go a step or two further. In an interview with Mr. Bliss in this city, March 18, 1882, which was published in the Post, I find this. The reporter asks him: Did you anticipate Colonel Cook's withdrawal? No; it was an entire surprise to me. Had there been any trouble between him and yourself? Nothing of the kind. No unkind word or word of difference has ever passed between us. I might perhaps fairly stop here (continued Colonel Bliss), were it not that Colonel Cook has allowed to go to the public an assertion which I think correctly states what he said and which involves a personal attack upon me. That was simply in relation to his purchase of the Republican. Have you recently advised with Colonel Cook in regard to the cases? He had just said that there was no trouble between us. No; I have not advised with him in regard to my intended action in every case. Circumstances arose which led me to think it was better to procure the arrest of certain persons before Colonel Cook had any knowledge of the proceedings. I laid the facts before Mr. Brewster, and was directed by him to take that course. The parties were arrested and have since been indicted. I have not sought to "freeze" Colonel Cook out of the cases. or Mr. Gibson. The fact is that Gibson voluntarily retired after his work had been finished. His work was a work of investigation; when that was completed the cases passed into the sphere of prosecution. Mr. Gibson obviously had no further scope for his abilities. As to Mr. Cook, without enlarging, the fact is that I have for some weeks stood in the way of his dismissal. It is true that I procured the discharge of the detectives. Those were detectives that I had employed, and they were discharged without my knowledge and others substituted. They were valuable men. I did not know that they were employed in the cases until after I had been concerned in them many months. I never knew what they did, or that they did anything, and it was only when bills for their services accidentally came to my notice that I first knew of their employment. I could see no use for detectives in the cases at all, and certainly not for the men whom he employed-men whose names even he did not venture to give upon the vouchers which he presented for their payment. There is somewhere an intimation, alleged to proceed from Colonel Cook, that he remained in the cases because he considered it important to do so for the purpose of affeating the action of the grand jury. By Mr. MILLIKEN: Q. What were the circumstances which led Mr. Bliss to have certain arrests made before he let you know about the evidence?-A. Will you allow me to present one more statement of Mr. Bliss's in another paper? It comes in here appropriately, and then I will come to that question. At the same time or shortly afterwards, in the New York Commercial Advertiser, there was an interview with Mr. Bliss, from which I will read: I Col. George Bliss was seen at his office to-day, and in reply to inquiries said, "About a month ago I became dissatisfied with the manner in which Colonel Cook was proceeding with the star-route cases, and I did not like bis associations by any means. told Attorney-General Brewster so, and he wanted to relieve him at once, but I said no. He still insisted, after being spoken to by the Attorney-General, in wanting to push certain of the cases for trial where the evidence was not strong enough-of course for effect, in my judgment-and finding that the Attorney-General supported me I supposed he became more jealous of me. Hence his resignation." In regard to Cook's intimation that the cases would not be prosecuted Colonel Bliss said: “The cases will be pushed forward for trial as rapidly as possible, Dorsey, Brady, or any one else not being considered. Politics will not enter the case, and simply justice will be called for." He said associate counsel in Cook's place would soon be engaged. He was not dis posed to say who it would be until the gentleman's name was made public. Colonel Bliss expects the trials will come off in the May term, and he wants to get them off his hands as soon as possible. In conclusion Colonel Bliss said, "You may say I advised the Attorney-General to get rid of Colonel Cook." There are the two papers, the one directly contradicting the statement of the other. And now your question if you please. By Mr. MILLIKEN: Q. What were the circumstances which led Mr. Bliss to have certain arrests made before he let you know about the evidence?-A. He can speak for himself. This is a letter from Mr. Bliss to me dated— POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT, MY DEAR COLONEL: By direction of the Attorney-General I have prepared informa tions in the police court against Boone and a half dozen of his bogus bidders, and shall in the morning apply for warrants for them. * I designedly did not notify you of this proceeding, because I thought from your past relations to Boone it might embarrass you. With this knowledge now given you are at liberty to assume either position that you choose, that is, that you know nothing about it, or that you know all about it. Do whichever commends itself to you. Yours, truly, GEORGE BLISS. That was simply, in one part, a commission issued to me by Mr. Bliss, to lie in connection with the cases and say that I knew all about it, or that I knew nothing about it. I went immediately to the AttorneyGeneral and showed him this letter and asked him whether he had directed Mr. Bliss to proceed without any consultation with