Legal Sparring.

Mr. EVARTS objected, and stated that the papers themselvers were the best evidence, and must be produced.

Mr. BUTLER said that he was merely asking from whence the papers were issued; whether they came directly from the head of a department to the chief clerk, or came from the President to him.

Mr. EVARTS-That is the very objection we make; the letters of the authority are themselves the best evidence.

Mr. BUTLER-Suppose there were no letters of authority.

Mr. EVARTS-Then you would have to prove the fact by other evidence.

Mr. BUTLER-I am asking whence the authority proceeded, because I cannot know now to whom to send to produce them.

The Chief Justice (to the witness)- Is the authority in writing?

Witness-It is always in writing.

Mr. BUTLER-I put this question to the witness:From whom did those letters of which you speak

come?

Mr. EVARTS objected..

The Chief Justice directed the question to be reduced to writing.

Mr. BUTLER then modified it so as to read:-State whether any of the letters of authority which you have mentioned came from the Secretary of State, or from what other officer?

Mr. BUTLER said-My object in putting the question is, that if he says that they all came from the President, that will end the inquiry: and if he says that they all came from the Secretary of State, then I want to send for them.

Mr. EVARTS-We object to proof of authority other than by the production of the writing, which, as the witness has stated, exists in all cases.

Mr. BUTLER-I am not now proving the authority. I am endeavoring to find out from what source these letters came, and am following the usual course of examination.

Mr. CURTIS (to Mr. Butler)-Do you mean to inquire who signed the letters of authority?

Mr. BUTLER-I mean to inquire precisely whether the letters came from the Secretary of State or from the President.

Mr. CURTIS-Do you mean by that who signed the letter; or do you mean from whose manual possession it came?

Mr. BUTLER-I mean who signed the letter?
Mr. CURTIS-That we object to.

Mr. BUTLER-I do not do it for the purpose of proving the contents of the letter, but for the purpose of its identification.

Mr. EVARTS-We say that the paper itself will show who signed it.

Mr. BUTLER The difficulty with me is that unless I take an hour in my argument, these gentlemen are determined that I shall never have the reply on my proposition. My proposition is not to prove the authority, nor to prove the signature, but it is to prove the identity of the paper. It is not to prove that it was a letter of authority, because Mr. Seward signed it, but it is to prove whether I am to look for my evidence in a given direction or in another direction.

The Chief Justice decided that the question in the form in which it was put was not objectionable, and that the question whether these documents were signed by the President would be also competent...

Mr. BUTLER-State whether any of the letters or authority which you have mentioned, came from the Secretary of State, or from what other officer?

Mr. CURTIS-I understand that the witness is not to answer by whom they were sent,

Mr. BUTLER (Tartly)-I believe I have this wit

ness.

The Chief Justice-The Chief Justice will instruct the witness not to answer at present by whom they were signed.

Witness-They came from the President.

Mr. BUTLER-All of them? A. Such is the usual rule; I know of no exception; I know of no letter of authority to a chief clerk to act as Secretary of State that did not come from the President; I will, on my return to the office, examine and see if there is any. Mr. STANBERY-I see by this list only one instance of the removal by the President of the head of à department, and that was during the session of the Senate, and that was an early one, May 13, 1800. You know nothing of the circumstances of that re

moval? A. Not at all; I do not know whether that officer had refused to resign when requested.

Q. In your knowledge, since you have been in the department, do you know of any instance in which the head of a department, when requested by the President to resign, has refused to resign?

Mr. BUTLER (to the witness)-Stop a moment; I object.

The objection was either sustained or the question withdrawn.

Mr. STANBERY-Have you ever examined the records to ascertain under what circumstances it was that President Adams removed Mr. Pickering from the head of the State Department in 1800, when the Senate was in session? A. I have not.

Mr. BUTLER-Do you know that he was removed when the Senate was in session of your own knowledge? A. I do not.

