, or rather since he ought to have filed his answer, and thirty- three s since he actually filed it. Of that time bul six days have been expended on the the Managers in the trial, and @ part of six days have beeu expended by tne coun- sel for the defence. ‘The other twenty odd working days, while (ie whole country is calling for action, aud while murder is stalking through the Southern country unrebuked, have been used in lenity to him and itis coun and we are how asked to go into an entirely side bar issue, Whicit 18 ueilner relevant nor the part of competent under any legal rule, and which if it was could have ho effect. < Senator FEXRY sent up in writing the folowing ident’s counsel: Do the coun- ‘adict or vary the stat by them to the eifect that General Thomas Was discharged Chief Justi riter on the motion of the defend. aus’s counsel 7? Mr, Cuntis—I respond to the question of the Sena- tor that counsel do not expect or desire to contra- dict anything Which appeared upon docket evidence, The evidence Which we offer of the employment of this professional gentleman for the purpose indi- cated is entirely consistent with everything which appears on the docket. it is evidence not of decitra- tions, as the Senator may perceive, but of acts, because it is weil settled, as all lawyers Know, that tuere may be verbal acts as well 2 er acts, and that the verbal act is as much capable of proof as a hysical act is. Now the employment for a particu. fr purpose of an agent, wether professional or otherwise, 18.an act, and it may be always proved by the necessary evidence of wiuch it 18 suxceptive— namely: What was suid by the party in order to create that employment? ‘That is what we desire to prove on those occasions. The dismissal of General Thomas, waich has been refer and which appears on docket, Was entirely subsequent to ail these pro- lings. It took place after it had becot ain in the mind of Mr. Cax and of his a aI that it was no use to endeavor to foilow the proc ings further. As to the argument or remarks ad- dressed by the honorable Manaver to the Senate [ have nothing to say. ey do not appear to me to require ony answe Mr. Wiceon, one of the Managers, said—f beg the indulgence of the Senate for a few moments, | ask the members of this body to pass upon what we de- we to be tie real question involved in the objection interposed to the testi the coun- sel for the respondent. the President of the isa au order removing Edwin M. Stanton from the o1 of Secretary for the Departinent of War. same cay he issued a letter of Lette | to Lorenzo Thomas ‘directing him to take charge of the Depart- ment of War and to discharge its duties ad interim, The articles based upon the violation of the Tenure of Office act are fonnded upon these two acta of the President on the 2ist day February. The counsel for the respondent now propose to break the force of these acts and of that violation of the law by showing that on the 22d of February the President employed an attorney to raise in the courts the question of the constitutionality of the Tenure of Office act. Now, I submit to this honorable body that no act, no declara- tion of the President made after the fact, can be in- troduced for the purpose of explaining his intent; and on that question of intent let me direct your minds to this consideration—that the issuing of the orders of the President state the body of the crime with which the President stands charged, Did he purposely and willingly issue an order to re- move the Secretary of Wart Did he purposely and willingly issue the order appointing Thomas as Se- cretary of War ad interim? If he did tous issue the orders the iaw raises the presumption of gutity in- tent, and no act done by the President alter those orders were issued can be introduced for the purpose of rebutting that intent. The orders themselves were ylation of the term of the Tenure of Office act. @ violation of that act they constituie an under and by virtue of its provi- and the oifence being thas established, which controlled the question to the Pt sions, must stand upon the intent action of the President at the tine he issued the orders. ff, after this subject was imtroduced into tue House of Representatives, the President became alarmed at the state of amairs, and concluded that it Waa better to attempt by soine ineans to secure adeci+ gion in the courts upon the question of the constitu. nality or unconstitationality of the Tenure of Ofice nnot avail in thiscase. We are mquiring as to the Intent which controlied and directed the action of the President at the time the act was done; and if we succeed in establishing that intent, either by the fuct or by the presumption of law, no