accordingly the Chief Justice did discharge him; immediately after that I went in company with the counsel whom he employed, Mr. Merrick, to the President's house, and reported our proceedings and the result to the President; he then urged us to proceed.

Mr. BUTLER to the witness-Wait a moment.

To the Chief Justice- Shall we have another interview with the President put in?

The Chief Justice to the witness-What date was that? A. It was the 26th of February, immediately after the court adjourned.

Mr. CURTIS-We propose to show that having made his report to the President of the failure of the attempt, he then received from the President other instructions on that Bubject to follow up the attempt in another way.

Mr. BINGHAM-Do I understand that this interview with the President was on the 26th?

Mr. CURTIS-It was.

Mr. BINGHAM-Two days after he had been impeached by the House of Representatives?

Mr. CURTIS-Yes.

Mr. BINGHAM-Two days after he was presented, and you are asking the President's declarations to prove his own innocence?

Mr. CURTIS-We do not ask for his declarations, we ask for his acts.

Mr. BUTLER-Two days after his arraignment at this bar? We ask for a vote of the Senate.

The Chief Justice-The Chief Justice may have misunderstood the ruling of the Senate, but he understands it to be this:-That facts in relation to the intention of the President to obtain a legal remedy, commencing on the 22d, may be pursued to the legitimate termination of that particular transaction, and, therefore, the Senate has ruled that the witness may go on and testify until that particular transaction comes to a close. Now the offer is to prove the conversation after the termination of that effort in the District Court. The Chief Justice does not think that that is the view of the Senate, but he will submit the question to the Senate.

The question was submitted, and the evidence was ruled out without a division.

By Mr. CURTIS-Q. After you had reported to the President, as you have stated, did you take any further step, or do any further act, in reference to raising the question of the constitutionality of the law, or the Tenure of Office act?

Mr. BUTLER-If what the President did himself after. he was impeached after the 22d of February cannot be given in evidence. I do not see that what his counsel did for him can be. It is only one step further.

Mr. EVARTS-We may, at least, put the question, I виррове.

Mr. BUTLER-The question was put, and I objected to it.

Mr. EVARTS-It was not reduced to writing.

By direction of the Chief Justice, the question was put in writing, as follows:-After you had reported to the President the result of your efforts to obtain a writ of habeas corpus, did you do any other act in pursuance of the original instructions you had received from the President on Saturday to contest the right of Mr. Stanton to continue in the office? If so, state what the acts were?

The Chief Justice thinks the question inadmissible, within the last vote of the Senate, but will put it to the Senate, if any Senator desires it.

Mr. DOOLITTLE asked a vote.

By request of Mr. SHERMAN, the fifth article was read by the Secretary.

Mr. EVARTS said it was proposed to show a lawful intent.

Mr. HOWE--If it is proper, I would like the first question addressed to the witness read again.

The Chief Justice-On which the ruling took place?
Mr. HOWE-No.

Mr. EVARTS-The offer to prove?

Mr. HOWE-The offer to prove.

The offer to prove was again read.

The Chief Justice decided that under the fifth article on the question of intent, the question was admissible.

Mr. HOWARD asked that the question be put to the Senate, and the question was admitted by the following vote: YEAS.-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden. Fowler, Grimes, Hendricks, Howe. Johnson, McCreery, Morrill (Me.), Morton, Norton, Patterson (N. H.), Patterson (Tenn.), Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers and Willey-27.

NAYS.-Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Morgan, Morrill (Vt.), Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williams, Wilson and Yates-23.

Witness-On the same day or the next, the 21st, I filed an information in the nature of a quo warranto; I think a delay of one day occurred in the effort to procure certified copies of General Thomas' commission as secretary of War ad interim; I then applied to the District Attorney to sign the information in the nature of a quo warranto, and he declined to do so without instructions from the President or Attorney-General; this fact was communicated to the Attorney-General, and the papers were sent to him, and we also gave it as our opinion that it would not be

Mr. BUTLER-Stop a moment; we object to the opinion giyen to the Attorney General.

Mr. EVARTS-We don't insist upon it.

Mr. CURTIS-You can now proceed to state what was

done after this time. A. Nothing was done after that time by me.

On motion of Mr. CONNESS, the Senate took a recess of fifteen minutes, at half-past two.

After the recess the witness was cross-examined by Mr. BUTLER.

Q. Have you practiced in Washington always? Yes, sir.

A.

Q. Were any other counsel associated with you by the President? A. No, sir, not to my knowledge.

Q. Were you counsel in that case for the President, or for General Thomas? A. I considered myself counsel for the Pre-ident.

Q. Did you 80 announce yourself to Chief Justice Cartter? A. I did not.

Q. Then you appeared before him as counsel for Gen. Thomas? A. I did in that proceeding.

Q. And he did not understand in any way so far as you knew that you were desiring to do anything there in behalf of the President? A. I had mentioned the fact that I had been sent for to take charge of some proceedings. Q. As counsel for the President? A. Yes, sir; that I had been sent for by the President.

Q. But did you tell him that you were coming into this court as counsel for the President? A. No, I did not.

Q. In any of your discussions of questions before the court, did you inform the court or counsel that you do sired to have the case put in frame so that you could get the decision of the Supreme Court? A. I don't think I did Q. Had they any means, either court or counsel, of knowing that that was the President's purpose or yours, so far as you were concerned? A. Only by the habeas corpus spoken of in General Thomas' answer.

