ing question; but was it intended to be a leading qustion? Was it intended to draw General Sherman to say something which he would otherwise not have said? The learned manager says:-Oh, no; it was not intended so far as General Sherman was concerned; but that so far as counsel was concerned the purpose was to put it in that form so that counsel might have another opportunity of pätting it in a legal form. He charges that it was deliberately manufactured, in a leading form, knowing that it would be rejected, for the purpose of getting ten or fifteen minutes time. A leading question, eir; will the honorable manager read over the record of this case and see hundreds of leading questions, put by him, until we got tired of objecting to them? I may, of course, be permitted to disclaim any intention; this is a matter of great impor tance; the interests of our client are in our hands, and we are to defend them in the best way we can. The question was modified at Mr. EVARTS suggestion so to read as follows:-"Was anything said at either of these interviews by the President as to any purpose of getting the question of Mr. Stanton's right to the office bo fore the courts?" The Chief Justice put it to the vote of the Senate, and the question was overruled without a division, and Senator HENDERSON sent up in writing the following question to be put to the witness? "Did the President, in tendering yon the appointment of Secretary of War ad interim, express the object or purpose for so doing?" Mr. BINGHAM-I object to that question as being within the ruling. It is both leading and incompetent. The Chief Justice said he would submit the question to the Senate. Senator DOOLITTLE arose and said Mr. Chief Justice, I arose for the purpose of moving that the Senate should go into consultation on this question, (cries of "no! no!"), but there might not be time to-night to go into consultation, and I, therefore, move that the court adjourn. The motion was rejected without a division. The vote was then taken on admitting Senator HenderRom's question, and it was rejected. Yeas, 25; nays, 27, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis. Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill (Me.), Morton, Norton, Patterson (Tenn.), Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner. Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey-25. NAYS.-Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, ConkHng, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Harris, Morgan, Morrill (Vt.), Nye, Patterson (N. H.), Pomeroy, Ramsey, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williams, Wilson and Yates-27. Senator TRUMBULL, at half-past three, moved that the court adjourn. The question was taken by yeas and nays, and resulted-yeas, 25; nays, 27. Mr. STANBERY sent to Mr. Butler another form of question. After reading it, Mr. BUTLER said:-We object to this, both as a leading question and for substance. It has been voted on three times already.) The question was read, as follows:-"At either of those interviews was anything said in reference to the use of threats, intimidation or force, to get possession of the War Office, or the contrary?" The Chief Justice submitted to the Senate the admissi blity of the question, and without a division it was ruled to be inadmissible. The Chief Justice asked the counsel for the President whether they had any other question to put to the witness. Mr. STANBERY replied that counsel were considering that point. Senator ANTHONY moved that the court adjourn. Senator CONKLING inquired whether the managers meant to cross-examine the witness? Mr. BUTLER replied that they did not. The vote was again taken by yeas and nays on the question of adjournment, and it resulted-yeas, 20; nays, 32. So the court refused to adjourn. Stanbery Discomfited Mr. STANBERY then arose and said: Mr. Chief Jus tice and Senators:-I desire to state that under those rulings we are not prepared to say that we have any further questions to put to General Sherman, but it is a matter of so much importance that we desire to be allowed to recall General Sherman on Monday if we deem it proper to do so. Mr BUTLER rose and commenced to object, saying, we are very desirous that the examination of this witness should be concluded, but before he could coneinde the sentence, Mr. BINGHAM rose and said: We have no objection. The court then, at a quarter of five, adjourned, and the Senate immediately afterwards adjourned. PROCEEDINGS OF MONDAY, APRIL 13. The court was opened in due form, and the managers were announced at 12:05, Messrs. Bingham, Butler and Williams only appearing. Mr. Stevens was in his chair before the court was opened. The other managers entered shortly afterward. The Twenty-first Rule. The Chief Justice stated that the first business in order was the consideration of the order offered by Senator Frelinghuysen, amendatory of Rule 21. as follows:-Ordered, That as many of the managers of this court and the counsel for the President be per. mitted to speak on the final argument as shall choose to do so. Mr. SUMNER-I send to the chair an amendment to that order to come in at the end. It was read as follows:"Provided, That the trial shall proceed without any further delay or postponement on this account." Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN accepted the amendment. Mr. Manager WILSON rose and asked the indulgence of the Senate for a moment. He said he did not propose to contest the right of the Senate to adopt a rnle reasonably limiting debate on the final argument of this question, in conformity with the universal rule in the trial of civil actions and criminal indioments. He was not here to oppose such a reasonable limitation as the interests of justice may require, as may be necessary to facilitate a just decision. He thought, however that the rule was calculated in some degree to embarrass the gentlemen sent here to conduct this case on the part of the people. The House having devolved the duty upon seven of its members, in which they had not departed from the ordinary course, the effect of the rule would be to ex clude from the final debate on the articles submitted by them at least four of the managers. He was not opposed to a reasonable limit. It would have been in accordance with the rule in regard to interlocktory questions, and would have avoided diffugeness. The Senate had said that the public convenience and the interests of the people required that a certain limit of time should be divided among the managers. The rule did not meet with the approbation of the managers in the first instance. They thought it unnsual, and they had directed their chairman to make this application. There had been five cases of impeachment before the Senate of the United States. Mr. WILSON recited the circumstances attending each of the impeachments of Blount, Pickering, Chase, Peck and Humphreys, claiming that all these eases were analagous to the present. All the managers were allowed to speak on the final argument, save in one instance, where there were seven managers, and one of them failing to speak, Mr. Randolph, their chairman, spoke twice. He (Mr. Wilson) might be mistaken, but thought the right of the House of Representatives to be heard through all its managers had never been questioned. One case in British his tory was familiar to the school-boy recollections of every man in this nation, or who is familiar with the English language-a case made memorable not as much by the great interests involved as by this fact, that it was illustrated by the genius of the greatest men that England had ever produced, and that it continned for seven years. In the latter respect he hoped this would not resemble it; but it would be remembered that the labor in that case was distributed amongst all the managers. The present case was not an ordinary one. Nothing in our history compared with it. They were making history to-day, and they should show that they alpreciated the magnitude of the interest involved. He felt the difficulty of realizing the magnitude rising to the height of this great argument. It was not the case of a district judge or custom-house officer, but the Chief Magistrate of a great people, and its importance was felt from sea to sea, with millions of people watch ing for the verdict. Such a limitation should be aocounted for in only one way, namely, that the case was of small consequence, or that it was so plain that the judge required no research and no argument from any body. He had not in what he said been moved by any consideration personal to himself. He had lived to a time of life when the ambition to be heard did not rest heavily upon him, or at all events he had lived too long to attempt to press an argument upon an unwilling audience. If they allowed an extension of time, he did not know whether he would speak on the final argument or not. It would depend on his strength, and upon what was said by others. He concluded by warning the Senate that if they placed such a limit upon a case of such magnitude, it might hereafter be used as a precedent in less important cases for reducing the number of counsel to one, or perhaps dispensing with them altogether. respondent. to a single counsel on the part of the House of Representatives. Mr. Stanbery's Opinion. Mr. STANBERY rose and said that the counsel for the President neither asked for nor refused the order pro posed. They had no objection to all the seven of the managers on the other side arguing the case, but he understood the amendment of the Senator from Ohio to fix a limit, whereas in the rule in the time allowed for the clos ing up was unlimited. The rule only spoke of the number of the counsel, not of the time they should occupy. He deeired to call the attentlon of the Senate to the amendment, so that there might be no misunderstanding. He hod that not one of the counsel for the President had any idea of lengthening out the trial. He spoke as one competent to know, and he knew that when the counsel were through they would stop, and would only take as much time as they needed. They knew that if they went he yond that they would not have the attention of the Senate. He could say that he spoke for his associates in saying that they would not take a moment longer in the ense than they considered necessary. They would take every moment that was necessary, but not a moment that was unnecessary. He referred to the fact that in the Supreme Court of the United States when arguments are limited to two hours that limit is frequently, in important cases, reinoved, and he mentioned one case where he, himself, had spoken for two days. If counsel were limited to an exact time, they would generally be embarrassed, because they were looking continually at the clock instead of their case, and were afraid to begin an argument for fear they would exhaust too much time upon it, and be cut off from the more imSenate not to limit the time of counsel. Mr. STEVENS, one of the managers, rose and said :I have but a few words to say, and that is of very little importance. I do not expect, if the rule be relaxed, to say many words in the closing argument. There is one single article which I am held somewhat responsible for introducing, on which I wish to address the Senate for a very brief space, but I do desire that my colleagues may have full opportunity to exercise such liberty as they deem proper in the argument. I do not speak for my colleagues. If the Senate should limit the time that the managers may have, let them divide it among themselves however, this is a mere suggestion. I merely wish to say that I trust that some further time will be given, as I am somewhat anxious to give the reasons why I so pertina-portant matters in the case. In conclusion he begged the ciously insisted upon the adoption of an article that the managers had reported, leaving that article out. I confess I feel in that awful condition that I owe it to myself and to the country to give the reasons why I insisted, with what is called obstinacy, on having that article introduced, but I am willing to be confined to any length of time which the Senate may deem proper. What I have