The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-04-02
CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS.
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL PRO-
GRESSI
the Presidents Counsel Begins the
Defense,
INTERESTING BEBATE IN THE
HB1PEAChM MESF COURT.

SIN A 4 A. -...--,....--.. w Ash LH6T0Ns April 1.
At few minutes past u o'clock the
Managers of the House, ia Committee
of the Whole, and the counsel for the
President, having taken their places,
the Court of impeachment was called.
to order by Chief Justice Chase, and
the minutes Of last days trial read up
to the mention of the vote cast by
Chief Justice Chase to decide a tie
vote on the question of retiring for
deliberation. when
Sumner made motion to correct
the Journa by Inserting that it is the
opinion Of Senators that said vote of
the Chief Justice was unauthorized
and Of no effect On this motion he
demanded the yeas and nays, which
were taken-yeas p, nays p. So the
motion was disagreed to.
The question as 20 the admisability
of Burleigh's testimony about a con-
versatiOn between him and General
Thomas was submitted to the Senate
by the Chief Justice.
Before the vote was taken, Free
lInghuysen inquired if the Managers
intended to connect the testimony of
witness with the respondent.
Butler answered afirmatively. Ar
gument ensued
Stanbery then rose and said the Court
had at length reached the domain of the
law on a question requiring a careful con-
sideratton and argument. He stated the
question to be whether or not the declara.
tioSs OF General Thomas were to be used
against the President, though not proven
to be authorized by him. It IS alleged that
the gravamen OF he offense charged in
the first three articles consist in issuing, by
the President, of the letter of authority to
General Thomas. In the fourth article the
o1ense charged Is con sptracy with General
Thomas, to obtain by force and intImida-
tion the office o. Secretary Of War. These
were the only articles whose cons deratfOn
was now necessary. As vel we have no
proof of anything said by the President
before or after giving this letter of author
ity. The purpose Of the present attempt
was to show the Presidents intent in issu-
ing it. by the production OF Irrelevant tes-
umonX about the remarks made by Cen
eral 1nonaS Wlthout authorization by
the President. The Presidents intent
could be shown only by the orders them
selves The order and letter, IL authority
were given TO General Thomas, did not
make nh M q general agent of The PreSi-
dent. They authorized him to- do only
certain Specinc things. When a proper
foundation of proof OF q cOnsp racy is
laid, then declarations OF one OF the sup
posed consplrators may be deemed to i'm
pIcate; and thens In this instance, nS
such foundation or PROOF has been 1aid.
Even II il were admitted, (which he de-
MED that the letter of authority conSti-
tutes a relation between the President
and General Thomas OF principal
and general agent, it could not be
Itself proof OF a conspiracy. The nature
OF the order was according to the usual
the law to execute the duties of office
esta bl iShed by law. It would not be assert
ed that all Officers appointed by the Presf-
dent became nis special or general agents.
The President and his appointee were
3like officers and responsible to the laws.
The Managers say they expect hereafter to
= m nfsfT hat nuar-
ton of Gen. Thomas and the respondent.
Mr.. Butler-T did not say hereafter.
. Mr.. Stanoery-Qid you say yen had done
Mr.. Butler-No.
Mr.. Stanbery--Then If you expect TO do
IL, you must do NJ hereafter, and either
meant what you did not say, or said what
you did not mean.
He went on claiming it to be an unpl g
cedented attempt 70 build structure be-
fore laying the foundation.
Mr. Butler replied. BE said the argu-
nent Of the respondents counsel seemed
70 SHOW that they felt hat the question
lnYoiyed might decide their case. The
Managers claimed that the p esident had
Ions intended TO violate a certain law. He
c illed 10 his aid General of the Army;
ne then gave an order to Mr.. Thomas to
tdke possession OF the War Office " hich
the counsel said was the usual torm This
ne Gained was not true; H. had certain
ear marks about it which showed an
mediately take possession = Stanton.
When ne nrsl yielded, as he said, It was TO
stAPCAApi AbACs7f iilt tlitef MS reinstatement
he was more strongly fortified, and no
man not besotted could have believed he
would again yield, except TO su-
perlor force The President could
not khaVe expected MIN to Weld
otherwise. The President intended to do
an unlawful acr, and Mr. Thomas con
seufea % GId him. ThuS a conspiracy was
constituted. on this ground the Managers
claimed their right 60 introduce the tesIi-
nony in Ques, ion. They also claimed il
ON the ground of the relation existing be-
tween the President and General Thomas
OF principal and ageut-the com mission to
do just what the President wanted HIM 10
DO, viz: to Ob ain possession OF the War
Once. The declaration of Gen. ThOm IS
was about the common objections made TO
a man wi Ose support he was trying to Sc
cure No Objec ion was made by counsel
ye~teraay to the introduction OF testimony
relating 20 what was done by thOmas in
| the War Department; the President was
not there.
Mr. STanbery--'' General Thomas was
then acting within his authority"
Butier continue and cited authorities to
support his views regarding the admlsSl-
Dti1ty of declarations in proof OF cOnsplra-
cy- made by one OF the cOnSplratOrS IN the
absence of another. He proceeded To ate
t that they proposed to show, through the
evidence under discussion, that Thomas
{ intended TO use force, and WIS prevented
I by the arrest. He referred to the remark
! points OF la worthy 10 be argued by law
yers to lawyers. They had already had
/ questions worthy OF debate by statesmen
I 10 statesmen, and he LButlerl protested
( against narrO wing down the subject to the
/ arguments of attorneys.
Mr.. Curtis rejOined by saying that it was
suine1ent objection 10 the first part of the
/ question to be submitted, and that the
| material to the charges in issue, whether
made by q COmpetent or inCOm petaur wit.