The Portland daily press., 1868-04-20
XLth OONeREss-seoond Session.
The Impeachment Trial.
FIFTEENTH DAY.


WASHINGTON, April lS.-The question pend
ing yesterday was read, as follows:
The counsel of the President offer to prove
that at meeting of the Cabinet, while the bill
was before the President for his signature, he
laid before the Cabinet the tenure-of-office act
for their consideration and advice to the Presi-
dent respecting the approval of the bill, and
thereupon the members of the Cabinet then
present gave their advice to the President that
the bill was unconstitutional and should be
returned to Congress with his objections, and
that the duty of preparing the message setting
forth the objections to the constitutionality OF
the bill devolved upon Secretaries Seward and
Stanton to be followed up by proof Of what
was done by the President and Cabinet up to
the time of sending in the message by the Presi-
dent.
Manager Wilson rose to speak. when
Mr.. johnson submitted the following ques-
ton to the counsel of the President in writing.
"Do the counsel understand that the mana
gers deny the statement made by the President
in his message of December 18th, 1867, in evil
dence as given by the managers on page 45th
No. 9 of the official report of the trial. that the
members of the Cabinet gave the opinion last
stated as to the tenure OF Office act Is the evil
dence offered to corIoborate that statement, or
for what other purpose is it offered
Senator Howard submitted the following
question to the Presidents counsel :-"Do the
counsel for accused not consider the validity OF
the tenure-of-office bill was purely question
of law to be determined in this trial by thu
Senate and if so do they consider that the
opinions OF the cabinet officers touching thai
question is competent evidence by which the
judgment of the Senate ought to be Influenced.
Senator Edmunds asked whether the argu-
e al~N nssxIf h.
continued while the counsel were considering
the questions.
The Chief Justice replied in the affirmative,
and Mr.. Curtis said they would prefer thai
course.
MI. Wilson, speaking from manuscript, argued
on behalf of the managers that the testimony
was Irrelevant Tor reasons that advice from
members of the Cabinet has 10 weight excep'
in reference to matters relating exclusively to
their own departments, and that if it were the
advice given in this instance it was not given a.
such time so as to render it available for the
defence. He then went into the general ques-
ton of the relative powers of the Executive
and Legislative branches, maintaining at greal
length that the checks within the power of the
executive to impose upon the Legislative branch
were exhausted by the exercise of his veto pre-
rooative; whereas on the other hand all his &C.
tons are subject to supervision by the two
Houses of Congress, whose measures he was
required to carry out in support OF his posi-
ton that the law making power is supreme.
Mr. Wilson cited numerous authorities ano
referred to cases in English history when tn
King himself had deferred to the will OF Parlia-
ment He held that if the President had the
right to challenge the laws of Congress his sub.
ordinates could call in question the orders Of
the President, and anarchy would ensue. Re-
captivating he said the President could not as
sumo the prerogative of King who could do
no wrong, and consequently could not shelter
himself behind responsibility of his Ministers.
Mr.. Curtis declined to follow the honorable
manager in anticipating the questions, which
were fit subject only for the final argument,
but would confine himself to the point at issue
He proceeded to claim that the testimony bear
ing on the questions of intent was called for
in rebuttal of the allegations which charge evil
intent and wilful violation of the Consti ution.
The honorable managers had argued an hour
on the assumption to show that the question oil
intent was immaterial in fact. OF this fact
that several articles not yet withdrawn make the
the question ofinrent gravamen oftheir charges.
In answer to Mr.. Towards question he said
the members of the Cabinet would be placed
on the stand, not as experts in constitutional
law, but to prove that they advised the Presi-
dent to his course of action, which the counse
claim will thereby purge him of the charge OF
malice. Replying to Mr.. johnson, Mr.. Cur
tbs stated that they did not understand the
Managers to deny the assertion in the Presi-
dents message that he had been advised by
Il e Cabinet in the matter, and wished to pro-
duce oral testimony to the same effect.
The Chief Justice read the article charging
evil intent and expressed his opinion that the
evidence offered was applicable to those points
The yeas and nays heing taken resulted 20 to
20; so the decision of the Chief Justice was
over-ruled and the evidence not admitted.
Mr.. Welles, Secretary Ct the Navy, was then
recalled and the counsel proposed to ask HIM
whether the question of applicability OF the
tenure Of office bill to Mr.. Stanton was con-
sidered in the cabinet meetings previous to it,
return with the objections of the President
and whether the opinion was expressed that
the law did not apply to any of the Secretaries
appointed by Mr.. Lincoln.
Mr.. Butler objected. contending that it was
excluded by the last ruling.
Mr.. Evarts said this testimony was in refer
ence to the construction, not the constitution
ality of the law and said it was admissible fol-
other reasons.
Mr.. Butler read from the veto message to
show that the President vetoed the bill on the
ground that it cid not apply to all the mem.
beers of his cabinet. He also held that tine
President did not pretend to believe Stanton
would acouiesce in his removal, because he fel
himself not covered by the law. The Presiden
put it on the ground of cowardice.
Mr.. Eyarts referred to the portions OF tn
message read by Mr.. Butler and SAID the
made part of the general argument as to tn
constitutionality of the bill and had no refer
ence to the special case of President Johnson
Cabinet.
The Chief Justice submitted the question an
the evidence was refused admission by ~ 10 ~
Mr.. Evarts then asked if at any cablne
meetings held between the time of the passag
of the tenure of Office bill and the removal 9
Stanton, the subject of how the public servic
was to be affected by it was considered, an
the witness replied that it had been CONSIDERS
repeatedly.
The Counsel then offered to prove that o.
such occasions the President and Cabinet de
termined that proper regard for the publ
interests required that case should be arrang
ed in some way so as to procure Judicial d.
cision as to the constitutionality of the law.
Mr. Butler said the managers would like
have the Senate in accordance with their pr
vious votes, declare that all such evidence
immaterial and stop the trials to their patien
of attempts to introduce it at retail.
Mr.. Evarts briefly rejoined that the learnt
managers, from the frequency and length OF
remarks, seemed to think the patience of Il
Senate literally capable Of receiving impre
sons only from one side, aslas-s- i-l..A
Mr., Henderson asked whether this eviden