Mr. Bingham's Repiication.

shall appear and file his answer to said articles of impeachment; and that, appearing in person, shall he

Mr. President-I am instructed by the managers, on the part of the House, to suggest that under the eighth rule adopted by the Senate for the government of these proceedings, after the appearance of the accused, a motion for a continuance is not allowed, the language of the rule being that if the accused appear and file an answer, the case shall proceed as on the general issue. If he do not appear, the case shall proceed as on the general issue. The managers appeared at the bar of the Senate, impressed with the belief that the rule meant precisely what it says, and that in default of appearance the trial would proceed as on a plea of not guilty; if, on appearance, no answer was filed, the trial shall still, according to the language of the rule, proceed as on a plea of not guilty.

Address of Judge Curtis.

Mr. CURTIS, of the counsel for the President, said:

Mr. Chief Justice:-If the construction which the managers have put upon the rule be correct, the counsel for the President have been entirely misled by the phraseology of the rule. They (the counsel for the President) have construed the rule in the light of similar rules existing in courts of justice-for instance, in a court of equity. The order in the subpœna is to appear on a certain day and answer the plea; but certainly it was never understood that they were to answer the plea on the day of their appearance. So it is in a variety of other legal proceedings. Parties are summoned to appear on a certain day, but the day when they are to answer is either fixed by some general rule of the tribunal, or there will be a special order in the particular case.

Now, here we find a rule by which the President is commanded to appear on this day, and answer and abide. Certainly that part of the rule which relates to abiding has reference to future proceedings and to the final result of the case. And so, as we have construed the rule, the part of it which relates to answering has reference to a future proceeding. We submit, therefore, as counsel for the President, that the interpretation which is put upon the rule by the honorable managers is not the correct one.

Reply of Judge Wilson for the Managers.

Mr. WILSON, one of the Managers, said:-Mr. President-I desire to say, in benalf of the Managers, that we do not see how it would be possible for the eighth rule adopted by the Senate to mislead the respondent or his counsel. That rule provides that upon the presentation of articles of impeachment and the organization of the Senate as herein before provided, a writ of summons shall issue to the accused, reciting said articles, and notifying him to appear be fore the Senate upon a day and at a place to be fixed by the Senate and named in such writ, and file his answer to said articles of impeachment, and to stand and abide such orders and judgments of the Senate thereon. The rule further provides that if the accused after service shall fail to appear, either in person or by attorney, on the day so fixed therefor, as aforesaid, or appearing shall fail to file an answer to such articles of impeachment, the trial shall proceed nevertheless as upon a plea of not guilty.

The learned connsel in the professional statement submitted to the Senate, refer to the cases of Judge Chase and Judge Peck, and I presume that in the examination of the records of those cases, the attention of the counsel was directed to the rules adopted by the Senate for the government of its action on the argument of those case.

By reference to the rules adopted by the Senate for the trial of Judge Peck, we find that a very material change has been made by the Senate in the adoption of the present rule. The rule in the case of Judge Peck, being the third rule, prescribed the form of summons, and required that on a day to be fixed the respondent should then and there appear and answer. The same rule was adopted in the Chase case, but the present rule is in those cases the words to which I have called the attention of the Senate:-"That he

proceed, nevertheless, as on a plea of not guilty." I submit, therefore, Mr. President, that the change which has been made in the rule for the goverment of this case must have been made for some good reason. What that reason may have been may be made a subject of discussion in this case hereafter, but the change meets us on the presentation of this motion, and we, therefore, on the part of the House of Repre sentatives, which we are here representing, ask that the rule adopted by the Senate for the government of this case may be enforced. It is for the Senate to say whether this rale shall be sustained as a rule to govern the case, or whether it shall be changed; but standing as a rule at this time, we ask for its enforcement.

Mr. Stanbery Criticises the Action of the Managers.

Mr. STANBERY said the action taken by the honorable managers is so singular that in the whole course of my practice I have not met with an example of it. The President of the United States, Mr. Chief Justice, is arraigned on impeachment by the House of Representatives, a case of the greatest magnitude that we have ever had, and it, as to time, is to be treated as if it were a case before a police court, to be put through with railroad speed, on the first day of the trial. Where do my learned friends find a precedent for calling on the trial on this day?

