Q. Have you a knowledge of the business required to be performed in that district?-A. I had at the time I was there.

Q. State whether, in your opinion, an efficient district attorney, giv ing his whole time to the Government service, could perform the duties required to be performed in that district?-A. I do not think he could, if the business was of the same character that it was when I was therethe same character and amount as when I was there.

Q. You were there during the time of the bankruptcy proceedings?A. I was there from 1872-I was there really from 1870, but I got my commission in 1872, and I was there until 1875.

Q. The business was heavier in 1875 than it is now, was it not?—A. At the present time I have no knowledge of what the business is.

Q. Do you know how many attorneys would be required to efficiently perform the business in that district now ?-A. I think there ought to be an assistant and either a second assistant or a clerk there.

Q. You think a clerk would answer as good a purpose as a second assistant?-A. It amounts to the same thing.

Q. Do you know anything about the accounts of the marshal in that district-A. No, I have no personal knowledge of them.

Q. Have you had any conversation with Mr. Hall as to his financial ability-A. No, sir.

Q. Did he ever give you any information with regard to his property that he owned?-A. No, sir; I don't think that he ever did; I have had conversations with him when he spoke of his farms and stock and matters of that kind, but I do not think anything definite was said as to what he had.

Q. Did he tell you how much he paid for those farms?—A. I think that he did tell me about the first farm-I would not be certain; I have a recollection of his talking about the cost of it, but I suppose that would be a matter of record and could be easily shown; I think he said $60,000 was the cost of the first farm; he bought the Chartiers farm, as they called it then.

Q. Did he say anything about the other property-A. No, sir; not at that time.

Q. At any other time did he say anything about it?-A. Never directly to me.

Q. Do you know anything about the suit that Mr. Brown desired to bring against the Roberts Company?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Please state what you know about it.-A. I think it was about May, 1880; I was in Pittsburgh; Mr. Perkins and Mr. Brown and myself were boarding at a private boarding-house on Eighth street, and Mr. Brown came to me and told me that he had a claim against the Roberts Torpedo Company and against Marshal Hall; he told me that Marshal Hall was a partner with them in the transaction of this business; that they had made a contract under which, if I recollect—and I think I can recollect it pretty clearly, because it rather astonished mehe was to receive as deputy marshal $2 on each case brought by the Roberts Torpedo Company for infringement of their patent rights, and that Hall and the company were to divide the balance. That was his claim; he said they owed him from $17,000 to $20,000. Well, he talked to me about it, and he came in with his figures (I was rooming in the same house, next room), and we sat down and figured and counted it up, and he went on to show up the profits and things of that kind until I got considerably interested in it. He wanted to make a contract to bring suit for certain profits. I was at that time acting as an assistant in the secret service division of the Treasury Depart ment, and I was uncertain as to whether I had the right to make a

contract of that kind, but I drew up a contract, I think in the name of Mr. Perkins or Mr. Stone-Mr. Stone got interested-at any rate, I drew a contract between the parties, which was signed, by which suit was to be brought in Crawford County against the Roberts Torpedo Company to enforce Mr. Brown's contract with them, a copy of which he delivered to me, but I have either mislaid it or was unable to find it to bring it here. The suit, I believe, was brought up there, and afterwards another contract was made. That was about the end of my connection with that case. I left there in the fall. During this time he delivered to me certain papers that I suppose under the subpoena that was sent to me it is my duty to produce, though I don't know whether they have any bearing on the case. They are the original contracts between the Roberts Torpedo Company and their glycerine men. It was simply in connection with conversations with regard to profits and matters of that kind that he delivered the papers; among them, several others, showing what the profits were. This is the only one I could find. [producing it].

Q. Do these papers relate to the Government fees?-A. Yes, sir; this one with the glycerine men relates to Government fees.

Q. Then you say Mr. Brown gave you a number of papers to show the amount of fees that should have been received in those cases ?—A. Yes, sir. And during our talk and negotiation he told me that he had in one month served writs in which the fees would aggregate $14,000. I think that is about the figure. I believe I made a written statement of the whole matter, but I have not seen it since.

Q. Were you authorized to bring a suit for those fees?-A. Yes, sir. Q. What was done with it?-A. I believe the suit was brought by Mr. Stone, or probably by Jenks and Wilson.

