pending before the country, and that was known as the fourteenth article, the one concerning which I have just read, and which is required to be adopted by every State Legislature before the State can be admitted to representation in Congress.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Senators, the Managers offer in support of the accusations of the House of Representatives two telegraphic messages, one signed by Lewis E. Parsons, and one signed by Andrew Johnson. The question is, is the evidence proposed on the part of the Managers admissible?

Mr. DRAKE. I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 27, nays 17; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Henderson, Howard, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Willey, and Wilson-27.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, and Williams-17.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Bayard, Grimes. Harlan, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson, Morton. Saulsbury, Wade and Yates-10.

So the evidence was admitted.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I suppose that the dispatches need not be read again; they have been read once or twice.

Mr. CURTIS. No; we waive the further reading.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chief Justice, the hour of five having arrived, I move that the court adjourn until to-morrow at twelve o'clock.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. It is moved that the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment now adjourn until to-morrow at twelve o'clock. The question being put, it was declared that the motion was not agreed to.

Mr. FOWLER. I call for a division. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The result has been announced. It is too late to call for a division.

Mr. RAMSEY. The question was not un. derstood, I think.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. If that be the case, the question will be put again.

The question being put again, the Chief Justice declared that the motion appeared to be agreed to.

Mr. CONNESS and Mr. SUMNER called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 22, nays 22; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Cameron, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Henderson, McCreery, Morrill of Vermont, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ramsey, Sprague, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, and Willey-22.

NAYS-Messrs. Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Drake, Edmunds, Fessenden, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ross, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Williams, and Wilson-22.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Bayard, Ferry, Grimes, Harlan, Hendricks, Johnson, Morton, Saulsbury, Wade, and Yates-10.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. On this question the yeas are 22, and the nays are 22. The Chief Justice votes in the affirmative. The Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, stands adjourned until to-morrow at twelve o'clock.

FRIDAY, April 3, 1868.

The Chief Justice of the United States entered the Senate Chamber at five minutes past twelve 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 Committee of the Whole, headed by Mr. E. B. WASHBURNE, the chair

man 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 read the Journal of the proceedings of the Senate yesterday sitting for the trial of the impeachment.

Mr. DRAKE. Mr. President, I move that the Senate take up the proposition which I offered yesterday, to amend the seventh rule, and have a vote upon it.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The amendment will be considered as before the Senate unless objected to.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Let it be read. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the amendment.

The Secretary read as follows:

Amend the seventh rule by adding the following: Upon all such questions the vote shall be without a division, unless the yeas and nays be demanded by one fifth of the members present or requested by the presiding officer, when the same shall be taken.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, I move to strike out that part of it relating to the yeas and nays being taken upon the request of the presiding officer.

Mr. CONKLING. Not having heard the motion of the Senator from Vermont, I ask for the reading of the seventh rule as it is now, which is not before us, and which we have no means of knowing anything about. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the seventh rule. The SECRETARY. follows:

The seventh rule is as

"VII. The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the presiding officer on 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 specially provided for. And the presiding officer on the trial may rule all questions 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."

It is proposed to add the following to the rule:

Upon all such questions the vote shall be without a division, unless the yeas and nays be demanded by one fifth of the members present or requested by the presiding officer, when the same shall be taken.

Mr. DRAKE. I have no objection to the amendment proposed by the honorable Senator from Vermont.

The CHIEF JUSTICE.

The amendment

to the rule will be so modified if there be no objection. [To the Chief Clerk.] Read the amendment as modified.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment as modified, as follows:

At the end of rule seven insert:

Upon all such questions the vote shall be without a division, unless the yeas and nays be demanded by one fifth of the members present, when the same shall be taken.

The amendment to the rules, as modified, was agreed to.

Mr. DRAKE. I move that the rules, as now amended, be printed for the use of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Managers on the part of the House of Representatives will proceed with their evidence.

66

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Before putting any question to Mr. Tinker, the witness under examination at the adjournment, I will put in a single paper with the leave of the court. The paper is a message of the President of the United States, communicating to the Senate a report of the Secretary of State, showing the proceedings under the concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress of the 13th instant, requesting the President to submit to the Legislatures of the States an additional article to the Constitution of the United States."

Mr. STANBERY. What article is that? What date?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. The fourteenth article. The document is dated June 22, 1866. It is the same article to which the dispatch related. We offer it in order to show to what the dispatch referred.

[The document was handed to the counsel for the respondent.]

