Errors excepted.

Total annual salary.

$3,171,773 00 4,907.831 04 797,600 00 457,870 00 9,811,699 27 90.700 00 3,000 00 4,000 00 2,036,263 56 $21,180,736 87

Mr. EVARTS. I supposed there was a different rule for us?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. No, sir; that is the rule that I am claiming now, putting in competent and pertinent evidence, not a different rule. I beg you will not misunderstand me. In many of the States-I can instance the State of New Hampshire-I am sure the rule of rebutting evidence does not obtain in their courts at all. Each party calls such pertinent and competent evidence as he has up to the hour when he says he has got through from

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Mr. President, I time to time; and in some other of the States

have the honor to offer now from the files of the Senate, in the first place, the message of Andrew Johnson nominating Lieutenant General William T. Sherman to be general by brevet in the Army of the United States on the 13th day of February, 1868.

Mr. EVARTS. Under what article is that offered? With what intent?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. That is under the eleventh article and under the tenth.

Mr. EVARTS. The tenth is the speeches. Mr. Manager BUTLER. I should say the ninth; I beg pardon.

Mr. EVARTS. That is the Emory article. Mr. Manager BUTLER. That is the General Emory article.

Mr. EVARTS. Do you offer this on the ground that the conferring the brevet on General Sherman was with intent to obstruct the reconstruction act?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I offer it valeat quantum. I referred to it in the argument I have already made. The statement which I made in the opening upon that question has been twice read-once, I believe, by yourself, and once, I am certain, by Mr. Curtis.

Mr. EVARTS. It does not seem to us, Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, to be relevant, and it certainly is not rebutting. We have offered To evidence bearing upon the only evidence you offered under the eleventh article, which was the telegrams between Governor Parsons and the President on the subject of reconstruction. We have offered no evidence on that subject, and we do not see that this appointment

Mr. Manager BUTLER. They may be both passed upon at once to save time. I offer, also, the appointment by brevet of George H. Thomas to be lieutenant general and then general by brevet, two brevets on the 21st, the same day that Mr. Stanton was removed.

Mr. EVARTS. What was the last paper? Mr. Manager BUTLER. The last paper was the appointment by brevet of Major General George H. Thomas first to be lieutenant general by brevet and then general by brevet; and that was done on the same day that Mr. Stanton was removed, the 21st of February.

Mr. EVARTS. Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, it is very apparent that this does not rebut any evidence we have offered. It is then offered as evidence-in-chief that the conferring of brevets on these two officers is in some way within the evil intents that are alleged in these articles. We submit that on that question there is nothing in this evidence that imports any such evil intent.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I only wish to say upon this that we do not understand that this case is to be tried upon the question of whether evidence is rebutting evidence or otherwise, because we understand that to-day the House of Representatives may bring in a new article of impeachment if they choose, and go on with it; but we have a right to put in any evidence which would be competent at any stage of the cause anywhere.

Mr. EVARTS rose.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Excuse me a mo

it is so applicable, and no injustice is done to anybody.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice will submit the question to the Senate. The honorable Managers propose to put in evidence the nomination sent by the President to the Senate on the 13th of February, 1868, of Lieutenant General Sherman to be general by brevet, and the nomination of Major General George H. Thomas, sent to the Senate on the 21st of February, 1868, to be lieutenant general by brevet and general by brevet.

Mr. ANTHONY called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered.

Mr. HOWARD. I ask that the offer may be again read. It is not understood.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice will state it. The offer was not reduced to writing. It is very brief, and the Chief Justice will state it.

Mr. HOWARD. I respectfully ask that the Chair will again announce it to the Senate.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. He was about to do so. The honorable Managers propose to put in evidence the nomination of Lieutenant General Sherman to be general by brevet, sent to the Senate on the 13th of February, 1868; also, the nomination of Major General George H. Thomas to be lieutenant general by brevet and to be general by brevet, sent to the Senate on the 21st of February, 1868. Senators, you who are of opinion that this evidence shall be received will, as your names are called, answer yea; those of the contrary opinion, nay.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 14, nays 35; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Cole, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Morton, Ross, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, and Yates-14. NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, ChandJer, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman. Sprague, Stewart, Thayer, Vickers, Williams, and Wilson-35.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Bayard, Norton, Nye, Saulsbury, and Wade-5.

