The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-02
ARGUMENTS ON THE ORDER OF ARGUMENT.
Anxiety Manifested Over Pre-
negatives and Precedents.
A VICTORY FOR DEFENDANTS COUNSEL.

the Senates reaching its conclusions as well as tho
conclusions themselves He thought the whole trans
action under the present rules had close connection
with star chamber proceeding. he had been told by
Senator that this the first attempt tho
deliberations Of jury OPEN He tMr. Hamln) thought
the Senate court and the deliberations OF courts
were ohentimes public
Mr.. MORRILL, OF Vermont, said he supposed the OBJ
ject Of the Senator from Maine shorten the time
for deciding these questions and he (Alr. MorrD would
be glad II that could be DONE but he did think tho
proposed amendment would accomplish that purpose.
Mr.. EDMuSDs, of Vermont. said he would regret to
see the amendment adopted II such practice pre-
vailed IN courts tho whole adm nisraton OF justice
would soon run wild. II the Senate should have its
deliberations in public II would be patent before the
trial half through what the result would be. The
newspapers and the public could tell from what scna-
itors would say in argument just how they would vote.
AS to himself he almost felt II he ought not to take
part In trial whore he could not consult with his
brother judges without having harangucs for the edit
cation OF the galleries and amusement OF counsel
Mr.. CoSKLIxG, OF New York, favored the anne ndment,
and saw very little reason for the Senate making
mystery of questions submitted to II.
without action the matter laid over until to-
morrow.
THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS,
the CHAIR announced that the hour of twenty five
minutes 10 one having arrived, the Senate would
PEND the consideration OF legislative business and
sumo tho consideration OF the articles of impeachment
against W W. Belknap, late Secretary of War;
The Sergeant-at-Arms made proclamation In the
usual form.
The respondent. with Messrs. Carpenter and Blair,
having entered the Chamber, tho Secretary was d.
notify the managers the part OF the House
that tho Senate ready to proceed with the trial.
The managers after entered the Chamber, and the
proceedings OF the session of Friday last read
The Secretary then read
PENDING QUESTION,
being the motion Of Mr. Mcdonald of Indiana, sub
mitted Friday last sthat the VOTE by which was
ordered that the argument upon the question OF tho
Jurisdiction of the Senate entertain the articles Of
impeachment against the respondent be rcconsid-
ered.-
Mr. EDMuSDs of Vermont moved that the Senate
withdraw Tor consultation.
ARGUMENT MR.. BLAIR.
Mr. BLAR of counsel for the respondent, said since
Friday he had examined uliy the authorities citod
BY the House managers in the Barnard case; through
cut the rule obtained which obtained in ordinary
courts of justice that counsel who maintain the AFFIRM
ltive Of issue had the opening and reply, and on
that principle the defence entitled In this case 10
The opening and reply because substantially they had
iemurred to tho articles presented by the House.
Every lawyer knew that In proceeding like this the
defence dcmurcd on the grounds that the present
tcles did not show jurisdiction. In matter OF i'm
parchment the court which in a court OF
limited Jurisdiction under the constitution, and in
every court of justice OF limited jurs the
Of fact upon which that jurisdiction rested must appear
upon the indictment Every demurrer had the OPEN
ing and closing, and tho argument by the managers
that they had the Affirmative of the general
ssue, they should. therefore, have open
ng and reply in all OF the interlocutcry
proceedings was TO him a strange claim
rhc said tina, assuming all the facts alleged in
these articles OF impeachment the managers had made
no case. That was affirmative proposition and,
therefore, the defence, who made H. entitled to
the opening and the 1t a mistake TO sup
pose that these proceedings we're regarded as
standing different footing 10 the general principles
that governed them TO any other proceedings mt law
There this great distinction between impeachment
proceedings In England and in this country that while
In England the House OF Lords finally disposed of the
case IN the United States defendant might after the
Judgment of the Court OF Impeachment, be further
prosecuted in the courts. Mr. Blar closed by again
asking that the Senate voulu II possible grant little
lurthcr time TO the defendants to prepare their
These were proceedings with which American lawyers
we're not very familiar and he scarcely thought that
IS the matter now Stood they had fair amount Of
time in which to read up the necessary authorities.
ARGUMENT OF
Mr. Manager HoAR said What was the fundamental
proposition upon which the managers rested the claim
presented TO the Senate on saturday, 1t was that
sourt OF impeachment-a parliamentary process for
investigation into the guilt OF great public Offenders
hal enjoyed from mmemorial both in this ccun-
try and England, It's rules OF evidence, It's
rules OF pleading. its own method OF practice,
settled by uniform usage and adopted by
our constitution when IL used the word tim
peachment' one Of the powers with which
practice and pleading not the rules which
obtained IN the courts OF common law All rules Of
pleading, however. which were based upon common
right and which werc intended TO secure a defendant
n tar and impartial trial and TO be his protection
sumption o. innocencc-appIicd here. This cour. Of
impeachment sat 10 apply IN s proceedings the rules
OF justice class Of exceptional Offenders
but Il applied those rules by its methods. II In
any respect the rule Of order existing court oil i'm
parchment less favorable to defendant at its bar
than the process criminal court 10 an analogous
case Senators would remember the immense constitu-
onal equivalent enjoyed BY the defendant arraisncd
before that OF having rs judges and jurors seventy
four Senators. representatives OF the wisdom integrity
aud learning Of the several States
Mr. HoAR proceeded to again discuss the Bernard case
and referred at greater length than on Friday
merous English prccedcnts, all OF which, he claimed
affirmed uniformly the doctrine that 10 Tie House man
ayers belonged In all cases In such proceedings the
right OF opening and OF reply.
Mr. coSxLixo asked the House managers 10 read from
Bionnts case the passage winch they claimed affirmed
that the principle held by the senate that the
affirmative invariably with the managers regard
Mr. noAR in reply admitted that in the Bount case
the decision that 10 the House belonged the opening
and reply was OF demurrer, taken by tho House. and
where, consequently IN an ordinary court they would
enjoy the same privilege.
Mr. SARGENT submitted point Of order that all
fogaiores TO the MANAGERS or TO witness by Senators
must be In writing, under rule Is adding that he could
see that nduging Senators and counsel would
considerable time
The CHAIR ruled that the point OF order was well
taken
Mr.. EpxrxDs asked there was any allegation In the
articles that Beknap was Secretary OF War down the
I'd day OF March. 1875
Mr.. HoAR replied that Il alleged in the articles
that Mr.. Beknap secretary until that day.
Mr.. SHERMAN asked i'm would meet the convenience
OF the and counsel II limited number OF
hours for argument on the question to the jurisdic
ton Of the Senate were xci, such time 10 be appor
tioncd among the managers and counsel as each side
II
Mr. BLAIR said ths defendants could not answer the
question without consultation with their absent col
hague, Mr. Black.
Mr.. Manager LORD said that he must make the same
reply. ms conference would be necessary among the
n6usc managers
ARGUMENT CARPENTER.
Mr.. CARPENTER said so lar as the question as 10
which sdc the right opcning and closing belonged
conceded In this particular case. II was practically OF
very little Importance II he could settle II for TWEEN