The Sun.
London, England, 1868-04-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL 23, 1868.

PROGRESS OF IMPEACHMENT.

The days that mark great epochs in the Presi-
dent's trial are destined to be varied by every ima-
ginable weather. We have bad a howling snow-
storm, a steady downpour, a bright sunshiny day,
and on Monday, the 30th March, when the High
Court again met to hear the case for the prosecu-
tion, the Capitol was enveloped in fog. The bleak-
ness of winter seemed to lie beneath the dull
mantle that hid Washington from the sun, and the
gay spring dresses of the ladies looked strangely out
of character. Again, the g illeries sparkled with all
the wealth and fashion of Washington; the Am-
bassadors of England, France, the North German
Confederation, and Turkey were there, but it was
noticed that the seats of the diplomatic gallery were
not so well filled as before. The proceedings opened
precisely at the same time, and in the same manner
as usual. At one o'clock the Chief Justice entered
by the side door, announced by the gavel of Mr.
Wade, whose scat Mr. Chase took and called the
Court to order. Then followed the usual procla-
mation, after which the managers entered, seating
themselves to the left of the Clerk, followed by the
Representatives, who took their Chairs behind the
Senate. Mr. Butler rose 'to open the argument for
the prosecution. Before him lay a pile of papers,
the bundle of manuscript giving promise of an in-
terminable speech—nor was that promise belied.
For two hours he continued to read, when the ex-
hausted assembly called a ten minutes halt, and a
rush followed to the bars and restaurants. On
their return the pleader resumed, shortly after
closing his argument, when Mr. Bingham stretching
across the table shook him warmly by the hand. Mr.
Butler opened by alluding to the onerous duty it had
become his lot to perform. The novelty of the proceed-
ings might be judged from the fact that this was the
first instance in the history of the civilised world
that a nation had brought before its highest tribu-
nal its chief magistrate accused of the maladminis-
tration of the powers and duties of his office. He
described the law as affecting the case—who they
are that may be impeached, and the nature of im-
peachable offences ; observing—" We define, there-
fore, an impeachable high crime or misdemeanour to
be one in its nature or consequences subversive of
some fundamental or essential principle of govern-
ment, or highly prejudicial to the public interest ;
and this may consist of a violation of the Constitu-
tion, of law, of an official oath, or of duty, by an
act committed or omitted, or, without violating a
positive law by the abuse of discretionary powers,
from improper motives or for any improp©r purpose.
The first criticism which will strike the mind on a
cursory examination of this definition is, that some
of the enumerated acts are not within the common
law definition of crimes." Madison was quoted
among others to show that the wanton removal of
meritorious officers might subject a President to re-
moval. The Senate was to try the question as a
Senate, not as a court, and he cited English history,
alluding to the House of Lords, to sustain the
assumption that the presence of a judge is not neces-
sary. Ile denied the right of challenge on trials
for impeachment, and remarked that if such a right
were admitted, that the President's son-in-law,
Senator David T. Patterson, of Tennessee, might,
though he scarcely would, be objected to by the pro-
secution. But it would probably challenge Senator
Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, who had publicly
borne testimony to the good intentions of the Pre-
sident, and who delivered to him the congratulatory
address of the Philadelphia Convention, the 11th
Article of Impeachment being based on the Presi-
dent's reply. The first eight charges were next
commented on—all founded on the President's
attempted removal of Secretary Stanton. The
facts he asserted are admitted in the President's
answer, who claims the powers he exercised as his
right—that is a prerogative more than kingly.
He proceeded to show that in its exercise the
President contemplated the usurpation of all
the Governmental powers. lie asserted that the
President's answer to these eight charges raises the
momentous question whether the Presidential office,
if it has the prerogatives and power claimed for it,
ought longer to be permitted to exist as a part of
the Constitutional Government of a free people.
