Chicago Daily Tribune Newspaper, February 1, 1879, Page 9

. THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE: TUDGE BLODGEIT. i Tem- The Germania Charge porarily Dropped, Lnd the Hibbard Perjury Indictment Case Taken Up. stimony of a Number of th? @rand 7 Jurors—Why Bangs With- held the Indictment, Fuliog on the Part of the Jury—They Thonght the Judge Wanted to Get Rid of Them, PR —— Copversations Which He Had with Some of Thom—Their Impres- sions, Tas Point on Which {he Perjory-lndictment Was Based-~A Question of Law, THAE GERMANTA. The investigation into the charges ngllr}n Judge Blodgets, was continued yesterday, ‘The {'ommittes Were promptly on hand, as were also the memorialists, but the Judgo and his counse] were tardy fo thelr arrival. The devel- opiog Interest of the proceedings was shawn by {he incressing bumber of the audlence, a coo- sideratfe proportion of whom bad secared places before the bour to which adjetrnment was had, and waited cxpectantiy as playgoers o for the tising of the curtain, Notwithstand- [og the density ond excitement of the erowd, the Interruption of the examination from the ‘overtafuing of chalrs and pushing aronnd, which formed so conspictious a feature of the *iwoprerious days’ proceedings, was very much diminfahed, owlng to the, ready compliance of the obliging proprietor of the Palmer House with the suggestion of the reporters that a car- pet should be laid ‘down over the polished marble floor. The Chalrman bavizy called the Commlttes o order, A Col. Coaper asked for & suppmos for Mr. 8imon Florshelm, which was promptly handed 1o the Bergeant-st-Arms for service. Mr. Charles Mechielko was then called and ex- amined by Col. Cooper. Ou taking the stand, De tald that befure belug examined he wished to wake & statement, but on the suggestion of Mr, Culberson the examination was proceeded with in the first place. Mr. Mechelke testified-that he {s an exvert ac- countant, and bas lved In Chlcago since 1835, 1ie was ane of the creditors of the German 1n- * surance Company to the amount of about $1,400, He inado an examluation of the accounts of the Assignee of the German Inaarance Company, and " made It a8 complets as hecould from the records on file in the otlice. That was about two years azo. The examination wus made subsequent to the time the Assiguce was discharged and Oled s finsl account. Col. Cooper—Mr, Mochetks, ths Assigneo + bas testificd o this casc that on the SHth day of April, or the 23d day of April, 1874, he drew a check upon the Nationsl Bank of 1llinols agalnat “tlie sccount of the Asalgnce in that bank for +$5,000; that that check was countersigned by lomer N. Hibbard, the Register in Bankruptcy, aud the check was pald through the German +Nationsl Bank. I want to ask you whether his sccounts show any such check drawn and “chuted sgalust Blmaelld . .. . 0. The Chairman—We would Itke the relevancy of that shown, Mr. Cooper, . Col. Cooper~It {s this: Ido not desire to any cbarges hero that will not bo proven. . This js an lnvestigation, and how far this thing reaches I am not preparcd to say. There s sometling very mysterious in thls to me, —that 13, In the payment of this $5000 -for the Hesioz stock and notes. Now, I oro- “pose “to show Ly this witness that that $5,000 bas never gone to the credit of the Assignes in -Bankraptey,—to the credit of the fund in the _Nutional Baunk of Iliuois; not only that, but that an additional check of 85,000 has been drawn apalust the Asalgnee’s account, of which Bomention Is made In the accounts filed in the Court, and Judgo Blodgett has granted Lim his discharee, Mr. Culberson—Do yon nropose to bring that knowledge home to Judge Blodgottl Cal. Cooper—I think & shall. In other words, that the Reglater n Bankruptcy could counter- n'gn #check for 85,000 for the services of Mr. Vocko as Assignes without some order or di- rection of the Court, knowing what I do about - the practice in that Court, seems to me not probable; that there must ave becn sowme die rection on the part of the Judge, directing tho Reglster to countersign this check, and author- Lzivg him to do it Alr. Uoudy—It Is ouita evident that this is a pursult of the same examination commenced with Mr. Vocke yesterday evening, and ou the fawe subject, whereln the examination of Mr. Vocke was stopped by the Committes on ace count of irrelevancy. It scems toma it iaen- Urely remote, even If the counsel could bring to the knowledgo of the Committcs the fact thut Judge Bloduett granted a discarge knowlng Ahat there was any Irregularity iu the procced- {ugs about. this transaction;'it s not embraced inthe complatut which is now made, and there- forets forelgn to the subject of the Investigs- tlon. Being an entirely new subject of com- Blalut, we bave had no oppartunity to snawer It, Taliio epportunity to contradict {t, The Com- talites will remember we asked no questions In m'lrd to that matter yesterauy, Cal. Cooper—I will watve that at the pressnt tltne, wnl prepare u charge and specifcation on ul:ll watter, und give duf servic ur( lt‘. i ™ . Trumbull—One other auggeation I would ra’ :am-k«.u to Law this strikes me. ‘The W:‘C ot this wonld be, it I understand the pur- % of the question, to fmpeach Mr, Vocke's Dlascuts In that transaction. That, in the it u?'f'"“m tend to discredit him, and It would - o t0 acollatersl investigation. Of course, onoomiitee canuot refuse Mr, Vocko an op- L".!::lly tocome fn snd coutradlet what may o} hum’ bere. Ve wonld bave an fssue then Lolng (otT0UDts; and it occurs to mu that it Is 'wno lead away from the leading charge, “u t‘ oue againat the couduct of the Judge, & ;E- - f’l‘}‘x?:h practice, now are the gce libeciond ssigneo passed! Under whose pr‘mel;rmnbulI—By the Reglater, I think, ls the Cul, Cooper—Tne .",','3‘ 'l’l‘f e l'n‘v requires the Judge to ¢ Blodget—1 will state to the Commit~ S;n:“ Incver bhad the mccounts of the As- it telerred to me in my Wife, and never yoi ufinn the acvounts of the Assigoce. ot Xl ¢ tinal statement of fees und churces ng ‘ulmxcu I8 made at the creditors’ mcet- editors aents bis accounta thiere, befora the ’lhe{“u' uud they are passed upon by them, 3 alrman—1 wish to make a statetnent to o "nmurlaluh snd counsels This Commit- Luuc _hn: lere by Congress, no. upon sny tharge ':lmu?élnehmodgau'h the re:hu- ospecific el 0 at all, an 0 ::Sf':“}'" 1nade DY the Comx::?fuu to uud the "‘M u‘( ormulated and answers put in was to b pu--lab}h' doveatigatiou wud abridge it as far Ut e The Committes do not consides 11 zfi' 210 bound to limit their fuvestivation wurie of LUt down o writlog. 