The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-05-02
VOL. xLlIL.-N0. 232.
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
oxr,yrING THE ARG UMENTs ON
tV' ,,, uODE or PROCEED DURE.


on .,,era Courts of Impeachment,
...,,,,oroN. May 1.-The impeachment
,,.uned 10y the Senate at 12:35 to-day.
n".,oceedines attracted a very small number
usct,tors. The respondent, with his coun-
y, ,na the Managers having entered the
's,,ber. the Secretary read the pending ques-
Nan which was the motion submitted by Mr..
ucDonad of Indiana on Friday last, that the
,,,,msnt on the question Of the Jurisdiction OF
,he senate to entertain the articles of impeach-
pent against the respondent be reconsidered.
Mr. Fdraunds OF Vermont moved that the
Eoate withdraw for consultation.
Mr. Bair OF counsel for the respondent, said
NAT since Friday he had examined carefully
ne authorities cited by the House Managers in
HE Barnard case. Throughout the same rule
,btslued which obtained In ordinary courts OF
h.tce that counsel who maintain the affrma-
tive Of an icsue had the opening and reply, and
Oh that principle the defence were entitled in
ibis cuse to the opening and reply, because,
substantially, they had demurred to the articles
presented by the House. Every lawyer knew
that in proceeding like this the articles should
slege end prove jurisdiction, and the defence
demurred on the grounds that the present
articles did not show Jurisdiction. In a matter
81 impeachment. the court which sat In It was
scourt Of limited jurisdiction under the Con-
ttutton, nd 10 every court Of Justice OF limited
Jurisdiction, tho matter OF fact upon which that
jurisdiction rested must appear upon the tndict-
nent. Every demurrer had the opening and
closing, and the argument by the Managers,
N they had the an NATIVE OF the
general issue, they should, therefore, have the
bpeninl and reply In ali OF the interlocutory
proceedings, was to him n strange claim.
The defence SAID that. assuming all the facts
alleged IN those articles of Impeachment, the
Managers has made no case. That was an
,firiuative proposition, and therefore the de-
fence who made It were entitled to the opening
n
these proceedings were ever regarded ss st nd
Ing on a different footing in tue general princi-
pies that governed them to any other proceed
lngs nt law. There was this great distinction be-
tween impeachment proceedings in England and
pi Lords finally disposed OF the case, in the
United states o defendant might, after tue
The Judgment OF the Court OF impeachment, be
further Prosecuted in the courts. Mr.. Blair
closed by again asking that the Senate would. II
pos ihe, or mt a little further time to the defen-
sants - prepare their case: These were proceed
lncs With which American lawyers were not very
tam'ii r. aud he scarcely thought that as the
pat er now stood they had fair amount Of
nme In watch TO real w the necessary authori-
hes.
TuE IMMEMoRIAL PRACTICE.
Mr. Manager lIoar said. What was the funda-
mental proposition uuOn which tho Manager
rested the claim presented on SATURDAY. 1t was
that Court q lmpeachment, parliamentsrs
process for Investigation into the Guilt Of great
public offenders, mad enjoyed from time imme-
own rules OF evidence, It's own rules Of plead
Ing, It's own method of practice, settled 10y
usage ana adopted 10y our constitution
when IL used the word impeachment az one
Ot the powers with which the Senate was
clothed. Those rules OF evidence, practice,
ana pleading were not the rules which
phtained IN the courts OF common law All
rules OF pleading, however which were based
upOn common ncht, and which werc intended
10 secure TO a defendant fair and i'm partial
lral. nd to be his protection against oppres-
Innocence applied here. This Court OF Impeach-
nent sat 10 Apply In ITS proceedings the rules Of
common Justice To this class of exceptional Of
tti QefSs nut II applied those rules hy It's
,7eth"es. II, IN any rsspert, the r'i's of order
ls'ng m Court of lmpeachment were less
favorable u defendant at its bar than the pro-
fes, IN criminal court In an analogous case,
Constitutional equivalent enjoyed hy the defen-
ndnt arragned before II, that OF having as Judges
snd Jurors - Senator'S representatives. OF the
ttatcs. Mr. llpar again discussed the Barnard
Sc, and referred at greater length than on Fri
eaV TO numerous English pfecedents, all of
ynich he claimed ain med uniformly the doc.
trne that to he House Managers belonged In all
Eases IN such proceedings the right OF opening
aud Of reply.
nLoUsT's CASE AS A PRECEDENT.
