Ottumwa weekly courier. (Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa) 1872-1899, 1876-06-14
0ELKNAP-MERR,

There arc certain similaritics in the
charges against these two men which
it is well enough to look ut. Both
held high positions; bah are charged
with selling an office; there is practi-
cally but one witness against each rs
to the fact of the sale: both stood
high as regards personal character ;
both are Western men, and neither is
rich. They differ chiefly in political
sentiment, Mr. Belknap being q Re-
publican, while Mr.. Kerr is Demo-
crat. Mr.. Kerr denies his guilt. while
Mr.. Belknap neither denies or admits
the truth Of the charges against him.
The general impression is that he
confessed his guilt. whereas in fact
he merely said he would accept the
responsibility, provided the commit
tee would spare the reputation of his
former and his present wife. They
tricked him into the belief that they
agreed to that proposition, and he
resigned his office on that understands
ing, but Clymer broke faith, and
gave out the falsehood that Bclknap
had confessed his guilt. Neither one
has made any evidence against him
self, and both stand before the coun-
try in precisely the same position so
far as the necessity of proving or dis.
proving the charge by outside evil
dence is concerned.
The one, or chief witness (Marsh)
against Mr.. Belknap, by fleeing tc
Montreal and refusing to return un.
til promised immunity from prosecu.
ton, virtually confessed that his char.
acter was stained by some criminal
act, while the one, or chief witnes,
(Harney), against Mr.. Kerr, has not
fed, and seems to be in no fear, hence
the character of Marsh does no
stand so high as the character of IIar
ney, Both Belknap and Kerr TOLD
the respective witnesses to tell thu
whole truth before the committee
with this great advantage to Belknap
however, that Kerr gave that dircc
ton to Harvey in the pres cncc of tn,
committee when he could not do 9th
erwise, while Belknap, in prcviou
private interview, requested Marsl
to go before the committee and tel
all he knew, though Marsh at til,
time was offering to run away ant
suppress his testimony altogether
This is very strong point liz Bel
knap's favor.
But more than this, it is stated, and
we believe not yet contradicted. that
Kerr, knowing of this impending &C.
cusation for several weeks past, has
been cndeavoring through the aid OF
New York lawyers to induce botl
Harvey and Green to swear him clca,
before the committee got hold Of
them. The fact that Bclknap retain
ed Marsh and sent him before til,
committee has SO much moro the ap
pcarance of innocence than does
kerr's endeavor to prevent Harnc,
and GFeep from tcstifying against
him, counts immensely in favor Of
Belknap.
Marsh does not testify that Belknar
knew why the money was paid to
him, but Harvey docs testify that
Kerr knew the money was paid to
him for an Office. Bclknap gave re.
ceipts freely, the same as all men dc
in honorable transactions; if Kerr
took the money he gave no receipt
therefor, as men do not usually put
their names to papers which would
be proof of questionable transactions,
On these points the advantage is will
Belklap, Kerr gave an appointment
to political opponent with whom
he was not previously acquainted
AMI who lived in district far from
his owA, though there were scores o
young men in his own district ant
among his personal and political ac
gqaintances who would have bee,
glad of il, which was certainly a yer,
unusual proceeding inn strong poll
tician, as he would naturally prefer 1,
strengthen himself by scattering nj
the favors he could in his own dis
trict. On the other hand, Delkhap'
appointment OF Marsh had nothin,
unusual in it, as he could preperl,
select post-traders from any section
Of the country. The advantage her
is also decidedly in favor of HelknaI
Although Mr.. Kerr certified froll
personal knowledge to the prope
qualifications, physically, mentally
and morally, of Green for admission
to West Point, yet we now find lin
writing to the Adjutant General ask
ing it such a person rs Green wa
ever in the army, and receiving 70
answer that Green was there by hi
own special recommendation. More
over, on the examination he dcniet
any acquaintance with Green, and II,
also asserted that he never conscious
ly saw or spoke to Harvey on this oil
any other subject. On this point he Il
contradicted by both Green and Har
ney, each of whom, examined sepa
ratcly, declare that the services of Mr.
Kerr we've secured by Mr.. Harvey
personal solicitation. All this has M
unpleasant look. Belknap has no
been contradicted on any point ever
by a single witness, and he therefore
stands the best SO far rs that goes.
Generally, we may add, the aspects
of Kerr's case are worse than Bel.
knap's, and yet the latter was con.
demned the instant the charge was
made, and no words of horror have
been half strong enough to express
detestation of his crime, especially
in Democratic papers, but the former
is as vigorously defended by every
Democratic sheet and many Rcpub
lican papers, while no one of an,
party says he is guilty. This is en-.
tirely unjust, because it is not impair.
tial.
We do not pretend TO claim thai
Belknap is innocent, or that Kerr il
guilty; we have no right to acquit
or condemn either one of them unit
a full and fair investigation has cs
tablished the facts, but we do say thai
Kerr's case looks the worst, and we
protest against the injustice of instant
and absolute condemnation of the ono
and defense of the other, when boil
stand in such gafy similar conditions