[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 3]
[Chapter 77 - The Impeachment and Trial of William W. Belknap]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF WILLIAM W. BELKNAP.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Proceedings resulting from developments of a general
investigation. Section 2444.
2. Impeachment of an officer after his resignation. Section
2445.
3. Presentation of impeachment at bar of Senate. Section 2446.
4. Drawing the articles and choosing the managers. Sections
2447, 2448.
5. The articles presented in the Senate. Section 2449.
6. Organization of the Senate for the trial. Section 2450.
7. Summons issued. Section 2451.
8. Appearance and answer of respondent. Sections 2452, 2453.
9. Replication of the House. Section 2454.
10. Rejoinder, surrejoinder, and similiter. Section 2455.
11. A question of delay. Section 2456.
12. Arguments and decision on plea to jurisdiction. Sections
2457-2459.
13. Respondent declines to answer on merits and protests.
Sections 2460, 2461.
14. The trial proceeds. Sections 2462-2464.
15. Final arguments. Section 2465.
16. Decision of the Senate. Sections 2466, 2467.
17. Report of managers to the House. Sectionm 2468.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2444. The impeachment and trial of William W. Belknap, late Secretary
of War.
The impeachment of Secretary Belknap was set in motion through the
findings of a committee empowered to investigate generally.
Form of resolution authorizing a general investigation of the
Departments of the Government in 1876.
A committee empowered to investigate generally reported a resolution
for the impeachment of Secretary Belknap.
The committee reported a resolution for the impeachment of Secretary
Belknap, although they had been informed of his resignation of the
office.
The work of drawing up the articles impeaching Secretary Belknap was
referred to the Judiciary Committee.
On January 14, 1876,\1\ Mr. William R. Morrison, of Illinois, from
the Committee
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, House Journal,, pp. 183,
184; Record, p. 414.
Sec. 2444
on Ways and Means, reported the following resolution in lieu of several
resolutions which had been referred to the said committee:
Resolved, That the several committees of this House having in charge
matters pertaining to appropriations, foreign affairs, Indian affairs,
military affairs, naval affairs, post-office and post-roads, public
lands, public buildings and grounds, claims, and war claims be, and
they are hereby, instructed to inquire, so far as the same may properly
be before their respective committees, into any errors, abuses, or
frauds that may exist in the administration and execution of existing
laws affecting said branches of the public service, with a view to
ascertain what change and reformation can be made so as to promote
integrity, economy, and efficiency therein; that the Committees on
Expenditures in the State Department, in the Treasury Department, in
the War Department, in the Navy Department, in the Post-Office
Department, in the Interior Department, in the Department of Justice,
and on Public Buildings be, and they are hereby, instructed to proceed
at once, as required by the rules of the House, to examine into the
state of the accounts and expenditures of the respective Departments
submitted to them, and to examine and report particularly whether the
expenditures of the respective Departments are justified by law;
whether the claims from time to time satisfied and discharged by the
respective Departments are supported by sufficient vouchers,
establishing their justness both as to their character and amount;
whether such claims have been discharged out of funds appropriated
therefor, and whether all moneys have been disbursed in conformity with
appropriation laws; whether any, and what, provisions are necessary to
be adopted to provide more perfectly for the proper application of the
public moneys and to secure the Government from demands unjust in their
character or extravagant in their amount; whether any, and what,
retrenchment can be made in the expenditures of the several Departments
without detriment to the public service; whether any, and what, abuses
at any time exist in the failure to enforce the payment of moneys which
may be due to the United States from public defaulters or others, and
to report from time to time such provisions and arrangements as may be
necessary to add to the economy of the several Departments and the
accountability of their officers; whether any offices belonging to the
branches or Departments, respectively, concerning whose expenditures it
is their duty to inquire, have become useless or unnecessary; and to
report from time to time on the expediency of modifying or abolishing
the same also to examine into the pay and emoluments of all officers
under the laws of the United States and to report from time to time
such a reduction or increase thereof as a just economy and the public
service may require. And for the purpose of enabling the several
committees to fully comprehend the workings of the various branches or
Departments of Government, respectively, the investigations of said
committees may cover such period in the past as each of said committees
may deem necessary for its own guidance or information or for the
protection of the public interests in the exposing of frauds or abuses
of any kind that may exist in said Departments; and said committees are
authorized to send for persons and papers, and may report by bill or
otherwise.
Resolved further, That the Committee on Public Expenditures be
instructed to investigate and inquire into all matters set forth in the
foregoing resolutions in the legislative departments of the Government,
except in so far as the Senate is exclusively concerned, particularly
in reference to the public printing and binding, and shall have the
same authority that is conferred upon the other committees aforesaid.
This resolution, under the operation of the previous question, was
agreed to without debate or division.
On March 2,\1\ Mr. Hiester Clymer, of Pennsylvania, chairman of the
Committee on Expenditures in the War Department, presented the
following as the unanimous report of that committee:
That they found at the very threshold of their investigation such
unquestioned evidence of the malfeasance in office by Gen. William W.
Belknap, then Secretary of War, that they find it to be their duty to
lay the same before the House.
They further report that this day at 11 o'clock a.m. a letter of the
President of the United States was presented to the committee accepting
the resignation of the Secretary of War, which is hereto
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, p. 496; Record, pp. 1426-1433.
Sec. 2445
attached, together with a copy of his letter of resignation, which the
President informs the committee was accepted about 10 o'clock and 20
minutes this morning. They therefore unanimously report and demand that
the said William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, be dealt with
according to the laws of the land, and to that end submit herewith the
testimony in the case taken, together with the several statements and
exhibits thereto attached, and also a rescript of the proceedings of
the committee had during the investigation of this subject. And they
submit the following resolutions, which they recommend shall be
adopted:
``Resolved, That William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, be
impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors while in office.
``Resolved, That the testimony in the case of William W. Belknap,
late Secretary of War, be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary,
with instructions to prepare and report without unnecessary delay
suitable articles of impeachment of said William W. Belknap, late
Secretary of War.
``Resolved, That a committee of five Members of this House be
appointed and instructed to proceed immediately to the bar of the
Senate, and there impeach William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, in
the name of the House of Representatives and of all the people of the
United States of America, of high crimes and misdemeanors while in
office, and to inform that body that formal articles of impeachment
will in due time be presented, and to request the Senate to take such
order in the premises as they deem appropriate.''
2445. Belknap's impeachment continued.
The committee which ascertained questionable facts concerning the
conduct of Secretary Belknap gave him opportunity to explain, present
witnesses, and cross-examine witnesses.
The House, after a review of English precedents, determined to
impeach Secretary Belknap, although he had resigned.
The impeachment of Secretary Belknap was carried to the Senate by a
committee of five.
The minority party were represented on the committee to carry the
impeachment of Secretary Belknap to the Senate.
Appended to this report,\1\ were extracts from the proceedings of the
committee showing--
That the Secretary of War had been informed of the testimony, which
was read to him in the committee room by the chairman; and that, on his
request, he was permitted to employ counsel and cross-examine the
witness;
That the committee also gave the Secretary of War permission to
appear and make a sworn statement; but that he failed to appear; and
That the evidence against the Secretary of War consisted of the
testimony of a single witness, Caleb P. Marsh, partially substantiated
as to the charges against the Secretary by a copy of a certain contract
between Marsh and one John S. Evans, and substantiated as to certain
collateral matters by statements of other persons.
The question being on agreeing to the resolutions accompanying the
report, a brief discussion arose. Mr. George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts,
objected that impeachment should not be voted so hastily when they were
confronted with the important question whether or not an officer could
be impeached after resignation. The cases of Warren Hastings and Lord
Francis Bacon were hardly applicable, since in England any man might be
impeached, while in America only civil officers were subject to that
proceeding. Mr. Hoar also cited Story on the Constitution as taking the
view that an officer might not be impeached after resignation. Mr. J.
C. S.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Record, p. 1426.
Sec. 2446
Blackburn, of Kentucky, contended, however, that such was not the
import of Judge Story's words, and cited, besides the English cases,
the Durell case in the Forty-third Congress as justifying the action
proposed by the committee.
Debate having been closed by the previous question, the resolutions
were agreed to without division.
And thereupon, under authority of the third resolution, the Speaker
\1\ appointed as a committee Messrs. Hiester Clymer, of Pennsylvania;
William M. Robbins, of North Carolina; J. C. S. Blackburn, of Kentucky;
Lyman K. Bass, of New York, and Lorenzo Danford, of Ohio.
These gentlemen were the members of the Committee on Expenditures in
the War Department, and a portion of them represented the minority
party in the House.
2446. Belknap's impeachment continued.
Ceremonies and forms of presenting the impeachment of Secretary
Belknap at the bar of the Senate.
Having carried the impeachment of Secretary Belknap to the Senate,
the committee returned and reported verbally to the House.
Forms of resolutions in the Senate providing for taking order on the
impeachment of Secretary Belknap.
The message informing the Senate that a committee would impeach
Secretary Belknap at the bar of the Senate included the names of the
committee.
On March 3,\2\ in the Senate, the following message was received from
the House of Representatives at 12 o'clock and 55 minutes p.m., by the
hands of Mr. Green Adams, its Chief Clerk:
Mr. President, the House of Representatives has passed the following
resolution:
``Resolved, That a committee of five Members of this House be
appointed and instructed to proceed immediately to the bar of the
Senate, and there impeach William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, in
the name of the House of Representatives and of all the people of the
United States of America, of high crimes and misdemeanors while in
office, and to inform that body that formal articles of impeachment
will in due time be presented, and to request the Senate to take such
order in the premises as they may deem appropriate.''
And it has
``Ordered, That Messrs. Hiester Clymer, of Pennsylvania; W. M.
Robbins, of North Carolina; J. C. S. Blackburn, of Kentucky; L. K.
Bass, of New York, and Lorenzo Danford, of Ohio, be the committee
aforesaid.''
At 1 o'clock p.m. the Sergeant-at-Arms announced the committee from
the House of Representatives, who appeared at the bar of the Senate.
The committee advanced to the area in front of the Chair, when
Mr. Clymer said:
Mr. President, in obedience to the order of the House of
Representatives we appear before you, and, in the name of the House of
Representatives and of all the people of the United States of America,
we do impeach William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War of the United
States, of high crimes and misdemeanors while in office; and we further
inform the Senate that the House of Representatives will in due time
exhibit articles of impeachment against him, and make good the same.
And in their
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Michael C. Kerr, of Indiana, Speaker.
\2\ Senate Journal, pp. 271, 272; Record, p. 1436.
Sec. 2447
name we demand that the Senate shall take order for the appearance of
the said William W. Belknap to answer said impeachment.
The President pro tempore.\1\ Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the
committee of the House of Representatives, the Senate will take order
in the premises.
The committee thereupon withdrew.
Thereupon Mr. George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, following the usual
precedents, offered this order, which was agreed to:
Ordered, That the message of the House of Representatives relating to
the impeachment of William W. Belknap be referred to a select committee
to consist of five Senators.
The President pro tempore, by authorization of the Senate, appointed
the following committee: Messrs. George F. Edmunds, of Vermont; Roscoe
Conkling, of New York; Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey; Allen
G. Thurman, of Ohio, and John W. Stevenson, of Kentucky.
Meanwhile the committee on the part of the House had returned to the
Hall of Representatives, and Mr. Clymer reported \2\ verbally--
that, in obedience to the order of the House, the committee proceeded
to the bar of the Senate and, in the name of this body and of all the
people of the United States, impeached William W. Belknap, late
Secretary of War, of high crimes and misdemeanors in office, and
demanded that the Senate shall take order to make him appear before
that body and answer for the same, and stated that the House would in
due time present articles of impeachment and make them good; to which
the response was, Order shall be taken.''
On March 6,\3\ in the Senate, Mr. Edmunds reported from the select
committee the following orders, which were agreed to without division:
Whereas the House of Representatives on the 3d day of March, 1876, by
five of its Members, Messrs. Clymer, Robbins, Blackburn, Bass, and
Danford, at the bar of the Senate, impeached William W. Belknap, late
Secretary of War, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and informed the
Senate that the House of Representatives will in due time exhibit
particular articles of impeachment against him, and make good the same;
and likewise demanded that the Senate take order for the appearance of
the said William W. Belknap to answer the said impeachment: Therefore,
Ordered, That the Senate will, according to its standing rules and
orders in such cases provided, take proper order thereon (upon the
presentation of articles of impeachment), of which due notice shall be
given to the House of Representatives.
Ordered, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives
herewith.
2447. Belknap's impeachment continued.
In the Belknap case the committee in drawing up articles needed
certain special powers as to witnesses.
Discussion of the law giving immunity to witnesses testifying before
committees of the House.
On March 8 \4\ Mr. J. Proctor Knott, of Kentucky, from the Committee
on the Judiciary, who had been directed to report articles of
impeachment on the evidence referred to them, submitted the following
report:
The Committee on the Judiciary would respectfully report that, in
pursuance of the instructions of the House, they have prepared articles
of impeachment against William W. Belknap, late Secretary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas W. Ferry, of Michigan, President pro tempore.
\2\ House Journal, p. 503.
\3\ Senate Journal, pp. 278, 279.
\4\ House Journal, pp. 537, 538; Record, pp. 1564-1566; House Report
No. 222.
Sec. 2448
of War, for high crimes and misdemeanors in office, but that, since
preparing the same, they have been informed and believe that Caleb P.
Marsh, upon whose testimony before the Committee on Expenditures in the
War Department, and referred to them by the House, said articles were
framed, has gone beyond the jurisdiction of the Government of the
United States, and that probably his attendance as a witness before the
Senate sitting as a court of impeachment can not be procured; and that
they are also informed and believe that other evidence may be procured
sufficient to convict said William W. Belknap of high crimes and
misdemeanors in office as Secretary of War. They therefore recommend
the adoption of the following resolution:
``Resolved, That the resolution instructing the Committee on the
Judiciary to prepare articles of impeachment against William W.
Belknap, late Secretary of War, for high crimes and misdemeanors in
office, be recommitted to said committee with power to take further
proof, to send for persons and papers, to sit during the sessions of
the House, and to report at any time.''
Your committee, impressed with the importance of securing the fullest
indemnity to such witnesses as may be required to testify in behalf of
the Government before either House of Congress, or any committee of
either House, or before the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment,
would also recommend the immediate passage of the accompanying bill,
entitled ``A bill to protect witnesses who shall be required to testify
in certain cases.'' They would further recommend that the accompanying
bill, entitled ``A bill in relation to witnesses,'' be introduced,
printed, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, with leave to
report thereon at any time.
In the course of the debate it was urged that so grave a proceeding
as the presentation of articles of impeachment should not be undertaken
on the testimony of a single witness when, by greater deliberation,
other testimony might be procured.
The resolution was agreed to without division.
Immediately thereafter \1\ Mr. Knott called up the bill referred to
in the report:
A bill (H.R. No. 2572) to protect witnesses who shall be required to
testify in certain cases.
Be it enacted, etc., That whenever any person shall be required to
testify against his protest before either House of Congress or any
committee thereof, or the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment, and
shall so testify under protest, he shall not thereafter be held to
answer criminally in any court of justice, or subject to any penalty or
forfeiture, on account of any fact or act concerning which he shall be
so required to testify: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall
be so construed as to relieve any person from liability to impeachment.
Mr. Knott explained that this provision was necessary because the
existing law, section 859 of the Revised Statutes, giving indemnity to
witnesses, did not go far enough. A witness might decline to answer on
the ground that his answer might uncover other evidence which would
incriminate him.
After debate the bill was passed, yeas 206, nays 8.
In the Senate on April 11 \2\ the bill was reported adversely and did
not become a law.
2448. Belknap's impeachment continued.
The articles impeaching Secretary Belknap were considered in the
House and agreed to without amendment.
The House decided to appoint the managers of the Belknap impeachment
by resolution instead of by ballot.
One of the managers of the Belknap impeachment being excused, the
House chose another.
The minority party were represented among the managers of the Belknap
impeachment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, pp. 537, 538; Record, pp. 1566-1572.
\2\ Senate Journal, p. 413; Senate Report, No. 253.
Sec. 2448
It seems to have been conceded in the Belknap impeachment that the
managers should be in accord with the sentiments of the House.
Method of designating the chairman of the managers in the Belknap
impeachment.
Forms of resolutions providing for presenting in the Senate the
articles impeaching Secretary Belknap.
The message informing the Senate that articles would be presented
against Secretary Belknap contained the names of the managers.
On March 30,\1\ in the House, Mr. Knott, from the Committee on the
Judiciary, submitted a report, consisting of articles of impeachment
(not accompanied by testimony) and a resolution. The articles appear in
full in the House Journal. The resolution:
Resolved, That seven managers be appointed by ballot to conduct the
impeachment exhibited against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War
of the United States.
