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

THE CHICAGD TRIBUNE: SUNDAY, FEBRUARY N 2. 1875—SIXTEEN PAGES - TDrumwmond agreed with Jud; 5 vonstruction of the law, wasit Judge Blodeett had told you so?”? iz conversatl il ation— .? said Col. Cooper, more impa- wunt au answer to that question.” er told the Grand Jury auything that ’t true.” Then, il you @id tell the Grand Jury that Judze Drummond and Judge Blodeett agreed 11t Lhis coustruction, then it was true that Judge Blodgett so told vou?” ., 11 I did tell the Grand Jury that judge Blod- gett did tell e, he did tell me.” “Then, if vou told this to the Grand Jury, Judge Blodgett had so told it to you?”’ “Yes, sir.” Mr. Enott—‘Now, what did you tell the Grand Jury?? *Just exactly what my lanzuage was, I don’t remember. After having had the interview with Judge Blodeett, I went straizht to the Grand Juryfroom, snd told them Iliad heard direct from Judge Blodgett that the construc- tion pf the law under which Hibbard had acted in making those reports which they had allered to be false was given to the Register by the Judgze himself on an express application of the Register for that purpose; and that if that was the case, and Mr. Hibbard bad acted upon it, there certainlv wasn’t ground for an indictment for the crime of perjury. That is what I told the jury; and that Judge Blodgett had request- ed me, if the jury had any doubt on the sub- ject, or any question of the law, to ask the jury to present themselves in open court and he would instruct them from the bench. And I requested the jury to gointo court and get instructions from the Judge. I requested it on my own behalf and on others,— was quite solicitous that they should doso. I £aw at once that there was some feeling on the part of certain jurors, and some of them stated that they didu’t want to g2.” Mr. Knott—The question is, in what yon told the jury, did you say that Judge Blodgett had told Jou Judge Drummond concurred in bis re- ort “+ If you will excuse me, I desire to take itin theé order in which it came.” « State simply the nature of thereport, please, -and not your inferences.’ “Yes sir. The Grand Jury saia that_they were willing to take my statement of Judge Blodgett’s construction of the Jaw, and the fact 1hat he had so construed it as coming from the Judge—take itas il he bad told it to them ju open court. And then some question arose gbout the judictment. They still desired to have it prescnted. 1 stated to them that I had beer adviced by Judge Blodgett,—having asied Lim-this question: ‘Suppose the jury shall in- sist, after being instructed by the Court, upon having the indictment and baving it presented.” — safd to them that Judge Blodgett told me in that case it would be iny official duty to with- hold the indicument.” - Col. Cooper—* Did he so tell you?” “Yes, sir. I desire 1o beso understood. The only message he sent to the jury was for them 1o come into court, if they had the slightest question about_the law or the facts—if they were dissatisfied at all—to come into court and he would instruct them from the bench.” “Did he assome it was right to instruct them as to the facts.” “Xo, sir, I don’t think he did. It was the fact of his baving given the coustruction of the law that I referred to. Knowing the temper of e jury, and the carnestoess with which they hud investigated this matter, I bad an appre- bension that, notwithstauding, they would insist on the indictment, and I presented that alterna- tive to the Judzei and the Judge replied that in that case, it would be my duty to withhold 1be indictment. I told the jury that atter they had deciined 1o go into court; they accepted my statement s coming from the Court. 1 told pat ry the copyersation 1 had, and Mr. Willing arose aud s2id to me: ‘Unaer all the circumstances, if the jury desire to have that 4ndictment presented, would vou feel it to be your official duty towitbhold it I said I would,” Mr. Knott—Tnot still doesn’t apswer the question 1 asked you, and thut is, whether you 10id the_jury that Judge Blodzett had said that Judee Drummona concurred with bim in the constraction of the Jaw. “Yes. In the conversation somewhere Judge Blodgett remarked that he bad consulted, or conferred, with Judse Drummond, and he aerecd with it. He dido’lstate on what voints. or how much of it and to this day I don’t know wherein the agreement was. C - Mr. Gondy—Did yon state that to the jury? 7 gtated to the jury thatJudewe Blodgett ‘bad remarked that be had consulted with Judge Drummond, and he had concurred with him.” Mr. Culbertson—1n what? ) +1 don’tremember where it camein in thecon- versation, but I stated what it appeared to me that it was. This talkk covered -considerable ground in the Grand Jury room, but’ that is the fubstance of the whole. I didn’t on my own responsibility propost to withhold'the jo- dictment, but, having received thie jnstructions that I did, and looking at the whole case, I an- swered alr. Willing’s question ‘yes.’” 7 Mr. Enott—* Did the Judze tell 1}‘0\1 what conétruction of the law be nad giveni” - « T understood it to be thié constraction that he was obliged to report the fees received in cases presented during the year in which ‘the report was made.” . .+ 2 “Did you tell. the Grand Jury that that was the consiruction the Judge had given?” ] think I.dfd in effect. I souzht to do 50.” “ When did you tell them? «.Probably balf or three-quarters of an honr pefore they were discharged. The indictments were all prepared. [ think I never signed the indictment for perjury, but it was drawn.” - - s (Vhen you went to Judze Blodgett’s room fn the afternoon was the subject of this indict- mient against Hibbard discussed between you?*? ¢ { think it was talked of incidentally, but 1 don’t now remember what was said—the two interviews were 50 blended.” + He expressed his opinion then as to the ‘proper construction of the law B “T don’t remember whether it was in the af- ternoon or evening.” * You didn’t inform the Grand Jury that you had received instructions mot to present the indi::lm:nl until they met at 7:30 in the even- ing ¢ * My impression is I had but one talk with the Grand Jury on that. subject after I spoke with the Judze.” Mr. Lapbam—At that timehad the indictment ‘been completed? ‘1 think it was completed about the_time that [ turned on my heel to go up to Judge Blodeett’s room. They were all completed with- ni balf 2n hour of cach other. They hadn’t been waiting for this indictment alone.” The day be- fore adjournment they passed on some four or five rather difficult questions, and had no further business except 1o wait for the prepara- tion of this indictment. There was a question agaiost & National Bank, a question or two in the bapkruptcy indictment for taking illegal fecs. and this indictment for perjury.” 