Year: 1868

f.ct. eutirsy absurd He further conversation was
quite FREE and during the whole Of 1t Sprague and
Garfield seemed to be perfectly In accord, agreeing
that the President was Q dangerous man and
that he had committed acts for which he ought
to be removed. From the President the conversation
turned to the Chief Justice whose course ON i'm
parchment was criticized by Garfield OF course In no
favorable way. Sprague admitted that the views of
his father-in-aw on lie subject were rather unortho-
dox, but intimated that he lspfague) did not agree
with the Chief Justice on this matter.


This is about the substance Of what occurred. That
Sprague should have expressed himself in the man.
ner above described is somewhat remarkable fog be
has been counted from the start al among those who
would be certain to vote against impeachment. Per-
haps 1t is because he has been counted that he now
appears to be secured in the other direction, in
order that people may not have chance to say that
his vote depends upon the views and interests Of his
father-in-aw. But, however this may be, Is it not
manifest that the honorable Senator has been guilty
Of great impropriety in expressing an opinion be-
fore the close Of the trial. and before word had
been said on the part Of the defence What would
be said Of juror in an ordinary lawsuit who would
after hearing only side Of the case and not even
the whole of that, declare that his mind was made
up and that he intended to bring in q verdict Of
gultyS This is precisely Sprague's case. He hes
tates not to state that mis- MIND made up before the
testimony Of the defence has been adduced and before
the learned arguments Of the Presidents counsel


point Of law which divides in opinion the best legal
minds in the country. 1t Is bad sign for the
Presidents chances Of acquittal when Senators are
found thus early announcing their verdict of guilty
Is this trying the case impartiallys


The case Of Senator Sprague is not the only one
that can be cited. Other Senators are quite as in
judicious, to use q mild term, and express their
views ON impeachment without blush in the public
hearing. Only yesterday, am informed, Senator
Stewart, Of Nevada, at fashionable restaurant in
this city, indulged in an unseemly display Of pre-
judice, for which he was rebuked by gentleman
who happened to be present, and who deplored the
loss Of dignity exhibited by Senators Of the present
day. The gentleman called Mr.. Stewart's attention
to the fact that Colonel Forney the Clerk of the
Senate allowed daily to publish in his paper ar
tices prejudgng the Presidents case, and asked If
such conduct was becoming to high officer Of the
Court Of Impeachment. Mr.. Stewart replied that
there was more reason TO complain Of the gentlemen
In the Reporters Gallery than Of the Clerk of the
Senate. The conduct Of the correspondents, who
daily r1diculed the Hioh Court and Its proceedings
called in his Judgment more strongly for senatorial
interference and condemnation than that Of the vir
tuous Forney. Mr.. Stewart further said that for
some time he had been considering the propriety Of
investigating the reportorial corps with view to
put them on their good behavior. There Is nothing
to prevent Mr.. Stewart from "tryng 1t on.n