the Constitution of the United States and violated the Tenure of Office act.

Have they given us notice to come here and defend any snch delinquency as that? Has the House of Representatives impeached the President for anything done in the removal of Mr. Chandier, if he were removed, or in the appointment of Mr. Cooper in his place, if he were appointed. The managers select one instance of what they claim to be a violation of the Constitution and of the Tenure of Office act, and in reference to a temporary appointment of an officer during the recess of the Senate. That was the case of General Thomas, and of General Thomas alone.

As to that, of course, we have no objection to its being given in evidence, because we have notice of it, and are here ready to meet it; but as to any high crime or misdemeanor in reference to the appointment of Mr. Cooper, certainly the managers have no authority to make such a charge, because they come here with a delegated authority; they come here only to make charges that have been found good by the House, and not to make charges which they choose to manufacture here.

The managers have no right to amend these articles; they must go to the House for that right. If they choose to go to the House to get a new article founded upon the illegal act of the President in appointing Mr. Cooper, let them do so, and let us have time to answer it and to meet it.

So much as to the admissibility of testimony in regard to the illegal appointment of Mr. Cooper, it is a matter not charged; that is enough; it is a matter which the managers are not authorized to charge. They have no such delegated authority here. What is the ground on which they seek to prove anything in relation to Mr. Cooper? They say they expect to prove that Mr. Cooper was put into that office of Assistant Secretary of the Treasury by the President in order to control the disbursements of money in that department.

Now, if it were necessary to have an article charging the President with the appofitment of General Thomas as a means used by him, to get control of the public moneys, of course, it would be equally necessary to have an article founded on the same line of conduct in regard to Mr. Cooper.

Mr. BINGHAM said:-Mr. President, we consider the law to be well settled and accepted everywhere in this country and in England, that every independent act on the part of the accused, looking to the subject matter of the inquiry, may be given in evidence, and we go no further than that we undertake to say on very high and commanding authority, that it is settled that such other and independent acts, showing the purposes of the accused to bring about the same general results, although they may be the subject matter of a separate indictment, may, nevertheless, be given in evidence. If a person is charged with having counterfeit notes in his possession of a certain den mination, it is competent to show that he was in posEession of other counterfeit notes of a different denomination, and the rule of the books is, that whatever is competent to prove the general charge is competent to prove the intent. What is the allegation in the eleventh article? That the President, for the purpose of setting aside and defeating this law

Mr. STANBERY-What law?

Mr. BINGHAM-The Tenure of Office act. I undertake to say that, by the existing law, the appropriation made for the support of the army can only be reached in the Treasury through a requisition drawn by the Secretary of War. Here is an independent act done by the accused for the purpose of aiding this result. How? By appointing an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, who, under the law and regulations, is authorized to sign warrants that may be drawn on the Treasury; in other words, by appointing a person to discharge the very duty which would en ble him to carry out the design with which we charge him.

the appointment of such an officer throws no light on that subject, of course it has nothing to do with the matter. If it does, of course it has a great deal to do with the matter. If the question stops with the simple inquiry, who Edmund Cooper is, of course it throws no light on the subject, but if the testimony disclosed such relations to the President, and an appointment under such circumstances as to indicate the intention of Cooper to co-operate with the President in this general design, I apprehend it throws a great deal of light on the subject.

In case of the removal of the Secretary of the Treasury, then this Assistant Secretary of the Treasury would have control of the whole question. I am free to say, that it nothing further be shown than the appointment of Mr. Cooper, it will not throw any light upon the subject; but I do not so understand the matter.

Mr. BUTLER-In order that there may be a distinct proposition before the Senate, we offer to prove that there being no vacancy in the office of Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, the President unlawfully appointed his friend and his heretofore private secretary, Edmund Cooper, to that position, as one of the means by which he intended to defeat the Tenure of Office act and other laws of Congress.

Mr. EVARTS suggested that a date should be inserted. Mr. BUTLER said he would insert a date satisfactory to himself. He then modified his proposition so as to read, "We offer to prove that, after the President determined on

the removal of Mr. Stanton, Secretary of War, in spite of the action of the Senate, there being no vacancy in the office of Assistant Secretary" of the Treasury, &c.

Mr. EVARTS suggested that that did not indicate the date sufficiently.

Mr. BUTLER-I think if the learned gentleman will allow me I will make my offer as I like it myself. (Laughter).

Mr. EVARTS-Of course; I only ask you to name a date. Mr. BUTLER repeated the offer.

The Chief Justice astice asked the counsel for the President if they desired to be heard in support of the objection?

Mr. EVARTS replied-No; we simply object to it. It ought not to need any argument.

The Chief Justice said he would submit the question to the Senate whether the testimony would be admitted.

