Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-04-20
NEWS BY TELEGRAPH,
IMPEACHMENT.
To Ohio statesma
WASHINGTON, April Is.
EDN Eu1

SENATE.
Court opened at IL o'clock. Managers
and members of the House were success
sively announced. Mr.. Stevens was not
present at the opening.
Bv direction of the CHIEF JUSTICE,
the question pending yesterday was read
as follows: 'a-
awe, the counsel for the President, offer
to prove that the President, at a meeting
of the Cabinet while the bill was before
the President for his approval. laid before
the Cabinet the tenure of office act for
their consideration, and advice to the Pres
ident respecting his approval of the bill,
and thereupon the members of the Cabinet
then present gave their advice to the Pres
ident that the bill was unconstitutional,
and should be returned to Congress with
his objections, and that the duty of pre-
pairing message, setting forth his objGc-
tions to the constitutionality of the bill, was
devolved upon Mr.. Seward and Mr.. Stan
ton, to be followed up by proof of what
was done by the President and Cabinet up
to the time of sending in the message by
the President"
Manager WILSON rose to speak, when
Senator JOHNSON submitted the fol-
lowing question to the counsel of the Pres
ident in writing: "Do the counsel UNDER
stand that managers deny that the state
ment made by the President in his message
=
managers at page 45, No. 8, of the official
report of the trial, that the members OF the
Cabinet gave the opinion last stated as to
the Tenure of Office act, and as evidence
offered to corroborate their statement, or
for what other purpose offered7"
Senator Howard submitted a question to
the Presidents counsel: "Do the counsel
for the accused not consider that the valid
ity of the Tenure of Office bill was purely
aquestion of law, to be determined in this
trial by the Senate? If so, do they con-
slider that the opinions of Cabinet officers
touching that question is competent evil
dence. by which the Judgment of the Sem
ate ought to be influenced?"
Senator EDMUNDS asked whether the
argument on the part of the managers
might not be continued while the counsel
were considering the question?
The CHIEF JUSTICE replied in the
affirmative, and
Mr.. CURTIS said they would prefer that
course.
Mr.. WILSON, speaking from manuscript,
argued on behalf of the managers that the
testimony was irrelevant, for the reasons
that the advice from members of the Ca BIZ
net has no right except in reference to mat
ters relating exclusively TO their own de-
partments, and that if it were, the advice
given in this instance was not given at the
time. He then went into the general ques-
tion of the relative powers of the Execu-
tive and Legislative branches, maintaining,
at great length, that the checks within the
power of the Executive to impose upon the
Legislative branch were exhausted by the
exercise of his veto prerogative; whereas,
on the other hand, all his acti ms were sub
ject to supervision by the two Housea of
Congress, whose measures he was required
to carry out.
In support of his position that the law
making power is supreme, Mr.. WILSON
cited numerous authorities and referred to
cases in English history. where the king
himself had deferred to the will of Parlia-
ment. He held that if the President had
the right to challenge laws of Congress his
subordinates could call in question orders
of the President, and anarchy would en-
sue. Recapitulating, he said the President
could not assume the prerogative of king,
who could do no wrong, and consequently
could not shelter himself behind respon-
sibility of his minister. --l s-
Mr.. CURTIS declined to follow the hon.
orable manager in anticipating questions
which were a fit subject only for final ar
gument, but would confine himself to the
point at issue. He proceeded to claim that
testimony bearing on the question of in
tent was called for in rebuttal of allega-
tions in the articles, which charge evil in
tent and willful violation of the Constitu-
tion. The honorable manager had argued
to show that the question of intent was
immaterial, in the face of this fact that
several articles not yet withdrawn make
the question of intent the gravaman of
their charges. $500 So sE" s
In answer to Mr.. HOWARD'S question,
he said the members of the Cabinet would
be placed on the stand, not as experts in
constitutional law, but to prove that they
advised the President to a course of action
which counsel claim will thereby purge of
the charge of malice.
Replying to Mr.. Johnson,
Mr.. CURTIS stated that they did not I'M
derstand the Managers to deny the asser-
tion in the Presidents message that he had
been advised by his Cabinet in the matter
and wished to produce oral testimony to
the same effect.
The CHIEF JUSTICE read articles charg-
ing evil intent and expressed his opinion
that the evidence offered was applicable to
those points.
The yeas and nays were taken and re-
suited 20 to 49, so the decision of the Chief
Justice was overruled, and the evidence
not admitted.
Mr.. Welles, Secretary of the Navy, was
then recalled and counsel proposed to ask
him whether the question of the applica-
bility of the Tenure-of- Office bill to Stan
ton was considered in Cabinet meeting
previous to its return with the objections
of the President, and whether the opinion
was expressed that the law did not apply
to any of the Secretaries appointed by Mr..
Lincoln?
Mr.. BUTLER objected, contending that
it was excluded by the last ruling.
Mr.. EVARTS said this testimony was in
reference to the constitution, not to the
constitutionality of the law, and held it
was admissible tor other reasons.
Mr.. BUTLER read from the veto mes
sage to show that the President vetoed the
bill on the ground that it did not apply to
all the members of his Cabinet. He also
held that the President did not pretend to
believe that Stanton would acQuiesce in his
removal, because he felt himself not COW
cred by the law-the President put it on
the ground of cowardice.
Mr.. EVARTS referred to the portions of
the message read by Mr.. Butler, and said
they made part of general argument as
to the consttutionality of the bill, and had
no reference to the special case of Presi-
dent Johnson's Cabinet.
The CHIEF JUSTICE submitted the
question to the Senate, and the evidence
was refused admission-22 to 26.
Mr.. EVARTS then asked if at any Cab
met meeting held between the time of the
passage of the Tenure OF Office bill and the
removal of Stanton, the subject of how the
public service was affected by 1t was con-
sidered, and witness replied that it had been
considered repeatedly. ~ .5L--
The counsel then offered to prove that on
such occasions the President and Cabinet
determined that proper regard for public
interest required that case should be ar
ranged in some way SO as to procure ju-
dicial decision as to the constitutionality of
the law.
Mr.. BUTLER said the managers would
like to have the Senate, in accordance with
their previous votes, decline all such evil
Sc inn, r,oI
the trials to their patience of attempts to
introduce it.
Mr.. EVARTS BRIEFLY rejoined that the
learned Manager, from the frequency and
length of his remarks, seemed to think the
patience of the Senate immaterial, and ca