The other report offered in evidence-the que revised by Colonel Moore and publishedis as follows:

MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE: Language is inadequate to express the emotions and feelings produced by this occasion. Perhaps I could express more by permitting silence to speak and you to infer what I ought to say. I confess that, notwithstanding the experience I have had in public life, and the audiences I have addressed, this occasion and this assemblage are well calculated to, and do overwhelm me. As I have said, I have not language to convey adequately my present feelings and emo. tions. In listening to the address which your eloquent and distinguished chairman has just delivered, the proceedings of the Convention, as they transpired. recurred to my mind. Seemingly I partook of the inspiration that prevailed in the Convention when I received a despatch sent by two of its distinguished members, conveying in terms the scene which has just been described of South Carolina and Massachusetts, arm in arm, marching into that vast assemblage, and thus giving evidence that the two extremes had come together again, and that for the future they were united as they had been in the past, for the preservation of the Union. When the despatch informed me that in that vast body of men, distinguished for intellect and wisdom, every eye was suffused with tears on beholding the scene, I could not finish reading the despatch to one associated with me in the office, for my own feelings overcame me. [Applause.]

I think we may justly conclude that we are moving under a proper inspiration, and that we need not be mistaken that the finger of an Overruling and Unerring Providence is in this matter. The nation is in peril. We have just passed through a mighty, a bloody, a momentous ordeal, yet do not find ourselves free from the difficulties and dangers that at first surrounded us. While our brave men have performed their duties, both officers and men (turning to General Grant, who stood at his right,) while they have won laurels imperishable, there are still greater and more important duties to perform; and while we have had their co-operation in the field, we now need their support in our efforts to perpetuate peace. [Applause.] So far as the Executive Department of the government is concerned, the effort has been made to restore the Union, to heal the breach, to pour oil into the wounds which were consequent upon the struggle, and, to speak in common phrase, to prepare as the learned and wise physician would, a plaster, healing in character and co-extensive with the wound. [Applause.] We thought, and yet think, that we had partially succeeded, but as the work progressed, as reconciliation seemed to be taking place, and the country becoming united, we found a disturbing and marring element opposing us.

In alluding to that element I shall go no further than did your Convention and the distinguished gentleman who has delivered to me the report of its ceedings. I shall make no reference to it that I do not believe the time and the occasion justify. We have witnessed in one department of the government every effort, as it were, to prevent the restoration of peace and harmony in the Union. We have seen hanging upon the verge of the government, as it were, a body called, or which assumes to be, the Congress of the United States-but, in fact, a Congress of only part of the States. We have seen this Congress assume and pretend to be for the Union, when its every step and act tended to perpetuate disunion and make a disruption of the States inevitable. Instead of promoting reconciliation and harmony, its legislation has partaken of the character of penalties, retaliation, and revenge. This has been the course and the policy of one department of your government. The humble individual who is now addressing you stands the representative of another department of the government. The manner in which he was called upon to occupy that position I shall not allude to on this occasion; suffice it to say that he is here under the Constitution of the country, and being here by virtue of its provisions, he takes his stand upon that charter of our liberties as the great rampart of civiland religious liberty. [Prolonged cheering.] Having been taught in my early life to hold it sacred, and having practiced upon it during my whole public career, I shall ever continue to reverence the Constitution of my Fathers and to make it my guide. [Hearty applause.] I know it has been said, and I must be permitted to indulge in this remark that the Executive Department of the government has been despotic and tyrannical. Let me ask this audience of distinguished gentlemen around me here to-day to point to a vote I ever gave, to a speech I ever made, to a single act of my whole public life, that has not been against tyranny and despotism. What position have I ever occupied, what ground have I ever assumed, where it can be truthfully charged that I failed to advocate the amelioration and elevation of the great masses of my countrymen? [Cries of "Never," and great applause.]

So far as charges of that kind are concerned, I will say that they are simply intended to deceive and delude the public. mind into the belief that there is some one in power who is usurping and trampling upon the rights and perverting the principles of the Constitution. It is done by those who make such charges for the purpose of covering their own acts. ["That's so," and applause.] I have felt it my duty, in vindication of principle and the Constitution of my country, to call the attention of my countrymen to these proceedings. When we come to examine who has been playing the tyrant, by whom do we find that despotism has been exercised? As to myself, the elements of my nature, the pursuits of my life, have not made me, either in my feelings or in my practice, aggressive. My nature, on the contrary, is rather defensive in its character; but I will say

that, having taken my stand upon the broad principles of liberty and the Constitution, there is not power enough on earth to drive me from it. [Loud and prolonged applause.] Having placed myself upon that broad platform, I have not been awed, dismayed, or intimidated by either threats or encroachments, but have stood there, in conjunction with patriotic spirits, sounding the tocsin of alarm when I deemed the citadel of liberty in danger. [Great applause.] I said on a previous occasion, and repeat now, that all that was necessary in this great struggle against tyranny and despotism was, that the struggle should be sufficiently audible for the American people to hear and properly understand. They did hear, and looking on and seeing who the contestants were and what that struggle was about, they determined that they would settle this question on the side of the Constitution and of principle. [Cries of "That's so," and applause.]

