Q. You did not give him any means of defending himself or showing what had happened to him, or how it came in? A. No, sir.

Q. But you suspended him at once? A. I did.

Q. Is there any complaint on your books that he had not properly administered his office? A. I do not recollect any; certainly none on which I acted, that I remember.

He was a competent officer, and was acting properly, and because somebody found an indictment against him for taking the test oath, you suspended him without trial? A. I did not make any such statement.

Q. What part of it is incorrect? A. I cannot tell you about that; if you ask me what there is about the case, I shall be very glad to tell you; ask your questions, and I will answer them.

Q. Did you not suspend an officer, without investigation or trial, simply on the fact that an indictment being found against him of having taken the test oath to qualify himBelf for that office, and against whom no other complaint was made in your office. A. I do not recollect any now.

Q. And therefore, if you answer the whole question, you will have to answer that you did suspend him. A. I did so suspend him; if there had been a conviction, I should have had him removed.

Q. Did you suspend him under the civil Tenure of Office act? A. No, sir.

Q. You took no notice of it? A. Yes, sir; I took notice of it.

Q. You took no notice of it to act under it? A. I could not act under it.

Q. How many hundreds of men have you appointed who could not take the test oath? A. I do not know of any.

Q. Do you not know that there are men appointed to office who have not taken the test oath? A. As postmaster?

Mr. BUTLER-Yes. A. No, sir; I do not know of one; never one with my consent.

Q. Did you learn who the prosecutors were under this indictinent? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you inquire? A. I did not.

Whether they were Rebels or Union men? À. I did not; I did not ask whether it was a prosecution by Rebels; it was none of my business; I simply inquired as to the fact of his having been indicted for perjury.

Q. Will you have the kindness to furnish me with a copy of the indictment, duly certified? A. I will, and of any other complaint I can find in my department against Foster Blodgett.

Mr. CURTIS-We should prefer that the witness furnish it to the court. I suppose that will answer your purpose. (To. Mr. Butler.)

Mr. BUTLER-I do not know, sir, that it will.

Mr. CURTIS-It was a mere inadvertance that the indictment was not produced. I wish it now produced.

To the Witness Will you furnish to the Secretary of the Senate a copy of the indictment?

Mr. BUTLER-I desire to have it furnished to me. I object to anything else being put on the file without my seeing it.

Mr. EVARTS-The only object of having it here is as evidence?

Mr. BUTLER-I cannot tell that it will be. We shall want the Postmaster-General with it.

Mr. EVARTS-You can call him if you want him.
Witness-There is another case.

Mr. BUTLER, interrupting him-Never mind about the other case.

Mr. EVARTS to the witness-Q. I understand from you that your judgment as Postmaster-General was that this suspension should be made? A. Yes, sir.

Q. It occurred not during a recess of the Senate? A. No, sir, it was during a session of the Senate.

Q. So that it is within the Civil Office act? A. So I understand it.

Mr. EVARTS-Q. It was not in a recess, and the Civil Tenure act does not apply to the case. The perjury for which he was indicted as you were informed was in taking the oath for the office which he held. A. Yes, sir.

Mr. BUTLER-I object until we have the indictment. Mr. EVARTS-You have asked the question whether it was not for taking a false oath that Blodgett was indicted. I ask the witness whether it was not for taking the oath qualifying himself for the office from which he was suspended? Witness-I so understood.

Senator Sherman Submits a Question. Senator SHERMAN-I desire to submit this question to this witness, or any other member of the Cabinet, State if after the 2d of March, 1867, the date of the passage of the Tenure of Office act, the question whether the Secretaries appointed by President Lincoln were included within the provisions of that act, came before the Cabinet for discussion, and if so, what opinion was given on that question by members of the Cabinet to the President?

Mr. BINGHAM-I desire to object to that on the ground of incompetency, and because the question comes directly within the ruling of the Senate two or three times made this day

Mr. BUTLER-The very same question? Mr. BINGHAM-The same question? Senator SHERMAN, without noticing the interruptionI should like to have the question put to the Senate. Senator HOWARD raised a question of order, that the question had been once decided.

The Chief Justice said he thought it undoubtedly a proper question to be put to the witness, but whether it should be answered was for the Senate to judge.

Mr. BUTLER desired to have read the offer of evidence

which had been already excluded, and which he held covered exactly the same ground.

Senator SHERMAN-If the Senate will allow me, I will state in a word what the difference is.

Senator CONNESS and others objected.

The offer of proof referred to was as follows:"We offer to prove that at the meeting of the Cabinet at which Mr. Stanton was present that while the Tenure of Office bill was before the President for approval, the ad vice of the Cabinet in reference to the same was asked by the President and given by the Cabinet, and thereupon the question whether Mr. Stanton and the other Secreta ries who had received their appointments from Mr. Lin. coln were within the restrictions of the President's power of removing from office created by said act was considered, and the opinion was expressed that those Secretaries appointed by Mr. Lincoln were not within such restrictions."

