National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-05-24
These lots each contain 10000 square feet.


mcnt.
stances attending the presentation OF the case
against him before the grand juries, In ORDER 10
show that the against h was St IN
rlpted with the point that the gentemans remarks
did not present question of privilege,
TherenpOn Mr. Kellogg offered resolution
reciting that in the investigation to the prose
culion Of star route cases before the committeeon
expenditures in the department OF justice, cyl
denCe has been given which reflects upon his
character, and directing that committee to In
vestgato the subject of his alleged connection
with the star route service, and whether he re-
cciVe1 money for services rendered In matter
pending before one OF the departments OF the gov
ernment or whether he paid money 20 any oihcer
on account OF or IN sd service IN
to his recent trial and denied that he had pleaded
the statute elimination,
Mr.. Cobb remarked that all the newspapers had
published an opposite statement.
Mr.. Kellogg replied that the indictment ad-
dressed itself TO certain state of facts. When
one witness was sworn. 1t was developed that the
transaction began aud ended In July, 1879. The
court ntimated to his counsel that the plea OF the
statute of limitation would come in generally
under the plea Of the general issue.
He Mr.. Kellogg said to his counsel that be pre-
ferred to end the matter at once and for all. HIS
counsel held consultation and the court held
that he would, in any contingency, be entitled to
u verdict, for the statute Of Limitation applied,
and no jury could take cogni2ance Of the oilense
Mr.. Hammond. Was any Offer made by you to
waive the statute of limitation2
Mr.. kellogg, no, sir; .,.,.o
Mr.. Budd. Did not the case go oil on TINS propO-
sitiou--thAt the allegations of the indictment were
that you received certain compensation In lawful
money, while the proof disclosed that you re-
ceived draft?
Mr.. Kellogg. No, sir. The gentleman is par
italy right. That point OF variance was consid-
cred, but the court passed mainly and primarily
on the question that the state of facts admitted by
the prosecution clearly show cd that the jury could
not render a verdict because the case was barred
by the statute of Limitation.
Mr., Crisp, IA member of the Springer committee,
said that the gentleman was mistaken MS to the
action which the committee had taken. No app
pliCutOu had been made To ii TO have u thorough
Investigation OF the charges against the GENTLE
man. Tho gentlemnu's counsel had appeared
before the committee with the request that II tho
investigation was to proceed further they might
be present TO crosS-cXaluine witnesses; but tho
statement was distinctly made that If there was to
be no more testimony taken by the committee the
gentleman had no request to make.
Mr.. kellogg appealed u the sense of justice
ana right OF the house to permit him to have the
investigation authorized, and demanded the
previous question, but II was voted down.
Mr. Hammond was 10th to refuse " any geptl0-
man the opportunity 20 reply TO any attack made
upon him, but he did not think that The house
had authority to inquire into the matter.
The question was debated by Messm. Blanch-
ard Hammond, KGssrn, King, aud Hart Mr.
Hammond moving to refer the resolution to the
committee on the Judiciary with leave to report
il hack at any time for consideration. If that
committee should report that under che crcum'
stances of this case, 1t was ono which the house
could legally investigate he would withdraw his
opposition,
50. noes 40.