Question. You did not see. Can you tell whether it was so or not from your own knowledge?

Answer. I should think if I could not see it I could not tell.

Question. I only wanted to make certain upon that point.

Answer. Well, sir, I am positive on that point.

Question. You have no knowledge on the subject. Who was on the balcony beside him? Answer. I suppose the balcony will hold perhaps two hundred people. There was a good many people on there; I could not tell how many.

Question. Give me some one of the two hundred, if you know anybody who was there? Answer. I think Mr. Howe was there. My recollection is that the President walked out with Mr. Howe.

Question. Was General Frank Blair there at any time?

Answer, I have no recollection of it if he

Question. Was the crowd a noisy and boisterous one after awhile?

Answer. I heard a good deal of noise from the crowd from where I stood-I stood insideor where I was moving about, for I was not standing still a great portion of the time.

GEORGE KNAPP sworn and examined.
By Mr. CURTIS :

Question. What is your full name?
Answer. George Knapp.

Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. St. Louis.

Question. What is your business?

Answer. I am one of the publishers and proprietors of the Missouri Republican. Question. Were you in St. Louis at the time the President visited that city in the summer of 1866?

Question. Please state what occurred between the President and citizens, or the committee of citizens, in respect to his going out to make a speech?

Answer. The crowd on the outside had called repeatedly for the President, and some conversation ensued between those present. I think I recollect Captain Able and Captain Taylor and myself at any rate were together. The crowd continued to call. Probably some one suggested, I think I suggested, that he ought to go out. Some further conversation occurred, I think, between him and Captain Able

Question. The gentleman who has just left the stand?

Answer. Yes, sir; Captain Barton Able, and I think I said to him that he ought to go out and show himself to the people and say a few words at any rate. He seemed reluctant to go out, and we walked out together. He walked out on the balcony, and we walked out with him, and he commenced addressing the assembled multitude as it seemed.

Question. What was the character of the crowd? Was it a large crowd, a large number of people?

Answer, I do not think I looked at the crowd. I do not think I got far enough on the balcony

to look on the magnitude of the crowd. I think I stood back some distance.

Question. About what number of people were on the balcony itself?

Answer. I suppose there were probably fifteen or twenty; there may have been twentyfive.

Question. Could you hear the cries from the crowd?

Answer. I could not.

Answer. Yes, sir; I stepped out. It is a wide balcony; it is probably twelve or fifteen feet; it covers the whole of the side wall. I stepped out. I think I was probably only two or three feet back of the President part of the time while he was speaking. Then there are a number of doors or windows leading out to this balcony. You could stand in these windows or doors and hear every word that was said.

Question. Did you listen to the speech so as to hear every word that was said?

Answer. I am not sure that I stayed during the whole time. I listened pretty attentively to the speech while I stood there, but whether I stood there during the whole time or not I do not now recollect.

Question. You told us there were from fifteen to twenty persons, if I understood you aright, on the balcony?

Answer. That is my impression. I am not certain about that, because I did not pay any attention to the number.

Question. How many would the balcony hold? Answer. I suppose the balcony would hold one hundred.

Question. Then it was not at all crowded on the balcony?

Answer. I do not recollect. I say about that whether it was or not. I did not charge my mind with it, nor do I now recollect. The parlors were full. There was a crowd there waiting to go into the banquet, and I think it is very likely that a large number of them crowded on the balcony to hear the speech. Whether it was crowded or not I do not recollect.

Question. Who were present at the time so as to remember distinctly when he said he would not be overawed by his friends or bullied by his enemies. Do you remember that phrase?

Answer. I do not recollect it.

Question. This confusion in the crowd sometimes prevented his going on, did it not? Answer. I think it likely; but in that I must only draw from my present impression. I do not recollect.

Question. Did you hear him say anything about "Judas," do you remember?

Answer. No, sir; I do not recollect. Question. You do not recollect that about Judas? Did you hear him say anything about John Bull, and about attending to him after a while?

Answer. I have no recollection as to the points of the speech.