On April 3 \2\ the report on the articles of impeachment was called
up in the House:
The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration the
resolution of the House directing them to prepare and report articles
in support of the impeachment of William W. Belknap, late Secretary of
War, for high crimes and misdemeanors in office, respectfully report
the following articles and accompanying resolutions for the action of
the House:
``Resolved, That the following articles be adopted and presented to
the Senate in maintenance and support of the impeachment for high
crimes and misdemeanors in office of William. W. Belknap, late
Secretary of War:'' [Here followed the articles.]
These articles were considered in the House without any question
being raised as to the propriety of considering them in Committee of
the Whole. Under operation of the previous question the resolution
adopting the articles, with the accompanying articles, was agreed to, a
separate vote not being demanded on any article and no proposition to
amend being made.
Then the resolution providing for the appointment of seven managers
by ballot was considered, and Mr. Hiester Clymer proposed the following
amendment in the nature of a substitute:
Strike out all after the word ``resolved'' and insert:
That Messrs. J. Proctor Knott, of Kentucky; Scott Lord, of New York;
William P. Lynde, of Wisconsin; John A. McMahon, of Ohio; George A.
Jenks, of Pennsylvania; William A. Wheeler, of New York; and George F.
Hoar, of Massachusetts, be, and they are hereby, appointed managers on
the part of this House to conduct the impeachment exhibited against
William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War of the United States.
The amendment was agreed to, and the resolution as amended was agreed
to.
Thereupon Mr. Wheeler, of New York, asked to be excused from service,
and the request was granted by the House.
Mr. Elbridge G. Lapham, of New York, was nominated to fill the
vacancy, whereupon Mr. Eppa Hunton, of Virginia, expressed the opinion
that the managers should be in accord with the sentiments of the House
on the question, and asked if Mr. Lapham was thus qualified. Mr.
Fernando Wood, of New York, said that in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, pp. 696-703; Record, pp. 2081, 2082; House Report
No. 345.
\2\ House Journal, pp. 726-733; Record, pp. 2159-2161.
Sec. 2449
selecting managers they had not gone into any very severe examination
of qualifications, assuming that they would represent the House in the
opinions which it had expressed unanimously. Without further objection
Mr. Lapham was chosen by the House as a manager.
Then, at the request of Mr. Knott, the name of Mr. Lord was placed at
the head of the list of managers.
Of the managers, as thus chosen, the first five were Members of the
majority party in the House and the remaining two were Members of the
minority party.
On motion of Mr. Clymer the following resolutions were agreed to:
Resolved, That the articles agreed to by this House to be exhibited
in the name of themselves and of all the people of the United States
against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, in maintenance of
their impeachment against him of high crimes and misdemeanors in office
be carried to the Senate by the managers appointed to conduct said
impeachment.
Resolved, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that
this House have appointed Mr. Scott Lord, of New York; Mr. J. Proctor
Knott, of Kentucky; Mr. William P. Lynde, of Wisconsin; Mr. John A.
McMahon, of Ohio; Mr. George A. Jenks, of Pennsylvania; Mr. Elbridge G.
Lapham, of New York; and Mr. George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts, managers
to conduct the impeachment against William W. Belknap, late Secretary
of War, and have directed the said managers to carry to the Senate the
articles agreed upon by this House to be exhibited in maintenance of
their impeachment against said William W. Belknap, and that the Clerk
of the House do go with said message.
As first offered, the second resolution did not contain the names of
the managers; but Mr. James A. Garfield, of Ohio, suggested that
inasmuch as the Senate was always informed of the names of the managers
of a conference, it seemed right that they should be similarly informed
in this far more important proceeding. So the names were included.
2449. Belknap's impeachment continued.
Ceremonies and forms in presenting in the Senate the articles
impeaching Secretary Belknap.
The articles of impeachment in the Belknap case.
Forms of messages preceding the presentation of the articles
impeaching Secretary Belknap.
The House did not accompany their managers when articles of
impeachment were presented against Secretary Belknap.
The articles impeaching Secretary Belknap were signed by the Speaker
and attested by the Clerk.
The chairman of the managers having read the articles impeaching
Secretary Belknap, laid them on the table of the Senate.
Having presented in the Senate the articles impeaching Secretary
Belknap, the managers reported verbally in the House.
On April 3,\1\ in the Senate, Mr. George M. Adams, Clerk of the House
of Representatives, appeared at the bar of the Senate and said:
Mr. President, I am directed to inform the Senate that the House of
Representatives has passed the following resolutions: [Here followed
the resolutions.]
The President pro tempore said:
The Secretary will inform the House of Representatives that the
Senate will receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting articles
of impeachment agreeably to notice received.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, p. 378; Record, p. 2155.
Sec. 2449
The Clerk of the House thereupon withdrew.
On April 4,\1\ in the House, the Secretary of the Senate delivered
this message:
I am directed to inform the House that the Senate is ready to receive
the managers appointed by the House of Representatives to carry to the
Senate articles of impeachment against William W. Belknap, Secretary of
War.
Soon after the receipt of this message Mr. Manager Lord, rising to a
question of privilege,\2\ asked if it was the wish of the House to
accompany the managers in the presentation of the articles of
impeachment. It was recalled that in the cases of Judge Humphreys and
President Johnson the House had accompanied the managers; but, on the
other hand, it was pointed out that the message of the Senate referred
only to the managers. No proposition that the House attend was made and
the matter dropped.
Soon after, in the Senate,\3\ the managers of the impeachment on the
part of the House of Representatives appeared at the bar (at 1 o'clock
and 25 minutes p.m.) and their presence was announced by the Sergeant-
at-Arms.
The President pro tempore. The managers on the part of the House of
Representatives are admitted and the Sergeant-at-Arms will conduct them
to seats provided for them within the bar of the Senate.
The managers were thereupon escorted by the Sergeant-at-Arms of the
Senate to the seats assigned to them in the area in front of the Chair.
Mr. Manager Lord. Mr. President, the managers on the part of the
House of Representatives are ready to exhibit on the part of the House
articles of impeachment against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of
War.
The President pro tempore. The Sergeant-at-Arms will make
proclamation.
The Sergeant-at-Arms. Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons are
commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of
Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States
articles of impeachment against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of
War.
Mr. Manager Lord rose and read the articles of impeachment,\4\ as
follows:
Articles exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States
of America in the names of themselves and of all the
people of the United States of America, against
William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, in
maintenance and support of their impeachment against
him for high crimes and misdemeanors while in said
office.
Article I.
That William W. Belknap, while he was in office as Secretary of War
of the United States of America, to wit, on the 8th day of October,
1870, had the power and authority, under the laws of the United States,
as Secretary of War, as aforesaid, to appoint a person to maintain a
trading establishment at Fort Sill, a military post of the United
States; that said Belknap, as Secretary of War, as aforesaid, on the
day and year aforesaid, promised to appoint one Caleb P. Marsh to
maintain said trading establishment at said military post; that
thereafter, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, the said Caleb P.
Marsh and one John S. Evans entered into an agreement in writing
substantially as follows, to wit:
Articles of agreement made and entered into this 8th day of October, A.
D. 1870, by and between John S. Evans, of Fort Sill,
Indian Territory, United States of America, of the
first part, and Caleb P. Marsh, of No. 51 West
Thirty-fifth street, of the city, county, and State
of New York, of the second part, witnesseth, namely:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, p. 743; Record, p. 2182.
\2\ Record, p. 2194.
\3\ Senate Journal, pp. 383-390; Record, pp. 2178-2180.
\4\ These articles appear in full in the Senate Journal.
Sec. 2449
``Whereas the said Caleb P. Marsh has received from Gen. William W.
Belknap, Secretary of War of the United States, the appointment of
posttrader at Fort Sill, aforesaid; and whereas the name of said John
S. Evans is to be filled into the commission of appointment of said
posttrader at Fort Sill, aforesaid, by permission and at the instance
and request of said Caleb P. Marsh and for the purpose of carrying out
the terms of this agreement; and whereas said John S. Evans is to hold
said position of posttrader, as aforesaid, solely as the appointee of
said Caleb P. Marsh and for the purposes hereinafter stated:
``Now, therefore, said John S. Evans, in consideration of said
appointment and the sum of $1 to him in hand paid by said Caleb P.
Marsh, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby covenants
and agrees to pay to said Caleb P. Marsh the sum of $12,000 annually,
payable quarterly in advance, in the city of New York, aforesaid; said
sum to be so payable during the first year of this agreement absolutely
and under all circumstances, anything hereinafter contained to the
contrary notwithstanding; and thereafter said sum shall be so payable,
unless increased or reduced in amount, in accordance with the
subsequent provisions of this agreement.
``In consideration of the premises, it is mutually agreed between the
parties aforesaid as follows, namely:
``First. This agreement is made on the basis of seven cavalry
companies of the United States Army, which are now stationed at Fort
Sill aforesaid.
``Second. If at the end of the first year of this agreement the
forces of the United States Army stationed at Fort Sill, aforesaid,
shall be increased or diminished not to exceed one hundred men, then
this agreement shall remain in full force and unchanged for the next
year. If, however, the said forces shall be increased or diminished
beyond the number of one hundred men, then the amount to be paid under
this agreement by said John S. Evans to said Caleb P. Marsh shall be
increased or reduced in accordance therewith and in proper proportion
thereto. The above rule laid down for the continuation of this
agreement at the close of the first year thereof shall be applied at
the close of each succeeding year so long as this agreement shall
remain in force and effect.
``Third. This agreement shall remain in force and effect so long as
said Caleb P. Marsh shall hold or control, directly or indirectly, the
appointment and position of posttrader at Fort Sill, aforesaid.
``Fourth. This agreement shall take effect from the date and day the
Secretary of War, aforesaid, Shall sign the commission of posttrader at
Fort Sill, aforesaid, said commission to be issued to said John S.
Evans at the instance and request of said Caleb P. Marsh and solely for
the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this agreement.
``Fifth. Exception is hereby made in regard to the first quarterly
payment under this agreement, it being agreed and understood that the
same may be paid at any time within the next thirty days after the said
Secretary of War shall sign the aforesaid commission of posttrader at
Fort Sill.
``Sixth. Said Caleb P. Marsh is at all times, at the request of said
John S. Evans, to use any proper influence he may have with said
Secretary of War for the protection of said John S. Evans while in the
discharge of his legitimate duties in the conduct of the business as
posttrader at Fort Sill, aforesaid.
``Seventh. Said John S. Evans is to conduct the said business of
posttrader at Fort Sill, aforesaid, solely on his own responsibility
and in his own name, it being expressly agreed and understood that said
Caleb P. Marsh shall assume no liability in the premises whatever.
``Eighth. And it is expressly understood and agreed that the
stipulations and covenants aforesaid are to apply to and bind the
heirs, executors, and administrators of the respective parties.
``In witness whereof the parties to these presents have hereunto set
their hands and seals the day and year first above written.
``John S. Evans. [seal.]
``C. P. Marsh. [seal.]
``Signed, sealed, and delivered in presence of--
``E. T. Bartlett.''
That thereafter, to wit, on the 10th day of October, 1870, said
Belknap, as Secretary of War, aforesaid, did, at the instance and
request of said Marsh, at the city of Washington, in the District of
Columbia, appoint said John S. Evans to maintain said trading
establishment at Fort Sill, the military post aforesaid, and in
consideration of said appointment of said Evans, so made by him as
Secretary of War, as aforesaid, the said Belknap did, on or about the
2d day of November, 1870, unlawfully and corruptly receive from said
Caleb P. Marsh the sum of $1,500, and that at divers times thereafter,
to wit, on or about the 17th of
Sec. 2449
January, 1871, and at or about the end of each three months during the
term of one whole year, the said William. W. Belknap, while still in
office as Secretary of War, as aforesaid, did unlawfully receive from
said Caleb P. Marsh like sum of $1,500, in consideration of the
appointment of the said John S. Evans by him, the said Belknap, as
Secretary of War, as aforesaid, and in consideration of his permitting
said Evans to continue to maintain the said trading establishment at
said military post during that time; whereby the said William W.
Belknap, who was then Secretary of War, as aforesaid, was guilty of
high crimes and misdemeanors in office.
Article II.
That said William W. Belknap, while he was in office as Secretary of
War of the United States of America, did, at the city of Washington, in
the District of Columbia, on the 4th day of November, 1873, willfully,
corruptly, and unlawfully take and receive from one Caleb P. Marsh the
sum of $1,500, in consideration that he would continue to permit one
John S. Evans to maintain a trading establishment at Fort Sill, a
military post of the United States, which said establishment said
Belknap, as Secretary of War, as aforesaid, was authorized by law to
permit to be maintained at said military post, and which the said Evans
had been before that time appointed by said Belknap to maintain; and
that said Belknap, as Secretary of War, as aforesaid, for said
consideration, did corruptly permit the said Evans to continue to
maintain the said trading establishment at said military post. And so
the said Belknap was thereby guilty, while he was Secretary of War, of
a high misdemeanor in his said office.
Article III.
That said William W. Belknap was Secretary of War of the United
States of America before and during the month of October, 1870, and
continued in office as such Secretary of War until the 2d day of March,
1876; that as Secretary of War as aforesaid said Belknap had authority,
under the laws of the United States, to appoint a person to maintain a
trading establishment at Fort Sill, a military post of the United
States, not in the vicinity of any city or town; that on the 10th day
of October, 1870, said Belknap, as Secretary of War as aforesaid, did,
at the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, appoint one
John S. Evans to maintain said trading establishment at said military
post; and that said John S. Evans, by virtue of said appointment, has
since, till the 2d day of March, 1876, maintained a trading
establishment at said military post, and that said Evans, on the 8th
day of October, 1870, before he was so appointed to maintain said
trading establishment as aforesaid, and in order to procure said
appointment and to be continued therein, agreed with one Caleb P. Marsh
that, in consideration that said Belknap would appoint him, the said
Evans, to maintain said trading establishment at said military post, at
the instance and request of said Marsh, he, the said Evans, would pay
to him a large sum of money, quarterly, in advance, from the date of
his said appointment by said Belknap, to wit, $12,000 during the year
immediately following the 10th day of October, 1870, and other large
sum of money, quarterly, during each year that he, the said Evans,
should be permitted by said Belknap to maintain said trading
establishment at said post; that said Evans did pay to said Marsh said
sum of money quarterly during each year after his said appointment,
until the month of December, 1875, when the last of said payments was
made; that said Marsh, upon the receipt of each of said payments, paid
one-half thereof to him, the said Belknap. Yet the said Belknap, well
knowing these facts, and having the power to remove said Evans from
said position at any time, and to appoint some other person to maintain
said trading establishment, but criminally disregarding his duty as
Secretary of War, and basely prostituting his high office to his lust
for private gain, did unlawfully and corruptly continue said Evans in
said position and permit him to maintain said establishment at said
military post during all of said time, to the great injury and damage
of the officers and soldiers of the Army of the United States stationed
at said post, as well as of emigrants, freighters, and other citizens
of the United States, against public policy, and to the great disgrace
and detriment of the public service.
Whereby the said William W. Belknap was, as Secretary of War as
aforesaid, guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors in office.
Article IV.
That said William W. Belknap, while he was in office and acting as
Secretary of War of the United States of America, did, on the 10th day
of October, 1870, in the exercise of the power and authority vested in
him as Secretary of War as aforesaid by law, appoint one John S. Evans
to maintain a trading establishment at Fort Sill, a military post of
the United States, and he, the said Belknap, did receive, from
Sec. 2449
one Caleb P. Marsh, large sums of money for and in consideration of his
having so appointed said John S. Evans to maintain said trading
establishment at said military post, and for continuing him therein,
whereby he has been guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors in his said
office.
Specification 1.--On or about the 2d day of November, 1870, said
William W. Belknap, while Secretary of War as aforesaid, did receive
from Caleb P. Marsh $1,500, in consideration of his having appointed
said John S. Evans to maintain a trading establishment at Fort Sill
aforesaid, and for continuing him therein.
Specification 2.--On or about the 17th day of January, 1871, the said
William W. Belknap, while Secretary of War as aforesaid, did receive
from said Caleb P. Marsh $1,500, in consideration of his having
appointed said John S. Evans to maintain a trading establishment at
Fort Sill aforesaid, and for continuing him therein.
Specification 3.--On or about the 18th day of April, 1871, the said
William W. Belknap, while Secretary of War as aforesaid, did receive
from said Caleb P. Marsh $1,500, in consideration of his having
appointed said John S. Evans to maintain a trading establishment at
Fort Sill aforesaid, and continuing him therein.
Specification 4.--On or about the 25th day of July, 1871, the said
William W. Belknap, while Secretary of War as aforesaid, did receive
from said Caleb P. Marsh $1,500, in consideration of his having
appointed said John S. Evans to maintain a trading establishment at
Fort Sill aforesaid, and continuing him therein.
