sation, and on a method of condensing another man's notes, instead of a sworn report by a phonographer who took every word, who brings his original notes and a transcript of them, and swears to their accuracy; and here, deliberately in the face of this testimony as to what was said there authentically proved, and brought into court to be, related, the honorable manager proposes to present a speech, with notes made and published on the motive and with the feelings, and under the influence, and on the method which has been stated. We object to it as evidence of the words spoken,

Mr. BUTLER-If, Mr. President and Senators, I had not lived too long to be astonished at anything, I should be surprised at the tone in which this proposition is put. Do I keep back from these gentlemen anybody's report. Do I not give them all I can lay my hands on. Shall I not use the reports of my friends and not those of my enemies, when I gave them the report of my enemies to cancel those of my friends? Is all virtue and propriety confined to Democratic reports? At one time, I think, President Johnson, if I recollect aright, would not have liked me very well to look in the World's report for him, and when the change took place, exactly, I do not know, therefore, I have this report. Why? Because it is the fullest and completest report.

The reason I did not rely upon Mr. McEwen's report is, that he testified on the stand that he got tired and went away, and did not report the whole speech. Mr. Stark and Mr. McEwen both swear that they left out portions, I could not, therefore, put these in. If I did I might be met by the objection that it was not the whole report. Here are three reports, representing three degrees of opinion, and we offer them all.

Mr. EVARTS-Discredit is now thrown on the most st thentic report, on account of omissions, and because it is a Democratic report. I did not know before that the question of the authenticity of a stenographic report de pends upon the political opinions of the stenographer. We submit that there is no such evidence; no living witness who from memory can repeat the President's speech, and there is no such authentication of notes in any case but Mr. McEwen's, which makes the public speech evidence Mr. BUTLER-I shall not debate the matter further than simply to say that I have not made any such propo sition. I think this is an accurate report so far as we have put it into the article. It is an accurate report, a sworn report, and made by a man whom we can trust, and do trust. The other we think is just as accurate, perhaps That question we do not go into, we simply put them in so that if there is a choice the President can have the benefit of it.

The President comes in here and says in his answer that we will not give him the full benefit of all he said, and when we take great pains to bring everybody here who made a report, and when we offer all the reports, then he says, "You must take a given one." So that we answer, "We take the one, but we take the one which has the whole speech," and now to test the question. if the gentle men will agree not to object to McEwen's report because it is not a report of the whole speech, I will take that. Mr. EVARTS-We will not make that objection. Mr. BUTLER-We want it fully understood we put in Mr. McEwen's report of the sreech as the standard report, and we put in the other two, so that if the President come with witnesses to deny the accuracy of the report, then we shall have the additional authentication of the other two reports.

Mr. EVARTS-The learned manager is familiar enghno with the course of trials to know that it is time enough for him to bring in additional proof to contradict proof of ours when we make it.

Mr. BUTLER Will you allow this report to be received? Do you make any objection?

Mr. EVARTS-We object to the two copies from newspapers

Mr. BUTLER Very good. I asked that this question should be decided. I want all to go in, and I offered the whole three at once.

The Chief Justice said he could not put the question in all three at once.

Mr. BUTLER Then I will first offer the Leader report. The Chief Justice-The managers offer the report made in the Leader newspaper as evidence in this case. It ap pears from the statement of the witness, that the report was not made by him, but was made by him with the as 'sistance of another person, whose notes were not produced and who is not himself produced as a witness.

The Chief Justice thinks shat that paper is inadmis sible.

The yeas and nays were demanded upon the question as to the admissibility of the report in the Cleveland Leader.

The vote was then taken and resulted, yeas, 35% nays, 11, ag follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chand ler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Hender son, Howard, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill (Me.), Morrill (Vt.), Norton, Nye, Patterson (N. H.), Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Ti ton, Van Winkle Willey and Williams 35.

NAYS-Messrs, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, For ler. Hendricks, Howe, McCreery, Patterson (Tenn.) Trumbull, and Vickers-11.0

So the repert was admitted as evidence.

Mr. BUTLER-I now offer the report prepared by Mr. McEwen.

Mr. EVARTS-We make no additional objection.

Mr. BUTLER-We now offer the report in the Cleveland Herald. Is there objection to that?

Mr. EVARTS-It is on the same principle.

Mr. Butler was proceeding to read the report when it was agreed that they should be all considered as read.

On motion of Mr. EDMUNDS, the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, adjourned until to-morrow at twelve o'clock.

PROCEEDINGS OF SATURDAY, APRIL 4.