The vote was taken, and resulted-yeas, 20; nays, 26, as follows:

YEAS. Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Patterson (Tenn.), Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers and Willey-20. NAYS.-Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conk ling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Edmunds, Ferry, Freling huysen, Harlan, Howard. Howe, Morgan, Morrill (Me.), Morrill (Vt.), Patterson (N. H.), Pomeroy, Ramsey, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williams, Wilson, Yates-26. So the question was excluded.

Mr. EVARTS then rose and said:-Mr. Chief Justice and Senators:-The counsel for the President are now able to state that evidence on his part is closed as they understand their duty in the case.

The conduct of the proofs, however, have been mainly intrusted to Mr. Stanbery, both on the part of counsel and for personal reasons in reference to his previous knowledge of the controversy, and of the matters to be put in evidence from his official familiarity with the question. Mr. Stanbery's health, we are sorry to say, is still such as to have precluded anything like a serious conference with him since he was taken ill. We submit, therefore, to the Senate that on such consideration it is possible some other proof may need to be offered, but we do not, at present, expect that it will be so.

Senator JOHNSON asked the managers whether they had any proof to offer.

Mr. BUTLER was understood to say that they had none to offer until the defense was through.

Mr. EVARTS-We suppose ourselves to be through. I have only stated that in the absence of Mr. Stanbery some further evidence may need to be offered which we do not at all expect.

The court thereupon at 3'40 adjourned till Monday, at eleven o'clock, and the Senate immediately afterward ad journed till the same time.

PROCEEDINGS OF MONDAY, APRIL 20.

The court was opened in due form at eleven o'clock All the managers were present.

The Defense Finish their Testimony. In response to an inquiry from the Chief Justice, Mr. CURTIS stated that the counsel for the President considered their evidence as closed.

Mr. BINGHAM said the managers might desire to place on the stand one or two witnesses who had been subpoenaed early in the trial, but who had not appeared hitherto.

The Chief Justice was understood to say it would be proper to first obtain an order from the Senate.

Mr. BINGHAM-I wish it to be understood that I desire to consult my associates about it first. So far as the order is concerned, I take it for granted that the suggestion made at the time the evidence was closed on the part of the managers, that it would be competent for us, without further order, if those wit nesses should appear, to introduce them on the stand, is sufficient, because the Senate will recollect, although I have not myself referred to the journal, that it was stated by my associate manager, Mr. Butler, in the hearing of the Senate, that he considered our case closed, reserving, however, the right of calling some other witnesses, or offering some documentary testimony that might be obtained afterwards.

Senator JOHNSON-I am not sure that I heard cor

rectly the honorable manager. I rise merely for the purpose of inquiring whether the managers desire to have the privilege of offering any evidence after the argument begins?

Mr. BINGHAM-As at present advised, although on that subject, as doubtless known to the honorable Senator, though I am prepared to say that it has hap pened in this country, I am sure that it did in the case of Justice Chase, such orders have been made. I am not aware that the managers have any desire of that sort. I wish to be understood only by the Senate that there are one or two witnesses, who are deemed important on the part of the managers, who were early subpoenaed on this trial, and although we have not been able yet to find them, we have been advised that they have been in the Capitol for the last fortyeight hours.

Mr. YATES repeated the inquiry whether the managers intended to offer testimony after the argument was commenced.

Mr. BINGHAM-As at present advised, we have no purpose of the sort, since we do not know what may occur in the progress of this trial.

Manager Butler Offers Additional Evidence. Mr. BUTLER, having come into the Chamber, put in evidence from the journal of Congress of 1774-75, (the first Congress) the commission issued to General Washington, as Commander-in-Chief of the armies of the United Colonies, directing him, among other things, to observe and follow such directions as he should from time to time receive from that Congress, or from a committee of Congress-the commission to continue in force until revoked by that or a future Congress.

Mr. BUTLER said that the point on which he offered it was to show that that was the only form of commission ever prescribed by law in this country to a military officer, and that the commission was "to be held during the pleasure of Congress," instead of, as has since been inserted in commissions, "during the pleasure of the President."

Mr. BUTLER then offered in evidence a letter from the Treasury Department, to show the practice of the government as to the appointing of officers during a recess of the Senate. He said it was one of a series of letters which had not been brought to the attention of the Senate in the schedule already put in evidence. Mr. EVARTS asked Mr. Butler whether he considered that letter as referring to any point which the counsel for the President had made, either in argument or in evidence, and whether he regarded it simply as the expression of opinion on the part of the Secretary of the Treasury. It was simply an immaterial piece of evidence, and he didn't consider it worth while to discuss it.

Mr. BUTLER-I ask whether you object to it?
Mr. EVARTS-We do not.

