March 3, 1817. March 3, 1817. March 30, 1822. March 30, 1822.. March 30, 1822.. September 9, 1850. September 9, 1850...... September 9, 1850... September 9, 1850...... September 9, 1850...... August 14, 1848.. March 3, 1849. March 3, 1849. May 30, 1854.. May 30, 1854.. May 30, 1854.. Marshal for Nebraska Territory. Governor of Kansas Territory. Secretary of Kansas Territory. Chief and associate justices..... do. May 30, 1854.. 10 Attorney and marshal.. do. February 24, 1863. do. February 24, 1863. do. February 24, 1863. Judges for Arizona Territory... do. February 24, 1863. Attorney and marshal.. do. February 24, 1863. Surveyor general of Arizona Territory... do. February 28, 1861. February 28, 1861. Governor of Colorado Territory. do. 12 172 Secretary of Colorado Territory........... do. Chief and associate justices...... Attorney and marshal... do. Governor of Dakota Territory. do. March 2, 1861. 12 March 2, 1861. 240 12 241 Secretary of Dakota Territory. do. Chief and associate justices.. do. March 2, 1861.. 12 242 Attorney and marshal... do. Governor of Nevada Territory. do. Secretary of Nevada Territory. do. Attorney and marshal... Governor of Montana Territory. do. May 26, 1864. do. May 26, 1864... Chief and associate justices.. do. May 26, 1864. Attorney for Montana Territory. do. May 26, 1864.. 312334599 Marshal for Montana Territory......................................... do. 464 Surveyor general..... do. 233 Surveyor of land south of Tennessee... do. 325 Surveyor for Territories of Illinois and Missouri.... do. 755 Surveyor for Territory of Florida...... do. 492 Surveyor general for Louisiana.... do. 243 Surveyor for Territory of Wisconsin do. 496 Surveyor general for Territory of Oregon.. do. 617 10 309 10 611 176 214 244 Surveyor general for Kansas and Nebraska.. Surveyor General for Utah Territory.................. Surveyor General for Colorado Territory.......... Surveyor General for Nevada Territory.............. Surveyor General for Dakota Territory. do. do. do. do. do. 375 Surveyor for North Mississippi Territory............ do. 89 Surveyor General for Montana Territory...... do. 117 Commissioner of Patents....... do. 246 Examiner-in-chief of patents.. do. 564 Commissioner of Indian Affairs..... do. 428 Superintendent of Indian trade...... do. 428 do. do. do. 683 Superintendent of Indian Affairs. do. 735 Superintendent of Indian Affairs. do. 735 Indian agents.. do. 163 Indian agents.. do. 437 Superintendent of Indian Affairs....... do. 437 do. Remarks. Act vests appointment in the President alone. Tenure "during good behavior." And until successor qualified. And until successors qualified. And until successors qualified. Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chief Justice, we now desire to put in evidence rather in a more formal manner than has been done heretofore, although the substantial facts have been brought before the Senate, we believe, by the honorable Managers themselves, the proceedings which took place at the time of the removal of Mr. Pickering by Mr. Adams, accompanied by a certificate that the letters to and from various persons between the 29th of June, 1799, and the 1st of May, 1802, have been for many years missing from the files of the Department of State. The correspondence itself, therefore, cannot be produced from the originals, or from copies of the originals, but no doubt they are correct, as those letters were read the other day by the honorable Managers from a volume of Mr. Adams's works. They are the same letters. The letters are not here; they are not in the Department; but they are printed in that volume and were read from the volume the other day. Mr. Manager BUTLER. Wait a moment. We are not certain about this. [After an examination of the documents offered in evidence.] Do I understand the counsel for the President to say that these papers show anything different from what was shown by the Managers? Mr. CURTIS. No. I stated that in substance the matter was now before the Senate, but we wanted the formal documents to be put in. Mr. Manager BUTLER. The only difficulty I find is this: that you do not put in all; you do not put in what was done on the 12th of May as well as the 13th of May, 1800. Mr. CURTIS. We put in what there is here. Mr. EVARTS. You have already put in the other. Mr. Manager BUTLER. Very good. Mr. CURTIS. We offer these documents from the Department of State. Mr. Manager BUTLER. Very well. The documents thus offered in evidence are as follows: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Department of State: To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: true copy, carefully examined and compared with the original resolution of the Senate, dated 13th May, 1800, and filed in this Department, confirming John Marshall, of Virginia, to be Secretary of State, and Samuel Dexter, of Massachusetts, to be Secretary of the Department of War. 