The New York herald., 1868-04-19
TN P B A c H N B ,, 4,
CONTINUED FROM TIL sx p,or

any such ground. He had or - nut g. IN tho cro,nt
stanton was Gov ard se snd wound ON he net ar
70 resist I his no rsapce apo been upon the nerve
He reminded a. the Sc nae that It had by solemn de-
osicp aeclaieu lat the advice OF Cabinet ofiicers /
shown @ @ to fS lce OF proof by which facts are to b'
en- mn nro 4Efs followed in an argument in support
Ihef' ~ He said that the line OF consideration
" ~nted by Mr.. Lincoln could not possibly have beer
<le subject OF the Presidents discussion In hi
veto message. The President had sent in hi
grounds, and had not discussed SruthS the uuesto,
whether the bin included the ofhcers who hal
or did not include them. The learned Manage
seemed equally unfortunate in his reference to tn
conduct OF Mr.. stanton on the parliamentary pro
act ior no construction could be put on Mr. Stanton'
conduct there except that he did not think he wa
yield to force. 1t should be observed that the Presi
dent mad perfect right to suppose that Mr. Stanton
an accustomed authority as the Chief Executive un.
less ne Mr Stanton believed 1t to be unlawful. II
the Executive had been advised by Mr. Stanton
was not protected by the restrictions OF the
civil Tenure bill, then the President had right TO
the construction as it was understood by Mr., Stan
ton, was not impeded by the operations OF the special
act OF Congress, 20 Mr.. Stanton would, OF course,
yield to thifS uulnpeded constitutional power.
The CHlTF JUsTicE-Tie chief Justice is of opinion
eratiep hy the Senate sitting as Court OF lmpeach
meDt, lsit he is unable TO determine what extent
s"w 1e M e prepe 20 q mat ruling Is o
the present question. will, therefore, submit the
question to the Senate. .,......
The vote was taken, and resuted-yeas o. nays 26,
a. foNows:--
Yres-sensors Anthony, Bayard, Buckaew, Davis Dixon,
BSo,.e fssssnlen Eower Grimes Henderson, Hendricks,
ssssue frum0u, Van wnke' viekers and vii
NAYS ssna,os Cameron, Catte Chandler, Cole Conness
Morgan rs1 o s Mor Of H
tsn 0meT9y ana s'ew" Thayer Tip
SO the testimony was rejected. Senators Sumner
anu Conklng were in their seats, and neither voted
The examination of Secretary Wees was again re-
suned
M EvlRTs-.At any of the Cabinet meetings held
petwrf the time OF the passage OF the Civil Tenure
aci apc we removal OF Mr.. stanton did the subject
OF epubllc service affected by the operations OF
the act come up for the consideration of the Cabinet
Mr.. BuTLER-We object.
NE .EvARTS-It Ia merely Introductory.
Mr-EuTLER-To by answered by yes or nor
Witness, in reply to the question-Yes.
MI EvAKTS-Did 1t come up repeatedlyY A. On
some twooccasons
q During these conversations and discussions
was the question of the importance Of having some
determinatlon, judicial in its character, OF
the constitntionality of that law considered
Mr. BUTLER-We object.
MIR. EvARTs-Ony to be answered by yes or no.
Mr.. BUrLER-lfit means only to get in yes OF no.
Mr. EyARTs-That is all.
questions one may get pretty well at what occurred
IN The Cabinet, and therefore object as inmate
rial. And now we may perhaps as well have the
question settled at once. If this line of testimony is
1mmateria then ii is immateral whethert was con-
sidered IN the Cabinet II the determination of the
senate Is tlat what was done in the Cabinet must
not come III then these questions entirely imma-
terial.
Mr.. EvARTs-Yes: but the honorable MANAGER will
DE so good as TO recolect that the ruling of the
Senate has determined that all that properly bears
ON the question of the intent of the President in
n slant md ptivr
secretary dd interim, with o view OF raising
judicial question, Is admissible and has been ad-
mitted.