4 Col. Cooper said he had some further ques- tions toack, but there were a couple of papers Le desired to obtain before proceeding, and he accordingly sugeested an adjournment. Mr. Kootr said the other side could go on. Mr. Goudy announced that for the present they had no questions to ask. Col. Cooper requested Judge Bangs to bring with him after the recess the minutes and short- band reporters’ notes of the Grand Jury's pro- ceedings, together with the perjury indictment. Judge Bangs said he would look for them, and bring them in case he found them. A recess was then taken until o'clock. THE PERJURY INDICTMENT. At the commencement of the afternoon ses- sion, = Judge Trumbull made application on the part of Juare Blodgett to sce the aflidavits thathad ‘been filed, in order that his\counse! might be better prepared to meet what might come out in the testimony. = Col. Cooper said the affidavits were prepared simply for the guidance of the Hon. Carter H. Harrison, and bad served their purpose. They could zuide nobody in this investigation. The Chairman said they were never presented to Congress at all; but, just before leaving, be asked Mr. Harrison if he had any papers that would guide the Committee, and Mr. Harrison handed him these papers. ‘They intended to bhave the utmost fairnessin this thing; they would Jook over the papers, and if there wes any propriety in it, both sides would be ellowed access to them. Mr. Lapham said he did not see any use which could be made of them, unless some afffant should give testimpny differing from the version coptained in bis affidavit. Mr. Trumbull—It might apprise us in advance of the nature of the testimony. o Col. Cooper wished to know if Mr. Trumbull would consider it exactly fair, when he bad pre- pared a case to take into court with the volun- tary affidavits of witnesses, for the counsel on the other side to ask him to turn over his private ‘Ppapers to them. Py Mr. Trumbull said he did not regard these papers in_that light.- Alr. Harrison, who was charged with this matter, bad certain papers, and he supposed bad passed them over to the Committee in an-official way. The{-huitman—Not atall, sir. Mr. Trumbuil—We shall be entirely satisfied with any disposition the Committee makes of ‘this application. . The examination of Judge Baugs, the District irorney, was then proceeded with. He said he had looked for the notes of the shorthand re- ‘porter before the Grand Juzs, but could not find ein. P The Chairman—Did you make a search for the araft of the indictment = ) . Judee Bangs—No, sir; T will send and get it, ifit wus preserved. Ido not know whether it "}f_'mis;arved. he Chairman—The like to 08 that Committee would Judee Bangs went on to testify that the Grand Jury were occupicd quite a number of daysin inquinng into the conduct of bamk- ruptey officials. One indictment asatost Mr. Hibbard chareed him with taking filegal fees in quite a number of cases; possibly twenty, ihey had all his fee-books, and ran through them geuerally 1n witness’ presence. ‘The indict~ ment covered only three cases, amounting to £18.50. Thereason was that it was necessary to set them out with some particalarity, and make each the basis of a count, and perhape the want of time prevented there being more put in. Those that were the most susceptible of proof, and leading cases of irregularity in chargivg fees, were sclected, as he understood. The Grand Jury found ' irregular fees in several other cases that were not included in the indict- ment. He did not remember saying anything to the Grand Jary about the number of cases included in the indictment. There was 8 ques- tion in his office when the indictments were being drawn whether they should have time to put them all in, and his dircction was Lo seleet the prominent and salient ones and have them carefully set out in the indictment. Mr. Trambuil—We do not see what possible connection Judge Blodgett can have ‘with this. The indictment was lound und returned into court. He had nothing to do with it ju the world. e Mr. Culperson—I guess the object is to show a general favoritism of Hibbard. B Judge Bangs further said that, during the ses- sion of the Grand Jury, he went to Mr. Hibbard for his books. He did not remember baving in- terviews with him; be was about the building and witness saw him every day. He might have told Mr. Hibbard when this matter was taken up by the Grand Jury, and he mizht not. It was possible that he talked to the District Judge about ,it, but_only incidentally, if at all. He neither avoided Mr. Hibbard nor sought him; be treated him just as uc had before. When be went for the books, Mr. Hibbard barded him one of the forms of geueral order of reterence. There had beéu some question raised inthe examinationbefore tife Grand Jury,=hoy, he did not know. Witness did not call for the form. Mr. Hiboard made no explanation of what use was to be made of it, only that that was the form showing the fact, ‘and the service, whatever it was. Upon Judge Blodgett asking him what thercbarge awainst Mr. Hibbard was based upon, hetold him upon Hibbard's report of fees at the end of the fiscal year, aud took & copy of it outof his pocket-aud handed it to the Judee, stating tliat that was allezed to be false, and the oath to that was the thiag upon which they assiemed perjury. He did not ask Judge Blodgett to go vefore the Grand Jury and give his evidence as to having given Mr. Hibbard the construction of the law upon which he acted. It was immediately at the close of -the business, and he was very much hurried.” This conversation -arose almost im- mediately before the jury went into court. Prior to ihis time he had not known that Mr. Hibbard claimed 1hat Judge Blodgett had given him this construction, but quite the contrary. His uonderstanding was that Mr. Hibbard had not applied to Judge Biodgett. h ‘fhe Chairman—How did that conclusion’ arise? Co Judge Bangs—I think it arose from some fes- timony of Mr. Bradley, the Clerk. There was an impression that he possibly had, bat 1 think it was Mr. Bradley’s testimony that settled my mind that he had not. My recollection of Mr. Bradley’s testimony is that he had consulted Mr. Bradley; and Mr. Bradley did mot agree with him. That was Mr. Bradley’s testimony as I remember. The jury made nu question as to the fact when I reported to themn that Judge Blodeett had given that construction. Ithought it enunently proper they should do so. ) In answer to 3r. Lapham, witness said there was no claim or sugeestion maae by the jury that upon that construction the returns were not_correct, and that Mr. Hibbard would still be liable for perjury. He mever heard that point raised until he was talking iwith Mr. Cooper, after the Grand Jury had adjonrnea. T answer to Col. Cooper, witness said he paid litile attention to the Bar Association pamphiet. A copy of_the perjury indictment was 'shaown him by the Chairman, and he identified it as in the handwriting of his assistant, Mr. Baldwin. ‘The memorialists offered a copy of the indict- ment in evidence. Stripped of “its verbiage, it was as tollows: Y July 31, 1876, Homer N. Tibbard, being a Regis- ter in Bankruptey, duly appointed and quahfed under the jaws of the Unitea States, then and there acting as Register, did come before E. A. Drum- mond, 8 Commissioner of the Circnit Court, and then ' and there.produced and exhibited a certain annual report. deposition, and declaration, in hiz, the said ibbard's, writing, and subscribed Ly him as Registér, for the year ending June 30, 187G, to the Clerk of the District Coart of the United States for this district, of the total amount of fecs, charges, coste, snd_emoluments of every sort received or earned by him as Register during eaid year in vol- untary cases in buakroptcy coming before bim dur- jug said year; and of the towal amount of fees, charges, costs, and emoluments of every sort re- ceived or earned by nim as Regicter during said year in involuntary cases in bankruptcy coming be- fore him a8 Regisicr, during eaid yesr: which re- port, eic., was then and there fn the tabnlar form rescribed by the Justices of the Supreme Conrt. 