The New York Herald Newspaper, April 26, 1868, Page 3

IMPEACHMENT, Trial ef President Andrew Johnson for High-Crimes and Misdemeanors. ARGUMENT OF MR, GROESBECK AN ABLE DEFENCE OF THE PRESIDENT. SPECIAL TELEGRAM TO THE HERALD, WaAsHinaTon, April 25, 1868, The fact being generally known that one of the ablest of the counsel for the President would address the Senate to-day drew together, considermg the un- Pleasant character of the weather, an unusually large crowd. Judge Groesbeck was the speaker of to-day; and, now that the day is over, the general opinion is ‘tat he has borne off from both sides the laurels for argument and eloquence, In gesture and graceful- mess of manner Judge Groesbeck a good deal re- sembles Mr, Stanbery. The latter, however, has Much more mobility of countenance and greater volume of voice. Judge Groesbeck began by defin- ing the jurisdiction of the court, and said it was empanelled to try a certain class of cases ‘and no other, and in the trial it was no longer a Senate, but a court. As members of the Senate they took a political oath—as members of the court’a judicial one. Here he disposed of Mr. Butler’s slop logic, that the court was bound by no Jaw, but was one unto themselves, His voice at this time was growing weak and husky, and, seemingly unable for the task of delivering what he had pro- Posed to himself—a three hours’ speech—Senator Fessenden, evidently out of sympathy for the Judge, asked him to defer the rest of his remarks until Monday and allow the Managers to occupy the re- mainder of to-day. The Judge thanked him .very eourteously, but said he did not expectto be in a better condition for some time and would finish his address to the best of his vocal ability. He went ahead cautiously and well until two o'clock, when a Tecess was declared, it was after the recess that Judge Groesbeck came out in bold relief as a skilful, farseeing and eloquent debater. His voice underwent a remarkable change Jor the better, It suddenly lost its huskiness, and in the striking passages of his address distinctly inter- preted the meaning of the speaker. He was particu- larly effective in that portion of his speech where he showed the debate in the Convention of 1789 con- eluded by lodging the power of removal with the President, and that the Supreme Court, with twenty administrations and thirty-eight Congresses, had Rever questioned, but invariably concurred in that ruling of the framers of the constitution. The audience, Senators and all, became deeply in- terested at this particular time, and followed the speaker eagerly through his splendid charge along the whole line of the eleven articles. The peroration, however, was, as it should be, the climax of this ad- dress, and is said to be the most eloquent and best Sustained eifort that has been heard in the Senate since the palmy days of oratory in this republic. A general silence prevailed, and as the speaker, with impressive earnestness, depicted the mis- eries which have ever followed violent mea- Bures conceived in party spirit and carried Out in deflance of Jaw and justice there was pro- found attention exhibited by every single hearer, When he concluded Mr. Groesbeck was the recipient of congratulations, first from the Chief Justice and then from the leading Senators on both sides of the chamber, With the approximation of the termination of the impeachment trial the speculations as to the result assume a more earnest phase. Upon the hypothesis that conviction is sure to pe the result when the time comes expectations run high. Some of the most anxious of the radicals seem to be in a state of great mental perplexity and uncertainty. One of these, who gave vent to his feelings, was heard to say to- day that this Congress would have to vote again for the impeachment of Andrew Johnson—meaning that he would override the present efforts of the Managers to make out acase. In response to this remark sev- veral members replied that if this trial did not suc- ceed they would see the party ruined before they would vote again for any such measure. The strongest kind of pressure is still being Drought to bear m order to assure success, as the Tadicals see in defeat nothing but an almost hopeless cause. John Covode, of Pennsylvania, to-day re- ceived a private letter from Governor Brownlow, of ‘Tennessee, in which the expected vote of Senator Fowler in favor of the acquittal was treated in no courtly terms. The radicals of Tennessee appear to be in a high state of excitement, and it 1s said if their Senator does not support them some high- handed measures will be resorted to. According to Governor Brownlow, when Senator Fowler received his appointment to the Senate he gave strong pledges ‘of support to the radical cause, and especially it is asserted he promised to vote for and inevery manner within his control to ald impeachment, If he does not hold to his promises he is threatened with politi- cal outiawry and other inconveniences, which, it is asserted, will render Terfnessee anything but a desi- rable abode for him in the future, A Washington despatch to the Evening Telegram says an effort was made in the Senate to-day to get rid of Mr. Edmunds’ proposition of allowing oficial reporters to be present and report the debates at the final consultation on the question of guilty or not guilty. Mr. Edmunds moved to postpone the matter until! Monday. Several of the radical Senators were on their feet at once, but Mr. Drake, getting the attention of the presiding oMcer, moved to post- pone it indefinitely, but the motion was lost by a de- cided majority. As there are several important questions not immediately related to impeachment, there will no doubt be a strong effort made to defeat it. The Wade men look upon it as an attempt upon the part of the Wilson and Colfax factions to post- pone a decision of the impeachment until after the meeting of the Chicago Convention. It is noticeable that on the vote on Mr. Drake's motion all the Sen- ators known to be unfavorable to Thad Stevens’ nomination to the Vice Presidency voted against ‘indefinite postponement, while those who favor his claims voted for it, If the vote to-day may be taken asa test there seems little doubt of its anal adoption, PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT. ‘Twenty-third Day. UNITED STATES SENATE CHAM! WAsniNaton, April 25, 1! } After the opening of the court the Chief Justice stated that the first business in order was the order offered by Senator Edmunds yesterday to admit the loMcial reporters to report the proceedings on the Anal question. Senator EpMunps, at the suggestion, he said, of several Senators, moved to postpone the considera- tion of the order until Monday. Senator Drake—I move that the order be indef- nitely postponed, and on that I call the yeas and maya- Senator Epmtunps—Mr. President, so do I. The motion of Mr. Drake was voted down by the ollowing vote:— Yeas—Messrs. Cameron, Chandler, Conkling, Cor- ett, Drake, Ferry, Harlan, Howard, Morrill of Me, Morr. of Vt, Morton, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, stewart, Suiiner, Thayer, Tipton and Yates—Zo, Nays—Senators Anthony, Buckalew, Cragin, Davis, dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fowler, Fre- inghuysen, Griw Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, ohuson, MeCreery, Morgan, Norien, Patterson of enn., Saclaputy, Sherman, Trembu |, Van Winkle, Jickers, Willéy, Williams and Wilson—27, ‘The motionto postpone to Monday was agreed to. Mr. Sune offered the foliowing order:— Ordered, that the bee! sitting for the trial of An- rew Jolinson, President of the United States, will pro- vote on the several articles of impeachment wel « o'clock on the day after the cose of the rgument. ‘Senator JoHNSON objected, and it Was laid over, Senator Su“NeR—I send to the chair two addition- rules, the first of which is derived from the prac- eof the Senate on the trials of Judge Chase and ilge Peck, They were read, as follows:— Ruie 2a. Tn taking the votes of the Senate on the rticies of impeachment the presiding ofcer shall NEW Y