Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1876-08-09

pulously honest The governor OF bis
States, and any number of ex-gover-
nors, and the Senators in Congress
would have testified TO the same fact
but he could not have had character
one whit better than that whichis made
out by General Belknap, and by tho
force of that character the accusation
would have been swept away like
chaf upon tho summer thrashing-floor'
Nobody would have thought of con
viction.
That the present chief magistrate
has taken large gifts from his friends
is fact as well known as any other
in the history OF the country. He did
1t openly without an attempt at con-
cealmcnt or denial. He not only re-
ceivcd money and land and houses and
goods amounting in the aggregate to
an enormous sum, but he coniormed
the policy of his Administration to the
interests and wishes of the donors
Nay, he did more than that he ap-
pointed the men who brought him
these gifts to the highest Offices which
he could bestow in return. Does any
body assert that General Grant was
guilty of an impeachable crime in taxi
ing these presents even though the re-
ceipt of them was followed by official
favors extended to the giversY Do
we not all regard him,still as one of
the greatest heroes and sages the world
has produced Instead of being i'm
peached and ignominiously removed
frcm Office he was flattercd and re-
elected. This all happens justly upon
the legal principle which commands
you to presume everything in favor OF
Innocence. General Grants wealthy
friends in New York gave him money
not with any evil design upon his in
togrity, but because it was a pleasure
to themselves and the President ap.
pointed them to office afterward not
because they had bought his favor but
because he thought the public good re-
quired it. This is the just and legal
conclusion in every case where there
is no proof of a bargain and no dis
tinct evidence of an intent to influence
and be influenced corruptly, Is the
law rcspectcr Of persons? Does not
a presumption which applies to the
President in the plenitude of his power
apply with equal force and even with
stronger reasons to his fallen ministeri
! fthc House OF Representatives con.
sidcred this subject coolly and came to
the deliberate conclusion that the re.
ception of gift by public officer was
either in itself punishable crime OF
evidence of a crime it was q sin and a
shame to drag the Secretary of Wai
before this tribunal after he became a
private citizen, while they allowed the
President TO finish his career in wicked
ness without interruption. Were those
gallant gentlemen afraid TO take the
chief magistrate by the throat, or did
they suppose that the Senate would
use one measure of justice for Grant
and another for Bellnap2 No, they
did no such injustice either to you oi
/ to themselves. They thought they
could produce satisfactory evidence Il
show that the gift to Belknap was
something more than gift, that i,
was bride paid in pursuance of a con
tract or in consideration of officia
favors bestowed or promised. That |,
what they allege in the articles. But
having utterly failed to prove it they
ought in honor and conscience TO give
up the case. -i-i
/ II the giving or receiving Of presents
is necessarily and in It's own nature al
ways criminal, and if the power to i'm
peach for II survives the term of Office
why have they overlooked the offens,
of Judge Hoar who gave the President
a library Of costly literature and law
They might prove that the giver o
that present was afterward commits
stoned by the receiver as Attorney
General and nominated for Judge o
the Supreme court and they NIGH
argue with some show Of reason thai
these appointments being post hoe were
also propter hoe. But the inierenc,
would have been false for Judge Hoal
in making the gift acted merely upor
the impulses of generous heart, anC
the President promoted him becaus,
he was the best man for the offices hC
put him in. Such being the natura
and the legal presumption in that case
why should il not also be made in thi,
case2
Anothcrdistinguished gentleman helt
the office Of Attorney General and wai
afterward by kind OF translation sem
to the court of 81. James, where he
now resides as the American plenipo
tentiary. Before he got these higl
places he not only admitted but pro
claimed that he had subscribed 500,
900 TO fund for the benefit of th,
President. Who can prove that these
acts were corrupt Or who will dare
to assert II without proof2
There is another class Of cases, more
numerous than these, in which the
law and public opinion indulge officer,
in giving and receiving money for Their
personal purposes. A high.placcd
gentleman wants to be continued in
power and TO that end certain mum.
Der of popular votes is required. lie
demands from his subordinates money
enough to get the votes and he cniorces
the order by the distinct notification
that whatsoever refuses 10 contribute
will be dismissed from his place
These very posttraders were forced tc
make enormous contributions in that