The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 9, 1868.

of the opinion of the Roman Court regarding

this controversy.
The opinion, then, of his contemporaries, of
those most competent to speak, and of those
most deeply engaged in the controversy, was
undoubtedly in favour of the orthodoxy of
Pope Honorius. Such testimony is not lightly
to be disposed of. It is of cumulative force.
First, we have, as F. Schneemann relates, the
evidence that the whole Church, which up to
his death had entertained a favourable opinion
of the orthodoxy of Honorius, was plunged
into a state of excitement when, after his death,

it was found that the Monothelites publicly
claimed what in his lifetime they had only in

secret professed to believe, that the Pope was
a supporter of their heresy. Rome was be-
sieged with inquiries as to the meaning of
this pretence. Hereupon witness aftei wit-
ness, on whose competency, virtue and know-
ledge no doubt could be cast, arose bearing
testimony in favour of the orthodoxy of Pope
Honorius. First came the notary who himself
composed the incriminated letter, then the
most influential members of the clergy at Rome,

who, by their close intercourse with the Pope,
could not well be otherwise than familiar with
his opinion on a controversy which engaged
every one's attention ; then there was his suc-
cessor, to whom belonged the right of authen-
tically explaining the decree of his predecessor;
in addition, there was St. Sophronius, than
whom there was no one whose evidence under
the circumstances could be less suspected, and
he, in the most formal and solemn manner,
bore testimony to the orthodoxy of Honorius.
Then the conduct of the heretics themselves,
their trickery and cunning devices, exposed
the fallacy of their assertion that they had en-
joyed the support of Pope Honorius; and, lastly,
what better evidence in his behalf could the
Pope need than Maximus, the sainted martyr to
the cause of orthodoxy, as conspicuous for his
learning as for his virtue ? And it was he
who triumphantly refuted the false charges
brought against Honorius by the Patriarch
Pyrrhus, the most audacious of his accusers.
So far, then, as contemporary evidence of
the most authentic character is concerned, a
favourable judgment mast be pronounced on
the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius.
For want of space we can only briefly refer
to the next stage of this controversy, which
was comparatively quiet until the Council of
Constantinople. Pope Agatho, in his letter to
the Emperor Constantine, repeatedly, and with
emphasis, declared that the Popes have never
erred against the faith, and that the security
for this infallibility was provided by the pro-
mise given by Christ to Peter. Bollinger does
not deny that Pope Agatho said this in spe-
cial reference to Honorius. Moreover, Pope
Agatho, in saying that since the beginning of
the Monothelite controversy, the Popes have
never omitted to warn the Patriarchs of Con-
stantinople to abstain, at least by silence, from
their heresy, plainly referred to Honorius, for
no other Pope would have contented himself
with only imposing silence on the teachers of
error. This letter of Pope Agatho F. Schnee-
mann points out as of the highest importance,
since it was solemnly approved of by the Sixth
(Ecumenical Council, and even Bossuet ac-
knowledges that this approbation was extended
also to the detailed exposition of the infalli-
bility of the Holy See which was contained
in that letter.
Passing over to the third stage of this trial,
which history and science have conducted con-
cerning the orthodoxy of Honorius, F. Schnee •
mann tells us that on account of their multi-
tude it is impossible for him to take note of
all the various writers who, since the Councils
of Constance and of Basle, since the outbreak
of the Reformation and of the Jansenistical
and Gallican controversies, have written on the
subject, it is necessary to limit his inquiry to the
results of the controversy attested by the most
competent judges. In the first instance, then,
says F. Schneemann, let us refer to Garnier,
whose magnificent literary labours Dollinger