eall each Senator by his name, and upon each article propose the foltowing question in the manner fo'low- i—“Mr, ——, How say yon? ts the respondent ae ascharred in the article of im- mn each Se: shall rise in is place and answer nitty” or “Not nitty.” RuLe #4. On a conviction by the Senste, it shall be the duty of the presiding ofieer forthwith to pro- nounee the removal from office of the convicted per- son, according to the requirement of the eonstitrt on, and any further judgment suailbe on the order of wie Senate, - Senator JonNsoN again objected and Wie rules went over. . ‘The Cuter Jusricz then notified the counsel for (he President to proceed with the argument. Argument of Mr. Groesbeck. Mx. GRoxsheck—Mr, Chief Justice and Senators— 1am sorry that Lam net so well to-day as I should like to be; but I know the desire of the Senate to get on with this argument, and | have therefore pre- ferred to come here this morning and attempt to Present an outline at least of the views I nave formed of the respondent in this case. S:nce the organization of our government we have had five trials of impeachment. One of a Senator an4 four of judges, who have held their office by appoin*ment, and for a tenure during life and. good behavior. It has not been the practice, nor is it the wise policy of @ republic or a republican government to avail itself of the remedy of impeachment for the regulation of all elective officers. | fi of a republican government, according to my appre- hension, is to leave matters to the fay ie, They are the great and me tribunal to lay just such questions, and they mble statedly for that Pl with the single object of deciding whether an ofiicer shall be continued or whether he shall be re- moved from office. Enea te allowed, Senators, to express my surprise that Such a case as this is before posed but if ts here, and it must be tried; and there- u constitution, which countenanced neither “bills at- tainder” nor irreg) ible tribunals to be laws unto He first called attention to the fact that cedents she spen that the Senate was not a court ever been advanced. He read from the records of each of them lage in which the Senate on all those occasions styled itself ‘the court.” He also qnoted Story and other authorities to show the judi- character of the Senate and the qualifications ey must bring to the discharge of their obli- gations. Continuing, Mr. Groesbeck said:—We then, Senators @ court. What are you to try? You are to the cl contained in these articles of impeachment, and nothing else. On what are you to try them? Not on common fame; not on presumption of guilt; not on any views of party politics, You are to try them on the evidence offered here and on nothing else, by the obligations of your oaths. What is the issne before you, Senators? Allow me to say it is nota question whether this or that thing was done; you are not here to try a mere issue of fact. By the very terms of the constitution you can only try, in this tribunal, crime—let me gor the jurisdiction— treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misde- meanors. The jurisdiction is (Rega ep within that langu The only issue which this court can try is the issue of crime. What is crime? In every crime there must be an unlawful purpose or inten- tion. ten this is wanting there can be no crime. There fst be an unlawful purpose prompting its col ion; otherwise there can be no crime. Let me. iflustrate:—Suppose a crazy man should break into this chamber and kill one of us; he has commit- ted the act of homicide, but he has not committed acrime, Sup the President should become de- and while in that condition atterrpt to bribe and to break law upon law, you _have no jurisdiction to try him on impeachment. Let me put another case that is not suppositio! Mr. Lincoln claimed and exercised the power to organize military commissions under which to arrest and imprison citizens within the loyal States. He had no act of gress warranting it, and the Supreme Court of the United States has declared .2at the act was against the express provisions of the constitu- tion. Suppose he did violate the express provisions of the constitution; then, according to the argument rs, he might be impeacted und con- beg to read from the argument of one of TS 08 ~The hous-able Mana- us enteruay referred fine Motives of the Pestaent, ana coclared that the necessary inference of the law is that he acted under the infuance of bad motives; whereby the gentleman geems to acknowledge that in order to constitute a crime there must be a motive; there can be no crime without a motive. But, now, when the President comes forward and oifers to prove his good motive, you will not allow him to make that proof; when he comes forward and offers: to prove this from. his warm and living heart, the answer 1s, “We make up the motives out of the presumptions of the law; and you con- clude on that point. “We will not hear you; you must be silent.” Now, Senators, the jurisdiction of this body is to try crime. There is no crime without unlawful intention and purpose. You cannot get a crime without showing the unlawful intent or pur- behind the act itself. Whet is your verdict? Not that the President did this or that act; that is not it. But was he guilty of a hgh misdemeanor, it being his purpose to commit it? With these prelimina observations I propose to proceed to a brief exami. nation of the case presented. You are now all of you familiar with the arguments which have been presented thus far in this case, and I need not at- tempt to go over them. I have this to say, and you will all concur with me, that the first eight articies are built upon two acts of the President—the one bmp the removal of Edwin M. Stanton, the other the letter of authority given to Lorenzo Thomas. Now, if you will take those eight arti¢les and notice the substantial arguments around which they are bound, with all their associations of or bad intent, and all their averments of every kind, you will find that there are but these two acts—the re- moval of Stanton and the letter of authority to Thomas; so that we have only to inquire in refer- ence to these two acts in order to ascertain the merits of this case, If the President of the United States had the right to remove Edwin M. Stanton, then these eight articles are without support. If, in addition to that, he had the right to give the letter of authority to Lorenzo Thomas, these articles fall toruin. Now, there are no Senators who have studied this case who will not see the application of this statement at once; and it relieves us from the neces- sity of going over article by article, step by step, in our progress. Give me those two propositions—the i to remove Stanton and the right to issue the letter of authority to Thomas, and the articles fall instantly. ‘There is nothing left of them; so that we have, in asking your consideration of these articles, but two inquiries to make—had the President the right to retnove Mr. Stanton, and had he the right to issue the letter of authority to Thomas. I propose now, as well aslam able, to examine this question, Had the President the it to remove Edwin M. Stanton? I propose to examine that question first in connection with the act regu- lating the tenure of civil offices, It is claimed on the one side that, by the action of this law, Mr. Stan- tu ni he under not Mission to the law, thereatt the Unite: President. etnims, term tically, Senators, it appears be made to at the time at sufferance, at will. fore. 1867, examination, where he was before its passage. shown that the act of March 2, 1867, has no repeat- ing clause. We are therefore remitted to previous laws applicable to this case, averments of the constitution and the act of 1789, visions of this law it is provided among Impeachment was not invented for that purpose, but rather to lay hold of offices that were By ie held by inheritance and for life, and the true policy ment, denominated the Depart until after an the part of the Managers, Mr. GROESBECK returned his thanks to the Senator lly suggestion, but saying he would