The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1868-04-02
LATEST BY TELEGRAPH
xLth CONOREsS---Second Session
WAsHiyGros, April /.

XLth CONORESS---Seton Session
WAsHisGroS, April /.
4 SENATE.
/ At 12:O5, the managers aad the House in
Committee Of the Whole, and the counsel for
the President having taken their usual places,
the Court Of Impeachment was called to or
der by Chief Justice Chase.
1 The minutes of the previous day we're read
up to the mention ofthe vote east by the Chief
Justice 70 decide the tie vote on the question
! Of retiring for deliberation, when Mr.. Sumner
made motion to correct the Journal By in
sertinR the expression of the Senate's opinion
that said vote OF the Chief Justice was unau-
thorized and Of no effect.
On this motion he demanded the yeas and
nays, which we're taken-yeas q nays n.
The question of the sdmissability Of Mr..
| Burieigh's testimony about the conversation
between him and Gen. Thomas was submit
| ted to the Senate by The Chief Justice.
| Before the question was decided Mr..
| Freiingbuysen enquired il the managers in
tended TO connect the testimony OF the wit-
ness with the respondent.
| Mr.. Butler answered afirmAtively.
Mr.. Sianbery stated the question to be
| whether or not the declarations Of General
Thomas we're to be used against the Presia
dent, though rot proven to be authorised BY
him. The Presidents intent could be shown
only BY the orders themselves. The orde,
and letter of authority given TO Gen. Thom-
al did not make him general agent of the
President They authorized him to do only
certain specific things. When the proper
foundation Of the proof Of conspiracy 10 laid
then the declaration of one of the sppposed
conspirators may be deemed to implicate,
Even il it we're admitted that the letter Of
authority constituted the relation between the
President and General Thomas, Of principal
aud general agent, il could not be maintained
that the letter was, of itself, proof Of con.
spirscy. The nature of the order WAS &C
cording TO the usual formula TO designate m
officer known to law to execute the duties Of
IN office established BY Law.
Mr. Butler replied. He said the argument
of the respondent counsel seemed 20 show
that they felt the question involved the right
to decide t9eir case. The managers claim
that the President had long intended to vios
late a certain law. He called to his aid the
General of the Army, and then gave an or
der to Mr.. Thomas to take possession of the
War Office, which the council said was 10 the
usual form. This be claimed was not true.
No man, in his senses, could believe thai Dir.
Stanton would again yield, except to supe
rior force. The Presideu, intended TO do an
unlawful act, and Mr.. Thomas consented to
aid him, and thus conspiracy was instituted.
On this ground the managers claim their
right to introduce the testimony in question.
Ihey also claim il on the ground OF the rela.
ton existing between the President and Cen
eral Thomas, of principal and agent.
Mr.. Butler continued and said the author.
tiles support his views regarding the sd
instability of declarations III proof Of con-
spiracy made by one conspiratorinthea absetce
of another. He proceeded to state trey
proposed to show through the evidence IN
der discussion. that they intended TO use
force, and was prevented BY thearrest
Mr.. Curtis rel 1ined that it was . sufficient
objection to the hrst part OF the qus sstion to
be submitted that the evidence sought to be
introduced was mmaterial: no declaration of
Mr.. Thomas could show the Presidents in
tent, and il any could, they must have been
made as sworn testimony. Nothing has been
advanced TO prove that the employment Of
force was contemplated
Mr.. Bingham followed denying there was
ground for the assumption that the Senate
was restricted in considering this matter By
a question whether il had proven that force
was Intended TO be used by the President
lie claimed the President and General
Thomas could not shelter themselves by as
a military order. The mansgers do moi
merely rely upon the declaration Of General
Thomas to show the intention of the Prssi- !
dent. they would show from his own written |
confession, that his long meditated purpose
bad been TO violate the laws of Congress.
The arguments OF his counsel had been more
plausible and ingen Gus than sound. Mr.. Thom-
as did not art thai day az Adjutant Gener-
al, but as Secretary of Var ad inferip, whom /
he claimed to be. The desire of the counsel |
was not simply to have this testimony ruled |
out, but to obtain some sort of decision by |
the Senate Of the question Of gailt or iunQs !!
cence Of the President.
After some further debate, the Chief jus i
tice stated the question to be whether the
question Of Mr.. Butler should be put to the |
witness; Buflsigh.
The s-ss and nays leing demanded, result
ed 80 to II
Mr.. Harleigh was then called. and said that |,
on the evening of the 2lst of February went |
10 see Gen Thomas ai his residence; Thomas
told him be bad been appointed Secretary Of
War ad interim had gone 70 the Depart
meut and demanded possession Stanton |
asked him if be would give him time to re |
move his papers, witness understood Thomas |
to say he would use force TO obtain possession /
If it was refused him.
NV. Butler asked witnesaif be had any con |
versaiion with Thomas while he was acting
as Adjutant GeneralY
In reply to the question by Mr. Evarts. Mr.. I
Butler said the question to the witness was to |
show that Gen Thomas had attempted to Sc |
duce brother officers from their duty.
Mr. Evsrts objected, and debate followed. /
The Chief Justice rultd that the question
could not be put to the witness.
The question was then taken by yeas and |
nays, aud resulted 28 to %, and the question |
was put.
Witness heard Thomas make an address to |
q NUMBER of clerks IN ths y !" ar Department /
about ten days prior to Feb 2lst, in which he
said be intended to relax The harsh and arbi- |
tFsry rnles made bv his predecessor.
Mr.. Butler asked il Gen. Thomas hsd since |
Feb 2lst, re stated any portion Of his conver> |
sation with Rurleigh abou. breaking down the |
doors of the War Department?
Objected to by Mr. Evarts, az were also |
several notifications Of the question, which !
was finally put IS follows;
Ques.-Have you had conversation With |
Thomas since his appoiatment as Secretary |
OF War I'D interim, about using force in get>
ting into the War Office, or in any other way
reasserting his former conversation it SO,
what he said
Witness said he asked Gen. Thomas last |
week why the performance promised had not
come OFF, He answered il WAS because be |