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 President.

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 pay ment 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 de ired 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 warrant, 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 relted. 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.

NAYE.-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.). Shermen. 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 Angust. 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 dat? 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 throught 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 ofhce.

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. ParBons 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 vet 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 John. son 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 be comes 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 Amendinent; 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, WA 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 sustain 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 Cleveland 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 au 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

was not a Congress authorized by the Constitution, to execute legislative power; that it was not a Congress of the United States, but a Congress of only a portion of the States, thereby denying that the legislation of said Congress was valid or obligatory on him, except in so far as he thought fit to recognize or admit it, thereby denying the right of said Congress to pass articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

This is the very substance of this telegraphic despatch, and in pursuance of it, said declaration, the President afterwards to wit, on February 21, 1868, which we understand to include all these dates; besides, the declaration, which is the basis of the article, is open to us for the introduction of testimony tending to show the acts of the President on this point; that at the city of Washington, he, in disregard of the requirements of the Constitution, attempted to prevent the execution of an act entitled an act to regulate the tenure of office, and by devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive means then and there, to prevent the execution of an act providing for the support of the army; and also, to prevent the execution of an act to provide for the more efficient government of the Southern States, and thereby to properly see and understand the nature and extent of the influence of the President in sending this telegram. Here is Mr. Parsons, known to be Provisional Governor of Alabama in 1865 and 1866, and possessing immense influence in that part of the country, and who asks the President's opinion on the subject of the reconstruction of the Rebel States..

He, Governor Parsons says that the Legislature is in session and about to take up the question of the Constitutional Amendment. The reports from Washington say that probably an enabling act would be passed, relating to the act known as an act for the more efficient government of the Rebel States, through which these States were to be restored to the Union, and he (Parsons) asks the opinion of the President as to what he shall do.

What does the President reply to this? "What good can be obtained by reconsidering the Constitutional Amendment? I do not believe the people will support any set of individuals." Here is the whole gist of the telegraphic de spatch as it applies to the charge in the eleventh article. There we set forth that, in September, 1866, the President declared that the Thirty-ninth Congress was not a constitutional body, representing the whole Union, and in this despatch he speaks of Congress in the same way. He says: "I do not believe that the people of the country will sustain any set of individuals," thus describing and characterizing the Thirty-ninth Congress as a set of individuals, eager in an attempt to change the whole character of our government by passing enabling acts, or otherwise. We say he is, we have evidence of the intent of the President to defeat the will of Congress, in regard to the enforcement of an act, and that proves the offense charged against him in the eleventh article. I am reminded that the Reconstruction act provided for the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, under the Constitution and coincident as to the right of a State under an enabling act, to be restored to the Union.

The despatches were again read, and cries of "Question, question."

Mr. BUTLER-Let me first call attention to the fifth section of the act of March 2, 1867, known as the Reconstruction act:-"And when said State, by a vote of its Legislature, elected under said Constitution, shall have adopted the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as article fourteen, and when said article shall become part of the Constitution of the United States, the said State shall be entitled to representation in Congress, and Senators and Representatives shall be admitted therefrom on their taking the oath prescribed by law:" so that the adoption of the amendment is a part of the Reconstruction act. Cries of question.

Mr. HOWARD-Mr. President, I offer a question. It was read as follows:-What amendment to the Constitution is referred to in Mr. Parson's despatch?

Mr. BUTLER-There was but one at that time before the country, and that was known as the fourteenth article, and is the one I have just read, and which is required to be adopted by every State Legislature before the State can be admitted to representation in Congress.

The Chief Justice again stated the question to be, whe ther the evidence offered by the managers is admissible. Senator DRAKE called for the yeas and nays on second ing the call. Several Senators held up their hands, but the Chief Justice said the Senators will rise.

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, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, McCreery, Morrill (Me.), Norton. Patterson (Tenn.), Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Williams-17.4

So the evidence was admitted.

Mr. DOOLITTLE moved that the court now adjourn until to-morrow at noon,

Mr. SUMNER-I hope not.

The Chief Justice put the question, and declared it lost. Several Senators called for a division.

Senator RAMSEY-The question was not understood, The Chief Justice put the question again, and said the yeas seemed to have it.

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

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 read, 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 presiding 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.

Charles A. Tinker recalled:Mr. BUTLER-Before interrogating Mr. Tinker, I 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 nader the concurrent resolution of the iwo Houses of Congress of the 18th of June, in submitting to the Legislatures of the several States an additional 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 of it, as made by Andrew Johnson on the 18th day of August, 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.

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, aud, 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, 1666, 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 best 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 were several reporters present; there was Mr. James O. Clephane and Mr. Francis H. Smith, reporters.

