The New York herald., 1868-03-03
case and thus proven. the neglect Of other imporan,

busInes.
Mr.. SALISBURY (dem.l OF Dol, also deprecated any
limitation OF debate the greatest trial had In this
country No similar question 10 before them.
Every point should be fully argued by both Sides and
then inc American people would endorse Them other
wise ther judgment would not carry with such CON-
mandlng weight
Mr.. CoNKLsa said the cause that impellci the courts
to make such rules-ihe multiplicity OF business
applied here with great force True, counsel not
limited In the impeachment In lS0A, but neither
one occasion man travelled to New York and back
while counsel was speaking In England about that
time trial lasted for ten years. and Chesterfield sad
that "the Lords walked bus the trial stood. stn II
rule was established there would be nothing ungraclous
IN insisting upon the rule. which, when necessary,
could DO relaxed They would then bo conforming TO
the practice Of the supreme Court and tho hignest Judi
cial tribunals in lhrstendom
Mr. FKEINGHUYsgS, (rep) Of N. j., thought that while
there should be some limit the time liked was 100
Short and II should be confined TO one counsel he
moved to amend by making nt two hours for each sde
tne extension OF time to be applied for beforehand.
MI. WILLIAM lrep) of Oregon saw no necessity FOR
combining It TO one counsel but thought necessity ex
tod for ex ending the tme The arguments in question
would be chiefly tho admissbliIy Of evidence and
an hour was quite sufficient on the final argument-a
questions OF Jurisdiction could be discussed.
Mr.. HOWARD said preliminary motions O. counsel
might be very material. For instance, motion to
qaash tho impeachment, which would open nest
of legal and even political and partisan questions
upon which counsel might expend themselves for
months, "a might the point bs raised which
was raised ny The Senator from kentucky tMr.
Davis on saturday. The Senate could not Sit week
ater week to hear such Arguments, which they
must decl1e upon Tho nnal hearing. He too old
lawyer not 10 know that danger TO aprrehendcd
from these delays merely for the purpose OF s,ayng or
hoping something would turn up in favor of tho
His only desire that there should be fair and rea
sonaby speedy trial. that they might proceed with
other important business.
Mr.. JOHNSON, deml OF Nd, would prefer that thcre
should be no limitation OF tme-that they should follow
the established precedent The rule, however would
operate upon the managers OF the part OF the House
opening counsel was never obliged close Many pre-
lminary questions OF great importance would probably
be raised on this trial. and II would not do for the court
limit tho defence tho manner OF conducting the
case. In similar trials objections to Jurisdiction had
often led to dismissal Of the CASES These articles
was fatal 10 them that the Pr sdnnt had without
criminal intent Then If they satisfied tho Senate that
the objection was we'll founded the trial would at an
end and other articles II thought advisable could be
presented e was particularly anxious TO preserve tho
honor the impartiay and the Justice Of the Senate SO
that no one could complain and he therefore thouoht
they should adopt rule that would seblancs OF
injustice Again, conviction required two thirds vote
and hc thought this rulo should be suspended II one
third demanded It, As there precedent for this
he thought commanding public policy required that
there should be no Limitation on doOate
Nr. YATES, (ep) or H., thought a Limitation would
secure greater pernency and would bc sufficient 10 en
able counsel to meet every point Ho pointed out the
interminable delay that might IL no Limitation
were prescribed as evidenced in the year trial OF
Warren Hastings Il was to be grea. field OF elo.
quen debate and the people would tire Of II It we're
spun on. Us 1t might otherwise be.
MI. BUcKALEw said the case of Warren Hastings was
not parallel one, a great Of facts were there
examined nto extending years Of administration
He argued that the fact that they could any time
relax tho rule was an argument against making it, and
that II would be precedent which might lead i.
taton Of debate IN the Senate
Mr.. STEWART argued that for ordinary purposes one
hour quito sufficient
Mr. FRELIsGHUysES again supported his amendment
Mr. HENDRICKS dem OF Ind, held that these rules
purporod to be for all future cases they should not be
considered with reference TO any particular case but in
tho ieht OF tho usual practice Of the courts Oentmes
the death struggle OF case was fought preliminary
molten, and he argued that the question should bo left
to the presiding officer in accordance with the practice
Of the courts
llessrs YATES and MORTON again argued in favor Of
keeping the rule intact, and held be their duty to
sec that The trial was not unreasouably protrcted
Mr. MoRroS argued that the court could judge OF the
importance of questions they and OF the adyisa.
bilty Of allowing extensions Of time, but that inter-
minable delay would result II counsel wero themselves
permitted to judge Of the advisaoity Of spinning out
their points.
