the cases when we had a little doubt of him. We wanted to get our indictments filed promptly, and the story came to us that he had said that he was not going to sign the indictments that we had drawn; that he was going to assert his dignity, and so on, and we were a good deal worked up about it; but upon the Attorney-General sending the indictments to Colonel Corkhill there was found to be no such disposition on his part, and he signed the indictments, and we went on. If you ask me what I learned of his previous relations to the matter

Q. (Interposing.) No; I do not ask you that. I ask your present opinion as to his fidelity at that time.-A. There was really no queston of fidelity or infidelity after I came into the cases so far as I know, because Colonel Corkhill had nothing to do with them except in a most formal way. For instance, if I wanted a case to go before the grand jury I would write to him to say that we desired at such a time to put evidence before the grand jury, not even telling him what the case was or anything about it, and he would send word to the grand jury about the matter. That was all the connection he had with the management of the cases; therefore you see, there was really no question of fidelity or infidelity, so far as I had knowledge of anything he did. I do not think that, as a matter of fact, he was in entire sympathy with the prosecution. All the local influences with which he was connected were on the other side; the people with whom he was in the habit of associating socially had been friends of Mr. Dorsey's, and of course were not favorable to the prosecution.

Q. But he had no opportunity, according to your statement, to "give away" the Government, even if he desired to do so?-A. He never had knowledge of the details of the cases, nor of a particle of the evidence. Q. So that it was really of no consequence whether he was in sympa. thy with the Government or not?-A. After the time when I came into the cases it was not of consequence. The only thing that he did that may be said to have injured the Government was that adjournment of the grand jury while we were at Elberon, as to which Mr. MacVeagh and Mr. Cook have spoken, and about which I know nothing. But even that did not injure the Government in the long run. It was unfortunate, however, that that grand jury was adjourned. Mr. Corkhill always claimed that he had seen the Attorney-General about it and had asked him if there was anything more for the grand jury, and told him they were going to be adjourned. Mr. MacVeagh remembered the interview otherwise. It was unfortunate that the adjournment occurred, but I know nothing that would lead me to distrust the good faith of Colonel Corkhill in that respect, from anything that occurred to my knowledge after I came into the cases. At the same time I am frank to say that I should not have selected Colonel Corkhill for district attorney.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Do I understand you to say that you withdrew your request for the appointment of some one else as district attorney?-A. We never made any formal request. The matter was talked over, and the other gentlemen rather relied upon me to look around and ascertain who there was in Washington who would be a fit and competent person to appoint. Mr. Merrick was not then in the cases, and I knew nothing about the lawyers here and did not know any of them personally, except Colonel Cook. I talked with him about it, and, as I have said, he at first wanted to be appointed himself, and afterwards proposed the appointment of his partner, Mr. Cole, and he raised objections to everybody else that

was mentioned. However, the matter went along without anything being done about it, until gradually I reached the conclusion, or it seemed to me, that there was not any justification for recommending the removal of Colonel Corkhill, or any necessity for it. Then there was this Guiteau trial, which was going on at the time, and Colonel Corkhill's relation to which I perhaps had not appreciated. So we went on through the first trial. I would have always preferred to have had somebody else in the district attorney's office, because I would have liked to have had somebody in that office to whom I could have gone and with whom I could have talked the cases over and learned his views about the local law and the practice here, but we had no such person and no such aid. At a later period there was a recommendation of mine for Colonel Corkhill's removal, a recommendation made one day and withdrawn the next. It was at the time this question arose about signing the indictment, but that was settled, and the recommendation was withdrawn.

By Mr. MILLIKIN:

Q. He came the next day and signed the indictment, did he?—A. The transaction is this. I suppose there is no harm in my stating it. We learned of Colonel Corkhill having said that he would not sign any indictments; that he was going to assert his manhood. I rather think there was no question that he so asserted. We were in such a position that the indictments had got to be filed to save the statute, in some views of it, within two or three days; and, of course, they could not be filed without the signature of the District attorney, and therefore I addressed a letter to the Attorney-General upon the subject. After I had written that letter and left for New York, I think, and was on my way there, it occurred to me that that was a pretty serious step to take, if for no other reason, because Colonel Corkhill would, of course, be exasperated by anything of that kind, and that we might fail to get his successor confirmed in time by the Senate, because, of course, it must be done very promptly in order to serve our purpose. Therefore I addressed a dispatch to the Attorney General suggesting that view, and urging that we had better go slow about it. Mr. Edmunds, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, was consulted, and the thing was stopped right then and there. I am free to say now that I think Colonel Corkhill had talked as it was reported to us that he had, but I think I was somewhat misled in the matter. I think the original virus that was put into my mind with reference to Colonel Corkhill had held up to that time. I never had any personal relations with him in any manner.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Were any efforts made to have Colonel Corkhill removed after the conclusion of the Guiteau trial?-A. This matter that I speak of was after the conclusion of the Guiteau trial. That is my recollection.

