The New York herald., 1876-03-09
The witne.se. Against Belknap.

The Witnesses Against BeIknaP.
1t is an odd spectacle which is just now
presented in Washington. While no man at
the national capital or elsewhere doubts
Belknap's guilt the impeachment is at q
stand, and the criminal prosecution is at a
stand, by lack of witnesses to testify against
him. His resignation is conclusive evidence
OF his guilt and its prompt acceptance is
proof that the President thinks him guilty
on his own statements. The sworn testimony
of Marsh, which nobody discredits, is fatal,
and the confession made by Belknap in the
presence of the committee would corroborate
Marsh if anybody suspected his veracity. And
yet, with case so strong as to carry irresisti-
BILE conviction to everybody, the impeach-
ment proceedings are delayed and the in
dictment by the Grand Jury is delayed by
want of legally admissible evidence The
management of the case must have been in
excusably bungled when charge whose
truth is so undisputed and indisputable
halts on the brink of the prosecution by a
dearth of competent witnesses and legal evil
dence
A considerable portion Of the blame must
rest on the Congressional committee wl6ch
conducted the investigation. 1t is unjust
and absurd to accuse them of deliberate
intention to get Marsh out of the way
and prevent his testifying. They had
no motive to do this, but. every
motive to- utilize his knowledge of
the facts. Their stupid blunder was, of
course, unintentional, but such an imbecile
lack of foresight cannot be defended. They
could have kept Marsh within their control
and have prevented his leaving Washington,
and their blunder seems to have resulted
from their failure to discriminate between q
Congressional investigation with view to
legislation and an investigation leading to
impeachment. When facts are wanted to
guide legislation there is no further use for
witness after he has fully given his testi-
mony, but an investigation with a view to
impeachment is preliminary proceeding
whose ultimate success depends on the same
witnesses who testify before the COM
mittee, just as in an ordinary Grim
inal prosecution the witnesses who
testify before the Grand Jury in procuring
the indictment are the very witnesses whose
testimony is most important in the trial.
The committee who recommended the i'm
peachment could not have wished that it
should be abortive and they ought to have
foreseen that Marsh's testimony would be as
important in the trial as it was in the i'm
peachment When they foolishly released
him and gave him an opportunity to abscond
they imperilled the very proceeding which
they had the strongest motives to promote.
The unintended consequences of letting
Marsh escape bring just discredit on the
committee.
The committee have also been slack and
negligent in their failure to summon other
witnesses. There are twenty military posts
as important as Fort Sill, and there is great
reason for believing that Secretary Belknap
practised the same corruption in all. Every
trader at those posts should have been sum-
moned, and there ought by this time to be
a cloud of witnesses in Washington capable
of giving important testimony. 1t is scan
dalous that, with all the clews in the pos
session of the committee, the impeachment
has come to halt for want of testimony.
But if the committee is chargeable with
negligence and imbecility we fear that the
administration has exposed itself to graver
inculpation. 1t would be monstrous in
such conjuncture to frighten witnesses
from testifying by holding up before them
the terrors of a personal prosecution if they
give testimony discriminating themselves
Conviction for such crimes is impossible ex-
cept by the evidence of accomplices, and if
the administration takes away all hope of
protection it shields the thieves Instead of
frightening accomplices the govern
ment should encourage them to come
forward and testify. President Grant
could easily bring Marsh back to this coun-
try by causing an assurance of impunity to
be conveyed to him through some appropri-
ate channel II he fails to do this when the
interests of justice so obviously require it
the country will be forced to believe that he
wishes to shield Belknap by shutting out the
evidence which would convict him. 1t is
the Presidents clear duty to make it known
that accomplices may safely testify against
Belknap both in the impeachment and the
criminal trial, and his failure to do this will
cause the country to believe that his SYM
pathies are not on the side of justice, but of
the criminal
Peanuts and Tobacco the street