11, fo the out thut ey thia examiuation, it should cro B fher {8 matter worthy of the faveatl- vy the Committe, they will feel 14 thelr mlflu wake thut investigatlon. As the memo- for thy D:lfn?u, howover, to waive this matter fact “D.ulluu. and put fu & specitication of the Frmid ]! L let this witpess ataud back for tha % “c’&‘unl’ll Wwe sce from the investigation el m‘ueninon it iy have with the subject Be wory :hflvmlgumz, und whether it msy Gen, b @ 40 £0 futo the examlivation, from e Ve e o the Cuairnan s Tetter y en! C| 0% kaow, but which ‘M, Voeke witied sdb: mitted to the gouneel u&mn both sldes. The Chbairman declined to make its contents public, Mr. Trumball—If the Chalrman will allow me, wo do not desiro on the part of Judge Blod- eett anything but the fulleat Investigation, ‘The suggestfons we made srere not with that view nt oll, but hieenuse we thought it might lend off to otlier mattera, - The Chalrman—1 am glul Yo have made that remark, because i alfords me an upportunity to gay that the Committes have never had any doubt but Judge Blodgett desired the fuliest fo. vestieation, ‘ Col, Cooper sald he had some ndditional wit- nesses in this matter who had not been sub- pensed, and suggested that the other aide might now introduce their evldence; but, if they wero not prepared to go on, he would ask leavs to bring the matter of the indictment agaivat Mr, Hibbsrd before the Committee, Mr Goudy sald that Judge Blodeett's coansel had consulted on that question. They cxpected to Introduce some testimony touching the charze now under examination, but they dld not wish to put thelr testitnony in until the memorislists had concluded thelr testimony on the subject, THRE HIBBARD = GIHAND CITARGT. Mr. Knott asked Mr. Goudy If he had an an- awer to the charge with 1egard to the Grand Jury matter, Mr, Goudy sald he had prepared an answer, but, on further consideration, they had con- cluded not to put In an answer. The nuswer was simply a traverse of the charges aud speci- fications fu each ftem, Mr. Kuott suzgested that {he partics proceed witn the investigation of thts subject, as there were o number of witnesses present from the country who desiced to roturn to their nomes us #00n as possible. Mr. Goudy had no objection to thia except as 2 matter of order. Mr. Koott sald it swas a matler of economy of time, and, 8o far as (be onder went, the testl mony could be arranged aftervaeds, Mr. Goudy sald lic had no objection to calling the witnesses In this matter for the time Leing, until the othier witucsses in the Germania mat- ter came in, ‘The list of witnesses fn the Hibhard case, as it Is now koown to fame, was read over. lo view of the fact that the answer to the charge consisted in a mero geneval nud whole- salo denial (o the nllegatlons thereln set up, Col. Couper il not read 1he charge, although he bad a copy of It «loxe at hand, ‘Phe formal piliug-up of allegutions in this particutar lu- stance was as follows: ‘That the said llenry W. Blodgett, belng Distriet Judge of the United States for the Northern Dise trict of Thinols, wronzfully and waffuily procured an indiciisent which batt been found by a Grand Jiiry of sald Court against un ofiicer thereof fo be suppressed, be, tho aaid Henry W, Blodgett, bav. ing prior {0 the finoing of such Indicliment im- roperly atieninled o prevent much Grand Jury rom ,making (he investigation which resulled in such indictment, irst specification—That such Grand Jury, on or mbont Nuv, 20, 1K78, resolved to indict one iiomer N, Hibbard, & Rerister In Hankruptey of sald Conrt, Amongst otlier things for havioe com- mitled the crime of perjury, and instrocted the District Attorney of the United States for sajd district to prepare a bill of indictinent therefor, to ba prenented {o such tirand Jury for signature, lo be returned into said Court ss a true bill, ‘That after sald rict Attorney had so prepared rald indictment, and was abont to_present tiic saina 1o safd Grand "l;( for the nuxlufl aforesaid, sald lNenry W, Blodgett sojuntarily and ftautoperly sought the said District Atiorney and procured hun to withhold said indictment trom sald Grand Jury, and thereby prevented sald Grand Jury frowm re- tarning sald indictment $nto court as a truo bill. Second apecification—That eald Henry W, Blod- ett, for the wrongful purpose of inducing said fimrm Attorney to with] waid tndiciment from sald Grand Jury, mude & false and pretended con- struction of law to sid Dinirict Attorney, which he. the said Tleory W. Blodgeit, then ang thero ststed be had given to sald iilibard with refercnca 1o the making and swearing ta tho docunenta for tnewilifal falsity of which sald Urand Jury had resolved to fndict the said Hibbard, Third apecification—'That said lenry W, Blod- gett, In order o further Induce sald District Attor- ney to withhold sald inctctment from the Grand ey lndlpmcmn its suporession, falsely nasumed that sald 1llubard, 1n making and swearing to sald decuments, lisd fallowed Ltho aaid pretended con« struction of Iaw af Lim, the said Henry W Blod- eett, wherean the aald Ilibbard had not foliowed vr obseryed such pretended construction of law, and sald indiciment for forgery was proper and valld, cven had such pretended construction of law been correct, Fourth speeifeation~That sald Monty W Blod- tt, in order to further wrongfully induce sald B'Illrlcl-Allm'ney to withheld satd 4ndictment from said Grand Jury sad to procure thuir ssaent to § snppression, stated to sald District-Altorney for tho purpose of Liaving him communicate lhu'{,\mu JURY 1o sald Urand Jury (and which he did so corquin- nicato) that the United Rintes Clrenit Judge for the Beventh Judiclal Cirenit ond said district agreed with him, the sald Henry W. Blodgett, in wald -pretended construciion of law, which statement waa false and antrue. F(fmlf)l | fcation—~That sslu Tenry W. Blod- gnl‘ whilst said (irand Jury were engaved In in< vestizgating the afficial conduct of snid Tibbard and otber officera of sald Court, wrongfully und improverly endeavored by privais conversations with certain of the membcrs of the Grand Jury 1o verauade aud prevent wnch jury from making said investigation. WILLIAMSON DURLEY. ‘Willlamson Durley, the well-known old farm- er from Heonepln, was first called, and in an- swer to Mr, Koickerbocker's - interroiratories— Col. Caoper took o rest at this stage of the pro- ceedings—testificd regardliog bls connection with the October Grand Jury for the United Btates District Court of this district, the time it commenced, length of fta scavlon, and other facts that have becomo historieal, Ie was nsked bow It wus that Reglster Hibbard's caso came up, and replied that owe of the Grand Jurors suggested early In tho session thut they call in Col. Cooper for this purposs, e could not say positively who that juror was, but thought it was Mr. Flynn, of Wiunchago County. ‘The Jury slso favestigated the aflairs of Register Crain's oflice durlng its sesslons. Mr. Knickerbocker hic witness as to the charge which Judve Hlodgett gave the jury when it was first summoned, und [nquired if it called thelr attention to the admiuistrator of the Bankrupt law lo this district, but the wit- neas dido’t remember. Mr. Kuickerbocker then asked him it the Grund Jury made an investlga. tiou of the affalrs of Register [Hbbard’s oftice, and, It so, what wero tho fucts which wera brought to thelr knowledeze. The witness answercd that the Grand Jury did make the investigation, and faund thut Register Hibbard hod made a report under oath to the Goyetoment officials of the ainount of fees ho had received &s Register.. 1L wus found, also, that bie had received In three years about $10,000 nioro than lie had reportod. “Fhey also pald ate tention to the charge aguiust the Register of ro- ceiving {llegal fces, Judge Trumbull mads a supmestion which was sl ply a reovtition of a previous one,—thut they would admit tlat thie fuvestigution bad takon place und tbat sn indletfent was found agafost Mr. Hibbard. It scemcd to nim that the Iuvestigation, judeivg from tho course it Was now taking, was un foquiry with referenco to Mr. Iibbard’s conguct. Mr, Kuott—=Another cbarge §s this: that an investigation was made sud an Indietment found but not prescuted, Judge Tramuull sdmit the fact that an Invnulruuon took place und no fudictment was returncd. Nouw, this Cominittee, 1 apprebend, s’ gofug to try Mr, Ilibbard, fo is under {ndictment in this Court, und If an attempt is made bere to go on und prove what Mr, Hib- bard did, tho Commnlttec wlil do him the justice to allow fin to be lieard. 