Mr. STANBERY, (returning it.) Mr. Chief Justice, we do not see the particular relevancy of this message to any article which we are called upon to answer. However, we have no objection to the gentleman reading it.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Mr. Clerk, will you read the message?

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

Message from the President of the United States. communicating to the Senate a report of the Secretary of State, showing the proceedings under concurrent reso butions of the two Houses of Congress of the 13th instant, requesting the President to submit to the Legis lature of the States an additional article to the Constitution of the United States.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I submit to Congress a report of the Secretary of State, to whom was referred the concurrent resolution of the 18th instant, respecting a submission to the Legislatures of the States of an additional article to the Constitution of the United States. It will be seen from this report that the Secretary of State had, on the 16th instant, transmitted to the Governors of the several States certified copies of the joint resolution passed on the 13th instant, proposing an amendment to the Constitution.

Even in ordinary times any question of amending the Constitution must be justly regarded as of paramount importance. This importance is at the present time enhanced by the fact that the joint resolu tion was not submitted by the two Houses for the approval of the President, and that of the thirty-six States which constitute the Union eleven are excluded from representation in either House of Congress, although, with the single exception of Texas, they have been entirely restored to all their functions as States, in conformity with the organic law of the land, and have appeared at the national capital by Senators and Representatives who have applied for and have been refused admission to the vacant seats. Nor have the sovereign people of the nation been afforded an opportunity of expressing their views upon the important questions which the amendment involves. Grave doubts, therefore, may naturally and justly arise as to whether the action of Congress is in harmony with the sentiments of the people, and whether State Legislatures, elected without reference to such an issue, should be called upon by Congress to decide respecting the ratification of the proposed amendment.

Waiving the question as to the constitutional validity of the proceedings of Congress upon the joint resolution proposing the amendment, or as to the merits of the article which it submits, through the executive department, to the Legislatures of the States, I deem it proper to observe that the steps taken by the Secretary of State, as detailed in the accompanying report, are to be considered as purely ministerial, and in no sense whatever committing the Executive to an approval or a recommendation of the amendment to the State Legislatures or to the people. On the contrary, a proper appreciation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution, as well as of the interests of national order, harmony, and union, and a due deference for an enlightened public judgment, may at this time well suggest a doubt whether any amendment to the Constitution ought to be proposed by Congress, and pressed upon the Legislatures of the several States for final decision, until after the admission of such loyal Senators and Representatives of the now unrepresented States as have been or as may hereafter be chosen in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States. ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 22, 1866.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE. WASHINGTON, June 20, 1866.

The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress of the 18th instant in the following words: "That the President of the United States be requested to transmit forthwith to the executives of the several States of the United States copies of the article of amendment proposed by Congress to the State Legislatures, to amend the Constitution of the United States, passed June 13, 1866, respecting citizenship, the basis of representation, disqualification for office, and validity of the public debt of the United States, &c., to the end that the said States may proceed to act upon the said article of amendment, and that he request the executive of each State that may ratify said amendment to transmit to the Secretary of State a certified copy of such ratification," has the honor to submit the following report, namely: that on the 16th instant Hon. AMASA COBB, of the Committee of the House of Representatives on Enrolled Bills, brought to this Department and deposited therein an enrolled resolution of the two Houses of Congress, which was thereupon received by the Secretary of State and deposited among the rolls of the Department, a copy of which is hereunto annexed. Thereupon the Secretary of State, on the 16th instant, in conformity with the proceeding which was adopted by him in 1865 in regard to the then proposed and

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, June 16, 1866. SIR: I have the honor to transmit an attested copy of a resolution of Congress, proposing to the Legislatures of the several States a fourteenth article to the Constitution of the United States. The decisions of the several Legislatures upon the subject are required by law to be communicated to this Department.

An acknowledgment of the receipt of this communication is requested by your excellency's most WILLIAM H. SEWARD. obedient servant.

His Excellency the Governor of the State of

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEPARTMENT OF STATE. To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: I certify that annexed is a true copy of a concurrent resolution of Congress, entitled, "Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States," the original of which resolution, received to-day, is on file in this Department.

In testimony whereof, I, William H. Seward, Secretary of State of the United States, have hereunto subscribed my name and caused the seal of the Department of State to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington, this 16th day of June, A. D. 1866, and of the independence [L. S.] of the United States of America the ninetieth. WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

[Concurrent resolution, received at Department of
State January 16, 1866.]
Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both Houses concurring,) That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which when ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures shall be valid as part of the Constitution, namely:

ARTICLE XIV.

SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SEC. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male eitizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

SEC. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.

SEC. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts ineurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, ghall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void. SEC. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this artiele. SCHUYLER COLFAX,

Attest:

Speaker of the House of Representatives.
LA FAYETTE S. FOSTER,
President of the Senate pro tempore.

EDWARD MCPHERSON,

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

J. W. FORNEY,

Secretary of the Senate.

[To which is appended the certificate of J. W. Forney, Secretary of the Senate, dated

April 2, 1868, that the foregoing are true extracts from the records of the Senate.]

CHARLES A. TINKER'S examination resumed. By Mr. Manager BUTLER :

Question. You told us yesterday you were manager of the Western Union Telegraph office. Have you from that office what purports to be a copy of a speech which was telegraphed to the country or any portion of the country, as made by Andrew Johnson on the 18th of August, 1866; if so, produce it?

Mr. DRAKE. I will state that we have not heard the question put by the honorable Manager.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Manager will be good enough to repeat the question.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. It is whether, being agent of the Western Union Telegraph Company, you have what purports to be a copy of a speech which was telegraphed over that line, made by Andrew Johnson on the 18th day of August, 1866; if so, produce it?

Answer. I have the files of the Associated Press dispatches sent on that day, containing what purports to be a copy of the speech delivered by the President. [Producing a roll of manuscript.]

Question. From the course of business of the office are you enabled to state whether this was sent?

Answer. It has the "sent" marks put upon all dispatches sent over the line.

Question. And this is the original manuscript?

Answer. That is the original manuscript telegraphed.

Question. By what association was this speech telegraphed?

Answer. By the Associated Press, by their agent in the city of Washington.

Answer. I do not know. I think Mr. Moore took it. I was very sick at the time, and did not pay much attention to what was going on.

Question. You think Mr. Moore took it? Answer. I think either he or Mr. Smith took

it, as I wrote out my share of it. We divided it among us; Mr. Clephane, Mr. Smith, and I wrote out the speech, I think.

ing to the witness the manuscript produced by Question. Look at that manuscript, [handC. A. Tinker,] and see whether you recognize your hand-writing.

The WITNESS, (having examined the manuscript.) No, sir; I do not recognize any of the

Mr. CURTIS. We must object to this, Gen-writing here as mine. eral BUTLER. He says it has a mark on it. He does not say he put the mark on it, or that he knows that anything was done, thus far.

Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the witness.) Can you tell me, sir, to what extent over the country the telegraphic messages sent by the Associated Press go?

Answer. I suppose they go to all parts of the country; I cannot state positively. They are telegraphed direct from Washington to New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, there addressed to the agents of the Associated Press, and from New York they are distributed through the country.

Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the counsel for the respondent.) The witness is yours, gentlemen.

Mr. CURTIS. We will not detain you, Mr.
Tinker.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. You can step down
for the present, Mr. Tinker; but do not leave.
JAMES B. SHERIDAN Sworn and examined.
By Mr. Manager BUTLER:
Question. Your whole name, Mr. Sheridan.
Answer. James Bernard Sheridan.
Question. What is your business?
Answer. I am a stenographer.
Question. Where employed?
Answer. At present in New York city.
Question. What was your business on the
18th of August, 1866?

Answer. I was a stenographer.

Question. State whether you reported a speech of the President on the 18th of August, 1866, in the East Room of the President's Mansion.

Answer. I did.

Question. Have you the notes taken at the time of that speech?

Answer. I have; [producing a note-book containing short-hand notes.]

Question. Did you take down that speech correctly as it was given?

Answer. I did, to the best of my ability. Question. How long experience have you had as a reporter?

Answer. Some fourteen years now.

Question. Have you since written out from your notes any portion of the speech as you reported it?

Answer. I wrote out a couple of extracts from it.

Question, (handing a paper to the witness.) Is that your writing?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. State whether what you hold in your hand is a correct transcript of that speech made from your notes?

Answer. It is.

Question. When was that written?

Answer. It was written when I appeared before the Board of Managers.

Question. Will you have the kindness to put your initials upon it?

[The witness marked it "J. B. S."]

Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the counsel for the respondent.) The witness is yours, gen.

tlemen.

Mr. STANBERY. Have you got through with this witness?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I said the witness was yours, gentlemen.

Mr. STANBERY. Is this all you expect of this witness?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. All at present, and we may never recall him.