Q. Nothing, only what they might infer? A. Yes, sir; I had no conversation with them whatever.

Q. I am not speaking of conversations with counsel outside of the court, but I am speaking of the proceedings in court? A. No, sir.

Q. And, so far as the proceeding in court were concerned, there was no intimation, direct or indirect, that there was any wish on the part of the President or the AttorneyGeneral to make a case to test the constitutionality or the propriety of any law? A. There was none that I remem ber in the presence of the Judge on the bench at that time other than private intimations.

Q. Your private intimations I have not asked for; were there any to the counsel that appeared on the other side? A. No, sir.

Q. Then, so far as you know, the counsel on the other side would only treat this as a question of the rights of personal liberty of Mr. Thomas? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Well, sir, it being your desire to have that question tested, and as you appeared for Mr. Thomas, and as it must have been done by consent of the other side, the prosecutor, why didn't you speak to the opposite counsel, and ask to have it put in frame for that? A. Because I didn't think they would consent to it; we didn't want to let them know what our object was.

Q. Then you meant to conceal your object? A. We rather did; they seemed to divine it from the course they took.

Q. You say you prepared papers for an information in the nature of a quo warranto? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What day was that? A. That was either on Wednesday the 26th or on the next day.

Q. 26th or 27th of February? A. I think it was on the 27th Q. And that was after the President was impeached? A, Yes, sir.

Q. Did you see the President between the time that you reported to him and the time when you got this paper? A. I did not, sir; I have never seen him since.

Q. You prepared that paper? A. Yes, sir, and carried it to the Attorney-General, to the District Attorney; I spoke to him, and he said he must have some order from the Attorney-General, or the President.

Q. Yes, sir; and then you went to the Attorney-General? A. I sent the papers.

Q. Did you send a note with them? A. I don't recol lect; I sent the information, either verbal or written. Q. Who did you send it by? A. By Mr. Merrick or Mr. Bradley.

Q. What Bradley? A, The elder.

Q. Was he concerned in the matter? A. He appeared in court with us, merely as adviser to General Thomas.

Q. Joseph R. Bradley appeared in the District Court as attorney? A. He appeared in person, but not in the character of attorney.

Q. Did he say anything? A. Nothing to the court. Q. Is that the man that was disbarred? A. The same; so that he could not appear.

Q. Well, after you sent these papers to the AttorneyGeneral, did you ever get them back? A. I did. Q. When? A. A few days ago.

d. By stew days ago, when do you mean; since you

have been summoned as a witness? A. I think not. Q. Just before, I believe, preparatory to your being summoned as a witnes? A. No, not that I'm aware of. After this case was opened? A. After.

8. After this case yaadidn't say I think it was

four or five days ago.

Q. Have you had any communication with the Attorney-General about them between the time when you sent them and the time when you read them? A. None in

Q. Of which you only know from what he said? A. Yes, sir.

Q. They were returned to you; where are they now? A. I have them in my pocket.

Q. Were they not returned to you for the purpose of your having them when you were called as a witness? A. No, sir; they came with a message.

Q. How soon before you were summoned? A. Not more than a day or two.

Q. On the same day? A. I think a day or two before. Q. To your knowledge have those papers ever been presented to any judge of any court? A. They have not.

Q. Up to the hour that we are speaking, have you been directed, either by the Attorney-General or by the President, to present them to any judge of any court? A. The papers came to me with the direction to use them as Mr. Merrick or myself chose in our discretion.

Q. Verbal or written? A. Verbal, to Mr. Merrick.

Q. But Mr. Merrick was not associated with you as counsel for the President? A. He was not, as I understood; he was counsel for General Thomas.

Q. Was this movement on the part of General Thomas, for the information, made as a quo warranto? A. No, sir; it was filed on the relation of General Thomas.

Q. Have you received, in writing or verbally, to yourself, any direction either from the President or the Attorney-General, to file those papers? A. No positive orders.

Q. Any positive or impositive from them to you? A. Not immediately,

Q. I don't mean through Mr. Merrick? A. The only communication I received was through him.

Q. From whom did he being you a direction or communication? A. From the Attorney-General.

Q. Who? A. The Attorney-General.

Q. Who is that? Q. Mr. Stanbery.

Q. And this was five days ago-why, he resigned as Attorney-General some fortnight ago:- How did he come as Attorney General to speak by order of the President? A. I meant Mr. Stanbery.

Q. Have you ever received any directions through Mr. Merrick from the Attorney-General oflicially, as a direction for the President's counsel through Mr. Merrick? A. All that I received was

Eexcuse me. Q. Have you received any communication through Mr. Merrick or anybody else from the AttorneyGeneral of the United States-not the resigned AttorneyGeneral of the United States? A. I have not, sir, from any other.

Q. And you have not received any from him, either verbal or otherwise, while he was Attorney-General of the United States? A. I have not.

Q. When you handed him the papers was he the Attorney-General? A. I believe so, sir.

Q. Could you not be certain on that point? A. I don't know when he resigned.

Q. And the resignation made no difference in your action? A. I don't think he had resigned at that time; I am very sure the papers were sent to him within two or three days after the discharge of General Thomas.