Opening of the Court.

At twelve o'clock the Chair was vacated for the Chief Justice.

Proclamation was made, and the managers and members of the House were announced as usual, the former being all present, as well as the President's counsel.

L. L. Waldridge's Testimony.

After the Journal had been read, L. L. Waldridge was sworn and examined by Mr. BUTLER, and testified as follows:

I am a short-hand writer; have been engaged in that business nearly ten years; have had during that time considerable experience in that business; I have had experience during the whole of that time, including newspaper and outside reporting; I have been lately connected with the Missouri Democrat, previous to that time the Missouri Republican.

Q. Do the names of those papers indicate their party proclivities, or are they reversed? A. They are reversed; the Democrat means Republican, and the Republican means Democrat; I was attached on or about the 8th of September, 1866, to the Missouri Democrat: I reported a speech delivered from the balcony of the hotel in St. Louis by Andrew Johnson; the speech was delivered between eight and nine o'clock in the evening: there was a crowd in the streets, and also on the balcony; also where I was; I was within two or three feet of the President while he was speaking; I don't know where the President's party was; I have no recollection of seeing one of the party on the balcony; I believe the President came to answer a call from the crowd in the street apparently; I know there was a very large crowd on the street, and continual cries for the President; in response to these cries I suppose he came out; he had, sir, been received in the afternoon by the municipal authorities; the Mayor made him an address; he answered that address; I reported that speech; I took every word.

Q. How soon was it written ons after it was taken? A. Immediately, by my dictation; the first part of the speech previons to the banquet was written out in the rooms of the Southern Hotel; that occupied about half an hour, I should think; we then attended the banquet, at which speeches were made; immediately after the close of the banquet I went to the Repubican office, and there I dictated the speech to Mr. Monaghan and Mr. McHenry, two of the attaches of the Republican office.

Q. There was a banquet given to the President by the city? A. Yes, sir; immediately after speaking from the balcony, at that banquet, the President made a very short address.

Q. After that speech was written out, was it published? A. On the next morning in the Sunday Repubeican; after it was published I revised the republication by my notes; immediately after the speech was published in the Sunday Morning Republican, I went down to the Democrat office in company with my associate, Mr. Edwin F. Adams, and we very carefully revised the speech for the Monday morning Democrat; it was on the same day; on the same Sunday that made the revision; when I made the revision I had my notes; I compared the speech as printed with those notes at that time and since; my recollection is that there was one or two simple corrections of errors in transcribing, on the part of the printer; that is all I remember in the way of corrections; it was a little over a year ago: I was summoned here by the Committee on the New Orleans Riot, I think; it was a little after receiving the summons I hunted up my notes and again made a comparison with the speech; the second comparison verified my correctness.

Q. In regard to the particularity of the report whether you were unable to report so correctly as to give inaccuracy pronunciation?" A. Yes, sir, I did so in

many instances; I can't tell where my original notes are now; I searched for them a little after I was summonod here, but I failed to find them; I had them at the time I was examined before the Committee on the New Orleans Riots; I have no recollection of them since that time; I have a copy of that paper. (Witness produces printed paper.) This is it,

Q. From your knowledge of the manner in which you took speeches, from your knowledge of the manner in which you corrected it, state whether you are enabled to say the paper which I hold in my hand containe an accurate report of the speech of the Presi dent delivered on that occasion. A. I am able to say it is an accurate report.

Mr. BUTLER said he proposed, if there was no objection, to offer the paper in evidence, and he proposed to do so, also, if there were objections. (Laughter.)

Cross-examined by Mr. EVARTS.-Took down the entire speech from the President's mouth, word for word, as he delivered it; in the transcript from my notes and in this publication I preserved that form and degree of accuracy and completeness; it is all of the speech; no part of it is condensed or paraphrased; it is all of the speech; besides the revision of the livery of the speech, I made a revision of it a year speech which I made on the Sunday following the deago, at the time that I was summoned before the committee of Congress on the New Orleans riot, at Washington; I can't say when that was; it was over a year ago; I cannot fix the date precisely; I was then inquired of in relation to the speech, and produced them to that committee; I was not examined before any other committee than that; my testimony was reduced to writing.

Mr. BUTLER-Was your testimony before the New Orleans Riot Committee published? A. I am not aware whether it was or not.