subsequent act can interfere with itor rid hin of the responsibility which (he law places on him because of the act done. ARTS replied to the argument of Mr. Wilson, and © aded for the legality of tue proof offered. The implication, he said, which alone gave character to the trial, Was that there was @ purpose in th intad of the President injurious to the public interest and to the public safety, The President's counsel ask to put the prosecution in its proper place on that point, and to say that the President intended no vio- jation and no interruption to the public service; that he intended no seizure of military Torts severe and that he had no purpose tn his mind but to secure Mr, Stanton’s retirement. If this evidence were excluded then when counsel came to the summing up of the case they must take the crime in the dimension aud in the consequences here avowed; and he (Mr. Evarts) should be entitied before this Court and before this country to treat the accusation as if the article had read that the President had issued that order for Mr. Stanton’s retirement and for General Thomas to take charge ad interim of the War Departinent, with the intent and purpose of raising a case for the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, to test the constitutionality of an act of Congress. If such an article had been produced by the House of Representatives and submitted to the Senate it would have been the laughing stock of the whole country. He offered this evidence to prove that the whole and intent of the President in his action with reference to the occupancy of the office of Secretary of War had this intent id no more—to obtain a ble delivery of that trust, and, in case of its being refused, to have the case for the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. If that evidence was excluded they must treat every one of the articles as if they were limited to an open avowment that the intent of the Presi- dent Was such as he pro to prove it. Mr. BUTLER referred the Court to 60 Wheaton, on the subject of the writ of quo warranto, to the fact that that writ can only be maintained at the instance of the government. Mr. CURTIS admitted that that was undoubtedly the law in to quo warranto in ai the States with whose acquainted. Ho ad- there could be no writ of quo warranto, formation ‘nature. of the creopt in" behalt "the publion pat the. queetion ruary | APRIL 17, 1868,—TRIPLE what officer was to represent Ge patie and In what name the information was to be de] particular statutes spplicanic to the case, These statutes differ in the different States under the laws ofthe United States, All proceedt in behalf of the United States in the Circuit and District Courts were taken by district attorneys in their own names, and all proceedings in behalf of the United States in the Supreme Court were taken by the Attorney General in his name. In reference to Mr, Cox, he expected to show an application by Mr. Cox to the Attorney General to obtain his signature to the roperinformation and the obtaining of that sigua- ‘The Caer JusTice—Senators, the counsel for the President offer the proof that the witness, Mr. Cox, was Sraplazed professionally by the President, in the presence of General Thomas, to take such legal pro- ceedti in the case which had been commenced against General Thomas, would be effectual to raise judicially the question of Mr. Stanton’s le continue to hold the office of Secretary for the Depart- ment of War against the authority of the President, and also in reference to obtaining a writ of quo war- ranto for the same purpose; and they state that the; expect to follow up this proof by evidence as to wha was done by the witness in pursuance of that employment. The first article of impeachment after charging that Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, in violation of the constitution, &c,, issued orders, which have been so frequently read, for the removal of Mr. Stanton, proceeds to say such orders were unlawfully issued with intent then and there to violate the ‘act entitled “An Act Regulating the Tenure of Office,” &c. The article charges, first, that the act done was done unlawfully, and then {t charges that the act was done with intent to accomplish a certain result, That intent the President denies, and it is to establish the truth of that denial that the Chief Justice understands this evidence now to offered, It 18 evidence of an attempt to employ counsel in the presence of the President and General Thomas, and it is evidence go far of the fact. It may be evidence, also, of de- clarations connected with that fact. This fact and those declarations which the Chief Justice under- stands to be in the nature