Year: 1868

While we approve the fidelity of the lmpeach-
ment Managers in their just effort to exclude
from the trial species of testimony which
may be manufactured without end, viz: the
Presidents declarations to everybody OF his
good intentions we, for many reasons, concur
with the ruling of the Chief Justice, and the
majority of the Senate, admitting Gen. Sher-
mans testimony of the Presidents declarations,
made while rendering him the office of Secre-
taTy of War cd interim. We agree with the
Managers that Mr.. johnson cannot show inno-
cence of intent, except by showing that he
did not intend TO commit the acts for which he
stands impeached. viz. the order removing
Stanton, and the order appointing Thomas.
This he and his counsel will not attempt to
show He made the orders with full con
scOusness that they violated the Tenure-of-
Office act This fact is all that is necessary to
prove the guilt of his intent. 1t is not neces-
sary to guilty intent that the person charged
consider the act he is about to commit to be
criminal II is sufficient that the law makes it
So If he is mistaken in the law, his ignorance
of the law does not excuse him. On the
question Of intent, therefore, the sole ques-
ton is, Did President johnson intend to
remove Stanton and appoint Thomas' This
being admitted, the question whether those facts
were legal Or Illegal, innocent or criminal, is
one of law, not of fact or intent and ii they
were criminal then the Presidents criminslity
of intent is established, and admits OF no denial
or qualification. If Gen. Sherman could prove
that the President never intended to remove
Stanton, the evidence would be clearly relevant.
For him to prove that the President thought the
removal of Stanton was legal is only to prove
the Presidents opinions on d question OF law,
which are clearly of no sort OF consequence, as
they do not affect the question of his guilt or
innocence in the remotest degree.


Nevertheless, the Impeachment Managers
having offered proof and arguments that the
President designed to use force, the Presidents
counsel should be allowed to prove, if they
can, that he did not. Whether the absence of
any such design when talking to Sherman will
establish that he had no such design in refer
ence TO Thomas, the Senate will judge. We
believe the ChiefJustice and the Senate act
wisely, however, to admit testimony that
may not be relevant, rather than by any posi-
bility exclude anything which should be ad-
mitted. Its ouly evil is to protract the trial,
as the Senate consists almost wholly Of law
yeIS, VINO are Hot hhciJ w po iNu w uN'iN'o
the issue on irrelevant testimony.


Mr.. Johnsons counsel seem to have realized
that the gist Of the case hes right here, and we
cannot help regarding their motion yesterday
for recess, on the plea of Mr.. Stanberys illness,
as confession that they are placed completely
at fault by the debate and proceedings of the
day before, and that they need further time
for consideration. They understand that Gen.
Sherman's testimony cannot materially help
their cause, nor can its exclusion lay the Mana
gers open to the charge of unfairness The
main facts of the case are unquestioned, and
no testimony is needed to determine the law.
If they have any testimony showing that the
President had no purpose to disobey the law,
by all means let them produce it but evidence
to show rhy he disobeyed it is not to the pur-
nose.