be very thankful for the attention of the Senate to what he might say in the condition of voice in which be found himself, he seoughs he would prefer to go op tg conclusion. He then con- tinued—We are told, Senators, by the gentlemen who argued this case that there has the removal of the head of a d co-operation of the Senate, tion, which we claim as applicable to this law, does Let me call your attention to the docu- pages 367 to 359 of these proceed- letters of John Adams, written under one of the extreme laws that were passed by the First Congress under the constitution. ae the letter of the 12th of May, 1800, which is as lo for his kind! with his argument to not apply. ments as found on ings. Irefer to the done accord! removed, nomination Marshall, not in removed with their sasent, Mr. Pickering removed “by i with the law as now existi there is no doubt about it. I ag decided the President. the discussion he cutive,” &c. and the aut the law. So it has always been construed, ators, if] am right in the view I have here taken Mr. Stanton was not covered by the la’ was subject to removal under the commission which Mr. Lincoin and under the law of Ibeg you to observe that that law is in full There is no attempt to repeal it in the act of in fact, has no i at becomes of the first eight articles of this case? Let us stand at this point for a moment. It is an excellent point of observation from which to look at these acts. We have removed one difficulty—we have ascet one fact. Then Mr. Stanton can be removed by the T_ should like to linger question, and if I had voice suficient I should to call your attention to some other 1789. force. March 2, 1867. clause, President. Tead the langu: wi o ati 80, All thro 80 much of "the to ascertain OKK HMRALD, SUNDAY, APRIL 26, 1863.—TRIPLE the under the commission law. Ry what anthorit) ppointed indefinitely, and years, and thus defeat, revision that the President nd shall appoint for for which he was appoint ite 3 nt. the Secret rform and execute such duties Sin—Divers causes and considerations essential to the ad- ministration of the government, in my judgment, requiring « change in the Department of State, from any further service as Secretary of St JOHN ADAMS, President of To TIMOTHY PIOKERING. That was the act of John Adams, b: vote in the Senate this bil was passed, to the construction that was ‘given to the bill, and as an act of outright removal, during the session of the Senate, without the co-operation of the Senate. The act is done in May. he letter is addressed to the Secretary in his office declari and when Mr. Adams comes to sen of successor, lace of Mr. fone ag or given But, Sen tors, hie tenure ¢ oMce cannot be changed or extended from tis com What is the proposition of this taw? Mr, Stanton held his otice during the pleasure of the President for time being. fo give him a term of four years and, one mouth n the Congress of ates extend the term in this mavner? AD ofice can only be hel@ by the appointment of the His nomination and his appointment must cover the whole term which the appointee t™m any other theory the Consress of the United States might extend the office of persons thro shal office for the ited. rior officer, to be a) by said principal officer, to be employed N No such case a6 ent without the that this construc- him, in this way. ‘This law nroneses be the office it This farch 2, to those ze that there shall be an executive depart- iment of War, and that there shall be a principal officer therein to be called for the Department of War, who 5! shall from fore I proceed, as I promised at the outset, to he shall deem proper, to be called the Chief Clerk of what Paar be able to. on behalf of the respond. the Department of War. But whenever the said ent. Mr. Groesbeck then proceeded to con- | principal officer shall be removed from sider the question whether or not the Senate | omce by President of the United States, is now as @ court, and said or im any other ¢ ho vacancy, he shall would not nas it in the light of | have charge of the recofds, books, &c. ‘That is the English precedents, but with reference to our owt | law to which we are referred, unless the act régulat. ing the tenure of civil offices covers the case of Mr. Stanton. By the terms of that law, by the commis- themselves. t | sion that was issued to Mr. Stanton to run during th the provisions of the constitution as first drafted | pleasure of the President for the time being. Tramed contemplated impeachment for mal) tice and ng ‘upon this law, the President had the right to remove lect of duty in office, but those ted permit it ir. Stanton according to his pleasure. only for Sreaacn, Dribesy 809, similar. ao 7 nes ane as ia point don, at pt of oo counsel to speak lemean So much apparent effort that Senator Fes- show that during any of the trials form our pre- | senden proposed that the counsel should have per- mission to spapend, his argument for the present, or her argument has been presented on You are hereby discharged ate. the United States, whose casting That act was him his he nominates John Pickerit but in place of will or in accordance ey, Jonn 4 to be Senators, lams, who this law in the Senate by his casting vote, had retation and according m that day to this, jon of the Senate, on to is pleasure,” are the langu: thority that contro e received from Mr. That act What then? ike to read the lan; of one and ask that fact. removal of lown to the Ir. and) which has the commission an: longe! had the least idea that the power of removal was not, ” be in he ise. in Lad hands, do the gentlemen suppose ie woul ave taken the course that he did—that he woma not have taken some such course as this:—‘‘Senat I Your consideration. the at was not his construction of that law. is the true construction, according to his own inter- to the Eee as given of March 2, 1867. Done while the Senate was in session; done by himself, without consultation with or the co-opera- And that was the form which he adopted when he did remove him, as a disfinct and independent act, ey from that day to this. While upon this subject let me call your attention, Senators, to the language of John Marshall, in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, He was discussing the when an appointment was made or when it was com- ete, so that it was withdrawn from the control of He held that it was complete when the commission was made out. But in the course of goes say:—‘ When the officer is removable by the President, at the will of the Exe- So it has always been understood. “ Removable by the President.” ‘That is the language, 80 the commission ran, ‘removable at the pleasure of the President for the time bet session? At his pleasure? The te ‘ickering?”” His act juestion of When? Io ” rma, in session,” “at of the commissio} ad baie 4 e W, an r on this like — T should of your Senators, especially the pertinent language of the Senator on the committee that —— this bill. I should like to ich was the last utterance in this chamber before the bill was passed; but I pass you, Senators, to pause here a moment his point of observation and look over this case. We have borne down the main structure of this great argument. Take out the single question of the power of removal of Mr. Stanton from these eight articles and a without support, and ail you have left to consider is the single question of the right fer the letter of authority upon Lorenzo Thomas. Why, Senators, we shall see more than that if this be these questions, which have occupied attention of the court, vanish out of sight, for if we nad this power we had the right to remove, and we were not bound to come to court Senators, allow to con- me ton was withdrawn from his previous ition and | to ask you to consider one other question: is covered and protected here. It is claimed upon carr Mr. Stanton is within the Tenure of the other siqe that the law does not fpply to his | Office act, what then? The question then case at all. I think it will readi ac- | comes for your consideration whether the knowledged by Senators that the President | President is criminal in acting upon the supposition had the right to remove him. Allow me to call your attention to one section of this law in which the question seems to be involved. It provides ‘“‘thatevery person oT. cs civil oftice to which he has been ena by with the advice and consent of the Senate, and every person who shall hereafter be appointed to any such office, and shall become duly qualified to act therein,” as enti- tled to hold such office, “until his successor shall be appointed and duly qualified, except as herein otherwise provided. vided, That the Sec: of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary it does not chailet doubtful law. would is a question of interpt this subect, that it was not a law might not adopt this construction that a majority of the Senators in this chamber are of the opinion that it does not Mr, Stauton, and even if they did tl there would be a very small majority certainly who there was not room for doubt as to that he was not within the act? Now, this bony oly the constitutionality of the or construction of a Is there a Senator in this chamber who will not admit, whatever his view may be upon which anyone Why, I belteve to the case of apply fink that it does, the of War, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary | constitutionality of the law. Let me then refor of the Interior, the Postmaster General and the A) ou tw the creating the office of At- torney General shall hoid their offices ively y General. ‘There shall also be a for and during the term of the ident | person, learned in the law, appointed Attorney by whom they may have been pPolated, General of the United States, who shall be sworn, and for one month thereafter, subject to re- | and whose duty shall be to prosecute all suits in moval by and with the advice and consent | the Su e Court of the United States in which the of the Senate.’ Now, gentlemen, let me state a few facts before we proceed to the consideration of this United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when re- act. The first fact is, the act was so passed on the | quired by the President of the United States.” I 2d of March, 1867. I further call your attention to | need not read further. Here was a law, construe the fact that Mr. Stanton’s commission is dated on | it as pe will in reference to the question, of the the 15th of January, 1862. It is a commission given | operation of which there might be a difference of to him by President Lincoin, by which he ts to hold | opinion. No Senator will differ as to the fact that it the office of Secretary for the Department of War during the pleasure of the President for the time | case by its being. Mr. Johnson became President on the 16th | of the United States, upon consul day of me 1865. He has not in any manner com- | the law in that was missioned Mr. Stanton. Now, upon, these facts, | ber who will say tha Senators, I claim that it is clear that Mr. Stanton is Not protected by this Civil Tenure act. Let us in- quire. The law proposes to int to the Cabinet officers, as they are called, a term that shall last during the term of the President by whom they are appotnted and one month thereafter. Mr. Johnson has not appointed Mr. Stanton. He was appointed during the first term of Mr. Lincoln; he was not ap- pes at all during the term of President Jotinson; e holds his office by a commiasion, if at all, that wou! send him through aammistration after administration indefinitely, or untit his removal. Now what is the meaning of this language—‘He shall hold his office during the term of the President by whom he is ap- pointed?” He was not appointed during the present term. I think that is plain. It does seem to me that that simple statement settles this question. The ntleman has said, this is Mr. Lincoln's term. The ead has ownership in no office or estate of any kind. Mr. Johnson is the President of the United States with a term, and this is his term; but if Mr. Lincoin were living to-day, if Mr. Lincoln was Presi- dent to-day, he could remove Mr, Stanton. Mr. Lincoin would not have appointed him during this term, it was last term that Mr. Stanton was inted, and not this; and an appointment b; ec resident during one term by the operation of this law will not extend the term of one President through that of another, because that same person happened to be re-elected to the Presidency, Mr. = Stanton) =sholde = the = ofllce therefore th St assumi ful construction, as it avatiéd himself of his binet officer, designated to do this special duty, juitied of the c! nd now, that was su; and the act. law dia to him on account of such ti , then, that this — law of doubt- Ido ggested by ere, and this anton was criminal. might be interpreted as not covering Mr. Stanton's rovisions. Now, on the President tion, did construe is there a Senator in this cham- it there was any blame to attach tation? Tam the then y G President who is he is ac- wilfally ihisinterpreting tt. what is the testimony on that subject? It tions were held: between the President and his Cabinet, not idle consultations, but consultations for the of py important quest e to investigate the questions cannot pass by. It for consideration, and it was taken for these Cabinet officers, wno have been appoti by Mr. Lincoin, were not affected by the provisions Of the Tenure of Office act. that the point was thus stated, but I recollect that tt one member of the Cabinet Who was appointed by Mr. Lincoln, and that no dissent was expressed. The Attorney General Stanbery—was there, deciding upon the and which, if you un- pointed no remember the entire Cabinet was subject was considered and this very question of construction came yp opinion was expressed that he (Mr. Stanton) was not included in the provisions of the He considered this the most important point in the case; but should this view not be correct and the ply to Mr. Stanton, the next inquiry was whether the conduct of the President in removing Mr. Senators bad participated ax ana | the years the constitutional nominate whole ‘Thus, prac- that, the law cannot apply to any offices which were occupied its passare. Take the case of an offl- cer who holds his commission at the. pleasure of the Preside: What is the character of that..ure? It is no tenure known to: the law; it is a tenure of To convert that into a tenure for a fixed period is to enlarge it, to extend it, to in- crease it, to make it of larger estate than it was be- And if the office be one that cannot be filled without a Presidential nomination and appointment, it seems to me that whatever rae cannot be extended and controlled appears to be the construction of the act of But I am competied to leave it with a brief Mr. Stanton is, in my opinion, not It is further to be the shall time time be enjoined upon him, and who shall conduct the business of such depariment in such manner as the President of the United States shall from time to time order and instruct; and there shall be in the said department an infer eae erein a8 Igive been A Jecisiators in the p: aiiirmed fis oonstitacic coadiaon of this ease the in question beeaine tne must not be understood with al view tw « the y or to show that the jaw. was sneonstilir ‘That was Mot his obiect; it was to present the inqui whether it the eondition of the condition of the President he had a right to steps he did take without incarring the criminality. departments. Powe them and they are arguing the ch independent of the othe possible encroachinents from fainst ail ben they do, otner, This artinent, by fy the instructions of the tion. each and every written States, He is sworn b obligation that could execute the office of President, and to tect and defend the constitution, It oath merely to execute the laws, fend the constitution. and all tri and no more, should be gee He is the Chief ch of one of the the constitution on that department, di a law? Never, in mere wantonness, disregard Con; in any manner. Shall any act ol this point in the ‘Manage crime even the President should the v terms of the constitution itsel by highest