Chicago Daily Tribune Newspaper, February 2, 1879, Page 1

VOLUMEXXXIX. SUNDAY. FEBRUARY 2. 1879—SIXTEEN PAGES PRICE FIVE CENTS. S LAUNDERY. MUNGER'S LAUNDRY Continues to ROUGH DRY FAMILY WASHINGS At the Tate of 114 En. per plece fu bundles of 100 eces. Rundles of from 501075 pleces. 3¢ per pleco, undles of from 75 10 100 pleccs. S1.50 for the bundle. RO FAMILY BUNDLE rough dried for less than 81, ‘Housekeepera will relleve thewmselves of the drudg- g7 of wasliday by seading thelr buadies to ua 10 be Roush Dried. Collection nd delivery free. Orders canbe sent by o * - Offices—No. 46 N. Clark; No. 126 Dearborn--st.; No. 668 Wabash-av.; and No. 901 Cottage Grove av. STATIONERBY, Etc. GULVER,PAGE, HOYNE &GO, 118 & 120 Monroe-st., Wholesale and Retail Deal- ers in 2l kinds of Siatien- ery, Letter Presses & Stands, Pamping Bowls and Brush- es, Copying Boolis of all sizes, Oif Board and Blot- ting Paper,Qfiice and Iouse Dusters of Ostrich or Tur- key. Feathers, Wool, & Jute. (ULYER, PAGE, HOYNE & (0. PIANOS. SECOND-HAND - STEINWAY ANDS, "ehave fn stock and can offer ata very grest bar- gun a superb 7-ociave GpHEHL nearly new, and fn every respect 25 good a3 nevs, and will be warranted a9 i "ON D) LYON & HEALY, tate and Monroe-sts. FINANCIAL. T, SCRNATP. STEPHEN PEABODY. Member of the Stock Exchange. ENAPP & PEABODY, - Baukers and Brokers, 28 Newsst., New York. ~ We buy and sell Stocka, Bonds, snd Secirities of all kinds at'the New York Stock Exchange on commision. Oriers solicited. Tefer by permission to Francls B. Penboay, of Cllcago; Augustus S. Peabody, of N. Y. FIDELITY, STATE, © GERMAN SAVINGS Bank Dooks boupht for CASH. GERHARD FORE- MAN. 1w Washinzton-st. _ SAVE MONEY! *By buying City Serip and C pirnausliad rea €t axgy 3 OTACTS £0 pey your 1RA HOLMES, General Broker, i 83 Washingion-st. - STLIVER YBought and Sold at a discount by . J. CARISTOPH, Danke . Iaudolph-st., dealer in Forefyn E: ana U. 5. Bonas. g Exchungé TO T.OATI, Money 3 7 per cent on city pro SRS RN A TLHATHAWAY, 38 Market-st., cor. Randolph, .1 North Market-st. 267 Archer-av. -Delivered promptly in all parts of the city, and in cars on day of re- ceipt of order. Orders by mail and AM, DIS- -TRICT and BELL TELEPHONES .will receive prompt attention. CLOTHING. TEN YEARS’ Experieoce manufacturing _Clothing, during which time we have made and 50d atretali more garments than any other firin ever hasqn this city, ennbles us to offer the greatest inducements to buyers. We keep in slock garments of every size. from the boy of 2 years +10 those which it men who mUst sLaop to o through a §-6 deor. Short men, don't buy coats with the waist below your hips, and panta which come up 10 your srm- bite, We“can it you perfectly. Fat men, we can fit U 100.” Our coats and overcoatsrun fo 50 inches resst measure. We want every erson in Chicago To ttnks be cannot bo ftted Withour payini mcre chant taflor’s prices to call at once at our Great Steam Power Clothinz Manufactory, 416, 418, 420, 422, and 424 Mflwzukee-av., CLEMENT & SATER. GO TO JOHN JONES, 119 Dearhorn-st.. and get your Clothes Thoroughly Cieaned and Neatly Lepsir Tty by 110 Desrborn-st. S1) CARI o SR SIS IS s FARAWAY MOSES Has ovened a Torkish Bazaar st 169 Wabash. Slogk south of Field, Lelter & Cor, witli large vafie persian, stan Kugs and Carpets: alto Aucient and Moders Emproiderics and. Turkish Fanc all of the Anest descriptions and deslgns. Cail 0d examine the stock. i« £ ‘GEO. C. BATES, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, : LEADVILLE, COL. Speclal attention to Mining Litigation. e e OFTICIANS, . MANASSE, OPTICIAN. Tribune Bailding. i ; Floe Spectacles ruited 1o ali sights on sclentific n- glries “Gpers g Fleld G Tolescopes, Miers- et Baroweters, &¢. 50 RENT. i SO TEENEE i - TO RENT, In The Tribune Building, two very desirable offices on the second 8oor, and one on the third floor. Apply to ‘WM. C. DOW, Room 8 Tribune Buflding.__ FOR RENT. Store 23580, 119 Dearborp- water. ana all sonveniencrd: ! e O JONEST Slehniny and JOL TOOTHPICKS. iWooden Tooth Picks : 7 We will sell them at 8¢ per box, or IS‘!;!-O.?:X IIHIII.LPQIX boxes, llV o o . SLEHMANN'S 'THE FAIR, cor. State and Adams. it BE BVER USE ANY SOAP? SEA Hasbought & car-losd, and asks you to notice these prices Good Tollet Soap (small cake). Good Toflet Soap (larger cake). Old English Mottled Castlle Sonj Fine lioney-Glycerine and B ‘warrante DO YOU NEED A POCKETBOOK ¢ A Leather Pocketbook for. Better ones for. .. 25-cent Pocketbooks for ent Pocketbooks for 75-cent Pocielbooks for $1.00 Pocketbooks for $2.00 Pocketbooks for. .. 1,000 of theso Bt}nks ar Half Value. Are Your “Kids Out at the Fingers?” SEA opens to-morrow morning 25 dozen of 2-button 8190 quality of 1zen! Frencl Kid Gioves (in evers sade color) at 4x¢ per pair. For any of thiose Gloves that break or tear anew pair will be freely given, a3 every [ pafzis Tully warranted 25-cent quality Kid Gloves for. ... IN ADDITION TO THE Great Bargaing in Honsekeeping Goods ALREADY ADVERTISED WE NOW OFFER 2-quart milk pans. 3-quart mili; pans.. 6-quart milk pans. 2-quart coffee pots. B¢ Ecrosene ofl cans. -cent tack hainmers oc BU-cent hatchets... ..19¢ Flour sfeve and combined...... Large dioner b “14c, Veueerea slop 9c Potato inashy c Tolling pins. ' Beat brooms. {18 Large clothes Tack. ¢, Hest pals. Fireshovel Coffee pot siands. Buasting spoons Family scales. Coffee” flasks. 5 Fepper boxe: 4ci Whisk broos sc Salt boxes. 4c;Clothes pius, per dozen 2o Nutmeg graters. '75-cent lanterns....... 