Q. I asked you if he desired to be relieved from attendance in court?— A. I do not know that Mr. Bosler sent any one to me or knew anything about it. I know nothing further than that this conversation did take place with a gentleman about Mr. Bosler.

Q. Were you advised by any one speaking for him that Mr. Bosler desired to be relieved from attendance before the court for any reason-A. I have just answered that question by saying that he desired to be released from the obligations of a subpœna.

Q. Now, was that desire predicated upon the fact that his testimony would be such as to embarrass him because he did not desire to make public the contents of his books?—A. I did not understand that he had indicated that his testimony in reference to this case would embarrass him. I understood from the conversation to which I have referred that the only desire of the person that was talking to me was that Mr. Bosler's private affairs should not be disclosed, and that Mr. Bosler him⚫self should be allowed to go about his business. And now, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I must ask you to excuse me from making any further statement upon this point.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. Didn't it go a little further than that; was it not that his transactions with party money-political funds-rather than his private affairs, should not be disclosed?-A. That was the impression that I drew. When I said "private affairs" I meant private political affairs.

Mr. BLISS. Mr. Bosler told me that his books contained evidence of political contributions, and that he did not think that ought to be brought out in public.

The WITNESS. What I desired particularly was the Dorsey letter.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. You cared nothing about anything else?-A. I did not know of anything else. My associate, Mr. Bliss, was looking into the books. I hoped that he might find something else; but I was informed by him. that he did not find anything except one or two items that were not very material, in my judgment.

Q. You had no acquaintance with Mr. Bosler?-A. None whatever. Q. And the information or the suggestion which came to you came through another?-A. Came through another.

Q. At Bosler's request?-A. I do not know.

Q. Will you state to the committee who approached you upon that subject?-A. I do not think it is competent evidence. So far as I am personally concerned, Mr. Chairman, I shall state everything in relation to my own conduct, whether it is within the rules of law or not, but when it comes to referring to other people, I do not think I ought to go outside of those rules. I do not myself, Mr. Chairman, taking warning from some witnesses that have preceded me, approve of a witness, in testifying, disregarding all the limitations of law and of confidence. Whilst no law and no confidence should restrain him from stating anything whatever that affects himself, I think the limitations of the law and of confidence may, with propriety, restrain a witness to a certain extent from stating what affects others.

Q. You were a public official at that time and discharging your duty in a public capacity, were you not?-A. I was, sir.

Q. Then you were not supposed to have secrets?-A. I do not think I had many secrets except with my associates. We talked with a great deal of freedom, and all lawyers know that such consultations are to be respected as confidential.

Q. But if individuals other than your associates were to come to you to advise you as to the manner of prosecuting that case?—A. [Interposing.] If any individual were to come to me with an improper proposition he would receive instant punishment and a prompt disclosure of his conduct.

Q. You decline then to state who it was that interposed in behalf of Bosler?-A. I would prefer not to make the statement, unless you very decidedly insist.

The CHAIRMAN. I will not insist, unless the committee does.

Mr. STEWART. I think I should object to it as being incompetent, because whatever anybody said under such circumstance, to Mr. Merrick would not be evidence here against anybody. You would have to see that the man was Bosler's accredited agent.

The WITNESS. According to my best judgment there was not a single word that passed that was improper. All that I said in reply was, "If Mr. Bosler will give me those letters I don't care what becomes of him; but if he does not give me those letters I will pursue him as far as I can. I am determined to have those letters.” And the answer was, "If he has those letters, or whatever letters he has, he will give them to you, of course."

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. I understood you just now to take the position in withholding the name of that gentleman that you did it upon the ground of privilege; that it was in effect a confidential communication or conversation?—A. Well, no; I cannot say that, sir; for there were no obligations of confidence imposed at the time. The transaction was entirely open; but I withheld the name for the same reason that I gave certain directions when we engaged in the case. When I came into this case I found that the atmosphere was filled with suspicion. We had at the Department a list of individuals in Congress who were supposed to have had more or less connection with these transactions, and I found that such was the condition of the public mind that wherever a name was mentioned in connection with these matters the mention was at once construed to attach suspicion; a mere suspicion soon grew into serious accusation. Therefore I directed that no man's name should be mentioned in connection with these matters unless we had evidence upon which to indict. I gave those directions because I desired that the records and the officers of the Department of Justice should not be made the instru ments of originating or communicating calumnies. The public mind is still sensitive upon this subject, so that the mere mention of a name in this connection, though the man be innocent as the unfallen snow, may do harm or wrong somewhere; and it is for that reason that I prefer not to answer your question.

