The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1868-04-02
CONGRESSIONAL.
WASHINGTON, April l.
SENATE.

1 III
on the question of retiring for deliber-
alton, when Mr.. Sumner made motion
to correct the journal by inserting Eek
preston of the Senate that the said vote
of the Chief Justice was unauthorized
and of no effect" On this motion he
demanded the yeas and nays, which
were taken. Yeas 81; nays "a. So the
motion was disagreed to. $500,
The question as TO the admlssibllity
Of Mr.. Burleigh's testimony about the
conversation between Generals Grant
and Thomas, was submitted to the Sen
ate by the Chief Justice.
| Before q vote was taken, Mr.. Ere
linohuysen inquired if the Managers
in tended to connect the testimony OF
the witness with that of the cOrrespon-
dent. A.
Mr.. Butler answered in the afhrma'
tive. when an argument ensued.
Mr.. Strawberry then arose and said that
! the Court had at length reached do
main of law on q question requiring
careful consideration and argument.
He stated the question to be whether
or rot the declarations of General
Thomas were to be used against the
President, though not proven to be au-
thorized by him. 1t is alleged that the
gravamen of the offence charged IN the
first three articles consists Ill the lssu-
ing by the President of the letter OF au-
thorify to General Thomas. In the
fourth article the offence charged Is
conspiracy with General Thomas to OBJ
tain bv force and intimidation the Of
flee of Secretary of War. These were
the only articles whose consideration
was now necessary. AS yet, we have
no proof of anything said by the Presl-
dent before or after giving this letter OF
authority. The purpose OF the present
attempt was to show the Presidents
| intent in issuing it by the production
of irrelevant testimony about the re-
marks made by General Thomas with
ont authorization by the President.
The Presidents intent could be shown
only by the orders themselves. The Or
der and letter of authority given to
Gle neral Thomas did not make him
gene raj agent of the President. They
authorized him to do only certain specific
| things when a proper foundation OF
proof of conspiracy Is laid; then
| declarations of enc of the supposed
conspiratorS may be deemed TO lmpI-
cate an other in this instance. No such
foundation of proof has been laid, even
if it were admitted, which he denied,
that the letter of authority constituted
a relation between the President and
| General Thomas, of principal and gen
eral agent; it could not be maintained
that the letter was in itself proof
of conspiracy, the nature OF
the order was according to the usual
formula to designate an office known to
the law; to execute the duties OF an
office established by law. 1t would not
he asserted that all stlicers appointed
bv the President became his special or
general agents. The President and his
appoiptee were alike officers and re-
sponsible to laws. The Managers say
they expect hereafter to show cohnec-
ton between the declaration OF General
Thomas and the respondent.
Mr.. Butler-I did not say hereafter.
Mr.. Stanbery-Did you say you done
| il heretofore!
Mr.. Butler-NO.
Mr.. Stanbcry-Then if you expect TO
dc it you must do it hereafter, and ell
Their meant what you did not say, or
said what you did not mean. he went
on claiming it to be an unprecedented
attempt to build superstructure before
laying the foundation.
Mr.. Butler replied. He said the ar
gument of the respondent counsel seem
ed to show that they felt that the ques'
ton involved might decide their cases
The Managers claimed that the Presl'
dent had long intended to violate GER
tain law. He called to his aid G9ner'
al of the army. He then gave an order
to Mr.. Thomas to take possession OF the
War Office, which the counsel said was
in the usual form. He claimed that II
was not true. He had certain ear
marks about it which showed an uHu-
sual intent. The wording was 'you
WIN immediately tako possession"
Mr.. Stanton, when he first yielded, as
he said, to superior force, after his rein
statement, he was more strongly forti-
fed, and no man not besotted could be-
lieve he would again yield, except to
superior force. The President could not
have expected him to yield otherwise.
The President intended to do an unlaw-
full act, and Mr.. Thomas consented to
aid him. Thus a conspiracy was con-
stituted on this ground. The Managers
claimed their right to introduce the
testimony oil the question. They also
claimed it on the ground of the relation
existing between the President and
General Thomas of the principal and
| agent of the commission to do just
what the President wanted him to do,
rise to obtain possession of the War
Office. The declaration of General
Thomas was about the common objec-
tions made toa man whose support he
was trying to secure. No objection
was made by the counsel yesterday to
the introduction of testimony relating
to what was done by Thomas in the War
Department. The President was not
there.
Mr.. Stanbery-General Thomas was
then acting within his authority.
Mr.. Butler continued and led au.
thorities to support his views regarding
the ad INSTABILITY of the declarations in
proof of a conspiracy made by one con.
SpiratOr in the absence of another. He
proce eded to state that they proposed t.
show through evidence under discus.
sion that General Thomas Intended to
use force and was prevented by the ar.
rest. He referred to the remark of Mr.
Stanbery that they had now reached
! points of law worthy to be argued by
lawyers to lawyers. They had already
had questions worthy of debate by
statesmen to statesmen, and he (Butler,
protested against narrowing the subject
down TO the argument of attorneys
Mr.. Curtis rejoined it was sufficient
objection 20 the first part of the ques-
tion to be submitted that the evil
dence sought to be introduced was i'm
material charges in issue whether made
by competent or incompetent witness.
1t was also an objection that the dec
laration bearing on the question of
what was the Presidents intent had not
been made on oath by witness shown
to come within or recognized by the ex-
captions to the rule in brief No de-
claratiof of Mr.. Thomas could
show the Presidents intent and if
any could they must have been
made as sworn testimony. The
Managers claimed to have shown
there was conspiracy to remove Mr..
Stanton by force, whereas the only
| pyidenca they had nrasantad woS On