Question. How large was the meeting at which they were adopted? Answer. Well, judging from recollection, without having counted them, I should suppose there were between one hundred and fifty and two hundred present.

Answer. Were they adopted at the same meeting they were offered? Answer. They were.

Question. Were they matters of discussion?

Answer. The gentleman I allude to objected to them, and then two other gentlemen took the floor-Mr. Washington and Dr. Boyle-and they spoke in favor of the resolutions. I believe that was the only debate upon them.

Question. Who was the gentleman who objected to them?

Answer. Mr. Rae-John Rae, I believe his name is; he is commonly called Jack Rae among his friends.

Question. Is he still a member?

Answer. I do not think he has ever resigned by letter. The organization was reconstructed; they elected new officers, captain, lieutenant, and other officers, and also submitted a military constitution, which constitution was signed by such members as desired to connect themselves with the association; and it seemed to be an understood fact that those who did not go up and sign this new constitution were not members of the new organization, and understanding that a number of gentlemen did not think it necessary to resign formally.

Question. Do you know who prepared that military constitution? Answer. I am under the impression that it was Mr. Charles H. Winder, of this city.

Question. What did you understand the resolution pledged the organization to, in the event that Maryland and Virginia should secede ?

Answer. Well, my impression was that they would cast their lot. with Maryland or Virginia, and as a military organization I supposed that they would be under the control of either Maryland or Virginia; probably Maryland.

Question. Subjecting themselves to the orders of the authorities of Maryland?

Answer. That was my impression.

Question. And in the event that Maryland should attempt to assert jurisdiction over this District, as against the United States, did you consider these resolutions as pledging that organization to aid Maryland in that undertaking as against the United States?

Answer. That I could not say; I could not say whether they would do so or not. I never heard an expression of opinion upon that question.

By Mr. BRANCH:

Question. You say that but one gentleman opposed these resolutions?

Answer. Only one member of the association.

Question. What State was he from?

Answer. I think he was from Georgia; he is a clerk, I believe, in

the city post office, but I will not be sure of that. I know the gentleman very well.

Question. You are quite sure he is a citizen of Georgia?

Answer. Yes, sir; I think so.

Question. Do you remember what reasons he gave for opposing the resolutions?

Answer. He said that it was an attack upon the Executive of the United States, and he went on to speak of his being a Union man, and that he would prefer to see the Union cemented together, rather than broken into fragments; and he was therefore opposed to any such resolutions.

Question. He opposed the resolutions because he regarded them as an attack upon the administration, I understand you to say?

Answer. I could not speak of his opinion.

Question. I mean what he said there. You understood him as opposing the resolutions on the ground that they were an attack upon the administration?

Answer. Yes, sir; and also that it would be more becoming in the association to do something to save the Union, rather than pass such resolutions, declaring that the government was virtually in the hands of a military dictator, who would use brute force to coerce sovereign States.

Question. You were present?
Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. You did not oppose them?

Answer. No, sir; I did not. I remained silent, for this reason: I have always held a good position in the association, and have always been treated with respect, and when I saw the treatment that Mr. Rae received at the hands of the members-that he was hooted at, and greated with cries of "down, down," and "put him out, put him out," &c.-I did not desire to subject myself to that annoyance. For that reason I preferred to leave the association and resign, without opposing the resolutions, as I saw it was useless to do so.

Question. Were these resolutions published in the papers here by order of the association?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. On whose motion?

Answer. On my own motion.

Question. Did anybody make any objection to the publication of the resolutions?

Answer. No, sir; except to their being published in the Star; I believe that was the only objection made.

Question. That was on account of the course the reporter of the Star had pursued towards the association before?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. There was no objection made to their being published in the other papers?

Answer. No, sir; not that I remember.

Question. It appears from this paper [the Star] that I hold in my hand that your resignation was not accepted by the meeting, but that

they ordered it to be returned to you, and your name stricken from the roll. Is that a true account?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Upon what ground did they refuse to receive your resignation?

Answer. They gave no reasons at all. But since that time gentlemen have stated to me privately that they believed it was done because there was objectionable language in the resignation. Such was not stated to me at the time, or I would have removed the objectionable language from the letter, as I had no desire to say anything that would be regarded as objectionable.

Question. Do you know what particular part of your letter was regarded as casting imputations upon them?

Answer. They stated that there was no reflection intended upon the President by their resolutions, and that that part of the letter was objectionable to the association; I believe that was the only reason I heard; that was given to me by a gentleman in his individual capacity, and not by the association. I would state that on the night the resolutions passed some members of the association said it was not a reflection upon the President; and the gentleman who objected to the resolutions asked what was meant by the language of the resolutions; and I think that Dr. Garnett said that it was not a reflection upon the President, but upon General Scott; and Mr. Rae told them that he could not reflect upon General Scott in his present capacity without a reflection upon the President.

