New-York tribune., 1868-03-06
NETWORK, FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 1865.

SENATORS In obedience to q notice. have appeared
the trial Of the President 81 the United states and am
now ready to take the oath"
Judge Nelson then administered TO the ChiefJustce
THE OATH
81 do solemnly in all things pertaining to
e ira M , 81 he q Andrew pse
cording TO the Constitution and laws so help God"
The ChiefJustice then said:
SENATORS: The oath win be administered 20 the
Senators they viii be called by the secreary in success
sion"
The secretary called the roll each Senator advancing
and taking the oath prescribed In the rules given
above The only Senators absent Dooitte Of Wis
consin, Edmunds of Vermont Patterson Of New Hamp
shire, and saulshury Of Delaware.
COMPETENCY SENATOR WADE.
When the name OF Senator Wade called, Mr.. HEN
DRICKs put the question TO the presiding officer
whether the Senator from Ohio, being the person VINO
would succeed ip the Presidential office, was entitled TO
cit as q Judge In the case. 7sS-~ - - .r 80 ~
Mr. SHERMAN argued that the Constitution itself
settled that question 1t provided that the presiding OH
Ger should not preside the trial Of impeachment OF
the President but being silent to his right to be
member of the Court II foowsl by implication that he
had the right
Mr. HOWARD argued that Mr.. Wade had night TO be
member Of the Court. Eachi State was entitled to be
represented by two Senator'S The Senate had already
seen Senator who related 10 the President by mar
rage take the OATH and he could no difference be-
tween interest on the ground Of affinity and interest
which the Senator from Ohio might be supposed TO have
Besides the Senator from Ohio was only presiding officer
OF the Senate pro tepore and might or might not con-
tnue as such to the close Of these proceedings lie
therefore hoped that the oath might be administered 10
the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. JOHNSON assimiated this case TO that OF an Or
dnary judicial proceeding and reminded the Senate that
no Judge would be allowed 10 Lit in case where he had
direct interest Was right he said to subject sena-
tor to such O great temptation-the whole executive
power Of the nation with $4,000 year, He submitted,
therefore that due the Of impartial JUS
tice that such precedent should be Established as
would bring the Senate into dsrepute Why was 1t that
the Chief Justice presided 1t was because the
fathers OF Republic thought that he who 70 be en-
titled to benefits should not be permitted ever to pre-
side where he could only vote III case OF tie vote he
did not know that the question could be decided at once
II was grave and important question. and would 80 be
considered by the country and he submitted whether
was not proper postpone Its decision until to morrow
IA order particularly that the precedents OF the English
House OF Lords might be examined. He moved there
fore that the question be postponed until tomorrow
M DAVIS argued that the question was to be decided
on principle and that principle TO be found In the
Constitution IL thought that the man who was to
succeed the President in OF removal from Office
should not part the trial OF the President IL the
case of Mr. Wade did not within the letter OF the
Constitution, IL did not come clearly within s principle
and meaning
the Court 10 the objection and that II did not lie In
the mouth Of one Senator TO raise objection against
fellow Senator when the party appeared here then OBJ
lection could be and argued but not here ana now
II seemed TO him that the Court had option and no dis
tnetion but TO administer the oath to all Senators
Mr. HENDRICKS argued that It was inherent In q
court 10 Judge OF qualifications, and that IL was
not for Senator to present the question IL was for the
Court itsef 20 determine whether member claiming
seat In the Court entitled TO IT, therefore the question
yAs not Immediately made The suggestion OF Senator
Howard that Senator Wade might not continue 10 DC
President Of the Senate answer 10 the objection
when he should cease be the presiding officer of the
Senate he could be But at this time, he was
incompetent II the OF Senator Stockton OF New
Jersey question had been decided There was held
Soe he had no rSht TO vote One OF the standing rules
OF the tsef that Senator should vote when
napSnent the constitutional ground was even higher
than the question OF interest The NicePresdent was
sOMsd Sy an s trial lie neea not dis
claim personal feeling in the matter He made the
settled ~ that no man should help 10 deprive the Presi
once He hoped that In view Of the importance of the
question the motion made by the Senator from Maryland
Mr. WILLIAMS held that the objection was entirely
imInateris II this body was the Senate then the pre-
not was there any Court organized 20 decide the ques
tioni heard that one juror could challenge
Judge Had Court ever been known , 70 adopt & rule
that certain member OF should or should or not par
tcipate its proceedngs IL was matter entirely for
IN Mr.. DAVIS asked whether. II a vicePresdent came
here 10 present himself member OF the Court, the
| Court itself could not exclude him -
by the very words OF the Constitution the President
was excluded II did not follow that because this Court
was organized the Constitution required, Senator
having any interest would participate IN the trial he
might TSsH anew Is senator sSond insist MISUNDERSTANDING the
rule OF the Senate referred to- upon his to vote even
on question whore he had an interest he had consti-
MI FEsSESDEN suggested that the administration OF
the the Senator from Ohio be passed over until all
| tbe other Senators had been
Mr. CONNEss objected that the Court had no right TO
question the right OF the Senator and be preferred hate
vote taken and the question decided The question
whether Senator had such interest In the result as to
ncapactate him from participating In the trial was
II Mr. FfssENDES explained that his intention
simply all the other Senators should be sworn so as
10 be able act upon the question as duly organized
court lie had no opinion To express .
sttnton any Senator TO be challenged for
during trial of an impeachment and concur entirely
Ohio nfr snerman The objection raised by the honor
able Senator from Indiana tMr Hendrcksl, II under
question about 70 be decided by Senate sitting upon
the trial OF impeachment Now Sir as has been very
senate two members; and the Constitution declares that
whatever may be the character OF those MEMBER what
in tho question involved they shall be component parts
OF the BODY ngs syns q be enabe an OBJECTION on
the ground OF affinity must also be available The Senate
has aesdg SrsserSed ssn SSi IN our rules Who Is known to be
related by affinity TO the accused can see no distinction
s SssG any Besides. the
ator Ohio who offers to take the OATH is put Pres
possible that he may remain In that capacity until the
Conclusion OF these proceedings but at the same time
the Senate has ITS power times TO choose another
President pro pOre to preside over It's ana
as justify the objection taken lake BY the honorable
mi DrOf