consumed in the introduction of evidence for the want of having it properly arranged and presented than would have been consumed if the proper efforts had been made outside before the trial was begun. We think, therefore, that we can assure the Senate that a large part, and perhaps all, of this time will be saved if this indulgence can be granted to the President's counsel.

We do not expect to adduce a large amount of oral testimony or a great number of witnesses, but we have a very considerable amount of documentary evidence which we have thus far not been able to collate and arrange, and some portions which we have reason to suppose exist we have not yet been able to search out or find. We request, therefore, that this postponement may take place.

Mr. CONNESS. The rules forbid senators to make any explanations in the nature of debate. I therefore submit a motion, which is that when the Senate adjourn, or rather that the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, shall adjourn until Wednesday next at twelve o'clock, which is the time that, in my judgment, should meet the wants of the counsel for the respondent.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chief Justice, if it is in order, I move to amend the motion made by the honorable member from California by inserting "Thursday" instead of "Wednesday."

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Is that motion debatable by the managers?

The CHIEF JUSTICE. It is not.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, may I inquire what is the question?

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The senator from California moves that the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment adjourn until Wednesday next. The senator from Maryland moves to amend by substituting "Thursday" for "Wednesday." Senators, you who are in favor of agreeing to that motion will say "ay;" those of the contrary opinion "no." [The question being taken.] The ayes have it. Mr. CAMERON. I call for the yeas and nays. [No, no.]

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I understood, Mr. Chief Justice, and I desire toThe CHIEF JUSTICE. The question recurs upon the motion of the senator from California as amended by the motion of the senator from Maryland, that the Senate adjourn until Thursday next, and upon this question no debate is in order.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. That question is not debatable by the managers? The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice thinks not.

Mr. SUMNER. On that I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. CONKLING. I rise for information. I wish to inquire whether the managers want to submit some remarks upon this motion for delay?

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question is upon the motion to adjourn.

Mr. CONKLING. Yes, sir. My purpose is to find out, as influencing my vote, whether they wish the motion disposed of, to the end that they may make some remarks, or not. I presume the senator from California does not intend to cut them off.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I had, Mr. President, desired to make a remark or two, and understood it was in order.

Mr. ANTHONY. I understand that the motion is not that the Senate shall now adjourn, but that when the Senate does adjourn it shall adjourn to meet on Thursday.

Several SENATORS. That is it.

Mr. CONKLING. That is certainly debatable.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Will the senator from California be good enough to state his motion?

Mr. CONNESS. If the Chair will allow me to state it I will do so. The Chair submitted the question on the amendment before I was aware of it; else I desired to accept the suggestion of senators around me to make it Thursday

in place of Wednesday. What I desired, in other words, was to meet the concurrence of the Senate generally.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Will the senator from California allow the Chief Justice to ask is his motion a motion that the Senate, when it adjourns—

Mr. CONNESS. That was not the form of the motion. I began to make it in that way, but subsequently gave it the other form.

Mr. CAMERON. Now I desire

The CHIEF JUSTICE. No debate is in order on the motion to adjourn.

Mr. CAMERON. I am not going to debate it. I want to ask the gentlemen
managers whether they will not be prepared to go on with this case on Monday?
I can see no reason why the other side should not be as well prepared.
Messrs. Managers BINGHAM and BUTLER. We are ready.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Order.

Mr. CAMERON. Mr. President, my question is

LIBRARY

The CHIEF JUSTICE. No debate is in order. The senator from Pennsyl

vania is out of order.

Mr. CAMERON. I think if you will allow me

The CHIEF JUSTICE. No debate is in order on a motion to adjourn.

RSITY OF MS

Mr. CAMERON. I am not going to debate it, your Honor; but I have risen to ask the question whether the managers will be ready to go on with this case on Monday?

ble

Mr. Manager BINGHAM and other managers. We will be.

Mr. SUMNER. I wish to ask a question also. I wish to know if the honoramanagers 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 question of adjournment, no debate is in order from any quarter. It is a question exclusively for the Senate. Senators, you who are in favor of the adjournment of the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment until Thursday next will, as your names are called, answer yea;" those of the contrary opinion "nay." The Secretary will call the roll.

66

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 37, nays 10; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Buckalew, Cattell, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Dixon, Edmunds, Ferry, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Norton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, 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.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Doolittle, Fessenden, Harlan, Morton, Wade, Wilson, and Yates-7.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. On this question the yeas are 37 and the nays are 10. So the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, stands adjourned until Thursday next at 12 o'clock.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I should like to give notice that all the witnesses may be discharged who have been summoned here on the part of the House of Representatives.

THURSDAY, April 9, 1868.

The Chief Justice of the United States entered the Senate chamber at 12 o'clock and 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 appeared and took the seats assigned them.

The counsel for the respondent also appeared and took their seats.

The presence of the House of Representatives was next announced, and the members of the House, as in the Committee of the Whole, headed by Mr. E. B. Washburne, the chairman of that committee, and accompanied by the Speaker and Clerk, entered the Senate chamber, and were conducted to the seats provided for them.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the minutes of the last day's proceedings.

The Secretary proceeded to read the journal of the proceedings of the Senate, sitting for the trial of the impeachment, on Saturday, April 4, 1866, but was interrupted by

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chief Justice, I move that the further reading of the journal be dispensed with.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. If there be no objection the further reading of the journal with be dispensed with. The Chair hears no objection.