'Fhe poiut 1s Judue Blodgett's alieged juterference in some way with the actlon of the Urand Jury, und it oo curs to us that It is {mproper to go Intu any {ovestivatiop of Mr. Hibbard's right or wroug action, and it It 1s coue fnto it woull necessa- rily raleo an lssuc forelzu to the oue the Com- mittee desirea to fuyestigate JudgeBlodgett—Mr. Cholrman, I tavea siogle suggeation tu ake. I huve no doubt but what the Urand sury bad before them clurges seainst Mr, Itibbard !a regard to bis cooduct as Regis- ter of tue Court, and that matters appearcd to thelr minds of sufliclent grayity to {u-nly them in finding au fudictment fur the williul receipt of fees which arc not allowed by the law, und also that they did indict him for perjury iu makiug his reports. 1 aw charged, as I under- stand, with baviug suppressed by my julucnce on that oceaslon the return of that indictment imo the Court. ‘That s the ouly question that seally we are to try here,—whether I improperly suppressed thatin- dictment, or preveoted the Uraud Jury fiom returniog an ludivtment which they (hought oughbt to have beea returned. Now, I think it wiil shorten the whole matter to come rigbi to the question of what 1 did fo the busincss. The Commities drew thelr cbairs tozether, consulted a momeat, und Mr, Knott sunounced - thut tie Cominiiteo wus of the oolnion that, ss lo:s 34 the testimony was relative to the charye made, the memoriallsts wighs procced to oxam- ing the witness a4 to tha facts, “ How wmuoy estates in vankruptey,” con- ‘taued Mr. Kulckerbocker, ' that were referrad to Mr. Hibbard as Register did you examine with reference to apcertaluiog whotlier or nut ba SATURDAY: BRUARY made fllegal charges, and had been feen to which he was not entitied by law!” 4 T couldn't tell how sany,"” said the witness, * Thero were overcharges o different amounta in different estates. * Well, name some of (ha amounts,’ Judge Trumbull—Tbat involves a legal ques- tion. 4 I can't," said the witnene. * Probably some of the ot r witnesses can,'” Continuling, the witnees sald he did not sum up the illegal fees—that is. the overharzes, “The Grand Jury voted to indict Mr. Hibhard for toking illegal fces in some cuscs, but he could not tell the amounts, Judge Blodgett—There was an lndictment re- turned for illegal fees nlo court, Col, Cooper—Yes: ior $18.50 in just three cases! Judge Blodgett—Wells that s all, Mr, Catapbell—There was an Indietment for perjury “L:ol, Cooper—Yes; and that s the one we are after, Mr. Lapnam asked the wit; as to who kept the minutes of 1l sessfon; wml the reply was, thut the jury had aclerk and an oftictal short- hand reporter Mr. Lapham stated thut (n his own State the clerk’s minutes were tho bighest eyldence ot Grand Jury proccedings, but he didn't know what the practice was here, None of the counsel hal auythine to say to this, but the witness ventired th aninfon that tlie record kept by e elerk in this case wonld Dot amount to very much, bul the stenvgrapher bad & complete report, Continuing, wituess sald they fudicted Me. Hibbard for receiving illegal fees first, AR the Jurors wera present hut une when taey voted to indict him for making false returns, Itiwasa risiug vote, One man didu't sise, but there was no objection, nud it was called & unaunnous vote, ile rememtiered they were exelted a cood deul ahont it. Judge Bangs uud aneof his asso- clates, Mr. Baldwin, conducted the proceedings, They bad the 1aw presented 1o them, exawloed 16, and discnssed ft. “Did you huve any lawyers to explain it to youi” “Twolawyers, Whoculled them T can't tell."” DI e Grand durers call fhew “I_don'L know, ‘They were Judue Trumbu!l and Judge Lawrence, £ don't kuow who called them.” [Siniles,] “\Yas wlig Trumbull examined by the jury or \-z.ludec atigs ' By Judge Baugs.! “Upon what points was histestimony taken1" “Simoply the law with refereace to making the wister's reports, fle was very careful In giv- Ini his opinfon.”” [Smiles. “Do you remeniber any question that was asked hlm while he was beforc yout"” Y1 wouldn't want Lo sav, sir. 1 probably re- member some, but I would ratber not say,” “Do you remeinber whetler he gave vou any opinion upon the construction of the luw i'* “ Well, air, he was very carelul at that thne. He was very carelul, fudeed,” ‘Il witners, Judize Tewinbull himself, aod nhx;;n. everybody elee, took refuge behind a smile. **\When you resolved to indict Mr. Hibhard for making false returns, was that in the forin ol & resolution, und what was the Ianguage of it, if you remember? ! “8ome person moved to ndiet him, and vote waa iaken, after a good deul of talk on the matter, in which wo all expressed ourselves os being well satistled, from the evidence beforo us, that M, Hibbard was guilly,’t Was that resolution reduced to writing?® ] think it was.” * When did you get through with the evidenca 1n this case,~how long before vou adjourncd i 1 think one whole duy—ibe evenine of Wedneatluy, We expected to have the indict- ment made on Thursday, some time fn the day, but {twas not ready then, but it was expected to be by a certaln_time the next day—Iriday: so we walted till 7 o'clock, uud were sssured ft woulda be ready then, And still {t didi’t conte.” “Who held the Indictment that was not rend?'l" *Judge Bangs." #'Ilien you hud several meetings Friday " '*Yes; we lued no other busipess,” “You rcturned the indictmont into court, did you not{ " 4 No, slr. Wocouldn't get it. Judge Bangs safd ho would have fb by7o'clock.” We '(:,l. Journed, uuid went to supper, cume back, and be came fu und said that be had been fostrieted by Judge Blodgett to withbold that indictment and oot returu “iL. That was after 7 o’clock. Wo asked bim then—I don’t remember waat juror it was—if he woull muke that statement in writing, It created & zood deal of excitement in the jury-room.’ * How did it create excitemcnt 1 1 supposed any man wutld know what cre- ated the excitemont. {Luughter.] After we hiad found an Indictment, and then th€y tad re. | [uscd to return It to us, wo felt that somcluuly ind beeu dolng wrong, We then asked Judgo Bangs if he would make that statewment in writ- ing, He sald be would rather not, He sald ho had recelved instructions from Judge Blodgett to withhuld that Indictment,~{rom thelact thut Hitbard hud made his repiort as he construed the law, under bis directfons, That wus the amount of it, but it may uot be exactly his words," 4+ Ap who coustriied the lawi” “Judrre Blodgett,” ¢ t¥hat took place then 1¢ would take u good while to tell [t all; 1 can't Lell it there was so much said. We talked about what we could do; uod, after talking an hour or more, we went in and were discharged.” #Was Judge Baugs lu the room when you wero having this conversntion{” ** No, sir; we sent him out.” [Laughter. + Do you kuow whether there was uny cffort made by any of the Girdnd Jurors to draft av fu- dictmeut themselveal” ¢ The proposition was made, nnd we talked [t over; but we concluded thut it dids’t smount to anything. Thero was u good eal of excite- ment, aud we were nnxions, becauss we thonyrht it was 8 case which ahould gu before the Court, “ What mlde{flu think that"* (J l-l'rum the evidence, we thought we bad o case.’ “ During this investigation munieate with Judze Blodgett *Wo did noty a3 8 Jury, A commitleo was appoluted, some of whotn are probably here, or vrlll be here, It cousisted of Mr. Kelth, Mr. Shoop, und muother gentlewan, Mr. Slioop would not go before the Judge,"” “a¥hes Judgze Bangs canie into the jury- room Lt cvoning, do you know whether or not he had the m:tur_v indictinent prepared " * o sald he bad,” +1)id lie say anything atthat time Lo the Jury about thelr belng” dischargedi ™ “Wile said the Judire ‘would valt till @ or 10 o'vlock for us to get through, ‘I'he whols fury waa unxious to get uway, hiving veen here & long time.” 4 You lh{u'l'ly went lato Court without that ent judictine Wa dld, and the Judge discharged us.* Do you remembur of wuy address belng made to the jury by the Judge when he dis- charged youi" “Yes, [t was published; but I can’t tell it fust us it was." o * Do you remember the tore and the manner of the Judge " ] wouldu't llke to answer thut.” “Why did you not return thia fndictment at an eutly day, together with all the other fodict- ,dld you com- nents (' **Well, we hadn't beca into Court in thres or four weeks, and we_ didu't luteud 1o unthl we got throuzh, We wol up somu fover bLetween the Jury und the Judge, wd - we concluded that wo wouldu't 0 before him uny wore until we wero dane, [ don’s kuow that 1 conld tell what got it ups it m)lum b«. a presty long story, und 1 doo't think try.' Mr. &uuu—Whn was it the Judge bad been loing 41 don't know as he had done soything." 4 What inforination had e jury as to what he had been dolug(* “Bomu of us got the fnpression that ho wanted us sway from there," s Mr, Kolckervocker—How did you get thatt 1t was told in the Jury-rooin. We had to examina the Hibbard ciso two wueks after we had arrived, und we koew thut this Custom- House [nvestigstiou would come up, and one Juror came fu, ona day, and made the remark thut if we didu’t commence the Custom-tousy cas that week we would be dischargzed. Col, Turoley said thut, I think, We dropped the lllb’!,urdaunjuu there, und afterward touk it Mr. Knott—I understand yuu to state that the Graud Jury had determined ou a true bill awalost Mr, Hibbard fur baviug made & fulse re- turn of fees received by im? * We dld, by a vote. Everyman roseto his e % Sak yene 41d vou find that hat fs o [ what year you fin 3t that falss re- turn had h:e’n made ¢! ] think it was Iromn 1874 to 1877, Was thero wore than oue year in which that bad oceurred!” * 1 think three years.! ¥ In your exwwination, did you flnd that Hib- bard bad failed to return the fees recelved by bim {o cascs fnstituted during any oue year (" *in relation to that mutter, some evidence came in there stating that Hibbard bad returned all the fees that he bad received withiu that year fn cases tbat bad boca commenced thut year; bat all thut was paid after that—the next year—be didn’t say novthing abous.”? ‘h: Yfiaa menhloa bc‘unu::lsmodmm?t you lorugl 13 bard bad returne ces recelys by him iz cases which bad been brougnt during the year?”? “Yes, alr." #But the fees recelved by him In cascs which fving | had been brought year, during the yeat he had aimitted from his report (" “Entirety, That w. 8 the proo| e Grand Jue) ougiit to have return 1 during the yeari'! We so understood it, by the law, and by the rules laid down by sho Bupreme Court of the United States, that that was bis dut .. 1 unleratand you to say the Grand Jury did return ove indictinent !’ “ Yee, slr, for recciving Illeeal fees,—taking fees that we considered the luw did not allow Liin—overcharwes.!! “DId the District-Attorney give yon any in- struction of the law'in regard to finding any Indictinentt? iy ** 1 am not positive, but Tthink he did. We had the faw and the cuustructions laid down by gll‘,‘ls.l’lpl‘flm! Court, and we talked it over agoud eal, Mr. Labham—What was the District-Attor- ney’s advicet 1 couldn't ray positivels: [ wouldn’t com- mence telling (L for fear | would tell it differ- ent. You will get that from the repor {Lauchter,) There was a full,.and couneel for Judge alodzuu sald there would be no cross-exawiua. on. Judge Trambuli—We ate entirely satisfed with tne Committee's exanination, Mr. Culberson (To witnessk-You sav you do know whetler the District Attoruey gave you nuy advice as to the Iaw or not In that casel * | think he did, remember,' ' What. opialon did he give you = be.tfrc the beginning of the the way we uoderstood conclusion was that he all the fecs that be re- Iam not positive. 1can't *T could not tell you. .1 tell you J could nbt remember,” ** Wasn't be [nfarmed that the Grand Jury bad agreed to tind a bilh" e was, sir," $And dldn't he prepare the bill " * lle said he did.. We never saw I1,” ** Did be tell vou that yun could not ndict under the proof {'* “1 don't think he did, ir."” “ Didn't ho say that you conld?” ‘I think be did. 1 would not say positive, [ suppase ho would pot have prepured the dndict- went inléss hie thought we could." ‘*Didn’t hetell you that, under ths law nnd the facts, f you believed the facts, Hibbard conld be indicied for that offvnse* *We so unacrstood it. 1 did at least. *‘And wasn't he furnlshed with a memorsn- dum of the facts and charges!” e was, #ir. And didu't he repare the bill sgalost him upon those factaf" dh‘!‘ e suld he did, and Thave no doubt that he “DId he say it to the jury In a body fa the Jury-room " *He did." “Did he offer to read i1t1” *“No, sir, He sall he was instructed to with. hold it by the Judge." ** And refuse to give the jury the Instructions l"hllql' be had recelved from the Judge in writ- g o * lie would rather not."” Judire Trumbull—Did you undertake to de- clde for yourselves what the law was as to the requirement to make a return of all the fecs re- evived auring the year, or only of thosc received i pew cases during the year! * Acrording to the rules the Supreme Court had lald down to covern the Reristers in Bauk- ruptey, our understanding of the law was 1hat he (Hibband) shonld return’ the woole amount thut ho recelved.! “Did you decide for a3 to what the law wag ‘* You can reniember whether that question was asked-you (Trumbull) or not, I dou't re- member.” |Laughter.| ‘41 ask ft of you asa Grand Juror. DId you declile that for yourselvesi” 1 decided it inyself, without advice from anyhody.- 1was véry finn {n that optnfon. I read the law and'the rules myself, and 1 can an- awer for myself," “¢Was it u qnestion of discuasion In the Grand Jury room as to the proper construction of the Taw In that respect ¥ ‘1t was discussed some, but we wers of the universal opinfon that. he had to return all the lr:-:’s‘-'wwrd ug to the rules luld down under that ** Were vou informed thnt the District Judwe had given a different_construction of the law from that entertained by youracives!!! **That Is what Judeo Hanzs sald was the reason ho withheld the indictment," “Were you informed of that before Judeze Banes came back aud witbbeld the fndict- ment" ©Xo, sfrtt > 'hat was the figgt Informatfon yon had as to the coustruction which had been put upon the law by the District Juage?