Question. Then, so far as you know, all you know that would be of advantage to us here is that you were present when some of the citizens asked the President to go out and answer the calls of the crowd?

Answer. Yes; some citizens then present in the parlor asked him.

Question. While the banquet was waiting? At what time was the banquet to take place? Answer. I think it was to take place at eight | o'clock.

Question. What time had this got to be?
Answer. I do not recollect that.

Question. Was it not very near eight o'clock at that time?

Answer. I think when the President went out it was near the time the banquet was to take place, and I think, also, I know, in fact, that while the President was speaking several persons, in speaking about it, said it was time for the banquet to commence, or something to that effect.

Question. The banquet had to wait for him while the crowd outside got the speech? Answer. I do not know that.

Question. Was not that your impression at the time?

Answer. I think the hour, probably, had passed; but in attending banquets it often happens that they do not take place exactly at the hour fixed.

Question. It appears that this did not; but was that because they waited for the Presi dent or because the banquet was not ready?

Answer. I think it was because they waited for the President.

Question. Did you publish that speech the next morning in your paper?

Answer. Yes, sir; it was published. Question. Did you again republish it on Monday morning?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. And the St. Louis Democrat, so called, was really the Republican paper? Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Now, in the Democratic paper, called by the name of Republican, the speech was published on Sunday and on Monday? Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Has it never been republished since?

Answer. No, sir; not to my knowledge. Question. State whether you caused an edition of the speech to be corrected for Monday morning's publication?

Answer. I met our principal reporter, Mr. Zider

Question. Please do not state what took place between you and your reporter; it is only the fact I want, not the conversation. Did you cause it to be done?

Answer. I gave directions to Mr. Zider after complaining about the report of the speech

Question. Excuse me; I have not asked you about your directions?

Answer. I did. I gave directions on reading the speech

Question. Please answer the question? Answer. Well, I gave directions to have it corrected, if that is your question.

Question. Were your directions followed so far as you know?

Answer. I do not recollect the extent of the corrections. I never read the speech afterward, and I have forgotten.

Question. Did you ever complain afterward to any man, Mr. Zider or any other, that the speech was not as it ought to be as it was pub lished on Monday morning in the Republican?

Answer. I cannot draw the distinction be tween Monday and Sunday. I have repeatedly spoken of the imperfect manner in which I conceived the speech was reported and published in the Republican on Sunday. Whether I spoke of its imperfections for Monday or not I do not recollect.

Question. Will you not let me call your attention, Mr. Witness? You say that you directed a revised publication on Monday, and it was so published. Now, did you ever complain after that revised publication was made to anybody that that publication was not a true one within the next three months following?

Answer. It is possible I might have complained on Monday morning, if the corrections were not made, but I do not recollect.

Question. Excuse me; I did not ask for a possibility?

Answer. I tell you I do not recollect. Question. But it is possible you did not? Answer. That I say again I cannot recollect. Question. Now, sir, will you say that in any important particular the speech as published in your paper differs from the speech as put in evidence here?

Answer. I could not point out a solitary case, because I have not read the speech as put in evidence here, nor have I read the speech since the morning after it was delivered; so I know nothing about what you have put in evidence here.

HENRY F. ZIDER sworn and examined.
By Mr. CURTIS :

Question. Where did you reside in the summer of 1866 when the President visited St. Louis?

Answer. At St. Louis, Missouri.

Question. What was then your business? Answer. I was then engaged as short-hand writer and reporter for the Missouri Republican, a paper published at St. Louis.

Question. Had you anything to do with making a report of the speech of the President delivered from the balcony of the Southern Hotel?

Question. Read it, if you please?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Before he reads it I should like to know when it was made. By Mr. CURTIS:

Question. When did you make this comparison?

The WITNESS. The exact date?

Mr. CURTIS. If you can give it to us. Answer, (after consulting a memorandumbook.) Saturday, April 11.

Question. When did you make the memorandum?

Answer. On the Sunday following.
By Mr. Manager BUTLER:
Question. Last Sunday?
Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. This month?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. CURTIS:

Question. From what did you make the memorandum?

