that time at Alton, Ill. Her father is quite an old man-Mr. Fisher. He had been a well-known mail contractor. He is very infirm. I saw

the daughter at the time she was here. I have not seen her since.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Was that lady employed by any other counsel for the purpose of making copies of papers -A. She was summoned here as a witness. Mr. Cook summoned her here, and she was paid witness fees by the Government. In fact, she was kept here so long that the witness fees did not pay the expenses, and I had to make some arrangement by which she got something in addition to witness fees, and my recollection is that it resulted in my paying her some sum of money out of my own pocket, which I did not mean to do.

Q. Was she put upon the stand as a witness?-A. No, sir; she was not to be a witness in that case. I do not remember, at this moment, in what case she was intended to be a witness. I think she was used as a witness before the grand jury; that is my impression. She was brought here by Mr. Hinds. He was a former post-office inspector, who acted very largely with Mr. Cook. I have nothing to say against Mr. Hinds, and I want that distinctly understood.

Q. State whether there could have been any necessity, with a view to the efficient prosecution of these cases, for the copies of these papers to have been made by this lady.-A. If I knew what the papers were I could answer that question more definitely. If they were Mr. Woodward's reports, I say, decidedly, no. Not only could there have been no use in it, in that case, but, on the contrary, considerable impropriety in multiplying copies. If they were papers that consisted of our evidence-and Mrs. Gregg's statement seems to show that they were affidavits, or something of that kind-I do not see why any copies at all should have been made.

Q. Was any bill presented by her to the Government for the making of such copies ?—A. I think not.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. Were the copies made before Mr. Cook's services to the Govern ment terminated?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. While he was in the employ of the Government?-A. Yes, sir; that must have been so. Let me say that when the combination of the safe was changed, I then had a careful list of all the papers made; I tried to get things into some kind of systematic shape, and I had a record of everything made up.

Q. How long had that combination been changed before Mr. Gibson's service for the Government. expired?-A. That combination must have been changed about the 7th of January. Mr. Woodward thinks it was earlier, but my impression is it was about that time. I know on the 7th of January I wrote a letter to the effect that if Colonel Cook had any of the original papers I wished he would return them. The discovery of the Black Cañon report was made at the end of December, I think, and that really precipitated this thing. Mr. Gibson's employment ceased in February, I think.

As to that, Mr. Gibson says that I did not want him in the cases. He states that I said I did not want him out of the cases, and yet I did want him out. My relation to that matter is substantially this: The Attorney-General consulted me as to the propriety of dismissing Mr. Gibson. He was very much disposed to dismiss him. I said that that would probably create a scandal. I remarked to him that Mr. Gibson would

be of no use when the cases passed out of the realm of investigation into the realm of prosecution, and that they would go out of the former position within a very short time; that I thought he had better wait until we got along to that point, and that then Mr. Gibson could be dropped, bis services be dispensed with without any scandal, and possibly without any feeling, though I did not know that. That was my relation to the matter; it happened just in that way.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Was this combination in the lock changed before the trial began ?A. Yes, sir.

Q. So that any information secured must have been before the trials began?-A. Yes, sir. The combination in the lock was changed before Mr. Gibson went out, and I presume the change in the combination was the cause of Mr. Gibson going out, in this way: He came into the office one day, and finding the combination changed, marched out again. He was not in the habit of coming in when I was there, only occasionally. The room where he had his desk was where I had mine. I do not remember that he ever came to the office again after he found the combination had been changed. It was within a comparatively short time after that that he went out of the cases.

Q. In trying the Dorsey case, did you have additional evidence from that which Mr. Gibson furnished, mentioned in the paper you submitted yesterday?-A. Yes, sir. If there is any question about that, I would like to have you take that paper, and read the four volumes of testimony, and then you will see we had an immense amount.

Q. Did Mr. Gibson advise you that the statements he furnished with regard to the Dorsey combination were sufficient to convict the defendants-A. That was the accepted view of both himself and Colonel Cook.

Q. Did that brief include the evidence of Walsh ?-A. Not as applicable to the Dorsey case. He had mentioned Walsh in connection with the Prescott and Santa Fé route, but he did not mention that portion of Walsh's testimony which would have rendered it admissible, and which did render it admissible, in the Dorsey case.

Q. Had he mentioned in this brief, to which you referred yesterday, that the testimony of Walsh was necessary in the Dorsey case?—A. No, sir.

Q. He had not advised you of that?-A. No, sir; I do not think he connected that with the Dorsey case.

Q. Did you use all of the evidence that was material to the Dorsey case which had been furnished you by Mr. Gibson in the statement presented here yesterday?-A. I intended to use everything that was material.