So the Senate refused to receive the evidence offered.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Mr. President, I have the honor to say that the case on the part of the Managers is closed, and all witnesses ate, at the instance of the Managers, may be who are here under the subpoena of the Sendischarged.

Justice understand that the case on the part The CHIEF JUSTICE. Does the Chief of the President is closed?

Mr. EVARTS. We are able to make the same announcement as regards witnesses who are attending on the part of the defense under subpoena; and this announcement on both sides, we assume, precludes almost necessarily any attempt to proceed with evidence again.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The honorable Managers will please proceed with their argu

ment.

Mr. Manager BOUTWELL. Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, it has fallen to me, upon the judgment of the Managers, to make the first argument on the part of the House of Representatives in the close. It is very likely that I shall be obliged to occupy the larger part of a day in presenting to the honorable Senate the views which I shall feel it my duty to offer. Under these circumstances, I have to ask that the Senate will do me the faver to adjourn until

to-morrow morning at the usual hour, when I shall be prepared to proceed.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chief Justice, I move that the Senate, as a court of impeachment, adjourn until eleven o'clock to-morrow.

Several SENATORS. Say twelve o'clock. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The rule now fixes eleven as the hour of meeting.

Mr. EVARTS. Mr. Chief Justice, may I be heard a moment?

The CHIEF JUSTICE. On a motion to adjourn no debate is in order.

Mr. JOHNSON. I withdraw the motion. Mr. EVARTS. Of course I do not rise with the view of making the least objection to the suggestion on the part of the honorable Managers, which seems to us to be entirely reasonable, but to couple with it a statement to which I beg the attention of the court for a

moment.

Our learned associate, Mr. Stanbery, has, from the outset, been relied upon by the President and by the associate counsel to make the final argument in this cause; and there are many reasons, professional and others, why we should all wish that this purpose should be carried out. It has been his misfortune, in the midst of this trial and after it had proceeded for a fortnight, to be taken suddenly ill. The illness, of no great gravity, is yielding to the remedies prescribed and to the progress of time, so that he now occupies his parlor, as we found him this morning. The summing up of a cause of this weight in many aspects, regarding the testimony and the subject and the situation, is, of course, a labor of no ordinary magnitude, physical and otherwise, and Mr. Stanbery is of the opinion, in which we concur, that he will need an interval of two days, added to what in the course of the trial would probably bring him to his feet in the argument, to have the adequate strength for that purpose. It might have been left until the day on which he should have appeared, and then have the request made for a day or two's relief in this regard; but it occurred to us to be fairer to the Managers that the interval of repose should be interposed at a time when it would be useful and valuable to them also, as the proofs are not entirely printed in the proper form for reference, and the latter voluminous evidence on the subject of appointments and the routine of the practice of the Government is such as to require considerable investigation in order to point out to the Senate the efficacy on the one side of, or the answer on the other to, the proofs. It is, therefore, our duty now to suggest (coupling it with the suggestion of the Managers; that until to-morrow should be given for the propriety of the mere agreeable introduction of the argument on their part,) that we ask that you consider this statement which I have made to you, and see whether it is not better in all respects that the matter should now be disposed of. I think the Managers will concur that this is the proper time to consider it and accommodate matters to the providential interference with the leader of the President's counsel and his confidential friend and adviser.

Mr. JOHNSON. What is the motion? Mr. EVARTS. The suggestion is that an internal of two days should be given now, instead of waiting till Mr. Stanbery shall come in; and I understand the Managers will agree it is better it should occur now than later. Mr. YATES. I move that the Senate adjourn until Wednesday.

Mr. Manager BOUTWELL. dent

Mr. Presi

Mr. YATES. I withdraw the motion if the Managers desire to be heard.

Mr. Manager BOUTWELL. Mr. President, if it shall be the pleasure of the Senate to consider favorably the request made by the learned counsel for the respondent, which is a question of public duty on which I can express no opinion, I certainly should desire that the time to be granted should be granted at once. I may say that if I had consulted my own feelings exclusively I should have made the request for a day more of time for further examination of

own account.

the record and more careful preparation than
I have yet been able to make; but under the
circumstances of the trial I did not feel at lib-
erty to ask that favor or consideration upon my
I have only now to say that if
it is the judgment of the Senate that time
should be granted to the learned counsel who
is to close for the respondent it would cer-
tainly be very desirable on my part that the
time should be granted at once, and that we
may all have the benefit of it in preparing what
we deem it proper to say.