ant execute that law. He would tell the answer to his long argument, that if a constituti it ig no law. a particle Might “be in the form of and ne althongh it Cor init not execute such a law, President should, without goin urt, maintain the integrity o! to bound to executs no such law. plain! Tenure of Office act. it, authorities in regard to this question, here read at length several ow, Senators, the decision of the question by the courts. tice of evel removal. hington approved of the bill. voted for it. ‘i jefferson mai of twenty adi struction and affirmed this practice, ceasar, new corresponding the new ent; and he suggested artments necessary. ongr he subject, and agreed to ments. in lent’s construction laws then cited acts 98 of the Post ONice De those of 25 and 49 creating the Navy, acts of 1789. the President sufficient to induce him to resist it, by the Supreme Court. had acted on the inte President and Stanton. the testimony tions between the Groesbeck insisted tt was shown b; in the public interest in removing him. ranto, and gladly availed himself of the proceedii brought against Mr. Thomas, in order to antici the slow proceedings adopted to secure the decision of Referring removing Stanton, Mr. Groesbeck sai the President done tn the frat place? H General Grant, a man whom the count Butler) intended to express still dence. was to be YK as a misc! What next did the President do? The vi step that the President took was not to get a danger- tion. ous Senate had no confidence; but the next man to whom he offered the place was General Sher- man, Would any one chi wickedness on that high officer? But General take the office. To whom did the President next offer it? To Major General Gi H, Thomas. It seemed that the President had picked out the three men of all others in the nation who could command the respect and confidence of the nation in reference to the proposal which he had in view in the matter. ou cannot, continued Mr. Groesbect make ont crime of this, Senators. had one purpose in change the head of it would have delighted him to and to have put there permanently any tent man and thus to hen condition of his Cabinet. it men? He pacman Tosa in other chan the forms commissions; he repo siccs under this law, and, Senators, it is one of the strongest facts in this case. He did’ not take up this law and tear tt to pieces; he did not take up this law and trample it under foot; he tried to ol it without the surrender of his own convictions, is said that under the suspension of Mr. Stanton he acted under your law. [cannot adjust to your law, ‘| and instead of seizing upon that as a subject of cen- sure, [tell you it was an overture from the Presi- dent to get out of this difficulty and to con- act; in the vel suspension he tells Cabinet, and Mr. Stan- ‘on ton the most omphatie of constitutional.” Mr. Stanton was the one that was selected to draw up these objections. But the Pres- dent tells you in that act of suspension what his views were about the law. He goes on and tells you further, in that very message:—“We had this matter up in Cabinet meeting, when the Secretaries said it did not apy Hy to him or to any other of Mr. Lincoin’s Cabinet.” All these opinions were in his mind. He communicated them in the very m where you say he surrendered himself to the terms of the Civil OfMce bill, He did all that, and it is to his credit that he has not gone about everywhere violating the law, instructing ita violation of forbidding It to be executed until it was ascertained as to its constitutionality In some way or another, Well, now, I have been sitting hi n- ing to the evidence presented in this case for a long time and reading more or less about it, and I have never been able to come to the conciusion that when all these matters Were placed before the Senate and understood they could convict the President of crimi- nality Ty me obey was done. There is no force; where is it? Where is the threat? Where is the in- timidation? Nowhere. He tried to get it into the courte; that we know, He did his best to get it there; ran after a case by which he could have got it there. Where is his criminality? Is he criminal because he did not surrender the convictions of his mind believe this law is un- on the constitutionality, secomaing to your interpretation, of the act of i867? Why, 80 was General Washington criminal; 80 was Adams criminal. Ali the precedents sustain him, the whole history of the government is at his back in the ition which he has en, How are you ing to try criminality upon thfs single question of e constiiationality of the act of 1567, having the optnien of One Congress at his back, the opinion of the administration and the opinion of the Supreme Court, as far as it goes? Let us fe back a inoment to that brief examination which [ made of the right construction of the Civil OMee act. 1 told you then that if Mr. Stanton were not included, the nah articles of this case substantially fell; and eveh if it were included, and we were advised as we were, there could be no criminality in acting upon a question of law under the advice of the Attorney General, who was officially designated for the very purpose of giving ue that advice, So that from that point ons tion amd in the pe the of Our government is composed of three has been distributed among No one is responsible to the other; they are responsi- ble to the people, and they are enjoined each to take care ‘of its own prerogative and to protect itself the de- observing with the utmost fidel- constitu- At the head of one of these departments, the executive, stands the President of the United an oath—the most solemn administered—faithfully to reserve, pro- is not an but also to the best of his ability to preserve, protect and de- It would seem that such an oath would impress him with the idea that the first ramount duty of the Executive was to act ac- cord! to the terms of the constitution, and that in and doubts he should take shelter under it, The learned Managers contended that the President should simply execute the laws passed by Congress, That is not the interpretation that to the language of the constitution. Magistrate of the nation and in “at departments of the govern- ment, and must maintain the powers conferred by But shall he He should perer, gress he execute alllaws? He tookissue with the learned Manager on toto oelo, According to the theory of convicted of a ugh the law was not constitutional. He denied this. If a law be declared by the Supreme P Court, the third department of the government ane 1c final arbiter of the constitutionalities of Congressional enactments—if that court should de- clare a law to be unconstitutional, the President would be false to his oath of ofice if he should Y piiaeeowy in law be un- Tt never was o law of validity, a al enactment. From the beginning (ab ) it is no law, and is void, and to execute it is a violation of the constitution; therefore he should gain, if a law be, upon its very face, in blank contradiction to the plainly ex- pressed visions of the constitution, as, for in- stance, a law declaring that the President should not be Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy, or declaring that he had no power to make treaties, the he Supreme Cor his department, which, for the time being, is entrusted to him, and is He would be untrue to his high official position if he should execute that law. But the difficulty was not here. The dificulty arises in doubtful cases—in cases which are not stated in the constitution—and this was the question of inquiry in \\\¢ present case. The law of interpretation to be observed in doubtful cases was a oint to which he called the attention of the Senate. would not question the constitutionality of the He did not challenge its con- stitutionality here, because the Senate had aifirmed He wouid, therefore, simply read a few opinions of the Supreme Court and quote from other standard The counsel decisions on this pons and then proceeded with the argument. I have called your attention to I have given you the utterance from the bench; I have