United States. Congress.

Congressional record : proceedings and debates of the ... Congress online

. (page 111 of 172)
Online LibraryUnited States. CongressCongressional record : proceedings and debates of the ... Congress → online text (page 111 of 172)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


A. I sent it to him originally according to what I have heretofore
stated occurred on the night of the funeral. It may be presumed
that it was sent for the child, but I continued sending it after the
child's death to the (General, and I always presumed it was for him.

Q. (By Mr. Thurbian.) Was the child a child of General Bel-
knap's?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. (By Mr. Manager McMahon.) In that connection ^ve the date
of the death of the child, if you can remember it. I thmk we have
agreed that the mother died about the 31st day of December, 1870.

A. And the child the following summer.

Mr. CARPENTER. Let it be also understood when he was married
to the present Mrs. Belknap.

Mr. Manager McMAHON. In December, 1873, General Belknap
was married to Mrs. Bower.

Mr. CARPENTER. Three years afterward.

Mr. HOWE. I should like to have the answer to this last question
read.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The reporter will read the answer
to the question propounded oy the Senator from Wisconsin.

The answer was read, as foUows :

A. I sent it to him originally noooTding to what I have heretofore stated oocorrod
on the nieht of the foneral. It may be presomed that it was sent for the child ;
but I conunned sendinff it after the child^s deatJi to the Gencorel, and I always pre-
sumed it was for him.

Mr. HOWE. Now I should like to send to the desk one more ques-
tion to be read.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question of the Senator from
Wisconsin will be read.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

Q. Why did you say to Mrs. Bower that the child would have money
after a time f

A. Because I had previously sent a remittance to the mother, and
I felt like continuing it to the mother's representative, the chila.

Q. (By Mr. Carpenter.) The first remittance was sent to Mrs.
Belknap.

16 I



A. Tes, sir ; to Mrs. Belknap.

Mr. WRIGHT. I have a question I wish to propound, and I will
read it in the first instance, as it is not very legible.

Q. Ton said on yesterday that you presumed that Oeneral Belknap
knew from whom the money sent him was received. Now state what
led you to sopresume, or upon what you based this presumption f

Mr. CARPE^ER. We object to this question. Let it be read
again.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question will be read by the
Secretanr.

The Chief Clerk read the interrogatory of Mr. Wright.

The question being put, was decided in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT j>ro tempore. The witness will answer the ques-
tion.

The Witness. I said I presumed he knew where it came from.

Mr. CARPENTER. Now it appeal's there was a mistake, as I
thought. The question does not correctly state the case to the wit-
ness. The question and answer yesterday were exactly this :

Q. Did General Bellmap at this time know where the money was coming from
thi& was being paid to him t

A. I dionld say that I presume he did.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question will be answeied. It
wlU be read again to witness.

Hie Chief Clerk again read the question of Mr. Wright, as follows:

Q. Ton said on yesterday that yon presumed that General Belknap
knew from whom the money sent him was received. Now what led
you to so presume, or upon what you based this presumption f

Mr. Mana|^r McMAHON. Before the question is answered, there
is a misun&rstanding as to what the real meaning of the answer
given yesterd^ is. Our object in putting the question was to ascer-
tain wheUier Belknap knew where the money was coming from, not
the person, not the man from whom it came, but the place.

Mr. WRIGHT. This question covers the whole ground.

Mr. Manager McMAHON. Go on.

The Witness. I presumed that he knew, because he had appointed
Mr. Evans to tlus post at my request. I had no other business trans-
action with General Belknaf) whatever except sending this money. I
had sometimes forwarded him requests of Mr. Evans sent to me for
certain privileges wanted around the fort. I cannot give details par-
ticularly. It is a kind of general knowledge arising from our rela-
tions together.

Mr. LOGAN. I desire to ask a question which I send to the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question propounded by the
Senator from Illinois will be read.

The Chief Clerk read as follows :

Q. From the conversation with the present Mrs. Belknap, mentioned
by you in your answer to my former interrogatory, you spoke of an
understanaing with the former Mrs. Belknap, now deceased ; please
state what that understanding was.

Mr. CARPENTER. If the court please, we object to that. It does
not seem necessary to argue the objection to a <]^uestion which calls
for an interview or an arrangement between this man and a third
person.

