Слике страница
PDF
ePub

the interests of justice may require, or as may be necessary to facilitate its proper administration. I admit that time is legitimate consideration; but in the text of Magna Charta, it comes, I think, after justice: "we will not sell, we will not deny, we will not delay right or justice."

It struck me, however, that the effect of this rule was to create a condition of things which was calculated, in some degree, to embarrass the gentlemen who have been sent here to conduct this case on the part of the House and the people. The House, acting upon its discretion and upon a full consciousness of the importance of this case, has devolved this responsible task upon seven of its members. In this particular, although the case is one without a precedent, they certainly have not deviated from the ordinary rule. I know no cases in which the number has been less than five. There are many, I think, where it has amounted to as much as eleven. The effect, however, of this rule will then be to exclude from the debate upon this question-I mean the final debate, and I take that to be really and substantially the only important one—at least four of the managers appointed by the House.

If time were a matter of importance-and I am now willing to admit that it is, as the House concedes in its proceedings here, in the articles which it has presented, and in the whole conduct of its managers, as exhibited before youit would have seemed to me, that while a reasonable limitation would be proper, it would, perhaps, have relieved us to some extent, and enabled all the managers to perform what they might conceive to be their duties as imposed upon them by the House of Representatives, if this honorable body had undertaken to say how much time, or, in other words, how many hours, the public convenience and the interests of the state would allow them to give to the prosecution in this case. In that event the time allowed could have been divided and apportioned among the managers, and that would have been in conformity with the terms of the rule in regard to interlocutory motions where an hour has been assigned to each side and the privilege left to members of saying by whom the several questions may be discussed. If the rule had been modified in this way, the managers, as I have observed, would have been relieved, because they could then have distributed the several parts among themselves.

It struck me, however-and I rose merely for the purpose of calling your attention to the precedents-that the rule was an unusual one. It did not meet the approbation of the managers in the first instance; and when, as they did, under a sort of compulsion imposed upon them, distribute the parts in this drama, if I may be allowed to call it so, they directed their chairman to make this application. It has been postponed; it is now made and is now before you. They thought the rule was unusual. I think they all shared in that opinion. I have taken very little time myself to look into the precedents, but since the motion has been made I have thought it was my duty so to do, and I desire to state now to this honorable Senate what is the result in ordinary cases; and this, I think, will not be considered one of that description.

There have been but five cases within our history of impeachments before the Senate of the United States. The first of them was the case of Blount, which was tried, I think, in the year 1798. That was the impeachment of a senator; it went off upon a collateral question; which was as to the fact whether a member of the Senate was an officer impeachable under the Constitution. The next case was the.case of Judge Pickering, of New Hampshire. The charge there was drunkenness. The defence put in-if there can be said to have been a defence put in regularly, where the respondent did not appear by counselwas insanity. That question was tried in advance; it was ruled against him; and thereupon, upon the motion of the members of the House, at the special instance and upon the special order of the House itself, to whom, I believe, the question was then referred, the case was submitted without argument, and a judgment rendered against the defendant.

The third case was that of Justice Chase. There the number of managers was seven. They were all heard except one, and yet the number of arguments made was equal to the number of managers, because the default of that one, if it was a default, was supplied by two speeches from Mr. Randolph, the chairman, who opened the case and closed it.

The next case was that of Judge Peck. There the number of managers was five. They all participated in the argument.

In none of these cases does there seem to have been-I may be mistaken, and stand subject to correction if I am wrong-any question as to the right of the House to be heard, if it desired, through all its managers. If there was any discussion then, or any rule adopted on the subject at that or any other time, members of the Senate who have participated in the framing of these rules must be of course aware of it, and will be able to make the answer in their votes. There, however, as I have already remarked, the course was the same as in the case of Justice Chase.

The last case was the case of Judge Humphreys. That took place at the commencement of the war. There there was no appearance, and of course no defence, and a sort of judgment was taken by default, something, perhaps, in the nature of a judgment of outlawry.

It seems, then, that in the only two cases that have been contested in this country before this Senate, the rule has been that all the managers appointed by the House should be allowed to participate in the discussion.

How is it elsewhere? I have not chosen to go beyond the waters to look into the precedents; but there is one case in British history which is familiar to all of us, which is associated, I may say, with the school-boy recollection of every man in this nation, of every man, indeed, who is familiar with our language, a case made memorable, I suppose, mainly, not by the peculiar interest which it involved, but by the fact that it was illustrated by the splendid genius of some of the greatest men that England has ever produced. It was not because Warren Hastings was the governor general of Bengal-that was a small matter, held, I believe, by the grace of the British East India Company-but because such men as Edmund Burke and Richard Brinsley Sheridan were among the managers. It was such men as those who made the case an epoch in parliamentary history. It may be said, however, that there was another reason for it, and that was its long duration. It continued, I believe, for as long a period as seven years. I beg senators to understand that I do not quote it as an authority on that point; but I think it will be remembered by all of them that the labor of argumenta. tion was distributed among all the managers, the articles being numerous, complicated, and elaborate, though I suppose that the fact of all the managers participating had nothing to do possibly with the prolongation of the time.

