by cross-examining, to use their own word, their own witness, because, after failing to get anything from him themselves, and the Senate having succeeded in getting words from him that do not suit their purpose, they seek to get rid of the whole matter by a further examination.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask for information if the question propounded by the honorable senator from Maryland has been fully answered? The CHIEF JUSTICE. The senator from Kentucky will reduce his question to writing.

Mr. DAVIS. I do not propose

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The rule requires that the question shall be reduced to writing.

Mr. DAVIS. I do not propound any question to the witness at all. I merely make the suggestion to the Chief Justice whether the question, as drafted by the honorable senator from Maryland, has been fully answered by the witness. or not?

The CHIEF JUSTICE. It is impossible for the Chief Justice to reply to that question. The witness only can reply.

The WITNESS. Where is my answer?

Mr. TRUMBULL. I ask is there not a question pending?

Mr. DAVIS. I ask that the question be read.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice will explain the position of the matter to the Senate. The Senator from Maryland desired that the following question should be put to the witness, (General Sherman.) "When the President tendered to you the office of Secretary of War ad interim on the 27th of January, 1868, and on the 31st of the same month and year, did he, at the very time of making such tender, state to you what his purpose in so doing was?" To that question the witness replied, "he did" or "yes." That answer having been given, the senator from Maryland propounded the further question, "The witness having answered yes, will he state what he said his purpose was?" The witness having made an answer to that question either partial or full, the Chief Justice is unable to decide which, the counsel for the President propose this question: "Have you answered as to both occasions?" That is the same question which the senator from Kentucky now proposes to the Chief Justice, and which he is unable to answer. The senator from Oregon (Mr. WILLIAMS) objects to the question proposed by the counsel for the President upon the ground that General Sherman having been recalled at the instance of a senator, and having been examined by him, he cannot be examined by counsel for the President. The Chief Justice thinks that that is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Senate, but that it is usual, under such circumstances, to allow counsel to proceed with their inquiries relating to the same subject-matter.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I withdraw my objection to this question. When the question was orally put I understood it to be another and different question. I am willing a full answer shall be given to the question propounded by the senator from Maryland, but object to new questions.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the question, and the witness will answer.

The SECRETARY. The question is, "Have you answered as to both occa

sions ?"

The WITNESS. I should like to hear my answer as far as it had gone.
Mr. JOHNSON. I move that the reporter read the answer.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. That will be done.

Mr. J. J. Murphy, one of the official reporters of the Senate, read the previous answer of the witness from the short-hand notes, as follows:

I intended to be very precise and very short; but it appeared to me necessary to state what I began to state-that the President told me that the relations between himself and Mr. Stanton, and between Mr. Stanton and the other members of the cabinet, were such

that he could not execute the office which he filled as President of the United States without making provision ad interim for that office; that he had the right under the law; he claimed to have the right; and his purpose was to have the office administered in the interest of the army and of the country; and he offered me the office in that view. He did not state to me then that his purpose was to bring it to the courts directly; but for the purpose of having the office administered properly in the interest of the army and the whole country. Mr. STANBERY. On both occasions, general, or the other occasion?

The WITNESS. I asked him why lawyers could not make a case; that I did not wish to be brought as an officer of the army into any controversy.

Mr. CONKLING. Will you not repeat that last answer, general?

The WITNESS. I asked him why lawyers could not make a case, and not bring me, or an officer, into the controversy? His answer was, that it was found impossible, or a case could not be made up; but, said he, if we can bring the case to the courts, it would not stand half an hour. I think that is all that he stated to me then.

