按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
Had you on the evening before seen General Thomas？ * * * Had you a communication with him？
Answer。 Yes sir。
Mr。 Stanbery objected； and the Chief Justice ruled that the testimony was competent and would be heard 〃unless the Senate think otherwise。〃
To this ruling Mr。 Drake objected and appealed from the decision of the Chair to the Senate。 It appeared to be not to the ruling per se； that Mr。 Drake objected； but to the right of the Chair to rule at all upon the admissibility of testimony。 Mr。 Drake representing the extremists of the dominant side of the Chamber。 There seemed to be apprehension of the effect upon the Senate of the absolute judicial fairness of the rulings of the Chief Justice； and the great weight they would naturally have； coming from so just and eminent a jurist。 After discussion； Mr。 Wilson moved that the Senate retire for consultation。
The vote on this motion was a tie； being twenty…five for and twenty…five against retiring； whereupon the Chief Justice announced the fact of a tie and voted 〃yea；〃 and the Senate retired to its consultation room； where； after discussion and repeated suggestions of amendment to the rules； the following resolution was offered by Mr。 Henderson：
Resolved； That rule 7 be amended by substituting therefor the following：
The presiding officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber； and the presiding officer in the trial shall direct all the forms of proceeding while the Senate are sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment； and all forms during the trial not otherwise provided for。 And the presiding officer on the trial may rule all questions of of evidence and incidental questions； which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate； unless some member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon； in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision； or he may； at his option； in the first instance； submit any such question to a vote of the members of the Senate。
Mr。 Morrill； of Maine； moved to amend the proposed rule by striking out the words 〃which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate；〃 which was rejected without a division。
Mr。 Sumner then moved to substitute the following：
That the chief justice of the United States； presiding in the Senate on the trial of the President of the United States； is not a member of the Senate； and has no authority under the Constitution to vote on any question during the trial； and he can pronounce decision only as the organ of the Senate； with its assent。
It is not insisted here that there was any sinister purpose in this proposition； yet the possibilities； in case of its adoption； were very grave。 Like the wasp； the sting was in the tail〃he （the chief justice；） can pronounce decision only as the organ of the Senate； WITH ITS ASSENT！ Had that rule been adopted； suppose the Senate； with； its vote of forty…two Republicans and twelve Democrats； upon failure of conviction by a two…thirds vote had refused or refrained on a party vote from giving 〃its assent〃 to a judgment of acquittal？
The vote upon this proposed amendment was as follows：
For its adoptionMessrs。 Cameron； Cattell； Chandler； Conkling； Conness； Corbett； Cragin； Drake； Howard； Morgan； Morrill of Maine； Morton； Nye； Pomeroy； Ramsay； Stewart； Sumner； Thayer； Tipton； Trumbull； Williams； Wilson22all Republicans。
Against its adoptionMessrs。 Bayard； Buckalew； Cole； Davis； Dixon； Doolittle； Edmunds； Ferry； Fessenden； Fowler； Frelinghuysen； Henderson； Hendricks； Howe； Johnson； McCreery； Morrill of Vermont； Norton； Patterson of New Hampshire； Patterson of Tennessee； Ross； Sherman； Sprague； Van Winkle； Vickers； Willey2615 Republicans and 11 Democrats。
So the resolution was rejectedevery aye vote a Republican； and all but one； Mr。 Trumbull； afterwards voting to impeach the President at tHe close of the trialeleven Democrats and fifteen Republicans voting nay。
Mr。 Drake then offered the following：
It is the judgment of the Senate that under the Constitution the Chief Justice presiding over the Senate in the pending trial has no privilege of ruling questions of law arising thereon； but that all such questions shall be submitted to a decision by the Senate alone。
