The Hancock Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Ohio) 1857-1870, 1868-04-24

ISAAC Rs SHERWOOD.
ATM5ab1qf Board of ,Ps5i;e Works,
EylfgAMEs MooRE-h
For School Commissfone,
JAMES A. NORRIS.
.,ssss <sszE ESs Cgert of Supreme Court,
RODNEY FOOS.
IMPEACHMENT.
We take the impeachment matters
aupsfremxhe close oflast weeks re-
port;
a,asz.s< WAsHIEGTos, April is.
rHR sPEEcHEs AT TIE CLOSE.
Unexpected progress was made in
the impeachment trial, to-day. The
Senate, at its opening, after few
minutes debate, and one. preliminary
fote, again refused to extend the rules
allowing more than two TO speak on a
side, in closing.
This being disposed of, Evarts an
nounced that Mr.. Stanbery was bet
ter and would be present to morrow
Judge Curtis then began the presen
tation of documentary evidence,
slesyin9 the real testimony to be com
nleted when Mr.. Stanberv should re-
turn to manage it. The first paper.
appeared. was the nomination OF
<Tbomas Ewing as Secretary OF War.
This. was received without objection,
but at the second step counsel met
with strong opposition.
not ADMITTED,
& Judge Curtis presented the mes
sage Of the President, to the Senate
in fesponse to the notification OF that
BODY that it did not consent to the
removal of Stanton. To this objec-
ton was made by the Managers, that
it was simply a declaration of the
President, made after the act, and
even after the House Committee had
reported in favor OF impeachment.
Manager Bingham challenged coun-
sci to produce any legal authority
Tor the introduction of such testimo-
nv. The debate on the part.of the
MANAGERS was full of life and force.
Counsel didn't seem inclined to de
bate the question, but were evidently
relying upon the-rnlings made on
Monday by the Senate, and sure to
be so construed as to cover the
present case. But, apparently, much
to. their disappointment, the Chief
Justice ruled against them, holding
that the resolution of the Senate, to
which the message was an answer,
required no answer, and the message
was therefore q communication in
ordinary FORM. The Chief Justice,
however, said that if any Senator de-
sired it. he would submit the ques-
tion to The Senate. This only made
the emstter worse for the counsel, as
no member of the Court desired a
vote.
- MASS OF DOCUMENTS.
The balance of the session was
consumed in presenting great mass
of documentary evidence, collected
from the records of the various de-
partments, for the purpose of show
ing the custom of making removals
and appointments under all previous
aadhhiSdsGafions. To some Of this
sthe Aanagers objected. Il.
A SUDDEN STOP.
To the surprise of the Managers.
at 4 o'clock, Judge Curtis announced
that, so far as now advised, counsel
had no more documentary evidence
10 produce. Before the defense had
opened their case they expected to
consume two full days with this class
Of evidence. From this it is inferred
that they have deemed it best not to
offer quite q portion of that prepar-
ed,
srz7fe.ss ; :. WASHINGTON, April l6.
THE DAYS BUSINESS.
- The day has been devoted by the
Spunsel for the defense to the intro
duction of evidence 10 show that the
intent softhe President in removing
Stanton was to test the questions in
: yolved in the Courts, and to set forth,
in evidence, the circumstances which
prevented Mr.. johnson from getting
the case of Thomas to the Supreme
Court. ssn
MR.. sTANBKRY STILL ILL
Mr. Eyarts announced that Mr..
Staabery was still unable to make
. his appearance, and although coun-
sel.tad not the advantageiof consul
tation with him, they would go as far
as-possibie, and then ask for an ad
tournment.
- "a LAWYER ON THE STAND.
& The first witness was q lawyer of
this District, named Cox, who acted
as counsel for General Thomas at the
time Of his arrest He was produced
to give the substance ofconversations
with the President when the subject
Of General. Thomas case, after Stan
ton had made the case for them, into
the Supreme Court. The Managers
objected to his repeating the declar-
ations Of the President made after
the commission of the act for which
he had been arraigned by the House.
This was argued at considerable
length.
Inall-these questions. Managers
have assumed that the Presidents
acts and declarations after i,npeach
ment proceedings were instituted,
can only be regarded in the light OF
acts performed and declarations made
for the purpose of silieldmg himself T,
However, the Chief Justice ruled IN :
favor of the defense, ant the Senate ,
sustained it by 30 10 81, the Demo !,
Gratis all voting in the affirmative
with the following Republicans :
Anthony. .Corbett. Fessenden, Fow- :
Ter, Frelinghnysen,1 Grimes. Howe. !,
Morrill,. Of Maine, Morton A II. Ross, .
Sherman, Sprague, Summer. Trum
bull, Van Vert, and Wiley. Several
objections regarding the testimony
of this witness were raised, but in N
most cases overruled, hy vote dit a
fering only in one or two names from .
the above. The amount of the testi >,
mony received was that the President !,
upon the afternoon !, of the 22l OF !,
February. directed witness to try to :
take the case o.. Thomas up To be !,
Supreme Court upon q writ of haEe0s -
,orpus !. So. : -. - .''- p n,
SsSeb1Hg cross EXAMINATION I,ii
- . . r. L.