Mr. BUTLER-Very well,

Mr. Butler then put in evidence the letter which is dated "Treasury Department, August 23, 1855." signed by James Guthrie, Secretary of the Treasury, acknowledging the receipt of a letter recommending somebody for surveyor of some district in South Carolina, stating that the office not having been filled before the adjournment of the Senate, it must necessarily remain vacant until the next session, but that the recommendation of the writer would receive the respectful consideration of the President.

Mr. BUTLER then stated that the Postmaster-General had not brought to him until this moment the papers which he had called for last Saturday, and he asked some moments to examine them.

After a short interval of time, Postmaster General Randall was again called to the stand, and cross-examined by Mr. BUTLER, as follows:

Q. Have you a copy of the indictment against Foster Blodgett on file in your office? A. Yes.

Q. When was it made? A. I cannot tell you; I suppose about the time that the original copy was filed.

Have you produced it here? A. No, sir.
What did you do with it? A. It is in the office.
Q. Is the copy of it here? A. Yes.

Q. From where does it come? A. From the Treasury Department.

Q. Why did you not produce the copy from your own office? A. Because that would not prove anything; I could not certify that it was a true copy without having. the original.

Have you the original? A. I understand it is here.

8. Whey, with some committee; the letter of Mr.

McCulloch explains that.

Mr. BUTLER The letter of Mr. McCulloch explains about the Hopkins case, which I do not want to go into. Witness-Copies of the indictments in the two cases are fastened together, and the originals are there, as I understand.

Mr. BUTLER then proceeded to read a copy of the indictment found against Foster Blodgett, at the November term, 1867, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. It recites that on the 27th

of July, 1866, Foster Blodgett was appointed by the Presi dent of the United States to the office of Postmaster of Augusta, Georgia; that after said appointment, and before entering upon the duties of the office, and before being entitled to any salary or emolument therefor, he was required by law to take and subscribe an oath which is set forth in the indictment, to the effect that he had never borne arms against the United States, or given aid or encourageinent to the enemies of the United States, and that he took that oath before a magistrate, on the 5th of September, 1866; whereas, in truth and in fact, he had voluntarily borne arms against the United States, and had given aid and encouragement to its enemies, and had accepted and held the office of captain in an artillery company, and that, therefore, Foster Blodgett was guilty of wilfull and corrupt perjury, contrary to the statute, &c. The cross-examination of Mr. Randall was resumed by Mr. BUTLER. Q. On the notice which you have put in being sent to Mr. Blodgett, did he return an answer, and is this paper the answer or a copy of it? A. These are copies of the papers on file; I can only swear to them as such copies; I believe it is a copy of this answer.

Q. The notice of his suspension is dated the 3d of January? A. Yes, sir, I think so.

Q. On the 10th he returned this answer? A. Yes, sir. Mr. BUTLER-I propose to offer it in evidence. Mr. EVARTS objected. He said that the counsel for the tion of the Post Office Department in the suspension of President had put in evidence nothing but the official acMr. Blodgett, and that only in answer to an oral statement concerning it, which Mr. Blodgett had himself given. Now the manager brought in the indictment, and having got submitted to the Senate that the proof was irrelevant. that in, he claimed the right to repel it. He (Mr. Evarts)

Mr. BUTLER-Mr. President, the case stands thus. Mr. Foster Blodgett, who is Mayor of the city of Augusta, appointed by General Pope, and is a member of the Constitutional Convention of Georgia

Mr. EVARTS, interrupting-What does the manager propose?

Mr. BUTLER-I am proposing to put in evidence, and am stating the case. He was a member, I say, of the Constitutional Convention, and an active Union man.

The Chief Justice, interrupting-The honorable manager will please reduce to writing what he proposes to prove. Mr. BUTLER-I will after I state the grounds of it. The Chief Justice required the offer of proof to be reduced to writing before argument. He said that the managers must state the nature of the evidence which they proposed to offer, and the Senate would then pass upon the question whether it desired to hear that class of evidence.

Senator JOHNSON to Mr, Butler-Does the manager propose to offer that paper in evidence? Mr. BUTLER-I do,

Senator JOHNSON-Nothing else?

Mr. BUTLER assented, and said this is the first time in this trial that any counsel has been stopped. It seems, Mr. President, that the same rule should have been applied yesterday as to-day.

The Chief Justice-The honorable manager appears to the Chief Justice to be making a statement of matters which are not in proof, and of which the Senate has as yet. heard nothing. The manager states that he intends to put them in evidence. The Chief Justice, therefore, requests that the nature of the evidence which the manager proposes to put before the Senate shall be reduced to writing. as the ordinary offers of proof have been, and then the Senate will judge whether it will receive that class of evidence or not.

Mr. BUTLER-I am trying to state that this was a part of the record produced by the counsel for the President, and I have a right to say that this is the first time that any counsel has been interrupted in this way.

