Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

That is an answer to the statement referred to and made a part of the letter.

Mr. Manager WILSON. I suppose the counsel does not claim that this is not the letter complete. We propose to offer nothing beyond that, and this letter is in evidence.

Mr. STANBERY. We wish to make the point, Mr. Chief Justice, that the gentlemen are now bound to produce those communications as a part of that letter.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Do the counsel object to the introduction of the letter without the accompanying papers?

Mr. STANBERY. Certainly.

Mr. Manager WILSON. I submit, Mr. President, that the objection comes too late, even if it would have been of force if made at the proper time. The letter has been submitted and read, and is in evidence now.

Mr. STANBERY. We assumed that you were going to read the whole of it.

Mr. Manager WILSON. The whole of the letter has been read.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice is of opinion that the objection may now be taken. [To the counsel for the respondent.] Do you object to the introduction of the letter without the accompanying papers?

Mr. STANBERY. We do, sir.

Mr. EVARTS. Our point is that these inclosures form a part of the communication made by the President to General Grant; and we assumed that they would be read as a part of it when the letter was offered. Mr. Manager BINGHAM. We desire to state, Mr. President, that we claim that we are under no obligation by any rule of evidence || whatever, in introducing a written statement of the accused, to give in evidence the statements of third persons referred to generally by him in that written statement. In the first place, their statements, we say, would not be evidence against the President at all. They would be hearsay. They would not be the best evidence of what the parties affirmed. The matter contained in the letter of the President shows that the papers, without producing them here, have relation to a question of fact between himself and General Grant, which question of fact, so far as the President is concerned, is affirmed in this letter by himself and for himself, and concludes him; and we insist that if forty members of his Cabinet were to write otherwise it could not affect this

question. It concludes him; it is his own declaration; and the matter of dispute be tween himself and General Grant, although it is referred to in this letter, is no part of the matter upon which we rely in this accusation against the President.

Mr. STANBERY and Mr. CURTIS. We rely upon it.

Mr. Manager BINGHAM. Of course the gentlemen rely on it; but they ask us to introduce matter which we say by no rule of evidence is admissible at all, and for the reason which I have stated already; it is not the highest evidence of the fact. If we are to have the testimony of the members of this Cabinet about a matter of fact, and, as I said before, this letter discloses that it is a matter of fact, I claim that the highest evidence, so far as they are concerned, is not their unsworn letter, but is their sworn testimony; and that by no rule of evidence is the letter admissible. I admit that if the letters, according to the statement here, showed a statement adopted by the President himself in regard to the matter with which we charge him, it would be a somewhat different question, although it would not take it then entirely out of the rule of evidence; but anybody can see by this reference that it is not the point at all. I venture to say that in these letters, when the gentlemen come to offer them in evidence here and we come to consider them, there is not a single statement of any Cabinet officer whatever that will in any manner qualify the confession of the President written upon the paper now read that his purpose was to prevent the execution of the tenure-of-office act and prevent the Secretary of War, after being

confirmed by the Senate, and his suspension being non-concurred in, from entering upon forthwith and resuming, as that law requires, the duties of his office. That is the point of this matter. We introduce it for the purpose of showing the President's confession of his intent, and we say that in every point of light we can view it, for the reasons I have already stated, the letters referred to of the Cabinet ministers are foreign to the case, and we are under no obligation to introduce them, and in our judgment have no right to introduce them at all, being wholly irrelevant.

Mr. EVARTS. Mr. President

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Before you proceed the counsel for the President will please to state their objection in writing.

The objection was reduced to writing and sent to the desk.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the objection made by the counsel for the President.

The Secretary read as follows:

The counsel for the President object that the letter is not in evidence in the case unless the honorable Managers shall also read the inclosures therein referred to and by the letter made part of the same.

Mr. STANBERY. Mr. Chief Justice, is the question now before your Honor or before the court?

He

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Before the body. Mr. STANBERY. Before the body? The CHIEF JUSTICE. Before the court. Mr. STANBERY. The Managers read a letter from the President to use against him certain statements that are made in it, and perhaps the whole; we do not know the object. They say the object is to prove a certain intent with regard to the exclusion of Mr. Stanton from office. In the letter the President refers to certain documents which are inclosed in it as throwing light upon the question and explaining his own views. Now, I put it to honorable Senators: suppose he had copied these letters in the body of his letter, and had said just as he says here, "I refer you to these; these are part of my communication," could any one doubt that these copies, although they come from other persons, would be admissible? He makes them his own. He chooses to use them as explanatory of his letter. is not willing to let that letter go alone; he sends along with it certain explanatory matter. Now, you must admit, if he had taken the trouble to copy them himself in the body of his letter, they must be read. Suppose he attaches them, makes them a part, calls them "exhibits," affixes them, attaches them to the letter itself by tape or seal or otherwise, must they not be read as part of the communication, as the very matter which he has introduced as explanatory, without which he is not willing to send that letter? Undoubtedly. Does the form of the thing alter it? Is he not careful to send the documents not in a separate package, not in another communication, but enclosed in the letter itself, so that when the letter is read the documents must be read? It seems to me there cannot be a question but that they must read the whole and not merely the letter; for it was the whole that the President sent to be read to give his views, and not merely the letter unconnected with these doc

uments.

