The Clerk read the report, as follows: The select committee.appointedApril 30.1866. to investigate the stiiteuientsuiidelinrgesinnduby llon. Roscoi;t‘ ozvuuyojn hisplace, againstProvost Mur slinl GenlFrynnd hisburriiu whethernnyfruuds have been perpetrutedin hisollicein connectionwith the recriiitingservico; also toexamineinto thestate I ask for the reading merits liliHlt.‘by GenlFryin his communication to Hon. Mr. Dunne. reattiln the House, having completed thi ir laborsas to one branch of their investigation. submit the following report: When your committeeyvasuboutto enterupontho perforinnni eof the duties enjoined upon it bytbe orders of the House it becameapparent that a full investigation of all matters embraced within the scopeof its authority could not becompletedduring the presentsession of Congress. In viewof the time. labor and public 0: ense necessarilyinvolved in the performance of the work. your committeehad under consideration the proprietyof making a preliminary re iort to the House.settingforth the mag nitude of the task assiglhliedto it and asking for further instructions in the premises. But in considerntion ot the fact that the character of a member of the HoRephad been publicly assailedwith seriouschargesin a letter emanating from the headofaniniportant burouu of the Government.addressed to anothermember of the HoRep and by him causedto be read to the House and thus made a part of the publishedand permanentrecordofits roucedings. We deemed that it was the privilege o the member thus gravely charged.an duealso to the House itself. that your committee should proceed without deluy totheinveo fixation of at least that branch of the case which relates to the charges preferred by Provost Mur shnl GenlFry must. Hon. Rosco: Connuxo. Your committee di this the more readily. as the mcmberthus charged pleadedand insistedupon his privilege to have an early investigation of that)riinch of the (Ell ‘la8n.d no obJccticii was interposed by any part v to its separate consideration and prompt dtiegcaitsiioonnr.elelaatviinngg the 3 commanding bIfrathnech Buorfethaeuionfvtchse Provost Marshal Generalto the future action of the committee. Your committee. therefore as will apple!“in the Journal of itsproceedings have thus or confined their investigation to the charges azuinst Mr. Coxs LlNG contained in the letter of GenlFry to Mr. BLAINE and excluded ull testiine ny bearing u ion the conductof GeneralFry asProvost Marshal eu cral. exceptsofar as that wasdeemednecessarytoo full investigation of the chargesagainst Mr. CONKLING. The lullllltlng touchinii] the lloboken credits and the disposal of the 554.001o)uiity ine neyarising therctroni was admitted to show.as was nlleized.a settled purpose on the part of GenlFry to injure Mr. CONKLING.dating back long anterior to the Bums letter and provincedby his allegedattemptto procure by a corrupt bargaintestimony to be used againstMr. Consume in relation to certain alleged fraudsin the Utica district of the State of NewYork. Yourcommitteedeemedit a legitimate subject of inquiry to investigate to that extent the motiveof Generaldfry and its connection if any with the an muo whicll prompted theletter to Mr. Burns. Both urtion were therefore allowed full opportunity to introducetestimonyrelating to that point. The 1st statementof the letter of GenlFry to be investigated under the rule adoptedby the comm"itteeis as follows; In the summerof1863Mr. Conxmso madea case for himself by telewruphingto the War Dept that the provostninrshnlofliis district required legal ndricc.which he was here upon empoweredto lrivo." The committee understand this chargeto be that Mr. Couuuixo secured his own employment irofcssionally by the dept.by telegraphing that the provostmarshalof his district required legul advice, n ndthat his motiveand objectin transmitting the disntchwas to securesuch employment.Unless thiii istemen nimr of the words of the letter. there is significance no at all to be attachedto them.in the conauctionin which they are used. The evidenceshown that in the latter part of July. 1863.a man named Hobson was arrestedin the 21st district of NewYork asa descrter. A writof Imbenacorpuswrm issuedby Judge Bacon.justice of the su reinecourt and placed in the hands of the Shell of Oneida county. A return wusmiideby the officer havinn the deserter in custody. which return showedthat the man washeld by themilitary authorities as a deserter from the military serviceof the U.S. This return was adjudged insufficient by the Judge who issued the writ and a writof attachment was order and issued against the officer for declining to brinl thodesorterbeforo the judze. in obedienceto the writ of habeascorpus. A direct conflict had arisen between the military authorities of the U.S and the authorities of thestate of NewYork. in referenceto which very great excitement had arisenamongthe people of the district. The district attorneywasubsent . Mr. Kcrnun. the Representativefrom that district. had been engagedas counsel againstthe government and the anger of a collision between the national and State authorities was immediate and palpable. In the emergency.undactinizat therequest and upon adviceof eminent citizens of the (.llrlflt t, Mr. Co.'ui.i.'osentto the SecyWar the following dispatch: “ In the absenceof all of uswho could aid him professionally.the provostmarshal here was served with a habemrmum; to producea deserter; be obeyed the ordernot toproduce, and so returned. The judge held this insufficient and issued attachment. Ho tele graphed the district attorney and his asst. They are absentand engaged. but shall Wedo? "B. CONKLING." It will be observedthat the dispatch does not in form the SecyWar that the provost ninrshal requiredlegal advice. but was a succinct statement of the actual state of facts and a request that the Secretary should directwhatshouldbo donoin nu emergency which excited the apprehensions of the friends of the Government.In the opinion of the committee. Mr. COXKLING did only what he wasfullyjustified in doin in this matter and there is no evidence tending. owever remotely to show that in in sending the dispatch ho was influenced by any mercly personalmotive. The 2nd statement of GenlFry‘s letter which has claimed the attention of the committee is asfollow“ s: In April.1865.Mr. CharlesA. Dana.thenAsst SecyWar without notifyin me. had Mr. CONKLINGappointedto investigate a l frauds in enlistmentsin westernNow Y ork.with the stipulation that he should be commissioned Judge advocatefor the prosecution of any casesbrought to trial and he was appointed to prosecutebefore a generalcourtmartiul Major J. A. Haddock. Mr. Dana vestedhim. by. several orders issuedin the nameof the SecyWar. without the sanction of Mr. Stanton.with the [nost extraordinary powers. among thesewas the rnght to examinethe ispntelicsin at the telcozfnpli offices in the western division of NewYork. which enabled a violation of the sanctity of personal and businesscorrespond once. In anotherpart of the letter Mr. Dunn is spoken ofas the frien of mr. Cpiiluiio; and the committee understand the imutation of this portion of the letter to be. that Mr. tins. of his ownmotion.wlthout noticeto GenlFry and without the sanction of the SecyWar and by somellHthiifOmt‘ntor understanding between Mr. DanaimdMr. Consume. appointedMr. CONILING to iiivestiate fraud; in enlistmen lis in westernNewYork. on vestedhim With exItti aor innry powers. has been proved before the commiteeby the tos timony of the SecyWar that about the 30th of March. 1865. the SecyWar dirccted Mr. Dana to telegraph to Mr. COHLHG to come to Washington to consult with the Secretarytion to certain frauds in western NewYork.ini nrerlea urd to which a report had been made by Malor iuddin ton. an inspecting of lleer, who had been sent to NewYork for the purpose of investigation. The SecyWar mtifles that he had himself deter minedthat Mr. CONKLINGshould take chargeof the investigation of those frauds, if he would do so, and for that purposedirected the dispatchto be sent to Mr. Comtuso requesting hiin to come to Washington. On the 2dof April Mr. Cosxuso cameto Washington and had an interviewwith the SecyWar, who then urged him to take chargeof the investigation referred taunting, at the sometime. that "be considereda diligent and rigorous investigationas absolutely necessaryto the safety of the countr; that we wereat that time engaged in the midst o a draft: GenlGrant hndcommenced his movemonts. and thatovery thing depended upon keeping the Arm up and the meansof keeping the Army up was the diligent and vigorous recruiting which was then going on." That Mr. COXKLING expressed himselfvery reluctant to engagein it. The SecyWar expressedto Mr. CONKLINGan unqualified opinion that there wasnothing in the service which he asked of him incompatible with his position as amember of Congresselect, and gave him reasonsat length for that opinion and insisted that it wasas much the duty of Mr. (.ON‘KLINGto usehis legal knowledgein aid of the Government in carrying on the war asto shoulder a musket to drive the enemyout of this dept and that Mr. COSKLINGwas not at liberty‘todeny the SecyWar the benefitof his lervtecs. The SecyWar also testified that, if there wasanything wrong in Mr. Cosniiio's takin that duty at the time.the wrong restson the should ersof the SecyWar and not on Mr. Coskaiso‘s. That the Secretaryis the men that o lit to be responsible, in the publicjudgment, Ibrforcin upon Mr. CONILING what the Secretary regard as a curbeliineg dituty; and that he had no other reason for upon Mr. CONILING than the factsthat he thought it a vital duty, and knew Mr. CONKLINE to be cometont to performit. The ecrctnryof War directed Mr. Dana to prepare the papersfor Mr. Continue in casehe should conclude to render the services required, and the paperspreparedand given to Mr. COHKLXNGare in conformity with theinstructions of the SecyWar. Mr. CosKLiso, after consultation willi the Judge Advocate General, whoseviewscorresponded with thoseof the Secretary, undertookto renderthe lervices required. It is clear from the evidencethat.so far as Mr. CONKLING'S appointmenthaving beenmade by Mr and the powerswith which he was clothed having beenvestedin himby Mr.Danii, the appointmentand the powers accompanying it weroc onferred upon Mr. Cosituso by the SecyWar himself: that Mr. Dana hadnothing to do with the mat ter exceptto preparethe papersunder the specific direction of the Secretary. These powerswerespecified in the followmg papers: gs rI, WssnnmrWosAREDirnrr.aAsrpnrcilx 3r, 1865. SIB: I am instructed by the SecyWar to authorize you to investigateall casesoffrnud in the rarest inarshafs office of the western division of NewYork, and all misdemeanorsconnectedwith recruiting. You will, from time to time, make report to the Dept of the progressof yourlnbors, and will apply for any s lCtfll authority for which you may haveoccasion. [he Judge AdvocateGeneral will be instructedto issue to you an appointment as special judge advocatefor the prosecution omfilaitnayrycasesthat inn be brought to trial before a tribunal. on will also appear in behalf of this Dept in any cases that it may be deemed more expedient to bring before the civil triVbeurnyals. respectfully, your obedientservant, N. A. DA A Auiatant Secrdaryof War. Hon. Roscos Cosktiso.. Wm Dzr'inrinis'r. WASlllNGTON CITY. April 3. 1865. Hon. Roscos CONKLXNGhaving beenappointed by the SecyWar to investigate transactions connected 'oWrkit.harlel ctreulietignrgapinh ctohnei awneisetsearnnddivoipseiornatoorfs are respectfully requestedto a iord him accessto any ddiestpeactteinhgeswhich hemayrequire for the purpose of fraudsand bringing criminals to trial. By order of the SecyWar: C. A. DANA Anislanl SecyWar. Wm Darsnrussr, WASHINGTON Citv. April 3, 1865. Hon. Rosco: Coskuso having been appointedby the SecyWar toinvestigatetransactionseon nYcoorkte, dWithrecruitingin the western division of New all provost marshals and other military officersare hereby directed to give him free accessto all nthisehir official recordsand correspondencea, nd tolur hiiu certified copiesof any papers that he may I'Oflylllofred.er of the SecyWar: Autu mn!CS.erAr.duDrAyNoAf.War. The'ctnnmltteo have failed to discover that any extraordinary owerswereconferred upon Mr. Comt Lis'p without the sanction of the SecyWar. which enabled him to violate the sanctity of personal lbauinstiness correspondence. It is certain that no that the sanctity of an gcrsonnlbusiness corvesPondt neehas beenviolated y Mr. Covkmse under that authoritihas been brought to the notice of the committee. 0th the SecyWar and Mr. Dana testify that the powersgiven to Mr. Cosk rLeINgGard were those usually given in such cases, and in "I to this paper the SecyWar testifies: do not understand the paper as giving him any right to make use of private despatchcs, any way. but to bea requestonly to telegraph officers to afford him facilities for detecting frauds and bringing criin inals to trial. The other. asto.the provost marshals giving him free accessto their records and corre spondence, is a general authority which is given in a i such cases, and is necessaryfor any personon g ed in these investigations to exercise.’ I. appears from the testimonyof Mr. Dana that the appointment of Mr. Consua‘o was not made without notifying GeneralFry but that on the 3dof April, the dag ot the dateof the papers which were given to Mr. 