Q. What became of the suit?-A. I have no knowledge of that.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. You did not bring any suit, did you?-A. No, sir; when I left there I abandoned the case.

Q. Do you know anything about Hall's financial condition ?-A. Well, no; of my own personal knowledge, I do not.

Q. Do you know who are on his bond?-A. I do not.

Q. What was his financial condition when he was appointed marshal of the western district of Pennsylvania?-A. I do not think that at that time he had any property; I know he had no real estate, and I don't think he had any personal property that would have covered the exemption in our State of $300. I know he was poor, and was considered poor; I know that, because there were peculiar circumstances connected with his appointment which particularly called my attention to it at the time.

Q. What were those circumstances?-A. Marshal Murdoch wanted to go out, and Mr. Hall was his deputy, and Mr. Swope was the district attorney; and he and Judge Kennan took a special train over the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, camè down here to Washington, went back the next day, and there was a change in the office.

Q. What change took place?—-A. Mr. Murdoch was turned out, went back to Little Washington, and Mr. Hall became marshal and assumed the duties of the office.

Q. What was peculiar about that?-A. I suppose the peculiarity of it was that somebody else wanted to get in at the same time that Mr. Ruttan, of Beaver, was a candidate for marshal.

Q. They stole a march on him?-A. Yes, sir; stole a march on him. That is nothing to their discredit.

Q. Was there any reason other than that why he should have been appointed marshal?-A. I don't know what the reasons were why he should have been appointed. He was appointed. As a deputy he did credit to the office, I always thought-always performed his duties nicely.

Q. Was he, so far as you could see, an efficient business man in the office?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did he pay personal attention to the business?-A. I think for the last three or four years that he did not. I think he rather delegated it, and let the deputies do more of the business than he did himself. That was my experience with him for the last three years that he served. Q. What was his financial condition at the close of his official term ?— A. I only know from general repute. He is reputed to be worth from $200,000 to $300,000.

Q. Have you not lived in that community?-A. Yes, sir; I did live there until 1875, and then I came to Clearfield, my old home. I was in Pittsburgh almost constantly until two years ago.

Q. Do you attend the courts there?-A. Yes, sir; occasionally.

Q. You have means of knowing the amount of business done there?— A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ever act as a deputy for Hall in the service of writs or processes?-A. I never acted as such but once to my recollection. I went to Paola, in Kansas, and Falls City, Nebr., to serve some subpœnas.

Adjourned.

WASHINGTON, May 10, 1884.

A. J. BROWN recalled and further examined.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. State whether you have examined the report made by Mr. Ralph Ballin, examiner of the Department of Justice, in relation to Marshal Hall's affairs.-Answer. I have, sir; I have looked it over carefully. Q. State whether that report disclosed all of the matters relating to Marshal Hall's accounts.-A. I think not; I think it claims to cover only those civil cases in which Mr. Ballin testified to discrepancies amounting to $153,000.

Q. In the investigation which you made into the accounts of Marshal Hall, did you discover other cases which do appear in the report of Mr. Ballin?-A. No; I did not, because I confined my investigation particularly to the Roberts business; I know nothing about the bankrupt business.

Q. Does Mr. Ballin's report show all about those torpedo cases?—A. I do not think it does, although it may. The matters are not itemized at all.

Q. Please explain what that report does show in reference to the Roberts cases, and what your investigation shows so far as regards the proper fees to be returned in those cases.

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. I understood the witness to say yesterday that there were no entries upon the marshal's docket in reference to the Roberts transactions before 1880.

The WITNESS. Oh, no; I did not say that. The marshal kept a regular docket on which there was entered something over 1,800 cases, in which he carried out his costs, which amounted to something like $30,

000. Then he was required by law to return to the Department the names of the deputies who had served those writs, with how much each had been paid; but I said up to 1880 none of the parties who handled those writs appeared in his emolument returns.

Q. Did the cases themselves appear in the returns in any way?— A. No; it was not necessary that they should.

By the CHAIRMAN.

Q. The fees did not appear and they ought to have appeared?— A. The fees ought to have appeared there and they did not. For instance, if I, as a deputy, earned $1,000 in any particular year the marshal was required to state that in his emolument return, and also to state how much he had paid me for doing the work and to return my voucher.

