Q. Who really did the work of drawing those affidavits, and how long a time was occupied in looking them over and making corrections and revising them as to details generally?-A. Oh, I do not think there was a great deal of time occupied. It was a very simple matter to draw those indictments under the section of the Revised Statutes which provides for such cases. My recollection is that the indictments were drawn one evening and presented to the grand jury next morning.

Q. You say you went over them together; did you draw them over again, or simply look them over?-A. I have stated that the drafts of the indictments were made by Colonel Cook, and that Mr. Bliss revised them, and that subsequently Mr. Taggart and myself went over them, which would make a second revision.

Q. Under what authority were those indictments brought ?—A. One indictment was under section 5051, I think, of the Revised Statutes, for procuring an officer of the Government to pass a claim improperly. You will probably remember that provision of the Revised Statutes. Then there is another section, you know, which provides a penalty for an officer of the Government allowing a claim from improper motives. Q. Who were the respondents in those indictments?-A. Brott and Fred. B. Lilley. Lilley was deputy auditor of the Treasury for the Post-Office Department.

Q. The offense was of frequent occurrence, or at least not unusual?. A. Not unusual.

Q. Was there anything special in the indictment that required either extraordinary skill as a draftsman or as a lawyer?-A. No; such indictments are usually drawn up by clerks in lawyers' offices.

Q. Were there not, as a matter of fact, skeleton forms of indictments, so that all a man was required to do was to fill in the facts and the name?-A. There are skeleton forms. Usually, however, district attorneys have their own forms drawn up.'

Q. But I understand you to say that those indictments were in effect complete when they were submitted to Mr. Bliss for his inspection ?A. Yes, sir; that is my recollection of it.

Q. What corrections did Mr. Bliss make?—A. Oh, I don't recollect. I have only a vague idea of that.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. I may have misunderstood you, but I understood you to say that Mr. Cook drafted the first rough draft, and that then the indictments were revised by Mr. Bliss.-A. They were looked over by Mr. Bliss. I do not think he changed them at all.

Q. You were connected with Mr. Cook when the original draft was made?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. How much time was occupied in clerical work, in connection with that indictment, from its original drafting-that is, by Mr. Cook or by yourself-until its final finding?-A. I do not know. It would be a good half day's work, probably, to draw both the indictments.

Q. Did that work extend over two days from its commencement to its end?-A. Not continuously, of course.

Q. Well, with breaks?-A. There may have been intervals. There may have been a suspension of more than a day during the progress of the work. I do not remember exactly. I do remember that Mr. Taggart and I went over all of the indictments in the course of one evening.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE (in the chair):

Q. What would be a fair compensation for the drafting of an indict

ment of that character ?-A. I would like to take a contract for them at $25 apiece.

Q. Would you regard that as ample pay?—A. I would make lots of money at the business if I had enough of them to draw. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going away from the city, and I do not know that I shall have another opportunity to say what I desire to say, so I think I will embrace the present one. The statement has been made-Mr. Ker made it in a letter, and it was made by Mr. Bliss in the course of the second trial of the star-route cases-that the books of J. B. Bosler showed that I had received payments from him while I was in the employ of the Government. There is no truth in that statement. Mr. Bosler employed me six months after I had left the service of the Goverument. He paid me, on the 15th of June, $1,000, by a draft on Kountz Bros., of New York, which was collected by me through Riggs & Co., of this city. On the 8th of July, 1882, he paid me $1,500 in the same way.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. For what service?-A. For services rendered to Mr. Bosler.

Q. Services not connected with these cases?-A. The circumstances were these: Mr. Bosler supposed that he was likely to be brought into tronble through Mr. Rerdell, and he employed me, and he was not. Q. That was after you had resigned as counsel for the Government?A. Yes, sir; nearly six months after.

Q. What services did you render Mr. Bosler?-A. Legal services. He followed my advice.

Q. What kind of legal services?-A. I gave him some advice, and he took it.

Q. Did you furnish him any information that you had obtained while you were engaged for the Government?-A. Oh, none whatever. Mr. Brewster, the present Attorney-General, in the final argument on the first star-route trial, eulogized Mr. Bosler as an honest man.

Q. Can you state what you did for this $2,500? Did you do anything but give advice?-A. I did nothing but advise him.

Q. Where were you when you advised him?—A. In Washington. Q. Can you fix the dates?-A. No; I cannot fix the dates. I came here one time from Atlantic City at his request.