acknowledges with praise, and who thus sums
up the judgment of Catholic historians and
writers of repute:—"ln an earlier epoch many
may have considered Honorius as a heretic ;
but now, since the matter has been investi-
gated with greater diligence and care, there
are but few—and they, moreover, of suspicious
tendencies, or of no great authority—who con-
demn Honorius as a heretic." As a second
authority F. Schneemann cites Papebroch,.the
most eminent of the Bollandists. " All, he
says, "at least who arc orthodox deny that
any heresy is contained in the letter of Pope
Honorius." F. Schneemann says he might
quote the testimony as to the result of the
elaborate controversy concerning
Honorius, of
Italian writers, such as Orsi Muzzarelli, Litta,
but he prefers, as less open to suspicion in this
matter, the Doctors of the Sorbonne and the
supporters of the Gallican articles. Tournely
who, according to Dr. Dollinger, upheld the
honour of French theology in the 18th cen-
tury, says that " almost all theologians vindi-
cate Honorius from the error of the Mono-
thelites." Bishop Languet, the friend of Bos-
suet and a doctor of the Sorbonne, also attests
"to the almost universal agreement of the
elder and of modern theologians in the defence
of Honorius."
The result of historical evidence as shown in
the testimony of the vast majority of Catholic
writers of learning, eminence, and authority, is
to acquit Pope Honorius of heresy. If it be
added that in this judgment, pronounced after
a controversy which lasted two hundred years,
writers of the most opposite schools concur,
Ultramontanists and Gallicans, secular and
regular clergy of the most diverse shades of
opinion, scholastic theologians and historians,
and even Jansenists, so certain is it, argues
F. Schneemann, that at the least it is not evi-
dent that Honorius taught anything heretical
in his letters. But if he did not teach error,
it is acknowledged on all sides that by a mis-
taken policy in his treatment of the Patriarch
Sergius, he gave a great encouragement to
the growth of the Monothelite heresy. Had he
gone to work, says F. Schneemann, with
greater circumspection, the insidious devices
of the Monothelite Patriarchs would not have
escaped his notice. He was also to blame for
his too great attachment to the Greek court.
Ecclesiastical history, as F. Schneemann well
remarks, shows by, innumerable examples
that nothing so dazzles the eyes of princes
of the Church as an immoderate fear of break-
ing with the State. That Honorius did, how-
ever, withstand the Monothelites, is evident
from the fact, which his immediate successor,
Pope Agatho, points out, that he imposed
silence upon thorn; but, in enjoining them to
abstain from their heresy by silence, he also,
for peace sake, imposed silence on the ortho-
dox. Such a method of dealing with the con-
troversy was not, as F. Schneemann justly
remarks, a right or a sufficiently stringent
way of resisting the inroads of an insidious
heresy. It showed a want of watchfulness
on the part of Honorius, for, had he listened
to the representations of Sophronius, and op-
posed Sergius with energy, the spread of the
heresy might have been checked. It was his
duty as Pope to have done this, and, for this
culpable negligence, by which heresy was
encouraged, Honorius, says F. Shneemann, was
condemned by the Sixth (Ecumenical Council,
and by Pope Leo, who confirmed the acts of
that council. The decrees of a council, as is
well known to every Catholic, are only valid
in so far as they have received Papal confir-
mation, but the condemnation of Honorius by
the Sixth Council was confirmed by Pope Leo
11., with the express limitation that Honorius
had only suffered the pure faith to be defiled.
In the document confirming the Council, Leo
11. says, "We pronounce anathema on the in-
ventors of the new error—that is—on Theodore
of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyr-
rhus, Paul, Peter, and, likewise, on Honorius,
who did not put his hand to the work of
purifying the Apostolic Church by the teaching
of Apostolic tradition, but, by profane aban-
donment, suffered the pure faith to be de-
filed."