Mr. BUTLER-I now offer, sir, from the ninth volume of the works of John Adams, "The Little & Brown edition by his grandson, Charles Francis Adams," what purports to be official letters from Timothy Pickering, Secretary of State, to John Adams, and from Mr. Adams to him. Any objection? (To Mr. Stanbery.)

Mr. STANBERY-Not the least.

Mr. BUTLER-The first one is dated the 10th of May, 1808, pages 53, 54 and 55. I offer them as the best evidence of the official letters of that dete. I have not been able to find any record of them thus far. Any objection, gentlemen? Mr. STANBERY-Not at all, sir.

Timothy Pickering's Removal.

Mr. BUTLER read a letter from President Adams to Timothy Pickering, Secretary of State, dated 10th May, 1800, which he said was Saturday, announcing that the Administration deemed a change in the office of Secretary of State necessary, and stating that the announcement was made in order to give Mr. Pickering an opportunity to resign. He next read the reply of Mr. Pickering, dated "Department of State, May 12, 1800," stating that he had contemplated a continuance in office until the 4th of March following after the election of Mr. Jefferson, which was considered certain, and refusing, from various personal cousiderations, to resign. He then read the letter of President Adams of the same date, and removing Mr. Pickering from office.

Mr. BUTLER Now, will the Senate have the goodness to send for the executive journal of May 13, 1800, to be brought here? I propose to show that at the same hour, on the same day, Mr. Adams, the President, sent the nomination to the Senate.

Mr. STANBERY-Do I understand the honorable member to say at the same hour? Do you expect to prove it?-to Mr. Butler.

Mr. BUTLER When I come to look at the correspondence I think I am wrong. I think the action of the Senate was a little precarious. (Laughter.) Mr. STANBERY-You do? Mr. BUTLER-Yes, sir.

On motion of Mr. SHERMAN it was ordered that the Journal in question be furnished.

Mr. Creecy Called.

Mr. C. Eaton Creecy recalled and examined by Mr. BUTLER. You have been sworn, I believe? A. Yes, sir. (Paper shown to witness.)

Q. You told us that you were appointed Clerk in the Treusury. Are you familiar with the handwriting of Andrew Johnson? A. I am; that is his handwriting; I procured this letter from the archives of the Treasury to-day.

The Removal of Mr. Stanton.

Mr. BUTLER-Just step down a moment. Mr. President and Senators:-It will be remembered that the answer of the President to the first article says in words:"And this has ever since remained, and was the opinion of this respondent at the time when he was forced as aforesaid to consider and decide what act or acts should and might lawfully be done by this respondent as President of the United States to cause the said Stanton to surrender the said office." This respondent was also aware that this act (the Tenure of Office act) was understood and intended to be an expression of the opinion of the Congress by which that act was passed; that the power to remove executive officers for cause might by law be taken from the President, and vested in him and the Senate. jointly.

Mr. Butler read further from the articies the President's claim that he had removed Stanton under the Constitution.

He then read the 2d section of the Tenure of Office act empowering the President, during a recess of the Senate, to suspend civil officers, except United States Judges, for incapacity, misconduct, &c., authorizing him to designate a temporary successor to hold until acted upon by the Senate, and requiring him to report such action within twenty days from the next meeting of the Senate, with the reasons therefor, &c. He also read the eighth section, requiring the President to notify the Secretary of the Treasury of such temporary appointments made without the consent of the Senate. He continued:-It will be seen that the President of the United States says, in his answer, that he suspended Mr. Stanton under the Constitution, suspended him indefinitely, and at his pleasure.

We propose now, unless it is objected to, to show that is false under his own hand. I offer his letter to that effect, which, if there is no objection, I will read.

Mr. STANBERY, after examining the letter-We see no inconsistency in that nor falsehood.

Mr. BUTLER-That is not the question I put to you; I asked you if you had any objection.

Mr. STANBERY-I have no objection.