The attention of the Court was more especially
called to the power of removal—and Mr. Butler
argued that as appointments to office arc only
allowed by the Constitution, by and with the advice
and consent of Senate, removals from office can only
be made by the same means. Otherwise, there
being no check, monarchical powers may be as-
sumed. He answered the objection that President
Johnson did not appoint Edwin Stanton, that, if it
be so, the President might be impeached for keeping
an usurper in office ; at the same time lie denied the
assertion, declaring that if the provisions of the
Civil Tenure Act do not limit Mr. Stanton's term,
he holds office for life, and that Act he maintained
has been recognized by the President as binding.
The question of the constitutionality of any law of
Congress is irrelevant in this trial ; the simple fact
being that the President is bound to execute the
law when passed. His constitutional right in oppo-
sition is his Veto, which, when over-ruled by a two-
thirds majority, makes the law binding. Other-
wise he would execute the Veto, and leave the law
unexecuted, which would make Congress a cypher.
He asked—" Will you hear an argument, as a
Senate of the United States—a majority of whom
voted for that very bill—upon its constitutionality
in the trial of an executive officer for wilfully vio-
lating it before it had been doubted by any court?"
Ile then discussed the Supreme Court, insinuating
it to be a partisan body, from whom a fair decision
could not be expected. He took up the President's
opposition to the Senate, and observed, that
had he in contradiction of the course he
adopted asked permission of the Senate in a
way he sketched, to remove Mr. Stanton, the
case would have been different, and the removal
might have been sanctioned. He alluded to the
accident by which Andrew Johnson succeeded to
the office, and the bullet of Booth, an allusion we
are free to confess, considering the gross charges
formerly made by General Butler against Andrew
.Johnson of having been instrumental in directing
that bullet, which must have required all the well-
known impudence of the advocate. Returning to the
charges, he said —" By the 9th, 10th, and 11th
articles the less important inquiry is to be deter_
mined whether Andrew Johnson has so conducted
himself that he ought longer to hold any constitu-
tional office whatever. Examining the 9th charge,
he discussed the interview between the President
and the officer commanding at Washington (General
Emory), which he considered proof of an attempt
on the President's part to secure insubordination
in the army. He asked—" Is it not a high mis-
demeanour for the President to assume to instruct
the officers of the army that the laws of Congress
are not to be obeyed ?" Referring to the 10th
charge, he announced that he would in each else
give in evidence—that in his celebrated tour in 1866
the President did make and declare with a loud
voice intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous
harangues, uttering loud threats and bitter menaces
against Congress and against the laws of the United
States—the phonographic notes of the reporters.
it was here that Mr. Butler rose to eloquence and
exhibited a rare mastery over his subject. He spoke
with the concentrated essence of bitterness, and
turning suddenly the vein, he ridiculed the position
then assumed by Andrew Johnson. The scenes at
Cleveland and St. Louis were graphically described,
but in a tone of great exaggeration. The question
he asserted, was not one of freedom of speech as
illeged in the President's Answer, but of the pro-
priety and decency of speech and conduct in a
high official, and that gravity of deportmeit
amenity of behaviour which ought to form
part of the President's elevated duties. Ile said
lie would prove the 11th Article, which asserted
that on the 18th August, 1866, the President pub-
;icly declared that the XXX IXth Congress was not
lawful, being only a Congress of a part of the
States, and hence that ho had endeavoured to
prevent the execution of the Tenure-of-Office
Act. Then he went on to discuss the conduct
of the President as a whole. He charged him
with a continual desire to thwart and bring into
contempt the Congress of the United States, and
4 a the maintained
was the meaning of all he said and did.
that by him the pacification of the

country was obstructed ; the laws openly and
covertly opposed ; a new Southern rebellion fo-
mented, leading to assassination and massacres.