'osluso, and the dayon which hesig nified his willingness to undertake the dut. GenlFry was informed by Mr. Dana that the SecyWar had employed Mr. Coalniso for this purpose, and had directed that he (Mr. Fry) should put into Mr. Coskuso's hands at onceall the papers relating to Maior Haddock. The statementel GenlFry’s letter in relation to the sums received or reported to have been received, byMr. Connuso, beingadvertedtoin another place, thenext allegation of the letter is asfollows: “But, as hereafter shown, he was as zealous iu preventing prosecutions at Utiea as ho was in making them at Elmira, and the main ground of between Mr. Cossuso and myself has bedelnfltlhcallltti wanted exposureat both places. while he wanted coInnceinavlmesetnigtattoinn ge the charge containedii ithis para graph, the committee directed their inquiries 1st to the nucslion whether Mr. CUNKLING had been zealous to irerent prosecution of poisons charged with fraud laetttetri, on in the manner particularly spee”ed in the or in any other manner and, seeon. whether Mr. CUNKLING lnid manifest o an desire that any fraudsupon the Governmentat Utiea should beconcealedor any inquiry in relation to them suppressed. in considering these questions it became proper for the committeeto determine the extentof the duty which had been imposed uponMr. CONKLINE by the SecyWar and upontl is questionthe understanding of the Secretary of Var, by whom the appointmentwasmade, is thus given in his testimony: 'I do not think that Mr. Conspmo was authorized or directedto institute prosecutions aiinitan one disconnectedwith Major Haddock. ll njor Ha deck was the chief of the dept: it was allegedthat hehad accomplices: that these frauds were the result of combinationsand conspiracies, official and non-official, for the purpose of plunilering llic public Treasury: to confine the power simply to Major llaiddock's cwaasse would have been ineffectually riarrow.The power therefore given him to investigate pverything in connection with that transaction, and it would have beenunmse for the Governmentto limit it or confine the investigation within a narrower compassthan is expressed in the papers. But the assignmentof Mr. CoNKLING on the court martial determines the ques the order detailing the court and assignin him to act as judge advocate in the trial of Major lad doek and no other person. All that Mr. Cositus'o coulddoin respect to other persons than Major Had dock would be to prefer e iarges or proofs agaimt others besides Major Haddock and then it would require the order of the Defiartinent detailing this or some mobtherearscjouudrgteoafd who iccahte, c might or might not be for the purpose of bringing) those cases to trial. Mr. CONKLINE could put no ody on trial, except by the special order of the Depoaertvm'idecnnt.c"cwas g.iven beforethe comm itteetending to show any direct effort on the pnrtof Mr. Comt LINGto preventthe rosocution of anyonein Utica or elsewhere, and the inquiry was thereforeliar rowed to the l ueslion whether he had in any man ner neglected to communicate to the Dept information which he ought to have given in relation to frauds upon the Government, and especially whetherhe had neglectedto do so becausesuchin formationwould have beenused against particular individuals or personslivin in Utica district. In fithneeidn, q)uir uvpon.this point the testimony was cony the ruling of the committee, to the single fkancotwwlhedetgheer frauds existedwhich had come to the of Mr. Cosxuso, and which hehad not made known to the Dept. Evidence offered in relation to allegedfrauds in the Utica district, of which Mr. UONKLING was not shownto havehadany knowledge, was not received by the committee: nor was evidence receivedin relation to matters concerning which fall inlormation had been given to the Government: the coininittee believingthatit was the duty of the war Dept to determine what prosecutions shoiild be instituted when the factswere within the knowledge of the Dept, and that Mr. CONKLINGdischargedhis whole duty in that be half when the information which he had himself receivedhad been communicated to the War Dept. It is true that considerable evidence has been incorporated in the record which would have been excluded by a strict adherence to the rule adopted by the committee. As arisen from the fact that much of the testimony wastaken while the House wmaitstienes, neosstihoanv, ainngdl by avdeifit ‘oesreitndtmureinmgbtch resosfethssciocnos of the House, and it was consequently impossible for the membersof the committee taking the testimony to understand the precisee onncction of the testimony offeredwith lhntwhic'hhad been taken by some other member fthe committee and it was deemedbestto bemorecareful not to excludeany evidence fromthe record that might possiblybe pertinent to the subjmecigt hmt baettwer hoolfly inquiry. than not to admit any that irrelevant. their motives. The sgecifications given in GenlFry‘s letter, under the charge that “ as herealter shown. Mr, CONKLING was as sealous in preventing prosecution at Utica ashe was in making them at linira, " are asfollows: “That MLCONKLINE complained both to the President and to the War Deptof the action of GenlFry in the removalof Captain Riohard so (the 1st provostmarshalofMr. CONKLING'S district upon a report of Judge Advocate Turner that the proofs in his case disclosed a reckless persistencein ra“ndulent practices. The 2nd issue was asto the testimonyof Captain Crandall, after I had secured his removalfrom duty on the recouiinendation of Major Luddington who thoroughly inspected the district, and reported that though not legally guilty he had morally perpetrated most glaring, inexcusable fraud on the government, and that ho had quietedhis conscience by casuistry and regulatedhis actionsby the counselof unscrupulous legal adnsers. Mr. ConKLnt O geteaptain Crandall restored. "The 3rd issuewas as to the Government’s ll Kulo‘fb‘ieneg enoruel nieseveltdo, daenfdenhdad Captain CWruitnhdhailml a, finte ‘1h0. regulation of the orders of the Dept.someo%, “! laonedailnboreugnatyrddteopwoshiiteehdwheithgohtimintine blietihgaaltfioonf r.eIcnruthitisl. Mr. Coxxuso failed." ‘hewords"as hereafter shown, " asthey appearin connection in GenlFry's letter, that Mr. Co.‘i; Lisa was as zealous"in preventing prosecutions at Utica usin making them at Elmira. must refer to the 3 specifications above given. Because unless shownin oneor theother of those specifications.“ is notshownatallin GenlFry's letter that Mr. CONKLING was zealous "in preventing prosecutions at Ution, " or that " he wanted concealmentthere." It "was contended before the committee that these words, as hereafter shown, "limited the charges against Mr. Cossua‘o to thothrec specific ntions above given. If this heso. the specifications sigiially fail to bear out the chargemade. In the case of Captain Richardson it wasnot the duty of Mr. Cositus'o to have reported his caseto the Government, for the reasonthat the Government alrendy had a full report of the case from Judge Advocate Turner, and it was for the Dept and not Mr. Cositusn, to determine what action should be taken thereon, and because several months before the appointment of Mr. CONKIJNG to investigate frauds in the western division of NewYork. this matter had been placed in the hands of William A. Dart. the U.S.district attorney. who had chargeof the case when Mr. CUNKLIhG received his appointment. Mr. Cosituso manifestly did not attempt to prevent the prosecution of Captain Richardson by neglecting to furnish information which was within his knowledge and not within the knowledgeof lhe Govenment, nor by neglecting to institute proceedingsu mustRichardson.because that was a matter with whioh he had nothing to do. Did he attemptto prevent prosecutions at Utica by complaining of them lion of GeneralFry in the removal of Captain RichardsonY The factsare as fol ows: December 30. 1864. Mr. CONKMNG addressed a letter to the POTUS in which the fact of the removal of Captain Richardson is stated, and the belief of the writer that it had been accomplishedby the effortsof Major Haddock, in whom the loyal people had no confidence and who was suspected of fraudulent practices.(which suspi cion was afterwards worn to have been well founded.) The letter refersto a rumor that chargeshad been made against eaptain Richardson.basedas the letter states, upon affidavits prepared by thosewhose character does not raise a presumptionin favor of And then the writer says: “Of course I have nothing to say as to the truth of the charges, ifthero are charges, as I do not know what they are. H ohuagve hkt.ehpotwaepvreert, ttoycslaoysethwaattion hcuopmonmCoanpwtiathin others Richardson. and that I have never discovered any corrupt practices in him. But the point I wish to submit LI is being thus summarily disgraced without knowledgeof the ground and without his being heard." The letter states that the sgcrvisors through whom themenhave beenraisedh signed andlo gedwith the writer an earnest protest against the proceedings. No complaint is made in the letter againstGeneral Fr by name, or by special reference. The letter referred to was written by Mr. C(lNKLlh’O, and the concurrenceof the following eminent citizensof that district was lndOPSCL thereon: llon. W. J. Bacon, Ellis.ll. Roberts, llon. Ward llunt, Erastus Clark, T. R. Walker and C. H. Hopkins. The committee have failed to discover any evidthicc of an unwor thy or improper motive on the part of h Mr. Coul Llh'o, or the othergentlemen concurring in that letter, nor can the committeeperceivehow it is possiblo to imaginethat the letter affords any indication, however remote, that Mr. CONKLINGwaszealous to preventthe prosecution of Mr. Richardson, or desirous of concealing his acts from scrutiny. Indeed. the main object of the letter seems to have beento ask an investigation. In relation to Captain Crandnll no concealment was possible, for the reason that a full report had been madeby Ma'or Luddington before Mr. Cox; Liuo is shownto one had anything to say or do in referenceto him; and surely Mr. CO$KLING could not be in fault for not prosecuting him, when, as statedin ajor Luddinglon's proport, ho lind incurred no legal guilt; consequently it is not shown by any evidence in relation to Captain Crandall that Mr. Cosxtise was zealous in preventing prosecutions at Utiea or desired concealmentof any frauds there. And herethe committeemight leave this matter of Captain Crandall, but it is considere but just toMr. Cosnniso that.a true statement 0 his connection with mattersrelating to Captain Crandoll should be given. It. appearsfrom the evidenceof Hon. Ward Hunt that Mr. Orandall was selectedand recommended as a proper person to succeed CaptainRich amrdsonby said Hunt. Judge Bacon and other citi of the district: that Mr. CONKLING refused to pave anything to do Will] the selection or ban of anyinriiv'idua lfor that position. Judgde eclinuent Mgifics that "Mr. Crundnll was selected as being an eminently honest and upright man and a manoi the best reputation and character. It was believed by Ivcry onethat if there was to befound in the county done honest man he was the one. And that thp judgment the citlzens of Oneida countyis unanimousasto the integrity of Captain Crandall. " This statement ifcorroborated by several other witnesses. No evidlnce was offered beforethe committee showing, or tending to show. that.Mr. Craudall had been guilty of any fraud or dishonest practicewhich evercame, of the knowledge of Mr. CONKLINE : and the inquiry in this particular was confined to that limit. The committeeare of opinion that the evidence does not show that Mr. Conuniiio wasguilty of anyim propri ety in recouimend in the restoration of aptain Crandiill after Maior uddington's report.but on the contrary it doesappear that his action was limited to a simple expression of o union, which opinion was deoisntrciucrt read nidnsvueprpyorgteendebryaly by the citizens of that thereport of the detective selectedby GenlFry to investigate the acts of Captain Crandall. It has not been shownto the committeethat GeneralFry or any other person believed tbs! Captain Cranilall should have been prosecuted. Mr. Dana testifiesto the statement of coral Fry that he knew within which Catain Crandall had done or omitted whio he sho'ul not have doneor omitted. GenlFry. in his letter of November 6 published in the Globe.says that Qaptain Crandall was suspendedfrom dut or refusin to turn over the $31.L00bonds to n isbursing o cer.anact for which he deservedno censure, in the opinion of the committee for the reasons herein stated. The letter of GenlFry in Mr. BLAIXR states um captain Orundiill wasdischargedon the recommendation of her Liiildington. who reported that though not legally guilly ho had morally perpetrated a most glaring and inexcusablefraud on the Governmentho ya sworn to serve. The committee have not found in the evidence before them any evidence of such moral fraud on the part of Captain Crandall and certainly no factsha been shown to bewithin the knowi go of Mr. COXKLING.in relatlon to Captain lCrandull. whichwould haverenderedit improper‘for Cosuniso to have recommended his restoration to ofiee. An attempt wasmadeto show, by the testimonyof Patrick J. Iir ine. that whenAaron Richardsonwas arrestedat lines c wassetat liberty by the officers having him in custody.after an interview which he had at his own requestwith Mr. Connixo. In relation to this matterit is only necessaijytosnythat Mr. Richardson had made important disclosuresto the Government; was is witness in the prosecution of Haddock: that the actsof Mr. Conniso in relation in the witnesswerefully known to and approved by thIen SecyWar. relation to the 3rd specification above stated. bets are as follows: Captain Crandall required Aaron Richardson. a bounty broker. to deposit securityWith him that certain men furnished by said Rich on.andenlisted. should go forward to llie frontnud bethere receipted and the sum of $20.00)in bondsof Oneida county was doposiied assuchsecurity. Some mentbat were furnished by Richardson refused to receive my local whatever.insisting that all they claimed or dsired was the bounty that Government paid others they took 50 doliars and would takenoinure. liiallc those ewest ic right of the recruit to receive the local bounty wasfully explainedtohim byCaptain Crun But as a precaution against desertion.quptain Orlndall required Richardsonto deposit lSQeOlcreach man. As security for receipt of therecrui. but the general aftreernddepeozvsiotuinsg.the bouds. I Richardson claimed that Provost Marshal Crandall had no legal authority to hire security for the appearanceof the recruit. Demanded that the bondsshould berefunded to bun. Oi"the men furnished by Richardson. 30 Mesirrted before reachingthufront. 7 of whom was retaken. thIe hya"edeboonsditsedweinrebneohtal“f local bounty.’ nor were of recruits." as stated in General ry‘s letter. They either belonged to Rich.rdscii. who deposited them, or to the Governmen irr whose security they were deposited. Hon. Wn Iunt testifiesthat “u out 813.000 would have been orfcited under the contract.about that amount of 1118!having deserted. About $7.000no one would h0m: any claim to as against Aaron Richardson." the 4thof Mureb.1860.M or Haddockdirected will Crandall to turn overt osebonds toS.Flo 'd rd.is equal agent. Captain Crandall sought the advice 0 distinguished and able counsel and was told he could not safely turn over these bonds to hfgor Haddock without risk of being held person u responsiblefor the amount: and it 0 appears that Captain Grand ll and his advuers had vo prehciisions. sinceshown to have beenwell Entithut it would be unshfe to have placed in the possession of M rHuddoclk. After taking counselon the 11thof arch. Captain Cran dnll stated the whole matterin relation to thosebonds in ii letter to GenlFry, and asks General to advise him what to do. as follows: "Mine r nddpekealls uponme to forward themoney and mantles to him; counsel of high standing advise no that I cannot safelydo so. hilt that I am responsiblo to the parties entitled to it. The money and I as are new on hand and I wish nothing so as to pay them over. Can I snfgly pay this money to Major Haddock and will the ovornment protect me against the porous who laim it? Be pleasedto instruct me on this point." No answerwas madeby GenlFry. so for asthe committeecan discoVer. On the 30th of March. 