Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-07-26
FORTY-FOURTH CONGRESS.
WEDNESDAY, July Dc,


SENATE The Senate met at II m, and
the impeachment trial at Que proceeded.
Mr.. Carpenter resumed his remarks, and
desired TO call attention to an expression In
the letter OF Marsh OF the 9th or August,
which clearly showed that at that time no
promise OF the post he'd been made TO him.
DE then proceeded to review the legal points
In The case, citing numerous authorities In
support OF the claim tnaIthe court erred In
oyerrulipg the demurrer OF the defendant.
He claimed that the defendent had under the
law and precedent the right TO have the
whole trial set aside and the trial pro.
statute In the case, which requires that
10 constitute an offence under IL that
the money must have been received with an
1n.ent 10 have his mind corrupted and his
Official action Influenced by IL. Not one of
the articles charged this offence; not one
charged the essential feature, the guilty
bis client had been placed. He had been
tried by the public. by the newspapers, I'm
every bar room and Ia every school house,
and he had been a5judged, and the verdict
of the sepate printed in the papers weeks
ego. He appealed TO Senators to try this
case according TO their own consciences and
yu1gment, and shield the accused against
public clamor based on false assumptions
Again he cited authorities to show that the
Indictment must clearly set forth the Of
renee, for the punishment OF which the
fall, and argued that no where in the articles
was a statutory offence charged. He did
not claim that the money must be actually
paid to make an offence against the statute,
but there must be some knowledge or I'M
Outstanding that money must be paid. The
OFFENCE OF Mr.. Belknap was not one that re-
bride once In the course of his exemplary
life the courts OF the District OF Columbia
were competent TO take cognizance OF and
punish 1t. He argued that offences that
properly belonged to the courts under the
statute law could not properly be brought
before tbs Senate. There was no exception
to the rule of Jurisdiction, no matter how
exalted The tribunal.
Mr.. Carpenter argued that by the vote of
The Senate the ques ton was settled in favor
OF the defendant, or that II was still a live
and pending issue, and cited, among others,
the Dred Scott case, where Sanford, the
owner OF Dred Scott, plead to the jurisdic-
ZION OF the lower court, and was overruled,
and, the Judgment there being In his favor,
he could not raise IL, and bred Scott did not
desire 10 do so, yet the Supreme Court held
that this question was an issue before it, and
upon IL the case must be decided. From this
be went on to argue that in its final con-
sideratIon Of this case It should consider the
question of jurisdiction. and the fact that
there was no higher authority to which TO
appeal instead OF being a reason against it
was strong reason for a careful review of
the former decision. A verdict OF guilty In
this case must involve all the essentials in
Gliding Jurisdiction, as In q murder case
where there were several pleas, such as the
murder was not committed in the body of
the country, or that the accused was insane,
A verdict Of guilty Involved the Question
relating to the comfy and sanity OF the
prisoner. They were like the different cases
of a rape, and must all go together. II was
not necessary that Senators agree in
opinion SO they agreed In judgment.
This he illustrated by decision In a recent
divorce case, decided by two judges. One
judge believed that neither party was guilty
of adultery, and the other Judge believed
both were guilty. In either case the judg-
mept must be the same, and q divorce de-
MED. 80, although the judges differed In
opinion the6 agreed in their Judgment, aud
IL was proper Judgment the fact that the
defendant had pleaded to question of juris-
illustration OF his claim that the question of
jurisdiction run through the case from first
10 last, he supposed murter case, where
the question of sanity was an issue, where
the jury nrst took vote on the question OF
sanity ana decided IL by q vote Of seven to
five, and then the 1--WE men who believed the
prisoner insane were required TO walk into
court and declare accused guilty of murder.
The question Of Jurisdiction, he said. not
only runs through this case, but 1t runs for
ever. III Belknap should be impeached and
subsequently, elected by the people of Iowa
TO the House Of Representatives, and the
question OF disqualification was raised there
the jurisdiction OF the Senate in this case
was matter that the House could inquire
into.
Mr.. Carpenter closed his argument with
an earnest appeal TO the Senators who be-
save his client from a conviction that would
have DO legal authority; that, in the lau-
guage Of Lord Broueham, would go forth
without authority and return without re-
spect.
AT the concl usion of his remarks, at 1:5O %.
m, the Senate took recess for ten minutes.
the court reassembled, and Mr.. Lord COM
menced bis closing argument at q quarter
past O'CLOCK, commencing with the points
OF the law In the case, maintaining the suf-
ficiency OF the articles presented by the
House.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr.. Terry (Va.) submitted the report of the
Committee on Military Affairs in relation
to soldiers homes. Ordered printed and re-
committed.
MI. Morrison, (Ill, } from Committee Ways
and Means, reported back the Senate bill to
authorize the Secretary OF the Interior to
deposit in the U. 8. Treasury all sums now
teld by him In trust for Indian tribes, aud
U. 3. to pay Interest on the same at the rate
Of four. and.a-half per cent. Passed.
The House then, a. the unfinished business
resumed, consideration of the contested cleo
tion case of Plat VS.. Goode, and Mr.. Town
send IN. " made q speech in favor OF the
majority report.
Mr.. GoOde (Va.) addressed the House on
bis own behalf.