Gentlemen Managers on the part of the House of Representatives, have you any further evidence to introduce?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. We have a single witness, I believe.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The managers will proceed with their evidence.

M. H. WOOD sworn and examined.

By Mr. Manager BUTLER :

Question. Where was your place of residence before the war?

Answer. Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Q. Did you serve in the Union army during the war?

A. I did.

Q. From what time to what time?

A. From July, 1861, to July, 1865.

Q. Some time in September, 1866, did you call upon President Johnson, presenting him testimonials for employment in the government service? A. I did.

Q. What time was it in 1866 ?

A. The 20th or 21st day of September.

Q. How do you fix the time?

A. Partially from memory, and partially from the journal of the Ebbitt House. Q. How long before that had he returned from his trip to Chicago, to the tomb of Douglas?

A. My recollection is that he returned on the 15th or 16th. I awaited his return in this city.

Q. Did you present your testimonials to him?

A. I did.

Q. Did he examine them?

A. Part of them.

Q. What then took place between you?

Mr. STANBERY. What do you propose to prove, Mr. Manager?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. What took place between the President and this wit

ness.

Mr. STANBERY. Has it anything to do with this case?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. STANBERY. Under what article?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. As to the intent of the President in the several articles. Mr. STANBERY. To do what?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. To oppose Congress. (To the witness.) Will you go on, sir? What did he say?

A. He said my claims for government employment were good, or worthy of attention; I will not fix the words.

Q. What next?

A. He inquired about my political sentiments somewhat, noticing that I was not a political man or not a politician. I told him I was a Union man, a loyal man, and in favor of the administration; that I had confidence in Congress and in the Chief Executive. He then asked me if I knew of any differences between himself and Congress. I told him I did; that I knew some differences on minor points. He then said: "They are not minor points."

Q. Go on, sir.

A. And the influence" or "patronage"-I am not sure which-" of these offices shall be in my favor." That was the meaning.

Q. Were those the words?

.A. I will not swear that they were the words.

Q. Shall be in my favor;" what did you say to that?

A. I remarked that under those conditions I could not accept an appointment 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, sir.

Q. Have you talked with him since you have been in the city?

A. I have called on him when I first came in the city; I have seen him frequently.

Q. Did you tell Mr. Koppel yesterday morning that all you could say about the President was more in his favor than against him?

A. I did not, sir.

Q. Did you tell Mr. Koppel that when you were brought up to be examined, since you arrived in this city, there was an attempt to make you say things which you would not say?

A. I did not, sir. I might, in explanation 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, but that I could

not.

Q. Have you been examined before this time since you came into this city? A. By whom?

Q. Have you been examined before, by any one?

A. I have.

Q. Under oath?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who first by?

Q. Were you examined or talked to by any one of them before your examition under oath?

A. I had an informal interview with two of them before I was examined. I could hardly call it an examination.

Q. Which two of them, and where?

A. By Governor Boutwell and General Butler.

Q. When?

A. Monday of this week.

Q. Did you say to Mr. Koppel that since you have been in the city a proposition was made to you that in case you would give certain testimony it would be for your benefit?

A. I did not, sir.

Re examined by Mr. Manager BUTLER :

Q. Who is Mr. Koppel?

A. Mr. Koppel is an acquaintance of mine on the avenue-a merchant.

Q. What sort of merchandise, please?

A. 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 southern man in spirit. He came from Charleston, South Carolina, here-ran the blockade.

Q. Do you mean that as an answer to my question of sympathy between the President and him?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. 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. In explanation or answer of the question you said there was a misunderstanding which you explained to Mr. Koppel. Will you have the kindness to tell us what that misunderstanding was which you explained to Mr. Koppel ? Mr. STANBERY. We do not care about that.

Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the counsel for the respondent.) You put in a part of the conversation. I have a right to the whole of it.

Mr. STANBERY. We did not put it in at all-only a certain declaration. Mr. Manager BUTLER. A certain declaration out of it, that is a part of the conversation.

Mr. STANBERY. Go on in your own way.

Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the witness.) I will ask, in the first place, did you explain the matter to him?

A. I did.

Q. Tell us what the misunderstanding was which you explained to him in that conversation?

A. I think, sir, a gentleman from Boston wrote you that the President asked me if I would give twenty-five per cent. of the proceeds of any office for political purposes. I told you that I did not say so; the gentleman in Boston misunderstood me. The President said nothing of the kind to me. I explained that to Mr. Koppel, he probably having misunderstood it.

Q. Did you explain where the misunderstanding arose?

A. I told him that I supposed it must have occurred in a conversation between the gentleman in Boston and myself.

Q. In regard to what?

A. In regard to the twenty-five per cent.
Q. Where did that arise?

Mr. STANBERY. What about all that?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I am getting this conversation between Mr. Koppel and this man.

Mr. STANBERY. Not at all. You are speaking about another transaction. Mr. Manager BUTLER. No; I am asking you if you explained to Mr. Koppel where the idea came from that you were to give twenty-five per cent.

Mr. EVARTS. We object, Mr. Chief Justice. The witness has stated distinctly that nothing occurred between the President and himself, and it is certainly quite unimportant to this court what occurred between this witness and another gentleman in Boston.