most strongly urged in favor of the employment of Mr. Bliss was that President Garfield would probably die, and that it would be wise to select some one who was on intimate terms with the Vice-President.

Q. Now, was it not also said and urged by the Postmaster General to the Attorney-General that Mr. Bliss was a man entirely competent and a man that he desired should be employed by reason, not only of his personal relations to President Arthur, then Vice-President (if it was before Mr. Garfield's death), but for other reasons ?-A. The Postmaster-General stated distinctly that Mr. Bliss was a good and able attorney, and urged that as one reason of his employment.

Q. That is the point. You said that he was employed exclusively for political reasons, and the chairman of this subcommittee stated with considerable emphasis that it was a political appointment. Now, was it not for both political and professional reasons that Mr. Bliss was appointed?-A. I do not believe that Mr. Bliss would ever have been appointed if the intimate relationship between him and the present President had not existed.

Q. That is not the question. You evade the question.-A. I do not wish to evade it.

Q. I don't know whether you do or not. You do evade it. The question is not whether he would or would not have been appointed, but whether his professional reputation as a skilled lawyer was not a consideration which entered into the mind of the Postmaster-General and the Attorney-General, and which led to his employment?-A. It may bave been.

Q. What do you think of it? Answer the question squarely.-A. So far as I was personally concerned, I regarded Mr. Bliss as an attorney of ordinary ability. That was the result of my experience with him. I have never changed that opinion. But when there was laid alongside of that the importance of having some one who was intimate with the President employed, I favored the selection of Mr. Bliss.

Q. You speak of Mr. Bliss's ordinary ability; that is a thing I don't know anything about; I am only speaking of his reputation. I suppose that at that time you regarded him as a man of ordinary ability in his profession -A. I did; and that is the opinion that I entertain of him. to day.

Q. I do not know that you are not correct about that.-A. Of course not; but I do.

Q. You know, I suppose, that he has a large and valuable practice?— A. I do not know it.

Q. You spoke of Mr. Ker as a "supposed expert"?-A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you mean by that phrase-supposed expert?-A. I meant this: It was represented to me that he was selected by Mr. Brewster to prepare indictments because of his great competency to do so. I had no personal acquaintance with him, nor have I now; but the first manifestation of his competency I found in that indictment, in which there was a most stupid and unjustifiable use of the initials of two parties. I meant, therefore, by the language which I used, that there must be a mistake as to his being an "expert," that no expert would have perpetrated so manifest and plain a blunder as that indictment con- . tained, which entailed upon the Government a large amount of expenditure.

Q. You do not, I presume, suppose that Mr. Ker did not know as well as you do that you could not indict a man by his initials?-A. If he knew it I cannot account upon any theory of integrity or uprightness for the use of the initials found in the indictment.

Q. Do you know how that error crept into the indictment?—A. I know that the full names of both Mr. Rerdell and Sanderson were accessible.

Q. That is not an answer to my question.-A. I do not know how that crept in.

Q. You don't know whether it was a mistake of the scrivener or copyist or whether it was Mr. Ker's mistake?-A. I know this, that Mr. Ker attempted to justify the indictment with the initials when the matter was called to the attention of the court. I was present when that attempt was made.

Q. You never have heard any explanation of how that mistake occurred?-A. Only the explanation made in open court, that the use of the initials was proper, and that the presentation of the full name was not required.

Q. That would not be an answer to my inquiry. That was a mere argument addressed to the court as to whether writing the full name was necessary. I am asking about whether any explanation ever came to your knowledge of how those initials got in there?-A. The explanation was found in the fact, as I comprehended it, that the indictment, with the initials, was justified by Mr. Ker.

Mr. STEWART. Well, it was justified on perhaps an unusual practice of trying to get out of a difficulty as well as possible. If he could persuade the court to let the indictment stand, I suppose he wished to do so.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. The explanation, as you understand it, was that this gentleman, Mr. Ker, thought that was a proper way to draft the indictment ?—A. Yes; that was it.

Mr. STEWART. You do not think he thought so.

The WITNESS. How can I think anything else, when he stood up in court and tried to justify the use of the initials?

Mr. STEWART. You cannot think that any lawyer would argue that it was not necessary to set forth a man's name in full in a criminal indictment?

The WITNESS. But I heard it argued. I was amazed.

Mr. STEWART. Oh, well, Mr. Ker was speaking in a professional or Pickwickian sense, I suppose?

