NEWS BY THE MAIL.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 584, 3 May 1876, Page 3

NEWS BY THE MAIL.

THE SUEZ CANAL PURCHASE. (Home News ) The debates in the House of Commons on the Suez Canal purchase and the Fugitive Slave Circular are over. As regards the first, the result has been throughout a foregone conclusion, and the whole cf the wordy war has, therefore, had about it an air of unreality. As might have been expected, no reason was adduced on Monday last why the debate should not have been concluded on the Monday previous. Mr Lowe made a speech incredibly unwise in its argument and petty in its tone—a speech, as Mr Roebuck remarked, unworthy of a statesman, and only worthy of an Old Bailey barrister —the gist of which was to show that we might have purchased the Khedive’s interest more cheaply than we did. He even had the extraordinary taste and tact to remind the House that be had him*elf saved the country £SOOO in paying the Alabama claims. On the whole the nation will think that the £30,000 lost in the Canal purchase represents a truer economy than the £SOOO which Mr Lowe contrived to keep in their pockets. Mr Gladstone’s speech was less captious and trivial, but was still absolutely without effect. His chief contentions were that we had paid too much, that the money should have been raised through the Bank of England, that the proceeding of the Government had given rise to much speculation on the Stock Exchange, and that we were without any proof that we had obtained a proportionate influence in the management of the Canal. In reply Sir Stafford Northcote triumphantly demonstrated that the money could not have been rais c d through the Bank of England, except after a delay which would have placed the purchase beyond our reach, and have given the shares to Franca. If there was speculation on the Stock Exchange, that is not the affair of the Government ; while as for our influence over the affairs of the Canal, it is absurd to suppose that with nearly half of its capital in our hands, we shall accept a position of impotence in its councils. When Mr Disraeli in rising to reply said that the debate had made one thing very clear, namely, that if Mr Gladstone had been in office, the purchase would never have been made, he evoked the cheers of the whole House. The attempt to organise an attack upon the Government in the matter, on which the nation, if not as enthusiastic as at first, is still unanimous, was a great tactical mistake on the part of the Opposition. It is felt as such on all sides, and the Liberal journals are the most indignant of all with the Liberal leaders, and especially with Mr Lowe. Mr Gladstone, since the debate was over, has reduced the arguments in his speech of Monday last to twenty-seven leading questions, published in the newspapers of February 24th. THE ESTIMATES. Mr Gathorne Hardy introduced the Army Estimates on Thursday (March 2nd). The principal features in his scheme are 2d a day increase pay, to accumulate as a bounty, and to be distributed after six years’ service ; the medical service is to be better paid, and the Yeomanry turned into light cavalry; the reserve men will obtain £2 a year more ; 3600 men additional are to be voted, which will give us a corps d'armec of 30,000 men ready for foreign service in addition to the three regiments of the Guards. According to the statement of the Secretary for War, the army is already rising in favour, and is drawing fair recruits, the average height of the infantry being sft 6 3-Bin with 34|in round the chest. The only criticism to which this scheme is open is that Mr Hardy sug gests no method of retrenchment, but flings the whole burden on the Estimates.

When Mr Hardy brought forward his estimates on Thursday (March 2nd) Mr Pease suggested a reduction of our forces by 10,000 men. The proposal was of course absurd, but the idea reappeared when the first vote on the estimates was taken on Monday, March 6th. Sir Wilfrid Lawson, who is endeavouring to surround the subject of peace-at-any-price with the same halo of laughtermoving fun as he has already encircled the topic of teetotalism, moved a resolution declaring that that the interests of the nation do not demand an increased expenditure on the Land Forces. No more conclusive reply to such a proposal could be forthcoming than was exhibited by Mr Hardy’s statement and the report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting. Mr Hardy told the House that we have at present only sixty-three batteries with 378 guns manned and horsed, being little more than half we require. General Taylor, the Inspector-General of Recruiting, has made it abundantly clear in his report that additional inducements must be provided for recruiting. Though the competition of civilian industries was, from the comparative slacxness of trade, less keen in 1875 than 1874, there was still a falling off in the number of men willing to take the Queen’s shilling to the amount of 2146. Again, General Taylor says that though during the present twelve months 1000 or 1200 additional recruits will be sufficient, “in the following year the demand will be much greater, amounting to 7000 or 8000 men.” In other words, we shall have to raise the total of annually enlisted recruits from 18,500 to 27.000 or 28,000. At such an emergency it is not the time to talk about reducing estimates. AMERICAN SCANDALS. We have just witnessed the outburst of a whole crop of American scandals of the most disgraceful character. General Schenck has been recalled by his Government for his connection with the Emma Mine —his place beng filled or about to be filled by Mr R, H. Dana, author of “ Two Years before the Mast,” an eminent man of letters, and an acute politician, who will be well received in this country ; Messrs Belknap, Babcock and Robeson, all of them occupying important places in the Washington Government, are about to take their trial on charges of corruption of the most outrageous kind. General Belknap was Secretary for War, and when on his acts of bribery and venality being discovered he tendered his resignation to the President, he remarked that he “wished he had killed himself.” “ I wish,” replied General Grant, “ you had.” It is not to be supposed that all those implicated in these nefarious transactions have yet been discovered. Of course there is a tempest of virtuous indignation in America, The only hope is that it may not pass away in mere wind and fury, and that something may be done towards purifying the foul atmosphere of trans-Atlantic politics, and redeeming the profession of transit