Mr. Manager McMAHON. We second the objection.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Counsel obiects to the question.
The Chair will submit it to the Senate. Shall this interrogatory be
a^ittedT

The question being put, there were on a division— ayes 12, noes 13,
no quorum voting.

Mr. THURMAK. Let us have the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. THURMAN. I understood the managers to object a little while
ago to a similarquestion. Now what do the managers say to this ?

Mr. CARPENTER. Both sides objected to this question.

Mr. THURMAN. I want to know, if both sides object to it, why it
is asked

Mr. CARPENTER. It is asked by a member of the court.

Mr. THURMAN. I want to know what business the court has to
ask it.

Mr. LOGAN. If there is no objection, I should like to answer the
remark of the Senator from Ohio.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair hears no objection.

Bir. LOGAN. It seems to me a very strange remark for a Senator
to make, to ask what business a member oi the court has to put a
question. I presume that members of the court here stand upon an
equality, and that one has as good a right to ask a question as an-
otner, provided it is a proper question, couched in proper language.
I asked a question a while ago of the witness what the understand-
ing was between him and Itus. Bower. I did not use the name, but
that was it, and he gnive the understanding, and in that answer he
incidentally remark^ that he had an understanding with the fbrmer
Mrs. Belknap. The question was argued by the managers and coun-
sel for the respondent ; the vote was taken by yeas and nays, and
the Senate voted that the question should be answered; and the wit-
ness did answer the question. In furtherance of that question, I have
asked what the understanding was with the former Mrs. Belknap.
Now, if the Senator desires to state his objection to that as a mem-
ber of the court, let him do so, and if his objection is well foundetl, I
certainly do not desire to ask an improper question; but at the same
time I do not like a Senator in his manner and demeanor to indicate



Digitized by



Google



242



TRIAL OF WILLIAM W. BELKNAP.



that be is the only individuxhl that has a right to ask a qaestion in
this court.

Mr. THURMAN. There is no necessity for the exhibition of that

The PRESIDENT jwo tempore. Is there objection to the Senator
from Ohio proceeding f The Chair hears none.

Mr. THURMAN. There is no necessity for the exhibition of that
fooling ; and if the Senator from Illinois were not exceedingly sensi-
tive, he never wonld have made snch a remark. The Honse of Repre-
sentatives here is represented by its managers; the defendant is rep-
resented by his counsel ; and when both sides agree as to what are
the issues upon which they will put in evidence, I really do not see,
with entire respect to the Senator from Illinois and every other Sen-
ator, that it is any part of the duty of the Senate which is to sit here
as impartial judges to introduce a new line either of prosecution or of
defense. I see no reason for it ; and if the Senate has erred once, it
is no reason why it should err a^io. If neither the managers on the
part of the House nor the counsel for the defendant have- seen fit to
go into the arrangements, if there were any, between the witness and
this deceased lady or this living lady, it is no bdsiness of ours to go
into them. If it is necessary for the purpo^s of public justice that
they should bo gone into and the testimony would be legitimate,
it is t<i be presumed that the House of Representatives, through its
managers, would have asked us to hear the testimony. If it were
necessary for the defense that the matter should be gone into, it is to
be presumed that the counsel for the defense would have introduced
it as a defense. It is not for us to supply any deficiency of the prose-
cution or to supply any deficiency of the defense.

Mr. LOGAN. If there is no objection, I desire to say a word.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair hears no objection to the
Senator proceeding.

Mr. LOGAN. I am not so old in the practice of law as the Senator
from Ohio, but I will ask him now as a lawyer if he ever knew a
court that desired to ask a question to be prevented from doing it in
the trial of an v case whatever t

Mr. THURMAN. Until to-day, I never knew a court, in forty-odd
years' experience, to ask a question to which both parties objected.

Mr. LOGAN. My experience has been more limited than that of
the Senator, but in that limited experience I have observed that
which he has not.

Mr. THURMAN. The Senator must bear in mind that a single
Senator is not the court. It is not the court that asks the question,
but one member of the court.