It would be difficult to formulate a proposition better calculated to taint the proceedings with a partisan bias than this one by Mr。 Drake。 The impeachment movement was in a very large sense； if not entirely； a partisan enterprise。 It had its origin in partisan differences； and was based mainly on differences as to public policies at issue between the two great parties of the countryand while it was expected that every political。 friend of the President would vote against the impeachment； it was DEMANDED； and made a test of party fealty； that every Republican Senator should vote for his conviction。 Therefore； and perhaps it was not illogical from these premises； party leaders of Mr。 Drake's inclination should not relish the influence the legal； unbiased and non…partisan rulings of the Chief Justice might have upon his more conservatively inclined fellow partisans of the body。
Mr。 Drake called for the yeas and nays； which were ordered； and the vote was yeas 20； nays 30。 The personality of this vote was very much the same as on the previous proposition。
The rule proposed by Mr。 Henderson was then adopted。 The conference closed shortly after； and the session of the Senate was resumed。
The next day； April 1st； Mr。 Sumner renewed in the Senate his proposition submitted at the Conference the day before but not acted upon； to change the rules of the Senate in the following form：
It appearing from the reading of the Journal yesterday that on a question where the Senate were equally divided； the Chief Justice； presiding on the trial of the President； gave a casting vote； it is hereby ordered that； in the judgment of the Senate； such vote was without authority under the Constitution of the United States。
The proposition was put to vote with the following result：
YeasMessrs。 Cameron； Chandler； Cole； Conkling； Conness； Cragin； Drake； Howard； Howe； Morgan； Morrill of Maine； Morton； Norton； Ramsay； Stewart； Sumner； Thayer； Tipton； Trumbull； Williams； Wilson2110 Republicans and 1 Democrat。
NaysMessrs。 Anthony； Bayard； Buckalew； Corbett； Davis； Dixon； Doolittle； Edmunds； Ferry； Fessenden； Fowler； Frelinghuysen； Grimes； Henderson； Hendricks； Johnson； McCreery； Morrill of Vermont； Patterson of Tennessee； Ross； Sherman； Sprague； Van Winkle； Vickers； Willey2616 Republicans and 10 Democrats。
So the proposed order was rejected。 The trial then proceeded。 The answers to a very large proportion of the interrogatories propounded to the witnesses； on both sides； were unimportant； having very little bearing； either way； upon the case。 Twenty…eight of those interrogatories； however； were more or less important； and were challenged； seven by the defense； and twenty…one by the prosecution。 For convenience of reference； these interrogatories are numbered from one to twenty…eight； inclusive； with the answers thereto； when permitted to be answered； as follows：
Question submitted by Mr。 Butler； of the prosecution； April 1st； 1868； to Mr。 Walter A。 Burleigh； witness on the stand； called for the prosecution：
No。 1。
You said yesterday； in answer to my question； that you had a conversation with General Lorenzo Thomason the evening of the 21st of February last。 State if he said anything as to the means by which he intended to obtain or was directed by the President to obtain possession of the War Department。 If so； state all he said； as nearly as you can？
Mr。 Stanbery objected。
Mr。 Drake called for the yeas and nays； which were ordered； and the vote was as follows：
YeasAnthony； Cameron； Cattell； Chandler； Cole； Conkling； Conness； Corbett； Cragin； Drake； Edmunds； Ferry； Fessenden； Fowler； Frelinghuysen； Grimes； Henderson； Howard； Howe； Morgan； Morrill of Maine； Morrill of Vermont； Morton； Nye； Patterson of New Hampshire； Pomeroy； Ramsay； Ross； Sherman； Sprague； Stewart； Sumner； Thayer； Tipton； Trumbull； Van Winkle； Willey； Williams； Wilson39all Republicans。
Nays…Bayard； Buckalew； Davis； Dixon； Doolittle； Hendricks； Johnson； McCreery； Norton； Patterson of Tennessee； Vickers 11all Democrats。
So； the Senate decided that the question should be answered。
General Butler repeated the interrogatory； and Mr。 Burleigh's answer was as follows：
On the evening of February 21st last； I learned that General Thomas had been appointed Secretary of War ad interim； I think while at the Metropolitan Hotel。 I invited Mr。 Leonard Smith； of Leavenworth； Kas。； to go with me up to his house and see him。 We took a carriage and went up。 I found the General there ready to go out with his daughters to spend the evening at some place of amusement。 I told him I would not detain him if he was going out； but he insisted on my sitting down and I sat down for a few moments。 I told him I had learned he had been appointed Secretary of War。 He said he had； that he had been appointed that day； I think； that after receiving his appointment from the President he went to the War Office to show his authority； or his appoiniment； to Secretary Stanton； and a