Mr. EVARTS. One word, if I may be in-
dulged. The honorable Senators will also per-
ceive that if Mr. Staubery's resolution and
expectation should be disappointed, it is then
a matter of some importance for us of the de-
fense to supply his place as well as we may on
an unexpected emergency, and a little time in
that behalf also would be valuable to us.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chief Justice, I move that the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, adjourn until Thursday morning.

Several SENATORS. Say Wednesday.

Mr. Manager LOGAN. If the gentleman will withdraw the motion for a moment, I desire to make a request of the Senate.

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly; or rather I would submit the motion in this form: that when the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, adjourns to-day, it adjourn to meet at eleven o'clock on Wednesday morning.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I suggest twelve o'clock instead of eleven. ["No, no."]

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The rule now fixes eleven as the hour of meeting.

Mr. Manager LOGAN. I merely desire to make a request. Is this the proper time to do it, sir?

The CHIEF JUSTICE. It is.

Mr. Manager LOGAN. Mr. President and Senators, I desire to make a request of the Senate before the adjournment, as doubtless that will be granted upon the statement of the honorable counsel for the President and the Managers, as they both seem to desire this extension of time. I have not presumption enough to ask of the Senate permission to address them on the issues presented for their consideration, nor do I desire to do so; but I ask that I may be permitted to file to-day the printed argument which I have prepared that it may become a part of the record, without taking the time of the Senate, inasmuch as the evidence on both sides, for the prosecution on the part of the people and for the respondent, has been closed.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. President, I move that leave be granted to the Manager to file his argument.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. That involves a change of the rules, and it cannot be done if there is any objection.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I object.

Mr. JOHNSON. May I ask the honorable Manager whether the argument is now in print? Mr. Manager LOGAN. It is, and I am ready to file it at once.

Mr. STEWART. I make the motion that leave be granted, and that the Manager furnish a copy of his argument to the other side.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The order cannot be made except by unanimous consent, as it involves a change of the rules. Is there unanimous consent?

Mr. BUCKALEW. I object.

Mr. WILSON. I ask that the rule bearing on this matter be read.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the twenty-first rule.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

"XXI. The case, on each side, shall be opened by one person. The final argument on the merits may be made by two persons on each side, (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate, upon application for that purpose,) and the argument shall be opened and closed on the part of the House of Representatives." Mr. Manager LOGAN. Mr. President, the reason I made the request_to-day-if it is denied, as a matter of course I shall not renew it was that I might present the argument I have prepared, to the counsel for the respond

ent, that they, if they saw anything worthy of reply in it, might have an opportunity of replying in their argument.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The rule permits argument by but two counsel, one in opening and one in the close on the part of the Managers and two on the part of the President. The question of changing the rule has been frequently before the Senate and the Senate has uniformly refused to alter it. An order can be submitted to-day to be considered on the next day of meeting, but not for present consideration except by unanimous consent.

Mr. HOWE. I did not hear any objection. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Objection has been made.

Ma DOOLITTLE. I object.

Mr. Manager BOUTWELL. Mr. President, before the adjournment of the Senate I should like to call the attention of the counsel for the respondent to a feature of the testimony. It happens that the Managers, as I suppose, under the construction given to the rule, are to proceed first in the argument. A large mass of testimony has been introduced upon the subject of removals and appointments. At the present time I am not informed whether there are special cases on which the counsel for the President rely. I think it may be proper for me at this time to ask them whether there are cases upon which they purpose to rely as furnishing precedents for the course pursued by the President on the 21st of February.

Mr. ANTHONY. Mr. President, I will make a motion, to lie over until to-morrow, that the twenty-first rule be so modified as to allow the honorable Manager

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The order will be reduced to writing.

Mr. STEWART. I have which I submit in writing.

drawn up an order

WEDNESDAY, April 22, 1868.

The Chief Justice of the United States took the chair.

The usual proclamation having been made by the Sergeant-at-Arms,

The Managers of the impeachment on the part of the House of Representatives and the counsel for the respondent, except Mr. Stanbery, appeared and took the seats assigned to them respectively.

The members of the House of Representatives, as in Committee of the Whole, preceded by Mr. E. B. WASHBURNE, chairman of that committee, and accompanied by the Speaker and Clerk, appeared and were conducted to the seats provided for them.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the minutes of Monday's proceedings.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, I move that the reading of the Journal be dispensed with.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Unless there be some objection it will be so ordered. The Chair hears no objection. It is so ordered. Senators, the business under consideration when the Senate adjourned on Monday was an order offered by the Senator from Nevada, [Mr. STEWART,] which the Clerk will read.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

Ordered, That the Managers on the part of the House of Representatives and the counsel of the respondent have leave to file written or printed arguments before the oral argument commences.

