The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1868-04-20
BY TELEGRAPH,
CONGRESS.
wAsH1NeToN. April IS.
SENATE.
;ourt opened at IL O'Clock.

Court opened at IL o'clock.
The Managers and members OF the
House were SUCCESSFULLY announced:
Mr.. Stevens was not present at the
opening. By direction of the Chief
Justice, the QUESTION pending yester-
day was read as follows:
We, the counsel for the President, Of
fer to prove that the. President at a
meeting of the Cabinet, while the bill
was before the President for his ap-
proval, laid before the Cabinet the
| tenure. f-ofIice act for their considers
ton and advice to the President re-
specting his approval of the bill, and
thereupon the members of the Cabinet
then present gave their advice to the
President that the bill was unconstitu-
tional and should be retured to Con-
gress with his objections, and that the
duty OF preparing n message setting
forth the objections to the bill was de-
volved 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.
Manager Wilson rose to speak, when
Senator johnson submitted the follow
ing question to the counsel of the Pres
ident in writing: "Do the counsel un-
derstand that the Managers deny the
statement made by the President in his
message of December ~, 1867, in evil
dence given by the Managers at page
40, No. 8, of the official report OF the
trial, that the members of tho Cabinet
gave the opinion last stated as to the
tenure Of office act, and as evidence
offered to corroborate their statement,
or for what otherrpurpose is 1t offered?
EESenator Howard submitted the queS-
ton to the Presidents counsel. Do the
counsel for the accused not consider
that the validity of the tenure of ofhce
rVNNnnltnSN nF laNu IN Nn
determined in this and tried by the
Senate,i If so do they consider that tho
opinion of cabinet officers touching
that question, Is competent evidence by
which the judgment of the Senate
ought to be Influenced?
Senator Edmunds asked whether the
argument on the part OF the Manager
might not be continued while the conn-
sci were considering the question.
The Chief Justice replied in the af-
irmative.
Mr.. Curtis said they would prefer
| that course.
.:Mr. Wilson, speaking from man
uscript argued on behalf of the Mana
gers that the testimony was irrelevant,
| for reasons that members of the Cabt-
net have no right to gve advice ex-
cept in reference to matters relating eG-
clusiYely to their own and
that II IL were, the advice given in this
He discussed general questions of the
relative powers of the Executive and
Legislative branches, maintaining at
great length that checks within the
power of the Executive to impose upon
the Legislative branch, We're exhaust
ed by the exercise of his veto preroga-
tive. Whereas, on the other hand, his
acts were subject to supervision by the
| two Houses of Congress, whose meas
ures he was required to carry out in
the support of his position that the law
making power is supreme.
| Mr.. Wilson cited numerous authori-
ties and referred to cases in English
history, where the King himself had
| deferred to the will of Parliament. He
held that If the President had the right
to challenge the laws of Congress his
subordinates could call in question tie
orders of the President, aud anarchy
would ensue. Recapitulating, he said
the President could not assume the
prerogative ofa King, who could do nc
| wrong, and consequently could not
| shelter himself behind responsibility
of his minister,
Mr.. Curtis declined to follow the hon
orable manager in anticipating the
questions, which were a fit subject only
for final argument, but would contine
himself to the point at issue. He pro
ceeded to claim that the testimony bear
ing on the question OF intent was called
for in rebuttal of allegations of the arti
cles which charged evil intent and will
ful violation of the constitution. The
honorable managers had argued an
the question of intent was fmmateria
in the face of this fact, that several ar
ticles not yet Withdrawn make the
questioned intent the gravamen of theil
charge. In answer to Mr.. Howard't
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 tht
President to a course of action which
the counsel claim will thereby purge il
of the charge ot,mslice. In reply to Mr.
johnson, Mr.. Curtis stated that they
did not understand the managers e
deny the assertion in the Presidents
message that he had been advised by
the Cabinet in the matter, and wished
to produce oral testimony to the same
effect.
The Chief Justice read the article
charging him with evil intent, and ex
pressed his opinion that the eVldenc'
i offered was applicable to those points
The yeas and nays were taken, Whlct
resulted 20 to 20, so the decision OF tho
Chief Justice was overruled ana tht
evidence was not admitted.
Mr.. Welles was then recalled, anC
the counsel proposed to ask him wheth
er the question OF the applfcapllLy o
the tenure of office bill to Mr.. Stanton
was considered In the Cabinet meeting
previous to its return with the obIec
lions OF the President, and whether
the opinion was expressed that the la"
j 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 his testimony was in
reference TO the construction, not the
constitutionality of law, and held that
it was admissible for other reasons.
+ Mr.. Butler read from the veto mes.
sage ia show that the President vetoed
the bill on the ground that 1t did not
apply to all the members ofhis Cabinet.
He also held that the President did not
pretend 10 believe that Stanton would
acquiesce in his removal because he
felt himself not removed by law. The
Presidents put it on tine ground OF cow
arCliGe.
the message read by Mr.. Butler, and
said they made part of a general argu-
ment as to the constitutionality OF the
bill, and had no reference to the special
case of President Johnson's Cabinet:
The Chief Justice submitted the
question to the Senate, and the eyi-