Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Q. Did he say to you at any time anything in reference to his having witnessed the payment of money by Mr. Dorsey to Mr. Brady?—A. Yes, sir; he said that he was present in Mr. Dorsey's room-that was before my incumbency as Postmaster-General-and that card was sent up, and Mr. Dorsey said that he wanted him (Spencer) to see the way that he did business, and he took some money out of his pocket and put it in an envelope, and when the party came up Mr. Dorsey handed him the envelope, which he took and put in his pocket and went away.

Q. Where was it that Mr. Spencer stated this to you?—A. He told me that in New York; he told it here, too, for that matter.

Q. Whom do you say Spencer said Dorsey paid that money to?—A. Mr. Brady.

Q. How much was it?-A. My impression is that it was $5,000 or $6,000.

Q. Mr. Spencer said that Mr. Dorsey told him that he would show him how he did business?-A. Yes.

Q. And he placed $5,000 or $6,000 in an envelope and put it on his table? A. Yes.

Q. And after a while Mr. Brady came in and Mr. Dorsey handed him the envelope, and he put it in his pocket and went away?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is the substance of the statement of ex-Senator Spencer to you? A. Yes, sir. I wish to add that the information that Senator Spencer gave me about these star-route matters was most valuable.

Q. Did you find his statements to be pretty true with regard to these matters ?-A. Always correct, as far as I can recollect.

Q. Have you had any conversation with Mr. Spencer since with regard to this matter?-A. Since the trial?

Q. Since the first time he mentioned it, or since the last time to which you have referred here?-A. Yes; I have had conversations with him. I don't know that that case has come up, though.

Q. What I desire to know is, whether, in any subsequent statement made to you by Mr. Spencer, he modified the first one which you have stated here?-A. No, sir.

Q. Did he say where this circumstance teok place?—A. I don't remember whether he said it was at a hotel in Washington or in New York; but it was one or the other.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. Why do you state, as you do, generally, in the statement you have made here, your belief or impression that the assassination of President Garfield was in consequence of this star-route business?-A. I did not say that, governor.

Q. Won't you please read again what you did say about that at the conclusion of your prepared statement ?-A. [Reading] "His conduct in the whole affair was honorable and courageous in a high degree, and was inspired by a lofty sense of the duties of his office. If he had taken a lower view of his obligations as Chief Magistrate and as an honest man, it is my firm belief that he would not have fallen a victim to the assassin's bullet."

Q. Well, I think that language conveys the impression, or would convey the impression, to the public (and this will be made public), that in some way the act of the assassin was directly a consequence of the President's action with reference to the star-route prosecutions. Now, if you do not mean that, I wish you would explain it, because that is the impression I got when you read it.-A. I mean just this: Taking the warning given by Colonel Cook, and the clamor raised by these

people at this investigation, together with the fact of the newspaper clippings that were found in the pockets of the assassin, I think that his head was turned by these assaults upon the President.

Q. Not that he was instigated by anybody connected with the starroutes?-A. I have no right to say that, because I do not know it. Mr. STEWART. I think it is well that your explanation on that point should be explicit.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Were the clippings to which you have referred from the Washington Republican the same articles which you read with President Garfield on the train? Were those the clippings that were found upon Guiteau ?-A. I am not sure whether that article was the one found upon Guiteau.

Q. But there were some articles found upon him which commented severely upon the President's administration?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many days before President Garfield was shot was it that Mr. Cook made this statement to him which you have told us about?—A. I think it was the Wednesday night before.

Q. What day of the week was the 2d of July, the day on which the President was shot?-A. Saturday.

By Mr. HEMPHILL :

Q. Can you state whether the clippings found in the pocket of Guiteau had relation to the President's action with reference to star-route mat. ters, or to his administration generally?-A. I am not certain about that; I think to both; but I won't say that, because I am not certain. I withdraw that.

Q. But they contained severe reflections upon his administration of the office of President?-A. Yes, sir.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Was there any effort made, while you were Postmaster-General, to bring about a compromise of the civil suits with these defendants by their paying any sum of money?-A. I do not recollect any such effort. Q. You have spoken about President Garfield's co-operation in the matter. Did you have any conversation with him with regard to any prosecution of Mr. Dorsey particularly?-A. No more than of any of the other defendants.

