Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-04-02
LATEST KILOGRAMS.
MIDNIGHT DISPATCHES.
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINcs.
Senate.

| SCI lOA ehN ANolONuty having Glhtu AHCl
usual seats, the Court of Impeachment wa!
called to order by Chief Justice Chase, anC
the minutes read up to the mention of thu
vote cast by Chief Justice Chase to divide
the tie vote on the question of retiring fol
deliberation, when Mr.. Sumner made ;
motion TO correct the journal, insisting thai
the expression of the Senate's opinion wa,
that the vote Of the Chief Justice was I'M
authorized and of no effect On his mo-
ton he demadded the yeas and nays, which
resulted yeas 81, nays q so the motion
disagreeing to the question as to the admis.
sibiIity of Bnrleigh's testimony, in regard
to the conversation between him and Gen
Thomas, wasI submitted to the Senate by
Chief Justice Chase.
Before the vote was taken, Mr.. Freling-
huysen inquired if the managers intended
TO connect the testimony of the witness
with the respondents.
Mr.. Butler answered affirmatively, and
the argument ensued.
Mr. Stanbery then rose and said the
court had at length reached domain oil
law on a question requiring a careful con-
| sideratiOn and argument. He stated the
/ question is to be whether or not the deela-
rations of Gen. Thomas were to be used
against the President, though not proven,
to be authorized by him. 1t is alleged that
the gravamea of the ofense charged in the
first three articles, consist in issuing by the
President of the letter of authority to
/ Gen. Thomas. In the fourth article the
of1ense charged is conspiracy with Gen.
Thomas, to obtain by force and intimida-
| ton the Office of Secretary of War. These
were the only articles whose consideration
was now necessary. AS yet we have no
proof Of anything said by the President
before Or after giving this letter of author
ity. The purpose of the present attempt
| was to show the Presidents intent in issu-
ing it by production of irrelevant testi-
mony about remarks made by General
Thomas without authorization by the
| President. The Presidents intent could
be shown only by the orders themselves.
| The order and letter of authority given to
Gen. Thomas did not make him general
agent of the President, they authorized
him to do only certain specific things.
When proper foundation of proof of
conspiracy is laid, then the declarations of
| one of the supposed conspirators may be
deemed to implicate; and then, in this in
stance, no such foundation of proof has
been laid even. If it were admit
ted, which he denied that the let
ter of auththority constituted a
relation between the President and Gen.
Thomas of principal and general agent,
it could not be maintained that the letter
was in itself proof of a conspiracy. The
nature of the order was according to the
usual formula to designate an officer known
TO the law; to execute the duties of an
Office established by law. 1t would not be
asserted that all officers appointed by the
President become his special or general
agents. The President and his appointee
we're alike officers, and responsible to the
laws. The managers say they expect here
after to show a connection between the
declaration of Gen. Thomas and the re-
spondent.
Mr.. Butler: l did not say hereafter.
Mr.. Stanbery; Did you say you had done
it heretofore?
Mr.. Butler: No.
After considerable discussion between
the managers and Presidents counsel, the
yeas and nays being demanded, resulted
80 to IL.
Mr.. Stanbery then said, if you expect to
do it, you must do it hereafter, and either
ment what you did not say, or said what
you did not mean. He went on, claiming
it to be an unprecedent attempt to build
superstrnctnre before laying the founda-
ton.
Mr.. Butler replied He said the argu-
ment of the respondent counsel seemed to
show that they felt the question involved
might decide their case. The managers
claimed that the President had long in
tended to violate a certain law, and he
called to his aid General of the army.
He then gave an order to Mr.. Thomas to
take possession of the War office, which
his counsel said was in the usual form; this
he claimed was not true, he had ear marks
about it which showed an unusual INTENT
the wording was, "You will Immediately
take possession" Stanton, when he first
yielded, as he said, TO superior force, after
his reinstatement he was more strongly
fortified, and no man could believe he
would again yield except 10 superior force.
The President could not have expected him
to yield otherwise. The President in
tended TO do an unlawful act, and Mr..
Thomas consented to aid him; thus con-
spiracy was constituted on this ground.
The managers claimed their right to in
troduce the testimony; they also claimed it
on the ground of the relation existing be- |
tween the President and Gen. Thomas, the |
principal and agent, the commissioner to
do just what the President wanted him to
do-obtain possession of the War Office. |
The declaration of Gen. Thomas was about |
the common objections made to man
whose support he was trying to seize. No
objection was made yesterday by the coun-
sci to the introduction of testimony relating |
to what was done by Gen. Thomas in the |
War Department; the President was not |
there.
Mr. Stanbery Gen. Thomas then was
acting within his authority.
Mr.. Butler continued, and cited author
ity TO support his views regarding the adj
Of the declaration in proof of
made by one conspirator in the
absence of another; he proceeded to state
that they proposed to show, through the
evidence under discussion, that General
Thomas intended to use force, but was pre-
vented by the arrest.
He referred to the remark of Mr.. Stan
berry that they had now reached points of
law worthy to be argued by lawyers to
lawyers. They had already had questions
worthy of debate by statesmen to statesmen,
and he Butler protested against narrow
ing the subject down to the argument of an
attorney.
Mr.. Curtis rejoined that it was sufficient
objection to the first part of the question to
be submitted, that the evidence sought to
be introduced was immaterial to charges in
ssue, whether made by a competent or in
competent witnesses. 1t was also an OBJ
ection that the declaration bearing
IN the question of what was the
Presidents intent, had not been
made on oath by witness shown to
,ome within, or the recognized exceptions
o the rule in brief No declaration of Mr..
Thomas could show the Presidents in
ent, and if any could, they must have
'een made az sworn testimony. The
managers claimed to have shown that
here was conspiracy to remove Mr..
Stanton nothing has been advanced to
rove that the employment of force was
He combatted at length on
he argument of Mr. Butler, maintaining
hat the authorities cited by the latter were
ot applicable to the point in dispute. The
tatement of Mr.. Butler that the Presi-
ents answer admits his intention to re-
Nova Mr. GsoDfap fr,v, ~, "A. -. l. | 4