Senator SHERMAN requested the managers to read the particular part of the eighth and eleventh articles to prove which the testimony is offered.

Mr. BUTLER replied by reading that part of the eighth article which charges the President with intending unlawfully to control the disbursements of the moneys appropriated for military service and for the Department of War, and also by reading that part of the eleventh article which charges the President with unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive, means then and there to prevent the execution of an act entitled an act making appropriations for the support of the army. He also read that part of the eleventh article, which charges the President with unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive means by which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the functions of the office of Secretary for the Department of War, notwithstanding the refusal of the Senate to concur in the suspension theretofore made. He said that in that connection the managers claimed that the appointment of Mr. Cooper was part of the machinery to carry out the designs of the President. The question was, he said, whether Mr. McCulloch would answer to requisitions of General Thomas, or of any one else whom the President might put in the office of Secretary of War, if Mr. Stanton should hold out. It was clear that the President knew he would not do so, and, therefore, the President's design was to get somebody in the Treasury who would sign warrants on the requisition of General Thomas. In this way the President would have got the whole army and Treasury of the United States in his control, and it was with that intent that he made the appointment of Mr. Cooper.

Senator JOHNSON put the following question to the managers, in writing: The managers are requested to say whether they propose to show that Mr. Cooper was appointed by the President in November, 1867, as a means to obtain the unlawful possession of the public money other than by the appointment itself.

Mr. BUTLER-We certainly do; we propose to show that he appointed him, and that thereupon Cooper went in to exercise the duties of the office before his appointment could, by any possibility, be legal; and we hope and believe that we will show that he has been controlling other public moneys since.

Senator HENDERSON requested that the testimony of the witness in reference to the mode and manner of obtaining money on the requisitions of the Secretary of War should be read.

The Chief Justice remarked that the witness might be asked to repeat his statement,

Senator HENDERSON said that his object was, to know whether money could be obtained on the signature of an Assistant Secretary instead of the Secretary.

Mr. BUTLER proceeded to examine the witness on that point.-Q. State whether the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury can sign warrants for payment of moneys? Mr. EVARTS-That is not the question.

Mr. BUTLER-Q. State whether on requisition of any department of the government the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury can sign warrants on the Treasury, for the payment of money? A. Until the passage of the late statute, whenever the Secretary of the Treasury was present and acting, money could not be drawn from the Treasury on the signature of the As8stant Secretary; an act has been passed within a year allowing the Assistant Secretary to sign warrants for the payment of money into the Treasury; covering in warrants, and warrants for the payment of money on accounts stated; but the practice still continues of honoring all customary warrants by the signature of the Secretary of the Treasury. The warrants are prepared and the initials of the Assistant Secretary put on them, and then are signed by the Secretary of the Treasury, when they are presented.

- Senator FESSENDEN asked that the law to which witness referred might be read.

While the messenger was gone for the statutes, the Chief Justice said he would ask the witness whether, before the passage of the act to which he referred, any warrant could be drawn by the Assistant Secretary unless he was Acting Secretary in the absence of the Secretary?

Witness-There could not. No money can be drawn from the Treasury on the signature of the Assistant Secretary unless when he is acting as Secretary.

Mr. BUTLER-When the Assistant Secretary acts for the Secretary does he sign all warrants for the payment of moneys? A. When he is acting Secretary of course he signs all warrants for the payment of moneys.

Senator CAMERON said that he desired to ask the witness a question.

The Chief Justice reminded him that the rules required questions by Senators to be reduced to writing.

While Senator Cameron was writing out his question, Mr. BUTLER read the act referred to by Mr. Chandler. The act declared that the Secretary of the Treasury shall have power by appointment to delegate one Assistant Secretary to sign in his stead all warrants for the payment of money into the public Treasury, and all warrants for the disbursement of public moneys certified to be due on accounts duly audited and settled, and all warrants signed are to have the same validity as if signed by the Secretary himself.

Mr. EVARTS-What is the date of this law?

Mr. BUTLER-March 2, 1867. To witness-In case of the removal or absence of the Secretary of the Treasury the Assistant Secretary performs all the acts of the Secretary? A. That is the law.

Mr. BUTLER-I was only asking about the practice. Is that the practice? A. I am not certain that it is, without an appointment as Acting Secretary, signed by the Presi

dent.

Senator CAMERON sent up his question in writing, as follows:

Q. Can the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, under the law, draw warrants for the payment of money by the Treasurer, without the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury? A. Since the passage of the act I understand that the Assistant Secretary can sign warrants for the payment of money in the cases specified, which is presumed, however, to be with the consent and approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.

Senator CAMERON desired to ask the witness another question, without reducing it to writing.

