A Diary of the Reconstruction Period

X. THE CONDUCT OF IMPEACHMENT

Wednesday, March 18, 1868.
There is a strange dull apathy in the public mind when measures of great moment are so imminent. The proposed impeachment of the President creates but little excitement, nor does the wild, heedless, partisan legislation of Congress appear to disturb even the commercial interests. The radical press is vociferous for impeachment, not because the President has committed any crime, but for party considerations. The Democratic press is cool and comparatively indifferent, because they apprehend that impeachment will ruin radicalism. The welfare of the country, the true interests of the government, the salvation of the Union, the stability of our institutions, do not affect seriously the discipline of the two great parties. Neither party means to abandon its organization, but neither of them realizes the terrible consequences that must result from the extreme and revolutionary proceedings of the conspirators.
At a brief Cabinet meeting this evening, nothing was done. The President was calm and uncommunicative as usual; perhaps with more than usual reason.

Thursday, March 19, 1808.
The President is making some movements, but the scope and object he keeps to himself. Perhaps it is best if he intends extreme measures with the conspirators. General Hancock is expected this evening. He has not been treated as he should have been by Grant.
There is a rumor that Hancock will be assigned to this military Department, and that Gordon Granger will take the place of General Emory here in Washington. If such be the fact I know nothing of it, nor, I apprehend, do other members of the Cabinet. The change, if made, will be likely to stir up the conspirators, and is made too late to be effectual. These precautions should have been taken long ago, if taken at all. I do not believe that the President, unless personally assailed, intends seriously to resort to military assistance to maintain his position, and military officers who are his friends can now do little for him even if he wishes it. The President has a policy known only to himself. Honest, patriotic, devoted to his duties, he has failed to attach to himself a party. He would not lend himself to the radicals to exclude states, nor to the Democrats to withdraw from the Union, but has stood as it were alone on the constitutional policy of Lincoln and himself. I hope he is frank and confiding with his lawyers; he has not been sufficiently so with his Cabinet.

Monday, March 23, 1868.
There was some effort for dramatic effect and crowded galleries to-day to witness the impeachment trial. But there was no great excitement nor intense or absorbing interest in the subject. It is one of the remarkable and sad events of the times, that a subject of such magnitude, an outrage so flagrantly and vindictively partisan, a deliberate conspiracy against the Chief Magistrate of the nation, should be treated with such indifference here and elsewhere. There is idle curiosity with many, and some of the busy actors imagine they will be the Burkes and Sheridans of this trial.

The radicals are so demoralized and depraved, are so regardless of their constitutional obligations and of their oaths and their duty, that nothing good can be expected of them. But there are unmistakable indications that the Democratic leaders, a set who think more of party than of country, secretly desire the conviction and deposition of the President. Not that they are inimical to him, not that they believe him guilty of any crime deserving of impeachment, not that they will vote against him, but they look upon the act as perfectly suicidal to the radicals. They seem not aware that their own unwise conduct is scarcely less suicidal, and may save the radicals from annihilation.

The President’s defence is a studied and well-prepared paper, wanting perhaps in power and force in some respects. There was, I am told and [judging] frong what I read, a great contrast between the attorneys for the President and the managers. Black, I perceive, did not appear, and I judge has abandoned the case. If so there is something more than is apparent in his course. Alta Vela² is the pretext, but there is perhaps a deeper cause. A selfish or a party one. Black has been named as a Democratic candidate for President and this may have influenced him. Blair said to me early that Black was strong and ought to be one of the President’s counsel, but that he was in collusion with Stanton and could not be relied upon to bring out Stanton’s villanies, for he fears Stanton.

The Judges of the Supreme Court have caved in, fallen through, failed in the McCardle case. Only Grier and Field have held out like men, patriots, judges of nerve and honest independence.

These things look ominous, and sadden me. I fear for my country when I see such abasement. Fear of the usurping radicals in Congress has intimidated some of these judges, or like reckless Democratic leaders they are willing their party should triumph through radical folly and wickedness. Seward has on more than one occasion declared that he controlled Judge Nelson. Whether he is or has been intriguing in this matter or taken any part is a problem.

The New York World of to-day has not a word in its editorial columns on impeachment, a question of momentous importance to the country. It has a variety of articles on light and insignificant subjects. But the World has more than once proclaimed that it was in no way identified with the President nor responsible for his election. They approve his principles, but he is not their man nor of their organization. Its editors fear, that if they were to become the vigorous champions of Johnson against his persecutors, the people would compel his nomination. Hence they are putting their cause and professed principles in jeopardy, by failing to do right.

