Was it a case where he holds a direct interest. disrepute. Why was it that the Chief Justice now presided? It was because the fathers of the republic thought that he who was to be entitled to benefits should not be permitted ever to pre side where he could only vote in case of a tie vote He did not know that the question could be decided at once. It was a grave and important question, and would be so considered by the country, and he submitted whether it was not The following oath was then administered to proper to postpone its decision till to-morrow, in the Chief Justice by Judge Nelson: "I do solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, 1 will do impartial Justice, according to the Constitution and laws. So help me God." The Chief Justice then said:-Senators, the oath will now be administered to the Senators as they will be called by the Secretary in succession, The Senators Sworn. The Secretary called the roll, each Senator advancing in turn and taking the oath prescribed in the rules as given above, The only Senators absent were Doolittle (Vt.), Patterson (N. H.), Saulsbury (Del.) and Edmunds (VL.) Hon. B. F. Wade Challenged. When the name of Senator Wade was called, Mr. HENDRICKS rose and put the question to the presiding officer, whether Senator from Ohio, being the person who would succeed to the Presidential office, was entitled to sit as a judge in the case. Remarks of Mr. Sherman. order, particularly, that the precedents of the English House of Lords might be examined. He moved, therefore, that the question be postponed till to-morrow. Mr. DAVIS (Ky.) argued that the question was to be decided on principle, and that principle was to be found in the Constitution. It was thought the man who was to succeed the President in case of removal from office should not take part in the trial of the President. If the case of Mr. Wade did not come within the letter of the Con stitution, it did come clearly within its principie and meaning. Mr. MORRILL (Me.) argued that there was no party before the court to make the objection, and that it did not lie in the province of one Senator to raise an objection against a fellow Senator. When the party appeared here, then objection could be made and argued; but not here and now. It seemed to him that there was no option and no discretion but to administer the oath to all the Senators. Mr. HENDRICKS (Ind.) argued that it was inherent in a court to judge of its own qualifica tion, and it was not for a Senator to present the question. It was for the court itself to deterit-mine whether a member claiming a seat in the court was entitled to it; therefore, the question was not immaturely made. The suggestion of Senator Sherman that Senator Wade might not continue to be President of the Senate, was no answer to the objection. When he should cease to be the presiding officer of the Senate he could be sworn in, but now, at this time, he was in competent. Mr. SHERMAN argued that the Constitution self settled that question. It provided that the presiding officer should not preside on the trial of the President, but being silent as to his right to be a member of the court, it followed by implication that he had the right to be a member of the court, each State was entitled to be represented by two Senators. The Senate had already seen a Senator who was related to the President by marriage take the ath, and he could see no difference between interest on the ground of affinity and the interest which the Senator from Ohio might be supposed have. Besides, the Senator from Ohio was only the presiding officer of the Senate pro tempore, and might or might not continue as such to the close of these proceedings. He, therefore, hoped that the oath would be administered to the Senator from Ohio. Reverdy Johnson's Views. Mr. JOHNSON (Md.) assimilated this case to an ordinary judicial proceeding, and reminded the Senate that no judge would be allowed to sit in In the case of Senator Stockton, of New Jersey, the question had been decided. There it was held that the Senator, being interested in the result of the vote, had no right to vote. One of the standing rules of the Senate itself was, that no Senator should vote where he had an interest in the result of the vote, but in his judgment the constitutional ground was even higher than the question of interest. The Vice President was not allowed, by the Constitution, to keep order in the Senate during an impeachment trial. He hoped he need not disclaim any personal feeling in the matter. He made the point now because he thought the Constitution itself had settled it that no man should help to deprive the President of his office when that man himself was to fill the office. He hoped that, in view of the importance of the question, the motion made by the Senator from Maryland would prevail. Mr. WILLIAMS (Ore.) held that the objection was entirely immature. If this body was the Senate, then the presiding officer of the Senate should preside, and if it was not, was there any court organized to decide the question? He never heard that one juror could challenge another juror, or that one judge could challenge another judge. Had a court ever been known to adopt a rule that a certain member of it should or should not participate in its proceedings. It was a matter entirely for the judge himself. Mr. DAVIS asked the question whether, if a Vice President came here to present himself as a member of the court, the court itself could not exclude him? Mr. WILLIAMS did not think that a parallel case, for by the very words of the Constitution the Vice President was excluded. It did not follow that because this court was organized as the Constitution required, a Senator having any Interest would participate in the