'hat said H. N. Hibbard, on said 31st day of July, before eald_Drummond, Commissioner, was sworn and took his oath touching the trath of the matters concerned 1n 8aid report, et Drom- mond having power and _suthority dminister the oath; that eaid Hibbard, being so sworn, then 2nd there anlawfully, falsely, corruptly, willfully, hnowingly, and maliclonsly deposed and swore, among other things, that the total amount of fees, etc., of evers sort. received or earned by bim 28 Rerister in voluntary cases during said year was $7,943.40, and that the total amoant of fees, etc., in__involuntary cmses was $1,744.47, as in said report more fully appeared; whereas, in truth and in fact, the said Hibbard then and there well knew said sum of $7,943.40 ‘was not the total amount of fees, etc., received or earned by him as Register during smd vear m vol- motary cases in pankruptcy coming oefore him; bat was much more than $7,1438.40, and was, to-wit: £25,000. Whereas, in truth and in fact, as said Hiboard then and tbere well know, the total amount of fees received or earned by him as Regis- ter during said vear in involuntary cases in bank- ruptcy commg before bim a4 Register in said year was not $1,744.47, bot was much more, to-wit: $10,000. So the jurors, upon_ their oath, do say that said Homer N. Hibbard, July 31, 1876, com- mitted willfal and corrupt perjury. ‘The second ceunt 18 precively the same except as to the year, which is 1877, and the amounts, which in voltntary cases were S7,417.65, and in invol- untary cases $1.807.85; whereas, in truth and fact, those amounts should have been $25,000 and $10,000, respectively. On cross-examioation by Mr. Goudy, witness said bie thought Mr. Cooper gave Ins judement to the Grauda Jury as to whether the fees were legal or illezal. ‘The testimony was of a general character on that pomt. Judge Blodgett did state to wituess that the finding of an indict- ment against Mr. Hibbard for paying would be an outrage; his language was rather strong. He also said Judge Drummond concurred with him. It was in that connection that that statement was made. He did not know who suggested callicer Mr. Cooper before the Grand Jury. He hr.-ll;,_cvcd ivwas a surprise to Mr. Cooper him- self. JUDGE DRUMMOND,. Col. Cooper calied Juage Drummond, and when he took the witness-chair everybody pressed forward with re-awakeved interest to catch ‘every word hehad toeay.-The Judge was sworn by Mr. Kuott, Chairman of the Com- mittee, and his-testimony was as follows: Col. Cooper—Judge Drammond, it has be- come necessary, in order to have the record show the fact.'to call and ask you whether, during or prior to the session of the United States Grand Jury, you had given consideration to the proper construction of that portion of the ninth clause of the 19th section of the act of Congress, approved June 23, 1574, amendatory of the Bankrupt act, and whether you had given any coustruction. I will giva you the law. And Col. Cooper placed before the Judge a copy of the Revised Statutes, open at the proper place. «If there is no objection,” said Judge Drum- mond, “I will state: the cireumstances under which my.attention was called to the law. That. is:all that JI. -kuow .upon the ‘sub- ject {matter of inquiry- .so far as I "understand - §t. It was . during : .the sessions 9f the Grand Jury—ihe precise day I do not recollect—thit I was i Judre Blodgett's, room, ingd he stated 1o me—in what words I do not recollect—that the Grand Jury dpsired, or intended, to indice Mr. Hibbard) Thé Redister in Bankruptey, for perjury; apd: ‘dsked him for what reason, >or on_hat’ grounl. -And he stated to me if there:"had beed’ gny fault com- mitied, or, any-error, it was on his part; thiat he i had given s certain construétion to the’amend- ment of 1874 to the Bankruptey- law, and he went on to state the facts nnd‘er n- then which the Grand -'Jufy :desired, tended, . to indice Mr. "Hibbard, stating, they” . belieyed | Aty . fi e that had made falsc fcturn ot the, fees” thal ' receivea during a certalny yéar, ahd the question arose in his mnd ias 1o whatiwas the true ‘e0n:1 struction of this clause of the amendment, ‘and that Mr. Hibbard had cousulted him as to what was the true constraction-of the law, and he nad stated to Mr. Hibbard that under his view g as 1 understood him, to ‘thing more than hisfees arising under 32“&“;3 ’fl.mb hzm come before him duriog that year,—the language of thelaw is, casescoming hefore him,’—and that it was not necessary for ‘him to returnhis feesin those cases that had been commenced, and had come before him during {he previous year. Judge Blodgett thea called my attention to thelaw, and stated some of the reasons why he had reached the conclusion and given the construction which be had _given to Sr. Hubbard. 1 do not think that Judge Blod- gett asked what was my own construction of %he law, and I am quite sure that I did not state what my construction of the law was. 1 stated to him, when he mentioned the various reasons which had induced him to arrive at the conclu- sion mentioned, that there was a good deal of force in what he eaid, but I did Dot them, or a8t sany time during the conversation, statc to him what my own construction of the law was. The case, as pre- sented to me, presented only, or was only in, this aspect: that the Grand Jury had found, or believed, that Mr. Hibbard had not made - true retarns of fees which he bad received, because he bad not included the fees which he had re- ceived in cases coming before him the previous year. There was no question made, and oo inti- mation in any form whateyer, that he had not made true returns under the construction which Judge Blodgett had fiven to the law; and I then said that if Mr. Hibbard was to be indicted for making bis returns in conformity with the instructions which had been given by the Judge, —those returns, as thus stated, belng true,. t thought it would be a great wrong to Mr. Hib- bard. 1dia pot then, or at any time, give my own construction of the law, and 1 did not 8o state to Judge Blodgett—did not state what my construction of the law was. I did not state whether I concurred with him in the construc- tion of the Iaw, but I stated that £ concurred with him that under the facts as they were told to me it would be s great wrong for Mr. Hibbard to be indicted.” Mr. Kuott—Suppose, Judge, that you had been informed that the Grand Jury had conclud- ed Mr. Hibbard should be indicted tor violatjon of the law, even sssuming it to be asJudge Blodgett construed it, that is to say, if they ar- rived at the conclusion that he had failed to report all the fees and emoluments recelved and earned by him iu cages coming before him within the year,—would you then have suid it would be an outrage on him to indict him!” s Certaiply not.” . 7o . : #Twill ask you to examine that inaictment and sce what the case is.” ¢ But I wish to state that everything that was said by Judge Blodgett during this conversation was entirely inconsistent with the idea that the returns of Mr. Hibbard were untrue under Judeo Blodgett’s coustruction of the law.” - L upderstand that,” said Mr. Knott. Judge Drummond looked over the perjury indictment, remarking, as he did so, that it was 2 very lone one, and Mr. Knott told him to take his time to look overit. “Well,” said he, atter having studied it a little, ¢ 1 notice here the lanzuage of the indict- ment is, that he deposed—swore—* that the to- tal amonnt of fees, charges, costs, and emolu- ments of every sort received and carned by him, the said Homer N. Hibbard, as Register “afore- said, during said year ending the 30th of June, in the year ot our Lord 1878, in voluntary cases in bankruptey coming before bim, the said Homer N. }!libburd, us Register.” So in relation to the involuntary cases,—in cases comibg be- fore him durivg that year. The averment of denial is in the same phraseology.” En Mr. Knott—The accusation, then, is, Judge, that he did not make a true return of the fees and emoluments received and earned by him in cases that bad come before Lim during the year?” “Yes, I so