.MjEwNg.Mjk0NjQ

[page 96] who said it made no difference whether they were put under oath or not. And in the second place, the ^ report of the first meeting, Mr. Chairman, which you say was preliminary, was scattered broadcast over this state, as a report of the first meeting ^for investigation, and of the opinions of witnesses. Now I only ask that the Committee go on as they began, and that we have a fair show here in this matter. Mr. Morrill: I wish to remark that I was present at the first meeting, and that the whole thing was irregular. It was a sort of voluntary expression of opinion. There were no attorneys. Witnesses stated what they pleased, not under oath. But it does appear to me now, when we have spent so much time on this question, and with no disposition certainly to shut out any testimony, that we should come down to something that is like legal testimony, in as much as the witnesses who come here are sworn. Why should they be permitted to state what is more than legal testimony; and ^why shouldn't they avoid hearsay as much as possible? Certainly it would be better to have the best evidence