to say I can say very briefly. Indeed, I cannot, as a matter of fact, speak at any length if I would. I merely make this suggestion, and beg pardon of the Senate for having intruded so long upon its time. Senator SHERMAN moved to amend the order submitted by Senator Frelinghuysen by striking out the last proviso, and inserting in lieu of it another, which he sent to the Clerk's desk. Senator FRELINGHUYSEN desired to modify his own resolution by adding another proviso that only One counsel on the part of the managers shall be heard at the close. He said it was not his purpose to change the rule excepting as to the number who should speak, The Chief Justice directed the order, as modified by Senator Frelinghuysen, to be read, as follows:Ordered, That as many managers and of the counsel for the President be permitted to speak upon the final argument as shall chose to do su: provided, that the trial shall proceed without any further delay or postponement; and provided further, that only one manager shall be heard in the close. Senator SHERMAN'S amendment was to add to the order the following:-"But any additional time allowed by this order to each side shall not exceed three hours." Precedents. Mr. BOUTWELL, one of the managers, rose and said: Mr. Chief Justice and Senators:-I would not have risen to speak on this occasion, had it not been for the qualification made by the honorable Senator from New Jersey. I ask the Senate to consider that in the case of Judge Peck, after the testimony was submitted to the Senate, it was first summed up by two managers on the part of the House; that then the counsel for the respondent argued the case for the respondent by two of their number, and that then the case was closed on the part of the House of Representatives by two arguments made by the managers. I ask the Senate to consider that in the trial of Judge Chase the argument on the part of the House of Representatives and of the people of the United States was closed by three managers, after the testimony had been submitted, and the arguments on behalf of the respondent had been closed. I also ask the Senate to consider that in the trial of Judge Prescott, in Massachusetts, which I venture to say in this presence was one of the most ably conducted trials in the history of impeachments, either in this country or Great Britain, on the part of the managers, assisted by Chief Justice Shaw, and on the part of the respondent by Mr. Webster, that two arguments were made by the managers on the part of the House and on the part of the people of the Commonwealth, after the case of the respondent had been absolutely closed, both upon the evidence and upon the arguments. I think the matter needs no further illustration to satisfy this tribunal that the case of the people, the case of the House of Representatives, if this trial is to be opened to full debate by gentlemen who represent the respondent here, ought not to be left, after the close of the Senator SHERMAN, after hearing the remarks of Mr. Stanbery, withdrew his amendment. Mr. Butler's Views. He Mr. BUTLER desired the counsel for the President to say whether they wished this rule adopted, because if they did not wish it, that fact would have its impression upon the mind as to what time should be granted. wanted to say, however-and he stated it without prejn dice to anybody-that from the kind attention he had re ceived from the Senate in his opening argument he did not intend, in any event, to trespass a single moment in the closing argument, but to leave it to the very much better argumentation of his assistants, He only wished, without any word on his part, that such argumentation should be had as should convince the country that the case had been as fully stated on the one side as on the other. Senator SUMNER moved to strike out the last proviso in the order, and to insert in lieu of it the following: "And provided further, That according to practice in cases of impeachment, all the managers who speak shall close." Senator CONKLING begged to ask the counsel for the President to answer the question asked by Mr. Manager Butler. Fair Play. Mr. EVARTS rose and said, Mr. Chief Justice and Sena tors, I was about to say a word in reference to the ques tion, when the Senator from Massachusetta arose to offer his amendment. It will not be in the power of the coun Bel of the President, if the rules should now be enlarged, to contribute the aid of more than two additional advo cates on the part of the President. The rule was early adopted and known to us, and the arrangement of the number of counsel was accommodated to the rules. If the rule shall be enlarged, all of us would with pleasure take advantage of the liberality of the Senate. In regard, however, to the arguments of six against four, as then would be the odds, we naturally must feel some interest, particularly if all our opponents are to speak after we thall have concluded. The last speech hitherto has been made in behalf of the President. If there is any value in debate, it is that, when it begins and is a controversy between two sides, each, as fairly as may be, shall have an opportunity to know and reply to the arguments of the other. Now the present rule very properly, as it seems to me, and wholly in accordance with the precedents in all matters of forensic debate, requires that the managers shall close by one of their num ber, and that the counsel for the President shall be al lowed to speak, and that the second manager, appearing in their behalf, shall close. So, if the rule shall be eu larged, it would seen especially proper, if there is to be such a disparity as that of six against four, that an equally just arrangement should be made in the distribution of the arguments of the managers and for the President. Senator WILLIAMS moved to lay the order and the amendment on the table, in order, he said, to have a test vote as to whether the rule should be enlarged. Senator DRAKE raised a question of order, that in thз Senate, sitting for the trial of an inpeachment, there is no authority to move to lay a proposition on the table. The Chief Justice said he could not undertake to limit the Senato in its mode of determining questions, and that he conceived the motion to lay on the table to be in order. Senator WILLIAMS called for the yoas and nays, which were ordered. The Vote. The vote was taken, and resulted-Yeas, 38; nays, 10-as follows: YRAS.