Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1868-04-17
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
WASHINGTON. April IL.
SENATE.

SENATE.
Gen. Thomas was examined. lie cN.
planned that when he saw the President
February 2lst, he had not received the let
ter from Mr.. Stanton which he read yes
terlay. lie received it next day. lie also
said the Instructions of the President were
for him to take charge. not 10 take possess
hon Of the Office. When before the House
Committee he did not hear Burleigh's tes-
timony as repeated by Butler at that time
tCross-examined by Butler).-IIc said
he WAS positive that the President told him
10 take charge, not to take possession. He
admitted that he had called karseucr a
Har just before the latter gave his testiIno-
ny before the court; he had not lately or
ever said, We will have the fellow ont il
it sinks the ship" Did not Use an c9tiiv#.-
lent expression to Johnson last week;
whatever he said to him was in 4 ocular
way. Since giving his testimony yes.er-
day he has not talked about it with Gener-
ri Townsend and several others. He told
the counsel this morning what corrections
he intended TO make. The conversation
which he testified TO before the committee
ms to his having had with the President on
February 2lst about General Shriver. did
not take place Oh that day. When called
before the committee on Feb'y 26th, he
twice asked them to postpone the eXami-
nation until the next morning to give him
time to go over the matter in his own mind,
which was refused. lie corrected por-
ton Of his testimony then given.
Genl Sherman was then called. He tes-
titled that he arrived in Washington OH the
Al, of December. and remained two
months, coming here Oh business connect
ed with the Indian Commission. About
the middle of December he was assigned
to duty as one OF a board TO revise the ar
my articles. Had several interviews with
the President in relation to the difficulty
with Stanton, before and after the latter's
removal.
Mr.. Stanbery then asked what CONVERSE
ton took place between him and the Pres
ident OH the 18th Of January in relation to
the removal of Stanionp
The managers objected.
The Chief Justice ruled the question adj
missable and \ decision by the Senate WAS
called for, but before the yeas and nays
were taken Mr.. Stanbcry coiitendsd that
the testimony ought to be introduced. Us il
WAS of vital importance to the case. and
went on TO ieiniad the Court that the Man.
ayers had introduced mach testimony in
the effort to raise presumption of criminal
intent Oil the part OF the President bv tes-
tsiiony relatin g to events, which occurred
months before the 2lst of February. and
argued that the counsel had equal right to
bring forward rebuttin@ testimony in order
- prove the Presidents honest intention in
support Of his position. He quoted at
length from reports o. state trials of Har-
tly and Lord Gordon sad claimed that the
decision then made precedents To determine
the present question.
NJ Isn.luv r.ainal ca1-i.,rr fhrt .1,o
M snagers in attempting to introduce Mr.
Cooper's testimony sought to prove acts.
not conversation.
In the course of his remarks he referred
10 Gen. Thomls as Il weak. vasciilaiiaw
old man, pampercd BY little pride and fit
TO be a tool. lie said the counsel had tried
to influence the Senate BY reading the SIM
pie arguments of lawyers. and claiming
for them authority. and this attempt he
characterized as uuprofessional.
Mr.. Stanbery rose and called on the
Chief Justice to put stop to such asper-
sions against his conduct. stating at the
same time that he read the arguments on
ly rs explaining the decisions made.
Mr.. Butler resumed and spoke at length
with more Than usual vciicinepee, arguing
that the rules of evidence reflected on
Mcssrs. StanSery and Thomas. and claim
were l,w unto themselves.
Mr.. E:aTts quoted from the records of
this trial to show that Mr.. Butler had as
sumed the same position and done the
same thing which he denounced as unpro-
tessional in Mr.. Stanbery.
Mr.. Evarts then went into the merits OF
the question III dispute.
Gen. 81 erman testified that at the :
ond interview. the President again offare
him the appointment Of Secretary of War.
ad interim.
Mr.. S,anbery cntlcavorctl to examine
the witness as TO whether the Prcsidcn,
stated that his intention was to &c: the
matter before the Courts.
Mcssrs. Bingham and Butler objected
simultaneously.
Mr.. Stanbery said lie had the right to
offer interrogaiions.
Mr.. Butler argund that being the Court
last resort. il WAS improper to offer again
evidence that had been ruled ont. 1t was
sometimes allowed in inferior Courts for
the purpose of making writs of error of
bills exceptions to ruling.
MIR. sta lbery did not understand the
ruling was upon the specific question.
Mr.. Butler called attention to the atlmis-
sion of the counsel that the question was
within the ruling. He expected it to be
ruled ont. but now goes to make an Offer j..
Mr.. Evarts argued that although this
was the Court of resort. it was entirely
competent 10 bring to tie notice of the
Court. evidence supposed TO be admissible ;
that it might be u matter of argument
while the general conversation could not
be admitted, the witness might be able to
testify upon the specific point.
BY direction of the Chief Justice tn e
hvnt, olt
cd to Mr.. Butler. who objected to it rs ont
rageously leading in form and incompe-
tent under the rule. The question was
''lu either of those conversations did the
President say to you that his object in
appointing yon was that he might get the
question of Mr.. Stantol's riniit to the Of
flee before the Supreme Court 60
Senator Howard demanded the yeas and
maya and they were dered. The vote
was taken and resulted-yeas Z; nays Al.
Mr.. Stanbery said the question was IN
doubtedly ov, rrnled Oh form and the pro.
posed change of the form of the question
was written out and handed to Mr.. Butler
rs follows
''Was anythin. said at that conversation
by the President as to any purpose OF get
ting the question of Mr.. S;anton's right tc
the Office before the Courts"
Mr.. Butler said that this was the last
question without the leading part of it.
He argued that it was settle rule that
the cO,uSel. having produced Il qne.tio
leading in character. could not a.tcrwar,l,
present the same question without the part
The rules of evidence are founded on yoot
sense. and this rule. too, is founded OF
good sense. 1t is founded on the PROPOSE
ton that the counsel could not put Il lead
ing question to u witness to instruct hin
what they wait to prove. and thea aftc
it is oyerruled, to put the same question