The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1868-04-28


point al issue. He proceeded to claiu.
that the testimony bearing on questions
of intent was called for in rebuttal of
the allegations of the articles, which
charged evil intent and wilful violation
of the Gonstitu ion The honorable
Manager had argued an hour on this as
Sumption, to- show that the question sof
intent was inmaterial. Ia the face Of this
fact Mr.. Curtis said that several articles,
net tst WithaFaWay make the question of
intent the grayemen of their charge.
In answer to Mr.. Howard's question
he said: The members of the Cabinet
would piaceaonzthe stand, not. as-ex
pertss in eoustitutionai law, but to prove
that they advised the President to a course
efsaetion which the counsel claim will
thereby purge him Of the charge of NAL
iee.5 1a..3..s4 s,a
Rerlying to Mr.. johnson, Mr., Curtis
stated that they did not understand the
Managers to deny the assertion in the
Presidents message that he bad been ad-
yised by his Cabinet in the matter, and
wished to produce oral testimony to the
same effect.
The Chief Justice read the article
charging evil intent, and expressed his
opinion that the evidence offered was ap
plieabie to those points.
- The yeas and nays we're taken and re-
suited 20 to 20. So the decision of the
Chief Justice; was overruled and the
evidence was not admitted.
MIR. Welles, Secretary of the Navy,
was then recalled and the counsel pro-
posed tolask him whether the question
Of the applicability Of the tenure of Of
6ee bill to Mr.. Stanton was considered in
the Cabinet meeting previous to its re-
turn with the objections of the .Presi-
dent, and whether an opinion was ex-
pressed that the law did not apply to any
Of the Secretaries appointedby. Mr.. Lin
coin. eze = s 1aekis a=5;
Mr. Butler objected, conteuding that
twas excluded by thelast ruling.
Mr.. Eva-ts said this testimony was in
reference to the construction, not the econ-
stitutienality of the law, and held that
itwas advisable for other reasons
Mr.. Butler read from the veto message
to show that thePresident vetoed the bill
en;he ground that it did not apply to all
the members of the Cabinet He also
held that the President did not pretend
to believe that Mr.. Stanton would ac-
quiesce in his removal, because he. felt
himself not covered by the law. The
President putt on the ground of cow
ardice. IS fa@ 81 -s "a ,. s.
Mr.. Eyarts referred to the portions of
the message read by Mr.. Butler, and said
they madea part of a general argument
as to the ccnstitutiohality Of helbill, and
hadno reference to the special cause of
presidents > Johnson's Cabinet. a ia1st,
The Chief Justice submitted the ques-
tida tothe Senate. and the evidence was
refused admission-22 to rs. "a q.
Mr.. Eyarts then asked the witness If
at any time after the passage of the tenure
Of Office bill and the removal Of Mr..
Stanton, the subject of how the public
ssfEice was affected by it Was considered,
the witness replied that ithad been con-
sidered repeatedly as 4issiA "a =.
) The counsel then offered to prove that
on such occasions the President and Cab
iBet determined thata proper regard for
the public interest required that a case
should be arranged in some way SO as to
procure . judicial decision as to the con-
stitutionality of the law.
Mr.. Butler said the managers would
iiketo have the Senate. in accordance
their previous votes, declare, that all
such evidence isimaterial, and stop the
tfialsto their patience of attempts to in
troduce it atlength. 50 -
Mr.. Evarts briefly rejoined that the
learned Manager, from the frequency and
lengthof his remarks, seemed to think
that the patience Of the Senate was ,un-
lateral, and capa bic of receiving inn
prsssions only from one side.
Mr.. Henderson asked whether this
evidence might not be beintroduced'in NIT
igationof what might be Published with
the disposition, but not necessarily with
disqualification from Office. lsig.ss sst
Mr.. Butler replied it could not be Of
fered With such design to this Court,
bat If it could be this was notthe proper
tine for mitigating testimony, which was
always offered on conviction and before
judgment. e
The question was submitted to the
Senate, and by a vote Of - to 80 decided
in the Degative, SO the evidence was not
admitted, and the Senate took recess.
On re re-assembling, at 2:25, Mr.. Evarts
asked that if within the period mentioned
to the Cabinet discussion there was any
thing suggested or said about using force
in order to bring about settlement Of
the question at issue.
Mr.. Butler objected for the reason that
II was covered by Q ruling, and the Sem
ate sustained the objection. Sc
Mr.. Welles, on cross. examination, said
he had received but one commission as
Secretary Of the Navy, which was from
Abraham Lincoln. Called upon the Presi-
dent February 22d, before II o'clock
The nomination Of Mr.. Ewing was then
made out, as testified yesterday. Mr..
Stanbery had an engagement at the Su-
preme Court at Y clock. Do not know
why the officers under General Emory's
command we're called from the party to
go to headquarters. Did not hear that
twas to warn them not to go to mas
querade. Do not know whether he stated
to the President anything, bat the officers
were called for and that the War De-
partment was unusually lighted up.
Edgar Welles, son of Secretary Welles
and Ghisf flark in the navy Danartment.