Mr. Manager WILSON. Mr. President, the Managers do not care to protract this discussion. We have received from the files of the proper Department a letter complete in itself, a letter written by the President and signed by the President, in which, it is true, he refers to certain statements made by members of the Cabinet touching a question of veracity pending between the President and General Grant. Now, we insist that that question has nothing to do with this case. Every thing contained in the letter which can by any possibility be considered as relevant to the case is tendered by offering the letter itself; and the statement of the President referring to the alleged inclosures shows that those inclosures relate exclusively to that question of

[blocks in formation]

The CHIEF JUSTICE. That is not the question. Would the honorable Manager consider himself entitled to read so much of the letter as bore upon his immediate object without reading the whole?

Mr. Manager WILSON. I will state, in reply to the question propounded by the President, that we, of course, expect to use the letter for any proper purpose connected with the issues of the case.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice will submit the objection to the consideration of the Senate. The Secretary will read the objection.

The Secretary read as follows:

The counsel for the President object that the letter is not evidence in the case unless the honorable Managers shall also read the inclosures therein referred to and by the letter made part of the same.

Mr. CONKLING. Mr. President, may I ask a question? I call for the reading of the words in the letter relied upon now for this purpose. I send my question to the Chair in writing.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the question proposed by the Senator from New York.

The Secretary read as follows:

The counsel for the respondent will please read the words in the letter relied upon touching inclosures. Mr. STANBERY read as follows:

[ocr errors]

GENERAL: The extraordinary character of your letter of the 3d instant would seem to preclude any reply on my part: but the manner in which publicity has been given to the correspondence of which that letter forms a part, and the grave questions which are involved, induce me to take this mode of giving, as a proper sequel to the communications which have passed between us, the statements of the five members of the Cabinet who were present on the occasion of our conversation on the 14th ultimo. Copies of the letters which they have addressed to me upon the subject are accordingly herewith inclosed."

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Senators, you who are of opinion that the objection of the counsel for the President be sustained will say ay".

Mr. CONNESS. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Senators, you who are of opinion that the objection of the counsel for the President be sustained will answer "yea" as your names are called; those of the contrary opinion will answer "nay."

Mr. DRAKE. I ask for information, whether, if this objection is sustained, it has the effect of ruling out the letter as evidence altogether? The CHIEF JUSTICE. It has.

Mr. ANTHONY. Mr. President, I would desire, if it is proper, that the question should be put in a different form; that it should be an affirmative vote.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. This is an affirmative form.

Mr. CONNESS. I wish the Chair would state the question.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Senators, you who are of opinion that the objection of the counsel for the President be sustained will, as your names are called, answer "yea;" those of the contrary opinion, "nay." If the yeas carry

it the effect will be to exclude the evidence. If the nays carry it the effect will be to admit it.

Mr. EVARTS. To exclude it, unless the inclosures are also offered, if our objection prevail.

Mr. ANTHONY. Mr. President, perhaps I am rather dull, but I do not precisely understand the effect of the decision of this question. A negative vote admits the evidence I understand.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. It does.

Mr. ANTHONY. And an affirmative vote excludes it.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Unless the inclosures are produced and read.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. President, listening to the question asked by the Senator from Rhode Island, I presume he desires to know whether the letter with the inclosures can afterward be read as evidence, even if the objection be sustained.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Undoubtedly it excludes the evidence only in the case that the inclosures be not read.

Mr. HENDERSON. So I understand. The CHIEF JUSTICE, (to the Secretary.) Call the roll.

The Secretary called the roll down to the name of Mr. CAMERON.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chief Justice, I do not think the question is understood.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The roll is being called.

Mr. JOHNSON. The question is not understood evidently.

The CHIEF JUSTICE, (to the Secretary.) Proceed with the call. The call of the roll cannot be interrupted.

The Secretary concluded the calling of roll, and the result was-yeas 20, nays 29; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Conkling, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Vermont, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Sprague, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, and Willey-20.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Williams, and Wilson-29.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Harlan, Morton, Saulsbury, Wade, and Yates-5.

The CHIEF JUSTICE.

On this question

the yeas are 20 and the nays 29. So the objection is not sustained.

Mr. Manager WILSON. I now offer the letter in evidence, it having already been read. I now offer a copy of the letter of appointment of the President appointing Lorenzo Thomas Secretary of War ad interim, as certified to by General Thomas. I will, however, in the first place, submit it to the counsel for examination, [submitting the paper to the counsel for the respondent.] I call the attention of counsel to one thing in connection with that letter, and that is, we offer it for the purpose of showing that General Thomas attempted to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and that his signature as such is attached to that copy. If we are not called upon to prove his signature, of course we shall not introduce any testimony for that purpose.

Mr. CURTIS. Stop one moment, if you please. Let us look at this paper further.

[The counsel for the respondent having examined the paper returned it to the Managers.]

Mr. STANBERY. We see that this is the copy Mr. Stanton requested. Read the indorsement if you please.

Mr. Manager WILSON. Have you any objection to its being read?

Mr. STANBERY. No; we want it read.
Mr. Manager WILSON. It is as follows:
EXECUTIVE MANSION,

WASHINGTON, D. C., February 21, 1868. SIR: Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office.

Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers, and other public property now in his custody and charge.

Respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

To Brevet Major General LORENZO THOMAS, Adjutant General United States Army, Washington, D. C. Official copy:

Respectfully furnished to Hon. Edwin M. Stanton. L. THOMAS, Secretary of War ad interim. Mr. CURTIS. We want the indorsement

read.

Mr. Manager WILSON. The indorsement is, "Received 2.10 p. m., February 21, 1808; present General Grant."

Mr. EVARTS. That indorsement is whose? Mr. STANBERY. It is in the handwriting of Mr. Stanton.

