with the Second Assistant Postmaster-General, or with any other officer of the Government, to secure expedition or increase of service?—A. Never in the world.

Q. You know nothing about that?-A. Nothing. I knew nothing about the manner of making application for it. It was a matter that did not pertain to my office, and I had plenty of work of my own to attend to, so that in fact I did not think of that subject, and did not know anything of any alleged irregularities until after April, 1881. I had reported to the Postmaster-General every quarter the expenditures of his Department under the various heads, showing him the expenditures on account of the star service as well as of other mail routes. That was my duty; but beyond that I had no connection with the starronte service.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. Did you ever make a recommendation in writing for the extension or expedition of any of the routes?-A. No, sir. I did not know anything about the routes. I never talked with a contractor about expedition or increase of service. I never, while I was Auditor, made but one request in relation to the star-route service, and that was to have a little route, eight miles in length, established in my own county in the State of Ohio, and Mr. Brady would not do it.

Q. Your duties were purely of a clerical character?-A. I was purely an accounting officer, as Judge Wylie said.

Q. Your action was based upon the papers sent to you, and in regard to which you had no power or authority to make inquiry or change?A. That is exactly the case. The law prescribed my duty, and I tried to do my duty under the law.

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 20, 1884.

GEORGE BLISS sworn and examined.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. Please state your residence and occupation.-Answer. I reside in New York City; I am a lawyer.

Q. State whether you have at any time held any official position under the Government of the United States, and if so, what ?—A. I was a captain in the Army during the war. I was from 1873 to 1877, something over four years, district attorney of the United States for the Southern district of New York. Those are all the official positions that I have held under the Government.

Q. Were you special counsel for the Government at any time?-A. I Was special counsel-technically, I was a special assistant district attor Bey-in connection with the star-route cases.

Q. When did your service in that capacity begin?-A. I think about the first week in September, 1881.

Q. Have you your commission with you?-A. I have not. I was first applied to to become employed by Postmaster-General James in the last week in August, 1881, and then I rather declined. I was applied to further on, about the 6th of September, 1881, and then accepted the ap pointment. I would like, in this connection, to read a letter which I

wrote to Mr. James at that time. The letter is dated August 29, 1881, and is as follows:

AUGUST, 29, 1881.

MY DEAR JAMES: Referring to our conversation about my becoming engaged in the star-route cases, and Colonel Cook's dispatches, I want to say two or three things, though I think probable a personal interview with you and others will be necessary. First. I greatly appreciate the compliment you and the Attorney-General pay me in thinking of me in this connection.

Second. While I should expect to be paid as well as the Government pays any one for law business—which is stating it low-I should not think of going into it for the mere pecuniary results to myself; and therefore,

Third. I want one or two questions answered confidentially, such as these:

Has the desire to employ me anything to do with Arthur's possible accession to the Presidency? For, if it has, I do not feel that, with my relations to him, I ought just now to go into the cases, for it will be considered that I am there with his consent if not procurement; and though I do not doubt he would favor the "going for" every guilty man, still to stir up the star-route "gang" at the outset of his administration—if, unfortunately, he is to have one-would add to his difficulties at the outset, by bringing "down" upon him that powerful "gang" before he has had a chance to conquer, as I know he will conquer, the approval of the people at large. In other words, if the star-routers think they would get any favor from Arthur, I should want them to remain of that opinion till he has won in a manner the confidence of the non-star routers, and I ought not to expose him to attack before he has gathered strength to withstand them.

(2.) Is there any truth in the impression the Times has given out and the Sun encouraged, that the prosecution is in danger of failing? I know the difficulties in the way, and that success cannot be assured when you are fighting before Washington courts and jury so powerful a set of men as are involved in these cases. But I don't feel like going into a failing case, one which its friends have in their hearts come to believe is likely to fail.

(3.) Is anybody who is believed to be guilty to be saved, protected, or passed by ? There is a sort of belief that there is something of this kind.

I am aware of the difficulty of your answering these three questions, especially upon paper; but I want to possess your mind of them that you may know what is on my mind, and be ready to say something in case I come to Washington.

Fourth. What would my relations to the case be; how much would they require me to be in Washington, or away from here; how long and how continuously are they likely to take me?

Now, my dear James, all this may perhaps strike you a little like "looking a gift horse in the mouth," but it shows how I feel.

If, after seeing what is in my mind, you still think the condition of things is such that I can be of use in the cases, and am likely to be willing to go into them, I will try and come over to Washington some afternoon this week, in spite of this hot weather.

Yours, truly,

GEORGE BLISS.

Hon. THOMAS L. JAMES.

Mr. James on receipt of that letter telegraphed me that the answers to my questions would be satisfactory to me, adding that Colonel Cook was coming to New York, and that he desired me to meet him. Colonel Cook also telegraphed me to meet him at the Fifth Avenue Hotel, and I saw him at that hotel on the 4th or 5th of September, after which interview I wrote this letter to Mr. Jaines:

SEPTEMBER 5, 1881.

