The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-04-13
PROGRESS OF THE IMPEACHMENT
TilIAL.
Examination of Witnesses.
TESTIMONY or GEN W. r. FISHERMAN


Lla
lays over TIL Monday.
Gen. Thomas's examination was con.
tinued. He explained that the President
instructed him TO take charge, not to take
possession Of the War Office. Heassanbed
to the general correctness Of Bur1etgh's
testimony before the House Committee.
Cross-examined by Butler-Was positive
the President only told him to take charge
of the War 0ftee; admitted calling. Kar-
ssDer liar never sail, We viii have
the fellow out OF II II IL sinks the ship"
have not talked with General Townsend
and others about his testimony given yes
his testimony given before the Congress
sfOnal Committed.
Z StanberY said fe regarded the testimony
sought to be introduced as vital to the
case, and went on TO remind the Court
that the MANAGERS had Introduced much
testimony in their effort TO raise pre-
sumption of criminal intent on the part of
the Presidents testimony in relating 70
events which occurred before the 2Ist OF
February, and argued that counsel had
q right 10 bring forward rebutting testi-
mony to prove the Presidents honest in
tent In support Of his position. He quoted.
A. leFgt9 ia 6r fs2T5 o. se 5tte g, trials 10 q
decisions then made were precedents to
determine the present questions.
Gen. w =. sherman ealled-He testified
of December last, and remained two
months; came here on business connected
with the indian Commission; about the
middle OF December was assigned to duty
on the Board to revise army ar icles; had
Several interviews with the President re-
garding dlfieqlties before and after the
Stanbery asked-what con versation tool,
place between you and the President on
the i4th Of January, in regard to STAN
The Managers objected.d 81 ~ IL
The Chief ustice ruled that the question
was admissible, and decision by the SEN
ate was called fer, but before the yeas and
nays were taken
Butler rejoined. saying that the Man
in FfF vn.ffv
COOper,s testimony, sought to prove acts.
not conversations IN the course of hfs
remarks he referred 10 Gen. Thomas as a
weak, vassilating old man, pampered by a
little pride, and tit to be q tool He said
the counsel ad tried To inf uence the sens
ate by reading simple arguments of law
yers, and claiming them as authority, aud
this attempt ne characterised as unprp-
fessioRal. Hf
stanbery called on the chief Justice 10
put stop 20 such aspersioas of his con-
duct, stating that he read the arguments
only as explaining deeisions made.
Butler resumed, and spoke at length
with more than usual vehe hemence. arguing.
that the rules OF evidence reflected OF.
Stanbery ana Thomas, AMI Claiming in
eoneiuslon that the Senator's were a law
Evarts quoted from the records of this
trial 90 show that Butler had Assumed the
same position, anu done the same things
THAT he now DENOUNCED. EVarts went into
the merits of the question: He cited and
commented on numerous charges made in
the Articles. which imported evil inn enflonI
to the Ereside NJ land argued the atluiissi =
bihty of the question on consideration OF
the senate took a Recess OF Is fainntess ~
On re-assembling, Wilson read from the
report OF Hardy that theposttion taken by
Butler was correct, and Insisted that the
deelarationT Of the gPresiaea1s might .ha We
been made sotely with Jhe purpose of con-
eealing its intent; The effect OF putting
stan on out would have been to prevent
hlm from appealing TO the Courts. So Il
decision could not have been reached tTH
The Chief Justice re-stated his opinion,
that the question was admissible under
the ruling of yesterday, because, like that
asked yesterday, It's purpose was to elicit
Essti Bsii.2y .R2opy regarding the tntspt Of the
shortly before the commission of an act,
was as admissible as that which took
place afterward, even more so.
The yeas aud nays We're then taken.
which resulted--3 TO $50 the question
was not allowed. ts i ~ bonn. 49,
Staubery then asked Shermau-" WHAT
do you know about creating the Depars-
ment of the Atlantic ?
Butler said there would be no objection.
provided tue Chief usttce would INSTRUCT
the WitHess not to give hearsay evidence.
Stanbery declined 20 give assurance that
the witness would MOI be questioned. about
" hat the President had said.
The Chief Justice submitted the ques-
lion OF admissibiity. and the Senate,
without division, decided II ia The Mega
Astanbery then asked it the President
had rendered him the position Of Secretary
Butler objected
Stanbery replied and Butler then rejoin-
ed, saying II was an attempt TO bring in
be put
sherman testified thatthc President had
rendered him the Office OF Secretary OF
w ar Gd interim on two Occasions-Jauuary
27th aud 3Otu; ne replied to these IN sgrf-.
,lhS' ..I. on the z4th and 3lst; Stanton was in
SAP berry aslzed q if anything else occurred
o-iW-en tns witness and the p esideut
laD DUt Lae offer when f~st made
Ba ler objected, ana warned the Senate
tfOn under the pretense OF proviT,e, an act.
Eyarts eaItsd attention TO Buffers shaz-
ing Ms nuger, in warning 10 tie SEN
are, of the malpractice OF the counsel. and
said nothtng WIS plaluer than that me
circumstances explaining an act We're adj
missibe as The evidences concerning III.
Botler replied, and the question was
submitted to the Senate. The yeas and
nays were demanded, which resuIted-23
90 % so the question was decided mad
mis- ible.
y The examination was resumed at the
second interview. When the OfTer-yyas re-
newed there was a. asfarther cOnversa ion.
stanbeiy then asked f the President
had in any interview stated that his in
tentiOpsfu Offenng witness the appOin.-
meut, was TO bring the matter before the
supreme G0urt. % Ha
OBI ected to.
Counsel said they only wished.the railing
TO appear on the record.
mlttef. anu decided in the negative, by q
vote of z toll
SJknbery then offered the question, mod
thed as OtiOWs: % Was anything said in
that conversation as to any purpose OF
bringing the matter before the colufsfR
Butler Objected to DO as being outrage
ously leading, and said it was disguised TO
gain time.
Stanbery remarked that this was too
grave aud solemn a proceeding to allow of
low personalities. He repelled with seOrn
the insinuatiOn that he had resorted to the
tactics of an old Bailey practitioner, and
with regard TO leading questions he (Stan-
oery( had put, were not, as the Managers
admitted, intended to elicit anything wit
ness was not about n saw afr