The Portland daily press., 1868-04-02


President had long intended to violate Ger,
tain law. He did violate it, and then he cailed
to his aid General Of the army he tneh
gave an order TO Mr.. Thomas to take posses,
sion of the War Office, which the counseI s1Iu u
was in the usual form. TINS, ne lDu1erl
claimed was not true. 1t had certain ear
marks about it which showed an uhesual i ~
terest. The wording was: J GU VIII llnlle9i-
-ately take possession" Mr.. Stanton when he
first welded did So as he said, "only to supe-
rior force" After his reinstatement he was
more strongly fortified and no man not be-
sotted could believe that be would again Weld
except to superior force. The President could
| not have expected him to yield otherwise -
The President intended to do an unlawful act
an / Mr.. Thomas conSen4ed to aid him, and
thus conspiracy was instituted. On this
ground the managers claimed their right to
introduce the testimony in question. They
also earned 1t on the ground of tie relation
existing between the President and General
Inomas OF principal and agent. TIE commit ,
SION had to do Just what the President "anted
nm 10 do, viz: TO obtain possession D., OF me war
| Once. The declaration of Gen. ihohlas was
| about the common objections made TO a man
whose support he was trying to secure. No
| objection was made by the counsel Yesterday
| to the introduction of testimony reiaing to
what was done by Thomas in the War Depart
| ment The President was not there. .r
| Mr.. Stanbery-General Thomas was there
| acting within authority.
Mr.. Butter continued and cited authorities to
| support his views regal ding the admissability
| of declarations in proof of conspiracy m de
by one conspirator in the absence of anothe r.
He proceed to state that they proposed to show
through the evidence under discussion that
Thomas intended to use force, but was pre-
vented by the arrest He referred to the re-
mark OF Mr.. Stanbery that they hal now
reached points OF law worthy to be argued by
lawyers to lawyers. They had already had in
question mostly of debate by state smen to
statesmen and he (Butler) protested against
narrowing the question down to the argument
of attorneys.
Mr.. Curtis remarked that it was a sufficient
objection to the first part of the question to be
submitted that the evidence sought to be in
troduced was immaterial to the charges in is
sue whether 1T was made by competent or
incompetent witness. 1t was also an objection
that the declarations bearing on the question
OF what was the Presid ant's intent had not
been made on oath by a witness and conld not
be admitted unless shown to come within the
recognized exceptions to the rule
In brief no declarations of Mr.. Thomas
could show the Presidents intent and
ii any could they must have been made as
sworn testimony. The managers claimed to
have shown that there was conspiracy to re-
move Mr.. Stanton by force, whereas the only
evidence they had presented was in an endea-
vor to show simply that there was a cons a3y
to remove Stanton, nothing having been adj
vanced to prove that employment of force was
contemplated. He combatted at length the
argument of Mr.. Butler, maintaining that the
authorities called by the latter were applca-
BILE to the point in dispute. The statement of
Mr.. Butler that the Presidents answer admits
this intention to remove Mr.. Stanton from an
office he legally held, was not correct.
Mr.. Bingham followed, denying there was
ground for the assumption for the Senate was
restricted in considering this matter, by
question whether it had proven that force was
intended to be used by the President He read
the fitch article and the sections of the tenure
OF office act, and claimed that the President
and General Thomas could not shelter them
selves by asserting that their action was mat
ter of obeying a military order. The managers
rely not merely upon the declaration of Gen
eral Thomas to show the intention of the
President. They would show from his own
written confessions that his long meditated
purpose had been TO violate the law of Con-
gress. The arguments of his counsel had been /
more plausible and ingenious than sound
General Thomas did not act that day as Adju-
tant General, but as Secretary of War dd IN
term, what wcs claimed to be the desire of the
counsel was not simply to have this testimony
ruled out, but to obtain some sort ola decision
by the Senate of the question of the guilt or
innocense of the President Mr. Bingham re-
viewed the circumstances of the suspension of
stanton and the subsequent action by the
President, which he said was in accordance
with the terms of the tenure of office law. a
MIR. johnson then asked the question, if the
managers proposed to prove that the President
dutuUIlZeu 0euerdl 1QOndS use force, II
necessary, and whether the President endors-
ed the declarations of General Thomas after
they Were made
Mr.. Bingham said the managers must de-
cline to answer so general question.