Mr. Manager WILSON. I do not know. Mr. STANBERY. Is that fact admitted? Mr. Manager BUTLER. It is in the handwriting of Mr. Stanton.

Mr. Manager WILSON. We next offer copies of the order removing Mr. Stanton and the letter of authority appointing General Thomas, with certain indorsements thereon, forwarded by the President to the Secretary of the Treasury for his information. [The document was handed to the counsel for the respondent, and afterward returned by them to the Managers.] Have the counsel for the respondent any objection to the introduction of that document? If not, I ask that it may be read by the Secretary.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the paper.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

[Copy.]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C., February 21, 1868. SIR: By virtue of the power and authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States, you are hereby removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, and your functions as such will terminate upon receipt of this communication.

You will transfer to Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General of the Army, who has this day been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, all records, books, papers, and other public property now in your custody and charge.

Respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

To Hon. E. M. STANTON, Washington, D. C.
Official:

W. G. MOORE, United States Army.

[Copy.]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C., February 21, 1868. SIR: Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office.

Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers, and other public property now in his custody and charge.

Respectfully, yours,

ANDREW JOHNSON.

To Brevet Major General LORENZO THOMAS, Adjutant General United States Army, Washington, D. C. Official:

W. G. MOORE, United States Army. February 21, 1868. Respectfully referred to the honorable the Secretary of the Treasury, for his information. By order of the President:

W. G. MOORE, United States Army. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 29, 1863.

I certify the within to be true copies of the copies of orders of the President on file in this Department for the removal of Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War and the appointment of Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary ad interim.

H. McCULLOCH, Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Mr. President, we have here now an official copy of General Orders No. 17, of which General Emory spoke, and we now offer it, so that there may be no mistake that this document and the one shown to him are the same so far as regards the point at issue. [The document was handed to the counsel for the respondent, and presently returned to the Managers.] Do you want it read?

Mr. STANBERY. Oh, no. Mr. Manager BUTLER. Then we offer it without reading it.

The document is as follows:

[General Orders, No. 17.]

WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, WASHINGTON, March 14, 1867. The following acts of Congress are published for the information and government of all concerned: I. An act making appropriations for the support of the Military Academy for the year ending June 30.1868.

II. An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year ending June 30, 1868. III. An act making appropriations for fortifications for the year ending June 30, 1868.

I. PUBLIC-No. 54.]

An act making appropriations for the support of the Military Academy for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes.

Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress as sembled, That the following sums be, and the same are hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the support of the Military Academy for the year ending the 30th of June, 1868:

For pay of officers, instructors, cadets, and musicians, $151,840.

For commutation of subsistence, $5,050.

For pay in lieu of clothing to officers' servants, $156.

For current and ordinary expenses, $66,467.
For increase and expense of library, $3,000.

For expenses of Board of Visitors, $5,000.

For forage for artillery and cavalry horses, $9,000. For horses for artillery and cavalry practice, $1,000. For repairs of officers' quarters. $5,000.

For targets and batteries for artillery practice, $500. For furniture of cadets' hospital, $200. For gas pipes, gasometers, and retorts, $600. For materials for quarters for subaltern officers, $5.000.

For ventilating and heating the barracks and other academic buildings; improving the apparatus for cooking for the cadets; repairing the hospital buildings, including the introduction of baths for the sick, the construction of water closets in the library building, and new furniture for the recitation-rooms, $40,000.

For purchase of fuel for cadets' mess-hall, $3,000. For the removal and enlargement of the gas-works. $20.000.

For additional appropriations, for which estimates were not made last year:

For enlarging cadet laundry, $5,000.

For furniture for soldiers' hospital, $100.

For increasing the supply of water, replacing mains, &c., $15,000.

For ice-house and additional store and servants' rooms, $7,500.

For fire-proof building for public offices, $15,000. For breast-high wall of water battery, $5,000. For permanent derrick on the wharf, $2,500. SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the cadets of the Military Academy be entitled to the ration now received by the acting midshipmen at the Naval Academy, commencing at the date of the approval of the law authorizing the same.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That hereafter the assistant professor of Spanish shall receive the same pay and emoluments allowed to other assistant professors of the academy.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That no part of the moneys appropriated by this or any other act shall be applied to the pay or subsistence of any cadet from any State declared to be in rebellion against the Government of the United States, appointed after the 1st day of January, 1867, until such State shall have been restored to its original relations to the Union.

Approved February 28, 1867.

II. [PUBLIC-No. 85.]

An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums be, and the same are hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the support of the Army for the year ending the 30th of June, 1868: For expenses of recruiting, transportation of recruits, and compensation to citizen surgeons for medical attendance, $300,000.

For pay of the Army, $14,757,952.

For commutation of officers' subsistence, $2,228,982. For commutation of forage for officers' horses, $104,600.

For payments in lieu of clothing for officers' servants, $276,978.

For payments to discharged soldiers for clothing not drawn, $200,000.

For contingencies of the Army, $100,000.

For artificial limbs for soldiers and seamen, $70,000. For Army medical museum, $10,000.

For medical works for library of Surgeon General's office, $10,000.

For expenses of Commanding General's office, $10,000.

For repairs and improvements of armories and arsenals:

For arsenal and armory at Rock Island, Illinois, $686,500.

