Q. When did the statute of limitations run?-A. It was supposed, incorrectly however, that it would run about the latter part of September. I do not remember the exact date.

Q. How long after the grand jury were in session?-A. About a week, I think.

Q. When did you file your information-before or after the statute would run? A. Before.

Q. Within that week?-A. Yes, sir. The information was filed September 30. On refreshing my memory by reference to these papers I think the statute of limitations began to run during the first few days of October, about the 3d of October.

Q. And the information was filed in the interim?-A. Yes, sir; prior to the running of the statute on any view that could be taken of it.

Q. But that information was not sustained by the court?-A. It was argued and dismissed in November.

Q. Then the statute of limitations ran before you could get your second indictment?-A. Yes, sir; but please observe, that was a question which arose in our consultations, and we wished to avoid it if possible. It was not determined in our consultation that the statute could be successfully pleaded. That question never has been determined yet.

Q. Were there any offers made to you by any of the defendants to employ you, and if so, by whom?-A. I think about the 10th of May I had my first consultation with Mr. MacVeagh. My appointment was dated June 1st, 1881. During that time I was approached by parties who urged me not to accept employment on the part of the Government. It had gone out in some way that it was the intention of the Government to employ me, and offers were made to me of employment by other parties.

Q. By whom?-A. Colonel William P. Wood, representing, as I understood indirectly from him, nearly all the parties involved, stated that he had authority to offer me, in case I declined the appointment of the Government, a retainer of $20,000.

Q. Who is William P. Wood ?—A. William P. Wood is a citizen of the District, who was formerly a detective or agent of the Treasury Department.

Q. Does he have an office here in Washington?-A. He has an office in the same building where I have mine, 402, 6th street northwest. Q. When was this offer made to you through Mr. Wood ?—A. Probably about the middle of May.

Q. Did he tell you whom he represented?-A. He did not; and I did not inquire.

Q. Did you know whom you were to defend?-A. I did not. The general statement made to me by Mr. Wood was that he was authorized by men who expected to be indicted in the star-route cases.

Q. Do you know that he represented anybody?-A. I do not know it beyond his own statement. I called upon him on yesterday, and stated to him that I had testified here. He said that it was correct, and that he had had that authority.

Q. Then there was no arrangement between you and Mr. Wood to to seek to get employment from the defendants for your own common benefit?-A. No, sir,

Q. Did you and he work together?-A. No, sir.

Q. Why was it you did not take the money that was offered you? A. I had an offer of employment by the United States and an offer of

employment by the defendants. Upon full consideration I concluded. that it was wiser and better and my duty to accept employment from the United States. I ought, perhaps, in that connection to go a step further. There had been many cases against the United States Treasury Department, involving frauds and misappropriation of money, and a case against Jerome J. Hinds on the part of the Post-Office Department, when Mr. Jewell was Postmaster-General, in all of which cases I appeared for the defendants. None of them were convicted. They were all acquitted. I never had any one convicted in that class of cases whom I defended as against any of the Departments.

Q. What is the object of that statement which your are now making?A. I understood you to inquire why I accepted employment from the Government in the star-route cases

Q. The question I asked you was why you did not take the $20,000 that was offered to you by this man Wood?-A. I am connecting what I am saying with that question.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. Because you had acquitted everybody that you had defendedwas that any reason for declining this fee?-A. Yes, sir; I felt just this, that having acquitted so many, or been connected with the acquittal of so many, if there had been gross frauds and wrongs committed on the Government in these star-route cases as was alleged, with the experience that I had it would be proper for me, having been solicited by the United States, to respond favorably to its request and to accept employment in the prosecution of those cases.

Q. Then it was not a question of remuneration with you, but a question of patriotism?-A. It was in part a question of duty. I was approached by two parties

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. (Interposing.) This man Wood offered you $20,000?-A. Yes, sir. Q. You put in your bill to the Government for only $7,500 ?-A. That amount embraces actual expenditures made by me.

Q. How much did you charge the Government for your services?— A. I never was allowed to make any charge.

Q. Did you make any charge ?—A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever notify the Attorney-General of the amount that you claimed-A. I made out a bill against the Government after consultation with Mr. MacVeagh and intimations from him of the amount that I would probably obtain.