8¢ 2¢ shieets paper for., 24 envelopes (all Blunk books for, 845 boxes of our DON’T FORGET that SEA Sells the Parest, Cheapest, and Best Caudy in Chicago, at 76 STATE STREET. AUCTIONT! THE STOCK AND FIXTURES A I BILLER, Jeweler, Cor. State and Monroe-sts,, Is now being closed out in lots to suit purchasers, as Mr. Miller is de-~ termined to close up and go out of Jewelry business., By attending _great bargains can be obtained in WATCHES, DIAMONDS, JEWEL- RY, SILVERWARE, CLOCKS, BRONZES, and FANCY ARTI- CLES. This sale is an absolute closing out one, and the goods and fixtures will be sold at any price purchasers will give for them. . At~ tend and examine for yourself. La- dies are invited. PRIVATE BIDS SOLICITED for THE FIXTURES IN PART OR ‘WHOLE. REAL ESTATE. LACK HILLS LEADVILLE Are attracting serious atten- tion from men of practical abil- ity, and fortunes are to be made the coming season. The imme- diate attention of investors is respectfully called to the offer of theundersigned in our *ads” under the head of * Country Real Estate.” Address J. E. BURTON, Geneva Lake, Wis. PEOTOGRAPH Y. CABINET PORTRAITS in any desired style, Elegant, and Superior to any produccd elscwhere in the city, at the uniform price of $6 PER DOZEN. ' & CHILDREN Photographed instantaneously. Brands Studios FEATS. Buichers, Provision Dealers, . @ Grocers Will do well to call at the Wholesale Mar- ket in our Slaughtering and Packing House, corner Hgaisted and Lumber-sts. (south of Twentv.second-st.) to _ bu DRESSED HOGS, FRESH MBATS, Lard, Pork, Choice Sugar-Cured Hams, Dried Beef, Breakfast Bacon, Sausage, Soused Pig’s Feet, Fresh and Corned Beef, etc., etc. DNDERWOOD & CO. WANTED, NOTICE. Tndian and Ancisnt Curiosities Iwill bay for cash Indiso and ancient curfosities, ar, or ‘and old Siiy 8 Ornamen ! O & DYMETAER, Ton Fraskin st JUDGE BLODGETT. The Hibbard GCharge Still Under. Consider= ation. Testimony of Some More of the Grand Jurors. Judge Bangs on the Stand--- His Conversations with Judge Blodgett. How He Was Induced to Suppress the Indictments Against the Register. Proctor Knott Holds Him Tight to the Rack on Material Points. What Has Become of the Short- Hand Notes of the Grand Jury Proceedings ? Lively Cross-Questioning by Some of the Members of the Com- mittee. y Judge Drummond: Relates His In= terview with Judge Blod= gett, His Opinion as to the Propriety of the Hibbard Indictment. REGULATING ATTENDANCE. The Blodgett investization was resumed yes- terday morning, ahout three-fourths of an hour after the time to which an adjournment was taken Friday afternoon. Itis beginning to be very evident that 9:30 is rather too ecarlys morning hour for all the parties, for up to date only one session has goue off promptly at that time. Yesterday mornivg it was the Blodgett party who were late, the investigators and the memorialists having the start of them some- thing like half an hour. When the gentlemen did comu together, a brief consultation was held around the Committee’s table, the subject of the conference being * the question as to wha$ should be done ‘to prevent a repetition of the crowding and jamming which took place Friday. The upshot of it all was that the ticket scheme of admissions was adopted for the remainder of sthe investization. As it wus of conmrse im- practicable to get out tickets yesterday meorn- ing, the new rule will not go into force until “Monday morning. The crowding of the day be- Tore had the effect, also, of sugeesting to the Committee the propriety of statioring™ somme ‘onc ar the entrance to the room iwhose duty ‘consisted in warding off the commoners from the privileged class and sending the former to the rear of the room and the latter to the front. This additional precautionary scheme worked with considerable success, and, although the crowd was very fair for the opening bour, it was possible to conduct the iuvestigation, and par- ticularly to report it, with some degree of com- fort and satisfaction. As the hours passed the crowd grew {u size, but the probibitory arrange- ments to prevent jamming were effective in keeping it within subjection and proper bounds, and noone whose attendauce wus a matter of business or duty had the slightest cause for complaint that lis comfort’was unot sought to be provided for. Among the morning arrivals was Judee Bangs, matiled as to his throst in a buge searf. Having divested himself of his superfluous clothing, he caught up a morning paper and became appar- ently very much futerested in reading what the Grand Jurors, und particularly Dr. Humuline, had to say abou him on the stund Kriday. A. L. ROSE. . The first witness calied to the stand was Mr. A. L. Rose, an accountant, who testitied that av the request of the Committec of the Bar Asso- ciation he'made an examination of the books of Mr. Hibbard, Register in Bankruptcy, to ascer- tain the amount of fees and emoluments earned or received by him for the years ending June 30, 1875, 1876, and 1877, in such cases only as had ‘been referred to him quring those years. Mr. Trumbull—I do not sce the legality of this. The jury did not pass upon it. The Chairman—We would like to know the facts in regard to that matter. We wish to know precisely how the fact was, and whether it was called to the attention of the tirand Jury, what- ever the fact was. 8 ‘The witness stated that he had with him a copy of the report which he made to the Com- mittee, which he had verified and found correct. For the year ending June 30, 1875, Mr. Hibbard reported receipts for cases brought before him during that year, $9,687.87; number of cases, 160; the deposit fees amounted to $8,033.09, and Mr. libbard reported deposit fecs to the amount of $6,432.80 for that year. Witness found the number of cascs thal were actually referred to Mr. Hibbard during tiat year by refercnce to bis docket. In ascertaining the amount of fecs received or earned in these cases, witnéss took the deposits in each case made with the Register by the Clerk of the District Court, when the case was coiumenced and referred to him. For the vear ending June30, 1876, he found 275 cascs referred to Mr. Bibvard, and from the tee-book he ascertained that the deposits amounted to 814,204,405 Mr. Hibburd reported $9,657.57, o discrepancy of $4,000.53, his receipts being un- derstated o that extent. This statement did not include suy fees earned or received by Mr. Hibbard in any cases that had becn