The St. Cloud journal. [volume] (St. Cloud, Minn.) 1866-1876, 1868-03-26
IMPEACHMENT. TRIAL
RESUMED,
.Johnson's Return to the
Writ Submitted.
AE ASKS FOR THIRTY DA ~ DELAY.
His Request Refused.


Mr.. Boutwell,, on behalf Of the
Managers, requested copy Of the aus
wer, and said it. was their expectation
to present their replication tomorrow,
1t ono o'clock.
Mr.. Evarts then addressed the Court
in relation to the period Of time to be
allowed the respondent after the rcpI-
,ation is fled, and before the trial is to
proceed. He said the Presidents
counsel he'd been too fully occupied
With the preparation Of his answer to
make any preparation whatever for
the trial, and they therefore request
that the Court allow the President and
his counsel thirty days from the date
of the replication to prepare for the
trial.
A motion working to that effect was
presented and read by the Secretary.
Mr.. Howard moved it lie on the
table until after the replication is fled,
but withdrew the motion on Mr.. Bing-
hams announcement that the Mana.
gers were ready to express their opinion
on the application At once.
Mr.. Logan on behalf Of the Manag-
ers, said they should oppose it, because
there was no reason offered for the de-
lay except that the Presidents counse Ell
needed time. He said some other rea-
sons should be given, as there had been
in the applications for delay made in
former trials for impeachment when it
was always stated how much time was
needed to produce distant witnesses,
DC. No such cause was alleged or
shown; and the rule adopted by the
Senate required the trial to proceed uu-
less cause for delay was shown. The
Managers insisted that no more time
should be taken up than was absolutely
necessary for the trial of the case. No
more time should be granted to the
President than to the meanest man.
At the expiration of the thirty days
application might be made for further
delay to send for witnesses, perhaps to
Sitka. Material reasons for delay
should be assigned now.
Mr.. Evarts called attention to the
fact that the Presidents counsel had
been allowed only eight working days
in which to prepare his answer, and
said it was not an answer to their pres
ent application that equal haste would
be necessary on the part Of the mana
gers. Their positions were not similar.
The managers had enjoyed peculiar
facilities for summonlng and examin-
ing witnesses. The President had
public duties which employed much Of
his time. The counsel asked no more
in this case for the President than the,
would for the poorest criminal. If IN.
torseen circumstances should arise re.
curing delay for the President or wit.
nesses for either side, it would be the
duty Of the court to grant it.
Mr.. Wilson announced the determi-
nation of the court to resist all unnec.
essary delay.
The first step taken by the counsel
on the 18th, was in violation of The
precedents in former impeachment trials
In the case of Judge Chase, the re.
spondent had asked for eleven months
delay, supporting his application BY
sworn statements; yet only thirty days
were granted; and yet his preparation
was so perfect as to secure his acquital
In the elaborate answer to-day present
ed, be (Wilson,) found the stronges,
argument against granting the applica
ton for the delay, for the responder,
therein claimed it as his right. The
respondents case is not that Of an or
binary criminal. lie has asked time
in which be may continue to injurc the
interests Of the country, as he has done
by the acts which he now justi6es
The cause shown in the application va.
not such a. would warrant the Senate
under tho rules to grant a delay. Tn,
counsel should be allowed time TO cdu
cate themselves in the causes.
Mr.. StanDerry replied that some reli
ance should be placed by the Court on
the personal honor of the counsel wher
they say that that they have been 81
pressed in preparing their answer thai
they have not had time given them t,
consult with the President as to wha,
witnesses should be summoned. While
they were SO engaged the managers had
been arranging for the conduct Of thei,
cases. Mr. Stanberry reiterated thai
be and his fellow counsel had not even
a document prepared or witness sum.
moned, and if they were forced to pro.
coed with the case tomorrow, thew
would appear defenceless and unarmed
He appealed to the Court for time, if
net for tho full period asked for, at
least portion. He argued against the
construction placed by the managers on
the ralc cited.
MIR. Bingham was about to reply,
when the Chief Juetice remarked TINT
the manages could not close the de-.
bate.
Mr.. Howard moved that the app,i.
cation be laid on the table.