The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-04-17

tons to General Sherman from showing that he
have only said that the fact that he spoke to Gen.
era Sherman and said to him that 1t was impossible
to make up case shows that he shall not be allowed
after the fact to attempt to get up defence for him
self by calling in this counsel. Now 1t Is said what
lawyer would suppose that would appear upon tSe
President Of the United States was In the contro-
versy9 say that fair dealing, honesty Of purpose
uprighness of action and rankness OF official posi-
ton would have made him appear In that case The
President Of the United States, II he had employed
counsel for General Thomas In the case should have
sent his counsel into court, who should then have
sated:-'Mr Chief Justice, we are here appearing at
the instance OF the President OF tne states or
ton which he has endeavored to raise here and Tor
that purpose we want to get 1t into the supreme
Justice this District had refused to hear that case
there might have been some ground for the use OF
the harsh word OF evasion which the counsel has
applied to him. The counsel has said that that ques
tion was evaded. BY whom? IL must nave
been by the Chief Justice OF , the pss op ne S tn
case conducted 80 as to evade decision. me record
of the court shows that this man Thomas was dis
charged on motion OF his own counsel. II this coun-
sci had not moved his discharge | venture
to say he would not have been discharged.
BEEN Now, therefore, in that view that Thomas was
discharged the motion OF his counsel could they
& to show through Mr. Cox that the Chief Justice
evaded the pointf II you allow Mr. Cox TO come IN
here and put In declarations made TO MN by the
President, then | suppose we must enter into the
merits Of Mr. A B, and all sorts OF counsel whom
the President brings about him. We win have to
bring before you the Chief Justice to get his account
Of the matter They are getting up side bar issue
try whether the proceedings IN the supreme Court
wise win not say that this is designedly DONE but
may say 1t is artsticaly contrved for the purpose
Of leading US away IRON q, Inc real ISSUE never
as to this matter OF quo aco'rdnto. have had
reasonable degree of practice on this question: and
undertake to say that every lawyer knows that an
information the nature OF quo scdfrdftO cannot
be prosecuted except in the name OF the Attorney
be found and shown in this country, where 1t has
been prosecuted differently would beg my friends
pardon thing which 1 So not IKE , 10 40.
whether by Mr. Cox or by Mr.. Stanbery, has ever
been presented to any court in this caseY Not at
until they came to the necessity of the defence?
Aye and until put it in the opening speech, which
Never never j win not object to evidence OF
any writ OF quo trdirdnt0 or OF evidence
in the nature of information of quo trd,ranto filed
i'm any court from that of justice Of the peace up to
the Supreme Court if they will show that 1t was filed
before the 2st OF February or prepared before that
from the memory of Mr.. Cox. You may say, Sena
tors, that am taking too much time in this; but
really 1t Is aiding you; because you open this door
of the declarations OF the President he keep you
going from now until next July-aye, until next
Marchmprecsey as MS flends ,nn te ud HOUSE
if the impeachment was carried here. Fore
warned, forearmed, Senators. His defenders in
the House of Representatives, when arguing against
this impeachment, slid:" II you bring 1t To the SEN
ate we win make you follow all the forms, and his
Official life will be ended before you get through
the trial of Impeachment" That the threat, and
when your summons required the President, rs every
summons does to come in and file his answer, he
asked for forty days to do He got ten. lie then
asked for further delay so mat iortythree days nave
been expended since he filed his answer, or rather
since he ought to have filed his answer and thirty
three days since he actually filed II. or that
time but six days have been expended on the
the part of the Managers In the trial, and
part OF six days nave been expended by the colin
sci for the defence The other twenty odd working
days while the whole country Is calling for action
and while murder is stalking through the Southern
country unrebuked have been used in lenty to him
and ais counsel; ana we are now asked TO go into an
entirely side bar ISSUE which Is neither relevant
competent under any legal rule, and which II 1t was
could have no elect.
Senator FERRY sent up in writing the following
question to the Presidents counse-"Do the coun-
sci the President undertake To contradict or vary
the statement OF the docket entry produced by them
to the effect that General THOMAS was discharged by
Chief Justice Cartier on the motion OF the defend
ants counselr'
tor that counsel do not expect or desire TO contra
dict anything which appeared upon docket evidence:
The evidence which we offer OF the employment or
| this professional gentleman for the purpose ndl.
Gated is entirely consistent with everything winch
appears the docket 1t ~ evidence not OF decara-
| tons, as the Senator may perceive nut OF acls,
because 1t Is well settled, as all lawyers know, mat
there may be verbal acts weil as other acts, and
that the verbal act is a much capable OF PROOF as
physical act is. Now the employment for particu-
lar purpose Of an agent, whether professional or
Ohery ise rs an act and II may be always proved by
the necessary evidence Of Which IL IL suscepuve--
namely what SAID by the party IN OTuef 70 create
that emoloyment9 That is what we desire to prove
on those occasions The dismissal General Tiomas
winch has been referred TO, and which appears on
the docket entirely subsequent to all these pro-
ceedngs. II took place after IL had become certain
in the mind of Mr.. cox and of his associate counsel
that it was to endeavor to follow the proceed
ings further. AS TO the argument or remarks ad-
dressed by the honorable MANAGER 10 the Senate
have nothing to say They do not appear TO me to
Mr. WusoN. one of the Managers, said beg the
indulgence of the Senate for a few moments. ask
the members OF this body TO pass upon what we de-
clare to be the real question involved in the objection
nerposed to the testimony now offered by tue coun-
sci for the respondent. on the 2lst OF February
the President Of the United States issued
an order removing Edwin NJ. stanton rom the o1fe
of Secretary for the Department OF War. On that
same day he issued letter OF authority 10 Lorenzo
mcnt Of War and 10 discharge its duties az interim.
The articles based upon the violation OF the Tenure
OF ONCE act founded upon these two acts OF the
President the 2lst day February. The counsel Tor
the respondent propose To break the force OF these
acts and OF that violation Of the law by showing that
on the 29d of February the President employed an
attorney to raise In the courts the question OF the
constutonaiity OF the Tenure Oh once ACT. NOW,
ton OF the President made after The fac can he IN
troduced for the purpose OF explaining ms intent;
| and on that question OF intent let me direct
your minds to Tits the issuing OF
the orders Of the President state the body OF the
| crime with which the President stands charged.
Did he purposey and willingly issue order to re-
| move the Secretary Of War? Did he purposey and
willingly issue the order appointing Thomas as Sc
orders the law raises the presumption OF guilty in
tent and no act done by the President after those
orders issued be introduced Tor the purpose
of rebutting that intent. The orders themselves
In violation of the term OF the Tenure OF once act.
| Beng "A violation Of that act they constitute all
| offence under and by virtue OF its provi-
! sions, and the offence being thus established,
| must stand upon the intent which controlled the
! action Of the President at the time he issued the
orders. IT, after this subject introduced into
the House Of Representatives. the President became
alarmed at the state Of affairs, ana concluded That IL
|
sion In the courts upon the question OF the conslitu
tionay or unconstitutonality Of the Tenure of ONCE
act II cannot avail In this We are nquirinP as to
the intent which controlled and directed the action OF
the President at the time the act was done; and II
we succeed establishing that intent either by The
fact or by the presumption of law subsequent act
can interfere with 10 rid him of the responsibility
which the law places on him because OF the act done.
Mr.. EyhRTs replied to the argument Of Mr. Wilson,
and commended for the lcralilX OF the proof oercd