referred to him previous to that year. For the year end- ing June 30, 1877, theré were 254 cases, agpre. gating in receipts $18,485.05; Mr. Hibbard re- ported $9,225.50, a discrepancy of $4,619.55. “This amount of receipts iucluded nothing for fees or emoluments earned or received in cases commenced previous to that vear. Witness was subpenacd aud testified before the United States Grand Jury in Octuber last, and gave substantially the same testimony as he now gave to this Committee, The Chalrmau—Was the District-Attorney present when you testified before the Grand Jury? )?;-. Rose~Yes, sir; Judge Bangs was present. The witness further said that the items that he obtained from Mr, Hibbard’s fec-books, i which he ascertained the amount of fecs earbed or recsived in these three years respectively, a- cluded’ no fees charged or received by Mr. Hibbard for the proof of creditors’ claims, from the fact that Mr. Hibbard kept ng record of such fees. Witness did not take such fees into consideration because be could not ascertafn them, He asked Mr. Hibbard for in- formation on the subject of such fees, stating that he would like to get the amount of fees for proots of claims, and Mr. Hibbard promised. to make out 8 list; but witoess never could get it, because Mr. Hibbard said he had not had time todo it. Witness obtained some information on the subject, however, from the Assiznees’ accounts in some special cases; but mome of them entered into his computation, nor did he inciude anything for examinativn of debtors or -other parties, nor anything but what appeared on the Register's fee-book. There was nothing on the fee-book for the taking of testimony. The computstion fncluded nothing for fees earned or received for examinations fn bank- ruptey, nor for proof of claims by creditors. In “cross-cxaunnation by Mr. Camphell, wit- ness said he made 80 examination to show how muel of the deposit of $50 in cach case had been actually earned during the year. He did ot know how much of the azzrepate of $5,000 which had been deposited with Mr. Hibbard hiad been earned by him asfees, und how much remafoed in his hunds as a trust fuod. He mere- 1y ascertained the amount of the total deposi made at the commencement of the proceedings or subsequently, when the original depostt had been exhausted and further funds provided. There were some cases where the original de- posit had not been exbausted. The same was true of the years 1876 und 1877, Witness did not state this to the Grand Jury; no such gues- tion had been ssked bim. Wheére any of the original deposit had been refunded, witness did not include in his report the amount refunded. Ife cxamined to see whether any of the ongi- nal deposit bad been subsequently refunded, and where he found that this was €0 he struck off the amount refunded from his calenlation of receipts. His statement of the- deposits was the total amount, less all sums refunded, as noted in the fee book. uot necessarily duriner the year, but at times thereafter. He did not know Whether ‘the amount of $6,432.89 reported for the year 1875 was @ correct statcment ot the fees received and: actually carned without re- zard to what the deposit had been; nor did he know tiis fact with recard to the amounts re- ported for the years 1876 aud 1877. He was not prepared to state that the amount reported as fees received and earned during those years was incorre 3 () On redirect, examination by Mr. Knickerbock- er, wituess read frdm the pamphlet report of the Bar Assoviation €omunittee- the form of Mr. Hibbard’s report to fhe Attorney-General for 1875, which was more detuiled than thut made by witness, the voluntary and involun- tary cases being separately classified. e gave Mr. Hibbard .credit in all cases where fces were’returned by him for the awounts so_returncd; he did not recoltect of more than one or tWo cases in the whole three years in which any fees had been returned. ‘There was no mention made on the fee-book of apy deposits for years previous to 1875 being re- turned. There was no fec-bill from Mr. Hib- Lard on file in the Clerk’s otlice, and, on asking 24r. Hibbard abont 1t, Mr. Hibbard said that, as his oftice was on thie same flvor with the Clerk’s offiee, he had not been in the habit of making out u fee-bill and ‘filing it in the ofiice, as his -books were aped fo inspection at any time by the parties concefned. In proportion to the number ot cases witness examined, the propor- tion in which Mr. Hibbard bad charged and re- ceived more thanjthe deposited in the first instance was quiteflarge. - On the recrossj by Mr. Campbell witness stated that there were quitea number of cases— perhaps forty—in ieach year when the Reeister earned morc thau the $30 original deposit within the fiscal year. His attention had not been called to that. B “ fow cau you state what the facts are in that regard?” i ‘*¥rom general recollection.” “How fur dowu:did you cxamine the accoont to sec waether ithe deposit had been ex- hausted?? i “1 was unable to follow the account on the fee-book frow the fact that there were no dates on the fee-book, except the date at the head when the original deposit was made. , There was _uothing -ou. the fee-book by which [ could ~ determive - when the fees were earned, -~ Thers - were one . or two cases where the original deposit of $50 was not exhausted. - I did not follow them down to see it 1t bad been exhausted subsequently.” In reply to Mr. Lapnam, withess said, in the year ending June 80,1875, Mr. Hibbard reported 160 cases, the same pumber he found. He could not tell what the Register's receipts ‘were, owing to the fact that no record was kept of some of the receipts, but ascertained as far as he could from the books what they were. His estimate was confined entirely to the $50 deposits. : Ta Col. Cooper he sald there were deposits added to deposits. E. G. KEITH. Mr. E. G. Keith, of Keith Bros. & Co.,a member of the late Grand Jury, was the uext witoess., He