We

They say: "We have notified you to appear here to answer on a given day." We are here. We enter our appearance. As my learned friend, Mr. Curtis, has said, you have used precisely the language that is used in a subpoena in chancery. But who ever heard that, when a defendant in chancery made his appearance, he must appear with his answer ready to go on with the case, and must enter on the trial? Of course we come here to enter our appearance. state that we are ready to answer. We do not wish the case to go by default. We want time, reasonable time; nothing more. Consider that it is but a few days since the President was served with the summons; that as yet all his counsel are not present Your Honor will observe that of five counsel who signed this professional statement, two are not present, and could not be present, and one of them I am sure is not in the city. Not one of them, on looking at these articles, suspected that it was the intention to bring on the trial at this day. Yet, we understand the gentlemen on the other side to say, read these rules according to their letter, and you must go on.

If the gentlemen are right, if we are here to answer to-day, and to go on with the trial to-day, then this is the day for trial. But article nine says:-"At 12:30 P. M. of the day appointed for the return of the summons against the person impeached"--showing that this is the return day and not the trial day. The managers say that, according to the letter of the eighth rule, this is the trial day, and that we must go on and file our answer, or that without answer the court shall enter the plea of "not guilty" on the general issue, and proceed at once. But we say that this is the return day and not the day of trial.

The tenth rule says:-"The person impeached shall be then called to appear and answer." The defendant appears to answer, states his willingness to answer, and only asks time.

The eleventh rule says:- "At 12-30 P. M. of the day appointed for the trial." That is not this day. This day, which the managers wouid make the first day of the trial, is in the Senate's own rules put down for the return day, and there must be some day fixed for the trial to suit the convenience of the parties, so that the letter of one rule answers the letter of another rule.

But pray, Mr. Chief Justice, is it possible that, under these circumstances, we are to be caught in this trap of the letter? As yet there has not been time to prepare an answer to a single one of these articles. As yet the President has been engaged in procuring his counsel, and all the time occupied with so much consultation as was necessary to fix the shortest time when, in our judgment, we will be ready to proceed with the trial. Look back through the whole line of impeachment cases, even in the worst times. Go back to the Star Chamber, and everywhere, and you will find that even there English fair play prevailed.

This is the first instance to be found on record any

where where, on appearance day, the defendant was required to answer immediately, and proceed with the trial. We have not a witness summoned; we hardly know what witnesses to summon. We are entirely at sea. Mr. Chief Justice, I submit to this court whether we are to be caught in this way. "Strike, but hear." Give us the opportunity that men have in common civil cases, where they are allowed hardly less than thirty days to answer, and most frequently sixty days. Give us time; give us reasonable time, and then we shall be prepared for the trial and for the sentence of the court, whatever it may be.

Remarks of the Chief Justice.

The Chief Justice, rising, said:

The Chief Justice would state, at the start, that he is embarrassed in the construction of the rules. The twenty-second rule provides that the case on each side may be opened by one person. He understood that as referring to the case when the evidence and the case are ready for argument. The twentieth rule provides that all preliminary or interlocutory questions and all motions shall be argued for not exceeding one hour on each side, unless the Senate shall, by order, extend the time; whether that is intended to apply to the whole argument on each side, or to the arguments of each counsel who may address the court, is a question which the Chief Justice is at a loss to solve. In the present case he has allowed the argument to proceed without attempting to restrict it, and unless the Senate order otherwise he will proceed in that course.

Mr. BINGHAM said:-It was not my purpose when I raised the question under the rule prescribed by the Senate, to touch in any way on the merits of any application which might be made for the extension of the time for the preparation of the trial. The only object I had in view, Mr. President, was to see whether the Senate were disposed to abide by its own rules, and by raising the question to remind the Senators of what they know that in this proceeding they are a rule and a law unto themselves. Neither the common law nor the civil law furnishes any rule whatever for the conduct of this trial, save it may be the rules which govern the matter of evidence. There is nothing more clearly settled in this country, and in that country whence we derive our laws generally, than the proposition which we have just stated, and hence it follows that the Senate shall prescribe rules for the conduct of the trial; and having prescribed rules, my associate managers and myself deem it important to inquire whether those rules, on the very threshold of these proceedings, were to be disreregarded and set aside. I may be pardoned for saying that I am greatly surprised at the hasty words which dropped from the lips of my learned and accomplished friend, Mr. Stanbery, who has just taken his seat that he failed to discriminate between the objection made here and the objection which might hereafter be made, for the motion for the continuance of the trial.

