Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-04-13


ter's removal. =
Mr.. STANBERY asked-What CONVEX
sation took place between you and the
President on the 14th of January in regard
to Stanton's removal?
The managers objected, when the Chief
Justice ruled that the question was admis-
sable, and decision by the Senate was
called for, but before the yeas and nays
were taken, Mr. Stanbery said he regarded
the testimony sought to be introduced as
vital to the case, and went on to remind the
Court that the managers had introduced
much testimony in an effort to raise pre-
sumption of criminal intent on the part of
the President-testimony relating to events
q which occurred months before the 21st of
February, and argued that his counsel had
an equal right to bring forward rebutting
testimony in order to prove the Presidents
honest intention. In support of his posi-
tion he quoted at length from reports of
the State trials of Hardy and Lord Gordon,
and claimed that decisions then made were
precedents to determine the present ques-
ton. s eFnF -Ea
Mr.. BUTLER rejoined, saying the man.
ayers, in attempting to introduce Mr.. Coop
er's testimony, sought to prove acts, not
conversations. In the course of his re-
marks he referred to Gen. Thomas as a
weak, vascillating old man, hampered by
little pride and tit to be tool. He said
the counsel had tried to influence the Sem
ate by reading simple argument oflawyers,
and claiming authority. and this attempt
he characterized as unprofessional
Mr.. STANBERY called on the Chief
Justice TO put stop to such asperations of
his conduct, stating that he read arguments
only as explaining decisions made. -
MIR. BUTLER resumed and spoke at
length with more than his usual vehemence,
arguing that the rules of evidence re-
hected on Stanbery and Thomas, and
claiming, in conclusion, that the Senators
: were law unto themselves. ..
y Mr.. EVARTS quoted from the records of
trial to show that Butler had assumed the
same position and done the same things
that he now denounced as unprofessional.
Mr.. Evarts went into the merits of the
question. He cited and commented on
numerous charges made in the articles
which imputed evil intention to the Presi-
dent, and arg aed the admissibility of the
question on considerations of law, reason
and justice.
When he finished the Senate took a re-
cess.
On reassembling, Mr.. WILSON read
from the report OF Hardy. that the position
taken by Butler was correct, and insisted
that a declaration of the President might
have been made solely with the purpose of
concealing his intent. The effect of put
ting Stanton out would have heen to pre-
vent him from applying to the courts, so a
decision could not have been reached.
The CHIEF JUSTICE restated his opin-
ion that the question was admissible under
the ruling of yesterday, because like that
asked yesterday, its purpose was to elicit
testimony regarding the intent of the
President. A conversation occurring
shortly before the commission of an act
was as admissible as TINT concerning what
took place afterwards-eyen more SO. The
yeas and nays were taken. and resulted
n q w
Mr.. STANBERY then asked MIR. Sher-
man: What do you know about creating
the Department of the Atlantic?
Mr.. BUTLER said there would be no OBJ
lection, provided the Chief Justice would
instruct the witness not to give hearsay
evidence.
Mr.. STANBERY declined to give assur-
ance that the witness would not be ques-
toned about what the President had said.
The Chief Justice submitted the question
of admissabiity, and the Senate, without
division, decided in the negative.
Mr.. STANBERY then asked it the Presi-
dent had tendered him the office of Secre-
tary OF War ad interim.
Mr.. BUTLER objected. Stanbery repli-
ed, and Butler rejoined that it was an at
tempt to bring in the conversation.
The Senate decided the question could be
put, and Mr.. Sherman testified that the
President rendered him the Office of Secre-
vi w dT du lnGeTln on Two OCcdSlOnS,
January 25th and Both. He replied to these
in writing on the 9th and 3Ist. Stanton
was in office. ............
MIR. STANBERY asked if anything else
occurred between witness and the Presl-
dent about the offer when first made.
Mr.. BUTLER objected, and warned the
Senate against an attempt to bring conver-
sation in under pretense of proving an act.
Mr.. EVARTS called attention to Mr..
Buffers shaking his finger in warning the
Senate, as malpractice of counsel, and
said nothing was palmer than that circnm-
stances explaining an act were admissible
as evidence concerning it.
Mr.. BUTLER replied, and the question
was submitted to the Senate. The yeas
and nays were demanded and resulted %
to %. So the question was decided mad
missible.
Examination then resumed-At a second
interview when the offer was renewed,
there was further conversation.
Mr.. STANBERY then asked if the Pres
ident had in any interview stated that his
intention in offering the witness the ap-
pointment was to bring the matter before
the Supreme Court. Objected to.
Counsel said they only wished the ruling
to appear on record. The question OF ad-
instability was admitted and decided in the
negative by vote of to A.
Mr.. STANBERY then offered the Ques-
tion, modified as follows: Was anything
said in that conversation as to any purpose
of bringing the matter before the courts:
Mr.. BUTLER objected to it as being out
rageously leading, and said it was disguis-
ed to gain time
Mr.. STANBERY remarked that this was
too grave and solemn a proceeding to allow
OF low personalities. He repelled with
scorn the insinuation that he had resorted
to tactics of old Bailey practitioners; and
with regard to leading questions, Mr.. But
Ter had put hundreds OF them, until they
were tired of objecting. The questions he
Mr.. Stanberyl mad put We're not, as the
managers admitted, intended to elicit any
thing witness was not about to say, with
out their leading form.
Mr.. HENDERSON offered question
whether in any interview the President
had expressed any intention with regard t.
making the appointment. Objection made
and yeas and nays taken. Not admitted
% to 81.
The Senate refused to adjourn-25 to q
and Mr.. Stanbery asking the question
At either interview, was anything said III
reference to the use of force, intimidation
or threats, to get possession of the War De-
partment or to the contrary? Objection
made and sustained without division.
The Senate again refused to adjourn-2C
to 80.
Mr.. STANBFRY said: Under these rul-
ings counsel were not prepared, at present
to ask further questions of Gen. Sherman
but, perhaps, would desire to recall him ON
Monday, whereupon, at 4 40, the Court ad-
journed.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Mr.. WOODWARD introduced a bill to
test the constitutionality of questionable
acts of Congress. Referred to Judiciary
committee. The first stsection provides that
whenever any act of Congress shall be ve-