The Sun.
London, England, 1868-05-11 00:00:00

PROGRESS OF IMPEACHMENT.

April 17.—Senator Sumner proposed that the
time of sitting should be from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
daily to facilitate business ; this would give between
two and three additional hours. It was finally
resolved that the Court should assemble each day
at 11 a.m., leaving the closing hour unnamed.
William W. Armstrong, editor of the Cleveland
Plaindealer, testified to the President's speech in
that city. The President was only induced
to speak at all after much solicitation, and the
objectionable part arose from the frequent in-
terruption and goading of the mob. But he ad-
mitted, on cross-examination, that his recollection
of the matter was somewhat imperfect. The St.
Louis collector of revenue, Barton Able, spoke with
regard to the speech at that city, declaring that the
President had repeatedly refused to make any ad-
dress, and only gave way on strong pressure, when
he stepped on the balcony of the Southern Hotel.
George Knapp, editor of the Missouri Republican,
corroborated this, adding that he had corrected the
address from the balcony before printing it in the
Republican. One of its reporters, Henry S. Riker,
also testified to the report as printed. In several
instances he had moderated its language in order to
conform it to what the President actually said as
far as he could recall it. Previous to the examina-
tion of Assistant-Secretary Frederick W. Seward,
some documentary evidence relating to forms of
commission to army officers, and removals from the
interior department, was given in, and the method
of making ad interim appointments was testified to
by the witness. Secretaries Seward, Welles, M'Cul-
loch, Browning, and Postmaster-General Randall,
were in court for examination, the whole Cabinet
being present with the exception of Stanton. The
first examined was Welles, Secretary of the Navy.
In reply to the reported movements of the troops
at Washington on the 22d of February, he acknow-
ledged having heard from his son, who was present,
and reported to the President, that the officers of
Emory's command had been summoned to head-
quarters from an evening party on 21st February.
Mr. Butler objected to a question as to what the
President then said to him, but the objection was
over-ruled. The Attorney-General was at the time
with the President, and during the interview the
nomination of Thomas Ewing, as Secretary of War,
was made out, and sent to the Senate. The Presi-
dent, on being informed of the movement by wit-
ness, said he did not know what Emory was about,
and that he would send for him to inqu ire. This
was on the 22d February, and Secretary Welles was
asked what transpired at the-Cabinet meeting on the
preceding day. Witness answered, the Cabinet were
all present except Stanton, and just as they were
separating the President made a communication ;
—at this point Mr. Butler objected. After a
lengthened argument, the Chief Justice declared
the testimony admissible, and the Senate sus-
tained his decision by 26 to 23, when the wit-
ness continued,—" The President remarked that
before the Cabinet separated it was proper
for him to say that he had removed Mr. Stan-
ton, and appointed the Adjutant -General, Lcrenzo
Thomas, Secretary of War ad interim. He inquired
whether General Thomas was in possession ; the
President said he was, but that Mr. Stanton re-
quired some little time to remove his writings and
his papers. I said, or perhaps I asked, " Does Mr.
Stanton, then, acquiesce in it?" He said, " He did,
as he understood it." The witness then went on to
say that this communication was made in accord-
ance with the customary Cabinet routine, the Pre-
sident generally making his communications alter
the Cabinet officers had disposed of their depart-
ment matters. He was afterwards asked whether
he was not aware, at the time of its passage of the
terms of the Tenure-of-Office Act, and replied that
he was, and was present at a Cabinet meeting on
Feb. 26, 1867, when it was under consideration. Mr.
Stanton was present, and the President said that
the bill had been passed by Congress, and presented
to him, and be desired the advice of the Cabinet
about it. General Butler objected to any testimony
of what transpired at that Cabinet meeting, and the
defence offered to prove that the President, having
asked the advice of the Cabinet whether he should
approve the bill, " thereupon the members of the
Cabinet then present gave their advice to the Pre-
sident that the bill was unconstitutional, and should
be returned to Congress with his objections, and
that the duty of preparing a message setting forth
the objections to the constitutionality of the bill
was devolved upon Mr. Seward and Mr. Stanton."
On an objection from Mr. Butler, who held that
the President had no right to advance the opinions
of the Cabinet and his own, to justify his refusing
to exercise a law on the statute book, the question
was reopened as to the admissibility of the testi-
mony, and the Senate adjourned before the argu-
ment was concluded. Mr. Butler, on this day,
was censured for allowing the publication, in that
morning's Globe, of certain tabular statements as
part of his speech, which not only had not entered
into it, but had not even been alluded to or offered
in evidence, and the Senate ordered these state-
ments to be struck from the official report of the
proceedings.

April 18.—The Chamber was densely crowded
on this day. Mr. Wilson delivered a long and able
speech against the admissibility of the testimony.
He argued that the violation of a law is itself suffi-
cient proof of criminal intent. He was replied to
by Mr. Curtis, and the Chief Justice held the tes-
timony to be admissible, while the Senate, by 29 to
20, took the opposite view—Sumner and Norton
declining to vote. Secretary Welles was, however,
recalled, and asked whether at the Cabinet delibe-
rations on the Tenure-of-Office Bill, from the time
it was presented to the President until the time the
veto message was sent in, the question as to
whether Mr. Stanton came under its provisions was
discussed. Butler, who bad been persuaded to be
silent during the argument for the admission of the
Cabinet officer's testimony, here objected ; and
though the Chief Justice decided that the testimony
ought to he admitted, again the Senate reversed
his decision by 26 to 22 —Sumner and Norton also
on this occasion declining to vote. The witness
was then asked if, at any of the Cabinet
meetings precious to the removal of Mr. Stan-
ton, the effect on the public services of
the Tenure-of-office Act came up for discussion.
He answered it did, and for the third time followed
a question to which Mr. Butler objected, as one
that had twice been ruled out. He said that the
Senate had determined not to receive these Cabinet
consultations in evidence, but the counsel en-
deavoured to evade the decision by getting in the
evidence by detail, wearying out the patience of
the Senate. Four times that body had expressed
its opinion in favour of the Constitutionality of the
law, twice on the bill, and twice on the Stanton
case. Mr. Evarts replied that the length and
frequency of the learned Manager's remarks indi-
cated that he thought the Senate capable only of
receiving impressions on one side. Before the Chief
Justice submitted thaluestion, Senator Henderson
desired to know whether evidence could not be
offered in mitigation of punishment if the Presi-
dent was convicted. Mr. Butler answered that it
could not until the verdict of guilty had been pro-
nounced, and although testimony as to. good cha-
racter could then be put in he objected to it as in-
couipetent evidence at any time. In the vote that
was taken Senator Conkling remained silent, as
well as Senator Stunner and Morton, and the toti.