Answer. I had been here before the board of managers twenty-four days, and was discharged and had just returned to St. Louis. I got telegraphic dispatches stating that I was summoned again to appear before the Senate. I then went to the Republican office, took the bound files of the Republican and the bound files of the Democrat for the latter part of 1866, and in company with Mr. James Monaghan, one of the assistant editors, I made a comparison of the two papers, noted the differences, compared those differences twice afterward to see that they were accurate. That was on Saturday. I started for Washington on Sunday afternoon at three o'clock, the first through train.

Question. When was this paper that you call the memorandum, which contains these differ

your own notes?

Answer. There were three or four corrections that the printers did not make that I had marked on the proof sheets that I made on the paper the following morning in the counting room.

Question. With those exceptions, did you make any corrections except what were called for by your own notes?

Answer. Those were called for by my own

notes.

Question. But they were not in fact made? Answer. They were not in fact made in the printed copy on Monday.

Question. Now, answer my question whether the corrections were called for by your own notes?

Answer. Oh, yes; all of them.

Question. Have you compared the report which you made, and which was published in the Republican on Monday, with the report published in the St. Louis Democrat?

Answer. I have more particularly compared the report published in the Monday Democrat with the Sunday Republican.

Question, You compared those two? Answer. Yes, sir. There are about sixty changes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Differences?
The WITNESS. Yes, sir.

By Mr. CURTIS:

Answer. On Saturday.

Question. Was it made at the same time when you made this comparison or at a different time?

Answer. The same day.

Mr. CURTIS. Now, you can tell us the nature of the differences; or, if the honorable || Manager desires that all those differences should be read, you can read them.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Stay a moment. Any on which you rely we should like to have read.

Mr. CURTIS. We rely on all of them, more

or less.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Then all of them, more or less, we want read.

Mr. CURTIS. We should prefer to save time by giving specimens; but then, if you prefer to have them all read, we will have them read.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. There is a question back of this, I think, and that is, that we have not the standard of comparison. Surely, then, this cannot be evidence. This witness goes to the Republican office and there takes a paper-he cannot tell whether it was the true one or not, whether made properly or not, or what edition it was-and he compares it with a copy of the Democrat, and having made that comparison he now proposes to put in the re

sults of it. I do not see how that can be evidence. He may state anything that he has a recollection of; but to make the memorandum such a thing heard of, I think. evidence, to read the memorandum, never was

Let me restate it and I have done. He goes to the Republican office, gets a Republican; what Republican, how genuine, what edition it was, is not identified; he says it was in a bound volume. He takes the Democrat, of what edition we do not know, and compares that, and then comes here and attempts to put in the results of a comparison made in which

Monaghan held one end of the matter and he held the other. Now, can that be evidence?

Mr. CURTIS. I want to ask the witness a question, and then I will make an observation on the objection. [To the witness.] Who made the report in the Republican which you examined the one which you examined and compared with the report in the Democrat; who made that report?

Answer. Mr. Walbridge made that report on Saturday night, September 8, 1866. It was published in the Sunday morning Republican of September 9, 1866.

By Mr. CURTIS:

Question. Have you looked at the proceedings in this case to see whether that has been put in evidence?

Answer. The Sunday morning Republican was mentioned in Mr. Walbridge's testimony, in which he states that he made one or two simple corrections for the Monday morning Democrat.

Question. Now, I wish to inquire, Mr. Zider, whether the report which you saw in the files of the Republican and which you compared with the report in the Democrat was the report which Mr. Walbridge made?

Answer. Undoubtedly it was.

Mr. CURTIS. Now, Mr. Chief Justice, it is suggested by the learned Manager

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I will save you all trouble. You may put it in as much as you choose. I do not care, on reflection, if you leave it unread. It is of no consequence.

Mr. CURTIS. We will simply put it into the case to save time and have it printed.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I think there should not be anything printed that is not read. We have got a very severe lesson upon that.