Q. All you deemed as material?-A. Yes, sir; and I believe I did. There was in the Dorsey case some statements of outside transactions, which were disclosed by the accounts of the German National Bank, which had passed into the hands of the receiver. We endeavored to utilize them, but while there was some suggestive things about it, and while, I think, in that Mr. Gibson was right, we could not secure the evidence which would get that theory into court. We put the receiver on the stand, and we tried to get the evidence in, but that portion did not become available.

Q. On what does Mr. Gibson base his statement to the committee, that prior to the putting of Walsh on the stand as a witness in the case, you had failed to make out any case against the Dorseys, and were

about to be laughed out of court?-A. That is Mr. Gibson's statement. I do not think so. Mr. Gibson is a lawyer who had to search the records to find out that he had ever been admitted to the bar, in order to get his pay. I do not think he ever tried a case in his life. He told me himself that he had never been engaged in actual practice. He undertook to judge of that case, and did judge of it in one way, while we judged of it in another way. Of course there were stages of the first trial of the Dorsey case at which, as in every protracted trial, counsel saw difficulties gathering around them. For instance, during the first half of the case, Judge Wylie was not very clear in his own mind that the Government had a case, and his rulings were universally against the Government; sometimes we thought very improperly so. The case went along, and at a certain stage of it Judge Wylie seemed (to use a slang expression) "to get his head"; he seemed to comprehend the bearings of the case, and from that time on we did not feel that we had any difficulty in the matter. Whether that was coincident with the time of Walsh's coming into the case, or not, I do not know, but I think, if you will send for Judge Wylie he will tell you that he did not attach the importance to Mr. Walsh's testimony that Mr. Gibson did.

We

Q. Can you state briefly to the committee the evidence against the Dorsey combination in that trial, before the introduction of Walsh, and then the testimony afterwards?-A. I indicated it here, in a measure, yesterday. It was this, that they had a large number of routes. had, I think, seventeen or nineteen in that indictment. There was a case in which there was this series of orders which had been made in behalf of one and the other of these men; their interests were pooled; there was no question about that. These orders were based upon affidavits which were false; based upon affidavits which were altered; based upon affidavits which purported to have been sworn to before certain people, when they were not sworn to before them; when they were in blank; affidavits which stated that a certain number of horses, men, and carriers were then in use, when they were not in use. There were affidavits also, which stated-of course that was a matter of opinion-that a certain number of men and that a certain number of horses would be needed, when a much less number were actually needed. There were affidavits in favor of expedition; of the payment of large sums of money by the Government for carrying the mails at an increased rate of speed, when, in point of fact, the mail was at that time being carried at that rate of speed, and sometimes even at greater speed. There was a mass of that kind of testimony, which, as I said yesterday, if you took a single route, and introduced testimony of that character, applicable to that route, and showed Mr. Brady made such an order, that they made such affidavits, there still might be doubt as to the conspiracy of the parties. They might have been so acting as that one side or the other might have been deceived, or might have been acting in good faith. It took two, three, four, a lot of them, to show this combination as to all of the parties. That was the condition of things that was presented, in the evidence. There were, moreover, papers, correspondence, statements of these people on file; various things of that sort, which we thought presented a case.

Q. What was the nature of the testimony of Mr. Rerdell?—A. He was not examined on the occasion of the first trial.

Q. How as to the second trial?-A. Mr. Rerdell on the second trial swore positively and distinctly to all sorts of frauds by these parties, going into detail as to their modes of doing business. He did not un

dertake to say that any money had been paid in his presence, in any way, but he disclosed a state of facts which was intended to leave an inference that money had been paid.

Now, as regards Mr. Walsh, he could not testify to the payment of any money in the Dorsey routes or anything of that kind. Walsh's

tes imony related solely to his own route from Prescott to Santa Fé. He claimed to have paid money to Brady; that he gave that to Brady from time to time as loans, and when he called upon Brady for a settlement, that Brady then said, “Why, I don't owe you any money; I have done enough for you. Have you not had a good contract, and various things of that sort?" That is the way it was presented in connection with the original statement regarding the route from Prescott to Santa Fé. On that basis of things, as a lawyer I should say it was exceedingly doubtful whether that evidence of Walsh would have been admissible in the Dorsey case, which related to entirely different routes; to entirely dif ferent parties. I thought it would hardly come within that class of decisions which allow you (where you are trying a man for false pretenses in a particular case) to prove that he made other false pretenses to other persons of the same general nature. At any rate, it appeared to be very doubtful whether it would be allowed as evidence against Dorsey. I remember that I gave the matter careful consideration. It turned out, however, that according to Mr. Walsh's version of his interview with Mr. Brady during that time, when he was having this discussion, that they went to work, and had some figuring, and that Mr. Brady said to him in substance, "You must pay such a percentage of expedition, and such a percentage of increase, just as the other contractors do," indicating very plainly by that that all of the other contractors were doing that thing.