Mr. BUTLER then put in a copy of the St. Louis Louis, made on September 8, 1866. The speech was Democrat's report of the President's speech in St. read in full by the Clerk. The most offensive portions are set out in the third specification of the tenth article. It contains a paragraph predicting that the Fortieth Congress, constituted as the Thirty-seventh Congress, would try to impeach and remove him from office on some pretense of violating the Constitution or refusing to enforce some laws.

Testimony of J. A. Dean.

Joseph A. Dean, sworn and examined by Mr. BUTLEY-I am a reporter; I have been in the business five years; I am a short-hand writer; I joined the President's party when it went to St. Louis, via Cleveland; I joined it in Chicago; I was in the President's party at St. Louis; I reported all the speeches made there; I was with the party as correspondent for the Chicago Republican; I made the report for the St. Louis Times; I have a part of my notes; there was speaking on the steamboat; I reported that speech; I think it was a speech in answer to an address of welcome, by Captain Leeds, who represented a committee of citizens which met at Afton; I made that report in short-hand writing, and wrote it out; that evening the report was made for the St. Louis Times; and reported for a paper of strong Democratic pontics; I corrected the inaccuracies of grammar; that is all; I have since written out from my notes so far as I have notes; this paper is in my hand writing from my notes; it is an exact transcript so far as it goes; it is an accurate report of the speech as made by Andrew Johnson, with the exceptions I have mentioned. Mr. STANBERY to Mr. Butler-Is that the steamboat speech?

Mr. BUTLER-No, it is the speech from the bal cony of the Southern Hotel.

Witness-The first speech is the speech at the Lindell Hotel; the other is the speech at the Southerir, Hotel.

Mr. BUTLER to witness-Take the one at the Southern Hotel. So far as that report goes, is this an accurate report of the speech? A. It is, but it is not. all here, because I have lost part of my notes.

Q. Whereabouts did it commence? A. The speech commences in the middle of a sentence; the first words are:-"Who has shackles on their limbs and who are as much under the control and will of their masters as the colored men who are amancipated."

Witness (to a Senator)-This speech was made at the Southern Hotel in St, Louis; the speech then goes through as printed to the end; I have not compared the transcript with this paper (the St. Louis Democrat).

Mr. BUTLER offered the transcript as evidence.

Cross-examined by Mr. STANBERY-My report was published in the St. Louis Times on the Sunday following; I think the 9th of September.

Q. How much more time does it require a short-hand writer to write out his notes in long-hand than is required in taking the notes? A. We generally recken the difference in the rates between long and shorthand about six or seven to one.

A. J.'s Oratorical Powers.

Re-direct by Mr. BUTLER-Do I understand you to say that the whole of the speech was published in the Times? A. No, sir, not the whole of it; it was condensed for publication; it was considerably condensed; Mr. Johnson is a fluent speaker, but a very incoherent one; he frequently repeats his words; he is tautological; very verbose; that enables him to be taken with more ease; it is so in my experience that there are men who, by practice of long-hand and by abbreviations, can follow a speaker pretty accurately who speaks as Andrew Johnson speaks; I think they can give the sense of his speech without doing him any injustice.

Q. How is it when taking into consideration interruptions? A. The reporter would have to indicate the interruption; he would not write them out,

Q. But conid he get the seuse of the speaker; A. Yes he could.

By Mr. STANBERY-A long-hand writer, you say, may take the sense and substance of a speech; that is, he may take the sense and substances as to his ideas of what they are? A. Yes, his own view of what the apeaker is saying.

To Mr. Butler-By dictating a report from the notes to another person it can be written out much more rapidly.

R. T. Chew Examined.

Robert T. Chew, sworn, and examined by Mr. BUTLER. I am employed in the State Department; I am Chief Clerk in the State Department.

Q. It is a part of your duty to supervise commissions that are issued? A. A commission is first written out by a person who is called the Commission Clerk of the department; it is brought to me and by me sent to the President; when it is returned with the President's signature it is submitted by me to the Secretary of State, who countersigns it; then it goes to the Commission Clerk for the seal to be affixed to it; when a commission does not belong to my department, if it is for the Treasury it goes to the Treasury; that is to say the commissions of officers of the Treasury are prepared at my department; for Comptroller, Auditor, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer, Auditors of the Mint, Collectors of the Revenue, etc.; for Secretary and Assistant Secretary also; after they are prepared they are sent to the Treasury; these belong to my office; are issued from my office, from the Department of State.

Q. Have the kindness to tell us whether, after the passage of the Civil Tenure of Office act, any change was made in the commission of officers of your department to conform to that act ? A. There was..