me or any of the other attorneys. He said he had not, but that Mr. Bliss had had Some consultation with him, and probably inferred that he had given such authority. I said to the Attorney-General that the time had come when it was important for me to understand my relation to the cases; that it was useless for me to remain in them if I was not to be consulted, and I could assume no responsibility for the failure of any of the cases unless I was. He said to me, "Now, old fellow, don't get in a bad humor;" and related to me a Grecian fable Mr. MILLIKEN. Mr. Chairman, do we want all this? The CHAIRMAN. This relates to the good faith of Mr. Bliss in his action in connection with these cases. The WITNESS. (Continuing.) He said to me (he repeated it again), "You know I am largely indebted to Mr. Bliss for my appointment. He is a particular friend of President Arthur and I must do things accordingly, that I otherwise might not do." I said to him distinctly, "I wish the Attorney-General to understand that I have not sunk so low, or become so degraded, professionally or personally, as to accept a commission from Mr. Bliss, or any one else, to lie in the star-route cases," and I left him. Q. What were the circumstances which led Mr. Bliss to have certain arrests made before he let you know about the evidence?-A. I supposed I was giving the circumstances, all of them. I addressed a letter to Mr. Bliss, stating that I had seen the Attorney-General, and that he did not concur with him; that he had directed him to proceed without consultation. I also stated to him that his reference to my relations with Mr. Boone was without foundation in fact; that I had no relations to Boone which would prevent me from prosecuting him or any one else, fully and unhesitatingly. Mr. Bliss then went to New York and sent me a H. Mis. 38, pt. 28* note, stating that he expected to take up these cases in a few days, and if I desired, he would be pleased to have me participate in them. I did so. They were delayed for months, and finally, when he was absent in New York, Mr. Gibson and I made a point or two that I was desirous of making while Mr. Bliss was away, and the cases were concluded in his absence, and the parties bound over to court. Q. What parties were they?-A. Mr. Boone was the chief party. They were called the "bond" cases, the "straw bonds." Q. Have those parties been indicted?-A. Yes, sir. Prior to the pursuit of Mr. Boone in the police court, I had been, with the authority of Attorney General MacVeagh, engaged in endeavoring to obtain information from Boone, and had procured considerable, as he was very well posted in regard to the cases. I put him in communication with Mr. Bliss, at the Arlington Hotel, with a hope that he would be able to conclude the arrangement which I had made to make him a witness. A difference arose between them, and Boone came away very greatly dissatisfied. He was then indicted, but when the Brady, Dorsey et al. case was finally tried, Mr. Boone was placed in the position, to some extent, I had at first attempted to have him in (though less favorably for the Government than he would have been otherwise), and was used as a witness, with the understanding that the cases against him should be nolle prossed, and when they were concluded that was done, and the cases against Boone were dismissed; so that all the proceedings in the police court became, as respects Boone, entirely nugatory. By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE: Q. Who conducted that final prosecution against Boone?-A. Mr. Bliss. By Mr. MILLIKEN: Q. What were the associations referred to in that letter of Mr. Bliss? -A. They could have been no other than those to which I have just referred. The letters will show. Q. Association with whom?-A. With Mr. Boone in an attempt to obtain from him information which might be used in the prosecution of the star-route cases. Q. That is all?-A. Yes, sir. There never was any peculiar relation existing between Mr. Boone and myself. Q. Did you return to the Government officers the copies of papers sent to you?-A. I did; and I hold the receipt of the Attorney-General for them. I thought I had it here, but I do not see it among these papers. I will produce it later, though. Q. Copies of all the papers sent to you?-A. Yes, sir; copies of all the papers. Here is the receipt. There was a demand made upon me by Mr. Bliss for papers, and I returned all the papers and all the fragments of papers that I had, not to him, but the Attorney-General. He stated afterwards in a communication, that the papers were of no consequence whatever and would be of no utility to any one. Nevertheless I returned them. Q. Did you take copies of those papers before you returned them to the Government?-A. I did not. They were of no manner of use to me, and, as Mr. Harris stated, to any one else. The most of them were mere abstracts or notes in relation to routes. This is the receipt. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, - 188-. Received from William A. Cook, esq., a package which appears to contain the following-named papers, but which I must hereafter examine: Route 44154, part 2 ; route 44154, part 1; route 38135, route 38140, route 34149, route 38113, route 44140, route 38134, part 1; route 38134, part 2; route 44155, part 1; route 44155, part 2; route 34124; route 38135, part 2; route 35051, route 33264, route 34124, route 35013, route 35015, route 34042, route 35043, route 33259, route 35042, route 35015, route 44160, route 44119, route 38152, route 44140, route 35051. Copies of letters of George F. Brott and Fred. B. Lilley. Attorney-General. Q. Did you have copies of those papers made before they were returned?