« AnteriorContinuar »
other day, $89.90; R. K. Campbell, who was a deputy for six or seven years, $112; Mr. R. Rouse, $89.85. That is all that the marshal returned as having been paid out by him to his deputies. Here is what Mr. Hall says was earned by himself during those nine and a half years, according to his sworn statement-$35,591.37. He says that his deputies earned during the same time, $34,641.43. These figures are taken from his emolument returns. These two amounts together are just what he re. turned to the Government as his earnings. His net earnings each year always came a little below the $6,000, except one year, 1878, when there was an excess of $143.70. That is the only year he ever returned any: thing, and the only amount of money he ever returned, according to his statements,
Q. Can you tell how much he should have returned so far as your knowledge goes ?-A. No; because I did not go over everything. I only went over the Roberts cases, and they amounted to about $30,000. I could prepare a statement giving you each number, and just exactly what the marshal's docket shows in the Roberts cases.
Q. That, however, would not show all that he received, would it ?-A. I think not, because it would not cover all the writs that were issued. The idea of anybody stating here that Mr. Hall was not a business man! He was appointed receiver of a bank that had suspended, and he performed the duties, I believe, very creditably. He has held different posi. tions of trust, and has always been considered a shrewd business man, and these ridiculous statements regarding him have always come from somebody connected with parties in the office. I have never seen any such statements from parties outside. This torpedo business has been public talk through the oil country for the last ten years, a matter of gossip on the street corners among business men. I know they always employed in the marshal's office the best clerks they could get, and I know that Mr. Hall was always present, while I was in the service, when these emolument returns were made out. It was stated here that they were made out by Mr. Hall's son, but that son had no connection with the office after 1878. • Q. It is your opinion, then, that if there was any bad management Mr. Hall was personally cognizant of it?-A. Yes, sir; it could not have been any other way, because he was a sworn officer of the Govern. ment and there was no reason why he should not have known exactly how the business stood, and to my knowledge he was a good business man; a competentman, and a man of good business standing, and I am only surprised that in that year, 1878, he did not figure down that $143 so as to keep that too slaughter). I do not wish to black-mail Mr. Hall, or to injure him at all, though of course I do not feel friendly to him for giving out to the world that I was a thief, a black-mailer.
WASHINGTON, May 16, 1884. WILLIAM A. STONE sworn and examined.
By the CHAIRMAN: Question. Please state your residence and occupation.-Answer. I am thirty eight years of age; I reside in Allegheny City, Pa. ; I am a lawyer by profession.
Q. Do you hold any office under the Government ?-A. Yes, sir; I am United States attorney for the western district of Pennsylvania.
Q. How long have you held that office !-A. I was first appointed in July, 1880, when the Senate was not in session. Afterwards I was reappointed and confirmed in January, 1881.
Q. Do you still hold that office!-A. Yes, sir; I still hold that office.
Q. Have you read the evidence given before this committee in relation to the question of the necessity for a third assistant district attorney in the western district of Pennsylvania ?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is there anything that you desire to state in regard to the business of your office and the force necessary to transact it efficiently? A. Yes, sir; I desire to make some statements on that subject. I see by the testimony of Simon B. Benson, before this committee, that he speaks of a conversation which he had with John Fox, our court crier, in which, he says, Mr. Fox informed him that he did not know my assist. ant, Mr. David Cameron. I have here the affidavit of John Fox. He is a very old man and could not well come to testify before the committee, but I would like to read his affidavit.
The CHAIRMAN. That would not exactly come within our rule, but you can state the substance of it.
The WITNESS. Well, the substance of it is that when interrogated as to his acquaintance with Mr. Cameron he did not understand whom Mr. Benson meant, that Benson did not explain what Cameron he meant, and that Mr. Fox was not thinking of David Cameron and did not an. swer with reference to him. Mr. Fox says further that he does know David Cameron, the assistant United States attorney, and that he, Cameron, has been present at every session of the court in Pittsburgh, since his appointment, and is regarded as an attentive and efficient officer by the court officials in Pittsburgh.