Cross-examined by Mr. EVARTS:

Question. You have produced a note-book of original stenographic report of a speech of the President?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Is it of the whole speech?

Answer. Of the whole speech.

Question. Was it wholly made by you?
Answer. By me; yes, sir.

Question. How long did the speech occupy in the delivery?

Answer. Well, I suppose some twenty or twenty-five minutes.

Question. By what method of stenographic reporting did you proceed on that occasion? Answer. Pitman's system of phonography. Question. Which is, as I understand, re

Question. Did you write out that speech at|| porting by sound, and not by sense? the time?

Answer. We report the sense by the sound.

Answer. No, sir.

Question. Nor words?

Answer. We have word signs.

Question. But generally sound signs? Answer. We have signs for sounds, just as the letters of the alphabet represent sounds. Question. But not the same? Answer. No, sir.

Question. This transcript that you made of a portion of your report for the use of the committee was made recently, I suppose?

Answer. Yes, sir; a few weeks ago. Question. Now, sir, what in the practice of your art is the experience as to the accuracy of transcribing from these stenographic notes after the lapse of a considerable period of time?

Answer. Perhaps I can illustrate better by the present case-this report which I made here the extract I gave when I was called before the Managers, as I had accompanied the President on his tour. I did not know what they wanted me for; and when they told me to turn to this speech I did not even know that I had the notes of it with me; but I turned to the speech, and found it there in the book, and I read off, as they requested I should, the extracts which the Managers for the prosecution handed me, which I identified.

Question. You read, then, from your stenographic notes?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. And it was taken down?

Answer. The reporter of the Managers, I believe, took it down; but I afterward wrote || it out for them.

Question. You do not make a sign for every word?

Answer. Almost every word. "Of the" we generally drop, and indicate that by putting the two words closer together. Of course we have rules governing us in writing.

Question. That is, you have signs which belong to every word excepting when you drop the particles?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Answer. I am at present deputy clerk of the supreme court of the District of Columbia. Question. What was your employment on the 18th of August, 1866?

Answer. I was then secretary to Governor Seward, Secretary of State.

Question. Are you a phonographic reporter? Answer. I am.

Question. How considerable has been your experience?

Answer. Some eight or nine years.

Question. Were you employed on the 18th of August, 1866, to make a report of the President's speech in reply to Mr. JOHNSON?

Answer. I was. I was engaged in connection with Mr. Smith for the Associated Press, and also for the Daily Chronicle at Washington. Question. Did you make a report? Answer. I did.

Question. Where was this speech made? Answer. In the East Room of the White House.

Question. You say it was in reply to Mr. JOHNSON?

Answer. It was in reply to Hon. REVERDY JOHNSON.

Question. State partially who were present? Answer. There were a great many persons present the committee of the convention. I noticed among the prominent personages General Grant, who stood beside the President during the delivery of the speech. Several reporters were present-Mr. Murphy, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Smith, and some others.

Question. Were any of the Cabinet officers present?

Answer. I do not recollect whether any of them were present or not.

Question. Did you report that speech?
Answer. I did.

Question. What was done with that report? State all the circumstances.

Answer. With regard to the Associated Press report I will state that Colonel Moore, the President's Private Secretary, desired the privilege of revising it before publication; and, in order to expedite matters, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Smith, and myself united in the labor of transcribing it; Mr. Sheridan transcribed one portion, Mr. Smith another, and I a third. After it was revised by Colonel Moore it was then taken and handed to the agent of the Associated Press, who telegraphed it throughout the country.

Question. Look at that roll of manuscript lying before you and see if that is the speech that you transcribed and Moore corrected?

Answer, (having examined the manuscript produced by C. A. Tinker.) I will state here that I do not recognize any of my writing. It is possible I may have dictated to a long-hand writer on that occasion my portion, though I am not positive in regard to that.

Question. Who was present at the time of the writing out?

Answer. Mr. Smith, Mr. Sheridan, and Colonel Moore, as far as I recollect.

Question. Do you know Colonel Moore's handwriting?

Answer. I do not.

Question. Did you send your report to the Chronicle?

Answer. I would state that Mr. McFarland, who had engaged me to report for the Chronicle, was unwilling to take the revised report of the President's speech as made by Colonel Moore. He desired to have the speech as it was delivered, as he stated, with all its imperfections, and, as he insisted upon my rewrit ing the speech, I did so, and it was published in the Sunday Morning Chronicle of the 19th. Question. Have you a copy of that paper? Answer. I have not.

