New-York tribune., 1868-03-03
cOnkns merely wished to conform it to the language Of

Conking merely wished to conform to the Language OF
the Constitution.
The amendment was agreed 70.
After further discussion, Mr. HENDRICKS Dem. lnf9
moved TO amend the second article by strkDg ont the
words grand inquest OF the nation, ana insert houSo
Mr. HENDRICKS read the eleventh article, and asked
whether 1t was contemplated that the House OF Repre-
sentatyes should be present in body during the pro
Mr. HOWARD replied in the affirmative, saying that
they would thus bring the accused aud aceuser lace TO
MT HENDRICKS thought It would be improper to
bring the influence of the House upon the Senate IN try
Mr HOWARD said that the House could not proceed
with it's business pending the trial. would It have
toD and the consttuon required their presence here
Mt HENDRICKS would like to know where. 4,
Mr. BUCKALEW Demr PENN suggested that the
House empowered committees to 20 over the country
and yet went on with It's business
Mr. HENDRICKS contended that there was no author
y for the House attending body For what purpose
would 1t BET II would bring 10 bear strong influence
| favor. The amendment was not agreed TO.
Mr.. DRAKE rep, Mo- moved 20 strike out the pro,
vision In the seventh section, authorizing the presiding
officer to decide individual questions unless formal vote
MT SHERMAN rep, Ohio opposed the amendment
the ground that the presiding officer must decide
little questions which would otherwise involve great
MI DRAKE held that the Chief Justice in presiding,
had power than tho Vice President would have
q reversal OF his decision by the Senate.
MI HOWARD Rep., Mich) said that the committee
had inserted the provision TO save trouble ana delay put
he that difficulties might arise from 1t at some
tmo In the future that would antagOnze them 10 the
chef judicial officer Of the Government. He offered an
amendment, which Mr. Drake accepted, providing Tor
the submission by the presiding officer OF all Incidental
questions TO the Senate, 10 be decided, demanded by
One-sixth OF the members, by the Yeas aud Nays.
bIr. BUCKALEW thought Mr. brakes motion profera-
ble He advocated It at length, holding that they must
either regard the presiding onieer as memDer OF not
member.
Mr SHERMAN warned Senators that difficulty might
result from changing this rule II he Alr sherman na9
the power 10 point a every step Qf tle tIa ana
netSss:ate by the Senate, he could plolong 1t two
months.
aMr WILLIAMS Hep., Oregon argued that the inten-
ton Of the Constitution 10 constitute the Chie jus
tce in effect member OF the Court and 20 empower MN
TO decide questions here he would IN any court as
its presiding officer.
Mr. CONKLING said that when the Lord Chancellor
and Lord Stewart the Lords in England presiding
at impeachment, they not considered members or
the body cast vote, but were simply speaker
or chairman pro mpOre lie quoted several English pre-
cedents In support OF ms view.
Mr. HENDRICKS supported Mr.. brakes amendnent.
After further Idebate, Mr.. POMEROY Qep, Kansas
moved 10 amend verbally striking out the portions call
ing the Senate Court &c.
At 10 O'clock Mr. HENDRICKS said, as the Committee
was satisfied with its report lac would move 10
adjourn.
The yeas and nays called and the motion was lost
by ~ votes, Messrs Buckalew Dem, PENN, Hen
drcks Dem, Ind. McCrcery Dem kyl, sprague tteP
r. H., and Van Winkle rep, W. Va, voting yea.
Mr.. pOMEROY supported his amendment, insisting
that left the question whether they were or were not
Court lust the Constitution left It, II simply gave the
presiding officer the powers Of a Moderator.
The amendment was lost by the following vote;