FRIDAY, March 13, 1868. The Chief Justice entered the Senate chamber and took the chair. The SERGEANT-AT-ARMS. Hear ye! hear ye! All persons are commanded to keep silence while the Senate of the United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against Andrew Johnson, President of the United States. Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, I move for the order, which is usual in such cases, notifying the House of Representatives that the Senate is thus organized. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The journal of the last day's proceedings will first be read. Mr. GRIMES. Mr. Chief Justice, there are several senators to be sworn. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The first business is to read the journal of the last session of the court, and then the senators will be sworn. The Secretary read the journal of the proceedings of the Senate sitting for the trial of impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on Friday, March 6, 1868. Mr. CONKLING. I move that the reading of the articles of impeachment in extenso, which I understand are entered on the journal, be dispensed with. I understand that the other House is ready to be announced. The CHIEF JUSTICE. That suggestion will be considered as agreed to if no objection be made. The Secretary continued and concluded the reading of the journal. Mr. HOWARD. If it be now in order, to save time I ask that the order which I sent to the Chair be passed by the Senate, informing the House of Representatives that the Senate is organized for the trial of the impeachment. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the order submitted by the senator from Michigan. The Secretary read as follows: Ordered, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is in its chamber, and ready to proceed with the trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, and that seats are provided for the accommodation of the members. The order was agreed to. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Sergeant-at-arms will introduce the managers. The managers on the part of the House of Representatives appeared at the bar, were announced by the Sergeant-at-arms, and conducted to the position assigned them. Managers-Hon. John A. Bingham, of Ohio; George S. Boutwell, of Massachusetts; James F. Wilson, of Iowa; John A. Logan, of Illinois; Thomas Williams, of Pennsylvania; Benjamin F. Butler, of Massachusetts; Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania. Mr. GRIMES. Mr. Chief Justice, there are several senators who have not yet been sworn as members of this court. I therefore move that the oath be administered to them. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will call the names of senators who have not yet been sworn. The Secretary called the names of senators who were not previously sworn. Messrs. Edmunds, Patterson of New Hampshire, and Vickers, severally, as their names were called, advanced to the desk, and the prescribed oath was administered to them by the Chief Justice. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary of the Senate will read the return of the Sergeant-at-arms to the summons directed to be issued by the Senate. 21 P The chief clerk read the following return appended to the writ of summons: The foregoing writ of summons, addressed to Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, and the foregoing precept, addressed to me, were this day duly served on the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, by delivering to and leaving with him true and attested copies of the same at the Executive Mansion, the usual place of abode of the said Andrew Johnson, on Saturday, the 7th day of March instant, at seven o'clock in the afternoon of that day. WASHINGTON, March 7, 1868. GEORGE T. BROWN, Sergeant-at-arms of the United States Senate. The chief clerk administered to the Sergeant-at-arms the following oath : 1, George T. Brown, Sergeant-at-arms of the Senate of the United States, do swear that the return made and subscribed by me upon the process issued on the 7th day of March, A. D. 1868, by the Senate of the United States against Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, is truly made, and that I have performed said service therein prescribed: So help me God." The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Sergeant-at-arms will call the accused. The SERGEANT-AT-ARMS. Andrew Johnson, President of the United States; Andrew Johnson, President of the United States: appear and answer the articles of impeachment exhibited against you by the House of Representatives of the United States. Mr. JOHNSON. I understand that the President has retained counsel, and that they are now in the President's room attached to this wing of the Capitol. They are not advised, I believe, of the court being organized. I move that the Sergeant-at-arms inform them of that fact. The CHIEF JUSTICE. If there be no objection, the Sergeant-at-arms will so inform the counsel of the President. The Sergeant at-arms presently returned with Hon. Henry Stanbery, of Kentucky; Hon. Benjamin R. Curtis, of Massachusetts, and Hon. Thomas A. R. Nelson, of Tennessee, who were conducted to the seats assigned the counsel of the President. Mr. CONKLING. To correct a clerical error in the rules, or a mistake of the types which has introduced a repugnance into the rules, I offer the following resolution by direction of the committee which reported the rules: Ordered, That the twenty-third rule, respecting proceedings on trial of impeachments, be amended by inserting after the word "debate" the words "subject, however, to the operation of rule seven. If thus amended the rule will read : All orders and decisions shall be made and had by yeas and nays, which shall be entered on the record and without debate, subject, however, to the operation of rule seven, except when the doors shall be closed &c. The whole object is to commit to the presiding officer the option to submit a question without the call of the yeas and nays unless they be demanded. That was the intention originally, but the qualifying words were dropped out in the print. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question is on amending the rules in the manner proposed by the senator from New York. The amendment was agreed to. The Sergeant-at-arms announced the members of the House of Representatives, who entered the Senate chamber preceded by the chairman of the Committee of the Whole House, (Mr. E. B. Washburne, of Illinois,) into which that body had resolved itself to witness the trial, who was accompanied by the Speaker and Clerk. The CHIEF JUSTICE, (to the counsel for the President.) Gentlemen, the Senate is now sitting for the trial of articles of impeachment. The President of the United States appears by counsel. The court will now hear you. Mr. STANBERY. Mr. Chief Justice, my brothers Curtis and Nelson and my self are here this morning as counsel for the President. I have his authority to enter his appearance, which, with your leave, I will proceed to read : In the matter of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE: I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, having been served with a summons to appear before this honorable court, sitting as a court of impeachment, to answer certain articles of impeachment found and presented against me by the honorable the House of Representatives of the United States, do hereby enter my appearance by my counsel, Henry Stanbery, Benjamin R. Curtis, Jeremiah S. Black, William M. Evarts, and Thomas A. Ř. Nelson, who have my warrant and authority therefor, and who are instructed by me to ask of this honorable court a reasonable time for the preparation of my answer to said articles. After a careful examination of the articles of impeachment and consultation with my counsel, I am satisfied that at least forty days will be necessary for the preparation of my answer, and I respectfully ask that it be allowed. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The paper will be filed. ANDREW JOHNSON. Mr. STANBERY. Mr. Chief Justice, I have also a professional statement in support of the application. Whether it is in order to offer it now, or to wait until the appearance is entered, your honor will decide. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The appearance will be considered as entered. You may proceed. Mr. STANBERY. I will read the statement. In the matter of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States. Henry Stanbery, Benjamin R. Curtis, Jeremiah S. Black, William M. Evarts, and Thomas A. R. Nelson, of counsel for the respondent, move the court for the allowance of forty days for the preparation of the answer to the articles of impeachment, and in support of the motion make the following professional state ment: The articles are eleven in number, involving many questions of law and fact. We have, during the limited time and opportunity afforded us, considered as far as possible the field of investigation which must be explored in the preparation of the answer, and the conclusion at which we have arrived is that with the utmost diligence the time we have asked is reasonable and necessary. The precedents as to time for answer upon impeachments before the Senate, to which we have had opportunity to refer, are those of Judge Chase and Judge Peck. In the case of Judge Chase time was allowed from the 3d of January until the 4th of February next succeeding to put in his answer, a period of thirty-two days; but in this case there were only eight articles, and Judge Chase had been for a year cognizant of most of the articles, and had been himself engaged in preparing to meet them. In the case of Judge Peck there was but a single article. Judge Peck asked for time from the 10th to the 25th of May to put in his answer, and it was granted. It appears that Judge Peck had been long cognizant of the ground laid for his impeachment, and had been present before the committee of the House upon the examination of the witnesses, and had been permitted by the House of Representatives to present to that body an elaborate answer to the charges. It is apparent that the President is fairly entitled to more time than was allowed in either of the foregoing cases. It is proper to add that the respondents in these cases were lawyers fully capable of preparing their own answers, and that no pressing official duties interfered with their attention to that business; whereas the President, not being a lawyer, must rely on his counsel. The charges involve his acts, declarations, and intentions, as to all which his counsel must be fully advised upon consultation with him, step by step, in the preparation of his defence. It is seldom that a case requires such constant communication between client and counsel as this, and yet such communication can only be had at such intervals as are allowed to the President from the usual hours that must be devoted to his high official duties. of We further beg leave to suggest for the consideration of this honorable court, that as counsel, careful as well of their own reputation as of the interests of their client in a case of such magnitude as this, so out of the ordinary range professional experience, where so much responsibility is felt, they submit to the candid consideration of the court that they have a right to ask for themselves such opportunity to discharge their duty as seems to them to be absolutely necessary. he MARCH 13, 1868. Mr. Manager BINGHAM. Mr. President, I am instructed by my associate managers to suggest to the Senate that, under the eighth rule adopted by the Senate for the government of this proceeding, after the appearance of the accused at its bar, until that rule be set aside by the action of the Senate, a motion for continuance to answer is not allowed, the provision of the rule being that if appear he shall answer; if he appear and fail to answer, the case shall pro ceed as upon the general issue; if he do not appear, the case shall proceed as upon the general issue. The managers appeared at the bar of the Senate impressed with the belief that the rule meant precisely what it says, and that in default of an appearance the trial would proceed as upon the plea of not guilty; if upon appearance no answer should be filed, in the language of the rule the trial should still proceed as upon the plea of not guilty. Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chief Justice, if the construction which the honorable managers have placed upon this rule be the correct one, the counsel of the President have been entirely misled by its phraseology. They have construed the rule in the light of other similar rules existing in courts of justice. For instance, in a court of equity over which your Honor in another place presides, parties are by a subpoena required to appear on a certain day and answer the bill, but certainly it was never understood that they were to answer the bill on the day of the appearance. So it is in a variety of other legal proceedings; parties are summoned to appear on a certain day, but the day when they are to plead is either fixed by some general rule of the tribunal, or there is to be a special order in the particular case. Here we find a rule by which the President is required to appear on this day and "answer" and "abide." Certainly that part of the rule which relates to abiding has reference to future proceedings and to the final result of the case. And so, as we have construed the rule, that part of it which relates to answering has reference to a future proceeding, which occurs in the ordinary course of justice, as I have stated, either under some general rule or by a special order of the court. We submit, therefore, as counsel for the President, that this interpretation of the rule which is placed upon it by the hon orable managers is not the correct one. Mr. Manager WILSON. Mr. President, I desire to say on behalf of the managers that we do not see how it were possible for the eighth rule adopted by the Senate to mislead the respondent or counsel. That rule provides that Upon the presentation of the articles of impeachment and the organization of the Senate as hereinbefore provided, a writ of summons shall issue to the accused, reciting said articles, and notifying him to appear before the Senate on a day and at a place to be fixed by the Senate and named in such writ, and file his answer to said articles of impeachment, and to stand to and abide the orders and judgments of the Senate thereon. The rule further provides that If the accused, after service, shall fail to appear, either in person or by attorney, on the day so fixed therefor, as aforesaid, or appearing, shall fail to file his answer to such articles of impeachment, the trial shall proceed nevertheless as upon a plea of not guilty. cases. The learned counsel, in the professional statement submitted to the Senate, refer to the cases of Judge Chase and Judge Peck. I presume that in the examination of the records of those cases the attention of counsel was directed to the rules adopted by the Senate for the government of its action on the trial of those By reference to the rules adopted by the Senate for the trial of the cases of Judge Chase and Judge Peck, we find that a very material change has been made by the Senate in the adoption of the present rules. The third rule in the case of the trial of Judge Chase prescribed the form of summons, and required that on the day to be fixed the respondent should appear, and "then and there answer." The same rule was adopted in the Peck case But the present rule adds to the rule of those cases the words to which I have called the attention of the Senate, that he shall appear "and file his answer to said articles of impeachment," and that if, on appearing, he "shall fail to file his answer to such articles of impeachment, the trial shall proceed nevertheless as upon a plea of not guilty." I submit, therefore, Mr. President, that the change which has been made in the rules for the government of this case must have been made for some good reason. What that reason may have been may be a subject of discussion in this case hereafter; but the change meets us upon the presentation of this motion; and we therefore ask, on the part of the House of Representatives, which we are here representing, that the rule adopted by the Senate for the government of this case may be enforced. It is for the Senate to say whether the rule shall stand as a rule to govern the case, or whether it shall be changed; but, standing as a rule at this time, we ask for its enforcement. Mr. STANBERY. Mr. Chief Justice, the objection taken by the honorable managers is so singular that in the whole course of my practice I have not met with an example like it. A case like this, Mr. Chief Justice, in which the President of the United States is arraigned upon an impeachment presented by the House of Representatives, a case of the greatest magnitude we have ever had, is, as to time, to be treated as if it were a case before a police court, to be put through with railroad speed on the first day the criminal appears! Where do my learned friends find a precedent for calling on the trial upon this day? It is in the language of their summons. They say, "We have notified you to appear here and answer on a given day." We are here; we enter our appearance; but they ask, "Where is your answer?" As my learned brother [Mr. Curtis] has said, you have used precisely the language that is used in a subpoena in chancery; but who ever heard that when the defendant in a chancery bill enters his appearance he must come with his answer, ready to go on with the case, and enter upon the trial? We were summoned to appear and answer; we have entered our appearance and stated that we propose to answer; we do not wish this case to go by default; we want a reasonable time; nothing more. Consider, if you please, that it is but a few days since the President has been served with this summons; that, as yet, all his counsel are not present. Your honor will observe, that of the five counsel who have signed this professional statement, two are not present and cannot be present to-day, and are not (at least, I am sure, one is not) in the city to-day. Not one of us, on looking at these rules, ever suspected that it was the intention to bring on the trial this day. And yet I understand the learned gentlemen who read these rules to so read them according to the letter that we must go on to-day. Now, let us see how it will do to read them all according to the letter. If the gentlemen are |