And now, in view of these precedents, I would desire to ask how does the present case compare with them? Is it an ordinary one? Why, it dwarfs them all into absolute nothingness. There is nothing in the world's history that compares with this. It makes an epoch in history, and therefore I may well say that you are making history to-day. And therefore, too, I think it is, that upon questions of this sort you should so rule as to show to posterity that you do properly appreciate the magnitude of the interests involved. Senators, I feel myself the difficulty of realizing its magnitude. I know how hard it is for us, even, who are the actors in this great drama, to rise to the height of this great argument. Why, what is the case? That of a judge of the Supreme Court or of the district court of the United States? That of a custom-house officer? No. It is the case of the Chief Magistrate of a great people, of an empire reaching from ocean to ocean, and comprehending within its circumference forty millions of free, intelligent, thinking people, who are looking upon your doings and waiting in breathless suspense for your verdict. That is the case now before you; and if in the case of a judge of the Supreme Court-and from my habitual

respect for that tribunal, I would not be understood to speak disparagingly of the position or if in the case of a judge of the district court, it was thought improper to impose any limitations, where the number of managers was the same as now, what shall be said of the application in a case like this of a rule which prevails, as I have already rema ked, in all the courts, even in the most indifferent causes? It can only be accounted for in one way: either that the case was of small consequence, or that it was so plain that the judges required no professional research and no argument to aid them.

And now I desire only to say in conclusion, in order that I may not be misunderstood, that in the remarks which I have made I have not been moved by any considerations that were personal to myself. I have lived long enough to outlive the time when the ambition to be heard is felt by men; I have lived too long, at all events, to think it worth while to press an argument upon an unwilling judge, whatever may be the reasons by which he may be influenced, whether he may regard the case as too clear a one, or whether he may consider it as so unimportant as not to be entitled to a reasonable amount of time. I do not know, if you relax this rule, whether I shall be personally able to take advantage of it or not. That will depend upon my strength; that will depend again upon the feeling that I may have as to the necessity of anything additional to what may be said by others. I felt it, however, to be my duty to enter my protest-and I do it most respectfully-against what may be drawn into a prece dent hereafter. If in a case like this the argument may be limited to two, how will it be when another supreme judge is arraigned before another Serate for high crimes and misdemeanors? I take it for granted that, measuring things by their comparative proportions, another Senate would feel authorized to reduce the number of counsel to one; and if it came to a district judge or a customhouse officer I do not know whether they might not feel authorized to deny that privilege altogether.

Mr. Manager STEVENS. Mr. Chief Justice, I have but a word to say, and that is of very little importance. I do not expect to be able, if allowed, to say many words upon this subject. There is one single article which I am somewhere held responsible for introducing, and a single article only, which I wish to argue at a very brief length; but I desire that my colleagues should have full opportunity to exercise such liberty as they deem proper in the argument.

I have no objection myself-I do not speak for my colleagues-if the Senate choose to limit our time, to their doing so, and fixing it at what they think reasonable, what one gentleman here would occupy, for I find they occupy three days sometimes here. I am willing to allow the Senate to fix the time, and let the managers, those who are not already expected to speak in conclusion, to divide that time among themselves; however, sir, this is a mere suggestion.

I merely wish to say that I trust some further time will be given, as there are two or three subjects on which for a short time, perhaps an hour or threequarters of an hour, some of us may be anxious to give the reasons why we were so pertinacious in the House in insisting upon their introduction after the House had reported leaving them out. I confess I feel in that awkward posi tion that I owe it to myself and to the country to give the reasons why I insisted, with what is called obstinacy, in introducing one of the articles; but I am willing to be confined to any length of time which the Senate may deem proper. What I have to say I can say very briefly. Indeed, I cannot say. at any great length, if I would. I merely make this suggestion, and beg the pardon of the Senate for having obtruded thus long upon their time when they ought to proceed.

it

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Do the counsel for the President desire to submit any remarks to the Senate?

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, I submit an amendment, which I desire to be added to the order as it stands.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The amendment will be read by the clerk.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. President, before the amendment of the senator from Ohio is submitted, I desire, if I am at liberty, to modify the resolution somewhat by adding a further proviso that only one counsel on the part of the managers shall be heard in the close. It was not the purpose of the resolution to change the rule, excepting as to the number who should speak.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the order as modified by the senator from New Jersey.

The SECRETARY. The order, as modified by the mover, now reads:

Ordered, That as many of the managers and of the counsel for the President be permitted to speak on the final argument as shall choose to do so: Provided, That the trial shall proceed without any further delay or postponement on this account: And provided further, That only one manager shall be heard in the close.

