By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. How long a period do those charges cover?-A. From the 10th of September, 1881, until February, 1884.

Q. Are those accounts rendered for so much each day or so much each case-A. They are rendered by the day.

Q. Mr. Gibson stated in his testimony that your account would average $150 or $156 a day.-A. Well, the committee will see in a minute that that is not true. After seeing that statement, I took occasion to go over Mr. Gibson's calculation. He says, in the first place, that I was paid $6,000 on the 1st of January, 1882, and he says that amounts to $170 a day. That was a bill rendered as from the 9th of September to that date, and the bill on its face shows by dates, going through each day, fifty-four specified days of absence from home, at $100 a day, and shows also some time in New York. The committee can see that from the 9th of September to the 1st of January is about 100 days, and yet Mr. Gibson says I was paid $170 a day. The way he has calculated it is this: I was paid $2,500 on account, some time in November; so he reckons the $6,000 in this bill as from November down, though on the face of the bill it shows dates away back of that, and the $2,500 is credited on account.

Q. But did he not reckon it upon the number of days of actual attendance in the city of Washington?-A. No, sir; because the bill on its face shows 52 days' attendance in the city of Washington.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. How many men did you convict that were punished?-A. We convicted only two.

Q. Were they punished?-A. No, sir.

Q. Was the verdict set aside?—A. Yes, sir; on our motion.

Q. Then there has been nobody convicted or punished?-A. No, sir. Q. Did you collect any money for the Government ?-A. No, sir; I have not gone into the insurance business.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. Was it your fault that the parties were not convicted?-A. I do not think so. If it was, I should like somebody to point it out, and I should like this committee to ask the presiding justice whether he thinks it was my fault.

Then Mr. Gibson takes another bill which was paid on the 4th of March, and he says that it is at the rate of $140 a day. There are specified 48 days of absence from home, in addition to time in New York. The bill of expenses shows 55 days away; he is nearer right, of course, in his calculation in this case. He takes another bill and figures it out at $156 a day. Now, in point of fact, taking from the date of the preceding bill, there are 83 days for which the charge is $6,800. It is very evident that Mr. Gibson counts simply the days for which he finds hotel bills annexed to my account, showing that I was here, and takes no account of the time spent in coming or going or anything of that sort.

Q. Did you charge for the time spent in coming and going?—A. I charged for the time I was away from home. But if I could get home by going on a day that I was here, of course there was no charge. For instance, if I went home Friday night instead of staying here over Saturday and Sunday, if I could save any money to the Government I went home, and made no charge for that time.

Q. You usually came on the limited express train, did you not?—A. Oh, I came on every train. I should think that I came oftener on other

trains than on the limited express. I got in the way of leaving New York on a train that leaves about 3 o'clock, and traveled a good deal on that train.

Q. State whether you charged $100 a day for the days on which you were traveling between Washington and New York?-A. Always, provided I had not charged that day for attendance in Washington. I charged from the time I left home until I got back home.

Q. Then, if you traveled two days in the week, one day coming here and the other going back, you charged for both those days?—A. No; I bore this in mind, that if I went home in that way I had no right to charge the Government more than it would have had to pay if I had staid here.

Q. You stated when you were here before that you went home at times for the purpose of attending to your private business; did you charge for those occasions?-A. I went home in the early stages of the case, for the purpose of attending to my private business, and I never charged for those occasions.

Q. You did not charge for the time you were in New York, but you did charge for the time coming and going?-A. No, sir; save in this way: Suppose I was here on Thursday night, and the case adjourned until Monday, I had my option to either stay here or go home. If I had staid here I should have charged for Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Now, in those cases I generally went home, and I usually charged for the two days but not for the third.

Q. Did you charge $100 a day for your legal services on Sunday?— A. I think my bills will show that I charged for services on Sunday. I know I worked as hard on Sundays as on any other days.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. You say you do not think it was your fault that the defendants in those cases were not convicted. Whose fault do you think it was ?— A. I think it was the fault of the jury.

The CHAIRMAN. If you have any further statement to make about your bills you may proceed.

The WITNESS. Then, again, Mr. Gibson says that one of my bills covers only seventy-one days, making an average of $211 a day. In point of fact there were covered by that bill one hundred and twentyfour days. That bill covers the first trial, including eighty or ninety days in court. The next bill of $4,000 he says shows an average of $133.35 per day, but in point of fact that bill covered one hundred and fifteen days.