Specification 5--.On or about the 10th day of November, 1871, the
said William W. Belknap, while Secretary of War as aforesaid, did
receive from said Caleb P. Marsh $1,500, in consideration of his having
appointed said John S. Evans to maintain a trading establishment at
Fort Sill aforesaid, and continuing him therein.
Specification 6.--On or about the 15th day of January, 1872, the said
William W. Belknap, while Secretary of War as aforesaid, did receive
from said Caleb P. Marsh $1,500, in consideration of his having
appointed said John S. Evans to maintain a trading establishment at
Fort Sill aforesaid, and continuing him therein.
Specification 7.--On or about the 13th day of June, 1872, the said
William W. Belknap, while Secretary of War as aforesaid, did receive
from said Caleb P. Marsh $1,500, in consideration of his having
appointed said John S. Evans to maintain a trading establishment at
Fort Sill aforesaid, and continuing him therein.
Specification 8.--On or about the 22d day of November, 1872, the said
William W. Belknap, while Secretary of War as aforesaid, did receive
from said Caleb P. Marsh $1,500, in consideration of his having
appointed said John S. Evans to maintain a trading establishment at
Fort Sill aforesaid, and continuing him therein.
Specification 9.--On or about the 28th day of April, 1873, the said
William W. Belknap, while Secretary of War as aforesaid, did receive
from said Caleb P. Marsh $1,000, in consideration of his having
appointed said John S. Evans to maintain a trading establishment at
Fort Sill aforesaid, and continuing him therein.
Specification 10.--On or about the 16th day of June, 1873, the said
William W. Belknap, while Secretary of War as aforesaid, did receive
from said Caleb P. Marsh $1,700, in consideration of his having
appointed said John S. Evans to maintain a trading establishment at
Fort Sill aforesaid, and continuing him therein.
Specification 11.--On or about the 4th day of November, 1873, the
said William W. Belknap, while Secretary of War as aforesaid, did
receive from said Caleb P. Marsh $1,500, in consideration of his having
appointed said John S. Evans to maintain a trading establishment at
Fort Sill aforesaid, and continuing him therein.
Specification 12.--On or about the 22d day of January, 1874, the said
William W. Belknap, while Secretary of War as aforesaid, did receive
from said Caleb P. Marsh $1,500, in consideration of his having
appointed said John S. Evans to maintain a trading establishment at
Fort Sill aforesaid, and continuing him therein.
Specification 13.--On or about the 10th day of April, 1874, the said
William W. Belknap, while Secretary of War as aforesaid, did receive
from said Caleb P. Marsh $1,500, in consideration of his having
appointed said John S. Evans to maintain a trading establishment at
Fort Sill aforesaid, and continuing him therein.
Sec. 2449
Specification 14.--On or about the 9th day of October, 1874, the said
William W. Belknap, while Secretary of War as aforesaid, did receive
from said Caleb P. Marsh $1,500, in consideration of his having
appointed said John S. Evans to maintain a trading establishment at
Fort Sill aforesaid, and continuing him therein.
Specification 15.--On or about the 24th day of May, 1875, the said
William W. Belknap, while Secretary of War as aforesaid, did receive
from said Caleb P. Marsh $1,500, in consideration of his having
appointed said John S. Evans to maintain a trading establishment at
Fort Sill aforesaid, and continuing him therein.
Specification 16.--On or about the 17th day of November, 1875, the
said William W. Belknap, while Secretary of War as aforesaid, did
receive from said Caleb F. Marsh $1,500, in consideration of his having
appointed said John S. Evans to maintain a trading establishment at
Fort Sill aforesaid, and continuing him therein.
Specification 17.--On or about the 15th day of January, 1876, the
said William W. Belknap, while Secretary of War as aforesaid, did
receive from said Caleb P. Marsh $750, in consideration of his having
appointed said John S. Evans to maintain a trading establishment at
Fort Sill aforesaid, and continuing him therein.
Article V.
That one John S. Evans was, on the 10th day of October, in the year
1870, appointed by the said Belknap to maintain a trading establishment
at Fort Sill, a military post on the frontier, not in the vicinity of
any city or town, and said Belknap did, from that day continuously to
the 2d day of March, 1876, permit said Evans to maintain the same; and
said Belknap was induced to make said appointment by the influence and
request of one Caleb P. Marsh; and said Evans paid to said Marsh, in
consideration of such influence and request and in consideration that
he should thereby induce said Belknap to make said appointment, divers
large sums of money at various times, amounting to about $12,000 a year
from the date of said appointment to the 25th day of March, 1872, and
to about $6,000 a year thereafter until the 2d day of March, 1876, all
which said Belknap well knew; yet said Belknap did, in consideration
that he would permit said Evans to continue to maintain said trading
establishment and in order that said payments might continue and be
made by said Evans to said Marsh as aforesaid, corruptly receive from
said Marsh, either to his, the said Belknap's, own use or to be paid
over to the wife of said Belknap, divers large sums of money at various
times, namely: The sum of $1,500 on or about the 2d day of November,
1870; the sum of $1,500 on or about the 17th day of January, 1871; the
sum of $1,500 on or about the 18th day of April, 1871; the sum of
$1,500 on or about the 25th day of July, 1871; the sum of $1,500 on or
about the 10th day of November, 1871; the sum of $1,500 on or about the
15th day of January, 1872; the sum of $1,500 on or about the 13th day
of June, 1872; the sum of $1,500 on or about the 22d day of November,
1872; the sum of $1,000 on or about the 28th day of April, 1873; the
sum of $1,700 on or about the 16th day of June, 1873; the sum of $1,500
on or about the 4th day of November, 1873; the sum of $1,500 on or
about the 22d day of January, 1874; the sum of $1,500 on or about the
10th day of April, 1874; the sum of $1,500 on or about the 9th day of
October, 1874; the sum of $1,500 on or about the 24th day of May, 1875;
the sum of $1,500 on or about the 17th day of November, 1875; the sum
of $750 on or about the 15th day of January, 1876; all of which acts
and doings were while the said Belknap was Secretary of War of the
United States, as aforesaid, and were a high misdemeanor in said
office.
And the House of Representatives by protestation, saving to
themselves the liberty of exhibiting at any time hereafter any further
articles of accusation or impeachment against the said William W.
Belknap, late Secretary of War of the United States, and also of
replying to his answers which he shall make unto the articles herein
preferred against him, and of offering proof to the same and every part
thereof, and to all and every other article, accusation, or impeachment
which shall be exhibited by them, as the case shall require, do demand
that the said William W. Belknap may be put to answer the high crimes
and misdemeanors in office herein charged against him, and that such
proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgments may be thereupon had
and given as may be agreeable to law and justice.
Michael C. Kerr,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Attest:
Geo. M. Adams,
Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Sec. 2450
The reading of the articles of impeachment having been concluded, the
President pro tempore informed the managers that the Senate would take
proper order on the subject of the impeachment, of which due notice
would be given to the House of Representatives.
The managers, by their chairman, Mr. Lord, then delivered the
articles of impeachment at the table of the Secretary and withdrew.
Soon thereafter, in the House, the Speaker pro tempore \1\ directed
that business be suspended to receive a report from the managers on the
part of the House of the impeachment of W. W. Belknap, late Secretary
of War.
The managers appeared at the bar, when Mr. Lord said:
Mr. Speaker, the managers of impeachment beg leave to report to the
House that the articles of impeachment prepared by the House of
Representatives against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, have
been exhibited and read to the Senate, and the Presiding Officer of
that body stated to the managers that the Senate would take order in
the premises, due notice of which would be given to the House of
Representatives.\2\
2450. Belknap's impeachment continued.
At the organization of the Senate for the Belknap trial the oath was
administered by the Chief Justice.
The Senate organized for the Belknap trial after the articles of
impeachment had been presented.
The Senate, having organized for the Belknap trial, informed the
House by message.
On April 5,\3\ in the Senate, Mr. Edmunds offered this resolution,
which was thereupon agreed to:
Ordered, That a committee of two Senators be appointed by the Chair
to wait upon the Chief Justice of the United States and invite him to
attend in the Senate Chamber at 1 o'clock p. m. this day, or, in case
of his inability to attend, any one of the associate justices.
The Chair thereupon appointed Messrs. Edmunds and Allen G. Thurman,
of Ohio, as the committee.
Soon thereafter the following proceedings occurred:
The Chief Justice of the United States, Hon. Morrison R. Waite,
entered the Senate Chamber, escorted by Messrs. Edmunds and Thurman,
the committee appointed for the purpose.
The President pro tempore. The hour of 1 o'clock having arrived, the
Senate, according to its rule, will now proceed to the consideration of
the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives
against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War. The Chief Justice
will take the seat provided for him at the right of the Chair.
The Chief Justice took a seat by the side of the President pro
tempore of the Senate.
The President pro tempore. The Senate will give attention while the
constitutional oath is being administered.
The Chief Justice administered the oath to the President pro tempore,
as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William A. Wheeler, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
\2\ House Journal, p. 745; Record, p. 2186.
\3\ Senate Journal, pp. 394, 908, 909; Record, pp. 2212, 2215, 2216.
Sec. 2451
You do solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of
the impeachment of William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, now
pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution
and laws. So help you God.
The President pro tempore. The Secretary will now call the roll of
Senators alphabetically in groups of six, and Senators as they are so
called will advance to the desk and take the oath.
After the oaths had been administered Mr. Frederick T. Frelinghuysen,
of New Jersey, offered the following, which was agreed to:
Ordered, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives that
the Senate is now organized for the trial of articles of impeachment
against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, and is ready to
receive the managers on the part of the House at its bar.
And in obedience thereto the Secretary delivered the following
message at the bar of the House: \1\
Mr. Speaker, I am directed to inform the House of Representatives
that the Senate is now organized for the trial of articles of
impeachment against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, and it
is ready to receive the managers of impeachment on the part of the
House at its bar.
2451. Belknap's impeachment continued.
The House being notified that the Senate was organized for the trial
of Secretary Belknap, the managers attended and demanded that process
issue.
On the demand of the managers the Senate ordered process to issue
against Secretary Belknap, fixing the day of return.
Having demanded of the Senate that process issue against Secretary
Belknap, the managers reported verbally to the House.
At 1 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m. the managers of the impeachment on
the part of the House of Representatives appeared at the bar and their
presence was announced by the Sergeant-at-Arms.\2\
The President pro tempore. The Sergeant-at-Arms will conduct the
managers to the seats provided for them within the bar of the Senate.
The managers were conducted to the seats assigned them within the
space in front of the Secretary's desk.
The President pro tempore. Gentlemen managers, the Senate is now
organized for the trial of the impeachment of William W. Belknap, late
Secretary of War.
Thereupon Mr. Manager Lord, chairman of the managers, rose and said:
We are instructed by the House of Representatives, as its managers,
to demand that the Senate issue process against William W. Belknap,
late Secretary of War; that he answer at the bar of the Senate the
articles of impeachment heretofore exhibited by the House of
Representatives, through its managers, before the Senate.
Thereupon Mr. Edmunds offered the following, which was agreed to by
the Senate:
Ordered, That a summons be issued, as required by the rules of
procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting for the trial of
impeachment, to William W. Belknap, returnable on Monday, the 17th day
of the present month, at 1 o'clock in the afternoon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, p. 750; Record, p. 2228.
\2\ Senate Journal, p. 909; Record of trial, p. 4.
Sec. 2452
Thereupon, after a discussion caused by the fact that the rules for
impeachment trials provided for the return of the summons at 12.30,
while the order just adopted fixed 1 o'clock as the hour, Mr. Edmunds
moved that the Senate sitting for the trial of impeachment adjourn to
Monday, the 17th instant at 12.30 o'clock. And this motion was agreed
to, yeas 38, nays 10.
And thereupon the Senate resumed its legislative session.\1\
In the House meanwhile the managers had returned \2\ and reported--
that, in answer to the summons from the Senate, they proceeded to its
bar, and that the Senate had fixed Monday, the 17th of this month, as
the day on which the process against William W. Belknap, late Secretary
of War, shall be returnable.
2452. Belknap's impeachment continued.
Ceremonies and forms of the return of the writ of summons against
Secretary Belknap.
Secretary Belknap appeared in person and with counsel to answer the
articles of impeachment.
The Chief Justice administered the oath to the Sergeant-at-Arms on
the return of the writ of summons in the Belknap case.
On April 17 \3\ the following record appears:
The Chief Justice of the United States entered the Senate Chamber,
escorted by Messrs. Edmunds and Thurman, the committee appointed for
the purpose.
The President pro tempore. The hour of 12 o'clock and 30 minutes
having arrived, in pursuance of rule the legislative and executive
business of the Senate will be suspended and the Senate will proceed
the consideration of the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House
of Representatives against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War.
The Chief Justice took a seat by the side of the President pro
tempore of the Senate.
The President pro tempore. The Sergeant-at-Arms will make the opening
proclamation.
The Sergeant-at-Arms. Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons are
commanded to keep silence on pain of imprisonment while the Senate of
the United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of
impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against William
W. Belknap, late Secretary of War.
The President pro tempore. The Secretary will now call the names of
those Senators who have not been sworn, and such Senators, as they are
called, will advance to the desk and take oath.
Certain Senators having been sworn,
On motion of Mr. Edmunds, it was
Ordered, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives that
the Senate is in its Chamber and ready to proceed with the trial of the
impeachment of William W. Belknap, and that seats are provided for the
accommodation of the Members.
The President pro tempore. The Secretary will invite the House
accordingly.
The message was presently delivered \4\ in the House of
Representatives, where a discussion arose as to whether the House
should attend or not, and as to the manner of attendance. Mr. Lord
stated that the usual custom had been for the House to go over on the
trial, but for some reason the Senate had seen fit to change the custom
and invite the House on this day, and it seemed to him that the House
should attend
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, p. 395.
\2\ House Journal, p. 750; Record, p. 2229.
\3\ Senate Journal, p. 910; Record of trial, pp. 5, 6.
\4\ House Journal, p. 811; Record, pp. 2512, 2513.
Sec. 2452
in a body, headed by the Speaker. Mr. George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts,
suggested that an examination of the precedents showed that it would be
better to go over as a Committee of the Whole; and on his motion--
the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House, and
proceeded in that capacity of the Senate Chamber.
Meanwhile, at 1 o'clock p.m., William W. Belknap entered the Senate
Chamber, accompanied by his counsel, Hon. Jeremiah S. Black, Hon.
Montgomery Blair, and Hon. M. H. Carpenter, who were conducted to the
seats assigned them in the space in front of the Secretary's desk on
the right of the Chair.
At 1 o'clock and 2 minutes p.m., the Sergeant-at-Arms announced the
managers on the part of the House of Representatives.
The President pro tempore. The managers will be admitted and
conducted to seats provided for them within the bar of the Senate.
The managers were conducted to seats provided in the space in front
of the Secretary's desk on the left of the Chair, namely: Hon. Scott
Lord, of New York; Hon. J. Proctor Knott, of Kentucky; Hon. William P.
Lynde, of Wisconsin; Hon. J. A. McMahon, of Ohio; Hon. G. A. Jenks, of
Pennsylvania; Hon. E. G. Lapham, of New York, and Hon. George F. Hoar,
of Massachusetts.
Mr. Manager Lord. Mr. President, in accordance with the invitation
extended, the House of Representatives has resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole and will attend upon this sitting of this court
on being waited upon by the Sergeant-at-Arms.
The President pro tempore. The Sergeant-at-Arms will wait upon the
House of Representatives and invite them to the Chamber of the Senate.
At 1 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m., the Sergeant-at-Arms announced the
presence of the Members of the House of Representatives, who entered
the Senate Chamber preceded by the chairman of the Committee of the
Whole House (Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania), into which that
body had resolved itself to witness the trial, who was accompanied by
the Speaker and Clerk of the House.
The President pro tempore. The Secretary will now read the minutes of
the sitting on Wednesday, the 5th instant.
The Secretary read the Journal of proceedings of the Senate sitting
for trial of the impeachment of Wednesday, April 5, 1876.
The President pro tempore. The Secretary will now read the return of
the Sergeant-at-Arms to the summons directed to be served.
The Secretary read the following return appended to the writ of
summons:
The foregoing writ of summons addressed to William W. Belknap and the
foregoing precept addressed to me were duly served upon the said
William W. Belknap by delivering to and leaving with him true and
attested copies of the same at No. 2022 G street, Washington City, the
residence of the said William W. Belknap, on Thursday the 6th day of
April, 1876, at 6 o'clock and 40 minutes in the afternoon of that day.
John R. French,
Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate of the United States.