The Chief Justice-Does the honorable manager decline to put his statements in writing?

Mr. BUTLER-I am not declining to put the statement in writing.

The Chief Justice-Then the honorable manager will have the goodness to put it in writing.

Mr. BUTLER-I will do it if I can take sufficient time. The Chief Justice-Yes, sir.

After some time spent in fixing the form of offer, Mr. BUTLER read it, as follows:

We offer to show that Foster Blodgett, Mayor of the city of Augusta, Georgia, appointed by General Pope, a inem ber of the Constitutional Convention of Georgia, being, because of his loyalty, obnoxious to some portion of the citi zens lately in rebellion against the United States, by the testimony of such citizens was indicted; that said indictment was sent to the Postmaster-General, and that thereupon, without authority of law, he, the Postmaster-General, suspended said Blodgett from office, without any other complaint against him, and without any hearing, and did not send to the Senate the report of his suspension, the office being one within the appointment of the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. This proof in part by the answer of Mr. Blodgett to the Postmaster-General being a portion of the papers on file in the Post Office Department, on which the action of the Postmaster-General was taken, a portion of which has been put in evidence by the counsel for the President, is to show that Mr. Blodgett has always been friendly and loyal to the United States Government. Mr. EVARTS-We object to the evidence as being foreign and alien to the case. Foster Blodgett and the evidence concerning him were produced on the part of the managers. On their part the evidence was confined to

his oral testimony that he had received a certain commission, under which he held the office of Postmaster in Augusta: that he had been suspended from office by the Executive of the United States, and there was a superadded conclusion that his case had not been sent to the Senate.

lu taking up that case the defense offered nothing but the official action of the Post Office Department, coupled with the evidence of the head of the department, that this was his own act, without the previous notice to or subsequent direction of the President of the United States, It appears that the ground of the action was the indietment against Mr. Blodgett. The complaint was made last Saturday that the indictment had not been produced. The managers having now procured it, have put it in evidence, and they now propose to put in evidence Mr. Klodgett's answer to that indictment, or to the accusation made before the Postmaster-General.

Mr. BUTLER His answer? No; the Postmaster-General's notice; not the indictment.

Mr. EVARTS-His answer to the accusation and the evidence concerning the accusation as placed before the Postinaster-General, I understand.

Mr. BUTLER-Not his answer to the indictment.

Mr. EVARTS-His answer to the indictment, so far as it was the accusation before the Postmaster-General, I understood you to say so, to prove that he was friendly to the United States and that he always had been, notwithstanding he had been a captain in the Rebel army. The honorable manager states that paper is a part of the evidence to sustain Mr. Blodgett's loyalty, and to defeat the accusation against him. Part of it is a letter written by him ten days after his removal, and the honorable manager states to you that that letter is a part of the papers on which the Postmaster-General acted in suspending him from office. How that can be, in the nature of things, it is difficult for me to see. Now, the honorable court can see that this is not evidence introduced by us in disparagement of Foster Blodgett. It is evidence introduced by us to show the action of the Post Office Department in his removal, which removal the managers have put in by oral testimony; and under cover of that the learned manager (Mr, Butler) first asks the introduction of the accusation against Blodgett, and then asks to refute it. If this evidence be rightfully put in on their part, we, of course, will meet it on ours, and we will have an interesting excursion from the impeachment trial of the President to the trial of Mr. Blodgett on a question of loyalty. I am instructed to say that there is a witness in the city who can testify that he was a captain in the Rebel army, and we are ready to go on with that proof if it is deemed desirable.

Mr. BUTLER Mr. President and Senators, I think now that it will not be out of any order made either to-day or yesterday, or the day before, for me to state the grounds on which I offer this evidence. Foster Blodgett was called here to show that, without this case being referred to the Senate, he had been suspended by the President of the United States, as he supposed and as we supposed, on the 3d of January, 1868, without any violation of his duty so far as his official duties were concerned, and without anv justification or conviction of any crime, and that a man was placed in the office as special agent with the same salary and a little more, so that it amounts to a removal and putting another man in the office. Mr. Blodgett testified that up to the time that he testified he had not any knowledge that his case was before the Senate, and he could get no redress. We thought that on the proposition that the President desired to obey the law, except where he wanted to make a case to test the constitutionality of it this was quite pertinent evidence.

The President put forward broadly in his answer that he was exceedingly desirous to obey the laws, especially the Civil Tenure act, except where he wanted to make a case to decide its constitutionality. These facts were put in, and these facts were not in dispute. They call Mr. Postmaster-General Randall on the stand; he produces, and they put in a letter of appointment to one Summers as special agent, with a salary therein set out. And they also put in a letter informing Mr. Blodgett that he had been suspended from office. That letter states precisely that it was on that indictment for perjury-not setting the indictment, so as to leave us to infer that Mr. Foster Blodgett had in some controversy between neighbor and neighbor, or between citizen and citizen, committed wilful and corrupt perjury, and that it was so.