Mr.. BUTLER-we never have heard that ruling
MT EvARrs-By examining the record you will
Mr.. BUTLER-We have examined the record
with great care and we cannot find that in 1t.
Mr. EvARTs-lt Is within the memory of the
court.
The CHIEF JUSTICE directed the counsel to reduce
the offer Of proof to writing.
The offer was reduced to writing, as folows:-owe
offer prove that at the Cabinet meetings between
the passage OF the Tenure of Ofce bill and the order
Of the 2lst of February 1865, for the removal of Mr..
stanton, on occasions when the condition OF the
public service as affected by the operations of that
law came up for the consideration and advice of the
Cabinet 1t was considered by the President and
Cabinet that proper regard for the public service
made 1t desirable that on some proper case judicial
determination OF the constitutOnallty OF the law
should he obtained"
Mr.. BUTLER objected, and said that the Managers
understood that the Senate had determined that
cabinet discussions should not be shield to the
President That was understood to be the broad
principle on which the question stood Therefore
those attempts to get around that decision to get in
by detail and 10y retail efforts which, in their whole
sale character, could not be given in was simply
trying and wearing out the patience of the Senate
He would like to have the thing settled, for ALL
whether Cabinet consultations on the subject were to
be given III evidence. This particular offer OF proof
however, lie would leave TO the Senate with
single suggestion. 1t was odered to show
that the Cabinet consulted on the desira-
s 1 getting ,n up lava na ase to test the
terial or immaeria. IL might possibly be material
in one view. II ii was meant to say that the Cabinet
consulted upon getting up this case IN the mode and
manner IN which 1t was brought here-(aughter)-it
was only in that view that IL could possibly be ma
teria The first passage of the Tenure of Ofice act
might possibly have been inadvertence on the part
of the Senate. The President then presented 1t for
Their opinion and the Senate passed 1t again in spite
OF any constitutional argument. The President then
removed Mr.. Stanton and again presented The un-
constitutonality of the act and presented also the
question whether Mr.. Stanton was within It;
and the Senate after argument and dellb-
e alton had soemnly decided that Mr..
stanton was within Its provisions and that
tile law was consttutional and now the offer TO
show the discussions In the Cabinet upon the con-
sututionaity Oi the act, and thus 10 overrule the
Iadruple opinion solemny expressed by the
Senate on ilis question. Was such testimony to be
admit d.
Mr.. EvAlgrs said that he must be allowed to re-
mark that ~ the patience OF the Senate often re-
Tered To by The learned Manager, was being taxed,
II seemed 10 be "A sort of unilateral patience. The
Senate had already ruled that evidence he admitted
to show that the Presidents action governed by
ueslTe To rage question for judicial determinas
ton About The admission of that evi-
dence there could bc no question. The pres
ent inquiry was TO show that within the period
covered by that decision 1t became apparent TO the
President IN consultation with the heads OF depart
meuts that the operation Of that law raised mpedi-
menis IN the pubic service and rendered 1t impor.
tanl a. practical matter, That there should be de
termination concerning It's sconstuionality, and that
1t was desirable that proper for such determl-
nation sGould he had. He submitted to the Senate
That that was proper testimony.
Senator HESDrRspN suggested the following cues.
ton to the hanaECrs:-"If the President should he
convicted he mus, be removed from ONCE; II his case
shall DC deemed TO demand such punishment he may
be disqualified ~ mold and enjoy Office under the
lhttd states; Is not the evidence now offered COM
pttsAt 10 g1 before the courl In mltlgati0n"
hr. BiTIFR--Mr. President and senators, | am
lnslucttd a. answer that while we do not believe
tlis can Ie evidence IN any event, all evidence In
miJlIdtiOL o. punishment may he Submitted after
verdict ans before Judgment. Evidence IN mtiga-
ton l. never put 10 TO influence the verdict but
aIter ihe Vt1c IS rendered then the subject matter
OF mnigatiOu. such a. good character or inadNer-
tance, Or auftDlug which may 20 to mitigate the