New-York tribune., 1868-04-01

members Of the Court II am incorrect in my statement
Of the position Of the presdng officer would beg to be
The eCHIEF,JUsTTCE-Th Chair will state that under
the rules Of this body he Is the presiding GeeT s He Z
Of the United states and therefore when
the President triad BY the Senate It e ms DUTY 70 pre-
FORE the President OF the Senate sttng as Court Of
Impeachment The rule Of the Senate Is the seventh rue
first instance, submit TO the Senate, without
al G ia do Ta rIS &c s1Sm these
questions In the first instance but for the dispatch OF
press his opinion in the first Instance II the Senate who
constitute the Court or any member OF the Court desire
then to ask for the opinion Of the Court.
Mr.. BUTLER-May respectfully inquire whether that
extends to the Managers as to question OF law 10 DC
The CHIEF7JUsTICE-The Chef-Justce thinks not 1t
Mr. BUTLER-Then it Immediately becomes Of very
important and momentous substance, because the pre-
Court and has hand in the Court as we understand IT,
except possibly upon question OF equal division glyesa
decision which prevents the House Of Representatives
Therefore, IL this is the rule our hands are tleG anu
presiding officer of the Senate 10 state, he has kindly
and frankly stated, the exact position. Now, say
The CHIEF-JUsTICE-The Chef7Justce thinks it right
and for the Managers propose any question te
t to the Senate, but II for the Senate themselves
Mr.. BUTLER-As understand it, we propose a ques..
tiOn to the Senate the ChefJusce decides we cannot
Eet 1t decided without decision of the ChefJustce, to
which we object respectfully as we ought firmly
N M S% upon % den He o taken by The presiding
officer of the Senate understand that this is question,
years. Not expecting the question would arise nave
not at this moment at my hands all the books but can
give the leading case where question Occurs am not
mistaken il arose on the trial OF Lord Stafford, In the
thirty year King Charles the Second and that
the House of Lords had rule prior to the trial OF oaI
ford by which the Commons bound TO address the
Lord High steward as "His Grace, or my Lord" pre-,
csey counsel for the respondent think themseyes
obliged 10 address the presiding officer OF tms
body as ''Mr: Chief Justice" When the p..II9 pr.elI99-
is' tRe Commons objected that they as part Of the
Paramentof Greht Britain ought not TO De eaed upon upon
ever but that the address should be made TO the Lords
committee Of conference thereupon was had ana tne
rescinded, and the rule adopted and reported
that in that trial tand It has obtained IL ever tsa
House Of Commons should not address the Lord Hgn
and sRSuq R aonse nS' ASK y showing the
reason and giving that the Lord High stew
ard was but SpeaEeeG pro rS % naoe to trial ts
House OF Lords instructed him mat ne must ADDRESS tue
Lords and not the LORD atsst hgs t5s sisT9Ta In Par
lament which is Lord Cardigan's case in lStl the
Lords and Lord ChiefJustice Denman sitting on that
trial. the universal address has BEEN by counsel prison
70 be no recognition OF any superior the presiding
officer any other member OF the Court nor du tat
arisen In Lord Maccesned's If remember right,
the question in this way Whether the presiding
wholly 10 the House OF Lords saying TO the Lords You
NAV decide as you please" Again. when Lord Ersklne
IN this century coming up with much form as any
other trial. and with much regard Tor form as Ior e
decencv and order the question was put
10 him whether he would rule points OF law and ne ex
pressly diseaimed that power Again IN LORD
case 10 which have just referred before Lord CmeI,
Justice Denman upon question OF evidence IN Iegara
TO the admissbilty Of card on which the me name % Q,
being: whether the mans name was Harvey Sarnert y,
Phipps Tueketp or Harvey Garnett IueKeIt n,u,.