The Chief Jussice said he could do so if there was no obtion.

Senator WILLIAMS objected.

Senator CAMERON said he had merely desired to ask what had been the practice.

The Chief Justice said that the Senator was not in order.

Mr. BUTLER asked the question suggested, whether it has been the practice of the Assistant Secretary to sign warrants.

Answer by witness-Since the passage of the act in question it has been.

Senator FESSENDEN submitted the following question in writing:

Q. Has it been the practice, since the passage of the law, for the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury to sign warrants unless he was specially appointed and authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury? Has any Assistant Secretary been authorized to sign any warrants unless such as are specified in the act? A. It has not been the practice of an Assistant Secretary since the passage of the act, to sign warrants unless on appointment by the Secretary for that purpose, in accordance with the provision of the act. A. Immediately on the passage of the act, the Secretary authorized one of his Assistant Secretaries to sign warrants of the character described in the act, and they have been customarily signed by that Assistant Secretary in all

cases.

Q. Since that time has any Assistant Secretary been authorized to sign any warrants except such as are specified in the act? A. No Assistant Secretary has been authorized to sign warrants, except such as are specified in that act, unless when he is acting Secretary.

The Chief Justice put the question, whether the proof proposed by Mr. Butler should be admitted? The vote resulted. Yeas, 22; nays. 27, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Howard, Howe. Morrill (Vt.), Nye, Ramsey, Ross, Sprague, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Wilson.

NAYS.-Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Conness, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill (Me.), Norton, Patterson (N. H.), Patterson (Tenn.). Sherman, Stewart, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey, Williams.

So the testimony was not permitted to be offered.

Examination of Charles A. Tinker. Charles A. Tinker, sworn and examined by Mr. Boutwell.

Q. What is your business? A. Telegrapher.

Q. Are you in charge of any office? A. I am in charge of the Western Union Telegraph office, in this city.

Q. Were you at any time in charge of the military telegraph office, in the War Department? A. I was.

Q. From what time to what time? A. I can hardly tell from what time I was in charge of it up to August, 1867; I think I was in charge of it something like a year; I was connected with the office for something like five years.

Q. While in charge of this office, state whether a despatch from Lewis E. Parsons, of Montgomery, came to Andrew Johnson, President, and if so, at what date? A. I think while! I was in that office I saw a good many such despatches.

Q. What paper have you now in your hand? A. I have what purports to be the copy of a telegram from Lewis E. Parsons, of Montgomery, Ala., addressed to His Excellency Andrew Johnson, President.

Q. Do you know whether that telegram came through the office. A. I recognize this as being the character of a despatch which was received at the Military Telegraph Office.

Q. Were duplicates of telegrams received kept at the military telegraph office? A. What is called a press copy is taken of every despatch before it is delivered.

Q. Is a copy taken of a despatch before it is sent? A. Not before being sent; the originals are kept on file at the office.

Q. State whether, at my request, you examined these press copies? A. I did.

Q. Did you find such a despatch as I have described among these press copies? A. I did.

Q. Did you make a copy of it? A. I made a copy of it. Q. Have you got one on hand? A. No, I have not; I made a copy of the despatch, and answered the summons of the managers; I placed a copy in your hands, and heard you order your clerk to make a copy; afterwards the clerk. returned with this copy, and gave me back the copy I had made; this is the copy which the clerk made.

Q. Have you the original despatch? A. I have.

Q. Produce the original despatch and the copy of both. Mr. EVARTS-What is meant by the original despatch? Witness I mean that I have the press copy.

Mr. STANBERY (to the witness)-Did you make this copy yourself? A. The press copy is made by a clerk. Mr. EVARTS objected to putting in evidence the copy from the press book.

Mr. BUTLER said he would pass from that for a moment, and would ask the witness this question:-Do you recollect whether such a telegram as this passed through the office? A. I do not remember this despatch having passed through the office.

Q. State whether on the same day, you have an original despatch signed "Andrew Johnson?" A. I have the despatch in full.

Q. Are you familiar enough with the signature of Andrew Johnson, to tell whether that is his signature or not? A. I believe it to be his signature; I am familiar with his handwriting.

Q. Have you any doubt of this in your own mind? A. None whatever.

Q. Is that book which you hold in your hand the record book of the United States Military Telegraph, in the executive office, where the original despatches are put on record? A. It is the book in which original despatches are filed.

Q. Do you know whether the despatch to Lewis C. Parsons passed through the office? I do know it from the marks it bears. It is marked as having been sent.

Mr. STANBERY-Let us see the despatch.