He had refused to punish criminals; he had at-
tempted to array the military against Congress, and
it had been in pursuance of his design to overthrow
Congress that he had striven to obtain possession of
the War Office. " Would it not," he exclaimed,
"be a notification—an invitation rather—standing
to all time to any bold, bad, aspiring man to seize
the liberties of the people which they had shown them-
selves incapable of maintaining or defending, and
playing the role of a Caesar or Napoleon here to
establish a despotism ; while this, the last and
greatest experiment of freedom and equality of
right in the people, following the long line of buried
republics, sinks to its tomb under the blows of
usurped power from which free representative go-
vernment shall arise to the light of a morn of resur-
rection, never more, never more for ever!" Appeal-
ing to the Senate, he asked their protection of their
own constitutional rights and those of the House,
and referring to Cromwell and to King henry
VIII. he cited the trial of Anne Boleyn, stating
"that King llenryknew the strength of his case, and
we know the strength of ours against this respon-
dent." Then demanding judgment for his great
crimes upon the criminal at the bar he concluded
with these words :—" We have presented the facts
in the constitutional manner. Never again, if
Andrew Johnson go quit and free this day,
can the people of this or any other country,
by constitutional checks or guards, stay the
usurpation of executive power. I speak, therefore,
not the language of exaggeration, but the words of
truth and soberness, in saying that the future poli-
tical welfare and liberties of all men hang trem-
bling on the decision of the hour." Mr. Wilson
then rose and presented in evidence certified copies
of Andrew Johnson's oath on assuming the Presi-
dency ; the certificate being made by Chief Justice
Chase, before whom the oath was prescribed. Also
a copy of President Lincoln's nomination of Mr.
Edwin Stanton as Secretary of War, and its confir-
mation on January 15, 1862, by the Senate, and a
copy of President Johnson's Message to the Senate,
December 12, 1867, giving his reasons for Stauton's
removal when Grant was appointed ad interim, and
the Senate's refusal, under the Tenure-of-Office
Act, to confirm the removal, which closed the busi-
ness, and the Court adjourned till the next day.
On March 31 the trial was resumed at noon, when
the Managers commenced the examination of wit-
nesses after putting in evidence, the Senate Resolu-
tion of January 13, 1863, declaring Stanton Secre-
tary of War, the President's Message of February
21st, 1868, appointing Lorenzo Thomas Secretary
of War ad interim, and again removing Stanton,
the action of the Senate thereon, on certified ex-
, tracts from the Senate Journal, and a copy of Stan-
ton's commission as Secretary of War received from
President Lincoln, all being proved by various
clerks of the Chamber and of the Departments.
The examination of witnesses went to show that
Mr. Johnson had recognized the validity of the
Tenure-of-Office Act by changing the form of com-
missions granted to persons in the Treasury Depart-
ment, so as to conform to the law. Messrs. Burd
Van Horn, J. K. Moorhead, and Walter A. Bur-
leigh, testified to what transpired when Lorenzo
Thomas demanded from Stanton possession of the
War Department. Mr. Burleigh was examined
to prove that General Thomas contemplated
ejecting Mr. Stanton by force. To this testimony
Mr. Stanbery on behalf of the President objected,
as being inadmissable, on the ground that President
Johnson had not authorized force to be used, and
that what General Thomas may have said in the
way of threats were irrelevant. The managers
stated that their object was to show that Thomas
intended to take possession of the War Department
by force. The Chief Justice sustained Mr. Stan-
bery's objection, when Senator Charles Drake, of
Missouri, denied his right to decide upon such
points. The Chief Justice differing, and alleging his
right to decide upon questions of evidence, de-
manded the opinion of the Court. A hot dispute
followed, during which Mr. Chase called Senator
Drake to order. Mr. Butler sustained the opinion
of the Senator, suggesting a parallel between Lord
Jeffreys and the Chief Justice. lie cited the case
of Lord Stafford, in the reign of Charles IL, when
the Commons objected to addressing the Lord High
Steward as his grace or my lord, claiming and ob-
taining the right to address the House collectively
as my lords. There was no recognition, he con-
tended, of the superior right of the presiding officer
over other members, and that the English practice
at impeachment trials was fur the presiding
officer to submit questions of evidence directly
to the Court. Some of the managers also
argued in support of Senator Drake, and a
motion was made to go into secret session,
the votes cast being
even, when Mr. Chase an-
nounced the motion carried, as the Chief Justice
voted in the affirmative, at the same time vacat-
ing his seat and leading into the antechamber. For
raged, Senator Sumner
supporting Mr.
