of March 20, 1882, in an interview chiefly in relation to myself (to which part I do not propose to refer), that Mr. Ker says distinctly that "Colonel Bliss did not supervise the bills of indictment at all; they were left entirely to me. Sometimes, coming into my office, out of mere friendship he would casually glance over the sheets as they lay on the table, but he never examined any of them." He closed by saying that "there is enough of documentary evidence on file now to convict these people without the use of a single witness on the stand." Then, perhaps, although it is not in the nature of an exact fact, I ought to call attention to the difficulty in this indictment from its conglomeration of cases and from the peculiar manner in which the various accusations are made, and to the fact that there were filed motions to quash which were overruled, but which might be ultimately sustained. I have a copy of this indictment in print which I may as well leave with you. Now, in that indictment, which originally embraced Sanderson, it will be found that there are a large number of cases involved, including different and distinct offenses, and in different and distinct States and Territories. Thus, two routes in California, 46132 and 46147, and routes in Colorado, Oregon, and several States and Territories embrace various contracts and various considerations.

Q. Those contracts were separate and distinct from each other ?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. Separate transactions with the Government?-A. Yes, sir. I will leave with you also a copy of the information which was a substantial indictment in which we framed an indictment on the one route alone. Now, it was the fact which I have just pointed out which led to a protraction of the trial; and I ought, perhaps, to give you a correct idea of how that was. The first indictment, which embraced the initials of Sanderson and Rerdell, was filed March 4, 1882, and was number 14262. The second indictment was filed May 20, 1882; so that the errors in the first indictment created a delay from March 4 to May 20. When the new indictment was found, it was substantially the same as the first, with the exception that Mr. Sanderson was dropped out. On the first indictment the trial began June 1, 1882, and ended September 11. On the second indictment it began December 12, 1882, and ended June 4, 1883. Had the indictments been framed on any one of the cases it could not have taken more than two or three weeks to try any one of them. The strongest indictment could have been presented on the strongest case, and initial convictions perhaps had.

Q. Was the trial continuous during all this time?-A. Yes, sir; with an occasional adjournment.

Q. From Friday until Monday?-A. Yes, sir; sometimes they failed to sit on Saturday, and during all that time the jurors and others were abroad-I mean that they were out.

Q. You say that if the indictment had been drawn to cover what you regard as the necessary counts, the trial might have been concluded within a few weeks?-A. Within a few weeks. Mr. Brady and the officers of the Department would necessarily have been involved in any one of the cases in connection with the contractor. That, too, was in harmony with the original plan we had proposed. I proposed to go before the grand jury with the papers carefully selected in each distinct case, and procure an indictment against Mr. Brady and the officers of the Department in connection with any one single route, selecting those that might be regarded as the strongest cases; and the information was drawn upon that plan. There was also another plan. The original plan that I had, involved the indictment of the officers of the

Government distinctly from the contractors for malfeasance in office, and the indictment of the contractors and their immediate associates in the alleged "ring" separately.

Q. What effect would that have had as to simplifying the case and the proof that would be required for a conviction-A. The conception that I had was that it would simplify the cases very much, and at the same time enable us, perhaps by the procurement of indictments, to arrive at the truth as between the Post-Office officials and the contractors to an extent that we otherwise could not-that it might induce contractors, if there had been any wrong, to come forward and candidly disclose the actual facts to us. But as the indictments were framed, you will observe, it created a combination of interests between the officials of the Post Office Department and the contractors, and as that indictment was framed it created a combination of a number of contractors together with the Post Office officials in the trial of the case so as to require the Government to meet combined efforts which they otherwise would not have been required to do.

Q. And the statute was broad enough to cover that proposition ?—A. There was no trouble about that whatever.

Q. You were inquired of yesterday as to who composed the juries at the two trials? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You have that list now?—A. Yes.

Q. I don't care about your stating who they were.

(The witness produced the list.)

Q. Is there anything further upon that subject that has not been detailed ?—A. I ought perhaps to refer more minutely to the Lilley and Brott indictments, the Lilley indictment being for misconduct in office.

Q. What was Mr. Lilley's position?-A. He was Deputy Sixth Auditor of the Treasury. On December 3 there were found against him six indictments: Nos. 14131-2-3-4-5, and 6; and against Brott, on the same day, two indictments: Nos. 14137, 14138, for giving to Lilley money to influence his action as Deputy Auditor. Those indictments rested upon plain and simple evidence, and while filed December 3, 1881, they have never been taken up in any form whatever. Their trial would have embraced, perhaps, three or four days, or a week at most.

