[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 3]
[Chapter 77 - The Impeachment and Trial of William W. Belknap]
[From the U.S. Government Printing 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.