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

PROGRESS OF 1111PEACEMENT.

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
Pluindealer, 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 masking 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 trbops
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, Lorenzo
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 after
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 he 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 along 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 had 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 previous 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 the question, 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-
cou,petent evidence at any time. In the vote that
was taken Senator Coukling remained silent, as
well as Senator Sumner and Morton, and the testi.

mony was refused by 30 to 19. The President's
counsel, however, did not abandon the struggle to
get in the evidence of the Cabinet till they had
been baffled in another attempt, the question next
coining up in this form, " whether there was any
discussion as to the vacation of any office, or the
obtaining of possession of the same by force." On
the failure of this attempt the counsel yielded the
point, and Edgar T. Wells succeeding on the stand,
corroborated what his father had said about the
officers suddenly called to the General's head-
quarters from an evening party on -the 21st Febru-
ary. Postmaster-General It andall gave evidence
that Foster Blodgett, the postmaster at Augusta,
Georgia, had been suspended by him, contrary to
law, on complaint of misconduct, without the know-
ledge of the President, being indicted for perjury
and other crimes. An attempt was made in the
following form by Senator Sherman to extract the
evidence as to the Cabinet deliberations :—" Whe-
ther the question as to the applicability of the
Tenure-of-Office Law to members of the Cabinet
appointed by Mr. Lincoln ever came before the
Cabinet for discussion, and if so, what were the
opinions expressed ?" but it was ruled out by 26 to
20. A sharp passage took place between Mr. Butler
and Mr. Randall, and the General was rebuked by
the Chief Justice. Mr. Evarts announced that the
continued illness of Mr. Stanbery prevented coun-
sel stating positively whether the evidence for the
defence was all in, but they believed it was, and the
trial was adjourned till Monday.
April 20.—ThePresident's counsel commenced by
announcing their case as closed, and the Managers
were called upon for rebutting testimony. Mr.
Bingham stated that one or two witnesses had been
subpoenaed early in the trial, but had not been found,
but be hoped to produce them in 48 hours. Senator
Reverdy Johnson wished to know whether the
Managers desired to offer testimony after the argu-
ment was begun. Mr. Bingham, although the
privilege was customary, said he was not aware
that the Managers wished to avail themselves of it.
Senator Yates repeated Mr. Johnson's question,
and Mr. Bingham still evaded a direct answer.
After extracts from the Senate journal and other
documents had been presented by Mr. Butler to
show the practice of appointing officers, the Post-
master General was placed on the stand. He cer-
tified the correctness of a copy of the indictment
against Foster Blodgett, on which he had suspended
him as postmaster at Augusta. To this Mr.
Butler offered Blodgett's answer, but the defence
objected, Blodgett not being on trial, and he did
not require rebutting testimony. Mr. Butler, while
stating what the Managers proposed to prove, was
interrupted by the Chief Justice to have it put in
writing, when Butler expressed his astonishment at
the interruption, observing that the President's
counsel had never been interfered with in that way,
but the Chief Justice peremptorily said the
offer must be put in writing. This was done,
and the testimony without a division declared
to be inadmissible. It was on this occasion that
Mr. Butler observed, " It is probable that Mr.
Blodgett will be sent here to take his seat in this
House beside the noblest of you ; he is a man qua-
lified to fill any position on this floor," a remark
that appears to us not particularly well calculated
for the attainment of the object Mr. Butler bad in
view. The President's order appointing General
Sherman to the command of the department of the
Atlantic was offered, and after an argument with-
drawn, but the nomination of Sherman and Thomas
to be Generals by brevet was refused by a vote of
35 to 14, 24 Republicans joining the majority. As
this class of testimony could not be admitted, the
Managers announced the case to be closed, and the
President's counsel made a similar statement.
Several attempts to get permission for the other
Managers and counsel to speak, and to print and
file their speeches were defeated, and the trial
was adjourned to Wednesday.