The WITNESS. He may have been, but I was amazed. In connection with that there lies another significant fact which, perhaps, it is my duty to present to you. Sanderson, whose initials were used in that indictment, was not embraced in the second indictment. In the mean time he spent a considerable portion of his time in the city of Washington, and was at the Arlington Hotel, and I have been credibly informed that he stated to a gentleman whose name I can give the committee, but prefer giving it privately, and who at one time had been a broker for him, that he was going home, that Mr. Bliss had told him that he would not be embraced in the second indictment.

Mr. STEWART. If that is the fact I should like to have it known, because it is part of our business to find out.

The WITNESS. I should regret if I should do anything else but hum'bly assist you to arrive at the real facts.

(The witness here wrote the name of the broker above referred to on a piece of paper and handed it to the chairman.)

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. Is the man a resident of Washington?—A. Yes, sir. [To the chair

man.] I would rather that the gentleman sitting back of you [Mr. Brewster Cameron] should not see the name.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Cameron never sees anything.
The WITNESS. No; I am aware of that.

Another fact. You observe that M. C. Rerdell's initials also are used. M. C. Rerdell afterwards became a witness in the case.

Now, I have, if the committee will indulge me, one more matter, and only one more, to which I beg leave to direct attention. This matter is to some extent personal, yet it is directly connected with the subject-matter of investigation. In the Philadelphia Press of May 24, 1883, there was an interview with the Attorney General headed "Star Route Expenses," and in the close of that the statement had been made by Mr. Brewster to the correspondent that—

The defendants not only used the proceeds of their robberies to pay counsel, but the money was expended in spiriting away witnesses, in buying up ex-counsel of the Government, and in hiring newspapers to defend their rascality. The Government has paid for all this. The expenditure of every dollar used by the Department in the prosecntion of these cases was authorized by Congress. The Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate were fully advised of the use made of our funds, and, understanding the character of the expenditures, the sum that this Department asked for was voted.

"What do you mean by the assertion that the defendants bought ex-counsel for the Government in these cases?" asked the correspondent.

I mean that J. M. Bosler, of Carlisle, Pa., showed Mr. Bliss his books containing a record of payments made by him on account of expenses incurred in the defense of these suits, among other things, and Mr. Bliss told me that Bosler's books contained entries of several thousand dollars paid the law partner of Mr. William Cook and Mr. A. M. Gibson. Both Mr. Cook and Mr. Gibson were originally retained by the Government in these cases, and I dismissed them because I felt that their services could be dispensed with.

When this paper was sent to me marked, I at once addressed the following letter to the Attorney-General:

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 7, 1883. SIR: My attention has been called to an interview with you published in the Philadelphia Press of May 24, ult.:

It appears that, among other things, you stated to the correspondent of the Press that the defendants in the star-route cases not only used the proceeds of their robberies to pay counsel, but "the money was expended in spiriting away witnesses, in baying up ex-counsel of the Government, and in hiring newspapers to defend their rascality. The Government has paid all this."

It also appears that the following question was asked you, viz: "What do you mean by the assertion that the defendants bought ex-counsel for the Government in these cases?" To which you responded: "I mean that J. M. Bosler, of Carlisle, Pa., showed Mr. Bliss his books containing a record of payments made by him on account of expenses incurred in the defense of these suits, among other things, and Mr. Bliss told me that Bosler's books contained entries of several thousand dollars paid the law partner of Mr. William Cook and Mr. A. M. Gibson. Both Mr. Cook and Mr. Gibson were originally retained by the Government in these cases, and I dismissed them because I felt that their services could be dispensed with."

Allow me to inquire whether you are correctly represented in these extracts from the Press.

You will observe that they contain, first, a strong and plain implication that, as One of the ex-counsel in the star-route cases, I was bought by the defendants; and, second, a positive assertion that you dismissed me as one of the original counsel. I will be pleased to receive an early reply.

Respectfully,

BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER,

Attorney-General United States.

I received no reply to that letter.

By Mr. FYAN:

WILLIAM A. COOK.

Q. Did you address that letter personally to him?-A. Personally, 2

H. Mis. 38, pt. 2——9*

and had it delivered to him personally. Not having received any reply, I wrote him again, a few days later, as follows:

As you have not seen fit to reply to this letter, I am compelled to conclude that your utterances to the correspondent of the Philadelphia Press were correctly reported. Indeed, this was a reasonable presumption; but I deemed it proper to afford you a fair opportunity for explanation or correction.

I am not accustomed to notice misrepresentations or censure which the uninformed or malignant may circulate or publish against me. I have neither time nor inclination to do so. But your accidental position as Attorney-General of the United States imparts to your accusations an importance which they would not possess if they emanated from you as a private individual, and therefore both public and personal respect require that they should receive a proper denial from me.

