Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-04-14
LATEST KILOGRAMS.
MIDNIGHT DISPATCHES.
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDSNGs.
Senate.

the court TO be on motion of allowing as
many managers and counsel 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.
Several amendments relative to the
members who should close the length of
time to be occupied by each, were made.
Mr. Stanbery said the counsel for the de-
Tense were strongly opposed to the limita-
ton of time. In the final argument Mr..
Butler intimated that he would not take
advantage of the chance to speak.
Mr.. Eyarts said that the result of the
proposition as it now stood would give six
managers against four counsel on the clos
ing argument.
Mr.. Drake raised point of order that
the Senate, sitting as Court, could not
take such action. The point was overruled
and the vote then taken, resulting 80 TO l0
so the rule remains unchanged.
The examination of Gen. Sherman was
resumed and Mr.. Stanbery asked, if after
the restoration of Mr.. Stanton did YOU form
an opinion as to the durability, or as to
the good Of the service of the Office
of Secretary of War being filled by another
than Stanton? If so, did you express
your opinion to the President?
Mr.. Stanbery replied that the question
of intent was of vital importance. They
did not offer this testimony as an abstract
opinion but az the judgment formed and
expressed by the second officer in the SER
vice. For its good he referred to the re-
lations existing between the President and
Mr.. Stanton, and claimed it was competent
to prove that distinguished Generals like
Grant or Sherman believed change should
be made. In the interest of the govern
ment he appealed earnestly to the Senate
for the sake of justice to admit the evil
dence.
Mr.. Butler rejoined, that by the intro
duction of irrelevant testimony the law
would be broken; TO defend breaking of
law, he said, there would be no limit TO in
quiries which would be put to the witness.
The managers could ask him if he had
quarrel with Mr.. Stanton so that the field
could be boundless. 1t seemed to be as
sumed by the other side that the evil in
tent mnst be proved by something the
President had said wherein as 1t was
proved by his act in breaking the act it
was also immaterial whether Stanton wasa
f! man or not to be retained in Office. Evil
could not be done, that good might
come. Referring to a remark of Mr..
Stanbery, that Mr.. Stanton did not
take part in Cabinet councils. He said
such thing was not contemplated by the
Constitution. Members of the Cabinet
were to be called on for advice respecting
the affairs Of their own departments The
President must show that he ever called
on Stanton for a written opinion, or that he
had given him an order which he had dis
obeyed.
Senator Conkling inquired if the coun-
sci proposed to prove that Gen. Sherman
had advised the President TO procure a
change in any particular way?
Mr. Stanbery replied in the negative;
witness had only expressed an opinion as
to the desirability of some change.
Mr. Evsrts said twas not merely ques-
ton of having committed violation of
law, which was punishable in another
court by so small a penalty as six cents
fine or few days imprisonment, but it was
question of commission of an improbable
ofense, punishable by deposition from the
highest Office to which question all evidence
relating to the motive was of the most vital
importance.
Mr.. Bingham held that the rules OF evil
dence were the same in the trial of beggar
or a President.
Mr.. Evarts interrupted him to say he
had in his remarks supposed the Presi-
dent to be on trial for petty offense, and
repealed the insinuatiOn that he would mete
out justice according TO rank.
MIR. Bingham continued in an earnest
appeal against the admission of the testi-
mony, and at the conclusion, the yeas and
nayswere taken, and resulted, yeas 10, nays
So so it was not admitted.
Mr.. johnson offered question whether,
before the removal of Stanton, he had adj
vised the President that he should be re-
moved and replaced
The Chief Justice said the court must
decide whether the question should be put,
aud the Senate decided in the negative
Is to 80. Mr.. Stanbery then said he had
no more questions to ask General Sher-
man. The managers then declined to
cross-examine and the court took recess
at 2l0 P. NJ On reassembling X. Ct.
Meigs, Clerk of the District Supreme Court,
testified. He affixed the seal to the war
rant for the arrest of Gen. Thomas abont
two o'clock on the morning of February
22d. Mr.. Pile of Missouri, brought it to
him at his house. In answer to Mr.. But
Ter, he said he had been called on at home
before in cases of pressing necessity. Mr..
Stanbery then offered to put in as evil
dence the warrant and affidavit of Mr..
Stanton on which it was issued. Mr.. But
Ter objected 10 the reception. Mr.. Evarts
said they related to the same subject on
which the managers had introduced testi-
mony, and that the Presidents counsel in
tended to show that he took advantage of
the proceedings commenced shy Mr.. Stan
ton as the speediest method of bringing
the question before the Supreme Court.
Mr.. Curtis argued that the effect of in
Producing the papers would bring up new
questions Of controversy irreyelant to the
case.
Mr.. Stanbery referred to the fact that the
declaration of Gen. Thomas had been adj
mitted az the declarations of the President
to prove his design in employing force,
and went on to recite circumstances attend
ing the discharge Of General Thomas,
which he said they would show
wss in order to prevent the President from
testing the question. The evidence would
hHOh AAaa oNAs AheAhao naS Ibt EkdihCu
az great criminal by those who procured
his arrest.
Mr. Butler rejoined, when the Chief JUS
tice ruled that the warrant and affidavit
were admissible, and on taking the yeas
and nays, his ruling was sustained by "a
to II.
Mr.. Evaris read the document, and Mr..
Stanbery resumed the examination.
The Warran; was issaed in the Cham
bers: has not the docket book with him.
Mr.. johnson then offered to put the
following question to General Sherman:
When the President rendered you the Of
fee of Secretary of War ad interim, Janu-
airy 9th, 1858, did he at the time of max
ing such tender state what his purpose
WASP
The question was objected TO, and sub
mitted to the Senate-yess %, nays %
So the question was put and answered,
Yes.
Mr.. johnson then offered an additional
aaestion. Will You state what he said
his purpose was Il Objected TO, when the
Chief Justice ruled that the question was
admissible, as il tended 10 show the i'm
port Of the Presidents action, and Ia eI-
pressing his opinion remarked that this
court was not bound by the same restric-
tive rules in admitting the evidence as Of