For the erection of a bridge at Rock Island, Illinois, as recommended by the chief of ordnance, $200,000: Provided, That the ownership of said bridge shall be and remain in the United States, and the Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company shall have the right of way over said bridge for all purposes of transit across the island and river, upon the condition that the said company shall, before any money is expended by the Government, agree to pay and shall secure to the United States, first, half the cost of said bridge, and second, half the expenses of keeping said bridge in repair; and upon guarantying said conditions to the satisfaction of the Secretary of War, by contract or otherwise, the said company shall have the free use of said bridge for purposes of transit, but without any claim to ownership thereof, For Watervliet arsenal, West Troy, New York, $38,200.

For current expenses of the ordnance service, $300,000.

For Alleghany arsenal, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, $34,000.

For Champlain arsenal, at Vergenncs, Vermont, $800.

For Columbus arsenal, Columbus, Ohio, $139,625. For Fort Monroe arsenal, Old Point Comfort, Virginia, $6,000.

For Fort Union arsenal, Fort Union, New Mexico, $10,000

For Frankford arsenal, Bridesburg, Pennsylvania, $30,000.

For Kennebec arsenal, Augusta, Maine, $1,525. For Indianapolis arsenal, Indianapolis, Indiana, $169,625.

For Leavenworth arsenal, Leavenworth, Kansas, $15,000.

For New York arsenal, Governor's Island, New York, $1,200.

For Pikesville arsenal, Pikesville, Maryland, $800. For St. Louis arsenal, St. Louis, Missouri, $55,000. For Washington arsenal, Washington, District of Columbia, $50,000.

For Watertown arsenal, Watertown, Massachusetts, $21,667.

For the purchase of the Willard Sears estate, adjoining the Watertown arsenal grounds, $49,700, or So much thereof as may be necessary; and the Secretary of War is hereby authorized to sell at public auction a lot of land belonging to the United States, situated in South Boston, if, in his opinion, the same is not needed for the public service, and pay the proceeds thereof into the Treasury.

Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned
Lands:

For salaries of assistant commissioners, sub-assistant commissioners, and agents, $147,500.

For salaries of clerks, $82,800.

For stationery and printing, $63,000.

For quarters and fuel, $200,000.

For commissary stores, $1,500,000.

For medical department, $500,000.

For transportation, $800,000.

For school superintendents, $25,000.

For buildings for schools and asylums, including construction, rental, and repairs, $500,000.

For telegraphing and postage, $18,000: Provided, That the Commissioner be hereby authorized to apply any balance on hand, at this date, of the refugees and freedmen's fund, accounted for in his last annual report, to aid educational institutions actually incorporated for loyal refugees and freedmen: And provided further, That no agent or clerk not heretofore authorized by law shall receive a monthly allowance exceeding the sum of $200.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the headquarters of the General of the Army of the United States shall be at the city of Washington, and all orders and instructions relating to military operations issued by the President or Secretary of War shall be issued through the General of the Army, and, in case of his inability, through the next in rank. The General of the Army shall not be removed, suspended, or relieved from command, or assigned to duty elsewhere than at said headquarters, except at his own request, without the previous approval of the Senate; and any orders or instructions relating to military operations issued contrary to the requirements of this section shall be null and void; and any officer who shall issue orders or instructions contrary to the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor in office; and any officer of the Army who shall transmit, convey, or obey any orders or instructions so issued contrary to the provisions of this section, knowing that such orders were so issued, shall be liable to imprisonment for not less than two nor more than twenty years, upon conviction thereof in any court of competent jurisdiction.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That section three of the joint resolution relative to appointments to the Military Academy, approved June 16, 1866, be, and the same is hereby, repealed.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the sum of $150,000 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be disbursed by the Secretary of War, in the erection of fire-proof buildings at or near the city of Jeffersonville, in the State of Indiana, to be used as storehouses for Government property.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the officers of the Army and Navy and of the Freedmen's Bureau to prohibit and prevent whipping or maiming of the person, as a punishment for any crime, misdemeanor, or offense, by any pretended civil or military authority in any State lately in rebellion until the civil government of such State shall have been restored and shall have been recognized by the Congress of the United States.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That all militia forces now organized or in service in either of the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas be forthwith disbanded, and that the further organization, arming, or calling into service of the said militia forces, or any part thereof, is hereby prohibited, under any circumstances whatever, until the same shall be authorized by Congress.

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That the paymaster general be authorized to pay, under such regulations as the Secretary of War shall prescribe, in addition to the amount received by them, for the traveling expenses of such California and Nevada volunteers as were discharged in New Mexico, Arizona, or Utah, and at points distant from the place or places of enlistment such proportionate sum according to the distance traveled as have been paid to the troops of other States similarly situated; and such amount as shall be necessary to pay the same is hereby appropriated out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

Approved March 2, 1867.

III. [PUBLIC-No. 86.]

An act making appropriations for the construction, preservation, and repairs of certain fortifications and other works of defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums be, and they are hereby, appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for the construction, preservation, and repair of certain fortifications and other works of defense for the year ending the 30th of June, 1868:

For Fort Scammel, Portland, Maine, $50,000. For Fort Georges, on Hog Island ledge, Portland, Maine. $50,000.

For Fort Winthrop, Boston, Massachusetts, $50,000. For Fort Warren, Boston, Massachusetts, $50,000. For fort at entrance of New Bedford harbor, Massachusetts, $30,000.

For Fort Schuyler, East river, New York, $50,000. For Fort at Willett's Point, opposite Fort Schuyler, New York, $50,000.

For fort on site of Fort Tompkins, Staten Island, New York, $50,000.

For fort at Sandy Hook, New Jersey, $50,000. For repairs of Fort Washington, on the Potomac river, $25,000.

For Fort Monroe, Hampton Roads, Virginia, $50,000.

