307 Mr. Drake submitted the following question to the counsel for the President: Can not this day be occupied by the Counsel for respondent in giving in documentary evidence? And, The counsel for the President answered that in consequence of the absence of Mr. Stanbery they could not. On motion by Mr. Howe, The Senate, sitting for the trial of the President upon articles of impeachment, adjourned to 12 o'clock m. to-morrow. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1868. The United States v. Andrew Johnson, President. At 12 o'clock m. the Chief Justice of the United States entered the Senate Chamber and resumed the chair; and The Sergeant at Arms having made proclamation, The managers appointed to conduct the trial of the President of the United States upon articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representatives, to wit, Mr. Bingham, Mr. Boutwell, Mr. James F. Wilson, Mr. Butler, Mr. Thomas Williams, Mr. Logan, and Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, entered the Senate Chamber and took the seats assigned them. The Sergeant at Arms announced the presence at the door of the Senate Chamber of the House of Representatives; and The House of Representatives, as in Committee of the Whole House, preceded by its Chairman, Mr. Elihu B. Washburne, and accompanied by its Speaker and Clerk, entered the Senate Chamber and took the seats provided for them. The counsel for the President, to wit, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Evarts, Mr. Nelson, and Mr. Groesbeck, appeared at the bar of the Senate and took the seats assigned them. The Journal of the proceedings of the Senate, sitting for the trial of the President upon articles of imeachment, of yesterday was read. The Senate proceeded to consider the motion submitted by Mr. Sumner yesterday, to wit: Ordered, That in answer to the motion of the managers under the rule limiting the arguments to two on a side, unless otherwise ordered, such other managers and counsel as choose may print and file arguments at any time before the argument of the closing manager, On motion by Mr. Emunds, to amend the motion of Mr. Sumner by striking out at the end thereof the words "closing manager" and inserting the words "opening manager shall be concluded," Mr. Sumner accepted the amendment proposed by Mr. Edmunds, and modified his motion accordingly. On motion by Mr. Conness, to further amend the motion by striking out all after the word "ordered" and inserting in lieu there the following: That the twenty-first rule shall be so amended as to allow as many of the managers and of the counsel of the President to speak on the final argument as shall choose to do so: Provided, That not more than four days on each side shall be allowed. But the managers shall make the opening and the closing argument, 308 Yeas___. 19 It was determined in the negative. On motion by Mr. Drake, 27 The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present, Those who voted in the affirmative are, Messrs. Cameron, Conness, Cragin, Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Harlan, Henderson, Hendricks, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, Wilson, Yates. Those who voted in the negative are. Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Davis, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ross, Saulsbury, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Vickers, Williams. So the amendment was not agreed to. On motion by Mr. Doolittle, to amend the motion by Mr. Sumner by striking out all after the word "ordered" and inserting in lieu thereof the following: That upon the final argument two managers of the House open, two counsel for the respondent reply; that two other managers rejoin, to be followed by two other counsel for the respondent, and they in turn to be followed by two other managers of the House, who shall conclude the argument, On motion by Mr. Drake, that the motion of Mr. Sumner be postponed indefinitely, It was determined in the affirmative____ On motion by Mr. Sumner, Yeas 34 The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present, Those who voted in the affirmative are, Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Grimes, Harlan, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Williams, Yates. Those who voted in the negative are, Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Cragin, Doolittle, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, Ramsey, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey, Wilson. So the motion was postponed indefinitely. Mr. Ferry submitted the following motion for consideration: Ordered, That the twelfth rule be so modified as that the hour of the day at which the Senate shall sit upon the trial now pending shall be (unless otherwise ordered) at 11 o'clock forenoon, and that there shall be a recess of 30 minutes each day, commencing at 2 o'clock p.m. The Senate proceeded, by unanimous consent to consider the said motion; and On the question to agree thereto, It was determined in the negative-- On motion by Mr. Conkling, [Yeas... 24 Nays__ 26 309 The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present, Those who voted in the affirmative are, Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Williams, Wilson. Those who voted in the negative are, Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Ross, Saulsbury, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey, Yates. So the motion was not agreed to. Mr. Evarts, of counsel for the President, stated that in the absence of their associate, Mr. Stanbery, who was still detained by indisposition, they would now proceed to submit documentary evidence for the defense. Mr. Curtis, of counsel, asked to have the message of the President, dated February 22, 1868, nominating Thomas Ewing, of Ohio, to be Secretary for the Department of War, produced in the Senate, to be used in the trial as evidence for the defense. De Witt C. Clarke, the executive clerk of the Senate, was called, and being sworn, testified as to the time when the said message was received by the Senate. The counsel for the President proposed to submit as evidence the message of the President of the United States, dated February 22, 1868, and sent in to the Senate on the 24th of that month, relating to the removal of Edwin M. Stanton as Secretary of the Department of War. The managers objecting to the reception of the message as evidence, After argument by the counsel for the President in favor of admitting the evidence, and by the managers against it, The Chief Justice stated that it did not appear that the resolution of the Senate of the 21st of February called for an answer, and the message could only be regarded as a vindication of the act of the President addressed to the Senate, which, in the opinion of the Chief Justice, did not come within any of the rules of evidence which would justify its being admitted as evidence in this trial; he therefore ruled the evidence inadmissible. The counsel for the President proposed to submit in evidence a tabular statement, prepared at the office of the Attorney General, containing a list of all executive and territorial offices of the United States, excluding all military, naval, and judicial offices, showing their statutory designation and their respective statutory tenures. The document proposed to be submitted as evidence being objected to by the managers, After argument by counsel in favor of receiving it, and by the managers against it, On motion by Mr. Trumbull, Ordered, That the document be printed as a part of the proceedings on the trial. 