Here was a case in which the Postmaster-General felt compelled instantly to suspend him. It wasa case, he said, where the great law of necessity compelled suspension at once. In order to meet that we ask for the indictment, and get at last a copy of it from the Treasury Department. Mr. Foster Blodgett being notified of his suspension on the 3d of January, sends this answer to the Postmaster-General on the 10th, seven days afterwards, not ten days, as the counsel said.

Mr. EVARTS-It is entirely immaterial.

Mr. BUTLER-I do not consider it material, only as a matter of correction. A week afterwards he sent and put on file in the department his justification, saying that this was all a Rebel plot and treason against the United States. Having put that on file it is a part of the case. Now I have not said to the Senate that this paper was one on which Mr. Randall acted in suspending Blodgett, but I do say that it is a paper on which Mr. Randall is actiug, in not returning the suspension through the President to the Senate. It may be said that Mr. Randall had no business to return it to the Senate. He had as much business to return it to the Senate as he had to su8pend him. We are answered to that that the counsel for the President only put in the official act of the defendant. I had the honor to explain to the Senate,

I do not doubt it; plenty of them, whether he was or not. But what I say is this, that while he was only a captain of a military company, and was called into the service and bound to obey the powers, that he is indicted because he yielded to the powers of the State of Georgia, which compelled him to hold the commission, and he had either got to go into service or lose his life. He may well swear,though he went in as a military captain into the service of the Confederacy, that he did not voluntarily go. He has a right to have his defense placed before the country where he has been traduced. He is a man so well known among his neighbors, that they select him to make constitutional law for them; a man among his neighbors so well known that when the State of Georgia comes in here and demands a place in this Chamber, I have no doubt Foster Blodgett will come and take his place by the side of the noblest of you. Under these circumstances. I feel it my duty to put this testimony before you, and if the objection is merely as to its relevancy, I put it as a matter of justice to the witness, whom the summons of this body has brought here, and who is now being oppressed with the entire Executive power of the United States, and who has been, confessedly, without law, and against right, removed from this office, and being 80 removed, can get no hearing before this tribunal or any other, because the President controls the District Attorney, and he cannot get a trial down there, nor can he get a trial here.

It appeals to justice. I do not propose to go into any discussion about trying the case of Foster Blodgett. I only propose to put in all the papers that are on file in the Post Office Department, about this case, to bear on my side of the case. The counsel for the President put in such part of the papers as they choose to bear on their side, and I propose to put in such papers as bear on my side of the case, out of the same bundle. They shall not pick out such as please them, without my being permitted to pick out from the same bundle such as please us.

Mr. EVARTS-We put in nothing from the bundle. We put in merely the action of the department; we have as little care for Foster Blodgett as you have. You brought him here, and if his case is to be tried by this court we are ready to try.

Mr. BUTLER asked leave to withdraw the offer of evidence, and to substitute for it the following:-"The defendant's counsel having produced from files of the Post Office Department a part of the record showing the alleged reasons for the suspension of Foster Blodgett as Postmaster of Augusta, Ga.. we now propose to give in evidence the residue of said record, including the papers on file in the said case, for the purpose of showing the whole of the case as the same was presented to the Postmaster-General, before and at the time of the suspension of said Blodgett.

Mr. EVARTS renewed his objection to the offer on account of irrelevancy.

The Chief Justice put the question to the Senate whether the evidence should be received, and it was declared without a division that the testimony was excluded.

Mr. BUTLER-Mr. Randall I have been informed that you desire to make some statement. If it does not include anything that the President said or that anybody else said, I have no objection.

Witness-I wish to explain the circumstances under which I made this suspension. A copy of this indictment was brought to me by the District Attorney at or about the same time; soon after it was found he came to me and Imade a statement of the circumstances under which this was found. Under the office tenure law, as I understood it, the President could have no power to suspend any officer during the session of the Senate. The only thing he could do would be to send up the name of some man in occurred to mis place, and remove Mr. Blodgett. It this violation of the law by Mr. Blodgett might be merely a technical one, and if it was merely a technical violation of law, if it was true that he was forced into the Rebel service and got out of it as soon as he could, and this violation of the law was merely a technical violation, I did not want him turned out, and for

that reason I took the responsibility of doing this thing and putting a temporary agent in until I should ascertain more fully what action to take.

Mr. BUTLER Why did you not report it to the President for his action? A. I told the President what I had done afterwards.

Q. Why didn't you report it before you undertook to take the responsibility? A. Because the only thing he could do if he did take action was to send in another name and turn this man out.

Q. And you thought you would break the law, as you could do nothing better? A. I did not consider that case at all; I thought if he was an honest man I would take this course, and try to ascertain; I know it is a technical violation of the law, but I did it for the purpose of having an act of justice done him, if he was an honest man.

