or two afterwards, and the first thing that Mr. Merrick said to me was that he insisted upon it that under the circumstances I should not go ont of the case; that it was due to the diguity of the Government that a counsel should not be driven out of the case by a witness in that way, and that I must remain in. So in a quasi manner I did remain in. We set to work to find Walsh. We shadowed Grandin's office, but it is in a building with three or four entrances, and therefore rather difficult to watch. We watched Walsh's letters in the post-office. I got authority from the Attorney-General to employ some detectives, and I did employ them, and we followed Walsh very carefully. We tracked a letter in Walsh's handwriting, postmarked at St. Catherines, Canada, just about the day the Kellogg case was to come up. While I believed it to be a "stall," I thought it was only proper to send somebody to St. Catherines to see whether Walsh was there, or had been there, and I did so, but could not find evidence that he had been there. I have no doubt at all that he has been at all times in New York, or nearer to New York than that. I have tried earnestly to find him. I am told that at some particular time he rode up town in a car on the elevated road in which I was. All I can say is that I did not see him. And the reason why I can say that is that at one time I had a consultation with Mr. Merrick, in which I suggested to him that there was a provision of the Revised Statutes under which Walsh could be arrested (I think it is section 827). Mr. Merrick was not familiar with the provision. When I came over here the following week, we consulted with the Attorney-General, and determined to apply for process for the arrest of Walsh. I made the affidavit, and went before Judge Wylie and got a warrant for the arrest. We kept it so secret that we did not even let the clerk's office know anything about it. We had to go there to get the seal attached, but the paper was turned down so that they could not know what it was. The papers were deposited with the marshal to be kept as Judge Wylie's personal property, and that warrant was taken to New York. Upon that, I procured a warrant to be issued; that is, I procured it, as the saying is, to be "backed," and a commissioner's warrant to be issued for the arrest of Walsh, and I got duplicates of them and had them in the hands of two or three people, to be served upon Mr. Walsh, if he could be found; but all my efforts to get them served were vain. Now, if I had ever seen him in the car, I think that, knowing of the existence of the process for his arrest, I should have had very little hesitation in having him arrested, and my relations to the New York police are such (though that statement may be regarded as somewhat ambiguous) that I think I could have got a policeman to act in the case without having the warrant in his possession, upon my assurance that it had been issued. The fact is we made an earnest and strennous effort to find Walsh, and have continued to make such efforts, but have been unable to find him. We found Mr. Gibson in communication with him, and in possession of his letters, and also Mr. Charles F. MacLean. Finally I wrote to the Attorney-General that in my opinion, as we had no clew in New York, the way was to begin from here, and to look out for Gibson; and after that time whatever was done with reference to searching for Walsh was done from here. I am told (I do not know whether it is true) that the committee, or some committee of the House, were very well satisfied that they could find him, and took a little hand at the business, but did not succeed. I employed Pinkerton's men in New York, and I also employed a private detective, whom I had personally employed previously in other matters, who was very

devoted to me, and in whom I had great confidence. That is all I can say about that. Mr. Walsh addressed various communications to the President and to other people, pitching into everybody and everything. Those communications have led to various answers of mine. I have got them here, but I do not suppose the committee cares to encumber the record with them.

Q. I believe you have stated that, so far as you know, there was never any condition proposed or implied in reference to the payment of that claim of Walsh's provided he would appear as a witness for the Government?-A. No, sir; on the contrary, very decidedly not. The officers of the Post-Office Department were of opinion that Mr. Walsh in the first place had no claim, and in the second place that if he had a claim had released it when he got the other settlement. However, the paper that was taken from him as a release did not clearly cover it. Walsh went into the Court of Claims, and he had this plausible ground there, that the fines in his case having been remitted on the ground that his becoming a failing contractor was caused by the fault of the Government officers, therefore he was not a failing contractor by any act of his own, and was consequently entitled to this pay. He said in substance, "My contract was not taken away through any fault of mine; it was taken away because of the wrongful action of the officers of the Government, and therefore I am entitled to this month's extra pay." That was the plausible way in which the claim was put in the Court of Claims. All that was ever said to me on that subject-I will not say that it was said to him, but I have understood it was said—was that the Government would facilitate getting a decision on the subject. Mr. Walsh made various claims, and demanded various payments. For instance I have got here a letter of his dated New York, October 26, 1882, in which he says:

MY DEAR SIR: You will oblige me by directing payment to me of the $350 for which I submitted to you a voucher in Washington.

This is what he calls the voucher:

United States, to John H. Walsh, Dr.

To services rendered in star-route cases

Q. Did you pay that?-A. No, sir.

$350

Q. What is the service for which that bill is made ?—A. I have not the remotest idea. I think the claim was for being in Washington here. Q. It is not paid yet?—A. No, sir.