Mr. BUTLER-The falsehood is not in the letter; it is in the answer.

He then read the letter, dated Washington, D. C., Ang. 14, 1867, as follows:

Sir:-In compliance with the requirements of the eighth section of the act of Congress of March 2, 1867, entitled an act to regulate the tenure of certain civil offices, you are hereby notified that, on the 12th inst., the Hon. Edwin M. Stanton was suspended from his office as Secretary of War, General U. S. Grant is authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim. I am, sir, very respectfully, yours, ANDREW JOHNSON.

To the Hon, Hugh McCulloch, Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. BUTLER-I wish to call attention to this again, because it may have escaped the attention of Senators.

Mr. CURTIS-We object. We wish to know what all this discussion means. What question is now before the Senate. How it is that this statement is made?

Mr. BUTLER-I am endeavoring to show that when the President said that he did not suspend Mr. Stanton under the Tenure of Office act, and that he had come to the conclusion that he had the right to suspend before August 12, 1867, without leave of the Tenure of Office act, he sent a letter, saying that he did under that act, to the Secretary of the Treasury, under the eighth section of the act to which he refers. He expressly says in that letter that he did suspend him under this act.

Mr. CURTIS-We do not object to the honorable manager offering his evidence. We do object to his argument.

Ancient Precedent.

Mr. BUTLER-I am arguing nothing, sir. I read the law.

The Journal asked for arrived at this point, and was delivered to Mr. Butler. He read the proceedings of Monday, May 12, 1800, and the subsequent action of the Senate on the following day, as follows:

"On Tuesday, May 13, 1800, the Senate proceeded to consider the message of the President of the United States of the 12th inst., and the nomination contained therein of John Marshall, of Virginia, to be Secretary of State, whereupon it was

"Resolved, That they do advise and consent to the appointment according to the nomination.

Mr. STANBERY-Please to read when it appeared there at what hour this was done.

1

Mr. BUTLER-I will not undertake to state the hour, sir. I state directly to the Senate in answer to you that the nomination went to the Senate, as it will appear from an examination of the whole case, prior to the letters giving to Mr. Pickering

Mr. STANBERY-Will the honorable manager allow me to add that he said he expected to prove it.

Mr. BUTLER-I expected it would appear from the whole case. He sent it first, am quite eure; now, then, as it was the duty of Mr. Adams to send it first to the Senate, I presume he did his duty and sent it to the Senate first before he sent it to Mr. Pickering. (Laughter.) I want to say for them that, being all on the same day, it must be taken to be done at the same time in law; but another piece of evidence is that he asked Mr. Pickering to send in his resignation, because it was necessary to send the suspension to the Senate as soon as they sat, which he did.

Mr. STANBERY requested a certified copy of the Executive document in questien.

C. Eaton Creecy, Recalled.

Mr. BUTLER Q. Upon receipt of that notification by the President of the United States that he had suspended Mr. Stanton according to the provisions of the Civil Tenure act, what was done? A. A copy of the Executive communication was sent to the First Comptroller, the First Auditor, Second Auditor and Third Auditor.

Q. Have you the letters of transmissal there? A. Witness produces and reads one of the letters promul gating the information by the Secretary of the Trea sury to the First Comptroller; he stated that the others were similar.

C. Are those officers the proper accounting and disbuasing officers of the department? A. They are for the War Department.

Q. Then I understand you all the disbursing officers and accounting officers of the Treasury for the War Department were notified in pursuance of that act? Objection by Mr. CURTIS.

sir.

Mr. BUTLER Q. Were thereupon notified? A. Yes,

Q. Were you there to know of this transmission? A. Yes, air.

Q. Did you prepare the papers? A. Yes, sir, but not in pursuance of any other act of Congress except the Civil Tenure.

Recess.

On motion of Mr. CONNESS the Senate took a recess of fifteen minutes from half-past two.

An Appeal for Time.