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 5th day of March, A. D. 1868, and of the independence [L. S.] of the United States of America the ninetyWILLIAM H. SEWARD. second. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, The Senate proceeded to consider the message of the President of the United States of the 12th instant, and the nominations, contained therein, of The Hon. John Marshall, esq., of Virginia, to be Secretary of State, in the place of the Hon. Timothy Pickering, esq., removed. The Hon. Samuel Dexter, esq., of Massachusetts, to be Secretary of the Department of War, in the place of the Hon. John Marshall, nominated for promotion to the office of State. Whereupon, Resolved, That they do advise and consent to the appointments agreeably to the nominations respectively. SAMUEL A. OTIS, Secretary. Attest: The CHIEF JUSTICE. The executive clerk of the Senate desires to correct a statement made in respect to the nomination of Mr. Ewing. Mr. Clarke will make the cor rection. D. W. C. CLARKE recalled. did The WITNESS. I stated in my examination that the nomination of Mr. Ewing was brought to the Senate on the 22d of February. so in consequence of a memorandum which I found at the bottom of my sheet. I find, by investigation since, that I made that memorandum from the fact that it was brought to the Senate Chamber on the 22d of February by Mr. Moore, but the Senate was not in session, and he returned with it to the Executive Mansion. He brought it up with one other message and the message of the President in relation to the removal of Mr. Stanton on the 24th, and it was then submitted to the Senate. By Mr. CURTIS: Question. I want to see if I correctly understand you. I understand your statement now to be that Colonel Moore brought it and delivered it to you on the 22d, but the Senate had adjourned? Answer. No, sir. He brought it up on the 22d; he did not deliver it to me. Question. He brought it? Answer. He brought it on the 22d, but the Senate was not in session, and he took it back to the Executive Mansion. Question. And on the 24th he returned, and then it was formally brought in? Answer. That is it. By Mr. Manager BUTLER : Question. How do you know that he brought it here; of your own knowledge? Answer. Only by the information of Colonel Moore. Question. Then all you have been telling us is what Colonel Moore told you? Answer. Yes, sir; that is, all in regard to the nomination. Mr. Manager BUTLER. Very well, sir; we do not want any more of Colonel Moore's information from you. Mr. CURTIS. We will call Colonel Moore. Question, (handing to the witness the message nominating Thomas Ewing, sen., as Secretary of War.) What is the document you hold in your hand? Answer. The nomination to the Senate of Thomas Ewing, sen., of Ohio, to be Secretary for the Department of War. Question. Did you receive that from the President of the United States? Answer. I did. Question. On what day? Answer. On the 22d day of February, 1868. Question. About what hour in the day? Answer. I think it was after twelve o'clock. Question. And before what hour? Answer. And before one. Question. Between twelve and one? Answer. By the direction of the President I brought it to the Capitol to present it to the Senate. Question. About what time did you arrive here? Answer. I cannot state definitely, but I presume about a quarter past one. Question. Was the Senate then in session, or had it adjourned? Answer. It had, after a very brief session, adjourned. Question. What did you do with the document, in consequence? Answer. I returned with it to the Executive Mansion, after a visit to the House of Representatives. Question. Were you apprised before you reached the Capitol that the Senate had adjourned? Answer. I was not. Question. What did you do with the document subsequently? Answer. I returned with it to the Executive Mansion, after having visited the House of Representatives. Question. Was anything more done with the document by you, and if so, when, and what did you do? Monday, the 24th day of February, 1868, to Answer. I was directed by the President on return and deliver it to the Senate. Question. What did you do in consequence? Answer. I obeyed the order. Cross-examined by Mr. Manager BUTLER: Question. Did you see it put in? Question. How do you know what was in the envelope? Answer. It was, I believe, the only message I brought that day; I gave it to the clerk, who sealed it and handed it to me. Question. And then did you unseal it again at all; or did you examine it to see what was in it until you left it here on the 24th? Answer. I did not, to my recollection. Question. Did you show it to anybody here in the House on that day? Answer. No, sir; it was sealed. Question. Have you spoken this morning with Mr. Clarke here upon this subject? Answer. He asked me upon what date I had delivered the message. I told him the 24th. Mr. CURTIS. I now offer in evidence, Mr. Chief Justice, a document which I desire to be read by the Clerk. Mr. Manager BUTLER. Allow me to see it before it is read. Mr. CURTIS. Certainly. [The document was handed to Mr. Manager BUTLER and examined by him.] Mr. Manager BUTLER. We have no objection. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the document. The Secretary read as follows: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Department of State: To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting : I certify that the document hereunto annexed is a true copy, carefully examined and compared with the original record of this Department, authorizing "John Nelson, Attorney General, to discharge the duties of Secretary of State ad interim until a successor to A. P. Upshur shall be appointed." and that this appointment was made during the session of the Senate. I further certify that the confirmation by the Senate of John C. Calhoun to succeed Mr. Nelson is a true copy of the original filed 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 the 6th day of April, A. D. 1868, and of the independence of [L. S.] the United States of America the ninetyWILLIAM H. SEWARD. second. The Hon. John Nelson, Attorney General of the United States, will discharge the duties of Secretary of State ad interim until a successor to the Hon. A. P. Upshur shall be appointed. The Department of State will be put into mourning for the death of the Hon. Abel P. Upshur, late Secretary of State; and all foreign envoys and ministers of the United States, and other officers connected with the Department of State, whether at home or abroad, will wear the usual badges in token of grief and respect for his memory, during the period of thirty days from the time of receiving this order. February 29, 1844. JOHN TYLER. Mr. CURTIS. I now offer in evidence another document, which I also wish to be read by the Clerk after it has been inspected. [The document was handed to the Managers.] Mr. Manager BUTLER. We have no ob jection to this. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the document. The Secretary read as follows: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Department of State: To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: I certify that the document hereunto annexed is a true copy, carefully examined and compared with the original record of this Department, authorizing Winfield Scott to act as Secretary of War ad interim, during the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of George W. Crawford, and that this appointment was made during the session of the Senate. I further certify that the confirmation by the Senate of Charles M. Conrad as Secretary of War to succeed General Scott is a true copy of the original filed 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 6th day of April, A. D. 1868, and of the independence of [L. S.] the United States of America the ninetysecond. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Charles M. Conrad, of the State of Louisiana, to be Secretary of War. Attest: ASBURY DICKINS. Secretary. Mr. CURTIS. I now offer in evidence three papers, all of which relate to the same transaction. I have put them in an envelope, so that they may be kept together. [The papers were handed to the Managers and examined by them.] Mr. Manager BUTLER, (selecting one of the papers.) We object to this memorandum. We do not object to the other papers. The memorandum of Mr. Browning is not any better than anybody else's memorandum.. Mr. CURTIS. It merely states a fact which appears by a comparison of the date of the commission with the date of the ad interim appointment. It is immaterial. Mr. Manager BUTLER. Very good. We have no objection to the other papers. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the documents. Mr. CURTIS. We offer those which are not objected to. The Secretary read the documents, as follows: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D. C., April 7, 1868. I. O. H. Browning, Secretary of the Interior, do hereby certify that the annexed paper is a true copy from the records of this Department. In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed [L. 8.] my name and caused the seal of the Department to be affixed the day and year above written. 0. H. BROWNING, Secretary of the Interior. [Copy.] EXECUTIVE MANSION. WASHINGTON, January 10, 1861. I hereby appoint Moses Kelley to be acting Secretary of the Interior until other arrangements can be made in the premises. JAMES BUCHANAN. Mr. Manager BUTLER. May I ask the counsel if they have any record there of what became of the Secretary of the Interior at the time this acting appointment was made, whether he had resigned or ran away, or what? Mr. CURTIS. I am not informed. I cannot speak either from the record or from recollection. There was a commission sent up which has not yet been read. The Secretary read as follows: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Department of State: To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: I certify that the document hereunto annexed is a true copy, carefully examined and compared with the original record 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 6th day of April A. D., 1868, and of the independence of [L. S. the United States of America the ninety-second. WM. H. SEWARD. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States of America: To all who shall see these presents, greeting: Know ye, that reposing special trust and confidence in the patriotism, integrity, and abilities of Caleb B. Smith, of Indiana, I have nominated, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate do McClintock Young, acting Secretary of the Treasury, to remove an officer by reciting that he is directed by the President so to do. If this is evidence, we have to go on and try the question of the right of McClintock Young to do this act, to see whether an appraiser is one of the | "inferior officers' that a Secretary of the Treasury may remove, or the President may remove without the advice and consent of the Senate; we have to go into a new series of investigations. It is not an act of the President; it is not an act of the head of a Department; and it is remarkable as the only case that can be found of the kind so far as we know; and if it was evidence at all, it would rather prove the rule by being the exception. Mr. CURTIS. I understand it to be admitted that McClintock Young was the acting Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. Manager BUTLER. Yes, sir; I have his appointment. Mr. CURTIS. I take this act of his, therefore, as if it had been done by a Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. Manager BUTLER. Yes, sir. Mr. CURTIS. He says that he proceeds by the order of the President, and I take it to be well settled judicially and practically that where ever the head of a Department says he acts by the order of the President he is presumed to tell the truth, and it requires no evidence to show that he acts by the order of the President. point, him to be Secretary of the Interior of the No such evidence is ever preserved, no record United States, and do authorize and empower him to execute and fulfill the duties of that office according to law. And to have and to hold the said office with all the powers, privileges, and emoluments thereunto of right appertaining unto him, the said Caleb B. Smith, during the pleasure of the President of the United States for the time being. In testimony whereof I have caused these letters to be made patent and the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed. Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, the 5th day of March, in the year of our Lord [L. S.] 1861, and of the independence of the United States of America the eighty-fifth. By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. Mr. CURTIS. I now offer in evidence a document which relates to the removal from office of the collector and appraiser of merchandise at the city of Philadelphia, and also a copy of the commissions issued to their suc cessors. [The documents were handed to the Managers and examined by them.] Mr. Manager BUTLER. Our objection to this, Mr. President, is that this is not an act of any President or any person having authority to discharge officers. What is offered is a letter of one McClintock Young, acting Secretary of the Treasury, directed to the appraiser in Philadelphia, in which he recites a fact. That is what is offered in evidence-the act of McClintock Young, acting Secretary of the Treasury-which he writes to the collector of customs at Philadelphia, asking him to hand a letter to Richard Coe, Esq., saying that he is directed to say that he does not want his services any longer. I do not see how it bears on this issue. The fact that somebody was commissioned we do not object to; but we do object to this letter of acting Assistant Secretary McClintock Young. Mr. CURTIS. Do you want evidence of the fact that he was acting Secretary? Mr. Manager BUTLER. No, sir; I have that fact among these commissions of my own. Mr. CURTIS. The documents are certified regularly by the Secretary of the Treasury as coming from the records of that Department. The documents themselves consist of two letters signed by McClintock Young, who it is admitted was the acting Secretary of the Treasury at the time when he signed these letters. We offer them in evidence to show acts of removal of these Treasury officers, the appraiser and the collector in Philadelphia, by the act of McClintock Young, acting Secretary of the Treasury, who says that he proceeds "by the direction of the President." Mr. Manager BUTLER. The difficulty we find is not removed. It is an attempt by is ever made of the direction which the President gives to one of the heads of Departments, as I understand, to proceed in a transaction of this kind. But when a head of a Department says" by order of the President I say so and so" all courts and all bodies presume that he tells the truth. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice thinks that this evidence is admissible. The act of a Secretary of the Treasury is the act of the President unless the contrary be shown. He will put the question to the Senate, however, if any Senator desires it. [After a pause.] The evidence is admitted. Do you desire to have it read? Mr. CURTIS. If you please, your Honor. The Secretary read as follows: UNITED STATES OF AMERIKA, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 7, 1868. Pursuant to the act of Congress of the 22d of February, 1849, I hereby certify that the annexed are true and correct copies from the records of this Department of the commissions issued to Richard Coe and Charles Francis Breuil, as appraisers of merchandise for the port of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Treasury Depart[L. S.] ment to be affixed on the day and year first above written. H. McCULLOCH, Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. CURTIS. It is only necessary to give the dates of those commissions; you need not read them at large. The SECRETARY. The commission of Richard Coe is dated the 25th day of June, 1841; the commission of Charles Francis Breuil is dated the 30th day of August, 1842. Mr. CURTIS. Now read the letters. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, August 17, 1842. SIR: I am directed by the President to inform you that your services as appraiser of merchandise for the port of Philadelphia are no longer required. I am, very respectfully, &c... MCCLINTOCK YOUNG, Acting Secretary of the Treasury. RICHARD COE, Appraiser of Merchandise, Philadelphia. Mr. SUMNER. I move an amendment to that, that business be resumed forthwith after the expiration of fifteen minutes. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice, before putting the question on that amendment, begs leave to remind Senators how extremely difficult it is to resume the business of the Senate unless the Senators are present. The Chicf Justice will put the question on the amend ment. The amendment was rejected. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question now is on the motion of the Senator from Nevada. The motion was agreed to. The CHIEF JUSTICE resumed the chair at the expiration of fifteen minutes, but there not being many Senators present business was not resumed till two o'clock and forty-five minutes p. m., when the Chief Justice said: Senators will please give their attention. Counsel for the President will proceed with the defense. Mr. Manager BUTLER. Atthe adjournment I was about objecting to the papers offered from the Navy Department. The ground of my objec tion is this: the certificate appended does not certify them to be copies of records from the Navy Department, but simply certifies "that the annexed is a true statement from the records of this Department" signed by "Edgar T. Welles, chief clerk," and then there is an attestation that he is chief clerk. Then the heading of the paper is "memoranda," so that the paper is not an official copy of the record, but is a statement made up by the chief clerk of the Navy Department of certain matters which he has either been asked or volunteered to do; and the difficulty about it is that it is informal, and they leave out here many of the things which are necessary to ascertain what bearing this has on the case. For instance, Thomas Eastin, Navy agent at Pensacola, it is stated, was, on the 19th of December, 1840, dismissed by direction of the President for failing to render his accounts and Purser So-and-So was ordered to take his place. It does not appear what then was done, whether the Senate was in session and whether the President sent at the same moment an appointment to the Senate. All that appears is that on the 29th of April, 1841, the President appointed Jackson Morton, Navy agent at Pensacola. He might have sent in Jackson Morton's name at the very moment that he dismissed this man. Non constat; it does not appear at all. I only put this as an illustration. These are not copies of records, but they are certified to be a statement made up from the records by somebody not under oath, and who has no right to make statements, and they are wholly illusory. Occasionally there are memoranda in pencil upon these papers made by other persons. Mr. CURTIS. We can apply India-rubber there, and that would remove that objection. Mr. Manager BUTLER. Yes, sir. The difficulty is not so much what is stated here as what is left out. Everything is left out that is of value to the understanding of this case. Here are memoranda made up from the records that A B was removed, but the circumstances under which he was removed, who was nominated in his place, and when that person was nominated do not appear. It only appears that somebody was appointed at Pensacola. Mr. JOHNSON. Are the dates given, Mr. Manager? Mr. Manager BUTLER. The dates are given in this way: it is stated that on the 19th of December, 1840, a person is removed, and then on