April 22.—Chief Justice Chase announced that
Mr. Stanbery, on account of ill health, had with-
drawn from all further proceedings. For two
hours the Senate discussed whether the Managers
and counsel not authorized to speak should be
allowed to present and file their arguments. Finally
the motion offered by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, was
adopted, that as many Managers and counsel as
desire, be permitted to file written arguments, or
address the Senate orally, providing that the con-
cluding oral argument be made by only one
Manager as provided in the first rule. The division
on the resolution was 21 to 22. Mr. Boutwell com-
menced his argument for the Managers and prose-
cution a little before one o'clock, the Chamber being
densely filled with a brilliant audience. He spoke
of the prospect of a speedy end of the important
trial and of its arduous duties; of the magnitude of
the interests and responsibilities involved, the direct
and conclusive proof by which the House hail sus-
tained its charges. He discussed the claim of the
President to the power to remove at all times any
executive officer, a claim which .has never before
been asserted, never sanctioned, and which no law
justifies. If the claim is acknowledged, it strips
the Senate of all practical power in making appoint-
ments, and confers on the President power to re-
move every one refusing to be his instrument. The
effect of the unlimited exercise of such power was
considered and depicted at length, and the
speaker passed to the discussion of the constitu-
tional powers of the President and the Senate.
The legislative was the controlling branch of the
Government, the only one whose power was directly
derived from the Constitution and the people, the
Executive and judicial being dependent upon it.
The President's assumption of authority not granted
by the Constitution and laws, is a violation of his
oath of office. His crime is that he violated a law,
and the defence cannot be set up that the law is un-
constitutional, nor is such inquiry within the pro-
vince of the Senate. The Act is binding upon all
officers and departments, and if the President can
refuse to execute it because he thinks it unconsti-
tutional, then he and his successors may refuse to
execute any law not sanctioned by the Supreme
Court. Purity of motives cannot be pleaded by
the President as an excuse, for he had no right
whatever to commit a crime, and his plea that he
wanted to get the law into the Courts was of no
value, for he had never taken any of the steps
necessary to that result. The act of the President
was usurpation, and no criminal was ever arraigned
who had a more• unsatisfactory excuse for he
crimes. He had no right to do what he says he in-
tended to do; and the evidence shows that there was
no attempt to do what he assigned as his purpose.
The legal arguments which the defence had pro-
duced for the support of the President's action
were answered at length by Mr. Boutwell, who
summed up the whole in the statement that " it is
apparent that the President's conduct finds no sup-
port either in the Constitution, in the Act of 1789,
or in the legislation of 1795." The constitutiona-
lity of the Tenure-of-Office Act was properly con-
sidered and defended, and its application in the case
of Mr. Stanton earnestly insisted on, Mr. Boutwell
contending that the office only could be vacated by
resignation, or by confirmation by the Senate of a
nomination by the President. The arguments of
the counsel for the President, relative to the intent,
were combated at length, the Manager maintain
ing that, in the wilful violation of the law, the Pre-
sident disclosed a criminal intent, which cannot be
qualified by any rebutting testimony. He denied
that the President had a right to violate the law to
obtain a judicial determination upon its constitu-
tionality, as is claimed by his counsel ; and the
theory that such a course is right, is abhorrent to
every just principle of government, and dangerous
to the existence of the institutions of the United
States. Mr. Boutwell took up the charges one by
one, and showed, with great force, how they were
estaldished by the evidence, how the action of the
President infringed the statutes, and set at naught
the customs of the country, and showed the
guilt of his design ; while at much length lie
answered the arguments of the President's counsel
and exposed the weak points of the defence. Ile
concluded with these words :—" The corruptions
of the public service have enriched multitudes of
his adherents. These classes of men, possessing
wealth and influence in many cases, have exerted
their power to close up every avenue of information.
Hence the efforts of the House of Representatives
and•of the Managers to procure testimony, which

they were satisfied was in existence, have been de-
feated by the devices and machinations of those
who in the North and South are allied to the Pre-
sident. The telegraphic correspondence between
Mr. Johnson and Lewis E. Parsons shows that he
used his personal and official influence to defeat the
ratification of the Constitutional amendment and
the Congressional plan of Reconstruction. Pur-
suing the subject further, it is easy to comprehend
and discover his entire scheme of criminal ambition
to obtain command of the War Department and
the army, and by their combined power to control
the elections in the ten States not yet restored to
the Union. By his policy, if in control of the War
Department, it would be easy in the ten States to
exclude from the polls every coloured in in and give
the franchise to every white rebel He could se-
cure the election of delegates from the ten States
to the Democratic N ntienal C eivention favour-
able to his nomination, foul having delegates
asured from other sections of the country would
have secured his nomination. This he confi-
dently anticipated; with the War Department
in his hands, and the Tenure-of-Office Act
broken down, he would be able to remove Grant,
Sherman, Sheridan, or any other officer, high or low,
who stood in his way. With tens of thousands of
office-holders scattered all over the country, he
would be able to control the nominations of the
Democratic party in every State of the Union. If,
with the electoral votes of the ten States, he ob-
tained enough from the States now represented in
Congress to make a majority of the electoral votes,
he would defy the House and Senate should they
attempt to reject the votes of the ten States, whe-
ther they had been previously restored to the Union
or not. In a contest with the two Houses, he and
his friends and supporters, including the War De-
partment, the Treasury Department, and the army
and the navy, would insist that he had been duly
elected President, and he weuld have been inaugu-
rated on the 4th of March next as President for
another four years. The President is hostile to Mr.