Q. But you were not engaged in serving the Government during all those one hundred and fifteen days?-A. I was thirty-seven and ahalf days serving the Government here in Washington. The next bill is $5,700, which he reckons as covering only fifty-one days, and puts at the rate of $111 a day. In point of fact the period covered by that bill is sixtynine days, and during that period I was absent from New York on the business of the Government fifty-eight days. Those are the only bills. that he analyses in that way. I say distinctly that I have never charged more than $100 a day, except possibly during the period covered by the trial. I have not figured it up, but it is possible that there is in that account some additional amounts of perhaps $10 or $15 a day for the time spent in the arguments that were imposed upon me in that case. I say that it possible, but I do not think that even for that period it is the fact.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. If you have no objection, I would like to have you state what your time is worth per day in the practice of your profession in the city of New York?-A. Well, sir, it varies, but I consider it a mighty poor day in New York when I don't get $100 a day.

Q. I mean taking the year through ?-A. I mean that, taking the year through, I consider it a mighty poor day when I do not get $100.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. What is your practice in New York worth for a year, three hundred and sixty-five days?-A. Well, that is trespassing a little or going into private matters. I will state, however, that while my increase for services has varied in amount, it has oftener been above $30,000 than below that for some years back. After I ceased to be district attorney there was a time when it was much less.

By Mr. HEMPHILL:

Q. Do you mean the share that comes to you individually ?—A. Yes, sir; from my own clients and work.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. How long have you practiced law ?-A. Twenty-five years.

Q. How do the charges which you have made against the Government compare with the charges that you make against individuals?— A. In the last previous services that I rendered away from home I was employed by the united steamship owners of New York. I was away 23 days and they very gladly paid me $5,000.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. What case was that?-A. It was in connection with the tax on immigrants.

Q. Was that a case against the Government or against the State of New York-A. It was a question with the State of New York. I have not gone around and asked for information about the proper rate of charges or about the charges of other people, but various gentlemen, some of whom are known to the members of this committee, have voluntarily come to me and made statements on the subject. For instance, I met, the other day, Mr. Dorman B. Eaton, the chairman of the Civil Service Commission, who was for a great many years a lawyer in large practice in New York. He and I have been associated together in a great many cases. He said to me: "I see they are finding fault with your fees, $100 a day. I did not for years and years, before I went out of practice, think of leaving New York City for less than $100 a day." I met Mr. Joseph H. Choate, who came to the bar in New York at the same time that I did, and is about the same age in the profession, and he voluntarily said the same thing. Another gentleman with whom I talked on the subject was Mr. Willard Bartlett, whom the Democrats have just elected a judge of the supreme court in New York, and who is a younger man than I am at the bar. I did consult Mr. Bartlett incidentally-that is, I talked with him at the time I rendered the bill for $15,000 for the first trial of the Dorsey case, and he said that the bill never should have been less than $25,000; and I have met him since this committee has been in session, and he remarked that the idea of questioning $100 a day to a New York lawyer was an absurdity. Mr. Dunning, Mr. O'Connor's former partner, sent me a message to the same effect. I mention these cases simply as showing the rates paid to lawyers of standing at the New York bar.

Q. During the time that you were engaged as special counsel for the

Government in the prosecution of the star-route cases, did you attend to any other business for the Government than the star-route cases?— A. I attended to other business for the Government, but not for compensation.

Q. Did you attend to any business in which the parties on the other side employed you at a compensation?—A. In one case I did.

Q. What was that?-A. I tiled a brief with the Attorney-General on behalf of the banks of the New York Clearing House with reference to the liability of the banks to pay the tax on their circulation or dividends under the tariff act of 1883. I filed that brief, and Mr. Sidney Bartlett, of Boston, filed a brief, and also some Philadelphia lawyer, I think.

Q. That was a question of the remission of taxes under the law ?—A. No; it was a question whether the banks were liable to pay the tax. The period for paying the tax was a six-monthly period, and the law said that the act abolishing taxes should take effect at a certain time, and the question was whether they should be collected for a fraction of two or three months.

Q. In that case what amount of fees did you receive from those private parties?-A. In that case I got, I think, $1,000.

Q. Was that all ?—A. I think so.

Q. How much was involved?—A. I don't know.

Q. Was there not $4,000,000?—A. For my clients, nothing like that. Q. What was the amount of the fee?—A. I think it was $1,000; it may possibly have been $1,500.