Mr. CURTIS. We understood you to dispense with the reading.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. If the honorable Manager desires to have the paper read it will be read.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I do not desire it to be read.

Mr. EVARTS. Is it to go in as evidence, Mr. Chief Justice, or not.

Certainly.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Manager BUTLER. It may go in for aught I care.

Mr. CURTIS. That is all, Mr. Zider. The paper thus admitted in evidence, con-. taining a memorandum of the differences between the two reports of President Johnson's speech at St. Louis, is as follows:

DEMOCRAT, Monday, Sept. 10, 1866.

I was
Questions that

A we have as those we have that they there know its powers having expired of the population without the consent of the, people

And then when it don't provoke mo things that has been done that was intended to be enforced on abandoned the power that I was a t-r-ai-t-o-r Judas-Judas Iscariot a t-r-ai-t-o-r

Judaas, Judas Iscariot, Jud-a-a-s and these twelve apostles he could'nt have and try to stay when there ware there ware a Christ there ware unbelievers to day would Now what is the plan? four years bear all the expense, So much for this question. Y-a-8, Y-a-8;

as decided a majority Wha-t? elevating themselves So far as the Fenians are concerned

Upon this subject of

Fenians, and sacrificed more for, It has been my peculiar misfortune always to have fierce opposition

Cross-examined by Mr. Manager BUTLER: Question. How long have you been troubled with your unfortunate affliction?

Answer. To what do you refer. Question. I understood you were a little deaf. Is that so?

Answer. I have been sick the greater part of this year, and was compelled to come here a month ago almost, before I was able to come. I have not got well yet.

Question. Did you hear my question?
Answer. Yes.

Question. How long have you been deaf, if you have been deaf at all?

Answer. Partially deaf for the last two years, I should think.

Question. About what time did it commence? Answer. I cannot state that. Question. As near as you can. You know when you became deaf, do you not? Answer. I know I was not deaf when you made your St. Louis speech in 1866.

Question. That is a very good date to reckon from; but as these gentlemen do not all know when that was, and you and I do, suppose you try it by the almanac and tell us when that was?

Answer. That was on the 13th of October, 1866.

Question. You were not deaf then?
Answer. No.

Question. How soon after that did you become deaf?

Answer. Perhaps a month. [Laughter.] Question. You are quite sure it was not at that time?

Answer. Quite sure it was not that time, because I heard some remarks the crowd made which you did not. [Laughter.]

Question. I have no doubt you heard very much that I did not. Now, suppose we con

fine ourselves to this matter. About a month after that you became deaf? Answer. Partially.

Question. Partially deaf, as now.

Answer. I recovered from that sickness. I became sick again the first part of this year. Question. Now, will you have the kindness to state whether you have your notes? The WITNESS. Of the President's speech? Mr. Manager BUTLER. Yes, sir. Answer. I have not.

Question. When did you see them last? Answer. The last recollection I have of them is when Mr. Walbridge was summoned before the Reconstruction Committee to give testimony on the New Orleans riot.

Question. Did you and he then go over that speech together?

Answer. We went over only a part of it. Question. The part that referred to New Orleans?

Answer. There was.

Question. What was it?

Answer. He asked me to compare notes with him

Question. Excuse me; I am not asking what he said. I am asking what difference there was between your report and his report upon that comparison; what material difference?

Mr. EVARTS. I submit, Mr. Chief Justice, that as he is asked the precise question what the difference was that arose upon that comparison, he is to be permitted to state what it was and how it arose.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I have not asked any difference that arose between him and Mr. Walbridge. Far be it from me to go into that. I have asked what the difference was between the two speeches.

Mr. EVARTS. As it appeared in that comparison.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. As found at that time.

The WITNESS. That is what I was going to If you will possess your soul in patience a moment I will answer.

answer.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The witness will confine himself entirely to what is asked and make no remarks.