Mr.. Evarts rose to speak, but Mr.. Bingham
called attention to the rule limiting the debate
on each side to one no ur, which time, he said,
had about expired.
The Chief Justice made an inaudibe re-
mark, and Mr.. Butler wished to know whether
IL
the managers might know what to rely on.
The Chief Justice stated the effect of the
rule.
Mr.. Drake submitted the point of order that
the decision be made by ayes and nays.
Mr.. Conkling asked that the counsel for
the President be allowed time for further re-
remarks, as they had been under a misappre-
hension as to the bearing of the rule.
Mr. Evarts said they had not yet exhausted
their hour.
Mr., Conkling withdrew the motion.
The Chief Justice stated the question to be
whether the question of Mr.. Butler should be
put to the witness Burleigh.
Mr.. Drake again made his point of order
and was not sustained.
Mr.. johnson called for the reading of his
question to the managers.
Mr.. Boutwell, stated they had declined to
answer 1T, considering it too much in the ma
ture of an argument.
The yeas and nays being demanded were
taken and resulted 80 to IL.
Mr.. Burleigh was then called and said that |
on the evening of the 21st of February, he went |
to see General Thomas at his residence. Cen |
eral Thomas told him he had been appointed |
Secretary of war ad interim. Had gone to the |
and demanded possession. Mr.. |
Stanton asked him if he would give him time
to remove his papers. Witness understood |
Thomas to say he had already issued orders
as Secretary of War; He also said he intend
ed to take possession at 10 o'clock. In reply 10
inquiry by witness Thomas said he would use
force to obtain possession if it were refused
him.
Mr. Butler asked witness if he had had any
conversation with Thomas while he was acting
as Adjutant General.
Mr.. Evarts inquired what date the question
applied to. fs-5
Mr.. Butler said his appointment to that of |
flee was made about week before he attempt |
ed to gain possession of the War Department. |
Mr.. Evarts asked what was the purpose of |
the testimony
Mr.. Butler said it was to show that General |
Thomas had attempted to seduce his brother
officers from their duty, Just as Absalom had
set at the gates and tried to draw off the peo-
pie from their allegiance to King David.
Mr.. Evarts-Do you intend to put Absalom
into your question?
Mr.. Butler-No. 1 use him as an illustra-
ton. Laughter.)
After a recess of Is minutes Mr. Butler read
the question he proposed to put to the wit
ness as to what he had heard Thomas say to
the clerk of the War Office during the week
prior to July 21st.
Mr.. Evarts objected ON the ground of irrele-
vancy.
Mr.. Butler made a short reply.
Mr.. Evarts reioined, denying that the ruling
which permitted the Introduction of the de-
laration made subsequently to February 21st,
allowed the presentation of the declarations
made previous to that time. There had been no
proof adduced in support of the assertions and
villisying remarks made about General Thorn
as, and they were uncalled for, certainly at the
present time.
Mr.. Bingham argued briefly in reply, and
oited authorities in support of the position of |
the managers.
The Chief Justice ruled that the question |
could not be put, no evidence having been Of |
fered in proof of conspiracy before Feb. 21.
The question was submitted, and the yeas
and nays resulting in the vote of % to %, and
the question was put.
Witness heard Thomas make an address to
a number of clerks in the War Office about a
week or ten days prior to Feb. Dist, in which
he said he intended to relax the harsh and ar
bitrary rules made by his predecessor, ard re-
garding the clerks as gentlemen they could go
out and come in when they pleased, if they
were absent only reasonable time.
Mr.. Butler asked if Mr.. Stanton hal ac-
knowledged that the testimony given by wit
ness before the House Committee was true.
The question was objected to and with
drawn.
Mr.. Butler then asked if Gen. Thomas had
since Feb. II related any portion of his con-
versaton with Mr.. Burleigh about breaking
down the doors of the War Department.
Objected to by Mr.. Evarts, as were also sew
eral notifications of the question, which was
finally put as follows:
Hova Won had anV conversation since the