to a reasonable time to answer the same." I need not state that the usual practice in courts is to have their writs returnable on a given day and the summons served a certain number of days before the return day. This summons is returnable forthwith. Upon its return, by this section, the respondent is entitled to a reasonable time to plead,-to answer the same. By section seven it is provided that when the issue shall be joined in an impeachment, the Senate sitting as a Court for the trial of the same shall appoint a time and place for the trial thereof. That would seem to contemplate an adjournment, and, indeed, to provide for an adjournment to a future day when the Senate would come together again for the purpose of forming the issue, and to contemplate a trial after that time. We do not wish to put the Senate to the trouble of coming together again for that particular purpose, if we can avoid it hence this motion, which contemplates making but one adjournment, putting the time before the forming of the issue, and that the respondent would be entitled to, properly, afterwards, all together, in one and the same adjournment. Now, Mr. President, of course, the facts and the circumstances of this case, and the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted in the House and up to the present time, are well known to the members of the Senate. A committee was there appointed; testimony was taken before the committee but the respondent was not present, did not cross-examine the witnesses, had no opportunity to produce witnesses in his own justification, or against those offered by the committee. He regretted this very much; he was in hopes that he might have an opportunity to there make his defense and save the trouble and expense of a trial before the Senate; he was confident that he could make a successful defense there. I state this, Mr. President, not in any degree, or in any way to reflect upon the action of anybody. The proceedings of the House and of committees of the House are matters upon which I am not well advised, and I doubt not the gentlemen who had the business in charge did their duty, and only their duty in the matter. I only call the attention of the Senate to it, to remind them of the circumstances in which the respondent is placed. I presume they conducted the matter properly, but he was, for the reasons mentioned, not advised,—did not have the information that he otherwise might have been possessed of about the case. He had to get a copy of the testimony before he could know what they had proven against him. In courts under our system of practice in criminal cases, we have an examination before a magistrate, where the accused is informed of the facts charged against him, and knows what to meet when he comes to the trial; but we were not advised of any of these facts until we procured this testimony, and last evening, for the first time, we saw a copy of the articles. Now, before these articles were served, we had hoped that the charges would be specific, directing us as to time, and place, and acts, so that we could have known definitely and dististinctly what we had to meet, at once, and hence made speedy preparation for trial. I wish to call the Senate's attention to those articles, not for the purpose of criticising them in any way, but simply to bring before the Senate the vagueness and the uncertainty of the charges in them, and to show what the respondent must necessarily do to be prepared to meet them on the trial. The first article states that on the 4th day of January, 1871, and in divers other days and times between that day and the time when the House passed the resolution of impeachment, on the 28th day of March, 1872, the respondent did certain things, including all that time. Of course it is necessary, to be prepared, that he should go over all that time and be prepared to meet all transactions during it; and then, further on, they state that he did withhold from sale divers large tracts of land, for the particular benefit and advantage of certain land dealers. They do not state who the land dealers are, nor describe the land. As a consequence, the responden tmust be prepared to meet anything that may come; he must be prepared to show up all the land in the State under that charge. His attention is called, not directly to any piece of land, nor to operations with any particular individual. The second article of impeachment is just as vague as to time. It does not describe the land; it does not state, even, what class they are in. The third, in regard to licensed lands, may include all licensed lands in the State. He must be prepared to show the facts in regard to each piece in this class of lands. All transactions in his office, and what was done in regard to them, he must show. The practice referred to is not stated, nor when the practice in regard to it was established or when it existed. The names of no persons are given in that article. He does not know what he has to meet, except that he knows that he must be prepared at all points if they go into the evidence under that general charge, and I do not now say that they cannot. He must be prepared, if he expects to make a successful defense, to go into evidence of all of the transactions in regard to licensed lands in the State,-a work of time and labor. Article four is just as vague and uncertain, and covers as much time. The name of William G. Patrick is mentioned, but the others are stated as divers persons, unknown. There is no description of land here, nor is there a class mentioned. In article five it is charged that he did "so engage in and carry on the purchase and sale of swamp land scrip (so-called) as to operate in fraud of and to the damage of the primary school fund, the several counties of this State, and of the Treasury of the State." The manner of doing it,-what he did, the specific act, we are not informed of at all. We must be prepared to meet all the transactions of the office from its commencement until now; from the date of his official term until the 28th of March at least, and to show just exactly what he has and what he has not done in regard to it. We are not pointed to any specific act. Article six is equally vague as to the time and as to the land. The matters alleged in the seventh article we were not informed of before we saw the articles. That is equally vague as to the time, and is not specific as to the act. In the eighth article, the place is all over the State. In the ninth article, it is all over the United States. To meet that charge successfully upon the merits, as alleged there, would be almost an impossibility; certainly it will require considerable time to be reasonably prepared for a defense upon it. Article tenth embraces his conduct during his entire official term. He has got to be prepared to show his whole life during that time, no specific act being pointed out. In the 11th article, time and place are mentioned. We have nothing to identify the person, however, except the sex. It is alleged that the offense was committed with "a female whose name is unknown," that is all there is of that; and that he committed a like offense "with divers other persons unknown." I briefly call attention, Mr. President, to these articles to show what we must do to be prepared,-what the respondent must do to be prepared for his defense; and it seems to me a proper matter for the Senate to take into consideration upon this motion; not, I say, as in any degree criticising the articles, or raising any point as to their sufficiency. I do not now do that. Mr. President, we do not make this motion for the purpose of delay. We have no such object. We have no object except to come to a speedy trial. The respondent is resting under a cloud from which he can only escape by a trial before the Senate. His counsel have no other object but to try the case and get through with it as speedily as possible. If we did not really feel and honestly believe that it was necessary that we should have this time extended to us, we would not ask it. I beg Senators to consider that we do not make this motion for the purpose of delay at all, but simply for the purpose of giving this respondent an opportunity to be fully pre pared for trial. He has great interests, Mr. President, at stake here. He has borne hitherto a good character; he has maintained it upon the battle-field; he has borne it in the private walks of life; it has never been assailed until his official life began, and not until quite recently in that. His good name is as dear to him as it is to other men,-as it should be to all true men. The Senate will remember that the consequences of a mistake here are past remedy. I trust they will not forget this in considering the necessity of the respondent's having time for a thorough and complete preparation for his defense. There is no pardon which can reach your judgment; there is no court sitting for the correction of your errors, or for the correction of any slip or mistake that we may make here. Hence the necessity for a full and complete preparation at the time when the trial is had. Upon this, and with these few suggestions, Mr. President, I submit the motion, and earnestly hope that the Senate will allow us the time that we have asked, as late as the middle of May. We have not asked it because we expected to get less. We would have hoped for longer time, but as we have been given to understand that there would be opposition to that, we have come before the Senate stating our case fairly, and frankly asking for what we believed that we needed, but asking for no more than we believed was necessary to prepare this defense. The Presiding Officer-The Secretary will read the motion. The Secretary read the motion as follows: In the matter of the impeachment of Charles A. Edmonds, Commissioner of the Land Office: We, the undersigned, counsel for the respondent, move the Court that the day of May, next, be appointed as the day for the respondent to move, plead, answer, or demur to the said Articles of Impeachment, and submit to a trial upon the same. JOHN B. SHIPMAN, Counsel for Respondent. |