given you the opinions of Marshall and of Kent. Now let me refer you to the Executive Department. From the beginning of the government down to March 2, 1867, it has been the uniform construction and prac- administration that it had the power of Adams intained it. Madison drew it. Monroe and Jackson maintained the same con- struction of it, Every President, including President Lincoln, through all our history of eighty years and nistrations maintained this construc- tion en the jon of where the power of removal is lodged. The) judicial department has concurred in the constrgction that the power of removal is lodged by thé constitution in the President. The Executive jartment, from Washington down through all Presidents, has acted on this con- Washington called the attention of the first Congress to the fact that the executive departments under the old con- federation-had ceased to exist, and that it was ne- ones under ve that before legisiated on the subject it should in debate fix the principles and determine the number of de- ‘ess at once entered on establish three depart- A. this point of the argument the-court, at a quar- ter-pasi two, took a recess for @ quarter of an Lour. On reassembling at 2:50 Mr. GROESBECK resumed his —— maintaining that the debates in Con- is 1789 proved the correctness of the Presi- passed. He then rtment and ‘ost Oftice and Interior Departments, all assuming or affirming the right of removal by the President as set forth in the Against all this preponderance of con- struction and precedent there was opposed only the act of 1867, and Mr. Groesbeck claimed there was truly ground for doubt and hesitation on the part of with a view of having the matter determined He asked if the Presi- dent was to be convicted and deposed because he retations sanctioned by his constitutional advisers by the Thirty-eighth Congress and the Supreme Court, and the uniform practice of the government, describing the character of the at r. of General Sherman and others that the gooey acted le also claimed that the President had prepared a quo war- he must otherwise have the court. to the charge of evil intention in delighted to honor, in whom tt had the utmost confidence, and for whom, probably, the honorable Manager (Mr. The President had selected such @ man, and yet this next man—not to get @ man in whom the herman would not SHERFT. point of view, snppose Mr. Stanton was under the jaw and we hitl bo excuse for what we question id Were in the condition was the power of removal lodged your own opinion about the constitu there is auother qucstion which | present, it is a question of construction, as criminal a President who stood on the si e government hat been up to that time? Now, gentiemen, to the next question about he aa interim appointment, and I b serve conclusion make there is a great shipwreck in hi beg you again, when you come to examine these articles, to see liow many of them are built of the two facts, the removal of Mr, Stanton and the ad inéerim appointinent of Mr. Thomas. He made the appointment, Senators, after Mr. Groesbeck read the Lo not Ing case did art. him trate. War; of quire about it. and General Emo! mation. That is why he sent to General ming ? tradict it? No. The time, the in the transaction adjusts itself to thi Here was a President, ted to an inferior— that was pi me to draw y what lies of death, ernment or sickness. the session but I of attention and consideration. from the passage of President Buchanan on January 1, 1861, in reply toa resolution of Salty Dy the Senate in regard to the Spponicnens of succeed John B, Floyd. ou not re} ery portion of if that an the act of February law which authori cancy in t B Olle you under Mr. the law of 1795. Senate. were satisfied that it was res The Senate on that occas! horoughly this identical question of ad interim 2 eed during the session, received Mr. Bu- chanan’s reply that he did it under the very law under which we acted, and the Senate did not cen- sure that act, while they bring us forward as a crimi- nal and brand us with crime for ours. You cannot discriminate between them. the same law, both done during the session. lance now at the next article. nger upon such charges as are contained tn it. makes a great noise in the circles, but it is very hard to see through it. What is the article? The President had an ral Emory, and in the course of that interview General of a certain law; the: and the President mory evidence before dent had been for ing the sess Wal of vot conden, > where then the 3 heart, for it had become a thorn there and the Senate | iad fastened it there. What more had he done? He ude un cd interim appointment to last for a y. Yon could have terminated it whenever » You had only to take up the nomina- h he sent to the Senate, and which was @ ninetion, and the ad inferim would have The thing was in your hands, on the nomination and the mat- at Was no crime, I can point you zoud vanished Li You had on you to ob- | to cases that hu ccurred—and pt » esp you sliould come to the | to that case. of Floyds, whi’ the Gene tue President had a right | in its legislative capacity, weighed tite question, de. ad interim appointment, tien | cided upon it and heard the report of the President, case. It nearly received it as satisfactory, For the purposes of ail tumbles into ruin, 79% he President, in case of a var es of Secretary of State and of War, to authorize a person to perform the duties of such office until a successor shall be appointed. He then continued bie conditions ressed that is res adjudicata, W jo? He talked with an of! law. ‘That is the “Emory article,” W he do? He made intemperate speeches, viled he should not have revi Sniitten on the one cheek he stio1 ott: a 0." iy % would ha' men ut, sald he gentleman who addres you the day before Soneian (Mr. Bouteene @ Was eager for the pacification and to restore else did the about the i else did “When re- ted again’? “When have turned the Scaped tapeach- will observe that all possi- | the South. I deny it in the sense in which the of the department are ex. gentiemas presented it as being erimi Here, too, the single word “vacancy.” | the President followed reason und took the path om a other statute were attention to ad interim made during the session, 0! Tn the first Piase pointed dur! I Ce of Holt, tially which pply ', 1863, the latter statute marks upon the re come to the consideration of the ai the Mr. Holt to He continued:—There was @ Case where the Senate took the matter under con- sideration and inquired of the President what he had done, and by what authority he had done tt. i rt upon it? A full inquiry was made by the Senate into that case of this ad interim ques- tion, and Mr. Buchanan replied that he had supplied the vacancy by an ad interim appointment under He communicated that fact to the The Senate received the communication and judicata on his ion inves! informed him of the whom you had _ subordinat I mean to the extent of requiring him to send orders through an inferior—groping were—called upon by one of his Cabinet to inquire about it. Inow come to aricle ten. the elaborate discussion to preserve its own di forms of expression which may be'ined ana punish by im; cannot forb! propose law that has ever been started. of much as the House of Re and they ion law. since the So obnoxious was it that would not rest under it, and they started, as it were, a hue and cry occasion, af boss the dar! He did not And that is the enormous crime it covers the removal, the expiration of the term of oMice, resignation, absence, sickness, every possible condition of the department in which it would be necessary, ad interim, to su assed on Feburary 1. another act passed place. That law 3, 1795. There has becn ering the same und, under date of February 20, 1863. Now, does his act repeal the act of February 13, 1795? Allow our attention to a few rules of interpre- tation of statutes before I compare them. First, the law does not favor repeals by implication, if statutes are to be construed together th to stand, Still another, a better statute in