The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1868-04-14
CONGRESSIONAL.
WASHINGTON, April IL.
SENATE.

before the COuTb 10 uc vi tho hNeiON
allowing as many Managers and eoun-
sci TO participate in the final debate as
MAY wish to do so.
Mr.. Sumner offered an amendment
thar no further postponement should be
caused thereby. Accepted.
Several amendments relative TO the
members who should close, and the
Length of time to be occupied by each,
were made.
Mr.. Stanbery said the counsel for the
defence were strongly opposed to linn
itation of time in the final argument.
Mr.. Butler intimated that he would
not take advantage OF chance 10
speak. 49,,
position as il now stsod would give six
Managers against four counsel on the
closing argument.
Mr.. Drakeraised the point of order
that the Senate sitting as Court could
not take such action.
The point was overruled. Inc vote
was then taken resulting So to III. 90
the rule remaiSs unchanged.
The examination of General Sherman
was resumed.
AIR. Stapbery asketi-After the restO-
ration of Mr.. Stanton did You form an
opinion as to the desirabihty, or as to
the good of the service, OF the office oil
Secretary of War being filed by another
than Mr.. Stantoni Ii 20, did you e1-
press your opinion to the President I
Objection made and argued by hr.
Bingham.
MI. Stanbery replied-The question
of intent was of vital impoItancei they
did not offer this testimony IS an aO'
stract of opinion, but as the Judgmen
formed and expressed by the second OIL
Ger in theservice for its good. lie refer
red to the relations existing between
the President and Stanton, and claim
ed it was competent to prove that dis
tinguished Generals like Grant and
Sherman believed a change should be
made in the interest Of the Government.
He appealed earnestly to the Senate for
the sake of justice to admit the evil
dence.
80 Mr.. Butler reioined that by introduce
ing irrelevant testimony the law would
be broken to defend q breaking of Law.
He said there would be no limit to the
iiruuiries which would DO put the wit
ness. The Managers conld ask him ii
he had quarrel with Stanton, # that
influenced his opinion; SO that field
would be bOuIdless. 1t seemed to be
assumed by the other side that the evil
2 intent must be proved by something
the President had said; whereas it was
proved by his act, in breaking the act,
:. -. IL ,.-l,.A1,av NJ
Stanton was fit man or not to be re-
tanned in Office. Evil could not be done
that good might come.
Referring to remark of Mr.. Stan
berry that Mr,-Stautou did not take
part in Cabinet councils, he said there
was no suOh thing contemplated by the
Constitution. Members of the Cabinet
were to be called on for advice respect
ing the affairs of their own Depart
ments. The President must show that
he ever called on Mr.. Stanton for a
written opinion, or that he had giveu
him an order which he had diSobeyCd
Senator Copkling inquired ifthe coun-
sci proposed to prove that General
Sherman had advised the President to
procure a change in any particular
way.
Mr.. Stanbery replied in tho negative;
witness had only expressed an opinion
as to the desirability of some change.
Mr.. Evarts said it was not merely a
question of having committed viola
ton of the law which was punishable
in another Court by so small a penalty
rs six cents fine or u few days impris-
Onment, but was a question of commits.
sion of an impeachable offence, punish
able By deposition from the highest
office, which questionable evidence re-
lating to the motive was of the most
vital Importance.
Mr.. Bingham held that the rules OF
evidence were the same on the trial OF
beggar or President.
Mr.. Evarts interrupted, TO say that he
had in his remarks supposed the Pres,
ident to be on trial for petty offense,
and rePelled the insinuatiOn that he
would mete out justice according to
rank.
Mr. Bingham continued in an earnest
appeal against the admission of the ties.
timony, and at the conclusion the yeas
aud nays were taken, which resulted
Is To 50. So it was not admitted.
Mr. johnson offered question wheth-
or before tho removal of Mr.. Stanton
bad he advised the President that lie
should be removed and replaced.
The Chief Justice said the Court must
decide whether the question should be
put. and the Senate decided in the neg
alive by vote of 1s to -
Mr., Stanbery then said he had no
more questions to ask General Sherman.
The Managers declined 10 cross ex-
anime, and the Court took n recess ut
2:l0.
On re-sssembling Mr.. n. S. Meigs,
Clerk of the Supreme Court, testified
that he. affixed the seal to the warrant
for the arrest OfGeneral Thomas. About
2 o'clock on the morning of February
22d, Nj. Pile of Missouri, brought it to
him at his house. In answer To Mr..
Buuer he said he had been called at
such hours before, in cases of pressing
necessity.
Mr.. Stanbery then offered to put in
evidence the warrant and affidavit OF
Mr. Stanton on which it was issued.
Mr.. Butler objected to its reception.
Mr.. Evarts said they related to the
same subject ON which the managers
had Introduced testimony and that The
Presidents counsel intended to show hc
took the advantage of the proceedings
commenced by Mr.. Stanton as the speed
lest method Of bringing the question
before the Supreme Court.
Mr.. Butler argued the effect of intro
daoing these papers, that il would he to
open up new regions of controversy ir-
relevant to the case.
Mr.. Stanbery referred to the fact that
the declarations of General Thomas bad
beoT admitted as declarations of the
President TO prove his design in employ
ing force and went on to reeite cireum-
stances attending the discharge of
Thomas, which he said they woald show
was in order to prevent tho President
from testing the question. The evil
dence would also show that General
Thomas was net regarded great GRIM
iual by these who procured his arrest.
Mr.. Butler rejoined, when the Chief
Justiceruled that. the warrant and afi-
dayit were admissible, and on taking
the yeas and nays his ruling was Sus-
tained by 81 to II,