United States. Congress.

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

. (page 161 of 172)
Online LibraryUnited States. CongressCongressional record : proceedings and debates of the ... Congress → online text (page 161 of 172)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


of a high misdemeanor as charged in this article f

Mr. Mcdonald. Guilty.

The Secretary. Mr. McMillan.

Mr. McMillan rose.

The PRESIDENT pro temvore. Mr. Senator McMillan, how say
you f Is the respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty of
a high misdemeanor as charged in this article f

Mr. McMillan. Not guilty, for want of jurisdiction.

The Secretary. Mr. Maxey.



Mr. MAXEY rose.

The PRESIDENTpro tempore. Mr. Senator Maxey, how say you f
Js the respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty of a high
misdemeanor as charged in this article f

Mr. MAXEY. Gnifty.

The Secretary. Mr. Merrimon.

Mr. MERRIMON rose.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Mr. Senator Merrimon, how say
you t Is the respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty of
a high misdemeanor as charged in this article f

Mr. MERRIMON. GuUty.

The Secretary. Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. MITCHELL rose.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Mr. Senator Mitchbll, how say
you t Is the respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty of
a high misdemeanor as charged in this article t

Mr. MITCHELL. Guilty.

The Secretary. Mr. Morrill.

Mr. MORRILL rose.

The PRESIDENTpro tempore. Mr. Senator Morrill, how say you f
Is the respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty of ahigh
misdemeanor as charged in this article t

Mr. MORRILL. Guilty.

The Secretary. Mr. Morton.

Mr. MORTON rose.

The PRESIDENTpro tempore. Mr. Senator Morton, how say you f
Is the respondent, WiUiam W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty of a high
misdemeanor as charged in this article f

Mr. MORTON. Guilty. I voted against Jurisdiction when the
question was raised by the plea in abatement. The question was
properly raised and at the right time ; and although it was decided
adversely to my views, I regarded the decision of uie Senate as set-
tling the law of the case and as binding upon me. I recognize the
right of a m^ority of the Senate to settle any question of law that
properly arises during the pleadings or the trial in a case of impeach-
ment.

The Secretary. Mr. Norwood.

Mr. NORWOOD rose.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Mr. Senator Norwood, how say
you f Is the respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty
of a high misdemeanor as charged in this article T

Mr. NORWOOD. Guilty.

The Secretary. Mr. Oqlbsby.

Mr.OGLESBYrose.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Mr. Senator Oolesby, how say you f
Is the respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not guUty of a high
misdemeanor as charged in this article f

Mr. OGLESBY. Guilty.

The Secrrtajeiy. Mr. Paddock.

Mr. PADDOCK rose.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore, Mr. Senator Paddock, how say you f
Is the respondent, WiUiam W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty of a high
misdemeanor as chained in this article f

Mr. PADDOCK. Believing that neither the written words of the
Constitution nor the spirit of our republican institutions warrant the
impeachment of a private citizen, and that the accused was a private
citizen when impeached, and further believing that the question of
Jurisdiction and the question of fact go hand m hand, always insep-
arable, to final Judgment, without reference to the facts as chaiged
in this article, I vote not guilty.

The Secretary. Mr. Patterson.

Mr. PATTERSON rose.

Tho PRESIDENT pro tempore. Mr. Senator Patterson, how say
you i Is the respondent, William W. Belkni^, guilty or not guilty
of a high misdemeanor as charged in this article 7

Mr. PATTERSON. Not guilty.

The Secretary. Mr. Randolph.

Mr. RANDOLPH rose.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Mr. Senator Randolph, how say
you f Is the resi>oiident, William W. Belknap, guUty or not guilty
of a high misdemeanor as charged in this article 7

Mr. RANDOLPH. Guilty.

The Secretary. Mr. Ramsom.

Mr. RANSOM rose.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Mr. Senator Ransom, how say you f
Is the respondent, William W. Belkrap, guilty or not guilty of a high
misdemeanor as charged in this article 7

Mr. RANSOM. Guilty.

The Secretary. Mr. Robertson.

Mr. ROBERTSON rose.

Tho PRESIDENT pro tempore. Mr. Senator Rorertson, how say
you f Is the respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not gnHty
of a high misdemeanor as charged in this articled

Mr. ROBERTSON. Guilty.

The Secretary. Mr. Sargent.

