New-York tribune., 1868-04-17
NEW-YORK, FRIDAY. APRIL IL, 1865.

sfatcs was in the controversy say that fair dclne
OF Official position would have made him appear m thlt
case. The President OF The United states no nau e,
lcy Il counsel Thomas in the CASE shonld have
sent his counsel into coaIt, who should Then pave stated
ME; one m we are me- @ idd states for the
purpose Of trying the great constitutional question WHO'D
e , ' 70 t n INTO t snree Court of the United
Statcs and then II the ChcfJustice OF this District nan
eronnd for tie se uf tie harsh word OF evasion which
the Counsel hes applied 70 him. Ihe Coiii,e nls sou
been by the Cbef-Jusce of the District for no alone
made The DECISION lie said lIr stanton had this ease
Court shows that this man Thomas was discharged on
motion ~ hrs counsel II this counsel had NOT mover
have been discharged. Ccrtaifly tbero IS no
evidence that he would have Deeu NOV, 1 ,tI Icrs
on tho motion Of his counsel, could they go back
,SSy sa Ny tcn ro1 VS. d S .vado tic pont II
you allow Mr. Cox to como in here and put IN dccai
Si nT aS9 S,a to hin 6d By s pcsqe IF Mr. 'a f. and PPSS AZ ports q
counsel whom the President brings about hinl we VIII
have bring before you te ChicfJustce to gct ms ac
count OF the matter. They are getting up n slde bar
issue 10 Try whether tbs proceedings IN the supreme
Conrt Of tho District Of Columbia were regular or 9c
wise Twin not say that this is dcsigncdly done, bat
may say il Is arstieS!y eontyed Tor the purpose u
i1srd Such propos,o,. e aus court single word
10 s matter of quo rnttsato. have had liIsv,bpo
ay that every lawyer knows that information in the
nature OF qt0 irG110 cannot be prosecuted except ~
the name OF Attorney General, for any p1Dte onlSG, -
any such can DC found and shown ~ ths S9unay,
where IL has been prosecuted differently, would neg NY
friends pardon. thing which d0 not Ike todo iaugl
terl DO they ray that quo r0rroft0, wEethof by nr.
Coy o. ey Mr SaPeay I hsi an eyfa a dy ever heard q
this QO CdrTdntD until they cao To me necftsty oi t'
whirh has taught NY friends 80 mueGi .Iaughtor.l
Never! will not object to eHllchc: ~ any VIII on t,o
o,ra 10 Glcd n any court from that OF Justice Qt i9
rcace Up t0 the supreme Court u lh'y w. soI ,re 80
that tame; bat want II 10 coiHo Il'l9
he record. and not from tho memory OF
i.dn too p,1ch timo in this 6ut really Z Is aiding yo9
Hcause, you open tls door OF to d. elafapns 9l ot
Tr,slcnt io keen yol going on from noN unt heAt
July aye, until n6at March precisely ~ Is ilchls ni
10 House Of Representative eat'n2I thsy % w0iI & 1O
armed, senators IL dofcIdcraln TIC House OF l-elit
" ~ -, min 4. Ia H., S,n4fs We a. Al make yOu follow
IN got thryJeb tle trial % Impeachment That was
is Threat ard hon your summons required the Pres
dent az every summons docs, 10 como IN ami hg h3 an
ser hs asked for 40 days do He got 10 lie bhe
A. I'd for 80 that a. DAY have been expended
snce De fled Dis answer 0rrater since he Ohght 10 nave
nlcl III ansrer ana B days since lac actually hed t o5
h.t iae bat els days ayo been expended on the part o
the Managers In the trial aud aD2ut paiS % s'H S R
either 20 Odd WORKING day- VILE tbe w13i county y s
cgng 9r actor lud Nne hu'1r ~ ~ ~ S,s,s @ s IN In iSS
q sDuhern CoautIy uhrcn"hI, h.'n nfeu ~. ~ i'n
IL 10 him and his coisr and are nov asked 10 60 IN
nor competent unaff aD! l,u rule and Whcn' u - ""s
! could have 10 effect.
Senator fLRp sent M in Trng ne M ioii0Nug g. f.s tc
10 e1utiVct vary the statement
| st
Gon. Thomas sdschag,d by ChciJn5t'co CJF'1ef On
/ trc In1i ion ~ thc defendants cuuDsel.'
