New-York tribune., 1868-04-16

does not appear 1t only appears that so"cpou' We" P
Mr. JOHNsON-Are'the dates given I, On ,ba
Mr. BuTLER-The dates are given IN .ils WI! them ON
18th of December such person was removed teh V
the 5h Of January, Johnson was informed tis g.fe
appointed He must have been n0nlnaed 70 ne ~ he was
before that Nonconstdf, he nominated II nc N',
then Of what value is this And then Johnson "iS 0
the voyage and on the 29h OF April aGe one because
they have not given the record. Who mas any cJh
10 make memoranda from the record as S'ioene1
before the senatei And the certificate says: Inc Mo
"copy stricken out and written III, Is trne VIII
somebody else chose TO make never heard tnat ny
body had right 10 come In and certify %
from record and put 1t in evidence That Is one paper
Then again, in the next paper although 10 alleges they
copies OF record from the Office they are letters
about the appointment and removal Of oiheers-navy
agents Again being so removed and appointed, only
portion Of the correspondence Is given when nominations
the other side chose TO leave them but whoever pre-
pared this for them has chosen to leave out the material
Others were Now, the question is, whether you
going to take certificate from the records, wsnt s
that all these appointments contained III these Papels
and all they have offered are by the act oi tue e IS O
states for four years all District Attorneys Coee.cs o
Customs &c. providing That they s pc created he8
And the counsel going to show that under ISe
pleasure hut not the manner OF their removal and then
they attempted to show that by memoranda naue up ~
Edgar NJ. Weles, and certified by Gideon "ees' lha'
Mr. CuRTIs-I understand the substance Of the obiee
tion made to these documents, to be two. The first
objection Is that these only memoranda from tle
records and said that it Is not proper to addnee i
evidence such statements OF results mace iIOul tlo
records that instead Of giving paper containing the
name OF the officer the Office that is held the date When
removed there should he extended copy OF the entire
act and all the papers relating to It. Now, IN Lhe
first place. / wish the Senate TO call to mind that
the only document Of this character relating 10
removals from Office which has been put in by the hono
able Managers, is document from the Department oI
state which contains exactly those memoranda OF facts
ead schedule B. List Of nx m GI eehGs dSES 81
the session OF the Senate Timothy Pickering, Posi-.
masterGeneral June l dhS ~ th ne. sretaTv of
the records Of the Department 9i the seeisy& & OI
State containing the OF the officers the once theE
held the date when they were removed ana tne ed
y by which they were removed III Is shpS 9%GluHGa %
by the Secretary OF State. This is gpy when hoa ~
WAS wa eertided. It il in evidence, and l think
it will be found to be simply letter from the seere.aiy
Department these facts, and not any formal ceite.te
H. however the SeDate should think that IL absolutely
10 require this certificate Of the copies of the entire acts
instead Of taking the names dates and other particulars
most convenient which ertaihy takes up less time and
space than the other would We must apply Ior ana oo
it which We must remove We propose when ws We
have closed the offer OF ihs species Oh ronn pITSl:
officer to make certificate from lts
records from the bcgnng 70 dne ea & Tl an t
That is what shall call for ut the proper une ana
TINT viii snnpy that part OF the difficulty which the gen
tcman suggests The other part Is that IL does not APP
pear that the President did not follow up these removals
by the proper nominations wen, " % 1OTs % hot pr nr.n
did follow them up iy Immediate nominations he viii
a, met from which this statement comes, furnish
such thing Therefore, that objection 10 giOuhdless;
MIR BIfTI.ER said that the Presidents counsel had
Judged wen that when the Managers had taken any par
tcnar course that must be the right 0ne te one WHICH
inc, ought 70 follow The Managers would certainly ae-
cent s heinz the last xprc sou they
cened But the difficulty WAS that he Butleil had asker
them II they objected TO the testimony ~ question, aud
thcv made no objection IL they had, he might have