MY DEAR JAMES: I had a long interview with Colonel Cook. It was satisfactory, on the whole, in all respects, except one, though there were some idiosyncrasies of his developed. The one exceptional point to which I refer is this: He represented that it was not certain I could be retained; that he and you and MacVeagh were in my favor; that he thought he could, through Gibson, influence Blaine, and suggested that I should pull my wires," if I could. Now, I have no objection to "pull wires" in politics for a friend or myself, but I never have pulled wires for law business, and don't mean to begin now. I didn't quite know what to make of this phase of the matter; but while concluding in my own mind that it is a little device of Colonel Cook's to enhance his importance, and that it is not correct, I still tell you of it frankly. Don't mention it, of course, to him.

Assuming this matter to be all right, I am disposed to take hold. If the AttorneyGeneral is at Long Branch, I rather think I will drop down there some afternoon and talk with him on some professional phases of the case.

Yours, truly,

Hon. THOS. L. JAMES.

GEORGE BLISS.

After that I went to Long Branch, about the 8th or 9th of September, where I saw Mr. James and Mr. MacVeagh both, and had a long interview with them jointly, and subsequently a separate interview with Mr. MacVeagh, and then accepted my appointment.

Q. Who were present at the interview at Long Branch, to which you refer?-A. No one, except Mr. James and Mr. MacVeagh. After the thing was all over, some of these omniscient reporters at the hotel found me and were anxious to discover why I was there. I declined to give them any information; but somehow or other they got it, and next morning it was announced in the newspapers that I had been retained. I mention this, because I notice that Mr. Cook speaks of having been down to Long Branch, and says it was after his visit that it was de cided to retain me in the cases, and makes various other statements of that kind, in which he is absolutely incorrect, as I know of my own knowledge and from things which Mr. James told me.

Q. Did you have any consultation at Long Branch at which Mr. Cook was present?-A. Yes, sir; subsequently. When I came into the cases at the interview at Long Branch, Mr. MacVeagh informed me that he intended to employ Mr. Brewster also (Mr. Brewster being substantially his representative and I being Mr. James's), and said he would telegraph to find out when Mr. Brewster could meet us. There was an appointment made for us to meet at Long Branch a few days later, at which time it was supposed Mr. Brewster would be able to attend. It turned out, however, that he was engaged in the trial of a case in the interior of Pennsylvania, and could not attend. The result was that we had present at the conference at the Elberon, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Cook and myself; Mr. MacVeagh was in the house, and whenever we got to a point in the discussion where we desired anything from him we sent for him and he joined us; so that Mr. MacVeagh also may be fairly considered as having been present at that conference. That conference took place about the 13th of September. It lasted, I think, two days. Q. Whom do you say were present at that conference?-A. Colonel Cook and Mr. Gibson; and, as I have said, Mr. MacVeagh was there, and came in and went out from time to time. He was in the house, and whenever we wanted him and requested his attendance he joined us. Q. You may state briefly the nature of the services which you performed for the Government during the period of your employment as special counsel.-A. That is rather a heavy job.

In the first place, I was being indoctrinated as to what had been already done by the gentlemen who were in the cases before me. They had got together an abstract of the papers and the evidence upon what was known as the Prescott and Santa Fé route. That was the case which they said was most nearly ready to be proceeded with; in fact, it was represented as absolutely ready. The facts in that case were gone over; and then Mr. Gibson had prepared a very elaborate statement (which I have here) with reference to Mr. Dorsey and his connection with these star routes. It is dated "Washington, July 10, 1881," and addressed to Mr. MacVeagh, and is 175 pages long. That statement was read to us by Mr. Gibson, and it led to a discussion from time to time as we went along. At that time the Prescott and Santa Fé case was consid

ered, and the question of Mr. Walsh's relation to it came up. It was a case where there had been originally other contractors; they had been declared failing contractors, and Mr. Walsh had come in subsequently, and the route had been see-sawed up and down in various ways upon the record, and finally Walsh had been himself declared a failing contractor. All this had been done by Mr. Brady. I think there may have been some one or two of the orders made by Mr. French, the Acting Second Assistant, but it was substantially all done by Mr. Brady as Second Assistant Postmaster-General:

