The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-07-27
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
MATT CARPENTERS CLOSING ARGU-
MENT FOR THE DEFENCE.

MATT chRPENrER,s CLOSING ARGU-
MENT FOR THE DEFENCE.
Scott Lord Closing the Case for the Proseeu-
tion-settinR Forth the Evidence OF Hell
knap's Guilt-The Voting to Begin To-day.
WASHINGTON, July 26.-Tbe impeach-
ment trial was resumed to-day Immediately
after tho Senate was called to order, and Mr..
Carpenter concluded the reading OF his argu-
ment for the defence. He contended that not
one OF the articles Of impeachment charged
Con. Belknap with having received money from
Mr.. Marsh with intent thereby to be corrupted,
and said that without that intent there was no
| crime. He cited many authorities to show that
the Senate had no jurisd elton In this case. lie
| argued that the Senate had perfect right In its
| final decision to consider the question again
| and reverse Its decision already made. Every
Senator who voted guilty on the Hnal question
| would by that vote assert jurisdiction. Every
| Senator who believed there was no jurisdiction
must vote not guilty. II any Senators regarded
the question OF jurisdiction settled, then II had
| been settled In favor OF the defendant, because
| less than two-thirds OF the Senate voted in favor
| thereof He made an. earnest appeal to those
| Senators who believed there was no jurisdiction
TO try this case, that they would do all In their
power To save the defence from conviction,
| and not lot It he said, - Lord Rrougham said in
| the case of O'Connell agt. the Queen, that the
| decision would go forth without authority and
| return without respect.
After recess Of fifteen minutes Mr.. MANAGER
| Lord began the closing argument on the part OF
| the prosecution. He quoted from tho works OF
| James Monroe as to the right OF trial bv i'm
| parchment being the great remedy OF the peo-
| pie 20 punish corrupt officials. He said he
| would speak first OF the law In the case. and no
desired to say that the articles Of impeacbment
were sufficient, and the defendant should he
convicted OF the offences charged. The Man
| ayers dd not stand hero begging for a convic-
ton. They dif not ask the Senate to convict on
| any doubtful construction, and " the articles OF
| impeachment did not charge that which was
true. then The defendant 30 free. He then read
the articles OF impeachment and argued that they
did clearly charge an impe lchao Q offence; ~
not, let the Senate say so and dismiss the y hole
| jurisdiction had already been settled, and the
| attempt OF counsel for the defence to drag 1t IN
| again fell to the ground. The great question In
| the case WAS that OF fact. or what import nee
were all these questions OF jurisdiction and side
issues. az compared with the great question Of
| the guilt or innocence of the accus2df lie then
gard To- jurisdiction, and claimed thar the Judy
mcnt Of the Senate 10 the effect that the articles
| OF impeachment were sufficient in law. bound
| eyer' senator. The Senate sitting as court OF
| impea chmcnt. although org inized hy the Con-
| sttution as an independent court, with indie
pendent jurisdiction, was bound by the same
court being deprived Of the exercise OF Its func-
lions by the minoritv7 lie cited various legal
authorities In support Of his views.
In reply to question OF Mr.. ConkllnE as to
whether majority OF the Senate should say
|
would n senator In the minority be bound TO
| vote guilty or not guilty on the nnal issue, Mr..
vote that drunkenness was an impeachabe
crime, senators voting In the minority must vote
ny o or sI nv tn on fIf
they, no doubt. had the right to withhold their
votes II they desired to do so, lie commented
that 1t made no difference whether tho money
accorted Influenced official action or not; the
the accused was guilty under the law. IL
this Senate in the ewes OF the nation, In the eyes
of the world, in the eyes Of history. dared to
take the responsibility OF saying that belknap
received this money, but did not have his official
action Influenced thereby, let 1t So so, and see
what history would say OF the verdict.
Mr. Lord then commented on the evidence,
snd argued thar Belknsp knew where the money
came from TO him. and for what purpose. There
was the Tribune article. the letter Of Grierson,
and the order OF Mcdowell, OF which Delkpap
knew, vet after these things ne received ten ais
| tinct and separate payments-glfts, as thew were
called by the learned counsel tMr Blair. man
who received a aft from friend was generally
| proud OF ~. as an evidence of being appreciated
by bis friend; but these Gifts were all kept out
Of sight: They came under the head Of add
KNAPP resign the once OF Secretary OF War II he
was innocent7 why did he GO down like the
oak before the whirlwind? Did he not know
that II he was an innocent man he could still be
Secretary Of ar. aUd no man would attempt to
| post tradershps. Ills resignation was comics
sion of his guiit. His counsel had put IN spe-
cial plea that the resignation OF Gen. Belknap
was IN pursu lnce OF a contract with Mr.. Clymer.
Chairman 81 the House Committee on Expendi-
on tho stand, and why did not the counsel Tor
the defence attempt to prove tho fact 10y MIN u
the plea was trueT 1t was because they kne" II
wrs.noi true.
Nr. Lord then referred to the remarks o.
Een baas weSser sS @ Sm
friends IN Massachusetts they were known 20
from hts friends they were published 70 the
word. There was DISTINGUISHED member OF
,, tns body who had once declined a present Of
$20.OOO to purchase him house In Nasutngton
lie did not doubt the sincerity Of the President
OF the United states In receiving presents. but
there were many Senators In this honorable
body who would not receive a Gift from any
person. Judge Black. in the Constitutional
Convention of Pennsylvania, was perfectly right
In Introducing a provision forbdding officials "a
receive presents and the reason why II did moi
pass showed that Pennsylvania was not quite
abreast with public sentiment. The. time had
gone by when officials could use their position
plane OF an enlightened people and he hope d
that this Senate would not put the wheel back
| wards
Mr.. Lord concluded his argument at $40, and
then the Senate sitting as as court 81 impescn'
| They will then proceed to the vote on the ina
issue.
be taken on each article OF impeachment sepa
ra,ely but does not provide That vote SnaiI .,
an amendment to the rules pending, which
| provides for having the deliberations OF TN
Senate questions relating to Impeachment
conducted with open Doors ana II Is though
he will call IL up to morrow. should this amend
ment not be agreed to, the doors Will be closed
at IL O'clock. at wncn hour the court meets 70
the purpose OF discussing tho hnal decision. l
Is known that several Senators desire to expires
their opinions before giving the final vote. an'
they Will support the amendment OF Mr.. tonh
ling in favor OF open doors In the johnson
trial the Senate was in session with closed door
4 for several days after the argument OF counse
v was concluded before IL proceeded TO vote OF
the Il nal question.
The Senate's Dilemma.
= WASHINGTON, July 26.-Tne conviction
seems to have grown stronger during the pas
J. two days that the Senate will acquit BelknaI
T. This will Of course be ostensioly done on til
o theory that the Senate has not jurisdiction.
;, any rate, this is the hope Of Belknap's counse
a and they seem quite confident that two-third
" will not vote for conviction on this groun'
W | Thn ndrnIt and nnMerfnl nrgumenL Of Judg