Q. The investigation of those cases fell within the purview of your employment?-A. Yes, sir. I prepared the indictments chiefly. They were examined somewhat by Mr. Bliss, but I was more particularly aided in their preparation by Mr. Gibson.

Q. Was the character of the evidence which you became possessed of such as would demand an investigation and prosecution of those cases in the healthy administration of justice?-A. I had no doubt about that. It consisted chiefly, though not exclusively, in a statement made by Brott himself, and the sections of law involved were 5451, 5440, and 5438.

Q. Were those statements made under circumstances which would authorize their admission as evidence without a criticism which would impair the force of the confession, if it was such ?-A. The statements, so far as I know (they were not made to me directly), were made in the regular course of an investigation of the transactions of the Department, and there was no regulation allowing anybody to escape upon his mere confession or statement, unless upon a full view and consultation with the Department of Justice, and with the President also, if necessary, it should be deemed proper to accept the statement and accept the party as a witness, and thus release him from indictment

but in that case the confession would have released Brott only and would have operated against Lilley.

Q. Do you know why the prosecution has not been followed up?-A. I have no reasons within my personal knowledge; I have formed convictions on the subject, but they would perhaps not be testimony; I have no doubt, however, of their correctness.

Q. Have you anything further upon that subject?-A. I think not; I think I have given you all the facts with regard to the indict

ments.

Q. At the time of the engagement of any of these special counsel was there anything said about the per diem or any reason assigned for payment of a special sum?-A. I read you, on the first day that I was examined, a provision of law which required, according to my view of it, that when a special attorney was employed that there should be a stipulation as to the compensation. I was unable, however, to get any sum fixed, but was told generally, personally, that a just compensation would be paid. The entire amount allowed me was $6,000 for about ten months', not quite ten months' labor, making about $20 a day. That was, both by Mr. MacVeagh and Mr. Brewster, as appears by the letter that I have furnished here, as well as otherwise, regarded as a just compensation to me. Immediately afterwards the compensation allowed Mr. Bliss was justified upon the assumption that he was a New York lawyer, and that New York lawyers were accustomed to charge more largely for their professional labor than I was; it was then limited, however, to a clean hundred dollars. When Mr. Ker came in, as he was a Philadelphia lawyer and not a New York lawyer, the compensation, according to that rule, would have been less; and when Mr. Merrick came in, who was, like myself, a Washington lawyer, it should have been less still; but they both were allowed a compensation equal substantially to that given to Mr. Bliss. How far I ought to state that which has come to me as rumor I do not know, but there is a fact in connection with the employment of Mr. Merrick that was stated to me once or twice, though I cannot connect it with any person whatever. It was simply this: That it was a shrewd act on the part of Mr. Brewster; that it enabled Mr. Brewster to call into the star-route cases which were of doubtful termination a prominent Democrat, and thereby prevent the Democratic party, in case of failure, from being able to make anything out of it by the statement that one of the ablest Democratic lawyers

Q. (Interposing.) You got that in the newspapers?-A. No; I did

not.

Q. It was in the newspapers.-A. It was? Well, it was brought to me by some one passing to and fro from the Department of Justice, when I made the remark that it was a little remarkable that the Attorney-General had employed Mr. Merrick. Whether the motive was in truth such or not, I do not know, but it has had that effect, of

course.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. You have already stated that when your connection with the Department was sundered you turned over to the Department all the papers in your possession ?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that they contained valuable information?-A. They were mere copies. No; they did not contain valuable information. The papers which they had, and which they earnestly persisted in having me turn over the copies of, were papers that had no real value in themselves. Mr. Bliss stated in a letter, after repeated efforts to get what I had, after

I had given the Attorney-General every fragment that I possessed, that "The possession of these papers, however, by others can do no harm to the Government" so that the papers which they insisted upon my turning over were of no real value, being mere copies and partial copies.

Q. Is there anything further that you care to say touching the general conduct of the star-route cases and the reasons of the failure to secure a conviction before the jury?—A. I can very briefly state, in addition to what I have stated in relation to the indictments, that the mode in which the cases were conducted, the extended length of time, the confusion in the minds of the jurors, and the want of plainness and simplicity, was perhaps one of the difficulties. There was perhaps in addition to that, as they were not engaged in the original investigation, necessarily, only a derived knowledge on the part of the attorneys who tried the cases, and the trial, before it was completed, unquestionably assumed the nature of a contest and rivalry between the attorneys for success.