of facts, he thinks are ad- missable in evidence. The Senate has aIrenAy on former occasions, decided by a solemn vote that evi- dence of declarations of the President to General Thomas and by General Thomas to the President, after this order was tssued to Mr. Stanton, was admissible, It has also admitted evi- dence to the same effect offered by the honorable Managers, It seems to me_ that this evidence now offered comes within the principle of this decision, and, as the Chief Justice has already had occasion to say, he thinks that the principles of this decision are right. It is a decision proper to be made by the Senate, sang in its high capacity as a Court of Impeachment, and composed; as it is, of law- Re and gentlemen thoroughly acquainted with the usiness transactions of life and entirely competent to weigh any evidence which may be submitted, Senator Drake called for the yeas and nays on ad- mitting the evidence, The vote was taken and resulted yeas 20, nays 21, as follows: YRAs—Senators Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuys Grimes, Henitricks, Howe, Johnson, McGreery, Mor . Morton, Norton, Patte 'H., Patterson of 'T ost, SausbUry, Shermay umner, Trumbull, Winkle, Vickerw and Wal Nays—Senators Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, » Harlan, Howahd, MOrgan, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Fen Morrill of \t., Nye, Pomeroy,’ Ramacy, Stewart, Thayer, ‘Tipton, Willlains, Wilson and ¥atos—1. JuRTIS tien resumed the examination of the as follow Now state what occurred between General Thomas and the President and yourself on that oeca- sion? A. Afier referring to thé appointment of Gen- eral Thomas as Secretary of War ad interim, the President stated that Mr. Stanton had re- fused to surrender possession of the depart- ment to General Thomas, and that he desired the necessary legal proceedings to be tustituted with- out delay to test General Thomas’ right to the office and to put him in possession, | inquired if the At- torney General was to act in the matter, whether I coald consult with him, The Pr stated that the Attorney General had been s upied in the Supreme Court that he had not had time to look into the authorities, but he would be glad if } would confer with him, Lpromised to do so, and od that 1 would examine the subject immediately, and scon after | took my leave. Q. When you left did you leave General Thomas and the Prestdent there? A, I did. Q. About what tine did you leave? A. Ido not suppose i was there more than twenty minutes; ett my own house at five ofcloc Q. State no’ that you did substantially in consequence of Unat employment? Mr. BUTLER (lo the Chief J ice)—Do_ the Presi- dent’s counsel say that anything which Mr. Cox did afterwards tends to show the President's int The Cuter Jusrice remarked that the couid proceed under the ruling of the Senate, After reecung on the subject, supposing witness ink that suppost- aed of a Wit: TLER (interposing)—I t! y come in. I Mr. Bort your couchusions; we want your acts, Mk. CURTis—it is a pretty important act for a lawyer to come to a conciusion, Mr, BUTLER—It may be or it may not be. —i will be instructed by the court what to pursu Mr. BUTLER—L¢t the witness state what he did. I want him to be restraimed to that. Mr. CunTis—tie came to a conclusion, and I want to know Mi. Bu’ to conclusions of his own pind. The Cnier Justice said that the witness might proceed. Witness—Knowing that a writ of quo warranto was @ very tedious one, and that it eould not be brought to a conctusion within @ year, and General ‘Thomas having been arrested for’a violation of the ‘Tenure Tidougit that the best mode of ding Was— i K (again interposing)—I object to the LS. nghter. —I determined then to proceed in the drst in tie case of General Thomas, Q. Pro A, Belore exatmining the jus- tice of the case, aud if the Case was tn a condition for it to bring my client before te Supreme Court of tie United States by u writ of habeas corpus, so that the Supreme Court, ou the return of tie writ, Would ¢x- aznine the case. Le (interposing\—These are not acta; they are thoughts, sions and reasonings of the Witness—whal he would do if something cise was instanc ; done. The Crier JUSTICE supposed that the counsel em- ployed by the President may state what course he and why he pursued it, In relation to this matter— Ce 2 Mr. BuTLer—I should like to hear the judgment of the Senate upon that. The Cuikv JusTick—Oounsel, please put the ques- tion in writing if any Senator desires it; if not, tuc Witness Will proceed. Senator Howakb asked that the question might be reduced to writing. ‘The question having been reduced to writing was read as follows:—"State what conclusion