Q. You have made mention of a conversation with some person who said that if Mr. Bosler had certain letters which you desired he would disclose them?-A. Yes; that he would do so as a matter of course. Q. I will not ask you to mention the name, but you do not care, I suppose, if I ask you to exclude certain persons?-A. Yes; I prefer not to do that.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Will you state why it was that Mr. Kellogg was not indicted before the statute of limitations ran, as to the passage of the drafts and notes?-A. That question I suppose is designed to draw from me a statement of the history of that transaction.

Q. Yes; state it fully.-A. After my interview with Mr. Walsh, to which I have referred, I availed myself of the first opportunity for a consultation with my associates, Messrs. Bliss and Ker (which occurred a day or two after the interview with Walsh) to bring the subject before them, and that consultation was, I am very certain, held in our lunchroom in the court-house. I informed them of what had occurred between Mr. Walsh and me, and stated that it was my intention to go to the Attorney-General, make known to him what had passed between Walsh and me, and request him to ask the court to have the grand jury reconvened. To explain my use of the word "reconvened" here. I should say that this was in the month of July, and the grand jury that had been summoned to attend upon the June term of the criminal court had been respited until the following October.

Therefore it is that I say my purpose was to have that grand jury reconvened; and my reason for having it reconvened instead of waiting until the coming October, when it would again come together, was that the important transaction in which Mr. Kellogg was guilty had its initiation about the 17th, 18th, or 19th of July, 1879, and what had transpired on the 17th, 18th, or 19th of July, 1879, would be barred by the statute on the 17th, 18th, or 19th of July, 1882, the month in which this consultation took place. It was necessary, therefore, that the grand jury should act, if they acted at all, upon the first part of that transaction prior to those dates. When I brought forward the proposition to my associates in the shape that I have indicated, Mr. Bliss, after a few moments reflection, said, "Don't do that; I will go to the court myself and ask the judge to reconvene the grand jury." I was greatly pleased at his taking this position, and I told him I was delighted to hear that he was willing to do that, because it was a matter which I considered closely affected his personal and official honor.

Thereupon, at the meeting of court after the recess Colonel Bliss went up to the judge and did request that he would reconvene the jury, telling him the occasion for it, and that it was a matter in which he felt a personal interest. I also went up to the judge's desk while the colonel was still there, apprehending that he might need some assistance to induce the court to pass the order, and united with him in the request. The court thereupon said it would reconvene the grand jury. The grand jury was accordingly reconvened, and I think it came together somewhere between the 5th and 12th of July, and was organized before the 12th. Colonel Bliss went before the grand jury with Mr. Walsh as a witness, and before the day upon which a prosecution on account of this transaction of July, 1879, would have been barred by the statute the grand jury came down, having refused to indict.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Was that the Mitchell grand jury?-A. No, sir; that was the Hutchinson grand jury. I observe that Mr. Hutchinson states in his testimony, which within the last few days, I have casually looked over, that they were expecting all the time that Mr. Price was to come up to supplement the testimony of Mr. Walsh, and that something had been said by Mr. Bliss upon that subject. Mr. Hutchinson must be mistaken about that, Mr. Chairman, because Mr. Price was not then available as a witness for the Government.

Q. You did not then rely upon Price at all?-A. Not at all. I relied upon Walsh and regarded his testimony as amply sufficient on which to find an indictment.

The examination was here suspended and the committee adjourned.

WASHINGTON, June 14, 1884.

RICHARD T. MERRICK recalled and further examined.