Q. Was that all the money Mr. Bosler paid you?-A. That was all. Q. You never did anything for him in any of the courts?-A. No, sir. Q. There were no indictments against Mr. Bosler?-A. No; there was no attempt to indict him.

Q. So that he consulted you as an attorney in relation to supposed indictments that might be brought against him by the Government?— A. In relation to Mr. Rerdell, who afterward testified. Rerdell made a demand upon Mr. Bosler for $5,000.

Q. How do you know that?-A. He showed me the papers.

Q. Who did?-A. Mr. Bosler.

Q. Papers from Rerdell?-A. Yes, sir; a letter from Rerdell and a telegram.

Q. Do you say a letter or a telegram, or both ?-A. My recollection is, a letter and a telegram.

Q. Do you know Rerdell's handwriting?-A. No.

Q. Have you never seen him write?-A. I have never seen him write. Q. How do you know that it was from him?-A. It was signed "Rerdell."

Q. Where was the letter postmarked?-A. At Washington.

Q. Where was it sent to?-A. Carlisle, Pa.

Q. What was the date?-A. I do not recollect the date of it.

Q. Where did Mr. Bosler show you the letter?-A. When he came here.

Q. What time was that?-A. I do not recollect the date. It was some time in June.

Q. What year?-A. 1882.

Q. Where was the telegram from?-A. From Washington.

Q. What was the date of it?-A. Some time after the letter, I believe.

Q. Was it sent to Carlisle, Pa. ?-A. Carlisle, Pa.

Q. Can you give the substance of that telegram?-A. The substance of it was: "If you know when you are well you will pay my draft for $5,000."

Q. That, you say, was addressed to Bosler, signed by Rerdell, and sent from Washington to Carlisle, Pa., some time in June?—A. I think it was some time in June, but I have no distinct recollection as to the date.

Q. Can you give us the substance of that letter?-A. No, sir.

Q. Do you not recollect it?-A. My recollection is that Rerdell had drawn a draft or was to draw a draft on Mr. Bosler for $5,000, and that he told him he had better pay it.

Q. The letter, as I understand you to say, was dated prior to the telegram--A. I think so.

Q. What length of time intervened between those dates?-A. A few days.

Q. How long after you received this telegram was it before Mr. Bosler employed you?-A. Mr. Bosler came here, I think, immediately after that.

Q. And then he gave you $1,000 ?-A. Not at that time.

Q. When did he ?-A. He paid me 1,000 on the 15th of June. I know that simply by my bank account.

A. How long after that was it that he paid you the other $1,500 ?—A.. It was on the 8th of July.

Q. Was there any additional reason for that payment? Did you say that you would charge him $2,500 originally?-A. I told him I would charge him $2,500.

Q. You told him that when he first employed you?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Why did he not pay it, then ?-A. I did not ask him.

Q. Did you ask him for any of it?-A. No, sir.

Q. He voluntarily tendered you the $1,000?-A. That is my recollection. Mr. Bosler was a perfectly good man. I knew his reputation.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. Did you possess knowledge of any fact bearing upon Mr. Bosler in connection with these star routes-any fact which you had obtained from the Government?-A. None whatever.

Q. Had you acquired any additional knowledge of that kind from the time you quit the service of the Government down to the time you saw Mr. Bosler?-A. No, sir.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Did you keep copies of any of the papers or affidavits that came into your hands as an attorney for the Government?-A. No, sir; I not only kept no copies of what papers I examined, but I left at the Department my letter books and papers that I possessed before I was employed by the Government, and they are, or should be, there now.

Q. I will ask you the direct question, Did you sell any information to Mr. Bosler, or anybody else, that you had acquired as attorney for the Government?-A. No, sir; I never sold any information. I was extremely careful, on leaving the service of the Government, to leave everything there in the Department that I had taken there.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. What gave your advice to Mr. Bosler, under these peculiar circumstances, the value which he recognized by paying you $2,500? Did it not depend on your knowledge or information of these star-route matters?—A. I do not care to state to the committee what advice I gave Mr. Bosler, but I will say that it was entirely disconnected with the