Colonel Cook testified here that I procured the discharge of a number of detectives of his. The fact about that is that some time after Mr. Brewster came in as Attorney-General he said to me that he wanted to control the outside expenses, and that they must be kept down. I told him I knew of no such expenses. He told me he had learned that there had been bills for detectives filed, and asked me if I had seen the detectives that were employed. I told him I had not, and that I did not know anything about them. He said that the bills had been filed and paid, but that the vouchers had not gone on file; they had been certified by the Solicitor-General as Acting Attorney-General, who cer

tified that certain vouchers had been produced, but they had not gone on file in the Treasury Department, and I see that that transaction appears in the printed return furnished in response to Senator Van Wyck's resolution. Thereupon the Attorney-General addressed me a letter, and, I think, one to Colonel Cook also, saying that he wanted all these outside expenses stopped, or, at any rate, that none must be incurred without his knowledge, and asking whether I had any detectives employed. I replied that I had none. He asked me if I knew of any. I told him Colonel Cook had some, and thereupon he wrote to Colonel Cook to discharge them. I never saw the detectives, and do not know who they were, and I never saw any advantage from their employment. They had been at work and were being paid for two or three months before I came into the cases, but I knew nothing about them, and I had nothing to do with their discharge, except in the connection I have stated. I did think, however, and I think now, that they were of no earthly use.

Q. Were those the detectives who were watching the jury?-A. Oh, no, sir. These detectives were employed long before that-along in October, November, and December, 1881. Some of them were gentlemen who have since been under indictment in connection with these District matters. Some of them, I think, were in the District service at that time. An idea has been given out here that the Dorsey case was not early selected as a case to be tried. I call the attention of the committee to the fact that that case was brought before us in the conference at Elberon, and that a letter (which is already in your record), dated the 1st of October, 1881, from me to Colonel Cook, calls for the papers in the Dorsey case. All of these papers, which Colonel Cook was calling upon Mr. Gibson for, the papers which he got, and those which he did not get, including those which he asked for on the 27th of December, and which Gibson had sent to him, expressly related to the Dorsey case. His letter of the 27th of December asked for the papers in the Dorsey case. I say this merely because it has been given out that I got up the Dorsey case, and they had nothing to do with it, when the fact is that that was the only case, except the case of the route from Prescott to Santa Fé, that Colonel Cook and Mr. Gibson had dealt with in any detail.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. Quite a good deal has been said here about the Dorsey case not having been a proper case to commence with. Will you state, as briefly as you can, the reasons why the Dorsey case was taken as a pioneer case instead of route 40101, or any other of the other cases?-A. The Prescott and Santa Fé route was a route of this kind in general terms: it had been let to contractors who had failed and had been declared failing contractors. While they were the contractors Mr. Walsh had advanced money to them, claiming to act simply as a banker; he had advanced a considerable amount of money. Under the rule of the Post-Office Department, when a contractor fails the Department officials go up the list of bidders, that is, they offer the contract to the next highest bidder, but he is not bound to take it, and after that they give the contract ordinarily to anybody who comes in and makes a bid for a sum less than this next highest bidder. After these parties were declared failing contractors Mr. Walsh came in and made a bid for a little less than the next highest bid and the route was given to him. Prior to that time there had been expedition and increase of trips, but that had been cut off, and when Mr. Walsh bid it was on the original service. After that time there was other increase and expedition, and there was