But the most deplorable, or one of the most deplorable features in all these proceedings is to witness party assemblages, conventions, and legislators in distant states passing resolutions approving of the impeachment of the President and urging his conviction, without any fact, or specification, or alleged crime, or any knowledge whatever on the subject. Some of these proceedings are sent to Congress, and received by the Senate which sits in judgment. It is not difficult to see the near downfall of a government which shall long pursue a course such as the radicals are initiating for mere party purposes.

Tuesday, March 24, 1868.
The impeachment movement was again before Congress and the Court. The managers on the part of the House were ready with their application and there is reason to suppose it was prepared before the President’s reply was received.

On the part of Butler and some others there is an inclination to play the part of buffoons, and display levity in a matter of the gravest importance to the nation. Sumner and certain Senators do not conceal their readiness to proceed at once to judgment and condemnation without proof or testimony. In their unfitness, and vindictive partisanship and hate, they would not award the President rights or privileges granted criminals for the court of errors or time for preparation. They are really unwilling to allow him to make defence.

These usurpers and conspirators — for such they are, truly and emphatically, having arrogated power without authority, excluded states and people from their constitutional rights of representation — are now deli berately attempting the destruction of another department of the government by the unlawful exercise of these usurped powers. Were all the states represented, as they should be, and would be if not wickedly and wrongfully excluded by an arbitrary usurping faction, there could be no conviction, and would have been no impeachment. But the President is arraigned for doing his duty and striving to defend the Constitution in conformity with his oath. The Constitution-breakers are trying the Constitution-defender; the law-breakers are passing condemnation on the law-supporter; the conspirators are sitting in judgment on the man who would not enter into their conspiracy, who was and is faithful to his oath, his country, the Union, and the Constitution. What a spectacle! And if successful, whata blow to free government! What a commentary on popular intelligence and public virtue!

Friday, March 27, 1868.
Very little of importance at the Cabinet. Every member I think considers conviction a foregone conclusion in the impeachment case. The Senate seems debauched, debased, demoralized, without independence, sense of right, or moral courage. It is, to all intents and purposes, a revolutionary body, subject to the dictation of Sumner, who is imperious, and of Chandler, who is unprincipled; both are disliked and hated by a considerable portion of the Republicans, who nevertheless bow submissive to the violent extremists.

I cannot come to the conclusion that the Senate, feeble and timid as it is, will convict the President of high crimes and misdemeanors and depose him, yet I have no confidence whatever in the fairness or justice of that body. There is a party necessity to obtain possession of the executive [office], in order to put a radical in the office of President next year. Fraud and force will be resorted to, to accomplish this end. Hence impeachment is a necessity. Johnson must be removed, for he will countenance no fraud or wrong-doing. And men will surrender their consciences, violate their oaths, be recreant to every honest principle and instinct, and make a victim of an honest man for doing his duty. It is like slaughtering, shooting down the faithful sentinel, because of his fidelity in standing to his post.

We are in fact in the midst of a revolution, bloodless as yet — a revolution not of arms, but of ideas and government, more effectual and complete than that of the armies of the Rebellion. It is a question whether the Union and the Constitution can be retrieved and restored, though I do not yet permit myself to despair of the Republic. I have not faith in the Senate, yet if the President should be convicted, and deposed, the names of those Senators who shall declare him guilty will go down in infamy, and be recorded in history as the betrayers of truth and traitors to justice and freedom.

Monday, March 30, 1868.
The opening speech of General Butler in the impeachment trial is variously spoken of. As he has talents of a certain kind and has prided himself on getting to be one of the managers where there is rivalry (as he wants notoriety, he cares but little of what kind), and as he has impudence and audacity, and as the employment is familiar [to him] — I presume he made a speech with some strong and forcible language. As to his facts, his history, his law and correct application of principles, there is room for criticism and doubt. Though a radical favorite, he is an unscrupulous and in every respect a bad man. The intelligent radicals do not seem to be satisfied with his performance, while the Democrats do not feel that Butler has made much headway against the President.

[The President’s counsel thought it desirable that members of the Cabinet should testify that the President’s purpose in removing Stanton, as freely expressed in the Cabinet, was to facilitate the making of a case to test the constitutionality of the Tenure-of-Office Bill. This testimony was ruled out by a vote of the Senate.]

