Year: 1876




long ago, and the effects of the verdict are
not likely to be felt in the canvass further
than they have been felt already. The nc
quittal of this man will prove gain only to
himself while in some respects it will be
hurtful to good government and pure ad-
ministration. Belknap was self-confessed
bribe taker. He was tried and acquitted
only upon a technicality. If twenty
two Senators had not had greater
regard for their own opinion upon
question OF jurisdiction which few
Of them are capable of understanding than
for the principles of justice tho decision
would have been the reverse of what it is
OF the other three who voted mot guilty"
the reasons of Mr.. Eaton, Of Connecticut, as
matter Of course are past finding OUT while
Mr. Conover of Florida, and Mr.. Wright, OF
Iowa, believe the charges were not sustained
by the evidence. Such being their belief
their action is justified to their conscicnces
and their countrymen AS to those who
voted for acquittal because they believed the
Senate had no jurisdiction, they simply
strained at gnat and swallowed O camel.





1t is easy for man to set up his opinion
against the world, but when he makes it ON
excuse for wrong act on his own part he
must expect some of the odium which at
taches not only to wrong doing but to de-
Tending a wrong. The vote to acquit Bel
lnap yesterday was vote to let guilty
man escape, Gnd, construe it rs we may, we
can make nothing else out of it.


AS to General Belknap himself, 1t makes
little real difference whether he WAS con-
victed or acquitted. In either case he was
irretrievably ruined and disgrnced. His
position is one that alternately excites sym
pathy and provokes ridicule. He was a
bluff, hearty, good-natured fellow, who. as
men go, had more in him of good than of
evil. In the position in life for which he
was fitted by his abilities and requirements
he would have been respected till the end
Of his days. In an evil hour, however, he
went to Washington to secure his retention
in q petty Office which President Johnson
had given him, and General Grant unfortu-
nately looked upon him as proper
person to fill q place in his Off
cial family. When Rawlins died Bel
knap was appointed in his stead.
Bringing to the Office neither great abilities
nor much experience in military affairs the
new Secretary undertook to rule the depart
ment with an autocratic sway even greater
than that which had been shown by his
chief in the field. Politically he was am
bilious, but his social pride outran even his
political ambition. He soon quarrelled with
the General of the Army and so lost his hold
upon the sympathies of the country. His
social needs almost Immediately began to
outrun his meagre means. He married
wives who were disposed to shine in society,
but, like the foolish virgins they were with
out oil in their lamps. Then came the temp
tation, and he fell. He ought to have known
that q man who is base enough to give
bribe will also tell of it again, but he ignored
the danger and trusted the tempter. The
end came soon enough One morning he
awoke to find himself dishonored and cast
out from among men by the revelations of
the friend upon whom he had relied and who
shared in the guilt and the profits of their
transactions. In the language of an old and
homely saying, he went up like rocket and
came down like the stick. In q moment his
bright, almost brilliant, record as brave
and honorable man was blotted out. His
misdeeds were self-evident and self
confessed. A fall so great was in it.
self sufficient punishment, perhaps; but
when the Senate determined to try him
verdict of guilty was necessary as the official
condemnation of his crimes. Acquittal can
not give him back the good name he has lost
nor the esteem in which he was held, and
these were the only things for which it was
worth his while to contend.


1t follows from all this that the verdict
which the Senate put upon record yesterday
was unworthy Of Senators and of the coun-
try. Inhexibility of purpose in the per-
formance of public duty yielded to emo
tions of tenderness for q personal and polit-
ical friend. A technicality of the lawyers
swayed the action of the court. Never was
Judgment so manifestly wrong, both when
considered from the sides of reason and of
conscience, and in scanning the vote of
Belknaps judges we have no patience with
them or their verdict. If there had been
any question Of the right of the Senate to
convict we could look with more kindness
upon the fact of acquittal but the right was
determined when the Senate decided it had
jurisdiction of the offences. The vote shows
that both the right and the duty were
sustained by such men as Bayard,
of Delaware Cameron, of Pennsyl-
vania; Dawes. of Massachusetts,; Edmunds,
of Vermont; Herman, of New York; McDon-
aid, of Indiana Sherman and Thurman, of
Ohio; Stevenson, of Kentucky, and Wad-
leigh, of New Hampshire. Even Morton,
Oglesby and Booth, who believed the