Q. Was the Senate in session the third day of January?. A. I can't tell you whether it was on that day or not. Q. Hadn't it then adjourned over? A. It might be; I don't remember.

Q. Then the reason that the Senate was in session did not apply? A. I considered that the Senate was in session; I don't recollect whether it was in session on that day.

Q. You deemed it to be in session? A. Yes sir; one explanation I had forgotten; the reason why something further has not been done in the case was I was trying to get some further information on the subject, and then this trouble began, and so the case has lain since.

Q. By trouble you mean the impeachment? (Laughter.) A. Yes sir. Senator CONNESS submitted the following question to to the witness:-Have you ever taken any step since your act suspending Foster Blodgett in further investigation of his case? A. Yes, sir, in trying to secure further information; there is considerable further information beyond what has been offered and put in.

The witness then left the stand.

Mr. BUTLER I now offer, Mr. President, an official copy of the order creating the Military Division of the Atlantic and putting General Sherman in charge.

Mr. EVARTS-What does that rebut? We are not aware of any evidence that that rebuts. Mr. BUTLER-Do you object?

Mr. EVARTS-We do. It is not relevant. I do not recall any evidence that we have given concerning the department.

Mr. BUTLER-It is put in to show the action of the President at the same time that he restored Mr. Thomas. On the same day that he restored General Thomas he took this action, and that date was not fixed until after General Thomas was on the stand. It is to show what was done militarily on the same day.

Mr. EVARTS-We do not still see any connection with General Thomas' testimony. The only connection_the honorable manager suggests is, that he learned from Gen. Thomas when he was restored. If he did learn that, it does not connect itself at all with any evidence that we have produced. If it is put in on the ground that it was overlooked, that is another matter. If it is put in in rebuttal, it has no relevancy that we can see.

Mr. BUTLER-When I spoke of learning a thing in the trial of a cause, I meant learning in the course of judicial evidence on the trial, not ascertaining it from the newspapers. They are not always the best source of knowledge. I say that General Thomas testified that on the 13th the President gave the order that he should be restored. Now, then, that was fixed, a thing that was not known, either in the court or in the country, because that was an order given on the 13th to General Grant which was not published. I want to show that on the day before this new military division was made here, and General Sherman ordered here in command, showing the acts of the President at or about the some time, and as the presiding officer has very well told us heretofore, the competentey of the acts of a party about the same time being a part of the resgeste, and the Senate has so allowed testimony to come in. It is a part of the thing done by the President on the very day, the 12th of February being the very day before Thomas was restored. I don't mean to say a word on the question of rebutting I don't understand that that rale belongs here.

The Chief Justice stated that he would put the question to the Senate.

Mr. ANTHONY called for the yeas and nays.

Mr, BUCKALEW asked for the reading of the question put to General Sherman on this question some days since. Mr. BUTLER-Being a matter that we can refer to in the argument, we withdrew it. I have now, Mr. President and Senators, a list prepared as carefully as we were able in the time given us from the law of the various offices in the United States, who would be affected by the Presi dent's claim here, of a right to remove at pleasure; that is to say, if he can remove at pleasure and appoint, ad interim. This is a list of officers taken from the law, with their salaries, being a correlative list to that one put in by the counsel, showing the number of officers and the amount of salaries which would be affected by the power of the President.

In order to bring it before the Senate I will read the recapitulation only in the Navy, War. State, Interior, Post Office, Attorney-General's, Treasury, Agricultural and Educational Departments: 41.558 officers; the amount of their emoluments, $31,188,736 87 a year. I suppose that the same course will be taken with this as with the like schedule printed as a part of the case.

The Chief Justice (to the counsel)-Any objection? Mr. EVARTS (after examination)-We have no objection.

Mr. BUTLER-I have the honor to offer now, from the files of the Senate, the message of Andrew Johnson, nominating Lieutenant-General William T.Sherman to be General by brevet in the Army of the United States, on the 13th of February, 1868.

Mr. EVARTS-Under what article is that?

Mr. BUTLER-That is under the eleventh article and under the tenth.

Mr. EVARTS-The tenth is the speeches.
Mr. BUTLER-I would say the ninth.

Mr. EVARTS--Do you offer this in evidence, on the ground that conferring the brevet on General Sherman was intended to obstruct the Reconstruction acts?

Mr. BUTLER-I have already, in the argument, stated my views on that question, and was replied to, I think, by yourself. I was, I am certain, by Mr. Curtis.

Mr. EVARTS-It does not seem to us to be relevant-it certainly is not rebutting. We have offered no evidence bearing upon the only evidence you offered the telegrams between Governor Parsons and the President. We have offered no evidence on that subject, and we do not see that this appointment is relevant.

J

Mr. BUTLER-I offer also the appointment by brevet of Major-General George H. Thomas, first to be Lieutenant-General by brevet, and then General by brevet, and that was done on the same day that Stanton was removed -the 21st of February.

