The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-04-14

necessary to state what l began to state, that the
President told me that the relations between himself
| ana Mr.. stanton, and between Mr.. Stanton and
other members OF the Cabinet, were sncl
he filled as President OF the United States
without making provision ad interim for the ONCE
OF Secretary OF War; and that he had the right under
administered In the interests OF the army and OF the
country, and he onered me the ofilce In that view
He did not state to then that his purpose was to
bring IL into the courts directly but for the purpose
of having the ONCE administered properly in the in
Sensation in court.) asked HIM why lawyers could
NOT make the casea did not wish to be brought, as
an officer OF the army into controversy.
Senator CoNkLING-Picase repeat that last answer,
General.
witness-I asked him why lawyers could not make
case and not bring me, an officer into the contro-
versyf His answer was that 1t was found imposs!.
Bile, for that case could not be made up; shut
said he f we could bring the case into the courts 1t
would not stand for an hour"
Mr.. SrANBgRY-Haye you answered Us TO both &C.
witness-The conversation was very long, and
covered good deal OF ground.
Mr.. BUTLER objectto this examination being re.
newed by the counsel for the President whatever
may be the pretence under which 1t is renewed ]
hold with due order. that this cannot be allowed.
See how II Is attempted Counsel had dismissed the
witness; he was gone, and was brought back at the
request OF one The judges.
Mr.. STANBERY-I must interrupt the learned gen.
tleman to say that we did not dismiss the wltness
on the contrary both sides asked to retain him. the
he wanted to give him private examination.
Q.aughterl
Mr.. BUrLsR-r must deny that want private ex-
the stand, and was then called back by one OF the
judges. That is no., In any court wherein have
practised, allowed after the question is put by the
Judge, for the counsel either side to assume the
examination OF the witness after having dismissed
Senator JOHNSON asked for the reading of the cues.
tons as proposed by himself and they were read
by the clerk.
courts OF justice than to recall witnesses for further
examination, especially at the instance OF any mem.
OF is s0a one a. Of e
questions properly within the discretion of the
court. If the Senate desire 1t will put the question
to the Senate whether the witness shall be further
examined
The CHIEF JUsTiCE-Certainly.
Mr.. EvARTs-The question, Mr.. Chief Justice and
Senators, whether witness may be recalled 10
always question within the discretion OF the court.
and 1t Is allowed unless there be suspicion OF bad
faith unless there be special circumstances where
collision Is suspected Courts frequently may lay
down rule that neither party shall call q witness
who has been once dismissed from the stand, and Of
course we shall obey whatever rule the Senate may
adopt in this case but we are not aware that any
thing has occurred showing necessity IOr the adOp-
| ton OF such rule.
Mr. BUTLER-When the witness was on the stand
Saturday this question was asked of him:-" At that
interview what conversation took place between the
President and you in relation TO the removal OF Mr..
Stanon9" That question was objected to- and after
argument the Senate solemnly decided that 1t should
not be put. That was exactly the same question as
this. Then other proceedings were had; and after
up and asked permission to recall this witness this
| morning. The Senate gave that permission. This
morning they recalled the witness and put to him
such questions as they pleased. Then the witness
was sent away, and then one OF the judges decided
| to put question to satisfy his own mind. or
course he was not acting as counsel Tor the PreSl-
|, dent-that cannot be supposed.
Senator JOHNSON, rising-What docs the honorable
Mr.. BUTLER-I mean precisely what say, that 1t
cannot be supposed that the Senator was acting for
Senator JoHNsoN-Mr. Chief justice, IL the honor
able Manager laeans to impute that In anything
have done In this trial have been acting as counsel,
in the spirit OF counsel he does not know the man OF
whom he speaks. am here to discharge duty and
that duty propose to discharge. l know the law as
Mr.. BUvLER-I again repeat, so that my language
may not oe misunderstood, that 1t cannot be sup
posed that he was acting as counsel for the Presi;
upon something which he wanted to know, how can
1t be that that opens the case so as to allow the
Presidents counsel TO go on to q new examination
How do we know that he Is not acting counsel for
the President and that there is not understand
ing between them, which do not charger How can
the Presidents counsel know what satisfies the Sena-
tors mind He recalls witness for the purpose Of
to recall witnesses for something overlooked
or forgotten; but l never have known
to satisfy himself by putting some question that that
opens 10 the counsel tne other side TO other
questions. The court is allowed to put questions,
because Judge may want to satisfy his mind on a
particular point; but, having satisfied himself on
that particular point there is an end Of the matter,
answered the homo able Senator from Maryland that
make no imputation on him, but am putting 1t
Senator JOlSsoN-I am satisfied. Mr. Chief Jus.
tce rise to say that did not know that the coun
ana agree with the honorable Managers that they
have no right to do any SUCH thing. Sensation In
cOurt.) g
MIR. BISGuAM-I desire, on behalf OF the Mama
gers. to say-that there snail he possible msun-
derstanding-o dlsclam, once for ALL that there was
seat. any intent by the Managers, at any time
In any way to question the right and the entire pro-
ting any question Which, they NAV see n. we We im
pue improper motive to any Senator In doing so,
but recognize his perfect right to do so and the entire
propricty OF 1t.
| Mr.. EvARTs-A moments consideration, think,
VIII satisfy the Senate aud the Chief Justice that the
question Is not seriously to the right 10 recall
witness, but as 10 whether witness having been
recalled to answer the question OF OF the
Judges the counsel on either side is obliged leave
that portion of the evidence incomplete. Some evil
dence might be brought out which, 1t stood
Naked might be prejudiciai to one side the other
and certainly II would be competent, under the
| ordinary rules OF examination, that the counsel
should be permitted to place the matter before the
court within the proper rules OF evidence.
| MIR. STANBERy-The honorable Senator from Mary
land, having put his question TO the witness, q
| new door has been opened which was closed
| upon us before. New evidence has been gone
into which was a concealed book to us,
nna @ about wnsa we could neither examine
decision Of the court on saturday; but 1t IL now
opened to us by the question of the senator Now Is
II possible that we must take an for better or
Tor worse TO "a question which did not putt Ii in
that answer the matter haa been cOndeInnatory TO
the President; II the had been that the Pres
dent told the witness expressly that lie Intended to
violate tue iaw that he acting in bad lath that
he meant TO use force, are to be told that because
the TACT was brought out by Senator and by
selves we cannot put one question 10 elicit The whole
trutny This IL no testimony OF our seeking sup
pose II hal be- brought out by Senator 4,
tne secretary Of war sacred against the pursuit of the
true and sacred right OF examinations Does the doc.
irne OF cstoppei come IN here that, whenever ques-
| tiou ~ answered on the nterrOgatory of n Senator
| we must take the answer without any opportunity of
testing II lurtberY II so then are estopped not
by our own act not by the testimony which we called
out ourselves but by the act OF another ana we are
shut out from the truth because n senator has
chosen 10 put in o question. We hold that the
door has been opened, that new testimony
has been introduced into the case, and that
we have right TO crossexamine the witness TO cx-
plain 'ne testimony to contradict, II we cln to i'm