trial. He might, when the time came on for trial, decline to participate. If any Senator should insist, notwithstanding the rule of the Senate referred to, on his right to vote, even on a question where he had an interest, he had a constitutional right to do so. Mr. FESSENDEN (Me.) suggested that the administration of the oath to the Senator from Ohio be passed over for the present until all the other Senators are sworn. Mr. CONNESS (Cal.) objected, that there was no right on the part of the Senate to raise a question as to the right of another Senator, and he preferred that a vote be now taken and the question decided. The question as to whether a Senator had such an interest in the result as to keep him from participating in the trial, was a matter for the Senator alone. Mr. FESSENDEN explained that his intention was simply that all the other Senators should be sworn, so as to be able to act upon the question as a duly organized court. He cared nothing about it, however, one way or another, and he had no opinion to express on the subject. Can a Senator be Excluded from the Senate? Mr. HOWARD (Mich.) sustained the right of the Senator from Ohio to be sworn and to participate in the trial. He did not understand on what ground this objection could be sustained. They were not acting in their ordinary capacity as a Senate, but were acting as a court. What right had the members of the Senate, not yet sworn, to vote on this objection? How was the subject to be got at? Could the members already sworn exclude a Senator? That would be a strange deposition. As the Senate was now fixed it had no right to pass a resolution or an order. It was an act simply coram non judice. He suggested, therefore, that the objection be withdrawn for the present. The President Might Ask a Question, Mr. MORTON (Ind.) argued that there was no person here authorized to make the objection because it was the right of a party to waive the objection of interest on the part of a judge or juror, and the President when he came here for trial might say, "Why was not the Senator from Ohio sworn?" The theory of his colleague (M2, Hendricks) was false. This impeachment was to be tried by the Senate. The Senator from Ohio was a member of this body, and his rights as such could not be taken from him. His election as Presiding officer took from him none of his rights as Senator; but aside from that, he repeated, that there was no person here entitled to raise the question. A Precedent Cited. Mr. JOHNSON (Md.) urged the propriety of his motion, that the question should be postponed till to-morrow. It was a question in which the people of the United States were concerned, and by no conduct of his, by no waiver of his rights could the court be organized in any other way than the Constitution provides. He repelled the intimation that the body was not a court but was a Senate. As the Senate, he argued, its powers were only legislative, and it had no judicial powers except as a court. So had all their predecessors ruled. In the celebrated impeachment case of Justice Chase, the Senate acted on the idea that they were acting as a court, not as a Senate. The Senators were to declare on their oaths, to decide the question of guilty or not guilty, and declare the judgment; and who had ever heard of a Senate declaring a judgment. The very fact that the Chief Justice had to preside showed that this was a court of the highest character. As to the argument that a Senator had a right to vote on a question wherein he had an interest, ha asked who had ever heard before of such a proposition. The courts had even gone so far as to declare that a judgment pronounced by a judge in a case where he had personal interest was ab solutely void, on the general principle that no man had a right to be a judge in his own case. In conclusion, he suspended the motion, and moved that the other members be now sworn. Mr. Wade's Rights. Mr. SHERMAN (Ohio) declared that the right of his colleague to take the oath, and his duty to do it was clear in his own mind. If hereafter the question of interest was raised against him it could be discussed and decided. The case of Senator Stockton, to which reference had been made, was a case in point. Notwithstanding the question of the legality of his election, no one questioned his right to be sworn in the first IDstance. It was only when his case came up for decision that his right to vote on that case was disputed and refused, and he (Mr. Sherman) had ever doubted the correctness of that decision. The same question came up in his own case when he was a candidate for the Speakership of the House of Representatives. He had taken his oath as a member of the House, and he had a right, if he had chosen to exercise it, to cast his vote for himself. He claimed that the State of Ohio had a right to be represented on this trial by its two Senators. His colleague should decide for himself whether he would participate in the trial and vote on questions arising in it. Questions had been introduced in this debate which he thought should not have been introduced. The only question at issue was, should or should not the Senator from Ohio be sworn in. Why the Challenge was Made. Mr. BAYARD (Del.) argued against the right of Senator Wade to take the oath, the object of the Constitution being to exclude the person who was to be benefited by the deposition of the President from taking part in the proceeding leading to such deposition. He proceeded to argue that the character of the body in trying impeachment was that of a court, not that of a Senate. He could not conceive on what ground the questions as to the character of the body was introduced, except it was that Senators, in cutting themselves loose from the restraints of their judicial