By the CHAIRMAN: Q. What are we to understand by the word "incidental," which you used a while age in relation to the Kellogg matter?-A. That Mr. Walsh was brought there as a witness in connection with the case we were examining, but I have no recollection that any presentment was made against Mr. Kellogg in which Walsh was a witness before our grand jury. By Mr. STEWART: Q. Then what was the case to which you refer?-A. It must have been the Dorsey-Brady case. By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE: Q. Then, so far as Kellogg was concerned, he was not accused before that grand jury except as it came out incidentally in the testimony of this witness Walsh in another case?-A. Exactly so, sir. You tell it better than I can tell it myself. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. Then, if I understand you, there was no presentment at all in the case against Kellogg and Brady as such, but the case which you were investigating was the case which was subsequently tried, known as the Dorsey-Brady case?-A. Yes, sir. Q. That was the case in which Walsh had testimony before you?—A. Walsh was testifying in the Brady-Dorsey case. Q. Then you did not have your attention specially called to another case in which the defendants would be Brady, Kellogg, and Price?—A. No, sir. Q. Was there any other statement made by Mr. Bliss before that grand jury to which you desire to call attention ?-A. I only desire to call attention to the fact that when the grand jury got through Mr. Bliss was perfectly satisfied with our action. Q. He was not "sick" then ?-A. No, sir; he got "sick" afterwards. Q. Was the Venita and Las Vegas route investigated at that time?— A. Yes, sir. Q. State what Mr. Bliss said to you after you got through, about being satisfied with your action.-A. After the vote had been taken by the grand jury, Mr. Bliss was in the adjoining room, and I sent for him to come in and said to him: "Mr. Bliss, we have found certain indictments against certain parties"; and I read them over to him. He said, "I am very much obliged to you, gentlemen. You have had a long, tedious case; you have been very patient in your investigation. There is one other case in which I would like to have had an indictment, but I presume that the evidence placed before you was not sufficient to justify you in finding an indictment. I am very much obliged to you for your courtesy." Little pleasant remarks of that kind, and he evidently left the grand jury under the impression that they had done their duty to his entire satisfaction. By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE: Q. Did you understand what other case he referred to?-A. No, sir; not from that remark. The CHAIRMAN. He explained that here. It was the case of the Soledad and Newhall route. The WITNESS. And yet he says in his testimony that his witnesses did not testify to the same state of facts before the grand jury that they testified to when they were out on the plains, and that witnesses who were very important as connecting links were not produced; and he states that it brought home to him the truth of one of his own theories, that if he got five witnesses to testify in a case, and did not get the sixth, whose testimony was necessary to complete the chain, the five that he did get would be of no use to him. Q. In the cases of the Venita and Las Vegas, the Wells and Hamilton, and the Fargo and Pembina routes, which were dismissed, and also in the Soledad and Newhall case, did Mr. Bliss express to you at any time any surprise that you had not found indictments?-A. No, sir; he did not. On the contrary, he says, in regard to the Wells and Hamilton route As to O. J. Salisbury, he seems to have been a sort of dummy. Monroe Salisbury was the sole contractor. His route was certainly false. If Brady is not included, there are not two conspirators, unless Gilmer can be included. Q. How long were you investigating the Venita and Las Vegas route?-A. I could not tell you; I have no recollection. The manner of proceeding of the grand jury was this: These cases were brought up and the witnesses were brought here from all over the far West. They came in detachments. Witnesses on one route would be here now, and perhaps in half an hour there would be a witness on another route, and after that a witness on another route would come in, so that perhaps in the course of the day we would have five or six witnesses before us upon as many routes. By Mr. FYAN: Q. Did you reduce their evidence to writing ?-A. I will tell you in a moment. The witnesses were introduced as I have stated. The secretary of the grand jury and myself took the numbers of these cases upon separate sheets of paper, and as each witness was called to be examined we took notes of his testimony as we went along. Then that witness was dismissed, and some other one was called in reference to another route, and we would take up the sheet of paper on which we had previous testimony in regard to that same route, and would take up the connection and go on. Then the next witness would be, perhaps, on a third route, and we would take up the sheet of paper belonging to that route and take notes of his testimony. Those sheets of paper were put in a drawer, and kept under lock and key until we got through with the entire investigation. In that way we had notes of the testimony of each particular witness as it progressed. Of course we could not undertake to remember the testimony on all those routes. Q. What became of the sheets?