was examined by Col. Cooper, and testified That ft Was stated in the Grand-Jury room by some member that there was dznger of the jury being discharged before they reached the Custom-House cases, the result of which information was that they postponed the Hib- bard investigation unil the Custom-House cases bad been disposed of. "One of the jurors also reported that the Judge had made some statements about delays on the part of the jury, which seemed to indicate that he had been mis~ informed on the subject, and the result was the appomntment of the Committee of three, of which witness was 3 member. The Committee called on the Judge, who wanted to know why they asked Judge Trumbull to come before them. Witness thought the Judge's manner was a ‘“little on the scolding order.” The Committee told bim they supposed Judge Trumbull haa some knowledge of these bankruptey matters, and the Judge said that if the jury wantea Jaw they could come to him. The Commitzee then told him that they hadn’t asked for law, Judge Bangs having conducted the examination. The Judge also referred to the publication of the daily proceedings 1n the newspaners, and, as wituess remembered, said that they might about as well hold their sessions ont on the vrairie. [Laughter.] The fact was, that the newspapers published 4 zood deal more than they knew, aud rather more than actually hapoened. [Laughter.} ol. Cooper asked_if "Judge Blodgett, at this interview, mentioned Mr. Ayer's nameor Judge Lawrence’s name. ‘Ihe reply was that he' did not. Judge Trumbull was the only one complained of. Witoess. told _the Judee that he was as anxious to get through and adjourn as a business-man could be. He had never nad any special ac- quaintance with Judge Blodgett, but he bhad always respected him. About 5:30 o'clock, the afternoon of the day when the jury was dis- charged, he went in ‘to see Judze Blodeett for the purpose of befog excused from further serv~ icc. The request was granted. He had never seen him since thut eveningz. On the cross-examination, witness stated, in reply to Mr. Campbell, thut be remembered the occasion when Judge Bangs came into the jury- room and stated that the indictments were not ready, and that, as to the perjury indict~ ment, he would like to have the jury go and see Judge Blodgett aud gret his opinion as to the pronriety of finding this indictment. At the same time, Judge Bangs said be considerad it his duty to withhold it, haviog had a con- versation with Judge Blodgett, in which Judge Biodegety said Uhut Hibbard could not be neld respobsible for such reports, because he (Judge Blodgett) bad construed the law ina way that was in accordance with those returns. When witness asked Judge Blodeett to excuse him, something was said 1n refercoce to his indiet~ ment. Judee Blodgett remarked that Hibbard could not be beld responsible for those reports; that Hibburd had consulted with him at - the time the law was framed, or when he was oblited to make his report after the law went into operation, and that he (Blodgett) bad given bim an opis ion as to the construction of it. Judee Blodgett also stated, witness thought that Bangs said, he had covsulted with Judee Drummond, and, as he remembered, Judge Dyer, as to their con- struction of the law, and that both of those Judges bad agreed with him. ~Witness did not remember that Judge Blodgett s2id he had con- sulted with Judze Drummond as to this particu- lar case of Hibbard’s, but he remembered Judge Blodgett’s saving that Judge Drummond had called his (Blodgett’s) attention to the pub- licity with which the Grand Jury had allowed their proceedings to go ~ forth. Witness explained that the mnewspaper reports were not invariably to be relied upon, and referred to the fact that Judee Blodgett had found some_fault with the jury for taking up time, reminding bim that he must see that be (the witness) was 3s suxious as anvbody could be to be relieved from duty. He thought Judge Blodgett stated at thut time that he had no doubt of the honesty and desire of the jury to ldo everything in accordance with what was right. In reply to questions from Col. Cooper, wit- ness stated that Judge Blodgett, on the occasion “of this inierview in chambers between himself and the witness, voluntcered a good deal of ex- planation, and referred to the tact that the con- struction of the law was somewhat different with regard to a Register than with rezard tos United States Marshal, and that, in consequence, the law could be differently coustrued. - “Did he ask you whether the Grand Jury bad found that Hibbard had returned all his fees, earned or received during the year covered by his report in those cases only eommenced dm’il:g', thatyear, or referred to him during that yeary? **Idon’t think he asked me that.” “*Did be ask you wherei,n you found Hibbard had underatated his feest ‘“No, sir, I tkink he seemed to understand the case without regard to it.—that he seemed to koow all about it. In my conversation with him, I think he referred to the fact that Bradley had testified to some facts in the case.” Alr. Campbell—* Did you statc, to Judge Biodgett, when you went down-stairs, anything in regard to the excitement which oceurrea in the jury-room when Bangs said be would iake the Fespousibility of apposing that indictment? * I mignthave stated to him that there was some fecling on the subject.” _“Didn’t you wake such 'a statement, and didu’t.that Tead to the conversation?’ I don’t recollect. . To Mr. Lapham witness said that some of the jurors said they didu't care about taking Blodgett's opinion, Baugs haviog stated all that 3!:: ;:m)u.lfl get, even if they went before the €. COL. TURNLEY. Col. Turnley, another of the grand jurors, wassworn. He was present when the “perjury or false return” indictment was found against Hibbard. It was not returned to court because of 2 question as to the propriety of it. After it with others, had becn put into the hands of the District Attorney, the jury learned from him that he didn’t approve of the propriety of that couut, and he sustained his position oy stating that he had had a conversation with Judge Blodgett, and witoess thought Mr. Bangs vir- tually said he about concarred with the District Judge that that count should not be returned, because Hibbard’s return, reputed to be false, Was made in accordance with bis (Blodgett’s) in- terpretationof the law. Thisstatement was made within oneor two daysof theadjournment, and it was the first time, witness thought, the jury learned that there was objection to that second count. No evidence was taken on the davof adjournment. Judge Bangs said he had con- cluded to withhold the indictment after a con- versatiou with Judge Blodgett. ‘The jury were a little surprised to hear this at that time—at so latc an hour. Witness thought Judge Bangs was requested to retire, and that the jury dis- cussed the matter. The talk was as to what was best to bedone. Judge Bangs returned, und said if the jury desired any information they could et it irom Judge Blodgett. There was talk of the jury prepariog an {ndictment. Witness said he” would write one, but didn’t recolleet that he commenced it. There was a I {feeling of disappointment among the jury, they considering themselves not properly treated, | having been kept until a late hour withoat this knowledze. Witness tried to get exactly what Judwe Bangs said,—wrote it down, and fixed it preity well in his mind. He said that Hibbard believed he had made his returns in accordance with Judee Blodgett’sinterpretation of the law, not according to Judge Blodgett’s direction, Judge Jrummond’s name was mentioned, uud the impression witacss got was that Judee Drummond, by sowme means, at some time, at some place, concurred in Blodgett’s opinion. Bavgs might have said hebelieved Jlalf;eDmm- mona concurred; it Was not categorical ‘There was no eross: minatiou. MARK BANGS. District-Attorney Bangs was the next witness, and, inreply to Col. Cooper, testified as follows: He bad been District Attorney about three years. He formerly lived in Lacon, Marshail County. Heat times presented cases to the Grand Jury,~to the last one nearly all. “Did you know, prior to the assembling of that Grand Jury, that grave charges affecting the integrity of H. N. Hibbard, Register in Bunkruptey, and also J. A, Cruin, another Register, were in circulation in this Judicial District??? 1 had scen u report, 1 think, of & committee, and heard something as to Hibbard, but I don’t think I knew anything about Crain.” “Did you bring either of these matters be- forc the Grand Jury yourself2™ “Both of them. They were presented to the Grand Jury by me.” ) Ry calling witnesses?” e - : “D:d you direct their attention to them?. “I dou’t know that I did.” « State thie fact. Did you or not?” 3y recollection now is that the Grand Jury drew up a paper including those cases, and some bank cases, early in the gession, and presented it tome.” * N “Do you remember how- this investigation into the bankruptey matter came about i 4 In what respect?” _ “ As to the first step ‘that was taken by the Grand Jury,—the first step toward investiga- fon é U] think it was to call witaesseen n what way? Who called for them?” ¢« There was a suggestion that they desired certain witnesses, and I had them summoned.” Witness said thut Col. Cooper was, perhaps, sent for at the instance of the jury. He did not suggest his name, or remember the kind of a subpna under which he came. He remem- bered meeting Col. Cooper at the door of the roow, and telling hi he was called with refer- ence to the bankruptcy matter. Witness re- quested bim to bring the report of the Bar Com- mittee, aud the jury requested a copy abiece, - and were supplied. Amone the witnesses sum- moned were Norton, Bradley, Ayer, Judre Lawrence, Judze Trumbnll, and Rose. “What matters with reference to Hibbard were investigated A “Jlis alleged criminal acts in taking unfawful fees was one, and making false reports at the end of the year was another.” +Do you remember about Judge Trumbull being asked by you with reference to the mak- ing of false returns of fees?? ¥ rem=mber that Judze Trumbull was there as a witness to the question of the construction of the nincteenth section of the amenduent to the Bankrupt law of 1874, I think that was un- der consideration.” * Who presepted that?* 1 did mysclf.” Mr. Knoft—You asked Judge Trumball to give a legal opinion as to thatd” The Guestion had been cousiderably ?—= « Answer the question I just asked you,—if you nsked Judge Trumbull to give a legal opinion?”? ; [ think the question was this: Whether it was susceptible of two constructions?” “Did you use about this languaze? [Reading from manuscrips] *Now, as we have the dis- tinguished statesman aud jurist before us, I would like to ask him whether there could be a* construction of the law such as Mr. Hibbard makes and still be an honest man.”? « [ dou’t remember the question that I did ask him, sir, but I am satisfied that law was sented.” P Dhin't yon ask him that question, anddidn’t refuse to answer?” ) hc" 1 don’t think 1 did,—not the question in that shape.” “Did Judge Trumbull say substantially [Mr. Knott read again from manuscript], *Judee, 1 dou't think thut is a proper question?’ “ [ think as to one of the questions I asked mm, le. perbaps, hesitated, and, possibly, de- clined entirely to answer.” “\What question wag that?” It was a question in reference to Hibbard acting under & construction of the statute, I think. 1 don’t remember the form.” + Substantially the form I bave given?" « Possibly it might be, substantially. I think it was ruoning in that direction.” He (Trumbull) considered that not a fair question, and so replicd ¥ + ] think he declined to answer,or hesitated.” « And vou repcated and pressed it upon him " “I don't remember now whether 1 did or not.” ' ¢ Do vou remember lis making such a reply as this [reading]: *If you waut me to answer, L mustsay I think not. I don’t thinka Gov- ernment officer has the rizht to “construe the law in his favor for bis own benefit. ‘That is the trouble with the country now’1"" « He made some reply of that general tenor. 