Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-04-02
NEWS BY TELEGRAPH,
no Ohio Statesman.
CONGRESSIONAL.
WASHINGTON, April l.
SENATE.


OF impeachment was called to order by
ChiefJustice Chase, and the minutes of the
last days trial were read up to the men
tion of the vote cast by Chief Justice Chase
to decide the vote on the question of retir-
ing for deliberation, when
r.SUMNER moved to correct the Jour-
nal by inserting an expression of the SEN
ate's opinion that said vote of the Chief
Justice was unauthorized and of no effect.
On the motion he demanded the yeas and
nays, which were taken-yeas 81, nays 27.
So the motion was disagreed to-
The question as to the admissibility OF
Burleigh's testimony about a conversation
between him and General Thomas, was
submitted to the Senate by the Chief JUS
tice.
Before vote was taken,
Mr.. FRELINGHUYSEN INQUIRED if
the Managers intended to connect the tes-
timony of the witness with respondent?
Mr.. BUTLER answered affirmativefy,
and an argument ensued.
Mr.. STANBERY then rose and said the
court had at length reached the domain of
the law on question requiring careful
consideration and argument. He stated
the question to be whether or not the dec
larations OF General Thomas were to be
used against the President, though not
proven to be authorized by him it is alleg-
ed that the gravamen of the offense charg-
ed in the first three articles, consist in is
suing by the President, of the letter of au-
thority to General Thomas. In the fourth
with General Thomas to obtain by force
and intimidation the office of the
Secretary of War, these were the
only articles whose consideration was now
necessary. AS yet we have no proof of
anything said by the President before or
after giving this letter of authority. The
purpose of the present attempt was to show
inta in iScrr hrytb ba
production of irrelevant testimony about
remarks made by General Thomas,
without authorization by the President.
The Presidents intent could be shown
only by the orders themselves;
the order and letter of authority given to
General Thomas did not make him a gen.
eral agent of the President; they author
lied him to do only certain specific things.
When a proper foundation of proof of a
conspiracy islaid the declarations OF one of
the supposed conspirators may be deemed
TO implicate another. In this instance no
such foundation of proof has been laid.
Even it it were admitted, which he denied
that the letter of authority constituted a
relation between the President and Gen.
Thomas as principal and general agent, it
could not be maintained that the letter was
in itself proof of conspiracy. The nature
of the order was according to the usual
formula to designate an officer known to
Established by law. 1t would not be as
erted that all officers appointed by the
President became his special or general
gents. The President and disappointed S
we're alike officers and responsible to law.
he managers say they expect hereafter to
low connection between the declaratic n
f Gen. Thomas and. the respondent.
Mr.. BUTLER--I did not say hereafter.
: Mr.. STANBERY-Did you say you had
lone it heretofore?
Mr.. BUTLER-No.
f! Mr.. STANBERY-Then if you expect
do it you must do it hereafter; aud you
ither meant what you did not say, or said
That you did not mean. He went on, claim
lg it to be an unprecedented attempt to
:iuild superstructure before laying the
..Jundation. -r---
. Mr.. BUTLER replied. He said the argu-
mt f the respondents counsel seemed 10
low they felt the question involved might
ecide their case. The managers claimed
ne President had long intended to violate a
'ertain law he called to his aid a General
# the army; he then gave an order to Mr.
thomas to take possession of the War
office, which counsel said was in the usual
rm. This, he claimed, was not true. He
ad certain ear marks about it which
lowed an unusual intent. The wording
Das: "You will Immediately take posses
| ion." Stanton, when he first yielded, as
:; e said, to superior force, after his rein
5atement he was more strongly fortified
| nd no man not besotted could believe he
| yould again yield except to superi force
| he President could not have expected
| aim to yield otherwise. The President in
| ended to do an unlawful act, and Mr.
| thomas consented to aid him, and thus 8
| conspiracy was constituted. On this ground
| ne managers claim their right to intro.
| uce the testimony in question; they alsC
| .iaimed it on the ground of the relation
xisting between the President and Gener
| Il Thomas of principal and agent of the
| )mmission to do just as the President
> anted him to do, viz:
| To obtain possession of the War Office
'ne declaration OF General Thomas wa:
Iout the common objections made to
! IAN whose support he was trying to Sc
ire. No objection was made by the cOun
| l yesterday to the introduction of testi
| ..ony relating to what was done by Thom
| Ii in the War Department, the Presiden
| :; as not there.
Mr.. .STANBERY-Gener Thomas wa
| hen acting within his authority.
Mr.. BUTLER continued and cited au
lorities to support mis- views, regardin!
lie admissibility of declarations in proc
conspiracy made by one conspirator il
| Ie absence of another. He proceeded L
ate that they propose to show, through
| 'idence under discussion, that Thoma
| 'i,tended to use force, but was prevented b,
| 'e arrest. He referred to the remark O
| ar. Stanbery, that they had now reache,
- lints of law worthy to be argued by law
| RS to lawyers. They had already ha
1 Iestions worthy of debate by statesme
- statesman, and he Mr.. Butler) proteste
sainst narrowing the subject down to tn
cgument of attorneys.
Mr.. CURTISS rejoined-It was a suffi
cent objection to the first part of the queS
.on to be submitted, that the evidenc
| nh tn ha intr INN FOR s
nanges in issue, whether made by a CON
,etent or incompetent witness, it was ais
objection that the declaration bearin
Il the question of what was the Pres
ient's intent, had not been made on oat
y a witness shown to come within th
4 cognized exceptions to the rule; in brie
o declaration of Mr.. Thomas could sho
lie Presidents intent, and if any coul
rey must have been made as sworn test
| nony. The Managers claimed to hay
lown there was conspiracy to remo'
r.Stanton by force, whereas the only ev
s.nce they had presented was an endeavt
show simply that there was conspi
" to remove Mr.. Stanton. Nothing h;
zen advanced to prove that employ mel
{ force was contemplated. He combatte
= length the argument of Mr.. Butler mail
aiming the authorities cited by the la
I + were applicable to the point in disput
he statement of Mr.. Butler that the Pres
ent's answer admits this intention to r
: love Mr.. Stanton from an Office he legal
9 ,ield was not correct.
Mr.. BINGHAM followed, denying the
p,as any ground for the assumption tn
ne Senate was restricted in conSideriI
lis matter by a question whether it hs
i.roven that force was intended to be ust
: ~ the President. He read the fifth artic
nd the sections of the tenure of Office az
I'd claimed that the President and Ge
homas could not shelter themselves
J. sserting their action was a matter of ODE
.ng a military order. The managers
1t rely merely upon the declaration
= EN-. Thomas to show the intention of q
resident. They would show from his ov
| rittpn confession thaI his long mRlitatI