-Messrs. Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Ed mands, Ferry, Fessenden, Harlan, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Morrill (Me.), Morgan, Morrill (Vt.), Morton, Norton, Patterson (N. H.), Pomeroy, RamBey, Ross, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Van Winkle, Williams, Wilson and Yates-38. NAYS. Messrs. Anthony, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fow ler, Grimes, McCreery, Patterson (Tenn.), Trumbull and Willey-10. So the order and amendment were laid on the table. During the vote, Senator ANTHONY stated that his colleague. Mr. Sprague, was called away by telegraph to attend the death-bed of a friend. General Sherman Recalled. Lieutenant-General W. T. Sherman was then recalled to the stand. Question by Mr. STANBERY-After the restoration of Mr. Stanton to the War Office, did you form an opinion as to whether the good of the service required another man in that office than Mr. Stanton? Mr. BUTLER Stay a moment. We object. We want the question reduced to writing. Mr. STANBERY said-I am perfectly willing to reduce the question to writing, but I do not want to be compelled to do so at the demand of the learned manager. I made a similar request of him more than once, which he never complied with.in Mr. BUTLER-I ask a thousand pardons. The Chief Justice said that the rules required questions to be reduced to writing. Mr. STANBERY said that his impression was that that was a request to be made by a Senator, and not by one of the managers or one of the counsel. read. and it was read as follow that the fifteenth rule he "All motions made by the parties or their counsel shall be addressed to the presiding officer, and if he or any Senator shall require, they shall be committed to writing and read at the Secretary's table." The question having been reduced to writing by Mr. Stanbery, was read as follows: "After the restoration of Mr. Stanton to office, did you form an opinion whether the good of the service required a Secretary of War other than Mr. Stanton, and if so, did you communicate that opinion to the President?"" quired some other man to be put in his place. This is a communication made by General Sherman to the Presi dent to regulate the President's conduct, and to justify it; indeed, to call upon him, looking at the good of the service to get rid of in some way, if possible, of this confessed obstacle to the good of the service.dicks pi Look what appears in Mr. Stanton's own statement, that from the 12th of August, 1867, he has never seen the President; has never visited the Executive Mansion; has never sat at the board the President's legal advisers, the heads of departments, are supposed to be. It may be said the differences between him and the Presidont had got to the point that Mr. Stanton was unwilling to go there, lest he might not be admitted. Why, he never made that attempt. Mr. Stanton says in his communication to the House of Representatives on the 4th of March, when the House sent the correspondence between the President and General Grant, that he not only had not seen the President, but had had no official communication with him since the 12th of August. How was the army to get along, and how was the service to be benefited in that way. Certainly it is for the benefit of the service that the President should have in that office some one with whom to advise. What has the Secretary of War become? One of two things is inevitable: He is either to run the War Department without any advice of the Secretary, or he is to be removed from office. The President could not get out of the difficulty unless by humiliating himself before Mr. Stanton, and sending a note of apology to him for having suspended him. Would you ask him, Senators, to do that? Now, when you are inquiring into motives; when you consider the provocation that the President has had; when, beyond that, you see the necessities of the public service; when you see that no longer could there be any communication between the Secretary of War and the President; is it fit, I ask, that the service shall be carried on in that way which is to enable the Secretary of War to hold on to his office, and become there a mere locum tenems? Then when you are considering the conduct and intention, and the matter in the mind of the President in the removal of Mr. Stanton; and when you find that he has not only been advised by General Sherman that the good of the service required Mr. Stanton to be suspended, and that General Sherman undertook to communicate also to him the opinion of General Grant to the same purport: and when we shall follow that up by the agreement of those two distinguished generals to go to Mr. Stanton and tell him that for the good of the service he ought to resign, does it not show a reason why this evidence bearing upon the question of intent should be admitted? Now, when you are trying the President for motive, for intention, whether he acted in good fairth or in bad faith, will you, Senators, shut out the views of those two distinguished generals, and declare that his motive was to remove a faithful officer, and to get some tool in his place? Speech of General Butler. Mr. BUTLER-Mr. President and Senators:-I foresaw that if we had remained in session on Saturday evening long enough to have finished this witness, we would have got rid of all these questions. I foresaw that the effort would be renewed again in some form to-day, with the intent to get in the declarations of the President, or to the President; and now the proposition is to ask General Sherman whether he did not form an opinion that it was necessary that Mr. Stanton should be removed; whether the good of the service did not require a Secretary of War other than Mr. Stanton, and, if