understand.” . “That coinvides exactly with the construction that Judre Blodwett said he gavet” “Thav was one of the reasons, as I under- stood from Judge Blodgett, why he gave this construction to the law; cases coming before himn —not all cases keard by him, but cases coming be- Jore him, Judge Blodgett, as I understand, ‘construed that to mean the cases that had been referred to him (Hibbard), aud that had first come before him during that year. That is what I understood was the construction that they gave to the law.” “Tunderstand the count just resd seems to be drawn upon that bypothesis?” “I understand £0.” “And that was not the case, as you under- stand 1t, that was presented to Judge Blodgett; that is to say, if I understand you correctly, the Judge informed you that there was talk of in- dicting Mr. Hibbard for failing to returo, say in 1876, the fecs and emoluments that bad come into his hunds in cases during that vear which had been instituted or come before him iu pre- vious years?? ? ¢ I didn’t underatand that that auestion was raised, sir, at all. At any rate, it was not raised in my presence. I understood from Judge Bloggets that the indictment was based on this hypothesis; that Mr. Hibbara had made a return of nis fees in all cases that had come before hun curing the year,—that is, that hud been com- menced und presented to him during the yeur,— but that he bad not made return—that was the inference—of the fecs in cases that had come before him the preceding year.” ‘;, Well, that was precisely what I'was getting at. Yes, and I think it perhaps nothing but fair to state that Judge Blodgett, duripz this ¢on- versation, said to me that he baa told Judge Bangs to _inform the Grand Jury of what his construction of the law had been, and that he had given that construction to Mr. Hibbard, and bad said to Judge Bangs that, if the jury desired, they might come into court and he would so instruct them.” Col. Cooper—Do you remember about what timeit was you had this interview with Judge Blodgett—what time with reference to the final adjournment of the Grand Jury? “Tcannot. It must have been the close of the meeting of the Grand Jury.” s+t was before the indictment was returned, probably i ©Ob, it must have been. However, that isa mere inference.” “Did you look over the law yourself " «Idid. Ithink it was the first time that my attention was ¢alled to this part of the law,” Col. Cooper—That is all. Judge Drummond said he would look over the other counts if it was so desired, but Mr. Knott said it was unnecessary. Mr. Goudy entered upon the cross-examina- tion by Asking Judge Drummond what time this interview was beld with Juage Blodeett, and the reply was that it was immediately after noon, he tnought. It migbt have beea men- tioned at lunch. In fact, be might say it was mentioned to him, perbaps, before this inter- view that it was theintention, asheunderstood it, perhaps from Judge Blodeett, but he was not Certain from whom, that the Grand Jury intend- ed_toindict Mr. Hibbard. He koew the other indictment bad been found, and understood the jury was giving a general examination to Mr. Hibbard’s accounts and returas.’ **You examined this law,” sald Mr. Goudy, tipead it, heard Judge Blodgett’s reason, and then stated to him that there was great force in what he said?” “Yes, sir; I think I did so state,” “Did you examine it sufficiently to see that there was room for at least ziving it the con- struction which Judge Blodgett had given it?" * Well, sir, 1 may say thut there was a rood deal in_the peculiar phraseology of the law which I thought sustained that construction of it. ‘The words of the law were dwelt upon. In the first place, it will be observed, it says: *The pumber of voluntary cases in bankruptcy com- ing vefore him during said.year’: then ¢the number of compulsory cases in bankruptey co ing before him,’ in the sume way,—the lanzua being preciscly similar. My attention was called to the difference of language used when speak- ing of the Registerland when speaking of the Clerk or Marshal.” “JIsitnota fact that you did mot trouble yourself to reachadefinite conclusfon asto what the true construction was as between the two views of it, for the reason that it was Immaterial which view was taken, if you thought Mr. Hib- bard ought not to be indicted on the factsshown you at the time?" I gaia I thought that, even if Judze Blod- get's view was erroncous, L didn’t think Mr. Hibbard ought to’ be fndicted under the facts stated to me."” Mr. Knott—Do you mean to be understood as saying that 3 man should be indicted in no case for acting in conformity to an erroneous con- sideration of the law even comiug from z Judge? ‘ Well, sir, I don’t say that. I do say this: ‘hat, if there is a question as to the ‘returus which an ofticer shall make, and he is instructed by the judicial otficer to whom he is immediately amenable what is a proper coustruction ot the law as to those returns, and be carries 1t out in 2ood, good faith bimself, having no wrong pur- pose, I should ‘think it was very hard tiat he should be indicted.” Mr. Goudy—On the hypothesis that the Grand Jury had decided to fndict Mr. Hibbard, for not including all the fyes received by him during the flscal - yedr for which the report was . inade, whether in cases coming before him that year or .In previous years, aud had deeided to indict him {or not making'a true report of. fees in all cases _coming before. him dnring that year,—is tuit form oL allx.cz indictmenr that -you have read a oper, Indietment to i ngv‘%ilhryt' gt curry ont the vote of the B, it was not neeessary, ,Kiiow whethier that is 8 | j.(d f an led upou,to answer—a uestion of “law.' “As” I understand the portion lfi:k%m meut I bave read, it is an fadictment ifi3mad . under this” partizalar “law, following 1tS phraseolGer as to- cises cotlng before him. 1 have not read the whole indictment, which of course raises the question as to what is the true coustruction of the law, namely, as to what it means when it speaks of, cases coming before him.” 3 Mr. Kuott—If the fndictment had been re- turned into court, supposing both counts to be the same, and_the Government Attorney held the proof of his failure to make u true return of the fees in cases comiug before bim during the year so stated——2 s *Yes, " interrupted Judge Drummond; ‘but would it not come up as o question upon the trial what were the cases that came before l};fl duriog the year as to_which bhe made returns! What . Gid _that language of the stamate mean? toink n%‘,‘: would be the very question in the case. tl language of thie statute clearly meant, by cases coming before bii, all cases which had not only been commenced that_year but which had been commenced in_ previous years, aud as to which he had received anything whatever, why then, of course, he, as I underatand it, had not made a true return,” Mr. Lapham observed that the criminal plea followed the language of . the statute, and Judge Drummond asseated. % i Mr. Goudy—* 1 wish to ask you if you didn’t got your knowledge of the intention to :udu.;E Mr. Hibbard through the public newspapers? “ Most probably, for I thiok the newspapers were very full of eversthing that occurre be- fore the Grand Jury at that time.” [Laughter.] “Was that 2 matter of consultation between Judge Blodzett and yourself 1’ “T am not sure that it was, except in the way of accidental remark. I don’t think anything was ever said by way of adyice or cousuitation with bim prior to the time I have mentioned, but it is very likely that it may bave been men- tioned.” i “ And youlof course expressed your condem- nation on the question of publicnblonl" “Of course, The newspapers seemed to know everything that wap_going on before the Grand Jury, [[ thought. [Laushter.] 