Tuesday, March 31, 1868.
Nothing but current business at the Cabinet. The President requested us to meet him and his counsel this evening at 8. Just before leaving I was subpoenaed as a witness to appear tomorrow at twelve before the court of impeachment. Learned [this] after getting to the President’s, who said it was Mr. Stanbery’s summons for myself and others of the Cabinet.
Mr. Stanbery, Evarts and Groesbeck met us at the President’s, Talked over certain circumstances and incidents in the past. Seward said he knew nothing of Stanton’s suspension, was absent at the time, had early seen disagreement between the President and Stanton, and had exerted himself to prevent a rupture. This had been his course, he said, with each and every member of the Cabinet from the time he became connected with the administration in 1861. He supposed the President had avoided consulting him, because of his earnest efforts to retain Stanton; had never asked the President before, but did now. The President did not give a direct and explicit answer, but it was essentially affirmative.

Monday, April 13, 1868.
Mr. Stanbery sent me word to meet him last evening at the President’s at 8. Was punctually there and found the President’s counsellors in impeachment matters there except Mr. Stanbery. His wife had been taken suddenly ill, and he was thereby detained. Having no occasion to remain I was about leaving, when the President invited me to wait. The lawyers were examining documents most of the time. Judge Curtis and Evarts read over the letters of General Sherman with great care. Groesbeck examined certain department documents. Nelson sat quietly by, saying little and doing nothing.

The conversation was chiefly on the point of pressing the further introduction of Sherman’s testimony, and especially the letters which they had just examined. These letters contained some expressions which they, Curtis and Evarts, thought would do as much harm as the letters themselves would do good. Both these gentlemen thought that the President had a perfectly good case as it stands, without further testimony. Judge Curtis said he found [from] every new witness that the other side were fishing for evidence. Evarts concurred.

I was not altogether satisfied with their reasoning or conclusion, but I am not of course as capable of framing an opinion as these legal gentlemen who are in the case. It is not however a legal but a political question, and the conspirators are the jury; the managers have a feeble case or no case at all. There are no grounds for impeachment, there were none from the beginning, yet every radical in the town voted for impeachment, and a large portion of the Senators are ready to-day to vote to convict. They were as ready to give the same vote when the trial, as it is called, commenced — they had caucused on the subject they were to adjudicate, and are still caucusing. The Senators are many of them incapable of candid judgment, or intelligent judgment.

Judge C. makes a mistake, I think, in resting where he is. Were they, the Senators, as good lawyers as the Judges of the Supreme Court or governed by any rules, the case might be considered safe. But Butler gives rules to the Senatorial judges, and tells them how to vote, and they obey.

Tuesday, April 14, 1868.
There was an interesting time yesterday in the Senate, and that body, after vacillating, finally admitted General Sherman to testify in answer to Senator [Reverdy] Johnson, [as to] the object of the President in tendering him the appointment of Secretary ad interim. The remark of the President , that he, General S[herman], need have no apprehension of or from Stanton, who is cowardly, came out. Mr. Stanbery is sick to-day, and the Court adjourned over until to-morrow in consequence. Seward and Randall spent last evening with him, when, as they report, he appeared to be well but his brain was active and excited. Browning called at my house this evening and says Stanbery is better.
It appears to me impeachment, has lost ground in public estimation during the last few days, still I have no confidence in the partisan Senate. There are men there of ability sufficient to know what is right, to act independently, and who should have enough honesty and moral courage to do right. I trust they will, yet I do not rely on them in this excitement. As for the crowd of little creatures who are out of place in the Senate, and who ought never to have been there, who are neither statesmen, enlightened legislators, nor possessed of judicial minds, —no one expects from them justice or any approach to it. But the question is, whether the abler minds will be wholly carried away by chief conspirators who hold in their hands the great amount of partisan small trash.

Thursday, April 16, 1868.
Was subp339;naed to-day as a witness before the high court of impeachment, and attended about 1 P. M. I was not, however, placed upon the stand. Cox and Merrick were examined, and crossexamined by Butler. More time was consumed by the managers in objections to exclude the truth than by witnesses in testifying to facts. At a late hour Butler made a violent, indecent party-harangue which disgraced the Senators who failed to call him to order, and listened to his tirade with satisfaction.

