United States. Congress.

Congressional record : proceedings and debates of the ... Congress online

. (page 78 of 172)
Online LibraryUnited States. CongressCongressional record : proceedings and debates of the ... Congress → online text (page 78 of 172)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


impeachment adioums, it be to a definite time f

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It would be in order to move to
adjourn to a certain time.

Ill



Mr. WRIGHT. I move then that the Senate sitting as a court of
impeachment adjourn until Monday at one o'clock.

Several Senators. Say Tuesday.

Mr. KERNAN. If the Senator will withdraw that motion, I wish
to suggest an amendment to the order proposed by the Senator from
Maryland, [Mr. Whyte.]

Mr. WRIGHT. I have no objection to hearing the order read, so
that it may be considered the pending order.

Mr. ELEkNAN. I wish to suggest the proposition I send to the
Chair as an amendment to the motion of the Senator from Maryland.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will be read.

The Chief Clerk read as follows :

Jtetoktedj That in defsnlt of an answer within ten days by the respondent to the
articles of impeaohment^ the trial sliall proceed as on a plea of not gnilty.

Mr. WRIGHT. I now modify my motion so as to make it that the
Senate sitting as a court of impeachment adjourn until Tuesday next
at one o'clock.

Mr. CARPENTER. To avoid any misunderstanding, I simply ask
whether the Senator offering the order just read means by the order
to exclude our right to demur to the articles?

Mr. KERNAN. I had not that particularly in my mind.

Mr. CARPENTER. It is very important that we should under-
stand what we are to do.

Mr. KERNAN. It can be amended if the Senate deem this proper.
I suppose that where a plea is put in to the articles of impeachment
and a replication made to it and a demurrer to the replication, it
really does test the sufficiency of the first pleading m the arti-
cles. It is quito common in States where there is pleading under
the ordinary common-law practice. There a plaintiff may have a bad
declaration, and the defendant's attorney not choosing to demur and
tell him where it is defective puts in a bad plea, and the plaintiff de-
murs to the plea. Uniformly the demurrer reaches back to the dec-
laration. If that is bad, the court so adjudges.

I had no particular point in view. The &nate can modify the or-
der so as to say *' plead or demur." I merely offered it that we
might make some progress. I supposed the present judgment did
affirm the sufficiency of the articles of impeachment.

Mr. Manager LORD. Mr. President, may I call the attention of
the Senate to one thing f We have had a large number of witnesses
in attendance during tuis protracted period, and we deem it desirable
if possible, in connection with the orders to be made to-day, that
some time be fixed for the trial, so that we can let some of these wit-
nesses who live within a reasonable distance go home and return
again, and thereby, perhaps, save some considerable expense.

1 will say, in addition, that if the trial should not happen to occur
on that particular day nevertheless it would be saving a good deal
of expense to the Government and be a great C9nvenience to the wit-
nesses if some day could be fixed when the trial should proceed after
the answer on the questions of fact. If anything should occur to
prevent that, of course that would not alter the propriety of making
the order, because, as I understand now, the trial is to go on.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I arise onlv to express the hope
that by unanimous consent these orders that have been offered will
be considered in open Senate.

Mr. BOUT WELL. Mr. President

Mr. THURMAN. I hope I shall not be interrupted.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I &el called upon to ask the Chair to enforce
the rules of the Senate.

Mr. THURMAN. I should like to know why the rule is enforced
against me and not enforced against anybody else.

The PRESIDENT i>ro tempore. The Chair hopes that is not a re-
flection on the Chair. The Chair called the attention of the Senator
from Ohio to the fact that debat'C was not in order. The Senator from
Ohio stated tiiat he wished simply to make a statement. The Chair
indulged him in that. The Senator from New York, in response to a
question of one of the counsel, also made a statment, which the
Chair supposed he was making, and allowed him to make, by the
same common consent.

Mr. THURMAN. I rise now to ask unanimous consent that this
discussion be in open Senate. Is that out of order to ask unanimous
consent f

The PRESIDENT jpro tempore. The Chair has not asked the Senate
for unanimous consent.