Mr. CURTIS respond to ilo question OF tho senator
thht counsel do not cNpeet9r desire 10 tonI'ot "n5
thus which appears upon dpchct olldCnc' inc tN'lln
which wo ohcr 81 tho cmnny m,nt ~ ,,s
g'utomgR for the phrpura iuG'i"l p 'lnl'y 20, I"
sut With yeryhinc vth appears npOa llo noShtl' ~
ocyc buL ~ acte, hccatsp q. - wen stt ~ ~
know, that ticTc may b. N"ri! &c. ~ ~ :" ~
and at the voibal act h as much capbo Q! psolt - "
oI, ,l.al act H. New the employment for psruruIa
parso agoni, whether professional or oh"i "t'
eyienca OF which Is susceptible, namely, What was
said ny the party n orer to create lh"t ehploJi%gl %
fiat u wBui dcsn io pr'vu Cf those 0'caHipn il
dismissal uf Cen Thomas Nh'h las D'oh l''t'l 10
aud which appears on 10 docket Na- onttsD SUD-
apeut o. all the-e proceedings t took place au'T hNl
become certain la iLo uiud oi MI cox and ~ s aSsut-
10 rnf., tat IA vas uo it,a To eleavOr Ia follow tho
rocceiing- further. ~ to tic argument rcnarfs I'D
dressed ny Honorable Manager 20 th" senate, nave
nothing 10 say Thoy do not appear 10 me to require any
Mr WILSON. one Of the Minagcrs--I beg tie indnl-
genco OF tns Senate for Few moments. ask the ncIG
Iers Of this body pass upon what declare 10 30 the
real question involved la e objection lnterposed 10 lho
on the gst ~ February the PgoSdcntO OF The Uncl states
is-ued order removing Edwin VI stanton irOn tlc
office " Secretary for The Department of War ON that
saInc day no issncd "A letter ~ authority 10 Lorenzo
Thomas directing him o take charge oi me Depafteht
OF War. aud To discharge ts duties dd interim The
articles based upon the violation Of the renmenf Oice
founded upon these two acts ~ the President o
tho 2lst day II February The counsel FOR the respondent
now propose break the force Oi these acts aud ~ ta
Violation ~ the law by showing that. on the 2d % Feb
uary, the President employed IN attorney u rse ln the
courts the question OF the consunOnality Of the Tenure
ofOnce aci Now submit To this honorable body that
act. no declaration OF the PRESIDENT Insde aer ne
fact De introduced for the purpose of explaining hie
intent and on that question OF intent let me diiecI your
miuds 10 this c0nsdcralon llat lhe ISSUING OF nc ou
Of The President state tine body of the crime with which
the President stands charged. Did ho pnrposoly and
Willingly issue an order the Secretary % WGr
d hc purpOscy and Willingly issue the rider apponlns
Thomas Secretary of War al uicriyf if ho did thus
issue tho orders, the law raises The presumption ot guy
intent and no act done by the President after those or
h,,irg maj intent The orders tlemsycs were I'm yi0
lati0n OF the of TIE TeEureOf O,e act. BciUg
and nv virtue Of It's provisions aud the oncnse being
thus established must stand upon the intent which con
the orders H. after this subject was introduced into the
House of Representative, II President became alarmed
n The state ofaars and concluded that was better To
attempt ny some means 10 secure decision ~ To courts
upon the constitutionaly unconstimtionaly o the
Office act ~ cannot avail IN tins case. We are
nqung rs Ia the intent which controlled ard directed
Tho action Of the President at The time the act waS DONE
aud n succeed In establishing that intcnt either by
the fact or by the presumption OF law no subsequent act
can interfere with IL nd him 0t the responsibility
which the law places on him because of the act done
Mr. ENARls replied to The argument of Mt wilson %
Implication he said, which alone gave character 20 the
trial, was, that purpose was In the mind of The lros
don't urous TO ihe public interest aud to the public
safety The Presidents counsel ask To put prosecution
In It's proper place that point and 10 that the
President intended violation and no interruption Of
the public service that he intended seizure OF military
appropriations. and that he had purpose In his mind
but 10 Mr. Sant0ns retirement III this evidence
were excluded then when Counsel came to the summing
MP OF the they must take the crime in the dimensions
and H. nthoeOnscnenees horeayowed and he Alr EYarts
should be entitled, before this Court and before this
country 10 treat the accusation though the article had
cad that President had issued that order for Mr..
stantons retirement and for Gen. Thomas TO take
charge al interim Of the War Department with
the intent and purpose Of raising case
for Tho decision Of the supreme Court Of
the United states, test the consttutonality
Of AN act OF Congress II such article had been pro
ducod by the House of Representatives and submitted To
the Senate would have been the Laughing stock of the
whole country. lie offered this evidence 10 prove that
the whole purpose and intent 0f the President In h r.
ton with reference 10 the occupancy of tho office ~ b
reary Of War had this intent and nothing m0r g Its
tain peaceabc delivery the trust, aud = t1 & "a 10
refusal TO appeal tO the Supreme Court "a ,ha 0