« AnteriorContinuar »
curement of papers, and other incidental expenses in preparation of cases, $300 ; hack hire, New York and Washington, &c., $50. Every. thing, you see, is in round numbers, with no pretense of giving items or details, or anything of that kind. I merely suggest that there is a maxim about people who live in glass houses.
Q. As to these detectives, I understand you to say that they were not used during the second trial 1-A. The detectives were not used during the second trial. There may have been a detective or two employed for some special thing, but they were not employed generally.
Q. Was there a detective by the name of Moore employed 1-A. No, sir; not that I know of. Let me tell you about him. Mr. Moore is a clerk in the office of the Solicitor of the Treasury. Before going there he had been a clerk of the court in Philadelphia, and had been particularly in charge of all matters connected with witnesses, and at my request he was detailed to take charge of the accounts of the witnesses and various things of that sort, and he drew his pay as a clerk of the Solicitor of the Treasury. The Solicitor is of course a subordinate of the Department of Justice.
Q. Was Moore of any service to you in the business -A. Oh, of a great deal of service..
Q. What was the nature of his duties 1-A. Well, he took charge of of all the witnesses' accounts. We had the witnesses here-forty or fifty of them-hanging about for several weeks. There was a good deal of trouble in keeping them here and having them on hand when we wanted them. They would go off. Then, too, we had to go into a regular system of becoming guarantors for their board bills, and arranging all that. There was a great deal of that sort of business. With reference to my own compensation, I desire to say, further, that I can put my finger upon business which I actually had, and which I gave up in consequence of being in these cases, out of which there would have come to me at least half as much as I have received from the Government. There was one single case which I was in, and which involved $3,000,000, which I had to go out of, after being in it, prior to the argument in the final court where we succeeded, and by not being in the case at that time I lost a fee of thousands of dollars which had been arranged for.
Q. What was the case?-A. It was the case of the New England Iron Company against the Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company. I desire before leaving the star-route cases to say one or two things addi. tional. Mr. Spencer claims in his evidence that what he told was confidential and that we had no right to use it. About that I want to say that there was nothing in the matters that I found arnong the papers indicating that there was to be anythiug confidential about it, and, more. over, as I got knowledge that he had told the same things to various people outside, I should have considered myself entirely relieved from any such obligation. But I never heard any suggestion that the matter was confidential until the time when Mr. Spencer sent Mr. Chandler to me, and Mr. Chandler said that Spencer seemed to have a kind of indefinite idea that he was a sort of counsel in the cases, and, therefore, ought not to be obliged to testify.
Q. In what respect could Mr. Spencer be regarded as counsel ?-A. He could not be counsel. He is not a lawyer. He was not in any such relation. There was no pretense that he was in any such absolute relation, but only that he had some sort of vague idea that in some sense he was of counsel in the matter.
Q. Was not this Mr. Spencer's idea : that he had an agreement with
the President or with Postmaster-General James that he was not to be used as a witness, and that, therefore, he ought not to be required to testify 1-A. It was never so stated to me at any time, and I understand that Mr. James does not agree that that was the view.
Q. There was no pledge given to Mr. Spencer, so far as you know? A. No, sir. In fact, after the question was raised, I was told that Mr. Spencer said that he could testify to certain things, but that he did not want to testify; but if we could not prove the matters in any other way he would testify. At all events it would have presented to me a very serious question whether, if I knew of a witness who had information which he chose to regard as confidential, it would not be my duty to call him and examine him.
Q. What was said at that interview at the Arlington between Mr. Chandler and you when Mr. Spencer was with Mr. Chandler ?-A. Well, Mr. Chandler said, “Spencer seems to have a sort of idea that he is a counsel in some sense, and that he ought not to be required to testify."
Q. Did Mr. Chandler request you to let up on Mr. Spencer?-A. No, sir. When I stated my position to Mr. Chandler, and that I could not help putting Mr. Spencer on the stand and examining him, Mr. Chandler agreed with me entirely and said that I was right; but of course he was obliging Mr. Spencer as far as he could.
Q. That would seem from Mr. Spencer's statement to have been a very long interview between you and Mr. Chandler -A. It was not. I think Mr. Spencer is mistaken about that. The fact is we were all sitting in the bar-room of the Arlington Hotel, six or eight people, when Mr. Chandler and Mr. Spencer came in, and I think that they both sat down and both took some Apolinaris water (or something else), and then Mr. Chandler said to me that he would like to talk with me a little, and we went aside I think into a public room, and I should say that we did not even sit down. I should say that my conversation with Mr. Chandler that time didn't last over 15 minutes.
Q. Mr. Spencer stated that it began at 11 and concluded about 1 o'clock in the morning 1-A. That was not so. And let me say that I have taken occasion to see one or two people who were present at the time, and asked them if it occupied any such length of time, and they said not at all, so that Mr. Spencer is mistaken about that. We did not talk enough to occupy any such length of time.
