The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-04-16

TVVII.ITAI GIi.ICuIIV
must remove. We propose when we have closed the
oser OF this species OF proof 10 ask the seratc 10
direct iis proper officer TO make certlhcate rom US
records from the beginning TO The end OF al SESSIONS
of The senate from the original down 10 the present
time. That Is what we shall call for al the proper
tiac, and that will supply that part OF The difficulty
which Tie gentleman sInrss.s The 9th or part is
that y does not appear thar the President cid not fol-
low mp these removals hv the proper nominations.
We'll 1t docs not appear; hut If the gentleman pro
poses 10 argue that the President did follow them up
~ ,'nneniate nominations he viii find undoubtedly
.al the records OF the Navy Department. from which
an n statement comes, can furnish no such thing
lE N,y ore maj objection IS groundess.
wen mat when The Managers had taken any partlcu-
ar course that must be the right one the one which
they on9ht 10 follow, The Managers would certainly
accept az being the last expression so far as they
were concerned. hul The dirculty was that ne (,tr
Butleil mad asked them II they objected to the est
mony IN question, and they made no objection II
they had, he might have been more formal. They
went TO the wrong sources of evidence Those things
were 10 be sought for only IN the state Department.
where appeared all the circumstances connected
with the removal or appointment of an oncer by and
with the advice and consent OF the Senate and they
could have got all those particulars there precisely
given in the case of Mr. Pickering,
MFR. CuRTIs--Does the hororabe Manager under
stand that under the laws o. the United States all
of these officers must be commissioned by the See
resa p Se ana 4a s cs aGat IN d ae
sury and the Navy Departments
Mr. BuTLER-With the. single exception Of the
ceeded to say that the commissions OF the persons
named In the memoranda as appointed could have
mere matter OF form he would care nothing about it,
and II the counsel would say that they would
put S the exact dates Of the non"
that they sought to put in part OF transaction
leaving the prosecution TO look up the rest of it, Rc
quoted from Brighteys Digest that Ill books paper.
and documents Of the War; Navy, Treasury and
Post Office Departments ana the Attorney Generals
the State Department, with the sane force AMI
effect. This law OF February -, la, referred to
that in regard to the Secretary OF State, which was
%.
copies Of records, when properly certified legal
evidence equally with the original paper II gave
gloss the Interpretation, the collation. the dageses
Of the record to the clerk Of that department
The CHIEF JUSTICE stated that he would submit
the question TO the Senate.
Senator HENDRICKS asked whether the Managers
objected on the ground that the paper should he
given in full, 80 far as they relate TO any particular
question:
Mr.. CONKLING sent the following question TO tho
Chair:-"DO the counsel for the respondent rely
upon any statute other than that referred tor
Mr.. CURTIS said they did not mean that any officer
authorized to state what he pleased as evidence.
They did not offer these documents as copies OF
records relating to the cases named in the docu-
same character as that which the Managers had
put in.
offered as touching any question or final conclusion
Of fact or merely as giving the Senate the history CT
the practice under considerations
Mr.. CURTIs-Entirely for the last purpose
Mr.. BUTLER said If this evidence did not 90 to any
Mr.. CURTIS would say, lest there should be mlsap-
prehenson, that went to matters OF practice under
Mr.. BUrLHR-well II 1t goes to matters Of facts we
object that 1t is not proper evidence.
Mr.. EvARTs thought It might be Of service to call
attention to the record in regard TO the letter OF the
Secretary OF State put In evidence by the Manages.
He read the letter heretofore published in regard TO
Senator HOWARD submitted the following ques-
tion:-"Do the counsel regard the memoranda as
legal evidence OF this practice Of the government and
oil flnun fYnr M MI
Mr.. CURTIS replied that the documents were not
full copies Of any record, and were not therefore.
extracts OF evidence from the records BY way OF
Illustration he read as folows:-"lsaac Henderson
Se ~ Of Say % at
to transfer to Paymaster John D. Gibson, OF the
% all TIE %as uo
to prove the merits and causes Of the
removal but simply to show the prac-
instead Of putting in the whole Of the documents In
the case. They had taken the only fact OF any I'm
to adhere to the technical rule Of evidence
sci for the President must go TO the records and have
Mr. BOUTWELL,, Of the Managers said that II the
counsel did not prove the document 1t did not prove
any record. The first thing to prove practice was
to prove one or cases under 1t. The vital OBJ
lection to this evidence was that 1t related to class
of oficers-navy agents-who were then and are APP
pointed under special provision OF the law creating
the oice and which takes them entirely out OF the line
OF precedents for the purposes Of This trial. Naval
in which tenure OF Office was established for the
ONCE created-four years, removable at pleasure.
1t was unnecessary to go into the circumstances that
lead TO that provision being made but the practice
under II could not In any degree eni2hen this trbu
nal upon the issues upon which 1t IL called upon to
pass The counsel could see that II was no evidence
In regard TO the practice relative 10 removals not
made under that Statute.
Mr. CURTIS said the counsel might have been
under Misrepresentation respecting the views OF the
Managers In conducting this prosecution, but they
had supposed the Managers meant TO attempt To
Int in of aVnn M a ~ a N
was removed held at the pleasure OF the President,
even If ee was not within the Tenure OF once dct.l
not competent for the President TO remove
him. and that although MI. stanton might
have been removed that the President, being within
the Tenure of ONCE act, his place could not be even
temporarily supplied by an order Of General Thomas,
the Senate being In session. IL was offered to snow
that, whether the Senate In session or not, the
President could make an al interim appointment.
II the Managers would agree that II Stanton was not
within the Tenure OF Once act the President might
remove him during the session Of the Senate, and
might lawfully make an al Interim appointment,
they the COUNSEL did not desire to put in tins EVIL
dence.
Senator suERMAN-I would like to ask the counsel
whether the papers now offered in evidence contain
the date OF the appointment and the character OF the
Mr.. BUrIER-To that we say that they only contain
Of the nomination.
Mr.. CURTIS again read the case OF the removal OF
contained the date Of the removal. ''''Hs ''a' IL
The CHIEF JUSTICE put the question TO the Senate,
stating that IN his opinion the evidence was compe-
tent in substance. Whether 1t was In form
for the Senate to decide.
The evidence was admitted by the following vote
YEAS Senators Anthony, Bayard, Buckaew, Cole Conk
Ing Corbett Davis Dixon, Dootc, Edmunds, Ferry, Fes
senden Fowler Freirghussen, Crimes Henderson, Hen.
OF Vermont Morton, Patterson OF New Hampshire Patterson
OF tennessee, Ross Salisbury. sherman stewart SUMNER
Trumbull Van Winke vickers, Wiley, Wilson, Yates5
NAYs.senaiors Cameron, caitell Chandler. CONFESS,
Cragin Drake, Harlan, Howard, Morgan, Nye Pomeroy
Ramsey, Thayer, Upton, wnliams-i5
by consent the documents were considered as read.
Mr.. CURris-There is another document from the
Navy Department which ! suppose IL not distn-
guishabe from those which have just been admit
ted. IL purports 10 be O list OF civil officers
appointed for four years under the statute OF the
10th Of May 1920 and removable from Office at plea
sure. With their removals are indicated the portions
OF the terms Of their offices which have expired
Then comes list giving the name Of the oiccr, the
date OF his general appointment and by whom
moved, in tabular form.
Mr. uf-rfE call al tor tio,t f,a not hat ~ an