1 don’t remember the lanrmage. I think he said, possibly, there was some trouble with the country,—ihat officers were in- clined to put ~their “own construction on the law, or something like that. I want to state right bere that [ didn’t call anyZof these attorneys myself, but was'requested to do it by the Grand Jury.” Mr. Lapham—Had legal opinions been re- uested from other Twitnesses prior to Judge 'rumbull on that question of conatruction? | don’t remember.” Mr. Cooper—Had the clause in question, under whick Mr. Hibbard had returned his fecs—See. 19 of the act amendatory of the Bankrupt law of 187S—becn carefuily considered by youl “1 had read the Izw.over.” e “Was this law considereil . by you with refer- ence ‘to the- Register’s ' reports fo-the Clerk of - the District Coart;to be sent by him to: the Attorney-General, showing the total amount of ees, charges, em olumenty ana costs,of every sort received or earned by him during the year in el‘L;:A class of cases,—voluntsry and compul- sory ! & ‘: “I‘gs, :ir." ““What wus your opinion upon the question as to whether ‘the Register, mxkinzqa sworn report, was bound uader that law to report all the fees or emoluments?* L;;I bave pever expressed any opinion about “Did the Grand Jary ask your opinion?" *’Fhey did not.” +*Did you bave an opinion?” “If you want o know what I told the jury, T can tell you.” . The Committee consulted together for a mo- ment, and Col. Cooper said he wanted Judge Bangs’ opinion, unless it was improper. Mr. Knott—Go ahead. Col. Cooper—What opinion did you bave on the question as to whether the Register is bound under that dause?”’ “1I think the law 5 ambiguous.” “Please state wherein it is ambigaons?” 1 will do so, if the Committee desires.” Mr. Goudy—{ will suzeest to the Committee that Judge Baogs ia the District Attorney, whose duty it will be to prosecute the indict- wment agajnst Mr. Hibbard. Col. Cooper—There has been no indictment in referonce to this matter against Mr. Hibbard; thut is the trouble. " The Chairman—Ido not know of any law that would prevent the prosecuting attorney giving anopinionabout the statute, aithough there may be cases growing out of that statute which it would be his duty to prosecute. Mr. Lapham—The diffcuity I bave is that the ‘witness hus never expressed his opinion. Judze Bangs—I never expressed it at all to anybody before; I certainly did not to the Graod Jury. A Col. Cooper—1t is simply with refereace to 8sotne other questions thut f‘:xm zoing to ask the witness, Mr. Campbell—What are the other questions? Col. Cooper—You will know them, Mr. Camp- bell, when I ask them. The Chairman—As I suggested when tbe question was put. as Judge Bungs has never ex- pressed an opinion, I do not see how it will :?::;v any light upon the facts that we are Col. Cooper—OI course, I will take the judg- ment of the Committee on the matter. How- ever, he bas now said that he thinks the law ambiguous, aud the question he is asked now is as £o how it is ambiguous—in what manner the law is amoizuous. He has gotten that far, and 1 think, in justice to the witness, he ought to be allowed to explain that. g The Chairman—Was there a question before the Grand Jury as to the vroper construction of that clause to which attention has been called? - Judee Bangs—There was this question, whicn perhaps will acswer that. It appeared before the Grand Jury that Mr. Hipbard had acted upon a certain construction, which construction, as to its correctness, had been by some. parties ques- tioned; und my instruction to the Grand Jury, as I remember, was that if Mr. Hibbard had iz #00d faith acted upon the constraction given to it by himself, that the element of perjury was wanting. Ididnot give any construction to the law. ‘The Chairman—You donot answermy question, aferall. Iask you if the question of the con struction of that clause was under discussion before the Grand Jury—what was the true con- struction of it, whether that was discussed by the Grand Jury? Judge Bangs—( think it was; I think that ‘Was considercd. “In your presence, was ft?" ‘I think, perhaps, that is so.” “Judze Trumbull was there, and’ gave his opioion 1s to the construction?” “Yes, sir.” ‘ou had your own opinion about {3 “ 1 had not any scttled opinion about it, sir. I thoueht then, as I say now, uud there is am- biguity abouc the faw. © 1 did not say so.” *Well, why did not you say so to the Grand Jurg **Simply because I was not entirely satisfied with my own opinion of the Jaw.” “As the prosecuting officer of thk Govern- ment, was it uot prover for you, when this mat- ter was first under discussion, to advise yourself as to it, and then advise the Grand Jury ¢’ 1 examined the law with a ood deal of care,’ and I come to the conclusfon that there was an- ambiguity there which was a suficient basis for two honest constructions.” 4 Whercin consists the ambiguity ¥ «This statute provides for certain reports to be made by several different Federal officers. First, that it shall be the duty of the Marshal in each district, in the month of July fn each ycar, o report to the Clerk of the District Court of such district, in tabularform, first, the number of cases in bankruptey in which the warrant prescribed by Sec. 5,019 of said act has come to_ his hands during the year ending June 80 pre-' ceding; second, how many such warrants swere returned, with the fees, costs, expenses, and emolumentsthereof respectively and separately; third, the total amount of =ll other fees, costs, expenses, und emoluments, respectively aud -geparately, earned or received by him during the year, for or in respect of any matter in bankruptey; fourth, a summarized statement of such fees, vosts, and emolumeats, exclusive of actual disbursements