long distances for nothing, and as they were men who had no means to pay traveling expenses this difficulty arose, and I finally solved the difficulty by going to my bank account. I went and made a loan and paid interest on it and never got the interest back.

By Mr. STEWART :

Q. Did you make any profit on that transaction?-A. Not a cent; I lost. I lost in that way probably $200 or $300, but incidentally there was another class of expenses paid. There was a witness here from Missoula, Mont., who received a dispatch stating that one of his children was dead, and the rest of his family down with the scarlet fever, and that his family were suffering. That witness had been examined, but we knew that he would be attacked and we wanted to retain him here to use him in rebuttal. When he got this dispatch he was nearly crazy, and, of course, entirely unwilling to stay. He said that his family were out there in the woods and were suffering, and that he must go to them. But we wanted him to stay, and the result was that we used the Signal Service telegraph to have money advanced to his family, and the money was advanced and he staid. We did not get a report of the amount advanced until after the man had been paid his fees and had left, and the consequence is that I am that much out of pocket.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Did you hear Mr. Walsh testify-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you remark that you were utterly disappointed with the character of his testimony?-A. Never, sir. Let me say, further, about these advances, that while my accounts to the Government show, as I have said, $4,000 or $5,000 of expenses, in point of fact I paid out here for clerk hire and other matters which were not charged to the Govern ment, matters where the clerks were working squarely on the Govern ment business and nothing else, a considerable amount. I can put my finger on $2.890 that I paid out of my own pocket, and I have no doubt I paid more.

Q. That you never received back?-A. That I never received back and never presented any claim for. They were clerks that I had to employ, and time and again I worked the clerks all night. I suppose Mr. Merrick did the same thing in the way of paying clerk hire, though not to the same extent; and Mr. Ker the same, though not to the same extent. I think neither of those gentlemen, however, advanced money to wit

nesses.

Q. I understand you to say that you never made the remark that the testimony of Mr. Walsh entirely disappointed you?-A. Never, sir. Mr. Walsh testified so many times that I do not know what I may have said about some of his testimony.

Q. Did he testify before the Mitchell grand jury?-A. He testified before three grand juries, two of which I was before, and also twice in

court.

Q. But you have no such recollection of making such a remark as I have asked you about?-A. No, sir; I have not. I recollect making a remark about Mr. Walsh's testimony before one of the grand juries, but it was not of that nature.

Q. You speak of having lost faith in Mr. Cook and Mr. Gibson ?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know of your own personal knowledge of any act of infidelity on the part of either of them?-A. No, sir; I know of no act of infidelity. I do not want to look farther than Gibson's report on the

Phoenix and Prescott route, in which he reported practically that there was no fraud on that route. No, sir; I know of no particular act. They did not take me into their confidence.

Q. I understand that you were dissatisfied with them and were satisfied, in your own mind, that they were selling you out to the other side?-A. I became satisfied that they were selling the Government out to the other side, and I have given the facts which led me to that conclusion.

Q. Do you know of any fact within your own personal knowledge which justified that conclusion?-A. No, sir. There are certain other facts which I do not know even sufficiently to testify to; but when you get Mr. Woodward on the stand you will get the benefit of some of them.

Mr. STEWART. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if there are any witnesses to be called to testify to something Mr. Bliss has said it would be proper, in questioning Mr. Bliss about the matter, to suggest the time and place.

Mr. FYAN. I understand the rule to be that if you wish to impeach a witness you must refresh his memory in that way. I do not know that I desire to do any such thing as that in relation to these other matters, or in relation to this combination to prevent the Salisburys from being indicted; but there may be some witnesses on that point.

The WITNESS. I would be very glad to have them brought before the committee. I will now, with the permission of the committee, read some letters which show that I have from time to time desired to get relieved from service in these cases. The first is a letter which I wrote the Attorney-General after the termination of the first Dorsey trial:

SEPTEMBER 14, 1882.

DEAR SIR: The result of the Dorsey trial precipitates upon me a troublesome question which I have foreseen, but which I hoped to avoid by postponement.

I assume under the circumstances a second trial of this case will be deemed a necessity this fall or in the early winter.

I think a new trial would take much less time than the original one, still it must take many weeks. I came into the star-route cases reluctantly and under assurances, which I fully believed, as did those who made them, that they would require in the aggregate only a few weeks absence from my office and home, and much less prolonged labor than has in fact been indispensable. They have been found to require my continuous absence for weeks and months; for one entire year they have absolutely prevented me from undertaking any new business.

For this, as you know, no compensation which I could ask or you could grant could be a sufficient return, for it is the breaking up of a business built up by twenty-five years of devotion to my profession. Were this the only consideration, though, in view of the circumstances in which I came into the cases, I should deem myself at liberty to retire from them; still I should be disposed if it was thought important to make the sacrifice which would be required by my remaining in hope that some arrangement would be made by which less constant absence on my part would be required.

But the condition of my wife's health introduces another and imperative consideration. Circumstances have rendered her always, far more dependent on me than is ordinarily the case between husband and wife, and we have in nearly thirty years never been so much separated as during the last year. This has affected her spirits and indirectly her health. She is now in a condition which requires constant watching and care, a freedom on her part from all anxieties and annoyances, and a keeping up of her spirits.

