WASHINGTON, June 10, 1879. To F. R. WILCOX: Have you done anything with the Wallula and Pleasant Grove route? To Hon. S. W. DORSEY, 1121 I street, Washington, D. C. : WALLULA, WASH., June 10, 1879. Have been over the route from Wallula to Pleasant Grove. Your figures are impossible to the West. Solid bid, $2,500 to two trips; $6,000 for three trips; $11,000 for six trips; $12,500 for seven trips. What shall I do? F. R. WILCOX. WASHINGTON, June 11, 1879. F. R. WILCOX: You may give $1,800, one trip, $5,000, three trips, $8,400 for six trips, $9,000 for seven trips. Wilcox replies same day: S. W. DORSEY. Your figures are impossible. Mine of yesterday lowest I can get. The contract was closed at $11,000 for six trips. STATE OF COLORADO, County of Arapahoe, 88: T. B. McKaig, being duly sworn, says that the foregoing writing, being three pages and a fraction of a page, beginning at line 23 of the ruled paper, is a full, true, and correct copy of the telegrams included in an article published and printed in the Denver Tribune of Tuesday, May 10, 1881, entitled "Oregon's Echo;" that the foregoing copies were made from and compared by him with the printed article aforesaid on the files of the said newspaper in the office of the Tribune Publishing Company. T. B. McKAIĞ. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of May, A. D. 1884. WASHINGTON, June 21, 1884. HENRY A. WILLARD Sworn and examined. By the CHAIRMAN: Question. State your age, residence, and occupation.-Answer. I am 62 years old. I am engaged in general business. Q. Were you a member of the grand jury of which Mr. Eli S. Hutchinson was foreman ?-A. I was. Q. Were you present in the grand jury when the case of the United States versus William Pitt Kellogg was being considered-in July, 1882, I think it was?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Hutchinson was before this committee and testified as follows. I will call your attention to his testimony in order that you may see the point. On page 427, he says, speaking for the jury: 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: 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. We 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?-1. 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. Again, on page 429,"I find this: Q. Did he make any suggestions as to the sufficiency of the evidence?-A. No further than his great apparent anxiety to get Mr. Price there, and his anxiety that we should consider Price's testimony. He was confident that Mr. Price would be there, and he seemed exceedingly anxious to have him there.j By Mr. FYAN: Q. Did he make any remark to the effect that it would be necessary to have Mr. Price there in order to find an indictment ?-A. No, sir; not as broad as that; nor I don't think he intimated that. Q. Did he convey any intimation to you to that effect by his declarations?-A. Not that it would be necessary to have Price there, but he seemed to be exceedingly anxious that Mr. Price should be there. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. Did he say whether the evidence that he hoped to produce from the examination of Mr. Price was necessary to make out a case?-A. Well, I think he said it would be a clincher," or something like that. My impression at the time was that he wanted Mr. Price's testimony in order to make up the case; that it was necessary. I might have drawn that inference, though, because I thought it was necessary; or I might have drawn it from the manner in which Mr. Bliss said it; I don't know. Q. Then you drew from his manner that it was necessary to have Price's testimony to make out a case ?-A. No; I say I believe at the time he thought it was. Whether I was influenced in that by my own opinion, because I thought it would be necessary, or whether I was influenced by his manner, I do not know; but I certainly thought that he thought so. By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE: Q. Are you willing to say whether or not you submitted your views upon that subject to the balance of your associates?-A. I would not say that. Q. That is, you are not willing to say whether you did or not?-A. No, sir. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. You could not say either way?-A. No, sir; I would not give you any of our consultations among ourselves. Q. Failing, then, to obtain the presence of Mr. Price, what became of the case so far as Mr. Bliss was concerned?-A. Well, on Saturday we came together expecting to find Mr. Price there, and, he not being there, after deliberating, we went down to court and reported that we had considered everything that had been brought before ns, and had made no presentments. That was on Saturday about 1 o'clock, I sup pose. Q. Did Mr. Bliss make any statements to the jury on that day as to the reason for Mr. Price's failure to attend?