Mr. BUTLER was handing the book to Mr. Stanbery, when he suddenly remarked, "I will give you a copy of it." (Laughter.) He subsequently, however, handed the book to Mr. Stanberry, who inquired what was the object of the proof.

Mr. BUTLER-Do you object to the document, whatever is the object of the proof?

Mr. STANBERY-We want to know what it is. Mr. BUTLER-The question which I ask is, whether you object to the vehicle of proof. Mr. STANBERY-Oh, no.

Mr. BUTLER to witness-What is the date of that despatch? A. January 17, 1867.

Mr. STANBERY to Mr. BUTLER--Now what is the object of it.

Mr. BUTLER-Not yet sir. To the witness-On the same day that this is dated, do you find in the records of the department a press copy of a despatch from Lewis C. Parsons of which this is an answer? A. I find the press copy of a despatch to which that was an answer.

C. Was this telegraph office under the control of the War Department. A. It was.

Q. And the officers were employees of the War Department? A. They were.

Q. Were the records kept at that time in the War Department? A. They were.

Q. And are those books and papers produced from the War Department? A. No, sir, they are not.

Q. Where do they come from now? A. They come from the War Department to the telegraph office.

Mr. BUTLER said he now proposed to give in evidence the despatch of Lewis C. Parsons, to which Andrew Johnson made answer, and asked was there any objection as to the vehicle.

Mr. EVARTS said on that point, although we regard the proof of Mr. Parsons' despatch as insufficient, yet we will waive any objection of that kind, and the question we now stand upon is, as to the competency of the proof. We have had no notice to produce the original despatch of Mr. Parsons, but we care nothing about that. We waive that, and now we inquire in what views and under what article, these despatches, dated prior to the Tenure of Office act, are introduced.

Mr.. BUTLER-In order that we may understand whether those papers are admissible in evidence, it becomes necessary, with permission of the President and of the Senate, to read them de bene esse.

Mr. CURTIS-We do not object to your reading them de bene esse.

Mr. BUTLER thereupon read the despatch, as follows:MONTGOMERY, Ala., Jan. 17, 1867.-His Excellency, Andrew Johnson, President:-Legislature in session; efforts made to consider vote on Constitutional Amendment; report from Washington says it is probable an enabling act will pass; we do not know what to believe.

LEWIS C. PARSONS, Exchange Hotel. UNITED STATES MILITARY TELEGRAPH, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., Jan. 17, 1867.-Hon. Lewis C. Parsons, Montgomery, Ala.:-What possible good can be obtained by reconsidering the Constitutional Amendment? I know of none. In the present posture of affairs. I do not believe the people of the whole country will sus tain any set of individuals in the attempt to change the whole character of our government by enabling acts.

In this way I believe, on the contrary, that they will eventually uphold all who have the patriotism and courage to stand by the Constitution, and who place their confidence in the people. There should be no faltering on the part of those who are earnest in determination to sustain the several co-ordinate departments of the government in accordance with its original design. ANDREW JOHNSON.

Mr. BUTLER said he did not desire to argue the question as to the admissibility of the evidence. He claimed that it was competent, either under the tenth or eleventh articles.

Mr. CURTIS-The tenth article sets out speeches and not telegrams.

Mr. BUTLER-I am reminded by the learned counsel that these are speeches, not telegrams, that the tenth article refers to; I know they are, but with what intent were these speeches made; for what purpose were they made? They were made for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy against the Congress and its lawful acts, and to bring Congress into ridicule and contempt; but now I am on a point where an attempt is made to array the people against the lawful acts of Congress; to destroy the regard and respect of all good people for Congress, and to excite the odium and resentment of all the good people of the United States against Congress and a law which it had enacted. The President went through the country in September, 1866, declaring that Congress had no power to do what it was proposing to do.

-Congress had proposed the Constitutional Amendment to the people of the States, and for the purpose of preventing that Constitutional Amendment being accepted every possible contumely was thrown at Congress and every possible step taken to prevent the adoption of the amendment. This telegram from the President is one of those steps. He found that while that amendment was being considered in the Southern States the President of the United States, stepped down from his high position and telegraphing to the Legislature of Alabama not to accept the proposed amendment. I do not care to argue the question further Mr. EVARTS-If the honorable managers are right, this evidence is proposed to be relevant and competent only in reference to the crimes charged in the tenth and eleventh articles. Is that your proposition?

The proposition is that it is relevant to them. I made no proposition as to the rest.

Mr. EVARTS-You did not name any of the others. Mr. BUTLER-I did not think it necessary. Mr. EVARTS-Then I shall not think it necessary to consider the others. The article here charges that the President of the United States devised and intended to retard the rightful authority and power of the Congress of the United States, and devised and intended and attempted to bring into disgrace, ridicule, and contempt and reproach the Congress of the United States, or to destroy the respect and regard of all good people of the United States for the legislative power of Congress, and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people against Congress and the laws constitutionally enacted by them.