Question. After that report was published in the Chronicle of Sunday morning, the 19th, did you see the report?

Answer. I did, sir, and examined it very carefully, because I had a little curiosity to see how it would read under the circumstances, being a literal report, with the exception of a word, perhaps, changed here and there.

Question. With what certainty can you speak as to the Chronicle's report being an accurate one?

Answer. I think I can speak with certainty as to its being accurate, a literal report, with the exception that I have named, perhaps, a word or two here and there changed in order to make the meaning more intelligible, or to make the sentence a little more round.

Question. Will you give us an illustration of that change?

Mr. EVARTS. Some instance.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Yes, some instance. Mr. STANBERY. He said he could not recollect.

The WITNESS. I will state that my attention was called to a particular instance; I think it was a day or two after. Some correspondent, learning that the Chronicle had published a verbatim report, had carefully scrutinized itsome correspondent who had listened to the delivery of the speech; and he wrote to the Chronicle a complaint of its not being so, as, in one instance, there was an expression of "you and I has saw,' or something of that sort, and that sentence, of course, was corrected in the report published in the Chronicle. It appeared in the notes "you and I has saw," as this correspondent stated.

By Mr. Manager BUTLER:

Question. How was it corrected in the Chronicle?

Answer. "You and myself have seen," or something to that effect; I do not now remember.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I am informed, Mr. President, there being two manuscripts, that Mr. Tinker has given me the one which was written out at length as a duplicate, and not the original, as I had supposed, and I shall have to ask to bring him on again. I have sent for him for that purpose. He will be here in a moment. This witness is yours, gentlemen, [to the counsel for the respondent.]

Cross-examined by Mr. EVARTS.

Question. You acted upon the employment of the Associated Press?

Answer. Yes, sir; in connection with Mr. Smith.

Question. You were jointly to make a report, were you?

Answer. We were to take notes of the entire speech, each of us, and then we were to divide the labor of transcribing.

Question. Now, did you take phonographic notes of the whole speech? Answer. I did.

Question. Where are your phonographic notes?

Answer. I have searched for them, but cannot find them.

Question. Now, sir, at any time after you had completed the phonographic notes did you translate or write them out?

Answer. I did.

Question. The whole?

Answer. The whole speech.

Question. Where is that translation or written transcript?

Answer. I do not know, sir. The manuscript, of course, was left in the Chronicle office. I wrote it out for the Chronicle.

Question. You have never seen it since, have you?

Answer. I have not.

Question. Have you made any search for it? Answer. I have not.

Question. And these two acts of yours, the phonographic report and the translation or writing out, are all that you had to do with the speech, are they?

Question. Look upon the page before you and see if you can find the speech as you reported it?

Answer. I find it here, sir.

Question. Look at that speech, look at it a little carefully, and tell me whether you have any doubt that that is a correct report, a verbatim report of the speech of Andrew Johnson on that occasion; and if so, what ground have you for doubt?

Mr. EVARTS. Mr. Chief Justice, we object to that as a mode of proving the speech. It is apparent that there is a report of this speech, and that it has been written out, and that is the best and most trustworthy evidence of the actual speech as made. In all legal proceedings we are entitled to that degree of accuracy and trustworthiness which the nature of the case admits; and whenever evidence of that degree of authenticity is presented, then for the first time will arise the consideration of whether the evidence itself is competent and should be received. Now, it is impossible to contend, upon the testimony of this witness, as it stands at present, that he remembers the speech of the President so that he can produce it by recital, or so that he can say upon any memorandum of his own shown him (for none is shown) that from memory he can say it is the speech. What is offered? The same kind of evidence, and that alone, which would grow out of some person who heard the President deliver the speech, and subsequently read in the Chronicle the report of it, that he thinks that report was a true statement of the speech; for this witness has told us distinctly that reading this speech from curiosity to see how it would appear when reproduced, without the ordinary guarantees of accuracy he had neither his original notes nor his written transcript, and he read the newspaper as others would read it, but with more care, from this degree of curiosity which he had. If the true character of a production of this kind, as imputed to its author, is to be regarded as important, we insist that this kind of evidence concerning a newspaper report of it is not admissible.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Mr. President, if I understand there is no question of degree of evidence. We must take the business of the world as we find it, and must not burrow ourselves and insist that we have awoken up a hundred years ago. The art of stenography and stenographic writing and phonography has progressed to a point which makes us rely upon it in all the business of life. There is not a gentleman of this Senate who does not rely.

