The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1868-04-15
WASHINGTON. April g.
century.

In the House, there was no legislation.
In the Senate, the court was opened.
Butler called other witnesses. among them
Foster Blodgett, who testified regarding
his removal from the postmastership ut
Augusta. He knew nothing beyond the
fact that he had been suspended. Butler
asked for certificate that no reasons had
been given for Blodgett's suspension The
defence made a point that Blodgett's case
was outside of the charges made against
the President. AT q quarter to O'clock,
Judge G. rtis commenced his argument.
Mr.. FL. Wood, OF Alabama who had
been i'll the Union army, testified regard
ing Johnson's refusing him office, because
he favored Congress. The defence opened.
Mr. Curtis spoke until nearly 4 o'clock:
when the court adjourned, without decis-
ion. Curtis was listened to throughout
with marked attention by the members OF
the court. Some OF his points were start
ling. Hc left it with the Senators, whether
they were acting in a legislative or judicial
capacity. The substance of the first, ON
which the eight charges were based, was
that the removal of Stanton and the APP
pointment of Thomas was, and was in
tended to be- violation of the Tenure OF
Office Act and the Constitution. He de-
nicd both propositions, and, among other
authorities, quoted statement of members
of the Conference Committee-Schencl1
and others The reporter Of the House
used the words aterm of service 1t
might as well be said that a king compile
ted the term of his predecessor who died,
us to say that johnson was serving out
Lincoln's term. Curtis proceeded, show
ing that the heads of departments We're
tho voice and hands Of the President. He
argued that the heads of departments did
not-in fact, could not-constitutionaly
come under the tenure of office bill; that
their exception WAS well understood by
Senators. Curtis, arguing The necessity
OF power claimed by the President. in
stanced Flovd's displacement by President
Buchanan, where delay would have ledto
dcplorable results. Arguing the Prcsi
dents duty to.maintan the prerogative
lie said all who would combat the uiicon.
stitutional law Which worked injury tc
those whose rights he had in trust. and it
was much more the Presidents duty Ia
Guard the trusts placed in his hands by
all the people. Recapiiuiating his argll-
merits TO prove that the President could
not be in Cpeached for the act. he quoted
Butler TO- show that the managers admit
ted this view, who SAID the removal in
itself was perhaps not an impeachable OF;
fence. if made with that notice and not
accompanied with defiant message to the
Senate. Curtis said it was n matter of
taste how they should be notified.
WAslnNGToN, April 10.
Nothing was done in either House to.
.lav. previous TO tlic Impeachment trial,
when Curtis proceeded with his speech.
Gen. Thomas will be the first witness for
the defence that will he examined.
Tie Senlte immediately proceeded to
innpcachnent. Curtis concIndcd at half
past >, when Thomas WAS stopped .by@thc
prosecution in describing his interviews
with the President when the orders of re-
moval and appointment were banded him.
The objection was claborately argued
Stanbcrrv aud Fvarts for defence; i:nfer
and Bingham for prosecution. The Chief
Justice submitted the question in the first
instance, and the managers were defeated
-t2 TO 10. Nays-Camcron, Chandler,
Conne<s, Cragin, Drake, lIarkin, Howard,
Nvc, Ramsay, 5rhavcr and Sumner. The
ranks were broken for the first time on
this uupsiion