the 5th of January one Johnston was informed that he had been appointed. He must have been nominated and gone through the Senate and been confirmed in the meantime. Non constat but that he was nominated at this very moment; and if he was nominated at the very moment the other man was removed, the value of it is gone as a precedent. Then Johnston was lost on the voyage, and on the 29th of April, 1841, another man was appointed; but the whole value, I say, is gone because they have not given us the record; they have only given us memoranda, and it is so stated, "memoranda of records." Who has any commission to make memoranda from the records for evidence before the Senate? And then in the certificate the word "copies" is stricken out, and the words are written in: "A true statement of the records"—a statement such as Mr. Edgar T. Welles chooses to make, or such as anybody else chooses to make. I never heard before that anybody had a right to come and certify memoranda of records, and put it in as evidence. That is one paper. us. Then the next paper, although it purports to contain true copies of records from the office, consists of nothing but letters about the appointment and removal of officers, Navy agents again but being so removed and appointed only a portion of the correspondence is given When the nominations were sent in is not given us. I do not mean to say that my friends on the other side chose to leave anything out; but whoever prepared this for them has chosen to leave out the material facts whether the Senate was in session, or whether other names were sent in. Now, the question is if you are going to take excerpts from the records. I want to call the attention of the Senate still further to the fact that all the officers who are covered by these papers they have offered are appointed under the act of May 15, 1820, for four years. That act provided that: All district attorneys, collectors of the customs, naval officers and surveyors of the customs, Navy agents, receivers of public moneys for lands, registers of the land offices, paymasters in the Army, the apothecary general, the assistant apothecaries general, and the commissary general of purchases, to be appointed under the laws of the United States, shall be appointed for the term of four years, but shall be removable from office at pleasure." So that their very tenure of office settles it that they are removable "at pleasure," so enacted by the law which creates them; and now the gentlemen are going to show that under that, in some particular instances, officers were removed at pleasure, but not to show how they were removed, the manner of their removal, and then to attempt to show that by memoranda made by Edgar T. Welles, certified by Gideon Welles to be chief clerk. Is that evidence? Mr. CURTIS. I understand the substance of the objections made to these documents to be two. The first is that these are only memoranda from the records and not copies, not full and formal copies from the records. It is said that it is not proper to adduce in evidence such statements of the results shown by the records; that instead of giving a table containing the name of the officer, the office which he held, the day when removed, and the person by whose order he was removed there should be an extended copy of the entire act and all the papers relating to it. Well, in the first place, I wish the Senate to call to mind that the only document of this character relating to removals from office which has been put in by the honorable Managers is a document from the Department of State, which contains exactly this memorandum of facts: "List of appointments of heads of Departments made by the President at any time during the session of the Senate: 1794. Timothy Pickering, Postmaster General, June 1, "Samuel L. Southard, Acting Secretary of the Treasury, January 26, 1829." And so on. That is, it is a list extracted out of the records in the Department of the Secretary of State containing the names of the officers, the offices they held, the date when they were removed, and the authority by which they were removed. Mr. JOHNSON. How is it certified? Mr. Manager BUTLER. In what language? Mr. CURTIS. This is a copy which I hold in my hand, and I am not prepared to say how it is certified; but it is in evidence, and can be seen. I think it will be found to be simply a remove. Mr. JOHNSON. Will the counsel state what the act of Congress is which makes these certificates evidence? understand that under the laws of the United States all these officers must be commissioned by the Secretary of State, and that the facts appear in his Department, including the officers under the Interior, the Treasury, the War, and the Navy Departments? Mr. Manager BUTLER. With the single exception of the Treasury, I do. Mr. CURTIS. I do not. Mr. Manager BUTLER. I do so understand it, and it will so appear, I think. But at any rate when the gentleman takes these commissions he