After the recess Mr. CONNESS suggested an adjournment, whereupon

Mr. CURTIS said:-Mr. Chief Justice, it is enggested to me by my colleagues that I should make known at this time to the Senate that it is our intention, if the testimony on the part of the prosecution should be closed to-day, as we suppose it will, to ask the Senators to grant to the President's counsel three days in which to prepare and arrange their proofs, and enable themselves to proceed with the defense. We find ourselves in a condition in which it is absolutely necessary to make this request, and I hope the Senators will agree to it.

In response to an intimation from the Chief Justice that the request be postponed until the Senate was fuller, Mr. CURTIS said he had merely suggested it lest it should not be in order at another time.

Argument of Mr. Boutwell.

Mr. BOUTWELL called the attention of counsel to the statutes as explainining the nature of the proceedings in the case of the appointment of Mr. Pickering. He said the only appointment of the head of a department which appeared on the record to have been made during a session of the Senate, was in 1st Statutes of September, 1789, in which it is provided that there shall be a Postmaster-General with powers and compensation to the assistant clerks and deputies whom he may appoint, and the regulations of the Post Office shall be the same as they were under the resolution and ordinances of the last Congress. It was provided in the second section that this act shall continue in force until the end of the next session of Congress, and no longer, showing that it was merely the continuance of the Post Office Department that war contemplated.

On the 4th of August, 1790, Congress passed a supplementary act, in which it was provided, that the act of last session, entitled "An act for the Establishment of a Post Office Department," be and the same is hereby continued in force until the end of the next session of Congress, which was a continuance of the Continental system of post office management. On the 9th day of March, 1791, Congress passed another act. continuing the act for the temporary establishment of a post office department in full force and effect until the end of the next session of Congress and no longer. On the 20th of February, 1792, Congress passed an act making various arrangements in regard to the administration of the Post Office Department and to establish certain postal routes; that act provided, that the act of the preceding session be continued in full force for two years and no longer. This act did not provide for the establishment of a post office depart ment as a branch of the government, so that the act of the previous session was continued by it until 1794. On May 8, 1794, Congress passed an act covering the

whole ground of the post office system, providing for a General Post Office, and meet the wants of the counsel for the respondent.

Mr. WILSON called attention to several entries in the Journal of 1800, showing that the Senate met before noon.

Mr. BINGHAM offered in evidence the Executive messages to the Senate, of December 16 and December 19, 1867, and January 18, 1868, in which the President gives his reasons for the suspension from office of several officers. Also, a communication from the Secretary of State accompanying one of the messages, in which he reports the action under the Tenure of Office laws.

Mr. BUTLER then informed the Senate that the case, on the part of the House of Representatives, was substantially closed, although they might call a few more witnesses, whose testimony would be only cumulative.

The Question of Time.

Mr. CURTIS, on behalf of the President's counsel, then made a motion that when the court adjourned it should be to Thursday next, in order to afford them three working days in which to prepare their testimony.

Mr. CONNESS (Cal.) moved that the court adjourn until Wednesday next.

Senator JOHNSON-If it is in order, I move to amend the motion made by the honorable Senator from California, by inserting Thursday instead of Wednesday.

The question was put on the amendment of Mr. Johnson, and agreed to, with only one dissenting voice.

The Chief Justics stated the question to be on the motion as amended.

Senator CAMERON-Mr. President

The Chief Justice-No debate is in order. Senator CONKLING-I wish to inquire whether the managers want to submit some remarks on the motion for delay.

The Chief Justice-The question is on the motion to adjourn.

Mr. CONKLING-My purpose was to ascertain whether they desire to make some remarks or not.

Mr. BUTLER-We want to have it understoodIn reply to an inquiry from Senator Anthony, the Chief Justice restated the question.

Mr. CONNESS said the motion to amend had been submitted before he was aware of it. He had desired to accept it.

Mr. CAMERON-I was going to ask the honorable managers whether they will not be prepared to go on with this case on Monday. I can see no reason why the other side will not be as well prepared.