you arrived at as to the proper course to be taken to ‘accomplish the instructions given you by the President.” Mr. BurLen—I do not object to that. What I ob- Jected to was the witness putting his thoughts and his reasoning’ by which he came to a conclusion. What he did waa one thing; what he thougit, what he determined, what he wished and what he hoped depended so much upon his stave of mind aad upon whether he was loyal or disioyal in his disposi- tion that we do not want that. ‘The Cater Justice—The Chief Justice will direct the witness to confine bdruself to the sions to vatae and to the steps whic . Having come to tie conclusion Wat the peditious way of bringing the question in controversy before the Supreme Court was to apply for a writ of rpus in case General Thomas? case Was in a proper siupe for it, | had a brief inter- view Wilt (ae Attorney General on Monday morning, and tis course met his approval; | then proceeded to act witt counsel Whom General Thomas had en- gaged to act in his behalf in the first instane " q Who Was that? A, Mr. Merrick; in order, how- to procare & writ of habeas corpus, it ary that the mitment should be made court, not by a dus tu Chambers or by a Justice of the Peace. General Thomas had been arrested and previously examined before one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the District a ra, and had been held to appear for further examination, On Weduesday, the Jeth, the Criminal Court was opened, Chief dustice Cartter presiding, and he an- nounced that he Would then proceed with the exami- nation of the case against General Thomas. Mr. BUTLER e object to aby proceedings in court belug proved other than by the records of the court. Mr. Contis—We wish the witness to state what he did in court. It may have resulted ina record and it may not. Until we know what he did we cannot tell whether it resulted in a record or pot. There may have been an ineifectual attempt to get into court. Mr. BuTien—I call your attention, Mr. President and Senators, to the ingeniousness of that Kpeech, ‘The witness testified that the court had opened, and be was going on to say what Chief Justice Cartter an- nounced in a criminal court, Mr. Cuntis (interrapting)—Will the honorable Man- ager give me one moment? I said, and intended to be ao understood, that here was a Chief Justice sit- ting in a magisterial ci ity, and also, as Mr. Cox stated, le Was sitting there holding the Cruninal Court. What we desire to prove is that there was an etfort made by Mr. Cox to get this case transferred from the Chief Justice, in his capacity of magistrate, into and before the Criminal Court, and we wish to show wiat Mr. Cox did in onier to obtain that. Mr. BuTL#R—If the Senate were to try Chief Jus. tice Cartier aa to whether he did right or wrong, I only desire that he shall have counsel here and be allowed to defend himself, | never heard of the pro- ceedings of @ court or of @ magistrate attempted to be proved in a tribunal, when he was not on trial, by, the declaration of the counsel for the criminal. ‘The CurgF JusTice—The counsel will reduce the question to writing, and the Chief Justice will sub- mit it to the Sena' ‘The question being reducced to writing, was rend, as follows:—What did you do towards getting out a writ of habeas Corpus under the employment of the President?” it Mr. BUTLER~That is not the qnoation that we have jebating made an objection, Mr. Prea- ‘tat ie ita Ahi no at ‘what took which evades that, i SHEET. Mr. EvArTs—Our general question 1s intended to draw out what took place in court. Me Bvawrs—Then I/underst ir. EVARTS—' understand you; but I do not want to be eatechised about it. The Caer JUSTICE put the question to the court as to whether the testimony would be adinitted, ‘Mr. BuTLER—I ask that there be added to the ques- tion these words:—“This being intended to cover what the witness heard in court.” Mr. EvarTs—The question needs no change what- ever. It is intended to call out what the witness did towards getting out a writ of habeas corpus, and it covers what he did in court, the no, lace to do it, Mr. CurTIs—If any change or addition is to be made to the question I should to alter the word “court,” because there may be a double meaning to that What was done or intended to be done was before a magistrate, Mr, BUTLER—Sitting as a jud Mr. CurTis—Sitting as a magistrate. ‘The question was then modified so as to read— “What did you do towards getting out a habeas corpus or the employment of the President?” ‘The yeas and nays were taken and resultedWyeas 27—nays 23, as follows:— YEAS—Senators Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, ‘relinghuysen, Grimes, Hen- dricks, Johnson, MeGreery, Morrill