all. In fact it came to the front so little-but I do not know that it is proper for me to refer to what took place before the grand jury. The CHAIRMAN. There is no objection, I suppose.

The WITNESS. We went before the grand jury and had the Price case brought before it. When Mr. Walsh was asked how he got certain papers, he said they were brought to him by Mr. Kellogg. I did not at all take in the fact that the Mr. Kellogg referred to was Senator Kellogg. I did not think anything about it, as having the least importance in the world. That grand jury after having indicted Price adjourned. After that it was claimed by Mr. Walsh and others that the grand jury ought to have indicted Senator Kellogg as well. I was away in New York. I came back and learned of these reports. I said at once that if that was so, and if this statement of Walsh referred to Senator Kellogg, that the grand jury, not having adjourned permanently, ought to be reconvened immediately.

Q. When was this?-A. This was the grand jury that found the second indictment against Dorsey, as I understand it. It was the grand jury that first indicted Price, whichever one that was. I went to Judge Wylie and asked to have that grand jury reconvened. Judge Wylie was indisposed to do it. I then told him that I thought it was a case in which I had a right to make a personal appeal to him to do it; that by inadvertence I had not taken into proper consideration this statement of Walsh before the grand jury; that the statement referred to Senator Kellogg, as it seemed, and the report was being circulated that there was an attempt to protect Senator Kellogg. I told Judge Wylie that I did not wish to rest under that imputation. The judge, on my stating these facts, had the grand jury brought together a second time. When they were convened, Mr. Walsh, testified before them. At the end of the first day, the grand jury was anxious to dispose of the case. I was afraid all the testimony was not in. I therefore got them to hold over until the next day. The next day Mr. Walsh was there, and he testified on the two days to facts and circumstances, on which, if I had been a grand juryman, I would have found an indictment.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. In what particular case was that?-A. In the San Antonio and Corpus Christi route. The grand jury did not indict. It is possible that, in view of the evidence that was given before the grand jury, they might honestly and intelligently have assumed there was a little break in the testimony, and that Mr. Kellogg might have done everything it was alleged he had done, and yet have done it honestly. I do not mean to question the honesty of the grand jury.

Q. Were you before the grand jury?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many witnesses were examined at that time?-A. Two, I think; all we could get. Mr. Price, you will remember, was not at our service then at all. He was hostile. We could not get him. We had this Mr. Ellis for whom we had sent to Texas. We regarded his testimony as so important that we had the post-office inspector come here with him. We had two or three others. We had all of the evidence that the postoffice inspectors' reports showed was available. I think there was a very intelligent man here from San Antonio. His name was Devine. He had been a subcontractor, or something of that sort. They were called merely to prove fraud in connection with the allowance for expedition, &c. They gave no evidence except as against Price. Walsh is the only person who gave any evidence as against Kellogg.

Q. He came forward with his statements in regard to Kellogg and H. Mis. 38, pt. 2-14*

Mr. Brady before that grand jury?-A. Whether the fact that payments were made to Brady in connection with the Prescott and Santa Fé route was put in before the grand jury then, I do not remember. We were not then seeking an indictment against Brady; we were seeking an indictment against Kellogg. The point was this. The theory was that Mr. Price, wanting expedition and being unable to get it, had gone to Mr. Kellogg to have him use his influence with Brady to get expedi tion; that he did get it, and that there were some very remarkable things about the transaction. For instance, there was an indication that a post-office draft for money to become due on expedition, dated before the order for expedition was made, and yet there was some indication on the paper that it had been arranged for. Mr. Kellogg, it was alleged, got $20,000 of those drafts. The moneys to become due in the future. Whether any portion of that money went to Kellogg, or whether any portion of it went to Brady, was, in a measure, unimportant in that view. If any portion of it went to Brady, then an indictment for conspiracy would lie; if no portion of it went to Brady, but a portion went to Kellogg, then an indictment would lie under the statute forbidding a member of Congress or a Senator going before any Department of the Government and, for a consideration, soliciting contracts. However that may be, Mr. Walsh, on that attempt at an indictment, did not produce before the grand jury all of the letters and papers which he subsequently did. I may also say that there was the question of the statute of limitation in the way. The statute of limitations had run as against the time when the order of expedition was made; as against the time when the post-office draft was drawn. If we treated any money received under that as having been received at the time when the draft matured, then the statute of limitation did not run. There were points of that kind in the case.

However, that grand jury, to my surprise, did not indict Senator Kellogg.

Q. Mr. Walsh stated before the grand jury that he had made certain payments to Kellogg ?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And it was on account of his influence?-A. No, sir; Mr. Walsh did not know anything about that. That is just where the break came. Mr. Walsh had no knowledge, except that Mr. Price had given certain post-office drafts. We had the drafts. There may be some little inaccuracy, but I think not. Mr. Walsh stated that these drafts were brought to him by Senator Kellogg, and he cashed them.