Q. Did you appear before the Commissioner of Internal Revenue?— A. No, sir.

Q. Did you appear before any officer of the Government?-A. No, sir; I never appeared before anybody. I staid at home, and prepared a brief which I made turn upon the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the legacy and succession cases.

Q. What was done with that brief?-A. Well, the Attorney-General decided the matter the way I argued, but he dissented substantially from the view I took.

Q. You were successful in the case, though?-A. I was successful. Q. And you received a fee of $1,000?—A. I think so.

Q. That was during the time that the star-route cases were pending? -A. Yes, sir; that brief, allow me to say, was prepared upon two days, for which no charge was made to the Government.

Q. Then you devoted only two days to that matter?-A. Only two days; I did not consider it a hard or difficult matter; I considered that the Supreme Court had decided it; I went into the internal-revenue of fice and asked their position on the question, and I found that they were really of the opinion that there was no fair question involved, but that as the question had been raised, the opinion of the Attorney-General ought to be taken. The New York Clearing House got somewhat alarmed, and Mr. Tappan, I think, the chairman of the clearing house, came to me and wanted to retain me; they said it was not a matter of sufficient importance for them to go to Mr. Evarts, and they came to me because they thought I would perhaps do it cheaper; so I made a bargain then and there, and I think it was for $1,000.

Q. Was there any other case in which the Government was interested in which you appeared during this period?-A. I do not recall any.

Q. Were you not employed in the case of the San Pedro and Cañon Del Agua, in New Mexico?-A. I believe I never got any fee there, though I ought to have had one. I was employed to this extent: The

defendants wanted the case tried. The parties out there were seeking to proceed by injunction; seeking to tie them up by injunction and not by a trial, and I was employed to urge a direction from the AttorneyGeneral's office to the district attorney to proceed by a trial of the case and not by injunction.

Q. Did you procure an order from the Attorney-General to discontinue the injunction proceedings-A. I procured an order. I do not think it was an order to discontinue the injunction proceedings, though. Q. What was the order?-A. I never saw it; what I got was a direction to the district attorney to proceed by trying the case, and not to undertake to anticipate it by injunction.

Q. You say there was no request made by you for instructions to the district attorney in New Mexico to discontinue the injunction proceedings in that case ?-A. Well, that was the tangible result to which it would come, but I don't think that was the form of the request. The parties came to me and said: "We are are perfectly willing to have a trial and to dispose of the case on the merits, but if we are to be tied up by injunction we object to it; we have spent $800,000; we are just ready to start a mill, on which we have spent $400,000, and we don't want to be tied up in that way."

The Attorney General referred it to some one of his assistants. It was a case in which the name of the United States was allowed to be used for the benefit of a private claimant, but the Government was not really interested in the litigation.

Q. It was interested to the extent of declaring the patents void upon which the litigation depended?-A. Yes; and then to let these other parties come in upon the lands. The United States might in a certain phase of the case have got certain benefits, but very trifling ones. There may have been some of the lands on which there was no other claim, but certain claimants claimed the lands, basing their claim upon the fact that the patents issued by the United States under which the defendants held were fraudulent, and they were seeking to set them aside and were allowed to use the name of the United States to do it. Now, I think there had been no injunction, but I think the district attorney had given notice that he was going to move for an injunction, and our application was that the district attorney should be directed to try the case instead of proceeding by injunction. The AttorneyGeneral referred the matter to a law clerk.

Q. What law clerk ?-A. I do not know. I never saw him. The Attorney-General referred the case upon the question whether they could find an instance where the name of the United States had been used in that way, and the parties had been allowed to proceed by injunction, and I think the report was

Q. (Interposing.) Who employed you in those cases?—A. Mr. George William Ballou.

Q. He has stated, I am informed, that he paid you a fee of $5,000 ?— A. He did not pay it.

Q. Did he pay you any fee?-A. I have got a claim against him now, or I did have a claim before he failed. I think he did make me a small payment, but my impression is that my whole charge against him was $1,000.

Q. How much of that has he paid?-A. I guess he has paid half. When Ballou & Co. failed I dismissed the matter from my mind. Up to that time I looked upon it as a good asset.

Q. Your service in that case was during the time when the star-route