The result of F. Schneemann's investiga-
tions proves, therefore—first, by intrinsic pro-

bability ; secondly, by an almost unanimous
historic testimony, and thirdly by a close exe:
getical examination of his incriminated letters,
that Pope Honorius was not guilty of teaching
heresy, and that he was not condemned by the
Sixth Council and Pope Leo 11. on that account,
but for culpable negligence. Iu opposition to
this judgment we find the opinions of a very
few Catholic writers, and their number would
have been less, had it not been for the neces-
sities of the Gallican. dispute. But few as they
are, these writers do not recommend themselves
by their mode of dealing with this historical
question. They have an object in view which
interferes with, and in some instances com-
pletely destroys their critical faculty. This is
especially the case with Dr. Dollinger. F.
Schneemann shows how inaccurate on occa-
sions a great Church historian may be, with
what carelessness, in order to prove a foregone
conclusion, he may mistranslate or misinterpret
documents which in reality tell against him.
In the continuation of our review of the ques-
tion of Pope Honorius next week, we will
examine what Honorius's modern opponents
have to allege against his orthodoxy. In Mr.
Renouf's pamphlet we regret to ses that he has
taken Dr. Bollinger too implicitly as an autho-
rity, but that is simply an error of judgment.
But what we still more regret is the contemptu-
ous and intemperate manner in which he puts
aside every view or every explanation of facts
which does not coincide with his own opinion.
Adopting the Monothelite interpretation of
Pope Honorius's words, which are susceptible
both of an orthodox and of an unorthodox ex-
planation, he rejects with ineffable contempt,
and in a most uncritical spirit, the Catholic
interpretation. He dismisses witnesses against
his peculiar view with the unqualified epithet
of mendacious ; and in this and like unsober
fashion arrives at the conclusion that Honorius
was a heretic, and was condemned for heresy
by both Pope and Council. In a word, we
have seldom met with a more uncritical and
uncandid treatment of a grave, historical ques-
tion, and one which, on account of the weight
of testimony which is opposed to his peculiar
views, ought at least to have induced 'Mr.
Renouf to have exhibited a little more mo-
desty.
But the question of Papal Infallibility seems
to have disturbed the equanimity of his critical
faculties, for we find, to our astonishment, that
he believes that the theory of Papal infalli-
bility is utterly destroyed by the alleged heresy
of Honorius. In this again he follows in the
wake of a few untrustworthy writers, in which
category we must place not Dr. Dollinger the
Church historian, but Dr. Dollinger the mini-
mizer, for between the earlier and the later
Dollinger in this very question of the ortho-
doxy of Pope Honorius there is a marked
antagonism. In reality the question of Papal
infallibility is not at all concerned in this dis-
pute, for, as F. Schneemann remarks, " Hono-
rius had no intention of deciding by an ex
cathedra', definition the Monothelite dispute,
so, even if the orthodoxy of the Pope were
supposed capable of being disproved, from such
an opinion no argument would follow against
Papal infallibility."
What Mr. Renouf and the one or two
writers, such as Dr. Dollinger, whom he fol-
lows have: to say on this subject, we shall
examine in the continuation of our review
next week.

PROGRESS OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE VOTE ON THE ELEVENTH ARTICLE.

