The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-03-18
THE VOTE UPON THE QUESTION

At O'Clock P. NJ, on the 18th, the morning
the chair, and the sergeantat arms made pro-
clamatlon in the usual form.
The secretary read the journal of the last meet
ing of the court. A large number of representa-
tives, headed by the managers Of impeachment
in the meanwhile were standing in file outside of
the open door.
.On motion Of Mr.. Howard, an order was made
that the sergeantat-srms notify the House that
the Senate was organized as court OF imPeach.
ment, and ready TO proceed with the trial of
Andrew johnson.
Immediately thereafter, the managers and men,
bers Of the House took the seats provided for
them, Mr.. Butler being absent.
The senators who had not already done so took
the oath.
(: The return OF the sergeant-at arms of his SER
vice of the summons on the president was read,
when, on motion of Mr.. Johnson, Of Maryland,
(Dem.) the counsel Of the president were notified
of the commencement Of proceedings, and
Messrs. Stanbefy, Curtis and Nelson took their
seats at the table, on the right OF the chief jusc
and opposite to the managers, who were seate
on the left.
Mr.. Butler, the remaining manager came in,
and shortly after another deputation of the House
entered, headed by Speaker Washburne, OF ILL.,
nois and Mr. Jefferson, clerk of the House, and
ranged themselves behind the bar.
Mr.. Stanbery arose, and addressing the chief
justice read the answer Of the president, enter.
ing his appearance, and naming as bis counsel
Messrs. Stanbery, Curtis, Nelson, Black aud
Evarts and asking q reasonable time for the pre-
paraton OF his defense, the period OF forty days,
citing various cases in which periods as long in
proportion 10 the magnitude OF the case had been
granted.
Mr.. Bingham, on behalf of the managers con-
tended that the sth rule provided that on the APP
pearance Of the president he was required TO tie
his answer, and in case his answer was not filed
the trial should proceed as on a plea OF not
guilty. He claimed, therefore, that the trial
should proceed forthwith.
There il nothing clearer. nothing better known
TO my learned and accomplished friend. Mr.. Staa-
berry, than that the making of the issue before aUy
tribunal of justice, and the trial are very distinct
transactions, that Is perfectly understood. very
remarkable case in the state trials lies before me,
where Lord Holt presided at the trial of Sir
Richard Brown Preston and Others, for high
treason. When counsel appeared. as the gentle
men appear this morning in the court to ask for
continuance, the answer which fell from the lips
of the lord chief justice was: 1--WE are not to
consider question of the trial or time Of trial,
until plea be pleaded, because" as his lordship
very well remarked, sit may happen that no trial
will be required" Perchance you may plead
guilty to the Indictment. So the rule lying before
us contemplated, the last clause of il providing
thatif the defeDdent appears and shall plead guilty,
there may be no further proceedings In the case,
no trial about it, Nothing would remain to be done
but pronounce Judgment under the Constitution.
Ii is time for us TO talk about the trial when we
one, and may be psrdoned for saying that fail TO
perceive anything in rule ten and eleven to which
the learned counsel have referred, which, 10 any
kind Of construction, can be applied to limit the
effect Of the words in rule eight, to-wt: That If
the party fail 10 appear, either in person or by
counsel, on the day named in the summons the trial
shall proceed on the plea of not guilty, and fur
Their, that II failing on the day named in the sum-
mons, either In person or by attorney, to answer
the articles, the trial shall nevertheless proceed
as on the plea Of not guilty. When words are
plain In the written law, there Is end of con.
struction they shall be followed. The managers
SO thought when they appeared at the bar. All
they ask is that the rule be enforced-not post
pOned for forty days. to be met at the end OF that
time. perhaps, with dilatory plea and motion,
If you please, to qussh the articles or question
raising the inquiry whether this is the Senate Of
the United States. Ii seems 10 me. If / may be
paTdoned in making one other remark, that, in
prescribing both these rules, that the sum-
mons shall issue to be returned on q
day certain, giving, as in this case, six
days IN advance, il was intended thereby TO
enable the president, on the day fixed for his ap-
pesrance, to come to this bar and make his an-
swer to the articles. l may be pardoned for say
ing further that it is doubtless known to every
within the hearing Of my voice, that technical
rules do IN no way control, or limit, temper the
action Of this body; that under the plea Of " not
guilty." every conceivable defense which this
party can make 10 these articles IL they be srti-
cles at all, If they be preferred by competent
tribunal az all, can De attempted. Why, then, this
delay OF forty days to draw up an answer? VIII.
we desire to know on behalf Of the House Of Rep.
resentatives, by whose order we appear here, IA,
whether an answer is 10 be fled in accordance
with the rule, and il it be not fled whether the
rule itself is 10 be enforced by the Senate, and
plea OF not guilty entered upon the accused
That IL our inquiry. Ii is not my purpose 10 enter
on the discussion at ell, 10 postponing the day
Tor the progress Of the trial. Ny desire Is for the
present. to see whether, under this rule, and BY
force OF this rule, we can obtain an issue.
Mr.. Curtis, in reply, referred to the cases Of