Q. I believe you have said that Mr. Dorsey remonstrated with the President with regard to the treatment he was receiving ?-A. Yes, sir. Mr. STEWART. You did not say that.

The WITNESS. Well, I say it now. I said that Mr. Dorsey attempted to raise trouble between the President and his Cabinet.

The CHAIRMAN. That was your statement, and I supposed you meant that the attempt was made on account of these prosecutions. Can you explain in what way the effort was made?-A. He took this Rerdell's affidavit, this recantation, to the President and demanded the removal of the Attorney-General and myself on the ground that we were attempting to suborn a witness.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. Was that at the time of this visit by Mr. Ingersoll to which you have referred?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you have any interview with Mr. Dorsey during the progress of the investigation?-A. Yes, sir.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. I think it would be well for you to explain in further detail, if you can, the efforts made by Mr. Dorsey to thwart the investigation.-A. Yes, and that will answer in full Governor Stewart's question, too. Mr. Dorsey wrote me an open letter demanding a separate investigationthat we should lay aside everything else in the Department, I suppose, to give him a separate investigation. He came to the Department in company with his counsel.

Q. In what manner did he desire that investigation; by the criminal prosecution?-A. No; simply an investigation through the Depart

ment.

Mr. STEWART. That is a matter of public history?

The WITNESS. Yes, sir; that is history. He came with his counsel, and they accidentally met the Attorney-General there with me, and, after listening to Mr. Dorsey, the Attorney-General advised me to treat him as everybody else was treated-not to give any one a separate investigation; he said that the ends of justice would not be attained by doing that, displaying all the papers in one case and giving everything away; and we declined to do it.

Mr. STEWART. The Attorney-General was right.

The WITNESS. Of course he was right; he always is right.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. At the close of your prepared statement, you connected the death of President Garfield with the star-route cases, as I understood. The WITNESS. No; I have explained that.

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 5, 1884.

WAYNE MACVEAGH Sworn and examined.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. Please state your residence and occupation.-Answer. I rede in Philadelphia, Pa.; I am a lawyer by profession.

Q. When were you appointed Attorney-General of the United States, and when did you cease to fill that office -A. I was nominated by President Garfield, as Attorney-General, to the Senate on the 5th of March, 1881, I think, the day after the inauguration, but did not come to Washington until after I was confirmed, and my recollection would be that a Sunday intervened; that the Cabinet was confirmed on a Saturday and that I came here on Monday morning early, which probably would be the 7th or 8th of March, 1881. I really do not remember when I took the oath of office as Attorney-General. I left the office on the 14th of November, 1881.

Q. Please state and explain in your own way your action while you were Attorney-General in reference to the prosecution of offenders against the law in connection with the mail service.-A. Well, I would hardly know whether in what I would say upon that subject I would meet the views of the committee-that is, give them the information they desire. I would be very glad to put them in possession of any information I have upon the subject from the beginning to the end, but, considering the lapse of time and my constant engagements since in other matters, I am not sure that I could recall, perhaps, even the most important matters. I have no statement of any kind to offer to the committee, because I have no wish to give them any information except

that which they really desire. If you think I had better begin now and state according to my present recollection just what occurred about the star-route matter, I will do that, if the committee will, by their questions, subsequently, fill in any gaps that may appear in my statement; because I really supposed I would be questioned and would have to answer questions.

The CHAIRMAN. We would prefer that you should first make your own statement as far as you can in relation to those cases, and then questions may be suggested on particular points.