Q. What was that change; tell us how the commission rau in that respect before, and how it ran afterwards? A. The form of the old commission was "during the pleasure of the President of the United States for the time being." These words have been stricken out, and the words substituted "subject to the conditions prescribed by law."

Q. Does that apply to all commissions? A. It applies to all commissions.

Q. When was that change made? A. Shortly after the passage of the civil Tenure of Office act; I cannot exactly say when the first came up making it necessary for the Commission Clerk to prepare a commission; be applied for instructions under that act; the subject was then examined at the department; that change was made after the examination; the case was submitted by the Secretary to the examiner, and on his opinion the change was made, I think, by order of the Secretary; we print, our commissions on parchment from a copper-plate form; the copper-plate was changed to conform; we have blank forms of the various kinds of commissions issued by our department; prior to the passage of the act of March 2, 1867, being the Civil Tenure of Office act, the commission to hold office for or during the pleasure of the President for the time being, were all issued in that form; after the change all commissions have been issued in the changed form; such changed commissions have been signed by the President; there have been no other changes than what I have mentioned down to this day; no commission whatever to any officer has been

sent out from the department since the passage of the act except in that changed form, that I am aware of; there could not have been any except by accident without my knowing it.

Mr. BUTLER put the forms of commission in evidence.

Cross-examination by Mr. STANBERY-Q. The old forms contained this clause, as I understand it:"The said officer to hold office during the pleasure of the President of the United States for the time being?" A. Yes, sir.

Q. These words, you say, are left out? A. Yes, air, and these other words are inserted-"Subject to the conditions prescribed by law."

Q. Have you ever changed one of forms so as to introduce in place of war plates or was there before these words "To hold until removed by the President, with the consent of the Senate?" A. No, sir; no commission has been issued to the heads of departments different from those which were issued before the Tenure of Office act that I am aware of.

Q. Have you a separate plate for the commissions of heads of departments? A. I cannot answer that question; Frecollect no instance in which any change has been made there,,

Mr. BUTLER-Has any commission been issued to the head of a department since March 2, 1867? A. I do not recollect it.

།

Mr. BUTLER-Then of course there is no change. Mr. STANBERY-Of course not.

To the witness-Q. How long have you been chief clerk? A. Since July, 1866; I have been in the office since July, 1833; that is thirty-three years; in all that time, before this change, all commissions ran in this way: "During the pleasure of the President for the time being."

Mr. BUTLER-Do you know Mr. Seward's handwriting? A. Yes, sir; this letter is signed by him.

Appointments and Removals.

Mr. BUTLER-I now offer in evidence a list prepared by the Secretary of State, and sent to the managers, of all the appointments and removals of officers, as they appear in the State Department, from the beginning of the government.

Mr. STANBERY-Of all officers?

Mr. BUTLER-No; of all heads of departments. It is accompanied with a letter simply describing the list, and which I will read. The letter is as follows:

"Hon. John A. Bingham, Chairman, &c.-Sir:--In reply to the note addressed to me on the 23d inst., on the part of the House of Representatives, in the matter of the im peachment of the President, I have the honor to submit herewith two schedules, A and B. Schedule A presents a statement of all removals of heads of departments made by the President of the United States during this session of the Senate, so far as the same can be ascertained from the records of the department. Schedule B contains a list of all appointments of heads of departments at any time made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and while the Senate was in session, so far as the same appear on the records of the State Department. I have the honor to be, &c.. WILLIAM H. SEWARD."

Mr. BUTLER then put in evidence Schedule As being the list of removals of heads of department, made by the President at any time during the session of the Senate, the only one being that of Timothy Pickering, Secretary of State, removed May 18, 1800.

Mr. BUTLER also put in evidence schedule B, being a list of appointments of heads of departments made by the President at any time during the session of the Senate. The list contains thirty appointments, extending from 1794 down to 1866, and are principally the appointments of chief clerks to act temporarily as heads of departments.

Mr. BUTLER to the witness-There are in this list thirty acting appointments like those of Mr. Hunter, Mr. Appleton and Mr. Frederick W. Seward. I do not ask the authority under which they were made, but I ask the circumstances under which they were, and what was the necessity for making them, whether it was the absence of the Secretary or otherwise? A. The absence of the Secretary.

Q. Has there been in the thirty-four years that you have been in the department any appointment di an Acting Secretary except on account of the temporary absence of the Secretary? A. I do not recollect any at this time.

Q. By whom were those acting appointments made?" A. They were made by the President, or by his order. Q. Did the letters of authority proceed in most of these cases from the President, or from the heads of departments?