Q. He was waiting and he might have thought it a long time!-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Perbaps he thought there was too “long a time between drinks" (Laughter 1-A. Well, we were the only people that could have suffered in that way. The others were free to drink as often as they pleased.
Q. Did Mr. Chandler seem desirous of having Mr. Spencer testify, or desirous of having him excused k-A. Mr. Chandler seemed desirous of obliging Mr. Spencer, but he did not fully understand the position when he came to me. He supposed that Mr. Spencer could not be of any benefit as a witness, and did not see why I should not let him go; but when I explained the situation to him he recognized the fact that I must go ahead and make Spencer testify, and I understood from Mr. Chandler that he expected he would testify.
Q. Did Mr. Chandler ever express any desire or wish in reference to the prosecution of any of the star-route contractors or persons interested in the business ?-A. No, sir. That reminds me I see that somebody somewhere has testified-your correspondent Mr. Walsh has testi. fied, to some meeting with Kellogg and Chandler at Mr. Chandler's house. I never had any meeting at Mr. Chandler's house nor anywhere else at which I ever met Kellogg when Chandler was present or through any instigation of Chandler, or through any communication with him in any way whatever.
Q. Did Chandler ever in any way express a desire to you that you should suspend the effort to procure an indictment against Kellogg!A. No, sir.
Q. He did not ?-A. No, sir. The most that Mr. Chandler ever did was that on one occasion he said: “ Kellogg is in a terrible state of mind. He wants that I should talk to you. I can't talk to you—in the position that I am in I can't talk to you. All I want to say to you is that I am confident you will see that he is fairly treated. If he has done anything wrong let him suffer for it."
Q. Did he in any way show any concern in regard to the Kellogg matter or any desire to have you let up on him or deal gently with him 1-A. No, sir. I think that Mr. Chandler did not believe Walsh, and therefore thought that the case against Mr. Kellogg was not very good.
Q. Did he ever suggest to you the fact about which Mr. MacVeagh testified, that Kellogg's indictment would interfere with the Republican majority in the Senate ?-A. No, sir; no human being ever suggested that to me except William A. Cook.
Q. What was Mr. Cook's suggestion in that regard ?-A. Very early, prior to December, 1891, when I met Mr. Kellogg in Mr. Cook's office, Mr. Cook told me that Kellogg was a client of his, and that there had been some mention of his name in connection with the case, but that we must not hart him, because it would endanger the Republican majority in the Senate.
Q. Was Mr. Cook then counsel for the Government in the star-route cases 1-A. Yes, sir.
Q Did he say that Kellogg was then his client ?-A. He did, sir. Q. Where was that ?-A. In Mr. Cook's own office.
Q. About what time ?-A. I know it was prior to the 1st of January. I should think it was as early as October or November. That was one of the things that first raised a doubt in my mind about Mr. Cook.
Q. That was pending the time when efforts were being made to secure the indictment of Kellogg -A. No, sir; not at that time. There were no efforts being made at that time, and I don't think that at that time I even knew of any route with which he was supposed to be connected, or anything upon which any prosecution could be based. In fact, I was so green in the case that my first knowledge that Mr. Kellogg was said to be connected with the matter came from Mr. Cook through the suggestion then made.
Q. And Mr. Cook, you say, expressed a desire that nothing should be done against Kellogg because of the danger to the Republican inajority in the Senate ?-A. Yes, sir; something like that.
Q. What did you say !-A. I don't know that I said anything. I didn't know that there was any case against him. I know the remark set ine thinking.
Q. Did you indicate any disposition to Mr. Cook at that time to sus. pend or cease any efforts that might have been made, or making, to secure the indictment of Kellogg ?-A. No, sir. There was not any such suggestion at that time. I did not know Mr. Kellogg by sight.
Q. You knew who he was -A. No; I did not until Mr. Cook told me that that gentleman who was just going out was Senator Kellogg,
and he then said something in a mysterious way about his name having been mentioned in this case, and added, “but he is a client of mine and we must not hurt him. It will affect the majority in the Senate." That is what he said, or something of that kind.
Q. Mr. Chandler never had any conversation of that sort with you A. Mr. Chandler had that conversation of which I have already told yon, in which he said, “Poor Kellogg is in a terrible state of mind. He wants to me speak to you. Now you know I cannot. All I can say is treat him fairly." And I think Mr. Chandler did say that he did not believe that John Walsh was to be relied upon.
Q. Did he say that he had received any letter on the subject from any member of the Cabinet 1-A. I do not remember anything of that sort, sir.
Q. Hare you heard whether he did receive a letter-A. I have heard that there was some correspondence between Mr. Brewster and Mr. Chandler, but my recollection about it is that Mr. Walsh made a public statement that there had been something of that kind, and that that led to some correspondence. I don't know anything about it, however.
