New-York tribune., 1868-04-02
NEW-YORK, THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1865.

II within the authontyi 1t within the authority
session; Now, then, we want TO know the means y
which S no was to take possession @ Go5 9" ey TsS S avnd 20
only for the gravity Of the occasion could not help
thinking tremendous iOke-they You should call
show the conspiracy Was that ever done IN any Court
one cousplrtor TO turn Kings witness or States witness
! against the other Was that ever done Never. Sir!
Mr.. Butler here Quoted from "lsOseoes Criminal Evi-
dence page 390 In order he said, 10 show that they
bound put In all their evidence at once, and
that from the acts and declarations OF the criminals
themselves, they could prove the conspiracy He also
read frol u Wheaton, pages 400 aud 40 the case
of SLAYER fitted out az Baltimore for the west Vest
principals admitted In evidence 10 show the obectf
the yoya was agreed that The ogeeI lh 'nls ease
admitted In the answer that the conspirators had been
Notified that stanton would not deliver ~ except ~ % 01TS
bat Inc lad NOT been arrested he would have used force
Were they then 20 he told that the President could do tins
and that ant that they could not pat IN what the agent
said while he was pursuing this mattert suppose
Thomas had come Gen. Emory and said he wanted him
take this department by force as no doubt no Intended
70 do until he found the hand Of the law lad upon MN
They expected 70 show by these declarations, and 10
leave no doubt I'm the mind Of any SENATOR what tins pur-
| ddoubt in the mind Of any man what that pur;
pose The learned counsel for the respohdeh had
said they had now got to question OF laW nj 70 ne T
gued by lawyers TO lawyers imnpyihS tAat ot an
S9SS sye SS04Ss RS Been s&a 1t to be n argued Ga IH
by lawyers 0r lawyers. IL was for them TO defend
pospd the great questions they have been arguing were
not only III to argued by lawyers 10 lawyers, but by
0ncson 20 be narrowed down TO the attorneys Office but
one bo viewed I'm the Light OF Law; IN the nghL jus-
prudence by the senate OF the United states Ihis was
not a case where the Court might 90 one way and the
Jury another Thcy both Court and jury, aud he
held that they should receive testimony IL regard 70 All
the acts and declarations OF this Secretary 0d tbctH.
In this view the Managers were fortunate beng sustained
by tnc precedents.
MIR CURTIS Of counsel, asked for the reading OF the
Tic SECRETARY read as follows:
"Yau y.y. 10 aq,ver TO "a, eson ieat yog q bal zen con
s Gen lorenzo ihcm's on t' e.u oi I' I.st ' teo
mar , I' ~ M f.@rt ~ =, b, N possession o.; t. Var Depart
, 80 y, nj All md bt ,If ls ssaFly b. yol eaa'
Mr. CIrRTIs-llr. ChctJustce, it will be observed
thlt tlus 0ue.Oa contains two distinct branches lhe
tr uures of the witness a, tO tl" declarations oi Cen
lhe N,gss ~. & u' Lj @ 10 D & " "pr.iie1t Woy i'm r6fer7
cnco t no .t branch that is the independent intent OF
& "In III IL here IN i,sne cen Thomas IS not
ON trial IL Tho President who is on trial 10 is hls ~
tent o. purpose his directions, Tie unlawful means Whch
be is charged with having adopted and endeayorad 70
..rry INTO effect. which constitute the crimuaiiiy Of
these -LFr-cs which relate t0 M AiQec ana tLtitipIt'
Il seems ~ he at t is sufficient objection 70 the i.fsI
par of l question that u relate, t0 slnecl matter
rit Climate evidence which could be addu,cd ought
tie President j. not charged here WIN any i1d
L.rg Win r,fer,rce % Dis own Illegal intentions and
/ views solely, for with thcu alone can he DO
Sir Cei Justice TIA. that branch OF Tho question TAlch
~. to rlw into this case independent OI the evidence
given o him or views communicated 90 him 10y the Pres,
himself ls utterly luuWtidl ana oU5ut nov ~ DN
allowed Obe proved oy any elueh.' "hS.nS' So,"T H.
