The Cadiz sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1864-1911, 1868-04-22
kUX-kLux IN COUNCIL.
High OLD Caucus OF Empeach-
ment.
WAsnINGroN. Anril l4. ]

SkNATE -Iuuft was opened IN due Irunl.
Sumner offered the following order: Oritr-
ed, that in snsser to the motion Of the
mansgers in reference to limiting final ar
gument unless otherwise ordered such oth>
er managers and counsel as choose may print
and file their remarks at any time on clos
inrsargument
Chici Justice sni if there BE- no obiec-
ton it will be ~ ordered.
Comes i object.
= Smunrr-I would respectfully ask under
what lue snch objection can be made
Tn Chief Justice replied that on several
occ:,sins he had d. ciied the rules of the
Senate TO Re the rules Of the Court as far
as applieattle.
Sumner Of course it is not for me to ar
CUE the question, but | beg leave to remind
the Chair of the rule under which this or-
der was made.
Chief Justice-lt will lie over to the coun
sci. The counsel for the President will
proceed with the defense.
Evarts stated that Mr.. Stanbeyy was III,
but would lie able to resume his duties with,
in fourty eight hoars, and possibly TO mor>
rsw. He asked the Indulgence of the
Court for to-day. On motion Of Mr.. Howe
Court adjourned until tomorrow, Sumner
aud Pomeroy alone voting no, Senate con
tinntd legislative session.
The President resumed chair and called
Senate TO order Davis notice, he would
. move following additional rules to riles Of
practice and proceedings in cases ofimpeach,
| ment: Two thirds Of Senate present shall
be necessary to rule on any question OF evl
dence or law against the party impeached
|
WASHINGTON, G. D., April IS 1868.
SENATE. MIR. Butler said the article OF
proof is not objected to but proot itself is
| for very plain reason. This message was
after President was impeached by House,
and of course his declaration put in or at
tempted to be put in after his impeachment,
whether directed to Senate or anybody else,
cannot be given in evidence. Exact order
o. time, may not be in the minds OF Sena>
tor, will there fore state it: On the 2lst
of February resolution offered in House
looking to impeachment OF President, and
il was referred to Committee on the 22u
OF February. The Committee reported
and the impeachment was actually voted.
Then interviewed on Sunday the 23d. And
message sent on the Gath of February must
have been known to President TO be ttel
his Impeachment.
Curtis: 1t will be recolected the honorat
bic managers put on evidence resolution
of Senate to which this message is response
SO question is whether managers can put ii
evidence resolve OF Senate transmitted tt
President with reference to removal OF Star
ton, and refuse to receive a reply which
President made to that resolve.
Butler: have only to say that this argu
mont to prejudice and not to law, will my
learned friends opposite dare to say tha
they have read of case where, after indict
ment Of criminal, respondent was allowed t(
put in cvidense his statement Of his owl
defense; if so when docs that right cease
We put in the resolution referred to, be
cause it is part of the transaction of Stan
ton. 1t wa made before Impeachment de-
termined upon, and now we are asked tt
admi; criminals declarations after that day
only ask Senate to consider it as prece
dent hereafter, as well as being O grea
wrong upon the people. That after indict
ment, after impeachment President can senC
in message which shall be taken az evi
dence.
Eyarts-The learned managers ask
whether we dare to do something. W
have not been in the habit of considering
measure for the conducting OF forensic dis
f putatiou to be question of daring. "
, are not in the habit it of applying sue
epittets to opponents, and have, not hithel
, to been in the habit Of receiving them. I'h
measure Of duty as counsel is the measul
q of daring. If or no other reason than tha
= on questions of law, of fact and Of evidence
, VIC may expect some superiority, but Q
: measures of daring legislature, the learne
: manager is entirely right in saying mpeacl
lnent was voted on the 22nd OF Februar,
a The 22nd was Saturday, and unless al
y mistaken, vote was hot taken until tt
+ following Monday.
y Butler; The vote was taken on Saturda,
i 22nd OF February.
Eyarts: That ID the Article of Tmpeacl
q ment shall be brought in.
Butler: Yes sir.
q Evarts: The article, however, were n
! voted until the 24th. Now it is said tn
because the vote that impeachment shou
pructSi, was taken on the 22nd Of Febr,
airy, that impugns the sdmissabi!ity Of ev
dence proposed to be laid before the Senat
o My learned associate has distinctly stat,
the situation of the matter, perhaps of boz
r these transactions. The vote in the Sena
. and this message may be within the RAM
u of argument. but the managers haye put
y in evidence THIS transaction of the Senat
II and exactly what hearing that has as pa
of the removal before the resolution w
placed by the Senate, it is not easy to Sc
1t was however received as proper evidenc
70 and the reason we did not consider it o
o lec.ionable was, we suggested, as a matt
3 of course, that this message, which is in a.
N / s,u.., tb,t cnsrl,,t,nn ~, thn ar.
J. OF the topic by the resolution before otfnt
e in evidence, would be admissible in test
,, mony. We submit therefore, that in eve
e principle of law and Of discussion in r
y ference TO the completeness OF the reco
p on the point, this message OF the Preside
y should be all read aud given in evidence.
Butler simply desire to call attentit
Of Senate to fact, that whether as a matt
Of daring or of professional knowledg
n neither counsel having stated any possih
!. reason why this paper should be received
+ evidence, we put in the resolve OF Sena
h to show Notwithstanding that resolve ~
d served on President on night of the 2lst
r. February, be still went on to- treat th
# Lorenzo Thomas as Seer tary Of War .
/ Interim. That Lorenzo Thomas was thC
o recognized by him after thai as Secreta
d dd iRtet7m, and that after that Loren
,e Thomas was carrying ont his design to tai
i possession OF Office by force We referrt
, il in order to show that President was d.
1 termined on disobeyiug law of land, AZ
j. notice was served upon him for the purpo
d of having him know action Of Senate, so
might stay his hand. Now can prepare
!, article be made after that, and after he vi
i impeachrd by House of Representative
, be put in evidence? One ounce of actic
8 III obedience to the law, and the resoluti,
y Of Senate would have been great DE-
e better than pages OF argument. | will u
IS use the word dare for ! knew that couns