The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-04-01

q. Has ne been at your house since you have been
Q. Do you remember an occasion when you had a
conversation with Mr.. Moorhead about visiting Mr..
otalitohs onlceY A. recollect gong to the Secre.
| the ed OF February q think last.
,Q Q. ON the evening before had you seen General
| Thomas2 A. had.
Q. WhereY A. At his house.
Y; Wnat Tune In the EVENING" A. In the early part
OF the evening; cannot say exactly the hour
| z Had you conversation with him? A. Yes sir.
| Mr.: STANBERY.What Is the relevancy OF thatS
What is the obect7
Mr. BUTIER-The object Is to show the intent and
purpose with which General Thomas went to the War
Department. ON the morning of the I'D that he went
WIN the intent and purpose of taking possession by
force that he alleged that intent and purpose that
IN consequence of that allegation Mr. Burldgh invited
General Moorhead and went up to the war once
TINS After the President OF the United States had
appointed General Thomas and given him directions
10 take the War ONCE, and after he had made quiet
visit there the DIST on the evening of the 22d he
told Mr. Bureigh that the next day he was going to
taKe possession by force. Mr. Bureigh said to him
the testimony.
Mr., BUTLER-Then you don't know what you have
TO object to- If you don't know what 1t is Laughter)
The CHEF JUSTICE decided the testimony admis-
sipie' speaking in very low tone.
soUABBLE IN THE COURT.
senator DRAKE suppose the matter OF admitting
tne testimony is matter for the Senate, and not for
tne presiding officer. The question should be sub
United, think, to the Senate. take exception to
tg PRESIDING oicer undertaking to decide the point.
The CHIEF JUSTICE (risng)-The Chief Justice Is Of
opinion that he should decide upon objections 10 evil
aence: II ne Is incorrect In that opinion It is for the
Senator DRAKE-I appeal from the decision Of the
Chair and demand the decision OF the Senate.
Senator FOWLER asked that the question be stated
The CHIEF JUsTICE-The Chief Justice would state
to the Senate that In his Judgment it Is his duty to
| first instance, and that II any Senator de-
sires that the question shall then be sub
mtted to the Senate it Is his duty to do 1t. So far
he Is aware the uniform course OF practice trials
OF persons impeached in the Senate of the United
Senator DRAKE-My position, Mr.. President is that
there is nothing in the rules OF this Senate sitting
upon the trial of an impeachment, that gives that
authority to the presiding officer over the body.
That Is my position OF order.
Senator JOHNsON-I call the Senator to order. The
question Is not debatable.
Mr. BUTLER-If the President please, Is not this
question debatable.
The CHIEF JUsrIcE-It is debatable by the
Managers and the counsel for the President.
Mr. BUTLER-We have the honor, Mr.. President
and gentlemen OF the Senate to object to the ruling
just attempted to be made by the presiding o1cer of
| the Senate, and with the utmost submission, but
with an equal degree Of frmness, we must insist
upon our objection, because otherwise it would
always put the Managers in the condition when the
ruling is against them OF appealing to the Senate
body against the ruling of the Chair. We have
been too long in parliamentary and other bodies
not TO know how much disadvantage 1t is to be
| put In that postion-the position of apparent APP
| peal from the decision OF the Chair, either real
or apparent; and glad that this case has come
up upon ruling OF the presiding officer which Is In
our favor, 80 that we are not invidOuS In making
| the objection. Although we learn from what has
fallen from the presiding officer that he understands
that the precedents in the direction OF his init
nation, yet, II we understand the position taken,
the precedents are not IN support OF that position.