She feels that my continued and constant absence would be greatly injurious to her, and an invalid's fixed belief in such a matter cannot be trifled with. The effect on her spirits of constant or continuous absence, or the prospect of it, would certainly be very injurious.

Under these circumstances, I desire that some arrangement should be made by which I may be allowed to retire absolutely from the star-route cases, or by which the "laboring oar" in them should be in other hands, and my presence in Washington should be exceptional.

י

Indeed, I do not see how I can undertake to promise any attendance in Washington which would be of any advantage to the Government.

Of course I need not assure you that I could not under any circumstances lose my personal interest in the cases or my conviction that every consideration requires that they should be vigorously pursued, and I should feel not only bound, but anxious at all times to render any aid in my power consistent with the facts to which I have called your attention.

Nor does it seem to be that my absence need be seriously felt.

The same ground is to be traveled over in the new trial which has already been traversed, and new counsel will have no difficulty in filling my place, though he will, of course, until he becomes familiar with the facts, labor under some disadvantages, but this will be an inconvenience to himself, not an injury to the case.

Your obedient servant,

Hon. BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER,

Altorney-General.

GEORGE BLISS, Special Assistant United States Attorney.

I got no answer to that except a verbal message from Mr. Brewster, who was away from Washington at the time, that he had received the letter and would consider it when he returned to Washington.

By Mr. HEMPHILL:

Q. When was that letter which you have just read written?—A. On the 14th of September, 1882, after the termination of the first Dorsey trial. Subsequently, on the 7th of October, I wrote Mr. Brewster to say that my wife's health had improved, and that that consideration, therefore, which would have made me go out, whether he consented or not, had ceased to have force, and that the other reason, the loss from remaining in, was not one which, as a lawyer, I would have a right to insist upon if my withdrawal was thought likely to injure the cases. I got no definite answer to that. On the 25th of October, I wrote again, as follows:

OCTOBER 25, 1882.

DEAR SIR: I stayed over in Washington on Saturday to talk to you, and hung around the Department all day, but you were absent or busy; so I must resort to paper. I appreciate your kindness and note your remarks passing my account. It was not intended to be a bill strictly confined to the days of trial but rather to cover these and bring up back charges from January 1 last. But that is unimportant.

When I went into the cases no one foresaw they would take so much time. Had I foreseen it I never should have consented on any terms to go into them. I, however, fully informed those who employed us, of the terms. I ordinarily charged and they agreed to them. When you came into the cases you agreed with me also.

I say this only as preliminary to what I am about to say.

A new trial commences in a few weeks. It will take most of the winter continuously. These, and also one or two other cases which must be tried. The condition of my wife's health has so much improved since I wrote you some time since that what I regarded as the imperative reason binding upon, overriding all questions of professional duty, has ceased to exist. I feel, therefore, not at liberty to withdraw if it is desired that I should remain, but rather than give such continuous attendance in Washington as I have hitherto done, I should prefer to withdraw, though on the other hand my belief that we shall succeed on the next trial, and especially that we shall convict Dorsey with the new evidence, gives me a desire to see this case at least through.

I therefore leave the question of my remaining in your hands, suggesting that it should be speedily settled; that you confer with my associates and see if they do not concur with me in thinking that I could be dispensed with without serious injury to

the case.

In considering the question of withdrawal bear in mind that, with Merrick, Ker, and myself in the cases, the counsel fees must necessarily, in the amounts paid to each and in the aggregate, become large, so large that there will be and must be public criticism. No reduction in the rate of fees, even if counsel consulted to them, would prevent this. Lawyers' bills always have been and always will be criticised when paid by the public, no matter what their rate.

As for myself, when I went into the cases I distinctly notified those who employed me that I knew my bills would be criticised any way, and that I should therefore charge what I thought my services were worth, what others paid me, and would

accept, personally, any criticism made, and they must be prepared for their share. You are not necessarily their successor in this respect, and have a right to reduce the number of counsel and their bills. I only desire to suggest these considerations to you. I have floating in my brain a theory of adjustment, under which no counsel would be dispensed with, and expenses would be reduced. But it has not crystallized into shape, nor if it had, could I place it on paper without liability to misconstruction.

One thing more. The First Comptroller has hung up my bill, saying he wanted to see you. I call your attention to, and assume you will now allow any subordinate officer to revise an exercise of discretion which the law rests in you.

Your obedient servant,

Hon. BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER,

Attorney-General.

GEORGE BLISS.

Subsequently, in connection with the civil suits, as late as July, 1883, I wrote Mr. Brewster the following letter:

JULY 24, 1883.

DEAR SIR: One or two paragraphs in the newspapers remind me that it is possible I may be held to a responsibility while not aware of it.