Mr.. Conklng asked the House Managers 10
re from Blount's case the y s.ages which they
ellmcd affirmed that the principle held Dy the
sena was that the affirmative inv, riably was
VITA tho Managers, regardless of nature Of
k.ue
Mr. Hoar, IN reply, ndmi ted that in the Blount
ta-e the decision that to the House belonged
tHe teuing and reply was on demurrer taken
b. me House, and where consequently IN an
efJi"ary court they would enjoy the saue pfivi-
lr-t.
T. Sargent submitted a point OF order that all
infeuogatoTies to the Managers or to witness
b. senators must he in writing under rule Is,
aoaiug that he could see that indulging Senators
aul counsel would consume considerable time.
he Chair ruled that the point OF order was
ST. Edmunds asked whether there was any
neeati - IN the articles thnt Belknap was secre-
ry ! War down to the 2d day Of March. 1879.
". iloar replied that it was alleged in tho ar
ncc' that Mr.. Belkuap was Secretary until that
d.y.
lir Sherman asked whether 1t would NEE the
convenience Of the Managers ana counsel II a
hnr,l number Of hours for argument on the
question as to tho jurisdiction OF the Senate
Nrre nNed. such tune to he appOrtloned among
IN Managers and counsel as each side desire;
and IL -.., what number Of hours was desired.
hr BAR -ald tie defendants could not an
tw tns question without consultation with
tteH dDs-n' colleague. MIR. Blach.
Hif A. -ua-tr L1rG sad that lie must mako the
So e. Wv. as conference would De necessary
81 .na the House VI n.gtrs.
CARrrsTER's VIEWS.
NJ. CarVenter s4,I 80 FAR a. the question
- io "Lich side tho rsnt OF o.enlng and
clo ing belonged ws concerned, in TINS
" Tisf he 'IsSidi' GaSd s,,a Of IT. 'f5y Fry
twrltN-hya Gems deposited win the Sccre-
~ of the ~enHte he NO ID not do so. because
b" AZ NOT care ~ hh1ut II. But counsel VINO
~ q red IN a c3-e like tlls owed -Omeiiing, not
only e. cir rh"rt, I also % The low, whose
'ia.ci- tney were, and T. the whole por rula-
rlu ~ tue United States. We All knew now IN
sid'o slY lretedenis came to be law. Ifitwe.e
re Law that over, man Ia onice or out "
ohlHs could he brought T. the b.r Of
N.s senate ana tried, he expected that
q r'lat" CnimleI would he a rich neld OF
pr ', .1n'u profit aud cmolument. and lawyers
o..u 30 a. tnDir Profession 70 contest every
T." 900 which might torn - precedent in the fu-
iuf. Ihe Hose ul lrtio-rufbllyc4 now
~ 80 ais claimed The IrerYs tive oi oueLing
spG r. sing an arguments. The uruciplr claim
eI rs tIr innagers was ono which ~ tree man
bnyN. eiu could endure. 1t rev r-ed all our
o. .f- If justice ana all the CA ritahle pre-
b.. go IT'S Il ne l.w and put men VINO come
O. rs fr judI ia examination at the absolute
LaHI.f of tollt,cll majority.
..I. .l'frinuu It \ rtn Carolina asked II tho
Ma |-ris claimed tue reply ln this particular
t."H- DE- in tie OF u-ht, or only a. "A matter OF
b Ur' h,ch tine court might change.
l.l.r Aai4 the House Managers did not
rtH tl.t a constitutional ana lawful pre-
I'- 't Il the House II Representatives could
.c ' liY changed Wi hUut the consent Of
lA. NJ ...r.
'u - Nr T. lmunds to retire was car
80; laY-, ~ whercupon tho senate
tr ''. 90 reception chaWher.
g." 40 tots returned TO the chamber at 900
'.... thr lr--i|lng officer said lac III
- '' ale tIt tue motion to resCind the
'"1 ihr orltruf Argument WIS made
r'' Nh"r 4'rt; also. that the request OF
s "i .lHh.- r, hat four Managers DO
H .'f f4i i'r- the Senate on the question
N - .r uted,
u % Nf. h lrua0, tho Senate sitting
ifN fII.l al articles a. tmupuch-