Lest should have the misfortune to mistake the
position Of the presiding officer of the Senate will
state 1t as understand 1t. understand his position
to be that primarily, Ms Judge In court has
rule question OF law, and then, II any member OF
the court chooses to object it may be taken in the
nature Of an appeal by one OF the members Of the
| court. II ain incorrect in my statement Of the
position OF the presiding oflcer would beg to be
| corrected.
| The CHEF JUsTICE-The Chair will state that
under the rules OF this body he is the presiding OIL
Ger. He Ia 80 In virtue OF his office under the cOnst
therefore, when the President Is tried by the Senate
1t is his duty to preside over that bOdy and as he
understands he is therefore, the President OF the
Senate sitting a. Court OF impeachment The rule
| of the Senate rs the seventh rule-(reading)-"T
presiding officer may IN the first instance submit to
ance and incidental questions.n lie Is not required
by that rule to submit these questions In the first
| in the supreme Court, no may express his opinion
In the first instance. II the Senate, who constitute
the court or any member of the court desires to ask
the opinion OF the Senate as court, 1t his duty
| then to ask for the opinion Of the court
Mr.. BUTLER-May | respectfully inquire whether
that extends to the Managers as To question OF law
to be submitted to this courtS
The CHIEF JUsTIoE-Tne Chief Justice thinks not
1t Is matter for the court.
Mr.. BUTLER-Then it Immediately becomes of very
important and mOment0us substance, because the
presiding oiicer OF the court who is not member OF
the court and has hand In the court as we under
stand it, except possibly upon question of equal d.
vision, gives a decision which prevent the House
Senate shall pass upon It, Therefore, If this Is the
rule, our hands are tied, and 1t was in order get
the exact rule that have asked the presiding Officer
OF the Senate to state, he has kindly and frankly
stated, the exact position: Now say again-
right and proper for the Managers TO propose any
question they see fit to the Senate, but 1t Is the
Senate themselves TO determine
Mr.. BUTLER-AS | understand It we PROPOSE n
question to the Senate the Chief Justice decides we
cannot get IL decided without decision OF the Chief
Justice to which object respectfully as we ought
firmly as must Now, upon the question OF pre-
cedent, sorry am to be obliged to deny the position
Dy the p iSiS ocef OF e I'M
which has been settled for many years. Not expect
ing the question would arise have not at this mo-
ment ut my hands all the books, but can give the
leading case where the question arises. II am
mistaken, 1t arose on the trial OF Lord Stafford in
and that the House of Lords had rule prior to the
trial OF Stafford, by which the Commons were bound
to address the Lord High Steward as "His Grace"
or "My Lord" precisely the counsel for the re-
spondent think themselves obliged to address the
presiding Ofcer Of this body as "Mr Chief Justice"
When the preliminaries OF the trial OF Stafford set
tied the Commons objected that they part OF the
Parliament OF Great Britain, ought not TO be called
upon through their managers to address any indI-
vidual whatever, but that the address should be
made to the Lords. A committee OF conference
thereupon was had, and the rule previously adopted
In the House OF Commons was resclnded,
and the rule adopted and reported that In
that trial land Il has obtained ever since in
III otHcT IldisD tnc mduaBcTS VI tne HOUSE OF
Commons should not address the Lord High
Steward and should not ask anything OF him, but
should address the House as "My Lords" showing
the reason and giving reason that the Lord High
Steward was but Speaker pro tenn, presiding over
the body during the trial. When Lord STAFFORD came
to trial the House OF Lords instructed him that he
must address the lords and not the Lord High Stew
ard at all. From that day to the latest trial in Par
lament, which is Lord Cardegan's case In Is4I,
the Earl OF Cardigan being brought be.
fore the House OF Lords, and Lord Chief
Justice Denman sitting on that trial, the
|
managers and everybody, my Lords" There was
to be recognition OF any superior In the presiding
offcer over any oMer member OF the court, nor did
that matter stop here. In more than one case this
question has arisen In Lord Maclesneld's case, II
remember right, the question arose In this way,
''whether the presiding officer should decide ques.
lions" and he referred IL wholly to the House OF
Lords, saying to the lords, "You may decide you
please" Again, when Lord Erskine presided ut the
trial Of Lord =, which was q trial early In this