As to the civil suits in the star-route cases I wrote you at some length-early last month I think it was—and also had a conversation with you. I called your attention to the fact that while I had been employed in these cases by Postmaster-General James, and with your approval had done something in them, I did not feel sure that you had ever directly sanctioned my employment; that if the cases were to be tried in various forms where jurisdiction could be got, I did not feel that I ought to undertake the responsibility of trial, nor that you ought to incur the expense of employing me to leave home continuously; that, however, if it was desired I should be glad to continue in charge of all that class of cases as special counsel, preparing the papers, selecting and securing jurisdiction in the places where it seemed probable the fairest trial could be had, and instructing the district attorney or whoever else might be selected to try the cases. This is to be done at a compensation to be fixed by you, either beforehand or after the work was done (though the statute probably looks somewhat to the former, which, however, is, I think, not followed in practice).

This idea seemed in conversation to commend itself to you, yet I did not understand that you decided it finally.

Now I see it stated in the papers that I am "in charge of the civil suits." If you consider me so, please say so, and I will endeavor to justify your confidence. But, on the other hand, consider yourself free to act wholly without reference to the past. Yours, truly,

GEORGE BLISS, Special Assistant Attorney.

Whoever has charge of the cases, permit me to say that they should be brought with great, and, so far as the pleadings are concerned, in a form outside of the usual ones in P. O. cases.

To that last letter Mr. Brewster replied that the civil suits should remain as they were, with nothing done about them. To the other letters he finally replied, saying that I must not retire, that he would not consent, that I must remain in the cases.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Did he communicate that to you verbally or in writing?—A. I think he communicated it in writing. He certainly did say so in writing. On the 15th of September, 1882, he wrote me from Newport, in reply to the first letter that I have read here, saying:

I can hardly entertain the idea of your leaving the case. You have been and are essential to its safe and prosperous conduct. Do not proclaim this proposed withdrawal in any way till we see each other, or at least until I can be back in Washington and be able to adjust matters. As to this I must respectfully and kindly insist that you will withhold your public or private announcement of it in any way for the present.

Then on the 9th of October, 1882, he wrote me again:

As to the star-route cases and their future management. As I wrote you before, I will leave things, as far as you are concerned, suspended and subject to future necessities and future considerations.

On the 25th of October he wrote me as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, October 25, 1882.

MY DEAR SIR: Your letter of the 25th of October is now in my hand. I read it with great care. It is a letter such as I supposed you would have written to me. In the star-route case you have done your duty faithfully, industriously, ably, and with the strictest integrity. Your bill I indorsed and mean to stand by. I regretted that so large a sum at once was asked for, and wished you had presented it at different times before, so that you might have collected it by installments. What was agreed to be paid to you by those who retained you must be paid to you; good faith must be kept with you. In allowing it I have not merely exercised a discretion; I have only ratified what others contracted to do.

As to the future, my conviction is that your presence in these cases is essential, and it is my desire that you will remain in them. The good of the cases requires your presence, and every consideration of prudence would make your absence a thing to be regretted. However, we will talk further or write further about this hereafter. It is a happy thing that the health of your wife will permit you to act in them.

As to your colleagues in the case, I have not conferred with them, for Mr. Ker is away, and I only retained Mr. Ker for a special duty, because you asked for such a person, and that was the preparation of the pleadings. He has been of valne since then in many other ways, but the general charge of the case I did not confide to him. I intended that he should be detailed to act under your immediate and special direction in the preparation of the pleadings, and in such other duties as you might require him to do. Mr. Merrick was retained to fill the vacancy occasioned by my withdrawal.

Upon reflection I would prefer, as at present advised, to leave the matter of your remaining to be the subject of our consideration. It is due to your position and dignity that it should be a matter that would rest exclusively between us. The case is under my control officially, and I am responsible, no matter what is done, and that responsibility I would assume after a conference with you hereafter. At present hold yourself as being advised by me that any suggestion of withdrawal is declined.

You intimate that you have in your mind some unadjusted thoughts as to the arrangement of compensation in the case, which you would convey to me hereafter. I will gladly hear anything you have to say, for I never have yet had a conference with you without feeling its advantage. My presence in the case is no cost to the Government, and what is paid to other counsel for their services is but their due. In view of all this, it seems to me that, expensive as the cases are, by my presence without any fees paid to me for extra and unusual labor, the cost is abated and reduced pro tanto from that which would otherwise be added to them.

I again congratulate you upon the happy recovery of your wife, and send to you my most cordial, earnest, and sincere expressions of unbroken good feeling and constan regard for you.

Truly yours, with respect,

GEORGE BLISS, Esq.,

BREWSTER,
Attorney-General.

Care Bliss & Shley,

No. 160 Broadway, New York.

POST SCRIPTUM.-I inclose you a copy of the Cincinnati Daily Gazette, in which there is a letter written upon the subject evidently of pursuing those Salisbury cases. I desire you to give them attention. Do not let any delay benefit them. The statute may run, and then you would be censured. As to the tone of the article, I understand it and the purpose of the people who wrote it. I do most earnestly call your attention to this Saulsbury matter, and all these other cases where the statute may possibly run. BREWSTER.

Q. That was between the first and the second trial of the Dorsey case?-A. Yes, sir. Prior to that, on the 28th of September, he had written me from Newport, urging me to go on and prepare for the sec ond trial, and stating that he must have the second trial of the cases in December, and that I must go on.