Friday, April 17, 1868.
At the court of impeachment most of the day and for two or three hours on the stand. Nearly every question put was objected to and discussed. The Chief Justice presided with fairness, and the Senators, in most cases by a majority, voted against the managers. About twenty are violent partisans, as much interested in the prosecution as the managers and some of them taking an active part with them. In point of morality I put these fellows on a par with the thief and the murderer. The fear of punishment, and the opinion and judgment of others, will restrain [them] from committing these crimes, not any sense of moral justice or obligation. Morgan has become debased, and after first taking a manly stand has become dragooned by leaders; fears his associates, whom he now follows like a whipped spaniel. Chandler is more free-spoken than Morgan.
As my testimony will appear in the proceedings, I shall not attempt to here recapitulate it. Should have been glad to have been permitted to state my knowledge on the points, without being restricted to narrow questions and answers. I perceived that the radical leaders as well as managers were becoming disturbed and discontented by the course things were taking; and under apprehension that a pending question might go against them, there was a concerted movement to adjourn. A caucus and discipline were necessary. The managers directed it. I saw it whispered and passed from one to another. Judges! O what Judges!!

Saturday, April 18, 1868.
The court, of impeachment opened this morning with an elaborate speech from Manager Wilson, crowded in on an interlocutory question, which consumed over an hour and was read from a carefully prepared manuscript. This, I soon perceived, was the speech which * * * * had been weeks preparing and meant to deliver at the close of the trial, but being denied the opportunity by the secret caucus arrangement and decree last evening, it was here injected into the Senate, or Court proceedings. My suspicions were at once aroused that there had been caucusing or both caucusing and drilling overnight, to exclude (after listening to all hearsay evidence and scandal against him) the President’s testimony refuting the lies and manufactured evidence. The suspicion was fully confirmed by the day’s action.
Nothing from any member of the Cabinet was permitted, from a conviction evidently that it would exculpate and exonerate the President. Sumner, therefore, who has to this time voted to admit all testimony, because he was predetermined to convict, absented himself now when votes intended to cut off all evidence were to be taken. Morton was not present at all. Sherman, Frelinghuysen, and the equivocal men had been last night whipped in. I was put forward by the counsel for the President to receive and answer the last questions. This relieved Seward and yet annoyed him. It did not displease him that the testimony of Cabinet officers was prevented. He had, he said, been on friendly terms with Stanton, and for that reason President Johnson had not consulted him so freely as others. He claims he was the confidant of President Lincoln, and allied with him in certain removals. For these reasons he declares he did not wish to be placed on the stand, though Judge Curtis and Evarts apparently wished it.

Wednesday, April 22, 1868.
When I was coming up H Street this evening between 4 and 5, I came upon Conkling and Ben. F. Butler who were in close conversation on the corner of 15th Street. It was an ominous and discreditable conjunction — the principal manager, an unscrupulous, corrupt and villainous character, holding concourse with one of the Senatorial triers, a conceited coxcomb of some talents and individual party aspirations. They both were, as Jack Downing says, ‘stumped,’ and showed in their countenances what they were talking about and their wish that I had been on some other street, or somewhere else.

Friday, April 24, 1868.
No department business in Cabinet. General conversation on current topics. Seward professes to have knowledge that the President will not be convicted. I place little dependence upon it, for his judgment is good for nothing in such matters.
After the others, except McCulloch, had left, we had twenty minutes with the President. He showed us an order from Grant to Emory issued by request of Stanton, for a guard at the War Department to preserve documents, etc., issued on the 22nd of February. These conspirators will have their works uncovered sooner or later. The President yesterday, and again to-day, said this man Emory ought to be removed from the command of this district. I said that he ought some time since to have left, but it might not be judicious [to remove him] at this moment. McCulloch to-day took the same view.

Tuesday, April 28, 1868.
The speech of Thad Stevens yesterday was characteristically abusive, but displayed less ability than I expected. I do not think he has injured the President so much as he desired, though he has spent great labor and time on his speech, which has been three times re-written and revised. His nephew, who boards at Willard’s with Faxon,³ told the latter that he was assisting his uncle in reading his third printed proof of what he intended to say.
Thomas Williams who followed is prolix, a poor reader, and will not make a favorable impression. He has considerable talents, but is a good deal broken and impaired in mind. He was, I have understood, a quasi partner of Stanton in Pittsburg, and has been much devoted to, and much used by him in Congress.
Only necessary current business done in the Cabinet. Seward, Randall, and Browning expressed great confidence in the acquittal of the President, but gave no particulars. McCulloch is more hopeful than I have seen him since the impeachment movement commenced. I called last evening on Mr. Stanbery. He is very feeble. Says he has completed his argument, but I advised him not to undertake to deliver it, and I think he will not. He expresses great confidence of acquittal, and so, he says, does Evarts. There could be no doubt of it, were the triers uncommitted, honest, candid, and capable men. All depends on the fact, whether there are a sufficient number of such independent Senators.