I proclaim here to-day, as I have on other occasions, that my faith is abiding in the great mass of the people. In the darkest moment of this struggle, when the clouds seemed to be most lowering, my faith, instead of giving way, loomed up through the dark cloud far beyond-I saw that all would be safe in the end. My countrymen, we all know that, in the language of Thomas Jefferson, tyranny and despotism even can be exercised and exerted more effectually by the many than the one." We have seen a Congress gradually encroach, step by step. upon constitutional rights, and violate, day after day, and month after month, the fundamental principles of the Government. (Cries of "That's so!" and applause.) We have seen a Congress that seemed to forget that there was a Constitution of the United States, and that there was a limit to the sphere and scope of legislation. We have seen a Congress in a minority assume to exercise powers which, if allowed to be carried out, would result in despotism or monarchy itself. (Enthusiastic applause.) This is truth; and because others as well as myself have seen proper to appeal to the patriotism and republican feeling of the country we have been denounced in the severest terms. Slander upon slander, vituperation upon vituperation, of the most villanous character, has made its way through the press.

What, gentlemen, has been your and my sin? What has been the cause of our offending? I will tell youdaring to stand by the Constitution of our fathers. [Approaching Senator JOHNSON.] I consider the proceedings of this convention, sir, as more important than those of any convention that ever assetbled in the United States. (Great applause.) When I look with my mind's eye upon that collection of citizens, coming together voluntarily, and sitting in council with ideas, with principles and views commensurate with all the States, and coextensive with the whole people, and contrast it with the collection of gentlemen who are trying to destroy the country, I regard it as more important than any convention that has sat at least since 1787. (Renewed applause.) I think I may say also that the declarations that were there made are equal with the Declaration of Independence itself, and I here to-day pronounce it a second Declaration of Independence. (Cries of "Glorious," and most enthusiastic and prolonged applause.) Your address and declarations are nothing more nor less than a reaffirmation of the Constitution of the United States. (Cries of "Good!" and applause.) Yes, I will go further, and say that the declarations you have made, that the principles you have enunciated in your address, are a second proclamation of emancipation to the people of the United States (renewed applause)-for in proclaiming and reproclaiming these great truths you have laid down a constitutional platform upon which all can make common cause, and stand united together for the restoration of the States and the preservation of the Government without reference to party. The query only is the salvation of the country, for our country rises above all party considerations or influences. (Cries of Good!" and applause.) How many are there in the United States that now require to be free?-they have the shackles upon their limbs, and are bound as rigidly as though they were in fact in slavery? I repeat, then, that your declaration is the second proclamation of emancipation to the people of the United States, and offers a common ground upon which all patriots can stand. (Applause.)

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: Let me, in this connection, ask you what have I to gain more than the advancement of the public welfare? I am as much opposed to the indulgence of egotism as any one, but here, in a conversational manner, while formally receiving the proceedings of this convention, I may be permitted again to ask, what have I to gain, consulting human ambition, more than I have gained, except in one thing? My race is nearly run. I have been placed in the high office which I occupy under the Constitution of the country, and I may say that I have held, from lowest to highest, almost every position to which a man may attain in our Government. I have passed through every position, from an alderman of a village to the Presidency of the United States; and surely, gentlemen, this should be enough to gratify a reasonable ambition. If I wanted authority, or if I wished to perpetuate my power, how easy would it have been to hold and wield that which was placed in my hands by the measure called the "Freedmen's Bureau bill." (Laughter and applause.) With an army which it placed at my discretion I could have remained at the capital of the nation, and with fifty or sixty millions of appropriations at my disposal, with the machinery to be worked by my own hands, with my satraps and dependants in every town and village, and then with the "Civil Rights bill" following as an auxiliary-(laughter) in connection with all the other appliances of the Government, I could have proclaimed myself Dictator! ("That's true," and applause.)

But, gentlemen, my pride and ambition have been

to occupy that position which retains all power in the hands of the people. (Great cheering.) It is upon that I have always relied; it is upon that I rely now. (A voice-"And the people will not disappoint you." And I repeat, that neither the taunts nor jeers of Congress, nor of a subsidized, calumniating press, can drive me from my purpose. (Great_applause.) I acknowledge no superior except my God, the author of my existence, and the people of the United States. (Prolonged and enthusiastic cheering.) For the one, I try to obey all His commands as best I can compatible with my poor humanity; for the other, in a political and representative sense, the high behests of the people have always been respected and obeyed by me. (Applause.) Mr. Chairman, I have said more than I intended to say. For the kind allusions to myself contained in your address and in the resolutions adopted by the convention, let me remark that, in this crisis, and at this period of my public life, I hold above all price, and shall ever recur with feelings of profound gratification to the last resolution containing the indorsement of a convention emanating_spontaneously from the great mass of the people. I trust and hope that my future action may be such that you and the convention that you represent may not regret the assurance of confidence you have expressed. ("We are sure of it.") Before separating, my friends, one and all, committee and strangers, please accept my sincere thanks for the kind manifestations of regard_and respect you have exhibited on this occasion. I repeat that I shall always continue to be guided by a conscientious conviction of duty, and that always gives me courage, under the Constitution, which I have made my guide.