Mr. THURBiAN. No, but I was interrupted by the Senator from
Massachusetts, who cut me off short when I was asking that unani-
mous consent might be given. I ask it because I have neard the de-
cision of this Senate treated to-day with scant respect and the law
with less, and I want the discussion in open Senate.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair reminds Senators again
that debate is not in order. The Senator from Massachusetts insists
on the enforcement of the rule. The Senator from Iowa moves that
the Senate sitting for the trial of the impeachment a4joum until
Tuesday next at one o'clock.

Mr. SHERMAN. I desire to offer an amendment to that, which I
will reduce to writing.

Mr. CONKLING. 1 would inquire whether amotion astoa4joum-
ment is amendable except as to the time to which the a4joumment
shall be f

Mr. SHERMAN. I think the Senator will not object to the form.
I have now my amendment.



Digitized by



Google



162



TRIAL OF WILLIAM W. BELKNAP.



The amendment having been rednced to writing was read, as fol-
lows:

Ordered, That thia court a^oam until Tneaday next, and In the mean time the
defendant have leave to plesM, answer, or demnr herein.

Mr. CARPENTER. I hope the Senate will also give us leave, if we
conclude to make the motion, to make a motion to vacate this order
on the ground suggested. It is certainly as important a question as
the one which was argued and not at all settled by the Senate.

Mr. SHERMAN. It strikes me that this gives ample privilege.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will state to the Sena-
tor from Ohio* that debate is not in order. The Chair will also rule
that the motion of the Senator from Iowa is a simple proposition for
an adjournment, and that the ftroposition of the Senator from Ohio
is not an amendment to the motion of the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. KERN AN. I will withdraw the proposition I submitted in
favor of the one of the Senator from Ohio.

The PRESIDENT jwt) tempore. The Senator from New York with-
draws his proposition. The question pending is on the motion of the
Senator from Iowa, that the Senate sitting for the trial of the im-
peachment adjourn until next Tuesday at one o'clock p. m

Mr. SHERMAN. I ask the Senator from Iowa if ho has any objec-
tion to my sulMtitute f

Mr. WRIGHT. I think I have. I adhere to the proposition I have
made, and ask for a vote on that simple proposition.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of
the Senator from Iowa, that the Senate sitting for the trial of the
impeachment adjourn until Tuesday next at one o'clock p. m.

The motion was agreed to : and the Senate sitting for the trial of
impeachment (at two o'cIock and twenty minutes p. m.) adjourned
to Tuesday next at one o'clock p. m.



Tuesday, June 6, 1876.

The PRESIDENT »ro tempore. The hour of one o'clock having ar-
rived, legislative and executive business is suspended and the Senate
proceeds to the consideration of articles of impeachment exhibited
by the House of Representatives against Wilham W. Belknap, late
Secretary of War. The Sergeant-at-Arms will make proclamation.

The usual proclamation was made by the Sen^eant-at-Arms.

The managers on the part of the House of Representatives (with
the exception of Mr. Knott) appeared and were conducted to the
seats provided for them.

The respondent appeared with his counsel, Messrs. Blair and Black.

The Secretary read the journal of the proceedings of the Senate
sitting on Thursday, June 1, for the trial of the impeachment of
William W. Belknap.

The PRESIDENT pro tempcte. The Senate is now ready to proceed
with the trial.

Mr. EDMUNDS. What is the pending question before the Senate,
Mr. President I

The PRESIDENT pro temp<m. The Secretary will report the pend-
ingorder submitted by the Senator from Maryland, [Mr. Whyte.]

The Chief Clerk read as follows : y

Ordered^ That W. W. Belknap is hereby ordered to plead further or answer the
arddes of impeachment within ten days from this date.

Mr. BLACK. Mr. President, I ask leave in the absence of one of
the counsel to present a motion drawn up by him which he would
have presented if he had been here. I ask that it be read.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will report the mo-
tion submitted by the counsel.

The Chief Clerk read as follows :

Senate of the United States sitthig as a court of impeachment
The Umttbd Statbs of Amebica )
vs. }

WnxiAM W. Bbulnap. >

Here in court comes the said William W. Belkni^, and moves the court now here,
to vacate the order entered of record in this cause setting aside and holding as
naught the plea of him, said.Belknap, by him first above in this cause pleaded, for
the reason tnat said order was not passed with the concurrence of two.tbirds of the
Senators present aod voting upon the question of adopting and passing said order,

as appears by the record in this cause. , ^ _

^ ^ WILLIAM W. BBLKNAP.