Thursday, April 30, 1868.
There is but little doing by Congress. Impeachment is the question. Mr. Evarts’s speech is interesting and able, and men and women of all parties are greatly interested in it. There is an impression that the radical cause is growing weaker, and indication that the radical leaders have apprehensions. The arguments of the President’s lawyers have alarmed them, have shown them they have no case, that though they have deceived themselves into the belief that they can deceive the country, there are truths which cannot be covered up and will endanger their future. The conspiracy, for it is nothing else, is an excess of party zeal and hate, without any foundation whatever. It will overwhelm them with infamy. In their present state of party discipline, party power, and party terror, votes may not be changed, but conviction has struck some of them. Grimes says there will be no conviction, and he is one of the best judges and most sensible men in the Senate. But Fox,⁴ who is here for a few days, says that in circulating around among Senators and others of all parties, he finds the prevailing opinion seems to be that the President will be condemned.

Saturday, May 2, 1868.
A short interview with the President.
The President is by no means desponding. I think his faith is in an honest and sincere consciousness that he has been, to the best of his ability, faithful, —that he has done his duty, and that a good Providence will not permit him to be sacrificed under these circumstances.
While I am reluctant to believe in the total depravity of the Senate, I place but little dependence on the honesty and truthfulness of a large portion of the Senators. A majority of them are small lights, mentally weak, and wholly unfit to be Senators. They are neither intelligent legislators, nor statesmen, — capable judges nor good patriots.

Monday, May 4, 1868.
On Friday and Saturday iherc was a disgraceful but characteristic exhibition of radical notables in the House: Butler and Logan on Friday, and Donnelly of Wisconsin and Washburne of Illinois on Saturday. Butler was exposed and flogged by Brooks severely. Washburne was more coarsely and frankly punished by Donnelly, a brother radical. Had he been less loose and vulgar, his speech would have been more effective. Washburne, though the oldest member, is more universally detested for his supercilious pretensions, manners, insolence, disregard of truth, and malignity than any man in the House, and all enjoyed the infliction he received.
Bingham commenced the closing argument in the impeachment case today. It does not appear to have excited much admiration, although there is reported to have been a large attendance.

Tuesday, May 5, 1868.
In general conversation before business commenced at the Cabinet, Seward taunted Browning for being shaky on the question of impeachment. Browning confessed his doubts, — said he had expressed them to confidential friends and thought it best to do so. Seward did not agree with him as to his policy, but said he had no doubts as to an acquittal, and wished to wager a basket of champagne which Bfrowning] declined, and Steward] then offered two to one.
McCulloch, who came in just at the close of the banter but did not hear it, was as decided in his opinion of an acquittal as Seward, and offered to bet a bottle of wine with B[rowning]. I could, however, get no facts to justify the confidence of the State and Treasury, farther than that they have talked pretty freely with members.
It seems to be generally conceded that Fessenden will oppose impeachment. McCulloch has hopes that Morton will do the same. I have little expectation in that quarter, though the hypocrite has sagacity enough to see that a mistake is made.
Seward quotes Banks for authority, who says Fessenden and Morrill of Maine have each written arguments, have had one interview and are to have another with their written documents. Much of this Banks gets from the Maine members, who have tried to influence F[essenden] but without success. There may be something to base this upon, but I do not give it the credence which Seward does. Until the argument is closed and the whole case committed, F[essenden] would not be likely to declare his opinion. I have supposed he would vote against conviction although a decided radical, for he has intelligence, and a character which he wishes to preserve. I have had the same opinion of Trumbull for the same reasons. Both are crotchety and uncertain, and I therefore do not consider it sure by any means that they will go for acquittal. Other Senators like Frelinghuysen, the Morrills, and others, should vote for acquittal, but it is most likely, from all I hear and see, that they will abase themselves.
I therefore am less sanguine than either Seward or McCulloch. The last has until recently believed that conviction was probable. What facts have changed him I fail to learn. Seward is not to be relied on for [accuracy] in such matters, — he catches at shadows. Grimes is Chairman of the Naval Committee and strong in his political views and prejudices, but he has a legal and discriminating mind, and sincere respect for the President’s honesty, though very little confidence in his tact and judgment. He will not commit so unjust an act as to vote to impeach, and Fessenden usually goes with him. Neither have much love for Sumner or regard for Thad Stevens, which will strengthen them to act right when others fail. I should have no doubt of Trumbull if he had not done himself and his principles injustice on certain test questions. The radical Senators continue to hold their secret meetings at Pomeroy’s, to discipline and strengthen each other to do an illegal and wicked act, while sitting as judges in the high court.

