teen torpedoes, so that that would limit the number of parties-would reduce the number materially. I should judge that there were in the neighborhood of two hundred and fifty or three hundred of them. Q. What was the nature of the proceedings instituted in the United States Court in those cases?-A. Simply a suit in equity, and most of the Roberts cases were allowed to drop after the chancery subpoena was issued. Q. What was done in the way of compromising those suits by the Roberts Company?-A. That I cannot tell you; from the fact that there were but very few entries made on the docket at Pittsburgh. Q. How many?-A. Possibly 15 or 20, or perhaps more; but there were many of the parties who settled to my knowledge that the records at Pittsburgh did not show anything about. Q. State what you know with regard to the returns made to the court of costs that should have accrued in those cases, and should have been collected by the marshal for serving the court process.—A. Do I understand you to want me to state what the marshal's returns were ? Q. What his returns were and what the facts were?-A. Of course I cannot tell you exactly what the facts in the cases were, but I know that if you go back over the term of marshals holding that office nine and a half years, according to his returns the gross earnings of the office were only $70,000; the office was not self-sustaining except in the year 1878; in that year he turned over to the Government $143.70. That was all the money that he paid to the Government during that nine and a half years, according to his own sworn statements. Q. Where were those sworn statements made? Do you mean his emolument returns?-A. Yes, sir; his emolument returns, which I examined in the Treasury Department two years ago. Q. What should have been returned from that office during that period, according to your knowledge of the business?-A. Well, I have a very poor idea of what there should have been. Of course I have a pretty good idea of what his earnings would have been in the Roberts torpedo cases, and I considered that the actual costs in the Roberts business alone would have been more than $70,000. Q. Upon what do you base that opinion?-A. I think so from the simple reason that of all the records in the marshal's office that I have ever examined I have failed to find the first one that was correct. Q. What were the discrepancies that you discovered? Please state at length what you know about that matter.-A. Well, for instance, there was one suit that was brought in 1876 that went through the full process of the court and the execution was issued and collected. The marshal's costs, as figured up on the execution-I served it myself and I collected it-amounted to $142; and then for collecting the execution there was $53. The marshal's docket shows that his costs in that case were something like $63. I was very much surprised on looking over his emolument sheets to find that the first return of the Roberts topedo business that I could discover was in the year 1881; it was ignored prior to that time. The names of none of the deputies who served those processes were mentioned in the returns, although I believe the marshal is required by law to swear to how much money has been earned by the different deputies and special deputies. Giving the names of all the deputies that ever worked for Mr. Hall, his emolument sheets show only eleven, and they show that he paid those deputies $17,000. Now, his own son was one of those deputies, who received over $12,000, leaving the remaining $5,000 for the other ten deputies. The only return that he has ever made in regard to Mr. R. K. Campbell, one of the prominent deputies, is something like $112 or $113, and that only for one year. Mr. Campbell's name was never mentioned elsewhere that I could discover, and I went over the emolument sheets very carefully. Q. What office did he hold?-A. He was a deputy marshal. Q. And you say you could not find his name in the emolument returns?-A. Only for some $112 or $113-in one year. Q. How much money do you say went into his hands?-A. I don't know anything about how much he was paid, but I know that he was a deputy marshal for six or seven years. Q. What was the name of the marshal's son?-A. J. Ad. Hall, I believe, is his signature to the court process. Q. Where does that son live?-A. At Little Washington, Pa. Q. Covering how long a period?-A. I forget the exact number of years, because I was not connected with the office at that time, but he was in there five or six years. Mr. Perkins could probably tell you better. I wish to call the attention of the committee to the fact that Mr. Hall in his sworn returns says that he never paid but $17,000 to his deputies during his term of office, aud that his own son got over $12,000 of that, leaving only $5,000 for the rest of the deputies. Q. How many were there ?-A. He reports eleven, but there are a great many whose names are not mentioned in his returns. I went to work myself in 1878, and his emolument returns bear my name for the first time in 1881. Q. What did you discover in the entries with reference to yourself as a deputy and your earnings?-A. I discovered that I had been ignored up to 1881; that is, for two or three years I had not been recognized as a deputy, nor any account made of the amount of business that I had done, which was pretty large. In fact I don't know of any way that Mr. Hall could have made those returns and made them correct. For instance, if he gave Roberts 50 per cent. and Roberts got the processes served for $1 apiece, the question would arise in my mind, which was the deputy, whether Roberts or the man that served the papers. If it was the man that served the papers, then the marshal could not swear that he had paid him 50 per cent. when the man got only 10 per cent., and he could not swear that Roberts was the deputy because the name of the third party would be on the writs. I give it up as a conundrum, and I think the matter was ignored altogether. By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE: Q. State in this connection what the statutory fees are for the service of those various papers?