® **We adjourned, the Altorney telling us e could not have the indictment resdy unti! 7 o'cluck, when we could corue in and be dls~harz- d, 80 48 t0 o home In” the morning. We had no idea ubout this, oniy thet he had been work- ing at {t all day." “Had the jury requested the Judge to re- ;\‘;;‘l:‘l"’r’l order to enable you to get off thut ** I don’t knpw that the Jury requested {t, but he sent us word that he would remafn,” “ How did he know that the jury was desir- ous of leaving (" ** I think it was gencrally understood we were through for twenty or twenty-fuur hours Lefore wa were distissed, waiting for the preparation of this lndictment.” ** D hie remain to an unusual hour for the accommodation of the juryi" * Yea, aliout 9 o'clock. * When Mr. Dauzs Uroueht this message to you from Judge Dloduett, did he teli the jury that they could, {2 hey thouzht vroper, fore the Judge and receive lnstruction: the lawi" *“ He sald that we could go before the Judge if we choro to und ger fustruction, sud we dign’t choose to," Mr. Culbersou—Whydidn't you choose to pol * Well, I dow't know as 1 can answer (hat detinitely, We had concluded two or threo weekn before we would not po before him any more untll we got through,~take our indict- mients altozether,” ** Way did you conclude that1"* 41 have suswercd thul some time ago,” T didn't understaud you." *“That there was an Intlmatlon that be wanted toget us away from there, aud we were going to fiuish our business," This ended the examination of the witness, and, us he was leaving the cnair, Col. Coaner sald ha would have to subpana hun lu anotlier matter, and asked If he was not on the Kush and Pablman jury, Mr. Durley suld he was, Mr, Knott—You will ot be discharged, but retnaln on the present subpens, Col. Cooner—You will Lave to remaln uotil we comne to that, Mr. Durley—Will that be this week Col, Cooper—Ye: nh.\h-;.l‘;urlh: I—l dun'lt think T could tell much out thal, it was 50 lows ago, un ] Roud deal Of It. Ml —— P. M. SHOOP, T, M. Shoop, of Abinetou, 1Il., was sworn. He used tobo In the mereantilo busiuess, but was nuw looking after “outslde matters,” fad lived fu Ablugton twenty-uine years. He wusn member of the United Btates Uraud Jury which convened fn thls city in October Jast, Mr. Kulckerbocker—Were you cuarged by the Court to examliue into the conduct of the bankruptey ofticlals in this city? *{ think not." Witness stated that the jury (ovestizated the conduct of Hibvard, He did not know who called their attention to blim, The complalnt came {n throuzh soms member of the jury whom he didn't know. Tl matter was spoken of by Juldge Baogs, but whother ho was tho first one wha referred to §t wituess did pot remem- ber, ‘Tho jury devoted a day or two to the case before the clection, und when they reconvened they tovk up the Custom-House busluess, und, after spending two ur three wecks on it, then the Reprister's caso agaln, devotlng several days to ft. A lage number of wi besses wera callod. He was satislled, as a juror, that Hibbard bad tsken filegitimate fees in several fusiances, could ot say how mauy ot the estales referred to the Regts- ter were cxamined by thio jury. The resuls of the examinstion was au ind{ctment agatost bim for charging lilegal Ires, #Can you remimber what was the averazo amount of illc{ll feve he hod demunded uud re- cefved in the dilfcrent eatatcsd” 4 From iy own figurcs und the eatimates 1 made—each scemed to fAguro for blinsell wud cutae to his own vouclusion—{row §14 to $20,0r §:23 fu cach catate.” #Can You retnenber of having found anv es tato which had been referred to Hibbard whers there were no fllegul charges i [ think we foucd la evory case that I looked at that thers were {ilegal charzes. We also ex- awined his snnual reports which were seut to Waabington,—tlc oucs 1he law required him to make of fecs earncd or recelved duriag the year, ‘fLey ran from 1875 to 1877, Alr. Culbesson—'‘You ssy you found Illegal fees bad beun charged to'the extent of $i4 or *§15 1o each case. ot did thoy all aggregatei” 1 diun't put thew toxcther." % Do you recollcct about how much 4 No, alr, 1 couldu’t ssy about tuat.” {'gunelns. or ask sdvico 1, IBT9—SIX' indicted nm for onl‘y ,—only charged him with recelving fllegal fees to that amount1™ “1 didn't know the particular dollars and cents.”? “Did you ever know befare that the whole amount” for which you Indicted him was 18,504 * That wwas not my anderstanding of it. My understanding wan that we found frreznlatittes in the charge d that we hud found an in- dictment for taking [llegal fees, to s large smonnt 1 should sunpose,~In the sggregate a considerable amount of money. thousanda of dollars, gcrlupa taking the number of cuseq thut w6 had, und so mucl fu esch; but I made no tigures or estimate.” 1o you remember what the discrepancy was between the nmount of fees Hibbard reported in thene three yvears (1973, 1876, and 1877) and what ¥ou found be had a-tually received!” 47 have tn iny toind, aud alwags have had, sbout 810,000, “iCan you tell the Committee whether {hat $10,000 was made up of fees carned or received 1n cages whizh had been referred to Mr. Hibbard auring the partieular year vovered by the report, or witether [t was made up of all fees earned or recelved hy him as Register, eltber o that year or the preceding yeart" My Jmpreasion swas, and {s now, that that amount was recelved aud not reporied.—thnt be hud received thal much more than he bad re- parted for the year." *'liow many vitnessesdid yon liave hefore You ou this question of the amount of fery that he had received during those three years cov- ered by his report, and also upon the renstruc- tion‘of the law " ““I'here were some witnesses, but I do not re- meinber now—several.” "ll‘lm’l:u: Jury resolva to Indict Hibbard for periry” * Yes, slr, near the close of our session; I would uot 81y exa. uly the day—a duy or two be- fore we finlshed onr busin Soine member made 8 motion to flud an indictment, as in other cases, 1 ata not sure whether it was i Wl:l.l‘l{ur." Mr. Raoes present at the tiwe you pasned thot resolutiont™ ‘1 coulie’t sav whether be was or not. He wasinand out quite frequently. Sometimus ‘wn:'“lenl lLim out und sometimes we csiled bim + How svon sfter the resolution was passed did you Inforin Mr, Bangs *Onr custom was, as soun as we had tound an lndictineat. 1o send for him. 1 dow't know 1hitt this was diferent from others. I dou’t re- member about jt," ** Do you know how many Grand Jurors were preseot when you voted to find an indictment agalast Hibbard for verjuret” ** 1 think there were twventy-two present. A man frain Kankalee, Mr. Brady, was svsent. There was none who voteld apalist i, I think it was a risivg vote, I think sll rose to their feet except one man, and he dido’t yvote. We had the law before us a8 to 1he dutyof Mr. Hib- Lard in makiug these returns, 1 do not remem- ber who brought 1t there. I think, probably. Judye Bangs. " It was read to us, uid 1 read it over. nnrl | think mostof the jurors did." *1id Judge Bangs give vou any constriction of the law betore vouvoted on the Indictment 1" *'1 think, perliaps, he read the law, \We quite oftan asked the Judge to read the law Lo us.” “1)o you remember whethier he tald you yon could or could not Indict Hibbard under the law und fuctsd “It may have come from him, but we were ctear, We thougnt it was a clear vase; und Hib- bard should be tndicted, aud acted so.’* “What lnw{rru nad lyuu had before you to give you opinlons on the requircments of the law ne to Hibbard reporting bis fees?®? #We had Judze Lawrence und Judge Trum- bull. They were sworn ms witnesses Le- fure (hie Jurr, and Judge DBangs asked them some questions. 