The strength of that case as a criminal case rested absolutely upon the evidence of Walsh. He was represented as being able to testify to payments of money to Brady in connection with procuring the expedition and increase of service, and, with Mr. Walsh's testimony and with the other record evidence as they stated they had it, it seemed a fairly good case. But I told them very distinctly that, with my expe rience as a prosecuting officer, I could not help regarding Mr. Walsh as a co conspirator in the case-that he might regard himself as a victim, and I presumed he did, but it seemed to me that on the papers he was a co-conspirator, that I could not but believe he was such, and that I was not willing to go on with that case unless Walsh was brought into it. I claimed at first that he should be made one of the parties to be indicted. Subsequently, I think, I modified my view and said that I was willing to go ahead provided he was named as a conspirator, though he might not be indicted. It was left with Mr. Gibson to see Walsh and ascertain whether he was willing to be put in that position. Mr. Gibson seemed to think he would not be willing, and I was very decided in my opinion, in view of some experiences I had had, that, as the case rested entirely upon Walsh's testimony, as I thought, for any possibility of conviction, it would be very unwise to bring the case into the power of a single witness who might at any time slip away. Following that case down a little further we broke up on that, and, so far as it was concerned, it was left in that condition. Subsequently Mr. Walsh came to see me in Washington. I had a long talk with him, and a very agreeable talk. In the course of it we went over together the statement that had been prepared, I think, by Mr. Gibson-at any rate, by Mr. Gibson or Mr. Cook-as to what he, Walsh, could testify to. Portions of it were found to contain matters that he could not testify to; that is, they were not matters of his own knowledge, but matters of inference. That prepared statement was taken and lines were drawn across the portions which Mr. Walsh dissented from, and what he agreed to was otherwise marked, and the paper was indorsed as having been read to him. After that was all over I said to Mr. Walsh that he ought to know that I had been quite decided in saying that I thought he ought to be included in the indictment; that Mr. Gibson was to have seen him on the subject, and that I understood Mr. Gibson had approached him in relation to it. Mr. Walsh said with a good deal of earnestness that Mr. Gibson had never broached the thing to him. I told him that after our conversation I was willing to go ahead with that case, based upon his statement as to what he could testify to-that I thought there could be no probable evasion in connection with that statement. At Long Branch also, after the Prescott and Santa Fé case was taken up, as I have stated, the Dorsey case was gone over. It was represented as substantially in readi ness for presentment to the grand jury, though not so entirely ready as the Prescott and Santa Fé route. I see by the testimony given here there has been some statement made that I said that was a weak case, and so on. I said nothing of the kind. I said this: I had been

told that Mr. Dorsey's clerk (whose name I did not then know) had given information to the Government, and that the information he had given was available, and, in connection with the case, I asked something about the information that had been given by Mr. Dorsey's clerk, and they replied that he had gone back on the Government again. I then said that that weakened the case, but I never said that it was a weak case; I never thought it was a weak case. I could hardly take it in with all its bearings, its weakness or its strength, at that time where such an amount of material was pumped into me without any opportunity of seeing the original papers, but I formed the impression that it was a strong case. Subsequently, when I looked into the case, I found that many of the statements made in Mr. Gibson's report were rather inferences than facts which could be proved, and that some of them were at least consistent with a different explanation from what he gave to them; but I found also on going to the original papers, which were very voluminous, a great deal in the case, and I formed the opinion that it was a strong case. I stated that it was a strong case, and I state now, and am prepared to stand by it, that that case was the strongest one that we had available to us for months and months, and that I selected it, so far as I had anything to do with the selection, deliberately as the strongest case. Now, perhaps, I may say why. In these cases the United States criminal statutes are in a measure so defective that the conspiracy section was almost the only one which could be considered as applicable. But, if Mr. Brady increased the serv ice and the speed of the service upon one route and allowed a large sum for it, there was in that fact alone no evidence necessarily of guilt on his part, no evidence of conspiracy with anybody. Nor did you get that evidence of guilt or of conspiracy when, confining yourself to that single route, you sent out inspectors and showed that the increase and expedition were unnecessary and that the contractor's statement as to the number of men and the number of horses on which the allowance for expedition was based was erroneous. The contractor had to state to the Department that so many men and so many horses were now employed on the route, and that so many more would be required under the expedition, but his statements on that subject might be entirely incorrect and yet the increase or the expedition be perfectly consistent with the idea that Mr. Brady or the post-office authorities, whoever they might be, had been imposed upon in the matter, and such erroneous statements would be consistent also with the idea that the contractor himself was mistaken. But even if the contractor was deliberately and corruptly in the business so far as he was concerned, that of course did not show conspiracy with Mr. Brady or with any officer of the Post-Office Department, and the act of the contractor in swearing to an affidavit was not to be brought within any perjury statute appar ently, as the affidavit was a thing not recognized in any manner by any law. So that when you take a single route, you have practically no evidence on which you can base a charge of conspiracy or establish guilt. But now if you take another route, and you go on and find that the same officer of the Post-Office Department makes a similar order on that route in favor of the same person, or of a number of persons acting together, as to which all these things occur-if you find ten, fifteen, or twenty-five or more routes as to which you find in the first place that the amount of increase was very large; in the second place, that the number of men and horses by which it was gauged was incorrectly stated, either in the present or in the future, or both, and if you find that the service originally was being performed within the time to