Stanton, but he has not incurred all this hazard for
the mere purpose of gratifying his personal feelings
towards Mr. Stanton, but under the influence of
ambition, unlimited arid unscrupulous, which dares
anything and everything necessary for its gratifica-
tion. The House of Representatives has brought this
great criminal to your bar upon a conviction that the
country was in peril, they believing that the inter-
rests of the country are no longer safe in his
ahpapnedals.
Representing the people of the country, they
to this tribunal to maintain the constitutional
powers of the Senate. Never before in the history
of any free government has there been so base, so
unjustifiable au attempt upon the part of any Execu-
tive, whether Emperor, King, or President, to de-
stroy the just authority of another department of
the Government. You cannot fail to discharge
your duty. Nothing, literally nothing, can be said
in defence of this criminal. Andrew Johnson is
guilty, upon the proof in part, and upon his own
admissions of having intentionally violated a public
law, of usurping and exercising powers not exer-
cised or even asserted by any of his predecessors in
office. Judge Pickering, of the District Court of
New Hampshire, was impeached and removed from
office for the crime of having appeared upon the
bench in a state of intoxication. I need not draw
any parallel between Judge Pickering and this re-•
spondent. Andrew Johnson has disregarded and
violated the laws and constitution of his own coun-
try. The States of the Union are without law,
without security, without safety, because of his evil
purposes and machinations. Forty millions of people
have been rendered anxious and uncertain as to the
preservation of public peace and the perpetuation of
the institutions of freedom in this country. Catus
Venes is the great political criminal of history; for two
years he was the scourge of Sicily. It has a popu-
lation of about two million souls. The criminal at
your bar -has been the scourge of a country con-
taining a population six times as great. This re-
spondent has not canvassed States or enriched him-
self by the plunder of their homes, but he had ad-
hered to a policy which deprived the people of the
blessings of peace, of the protection of law, of the
just reward of honest industry. A vast and im-
portant portion of the Republic is prostrate and
helpless under the evils which his admieistration
' has brought upon it. Venues had his friends, but
this respondent will look in vain even is the South
for any testimonials to his virtues or to his public
conduct. Will any one say that the heaviest pun-
ishment which you can give is any adequate pun-
ishment for these crimes ? But it is yours to re-
lieve, not to punish. The people of England have
successfully resisted Executive encroachLeat upon
their rights ; let not their example be lost upon us.
We suppressed the rebellion in arms, and we are
now to expel it from the Executive Councils. At
your bar the House of Representatives demands
justice ; justice for the people ; justice to the ac-
cused. Justice is of God, and it cannot perish. By
and through justice comes obedience to law by all
magistrates amid people. By and through justice
comes the liberty of the law, which is freedom with-
ous license. Senators, as far as I am concerned, the
case is now in your hands, and it is soon to be closed
by my associate. The House of Representatives
have presented this criminal at the bar, with equal
confidence in his guilt and in your disposition to
administer exact justice between him and the people
of the United States. His conviction is the triumph
of law, of order, of justice. I do not contemplate
his acquittal—it is impossible. Therefore I do not
look beyond. But, Senators, the people of America
will never permit an usurping Executive to break
down the securities for liberty provided by the Con-
stitution. The cause of the country is it, your bands.
Your verdict of guilty is peace to our beloved land."
Mr. Boutwell's argument lasted over the remainder
of Wednesday, and although he had spoken for
three hours the Senate adjourned, and his speech
was resumed on Thursday.
April 23.—At 11 o'clock Mr. Boutwell recom-
menced and continued to occupy the court till 1.40
p.m., when it reassembled after a recess of ten
minutes. The galleries were on this, as well as the
preceding day, crowded to hear him. Among those
present were the Chief Justice of Canada, General
Howard, Judge Advocate Holt, Samuel Bowles of
Springfield, and Theodore Tilton. Mr. Boutwell
read from printed slips. The legal merits of the
speech are much discussed, but it was delivered
effectively, more especially his denunciation of Mr.