The CHAIRMAN. You may continue your statement, Mr. Merrick. The WITNESS. Mr. Chairman, I see from the published account of my testimony that probably I ought to explain what I said in reference to the star-route juries. I presume that my statements as reported by the official stenographer need no explanation, but as published in the news. papers I think they do. My testimony in reference to the two juries referred to their average intelligence. I think I so stated. The first jury I regarded as possessed of an average intelligence, above that of ordinary juries in this or any other jurisdiction that I know of; the second jury as being very far below the average of intelligence. On the second jury there were two or three individuals who were probably more intelligent than ordinary jurors, but the average of intelligence on that jury was greatly below the ordinary average. And I will add, sir, that in my judgment the juries in this District, that I have seen in the several courts, those now serving as well as others, are equal to any juries in any jurisdiction in the United States for intelligence and for personal integrity. But I think it quite a misfortune that we have no law which, for cases such as the star-route cases and some of the cases in the criminal court, providing for the impanneling of a special jury. Before I proceed with my testimony I am under the necessity of making also an important statement with regard to something that I said yesterday, in justice to a gentleman who had previously testified before this committee, and whose evidence as given, I undertook, for his sake, casually to correct. I refer to the testimony of Mr. Hutchinson, the foreman of the grand jury which was reconvened in July, 1882, for the purpose of considering the Kellogg case. In looking over Mr. Hutchinson's testimony very casually, I observed that he had stated that either that grand jury expected Mr. Price to appear before them and testify in connection with Mr. Walsh, or that Mr. Bliss had stated to them that Mr. Price would so appear and testify. I did not remember exactly yesterday which it was, but I thought and said that Mr. Hutchinson had undoubtedly fallen into an error in reference to that, because it was well known to everybody connected with the case that Mr. Price was not available as a Government witness at that time, and was not to be before that grand jury, and did not become available as a Government witness until the following December or January. For that reason I remarked that Mr. Hutchinson must be in error. Yesterday afternoon Mr. Hutchinson called upon me and stated that I had done him some injustice, and that he was not in error at all in the testimony he had given the committee; to which I replied that I certainly thought he was and that I had made the statement which I did to the committee as much for his benefit as for that of anybody else. He insisted that he was not in error in his testimony, and, after some conversation, I told him that it would give me great pleasure to make any reparation I could for any wrong that I had done him, and that, if he desired it, I would state to the committee to-day that he had called to see me and had informed me that in attempting to correct what I supposed was an error of his I myself had been in error; and in pursuance of that promise I make this explanation now, sir, to go upon your record.

Question. You have stated partially the conversation which occurred between you and Mr. Hutchinson; I think the committee have the right, perhaps, to know all that was said by him in reference to his tes

timony.-Answer. Well, he himself is a competent witness upon that subject as well as upon any other.

Q. It is true that he is a competent witness, but he has been before the committee and made a statement and he may not be recalled. As he requested you to correct the statement that you had made in regard to him, I think the committee ought to be informed of the whole conversation, if anything else passed between you-of course I do not know that there did. Was there anything further said by him with regard to his testimony?-A. There was, of course, a good deal that passed between us, but the ultimate conclusion was that I should make the statement that I have made here.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Are you satisfied now that you were mistaken ?—A. Am I satisfied that I was mistaken?

Q. Yes; that you were yesterday.-A. In attempting to correct what he said?

Q. Yes.-A. I am satisfied.

Q. Did he satisfy you of that by this conversation?-A. He did, sir. Mr. FYAN. It seems to me, then, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to have the reasons that satisfied Mr. Merrick.

By the CHAIRMAN :

Q. Was his special attention called to that part of his testimony?-A. If the committee insist upon it I will state all that was said. I feel, on reflecting about it, that having given part of the conversation at Mr. Hutchinson's own suggestion, if the committee insist I ought give the whole conversation.

Mr. FYAN. It looks this way to me, Mr. Merrick of course you may have some delicacy about repeating what Mr. Hutchinson said, but you have given us your conclusion. Now, you reached that conclusion from the conversation, and it seems to me that we ought to have the facts, so that we may arrive at a conclusion for ourselves.

The WITNESS. I had undertaken, Mr. Fyan, to correct what I supposed to be an error that a witness had fallen into, and the witness called to see me and told me that it was not an error, and that my kindly and well meant offices had been misplaced.

Mr. STEWART. It was only with reference to Price that you undertook to correct the testimony?

The WITNESS. That was the only point.

Mr. STEWART. Well, I do not see that there is anything to be gained by going into that any further. It stands now just as it did upon Mr. Hutchinson's testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. I desire to refresh my recollection by looking at Mr. Hutchinson's testimony to see wherein Mr. Merrick's statement was different. [After consulting the record.] I will ask the witness whether he has examined Mr. Hutchinson's testimony since he was on the stand yesterday?

The WITNESS. I did examine the testimony with Mr. Hutchinson himself when he called to see me.

The CHAIRMAN. Was any part of his testimony referred to and discussed at that time?

Mr. HEMPHILL. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to have this conversation in full if it was a matter of any consequence.

Mr. STEWART. Upon what principle is it admissible in evidence? Mr. HEMPHILL. I do not know. If it had been objected to originally