The WITNESS. My recollection now is that I knew nothing whatever about the matter until the President himself one day, not long after I had come here, mentioned the subject to me, and said that while it would be a matter mainly in the Post-Office Department and with which, certainly, at that stage of it, I would have properly nothing to do, he would himself feel more satisfied if I would allow him to send the Postmaster-General to me, with the statement that I would cheerfully listen to anything he had to say about it, and advise with him from time to time as he went on with the investigation into these supposed irregularities or frauds. Of course, I assented to that, as to any other proper request that the President would make of me, and, in accordance with it, the Postmaster General called upon me, as I now remember; but I ought to say that I kept no memoranda whatever, but transacted this as a part of the current business of my office, and that, therefore, I may be mistaken as to details in any particular matter, and of course may possibly be mistaken as to essentials. But, if that was the order, as I think it was, then the Postmaster-General called upon me at my department, and I went over with him to see the President, and the President there repeated substantially what he had said before, that this was a matter which needed immediate looking into, and as it involved irregularities amounting to very gross frauds, if they existed at all, he would feel better satisfied if I was in a position to give constant heed to the Postmaster-General and to give him advice as he needed it. I then said, either to the President or to the Postmaster-General, that we must first find what the facts were in some intelligible form, and I was very Soon thereafter confronted with a tabular statement of what has since been known as the "93 routes," to which allusion has been made in the examination this morning. I had been familiar with the general system of laws passed by Congress and with the multiplied safeguards (as I had had occasion more than once in my profession to examine them) thrown around the lettings of mail contracts by Congress in the way of securing competition by advertisement, and I was familiar with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which those safeguards had been commended as intended to prevent fraud and favoritism and undue waste of the public moneys. Therefore, when the facts appeared to me in this sufficient number of cases to show the system pursued in evading those laws, I was measurably satisfied, of course, that certainly very great wrong had been done to the public treasury. I remember very early seeing one case which was perhaps a fair sample, and which had a very considerable influence on my mind, because I found it multiplied in a number of other cases, substantially. I asked that the papers in some typical case should be laid before me, that I might take them home and carefully look into them. A case was brought to me by the Postmaster General, or by his authority, and the entire bundle of papers confided to me, and I took them home. It was a route out in the Territory of Arizona and in Nevada, running from one into the other, I think; at all events, it was certainly in the extreme unH. Mis. 38, pt. 2-2*

settled portion of the Government territory. I found that theretofore the entire route had been traversed one way, say from one Monday morning to the next Monday morning (if I am right as to details), and then traversed back over the same line the following week; that the contract had been let, in the previous contract term, to a resident upon the route, for which he had been receiving about $6,000. On satisfying myself of that, and that up to that time no demand, so far as I could see, had been made for any change, or even any suggestion of a change, I then looked at the advertising for the lettings of that route in the contract term under examination, and I found that the service had been changed and the time shortened. I found, also, that the successful bidder was not a resident of the western country, as theretofore, but was Mr. John W. Dorsey, who gave his residence as at Middlebury, Vt. While that in itself was not very important, it was suggestive to my mind, and I found that this man coming from Vermont had undertaken to do the service for one-half what the man had been paid for doing it who lived in the Territory. Then I looked at the bonds, and I found names of which I had some public knowledge, and which did not tend to dissipate the impression which the remoteness of the residence of the contractor from the route had made upon me. However, I found that the contract had been awarded to him as the lowest bidder, in accordance with the act of Congress, and that, apparently, the Government was saving $3,000 per annum, in round figures, by giving it to him rather than to the resident bidder. I then found that Mr. Dorsey did not himself propose to perform this work, but had immediately transferred it to a man, who has been mentioned here by Mr. James, named Rerdell. I further ascertained that the contract going into effect, according to my recollection, on the 1st of April, Rerdell, in July, after repeated remonstrances from some of the officers of the Department, and demands for an explanation of why no service had been put on the route, wrote a letter explaining that the Congressional investigation, to which allusion has been made this morning, had detained him here, and stating that service would be put on. Then there came what seemed to me a fair shower of sublettings and withdrawals of this contract, and authority assumed to deal with it by Mr. Miner, I think, whose name, up to that time, had nowhere appeared in connection with it, and then again by Mr. Rerdell, as attorney for Mr. John W. Dorsey; then that contract would be withdrawn and something else would be substituted, and, in short, everything seemed to be doing about the contract except the straightforward thing of carrying it out. Later on, however, I did find a contract made with a man living out there, the husband of a postmistress on the route, and to my surprise I found that Mr. Dorsey, or Mr. Rerdell for him, had agreed to give this man living on the route twice the amount, substantially, that he was to get from the Government for performing the service; so that while the Government apparently saved $3,000 a year, Mr. Dorsey seemed to be losing it. But, in this contract, as in all of them, I found a stipulation contemplating that increases would be made, and in this contract with the man living on the route I found a double provision of that kind, one saying that if the mail should be ordered to be carried three times a week, then the carrier should have $12,000 per annum for the service, and if it should be ordered to be carried six times a week, then he should have $28,000. Then I found that subsequently petitions had been presented, or papers were on file, requesting an increase of the service on that route to three times a week-some asking that it should be increased to twice a week and some to three times a weekand that it had been ordered to be carried three times a week and the

« AnteriorContinuar »