-A. A committee was appointed to burn them up and they were destroyed. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. Was there any other record kept ?-A. No, sir. When we came to the end, I read over the entire testimony as I had taken it down and as the secretary had taken it down. Q. When the testimony was read over, was there a vote taken as to whether you would find a bill in each case?-A. Oh, yes; of course. Q. Did you ask any instructions from the court as to whether you should keep a record of your proceedings and return it to the court?A. No, sir. Q. You had no instructions on that subject?-A. We did not intend to keep any record. Q. Did Mr. Bliss give you any instructions as to whether you should keep a record of your proceedings? By Mr. STEWART: Q. Please state whether, to your knowledge, any outside or improper influence of any description, from any source, was attempted to be exercised with reference to the action of the grand jury upon those cases during the pendency of your inquiry.-A. In answer to that, I would like to state that the members of that grand jury were as good a class of men as could possibly be picked out anywhere. I never saw a better class of men on an average. Some of the very best citizens here, merchants and business men, were on that grand jury. Of course there were some that were not educated, but they were men of good common sense, and I don't think I ever saw the names of a better grand jury called in this District than that was. And, knowing the statements that had been made in regard to previous grand juries, that they had been tampered with and that they were under the espionage of detectives and that class of people, I was careful whenever the opportunity occurred to caution the members of the jury in regard to conversation of any kind with any body in connection with anything that occurred in the grand-jury room, and I do not believe that a single solitary iota of effort was made, in any way, shape, or form, to influence a single member of that grand jury. I think I can say that there were not more than five members of that grand jury, to the best of my recollection, who would have known Brady or Dorsey or Kellogg or Price or Walsh if they had met them in the street. By Mr. CRISP: Q. Did you examine or have before that grand jury in those cases any witnesses or any evidence not brought or sent before you by the counsel for the Government?-A. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That has reference, I suppose, to the question whether a Congressional document giving the proceedings in the contested-election case between Messrs. Spofford and Kellogg got into the grand-jury room? The WITNESS. No, sir; it did not. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. I would like to know whether you examined any witnesses or documents that were not sent or brought before you by the Government counsel A. No, sir; members of the grand jury had seen something of this investigation in which Mr. Walsh appeared before one of the Congressional committees. Some of the members of the grand jury had seen the document and read it, and perhaps it was talked about in the grand-jury room, but not as testimony or evidence; nor was it used before the grand jury in any way. Q. Was the book in the grand jury room ?-A. I cannot say whether it was or not. I have no recollection that it was. By Mr. STEWART : Q. Was there any indication which you observed in the course of your inquiries of any disposition on the part of the representatives of the Government, the district attorney or anybody else, to suppress any evidence?-A. No, sir; I think not. I could not say that. As I said before, witnesses came before that grand jury, not only in those cases, but in other than the star-route cases, where documentary evidence was read to them with their own signatures to it, and they denied any knowledge of the extent to which it went. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. Did or did not Mr. Bliss call the attention of the grand jury to the fact that the evidence before you disclosed a case against Kellogg or against Kellogg in connection with Brady and Price or others?-A. No, sir; we had nothing to do with the Kellogg case at all. Adjourned. WASHINGTON, May 10, 1884. The CHAIRMAN. I will state to the members of the committee that I have received a letter from Mr. John A. Walsh, in which he calls attention to the fact that some of the testimony given by Mr. Bliss before this committee reflects upon him in regard to a claim which he has made against the Government in connection with his service as a mail contractor, and expresses a desire to appear before the committee and make a statement in reference to that. I supposed that such a request would come under our general rule, and accordingly I have instructed the clerk to send Mr. Walsh a copy of our resolution adopted some time since, to the effect that whenever persons desire to appear before the committee in their own defense, they can do so at their own expense, and to inform him that we will be prepared to hear him on Monday next. ELIAS S. HUTCHINSON Sworn and examined. By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE: Question. Please state your age, residence, and occupation.