1865. GenlFry ordered Captain Crandnll to turn over to Maser Lee all moiieys. bonds. andother evidences of indebtedness in his POSSESSIO"lbl belonging to enlisted men" who had deserted either beforeor after arriving at the general rendezvous and all monoin bonds and other evidencesof indebtedness in its possession belongin to enlistedmen other than deserteis to the U.S. payinaster stationed at Elmira. It‘will be seen that this order did not include the $240,0o0fobonds which were not claimed to belongto enlisted men. Whether desertersor others. It COosnppearp clearly that Captain Crandail never claimed any right to hold these bohds on his own account; that be wasGDXlOllSto berid of lhem and only sought to protect himself from liability' that be deposited the bonds in a.haul; in Utica and that whensuit was brought ainst him for the bonds.he advisedGeneral I ‘royf the fact. Stating that he had no interest in defendingthe suit and uskin that the Governmentshould defend its right to the bonds. The Government never having done this the county of pneidaliiis given to‘Captain Crandall proor security to indcinnify him and assumedt e efense of the suit. These bonds belonged either to Aaron Richardson or ungestionably t o If the belonged to Richardson. it itshnet. government. why easyto see the complaint should be made that baptiiin Qrundall had violated the orders of the Dept in not turning o vcrthe bonds to Mine r Haddock or Mnior Lee. leavin himself liable to Richardson for this amount. If they belonged to the Government. it is still moredilficult to seewh the Government should not have employed counse and protected its right to them. The defenseof that suit was in no sense a defenseof Captain Croiidall. But simply the maintenance by the Governmentof its right to the bonds. GiigtainCrnndall having been removed from offiec and havingno interestln tbe question it secms absurdto require or expeet him todefend.at his own expense.a suit which could not benefit or harm him. however it might bedecided. The committee regard the action of Mr. Countiiio. in directing the attention of the dept to the condition of this fund and the mom est danger of its lossto the Government as higlhiy commendable. Nor have the committeebeen able to discover anything improper in the conductof Captain Crandall in relation to thosebon. There is one other statementin the letter of GenlFry that comes within the limit of the present investigation. (to Wit. the charges against Mr. Qosxuric:) “ that statementis as follows: f whrieactipgas judgcadvocate under the extraordinary in uisitoria powers bestowed upon him by his friend Mr. Dana. hecameinto possession of any fact impugning my integrity as a public officer. he iwfas gui ty of gross public wrong and unfuithfulness hedid not instant] file formal charges against me with the SecyWar. He can the rctore only escape the chargesofdelibernte and malignant falsehood)” a member of Congressby confessingan unpurdonuble breachof duty as judge advocate, ” No powerswhatever, "extraordinary and inquisitorial" or otherwise. Were bestowed upon Mr. Cosunixo by Mr. Dana: whateverpowershe had weregiven him by the SecyWar and no. but the suggestion of Mr. Dana. Mr. Consuelo was discharging the duties of iudge-advocate only i uthe prosecution of Major Haddock. He had nothing whatever to dowith iiiing charges against GeneralFry. To this point the committeecite the testimonyof the SecyWar asfollows: "In the Erosecution of MBJOI'Haddock to final judgment.Mr. osuuso performed all the duty I excctedhim to orform:" and also the testimony of ii Mr. Dana. asto lows: “I never knew of any authority given to Mr. CONKLlNl}in any form. directly or indirectly. at an time. to investigatethe acts of GeneralFry or to it; charges against.him. It would have beenevidently impro 'er for him to illegal charges against GeneralFry. uccoring to the usages of the Dept." secnss'rioss.is 1'0nouns: orricus AND iiirnoriin r as. Another of the statementsof GenlFry’s letter which the committeeare directed to inquire into is in these words:. “ For his servicesin this connection.Mr. Cunning received.on the 0th of November last.from the U.S. the modest fee of $3.001) whether he received. as it has been reported from his district $5.000more for the same servlec and whether he received additional fees from guilty partiesfor oppos in proceedingsat Utica. I uni unahic now to say." 'iliis is asserted in connection with and after the statementthat “in the summer 01' 1863 Mr. CONKLING nudea casefor himself by telegrupliing to the War dept that the provost marshal of his district required legal advice.which he was thereupon empowered to give." The edectof this statementis up insinuation that the employmentof Mr. CONKLING in this prosecution was bylliim improcrl secured; that the amountof his compensation by the Government was excessive and that there was somereason to believe that his district had paid him. besidesthe feefrom the government. for the same service. 85.000;and. besides this. that he had beencomgensated by guilty ni enfor corrupt services which he ud rendered themin opposinlff the prosecutionswhich hehad beenemployed to in e. The charge is not mitigatedin its severity by the fact that it only insinuates and seeksfor its author the cover of allegedreport. These features only give to it the enhanced capacityfor mischiefwhich grows out of the increaseddifficulty of disproving what is only vaguely charged, instead of being stated With defiuite ucssns to time. Pluce and circumstances.The committeecan find in all that has come to their knowledge absolutelynothi which can furnish a pretext or that part of this 0 arge which relates to W, I the $5,000and the feefrom gulty alanine not even the ciristence of unysuchreportas eoharge alludes to. The accusationinsmuatedis notonlyutterly false in fact. fulspin each particular. both as to the $5,000 from the district. an that from guilty parties, but, so far as proof could befound. it was falsc in the most lusutficient apology for its utterance.to wit. the existence of an allegedreport giving it credence. No accusation can well be conceived more intenselyhurtful than the last part.of this oneiii. Tosay of an one that llO'lSsordid or voracious in his methods 0 get ting gain is to denyto him mostof the qualities of a gentleman. To add to this that he gets moneyby ordinary frauds. isto exclude him from all just title to the common rights of civil and social life. To add. again.thathis frauds were gssociated with compounding of felonies and his time the price of their concealment.18 to stain t infamy. haocuso with an incffabio But if to aithis you add that he who is chargedwith takingthe riceof the suppressed erime is oneof the members cect of his Government and as such charged with its safety; that.in addition. he had assumed special duties as to the prosecution of the very crimes for the alleged suppression of which he has taken pay; and that the crime suppressed was at least amoral treason against the Governmentof which he was an officer oloct.anda treason. too.committed at a time when his Government’s existence wasin deepest peril; when.wesay.all these elements combinein the accusation.the guilt charged assumes a.depthof turpitude which can. nrdiy find a parallel. That such acurge should. Without any shadow of cause.be madoin any way seemsalmost incredible. oBfuitntshinautaitt ioshno. uslhdobweicnagtriemfuidlliytycoaunedh seodlijciittude of ine rtmhes author to avoid responsibility and should then be written out and sent intoCongress.to beread in the presence of the nation and Iprei ierveda ainst the accused and his children in the history 0 Qongress. Presents as a libel, n.qase almost new certainlysin gulai for its budeminenceas n.wailton and inexcusable violation of the rights of a citizen and member of the Government. The use that was madein the House of that part of this charge relating to the feeof $3.000makes it due to Mr, Conuuuo that it. should be determined whetherhis being a.member electof this House rendered it ploymenimt proper or illegal for him to ta ke the em or ils compensation; and the insinuation contained in this statempnt that the feewas excess ive rendersit proper to inquiro whetherit wassuch. As to the latter point. the committeehad no hesitation in coming to the conclusionthatMr, CONKLING's compensation for services renderedto the Government was a reasonable one. He had nothing to do with fixing its amount. That wasleft wholli to the Government. He accepted the service wi reluctance and upon the mostpressing an repeated solicitations o the SecyWar. 0took it. at thesacrificeof other professional business of equal value or of highs s greater value to him than he realised for t is. 0 took it at a time whenit was almost vital to the interests of the military service in NewYork that th ey should be rendered. The committee are of opinion that the SecyWar rightly judged that no one could be foundmoreern inently qualified on all accounts for the oflieient discharge of that peculiar homes. under the peculiar circumstances in which it was undertaken and rendered. The dutieshe assumedweredischargedWith consummate ability.and with integrity. diligencc and complete success. The went t rough about 5 months. They involve the examination of a large field ofcom'flicated facts; a labyrinth of frauds and villanies. he record of the trialmakes some 1500 pages of matter and resulted iiot only in discoveringand punishing these crimesagainstthe Government. but also in the couvwlion and punish mentof the acting provost marshal generalof west NewYork, Ma'or Haddock and in the recover from him of ailno of 810.000.aid into the U.S. Treasury. besidesthe urtiier sum of over 200.000 which hewas constrainedto pay over after the commenoementof the prosecution. The committee have come unanimously to the conclusion that the conduct of Mr. CONKLING. in entering upon that SETVIOED GDinGits management. throughout. was not only lree from any improper, selfish or unpatriotio motives and from all inst groundsof reproneh. But his services were singularly able.faithful. andin results valuable to the Government. Tllf.LAW. The only other question touching this part of the matter referredto the committeeto be considered is. whethertherewas any legal impediment in the way of Mr. CONKLlNG.he being a 39th Congress assumineth member electof the rolatlon he did assume to the prosecution of addock, fhc committee have sought carefully to inquire whether there was any such legal impediment. RIGHT OF DEPTS TO EXPLOY ANDPAY AGENTS. In determining upon this question. itseemsper fectly safe to assumethat what is said by the SCOTUS in Gratiot in. U.S.15Peters. 3’71is. the settled lhw applicable to this class of cases to wit. that a Dept charged With the execution of particular authority. business.ordutyl has always been deemed incidentally to possess theright to employ;t he proper personsto perform the same." ‘And also the right, when the service or duty is an extra ‘service or duty. to allow llicjerson so employed a suitable comensstion. this doctrine is not new ” an the u remeQourt but is fully exounded in t ocnseso the U.S.cc.Riloy. 7 eters.l8 and the U.S. on.Fillebrown. 7 Peters.28." And the court adds: " That in orde tro justify a refusal to allow such compensation it is indispensable to show that there is somelow which sees positively prohibits or by just implication denies any allowance of such compensation." This wasem I) the court in a casewhereit was an officer of the U.S. who was claiming the COXIJPEXlSflMOD for services outside of his salary. was PROBIBITIONS. We assume.then. that thereis nothing in the general relations of a member elect of Congress to this Government. nor in the opera! Epnciples of the law growing out of that relation. which would forbid Mr. CONKLIso becoming the agent or attorney of the Government and receivin compensation therefor: and that if his relations tot o Haddock trial wereillegal it must below nito some express provision of the Constitution or of the law. Is there any such legal prohbirboiutigohnt? The legal promsions which have been to the attention of the committee. and which are supposed to have some bearin upon.the question of the legalityof Mr. Consume srolations to the dock trial and his compensation therefor. are the following:. l. The Constitution (article one. section 6) do claros that "no person holding an officeunder the U.S shall be‘a member of either House during his continuance in office.” 2. the 18th section of the act of 31stAugust. 1852. (1Bright!. 821) providesthat “ no person here after who hol s or shall hold any office under the Governmentof the U.S.whose salary or annual compensation shall amount to the sum of $2.500s.hall receive compensation for discharging the duty of another office.' '. The t ird section of the act of 3dMareb.1839. (5 U.S. Statutes. 349 and I Brightly. 820.) which readsas follows: “No officer in an branch of the public service or any other person whose salary rielasw or whose pay and emolumentsis or are fixed or regulations shall receive any extra allowance or compensation in any form whateverfor the disbursementsof‘ public money or the performance of any other service.unlessthe said extra allowance or compensation be authorized by law.” 4. The 2nd section of the actofZid August.1842. (5 U.S. Statutes.510 and I Bnghtli. 8'30.) which reads as follows: "No officer in an ranch of the public service, or anyother person.w ososal ary. pay or emoluments is or are iixed by law or reg nlations shall receive any additional pay extra allowance or compensation in any form whatever for the disbursementsof public moneyor other service or duty whatever unlessthe same shall be authorized by law and the appropriation thereforex plicitly set forth that it is crouch additional pay, extra allowance or compensation." 5. The 12th section of the act of 26th August 1842.(1 Brightly. 821.5 U.S. Statutes.525. which reads asfollows: “ No allowanceor compensation shall bemadeto any clerk or other oliicer by reason of the dischargeof the duties which belong to any other clerk or officerin the same or any ot:or Dept: and no allowance er. compensatmn shall be madefor any extra service whatever wh ch any clerk or other officer may be required to perarm. 6. The 1st section of the act of 30th September mwhoi.ch (1reBaridgshatlsy oBll2ow19.s: U.S. asciicimoumntiii.n5g4 offlcer of the Treasury or other pay officers of the U.S shall in no case allowor pay to one individual the salariesof 2 different o coson account of having performed the duties thereof at.the same time. But this prohibition shall not extendto the su crint endentsof the public buildings." the 1st section of the not of A ril 21.1808(.1 Brightly. 190 and 2 U.S. tatutes. 484.) which reads as follows: “No member of Congress shall directly or indirectly. himself, or by any other person whatsoeverin trust for him or for his use or ore neomiiot.yo.rine n whosle account.aurnt.daenrytackoen.terxaecctuotre n.hgorledement hereafter to be made or enteredinto with an officer of the U.S. in their behalf or with person authorized to make contracts on the part of the U.S.; and if any member of Congress shall, directly or indirectly. himself or by any other Bersonwhatsoeverin trust for him, or for his useor benefit or on his account, enterinto. Accept or agree for or undertake or executeany such contract or cement.in whole or in art. every meiaber so o endingshall. for everysue offense upon conviction thereofbeforeany courtof the U.S or the low down thereof having OOL'HlZlllQ of such offense.be adjudged guilty of a high misdemeanor and shall befine 83.900; and every such contractor agreement as aforesaid shall moreover be absolutely void and of no effect.” Br8ig.hTthlye, fi1rsot5s and tio1n3of U.S. ne 11.1864.