The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-04-02

OcCousc Wuen IL expressed tnat Is the best
evidence And all that Is true; but, inasmuch
A. 4 ,, .nSs given y y. him . q tSs stand
| opportunity for ss-examnation unless you can
bring the case within one Of the exceptions which
my associates being the case or principal ard agent
the other being the Of co-conspirators do not
Clearly put As seems to s me- By NV 1's ASSOCIATE
think 1t must have been understood perfectly well
the Geciaratons Of General omas That he ne was
not the agent Of the Presidents that he received from
his superior oflcer an order to dol certain thing,
and In no sense thereby became the agent OF that
superior ofllcer; nor did that superior ofncer be-
come accountable for the manner in which he
ciay true when the nature Of the order is the desg
nation Of one public ofcer to occupy another public
ever the designated person does he does on his own
account and BY force Of his own views unless he
the mode Of carrying Il ont We submit them Ia the
first place. that the Intentions Of General Thomas
mmateria, and that the President cannot be greeted
by them; secondly, II they were material they
hearsay statements. The other part OF the
s to nauae Of the
witness what said by General Thomas respecting
dent which presents the naked case Of an attempt
IrSve the authority Of an agent BY the agents
to General Thcmas in regard to the
pattlcuar manner OF means by which this order was
70 DC carried out Upon Its face the order is inte
There Is no auson made to the exercise OF force,
threats or intimdatiSn Of any kind Now they pro-
the declarations Of the agent himself that i he had
authority to use threats, intimidation or force,
less there is nrst laid the foundation Tor it
by showing that the parties connected together
conspiracy between the President and General
Thomas to which these declarations relate, then the
matter OF that conspiracy would be evidence against
Them Now what is the case as 1t stands before you
self He starts out with proposition that the Presl-
dent in his answer has admitted his intention to re-
tention to carry out the act by means Of the
order given to General Thomas; and when the Presl.
ana General Thomas ass' accepted
and undertook to execute , It, there was
illegal act. Well, what was the Illegal actf We
| have got what ne called conspiracy to remove Mr.:
Ofice act that is an illegal act agree. But IS that
the Illegal act which they are now INCREASING to
Is that the Of the L nS
They are going altogether beyond that. They now
undertake to say that the President conspired with
| nit totally distinct crime under the Conspiracy
act. Yet they have shown only an agreement TO re-
racy as they call It, circumscrDed within the nten-
tion merely to remove Mr. Stanton, they now attempt
to f remove u him BY force that IS, WITH.
out having. proved a conspiracy to remove
MIN without tney ask leave TO give In evidence
the declarations OF these co.consplrators to show
conspiracy TO remove him with force. respectfully
| submit that they must first show the conspiracy
which they themselves pretend they have given evil
dence Of. AS as they get to the limits of that
conspiracy Of which they aege they have given some
ton by force. they must produce some evidence Of
Carnations OF other parties as evidence against them
But, SIR do not think that this should be permitted
Il " n p ri
| subordinate officer, the one receiving an order
from the other There Is no evidence here tending
Buler has said that an agreement between two per
sons to do an unlawful act is conspiracy: Wen, it
order to subordinate oficer to do an act and the
subordinate officer assents Or goes 70 do It, is that
character and operation rom any agreement be-
tween them, any concurrence In their minds BY
something which. without thai agreement could not
Snsi not rs plain as day ss ~
spiracys Is NOT as plain Ss day that L Is the duty
OF subordinate officer when he receives an order
General Thomas oSeysd the order OF Inc rrss..
/ dent on the ground OF military obedcccr
Was that conspracyf There can be no such thing
aud the subordinate officer. He ID not liable for the
fact Ia that the issues the order
and the subordinate 0ficer obeys 1t. therefore re-
spectfuy submit that the honorable Managers have
not only not proved then conspiracy to remove Mr..
to prove any conspiracy at ALL II exactly where
the written orders place tan order from superior
onicer an Inferior oflcer, ana assertion BY him
to execute that order. 1t has been said by the Man
agee In the course OF his argument that u we took this
testimony OF the declarations OF General Thomas
made when he went into the War Department on
to OF What he Hen that
was competent evidence. He was there In pursu
ance Of the order given 70 him by The rTes;
him to d0-viz., delivering an order TO Mr.
stanton, he being for that purpose merely the mes
IT. oxtn Tod hot
Of course the PRESIDENT authorised him to demand
demand was as much an act capable OF proof and
proper to be approved as any other act done In the
matter. Therefore, we could have made no such ex-
ception or would have fallen within the range OF
any Of the exceptions which we now take. The
learned Manager relies alsS upon certain aathortles
in Roscoe's Criminal Law, page $780, showing that
under some. circumstances the co-conspracy
the conspiracy see no difiicuty in that The nrst
thing is 10 prove the conspiracy, which is separate
eminent undertook to show in the first place that
there was conspiracy, and had proved 1t by esti
men for the purpose OF military training, &c. Hav
ing proved the conspiracy, they then gave evidence
to show that the defendant had subsequently Joined
IL the Managers Will take the first step
here and in support OF their articles undertake
TO show by evidence q conspiracy existing between
the President and General Thomas, then they may
go on giving evidence Of the declarations Of one or
| DOTH OF tncm ana untu tney 10 euDhh shae .icy
cannot give such evidence. The case In second Car
rington tcited by the Manager) was case OF joint
| act OF three persons falsely mprisoning fourth
There was conspiracy, there false imprison-
| mcnt the immediate act done in pursu-
| ance OF the conspiracy, and the court de-
cie IN that case that declaration made subsequent
TO the IMPRISONMENT to what were the intentions
of one of the consprators, might be given In evil
dence against the others. The case cited rom the
| 10Th Wheaton, was one where the owner OF ship
having authorized the master TO ft out the vessel as
SLAYER the declarations Of the master were given
in evidence 10 show the object and purpose OF the
voyage. Unquestionaby II he had made him his
agent to carry on shaving voyage ne nad made ninl
70 carry IL OUT and what was the act that was given
| I'm evidence 1t an attempt to engage person
| IN co on the voyage in q subordinate position. In
the coursc of that attempt the master stated to him
what the character and purpose OF the voyage were,
an tina case falls within the lines OF the authorities
and principles on which we rest. We submit, there
fore 10 the senate that neither OF these questions