Mr. LOGAN. It is the court if the court agree to it. I never
knew the whole body of the Senate to ask the same question at the
same time ; but if one member of the court asks a question and the
rest agree to it, that is a question of the court. That was the prop-
osition I was making. If the Senate do not agree to it, of course I
shall withdraw the question, or at least the question will not be asked.
But I am not managing this case, nor do I desire to manage it, and
certainly the Senator from Ohio does not desire to do that ; he has
given evidence of that fact But I am one of the court, and I have
a right to have such information and light on this case as can be ob-
tained properly. The managers have a right to roanace their case to
suit themselves, and so have the respondent's counsel ; but some mem-
bers of the court might have some idea in reference to this case, that
some question might develop some fact that was weighing on their
minds. Now I will state to the court that there is somothiug in this
case that neither side tries to develop ; I do not know what it is ;
but that is perfectly patent to everybody. Whatever is in this case,
no matter what it is, dark or bright, this court is entitled to know it
in order to make un its verdict ; and I, as one member of the court,
claim the right to know the facts, and when counsel on either side
do not put a question that strikes my mind as being one that I want
to know something about, I claim the right to ask the question my-
self. The court can decide whether I am entitled to have the answer ;
I certainly have the right to ask the question.

Mr. MORTON. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the Senator
from Indiana proceeding ?

Mr. EDMUNDS. After the Senator from Indiana has concluded I
shall object to further debate on all questions.

Mr. MORTON. I simply want to state that I regard it as the abso-
lute right of this court or any member of it, with the consent of his
brother judges or a migority of them, to ask any question ; and the idea
that the court can be overruled by the counsel on either side agree-
ing that the question shall not be asked is something entirely new.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The yeas and nays have been de-
manded on the question, Shall this interrogatory be admitted f

Mr. ANTHONY. I think if we take the question again by a division
it will be found that there is a quorum here.

Mr. EDMUNDS. No ; let us have the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.
• The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will report the ques-
tion.

The Chief Clerk read Mr. Logan's interrogatory, as follows :

Q. From the conversation with the present Mrs. Belknap, mentioned
by you in your answer to my former interrogatory, you spoke of an
understanding with the former Mrs. Belknap, now deceased. Please
state what that understanding was.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The roU^jall will proceed.



The question being taken, resulted — ^yeas 23, nays 17 ; as follows :

YEAS — Messrs. Allison, Booth. ConUine, Conover, Cra^, Dawes, Ferry, Fre-
linj^hnysen, Hamilton, Harvey, Hitchcock. Howe, Logan, Maxey, Morrill Norton,
Oglesby, Paddock, Patterson, Robertson, Wadloich, West, and Wright~23.

NAYS— Messrs. Caperton, CockrcU, Cooper, Davis, Edmnnds, Gordon. Kelly,
Key, McCreerv, Morriroonf Mitchell, Norwood, Stevenson, Thoiman, Wallaco,
Whvtc, nnd withers— 17.

NONVOTING— Messrs. Alcorn, Anthony, Banram, Bayard, Bogy, BontweU,



gent, Sanlsbory, Sharon, Sherman, Spencer, and Windom— 32.

So the question was decided in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is overruled. The
witness will answer the question.

The Witness. I think not.

Mr. CONKLING. What does the witness mean when he says ho
thinks not ?

The Witness. I do not think I stated that I had an understanding
with Mrs. Belknap.

Q. (By Mr. Carpenter.) As I understand, the first money that you
sent was sent to the former Mrs. Belknap, now deceased f

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that was sent without any arrangement between you and
anybody?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. A clean, clear present t

A. Yes, sir.

Mr. LOGAN. The witness spoke of a conversation about the child,
that the money would now go to the child according to some former
understanding.

The Witness. I said with General Belknap, not with Mrs. Bel-
knap. I said that I was under the impression at one time that I had
said something to General Belknap himself the night of the funeral;
that I certainly had an understanding with him or with Mrs. Bower,
because Mrs. Belknap was then dead.

Q. (By Mr. McMaiion.) Had the present wife of General Belknap
at any time any interest in the money that was sent to General Bel-
knap by you ?

A. Not to my knowledcc.

Mr. WHYTE submitted the following question in writing :

Q. When you paid to General Belknap money in person did you
have any conversation with him about the source whence the money
came or in any way regarding it ?

A. I did not.

Mr. MORTON. I propose the following question :

Q. How often after the first money was sent to Belknap and before
your examination before the Committee of the House did you meet
General Belknap, and was the money ever referred to in conversation
at any of those interviews?

A. For the first two or three years, I saw him perhaps two or three
times a year. The first money I sent General Belknap must have been
in the spring of 1871. I suppose probably through that year and
1872 and 1873 I met him two or three times a year; but I have no
recollection of the money having been referred to in any conversa-
tion between us.