of Me., Morton, Norton, Paterson of N, H., Paitorson of ‘Tenn., Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, ‘Van Winkle, Vickers, ey—21. Nays—Senators Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkli Conness, Cragin, Drake, amine, Be Harlan, Howar Howe, Morgan,’ Morrill of Vt. e, Pomeroy, Ramsay, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, William: ‘ilson and Yates—23, So the question was admitted, Witness—When the Chief Justice announced that he would proceed as an examining justice to in- vestigate the case of General Thomas, not as holding court, our first suplicesion. to him was to adjourn the investigation to the eriminal court in order to have the action of that court. After some little discussion the application was refused. Our next effort was to have General Thomas committed to rison in order that we might apply to that court for a writ of habeas corpus and upon his being remanded by that court, if it should be done. we might follow up the application by one to the Su- preme Court of the United States. The counsel who represented the government of the United States (Messrs. Carpenter and Riddle) applied to the court then for a postponement. Mr. BUTLER (to the witness)—Stop a moment. (To the Chief Justice)—Does this ruling apply to what was done by others? The Cuter Justice—If it is a part of the same trankaction the Chief Justice conceives that it comes within the ruling. The witness then proceeded:—The Chief Justice having indicated the intention to postpone the ex- amination, we directed General Thomas to decline giving bail for his appearance, and to surrender him- self into custody, and we announced to the Judge that he was in custody and then presented to the Criminal Court an application for the writ of habeas corpus- ‘fhe counsel on the other side objected that General Thomas could not put himself into custody, and that they did not desire that he should be de- tained in custody. The Chief Justice also declared that he could notrestrain General Thomas of his liber- ty nor holdhim, nor allow him to be held, in custody, supposing that he must either be ninitted or finally discharged. We then claimed that he ‘should be © discharged, not supposing that the counsel yn the other side would consent to it; but supposing that that would bring about his commitment and that thus we would have an opportunity of getting the habeas — corpus. They made no objection, however, to his tinal discharge, sad accordingly tho Chief Justice did discharge him. Immediately after that T went in comp: with the counsel whom he employed (Mr. Merviek) to the President’s house and reported Our proceedings and the results to the resident. He then urged us to proceed. Mr. BUTLER (to the witness)—Wait amoment. (To the Chiot Justice)—Shall we have another tuterview With the President put iny ‘The Curer JusTICE (to the witne: that? A, It was the 25th of Feb) after th uurt adjourned, K ropose to show that, having made his report to the President of the failure of that attempt, he then received from the President. other justructions on that subject to follow up the attempt in another way. Mr. Bincnam—Do T understand that this interview with the President was on the 26th? Mr. CurTis—It was. Mr. Binauam—Two days after he had been im- peached b} puse OF Kepresentatives ? Mr. Cu Mr. Binanam—two days after he was presented, and you a asking the Presideul’s deciarations to prove his own innocen Mr. Curtis—We do not ask for his declarations; we ask for his acts. Mr. BUTLER—Two days after his arr: this We ask for a vote of the Senate, The Cuikr Justice—The ©! ustice may have misunderstood the rutin, enate, but he un- n relation to the wal remedy y pursue particul the Senate has ru jgnment at action, tie Witness may go on and t u particular transaction comes to a close, Now, the oer is to prove the conversation after the nomina- tion of that in the District Court. ne Chief Justice does not think that that is the view of the ate, but he wiillsubinit the question to the Senate, ‘The question was submitted and the evidence was ruled out without a division. Qnestion by Mr. Cuiwis—After you had reported to the President, as you hive stated, did you take any further step or do any further net in reference to vaising tne qnestion of the constitutionality of the Q. Your private intimations T have not asked for.’ Were share apy, aa sha counsel that appeared on the other side? A, No, sir. @ ‘Then, so far a8 yon know, they, the counsel on the other side, would only treat this as a question of the rights of personal liberty of Mr. Thomas? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, sir, it being your desire to have that ques tion tested, and as Tea appeared for Mr. : and as it must have been done by consent of the the prosecutor, why didn’t the of po d ask to have it pot tans the opposite counsel ans ve it put for tha A. use I didn’t think? they would 9 Beca' consent to it. We didn’t want to let them know & Then you meant to conceal rather did. They seemed to Q. You say you prepared for an informa> tion in the matter of a Glo warrauto? A. Yes, Q. What day was that? nesday, the 26th, or the next day, the 26th or 27th of Q. And that was after the President was peached? A. Yes, sir, oe when you reported to iim and the time when you got this paper? A, I did not, sir, I have never seen . You prepared this paper? A. Yes, sir. And carried it to the Attorney General’s? A, To Q. And he said he must have some order from the Attorney General or the President? A. Yes, sir. I sent the papers, Q. Did you send a note with them? A. I do not ten. Q. Who did you send it by? A. By Mr. Merrick or . What Bradley? A. The elder. . Was he concerned in the matter? A. He ap- General Thomas. ‘2. Joseph R. Bradley appeared in the District Court: the character of attorney. » nything? A. Nothing to the court. Q. Did he say any’ ing PA The what our object was, nt our ohjeck? A, We vine it from the course they took. sir, A. That either on Wed- February. J think it was on the 27th, Q. Did you see the President between the time him since, the District Attorney. I spoke to him, Q. And then you went to the Attoraey General? A. recollect; 1 sent the information over verbal or writ- Mr. Bradle; peared in court with us merely as an adviser for as attorney? A. He appeared in person, but not in Q. Is that the man that was disb: same—so that he could not appear. Q. Weill, after you sent these papers to the Attor- ney ours then, did you ever receive them back? A. Tdid, Q. When? A. few days ago. Q. By a few days ago, when do you mean? Since you have been summoned as a witness? A. I think not; just before, I believe, Q. Preparatory to your being summoned as a wit- ness? A. No, not that I am aware of. Q. After or before this case was opened? A. After, Q. How long? A, I could not say; 1 think it was four or five days ago. Q. Have you had any communication with the At- torney General about them between the time when you sent them and the time when you received them? ‘A. None in person. ‘i Q. Had you in writing? A. No, sir. Q. Then you had none in any way? A. Yes, sir; Mr. Merrick said it was more convenient for him to see lum. Q. Of which you only know from what he sald? A. Yes, sir. Q They were returned to you; where are they now? A. [have theta in my pocket. Q. Were they not returned to you for the purpose of your having them when you were called as a wit ness? A. No, sit; they came with a message, Q. How soon before you were summoned? A. Not more than a day or two, Q. On the sate day? A, I think a day or two be- fore. Q. To your knowledge have th ¢ presenicd to any judge of auy court’ A, They have hot, up to the hour that we are speaking, Q. Have yon been directed either by the Attorney Geleral, or by the President, to present them to an judge of any Court? A, The papers came to me witl ihe direction to use them as Mr. Merrick or myself choose, ip our own diseretion. QV or writteny A. Verbal to Mr. Merrick. But Mr. Merrick was not associated with you as © paper ever been pl for the President? A, He was not. As Tune nd, ly counsel for General Thomas, a S this movement on the part of General for the information made asaquo warranto 2 . 2 ir; it was filed on the relation of General ‘Thomas. @ [iave you received in writing or verbally to yourself any di jon, either from the President or ihe Attorney General, to file these papers? A. No positive orders, @. Any positive or imperative from them to you? A. Not immediately. Q. I don't mean through Mr. Merrie! communication was through him, Q. From whom did le bring you a direction or communication? A, Prom the Attorney General. Q. Who? A. The Attorney Gene Q. Who ia that? A. Mr, Stanbery Q Andith 8 five days ago. Why he resigned rinight azo, How did ‘al to speak by order of nt Mr. Stanbery. lirection, through neral oflicially, as A. The only the Preside Q y Mr. Merrick, from ti # direction for the President's counsel? A. Through Mr, Merrick, ali that 1 re ‘ me. ved Was— Have you received any communi- r. Merrick, or an: ly else, from the Attorney neral of the United States, not the resigned Attorney General of the United States? A. Lhave not, sir, from any other. y not received any from him, either r otherwise, while he was Attorney Gene- United? A. T have not. Q. When you handed him the papers was he Attor- Q. Exens cation, Jaw or the Tenure of Office act? Mr. BuTLeR—If what