(2 which readsas follows: Statutes 123.) or 'fNo member of the Senate and HoRep i nshoaflfil.aceft. enrolriisshealellcation head of a Dept. Hondl of a.bureau.clerk or other officer of the Government.receive or agree to irned cierievcetlayn. Fyorcaonm yp seenrvsaicteiosrnewnhdaetrseodeovr teor.be directly or rendered. after the passageof this act. to any person. either by himself or another. in relation to any proceeding, contract.claim. controversy charge. accusation.ar rest or other matteror thing in which the U.S.is a party or directly or before any apartment.court imndairrteiaclt.lii nutrccraeust.eodth. cer or any civil. Military or naval commission whatever; andan person otfending against the provisions ogfu itlhtyisoafet s i all.on conviction thereof. be deemed not exceeding its ednemtheoaunsaonr and dolblaers punish b y dim by raisfionnement for a term not exeeedi n 2 Year sat the distict vioeiritohfe the afct eoruirntetarpyainbgletofoho soldniincg. And so hffiaclleobfe h U.S. t.o"r profit under the Government of the THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION. Theseare all of the existing laws which have come to the attention of the committee and whieh arosupposedto contain anything bearing.either nciirl or remotely. upon the matter of this service of Mr. CONKLING being prohibited bylaw. There are other laws which bear upon other paints in this inquiry. which will be alluded to. With these revisions of the Constitution and law before us. an assumingas law that which we have abovestatedfrom the case of Gratiot on.The U.S. (15.I ’eter3s.71.)we inquire whether any of gtheenseeraplrovisions of expresslaw do awayWith that principle as applicableto the matter before the committee; or whether either of these rowsions prohibit or renderil egal what wasdone y Mr. CONKLING in the haddoc l trial. he being amember electof the 39th Congress. To avoid if wecan.confusio nw. e 1st considerth is without reference to the question whether Mr. Com: mso should be paid. as a member of the 39th Congress for the same time covered by h is servicein the Haddock trial and for which time it is suggestedhewas paidby the feeof 83.000a.nd lotthe inquiry be 1st disposedof whetherit wasillegal for Mr.CosxLiso to assume that service and to take compensationtherefor.. grAanndte.din disosing of thls inquiry. let it 1st be that Mr.CONKLING.in what occurredin that serviceb.ecame and wasa “Jud e advocate."in the strictest sense and that ho wast erebymadeanofli cer of the U.S and was not a more agent and counselof the Government. In entering upon this inquiry the committee do not foringceitp.tlhee truth nor the supreme importanccof that of our Government whieh was pressedupon the attention of the committee in the argument of this case and which received. during the 38th Congress.the sanction of this House.in its approval of the report in the cases of Roman C. Sensor and of Francis P. Blair. The principle to which otwheinagllude is thus statedin that report: is plainer in the theory and plan of this Government tchxaenctuhteivde.i Judicial nadnsdepleagriastlent oivrge anei depts and the sedulous pare with which each enatsi rbeolyeinn deeloptchnoaddnedngtoufatrhdeeodtinhe thrse exerciseof duties to investthe same person vott he attempt with 2 othees. onelegislative and the other executive and require of him at the some time the dischargeof the dutiesof both is whether the be conflicting or not, a co in mingling of the dutieso the executive and legislative depts. It is bringing theExecutive. imsolfinto the very Halls of Congress and if persisted in might ultimately JH‘OVB as pernicious as if be h a seat the Represeentative votes as he had commissions. in Congressmay at the same time hold under the Executive the ofllce of maior general.somay another and another may aswell be a brigadier general or old any other ofiloial position in themilitary service under the Executiveaind Commander in Chief and bound to obey him. By such processthe Housemayat anytime beputunder the control and become the pliant instrumentof the Executive to any cud. Its members would cease to be the Representatives of the people and become on Tlyothfreaamgeernstos of the Constitution.”sawthi s so cloarly and felt the independenceof the legislative over the executive dept was so essential and vital that deemed theinhibition worthyof an express constitutional ennctinent. that "no personholding any officeunder the U.S shall be a member of either Houseduring his continnance in office." (Art. 1, sec.vi.) Still. in view of this important principle. the committeehavenot beenable tosec owtho acco tame and dischargeof the duties of the pflico 0 Judge advocate by Mr. Cossuifo. the duties.ton ure and existence 0 which office (if such it wasin him) were in thoir nature such as would most likely be and bwyelraew in fact. Wholly endpd and gone before he was or the Constitution.required to qualify as a member of Congress or to enter upon. assumc or discharge any duty as such monflictedwith ciples. UPON tillfl subjebt jllldflefihBCOlllltilhllotOseBeciro in the following 2 propositionsto be entirely settled in our Government: 1. “The acceptanceby a member of any offico under the U.S. after he has been eerlaeteetsed to and has taken his seatin conas aforfeiture of his seat." SSce Vanness case.Cl and Hall. 122; Schenck and13air case, 38th Congress.&c.) 2." Continuing to oxe ciito the dutiesof an officeunder the U.S. afteroneis elected to Congress but before he takes his seat is not a disqualification. such office being resigned or extinctfirioif to the taking of the seat.” (SocHammondvs. errir'k. Cl and Hall. $7; Earfs case.ibid. 314; Munford's case.ibid. 316'Schcnck and Blair's eiiso.38th Congress.die.) The committee agree With the reasoningand conclusions of the report. from which we have already quoted that the continuance to hold anotheroffice requires 0thteim member elect ltaow qualify thaend Constitution enterupon the dischargeof his duties as a member is. in legal contemplation.an act of election by him to vacate his officeas a member;and such continuance htoold the other 01110iso equivalent in its legiilsignificance to the act of accepting and entering upon an office tendered after the member was qualified. Both alike vacate the legislative office. 0 act.therefore of Mr. CONKLINGin accepting an office not previously held. which from its nature would terminate before he would be required to assume pn' duty asa member. had no more nor less effectin cpriving him of his right to enter upon his office as a member of Congross than the act of continuing after he was elected to exercise the duties of an office which he had previously cateredupon would have. Neither operates to vacate his seat in this House. the 1st officebein such asmustbe and was wholl ended or abandoned before the tiiiic oomes whcn ic is required to enter such duties as rayolo cisclaattosru.c The taimcte of daied cncopttiannictse nature indicate any election or purposeto abandon or resign the membership 1l Congress. "The object coofmthineg constitutional prohibitipn upon an officer be a incmber of congressis attained so far as it. can by this provision. if the inhibition attaches the momentthe mcmber enters upon the dischargeof his duties as such and nothing is gained by an earlier applicationpf it." There was therelore no constitutional obicction to Mr. Conkling’s acceptin this oliicoof Judgeadvocate nfho did become such officer. PBOHIBITO BY STATUTES. The actsof Conrose above referred to.of the dates respectively of arch3.181%a)n.dof the Ztdand26th of Au’gustJS ig.are. as is said by the Attygen of the U.S. (5opins.768.) "the some in the r includsienngstchaantdomf Socapntincmgzb"earndas toall of these acts. says.“ they do not forbid a person 3018f5 roam.bohvoeldciitnegdt .whoe compatible officcs at the same time. They were in tendedto prevent arbitrary extra allowancesin each particular case.but do not apply to distinct employments with salariesmixed to each by law (irregulations." (Secalso 6Opins. 80 and 325.) If the committeewereleft to their own construction of thpsestatutesof 18391.812a.nd 1850 we would have attained the same conclusionto which the AttyGen arrived in these opinions. But when thereis added to the forceof these and several other equivalent opinions by the AttyGens of this government.the Weight of the fact that all these statutes were in forcewhen mostof the very numerous decisionsby thisHouse were made deterinining that itnhere wasnothing either illegal or unconstitutional a member of Congresselect (but not qualified) holding an‘odicc under the U.S. Government.provided hedid nothold it after the time coins when the Constitution requiredhim to assume his duties as a legislator the committeecould not hesi State in coming to the conclusion that neither the Constitution nor either of these statutesalluded to in th ofipinion of the AttyGen wero violated whcn Mr. CONKLXNG became(if he did)s)eclfll judge advocate and took compensation therefor. c " lay took compensation therefor." because in all the cases we have cited the member elect.as tho committeo understand the historyof the cases received his compensation for his 1st office during the time be hold it, but not his compensation as a membertor the same time. 'rns aurora AGAINST JOBBING. Although not quite in properoi der.itmay erhapl as well besaid here as an whcm else. that the committeedo not seo what the statute of April 21.18(8. hasto do with this inquiry. That act renders it a crime for any inembor‘of Congressto "undertake. Execute hold or enjoy.in whole or in part. any contract or agreement. eroafterto be made or entered into. with any officer of the U.S.in their behalf or with any person authorized to makecontractsen the part of the U.S." No "contract" er “agreement” has beenproved in this case ibnegtwweitchnin Mr. CONKLING and any other person. comis the chVionsnicaningof these words in the notof 18%. The designof that statute is what is expressed by the AttyGen of the U.S. (4 Opinions.48) when he says." The object of the statute is only to prevent jobbing between members of the Legislature and the Executive for the primary advantageof the former." Sureiy the practice which has been general and uninterrupted. as must be within tho personal knowledge of every intelligent citizen. 0 membersof Congress acting as the attorneys of their Government has not subjected all such attorneys to indictment and line of 83.000. No one has suggested that such is the law and the committee ould have made no nllllrilOlffOit but for the fact that it is presented to our consideration in the brief of Mr. CONKLIXG. THE ACT PBOHXBITING HEXHERB BRCOJHNG CLAIM AGENTS. ETE. The actof June 11.1864c.ited above.renders it a high crime for any member of Congress at any time after his election.“ to receiveor agreeto receiveany compensation for any sorvicps rendered toany person in relation to any proceeding contract.claim. controversy. charge accusation.arrest.pr other matter or thin in which the U.S.is a party or interests dircctlg or indiroctly. Before any dept court martial. ureaii. officer or any civil. military or naval commissioner whatever." This statute Would have been directly in point had Mr. CONKLING received compensation for being the counselfor Haddock in this court martial. The fact. that this recent statute passedin full and thoroughly intelligent vicw of all the important questions of law. which your committeeis required to consider carefully confines its prohibitions to preventing mein bers elect from taking compensation for services rendered before courts marti. 10.“. to any person” and against the Government and does not prohibit such compensation being paid by the Government. nor prohibit such service being renderedin its favor; and this, too.in the identical casebefore the committee is oneof the strongest possible legislative determinations of the very questionwe consider. H ercis a law which comesup squarely face to face.iii front. of that exact questionwe consider.to Wit.whether a member electto Congressought to be permitted to receive compensationfor servicesrenderedltn either of the parties to a trial beforea court martial. And the Congress said it should not be lawful for him to take compensation for services rendered to one Flda "any person" and now shall we betold that congress meant to declare that it wasequally illegal to take compensation for servicesrenderedto the other side.to Wit. ior services in favor of the U.S. Ontheother hand is this ii t uconclusive legislative determination that a member elect might a compensated for services rendered to that other non-orphibitedside of the case? It so seems to the committee. ACT or 1852. This disposes of the alleged legal prohibitionsupo n Mr. Coxnniso’s entering upon the service unless it no.(and we think including.) that supposed to be, contained in the 18th section of t coat of 2 1st July 1862, already cited.(1Brightly 821,)and which is asiollows: "No rson hereater who holds or shall hold any ofice under the Government of the U.S., whose salary or annual compensation shall amount to thesumof $2, 500s, hall receive compensation-for discharging the dutiesof any other 0 co.” iaIrtncwsatlsy suggested in the debatesin the‘House, and elsewhere. that this section, even if it did not render Mr. CONKLING'S services upon the Haddock trial illegal, does render it illegal for him to receive compensation for his servicesupon that trial. The committee is not quite pertain that the cohrdaergr eosfatghae in House directing it to Inquire into the Mr. Coxxuxo contained in the letter of GeneralFry to Mr. Burst: admitsof the coin miltec's examining the question whether Mr. Coxs Liim was entitled to take that compensation of $3,000. That letter does not charge that the taking of any fcc was illegal, but only insinuatesthat it was exccssn‘c. Still. after what occurred touching this double compensation in the dates of the House, the committee deem it proper to examinethis question also. be outside of the duties of the committee an easy way of preventing mischief from this part of the report Will be to isregard it. of fhc determination of the question whether this act l Sffl renderist illegal for Mr.CosxLixo to receive, in addition to his salary as a member of Congress. this $3,000r.equiresthe committee to determineone or more of the following questions: Is onewhohas been electedtoCongress, but who has not yet taken the oath of office, nor in any way entered upon the dischargo of the dutiesof his office, and prior to the time when, by law. he is required to enter upon theseduties, “aperson who holds any 0. ce2d.i nGgraqnuteisntg iothna. t he is.in the cases Statedin the re a personholding an office, theni oes he hold anoffice jundorthe Government of the U.S., " within the just senseof this section I3. It'he. asa member elect, is an officer “under the Government of the U.S.” then did Mr. CONKLXNG in what he did in the Haddock service. becomean officer of the U.S.? 4. if he did not become an officer of the U.S. odfiadnhye, in that Haddock trial. discharge" the otherotiicc, " and receivecompensation therefor? IS A lEIBEB ELECT ONEHOLDING OFFICE? The 1st of theseinquiries is, in the judgment of cthicelincogmumpoitnt ethee.aenflsewcetorefd the act of 1852 ebsystahroyin cases Hammond, of Earl, of Munford. of Sehcnek and others. which wehave already cited. Theso cases.as we have seen.all determine that, prior to the time when the Constitution requires the member elect to commence the duties of his legislative cliice, and before he has assumed these