at 1 inrde e
oltihoeurrs
extremethe war 'tßepublicanshen
Drake. It was first agreed that the question should
be argued on an amendment of the following rule
of trial as originally adopted :--" The presiding
officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary
and the presiding
prepa-
rations in the Senate Cham,
officer upon the trial shall irect all the forms of
proceeding while the Senate are sitting for the pur-
pose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during
the trial not otherwise specially provided for. The
presiding officer may, in the first instance, submit
to the Senate, without a division, all questions of
q
evidence and incidental questions; but the same
shall, on the demand of one-fifth of the members
present, be decided by yeas and nays." Senator
Sumner proposed, in amendment, that the Chief
Justice, not being a member of the Senate, had no
right to vote on any question arising in the trial ;
this was defeated by 26 to 22, when Senator Drake
proposed another amendment, to the effect that the
Chief Justice could not rule in questions of law, but
that these questions should be submitted for the de-
cision of the Senate. A still larger majority defeated
this; the votes being 27 to 20. Senator Sumner
then proposed that all questions other than those of
order should be submitted to a vote of the Senate,
on which 25 voted on either side. The friends of
the Chief Justice then brought forward the follow-
ing rule, which was adopted by 31 to 13 :—" The
presiding officer of the Senate shall direct all neces-
sary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the
presiding officer of the Senate shall direct all the
forms or proceedings when the Senate is sitting for
the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms
during the trial not otherwise specially provided for.
And the presiding officer on the trial may rule on
all questions of evi deuce and on incidental ques-
tions, which decision will stand as the judg-
ment cf the Senate for decision, or he may at his
option, in the first instance, submit any such
question to a vote of the members of the Senate."
The Chief Justice took high
ground, declaring
that he could not consent to be a mere cypher,
and that if his right to act as
judge was not
upheld he would consider it his duty to with-
draw from the trial. The victory of Mr.
Chase is considered important, as showing the
strong tendency of the Senate to rule fairly on the
evidence, and not to permit the managers of Im-
peachment to dictate the course to the Court. 'The
procedure is similar to that in ordinary criminal
cases. The prosecution opens with a speech, fol-
lowed by testimony. Messrs. Bingletin and Wilson
will examine the witnesses. Mr. Stanbery was
to commence the defence, making the opening
address, and the witnesses for the defence are
to be cross-questioned by Messrs. and
Butler. Mr. Everts, it is said, will close for the
President, and after rebutting testimony is offered,
Mr. Bingham will close for the prosecution. The
President's counsel have summoned as witnesses
general Rousseau, General Sherman, General
Steadman, and others. General Rousseau is in
Oregon, and cannot reach Washington before the
Ist of May.
The Managers assert that if these distant wit-
nesses are called they will adinit,what they are pro-
posed to prove, to gain time, considering delays
dangerous. April I.—After the journal of pro-
ceeding had been read Senator Sumner again took
up the subject of the Chief Justice's rote on the

preceding day. He sent to the President's desk a
written motion to this effect, that a portion of the
minutes arising from the Chief Justice's vote be
obliterated, such vote being in the judgment of the
Senate without the authority of the Constitution of
the United States, the presiding officer having no
right to cast a vote on any question. This was
negatived without debate by 27 to 21, 15 Republi-
can Senators voting with the majority. Mr. Bur-
leigh, delegate from Daeotah, was again placed on
the stand, and questioned touching the conversation
with General Lorenzo Thomas, Feb. 21, but the
President's counsel objected to the question whether
Thomas had informed Burleigh of his intention to
take possession of the War-office by force. Mr.
Stanbery observed that the question was not re-
levant to any of the charges. We have, he said,
at last come into the domain of law, leaving behind
questions of mere form and procedure. On the
part of the Managers, Butler and Bingham took
part in the argument, and Mr. Curtis aided Mr.