will find that the commissions all emanate with the seal of the United States and the signature of the Secretary of State upon them. The testimony that he offers is not the commissions of these officers; and to show that that is the fact I only appeal to his own papers here. Instead of sending us the commissions of these officers, what is the evidence of the Mr. CURTIS. There are several acts of The substantial objection which the learned Mr. Manager BUTLER. The counsel for the President, I think, judge well, that when they can find that we have taken any particular course that must be the right course and the one they ought to follow. We certainly accept that as being the very best exposition of the law so far as we are concerned. But the difficulty is this: we offer testimony sometimes that is not objected to; and I asked my learned friends, I think, in the case referred to, whether they objected to that evidence, and they made no objection. If they had, I might have been more formal; but that does not meet the difficulty quite. The difficulty I find is that they go to the wrong sources of evidence. Evidence of the removal and appointment of officers and the affixing of the seal to commissions is to be sought for only in the State Department. No officer who is removed or appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who holds his commission under that tenure, can be appointed or can be removed without all the circumstances appearing in the State Department; and there is the place they should go for this evidence. If they would go to the State Department, they would get it all; they would find out when he was appointed, when he was removed, when his successor was appointed, when he was nominated, and everything precisely as they have in the case of Mr. Pickering. Mr. CURTIS. Does the honorable Manager NAVY DEPARTMENT, March 24, 1838. SIR: The President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, having appointed you Navy agent for four years from the 22d of March, 1838, I have the pleasure to inclose herewith your commission, dated the 24th of March, 1838. I am, respectfully, yours, M. DICKERSON. LEONARD JARVIS, esq., Navy Agent, Boston. The evidence that they give us of the appointment is a letter of the Secretary, reciting the fact of the commission. If they had gone to the State Department they would have found the record of the commission. Why I complain of it, and that is all the reason I complain of it, is that again it is illusory. If it was a mere matter of form I would not care about it. If my friend will tell me that they will put in the exact dates when these parties were nominated I shall have no objection; but they place either upon the Senate or upon me the burden of going to the records and looking up these dates and looking up the evidence to control their evidence. That is to say, the Senate allow them to put in memoranda of part of a transaction, and put upon the Managers of the House of Representatives the burden of going and looking up the rest of it. I say it is not right to do so; that where they put in the transaction they ought to put in the whole record of the transaction, and then we can all see exactly what the transaction was. Mr. President, I have so much respect for my learned friends that whenever they state a matter of law as they stated it to the learned Senator from Maryland, that extracts from records might be certified, I am almost afraid to object; but I beg leave to read from Brightly's Digest, the seventeenth section, on page 267, although it is a very bad practice to read from digests: All books, papers, documents, and records in the War, Navy, Treasury, and Post Office Departments, and the Attorney General's office, may be copied and certified under seal in the same manner as those in the State Department may now by law be, and with the same force and effect, and the said Attorney General shall cause a seal to be made and provided for his office, with such device as the President of the United States shall approve." Mr. JOHNSON. What is the date of that act? Mr. Manager BUTLER. That act is dated February 22, 1849. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. Mr. Manager BUTLER. And that act refers to the act of September 15, 1789, which provides: "That all copies of records and papers in the office of the Department of State, authenticated under the seal of the said Department, shall be evidence equally as the original record or paper." I have not seen any statute which gives any right to certify extracts of records. If these were extracts of entire records they would do; but these are memoranda; that is, the gloss, the interpretation, the collation, the diegesis of the clerk of that Department of the records. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice will submit the question to the Senate. The Chief Justice put the question, and declared that the noes appeared to have it. Mr. SHERMAN. I call for the yeas and |