star-route cases.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. You say you do not care to give it. Do you mean that you do not desire to do it, or that you are unwilling to do it?-A. It is not proper that I should do so.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. Do you mean to go to this extent in your remark, that the advice which you gave Mr. Bosler did not have relation to a matter existing between Mr. Bosler and Mr. Rerdell growing out of the star-route transactions?-A. I do not quite comprehend your question. I knew nothing whatever of Mr. Bosler's and Mr. Rerdell's connection. I knew, of course, what Mr. Bosler had told me about his connections with the star routes. I knew that the records of the Department showed that Mr. Bosler was the holder of drafts on the future pay on many routes, which is not an uncommon thing. The advice, however, which I gave Mr. Bosler was entirely outside of any relation that might exist between Rerdell and him.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. In this matter of Mr. Bosler's anticipating prosecution from the Government, was he apprehensive of that, and did he employ you to defend him if he was prosecuted?-A. Mr. Bosler was chiefly apprehensive of being smirched. Being a gentleman of large means and somewhat prominent in Pennsylvania, and an active politician, he was extremely anxious that he should not be drawn into this business.

Q. You say he was afraid of being smirched; smirched how-by the newspapers, or by an indictment?-A. I mean that he was afraid of being drawn into this star-route matter.

Q. How drawn in, by an indictment against him by the Government? -A. By an indictment against him, or by

Q. Well, if he did not anticipate an indictment, why was he employing you as an attorney?—A. I have not said that he did not anticipate an indictment.

Q. That is what I am trying to get at.-A. The demand which Rerdell made on him, and the threats that he would go before the grand jury and have Mr. Bosler indicted, gave him that impression.

Q. Indicted for connection with the star-route cases?-A. For connection with the star-route cases.

Q. And in case he were indicted, he wanted to employ you as an attorney, and did employ you?-A. He wanted to employ me as an attorney to prevent his being indicted.

Q. To prevent his being indicted?-A. Yes, sir; to prevent his being in any manner drawn into these cases.

Q. He was not indicted ?-A. He was not indicted.

Q. You earned your money?—A. I earned my money, which I had a perfect right to do. Because a man has been once employed by the Government, it does not follow that he is precluded from other employ

ment.

Q. You say you earned your money? Do you think your efforts prevented Mr. Bosler from being indicted-A. Well, I do not know. I know there was no attempt to indict him.

Adjourned.

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 13, 1884.

WILLIAM A. Cook recalled and further examined.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Question. At the time your examination was suspended I believe you were speaking of the incidents attending the appointment of Mr. Bliss?—Answer. Yes, sir.

Q. If there is anything further in connection with that matter that has not been fully detailed you may now present it.-A. Yes, sir; I referred to it as a political appointment. I did not mean by that that there was necessarily no reference to the fact that Mr. Bliss was a lawyer; but that, while he was a lawyer, he never would have been selected for the position that he was selected for except for partisan considerations. Let me illustrate that. In the consultation which we had in reference to the selection of additional attorneys the names of several prominent gentlemen were mentioned. I mentioned, for instance, General Butler, with whom I had been connected on various occasions, and Judge Fullerton, of New York, with whom I had been associated in several cases, and other men of corresponding national reputation. The name of Mr. Henderson, of Saint Louis, was mentioned, and the objection was at once raised to him that, while he was a very able attorney, it would not be wise or prudent to select him, because he had been engaged in connection with the prosecution of the whisky-ring cases against General Babcock and others, and, manifestly, would not be acceptable to the incoming President, and that became a controlling consideration in his rejection.

Q. Was it stated why?-A. Because of his antagonism to one element of the Republican party and his connection with the whisky-ring cases as against General Babcock (for whom I was an attorney) in the trial of those cases. On the other hand, while it was manifestly, it seemed to me, conceded that Mr. Bliss was not of the same degree of eminence, yet the fact of his intimate association with President Arthur became unquestionably the consideration which led to his employment. It is to be observed that neither Mr. Bliss nor Mr. Brewster was selected by President Garfield; and while it is uot a fact that I can testify to, yet I am satisfied as matter of inference that they never would have been selected had he continued as President.

Q. Is there anything further connected with that?-A. I think not; I have given you now the facts as they occurred in the selection and the motives and considerations which led to the selection.

Q. Is there anything connected with the indictments against Mr. Brady and others that has not been detailed in your examination ?— A. Nothing, perhaps, special, except that I find by reference to the Star