formal. They went 10 the wrong s1uIces oI
evidence Those things to be sought for only Ia the
state Department, where appeared all the circumstances
connected with the removal or appointment 0t an oueef
y and with the advice and consent OF the Senate ana
toy could have got all those particulars there, precisely
as given In the Of Mr.. Pickering
Mr.. CURrIs-Does the honorable Manager nnderstana s
that under the laws Of tho United states all oi these
must be commissioned by the secretary OIL stte,
the facts appear IN his detrtmehl, lneluins
officers Of the Interior, the Treasury, ana Navy Depart
Sir BUTLER-with the single exception Of the Treas
ury do and 10 will appear. Mr. Butler proceeded 10
sny tat inc .onssois oi iI Se Nv bcsn found in The
state Department. II t was mere matter Ci IOrh, nc
would nothing about IT, and If the counsel would say
thar they would put IN the exact dates OF te noihs
TONS he would have no objection luS'eau Vi
srtiop ar '' ieayng the prosecution to look up
rect Of it, lie quoted from Brightleys Dlgts that an
and Post Once Departments and the Attorney Generals
office may be copied. aud certified under seal as III I e
STATE Department. with the same force and eject THIS
law of Feb ~ s4 referred 10 that In regard To the See
RETRY of State which was dated Sept l5 ls ana %ac
made such copies OF records, when properly cetned'
LEGAL evidence equally with the original paper IL gave
mo- right 10 make extracts like these-whch were the
record-to tho Clerk OF that Department . .
Tie CHIEFJUSTICE said that he would submit the
PScpa,"r HENDRICKs asked whether the Managers
objected on the ground that the papers should oe sven
u fun so far they relate 10 any particular question:
Mr.. BUTLER replied In the affirmative ,
Mr.. CoNKLNG sent the following question on 10 Tue tne
any statute other than that referred tor .s
Mr. CURTIS said that they did not mean that any ON
Ger was authorized To say what lie pleased evidence
They did offer these documents as copies OF iecorus
relating TO the named In the documents themselves
a
Mr. EDMCNDS asked whether the evidence was Of
fered as touching question final conclusion oi ict
or merely giving the Senate the history OF the practice
Mr. CURTIs-Entirely for the last purpose.
Mr. BUTLER said If tins evidence did not 60 10 any
sir CURTIS would say. to prevent misapprehension,
that it went to matters Of practice under the i| N wa
object that II is not proper evidence , +. -,
Sir. EVARTs thought it might be of service to call
attention record in regard to the letter OF the sec
retary OF State put in evidence by the Managers lie
the letter heretofore published IN regard 10 the APP
pOintment OF heads OF departments
MIR HOWARD submitted the following question;
DO the counsel rtga The memoranda Is sss syea's Oi TINS
Mr. CURTIS replied that the documents were not mn
copies OF any record and We're not thereloe, stre'y
legal evidence for any purpose; they were extracts o
evidence fIOm the records by way Oh lusualloh' he
ase HENDERSON By direction Of The President removed from
the ome OF Nav AeaI al and setsa 20 % 70
That was not offered 10 prove the merits and causes OF
the removal but simply TO show the practice OF the Coy
ernmen under the laws Instead Of putting in the whole
Of the documents IN the case they lad taken the only
fact OF any importance the inquiry Should the Senate
decide To adhere TO the technical rule OF evidence the
for the President must to the records and nave
them copied in full.
Mr. BOUTWELL, said that IL the counsel did not prove
the document, IL did not prove any record The first
thing o prove practice to prove one or more cases
under IT, The vital objection 70 this evidence was that II
related 10 class Of officers navy agents, who were then
and are appointed under special provision OF the law
creating the Office ana which takes them entirely out OF
the line OF precedents for the purposes OF this trial
Mr.. CURTIS remarked that the counsel might have
been under Misrepresentation respecting the views or
the Managers conducting this prosecution, but they
supposed that the Managers meant to attempt to
maintain that. II Stanton at the time when lie was
removed held at the pleasure OF the President even II
he WAS within the Tenureof Office act nasmuch as