The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-05-31
BELKNAPISM.

Belknaps oaense, not only brought into
prominence an oil and common practice
but gave a generic term to the ofTense OF
selling Offices Belknap was not, by any
means, the originator of the practice. He
was but Il humble imitator of these VIII
had gone before him. He did as Kerr Is
charged with doing years before bu
mark the difference in the treatment of the
two. The investigation into Belknap'r
conduct was conducted with closed doors
The testimony was concealed from him
until the trap was ready to spring. TheL
he Was called before the committee, sill
sitting with closed doors, and threatened
with impeachment if he did no immediate
ly resign. He resigned, the president very
foolshly accepting of his resignation-bui
he did not escape impeachment by so do
ing. the senate having incorrectly, as We
believe, decided TO take jurisdiction and
proceed with the trial of Beknap on the
articles of impeachment. Moreover, he
is indicted for the criminal misdemeanOi
involved in his acts, and will be tried as
criminal therefor.
We quarrel not with the course pursued,
except in so far as we believe these star
chamber Investigations to be contrary to
our institution, and that person not
civil officer of the United States, at the time
of his impeachment, is not amenable
thereto. We belive that Belknap has done
that which makes him unfit for public
Office, that he should be debarred, so far
as may be, from hereafter holding office,
and that he should be tried and punished
for the statutory offense. We belive, more
over, that Michael c. Kerr should, 50 far
as Is consistent with the laws of the land,
be treated in the same manner as William
w. Belknap was treated. But mark the
difference, Kerr 10 invited before the
committee. He appears, accompanied by
counsel, and surrounded by Messrs. Morri-
son, Knott, Lord, Hereford, Springer and
the other democratic magnates of the
house, and his quasi denial of selling his
official influence, Ia sent out to the country
with the statement of the witness, Harvey.
Had he been republican, would the samt
consideration have been shown him2 The
course of the Investigations by the present
congress, no, only in the case OF Belknap
but of all others, is ample evidence that i
would not 1t makes all the difference il
the world whose OK IS gored.
There IS another case in point, one occur
ring in the jurisdiction, and under thu
watchful eye, Of that most eminent o
modern reformers, Samuel j. Tilden O
New York. The "boss teamster at TN
Clinton, New York, state prison, having
procured a reduction of five dollars pc
m NTH ia the wages Of teamsters, by re-
presenting to the agent that that amour
could be saved, informed the teamsler
that, If they wished 10 retain their places
they must not only submit to the reduc
ton, but must, also, pty him five dollar
each per month out of their reduced pay
They assented but when the five dollar
for May was demanded, the inspector
being AT Dannemora, they refused to ICON
"to Tina" and, at the same time, con
planned to the inspectors of his illegal eA
actions. He was accordingly arraigned bt
fore the inspectors, the charge fully SUI
tanned by proof, and he, instead OF bein
discharged, was simply rebuked aud a
lowed TO keep his place and keep on sir
ming, too.
Where IL the difference between Bell