WILLIAM N. HUDSON Sworn and examined.
By Mr. Manager BUTLER:

Question. What is your business?
Answer. I am a journalist by occupation.
Question. Where is your home?
Answer. In Cleveland, Ohio.

Question. What paper do you have charge of?
Answer. The Cleveland Leader.

Question. Where were you about the 3d or 4th of September, 1866?

Answer. I was in Cleveland.

Question. What was your business then? Answer. I was then one of the editors of the Leader.

Question. Did you hear the speech that President Johnson made there from the balcony of a hotel?

Answer. I did.

Question. Did you report it?

Answer. I did, with the assistance of another reporter.

Question. Who is he?

Answer. His name is Johnson.

Question. Was your report published in the

paper the next day?

Answer. It was.

Question. Have you a copy?
Answer. I have.

Question. Will you produce it?

[The witness produced a copy of the Cleveland Leader of September 4, 1866.]

Question. Have you your original notes? Answer. I have not.

Question. Where are they?

Answer. I cannot tell. They are probably destroyed.

Question. Have you the report in the paper of which you are the editor, which was published the next day?

Answer. I have the report which I have submitted.

Question. What can you say as to the accuracy of that report?

Answer. It is not a verbatim report, except in portions. There are parts of it which are verbatim, and parts are synopsis.

Question. Does the report distinguish the parts which are not verbatim from those which are?

Answer. It does.

Question. Is all put in that Mr. Johnson did say?

Mr. EVARTS. He says not.

By Mr. Manager BUTLER :

Question. Is anything left out which Johnson said?

Answer. Yes.

Mr. EVARTS. Do you mean the President or reporter Johnson?

Mr. STANBERY. Whom do you mean by Johnson?

Mr. EVARTS. There was another Johnson mentioned,

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Not on this occasion.

Mr. EVARTS. Yes, reporter Johnson.. Mr. Manager BUTLER. I mean Andrew Johnson last aforesaid."

Answer. The report leaves out some portions of Mr. Johnson's speech; states them in synoptical form.

Question. Is there anything put in there that he did not say?

Answer. There are words used which he did not use, in stating the substance of what he said. There is nothing substantially stated that he did not state.

Question. When was that report prepared by yourself?

Answer. It was prepared on the evening of the delivery of the speech.

Question. Did you see it after it was printed? Answer. I did.

Question. Did you examine it?

Answer. I did.

Question. Now, sir, what can you say as to the accuracy of the report wherever the words are professed to be given?

Answer. To the best of my remembrance it is accurate.

Question. You now believe it to be accurate?

Answer. I do.

Question. How far do you say it is accurate where substance is professed to be given? Answer. It gives the substance the sense without the words.

Question. Taking the synoptical part and the verbatim part, does the whole give the substance of what he said on that occasion?

Answer. It does.

Question. By way of illustration of what I mean, take this part: "Haven't you got the court? Haven't you got the Attorney General? Who is your Chief Justice?" Is that the synoptical part or is that the verbatim part?

Answer. That is part of the verbatim report. Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the counsel for the respondent.) I propose now, gentlemen, to put this in evidence.

Mr. EVARTS. We will cross-examine him before you put the paper in evidence.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Yes, sir.
Cross-examined by Mr. EVARTS:

Question. Mr. Hudson, was this newspaper that you edited and for which you reported of the politics of the President or of the opposite opinion?

Answer. It was Republican in politics. Question. Opposite to the views of the President, as you understood them?

Answer. It was.

Question. Was this balcony from which the President spoke also crowded? Answer. Yes.

Question. And where were you? Ansicer. I was upon the balcony. Question. What convenience or arrangement had you for taking notes?

Answer. I took my notes upon my knee as I sat.

Question. Where did you get light from? Answer. From the gas above. Question. At what time that evening did you begin to write out your notes?

Answer. To the best of my remembrance about eleven o'clock.

Question. And when did you finish?

Question. Did you not leave out any of "the drift?"

Answer. Not intentionally.
Question. But actually?

Answer. Not to my remembrance.
Question. Have you ever looked to see?
Answer. I have not compared the speech
with any full report of it.

Question. Nor with your notes? Answer. I did subsequently compare the speech with my notes.

Question. Do you mean this drift part? Answer. I mean to say that I compared the speech as reported here with my notes.

Question. I mean the part that is synoptical; did you compare that with your notes? Answer. I did. Question. When?