Q. And were returned by him to you within four or five days? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Four or five days from when? after he resigned? A. I think it was; yes, sir.

Q. So that when you told us Mr. Merrick had brought it from the Attorney-General it was from Mr. Stanbery? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You have received no communication from the President or Attorney-General as to what should be done with this proceeding? A. No, sir.

Q. Then, so far as you know, there has not been any direction or any effort from the Attorney-General or the President, leaving out Mr. Stanbery, who is not AttorneyGeneral now, to have anything done with these papers? A. There has been no direction. I know.

Q. No communication? A. No communication since the paper was forwarded to me, to go to the court for a moment.

Q. Did Mr. Merrick or yourself make a motion to have Mr. Thomas discharged? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was he not in custody, under his recognizance, up to the time of making that motion? A. He claimed that he was, but the other side denied it.

Q. And to settle that question you moved a discharge? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that was granted? A. It was.

Q. Did you make that motion? A. Yes, sir.

So that, in fact, General Thomas was discharged from custody on the motion of the President's counsel? Mr. CURTIS-He has not said that.

Mr. BUTLER-Excuse me.

Q. If he was not discharged from custody what was he discharged from? A. Discharged from any further detention or examination.

Q. He could not be detained without being in custody, could he? A. Not very well. Q. Then, I will repeat the question upon which I was interupted, whether, in fact, Mr. Cox, Mr. Thomas was not discharged from custody, from detention, from further being held to answer on that complaint upon the motion of the President's counsel? A. He was, sir.

Q. Now, then, sir, was that information signed by any Attorney-General, past, present or to come, so far as you know? A. No, sir.

Richard T. Merrick, sworn on behalf of respondent--Examined by Mr. CURTIS-Q. Where do you reside? A. I reside in this city.

Q. What is your profession? A. I am a lawyer, sir,

Q. How long have you been in that profession? A. Nineteen or twenty years, sir.

Q. Were you employed professsonally in any way in connection with the matter of General Thomas before Chief Justice Cartter A. I was employed by General Thomas on the morning of the 22d of February to appear in the proceeding about being brought before Chief Justice Cartter.

Q. In the course of that day, the 22d of February, did you have an interview, in company with General Thomas or otherwise, with the President of the United States? A. I went to the President's house for the purpose of tak ing to the President the affidavit, &c., filed by General Thomas, and communicating to the President what had transpired in regard to the case.

Q. Did you communicate to him what had transpired in regard to the case?

Mr. BUTLER -I submit, Mr. President, that that is wholly immaterial; the Senate ruled in the President's acts in employing Mr. Cox as his counsel. But what com munication took place between the President and Mr. Merrick, who very frankly tells us that he was employed by General Thomas as his counsel, I think cannot be evi dence.

The Chief Justice was understood to rule the question admissible.

Mr. CURTIS-Q. State whether you communicated to the President, in the presence of General Thomas, what had transpired in reference to the case. A. My recollection is, that I communicated what had transpired to the President, in the absence of General Thomas; that he was not at the Executive Mansion when I called that during the interview General Thomas arrived, and the same communication was then made in a general conversation, in which the Attorney-General, Mr. Stanbery, the President, General Thomas and myself participated.

Q. Please state whether, either from the President himself or from the Attorney-General, in his presence, you received afterwards any instructions or suggestions as to the course to be pursued by you in General Thomas' case? In the first place you may fix, if you please, the hour of the day when this occurred on the 22d? A. I think the proceedings before Chief Justice Cartter at chambers, took place between ten and half-past ten, to the best of my recollection, about half-past, and immediately after they concluded, and they extended over a very short period; I ordered copies of the papers to be made, and as soon as they were made, I took them to the Executive mansion; I think I occupied probably from thirty minutes to an hour to make the copies, and my impression is I reached the Executive mansion about noon.

Q. Now you can answer the residue of the question, whether you received either from the President himself or the Attorney-General in the presence of the President, any directions or suggestions as to the course to be taken by you as counsel in the case?

Mr. BUTLER to Mr. CURTIS-Q. Do you ask now for the conversations?

Mr. CURTIS-I ask for directions to this gentleman. I do not care how far it goes.

Mr. BUTLER-I think, sir, these conversations cannot be put in. This is not the employing and sending there of his counsel to do anything, but giving directions as to how General Thomas' counsel are to try this case.

Mr. CURTIS-I suppose it depends upon what was said. They might amount to "verbal acts," as they are called f the books, if this gentleman so received and acted upon them. I suppose they then passed out of the range of declarations. The question is whether he received directions or suggestions from the President or the AttorneyGeneral.

Mr. BUTLER The difficulty is this. It is not the mere question of the difference between acts and declarations. although declarations make it one degree farther off. My proposition is that the President's acts, in giving direc tions to General Thomas' counsel to defend General Thomas, that counsel not being employed by the President, cannot be evidence, whether acts or declarations.

Mr. EVARTS-It does not follow that these instructions were to defend General Thomas. The first of the inquiry is, that the instructions were to make investigations, that this proceeding being such as could be taken on behalf of the President, you cannot an ticipate what the answer may be. An offer to show that the Attorney-General, in the presence of the President, as soon as the report of the situation of this case of General Thomas was made, gave certain instructions to this gentleman of the profession, in reference to grafting upon that case the act of having a habeas corpus.