dutiesand taken the oath of Mike, he may receive compensationfor dischar gin the dutiesofanother office. As we have already sai, these cases do not determinethat he may also becompensatedasamember of Congressfor thesame time for which he was compensatedin the other othee. But they do determinethat beinga member electof Congress does not make him an “officer” in such sense as to bring him Within the prohibition of the act of 1852. This question in substance.received the careful attention of the Housein the 38th Congress upon an able report of oneof its commit tees. The committeeand ousocameto what your coiumiiiee deem it just conclusion, when it deter mined that one merely elected to Congress, but who had not entered upon his duties nor been qualified, was not a member of this House, that is, did not hold an offico so asto prevent him from continuing to hold another office and receivee ompensation there fsohro.wiTnhge committee, in concluding their argument that one merely elected to cononewasnot a member of the House, and not. asone, amonable to its Jurisdiction. says: "The committee are‘not aware oi any attempt to punish a Representative elect, and of but one instanceof an attemptto expel one. A resolution was adoptedby the last House. under the prevmus question, to expel a person who was a Representative elect. but had never signified his acceptanceof the offiec, nor qualified.nor even appeared in Washington for the purpose of taking his seat." In that casethe House determined, in effect, that the act of 1552did not prohibit General Scurxcu, while amember electof Congress from receiving the pay oi another offiec.to wit. that ofiuajor general of voTlhuinsteiesrsth. e last case in which the question came before the House. But the some question received in the 15th Congress in the caseof Hammond or Herrick. (Clark and Hall, ContestedElections, 233, $4,) a still more elaborate and exhaustive consideration. In the report in that case (which also reccived the sanction of the House this doctrine was explicitly stated and wasaliirm after a thorough reviewof the English and American casestouching it. The case held the rule which was stated by the committeein thesewords: ‘Neither do electionand return constitute membership. Our rule in this particularis differentfrom that of the House of Commons. It is also better, for it makes our theory conform to what is fact in both countries thut the act of becomingin reality a member, ot‘the House depends wholly upon the person elected and returned. Election does not of itself constituo membership ngdthough the period may arrived atwhich the conressional term commences.” this House has again and again determined that men elected to itivbo do not appearin the body and assume the constitutional oath of office, are not to be reckonedas membersof the House in determining the number required to makea. majority or quorum of the ‘body.riziiivirmo PmvrLmE. arc. The committee.in coming to this conclusion.have not overlooked the fact that members electb. but not qualified, areby the laws accorded certain privileges and salary. The effectof this right to enjoy theso privileges before becoming unlified as a member of the legislativebody has received the fullest attention both in this House and in the English Parliament. the result attained is, that these special privileges are not necessarily indicuzof actual official authority or station and may by law as well be attached to one‘s gicrson before and after heis an officer as during his 0 cial tenure. The Representatives after the expiration of their terms, the Presidents of the U.S. after such expiration and the widows of certain cit Presidents, all have the frankin privilege and these are not then officers of the government in any sense. The assumption otioliicc in this country, as well as its reliiiquishment, is voluntary, and one electedto Congress is at perfect liberty to irnegfuse to assume the office. llis exerciseof the frank 1priVilego, with the knowledge that he never won d enterupon the duties of the office, would be an act of bad faith toward his Government; but that would not render him a member of conress. nor would the exercise prevent him. should ailure of healthpr other cause render it iinproper to enter ugionhis office.from rightly refusingoverto take the o co Other and perhaps more conclusive considerations bearingupon this imgortant iuquiry might be given, but lb'ifine t deemed est to iirsue it further. The House ititseefualrley eantdirerilgyhstalytisseetd tltchdaat sthteo ltahwis opfotihnits, and that ho is not a member of Congress, nor onewho “holds any officeunder the Governmentof the U.S., "who has only been elected to this House. but who has never taken any path of offiee nor entered upon the duties of that position. Mr. CONKLING was not prohibited by thoaet of 1852 from rcccivin compensation as he did for his servicesin the addoc trial, evenif his dutieson that trial wereotheial. We have npt Ivict reached the question of his right to be alsopaid is salary as a member of this House for the same time covered by the Haddock service. 15 AN ACTING MEMBER OF CONGRESS AN OFFICER OF OR UNDER THE GOVERNMENT? The next proposition the committee were called to consideran decide 18 "A thus stated byMr. CONKIJNG: Representative in Congressis not mail within the words person who holds anoflico under the government of the U.S.’ Sens&Reps do not hold offices under the Government of the U.S. They are part of the Government and therefore not aii‘octedoneway or the other by theseprovisions. If the committee were sustainedin the views they have taken of other propositions in this inquiring then the consideration of this onewould not benecessary to the determination of what is beforo the pommittee. But as the committee maynot be sustainedin the other propositions which dispose of the case. they have felt impelled carefully to considerthis one. The proposition that a member of Congress who has beensworn into ollce is not.an officerunderthe government of the U.S., within the sense of act of 18.52, the is supported by an appeal to authorities expounding the sense of these words asused in the Constitution. These or similar words are found in the Constitution in the following clauses: 1. That prohibiting Sens&Reps during the term for which they are elected from being 89%)iflbod to “ anycivil office under the authority of the U.S., which was created or its omolu merits increased during such time. 2. That prohibiting a person "holding any office under the U.S. from being a member of either Housept' Congress." 3. That givmg Congress the power to makeall laws necessary to carry into eli‘ectthe powers vested by the Constitution in " any ofllcer of the Government of the U.S.” I 4. That prohibiting every person holding any officeof profit or trust under the U.S.from accepting any present. office. 620.from any king, prince, or foreign State, without the consent of congross. 5. That prohibiting evcig Senator, Representative and person "holdiu an o ccof trust or irofit under the U.S." from being appoin for Prmident, ke. 6. That providing that the President shall commission "all officers of the U.S." 7. That providin that "all civil officers of the U.S. shal be removed from officeon impeachmont." 8. That prohibiting anyone who has suffereda iudgmentof impeachment from holding or enioying “an officeof honor. trust, or profit under the U.S." The proposition stated and which the committee are asked to affirm, is, that amember of Congress and his office are not includedin the scopeor meaning of the words of the Constitution "officer under the U.S., "or “civil othee under the authorityof the an elector U.S.” It is said that he isernment, part of the govandis not under it. It seems to be indicated that he may.in the senseof the Constitution, be an officer of the Government, but not under the Government. In the impeachmentof Blount (Wharton’s StateTrials, ass, ke.) this argument is presented by Mr. Bayard, but he(p. 269) makes the very properre mark asto such an argument that howas " unwillin to place any confidence upon an argument derived from moreover balcriticism. In construing the charter of ii. Government our views should comprehend all its parts and our aimshould be to execute it according to its general and true design.” No method of attaining the senseof the Constitution is safethan this more unclsm. But a liottnleeocfo"ns stiiedkei rnagt"ionine sfhtahripsvmerabtatelorr wiill show that "officersot‘" and “oficers under" the U.S. are (as said by Mr. Dallas in this Blounb etiaosne.’. 277) “indiscriminately used in the ConstituTake that clause as to whoma be impeached. The Constitution says that " the resident, VEEP, and all civil officers, of the U.S shall removedfrom officp on impeachment for and convwtion of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Now. then, if officersof the U.S.do not include officers under the U.S. (that is. officersappointedby the President, snchasJud es.&c.,) then on cannot impeach anybody exceptt 0 President. ice President, and, gerbaps, the members of Congress, if the latter are to c deemed officers of the Government. Again: the ruodmgmhoelndn of impeachment disqualifles the convict office of trust or profit under the U.S. not from holding the otfieesof You can only impeach them who are officers of the U.S and then.when impeached, theyor only prohibited from holding oficel under the U.S. thatis, theycan hold the same officee from which peachment, but cannot btohle?t wherein efexrciolurdeed xebeyuitmive oliicesunder those from which the impeachment doel noAtgpaeinrpetuall exclude them. the oustitution provides that " the President shall appoint all officers of the U.S.” Are 1101.thOjUdKQSJnllllSlCN, heads of Depts postmastors, &e., officers under the U.S. i f so. they are also otiiecrs of the ‘U.S.be cause the Constitution only authorizeshim to appoint officers of the U.S. this irresistibly evident that no argument ean be basedon the dilrerent senseof the words "of" and "under, " as used in these clausesof the Constitution and we must approach this questionasto whether a State be, witfh Congress wslaendg ofleicer “ under" the U.S. that if we find him to be either an officer " f U.S or one o ” the “nnder" the Government of the U.S., in either case he has been brought Within the constitutional meaning of these words.as usedin the act of 1852, because they are made by the Constitution equivalent and interchangeable. All we h avet o do, therefore, is to find out whether the Constitution anywhere (not everywhere) use: these exressions“ofieers of” or “officersunder the U.S. ” in such sense us must include members of Congress. If the Constitution once so uses either of these equivalent expressions.then all argument as to the sense of thesewordsin the act ofl 2. so for as that argument is derived fromtheir meaning in the Constitution is destro e d.because if the Constitution oncouses t escwo s in a sense which includes members of Congress, then so may the act of1852so usethem. Now, let us see whether there is any clause where oneor other of these phrases “officers of” or “ot‘ii eemunder the Government of the U.S.’ must include membersofCongross. Take the clause abovecited as to receiving presents, the lfrom any king. ibe. There the prohibition is that no person ho.ding any oificc of refit or trust under the U.S shall." Arc. ow. will it do to hold that a.clerk in the postoffice shall not be permittedto receive emcee.&c. from a king, $10., without the assentof Congress and yet every member of the Senate or of the House be permitted to be w“pitlihed bribe ins, itnhethienstchraepsetsooff a foreign Government. presents, offiecs. emoluments and titles? May the King of England make the American Senate a: British House of Lords? He may. unless the position of a Senator and Representative is an "officer under the U.S., " because there is no other clause prohibiting such be stowalsl A ain, take the clause containing the requirement that no religion test shall ever be required as a qualifieation to any office or public trust under the U.S. Now, shii, ll it beheld that a meni ber of Congress may be required to have some religion. 6ra particular religion, by the establishment of a.reli iouii testasto his office, andyetall theother offices o the Government be kept open to theinll des'! And yet this is the law of the Government, unless a member of Congress be one holding an of ficeor public trust under the U.S.: for there is no other prohibition than this one upou requiring such religious tests. ofOjur take the clause, already cited, as to the emoluments of impeachment. If a member of congress oesnot hold any ofiee of trust or profit under the U.S., then he is in an office into which one may immediately and freely enter who has, by impeachment, just been convicted of treason, bribe, or other high crime. This is because that the on y place: into which an impeached felon cannot enter are “offices of honor.trust, or profit under the U.S." The conVicted traitor cannot enter into the offioe of “deputy U.S. as sessor of internalrevenue. but he may become U.S. Senator! We might increase these examples, but surely it is not necessary. Surely it cannot be that the Constitution contains elements so repugnant to all just or safe principles of government. But we are referred to authoritiesto establishthis groposition that a member of Congressis not an of cer "of" or "under ” the U.S.; and the leadin liam Blount a U.S. Senatorfro Tennessee. The caseis found fully reported in hzirton‘s State Trials. 250.Justice Story (1 Constitution section 793)‘says this ca so decides that a U.S. Senator is not a uni officer of the U.S. This remark of the learned author is obviously an incnutious one and not fully authorized by what occurredin that case. The same author in the same section expressly declares that the “reasoning by which the decision was sustainetldoes not appear. the deliberations having been private." He adds tUhnaitte"ditS. twataess 'rmcbeaabnltyshuechldatshat civil officers of the derived their appoint meat from and under the national government.” &e. The defensespf Mr. Blount (see page 260were various. His main ones were: 1st. that the offenses chargedwereco nizable in the cinlcourts and dnuotti eosn;imsepeeoanedh.ment they not relating to his official that a had been expelled from the Senate before the trial of the impeachment and that he was thereforenot an officer of the U.S and not amenable to the Senate. As to what this casedoes decide.Wharton (page 8th1i7s) Jucastsley dseacyisd esIins tahaletgaaleieoninatto of View. all that States who has been expelled from his seatis no after such expulsion. subjcct to impeachment;an serhaps from this the broader proposition may be rawn that none are liable to impeachment except officers of the Government in the technical sense. gcluding there by membersof the national Legisla re. Judge Story further says of this decision that it was oneon " which the Senate was greatly divided." (14 to11.)and which “seemsnot to have been quite satisfactory to the minds of some learned commentators.” (4 Tuck. Black. Com. Ans" 57.58; Rawle on Cons t.c, h. pp. 2132. 14.