Mr. VICKERS. Mr. President, I beg leave to offer this as a substitute.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the substitute.

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to strike out all of the proposed order, and insert in

lieu thereof:

As the counsel for the President have signified to the Senate, sitting as a court for the trial of the impeachment, that they did not desire to file written or printed arguments, but preferred to argue orally, if allowed to do so: Therefore,

Resolved, That any two of the Managers other than those who under the present rule are to open and close the discussion, and who have not already addressed the Senate, be permitted to file written arguments at or before the adjournment of to-day, or to make oral addresses after the opening by one of the Managers and the first reply of the President's counsel, and that other two of the counsel for the President who have not spoken may have the privilege of reply, but alternating with the said two Managers, leaving the closing argument for the President and the Managers' final reply to be made under the original rule.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chief Justice, it may have some bearing possibly on the vote which is to be taken on this proposition if I were to state what I am now authorized to state, that the extent of Mr. Stanbery's indisposition is such that it will be impracticable for him to take any further part in this trial.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Senators, you who agree to the amendment proposed by way of substitute by the Senator from Maryland will say ay.

Mr. CONNESS called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

Mr. YATES. I ask for the reading of the amendment.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the original proposition and also the substitute.

The Chief Clerk read the order proposed by Mr. STEWART and the amendment of Mr. VICKERS.

The question on the amendment being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 26, nays 20; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cragin, Davis, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Morton, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Saulsbury, Sprague, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey, Wilson, and Yates-26.

NAYS-Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conness, Corbett, Drake, Ferry, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, and Williams-20.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Cole, Conkling, Dixon, Harlan, Nye, and Wade-8.

Mr. POMEROY. The Senator from California, [Mr. COLE,] who sits by my side, has been called suddenly to leave the city on

account of a matter of deep interest to his family. He wished me to say this to the Senate in explanation of his absence.

So the amendment was agreed to. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question recurs on the order as amended.

Mr. CONNESS called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 20, nays 26; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cragin, Davis, Doolittle, Fowler, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morton, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Saulsbury, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, Vickers, Willey, Wilson, and Yates-20.

NAYS-Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conness, Corbett, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer, Van Winkle, and Williams-26.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Cole, Conkling, Dixon, Harlan, Nye, and Wade-8. So the amendment was disagreed to.

Mr. VICKERS. Mr. President, I send an order to the chair.

Mr. Manager STEVENS. Mr. Chief Justice, I desire to make an inquiry; and that is whether there is any impropriety in any Manager's publishing a short argument after this vote. After the motion made here on Monday some few of us, I among the rest, commenced to write out a short argument. I expect to finish it to-night, and, if the first vote had passed, I meant to file it. I do not know that there is any impropriety now in printing it except that it will not go into the proceedings. I would not like to do anything which would be improper, and I inquire whether there would be any impropriety?

Mr. FERRY. Mr. President, I inquire whether it would be in order to move the original order upon which we have taken no vote, introduced, I think, by the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER.]

The CHIEF JUSTICE. It would not. As the Chief Justice understands the matter is finally disposed of. A proposition has been offered by the Senator from Maryland, [Mr. VICKERS,] which will be read for information. The Chief Clerk read the order proposed by Mr. VICKERS, as follows:

That one of the Managers on the part of the House be permitted to file his printed argument before the adjournment of to-day, and that after an oral opening by a Manager and the reply of one of the President's counsel, another of the President's counsel shall have the privilege of filing a written or of making an oral address, to be followed by the closing speech of one of the President's counsel and the final reply of a Manager under the existing rule.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. This order is in the nature of an amendment of the rules, and cannot be considered now unless by unanimous consent.

Mr. CONNESS. That was offered, I believe, two days since, if I am not mistaken, by the Senator from Nevada.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. It has just been offered by the Senator from Maryland. If there is no objection it will be now considered.

Mr. CONNESS. I offer a substitute for it. The CHIEF JUSTICE. It is before the Senate for consideration, and the Senator from California proposes a substitute.

