vilege of listening to him. His manner was quiet
and undemonstrative, with no gestures, and with no attempt at loud
talk. His language expressed his meaning with precision. There was
no deficiency and no redundancy. He seldom used a word more or a word
less than was needed to give elegance to his diction, explicitness to
his meaning, completeness to his logic. He analyzed every argument
of the Impeachment with consummate skill. Those who dissented from
his conclusions united with those who assented to them in praise of
his masterly presentment of the President's defense.

After Judge Curtis had concluded, witnesses were called on behalf of
the President. The struggle that followed for the admission or
exclusion of testimony obviously strengthened the President's case in
popular opinion, which is always influenced by considerations of what
is deemed fair play. Exclusion of testimony by an arbitrary vote on
mere technical objections, especially where men equally learned in the
law differ as to its competency and relevancy, is not wise in a
political case that depends for its ultimate judgment upon the sober
thought of the people. Judge Curtis had maintained with cogent
argument that the President was entitled to a judicial interpretation
of the Tenure-of-office Law, and his associate counsel, Mr. Evarts, in
the progress of the case made this proposition:--

"We offer to prove that the President at a meeting of the Cabinet while
the bill was before him for his approval, laid the Tenure-of-office
Bill before the Cabinet for their consideration and advice respecting
his approval of the bill, and thereupon the members of the Cabinet
then present gave their advice to the President that the bill was
unconstitutional and should be returned to Congress with his
objections, _and that the duty or preparing the message setting forth
the objections to the constitutionality of the bill was devolved upon
Mr. Seward and Mr. Stanton_." The Managers of the House objected to
the admission of the testimony and the question of its admissibility
was argued at length by General Butler, by Judge Curtis, and by Mr.
Evarts. Chief Justice Chase decided "that the testimony is admissible
for the purpose of showing the intent with which the President has
acted in this transaction." Mr. Howard of Michigan thereupon demanded
that the question be submitted to the Senate, and by a vote of 29 to
20 the decision of the Chief Justice was overru