tent iuC.mpe,en In the next place suDnht "t .uc
evidence which d. offered 10 prove tic intention ol cen
Thomas, II that TACT were IN issu' Ht.e @nu ht n,,H
proved or any enect upon tAe president case s lo n
m.,'.ee "a tn1 ,dws ul flsI and !,
4et 20 ie' proved by legal. admissible evidence
fe ,Is,n not a lawyer TO -ay that the true way 10
ascertain mans intent is To take Wa, me- sAys - & t,
drrrc ani all th1t is But, nasmuch as he ls hoI
sworn b.43re us-inashnch as lt is nol -II,H ~ l Va
I @ hi m M ON, OF he exceptions which eAlst n the
I mn. ,.so of cJtou-p u-p.rafors-I do not propose %
eo o.cr tns grounds which were so clearly
iut t must have been understood perfectly well the
ration, Of Gen. Thomas That DE was not the agent or
Ge President: that hc received from his superior officer
r order Co certain thus and in no sense thereby,
became the agent OF that superior o,rer nor dd that
superior officer become accountable Tor th5 mAhh,t IN
witch hc was carrynE ont that order ana thal a u9st
especially true when 'hr nature oil one oId,t j., 'n' L
nation ul one puhhc "nitrr 10 ,ul5 du"'n,I P., P,
on., and discharge it- duties; u which ca~t Whatever
the d, ,suaicd person does De- doc ON ms own own a,O1
and hy force az DIS own F'"s une-. ne MS l','IN'"
some special instructions u rrslrd u the mode OF carr
s 10 out We submit. then, M the first place, mat te
Intentions ~ cen Ihouu' ate illl'I!' ".u 'is' w , '
President De atctcu hl ticiu secondly l tl'J
were material they must be- proved by sworn evidence,
] ana npt IJ htiatF ai4.elI'h'a' il'I5 "a. i.,1a
} the question appear, to me To admit ~ Hilc
Iifn,.s what vas said by Cen Thomas respecting dlrec-
tions or Instructions given 10 nm by the lIesldtnt'
tc authority Of agent by the agents after dccllA-
tions. The qur .tor b whether the lresdrt EANt ii,
st,uctons to Cen Thomas in regard 90 the particular
manner means by which this order was 70 ne 'all,u
Upon its face the order is mt'-lpe. We Wnu. Wnu'.
Stand II tp be Boo tho usual form. There u no aluslOn
made tu the exercise ~ force, threats OF intimidation OF
,, lima INV bsy prou,.a ~ ,nuerldd 10 this written
order , means of The e,aratOs of the agent himself
that ha had authority to use threats Intimidation or
unle., there r-t laid tho Foundation for by slowing
that tc parties connected together a. oocOh'lld
| tos agree that II they could show conspiracy he
tween the President and Gen Thomas 90 which these
declarations relate thcn the declaration ol one ol lhth
n reference to the subject matter OF that Ioiaey,
/ would be- evidence against iheln. No" %hal Is the
| case as % stand, before YOU ana - WIS
asserted by mo honorable manager hIu-el nc 9ialt9
out with proposition that the President IN ms answer
ha, admitted l intentions 10 remove Nr stanton from
office That Dc SAYS. vas an Illegal Intention. Ih1, nc
say. was Intention 10 carry out the dci by means ot
Tie order gwen To Gen. Thomas and when the PRESIDENT
De- says, gave that order 90 Gen Thomas, ana Gth'
Thomas accepted IT, and undertook 10 execute there was
au agreement hctwCon iicm 10 do an itEiia act WelI
con.nirhcy 10 rcnoyG Mr. stanton aud I that De con
ary p the Tenure otOmce act that j. an lnesll uvo
dcrtanr 10 prove! that The extent Of thc conspiracy
which they are now undertaking to SNOW No. no. no. @ -.
undertake 90 say chat the President con7prcd WIN
Ihomas by various threats OF iAinG"''Ibno iAHlSr IbS
! conspiracy act Yet they have show4 Si,S UHS tbn Ibn
within tho intention merely remove Mr. sidhtoh' tn,9
remove h'n y iorcc hat is without having proved
CON piracy % remove him without Iorce, lneJ ,,i,,
10 give in cy dcnce the declarations OF hea9
tors 10 show conspiracy 10 remove llm WIN l0lte'
| respectfully submit that they must Irst snow ln' ron @
sprucy which they themselves pretend they nave gwen
evidence Of A. soon they gct 10 tho lnls ol ,lho
conspiracy, d which they alc6o they nave s!eh soi,o
proof let them show this totally different consr
acy, namely. conspiracy 10 turn out Mr.. stanton o
force. They must produce some evidence Sl ,r ohav
! other conspiracy before they can use the uecala-
| tions " other parties evidence against mem
But sir do u0t thhS that lls 'honn pt @ he
Is an entire miscOuceptiOn OF the relations between these
two parties of the Commander I'M Chief ana the subordl
nate officer, the receiving order from the Other
There j. evidence here tending To prove any COhsp-