$18.21.) Without. therefore. desi ni ngto determine that the ease of Blount did not ‘ecidothat a member of congress was not a civil officer of the U.S. "in some technical sense."the committeearewholly unable to point: to the conclusion that the members of the national Congress are not.in the enlargedand aeneral sense of the Constitution officers of their anoyvearuntmhoernitty. i sThtoc beeomfomunitdtcheodloding otthbaethe they are not. It by no means follows becausea member of Congress m iiyn ot he tried by impeachment. that he is nota "civil officer of the U.S." in the sensewc now consider. There are other clauses and principles of the Constitution which affectthe question ngloero the right to impeacha Senatorbesidesthe t as towho are included in tbojust sense of its htch words “providng cearmsoef the U.S."ioSnucohf pmeenm debnetrs. also those as to the separate and inde action of the 2 Houses touching their own members.Jae. These and like considerations may well he held to control and unlify the words of the Constitutsoii as to whom a 0 impeached. No one can re ad the singularly ii is and exhaustive argument in the case of Blount and not realize that the other principles and terms of the Constitution ought to an did control the sense of the words"all civil officers of the U.S.”as usedin this clause. The committee decline to find that an acting member of Congressis not an officer of this Government within the sense of at least some of the clausesof the Constitution. The committeehere leave this important question made in this case. The report of the committee so faras this SillgiO'point is concerned. has been to bring to the attention of the House the leading considerations which mustform the basisof its determination by the House, should its determination befound necessary. In the opinion of the enoemcemssit atree to. The determination of this point is not right determinationo all that is before the committee and this is not. Perhaps a proper easein which to make a precedentupon so vital a constitutional question. AM or 1852 mentions lic'riim usuaniis 1N'rns worn “curios.” But supposeit be granted that the constitutional blouse of the words "officer of the U.S., " or office under the U.S.” be what is insisted by My. CONKLING does it follow that the are iunsgedreingasrodlitmo ited accuse in the act of 1852? av the mischief meantto be prevented by i tathe committee have beenwholly unableto find equate reasonswhy a member of Congress who h‘aosf" taken "uhnidsesre"atthsheo Government inemseudchasneonfsfiecaesr that he should not be permitted to draw the salaries of 2 offices at the same time. though holding but one. 1‘0hold that a member of Congress is as free as other mon from human infirmities and as little ltioable to fall into temptation is probaily. accordin him as high agreed of virtue as would henccorde to him either by the truth or by the judgment of his fellow men. But it you look to the natureand powers of his office and the absolutely vital importaneo of having him removed as far as possible min the bad influences of corruption and avarice such as he would behabloto encounter.could he becomeentitled to the pay ofiriitny offieosat the same time.the propriety of holdin that this act of 1864 meant to preclude members 0 Congress from receivin double salaries becomes quite irresistible. We) ercfore cwoonredlsud eotjhllace twuhnadteerv the US."nainsguosfedthine the Constitution. the in the actM1852.ought to be held to and do. preclude an acting member of conciise relied on is the impeachment of will grcmfrom receiving compensation for the duties of any other office. was In. CONKLING.AB iicrmo wool anvocirrn, an OPl ‘ICl IB'I We are now brought to the question whether Mr. CONKLINE .in what occurred in this prosecution of Haddock became an officer of the U.S. That he did notwe think is mostreadily asccrtained. An oliiceis a particular duty. charge, or TTust conferred by public authority and for a public purpose, with a right usually attaehed to receive a fixed compensationfor such serVice. Nothing can be lainer than that no office of this Government ean c cre ated or conferredexcept by some public authority authorisedby law to confer it. upon this ver question Chief Justice Marshall. in t 0caseof unripe (2 Brock. 101. says: 1‘It is too clear. I think. for controversy. that appointments to office can be made by heads of Dept in those cases only which Congress has nut orisedbylaw; and1knowofno law which authorizes the SecyWar to make his appointment." And in that caseit was decided that aurice did not becomean omeer and that his contract with the Government.on which the suit was brough wasgoodonlyby reason of the fact that the U.S. is a Government and as such can. at common law make a valid contract With its agents uTthoem Caotntesrtsitouft Government. (article 2section 2, clause 2) provides that “the President shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Sonate shall appoint all officers of the U.S. whose appointments are not herein otherwnio provided for and which shall be established by law. But the Congressmay by law vestthe appointmentof such inferior officers asthey think proper in the President alone.in the courts of law or in the bondsof Depts." This clause covers every possible officeunder or in the Government. Aside romthe President VEEP and membersof Congress (these beingtheofficers included under the above words. "appointment herein provided for.") there are but 3 repositories in which can beplaced the powerto bestow any office.to wit. the President (the Senate assenting.)the courts of law and the headsof Depts. There was in Afpril. 1865n.o law giving to any court or any head 0 any Dept any power whatever to confer u onany person any office of generalor special iudge vocateasan oliieer of the Government. Brightly the si.xth section of the act of July 17 1862.(2 25.)authorising the Presulent.With the as sent of the Senate.to appoint aJudge advocate.with rank andpagof a maior of caval for each army; and the 6th section of the neto June 20. 1864 (.2 Brightly. 25.)authorising the President with assent of Senate. To appoint a Judge Advocate Gencral with rank of brigadier encral and an asst with rank of colonel of cav. are the only laws then in force. sofar as the committee find permitting the appointment of any judge advocate as sueli. Counselin their briefshavetreated the49th scetion of the Articlesof War of April 10.1806. (1 Brightly. 79.)asbeing aalustohionr iftoyr.e ew. hich the committee assume.on their it was. This last permitted the judge advocate or the general or officer commanding the Army. Detachment or garrison.to "deiiute some person to in thonaine of the U.S." military offenses. If there are another laws bearing upon these appointments they of the committee. The same section last named provides that " the Judge advocate, or person officiating as such." shall take a certain oath to keepsecretthe doings of the court. (1Brightly 86.) The 25th section of the net of3d Mare. 1863. (2Brightly. 26,)authorizestheiudge advocate to issue process for Witnesses. This oath and theseduties Mr.CONKLING took and performed in the Haddock trial. lie hadno obtyher appointmentor commission than that shown the lettersofApri13 by Mr. Dana. setforth in the rleetqtueirreodf tGoeneral Fry to Mr BLAINE. He was not nor did he take the usual oathof all officers of the U.S. nor did he take the oath requiredbythe actof Jul 2.1862.(‘3Brightly. 348.) Without taking thnt oath 0could not enterupon or take compensationfor the duties of any officewhat aenveyrw.he except the officeof President. There is no law authorizing Mr. Stanton to a point anyoneto the officeof JUdROjKiVOCHlp.Int 0 letter of Mr. Dana above noted.it wassaid that “ the judge Advocate Genera will be instructed to issue to you an appointment as special Judge advocatefor the prosecution of any cases that maybe brought to trial before umilitary tribunal." But eventhis wasnotdone. Under this state of law and fact the committee do not think that Mr. CONKLINQeither did or could become an "officer" of the U.S. Under these laws ajudge advocateor a general or officermight. under the constitution. “depute” Mr. Cosxuxo as agent. but could not give him an office.becausethe Constitution does not permit these men to he authorisedto appoint to office. “nuriiis or an omen omen." paTihde83on.] freermfiaviening quostions. Whether his bein was such a comenms aotniothnsfo'src“rdinisccehfarorgmin Agptrhile Bdu1t8ie3s% of any other 0 e” as to require Mr. CONKLINE injustice or legal proriety. to either y back what a has receivedfor those services or e sonot to draw his salary use.member of Congressfor that time. The committee submit to the House the proposition sitsconclusions at which they havfeoallorrwiviieia as to this point: 1.When a member electhas drawn the sale or myfor any otber ofico. for‘any time after the 4t of arch preceding his entering upon his duties as n. memberxfCongress. he should not receiveany compensation as a member of Cong remfor that same me. aveescaped the attention 2‘ The act of 81st August" (1 Brightly. 821.) which is relied on as prohibiting a Mr. Coasting; from receiving the $3.000 does not apply to duties” or servicesfor which therewas no oihcer pronded law whoseduty it wasto discharge them and wine duties were. in their nature an in law.such that "some other person" than an officer might legally dischargethem. 3. The duties dischargedby Mr. Coslniso were dutiesfor the doing of which the law had not provided, nor paid any other oflJcer and charged such officer.as part of his official duty at that time and place.to enteruponand do. But. On the other hand. theyare serviceswhich. in their nature and under existing law.(1Brightly. 79and 80, someother person than a Judge advocate could 0. The law expressly permitted some person not aJudge advocate, dainsdch"adregteatilheedm by him." and “officiating as such." to 4. The law or mihtary regulations in pursuance of law. mayconfer upon private individuals. not officers. powers similar to those usually exercised by officers such as that of issuing subpen as swearing Witnesses k.c. such iscommonin regulations touching elections. Speeial commissions. The duties in some of the States of attorneys.of grand jurors and the like. These conferments of such temporary or lim ited powersdo not, in the senseof the Constitution andlawsof the U.S. necessarily constitute the recipients of them "officers." nor make their duties thoseof "any office." 5. Mr. Cosnniso’s servicesin the Haddock trial mweeraennine gt “ the duties of another ofllce."within the of the act of 185 and he was entitled to compensation thereforthe same as for any 5 be service renderedby him in his profession is have earntih negrseoffore.receivedthis money as the ordinary hisprofession.its receipt nomorerequire! him to declineto draw his salarfior that time than the collection of any of his other earnings during that time requiresit. THE AND IUBO1"THE BLAINE LETTER. In the month of February. A. D. 1865. GenlFry enteredintoanarrangementwitheolonelL. C.Baker. chief of the U.S. detective force and the firm of Allen. Riley 6: Hughes, then notoriousbounty brokersin the city of NewYork. haying forits obyect the arrestof bounty jumpers and deserters who then. as was supposed infested the vicinity of that city. The arrangementwas 1st made between Colonel Baker and Allen. Riley it Hughes.in the city of newYork. but subsequentlythe plan was communicated to GeneralFry and by him approved. The plan was as follows: Lieutenant Colonel Ilges. of the 14 thU.S. infantry, was to be detailed. with orders to 0 on an enrolling and enlisting ofice at ewJersey. Facilities were to be givelnloboken. all the known bounty jumpers and deserters in the vicinity to enlist and desertwith impunit until the facility for such desertion should become nown to all other bounty junipeis in the noighborhood.which was supposedto be a sufficient inducement tosecureE upon a day fixed. the enrollment and enlistmento a large number who were to bearrestedbya detach mentof U.S.soldiersto bedetailedfor that purpose. By a general order of the War Deptat that time the head of eachboard of enrollment was required to detain and hold in his hands the local bounty allowedto eachrecruit. which. at this point, was The object of this was to secure t cM priviil of the recruit at the point of rendezvous. at which time themoneywas to be paid to the I‘FCI'UIL Messrs.Allen. Riley Jr. Hughes were to provide all the cashnecessaryfor this purpose. In consideration of such advancements and the effectthe enter prise might have upon the subsequent business of Allen. Riley & Hughes, all bounty Jamers and descrters enlisted were credited regular y upon the booksof the office. ccrtilicatesof regularenlistments were made and signed by the proper officer of the board and the same deliveredto said Allcn. Riley Hughes. Who wereallowed to sell them LOFOI'SODB desiring substitutes or to the authorities 0 towns. cities or countiesin the vicinity: and when such certificateswere thus sold.such Ecrsou or corporation wereaccredited therewith as t ough such enlistment ad beenmadein good faith. 0n the 1stday 0 forcgoin arrangemMeanrtesh. 1865 in pursuance of the Colonel lges opened an office at Hoboken and commencedtaki recruits. 0n the 4th of the same month he receive ‘. through Captain H. J. Mills. the t'ollowmginstructions: Wssuixuros. D. 0., March 4. 1865. Captain H. J. MILLS. Provost Marshal 5th District NewJersey. Until otherwiseordered you are directedto allow credits for such men as Lieutenant Colonel Ilges, captain 14 thU.S. infantry. certifies to on as enlisted by him. He is recruiting at Ho be en. Inform Coloncl Ilges of this order. This command is special and condentist JAMES B. FRY. Provost Marshal General. Between the 1st and 9th days of March Colonel Iltgesreceived and mustered in 34 recruits. 0 stanthdeinsge.tohnalyt tthhereye were enlisted With the under to enter the service. The remaining 51 wereenlistedwiththe knowl e e that they were notorious “ an assoon as enlisted suffered to be osucanptye gumper‘s." y passing out of a back room in the ofiee. Certificates.regen lar in form were.from time to time. issued by onel es.on accountof such enlistiiients an mus ter. an deliveredto Allen. Riley dz Hughes. and]; them sold to the authorities of ersey City. who city received eredit for the same. On the 10th of March arrangements weremade.in pursuance of the original plan to arrestasbounty Jumpers all who might apply or enlistment or who might enlist at that officeon that day. It was expected that a large number at least 1,000 by mianthe thus secured. But the plot wusdiscovered the bounty Jumpers in time to prevent its consummation to the extent anticipated, and only 183 persons were thus arrested and secured upon these enlistments hem made Colonel Ilges. in pursuance of said orders from Gencral Fry. Issued certificatesof their regular enlistments. delivered the someto Allen. Riley 6rHughes.which the sold to the authoritiesof JcrseyCity. to beerode it upon its quota. For these certificates of credit or enlistment the authorities of Jersey City paid Allen. Riley k Hughes 8126.000. Of this sum. however. Colonel Ilges required in conformity to the aforesaid "general order.” the sumof $300of the bounty money of each recruit to be deposited With him. In the casesof 3 out of the 183 socalled bounty jumpers this was As respects all the othersitwas comlied with. soasto leave from this in the handsof Co onel Ilges the sum of $54411).This money was at once deposited by Colonel Ilges in the Broadway National Bank. to await. as he says the further order of the Provost Marshal General. The money was immediately claimed by Messrs. Allen.