The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1868-03-12

sion, and were waiting to enter the
! chamber, led by Mr.. Bingham. They
evidently expected shorter process of
organizing the court. AS it was, they
did not make their appearance inside
the bar Of the Senate. Name after name
was called, and Senator after Senator
was qualified. Only three failed to re-
| spond-Doolittle and Patterson of New
Hampshire, who are campaigning in the
East, and Salisbury, who was laboring
under an indisposition of which he is an
unfortunate victim. The call had
reached the US, and there were only
five names remaining on the roll. It
seemed as if the organization Of the
court was all but complete but at the
call of Mr.. Wade's name the monotony
of the past half hour was interrupted by
Mr.. Hendricks, who arose in his seat
and, in few incisive sentences, under
took to show why Mr.. Wade should not
be permitted to sit as member of the
court, that may transfer him to the Ex-
ecutive Office now held by Andrew john
son, for whose displacement the court
is organized. He spoke briefly, but sta
ted his case plainly. His point was
that, as the Constitution provided that
the Vice President could not sit as Pres
ident of the court because it involved
his own succession, SO neither could Mr..
Wade, who was the acting Vice Presi.
dent, sit as member of the court.
Several Senators rose TO respond,
Messrs. Howard and Sherman among
them. The Chief Justice recognized
the latter, who, evidently prepared for
what had occurred, replied that his col
league was Senator from Ohio; that
Ohio was entitled to two representatives
in the court, and quoted from the Con-
stitution.
Mr.. Howard followed. He could see
no distinction between Mr.. Patterson,
who was connected with the President
by ties of relationship, and Mr.. Wade,
who had merely an interest in the trial
Mr. Howard sat down, and again there
were several claimants for the floor
Reverdy johnson was recognized, and in
short speech, which commanded
breathless attention in the chamber,
supported the views of Mr.. Hendricks,
quoting precedent established by the
Senate itself, in the case of Mr.. Stock
ton, of New Jersey, in which it was de-
cided that no man could vote on any
question in which he was Interested
He referred to Mr.. Sumner, who had
labored hard to get that decision in the
Stockton case.
Mr.. Sumner attempted to get the floor
in reply, to show the want Of analogy
between the two cases !; but Mr.. Garrett
Davis attracted tho EYE of the Chief
Justice first, and in q speech of about
five minutes duration attempted to show
that Mr.. Hendricks objection was we'll
taken.
Mr. Morrill,, of Maine, thought the
objection could only come from the ac-
cused, and that no Senator had right
to make it.
This point was soon after put into
more forcible illustration by Mr.. Nor
ton, when he said that no Senator had
right to challenge unless he appeared
on this floor as the counsel for the ac-
cused. If Mr.. Hendricks and the 9th
ers who denied Mr.. Wade's right to
seat in the court appeared here as Mr..
Jhonson's attorney s, we'll and good !; but
if so, he did not see how they could be
judges and jurors also. This short
speech of Morton's fell with great
weight upon all present.
Messrs. Williams and Fessenden
maintained that the present was not the
time to settle the question. The court
was not yet organized, and it was not
for one Senator to say that another
should not sit as a member. This pre-
sented a confused aspect Of affairs
Manifestly it was not the Senate that
was in session, for, if 80, the Chief JUS
tice would not be in the chair. 1t was
not a high court Of impeachment, for
that was not yet finally organized. 1t
was transition state from one to the
other, and very critical juncture at
which to raise such an important ques
ton as was now being debated. Still
i the debate went on.
Messrs. Sumner, Pomeroy, Grimes,
Dixon, and others took part, and each
speech seemed, instead of deciding the
| question, to open up new points of dis
cussion.
At half-past 4 it became evident that
the subject could not be determined to-
day, and the court (and Immediately af-
ter the Senate) adjourned, to renew the
debate tomorrow.