character, might give a full swing to their partisan passions. If he stood in the same position as the Senator from Ohio, the wealth of the world would not tempt him to sit in such a case. Mr. Sumner Looks up Law and Mr. SUMNER (Mass.) declined to follow Senators in the discussion of the question as to whether this body was a Senate or was a court. Its powers were plainly laid down in the Constitution. The Constitution had not given the body a name, but it had given it powers, and those powers it was now exercising. Distinguished Senators on the other side had stated that the Constitution intended to prevent Senators who were to benefit by the result of impeachment from participating in the trial of the accused. Where did they find that interest? Where did they find the reason alleged for the provision as to the Chiet Justice presiding? It was not to be found in the Constitution itself, nor in the papers of Mr. Madison, nor in the Federalist, nor in any cotemporaneous publications. The first that was to be found of that idea was in Rawle's Commentaries on the Constitution, published in 1825, and the next that was to be found of it was ten years later, in Story's Commentaries, where, in a note, Rawle is cited. If they were to trust to the lights of history, the reason for the introduction of this clause was because the framers of the Constitution had contemplated the suspension of the President during inpeachment, and because, therefore, the Vice President could not be in the Senate he would be discharging the Executive functions. Mr. SUMNER referred to the constitutional debates in support of his theory, particularly citing the words of James Madison in the debate in the Virginia Convention, to the effect that the House might impeach the President, that the Senate might convict him, and that they (meaning either the Senate or the Senate and House of Representatives jointly) could suspend him from office, when his duties would devolve upon the Vice President. Here, he argued, was an authentic reason for that provision of the Constitution providing that when the President was on trial the Chief Justice should preside. He submitted that the Senate could not proceed upon the theory of the Senators on the other side. The text could not be extended from its plain and simple meaning. As to the question of interest, he asked who could put into the one scale the great interests of the public justice, and into the other paltry personal temptation. He believed that if the Senator from Ohio was allowed to hold those scales, the one containing personal interest would "kick the beam." Speech of Mr. Howe, Mr. Howe (Wis.) thought the question would not be a very difficult one if they were willing to read what was written, and to abide by it. It was written that the Senate should be composed of two Senators from each State, and it was elsewhere written that Ohio was a State. It was also written that the Senate should have the power to try impeachments-the Senate, and no one else. He conceived, therefore, that that was the end of the law. Whatever after question of delicacy there might be, the question of law was clear, that the Senator from Ohio was entitled to participate in this trial. If the Constitution. were silent on the subject, no one would have challenged the right of the presiding officer of the Senate to preside on this trial. The Constitution, however, had provided for that question, and had gone no further. If any objection did exist to the Senator from Ohio, the only party who had a right to raise the objection was not here and was not represented here. Mr. DRAKE (Mo.) argued that if the objection had any legal validity whatever, it was one which had to be passed upon affirmatively or negatively by some body, and he wanted to know what that body was? Was it so passed upon by the presiding officer of the Senate? He hardly thought Was it to be passed upon by this body itself? Then come in the difficulty that there were still four Senators unsworn. It might have been among the first or the very first one, and then would have had to be decided by Senators, not one of whom had been sworn. So. whether this was a court or not. They had to Mr. THAYER (Neb.) discussed the question as to come down to the plain words of the Constitution, "The Senate shall have power to try impeachments." If this body was a court_now, where did the transformation take place? It was had not since adjourned; nor could it be said at the Senate when it met at twelve o'clock, and what particular point of time the transformation took place, if at all. If the question of interest Ohio, it ought with greater reason be raised was to be raised in the case of the Senator from against the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Patterson), who was so closely allied with the President. Besides every Senator who might succeed to the office of presiding officer was also interested The Senator from Ohio could not be deprived of but one degree less than the Senator from Ohio. his vote except by a gross usurpation of power. Suppose ten or fifteen Senators were closely allied to the accused, the objection might be made, and the whole movement defeated by reducing the body below a quorum. Mr. HOWARD rose to call the attention of the chair to the real matter before the body, and to inquire whether the pending motion, that other Senators be sworn in, was in order. Chief Justice CHASE replied affirmatively. chair to the real question before the Senate, and Mr. HOWARD rose to call the attention of the asked whether the pending motion, that other Senators be sworn, was not in order? The Chief Justice said that the Senator from Indiana having objected to the Senator from Ohio taking the oath, there was now a motion |