Q. And the fees earned were over $6,000 a year he was required to cover into the Treasury.—A. Yes, sir; by law the marshal can only pay to any one deputy 75 per cent. of the earnings; he is limited to that; he has a right to say that much or any less figure that he sees fit, or that they can agree upon, but if he pays a man 50 per cent. then he must account to the Government for the other 50.

Q. And you say that up to 1880 the marshal made no return at all to the Government,in those Roberts cases?-A. He did not.

Q. So that whatever fees he got in those cases are not disclosed in his emolument returns?-A. No, sir; only as he has put them under the head of his own personal earnings, and it would be false if he did that.

Q. Then, if all the earnings in the Roberts cases were not included in the marshal's emolument return as shown by Mr. Ballin's report, what would be the excess of fees, in addition to what Mr. Ballin found, that the marshal should have returned?-A. That is a very hard question to answer, owing to the way they do their business. Of course, the marshal should return the gross earnings, and then should make a statement of how he had disposed of the money and how much he had paid his deputies. If the gross earnings in the Roberts torpedo business amounted to $30,000, it should have been returned, with a statement of who it was that earned those fees.

Q. What would have been the earnings in the Roberts cases, according to your judgment, based upon your knowledge of those cases and your investigation?-A. I cannot say in dollars and cents, but Mr. Hall's own books show about $30,000. I have got data of all the cases, the numbers of the terms, and the amounts that he has carried out, and, as I stated the other day, there is not one case of those that is correct. Q. You say you have examined his emolument returns?—A. Yes, sir. Q. And how much do they show that he earned in these cases?-A. They show that he earned $70,000 altogether while he was in office; that embraces everything.

Q. But do they show that he earned anything in the Roberts torpedo cases?-A. No, sir; not up to 1880.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. What did he do with those fees; pocket all the money and make no return?-A. I don't know. That is something that we are trying to find out. The Department of Justice has seen fit to call me a blackmailer, a thief, and a perjurer, because I have been inquisitive enough to want to find out.

Q. Would you not have a cause of action against the Department for

making a statement of that kind?—A. I don't know; I am very much gratified that they have treated me so kindly.

Mr. MILLIKEN. People in my part of the country are not gratified at having such charges made against them.

The WITNESS. I defy any man living to say that I ever stole a dollar.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. But you say that the Department of Justice has said it.-A. They have testified to that before this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. It was stated by Mr. Ballin that he had been informed at Pittsburgh that you had demanded $10,000 from Mr. Hall as hush money, but you have stated here that that was not true?-A. It is not true. Mr. Hall, I believe, states that, but the statement is false, as is the nineteen sworn statements in the Treasury Department, which Mr. Ballin says are false.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Where are the books that you examined?-A. In the marshal's office, and in the office of the clerk of the circuit court in Pittsburgh; the emolument returns are in the First Auditor's Office, here in Washington.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. Then all of this which you have testified to here is matter of record, is it?-A. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLIKEN. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the record is the best evidence.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ballin has already examined the records and reported the result.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Having examined Mr. Ballin's report, how much do you find that the records fail to show of evidence in the Roberts cases, which according to your investigations should appear?-A. I cannot tell you, because he embraces everything, and without an itemized statement no man can tell. It may take that all in and it may take none of it.

Q. But I understood you to say that the court record only shows the issuing of the subpoenas and the injunctions, and that in nearly all of those cases proceedings were stopped at that point.-A. Oh, I understand you now. I presume there would be $25,000 or $30,000, taking that class of writs that have never been entered.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Would not those writs be returned to the court?-A. No, sir. They claim that the master's notices are still in the hands of the master. The master was Mr. Gamble, and he was also the clerk of the court. Subpoenas for witnesses would also remain in his hands.

Q. After you had served the subpoena, what would you do with it?— A. I would return it to Mr. Roberts when I was working for him, and after I began to work as a deputy for Marshal Hall I returned the subpœnas to him.

Q. Do I understand you to say that those writs have never been returned-A. Yes, sir; a certain class of them; the subpoenas for witnesses in the Roberts cases and motions for preliminary injunctions and master's notices. Mr. Gamble claims that they are in the hands of the master, and he is the master. But I think I can explain to this committee so that they will understand why it was impossible for Mr. Hall to embrace those in his emolument returns. Those papers would be issued