CHARGE OF FALSE STATEMENTS.

It is utterly false that the defendants in the star-route cases in any manner bought me as one of the ex-counsel. No one of them had the audacity to attempt it. I believe that Mr. Cole was for a while employed by Mr. Rerdell, but I am credibly informed that he gave a receipt for his fee, which was turned over to the Government. It is presumed you know this fact. Moreover, you were not ignorant of the truth that Mr. Cole and I were only limited partners in civil cases. This information you had twice from my lips, so that your assertion was not only untrue, but made with full information of the actual facts.

Second. The declaration that you dismissed me as one of the original attorneys in the star-route cases could not be surpassed in the realm of bold and audacious misstatements.

On March 14, 1882, I sent you a written and unsolicited resignation of my appointment as a special attorney. On the 17th of that month you transmitted me a reply, in which you said that my letter of resignation was a surprise to you, and that you could not see the necessity for it; that my retirement was the conclusion of my own judgment, and that had I continued in the cases and labored in them my usefulness would have been appreciated.

It cannot therefore be doubted that when you made the assertion that you had dismissed me you knew it was utterly untrue.

The intellectual and moral depravity which tempted and impelled you to malign and misrepresent me as you have done I am unable to comprehend. You probably

can.

It only remains for me to state that I will publish this reply to your manifestly malignant falsehood in the public press, and pursue any other plan of vindication I may deem proper.

An Attorney-General of the United States cannot assail my professional or personal character with impunity, especially one who attained his distinguished position amid the smoke of an assassin's pistol, and possibly by means which reflect little or no credit on exalted manhood.

Yours, &c.,

That I transmitted to him.

WILLIAM A. COOK.

Q. How did he enjoy that ?-A. I don't know. In the mode in which he assailed me I sent forth the response.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. In the last interview you had with Mr. Garfield before he was shot did you say anything to him as to your being able after a time to inform him of the sources of danger that you anticipated?-A. I said to him that I might. And I omitted yesterday what was communicated to me as a fact, that the Attorney-General about that time had received various anonymous and threatening letters in consequence of his vigorous action in the star-route cases.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Did you see those letters?-A. No, sir; the Attorney-General stated to me that he had received some.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. Those were threats addressed to the Attorney-General ?-A. Those

were threats addressed to the Attorney-General. There is one more matter: On yesterday questions were propounded to me in relation to an article in the Sun. I think they were propounded by Mr. Milliken. I observe that in the committee of which Mr. Money is chairman, the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads, Mr. Woodward, appeared and stated that he furnished to me a copy of the statement.

Mr. WOODWARD. Have you read the evidence that was taken in that committee-room?-A. I have read it as it appears in the papers. Mr. WOODWARD. It is entirely incorrect in the papers.

The WITNESS. As it appeared in the papers it contains that statement. I wish to say, first, that Mr. Woodward never furnished me any such paper in relation to Mr. Ellis, or any paper relating to Mr. Ellis; and, in the second place, that if he has such a belief as the press report of his testimony indicates, it is without any foundation whatever in fact. I never saw the Sun article until

Mr. WOODWARD. I never intimated in my testimony that he did. The report is incorrect.

The WITNESS. Very well; I am happy to hear it. It is a gross misrepresentation.

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE (in the chair). I will state to the committee that a communication was sent down a little time since from the Post Office Committee, who are investigating that matter, requesting that Mr. Cook might be relieved from attendance here, for the time being, in order to appear there.

Mr. WOODWARD (to Mr. Cook). When you go there read my evidence on that point.

The WITNESS. I have this request to make of the committee: If hereafter any of the essential statements which I have made should be contradicted by any witness, I may have the privilege of again appearing before the committee and furnishing corroborative evidence, for I have made no esseutial statement but what can be sustained by the testimony of others and by papers. (Examination suspended.)

WASHINGTON, March 12, 1884.

A. M. GIBSON recalled and further examined.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Question. You have already stated that you were associated with Mr. Cook in the work which you and he were doing for the Government in relation to the star-route cases. Do you remember the indictment that was drawn against Brott and Lilley-Answer. Yes, sir. Q. Who drew that indictment?-A. Mr. Cook and myself. Q. How many indictments were there?—A. I forget.

Q. Two or more?-A. There were two, and my recollection is that there were more. My recollection about that is this: The drafts of the indictment were made, and Mr. Bliss looked over them and made some changes in them, and Mr. Taggart, who is assistant district attorney for this District, came afterwards to Colonel Cook's office and we went over them again, and in that shape they were presented to the grand jury and found.