Year: 1876

Tho Senate, by a small majority, has
decided that it has jurisdiction in the
Belknap affair, and the trial will proceed,
This opens the way for the consideration
of some very curious questions. One
point, indicating that the trial will be
STAYED of by the springing Of every pos
sible legal technicality, appears in the ar
gument of Belknap's counsel that the
vote in the Senate upon the question of
its own Jurisdiction is a judicial one and
therefore requires the same two-thirds
affirmative vote necessary to a conviction.
Another is the further argument that
those Senators who voted "no" upon
the question Of jurisdiction are bound to
vote the same way upon the question Of
the guilt or innocence of the accused, thu:
nsuring his acquttal.


Without this question Of technical
points, the assumption of jurisdiction by
the Senate opens very grave question.
The people who desire to see corruption
checked and criminals punished, care very





the desire shown by Beknap and his
counsel to make their defense in this
manner is tantamount to a confession Of
guilt. Conscious innocence will court
investigation, asking only that it be fair
and unprejudiced. Mr.. Belknap may be
acquitted by the Senate, but il his ac-
quittal rests upon the mere ground of lack
Of power in the body which held the trial,
it will do nothing toward removing the
impression of actual guilt from the public
mind. Criminals may, through torturing
the law, go unwhipt Of justice, but where,
as in the present case, the great punish
ment comes from public opinion, it will
matter but little whether the sentence Of
a court is actually pronounced or not.


The question Of jurisdiction has assum-
ed prominence since the Senate has de-
cided affirmatively, upon suppositious
cases. Belknap was no longer in the
service OF the Government at the time
these proceedings were commenced, and
it is now held that if jurisdiction attains
in his case it also attans in the case Of
any Government ex-official. The history
of the country for the past four Presi-
dental terms offers numerous instances in
which those who have held high position
could be called to account for alleged high
crimes and misdemeanors. There being
no statue of limitation to run against and





bar the institution Of such proceedings,
there would be fine opportunity to
wreak political vengeance upon prominent
opponents whenever thore was a change
Of political parties. The past could be
raked up for number of years and men
who were retired from the cares and duties
O. p.b.ic lie annoyed by groundless accu-
sations which they would nevertheless
feel themselves called upon to defend.


Somehow we think the Senate has
rather overstepped its limits in the de-
csion Affirmative Of jurisdiction. We
are the more inclined to believe this from
the fact that the Democratic Senators have
given the question party view by voting





Questions of judicial nature should bo
decided without reference to their political
bearings, but unfortunately such is not
always the line of procedure. Courts OF
justice are at times moved by popular
feeling, and legislative bodies cannot al
ways divest themselves of their partisan
ship when they act on matters of Judi
cia! character. Illustrative OF this is the
action Of the California Legis ture of
lS69-70 which took dirty advantage Of
the return Of Democratic power to ex-
punge from the Journals ofthe Legislature
of 1862 the record of the impeachment Of
Judge james ii. Hardy. Naturally we
should suppose that the solemn judgment
of Court would stand, unless evdence
was adduced showing the conviction to
have been obtained by misapprehenso
OF facts ; but no ! party demanded tho
reversal Of that judgment, and the be-
hests Of party were obeyed. OF the sixty
seven Democrats elected to the Assem- bly,
that year, but one-Andrews of Shasta
could be found to stand up for plain jus
tice. II is hardly necessary for us to add
that party which could thus violate all
forms Of decency in order to make Hardy's
treason respectable, was hurled from
power in the State at the succeeding cleo
ton. Belknap's case shows the hand of
partisanship equally plain. There may
be point made for Democracy if Bel
knap is impeachcd, and this warped the
judgment Of the Democratic Senators.
More than one-fourth of the Republican
Senators voted to sustain the question of
jurisdiction, actuated doubtless by de- |
siro to do right regardless Of the injury it
might do to their party.


The nation will blame President Grant |
for having 30 readily accepted Belknap's
resignation. He was under a cloud by
his own admission, and should not have
been permitted to retire from his official
position until he could do 80 honorably. |
But when he ceased to be an officer of the !
Government, it would seem that the power
of the Government over him as such |
should have ceased The Courts of the |
country could deal with him as Grim
incl ard there the matter should have
been left. The impeachment trial is a
farce, and whatever may be its termina-
tion will be so regarded.


-----.e.--@