Mr. SHERMAN. I should like to have it read again. It was not heard.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. In a moment. The Secretary will read the order proposed by the Senator from Maryland, and also the substitute proposed by the Senator from California. The CHIEF CLERK The order as proposed by the Senator from Maryland is:

Ordered, That one of the Managers on the part of the House be permitted to file his printed argument before the adjournment of to-day, and that after an oral opening by a Manager, and the reply of one of the President's counsel, another of the President's counsel shall have the privilege of filing a written or of making an oral address, to be followed by the closing speech of one of the President's counsel, and the final reply of a Manager under the existing rule. The Senator from California proposes to amend by striking out all after the word "ordered" and inserting:

That such of the Managers and counsel for the President as may choose to do so have leave to file arguments before Friday, April 24.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question is on the amendment proposed by way of substi

tute.

Mr. CONNESS called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I would move to lay the resolution and amendment on the table; but I desire to have the order and amendment read again.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The order and proposed amendment will be read again.

The Chief Clerk read the order and the amendment.

Mr. CONNESS. Mr. President, I wish to modify my amendment so as to read "on or before Friday, April 24."

The CHIEF JUSTICE. That modification will be made if there be no objection. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BUCKALEW,] to lay on the table the proposition and pending amendment. The motion was not agreed to.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question recurs on the amendment proposed by the Senator from California. Upon that question the yeas and nays have been ordered.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 24, nays 25; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Ferry, Henderson, Howard, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates-24.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, Morgan, Morton, Norton, Patterson of

Mr. JOHNSON. What time would the Manager like?

Mr. Manager WILLIAMS. If you would say "written" instead of "printed," it would be satisfactory.

Mr. SHERMAN. I move that the order be so amended that "the Managers shall have leave to file written or printed arguments."

The CHIEF JUSTICE. It is moved to strike out the word "two"

Mr. SHERMAN. No, sir.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice does not understand the amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN. Will the Secretary read the first clause, and I will submit an amendment.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the first clause.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

Ordered, That two of the Managers on the part of the House be permitted to file their printed argu

ment.

Mr. SHERMAN. I move that the language be, "The Managers on the part of the House be permitted to file printed or written arguments."

Mr. FESSENDEN. That cannot be done without reconsidering the vote by which we inserted the word "two."

The CHIEF JUSTICE. A motion to strike out the word "two" and insert anything else will not be in order; but a motion to add the words" or written" will be in order.

Mr. SHERMAN.. I will then move to reconsider the vote adopting the amendment of the Senator from Maryland, [Mr. JOHNSON,] insert

Winkle, and Vickers-25.

Say "all."

Mr. JOHNSON. No; I will not say all; that would be objectionable.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Maryland, [Mr. JOHNSON,] to strike out "one" and insert "two."

The question being put, the Chief Justice declared that the amendment appeared to be agreed to.

Mr. CONKLING called for a division. Mr. HOWARD. I ask how the order will read if amended?

The CHIEF JUSTICE. It is proposed to strike out "one" in the first line and insert "two;" so as to read: "That two of the Managers on the part of the House be permitted to file, &c.'

Mr. CONKLING. I beg to withdraw the call for a division; I made it under a misapprehension of the amendment.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice announced the vote as agreed to. The amendment, then, stands as agreed to.

Mr. CONNESS. What is the state of the question now, the amendment adopted?

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The amendment is adopted. The question is on the order as amended.

Mr. Manager WILLIAMS. Mr. President and Senators, I beg leave to suggest, as I do very respectfully, that the effect of this order as it now stands, requiring that any argument which may be presented shall be in print today, will be to leave the matter substantially as it was before, because there is but one of the Managers, as I believe is well understood,

although three of them would like to put in arguments, there is but one of them who is so prepared just now; that is to say, whose argument is in print. So that, in this shape, it would be keeping the word of promise to the ear and breaking it to the hope.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator from Ohio moves to reconsider the vote by which the word "one" was stricken out and "two" was inserted.

The motion was not agreed to.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question recurs on the amendment to insert after the word

"printed" the words "or written."

Mr. GRIMES. I wish to have the order reported, so as to know when these written arguments are to be filed. ["To-day."] Then I ask unanimous consent to inquire whether or not it is expected that the counsel for the President will examine these written arguments to-day and be able to make a reply to them tomorrow morning?