Q. Has that claim been filed in the Department of Justice?-A. No, sir. This is simply a letter that Walsh wrote me.

Q. Is the bill made against the Government or against you individ ually ?—A. It is made out to the United States.

Q. Did he expect you to pay it ?-A. I do not know what he expected me to do about it.

Q. You are not paying bills of the United States?-A. No, sir; only the witnesses'.

You asked me if I put the papers in the Vinita and Las Vegas route before the grand jury. I have the papers here [producing a large pack

age of papers]. All these that I have here were before the grand jury. There are some other papers in another bundle which came in subsequently that were not before the grand jury. There were certain papers that preceded the contracts, bids, &c.

Q. Did I understand you to say that you read those papers before the grand jury, or that you just left them there?-A. Oh, I picked out the particular papers that we regarded as important and read them to the grand jury. For instance, here is Mr. Brady's letter, asking the removal of the postmaster at Vinita. Then I had a memorandum in which Inspector Shorty reported that there was no foundation for the charges against the postmaster there.

Q. What did Brady charge against the postmaster?-A. He charged that the postmaster had not made proper reports and various things of that sort. That reminds me that the witness we wanted, and who was missing, was J. C. Blythe. He was the removed postmaster.

Q. And the post-office inspector reported that the charges against the postmaster were not sustained?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. But still the postmaster was removed, was he not?-A. Well, if you ask me whether he was actually removed or not, I cannot tell you at this late day.

Q. It was stated in the brief that he was removed.-A. Then that statement is undoubtedly correct.

Q. Who was the First Assistant Postmaster-General at that time?— A. Mr. Tyner. Here is the letter of Blythe, the postmaster at Vinita, dated Vinita, I. T., January 12, 1879, and addressed to Hon. D. M. Key, Postmaster-General, Washington, D. C.

In this letter Mr. Blythe says:

I have the honor to call your attention to route 32024 from this office to Las Vegas, N. Mex., on which service commenced October 1, 1878, 720 miles, once per week and return, increased to three times per week and return, commencing December 1, 1878. That, in my opinion, is wholly superfluous and a burden to the Department for the following reasons: First, that during the whole distance, 720 miles, there are only two intermediate offices, and they of minor importance, and can be easier supplied. Second, that there is no country through which the route passes-wilderness and desertto build up the offices, perhaps two neighborhoods. Third, that during the time I have not as yet received to exceed perhaps fifty letters and half a dozen papers since the route was established and went into operation. Fourth, that the contractor is not complying with the terms of the contract.

Q. Vinita is near the eastern border of the Indian Territory, near the Arkansas line?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Las Vegas is near the center of New Mexico?-A. It is some distance into New Mexico. The route runs across what is known as the Panhandle of Texas.

Q. At that time the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé Railroad had been completed to Pueblo, had it not?-A. I believe it had been completed part of the way there, because I remember that there was at some time a question about supplying those places by a drop from the line above. Here is the report of the post-office inspector that the route was unnecessary, and here are the papers which show that the postmaster was removed, the letter of removal "for cause," and the report of Inspector Shorty, that "an investigation of the above charges resulted in finding them not sustained in any particular whatever."

Q. Then the "cause" for which Postmaster Blythe was removed was that he faithfully discharged his duty?-A. That seems to have been it. Q. Vinita is on the line of the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad,

which runs through the eastern part of the Indian Territory, and it must be a place of some importance?-A. Yes. It appeared among the complaints, as I remember, that formerly Darlington used to get its mail by a "drop" from the railroad, and got it satisfactorily; but, for the purpose of getting some post-offices on to this route, it was ordered that the Vinita mail should go that way, and then they never got it satisfactorily. There was a row about it, and an agent went out there, and found that all that was necessary to remedy the trouble was to order the Vinita mail back on to the drop, and when that was done, it came all right.

Q. Was this map which you have here, exhibited to the grand jury ?— A. I do not undertake to say that it was. My impression is that there was a smaller sketch shown to the grand jury.

The following is the map referred to:

The WITNESS. Now, with reference to the question of compensation of counsel, as bearing upon that question, I learn that some of this correspondence has been sent in reply to an inquiry from the Senate, and I may perhaps be permitted to put in one or two letters that passed on that subject between Mr. Brewster and myself. Here is a letter from Mr. Brewster:

706 WALNUT STREET, Philadelphia, October 24, 1881.

MY DEAR SIR: Since you were here I have been reflecting upon the whole of our interview about the star-route cases, and have concluded to submit my thoughts to you by this letter. It was my impression and hope that Mr. MacVeagh would continue as the Attorney-General till December, or, if possible, while the star-route prosecutions were pending. Indeed, as I told you in my interview with him, I dissuaded him from leaving his position, and urged him to continue to be the AttorneyGeneral if it might be acceptable to the President. He told me that he must leave, but that he would remain till December, or till after Congress would meet. Now, by a series of uncontradicted publications it is given out that Mr. MacVeagh will leave in a day or so and some other gentleman appointed to his office.