upon it every day. There is not more than one member of the Senate who in this trial is taking notes of the evidence. Why? Because you rely upon the busy fingers of the reporter who sits by my side to give you a transcript of it, upon which you must judge. Therefore, in every business of life, ay, in the very business of this court, we rely upon stenography. Now, this gentleman says that he made a stenographic report of that speech; that that was jointly made up by himself, Mr. Sheridan, and Mr. Smith; that his employer, not being satisfied with that joint report, which was the President's utterance distilled through the alembic of Colonel Moore's critical discrimination, he drew out with care an exact literal transcript under the chiding of his employer, and for a given purpose; and that the next day, having curiosity to see what would be the difference, and how the President of the United States would appear if put to paper literally, he examined that speech in the Chronicle, and then with the matter fresh in his mind, only a few hours intervening, with his attention freshly called to it, he said then he knew that that was a correct copy; that that was the correct speech.

Now, the learned counsel say the manuscript is the better evidence. If there was any evidence that that manuscript had been preserved perhaps we might be called upon to produce it in some technicality of criticism of law as administered in a very technical manner. But who does not know the ordinary course of business, and, if that is to be disputed, I will ask the witness; but who does not know that the ordinary course of business in a newspaper office, after such manuscripts are got through with, is to throw them into the waste-paper basket; they are not preserved. Therefore I act upon that usual and ordinary and common understanding of the business of life as all courts must act upon it.

Then this is a question for the witness, and he testifies. The question that was objected to, the one we are discussing, is, looking at that report, from your knowledge of the report, having twice written it out, portions of it certainly, and from having seen it the next morning, with your curiosity awakened, can you tell the Senate whether that is a correct report? Thereupon the learned counsel for the President gets up and says he cannot. How does the learned counsel for the President know that? How does he know that Mr. Clephane is not one of those gentlemen who, in his profession, having once read a speech can repeat it the next day?

The difficulty is that I do not see how the objection arises. The question I put to the witness is a plain one. Sir, there is what I say is a copy of that speech, is a transcript of that speech; from your knowledge, having heard it, having written it down in short-hand, having written it once for correction by the President's Private Secretary, and then having rewritten it again from your notes for publication in the Chronicle, and then having examined it immediately after publication-from all these sources of knowledge can you say that that is a correct copy?" Thereupon the counsel for the President says you cannot? How does he know that the witness cannot repeat every word of it?

The difficulty is the objection does not apply; and I should have contented myself with this statement except that, once for all, I propose to put before the Senate, so as not ever to have to argue it again in the course of putting in this class of testimony, the argument as to stenographic reporting. Now, allow me to state, once for all, two authorities upon this point, because I am not going to take the time of the Senate with arguing these questions hereafter, for by doing so, I should play into the hands of this delay which has been so often attempted here. In O'Connell's case, to prove his speeches on that great trial, the newspapers were introduced; and no trial was ever fought with more sharpness or bitterness-newspapers were introduced containing Mr. O'Connell's

speeches, or what purported to be his speeches, and the only proof adduced was that they had been properly stamped and issued from the office, and the court held that Mr. O'Connell, allowing those speeches to go out without contradiction for months, must be held to be responsible for them to the public.

In the trial of James Watson, for high treason, reported in 32 State Trials, this question arose, and the question was whether a copy might be used, that copy made even of partially obliterated short-hand notes:

"Mr. Attorney General, (to Mr. Dowling.) You state that you took in short-hand the address of Mr. Watson to the people?

"I did."

"Have you your short-hand notes here?" I have."

Be so good as to read to my lords and the jury what it was he said?"

'Mr. Wetherell. Pray, Mr. Short-hand Writer, when did you take that note?"

"I took it on the 2d of December, in Spafields." When did you copy it out?"

"I copied it out the same evening."

"Is that the copy you made that evening ?"

No: it is not. This is the short-hand note I took, and this is a literal copy; the short-hand note I took with a pencil, and in the crowd, and, perhaps, having been taken six months' back, it may be somewhat defaced; but I can read the short-hand note with a little difficulty, though certainly I could read the transcript with more ease; I will read the short-hand

note if it is wished."

"Mr. Justice Abbott. You made that transcript the same evening?"

"I made this transcript yesterday; I made another transcript the same evening."