Mr. BUTLER-I do not propose to argue it; the statement of it is enough. The President has no more right to direct General Thomas' lawyer than to direct me, and thereupon they do not offer the declarations of the Presi dent, but they offer the declarations of the President's be put into the case; there is no fact on earth that to them lawyer-Attorney-General Stanbery, now his counsel-to is any good in that way.

The offer of evidence was reduced to writing, as follows:

"We offer to prove that at the hour of twelve o'clock, noon, on the 22d of February, on the first communication with the President as to the situation of General Thomas' case, the President, or the Attorney-General in his presence. gave the witness certain directions as to obtaining a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of testing, judicially, the right of Mr. Stanton to continue to hold the office of Secretary of War against the authority of the President."

The Chief Justice decided that the proof was admissible

within the rule adopted by the Senate, but said that he would put the question to the Senate if any Senator desired it.

No vote being called for, the examination was resumed. Mr. CURTIS The question is, whether the President, or the Attorney-General in his presence, gave you any instructions in refereuce to the proceedings to obtain a writ of habeas corpus to test the right of Mr. Stanton to hold the office contrary to the will of the President? A. The Attorney-General, on learning from me the situation of the case, asked if it was possible in any way to get it into the Supreme Court immediately; I told him I was not prepared to answer that question. He then said:-"Look at it, and see whether or not you can take it up to the Supreme Court immediately on habeas corpus, and have the decision of that tribunal." And I told him I would.

Q. Subseanent to that time, had you come into communication with any gentlemen acting as counsel for the President, in relation to that matter? A. I examined the question as requested by the Attorney-General, and on the evening or afternoon of the 22d, and I think, within two or three hours after I had seen him, I wrote him a note.

Mr. BUTLER-We object to the contents of the note being given as evidence.

Mr. CURTIS to the witness-Stating the result? Witness. Stating the result of that examination.

Mr. BUTLER-Whatever is in that note, you must not state.

Mr. CURTIS to the witness--You wrote him a note on that subject? Witness-I wrote him a note on that subject, the following Monday or Tuesday, this being Saturday; I met Mr. Cox. who was the counsel for the President, as I understood, and in consultation with him I communicated to him the conclusion I had arrived at in the course of the examination on the Saturday previous; we having come to the same conclusion, agreed to conduct the case together in harmony, with a view to accomplish the contemplated result of taking it to the Supreme Court by a habeas corpus.

Q. State now anything which you and Mr. Cox did for the purpose of accomplishing that result? A. Having formed our plan of proceeding we went into court on the day on which, according to the bond, General Thomas was to appear before Judge Cartter, in chambers. was, I think, on Wednesday, the 25th, if I am not mistaken. Can I state what transpired?

Mr. CURTIS-Yes, so far as regards your acts.

That

Mr. BUTLER-I respectfully submit once again. Mr. President, that the acts of General Thomas's counsel, under the direction of the Attorney-General after the President was impeached, cannot be put in evidence.

Witness-Will you allow me to make a correction?
Mr. CURTIS-Certainly.

Witness-You asked when I next came in contact with any one representing the President. I should have stated that on Tuesday night, by appointment, I had an interview with the President on the subject of this case, and of the proceedings to be taken on the following day.

Mr. BUTLER-I don't see that that alters the question, which I request may be reduced to writing before I argue it, because I have argued one or two questions to-day, and then found other questions put in their place.

The Chief Justice-Counsel will please reduce the question to writing.

The question being reduced to writing, read as follows:"What, if anything, did you and Mr. Cox do in relation to accomplishing the result you have spoken of?"

Mr. BUTLER-Does that include what was done in court?

Mr. CURTIS-It includes what was done before Chief Justice Cartter.

The Chief Justice-The Chief Justice thinks it competent, but he will put it to the Senate if any Senator desires it.

No vote having been called for, the question was allowed to be put to the witness.

Witness-To answer that question, it is necessary I should state what transpired before the Judge in chambers and in court on Wednesday, when all that we did was done to accomplish that result; we went into the room in the City Hall in which the Criminal Court held its session in the morning; Judge Cartter was then holding the term of the Criminal Court, and the Criminal Court was regularly adjourned; after some business of the Criminal Court was discharged, the Chief Justice announced that he was ready to hear the case of General Thomas.

The question was then suggested whether it should be heard in chambers or before the court. The Chief Juslice said he would hear it as 'in chambers. The Criminal Court not having been then adjourned. the case was thereupon called up. The counsel appearing for Mr. Stanton, or for the government, Messrs. Carpenter and Riddell, moved that the case be continued or postponed until the following day, on the grounds of the absence of one or two of the witnesses, I think, and on the additional plea of Mr. Carpenter's indisposition; to that motion, after a consultation with my associates, Mr. Cox and Mr. Joseph H. Bradley, who appeared as advisory counsel for General Thomas, I arose and objected to a postponement, stating that I was constrained to object, notwithstanding the plea of personal indisposition, to which I always yielded, and that I objected now for the reason that this was a case involving a question of great public interest and which the harmonious action of the government rendered necessary to be speedily determined. I elaborated that view, and Mr. Carpenter replied, representing that there could be no detriment to the public service, and he earnestly urged the court for a postponement.

