that any revelations of the grand jury's doings may be made which justice demands. The testimony may come from a third person present, from a grand juror himself, or from one who was a witness before the grand jury; he may be even questioned as to what was his own evidence.

The WITNESS. The obligation that we took was not to divulge the proceedings of the grand jury, was it not?

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. Unless called upon to do so under due process of law.

The WITNESS. No; there is no exception made; the oath does not make any exception.

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. A witness is always to be governed by the instructions that he receives from the forum where he is called upon to testify. For instance, if you were called as a witness to give evidence in a court having jurisdiction of the matter, the court would instruct you that that was not a matter of privilege, and then you would be required, under law, to answer the question. Of course in such a case you are absolved by such instruction from all obligations and from all pains and penalties, either in conscience or otherwise.

The WITNESS. Well, I do not understand that I am relieved of any part of the obligation that I took as a grand juror. I do not say this to obstruct your investigation in any way. If I can do anything conscientiously to help you out I will do it; but I most certainly understand that the obligation I took there binds me to secrecy, and the theory of the organization of the grand jury, in my mind, is that the proceedings are to be strictly secret. If the district-attorney or any other man as a witness chooses to represent or to misrepresent what took place there, that is his business and not the business of the grand jury, as I understand it. I received my subpoena last night, and of course I took it for granted that this was the business you wanted me for, and that I was called here because I had been foreman of that grand jury, but I think I ought to have some advice in the matter before I am required to answer. My own opinion is that I cannot divulge the proceedings before the grand jury; but if I can aid you in any way without violating my obligation, I give you my word that I will do it. Before answering, however, I would like to have an opportunity to take

some advice.

Mr. MILLIKEN. Who was the judge who held the court?-A. Judge Wylie.

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. Did your grand jury find a bill of indictment against William P. Kellogg?

The WITNESS. No.

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. The administration of oaths to witnesses who are to be produced before the grand jury here is done publicly, in open court, I believe?

The WITNESS. Yes; that is a matter of record.

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. Walsh was sworn in open court, was he not, to give evidence in a case pending before that grand jury?

The WITNESS. The swearing of the witness is a matter of record. Mr. MILLIKEN. Do you know of your own knowledge whether Walsh was sworn to give testimony before that grand jury? Did you see him or hear him sworn?

The WITNESS. We take a great many things for granted, you know. I did not see him sworn.

Mr. MILLIKEN. Then you do not know it of your own knowledge? The CHAIRMAN. But yon know that Mr. Walsh did give testimony before that grand jury. You know that of your own knowledge.

The WITNESS. You are getting into the grand jury room now. The CHAIRMAN. That cannot be said to be a secret any longer, because Mr. Bliss has testified to it here.

Mr. MILLIKEN (to the witness). Are you willing to take legal counsel as to this matter, and then come before the committee?

The WITNESS. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to call the attention of the witness and the committee to the fact that while this matter was secret at the time the grand jury were carrying on their investigations, it has been since made public by the Government counsel himself, and made a part of our public record here. [To the witness.] How long were you in session at that time?

The WITNESs. We were in session three days in July.

The CHAIRMAN. Were there any bills returned during that session? The WITNESS. No; we made no presentments.

(At the suggestion of Mr. Milliken the witness was excused until Monday, in order to give him an opportunity to take advice in the mean time.)

WASHINGTON, May 12, 1884.

ELIAS S. HUTCHINSON recalled and further examined.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. At the last meeting of the committee you were excused for the purpose of enabling you to consult with counsel as to the extent to which you would go in answering questions in regard to what transpired in the presence of the grand jury, of which you were foreman; are you now prepared?-Answer. I have taken counsel, and I think that I am prepared to answer the questions that you will be likely to ask me, judging from what you said on Thursday last.

