Mr. COCKRELL. I can furnish the managers with the case if they desire it. [Sending a book to the managers.] Mr. LOGAN. Before the manager reads that, I desire to ask a question merely to have him give his comments in reference to it. The replication on the part of the House to the first plea of the respondent is claimed by the managers to be a demurrer. Then there is a demurrer by the respondent, and the managers follow with their joinder in demurrer to the demurrer of the respondent. I ask whether by that joinder in demurrer to the respondent they do not waive that which they claim to be their demurrer in the replication to the first plea of the respondeat. I should like to hear the manager on that point. Mr. Manager HOAR. I am not sure that I correctly apprehend the force of the question of the honorable Senator from Illinois; but if I do, with all due respect I can express my opinion by saying that it refers rather to what the successive steps in the pleading are labeled by the parties, than to what they really amount to. The substance of this issue is this: The House of Representatives say the defendant did certain acts as Secretary of War, and remained Secretary of War until the 2d day of March. The defendant replies, "I was not Secretary of War when you presented your articles, or before," leaving it ambiguous whether he means never before, or that there was a time before when he did not hold the office. In order not to be entangled by that ambiguity, the House of Reprosntatives say, "We mean to assert, as we said before, that you were Secretary of War down to the 2d day of March; and the fact that you have gone out since (which is the only fact, as we understand the pleadings, now newly set up by you) is not a sufficient answer to our original article." Mr. LOGAN. The question I asked, though, if I can make myself understood, is merely this, boiled down to a point, whether the managers, by joining in demurrer to the demurrer of the respondent to the replication of the managers, do not then make the issue on that demurrer, and waive what they claim as a demurrer on their part to the plea of the respondent? Mr. Manager HOAR. I do not so understand. I understand that the question which the Senate ought to. determine is this-this is the substance of the whole thing: Is the fact newly affirmed, and first affirmed by this respondent, to wit, the fact that he had ceased to be Secretary of War when these articles were presented, a sufficient answer to the charge? You cannot escape that simple proposition. That is what you have got to try: Is the fact, newly set up by the defendant, that he had ceased to be Secretary of War when these articles were presented, a sufficient answer to this charge? He sets that up, and the House of Representatives say that is no sufficient answer; and that is a demurrer in substance and in fact; and on the question whether a fact so set up by my antagonist newly, for the first time in the case, is a sufficient answer to what I have said, I am always entitled to the opening and close. Mr. MAXEY. Mr. President Mr. Manager HOAR. I desire the honorable Senator to remember that I have been quite led away from the previous request of the honorable Senator from New York. Mr. MAXEY. I should be glad to call the manager's attention to one point. The plea in response to the articles of impeachment declares that before and at the time of the beginning of the proceedings for impeachment-that is in substance what it is-the respondent was not an officer of the United States. The managers, in their reply to that, in on. their first replication, neither affirm nor deny that fact, but they go on to say that that plea is not good and sufficient in law, because they say that at the time of the commission of the offenses, as set forth in the articles of impeachment, he was such officer. That is the substance of that. Now it is claimed by the managers that that is in substance a general demurrer to the defendant's plea. Various other pleadings go The defendant then comes in and demurs to that first subdivi-ion of the House's replication. To that demurrer of the defendant the managers or the House put in a similiter-join in demurrer. Now, I am like my friend from Illinois; I wish to understand if the effect of that in law would not be, by joining in the defendant's demurrer, to waive the House's demurrer? I should be glad to hear what they have to say on that point; if that is not the effect of the pleading; if joinder in the defendant's demurrer is not a waiving and abandonment of the first de murrer. Mr. Manager HOAR. I should be constrained, I think, to answer by saying that I do not think that would be good practice, and a court of law would order those pleadings to be reformed and the matter to stop at the first demurrer andjeverything else to be stricken out. But, at any rate Mr. MAXEY. I will state in addition, Mr. President, that so far as concerns the demurrer, which is joined, of the defendant, that demurrer does contain an offer to verify, which is unusual also in a demurrer, I think. Still, having joined in that, Iask whether that joinder does not waive the demurrer of the managers. Mr. Manager HOAR. I do not so understand. Mr. SARGENT. I rise to a point of order. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will state his point of order. Mr. SARGENT. Rule 18 provides : If a Senator wishes a question to be put to a witness, or to offer a motion or orderexcept a motion to adjourù—it shall be reduced to writing and put by the presiding officer. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair formerly ruled that debate was out of order; but he does not consider the manager a witness in the case. Senators asked unanimous consent to put questions to the manager to draw out information on the subject which he is discussing, and by unanimous consent the Chair allowed it. Mr. SARGENT. I can see that if we indulge in questioning counsel on the respective sides at any length a great deal of time will be consumed, and perhaps the result will be much more unsatisfactory than even if we allowed general debate. I think I shall feel called upon hereafter to insist that it be not allowed. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If the Senator objects, the Chair will rule it out of order. Mr. Manager HOAR. Mr. President and Senators, I have simply one thing to say in conclusion, and that merely a summing up of what has been already said. The substance of this whole matter, stripped of its form, is an affirmation by the party presenting articles of impeachment to the Senate that the Senate has the jurisdiction, and on that matter the House always has the affirmative and the right to reply. No plea was necessary of any kind to raise it. It is involved in the final determination of the issue. In the next place, upon the pleadings as they stand the affirmative of the issue made up still rests upon the House of Representatives. Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, I send a question in writing to the Chair which I ask that the Chair may have read to the managers. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont proposes a question which will be read. The Chief Clerk read as follows: Will the managers read the replication in Blount's case Mr. Manager HOAR. Will the honorable Senator allow me to ask the Secretary to read it? Mr. EDMUNDS. Certainly. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will read the replication called for. The Chief Clerk read as follows: The replication of the House of Representatives of the United States, in their own behalf and also in the name of the people of the United States, to the plea of William Blount to the jurisdiction of the Senate of the United States to try the articles of impeachment exhibited by them to the Senate against the said William Blount. The House of Representatives of the United States, prosecu ing, on behalf of themselves and the people of the United States, the articles of impeachment exhibited by them to the Senate of the United States against the said William Blount, reply to the plea of the said William Blount, and say that the matters alleged in the said plea are not sufficient to exempt the said William Blount from answering the said articles of impeachment, because they say that by the Constitution of the United States the House of Representatives had power to prefer the said articles of impeachment, and that the Senate have full and the sole power to try the same. Wherefore they demand that the plea aforesaid of the said William Blount be not allowed, but that the said William Blount be compelled to answer the said articles of impeachment. Mr. MCDONALD. I would ask that the plea to the jurisdiction, to which the replication of the House was filed, be also read. The Chief Clerk read as follows: rs. WILLIAM BLOUNT. UNITED STATES Upon impeachment of the House of Representatives of the United The aforesaid William Blount, saving and reserving to himself all exceptions to the imperfections and uncertainty of the articles of impeachment, by Jared Ingersoll and A. J. Dallas, his attorneys, comes and defends the force and injury, and says that he, to the said articles of impeachment preferred against him by the House of Representatives of the United States, ought not to be compelled to answer, because he says that the eighth article of certain amendments of the Constitution of the United States, having been ratified by nine States, after the same was, in a constitutional manner, proposed to the consideration of the several States in the Union, is of equal obligation with the original Constitution and now forms a part thereof, and that by the same article it is declared and provided that in all criminal prosecntions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." That proceedings by impeachment are provided and permitted by the Constitution of the United States only on charges of bribery, treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors alleged to have been committed by the President, Vice-President, and other civil officers of the United States, in the execution of their offices held under the United States, as appears by the fourth section of the second article and by the seventh clause of the third section of the first article and other articles and clauses contained in the Constitution of the United States That, although true it is that he, the said William Blount, was a Senator of the United States from the State of Tennessee at the several periods in the said articles of impeachment referred to, yet that he, the said William, is not now a Senator, and is not nor was at the several periods so as aforesaid referred to an officer of the United States; nor is he, the said William, in and by the said articles charged with having committed any crime or misdemeanor in the execution of any civil office held under the United States, or with any malconduct in civil office or abuse of any public trust in the execution thereof. That the courts of common law of a criminal jurisdiction of the States wherein the offenses in the said articles recited are said to have been committed, as well as those of the United Sates, a e competent to the cognizance, prosecution, and punishment of the said crimes and misdemeanors, if the same have been perpetrated, as is suggested and charged by the said articles, which, however, he utterly denies. All which the said William is ready to verify, and prays judgment whether this high court will have further cognizance of this suit and of the said impeachment, and whether he, the said William, to the said articles of impeachment, so as aforesaid preferred by the House of Representatives of the United States, ought to be compelled to answer. JARED INGERSOLL. Mr. Manager HOAR. I now ask the Secretary to read, as was requested by the Senator from New York, the first plea in the present case. Mr. CHRISTIANCY. I wish to submit a question in writing. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The manager has desired to have a plea read before any other business is transacted. It will be first read. The Chief Clerk read as follows: In the Senate of the United States sitting as a court of impeachment. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. WILLIAM W. BELKNAP. The replication of the House of Representatives of the United States, in their own behalf and also in the name of the people of the United States, to the plea of William W. Belknap to the articles of impeachment exhibited by them to the Senate against the said William W. Belknap. The House of Representatives of the United States, prosecuting, on behalf of themselves and the people of the United States, the articles of impeachment exhibited by them to the Senate of the United States against said William W. Belknap, reply to the plea of said William W. Belknap, and say that the matters alleged in the said plea are not sufficient to exempt the said William W. Belknap from answering the said articles of impeachment, because they say that at the time all the acts charged in said articles of impeachment were done and committed, and thence continuously down to the 2d day of March, A. D. 1876, the said William W. Belknap was Secretary of War of the United States, as in said articles of impeachment averred, and therefore that, by the Constitution of the United States, the House of Representatives had power to prefer the articles of impeachment and the Senate have full and the sole power to try the same. Wherefore they demand that the plea aforesaid of the said William W. Belknap be not allowed, but that the said William W. Belknap be required to answer the said articles of impeachment. Mr. Manager HOAR. It will be seen that the only allegation of fact there is a statement that the fact is as the original articles averred. Mr. CHRISTIANCY. I now ask that my question be read. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan proposes a question which will be read. The Chief Clerk read as follows: 1. If, as the managers contend, the first reply to the plea is a re-assignment of matters of fact, can it be at the same time a demurrer ? 2. Is it claimed that the second replication is also a demurrer ? 3. Are not the commencement and conclusion or prayer of the second replication the same as in the first? Mr. Manager HOAR. I do not understand, Mr. President and Senators, that the second replication is also a demurrer. I do understand that where a plea is ambiguous and the reply contains a re-assignment of a matter of fact affirmed in the original charge it can be at the same time a demurrer. I answer, therefore, the first proposition of the honorable Senator very confidently in the affirmative. In regard to the commencement and conclusion or prayer of the second replication being or not the same as the first, I cannot, without a little examination, answer. The honorable Senator can answer it for himself; but I do not understand that this is a question of prayer, or of conclusion, or of labels, or of formalities. It is a question of what is the substance of the issue, no matter what is put on the back of the paper or foot of a paper which makes up the issue. The substance of this issue is that the House of Representatives now have upon them the burden of satisfying the Senate that it has jurisdiction over this offense and that the matters of fact alleged by the defendant in opposition to that jurisdiction are immaterial. That is the substance of a demurrer, and entitles us, as matter of substance, to the reply. Mr. CARPENTER. Mr. President- Mr. EDMUNDS. Before the counsel proceeds I ask leave to submit one other question to the manager. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The inquiry of the Senator from Vermont will be read. The Chief Clerk read as follows: Is there any allegation in the articles that Mr. Belknap was Secretary of War down to the 2d day of March, 1876 ? Mr. Manager HOAR. That would require a discussion of the question whether the meaning of the phrase "down to a day" and the meaning of the phrase "until a day" is the same. The honorable Senator from Vermont can answer as well as I can. The third article alleges that the "said William W. Belknap continued in office as such Secretary of War until the 2d day of March, 1876," and the fifth article alleges that "from the 10th day of October, in the year 1870, continuously to the 2d day of March, 1876," he held the office. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, I shall have to ask the manager to speak a little louder. We cannot hear him on this side. Mr. Manager HOAR. The honorable Senator from Vermont inquired whether there was any allegation in the original articles that the defendant held the office of Secretary of War down to the 2d day of March, 1876, which is the allegation of the replication set forth in the articles, to which I reply that one article alleges that he held the office until the day, and another that he held it from a certain date continuously to that day; and unless there be some distinction, which I cannot understand, between those expressions and the word "until" they do so allege. Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, I desire to submit to the managers and also to the counsel of the defendant an inquiry in regard to another brauch of the subject. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will read the inquiry of the Senator from Ohio. The Chief Clerk read as follows: Will it meet the convenience of the managers and the counsel for the defendant to be allowed on each side a limited number of hours for the argument on the question made as to the jurisdiction of the Senate, such time to be apportioned among the counsel as each side may desire? If so, what number of hours do they desire as the limit? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Have the counsel anything to say? Mr. BLAIR. I will state for the counsel for the defendant that we could not answer that question without consultation with our absent colleague, Mr. Black. Mr. Manager LORD. We are in the same condition, Mr. President, in that regard. We shall have to confer with the other counsel before we can answer the question. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Do the gentlemen counsel desire to be heard upon the motion? Mr. CARPENTER. Mr. President, before proceeding to speak on this question, I wish to know whether I correctly understood the honorable manager who last addressed the Senate to say that the presumption that the defendant is innocent, which is recognized in every criminal court of the land, is not to be applied in this case? |