so, whether he did not communicate that opinion to the President. Well, of course, there could not be any other Secretary than Mr. Stanton, unless Mr. Stanton resigned or was removed. It will be necessary, then, to ask him whether he indicated his opinion to Mr. Stanton, if his opinion is to be put in at all, because but Mr. STANBERY-How is that? Mr. BUTLER-How long is our patience to be tried in this way? I am very glad that the Senate has been told that those tentative experiments are to go on, for what purpose, Senators themselves will judge; certainly for no legal purpose. Now it is is said that it is necessary to put this in, or else that counsel cannot defend the Presi dent. Well, if they cannot defend the President without another breach of the law added to his breach of the law, then I do not see the necessity of his being defended. They are breaking a law in defending him, because they are attempting to put in testimony which has no relevancy, no cogency, no competency. Under the law it is easy to test it, very easy, after you have let this question go, in. Senators, if you were to do so, will you allow me to ask General Sherman whether he had not come to an equally firm opinion that it was for the good of the service and the good of the country that Mr. Johnson should be removed. The learned Attorney-General says that General Sherman came to the opinion that the "complications," as he called them, in the War Department, required that some other person than Mr. Stanton should occupy the office. I should like to ask him whether he did not think that these complications required the removal of Mr. Johnson? ind The House of Representatives have thought that these complications could be got over by the removal of Mr. Johnson. Are you now going to put in General Sherman, to counterbalance the weight of the opinion of the House of Representatives? Is the President to be relieved of a wrong intent because General Sherman thought that Mr. Stanton was a bad man, and that, therefore, it was for the good of the service to put Mr. Stanton out? Is the Presi dent, I say, to be held innocent, therefore, in putting him out? Can we go into this origin of his opinion-I speak wholly without reference to the witness, and upon general principles-we would have to ask General Sherman as to his relations with Mr. Stanton; whether he quarreled with Him, and whether those relations did not make him think that it would be for the good of the service to get rid of him? We would have to ask him, Is there not an unfortunate difficulty between you? If the Senate will allow opinions to go in, it cannot prevent our going into the various considerations which produced these opinions. It is a kind of inquiry into which I have no desire to enter, and I pray the Senate not to enter into it, for the good of the country and for the integrity of the law. Another question would be, what were the grounds of General Sherman's opinions? We should have to go further. We should have to call as many men upon the other sido as we could. If General Sherman is put in as an expert, we would have to call General Sheridan and General George H. Thomas and General Meade, and other men of equal expertness to say whether, on the whole, they did not think it would be better to keep Mr. Stanton in? I think that nothing can more clearly demonstrate the fact that this evidence cannot be put in than the ground that General Sherman is an expert as an army officer. If it is, we will have army officers, who, if not quite so expert, are just as much experts in the eye of the law as he, and the struggle will be on which side the weight of evidence would be. The counsel for the President say that they offer this to show that the President had not a wrong intent. There has been a good deal said about intent as though intent had got to be proved by somebody swearing that the President told him he had a wrong intent. That seems to be the proposition here; that you must bring some man who heard the President say he had a bad intent, or something equivalent to that. The question before you is, did Mr. Johnson break the law of the land by the removal of Mr. Stanton? Then the law supplies the intent, and says that no man can do wrong intending to do right. If it were a fact that Mr. Stanton should have been put out, would that justify the President in breaking the law of the land in putting him out? Shall you do evil that good may come? The question is, not whether it were better to have Mr. Stanton out. On that question Senators may be divided in opinion. There are, for aught I know, and for aught I care, many Senators here who think it would be better to have Mr. Stanton out, but that is not the question. Is it right that the law of the land should be broken by the chief executive officer in order to get Mr. Stanton out? See where you are going. It would be admitting justification for the President, or any other executive officer, to break the law of the land, if he could show that he did what he thought was a good thing, but a wicked one. I am aware that executive officers have often acted upon that idea. Let me illustrate:-You Senators and the House of Representatives agreeing together as the Congress of the United States, passed a law that no man should hold office in the Southern States who could not take the oath of loyalty. I am aware that the Prezident of the United States put men into office who could not take that oath, and attempted to justify that before the Senate and before the House, on the ground that he thought he was doing the best thing for the service. That was a breach of the law, and if we had time to follow out the innumerable things he has done in that way and brought them before the Senate, we could have sustained articles of impeachment upon them. One other thing I desire to call your attention to. We have heard how, over and over again, that Mr. Stanton would not have a seat in the Cabinet Council since August 12, 1867. Whose fault was that? He attended every meeting up to within a week of August 12. He did his duty up to within