Q. Please state whether Mr. John A. Walsh was examined as a witness before the grand jury of which you were foreman.-A. He was. Q. What, if any, cases were presented to that grand jury by Mr. Bliss for your consideration at that special term ?-A. The Government counsel, Mr. Bliss, before we examined witnesses, told us that we were called together to consider the case against Senator Kellogg-charges or testimony and evidence that would be brought against Senator Kellogg-and we were urged to act at once and promptly because the statute of limitations was about to run.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. You say you were "urged;" by whom?-A. By Mr. Bliss. I think it was on the 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th days of July, 1882, that we met. Q. Were there any other cases to which your attention was called?— A. There were no other cases. He told us that the testimony would be brought in that had been presented to the previous grand jury-testimony running in the same way, and very much the same testimony in which Mr. Brady and Mr. Price were involved; but they had been already indicted, and we were notified that we were not expected to indict parties who had been already indicted.

Q. When had Brady and Price been indicted?-A. At a previous term of the grand jury.

Q. Then there was but one case to which your attention was called at that term?-A. Only one case.

Q. What witnesses were called before you?-A. Only Mr. Walsh, and some of the clerks from the Post-Office Department, to verify papers. Q. How long was Mr. Walsh in the presence of the grand jury ?—A. The two days' sessions; I suppose on Thursday several hours, and on Friday the whole session-I guess four or five hours. I don't remember exactly. It was a very hot day I remember.

Q. Was he interrogated about matters in that Kellogg case, before the grand jury ?-A. Yes, sir; by Mr. Bliss.

Q. Did he present any documentary evidence in addition to his oral statements?-A. He had some papers-very few.

Q. Do you remember what kind of papers they were ?-A. He had, I think, two or three drafts or checks that bore evidence of having been paid, and also a telegram, I remember, signed "K," I think, but I don't remember what the telegram said. I only remember the fact that he had a dispatch.

Q. You say it was signed "K." To whom had it been sent ?-A. As I remember, it was directed to Mr. Walsh. This point is not very fresh in my mind. It is nearly two years since, and I forgot it as much as I could. I supposed I never was to tell anybody of it, and it is nearly two years past, and I have not carried it in my mind. What I say is to my best recollection, and I may say something that I would want to correct later, because as the subject comes up my memory may be refreshed.

Q. Were there any postal drafts presented to the jury?-A. Now, I should say not; the papers that I have mentioned comprised all that he showed us, I think; I think there was a file of three papers.

Q. Were there any checks or promissory notes?-A. I think there was a file of three papers; whether they were checks or notes or drafts, I cannot remember; but they were some evidences of a claim; my.impression is that they were checks; there may have been a draft among them, or they may have been two checks and a note.

Q. Was there any evidence produced as to the time of payment-as to whether they were barred by the statute of limitations?

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. (Interposing). State when they were drawn?-A. I could not tell you; I haven't the remotest idea now when they were drawn.

Q. Upon whom were they drawn?-A. I could not tell you.

Q. To whom were they payable?-A. I think the checks were drawn on Mr. Walsh, as a banker, by Senator Kellogg. That is my impression.

Q. What were the amounts?-A. I think that altogether they amounted to about $4,000-the whole of the evidence that he presented of payments.

Q. Can you not give the dates?-A. No; I cannot give the dates.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Can you state whether the date was a special subject of consideration, so as to determine whether the act was barred by the statute of limitations?-A. I suppose the dates were noticed; I noticed the dates at the time, I am sure, because I saw the papers; but that our attention was specially called to that point by any one, I do not now remember.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. What became of those checks and telegrams after you got through with them?-A. Mr. Walsh took them away with him.

Q. Have you ever seen them since?-A. No.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. Was Mr. Walsh fully examined concerning the subject-matter to which those papers which were submitted to you referred ?-A. I considered that he was. I thought the examination was exhaustive. Q. Who made that examination ?—A. Mr. Bliss.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. It is well known that the grand jury failed to find a bill?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, was that failure the result of insufficient evidence, or did it depend upon the question of the statute of limitations?-A. The statute of limitations was not considered by us. We acted entirely upon the testimony-the evidence.

Q. Was Mr. Price introduced before you as a witness at that time?— A. No, sir.

Q. Did his name appear in any of the papers?-A. Mr. Bliss had a large bundle or trunk-full of papers, and Mr. Price's name was in them very generally. There were contracts and papers pertaining to expedited routes, the name of which I do not remember; but Mr. Price's name was involved, I know.