Mr. SARGENT rose.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore, Mr. Senator Sargent, how say you f
Is the respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty of ahigh
misdemeanor as charged in this article *

Mr. SARGENT. GuUty.



Digitized by



Google



TRIAL 0¥ WILLIAM W. BELKNAP.



357



Tbe Secrktary. Mr. Saulsbury.

Mr. SAULSBURY rose.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore, Mr. Senator Saulsbury, how say
you f Is the responuent, William W. Belknap, eoilty or not guilty
of a high misdemeanor as charged in this article T

Mr. SAULSBURY. Guilty.
^ The Secrktary. Mr. Sharon.

No response.

The Secrbtary. Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN rose.

The PRESIDENT pro teaippre. Mr. Senator Sherman, how say you t
Is the respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty of a high
misdemeanor as charged in this article f

Mr. SHERMAN. GuUty.

The Secretary. Mr. Spbnger.

Mr. SPENCER rose.

The PRESIDENT pro iemwrt, Mr. Senator Spencer, how say you f
Is the respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty of a nigh
misdemeanor as charged in this article t

Mr. SPENCER. For reasons ahready stated, " not guilty .*'

The Secretary. Mr. Stevenson.

Mr. STEVENSON rose.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore, Mr. Senator Stevenson, how say
you t Is the respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty
of a high misdemeanor as charged in this article f

Mr. STEVENSON. Guilty.

The Secretary. Mr. Thurmak.

Mr. THURMAN rose.

The PRESIDENT pro temfore. Mr. Senator Thurman, how say
you t Is the respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty
of a high misdemeanor as charged in this article!

Mr. Thurman. Guilty.

The Secretary. Mr. Wadleioh.

Mr. WADLEIGH rose.

The PRESIDENT pro tem]^e. Mr. Senator Wadlkigh, how say
youf Is the respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty
of a high misdemeanor as charged in this article.

Mr. WADLEIGH. Guilty.

The Secretary. Mr. Wallace.

Mr. WALLACE rose.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Mr. Senator Wallace, how say
youf Is the respondent, WilUam W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty of
a high misdemeanor as charged in this article f

Mr. WALLACE. Guilty.

The Secretary. Mr. West.

Mr. WEST rose.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Mr. Senator West, how say yout
Is the respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty of a high
misdemeanor as charged in this article.

Mr. WEST. For the reasons assigned in connection with my first
vote, I vote "not guilty."

The Secretary. Mr. Whyte.

Mr. WHYTE rose.

The PRESlDENTpro tempore, Mr. Senator Whyte, how say you f
Is the respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty of ahigh
misdemeanor as charged in this article t

Mr. WHYTE. Guflty.

The Secretary. Mr. Windom.

Mr. WINDOM rose.

The PRESIDENTpro tempore, Mr. Senator WiNDOM, how say you f
Is the respondent. William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty of a high
misdemeanor as cnarged in this article 7

Mr. WINDOM. For reasons already stated, I answer "not guilty."

The Secretary. Mr. Withers.

Mr. WITHERS rose.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore, Mr. Senator Withers, how say vou t
Is the respondent, William W. Belknap, guilty or not guilty of a high
misdemeanor as charged in this article t

Mr. WITHERS. Guilty.

The Secretary. Mr. Wright.

Mr. WRIGHT rose.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore, Mr. Senator Wright, how say you f
Is the respondent, William W . Belknap, guilty or not guilty of a high
*mi8demeanor as charged in this article f

Mr. WRIGHT. ThiJB article charges the defendant with a high mis-
demeanor in office in that he did corruptly receive from one Marsh a
large sum of money in consideration that he would permit one Evans
to continue to maintain a trading establishment at Fort Sill. Before
I can find the defendant guilty of this chaise, I must believe that the
testimony establishes it bevond a reasonable doubt. I do not find
that it so establishes it, and I, therefore, vote " not guilty.''

The names of those voting guilty and not guilty, respectively, were
read, as follows :

OUILTY— McOTn. Bayard, Booth, Cameron of PemisvlTania, Cockrell, C<H>per,
Davis, Dawes, Dennis, Edmonds, Gordon, Hamilton, Harvey, Hitchcock. Kelly,
Keman, Key. McCreery. McDonald, Maxey, Merrimon. Mitobell, Morrill, Morton,
Norwood, C^lesby, Banaolph, Bansoro, Robertson, Sa^ent, SaalBbar3% Sherman,
Stevenson, Thnrman, Wadleigh, "Wallace, Whyte, and withers— 07.