J. a BLACK,
MONTGOMBBY BLAIB,
MATT. H- CARPENTER,

OfOountiL

The PRESIDENT j>ro tempore. The question is on the ])roposition
submitted by the Senator from Maryland, that being first in order.

Mr. BLAIR. Mr. President, it occurs to me that our motion ought
first to be put. That motion to abate, set aside, vacate the order of
the Senate ought to be put as it supersedes, takes precedence — it cer-
tainly does so logically — of the other proposition. And while I am
up I should like to say to the Senate that our colleague, Mr. Carpen-
ter, by whom this pleading was drawn up, is now unable to attend
in consequence of illness. Ue is not confined actually to his bed ; but
his physician instructed him this morning that he ought not to and
conm not safely leave his room; and we would ask, before the Senate
proceeds to the consideration of this motion, a short indulgence for
the purpose of bringing him here to assist in the argument.

I do not know that it would be improper to say that we have no



idea of dilatory motions in this matter ; nor do we seek to put in
these motions for any such pu^ose. There seems to be an impression,
communicated to the public through the newspapers, that we are
seeking in someway to delay action. Certainly gentlemen who have
the experience that we have in legal proceedingsknow very well that
nothing is to be accomplished b^ that. We want a fair trial, and a
fair trial only, and an opportunity to present the questions arising
upon the case which are of the very greatest importance ; and, there-
fore, we feel bound to make this motion and to ask that time be given
for the hearing of it.

The PRESIDENT pro temple. The attention of the Chair is called
to the fact that the proposition of counsel is not in the form of an
amendment. The proposition of the Senator from Maryland is a
proposition by itself, and so is that submitted by counsel Therefore
in priority of time the proposition of the Senator from Maryland must
be submitted first.

Mr. SHERMAN. I move to amend the order of the Senator from
Maryland by striking out the words " is hereby ordered'' and insert-
ing " have leave ; '' so as to read :

Ordered^ That W. W. Belknap tiavo leave to plead further or answer the articles
of impeachmeDt witliin ten days from this tlate.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment
proposed by the Senator from Ohio.

The amendment was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question recurs on the order
submitted by the Senator from Maryland as amended.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Will the Chair have the motion of the counsel
readf

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion subminitted by the coun-
sel will now be read.

The Clerk read the motion submitted by Mr. Blair.

Mr. Manager LORD. Mr. President, the managers beg leave to
submit a resolution which I send to the desk.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore, A resolution is submitted on the
part of the managers, which the Secretary wUI read.

The Chief Clerk read as follows :

JtMofoed, That in default of an answer to the merits within ten days by respondent
to the articles of impeachment, the trial shall proceed as upon a plea of not guilty.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the OTder sub-
mitted bv the Senator from Maryland as amended.

Mr. WiHYTE. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Debate is not in order.

Mr. WHYTE. I do not rise to debate, but merely to make a sug-
ion. If the proposition made by the counsel

Mr. CONKLING. The Senator is inaudible here.

Mr. WHYTE. I was about to say that if the counsel for the re-
spondent and the managers desire to argue at this time the propoBi-
tion submitted by the counsel, the order which I have offeren cau lie
on the table for consideration afterward. There is no'proposition by
the counsel, as I understand, or the managers, to argne the sugges-
tion that they have made for a vacation of the order. If they pro-
I)08e to argue it, I see no reason why the argument cannot go ou at
this time.

Mr. BLACK. We have made no proposition to argue it now.

Mr. WHYTE. Or at any time. There is no proposition of a time.
It is leaving it unsettled.

Mr. BLACK. Any time that the Senate may fix we shall be ready
to argue it.

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, it seems to me that the order sug-
gested by the managers is an amendment to the resolution offered by
the Senator from Maryland. I move it as an amendment to the order
offered by the Senator from Maryland.

The PRESIDENT j>ro tempore. The Senator from Ohio wUl submit
his proposition in wnting.

Mr. THURMAN. It is the proposition on the table as submitted
by the managers.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio will have
to modify the proposition, changing it so as to be in the form of an
amendment.

Mr. THURMAN. It is to add to the order *< and that," &c.

Mr. SARGENT. I should like to hear both reported.

The Chief Clerk. The order is in the following words :

Ordered, Tliat W. W. Belknap have leave to plead further or answer the articles
of impeachment within ten days from this date.

