Yeas and nays on admissibility- of employment of counsel by President to get up test case, (yeas 29, nays 21) of acts by counsel toward getting out habeas corpus in the case of Thomas, (yeas 27, nays 23). I-605 I-600 of acts done subsequently to test Mr. Stanton's right, &c., (yeas 27, nays 23) .I of President's declarations to Mr. Perrin, February 21, (yeas 9, nays 37) ..I-t. to Secretary Welles, February 21, (yeas 26, nays 23). of cabinet consultations in regard to obtaining a judicial decision, &c., (yeas 19, nays 30) ..I-67- of advice to President by cabinet as to constitutionality of tenure-of-office act, (yeas 20, nays 29)..I-... ..I-697 ..I-700 .I-701 of opinions given to President by cabinet as to scope of tenure-of-office act, (yeas 20, nays 2( ..I-716 appeals from decisions of Chief Justice application of counsel for thirty days to prepare for trial, (yeas 12, nays 41) I-738 argument, rule prescribing order of... censure of Mr. Nelson, tabling order of, (yeas 32, nays 17). authority of, to vote .II—4, 5, 8, 12, 13, 14 .II-307 order for trial to proceed forthwith upon filing replication, (yeas 25, nays 26). immediately after replication filed, (yeas 40, nays 10) Chief Justice, authority of, to rule questions of evidence consultation, motion to retire for court of impeachment, unconstitutionality of, (yeas 2, nays 49).. impeachment of Andrew Johnson, resolution (in House) for the, (yeas 126, nays 47). resolution (in House) to prepare articles of, (yeas 126, nays 42) rule (in House) limiting debate, when articles of, are reported, (yeas 106, nays 37) for respondent to file answer before 20th March, (yeas 28, nays 20; and yeas 23, nays 27) in respect to unconstitutionality of court of impeachment, (yeas 2, nays 49). postponing application for thirty days to prepare for trial, (yeas 25, nays 28; and yeas 9, nays 42). I-81, 86 ..I-186 .I-185 .I-85, 185 I-36 ..I-2 I-2, 3 .I-3 I-25 .I-33 .I-35 .I-36 denying authority of Chief Justice to give casting vote, (yeas 22, nays 27). ..I-187 denying privilege of Chief Justice to rule questions of law, (yeas 20, nays 30). ..I-186 directing questions to be submitted to Senate, on request, (yeas 31, nays 19) ..I-86 ..I-498, 535, 536. II-4, 5, 8, 12, 13, 14 fixing hour of meeting proposing to receive all evidence, not trivial, without objection for reporting deliberations on final question.. fixing day for final vote for filing opinions... prescribing form of final question directing vote to be taken on eleventh article first, (yeas 34, nays 19). Guilty" or "Not guilty' on Article XI, (yeas 35, nays 19) II, (yeas 35, nays 19) III, (yeas 35, nays 19) Zider, Henry F. (See Testimony.) Z. .I-536, 633. II-141,308 .II-476, 477 .II-477 .II-478, 479 .II-484, 485 .II-486, 487 .II-496 .II-497 IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT. WEDNESDAY, April 22, 1868. The Chief Justice of the United States took the chair. The usual proclamation having been made by the Sergeant-at-arms, The managers of the impeachment on the part of the House of Representatives and the counsel for the respondent, except Mr. Stanbery, appeared and took the seats assigned to them respectively. The members of the House of Representatives, as in Committee of the Whole, preceded by Mr. E. B. Washburne, chairman of that committee, and accompanied by the Speaker and Clerk. appeared and were conducted to the seats provided for them. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the minutes of Monday's proceedings. Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, I move that the reading of the journal be dispensed with. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Unless there be some objection it will be so ordered. The Chair hears no objection. It is so ordered. Senators, the business under consideration when the Senate adjourned on Monday was an order offered by the senator from Nevada, [Mr. Stewart,] which the clerk will read. The chief clerk read as follows: Ordered, That the managers on the part of the House of Representatives and the counsel of the respondent have leave to file written or printed arguments before the oral argument commences. Mr. VICKERS. Mr. President, I beg leave to offer this as a substitute. The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to strike out all of the proposed order, and insert in lieu thereof: As the counsel for the President have signified to the Senate, sitting as a court for the trial of the impeachment, that they did not desire to file written or printed arguments, but preferred to argue orally, if allowed to do so: Therefore, Resolved That any two of the managers other than those who under the present rule are to open and close the discussion, and who have not already addressed the Senate, be permitted to file written arguments at or before the adjournment of to-day, or to make oral addresses after the opening by one of the managers and the first reply of the President's counsel, and that other two of the counsel for the President who have not spoken may have the privilege of reply, but alternating with the said two Lanagers, leaving the closing argument for the President, and the managers' final reply to be made under the origina1 rule. Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chief Justice, it may have some bearing, possibly, on the vote which is to be taken on this proposition if I were to state what I am now authorized to state, that the extent of Mr. Stanbery's indisposition is such that it will be impracticable for him to take any further part in this trial. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Senators, you who agree to the amendment proposed by way of substitute by the senator from Maryland will say aye. Mr. CONNESS called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. Mr. YATES. I ask for the reading of the amendment. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the original proposition, and also the substitute. The chief clerk read the order proposed by Mr. Stewart and the amendment of Mr. Vickers. The question on the amendment being taken by yeas and nays, resultedyeas, 26; nays, 20; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cragin, Davis, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Morton, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Saulsbury, Sprague, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey, Wilson, and Yates-26. NAYS-Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conness, Corbett, Drake, Ferry, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, and Williams-20. NOT VOTING-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Cole, Conkling, Dixon, Harlan, Nye, and Wade-8. Mr. POMEROY. The senator from California [Mr. Cole] who sits by my side has been called suddenly to leave the city on account of a matter of deep interest to his family. He wished me to say this to the Senate in explanation of his absence. So the amendment was agreed to. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question recurs on the order as amended. Mr. CONNESS, called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas, 20; nays, 26; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cragin, Davis, Doolittle, Fowler, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morton, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Saulsbury, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, Vickers, Willey, Wilson, and Yates--20. NAYS-Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conness, Corbett, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Thayer, Van Winkle, and Williams-26. NOT VOTING-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Cole, Conkling, Dixon, Harlan, Nye, and Wade-8. So the amendment was disagreed to. Mr. VICKERS. Mr. President, I send an order to the Chair. Mr. Manager STEVENS. Mr. Chief Justice, I desire to make an inquiry; and that is, whether there is any impropriety in any manager's publishing a short argument after this vote. After the motion made here on Monday some few of us, I among the rest, commenced to write out a short argument. I expect to finish it to-night, and, if the first vote had passed, I meant to file it. I do not know that there is any impropriety now in printing it, except that it will not go into the proceedings. I would not like to do anything which would be improper, and I inquire whether there would be any impropriety? Mr. FERRY. Mr. President, I inquire whether it would be in order to move the original order upon which we have taken no vote, introduced, I think, by the senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumner.] The CHIEF JUSTICE. It would not. As the Chief Justice understands, the matter is finally disposed of. A proposition has been offered by the senator from Maryland, [Mr. Vickers,] which will be read for information: The chief clerk read the order proposed by Mr. Vickers, as follows: That one of the managers on the part of the House be permitted to file his printed argument before the adjournment of to-day, and that after an oral opening by a manager and the reply of one of the President's counsel, another of the President's counsel shall have the privilege of filing a written or of making an oral address, to be followed by the closing speech of one of the President's counsel and the final reply of a manager, under the existing rule. The CHIEF JUSTICE. This order is in the nature of an amendment of the rules, and cannot be considered now unless by unanimous consent. Mr. CONNESS. That was offered, I believe, two days since, if I am not mistaken, by the senator from Nevada. The CHIEF JUSTICE. It has just been offered by the senator from Maryland. If there is no objection it will be now considered. Mr. CONNESS. I offer a substitute for it. The CHIEF JUSTICE. It is before the Senate for consideration, and the scnator from California proposes a substitute. Mr. SHERMAN. I should like to have it read again. It was not heard. The CHIEF JUSTICE. In a moment. The Secretary will read the order proposed by the senator from Maryland, and also the substitute proposed by the senator from California. The CHIEF CLERK. The order as proposed by the senator from Maryland is: Ordered, That one of the managers on the part of the House be permitted to file his printed argument before the adjournment of to-day, and that after an oral opening by a manager, and the reply of one of the President's counsel, another of the President's counsel shall have the privilege of filing a written or of making an oral address, to be followed by the closing speech of one of the President's counsel, and the final reply of a manager under the existing rule. The senator from California proposes to amend by striking out all after the word "ordered," and inserting: That such of the managers and counsel for the President as may choose to do so have leave to file arguments before Friday, April 24. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question is on the amendment proposed by way of substitute. Mr. CONNESS called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. Mr. BUCKALEW. I would move to lay the resolution and amendment on the table; but I desire to have the order and amendment read again. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The order and proposed amendment will be read again. The chief clerk read the order and the amendment. Mr. CONNESS. Mr. President, I wish to modify my amendment so as to read "on or before Friday, April 24." The CHIEF JUSTICE. That modification will be made if there be no objection. The question is on the motion of the senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Buckalew,] to lay on the table the proposition and pending amendment. The motion was not agreed to. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question recurs on the amendment proposed by the senator from California. Upon that question the yeas and nays have been ordered. The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas, 24; nays, 25; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Ferry, Henderson, Howard, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates 24. NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, Morgan, Morton, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury, Sprague, Trumbull, Van Winkle, and Vickers-25. NOT VOTING-Messrs. Cole, Harlan, Morrill of Maine, Nye, and Wade-5. So the amendment was not agreed to. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question recurs on the order proposed by the senator from Maryland, [Mr. Vickers.] Mr. JOHNSON. I move to amend the order by inserting "two" instead of "one" before the words "of the managers," at the beginning of the order. Mr. SHERMAN. Say "all." Mr. JOHNSON. No; I will not say all; that would be objectionable. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question is on the amendment of the senator from Maryland, [Mr. Johnson,] to strike out "one" and insert "two." The question being put, the Chief Justice declared that the amendment appeared to be agreed to. Mr. CONKLING called for a division. Mr. HOWARD. I ask how the order will read if amended? The CHIEF JUSTICE. It is proposed to strike out "one" in the first line and insert "two," so as to read: That two of the managers on the part of the House be permitted to file, &c. Mr. CONKLING. I beg to withdraw the call for a division; I made it under a misapprehension of the amendment. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice announced the vote as agreed to. The amendment, then, stands as agreed to, Mr. CONNESS. What is the state of the question now, the amendment adopted? The CHIEF JUSTICE. The amendment is adopted. The question is on the order as amended. Mr. Manager WILLIAMS. Mr. President and Senators, I beg leave to suggest, as I do very respectfully, that the effect of this order as it now stands, requiring that any argument which may be presented shall be in print to-day, will be to leave the matter substantially as it was before, because there is but one of the managers prepared, as I believe is well understood. Although three of them would like to put in arguments, there is but one of them who is so prepared just now; that is to say, whose argument is in print. So that, in this shape, it would be keeping the word of promise to the ear and breaking it to the hope. Mr. JOHNSON. What time would the manager like? Mr. Manager WILLIAMS. If you would say "written" instead of "printed," it would be satisfactory. Mr. SHERMAN. I move that the order be so amended that "the managers shall have leave to file written or printed arguments." The CHIEF JUSTICE. It is moved to strike out the word "two". Mr. SHERMAN. No, sir. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice does not understand the amendment. Mr. SHERMAN. Will the Secretary read the first clause, and I will submit an amendment. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the first clause. The chief clerk read as follows: Ordered, That two of the managers on the part of the House be permitted to file their printed argument. Mr. SHERMAN. I move that the language be, "The managers on the part of the House be permitted to file printed or written arguments.' Mr. FESSENDEN. That cannot be done without reconsidering the vote by which we inserted the word "two." The CHIEF JUSTICE. A motion to strike out the word "two" and insert anything else will not be in order; but a motion to add the words "or written" will be in order. Mr. SHERMAN. I will then move to reconsider the vote adopting the amend ment of the senator from Maryland, [Mr. Johnson,] inserting the word "two." The CHIEF JUSTICE. The senator from Ohio moves to reconsider the vote by which the word "one" was stricken out and "two" was inserted. The motion was not agreed to The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question recurs on the amendment to insert after the word "printed" the words "or written." Mr. GRIMES. I wish to have the order reported, so as to know when these written arguments are to be filed. ["To-day."] Then I ask unanimous consent to inquire whether or not it is expected that the counsel for the President will examine these written arguments to-day and be able to make a reply to them to-morrow morning? The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question is upon adding after the word "printed" the words "or written." The amendment was agreed to. Mr. WILSON. I ask that the order be read, as modified. |