The New York herald., 1868-04-12
ruling. he ,..L - -. -.
yoes ON to >xpecteu u 10 ne rueu Out, Dut No"

!. EvARTs said that though there was to be no
J. view OF the proceedings OF this court yet IL was
entirely competent TO bring to the notice Of the
court which was TO pass on questions Of final Judy-
ment, the evidence supposed to be admissible, IN
order that 1t might be made a matter Of argument.
He claimed that counsel had right to do that and
that the difference between the specific question now
asked and the general question which was over
ruled was that while general conversation could
not be admitted, the witness might be permitted to
testify upon the specific point:
The CHIEF JUSTICE directed that the question be
reduced to writing. The question having been re-
duced to writing was handed to Mr.. Butlcr.
M. BUTLER said:-I object to the question as both
outrageousiy leading in form and as incompetent
under the rule.
The question was:-'In either OF those converse
tons did the President say to you that his object in
appointing you was that he might then get the ques-
ton OF Mr. stanton's right to the otice before the
Supreme COurt?"
Senator H0wAR demanded the yeas and nays and
they were ordered.
Senator DooLTTLE asked Mr.. Butler again to state
Mr.. BUTLER said he objected to the question as
outrageousy leading, and as being against the ruling
OF the Senate.
The vote was taken and resulted, yeas 7, nays A.
as fOllOws:-
Mess anthony Bsyard Fowler Mccreery Pat
ROSS ena ce Chandler
Cole, conkiins connsss corbe crasin Davis Dixon, Doo
enSes s HARLAN, Hs"dsson enaricRs
Mo Mf Of %
wams wsoS TsaSey Tpo rrum Van
During the call Senator Johnson asked for the
reading of the question.
The question being partly read, Senator JOHNSON
said, "That will do; vote no."
Senator DAVIS, having already voted said, as the
question was leading, he would vote "No."
Mr.. srANBERY-Mr. Chief Justice, this question
was undoubtedly Overruled on matter OF form, ana
now propose to change the form.
The question IN a new form having been handed to
MIR. BUTLER sad:-The question as presented to
me- Mr.. President and Senators, is "Was anything
said at that conversation by the President to any
. purpose of getting The question OF Mr.. Stanton's
right to the office before the courtsPn Now, Mr..
President and Senators, this Is the last question,
without the leading part OF 1t. understand 1t to be
very well settled rule that when counsel delibe-
ratey produce question leading In form and
has 1t passed upon he cannot afterwards withdraw
the leading part and put the same question without
it, Sometimes this rule has been relaxed in favor Of
a very young counsel Qaughter) who did not know
what the question meant. have seen very young
men so offending, but the court let them up. Now,
call the attention Of the presiding officer and OF
the Senate to the fact that I three times over
objected to the question as being outrage3usly lead m
mistake about IT, Yet the counsel for the President
went on and insisted not only in not withdrawing IT,
but in having it put TO the vote OF the Senate by yeas
and nays. If had not called their attention to 1t l
agree that perhaps the rule might not be en-
forced; but called their attention ,aas1 n 70 III III
the profession, to whom this rule was well
known. They chose to submit to the Senate
over again. and keep the Senate voting on forms Of
question until its patience is wearied out Now, |
had the honor to state to the Senate little while
sense and this rule, too, is founded good sense
1t is founded on the proposition that counsel should
INSTRUCT Ha pa' him wnaf they Want to prove and
then, after the question Is overruled, to- put
the same question without its leading FORM
or course that was not meant here, but thlnK
that the Senate should not allow itself to be placed
within his way II you choose to sit here and have
the yeas and nays called, can stay here as long as
Mr.. SrANBERY-Mr. Chief Justice and Senators,
this Is too grave. and serious, and responsible an
issue, and too important In It's results to allow
troversy: The M , gentleman again ,,a says 10,
hope am not in the habit Of making facious OPP
position before any court high or low and especially
not before this body But the learned Manager mt.
question, resorting to low practices OF Old Bailey
Court lor the purpose OF getting time Making fac
tious opposition scorn any y.ss;U sIcn inIlma,l3a
edly 1t is leading question; but was
it intended to be leadingS Was 1t intended to draw
otherwise not have saidY The learned Manager says,
"Oh no; 1t was not intended SO far as General Sher,
man was concerned, but that, so far as counsel
In that form, so that counsel might nave
another opportunity OF that putting a
manufactured in q leading form, Knowing that 1t
would be rejected for the purpose OF getting ten or
fifteen minutes time. leading question, sir viii
the honorable Manager read the record OF this
case and see hundreds OF leading questions put by
him until we got tired Of objecting to themS may
of course be permitted to discaim any such inten-
ton. This is a matter OF great importance. The
interests Of our client are In our hands, and we
are to defend him in the best way We can.
The question was modified, at Mr.. EvARTs' sug-
gestiOn so as to read as f0llOwS:-"Was anything
said at either Of these interviews by the President as
to any purpose OF getting the question OF Mr. STAN
toms right to the Otllce before the courtsr,
The CHIEF JUSTICE put IL to the vote OF the Senate,
ana nne QUESTION was mn IN wrng the foo
ing question to be put to the witness :-"Did the
President in rendering you the appointment OF Sec
retary OF War al interim, express the object or pur-
pose Of 50 doingrn
Mr.. BISGmAM-I object to that question as being
within the ruling. 1t Is both leading and incompe-
tent.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said he would submit the ques-
tion to the Senate.
Justice arise for the purpose Of moving that the
Senate should go into consultation on this question
(cries Of "nol nor')-but there might not be time
tonight to go into consultation, and therefore
move that the court adjourn.
The motion was rejected without division.
The vote was then taken on admitting Senator Hen
derson's question: and 1t was rejected-yeas 25 nays
q, as foows:-
yEAssenators Anthony, Bayard Buckalew Davis Dixon
Johnson McCreery Morrill, Of Me- Norton Norton, Pat.er
sSn e TMsqn Trum
NAys-senaiors Cameron, Cael Chandler, Cole, ccnk
ns asn howe Morgan, scr IT,
Hye paerson Of N H. rO%eysoy yo Ramsey Stewart Thaye
senator TRUMBULL, at hali-past three, moved that
the Court adjourn.
The question was taken by yeas and nays, and re-
sulted-yeas 25, nays Gas follows:-
YEAs-sena,ors Bayard, Buckaew, Cameron, Catte Cor
bett Davis Dixon, Doole Fessenden, Fowler Frelnghuy
sen, Crimes Henderson, Hendricks Howe, johnson, McCree
ry Morton, Noron Patterson OF Tenn, Ramsey Sprague
Trumbull, Van Winkle, vickers-25
NAYsSenators Anthony Chandler, Cole, Conkling Con-
Cragin, Drake, Ednunds, Ferry Harlan, Howard
Morgan Morrill, Of Me-, Morrill, Of VI, Nye, of N
H., Poneroy Ross, sherman. Stewart, SUMNER Thayer
Upton, Wiley, Williams, Wilson and Yates-27.
80 the court refused to adjourn.
Mr.. STANBERy sent 10 Mr. Butler another form Of
question.
After reading H. Mr. BUTLER said, we object TO this
both leading question and for substance. IL has
been voted on three times already.
The question was read as follows:-"At either OF
those interviews was anything said in reference to
the use of threats, intimidation force get pos
session Of the War Once or the contrary
The CHIEF JUSTICE submitted to the Senate the
admssibility OF the question: and without division
IL was ruled to be nadmissble.
The Cnrr JUSTICE asked the counsel for the Presi-
dent whether they had any other question TO put to
the witness