Year: 1868

- xsPinAoa " oxpro8S on the 0uojoCk


o MT HOWARD sustained the right Of the Senator from


ono 70 DO sworn and participate In the trial He did


no unaersnd on what ground the objection could be


suncd They were not acting In their ordinary capz


Guy as Senate but acting a court What right


nad the members Of the yet sworn to vote ON


Could the members already sworn exclude senator


INA. would DC strange proposition. As the Senate


or~s n1ea had no right to pass resolution or an


oIuer II was an act simply Judicc He sug-


ses'ea therefore, that the objection be withdrawn for


MI MORTON, rep) or Ind. argued that there was no


person here authorized to make the objection because


srss, ws tgnt Of party to waive the objection Of in


wnsn Part Ss .. or Juror and the President


me Senator from Ohio ?" The theory Of his COL


oasae ass ONT asndrcksl was false This impeachment


Ohio was member Of this body as his rights as such


could not be taken from him His election presiding


Smcer took from him mono Of his rights as q Senators


but aside from that there was no person here entitled


TO raise the question.


: Mr. JOHNSON urged the proprlsty Of his moton-.ha.


was question IN which the people Of the United States


we Msrs &C concerned and BY no conduct Of his


court s Organized n' .ns Ish oSsH sSala ras 'as


than the constitution provides He repelled the in-


AS 10 the Senate he argued lis powers were only iegis


ative and had judicial powers except court.


80 nad all their predecessors ruod In the celebrated


impeachment case OF Justice Chase the Senate acted


tne IDEA that they were acting court not as Sem


ate The Senators to declare their oaths de-
judgment and who had ever heard OF the Senate de-


caring judgmentS The very fact that the Chief Jus.


ce nad 70 preside showed that this court Of the


nlgnest character As to tho argument that Senator
had right to vote . question wherein be had an
interest," he asked who had ever heard before OF such
declare that Judgment pronounced by judge in
case where he had personal interest was absolutely
vola On the general principle that no man had right
70 De Judge In his own In conclusion, he
pended the motion and moved that the other members


Mr. SHERMAN declared tho right OF his colleague to


take the oath and his duty to do II was clear In his own
mnd II hereafter the question OF interest raised
against him It could be discussed and decided. The
case OF Senator stockton to which reference had been
made, was case In point. Notwithstanding the ques.
tom Of the legality Of tho election questioned
MS rgnt TO be sworn in tho first instance It was
only when the case came up for decision that


ms right to vote that disputed and refused
OF that decision. Tho same question came up In his
own case when he candidate for the Speakership
oath as momber Of the House, and he had right, II
nc had chosen to exercise H. to cast his vote for himself
He claimed that tho State OF Ohio had right to bc
represented In this trial by Its two Senator'S His col
league should decide for himself whether he would
participate in the trial and vote questions arising in
it. Questions had been introduced In this debate which
he thought should not have been Introduced The only


question at issue was should or should not the Senator
from Ohio be worn inP


Mr.. BAYARp (dem) Of DEL, argued against the right
OF Senator Wade to take the oah the object Of the
constitution being to exclude tho person who was to
benefit by the deposition OF the President from taking
part In the proceedings leading TO such deposition He
proceeded to argue that the character Of the body in
10 lmpeaCh was tnat OF court, not tnat OF
Senate. He could not conceive on what ground the
question as TO the character Of the body was intro
duced, except it that Senator'S cutting themselves
loose from tho restraints Of their judicial character
might give full swing 10 thor partisan passions. II
he stood IN the position the Senator from Ohio
the wealth OF tho world would not tempt him to sus
tain such case.


