Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1868-04-16

Davis, or for his arrest could not be served, and
the said Jefferson Davis could not, by reason OF
such resistance of the laws, and such interruption
of such judicial proceedings be arrested or served
with process for the commencement Of any action,
civil or criminal, within the intent and meaning Of
the statute of the United States in such case made
and provided
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
The counsel of the President commenced his de-
fence on Thursday last The impeachers are not
so confident of his conviction as they were ten days
ago, as some members of the party heretofore sup
posed to be in favor Of conviction, without regard
tolaw and evidence seem disposed to break ranks.
What will be the final result it is impossible for US
to determine with any certainty. 1t is conjectured
that the trial will be concluded within ten days. We
make the following extracts from the kilograms to
the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON, April 9.-In the Senate the court
of impeachment was opened as usual After rea-
ding the journal, General Butler called up other
witnesses, among them Mayor Blodgett, Of Angus
ta, Ca, who testified regarding his removal from
the postmastership of that place by the President
he knew nothing beyond the fact that he had been
suspended Butler asked for a certificate from
the Senate that no reasons had been given by the
President for the suspension of Blodgett. The
defence made point that Blodgett's case was
outside of the charge made against the President
At quarter to one o'clock Judge Curtis began
his argument in behalf of the President and spoke
until near four o'clock, when, at his request, the
hall being larger than he was accustomed to, the
court ajourned without division. ..
Judge Curtis was listened to throughout with
marked attention, especially by the members Of
the court. Some of his points were startling he
left it to the Senators to say whether they were ac-
ting in legislative or judicial capacity. He said
that the substance of the first Of the eight charges
against the President was based upon the state
ment that the removal of Stanton and appoint
ment of Thomas was, or was intended to be a vio-
laton of the Tenure-ofofce act and Of the Consti-
tuition. He denied both propositions and among
other authorities quoted the statements Of MEM
bers of the Conference Committee. Schenck, in
making the report to the House, used the words
"term of service" It might as well be said that
a king completed the term Of his predecessor who
had died, as to say that Mr.. johnson was serving
out Mr.. Lincoln's term.
Judge Curtis proceeded to show that the heads
of departments were the voice and hands Of Pres
dents. He argued that the heads Of departments
did not, in fact, and could not, constitutionaly,
come under the provisions Of the Tenure -of-ofhce
act, and that their exception was wel[understood
by senator's. He noticed the absurdity Of charging
the President with high crimes and misdemeanors
for having acted in accordance with the publicly
expressed views of senators themselves. His ar
gument that the Presidents action was in accord
ance with precedent and the constitution, is too
compact in its elaboration to admit of condsnsa-
ton. Arguing the necessity Of the power claimed
by the President, Judge Curtis instanced the dis
placement of Mr.. Floyd by President Buchanan,
when any delay would have led to the most deplo-
rable results. In arguing that it was the Presi-
dents duty to maintain his prerogative, he said
that trustee would combat any unconstitutional
law which worked injurious to those whose rights
he had in trust, and that it was much more the
Presidents duty to guard the trust placed in his
hands by all the people.
Recapitulating his arguments to prove that the
President could notbe impeached foran act designed
to produce a;judicial decision, he quoted General
Butler, to show that that the managers admitted
this view of the case. General Butler had said
that the impeachment in itself was perhaps not an
impeachable offence, if made for the purpose of
producing such decision, and not accompanied
by defiant message to the Senate Curtis said it
was matter of taste how the Senate should be no
tilted. He then, until the adjournment, argued to
prove that, under the rule of estopel, the things
the President had said and done in these matters,
did not apply in this case.
WASHINGTON, April 10.-Nothing was done in
either house previous to the impeachment trial.
In the Senate Judge Curtis proceeded with his
speech, and concluded at halfpast 2P NJ.
In the course of his argument on the theory
and practice followed in vacancies and appoint
ments, Judge Curtis claimed that the evidence
would show several instances corresponding with
those of Stanton and Thomas He insisted that
Thomas was duly appointed, the appointment re-
ouiripg the President nomination and commission.
he characterized the allegation that no vacancy e1
listed as begging the question. The legal vacancy
existed the moment Stanton received the letter.
Recapitulating his argument, Judge Curtis claim
ed that the managers had failed to show that the
President had violated the constitution and laws.
He then proceeded to argue the charges in rela-
ton to conspiracy. The fourth and sixth articles
charge violation of the laws Of 1861. He read the
law, and said its provisions applied to the States
and Territories, but were imperative in the Dis
trict of Columbia.
He did not, however, rest on this technically,
but argued that in law the preliminary movements
of principal or his agent, to bring before court
private claim, purged their actions ofconspiracy
Judge Curtis claimed that this was applicable, in
broader sense, to public rights. The relations Of
superior and an inferior officer also precluded the
idea of conspiracy. He would answer the fifth and
seventh articles in connection with the 10th, in
neither Of which was the President charged with
violation Of any law The ninth article was dis
proved by the testimony of General Emory, who
swore that he had introduced an Objectionable to-
pic, and had drawn out the Presidents opinion.
1t would be shown in proof that the President
sent for Emory for different purpose from that
alleged in the article.
In arguing the tenth article, Judge Curtis dis
cussed impeachable offences. Without vexing the
ears of senator's with precedents from the middle
ages, he would refer to the provisions of the con-
Al