Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-04-16
had never been served upon him. 1t is
providedoin the text of the Constitution,

snaG Is 70 De challenged Dy no, man, alter
these proceedings thus instituted, and two
days after the effect of the action of the
Senate being made known to him., and
three days alter the effect of the
i commission of his crimes.the President en-
ters deliberately on the task of justifying
himself for the violation of its laws and
tne constitution, for a violation of his oath
OF office, for his defiance OF the Senate, for
I his defiance OF the people, by sending a
| message to the Senate on the 9th of Feb
ruary. What is it, Senators, any more than
the voluntary declaration of the criminal
after the fact is made known, in his own be-
| half? Does it alter the case in law? Does
| it alter the case in the reason or Judgment
of any man living, either within the
| TO put his declaration in his own
defense in writing? The law makes no
such, distinction. / undertake to assert
here, regardless of any attempt to contra
i dict my statement, that there is,no law by
which any body accused criminally, after
the fact can make a. declaration, either
] oral or in writing, either by a message to
the Senate or speech to a mob, that can
/ be given in evidence to acquit himself or
affect in any manner his criminality with
\ IN a tribunal of justice, or to make evil
dence which should be admitted upon any
| form of law on his own motion to Justify
his criminal act. do not hesitate to say,
that every authority which the gentlemen
can bring into court relating to rules of ey-
idence in proceedings of this sort is direct
ly against the proposition, and for the SIM
| pie reason that this is a written declaration,
| made by the accused voluntarily, after the
4 fact in his own behalf. l read for the in
| formation of the Senate the testimony
touching this fact of service of notice OF
action had by the Senate and conduct of
1 the President, whereof he stands accused !:
Mr.. William, H. Mcdonald, Chief Clerk OF
the Senate testifies, on page a.
An attested copy of the foregoing reso-
/ luton was. delivered by me into the hands
Fof the President of the United States at
| his office, in the executive mansion, about
Ito p. NJ, on the 2lst of February. ~,
And on the 24th of February, three days
afterwards, the President volunteered a
written declaration, which his counsel
now propose to make evidence in his be-
half before this tribunal of Justice. OF
course it is evidence for no purpose what
ever except for the purpose of exculpating
him of criminal accusations preferred
| against him. a.il rr..;. ..f4-rff. 8. I'D NON
Senators, will bear with me while I make
one further remark. The proposition is to
introduce this whole message, not simply
the argument which he chooses to present
| in the form of written declarationinv vim
dication of his criminal conduct, but dec
larations of third persons. The Senate, is
asked to accept this, too. as evidence on
the trial of the accused, the declaration
of the third persons whom he calls his con-
stitutionall advisers. He states their
opinions without giving their Ian!
guage. He gives conclusion, and those
conclusions are to be thrown before
the Senate as part of the evidence. 1 beg
leave to say here, in the presence of the
Senate, that there is no colorado excuse
for the President or for his counsel coming
before the Senate to say that he has any
right to attempt to shelter himself from a
violation of the laws of his country under
| the opinions of any member OF his Cabinet.
| The Constitution never vested his Cabinet
| counsellOrs with any such authority. 1t
never vested the President with authority
to suspend the laws or violate them, or
make appointments in direct contraven-
tion of p the laws and in defiance
of the final action of the Senate, acting in
! express obedience to law. There is no
colorado excuse tor these proceedings. /
| say it with respect to the learned counsel,
and challenge now the production of aul-
| thority in any respectable court that ev er
allowed any man, high or low, officially
or unofficially, to introduce his own dec
larations written or unwritten, after the
| fact in his defense. That is the point
take here. "a. -,- rraz--sc~ ~
/ J beg pardon for having detained them
so long i'll statement of proposition SO
| Sltuple anu JHc law OI W1tcu SO
settled, running through centuries. sub
NIT the question to the Senate. s6.sf.z I.
Mr.. EVARTS-Mr. Chief Justice and
Senators, the only apology which the
! learned manager has made for the course
of his remarks is an apology for consumpt
tion of your time; yet he has not hesitated
! to say again, to repeat that there is no color
ofaiustitication for the attempt of the Pres
/ ident of the United States to defend him.
self, or for the effort that his counsel make
to defend him. We do not receive our laws
| from the learned manager. 9alH1. /
Mr.. BINGHAM--Willt the gentleman al
| low me? -
Mr.. EvARTS proceeded with his re-
marks.
resentS me. f.-t z,s-s.1.s -.as
Mr.. EVARTS-I do not misrepresent
the honorable manager.
! Mr.. BINGHAM-I did not say there was
no color of excuse for the President to de-
fend himself or for his counsel to defend
| him, but there was no color of excuse tor
1 offering his testimony. 7
| Mr.. EVARTS--It all comes to single
| thing. Everything that is admitted on our
view or line of subject of controversy, ex-
cept it conform to the 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 President and his counsel, and it is
so repeatedly charged now. If the crime
was completed on the 2lst, which is not
only the whole basis of this argument oi
the learned manager, but of every other
argument of the evidence which had
the honor of hearing from him,
| should like to know what application and
relevancy the resolution had which was
| passed by the Senate on the 2lst of Febru-
| ary, after the act OF the President had been
I fn6 nd Off fhn nf had han
municated to the Senate. There can be nc
single principle of the law of evidence on
| which that view can be proved on behalf
of the managers, and on which the reply
of the President can be excluded. What
i would be thought, in a criminal prosecu-
tion, of the prosecutor giving in evidence
what a magistrate or a Sheriff had
said to the accused concerning the
deed and then shut the mouth of the
Il accused to what he had said then and there
in reply. The only possible argument by
which what was said to him could be given
in evidence is that unreplied to. 1t might
be construed as an admission it the Sheriff
that watch" and if that could be given in
evidence, and the prisoners reply, 1T
was my watch and l took it because it was
mine," could not be given, that would be
precisely the same proposition which is
being applied here by the learned mana
gers to this action had between the Presi-
dent and the Senate.
Mr.. BUTLER-It the thief did not make
reply until four days afterwards, and
then sent in written statement as &c
whose watch was stolen, also what his
neighbors said, that would be more ap-
propriate illustration. take the illustra-
ton as good one. as an excellent one.-
The Sheriff says, s'Where did you get thai
watch ?" -Four days alter the prisoner
Al o,;F ffar hn ho1 hnara -
Jail, after an, Indictment had been found
against him, written answer and claim'
in their defence that the answer may b,
read. Not only that, but goes on tC
put in what everybody else said, or what
four or five other men said, and that tina