The WITNESS. When we proceeded to compare that part relating to the New Orleans riot Mr. Walbridge read from his notes; I looked on, and when he came to this passage, as near as I can remember: "When you read the speeches that were made, and take up the facts, if they are as stated, you will find that speeches were made incendiary in their character, exciting that population called the black popu lation to take up arms and prepare for the shedding of blood;" I called Mr. Walbridge's attention to the qualifying words, "if the facts are as stated." He replied to me, “You are mistaken; I know I am right," and went on. As he was summoned to swear to his notes, and not to mine, I did not argue the question with him further, but let him go on.

By Mr. Manager BUTLER:

Question. What other difference was there? Answer. There was another difference. Question. In the New Orleans matter? Answer. Yes sir. The President's words, I think, were that they there knew a convention was to be called which was extinct by reason of its power having expired. There was a difference in the words "by reason of." Question. What was that difference? Answer. The words "by reason of." Question. Were they in or out of Walbridge's report?

Answer. They were in my report.
Question. And were not in Walbridge's re-

port?

Answer. They were not.

Question. Let me read the first few sentences of the report put in evidence, and tell me how many errors there are in that. Have you it? Answer. Yes, sir; I have it. [The witness produced a new paper.]

Question. Now, I will read from the report put in evidence here:

"Fellow-citizens of St. Louis: In being introduced to you to-night, it is not for the purpose of making a speech. It is true I am proud to meet so many of my fellow-citizens here on this occasion, and under the favorable circumstances that I do. [Cry, How about British subjects?] We will attend to John Bull after a while, so far as that is concerned. [Laughter and loud cheers.] I have just stated that I was not here for the purpose of making a speech."

The WITNESS.

"Am not here."

Mr. Manager BUTLER. The difference is here "I was,' and there "I am." Now, do you know that the President used the word "am" instead of "was?"

Answer. Of course I do.
Question. I will read on:

"I was not here for the purpose of making a speech; but after being introduced simply to tender my eerdial thanks for the welcome you have given me in your midst. (A voice: Ten thousand welcomes;' hurrahs and cheers.] Thank you, sir. I wish it was in my power to address you under favorable circumstances upon some of the questions that agitate and distract the public mind at this time"

Answer. "Questions which agitate." Question, "Which agitate" instead of" that agitate?"

Answer. Yes.

Question. And then it goes on:

Questions that have grown out of a fiery ordeal we have just passed through, and which I think as important as those we have just passed by. The time has come when it seems to me that all ought to be prepared for peace-the rebellion being suppressed, and the shedding of blood being stopped, the sacrifice of life being suspended and stayed, it seems that the time has arrived when we should have peace; when the bleeding arteries should be tied up. [A voice: 'New Orleans;' 'Go on.']"

It is so far all right except those two cor rections?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Now we will try another part?

The WITNESS. Go over the New Orleans part, if you please. I wish to make a correction in that part.

Question. Are you dealing with a memorandum?

Answer. It is the official proceedings. Question. You are comparing yourself with the official proceedings as you go on, where you have noted these corrections?

Answer. Yes, sir, in the official proceedings. Question. Then you are going on with a copy of the official proceedings and noting the differences?

Answer. Yes; but I can make the memoranda without the official proceedings before me. Do you want it? [Offering the printed official report of the trial, with manuscript corrections, to the honorable Manager.]

Mr. Manager BUTLER. No; I do not care for it. You told me that you wished I should go on with the New Orleans part. Why do you wish anything about it?

The WITNESS. You were proceeding to make corrections, and when you came to the New Orleans part you stopped.

it

By Mr. Manager BUTLER:

Question. Well, I will take this portion of

The WITNESS. Any portion.

Question. "Judaas, Judas Iscariot, Ju daas?"

Answer. One Judas too many there. [Laughter.]

Question. "There was a Judas once." You are sure he did not speak Judas four times, are you?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. How many times did he speak it? Answer. Please read it again.

Question. I asked how many times did he speak Judas?

Answer. Three times.

Question. Well, I believe we have got "JuThat is only daas, Judas Iscariot, Judaas." three times. Why did you say one too many? Answer. You have it four times there. Question. I beg your pardon. I have only said it three times. "Judaas, Judas Iscariot, Judaas."