For Fort Taylor, Key West, Florida, $50,000. For Fort Jefferson, Garden Key, Tortugas, $50,000. For Fort Clinch, Amelia Island, Florida, $25,000. For fort at Fort Point, San Francisco Bay, California, $50,000.

For fort at Lime Point, California, $50,000. For fort at Alcatray Island, San Francisco Bay, California, $100,000.

For Fort Preble, Portland harbor, Maine, $50,000. For Fort McClary, Portsmouth harbor, New Hampshire, $50,000.

For Fort Independence, Boston harbor, Massachusetts, $50,000.

For survey of northern and northwestern lakes, $150,000.

For Fort Montgomery, at the outlet of Lake Champlain, $25,000.

For purchase and repair of instruments, $10,000. For purchase of sites now occupied and lands proposed to be occupied for permanent sea-coast defenses: Provided, That no such purchase shall be made except upon the approval of its expediency by the Secretary of War and of the validity of the title by the Attorney General, $50,000.

For purchase of sites now occupied by temporary sea-coast defenses: Provided, That no such purchase shall be made except upon the approval of its expediency by the Secretary of War and of the validity of the title by the Attorney General, $25,000.

For construction and repair of barracks and quarters for engineer troops at the depot of engineer supplies near St. Louis, Missouri, $20,000.

For construction and repair of barracks and quarters for engineer troops at the depot of engineer supplies at Willett's Point, New York, $25,000.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That there shall not be over fifty per cent. of the foregoing appropriations expended during the fiscal year ending 30th June, 1868, and the residue thereof shall not be expended till otherwise ordered.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That, in order to determine the relative powers of resistance of the turret and the broadside systems of iron-clad vessels of war, and whether or not our present heaviest guns are adequate to the rapid destruction of the heaviest plated ships now built, or deemed practicable on either system, and whether or not our best stone forts will resist our heaviest guns, and, if not, what increase in strength, by adding either stone or iron or variation in form, is necessary to that end, the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy are hereby authorized to detail a joint board of not less than six competent officers, three from the Army and three from the Navy, whose duty it shall be to construct and test, by firing upon them, such targets as they may deem necessary for the purposes above named. And the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy are hereby authorized and directed to supply the board with such facilities for this purpose as they may require: Provided, It can be done from the unexpended funds and materials now at their disposal, the expenses to be borne equally by the War and Navy Departments, and from such funds at their disposal as the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy may designate respectively. Approved March 2, 1867.

By order of the Secretary of War.

Official:

E. D. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant General.

E. D. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant General. GEORGE W. WALLACE Sworn and examined. By Mr. Manager BUTLER:

Question. What is your name and rank in the Army of the United States, if you have any?

Answer. George W. Wallace, lieutenant colonel of the twelfth infantry, commanding the garrison of Washington.

Question. How long have you been in command of the garrison of Washington? Answer. Since August last. Question. What time in August?

Answer. The latter part of the month. The exact date I do not recollect.

Question. State if at any time you were sent for to go to the Executive Mansion about the 23d of February last.

Answer. On the 22d of February I received a note from Colonel Moore desiring to see me the following morning at the Executive Mansion.

Question. Who is Colonel Moore?

Answer. He is on the staff of the President; an officer of the Army.

Question. Does he act as Secretary to the President?

Answer. I believe he does.

Question. You received that note on the night of the 22d; about what time at night? Answer. About seven o'clock in the evening. Question. Was any time designated when you should go?

Answer. Merely in the morning.

Question. Sunday morning! Did you go?
Answer. I did.

Question. At what time in the morning?
Answer. About ten o'clock.

Question. Did you meet Colonel Moore there?

Answer. I did.

Question. What was the business? Answer. He desired to see me in reference to a matter directly concerning myself. Question. How concerning yourself? Answer. Some time in December my name had been submitted to the Senate for brevets. Those papers had been returned to the Executive Mansion, and on looking over them he was under the impression that my name had been set aside, and his object was to notify me of that fact in order that I might make use of influence, if I desired it, to have the matter rectified.

Question. After that did he say anything about your seeing the President?

Answer. I asked him how the President was. He replied "Very well; do you desire to see him," to which I replied "Certainly;" and in the course of a few moments I was admitted into the presence of the Executive.

Question. Was a messenger sent in to know if he would see you?

Answer. I am unable to answer. I had a conversation with Colonel Moore at the time. He notified him.

Question. Did Colonel Moore leave the room where you were conversing with him until you went in to see the President?

Answer. He left the room to bring out this package of papers. No other object that I am aware of.

Question. Did he go into the office of the President where the President was for that purpose?

Answer. Yes, sir; he passed in the same door I did.

Question. And came out and brought a package and explained to you that your name appeared to be rejected and then you went in to see the President?

Answer. I did. I went in at my own request.

Question. After you had passed the usual salutations what was the first thing he said to you?

Answer. The President asked me if any changes had been made in the garrison within a short time; any movement of troops. Question. The garrison of Washington. Answer. The garrison of Washington. Question. What did you tell him?

Answer. I replied that four companies of the twelfth infantry had been sent to the seeond military district on the 7th of January, and beyond that no other changes had been made. In doing so I omitted to mention another com pany that I have since thought of. Question. Had he ever sent to you on such an errand before?

Mr. CURTIS and Mr. EVARTS. not send this time.

He did

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Is that quite cer tain?

Mr. CURTIS. Yes; it is proved.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Perhaps we shall see differently when we get through. [To the witness.] Did he ever get you into his room, directly or indirectly, in order to put such a question as that before?