Mr. DIXON, lrep) of nn, said II counsel did SO
foolish thing as to prejudice the court against them
by unnecessary delay the court could at any time stop
it, The people were more anxious that the trial hould
bc just than that II should not DO proracted But sup
pose they protracted II for month. would thai work
any injury Limitations OF time OF recent in
Introduction In courts Doubtless OF great ability
and character would appear in tho defence, and all pro.
pretics would be OBJ etved, and any limit was 10 be
imposed II should be at least two hours.
Mr. MORRILL,. trep.l Of Mo, said there was lmita-
tlon whatever IN tho great question OF impeachment
two counsel each side being allowed speak as long
M they choose TLe arguments asninst this ruc woud
apply against having any rules at ALL but without il
lays would be endless The proposition OF the Senator
from New Jersey ir Trelnghuysenh requiring applca.
tons for extension OF time to be made beforehand y rs
evidently reasonable one and he hopod he rule would
hc amended accordingly
melons would give opportunity to delay Intentionally
giving hour would afford equal opportunity as two
motions could be made instead OF The whole thing
proceeded upon the assumpon-wholly unwor nv of
this that there would be attempt at unfair.
ness on tho par, OF tho defence /.
Mr. COMES trep) OF Cal, hoped at this time they
would settle these preliminary questions without any
mputations from ono side aeains. the other.
SIR Dixon SAID he always endcavored TO conduct him.
needed on
the subject he would apply to The Senator from Cali
fornia They should, 10 continued conduct this trial
with Justice rev. and lie wouId not establish such
a rule in n trial for pet larceny
Mr. GRIMES said he had been informed by OF tho
trainers OF these rucs that he had been OF the six
counsel in a which each OF them occupied ono
day on ono question, and the court after that abuse
established the one hour rule. This proposition was
to establish tho re beforehand and thus prevent the
abuse.
Mr. DixoS made few more rsmarks
Mr DRAKg id:--Thc last thing you can oxci,e the
sympathy OF tho people upon Is 10 attempt to limit the
speeches Of Congress.
Tnc fret part OF the amendment allowing two persons
TO argue each sid, was adopted
The question on tho second part OF tho amend
mcnt allowing two hours TO each.
Mr. uowAaD sad the regular session was usually four
hours, and this would allow two persons 10 occupy
whole session The rule was Intended tosae the public
time on unimportant questions.
Mr CoyKrisG said courts in general being com posed
OF n small number afcr consultation established limit
10 discussion points stopped 1t their minds
were made up way or other. No such process was
possible here with aty tnres Judges unless a restric-
would be at the mercy Of counsel who pressed not Tor
8 purpose OF delay, but With the mistaken pertinaciy
often common to counsel. II, woald make fur and
liberal rules bit not permit The court % be paalyzed at
this cvauiful period
Mr.. DAVIS, tdcm.l OF KY, opposed any Limitation.
lir SuMsKR nded scnii that IN the days o; tho
old trials ref rred 10 speaking against tme had not
come ono Of the iinc als, and no rule considered
necessary Hc referred them TO OF the most i'm.
porian trails that ever took pacc-the trial Of Louis
Napoleon for his NJ umpt on tho French throne. The
rial TOOK aco beore tho chanbcr OF Peers and yaro
Icons advocate one 81 the most famous in tho world
IN Perr ofl nccuf ell but threc.quarers OF an hour
the qreslon put on the second branch OF tho
amendment, and IL was lost BY tho following votc:-
YrAs-An,hony, Buctslcw Davis Dyon, Fowler rrelnS.
huysrn GRIMES. Hflcka Iowc, johnson. Mccrcery
Nn,on Patterson OF Tenn Rcss Saulbury Spague is.
ton. 1rumbull Van Winke ami Niiley-2l
NlYs-Camsron Chandler, cole c0nklinr, Conness, Cor.
bet Drake Ldmnnrs. iesry, Harlan, Howard, Morgan,
Merrill of w., Meri % Vt, Morton Nye POmcroy, Ram
10y, stewart sumaes Tlsyer Williams, Wilson and
latsl--i
The question was put tho last branch OF tho
amendment requiring application beforehand an ex.
tension OF tine, WHICH after debate, was lost by voto