Then, as to the manner of the appointment of Mr. Cameron, the sec. ond assistant attorney in my office, Mr. Benson stated here that I got the office created by representing that there was necessity for such an officer in my district. In reference to that I wish to say that I did not get the office created. The office of second assistant United States attorney in that district has been in existence fourteen years. The salary of the office was originally $1,200, under Mr. Swope. Under my imme. diate predecessor the salary was $1,000, and the office was filled by Joseph F. Cook. When I was appointed district attorney Mr. Cook resigned. Judge Devens was then Attorney-General, and for some ! time the matter was beld under consideration by him as to the salaries. Finally the Attorney-General increased the salary of my first assistant, and reduced the salary of my second assistant to $500. I was unable to secure a man to fill the office at that salary, and I made application to Mr. MacVeagh, after he went into General Garfield's cabinet, for an increase of the salary of the office; and I desire to read to the committee my letter to Mr. MacVeagh, which tells the whole story. (The witness read the letter as follows :)
OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Pittsburgh, March 21, 1881. SIR : Referring to a letter from your predecessor to me, dated August 27, 1880, in which he says, in conclusion, “ The sum of $500 per annum will be devoted to the service of a second assistant, to be appointed hereafter," I have the honor to state that the man I want is one who possesses detective ability and capable of judging of the herits of a case, so that when reports reach this office of violations of the law I can send him out to investigate the facts, make informations, and arrests if the offense be of a character to warrant it. He must necessarily go at his own expense, and as my district is large, the appropriation is not sufficient to meet the demands upon it, neither can I get a man competent for the posi. tion at the amount allowed, $500. When not employed in the investigation of
offenses I can use him to good advantage as a clerk and copyist in this office. I deem it essential to the proper administration of justice in my district to obtain such a man. The sum of $1,250 at least will be required to employ a competent assistant, which will involve an extra allowance of $750 over and above that awarded by Judge Devens. Therefore, referring more particularly to my interview with you in Wash. ington on the 17th instant, I have the honor to apply for the appointment of an assistant at a salary of $1,250 per annum. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM A. STONE,
United States Attorney. · Hon. WAYNE MACVEIGH,
The previous conversation with Mr. MacVeagh referred to in this letter was simply this: I called upon him and he told me to go bome and write what I wanted and he would take the matter into consideration. I wrote this letter which I have read, and the result was that I was given permission to name an assistant, at $1,250, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr. Cook. The gentleman whom I recommended first for appointment, Mr. James A. MacLaughlin, of Pittsburgh, was not a member of the bar. My idea as to the kind of man I wanted was well expressed in this letter to Mr. MacVeagh. I wanted a man that I could send to different parts of my district, a man who had some knowledge of the rules of evidence and could ex. amine witnesses before the grand jury. Mr. MacLaughlin, however, re. ceived a better offer from his employer, and did not accept the position, and I then recommended the appointment of Mr. Samuel Woods, of Erie. Mr. Woods was an entire stranger to me at the time. He was recommended by Mr. Perkins, who testified here the other day. Mr. Perkins was so warm in his recommendation, and so strong in his indorsement of Woods that I believed that we were getting a very efficient man. I said to Mr. Perkins that I would try Mr. Woods for a year, and that if he was satisfactory he would probably remain in the office, but that I was making the appointment entirely on his (Perkins's) recommendation, Mr. Woods being an entire stranger to me. It was represented to me that he was a shorthand writer and was familiar with the rules of evidence, so that he could examine wituesses before the grand jury, could go before a United States commissioner, and in general that he possessed all the legal knowl. edge that was requisite to fill the position. I recommended his appointment, and Attorney-General MacVeagh appointed him. For a time Mr. Woods did very well, but he had to pay his own expenses out of his salary of $1,250 a year; I was unable to get him passes over the roads, and he soon grew tired of going before United States commissioners, and he was not efficient as an examiner of witnesses before the grand jury. I found that he was unacquainted with the rules of evidence, and that it was not safe to send him before the grand jury with a bill. I spoke to Mr. Perkins upon the subject, as the year drew to a close, and said to him that Mr. Woods had not performed the duties that he, Per- , kins, had said he would ; that he was a good man, and had tried to do as well as he could, but that he had not the qualifications which Mr. Perkins assured me he possessed. I don't remember saying anything more to Perkins on the subject; I think that was the extent of my con. 'versation with him ; that I complained about the inefficiency of Woods. Mr. Woods himself saw the position and the difficulty in which he was placed; saw that he did not suit the office, and that the office did not suit him, and he so stated to me, and on the 31st day of March he resigped. I submit here his letter of resignation, addressed to the Attorney-General.
(The witness read the letter as follows:)
PITTSBURGH, March 31, 1882. SIR: I have the bonor to respectfully tender my resignation as an assistant United States attorney for the western district of Pennsylvania, to take effect from this date; and with my resignation, I beg the privilege of expressing my regard and esteem for my saperiors in office, United States Attorney Stone and Assistant United States Attorney Wilson, with whom my official relations have been uninterruptedly pleasant. Very respectfully yours,
Assistant United States Attorney. Hon. B. H. BREWSTER,
Attorney-General, Washington, D. C.
