The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-04-16

A'teF 20 A!sl beca IN yall alter an ind.cnent Hd'!
''eh iound against him, written answer, ana
.ias IA Ms uclcncc l.at that anS Jcr may b, read.
'oi cniv tina huf he goes on 10 put n what every
body else SAID what lour or i've utli,r men slld,
...'u c.'i.iss i.at lt ulaJ h. 9YcA III eViIecc Al u
4 dos os 10 hnaw what the cabinet sad lct IA
members Of the Cah,ne be brought here, and let Va
cfoss'eNalnlhe them and nnd ort what lh"y meat
when theY gave this advice, ana how thcy came II
,5iNc H. ana unceg wnat p-cssaycs Blu. ~ prescrt
We 90 nol want iao President TO pat n The advice OF
NJ. Eyhgrs-nr. Chief Justice and senators every
case IS to he REGARDED according 70 lis c!rcInsacc,
AMI you whl }1dge whether q communication from
the senate to tAe pyesalcn. on the .2d OF rtbruary
cond We" nave been answered sooner than Inc 2lth
OF February.
air. BuTLEr--lt was communicated on the 2lst Of
February.
Mr, EvARTs-I understood you to say that you
could not state whether II was the 2lst or the 22d
MI. buTLsR-it was az ten O'Clock on the night OF
the 2st.
Ny. EvARTs-Very well; it was communicated at
ten O'Clock ON the night Of the 2lst OF FEBRUARY.
The Senate was not in session the 22d more than
an hour. II being holiday. Then. Sunday intefVen-
ing, ask whether an answer TO that commun'-
cation, sent OH Monday, the oath, is not answe
according to the ordinary course or prompt
and candid dealing between the President AMI
the senate concerning the matter in dinlcultyf AS
Tar as the smile about the President being in prison
goes, VIII remove that by saying that he was not
24tn; pnt we need not pursue these trivial istrl,
tons. The mater - u. Ec ...a.ls Of the court ana
must be disposed Of by the court. (. '
Mr.. BfHGRAM-l desire to say, once for all, that
have said no Word, ana intended TO say no word,
during the progress OF the trial that would Justify Vie
operation OF the counsel for the President In saying
tat we deny Them the right to make defence oi tnc
President. What l insist upon here, what ask the
Senate to act upon, is thai he shall make
OF the United States makes defence, according
to the law OF the land, and not otherwise; that nc
shall not, after the commission OF crime, man.''ac-
ture evidence in his own behalf either orally or IN
writing, by his own declaration, and incorporate into
them the declarations Of third persons. 1t has
never been allowed in any respectable court in this
country.
they never are permitted after the facts to manuic
ture testimony by their own declarations, ether
duce them into court OF justice have another
word to say in the light of what has dropped from
the lips OF counsel, that he has evaded most
make In the hearing OF the Senate, that here
Is an attempt to Introduce not only written decar
the fact but declarations OF third persons not under
oath. l venture to say that a proposition to the
extent OF this made before in any tribunal
Of justice IN the United States where any man was
accused OF crhne-a proposition not merely to give
hs own declarations but to report the declarations
before the court as evidence. The gentleman seems
to think that the President had right to send
message to the Senate of the United States which
should operate as evidence. l cOncede that the
President OF the United States has right, under the
constitution, 20 communicate from time to time to
the two houses Of Congress such matters as
and If he thinks this matter pertained to
the public interest he might send q message; but
deny that tnere Is any COlOraDle excuse. repeat
my words here for intimatlng that the President Of
the United States, being charged with the commits
sion Of crime the 21st OF February, 1865 being
proved guilty. undertake to say proved guilty by
his written confession to the satisfaction OF every
intelligent and appropriated mind, IN or out OF the
Senate, in this country-can proceed to manufacture
evidence in his own behalf In the form OF message
three days after the fact. That is the point that
make here. We are asked what Importance, then,
do we attach to the action Of the Senator answer,
that we attach precisely this importance to wit: That
the law of the land enoins upon the President OF the
United States the duty TO notify the Senate OF
the suspension OF officer and the reason therefor