May 16.—This day, big with the fate of Impeach
ment, broke bright and clear on Washington, and in
strong contrast to that when Thad. Stevens made
his way to the Senate Chamber, formally to im-
peach the President. The grass around the Capitol
had been lately mown, and the air was 'perfumed
with the odour, while the eye was refreshed by the
bright green. Nor was the day far spent ere
every available space was filled within and
without. Ladies, as usual, predominated, and their
elaborate toillettes more than ever gave to
this the closing scene of the great State trial
a theatrical aspect. Even the diplomats and re-
porters' gallery were crowded, though Mr. Thorn-
ton, perhaps a nnoyed at being turned out with
the crowd on the fa ruler occasion, was not
there, but Mr. Anthony Throllope was given a
place on the floor of the Chamber. A strong force
of police, both above and below, within the corri-
dors and without, warned the unruly that effectual
measures had been taken to stop a repetition of the
disturbance which had marked the close of Mr.
Bingham's speech. Mr. Wade's face was eagerly
scanned as he slowly walked to the President's
seat. Senator Howard, one of the three invalid
members who had been reposing in the committee
room, came slowly in, leaning heavily on the arms of
two friends,aedicl Senator Grimes, who was wrapped
in blankets, being partially paralysed. Senator
Conkling was able to sit up when the vote was taken.
At half-past 11 Mr. Wade called the Senate to
order, and some routine business occupied the half
hour pending the arrival of the Chief Justice. The
House Bill admitting the Arkansas members to
Congress was reported by the Judiciary Committee.
The Democrats announced a minority report, and
a Republican Senator an amendment, therefore it
was laid over. Several messages from the House
were received, and at 12 o'clock the Chief Justice,
clad in his official robes, entered from an ante-
room, Mr. Wade retiring and \lr. Chase assuming
the President's chair. The Chief Justice then
called the Impeachment Court to order, and the
sergeant-at-arms made the usual proclamation, the
Representatives were sent for, and with their
Managers crowded to overflowing the Chamber.
Every Senator was now in his place to decide the
great event. Mr. George H. Williams; of Oregon,
moved that the order of taking the vote on the Arti-
cles be reversed, the eleventh to be taken first, and,
although Reverdy Johnson tried to debate it, as it
had been pre-arra nged by the Republican caucases,
he was silenced, and the motion was carried. The
Democrats had not, however, exhausted their means
of opposition, Mr. M'Creery, of Kentucky, being
supported by six Senators when he moved an ad- •
journment of the Court sine die. Finally,it was agreed
on the motion of George F. Edmonds, of Vermont,
that the Senate should proceed to vote on the Articles
in the order laid down, the eleventh being taken first,
by 34 to 10. Then, all being ready, the Chief Justice
rose and addressed a few words to the va at audience
demanding absolute silence and perfect order, and
stating that it would cause infinite regret if it were
found necessary, through the violation of the
Senate's rules, to remove the persons making a
adisturbance ; and, turning to the Senators, he added
—"ln conformity with the order of the Senate, the
Chief Justice will how proceed to take the vote
upon the eleventh Article, as directed by the rule."
The Clerk read the Article quickly, and called the
roll in alphabetical order. The first name was that
of Senator Anthony, who stood up, and at the
same time the Chief Justice rose and put the ques-
tion. "Mr. Senator Anthony, How say you, is
the respondent, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, guilty or not guilty of a high mis-
demeanour, as charged in this article ?" For a
moment the silence was profound, as Mr. Anthony
was not only doubtful but by the impeachers
thought unsound. He replied, Guilty, and there
was a buzz above, ominous to the supporters of the
President. Bayard of Delaware was next, then fol-
lowed Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, &o. Fowler
startled the Chamber by the answer in a loud and
clear tone, Not Guilty. As it drew on towards
the end of the list the name of Edmund G.
Ross, of Kansas, came up. The Republican =-
cases had counted upon him as certain, and the
shock was therefore the greater when he ceased his
intellectual employment of tearing paper into frag-
ments, and sanding them floating like snow flakes
upon the floor, and slowly rising, distinctly uttered
Not Guilty. One hope still remained. W. G. Van
Winkle, of West Virginia, had still to vote, and he
was, to say the least, doubtful. As it drew near to
him, men held their breath in excited expectation.
On this Senator now everything hinged. His vote
acquitted the President or changed the Government
of the Union, and no wonder, therefore, that he
looked anxiously round as he rose, and men drew
a long breath, as he said Not Guilty. Yet one

little incident still remained. Great curiosity was
felt as to whether Mr. Ben. Wade would or would
not vote. Van Winkle's voice had been decisive for
the acquittal of the President, and therefore it was
no matter, so far as this Article went, what Mr.
Wade said. But it may be that the honourable
gentleman, in the little time he had to decide,
calculated that the precedent would be against him
for the other ten Articles, so, without hesitation,
he replied to the question Guilty. Then the
Chief Justice arose and said—" On this Article
there are 35 Senators who have voted guilty,
and 19 Senators who have voted not guilty. The
President is therefore acquitted on this Article."
The announcement was followed by no expression
of feeling; the profoundest silence reigned in the
Chamber. Senator Henderson moved to adjourn
the Court until the Ist Jul!, by way of testing how
the votes would go if another Article were called
up. The motion was lost, the votes being 34 to
20. Finally, it was decided that the Court should
adjourn until the 26th May, when the Chief Justice
vacated the chair, and th 3 vast audience dispersed.
The vote, arranged according to the geographical
position of States, was as follows :