1 remember a re- mark Judze Trumbull made. Judge Baugs asked Judge Trumbull a uuestion, nid e dectined to answer it It was reiative to thut point, Alter waltleg for a moment, Jude Bangs said he would Jike bim to nnswer that in Lis ownt way, or something to that effect. After Judire Trumbull waited a nowent he remarked : *That ia what 1s the matter with the country Bow, cach mun coustrilng the Jaw for his own convenience tn making reports and recelving pav. Thuse are pretty uear the words—the substance anvway," ** I that all thé advice vou got from Jndre ‘Trumbull on the question of the construction of thia law, amil the rules Jald down by the Bu- preme Court of the United States?” S About all [ can think of now. ‘The Judze made other remarks In keeping with otuer stutements we hnd had. T do wot remember thetn now specially, 1 wua struck very much by that remari as proger.” “Diu Judge Truwbull, whea on the stand, construe the law requirtng 11ibbard to make ro- lumn”ngrlubly to Mr. Hibbard’s comstruc- t We thought that Judge Trumbull gave us the law as we read t. It opreed with my no- tlon of the law as I had resd it before he came in, He contirmed me iu my former opinion that we ahould fndict.” * He did not, then, construe the law as Hib- bard did¢” “1 think not.” 18 :\'Ihm. construction did Judge Lawrence give youl* " w1 cannot call now to mind anvthing that the Judgs tnstructed us In In refation to the law,” “You hal this ludictment prepared aguinst Mr. Hibbard for perjury in making out these re- turns of fees, earncd ur recelved, und your fore- man Indorsed it, and the District “Attoroey slzned ity and you returned It into court!™ N0, We could not get 11, Wa ordered Judze Bangs to draw the indictnient, a3 in otber cases, und finkhed ourbusiness up tothat, und sdjourned from time to thine, waitiog on that indictment. 1 think we solshed up on Thursday evening, and had notbing on Friday but to recelve that indlctment and make a re- turn to Court and adlourn; but we couldn't get It either Friday morning or Friday night, We et in the morning. und adiourced 1o ineet at our ususl time, 8 o'clock. We concluded takiog evidence Toureday cvenloz, and we were walting for that Indlctment to be returoed und to pavs on and return it to the Court. We et in the mornlug. It was not readv, And I think we met at b agaln, and the attorney sald it would be ready at 7, It was not ready. We sent for the attorney (Bangs), and he eate fu sud made & statement that fhe lodictinent was drawn, but e had lad au_foterview with Judio Blodizest, aud was ordered to withhold it from the ,\ur,\‘. It was at tirst proposed we should ‘draw up an Indictment, und some member of the jury asked Judge Bungs what would be the effect if we diu s0,—{t he would sign it, He refused to sien any indictment we wleht draw up as 8 jury.” #I)id the Jury prepare such an indictineut " # No, but they discussed it 1o vou know whetler It was undertaken by any member of the jury und purtly doned" "I am uot sure on that. Pethaps once or twice one did comumience writing it, but I don't think it smounted to any tuing, ' o The fnterview you had with Bange fu the Jury-roou, swhen he vanoe fu uwd sald the Judee vad ordered you uot to find uy indictinent against [1ibbard occurred about 7 o'cluck In the cveningi" wAfter we convencd, we waited a little while for the Judge. ‘Then, after counulting together und thinking tbe matter vven-—~1 beliere | mado the remark to the Jurors thint T diga't see what we cotld doj it was not worth while to kick agalnat thy pricks, und wo mient as wall go Into Court and return the (ndictinent und et Judge Bixdgest take the responsibility of his posi- tion,”? Did Mr. Bangs have the Indictment with Do when ne came to the Girand Jury roow ubout To'clock orehortiy after(” 1 ik not. 1 don't kouw about that, fle sald 1t hie had It prepared, for 1 usked bim the question myself. T understond bim to say tbut it had becu prepared for some hours, but had been withhield,” ¢ Nuw, did you gentlemen, us members of the Grand Jury, make any effort to get that fudict- ment frow the District-Attoruey, Mark Bangsi” » Wousked him for i1, and waoted Litm to give his atatement 1o us In writhug,~a state- iment of the fostructions he bad recelved from Juiye Blodzett,—~und bu sald be preferred not dolg 1.1 . DI he give you any reason, as haviag been iven him by Judge Blud;zett, directing hiwa not 0 let thls indictincut be returned 4] understood the Attorney to say that the Judge tiad said to hin that thls was s old mat- ter, amd theso tesurns were made under his jo- structions.” * Do you remember whether or not there was anythiog rad, tike this: that Judge Bludgeit said this was an old atter, und that ihese re- turns were muade oy Mr. Jilbbard under bis di- ufll‘«m, in vl.l el Judge Drummond concurred i © Yes, air." K Mr. Culberson—Do | uuderstand you to say that Mr. Bange sald that Judge Drummond con- cnlrti*d in the opinion expressed by Judge Blod- tett Witness—Yes, sir. lu further suswer to Br. Koickerbocker the witness sald 1he judictwment szuiuat Mr. Hibbard for taking llegsl fecs was found sume time before the 220 of Nuvember, but waspot ru- turned because it was Lhought best for the Jury 0 tinjsh ull their busiuess aid make one retura. * Wby nuu:"yuu thiok that way, if “there miuds of some of the jury that there wasnot the best feellur existing between Lhe jury and Judge Blodgett, particularly whea we would get oo to that Hibbard case.” » How did you kuow thuti? & Frow ‘teiuscks of Who jorors, snd some N PAGES things that had been sald to sonie of the jurors by Judge Blodeett. or o reporied to us.” ‘*Do yon know who these jurors were towhom this w2s ead by Judge Dlovigett ! “Well, thers wer: some remarke—I don't know Lut erbaps it was Indirect, wnd came tn a roundabout way—ilat we were all Grangers, und he did not koow what we we doing there 80 Tong, and such kind of thines," “You had been called what (" “rangers,” “You had heen called that by whom 1 “Judie Blodgett.” ‘1he witness went on to say that he was ap- pointed un a committes to wait ou the Judge by the Fereman of the Grund Jury, but declined to ! act upon it. Word had come to the tirand Jury that Judge Blodgett had spoken te one of tiie jurors in the hallsof the butlding, oron the stalr. way, and had sald somo things ubout the Grund Jury remainlog there und wasting time: aml the Jury felt alllicted about the course that bad been pursiied, which was one reason that made them not [eel like golug before the Juage. ‘The jury felt that they would like to satisly Judce Blodeett thut They were tryiug to do their duty, and not wasting beir time und the Government money. 'rm‘( appuinted as a committee for thut purpose Mr, Keith, of thia city, Mr, Earle, of Tiatavia, und ‘Wimsell, His reasous for ot meting were that it Judge Blodgett had any Lusiucss with the jory there was 2 way to comw- munlcate with them, instead of talking to ooe mao in the hall or etalrway; und therefore hr did nut care to respect his spoointincnt. ie madearemark thatafter Thanksgiving he would walt on Judgs Blodgett if uecessary. e de- clined to serve as & member of the Commliit:e becanse Judge Blodgett ought to have sent for the Grand Jury, or sent a commnunicativn to them, if lie had anything to say o thewm, *Ud there exist in the Grand~Jury roum any feeling thut he Investization that you wero making as the Grand Jury of this dieirict futo the conduct of Mr, Hibbatd as Register in Hauk- ruptcy was disappruved of by the Judget” Mr. Culterson—Suppose” you change that word “feeling ' to "knnwlcxfu.