Mr. BUTLER-We are ready.

Senators CAMERON and SUMNER simultaneously -Mr. President

The Chief Justice-No debate is in order.

Senator CAMERON-I am not going to debate the the question, your Honor. I have just arisen to ask the question, whether the managers will be ready to go on with this case on Monday?

Senator SUMNER-I wish to ask a question also. I want to know if the honorable managers have any views to present to the Senate, sitting now on the trial of this impeachment, to aid the Senate in determining this question of time? On that I wish to know the views of the honorable managers.

The Chief Justice-The Chief Justice is of opinion that pending the motion of adjournment no debate is in order.

The motion as amended was then agreed to by the following vote:

YEAS.-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cattell, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Dixon, Edmunds, Ferry, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill (Me.). Mor rill (Vt.). Norton, Nye, Patterson (N. H.), Patterson (Tenn.), Ramsey, Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey, and Williams-37.

NAYS.-Messrs. Cameron, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Drake, Morgan, Pomeroy, Stewart, Sumner, and Thayer --10. The Chair was vacated, and was immediately resumed by the President pro tem., whereupon, without transacting any legislative business,

On motion of Mr. GRIMES, the Senate adjourned.

PROCEEDINGS OF THURSDAY, APRIL 9.

The Opening,

The doors were opened to the crowd at eleven o'clock this morning, and the galleries were considera bly filed by an audience of the usual well-dressed order at the opening of the Senate, at twelve o'clock.

Prayer.

After prayer, by a stranger, in which all the departments of the government were remembered, the President pro tem. relinquished the chair for the Chief Justice, and the court was opened by the usual proclamation.

Entering of the Managers.

At ten minutes past twelve the managers were announced, and all appeared but Mr. Stevens.

The counsel for the President were all promptly present. The members of the House were announced than on recent occasions put in their appearance. at quarter past twelve, and a rather larger proportion

The Chief Justice asked-Have the managers on the part of the House of Representatives any further evidence to bring in?

Mr. BUTLER-We have.

On motion of Senator JOHNSON, the further reading of the journal was dispensed with when but little progress had been made.

Examination of W. H. Wood.

Mr. BUTLER, on the part of the managers, then called in W. H. Wood, of Alabama, who was sworn. Q. Where is your place of residence? A. Tusca loosa, Alabama; I served in the Union army during the war; from July, 1861, to July, 1865; some time in September, 1866, I called upon President Johnson, and presented him testimonials for employment in the government service: it was on the 21st day of September, 1866; I fix the time partly from memory, and partly from the journal of the Ebbitt House.

Q. How long before that had he returned from Chi cago from his trip to the tomb of Doughs? A. My recollection is that he returned on the 15th or 16th; I awaited his return; I presented my testomonials to him, when he examined part of them.

Q. What then took place between you?

Mr. STANBERY-What do you propose to prove? Has it anything to do with this case? Mr. BUTLER-Yes, sir.

Mr. STANBERY-What articles?

Mr. BUTLER-As to the intent of the President; in several of the articles.

Mr. STANBERY-What to do?

Mr. BUTLER-To oppose Congress.

Q. What did he say? A. He said my claims for government employment were good, or worthy of attention; he inquired about my political principles; I told him I wasn't a political man; I told him I was a Union man, a loyal man, and in favor of the administration: I had confidence in Congress and in the Chief Executive; he asked me if I knew of any I did; I knew of some differences on minor points; differences between himself and Congress; I told him then he said, "They are not minor points; the influ ence of patronage" (I don't know which) "shall be in my favor; that's the meaning.

Q. Were those the words? A. I will not swear that they were the words.

Q. What did you say to that? A, I remarked that under those conditions I could not accept an appoint ment of any kind if my influence was to be used for him in contradistinction to Congress, and retired.

Cross-examined by Mr. Stanbery-Q. Do you know a gentleman in this city by the name of Koppel? A. I do.