a week of the 13th of August, and he was then suspended until the 13th of January, and when he came back into office it was not for the President to humble himself, but it was for the President to notify Mr. Stanton, at the head of the War Department, to come and take his seat in the Cabinet, but that notification never came. It was not for Mr. Stanton to thrust himself upon the President, but it was for him to go when he understood that his presence would be welcome; but it is put forward, as if the country could not go on without a Cabinet Board, and the learned counsel has just told us that it was a constitutional board. On that I want to take issue once for all. Senators, it is an unconstitutional board. There is not a word in the Constitution about a Cabinet or about a board. The learned gentlemen have told us that a board was almost a shield for the President, and there has been an attempt by some of the late President's friends to get this board around them to shield them from the consequences of their acts. The Constitution says that the heads of departments may be called upon in reference to their respective offices, to give opinions in writing to the President, and the rule of the early Presidents was to call upon Cabinet officers for their opinions in writing. ciousness on their part that they required, not that there should be verbal consultations semi-weekly, and that secret conclaves might be held, but that there should be written opinions asked and given. Think of it. Picture to yourselves, Senators, President Johnson and Lorenzo Thomas in Cabinet consultation to shield the President, and of Lorenzo Thomas stating him that it was for the good of the service that he should be appointed. If they have a right to put in one Cabinet officer they have a right to put in another. If they have a right to put in the opinion of one Attorney-General, who is not, by the way, a Cabinet officer, or if they have s right to put in the opinion of one head of a department they have a right to put in another. If permanent, then temporary. If temporary, then ad interim. Therefore, I find no dereliction of duty on the part of Mr. Stanton in not attending the Cabinet councils. Let them show that the President has ever asked from Mr. Stanton an opinion, in writing, as to the duties of hi department, or that he has ever sent an order to him which he has disobeyed, and that will show a reason; but I pray the Senate not to let us go into the regions of opinion. I have taken this much time, Senators, because I think it will save time to come to a right decision on this question. This case is to be tried by your opinion, not by the opinion of anybody whether Mr. Stanton was a good or å bad officer. It is to be tried upon the opinion whether the President broke the law in removing Mr. Stanton, and he must take the consequences of that breach of the law. It is said that he broke the law in order to get the matter into court. I agree in that, and if his couusel is correct as to the character of the Senate, the President has got the matter into court, where he will have the benefit of Law. Proposition from Senator Conkling. Senator CONKLING submitted the following propoeltion in writing:-Do the counsel for the respondent offer at this point to show by the witness that he advised the President to remove Mr. Stanton in the manner adopted by the President, or merely that he advised the President o designate for the action of the Senate some person other than Mr. Stanton? Why the Lieutenant-General is Introduced. Mr. EVARTS rose and said:-Mr. Chief Justice and Senators: I do not propose to discuss the constitutional relations of the President of the United States with his Cabinet, nor do I propose to enter into the consideration of the merits of the case, as it shall be presented on final argument. If the accusations against the President of the United States on which he is on trial here, and the conviction on which must result in his deposition from his great office, turned only on the mere question of whether the President has been guilty of a formal viol tion of a statute law, which might subject him, if in dicted for it, to a fine of six cents or imprisonment for ten days, there might be some reason for those technical obie tions, but I think that the honorable manager (Mr. Wi liams) who so eloquently and warmly pressed upon your consideration to-day that the case of Warren Hastings was nothing compared to this, was rather a little out of place, if the trial is to turn on the mere formal technical infraction of the Tenure of Office act. Now, Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, you cannot fail to see that General Sherman is not called here as an expert to give an opinion whether Mr. Stanton is a good Secretary of War or not. He is not called here as an expert to assist your judgment in determining whether or not it was for the public interests that Mr. Stanton should be removed in the sense of determining whether this form of removal was legal or not. He is introduced here as the second in command of the armies of the United States, to show an opinion on his part as a military man, and in that position, that the military service required that a Secretary should take the place of Mr. Stanton whose relations to the service and to the Commander-in-Chief were not such as those of Mr. Stan ton were, and that that opinion was communicated to the President; and we shall enlarge the area by showing that the opinion was concurred in by other competent mi litary authorities. And now, if the President of the United States, when brought on trial before a court of impeach ment, is not at liberty to show that the acts which are brought in question as against the public interest, and as being done with a bad motive, to obstruct the law and disturb the public peace, if I say he cannot show, in his defense, that in the judgment of those most competent to think, most competent to advise, most responsible to the country, in every sense, for their opinion, and their advice, how is he to defend him self? We propose to