Johnson's Cabinet, and made a deep impression.
Judge Nelson, of Tennessee, then opened the case
for the defence in an extempore address. He is
said to be behind the times, and that the speech
rather harmed than helped the cause. His manner
was passionate, but his matter commonplace, while
here and there passages 'were strong and brilliant.
It was reported to be against the wish of Everts
and Curtis that he spoke, but at the express desire
of the President. Mr. Curtis was absent during
the delivery. Judge Nelson began as all the
other speakers by alluding to the magnitude of
the case and his inability to treat it. lie
would consider many points which required
attention though not belonging to the case, as they
had been introduced by the Managers. He then
referred to the charges of evil nature, wickedness
and detestable character, which had been brought
against the President, and which so far had re-
mained unnoticed by his counsel. The President
was accused of being everything, from a political
criminal to a common scold. These accusations,
stigmas, and aspersions he intended to examine.
He sketched the President's early life and carter,
and passed a high encomium on his patriotism and
public services, referring also to the fact that his
neighbours and those who, like himself, knew him
best, sustained him and believed him innocent. Mr.
Nelson felt he was not addressing merely Senators
or poliuicians, but judges expected to rise above
prejudice or party considerations and do impartial
justice. Referring to the immense outside pres-
sure which, it was impossible to conceal, unwor-
thy persons and journals sought to bring to bear
upon them, he was confident they would repel it
'with indignation. If he could believe the result
of the trial was a foregone conclusion, humble
individual that he was, he would scorn to ad-
dress them. lie asked them as far as possible to
put themselves in the President's place, to judge
of his feelings, and motives, and intentions—a
privilege accorded to the meanest criminal. Citing

the resolution declaratory of the purposes of the
war, which was introduced by Senator Johnson just
after the battle of Bull Run, and was passed by
Congress and still remains unrepealed, he claimed
that the President had acted upon it and still main-
tained its principles. He argued that President
Johnson, after the surrender of General Lee, ea'
deavoured faithfully to carry out the policy of his
predecessor, which was based on that resolution.
Although Senators may conscientiously believe he
was wrong in his action regarding the formation of
new State Governments, they must admit that there
is no express provision in the Constitution for re-
construction, and that the President had a right to
his own opinion, more especially as peace had not
been fully restored, and the n'tcessity for prompt
action was pressing. Honesty and integrity of rnn-
tive must in charity be presumed in such a case.
Referring to the recognition by Congress of a State
Government in Virginia, formed without the pas'
sage of any Reconstruction Act, he claimed that
Congress had also justified the President's policy,
and had also, in the Act of March 1, 1857, d3te'l
the cessation of the war from August, 1866,
the time fixed in the President's proclamation,
and thus bad recognize 1 its validity. The rebel
States had never been out of the Union
then, considering whether the Senate is a Court,
he denied that authority or precedent was to be
found for its guidance in Parliament, except in the
same way that history was to he consulted. This
is the tribunal of the American Constitution. Ile
then quoted from debates on the formation of the
Constitution in support of his view that the Chief
Justice was called upon to preside as a judge, 36d
was expected to state the law, and also to decide in
the first instance upon all law questions which might
arise. He further contended that the use of the
word " trial" in the constitutional provision for im-
peachment shows the judicial character of the
Senate at that time. He proceeded to characterize
the propositions advanced by the Managers that the
Senate was bound by no common or statute law,
but was a law unto itself, and that its common fame
was sufficient evidence and ground for its action, as
a startling declaration, fraught with danger to
-the country. He held that they must consider
their case very lame, if forced to receive evidence
on common fame, which the old adage says i°
common liar. In the lowest courts, and by courts
alone, are justice and equality maintained; no
such claims would be advanced, and their veil
oaths showed that they were bound by the laws'
He denounced as morally improper the considers-
tions put forward by the Managers that the people
of the country demanded the conviction of the Pre-
sident, and that the public pulse beat fitfully while
they delayed it. He discussed the meaning of the
terms treason, bribery, and other crimes and mis-
demeanours, and held that as at the date of the
formation-of the Constitution treason was punish-
ablec with death, while bribery was not, the wet
crimes" must be construed with the former, and the
word " misdemeanour" with the latter; hence that nn
offence is impeachable that is not a misdetneanour
of the class to which bribery then belonged.
point, being four o'clock, on the motion of fir.
Yates, of Illinois, the Court adjourned. At this