him in no other sense than that of an assertion that ten "States" of the Union were not represented in it, all of which ought to be so represented when they should send loyal men to take seats therein, and that he had never intended by this declaration to deny the validity of the acts of the Congress or its power to originate and adopt an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. After the filing of this answer, the counsel of the President asked the Court of Impeachment for thirty days' time after the replication of the House of Representatives to this answer should be filed for the preparation of the President's case. But the managers on the part of the House again very ungenerously opposed giving them any time at all for this purpose. The debate over this point lasted until after the replication of the House was filed on the following day, that is on the 24th of March. The Court of Impeachment then decided to give them until March 30th, and ordered the trial to proceed on that day. [Sidenote: The replication of the House to the President's answer.] The replication filed by the House of Representatives, on the 26th, was an exception to the answer of the President as insufficient, a denial of all the averments of the answer, a declaration of the guilt of the President of the high crimes and misdemeanors charged, and an offer to prove the same. {181} [Sidenote: The trial.] [Sidenote: Conduct of the managers.] On the 30th, the trial opened with the fierce, not to say brutal, attack of Mr. Butler on the President. During the entire course of the trial, from the 30th of March until the 16th of May, the managers followed a line of conduct which no impartial student of this day can fail to condemn, and which, even in that time of hostile passion against the President, lost to them a large measure of popular favor. They tried to prevail upon the Court of Impeachment to regard itself as a political body instead of a court, to renounce all limitations upon its powers, and to accept common rumors against the President as good evidence of his guilt. On the other hand, they objected to the introduction of evidence by the President to prove the purpose of his acts, and to show the advice upon which he had proceeded in their commission. They succeeded in inducing the Court of Impeachment to refuse to hear the President's evidence upon these points, although the Chief Justice had ruled in favor of its reception. There is no doubt that their cause was greatly weakened in the public esteem by this manifestation of partisanship on the part of the court. [Sidenote: The evidence in the case.]