draw that and take one which covers the same points, but is much shorter, which has been drawn up by one of my associates. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the offer to prove now made by the honorable Managers. The Chief Clerk read as follows: The defendant's counsel having produced from the files of the Post Office Department a part of the record showing the alleged causes for the suspension of Foster Blodgett as deputy postmaster at Augusta, Georgia, we now propose to give in evidence the residue of said record, including the papers on file in the said case, for the purpose of showing the whole of the case as the same was presented to the Postmaster General before and at the time of the suspension of the said Blodgett. Mr. EVARTS. Our objection to that offer, as we have already stated, is that it does not present correctly the relation of the papers. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice will submit the question to the Senate. The original offer to prove has been withdrawn. The offer which has just been read has been substituted. Senators, you who are of opinion that the evidence now proposed to be offered should be received will say ay; contrary opinion no. [Putting the question.] The noes have it. The evidence is not received. Mr. ANTHONY. I should like to have the yeas and nays on that, if not too late. The CHIEF JUSTICE. It is too late. If there be no objection, however, the Chief Justice will again put the question on taking the yeas and nays. There seems to be no objection. Mr. CAMERON. I object. Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the witness.) Mr. Randall, I have been informed that you desire to make some statement about this removal. If it does not put in anything that the President said or anybody else I shall not object. The WITNESS. I expressed to a gentleman this morning a wish to explain the circumstances under which I made this suspension. It was one of those cases which there is no provision of law to meet, like several others that we have, and one that I passed upon this last week. The copy of this indictment was brought to me, and the district attorney at the same time or about the same time, soon afterward at any rate, came to me and made statements of the cir cumstances under which it was found. Under the tenure-of-office law, if we acted under that, the President would have no power, as I understood it, to suspend any officer during the session of the Senate. The only thing he could do would be to send up the name of some man in his place, removing Mr. Blodgett. It occurred to me that this violation of the law by Mr. Blodgett might be merely a technical violation of the law. If it was a technical violation of the law-I am telling now what my reasoning was on the subject-if it was true that he was forced into the rebel service and got out of it as soon as he could, and this violation of the oath of office law, in taking that oath was merely a technical violation for which he was indicted, I did not want him turned out; and for that reason I took the responsibility of doing this thing, of making this suspension and putting a special agent in temporary charge of the office until we could ascertain more fully what the facts were in the case and what action ought to be taken. Those are the circumstances under which this thing was done. By Mr. Manager BUTLER: Question. Why did you not report it to the President for his action? Answer. I told the President what I had done. thought, breaking the law, you could do something better? Answer. I do not put it in any such shape as that. I stated it just exactly as it occurred. I did not want the man turned out if this was a mere technical violation of the law on which he was indicted, and if he was an honest man. That was the reason I was disposed to ascertain the facts. It may have been a technical violation of the law; but I assumed the doing of it for the purpose of not having an act of injustice done to him if he was an honest man. Question. Was the Senate in session on the 3d of January last? Answer. I cannot tell you whether it was in session on that day or not. Question. Was there not a recess? Answer. There may have been; I do not remember now. Question. Then the reason that the Senate was in session did not apply to the case? Answer. I considered the Senate in session. I do not look upon a recess for two or three or five days as a recess of the Senate, in the sense of the Constitution. I do not remember whether the Senate was actually in session on that particular day. Question. You deemed it to be in session, and you treated it as if in session? Answer. I considered the session as continuing. Mr. Manager BUTLER. That is all. Mr. CONNESS. I should like to ask a question of the witness. I will reduce it to writing. The WITNESS. One suggestion I forgot to make which I wish to mention. The reason why something was not further done in the case is that I was trying to get information on this subject, and then this trouble began, and this case has lain long without any intention to delay it, and no further action has been had. Mr. Manager BUTLER. By trouble you mean the impeachment, I suppose? The WITNESS. Yes, sir; I had no time to have copies made, but I have brought here the original papers which were filed at the time he was appointed. I did not know whether you would want them. Mr. Manager BUTLER. No, sir; I do not want to see them. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question proposed by the Senator from California has been submitted in writing, and will be read by the Secretary. The question propounded by Mr. CONNESS was read, as follows: Have you ever taken any step since your act suspending Foster Blodgett in further investigation of his case? Answer. Yes, sir; in trying to secure information. There is considerable information among the papers here on the subject. Mr. Manager BUTLER. That is what we offered to put in. The WITNESS. Beyond what you offered to put in. Mr. Manager BUTLER. I only offered one We have no more questions thing at a time. to ask the witness. tion with General Thomas's testimony. The only connection the honorable Manager states is that he learned from General Thomas when he was restored, as if he did not know that before. It was all public when he was restored. It does not connect itself at all with any evidence we have produced. If it is put on the ground that it was forgotten or overlooked, that is another matter; but to bring it in as rebutting is a consideration which we cannot consider well suggested. Mr. Manager BUTLER. Mr. President, when I speak of learning a thing in the trial of a cause I mean learning it in the course of the evidence during the trial, not what I know in the country from the newspapers, because they are not always the best sources of knowl edge. I say that General Thomas testifies that on the 13th of February the President made an order that he should be restored to his position as Adjutant General. That was fixed by his testimony; it was not fixed before. That was an order given on the 13th to General Grant, which was not published, a private letter or order. Now, I want to show that on that same day, or the day before, this new military division was made here, and General Sherman ordered to the command of it, showing the acts of the President at or about the same time. The presiding officer has so well told us heretofore the competency of the acts of a party about the same time as being a part of the res gesta, and the Senate has so often allowed testimony to come in to that effect, that I cannot conceive why this cannot be competent. It is part of the things done by the President on the same day, or the day before Thomas was restored. I do not mean to say a word on the question whether it is rebutting; I do not understand that that rule belongs here. The CHIEF JUSTICE. On the part of the honorable Managers, it is proposed to give in evidence an order establishing the department of the Atlantic. The Chief Justice will submit the question to the Senate. Mr. ANTHONY. I ask for the yeas and nays, The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. President, I ask for the reading of a question submitted to General Sherman by the counsel for the defense in reference to this very matter. If our Clerk will turn to the record he will find that a question was put to General Sherman as to the establishment of the department of the Atlantic, which was ruled out. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the question referred to. Mr. Manager BUTLER. We shall not trouble the Senate. This being a matter of public document, I suppose we can refer to it in the argument. We withdraw the offer. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The offer to prove made by the honorable Managers is withdrawn. Mr. Manager BUTLER. "I have now, Mr. President and Senators, a list prepared as carefully as we were able to prepare it in the time given us, from the laws, of the various officers in the United States who would be affected by the President's claim here of a right to remove at pleasure. That is to say, if he can remove at pleasure and appoint ad interim, this is a list of officers taken from the laws, with their salaries, being a correlative list to that put in by the counsel, showing the number of officers and the amount of salaries which would be affected by the President. In order to bring it before the Senate I will read the recapitulation only thus: "In the Navy, War, State, Interior, Post Office, Attorney General, Agriculture, Education, and Treasury, the officers are 41.558; the grand total of their emoluments is $21,180,736 87 a year." I propose that the same course shall be taken with this as with the like schedule, this being a compilation from the laws, that it be printed as part of the proceedings. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there any objec tion? Mr. EVARTS. If it shows what it is there is no objection. The document is as follows: Grand totals.... Errors excepted. Total annual salary. $3.171.773 00 90.700 00 3,000 00 4,000 00 2,036,263 56 $21,180,736 87 Mr. Manager BUTLER. Mr. President, I 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 no evidence bearing upon the only evidence you offered under the eleventh artiele, 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. 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 it is so applicable, and no injustice is done to time to time; and in some other of the States anybody. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice honorable Managers propose to put in eviwill submit the question to the Senate. The dence 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 18th 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, Chandler, 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 who are here under the subpoena of the Senate, at the instance of the Managers, may be discharged. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Does the Chief Justice understand that the case on the part 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 favor 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 sonable, but to couple with it a statement to Managers, which seems to us to be entirely rea 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. Mr. President 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 |