order to repeal a former one must fully embrace the whole subject matter. Still again, to effect an entire repeal of all the provisions of the previous statute the whole subject matter must be covered. Let me illus- Suppose, for illustration, there was a statute extending from myself to yonder door; then if an- which would reach haif way, it would repeal so muchof the former statute as it would overlay and leave the balance in force; beyond is the legislative will an is just as binding as the original statute. come to a comparison of these statutes. The statute of February 20, 1863, provides for the occasion nation, absence from the seat of gov- There are two cases that are did for by this statute, and they are covered by the statute of 1795—removal and expiration of term. So that we are advised by that simple state- ment that the reach of the statute of 1795 was beyond that of the statute of February, 1! With thawe few Now we and 80 much of is still in force. of statutes, I interin letters. It has been the policy of the government from the be- gp thus to supply vacancies in the departments m sickness, absence, resignation, or any of these causes, and this occurs both when the Senate is in ses- sion and when it is in recess. The law of 1863 makes no difference; it may be at any time. Now, Senators, I will dismias this part of the subject by calling your appoineneae that were heads of departments. ‘ou Mr. Nelson, who was ap- ion of the Senate Secretary of State; I give you General Scott, who was ap- pointed ad interim Secretary of War duri sion of the Senate; I give you Mr. Moses was appointed ad interim during the se: Senate to the Department of the Interior; I give ou Mr. Holt, who was appointed ad interim dur- the Senate Secretary of intend to linger a little at the deserves especial Mr. Groesbeck read the ses- elly, who lon of the Both were done under roof to sustain this interview with Gene- had @ conversation about it, satd in the course of that conversa- tion that the law was unconstitutional. say anything more. that Is committed under article nine. unconstitutional. What about that? Is it not in ou, uncontradicted, that the Presi- informed that there were unusual military movements going on in the city on the night before, and Secretary Welles called on him to inform the fact? The President said he would in- He sent a note to General Emory, waited upon him with the infor- Is that not an explanation of He said it was Again, ey are Why ated I shall I do not intend to which were the oomprinie of Mr. Lincoln, and which was lightened by the radiance of that divine utterance of Mr. Lincoln’s, “chartty towards all, malice towards none.” He was eager for pacifica- tion, He knew that the war was ended; the drums were all silent; the arsenals were all shut; the noise of the cannon had died away; the army was disbanded; not a single ene! confronted us in the deld, and he was eager for pacification, The hand of reconciiia- tion was stretched out to him and he tookit. Was this kindness, this f rg.veness a crime? Kindness a crime? Kindness is omaipotent for good, more pow- erful than gunpowder or cannon; kindness is states- manship; kindness is the high statesmanship of heaven itself. The murder of Sinai did but terrify and distract. It is the kindness of calvary that sub- dues and pacifles. What shall I say of that man? He has ever walked in the path and by the light of the constitution, The mariner, tempest tossed on the seas, is not more sure to turn to the stars for evi- dence than the man in the trials of public life to look to the star of the constitution. He does love the constitution. It has been the siudy of his life. He is not learned or scholarly like many of you. He is not aman of many ideas or much speculation, but he is @ man of intelligence. He is a patriot second to no one of you in the measure of is patriosism. He may be full of errors. I will not canvass now his views. He loves his country and, 1 b: , would die for it if need be. His courage and his patriotism are not without illustralion, gue referred the other day to the scene which occurred in this Chamber, wien he alone, of all the Senators from his section, remained, and even when his own State had seceded. That is » trial which many of you by reason of your locality and your life-long associations know From the foundation of the ann as you | nothing. How his voice rang out in this hall om that have been advised by my colleague, Mr. Curtis, | occasion, in the hour of alarm, and in deuunciation of and others, it has been the licy of the | the rebellion! Buthe did not remain here: this was « Dpto a to provide for filling offices ad | pleasant and easy position. He chose a iwore diMicult nierim. They are not appointments. There { and arduous and perilous service. That was a trial is no commission under seal. It isa mere letter of | of his courage and patriotism of which some of you Spon and they are not considered as filling | who now sit in judgment upon him know nothing. ie office, en Mr, was killed in 1344 an ad | I have thought those who dwell ai the North, al a interim appointment was made to supply the va- | safe distance from the collision of war, knew but cancy occasioned by that accident, and soon after- | little of its actual trying danger We who li wal the President nominated to the Senate Mr. | upon the border knew it. Our horizon was always Calhoun to fill the office permanently. That il- | red with flame, and it was sometimes borne so near lustrates the condition of an ad interim in the oftce. | us that we felt upon the outstretched hand. Mr, Johnson went into the very borders of the war, ant there he served his country long and well. Which of you has done more? Not one, There 1s one among you whose service as 1 well know cannot be over-estimated, and I withdraw all com- parigon, but {t is enough to say that his services were greatly needed, and it seems hard, it seems cruel, thathe should be struck here upon these miserable technicalities, or that anybody who has served his country and borne himself well and bravely should be treated as a criminal and condemned upon these miserable charges. Even if he had committed a crime against the laws his services to the country entitle him to some _— cousideration. But he has precedents for everytning he has done—excellent precedents. The voices of the great dead come to us from their grayes sanctioning his course. All our past history sf ig it. How can you single out this man now in this condition of things and brand him before the country? Will you put your brand upon him because he made an ad tterim appointment and attempted to remove Ed- win M. Stanton? I can at a single glance, Senators, fix my eye on many of you who would not endure the position which the President occupied. You did not think it right yourselves. Yor med this very Civil Tenure actto give every ident his own Cabinet, aud then the President's whole crime ts that he wants an officer in the War Department with whom he can communicate on ublic business and entertain friendly relations. Senators, Tam tired, and no doubt youare. There @ great deal crowding on me for utterance; but it is not from my head, it is rather from my heart, and would be but a repetition of what T have been saying this last half hour, Andrew Johnson, administrator of the Presidential office, is to me as nothing in com- parison with the possible consequences of your ac- tion on the government of the country. No good can come of a conviction on these articles of im- peachment; but how much wiN the heart of the country rejoice if it learns that the Senate of the United States was not unmindful, amid the storm and passion and strife of this hour, of the constitu- ton, of its country and of its own dignity. Mr. Groesbeck was throughout the whole argu- ment, but more especially at the close, listened to with marked attention by the Senate and with strain- ing eagerness by the spectators. It was to be re- gretted that on account of indisposition he could not make himself heard distinctly. The reporters, anxious as they were to