The Pesident pro tempore. The Chair understands that Rule 9 will be
suspended for reasons already stated, and the Chief Justice will now
administer the oath to the officer attesting the truth of this
return.\1\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Rule No. 9 provided for the administration of the oath by the
Presiding Officer, but as a doubt had arisen as to the legal competency
of an oath administered by one not especially empowered by statute so
to do, the Chief Justice had been invited to attend.
Sec. 2453
The Chief Justice administered the following oath to the Sergeant-at-
Arms:
I, John R. French, do solemnly swear that the return made by me upon
the process issued on the 6th day of April, by the Senate of the United
States, against W. W. Belknap, is truly made, and that I have performed
such service as therein described: So help me God.
The President pro tempore. The committee will please escort the Chief
Justice to the Supreme Court Room.
The Chief Justice retired, escorted by the committee, Mr. Edmunds and
Mr. Thurman.
The President pro tempore. The Sergeant-at-Arms will now call
William. W. Belknap, the respondent, to appear and answer the charges
of impeachment brought against him.
The Sergeant-at-Arms. William W. Belknap, William W. Belknap, appear
and answer the articles of impeachment exhibited against you by the
House of Representatives.
William W. Belknap, accompanied by Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter, Mr.
Jeremiah S. Black, and Mr. Montgomery Blair, as counsel, having
appeared at the bar of the Senate, were directed by the Presiding
Officer to take the seats assigned them.
The Presiding Officer then informed the respondent that the Senate is
now sitting for the trial of William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War,
upon articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives,
and will now hear him in answer thereto.
2453. Belknap's impeachment continued.
The answer of Secretary Belknap to the articles of impeachment.
The answer of Secretary Belknap demurred to the articles, alleging
that he was not a civil officer of the United States when they were
exhibited.
Form of announcing the appearance of counsel in the Belknap trial.
The answer of Secretary Belknap being presented, the Senate, on
request, ordered a copy of the answer to be furnished to the managers.
The Senate allowed to the House time for preparation of a replication
in the Belknap trial, and informed the House thereof by message.
The House determined, after respondent's answer, that it would be
represented at the Belknap trial by its managers only.
Whereupon, Mr. Carpenter, of counsel, on behalf of the said William
W. Belknap, made answer:
That William W. Belknap a private citizen of the United States and of
the State of Iowa, in obedience to the summons of the Senate sitting as
a court of impeachment to try the articles presented against him by the
House of Representatives of the United States, appears at the bar of
the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment and interposes the
following plea; which I will ask the Secretary to read and request that
it may be filed.
The Secretary read as follows:
In the Senate of the United States sitting as a court of impeachment.
The United States of America v. William W. Belknap.
Upon articles of impeachment of the House of Representatives of the
United States of America, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
And the said William W. Belknap, named in the said articles of
impeachment, comes here before the honorable the Senate of the United
States sitting as a court of impeachment, in his own proper person, and
says that this honorable court ought not to have or take further
cognizance of the said
Sec. 2453
articles of impeachment exhibited and presented against him by the
House of Representatives of the United States, because, he says, that
before and at the time when the said House of Representatives ordered
and directed that he, the said Belknap, should be impeached at the bar
of the Senate, and at the time when the said articles of impeachment
were exhibited and presented against him, the said Belknap, by the said
House of Representatives, he, the said Belknap, was not, nor hath he
since been, nor is he now an officer of the United States; but at the
said times was, ever since hath been, and now is a private citizen of
the United States and of the State of Iowa; and this he, the said
Belknap, is ready to verify; wherefore he prays judgment whether this
court can or will take further cognizance of the said articles of
impeachment.
Wm. W. Belknap.
United States of America, District of Columbia, ss:
William W. Belknap, being first duly sworn on oath, says that the
foregoing plea by him subscribed is true in substance and fact.
Wm. W. Belknap.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of April, 1876.
David Davis,
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mr. Carpenter. Mr. President, Judge Jeremiah S. Black, Hon.
Montgomery Blair, and myself also appear as counsel for Mr. Belknap.
The President pro tempore. The Secretary will note the appearance of
the respondent and the presence of the counsel named.
Mr. Manager Lord thereupon submitted this motion:
The Managers on the part of the House of Representatives request a
copy of the plea filed by W. W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, and the
House of Representatives desire time until Wednesday, the 19th instant,
at 1 o'clock, to consider what replication to make to the plea of the
said W. W. Belknap, late Secretary of War.
It was ordered accordingly, and the Secretary was directed to notify
the House of Representatives thereof.
Thereupon the Senate sitting for the trial adjourned to Wednesday,
the 19th instant, at 12.30 o'clock.
The House, in Committee of the Whole House, returned to their Hall--
and the Speaker having resumed the Chair, Mr. Randall reported that the
committee, in pursuance of the order of the House, had attended the
Senate sitting as a court of impeachment, in company with the Managers
on the part of the House.\1\
Soon thereafter the Secretary of the Senate delivered a message as to
the time set for the trial, which message was, on motion of Mr. Hoar,
referred to the managers.
Later, on this day, Mr. Randall presented this resolution, which was
agreed to without debate or division: \2\
Resolved, That in the future proceedings of the impeachment trial of
W. W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, the House appear, in the
prosecution of said impeachment before the Senate sitting as a court of
impeachment by its managers only.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, pp. 811, 812.
\2\ House Journal, p. 814; Record, p. 2533.
Sec. 2454
2454. Belknap's impeachment continued.
The replication of the House to the answer of respondent in the
Belknap trial.
Forms and ceremonies of presenting in the Senate the replication in
the Belknap trial.
The House, in their replication in the Belknap trial, alleged a new
matter not set forth in the articles.
In the House, on April 19,\1\ Mr. Lord, by direction of the managers,
reported the replication, and without debate or division it was--
Ordered, That the House adopt the replication to the answer of
William W. Belknap, as now submitted by the managers.
Then it was
Resolved, That a message be sent to the Senate, by the Clerk of the
House, informing the Senate that the House of Representatives has
adopted a replication to the plea of William W. Belknap, late Secretary
of War, to the articles of impeachment exhibited against him, and that
the same will be presented to the Senate by the managers on the part of
the House.
This message was presently delivered in the Senate sitting for the
impeachment, the sitting having been opened in due form and the
respondent and his counsel being present. The managers presently
attended and were assigned seats, whereupon, according to the record--
\2\
The President pro tempore. Gentlemen managers, in accordance with the
order of the Senate fixing the hour of 1 o'clock as the time at which
it will hear you, the Senate is now ready to hear you.
Mr. Manager Lord. Mr. President, the House of Representatives having
adopted a replication to the plea of William W. Belknap to the
jurisdiction of this court, as advised by the resolution just read, the
managers are instructed to present the replication to the Senate
sitting as a court of impeachment, and to request that the same may be
read by the Secretary and filed among the Senate's papers.
The President pro tempore. The replication will be read by the
Secretary.
The Secretary read as follows:
In the Senate of the United States sitting as a court of impeachment.
The United States of America v. William W. Belknap.
The replication of the House of Representatives of the United States in
their own behalf, and also in the name of the people of the United
States, to the plea of William W. Belknap to the articles of
impeachment exhibited by them to the Senate against the said William W.
Belknap.
The House of Representatives of the United States, prosecuting, on
behalf of themselves and the people of the United States, the articles
of impeachment exhibited by them to the Senate of the United States
against said William W. Belknap, reply to the plea of said William W.
Belknap, and say that the matters alleged in the said plea are not
sufficient to exempt the said William W. Belknap from answering the
said articles of impeachment, because they say that at the time all the
acts charged in said articles of impeachment were done and committed,
and thence continuously done, to the 2d day of March, A. D. 1876, the
said William W. Belknap was Secretary of War of the United States, as
in said articles of impeachment averred, and, therefore, that by the
Constitution of the United States the House of Representatives had
power to prefer the articles of impeachment, and the Senate have full
and the sole power to try the same. Wherefore they demand that the plea
aforesaid of the said William W. Belknap be not allowed, but that the
said William W. Belknap be required to answer the said articles of
impeachment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, pp. 822, 823; Record, p. 2592.
\2\ Senate Journal, pp. 913, 914; Record of trial, pp. 7, 8.
Sec. 2455
II.
The House of Representatives of the United States, so prosecuting in
behalf of themselves and the people of the United States the said
articles of impeachment exhibited by them to the Senate of the United
States against the said William W. Belknap, for a second and further
replication to the plea of the said William W. Belknap, say that the
matters alleged in the said plea are not sufficient to exempt the said
William W. Belknap from answering the said articles of impeachment,
because they say that at the time of the commission by the said William
W. Belknap of the acts and matters set forth in the said articles of
impeachment he, said William W. Belknap, was an officer of the United
States, as alleged in the said articles of impeachment; and they say
that the said William W. Belknap, after the commission of each one of
the acts alleged in the said articles, was and continued to be such
officer, as alleged in said articles, until and including the 2d day of
March, A. D. 1876, and until the House of Representatives, by its
proper committee, had completed its investigation of his official
conduct as such officer in regard to the matters and things set forth
as official misconduct in the said articles, and the said committee was
considering the report it should make to the House of Representatives
upon the same, the said Belknap being at the time aware of such
investigation and of the evidence taken and of such proposed report.
And the House of Representatives further say that, while its said
committee was considering and preparing its said report to the House of
Representatives recommending the impeachment of the said William W.
Belknap for the matters and things set forth in the said articles, the
said William W. Belknap, with full knowledge thereof, resigned his
position as such officer on the said 2d day of March, A. D. 1876, with
intent to evade the proceedings of impeachment against him. And the
House of Representatives resolved to impeach the said William W.
Belknap for said matters as in said articles set forth on said 2d day
of March, A. D. 1876. And the House of Representatives say that by the
Constitution of the United States the House of Representatives had
power to prefer said articles of impeachment against the said William
W. Belknap, and that the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment has
full power to try the same.
Wherefore the House of Representatives demand that the plea aforesaid
be not allowed, but that the said William W. Belknap be compelled to
answer the said articles of impeachment.
Michael C. Kerr,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Attest:
George M. Adams,
Clerk of the House of Representatives.
The President pro tempore. If there be no objection, the replication
will be filed. The Chair hears none.
2455. Belknap's impeachment continued.
Forms of rejoinder, surrejoinder, and similiter filed in the Belknap
trial.
Form of application of respondent for time to prepare a rejoinder in
the Belknap trial.
The later pleadings in the Belknap trial were filed with the
Secretary of the Senate during a recess of the Senate sitting for the
trial.
The surrejoinder of the House of Representatives in the Belknap trial
was signed by the Speaker and attested by the Clerk.
Thereupon Mr. Carpenter, of counsel for the respondent, submitted in
writing this motion:
In the Senate of the United States sitting as a court of impeachment.
The United States of America v. William W. Belknap.
Upon articles of impeachment presented by the House of Representatives
against the said William W. Belknap.
Mr. President, the respondent asks for copies of the replications
this day filed by the managers and asks for time until Monday next to
frame pleadings to meet the same.
William W. Belknap.
Sec. 2455
Mr. Edmunds thereupon proposed an order relating to the filing of a
rejoinder which would have required the respondent to file at a time
when the Senate would not be sitting for the trial. To this Mr.
Carpenter objected, saying that in their pleadings they did not desire
to deal with anything less than the court. They could not file with the
House of Representatives, because they had no standing there. So, on
suggestion of Mr. Roscoe Conkling, of New York, Mr. Edmunds submitted a
modified order, which was agreed to, as follows:
Ordered, That the respondent file his rejoinder with the Secretary on
or before the 24th day of April instant, who shall deliver a copy
thereof to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and that the
House of Representatives file their surrejoinder, if any, on or before
the 25th day of April instant, a copy of which shall be delivered by
the Secretary to the counsel for the respondent.
Ordered, That the trial proceed on the 27th day of April instant, at
12 o'clock and 30 minutes afternoon.
Thereupon the Senate, sitting for the trial, adjourned to April 27.
On April 27 \1\ the Senate at the appointed hour discontinued its
legislative business and the session for the impeachment proceedings
was opened with the usual proclamation by the Sergeant-at-Arms.
The managers, and the respondent with his counsel, having attended,
the President pro tempore directed the journal of the last session's
proceedings to be read.
Then, the journal having been read, the President pro tempore
directed the reading of the rejoinder filed by the respondent with the
Secretary on the 24th instant under the orders of the Senate of the
19th instant:
In the Senate of the United States sitting as a court of impeachment.
The United States of America v. William W. Belknap.
Upon articles of impeachment of the House of Representatives of the
United States of America, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
And the said William W. Belknap saith that the replication of the
House of Representatives first above pleaded to the said plea of him,
the said Belknap, and the matters therein contained in manner and form
as the same are above pleaded and set forth, are not sufficient in law
for the said House of Representatives to have or maintain impeachment
thereof against him, the said Belknap, and that he, the said Belknap,
is not bound by law to answer the same.
And this the said defendant is ready to verify. Wherefore, by reason
of the insufficiency of the said replication in this behalf, he, the
said Belknap, prays judgment if the said House of Representatives ought
to have or maintain this impeachment against him, etc.
Wm. W. Belknap.
In the Senate of the United States sitting as a court of impeachment.
The United States of America v. William W. Belknap.
Upon articles of impeachment of the House of Representatives of the
United States of America, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
And the said William W. Belknap, as to the second replication of the
House of Representatives of the United States, secondly above pleaded,
saith that the said House of Representatives ought not, by reason of
anything in that replication alleged, to have or maintain the said
impeachment against him, the said Belknap, because he says that it is
not true, as in that replication alleged, that he, the said Belknap,
was Secretary of War of the United States from any time until and
including the 2d day of March, A. D. 1876, and of this he, the said
Belknap, demands trial according to law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, pp. 915-920; Record of trial, pp. 8-10.
Sec. 2455
II.
And the said Belknap further saith, as to the said second replication
of the House of Representatives of the United States, secondly above
pleaded, that the said House of Representatives ought not, by reason of
anything in that replication alleged, to have or maintain the said
impeachment against him, the said Belknap, because he saith that it is
not true, as in that replication alleged, that he, the said Belknap,
was Secretary of War until the said House of Representatives, by any
committee of the said House raised or instructed for that purpose, or
having any authority from the House of Representatives in that behalf,
had investigated the official conduct of him, the said Belknap, as
Secretary of War, in regard to the matters and things set forth as
official misconduct in the said articles of impeachment; and of this
he, the said Belknap, demands trial according to law.
III.
And the said Belknap, as to the said second replication of the said
House of Representatives of the United States, secondly above pleaded,
further saith that the said House of Representatives ought not, by
reason of anything in that replication alleged, to have or maintain the
said impeachment against him, the said Belknap, because he says that at
the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, on the 2d day of
March, A. D. 1876, at 10 o'clock and 20 minutes in the forenoon of that
day, he, the said Belknap, resigned the office of Secretary of War, by
written resignation under his hand, addressed and delivered to the
President of the United States, and the President of the United States
then and there accepted the said resignation, by acceptance in writing
under his hand, then and there indorsed upon the said written
resignation; so that the said Belknap then and there ceased to be
Secretary of War of the United States, and since that time he, the said
Belknap, has not been an officer of the United States, but has been a
private citizen of the United States and of the State of Iowa, as
stated by said Belknap in his said plea; and that at the time he, the
said Belknap, resigned as aforesaid, and the said resignation was
accepted as aforesaid, the said House of Representatives had not taken
any proceeding for the investigation or examination of any of the
charges set forth in the said articles of impeachment as official
misconduct of him, the said Belknap, as Secretary of War; nor had the
said House of Representatives raised any committee of the said House,
nor directed nor instructed any committee of the said House, to make
inquiry or investigation in that behalf.
And this the said Belknap is ready to verify. Wherefore he prays
judgment if the said House of Representatives ought to have or maintain
the said impeachment against him, the said Belknap.
IV.
And the said Belknap, as to the said second replication of the House
of Representatives of the United States, secondly above pleaded,
further saith that the said House of Representatives of the United
States, by reason of anything in that replication alleged, ought not to
have or maintain the said impeachment against him, the said Belknap,
because he says that when the said House of Representatives took the
first proceeding in relation to the impeachment of him, the said
Belknap, and when the matter was first mentioned in the said House--
that is, in the afternoon of the 2d day of March, A. D. 1876--the said
House of Representatives was fully advised and well knew that he, the
said Belknap, had before then resigned the said office of Secretary of
War, by resignation in writing, under his hand addressed and delivered
to the President of the United States, and that the President of the
United States had also before that time, as President as aforesaid,
accepted the said written resignation, by acceptance in writing, signed
by him and indorsed on the said written resignation, and that he, the
said Belknap, was not then an officer of the United States, as the
facts were.
And this he, the said Belknap, is ready to verify. Wherefore he prays
judgment if the said House of Representatives ought to have or maintain
the said impeachment against him, the said Belknap.
V.