I submit that letter in reply to some suggestion that was made here that Mr. Woods was forced to resign. There was nothing of that kind. It was his own voluntary act, and after his resignation I recommended the appointment of Mr. David Cameron. Mr. Camerou is a man with whom I have been personally and intimately acquainted for a great many years, and his appointment was recommended by Judge Wilson, Judge Williams, of the fourth judicial district, and the Hon. Hugh Young. I believed him to be a proper man for the office, and thought he would make a good, efficient officer. I thought also that his location, his residence being in the northern portion of my district, would be an advantage rather than a disadvantage in transacting the business of my district. I never was written to or spoken to by Senator Mitchell in relation to Mr. Cameron's appointment. They are brothers-in-law, but Mr. Mitchell never requested Mr. Cameron's appointment, directly or indirectly. I recommended his appointment mainly from my own personal acquaintance with him and regard for him.
As to Mr. Cameron's services and the necessity for a second assistant in my district, I have this to say: My district is a very large one, and I beg leave to submit for the consideration of the committee a map of the district, showing its extent as compared with the eastern district of Pennsylvania.
The CHAIRMAN. I understand that your district embraces all the States outside of the eastern district.-A. Yes, sir. Here is my district [indicating on the map). The CHAIRMAN. It embraces about three-fourths of the State ?
The WITNESS: Three-fourths of the State in territory and over onehalf in population. My district is larger as to population than any other district in the United States except one, the southern district of Ohio, and one other which is hardly larger then mine if properly understood, the northern district of New York. The southern district of New York includes the navigable waters about the city of New York.
The CHAIRMAN. The eastern district includes only Long Island ?
The WITNESS. It includes Brooklyn and the waters about the two cities. Litigation arising upon those waters comes within that district, and a great many while they live in other districts probably have their business in that district. The sonthern district of Ohio is largely an agricultural region. My district, on the other hand, contains mining regions, and the oil territory of the State is included in it. The anthracite and the bituminous coal regions of Pennsylvania are in my district-not. all the anthracite, but a portion of it-for instance, Luzerne and Lacka. Wanna Counties. As I have said, with the two exceptions I have men. tioned, my district is larger in population than any other in the United States. It is larger than Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, or North Carolina ; and all these districts, which are less than mine in population, have each
more than one district attorney, and some of them have two or three assistant attorneys. I claim that, in view of the magnitude of my district, its population, and the business transacted in the courts there, I have fewer assistants comparatively than any other district in the United States. Compare the business transacted in my district with that traus. acted in any other district in the country. Take, for instance, the southern district of New York, where the United States attorney has a specific salary of $6,000 a year, and has seven assistants with salaries aggregating $15,000. In that district, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883, it appears by the report of the Attorney-General that they tried only two more criminal cases than I tried in my district; that is, they tried 77 and I 75.
Now, as to the amount realized from judgments obtained during the year
Mr. FYAN. What is the object of this testimony? Do you offer it to show the necessity for a third assistant ?
The WITNESS. Yes. The amount realized from judgments obtained during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883, in the western district of Pennsylvania, was $49,474.27, being more than twice as much as was realized from any other district in the United States with the exception of one, the district of New Jersey. In that district that year a man named Lewis died and bequeathed to the Government about $1,000,000, which was finally collected and paid into the United States Treasury, And the last fiscal year was not an isolated or exceptional year in respect to the amount of business in my district. My report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884, will show the collection of a large amount of money and the payment of the same into the United States Treasury, or judgments obtained during the year. I have not only litigation of a criminal character in the United States courts, but also litigation in several of the county courts in my district wherein the Government is a party. In the case of the distribution of the proceeds arising from the real estate of Moss, in Westmoreland, I appeared for the Government and argued questions in the case, and the Government was awarded $8,300; and there are other matters which will appear in my report for the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1884, which will show, not so much as for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883, but comparatively a large amount of money collected and paid into the Treasury of the United States.
In addition to this, the navigable waters about Pittsburgh furnish a considerable amount of litigation in which the Government is interested. I have now pending a bill in equity against the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company for maintenance of a nuisance in the Ohio River in the nature of a pier, and I also have pending in the circuit court of the United States an action of ejectment in behalf of the Gov. ernment for 450 acres of land in Forest County, which is supposed to be valuable land. There has been a verdict for the Government and motions and reasons for a new trial; those motions and reasons have been overruled and the other side claim that they will take the case to the Supreme Court. I never have had a special assistant assigned to try cases or transact any business. It has all been done by myself and my assistant.
Mr. Cameron's services are not alone before the grand jury. He is not only in attendance at every United States court which is held in the district, but he frequently goes before United States commissioners in various parts of the district that are adjacent to his place of residence, and, by way of illustration on that point, I wish to submit here a tele. gram which will give you an idea of the kind of business which Mr.