The WITNESS. Are not those words italicized there?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Yes, sir.

The WITNESS. Are they not stretched out to ridiculous? make it appear

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I really think two of the Judases are spelt with the pronunciation -"J-u-d-a-a-s."

The WITNESS. Yes, and italicized.
Question. Do you mean to say that the Presi

bility; it is a mere question of judgment asked of him between two papers, whether one is a fair specimen of the other.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I will put the question in writing if the Chief Justice desires. The question is this: whether all the corrections which you have indicated in answer to my questions are of the same average character with the other corrections of the sixty?

The WITNESs. There are two or three corrections in that which you have read.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is the question objected to?

Mr. EVARTS. We object to the question. It requires a reëxamination of the whole subject.

The question will The CHIEF JUSTICE. be put in writing, objection being made. Mr. Manager BUTLER. I will pass from that rather than take time, because I shall be accused of having taken up too much time. [To the witness.] Mr. Witness, you have told us that in the next few lines there were cor

dent did not speak those words with emphasis?rections, I think four in the next three lines.

Answer. I mean to say that he did not speak them in that way.

"

Question. I read:

There was a Judas once, one ofthe twelve apostles. Oh! yes, and these twelve apostles had a Christ. [A Great laughter.] The voice, 'And a Moses, too.' twelve apostles had a Christ, and he could not have had a Judas unless he had had twelve apostles." See if I am right.

Answer. The word "yes" should not be stretched out with dashes between each letter, as there.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. The "yes" is not here stretched out. Is there any other question you would like to ask me, sir? [Laughter.] shall The WITNESS. All I wish is that you read it as it is there.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Now, sir, will you attend to your business and see what differences there are as I read?

"If I have played the Judas, who has been my Christ that I have played the Judas with? Was it Thad. Stevens? Was it Wendell Phillips? Was it Charles Sumner? [Hisses and cheers.] Are these the men that set up and compare themselves with the Saviour of men, and everybody that differs with them in opinion, and try to stay & arrest their diabolical and nefarious policy, is to be denounced as a Judas." Answer. "And that try."

Question. "Differ with them in opinion, and that try to stay and arrest their diabolical and nefarious policy is to be denounced as a Judas. ['Hurrah for Andy and cheers.'"] Am I right so far, sir?

Answer. I think so.

Question. Is that a fair specimen of the sixty corrections?

Answer. There are four in the next three lines.

Question. Is that a fair specimen of the sixty corrections. Answer the question?

Mr. EVARTS. Mr. Chief Justice, I suppose the corrections, the whole of which we have put in evidence, will show for themselves.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I am cross-examining the witness.

Mr. EVARTS. It has nothing to do with the matter of evidence.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I am asking a question of the witness on cross-examination, and I prefer that he should not be instructed.

Mr. EVARTS. No instruction. We thought we should save time by putting in the memorandum; but it seems that the cross-examination is to go over every item. We insist that it be confined to questions that are proper. Whether this is a fair specimen or not, compared with the whole paper, will appear by the comparison the court make between the two pieces of evidence.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I am testing the credibility of this witness, and I do not care to have him instructed.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. If the question is objected to, the honorable Manager will please put it in writing.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I will put it in writing if the Chief Justice desires.

Mr. EVARTS. It is no question of credi

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. What is it?

66

66

11

Answer. Of what date?
Question. The Republican of Sunday.
Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Or of Monday? With the exception of corrections of grammar and pronunciation, is there any correction of substance between the two reports as printed that morning?

Answer. Specify which papers you want compared, the Sunday Republican and Monday Democrat, or the Monday Republican and Monday Democrat?

Question. The Monday Republican and Monday Democrat.

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. What are they as printed?

Answer. One is "Let the Government be restored. I have labored for it. I am for it now. I deny this doctrine of secession, come from what quarter it may.'