Stanbery. The argument lasted long, and was
directed to the point whether there was a conspiracy
between the President and Thomas warranting
the detail of the conversation of third parties, or
whether the order for Thomas to take the War
Office was mandatory, and could by Andrew John-
son be legally issued, the constitutionality of the
Tenure-of-Office Act entering largely into the argu-
ment. The question was eventually decided in the
affirmative on the Chief Justice putting it to the
vote, by 39 to 11. Mr. Burleigh was called, and
said that on the evening of the 21st of February he
went to see General Thomas at his residence.
Thomas told him that he had been appointed Sec-
retary of War, ad interim, had gone to the Depart-
ment, demanded possession, and Stanton asked him
if he would give him time to remove his papers.
The witness understood Thomas to say that he had
already issued orders as Secretary of War. He also
said that he intended to take possession at ten
o'clock. In reply to an inquiry by the witness,
Thomas stated that he would use force to obtain
possession if it were refused him. Butler asked the
witness if he had any conversation with Thomas
while he was acting as adjutant-general. Mr.
Evarts inquired to what date the question applied.
Mr. Butler said that the appointment to that
office was made about a week before be attempted
to gain possession of the War. Department. Mr.
Evarts asked what was the purpose of the testi-
mony. Mr. Butler said that it was to show that
General Thomas had attempted to seduce his brother
officers from their duty, just as Absalom had sat at
the gates and tried to draw off the people from their
allegiance to King David. Mr. Evarts—" Do you
intend to put Absalom into your question ?" Mr.
Butler—" No, I use him as an illustration."
(Laughter.) After a recess of fifteen minutes, Mr.
Butler read the question which he proposed to put
to the witness, as to what he had heard Thomas say
to the clerks of the War-office, during the week
prior to Feb. 21. Mr. Evarts objected on the ground
of irrelevancy. Mr. Butler made a short reply, to
which Mr. Evarts rejoined, denying that the ruling
which permitted the introduction of the declaration
made subsequently to February 21 allowed the pre-
sentation of the declarations made previous to that
time. There had been no proof adduced in support
of the aspersions and the vilifying remarks made
about General Thomas, and they were uncalled for
certainly at the present time. Mr. Bingham
argued briefly in reply, and cited the authorities in
support of the position of the managers. The Chief
Justice ruled that the question could not be put, no
evidence having been offered in proof of conspiracy
before February 21. The question was submitted,
and the yeas and nays resulted in the vote of
28 to 22, and the question was put. The
witness had heard Thomas make an address
to a number of the clerks in the War-office,
about a week or ten days prior to February 21, in
which he said that he intended to relax the harsh
and arbitrary rules made by his predecessor, and,
regarding the clerks as gentlemen, they could go
out and come in when they pleased, if they were
absent only a reasonable time. Mr. Butler asked
if Mr. Stanton had acknowledged that the testi-
mony given by the witness before the House Com-
mittee was true ? but the question was objected to
and withdrawn. Mr. Butler then asked if General
Thomas had, since February 21, re-stated any por-
tion of his conversation with Mr. Burleigh, about
breaking down the door of the War Department
This was objected to by Mr. Everts, as were also
several modifications of the question, which was
finally put as follows :—" Have yo u had any con-
versation since the first one and . since his appoint-
ment as Secretary of War, ad interim, wherein he
has said anything about using force in getting into
the War-office, or in any other way re-asserting
his former conversation, and, if so, what he said?"
The witness replied that he had asked General
Thomas, last week why the performance promised
had not come off. He answered that it was be-
cause he was arrested by the Marshal early in the
morning ; otherwise he would have broken in the
doors, &c. On the cross-examination by Mr. Stan-
bery, the witness said that he went to the depart-
ment on business with the adjutant-general. Gen.
Thomas made the same address to each of four or
five clerks as they came into office, that he would
not hold them to strict accountability about coming
to work precisely at nine o'clock, but that on re-
suming his position as adjutant-general he was
disposed to relax somewhat the severe rules made.