The Chief Justice thereupon remarked, I think, that it was the first time he knew a case in which the plea of personal indisposition of counsel was not acceded to by the other side; that it was generally sufficient; and, he went on to remark on the motion further, insomuch that I concluded that he would continue the case till the following day. As soon as he said that he would continue the case, we brought forward a motion that it be then adjourned from before the Chief Justice at Chambers to the Chief Justice holding the Criminal Court. That motion was argued by counsel and overruled by the Judge at Chambers, not in court. We then submitted to the Judge.

Mr. BUTLER interposing-Mr. President, I wish simply to be understood, so that I may clear my skirts of the matter, that this all comes in under our objection, and under the ruling of the presiding officer.

The Chief Justice (with severe dignity in his tone)--It comes in under the direction of the Senate of the United States. To the witness-Proceed, sir.

Witness-We then announced to the Judge that General Thomas' bail had surrendered him, or that he was in the custody of the Marshal, and the Marshal was advancing towards him at the time; I think that Mr. Bradley or Mr. Cox handed me, while on my feet and while making that announcement, the petition for the habeas corpus, which I then presented to the Criminal Court, which, having opened in the morning, had not yet adjourned, and over which the Chief Justice was presiding: I presented the petition for the habeas corpus to the Criminal Court, representing that General Thomas was in the custody of the Marshal, and I asked that I should be heard.

Mr. BUTLER-Was that petition in writing? Witness-That petition was in writing. I believe I said it was handed to me by one of my associates; and, if my recollection serves me right, I have seen the petition since; it was not signed when handed to me; General Thomas and Mr. Bradley were sitting immediately behind me; I laid it down, and it was taken up by some of the reporters; it was not regained for half an hour.

Mr. CURTIS-After you had read it, what occurred? Witness-After I read it, a discussion arose on the propriety of the petition, and the legality of the time of its presentation; counsel on the other side contended that General Thomas was not in custody, and that it was a remarkable case; I remember that expression of Mr. Carpen ter's, for the accused party to insist upon putting himself in custody; we contended that he was in custody, and that he did not propose to put himself in custody: counsel on the other side stated that they desired neither that he should be put in custody nor that he give bonds, because they were certain, from his character and position, that he would be present to answer any charge that might be brought against him.

The Chief Justice replied that in view of the statement of counsel he would neither put him in custody nor demand bond for his appearance; he was himself satisfied that there was no necessity for pursuing either course; we then remarked that if General Thomas was not in custody nor under bond he was discharged, and I think some one stated he is discharged; thereupon, in order that there should be a decision in reference to the alternatives presented of his being placed in custody or discharged on the record, we moved for his discharge in order to bring up the question officially of his commitment; he was thereupon discharged.

Mr. CURTIS-I believe that is all we desire to ask this witness.

Cross-examined by Mr. BUTLER-Q. Were you counsel for Surratt? A. I was.

Q. Was Mr. Cox? A. He was not.

Q. Was Mr. Bradley, who was advising counsel in these proceedings? A. He was.

Q. When you got to the Executive Mansion that morning, you sav Thomas was not there? A. I think not; that is my recollection.

Q. Did you learn when he had been there? A. I do not recollect whether I did or not; had I so learned I probably should have recollected it.

Q. Did you not learn that Thomas was then over at the War Department? A. I do not recollect that I did, and I think I did not.

Q. Did you learn when he returned that he had been there? A. I do not recollect.

Mr. BUTLER-I will not tax your want of recollection any further. (Laughter.)

Edwin O. Perrine sworn and examined by Mr. EVARTS. Q. Where do you reside? A. I reside in Long Island, near Jamaica.

How long have you been a resident of that region? A. I have been a resident of Long Island over ten years. Q. Previous to that time where did you reside? A. In Memphis, Tennessee.

Q. Are you personally acquainted with the President of the United States? A. I am.

Q. For how long a time have you been so personally ac quainted? A. I knew Mr. Johnson in Tennessee for several years before he left the State, having met him more particularly on the stump in political campaigns; I being a Whig and he being a Democrat.

Q. Has that acquaintance continued to the present time? A. It has..

Q. Were you in the city of Washington in the month of February? A. I was.

Q. For what period of time? A. I came here about the 1st of February, or near that time, and remained until the 1st of March or last of February.

Q. During that time were you at a hotel or at a private house?. A. I was at a private boarding house.

Q. Did yon have any interview with the President of the United States on the 21st of February? A. I did.

Q. Alone, or in company with whom? A. In company with a member of the House of Representative

Q. Who was he? A. Mr. Selye, of Rochester. N. Y. Q. How did it happen that you made this visit Mr. BUTLER, interposing-I pray judgment. Mr. EVARTS-This is simply introductory, nothing material.

Witness-Mr. Selye said that while he knew the President he never had been formally presented to him, and understanding that I was a friend of the President, and well acquainted with him, he asked me if I would not go up with him to the President's and then introduce him.