-Answer. My age is forty-nine years; I reside in Washington; I am a merchant. Q. Were you foreman of a grand jury organized in connection with the supreme court of the District of Columbia?-A. I was. Q. When?-A. At the June term of 1882. Q. Were you foreman of the grand jury that returned indictments against Brady and Price?-A. No, sir. Q. Did the grand jury of which you were foreman return indictments in any of the star-route cases?-A. It returned no indictments in the star-route matters. Let me explain. We were called in session in an emergency-we were so instructed by the court. The grand jury had been discharged until October without being organized, and we were called in and organized about the 14th or 15th of July, instead of waiting until October. We were in session a few days and then adjourned until October. Q. What was the object of calling that special session of the grand jury, so far as you know?-A. We were instructed by the court that there were some matters to be presented to us which it would be necessary to consider at once. I think the judge said they were matters that we must consider then. By Mr. MILLIKEN: Q. Were you informed that unless those cases were considered at once the statute of limitations would run against them?-A. I think the court so instructed us. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. Who appeared before that grand jury in behalf of the United States?-A. Mr. Bliss. Q. The committee yesterday, in reference to the case of Mr. Mitchell, the foreman of a prior grand jury, decided that the rule of secrecy did not apply as to the matters about which we interrogated him; that Mr. Bliss had already, as the counsel who represented the Government before the grand jury, made a statement to the committee here in regard to what he had done before the jury, and of the evidence he had laid be fore them, and that that opened up the matter so far as he was concerned, and Mr. Mitchell was instructed to make a statement in reference to those matters except so far as his own conscience might dictate to him another course. The committee now propose to examine yon in the same way, but if we should ask you any question that you think you ought not to answer, you may so state, and we will consider the matter further. The WITNESS. Yes, sir; I understand; I do not know that you will ask me anything that I shall not be prepared to answer, but I think it is quite likely you will. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. What did Mr. Bliss state to the jury were the matters to which he desired to call your attention. The WITNESS. Do you mean in the grand jury room? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. The WITNESS. Now, Mr. Chairman, I consider that the proceedings in the grand jury room are a matter that I am bound by my obligation to keep secret. The CHAIRMAN. But Mr. Bliss made that matter public. The WITNESS. He may have made his version of it public, and he may have told the truth or he may not; but I do not think that relieves me of my obligation. The CHAIRMAN. If a witness before that grand jury had testified falsely, would not you be required in a judicial proceeding to testify as to what he had stated before the grand jury-as to whether he had made the same statements there that he had made before the petit jury? Your oath of secrecy would not relieve you from testifying in such a case. That is universally held to be the law of the matter. Otherwise a grand jury might be imposed upon by perjured testimony, and there would be no way of convicting persons who testified falsely before a grand jury. Clearly, therefore, that is not one of the matters which you are bound to keep secret. THE WITNESS. Well, I am being instructed. derstand the question fully. I do not claim to un Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. You have been told that Mr. Bliss has been examined as a witness before this committee in regard to the proceedings had before that grand jury. Among other things Mr. Bliss stated here that a case was presented to that grand jury accusing Mr. William P. Kellogg of crime. Is that a fact? The WITNESS (after some hesitation). I don't know whether I shall answer that or not. I will tell you directly. I don't know whether that is a matter of record or not. I doubt if it is. Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. That is an open secret. The WITNESS. It may be an open secret. The CHAIRMAN. The committee stated the rule of law to Mr. Mitchell as laid down in Bishop on Criminal Procedure as follows: Various reasons for this requirement of secrecy have been assigned. from an unarrested defendant the knowledge which would induce him to escape; another is to prevent the indicted persons from meeting the evidence at the trial by perOne is to keep jured testimony; another, to render the witnesses before the grand jury more free in their disclosures. Consequently, when the purposes of the secrecy are accomplished, it is the better opinion-contrary, perhaps, to some cases, but maintained in most |