The WITNESS. The question first asked me seemed to restrict me so close to the purpose that I endeavored to confine myself to that point alone. On the first day or the first interview in which the President offered me the appointment ad interim he confined himself to very general terms, and I gave him no definite answer. The second interview, which was on the afternoon of the 30th, not the 31st, was the interview during which he made the points which I have testified to. In speaking he referred to the constitutionality of the bill known as the civil tenure-of-office bill, I think, or the tenure of civil-office bill; and it was the constitutionality of that bill which he seemed desirous of having tested, and which, he said, if it could be brought before the Supreme Court properly, would not stand half an hour. We also spoke of force. I first stated that if Mr. Stanton would simply retire, although it was against my interest, against my desire, against my personal wishes, and against my official wishes, I might be willing to undertake to administer the office ad interim. Then he supposed that the point was yielded; and I made this point, "Suppose Mr. Stanton do not yield?" He answered, "Oh! he will make no objection; you present the order, and he will retire." I expressed my doubt, and he remarked, "I know him better than you do; he is cowardly." I then begged to be excused from giving him an answer to give the subject more reflection, and I gave him my final answer in writing. I think that letter, if you insist upon knowing my views, should come into evidence, and not parol testimony taken up; but my reasons for declining the office were mostly personal in their nature.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chief Justice, with the permission of the Senate I desire to correct a mistake of fact. I thought General Sherman said the 31st, but it is the 30th of January, and therefore I desire to have that correction made in my written question.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. If there be no objection that correction will be made. The 30th will be substituted for the 31st in the record of the question of the senator from Maryland.

Mr. HENDERSON. I desire to ask the witness a question, which I send to the Chair in writing.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the question of the senator from Missouri.

The Secretary read as follows:

Did the President, on either of the occasions alluded to, express to you a fixed resolution or determination to remove Stanton from his office?

The WITNESS. If by removal is meant a removal by force, he never conveyed to my mind such an impression; but he did most unmistakably say that he could have no more intercourse with him in the relation of President and Secretary of War.

Mr. HOWARD. I wish to put a question to the witness. I send it to the Chair.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the question proposed by the senator from Michigan.

The Secretary read as follows:

You say the President spoke of force. What did he say about force?

66

The WITNESS. I inquired, "Suppose Mr. Stanton do not yield, what then shall be done?" "Oh," said he, there is no necessity of considering that question; upon the presentation of an order he will simply go away," or "retire."

Mr. HOWARD. Is that a full answer to the question?

The WITNESS. I think it is, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. President, I desire to submit another question. I send it to the desk.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the question proposed by the senator from Missouri.

The Secretary read as follows:

Did you give any opinion or advice to the President on either of those occasions in regard to the legality or propriety of an ad interim appointment; and if so, what advice did you give, or what opinion did you express to him.?

Mr. Manager BINGHAM. Mr. President, we must object to that.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. It has been overruled once to-day. I suppose the Senate means to adhere to some rule.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Do the honorable managers object to the question being answered?

Mr. Manager BINGHAM and Mr. Manager BUTLER. We do.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice will put the question to the Senate whether the question proposed by the senator from Missouri is admissible and should be put to the witness.

The question being put, it was determined in the negative.

So the question propounded by Mr. Henderson was decided to be inadmissible. Mr. STANBERY. If no other questions are sought to be put to General Sherman, I believe we are through with him.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Do the honorable managers desire to put any questions?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I did not know that the counsel for the President had anything to do with this examination.

Mr. STANBERY. I have said we are through. We do not propose to argue that point.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Gentlemen, General Sherman desires to know if you are through with him on both sides?

Mr. Manager BINGHAM. We may desire to recall the Lieutenant General to-morrow.

The WITNESs. I have a summons to appear before your committee to-morrow. Mr. EVARTS. We must insist, Mr. Chief Justice, that the cross-examination must be finished before the witness is allowed to leave the stand.

Mr. Manager BINGHAM. We do not propose to make any cross-examination at present.

Mr. EVARTS. No cross-examination "at present!" We insist that the crossexamination must be made now if it is to be made at all.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Undoubtedly that is the rule.

Mr. Manager BINGHAM. We submit that the gentlemen themselves on Saturday made an appeal for leave to recall the witness; and for myself, and as I understood it to be for my associate managers, I made no objection. It is for the Senate to determine whether we shall recall him to-morrow.

Mr. EVARTS. We have no desire to be strict about these rules, but we desire that they shall be equally strict on both sides.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Undoubtedly the general rule is that if the managers desire to cross-examine they must cross-examine before dismissing the witness; but that will be a question for the Senate when General Sherman is recalled.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. This witness has not been called now by the counsel, and therefore we do not cross-examine at present about the matter inquired of by the court. The court's questions are all very well; we cannot interfere with those; we do not propose to do so. We will take our own course in our

Mr. Manager BUTLER. And let you know what it is when we get ready.

