Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-04-17
rHE 1mpEAcHMEnr rRIaI.

ceiYe reply which the President made 10
that resolution.
Mr.. Butler: / have only to say that this
is argument to prejudice the law. Will
my learned friends opposite dare to say
they have read OF q case where, after the
Indictment Of criminal, the respondent
was allowed TO put in as evidence his state
ment in his own defense; if so, when does
that right cease2 -.1..s-. l..
Mr. Eyarts The learned managers ask
whether we dare do something. We have
not been in the habit of considering the
measure Of the conduct Of forensic dispu
tation question OF daring. We are not
in the habit Of applying such eTithets TO
opponents, and not, hitherto, in the habit
of receiving them. The measure of the
duty of the counsel is the measure which
we shall strive to obey, and not a measure
of daring, if for no other reason than that
on questions of law, of fact and of evidence,
we may, perhaps, expect some superiority,
but not on a measure Of daring. Laughter.
Is the learned manager entirely right in
saving that impeachment was voted on on
the 22d of February The 22d was Satur-
day. and if / am not mistaken vote was
not taken until Monday.
Mr.. Butler-The vote was taken on Sat
urday, the 22d of February.
Mr.. Eyarts-That is that articles of i'm
peachment shall be brought in.
Mr.. Butler-Yes sir.
Mr.. Evarts-The articles however were
not voted on till the oath, and now it is
said that, the vote that impeachment should
proceed being taken on the 22d of Febru-
ary, impugns the admissibility Of the evil
dence proposed to be laid before the Senate.
The Chief Justice directed the counsel
for the President to put in writing what
they proposed to offer. While they were
engaged in doing so Mr.. Butler said, to
prevent mistake, he bad sent to the Clerk
Of the House for the record Of the proceed
ings on impeachment.
Mr.. Mcpherson, the Clerk Of the House,
having come in soon after, handed the
House journal 10 Mr.. Butler.
Mr.. Butler said, find, upon examina-
ton. that the records state that on the 2lst
of February the resolution on impeachment
was prepared and referred 10 a committee,
and on the 22d the committee reported, and
that report was debated upon through the
22d, and late on Monday, the oath, the ac-
tual vote on it was taken.
Mr.. Evarts-Late in the evening, at 5
o'clock. So was correct.
Mr.. Bingham reasserted his position that
there is no law by which anybody accused
criminally after the fact, can make decla-
rations either oral or in writing, either by
message to the Senate or speech, that can
be given in evidence TO acquit himself or
affect in any manner his criminality in any
tribunal of Justice. After extending his
remarks 10 considerable length, Mr.. Bing-
ham said; ! beg pardon for having de-
tanned YOU so long in the statement of
proposition so simple, and the law of which
is 80 clearly settled, running through CEN
turtles. / submit the question to the Sen
ate. Fa-a
Mr.. Evarts Mr.. Chief Justice and SEN
ators The only apology which the learned
managers had made for the course of
his remarks is an apology for the con-
sumption of your time, yet he has not
hesitated to say and again to repeat that
there is no color of justification for the
President Of the United States to de-
fend himself, or for the efforts that his
counsel make to defend him. We do not
receive our laws from the learned man
ager.
Mr.. Bingham: Will the gentleman al
low me
Mr.. Evarts, proceeding with his re-
marks
Mr.. Bingham The gentleman misrepre-
sents me.
Mr.. Evarts / don't misrepresent the
honorable manager.
Mr.. Bingham did not say there was
no color of excuse for the Presidents at
tempt to defend himself, or for his counsel
to defend him, but that there was 20 color
of excuse for offering this testimony.
Mr.. Eyarts: 1t all comes to the same
thing everything is admitted on our view
or line of subject of controversy except it
confine to preliminary views which the
learned managers choose to throw down, is
regarded as wholly outside Of the color of
law and of right on the part of the Presi-
dent and his counsel, and it is 80 repeat
eddy charged.
Chief Justice: Senators, there is no
branch of law where there is more difficulty
to lay down precise rules than that which
regards the intent with which an act is
done. In the present case it appears the
Senate on the 22d of February passed a
resolution which | will take the liberty Of
reading:
Whereas, The Senate have received and
considered the communication of the Pre-
sident stating he had removed +. Nj. Stan
ton, Secretary of War, and had designated
the Adiutant General of the army to act as
Secretary of War, ad interim, therefore,
Resolved, BY the Senate Of the United
States, that nnder the Constitution and laws
Of the United States, the President has no
power to remove the Secretary of War and
TO designate any other officer to perform the
duties of that office ad interim.
That resolution was adopted on the Dist
Of February, and was served on the even
ing of the same day. The message now
proposed to be offered in evidence was sent
to the Senate on the 24th of February. 1t
does not appear to the Chief Justice that
the resolution called for an answer, and
therefore the Chief Justice must regard
the message Of the 24th of February as a
vindication of the Presidents act addressed
to the Senate. 1t does not appear 10 the
Chief Justice that it comes within any rule
of evidence which would Justify its being
received in evidence The Chief Justice,
however, will take the views of the Senate
in regard to it, No vote being called, the
Chief Justice ruled the evidence inadmis-
sible
Mr.. Curiis then offered to put the evil
dence as a tabular statement, compiled at
the office Of the Attorney General, contain
ing i-t of executive officers of the United
States with their statutory terms, or act of
Congress creating the Office, the name or
title Of the Office, showing whether the
tenure WAS for a definite period, at the
pleasure Of the President, or for a term in
definite He said Of course it was not
strictly evidence, but had been compiled
as a matter Of convenience, and he desired
TO have it printed, so it might be used in
argument by both sides
After some remarks by Mr. Butler, the
paper was, on motion Of Mr.. Trumbull,
ordered TO be printed as part Of the pro-
ceedings.
Mr.. Curtis then offered the papers in the
case of the removal Of Secretary Pickering
bv President Adams, remarkiug that il
was substantially the same as had been
put in evidence by Mr.. Butler except that
IL was more formal.