Q. What amount was that?-A. I received $5,000 for my services in connection with the Government from June to January. That bill was approved by Mr. MacVeagh. I then put in a bill for $2,500, including January and February, and down to the 17th day of March. Mr. Brewster cut that charge down to $1,000, which I have not yet received. I received the $5,000. The bill for the additional $1,000 was approved by Mr. Brewster and by the Treasury Department, and was presented to the last Congress, but no appropriation was made.

Q. Then your answer is that you never did claim anything more than $7,500, including expenses?-A. I never did; but it was because I had an intimation that I would not get anything beyond that. I would have claimed more.

Q. You refused to take $20,000 from the defendants, yet you put in a claim against the Government for your services and expenses on its side of only $7,500, and that has been cut down to $6,000?-A. Yes, sir; but I would have made a larger bill had I been free to do so.

Q. How much larger would you have made it?-A. As I was devoting all my time to the Government service and had a practice that would bring me in probably $20,000 annually, what I had fixed in my mind, if I devoted a year to the cases almost exclusively, was that I would put in a bill of from $15,000 to $20,000, regarding that as a fair and just compensation. I think so still. I lost money by the transaction.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. Did you not know when you took the employment that the rate of your compensation would be subject to the decision of the AttorneyGeneral? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you took the employment with that understanding?-A. Yes, sir; I took it with that understanding, but I did not suppose for a moment that it would be cut down to the mere nominal sum to which it was cut down. If I had, I would not have accepted the employment. Q. Do you call $7,500 a nominal sum as compensation for the services which you rendered?—A. $6,000. Yes, sir; I do call that a nominal compensation, in view of the practice that I had and the business that I was necessarily compelled to turn away from.

Q. If that was a nominal sum, what do you say as to what Mr. Bliss got for the time he spent in these cases?-A. I call that an extraordinary and unjustifiable charge.

Q. But you regard $7,500 as a merely nominal charge for your services?-A. Mine was at the rate of about $20 a day, while his was at the average rate of $150 a day. Having relation to the amount allowed him, I regarded the compensation allowed me as merely nominal.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Did you help the defendants in either of those cases to get up the juries-A. No, sir.

Q. Did you have any talk with any of the defendants or with any of their representatives about the juries?-A. None whatever.

Q. You have said that Mr. Cole, your partner, was employed to rep resent the defendants?-A. Some of them.

Q. Do you know by whom he was employed?-A. By Mr. Rerdell, as I am informed.

Q. Employed to do what?-A. To defend Rerdell.

Q. Who employed him?--A. Mr. Rerdell or Mr. Dorsey.

Q. You say he was employed to do work for Rerdell; now, I want to know whether you understood that Mr. Rerdell employed him or that Mr. Dorsey did for Rerdell ?-A. Mr. Rerdell was in the office and was in consultation with him.

Mr. STEWART. That does not answer the question.

The WITNESS. Allow me time to answer.

Mr. STEWART. Please answer the questions that are asked.

The WITNESS. I try to answer them, but it is impossible for me to answer a question all at once.

Mr. STEWART. You answer and argue at the same time.

The WITNESS. Well, I am not aware of the fact.

Mr. STEWART. It is a very simple question that was asked you, whether you understood that Mr. Rerdell or Mr. Dorsey employed your partner.

The WITNESS. Well, if I am required to answer the question without reference to any associated facts or surrounding circumstances, I will say that I do not know.

Mr. STEWART. If you don't know, of course you can so answer.

The WITNESS. If I am allowed to present the circumstances connected with the employment, so far as I am acquainted with them, my auswer may be different.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Do you know how much your partner got for that service?—A. I do.

Q. How much?—A. Two thousand five hundred dollars.

Q. Did you get any share of it in your partnership settlement?—A. We never had any partnership excepting with regard to civil cases.

Q. I understood you to say that before. Now, please answer my question: Did you get any share of that $2,500?—A. I got no part of it in our settlement, as our books will show.

Q. Did you tell the President that the defendants, or any of them, had attempted to corrupt you?-A. I did not.

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. President Garfield ?

Mr. FYAN. Either of them.

The WITNESS. I never have had any conversation with President Arthur in relation to the cases in any form whatever.

Q. Then you never told the President that?-A. I never had a word with President Garfield on that subject at all, and I have had no conversation with regard to the star-route cases with President Arthur, nor on any other subject except incidentally one day.