—A. Prior to 1880, as I said before, it was $2 a writ; that is what I got. After that I received 663 of the actual fee. Q. That was the arrangement between you and Marshal Hall?—A. That was the arrangement between me and Marshal Hall; after I was appointed deputy the business was all done through the office; there was no outside party known. I recollect one case in particular where Mr. Roberts's man came to me and requested me not to make the service, as the case had been settled. We were not very good friends, and I was not disposed to recognize him as having any authority in the matter, and I went ahead and served the papers. The defendant was very much surprised, and showed me the receipts that he had taken from Roberts. Q. Did you understand from your interview with the marshal that he . farmed out this privilege of serving papers to a special deputy for a consideration?-A. I did, sir. I understood that; but what I was going to say was that they had received from these men $50 for the infringement and $40 for the costs of court. Possibly I have got the figures reversed; it may be that they got $50 for the costs, and $40 for the infringement, but I know they got $90, all told. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. Who got that $90?-A. Mr. Roberts. He had settled with these men, and had got, as I have said, $50 for the infringement of the shot and had charged the parties $40 for the costs of court, and they paid it and took his receipt. I returned those papers in the case to Mr. Hall and told him that this man Roberts, or rather his agent, had requested me not to serve the papers in the first place, and then, afterwards, had requested me not to make any return, and was very indignant because I had served the papers. Mr. Hall said, "Well, you had better make no return; just return it n. e. i." (non est inventus). I said, "No, sir; I cannot do that; but if you order me not to make any return I will not do it." I left the writ without making any return at all, and I afterwards discovered that Mr. Hall had written on the back of the writ, "Returned at the request of the prosecutor," and had signed his name, "John Hall, U. S. marshal." The costs in that case were $1, and the writs were served-I served them myself-and those men paid $40 for costs of court to Mr. Roberts. I cannot give the number of the case, but I can refer you to a gentleman whose character is above reproach, and who, I suppose, will be glad to furnish you the facts. Q. Who are the gentlemen?-A. The name is Mitchell. I would have to look over my papers to give you the term. Q. That is one case that you refer to ?-A. That is one particular case that came to my knowledge. Q. Have you examined Mr. Hall's emolument returns?-A. Yes, sir; very carefully, in the Treasury Department. Q. Did he make return of the fees collected in those torpedo cases as a part of his emolument returns?-A. No, sir; I could not find any returns that I could trace, as I said before, up to 1881, from the simple reason that all the deputies who did that class of business were ignored in the returns. Whether he embraced that in work that he had done himself mainly or not, I could not tell. Q. You knew that he did not do the torpedo business personally?— A. Yes, sir; I knew that it was a sort of a general jobbing business. I presume there were twenty-five different men that served those processes the same as I worked on them for two years. I know one man that was appointed a deputy in 1874, and remained a deputy, I think, until about 1880, and his name does not appear in the emolument returns. Q. What is his name?-A. Beardsley. Q. Was he recognized as a deputy marshal?-A. Oh, yes, sir; he was appointed in 1874. Q. What did he do in regard to this service?-A. He served the same papers that I had served, only his work commenced prior to mine. At the time I was serving these papers, in 1878, 1879, and 1880, I served in only one district, and they had several others that were serving besides me. By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE: Q. The same class of papers?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Did this man Beardsley do a large business of that kind? Did he serve many papers?-A. Yes; I think he did. Q. A very large number?-A. I think so. Q. How extensive was that business in behalf of the torpedo company in that region during those years, so far as you know?-A. Mr. Hall's docket shows something like 1,800 cases during his term—that is, 1,800 suits, but oftentimes there were ten or eleven writs in one suit. I was surprised that his docket did not show more. Q. Did you examine the emolument returns to ascertain whether in that number of suits return had been made of the $40 of fees which should have been collected as the costs of court?-A. I could not tell. The nature of those returns is such that you cannot pick out any one item. For instance, I think that I carned that year about $900; that was the last year that Mr. Hall was in, 1882, and he put in my voucher, but he never paid me anything for that writ. I told him that I should have had it, but he said, "No, I do not think you ought, on account of the nature of my agreement with Mr. Roberts." Consequently I did not insist upon it. Q. What was the basis of the $40 costs that each defendant paid on the settlement of his case?