Question. Then the opposition and disaffection to these resolutions related mainly, if not wholly, to the fact that the resolutions reflected upon the President of the United States and his administration?

Answer. Yes, sir; and also that Mr. Rae thought that they should do something to cement the Union, instead of trying to dissolve it. Question. Did you attend any other meeting of the association.

after that?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Did you participate in its proceedings?

Answer. I did. Allow me to explain why I did so. I had the promise of some gentlemen that these resolutions should be expunged from the records of the association; and upon that promise I attended the meeting.

Question. Did either yourself or others move to expunge these resolutions?

Answer. No, sir; not by direct motion. Other resolutions were offered two series of them-to be adopted in place of these. And then a third series of resolutions were offered explanatory of these resolutions, to the effect that they desired a settlement of this question upon the Crittenden resolutions.

Question. Were they adopted?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. A resolution declaring that the association desired a settlement of our political troubles by the adoption of the Crittenden resolutions ?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Did you then, or do you now, regard these resolutions as pledging the National Volunteers, either collectively or individually, to any unauthorized attack upon the government or its property in this District?

Answer. Not by any means.

Question. Did you show this letter of resignation to any member of the republican party before you sent it to the association ?

Answer. I did show it. I have had a great many hot discussions upon that point. There is a gentleman in the Patent Office by the name of Hall, who is spoken of by a great many as a republican; upon what authority I am not aware, other than that he is a subscriber to the New York Tribune. He is a gentleman of considerable talent, and knows a little of almost everything; and as I was not very well posted myself upon newspaper articles, I desired to place that in a proper form, as I supposed there might be occasion to publish it; and submitted it to him merely to get his opinion upon it in that respect, merely in relation to the wording of it. He gave his opinion; and I was afterwards, before some fifteen or twenty gentlemen, charged with showing it to a black republican; and I received their sneers and hootings on that account, for which I did not care at all.

Question. Was there any remark made to you by this gentleman of the republican party, to whom you showed it, that if you would withdraw from this association it would insure your continuance in office under the next administration?

Answer. Not by any means.

Question. Did you say this gentleman was generally regarded as a member of the republican party?

Answer. He is charged to be by a number of democrats; upon what ground I do not know, except that he takes the Tribune. I never heard that he ever affiliated with any association of the republican party in this city.

Question. I understand you to say that you did not at the time, and you do not now, regard these resolutions as pledging the National Volunteers, either collectively or individually, to any attack upon the government or its property here. Do you know any other fact that would go to show that the object of the volunteers is to make an attack upon the government or its property here?

Answer. I do not.

Question. Do you know any fact that you can place before the committee that would induce you to believe that there is any secret combination or conspiracy, having for its object an attack upon the government or its property here?

Answer. I do not know of any, and I do not believe there is any. J. TYLER POWELL.

No. 22.

TUESDAY, February 5, 1861.

JOHN H. GODDARD sworn and examined.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. Do you reside in this city?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. You are connected with the police department here?
Answer. I am.

Question. Chief of police?

Answer. Yes, sir; chief of police and captain of the auxiliary guard. Question. How long have you occupied that position?

Answer. I was first appointed chief of the police and captain of the guard in this city in 1842. I was out of office some six years. The last time I came into office was two years the first of July last.

Question. You have charge of all the police of the city, including the auxiliary guard?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Your means of knowing what is going on are pretty good? Answer. Yes, sir; I think so.

Question. Do you know of any organization in existence here, either secret or open, that has for its object any attack upon any of the public property here, or any resistance to the general government in any shape?

Answer. I do not.

Question. You know of the existence of no such organization?
Answer. I do not.

Question. From your means of information do you believe that it would be possible for one to exist any considerable length of time without your knowing it?

Answer. I think if there was any organization of that kind in the city of Washington I certainly would know something about it.

Question. Have you what is technically called "detective police," or men on that duty?

Answer. No, sir.

Question. Do you know whether there is any avowed purpose, or have you ever heard any purpose avowed, on the part of any considerable number of persons here, not in an organized form, to seize the Capitol, or the navy yard, or the arsenal, or any other public property here?

Answer. No, sir.

Question. Have you ever heard threats of that kind?

Answer. I do not know that I ever heard anybody make any threats of that description, about seizing the public property here, such as the arsenal, navy yard, Capitol, or any of the departments. I have heard men drinking, carousing, and such like, advocating secession, and advocating the rights of the south, and some advocating the opposite course, the rights of the republicans. Such things as that are most generally the effusion of liquor. Although they may en