-A. Simply that he did not understand it. Q. (Continued.) Now, Mr. Bliss stated before this committee that he did not promise Mr. Price's attendance as a witness before the grand jury; that he might have said that he expected on the trial of the case to have Mr. Price, but that he did not intimate to the jury that he would be before the grand jury. You have heard Mr. Hutchinson's testimony on that point read. Please state whether you have any recollection of the matter stated by Mr. Hutchinson in regard to Mr. Price.-A. What Mr. Hutchinson has stated I can corroborate. He has stated it clearly, as I understand it. Mr. Bliss did say that be expected the presence of Mr. Price, and dwelt upon the importance of his being there; and if it is proper for me to say at the meeting of the grand jury when Mr. Bliss came before us, which was the first time that I had seen Mr. Bliss, his opening remarks were that the jury was called together for a special purpose or a special occasion, not that they wanted any more evidence for indictments against Mr. Brady and Mr. Dorsey, but that they had information that a person in high position might be implicated, and that was what this jury was called together for. He did not name the per son for some time, but he used that expression, "a person in high position." But afterwards he did name the party in regard to whom evi dence might be presented. I recollect that particularly, because it was the opening remark of Mr. Bliss. Q. Was there anything said in the opening as to what witnesses would appear before you?—A. He said that Mr. Walsh would be the first witness, and that he expected to bave Mr. Price by the next day, or imme. diately. My impression is that he said Mr. Price was on his way from Canada, and that he expected him before us. Q. Did you understand from what he said that the question as to whether a case would be made out or not would depend upon the testimony of those two witnesses?-A. No, I do not recollect that. Q. Was anything said as to whether there should be an adjournment over from Friday until Saturday to await the arrival of Mr. Price?-A. Yes, sir; we were asked to adjourn over, and told that we should probably have Mr. Price before us by Saturday; and Mr. Bliss stated, if I recollect right, why it was urgent that we should act before Monday on account of the statute of limitations. Those things I recollect. Q. Do you state now that you adjourned on account of that statement expecting the appearance of Mr. Price next morning ?-A. That is what we adjourned for. Q. Are you sure that the statement to you was not to this effect: That Mr. Price would be present on the trial of the case if an indictment was found, and that that would make the case much stronger when it went to the petit jury?-A. Well, I am very clear about his saying that Mr. Price would be before the grand jury, for we adjourned for that very purpose. He might have said that he would be before the courthe might have added that; but I am very clear that we adjourned for the purpose of receiving Mr. Price's testimony. By Mr. HEMPHILL: Q. You adjourned for the purpose of receiving Mr. Price's testimony, relying upon Mr. Bliss' statement that he was to be there next day!A. We had no other statement from any other party but Mr. Bliss. There was no other attorney before us. R. O. EDMONSTON sworn and examined. By the CHAIRMAN: Question. Where do you reside?-Answer. In Washington. Q. State your age and occupation.-A. I am 29 years of age; I am in the wholesale grocery business. Q. Were you a member of the grand jury of which Mr. Hutchinson was the foreman, and which met in this city in July, 1882-A. Yes, sir. Q. You have heard the testimony of Mr. Willard, who has just preceded you?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember the circumstances about which he has testified-A. Yes, sir Q. Will you give your recollection of those facts?-A. Well, what Mr. Willard has said I will corroborate. Q. You understand the matter just as he did with regard to the promised appearance of Mr. Price?-A. Yes, sir; Mr. Bliss said that Mr. Price would be there. That was the understanding. Q. It was the grand jury that he was to be before, and not the petit jury?-A. Yes, sir. Q. And you understood that you adjourned on Friday for the purpo-e of having Mr. Price present on Saturday?-A. Yes, sir. Did you regard the evidence that Mr. Price was to give as material in the case, or presumed that it was?-A. Yes, sir. WASHINGTON, June 21, 1884. H. CLAY STEWART sworn and examined. By the CHAIRMAN: Question. Please state your residence, age, and occupation.-Answer. I reside in Washington; my age is 55. I am in general business. Q. Were you a member of the Hutchinson grand jury that met in this city in July, 1882 ?—A. I was. Q. You have heard the testimony of Mr. Willard and Mr. Edmonston in regard to the promised appearance of Mr. Price before that jury; what have you to say as to that?