1judged 80 from the reports.” . Mr. Lupham—The question is, Whether you spoke in disapproval of the publication in that interview with Judge Blodgett? ‘I think 1|did, sir. I certainly and most em- phatically didgtisapprove of it."” Mr. Goudy-Did you not, express disapproval to Judre Blofigett at the protracted sessions of that Graud Jpry? “Ithink IMdid. I think I repestedly asked him how it Whs the Grand Jury was 60 long in session, and if there was any nceeasity for it.” *‘Do you rdcollect the provisions of the act of Congress authorizing a Judge to discharge s 3 £ collect the sectton?” ‘There has been a law of Conaress cars giving the Court full dis- ower as to summoning Grand 0 the time that they shall be in scssion, Of fourse, it is judicial discretion.” Mr. Goudy|asked the Judge to read: the law on that point, and the Judge readily turncd to cretionary Juries, or as -Secs. 811 and[810, Revised Statutes, and jread them. 'The fjrsti-named section relates to sumn- moning Grand Juries, and the last was au- thoritv. for [Judges of Circuit, District, and other Courts|to discharge their Grand Juries “whenever thev deem the continuance of the sessions of sych juries unnecessary.” “Did you| express any opinion to Judge Blodgett,” No asked, *in your couversation with him as to what would be the duty of the District-Attorney in regard to withbolding the. jndictment irj the event, that the Grand Jury persisted in Haviog a return,' under the circum- stances whicl re presented to you?”? 5 “I doun’t thinfk that I did, sir.” Col. Coopdr—Iu_order that the record may show clearly, as I understand, Judge Drum- mond, this ifjdictment is framed under the stat- ute,—or ratller under the construction of the statute \vhicllJudgo Blodgett gave fu your pres- cnce that afternoon: thatis to say, it charges bim with not|having returned all tue fees, costs, and emoluu(’en:u of every sort earned or re- ceived during the year in” cases coming before bun durine the year?” = ! *1 didv’t| state . that this “indictment was framed undct the constructiongiven the'statute by Judge Blpdeett, butl-safid it was framed under tue layjeuage of the statute.” ““So that if| Mr. Hibbard baa not returned all the fees received during the year in cases-com- meuced durige the year, the indictment would be good ¢ 7 i . I think s cause I undes read allezes bound to mal a true retur: cases coming “As I unf , sir, a5 far as 1 have read it; be- 'stand that the part which I have hat he did make return, and was e return. aud deiles that he made of his fees-and emoluments in before him duriog the year.” crstand, you gave consideration particularly {o this question in that interview with Judze| Blodgert: that an oflicer of his coprc’ bhad applied to him for o cou%;ructiun of -:the law, which Judee Blodgéut had given fo him, and that he in gooa faith | had complied with tuat law, and the Grand Jua‘wcrn'_nhout to_indict him for hovine violatdd the Iniv, whéreas he had com- plicd with thd construction that Juage Blodgett had given to him. Is no that the manner in which the thipg was put to you?" A “1 would |apswer that in a little different torm. I understood that Mr. Hibbard had ‘made recurns pt all fees that had beea received or earucd by him in cases which had been commenced during the year; that Judge Blodgett had instructed him that that was and what the law meant, that was all u%&ha was required to return; and that be had Iy resurned what bis fees and emoluments were during that time. That is what 1 understpod.” Alr. Knott—Thé questfon whether he had or had not made fthat true return was a_question gpplying to the peculiar yrovince of the Grand ury. e T ‘*That was absumed in the conversation with him,—that he {had made true returns. It was not presented to me in any. other aspect. The other alternative dido’t enter into the conversa- tion at all, formed no element or part in it.”” Mr. Lapham!—Under this particular indict- ment which has, been presented, framed in the language of the statute, Mr. ibbrd, upon an adverse construction of thestatute to that given by Judge Blodeete, could bave been convicted for omicting the fees recéived in cases com- wenced i}u priox; years if be received them during the ar | That might depend somewhat on the motive or intent of the partics. Perjurv consists in gwearing falsely to a fact, corruntly. I agree with this: that, if the construction Judge Blodzett gave was erroncous, then the proof of fees which hud been received in cases that had come before him in previous years would have shown that his return was untrue.” ¢ And would have been admissible?? “ And would have been admissible. But the question, of course, would have come up whether he committed perjury or not, whether e swore corruptly or not.” Mr._Culberson—And then his instroctions from Judge Blodzett would bave relieved him? “Do you want my opinion on that?? Mr. Culberson—Yes, sir. ¢ I have no hesitation in saying that I think it ought to bave done s0.”" ¥ ¥ Mr. Culberson—So do I. = “Of course,” added Judze Drummond, “ol- ways supposing Mr. Hibbard acted in good faith.” Mr. Lapham referred to a case in which a sol ?lcr was charzed with having committed per- jury in making a false afildavit, and- it wus shown that he made it upon the advice of coun- sel; whereupon be was acouitted. : m.]udge Drummend said that he had heard of at. Col. Cooper—I don’t underssand that you con- “sidered the Jaw very particularly with Judge Blodgett with reference to the purpose in en- acting the law—in getting these reports to be sent to the Attorney-General? ‘“That wasu’t caljed to myattention at all.” This coucluded Judge Drummond’s examina- tion, and he resumed bis seat i the corner of the room near Judgre Blodgett ind Judge Bungs. BANGS ONCE MORE. Judge Bangs was recalled, and, in reply to Mr. Goudy, stated that he had handed copies of Tibbard's reports for 1576 aud 1877, as the basis, to Mr. Thomson, requesting him to draw the; indictment. As he recollected, the sssignment of perjury was that the Register had not reported all the, fees Le had received in Dbankruptecy cases which had - come before him for the year for ‘which the report was made. Witness was so employed that he did not read the indictment, proposing to do =0, however, before he handed it to the jury: but in the meantime he bad the inter- view with Judwé Blodgett. The indictment was mever seen by the jury, snd bad uever been read by him. .. Judge Blodgett— d Vas it ever seen by me? , “Never seen by you. During the interview with Judge Blodgeft Mr. Baldwin was finishing a copy, Mr. Thouison’s dratt-having been iuter- linca by him and plotted.”” 