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question is upon adding after the word "printed" the words or written."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WILSON. I ask that the order be read, as modified.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

Ordered, That two of the Managers on the part of the House be permitted to file their printed or written arguments before the adjournment of to-day, and that after an oral argument by one Manager and the reply of one of the President's counsel, another of the President's counsel shall have the privilege of filing a written or of making an oral address, to be followed by the closing speech of one of the President's counsel and the final reply of a Manager under the existing rule.

Mr. CORBETT. Mr. President, I move to insert in place of the word "another" the word "two," so as to make it the same on the part Managers. of the President's counsel as on the part of the

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Clerk will read the order as it stands now, and as it will be if amended as proposed.

Mr. FOWLER. Mr. Chief Justice, the noise is so great in the Hall that we cannot hear. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Conversation in the Senate Chamber must be suspended.

Mr. FOWLER. Particularly in the galleries. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Conversation in the Senate Chamber must be suspended, including the galleries.

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to strike out the word "another" before the words "of the President's counsel," and to insert "two;" so that the order will read:

Ordered, That two of the Managers on the part of the House be permitted to file their printed or writ ten arguments before the adjournment of to-day, and

that after an oral opening by a Manager and the reply of one of the President's counsel, two of the President's counsel shall have the privilege of filing a written or of making an oral address, to be followed by the closing speech of one of the President's counsel and the final reply of a Manager under the existing rule.

Mr. EVARTS. Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, if you will allow me to say one word on this question, as the rule now stands two of the President's counsel are permitted to make oral arguments. By the amendment, without the modification of inserting “"two" instead of "another," we understand that three of the President's counsel will be enabled to make oral arguments to the Senate. That is as many as, under any circumstances, would wish or be able to do so.

Mr. Manager STEVENS. Mr. Chief Justice, this would embarrass the Managers among themselves very much. Would it not do to say that

the Managers and the counsel for the President may file written or printed arguments between this and the meeting of the court to-morrow?" That would disembarrass us of all our difficulties, and I cannot perceive its inconvenience.

Mr. BAYARD. Mr. Chief Justice, I move to lay the resolution on the table, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NELSON rose.

Mr. BAYARD. I withdraw the motion. Mr. FESSENDEN. Mr. President, I ask if the order was not adopted.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. It has not been. Mr. FESSENDEN. I understood it to be adopted.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. It has not yet been adopted. An amendment was adopted, but the vote has not been taken on the order.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, I should like to inquire what the question before the Senate is prior to the motion to lay on the table?

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The motion to lay on the table is withdrawn.

Mr. TRUMBULL. What is the motion pending?

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The motion pending is to strike out the word "another' and insert the word "two."

Mr. TRUMBULL. I would ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to appeal to the Senator from Oregon to withdraw that amendment. The counsel do not ask it.

Mr. CORBETT. Mr. President, as the order is satisfactory to the President's counsel as it now stands without the amendment I withdraw the amendment.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question is on adopting the order. The Clerk will read it as it now stands.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

Ordered, That two of the Managers on the part of the House be permitted to file their printed or written arguments before the adjournment of to-day, and that after an oral opening by a Manager and the reply of one of the President's counsel, another of the President's counsel shall have the privilege of filing a written or of making an oral address, to be followed by the closing speech of one of the President's counsel and the final reply by a Manager under the existing rule.

Mr. CONNESS. I ask for the reading again of the first part of the order.

The Chief Clerk read the order. Mr. CONNESS. That, Mr. President, I desire to suggest

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator from California can speak by unanimous consent.

The Chief Clerk read as follows: Strike out all after the word "Ordered" in the original proposition, and insert:

That all the Managers not delivering oral arguments may be permitted to file written arguments at any time before the 24th instant, and the counsel for the President not making oral arguments may file written arguments at any time before Tuesday, the 28th instant.

Mr. HENDERSON called for the yeas and nays on the amendment, and they were ordered.

Mr. THAYER. I move to lay the whole subject on the table.

Mr. SPRAGUE called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, re sulted-yeas 13, nays 37; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Conkling, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Grimes, Henderson, McCreery, Norton, Ross, Sprague, Thayer, and Williams-13.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conness. Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Drake, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler. Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Saulsbury, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey, Wilson, and Yates-37.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Bayard, Cole, Nye, and Wade-4.

So the motion to lay on the table was not agreed to.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question is on the amendment proposed by the Senator. from Missouri, to strike out all after the word "Ordered" and to insert what will be read by the Secretary.