Question. What is the change as printed? Answer. "Let the Government be restored. So far it is the same I have labored for it." in both papers; and then the words "I am for it now" are omitted in the Democrat, and the punctuation is changed so as to begin the next sentence "Now, I deny this doctrine of seces. sion," and then words are omitted and the punctuation changed.

Question. There are four words omitted, "I What else? am for it," before now. Answer. Speaking of the neutrality law he said, "I am sworn to support the Constitution Some one halloed and to execute the law." out "Why didn't you do it?" and he answered, "The law was executed; the law was executed." Those words "Why didn't you do it" and "The law was executed; the law was executed," are omitted in the Democrat.

Question. What else of substance? Answer. I do not know that I can point out any others without the memorandum.

Question. Use the memorandum to point out substance, not grammar, not punctuation, not pronunciation.

Answer, (referring to the memorandum.) One expression he used was, "Allow me to ask if there is a man here to-night who in the dark days of Know-Nothingism stood and battled more for their rights".

Question. What is the word left out or put in there?

Answer. The word "sacrificed" is used in the Democrat, and the word "battled" is the one that was employed.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I will not trouble you further, sir.

The WITNESS. Oh, I can point out more. Mr. Manager BUTLER. That is all, sir. Mr. CURTIS. We now desire, Mr. Chief Justice, to put in evidence a document certified from the Department of State.

[The document was handed to the Managers.] The CHIEF JUSTICE. The counsel will state the object of this evidence.

is

Mr. CURTIS. It is the commission issued by President Adams to General Washington, constituting him Lieutenant General of the Army of the United States. The purpose to show the form in which commissions were issued at that date to high military officers, and we have selected the most conspicuous instance in our history as regards the person, the office, and the occasion.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. There were two commissions issued to General Washington, two appointments made. Was this the one he accepted, or the one he rejected; do you remember?

Mr. EVARTS. We understood it to be the one actually issued, and received by him. Mr. Manager BUTLER. And accepted by him?

President of the United States of America: To all who shall see these presents, greeting:

Know ye, that reposing special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor, fidelity, and abilities of George Washington, I have nominated, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate do appoint, him Lieutenant General and Commanderin-Chief of all the armies raised or to be raised for the service of the United States. He is therefore carefully and diligently to discharge the duty of Lieutenant General and Commander-in-Chief by doing and performing all manner of things thereunto belonging, And I do strictly charge and require all officers and soldiers under his command, to be obedient to his orders as Lieutenant General and Commander-inChief. And he is to observe and follow such orders and directions from time to time as he shall receive from me or the future President of the United States of America. This commission to continue in force during the pleasure of the President of the United States for the time being.

Given under my hand at Philadelphia, this 4th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1798, [L. S.] and in the twenty-third year of the independence of the United States. JOHN ADAMS. By command of the President of the United States of America: "JAMES MOHENRY, Secretary of War. Mr. CURTIS. I now desire, Mr. Chief Justice, to put in a document from the Depart

ment of the Interior, showing the removals of superintendents of Indian affairs, and of Indian agents, of land officers, receivers of publie moneys, surveyors general, and certain miscellaneous officers who are not brought under any one of those classes. The document which I hold shows the date of the removal, the name of the officer, the office he held, and also contains a memorandum whether the removal was during the recess of the Senate or in the session of the Senate.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I have but one objection to this species of evidence without anybody brought here to testify to it, and that is this: I have learned that in the case of the Treasury Department, which I allowed to come in without objection, there were other cases not reported where the power was refused to be exercised. I do not know whether it is so in the Interior Department or not. But most of these cases, upon our examination, appear to be simply under the law fixing their tenure during the pleasure of the President for the time being, and some of them are inferior officers originally made appointable by the heads of Departments. If the presiding officer thinks they have any bearing we have no objection.

Mr. CURTIS. I understand the matter of the application of the law to these offices some what differently from that which is stated by the honorable Manager. I have not had an

opportunity minutely to examine these lists, for they were only handed to me this morning; but I understand that a very large number of these officers held for a fixed tenure of four years. That, however, must be a matter of argument hereafter.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. What class of offi cers do you speak of?

