num, in Colorado. It had been let to Miner. It was a route which the inspector's report and the affidavit made by Sanderson seemed to cast considerable suspicion upon, and which had the appearance of being a fraudulent transaction. It certainly resulted in taking from the Government a good deal more money by the process of expedition than it ought to have paid. And therefore, in the original indictment in regard to that route, Mr. Sanderson was put in as a defendant. When the question came up with regard to the finding of the new indictment, we had time then to examine a little more carefully than we had done before into the condition of things. We determined, if possible, not to make any more mistakes; we went over, with great care, the whole case. Mr. Merrick, Mr. Ker, and myself had numerous consultations in regard to it. There was at one time a suggestion, for instance, that Vaile might be left out of the indictment. The result of an investiga tion on that point convinced us that Vaile was concerned very much more deeply in the business than we had supposed at first.

Rerdell's correct name was found and inserted. As to Sanderson, we found on examination that the only route with which he was connected that was included in the indictment was the one I have specified; that that had been let to Miner at the bidding; that Sanderson had taken it off of Miner's hands at the full amount. There was not the ordinary case of a subcontract, leaving a profit in the hands of the original party. We then found, by going to the post-office records, that every dollar of the money that had been paid out upon that route had been paid to Sanderson; that no money had gone to any of the other defendants. We were brought face to face, therefore, with this question which was raised in our minds, and which, in different forms, was argued with great persistency during the trial by the defendants, and presented some difficulties. That question was: whether we were not bound in an indictment, under the conspiracy statute of the United States, to prove that all of the defendants had conspired together as to all of the routes which were included in the indictment; and as to whether we would say that Dorsey and Brady conspired as to route A, and that Sanderson and Brady conspired as to route B, &c. We saw that if we made a mistake in that respect, the result might be that by improperly including Sanderson in the indictment we not only put in a party who ought not to be included in that par icular indictment, but run the risk of invalidating our whole indictment as to the other parties. We could not find any evidence whatever that Mr. Sanderson had any connection with these parties in any other way with reference to that particular route, other than by having simply bought out Mr. Miner at the full amount. We further found on examination, that that particular region of Colorado was a region which, in the mail service, had been chiefly given up to Sanderson; that he had taken possession of it; developed it; even built many of the roads; run his mail coaches for passengers, &c. The combination was Barlow, Sanderson & Co. We found at the letting that this particular route had been let to Miner, right in the midst of Sanderson's territory. We thought we could see a good reason why Sanderson should come in and buy Miner out, and why he wanted to keep him out of what was known as his territory. For these reasons, not out of any consideration for Mr. Sanderson, but out of consideration chiefly for the other defendants, and for the value of our indictments against other defendants, we felt bound to omit Mr. Sanderson from that indictment. I do not know that I am any more responsible for that than anybody else, except that the detail of the testimony-the detail of the work of all that sort of

thing-was imposed upon me. Mr. Ker was responsible only for the drafting of the indictments, with which I had nothing to do. Mr. Merrick was more of a general counsel. Therefore, I probably am more responsible for that than anybody else, and I am willing to accept the entire responsibility of the omission of Mr. Sanderson's name.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Was the question of whether he should be included in the second indictment a matter of consultation between all of the counsel ?--A.Yes, sir; it was a matter of consultation between all of the counsel, and the result was arrived at with the assent of all. It was a matter about which we were all perfectly clear; there was really no discussion in regard to it; the question as to the relation of Vaile to the matter, we did have some discussion about.

I desire to say in connection with the matter of the omission of Sanderson's name from the indictment, meeting for once and for all the dirty insinuations which have been thrown out by gentlemen who were at one time counsel in the case, as well as by the defendants, that not only did Sanderson never offer or suggest the payment of any money to me, or give any valuable consideration, or do anything directly or indirectly looking towards consideration, but that no human being from the beginning to the end of these cases has ever directly or indirectly suggested to me the obtaining in any manner of any emolument, or any advantage in any way arising out of these cases. I want to make the denial as broad as any language can make it, and to meet any insinuations that may be made. I do not propose, unless the committee call me on cross-examination, to further say anything more upon that subject.