--A. Oh, that was not a general rule. I spoke of that in one particular case. Q. What was the rule?-A. The rule was, just as much as they could get-just according to the man they were dealing with. By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE: Q. What would be the general average in that class of cases?—A. That I do not know, because I had nothing to do with the settlements. All I know is what different parties would tell me from time to time. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. What did you learn that those parties were being taxed for costs?-A. Well, I don't know as I have ever heard that in any particular case outside of the one I have mentioned. They would generally settle the thing together, the costs and the infringement, according to the number of torpedoes the party had put in. For instance, if you had been torpedoing for several years in so many wells, they would make a general estimate and settle for so much, and you would agree not to use any more. Q. Were those suits for infringement tried in the courts or settled on the ground?-A. They were tried in the courts, all those that came to trial. Q. What was done with the others? Were they settled on the ground?-A. I cannot say, because I do not know. I know that the record shows hundreds of cases commenced-the case commenced and the chancery subpoena issued; that is all the court record shows, and it is a question of doubt what was done with the cases. Q. Do you know what was done with them, as a rule?—A. No, sir; I do not. Q. In your own cases you do?-A. My own cases were settled, many of them, after the chancery subpoena was issued. Q. How were they settled ?-A. They were settled by the defendants paying whatever they could agree upon. In some few instances notes were taken. Q. You mean that the defendants settled on the ground with the agent of the torpedo company?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Then he returned the papers to the court or did not return them, as you have stated?-A. Yes, sir. I presume there was not a case where the defendant went into court to make a settlement. Q. Then the torpedo company had the power of the process of the court to enable them to settle with the parties infringing their patents? A. Yes, sir. Q. And they used that means throughout the time you have mentioned for the purposes you have indicated?-A. Yes, sir. Another peculiar thing I discovered in Mr. Hall's method of transacting business was that he never paid any attention to any of the writs in any of the cases except the chancery subpoena and the injunction. Subpoenas for witnesses, master's notices, and motions for preliminary injunctions, although served by a deputy and his name put to the papers, as he expressed it to me, "to make it a legal service," were always completely ignored, so far as he was concerned. By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE: Q. There was no mention made of them in the records ?-A. Not any. He claimed that he knew nothing about it, because those writs were not sent to his office to be sent out to be served. I don't know that Mr. Hall and Mr. Roberts ever had any understanding or any bargain. I have been told by good authority that Mr. Hall allowed Mr. Roberts to take those writs from his office and get them served the best he could, and allowed him 50 per cent., and Mr. Roberts sent A, B, or C out to serve them just upon such terms as he could make with them. Some served for $1 a paper, some for $2, and some for so much a month. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. But Mr. Roberts always collected from the defendants the whole amount of costs that the case would bear, did he?—A. Yes, sir; so far as I know. Of course, I don't know anything on that point only about this class I have spoken of, because I had nothing to do with the others in the settlements. Q. What was the general basis of the settlement with those different defendants, so far as you learned it ?-A. I don't think they had any general price fixed. I think they settled with a man for anything they could get. Q. Did the settlement always include the court costs?-A. Yes, sir; I think there was always a good round sum set for the costs of court; $40 would be a good round sum for costs. Q. Do you know what items constituted the costs of court in the case you have mentioned?-A. I know what the costs should have been in that case; they should have been about $23, the legitimate costs, according to Mr. Hall's book. According to Mr. Hall's docket, his charge was $1, and I presume that Mr. Gamble's docket fee and other things would amount to about $4. I presume that, as the record stands to day, the legitimate costs would be about $5, but they had collected $40. Q. How extensive was that business of collecting $40 as costs when the records of the marshal's office showed only $5, for instance ?—A. Well, I know of no other case besides that one. I know, however, that they always collected the costs of court wherever they could. Q. Did you examine the emolument returns as you have stated?— A. Yes, sir; but that business was not embraced there. As I say, the Roberts torpedo business was ignored in the returns, so far as I could discover, up to 1880. By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE: Q. There was no evidence of any body having done anything in that line?-A. No, sir; and all the deputies that had done the work up to that time were completely ignored in the record. Q. They should have been embraced in the marshal's return, should |