in each ‘year; fifth, a summarized statement of -all disbursements in such cases foreach year. Andin like manuer every Register shall for the same year maka a report o such clerk, first, of the number of voluntary cases in bankruptey coming before him during each year; second, the amount of assets und la- bilities of the bankrupt; third, the amount und rate per centum of all dividends declared; fourth, the disposition of all such cases; fifth, the number of cowpulsory cases coming before i : sixth, the amount of assets and fiabilitics, as neariy as may be, of such bankrupt; seventh, the disposition of all such cases; eightb, the amount and rate per centum of all dividends de- clarea in such cases; ninth, the total amount of fees, charges, costs, and emoluments of every sort received or earned by such Kegister during said year. in each class of cuses above stated. Here is where I understand the ambizuity came in. I think it would Dot be an irrational conclu- sion or construction to say that the cases re- forred to in the last clause respecting fees and charres had reference to the cases which were resented, voluntary and involuntary, to the ermister during that year.” +ly inquiry is os to the ambiguity of the law. ynmt is what 1 am after.” «The ambiguity is this: In the case of the Marshal, it says” be. shall report the total amount of all other fees and emoiuments eaned or received by bim.” “«That clause relates to the Marshal; show us the ambiguity in the clause relating to the Register.” e ““'The ambiguity is in Dot stating ¢in all cases ‘whatever,’ buv it says ‘in the above cases.” . +:What arv the above asest"” « Cases of voluntary and involuntary bank- ruptey that were presented during the year, in which he makes his fees.” « Is that the Janguage of the lawi™ “l'do not kmow that I can make it any plainer.” Mr. Culberson~—Under a2 proper construction of thut law, wonld the Register be required to report the fees he received fora different year?” +1do oot think he would be required at all. 1 do not know of any ood reason why be should report such fees. There is no maxinum limis,” “Do you know any good reason why he should not?”’ **Ido not; no, sir. I wish to say, now, that Iamstill in doubt about the construction of that law. Iam trying to state why I thought there was ambiguity in it.” The Chairman—Does the ambiguity arise on the fave of the law itself, or because there had already been two constructions given? 1 never have analyzed the source of my judgrment about that.” Col. Cooper—If you had any doubt about the construction of that law, why did not you tell 1t to the Grand Jury? It was simaply because I did not wish to throw any unnecessary obstacle in the way of investigation by the Grand Jury.” * I will ask you whether, during this exami- nation into’the affairs of these officers in baok- ruptey, &1l your questions to witnesses were not with the view of getting out everything in favor of the parties whose affairs were being exam- foed, and notline against them ¢? «No, sir. It is not true.”” * Did you not endeavor to draw out every- thing from the witnesses that were before the Grand Jury in favor of Mr. Hibbard?” «Iaid not.Y: . “ ‘I'iere was a short-hand reporter before the Grand Jury, was there oot “I think there was.” . Col. Cooper sent for the stenographer to get his potes oi.the testimony takeu before the Grand Jury, bot was informed by that official that be bad handed his notes over to the Dis- trict Attorney, and no longer haa access to e * m’l‘he witness further. testified that the Grana Jury resolved to Indict Mr. Hibbard for rerjury the day before the adjournment. He aid not state his opinion’ as'to the ambiguity in the law 10 the Grand Jury, becanse be dia uot desire to mive any opinion of the law that was not settled in his own mind. He thought there was ambienity in the law. The Grand Jury present- ed him a paper setting forth that they passed upon that point, and he prepared an fn- dictment, which he intended to present to the Grand Jurs. +For what time did that intention in your miud continue?” “1think till sometime in the after-part of the day (Friday) . on which the Grand Jury were discharged.” INTERVIEWS WITH JUDGE BLOD- GETT. “In what manuer did that intention in your mind become removed, or changed ¥ ‘Some time during the afternoon, I had an interview with Judge Blodgett, at his chamber.”” ‘*At your instance, or his?? ‘315 recollection is a fittle indistinct. I thiok I saw him twice; the first time was a very briet interview.” *Did you go in there of your own motion, or did he invite you in there?” *“My_recollection is very fndistinct, but 1 think'when I first went in 1 went in casually.”” “ When you went in casually, what did he say to you, and what did you say#” *The two conversations are a little blended in my recollectivn?” **So far 35 you an separate them, I wish you would give me thé first one now.” ‘At first, the question of the fudictment for perjury came up, precisely how 1 do not re- member. The Judge was in court all day, nnd about 3 o’clock in the afterncon I went to him and told him it would be impossible to get thess indictments ready, s0 as to have the jury return them by the orginary hour of adjonrnment. The Judge remarked that he would remian, and T asked bim if he couid stay till after supper. Hesaid, il necessary, he would stay in town all night, and not go home. 1 went in about 6or 7o'clock in the evening again .to Judge Blodgett’s room, and perbaps the question arose as to what the perjury was based upon. My recollection is more distinct as to the second in- terview; 1 had entirely forgotten the first, un- til my attention was called to it by Judge Blodgett about two weeks ago."” * % You went in there, as I understand, casual- m Yes, sir.” “ You did not go in there to get instructions from the Judee, did you?'’ ] donot remember. 