And the said Belknap, as to the said second replication of the House
of Representatives of the United States, secondly above pleaded,
further saith that the said House of Representatives of the United
States, by reason of anything in that replication alleged, ought not to
have or maintain the said impeachment against him, the said Belknap,
because he says that, although true it is that a certain committee of
the said House, called the Committee on the Expenditures of the War
Department, had
Sec. 2455
been pretending to make some inquiry into or investigation of the
matters and things set forth in said articles of impeachment as
official misconduct of him, the said Belknap, but without any authority
from or direction by the House of Representatives in that behalf, yet
he, the said Belknap, says that said committee had not completed its
said pretended investigation, but was engaged in the examination of
witnesses, when said committee was informed that the said Belknap had
resigned as Secretary of War, by resignation in writing, under his
hand, addressed and delivered to the President of the United States,
and that the President of the United States had accepted the said
resignation by acceptance in writing, under his hand, indorsed upon the
said written resignation; that said committee received the said
information during and before the completion of the said pretended
investigation into the alleged facts in that behalf, to wit, at 11
o'clock in the forenoon of the 2d day of March, A. D. 1876, and that
thereupon the said committee declared that they, the said committee,
had no further duty to perform in the premises.
And this the said Belknap is ready to verify. Wherefore he prays
judgment if the said House of Representatives ought to have or maintain
the said impeachment against him, the said Belknap.
VI.
And said Belknap, as to said second replication of the House of
Representatives of the United States, secondly above pleaded, further
saith that the said House of Representatives ought not, by anything in
that replication alleged, to have or maintain said impeachment against
him, said Belknap, because he says that, although true it is that he
did resign his position as Secretary of War on the 2d day of March, A.
D. 1876, at 10 o'clock and 20 minutes in the forenoon of that day, at
the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, by a resignation
in writing, under his hand, addressed to and then and there delivered
to the President of the United States, and the President of the United
States did then and there accept said resignation, by acceptance in
writing, under his hand, then and there by him indorsed upon said
written resignation, nevertheless it is not true, as alleged in that
replication, that he, said Belknap, resigned his said position with
intent to ``evade'' any proceedings of said House of Representatives to
impeach him, said Belknap; but, on the contrary thereof, he avers the
fact to be that a standing committee of said House, known as the
Committee on the Expenditures of the War Department, without any
authority from or direction of said House of Representatives to
examine, inquire, or investigate in regard to the matters and things
set forth in said articles as official misconduct of him, said Belknap,
had examined one Marsh, and he had made a statement to said committee,
which said statement, if true, would not support articles of
impeachment against him, said Belknap, but which said statement was of
such a character in respect to other persons, some of whom had been and
one of whom was so nearly connected with him, said Belknap, by domestic
ties as greatly to afflict him, said Belknap, and make him willing to
secure the suppression of so much of said statement as affected such
other persons at any cost to himself, therefore he, said Belknap,
proposed to said committee that if said committee would suppress that
part of said statement which related to said other persons he, said
Belknap, though contrary to the truth, would admit the receipt by him,
said Belknap, of all the moneys stated by said Marsh to have been
received by him from one Evans, mentioned in said statement, and paid
over by said Marsh to any other person or persons, but said committee
declined to accede to said proposition, and Hon. Hiester Clymer,
chairman of said committee, then declared to said Belknap that he, said
Clymer, should move in the said House of Representatives, upon the
statement of said Marsh, for the impeachment of him, said Belknap,
unless the said Belknap should resign his position as Secretary of War
before noon of the next day, to wit, March the 2d, A. D. 1876; and said
Belknap regarding this statement of said Clymer, chairman as aforesaid,
as an intimation that he, said Belknap, could, by thus resigning, avoid
the affliction inseparable from a protracted trial in a forum which
would attract the greatest degree of public attention and the
humiliation of availing himself of the defense disclosed in said
statement itself which would cast blame upon said other persons, he
yielded to the suggestion made by said Clymer, chairman as aforesaid,
believing that the same was made in good faith by the said Clymer,
chairman as aforesaid, and that he, said Belknap, would, by resigning
his position as Secretary of War, secure the speedy dismissal of said
statement from the public mind, which said statement, though it
involved no criminality on his part, was deeply painful to his
feelings, and did resign his said position as Secretary of War, as
hereinbefore stated, at 10 o'clock and 20 minutes in the forenoon of
the 2d day of March, A. D. 1876; and at 11 o'clock in the forenoon of
the day and year last aforesaid he, said Belknap, caused said committee
to be notified of his said resignation and of
Sec. 2455
the acceptance thereof by the President of the United States as
aforesaid; all of which was in pursuance and in consequence of the said
suggestion so made by said Clymer; and thereupon said committee
declared that they, the said committee, had no further duty to perform
in the premises. And he, said Belknap, submits that, while said House
of Representatives claims that said Clymer was acting on its behalf in
said pretended examination of said Marsh, said House ought, in honor
and in law, to be estopped to deny that said Clymer was also acting on
behalf of said House in suggesting the resignation of him, said
Belknap, as aforesaid, and ought not to be heard to complain of a
resignation thus induced.
And this he, the said Belknap, is ready to verify. Wherefore he prays
judgment if the said House of Representatives ought to have or maintain
the impeachment against him, the said Belknap.
Wm. W. Belknap.
The President pro tempore then said:
This rejoinder will be considered duly filed, if there be no
objection. The Secretary will now read the surrejoinder of the House of
Representatives to the rejoinder of William W. Belknap.
The Secretary read as follows:
In the Senate of the United States sitting as a court of impeachment.
The United States of America v. William W. Belknap.
By the House of Representatives of the United States, April 25, 1876.
The House of Representatives of the United States, in the name of
themselves and of all the people of the United States, say that the
said first replication to the plea of the said William W. Belknap to
the articles of impeachment exhibited against him as aforesaid, and the
matters therein contained, in manner and form as the same are above set
forth and stated, are sufficient in law for the said House of
Representatives to have and maintain the said articles of impeachment
against the said William W. Belknap, and that the Senate sitting as a
court of impeachment has jurisdiction to hear, try, and determine the
same; and the House of Representatives are ready to verify and prove
the same, as the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment shall direct
and award: Wherefore, inasmuch as the said William W. Belknap hath not
answered the said articles of impeachment or in any manner denied the
same, the said House of Representatives, for themselves and for all the
people of the United States, pray judgment thereon according to law.
II.
And the said House of Representatives as to the first and second
subdivisions of the rejoinder to the second replication of the House of
Representatives to the plea of the defendant to the said articles of
impeachment, wherein the said defendant demands trial according to law,
the said House of Representatives, in behalf of themselves and all the
people of the United States, do the like; and as to the third, fourth,
fifth, and sixth subdivisions of the rejoinder of the said defendant to
the said second replication, they say that the said House of
Representatives, by reason of anything by the said defendant in the
last-named subdivisions of said rejoinder above alleged, ought not to
be barred from having and maintaining the said articles of impeachment
against the said defendant, because they say that, reserving to
themselves all advantage of exception to the insufficiency of the said
subdivisions of said rejoinder to said second replication, they deny
each and every averment in said several rejoinders to said second
replication contained, or either of them, which denies or traverses the
acts and intents charged against said defendant in said second
replication, and they reaffirm the truth of the matters stated therein;
and this the said House of Representatives pray may be inquired of by
the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment.
Wherefore the said House of Representatives, in the name of
themselves and of all the people of the United States, pray judgment
thereon according to law.
Michael C. Kerr,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Geo. M. Adams,
Clerk of the House of Representatives.
The President pro tempore said:
The surrejoinder will be considered as duly filed also. The Senate
sitting for the trial is now ready to hear the parties.
Sec. 2456
Mr. Carpenter, of counsel for the respondent, next closed the issue
of fact on the plea to jurisdiction by submitting the following
similiter:
In the Senate of the United States sitting as a court of impeachment.
The United States of America v. William W. Belknap.
Upon articles of impeachment of the House of Representatives of the
United States of America of high crimes and misdemeanors.
And the said Belknap, as to the surrejoinders of said House of
Representatives to the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth rejoinders of
the said Belknap to the second replication of said House of
Representatives above pleaded, whereof said House of Representatives
have demanded trial, the said Belknap doth the like.
William W. Belknap.
Mr. Manager Lord submitted \1\ a motion relating to the giving of
evidence on questions pertaining to the plea to the jurisdiction and to
the carrying on of the trial as to the main issue.
2456. Belknap's impeachment continued.
The Senate declined to grant the motion of the counsel for Belknap
that the trial be continued to a later date.
The Senate declined to consult the managers before passing on the
application of respondent for a continuance of the Belknap trial.
The Senate in secret session passed on the motion for a continuance
in the Belknap trial.
After this motion had been submitted by Mr. Lord, Mr. Matt. H.
Carpenter, of counsel for the respondent, offered \2\ this motion:
That the further hearing and trial of this impeachment of William W.
Belknap be continued to the first Monday of December next.
In argument in support of this the counsel for the respondent urged
that in the existing political excitement a fair trial was not likely
to result. The precedents of the Blount and Peck impeachments were
cited to justify the postponement.
The Senate having retired for consultation (of which consultation the
debates were not public and not reported), Mr. Edmunds moved that the
motion for postponement be denied.
Mr. John Sherman, of Ohio, moved to amend by substituting the
following:
That the President pro tempore ask the managers if they desire to be
heard on the pending motion of Mr. Carpenter, of counsel for
respondent.
This motion was disagreed to, yeas 28, nays 31.
Mr. Edmunds's motion, that the request for a postponement be not
granted, was agreed to, yeas 59, nays 0.
Thereupon the Senate returned to their Chamber and the President pro
tempore said:
The Presiding Officer is directed to state to the counsel for the
respondent that their motion is denied.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, p. 920; Record of trial, p. 9.
\2\ Senate Journal, pp. 920-923; Record of trial, pp. 10-15.
Sec. 2457
2457. Belknap's impeachment continued.
The Senate overruled the motion of the managers that the evidence on
the question of the jurisdiction of the Senate in the Belknap case be
given before the arguments relating thereto.
The Senate determined in the Belknap case to hear first the question
of law as to jurisdiction.
The Senate denied the motion of the managers in the Belknap case to
fix the time of answer and trial on the merits before decision on the
demurrer.
The Senate ordered a discussion in argument on the right of the House
to allege in the replication matters not touched in the articles.
References to American and English precedents in determining order of
deciding the question of jurisdiction in the Belknap case.
The Senate in secret session determined on the time of having the
arguments as to jurisdiction in the Belknap trial.
Thereupon the motion proposed previously by Mr. Manager Lord was
taken up.\1\
In the Senate of the United States sitting as a court of impeachment.
The United States of America v. William W. Belknap.
On motion of the managers,
Ordered, That the evidence on the questions pertaining to the plea to
the jurisdiction of this court be given before the arguments relating
thereto are heard, and if such plea is overruled that the defendant be
required to answer the articles of impeachment within two days, and the
House of Representatives to reply if they deem it necessary within two
days; and that the trial proceed on the next day after the joining of
issue.
In support of this Mr. Manager Lord argued:
With the permission of the court, Mr. President, I will give the
following reasons why we think this order should be entered:
All of the issues of law and fact relate to the question of
jurisdiction. It is but a single question, upon which the Senate can
make but one decision, and the facts pertaining thereto should be
proved before the arguments, so that the questions of law and of fact
may be considered and decided at the same time. This is the course in
all legal tribunals in which questions of law and fact are decided by
the same judge or judges.
Now let me refer to some authorities on this point:
``In cases where the jury are to decide on both the law and the fact
a general verdict may be rendered on the whole matter.'' (Starkie's Law
of Libel, p. 203.)
In the case of Baylis v. Laurance (11 Adolphus and Ellis, 920),
referred to by Starkie on the same page, it was held that the law was
the same in regard to both civil and criminal cases.
The same author, page 580, states:
``A jury sworn to try the issue may give the general verdict of
guilty or not guilty upon the whole matter put in issue, * * * and
shall not be required or directed by the court or judge * * * to find
the defendant or defendants guilty merely on the proof of the
publication.''
When by the Constitution the sole power to try impeachments was
conferred upon the Senate without any direction as to the mode of
procedure, it must have been intended that the rules governing the
House of Lords when sitting as a court of impeachment, so far as
applicable, should control the Senate sitting as a court of
impeachment.
Mr. Erskine, before the Court of King's Bench, in the case of the
Dean of Asaph, in regard to the abolition of the king's court and the
distribution of its powers, says:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, pp. 920-926; Record of trial, pp. 9, 10, 15-19.
Sec. 2457
``The barons preserved that supreme superintending jurisdiction which
never belonged to the justices, but to themselves only as the jurors in
the king's court.''
And in a note to his argument found in Goodrich's British Eloquence,
page 659, it is said:
``During a trial before the House of Peers every peer present on the
trial has always been judge both of the law and the fact; hence no
special verdict can be given on the trial of a peer.''
Bouvier, in his Law Dictionary, volume 2, page 540, says:
``A special verdict is one by which the facts of the case are put on
the record and the law is submitted to the judges.''
See also Bacon's Abridgment, Verdict, D. A.
A special finding or verdict is therefore only necessary when the
questions of fact are found in one tribunal and the law is applied by
another.
But there is a direct authority on this question from a court of
impeachment only second in dignity to this high tribunal. The court of
impeachment of the State of New York is composed of the president of
the senate, who is the lieutenant-governor, of the senators, and of the
judges of the court of appeals. In the case of the People of the State
of New York against George G. Barnard, then one of the justices of the
supreme court (see vol. 1, pp. 106-108), the respondent interposed a
plea to the jurisdiction on the ground that the articles of impeachment
were not adopted by the assembly by a vote of the majority of all the
members elected thereto, as required by the constitution. A replication
to the plea was filed that the assembly did impeach the respondent by a
vote of a majority of all the members elected thereto. Witnesses were
then examined in regard to this question on both sides; counsel were
heard for the respondent in support of the plea, and for the
prosecution in opposition; after which the president stated that the
question before the court was whether the plea of the respondent should
be sustained. Upon the decision not to sustain the plea replications
were filed, and the trial on the merits proceeded.
This precedent sustains the motion in this case more fully for the
reason that the respondent in that case more than a month before he
interposed the plea to the jurisdiction had pleaded to the merits by
filing a general answer denying each and every allegation in the
articles of impeachment; but discovering a month afterwards, as he
thought, that the articles of impeachment had not been properly
presented, on the ground that a majority of the members elected to the
assembly had not concurred therein, he put in a plea to the
jurisdiction, and the proceedings were had which I have already stated.
Therefore we submit to this honorable court that the managers, by
asking the entry of this order, have suggested the proper method of
trial.
In opposition, on April 28, Mr. Carpenter, of counsel for the
respondent, argued:
The first part of this order, ``That the evidence on the questions
pertaining to the plea to the jurisdiction of this court be given
before the arguments relating thereto are heard,'' we have no objection
to. It is a matter of total indifference to us what is the order which
the Senate may make in that particular. Whether the testimony shall be
taken and the argument on the facts and the law in regard to the
jurisdiction of the court be heard together, or whether they shall be
proceeded with at different times is a matter of indifference to us.
To the residue of the order, however, we do seriously object, upon
several grounds. In the first place, we object to the managers
controlling this case on both sides. We are perfectly willing that they
should ask such orders as they please for their own government and
their own pleadings; but we object to their fixing or asking any order
in regard to our pleadings. This part of the order is:
``And if such plea is overruled, that the defendant be required to
answer the articles of impeachment within two days.''
I suppose that means answer the articles on the merits.
``And the House of Representatives to reply, if they deem it
necessary, within two days; and that the trial proceed on the next day
after the joining of issue.''
I submit to this honorable court that a proper reply to the managers
of the House in regard to this part of the proposed order would be the
famous reply which Coke made to the King: ``When the question arises
and is debated, I will do what is fit and proper for a judge to do; and
further, I decline to pledge myself to Your Majesty.'' When this plea
to the jurisdiction shall be disposed of, the defendant may demur to
the articles of impeachment, or may not, as he shall be advised; and
what will be the circumstances of this court, or of the counsel, or
even of the managers, who, although numerous, are
Sec. 2457
not incorporated and are still mortal, this court can not to-day
determine. They may not want to make their reply to whatever we may say
so speedily as they now think.
In the next place, if the court please, while, as I say, we shall not
attempt to make any delays in this ewe beyond what are absolutely
necessary, the argument of the question of the jurisdiction of this
court can not be made properly on the day indicated in this order.
Mr. Carpenter then gave reasons, such as the preoccupation of counsel
in other duties, the difficulty in getting books of authority, etc., to
show why the arguments should be delayed.
