whether your attention, pending the efforts of procuring an indictment against Kellogg, was called to the fact by any one; and, if so, by whom?—A. I do not remember that my attention was called to the matter at all. Q. Was there any suggestion made before the grand jury at the time the Kellogg case was being examined, to the effect that it would be a serious matter to indict a United States Senator ?-A. Yes, sir; one of the colored jurors said it would be a serious matter to indict a United States Senator. Let me say here that the grand jury I refer to had knowledge of the matter outside of the evidence that was introduced before them. I do not mean to say that it was knowledge that they had not a right to have. For instance, while I was waiting in the ante-room to be allowed to go before the grand jury, somebody was sent out, and that person came back after a little while with a book. When I got into the room, I ascertained it to be a book from the Congressional library, containing testimony in the contest with Kellogg regarding his seat. Some member of the grand jury knew that in that contest there was testimony given by Walsh. By Mr. MILLIKEN: Q. Did they have that book before them in the grand-jury room ?— A. Yes, sir. It appeared there that Walsh had been a witness in the case of Spofford against Kellogg in the matter of the contest over Mr. Kellogg's seat. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. Could you maintain an indictment found upon such testimony as that?-A. I considered that question very carefully, and I satisfied myself that the grand jurors had a right to make their own inquiries within a limited scope, though it was not testimony in any sense. I did not get the indictment, however, and, therefore, the question did not arise. I examined into the question more from curiosity than anything else. From the examination I gave the matter, I rather came to the conclusion that the introduction of that book into the grand-jury room would not have invalidated the indictment had I succeeded in securing one. At the same time I beg to remark that the book was not there by any instigation of mine, and I would have been sorry to have had that question to meet on a motion to quash. Q. Did you learn what the book was?-A. It was the Congressional report of the testimony in the case. I may say this, that after we had gone through with Mr. Walsh, and got such statements from him as he was enabled to give, Mr. Walsh recognized the book, and 'picked it up and turned to his testimony. I saw what it was, and I saw just where there was a point there. Mr. Walsh had testified before the Congressional committee, in a sort of general way, that he had never had any dealings with Kellogg, or something of that sort. Of course this question of his drafts there seemed, in a measure, to be inconsistent with that theory, and, therefore, I took the book and questioned Mr. Walsh about it right there. One of the grand jurors remarked that there was no use in going into that. I went on and brought out, as I thought, evidence of the fact that the answer of Mr. Walsh before the Senate committee if it was a Senate committee-was confined to the particular matter which was then before that committee, and that the answer did not cover the general ground of saying that he had never had dealings with Kellogg. Q. What member of the jury was that?-A. Somebody was sent out for the book; the attendant went, I believe. I always believed, with out knowing the fact, that the party went to the district attorney's office, and the district attorney sent up to the Congressional library and got it. Q. District-Attorney Corkhill?—A. Yes, sir; I do not know whether he was there or not. By Mr. MILLIKEN: Q. Mr. Price, as I understand it, was to testify under promise of immunity?—A. I understand that is so, and yet I do not know it. I had nothing to do with it. I say the moment after Price was accepted as a witness, after it was decided to accept him as a witness, I was entirely aside in the matter; put aside freely, with my concurrence, because Mr. Walsh took the position that he would not give any testimony, would not render any assistance, would not do anything whilst I was in the case and whilst there was a sort of personal mortification in connection with it of being bulldozed, apparently, I yet accepted the situation and said, very cheerfully, "Leave me out." By the CHAIRMAN : Q. Then the indictment was found at a subsequent term when you were not present before the grand jury?—A. Yes, sir. Q. And that indictment is still pending?-A. Yes, sir. By Mr. MILLIKEN: Q. You testified some time ago that Mr. Cook severed his connection with the Government, complaining; what was his complaint?-A. That confidence was not placed in him. The trouble was that we could not traverse the fact. Q. There was not much disagreement between you all then about his going out?