The amendment of the senator from Ohio (Mr. Sherman) is to add:

But the additional time allowed by this order to each side shall not exceed three hours. Mr. Manager BOUTWELL. Mr. President and Senators, I am very unwilling myself to make any remarks upon this resolution, because I am so situated, upon the judgment of the managers, that it is a delicate matter for me to do so; and had it not been for the qualification made by the honorable senator from New Jersey I should have said nothing. But if the Senate will consider that in the case of Judge Peck, after the testimony was submitted to the Senate, it was first summed up by two managers on the part of the House; that then the counsel for the respondent argued the cause of the respondent by two of their number, and that then the case was closed for the House of Representatives by two arguments made by the managers; if the Senate will consider that in the trial of Judge Chase the argument on the part of the House of Representatives and of the people of the United States was closed by three managers after the testimony had been submitted and the arguments in favor of the respondent had been closed; if they will consider that in the trial of Judge Prescott, in Massachusetts-which, I venture to say in this presence was one of the most ablyconducted trials in the history of impeachments, either in this country or in Great Britain, on the part of the managers sustained by Chief Justice Shaw, and on the part of the respondent by Mr. Webster-that two arguments were made by the managers of the house of representatives on the part of the house and on the part of the people of that Commonwealth after the case of the respondent had been closed both upon the evidence and upon the argument, I think it needs no further illustration to satisfy this tribunal that the cause of the people, the cause of the House of Representatives, if this case should be opened to full debate on the part of the five gentlemen who represent the respondent here, ought not to be left to the close of a single individual.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask for the reading of the order as moved by the mover, and as proposed to be modified by the member from Ohio. The Secretary read the order as modified by Mr. Frelinghuysen, and the amendment of Mr. Sherman.

Mr. STANBERY. Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, we hope this extension of time will not be an injury to us in disguise. We have neither asked it nor objected to it; it comes from the opposite side to have more counsel than are already assigned by the rules which have been adopted. We make no objection; no objection if all seven of my learned friends argue this case; but as I understand the amendment offered by the senator from Ohio, it is that in the final argument, as to which as yet there is no limitation of time, but only of the number of counsel, the provision as to the addition of counsel shall be amended by a proviso that the additional time shall not be more than three hours. The time already is indefinite. The rule fixes only the number of counsel, not the time that they shall occupy. As yet the Senate have not said that in the final summing up, or indeed in the opening which we have had, counsel shall be limited

as to time. I do not know in what position we should be if this amendment of the senator from Ohio is adopted. Three hours in addition to what? Three hours in addition to a time that is made indefinite by the rule! I cannot understand it. I only call the attention of the Senate to it, that there may be no misunderstanding hereafter; and as to that matter of a limit as to time, I hope we may say that not one of us has any idea of lengthening out time for any purpose of delay. I think the Senate can have enough confidence in us to know that when we are through we will stop; that we will only take as much time as in this great case we may deem to be necessary. I know if we go beyond that we shall lose the attention of the court. Not an instant do we mean to speak after we have concluded what is material to us in the case. If we attempt to take time beyond that for something out of the case we shall very soon see, senators, in the expression of your faces, that you are not listening to us with attention. For one I can say, and I think I can speak for my learned associates, that we shall not take a moment more than we consider necessary; every moment necessary for the case, not a moment unnecessarily in our best judgment as to how we are to present the case. I know it is the custom of courts to limit the time of counsel they must do it-in their ordinary business. It is done in the Supreme Court of the United States; but when there is an important case even before that court which limits each argument of counsel to two hours generally, whenever the court is asked in an important case to enlarge the time, they do it and give four hours. On one occasion I had myself two entire days for an argument in that court; but that case, important as it was, has no sort of comparison with the case now before you. Counsel, when they are limited to an exact time, are embarrassed by it. It is a rule that keeps our attention continually on the clock and not on the case; we are afraid to begin and follow up an argument for fear we shall exhaust too much time on that and will be caught by the punctual hour before we come to other important matters. Now, I hope it is not necessary to suggest that counsel are not here to use unnecessary time, who have a reputation to sustain before the world and before this Senate. I beg them not to decide this question upon any idea that we have abused the liberty which is or may be accorded to us.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, I will withdraw my amendment, as I see there will be difficulty in discriminating between those who are limited by time and those who are not.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The senator from Ohio withdraws his amendment. The question recurs on the order proposed by the senator from New Jersey, as modified by him.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I do not rise, sir, to debate this question, but simply to ask the counsel for the President, while they do not ask for this, whether they desire it? I should like to know whether they desire this extension? They may think that they would not ask it, but the question is whether they would wish it, because if they do not wish it it would make a very decided impression on my mind as to whether it should be granted. I want to say here, however, Mr. President, that I speak without prejudice to anybody, because, from the very kind attention I have received from the Senate in the opening argument, which, unfortunately, fell upon me, I do not, in any event, under any relaxation of the rule, propose to trespass a single moment in the closing argument upon the attention of the Senate, but to leave it to the very much better argumentation of my associates. Therefore I speak wholly without any wish upon my own part except that such argumentation may be had as shall convince the country that the case has been fully stated on the one side and the other.

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, I should like to have the resolution reported.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Secretary will read the resolution again.
The Secretary read as follows:

Ordered, That as many of the managers and of the counsel for the President be permitted

« ПретходнаНастави »