New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-04-14
and bonds to strengthen their legal-tender re-
serves.
THE NEW BURLEoQUE.


The determination of the President and Mr..
Cameron to send Gen. Schenck back to Lon
don if they can find any sort of countenance
for doing so in the Committees expected re-
port is an absurdty for which we may thank
the Senate. The retention of Gen. Schenck
would be neat and appropriate retaliation LOT
the rejection of Mr.. Dana, and we really 90
not see how the Senate could object to it. The
conduct of the American Minister III LondOh
does not depend in any degree upon the value
of the mine or the character OF the Venders Oh
il. He has not been charged with conspiracy
to swindle. 1t has been admitted from the
first that he thought the speculation
WAS n safe one when he went into It,
Mr. Fish was careful to explain to the Com
mittce little while ago that there had been
no imputation upon Gen. Scbenck's integrity,
and in the correspondence between the State
DEPARTMENT and the ex-Nlinstcr it WAS ac-
knOwledged by the Secretary that Gen. Schcnck
had legal right to do what he did, and the
only question touching his conduct was one OF
propriety, not morals. The principal complaint
is that Mr. Schcnck allowed the diplomatic
representative of the United States to be used
as a bait to catch investors in speculative
enterprise, and that for his services in this
CAPACITY of decoy he accepted valuable
consideration in the shape OF loan
and a secret guarantee OF interest. lhe
fact that the venture turned out badly
for linn does not alter the case,
and no testimony that can be brought from
Salt Lake City will put any different face
upon it. The subsequent behavior OF Gen.
Schenck, in relation to his resignation of the
diIectorslrp, to his resignation of the post Of
ambassador, and to his evasion of the writ
aegravates the original oflense, but does not
change It's nature. That otlense consisted IN
Incoming "A director in the Company with
money furnished by Park, and accepting an
equivalent for the influence of his official
name 1t has been admitted III tho course OF
the examination, and if all the other scandals
which grew out of it could he diSproved II
would still be fatal to Gen. Schercll's rcputa-
ton.
II row the President should send him back
10 London on the strength Of a report by the
Committee that he was innocent OF any dis
honesty, the interesting question would arise,
What was he removed fort The Government
has insisted upon his honesty all along. Nh.
Fish trrgrapled him on the 1lth of February
that the President adhered to the opinion
that his connection with the Emma Mine
was an unfortunate indiscTetion but without
improper motive on his part" and remained
L" IN the full conviction that his conduct WAS
" free of wrong purpose" Yet lis resignation
WAS demanded. More thnn that. it was in
sisted upon, and the President fatty refused
10 suspend the acceptance of it until after the
Investigation. If the reason for this press
ing demand was not the unfortunate
indi,cIetion," how can the President
Justify itf He would he the first to
resent the suspicion that lie removed
Gen. Schenck because Bellinap had just been
found ont and the Babcock tIial was looking
uely and that he means to put him back now
because the public excitement has died away
aud the Democratic party seems to he making
40 Roadway. Ii Gen. Scbcnck did not deserve
removal on account of his unfortunate lndiS-
crctioun and the scandal which followed Ii,
his removal was cruel and cowardly. II he
did deserve it. what excuse can there be for
roainrtu., him