Q. When did this occur? A. On the 20th, or the day before.

Q. And your visit then on the 21st was on this appointment? A. I made the appointment for the next day; I informed Mr, Selye that it was Cabinet day, and that it was of no use to go till two o'clock, as we probably would not be permitted to enter, and he appointed two o'clock at his room, in Twelfth street, to meet him for that purpose. Q. You went there? A. I went to Mr. Selye's room; he called a carriage, and we drove to the President's house a little after two o'clock.

Q. Did you have any difficulty in getting in? A. We had; Mr. Cushan, the usher at the door, when I handed him Mr. Selve's card and mine, said that the President had some of his Cabinet with him yet, and that no one would be admitted; I told him that I wished him to go in and say to the President or to Colonel Moore with my compliments

Mr. BUTLER-Interrupted the witness.

Mr. EVARTS-Was the fact that Mr. Selve was a member of Congress mentioned? Witness-Yes. Q. So that you got in? A. Yes.

Q. Then you went up stairs? A. We were up stairs when this took place; we were in the ante-room.

Q. Then you went into the President's after awhile? A. Yes.

Q. Was the President alone when you went in? A. He was alone,

Q. Did you introduce Mr. Selve? A. I introduced Mr. Selye as a member of Congress from the Rochester District.

Q. Without reference to any other conversation that occurred between you and the President, or between Mr. Selye and you and the President, I come now to what I suppose to be pertinent to this case. Before this time, had you heard that any order for the removal of Mr. Stanton had been made? A. I had heard nothing of it.

Q. Had Mr. Selve heard of it, so far as you know? A. So far as I know, he had not; I found him lying down when I got to his room, at two o'clock.

Q. Did he then hear from the President of the removal of Mr. Stanton.

Mr. BUTLER-I object to the statement of the President to this witness, or to Mr. Selye, or to anybody else. If hi2 declarations made to all the persons in the country are to be given in evidence, there would be no end to this case. Everybody would be brought here, and where are we to stop? If there is to be any stop, it is now.,

Mr. EVARTS-The evidence is proper. The time to consider about the public interest was when the trial commenced. Of course it would be more convenient to stop the case at the end of the prosecution; it would save the time of the country.

Mr. BUTLER The question is simply what was said between the President and Mr. Selye, and Mr. Perrine. I have the honor to object to it.

Mr. EVARTS-I am reducing the question to form. The offer of proof being reduced to writing, and handed over to Mr. Butler for his examination, was read by the clerk, as follows:

"We offer to prove that the President then stated that he had issued an order for the removal of Mr. Stanton, and the employment of General Thomas to perform the duties ad interim; that thereupon Mr. Perrine said:Supposing Mr. Stanton shall oppose the order; and the President replied:-There is no danger.' He then added: It is only a temporary arrangement. I shall send into the Senate at once a good name for the office."

Mr. BUTLER objected. He said that this was mere narration, mere statement of what the President had done and what he intended to do; that it never was evidence and never would be evidence in any organized court. He did not see where any limit was to be put if such testimony were received. If Mr. Perrine, who had been heretofore on the stand, could go to the President and ask questions and be answered, and then come to give evidence of his conversation with the President, why do so. If Mr. Selye could go there, why could not everybody else go? Why could not the President make declarations to every man, aye, and every woman, too (laughter), of what he intended to do, and what he had done, and bring them in here to testify and to instruct the Senate of the United States in its duty as a High Court of Impeach

ment?

Mr. EVARTS said he was not aware the credit of the testimony was at all effected by the fact that Mr. Perrine had been engaged in politics. Nor did he suppose that that fact would assist the court in determinging what was evidence. The question was whether declarations at the time and under those circumstances of the President's intent, and if what he had done was proper to be given in evidence. It would be observed that this was an interview between the President and a member of Congress, one of the grand inquests of the nation. That at that hour the President supposed, from the statement of General Thomas, that Mr. Stanton was ready to leave the office,

desiring time to accommodate his private occasion, and that the President stated to those gentlemen that he had removed Mr. Stanton, and appointed General Thomas ad interim, which was their first intelligence of its occur

rence.

As to the motive and purpose then entertained by the President, this conversation shows that the President was not intending, as charged by the managers, to place a slave or a tool in the War Department, to the detriment of the public interest; but, on the contrary, that the appoint ment of General Thomas was a mere temporary arrange ment, and that he should at once send in a good name for the office to the Senate. This bore upon the question of purpose, and the fact had already been shown that a nomination for the office of Secretary of War was sent to the Senate on the following day, before one o'clock.

Mr. WILSON, one of the managers, objected to the evi dence as being outside of any former ruling of the Senate, and as being perfectly within the rule laid down in Hardy's case, and to which he called the attention of the Senate. If this offer of proof did not come perfectly within the rule in that case, then he never met with a case in all his experience which came within it. He would leave the objection on that point to the decision of the Senate.

Mr. EVARTS argued for the admission of the evidence. He admitted that the question now proposed was not entirely covered by any ruling of the Senate, because there were circumstances attending the first offer of evidence which were not precisely reproduced here, but Senators would observe that before the controversy arose, and at a time, when, in the President's opinion, there was to be no controversy, he had made this statement in the course of this intercourse with a member of Congress, thus introduced to him, concerning his public action. The evidence had a bearing also upon the question whether the Prest dent was using or justifying force. It also had a bearing upon the fact, that the next day the President actually did send in the name of Mr. Ewing, of Ohio, for the place of Secretary of War.