Answer. On the next day, and I have had occasion to refer to it several times since.

Question. When did your notes disappear? Answer. In the course of a few weeks. They were not preserved at all.

Question. Are you sure, then, that you ever compared it with your notes after the immediately following day?

Answer. I am.

Question. Did you destroy your notes intentionally?

Answer. I did not.

Question. Where are they?

Answer. I cannot tell.

Question. In regard to the part of the speech which you say you reported verbatim, did you at any time, after writing it out that night, compare the transcript with the notes? Answer. I did.

Question. For the purpose of seeing that it was accurate?

Answer. I did.

Question. When was that?

Answer. That was on the next day. Question. With whose assistance? Answer. I think without assistance, to the best of my remembrance.

Question. Did you find any changes necessary?

Answer. There were typographical errors in the reading of the proof. There were no material errors.

Question. But were there no errors in your transcript from the notes?

Answer. I may have misapprehended the question. I did not compare my manuscript transcript; I compared the speech as printed. Question. With what?

Answer. With my notes.

Question. That was not my question; but you say you did compare the speech as printed with your notes, and not with your transcript? Answer. Not with the transcript. Question. Did you find that there were no

errors in the print as compared with the ori ginal notes?

Answer. There were some typographical

errors.

Question. No others?

Answer. No others to the best of my remembrance.

Question. Not a word?

Answer. I remember no others.
Question. Were there any others?
Answer. Not that I remember.

Question. Are you prepared to say that you observed in comparing your printed paper of that morning with your phonographic notes that the printed paper was absolutely accurate? Answer. My notes were not phonographic. Question. What are they?

Answer. They were made in writing.
Question. Written out in long-hand?
Answer. Yes.

Question. Do you mean to say, sir, that you can write out in long-hand, word for word, a speech as it comes from the mouth of a speaker?

Answer. I mean to say that in this instance I did parts of the speech.

Question. Then you did not even have notes that were verbatim except for part of the speech?

Answer. That was all.

Answer. I cannot.

Question. You cannot recall one?
Answer. I cannot.

Question. Now, sir, without any printed paper before you, how much of President Johnson's speech, as made at Cleveland on the 3d of September, can you repeat? Answer. I can repeat none of it. Question. None whatever? Answer. Verbatim, none.

Question. Do you think you could give "the drift" of some of it?

Answer. I think I might.

Question. As you understand it and remember it?

down at this distance of time. It is my impression, however, that there were as much as that, and more.

Question. Can you say anything more than this, that you intended to report as nearly as you could and as well, under the circumstances, without the aid of short-hand faculty, what the President said?

Answer. I can say, in addition to that, that there are parts of this speech which were reported as he said them.

Question. From present memory? Answer. From memory of the method in which those notes were taken.

Question. What parts can you so state? As to all that purports to be verbatim are you ready so to swear?

Answer. I cannot swear that it is the absolute language in all cases. I can swear that it is an accurate report.

Question. What do you mean by an accurate report, and not an absolute report?

Answer. I mean to say a report which gives the general form of each sentence as it was uttered, perhaps varying in one or two words occasionally.

Question. I asked you just now if you could say any more than that you intended to report as well as you could under the circumstances in which you were placed and without the aid of short-hand faculty?

Answer. I can say in addition to that, that there are portions of this which are reported verbatim.

Question. Now, I want you to tell me whether all that purports to be verbatim is, in your memory and knowledge, accurately reported?

Answer. It is accurately reported; I should not say with absolute accuracy. Question. The whole?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Now, in regard to the portion of the speech that you did not profess to report verbatim, what assurance have you that you did not omit some part of the speech?

Answer. There are portions which are not given with entire fullness; but the substance and meaning in all cases I intended to give.

Question. What assurance have you that some portions of the speech are not omitted entirely from your synoptical view?

Answer. I was able to take notes of pearly every sentence uttered by the President, and I am confident that I did not fail to take notes of at least any paragraph of the report.

Question. Any paragraph of the speech! That is to say, you are confident that nothing that would have been a paragraph after it was printed was left out by you?

Question. Now, can you pretend to say, sir, that in respect to any of that portion of your report it is presented in a shape in which any man should be judged as coming from his own mouth?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Stop a moment. I object to the question.

Mr. EVARTS. It is as a test of his accuracy. Mr. Manager BUTLER. You may ask him how accurate; I do not object to that; but whether he thinks the man should be judged upon it is not a proper question.

Mr. EVARTS. I ask him if he professes to state in this synoptical portion of the printed speech made by him it is so produced as to be properly judged as having come from the mouth of the speaker?

The WITNESS. I can only say that it gives, to the best of my belief, a fair report of what

was seen.

Question. In your estimate?
Answer. In my estimate.
Question. And view?
Answer. And belief.

Question. You spoke of a reporter Johnson, who took part as I understand you, in this business; what part did he take?

Answer. He also took notes of the speech. Question. But independently from you? Answer. Independently of me.

