Mr. FESSENDEN. I find it necessary, I believe for the 1st time since I have been a member. of the Senate, to ask leave to make a personal explanation. I find in the National ntelligencer of March 17, 1866, a communication from Mr. William A. Graham, whose credentials as a Senfrom the State of NCarolina have been laid ii on the table. He prints, and makes a part of iis communication, a letter written by him to me, and m reply to it, and the rejoinder on his part. the Senate will recollect that a few days since the honorable Senfrom Kentucky [Mr. DAVIS] brought the matter to the consideration of the Senate, and made some pretty sweeping charges against the committee of 15 of unfairness in their proceedings. The honorable Senfrom Iowa [Mr. Gainns] made an explanation of the course that was taken in his branch of the committee, to whom was referred all matters relating to the State of Tennessee. The Senfrom Maryland [Mr. Jonlvson] also certified to the course that had been taken by the committee; and I stated that, so far as I knew and believed, there had been, no application to the committee or any of the sub committees on the part of representatives from the States in question which had not been ranted; that but one application had been made to me, and that was by a letter of a gentleman whose credentials had been presented as a Senator, and thatI replied to him, stating that he could introduce testimony. I did not pretend to give the language that was in the letter because I kept no copy of it, and it was not before me. I stated the general idea that I had in my mind as to the substance of my reply, which was that the committee was ready to receive testimony when offered to any reasonable extent. The letters arepublished, and Mr. Graham states that he publishes the correspondence and his communication in consequence of the debate that took place in the Senate. The letter which he wrote me made 2 renests, or might be considered as a request gith 2 branches. One was that those claiming to represent these States might be allowed to be present and cross examine all witnesses who were produced, and also that they might be allowed to introduce testimony themselves on the subject. The letter which I wrote in reply to both points is very short, and I will read it: " WAsniuorox, January 24, 1866. “DEAR Sin: It is not customary to allow a cross exnmimition of witnessesbefore a committee appointed to report on asubject not involving individuals. The committee is supposedto be desirous to ase ert ain the truth, and capable of making all the examination necessary, “ The committee is quitewilling. however, to examine any witnesseswho may be produced, having a knowledge of the subject matter, to any reasonable extent." I think that hears me out in the statement that I made, which, in fact, he does not under take to disute, that I answered him that he would be a lowed to introduce testimony. Then I stated in addition:. "The credentialsof gentlemenclaiming to be Son atorshave not beenreferred to this committee, and there is no probability that theywill be.” I added that to dispose of what seemed, from his letter, to be an impression on his mind that the whole question of their right to seats, involving credentials, &c., was before our committee, which it was not. Before writing this letter, in the morning, at ameeting of the committee, having had no sort of experience myself on committees of this kind, I stated the fact that I had received the letter, and inquired as to what the practice was. It was stated to me, by whom I do not know, and generall conceded, that it was not the practice where a committee of investigation was appointed not involving individuals, on a general subject, to allow persons to be present to make cross examinations ofwitnesses but that there was no objection whatever to lldr. Graham or anybody else introducing such testimony as he saw fit to introduce. Those ideas I communicated to him. The language of my answer is not precisely the same as that which I stated here. I stated it in the ordinary course of debate, without particularly attending to the words, but the idea is precisel the same, and that is that he would be permitted to introduce testimony if he saw fit. To that there was a reply in which the matter was again urged some what. It is not necessary that I should read it, but his idea seemed to be that the committee should furnish him and all other gentlemen who are claimants for seats liere notice of the points on which evidence is desired, or prejudicial testimony which it is necessary to meet, in order that they might come and meet it or reduce testimony on the other side. To that etter I made no reply, for I considered the matter settled, and I was not disposed to continue the correspondence. Nowksir, I have only to say that