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 I.

Q. Look at this file of manuscript (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 wit ness.) A. It is; what I hold in my 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 system of phonography.

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, 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 re quest, 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 yon 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 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.

words.

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 August, 1866? A. I was then secretary to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State.

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

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

Q. Were you employed on the 18th of August, 1866, to make a report of the President's speech in reply to Mr. Reverdy Johnson? A. I was; 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.

Q. Where was the speech made? A. In the east room of the White House.

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

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

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

8:

Q. What was donc 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 expresgion 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

A.

Did you take phonographic notes of the whole speech? 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 phono. graphic 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.

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 iia.

Q. When was it that you read that newspaper copy! A. The morning of the publication-Sunday morning. August 19. Q. Where were you when you read it? A. I read it at ny room.

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 ordinary 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 stenographic writing has progressed to a point where men must 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 President 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 news paper 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 shorthand, 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 can not 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

be playing into the hands of that delay which has been so often attempted here.

Precedents.

In the O'Connell case, to prove his speeches on that great trial and no trial was ever brought with more sharpness or bitterness-the newspapers were introduced, containing what purported to be Mr. O'Connell's speeches, and the only proof adduced was, that the papers had been pro perly stamped and issued from the office, the court holding that Mr. O'Connell, allowing these speeches to go for months without contradiction, must be held responsible for them.

In the trial of James Watson, for high treason, the question arose hether a copy might be used, which was made from partially obliterated short hand notes, and after argument, the witness was allowed to produce transcript. Now, while this authority is not exactly to the point raised here, I desire to put it once for all for these questions, because I heard the cross-examination as to the merits of Pitman's system of writing, and as to the whole system of stenography being an available means of furnishing information.

Reportorial Accuracy.

Mr. EVARTS-The learned manager is quite correct in saying that I do not know but that this witness can repeat verbatim the President's speech, and when he offers himself as a witness so to do, I shall not object. It is entirely competent for this person who has heard a speech, to repeat it under oath, he asserting that he remembers it and can do so, and whenever Mr. Clephane undertakes that feat, it is within the competency of evidence. Another form of trustworthy evidence, is the reporter's notes.

Whenever that form is admitted, and when the witness swears that he believes in his accuracy and competency as a reporter, we shall make no objections to that as not trustworthy; but when the learned managers seek to evade responsibility and accuracy through the oath of the witness applying in either form, and seek to put it neither upon his present memory nor upon his own memorandum, but upon the accuracy with which he has failed to detect inaccuracies in the newspaper report published the subsequent day, and thereupon to give credit and authenticity to the newspaper report upon his wholesale and general approval of it, then you must contend that the sacred right of the freedom of speech is sought to be invaded by overthrowing certainly one of the most responsible and most important protections of it, and that the oath of somebody who heard and can remember it, or who has preserved the aids and assistances by which he can repeat it, must adhere in a court of justice; and we are not to be told that it is technical to maintain, in defense of what has been regarded as one of the commonest and surest rights in any free country-freedom of speech-that whenever it is drawn in question, it shall be drawn in question on the surest and most faithful evidence.

The learned manager has said that you are familiar, as a part of the daily routine of your Congressional duties, with the habit of stenographic reporting and reproduction in the newspapers, and that you rely upon it habitually, and, I may add, to be habitually correcting it. Correction is the first demand of every public speaker; correction and revision when with those reports, dependant upon the ear, upon the sudden strokes of the ready writer, may not be the formed judgment against a man as to what is said by him; and now when seditiously this newspaper has undertaken that no such considerations of accuracy should be afforded to the President of the United States in order that that speech should be spread before the country with all its imperfections

Mr. BUTLER, interrupting-I pray correction, sir. I have not said that I said that the speech of the President's Private Secretary should not go to the public.

Mr. EVARTS-The instructions of the editor were that the speech should be reported with all its imperfections as caught by the shorthand writer, without the opportunity for that revision which every public speaker at the hustings or in the halls of debate demands, as a primary and important right, Whenever, therefore, Mr. Clephane shall rise and speak from memory, swearing to his accuracy, or when he shall produce his notes and transcribe -as in the Watson case-some foundation for the proof of his word in this case, will then have been made.

Mr. Tinker was again called by Mr. BUTLER, and made the following statement:-Yesterday when I was called upon the stand I was attending to my duties in the telegraph office, in the gallery; I hadn't a moment's notice that I was to be called; I then telegraphed to the office for the manuscripts contained in the package that was there, that I had been previously examined about before the managers; These documents were brought to me by a boy from the office, and I brought them with me to the stand, and last night I deposited them in the office of the Sergeant-atArms, and this morning I brought ene of those packages on the stand and opened it here, supposing it to be the one on which I was to be examined; but when I saw the reporters were put to trouble about it, I went to my office while Mr. Clephane was on the stand, and I have now got the speech telegraphed by the Associated Press on the 18th of August, 1866.