Question. But the speech as printed in your paper was made from your notes, not from his? Answer. From mine with the assistance of his?

Question. Then you brought his in also?
Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. You condensed and mingled the reporter Johnson's report and your own, and produced this printed result?

Answer. I did.

Question. What plan did Johnson proceed with in giving the drift or effect of the President's speech? Do you know?

Answer. Johnson took as full notes as possible.

Question. As possible for him? Answer. As full notes as possible for him of the President's speech.

Question. How much of this report, or how much of this analysis or estimate of what the President said was made out of your notes and how much out of Johnson's?

ho

Answer. The substance of the report was made from my notes, the main portion of it. Question. What as to the rest?

Answer. Wherever Mr. Johnson's notes were fulier than mine I used them to correct mine.

Question. Was that so in many instances? Answer. That was not so in a majority of instances.

Question. But in a minority?
Answer. In a minority.

Question. A considerable minority?
Answer. Considerable.

Question. Did Johnson write long-hand, too?
Answer. Yes.

Question. What connection had Johnson with you or the paper?

Answer. He was the reporter of the paper. Question. Was there no phonographic reporter to take down this speech?

Answer. There was noue for our paper. There were reporters present, I believe, for other papers, but I cannot swear to that of my own knowledge.

Mr. EVARTS. We submit upon this, Mr. Chief Justice

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Wait for a moment. I have not yet got through with the witness. Mr. EVARTS. Go on, sir.

Reexamined by Mr. Manager BUTLER:

Question. You have been asked, Mr. Hudson, about the crowd and about the manner in which you took the speech; were there considerable interruptions?

Answer. There were.

Question. Were there considerable pauses by the President from step to step in his speech?

Answer. There were; and necessary pauses.
Question. Why "necessary?"

Answer. Because of the interruptions of the crowd.

Question. Was the crowd a noisy one?
Answer. It was.

Question. Were they bandying back and forth epithets with the President?

Mr. EVARTS. We object to that. The question is what was said.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I do not adopt that question. I will repeat my question whether epithets were thrown back and forward between the President and the crowd.

Mr. EVARTS and Mr. CURTIS. We object to the question. The proper question is what was said.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. That is your question.

Mr. EVARTS. The question as put is leading and assuming a state of facts. It is asking if they bandied epithets. Nobody knows what "bandying" is, or what "epithets" are.

Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the witness.) Do you know what bandying means, Mr. Witness? Do you not know the meaning of the word?

Mr. CURTIS. I suppose our objection is first to be disposed of, Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I wanted to see whether, in the first place, I had got an intelligible English word. However, I withdraw the question. [A pause.] My proposition is this, sir; it is not to give language

Mr. EVARTS. There is no objection if you have withdrawn your question.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I have not. I have only withdrawn the question as to the meaning of a word which one of the counsel for the President did not understand. I was about, sir, stating the question. In Lord George Gordon's case, when he was upon trial, as your honor will remember, the cries of the crowd were allowed to be put in evidence as cries, though it was objected that they could not be put in evidence. But that question precisely is not raised here because I am now upon the point, not of showing what was said, not repeating language, but of showing what was said and done by way of interruption. I am following the line of cross-examination which was opened to me. It was asked what interruptions there were; whether there was a crowd there; how far he was interrupted; how far he was disturbed. If the President stopped in the midst of a speech to put back an epithet which was thrown to him from the crowd, and if the crowd was answering back and he replying, if they were answering backward and forward, a man could very well write down in long-hand what he had just said.

Mr. EVARTS. The witness stated that there were interruptions.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. And I am following that up.

Mr. EVARTS. That is the only point of your inquiry.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I asked the nature of them to know whether they would be likely to disturb a speaker and make him

pause.

Mr. EVARTS. The question to which we objected was, Was there a bandying of epithets backward and forward between the President and the crowd?"

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The honorable Manager will be good enough to reduce his question to writing.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I will not stop to do it in that form; but I will put it in another shape. [To the witness.] What was said by the crowd to the President, and what was said by the President to the crowd?

Answer. The President was frequently interrupted by cheers, by hisses, and by cries apparently from those opposed to him in the crowd.

Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the witness.) You have the right to refresh your memory by any memorandum which you have, or copy of memorandum made at the time.

Mr. EVARTS. Not a copy.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Yes, sir, any copy of a memorandum which you know is a copy made at the time; and state, if you please, what kind of epithets passed.

[The witness, placing a newspaper before him, was about to read therefrom.]]

Mr. EVARTS. We do not regard the newspaper as a memorandum made at the time. Mr. Manager BUTLER. He may refer to it.

Mr. EVARTS. Our objection is that it is not a memorandum.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. We may as well have that settled at once, if it is to be done. When a man says, "I wrote down the best I could, and put it in type within four hours of that time, and I know it was correct, for I examined it," I insist that on every rule of law in every court where any man ever practiced that is a memorandum by which the witness may refresh his recollection.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Do the counsel for the President object to the proof of the loss of the original notes?