Mr. EVARTS-It is apparent that this does not rebut any evidence that we have offered. It is then offered as evidence in chief. The conferring of brevets upon these two officers is somewhere within the evil intents that are alleged in these articles. In that question there is nothing. in this evidence that controverts any such evil intent.

Mr. BUTLER-I wish only to say upon this that we do not understand that this case is to be tried on the question of whether evidence is rebutting or original. We understand that to-day the House of Representatives can bring in new articles, if they choose; but we have a right to put in new evidence anywhere in the case.

Mr. EVARTS-When does our right to give in evidence end?

Mr. BUTLER-When you get through with competent evidence. Mr. EVARTS-I supposed there was a different rule for us.

Mr. BUTLER-No, sir; when you get through with competent evidence. In many of the States-I know in the State of New Hampshire-the rule of rebutting evidence does not obtain in their courts at all; each party calls such evidence as he chooses up to the hour when he says he has got through, and no injustice is done to anybody.

The Chief Justice put the question to the Senate, and the evidence was rejected by the following vote:YEAS, Messrs. Anthony, Cole, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Morton, Ross, Sumner, Tipton. Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey and Yates-22.

NAYS.-Messrs. Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Dixon, Doolit tle, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, Morgan, Morrill (Me.), Morrill (Vt.), Patterson (N. H.), Patterson (Tenn), Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer, Vickers, Williams and Wilson-25.

Mr. BUTLER-I have the honor to say that the case on the part of the managers is closed, and all witnesses here: subpoenaed at the instance of the managers, may be dis charged.

Mr. EVARTS- We are able to make the same announcement in regard to witnesses attending on the part of the defense by subpoena: and this announcement on both sides, we assume to close necessarily any attempt to proceed with evidence.

The Chief Justice-The honorable managers will please proceed with their argument.

I

I

Mr. BOUTWELL-I have had the honor to be chosen by the managers to make the first argument on the part of the House of Representatives, and it is very likely that I shall be obliged to occupy the larger part of the day in presenting to the honorable Senate the views that I shall deem it my duty to offer. Under these circumstances I shall have to ask the Senate to do me the favor of adjourn ing the court until to-morrow morning.

Senator JOHNSON-Mr. Chief Justice, I move that the Senate, sitting as a court, adjourn until to morrow. Mr. EVARTS-May I be heard?

།་་སྐ

Chief Justice-On the motion to adjourn there is no debate allowed.

Mr. JOHNSON withdrew, the motion to adjourn.

Mr. EVARTS-I do not rise for the purpose of making the least objection to the request of the honorable managers, but to make a statement to which I beg leave to call the attention of the Senate. Our learned associate, Mr. Stan bery, has, from the outset, been relied upon by the Presi dent and by the associate counsel to make the final argument in this cause, and there are many reasons, professional and other, why we should all wish that that purpose should be carried ont.

t

It has been his misfortune, in the midst of this trial, to be taken suddenly ill. This illness, of no great gravity, is yielding to the remedies and to the progress of time, and he is convalescent, so that he now occupies his parlor. The summing up of a cause of this weight, in many respeets, considering the amount of testimony and the subject. is, of course, a labor of no ordinary magnitude, physically and otherwise, and Mr. Stanbery is of opinion that he will need an interval of two days, which, added to what he has had in the course of the trial, would probably bring him in condition for the argument, with adequate strength for that purpose.

This might have been left until the day on which he should appear, and then a request made for a day or two's relief in this regard, but it occurred to us to be much fairer to the managers than the interval we propose should be interposed at a time when it would be useful and valnable to them; also, as the proofs are not entirely printed in the proper form of evidence and the voluminous evidence on the subject of appointments, and on the practice of the government are such as to require considerable investigation in order to point out to the Senate the efficacy of what is to be proved, it is therefore our duty now to suggest and accompany it with the suggestion of the managers that until to-morrow should be given for the introduction of the argument on their part, that you would consider this statement that I have made to you, and see whether it is not better in all respects that the matter should be now disposed of, in which the managers will concnr, and consider the Providential interference with the President's counsel and his confidential friend and adviser. The suggestion is that an interval of two days should be given, and, as I understand, the managers believe that it is better that it should occur now than later.

Mr. BOUTWELL said he would express no opinion upon the request made by the learned counsel, but he desired that whatever time was given should be granted at once, as he wished to make further and a more careful examination of papers than he had yet been able to do. Under the circumstances, however, he did not feel at liberty to ask the favor on his own account.

Mr. EVARTS made an additional remark that if Mr. Stanbery's expectation to be able to speak should be disappointed, it was a matter of some importance to the defense to be able properly to supply his place.

Mr. JOHNSON moved that when the Senate, sitting as a court, adjourn, it be until Thursday morning next. Several Senators-"Wednesday."

