New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-11-20

vote.msnagers almost or quite without exception
Shall these things teach nothing
BELMONT AND THE RUSSIAN LOAN.
We copy in another place certain explanations
and letters on this subject which seem to demand
word from us in reply. Briefly, then, We have
to say that when our correspondent at Paris in
formed us that Mr.. Belmont had negotiated the
Russian loan he accompanied it with clear state
ment of the source from which he had derived it,
That there may be no mistake on this point we
copy from his letter published in The TRIBUNE
of Oct q the following paragraph;
"The peculiar position which Mr. Belmont occupies
as member Of the diplomatic corps 81 the Hague has
in part served TO disclose the facts which have been
here given in relation to him. He il standing point
of ridicule for the entire corps 9th he exception Of
tie Russian Minister. gentleman who was formerly
secretary to NJ. BOdisco at Washington and who was
in the United States friend OF Mr.. Belmont. In a
European diplomatic corps money alone viii not sus-
tain man; he must have either family or talent. Mr.
Belmont is jew and Jews are held in aversion; he
doea not bear the name of his father, and s known
only to fame as shrewd money changer. Added 10
these he gives oense by the extravaganza OF style
in which he lives and the showiness OF his carriages
and livery The ATTACHES Of the Russian Legation at
the Hague do not share the feelings Of their chief to-
ward Mr.. Belmont and IS directly from this source
that the information regarding the transactions OF the
Russian Minister and Hr. Belmont IN regard 10 loan
hare been derire9. The statements are positive with
cut qualification, and may, without doubt be relied
on. Ii is known TOO. that short time ago the Baron
Rothschld of Frankfort closeted tor period OF
two weeks with Mr.. Belmont at the Hague, and that
since that time the thing has been repeated at
Frankfort. II has become a common remark at the
HAGUE and at Frankfort that Mr.. Belmont instead Of
being the Minister Of the United States is merely
active partner in the house OF RothschId.'
Here is the charge, and the authority for it.
There ia nothing ambiguous about either. Mr..
Belmont is not only made aware Of what he is ac-
cused, but Of the witnesses on whose testimony
the Indictment is found These witnesses are all
within his reach; why does he not appeal to
them Surely, whatever his personal relations
with them may happen to be, in case thus vi
tally touching his honor, he would not fail to in
vito them into court could he do so without the
certainty of their saying that they had not only
made such a statement, but that it was true,
every word Of it. But at any rate, if he could
not bring the evidence of the attaches in ques-
ton, for the reason that they had abandoned him,
and would be likely to stick to it, why doesn Z
he give US that of Count Lomonosof, the Mn.
lister He is there, and would doubtless be glad
to relieve his friend from an unjust imputatOn,
and why ism t he called in Instead Of this, how
ever, Mr.. Belmont, passing by all the witnesses
who know anything of the facts, brings in others
who gravely attest their ignorance OF the whole
matter; and thereupon his advocate, Tae Union,
as gravely pronounces his scquittal, and, Turning
around, assas US in select language for having
allowed our correspondent TO report the dis
closure, made by certain gentlemen who were
openly given as authority, but TO whom the cul-
prit prudently avoids all allusion The case, it
seems, is to be tried on the principle established
BY the Pennsylvania Justice. before whom three
men testified positively that they had seen the
prisoner at the bar steal sheep, but who, when
the prisoner brought six men to swear that they
had not seen him do it, deliberately acquitted
him on the ground that the balance of the evil
dence was in bis favor. OF course, the taking of
the Russian loan is a matter which under the cir
substances, Mr.. Belmont supposing him to have
done it, must necessarily deny; and we submit
that the peculiar manner in which he undertakes
to supper. bis denial rather increases than dimin-
ishes the probability against him.
The Union also gravely confutes s story con-
corning Mr.. Belmon.'s genesis, but errs in at
tributing that story to THE TRIBUNE. On the
contrary, we long since corrected the same fable
and set forth the truth on that question. The
fact is that Mr. Belmont is member OF q re-
spectacle family in Hanau, Germany, formerly
at least, mere rich in sons and daughters than in
"monish"-Or, as The Union rightly says, pos
sessed of "a small estate" But what E.s Union
fails to state, in this interesting episode of do
mestic history-probaby because it has not had
the fortune to meet with persons from Hansu to
give it the informstion-is that the original and
proper name of the family is Seh5Hberg, which
means in French, Belmont, Just as its English
translation is FGirmOrp,. When our now emf
ntnt fnaneier and diplomat left the paternal
"smal estate to begin bis public career, he also
merged the cacophOny of his patroninic in its
mere mellifuous French equivalent, though, had
be then anticipated attaining fortune and distinc-
ton in the service of the United States he might
possibly have preferred the English alias. But
however this may be, it is matter of taste
merely; and as, according to The Union, the
father has approved the choice Of the son, BY
also gsllicisiDg instead of anglicising bic name,
nobody has anything to ssy about it. We only
allude to the fact in order to justify ourselves
against the falts imputation made by the official