show that he was furnished with those opinions and supported by those opinions. Now, Senators, reflect; you are taking part in a solemn transae tion, which is to effect, if your judgment be unfavorable, a removal of the Chief Magistrate of the nation for some attempts which he has made against the public welfare, with bad motives and for improper purposes. We offer to show you that on consultation, and deliberation, and advice from those who, unconnected with any matters of personal or political controversy, occupied solely by their position, their duty and of that to their country enacted and desired to accomplish the change. We can not prove everything at once; nor is it a criticism upon the testimony just excluded that it does not itself proverall; but if it should be followed, as it would be, by evidence of equal authority and weight, and by offorts of the President or authority to make efforts given by the President, to secure a change in the control of that office, which the ser I have on my table here an opinion in writing, given by Thomas Jefferson to Washington, about his right to ap point ambassadors. Heads of departments are not to sit down and consult with the the President; they are not to have Cabinet counsels; that is an assumption of executive power, which has grown up little by little, formed upon the cabinets of the old world. The framers of the Constitution well knew that from the Cabinet connzels in England came that celebrated word "cabal," which has been the synonym of all that is evil in political combinations from that time to this, and it was not mere capri-vice of the country then demanded, we shall show you, by an absolute negator, that this intention, this motivethe public injury, so vehemently and so pertinaciously imputed in the course of the argument did not exist at all Equal Justice. Mr. BINGHAM arose to reply, and was, as usual, for the first sentence, entirely inaudible in the reporters' gallery. He went on to say, the suggestion made by the honorable Senator from New York (Mr. Conkling) shows the utter incompetency and absurdity of the proposition. It was whether counsel for the President propose to ask a witness whether he advised the removal of the Secretary of War in the mode and manner in which the President did remove him, or attempted to remove him? Is there any one here bold enough to say that if the witness had formed an opinion against the legality of the proposition, and had so expressed himself to the President, it would be competent for us to introduce such matter in evidence? The reason, Mr. Chief Justice, why I arose now, is that I might notice the reply in the utterances of the gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Evarts), and who has enunciated here the extraordinary opinion that the rules of evidence which would govern in a court of justice, in the prosecution of a beggar arrested in your streets for a crime, punishable with fine or five hours of imprisonment, are not the rules of evidence which would hold good when you come to prosecute the Chief Magistrate of the nation. The American people will entertain no opinions of that sort, nor will the Senate. We have the same rules of justice and the same rules of guidance for the trial of the President of the United States, as we have for the trial of the most defenseless or weakest of our citizens. Mr. EVARTS-The honorable managers will allow me to say that the only illustration I used, was that of an indictment against the Chief Magistrate on trial before a poliee court. Mr. BINGHAM-I supposed myself that when the gentleman made use of the remark, he intended, certainly, to -have the Senate understand that there was a different rule of evidence and of administration-of justice, in the prosecution of an indictment where the penalty was six conts, from that which should prevail in the prosecution of the President. Mr. EVARTS-When the issues are different, the evidence will be different. It does not depend on the dignity of the defendant. Mr. BINGHAM-It is very difficult to see how the gentleman can escape from the difficulty by making the remark that he supposed the President to be under prosecu tion. It is a very grave question whether the President of the United States can be prosecuted for an indictable offense before his impeachment; but I do not stop to argue that question now; I do not care who is prosecuted on an indictment, whether the President or a beggar, the same rule of evidence applies to each. I do not care who is impeached, whether it be the President of the United States or the lowest civil officer in the service of the United States, the same rule of evidence obtains. Only the common law maxim, that where an offense is charged which is unlawful in itself and which is proved to have been committed, as I venture to say, have been proved in respect to all of these articles. The law itself declares that the intent was criminal, and it is for the accused to show justification. That is the lauguage of the books; I so read it in the volume before me. The legality of the President's conduct is not to be solved by opinions of the witnesses but by the judgment of the Senate, to the exclusion of any other tribunal of earth, for so it is written in the Constitution. The law and the judges of the law will determine whether the act was unlawful. Opinions of third partiss, although ever so often offered and expressed, cannot make an unlawful a lawful, and cannot ged rid of the intention which the law itself necessarily attaches to the commission of an unlawful act. Well, say the gentlemen again, the President has taken the advice of an honored and honorable general. The Constitution, as the Senate well knows, indicates who shall be the President's advisers in such a case as this, the removal of the head of a department. That Constitution expressly declares that he may appoint and thereby necessarily remove an incumbent by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The tenure of office act following the Constitution, provides further that he may for sufficient reasons to him