and the evidence on which he made the suspension;
and the law OF the land enjons upon the Senate the
duty upon the report Of the President made
and to come to decision upon that report, and upon
the evidence accompanying 1t, in pursuance Of the
requirement OF the second section Of the Tenure OF
by ON almost unanimous decision, came to
the conclusion that the reasons furnished by
for the suspension Of the Secretary Of War were
unsatisfactory. In accordance with the law the
Senate non-concnrred IN the suspension. The law
shall notify the President The law by every intend
ment provides that If the Senate non-concur they
shall notify the Secretary of War, that he may in
forthwith resume the functions OF his ONCE, from
which he was suspended The Senate in this case
did give that notice. Why should IL not also notify
the Executive, that he might know with whom
TO communicate and that he might no longer
communicate with Secretary Of War al
interim. The gentleman, trust, is answered
to the importance and prOprety OF our
introducing this evidence But there was another
for IL: 1t was to leave the President without
excuse before the Senate and before the people for
persistng in his unlawful attempt in violating law
OF the land and executing the duties OF the Office OF
Secretary Of War through another person than
Edwin NJ Stanton. 1t was his business TO submit to
the final decision OF the Senate whether the suspen-
sion should become absolute or should he rejected.
But here is man defining the action Of the Senate,
de,ying the express letter Of the law that the
had refused to concur, should forthwith resume
his functions; proceeding with his conspiracy
with Thomas to confer the functions of that oce on
another regardless OF the law regulating the tenure
OF Office regardless Of the constitution regardless Of
his oath, and regardless Of the rights Of the Amer
can peopie; and he winds up the farce by coming
before the senate with his written declaration, which
is Of no higher authority than his oral declarations
made three days after the fact aud he asks the Sen
ate to consider that as evidence.
The CHIEF JUsTIcE-SenatOrs there Is no branch
OF the law where there Is difficulty to lay down
precise rules than that which regards the intent with
which an act II DONE In the present 1t appears
that the Senate, on the 2lst OF February, passed
resolution which will take the liberty Of reading:-
Whereas the Senate have received considered
muncaton OF the President stating that he had removed
stanton Secretary Of War; and had designated the Adu
tant General Of the Army 70 act Secretary OF War al
Resolved by the Senate of the United States That, under
has the Secretary War to desig
nate any other officer TO perform the duties Of that
That resolution was adopted on the 2ist Of Feb.
ruary, and was served on the evening OF the same
day. The message now proposed to be offered In
evidence was sent to the Senate on the oath Of Feb
ruary. IL does not appear to the Chief Justice that
the resolution Of the Senate called for an answer
and therefore the Chief Justice must regard the
sage OF the oath Of February vindicaion OF the
Presidents act addressed " the Senate 1t does
appear to the Chief Justice that that comes within
any OF the rules OF evidence which would justify
being received In evidence on this trial. The Chief
Justice, however, Will take the views Of the Senate
In regard TO 1t.
No vote being called for the Chief Justice ruled the
evidence inadnissibe.
Mr. CURTIS then offered TO put In evidence tabu-
lar statement, compiled at the Office OF the Attorney
General, containing list Of executive officers OF the
United states, with their statutory terms or act OF
Congress creating the Office, the or title of the
ONCE, showing whether the tenure was for definite
term, ut the pleasure Of the President or for term
indefinite. He said that OF course 1t was not strictly
evidences; but IL had been compiled as a matter OF
convenience, and he desired to have IL printed so
that 1t might he used In argument by counsel on
both sides.
After some objection and interlocutory remarks by
Mr.. BUTLER the paper was, motion Of Senator
TRvMBuLL- ordered to lie printed part OF the
proceedings.
Mr.. CURTIS then offered in evidence papers In the
case OF the removal OF Mr. Pickering by President
Adams. rcmarkinu that IL