Mr. Roscoe Conkling, of New York, proposed the following:
Ordered, That the Senate proceed first to hear and determine the
question whether W. W. Belknap, the respondent, is amenable to trial by
impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his
resignation of said office. The motion that testimony be heard touching
the exact time of such resignation, and touching the motive and purpose
of such resignation, is reserved without prejudice till the question
above stated has been considered.
In opposition to the resolution proposed by Mr. Conkling, Mr. Manager
Lord argued:
Mr. President and Senators: It seems to me that under the authorities
adduced yesterday such a course of procedure would be protracting the
trial and entirely unnecessary. Several authorities were produced
yesterday to show that a special finding or verdict is only necessary
when the questions of fact are found in one tribunal and the law is
applied by another. This question of jurisdiction is a single question,
and it ought not to be divided and subdivided. The evidence should be
in before the judgment of the court is taken on the question of
jurisdiction; and this I understand the other side concede. Very great
embarrassment might arise; very great delays might ensue from dividing
this question. I cited yesterday an authority in the State of New York,
to which I will again call the attention of the Senators--the Barnard
case.
The court of impeachment in that State, composed of the president of
the senate, the lieutenant-governor, the senators, and the judges of
the court of appeals, had precisely this question before them. A plea
to the jurisdiction was interposed, as follows:
``And the said respondent, in his own proper person and by his
counsel, John H. Reynolds and William A. Beach, comes and says that
this court ought not to have or take further cognizance of the articles
of impeachment, or any or either of them, presented in this court
against him, because, he says, that the said articles of impeachment
were not, nor were any nor was either of them, adopted by the assembly
of this State by a vote of a majority of all the members elected
thereto, as required by section 1 of article 6 of the constitution of
this State.''
A replication was put in to that plea, asserting
``That it is not true that the articles of impeachment now presented
against the said respondent do not appear to be and are not articles of
impeachment adopted by the assembly of the State, but that the said
articles do appear to be and are articles of impeachment adopted by the
said assembly.''
Then Edward M. Johnson and Charles R. Dayton were called and sworn on
the part of the respondent. Hon. C. P. Vedder and Hon. Thomas G. Alvord
were called and sworn on the part of the prosecution, these being
respectively members or officers of the house. Counsel then argued the
case, Messrs. Beach and Reynolds, of counsel for respondent, and Mr.
Van Cott, of coun el for the prosecution.
The president stated that the question before the court was whether
the plea of the respondent should be sustained.
Mr. Lewis moved that the chamber be cleared for private consultation.
The president put the question whether the court would agree to said
motion, and it was determined in the affirniative.
The president put the question whether the court would sustain said
plea of the respondent, and it was determined in the negative, as
follows:
Chief Judge Church, of the court of appeals; Judge Allen, also of the
court of appeals, and Senator Murphy in that case voted in the
affirmative; the other Senators in the negative. I refer to this case
of The People v. Barnard to show that in a court of impeachment
composed of the senators of the State
Sec. 2457
of New York and the judges of the court of appeals of that State the
precise order was taken for which we move; the evidence was in before
the question of jurisdiction was passed upon. Why should we be driven
to one single question when there are three or four, and all of them, I
apprehend, exceedingly important questions in this case? Perhaps in one
view it may be the question of the case whether the defendant resigned
for the purpose of evading this impeachment. Why should we try one
question at one time and try another question at another time?
Mr. Carpenter argued for the respondent:
Mr. President and Senators, the pleadings proper in this case consist
of the articles of impeachment, the plea to the jurisdiction, and the
first replication of the House of Representatives, to which there is a
demurrer by us and a joinder by the managers. Strictly speaking, that
is the only issue that could be made in this case. The honorable
managers, however, saw fit, without asking leave, to file two
replications, instead of one, to our plea. We of course did not care
how fully they went into this question; we were ready to follow them in
disregard of technical pleading.
I never heard of a case in a court where a single plea had led to an
issue of law and fact or where a declaration or any proceeding whatever
was followed by two issues, one of law and one of fact, that the court
did not always first dispose of the question of law. That being
disposed of, the question of fact may or may not be necessary to be
inquired into. While on the part of Mr. Belknap we make no objection to
this proceeding, its regularity is a question for the court to
determine. It seems to me that the more regular proceeding is that
indicated by the order offered by the Senator from New York, that the
law of this question should be first settled. If we had been captious
about pleading, and had moved the court to strike out this second
replication, which is drawn not according to common-law form, but
according to the free-and-easy style of the New York code, this court
would have stricken it out as having been improperly filed, permission
not having been granted to reply double. We did not object because we
did not care for form, and we followed them after their kind in our
reply to their pleas. But certainly the course most in harmony with the
method pursued in courts of law would be to settle the law upon
thispointfirst. If the Senate has no jurisdiction over a man who is not
in office at the time the impeachment commences, that ends the
question. That is a mere question of law; and we shall contend, of
course, that any officer of the Government has a perfect right to
resign at any moment and that the motives of a man's resignation can
not affect the legal consequences which follow the act of resignation.
The Supreme Court of the United States has held where a citizen who
wishes to have a litigation with a citizen of his own State moves into
another State for the express purpose of giving the Federal courts
jurisdiction, that is no objection to the jurisdiction; that a man may
change his residence from one State to another for the purpose of
obtaining a footing in a Federal court, as well as he may change it for
the purpose of improving his health or his financial condition.
I do not regard the issues made as of any substantial consequence to
this case. We care nothing about them. We are willing to try them or
not try them, as the court directs. But the question is whether this
man was in office at the time he was impeached by the House of
Representatives? That is fully presented by the articles, by our plea
to the jurisdiction, and by the first, which is the only regular,
replication on the part of the House and our demurrer thereto. If the
Senate shall be of opinion that none but a person in office can be
impeached, of course that ends this proceeding. At all events, the
method suggested by the order last offered is the method which should
be pursued in a court of law. It will be borne in mind that we
interposed the first demurrer, and are therefore entitled to open and
close in the argument.
The Senate having retired for consultation (of which the proceedings,
but not the debates, are reported in the Journal and record of trial),
consideration was first given to a motion by Mr. Edmunds to strike out
the second sentence of the pending order and insert:
And that the managers and counsel in such argument discuss the
question whether the issues of fact are material.
Sec. 2458
Mr. Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio, moved the following amendment, which
was agreed to:
Add to the words proposed by Mr. Edmunds to be inserted the
following:
And whether the matters in support of the jurisdiction alleged by the
House of Representatives in the pleadings subsequent to the articles of
impeachment can be thus alleged if the same are not averred in said
articles.
Then Mr. Edmunds's motion, as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. Thurman moved further to amend the resolution by striking out all
after the word ``resolved'' and in lieu thereof inserting:
That the Senate will first hear the evidence on the issues of fact
relating to the question of jurisdiction, and after hearing the same
will fix a time for hearing the argument upon the questions of law and
fact relating to such jurisdiction.
The amendment was rejected.
Thereupon Mr. Conkling's resolution, as amended, was agreed to, as
follows:
Ordered, That the Senate proceed first to hear and determine the
question whether W. W. Belknap, the respondent, is amenable to trial by
impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his
resignation of said office; and that the managers and counsel in such
argument discuss the question whether the issues of fact are material,
and whether the matters in support of the jurisdiction alleged by the
House of Representatives in the pleadings subsequent to the articles of
impeachment can be thus alleged if the same are not averred in said
articles.
2458. Belknap's trial continued.
The Senate by rule determined the order and time of arguments, and
the numbers of counsel and managers to speak, on the plea to
jurisdiction in the Belknap trial.
Thereupon Mr. Edmunds moved the following:
Ordered, That the hearing proceed on the 4th day of May, 1876; and
that three of the managers and three of the counsel for the respondent
be heard thereon, as follows: One counsel for the respondent shall open
and shall be followed by one manager, and he shall be followed by one
counsel for the respondent, who shall be followed by two managers, and
one counsel for the respondent shall close the argument; and that such
time be allowed for argument as the managers and counsel may desire.
Motions to amend by changing the date from the 4th to the 15th, 16th,
and 8th were severally disagreed to, the last-named date, the 8th,
being negatived by a vote of yeas 23, nays 32.
Mr. Conkling then moved to amend the resolution by striking out all
after the word ``resolved'' and in lieu thereof inserting--
That the hearing proceed on the 4th day of May, 1876, at 12 o'clock
and 30 minutes p. m.; that the opening and close of the argument be
given to the respondent; that three counsel and three managers may be
heard in such order as may be agreed upon between themselves, and that
such time be allowed for argument as the managers and counsel may
desire.
After debate,
The amendment was agreed to.
The resolution of Mr. Edmunds, as amended, was then agreed to.
Thereupon the Senate returned to the Senate Chamber and the President
pro tempore directed the two orders to be reported.
On May 4,\1\ the next session of the Senate sitting for the trial,
Mr. Carpenter,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, pp. 928, 929; Record of trial, pp. 27, 28.
Sec. 2459
of counsel for the respondent, suggested an adjournment until May 15.
Thereupon Mr. John Sherman, of Ohio, offered this order:
Ordered, That this court adjourn until Monday, May 15, at 12 o'clock
and 30 minutes p. m., and that the argument of the question of
jurisdiction be confined to eight hours on each side.
Mr. Aaron A. Sargent, of California, moved to amend by striking out
that portion of the order limiting the time of the arguments, and the
amendment was agreed to, without division. The order as amended was
then disagreed to, yeas 21, nays 40.
Thereupon Mr. Sherman offered the following:
Ordered, That this court adjourn until Monday, May 15, at 12 o'clock
and 30 minutes p. m.; and that the argument of the question of
jurisdiction be confined to nine hours on each side, to be divided
between them as the managers and counsel may agree.
This order was disagreed to, yeas 22, nays 38.
The arguments thereupon began \1\ and continued during May 5 and 6
and for a portion of May 8. Mr. Black, of counsel for the respondent,
opened, and was followed by Mr. Manager Lord, who was followed by Mr.
Carpenter, of counsel for the respondent. Messrs. Managers Knott,
Jenks, and Hoar followed Mr. Carpenter, and then Mr. Black closed for
the respondent. On May 6 \2\ Mr. Manager Knott, after speaking some
time, stated that he was unable to proceed further, on account of
indisposition, and asked the indulgence of the Senate to conclude his
argument on Monday, May 8. This leave was granted; and Mr. Manager
Jenks continued the argument on May 6.
2459. Belknap's trial continued.
The Senate decided that it had jurisdiction to try the Belknap
impeachment case, although the respondent had resigned the office.
In the Belknap case the Senate decided that respondent's plea in
demurrer was insufficient, and that the articles were sufficient.
While deliberating on the question of jurisdiction in the Belknap
case the Senate notified the managers and counsel that their attendance
was not required.
In the Belknap trial the Senate declined to permit the debates in
secret session to be recorded.
Each Senator was permitted to file a written opinion on the question
of jurisdiction in the Belknap trial.
After the conclusion of the arguments, on May 8,\3\ it was
Ordered, That until further notice the attendance before the Senate,
sitting for the trial of the impeachment, of the managers and the
respondent will not be required.
Thereupon the Senate adjourned to Monday, May 15.
From May 15 to May 29 \4\ the Senate in secret session deliberated on
the pending question. The record of the proceedings only appear in the
Journal; but none of the speeches are printed. On May 16 \5\ Mr.
William B. Allison, of Iowa, proposed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, pp. 929-931; Record of trial, pp. 28-72.
\2\ Senate Journal, p. 930.
\3\ Senate Journal, p. 932; Record of trial, p. 72.
\4\ Senate Journal, pp. 932-947; Record of trial, pp. 72-77.
\5\ Senate Journal, p. 934; Record of trial, p. 73.
Sec. 2459
a motion ``that the consultations and opinions expressed in secret
session be taken down by the reporters and printed in confidence for
the use of Senators;'' but on the next day, when the motion was called
up, the Senate refused to consider it.
On May 29,\1\ on motion of Mr. William Pinkney Whyte, of Maryland, it
was
Ordered, That each Senator be permitted to file his opinion in
writing upon the question of jurisdiction in this case on or before the
1st day of July, 1876, to be printed with the proceedings in the order
in which the same shall be delivered, and the opinions pronounced in
the Senate shall be printed in the order in which they were so
pronounced.
Also the following resolutions, proposed by Mr. Allen G. Thurman, of
Ohio, were, after minor amendments, agreed to,\2\ the first by a vote
of yeas 37, nays 29; the second by a vote of yeas 45, nays 4, and the
third by 35 yeas to 22 nays:
Resolved, That in the opinion of the Senate William W. Belknap, the
respondent, is amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as
Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office before
he was impeached.
Resolved, That the House of Representatives and the respondent be
notified that on Thursday, the lst day of June, 1876, at 1 o'clock p.
m., the Senate will deliver its judgment, in open Senate, on the
question of jurisdiction raised by the pleadings, at which time the
managers on the part of the House and the respondent are notified to
attend.
Resolved, That at the time specified in the foregoing resolution the
President of the Senate shall pronounce the judgment of the Senate as
follows: ``It is ordered by the Senate, sitting for the trial of the
articles of impeachment preferred by the House of Representatives
against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, that the demurrer of
said William W. Belknap to the replication of the House of
Representatives to the plea to the jurisdiction filed by said Belknap
be, and the same hereby is, overruled; and, it being the opinion of the
Senate that said plea is insufficient in law and that said articles of
impeachment are sufficient in law, it is therefore further ordered and
adjudged that said plea be, and the same hereby is, overruled and held
for naught;'' which judgment thus pronounced shall be entered upon the
Journal of the Senate sitting as aforesaid.
Before the second resolution was agreed to Mr. Isaac P. Christiancy,
of Michigan, proposed the following resolution, but withdrew it after
debate:
Whereas the Constitution of the United States provides that no person
shall be convicted on impeachment without the concurrence of two-thirds
of the members present; and whereas more than one-third of all the
members of the Senate have already pronounced their conviction that
they have no right or power to adjudge or try a citizen holding no
public office or trust when impeached by the House of Representatives;
and whereas the respondent, W. W. Belknap, was not when impeached an
officer, but a private citizen of the United States, and of the State
of Iowa; and whereas said Belknap has, since proceedings of impeachment
were commenced against him, been indicted and now awaits trial before a
judicial court for the same offenses charged in the articles of
impeachment, which indictment is pursuant to a statute requiring in
case of conviction (in addition to fine and imprisonment) in infliction
of the utmost judgment which can follow impeachment in any case,
namely, disqualification ever again to hold office:
Resolved, That in view of the foregoing facts it is inexpedient to
proceed further in the case.
On June 1,\3\ in open session of the Senate, sitting for the trial,
the President pro tempore announced the decision on the question of
jurisdiction:
On the question of jurisdiction raised by the pleadings in this
trial, it is ordered by the Senate sitting for the trial of the
articles of impeachment preferred by the House of Representatives
against
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, pp. 943-947; Record of trial, pp. 76, 77.
\2\ For the arguments on the questions involved in these resolutions,
see section 2007 of this volume.
\3\ Senate Journal, p. 947; Record of trial, pp. 158-161.
Sec. 2460
William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, that the demurrer of said
William W. Belknap to the replication of the House of Representatives
to the plea to the jurisdiction filed by said Belknap be, and the same
hereby is, overruled; and, it being the opinion of the Senate that said
plea is insufficient in law and that said articles of impeachment are
sufficient in law, it is therefore further ordered and adjudged that
said plea be, and the same hereby is, overruled and held for naught.
2460. Belknap's impeachment continued.
The question of jurisdiction being settled, the Senate gave Secretary
Belknap ten days to answer on the merits.
The Senate provided that in default of answer from respondent on the
merits, the Belknap trial should proceed as on a plea of not guilty.
The Senate fixed the time of proccedings with the evidence in the
Belknap trial before respondent's answer on the merits.
In the Belknap trial managers and counsel were directed to furnish
one another with their lists of witnesses.
Thereupon Mr. William Pinkney Whyte, of Maryland, proposed the
following:
Ordered, That W. W. Belknap is hereby ordered to plead further or
answer the articles of impeachment within ten days from this date.
Mr. Francis Kernan, a Senator from New York, proposed this amendment:
Resolved, That in default of an answer within ten days by the
respondent to the articles of impeachment, the trial shall proceed as
on a plea of not guilty.
Mr. John Sherman, of Ohio, proposed this:
Ordered, That this court adjourn until Tuesday next, and in the
meantime the defendant have leave to plead, answer, or demur herein.
The Senate, sitting for the trial, having adjourned to June 6,\1\ on
that day \2\ the order proposed by Mr. Whyte came up for consideration,
and on motion of Mr. Sherman it was amended by striking out the words
``is hereby ordered to plead further,'' and inserting the words ``have
leave to plead further.''
Thereupon, at the suggestion of Mr. Manager Scott Lord, Mr. Allen G.