-A. I had not copies made of any papers. Q. Were any copies made by anybody before they were returned by you?-A. Not with my knowledge. Q. Did they go out of your hands so that any one might have made copies without your knowledge?-A. They were never out of my hands so that copies could have been made, so far as I know. By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE: Q. While they were in your possession were they kept in your office?— A. They were kept in my office. Q. For what length of time?-A. The copies were kept there probably, some of them, for several months. Q. In what manner kept?-A. They were kept, a part of them, in a safe and a part of them in a drawer locked up in my office. Q. Did any other person than yourself have access to the safe?-A. No, sir.. Q. Or to the drawer?-A. No, sir. Q. Then while they were contained in either of those places no person could have copied them without your knowledge?—A. Unless they were taken away clandestinely. Q. Could that have been effected without your knowing it?—A. It might have been effected without my knowing it, for I have been informed credibly that a proposition was made on behalf of the Government to go into my office and gather up all papers that might be supposed to be connected with the star-route cases. Q. Did you ever leave any of them exposed in your office while you were absent from it?-A. I do not think I ever did. One answer I should correct. As to the safe, my partner at times had access to the safe. Q. Who was C. C. Cole?-A. He was my partner. Q. Did any of the papers, or copies of papers, which you had received from the Department of Justice, so far as you know, reach the hands of either of the defendants in the star-route cases?-A. They did not. By Mr. MILLIKEN: Q. Did any one else except yourself have the copies?-A. No, sir; the copies were made for my individual use. Q. How could they reach the defendants without your knowledge?A. They might. Sometimes days or weeks would elapse and I would not look at papers in my office. By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE: Q. But you have no knowledge that they were ever possessed of any of those papers?—A. I have not. It is a suggestion that has been made on various occasions by interested parties. I mean parties interested on behalf of the Government, and apparently anxious to account for its failure. All statements or insinuations that I retained papers or had copies made, or furnished any to the defendants or any other persons, are utterly false. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. Did you see some articles that were recently published in the New York Sun?—A. I did. Q. Were the papers from which those articles were taken ever in your possession?-A. Never. Q. Did you ever see those articles before in manuscript, or in any other form?-A. No, sir. Q. Is that the first knowledge you had of the existence of such papers?-A. No, sir; because part of those papers related to the Brott case, if I remember correctly. Q. You had a part of those papers then, so far as they related to the Brott case?-A. Yes, sir; but so far as Mr. Ellis is concerned, I never saw any statement made by Brott involving Mr. Ellis. If such papers existed, they were never shown to me. Q. But you did have certain papers involving Brott?-Yes, sir; on which I had the indictments found, and of which I had copies made. Q. But in the papers which you had, or which you saw, you say there was no mention of the facts which appeared in the Sun, so far as Mr. Ellis is concerned?-A. No, sir; and I am quite sure that quite a number of the pretended facts in the article in the Sun were incorrect. Q. Do you know how the matters that were published in the Sun became public?-A. I do not. By Mr. MILLIKEN: Q. Did you ever turn over to the Government the result of the work of your detectives?—A. Invariably. I used that information. Q. Did you turn it over to the Government so that they had it in their possession after you became disconnected with those cases ?—A. I had no such information. Q. You have testified that you employed certain detectives, and that those detectives were discharged.-A. Yes, sir. Q. Did those detectives bring to you information in regard to those cases?-A. While I was actively connected with them they did. Q. Did you turn that information over to the Government?-A. That information I used as far as I could; utilized it in the progress of the cases. There was nothing to turn over. Q. Was not that information in writing?-A. No, sir; it was not in writing. Q. Was it not put into some shape for you?-A. No, sir; it was not put in any shape in writing. Q. What became of those detectives who were discharged ?—A. Most of them remained about the city of Washington, and were made objects. of investigation, according to bills put in and certified by the Secretary of the Treasury by Mr. Bliss and his associates. Q. Were any of them ever employed afterwards by the defense?-A. I am not aware that any of them were. Q. Was John Sargent so employed?-A. I have no knowledge of his being so employed. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. Please name the detectives you employed.-A. I had Mr. Sargent; I had to some extent Mr. James Croggin; I availed myself largely of the services of Mr. Newcombe, who was generally employed; |