1n auswer to Mr. Cooper, witness said he told Mr. Thomsou that the jurs had resolved to fn- dict Hibbard for baving willfully sworn falsely as 1o these aneual returns. ‘The year 1875 was barred by the statute ot Jimitatious. .. -, 46To Mr. Goudy Le said his understandinz was that tibbard had jeft .out. & Jarze amount of {ees that he had received in cases.connneuced prior to’ the “year for which the report was made, aud that therein.copsisted the faisity of e report. It-yvas op this :ground, he under- stood, that the Grand Jury bad voted to 1ndict him, évccnusc. Quring-the discussion, the ques- tion of: the good faith of Hibbard’s construction came up. Mr. "Cooper called the attention of witness to the Bar Cowmittee’s pampblet, asking if the jury’s attenilon was called to the summnrj of the feé.!, shoiwn by Hibbard's fee-boolks, rectived by him for the three ."f‘“ffl cnding June 89, 157, Junc 80, 1576, and Jum:. g? 1877, in all cases referred to him in those yeu! 5 and not includine fees for proofs of "mmfiu(z';_ far taking depositions,” and the {ollmyhll;,. & ular statement, showing the fees and diserepan cies: Rerister's fces reccived for cases in bank- ruptey from July 1, 1874, to June 30, Amount reported by Reeister. Understated.... Fecs received for 1870.. ‘Amount reported by Register.. Undentated....... Fees received for1877 .. Amount reported by Register. Understated o..... Amount understated 1875 ‘Amount anderetated 1876.. ‘Amount understated 1877 ;. proni .510 826 Witness said very likely it was sworn that the report was correct, but_be had now no recollec- tion about it. He could state generally that the only question that came to his mind was wheth- er Mr. Hibbard was oblized to report fees in cases commenced before the year in which the report was made, and it seewed to be the idea that Hibbard had no business to construe the 1aw as he did; and that a. report made under that construction, leaving out fees in other cases, was a false report. . In answer to Mr. Culberson, witness sald the clerk of the Grand Jury did Bot, to his recol- Jection, make out a memoranlum of the facts upon which the bill was to be drawn and present it to him, The evidence was taken by & stenographer. The leadiog ides all through the examination was respecting the two constructions. : Mr. Culbcrson—We understand that. Alr. Knott—Your custom is to keep the steno- graphic reports taken before the Grand Jury? Yes; L have quite a number in the vault, and I am utterly at a loss to account for the absence of this one.” Mr. Knott—Have another search made. « Possibly, it may have been taken by mistake to the ofiice of Lawrence & Campbell, who are counsel in the Custom-House cases. Dlltry to find them.” Mr. Knott—We will be obliged to will. Total... you if you S. W. BURNHAM. Mr. Cooper then asked if E..D. Stiles or Mr. le was in the room., They were not. - o % “These are the only witnesses {hat have been subpeenaed for to-day,” said Col. _‘Cnnqry, and e suggested an ddjournment. ;" - = It appeared, bowever, thatMr. s.;W. Burn- ham, the stedographer referred ‘to’ by Judge Bungs, was in theroom, so he ivas.put on the stand. e 7 He remembered that Judze Trumbull*was in the Grand Jury room. but not what lie swore to. e would have recollected moreif he hadn’t taken notes. - He never wrote out the testimouoy iu refercoce to the bankruptey matters. The stiort- hand notes were turned over to the District At~ torney. That he remembered. ; Mr. Knott stated that, at the suggestion of ihe memorialists and the counsel for -Judge Blodeett, the Comumittec had decided to issuc twenty-ive tickets to each side, to te distributed by thém to whomsocver they might select. This would be attended to before Monday morning, and was resorted to simply because of the great incouvenignee and aunoyance that resulted from the crowd- blocking uo the doorway und inter- fering with the infress and cgress of the officers, the counsel: reporters, and Committee. .° The Committee, at , adjourncd until balf- tast 0 Monday morpning o 9 PRISON TORTURES. Xnvostigation of the Cruelties Practiced on Convicts In the Minnesota State Prison— Beaten, Starved, Locked in Dungeons, and Thelr Backs Blistered with Croton Oil. Special Dispatch to The Tribune, Sr. PAUL, Minu, Feb. 1.—The State Prison investigation opened to-day. Ex-Guard Haone- gon testified that be knew of Patrick Coffey being ill-treated, fed on bread aud water, locked in a dungeon, aod blistered on the back with croton oil. Coffey was under his charge, Did not know that he was insubordinate, and the witness had the best chance of knowing. Knew of Coffey being denied food from Thurs- day. eveuing to Sunday evening., He thought be had no water all that time. 5 . - -, .- Patrick Coffey testified that he .was -sent. to prison for a railroad robbery; served six years and four months, less what he was credited for good conduct; was well treated until A, J. Reed beeame Warden. He (Reed) began by re- ducing the allowance of water and food ; had seen men sent to the dungeon for.asking for bread. He (Reed) punished men for going to. him with grievances. Witness declined to give the names of prisoners who would confirm his evidence, saying they would suffer for it,—Reed would punish them. He was denied a priest when sick; was denied a physician, and was put io the dungeon when sick. Being balf blind, hedida’t do good work while puttying pails, and was put in the dungeon and kept there three days and nights in~ July without food; had water brought him twice a day by another prisoner. Another time he was in the dungeon seventeen days, and for food had only ome piece of bread a day. Deputy-Warden Hall Dbeat him witn bis fist and withkeys, and rubbed croton oil over his back. Hanpnegan was reealled. He said he saw Ball sm:;e Coffey. Illesaw no resistance on Coffey’s part. g Inspector Reed and ex-Inspector Cleveland testificd to making frequent examinations into prison affairs. Never heard serious complaint from any other prisoner but Cofley. ‘The examination is likely to be protracted, every detail of prison management being cov- er{:&el‘)!y legislative instructions to the Com- mittee. Es TENNESSEE BONDS. Apother Act in the Great Tennessee Bond Legal Drama., Spectal Dispatch to The Trivune. LouisviLiE, Ky., Feb. 1.—Another act in the great Tennessee bond legal droma is opened bere to-day. The holders of bonds of the State of Tennessee as represented by Mr. Audrews have filed a suit in the United States Circuit Court here azainst the Nashville & Northwest- ern Railroad for $1,422,000. The following is the title of the bill: *¢ United States Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Cirenit, District of Kentucky, in equity. Calvin Amory Stevens. in behalf of the holders of internal-improvement bonds of Teunessce issued to the Nashville & North- western Railroad Company vs. The Nashriile & Northwestern Railroad Company et al.; bill for E. L. Andrews, George Hoadley, ‘and Rosel Weissinger, solicitors, und of counsel for com- plainant.” This is in effect the same suit filed' fn Nushville last Saturday. The fact that it _is ' brought to coforce Jien in Kentucky makes i some °chunges in the ‘petition mecessary.'-It ‘is..alleged the Leeislature of Kentucky, by an act passed Feb. 17, 188, extended the litn for the sceurity of the Tennessce bonds to any property of the said Company ta the State of Kentucky. The Nashwile & Northwestern Road was sold by decree of Court under the procedure instituted by the State of Tenuessee, and it was purchased by the Nasiwille & Chattauocoza Rond, and is now operated as the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railroad. © —— SENATOR INGALLS. St. Louss, Mo., Feb. 1.—An Atchison, Kas., dispatch says: A special train, carrying some 400 ladies and gentlemen, left this morning for Topekato escort Senator Inealls home. On thieir'rettini‘ac 7 o’clock this ‘evenlng théy were met at the depot by a receptiol escorted to a public hall,. wl E aud enthusinstic audience haa asscmbled.. reception specel was made by Judsge-Otis,; the District Court, 2 prominent Dewmcerat, and was responded to by Senator. Ingalls. ... Brief specches were also made by .Col. Everst and others, the enthusiasm being unbounded.. . . Mr. Ingalls will leave. Mouday or Tuesday for Washivgton. + MICHIGAN WHEAT CROP. 5 Suectal Disoatch to The Triva EasT SacINaw, Mich., Febl' 1.-In ‘Saoiniiv County of the- wheat crop-of 1873, 300,000 bushels have been ‘marketed - gnd ship) (date. Bay County markcted and shipped” 800 bushels; Midland " Coutits™ matkefdl atily shippea 18,500 bushels; Gratiot Connty miFRe- ed and shipped 137,000 héls? cola County marketed and shipped 204, 713 bashelos: Gotiedse County marketed and snipped from’ Fling,. Mt.