Mr. EVARTS. That we object to. It assumes that he was got in then.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. If he was not got in, how was he there?

Mr. EVARTS. This witness has said that upon his inquiry how the President was the Private Secretary said "Would you like to see him?" and the witness said "Certainly," and went into his room. If that is being got into his room, directly or indirectly, I am very much mistaken.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I assume one theory, Mr. President, and the counsel assume another.

Mr. EVARTS. No; I follow the testimony. I assume nothing.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I again say that I assume another theory upon the testimony, and I think the testimony was that he came there by the procurement of the President. I should so argue to the Senate if it become my opportunity to argue; but, without pausing for that, I will ask this question. [To the witness.] Were you ever in that like position with regard to the President before you got there then?

Answer. Never.

Question. Did he say to you anything upon this subject: "I asked the same question of your commander, General Emory, yesterday, and he told me the same as you do?"

Answer. I do not understand the question. Question. Did he say to you that he had asked the same question the day before of General Emory, and got the same answer? Answer. No, sir.

Question. Did he speak of it as a thing that he desired to know or a thing that he did know already?

Mr. EVARTS. What he did say is the question?

Mr. STANBERY. We object, Mr. Chief Justice, to that mode of examination-in-chief. That way of examining a witness is altogether

new to us.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I will not press it, sir. I always desire to waive whenever I can. [To the witness.] Was there anything more said?

Answer. Nothing more said on that subject.
Question. On your part or his?
Answer. Neither.

Question. Did you find out next day that you had not been rejected by the Senate?

Mr. STANBERY. What has that got to do with it?

Mr. EVARTS. It is wholly immaterial. Mr. Manager BUTLER. Not at all. The President sends for an officer of the Army through his Secretary, and informs him that the Senate has rejected him, and then having got him into his presence begins to inquire about the movement of troops when it was not true that he had been rejected.

The WITNESS. If I used the word "rejected" in my testimony I was not aware of it. I do not know that that was the expression; and when I come to reflect I think the language was that my name had been "set aside."

Mr. Manager BUTLER. What made you change it?

Mr. STANBERY. He did not change it. He said set aside" before.

Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the witness.) Do you say now that you did not understand that you were rejected?

Answer. That my name was set aside. My own view of the matter was that I had been rejected.

Question. If that was your view why did you change the language just now from "rejected" to set aside?"

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I understand what he says, perfectly.

Mr. EVARTS and Mr. STANBERY. So do we.

Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the witness.) Why did you interrupt, sir, and say, “Well, I do not know that I did say 'rejected?'"'

The WITNESS. I have a perfect right, sir, I presume, to make use of such language as I think proper in my replies.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Undoubtedly. I also have a right to ask why do you use it? I do not object to the right. I only want to know the reason.

The WITNESS. My reason was to correct any misapprehension in regard to the expression of Colonel Moore. My own view was that it amounted to a rejection; but he said "set aside;" he used that language, I believe.

Question. Did he make any difference between set aside" and "rejected" that you know of at that time?

Answer. That is a question I never thought of. Question. You did not think of it at that time?

Answer. No, sir.

Question. Did he advise you to use influence with Senators to get yourself confirmed?

Mr. STANBERY. What has that to do with the question-what Colonel Moore advised him?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. In order to show whether he understood that he was rejected, because there was no occasion to use influence with Senators if he did not understand that he was rejected. [To the counsel for the respondent.] Do you continue your objection?

Mr. STANBERY. Certainly; but there is no use to continue it; you keep on asking the question in that way. [A pause.] Are you through with the witness, Mr. Manager?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I will let you know when I am, sir. [A pause.] I am now through

with the witness.

Mr. STANBERY. So are we.

Mr. DRAKE. Mr. President, I move that the Senate take a recess for ten minutes.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed its session at two o'clock and fortyfive minutes p. m.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The honorable Managers will proceed with their evidence.

Mr. Manager WILSON. We now offer a certified copy of the order restoring General Thomas to the duties of the Adjutant General's office.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there any objection to the order?

Mr. STANBERY. Has not that been put in before?

Mr. Manager WILSON. No, sir; this is the order of the General of the Army, issued in pursuance of the President's request, which we put in before.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the order.

The Secretary read as follows:

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, D. C., February 14, 1868. SIR: General Grant directs me to say that the President of the United States desires you to resume your duties as Adjutant General of the Army. Very respectfully, yours, C. B. COMSTOCK. Brevet Brigadier General, A. A. G. D. C. General L. THOMAS, Adjutant General. Official copy for Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War. L. THOMAS, Adjutant General. ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, February 14, 1863. WILLIAM E. CHANDLER Sworn and examined.

By Mr. Manager BUTLER:

Question. Mr. Chandler, I believe you were once Assistant Secretary of the Treasury? Answer. I was, sir.

Question. From what time to what time? Answer. From June, 1865, until the 30th of November, 1867.

Question. While in the discharge of the duties of your office, did you learn the office routine of practice by which money was drawn

[blocks in formation]

Question. Will you state the steps by which money could be drawn from the Treasury for the use of the War Department?

Answer. By requisition of the Secretary of War upon the Secretary of the Treasury, which requisition passes through the accounting offices of the Department, and is then honored by the issue of a warrant signed by the Secretary of the Treasury, upon which the money is paid by the Treasurer of the United States.

Question. Please name the accounting officers through whose offices it will pass.

