The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1868-04-21
NUMBER 8

In ~ III h1IAlkt u
.Esarcasm, and Mr.. johnson expressed
himself satisfied.
Mr. Stanbery continued the argumen
in defense of the claim thai the counsel
had the right 70 continue the examine
ltion.
/ Mr.. Bingham followed. and In the
teourse of his remarks said that the tes-
timony Of the witness had SO far been IN
furious to the respondent, and his counsel
wished to cross-examine him, in the hepe
of ediciting something better.
Mr.. Bingham maintained at some
length that il was in the power Of the
President to- procure judicial question
1of the case by means Of a quo Narranto.
Mr. Eyarts remarked that they we're
perfectly satisfied with the evidence Civ
len by the witness, and Mr.. Bingham con-
lelnded, having spoken with earnest
lness.
The Chief Justice again expressed an
opinion that the witness could answer
Mr.. Johnson's questions. Have you
answered as to both occasions?
Witness said that at the first interview
nothing very definite was said BY the
President or himself. During the second
conversation the President expressed q
wish to have the Constitutionality of the
Office law to be decided. He also said to
witness, that if be accepted the position
of Secretary ad interim Stanton would
make no resistance, because he knew him
to be cowardly. Witness gave no posi-
tive answer at the time, but sent It In
writing.
Mr.. Henderson put the question, "Did
the President, on either occasion, express
la firm determination to remove Mr.. Stan.
ton?n
The witness replied that the President
never expressed any intention to use
force, but seemed determined that the re-
lations should cease.
Mr.. Howard asked, "What did the
President say about force?'
The witness repeated what be had said
before in relation to the ,President-the
belief that Mr.. Stanton would make no
resistance.
Mr.. Henderson asked whether the wit.
ness gave the President any advice on
this subject.
The Senate, without division, refused
to admit it.
The Managers notified General Sher-
man that they would require his attend
ance in the morning, and he left the
stand.
Mr.. Meigs was recalled and produced
the docket book from which he read en-
tries in Thomas and Stanton's case, and
at 44O the Court adjourned.
WASHINGTON, April a.,
The Court was opened in due form.
Mr.. Sumner offered the following or
der: as.s 4,.g!
Ordered, That in answer to the motion
Of thesManagers in reference to limiting
of the final argument, unless otherwise
ordered, such other Managers aud conn.,,
sci as choose may print and file their re-
marks at any time on the closing argu-
ment.
Chief Justice-If there be no objection
it will be so ordered. sRi
Mr. Connor--I object. IS. s.s sssss
Mr.. Sumner-I would respectfully ask
under what rule such objection can be
made.
The Chief Justice replied that on sew
eral occasions he had decided the rules
|of the Senate to be the rules Of the
Court as far as applicable.
Mr.. Sumner-0f course, it is not for
me TO argue the question, but beg leave
to remind the Chair of the rule under
which this order was made. al slss.
Chief Justics-It will lie over. "a,
To the counsel-The counsel for the,
President will proceed with the defence.
Mr.. Evarts stated that Mr.. Stanbery
was i'll, but would be able to resume du-t
ties within forty-eight hours, possibly
Tomorrow, He asked the indulgence Of
the Court for to-day.
On motion of Mr.. Howe, the Court adj
| jonrned until tomorrow, Messrs. Sumner
and Pcmeroy voting no. ses.
4