The New York herald., 1876-07-25
THE BELKNAP IMPEACHMENT.
THE SUMMING UP ARGUMENT OF MANAGER
JENKs TOR THE PROSECUTION AND OF JUDGE
BLACK FOB THE Defence.


The Senate to-day resumed the consideration OF the
articles Of impeachment against W. W. Belknap late
Secretary OF War
Mr. Manager Lord submitted affidavit OF Dr. ID.
W. Bliss to tho effect that Hon. A. G. Lapham OF the
MANAGERS has been under his professional care for the
last three days and that he Will not be able to resume
his duties before Wednesday next
Mr. Lord said the Prosecution had not yet been
opened on the question OF fact and they relied upon
Mr. Lapham who had prepared himself for that pur
pose He moved that the trial be postponed until
Wednesday.
Mr. Anthony. trcpl r l.. inquired If the prosecution
would be ready to go on then even II Mr. lapham
should not have recovered.
Mr.. Lord replied in the affirmative and said the pros
ccution could to-day, but ked for the postpone
Tor the sake OF Mr.. Lapham who was ANXIOUS to
be heard.
The motion to postpone the trial until Wednesday
denied.
Mr.. Lord then moved that Mr. Lapham have perms
sion to print his argument tomorrow.
Mr.. Carpenter objected and gave notice that If the
request should be granted the defence would claim the
right 10 reply to that argument
The motion to print the argument granted
ARGUMENT OF MANAGER JESKs
Mr.. Manager jerks then spoke on the question OF
tact the side ol the prosecution. He argued that
am TO say This defendant is guilty OF, OF what
am to excuipate hims No other question was pre-
sented The charge in substance that OF bribery
Under the Mosaic law "a gift blinded the eyes Of the
wise and perverted the words Of the righteous" The
defendants counsel had attempted 10 show that no
agreement existed between Bclknap and Marsh. Mr
Manager jerks argued that II not necessary that
such agreement did exist II he took the
money matter whether 1t influenced his
ton or not, he was guilty OF the crimo OF bribery.
In the case Of Lord Bacon, in England, it was proven
that he accepted money and decided adverse to the
party who gave IT. yet he vas found guilty. Was 1t
possible tIat Great Britain IN 1920 pure than
the United states IN lS76y He then commented
the testimony IN the case showing that General Bel
KNAPP received money from Marsh, and claimed that
there no good defence OF that the
could decide the case upon the ingenuity or learning OF
counsel there would be good delence but IL hai
TO be decided upon tn ruth there was no good do
fence II had been argued the other side this
appointment had been gwen to Marsh on account OF
the Kindness OF bis family to Mrs. Bcknap, who was
sick at HIS home. The testimony showed that Mrs
Belknap sick at the house OF Marsh in September
1870, but the letter OF Marsh applying Tor the position
OF post by Bclknap August 1870
MIR. Carpenter-But he did not yet the appoint ment
unul October.
Mr. jenkins resuming argued that false entries had
been made upon the books of the War Department in
reference TO The application OF Marsh Tho post
traders oooS showing that the letter OF application OF
Marsh was received IN August stated u was accom-
panied by letters OF recommendation OF Job Stevenson
and Senator Sherman when IN point OF TACT the letter
ceivrd until the November follow ng ana Senator
Sherman did not recommend him at ALL
The manager then commented on the testimony in
regard enlargiDg the Fort Sill Reservation and
granting permission to Evans sell liquor
there. and argued that there secret
un erstanding betw, Beknap and Marsh to this end
He next referred 10 the publication in the New York
Tribune 1872 and said that article not published
until after BeIknap had received the letter from Cen
eraI Grlerson, commanding at Fort Sill, giving full
statement OF The abuses al the post Yet, when Cen
eral Mcdowell called the attention Of the Secretary OF
IN thA Tpy,fn Flnla fho utl
him about General Gricrsons letter. but requested
him (McDoweill 10 draw up an order to correct the
apuscs complained OF IN the Tribune article, which
der did DOT cover tho case us fully rs II Gen.
eral Grierson's letter had been shown him. No
doubt the Secretary would have been glad
but little by little the greed of gam had eaten
his nature, which was pure at first, until
fostering mass aud lett him the poor creature
he is now The Secretary did not inform General Nc
Doweli OF Griersons letter because he had motive
a deep, damning moiive-whch So 900 a year.
