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 transacted 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 Government 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.

Cameron is called upon occasionally to do. Here is a dispatch, dated May 1, 1884, sent to me by the deputy marshal at Wilkes Barre. He says: "Have arrested Martin Schlager for violation revenue laws and perjury. Hearing Saturday, May 3, 2 o'clock p. m.; defendant represented by able counsel. Will you attend? Answer."

That was just at the beginning of our United States court, and it. was impossible for me to attend personally, but I telegraphed Mr. Cameron, who, you will see by the map, lives there near that part of the district, and he went there and represented the Government at that hearing. He has also been before other commissioners in the section of the district where he resides. Mr. Cameron draws indictments, conducts the examination of witnesses before the grand jury, and also, when there is a case of importance which I cannot attend to myself, he frequently attends examinations before United States commissioners. In addition to that, Mr. Cameron is not all the time at his home when the court has adjourned. He is occasionally in Pittsburgh when the court is not in session, and he generally remains some days after the adjournment of the court until the business is gotten through with. Something has been said about the Crowell case. That was a very important case. There were several attorneys employed by the defendants and they expected a trial before the United States commissioner, and, in my absence from Pittsburgh, Mr. Wilson went there to represent the Government. He regarded the importance of the case as sufficient to require his attendance.

Something was said also about my employment by A. J. Brown. Mr. Perkins, I believe, testified that I had been employed by Brown to collect a claim against the Robertses, and then intimated that later I became employed by the Robertses. In reference to that I wish to say that Mr. Brown did speak to me about a claim which he had against the Robertses and did employ me to collect it. I undertook the collection of it. I, however, was unable to get any service upon the defendants in Allegheny County, and the statute of limitations having nearly expired upon Mr. Brown's contract (which was with Colonel Roberts), I told Mr. Brown that he must go up into Crawford where the defendant resided and bring his suit where he could get service. He did so and employed counsel up there. I never saw Mr. Brown nor his contract after that. He never paid me a cent of money in any way, shape, or form. After it was said that Mr. Brown had settled his case with the Robertses, in March, 1882, Mr. Hugh Young, who has been an intimate friend of mine for years, became the guardian of the minor children of Colonel Roberts, deceased, and those children became interested in litigation in the United States courts and in other courts. Mr. Young desired counsel to look after his interests and he employed me, and I was retained for that purpose. That was months after Mr. Brown had settled his case with the Robertses; and I was so concerned for Mr. Hugh Young something over a year, until he finally sold and transferred the interest of the minors over to Dr. Roberts, and with that transfer employment ceased. I never represented the Roberts Torpedo Company in the world, except as I represented the interest of these children through Mr. Hugh Young, who was indirectly interested in the litiga tion.

Something has been said about knowledge coming indirectly to me of charges against Marshal Hall. Mr. Perkins had something to say upon that subject.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Before you leave that torpedo company matter please state whether you know anything about the practice that was going on there by your assistant in relation to that patent.

The WITNESS. By my assistant?

Mr. FYAN. I think it was your assistant. Was it your assistant who went out and served warrants upon parties who were violating this patent?

The WITNESS. No; that was the deputy marshal.

Q. Did you know anything about that?-A. I did not.

Q. Was that practice pursued in that district?-A. I do not know; that business was principally before my appointment, as I understood from the evidence.

Q. My recollection is that the statement was made here that there was an agreement between the deputy marshal and this man Roberts, by which warrants were to be placed in the hands of Roberts, and Roberts was to employ a man to serve them, and that man made a compromise with the parties and the papers were never returned, neither the warrants nor the subpoenas. Do you know anything about that?—A. I do not know anything about that.

The CHAIRMAN. Those were processes in civil suits and injunctions in the same cases, where the parties were about to be enjoined for infringing upon the Roberts patent. They were suits between individuals, and the United States was interested in them only to the extent of seeing that the fees and costs were accounted for.

Mr. FYAN. The witness has stated that the district attorney had something to do with the returns that were made.

The CHAIRMAN. If the attorney had to approve the marshal's accounts they would come under his supervision. [To the witness.] Did you have to do that?-A. Not as to the marshal's emolument returns; those I

never saw.

Q. What accounts did you see?-A. His quarterly accounts.

Q. Do you approve those?—A. I approve those; that is, I am present when they are approved in court in the presence of the judge and tattorney.

Q. Did you examine those?—A. Yes, sir; the quarterly accounts. Q. For what year?-A. They were for the quarters ending after my appointment, which was in 1880. I think Marshal Hall resigned in March, 1882, and they were therefore for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1881, and for that portion of the year between July 1, 1881, and April 1, 1882. Q. In what do those quarterly returns consist?-A. They consist only of a statement of the number of prisoners of the United States in different jails, the cost of their maintenance, the number of jurors, and the necessary accounts which come within the personal knowledge of the court. The emolument returns are personal to the marshal entirely, accounting for the fees earned and received by him; those we never saw I never saw one of the marshal's emolument returns.

