reign across the Atlantic."_

Mr. Evarts was counsel for President Johnson in his famous arraignment
before the Senate, sitting as a High Court of Impeachment. His
speech, lasting many hours, was an able and exhaustive discussion of
the salient questions involved in the trial. The leading managers
upon the part of the House of Representatives were Benjamin F.
Butler, George S. Boutwell, and John A. Bingham. The retort
courteous was freely indulged in many times by the managers and
counsel from the beginning to the close of the long-drawn-out
prosecution.

It is a singular fact, and to this generation renders the entire
proceeding measurably farcical, that the managers upon the part of
the House, and the counsel for the impeached President, were at
cross-purposes from the beginning as to the real character of
the tribunal before which they were appearing. The latter regarded
it as a court, and constantly addressed its presiding officer, the
Chief Justice of the United States, as "Your Honor"; while the
former insisted that it was only the Senate, and continually
addressed the Chief Justice as "Mr. President."

The issues involved were likewise argued by the opposing counsel
from wholly different standpoints. The contention of the defence as
stated by counsel was:

"We are then in a court. What are you to try? You are to try the
charges contained in these articles of impeachment, and nothing
else. Upon what are you to try them? Not upon common fame; not
upon the price of gold in New York, or upon any question of finance;
not upon newspaper rumor; not upon any views of party policy;
you are to try them upon the evidence offered here and nothing
else, by the obligation of your oaths."

The contrary contention as stated by one of the managers was as
follows:

"We define, therefore, an impeachable high crime or misdemeanor,
to be one in its nature or consequences subversive of some fundamental
or essential principle of government, or highly prejudicial to the
public interest; and this may consist of a violation of the
Constitution, of law, or of duty by an act committed or omitted,
or without violating positive law, by the abuse of discretionary
powers from improper motives, or for any improper purpose."

With gulf as broad between managers and counsel as that separating
Dives and Lazarus, not only as to the issues to be tried, but as
to the nature of the functions and designation of the tribunal
before wh