interrogatories as follows, propounded by Messrs. Wilson, Voorhees, and Henderson, as friends of Messrs. Bright and Fitch, to which the protestants object.]

Question 1. Were you present at the attempted organization of the Indiana senate, on the first day of the session of 1857? If so, what do you know about Lieut. Governor Willard taking the chair at the usual hour of meeting and calling the senate to order, and directing a call of the senators claiming seats; and of James H. Lane, of Kansas, placing a chair in the president's stand, at the right of Gov. Willard, and Lewis Burke, senator from Wayne county, taking that chair, on the call, and upon the nomination of the republican senators; and of the republican senators nominating a secretary; and of said Burke, as such pretended presiding officer, directing the secretary, thus nominated by the republican senators, to call the roll of senators; and give all the particulars attending it?

Answer, by Gov. Willard. I was present at the organization of the senate on the first day of the session of 1857. I took the chair, as presiding officer of the senate, at the usual hour of the meeting of said body, and called the senate to order. While I was calling the senate to order, D. Bearss (a senator holding over) called Lewis Burke (a senator holding over) to take the chair, and preside. Said Burke took a chair upon my right; who placed it there, I do not know. I directed the secretary of the senate to call the roll of the senators holding over; all those who were classed as democrats answered to their names; those who were classed as republicans or know-nothings did not. I then directed the call for those senators who claimed to be elected who had not been sworn into office; all those classed as democrats came forward, and were sworn by me; the republicans did not. The senators who had called Mr. Burke to preside over them, elected, on motion, a secretary, J. R. Cravens, (a senator holding over.) He called the names of the republican and know-nothing senators who held over, and they responded to their names; the republican senators claiming seats who had not been sworn in were then called, and, by Judge Gookins, under the order of said Burke, took the oath. From the time the senate opened until the final motion for adjournment, the republican senators refused to recognize me as the presiding officer. Every motion made by them was to Burke; a scene of confusion existed for about three or four hours, until finally a motion to adjourn prevailed. On the senate's reassembling, Burke abandoned his position, and the senate came to order; as to who was present, I cannot say; there was a large crowd in the hall, many inside the bar; all efforts to maintain order among them were ineffectual; James H. Lane, of Kansas, was among those inside the bar; so was O. P. Morton, and many of the prominent republicans of the State; after the republican senators were sworn in, under the order of Burke, they elected J. Harney as their secretary; in the afternoon, when Burke had abandoned his place, the said Harney, after the senators had been all sworn in, either by me or my order, was elected secretary of the senate; Stanley Cooper was sworn by me, in obedience to the resolution of the senate.

Question 2. Do you not know that whenever you would direct a

call of the senate for any purpose, that Burke would immediately direct the secretary acting under him to call the senate, and that the two secretaries were engaged at the same time in the calls: the republican senators answering the one, and the democrats the other?

Answer. During the call of the roll under my direction, the democrats would answer to their names. But while this was transpiring, under the direction of Burke Mr. Harney would call the roll, and the republicans would respond to him. This was the result upon every roll call. I believe, upon the motion to adjourn, there was no call of roll.

Question 3. Do you not know it to be a fact, which was notorious in Indiana, that the elections of J. S. Bobbs, of Marion county; Cooper, of Rush county, and Rice, of Fountain county-all three being republican senators-were contested on account of fraud used in procuring their elections; and that the organization of the senate above spoken of by you, by the republicans, was made for the purpose of avoiding such contests?

Answer. It was understood, before the meeting of the legislature, that the seats of Bobbs, Cooper and Rice were contested. The motive which influenced the republicans in making the organization under Burke, I do not know. It was understood that Rice and Bobbs had certificates of election and that Cooper had none. It was claimed that the seats of these three republican senators were to be contested, because votes had been imported into their districts, which were illegal, for the purpose of electing them to the senate.

Question 4. Does the senate journal show the calling of Lewis Burke to the chair on the first day of the session, at the time he attempted to usurp your place as presiding officer; and if it does not, state the reason why?

Answer. The journal of the senate does not show the calling of Burke to the chair. The journal of the senate is made by the secretary, under the direction of a majority of the senate. Why these proceedings are suppressed, I cannot know.

Question 5. What county did Senator Rice represent? Was he elected at the October election, 1856, and was he elected at the same time mentioned in the opinion of the Hon. William P. Bryant, which opinion is herewith filed, and marked Exhibit A? [This exhibit withdrawn by the questioner, being irrelevant.]

Answer. Senator Rice was the senator from the district composed of the county of Fountain, and was elected at the October election, 1856, at the same time mentioned in Exhibit A.

Question 6. State what you know in reference to the senate being crowded inside and outside of the bar, when you were attempting to organize, by excited and armed republicans, to aid Lewis Burke in his usurpation. And state whether you were, as lieutenant governor, threatened with personal violence in case you did not submit to said usurpation; by whom such threats were made, and the specific occasion of them.

Answer. The senate chamber was crowded during the attempt to organize the same. According to the usual custom, I, as lieutenant governor, endeavored to have the new senators come forward and be

sworn according to the constitution. They refused. During all the forenoon a scene of confusion ensued; and when I called the attention of senators to the fact that their course was revolutionary, and that if they desired a revolution, that they had better cominence it now, the senator from Miami and Wabash made threats of personal violence. As to who was armed, I know nothing, except from the statements made to me by others.

Re-examined by protestants.

Question. Do you know of any instance in the history of the State of Indiana when, by the constitution, the two houses of the general assembly of the State assembled to count the vote for governor and lieutenant governor, and declare the result, that said joint convention was adjourned over for the purpose of transacting any other business? If so, state when.