- Morris, aud Clio,.351,816 bushels. The average price paid has been 90 cents. The price to-day is 83 and 90 cents. - Tle (Chalmers) would reply to the gentleman’s - and [ ron beel of oppression still he: Sauth, shere was found to bea g: WASHINGTON. The Southern Brigadiers Move in Force on the Offending Bragg. Indulging in Hints that Will " Not Be Ignored at ¢ the North, Indicating a Lingering Hope: of Remuneration for Lost ¢ Chattels.” Potter's Colleagues. One and All, Studiously Avoiding the Responsibility. All W\ishing to Shun Prominence . in the Pending Cipher Investigation. Cash in the Treasury at the End of January, $382,000,000. The President Almost Sure to Win in His Tussle with Conkling. “ A LITTLE GRAPE.” WIAT GEN. BRAGG GOT FROM THOE BOUTHERN BRIGADIERS. Spectal Dispatch to The Tridune. WasHINGTON, D. C., Feb. 1.—The moming hour, whoich the Southern Democrats have so long endeavored to obtain, was permitted o come up fu the regular order of business this morning. The debate was not as heated as bad been expected, time and political expediency baving modified the ardor of the Southerners. Gen. Bragg, bowever, was made the target of attack and ridicule. No one came to his help, but it is understood that at the earliest oppor- tunity the plucky little Northern Democrat will reply. The Southetners taunted him to-day with befoiz 2 Reptblican in disguise, with having sought Rypublican votes, with being now AN HNEMY IN THE DEMOCRATIC CAMP, and with baving undertaken a ridiculous thing in (hreatening that thie Northern minority should turn the Southern majority out of the Demo- cratic party. Chalmers, of Mississippi, insisted that there had been much consistent loyalty to the Union in the South, and that it was a loyslty which descrved more consideration even than that at the North. Mills, of Texas, however, re- torted thatthe only loyaltyin the South was that of sneaks, bummers, and camp-followers, who now seck in the name of devotion to the TUnion the payment of claims. The most conspicnous fact throughout the de- bate was the reference by every Southern speak- er to the loss of 400 millions of dollars by the liberatipn of the slaves, and at least the indirect sugzestion that the time would come when the South should be COMPENSATED FOE, THAT LOSS. TIndeed, two of the speakers reminded the House that the War debt s not yet paid, and Intimated that it might not be until there was a better equalization of the results: 6 the Federal taxa- tionin the South. It was insisted that the fouz- teen millions still remaining in the captured and abandoned property funds belongs to the South; that the General Government is only trustee of it, and that it must be paid back, and that the threats of bankrupting the Goyernment are not worthy of considerstion. TIE DEBATE. To the Western Associated Press. WasmiNeToy, D. C., Feb. 1.—The Speaker announced that the regular order of - business was the morning hour, and the pending bill to be a bill for the relief of Maggie Barron. ' Mr. Chalmers said he cered nothing for the payment of locxl Southern claims, because loyalty to the Union during the War meant disloyalty to everything he held dear. That many men in the South had been loyal to the Union was nevertheless true,and he did not envy the cheap political capital a Union soldier could make by telling such men.. BHe had no more confidence in their honesty than the mousc had in the stuffed cat-skin. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Brage), taking advantage ot the' well-known opposition everywhere, songht toblend the War claims with the claims for Southern improve- ments, and endeavored to throw the odor of his dead cat over them. Readiness to suspect cor- ruption in others sometimes indicates - AN INNATE TENDENCY TO CORRUPTION in one’s self, and Lie should therefore not charge corruption on any one. The issues of the War were certainly dead with him. He bad but one political faith,—to preserve invioldte local self- government; but one political hope,—to build up the waste places in the South destroyed by the War. When the West-had been ‘in its infancy it had been fostered by the South. Mississippi Democrats stood side by side with those from Michigan in the work of Western im- provements. He had warned Northern Demo- crats at the last session that a refusal to recog- nize the just demands of the South might resuls in the defeat ot the Southern Democrats, and the return of representatives who wonld form alliances with other parties. The rapid growth of independent candidates in the South had al- reedy sustained his declaration. He hoped the Solid South MIGHT STILL BE SOLTD for the Democratic party, but for that portion of it that had the courage and manliness to treat the people of the South as equals; and not as in- feriors in the Union. The gentleman from Wis- cousin had found a bloodier shirt than bad ever waved from the battlemcnts of the Republican party, and he was streiching his legs in a frantic effort to climbup to the Republican platform and rob it of its last banner. He had reminded the South of the War debt, and of the blood of the Union soldiers for which the South wus responsible. e (Chalmers) wouid remind the gentleman that the War debt was not . yet paid, and the cotton and tobacco States were paying far more of that debt than Wisconsia, (Bragg’s) dismissal of a certain supposed class of Southern Democrats, that if there were any sorcheads or disappointed Republicans in the North who could not get into Congress without putting on the lion’s skins of the Democracy, they should be very careful not to open their months too wide when they got there. [Laugh- ter.]. ; Mr. Hooter said every claim against the Goy- ernment should be so absolutely and complete- Iy divorced- from political sentiment that no! niember on’ cither side would regard it -as a pulitical question on which parties coula. be di- vided. Such questions should be passed upon _ACCORDING TO JUSTIOE AND RIGHT, and Dot ‘according to partisanship. Mr: Gar- ficld had well predicted not, long sinee that any man who attempted to appeal again to sectional jealousy and sectional animnosities on the -floor of the House would appeal id vain. -He-hoped such appeal would ‘be’ as'powerless to effect its objeet coming fromone side of the chamber as coming from :the: other. » lle: (Hooker) conld nob. torget . .thpt. .when - the- War closed, there were various measures of- legislation . proposed intgnaed. to lay the beaier, on the, llant minority of membersin the House, led by its preseut Speaker.. who resistad these-efforts;,und binded tonehe to.Testore the. Government to its con- stitutfonal order. Members from the South had thus.felt they had found manly defenders 'n'nl the patt of the Northern Democracy, mea who were willing to tbrow the mantle of oblivion over the incidents of the War, and who were noy willinz to rake up its dead ashes. If any gpg supposed there was any other bood betweey themsthan that of rizht and justice, he hag concention of it which bad not ¥ct. bevn thongl of by Southern Representatives. Southeny Democrats hud voted for the bill to pay the' $90,000,000 arrearazes of pensions, the resulge Pension Appropriation bill of ' $30,053 £5,500,000 to pay for the Caundian fisheries, ang innumerable claims of that sort, and had pever asked the question where the money would go, But now that it was proposed to refer sony Su'lémcrn claim to the proper tribunal it wag sai THAT WILL NOT-DO, that the tribunal might decide the claim to by 5 just one, and that it was too large to be paid. A large ertian