Answer. The Second Comptroller of the Treasury has the control of the War and Navy accounts. Several of the auditing officers pass upon war requisitions-the Second Auditor and the Third Auditor, and possibly others.

Question. Please trace and give the offices, if you can, through which a requisition from the War Department for money would go, from one office to the other, until the money would get back to the War Office?

Answer. My attention has not been called to that subject until now, and I am not sure that I can state accurately the process in any given case. My impression, however, is that a requisition from the Secretary of War would come to the Secretary of the Treasury, and pass from the Secretary's office to the office of the Second Comptroller of the Treasury for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the appropria tion upon which the draft was to be made had, or had not, been overdrawn. The requisition would pass from the office of the Comptroller through the office of the Auditor, and thence back to the Secretary of the Treasury. Thereupon, in the warrant room of the Secretary of the Treasury, a warrant for the payment of the money would be issued, which would also pass through the office of the Comptroller, being countersigned by him. Then it would pass into the office of the Register of the Treasury to be there registered, and thence to the Treasurer of the United States, who, upon this requisition, would issue his draft for the payment of the money. This is substantially the process, although I am not sure that I have stated the different steps accurately.

Question. Ought it not to go to the Second Auditor first?

Answer. Quite possibly the requisition would first go to the Auditor.

Question. The Second Auditor and then the Comptroller?

Answer. The Second or Third Auditor, and then to the Comptroller.

Question. Is there any method known to you by which the President of the United States or any other person can get money from the Treasury of the United States for the use of the War Department except through a requisition of the Secretary of War?

Answer. There is not.

Question. I now desire to ask you what is the course of issuing a commission to an offcer, say who has been confirmed by the Senate? What is the official routine in the Treasury Department? I suppose it is the same for all?

Answer. A commission is prepared in the Department and signed by the Secretary. It is forwarded to the President and signed by him. It is then returned to the Treasury Department, where, in the case of a bonded officer, it is held until his oath and bond have been filed and approved; in the case of an officer not required by law to give bond the commission is held until he qualifies by taking the oath. It is my impression that this is the usual form. There are some officers in the Treasury Department whose commissions are countersigned by the Secretary of State instead of by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Assistant Secretaries, for instance, have commissions which are countersigned by the Secretary of State and not by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Question. As I suppose the Secretary of the Treasury's own commission is?

-Answer. It issues from the office of the Secretary of State, I suppose.

Question. On the 20th of November, 1867, was there any vacancy in the office of Assistant Secretary of the Treasury?

Now, you propose to prove under that, that there being no vacancy in the office of Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, he proposed to appoint his Private Secretary, Edmund Cooper, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. That is the idea, is it under the eighth article? We Question. Was there any vacancy up to the object to this as not admissible under the eighth 30th of November?

Answer. There was not, sir.

Answer. There was not.

Question. Do you know Edmund Cooper? Mr. STANBĚRY. Will the honorable Manager allow me to ask what is the object of this testimony about Mr. Cooper? What is the purpose?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. The object is to show that one of the ways and means described in the eleventh article by which the President proposed to get control of the moneys of the United States appropriated for the use of the War Department was, against law and without right, to appoint his Private Secretary Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. CURTIS. Is that all the answer?
Mr. Manager BUTLER.

I have answered

so far. If you have any other question I shall be very glad to answer it.

Mr. CURTIS. Is that the only answer you make to the question?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. It is a sufficient answer, in my judgment, for the time. Mr. EVARTS. What part of the eleventh article is this applicable to? Mr. Manager BUTLER. Both the eighth and the eleventh articles. The eleventh article charges him with

"Unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive, means by which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the functions of the office of Secretary for the Department of War, notwithstanding the refusal of the Senate to concur, &c.; and, also, by further unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive, means, then and there, to prevent the execution of an act entitled An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes,' approved March 2, 1867; and also to prevent the execution of an act entitled An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States,' passed, &c.

And in order to get the means of doing that, he wanted to control the purse as well as the sword, and he wanted his man, his Secretary, if in no warmer and closer relations to him, to be in the office of Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury now by law being allowed to sign

warrants.

Mr. Manager BINGHAM and Mr. Manager WILSON. Then the eighth article.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Then, as my associates call to my attention, the eighth article charges that

"With intent unlawfully to control the disbursement of the moneys appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868 ”— He

"did, unlawfully and contrary to the provisions of an act," &c.

Do these acts.

Mr. EVARTS. No; appointed Thomas. You now propose to prove under that that he appointed Cooper, or tried to do so.

[ocr errors]

Mr. Manager BUTLER. This is the means: 'with intent unlawfully to control."

Mr. EVARTS and Mr. STANBERY. Did what?

Mr. Manager BUTLER.

"Did unlawfully and contrary to the provisions of an act entitled 'An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,' passed March 2, 1868, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States "And while the Senate were in session, not to go on with the verbiage, appoint Lorenzo Thomas.

Mr. EVARTS. The allegation is that with this intent which you have stated, the President did

"There being no vacancy in the office of Secretary for the Department of War, and with intent to violate and disregard the act aforesaid"Which is the tenure-of-office act

"Then and there issue and deliver to one Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority in writing, in substance as follows; that is to say."

article. As by reference to it will be perceived, it charges nothing but an intent to violate the civil tenure act, and no mode of violating that except in the want of a vacancy in the War Department, the appointment of General Thomas contrary to that act.