Mr. SUMNER, lrep) OF Mass-I shail not be tempted to
follow learned Senators the question whether this is
Senate court. That question, to my mind Is, sir,
simply ono Of language. Our powers at this moment
under the constitution Of the United States
wo0AA ktttln
calling ourselves Senate They thero In tho
stuton Search its text and will find them. The
US powers, and these we are now to exercise No
matter for the name. The rose under any other name
has all those qualities with which II was foond But
should not at this time have entered into this discussion
II had not listened to objections on the other side
which seemed to me founded viii not say error
for that would be bold whom discussing question
Of such gravity-but they founded at least read
ing OF history that have not been able to verify.
When Senators distinguished by ability and learn.
to prevent a person who might become Presi.
dent from presiding at the Court OF impeachment
for the trial Of the President ! would ask the


learned Senators who havo thus announced where they
have found that text In the constitution The constitu
tried the Chief Justice shall prcsde' The constitution
does not proceed to why he shall presde Senators
as an actual precedent for the Senate Where SIR do
thoy find the reasopf They cannot find the reason
they would now assign In any text lustrst


ing the constitutions they cannot find 1t in tho text OF
Madison or in any Of the texts OF that tme nor can
they find it in the Fsderals When does that reason
frst the sceneS Others may be fortunate
than but have been able to find II earlier than
1928, In the Commentaries OF William Rawe. We all
know the character this work-one OF great respect
ability, which most Of in carly days have read.
and studied and how does he speak of III As ollows
(Mr Sumner quoted from the work In question OK
preston Of opinion that the reason the Vice President
docs not preside the trial of the President is because
no Is supposed 10 succeed 70 the functions and emou
ments Of the latter and II would be inconsistent with
the implied purity OF judgeL He also quoted from Mr.
Justice Story. who he said, cited Rawles Commentaries
to say that Mr.. Madison bad expressed opinion en-
trey Inconsistent with what the learned senators had
urged Il they trusted the lights Of history they would
tuition In contemplation Of the possibility OF suspension
Of the President during his trial. in which case the Vice
perform. Mr.. Sumner read from Mr.. Nadson's
reports OF the debates OF the Virginia Constitutional
which Mr.. Madison expressed the opinion that eithor
tho Senate the Senate and House OF Representatives
jointly, could suspend tho President from Office where
upon his duties would devove upon the Vice President.
Mr. sumner said he had doubt that such was tho In
tenton Of tho trainers OF tho constitution. The H. use
in 1891 acted on Mr. Madson's interprea-
tion or the constitution and demanded that Senator
hs sneh % snu.ss ov epn"veS
questering," the traditional LANGUAGE OF tho British
constitution Tbcy bad then. from authentic history
sufficient for the provision tnat the Chief Justice
shall preside upon tho trial OF President OF the United
statoa To take other reason was 10 depart from
the contempory authorities and como down TO more re-
commentators Doubtloss the reason assigned by


those commentators was worthy of consideration but he
Insisted that the authority OF contemporary history FUR
nshcd him another reason. They must tako the text
as 1t s without going behind 1t or extending IT, 1t was
simply when the President Of the United States Is riod
tho Chief Justice shall preside They could not supply
which not sustained by authentic contem-
poraneous history in tho face OF one supplied BY that
history. In reply TO Mr.. Jchnson's reference 70 his
argument IN the OF Mr. Stockton, Mr.. Sumner said
that tho point which he maintained, and on which he
cited authorities, was that man cannot sit
ns q Judge on his own There was no
in this citation In tho connection with
Tho case OF the Senator Ohio Was that senator
mpeached or In any way called In question Not at
ALL lie repeated that there was analogy between the
cases. Then, again, Mr. sumner said ] hear It con-
stanty said that the Senator from Ohio may DO under
temptation he has something which, IN tho tech
nical language OF the law, Is called an interest AZ
learned Senator's have thought proper to bring this into
debate OF must be treated With respect but 10
does seem 10 me that II proceeds on perfect mscon-
ception OF the character OF this proceeding We are
not sitting county court for the trial OF case foe
assault and battery; but VIC arc sitting upon great
question concerning tho welfare Of this republic, dear
10 US ALL question tho one side OF tho highest
Justice and the interests of this great republic and on
tba ant b0foro the suggestion OF