310 De Witt C. Clarke, the executive clerk of the Senate, by unanimous consent of the Senate, was permitted to correct his testimony given today. William G. Moore, a witness on the part of the United States, was recalled and further examined by the counsel for the President, and cross-examined by the managers. The counsel for the President then submitted the following documentary evidence on the part of the defense, which was received: I. A certified copy of the resolution of the Senate of the 13th of May, 1800, advising and consenting to the appointment of John Marshall to be Secretary of State, in the place of Timothy Pickering, removed; and of Samuel Dexter to be Secretary of War, in place of John Marshall, nominated to be Secretary of State. II. The message of the President of February 22, 1868, nominating Thomas Ewing, sr., of Ohio, to be Secretary of War. III. A certified copy of the appointment of John Nelson, dated February 29, 1844, to act as Secretary ad interim until a successor to the Hon. A. P. Upshur shall be appointed; and a certified copy of the resolution of the Senate of March 6, 1844, advising and consenting to the appointment of John C. Calhoun to be Secretary of State in the place of A. P. Upshur, deceased. IV. A certified copy of the appointment of Winfield Scott, dated July 23, 1850, to act as Secretary of War ad interim during the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of George W. Crawford; and a certified copy of the resolution of the Senate of August 15, 1850, advising and consenting to the appointment of Charles M. Conrad as Secretary of War. V. The certificate of William H. Seward, Secretary of State, that volumes 12 and 13 of Domestic Letters, contaming the letters addressed by the Secretary of State to various persons between the 29th of June, 1799, and the 1st of May, 1802, are now and have been for many years missing from the files of the State Department, and also the certificate of the Secretary of State as to the beginning and termination of the first session of the Sixth Congress. On motion by Mr. Stewart, Then Senate, at 15 minutes past 2 o'clock p.m., took a recess for 15 minutes; at the expiration of which, The counsel for the President proposed to submit in further evidence Certified copies of two letters addressed by McClintock Young, Acting Secretary of the Treasury, dated 17th August, 1842, one to Richard Coe, appraiser of merchandise at Philadelphia, removing him from office, and one to the collector of customs at Philadelphia, requesting him to deliver an enclosed letter to Richard Coe, appraiser, and also certified copies of the commission issued to Richard Coe and Charles Francis Breuil as appraisers of merchandise at the port of Philadelphia. The evidence being objected to by the managers. After argument by the managers, The Chief Justice ruled the evidence to be admissible, and it was received and read. The counsel for the President proposed to submit in further evidence I. A certified list of civil officers of the Navy appointed under the act of May 15, 1820, and removed before their terms of office had expired. II. Memoranda of removals of certain Navy agents by the President, with the reasons for such removals, and designations of other persons to act in their stead, certified by the chief clerk of the Navy Department. The managers objected to the admission of the evidence. After argument by the managers against the admission of the evidence proposed to be offered, 311 Mr. Hendricks inquired of the managers whether they objected on the ground that the papers should be given in full so far as they relate to any particular question. To which question Mr. Manager Butler answer that they did. Mr. Conkling submitted the following question to the counsel of the President: Do the counsel for the respondent rely upon any statute other than that referred to? And Mr. Curtis, of counsel, replied, I am not aware of any other statute than that referred to. Mr. Edmunds inquired of the counsel for the President whether the evidence was offered as touching any question or final conclusion of fact, or merely as giving the Senate the history of the practice under consideration. To which question the counsel for the President answered that it was entirely for the latter purpose. Mr. Howard proposed the following question to the counsel for the President: Do the counsel regard these memoranda as legal evidence of the practice of the Government, and are they offered as such? Mr. Curtis, of counsel, replied that they were not full copies of any record, and they were therefore technically not legal evidence. Mr. Sherman inquired of the counsel for the President whether the papers now offered in evidence contain the date of the appointment and the character of the office. The counsel having made answer thereto, The Chief Justice directed the counsel of the President to reduce to writing what they proposed to offer in evidence; and The counsel for the President then submitted the following: We offer in evidence two documents from the Navy Department exhibiting the practice which has existed in that department in respect to removals from office. The Chief Justice submitted the question to the Senate, to wit, Is the evidence admissible? and It was determined in the affirmative... On motion by Mr. Sherman, [Yeas____ 36 Nays 15 The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present, The who voted in the affirmative are, Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey, Wilson, Yates. Those who voted in the negative are, Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conness, Cragin, Drake, Harlan, Howard, Morgan, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Thayer, Tipton, Williams. |