The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-04-01

did not; also said he intended TO re
ceive the mails, and aekoOw!edged to
witness he had said SO.
Gross examined by SCanbery, wit
ness stated that he had been at the
Department half az hour before
Thomas came; that 4ns was not at
tended, nor was he 4rmed, so far as
witness could see. Witness thought
there had been some conversation be-
tween Stanton and Thomas. in Schriv-
ers room, before he entered, and
which was of a good naturea char
acter. He thought there had been
some joking between them.
Walter A Burleigh, Delegate from
Dakotah, was next examined.
Stanbery wanted to know the OBJ
ject Of this examination as TO con-
versation between the witness and
Thomas.
Butler replied that it was TO show
that the intent and purpose of Thorn
as was to take possession of the War
Department by force.
Stanbery objected to the testimony,
and his objection was sustained By
the Chief Justice.
1rake said the question should be
submitted to the Senate, and appealed
from the decision of the Chair.
The Chief Justice said it was his
duty so to rule.
Drake said there was nothing to
give the Chief Justice that right.
johnson called Drake to order, on
the ground that he could not debate
the question.
The Chief Justice arose and said,
that he. as Chief Justice OF the
United States, was delegated by the
Constitution to preside over the Court
Of Impeachment when the President
of the United States was being tried,
but when so presiding, ne became
President of the Senate while setting
as a high Court of Impeachment, aud
when a point of evidence of form or law
came before the Court in the first in-
stance, the Chief Justice was the
proper person to decide it, and then
the Senate, on its being submitted to
them, at the suggestion of member.
Butler proceeded to quote from
various cases of Impeachment to show
that the presiding officer of the I'm
parchment Court had no right to de-
eide questions of law or evidence
Butler complained that the Managers
of the house would be bound hand
and foot by this decision. and would
be unable to get the objections con-
sidered, unless by the courtesy of
member Of the Senate.
The Chief Justice then stated the
point raised for the decision of the
Senate.
Drake objected to the ruling Of the
Chair.
The Chief Justice called the Sena-
tor to order.
Conkling called for the reading of
tn seventh rule, and i #as read.
Bingham maintained the rule only
authorized the Chair to submit ques-
tions to the Senate, when the yeas and |
nays were not called for by one-ffth
of the members, and that the COnsti-
tuition itself, in saying that the SEN
ate should have full power to try im-
peachment, settled the whole ques-
ton The rulings of Parliament de-
cided that the presiding officer had !
no part IN passing on questions OF
law and fact, but was there only in a
ministerial capacity, with no right to !
make a decision. He contended it |
was a matter of great importance /
whether the House could reach the !
Senate directly, Or whether the Chief !
Justice could stand between them, un-
less some Senator offered the Managers |
a courtesy. He protested against the
House being bound and laid before |
the feet of any man, however high or
pure he might be. If the precedent |
were established, we might some day |
have a Jeffries in the Chair. We
have had a johnson in the White
House, and may have j e4fries In the |
chair of the Chief Justice.
The Chief Justice put the question
as to whether his decision should be
sustained by the Senate.
Drake said that the presiding officer
had made a decision which he had no
right 20 make. But before he finished,
Wilson moved that the Senate retire
for consultation, but withdrew it.
Sherman asked the Managers what
were the precedents bearing on the
question Ia the trial Of impeachment
in this country
Boutwell, said the Chief Justice did
not preside as q member of the tTlbu
nal, for to the Senate is given the sole
power to try impeachment, which gave
It the right to decide all questions, as
we'll a. the question of guilt or InnO-
cence. He (BoutWelD did not object
to the Chief Justice giving his opln-
ion or ruling, but it should be subject
to the decision Of the Senate.
Bingham read an abstract of au-
thorities which he had collected