Q. What attorneys-A. The attorneys for the defense and the attorneys for the Government. There was this, too: The parties who were indicted had been, previous to their indictment, men of good standing and reputation, and the mode of argument was extremely bitter and vituperative and denunciatory, which had an injurious effect, I think, upon the jury, as it will always have when a man of previous good character is indicted. I heard repeatedly persons leaving the courtroom after the arguments and making this remark, that it was unfair and unjust to denounce so bitterly instead of presenting the facts calmly and coolly. These considerations, perhaps, operated upon the minds of some of the jurors.

Q. If that exhausts your knowledge of those cases, we will regard your examination as concluded.-A. I think that concludes all I have to say. If there is anything else that occurs to me, or if the committee desire to ask any further questions, I shall be glad to answer.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. I do not remember whether it was you or Mr. Gibson who testified here that it was understood between you and the other counsel for the prosecution, that Colonel Corkhill, as district attorney for this District, was not to be trusted by the Government, and that nothing that was done by the prosecution in those cases was to be confided to him?—A. That is correct.

Q. Did you so testify ?-A. I am not certain whether I did or not. Q. Do you so testify?-Q. I do. That was the understanding, unquestionably.

Q. Who were the attorneys for the prosecution at that time?-A. Mr. MacVeagh, the Attorney-General, Mr. Gibson, and myself.

Q. Did Mr. Brewster and Mr. Bliss, when they came in, concur with you in that view?-A. They accepted primarily and for a while as correct the statements that were made, by Mr. MacVeagh and Mr. Gibson chiefly, with regard to Colonel Corkhill, but after a while that conception or view seems to have passed from their minds, and Mr. Corkhill was consulted more or less in reference to the conduct of the cases.

Q. Who was present at this conference at Elberon ?-A. Mr. MacVeagh, the Attorney-General, Mr. Bliss, Mr. Gibson, and myself.

Q. You determined, then, to present certain cases before the grand jury?-A. We then determined to present this case, number 40101, and if that could not be done in time by an indictment, we determined to present it by an information, which we did.

Q. You came on immediately to Washington to present that case to the grand jury?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. The grand jury was then, as you supposed, in session?-A. I supposed it was.

Q. When you got here the jury had been in session two days?—A. Two days, I think.

Q. And you found to your surprise that the grand jury had been discharged by Colonel Corkhill?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Up to that time had you thought of presenting these cases by information?-A. No, sir-let me be more careful and correct. There was considerable difficulty in preparing the cases. It was questionable whether they could be ready in time to meet the suppositional question that was reached in our consultation with regard to the statute of limitations, but the conclusion was that I should try to secure an immediate indictment, and that in the event I did not, an information should be prepared. I came on, having drafted the outline of an indictment, which I had submitted to the Attorney-General previously, with the intention of going immediately before the grand jury, as I would have done but for its adjournment.

Q. You say that Mr. Corkhill was subsequently taken into the confi dence of the other counsel for the Government?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Up to that time had he been taken into their confidence?—A. He had not.

Q. You were surprised that he had discharged the grand jury?—A. Greatly surprised.

Q. Did you have any conversation with him as to the reasons for his action in discharging the jury?—A. Only incidentally, on Pennsylvania avenue. On that occasion he said that while I might not have known it he had had a conversation with Attorney-General MacVeagh, and in that conversation had stated to him that the grand jury might be adjourned.

Q. The result of adjourning that grand jury was to bar prosecutions against certain individuals. In other words, it permitted the statute of limitations to intervene.-A. It allowed that question to be raised.

Q. What was the effect of it?-A. The effect of it was to prevent us from filing the indictment so as to avoid that question; but it was afterwards our intention to present the same case in the form of an indictment, and then we would have been compelled to encounter that question.

Q. That question never has been settled?-A. No, sir.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. Did Mr. Corkhill know before that grand jury was discharged that you had it in view to present those cases for its consideration?—A. He certainly knew that.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. In whose cases would the statute of limitations run? Can you name the individuals?—A. Yes, sir. The cases included Mr. Brady, Mr. MacDonald, a contractor, Mr. S. P. Brown, Mr. French, acting as Second Assistant Postmaster-General, and, according to my original scheme, it would have included also Mr. Walsh, but he was dropped out because it was decided to accept him as a witness.

Q. When was it that this grand jury was in session for two days?A. That was in September, 1881.