FOR CONTICTION.
New England.—Morrill, of Maine ; Cragin and Patter-
son, of New Hampshire; Morrill and Edmunds, of
Vermont; Sumner and Wilson, of Massachusetts;
Sprague and Anthony, of Rhode Island; Ferry, of
Connecticut ... 10
Middle States.—Morgan and Conkling, of Now York;
Cattell and Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey ; Came-
ron, of Pennsylvania ; Wade and Sherman, of Ohio 7
Border States. —Willey, of West Virginia; Drake, .of
Missouri; Pomeroy, of Kansas 3
Western Stakes.—Morton, of Indiana ; Yates, of
Illinois; Chandler and Howard, of Michigan ; Howe,
of Wisconsin ; Ramsey, of Minnesota ; Harlan, of
Iowa; Thayer and Tipton, of Nebraska ... 9
Pacific States.—Cole and Conness, of California;
Corbett and Williams, of Oregon ; Nye and Stewart,
of Nevada ... 6

Total for conviction ...
FOR ACQUITTAL.

New England.—Fessenden, of Maine (Republican);
Dixon, of Connecticut (Democrat) 2
Middle States.—Buckalew, of Pennsylvania ; Bayard
and Saulsbury, of Delaware; Johnson and Vickers,
of Maryland (all Democrats). ••• ••• ••• 5
Border Slates.—Davis and M'Creery, of Kentucky
(Democrats) ; Fowler (Republican) and Patterson
VDemocrat), of Tennessee; Van Winkle, of West
irginia (Republican) ; Henderson, of Missouri (Re-
publican); Ross, of Kansas (Republican) ...
Western States. —Hendricks, of Indiana (Democrat);
Doolittle, of Wisconsin (Democrat); Trumbull, of
Illinois (Republican); Grimes, of lowa(Republican);
Norton, of Minnesota (Democrat) 5

Total for acquittal ... 19

The New York Sun gives this graphic sketch of
the scene in the Senate Chamber while the vote
was being taken on Saturday, May 16 As soon
as the clerk began reading the Article, Mr. Header -
son left his seat and went to Mr. Ross, and stoop-
ing down whispered in his ear a long and earnest
entreaty. It was a superfluous caution. Mr. Ross's
lips were seen to' move, and. Mr. Henderson, as the
clerk finished reading the Article, lifted himself up
right quickly, and returned to his seat cheerful and
elastic. His man was all right. Then commenced
the formal vote. The Chief Justice asked of Senator
Anthony, " How say you: is the respondent, Andrew
Johnson, President of the United States, guilty or not
guilty of a high misdemeanour as charged in this
Article ?" The Senator, rising from his chair, re-
mained standing during the interrogatory, and
answered "Guilty." Down the roll the Chief Jus
tice went till Mr. Fcssenden's name was reached.
The hushed attention with which his vote was
received had in it no expectation that he had re-
laxed his purpose to accomplish the acquittal of
the President. " Mr. Fowler, how say.you ?" The
nerve of the Tennessee Senator gave way. His
voice was inaudible. The cry flew through the re-
porters' gallery, " He has voted' Guilty r —saved
in the last moment !" On the floor of the Se-
nate some one demanded that he should speak
louder. With an effort he articulated the words
" Not Guilty," and sank into his seat, amid the
noise of a movement of the vast audience that
threatened an outburst of demonstration. Down
the roll to Mr. Ramsay, all voting as it was known
they would, and Mr. Henderson tallying and keep-
ing the record of the defection. " Mr. Ross, how
say you : is the respondent, Andrew Johnson, Pre-
sident of the United States, guilty or not guilty of
a high misdemeanour, as charged in this Article?"
For the second time was the vast audience hush d
into a death-like silence of waiting upon this man's
word. The fate of Impeachment and the ititeres's
of millions hung upon it. He was standing while
the Chief Justice spoke—standing with an atti-
tude of defiant sullenness, again tearing with
his nervous fingers a scrap of white paper into
tiny pieces. " Not guilty," be said in a low tone,
and sank into his seat and hung, his head. A mur-
mur of horror and grief pervaded the floor and gal-
leries of the Senate. It was drowned in the loud
and cheerful voice of Mr. Chase calling upon Mr.
Saulsbury, of Delaware, and repeating the formula.
Mr. Saulsbury's vote for acquittal made 16
19 were necessary. Messrs. Sherman, Stewart,
Sprague, Sumner, Thayer, and Tipton followed
with votes of " Guilty." Mr. Trumbull broke
the hue. His vote for the President was ex-
pected, but, it produced a painful sensation. This
made 17 votes. Mr. Vickers would make 18.
There was the Republican Van Winkle from
West Virginia. Last Tuesday he was right. Ile
had written an argument to sustain his purpose to
vote " guilty." On Thursday night Messrs. Hen-
derson, Hendricks, and Trumbull spent two hours
With him, and induced him to abandon his intention
to give that vote on the eleventh Article, and to tear
up the written opinion he had prepared. But now
the question was, " How will Van Winkle vote ?"
It is unnecessary to ask. In reply to the Chief Jus-
tice's formula he answered "Not guilty." The tale
of 19 was complete, and the conspiracy within the
Republican party to acquit Andrew Johnson was a
success.