The amendment is to add :

And that in default of an auswer to the merits within ten days by respondent to
the articles of impeachment, the trial shall proceed as upon a plea of not guilty.

Mr. Manager LORD. I presen t this in connection with the other

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The paper will be read.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:

Beeolved, That on the llth day of July, 1876, the Senate sitting as a court of im-
peaoliment will proceed to hear the evidence on the merits in the trial of this case.

Mr. LOGAN. I merely wish to call the attention of the mans^^rs
to the rules of proceeding in trials of impeachment before the Senate
in reference to the first order offered by them :

If the accused, after service, shall fail to appear, either in person or by attot
ney, on the day so fixed therefor as aforesaid, or, appearing, shall fail to file his
answer to such articles of impeachment^ the trial shall proceed, nevertheless, as
upon a plea of not guilty.

The rule now is Just as the manager has presented the order.



Digitized by



Google



TRIAL OF WILLIAM W. BELKNAP.



163



Mr. Manager LORD. Except tbat we fix the time.

Mr. LOQAN. No, the time is first ordered. I merely wish to call
attention to the fact that the order is a mere reiteration of the rnle of
the Senate.

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. Mr. President, I wish to inquire of the Sena-
tor from Maryland, and also of the Senator from Ohio, if it is the in-
tention by the adoption of these orders to preclude the defense from
raising the qnostion whether a simple majority or a m^ority of two-
fthirds is required to sustain the jurisdiction of this court ; whether
it is the intention to cut off the defense from raising that question
and arffuing it before the Senate f

Mr. THUkMAN. Mr. President, that question can be argued on the
motion submitted by the counsel for the respondent. I suppose it
can be argued at almost any time or in any way. In my judgment it
never can be decided until we come to the final decision, but it can
he argued on the motion submitted ; although I think it is pretty
clear, for reasons that I am not at liberty to statue now, that it cannot
he decided on any such motion as that submitted by the counsel.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, as debate is not in order, I refrain
from saying anything except merely to remarlL by unanimous con-
sent that I do not wish to be bound either by the question of the Sen-
ator from Michigan or the reply of the Senator from Ohio.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment
submitted by the Senator from Ohio to the order of the Senator from
Mairyland, which the Secretary will again report.

The Chief Clerk. It is proposed to insert at the end of the or-
der:

Aod that in default of an answer to the merits within ten days by respondent to
the articles of impeachment, the trial shall proceed as upon a plea of not guilty.

Mr. SHERMAN. I ask for the reading of the rule referred to by
the Senator from Illinois. I have it not before me.

Mr. BLACK. Mr. President, is it in order for the counsel of the
defendant to make a suggestion about these motions as they are going
onf

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is. The counsel and managers
on each side are entitled to one hour on any proposition for discus-
sion.

Mr. BLACK. Then I do suggest that it is hardly necessary to pro-
Tide a penalty for the default by anticipation. It will be time enouch
to determine what ought to be done after we have made the default.
It is not necessary to anticipate it. The answer will most probably
be in. The chances are a thousand to one that it will not bo necessary
to say what ought to be the consequences of a failure to put the an-
swer in.

Mr. SHERMAN. I ask that the rule referred to bo read.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The eighth rule will be read.

The Chief Clerk reiEtdas follows:

YIIL Upon the presentation of articles of impeachment and the organization of
the Senate as hereinbefore provided, a writ of summons shall issao to the accused,
reciting said articles, and notifying him to appear before the Senate upon a day and
at a place to be fixed by the Senate and named in snob writ, and file his answer to
said articles of impeachment, and to stand to and abide the orders and Judgments
of the Senate thereon ; which writ shall bo served by such officer or person as shall
be nunod in the precept thereof, such nnmber of days prior to the day fixed lor
soch appearance as shall bo named in such precept, olUier by the delivery of an at-
tested copy thereof to the person accused, or, if that cannot conveniently be done,
by leaving such copy at the last known place of abode of such person, or at his
nsnal place of bnsiness in some conspionous place therein ; or if such ^rvico shall
be, in the Judgment of the Senate, impracticable, notice to the accused to appear
shall be given in such other manner, by publication or otherwise, as shall be deemed
jnst ; and if the writ aforesaid shall foil of service in the manner aforesaid, the
proceedings shall not thereby abate, but further service may be made in such man-
ner as the Senate shall direct If the accused, after service, shall fail to appear,
either in person or bv attorney, on the day so fixed therefor as aforesaid, or, appear-
ing, shall fail to file nls answer to such articles of impeachment, the trial shall pro-
ceed, nevertheless, as upon a plea of not guilty. If a plea of guilty shall be entered,
Judgment may be entered thereon without further proceedings.