Now the acts charged to be done by the President with this intent are, first, a speech delivered by him in the Executive mansion, in August, 1866; second, a speech delivered by him at St. Louis, and in a speech delivered in Cleves land in September, 1866; and the article concludes that by means of these utterances Andrew Johnson brought the high office of President of the United States into ridicule, contempt and disgrace, and thereby committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

Now, Senators will judge, from the reading of the telegram dated July, 1867, whether it in any way supports the principal charge of intent. Article 11 sets forth that, in those speeches, he affirmed in substance that the Thirty-ninth Congress was not the Congress of the United States, authorized by the Constitution to exercise legislative authority; but, on the contrary, that it was a Congress only of a portion of the United States, and thereby denying that the legislation of that Congress was valid or obligatory on him, except so far as he thought proper to admit or recognize the same, thereby intending to deny the authority of Congress to pass amendments to the Constitution of the United States: and in further pursuance of that intent he, in disregard of the requirements of the Constitution of the United States, did, on the 23d day of February, 1868, attempt to prevent the execution of an act entitled "An act to regulate the Tenure of Office," passed March, 1867, after the date of this despatch, by attempting to contrive means to prevent Edwin M. Stanton from executing the office of Secretary of War, and by further contriving to prevent the execution of an act making appropriations for the support of the army for the fiscal year 1868, passed March 2, 1867; and also for contriving to prevent the execution of an act for the more efficient government of the United States, also referred to in this despatch.

Mr. Evarts then read the despatch to Lewis E. Parsons. and continued:-There is nothing in this despatch pertinent to the charge; nothing that tends to raise a scandal on the Presidential office; nothing that has the slightest relation to defeat the law; nothing that can be claimed to be a proper subject of an allegation of high crimes and misdemeanors on the part of the President, and we say that the testimony, spread over the widest field of inquiry, fails to support any charge of crime, or any intent, or any purpose mentioned in the article.

Mr. BOUTWELL, for the managers, contended that the evidence of the telegraphic despatches was admissible in support of the charges contained in the eleventh article. If attention be given to the eleventh article, it will be seen that it charges that on August 18, 1866, the President, in the city of Washington, in a public speech, delivered by him, affirmed in substance that the Thirty-ninth Congress

The call was ordered and resulted as follows:YEAS.-Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Hender son, Howard, Morgan, Morrill (Vt.), Nye, Patterson (N.H.), Pomeroy Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Willey and Wilson-27,

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Dixen, Doolittle, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen. Me Creery, Morrill (Me.), Norton, Patterson (Tenn.), Trum. bull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Williams-17. of bolingo g So the evidence was admitted, no sudram

Mr. DOOLITTLE moved that the court now adjourn until to-morrow at noon. Teulalen off el ali bo Mr. SUMNER-I hope not.

The Chief Justice put the question, and declared it lost. Several Senators called for a division...con Senator RAMSEY The question was not understood,woo The Chief Justice put the question again, and said the yeas seemed to have it. to and th

The question was agreed to, and the Chief Justice va cated the Chair, and the Senate adjourned.

PROCEEDINGS OF FRIDAY, APRIL 3.

Preliminaries.

The Chaplain prayed that the issue of this trial would restore peace to the country and establish our government on its only true basis-liberty and equality.

As usual, no legislative business was transacted, but the chair was, immediately after the opening, assumed by the Chief Justice, and proclamation made in due form. The managers were announced and took their seats, and directly thereafter the House of Representatives, in Committee of the Whole, appeared, in number about, equal to the managers. The journal was then read.

In the meantime the galleries had become tolerably filled. To-day, for the first time, a fair sprinkling of sable faces appeared among the spectators.

The Seventh Rule.

When the reading of the journal was concluded Senator DRAKE rose and said:-Mr. President, I move that the Senate take up the proposition which I offered yesterday to amend the seventh rule.

The Chief Justice-It will be considered before the Senate, if not objected to.

It was real, as foliows:-Amend rule 7 by adding the following:-Upon all such questions the vote shall be without a division, unless the yeas and nays be demanded by one-fifth of the members present, or requested by the preeiding officer, when the same shall be taken.

Senator EDMUNDS-Mr. President, I move to strike out that part of it relating to the yeas and nays being taken by the request of the presiding officer.

Senator CONKLING-Mr. President, not having heard the motion of the Senator (Edmunds), I ask for the reading of the seventh rule.

It was read as proposed to be amended.

Senator DRAKE-I have no objection to the amendment of the Senator from Vermont.

The rule, as amended, was adopted.