“ ‘Iie amenament was accepted by Mr. Kalck- erbocker, aml the question put in ihat form, 4+ \Well, &y we got the Iuformation, indirectly, I got It [rom a’ member of the Jury,—Judee Blodgett was not it {avor of that fnvestigation.” *+\Vhat uiade vou feel that way " ] can bardiy” tell yous & chaln of cireum- slances—cveryihing scewed working In that way, and thero seemed o be & great deal u® un- easiness,”! *‘Iu short, you eawns to the concluston, from the reports made to you, that the Judee was going to preveut the fodictment sgainst Mr, Hibbard, if ho couldt’ 1 felt 80" *Do you kuow If any of the other jurors felt that wayl " * ] think so.” “ Were you with the rest of the Grand Jury when they returned the (ndictment that had been found inte courtP* “Alter we adjourned, yes, sir." * About what hour was it when you were dls- charzed 1" ’;u' Jyas o the neighborhood of 9 o'cleck at ol 1. dJudee Dlodgett was on, the Benchi" Yes, sir, in his room."" Did ie make any observations, or any cem- meu!s, upon the work of the Grand Jury " * Well, he made one remark, that perhaps if it bad not heeo for what had prssed before I would not have noticed so tnuch, that I thought rather reflected a littlo upon us:® “The Chatrinan—\Wiiat waa the remark? * Well, it was something thut we were honest in our purpose in looking after thesc things; but it seenied to refiect a Httle,—that we were luoking after business tat did not belong to us, Mr. Knickerbocker—Was it something like this, thut lie had no doubt you were sincere in the conviction thut you had been looking after :vlhl,v. you decmed to be the cause of public jus- ce & Well, T think In substance it was.” “Now, what made that remark of the Judze partleularly notizeable to you! Was [t anything in the tune of the mau, of the manner In “which he said {1i” “Well I was not much acquainted with Judge \Biodgett; Thad met him only o few times. nnlk;cltl u tremor in his volce, and 1 did feel that way. ‘ou felt that he was indignant at what you Dad done, did you (" . 41 felt as thouen ft did not satisfy him." 4 What did not satisfy him " ¢ What wo had dune, or attempted to do.* “ You do not know whether that feellnz nrose in his mind because you had dous too much, or had not done enough i I could uat aay." Mr. Lyman Trumbull put the witness Lhroush naminute cross-examination, cliclting nothing materiatly varytug from the statemeots made on the direct examination. Judge Hloizett gave the Grand Jury uo specile charge upon any subject at the time they were fmoancled. A number of Iawvers were calicd Lefore them, amoug therm Col. Covper and Mr, Koickerbock- er. Col. Covper bald no talk with any of the Graud Jury outside of the Uraud-~fury room, wor did Mr. Knickerbocker. ‘I'hese geatiemen brought to the notlce of the Grand Jury the ac- counts of Mr. Hibbard, They werc simply called a8 witnesses, ninl did not appear as pros- ccutors, ‘Vhelr naumes were sugpested as wit- nesses, plong with & pumber of otliers, [t was uot uatil the Grund Jury began {nvestigating the Hibbard case thut they began to receive these reports about what Jidge Blodgett had zald, Hocould not tell Low these rejorts got into cirenlation: hu hicard them through other urors.—Mr. Turaley, sud Mr, Crow, and per- aps Mr, Fiyou. They made remurks about thivgs lhz bhad hesrd, thut had cowe from Judge Blodget:, in reward o their wustiog time, and so forth, It was the Hibbard caso that they were fovestiat. Ing then. Bomeuow or other the duings und business of the Urund Jury began to leak out, und other thiugs would leak in as well, He knew nothinr about aur outside influcnce, not Lulog sequaluted with anyoody o Clileago, The first thing that made au lwpresslon upon the wituess’ miud was the inaguer of Mr, Brad- ley, Clerk of the United States Court, lu giving s testimony before the ad Jury. it made witnesa a little susplicious, und bhe felt as It there was something srrouz. e felt that there was souiebody opuosing them fn this investiza- tion, He did wot rewember that Mr, Hrudley suid anything as comiug from Judge Blodgett, At certajo stazes of their Inveatigation it secmed thut Judge Blodeett did not think well of te Urand Jury; at otber thues there was not that feelluw. They beard that the Jndge had seked what 1hese Grungers were do- ing ero—what wera they spendivg time for, This was ouly when thev got ou the Hikhard vawe; Lo heard of it at no other time. Whea Mr. Bangs appearcd before them and sald bo was ordered to withhold this fndicticut, o satd Judge Blodgett had stated that theso reports und returus wera made under bis instructions, with _the concurrence of Judge Drutnmond— that Mr, Iibbard hud made hid returns aveord- ing to law, as Judze Blodgett understood the law, Hostated thut e had bad an futerview with the Judge, and the Jadge told bim su; wud e withheld the fudictnent because the Grand Jury were indictiog bl for s thiug which the faw allowed bim todo, and wurrauted him in dolog. ‘They proposcd to indict b for perjury in making his anuuad report. WDl you prepose to indict bim for perjury in maklag his annusl reports because be did not return all the fees recelved fn the now cuses durivg the year(” “§rom uy own estimate of the fees recelved and ot returued,” * You proposed tofodict bim then for awesring fulsely ot vetnrnlog ull the fees e recelyed auring the year, aud not for faliwyg to report the foes lu the vew cancs of the year " 41t wus all the fecs; thut wus the way [ esti- mated {L* * \Vaa there any ovidence before you that he bad not reported wil Wic fees in Lhe bew caaes of the year{” *1 think so." 4 You thiuk there was evidenco that he did not report the fees which be had recelved io the caoes conmenced during the year i “ Yes, sir.? Lo indictment which you had prepared an indictment fur uot rewmuy theee feen " Yes, sir, As Latated belo wade my inate, wud 1 found, as near as iny mem- serves me now,—[ bave a memoraudu but 1 torgo® to brlng it with me,~lu the pelxl borbood of $10.000, in the ugeregste, that he bad recelved, that was not lucluded fu these reports, tor which Ias & jusor feltit my duty to indict bin.? ‘* Now, when you say that you indicted him for not returniok all the fecs’ during the year, You weun to include In thavull fees he recelved, Whatler for cases that were commenced durioz thut year, or on the old cases thut had beca commenced belore, do you not £ ** Well, taking the ihree yvears together, I dgured in this whether It was the 80tk of Juug or not, wastever ha received durfug the year should be revoried somewhere, whether it wus the last day of June_or the firit day of duly; sud Inato I tound, I suppose, $10,000 Lhiat b bud noet reported at all." *Well, now, suppose the law did oot require him Lo make a return of fees in & cass thut was cormmenced before that year st ull—say lu 16735 suppose, on_the J0th of Juue, 1875, in wakiug hls returos for fecs recelved from the 80tk of June, 1874 to the 30tk of Juoy, 1875, be had left ouf feea that wers recelved betwoen Lho Jth of June, 1874, sud the 30th of June, 1575, fo & case that was commenced inJl872; you considered that in that he commltted perjuryl’ [ understund the law to mean that he shall ¢t under oath all fees and earntage.” Whsther 10 that year or auy other yearh! k3 o) ! uYes, air? : based on a [ailure to return all thé fees received during the three years, whether it wns for cates commenced in the year the report was made -or; - , ot was it + “Weil, my recollection is this, that in sum- ming the matter up In my owo investization, L - : found, according to my understanding of the Iaw, that there was about $10,000, fu round { pumbers, that he bad received that he had not reported,” % “Did you ascertain whether that 810,000 was received for canes coramenced durlog te years {n which he made these reports, or whather ft ‘was received from aoy source In all cases, no l matter when commencedi” ‘' remember that the time tha statnte limite | moing hack, 1 limited that time in iny estimate, i and I mada ont, as I supposcd, about 810,000 that he bad reccived that was not reported withiu that time," . The Chalrman~DId you find that Mr, Hibbard had falled, during