Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1868-05-28
Impeachment.

Impeachment.
Senator Henderson was examined by th,
Impeachment Managers on the Goth. HI
said the Missouri delegation called on him
and urged impeachment from party poin
of view. He rejected this view an(
informed them that his duties wer,
judicial, and not political Some feel
ing arose, when, under the excitemen
of the moment, Mr.. Henderson said HI
would resign his seat. Upon reflection h
concluded this course would be wholly in
admissible, and he so informed the mem
bers. He said he did not believe the mem
bers intended corruptly to influence hi.
vote. He thought they had taken falst
and erroneous view of the subject, ant
were at first disposed to pursue it with toe
much zeal. He was asked about dining
with the Chief Justice, and said he wa:
the only one of the fourteen Senators re
ported who really dined with him on the
occasion mentioned. He had no com
munication with the Chief Justice with
reference to the reported new party, mol
had the Chief Justice ever attempted tC
influence his mind ON the subject of inn
parchment, nor did he. believe that the
Chief Justice tried to influence the mind
of any Senator. In relation to the Cabinet
changes, he said, in his judgment, toe
much of the controversy between Mr.
Johnson and Congress springs from the
advice of an incompetent Cabinet, and that
the selection of more able and less selfish
men from either or both the parties would
tend to give peace TO the country and re-
store confidence to business. He stated
4. g -
ever had been made directly, or indirectly
to him by the President, or to any one
else, so far as he knew, and if they had
been made, they could have no influence
on his judgment. After giving his evi.
dence, he protested against the right OF
the committee to examine him in mat
tiers relating to Senators, and said he would
not attend again until he had laid the case
before the Senate.
The Managers continued their investi-
cations on the god The witnesses in at
tendance were S. S. Cox, General Thomas
Ewing, Jr., Perry Fuller, John Hender-
son, and several other Indian agents,
Samuel Ward, Mr.. Leggett and Treasurer
Spinner. Reports of the testimony were
very incomplete The Managers are very
reticent, and most that was known had
been collected from witnesses. Senator
Pomeroy denies the author ship of letter
heretofore produced and sworn to before
the Managers, purporting to have been
written by himself The following is the
letter: I" will in good faith carry out any
arrangement made with my brother-in-law,
Willis Gaylord, to which l am party"
Edmund Cooper had testified before the
Managers that he had been approached by
a person, acting in the name of Senator
Pomeroy, proposing for forty thousand dol
lars to control enough Republican votes
to secure acquittal The person to whom
Cooper referred in his testimony as the
one who read the letter purporting to
come from Pomeroy was Mr.. Leggett,
of Washington. On the 22d he appeared
before the Managers and swore that to his
knowledge Mr.. Pomeroy had never writ
ten or authorized such letter, and further,
that he Oeggett) had never read such a
letter to Cooper.
Among the witnesses examined by the
Impeachment Managers on the 23d were
Thurlow Weed, Collector Smythe and
Sheridan Shook, of New York, and John E.
Risley, Deputy Commissioner of Internal
Revenue But little could be learned as to
the nature of the evidence elected. One
dispatch says the inquiry was principally
directed to the end of finding out how
money may have been raised for the Presi-
dents defense
The Impeachment Managers made quite
a lengthy report to the House on the 25th,
which they announced was only partial,
being intended to show the necessity of
bringing Mr.. Woolley before the House
for contempt They stated that they had
very important evidence which they did
not communicate A Washington special
says it does not seem that the Managers
have yet 6en able to trace the plot direct
ly through to its successful result but only
to show that every energy to corrupt men
was enlisted in it, with what result the
country can judge.
In the impeachment Court, on the Goth,
a motion was made and carried that the
Senate proceed to vote on the second
article. The vote stood, guilty, IS; not
guilty, 10. A vote was had on the third
article, with like result, when the Court
adjourned sine die