A STRAW ON T lIE STREAM.—Chief Justice Chase,
immediately on resuming his seat after taking the
verdict on the Impeachment trial, wrote upon a
blank card, and sent it to a gentleman on the floor
of the Senate, whom he bad more than once assured
during the week that the President would be ac-
quitted. The card bore but a single word, and
that, for greater decorum, was in disguise. That
word was the exultant use of the French exelama-
ti in of Voila! If this is doubted we can prove it.—
Wilkes's Spirit.

BUTLER UNRAVELLING THE

SENATORIAL PLOT.

General Butler has been earnestly exerting him-
self in attempting to unravel the great plot which
resulted in the acquittal of Andrew Johnson.
Wilkes' Spirit" traces the progress of this almost
incredible conspiracy among the lawyers of both
parties in the Senate to subvert the Constitution,
and to establish in its stead a monarchical system
after the British pattern." "We had shown," says the
Spirit, " how this movement had, through the
sympathies of politics, extended itself across the
northern border and finally engrafted itself upon
the ambition of the wealthy leaders of the Demo-
cratic masses of our section. We had directed the
attention of the pablic to this fact before. We had
warned them that, strange as it might seem, the
seed of monarchy was still alive, even in our own
sturdy section ; mai as long as four years ago,
pointed out Mr. Seward as a monarchist; or as a
man, at least, whose disappointed hopes had soured
him against Republicanism !Ind brought him to the
deliberate conclusion that the people are incap-
able of self-government. We found but few to
agree with us in these ideas, or to accept our warn-
ing. It was diffi2u!t for a loyal American
to comprehend how the detested principle which
we had expelled with fire and sword in 1775 could
again get a spontaneous footing in the country ;
and still more difficult was it to realise that Detno-
cratic leaders could sympathise with those who pro-
posed to repudiate free institutions, in'ich less to
strike hands with such traitors in an attempt to
monarchise the continent. But this conjunction,
though apparently an unnatural one, had become
logical by the progress of events. The simplicity
of Democracy in the North, like the original sim-
plicity of the Catholic Church, has become changed
with the acquisition of great wealth. Its chieftains,
through long possession of the Government and en-
joyment of the enormous revenues which flow from