Q. Have you talked with him since you have been in the city? A. I have; I called on him when I first came to the city: I did not tell him yesterday morning that all you could say was more in his favor than against him; I did not tell Mr. Koppel that when I was brought up to be examined, since I arrived in this city, there was an attempt made to make me say things which I would not say; I might, in explana tion of that question, say that there was a misunderstanding between the managers and a gentleman in

Boston, in regard to an expression that they supposed I could testify to, which I could not.

Have you been examined before this time by any one? A. I have, sir.

QUnder oath? A. Yes, sir; by the managers first; my testimony was taken down; I was not examined nor taiked to by any one of them ander eath; I had informal interviews with two of them before I was examined: I could hardly call it an examination; they were Governor Boutwell and General Butler; it was on Monday of this week.

Q. Did you say to Mr. Koppel that since you had been in this city a proposition was made to you that in case you would give certain testimony it would be to your benefit? A. I did not, sir.

Re-direct examination by Mr. BUTLER--Q. Who is Mr. Koppel? (emphasizing the name so as to provoke laughter in the galleries.) A. Mr. Koppel, sir, is an acquaintance of mine on the avenue; a merchant; he is a manufacturer of garments-a tailor. (Laughter).

Q. Do you know of any sympathy between him and the President? A. I have always supposed that Mr. Koppel was a northern man in spirit; he came from South Carolina here: he ran the blockade

Q. Do you mean that to be an answer to my question of sympathy between the President and him? (Laughter). A. Yes, sir. (Laughter).

Q. Now, sir, the counsel for the President has asked you if you told Mr. Koppel that you had been asked to say things which you could not say,or words to that effect. You answered in explanation, as I understand, that there was a misunderstanding which yon ex

plained to Mr. Koppel. Will you have the goodness to tell us what that misunderstanding was? Mr. STANBERY rose to object.

Mr. BUTLER-If you give a part of the conversation I have a right to the whole of it.

Q. I will ask, in the first place, did you explain the matter to him? A. I did.

Q. Very well, tell us what that understanding was that you explained to him in that conversation? A. I think, sir, a gentleman in Boston wrote you that the President asked me if I would give twenty-five per cent. of the proceeds of my office for political purposes. I told you that I did not say so. The gentleinan from Boston misunderstood me. The President Exid nothing of the kind to me, and I explained that to Mr. Koppel.

Q. Did you explain when the misunderstanding rose? A. I told him it must have occurred in a conversation between a gentleman from Boston and my

Q. In regard to what? A. In regard to twenty-five per cent.

Q. Did you explain to Mr. Koppel where the idea came from that you were to give twenty-five per cent.? A. I did. sir.

Mr. EVARTS-We object. The witness has told us distinctly that nothing else occurred between the President and himself. It is certainly quite unimpertant what occurred between this gentleman and another in Boston.

Butler and Evarts have a Tilt.

Mr. BUTLER-I pray judgment on this. You have put in a conversation between a tailor down on Pennylvania avenue, or somebody else, and this witness. I want the whole of the conversation. I suppose from evidence of the gentleman that the conversation berween Mr.Koppel, the tailor, and this witness, was put for some good purpose. If it was, I want the whole of it.

Mr. EVARTS-Mr. Chief Justice, the fact is not exactly as stated. In the privileged eross-examination, Counsel for the President asked the witness distinctly whether he had said so and so to a Mr. Koppel. The witness said he had not, and then volunteered a statement that there might have been some misunderstandjag berween Mr, Koppel and himself on that subject, or some misunderstanding somewhere. Our inquiry had not reached, or asked for, or brought out the mis understanding. We hold virtually that everything that relates to any conversation or interview between the President and this witness, whether as understood or misunderstood, has been gone through,' and whe present point of inquiry and the further testimony as to the grounds of the misunderstanding between this witness and some interlocutor in Boston, we object to Mr. BUTLER Having put in a part of this tentimony in regard to Mr. Keppek, whether voluntary or not, I have a right to the whole of it. I will explain. I want to show that the misunderstanding was not

that the President said that twenty-five per cent, was to be given to him, but to one of his friends, That is where the misunderstanding was. Do the gentlemen still object? Mr. EVARTS-Certainly. Mr, BUTLER- That's all.

