The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1868-04-29
We were somewhat surprised at the

We were somewhat surprised at the
Seuatc's repeated overruling OF the de-
cisions of the Chief Justice on Saturday,
as to tho admissibility of the evidence of
General Sherman. On introducing it Dir.
Stanbery said it was essential to the con-
duct of the defence that this testimony
should be admitted, and the pertinacity
with which he carried on his attempts to
get it in showed the great weight that
was put upon it. When the prosecution
offered their evidence the Senate gave
them the greatest latitude, overruing the
decisions of the Chief Justice half u dozen
times, and always in favor Of admitting
the testimony But Butler fought against
Sherman's testimony as pertinaciously as
the counsel for it, and on several occa
sions he used language so offensive that
Mr.. Stanbcry was compelled to protest.
The vote Of the Senate, however, on this
question was very close. and we hope that
upon the matter being protested today,
thoy will conclude to treat the defence
fairly by permitting General Sherman to
present his evidence.
In practically giving the control of the
case for the prosecution to Mr. Butler, the
House managers have indicated the me-
thod in which they desire the trial 10 be
conducted They think the best way to
be that which is practiced by the "shys-
tcrs'' of our low criminal courts. BY
twisting evidence, badgering witnesses,
clubbing over petty points, abusing the
opposing counsel, and resorling to all the
mean tricks ofthc pettfogger, it is thought
that their side of the case can best be
served, and the Senate most easily be al
fected. Ii was as an adept in these prac-
tices that Mr.. Butler first distinguished;
himself in the criminal courts of Massa-
chusetts; and now that in this great case
be has the opportunity of displaying his
powers unchecked before the Senate. it
appears that time has only intensified the
characteristics of his earlier years. We
suppose that in permitting him to marriage
the prosecution as lie has thus far man
aged it, his colleagues have concluded that
his style wonld prove most effective. an'
that it afforded the best means for secur
ing the verdict which they desire. Per-
haps they are right. We will not attempt
to dispute the point.
We know that they .mnst have conclu-
sive reasons ior their course. We are
sure that there are among them members
who could put matters on different level.
There arc men who need not fear Il con
test on higher grounds with even such an
array Of legal talent as constitutes the
counsel for the defence Wilson. of Iowa,
for example, is probably the most compre.
hensive-and powerful mind on the side of
tho prosecutions; but he seems to take no
part in in its control. Bingham. who is
an able man. has displayed himself very
little and Boutwell, who is honest and
earnest. has not yet been heard of.
We confess we should like to have seen
the case conducted differently Perhaps
it would have been all the worse for the
President. Perhaps it would have been
better for him. But whether better O.:
worse. We arc sure ii would have been
more crctlilabIc tothc Senate more credl-
table 10 The country, more credltabe to the
cause of Justice and mere worthy OF the
admiration of mankind. here and every
where, now and hereafter.