Atlantic politicians from the stigma of its present disgrace. The following information has been telegraphed to the Times :—On March 2nd the following was telegraphed:—“The Emma Mine investigation has caused a great sensation, but to day it is eclipsed by the sudden resignation of General Belknap, the Secretary of War. The House Committee on the Expenditure of the War Department, in carrying on an investigation, summoned a Mr March, of New York, as a witness. He appeared on Wednesday, and testified that he had paid Mrs Belknap, the wife of the War Secretary, 10,000 dols in consideration of an appointment as post trader at Fort Sill and several other frontier military posts, and that he also agreed to pay her 6000 annually. Since then he had done so. This exposure was at once communicated to Mr Belknap, but before he could appear before the committee, his wife waited on the members and admitted the truth of the statement. She said she alone was to blame, as the Secretary knew nothing about it. The Secretary afterwards stated that the charge was true, saying he desired to assume all the responsibility, not wishing it put on his wife. “ To-day, at a special Cabinet meeting, Mr Belknap tendered bis resignation, the President accepting the House committee’s report. Articles of impeachment are being prepared, but a statement will be heard from Mr Belknap, who has requested a hearing. “ The House has unanimously adopted a resolution for the impeachment of Mr Secretary Belknap, and has appointed a committee to notify the Senate.” On the 3rd the following telegrams were sent:—

“Secretary Belknap’s impeachment is founded on the testimony of Caleb P. Marsh, of New York. General Belknap has been thrice married. His second wife, who was originally Miss Oarrie Tomlinson, died in 1870. His third wife is her sister, formerly Mrs Bower. Marsh’s testimony shows that in 1870 Mrs Belknap and Mrs Bower spent some lime at his house, the former being ill there. Afterwards, in return for kindness shown to them, Mrs Belknap suggested to him to apply for the position of post trader at Fort Sill, then vacant. Marsh did so; but it appeared that John Evans, the former trader there, was in Washington, anxious for reappointment. The Secretary for War, by law, makes these appointments. The Secretary suggested that Marsh should see Evans and make some arrangement, as Evans had a large investment at Fort Sill in buildings and stock. Marsh saw Evans, and on October Btb, 1870, they made a written agreement— Evans to be appointed trader, giving Marsh in return 12,000d0l yearly, in quarterly payments in advance. Marsh says:— “ When the first remittance reached me I sent half to Mrs Belknap. Being in Washington at her funeral in December, 1870, I had a conversation with Mrs Bower to the following purport, though my memory is exceedingly indistinct, and I judge as to the details of the conversation partly, perhaps, from what followed. I visited the nursery with Mrs Bower to see the baby. I said, * This child will have money coming to it before a great while,’ She said, ‘Yes; it’s mother gave the child to me, telling me that money was coming from you. I must take and keep it for it.’ ‘ I replied. ‘ All right. ‘lt seems to me,’ I also said, 1 it’s fattier ought to be consulted’; but he then knew of no money transactions between the late Mrs Belknap and myself. I have a faint recollection of a remark by Mrs Bower that if the money was sent to the father it belonged to her, and she would get it. Any way, I certainly had some understanding then or subsequently with her or him, for when the next payment was made I sent one half to the secretary. I have continued substantially from that day forward to the present time to do the same. About eighteen months to two years after the first payment, I reduced the amount to GOOOdol annually, because Evans’s allowance was reduced."

Replying to questions about the method of payment, Marsh said the money was sent according to the instructions of the Secretary for War —sometimes in bank-notes by express, once or twice by certificates of deposit and sometimes he paid the Secretary for War personally. The witness said, “ Once or twice I bought Governmeat bonds which I sent or handed to him. Evans’s payments amounted in the aggregate to about 40,000 dollars, one-half of which I disposed of, as above stated.”

Marsh then detailed at great length his proceedings. After being summoned by telegraph on the 21st of February to appear before the committee, he visit-d Washing, ton, and had repeated interviews with the Secretary, his wife, and Dr Tomlinson, her brother. The latter also vis'ted him in New York. At first Marsh intended to leave the country, having his trunk packed for the purpose, The Secretary objected to this, saying it would ruin him. Marsh always insisted that if he went before the committee he would tell the truth. Dr Tomlinson finally wanted him not to appear before the committee, but to send a letter exonerating the Secretary; The letter was prepared, but a formal subpoena was afterwards served on Marsh in New York. Mrs Belknap and also Dr Tomlinson telegraphed to him to come to Washington. He did so, going before the committee on February 29th. Marsh testifies that he never had any business relations with the late or the present Mrs Belknap, excepting about the Fort Sill appointment, that the baby referred to was born in the autumn of 1870, dying in the summer of 1871, that it was never understood the money paid was to be the property of the present Mrs Belknap, and that the Secretary remonstrated against his leaving the country without appearing before the committee. The Secretary did not ask him to testify any untruth.

The President regrets the haste with which he accepted Belknap’s resignation, saying, had he then known the enormity of the offence he would not have done so. This acceptance of the resignation raised a doubt of the Senate’s power to try the impeachment, Belknap being out of office when impeached.

This was yesterday extensively discussed by the House. It appears that the exposure of the crime was first made to Democratic members of Congress by an ex-army officer who had enmity to Belknap, on account of his discharge from the Army. When Belknap communicated the circumstances to the President, he conveyed the impression that Mrs Belknap was guilty, he having only just learnt it, but would assume the crime to shield his wife. Belknap said, “ I wish I had killed myself.” The President answered, “I wish you had.” The President manifests visible signs of mental suffering.