Thurman, a Senator from Ohio, proposed to amend by adding thereto:
And that, in default of an answer to the merits within ten days by
respondent to the articles of impeachment, the trial shall proceed as
upon a plea of not guilty.
This amendment was agreed to, yeas 35, nays 7.
Thereupon, after further amendment at the suggestion of Mr. Whyte,
the order was agreed to by a vote of yeas 33, nays 4, in this form:
Ordered, That W. W. Belknap have leave to answer the articles of
impeachment within ten days from this date; and that, in default of an
answer to the merits within ten days by respondent to the articles of
impeachment, the trial shall proceed as upon a plea of not guilty.
Thereupon Mr. Manager Lord proposed the following:
Resolved, That on the 6th day of July, 1876, the Senate sitting as a
court of impeachment will proceed to hear the evidence on the merits in
the trial of this case.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, pp. 948-951; Record of trial, pp. 162-169.
\2\ On this day also counsel for respondent raised a question
affecting the recently made decision as to the jurisdiction.
Sec. 2461
Thereupon several propositions were made as to the time of proceeding
with the evidence, the counsel for the respondent asking for a much
longer time. Mr. Francis M. Cockrell, of Missouri, proposed June 19
instant [this day being the 6th], but the proposition was disagreed to,
yeas 19, nays 27. A proposition made by Mr. George F. Edmunds, of
Vermont, fixing the date as July 6 was agreed to, yeas 36, nays 9. Then
the order was agreed to as follows:
Ordered, That on the 6th of July, 1876, at 1 o'clock p. m., the
Senate sitting as a court of impeachment will proceed to hear the
evidence on the merits of the trial in this case.
Then it was further
Ordered, That the managers furnish to the defendant, or his counsel,
within four days, a list of witnesses, as far as at present known to
them, that they intend to call in this case; and that, within four days
thereafter, the respondent furnish to the managers a list of witnesses,
as far as known, that he intends to summon.
Thereupon the Senate, sitting for the trial, adjourned to June 16,
that day being selected in order to provide for the answer, which was
to be filed within ten days, if at all.
2461. Belknap's impeachment continued.
In the Belknap trial respondent declined to plead on the merits, but
filed a protest against the continuance of the trial.
In the Belknap trial the right of the Senate to take jurisdiction by
a majority vote was the subject of protest.
A protest filed on behalf of respondent in the Belknap trial was
signed by respondent and his counsel.
The Senate, after debate and close division, permitted the filing of
a protest by respondent in the Belknap trial.
The Senate considered in secret session the protest of respondent in
the Belknap impeachment.
On June 16,\1\ Mr. Jeremiah S. Black, of counsel for the respondent,
announced that they declined to put in any plea, but asked that this
paper be filed:
In the Senate of the United States sitting as a court of impeachment.
The United States of America v. William W. Belknap.
And now, to wit, this 16th day of June, 1876, the said William W.
Belknap comes into court, and being called upon to plead further to the
said articles of impeachment, doth most humbly and with profoundest
respect represent and show to this honorable court that on the 17th day
of April last past he did plead to the said articles of impeachment,
and in his said plea did allege that at the time when the House of
Representatives of the United States ordered the said impeachment, and
at the time when the said articles of impeachment were exhibited at the
bar of the Senate against him, the said Belknap, he, the said Belknap,
was and ever thereafter had been not a public officer of the United
States, but a private citizen of the United States and of the State of
Iowa; and that the plea aforesaid and all the matters and things
therein contained were by him, said Belknap, fully verified by proofs,
namely, by admissions of the said House of Representatives before said
court; and the said Belknap further represents and shows to the court
here that the truth and sufficiency of the plea pleaded by him as
aforesaid were thereupon debated by the managers of the said House of
Representatives and the counsel of this respondent, and thereupon
submitted to this court for its determination and judgment thereon; and
that such proceedings were thereupon had in this court on that behalf
in this cause; that afterwards, to wit, on the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Senate Journal, pp. 952,
954, 955; Record of trial, pp. 169-173.
Sec. 2461
29th day of May last past, the members of this court, to wit, the
Senators of the United States sitting as a court of impeachment as
aforesaid, did severally deliver their several judgments, opinions, and
votes on the truth and sufficiency in law of the said plea, when and
whereby it was made duly to appear that only thirty-seven Senators
concurred in pronouncing said plea insufficient or untrue; whereas
twenty-nine Senators sitting in said court, by their opinions and
votes, affirmed and declared their opinion to be that said plea was
sufficient in law and true in point of fact; so that the said Belknap
in fact saith that, on the day and year last aforesaid, twenty-nine
Senators sitting in said court declared therein that the said Belknap
having ceased to be a public officer of the United States by reason of
his resignation of the office of Secretary of War of the United States
before proceedings in impeachment were commenced against him by the
House of Representatives of the United States, the Senate can not take
jurisdiction of this cause; and that seven Senators did not vote upon
said question, and only thirty-seven Senators, by their votes, declared
their opinion to be that the Senate could take jurisdiction of said
cause. And afterwards thirty-seven Senators sitting in said court, and
no more, concurred in a resolution declaring that ``in the opinion of
the Senate William W. Belknap is amenable to trial on impeachment for
acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said
office,'' and that twenty-nine of said Senators sitting in said court,
by their votes, affirmed and declared their opinion to be to the
contrary thereof. And afterwards, on the day and year last aforesaid,
it was proposed in said court that the President pro tempore of the
said Senate should declare the judgment of the said Senate, sitting as
aforesaid, to be that said plea of said respondent should be held for
naught, and a vote was taken upon said proposition; and, as said vote
showed, two-thirds of the said Senators present did not concur therein;
but, on the contrary thereof, only thirty-six Senators did concur
therein, and twenty-seven Senators then and there present, and voting
on said proposition, did by their votes dissent from and vote against
said proposition. All of which appears more fully and at large upon the
record of this court in this cause, to which record he, said Belknap,
prays leave to refer.
Therefore the said Belknap, referring to the Constitution of the
United States, article 1, section 3, clause 6, which provides that ``no
person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the
Members present'' (meaning on trial on impeachment), avers that his
said plea has not been overruled or held for naught by the Senate
sitting as aforesaid, no such judgment having been concurred in by two-
thirds of the Senators sitting in said court and voting thereon; but,
on the contrary thereof, as the vote aforesaid fully shows, the said
plea of the said respondent was sustained, and its truth in fact and
sufficiency in law duly affirmed by the said Senate sitting as
aforesaid, more than one-third of the Senators of said Senate, sitting
as aforesaid, having by their votes so declared, to wit, twenty-seven
Senators as aforesaid, and said twenty-seven Senators having by their
votes declared and affirmed their opinion to be that said plea of said
respondent was true in fact, and was sufficient in law to prevent the
Senate sitting as aforesaid from taking further cognizance of said
articles of impeachment.
Wherefore the respondent avers that he has already been substantially
acquitted by the Senate sitting as aforesaid; and that he, the said
respondent, is not bound further to answer said articles of
impeachment; the said order requiring this respondent to answer over
not having been made with the concurrence of two-thirds of the said
Senators sitting as aforesaid and voting upon the question of the
passage of said order; and said order having been passed with the
concurrence only of less than two-thirds of the said Senators sitting
as aforesaid and voting on the question of making and passing said
order, the said order ought not to have been entered of record as an
order of said court of impeachment in this cause; and said order
appearing upon the whole record of said cause to be null and void, as
an order of said court.
And the said respondent prays the court now here, as he has before
formally moved said court, to vacate said order; and the said
respondent hereby prays said court that he may be hence dismissed.
William W. Belknap.
Matt. H. Carpenter,
J. S. Black,
Montgomery Blair,
Of Counsel for said Respondent.
Sec. 2462
Mr. George F. Edmunds, a Senator from Vermont, objected to the filing
of the paper at present, and Mr. Manager Lord entered a formal
objection:
Mr. President and Senators, the objection of the managers to filing
this paper is that it is in direct contravention of the order of the
Senate, as we view it. The order of the Senate was that on this day the
respondent should plead to the merits or that the case should go to
trial as upon a plea of not guilty. The Senate have not forgotten that
the learned counsel who makes this motion stated distinctly in this
tribunal at the last hearing that the question now raised could not be
settled until the final determination of the case, for it is utterly
impossible to tell at this time what the organization of the Senate
will be then. The managers then said, and say now, that on this point
we are prepared to argue the question at a proper time, but it seems
entirely premature to attempt to argue it now, when it is impossible,
as I have already said, to tell what the organization of the Senate
will be when the verdict is to be taken. How many it will take to make
two-thirds of the Members present at that time it is impossible now to
tell; and I repeat the counsel stated emphatically that the question
could not be determined until then. He now comes here, declines to
plead, and asks that this rather extraordinary paper be filed. And we
say there is no precedent for filing it, there is no reason for filing
it, and it is a violation of the order of the Senate.
Mr. Montgomery Blair, of counsel for the respondent, said:
We wish a formal paper on the records of this body showing to the
Senate and to the country the position and attitude we take upon that
subject, and we think that now is the proper time. Of course, we do not
say that we stand here to prevent the Senate from proceeding to the
trial of the facts. We can not do that, because they have already
said--and we take it that what they have said they mean--that, if we do
not on this occasion file a plea to the merits of this case, they would
proceed and put in a plea of the general issue for us themselves; and
we expect that now, as my colleague has said to you. All we ask is that
this paper, which states formally the attitude that we hold and shall
claim to hold to the end of this trial, shall be noted on the records
of this body. I think that any impartial tribunal would grant us that
liberty of claiming the right to argue as matter of law that this court
has already decided this question in its action upon the special plea
heretofore put in. I do not call for any argument from the managers now
or at any time hereafter (if they choose to permit it) upon this
question.
On June 19,\1\ in secret session, Mr. John Sherman, a Senator from
Ohio, submitted an order, of which the first portion was as follows:
Ordered, That the paper presented by the defendant on the 16th
instant be filed in this cause.
Mr. Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio, moved to amend by inserting after the
word ``be'' the word ``not.'' The amendment was disagreed to, yeas 24,
nays 24.
Thereupon the order as proposed by Mr. Sherman was agreed to, yeas
26, nays 24. So the paper was ordered filed.
2462. Belknap's impeachment continued.
After settling the question of jurisdiction, the Senate overruled
respondent's motion for a continuance of the Belknap trial.
The Senate determined that an impeachment might proceed only while
Congress was in session.
On June 17 \2\ Mr. Black, of counsel for the respondent, proposed
this order:
Ordered, That this case be now continued until some convenient day in
the month of November.
On June 19 the Senate, in secret session, considered the order, and
on motion of Mr. Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio, it was, without division,
Ordered, That the application of the respondent for postponement of
the time for proceeding with trial be overruled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, pp. 954, 955; Record of trial, pp. 172, 173.
\1\ Senate Journal, pp. 952-954; Record of trial, pp. 171, 172.
Sec. 2463
On June 16 \1\ Mr. Manager Lord had proposed the following:
Ordered, That the respondent, W, W. Belknap, shall not be allowed to
make any further plea or answer to the articles of impeachment
preferred against him on the part of the House of Representatives, but
that the future proceedings proceed as upon a general plea of not
guilty.
But subsequently he modified it to this form:
Ordered, That W. W. Belknap having made default to plead or answer to
the merits within the time fixed by the order of the Senate, the trial
proceed as upon a plea of not guilty, in pursuance of the former order.
On June 19 Mr. John Sherman, of Ohio, in secret session, presented an
order, the first portion of which provided for the filing of the paper
presented by counsel for respondent, and the second portion of which,
Ordered, That * * * the defendant having' failed to answer to the
merits within ten days allowed by the order of the Senate of the 6th
instant, the trial shall proceed on the 6th of July next as upon a plea
of not guilty.
Mr. William B. Allison, of Iowa, proposed an amendment substituting
``19th day of November'' for ``6th day of July.'' This was disagreed
to, yeas 9, nays 37.
On motion of Mr. Conkling, by a vote of yeas 21, nays 19, the words
``Provided, That the impeachment can only proceed while Congress is in
session'' were added.
Then, as amended, the portion of the order as given was agreed to, as
follows, by a vote of yeas 21, nays 16:
And the defendant having failed to answer to the merits within ten
days allowed by the order of the Senate of the 6th instant, the trial
shall proceed on the 6th of July next as upon a plea of not guilty:
Provided, The impeachment can only proceed while Congress is in
session.
2463. Belknap's impeachment continued.
The Senate provided that subpoenas for respondent's witnesses in the
Belknap trial should be issued on recommendation of a committee.
An approved number of witnesses for respondent in the Belknap trial
were summoned at public expense.
Thereupon Mr. George F. Edmunds proposed the following, which was
agreed to \2\ by unanimous consent:
Ordered, That the Secretary issue subpoenas that may be applied for
by the respondent for such witnesses to be summoned at the expense of
the United States as shall be allowed by a committee, to consist of
Senators Frelinghuysen, Thurman, and Christiancy, and that subpoenas
for all other witnesses for the respondent shall contain the statement
that the witnesses therein named are to attend upon the tender on
behalf of the respondent of their lawful fees.
This order was apparently in response to a letter from the Chief
Clerk of the Senate, presented on June 16,\3\ transmitting a list of
witnesses to be summoned on behalf of the respondent, which list had
been filed in his office.
2464. Belknap's impeachment continued.
The opening address and presentation of testimony in the Belknap
impeachment.
Counsel for respondent made no opening address before presenting
testimony in the Belknap trial.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, pp. 952, 954, 959; Record of trial, pp. 170, 173.
\2\ Senate Journal, p. 959; Record of trial, p. 174.
\3\ Senate Journal, p. 952; Record of trial, p. 170.
Sec. 2465
Forms and ceremonies of opening the proceedings of the Senate on a
day of the Belknap trial.
The Senate daily informed the House of its readiness to proceed with
the Belknap trial.
On July 6,\1\ the day set for the trial to proceed, the proceedings
opened with the usual formalities. In the Senate the President pro
tempore said:
The hour of 12 o'clock having arrived, pursuant to the order of the
Senate made on June 19 the legislative and executive business of the
Senate will be suspended and the Senate will proceed to the
consideration of the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War.
The usual proclamation was made by the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Messrs. Lord, Lynde, McMahon, Jenks, Lapham, and Hoar, of the
managers on the part of the House of Representatives, appeared and were
conducted to the seats assigned them.
The respondent appeared with his counsel, Messrs. Blair, Black, and
Carpenter.
The President pro tempore said:
The Secretary will notify the House of Representatives that the
Senate is ready to proceed with the trial and that seats are provided
for their accommodation.\2\
The Secretary read the Journal of proceedings of the Senate sitting
for the trial of the impeachment of William W. Belknap of Monday, June
19, 1876.
The President pro tempore said:
The Senate in trial is now ready to proceed.
Mr. Manager William P. Lynde then made the opening address on behalf
of the House of Representatives, after which witnesses were called and
sworn, and after examination by the managers were cross-examined by
counsel for the respondent.
On July 12 \3\ the testimony presented by the managers was closed,
and the President pro tempore said:
The defense will proceed, the case being closed on the part of the
managers.
Thereupon at once, without any opening address, the counsel for the
respondent began the introduction of testimony.
On July 19 \4\ the testimony for the respondent was concluded. The
managers announced that they had nothing in rebuttal.
2465. Belknap's impeachment continued.
In the Belknap trial the Senate permitted three managers and three
counsel to argue on the final question, in such order as might be
agreed on.
The Senate declined to restrict the time of final arguments in the
Belknap trial.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, p. 960; Record of trial, pp. 174, 175.
\2\ This message was sent daily in accordance with rule. The House,
however, had voted not to attend.
\3\ Senate Journal, p. 975; Record of trial, p. 256.
\4\ Senate Journal, p. 983; Record of trial, p. 285.
Sec. 2465
In the Belknap trial the closing speech of the final arguments was by
one of the managers.
The illness of counsel or managers was certified to as reason for
disarranging the order of final argument in the Belknap trial.
In the Belknap trial the witnesses were discharged before the final
arguments.
Thereupon \1\ Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter, of counsel for the respondent,
asked for an order permitting three of the counsel for the respondent
to be heard in final argument instead of two, as provided in Rule XXI.
Mr. George F. Edmunds, a Senator from Vermont, offered this order:
Ordered, That three persons on each side be allowed six hours for
summing up, to be arranged between them.
Mr. Roscoe Conkling, a Senator from New York, proposed to amend by
striking out all after the word ``Ordered,'' and inserting:
That three managers and three counsel for the respondent may be heard
in the concluding argument, in the order in which they state to the
Senate they have agreed.
Mr. Edmunds moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Conkling by adding--
and that the argument be limited to six hours on each side.
This amendment was disagreed to, ayes 15, noes 29.
Then, without division, Air. Conkling's substitute was agreed to, and
the original order as amended by the substitute was also agreed to
without division.