Mr. JOHNSON-I modify the motion, Mr. Chief Justice, by making it Wednesday.

Mr. DOOLITTLE suggested at twelve o'clock.
Several Senators--"No," "No."

Mr. LOGAN-I wish to make a request. Is this the proper time to do it?

Chief Justice Yes.

Mr. LOGAN-I desire to make a request of the Senate before it adjourns. Doubtless the adjournment will proceed on the statement of the managers and the counsel. It is this, I had not presumption enough to ask leave of the Senate to speak on the issue presented to the Senate, but I ask that I may be permitted to file to-day a printed argument that I have made as part of the record, without taking up the time of the Senate, inasmuch as the evidence is all in.

Senator STEWART-I move that leave be granted, -Chief Justice-As that would involve a change of the rule, it cannot be done if there is any objection. Senator BUCKALEW-I object.

Senator JOHNSON-May I ask the Hon. manager if the speech is now in print.

Mr. LOGAN-It is.

Senator WILSON called for the reading of the rule in question. The twenty-first rule was read.

Mr. LOGAN added that his reason for making this request to file it to-day was so that the counsel for the respondent, if they thought it worthy of it, might reply.

The Chief Justice again said that under the rule it could not be considered except by unanimous consent. Mr. BUTLER There is no objection.

Mr. DOOLITTLE-I object.

Mr. BUTLER Before the adjournment of the Senate, I beg to call the attention of the counsel for the respondent to one feature. It so happens that the managers, under the construction given to the rule, are to proceed first. A large mass of testimony has been introduced upon the subject of removals and appointments. I am not informed whether these are special cases on which the counsel for the respondent rely. I think it may be proper for me at this time to ask them whether these are cases on which they purpose to rely as furnishing precedents for the course pursued by the President on the 21st of January.

Mr. ANTHONY-I will make a motion to lie over until to-morrow, that the twenty-first rule be so modified as to allow the honorable manager to present his views in writing.

Ordered, That the honorable manager, Mr. Logan, have leave to file his written argument to-day, and furnish a copy to each of the counsel for the respondent.

Mr. SHERMAN offered the following as an amendment:

Ordered, That the managers on the part of the House of Representatives, and the counsel for the respondent have leave to file written arguments before the oral argument

PROCEEDINGS OF WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22.

The court was opened with the usual formalities at eleven o'clock A. M.

Filing of Written or Printed Argaments. The Chief Justice stated the first business in order was the consideration of the following order, offered by Senator Sumner:

Ordered, That the managers on the part of the House of Representatives have leave to file written or printed arguments before the oral argument commences.

Senator VICKERS offered an amendment proposing to allow such of the managers as are not authorized to speak to file written or printed arguments, or make oral addresses, and the counsel for the President to alternate with them in so doing,

-Mr. CURTIS-Mr. Chief Justice-It may have some bearing upon the decision of this proposition if I state what I am now authorized to state, that of the coun sel for the President, Mr. Stanbery's indisposition is such that it will be impracticable for him to take any further part in the proceedings.

The substitute was agreed to by the following vote:YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cragin, Davis, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden. Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill (Me.), Morton, Norton, Patterson (N. H.). Patterson (Tenn.), Saulsbury, Sprague, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey, Wilson and Yates-26.

NAYS. Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Corness, Corbett, Drake, Ferry, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill (Vt.), Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer and Williams-20.

The question recurring on the order as amended, it was lost by the following vote:

YEAS.-Messrs. Buckalew, Cragin, Davis, Doolittle, Fowler, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morton, Norton, Patterson (N. H.), Patterson (Tenn.), Saulsbury, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey, Wilson and Yates-20.

NAYS.-Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler. Conness, Corbett, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill' (Mc.), Morrill (Vt.), Pomeroy Williams-26. Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer

Mr. STEVENS---Mr. President, I desire to make an inquiry, and that is, whether there is any impropriety in the managers publishing short arguments? After the motion made here on Saturday, some few of us, I among the rest, commenced to write out a short argument, which I expect to finish by to-night, which, if the first order had passed, I should have filed. I do not know that there is any impropriety in it except that it will not go into the proceedings. I do not like to do anything improper, and hence I make the inquiry.

Senator FERRY-Mr. President, I would inquire whether it would be in order to move the original order, on which we have taken no vote.

The Chief Justice-It would not, as the Chief Justice understands the matter has been disposed of. The reading of the order submitted by Senator Stewart some days ago, was called for, and it was read, as follows:

That one of the managers on the part of the House be permitted to file his printed argument before the adjournment to-day, and that after an oral opening by a manager, and the reply of one of the President's counsel, shall have the privilege of filing a written or of making an oral address, to be followed by the closing speech of one of the President's counsel, and the final reply of a manager, under the existing rule. The Chief Justice said it could be considered by unanimous consent.