Mr. CURTIS. Receivers of public moneys is one of the classes.

Mr. JOHNSON. What is the date of the first removal and of the last?

Mr. CURTIS. These tables, I think, extend through the whole period of the existence of that Department. I do not remember the date when the Department was established, but I think they run through the whole history of the Department.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. No objection is made to the reception of this document in evidence.

The document is as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D. C., April 17, 1503. I, Orville II. Browning, Secretary of the Interior, de hereby certify that the annexed thirteen sheets contain full, true, complete, and perfect transcripts from the records of this Department, so far as the saue relate to the removals from office of the persons therein named.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and caused the seal of the Depart[L. S.] ment to be aflixed the day and year above written. 0. H. BROWNING, Secretary of the Interior.

Date.

March 13, 1849...
June 9, 1865..
April 18, 1853.
March 13, 1857.
March 27, 1861.
October 29, 1866..
April 8, 1853....
March 3, 1855..
March 17, 1857.
April 1, 1861..
March 16, 1863..
March 3, 1865..
March 17, 1866.
August 9, 1866..
March 31, 1854..
April 16, 1861.
August 10, 1863.
March 22, 1865.
March 17, 1853..
June, 1856..
March 22, 1859..
June 30, 1861.
March 28, 1863..
July 16, 1861.
March 6, 1862.
March 30, 1864..
September 25, 1866..
April 18, 1853...
March 25, 1861..

April 15, 1867.
May 27, 1861..
September 7, 1865.
April 29, 1861
March 16, 1862.
August 13, 1856.
September 11, 1857.
March 23, 1861.
September 20, 1864..
January 4, 1866..
April 27, 1859.
April 18, 1861.
June 3, 1858.
May 7, 1864.
March 16, 1865.
March 27, 1861..
April 18, 1864..
June 3, 1858..
March 13, 1859..
April 3, 1858..
April 15, 1861.
October, 1850..
April 14, 1862.
August 3, 1866..
May 29, 1819...
April 5, 1861.
March 6, 1862.
September 25, 1866..
April 18, 1853.
July 31, 1861.
August 22, 1866..
March 16, 1865...
July 6, 1858..
July 26, 1860..
April 19, 1861.
March 6, 1832.
April 5, 1819..
April 18, 1853.
April 5, 1861...
April 16, 1861.

Name.

Thomas P. Harvey...

W. H. Albin...
Elias Murray.
Francis Huebschman..
W. J. Cullen.......
E. B. Taylor....................
John Dresman....
Thomas S. Drew.
C. W. Dean....
Elias Rector....
J. L. Collins.....
Michael Steck.
Filipe Delgado...
G. W. Leily..
E. F. Beale...

A. D. Rightmire...
G. M. Hanson.
Austin Wiley.
Anson Dart...
Joel Palmer.
J. W. Nesmith.
E. R. Geary...
W.H. Rector.
W.W. Miller.
B. F. Kendall..
C. H. Hale.....
W. H. Waterman....
W. P. Richardson..
Daniel Vanderslice..
R. W. Turnas...
C. H. Mix......
St. A. D. Balcombe...
James L. Gillis.
H. W. De Puy..
R. G. Murphy..
Charles E. Flanders.
Joseph R. Brown.
W. W. Ross.
William Daily.
R. C. Miller...

M. C. Dickey. Royal Baldwin.. C. D. Keith...... Abram Bennett.... Thomas B. Sykes... Fielding Johnson... A. Arnold... Francis Tymony, Max. McCauslin. Seth Clover....... F. Fitzpatrick.. J. A. Cady..... Vital Jarot...... R. C. S. Brown.. R. J. Cowart.. John Crawford. Justin Harland. William Wilson.. D. H. Cooper... Isaac Colman. P. P. Elder. A. H. McKissack. Samuel A. Blain. Matthew Leeper. J. J. Humphreys.. James Logan... P. H. Raiford.... W. H. Garrett. William Quesenbury.