Answer. I never saw the votes counted for governor and lieutenant governor until 1857, and have no knowledge of the adjournment of any joint convention assembled for that purpose.

Question. Do you know of any usage or custom in Indiana for joint conventions assembled to count the votes for governor and lieutenant governor to adjourn over for the transaction of any other business? Answer. I do not.

The taking of these depositions postponed until Friday, the seventh instant, at 2 o'clock p. m., at which time his excellency A. P. Willard appeared as a witness, at the senate chamber, and his examination continued as follows:

Cross-examined by Voorhees and Henderson, as friends of Bright and

Fitch.

Question. What do you know, either from personal knowledge or from information derived from leading republicans, of a determination on the part of the republican members of the legislature to prevent an election of senators that session, even if they had to break up the legislative body to prevent it?

Answer. The republicans had held a convention at Indianapolis before the meeting of the legislature, and a majority of the republican editors of the State had held a convention at the capital; at both these conventions I am informed that resolutions were passed requesting the republicans in the legislature to prevent an election of United States senators. These conventions were immediately preceding the assembling of the legislature, and many of those who crowded the lobbies and the senate chamber on the opening of the legislature were those who had attended these conventions.

Question, by same. What rules and customs have governed joint conventions of this State?

Answer. I have attended several joint conventions; the lieutenant governor in the person, acting as president of the senate, becomes the president of the joint convention; he calls the same to order; no motion to adjourn is ever entertained by him; he adjourns it himself, without motion, either sine die or to a given day; I have not been able to find in the record of the proceedings of joint conventions in this State any instance varying with the custom as aforestated.

Question. State whether the senate met the house in joint convention to count the votes for governor and lieutenant governor at the hour indicated by the speaker of the house in his message to the senate on that subject, and how many senators were present in said joint convention.

Answer. The speaker of the house sent, through me, to the senate an invitation to the senate to appear in the hall of the house of representatives, and I read said invitation to the senate; then adjourned the senate to meet in the hall of the house at the hour specified by the speaker, and a majority of the senate attended in the hall of the house to witness the counting of said votes; all the democrats, 23, were present, and Weir, Sage and Freeland, and all within the bar of the house of representatives.

Question. State if, when said joint convention so as above assembled, constituting as it did a majority of both houses of the legislature, adjourned, it was not perfectly notorious to democrats and republicans alike that said joint convention was so adjourned to a day certain for the purpose of electing senators in Congress?

Answer. I do not know of any man who was a member of the legislature but did not expect that an election of United States senators would be made at either the adjourned convention, or some that was to follow afterwards. The republicans refused to consent to the creation of the first joint convention to have the votes counted, because they alleged that the democrats would proceed to elect United States

senators.

Re-examined by protestants.

Question. In the number of joint conventions at which you attended, please state whether they were not in every instance assembled by concurrent vote of the two houses, for a specific purpose?

Answer. All the conventions at which I presided were assembled under resolution, except the convention called to count the votes above alluded to, and for a specific purpose; they transacted no other business than that specified in the resolution, and were all by me adjourned sine die. As to how those were created over which I did not preside, I cannot say.

ASHBEL P. WILLARD.

William Sheets, of the city of Indianapolis, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, deposes and says, in answer to interrogatories:

Question, by protestants. State your name and residence, and how long you have resided in the State of Indiana.

Answer. My name is William Sheets, and have resided in Indiana forty years.

Question. State whether you have been acquainted with the custom and usage of electing senators of the United States by the legislature of Indiana; if so, what has been the custom as to the agreement of the two houses to go into the election, and in what manner have they agreed?

Answer. I have been acquainted with the custom and usage of electing United States senators by the legislature of Indiana for thirty senate, respectively, to adopt separate resolutions fixing upon a day to years. The custom has been for the house of representatives and go into such election; on the day agreed on, and at the hour named in the resolution, the house of representatives send a message to the senate acquainting them that the house is in readiness to go into the election of United States senator, and inviting them to the hall of the house of representatives for that purpose. On the arrival of the senate in the hall of the house, the president of the senate presides in the joint convention; and when an election is made, he pronounces the joint convention dissolved.

Question, by protestants. State your means of knowing the custom of the legislature foresaid.

Answer. My means of knowing the custom grew out of being clerk of the house of representatives for three years, and secretary of state for eight years, and being conversant with the proceedings of the general assembly for thirty years, having for twenty-five years of that time resided at the seat of government.

On two occasions, at the regular periods for the election of United States senators, the election was postponed to the next session. The first case was thus postponed by the casting vote of Jesse D Bright, as president of the senate, on a resolution of the senate to go into said election. The second case, the senate refused to pass the resolution introduced to go into such election.

Question, by same. State whether you have known of an election of senators of the United States in the State of Indiana without the concurrence of both houses in advance by resolution?

Answer, by Mr. Sheets. Not until the so-called election of Jesse D. Bright and Graham N. Fitch, at the last session of the general assembly of Indiana.

Question, by same. State the political complexion of the two legislatures above alluded to by you.

Answer, by Mr. Sheets. On the first occasion of postponement alluded to, there was a whig majoity in the house, and the senate a tie; the whigs would have had a majority on joint ballct on the second occasion of postponement, which was in 1855; the democrats had a majority in the senate, and in the house the people's party, or the party in opposition to the democratic party, had a majority, and that party would have had a majority on joint ballot.

Cross-examined by Voorhees and Henderson.

Question. Were you ever a member of either branch of the legislature?

Answer. I have not been.

Question, by same. Were you in attendance upon the sitting of the legislature in the winter of 1857? and if so, were you in caucus with the republican members thereof in reference to resisting and preventing an election of senators in Congress at that session?