Q. Mr. Chandler did not call your attention to it and show you any letter that he had received -A. I don't remember having seen anything of the kind, and I do not think it is possible that I could have seen anything of that kind and not remember it. But I have on my mind an impression that I learned in some way that there was some correspondence on the subject between Mr. Chandler and Mr. Brewster. It must have been pleasant correspondence.
Q. You never saw it!-A. I am very confident I never saw it. I have no recollection of it at all.
Now, with regard to the witness Walsh, inasmuch as he is in communication with the committee, and the committee will perhaps be suc. cessful in finding him, I suppose that I may be permitted to say that he was always a pet of Mr. Gibson. I have already narrated the interview with Walsh when I read over to him Gibson's statement as to what Walsh would testify to, and I have mentioned that Walsh made cor. rections and changes in it. After that Mr. Walsh was put before the grand jury (I do not remember the time exactly), and gave evidence and produced certain papers. As the result of that at that time before that grand jury, as I recollect it, the only mention of Mr. Kellogg's name that was made was in connection with the production of these papers. We were going for Brady and Price. Certainly when I went into the grand-jury room I had no idea that there was any question about Mr. Kellogg in the case. In the course of that meeting some of the jurors asked Walsh about certain papers, and as to where he had got themthe Price drafts, I think-and he said that Mr. Kellogg had brought them to him. I confess that the mention of Mr. Kellogg's name at that time did not couver to my mind the idea of Senator Kellogg. I did not remember anything about him in connection with the matter. The grand jury then adjourned. Mr. Walsh told me that he had not told that grand jury everything about the case. I asked him why he had not. He said be was not going to tell them, that there were some of Brady's men on the jury, and that he was not going to tell anytbing more than was necessary. I see that in an interview with him that has been published in the papers, he takes substantially the same ground—an interview published in the Herald on the 25th of November, 1882.
Q. To whom did he refer there?-A. I do not recall who it was, but
he pointed out several people; he pointed out a colored man on the jury that he said was in the interest of the defense, and he said he was not going to throw himself open to them. That was a peculiarity of Walsh's that we had to deal with at various times. We found when he went into court on the Dorsey trial and undertook to testify as to his money dealings with Brady that he had sued Brady, and had made claims very different from those which he testified to upou that trial as existing, different in respect to dates and in other respects. He was pressed a good deal by the defense in that case, they claiming that his whole evidence was untrue. He said that this difference of dates arose from a mistake of his lawyers. Then he had commenced attachment proceedings in New York, and the same error was found there; and finally he said that he did not tell his lawyer any more than he thought it was necessary to tell him; that that was not his way. He inade this statement as to the grand jury. I heard nothing more about it at that time; but one morning I went to New York, and when I came back here and got to the court-house, Mr. Merrick said to me, “Look here, I want to see you"; and then he told me that Walsh was telling all around that I had endeavored to protect Senator Kellogg. I said to Mr. Merrick, " You know better than that. There is nothing in that"; and he replied, " That is so. But," said he, “ Walsh says that he has got all this evidence, and that you did not draw it out." I said, “I never saw the evidence.” “You never saw the evidence ?" said Mr. Merrick. “No, I never saw it," I answered. “I hear of it for the first time." Mr. Merrick, I see, tbinks that he made the suggestion that the grand jury should be reconvened. My recollection is that I made it. However that was, I said that the grand jury must be reconvened, and we went right into court, and Mr. Merrick took the ordinary counsel seat, and I went to Judge Wylie on the bench and told him that I wanted that grand jury reconvened. I think it was in summer, and the judge was unwilling to bring them together again; but I finally told him why I wanted them reconvened, that the statement was made that I had suppressed evidence; and thereupon be reconvened the grand jury. Walsh came and was put before the grand jury. He produced more papers than he had before, and he testified in a way, as I have already stated, that if I had been on that grand jury I should have found an indictment against Kellogg. The grand jury were obviously anxious to dispose of the case that day. They knew they were there only for that case, and they wanted to get rid of it. I asked Walsh on the first day, “Have you produced all the papers you have got?” He said he had. I asked him, “Do you remember anything more that affects Senator Kellogg?" He said "No," that he did not. He was asked by somebody if he had kept any books. He said he had kept books, and that when he broke up here they were carried to Welker's. I fastened upon that as au excuse for getting an adjournment of the grand jury to see if any. thing could be found. We got the adjournment. In the mean time I had some little talk with Walsh. The next morning I went in and en. deavored to probe him as thoroughly as I could to ascertain whether be knew of any papers, or of anything, that would give us any additional evidence of any kind. He said distinctly that he did not, that he could not give any additional evidence. The grand jury did not indict. His evidence before the grand jury was given in an offensive way—in a way not likely to win consideration for it-and the jury did not indict. Subsequently there was a third grand jury, and although before this prerious grand jury Walsh has assured me that he had no other papers of