Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-04-01
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

| LII Au1A nhSuN1N L I1nlAL.
The Chief Justice took possession and called
| the Court of Impeachment TO order
Ihe Sergeant alarms made proclamation
The counsel for the President entered and
| took their seats. W.T.
nounced, and came forward and took their
| seats
The House of Representatives was an.
| nounced.
| The journal Of proceedings was read.
AS soon AS the reading of the journal was fin-
| lshed, Senator Sumner arose and asked 20 suh-
| INIT motion In the nature Of correction of
| the journal, that whereas il appears by the
| reading OF the journal of yesterday. that ia a
question where the Senate was evenly divided
the Chief Justice presiding on the trial OF the
ing vote therefore
Ordered, That under the Constitution the
| Chief Justice presiding on this trial has no
| right or authority TO vote on any Question
! which may arise.
Mr.. Sumner demanded the ayes and noes on
his motion, when il was rejected, as follows:
| feGs-Messrs. Cameron, Chandler, Cole
| Conkling, Conness, Cragin, Drake, Howard
Howe, Morgan, Morrill, of Maine, Morton,
Pomeroy, Ramsay, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer,
Upton, Trumbull, Williams and Wilson-5i
Ndys-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, BuckaIew,
Corbeit, Davis. Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds
Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen,
Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, johnson. Nc
Creery, Morrill, of Vermont, Norton, PatterSon
of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee
Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Van Wrinkle, yickers
The Chief Justice said that when the Court
adjourned yesterday the question was ON the
admissibility as evidence of a certain con versa
ton between Gen. Thomas and the witness
(Mr. Burleigh) then on the stand Will the
Managers submit an writing the question which
was objected.
Mr.. Butler then submitted in writing the
following query. which he had propounded
TO the witness:
You said yesterday in answer to my question
that you had conversation with Gen. Thomas
on the evening of the 2lst of February state
II be said anything as 10 the means by which
he intended TO obtain. or was directed by the
PRESIDENT to obtain, possession of the papers
and effects of the War Office State all that he
said as nearly as YOU can remember.
Senator Frelinghuysen submitted the follow
ing interroeatory DO the Managers intend
to connect the conversation between the wit
ness and Gen. Thomas with the respondent
Mr.. Butler.-If that question is to be an
swered, with the leave of the Senate we will
argue II. We Will endeayor to answer IL in the
course of the argument.
Mr.. Trumbull called for the reading of the
question again. HI thought that would answer
the question OF the senator from New Jersey
The Secretary tn n read the interrogatory
again.
MIR. Butler said the question would be better
answered in the course of the argument; but he
would now say that the managers do propose
10 connect the question which they have sub
mitted with the respondent.
The Chief Justice asked if the counsel for the
defence proposed 10 submit any argument TO
the Sen ate.
Mr.. Stanbery said they Were no longer argu.
ing as 10 the modes OF procedure, but they were
coming now TO a distinct question. proper TO be
argued by lawyers. The question now Mr.
Chirf Justice and Senator's, is whether the
declarations OF General Thomas should BE- taken
in evidence against the President General
Thomas is not on trial. II is the President OF
the United States, and the President alone, and
the testimony 10 be offered must relate to him
1t is granted that the Pre- sident was not pr,asent
when the declarations of General Thomas Were
made on the 2ist Of February, and had no
means OF knowing what they were II they are
10 be used against him. il must be shswn that he
was privy TO them. What are the articles Of
impeachment. The first article charges the Pres
ident with issuing a certain order 10 Mr. stanton
for his removal, and adding the order TO eneral
Thomas TO receive from him the transfer of
books and papers of the Office. The offence
charged is not as to the animus Of the order,
but the language of the order itself. The sec
ond article charges that the President issued an
order to General Thomas, the offence being in
the suing of the order, not in anything done
under IL. Other articles charge conspiracy be-
tween the President and General Thomas and
other persons not named, TO obtain possession
of the War Once by threats and intimidation,
and in violating the act OF July, 1o66. Ee would
not refer 10 the articles reference 10 speeches
made at Cleveland aLd elsewhere
MI. Stanbery, in continuation, said that as
yet there was no proof of what had been said
by the President, or that he authorized Gen
Thomas to do one single act, or make one single
expression that II was now proposed TO show
by the declaration Of Gen Thomas alone with
what inrent the President assumed TO is Ne his
orders, and 10 bind the President by declara-
tiOn made by Thomas, not under oath And
now " hat proof is there that Thomas had au
tEority TO speak for the President You must
first lay the proper foundation before testimony
such as is now proposed can be offered
Mr.. Stanbery here read the copies of the or
der issued by the President TO Mr.. Stanton to
surrender the Department OF War; and also the
order issued to Thomas TO take possession of
UenQrtmQnf a fhQ hrnl at.a
pers OF the office. These orders, said Mr.. Stan
berry were orders issued by the President TO
two of his subordInates, the one to a subordi-
mates to surrender up the books and papers of
his ONCE, and the other TO another subordinate
to receive the books and papers and enter upon
the discharge Of duties as Secretary Of War. Is
that proof of conspiracy, or Of an intention
to enter into a conspiracy Does that
make General Thomas such an agent
of the President that the President would be
bound by his acts and declarations Even II
he is an agent, does the order of the President
authorize Thomas TO do aught but what he is
commanded TO do; to go to the War Depart
ment and receive from Mr. stanton the trans
fer OF the books and papers of the War Depart.
ment. Does that order authorize Gen. Thomas
the order Before the Honorable Court can
admit Gen Thomas declarations with regard
TO bis purposes and intentions, counsel must
SNOW sa conspiracy entered into by the Presi-
co-conspIrator. He (Mr. Stanbery) admitted
that If a conspiracy was established or il par.
udlly tstdDAsueu. t0en teSunony OF the 0eclar-
alton Of the CO. conspirator could be given He
would say further, that if the proper founda.
tion We're lald proof of a conspiracy in the
declaration Of any one Of the co-conspirators
could be given-any declaration could
be given in furtherance Of the consp,racy
and he argued that the act or declaration OF
any one Of the conspirators would bind
all. So would he agree that if any agency were
established by parole proof or in writing-and
when IN writirs the measure of the agency
would be established. and 1t cannot be further
estab abiished by parole proof-then the counsel
might give the declaration of aco.conspirator;
but be wonld ask whore the proof was thathad
vet been offered TO show a conspiracy between
Gen. Thomas and the President He would |
admit, he repeated, that II a conspiracy Were
proven Thomas declaration could be given In
evidence; bat he (Stanbery) denied that the |
offer Of the letter Of authority To General |
Thomas laid the foundation :, for the 4
testimony it was nov proposed to Offer, We |
are told by the hoa9rahle Manager that they |
propose TO adduce proof that Thomas purpose |
was to use force TO obtain possession of the |
War Departmen nj, and n 10 claimed that the |
letter Of authority from the President 70 \
Thomas lnys the proper foundation Suppose
the owner Of . house gives his agent authority
In writing TO 20 to Q tenant and get from him |
possession. Of the, house and secure the key.r
does thaa authority authorize the agent 10 cors'
NIT an ul and battery upon the tenant cr
70 tAke poeseesion Of the house ri ef or-;s, i
-