On motion of Senator DRAKE, the rules were ordered to be printed as amended.

Mr. Tinker's Testimony,

1

Charles A. Tinker recalled;Mr. BUTLER--Before interrogating Mr. Tinker, I will read a single paper. The paper is the message of the President of the United States, communicating to the Senate the report of the Secretary of State, showing the proceedings under the concurrent resoiution of the two Houses of Congress of the 18th of June, in submitting to the Legislatures of the several States an additlonal article to the Constitution of the United States.

Senator THAYER-What article?

Mr. BUTLER--The fourteenth article. It is dated June 22, 1866. It is the same one to which the despatch related. An executive document of the first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress.

In order to show to what despatch he referred, the message was handed to the President's counsel for inspection, after which it was read by the Secretary. The examination of the witness was then proceeded with.

Q. You said you were manager of the Western Union Telegraph Office in this city? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you taken from the records of that office what purports to be a copy of a speech which was telegraphed through by the company, or any portion ofit, as made by Andrew Johnson on the 18th day of Angust, 1866. If so, produce it? A. I have, sir; I have taken from the files what purports to be a copy of the speech in question. (Producing the document.)

Q. From the course of the business of the office are you enabled to say whether this was sent A. It has the "sent" marks put on all the despatches sent from the office. By

Q. And this is the original manuscript? A. This is the original manuscript.

Q. When was this paper sent, to what parts of the country, and, first place, hy what association' was this speech telegraphed? A. By the Associated Press; by their agents in the city of Washington.

Mr. CURTIS, of counsel, was understood to object to the paper.

Q. By Mr. BUTLER-Can you tell me, sir, to what extent through the country the telegraph messages sent to the Associated Press go? A. I suppose they go to all parts of the country; I state positively to New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore; they are addressed to the agents of the Associated Press; from New York they are distributed through the country. Cross-examination waived.

Mr. BUTLER-You may step down for the present.

Examination of J. B. Sheridan.

James B. Sheridan, sworn and examined by Mr. BUTLER

Q. What is your business? A. I am a stenographer; employed at present in New York city: on the 18th of August, 1866, I was a stenographer; I reported a speech of the President made on the 18th of August, 1866, in the east room of the Presidential Mansion; I have the notes taken at the time of that speech; took the speech down correctly as it was given; I did it to the beat of my ability; I have been a reporter some fourteen years; I wrote out that speech at the time; I wrote out a part of it at the President's mansion; there several reporters present; there was Mr. James O. Clephane and Mr. Francis H. Smith, reporters.

were

Q. Do you mean Mr. Smith, the official reporter to the House? A. I believe he was at that time conDected with the House.

Q. Who else were there? A. I think Colonel Moore was in the room part of the time.

Q. What Colonel Moore? A. The President's favorite Secretary, William G. Moore.

Q. After it was written, what, if anything, was done with it? A. I do not know; I think Mr. Moore took it out; I was very sick at the time, and did not pay much attention; either he or Mr. Smith took it out; I did my share of it; we divided among us, Clephane, Smith and 1.

Q. Look at this file of mannscript (placing before the witness manuscript furnished from the telegraph office as sent to the Associated Press), and see whether you find any of your handwriting? A. I recognize some of the writing as mine.

Q. Have you since written out any portion of the speech as you reported it? A. I wrote out a couple of extracts from it.

Q. Is this your handwriting? (Handing a paper to witness.) A. It is; what I hold in niy hand is a correct transcript of that speech, made from my notes. It was written when I appeared before the board of managers.

Witness, by direction of Mr. Butler, placed his initials on the paper.)

Cross-examined by Mr. EVARTS-Q. You have produced a note-book of a lengthy stenographic report of a speech of the President. Is it of the whole speech? A. It is of the whole speech; the report was wholly made by me; the speech occupied in the delivery, I suppose, some twenty or twenty-five minutes.

Q. By what method of stenographic reporting did you proceed on that occasion? A. By Pitman's systein of phoпography.

Q. Which is, I understand, reporting by sound, and not by sense? A. We report the sense by the sound,

Q. I understand you; you report by sound only? A. Yes. Q. And not by memory or of attention to sense? A. No good reporter can report unless he pays attention to the sense and understands what he is reporting.

Q. State whether you were attending to sound, and setting down in your notation, or attending to sense, and setting it down from your memory and from your atten tion to sense? A Both.

Q. Your characters are arbitrary, are they not? That is, they are peculiar to your art? A. Yes, sir.

Q. They are not letters? A. No, sir; nor words; we have some word signs; this transcript, which I made of a portion of the report for the use of the committee, was made recently, a few weeks ago.