any one official yesr, to re- Eon lees that he had reccived in a”cnse which ad been brought during that yearl Witnces—I thonght so. : Mr. Lapham—In what return of the Reglater did you Giud this man qullty of perjury? “In his sworn returas to’ Washingten.” “Vhich year?’” “Well, he has to make them each year.” *Which did yon find that he had committed pecjury i’ i ;‘\!cll, 18 to the particular year, I am not cer- aln, . **'Then you gencrallzed upon the subject?” “ivell, T did.” » “What was the falsebood fn any report, as yon nuderstood it " ** My understanding was, that he bad sworn ton statement that dfd not embrace what i purported to emorace,” . : ““That Is, it did not embrace all the money he bad racelved 17 . at fs It exactly,” £ “Youl came to thit couclusion withont refer~ ence to the question wetlier the moneys were in cages commenced durlug the year, or in cases existing during the three yearst " i Yes, sir.” ‘The witness, [n answer to farther questions by Mr. Trumbull, safd that Mr, Baugs isfortned the Girand Jury that he was instructed to with- hold the Indiciment because 3 mude his reports fu_aceore struction which Judge Blodgett Lad put tipon the law. He ssld thier could go before the Judge for {nstructlons, but the Graud Jury de- cliued to wo. Mr. Baugs did not suy be sereed with Judge Blodeett, but almply gave Judge Dlodzett an authorlty, ** 1Jid not Judge Bangs tell yon that it was doubtful s to what the law did mean{ “ Yes, sir; but I do nat kuow that be stated that he had anvy particulur doubt himself, s was uot clear; [t was an open question, or sowmething like thut” wDid not Judze Bangs tell you that uo ' dictment should be found, when the construc. ton of the law was doubtful, or something to that effect" + ] don't remember the remark; he may hava mada it. ‘I'liere was 20 onc’s opinion civen there that had as much welzht as Judire Trumbull’s to me, beeanse he was the nan who explaloed the Juw himeelf.” [Laughter.] Judee Trumbull—Aed you did that for your-. sell on that remarki “ ] thought it was very !ruel and It bad = great deal of nfluence with me,™ “You say J construed it for Lim, ond hadn't Hibbard a rizht to construe it for bimself1" *The Judge (Trumbull] remarked that that was w}ut w]un the matter with the country now." Lanzhter. | Judge Trumbuli—I belfeve that is all, Mr, Laphamn—I desire to koow If I under- stond you correctly. The view tuken by tho jury oi the law was that Mr. Hibbard was botind to return all the fees he had received without refercncs to the year In which the cases were commenced f Yo, sir.' “That was the understanding of the jary 1 #Well, I think sa.” “You thought that the other Interpretation was that he wus bottnd oply to returo fees in new caseal' WYus, slr. That was ver{ late,” i '-};'n, but that fuformation csme to you a* st { 4 Yes, #i." “1Vaa there any difference in the views enter tatued by the jury and the Judge except upon that_law question?" “Well. sir. I aidn't sottle that question o my mind be;l‘llxu 1 supposed we were at the end of our work. “Yon disagreed with that interpretation of the faw (" 7 Yea, in *The jury, as a body " *Yes, ir.! - 4 And decliued to goand ask the adricsof the Court” “Yes, gir." “And it was opon that difference of oninion n;;:_t; the result you have spuken of was arrived ati"- “Yes, sir." **Now, what was there [n the manoer or con- ducet of Willlam H, Bradley, wheu befure you as awituess, that mado you refer to hilm ju your exawniuation to-day{" * Well, sir, a5 I reinember, ho was before us 29 & witoess, und 1 hod never wet bl Lefore. L felt satiafled 1hat thera was sowmething under it all thut be didn’t want to tell gs,” *“You dou’t mean to say that ‘you and the other members of 1he "ury were satisfied be was not telllog the trath?' “ [ can't say anything about and other mem- bers of the jury,’but I'made the remark sfter- wards tou fellow juror thut there was some- thins inysterious fo the matter,” “What was (hat something that he did “It was his genersl manoer.” “Well, deseribe it * Aua juror 1 could not sece s willinzuess on his part to tell us all we wished to know. I felt there wus womething we couldn't get hold of." ¥ Did you sk Mr. Bradiey, or was by asked by the District-Attoruey, {I Hibbard had cou- stlted with uim sboutthe construction of this 1aw before he made his reportat® *Yes, sir.” \What was his answer] " *[{e (Hlbbard) bad found decisions of some attorneys that justitied htms In making those returns,”! Mr. Kuickerbocker—#What did Bradley atate to you, If auything, that he bad sald to Ihbbardi Did tuto this: that Hibbard came to bl with his report, thut he adviscd bim thas it wasn't In compliance with the requirsinents of thelawi® *Therg secmed to be & misunderstandiug be twern Hibbard sud Bradiey,” “1libbard conatrued thelaw as Blodgett con- strued it, und Bradley construed It as the Grand Jury construed 164" “Yeat somethlog thas way " Tureply to Mr. Knott, wituess stated that ho belfoved that even uuder Judge Blodgett's ruts inz Jibbard Lad made a falss return, Ou kub- seyuent examination by Judge Trumbull, how- "ir't. he became much Wixed on this particulsr volnt ‘Iie Committee then took a rece Waea tue Cownmittee aguio t 3 o'clock the corridor feading to the roum was on- pletely crawded by the publle that It was with d or didteulty 1he stalwart Sergeant-nt-Arms could get tho doors opened. The seut setf apare for the public were used pedestals for curlous spoctators, und the crowd pressed forward futo the spaca hitherto reserved fur witucsscs wnd ofliclals. Bo (nefliclent wus the srrsogements for the preservation of order thiut the dense mob overtlowed onto the report- bles, conslderably cmbarrassiog them, and sine the proceeds in such loud und ex- cited tones that the Chalrwan Lad rapeatedly to call thew to order, uud threaten to clear "thu room if bis {njuoctivus were wot obeyed. This 15 u matter that the stalwat Bergesnt-at-Arms mizht beneficlally regulute for the future. NIE, Gonts cxpresing & with ou by vart of Judyge Modeett, that (ke foquiry into the Ger- nanta Insurance Company matter should be proceeded with and cxhausted, ‘I'he Chairman sald that some of the wituesses on the seeond chargs were frows the country, und the Comoittee deaired tu get turough with them and Jet them go bome, DR. nAMLIN. Dr. Hamllo, a memoer of the Grand Jury of the Unlted States Court for the October terma 1578, was then called to the stand und exawloed Ly Mr, Koickerbocker, When tbey assembled Lo did not_think they recelved any clarge from Judge DBlodgett, except & few geoersl remarks. There were uo remarks made callivg thelr stten- tiou to the administration of the Bankruptcy law In this dlstrict, or to suy speclal subjoct, Certala geotlemen ou that jury were Intyrested in certain mutters, and his own loterest, from baviog heen counected with baoks and from the fact that promlnest busl wmcn of the clty requested it, wus devoted to tha case of the four or tlve bauks that had recently failed lu the city. ‘I'here was one geutleman specially intorested fn the watters of the Recelvers and Registers in bankruptcy,* “as he & member of the Grand Jury!® #Yes, slr. ‘The matter camne up belors tha Grand Jury, a8 1 uoderstood 18, fo conuection with tho Register fu this gentleman's district, Mz, Crain; wud jo couacction with that foves:ls gatlon the Arst witness called was Mr. Bradley, tho Clerk of the Court. We cotered fnio an exsmivation which, [ think, embrxied the feoe bills of alt the HegGtens bn Wus dutcdch ) i “Your fudictment for perjury, then; wu il