The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-04-14
IMPRACHM ENT,
CONTINUED FROM THIID PAGE.


under which Lorenzo Thomas was arrestedi A.
Yes, sir tproducing papersh -,
o. The original papert A. The original paper.
O. Did you aiix the seal OF the court TO the war;
o. on what dayq A. on the 92a of February last
o. Al what hour OF the day A. IL was between
two and three O'Clock on the morning or that DAY.
o. Al what placer a. AT the Clerks ONCE.
o. Who brought that warrant to your A. don't
know the gentleman who brought II TO me; he said
that he was member OF Congress-hr Pie, OF Mis-
O. lie brough, IT to your house at that hour OF the
o. And You went then to the Clerks onices A. l
went then TO the Clerks oice ana aihXed he seal.
q. To whom did you deliver the warrantf A. To
o. The Marshal was not there at that timer A.
q. Have you got the warrant thereP A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you bring the am iavit upon which II was
founded, or ana you get that afterwardss A. ! be-
Q. Is that the aIiidavit Showing papers)9 A. That
Mr.. BUTLER latter examining the paper-Mr
President before the counsel for the President offer
the af1davit and warrant in evidence, would like
the wness) You say that you affixed the seal
about two O'Clock in the morning, II l understand
yOu9 A. Between two and three O'Clock in the
q. You were called upon to get up and do thats A.
Twas.
and when Is necessary to stop the further progress
OF the crime, that is not unusual2 A. Where 1t was
necessary to prevent crime have done the same
thing In habeas corpus cases and In one replevin
case, think.
Q. Where it is matter of consequence do you do
o. It is nothing unusual for you to do that in such
cases? A. II is unusual; have done It.
BY Mr.. STANBERY-IIave you been often called
upon to do itS A. Only in extreme cases.
Mr.. BUTLER-I have the honor 10 object to the
warrant and AFFIDAVIT OF Mr. Stanton. do not think
Mr.. Stanton can make testimony against the Pres-
dent or for him by any affidavit he can put in In any
proceeding between HIM and Lorenzo Thomas. do
not think the warrant Is relevant this case in any
form The fact that Thomas was arrested can be
shown, and that is all. The affidavit upon which he
was arrested is certainly res inter alias. That is
matter between Thomas and the President, and this
Is between Thomas and Stanton and in no view is
pertinent or relevant to this case or competent In
any form so far as am instructed.
Mr.. EvARrs-Mr. Chief Justice the arrest OF Cen
eral Thomas has been shown in the testimony, and
Hse force To- aEe m " he ts ce
now propose to show what that arrest was in the
form and substance by the authentic documents o.
AZ through the warrant and the aildlvit on which II
was based. The anidavit Of course docs not prove
the facts stated In it, but the proof OF the aldav
show the facts upon which as judicial foundation
the warrant proceeded. We then propose to follow
this opening by showing how it took place and how
the efforts were made in behalf Of General Thomas
by habeas corpus to force the question to determi
nation III the supreme Court OF the United States.
Mr.. BuTLER-l understand If this affidavit goes In
at oil 1t Is then evidence of all that stated, they
have right to put 1t in.
Mr.. EvAKTs--iou have right to your own con-
Mr.. BUTLER-Not from the conclusions; but think,
nothing more clearly shows that cannot be evidence
than that fact Now, this was not an attempt OF the
PRESIDENT TO get TINS matter before tile court 10
an attempt OF Mr.. Stanton to protect himself nom
violence which had been threatened before. This
was made at night Stanton was informed, If we
may Judge from the evidence, OF the threats made TO
Messrs Wilkinson and Burleigh, and the threats
made at Wizards Hotel. Beng informed of It, lie
did not know at what hour this man might bring his
n, ,T,ed 70 protect himself How that relieves
arrested Tnomas, or Thomas arrested Stanton, Is
more than can see. Suppose Stanton had not ar
not guilty herey suppose he did arrest him, does il
show that he Is guilty. Is 1t not res inter olias-
The arrest to show what efect it had upon his crime
MI EvARTs-lt has already been put IN proof by
General Thomas that he went TO the court upon this
arrest; he saw the President and tCld him OF his
arrest and that the President Immediately replied
thai that was as he wished it to beto get the ques.