Mr. STANBERY-What document was that which Mr. Butler handed to you?

Witness-That was one of the documents on which I was examined,

Mr. STANBERY-If that is not the speech of 18th August

Mr. BUTLER-That is the 22d of February speech. (Laughter.) You will find out what that document is in

good time, gentlemen. (Laughter.) To the witness Now, sir, will you give me the document I asked for? (Document produced). Is this the document that you supposed you were testifying about, then? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you give the same testimony about that? Mr. STANBERY-That won't do.

Mr. BUTLER We will give you all the delay possible. (Laughter.) To the witness-Now, sir, will you tell us whether this was sent through the Associated Press? It bears the marks of having been sent. It is taken from the files of that day. From the course of business in your office have you any doubt of its having been sent? A. None whatever,

Mr. CARTER, of the counsel, objected to the witness' opinions.

Q. After that speech was sent ont, did you see it pub lished by the papers as the Associated Press report? A. I can't say positively; I think I did.

Q. Was that brought to your office for the purpose of being transmitted, whether it was or not? A. I did not personally receive it, but it is among the Associated Press despatches sent on that day.

James B. Sheridan recalled.

Mr. BUTLER-Will you examine that manuscript and say if you see any of your handwriting in it? A. I see my writing here. Q. What is that you have got there? A. It is a report of the speech made by the President on the 18th of August. Q. What year? A. 1866.

Q. Have you ever seen Mr. Moore write? A. A good many years ago when he used to report for the National Intelligencer, and I was a reporter for the Washington Union.

Q. He was a reporter also? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are there any corrections made in that report? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you see any of them made? A. No, sir.

Q. Is that the manuscript that was prepared in the President's office? A. I think it is; I am pretty certain that it is.

Q. No doubt in your mind? A. Not the least.

Q. Was the President there to correct it? A. No. sir. Q. Then he did not exercise that great constitutional right of revision to your knowledge? A. Didn't see the President after he left the east room.

Q. Do pou know whether Colonel Moore took any memoranda of that speech? A. I do not; there was quite a crowd there.

You pick out and lay aside, sir, the portions that are in your handwriting.

[Witness selects a portion of the manuscript.]

Q. Do you think you have all that is in your handwriting? A. No, sir.

Cross-examined by Mr. EVARTS.-Q. You have selected the pages that are in your handwriting? you have them before you? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How large a proportion do they make of the whole manuscript? A. I could hardly tell.

Q. Now was this whole manuscript made as a transcript from your notes? A. This part that I wrote out. Q. The whole was not? A. No, sir.

Q. Then it is only the part that you now hold in your hands that was produced from the stenographic original notes which you have brought in evidence here? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you write it in yourself, from your stenograpic notes, following the latter with your ears, or were your notes read to you by any other person? A. I wrote it from my own notes, reading my notes while I wrote.

Q. Have you made any subsequent comparison of the manuscript now in your hands with your stenographic notes? A. I have not.

Q. When was this completed on your part? A. A very few minutes after the speech was delivered.

Q. What did you do with the manuscript after you went from the Executive Mansion? A. I hardly know; it went from the table just as I wrote it. I am not certain about it.

Q. And that ended your connection with it? A. Yes, sir. Mr. EVARTS-It is desired that you should have your original stenographic notes here.

Mr. BUTLER-Put your initials on them. One of my associates desires me to put this question which I suppose you answered before:-Whether that manuscript, which you have produced in your handwriting, was a true transcript of your notes of that speech? A. It was sir; I won't say it was written out exactly as it was delivered.

Q. What was the change, sir, if any? A. I don't know that there were any changes, but frequently in writing we exercise a little judgment; we don't always write out & speech just as it is delivered.

Q. Is that a substantially true version of what the President said? A. It is.

Examination of Francis H. Smith. Francis H. Smith, sworn and examined by Mr. BUTLER-Q. Mr. Smith, are you the official reporter of the House? A. I am, sir.

Q. How long have you been so engaged? A. In the position I now hold, since the fifth of January, 1865.

Q. How long have you been in the business of reporting? A. Something over eighteen years.

Q. Were you employed, and if so, by whom, to make a employed at the instance of the Agent of the Associated report of the President's speech, in August, 1866? A. I was Press-one of the agents.

Q. Who aided in that report? A. Mr. James O. Clephane and Mr. James B. Sheridan,