Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-03-25

should be placed BY court on the personal
honor Of the counsel when they say that
they have been so pressed for preparing
their answer that they have not had time
given them 10 consult with the President
as TO what witnesses should be summoned.
While they were so engaged the managers
had been arranging for the conduct of their
cases. Mr.. Stanbery reiterated that he
and his fellow counsel had not even a docu-
ment prepared or a witness summoned, and
if they were forced to proceed with the case
tomorrow they would appear defenseless
and unarmed. He appealed to the court
for time, if not the full period asked for, at
least portion. He argued against the con-
struction placed by the managers on the
rule cited.
Mr. Bingham was about to reply, when
the Chief Justice remarked that the mana
gers could not close the debate.
Mr. Howard moved that the application
be laid on the table.
Mr. johnson called for the reading Of
the 10th rule, limiting the debate on inter-
roeatory motives to one hour. By the
consent of the Senate, Mr.. Bingham then
replied to Mr.. Stanbery, saying no one
questions the honor of the counsel, but this
application was not to be decided by refer
ence to that consideration. The President
had sent his counsel here to ask, upon
their honor, for an extension Of forty days
TO prepare his answer. Only ten days were
granted, and the answer was prepared and
ready. Now they ask, upon their honor,
for thirty days to prepare for trial. The
President had been guilty of gross neg
ligence in not summoning witnesses, and he
was now trifing with the Senate. He
wanted thirty days in which to prepare to
show still more clearly that the Constitu-
ton was but cabinet in his hands to pre-
pare for further abuses. This mighty
power he still Yields. The words of his
answer in which he claims that right TO
remove all Executive officers at will, while
the Senate is in session, were conclusive
evidence of his guilts and dangerous inten-
tions. They constituted a menace to the
Senate. The country has no less a right
TO speedy trial than the accused. In the
name of the people the managers demand
ed that the trial should proceed. He would
venture to say no cause for delay could be
shown by the counsel that the managers
could overcome. They would probably
admit whatever the witnesses to be called
would be able to prove for the respondent.
Mr.. Henderson offered motion to have
the application acted upon after the filing
of the application.
Mr.. Butler, fer managers, urged that
that the question of time should be settled
next.
The yeas and nays were called on Mr..
Henderson's motion, which was not agreed
to--25 to %.
Mr.. Howard renewed his motion that the
application lie on the table.
Mr.. Drake made point of order that
the motions of the counsel must be acted on
by vote of the Senate at once, which the
chair sustained.
The yeas and nays were then taken on
the original motion that thirty days OF
time be granted, and it was negatived by a
strict party vote-l2 to Al.
Mr.. Sherman then made motion to adj
iourn, but before it was put Mr.. Evarts
amended his motion so as to apply for a
reasonable time after replication of the
managers is filed.
Mr.. johnson moved that ten days be al
lowed, but a motion to adjourn was put,
and the court adjourned until tomorrow
at one O'clock. The Senate then ad
ourned.