;

Q. By your use of the word "personal," you do not mean to say that that is the personal business of the marshal?-A. I mean to say that the marshal and the district attorney and all the officers make what is called an emolument return to the Government, in which they account for the fees earned and received by them in their official capacity. I think the emolument return is pretty much a personal return between the Government and the officer.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Does that include the civil business?-A. Yes, sir; it includes all the earnings of the office.

Q. Whether civil or criminal?-A. Whether civil or criminal.

Q. Was this Brown who testified here a deputy marshal while you were United States attorney?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. He spoke of having made a great number of arrests in a place called Bradford ?-A. Yes. Those matters were wholly in the circuit court of the United States; civil cases between individuals.

Q. You had no knowledge of them?-A. No, sir; not at all.

Q. They were never brought to your attention?-A. No, sir; they could not be, because—

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. (Interposing.) Were there no cases brought to your attention of violation of the internal-revenue laws, in the vicinity of Bradford, by selling liquor without license?-A. Oh, yes; a great many.

Q. Those were prosecuted, were they?-A. I prosecuted some of them, and some of them were compromised. Upon that point let me say that the criminal prosecutions brought in the United States courts for violations of the internal-revenue laws are frequently compromised by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue under the provisions of section 3229 of the Revised Statutes, which authorize the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to compromise cases where the defendant is willing to pay the Government tax, and what is called the assessable penalty, and the costs in the case. Let me say further that these cases are frequently reported to the district attorney. In fact, all violations of the internal revenue laws are reported to the district attorneys by the collectors. I have brought along a sample letter, such as I frequently receive, reporting violations of the law. In every one of these cases, however, the collector recommends no prosecution.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. When they compromise those cases with the collector of internal revenue, where does he make his return?-A. He makes his return to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in Washington.

Q. When those matters are called to your attention, then, there are no writs issued?-A. No; there are no writs issued in these cases. The collector here explains why he recommends a compromise in every case, as you can see (exhibiting the letter). In some cases the offense has been committed in ignorance of the law. Now it should be remembered that the Government does not license any body to sell liquor; it simply says that those who do sell shall pay so much tax. It does not license a man to sell liquor, as the municipal authorities do. It simply requires. that every man selling liquor shall pay so much tax to the Government, and all the Government can do is to enforce the collection of the tax when they find the man selling. If the prosecution was continued in every case of violation of the internal-revenue laws, the United States courts would be in constant session. Of course it is for the interest of the Government to get the tax with the least possible cost, and in very many of these cases while the defendant, as soon as he is arrested, will come forward and pay the tax and the assessable penalty and the costs, if the Government, through the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, refused to accept that proposition, and went on with the prosecution, they might keep him for some time in the county jail, at the public expense, and get nothing whatever out of him after all.

H. Mis. 38, vol. 2-3*

The collector of internal revenue reports these violations of law to me, with a recommendation. Where he recommends a prosecution we prosecute. Where he recommends that there be no prosecution commenced, we do not begin any. He also sends a similar report to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in Washington. Wherever there is a case compromised, it is compromised only with the consent and approval and by the direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. I would not nolle-pros a revenue case of any sort without the approval of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, because the object in those cases is simply to collect the revenue. In my district (and it is so generally in the other districts, I suppose) it is only in cases where there is willful, determined, continued violation of the law, and an intention manifested not to pay the tax at all, but to sell liquor without the tax, that prosecutions are had and continued.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. A great many of these violations grow out of ignorance of the law on the part of the offenders?-A. Yes, sir; most of them. I want to say one word further in reference to some statements made here by Mr. Perkins. He said that my attention was called to the charges against Marshal Hall. I had no knowledge, direct or indirect, nor any information, direct or indirect, of any charges against Marshal Hall until I read in the newspapers that charges were preferred by one A. J. Brown to the Department of Justice. Marshal Hall stood very high in our community, and no one ever supposed that there was anything wrong with his administration of the office or his accounts.

Q. Is he an efficient business man?-A. Well, sir, I am hardly a judge of that. I know very little about him, more than my official connection with him.

Q. You ought to know, as he was marshal of the court while you were district attorney.-A. A man might be marshal of the court and still not be an efficient business man, or not give people an opportunity to judge of that fact.

Q. Well, you would be in a position to know about that as well as anybody, would you not?-A. I do not know, sir, whether he was or was not an efficient business man. He was regarded as a good marshal at the time of my official connection with him.

Q. From your observation of the manner in which the business of the office was transacted, what was your opinion as to whether he was attending efficiently to his official duties?-A. I supposed, from anything that I saw or heard, that he was attending to the duties of his office with efficiency. I never had any opportunity to get any special knowledge of his business capacity.

Q. Did he give his personal attention to the affairs of his office?-A. He was there in the office frequently. I saw him frequently in the office, and so far as I know he did give his personal attention to the business of the office.

Q. From the quarterly accounts which he presented, and which you examined, did it appear that he had personal knowledge of the business of the office?-A. Yes, sir. They were always presented by him in person, and I regarded him as a very efficient officer. Of course, though, I had been but a short time in office when he resigned.

Q. How long was he in office during your term?-A. I think he resigned about the last of March, 1882. I have not consulted the register as to that, but I think he did, and if he did, I had been in office then about a year and 8 months.