Let me say in this connection, that when the Dorsey matter was being gotten ready for indictment I went to the Attorney-General, and said to him that I did not claim to be a criminal lawyer; that I had not had a great deal of experience in drafting indictments, and that I did not feel myself competent to draft such an indictment as would be required in these cases. Moreover, that even if I were competent, that the labor would be very great, and that my time was needed for other portions of the case. I told him that I thought he ought to employ some one else. I told him farther, that I thought there was sufficient responsibility on me already, and that the responsibility which would arise from drafting the indictment, ought to be placed somewhere else. Mr. Brewster selected Mr. Ker, of Philadelphia, whom he stated had had very large experience, and had great knack and ability in these cases. Mr. Ker drew the indictment. It was a very lengthy, very elaborate one, and it stood all the racket of all the attacks and all the objections of all of the counsel, all the way through. No defect whatever was discovered in it; it was sustained throughout. I regard it as a great achievement in that respect.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. Except in the first instance, in regard to the omission of the Christian name?-A. Yes, sir; with regard to the Rerdell indictment, the omission of the Christian name was an error, and, perhaps, carelessness. Q. Then, this "supposed. expert" had some knowledge of the business which he undertook ?-A. I think he had very great knowledge. He had more knowledge than the gentleman who describes him as a "supposed expert" was competent even to judge of.

Now, let me say a word in regard to the indictment found against

Dorsey. We reached a trial, I think, in May. There were all sorts of preliminary struggles. The defendants attacked everything; in every way, everywhere, and everybody. Demurrers, motions to quash; every description of motion that criminal pleading permits, and some things which it does not permit, were resorted to. As, I say, however, we finally got to trial. The trial continued along down into September. During that trial we were kept here under a continual strain. We were occupied in court from 10 until 3 o'clock; then it was my practice to go to the Post-Office Department and remain there until 6; go then to my hotel and get my dinner, and then have the witnesses who were to be examined the next morning come to my room. It was rarely that I ever got rid of the witnesses, aud got ready to retire before 2 o'clock in the morning. It was the most exhaustive and confining work that I ever had imposed upon me. It had, necessarily, to devolve mostly upon me, as I was the only one familiar with the details, except Mr. Woodward, who had made up the statement, but he did not pretend to be a lawyer, and of course I had to put everything in a legal form. The examination of the witnesses in court also largely fell

to me.

As to the conduct of the case in court I desire to say nothing. I would be very glad if the committee, at the proper time, would ask Judge Wylie to appear before them, and give his opinion as to the thoroughness of the preparation of the cases and their management during the trial. I am willing to abide by his judgment in the matter. The case was prolonged; prolonged far beyond the length of time we expected it would be, and far beyond what we think it ought to have been. Judge Wylie was obviously disposed to give the defendants every possible opportunity to present their case; to present their objections. The result was that during a large portion of the trial questions were argued over and over again. Questions would arise one day, be discussed, and be determined, as it would be thought, and then they would be raised another day, and argument be again had on them. Of course this prolongation of the trial had an injurious effect upon the prosecution, because the jurors' minds necessarily became confused and fatigued. The trial resulted, as you gentlemen well know, in finding some of the little fellows guilty, and a disagreement as to the big ones. This presented, of course, a sort of anomaly, because it was actually and legally impossible that the little fellows could have been guilty, unless the big fellows were also. The verdict was a solecism and an absurdity. The Government could not afford to rest under such a verdict for a moment, and accordingly Mr. Merrick promptly, without my knowledge, for I was called away by sickness, but with my entire concurrence, went into court and moved, in behalf of the Government, to set aside the verdict in its own favor.

We subsequently reached the second trial. That was, as far as I was concerned, much less laborious. We had the testimony of the witnesses who had been examined on the former trial in print; therefore, conferring with them to ascertain what they would testify to, &c., became largely unnecessary, and much more of the labor was enabled to be thrown upon others than myself.

While I was preparing the papers in connection with the first trial, preparing the witnesses for the first trial, I found among the papers a memorandum that Mr. George E. Spencer, who had been Senator from Alabama, and who, I had found, had, in the early stages of the case, taken a great deal of interest in the matter, could give testimony of a very important nature; practically of the payment by Dorsey of money

to Brady; and also testimony of Mr. Dorsey's statement that his clerk had gone back on him; of Mr. Dorsey's subsequent statement that he had recovered his clerk and things were all right.