Q. (B^ Mr. Manager McMahon.) Mr. Marsh, what is your best
recollection as to bavins had a conversation with the Secretary of
War on the occasion of tne funeral of his second wife?

A. It is exceedingly indistinct.

Q. What is your best recollection as to whether you did or did not
have a conversation with him personally while you were here attend-
ing the funeral of his second wife?

Mr. CARPENTER. That we object to.

Mr. CONKLING. What is the ground of objection t

Mr. CARPENTER. The ground of objection is that the witness
says his i^ecollection is so indistinct that he has no confidence in it
himself.

Mr. Manager McMAHON. That is a matter for the witness to settle.
I prefer that the witness answer these questions and that we have
the whole truth from the person who is under oath.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Shall this interrogatory be admit-
ted?

The question was determined in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The witness will answer the ques-
tion.

The question was read by the reporter, as follows :

S. What is jonr best recollection as to whether yon did or did not have a oonver-
on wHh him personally, while you were here attending the funeral of his seo-
ondwifet

A. I can only state that I have a very indistinct impression about
it. I have sometimes thought that I said something to Greneral Bel-
knap on the night of the funeral, but 1 sometimes think I did not,
and that the only conversation I had was with Mrs. Bower.

By Mr. Carpenter :

Q. Is there any way in your mind to strike an average between
those two impressions f

A. I cannot. I never shall know ; I never shall be certain about it.

Q. The Senate will never know from you, then f

A. 1 have thought about it night and day, but the more I think
about it the less I know.



Digitized by



Google



TRIAL OF WILLIAM W. BELKNAP.



243



By Mr. Manager McMahok:

Q. At the time the change was made from the payment of $12,000
a year to $6,000 a year, ahont which you have testified, state what
conversation passed betweev yon and General Belknap.

Mr. CARPENTER. That ^9e object to. Unless the conrt mean to
say that the whole case may now be opened by the managers, that is
an improper question. It is their direct proof, and they have gone
over that.

The PRESIDENT mo tempore. Shall this question be admitted f

The qnestion was determined in the negative.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is sustained.

Q. (By Mr. Manager MoMahon.) Your wife has been subpoenaed
as a witness to attend this tribunal f

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I desire yon to state now whether she is able to attend.

Mr. CARPENTER. What is the object of that t

Mr. Manager McMAHON. We want to know from the witness
whether she is able to attend.

Mr. CARPENTER. We obiect. What has that to do with this
case whether she is well or sick f

Mr. Manager McMAHON. We have a right to send for her if she
is able to come. Let the objection be passed upon by the Senate.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The counsel object to the question
propounded by the managers. Shall the question be admitted T

The question was determined in the affirmative.

Q. (By Mr. Manager McMahon.) State whether your wife is able
to be present in court to be examined as a witness.

A. she is not ; she is very ill.

Q. Have you the certificate of a surgeon to that effect f

A. I have.

Q. Whose certificate is it f

A. Dr. Alfred L. Loomis.

Mr. CARPENTER. Will the managers state now what the object
of that testimony is ?

Mr. Manager IIaPHAM. It is to inform the Senate the reason why
we do not call Mrs. Marsh.

Bir. CARPENTER. Is it proposed to raise any presumption against
the defendant f

Mr. Manager LAPHAM. We shall argue that hereafter.

Mr. CARPENTER. We will take her testimony that was given be-
fore the committee if the managers want that, or consent to nave her
deposition taken. We want to completely repel the presumption
that Mrs. Marsh being ill is any evidence of our guilt.

Mr. Manager McMAHON. The managera here decline to do that.
I do not agree with them in that matter. The counsel will make his
application to the Senate personally.

Mr. OQLESBY. Wonld it be in order to present a question to the
witness?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It would be.

Mr.OGLESBY. May I read it t

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. You may.

Mr. OGLESBY. I call the attention of the witness to the question
BO that he may know whether my statements are correct or not.
The Secretary will read it afterward. My question is this :

Q. Yon have stated during your examination to-day that the money
advanced by yon to Belknap was a present and that it afforded you
pleasure to give it to him. In answer to a question put to vou after
that, you stated that you had some conversation with Mrs. Bower on
the night of the funeral about the payment of money in the future,
and that after that conversation you paid money directly to Belknap.
Do you now mean to have the court understand that the payments
or presents of money from you to Belknap after that time were only
in consequence of that conversation or from the motive previously
stated that it afforded you pleasure to do so f

A. The money that I sent during the life of the child may be fairly
considered to l>» sent to Mr. Belknap for Mrs. Bower to keep for the
child. Afterits death I understood it was for him.

