Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1865-1872, 1868-05-22

ing him Of bis embarrassment by not
sending il TO him 1T all, to have il sent
back here at the end OF ten days with
defiant veto. We have had enough Of
them; let us admit Arkansas before the
sun goes down. Let the President have
another sweet morseI to roll under his
tongue.
Mr.. Sumner, OF Mass. (Union), favored
recess, on the ground that il would be
beneath the dignity Of the Senate 10 con-
tinue TO transact business with the Presi.
dent Of the United States. He had always
felt il to be unbecoming in the Senate TO
transact business with him while he was
on trial for high crimes and misdemean-
ors. The President might 40 forth nomi-
nslly acquitted, but be would go forth.
nevertheless, blasted public functionary.
That was his inevitable destiny, but until
acquittal was entered on the record the
Senate would consult It's own character by
abstaining from any further iuterchanges
of messages between Congress and the
President. For this reason he favored a
recess.
Mr.. Morton, Of Indiana (Union),
thought II rather late in the day to act on
that idea, having gone on trausacling
business with the President.
Mr.. Yates, OF Illinois (Union), was
opposed TO recess, because he wanted
more bills for the protection Of humanity
and liberty to be presented to the Presi-
dent for his action, between now, and the
hpal articles Of impeachment.
Mr., Wilson. Of Mass. (Union), opposed
q recess on the same general grounds NJ
Mr Nyo did
Mr.. DooIiule, Of Wisconsin (Dem),
favored recess.
MIR. Henderson, Of Missouri (Union).
took Mr.. Sumner 10 account for casting a
reelection on tho President. " nothing
else should cause Senators 10 abstain from
such remarks decent sense Of self.lespect
should restrain them. No Senator had
right, either 10 the Senate or In tho Court,
to reflect on the conduct Of any other
senator. No man had higher respect
for his constituents than himself. but
his constituents could not enlighlep
him on the question Of impeachment. IL
was matter Of bis own conscience, and
nothing could ever drive him from the
performance Of bis duty. II his oonstitu
ents drapproye OF his course, he was In
their hands, aud they might do with him
as they wished; but he was not 10 be told
by his party 10 turn bis back on law aud
justice. IL was no use trying 70 make i'm
parchment a party question. |, was no
party question, and the moment party
should put itself In the position that ils
members must psrjure themselves, that
party ought aud would crumble into dust.
For his ogn part, he regretted that the
subject Of impeachment had ever been
brought into the Senate, and he believed
IL never ought 10 have been. lie thought
that as long as the President was not con.
yicied, il would not injure them to send
bill 10 him..
Mr.. Drake asked if any Senator had
assailed his colleague for his course in the
court Of impeachment
Several Senators--"No cne."
Senator Henderson inquired when his
colleague had become guardian Of his
character?
Mr.. Drake replied that here and else
where he considered himsslfin duty bound
to defend il when assailed
Mr.. Morton raised question Of order
that it was improper to assaiI Senators for
voting one way or the other.
Mr. Drake suggested that when Senn-
tor called another Senator 10 order. he
should do il at the time the disorderly
words were spoken, aud not take the floor
from Senator speaking in order lie
confessed his surprise that his colleague,
Henderson under the superstition that
some general aspersions had been made
upon the seven Senators who voted for
acquittal, had been called upon, indi.
vidually to defend him FROM that aspor.
sion.
MIR. Henderson pointed out that re-
mark had been made deprecsting inter
course with this great criminal whom the
Senate had voted TO acquit.
Mr.. Sumner dIsclaimed any allusion to
the Senator in that remark; but" raid
he. 'lisiening TO the Senator he will par
don If say that | Was reminded Of
applicable TO his case as be presented IL.
1t is this: Who 50 excuses himself, nc
cuses himself The swiiiness with which
he rushed TO self defense brought to my
mind this ancient MAXIM" Mr. Sumner
wen; on to repeat his argument that II
would be unbecoming in the Senate to in
terchange messages. &c, with the Presi-
dent, while parchment is pending A
vote be continued has been takep on one
article, but there are ten to be acted on,
aud on the article, upon which we all know
the acquital was only by Que vote. he was
saved, as the saying is, by the skin OF his
teeth. | call it nominal acquittal on
that one article. allude TO that now be.
cause it has been acted upon. There is
moral judgment against him.
Mr.. Hendricks-I wish TO inquire what
decision the Chair made on the point of
order made by my colleague.
The President pro tem-The Chair did
not make any.
Mr.. Hendricks-then | ask n decision
on that point of order, as applicable TO
the remarks Of the Senator from Mis-.
souri,.
MIR. Sumner-I ask the Senator to put
il 10 writing.
The President pro tem-The Senator
must put iiin writing.
Mr. Hendricks-I make the point Of
order that the line of argument made by
the Senator is not in order.
Mr. Sumner said he knew OF no rule
that dictates TO Senator what course Of