Testimony of Foster Blodgett.

BUTLER.-Q. Were you an officer of the United Foster Blodgett, sworn, and examined by Mr. States at any time? A. Yes; injAugusta, Ga., holding the office of Postmaster of the city; I was appointed on the 25th of July, 1865, and went into the office in the following September.

[Witness produced his commission, which is exhibited by Mr. Butler to the counsel for the President] Q Where you confirmed by the Senate? A. I was, the letter of suspension here; it was dated the 3d of and I was suspended from office; I have not a copy of

January. 1868.

Q. Have you examined to see whether your suspension, and the reasons therefor have been sent to the Senate? A. I have been told by the Chairman of the Post Office Committee that they have not been sent.

Mr. BUTLER-I suppose that Senators can ascer tain for themselves how that is,

Senator JOHNSON-Of course, we know all about it. Mr. BUTLER-I supposed you did know all about it. To the witness. Has any action been taken on your Fuspension? A. None that I know of

The witness was not cross-examined.

Mr. BUTLER called upon counsel for the President to present the original of the suspension.

Jutant-General Thomas, dated War Department, FebMr. BUTLER then put in evidence the letter of Adrary 21, 1868, acknowledging his appointment as Secretary of War ad interim.

Mr. BUTLER stated he was instructed by the managers to say that they would ask leave to put in a proper certificate from the records of the Sonate, to show that no report of the suspension of Foster Bledget has ever been made to the Senate.

The Ceief Justice remarked that that could be put in at any time,

The Managers' Close.

Mr. BUTLER then said, on the part of the managers, "We close."

Mr. STANBERY-I ask the honorable manager under what article this case of Mr. Blodget comes?

Mr. BUTLER-In the final discussion I have no doubt that the gentleman who closes the case for the President will answer that question to your satisfaetion.

Mr. STANBERY-I have no doubt of that myself. The question is why we are to be put to the trouble of answering it.

The Chief Justice remarked that the case was closed on the part of the managers, and that there was no question before the court which this discussion could continue.

Mr. STANBERRY-The question is that we merely want to know under what article this case of MË Blodgett comes.

The Chief Justice-The managers state that they have concluded their evidence. Gentlemen, counsel for the President, you will proceed with your defense. Mr. CURTIS rose to open the case on the part of te President.

Mr. Curtis' Speech.

Mr. Chief Justice and Senators: I am here to speak to the Senate of the United States, sitting in its judicial capa city as a Court of Judicial Impeachment, presided over by the Chief Justice of the United States, for the trial of the President of the United States. (Here one or two sentences woro entirely inaudible.)

Inasmuch as the Constitution requires that there shal be a trial, and inasmuch as in that trial the oath which each one of you has taken is to administer impartial j tice according to the Constitution and laws, the only appeal that I can make hero in behalf of the I're ident is an appeal to the conscience, and to the reason of each judge who sits in th court, on the law and the facts in the e upon its judicab merits on the duties incumbent on that high office.. By virtue of his office, and on his honest an donvor to discharge those duties, the Prefid nt rests his case and I pray each of you, to listen with that patiene which belongs to a judzo, for his own sake, but which I cannot expect by any efforts of mine to elicit, while I open to you what that defense is. The honorable managers through their associate who has addressed you, have informed you that this is not a conrt-that whatever may be the character of this body, it is bound by no law. On that subject I shall have something hereafter to say.

The honorable managers did not tell you, in such terms, at least, that there are no articles before you, because a statement to that offeot would be in substance to ear that