Mr. EVARTS. We do not on this question. This witness is to speak by his recollection if he can; if he cannot he is allowed to refresh it by the presence of a memorandum which he made at the time.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. We deny that to be the rule of law. It may be by any memorandum which was correct at the time to his knowledge. On this point I am not without authority. In Starkie on Evidence is a reference to a case in 2 Adolphus and Ellis, 210, where it was said:

"In many cases, such as where an agent has been employed to make a plan or map and has lost the items of actual admeasurement, all he can state is that the plan or map is correct, and has been constructed from materials which he knew at the time to be true."

He has then a right to use the map or plan which he made afterward, having lost his fieldnotes, to refresh his memory, saying he knew them to be true. If the witness puts down these cries at the time and these interruptions and these epithets, and he is willing to state that he knows them to be true, because he copied them off from his original notes, which he has not now, he has a right to refresh his memory by that copy. I read again from Starkie:

"If the witness be correct in that which he positively states from present recollection, namely, that at a prior time he had a perfect recollection, and having that recollection, truly stated it in the document produced in writing, though its contents are thus but mediately proved, must be true."

Mr. EVARTS. If he presently recollects. Mr. Manager BUTLER. The question now is upon his using that memorandum to refresh that recollection. We cannot be drawn from the point.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The honorable Manager will please reduce his question to writing.

Mr. Manager BUTLER, having reduced the question to writing, read it as follows:

Question. I desire to refresh your recollection from any memorandum made by you at or near the time which you have, which you know to be correct, and from that state what was said by the crowd to the President and what he said to the crowd?

Mr. EVARTS. That question I do not object to.

Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the witness.) Look at the memorandum and go on.

Mr. EVARTS. That is not a memorandum; it is a newspaper.

The CHIEF JUSTICE, (to the witness.) Is that a memorandum made by you at the time?

The WITNESS. This is a copy of a memorandum made by me at the time.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Are the notes from which you made that memorandum lost? The WITNESS. They are.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. You may look at it unless there is some objection on the part of some Senator.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chief Justice, I do

not understand the question asked by the Manager.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I do not understand the counsel for the President as objecting.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not objecting at all; I only want to know what the question is.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. It is inquired on the part of the Managers what interruptions there were, and the witness is requested to look at a memorandum made at the time in order to refresh his memory. Of that memorandum he has no copy, but he made one at the time, and it is lost. The Chief Justice rules that he is entitled to look at a paper which he knows to be a true copy of that memorandum. If there is any objection to that ruling, the question will be put to the Senate.

Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the witness.) Go on now, sir, beginning at the beginning. The WITNESS, (with a newspaper before him.) The first interruption of the President by the crowd occurred on his referring to

Mr. EVARTS. Mr. Chief Justice, we understand the ruling of the court, to which of course we submit, that the witness is allowed to refresh himself by looking at a memorandum made at the time, which this is considered equivalent to, and thereupon, state from his memory, thus refreshed, what occurred. He must swear from memory refreshed by the memorandum, and not by reading the memorandum.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. He may read the memorandum to refresh his memory and then testify.

Mr. EVARTS. Yes, sir; but not to read it aloud to us.

The CHIEF JUSTICE, (to the witness.) Look at the memorandum and then testify. Mr. Manager BUTLER. You may read it if you please.

The WITNESS. The first interruption of the President occurred when he referred to the name of General Grant. He said that a large number in the crowd desired to see General Grant, and to hear what he had to say, whereupon there were three cheers given for General Grant. The President went on, and the next interruption occurred when he spoke of his visit, and alluded to the name of Stephen A. Douglas, at which there were cheers. The next serious interruption occurred at the time that the President used this language: "I was placed upon that ticket," the ticket for the Presidency, "with a distinguished citizen now no more;' whereupon there were cries, "It's a pity" 'Too bad;" "Unfortunate. The President proceeded to say, "Yes, I know there are some who say "unfortunate.'

66

Mr. EVARTS and Mr. CURTIS. That will not do.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. What was then done by the crowd?

The WITNESS, (consulting the newspaper.) The President went on to say that it was unfor tunate for some that God rules on high and deals in justice. and there were then cheers.

Mr. EVARTS. Mr. Chief Justice, the point made by the learned Manager was this, that in following his examination of this witness, in order to prove that he had times and chances to write out in long-hand what the President had said, he could show that there were interruptions of space. That is the whole matter as I understand it, and now he is reading the President's speech, which is not yet in evidence, nor permitted to be given in evidence, as a part of the question whether there were interruptions or not to allow him to write it out.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. He is, I understand, not giving the President's speech, but he is giving such portions only as show where the interruptions come in, because he has skipped long passages. Now, when we compare these interruptions with that which he took accurately, we shall see how he had time to take verbatim certain portions of the speech. We go on unless stopped.

The CHIEF JUSTICE, (to the witness.) The witness will look at the memorandum, and

then testify as well as he can from his present recollection.

Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the witness.) Go on, sir, from where you left off.

The WITNESS. The next interruption occurred where the President remarked that if his predecessor had lived

Mr. EVARTS. The question is of the interruption and its duration and form, not of its being when the President said this or that, or what he said.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I beg your par don. I put the question, and it was expressly said there was no objection to it, What did the President say to the crowd and what did the crowd say to the President?" That was not objected to, but it was said, "That is what we want." I put it in writing, and the writing is on the desk, that I want what the crowd said to the President and what the President said to the crowd. That was not objected to. [To the witness.] Go on, sir.

The WITNESS. When this remark was made the crowd responded "Never," "Never," and gave three cheers for the Congress of the United States. The President went on: "I came here as I was passing along, and having been called upon for the purpose of exchanging views and ascertaining if we could"

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Manager, do we understand that this witness is to read the speech?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. No, sir; he is not reading the speech; he is skipping whole paragraphs, whole pages of it almost; it is only where the interruptions come in. [To the witness.] Now just read the last words before the interruptions come in, if you please, which will bring out all we want, and that will save all trouble.

The WITNESS. When the President remarked that he came here for the purpose of ascertaining, if he could, who was wrong and responsible, the crowd said: "You are," and there were long continued cries. The President inquired, later in the speech, who could place his finger upon any act of the President's deviating from right, whereupon there were cheers and counter-cries of New Orleans" long continued; and that cry was repeated, frequently breaking the sentences of the President into clauses, and at the close of each sentence it was of some length. At the same time there were cries, "Why don't you hang Jeff. Davis?" The President responded, "Hang Jeff. Davis!" Then there were shouts and cries of Down with him," and there were other cries of "Hang Wendell Phillips." The President asked, "Why don't you hang him?" There were answers given, "Give us an opportunity?" The President went on to ask: "Haven't you got the court? Haven't you got the Attorney General? Who is your Chief Justice, who has refused to sit on his trial?" He was then interrupted by "groans and cheers." He went on to speak of calling upon Congress, "that is trying to break up the Government". Mr. STANBERY. Stop.

Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the witness.) Well, sir, state what took place then?

་

The WITNESS. When he said, "I called upon your Congress, that is trying to break up the Government" there were cries of" A lie from the crowd, hisses, and voices cried "Don't get mad," and the President responded "I am not mad." There were then hisses. After a sentence or two there were three more cheers given for Congress. Then after another sentence voices cried "How about Moses?" Question. What next?

Answer. The next interruption I find noted here

Mr. EVARTS. That is not what you are to testify to; not what you find there, but what you remember.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. The question is whether after seeing it you can remember it to tell it to us?

Answer. The next interruption, I remember, was a cry of "Yes," when the President inquired "Will you hear me." These cries were

taken up and were repeated sometimes for several minutes. There was all this time great confusion, cheers by the friends of the President, and counter-cries by those apparently opposed to him. The President repeated his question asking if the people would hear him for his cause and for the Constitution of his country, and there were again cries "Yes, yes," "Go on." He proceeded in the next sentence to inquire whether in any circumstances he ever violated the Constitution of the country, to which there were cries in response of "Never, never," and counter-cries. The interruptions continued. When Mr. Seward's name was mentioned there was a voice "God bless him," and cheers for Mr. Seward. He said that he would bring Mr. Seward before the people, show them his gaping wounds and bloody garments and ask who was the traitor. There were cries of "Thad. Stevens," when the President asked "Why don't you hang Thad. Stevens and Wendell Phillips?" and there were cheers and hisses. The President proceeded to say that, having fought traitors at the South, he would fight them at the North, when there were cheers and hisses, and there were also cries, when the President said that he would do this with the help of the people, "We won't give it." The interruptions continued in the shape of cheers and hisses and cries of the same sort throughout the speech.

Question. Were those cries and cheers and hisses continued so as to make the interruption go on for some time?

Answer. Frequently for several minutes. Question. In that time would you be enabled to get up with him and get your report out? Answer. I was able to make during most of these a verbatim report of what the President said.

Re cross-examined by Mr. EvARTS : Question. You made a memorandum at the time of these interruptions?

Answer. I did.

I have not given all that occurred in the newspaper.

Question. Without that newspaper, do you recollect any of those interruptions?

Answer. I do.

Question. All of them?

Answer. I should not be able to give all of them without the aid of the memorandum. Question. Did you not make a full report of these interruptions on your notes? Answer. I did.

Question. Of all that the crowd said?
Answer. Not of all that they said.
Question. Why not of all that they said?
Answer. Of all that I was able to catch.
Question. All that you could put down?
Answer. Yes.

Question. You got all that you could put down, and you left out some of what they said because you had not time to put it down; and yet you were catching up with the President? Answer. I gave my first attention to reporting the President. Whatever time I had for putting down cries besides that I did so. By Mr. Senator GRIMES: Question. I desire the witness to specify

Mr. Manager BUTLER. If the Senator will allow me, I will ask the witness whether any special part of the report itself was supplied by Johnson or whether it was only cor rected by Johnson's notes?