Q. What drafts?-A. Post-office drafts given on account of these expeditions; money to come from expedition, and the question whether Senator Kellogg was honestly or dishonestly in possession of those drafts was a thing about which the grand jury might have a doubt.

Q. How could he have become in possession of them honestly if he was not interested in the Government contracts?-A. If you want to know he could have come in possession of them honestly, I will state one way in which he could have done so. I have heard outside, since then, that Mr. Kellogg was an influential man down in all that portion of country where Mr. Price had his routes, and that he made political contributions.

Q. For what purpose was that political contribution?-A. I do not know; have merely heard that story outside. You asked me how he could have honestly held these drafts. I have merely stated a way in which he might have honestly done so. I am free to confess if I had been a grand juryman I should have voted to indict Mr. Kellogg, but the grand jury did not.

Q. One moment; about this contribution. How could Mr. Kellogg have made a political contribution with the proceeds of the star-route contract, legally and legitimately?-A. I do not know. I do not know that he ever made a political contribution, but this occurs to me. Suppose Mr. Price had a post-office contract that he had gotten legitimately. He is applied to by -not by any national committee, for we have civil service now-but he is applied to by a committee for a contribution, or applied to by the Louisiana State committee for a contribution. He says, "I have not any ready money, but I can give you a draft upon the Post-Office Department for money which is to be due to me three, four, five or six months hence. I will do that, if you can use it." İ never knew a political committee to refuse to take anything that they thought there was a chance of transforming into money; and I can imagine that they might take this draft, and then look around for a banker to cash it. That might be innocently done.

Q. Have you not heard that Mr. Kellogg represents that this was a political contribution on account of money that he had advanced in the preceding election in 1876, in order to secure favorable action by the Louisiana returning board for the Hayes electors?-A. I never heard anything of that kind.

Q. Did not Mr. Kellogg justify it on that ground?-A. I never heard of it. Subsequently there was some dissatisfaction at Mr. Kellogg's not having been indicted. There was a new grand jury Before that grand jury Mr. Walsh went. I did not go. I understand that there were produced before that committee additional papers, and the grand jury indicted. That indictment is pending. We would have been ready to try it at either of the last two terms, but, as I say, Mr. Walsh could not be found. By the time the grand jury met, Mr. Price became available to the Government as a witness. I do not know whether Mr. Price went before the grand jury or not. I did not have anything to do with that. Kellogg was indicted at any rate. From Mr. Price, by that time, information was gotten, which explained things which were left to inference before, and explanations were given of things which were not before that understood.

Q. Was the question as to Mr. Price's appearance before the grand jury discussed between you and other counsel for the Government prior to his first introduction as a witness before the grand jury?—A. You are entrenching a little upon what occurred between counsel, but I think I may state that at the time, and before the additional documentary evidence was produced, I was inclined to take the view that, Mr. Price being already indicted, and being, in my opinion, a guilty man, it was not a wise thing to do, nor would the Government be justified in granting immunity to Mr. Price for the purpose of indicting Mr. Kellogg, because, in my opinion, his testimony would not go sufficiently far to secure the conviction of Mr. Kellogg. My view was that we should not let go of the one before we got hold of the other. At a subsequent period, when the additional evidence contained in the papers which Mr. Walsh had became known, I had no question whatever then as to the wisdom of doing it. The first time we had the discussion, I differed with Mr. Ker and Mr. Merrick and the Attorney-General. The matter was finally left to the Attorney-General for determination, and I was overruled. Let me say.

Q. The Attorney-General decided it?-A. Yes, sir; he decided in favor of using Price and prosecuting Kellogg. That was before the additional papers came. Let me say further that that is the only case in the whole history of these trials in which there was anything approach

.

ing to a disagreement between the three counsel, Messrs. Ker, Merrick, and myself. That was so in spite of the most persistent efforts by newspapers, by Gibson, and others to stir up trouble between counsel. We never differed.

Q. What was the nature of the evidence that Price offered to the Government?—A. I did not have that talk with Mr. Price. I had nothing to do with that portion of the case.

Q. You afterwards heard him testify?-A. No, sir; I never heard him testify.

Q. Did he not appear before the grand jury?-A. I did not appear. You will see the point was this: Mr. Walsh conceived great hostility to me, and at different times has said and done things that I have not felt I was at liberty to answer, because if I did so I might hurt the case. The result was that when Mr. Price became a witness I was engaged at a certain stage of the Dorsey case, second trial, in such a way that I could not have attended to the matter before the grand jury, even if I had been disposed to do so. Out of deference to Mr. Walsh's feelings it was considered that it was best that I should be left to one side; and therefore, by a tacit arrangement, without any positive agreement, it was understood after Mr. Price came into the case, solely for the purpose of having things go along smoothly, that I should stand to one side so far as Mr. Kellogg's case was concerned.