But, Mr. President, there is nothing clearer-nothing better known to my learned and accomplished friend, than that the making up of the issue before any tribunal of justice and the trial are very distinct transactions. This is perfectly well understood. A very remarkable case in the State trials lies before me, where Lord Holt presided over the trial of Sir Richard Brown, Preston and others, for high treason; and when counsel appeared, as the gentlemen appear this morning in this court, to ask for a continuance, the answer which fell from the lips of the Lord Chief Justice perpetually was:-We are not to consider the question of the trial, until a plea be pleaded. Because, as his lordship very well remarked, it may happen that no trial will be required. Perchance you may plead guilty to the indictment, and so the rule lying before us contemplated. The last clause of it provides that if the defendant appears and shall plead guilty, there may be no further proceedings in the case; no trial about it. Nothing would remain to be done but to pronounce judgment under the Constitution.

It is time enough for us to talk about trial wheu we have an issue. The rule is a plain one-a simple one, and I may be pardoned for saying that I fail to perceive anytning in rules teu and eleven, to which the learned counsel have referred, which in any kind of construction can be applied to limit the effect of the words in rule eight, to wit:-"That if the party fail to

appear, either in person or by counsel, on the day named in the summons, the trial shall proceed on the plea of not guilty;" and further:-"That if failing on the day named in the summons, either in person or by attorney, he failed to answer the articles, the trial shall, nevertheless, proceed as on a plea of not guilty." When words are plain in written law there is an end of construction. They must be followed. The managers so thought when they appeared at this bar. All that they ask is that the rule be enforced-not a postponement for forty days, to be met at the end of that time, perhaps, with a dilatory plea and a motion, if you please, to quash the articles, or with & question raising the inquiry whether this is the Senate of the United States.

It seems to me, if I may be pardoned in making one other remark, that in prescribing both these rules, that the summons shall issue to be returned on a certain day-given, as in this case, six days in advanceit was intended thereby to enable the party, on the day fixed for his appearance, to come to this bar and make his answer to those articles. I may be pardoned for saying, further, what is doubtless known to every one within the hearing of my voice, that technical rules do in no way control, or limit or temper the action of this body; that under the plea of not guilty every conceivable defense which this party can make to these articles-if they be articles at all-if they be prepared by a competent tribunal at all-can be attempted.

Why, then, this delay of forty days to draw up an answer? What we desire to know on behalf of the House of Representatives-by whose authority we appear here is whether an answer is to be filed, in accordance with the rule, and if it be not filed, whether the rule itself is to be enforced by the Senate, and a plea of not guilty entered upon the accused? That is our inquiry. It is not my purpose to enter on the discussion at all as to the postponing of the day for the progress of the trial. My desire is for the present to see whether, under this rule and by force of this rule, we can obtain an issue.

The Chief Justice-Senators, the counsel for the President submit a motion that forty days be allowed for the preparation of his answer. The rule requires that as every question shall be taken without debate, you who are in favor of agreeing to that motion say yea.

Senator EDMUNDS (Vt.) rising, said:-Mr. President, on that subject, I submit the following order:

"Ordered, That the respondent file his answer to the articles of impeachment on or before the first day of April next, and that the managers of the impeachment file their replication thereto within three days thereafter, and that the matter stand for trial on Monday, April 6, 1868.”

Senator MORTON (Ind.)-I move that the Senate retire for the purpose of consultation.

Mr. BINGHAM-I am instructed by the managers to request that the Senate shall pass on the motion under the eighth rule, and reject the application to defer the day of answer.

The Chief Justice-The Chief Justice will regard the motion of the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Edmunds) as an amendment to the motion submitted by the counsel for the President.

Senator CONKLING (N. Y.)-What is to become of the motion of the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Morton). Senator SUMNER-What was the motion of the Senator from Indians?