Q. Did you ever go to Dorsey's house after your employment by the Government?-A. No, sir. Mr. Dorst y sent for me prior to my employment by the Government, or about that time.

Q. Can you fix the date ?—A. I cannot; it was toward the latter part of May, 1881, I think.

Q You had been talked to and sought to be employed about the 1st of May, if I understood you correctly?—A. No, sir; not until after the 10th of May.

Q. You did not actually receive your commission until about the 1st of June; am I correct?-A. Yes, that is it; but my

Q. (Interposing.) Now, when Mr. Dorsey sent for you, was that after you had been talked with about being employed for the Government, but before you received your commission?-A. I cannot remember distinetly. It may have been after the Attorney-General sent for me. Q. What is your best recollection?—A. I think probably it was a few days afterwards.

Q. He sent for you?-A. He sent for me.

Q. Whom did he seud?-A. A carriage was sent to my house with the statement that Senator Dorsey wished to see me.

Q. Who delivered that message?-A. It was sent up by the driver. Q. Verbal or written?-A. A note was sent.

Q. Have you that note?-A. I have not.

Q. What became of it?-A. I don't know.

Q. Can you give the substance?-A. It was in substance this: If convenient I will be pleased to have you call at my house to-night.

Q. And you think that was the latter part of May?-A. No, sir; I do not think it was the latter part of May. It was, perhaps the middle of May, but the exact date I cannot tell.

Q. I thought you said a while ago that it was the latter part of May ?A. No: do not misunderstand me.

Q. When I first called your attention to the matter I understood you to say that it was between the latter part of May- --; then you stopped, and then I asked you as to the latter date. If I am incorrect in

that I have misunderstood you; but at all events, it was after you had been spoken to on behalf of the Government.-A. I think I followed that by stating afterwards that I thought it was after the 10th of May. Q. What response did you make to that invitation ?-A. I went down immediately to Mr. Dorsey's house and saw him.

Q. What did he desire to do?-A. He desired to employ me.

Q. In what case?-A. In the case that he anticipated would be originated against him in connection with the carrying of mails on the star

routes.

Q. And you delined being employed?-A. I declined being employed and told him it would be necessary for me to reject the offer at that time -that thereafter I would be able to tell him what I could do. He offered me, at the time, a roll of money, which I told him I could not accept, and which I did not count.

Q. Did he tell you how much there was?-A. He did not.

Q. But you took the matter under advisement as to whether you would act as counsel for him or not?—A. I did.

Q. You did not consider yourself in the employ of the Government at that time; you had not then made up your mind that, as you had theretofore acquitted so many men, you would now try to convict some one ? -A. I had not.

Q. You came to that conclusion afterwards?—A. I came to that conclusion afterwards.

Q. What reasons did you give Dorsey, those that you are giving us now?-A. I did not give him those reasons; I did not say anything further to him than that I could not at that time consent to accept employment from him; that was about all I said.

Q. Didn't you say that you would consider the matter and let him know afterwards?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you consider it ?-A. I did.

Q. Did you let him know ?—A. I did.

Q. How long afterwards?--A. A few days afterwards.

Q. Can you remember any more definitely about it?—A. I cannot be any more definite.

Q. In the interim between the first time you saw Mr. Dorsey and the last time, when you let him know that you could not take a fee from him. had you consulted with the officers of the Government?—A. I may have done so, because I saw Mr. MacVeagh two or three times; but I cannot say positively.

Q. Can you tell us what the reasons were that induced you not to accept that employment when you had the matter under advisement?— A. The simple reason was that I had not arrived at a conclusion for myself as to what I should do, or which of the two offers I would ac cept, and until I did so I was not prepared to announce to Mr. Dorsey or to the Government which proposition I would accept.

Q. But you did come to a conclusion on that point a few days afterward?-A. I did.

Q. And you do not know what were the reasons that operated upon your mind within those few days; you do not know whether you saw the officers of the Government within those days or not?-A. I know that I saw them, and I know the reasons that operated on my mind.

Q. I have read some testimony which you are reported to have given before the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads; and I want to ask you about it. Did you testify yesterday to this effect: "I never saw any papers or heard any testimony from Mr. Woodward, or anybody else, officially or unofficially, directly or indirectly, implicating Mr. Ellis in the star-route frauds, or reflecting against him.”—-A. I did so testify.