Mr. HENDERSON. Before it is read I desire to modify it so as to make it read, Monday, the 27th," instead of "Tuesday,

66

the 28th.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the amendment, as modified.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

Strike out all after the word "Ordered," and in

sert:

That all the Managers not delivering oral arguments may be permitted to file written arguments at any time before the 24th instant, and the counsel for the President not making oral arguments may file written arguments at any time before Monday, the 27th instant.

Mr. HENDERSON. I will say "before eleven o'clock on Monday, the 27th instant," so that they will be in at the time of meeting.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chief Justice, I desire to inquire of the Chief Justice whether under that rule all the Managers would not be permitted to deliver oral arguments?

Mr. HENDERSON. It does not change the present rule.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the order proposed.

Mr. EVARTS. Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, as we understand the order now proposed, it would not enlarge the privilege of the President's counsel in addressing the court. Any liberality that should be shown by the Senate, so far as it could be availed of by the President's counsel under the peculiar circumstances in which they are placed, would probably need to include an opportunity on their part to make oral addresses.

never been to me a source of satisfaction to attempt to address an unwilling audience, and much less would it be a source of gratification for me to attempt to address the Senate when they had indicated by a rule that they were unwilling to hear further argument. On a former occasion I stated to the Senate that intending on our part faithfully to adhere to the rule which you had prescribed for the conduct and management of the trial, two of the President's counsel had determined not to address the Senate; that three others of the President's counsel had assumed, with our consent, the management and direction of the case, and that in our arrangement it was left to them to make the argument before the Senate. As an application was made on the side of the Managers to enlarge the number, I thought that it would not be improper on our part to ask to be per mitted to appear for the cause and to argue it. Since I made a few brief observations to the Senate the other day, Mr. Stanbery, upon whom we relied to make the leading argument in behalf of the President, has been confined by sickness. It is uncertain whether he will be able to address the Senate at all; the probabilities at present are that he will not; and even if he should make the effort, the chances are that he will be unable to make that argument to the Senate which he had intended to make.

Under these circumstances I desire to say to the Senate that I would like to be permitted to address the Senate in behalf of the President. Indeed, I desire that the rule shall be so enlarged as to give all the President's counsel the privilege of addressing the Senate, either orally or in writing, as we may find convenient to do. I have stated that, owing to the circumstances indicated, we have not prepared written arguments; and it is too late

now for the two counsel who had not intended to address the Senate to make such preparation; but in the progress of the case I have made such notes and memoranda that I think I could argue the case before you; and I feel constrained by a sense of duty to ask the Senate, under these circumstances, to allow the whole of the counsel to make addresses.

I beg leave to assure you, Senators, that in doing this I am not animated, as I trust, by a spirit of idle vanity, and by the desire to make an address in a great cause like this. I have lived long enough in the world to know that sometimes we can make more by our silence than by an effort to make a public address. I am satisfied from my experience that great risks attend such an effort, especially when we attempt to address the Senate or any other assembly extemporaneously; and were I to consult my own feelings and inclinations, I would not make this request; but, under the peculiar circumstances by which we are surrounded, if the Senate are willing to enlarge the rule, I choose to take the risk and to take my chances of endeavoring to argue the case before you, and I feel, Senators, that, under existing circumstances, this is not an unreasonable request.

I may say, although I am not expressly authorized to do so, that I am satisfied the President desires that his cause shall be au

Mr. GRIMES. How can the other side reply to-morrow?

Mr. HENDERSON. I desire to offer a substitute.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The first question is on the amendment proposed by the Senator from California, [Mr. CONNESS.]

The amendment was agreed to.

Senate, sitting as a court, have the right to regulate the number of counsel and to confine it within reasonable limits. Inasmuch as the Senate had indicated, by a rule which was adopted before the commencement of the trial, the number of persons who were to address the Senate in the progress of the trial, I felt reluc tant to ask that any alteration of that rule should be made in behalf of the President's counsel for the very simple reason that it has

has provided in the case, besides the three counsel who were heretofore selected for that purpose; and I trust you will not deny us this right. I trust that you will feel at liberty to extend it to all the counsel in the case. If we choose to avail ourselves of it we will do so. I have no sort of objection, so far as I am concerned, that the same right shall be extended to all or to more than an equal number of the Managers on the other side. I trust that the resolution will be so shaped as to embrace all the counsel who are engaged in the cause in behalf of the President. I do not know that under these circumstances I shall be able to interest the Senate at all. But it is a case of great importance. On the trial of Judge Chase, six of the managers were permitted to address the Senate, and five of the