New-York tribune., 1868-03-03
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1865.

Fs"isr R'1' 5sST::, 5ESSS: ss:pu. SSs, Wia.S@aS VIZ
Sis:i SssG R5.; RG@:ia. Morrill, Ssl1t VS. vs. s: s:ss.
coDiirrs harlan, Hs Ffs RSr'''' Williams,
| Corbelt Morgan Ramsey YAt,s-24
The question put the branch OF the amend
@eRt requiring application beforehand for an extension
Mr. DRAKE tRep, MOI moved TO add at the end OF the
rule the following:
syss hey may
I The amendment not agreed to.
MeCREERY Dem 81 Ky5 fM Offered an s%endmsn. n,
He said that the Judiciary Of Kentucky the trial Of
any put no Limitation OF restriction upon the ac
amendment without much hope Of its adoption because,
while others might not feel the necessity, he desired 10
not only he fair but il would appear So The majority
could afford to let the question stand or fall npon
| one or not as the Senator from Illinois Yates) had
| intimated he would be guided by no such motive
whole day on one rule that this was indication OF
what might be expected II the amendment was adopted
| Mr.. McCreerys amendment was lost
The Twenty-first Rule was read.
Mr.. SUMNER rep, MassJ called attention TO tho fact
that provision had been mado for opening the case.
He moved to insert at the beginning OF the Rule the ol
The cas-. ha b. opened BY than two persons each
Mr.. HOWARD rep, Meh) asked whether the Senator
intended that counsel for the accused, as well as tho
| prosecution, should open the case.
amendment only contemplated the opening Of tho dc
| fendants case after the prosecution had closed -.
Mr. GRIMES (2ep, Iowa. suggested leaving tho mat.
ter to be settled 1t had been in all previous trials OF
impeachment here and in England, by tho Court.
Mr. WILLIAMS (Rep., OregonI, though he had voted
FOR the hour rule on preliminary motions would not
ment would be quoted precedent for all future cases.
and Senators should therefore be extremely careinl IN
their action Probably not more than two OF thTee would
appear for the defense and they would most likely occupy
Mr. SUMNER insfanced ,he trial Of Judge Chase, in
which Sr Writ occupied four days IN his closing speech,
others occupied several days each They should ne
thought, provide AGAINST any possible CONTINGENCY At
the suggestion OF Senators, ne mOdned us ANNOUNCEMENTS 80
as 70 M maze @ s ~ sss M ,fsl he opened b, on. person"
Mr. DIXON contended that there should be llmita-
On opening OF this when ten issues
expected try the question Jurors The law pre-
sued the accused 10 be innocent Suppose tho opening
took four days; IT short time in view OF the I'M
Mr. HOWARD found no Limitation in tho rule on the
time that counsel could occupy Two counsel we're al
lowed each side, which the Senator would admit was
Mr. DIXON would allow both sides to say all they had
| 20 say, aud take the necessary time. -. -,
Mr. HOWARD said that no court In the country would
allow unlimited time 10 counsel.
Mr. GRIMES SAID that by all precedent 1t for tho
court determine the rules for the admission OF cyl
dence &c He thought the Senate had power to de-
| eide such questions for the Court
Mr. EDMUNDS rep w thought that u must appear
odd 10 stranger that gentlemen the other side stood
as unit questions rising these rules, though doubt
less It only coincidence. This was rule for all
eascs and would operate severely upon the prose
cuors than upon the defense, tho former having seven
managers and perhaps other counsel In criminal cases
everywhere the restriction 10 two counsel was general
and IN very important case now ON trial 10 the supreme
Court the same rule enforced II they wero to have
any rules oil they shou be such as would be reason
| able In all future cases. -,
generally secured by hearing TWO counsel ON eaeh
side aud he satisfied with this rule Inc lmpntatVh
able. He moved that they take recess as II was no"
| o'clock, until 7, long discussion being evident
! Messrs HOWARD and CONKLING opposed tho motion,
] as the rules we're little more than half finished.
| A motion by Mr. McCREERY Dem, KY to adjourn
Mr. IIcndrichs's motion was also lost. -,.o
! After discussion Mr. Summers Amendments, OF modlh-
ISe anesplSn recurring on tho amendment OF Mr. VII
ams 10 strike out the article, Mt ELMUNDS moved 10
the words unless otherwise ordered by tho Court on a
Mr. DIXON dem, Comm offered an amendment pro
ydDg that the counsel for the accused Dc h2"ea 1ne
closing argument, saying that was the usage IN Cohnecu
Mr.. FERRY rep, Comm sald it had worked prciudi-
The amendment wac lost
| SIN rep " j. offered the following amendment, 10
come In at the beginning: on the tnal question whether
the Impeachment Is sustained, the Yeas and Nays shall
be taken on each article Of impeachment" Tins was
| Mr.. MoRRELL Rep, Mel moved to strike out the
words High Court OF Impeachment" and insert the
Mr. sHERMAN 1Rep., Ohio called attention to the fact
that this raised question 20 which he had given some
attention, namely whether the Ohe IN DC Dsihg M
Court and therefore entitled To vote II tie vote occurred
MT hOwA6 5s Hsa et Of Lo i snS oH sae6
questions presided over by the Lord Chancellor or
|
Mr. GMoRRIIL modified ms amendment by moving to
present" referring TO the number OF members OF the
Mr VAN WISRLE Rep. W Va) moved TO insert after
bo nroeced 10 ascertain what Judgment shall be rem.
dered Ia the case which being asceraned shal DC pro
Mr. TDMUNDs CRep., VIZ moved. and Mr. VAN
| WINKIE accepted, an amendment 10 strike out the
words Of such court aud the words "by Its presiding
Mr. WILLIAMS Rep, Oregon) offered an amendment
providing for conviction upon any one article -
Mr.. DRAKE REP, Mo- suggested substitute, to IN
sert after the word not in the first line the words, nm
der any Of the articles presented with other verbal
| ccpted tho amendment which agreed to.
fho asa Article having been re read Mr LDMUSDs
aud insert "by consent Of the senae-tabled without
M HESDRICkS Dem. Ind moved to insert tho
amendment made In regard to debate ON the
Mr. WILLIAMS offered amendment TO allow any
member Of the Court iii his written opinion any OF
| with the Secretary OF the Senate. Not agreed TO.
| Mr. HENDRICKS moved to insert an additional article
| as follows;
when the senate high q Impeachment 10 case IN
which The cef Justice preside sues Of hs foregoing ,cls, a.
| ikey shall have force
He contendod that these very important rules should be
that tho Chief Justice instead Of the possible successor TO
the Presidents position, should preside whom nes were
adopted which would govern tho HeeGh OF 'he Coi Jus
| tice, and OF the court on mpoItant points. a., G..
MT 6 M4T rG Sepo s cSsraesr $50 as 70 deprive it Of
the right to change rules made beforehand Tho Senate
was Competent to make rules for It's future government
m the trlal aud the individuals would vote at
| apy time v made no difference when such rules we're
| estabHshed.
| The amendment was not agreed TO.
| Tho Path article read
| Mr. CONKLING (Rep., N. " moved 20 strike out the
words sitting High Court Of Impeachment" where
ever they occurred. the ground that they not
usual and might to import that the Court OF lu-
peachment Is not the Senate.
After debate the amendment agreed tO23 10 u.
| Mr. McCREERY dem, KyJ moved 10 insert in tho
oath prescribed Rule a. after the words Constitution
and laws" the words OF the United States passed In pur