The Morning herald., 1876-05-27
SCHENCK's MISTAKE.

ACHENCK'B MISTAKE.
General schenck slipped through the
fingers of the Committee with freedom
that must have been astonishing to the
ravenous appetites Of that selected body.
1t was a sort of compromise between the
party representatives upon the Committee.
The Republicans unwilling to commit
their party any further in its connivance
at fraud, were willing to agree to the re-
port, ifthe Executive department should
not be blamed, and the Generals connec-
ton with the Emma Mine swindle not
characterized as fraud. The charges
against him were not proven; and when
that is said nothing more in extenuation
of his connection with matter that touch
ed upon the national honor, can
be said. By the process Of leniency, that
compromise in the wording of the report
exercises toward Schenck and the admin
istration, he is not struck so plumply in
vital part, that it would unsettle his moral
organization, or re gommendation to char
acter, but the missile is cast with such pre-
cision and delicacy that it merely g. azes
its object, and strikes ameng the horde OF
schemers that presumed upon the inno-
cence of the General and led him by the
hand as satan leads the unwary into vice.
But how the committee can reconcile the
cens,re of their report with the fact that he
was not guilty of fraud, is something that
no one can discover bat those who have
as finely drawn sense of discriminating
Judgment between right and wrong as the
committee.
He was not guilty Of fraud, but at the
same time it was found that his connec.
ton with the swindle by an endorsement
thereof was ill-advised and unfortunate
and inconsistent with the obligations and
regularity of his official position. In this
judgment Belknap can find most admir-.
able means of escape from his embarrass
ing position. 1t would be just as reason
able to say that he is not guilty Of fraud
but that he acted inconsistently with the
obligations of his high official position, a:
that it was the extent of Schenck'i
offending.
The principle of the two cases is pre-
cisely the same, and if Schenck violated
privileges of Office it must have been witt
full knowledge of such violation, for i
as Secretary Fish said in telegram t.
him that he had a right to invest hi
money in such honest enterprises as h
thought proper,it is not supposable that h
should invest his money and character il
an enterprise that had been known to tn
English market as one of doubtful SOLE
foundation, and not know that he was vic
lating the obligations of his Office. 1t is
therefore, no more than just censure t.
the committee, from the people, which
acted with a full knowledge of Sehenck'
dishonest intentions of gain, that their de
cision should be regarded as very thir
court plaster of excuse thrown over hiul
for u high odense that has UNDERMINE,
confidence in the American people AM
their government.
Now we expect the Belknap case to enc
something like the following: "He did no
know he was doing wrong as he had ;
right 10 embark in honest enterprises, bu
he thought he needed few more stamp
to keep up appearances and ho scooped i,
every thing that came in his way. 1t wa
not fraud, bnt was inconsistent with IT,
obligations Of his official position. TIL
Administration shall not be blamed 10
having . thief in the Cabinet, but mu-
try and get an honest man next time
And then Belknp will have an opportun
ity to draw a sigh Of relief and remark t.
Schenck as ii amlet did to Horatio "Ther
are more things in Heaven and cart
than are dreamt of in your philosophy