As for the eleventh article the honorable court will remember that in our answer we stated that there was in that article no such description, designation of ways or means, or attempts at ways or means, whereby we could answer definitely; and the only allegations there are, that in pursuance of a speech that the President made on the 18th of August, 1866, he

"Afterward, to wit, on the 21st day of February, A. D. 1868, at the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, did, unlawfully, and in disregard of the requirement of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, attempt to prevent the execution of an act entitled 'An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,' passed March 2, 1867, by unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive means by which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the functions of the office of Secretary for the Department of War, notwithstanding the refusal of the Senate to concur in the suspension theretofore made by said Andrew Johnson of said Edwin M. Stanton from said office of Secretary for the Department of War; and also, by further unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive means, then and there, to prevent the execution of an act entitled 'An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes,' approved March 2, 1867; and, also, to prevent the execution of an act entitled 'An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States,' passed March 2, 1867, whereby," &c.

The only allegation here as to time and principal action, in reference to which all these unnamed and undescribed ways and means were used, is, that on the 21st of February, 1868, at the city of Washington, he did unlawfully, and in disregard of the Constitution, attempt to prevent the execution of the civil tenure-of-office act, by unlawfully devising and contriving and attempting to devise and contrive means by which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton from resuming his place in the War Department. And now proof is offered here, substantively, of efforts in November, 1867, to appoint, in the want of a vacancy in the office of Assistant Secretary of the Treas ury, Mr. Edmund Cooper. We object to that evidence.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. The objection, Mr. President and Senators, is twofold: first, that the evidence is not competent; second, that the pleading is not sufficient. I do not propose now to discuss the question of pleading. It is said that the pleading is too general. If we were trying au indictment at common law for a conspiracy, or for any acts in the nature of a conspiracy, and we made the alle. gation too general, the only objection to that would be that it did not sufficiently inform the defendant under it what acts might be given in evidence; and the remedy for a defendant in that case would be to move for a specification or for a bill of particulars; and if he neglects to move for that, the court take care in the course of the case, if any surprise is upon him, because of evidence that he could not have known of, or could not have expected to allow him to come in and meet that new evidence. Therefore indictments for conspiracies are generally drawn as was the indictment in the Martha Washington case, which I now have in my mind, it having been drawn by an exceedingly good pleader, as tradition says, giving one general count, and then several specific counts, or setting out specific acts in the nature of specifications; so that, if the pleader fail in setting out his specific acts, he still may hold under the general count, and the count setting out specifications is instead of a bill of particulars. Now, then, I say we need not discuss the question of pleading.

The only question is, is this competent, if we can show it was one of the ways and means? The difficulty that rests in the minds of my learned friends on the other side is that they cluster everything about the 21st of February, 1868. They seem to forget that the act of the 21st of February, 1868, was only the culmina tion of a purpose formed long before, as in the President's answer he sets forth, to wit: as early as the 12th of August, 1867, that he was determined then to get out Mr. Stanton, at any rate--I would use the words "at all hazards;" but perhaps they might be subject to criticism until we get through our case-certainly by the use of force, as the evidence now in shows. He formed his purpose.

To carry it out there are various things to do. He must get control of the War Office; but what good does that do if he cannot get somebody who shall be his servant, his slave, dependent on his breath, to answer the requi sitions of his pseudo officer whom he may ap point; and therefore he began when? Stanton was suspended, and as early as the 12th of December he had got to put that suspension and the reasons for it before the Senate, and he knew it would not live there one moment after it got fairly considered. Now he begins. What is the first thing he does? "To get somebody in the Treasury Department that will mind me precisely as Thomas will, if I can get him in the War Department.' "That is the first thing; and thereupon, without any vacancy, he must make an appointment. The difficulty that we find is that we are obliged to argue our case step by step upon a single point of evidence. It is one of the infelicities always of putting in a case that sharp, keen, ingenious counsel can insist at all steps on impaling you upon a point of evidence; and therefore I have got to proceed a little further.

Now, our evidence, if you allow it to come in is, first, that he made this appointment; that this failing, he sent it to the Senate, and Cooper was rejected. Still determined to have Cooper in, he appointed him ad interim, precisely as this ad interim Thomas was appointed, without law and against right. We put it as a part of the whole machinery by which to get hold, to get, if he could, his hand into the Treasury of the United States, although Mr. Chandler has just stated there was no way to get it except by a requisition through the War Department; and at the same moment, to show that this was part of the same illegal means we show you that although Mr. McCulloch, the Secretary of the Treasury, must have known that Thomas was appointed, yet the President took pains-we have put in the paper-to serve on Mr. McCulloch an attested copy of the appointment of Thomas ad interim, in order that he and Cooper might recognize his warrants.

Did I not answer my friends that this was a sufficient ground? More than that, I have yet to learn in a somewhat extended practice of the law, (not extending, however, so long as that of most of the gentlemen on the other side,) that it was ever objected anywhere, when I was tracing a man's motives, when I was tracing this course, that I had not a right to put in every act that he did, valeat quantum. Everything that comes out of his mouth, every act that he does, I have a right to put in.

Let us see if that is not sustained by authorities. The question arose in the trial of James Watson for high treason in the year 1817 before one of the best lawyers of England, Lord Ellenborough, assisted by Mr. Justice Holroyd, Mr. Justice Bayly, and Mr. Justice Abbott. The objection there was precisely the one the learned counsel raise here. It was alleged that certain speeches had been made which were treasonable speeches. That was all that was said about them; they were not set out any further. I got this book (32 State Trials) for an entirely different purpose; but it contains an authority directly in point. Certain speeches were alleged; the indictment charged that certain speeches were made without setting them out; and it was claimed that they could not be proved as overt acts; and the question

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »