United States. Congress.

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

. (page 86 of 172)
Online LibraryUnited States. CongressCongressional record : proceedings and debates of the ... Congress → online text (page 86 of 172)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

and stating the abuses which existed at the post-tradingestablish-
ment at Fort Sill. In that testimony, however, General Hazen does
not seem to be as fnlly informed as was the correspondent of the Tri-
bune of the 16th of February in regard to who the post-trader really
was. General Hazen in his testimony seems to be of the impression,
and so states, that Mr. Marsh, of New York, was appointed the post-
trader, and that he had farmed out the post to Mr. Evans, who was
discharging the duties of post-trader and paying for the benefits to
be derived from it to Mr. Marsh directly. This testimony, which was
given before the Committee on Military Affairs of the House on the
22d of March, seems to have attracted the attention of the Secretary
of War, and on the 25th of Murch, three days after the testimony was
given, we find the following circular issued from the War Depart-
ment, which would seem to a person who was really co^izant of all
the facts to be intended to meet the real difficulties existing at Fort
Sill, while it did not meet them at alL This circular is :


War BsPAimiEirr,
Washington Oity, Uwrch 85, 1878.
I. The ooumdl of administration at a post where there is a post-trader wllL from
time to time, examine the post-trader*s goods and invoioea or bills of sale ; and will,
sul^ect to the approval of the post commander, establish the rates and prices (which
should be fair and reasonable) at which the goods shaU be sold. A copy of the list
thus established will be kept posted in the trader's store. Should the poet-trader
feel himself aggrieved by the action of the conucil of administration, ne may ap-
peal therefrom, through the post commander, to the War Department

This is an adoption of the old rule to some extent, and so far so

n. In determining the rate of profit to be allowed the council will consider not
only the prime cost, rreicht, and other charges, but also the fact that whilo the trader
pays no tax or contribnuon of any kind to &o post fund for his exclusive privileges
Be nas no lien on the soldiers' pay, and is without the security In this respect once
ei^oyed by the sutlers of the Army.

" Once eiyoyed," but not eiy oyed for several years previous to the
abolition of that office.
HL Post-traders will actually carry on the business themselves —
Mr. Evans, it appears by the report of General Grierson, was him-
self absent frequently from the post ; but Mr. Evans after all con-
sidered himself a resident at the post —

Post-traders will actually carry on the business themselves, and will habitually
reside at the station to which they are appointed. They will not farm out, sublet,
transfer, sell, or assign the business to others.

Not one word in that order reaches the payment which Evans was
making to Marsh. It merely prohibits the post-trader from farming
out, subletting, transferring, selling, or assigning the business to
others. Evans was the post-trader ; he had been appointed by the
Secretary of War post- trader; and he was paying by contract to
Marsh, the friend of the Secretary, $12,000 a year for the appoint-
ment which he held and the privileges he enjoyed.

rv. In case there shall be at this time any post- trader who is a non-resident of
the post to which ho has been appointed, ho will be allowed ninety days from the

Digitized by




teoeipt hereof at his etntion to comply with thlg circnhir or vacate his appoint-

y. Poet^xnnmiinders are hereby directed to report to the War Department any
Cailare on the part of traders to fulfill the reoniroments of this circular.

YI. The provisions of the oironlar from the A^JnUint-G^eneral's Office of Jane
7, 1871, will continue in force excei>t as herein modified.

This order issued by the Secretary of War gave alarm to the post-
trader at Fort Sill. He found that the attention of the public was
called to the abuses existing there. He immediately commenced a
negotiation with Mr. Marsh to rednce the amount which he had been
paying, and finally completed an arrangement by which he was to
p::'y thereafter the sum of |6,000 a year instead of $12,000.

1 have given a history of this transaction principallv from the
documents on file in the Office of the Secretary of War. I have shown
the history of this appointment, the orders which were issued all
favoring^ and espeoiajly favorinff^ the poet-trader at this position,
givine him opportunitieB and faculties such as no sutler in the Army
ever nad to extort money and make profits firom his trade. I now
call the attention of the Senate to the real operating causes, as we
believe, for this indulgence and for this abuse.

This appointment having been made on the 10th day of October,

1870. and Evans having promised and entered into a contract that he
would pay Mr. Marsh $12,000 a year, quarterly in advance, with a
stipulation consenting that the first payment should be delayed for
a time, we find on the 1st day of November thereaft^, a little more
than twenty days from the time the appointment is made, an express
package sent by Mr. Marsh to W. W. Belknap, in the city of Wash-
ington, containing $1,500, delivered to Mr. Belknap by the express
company in this dty, receipted for by Mr. Belknap m his own hand-
writmg. We find on the 17th day of January thereafter another
package of $1,500, just one-half of the quartenypayment, sent by
expreeB from New York City bv Mr. Marsh to W. W. Belknap, re-
ceived by Mr. Belknap here ; and, if my recollection serves me right,
it was also receipted by him personally. On l^e IBth day of April,

1871. another package of $1,500 was sent by express by Mr. Biarsn to
Mr. Belknap, and delivered to him in this city. Whether that was
delivered to him i>er8onal]y I cannot now state, or whether it was
received by his clerk. On the 11th of November, 1873, another pack-
age was sent by express of the same sum by Mr. Marsh to Mr. Belknap.
On the 10th of Apnl, 1874, another package of the same amount was
sent by express to Mr. Belknap by Mr. Marsh. On the 25th of Mav,
1875, there was one package sent of $1,500, though indorsed $1,000 ;
aud on the 5th of Novemb^ next thereafter a packi^ of $750.

When these express packages were sent to Mr. Belknap, Mr. Marsh
will testify that he was accustomed to notify Mr. Belknap. He
usually received his instructions as to how they should be sent, and
whenever he sent them he notified Bfr. Belknap that the packages
were forwarded to him, usually sending him the receipt of the express
company showing that the package had been received by the express
company to be delivered to nim, which receipt was returned back by
Mr. Belknap to Mr. Marsh, written upon " O K," all correct, or some-
thing of that kind ; but all these receipts, all communications of any
kind, every writing that showed that any money had ever been paid
by Mr. Mamh to Wr. Belknap were destroyed. No one of them can
be found. Mr. Marsh will testify that these writings were destroyed
immediately after the transaction, and in order that no written evi-
dence should be preserved of the facts.

We shall show also that three payments were mode to Mr. Belknap
in certificates of deposit, one under date of February 10, 1871, for
$1,500 ; one under date oi January 15, 1872 ; and one under date of
November 9, 1874. As to these certificates of deposit, an effort was
made to conceal and to prevent any trace of them from BIr. Marsh to
Mr. Belknap, for they were always given and made payable to Mr.
Marsh himself, never to Mr. Belknap. It is true that Mr. Marsh sub-
sequently indorsed these certificates of deposit to Mr. Belknap, and
thereby we ore enabled to trace them through his hand.

The other payments mentioned in the specifications were mode to
Mr. Belknap in person. The payment of July 25, 1871, was received
by Mr. Belknap in New York City ; the ]^yment of June 13, 1872,
was the some ; the payment of November 22, 1872, the same. At the
payment of April ^, 1873, Mr. Belknap was in Texas, and we shall
not attempt to sustain that specification by evidence. That is the
ninth specification of the fourtn article. The payment of June 16,
1873, was made to Bfr. Belknap in New York. As to the payment of
the 22d of January, 1874, we shall not attempt to sustain tnat charge,
which is the twelfth specification of the fourth article. As at present
advised in regard to the evidence which we have, I make this state-
ment ; but if in the course of the trial it should appear that we can
prove these specifications we shall ask leave to do so, although at
present we think we shall have no occasion.

Now, Mr. President and Senators, if we succeed in proving these
payments, as I have charged, it seems to me there is nothing neces-
sary to be done, and the Judgment of this court must convict the ac-
cused. The receipt of these liu:ge sums of monev- from Mr. Marsh at
the times, periodically, according to the original contract made be-
tween Marsn and Evans, the amounts corresponding with the amounts
of payments made by Evans to Marsh, hanoing over one-half of those
payments to the Secretary of War, the circumstances under which
the appointment was made, disregarding the recommendation of all
the officers of the post with a knowledge that to take Mr. Evans from
that post would ruin him in fortune and destroy his business, that it

was given to a man who had no intention and no purpose of going
from New York City to an Indian trading post or a post in an Indian
territory for the purpose of supervising or transacting the business ;
all of these facts, known to the Secretiuy of War and his particular
friend C. P. Marsh and used by him to extort from the post-trader
who received the appointment this enormous sum, must convince
eveipr reasonable man that the Secretary of War was a parHoepa crintr
inis m the whole transaction.

Senators, I have occupied now more time than I intended when I
first arose. I have felt at liberty to read to you the orders that wore
issued by the War Department, in order that you might be familiar
with the condition of affiUrs at the time Mr. Belknap took charge of
that Department, that you mi^ht be acquainted with the orders and
the regulations existing at the time that this post-trader was ap-
pointed ; thatyon might know that the whole matter rettbed with the
Secretary of War ; that he at any time could have adopted rules and
regulations to protect the soldiers at that poet, to prevent extortion,
rules which as a mockery he did adopt on the 25th of March, 187.3,
after the public attention had been called to these abuses. After all,
I say as a mockery, because it did not reach the real evil ; because this
post-trader was not farming out his office, but was paying an out-
sider for his influence with the Secretary of War.

Senators, I have presented to ^ou a statement of the proo& which
we shall introduce to sustain this impeachment. There will be some
facts brought out in the course of the trial which I have failed to men-
tion ; but I have endeavored to present the principal ones. I do not
feel that it is necessary to say anything upon the law if these facts
shall be proven. You all know the magnitude of the crime ; you all
know the shock which its exposure has given to the American peo-
ple ; you know the disgrace which it has brought upon our Govem-
mAut, and it remains with you to vindicate the national character and
show to the world that our Bepublic requires official integrity in
high offldalpoeition.

Mr. CABFBNTEB. BIr. President, before the manager takes his
seat I should like to inquire of him, if he will inform us. whether the
managers claim that the facts charged in the articles of impeachment
violate anv and what statute of the United States. In otner words,
will they inform us what particular *'high crime" this isf

Mr. Manager LYNDE. I will answer the gentleman that while
we do not deem it important or necessary, in oraer to sustain the im-
peachment, that it should be based upon any statute or act of Con-
gress, we , ao rely and refer to section 1781 of the Bevised Statutes,
and also to section 5501.

Mr. CARPENTER. Will you please to read those sections, or have
them read, so that we con see what they are f

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretory will read the sec-
tions called for.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

Sbc. 1781. Every member of CongreM or any officer or agent of the Crovemment
who, directly or indirectly, takes, receives, or agrees to receive, any money, prop-
erty, or other valaable consideration whatever, from any person for prooanng, or
aiding to procore, any contract, office, or place, from the Government or anylDe-
partment thereof, or from any officer of the United States, for any person what*
ever, or for giving any such contract, office, or place to any person whomsoever, and
every person who, directly or indirectly, offers or agrees to give, or gives, or be>
stows any money, proper^, or other valnablo condueration whatever, for the pro-
caring or aiding to procure any each contract, office, or place, and every member
of Congress who, directly or indirectly, takes, receives, or agrees to receive any
money, property, or other valuable consideration whatever after his election as
such member, for his attention to, services, action, vote, or decision on any ques-
tion, matter, cause, or uroceeding which may then he pending, or may by law or
under the Constitution be brought before him in his offiaal capacity, or in his place
as such member of- Congress, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall
be imprisoned not more than two years and fined not more than $10,000. And any
such contract or agreement may, at the option of the President, be declared abso-
lutely null and void ; and any member ot Congress or officer convicted of a viola-
tion of tills section shall, moreover, bo disaualifled from holding any office of honor,
profit, or trust under the Grovemment of tno United States.

Sec. 5501. Every officer of tho United States, and every person acting for or on

behalf of the United States, in any official capacity under or by virtue of the au-
thority of any department or office of the Government thereof ; and every officer
or person acting for or on behalf of either House of Congress, or of any committee

of either House, or of both Houses thereof, who asks, accepts, or receives any
money, or any contract, promise, undertaking, obligation, gratuity, or security for
the payment of money, or for the delivery or conveyance of anything of value,
with intent to have his decision or action on any question, matter, cause, or pro-
ceeding which may at any time be pending, or which may be by law brought before
him in his official capacity, or in bis place of trust or profit, infiuenced thereby,
shall be punished as prescribed in the preceding section. (See $ 5451.)

Mr. Manager McMAHON. The managers ore ready to sabmit the
testimony now, and to have such witnesses sworn as are here pres-

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will call the names
of the witnesses who are present.

The names of the following witnesses were called, and they od-
Yonced to the desk, and the Chief Clerk administered the oath pre-
scribed to them^respectively : Caleb P. Marsh, E. T. Bartlett, Georffe
W. Moss, J. S. Dodge, Bobert C. Seip, Irwin McDowell, George M.
Adams. £. W. Rice.

Mr. McMAHON. We propose to examine Mr. Adams first.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore snggested that witnesses take a place
at the right of the Chair, on a level with the Secretary's desk ; bat
at the suggestion of the managers and several Senators, a place on
the floor in front of liie Secretary's desk was assigned to the wit-

Digitized by




Mr. Maoager McMAHON. I wish to ask Mr. Adams if he is the
Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Mr. CARPENTER. One moment.

Mr. BLACK. I will ask the gentlemen if they have anv objection
to state to ns what they propose to prove by this witness f

Mr. Manager McMAHON. Nothing, except to prodace a document
which we expect to prove by another witness.

Mr. BLACK. Mr. President, I presume that the managers intend
now to call the witnesses and produce the evidence which they have
mentioned in their opening.

Mr. Manager McMAHON. The gentleman is correct

Mr. BLACK. We object to any evidence being given in conse-
quence of the condition in which this case now stands ; that is, we
stand upon a right which, if it be recognized by the Senate, enables
us to exclude Si evidence such as tlmt which they have declared
l^eir intention of giving.

By the Constitution two- thirds of the Senate /are required to con-
vict the defendant. One-third voting in his favor express the sense
of the Senate ; that is, more than one-third voting in his favor are
entitled to have their judgment recorded as the judgment of the Sen-
ate upon any fact or any rule of law which is an essential element in
anv legal conviction which the Senate can pronounce. We make this
objection now not with any intent or desire to indulge in argument,
and still less with any wish to provoke an argument upon the other
side. We can hardly expect that a majority of the Senate will take
our view of the question now, inasmuch as it appears heretofore to
have been rejected by the mtgority. The minority have this body in
their hands. They can order any Judgment to be entered upon the
record which they see proper, and for aught I can see they can exe-
cute it. Although a bare migority has not the constitutional author-
ity to do a thing, yet I do not know how to stop them if they think
they have. Although a third of the Senate be constitutionally the
organ of the whole Senate and has a right to express its Judgment,
vet if the minority will not let them do it I do not know what is to
be done. We t^e it for granted that what the mi^oritv has once
said it will say again ; but yet it is necessary and proper that at this
stage of the proceeding and at every stage we should so assert our right
as that nothing can be quoted against us hereafter as a concession to
the other side. We not only insist upon it that this court has no Ju-
risdiction ; that is, that one of the principal facts which it is neces-
sary should be found in order to enable you legally to convict the
accused does not exist, but that the fact and the law have been ac-
tually found in our favor, so that it is now declared already and placed
upon record by the votes of more than one- third of the Senate that
he is not, that he was not at the time when this impeachment was in-
stituted against him, an officer of the Goveminent ; that the great
qnestion arose then and was debated before this body which Gov-
ernor Johnston put so pertinently to the North Carolina convention at
the time of the adoption of the Coustitntion by that State, " How
can a person be removed from an office which he does not hold T'

A majority of this body have concluded that he could be removed
from an office which he did not hold. That has never got through
our minds ; we cannot understand it. We do not appreciate the logic
by which such a conclusion can possibly be reached. Of course I can-
not say that it is absurd when I recollect who it is that thinks it is
perfectly sensible and proper. Therefore there must be some reason-
ing about it that we have not been able to comprehend ; but whether
there is or is not, it has become a fixed constitutional fact established
by the Judgment of one-third of the Senate, and upward of one-third,
and by the non-concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate, that he is
not, and was not at the time of the commencement of these proceed-
ings against him, an officer of the Government within the meaning of
the Constitution. That we take it ought to end the question unless
the gentlemen can show, or unless it shall be the opinion of the Sen-
ate, that it makes no difference, that it is not an essential element in
the judgment which you are about to pronounce. But we think it is,
and to us, to me at all events, the point is so near being perfectly
self-evident that I do not know how to make an argument unon the
one side any more than upon the other side. Ton all know tne diffi-
culty of proving that the light shines down through the spaces in
yonder ceiling that are made for that purpose. The most difficult
thing perhaps to prove is that which everybody knows to be true and
whicn requires simply to be stated in order to establish it. That is my
fix here. Perhaps I may be mistaken about it; I suppose I must be.
I would say certainly and clearly that I am mistaken about it if the
Senate had not concurred in the same vie^. I now say that the sense
of this body has been spoken by those who have a right to speak it
to the number of more tlian one-third of its members, and that that is
as conclusive of the case as if every individual member had given the
same vote.

Mr. Manager HOAB. Mr. President, we are here to execute this
order of the Senate that —

The trial shall piooeed on tho 8th of July next as upon a plea of not goilty.

We do not propose to discuss the question now whether that
order was properly adopted, nor do we propose to discuss the ques-
tion now what will be the legal and constitutional result in the ter-
mination of this trial of the opinions which any individual members
of this court may entertain or have heretofore expressed.

Mr. CARPENTER. Mr. President, the order to which the honora-

ble manager refers was based upon the order which was made de-
claring that the plea in abatement was bad, that the demurrer to
the replication was bad, the replication good, the plea bad, and the
articles good. We have filed in due course of practice a motion to
vacate that order, and that is the foundation of all subsequent pro-
ceedings in this cause. It seems to me that that motion should be
first disposed of before we come into this trial. It would be a very
awkward proceeding if we should spend thi>ee or four weeks here,
with the sun riding with the Sirian star, in taking testimony, and the
Senate should then finally be convinced that the order which had
been made, and which is the foundation of this proceeding, was erro-
neous and must be reversed.

I want in this connection to say a few words in the nature of a per-
sonal explanation. When I appeared here after that order was pro-
nounced in the court, I suggested to the court certain questions
which in my opinion arose upon the order which required consulta-
tion between the counsel for the defendant before we could determine
what steps we would take as his counsel. Among other things, I
stated my impression to be that in the case of a plea in abatement
being demurred to, or after replication demurrer being filed to that,
the rule that the court could go back through the record was con-
fined to the particular branch of pleadings out of which the de-
murrer arose; and that the Senate having decided that our demurrer
to the replication of the House was bad, tiie court were estopped from
going back to other parts of the record. A newspaper say&-— I did not
quite understand it at the time — ^that the Senator from Ohio [Mr.
Thukman] administered to me a glowing and proper rebuke for my
impertinence and easy impudence in suggesting that an order made
by the court could be ^roneons. I want to purge myself of contempt,
(not of the Senate, for I do not think the Senate regarded it as an
impropriety on my part, but of contempt of the press that evidently
did regard it as an improper suggestion,) by saying that there is no
court in England or America exercising original jurisdiction which
does not concede as one of the regular steps of practice, motions to re-
consider, and in chancery motions for rehearing and bills of review
upon errors of law apparent upon the record. Half the criminal
oases that are tried in England and America are finally disposed of
on motions for a new trial Based upon the suggestion that the court
below has erred in admitting or rejecting testimony or in its in-
structions to the jury, and no man on the bench or at the bar ever
supposed that such a motion was disrespectful to the court. The
courts of chancery in England which administer original jurisdiction,
our courts in this country, our circuit courts, the Supreme Court of
the United States, all have rules regulating motions for rehearing ;
and the Supreme Court of the United States itself, sitting with sSi-
vantages possessed by no other tribunal in the land to be correct in
its judgment, has over and over again reversed its decisions. One

Online LibraryUnited States. CongressCongressional record : proceedings and debates of the ... Congress → online text (page 86 of 172)