Q. Who went before the grand jury?—A. Mr. Ker.

Q. When the indictment was finally found against Mr. Kellogg and Mr. Brady?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you not advised as to the purport of Mr. Price's testimony, when it was a matter of discussion between the Government counsel, as to whether he should be accepted as a witness or not?-A. When it was a matter of discussion he had not offered to become a witness. We had reason to believe that we could get him as a witness. There had appeared some one of these intermediaries that every lawyer in practice has seen, who comes forward claiming to have no connection with the parties, but he says, if so and so consents to be a witness will you accept him. This matter did not come before me. Mr. Merrick can tell you all about it.

Q. You understood Mr. Price would testify?-A. Yes, sir.

Q, And if he testified fully to all the facts, and would tell the truth, he was to be granted immunity?-A. That was the theory; I differed with my brethren in the matter, because I thought from the statement we had of what Mr. Price could testify to, that while it would be morally, perhaps, convincing, I did not think it would secure the conviction of Mr. Kellogg.

Q. What was the evidence that it was represented to you he would give?-A. I cannot recall it with any accuracy; Mr. Ker, who is here, can probably tell you more about that than I can. My idea is that it was expected that Mr. Price would show affirmatively that those drafts were given to Kellogg for services in procuring the order for expedition, but he would not go so far as to say that any portion of the money went to Brady; that is my recollection. It was claimed that if Mr. Price would so testify that those drafts went to Mr. Kellogg for services in procuring the order, that that would put an end to any theory of political contribution. At that time, however, we were considering more particularly the question of an indictment for conspiracy than the question of an indictment under the statute for the offense of a Senator going before the Department and soliciting an order of this kind.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. Why did you think Price would not testify that any portion of that money went to Brady? Because it really did not go to Brady, or because he would not testify so as to implicate Brady?-A. I think the suggestion of the testimony which it was said Price could give was limited by the statement that he could trace it no further than to Kellogg; and it is also proper to say that I understand that Mr. Price has always claimed that he himself was not concerned in any attempt at bribery, or anything of that kind; that he had not been guilty of any offense that involved general moral turpitude, though possibly he had heen guilty of an offense of employing a Senator to go before the Department, which, while a statutory offense, he did not regard as involving moral turpitude. I am very confident when we talked about the necessity, the idea of using Price, that the testimony was chopped off right there; that he could not prove that any of it went to Brady.

Q. Did not Walsh's evidence and his together show?-A. No, sir; Walsh showed no connection with Brady; you are right; there was something in Walsh's testimony, as I recollect it now, going to show money went to Brady. I think Walsh made some statement showing that some of these drafts were in Brady's possession.

Q. The amount involved in these drafts was $20,000?—A. That is my recollection.

Q. They were drawn to be paid at a future time?-A. Yes, sir; I think so. It seems to me that the $20,000 was not all made up of post-office drafts.

Q. Part in cash?—A. No, sir; I believe some notes were due in New York.

Q. Some individual notes, and the rest were post-office drafts, orders, to be paid at a future time out of the proceeds of the contract?-A. Yes, sir. You are really asking me in regard to things that I know nothing about, only as I get the information second-hand; the other facts I have been testif, ing about are facts that I have personal knowledge of. Q. Didn't the case, as presented by the evidence of Price and Walsh, tend to show that $20,000 were paid by Price, a contractor, to Kellogg, in notes and orders upon the Post-Office Department, to be paid out of the proceeds of contracts on the Corpus Christi and San Antonio route? -A. That is my impression.

Q. And collections by Walsh were to be divided equally between Brady and Kellogg ?-A. No, sir; I do not think there was anything in the evidence which went to show that in the collection it was to be done in that way. There was something in Walsh's testimony which indicated that some portion of the proceeds was to go to Brady, but my recollection is that it was not very direct, because I never felt confident that Brady ever did get any money in that case. I never felt confident that the order he made was not gotten from him by personal influence and solicitation. That is the impression I received, whereas, if Walsh's tes timony had been absolute and direct of the payment of money to Brady, or something of that sort, I could not have gotten that impression. I did not get that impression, I assure you, because I thought Brady was too good to take money.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. In the testimony of Mr. MacVeagh, he stated that he called President Garfield's attention to the fact that some of these prosecutions might result in changing the majority of the United States Senate from a Democratic to a Republican majority. I desire to ask you