of the claims now standing on the calendar had been presented years ago, lonz be- fore there was a siogle Democrat in the R from the Southern States. e denied the rigyg of any man to charge the Democracy of thy South with presenting any false or {raudulent claims against the Government. He thousht by could state for the Democracy of the Norgn 23 well as for that of the South that they wery uoited for the maintenance of the Constitution and good government, and not by asy sach tis alluded to by the gentleman from Wisconsin, - ME. MILLS expressed his belief that not a dollar of the money paid for war ¢laims had gone to 3 man whose_heart bad been in sympathy with the Confederate cause. Where had ““loyulty" been found in the Southern States during the Warp 1t had been found among the sutlers, and deag- beats, and skulkers, beside the Federal armies, They were speculators,—men who had no cogp- try. Tosuch men about $100,000,600 had been paid. He had always voted arainst such claims, and he was in 1avor of a coostitutional amend. ment excluding such claigs for the War, The War_was a legacy left by the fouuders of the Republic, who did not venture to decide the question for themselves. Two million of the bravest men had settled it on the battle. field, and to-day. a million of them were sleep. ing in uomarked and unknown graves, wnile the sutlers and bummers were appealing to the Government, to pay them for the cotton they bad gathered up. For himself he should yote against all these claims. [Avplanse.] MR. SINGLETON characterized the charge of Brage against the South a most unfounded and unjast slander. Southern representatives who introducea the claim bills did not indorse the claims. They simply presented them-as a duty to their cop- stituents. ' As to readinz.Soulkern Uemocrats out of the Democratic party, Mr.. Siogleton . said the South had given to the country before the War seven of its Presidents— Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jack- son, Polks, and Taylor; that out of 135 Cabinet - officers the South bad furnished sixty-seven, and that no such President had occupied his seat againss the will of the people, and no such. Cabinet officer.bad been charged with corrap- tion. ‘The name of Floyd was herc suegesteds by Mr Townsend (N. Y.). DEvery pattls that had been fonght (before the late War) hd been fought under Southern leaders.:both Presidents and officers. No foot of territory (outside bf Alaska) hnd becu acquired under. other than Southern Presidents. Bragghimselt was only a babe in the family “of the Democracy, and woutd have to “tarry in Jericko tiil his beard grew.” Braog had been 50 long sbusing the Democracy when rusning on the Republican ticket for Congress and other offices that, like the olé harper whose harp re- fused to sing of aught but love, his mouth re fused to give out anything but abuse of the De mocracy. -[Laoghter.] The South had nineir- four Democrats on the floor, while the Neth had only sixty-three, and, 1f Southern Dems- erats were parted from their brethren of ths North, the latter would be controlled by Re- publicans, and no_one could tell what woald: become of them. [Laughter.] The Democrats of the South were Democrats of principle. If they had ouly been fofluenced by **lozves and fishes,” they could have sold out long agoto the Republicans. [Lanehter.] The morning hoar having expired, Mr. Mar- tin, who has charge of the Maggie Barron Res Tief bill, movea the previous question. Mr. Conger desired to have time for debats extended, but 3r. Martin insisted on the pre- vious question, but it was not seconded, aud the bill went over till the nextmorning hour.. - THE INVESTIGATORS. . POTTER’S PET INQUIRY. Speciat Dispatch to The Tridune. * ‘WASHINGTOS, D. C., Feb. 1.—There is a new difficulty in the Potter Committee as to the cipher.. investigation. McMahon, of Chio, de- clines to serve as Chairman of the Sub-Commit~ tee because he is from Ohio, and favors Thar man’s nomination to the Presidency, and thinks that for that.reason he should not .serve. No plainer declaration of the fact that the Democrats have entered upon the investigation hoping that Tilden might be fnjured could ba made. Blackburn, of the Committes, declines toserve as Chairman for the reason that he wants to be Speaker of the next House, and desires to have zo entangling alliance in bis camipaign. Stenger does not care [fo serve. Hunter, who might be nominated to the post- tiop, is said to be lisble to have to snswerto the Grand Jury, here for baving sent what is construed by some to be a challenge to Columbus Alexander last summer. il Meanwhile Potter has gone to New York, dnd.: his residence is in Gramercy Park, next door tor that of Tilden. ke THE TELLER COMMITTER returncd this morning. The Republican mem= bers say that the Associated Press reports from South Carolina and New Orleavs of their pro- ceedings have been prejudiced by local coloring. The reports sent during the campaign by Re: publican correspondents have beea entirely ver- ified. In New Orleans, District-Attorney Leon- ard already has 150 political cases, and 18 work- ing actively, in conjunction with United States Marshal Wharton, in prosecuting them. Gar- land and Bailey, of the Comumittee, are repre= sented as having acted in an impartial manger, while McDonald bas bee very partisan. It is possiblé that one of the Democrats will join the Republicans in the report. b THE TREASURY. PUBLIC DEBT STATEMENT. WASHINGTON, D. C., Feb. 1.—The public debé statement Is as follows: Stxpercentbonds. 36,639,000 Five per cent bon 702 266,650 Fourand half percentbonds 250, 00,000 Four per cent bonds, 70U, 000 Total coln bonds. Matured debs. Legal-tenders, Certlnicates of depos: Fractional currency. 3 Gold and ailver certifcates. Total without {nterest.... Total debt. “Totallnteres! Currency hele fo T rede tou of Tractional curs ey, spectaldepositsticid for, Gemption of certificates of deposit.. . Total cast fa Treas Debt Tess cash tn Treasury, Feb. 1, 73 52.053: 9% 1) Increase during Junuar, ST Decrease siuce Juue 0, 14 Bouds Isvued to the D ‘Companles, interest payable In fawful » money, priucipal outotandin. s eLea Iuteresi accrued aiud uot yet paid.. et m‘rm P .;‘ by f"‘x[' dted Staies A1,773,7 crest repafd by the trams = mails i 10,657,083 Bylance” St latéréat y s U e e Subscriptions to the 4 per cent loan since yes ter iay’s report, $1,091,5C0. * % ‘Nearly-all applving at the Treasury for intt est have taken grecubacks in preference 1 gold., * ¥ ANOTHER CALL. B ad .‘;‘ The Secretary of the Treasury bas made st other call rorr’the redemption of 320,000,000 520 bonds, congols of 1367 in equal proportlons registered und coupon bonds. Interest Wil cease May 1. ; . The viet incricase of coin in the Treasufy Jav- uarv is $200,742. - Coin ubligations paid during the month, $32,478,006, iocluding $1,57L,73 it United States notes redeemed in cain. THE _ARMY. T A DEATH-BLOW TO THE REORGANIZATION BILL. ¥ “&peciat Dispatch o The Tribune. WasmNGTos, D. C., Feb. 1.—The Durnside Army Commission bill,_is killed in the fouse- ‘fheé. action of ‘thit body this morniog sbows that the supporters of the bill are not aumerous enough in the Lower House to call the roll. The House was called ontochaose Friween the B side bill and the Army Appropriation bill, it be ing well understood that, if ‘the House was it chined to consider;the-Army. Commission bilt 26 all7the-Army--Appropriation bill wénld not be pas: The House speedily decided the ques- tion, refused even to-ear the Army Commis sion bill.read, declined to allow a roil to be called to test the question, and voted 1o proceeil with the Appropriation bill, disregardivg tho