-A. No, sir; not at all. His going out was certainly very agreeable to me. The usual hour of adjournment having arrived and the examination of the witness not having been concluded, he asked of the committee the favor of allowing his further examination to be postponed until Tuesday, April 2, 1884. This request being complied with the committee adjourned until Monday, March 24, 1884, at 10 o'clock a. m. WASHINGTON, D. C., April 1, 1884. GEORGE BLISS recalled and further examined. By the CHAIRMAN : Question. You may proceed, Mr. Bliss, with any further statement which you desire to present. If there are any corrections that you wish to make in your former testimony perhaps you had better begin with that. -Answer. I expressed a doubt whether I had ever seen the letter of Mr. Gibson to the Attorney-General, written in January, 1882, urging that we should proceed with Route 40101. I find, by reference to my correspondence, that I did see that letter. When I was examined before I believe I stated in relation to it that it would not have made any difference in my action whether I had seen the letter or not, and that is true; but I did see the letter. I spoke also in my former examination of the endeavor to get certain papers from Colonel Cook. I find the condition of the record in regard to that matter to be this: On or about the 27th of December the combination of the safe was changed. On the 6th of January I wrote to Colonel Cook saying that I was trying to get things in shape, and I wished that anything he had in the way of papers should be returned. He replied that he had nothing. The matter remained in that way for a time. Before that, however, he had written Mr. Woodward urging him to send him additional abstracts for the routes which were known as the Dorsey routes. Mr. Woodward did not send him any in consequence of that letter, but previously, on the 15th of October and the 1st of November, he had sent Colonel Cook abstracts as to sixteen routes, all of which except one were included in the original Dorsey indictment. One of them, the route from Dalles to Lake View, was dropped out from the second Dorsey indictment, because it was thought the statute of limitations had run against the overt act alleged, to wit, the making of the order. The abstracts on those sixteen routes were sent, as I say, by Mr. Woodward to Mr. Cook on the 15th of October and the first of November. On the 6th of January succeeding, as I have already stated, I had written to Colonel Cook, asking him to return the papers, and on the 9th of January he replied, stating that he hadn't any papers. Then the matter ran along until, I think, the 16th of March, when I again wrote to Lim for the papers, specifying more in detail the fact that the papers I wanted were abstracts of these reports. I got a reply from Colonel Cook in writing, stating that he hadn't any of the papers. On the 17th I wrote him again. I never got any answer to that, but on or about the 17th, within a day or two of that time, he resigned, and I think on the 27th, at my instigation, the Attorney-General wrote him, transmitting a letter of mine to the Attorney-General, dated on the 24th. This, the committee will perceive, was some ten or twelve days after I had called upon him to return the papers, and after he had stated to me that he had none of the papers. On the 28th he did finally send to the Department sixteen papers, which were the very reports I had been calling for— Mr. Woodward's abstracts, containing the statement of our evidence as to each and every one of those routes; and it is a little remarkable that in "ways that are dark," and which I cannot state here because I have only discovered this fact of the return of the papers to the Department this morning-I saw something in New York yesterday which suggested it to me, and I telegraphed about it-it is a little remarkable, I say, that long before I got this information we had learned that the other side had abstracts of our evidence on sixteen of the routes. These papers, you see, were returned by Colonel Cook to the Department on the 29th of March, after he had been out of the cases ten or twelve days, and after he had previously asserted that he had no such papers; and I simply say that, in my opinion, they were retained for the purpose of being copied for the benefit of the other side. By Mr. HEMPHILL: Q. Were they the same sixteen ?-A. The same sixteen. Well, we did not know what the other side had, except that we identified the questions put by them along during the trial as based upon the evidence in regard to those routes to which these abstracts related. We simply learned that they had sixteen of our abstracts, and it appears that there were just sixteen returned by Colonel Cook to the Department. I never saw these until to-day. Q. Some of the sixteen which Colonel Cook returned you discovered, from the examination of witnesses by the defendants' counsel, to be the same that they had?-A. Some of the sixteen related to routes as to which their examination of the witnesses showed that they had information from our papers. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. Was there any other means by which they could have obtained that information or got access to those papers?-A. No, sir; the reports were Mr. Woodward's, and they were kept so closely that there never was any copy made of them, except the one that went to Colonel Cook, and, other than those sixteen, we never had any copies made of the reports at all; I used the originals. Q. Then the only two copies that were in existence were the one that Mr. Woodward had and the one that Colonel Cook had?-A. The only two copies, so far as I know, and the only two copies that could be legitimately in existence. By Mr. HEMPHILL: Q. By two copies you mean the originals and the copies which Mr. Cook had?