Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-04-14
BY TELEGRAPH,
To Ohio Statesman.
IMPEACHMENT.
WASHINGTON, April 1;


| to participate in the final debate as may
| wish to do so.
| Mr.. SUMNER offered an amendment
| that no further postponement should be
| caused thereby. Accepted.
Severa! amendments relative to the mem
bers who should close, and length of time
to be occupied by each. were made.
| Mr.. STANBERY said the counsel for
the defense were strongly opposed to linn
| ltation of time in the final argument.
| Mr.. BUTLER intimated that he would
not take advantage of chance 10 speak.
Mr.. EVARTS said the result of the prop
osition as it now stood would give six man
ayers against four counsel on the closing
argument.
Mr.. DRAKE raised point oforder, that
the Senate sitting as court could not take
such action.
| The point was overruled.
| A vote was then taken with the result
3S to 10; SO the rule remains unchanged.
The examination of Gen. Sherman was
resumed.
Mr.. STANBERY asked-After the res
toration of Stanton, did you form an opin-
| ion as to the desirability or as to the good
of the service of the office of Secretary of
War being filled by another than Stanton
II SO: did you express you opinion to the
Objection was made and argued by Mr..
BINGHAM.
Mr.. SrANBERY replied that the uues-
| tion of intent was of vital Importance; they
did not offer this testimony as an abstract
opinion, but as the judgment formed and
expressed by the second officer in the serv-
| ice, for its good. He referred to the rela-
tions existing between the President and
Stanton, and claimed 1t was competent to
prove that distinguished Generals like
Grant and Sherman believed a change
should be made in the interest OF the Gov
ernment. He appealed earnestly to the
Senate, for the sake ofjustice, to admit the
evidence.
Mr.. BUTLER rejoined that by introduc-
ing irrelevant testimony the law would be
| broken. To defend breaking of law he
said there would be no limit to inquiries
which would be put to the witness. The
managers could ask him if he had a quar-
rel with Stanton; if that influenced his
opinion. So that field would be boundless
It seemed to be assumed by the other side
| that the evil intent must be proved by
something the President had said, whereas
| it was proved by his action in breaking the
act. 1t was also immaterial whether
| Stanton was a fit mar or not to be
retained in office. Evil could not be done
that good might come. Referring to a re-
mark of Mr.. Stanberry that Mr.. Stanton
did not take part in Cabinet council, he
said there was no such thing contemplated
by the Constitution. Members of the Cab
| met were to be called on for advice re-
specting the affairs OF their own depart
ments. The President must show that he
ever called on Stanton for written opin-
ion, or that he had given him an order
which he had disobeyed.
Senator CONKLING inquired if the
counsel proposed to prove Gen. Sherman
had advised the President to procure q
change in any particular way.
Mr.. STANBERY replied in the negative
The witness had only expressed an opin-
ion as to the desirability OF some change
Mr.. EVARTS said it was not merely a
question of having committed violation
of law which was punishable in another
court by so small penalty as six cents
fine or few days Imprisonment, but was
/ a question of commission of an imDeach.
able offense, punishable by deposition from
the highest office. which question all the
evidence relating to the motive was of the
most vital importance.
Mr., BINGHAM held that the rules o.
evidence were the same on the trial of s
beggar as President.
Mr.. EVARTS interrupted to say he haG
in his remarks supposed the President Il
be on trial for petty offense, and repellet
the insinuation that he would nete ou
justice according to rank.
Mr.. BINGHAM concluded in an earnes
appeal against the admission of the testi
nays were taken and resulted 10 to 35--s
! it was not admitted.
Mr.. JOHNSON offered a question
whether before the removal of Stanton h
had advised the President that he shoult
be removed ana replaced.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said the cour
must decide whether the question shoul
be put and the Senate decided in the neg
ative-1S to 30.
Mr.. STANBERY then said he had n
more questions to ask Gen. Sherman.
The managers declined to cross-examin
| and the court took a recess Mt 2:lO.
| On reassembling, r. J. Meigs, clerk of tn
District Supreme Court, testified that h
| had affixed the seal to the warrant for tn
arrest of Gen. Thomas, about o'clock o
! the morning of Feb. 22i. Mr.. Pile, of Nc
brought it to him at his house. In answe
to Butler he said he had been called on a
such hours before in cases of pressing ne
cessity.
evidence the warrant and affidavit of Stan
ton.
Mr.. BUTLER objected to its reception
Mr.. EVARTS said they related to th
same subject on which the managers ha
introduced testimony; and that the Pres
dents counsel intended to show that h
took advantage of the proceedings con
menced by Stanton as the speediest metho
preme Court.
Mr.. BUTLER urged that the effect OF il
PRODUCING these papers would be to open Il
a new region of controversy, irrelevant
to the case
Mr.. STANBERY referred to the fact th
the declarations of General Thomas hs
been admitted as declaration
of the President, to prove his desig
in employing force, and went
recite circumstances attending the di
charge of Thomas, which he said the
would show were in order to prevent I'll
President from testing the question. tt
evidence would also show that Gener
Thomas was not regarded as great erin
inal by those who procured his arrest.
Mr.. BUTLER rejoined. when
The CHIEF JUSTICE ruled that I'll
warrant and affidavit were admissible, an
OH taking the yeas and nays, his ruling W.
sustained by 81 to II.
Mr.. EVARTS read the document. and
Mr.. STANBERY resumed the examin,
tion. The warrant was issued In the Chan
bers; has not the docket book with him.
Senator JOHNSON then offered a que
tion to be put to Gen. .Sherman-When tt
President rendered you the Office of Seer,
tary of War ad interim, January q an
3Oth, 1868, did he at the time of maxim
such tender state what his purpose in
doing was? ....- -...
Question objected to and submitted to tt
Senate-yeas 26, nays %; so the questio
was put and answered, yes"
Mr.. JOHNSON then offered the additio
al question-Will You state what he sa
his purpose was?
Objected to, when the CHIEF JUST1C
ruled that the question was admissible,
it tended to show the import of the Pre-
ident's action, and in expressing his opi
ion remarked that this court was not bour
by the same restrictive rules in admittir
evidence as some of different character.
The yeas and nays resulted 26 to 25 !: so tt
question was answered.
The conversations were long. The Pre-
tident told witness the relations betwe,
himself and Stanton were such that
could not have the office administer