Mr. Manager LTNDE. Mr. President and Senatore, I wish to call
the attention of the Senate to the difference between the rule as it
has now been I'ead and the order which the managers have presented
to the Senate for their adoption. The order which we propose is that
the respondent shall answer on the merits. We have already been
occupied for several weeks with dilatory pleadings. We have had a
plea to the Jurisdiction of the Senate. It has been suggested bv the
counsel for the respondent that they would yet demur, or ask leave
of the Senate to demur, to the articles of impeachment. The man-
agers believe that these dilatory pleadings have been indulged in by
tms Senate quite too long and without a precedent. I find no prec-
edent either In England or in this country for dilatory pleadings on
impeachment. In the first case tried under our Constitution against
Senator Blount, it is true, the respondent filed a plea to the Jurisdic-
tion which is regarded as a dilatory pleading; but that was without
authority and without precedent. There never had been a case in
England where a plea of that kind had been allowed to bo put into
articles of impeachment, and it stands alone in this country.

The time which has already been occupied in this case must sat-
isfy the Senate that it is not right that these dilatory pleading
should be introduced or allowed. In the case of Judge Barnard in
New York, where the counsel for the respondent applied to the court
for leave to file a demurrer or leave to move to quash certain articles
of impeachment, the court refused the request and required the de-
fendant to plead to the merits, stating that iu the course of the trial



of the case all those questions of law oould be availed of by the par-
ties and would be decided by the court.

Now, we think that if a precedent of this kind is established, if this
Senate will go on and hear dilatory plea after dilatory plea, first a
plea to the Jurisdiction, a plea in abatement, then a demurrer to the
form, there is no end ; and when shall we arrive at a trial of this case
upon the merits f If there was an officer of this Government now in
office who endangered the liberties of the people, who was engaged
in a conspiracy against the (Government, and he stood impeached
before the Senate, if these dilatory pleas were allowed, the evil to be
apprehended from his action might be carried into effect and realized.
And yet it is claimed that it is a matter of right by the respondent,
on the other side, and the courts of impeachment of this country have
by precedent at least, if not by direct vote, decided that when an
officer of the Gk>vemment is imx>eached he cannot be suspended from
the functions of his office while the trial is progressing. No ; it has
been the aim and intention of the courts in all cases of impeachment
that a speedy trial should be had, that the respondent should be re-
quired to answer to the merits, and then the court would consider the
question^ and the whole question, and protect and save the counti^.

Mr. BIjAIR. Mr. President and Senators, it seems to me that this
objection, if a good one at all, is taken too late. The only dilatory
plea that has been filed or that is proposed to be filed was one to the
jurisdiction ; and my colleague says with ver^ good reason that he
does not admit that to be a dilatory plea. It is a plea that goes to
the Jurisdiction, to the fundamental legal capacity of the court to
entertain the action, and it is a fundamental question, therefore, to
be decided by the court and put in and accepted on all hands as a
proper course. We were not given the time pro^rly to argue that
question. We had to rush into the discussion of it upon three days
of preparation, and the delay that has taken place since has not been
at the instance or the desire of the defendiuit here. We were not
permitted to argue the question as it ought to have been argued. We
were forced into its discussion without the adequate or proper prep-
aration which counsel on a great case like this ought to have been
permitted to make. It is true there has been a decision of this court
upon a question that goes to its Jurisdiction. If we had made that
question under the plea of not guilty, and the court had decided it
with the whole case before it, and there had been a difference on that
I>oint such as now appears in the decision of the court, no lawyer
would claim that a final judgment could be rendered upon the case.
All we ask now is to be beam upon that question. The gentlemen
on the other side seem to be anxious to save the time of the Senate.
We are anxious to save the time of the Senate, and we propose to do
it by the discussion of the question to know whether the Judgment
that is now of record can stand consistently with legal principle.



Online LibraryUnited States. CongressCongressional record : proceedings and debates of the ... Congress → online text (page 78 of 172)