He quoted from the testimony Of General Mellow ell
and argued that Bclknup had mslcd McDowell had
heaped iasehood upon falsehood to conceal h,s crime
OF bribery. He then referred 10 the recomme ndatou
Ct General Belknap IN his report for 1875 recommend
ing that the law IN regard TO post traders should lie
changed and said no made that recommendation be-
n democratic House oil Representatives was CON-
ing in, and he thought such recommendation would
throw suspicion OF from himself.
In conclusion, Mr. jerks argued that the defendant
took influence mis- Official action: that It
1t was disagrecabe duty for the managers bring
these charges but ali owed duty TO the country.
The honor of the country depended upon the purity Of
her officers He asked tho Senators do their duty
to their country and find tho defendant guilty.
The Senate then took recess for fifteen minutes.
ARGUMENT JUDGE BLACK.
Upon reassembline, Judge Black OF counsel for the
accused sad It was his duty TO state the points IN
the case rather than TO comment upon them and no
would cndeavor to do so as briefly possible but he
would do with Harness, and without cxaggerating
the merits Of the Defence or detracng anything from
the evidence adduced by the House OF Rcpre
He felt deep interest in the OF General Beknap
simply because he his counsel but for reasons
which should operate upon the minds of all men as
well as upon himself The evidence showed
that General Belkuap man OF honor, whose whole
life had been Stainless and he Judge BacE) firmly be-
l,eved that he was the victim of foul accusation,
founded upon nothing upon this earth except certain
unfortunate circumstances Tor which be re-
sponsIDe He Judge Back) had the most profound
respect for the American Senate but II should con-
vic this man with the evidence before il he would go
down to his grave with the conviction upon his mind
that the august body country had been led
10y some nscruiable means TO pronounce = Judgment
appearing to them Just but which would be the most
unjust Jucg which stained or scan-
dazed tribunal Ii the defence could get justice
here, where earth could they look Tor ~ He then
referred to the arguments OF the managers
and said the extreme harshness and
severity of every expression which mad fallen
them annoyed him They lost opportunity al
any time TO denounce the defendant with bitterness
unwnrrantcd The manager who last spoke referred to
General Belknap as that poor corrupt creature sunk
down the lowest depths of infamy.n That manager
should know that, though the awful face of justice
sometimes darkened BY irown, 1t was never dis
figured BY q snccr
rHR QUESTION OF JURISDICTION
He then commented al length the question Of ju.
rsdction, and asked, How could man be removed
from Office which he dio not hold The only iudg-
men; tho Senate could pronounce was that OF removal
from office and disqualification from holding Office The
joined together by the constitution and what
the constitution put together let man put asunter
The question of jurisdiction was at least doubtful
and II 1t was doubtful who entitled the benefit
OF tho doubty
Rc,crring TO tho argument OF Mr. Manager Lypde
aud the authorities which he quoted Judge Black said
the managers learning almost tempted tho counsel ior
defence to say TO HIM what somebody SAID to ST.
Pau:-'So much learning hath made thee mad !,
daughter.
Mr. Thurman dem.) of Ohio submitted a question
the counsel TO the effect that II thirds vote of
tic Senate required TO override the plea TO urs-
dIction did " not follow that twothirds vote was re-
quired to overruc any opjecuon evidence or other
questions which might arsey
Judge Black replied in the negative and argued that
a two-th,rds vote necessary 10 establish any fact
essential 10 conviction. but every
might be established by majority He then referred
evidence aud argued that the Senate could not
convi the accused without Violating every nriucplc