Mr. WHYTE. The witness says that he understood the money sent
after the death of the child to General Belknap was for General Bel-
knap. I want to ask him from whom did he understand that it was
for General Belknap f

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will report the ques-
tion.

The Chief Clerk read the question of Mr. Whytb, as follows :

Q. From whom did you understand that it was for General Bel-
knap after the death of the child f

Mr. CARPENTER. If the court please, we object to that because
it wpuld be hearsay evidence. I understand the answer which the
witness has already given is his mere mental conclusion.

The Witness. That is all.

Q. (By Mr. Carpenter.) That is what you say f

A. That is all ; not any understanding. Perhaps I am unfortunate
in my choice of words. It is my own conclusion ; that is all.

Q. Not the result of any understanding with Mr. Belknap or any-
body else?

A. No, sir.

Henry S. Brinkerhoff sworn and examined.

By Mr. Manager McMahon :
Question. State where you are employed and how long you have
been there.



Answer. In the office of the Adj utant-General of the Army ; for about
ten years.

Q. [Presenting a paper.] Look at this paper, or rather the marks
on it. See whose marks those are on the outside, and read the marks
in your handwriting, if any are there, and give us also the marks
that may be in the l^dwriting of the Secretary of War at that time,
if any are there.

Mr. CARPENTER. Is that the letter of Marsh t

Mr. Manager McMAHON. It is the letter of August 16, 1870, from
Marsh to the Secretary* of War applying for the post-tradership at
Fort Sill.

The Witness. The only writing u pon the outside of this letter that
is in my handwriting is a note saying '* Received back Ai^utant-
GteneraFs Office, March 15, 1876."

Q. (By Mr. Manager McMahon.) What marks are on it in the hand-
writing of the Secretary of War t

A. ** Received August 16, 1870." I should say that it is my impres-
sion this is in the liandwriting of General Belknap. He was then
Secretary of War.

Q. Is that in pencil or in ink f

A. It is in ink — what I have just read.

Q. See whether there are other marks on it in pencil in the hand-
writing of the Secretary of War.

A. There is a mark in pencil that says^ "Answered August 16. File;
officiaL" It is my impression that it is in the handwriting of the
Secretary of War.

Q. How familiar are you with the handwriting of the Secretary
of Wart

A. Quite familiar. I have seen a great deal of it.

Mr. CARPENTER. There is no q\n;stion that that is in his hand-
writing. You need not spend any time about it T

Q. (By Mr. Manager McMahon.) One of the managers desires the

Snestion to be put whether there are any marks upon it indicating
[lat it was originally filed in the Adjutant-GeneraPs Office?
A. The marks indicate that it was received in the Acyutant-Cren-
eraPs Office for file September 23, 1870.
Q. (Bj Mr. Carpenter.) About a month after its date?
A. About a month after its date.

Q. (By Mr. Manager McMahon.) In whose handwriting^ is that ?
A. It IS in the handwriting of the clerk who was then and is now in
charge of the book of record.

Cross-examined by Mr. Carpenter :

Q. [Presenting a paper.] Whom Is that letter addressed to ?

A. It is addressed to General W. W. Belknap.

Q. Would not that letter in due course of business go to Belknap's
table before it would go to the Adiutant-Greneral's Office?

Mr. Manager McMAHON. We do not dispute that.

Mr. CARPENTER. . I want to prove it.

The Witness. A letter addressed in that way, in my oplnioui would
go first to the Secretary of War.

Q. (By Mr. Carpenter.) And be sent by him to the Adjutant-Cten-
erars Office?

A. That is my opinion.

Q. And that got into the Adjutant-GeneraFs Office within a month
after its date f

A. Within a month after its date.

WiixiAM B. Hazen recalled.

Mr. Manager McMAHON. General, I have been given to understand
by yon that you desire to make an explanation. I do not know what
it is, but I recall you to give you the chance.

Mr. CARPENTER. Is it anything about this case ; is it testimony
or what f

Mr. Manager McMAHON. It is about this case.

The Witness. It is in regard to the testimony of yesterday. Upon



Online LibraryUnited States. CongressCongressional record : proceedings and debates of the ... Congress → online text (page 111 of 172)