The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1868-04-20
CONGRESSIONAL.
WASHINGTON, April Is.
SENATE.
az IL n,nlnnE

By direction of the Chief Justice the
question pending yesterday was read,
as follows: =.
We, the counsel for the President, of.
fer to provo that the President, at a
meeting of the Cabinet, while the bill
was before the Senate for his approval,
laid before the Cabinet the tenure-of-
effce act for their consideration and adj
vice to the President respecting his APP
proyal 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 Objec-
tions, and that the duty of preparing q
message setting forth the objections to
the constitutionaiity of the bill was de-
yolvedl upon Mr.. Seward and Mr.. Stan
ton, to be followed up by proof of what
was done by the President and Cabinet
up to tine time of the sending OF the
message by the President.
Manager Wilson rose to speak, when
Senator johnson submitted the follow
ing question to the counsel of the Presl-
dent in writing:
do the counsel understand that
the Managers deny that the state
ment made by the President in his mes
, sage of December 18th, 1867, in the evil
dence given by the Managers on page
As, No. 9 of the official report of the
trial, that the members of the Cab
met gave the opinion last stated OH the
tenure-of- office act, and is the evidence
offered to corroborate their statement,
or for what other purpose is it OfferedE"
Senator Howard submitted this ques-
ton to the Presidents counsel:
''Do counsel for the accused not consider
that the validity of the tenure,of-oflice
bill was purely q question of law, To be
determined in this trial by the Senate.
If so, do they consider that the opinion
of the Cabinet officers touching that
question is competent evidence by
which the judgment of the Senate ought
TO be influencedf"
Senator Edmunds asked whether the
argument on the part of the Managers
might not be considered while the
counsel were considering the questions3
The Chief Justice replied in the af-
hrmative, and Mr.. Curtis said they
would prefer that course.
Mr.. Wilson, speaking from manu-
scripts, argued on behalf of the MAN.
ayers that the testimony was irrelevant,
for the reason that advice from MEM
bers of the Cabinet has no weight, eX-
cept in reference TO matter relating
exclusively to their own Departments,
and that if it had, the advice given in
this instance was not given at the time.
He then went into the general question
&c 10 ~ l,n iyn
and legislative branches, maintaining
at great length that the checks within
the power OF the Executive to impose
upon the legislative branch were eX-
hausted by exercise of his veto prero-
gatiye, whereas, on the other hand, his
acts were subject to the supervision of
the two houses of Congress, whose
measures he was required to carry out.
In support of his position that the
law-making power is supreme, Mr.. Will
son cited numerous authorities. He re-
ferred TO cases in English history,
where the King himself had deferred to
the will of Parliament. He held that If
the President had the right to challeRge
the laws of Congress. his su6ordinatss
could call in question the orders of the
President, and anarchy would ensue.
Recapitulating, he said the President
could not assume the prerOgatiVes of q
King, who could do no wrong, and con-
sequently could not shelter himself be-
bind responsibility of his minister.
Mr.. Curtis declined to follow the hon
orable Manager, in anticipating Ques-
tions which were n mt subject only
for final argument, but would cGntine
himself to the point at issue. He pro-
ceeded to claim that tbs testimony
bearing on questions of intent was call
ed for in rebuttal of the allegations of
p the articles, which charged evil intent
and wilful violation Of the Constitution.
The honorable Manager had argued an
hour on this assumption, to show that
the question of intent was immaterial.
In the face of this fact, Mr.. Curtis said
that several articles, not yet with
drawn, make the question Of intent the
gravamen of their charge.
In answer to Mr.. Towards question
he said: The members of the Cabinet
would DO placed on the stand, not as eX-
perts in constitutional law, but to prove
that they advised the President to q
course of action which the counsel
claim will thereby purge him of the
charge of malice.
Replying to Mr.. johnson, Mr.. Curtis
stated that they did not understand the
Managers to deny the assertion in the
Presidents message that he had been
advised by his Cabinet in the matter,
and wished to produce 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 were taken and re-
suited 20 to 20. So the decision of the
Chief Justice was overruled aud the
evidence was not admitted.
Mr.. Welles, Secretary of the Navy, was
then recalled and the counsel proposed
to ask him whether the question of the
applicability of the tenure of office bill
to Mr.. Stanton was considered in the
Cabinet meeting previous to its return
with the objections of the President.
and whether an opinion was expressed
that the law did not apply te 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
reference to the construction, not the
constitutionality of the law, and held
that it was admissible for other rea.
sons.
Mr.. Butler read from the veto mes
sage to show that the President vetoed
the bill on the ground that it did not
apply to all the members of his Cab
met. He also held that the President
did nOtpretend to believe that Mr.. Stan
ton would acquiesce in his removal, be-
cause he felt himself not covered by the
law. The President put it on the ground
of cowardice.
Mr.. Eyarts referred to the portions of
the message read by Mr.. Butler, and
said they made part of general argu-
ment as 30 the constitutionality of the
bill, and had no reference to the special
case ofPresident Johnson's Cabinet.
The Chief Justice submitted the ques-
tion to the Senate, and the evidence
was refused admission-22 to 26.
Mr.. Eyarts then asked the witRess if
at any Cabinet meeting held between
the time of the passage of the tenure-of-
Office bill and the removal of Mr.. STAN