The New York herald., 1868-04-19

10 why we should put members OF the cabinet on The
stand, would say that we put them on the stand for
the same purpose as the Senator, when practising
law, has frequently put lawyers on the stand.
man Is proceeded against by another for an improper
arrest or for malicious prosecution, and IL Is neces
sary to prove motive IL no proper cause Is proved
motive Is impossble; but Is perfectly well settled
when the defendant can show that he fairly laid his
case before counsel and that the counsel advised him
@ a. there was probable cause the inference OF mo,
1--WE Is oVerthr0wn. We wish TO show here that the
President called for the opinions OF his ad-
ylsers and acted upon that advice. In re-
Senator from Maryland Mr. Johnson, he Will
| aiow me To say that this Is question which the
dents counsel The question is "Do the counsel for
the President understand that the Managers deny the
statement made 10y the President in his message Of
december ~ 1867, as given in evidence by the Man
ayers page 40, Official reporD, that the members of
Tenure Of once acti and is the evidence offered cor
Ionoraiive OF hat statement or for what other OBJ
the honorable Manager has said this morning that
| the House OF Representatives has taken no issue on
as part 0 our sG the honorable Manager
% also understand that the honorable
the message Of the President to the Senate Senate
of the 18th of December, In which he states that he
was advised by the members Of his Cabinet unani-
mously, including Mr.. Stanton, that that law was un-
constitutional. Nevertheless Senators, this is an
affair OF the utmost gravity in any aspect or In any
possible view of it, and we do not feel at liberty to
evade or abstain from Offering the members OF the
Presidents Cabinet so that they might state to you,
under the sanction of their oaths what advice was
given to the President by them on the subject.
Senator WILLIAMS submitted the following ques-
ton to the cOullsel:-"ls the advice given 70 the
President by his Cabinet with q view oi preparing
veto message pertinent to prove the right Of the
President to disregard the law alter IL was passed
over his vetoP'
Mr.. CuRTIs-I consider it strictly pertinent. 1t is
not enough that the President received such advice,
but he must show that an occasion for him to
act upon 1t, which, in the judgment of the Senate,
be imputed to him. But the first step is to show
that he honestly believed that IL was an
,S Sw St %s II sasssss sSsps
! how entirely aside this view which have presented
to the senate Is from any Claim on inc part OF the
cause he thinks it unconstitutional lie makes no
such claim. He must make case beyond that-a
case such rs Is stated in his answer bu IN order to
make case beyond that it is necessary for him To
begin by satisfying the Senate that ne honestly be-
lieved the law unconstitutional, and IL Is with that
| view that now offer this evidence.
| The CHIEF .JusrIcE-senators, the only question
which the Chief Justice considers as before the Sen
ate respects not the weight but the ainissibty Of
| the evidence offered. To determine that qnes
| ton, it is necessary to show what is charged
in the articles Of impeachment. The lrst article
| charges that on the 2lst Of February,
the President issued an order for the removal OF Mr.
order was made unlawlully, and that 1t was made
with the intent then and there to violate the const-
peated the articles which relate 10 the appoint
ment Of Mr.: Thomas, and which We're necessarily
the subject to which much of the evidence on both
sides has been directed, and the Chief Justice con-
pose Of showing the intent with which the President
has acted in this transaction. lie viii submit the.
question to the Senate If any senator desires.
Senator HOWARD called for the yeas and nays.
The vote was taken and rcsued-yeas 20 nays 49,.
as follows:-
yrAssena.crs ANTHONY Bsyard Bussaew, Davis.
e1,asss HSssy WnI yRs % Tens Ross
NAYS Senators Cameron, cattcl, Chandler, Cole conk
Me-, aS%l Of W., Patterson \. FoaeIoy Ramsey
sas199a" sgsasue' Stewart 1h''e 1''H Williams
SO the evidence was excluded.
Secretary Welles then called TO the stand, and
his examination was resumed as follows by Mr..
Evarls-
from the presentation of the bill TO tue President
until his message sending in hls objections Was COM
peted was the question whether meth, Mr. stanton c m s" ws
ject Of consideration and determnation3
The % CHIEF JUSTICE directed the counsel to put the
The offer Was reduced to writing as fol!ows:-
"we offer to prove that ut the meeting of the
Cabinet at which Mr.. stanton vas present,
held while the Tenure of Once act was before
the President for approval, the advice Of the
Cabinet in reference to the same was asked
by the President and given by the Cabinet;
the other Secretaries who had received their appoint
| mens from Mr. Lincoln were within the restrictions
the h Of TsoSa TS % oona Sse
| expressed that the Secretaries appointed by Mr..
| Lincoln were not within the restrlctons.'
Mr. BUTLER objected, stating that the question
came within the railing already made by the Senate.
Mr.. EvARrs replied 10 TIA objection stating that
he did not regard the question as coming within the
ruling. The ruling already made might nave turned
one of several considerations quite outside
Of the present inquiry. The present cyilence
sought 10 be introduced presented questions
| Of another coinple yon. In the irst pace IL
presented the question AZ TO the law itself whether
It had IN any way, or was Intended ty nave any ap-
plication to secretaries whom the President had
never selected or appointed. This point had formed
the subject Of much consideration and opinion IN the
Senate and In the House OF Repre- scntatiyes, and
maze subject OF inquiry ana Of opinion by the
President himself and his action concerning IL was
| what brought the question here. ie removal OF
Mr.. Stanton was based Oh the Presidents opinion,
| after proper and dilgent efforts to gee correct
opinion that Mr.. Stanton was not within the law.
| and therefore the evidence would show that the
Presidents conduct and ac ion in removing Mr. STAN
| ton was not in the intent Of violating the law.
| The purpose now was To show that lie
did moi do It with the intent OF violating The law, but
with the intent Of exercising q well know n, perfect
| ly established constitutional power. deemed by him
In the advice of his Cabinet not To lie effected by the
| law. II the question or intent, Of purpose OI mo-
tive and OF object In the removal OF MI stanton were
the subject OF inquiry here, then IL was proper TO
show that he acted within Obedience OF The consttu
| ton as he was ADVISED and within obedience to the
| law he was advised The question, too, had
assent TO the opinions Of the Cabinet had bear
ing in reference the Presidents right to expect
| from Mr. Stanton acquiescenee In the power Of re-
| mOval. -
upon debate, he wished TO call the attention OF the
Senate to the fact that the question sought to show
whether the Cabinet, including Mr.. stanton, had not
advised the President that the bull did not apply
Mr. stanton. In that connection he would refer the
Senate to the Presidents message OF the 18th OF De-
cenbcr in which lie made use OF the following IAN
guagc:-.'To the Senate Of the United Staes:-i have
carefully examined the bill To regulate the tenure Of
certain civil Offices. The material portion of the bill Is
con- aimed in the first section and il of the effect fol-
lowing-naincy, That any person holding any civil
Office to which he has been appointed by and with
the advice and consent OF the senate, and every per-
son who shall hereafter be appointed to any such
Office ana shall become duly quaiied TO act therein,
s and shall be entitled to hgld such office until
successor slail ,laye been appointed by
the President, with tAe aiyice aud consent
OF the Sehae and duly qualified, and that the Secre
tares OF State OF the Treasury OF WAR OF the Navy
and OF the Interior, the Postmaster Genera and the
Attorney General shall hold their Offices respectively