NOT OiniiTY— Messrs. Allison, Anthony, Boatwell, Bmce, Cameron of Wis-
consin. Cbtlstiancy, Conkling, Conover, Cragin, Dorsey, Eaton, Ferry, Frelingbay-



sen, Hamlin, ^owe, In^Us, Jones of Nevada, Logan, McMillan, Paddock, Patter*
son, Spencer, West^ Windom, and Wright— S5.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this article 37 Senators vote
" guilty," and 25 Senators vote ** not guilty." Two-thirds of the Sen-
ators present not sustaining the fifth article, the respondent is ac-
quitted on this article. 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 npon 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 t
The Chair hears none, and it will be so entered.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I move that the Senate sitting for this trial ad-
oum without day.

Mr. Manager LORD. Will the Senator withdraw his motion for a
moment!
•Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. Manager LORD. Mr. President and Senators, we have the con-
sent of the counsel for the respondent and desire the a«8ent of the
Senate to make a brief statement in regard to an allegation made by
Judge Black in his last argument in this case. Judge Hoar, to whose
brother reference was mme, was not present at the time to make the
correction ; and, therefore, we think it is due to him as a manager,
and but an act of Justice to an eminent citisen of Massachusetts, ( Hon,
E. Rock wood Hoar,) that a statement by way of correction be made
now so that it may be a part of the record of this trial ; therefore, I
request the Secretary to read a letter from Mr. Manager Hoab.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair hears no objection, and
the letter will be read.

The Secretary read as follows :

House or Brfbbsbntativbs,

July 39, 1876.



Mr Drab Sir : I was absent by leave of the House when Judge Black made his
arenment, and altboagh I read toe report of it in the papers I did not see or hear
till about five minates aro the following passage: ** Jndge Hoar, who gave the



President a library of oosUy literature ana law." Jndge Hoar never gave or helped
to give or had anything to do with giving to the President a library or any otner
thins of value during the life-time of either. Judge Black was doubtless liimself
deceived ; but the whole story is an absolute falsehood without the slightest foun-
dation.

I am yours, respectfully,

GEO. F. HOAR.
Hon. Scott Lobd.

Mr. CARPENTER. In the absence of my colleagae, Judge Black,
I have given consent that this explanation shall ue made, for I am
certain that Judge Black would desire to have any mistake or mis-
statement in his argument corrected.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of the Sen-
ate sitting as a court to make a statement which affects the late Vice-
President of the United States. It was my purpose to call attention
to the ciroumstance, but I had thought until this moment that I
might postpone it more properly until the session of the Senate.
One of the honorable counsel, Mr. Black, in his argument, made this
statement :

The manager from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] said, speaking of the Union Pa-
dflo Bailroad. t)iat every foot of that road had been founded In oomiption and
built with the wages of Iniquity. That is true ; and it is equally well known that
the managers of that oormpt concern gave large amounts oi their stock and bonds
to the wi& of a Senator who was afterward elected Vice-President The wife re-
ceived it with the full consent of the husband.

It is due not only to the reputation and memory of the late Vice-
President in the State where he dwelt so long and which he repre-
sented so faithfully, but it is due to the great mass of his country-
men, who Justly take an interest in his fame, that this statement
should be corrected. The truth, as I believe, and always have be-
lieved since the ciroumstances to which this passage refers were
brought to the attention of the public, is simply tnis : On the twenty-
fifth anniversary of his marriage his friends gave his wife an amount
of money — the precise amount I do not know, but it was not large —
$3,800, 1 am informed. A ]>ortion of this Mr. Wilson, npon the advice of
Mr. Oakes Ames, invested in stock, known as the Credit Mobilier stock.
The stock was never conveyed to Mrs. Wilson, but a contract existed by
which it was to be conveyed. After a time Mr. Wilson learned what
turned out to be the exact facts in regard to that affair, or so far
learned them that he came to the concnision that it was not proper
that she should hold this property, and it was sold, and sold at a loss,
and that loss Mr. Wilson made up to his wife. At her death this prop-
erty was bequeathed by her to (as I believe) a religions association
or charitable institution. Mr. Wilson never derived any advantage
from it ; and what is particularly untrue is that either the corporation
or any person representing the corporation made any ^t or (lonatiou
in any form of stocks or bonds or other property or valuable thing.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, I move that the Senate sitting for
this trial adjourn without day.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore^ (at two o'clock and twenty-two min-
utes p. m.) The Senate sitting for the trial of the impeachment of
William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, stands adjourned with-
out day.