-A. Yes, sir; the originals and those copies. Mr. WOODWARD. Both of them were copied into a letter-press copybook, which was locked up in our safe and never went out of the room. The WITNESS. They were kept so confidentially that even I never got into the safe. Mr. Woodward would not let me into it. So much for that. Now, perhaps I ought to say a word or two in regard to some things which have been stated in evidence here before I submit myself to what may be called cross-examination. In the first place, Mr. Cook testifies that Mr. Brewster, on a certain occasion, which was apparently about the time when Mr. Cook was going out of the cases, told him, substantially, that he could not do with me as he wanted to, because I had procured his appointment as Attorney-General. In the first place, the statement is wholly absurd on its face; and in the second place, Mr. Brewster is a truthful man, and he knows I did not procure his appointment; so I do not believe he ever said anything of the kind. In point of fact, I suppose there is no harm in my saying that, as to Mr. Brewster's appointment as Attorney-General, my whole knowledge of it in advance arose in this way. I was very much with the President when he first arrived here, but I never exchanged a word with him as to Mr. Brewster's being Attorney-General until, one evening. I did say to the President that, after looking over the whole field, I wished things were in such shape that Mr. Brewster could be Attorney-General, and to my surprise, the President then informed me that things were in such a shape, and that Mr. Brewster was to be Attorney-General. That was the first of my knowledge on the subject; so that I do not think Mr. Brewster could ever have said anything like what Colonel Cook attributes to him. Now, as to the question about Colonel Corkhill at the interview at Elberon, both Colonel Cook and Mr. Gibson expressed very great doubt as to Colonel Corkhill, stating substantially that he was in the interest of the other side; and they referred to a former attempted investigation in which Mr. Hinds had tried to get the district attorney to go before the grand jury. I confess that what they said impressed me a good deal at the time. I did not know Colonel Corkhill, and had never seen him. Mr. Gibson and Colonel Cook took this view, and I found also that Mr. MacVeagh shared in the distrust of Colonel Corkhill, as appears by his evidence here, and, coming into the cases as I did, I shared very largely in it at the time. When we got fairly to work, in October or November or somewhere along there, the question of whether or not we could go on with Colonel Corkhill as district attorney came up, and I guess we all agreed that we could not-I confess that I did—and we looked around to see who should be appointed or recommended to take the place of Colonel Corkhill. To my surprise I found, in the first place, that Colonel Cook wanted to be made district attorney. I took occasion to say to him in conversation, and, I think, by letter also, that that would not do. knew none of the lawyers here, so I asked him to consider the matter and recommend some one for district attorney, and by and by he came back and recommended Mr. Cole, his partner. I did not bite very well at that, and then Colonel Cook, with some formality, claimed that he was entitled to be heard by the President, and to have a peculiar influence with the President in the appointment of the district attor ney, on the strength of the fact that he was in the cases, and he wanted that I should take him and introduce him to the President some evening, which I did not do; but I took occasion to write him that there was no use talking about that; that I did not believe the President would think that he should have any more right to say who should be district attorney than any other citizen of Washington. We went along, Colonel Corkhill being still in office and the Guiteau case going on. Senator Edmunds, as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, took the position very decidedly that he would not under any circumstances assent to the confirmation of anybody in place of Colonel Corkhill as long as the Guiteau case was going on (at least so I was informed by others; Senator Edmunds did not make any such statement to me), and I understood that the President was very decided in the same view-that he ought not to remove Colonel Corkhill at that time; though he was prepared to do so if the Attorney-General would recommend it. This was after Mr. Brewster came in. The AttorneyGeneral was influenced, in a measure, apparently by what all of us had thought on the subject, and did intend to recommend the removal of Colonel Corkhill; but he finally changed his mind and did not do it. We went along, and whenever I came to sit down and see what I really knew about Colonel Corkhill, beyond what was alleged to have occurred in connection with the previous investigation, and of which I knew nothing, I felt bound to say that there was nothing I knew of that would justify his removal. He had, I believe, been on good social relations with some of the defendants and had probably been disposed in their favor, but we were going on without him, and without any communication with him except communications of a formal kind, and he was doing promptly everything that we required him to do; so when, after the first trial or before the second, I wrote a letter to the President complaining of certain officials, while I did make some remarks about Colonel Corkhill, I expressly excepted him from those officials as to whom I was suggesting removal. As I have said, at the outset of my connection with the cases, I did share very strongly in the distrust of Colonel Corkhill. I do not know anything about any action of his preceding that time, but from the time I came into the cases, while we were always a little distrustful of him, yet our experience was that every time we asked Colonel Corkhill to do anything he did it. By Mr. MILLIKIN: Q. What is your opinion now as to Corkhill's fidelity in the matter? -A. Well, from the time I came into the cases there was no chance for him to have been other than faithful, because he had substantially nothing to do with the cases. There was one time during the progress of |