session, and resulted in his acquittal, less than two-thirds
of the Senators voting for conviction. General Belknap was
represented by an able array of counsel, chief of whom were
Judge Black of Pennsylvania and the Hon. Matthew H. Carpenter
of Wisconsin. Mr. Knott of Kentucky, Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts,
and Mr. Lord of New York, conducted the prosecution in the main as
managers on the part of the House of Representatives. The principal
contention on the part of the counsel for the accused was that there
could be no conviction, inasmuch as Belknap had resigned his office
before the article of impeachment had been preferred. This view
seems to have been decisive of the final vote of many Senators,
and the accused stood acquitted at the bar of the Senate.

When the second session of this Congress convened, in December,
1876, the excitement throughout the country was intense over the
pending Presidential contest between Hayes and Tilden. As will be
remembered, the electoral vote of two States, Louisiana and Florida,
was claimed by each of the candidates. These votes were decisive of
the result. As the days passed and the time approached for the
joint session of the Senate and the House, for the purpose of
counting the electoral votes and declaring the result, the tension
became greater, and partisan feeling more intense. The friends of
Hayes were in the majority in the Senate; those of Tilden, in
the House. With conflicting certificates, both purporting to give
the correct vote from each of the States named, and no lawful
authority existing to determine as to their validity, it can readily
be seen that the situation was one to arouse the grave apprehension
of all thoughtful men. The condition was without a precedent in
our history. Twice had there been a failure to elect a President by
the people, and by constitutional provision the election in each
instance devolved upon the House. In the first-mentioned case, in
1801, Mr. Jefferson was chosen; and in the latter, in 1825, Mr.
John Quincy Adams. In neither of the cases just mentioned had
there been a question as to _how_ any State had voted. It was
simply that no person had received a majority of all of the electoral
votes cast. The method of settlement was clearly pointed out by
the Constitution. As already indicated, the case was wholly
different in the Hayes-Tilden controversy. The question then was as
to _how_ certain States had voted. It was for the