I am free to say that at that time and under that condition of things, I had no doubt in my own mind that Mr. Spencer had made those statements, but doubted whether they were true. On going to Mr. James, I found that Mr. Spencer had made the statements to him. I found, also, that he had made almost the same identical statements to Mr. Van Wormer, who was Mr. Spencer's personal friend, and who is to-day his personal friend, who, during the proceedings in the matter of the arrest of Mr. Spencer for contempt, wrote him a letter which was used in his behalf, and in which there was great care taken to entirely avoid any statement that Mr. Spencer did not tell him precisely what Mr. James said he told him. I took the occasion to see Mr. Van Wormer, and he informed me that Mr. Spencer did so state. I subsequently saw Mr. Boynton, who was well known in Washington. Not the Mr. Boynton who has been connected with the recent Keifer matter, but another gentleman, a friend of General Garfield. I found that Mr. Spencer had made to him substantially the same statement, though, I believe, not so complete. I feel, however, bound to say that I did not feel certain that Mr. Spencer had not been doing a little blowing. I found myself in this position. If I did not put Mr. Spencer on the stand, or attempt to, with that statement among the papers, I should inevitably be met, and ought to have been met, in the event of the cases going against us, with the statement that I had in my possession the evidence, the statement of a witness who could give absolute and conclusive evidence, and I had failed to call him. I did not hesitate for a moment in subpœnaing Mr. Spencer, and I took a great deal of pains to subpoena him. He came here. He has made his complaint before you that I did not consult with him. I did not, and I did not mean to. I avoided doing so. I avoided doing so for precisely this reason. It would not have made any difference to me whether Mr. Spencer had come to me and told me he could or could not so testify. I could not afford not to put him on the stand with that paper and that information in my possession, because if I did so fail to put him on the stand I should then be exposed, and rightly exposed, to criticism. I did not care to raise any question of veracity with Mr. Spencer; I did not care to have him turn upon me and say, "Why, don't you believe me?" I therefore made up my mind that I would not have any conference with Mr. Spencer as to the case, and I did not.

One evening, while sitting in the Arlington Hotel, Secretary Chandler, who had been my intimate personal friend for more than 25 years, we having been in college together, came in with Mr. Spencer. We sat there with a dozen people, and after awhile Mr. Chandler said that he would like to speak with me alone. We went to one side. Mr. Spencer says we had an interview of two or three hours. I do not think it was half an hour, but that is immaterial. Mr. Chandler said, " Mr. Spencer says you won't talk with him, and he wants to know what there is about this matter; that he wants to go away." I said, "Now, Chandler,” though I called him by his first name, as I was in the habit of doing, "here is this condition of things." I then stated the circumstance of the evidence. I said to him, "Now, there it is; I cannot let Spencer go. I do not want to talk to him, because if I do, I shall have to tell him I do not believe him, and I have made up my mind that I am going to put him ou the stand. If he denies this statement, why, then, of course we have the right of cross-examination. The court will give it

to us under those circumstances, I think, and we will find out whether the statements are true or false." Mr. Chandler, as the friend of Mr. Spencer, rather tried to urge me out of that position. I said to him, "If you were placed in my position, you would do just the same thing" "Well," he said, "I think I would, but," he added, "I am bound to say I do not know whether Spencer knows these things, or not; whether the statements you say he has made are true, or not. I think Spencer is that sort of a man, that if he knows them, aud they will affect a friend, he will say he does not, and therefore you will get nothing out of him." I told him I would have to run that risk, and the conversation ended.

Mr. Spencer left here. When he got to Council Bluffs he wrote back a letter to Mr. Chandler, which Mr. Chandler brought to me. In that letter he said that he had been called away; that he had left here to go to New York, intending to return.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. Was this pending the trial?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. He was under subpoena?-A. Yes, sir; he had been originally subpoenaed in New York. The fact was that he lived at Osceola, Nev., and I used a post-office inspector. I sent one from Saint Louis out there, expecting to get him. He had left Osceola to go to New York before that, and we thought with some view to concealment. We found that he stopped in Chicago, and then he went to New York. We got him, I think, the morning that he arrived at the Everett House, in New York, through another post office inspector. He was very indignant at being subpoenaed there. The only conversation I had with him was when he came and expressed his indignation at being subpoenaed there, instead of in Nevada, from which place he claimed he would have been entitled to his mileage. I told him under the State decisions he was entitled to mileage from his home, and I was under the apprehension that he would be under the United States law.

Some time early in July Mr. Spencer went west, and wrote this letter to Mr. Chandler from Council Bluffs or Omaha, saying that he had left Washington, intending to return here. I think he said that. When he got to New York he said he received letters 'relative to his business which required his departure for Nevada. His mine having been left in charge of an inexperienced man, and there having been developments there, he had to go there, even if he did not stay but two or three days. He said he had to go there; that he wished him, Mr. Chandler, to see me, and to state that if I insisted upon his return that he would return. He stated, however, that he could not give any such testimony as that which it had been stated he could give. I think he used some profanity. Atall events, he said this was a very bad Government, and he was sorry that he had ever fought for it. This being the condition of things, having found that he had actually disappeared and was not coming back, I went straight into court and had him called, and secured an attachment against him for contempt. I then, with the concurrence of Mr. Chandler, telegraphed him that he must return; that I had been compelled to issue an attachment for him; that I would take steps to prevent its being served if I learned that he had started to come here; that the time had already so far advanced that I was fearful that he would be too late. I sent the attachment to a post-office inspector at Saint Louis, with directions to start at once, but to keep in communication with me by telegraph, so as to prevent actual service being made unless I telegraphed to that effect. Not getting any information that