Q. Do you know whether Price's name was mentioned in those notes or drafts-A. I think the checks were drawn by Mr. Kellogg, as I have said, on Mr. Walsh as a banker, and I do not think Mr. Price's name was on those checks at all. I am almost certain that it was not. I haven't any recollection of Price's connection with them.

Q. And you do not remember that Mr. Price had anything to do with the papers that were before you?-A. Those that were in Mr. Walsh's possession, do you mean?

Q. I mean any papers that were before you.-A. No; I don't remem ber that Mr. Price's name was associated with those that Mr. Walsh had. I spoke of his name being on papers in Mr. Bliss's possession.

Q. Those related to his contracts for carrying the mails and to expedition?-A. Yes, sir; matters upon which he had been already indicted. Q. Were any drafts presented drawn by Price?-A. There may have been. I think there was some evidence of indebtedness that was in a check among Mr. Walsh's papers, but its character I cannot remember at all, and whether Price was associated with it I cannot tell.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Do you mean some papers other than this telegram?-A. Some drafts-a time draft or a note.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. What was the object of presenting those papers?-A. They were brought out in Mr. Walker's testimony.

Q. For what purpose were they presented?-A. In considering the charge against Senator Kellogg as having received the money on these checks that is, received money through Walsh, on the expedition of some mail contract.

Q. Did the evidence go to that extent; was their evidence to show payment of that kind?-A. There was testimony of that kind.

Q. Did that evidence connect it with the expedition of star-route contracts?-A. It pertained to the expedition of star-route contracts.

Q. Then, while there was evidence tending to show payments on account of such contracts, was that evidence deemed sufficient to warrant

the jury in finding an indictment?-A. The testimony that was presented was not sufficient to warrant an indictment; I am speaking now from the result of the grand jury's action.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. Was there any evidence of any misconduct or attempt to conceal or suppress evidence on the part of anybody representing the United States Government in that matter of inquiry before you ?-A. No suppression that we could suspect. We could not suspect any suppression of evidence or testimony. We were promised on Friday that Mr. Price would be there Saturday almost to a certainty, but he did not come. I suppose, however, that the Government attorneys were not to blame for that.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Who made that promise?-A. Mr. Bliss.

By Mr. STEWART:

We

Q. Do you know why Price did not come ?—A. I do not. Q. Was any reason given?-A. Simply that he did not come. understood that he was to come, but, as a matter of fact, he did not

come.

Q. Do you know where Mr. Price was at that time?-A. I do not. Q. Was he under arrest?—A. No. My opinion is that he was in Canada at that time. I think Mr. Bliss said that he had, until recently, been in Canada, but that he (Bliss) had learned, through a respectable source, that he would be there the next day.

Q. But he was not there?-A. He was not there.

Q. Was there any evidence that came to your knowledge directly or indirectly that anybody, in behalf of anybody charged with crime, or in behalf of the Government, attempted to influence improperly the action of the grand jury?—A. No, sir.

Q. There has been a good deal said about the jurymen in this District. What sort of a grand jury was that of which you were foreman?-A. Yes, sir. Well, I believe we were drawn in the regular way. That grand jury had been organized, I think, or had been drawn any way, and then when they were wanted by the court for this case they found there was not a sufficient number of the members in town. was in the middle of summer, and a good many of them were inaccessible, and several tallymen were ordered to complete the panel.

It

Q. Do you remember how many?-A. I believe it was five or six. I don't know that I ever knew how many, but I think that was the num

ber.

Q. What was the general character of that grand jury for respectability? The grand jury are not on trial, of course, but there has been a good deal said in the public prints in regard to the various bodies here that have tried to investigate this star-route matter, and I would like to have it appear what kind of men these grand jurors were.-A. Well, leaving out myself, they were a very respectable class of men, I assure you. I guess that they were strictly a business body; I think that all of them were engaged in legitimate business in town.

Q. Can you name some prominent citizens who were on that grand jury?-A. There was Mr. Stephenson, of Stephenson Bros.; Mr. Ross, the tobacconist; Mr. Johnston, secretary of the Howard University; Mr. Keyworth, the grocer; Mr. Sempken, Mr. George Truesdell, Mr. Edmonston, the grocer; Mr. Henry Willard,