Senator CONKLING-That the Senate retire for the purpose of consultation.

Senator SUMNER-That is the true motion,

The Chief Justice put the question and declared it carried, and the Senate then retired from the Chamber at 2 o'clock P. M.

The galleries thinned considerably while the court held a long consultation, and the floor presented very much the appearance of a county court room, when the jury had retired, and the court was in recess, not half the House and other occupants of the floor remaining, and they scattered in knots among the Senators' seats and elsewhere. The managers, meanwhile, occasionally consulted or pored over books bound in law calf. Mr. Stevens discussed with ap

our laws as it will under the laws of nature. I say the very pulse of the nation beats here, and beating fftfully requires us to still it by bringing this respondent to justice, from which God give him deliverance. if he so deserves, at the earliest possible hour consistent with his right.

Mr. Butler then urged that while all the time shown to be necessary when the case comes to trial should be granted, no time should be fixed in advance. They should not presume in advance that the respondent could not get ready. Let him put in his answer, and then, if he showed the absence of necessary witnesses, the managers would either acquiesce in a proper delay or admit all that he sought to prove by the testimony. He would not deny the respondent a single indulgence consistent with public safety. They asked no more privileges than they were willing to grant to him.

The great act for which he was to be brought to the bar was committed on the 21st of February. He knew its consequences just as well as they did. The House of Representatives had dealt with it on the 22d. On the 4th of March they had brought it before the Senate, with what they called its legal consequences; and now they were here ready for trial-instant trial. Some Judges had sat twenty-two hours in the day on the trial of great crimes; and they, God giving them strength, would sit here every day and every hour, to bring this trial to a conclusion.

He knew exactly what he had done; they had granted him more time, and now they ask that he should be prepared then to meet them. He hoped hereafter no man anywhere would say that the charges upon which Andrew Johnson was arraigned were frivolous, unsubstantial, or of no effect, when counsel of the highest respectability, who would not, for their lives, say what they did not believe, told the Senate that with all their legal ability they could not put in an answer to the charges, so grave were they, in less than forty days, yea fifty days.

Mr. Butler concluded after recapitulating the considerations which he thought ought to influence them in deciding this question by reminding them that a speedy termination of the trial either way would bring quiet to the country, and praying them not to decide this question, upon which the life of the nation depends-the greatest question that ever came before any body-on any the ordinary analogies of law.

Mr. NELSON, of counsel for the President, said:I have endeavored, in coming here, to divest my mind of the idea that we are engaged in a political discussion, and have tried to be impressed only with the thought that we appear before a tribunal sworn to try the great question which has been submitted for its consideration, and to dispense justice and equity between two of the greatest powers, if I may 80 express myself, of the land. I have come here under the impression that there is much force in the observation which the honorable manager (Butler) made, that this tribunal is not to be governed by the rigid rules of law. but is disposed to allow the largest liberty, both to the honorable managers on the part of the House of Representatives and the counsel on behalf of the Pré

sident.

I have supposed, therefore, that there was nothing improper in our making an appeal to this tribunal for time to answer the charges preferred, and that, instead of that appeal being denied, much more liberality would be extended by the Senate of the nation, sitting as a court of impeachment, thin we could ever expect on a trial in a court of common law.

It is not my purpose, Mr. Chief Justice, to enter at this stage into a discussion of the charges, although it would seem to be invited by one or two of the observations made by the honorable manager (Butler). He has told you that it is right in a case of this kind to proceed with railroad speed, and that in consequence of the great improvements of the age, the investigation of this case can be proceeded with much more speedily than it could have been a few years ago. The charges made here are charges of the greatest importance. The questions which will have to be considered by this honorable body are questions in which not only the representatives of the people are concerned, but in which the people themselves have the deepest and most lasting interest.

Questions are raised here in reference to differences of opinion between the Executive of the nation and the honorable Congress, as to their constitutional powers, and as to the rights which they respectively

claim. These are questions of the ntmost gravity, and are questions which, in the view that we entertain of them, should receive a most deliberate consideration on the part of the Senate. I trust that I may be pardoned by the Chief Justice and Senators for making an allusion to a statute which has long been in force in the State from which I come. I only do it for the purpose of making a brief argument by analogy.