the vast industry of politics, had acquired an almost
royal opulence and power. Through the rigorous
machinery of party discipline they had so dragooned
the masses as to render them the mere servants of
their will ; and they had thus become as much the
masters of their political expression and the party
revenues, as the slave barons were the masters o f
the agricultural populations of the South. It is not
strange, therefore, when we look at this state of
things with thinking eyes that chieftains thus
bloated with false authority should at length come
to the arrogant conclusion that a people who would
obsequiously concede such privileges were unequal
to the duty of self-government, and might be ca-
joled into extending such privileges in perpetuity."
Here we find a strong Radical arriving at precisely
the same conclusion as a Democrat, Amedee H.
Simonin, whose pamphlet lately furnished us with

the text for an article. Both the Democrat and the
Republican consider the institutions of the United
States to be in danger from the ambition of an oli-
garchical faction, the only difference being who con-
stitute that faction. The Spirit " warns the Ame-
rican people that this is a plot ; that it is a lawyers'
plot ; that it is shared in by all the lawyers of the
Senate who voted for the acquittal of Andrew
Johnson, and that its deliberate purpose is (and if
Johnson is acquitted its inevitable result must be)
the entire subversion of our present form of govern-
ment for the British Constitution, with an imperial
finish. It matters not by what name such a Go-
vernment is called, or by what title we may Wor-
ship its Executive; it will form a despotism of
almost an Asian stamp, and its chief officers will be
as much of an aristocratic order as the members of

the French Corps Legislatif, or of the British
Parliament. Neither does it matter whether the
acquittal which inaugurates such revolution comes
attended with any civil shock or actual bloodshed ;

it marks not the less the overthrow of our whole
form of government, and must supervene in coun-
ter-revolution when the people comprehend how
they have been betrayed." Now see what A.
11. Simonin says :—" The thousand oligarchists ,
are about to depose tha President under the
pretext that he has violated the laws, while
it is they who have violated them. It is the be-
ginning of the execution of the coup (.11 &at so long
premeditated ; it is, perhaps, also the beginning of
a civil war that will lead us to Mexican anarchy."
The Spirit considers it no doubtful sign that there
is a universal expression of gratification in all the
Courts of Europe at the President's acquittal, the
joy at the verdict being liveliest in England. But
if there be a conspiracy, Butler is the man to ferret
it out. Any one who wants to see a thorough-
paced despot, an aristocrat of the most bloated de-
scription, should go to Washington and have a look-
at Ben. Butler. The committee acting under his
auspices employs spies, opens mail-bags, seizes tele-
grams and private papers, while compelling citizens
of all classes to appear at its bar for cross-examina-
tion. The Managers of the Western Union, bankers
and brokers Franklin telegraph lines, were styli'
moned by an officer despatched from Washington
to Baltimore to appear before the investigating
committee, and left Baltimore on the 23d May. 14'
lawyer named Woolley, known to have received
large sum shortly before the acquittal on the
eleventh Article, has been repeatedly and clos3li
cross-questioned, Butler being under the impression
that he acted for the President to corrupt Senators.
Mr. Newton, a New York broker, was examined 011
the 21st. Several telegrams and a private letter
sent to him from Washington were shown to hire'
" That letter," said Mr. Newton, " was stolen;" ad-
ding, in reply to Mr. Butler, " I suppose that
you stole it." When asked if he had heard
that money had been raised for the President, he
said that he had—a committee of New Yorkers be'
longing to both parties bad subscribed sloo,ooo'
the whole to be given to the President if convicted'
and half if acquitted. Mr. Cooper, the President:
private secretary, was also examined on the 21e,
May, and testified that an agent professing to se'
for senator Pomeroy, of Kansas had offered to re'
Nerse the votes of five Radical Senators, who other;
wise would support Impeachment, for the stun of
$40,000, and produced an autograph letter froul
the Senator in support of what he said. Of course
Mr. Pomeroy indignantly denied all knowledge e)
the plot, which .Mr. Cooper on oath had sworn t°
have been proposed. On the 20th Senator 110'
derson was examined, and was asked why he Od
dined with the Chief Justice, and what took pia°e
at the dinner, but Mr. Butler refrained from q'aee;
tioning him as to what the dishes and decantert
contained. Mr. Henderson, however, signified the
these dishes and decanters had something to do Witt,
his dining at Mr. Chase's table, as well as with tht,
.
thirteen other Senators present on the occasion'
ts
but he declined to retail the private ta:k of the gue°,
He was asked whether he had sought any offices WI
the President for his friends, and he stated he hat
not. Before retiring he strongly protested agaieSt•
the proceedings, and occupied the time of the See,,
nearly all the next day by his complaint of the.;
dignity put on himself and on the assembly. .111,•
Boynton testified that Senator Ross weeks befr-0
had told him that he intended voting for convictl:6
on the eleventh Article, but the Senator deeler
that he never saw Boynton. We imagine that tbe
a
conspiracy has, like most of Mr. Butler's schemes•
late, broken down, proving on investigation to be,
mare's nest. At the same time grave objectioe
taken to the proceedings of Mr. Chase, who ti,
openly used his position to defeat Impeachme;
and to forward his own interest as a candidate d
the Presidency. The Springfield Republican says,
all will allow it, that it yieldsas little to political riite
judices as a newspaper well can, that " from ;i3
first moment of his elevation it is notorious that it
Chief Justice has sought, by every means, and Ili
less than the ordinary modesty of American po'
cians, to accomplish this object."