il 10 the Lords, II the counsel desired to press
tho question but the counsel sS sn da on not 10 arSs IL
and when the OF England had nnl;nea @
his argument, Lord Denman arose and ap0ogzed 1or
having allowed him 20 argue and said he hoped IL would
not be taken precedent, but saying ne dd nOt Ink
the Lords withdrew, and Lord Denman was giving
the opinion 10 the Lords Of the guilt
d mScenfe ISTSs er Giving any opinion in advance saying
that he only OF Them as ne was nuependeht VI
mo more nor less than any Of theirs and he had only
spoken first because somebody must speak lie says;
using this remarkable languages This is not court and
inryo You nv Lords exercise the functions Of both
Judge and Iury and the whole matter Is with you Now,
then the light Of authority in the light OF te pIece-
OF reason, the hight OF principle we are pou1a 20 oec
And this is not mere question OF form Al iorins we
waive But IL Is question OF substance 1t Is question
whether the House of can get on vs. own
motion 20 the Senate question OF law II the Chlef JUS
tice who presiding 10 stand between the senae anu
them It s question OF vital Importance; 0ut II IL was
of no Importance would not yield hair because no Jot
or little Of the rights OF the House OF REPRESENTATIVES
fall 20 the ground by reason OF any ndttehOoh
yielding of mine Let me state II sgan, Deeage % bo
me lt seems invasion OF the prlNheges OI thee
House OF Representatives. II that when the House OF
Representatives states question OF law 70 tns Senss s o
the United states In the trial or the PresdehJ OF ue
ittnS as Cont can stand between the House OF Rep
resentatiyes and the Senate and decide the guesh0n
Senate House of Representatives, through ts Man
agers cannot get that question OF law decided py Sen
ate shOuld inclined TO deem my duty ana tne du OF
me o1nfr n hs Hcnse befpre we allowed the rights
to Ia hnund han
any man. do not care who he may De- ior At is, re-
spectfuy submit question OF most S hnD e eSs SS
M = ,e'' Tinted states But lot look forward to
the thhe time, which may come, in the history
OF this nation when we ,ag gGI tbe npeceients Of
tbs GOOD time with good men, when everything is quiet
when tbe country will be disturbed by the precedent
MA WE r as il did of old; for It brings my mind
an instance OF Jeflrics' conduct on an exactly
similar eTss being ISrd High steward said to tie
Earl he came TO plead give tns % suDssnSs Oh 'ne
tbe mercy of the King your master He the fountain
OF your mercy, and il will be better Tor you TO d9 IT.
And the Earl Of stanly If remember the name ariglt,
replled 10 him Are you Sir OF my Judges that give
me that advice Are you, on my trial Tor my death
And Jereys qualed before the indignant sye o tne man
with whose rights he tried to interfere and SAID; NO.
am not OF your Judges and ann Only advising you rs
s thew wero before Jeres that II we ever have the
misfortune TO have such t"e nave Anutew
johnson in the chair Of the Presden the preSedsht @
viii be 50 settled that they cannot in any way be dis
turbed. but will be securely nAcd fOr aIl tinlc
The CHIEFJUSrICE repeated his decision, TO me eI-
feet that II his right and duty under te res' 10
decide preliminary questions In the first instance WITH
ont submittnC them the senate and II any senator
dexanded the judgment OF the Senate upon the lucy
might then be submitted 10 the SENATE. $50, n, NJ,
Mr. DRAKE-I raise the question that the PIeslmng
oncer OF the Senate has no rSht 10 "Ae u'ei'on u
that Kind. , .,,, Nh s,,o,,r f.
not in order -, e,,,.t.., r5o,,on1
Mr. DRAKE mot hearing the Chef-Ju'tice) / demand
flat that question he put 20 the Senate ,.,.
The CIIIIF.JUsTItE with still greater determina
tionl-The Senator is not IN order. IL, D., -
Senator CONKIINC-I ask whether the question ia as
to he competency OF the proposed testimony or as 70
wbeiher rho presiding officer be competent TO decide
that auestiUn =