The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1868-04-21

Mr.. Butler said there would be no OBJ
lection providing the Chief Justice woul,
instruct the witness to give hearsay eyi
dence.
Mr.. Stanbery declined to give the as
surance that the witness would not b
questioned about what the President ha,
said.
The Chief Justice submitted the ques
tion Of admissability, and the Senate
without division, decided in the negative
Mr.. Stanbery then asked if the Presi
dent had rendered him the position Q
Secretary Of War ad interim.
Mr.. Butler objected.
Mr.. Stanbery replied.
Mr.. Butler rejoined; it was an attemp
to bring in the conversation.
The Senate decided that the quesEio,
co uld be put and Mr.. Sherman testifed
The President rendered him the Office 0
Secretary Of War ad interim on two coca
sions, January 25th and 30th; replied t
these in writing on the 9th and 31si
Stanton was in Office.
Mr.. Stanbery asked if anthing else oc
Cured between the witness and the Pres
ident about the officers when FIRST made
Mr. Butler objected, and warned tn,
Senate against the attempt to bring tn,
conversation in under the pretense o
proving an act,
Mr.. Evarts called attention to Mr.
Buffers shaking his finger in warning
to the Senate, the malpractice of counsel
and said nothing was palmer than tha
circumstances explaining an ast were ad
missable as evidence concerning it.
Mr.. Butler replied, and the question
was submitted to the Senate.
The yeas and nays were demanded and
resultedin % to 29, 80 the question was
decided inadmissable.
Examination resumed-At the second
interview, when the offer was renewed
there was further conversation.
Mr.. Stanbery then asked if the Pres.
ident had in any interview stated that
his intention in offering the witness the
appoin tment was to bring the matter be.
fore the Supreme Court. Objected to-
The counsel said they only wished the
ruling to appear on record.
A question of admissibility was sub
mitted and decided in the negative by q
vote of to A.
Mr.. Stanbery then offered the ques-
ton, modified as follows: Was anything
said in that conversation as to any pur-
pose of bringing the matter before the
Courts2
Mr.. Butler objected to it as being toe
outrageously leading, and said it was
designed to gain time.
Mr.. Stanbery remarked that this was
too grave and solmn proceeding to al
low of low personalities. He repelled
with scorn the insinuation that he had
resorted to the tactics OF old Bailey prac
titioners, and with regard to leading
questions, Mr.. Butler had put hundreds
Of them, until they were tired of object.
ing. The questions he (Stanbery) haa
put were not, as the Managers admitted, in
tended to elicit any thing the witness wal
not about to say, without their leading
form.
Mr.. Henderson offered a question
whether in any interview the Presiden
had expressed any intention with re
gard to making an appointment. OBJ
lection was made and the yeas and nayi
we're taken. Not admitted, 25 to 27.
The Senate refused to adjourn by
vote of 25 to II.
Mr.. Stanbery asked the question, a
either interview was there anything sait
in reference to the use Of force, intimi
dation or threats, to get possession of tn
War Department, or the CONTRARY?
Objection was made and sustaine,
without division.
The Senate again refused to adjourn
by vote of 20 to 32.
Mr.. Stanbery said, under these ruling
the counsel were not prepared at presen
to ask further questions of General Sher
man, but perhaps desired to recall hir
Monday, whereupon at 4.40 the Court ad
journed.
WASHINGTON, April 10.
The reading of the Journal was dis
-pensed with.
The Chief Justice stated the question
before the Uourtto be on the motion al
lowing as many Managers and counsel t.
participate in the final debate as ma,
wish to do so.
Mr.. Sumner offered an amendment tha
no further postponement should be cause,
thereby. Accepted.
Several amendments relative to tn,
members who should close, and the lengtl
of time to be occupied by each, wer
made.
Mr.. Evarts said the result Of the prop
osition as it now stood would give ST.
Managers against four counsel on tn
closing argument.
Mr.. Drake raised the point OF orde
that the Senate sitting as Court coul'
not take such action.
The point was overruled. Tho vot
was then taken resulting 38 to 10. S
the rule remains unchanged.
The examination Of General Sherman
was resumed.
Mr.. Stanbery asked-After the resto
ration Of Mr. Stanton did you form al
opinion as to the desirabiiity. or as to th
good Of the service, of the Office of Sec
rotary of War being filed by anothe
than Mr.. Stantona If SO, did you ex
press your opinion to the President?
Objection made and argued by NJ,
Bingham.
Mr.. Stanbery replied-The question Q
intent was of vital Importance; they di