quite a large sum allowed in the aggregate, $64,000 or $74,000. Then after a time Mr. Walsh himself was declared a failing contractor and the route was taken from him. But prior to that there had been changes in the route. The terminus had been swung around so as to reach Albuquerque and there had been various other changes. Now there was a case which simply presented on the record, and apart from the testimony of Mr. Walsh, this condition of affairs: that the original contractors had been declared failing contractors; that Walsh had been allowed to come in and bid at less than the next highest bid; that then the number of trips had been increased and the speed expedited; and then Walsh himself had been declared a failing contractor and the route had been taken from him. Now, in that state of things, apart from the testimony of Walsh as to his dealings with Brady, there was nothing in the case that would lead to a conviction, or even secure an indictment; and, in fact, it was a weaker case than almost any of the others, because, even if Walsh had been at one time in the favor of Brady, he had passed out of that favor, the contract had been taken from him; and, therefore, the record seemed to show that Brady had been in that respect a faithful officer. Mr. Walsh came in and claimed that he had had dealings with Brady which were corrupt and had paid him money, but Mr. Walsh at that time had quite a claim against the Government. After the investigation commenced he had induced the Government officers to stretch things to the very outside in allowing him pay. When he was declared a failing contractor his pay was stopped, and he now came in and claimed that, in some form, he had been made a failing contractor through the unjust action of the Department, and, therefore, that he ought to be paid the balance due him, $6,000 or $8,000, I think it was, that he claimed, and they gave him the benefit of the doubt and paid him the money, and then supposed that his case was all settled. But pretty soon Mr. Walsh came around with a claim for a month's extra pay. When a contractor's contract is terminated by the Department not for any fault of his own, he has a right under the law to a month's extra pay, and Walsh claimed that paying him this $6,000 or $8,000 on the ground that he had been made a failing contractor through some unjust action of the Department showed that he was not at fault and was a failing contractor through no fault of his own, and that, therefore, he was entitled to this month's extra pay, and he was very earnest to get it. On the other hand, the officers of the Department considered that when they had paid him that money there had been an agreement that that was to be the end of the matter, and the present Second Assistant Postmaster-General was very earnest in that view, and regarded the assertion of this later claim as an act of bad faith on the part of Mr. Walsh. I may say in passing that Mr. Walsh has since gone into the Court of Claims in an endeavor to establish that claim, and that the Government is fighting it there.

Q. What is the amount of that claim for the extra month's pay ?—A. I think it is $14,000.

Q. One-twelfth of $105,000 a year?-A. No; that would be only eight or nine thousand dollars. There were so many changes on these routes that you cannot take the pay at any given time as a basis of such a calculation. I think the amount is about $14,000, but I may be wrong. So much for that. There was Mr. Walsh in that position, with a claim upon the Government and making an allegation that he had paid money to Mr. Brady. His claim was that he had loaned money to Mr. Brady. The impression was very strong on my mind from the outset that if Walsh had had these money transactions with Brady they prob

ably would turn out to have been of a different character from what he stated. He did not admit and would not admit at any time that he had had any corrupt dealings with Mr. Brady. The idea he gave out was that Brady had undertaken to blackmail him-at all events he claimed that he had paid this money to Mr. Brady.

Q. Do you know whether that claim of Walsh's for the extra month's pay has ever been paid?—A. No, sir; it has never been paid; it is in litigation in the Court of Claims, and from what I learn of the evidence I apprehend that it never will be paid.

Q. Did Walsh demand that pay in consideration of testifying before the grand jury?-A. I cannot say as to that. I had nothing to do with it. I know that he did time and again insist upon it to me that he should have that pay, and that that matter should be arranged before he went further; but all that was later.

Q. You say that in this case of which you have been speaking there was no evidence of corruption except the testimony of Walsh as to some corrupt transaction between him and Brady?-A. Money dealings-not corruption. He denied corruption. Mr. Walsh never admitted that he was engaged in any corrupt transaction with Mr. Brady.

Q. What interest had the Government to prosecute this matter between Walsh and Brady?-A. None whatever, sir. I was going for every Government officer in the first place, and next for the contractors. I had been brought into the cases through Mr. James solely or chiefly because I had insisted upon procuring the indictment and conviction of a deputy collector in New York, a man whom I had myself recommended for appointment. I may say, however, that although he had my recommendation and that of others, he was appointed to that place chiefly because under the then existing civil service examination he passed the highest examination of any applicant for the position.

He

Q. Who was he?-A. I cannot think of his name at this moment. was indicted for conspiracy and the fraudulent passing of invoices at the New York custom-house, by which the Government lost over a million of dollars.

Q. Was that the fellow that the civil service rules put in ?-A. Yes, sir; but not the civil service that we have now. The reform had not got so far at that time. [Laughter.] I prosecuted him, and he was indicted, and we had a very hard trial; but he was convicted and went to State prison and served out his time. It was on the general idea that I thought it was to the interest of the Government to convict Mr. Brady first as a Government officer that I proposed to conduct the cases, and there were other Government officers also that I was looking after.

Q. Was there anything in what Walsh asserted in relation to his. dealings with Brady that, if true, would have convicted Brady? Did the transaction, as stated by Walsh, involve Brady's official integrity so that the Government would be interested in prosecuting him?-A. There were certain matters that suggested things against Mr. Brady, but I do not think there was anything at that stage of the case which squarely affected his official integrity, though it is possible there may have been. Later on Mr. Walsh's memory became better and then he remembered that Mr. Brady had made a statement that Walsh must do-yes, I now remember that there was something at that date. Mr. Walsh claimed at that time that when he went to Mr. Brady to get a settlement for the money that he alleged he had advanced to him, Mr. Brady replied that he had done enough for him, Walsh, that he had got his pay as he went along, or something of that sort. Mr. Walsh said he