If that is to be so, I fear we will not be able to adjust with him the measure of our compensation as you suggested we must, and a stranger, not understanding the case and its necessities as Mr. MacVeagh certainly does understand them, will be our paymaster, and we will have difficulty in settling our compensation. What, then, shall we do?

It is plain that much time at home and at Washington away from our homes must be given to the preparation, argument, and trial of these cases; indeed, much of this has been given by you, and some study and labor by myself. I cannot consent to take all of this severe labor without some definite understanding with those in authority. My affairs here occupy all of my time, and I look forward with considerable misgivings to the propriety of my continuing in the cases, as a burden it will not be prudent for me to take up.

At any rate it is as plain as you said when you introduced the subject to me that we must have our fees settled and agreed on now so that we may have some understanding that will enable us to know if we are to be properly provided for and if not so we can withdraw in time to permit those in charge of the cases to supply others instead of you and myself if either of us will think proper to surrender our briefs and withdraw before it is too late.

Had Mr. MacVeagh been here and called to see me as he said he would when I last saw him in Washington I would, as you requested me to do, have presented this matter to him to take an early opportunity to see us together and enter into some stipu lation with us, determining the compensation that must be paid us now and hereafter. Your voluntary introduction of this subject to me, and your request that I would speak of it to Mr. MacVeagh when I next saw him, has induced me to write you about it now.

I foresee trouble and dissatisfaction before us if we do not act now. You can probably learn if it is true that Mr. MacVeagh is now to leave the office and if a successor will be soon named.

It seems to me that we must act promptly with Mr. McVeagh and obtain his action in the matter.

For my part, the more I feel the presence of my affairs here, and the more I consider

the prospect of absence from home and the amount of labor I must give to these cases at home and at Washington, so as to do my full duty, a sense of hesitation as to my remaining in them presents itself plainly to my mind.

I ain, sir, truly with great respect, your obedient servant,

Col. GEORGE BLISS,

BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER.

Attorney, counselor at law, &c., Pine and Nassau Streets, New York City.

It was after this letter that we got at Mr. MacVeagh. On the 28th of October, Mr. Brewster transmitted to me the letter which I have introduced here, which he had written to Mr. MacVeagh, asking the payment of $2,500, and stating the terms, and informed me that they had been acceded to. I merely refer to that to show that we at any rate intended to have a definite arrangement about compensation, and supposed we had got it. As bearing upon the same point, I may mention that Mr. Brewster, writing me from Washington when it was supposed that Mr. Phillips was called upon to do something, used this language, "I will not incur expenses and turn my back on my home and affairs to be hereafter higgled with and probably maltreated and slighted. That I will not bear." I believe I know nothing more that you have not got out of me in relation to the star-route cases.

THE OTTMAN CASE.

Q. In reference to the Ottman case, have you any paper that you desire to lay before the committee, in addition to the report which you made to the Attorney-General, and which is already in evidence?—A. I do not know that I have. I desire, however, to submit myself to examination in reference to that matter.

Q. I did not know but that you had some statement that you were prepared to make about that case.-A. No; I have prepared no statement, but I would like to answer any questions that the committee desire to ask.

Q. Did you understand at that time that the same rule of evidence applied in a civil suit against Ottman to recover the money stolen that would govern in a criminal prosecution?-A. Probably not absolutely the same rule of evidence. A jury undoubtedly has a right to act upon less convincing evidence in a civil than in a criminal suit, but it was a question of the general nature of the evidence.

Q. Who first called your attention to the Ottman case?-A. The Ott man case, as I recollect it, was first called to my attention one morning at the Arlington Hotel. After breakfast I was in the office of the hotel, and Mr. Crowley came to me, and addressed me, and asked me, I think, whether I was going to see Mr. Brewster that day. I think I told him that I was not, and inquired why he had asked. He said that Mr. Brewster had before him a case which he (Crowley) wanted him to act upon. I asked what the case was. He said it was a case of which he gave the name," the Ottman case," and that he had applied to Colonel Corkhill in connection with it, but that Colonel Corkhill had been counsel in the case, and could not act, and had referred the matter to the Attorney-General, and that the case was before the Attorney-General, and Mr. Crowley wanted to know if I would not speak to the AttorneyGeneral and try to get him to act upon it in some way. I never had heard of the Ottman case. I remember that I took down the name "Ottman" on a slip of paper. I do not know whether it was that day or not, but very soon after this conversation I spoke to the AttorneyGeneral about it. I was in the habit of seeing the Attorney-General