Q. What, in the practice of your art, is the experience as to the accuracy of transcribing, by stenographic notes after the lapse of a considerable period of time? A. I will give you an illustration; when I was called before the managers I did not know what was wanted with me, and when they told me to turn to my report of the President's speech, I found it in my book, and read out, at their request, the extract which they desired me to copy.

Q. You read from your stenographic notes? A. Yes; the reporter for the managers took it down, and I afterwards wrote it out.

Q. Do you make a sign for every word? A. Almost every word, except that we sometimes drop particles.

Q..You have signs which belong to every word, excepting when you drop the particles? A. Yes sir; but not, as a matter of course, a sign which is the representative of a whole word; we have some signs representing whole words.

Q. For the word jurisprudence" you have no one sign that represents it? A. No sir; I should write JRSP, and that is an illustration of the proceeding

Counsel examined attentively the notes of the witness, and seemed to be apparently satisfied.

Mr. Clephane's Testimony.

James O. Clephane, sworn and examined by Mr. BUTLER-Q. What is your business? A. I am at present a deputy clerk of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

Q. What was your employment on the 18th of Angust, 1866? A. I was then secretary to Mr. Seward, Secretary af State.

Q. Are you a phonographic reporter? A. I am.

Q. How considerable has been your experience? A. Eight or nine years.

Q. Were you employed on the 18th, of Angust, 1866, to make a report of the President's speech in reply to Mr. Reverdy Johnson? A. Iwas; I was engaged, in connection with Mr. Smith, for the Associated Press, and also for the Daily Chronicle, of Washington.

Q. Did you make that report? A. I did.

the White House.

the east room of

Q. Who were present? A. I noticed a good many perBons present: I noticed General Grant and several other distinguished gentlemen.

Q. Were any other of the Cabinet officers present? A. I do not recollect..

Q. Did you report that speech? A. I did.

Q. What was done with that report? A. Colonel Moore, the President's private secretary, desired the privilege of revising it before publication, and, in order to expedite matters, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sheridan and myself united in the labor of transcribing it: Mr. Sheridan transcribed one portion, Mr. Smith one, and I a third; after it was revised by Colonel Moore it was then taken and handed to the agent of the Associated Press, who took it and telegraphed it over the country.

Q. Look at that roll of manuscript before you, and say if It is a speech of which you transcribed a portion. A. I do not recognize any of my handwriting; it is possible that I may have dictated my portion to a longhand writer.

Q. Who was present at the time writing? A. Mr. Smith, Mr. Sheridan and Colonel Moore, as I recollect.

Q. Do you know Colonel Moore's handwriting? A. I do not.

Q. Did you send your report to the Chronicle? A. Mr. Macfarlan, who had engaged me to report for the Chronicle, was unwilling to take the revised speech, and decided to have the speech as delivered, as he stated, with all the imperfections, and, as he insisted on my re-writing the speech, I did so; it was published in the Sunday Morn ing Chronicle of the 9th.

Q. Have you a copy of that paper? A. I have not. Q. After that report was published in the Chronicle on Sunday morning did you see it? A. I did, and examined it very carefully; I had a curiosity to know how it would read under the circumstances, being a literal report, except of a word changed here and there.

Q. How do you mean? A. Where the word used would evidently obscure the meaning, I made the change; although, perhaps, I would not be able to point it out just

now.

Q. With what certainty can you speak with reference to the Chronicle's report being accurate? A. I think I could speak with certainty as to its being an accurate, literal report, with the exception I have named; perhaps there is a word or two changed here and there.

Q. Give us an illustration of this change. A. My attention was called to the matter by some correspondent, who, learning that the Chronicle had published a verbatim report, had carefully scrutinized it, and he wrote to the Chronicle to say that in one instance there was no expresion used by the President of "You and I have sought," or something of that kind; that expression was corrected in the report I wrote out.

Mr. BUTLER here stated that he was informed that there are two manuscript copies in the telegraph office, and that Mr. Tinker had given the one, that which was written out at length as a duplicate, and not the original manuscript as he had supposed. He would, therefore, have to bring him again, and he would send for him."

Cross-examination by Mr. EVARTS.-Q. You were acting in the employment of the Associated Press? A. Yes, sir, in connection with Mr. Smith.

Q. You were jointly to make a report? No; we were to report the entire speech--each of us and we then divided to save labor of transcribing

Q. Did you take phonographic notes of the whole speech? A. I did.

Q. Where are your phonographic notes? A. I have searched for them and cannot find them.

Q. At any time after you had completed the phonographic notes, did you translate or write them out? A. I did.

Q. The whole? A. Yes; the whole speech.

Q. Where is that translation or written transcript? A. I do not know. The manuscript, of course, was left at the Chronicle office; I wrote it for the Chronicle in full. Q. You have never seen it since? A. I have not.. Q. Have you made search for it? A. I have not. Q. And these two acts of yours, the phonographic report and the translation or writing out, is all that you had to do with the speech? A. That is all.