Tuesday, May 5, 1868.
Seward says Morgan will go for acquittal, provided it is certainly ascertained in advance that there can be no conviction. In this I think S[eward] is more correct than in many of his assertions.
Some conversation took place between McCulloch, Browning, and myself in regard to sending in immediately the new carpet-bag constitutions of Arkansas and South Carolina. They urged that it should be done immediately. I asked what of the actual, existing constitutions of those states which Congress assumed to annul. Both took alarm, — hoped the President would not oppose Congress, oppose the reconstruction law, etc. I expressed the hope that he would do his duty faithfully.

Thursday, May 7, 1868.
Bingham has closed the final argument of the managers, and at its close there was a scene in the galleries, got up especially for the occasion and a part of this radical drama. I have not read all of Bingham’s speech, but. from the examination given it I do not think it great, and his friends seem disappointed. The subject is postponed until Monday, and the court has agreed to come to a vote on Tuesday. If the Senators regard their oaths, and act as judicial officers and statesmen, there will be an acquittal; if partisan action controls all the radical Senators or most of them, conviction is likely. The movement has been a partisan one from its inception. Judge Harris, late New York Senator, called on me, and discussing the great topic, tells me he had a long conversation with a prominent radical Senator,— a religious, conservative man, — who said to him there was nothing against the President which could be called a crime, or misdemeanor, but the President was a troublesome man, — was an impediment, and he thought the majority would be justified in availing themselves of a technical advantage in getting rid of him. Although Judge Harris called no names, I inferred from his remarks that Frelinghuysen was the Senator who made these discreditable remarks.

Friday, May 8, 1868.
Great confidence was expressed by all the Cabinet that the President would be acquitted; and such also seemed his impression, but I could get no fact, — perhaps ought to expect none. It was said Fessenden was in great distress, — had offered to resign, but the Maine delegation would not listen to it. The vote of Henderson of Missouri is relied upon through the influence of Miss Foot, to whom he expects to be married. Sprague is counted upon through Mrs. S[prague] and her father, etc. These are frail staffs to lean upon, yet they are taken in the absence of better. There may be other circumstances, or facts which are confidential, but they are not communicated if there are such.

Saturday, May 9, 1868.
There is a good deal of deep feeling yet no boisterous excitement. The impeachers are less confident than they were, yet express full belief in conviction. Their reliance is on the force, discipline, and necessities of party — not on crime or misdemeanor on the part of the President. How far the radical Senators who have pretentions to statesmanship will debase themselves to party dictation is the only question. If they are really legislators, judges, and statesmen — men of independence and moral courage, the President will be acquitted, not otherwise. More than one half of the Senators are demagogues and block-heads, — party tools, who regard not their oaths, nor the welfare of the country.
Numbers influence party men, so that inferior intellects often control superior minds. Fessenden and Morton and Trumbull are fearful of consequences if they boldly and conscientiously do their duty. I have no faith whatever in Morton, though McCulloch has hopes of him, but McCulloch is deceived. His speech at the beginning of the session exhibited a mind whose moral stamina was gone.
The President tells me this afternoon that he has no doubt that Fessenden will vote for acquittal. I did not ask his newest evidence. Riding out this evening, I met McCulloch who assures me, emphatically, of an acquittal. Says Grimes, Fessenden, Trumbull, and Van Winkle will vote to acquit, and others also.
I conclude that he has sources of information which are reliable. I get no facts. Of Grimes, Fessenden, and Trumbull’s honest opinions I have no doubt, but there is a terrible pressure upon them. Of Van Winkle I know nothing.

(To be continued.)