The WITNESS. The report was made out from my notes, corrected by Mr. Johnson's notes. I cannot say whether there were entire sentences from Mr. Johnson's notes or not.

By Mr. Manager BUTLER:

Question. I will ask you whether there can be such practice in reporting as to enable a person by long-hand to make out a substantially accurate report?

Mr. EVARTS. To that we object. You can ask whether this witness by his practice can do it, not whether other people can do it.

Mr. Manager BUTLER, (to the witness.) Have you had such practice?

Answer. I have had considerable practice in reporting in this way, and can make out a substantially accurate report.

[The witness, at the request of the honorable Manager, put his initials on the newspaper to which he had referred, the Cleveland Leader of September 4, 1866.]

DANIEL C. MCEWEN Sworn and examined.
By Mr. Manager BUTLER:

Question. What is your profession?
Answer. Short-haud writer.

Question. How long has that been your profession?

Answer. For about four or five years, I should judge.

Question. Were you employed in Septem ber, 1866, in reporting for any paper? Answer. I was.

Question. What paper?

Answer. The New York World.

Question. Did you accompany Mr. Johnson and the presidential party when they went to lay the corner-stone of a monument in honor of Mr. Douglas?

Answer. I did.

Question. Had you accommodation in the train as such?

Answer. I had.

Question. The entrée of the President's car? Answer. I had.

tences in the speech were interrupted by confusion in the crowd, which I have indicated in making the transcript, and the parts about which I am uncertain 1 inclose in brackets. Question. Where you have not inclosed in brackets, how is the transcript?

Answer. Correct.

Question. Was your report published?

Answer. I cannot say. I took notes of the speech, but owing to the lateness of the hourit was eleven o'clock or after-it was impossible for me to write out a report of the speech and send it to the paper which I represented. Therefore I went to the telegraph office after the speech was given and dietated some of my notes to other reporters and correspondents, and we made a report which we gave to the agent of the Associated Press, Mr. Gobright.

Question. Did the agent of the Associated Press accompany the presidential party for a purpose?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Was it his business and duty to forward reports of speeches?

Answer. I supposed it to be.

Question. Did you so deal with him 2
Answer. I did.

Question. Have you put down the cheers and interruptions of the crowd or any portion of them?

Answer. I have put down a portion of them. It was impossible to take them all.

Question. State whether there was a good deal of confusion and noise there? Answer. There was a great deal of it. Question. Exhibition of ill-feeling and tem

per?

Answer. I thought there was.

Question. On the part of the crowd?
Answer. On the part of the crowd.

Question. How on the part of the President?

Answer. He seemed a little excited. Question. Do you remember anything said there to him by the crowd about keeping his dignity?

Answer. I have not it in my notes.

Question. Do you remember it?

Answer. I do not remember it from hearing. Question. Was anything said about not getting mad?

Answer. Yes, sir,

Question. Did the crowd caution him not to get mad?

Answer. The words used were, "Don't get mad, Andy."

Question. Was he then speaking in considerable excitement or otherwise? Did he appear considerably excited at that moment when they told him not to get mad?

Mr. EVARTS. That is not any part of the present inquiry, which is to verify these notes, to see whether they shall be in evidence or not. Mr. Manager BUTLER. I understand; but I want to get as much as I can from memory and as much as I can from uotes, and both Question. Did you make a report of his together will make a perfect transcript of the speech at Cleveland from the balcony? Answer. I did.

Question. Were you at Cleveland? Answer. I was.

Question. How, phonographically or stenographically?

Answer. Stenographically. Question. Have you your notes? Answer. I have. Question. Here? Answer. Yes, sir. Question. Produce them. [The witness produced a memorandum-book.] Have you, at my request, copied out those notes since you have been here?

Answer. I have.

Question, (exhibiting a manuscript to the witness.) Is that the copy of them? Answer. It appears to be.

scene.

Mr. EVARTS. But the present inquiry, I understand, is a verification of notes. Whenever that is abandoned and you go by memory let us know it.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. The allegation is that it was a scandalous and disgraceful scene. The difference between us is that the counsel for the President claim the freedom of speech and we claim the decency of speech. We are now trying to show the indecency of the occa sion. That is the point between us, and the surroundings are as much part of the occasion as what was said.

Mr. EVARTS. I understand you regard the freedom of speech in this country to be limited to the right of speaking properly and

Question. Is that an accurate copy of your discreetly.

notes?

Answer. It is.

Question. How accurate a report of the speech is your notes?

Answer. My notes are, I consider, very accurate so far as I took them. Some few sen

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Oh, no. I regard freedom of speech in this country the freedom to say anything by a private citizen in a decent

manner.

Mr. EVARTS. That is the same thing. Mr. Manager BUTLER. Oh no.