appearing, suspend an incumbent and take the advice of the Senate, laying the facts before the Senate, and the evidence on which he acted, whether the suspension should be made absolute. The President did take the advice of the Senate, and did suspend this officer, whose removal he now undertakes to prove the public service required. He sent it to the Senate and the Senate, as his constitutional adviser, acted upon it, and gave him notice that it advised him not to attempt. any further interference with the Secretary for the Department of War. The Senate gave him notice that under the law he must not go a step further, and thereupon he falls back upon his reserved rights, and undertakes to defy the Constitution, to defy the Tenure of Office act, to defy the Senate and to remove the Secre tary of War, and make an appointment of another in his place without the advice and consent of the Senate. cept such outsiders as he choses to call into his connael now, he undertakes to justify his acts by having witnesses to swear to their opinions. We protest against in the name of the Coustitution; we protect against it in the name of the laws enacted in pursuance of the Constitution; and we protest against it in the name of that great people whom we this day represent, whose rights have Ex been outrageously betrayed, and who are now being au daciously defied before this tribunal. The Senate proceeded to vote by yeas and nays upon the admission of the question, as follows: "After the restoration of Mr. Stanton to office, did you form an opinion whether the good of the service required a Secretary of War other than Mr. Stanton, and if so, did you communicate that opinion to the President?" The Final Vote. The vote resulted, yeas, 15; nays, 35, as follows:YEAS.-Messrs. Anthony. Bayard, Buckalew, Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Grimes, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery Patterson (Tenn.), Ross, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers -15. NAYS.-Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden. Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Henderson, Howard, Harris, Morgan, Morrill (Me.), Morrill (Vt.), Mor ton, Norton, Nye, Patterson (N. H.), Pomeroy, Ramsey Sherman, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Willey, Williams, Wilson and Yates-35. So the question was not admitted. Another Mooted Question. Senator JOHNSON proposed to ask the witness the following question: "Did you at any time, and when, before the President gave the order for the removal of Mr. Stanton, as Secre tary of War, advise the President to appomt some other person than Mr. Stanton?" Mr. BUTLER I have the honor to object to the question, as being leading in form, and as being covered by the decision just made. Mr. EVARTS-An objection to a question as leading in form cannot be made when the question is put by a member of the court. Senator DAVIS inquired whether one of the managers or of the counsel for the defense could interpose an objec tion to a question put by a member of the court. ** Mr. Butler Sustained. The Chief Justice ruled that the objection must be made by a member of the court Senator DRAKE renewed the objection. The Chief Justice said the only mode in which the question can be decided is to rule whether it is admissible or inadmissible. The question of the Senator from Maryland has been proposed unquestionably in good faith, and it is for the Senate to determine whether the question shall be addressed to the witness or not. The vote was taken by yeas and nays, and resulted-yeas, 18; nays, 32, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden. Fowler, Grimes, Hender son, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Patterson (Tenn. Ro Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers-18. NAYS.-Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conk ling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Drake. Ferry, Fre linghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrin (Me.), Morrill (Vt.), Morton, Norton, Nye, Patterson (N H.), Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Willey, Williams, Wilson, Yates-32. So the question was excuded. Senator Sumner, though in his seat, did not vote on either of the last two questione. The Chief Justice asked the President's counsel whether they had any further questions to propose to the witness. Mr. STANBERY replied that they had not. The Chief Justice then inquired of the managers whether they proposed to cross-examine General Sherthan. ask the witness. Mr. BINGHAM replied that they had no questions to The Chief Justice inquired whether the counsel for the President would require General Sherman to be again called. Exit Sherman. Mr. Stanbery stepped up to General Sherman and had a brief conversation with him, and Mr. Butler also stepped up and had a conversation with General Sherman. While they were conversing, the Senate, on motion of Senator Cole, at five minutes past two o'clock, took a recess for fifteen minutes. Testimony of R. J. Meigs. After the recess, R. J. Meigs was called and sworn on bohalf of the President, and examined by Mr. STANBERY. Q. What office do you hold? A. Clerk of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, Q. Clerk of that court in February last? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you with you the affidavit and warrant under which Lorenzo Thomas was arrested? A. Yes, sir (producing papers). Q. The original paper? A. The original paper. Did you affix the seal of the court to the appointment? A. I did. Q. On what day? A. On the 22d of February last. Q. At what hour of the day? A. It was between two and three o'clock on the morning of that day. Q. At what place? A. At the Clerk's office. Who brought that warrant to your A. I don't know the gentleman who brought it to me; he said he wa a member of Congress. Mr. PILE (Mo.)-Q. He brought it to your house at that hour of the morning? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you went then to the Clerk's office? A. I went to the Clerk's office and affixed the seal |