He should of course expect a faithful performance
of their duties. He spoke only to employ& of
his own department. Samuel Wilkeson was then
called. He testified that he had known General
Thomas six or seven years, had a conversation with
him on the afternoon of February 21 at the War
Department, in which Thomas said that since the
affair had become public he felt free to talk about
it without reserve. He then stated that he had
demanded possession of the War-office, and Stanton
had asked if time would be allowed him to remove
his papers, which he (Thomas) granted. He ex-
pressed to the witness his intention to demand
possession on the Monday following, and would,
if necessary, call on the General of the Army for
assistance, which he thought could not be refused.
At Willard's Hotel, that evening, he reiterated the
same intentions, except that he would carry them
into effect the next Monday. He seemed to mean
what he said. Cross-examined by Mr. Evarts—ls
connected with the press. Thomas told him on
Friday that he had issued an order to close the
Department on Saturday. The witness did not
know whether it was issued as Adjutant-General or
as Secretary of War. On re-direct examination,
the witness said that he had heard Thomas say that
he claimed to be Secretary of War. George W.
Karsener had known General Thomas many years;
saw him at the levee of the President on the 9th
inst., and said to him, " General, the eyes of Dela-
ware are upon you. The people ask you to stand
firm." He replied that he intended to, and that in
a short time he would kick that fellow out. He did
not say who it was whom he intended to kick out, but
the witness understood him to refer to Mr. Stanton.
Cross-examined by Mr. Stanbery—Saw General
Thomas the last time before in Newcastle, Dela-
ware. I did not speak to him then ; do not re-
' , member when and where I ever spoke to him
before ; did not come from Delaware to see Thomas.
When in the east room I felt a desire to see him
and the rest of the Cabinet, and being from the
same State he wished to pay his respects to him.
Thomas was pointed out to him by Mr. Tanner,
and he introduced himself. The idea of kicking out
did not come from the witness, who did not know
whether he approved of the line of conduct of
which Thomas spoke of taking. The witness com-
municated this conversation to Mr. Tanner that
night, and to several others the next day ; among
them was a Mr. Smith, from Delaware, whose
name was not John, but William, and he came
from the Brandywine. The witness was summoned
before the committee about the 13th of March, and
met General Thomas in the committee room. Mr.
Butler—" Did Gen. Thomas thereupon admit that
what you had sworn to was truth ?" Objected
to, and the Court adjourned at ten minutes
past five, the Senate going into executive session.
The evidence of this witness was given in the pecu-
liar dialect of the Delaware boys, and elicited shouts
of laughter, both from the Senators and the occu-
pants of the gallery. April 2. —When the proceed-

ings commenced it was apparent that the trial was
palling both on the Court and the public, for there
was barely a quorum of the Senate, some thirty
members of the House, and a thin assemblage in
the galleries. Senator Drake commenced by moving
to amend the rules which provide that iu all ques-
tions decisions shall be made without taking a vote,
unless one-fifth of the Senators desire the roll called
or the presiding officer, but as the Democrats ob-
jected the question was postponed. The first wit-
ness was Karsener, whose cross-examination was
concluded, the President's counsel striving to show
that he was one of Stanton's spies sent to Thomas
for the purpose of getting up evidence, but in this
they were not successful. Thomas W. Ferry, mem-
ber
of the House from Michigan, in common with
several other witnesses, testified to Thomas's acts
and words in demanding the War Department from
Mr. Stanton on Feb. 22, their evidence being read
from notes, or repeated as if committed to memory
from memoranda made on the spot, as if they had
proceeded there to be able to testify in the trial they
anticipated. At half-past 12 it suddenly dark-
ened, so that it became necessary to light the
gas, and a tornado swept over the Capitol,
clewing the benches of many nervous Senators.
General Emory, commanding the Department of
Washington, was called. He gave his evidence in
a quiet, straightforward manner, but evidently not
from a good memory. He was examined relative to
a conversation in the White House ou the 22d
February, wherein the President was accused of
attempting to procure insubordination in the army.
In several previous instances the President had
questioned him on the distribution of troops in the
department, and whether there ought not to be a
larger force at 'Washington. He went by invitation
through the private secretary on that day, and had
an intereiew ; and, after discussing the strength of
the force in the department, the mode of governing
the army was brought up. " I told him," said the
witness, " that under a recent order issued for the
government of the army of the United States,
founded on the law of Congress, all orders had to
be transmitted through General Grant to the army,
and in like manner all orders coming from Gen. Grant
to any of his subordinate officers must necessarily
come, if iu my department, through me. The Pre-
sident asked me ' What order do you refer to ?' I
replied, 6 Order No. 17 in the series of 1867.' He
stated he would like to see the order, and a mes-
senger was despatched for it." The messenger
having returned, and the President having been
shown the order, witness testified :—" He took
the order and read it, and observed, 'This is
not in conformity with the Constitution of the
United States, which makes me Commander-in-
Chief, or with the terms of your commission.' I
replied, That is the order which you have approved
and issued to the army for our government,' or
something to that effect. I cannot recollect the
exact words, nor do I pretend to give the exact
words of the President. lie said, lam to under-
stand that the President of the United States cannot
give an order except through the General of the
Army or through General Grant.' I said, in reply,
That was my impression, and that was the opinion
which the army entertained, and that I thought the
army was on that subject a unit.' " General Emory
also informed the President that he had taken the
advice of a lawyer, who thought that he was bound
to obey the order, Constitutional or not, and to this
the President replied that the object of the law was
evident, and the interview ended. Then the
Managers handed into Court a copy of the order,
also of Emory's commission and the order assigning
him to the Department of Washington, and the
order restoring Lorenzo Thomas to the office ef
Adjutant-General, from which he had been
for a long period suspended. The President's
letter to General Grant, dated the 10th of
February, and Grant's reply, were also put in
as evidence. The President's letter was read, but
the certificates of Cabinet officers were declined by
the Senate. In reply to the objection of the Presi-
dent's counsel, unless all the correspondence were
submitted, the Managers stated that they desired to
show the President's declaration to prevent Stanton
from resuming the duties of Secretary of War in de-
fiance of the Senate, they submitted the part only
referring to that matter. The objection was over-
ruled by the Chief Justice, and, on a vote being
taken, his ruling was sustained by the Senate, after
long arguments and several objections being over-
ruled. The next document handed in was the order
removing Stanton, and appointing Thomas ad inte-
rim Secretary of War. Colonel G. W. Wallace
being examined, said that he solicited and obtained
an interview with the President on the 23d Febru-
ary to get information of a brevet nomination re-
jected by the Senate, when the President inciden-
tally asked about changes in the force of the depart-
ment of Washington. William E. Chandler, for-
merly Assistant-Secretary of the Treasury, was
next put on the stand. In reply to Mr. Butler's
questions, he showed that money was drawn from
the Treasury on warrants from the War Depart-
ment, that on the 30th of November last the
Assistant-Secretaryship was not vacant. Here the
testimony was objected to, and Mr. Butler an-
nounced his object in the examination was to prove
how the President proposed to control the money
of the Treasury and War Departments as charged in
the Articles, that Edmund Cooper has been appointed
Assistant-Secretary in Nov., 1867, that he exercised
the duties of the office before legally appointed, that
Mr. Cooper was the President's private secretary,
and that the President intended to have a person in
the post who would honour the requisitions made
by Thomas as Secretary of War ad interim. An
argument here again ensued, during which it tran-
spired that an assistant-secretary could not sign
Treasury warrants unless he was acting as Secre-
tary of the Treasury in the absence of that officer,
and then he signed as " Acting Secretary ;" but
that on the 2d of March, 1867, a law was passed
which allowed an assistant-secretary to sign war-
rants in certain cases, but it was always presumed
to be with the consent of the Secretary of the Trea-
sury, and that officer always specially assigned an
assistant-secretary to perform this duty. The ob-
jection to the testimony was sustained by 22 to 27,
16 Republicans voting in the negative with the
Democrats. This decision compelled the Managers
to abandon the proposed line of testimony. Chas.
A. Tinker, in charge of the Washington telegraph-
office, testified that a telegram had come to that
office from Governor Parsons, of Alabama, to the
President, and that on January 17, 1867, the Pre-
sident sent the following reply :
" United States Military Telegraph—Executive Office,
Washington, D.C., Jan. 17, 1867.

"lion. Lewis Parsons, Montgomery, Alabama.—What
possible good can be obtained by reconsidering the con-
stitutional amendment ? I know of none in the present
posture of affairs. I do not believe the people of the
whole country will sustain any set of individuals in the
attempt to change the whole character of onr Government
by enabling acts in this way. 1 believe, on the contrary,
that they will uphold all who have patriotism and courage
to stand by the Constitution, and who place their con-
fidence in the people. There should bo no faltering on
the part of those who are honest in the determination to
sustain the several co-ordinate departments of tim Go
vernment in accordance with its original design.
(Signed) " ANDEEw JOHNSON."
This testimony was also objected to, and General
Butler urged that it was intended to support the
10th and 11th Articles charging the President with
the design of obstructing the Government. To
this it was replied that these charges referred to
speeches, not telegrams, and after argument by
counsel, the Senate voted to receive the testimony
by 27 to 17, nine Republicans going with the
minority. A Senator then moved that the Court
adjourn, and Mr. Sumner exclaimed, 4, I hope
not !" and on the vote being taken the Chief Justice
announced—" the ayes are 22, the nays are 22, the
Chief Justice votes in the affirmative, so the motion
is agreed to ;" and the loud laugh with which this
was received drowned what Mr. Sumner said. After
the recess this day, Mr. Stevens standing up, at-
tempted to step forward, and fell heavily on the
floor of the Chamber. Some of the Managers came
at once to his assistance and replaced him in his
seat, and he went on writing, apparently not much
shaken.
April 3.—Oa the previous day there had been
two or three hundred empty seats in the gallery,
but on this, scarcely any one was there to be seen,
and barely fifty Representatives followed the Alma-

gers to the bar. Sambo, who had been excluded
while the trial was the fashion, now showed his
black face and white teeth from the strangers' seats
before so eagerly prized. The testimony was that
of the reporters who were present at Cleveland and
other places during the celebrated tour of the
President, James B. Sheridan and 0. Cephlane.
The first related to the great speech of August,
1866, in Washington, when Andrew John-
son said that Congress was " a body hanging on
the verge of the Government." Testimony was
tendered as to the ability of phonographic reporters
to make verbatim reports, and also as to the man-
ner and details of reporting. Colonel Moore, pri-
vate secretary to the President, was cross-examined
by Mr. Butler. He stated that he had corrected
the notes of the speech in Washington of August,
1866. Butler asked how be dared to assume the
great constitutional right of correcting the Presi-
dent's speeches. To this Mr. Curtis replied that it
was a vestion of law, and Colonel Moore added
that it was not by direction of the President that
he had corrected the speech. The reporters could
not positively swear that they had taken down all
the words of the President in his speeches during
the Western tour. At Cleveland there was great
excitement among the people he addressed, and the
President himself was agitated. They had as
usual rounded some sentences and corrected
grammatical blunders. Great anxiety is felt
at Washington to ascertain how the Senators
will vote. There are a large number of Republican
Senators who are held to be quite safe and sound
by the Radicals, but the voting of others on the ob-
jections raised, and ou questions which have hitherto
come up, has caused considerable uneasiness
among the party. Joseph S. Fowler, of Tennessee;
F. T. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey ; William P.
Fessenden, of Maine; Lyman Trumbull, of Eli-
, nois ; George IL Williams, of Oregon ; F. G. Van
Winkle, of West Virginia ; and William Sprague,
of Rhode Island, have as yet cast their votes so r,4
to favour the President's side, and should these
seven vote in the same way when the final question
comes up, the President will stand victor in this
great battle, for seven Republicans acting with the
Democratic twelve will be upwards of the third.
Senator James llarlem, of lowa, is in his State, but
will be back in time to vote ; Yates, of Illinois, Rc-
publican, and Saulisbury, of Delaware, Democrat,
have been absent half the time from the trial, but
they will also vote. As the evidence and argu-
ments are officially reportel and printed in the
Globe, those absent can make themselves ac-
quainted with all that transpires.