Then the President pro tempore said:
Will the Senate allow the Chair to state that the Chair understands
the witnesses on both sides can be discharged? He makes that
announcement so that they can leave.
On July 20 \2\ the President pro tempore announced that the arguments
would begin, and that the managers would have the opening. Then it was
announced that as Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter, of counsel for the
respondent, was detained by illness, it had been arranged between the
managers and counsel for respondent that Mr. Montgomery Blair, of
counsel for the respondent, should open, thereby relieving Mr.
Carpenter of the misfortune of not hearing the speech of the manager,
to whom he was to reply. At the conclusion of Mr. Blair's address a
motion to adjourn was disagreed to. Thereupon Mr. Jeremiah S. Black, of
counsel for respondent, said it would be a hardship to have an argument
from the managers in the absence of Mr. Carpenter. It was suggested
that an argument made this day would be in print in the morning in time
for counsel to examine it before replying. Thereupon Mr. Manager
William P. Lynde proceeded in argument.
On the next day, July 21,\3\ Mr. Manager Lynde having concluded his
argument on the preceding day, Mr. Black, of counsel for the
respondent, submitted a motion that the Senate sitting for the trial
adjourn until the 24th, justifying the motion by the following
affidavit:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, p. 983; Record of trial, pp. 285, 286.
\2\ Senate Journal, p. 983; Record of trial, p. 287.
\3\ Senate Journal, p. 994; Record of trial, p. 298.
Sec. 2466
United States Senate sitting as a court of impeachment.
The United States v. William W. Belknap.
District of Columbia, County of Washington, ss:
Personally appeared before me D. W. Bliss, who, being sworn according
to law, says that he has been the family physician of Matt. H.
Carpenter for seven years when in Washington; that he is now under my
care and seriously ill with acute gastritis (inflammation of the
stomach); that he has been confined to his bed for the past thirty-six
hours, and is not able to leave his room today, and I state my belief
that he will be able to resume his duties on Monday, the 24th instant.
D. W. Bliss, M. D.
Subscribed and sworn before me this 21st day of July, A. D. 1876.
[Seal]
A. E. Boone, Notary Public.
Mr. Black's motion was agreed to, yeas 34, nays 5.
On the assembling of the Senate for the trial, on July 24,\1\ Mr.
Manager Scott Lord presented an affidavit showing:
United States Senate sitting as a court of impeachment.
The United States v. William W. Belknap.
District of Columbia, County of Washington, ss:
Personally appeared before me, D. W. Bliss, M. D., a practicing
physician, who, being sworm according to law, said that Hon. A. G.
Lapham has been under his professional care during the past three days
and unable to leave his bed by reason of acute cellulitis and perineal
abscess, and he will not, in my opinion, be able to resume his official
duties before Wednesday, the 26th instant.
D. W. Brass, M. D.
Sworn and subscribed to before me this 24th day of July, 1876.
A. E. Boone, Notary Public.
Mr. Manager Lord stated that the managers were prepared to go on in
Mr. Lapham's absence, but preferred not to, and asked an adjournment to
the 26th. The Senate declined to adjourn, whereupon Mr. Manager Lord
asked that Mr. Lapham's argument might be printed. And the argument was
ordered printed.
Mr. Manager George A. Jenks next proceeded in argument,\2\ and was
followed \3\ by Mr. Jeremiah S. Black, of counsel for respondent.
On July 25 and 26 \4\ Mr. Matthew H. Carpenter, of counsel for
respondent, submitted argument.
Following Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Manager Scott Lord, on behalf of the
House of Representatives, closed the argument. \5\
2466. Belknap's impeachment continued.
The Senate in secret session adopted an order to govern the voting on
the articles in the Belknap impeachment.
There was much deliberation over the form of the final question in
the Belknap trial.
The voting on the articles in the Belknap impeachment was without
debate, but each Senator was permitted to file an opinion.
The Senate in the Belknap trial declined to renounce the practice of
deliberating in secret session.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, p. 985; Record of trial, p. 299.
\2\ Record of trial, pp. 306-313.
\3\ Record of trial, pp. 314-318.
\4\ Record of trial, pp. 319-334.
\5\ Record of trial, pp. 334-341.
Sec. 2466
On July 31,\1\ as the Senate sitting for the trial was about to
determine its method of procedure, Mr. Hannibal Hamlin, a Senator from
Maine, proposed such amendment to the rules as would prevent secret
sessions; but the Senate, by a vote of 23 yeas to 32 nays, declined to
consider it. Then, on motion of Mr. George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, and
by a vote of yeas 32, nays 25, the doors were closed for deliberation.
Thereupon the following occurred:
Mr. Roscoe Conkling, of New York, submitted the following order for
consideration:
Ordered, That when called to vote whether the articles of impeachment
or either of them are sustained, any Senator who votes in the negative
shall be at liberty to state, if he chooses, that he rests his vote on
the absence of guilt proved in fact, or on the want of jurisdiction, as
the case may be; and the vote shall be entered in the Journal
accordingly.
Mr. Edmunds moved to amend by striking out all after the word
``ordered'' and inserting:
That on Tuesday next, the 1st day of August, at 12 o'clock meridian,
the Senate shall proceed to vote, without debate, on the several
articles of impeachment. The presiding officer shall direct the
Secretary to read the several articles successively, and after the
reading of each article the presiding officer shall put the question
following, viz: ``Mr. Senator ----, how say you? Is the respondent,
William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty of a high crime or high
misdemeanor, as the charge may be, as charged in this article?''
Whereupon such Senator shall rise in his place and answer ``guilty'' or
``not guilty'' only. And each Senator shall be permitted to file within
two days after the vote shall have been so taken his written opinion,
to be printed with the proceedings.
Mr. John Sherman, of Ohio, moved to amend the amendment of Mr.
Edmunds by striking out the word ``only'' after ``guilty,'' and in lieu
thereof inserting:
And each Senator shall be at liberty to state the ground of his vote
in a single sentence, which shall be entered on the Journal.
Mr. Aaron A. Sargent, of California, moved to amend the amendment of
Mr. Sherman by inserting in lieu of the words proposed to be inserted:
Any Senator who votes in the negative shall be at liberty to state if
he chooses that he rests his vote on the absence of guilt proved in
fact, or on the want of jurisdiction, as the case may be; and any
Senator who votes in the affirmative may add that he holds the vote of
a majority heretofore in favor of jurisdiction binding on him, and the
vote shall be entered on the Journal accordingly.
Mr. Edmunds moved to amend the order proposed by Mr. Conkling by
striking out all after the word ``that'' and in lieu thereof inserting:
Each Senator may in giving his vote state his reasons therefor,
occupying not more than one minute, which reasons shall be entered in
the Journal in connection with his vote.
Mr. Conkling moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Edmunds by adding
thereto the words:
And immediately following his name and vote.
The amendment of Mr. Conkling to Mr. Edmunds's amendment was agreed
to.
On the question to agree to the order of Mr. Edmunds as amended, it
was determined in the affirmative.
Mr. Edmunds then withdrew the amendment first offered by him to the
order proposed by Mr. Conkling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, pp. 987-991; Record of trial, pp. 341, 342.
Sec. 2466
The question then being on the order of Mr. Conkling as amended, as
follows:
Ordered, That each Senator may, in giving his vote, give his reasons
therefor, occupying not more than one minute, which reasons shall be
entered in the Journal in connection with his vote and immediately
following his name and vote,
It was determined in the affirmative.
Mr. Edmunds submitted the following order for consideration:
Ordered, That on Tuesday next, the 1st day of August, at 12 o'clock
meridian, the Senate shall proceed to vote without debate on the
several articles of impeachment. The presiding officer shall direct the
Secretary to read the several articles successively, and after the
reading of each article the presiding officer shall put the question
following, namely: ``Mr. Senator ------, how say you? Is the
respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty of a high crime,''
or ``high misdemeanor,'' as the charge may be, ``as charged in this
article?'' Whereupon such Senator shall rise in his place and answer
``guilty'' or ``not guilty,'' with his reasons, if any, as provided in
the order already adopted; and each Senator shall be permitted to file
within two days after the vote shall have been so taken his written
opinion, to be printed with the proceedings.
Mr. John J. Ingalls, of Kansas, moved to amend the order by striking
out all after the word ``impeachment,'' in line 4, and in lieu thereof
inserting:
And that in taking the final question the presiding officer shall
call each Senator by name in alphabetical order and upon each article
propose as follows:
``Mr. Senator ------, how say you, is the impeachment under this
article sustained?''
Whereupon each Senator shall rise in his place and answer ``yea'' or
``nay,'' and may, as provided in the order already adopted, state the
ground of his vote.
The question being taken on this amendment by yeas and nays,
resulted--yeas 24, nays 27.
So the amendment of Mr. Ingalls was rejected.
The question recurring on the order of Mr. Edmunds, Mr. William B.
Allison, of Iowa, demanded a division of the question; and the question
being put on the first branch of the order, namely:
Ordered, That on Tuesday next, the 1st day of August, at 12 o'clock
meridian, the Senate shall proceed to vote, without debate, on the
several articles of impeachment,
It was agreed to.
The question being on the second clause of the order of Mr. Edmunds,
Mr. Ingalls moved to amend the clause by inserting in lieu thereof the
following:
And that in taking the final question the presiding officer of the
Senate shall call each Senator by name in alphabetical order, and upon
each article propose as follows, that is to say: ``Mr. Senator ----,
how say you, is the impeachment under this article sustained?''
Whereupon each Senator shall rise in his place and answer ``yea'' or
``nay,'' and may also, as provided in the order already adopted, state
the grounds of his vote; and each Senator may, within two days
thereafter, file his opinion in writing, to be published in the printed
proceedings of the case.
Mr. Edmunds demanded a division of Mr. Ingalls's amendment; and the
question being put on the first branch thereof, it was disagreed to--
yeas 24, nays 26.
The question being put in the second branch of the amendment of Mr.
Ingalls--namely, strike out all of the order of Mr. Edmunds after
``impeachment'' and in lieu thereof insert--
Whereupon each Senator shall rise in his place and answer ``yea'' or
``nay,'' and may also, as provided in the order already adopted, state
the grounds of his vote; and each Senator may, within two days
thereafter, file his opinion in writing, to be published in the printed
proceedings of the case,
It was disagreed to.
Sec. 2467
The question recurring on the order of Mr. Edmunds, it was agreed to,
as follows:
Ordered, That on Tuesday next, the 1st day of August, at 12 o'clock
meridian, the Senate shall proceed to vote, without debate, on the
several articles of impeachment. The Presiding Officer shall direct the
Secretary to read the several articles successively, and after the
reading of each article the presiding officer shall put the question
following, namely: ``Mr. Senator ------, how say you? Is the
respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty of a high crime''
or ``high misdemeanor,'' as the charge may be, ``as charged in this
article?'' Whereupon such Senator shall rise in his place and answer
``guilty'' or ``not guilty'' with his reasons, if any, as provided in
the order already adopted.
And each Senator shall be permitted to file within two days after the
vote shall have been so taken his written opinion, to be printed with
the proceedings.
The Senate, sitting for the trial, thereupon adjourned.
2467. Belknap's impeachment continued.
The managers alone attended in the Senate on the day the Senate
rendered judgment in the Belknap case.
The respondent in the Belknap trial attended throughout until the
time of rendering judgment.
The President pro tempore announced the result of the vote on each
article and the acquittal of respondent on each.
The vote on the final question in the Belknap trial was affected
conclusively by opinions as to the question of jurisdiction.
Having announced the result of the voting in the Belknap case, the
President pro tempore directed the entry of a judgment of acquittal.
The adjournment without day of the Senate sitting for the Belknap
trial was pronounced after vote of the Senate.
On August 1 \1\ the Senate, sitting for the trial, began its
proceedings with the usual formalities. The usual message \2\ was sent
to the House of Representatives; but as usual the managers alone
appeared, the House adhering to its resolution made early in the trial.
Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter, of counsel for the respondent, appeared. The
respondent himself, who had attended with his counsel throughout the
trial, was not present either on this or the preceding day.
After the Journal had been read the President pro tempore announced
that according to the order already adopted the Senate would now
proceed to vote on the several articles. The voting then began, the
Secretary reading each article, and each Senator rising in his place
and pronouncing his decision, either with or without the permitted
explanation.
The result of the voting was as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guilty. Not guilty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article I..................................... 35 25
Article II.................................... 36 25
Article III................................... 36 25
Article IV.................................... 36 25
Article V..................................... 37 25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, pp. 992-1012; Record of trial, pp. 342-357.
\2\ House Journal, p. 1361.
Sec. 2468
After the vote on each article the President pro tempore made
announcement in form as follows:
On this article 37 Senators vote ``guilty'' and 25 Senators vote
``not guilty.'' Two-thirds of the Senators present not sustaining the
fifth article, the respondent is acquitted on this article.
An analysis of the reasons given with the votes shows that of those
voting ``guilty,'' 2 believed that the Senate had no jurisdiction, but
gave their verdict in good faith, since by vote jurisdiction had been
assumed. Of those voting ``not guilty,'' 3 announced that they did so
on the evidence, while 22 announced that they voted not guilty because
they believed the Senate had no jurisdiction. One Senator stated that
he declined to vote because he believed they did not have jurisdiction.
He did not ask to be excused from voting.
At the conclusion of the voting the President pro tempore announced:
This concludes the action of the Senate on all the articles of the
impeachment. The Chair will call the Senate's attention to Rule 22,
which provides:
``And if the impeachment shall not upon any of the articles presented
be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of the members present, a
judgment of acquittal shall be entered.''
If there be no objection to complying therewith, the Secretary will
be directed to enter a judgment of acquittal. Is there objection? The
Chair hears none, and it will be so entered.
The Senate, sitting for the impeachment, then voted, on motion of
Air. George F. Edmunds, a Senator from Vermont, to adjourn without day,
and the President pro tempore said:
The Senate sitting for the trial of the impeachment of William W.
Belknap, late Secretary of War, stands adjourned without day.
2468. Belknap's impeachment continued.
At the conclusion of the Belknap trial the managers presented to the
House a written report of the judgment and certain features of the
trial.
On August 2,\1\ in the House of Representatives, Mr. Manager Scott
Lord presented the following report in writing, which was read to the
House and ordered printed:
That the defendant, William W. Belknap, has been acquitted on all the
articles presented against him, less than two-thirds of the Senators
present voting ``guilty.'' The final vote was 61; 37 of the Senators
voted ``guilty,'' 23 ``not guilty for want of jurisdiction,'' 1 ``not
guilty,'' \2\ I and I criticized a portion of the articles of
impeachment, and stated that the offenses charged in other of the
articles were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. A change of 5 votes
would have resulted in the conviction of the defendant by the two-
thirds vote required by the Constitution.
The question of jurisdiction, raised by the plea of the defendant,
was the first point presented to the court of impeachment. After a
protracted and exhaustive argument, the court held that it had
jurisdiction, notwithstanding the resignation of the defendant.; and
the managers proceeded to prove the offenses charged in the articles of
impeachment, and after proving them so conclusively that only two \3\
Senators in any manner questioned the guilt of the defendant, the
minority of the Senate refused to be governed by the deliberate
judgment of the majority, that it had jurisdiction, and, in the form
and mode before referred to, prevented the conviction of the defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, p. 1373, Record; pp. 5082, 5083.
\2\ Three voted ``not guilty''--Messrs. Conover, Patterson, and
Wright. (See pp. 355-357 of Record of trial.) The number voting ``not
guilty for want of jurisdiction'' was 22, and 1, Jones, of Florida,
declined to vote because he considered the Senate had no jurisdiction.
\3\ Three Senators voted not guilty.
Sec. 2468
While exercising the power to vote ``not guilty,'' it was practically
asserted that there was no converse to the proposition, and therefore
that Senators had no legal right to vote ``guilty,'' however satisfied
of the guilt of the accused.
Notwithstanding this result, the managers believe that great good
will accrue from the impeachment and trial of the defendant. It has
been settled thereby that persons who have held civil office in the
United States are impeachable, and that the Senate has jurisdiction to
try them, although years may elapse before the discovery of the offense
or offenses subjecting them to impeachment. To such as are or may
hereafter be among the civil officers of the United States, who have no
higher plane of integrity than the rule that ``honesty is the best
policy,'' and it is conceded they are comparatively few, this decision
will be a constant warning that impeachable offenses, though not
discovered for years, may result in impeachment, conviction, and public
disgrace. To settle this principle, so vitally important in securing
the rectitude of the class of officers referred to, is worth infinitely
more than all the time, labor, and expense of the protracted trial
closed by the verdict of yesterday.
This report was evidently unanimous, and at the conclusion of the
reading Messrs. Managers George F. Hoar and Elbridge G. Lapham
addressed the House briefly affirming strongly the positions taken by
the report.