R. J. MEIGS recalled.

By Mr. STANBERY:

Q. Have you

A. I have.

the docket of the supreme court of the District with you now?

Q. Will you read the docket entries in the case of the United States vs. Lorenzo Thomas ?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Is that evidence? I have no belief that the docket entry of a court, until the record is made up, is anything more than a minute from which the record may be extended. I directed that the record should be extended in this case for the use of the Senate.

Mr. STANBERY. It is not a case in which any record was made, as the witness has already told us; but it was a proceeding before a judge at chambers, and the only entry on the books is the entry on the docket.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The witness will proceed, unless the question be objected to.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I have objected.

Mr. Manager BINGHAM. We must object to the evidence as incompetent.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The counsel for the President will please state in writing what they propose to prove.

The offer of the counsel for the President was reduced in writing in the form of a question to the witness, as follows:

Have you got the docket entries as to the disposition of the case of the United States vs. Lorenzo Thomas, and if so will you produce and read them?

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice thinks that this is a part of the same transaction, and is competent evidence; but he will put the question to the Senate if any senator desires it. [After a pause.] The witness will answer the question.

The WITNESS. The examining magistrate or the judge took the recognizance of General Thomas for his appearance on a subsequent day, and when that recognizance was taken it was put on the docket of the court, because there might be a scire facias upon it on one supposition, and there might be an indictment. Therefore it was put upon the docket of the court.

Mr. STANBERY. Read the docket entries.

The WITNESs. The case is numbered 5711.

THE UNITED STATES vs. LORENZO THOMAS.

Warrant for his arrest, issued by Hon. Chief Justice Cartter, on the oath of E. M. Stanton, to answer the charge of high misdemeanor in that he did unlawfully accept the appointment of the office of Secretary of War ad interim, February 22, 1868.

Warrant served by the marshal February 22, 1868.

Recognizance for his appearance on the 26th instant, February 22, 1868.

Discharged by Chief Justice Cartter, on the motion of the defendant's counsel, February 26, 1868.

Mr. STANBERY. That is all.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Do the honorable managers desire to cross-examine this witness?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. We have nothing to ask of this witness, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. I move that the court adjourn.

Mr. STEWART. On that motion I call for the yeas and nays.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The senator from Maryland moves that the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, adjourn until to-morrow at 12 o'clock. On this question the yeas and nays are asked for.

The yeas and nays were not ordered, one-fifth of the senators present not sustaining the call.

The question being put on the motion to adjourn, there were, on a division, ayes 24, noes 18; and the Senate, sitting for the trial of the impeachment, adjourned until to-morrow at 12 o'clock.

TUESDAY, April 14, 1868.

The Chief Justice of the United States entered the Senate chamber at 12 o'clock and 5 minutes p. m., 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, with the exception of Mr. Stanbery, also appeared and took their seats.

The presence of the House of Representatives was next announced, and the members of the House, as in 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 journal.

Mr. STEWART. I move that the reading of the journal be dispensed with. The CHIEF JUSTICE. If there be no objection the reading of the journal will be dispensed with. The Chair hears no objection.

Mr. SUMNER. I send to the Chair an order.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the order.

The Secretary read as follows:

Ordered, In answer to the motion of the managers, that, under the rule limiting the argument 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. The CHIEF JUSTICE. If there be no objection the order will be considered

now.

Mr. CONNESS. I object, Mr. President.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Objection is made. The order will lie over for one day. Mr. SUMNER. I beg leave most respectfully to inquire under what rule such an objection can be made.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice stated on Saturday that in conducting the business of the court he applied, as far as they were applicable, the general rules of the Senate. This has been done upon several occasions, and when objection has been made orders have been laid over to the next day for consideration.

Mr. SUMNER. Of course it is not for me to argue the question; but I beg to remind the Chair of the rule under which this order is moved.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. It will lie over. Gentlemen of counsel for the President, you will please proceed with the defence.

Mr. EVARTS. Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, it is our misfortune to be obliged to state to the court that since the adjournment yesterday, and not com