And he was allowed to read his transcript. While this authority is not exactly to the point of difference raised here, I say I put it in once for all upon the question, because I have heard a cross-examination as to the merits of Pitman's system of short-hand writing as if we were to have it put in controversy here, that the whole system of stenography was an unavailable means of furnishing information. Therefore my present proposition is the right to put this question: Mr. Witness, looking at that, can you tell me whether that is a correct transcript of the speech made by the President?

Mr. EVARTS. The learned Manager is quite correct in saying that I do not know but that this witness can repeat from memory the President's speech; and whenever he offers him as a witness so to do I will not object. It is entirely competent for a person who has heard a speech to repeat it under oath, he asserting that he remembers it and can do so, and whenever Mr. Clephane undertakes that feat it is within the competency of evidence. What success he will have in it we shall determine when that experiment has been tried. That method of evidence from this witness is not attempted, but another form of trustworthy evidence is sought to be made competent; that is, that by his notes, and through his transcript of those notes, he is able to present, under his present oath and belief in his accuracy and competency as a reporter, this form of evidence. Whenever that is attempted we shall make no objection to that as trustworthy.

But when the Managers seek to avoid responsibility and accuracy through the oath of the witness applied in either form, and seek to put it, neither upon present memory nor upon his own memoranda, but upon the accuracy with which he has followed or detected inaccuracies in a newspaper report made the subsequent day, and thereupon to give credit and authenticity to the newspaper report upon his wholesale and general approval of it, then we must contend that the sacred right of freedom of speech is sought to be invaded by overthrowing certainly one of the responsible and important protections of it; and that the rule requiring the oath of somebody who heard and can remember, or, according to the rules of evidence, preserved the aids and assistances by which he presently in the court of justice may speak, should be adhered to. And we are not to be told that it is technical to maintain in defense of what has been regarded as one of the commonest and surest rights in any free country-freedom of speech, that whenever it is drawn in question it shall be drawn in question upon the surest and most faithful evidences.

The learned Manager has said that you are familiar, as a part of the daily routine of your congressional duties, with the habit of stenographic reporting and reproduction in the newspapers, and that you rely on it habitually; and I may add rely on it habitually to be habitually misled. Correction is the first demand of every public speaker-correction and revision, in order that this apparatus, depending upon the ear and the sudden strokes of the ready-writer, may not be the firm judgment against him of what was said by him. Now, when sedulously this newspaper has undertaken that no such considerations of accuracy shall be afforded to the President of the United States in respect of this speech to be spread before the country, but that express orders shall be given that it shall be reported with all its imperfections

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I pray correction, sir. I have not sedulously done that; but offer it that the speech of the President's Private Secretary should not go before the country.

Mr. EVARTS. The instructions of the editor were that it should be reported "with all its imperfections" as caught by the shorthand writer, without the opportunity of that revision which every public speaker at the hustings or in the halls of debate demands as a primary and important right. Whenever, therefore, Mr. Clephane shall rise and speak from memory the speech of the President here, swearing to its accuracy, or whenever he shall produce his notes and their transcript as in Watson's case, some foundation for the proof of the speech will have been laid.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Stand down, Mr. Clephane, for a moment. I will offer this directly. Now I will call Mr. Tinker.

CHARLES A. TINKER recalled.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The witness states that he desires to make an explanation. He will make it.

THE WITNESS. Yesterday when called upon the stand I was attending to my duties in charge of the telegraph office in the gallery; I had not a moment's notice that I was to be called. I then telegraphed to my office for the documents contained in packages that were there, which I had been previously examined about before the Managers. These documents were brought to me by a boy from the office, and I put them upon the stand. Last night when taken from the stand I deposited them in the office of the Sergeantat-Arms, and this morning brought one of these packages upon the stand, and I opened it here, supposing it to be the one on which I was to be examined. As I saw that the reporters were in trouble about it, I thought I had made a mistake, and I consequently went to my office after Mr. Clephane came upon the stand, and I have now the speech of the President telegraphed by the agent of the Associated Press on the 18th of August, 1866.

Mr. STANBERY. Mr. Tinker, what document was that General BUTLER handed you? Answer. This is one of the documents. Mr. STANBERY. Is that the speech of the 18th of August at all?

Answer. This is not the speech of the 18th of August.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. That is the 22d of February speech, is it? [Laughter.]

Mr. STANBERY. No matter what it is. The WITNESS. I have not looked to see what this is.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. You will find out what that document is in good time.

Mr. STANBERY. You had better put it in "in good time."

Mr. Manager BUTLER. It was simply a mistake. [To the witness.] Now give me the document I asked for?

