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

"
for the accused now offer meet any o
the allie cations contained in the articles o
How does it affect the gray
amen of any one of the charges ?"
Mr. Eyarts said it is enough to say, proba
bly,, in answer to the question, that it bear.
upon the question of the intent with which
the act charged was done. 1t bears upon the
question of the conspiracy article. and i
bears ON the 18th article
The Chief Justice said he would state how
the question presents itself to his mind. The
question on which the Senate rued yester
dav was not in reference to the removal Of
Mr. Stanton, as the Chief justice under
stood, but in reference to the immediate APP
pointment of successor, fy the President s
sending the name of Mr.. Ewing. The ques
ton to-day relates to the intention of the
President in the removal ofMr. Stanton, anc
it relates to the communication made to hi:
Cabinet after the departmental business baC
closed. and before the Cabinet had separated
The Chief Justice is clearly Speaking with
emphasis) of the opinion that that is part
of the transaction, and th;t it is entirely
proper to take this evidence into considera
ton, as showing the inten and the Presi
dents mind.
The Senate proceeded vote upon the
vote resulted yeas 26, nays 3.
Secretary Wells then tstifed that the
President told the Cabine that he had re-
moved Mr. Stanton and appointed Gen. Thorn
as. who was then in possesson-Mr. Stanton
notwithstanding onl time enough to
remove his papers. This communication was
made, in conformity with ne regular rout-
inc, after other business habeen disposed of
The next day the witnessaw the nomina-
ton Of Mir. Ewing preparechnd in the hands
of the President. The - 'enure-of Office
law was first brought befor the Cabinet in
February, 1866. Mr.. StaDon was present
with the other members Ofhe Cabinos.
The counsel at Tho point offered to Plo'e
that the President laid before ne Cablnet
the - Tenure of Offce' bill; th,t they advi-
sed its return With objection. as being I'M
constitutional: that Secretaries Seward and
Stanton undertook TO prepre the veto argu-
ments. and also TO show what further action
was ta to1l during the ten dys following
NJ. Butler argued at egth against the
.,dmissibility of such cvidne, taking the
ground that the President Orld not shelter
himself behind the opinions IF his eonstitu-
tional advisers.
Mr.. Evarts replied III anaYument which
went into the question of tie President s re-
sponsibility with considerable minuteness.
and the Court then adiournd at 40.
Saturday, April Is.
The Court opened at ii p'cDck.
By direction of the Chic Justice the qucs-
ton pending yesterday wa read.
Mr.. Manager Wilson roe to speak, when
Senator johnson submitted the following
question to the counsel fo the President in
writing
ado the counsel understand that the man
ayers deny that the statmeIt made by the
President III his message Of December ,
1867, in evidence as giveI by the managers
at rage 10, No. 9. of the official report of
the trial, that the members o the Cabinet
gave the opinion, last stated. as To the Te-
nure of Office act and az svidelce offered to
corroborate their statemen or br what 9TH
er purpose is il offered -
Senator Howard subm tied the following
question 10 the President 'scounel DO the
counsel for the accused not consider that the
validity of the Tenure of Office ill was pure
" question of law 10 be determined in this
trial by the Senate, and, so. do they con-
slider the opinions Of Cabinet ,fficers touch
ing that question is COMPETENT evidence by
which the Judgment of the Senate ought TO
he influenced? p
Senator Edmunds asked Whether the argu-
=
be continued while the counsel were consider
ing the question.
The Chief Justice replied in he aftirma-
tive, and Mr.. Curtis said trey would prefer
that course
Mr.. Wilson, speaking from manuscript,
argued on behalf of the managers hat the
testimony was Irrelevant for the reason
that advice from the members of the Cabinet
has no weight, except in matters relating ex-
to their own departments, and thar
if it had, the advice given in this instance
WAS not given at such a time To render it
AVAILABLE for the defence.
Mr.. Curtis declined to follow the honora-
bic manager in anticipation Of the questions
which were a tit subject Only for the final ar
sument, but would eonfint himself To the
point at issue. lie projected to claim that
the testimony bearing ON thequestions of in
tent were called for in rebutd of the alleea-
lions of the articles which charge real intent
and willful violation of the Constitution.
In answer TO Mr.. Howard s question. he
aid that the members of the Gbinet would
,e placed on the stand. not IA experts in
constitutional law, but 10 prove that they
tdvised the President To Il course of action
which, the counsel claim, will lnrge him of
he charge of malice.
Replying to Mr.. johnson, 1r. Curtis
tated that they didn I understand the man
gers TO deny the assertion of the Presidents
Message that he had been advised hv the
Iabinet in the matter and wished u produce
raj testimony to the same effect.
The Chief Justice read the articles char
ing evil intent and expressed hn opinion
hat the evidence offered was applicable TO
hese points. The yeas and NAYS icing tax
n resulted-20 to 90, so the decision Of the
hief Justice was Overruled anC the evil
ence not admitted.
Mr.. Welles. Secretary OF the Navy. was
ccalled, and the counsel proposed To ask
i'm whether the question of the applicable
~ of the Tenure-of Office bill H. Mr..
tanton was considered in Cabinet meetings
revious 10 its return with the objections of
he President, and whether the opinion
Expresses that the law did not apply t. anv
ecretaries appointed by Mr. Lincoln
Mr.. Butler objected and contended thar il
as concluded by the last ruling
Mr.. Evarts said that this testimony was
1 reference u the construction. not the
OF the law. and held l. was
lmissab Die for other reasons
Mr.. Evarts referred to the portions Of the
essage read by Mr.. Butler. and said this
ade part OF general argument as TO the
of the bill, and had no
ference TO the especial case of President
)hnson's Cabinet
The Chief Justice submitted the question
the Senate. and the evidence was refused
mission by a vote of % to %.
MIR. Evarts then asked if at any Cabine.
ceilings held between the time of the pas
ge of the Tenure of Office bill and the re-
oval OF Mr. Stanton, the subject of how
e public service was affected by it was con-
dered?
Witness replied that it had been repeated
The counsel then offered to prove that on |
ch occasions the President and Cabinet de- |
rmined that proper regard for the public |
terests required that a case should be ar
nged in some way so as to produce judi
Al decision as To the cons,itII tionol;tv of tho