The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1868-04-17
OVAL.
WASHINGTON. April 16.
sENATE,

was tabled-22 to IL.
Mr.. Stanbery was not present, but
Mr.. Evarts said they would proceed as
far as possible without him.
Walters Cox, of Georgetown, was
called by the defence and asked when
his connection with the case of Stanton
VS.. Thomas commenced, and when and
by whom and under what circum-
stances he was employedf
Mr.. Butler objected, but the Chief
Justice over ruled; he might answer
the first part of the question.
Witness said he was sent for on Feb
ruary 22d, and went to the White House
ut FIVE o'clock.
He was proceeding to state what the
President said to him when Mr.. Butler
again objected, and demanded that the
counsel put in writing what they ex-
pect to prove.
The counsel proposed to prove that
the President employed Mir. Cox to pro
cure Judicial decision by filing a
quo warrantO.
Mr.. Butler argued that the President
did not appear in the record of tbs case,
and writs should have been filed by the
Attorney General.
Mr.. Evarts rejoined that The President
had made the case his own, and he
could not appear in it, and the Attorney
General approved the employment Of
Mr.. Cox.
Mr.. Butler argued at length that the
doctrine was an estoppel.
Mr.. Cnrtis said that the remarks OF
Mr.. Butler required, no reply and i'll an
swer to Mr.. Ferry, stated the counsel
did not propose to disprove the record,
but to show that the motion to dis
charge General Thomas was made only
when his lawyers saw no hope of pro-
curing judicial decision on the consti-
nationality of the act.
The argument was continued by
Messrs. Wilson and Evarts as to the
admissibility of evidence concerning
the intent of the President.
The Chief Justice ruled that tue evil
denee to show that the President en-
ployed lawyers to obtain decision on
the constitutionality of the teIure-of-
Office act, was admissible i'll support OF
the denial of the first article in accord
ance with former votes of the Senate
and with principles of law and right.
The yeas and nays were called which
resulted % to 81. The evidence was
therefore admitted.
Witness resumed-The President told
the witness he desired to have proceed
ings instituted to test the acts consti
tutionality, and wished him to consult
with Mr.. Stanbery, who had been too
busy to look into the matter; he left
General Thomas with the President,
and concluded il would be best to ap-
ply for habeas corpus after General
Thomas should be committed by the
Criminal Court, which course Mr.. Stan
berry approved.
The question was asked and objected
to-What did you do towards getting
out the habeas corpus by direction OF
the President Admitted-27 to %.
Answer-Tried to have Thomas COM
mitted to prison. Stanton's counsel
applied a for postponemont. Chief JUS
tice Carter said he shsuld not be held
in custody. Witness moved his dis
charge, expecting to force his commit
tai, but the motion was granted.
The Senate refused to allow Il state
ment to be made Of the conversation
with. the President tho same evening
and the counsel then asked. After report.
ing tbs to the President. Did you do
any other act in pursuance of his pre-
yious instructions To test the conStitu-
tienality of the tenure of Office act. If so
what were they. Objected to, which
the Chief Justice overruled and the
Senate sustained his ruliug-yeas %;
nays %.
Witness resumed-Next day l ap-
piled to the District Attorney to sign
the information in the nature of . quo
warranto, which he declined to do
without the authority of the Attorney
General; visited Stanton and gave him
his opinion. Not allowed to be stated,
and nothing else was done i'll the mat
ter.
The Senate took recess for Is min
utes.
On reassemLlins, at $50, Mr.. Cox
was cross-examined by Mr.. Butler. He
considered himself AZ counsel for the
President. but appeared before Judge
Cartier as counsel for General Thomas,
and did not tell the Court OF opposing
counsel in Court that his purpose was to
get the case in train to test the consti-
nationality of the tenure of Office law,
and supposes they OWNED the object.
Mr.. Brady, Sr, testified that he was
advisory counsel for General Thomas.
The papers which he prepared to obtain
q quo lrdrraRtO were returned to him
few days ago by Mr.. Stanbery with
verbal message for him and Mr.. Merrick
to use them at their discretion. He has
never received direct authority from the
Attorney General or the President to
use them. General Thomas was dis
charged from custody on motion of the
Presidents counsel. X. L. Merrick, q
lawyer of Washington, was employed
by General Thomas on the morning OF
the cd of February, after the action of
Judge Cartier in chambers. Witness
went to see the President about noon
and told him what had occurred in the
case of Geaeral Thomas, and Mr..
Stanbery being present, the At
torney General, in presence of the
President, told the witness to see if he
could carry up the case TO the Supreme
Court on writ of habeas corpus, and
q few hours afterwards he wrote the
Attorney General note OH the subject;
on Monday he communicated the result
of his Investigations to the Presidents
counsel, Mr.. Cox, and they agreed to
work together in order to accomplish
the purpose suggested by the Attorney
General; on Tuesday night he had an
interview with the Attorney General
in relation to conducting the case the
next day.
This question was objected to-What
did you and Mr.. Cox dom order to ac-
complish the result referred to?
Held adm ssable by the Chief Justice,
and no appeal asked for.