The WITNESS Yes, sir.

of manuscript.]

By Mr. Manager BUTLER :

[Producing a roll

Answer. This is.

Question. Do you give the same testimony about that that you did

Mr. CURTIS and Mr. STANBERY. That will not do. Let us have his testimony about this.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Well, sir, we will give all the delay possible. [To the witness.] Now, sir, will you tell us whether that was sent through the Associated Press? Answer. It bears the marks of having been sent, and is filed with their dispatches of that date.

Question. From the course of business of your office, have you any doubt that it was so sent?

Answer. None whatever.

Mr. CURTIS. We object to that. If the witness can say it was sent from any knowledge he has, of course he will say so. He cannot reason on facts.

Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the witness.) After that speech was sent, if it was, did you see it published in the Associated Press reports? Answer. I cannot state positively; I think I did.

Question. Was that brought to your office for the purpose of being transmitted, whether it was or not?

Answer. I did not personally receive it; but it is in the dispatches of the Associated Press sent on that day.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. That is all at present. Now we will recall Mr. Sheridan. JAMES B. SHERIDAN recalled. By Mr. Manager BUTLER:

Question, (handing to the witness the manuscript last produced by Mr. Tinker.) Now, examine that manuscript and see whether you find any of your handwriting in it?

Answer, (having examined the manuscript.) I see my writing here.

Question. What is it you have there? Answer. I have a report of the speech made by the President on the 18th of August. Question. In what year?

Answer. Eighteen hundred and sixty-six. Question. Have you ever seen Mr. Moore write?

Answer. A good many years ago, when he was reporter for the Intelligencer and I reported for the Washington Union, and we had seats together.

Question. He was a reporter for the Intelligencer, was he?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Then he did not exercise that great right of revision there, did he, to your knowledge.

Answer. I did not see the President after he left the East Room.

Question. Do you know whether Colonel Moore took any memoranda of that speech? Answer. I do not. There was quite a crowd there. I had no opportunity of observing. Question. Will you pick out and lay aside the portions that are in your handwriting? [The witness proceeded to do so.]

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I will give you time to do that in a moment. [To the counsel for the respondent.] Anything further with this witness?

No response.

Answer. Yes, sir,

[Selecting certain sheets and handing them to Mr. Manager BUTLER.]

Mr. EVARTS. We will now put a few questions.

Cross-examined by Mr. EVARTS:

Question. You have selected the pages that are in your handwriting and have them before you. How large a proportion do they make of the whole manuscript?

Answer. I can hardly tell. I have not examined the rest.

Question. Well, no matter; was this whole manuscript made as a transcript from your notes?

Answer. This part that I wrote out.
Question. Was the whole?

Answer. No, sir.

Question. Did you write it out yourself from your stenographic notes, following the latter with your eye, or were your notes read to you by another person?

Answer. I wrote out from my own notes, reading my notes as I wrote.

Question. Have you made any subsequent comparison of the manuscript now in your hands with your stenographic notes? Answer. I have not.

Question. When was this completed on your part?

Answer. A very few minutes after the speech was delivered.

Question. And what did you do with the manuscript after you had completed it?

Answer. I hardly know. I sat at the table there writing it out. and I think Mr. Smith took it as I wrote out; I am not certain about that.

Question. That ended your connection with it ?

Answer. That ended my connection with it, I left for New York the same night.

Question. I desire that you should leave your original stenographic notes as part of the case subject to our disposal?

Answer. Certainly.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. upon these papers.

Pat your initials

The WITNESS. I will do so.

[The notes were marked "J. B. S."]

Mr. Manager BUTLER. One of my associates desires me to put this question which I suppose you have answered before: whether that manuscript which you have produced in your handwriting was a true transcript of your notes of that speech?

Answer. It was. I will not say it was written out exactly as it was spoken.

Question. What is the change, if any? Answer. I do not know that there were any changes, but frequently in writing out we exercise a little judgment. We do not always write out a speech just as it is delivered.

Question. Is that substantially a true version of what the President said?

Answer. It is undoubtedly.

FRANCIS H. SMITH Sworn and examined.
By Mr. Manager BUTLER:

Question. Are you the official reporter of the
House of Representatives?
Answer. I am, sir.

Question. How long have you been so engaged?

Answer. In the position I now hold since the 5th of January, 1865.

Question. How long have you been in the business of reporting?

Answer. For something over eighteen years. Question. Were you employed, and if so by whom, to make a report of the President's speech in August, 1866?