Mr. BUTLER said there were one or two new facts on which this evidence was pressed, the first and most material being that the conversation had occurred before any controversy had arisen between the President and Congress on the subject of Mr. Stanton. If that were so, then there might be same color or shadow of a claim to admit this evidence. But had there not been a controversy going on; had not the President known that the Senate had restored Mr. Stanton; had not the President put Mr. Stanton out, and had not the Senate put him back.

Had not the President been then besieging General Sherman to take the office on the Monday before, yet the President's counsel were attempting to put this evidence before the Senate, because it was the President's declaration made before any controversy arose, or was likely to arise. Another proposition was that it might be evidence because it was said to a member of Congress.

He was aware that members of Congress had rights and privileges belonging to their position, but he never was aware before that one of those rights was that was said to members was evidence. There were a good many things said to him which he should be very unwilling to have admitted as evidence. For instance, a written decla ration had been sent to him to-day, "Come prepared to meet your God." (Laughter). "The adversary is on your track. Hell is your portion.' (Continuous laughter).

He trusted that that was not evidence, because it was said to a member of Congress (laughter)-and yet it was just as pertinent and just as competent as the evidence here proposed. He did not mean, by any remark before, to suggest that the fact of the declaration being made to a gentleman who had been on the stump made it more or less competent; he had only meant to say the evidence was utterly outside the case. He objected to it, foreseeing what might come quite as properly as it. He foresaw that some of the lady friends of the President-(he begged pardon; he meant some of the women friends)-might go to the White House and be told by the President what his purpose was and then come and testify to it here, which would be just as good evidence, in his judgment, as what was now offered,

Mr. EVARTS made a few remarks in support of the of fering of the testimony.

The Chief Justice said-Senators:-The Chief Justice is unable to determine the precise extent to which the Senate applies its own decision. He has understood the decision to be that evidence may be given for the purpose of showing the conversations of the President at or near the time of the tranfaction. It is said that this evidence is distinguishable from that just introduced. The Chief Justice is not able to distingutsh it, and will submit the ques tion to the Senate whether the testimony shall be ad

mitted.

The vote of the Senate was taken, and resulted-Yeas, 9; nays, 37, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Hendricks, McCreery, Patterson (Tenn.), and Vick

ers-9.

NAYS.-Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill (Me.), Morrill (Vt.), Morton, Nye, Patterson (N. H.), Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates-37.

So the evidence was overruled.

Mr. EVARTS then said, this evidence having been excluded. we have no other questions to ask the witness. Mr. BUTLER said they did not wish to cross-examine him.

Mr. EVARTS then submitted that the counsel had reached a point where the Senate might conveniently adjourn, as they would have no other witness to-day,

Mr. BUTLER opposed the adjournment and asked that the counsel for the President be called upon to go on with their case. He had only to apply to them the argument made by Mr. Merrick in the case before Chief Justice Cartter, that although it was always an ungracious thing to object to postponement on account of the sickness of the counsel, still, as the case involved a matter of so much public interest, it should not be postponed on that account. On that point he would say, "I thank thee, Jew, for teaching me that word." Mr. Thomas could not wait on account of the sickness of a counsel, and so the managers now could not wait on account of the sickness of the Attorney-General. Why should they? Why should not this President be called upon to go on with his case. There had been thirty-three working days since the President was required to file his answer.

The managers had used six of those, and the counsel for the President had used a portion of the six, the other twenty-one having been given to delays. The legislation of the country was standing still. The House of Representatives were here at the bar of the Senate, day after day. The appropriations for carrying on the government could not be passed because the trial was in the way. Nothing could be done, and the whole country was waiting for its close.

Far be it from him not to desire to have his friend the Attorney-General here, but public interests were greater than the interests of any individual. Two hundred thousand men had laid down their lives in the war, and were they now to stop for the sickness of one man. He had in his hand testimony of what was going on this day, and this promised the South

Mr. CURTIS (jocularly)-"We object to the introduction of that testimony."

Mr. EVARTS (in the same temper) challenged its rele

vancy.

Mr. BUTLER said that its relevancy was this:-That while they were waiting for the Attorney-General to get well, a number of their fellow-citizens were being murdered in the South, and there was not a man in the Senate Chamber who did not know that the moment justice was done to this great criminal, these murders would cease. (Stamping of feet in the galleries, and attempted manifestations of applause, which were suppressed). That was the way things stood here, and they were being asked by every true man of the country, why they sat here idle. In Alabama, a register in bankruptcy was to-day driven from his duties and his home by the Kuk-Klux Klan (laughter), and the evidence of that laid upon his table. Should they then delay longer in this case, knowing their responsibilities to their countrymen, to their consciences and to their God?

The true Union men of the country were being murdered, and on the skirts of Congress their blood was if they remained here longer idle. He also reminded the Senatsrs that since the 20th day of February last, ten milJions of gold had been sold out of the Treasury at a sacrifice, and $12,000 paid in commissions to a man whom the Senate had refused to continue in office. This gold was sold at from one-and-a-half to two per cent. lower than the market rates. More than that, he had, from the same source, the fact that there had been bought, in the city of New York, since this trial had been begun, United States bonds to the amount of $27,058,100, which had been sold at from one-half to five-eighths and three-quarters above the market rates.

