Rensselaer Union, Volume 8, Number 39, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 15 June 1876 — Messrs. Blaise and Kerr's Statements. [ARTICLE]

Messrs. Blaise and Kerr's Statements.

" In his statement and explanation in the House on the sth, Mr. Blaine claimed that he had rightful possession of the letters obtained by him from the witness Mulligan, who had do right whatever to them. After lengthy remarks hi which he stated that the whole inquiry of the committee investigating specific railroad companies had been aimed personally at him, he proceeded to read the letters and memorandum in question, and made pasting comments upon and explanations of various points in the several letters. He introduced the reading of the letters with the following remarks:

“Many of these letters have not the remotest bearing on the Subject, but some of them will require a little explanation. Some of them may possibly Involve humiliation, but I would a good deal rather take that than take the evil surmises sod still more evil inferences that might be drawn if I did not act with this frankness.’’ After the yeading of the letter* and memorandum the spewer wont on to say that there bad not been a particle of proof to convict him of the specific charge against him that he was a party in Interest to the $64,000 transaction. These letters, he said, were picked out off a correspondence extending over fifteen yntre, and the most intimate business correspondence of his life; the man Mulligan hod done his very worst. Mr. Blaine then charged that Mr. Knott, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had suppressed a telegram received bv the committee completely exonerating him (Blaine) from the charge against him, and demanded of Mr. Knott to know if such telegram had not been received by the committee. He then offered a resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to report forthwith to the House whether such telegram had not been received from Mr. Caldwell, or whether the committee had heard from him (Caldwelll in any other way. In answer to Mr. Blaine’s insinuations against him, Mr. Knott stated that there had been no wrong done to Mr. Blaine by the committee. So fares the letters were concerned, the committee had not decided what should be done with them, but Mr. Blaine had been positively astaired that he would not be martyred by me committee. Yet, in defiance of all parliamentary law, an ex-Spcaker of the House had, in the House, under pretext of a personal explanation, taken the matter away from the jurisdiction of the committee. As to the cable telegram from Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Knott said he hurled the falsehood back Into the teeth of any man who suggested that it had been suppressed. He said: “ I have it. 1 did not suppress it at all. In less than thirty minutes after I received it I read it to several gentlemen, but there was no particular addrese in London from which it pur-* ported to come, end I did believe, and am not altogether certain yet that I do not believe, it was a fixed-up job.” in answer to requests from the Republican side to read the dispatch from Caldwell, Mr. Knott said: “I have not the dispatch here. Jt is at my house. The contents of it are substantially as stated by the gentleman from Maine (Blaine). Ido not know that I can repeat it in the exact terms. The pur. port of it is that Caldwell had seen Thomas A. Scott’s testimony in the New York papers and that it was substantially correct; that he hod not let Mr,. Blaine have any bonds and that he would send an affidavit to that effect, but that he was engaged in a railroad enterprise over there and could not come to give his testimony without serious pecuniary loss. This is substantially what is in it, afad if the gentleman had only waited that dispatch would have been presented to the committee for whatever use the committee might see {iroper to make of it. I had no desire to inure the gentleman from Maine personally, and especially not politically, but I desire that the truth may be told.” Mr. Blaine moved the previous question on his resolution, and attempted to make further remarks, but was prevented by loud calls to order and by the Speaker pro tern. ruling that he was not entitled to the floor for that purpose. The House refused to second the previous question, and then the motion of Mr. Blaine was referred to the Committee on Judiciary —yeas, 134; nays, 97. On the sth, Speaker Kerr appeared before the Committee ou Expeditures in the War Department and, through his counsel, presented a statement in relation to Harney’s charge that he (Harney) had paid him (Kerr) $450 to secure the appointment of A. P. Green to a vacant Lieutenancy. Mr. Kerr stated that, in 1866 or 1867, he was called upon by Mr. Green in relation to the appointment. He did not recollect that he was introduced by Harney, and had no consciousness of ever having known Harney. He (HarDey) had never visited him anywhere, and had never paid or proposed to pay him money for his influence or for any purpose whatever. He (Kerr) had told Green, after examining his credentials, that if he could •procure the names of certain New York parties whom he knew,'be would aid him. Green did procure the indorsements desired and he (Kerr) wrote the letter to the War Department which secured the appointment. Mr. Kerr remembered quite distinctly that previous to recommending the appointment of Mr. Green, he had offered the recommendation to two of his constituents—Col. Thomas J. Jackson and Maj. Thomas Morrison —both of whom had rendered gallant service in the volunteer army. These gentleman had both declined, and Mr. Kerr was not aware that any Democratic soldier had ever applied to him for the place. He held the appointment at the service of the people of hia district or State, if any should apply; but none did so apply, of whom he has the slightest recollection, and when the long session of Congress was well advanced, and the time for these appointments was passing away, he was called upon by Green, and had recommended him for the position, without fee or favor.