the President did himself afier he was impeacied’ after the 22d of February cannot be given in evidence I do not see that what his counsel did for lin can bes it is uly oue step further. Mr, EVARTS—We may put the question, I suppose? ‘ a BUTLEK—The question was put aud [ objected 0 it. Mr. Evanrs—It was not reduced to writing. By direcuion of the Chicf Justice the question was put im writing as follows:—" Afier you had reported to the President the result of your efforts to obtain a writ of habe orpus did you do any other act in pursuance of th iginal {nstructions you had re- ceived from the President on Satarday to contest the right of Stanton to continue in the onice; if so, state i ‘The Cuter Justice thinks the question inadmisel- ble within the last vote of the Senate, but will put it to the Senate if any Senator desires it, Senator DOOLITTLE asked a vote, uest of Senator SuBRMAN, the fifth article by the Seerctary. t Mr. EVARTS said it was proposed to show a lawful intent. Senator Howg—If It is proper I would like the first Uh addressed to the witness on the stand read acai. The Caer Justice—On which the ruling took 2 z ES rv, Bvarrs—The offer to prove? Senator Howe—The offer to prove. ‘The offer to prove was again read. The Cruze Justice deoided that, under the fifth article on the question of intent, the question was admatssible, Senator HOWARD asked that the question be put to tie Senate, and the question Was admitted, by the following vot Yr.A8—Senators Anthony, Bayard, Bucktiew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Hendricks, Howe, ry, Morrill, of Mi tierwon of Tent, Suimner, ‘Trumbull, Van iliey —B7. Nays -Senatora Cameron, Conness, Cragin, Drake, Edmur Harlan,’ Howard, Morgan, Morrill of Vt,’ Nye, roy, Ramacy, Stewarl, Thayer, Tipton, Wiliams, Wilson wud Yates 43. ness—On the same day or the next, the 2ist, I information, p of quo war- prague, adler, Conkling, ty, Frelinghuysen, ranto;t think a di ccurred in the eifort to procure c d copies of General Thomas? mission as Secretary of War ad interim; 1 then ue District Attorney to sign the infor tion, in the nature of @ quo warranto, and he clined to do go without instructions from the Prest- dent or Attorney General; this fact was communi- cated to the Aviorney General and the papers were sent to him, and we also gave 1 as our opinion that it would not be — : Mr. BUTLER—Stop a moment. We object to the opinion given to the Attorney General. Mr. Bvaw We don’t insist upon it. Mr. CURTIs—You can now proceed to state what Was done after this time. A. Nothing was done after that by me. ‘On motion of Senator ConNES8 the Senate took a recess of fifteen minutes at haif-past two, Afier recess the witness Was cross-examined by Mr. BUTLER. Q. Have you practised in Washington always? A. Yes, sir. q. Were any other counsel associated with you by the President? A. No, sir, not to = knowledge, Q. Were you counsel in that case for the President or for General Thomas? A. 1 considered myseif counsel for the President. Q. Vid you so announce yourself to Chief Justice Carttor? “A. I did not. q. Then you appeared before him as counsel for Mr. Thomas? A, I did in that proceeding. Q. He did not understand in any way, so far as you know, that you were desiring to do anything there m behalf of the President? A. [ had imentioned the fact that [ had been sent for to take charge of some proceedings. Q. As counsel for the President? A. Yes, sir; that T had been sent for by the President, Q, But did you tell him that you were coming {nto his court as counsel for the President? A. No; 1 did not. q That is the bce I put toyon. In any of your discussions Of questions before the court did 4 inform the court or the counsel that you desired have the case put in frame so that you could get the decision of the Supreme Court? © A. 1 do not think I did. Q Had they any m either court or counsel, of knowing that Was the President's Lied og or ete 80 far as ‘were concerned, only by the ha- eas COFPUS of in General Thomas’ answer— nothing onl; ar might infer? A. No, sir. I had no conversation with them whatever. Q. Lam not ‘ing of conversations with conn- sel outside of the court, but I am speaking of the proecedings in court? A. No, sir, Q. And so far as the roceedings in court are con- cerned there was no intimation, direct or inairec that ‘was any wish on the part of the President pn 6 & case to test the tionality or the of any law? wan none that I remember in-the presence of irgeete sea marae: private | aeral? A. L bel are Q. Could you not be certain on that point? A. I don’t Know when he resigned, Q. And the resignation made no difference in your action? A, Tdon't think he had sesigned at that time, Tam