, 1)6:
[ADVERTlSElMNT.l—Dyspepsia(lndigestion), ConstipauciAlifq
bility, Consumption, and all nervous, bilious, stomach, altotr,
complaints in every stage, are only aggravated and accei,`,
by chugs of every description, but perfectly curable ..,310
Barry's health-restoring Revalenta Arabica Food, as Prolegaell
thousands of cases which had been considered hopeless, COf
as—cough, asthma, also diarrhoea, haemorrhoids, liver
plaints, flatulency, nervousness, biliousness, fevers, sore throe
diphtheria, catarrhs, colds, influenza, noises in the ho_w_.,,,lgit
ears, rheumatism, gout, impurities, eruptions, hysteria, newiiee
in itability, sleeplessness, acidity, palpitation, heartburn,
ache, debility, dropsy, cramps, spasms, nausea and sin, all
even in pregnancy or at sea, sinking fits, bronchitis, sc",, .;
tightness of the chest, pains at the pit of the stolnse;,-0,1,'
between the shoulders, &c. We quote a few:—The Pope
restored by Du Barry's Food. Cure No. 68,413.—"8c0
12, 1866.—The health of the Holy Father is excellent, eslrlobed
since, abandoning all other remedies, he has cznflned I/
entirely. to Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food, of Wbisse
consumes a plateful at every meal. It has produced ..00°.
praise
beneficial effect on his health, and his Holiness ftPt, 41.,9
praise this excellent food too highly."—From the " asz',.;tor
Midi, July 25 Cure No. 46,270 Mr James Roberts, ,;04:
merchant, of Frimley, Surrey, of thirty years' diseasea,foo4
spitting of blood, liver derangement, and partial delft,
Cure No. 1,771. Lord Stuart de Decies, Lord Lie 4V"
Waterford, of many years' dyspepsia.—No. 49,832. _OOl
years' indescribable agony from dyspepsia, nervous OA
bsthma, cough, constipation, flatulency. spasms, sickne° 65,
vomiting.—Maria Joly." Important Caution.—Beware of tbeloo.,
unsavoury and more than sloppy imitations to ivhich,_„iftieci^,,
authority, Baron Liebig's name is most audaciously lan I?,
In tins at is. 14d.; 1 lb., 2s 9d.; 2 lbs., 4s. ; 5 ."—tio:,d,
12 lbs., 225.; 24 lbs., 40s.—BiareY DU BARRY and Con•toc#,g3
Regent-street, London; also Fortnum and Mason, 182, ri 04,"
and at 61, Gracechurch-street; 4, Cheapside ; 63, 150,,,
Oxford-street . 330, Strand ; and all grocers 4nd cherxds'"

, of
the S-