Q. You say that subsequently you read a newspaper copy of the speech in the Washington Chronicle? A. I did.

Q. It was from that curiosity that you read it? 'A. I' read it more carefully because of that.

Q. Had you before you your, phonographic notes, or your writing transcribed from them? A. I had not.

Q. And have you never seen them in comparison with the newspaper copy of the report? A. No, sir.

Re-direct examination by Mr. BUTLER Q. Have you before you a copy of the Sunday Morning Chronicle of the 19th of Angust? A. I have.

Q. Look on the page before you, and see if you can find the speech as you reported it? A. I find it here.

Q. Looking at that speech, tell me whether you have any doubt that that is an accurate verbatim report of the speech of Andrew Johnson on that occasion, and if so, what ground have you for the doubt.

Objections.

Mr. EVARTS.-We object to that. It is apparent that the witness took notes of this speech, and that the notes, have been written out.

They are the best and most trustworthy evidence of the actual speech made. In all public proceedings we are. entitled to that degree of accuracy and trustworthiness which the nature of the case demands, and whenever papers of that degree of authenticity are presented, then, for the first time, the question will arise whether the evidence is competent. It is impossible to contend, on the evidence of this witness as it now. stands, that he remembers the speech of the President so that he can produce it. by recital, or so that he can say from memory that this is the speech. What is offered here?

The same kind of evidence, and that alone which would grow out of some person who heard the President deliver the speech, and when he subsequently read in the Chroni cle a report of it. He would say that he thinks the report was a true statement of the speech. This witness has told us distinctly, that in reading this speech from curiosity, to see how it would appear when reproduced without the or dinary guarantees of accuracy, he had neither his original. notes nor his writter transcript, and that he read the newspaper as others would read it, but with more care from that decree of curiosity that he had. Now, if this matter is to be regarded as important, we insist that that kind of evidence,giving a newspaper report of it is not admissible.

Stenography.

Mr. BUTLER-There is no question of degrees of evidence. We must take the business of the world as we find it, and must not busy ourselves and insist that we have wakened up a hundred years ago. The art of steno graphic writing has progressed to a point where men mist rely upon it in all the business of life. There is not a gentleman in this Senate who does not rely upon it every day. There is not more than one member of the Senate who, in this trial, is taking any notes of it. Why? Because Senators rely on the fingers of the reporter who sits by my side, to give you a transcript of it, on which you must judge. Therefore, in every business of this court we rely on the stenographer. This gentleman says that he has made a stenographic report of that speech; that it was jointly made by himself, Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Smith; that his employer not being satisfied with that joint report, which was the President's utterances distilled through the alembic of Colonel Moore's critical discrimination, he wrote out with care an exact literal transcript under the guiding of his employer, and for a given purpose, and that the next day, having the curiosity to see how the Presi dent of the United States would appear if put to paper, literally, he examined that speech in the Chronicle, and that then, with the matter fresh in his mind, and only a few hours intervening, and with his attention freshly called to it, recognized it as a correct copy.

Now the learned counsel says that the manuscript is the best evidence. If there were any evidence that the manuscript had been preserved. perhaps we might be called upon to produce it, in some technicality of law as administered in a very technical manner; but who does not know that in the ordinary course of business in newspaper offices, that after such manuscript has been got through with it is thrown into the newspaper basket; therefore, I add, upon that usual and common incident of the business of life, this is a question for the witness. The question we are discussing is this. Looking at that report, from your knowledge of the reporter having twice written it out, and having seen it the next morning with your curiosity awakened, can you tell the Senate whether that is a correct copy? Thereupon the counsel for the President excepts, and says he cannot. How does the learned counsel for the President know that? How does he know that Mr. Clephane is not one of those gentlemen who having once read his speech can re peat it next day? The question is a plain one. I say, sir, there is a transcript of that speech. From your knowledge of it, having heard it, having written it down in short hand, having re-written it once for correction by the Presi dent's Private Secretary, and having again re-written it from your notes for publication, then having examined it immediately after it was published, from all these sources of knowledge, can you say that this is a correct copy?

Thereupon, the counsel for the President says he cannot. How does he know that? How does he know that he cannot repeat every word of it? The difficulty is that the objection does not apply, and I would content myself with that statement of it, except that, once for all, I propose to put before the Senate an argument as to the evidence of stenographic reporting. Allow me to state, once for all, two authorities on this point. I do not intend to argue the point hereafter, because I know that, in doing so, I should