‘ Riley 8: Hughes. under an alleged contract with (ieneral Fry. Colonel Ilgos, however.did not assentto their claim. But in view of the fact that the men enlisted were then known to have been incar c eratedat Fort LaFayette and that no stepswere likely to betaken to rove them descrters.Colonel Ilges claimed that 1ft e men were held for service without being convicted of any desertion it should then go to them; but if the menwere proved toIbe desertersthe U.S. Treasury should recciVe the money. or in case the credits should he disal lowed. that themono ought tq be refunded to the local authorities.who ad old it in good faith and who would otherwrse be defrauded by the act of the Government itself. Colonel Ilges states that on his application to Messrs. Allen. Riley d: Hughes to pay t obalanceof the which they had failed to d‘ posit, they told him it was unnecessary todo so.as the whole amount in his hands ($54.00))would be paid back to them within ii few days by order of the Brown Marshal General. 0n t hc18thof March. 1865.while the payment of the $3i.000 wss suspended and the question as to who wasentitledto receive it wns pendin. Theodore Allcn. of the firm of Allen. Bile & llug cs had an interview with GenlFry. at c officeof the latter in the city of iishiniton. e The account which lieu givesof the convcrsation which transpiredat that interview. which your committee prefer to ucorporate in the words of the witness.is as follows: "I sentin my card.into the War Dept. I 1st swa the messengerw. ho toldmethat GeneralFry couldnot be seen as it was past the hour for receiving anybody. I told him it wasveryimportant that should seeGenlFry and if GenlFry knew was there hewould seeme. Hc took in card. then saw GenlFry and told him I'h comein resfionse to a letter or telegram from him to Colonel Ba er. retreating me to come to Washington and ca“ll upon im. “ M8110!!W hat did GenlFry answer to that? newer.He said 'yos;' that he had telegraphed to Colonel Baker that he wished to seeme that he understoodwehad not hcen quite as succcssful in the lloboken raid as we had expected. He then asked what had become of the ine neythat had been received. told him that I had it all, or the firm had it, with the excction of $54,000that Colonel Iiges had retained. e asked if Colonel Baker bod everasked me for an part of thatmoncy. Itol him no. he had not and t ateolonelIlges held 54.000of thatmoney and that I considered I wns entitled to it throughthe agreement between General Frg. myself and Colonel Baker and that Colonel 1]es old it and would not pay it over till he was or and to do so by General ry. on the ground that the generalorderwould not allow him to do so unless GenlFry ordered him to do so. He then said. ‘That is all well: We shall see aboutit.’ Said he 'The matter I wanted to s eo you most about was with referencetorecruitingaffairs at L iica.’ I told him I was acquainted with a party named Burke and another named Richardson. who wI eredoing recruitin business at Utica and thought could getall the in ormation possible. HO‘SMdhe thought so too and that he thought I was Just the Eerson to getall the information and for that reason e had sent for me.becausehe would not trust any of Colonel Baker's officers. He said there appeared to bein Utica enormous frauds in the rovostmar shafs dept as it was conduct by Captain Crandull and that he wantedto getat these frauds; that he had tried and had notbeen successful and that hewishr dincto go to Utica. I told him Ithought. from what I had known of recruiting in Utica, and from what I had heard, that if he had found out any frauds in “tion I did not think they would implicate CMaapytoarin Crnndall. but would point moredirectly to lladdock. He said he did notw antany evidence against Major Haddock. but against Captain Crnndall and he also wanted evidencethat would implicate Mr. Cositniito in the frauds. Because hehad let himselfin opposition to him (GeneralFry) astho champion of Captain Crandall and that he wished me to proceedimmediate] toUtiea andgetthat 0V1 dence. He said he wish meto go to Utica and ct evidencethat would implicate Mr. Comrmso in t o frauds with Captain Crandall at all hazards: and while I as gene that hewouldorder this moneg that Colonel a heldlo be paid over tome. I tol him it was be or that it be paid to Riley, ashe was the treasurer. He said the order shouldbe made. That closed the conversation. I then left and went back to NewYork.” On the 18th of March. the following telegramwas sent by GeneralFry to Colonel Baker: WAR DHPARTIEHT. Paovosr MARSHALGl INERAL'S Bunsau. WASHINGTON, D. 0. March 18.1565. ColonelL. C. BAKER, No. 12 Vcacustreet, NewYork: Allen is here and tells me he canprovide information about the‘UtlCll.district. I havetold him to do so. He starts back to NewYork to night and will seeyou. Produce all the facts in that case. JAMES B. FRY. ProvostMarshal General. colonel Ilges statesthat.havin dep1sited the $54. OOOiuthe bank on the 15thof ll are. he proceeded on the 17thof March to Washimtton city and.infer son, relatedto Provost Marshal Genera Fry all the detailsconnected With the efficientllo boken. the cop' ure of the 183 socalled county Jumpers and the amount of money in his hands asking at the same time, for instructionsin regm dto the disposal of the money. To whichGeneral Fr reii‘lied that further ordersWouldhesentby mail: to Colonel Ilges) then expressedto GenlFry is fear than at sonic future do he might be called uaon for explanations why be ad. at is officc at no oken. acted contrary to existing orders and regulations governing the musteringservico and that he intendedto ask for a court of inquiry. when Provost Marshal GenlFry assured him that he had donehis duty well and only Qbeyed orders. On the 19th of March he received the following dispatch: Win Dnraa'rnns'r. Pnovosr MARSHAL GENlillAL'S Orrica. WASHINGTON.D. (2.March 19.1865. COLONEL: I am directed by the Provost Marshal Generalto informfon that the oreditsof the men masteredby you arch 11.1809a. t Hoboken. NewJersey and creditedto Jersey City at large.are disallowed, and that you Will refund the money to the paIrtieswho advancedit. am. colonel, very respectfully, yii‘hrobedientser "mt, 4. Captain 61h UU.S. Cavalry.A. A. A. G. Breve t Lieut'eMnaanstteCroinlognelGnioo Incas. U. S. A. officer. Hoboken.NewJersey. On the 21stof March the following communication ans sent by Colonel Ilges to. the rovost Marshal enera: RECRUITINGSsavioi: Foenrnrsrii Isuzu av. 163Human S'rass'r, NEWYork CitY. March 21.1865. CAPTAIN: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication March 19. 1865, informing me that the credits of men mustered by me March 11. 1865 at Iioboken. NewJersey and credited to Jersey Cit at large. are disallowed and instructing me to re und this money to the parties whIo advancedit. begleaveto statethat no men weremusteredby meon the aforesaid date.but I infer that this communication meantto saythe 10th insteadof the 11th ofltlarch.1803. I would respectfully state that on the sa did day regulars were mustered by me and that if tfhoeuirr creditsarenot to be aifecte they should be cycluded in the order. I mustered on the lOth day of March 183 volunteers for 3 years' socalled bounty Jumpers, and they were credited to Jnew City at large. With the exception of 15 recruits thatwerecreditedto Clintontownship. Essexcounty. 4th congressional district. NeIw Jersev. would further state that I have at my disossl 5300 local bounty for eachof these 183 yruihs and thatI receivedthis amount from Allen. Rilc dzCo. who had contracted With the counties for the sccredits; andI would therefore respectfully request that you inform me whether or not I am to refund this money to theseparties or to the proorrepresentativesof thOCILLSbw'ChSoreceived theorei its. These 183 recruits were properly musteredinto the service by me and I cred ite themaccordingto instructions and ordersregulating the mastering service. None of the scrccruits have as 'et been proven to have been credited before an when I have these creditsI (lidso as a U.S. officer. clieving that I was doingrn duty and advancingthe interests of the lan of clone] IBaakmerin. fsoarnmcteidonedby the Provost arshal General. that the count representatives who received these credits paid a or 0 amountof premiumsto Messrs.Allen. Riley k 0. Besides tho $300 local bounty; and as the havedone so after having been informed by me of the correctness oi‘ the secred its. I would resgcctfully call your. attention to the fact that when these credits are disallowed the said localities will lose a large amount of money paid out by themin good faith. am not aware what amount of money was paid to Messrs.Allen. Riley & Co. for eachrecruit and cannot even give a probable guess, as I only collectedtbe usuaal mount romthem $390 forench recruit. this how the amount of bounty paid toIa.recruit enlisted at l ohoken.NewJersey. would here add that Messrs.Allen. Riley & Co. are the parties who carried out the plan above referredto and I only allowed them to be present in my office and to contract for these credits contrary to existing orders.after I had been assured by colonel L. C. Baker. special agen tof the War Dept. that the whole proceedingwas sanctioned by the Provost Marshal General U.S.Army. I therefore respectfully requestthatyouinform me. at your earliest convenience, what dispositionI am to make of.tchaepmtaoinn.evyer referred to. “met respectfully. your obedient some ILGES. Chplain14m Infantry. Brace!LieutenanteolonelVa 0., Recruiting Uflicer. CaptainW. Owens. 5M U. S. (hcalry. A. A. A. 0. Washington. D.C. reIcne ivretaoinlyttoheth 2i4s tlhe of tch reosfamtheem 21st etholeofno'lelolIwlgiensg reply: Was Dena run“. Paovosr Manse“. GRNEBAL'S Bean WASKINGTON I0. March 23, 1865 COLONEL! I have the honor to acknowledgethe receipt of your communication of the 21stinstan and.in reply. would statethat the communication of the 10th instant. referred to. was intended to cover the casesof the 183 socalled bounty iiumplersa.nd that the aine unt which you receive or the nor canof paying bounticsto these 183 so eailed bounty juinpersthe provost marshal directsto be refunded to the parties who advancedit. am. colonel. very respectfully. our obedient servant, I. S. aiplam 5th U. S. Cavalry.A. A. A. G Brevet Lieutenant Colonel GUIDOILGES U.S. Army, Heater Street.NewYork. The suspicions of Allen. as he alleges. had been somewhat eneited by the course of GenlFry in the transaction between them and be resolved if possible.as he says, to circumventhim. And accordingly be communicated the result of his interview with GenlFry to various parties at N cwYork and resolvednot to go to Utica. but to wait at NewYork a sufficient time to induce in General Fr Is mind a belief that he had in fact comlied with iis agreement and then sent to him the following dispatch. [No. 51.] AMERICAN TELEGRAPH Coursxv. March 24.1865. Brigadier GeneralFair. ProvostMarshal General, Washington, D.C.: I havcjust returnedfrom Utica and Colonel Ilges reffises to deliver the money receivedfrommebecause our order is dated the llth insteadof 10thof March. Leaseanswer through ColonelBaker. THEO. ALLEN., Please write your addressunderyour signature. 0n the someday the following telegram was sent by GenlFry to Colonel Baker: [Original by telegraph.] Was. Deranrinzirr. Puovosr Msnsrisi. Canaan’s BUREAU, Wssiiixorox. D. 0. March 24.1805. Colonel L. C. BAKER. No.l2 Vesci/ Street.NewYork City. I have beeninformedbyTheodoro Allen. of NewYork. that Colonel Ilges declines to turn over the moneyreceivedfrom the bounty Jumperson the 11th instant. I wish you to see Colonel Ilgos andhavehim turnover this money as directed. JAMES B. FRY. ProvostMarshal General. 011the 24th of March. Messrs. Allen. Riley 8: Hughes.in company with a Mr. Stanlcy ealled upon Colonel Ilges. demanded of him the 554.000 and uponhis refusingto giveu the money tothemuntil he could seeColonel L. C. aker and risk his advice in the matter.the threatened immediate legal proceedings to compo the delive of themoney. Colonel Ilges then called upon oloncl Baker at his office ebduetdbtoeitnhgeuonffiab celeof to the U.S. district attorno. D. L. Smith, Esq" No. 12 Chambers street and lai the case before oneof the attorneys in his office.who advised him not to give ufl the money until he had further ordersfrom Wasingtou. He also consulted with several officers of the regular Army then in the city and was by them advisedto the same effect. 0n the25thof March. 1861 Colonel Ilgos was again sentfor by Colonel L. C. Baker and u pen his arrival at ColoncI Baker's officea telegraphic dispatchwas shownhim by Colonel Bnker from the Provost Mar shal General.directing him to order Colonel Ilges to turn over the amount of money(554.000held by him asbountyfor the 183 socalled bounty jumpers to Messrs.Allen. Riley & Co. After some hesitation Colonel Ilizes then proceeded to the National Broadway Bank accompanied by Means.Allen. ltilcy. Hughes and btanley and there drew the followmg check: 0. 24. NewYorknir. March 25, 1866. Nations l Broadway Bank. pay to Messrs. Peter Riley dzCo or bearer. 54,000 dollars. (554'000') oumo moss. our. 1m. 1;. s1, Brecct L1. 00!. U. S'.A" Recruiting car. This checkwasthen handedto Peter ‘Riley in the presence of the others and he presentedit to the paying teller of thesaid bank an received the $54,000!!! pay mentof thesome. n the 25thof March GenlFry lent the following dispatchto Colonel Baker: by Paovosr Maiisnsi. Gsssssn's URIAU. Wasumoros. D. 0. March 25.1865. Colonel L. C. Bast m.1YewYork. You must prepareall the factsin the caseo f the Utica district without referenceto M or Ludding ton'sreport. It is absolutelynccessaryorme to have them.whether Major Luddington has been able to obtain themor igt. hSt'eAedieu altltd let him make it his busiumsto s aig on is may or on. ] Ah B. FRY. ProvostMarshal General. It was chargedagainst GeneralFry by Mr. Coagmxo that the motivesof the formerin his regardto the Utica district were to befouanedtiine nhiins relations with Maior John A. addcck.who was engagedin fraudulent practicesat Elmira. from which it suited the policy of GenlFry to divert public attention by the prosecution of the allegedfrauds at Utica. It a pearedfrom the evidencebefore your committee that sometime priorto the transactions at llohoken referredto.MayorJobn A. Haddock.not in asst provost, marshal for the westerndistrict oflfNewYork. hadbeensuspectedof the mostflagrant and corrupt violations of odicial duty. Detailed re gyorhtsimofhsapdebeeifiecnamctasdoef to office ianledrisahl Fornyesint ycwormitimn ittoend severaloccasions.One byEdward Meloy. datedFeb ruary 3.1565 and another by Peter A. La. F ranco. datedFebruary3.1865. 