Year: 1868

IL supposed TO he evidence as bearing upon VIC eut
completed in the year 1868 So TOO, an interview
between Mr. Wood ONCE seeker ana tne fresiaent
In 1866 supposed TO bear la evidence on tde question
of intent IN the c0nsummatfon or crime alleged to
have been committed In 1858. And apprehend that
in the question OF this interview between General
Sherman and the President OF the United States
the jsy matter of public transaction OF the Presi-
dents changing the head OF the War Department,
which actually completed In February, 1865, is
near enough TO that intent and to show the pur-
poses OF the transaction. There remaias then, but
open to me impatation; that it is mere proof OF
declaration on the part Of the President concerning
his ntentions and object In regard to the subse-
quent act Of the removal Of Mr. Stanton 1t certainly
is not limited to that force effect. Whenever evi-
dence of that Character is offered that question will
the Presidents object was. We propose to show his
consultation with the Lieutenant General OF the
the place. on the other question to whether his
efforts Wee TO create violence, civil war blood
shed or even breach Of the peace in the removal
OF the Secretary OF War; we propose to show that in
that 81 consultation 1t the desire of the Presi-
dent fthat the Lieutenant General should take the
piafs IN order that by that change the judiciary
night he got to decide between the Executive
= and Congress rs to the constitutional powers
Of the former. the conduct of the Presi-
dent dn reference 70 the matters which are
made tho subject Of ncuipation, and If the efforts
and means which he used IN the selection OF agents
not to 1ebut the Intentions of presumption
sought to be raised, well was my learned associate
jus saed IN saying that this is a vital question
vital in the interest of justice at least II not vital TO
any important consideration Of the II is vital
on the nerest principles OF common Justice that





under inegpation, and when motives are assigned
for htSaesion and presumptons raised and innuendOs
urged, we should be permitted, in the presence Of
this great council sitting this day and doing justice
10 him as an individual, but more particularly doing
Justice reference to the office OF the President OF
the Uaited States and doing justice to the great pub
lie questions proposed to be affected by your judg-
mcnt,to have this question properly decided. l APP
prehend that this learned court of lawyers and lay
men will not permit this fast and loose game OF
limited crne for purposes of proof and Of unlimited
crime for purposes of accusation.


a
minutes.


Alter rcess Mr. WILSON, of the Managers took
Senate ffEc few moments My present purpose is to
get before the minds OF Senators the truth In the
Hardy case as 1t fell from the lips OF the Lord Chief
Justice who passed upon the question which had
been " opounded and objected to by the Attorney
General. Nh. Wilson read from the State trials the
decision of the LORD Chief Justice the effect that
the declarations applying even to the particular
ChaIged though the intent should make part of the
not evidence for him, because the princi-
pie upon which declarations are evidence
Is that no man would declare anything
aga nst himself unless it were true; but every man
would, were he in difficulty, make declarations for
himself. He also read the subsequent proceedings
affected by that decision, and COMMUNICATIONS, what
Is the question which has been prOpounded by the
President to General Sherman 1t is this:-ln that
anerview what conversation took place between the
President and you IN regard to the removal Of Mr..
stanton. Now, contend that calls for just such
within the limitation OF the first branch OF the rule
lad lac down down by the Lord Chief Justice in In
snc daTuy case, ana, therefore, muSL De
excluded. If this conversation is to be
admitted, where are we to stopY Who may not be
put on the stand and asked Tor conversations had
between him and the President, as my associate
suggests at any time since the President entered
upon possession OF the Presidential Office showing
The general intent and drift of his mind and con-
duct during the Whole period Of his official career?
And why, II this be competent and may be intro
duced may it not be followed by an attempt here to
introduce conversations between the President and
his Cabinet, and General Grant, by way OF inducing
This Senate under pretence OF trying the Predent,
"A n
the Army and the President OF the United States
That interview occurred about the same time, and
suppose the next offer will be the conversations
occurring between the President, his several secre-
1aries ald the General OF the Army, in order
mitted here ON this trial may weigh down the Gene.
raj OF the Army. say that that may occur because
II was conversation which transpired about that
time.


Mr.. BuTLER-only the day before.


Mr.. WILSoN-les, only the day before We GER
tainly must insist upon this well known rule being
applied To this particular objection for the purpose OF
ending forever far as this case Is concerned, the
introduction Of the declarations OF the President
made, 1t may be, for the purpose OF meeting
an impeachment 1t is offered to be proved
the counsel informs u.s. that the Pres
dent told General Sherman that he desired
him TO take possession OF the War Department in
order tha; Mr. stanton might be driven to the courts
OF law for the purpose of testing his title to that Of
fee, and inasmuch rs the counsel have referred to
the closing argument of my associate Managers and
seemed TO delight in reading therefrom, let Inc read
brief paragraph or two from that opening apply
ing 10 tes pretended purpose OF the President OF





tile. ON that occasion the Manager said he Pres
dent knew, or ought to have known, his official ad-
viscr who appears as his counsel, could and did
tell him. Doubtless that he alone, Attorney Gen.
era, could file an Information in the nature Of quo
acaITd9, TO determine the question OF the validity
OF the law. Mr. stanton, II elected from the
Office was without remedy, because a series OF
decisions has settled the law to be that an elected
officer cannot reinstate himself either by quo
qcaITGnfO, mandamus or other appropriate remedy
In the courts Then the purpose was not the harm.
less one OF getting the Lieutenant General OF the
army in the position OF Secretary OF War, to the
additional end Of having judicial decision OF this
question. but the purpose to get possession,
we have charged, of that department for his own
purposes, and putting the secretary oil War In
position where ne s e1ge ie N no, ,b sec%re o
counsel TO remember. not that we charge that the
President expected that he could make q tool Of
General Sherman, but that he might 0ust Mr.
Stanton from that office by getting General
sherman TO accept 1t, thereby putting Mr.. Stanton
In position where he could not have returned TO
the oflce expecting and believing the ieuten-
ant General OF the army would not long desire To
the AdJuant General of the army or some other per-
son equally plant, could be put into the place va
Gated by the Lieutenant General. Now, the Presi.
dent did moi succeed III this and 10 has been said,
he appointed on down until he came to Adjutant
General Thomas. Then he found the person who
was willing 10 undertake this work, who was
willing to Bse force, as he declared TO get pos
session Of that Office; and Hw with that
declarations and before the Senate II il offered
TO make his innocence apparent by giving In evi-
dence his own declaration at another time. II a case
be defended in this way no officer OF the United
States can ever be affected on impeachment, and IL
the sane rule Is 10 apply n courts OF justice crm
inal can ever be affected for any offence theren for
the ofiicer or the criminal may make his own de-
fence, by his own declarations, and he Will always
have one TO meet his case. do not desire to deain
the attention of the Senate. ] am willing To let the
case rest upon tae authority shown 10y the learned
counsel for the President: for under 1t ana by force
OF IL this matter must be decided


The CHIRg JUsTIcE-Senaors the Chief Justice has
e ai nt es vote Of ne seSas
yesterday, lie Will state briefly the grounds Of that
opinon. The question decided yesterday had refer.
ence 90 a conversation between the President and
General Thorlas alter the note addressed 10 Mr..
Stanton was delivered and the Senate decided IL al.
missble The question to-day has reference to con.
vcrsation relating To the same subject between the
President and General sherman, which occurred,
before the note nf removal was written Both gues.
tons are asked FOL the purpose of proving the intent of
the President In the Attempt 10 Mr.. Stanton.