We have a statute in Tennessee which has been long in force, and which provides that where a bill of indictment is found against an individual, and he knows that, owing to excitement or other cause, he may not have a fair trial at the first term of the court, his case shall be continued to the next term of the conrt, The mode of proceeding at law is not a mode of railroad speed. If there is anything under heaven, Mr. Chief Justice, which gives to judicial proceedings a claim to the consideration and approbation of mankind, it is the fact that justice and courts hasten slowly in the investigation of cases presented to them.

Nothing is done or presumed to be done in a state of excitement. Every moment is allowed for calm and mutual deliberation. Courts are in the habit of in-. vestigating cases slowly, carefully, cautiously, and when they form their judgment and pronounce their opinions, and when these opinions are published to the world they meet the sanction of judicial and legal minds everywhere, and meet the approbation and confidence of the people before whom they are promalgated. If this is so, and this is one of the proudest characteristics in the form of judicial proceedings in courts, so much more ought it be so in an exalted and honorable body like this, composed of the greatest men of the United States-of Senators revered and honored by their countrymen, and who from their position are preserved free from reproach and to be calm in their deliberations,

I need not tell you, sir, nor need I tell these honora ble Senators whom I address on this occasion-many of whom are lawyers, and many of whom have been clothed, in times past, with the judicial ermine-that in the courts of law the vilest criminal who ever was arraigned in the United States has been given time to prepare for trial; and right not only to be heard by counsel, no matter how great his crime may be, the malignity of the offense with which he has been charged, still he is tried according to the forms of law, and is allowed to have counsel. Continuances / are granted to him, and if he is unable to obtain justice, time is given him and all manner of preparation is allowed him. If this is so in courts of common law where they are fettered and bound by the iron rule to which I have alluded, how much more so ought it to be in a great tribunal like this, which does not follow the forms of law, and which is seeking alone to obtain justice. It is necessary for me to remind you and the honorable Senators, that upon a page of foolscap there may be a bill of indictment prepared against an individual which might require weeks in the investigation.

It is unnecessary to remind this honorable body that it is an easy thing to make charges, but that it is often a laborious and difficult thing to make a defense against those accusations.

Reasoning from the analogy found by such proceedings at law, I earnestly maintain before this honorable body that suitable time should be given us to answer the charges preferred here.

A large number of the charges involve an inquiry running back to the very foundation of the government; they invoive an examination of the precedents that have been sanctioned by different administra tions; they involve, in short, the most extensive range of inquiry; and the last two charges presented by the House of Representatives, if I may be pardoned for using an expression of the view I. entertain of them, open up Pandora's box, and will cause the investiga tion as to the great differences of opinion which existed between the President and Congress-an inquiry which, so far as I can perceive, will be at most inter minable in its character.

Now, what do we ask here for the President of the United States, the highest officer in this land? We ask simply that he may be allowed time for his defense. On whose judgment is he to rely in relation to that? He must, in a great part, rely on the judgment of his counsel, to whom he has entrusted his defense. We, who are professionally responsible, have asserted, in the presence of this Senate, in the face of the na

tion and of the whole world, that we believe we will require the number of days to prepare the President's answer, which was stated in the proposition submitted to the Senate. Such is still our opinion. Are these grave charges to be rushed through the Senate, sitting as a judicial tribunal, in hot haste, and with railroad speed, and without giving the President an opportunity to answer them-that same "opportunity which you would give to the meanest criminal?

I do not believe, Mr. Chief Justice and honorable Senators, that you will hesitate one moment in giving us all the time that we deem necessary for preparing our defense, and what may be necessary to enable this body judiciously, carefully, deliberately and cautionsly, and with a view of its accountability not only to its constituents, but to posterity, to decide this

case.

I have no doubt that the honorable Senators, in justice to themselves and in justice to the great land which they represent, will endeavor to conduct this investigation in a manner that will stamp the impress of honor and justice upon them and upon their proceedings, not only now, but in all time to come, after all of us shall have passed away from the stage of human action.

Mr. Chief Justice, this is an exalted tribunal. I say it in no spirit of compliment, but because I feel it. I feel that there is no more exalted tribunal that could be convened under the sun, and I may say, in answer to an observation of one of the honorable managers, that I, for one, as an American citizen, feel proud that we have assembled here to-day, and assembled under the circumstances which have brought us together.