give a verbatim report of the speech, were unable to do so from the diMculty of hearing it in the gallery, and had therefore to put much of it inthe third person, and in other parts to construct the sontences out of the portions which they did happen to hear fee The court, at half-past four o’clock, and the Senate immediately afterwards, adjourned till Monday at noon, when it is expected Mr. Stevens will address the Senate, to be followed by his colleague, Mr. Wil- Mams. NEW It YORK LEGISLATURE. Meson everything BEN, at explana- aon ALBANY, April 25, 1868, BILLS PASSED. the government? I shall leave this article to my col- league, but I wish to say a few words about it. "I re- fer you to the provisions of the constitution bearing upon this subject, which denies to Con dete to deny freedom of belong. ‘only” to the private. citi only e private citizen? nied to officers of the ay discuss bor measures of any depart- ment? May Congress of good taste? Is it for rule for Presidential ‘ere any ity it what Cot go in the form of a law? ButIdo not to discuss it. In 1798 some of the good ple of the country had been operated upon ntatives were tn took it into their heads to make a It was very likearticle — I propose vernment the people inst everybody who was concer at since then no law punisl to this has been enacted. the House of Representatives, thro It ra, to renew this questionable proj bles, but take it upon myself to ai we are condemned in a Court of ‘we shall have some law upon the subject. Mr. Groes- beck then read a burlesque law, with @ number of which created considerable laughter, in tt, and they devoted a great many for their conneo- tion with this taw toa political death. But tt was @ good law compared with article ten. Was it thi that da: served So unpopular ibe! trou been re- ition; before t, impeachment, reciting the duty of the President to observe omic decorum and to avoid the use of jiafntetiiatte Phrases, such as calling Congress ‘‘a on the vi it of Congress, especially the House of sentatives, to lay down rules 01 served, onment for any breach of such decorum, satd, is article ten. of the government,” and decorum to inishing the President by fine and fi (Laughter.) He then took ly hanging recognizing be ob- im] article eleven, saying there was no testimony to su port itexcept ‘he rel egram between Governor Parsons by case wy shocks ton, who stood deflanth oid sensational—but would they uphe Such proof as that? He had now gone as far as he need go, since he was to be followed by a gentleman who would take it step by step, a Looking back over the case, he was were no political questions involved tions were:—Where is th it make an Did he do anything mischievous in with General Emo: cle to say there it. The ques. removal Civil Tenure act? ie interview freedom And then the matter of their j speech, which he hended Girry on ts back asa heavy load for of his life. Strij mn whic! nol the him to think it possible that the could be di question as W intinent for @ ai from ether he could ingle day, their Presi of Alabama and the President, dated on the 15th day of January preceding the March in which the law was . They had heard the magnificent oration of oue of the Managers about it, so sounding and that article upon article, body ee ped of verbiage, that waa it was asked. President his high office on such a make an ad interim Was this @ matter justifying the disturbing of the quiet of iiaking thelr confidence in " ocean ing him from office? How m miserable is this case. An ad interim appointment for a single day, an attempt to remove Edw: of intercourse with the President. this in censure or Mr. Stanton, but such is the We have been referred to many precedents in t le, ident and driv- he said, how j. Stan- and poisoned ail the channels Ido not speak past history of England, but these precedents should be to you, Senators, not matters for imitation, but beacon lights to warn you from the dangerous rocks on which they stand, Senators? Kemoval from natification, for which he should he should also omece tried What is to be your judgment, office and perpetual dia- If the President has done anything be removed from office be disqualified from holding hereafter. What is hie crime? tHe to pluck =a thorn out of = his as it peo- its Relative to the Syracuse and Liverpool Railroad Company; for a railroad from Fishkill to Matteawan; incorporating the Port Richmond and Bergen Point Ferry Company; for the more effectual protection of emigrants arriving at the port of New York; author- the een of an additional lumber in- r at jwego; incorporating the Ceeege on of New Y. riions of Sack- ane ispensary ‘ork; to widen plus Privilege | ett, ‘Douglass and President streets, Brooklyn; chang. Cannot — name of the Emigrants’ Savings Bank, of uffalo. Arm BILLS ORDERED TO A THIRD READING. Comarca tae ae auandard | he Militia bill was ordered to a third reading, and m ill it not be quite | Smended by reducing the pay of the Govern stat to @ peace the same as existed in 1862, Also a bill requiring railroads running to Albany for transportation vy steamboat as are aiforded when (or jon a w cuapetara four P. M. t Afternoon Session. BILLS ADVANCED TO A THIRD READING. To enable the city of New York to collect and use to read it. Mr. Groesbeck then je law | revenue in certain cases; amending the charter of as libelous publications or utterances it | Troy; incorporating the Rhinebeck Gaslight Com- e President or Congress by fine and imprisonment. pany: amending the charter of Yonkers; amendi Mr. Groesbeck resumed:—This is the most ve el of Port Chester; the Buffalo Water bill; amending the charter of Company; making the office of Supervisor Erie County a salaried office; incorporating the Bushwick fering, Bank, Brooklyn; incorporating the New York Health and Accident Insurance Company; in- corporating the Binghamton Safe Deposit Company; Reorating the New York and Brooklyn Iron Tubular Tunnel ala amending the certificate of incorporation of tt ew York ee Hospi- tal; Seek ta theens 060 for defictency in the ap- Prop! m, for the Constitutional Convention. THE CANAL CONTRACT SYSTEM. Mr. STANFORD introduced a bill abolishing the contracting system for repairs on canals, and to restore the superintending system. THE STATE PRISON PRINTING CONTRACT. The State prisons labor and printing contract bills Were made the special order for Monday morning. THE WEST SHORE HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD. The bill to facilitate the construction of the West Shore Hudson River Ratiroad was ordered to a third reading. Adjourned till Monday morning. ASSEMBLY. ALBANY, April 26, 1868, BILLS PASSED, To open and improve Maspeth avenue, Brooklyn; to prevent liability to accidents on railroads, and to protect passengers; to provide for the improvement and maintenance of public parks tn Brooklyn; to ‘amend the charter of the United States Warehouse Company; to amend the Metropolitan Police law with reference to the police fund: to incorporate the Mutual Benefit Savings Bank of New York, Mr. Jounson introduced a bill to provide for a new Market building on the present site of Washington Market. To amend the act to prevent frand in the sale of passenger tickets, The House then adjourned until Monday morning at ten o'clock. BOOK NOTICE. Intsm LYRICAL PorMs. Mrs, O'Donovan (Rossa). New York The dedication of this pretty little volume, issued in the neatest type and brightest gold and green, perhaps explains its inspiration. It reads thus: “To my husband, Jeremiah O'Donovan (Rossa), sen- tenced to lifelong penal servitude for his devotion to the cause of Ireland, these poems are affectionately inscribed.” There is a sad history in these few words. It tells the fate of a young, ardent journaliat, the victim of free thought and speech. Of the lyrics themselves it must be said that many of them are of no ordinary merit, those which come most direct! from the heart being full of tender pathos and indi cating the sensibility of the young, imaginative mind of a woman subdued by sorrow and tried in the furs nace of sudering.