1 had frequent con- versations with the Judge,” N ¢ Can you remember whether you went into Judge Blodgett’s room in_the aftérnoon of thut Friday for the purpose of eettiog his instruc- Yions or judgment of the law with reference to this perjury indictment against Mr. Hiobard?” ] do not remember whether I dia or not.” “ What is your best recollection?” <1 may have done 0. I know the question of the construction of the law came up; whether it was in the afternoon or cvening L do not now remember.” L ¢ When did you have the indictment for perjury drawn " It was not finished, I had it copied; it was drawn very hastily, aund interlined, and the copy was finished zbout 7 o’cl There were two indictmeunts; that for taking illezal fees ‘was among the Jast that was tinished. I am not uite sure whether Mr. Thomson or Mr. Boal rew that. Mr. Thomson drew the perjury in- dictment, and Mf. Balawin copied it. I bave not seer. it since that niznt. I never took it before the Grand Jury. I aid not stop Mr. Baldwin copyiug it; %e finished it after dark, 1t was late in the eveninz—between 6 und § oelock—when 1 went into the Grand-fury roous and offered to produccall the other “indict- ments, except the perjury indictment. for sig- nature. Imet Judee Blodoett, or a messenier from him, just I had come from the Grand-Jury room. Ido not now remember wheiher it was'a messenger or whether it was the Judee; ner- haps it wus Adam, the colorsd mas. T remem- ber some one said the Judge was lookiaz for me, and wanted Lo sec me; and I turned and weut right back. I have no: a definite recollection as to what he wabted to sce ine about, butif [ was to give" my impression it would be thut it was with refefence to this matter of the indfut- ment.” * ;. - “ Do you mesn to eay that if yon have sny impression, it is_tbat you did waot to see the Jngge before you_=ot word that he wazuted to see you?” “No, I dido’t say :that. I said if T had any impression about it, it-would be that the busi- ness svas respecting this indictment.” “We know what the husiness was. What I “want to know is if your desiré was with reference to seeing and consulting Judee Blodgett in the case?” -. «7 don’t rememberthat I had any desire.” wJIsp't it your best recollection’ that you @idu't have doy desirc on the sudject?; “T have no recollection ome Wiy or the other.” Sl Mr. Knott—*1f you badn’t been sent forto go to Judee Blodgett’s room, or hadn’t séen him, would you not bave taken’ the indictmént up and presénted it to the Grand Jury?” & think I would, sir.” Col. Cooper—You think you wounld? ¢« Undoubtedly I would, if I had it drawn. One of my men worked afinizh; nearly to get through with it.” ’ “You would then bave signed it and returncd into Court had it nut been for your interview with Judge Blodzett?” “T think 1 would.” “J want you to state just as definitely and particularly as you can what Judge Biodgett said to you.” “The question of the perjury indictment came ap, but how I don’t remember — " What did Judge Blodgett say, as mear as you can remember? " *1 remember distinctly of his askice what they had assiened perjury on.” ‘How did he koow that they assigned per- jury on auything? " “Why, it was common talk that they passed the indictment.”” > . Did you tell Judge Blodgett they had?” “ T thiuk very likely. I don’t remember.” bk j‘}'«.‘ll. wb:t dhid hl;!m’r:d “ He asked what they had assigned perjury for, or what tuey based it npon. 1 told bim it was upon the reports, and I bappened to bave a copy of them in my pocket and took it out and said, ¢ ,um isasumpleof the jurat to the re- ort. ¥ ¢ Couldn’t assign perjury on the report wien there was some matter in the rcport that was false,—did you tell him what that wasi” * [ don’t remember the exact langunage, but 1 gave him to understand thyt the chacze was ihat be bad made a false report of bis fees znd had sworn to them, aud that they assigned per- jury upon that oath.? ““What did Judve Blodgett say to thatl™ * My recollection is that I told him the report was made under the ninetcenth section of the amendment of the Bankruptey act, and I took up a volume that happened to Jie oo the table and turned to it, and at ooce the Judge—he recoguized the fact—said it didn’t seem right, or was wrong, or souething or otber, or that it wasn’t rizht to indict Mibbard for perjury for that reason, becausc the Register bad come to him when the law weat in forve for his construc- tion, and he had given the construction under which Hibbard bad acted und made bis report.’” ~[fow did he know what construction Hibbard had acted under? *I don’t know.” “He assumed that, did be?"” +] dou’t know anvthing about that.”” “ Didn"t he assume it it conversation” ] will tell you his statement. Lle said'that it was wrong, or improper, or wasn’t right, to charge Mr. Hibbard with perjury upon thar, because, when the law went into effect, or abons the time, or soon after, the Register came to him for a construction with reference to that Doint,—2s to the makiog of the report,— and that he pave the coustruction of the law under which the report of Hiobard was made.” Mr. Knott—Did he say that he bad told Hib- bard ae could lawfully suppress information as to any fees or emolaments received during the year of cases referred to him during that year# “*There was no particular reference to those respects at all. - In fact the whole conversation occupied but a little time.” Col. Coover—Did vou tell him whbat the Graud Jury had found with relerence to Hib- bard’s report,—what the facts were? “1 told him they bad found an {ndictment.’ “No, no,” said Col. Couper, impatiently, “did you tell him what facts bad been brought ;ae(nz:’s the Grand Jury with reference to his ees? ¢ 1 didn’t -tell nim anything aboas it. The whole conversatlon didn’t occupy over threz or five minutes.” - “ And gid Judge Blodzétt-um you that Judge Drummond sereed with ‘i Qe coa- struction of this law?’ e *That question perhaps—-* \ 1 want an answer, yes or no.® - ) “] can’t answer it yes or no.”" . “If you mads thas statement to the Grand AL S e (A b 2 i