Digitized by



Google



358



TRIAL OF WILLIAM W. BELKNAP.



OPINIONS

ON

FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OP THE IMPEACHMENT OF
WILLIAM W. BELKNAP, LATE SECEETARY OF WAR.



The order of the Seoate of July 31, 1876, allowed each Senator " within two days
after the vote shall hare been so taken" to file "bis writton opinion," under which
the following opinions were filed :

Mr. NORWOOD. The House of Representatives impeach William
W. Belknap for the crime of bribery committed by him while hold-
ing the office of Secretary of War ot the United States. The defend-
ant has pleaded that while the charges may be trne, yet impeachment
did not commence until after he had resigned his commission as Sec-
retory, and that, being at the date of impeachment only a private
citizen of the United States and the State of Iowa, he is not liable to
im]ieachment. Ont of these pleadings springs a single issue : Does
resignation of his commission protect a Federal civil officer from im-
peachment for bribery committed by him while in office f

I will not consome any time in considering the point made by the
managers on the fraction of a day : first, becaose I reg^ the legal
fiction as inapplicable to criminal law and dangerous to life and lib-
erty if thus applied, and, second, because it is immaterial to the issue ;
for, if my conclusion be correct, the resignation has no effect what-
ever on the jurisdiction of the Senate ; and this beings the only ques-
tion. I proceed at once to consider it.

It is conceded by respondent's counsel that his resignation is the
sole ground on which the plea to Jurisdiction rests. In other words,
it is admitted that, but for the resignation there would exist no valid
objection to the jurisdiction of the Senate. This makes the question
to be decided single and simple ; and yet it has engendered a multi-
tude of questions which have been discussed with great ardor and
elaboration. Among them are whether a Senator or Representative
can be impeached; whether one who commits treason, bribeiv, or
other high crimes and misdemeanors, and afterward is appointed to a
Federal office, can be impeached ; whether a private citizen who has
not held Federal office can be impeached for any offense : and whether
officers of the Army and Navy are impeachable. All these questions
are irrelevant. They are not before tlie Senate as a court, because
not one of them is raised by the record. I intend, therefore, to eschew
them entirely. The first duty of a jud^e is to decide the case be-
fore him, and his second duty is to decide no other. The only ques-
tion, then, for the Senate to determine is whether a Federal civil offi-
cer who is confessedly liable to impeachment while he is in office can
avoid impeachment by resignation. Respondent's counsel contend
that he can; and on the following grounds:

First. The only power for impeaching Federal officials is conferred
in and by the Federal Consititution and, being a delegated power,
it must be strictly construed ; and,

Second. As the Constitution does not expressly declare or contain
words which imply that a person may be impeached after he is out
of office, it therefore follows that the respondent, who is out of office,
is not subject to the Jurisdiction of the Senate.

Out of this brief syllogistic statement of the defense arise two ques-
tions : First, did the people import trial by impeachment into our
Constitution, as it was understood in Great Britain, and, second, does
impeachment in Groat Britain lie against one who, having been a
civil officer, is out of office f If these two questions admit of an affirm-
ative answer, the re-spondent is subject to trial by the Senate.

All that the Constitution contains relating to impeachment is the
following:

The House of Scprosentativcfi • * • shall have the sole power of impeach-
ment. (Article 1. section 3, clause 5.)

The Senate shall have the solo power to try all imneaohmonts. When slttins for
that purpose, i hey shall be on oath or affirmation. W hen the President of the U nit-
(m1 States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: and do person shall be convicted
without the concurrenco^f two-thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from
nfUce.and disnualitlcation to bold and ei^y any office of honor, trust, or profit un-
der the United States : but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and sub-
ject to indictment, trial, fndgment, and punishment according to law. (Article 1,
section 3, clauses 6 and 7.)

The President Tioe-President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be
removed from office cm impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or
other high crimes and raisilemetuiors. (Article 3, section 4.)

The Pi-esidcnt • * • shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for
oflenscs against the United States, except in cases of imueachmcut (Article 8.
section 3.)

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of imponchment shall be by Jury. (Article
3, section 2, clause 3.) ^ j j \

To the forej^iuff extracts wo are to look for all the light that tho
Constitution itself can afford us.

