Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1868-04-22

weighed by Senators ON the final judgment
| MIR. Stanbery was not present but Mr.
| Evarts said they would proceed far al
possible without him.
Mr.. Curtis submitted additional docu
mentary evidence of the same character a.
that admitted yesterday.
Walter S. Cox, lawyer, of Georgetown,
was called by the defence and asked when his
connection with the case of Mr.. Stanton L.
Mr. Thomas commenced, and when. by whom
and under what circumstances he was en-
ployed.
| Mr. Butler objected. but the Chief Justice
ruled that he might answer the first part o
the question.
| Witness said he was sent for Feb. %, and
went to the White House at five o clock. He
proceeding to state what the President
said to him. when Mr.. Butler again objected
and demanded that the counsel put in writ
ing what they expect to prove.
The counsel proposed to prove that the
President employed Mr. Cox to procure a
judicial decision by filing a quo ,corrdnto.
Mr.. Butler argued that the evidence was
inadmissible, on the ground that the transac-
tion was after the House had determined on
his Impeachment.
Mr. Curtis said the remarks of Mr.. Butler
required no reply, and stated that the coun-
sci would show that the motion to discharge
Gen Thomas was made only when his law
yer saw no hope of procuring judicial deci-
sion on the constitutionalty of the act.
Mr.. Evarts said they now proposed to show
that the President did take up the contro-
versy in order to have it determined by the
highest judicial tribunal Of the country, and
by the most rapid method which the law and
competent advisors to the law could afford
1t presented the speediest method of obtain
ing decision
Mr.. Butler rejoined in long argument.
The matter of gao tCdrrdntO had never been
presented in any court, and had never been
heard of until they came to the necessity of
this defence. 1t might be said that he was
taking up too much time in this matter, but
he was really aiding the senator's for if they
opened this door of declarations of the Pres
ident he could keep them going from now
until next July; aye, until next March, g,
precisely as his friends in the House of Rep
resentatives threatened they would do.
Mr.. Curtis rcjoined briefly.
Mr. Wilson, one of the Managers, said
Now I submit to this honorable body that no
act, no declaration of the President made
after the fact, can be introduced for the pur-
pose of explaining his intent; and, on that
question of intent, let me direct your minds
to this consideration, that the issuing of the
order of the President is the body crime with
which the President stands charged. Did he
purposelv and willingly issue an order to re
move the Secretary Of War? Did he pur-
posey and willingly issue order appoint
ing General Thomas Secretary of War dd
interim? If he did thus issue orders the
law raises the presumption of guilty intent,
and no act done by the President after those
orders were issued can be introduced for the
purpose of rebutting that intent.
MIR Evarts replied and again argued the
admssibiity of the proofs offered.
The Chief Justice ruled that the evidence,
to show that the President employed lawyers
to obtain decision on the constitutionality
of the Tenure Of Office act admissible in
support of the denial of the first articles in
accordance with the former votes of the Sen
ate, and with the principles of law and right.
The yeas and nays were called, which re-
suited in vote OF yeas %, nays 21. So the
evidence was therefore admitted
The President told the witness that he de-
sired to have proceedings instituted to test
the act constitutiOnaliy, and wished him to
consult with Mr. Stanbery, who had been
too busy to look into the matter
He left Gen. Thomas with the President,
and concluded it would be best to apply for
a ho6eas corpus. after Gen. Thomas should be
committed by the Criminal Court, which
course Mr.. Stanbery approved
Question (asked and objected to- What
did YOU do toward getting out the habeas cor
pus by direction of the President? Admit
ted to %.
Ans. Tried to have Mr. Thomas committed
to prison. Mr.. Stantons counsel applied for
postponement, but Chief Justice Carter said
he should not be held in custody. Witness
moved his discharge, expecting to force his
committal. but the motion was granted
The Senate refused To allow statement to
be made of the conversation with the Presi-
H.. t,a. har,
asked After repeating this TO the President
did you do any other act in pursuance of his
previous instructions TO test the constitution
alitv of the - Tenure-of-Office act. and il
so what were they?
Objection was made, which the Chief jus
tice overruled and the Senate sustained his
ruling-27 to %.
The witness resumed-Next day | applied
to the District Attorney to sign information
in the nature of a quo aCdrrdnt0, which he
declined to do without the authority of the
Attorney General. Visited Mr. Stanton and
gave him his opinion-which was not allowed
/ to be stated-and nothing else was done in
/ the matter.
| The Senate took recess for fifteen minutes
/ On re-assembling. at $50 AM. Mr.. Cox
was cross-examined by Mr.. Butler lie con-
sidered himself as counsel for the President
/ but appeared before Judge Carter as counsel
/ for Gen. Thomas, and did not tell the court,
or opposing counsel in court, that his pur-
pose was to get the case in train to test the
constitutionality of the tenure-of-ofiice law
but suppose that they OWNED the object
Mr. Bradley, Sr., was advisory counsel fol
Gen. Thomas. The papers which he prepared
| 20 obtain quo lc0rrdnt0 were returned to
him few days ago by Mr.. Stanbery, with a
verbal message for himself and Mr. Merritt
to use them at their discretion He has
never received direct authority from the At
t)rney General or the President to use them
MIR. Thomas was discharged from custody on
motion of the President's counsel.
r. T. Metrick, sworn. Am lawyer III
Washington, and was employed as counsel
by Gen. Thomas on the morning of Feb. 22d
Mr.. Butler objected to the evidence of this
witness in reference to any directions or sug
gestions as to the course to be taken by the
witness as counsel in the Thomas case.
The point was briefly argued by Butler
Curtis and Evarts.
The Chief Justice decided that the proof
was admissible, within the rule adopted by
the Senate, but said he would put the case
to the Senate if any senator desired it. Nc
vote was called for during the examination o.
this witness, while detailing the proceedings
of Gen Thomas case before Judge Carter
Mr.. Butler, interposing. said " Mr.. Pres
ident, | wish simply to be understood SO that
L may clear my skirts of the matter, thai
this all comes under our objection and under
the ruling of the presiding officer"
The Chief Justice. with severe dignity II
his tone, said 1t comes in under the direc
ton of the Senate of the United States
Ito the witness)-'' Proceed. sir"
Question objected to.) = What did you
and Cox do in order to accomplish the result