The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1868-04-28
NUMBER 8

Cabinet to do what he had done and
went on to claim that If the Senate adj
mitted this evidence they would reverse
the decision Of yesterday.
Mr.. Eyarts briefly rejoined that it bore
on the question Of intent.
The chief Justice said this evidence
related to the removal of Mr.. Stanton,
whefeas that offered yesterday referred to
the appointment of successor, and he
was clearly Of the opinion that it was
admissible.
The yeas and nays being taken, his
ruling was sustained-26 to %. Is
Secretary Welles then testified that
1.-THE President told the cabinet he had
removed Mr.. Stanton and appointed
General Thomas, who was then in possess
sion, Stanton acquiescing, requiring only
time enough to remove bis papers. This
communication was made in conformity
with the regular routine, after the other
business was disposed Of The next day
the witness saw the nomination of Mr..
Ewing prepared and in the hands Of the
President. The tenure Of Office law was
first brought before the Cabinet in Feb
ruary, 1866. Secretary Stanton Wab
present. T
The counsel at this point offered to
prove that the President laid before the
Cabinet thetenure Of Office bill; that they
advised its return with objections as
being unconstitutional, and that Sec.
retaries Seward and Stanton undertook
to prepare veto, and also TO show what
further action was taken during the ten
days following. a
Mr.. Butler argued at length agaiust
the admissibility of such evidence, taking
the ground that the President could not
shelter himself behind the opinions of
his Constitutional advisers. 81
Mr.. Evarts replied In an argument
which went into the question Of the
Presidents responsibility with consider
able minutenesa, and the Court adjourn
ed al 4:45.
WAsHINGroN, April Isl.
The Court opened at IL o'clock.
The Managers and members OF the
House were successfully announced, Mr.
Stevens not being present at the opeH-
ing.
By direction of the Chief Justice the
question pending yesterday was read as
follows: ~
We, the codnssf for the President, Of;
fer to prove that the President at meet
ing of the Cabinet, while the bill was
before the Senate for his approval, laid
before the Cabinet the tenure of Office
act for their consideration and advice to the
President respecting his approval Of the
bill, and thereupon the members of the
Cabinet then present gave their advice
to the President that the bill was uneon-
stitutional and should be returned 10
Congress with his objections, and that
the duty Of preparing message setting
forth the objections to the constitutions
ality of the bill was devolyed upon Mf.
Seward and Mr.. Stanton, to be followed
up by proof Of what was done BY tbs
President and Cabinetup to the time Of
the sending Of the message by the Pres,
ident. N
Manager Wilson rose to speak, wheii
Senator johnson submitted the follow
ing question to the counsel Of the Prssi,
dent in writing: asi
"Do the counsel understand that the
Managers deny that the statement made
by the President In this message Of DE-.
cember 18th. 1867, in the evidence eiis
en- by the Managers on page As, No. 8 Of
the official report of the trial, that ths
members of the Cabinet gave the opinion
last stated on the tenure -of-of6ce act, and
is the evidence offered to corrob6rate
their statement, or for what other pufs
pose is it offered7'' M
Senator Howard submitted this diess
ton to the Presidents counsel:
DO counsel for the accused not eot-
slider that the validity Of the tsnure-of,
Office bill was purely question of law,
to be determined in this trial BY the Sen
ate. IT so, do they consider that the
opinion of Cabinet officers touchiig that
question is competent evidence by which
the judgments Of the Senate ought to be
infuenced?"
Senator Edmunds asked whether the
argument on the part Of the managers
might not be considered while the coun-s :
sci were considering the Questions?
The Chief Justice replied in the AFR
native, aid Mr.. Curtis said they would
prefer that course: -
Mr.. Wilsonspsaking from manuscripts,
argued on behalf Of the Managers that
the testimony was irrelevant, for the
reason that advice from the members Of
the Cabinet has no weight, except in ref
erenee to matter relating exclusively to
their own Departments, and that If it
had, the advice given in this instance was
not given at the time. He then went into
the general questions Of the relative pow
ers Of the executive and legislative bran
ches, maintaining at great length that the
checks within the power Of the Executive
to impose upoh the legislative brancE
were exhausted BY the exercise Of his
veto prerogatiye, whereas, on the other
hand, his acts were subject to the su-
pervision of the two houses Of Congress,
whose measures he was required to car
~ out. -.
In support of his position that the
law making power is supreme, Mr.. Viii
son cited numefotls authorities. He ire-
ferred to cases in English history,
where the King himself had deferred to !.
the will of Parliament. he held that if
the President had the right to challenge
the laws of Congress, his subordinases
could call in question the orders Of the,