It is clear that the power of impeachment is conferred thereby on
the House of llepresentatives. It is equally clear that the power to
trv all impeachments is granted to this body, and that the Senate,
wiieu trying a case of impeachment, is a court; for it has authority
to try, to convict, and to sentence. The Senate is not only a court,
but it is a court to try all cases of impeachment. It is not an admi-



ralty or equity or common-law court, but it is a court differing in its
nature, jurisdiction, procedure^ constitution, powers, and purposes
from all these courts. Its origin, history, nature, and object are all
necessarily enveloped in the word " impeachment." The Consti" u-
tion confers on the Federal courts admiralty and equity Jurisdiction.
It ^ves to the President the power of pardon. But it gives no defi-
nition of any one of these terms. That whole instrument contains
but one definition of any word embraced in it, and that word is
" treason." The Constitution does not define. It is not a glossary.
It simply declares in terms so clear and pure that they may be classed
as the richest Jewels selected from all the wealth of our language
and set in the chastest style. They are or were supposed to be so
simple and unquestionable that the wayfaring man would under-
stand them.

Where then do we look to find the meaning of admiralty, equity,
common law, and pardon t We turn naturally and necessarily to
the English law. This has been the course and practice of our courts
ever since the Constitution was adopted. And as the Constitution is
silent as to what we are to understand by 'impeachment,'' where else
ought we to turn or can we turn for its meaning, nature, purpose, and
scope, except to the same souree whence our language and tbe orig-
inals of our courts, their Jurisdiction, and powers are derived f

If this be true, when we find thepower of impeachment, without
limit or qualification, given to the House of Representatives, by what
process of reasoning can it be maintained that this power, as em-
ployed and understood in Qreat Britain, is abridged by our (>>nstitu-
tion except by express terms f But the power of the House to im-
peach is in no particular abridged or qualified. Whatever powers
are included in the term impeachment are granted to the House of
Representatives, and we must therefore look to the nature, jurisdic-
tion, and purposes of impeachment aa practiced in Parliament to
determine the nature. Jurisdiction, and purposes of impeachment as
understood in the Constitution.

The Constitution speaks of two modes of trial: the one by Jury,
the other by impeachment. It speaks of either as being perfectly un-
derstood by the people of the United States. No definition was re-
rlred for either expression. They are treated as household words,
d yet where do we turn to find out what '^ trial by jury" means f
Is there any mystery about itt Have lawyers and judges ever
wrangled over the meaning, the object, the nature, the scope of what
Blackstone calls '^ trial by iury f " And why should the other mode of
trial which is named in the Constitution with the same familiarity
be the subject of such grave doubt t We can look nowhere else than
to impeachment as nnderstood and practiced in Parliament.

This must bo so from necessity, ^or, on any other hypothesis, how
could we possibly determine the extent of tho power of impeachment t
To decide the question by the lexicon would be as idle as to attempt
to determine the jurisdiction and powers and procedure of the United
States courts in cases in "admiralty" by looking for the meaning of
that word in a dictionary.

It is necessary, in the next place, to see if impeachment as under-
stood and practiced in Great Britain is qualified or abridged by ex-
press terms in the Constitution, and if so, then to determine whether
such abridgment has deprived the Senate, as a court to try impeach-
ment, of Jurisdiction in the case under consideration. In other words,
if the House of Commons could impeach, and the House of Lords could
try, a person who bad committed crime while in public oflSce and had
before impeachment resigned, has the Constitution either in terms or
by necessary implication deprived the Senate of Jurisdiction in such a
case f That impeachment would lie in such a case in Parliament no
one has or can deny. The oases of persons impeached and punished
after resignation in Great Britain are numerous, and I need not stop
to cite them. They have been cited often dnring the consideration of
this question and the facts are indisputable. It is not insisted bv
any one tliat there is any express language in the Constitution which
deprives the Senate of Jurisdiction over a civil ofSoer of the United
States who after committing an impeachable crime has resigned.
Wo must then see if in such a case there is any want of Jurisdiction
necessarily implied by auv language in the Constitution. And this
brin^ directly before us the only points relied on by tbe respondent
in his plea to the jurisdiction.

He maintains through his counsel that this implication is contained
in article 2, section 4, of the Constitution, which for convenience I will
repeat :

The President, Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be



Online LibraryUnited States. CongressCongressional record : proceedings and debates of the ... Congress → online text (page 161 of 172)