tion In the courts. Now, propose TO show that this
Is the question that was IN the court-to wit the
question Of the criminality of q person accused
under this Civil Tenure act-and then propose TO
sustain the answer Of the President and also the
sincerity and substance OF this his statement, already
IN evidence, that This proceeding having been com
menced, az II was by Mr. stanton, against General
Thomas, was immediately taken hold OF The speedi-
est and most rapid mode, through habeas corpus in
which the President or General Thomas, acting in
that behalf would be the actor In order TO bring at
once before the Supreme Court OF the District the
ment under an act claimed to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
with an immediate opportunity OF appealing 10 the
Supreme Court OF the United states, then IN session.
determination OF the question.
Mr. BUTLER-An1 whenever that is proposed to be
shown l propose TO show that Thomas was dis
charged IRON arrest upon motion by his own
counsel and therefore the Senate win be travelling
into the question OF various facts taking place Ma
another court. l have not yet heard any OF the
learned counsel say that this does not come within
che rule OF res inter alds-facts done between other
parties.
Mr.. EvARrs-I did not think 1t necessary.
Mr.. BUTLBR-Perhaps that would be good answer;
but whether 1t Ia necessary or not, Is IL not SOY Is
there lawyer anywhere that does not understand
and does not know that proceedings between two
other persons after crime as committed were never
brought into case TO show that the crime was not
comnlttedf Did he see that affldavtY Never. Did
his name was carried into court under process
lie never saw paper, he did not know what was
the evidence but Thomas went and told him, ''They
It TO bc-in tho courts.n This affidavit OF Mr.
Stanton is excellent reading 1t shows the terror
and alarm of this good District OF Columbus
when ut night men well known 10 he men of CONT
nency and sobriey, representing important districts
In Congress saw IL was their duty 70 call upon the
venerable clerk OF the court at night to get war.
rant and take immediate means TO prevent the con.
summation OF this crime. lt shows the terror aud
ALARM that the unauthorized, illegal and criminal
acts OF this respondent produced That Is all in it
undoubtedly; that II all IN the affdavit undOubt-
edly-all that can be shown. And then we have
before the Senate this appeal 10 the laws OF Mr. STAN
ton which this respondent never asked either before
or since. Although furnished with ali the panoply or
attack or defence In his Attorney General, he never
brought writ OF quo scdrranto or any process.
All that might appear we should be compelled
10 have Il in provided IL docs not open up into re.
Rions Of uneNpored, uncertain, dilusc improper
evidence upoa collateral issues II YOU are ready 10
60 into IL am but say IL does not belong 10 this
case. think we can make quite much OF IL as they
can, but II Is no portion of this case. It Is not the
Act OF the President; 1t has nothing TO do with the
President, The President never saw these papers
IL Is not evidence What stanton aud Thomas aid
they themselves must answer
Mr.. STAsDERY-Mr. chief JuNice and Senators
there arerwo grounds upon which we ask the al
missouof this Cvldc1ce. First OF all, II IL claimed
by the Managers, from what is already In evidence
mark that Is already ia eydenceoi the declaration
of the President that he made the removal to bring
the question VI that law 10 the OF the
courts. That IL already IN evidence but az 10 that
the Managers say that IL 10 all preence u subler.
Jugc.
- Mr.. BUTLEB--Whercn evidcncep
MIR. STANBERy-ln the speech of the honorable
Manager who opened this case
MI. BUTLbR--lf you put my speech In evidence !
have no objection.
Mr. STANBKgy--And here the gentleman has re-
<pcated that THIS Is oil prcence, that IT IS subter.