-A. Well, sir, I am positive in my mind, after thinking it over, that Mr. Bliss did say to us that Mr. Price would be there at a subsequent day. I don't know whether it was Friday or Saturday; but we certainly adjourned, the jury expecting Mr. Price to be there next day. I am positive of that. What makes me positive about that is I said, "It is not proper for the grand jury to hold over day after day; you ought to have your witnesses here." Q. What did Mr. Bliss say to that?-A. I do not remember what reply was made, but having made that remark impressed it upon my mind that we did adjourn for the purpose of receiving the testimony of Mr. Price. I won't be so certain that it was Mr. Price, but it was somebody. Q. Was it one of the parties mentioned by Mr. Walsh as connected with the case?-A. Yes, sir. We never had but one other witness before us, and that was Mr. Walsh; and I recollect asking Mr. Bliss whether he had'nt some other witness, and he said, "Yes; this other man (I think it was) Price." I don't recollect names very well, but I know it was some one who was somewhere in Canada, he said. I have not thought much of it since, but I am positive about the jury's adjourning to wait for some witness. By Mr. HEMPHILL: Q. And that witness was to come from Canada?-A. Yes, sir; or somewhere from the North. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. Was the man mentioned by Mr. Walsh as connected with the transaction-A. I am not speaking of Mr. Walsh; I am speaking of Mr. Bliss. Q. But you had heard Walsh's testimony the day before?-A. Yes; he was the only witness we heard, and I asked if there was no other witness, and the reply was that they would have some other witness to come on Friday or Saturday, and we adjourned to that day; and when that day came Mr. Bliss came into the room and somebody asked him about the witness, and he was very sorry that he had not got the witness; I am as positive about that as that I am living. HENRY SEMKEN sworn and examined. By the CHAIRMAN: Question. Please state your residence, age, and occupation.-Answer. My residence is in Washington; I am 59 years of age; I am a merchant. Q. Were you a member of the grand jury of which Mr. Hutchinson was foreman, and which met in July, 1×82 ? – A. I was. Q. You have heard the testimony of Mr. Willard, Mr. Edmonston, and Mr. Stewart, have you not?—A. I have. Q. And also a statement of what was testified to on a previous occasion before this committee by Mr. Hutchinson?—I have. Q. Please state your recollection of the matters in controversy.—A. It is just about as Mr. Willard stated it; I remember as far as that, though it is a long time ago, and it is very hard to call every conversation to mind; but I remember that the grand jury adjourned over one day; I could not state whether it was Friday or Saturday, expecting another witness, and this witness was to be Mr. Price, who was absent then, I believe, in Canada. Q. Did you understand that the witness was a material witness in the case?-A. Well, I could not recollect that, but it must have been, for Mr. Bliss asked us to adjourn over. WASHINGTON, June 21, 1884. GEORGE TRUESDELL SWworn and examined. By the CHAIRMAN: Question. State your age, residence, and occupation.-Answer. I am 42 years of age; my residence is in this city. Q. Were you a member of the grand jury that met in this city in July, 1882, of which Mr. Hutchinson was foreman?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know whether anything was said in the grand-jury room about Mr. Price being present as a witness on a subsequent day, or whether he was to be called?—A. Yes, sir. Mr. Bliss, I think it was who represented the Government, told us that Mr. Price was expected on the following day or the day after to appear before us in that matter that we were investigating, but he stated, I believe, that he was uncer tain that he would appear, or that if he did come here at all he would testify that influences might be brought to bear upon him which would prevent him testifying, but he gave us to understand that he was expected here. Q. Was an adjournment had on that account to await his presence?A. Yes, sir; that is my recollection. WASHINGTON, June 21, 1884. JAMES B. COLEGROVE sworn and examined. By the CHAIRMAN: Question. Please state your age, residence, and occupation.-Answer. I am 52 years of age. I am residing here for the present. My voting residence is Missouri; I have lived there for the last fifteen years. My occupation is that of a Government contractor. I am also engaged in other business, but that is my proper business. Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. C. C. Cole, an attorney of this city?— A. I am. Q. And with Mr. Charles D. Colman ?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you read the testimony of Mr. Cole before this committee?A. I have read the most of it. I have not had time to read it carefully, but sufficiently I think. |