After an elaborate argument, as I recollect it, extending over two or three days, Judge Wylie admitted that testimony into the Dorsey case. You will not find it in the original brief of what Mr. Dorsey would testify to in connection with the Prescott and Santa Fé route, which these gentleman produced at Long Branch. It came to my knowledge incidentally, considerably later on. With Mr. Walsh I had comparatively little to do. He early conceived a hostility to me. Mr. Merrick was the party who, after my first interview with him, had dealings with Mr. Walsh, as a rule. It was Mr. Merrick who ascertained from time to time what Mr. Walsh could testify to.

Q. Mr. Walsh did testify, then, that Mr. Brady said that he should pay the same as was paid by all of the other contractors ?—A. Yes, sir. Q. How much was that?-A. I can only state from memory. My recollection is it was 30 per cent. or 33 per cent. of the amount of expedition; either of expedition for one year or of expedition for the whole term; I have forgotten that. Then there was a certain proportion of the amounts of fines and penalties remitted; a certain percentage. I have forgotten what it was. If it is important it can be ascertained from the testimony, which is all in print. We were very glad to have Mr. Walsh's testimony on the occasion of the first trial; there is no question about that; but we did not consider that we were going to be laughed out of court because of not having it.

Q. With all of this evidence to which you refer, the jury failed to convict the defendants ?-A. They failed to convict any of them except Miner, who was one of the associates, and Rerdell, who was the clerk, the agent, who was doing these things. They were doing them for the benefit of their employers. Mr. Rerdell had no interest in the thing. It was not possible for those two gentlemen to have been guilty, acting

under orders from Brady and Dorsey, and not to have found Brady and Dorsey guilty, the parties who gave the orders.

Q. They undertook to find the agents guilty, and not the principals-A. Yes, sir.

By Mr. MILLIKEN :

Q. Colonel Cook testified here that he had great confidence in the integrity and honesty of a Washington jury. Are you able to confirm that testimony?-A. I do not think you ought to ask me to express an opinion about Washington juries.

Mr. MILLIKEN. I withdraw the question, if you do not wish to answer it.

The WITNESS. I am perfectly willing to say this, that during the first trial we caused the jury or many of the jurymen to be watched-where they went, their talks, and everything of that kind. We got reports. The result of the reports was to lead us to believe that some of the jurymen were not likely to find in our favor; yet we might have been mistaken. On the second trial there was no attempt to have the jury followed; that is, any systematic attempt. Prior to the first jury being empaneled, we discussed the propriety of asking the court to confine the jury, but we found that Judge Wylie was of the opinion that in a case of misdemeanor, which he considered that case, there was not any authority to shut the jury up.

I will state that what has come to be known as the jury bribery cases I had nothing to do with.

When the first Dorsey trial closed, my wife was supposed to be lying at the point of death. Her condition had been rather heroically concealed from me, and I was only told of it when I got through with my argument. I left here a day before the case closed. I learned of the verdict on the cars. I remained with my wife for a month or six weeks, and therefore I was not at all familiar with what took place in regard to the jury bribery matter, and cannot give any positive information in regard to it, as affecting the question of the standing of Washington juries.

Q. Do you know why Mr. Cook and Mr. Gibson did not continue to act as Government counsel in the star-route cases ?-A. Both of them voluntarily resigned, Mr. Gibson with all sorts of professions of satisfaction, and Mr. Cook in a letter of dissatisfaction. They both went out, and I was very glad when they did go.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Did you advise the resignation or removal of Cook?-A. No, sir. I am free to say that if I had supposed Mr. Cook would go out, I should have endeavored to squeeze him out. I did not suppose that was a possibility, and therefore I did not try to do it. I went along with great discomfort to myself, feeling I was going along with associates in whom I could not afford to have confidence.

Q. You were satisfied they were betraying you to the other side?— A. Perhaps that is a little too much to say, that I was satisfied they were betraying me to the other side, but I felt they were not faithful to the Government's interest. I will state one fact which led me to this conclusion. At one time I was in Colonel Cook's office, and I met there Senator Kellogg. Mr. Cook said to me Mr. Kellogg was a client of his, and that he must not be hurt. I did not, at that time, know the relation of Mr. Kellogg to any of the cases, and it was not until we got down into the other combinations that Kellogg's name came to the front at