very sure the papers were sent to him within two or three days after the discharge of General Thomas. Q. And were returned by him to you within four or five days? A. Yes, sir, four or five days. 8, «), After he resigned? A. [ think it was—yes, gir. Q. So-that when you told us Mr. Merrick had brought it from the Attorney Gencral, it was from Mr. stanbery’ A. sir. Q. You tue received no communication from the President or the Attorney General as to what should be done with this proceeding? A. No, sir. Q. Then, so fur as you Know, there has not been any direction or any effort from the Attorney General the Pre nt (leaving out Mr. Stanbery, who is eneral now) to have anything done rs? A. There has been uo direction, B80, Si mmunications} . No communication per was for led to me to go to the noment. since the court for a Q. Did Merrick or yourself make a motion to have Mr. Thomas discharged? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was he not in custody under his own recogni- zance up to tue time of making tiat motion? A, He claimed that he was, but the other side denied tt. Q. And to settle that question you moved his dis- charge? A. Yes, sir, q. And that was granted? A, It was. Q. Did you make that motion? A. Yes, sir, Q. So that In fact General Thomas was dischi from custody on the motion of the President's counsel ¥ Mr, Curtis—He has not said that, Mr. BoTLen—Excuse me. If he was not dischat from custody what was he discharged from? Dis- charged from any airther detention or examination ? He could not be detained without being in custody, could he’ A. Not very well. n I will repeat the question upon which TI errupted, Whether tn fact, Mr, Cox, Mr. Thomas was not discharged from custody, from de- tention, from further being held to answer on that complaint, upon the moon of the Presidents counsel? A. He was, sir, Q. Now, then, sir, was that information signed by past, present or to come, 90 far as you A. Lt was not sir, TESTIMONY OF RICHARD T. MERRICK. Richard Tt. Merrick was thea sworn on behalf of respondent, Examined by Mr. Curtis. Q. Where do you reside? A. I reside in this city, Q. What is your professions A. Lam a lawyer, sir. Q. How lonig have you been in that profession?’ A. * Nineteen or tweaty years, sir. Q. Were you empioyed professionally in any way in connection with tie mutter of General ‘Thowas before Chief Justice Cariter? A. [ was employed by Geuerai Thomas, on the morning of the 1 of Feb~ ruary, to appear m the proceedings agatast him At before Chief Justice Cartier. yurse of that day, the 22d of Febru im interview in company with Ge Thotas or otherwise with the President of the Unt States’ A. Ll went to the Presideut’s house for the purpose of taking to the President the allidavits, &e., filed by General Thomas and commonicating vo the President what had transpired in regard to the case, Q. Did you communicate to him what had trans~ Pired in regard to the case? 1 submit, Mr. President, that that is Pre know? wholly immat dent's acts in employing Mr. Cox as his cout but what communication took piace between the Presi- dent and Mr. Merrick, Who very frankly tells us that he was employed by General Thomas as his counsel, 1 think cannot be evidence, The Cuikr Justice was understood to rule the question admissible, r. CURTIS—State whether you communicated to the President In the presence of General Thomas what had transpired in reference to the case? A. My recoijlection that I communtcated what had transpired to the President in the absence of Gene- ra} Thomas, that he was not at the Executive Man- sion when i called; Uiat during the interview Gene- ral Thomas @rived, and the same communication was then made in @ general conversation, in which the Attorney General, Mr. Stanbery, the President, General Thomas and myself particip: . Q. Please state whether eituer from the President himself, or from the Attorney General in his pre- ence, you received afterwards any instructions ot gestions as to the course to be pursued by you to General Thomas’ case. In the first place you may fix, if you please, the hour of the day when this occurred on the 22d? A. I think the proceedings betore Chief Justice Cartier, at Cuambers, took place between ten and haif-past ‘ten o'clock, and tmtuedte ately after they concluded, and they extended over @ very short period. Lordered copies of the papers to be made, aud as soon fe they were made I took them to the Execative Mausion. [ think it occupted bably from thirty minutes to au hour to inake the copies, and my impression is T reached the Executive t noon. aS how you can answer the residueof the tions, whether you received either from the Jimseif or the Attorney General, in the presence