2 of the allegedaccom pliccs of Hod ock in the fraudulent practices reported.namedWebell andDalton.werearrestedand afterwardsent to the Kenitentiar. Haddock himself. however.wasnot then arreste nor relievedfrom dutfi. But on the 15thdayof March 1860 Colonel L. C. aker telegraphedto Provost Marshal GenlFryto the effect that he had disccvered most astounding enlistment fraudsat Elmira. With which Mayor Haddock was connected. Soon afterward Mine r Had deck wasiirrestedbyorder of the SecyWar. a.court martial was convened in his case and Hon. Roscoe CONKLlNGauthorized by the War Dept to represent the Government at his trial. there be any circumstances in the testii nony which are susceptible of further explanation either by GenlFry or Colonel Baker. (to both ct whom many of the statements relate.) your committee have not had the benclit of their knowledge.as neither appeared asa witnessin the case. As your committee have already explained. their investigation of the matters with which they have been charged by the order of the House has thus far been confined to that branchof the caserelating to the charges made by GeneralFry againstHon. Roscoe CONKMNG leaving the otherbranchof the case relating to the charges madeby Hon. RoscoeCosii'uuo against the Provost Marshal General untouched. Vhotever eVidence there may be containedin the report of your committeewhich mayraisea question touching the man ageiuent of the Provost larshal Generafs Bureau has been admitted solelyon account of its supposed relation to the motivesof GenlFry in the publication of his charges against Mr. CONKLINE .us has already been explained. So far. therefore.as the committee have deemedit pertinent for that purpose. they have heard and considered it and for no "other. It would be premature and might work in jiistice ifyour committee.at this stageof their investigation.wereto pronounceaffirmativelyin advance upon a branch of the case only collaterally introduced and still further to be heard and considered. Your committed thcrefore refrain altogether from expressingtheir Judgment upon the guilt or inno cornrcue potf.b GenlFry on the charge of the alleged with Allen and his connection with the lloboken eiilistuients. Theyrefrain also from any expression of their opinion as to the credit to be attachedto the testimon of TheodoreAllen. (a witness sought to be impeached by the party against whom he wascalled:) nor does your committee undertake to say at this time how far the testimony of the said Al an is corroborated and sustained by the other testimonyin the case.So for. however. as any of the evndence before your committee bearsii on the oint. for the illustration of which it was n mitted they have not failed fully to consider it. Whatever relative weight has been attachedby your committeeto the various testimony in the causewhich brought themto their conclusion in referenceto the motives of Genoral Fryin writing the Burst: letter. it capnot be important at thistime to announce since their conclusion on that point is not equivocal and is the unanimous judgmentof the committee. The following copies of what purport to be 2 letters oneby Colonel L. C. Baker and the other 21v GenlFry appear in a printed argument by on. A. G. Riddle. which has been laid upon the tablesof the members of this House: Orricr: SPECIAL Aossev WAR Damnriiny'r. NEWYORK. Allure/i16, 1860. Sin: Since the capture of bounty jumpers at Hobo ken repeated applications have been made to me to sheayv.esaidjum tors creditedto the state of NewJer Coloncl lges.the mastering officer applied to me.beforegoingto Washington last week.to make application to you to have said jumpers socredited. I informedhim that I did not think these men could or would be credited. advising him (Colonel llges) to a| iplyto you for the required instructions or permission. mOyn Tuesday last. while in Washington and after conversationwith you on the subject referred to above. I received a telegramfrom Colonel Ilges requestingme to obtain permission to make t credits. I‘liis telegram ese madeno reply to. On my return to NewYork yesterday mornin I heard that Colonel llgeshad madethe credits. sent for him and asked him by whoseorder or direction he had doneso. He referred meto your telegramof March 5. addressed to Captain H. J. Mills. provostmarshal at Ncwhrk. Now Jersey. for hisauthority. I him informed (ColonelIlges) that I did not.think that you in ten ed.by the telegram referred to. to convey any Jourmal or corrsaauntdhodreitsyetrote Crsa;ptthaaint Myoilulsr tte olcerger daimtbwoausn intended to only authorize the crediting of such menas were regularly and legitimately enlisted previous to the Friday on which it was understood that nonebut Jumpers and dercrters were to he enlisted. I advised Colonel have and to make such seesxptolagnoattoio Washinton to night. in reference to this matter asgoo may require. These explanations. I trust. Will e sntis actory. I am general very respectfully L.y. oCu.rs. BAItER. Colonel andSpecialAgent “'ur Dept. Brigadier General JAMES B. Fur. PronoatMarshal General U.S. Washington I.). C. A true copy: GEORGE E. SCOTT.Y Brevet Lieutenant eolonel U. 5. V. Wan DnrAirriiits'r. Pnovos'r Muisnn. Gnssnan‘s Bunssc. Wasnmoros. D. 0. March 29.1865. COLONEL: by the courseof things in referenceto bounty jumpers taken at Hoboken. Mayor Clove land. oflkewark is placedin every unfortunateppsition. If possible. he should be relieved from it. Under dateof March 23 I directed Colonel Ilges to return the moneyin his Fossession to the parties who advanced it. asbounties or thesemen.the creditsfor them being disallowed and the money still in his POSSOESIOD. It seemsthat.underthis order.re orted) telegraph to you on the 24thof March. cloncl Ilizes has elivered the money in whole or part.to TheodoreAllen. broker and perhapsto someother brokers and thatMayor Cleveland is unable to regain possession ofit. The propermethodofdisposingof all the time seemedto me plain enothuigsbhu: sitinicsstshhisa:s toallowno creditsfor the bounty jam ers. men who have already been enlisted and creditee severaltimes over. but to credit any. ifthere beany. who are bone fule recruits and not yumpers.To return to the town authoritiesall the moneythey advancedon account of men whom we do not credit. I intended my order to carry out the aboveview. but itsecms that the mone' advanced by Newark has been returned to Allen the broker: perhaps it was turned over to Colonel Ilges through Allen and on this accounthereturns it in the same way. However that may be. Allen should return the memcyto New ark. an I desireyou to seeAllen an tell him so. Neither he nor anyone else has any right to profit in the matter. All necessary exenses connected with the arrestof these jumpers.an the enlistment of such as are proor recruits.must be paid by the U.S.so that there is no lossfor indiv'iduals in the case. Pleasereport to inc as soon as practicableon the nd'ustmontof this affair. 'ou had better send for Mayor Clevelandalso. Very respectfully.your obedientservant JAMES ll. ‘FRY. Provost Illurahal General. Colonel L. C. BAKER. 1V. 12 Veseustrrel.NewYork City. A true copy: GEORGE E. SCOTT. Brevet Lieutenant(, hlunelU. S. V. The opening argumentin the summing up before the committee was made orally on behal of GenlFry by Mr. Riddle and was reported by oneof the reporters of the House. To this Mr. ConkLiso res plied. Mr. Riddle rejoined in an oral argument.but which was not reported and he had leaveof the committeeto reduce to writing this rejoinder.confining it to the argument actually delivered this to bere ported to the House along with the otherarguments in the case. No member of the committee has any recollection of either of these 2 letters being either given in evidence in the caseor alluded to in any part of the argument; and no member of the committee has any recollection of ever seeing the ori iual of either of these letters and neither of them as yet been furnished to the committee. The 1st knowledgewhich any member of the committee had. so for as can be freerceoglloeientgepda. of either letter. was after writing the of this report' and upon seeing the printed argument of Mr. Riddle. The committeeun derstandit to be now claimedby the counselfor Mr. CONKLING that these letterswere not.offeredin evidence. nor alluded to in the argument and doubts are expressed to the committeeas to the authenticity of one or both. GenlFry’s counsel insist that these letters were given in evidence and commented upon. Since the committee’sattention hasthus been called to them their effectin the caseftreating them asauthentic)has been by your committee.carefully considered and they do not chap c any conclusions submitted in this report to which your committee had come before theyweresccn. These letters never having beenin the possession of any member of the committee. the committeecannot. of course make any decision whatever as to whether these alleged copies are copiesof genuinelettersof the dates they bear: but the committee submit these alleged copies with this explanation. that the house and all parties me have the benefitof them. our committeereport to the House the argument of Mr. Riddle. as printed by him. with the above statement.asto its correspondence with the argument made to the committee. They do this becausethe committee are not Willing to deprive GenlFry of any fact or argument in his defensewhich he may desire to bring to the attention of the Houseto influence its action. although it maynot have been subimnjiutt setdicteo. the committee duringits deliberations. No so far asthe results of the committee’s action is concerned.can be done to Mr. CONKLING by this course.as the committeecameto no conclusion as to thesubject matter of theso letterswhich is adverseto him. Your committee have refrained from making any raegcaoinmsmt GenlFrys ftoor proceedingsby the house this breach of its privileges. The reasons for this are in part to be found in the circumstances connected with the introduction of GenlFry’s letter into this House by one of its members. The committee doubted whether the Housewould be inclined or ought to adop anyfur ther proceedings against GenlFry toncing this violation of its privileges.exceptin connection with the examination of Mr. Bi.ii.'s’s relations to this matter. The latter is wholly outsideof the powers of our committee. esides.all of the facts and also the conclusions of law and fact derived thercfrnmwhich bear upon the question of the proprietyvof any further proceedings touching this lirezie i of its Erivileges.are by your committee hero submitted to the House: and hence the Housewill have no difficulty in decidin what its action should be in this regard and would not be assistedby any more opiiiion pr recommendation of the committee upon a question lying sope culiarly within the limits of the discretion of the House and to be determined by its senseof fitness. The execution of that part of the order of the House in relation to the chargesagainst.GenlFry and his burcau Wlii involve an enormous amount of labor and of expense and canbe properlyperformed only by a committee having a competent clerk and phonographic reporter and having caveto sit at the places where the witnessesreside and during the sessions of the House and also during the recessof Congress. Whether. now that the war is over. the public good to be attained by these investigations will compensatefor the large expensethey will involve.is a considerationwhich should receive the attention of the House. Your committee.having fully and carefully considered the chargesagainst Hon. Roscoe CONKLING contained in the letter of GenlFry. are unanimously of opinion that none of the c iarges in the lreetettelyr. Awnhdeteoovremrtalyd.ehdaivrecatnly and openly or indi foundation in truth. and that the conductof Mr. Consume in relation to eachof the matters investigated by the committee has been above reproach and that no circumstances sufficientto excite reasonable suspicion have arisen which could justify or excuse the attack made upon him in the letter of GenlFry. The several chargesagainst Hon. Roscon CostLING. contained in the letter of GenlFry. bein unsupported by the testimonyin anyone materia particular. Although ample opportunity was afforded at the costof 9 time an expense.to enablethe writer of that letter to furnish is proofs.the committee ought not to refrain from the expression of their condemnation of the deliberate not of a public functionar in traducing the oliicial as well as the personal charaeter of a member of the House of cpresentativesof the U.S. by the publication of a libel which he was so illy prepared to sustain. Indignities offeredto the character or proceedin s of the national Legislature by libelous as saults av beenresentedan punished both in England and the U.S.asbreachesof privilege; and such assaults upon the official character of members have been hel punishable as indignities committed against the House itself. The reason for this rests upon the same ground as that whichjustifies the exercise of similar authority to punish for attempts by personal violence.menaces or bribes to influence the conduct of members in their official capacity. Your committeedeem it proor most carnestl to protest against the practice which has obtaine. to some extent. of causing letters from persons not members of the House to be read as ii part of a personal explanation. in which themotivesof mini era are criticised. their conduct censured and they are called to answerfor words spoken in debate. such attacks upon members. Mnde in the Houseitself and publislie in its proccedings and scattered broad cast to the world at the expenseof the Government. are. in the opinion of your committee.an improper check upon the freedom of debate.a violation of the privileges and an infraction of the dignity of the house. Your committee submit.for the consideration of the House. the following resolutions and recommend their adoption: Resolved.That all the statements containedin the letter of General James by Fry to Hon. JAMES G. BLAIXB. a member of this House. hearingdate the 27thot' April. A. D. 1866 and which was read in this House on the 30th of April. A. D. 1866. in so faras such statements imute to Hon. Rosco: CositLiso. A mcmber of this ou sc.any criminal. illegal. unpatriotic or otherwise imgroperconductor motives. either as to the matter of is procurin himself to be employed by the Government of the U.S. in the prosecution of military offensesin the State of NewYork, in the management of such prosecutions. in taking compensation therefor or in any other charge are whol y without foundationin truth; and for their publication therewere. in the judg pmreonset couftitohniss house.no facts connectedwith said furnishing either a palliation or an excuse. Resolved.That GenlFry. an officer of the Government of the U.S and head of oneof its military bureaus.in writing and publishing these accusations named in the preceding resolution and which. owing to the crimes and wrongs which they impute to a member of this body.are of a nature deeply injurious to the official and personal character influence and privileges of such member and theirl publication originating. as in the judgment of the house.heydid. in nomisapprehension of facts. but in the presentment and passion of their author was guilty of a ross violation of the privileges of such member an of this House and his conduct.in that regard meritsand receivesitsunqualified disapprobation. S. SHELLABARGER. Chairman. g. WIN. BI c.'000K. SAMUEL L. WARNER. DIPLOMATIC APPROPRIATION BILL.