Some Senator remarked in an under tone that he meant below the market rates.

Mr. BUTLER repeated that it was above the market prices. He knew what he said, and he never was mistaken. (Laughter.) He demanded safety for the finances of the people, for the progress of legislation, for the safety of the true and loyal men of the North, who had perilled their lives for four years for the good of the country, for all that was dear to any patriot, that no further delay should be allowed, but the case should be brought to a decision.

If the President of the United States were to go free and anwhipped of justice, then they might as well have that state of facts: but if he was guilty, as the House of Repre sentatives had charged, and if he was an obstruction to the peace of the country, then that obstruction should be removed, and all those murders and corruptions would cease. In the name of Heaven, said he, let us have an end of this. and say to-day that we sit at least four hours a day, and attend to this great business of the people. He called the attention of the Senate to one of the great State trials in England, where the court sat from nine o'clock in the morning until one o'clock at night, and where the court refused Lord Erskine to meet one hour later in the morning in order that he might have a chance for preparing his summing up, the doing of which occupied nine hours. That was the way that cases of great consequence were tried in England. He was not complaining of the Senate, but was merely contrasting the delay in this case, and kindness shown to the President, the courtesies extended to him in this greatest of all cases, with cases tried elsewhere. The managers had been ready at all hazards, and only asked that now the counsel for the President should be ready, and should go on, instead of having these intarminable delays. He reminded the Senate, also, of the threat made by Mr. Brooks, in the House of Representatives, that if the impeachment was carried into the Senate, they would require all forms to be observed, and would keep it going on until the end of Mr. Johnson's term.

He appealed to the Senators not to allow that threat to

be carried out, as it has been attempted to be carried out by these continual delays. He never opened his mails in the morning without taking up some case of murder in the South-of the murder of men whom he had known as standing by the side of the Union, and whom he now heard of as laying in their cold graves. It was the feeling for the loss of those who stood by their country that perhaps stirred his heart very much, so that he was not able, with that coolness with which judicial proceedings should be characterized, to address the Senate on this subject. He would say nothing of the daily and hourly threats made against the managers, and against every great officer of the Senate. He would say nothing of that, as they were all safe. There was an old Scotch proverb in their favor. "A threatened dog lives the longest." He had not the slightest fear on that account, and these threats of those unseemly libels, in their forms of government, would all go away when that man (meaning Mr. Johnson) went out of the White House. Senator CONKLING offered the following order :That each day hereafter, the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, shall meet at eleven A. M.

Senator SUMNER offered the following as a substitute:Ordered. That considering the public interests that suffer from the delay of this trial, and in pursuance of the order already to proceed with all convenient despatch, the Senate will sit from ten o'clock in the forenoon till five o'clock in the afternoon, with such brief recess as may be ordered.

Senator TRUMBULL inquired from the Chief Justice whether these resolutions were in order. The Chief Justice replied that they were not, if any Senator objected. Senator TRUMBULL-I object.

Mr. EVARTS rose and said:-Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, I am not aware how much of the address of the manager is appropriate to anything which has come from me. At the opening of the court this morning. I stated how we might be situated, and I remarked that when that point of time arrived, I should submit the matter to the Senate for consideration. I never heard such an harrangue before as I have just heard, though I cannot say that I may not hear it again in this court. All these delays and evil consequences seem to press upon the managers exactly at the precise time when some of their mouths are open, occupying your attention with their long harangues.

If you will look to the reports of the discussions of ques tions of evidence as they appear in the newspapers, you will see that all we have to say is embraced within a para graph, while columns are taken up with the views of the learned managers. Hour after hour is taken up in debates on the production of our evidence, by their prolonging the discussion, and now twenty minutes by the watch have been consumed in this harangue of the able manager about the Knk-Klux-Klan.

Senator CAMERON inquired if the word "harangue" was in order.

Senator DOOLITTLE suggested the inquiry whether the harangue itself was in order.

Senator FERRY moved to adjourn.

Senator SUMNER moved that the adjournment be until ten A. M. to-morrow.

The Chief Justice ruled that Senator Sumner's motion was not in order, as the motion to adjourn must be to adjourn to the usual time.

Senator SUMNER called for the yeas and nays on the motion to adjourn, but they were not ordered and the court, at 4:45 P. M,, adjourned until noon to-morrow.

PROCEEDINGS OF FRIDAY, APRIL 17.

The court was opened in due form. There was a rather larger attendance of members of the House than usual this morning. On motion, the reading of the Journal was dispensed with.

The Chief Justice stated the first business in order to be the order offered by Mr. Conness, yesterday, that on each day hereafter the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, shall meet at eleven o'clock A. M., to which Senator SUMNER offered the following amendment:

Ordered, That, considering the public interests, which suffer from the delay of this trial, and in pursuance of the order already to proceed with all convenient despatch, the Senate will sit from ten o'clock in the forenoon till six o'clock in the afternoon, with such brief recess as may be ordered.

Senator Sumner's amendment was rejected. Yeas, 12; nays, 30; as follows:

YEAS.-Mosers. Chandler, Cameron, Cole, Corbett, Harlan, Morrill (Mo.), Pomeroy, Ramsey, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton and Yates-13.7