It is one of the first instances in the history of the world in which the ruler of a people has been presented by a portion of the representatives of the people for trial before a Senate sitting as a judicial tribunal. While that is so, it is equally true on the other hand that the President, through his counsel, comes here and submits himself to the jurisdiction of this court-submits himself calmly, peaceable and with a confident reliance on the justice of the honorable Senate which is to hear his case.

of the whole country; trusts which involve in some sense the success of this last great experiment of republican government on earth. We may be pardoned, further, for saying that it strikes us with somewhat of surprise, without intending the slightest possible disrespect to any member of this honorable body, that any proposition should be entertained for a continuance in a trial like this when no formal application has been made by the accused himself.

To be sure, a motion was interposed here to-day, in the face of the rules and of the law of this body, for leave to file an answer at the end of forty days. The Senate has disposed of that motion, and in a manner, we venture to say, satisfactory to the whole country, as it is certainly satisfactory to the Representatives of the people at this bar.

And now, sir, that being disposed of, and the Senate having determined the day on which answer shall be fled, we submit, with all due respect to the Senate that it is bu jtust to the people of the country that we shall await the incoming of that answer and the replicasion thereto by the Representatives of the people, and then see and know what colorable excuse will be offered either by the President accused in his own person, or through his representatives, why this trial would be delayed a single hour.

If he be innocent of those grave accusations, the truth will soon be ascertained by this enlightened body, and he has the right, in the event of the facts so appearing, to a speedy deliverance, while the country has a right to a speedy determination of this most important question. If, on the other hand, he be guilty of those grave and serious charges, what man is there, within this body or outside of it, ready to say that he should, for a day or an hour longer, disgrace the high position which has been held hitherto only by the noblest and most enlightened and most trustworthy of the land?

Senator CONKLING submitted, as an amendment, the following:

Ordered, That unless otherwise ordered by the Senate for cause shown, the trial of the pending impeachment shall be proceeded with immediately after the replication shall be filed.

The Chief Justice decided the amendment out of order as an amendment to an amendment offered by Senator Wilson.

Senator WILSON withdrew his amendment so that Senator Conkling's amendment to the motion of Senator Sherman might be in order.

Mr. BINGHAM said, I am instructed by the managers to say, that the proposition just suggested by the honorable Senator from New York, is entirely satisfactory to the managers on the part of the House. and to say further, that we believe it is in perfect accord with the precedents in this country. The Senate will, doubtless, remember, that in the trial of the Chase case, when a day was fixed for the trial, the Senate adopted an order which was substantially the same as now suggested. It was as follows:

"Ordered, That the 4th day of February next shall be the day for receiving the answer and proceeding on the trial of impeachment against Samuel Chase."

If nothing farther had been said touching the original proposition, we would have been content and satisfied to leave the question, without further remark, to the decision of the Senate; but in view of what has been said, we beg leave to respond that we are chargeable with no indecent haste when we ask that no unnecessary delay shall interpose between the people and the trial of a man who has been charged with having violated the greatest trust ever committed to a single person; trusts which involve the highest interests of the whole people; trusts which involve the peace

?

Mr. BINGHAM replied that replication could only be filed with the consent, and after consultation with the House; but he had no doubt that it would be done within one or two days after answer was filed.

Senator CONKLING called for the enforcement of the eighteenth and twenty-third rules, requiring motions to be voted on without debate.

.

The Chief Justice ruled that debate was not in order. Senator JOHNSON said he had simply been making an inquiry,

The question being on Senator Conkling's amendment to Senator Sherman's motion, the yeas and nays were taken, and resulted:-Yeas, 40; nays, 10, as follows:

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

NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Hendricks, McCreery, Patterson (Tenn.), Saulsbury and Vickers.

Senator SHERMAN'S motion, as amended, was then agreed to; so it was ordered that unless otherwise ordered by the Senate, for cause shown, the trial of the pending impeachment shall proceed immediately after replication shall be filed.

On motion of Senator HOWARD, it was ordered that the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, adjourn until the 23d of the present month, at one o'clock in the afternoon.