The New York herald., 1868-04-14

the armies OF the United States to show an opinion
show that the military service required that Secre-
tary should take the place OF Mr. Stanton whose re-
were not such as these OF Mr.. stanton's were,
and that that opinion was communicated TO
the President; and we shall enlarge the area by
| showing that the opinion cOncurred in by these
competent military authorities. And now, II the
tres nei OF ne united states when brongns on
10 snow that the acts which brought in question
as against the public interest, and as being done
public peace.if say he cannot show In his de-
fence that in the Judgment of those most competent
10 ADVISE, most responsible TO the country In every
sense Tor their opinion and their advice, how
Is Isou ne -, to defend himselfa We propose to
snow tnat he was furnished with those opin-
Ions and supported by those opinions. Now Senator'S
rehect you are taking part in solemn transaction
removal OF the Chief Magistrate OF the nation % for
some attempts which he has made against the public
We offer to show you that on consultation and delib
Grafton under advice from those who are unconnected
cal controversy, how he acted and desired to accom-
| plish this change We cannot prove everything at
once, nor Is it criticism upon the testimony Just
excluded that 1t does not itself prove all. But II 1t
should be followed, as 1t would be- by evidence Of
President or authority to make efforts given by the
President to secure change In the control Of that
| demanded we shall show you BY an absolute mega.
tive that this intention, this motive this public inu
ry so vehemently, so pertinacousiy imputed In the
| course OF the argument did not exist at all.
Mr.. BINGHAM rose to reply, and was, as usual for
the first sentence entirely inaudble in the Reporters
| by the honorable Senator from New York tMr.
! Conkling) shows the utter tncompetency and ab-
surdity OF the proposition. 1t was whether counsel
for the President propose to ask witness whether
he advised the removal Of the Secretary Of War, and
the mode and manner in which the President did re-
| move him or attempted to remove him. Is there any
one here bold enough to say that II the witness had
ing and had 80 expressed himself to the President,
1t would be competent for US to introduce such mat
ter In evldencef The reason Mr.. Chief Justice, why
\ / arise Ia that / might
the utterances OF the gentleman who has taken
here the opinion that the rues Of ey
dence which would govern In court OF justice in
the prosecution OF beggar arre ted in your streets
for q crime punishable with six cents lne five
hours OF imprisonment are not the rules OF evidence
which would hold good when you came to present
the Chief Magistrate Of the nation. The American
people will entertain no opinions OF that sort; nor
will their Senators. We have the same rule of jus.
the President of the United States that have for
the most defenceless or the weakest OF our citizens.
| Mr.. EvARTs-The honorable Manager Will allow
me to say that the only illustration used was that
OF an Indictment against the Chief Magistrate on trial
Mr. BINGHAM-I supposed myself that when tho
| gentleman made use of the remark he intended
certainly to have the Senate understand that there
was different rule OF evidence and or Gdministra
| tive justice In the prosecution OF an indictments
| where the penalty was elk cents from that which
Mr.. EvARrs-When the issues are different the evil
dence will be different. It does not depend on the
| dignity OF the defendant.
Mr.. BINGHAM-It Is very difficult to how the
gentleman can escape from the difficulty by making
the remark that he supposed the President to be
whether the President OF the United states can be
prosecuted for an ndictable offence before his i'm
peachment but do not stop to argue that question
now. do not care who is prosecuted on an indIct-
| ment-whether President or beggar-the same rule
impeached, whether the President OF the United
States the lowest civil Ocer in the service OF the
and and the common law maxim that where an
| offence Is charged which is unlawful in ITSELF and
which Is proved 10 nave Deen c0mm,seaas as -, ven
those arclesthe law itself declares that the intent
was criminal and 1t Is for the accused to show JUS
tincatlon That Is the language OF the books; 30
read 1t in the volume before be- The legality Of the
Presidents conduct is not to be settled by opinions
Of any witness called to this bar Il Is to be settled on
the judgment of the Senate to the exclusion Of any
other tribunal earth for so it Is written In the
win determine whether the the act was Unlawful The
opinions OF third parties, although ever so often
formed and expressed, cannot make an unlawful act
a lawful one, and cannot get rid OF the intention
which the law itself necessarily attaches to the com
mission of an unlawful act. Well, say the gentle
men again, the President has taken the advice
OF an honored and honorable General.
who shall be the Presidents advisers in such case
as this-the removal OF the head of a denarment.
point, and thereby necessarily remove an incumbent
by and with the advice and consent OF the senate.
provides further that he may for sufficient to
him appearing suspend an incumbent and take the
Senate and The evidence on which he acted whether
| the suspension should be made absolute The Presi-
dent did take the advice OF the senate anu dd sus.
to prove the public service required. lie sent II to
the Senate, and the Senate, as his constitutional ad-
wiser, acted upon IL and gave him notice that IL ad
vised him not TO attempt any further Interference
with the Secretary for tile Department OF War The
Senate gave him notice that under the law ne must
not go step further, and thereupon he falls back
upon his reserved rights and undertakes to DEFY the
constitution to defy the Tenure OF Once act 10 defy
the Senate and remove the secretary OF War; appoint
| another In his place without the advice and consent
into his counciI and now he attempts to Justify his
acts by having witnesses to swear 70 their opinions
We protest against 1t in the name Of the constitution
We protest against i'm the name Of the laws enacted
In pursuance OF the constitution, and we protest
against 1t In the name of that great people WHOM we
this day represent, whose righs nave been outrage
ously betrayed and who are now being audaciousiy
deGed before this tribunal.
The Senate then proceeded to vote by yeas ana
nays upon the admission Of the question, aS follows
"After the restoration OF Mr.. stanton 10 tue var
the service required secretary Of War; other than
Mr.. stantons u so, did you communicate that opin-
The vote rcsulted-yeas, Is; nays, IS, as fol-
lows -
An,1cn ssya5S Bsosasy Diron Dc9.
SON Of Tenn, Ross TrnmDul Van wnke and vieser.-ls
ling ceans s Ss'f @
rs.'sTadsn s nn s % 1os S~
Norton, T Sye, Pasrsca er MI fcms5oy, Ra@ssy, shsr
TF.% ssr"' rA'y'r r'''n' whey Williams Wilson 'a'
| So the question was not admitted.
| senator JOHNSON proposed 10 ASK Tic Wltness Tic
| following queston:-"Did you a. any time before the
| President gave the order for the removal OF Mr..
Stanton Secretary OF War advise the President to
| appoint some other person than Mr.. StantonY
Mr.. BUTLEe-I have the honor to object to the
| question as being leading In form and as being
| covered by the decision Just made.
Mr.. EvARTs-An objection to a question as leading
In form cannot be made when the question Is put by
| q member Of a court.
Senator DAVIS inquired whether ono OF the Mana
gers OF the counsel for the defence could IN
terpose an objection to question put by member
| Of the court2
The CHEF JUSTICE ruled that the objection must
| be made by member OF the Court.
| Senator DRAKE renewed the objection.
The CHIEF JUSTICE aid:-The only mode In which
the question can be decided IL to rule whether IL
| is admissible or inadmssible. The question ol the