nearly every day. It was rather a request of his that I should do so. He was green in his office. He did not know very much about the details of the office, and he had not a great deal of confidence in many of the subordinates about him.

Q. Those were subordinates that he had inherited from his predecessor?-A. Yes, sir; he did not know much about the details of the office, and I knew a good deal about the Department. At any rate, within a short time after Mr. Crowley spoke to me, quite likely the same day, I said to Mr. Brewster, "I have been asked to speak to you about the Ottman case," and I pulled out this slip on which I had written the name and asked him about the matter. He manifested some little knowledge of the case, though I think he knew nothing of the details, and he referred to the fact that it had been referred there by Mr. Corkhill. That was at a period when we all distrusted Mr. Corkhill. The Attorney-General said he must refer the case to somebody, and asked me to suggest a person. I told him I did not know anybody here to suggest, and then he asked me if I would not oblige him by inquiring around and ascertaining who was a fit person, and I did make some inquiry. I looked first to see about gentlemen who had been in the case. I found that one of them was Jere Wilson, but he seemed not to be available, because he was just then fighting against the Government in the star-route cases, and while he was not manifesting a very hostile spirit, some of his associate counsel were indulging in a good many personalities against Mr. Brewster and the other offcers of the Government. I found that Mr. Totten had been suggested, or I thought of him, but he was put aside for the same reason. The matter was talked over all round, but I could not find anybody I could well recommend. I thought of Mr. Nathaniel Wilson, and I think I mentioned him to the Attorney-General, but when I went back to the Department I stated some reason which had been suggested, or which had occurred to me, why Mr. Nathaniel Wilson was not available. As I have said, I made inquiry, and several names were suggested and rejected. I think there were one or two interviews on the subject, though I won't be certain about that, and then it was somehow or other sug gested that I should undertake the investigation of the case. I think Mr. Brewster suggested it himself, or at any rate said something that implied a wish on his part that I should do so. I told him I would undertake the investigation, but that I could not consent to be paid for it; that I would do it as a matter of personal favor to him. He said he did not see any reason why I should not be paid. I said that I was in the star-route cases, and I did not think I ought to be paid for this matter, and I went on. I supposed at the time that it was an investigation which would occupy perhaps an hour or two. I saw Mr. Crowley and told him the case had been referred to me. I do not think Mr. Crowley entirely liked it. I think his view was this: That if my report was adverse to him, my relations to the Attorney-General were such that Mr. Brewster would not be likely to overrule my report, whereas he (Crowley) would perhaps have two chances if the case was referred to somebody else.

Q. Did Mr. Crowley suggest that?-A. No, he did not suggest it; but something occurred which indicated that Mr. Crowley did not entirely like the reference to me. I applied for the evidence. I found that the district attorney had none. It resulted in that letter being written, which is in evidence here, referring the matter to me. That was carrying out a previous verbal understanding. I then set to work to find out what the facts were in the case, but I could not find any evidence.

At first, I remember, I got hold of the error book in the case of Halleck, who had been himself tried and convicted, and there had been an appeal and an error book made up, but after a while Mr. Crowley brought ine a large bundle of evidence taken on the two trials. The evidence on the first trial was, I think, absolutely complete-the stenographer's minutes-but I think there was some break in the record of the evidence on the second trial, though not very much. The first thing I did was to sit down and read that evidence through. It took me eight hours of steady reading to read the stenographic report of the evidence on the two trials. I found that I had got into a larger job than I had anticipated. After reading the stenographer's minutes I commenced a pilgrimage around among the different lawyers who had been concerned in the case, and after that I began to see that I was getting into pretty deep water, and I wished I was out of it. I was confronted with this condition of things: I have always said, and I remember I said, in connection with this matter, to the Attorney-General, that I considered there was as much dishonesty in the Government or anybody else not paying a claim which it did owe as there was in paying one which it did not owe, and I said that this seemed to me to be a case akin to that. The Government claimed that the money belonged to it; but it had tried in two trials, one in 1876 and the other in 1877, to establish that fact, and had failed utterly, and yet the evidence satisfied my mind morally that this was really the Government's money. I could not resist that conviction, I have no doubt about it now. But the Government had tried twice over to establish the fact, and had failed. Once they had got six jurors, I think, or perhaps it was five, and the other time eleven against them, and the twelfth man was not even for them. He said he would not Vote "guilty," and he would not vote "not guilty." He seemed to go upon the idea that they perhaps could find more evidence some time or other. I went to work to make inquiry also as to the character of the jurors, to ascertain whether they were a relic of the old time when it was said that juries here were "fixed." I found that there were among the jurymen several who were spoken of as entirely reputable and unimpeachable men, and, under the circumstances, I was a good deal bothered. I did not think the Government ought to give up that money, and yet I did not think they had any right to retain it without establishing their claim to it. I remembered also what I think has appeared in evidence here, that on three occasions Ottman's counsel had applied to the court to have the case proceeded with.

Q. The civil suits or the criminal suits?-A. Criminal suit.

Q. Was there any application on his part to have the civil suit pressed? -A. I don't know of any. I found that all proceedings had rested from the spring of 1877; that Mr. Wells, who had been district attor ney in charge of the case, had remained in office for nearly three years after that, but had done nothing about the case, and I found all the counsel agreeing that there was no prospect of success in a criminal suit. Everybody appeared to agree upon that. I found, also, that Mr. Halleck, the chief witness, had gone West, and had gone away feeling dissatisfied with the officers of the Government-feeling that they had not kept faith with him. He had testified, under an agreement with Mr. Taft, the Attorney-General, which they were compelled, after a good deal of a struggle, to produce in court, promising immunity to him, and it was claimed that that immunity could only be given, under the terms of the promise, in case he testified in a manner satisfactory to the prosecution. At any rate, they had discharged him on his own recognizance, but they had never entered a nolle, and Halleck felt badly

treated on that point. I found, therefore, that Halleck was not a very available witness in any form. I was a good deal bothered about the matter. Mr. Wells expressed the opinion that he could succeed in the civil suit in establishing the claim of the Government to the $12,500 (I think it was) which was on deposit in the bank at Alexandria. There was that amount of money on deposit, and as to a portion of it there was claimed to be evidence that it was derived from five-hundred-dollar bills, and as the money stolen from the Treasury was in bills of that denomination, it was claimed that this money in Alexandri, was the proceeds of the robbery. I think there was some portion of the deposit that could not be so identified. At all events, there was $12,700 there, and the suit was a proceeding in equity without a jury, and Mr. Wells suggested that the claim of the Government could be established. Mr. Wells is wrong in saying that there was any conversation between him and me with reference to the propriety of a compromise. The fact is that the first idea of a compromise that came into my mind was consequent upon his suggesting that that $12,500 could be got by a proceed. ing outside of a jury trial. I decided that I would make a report upon the case-very much such a report as I finally did make; but after I had got ready to make it, and had got it perhaps drafted, I told Mr. Crowley that I was going to report that the money belonged to the Government; that it was very embarrassing, and that I was going to leave the thing substantially as it was; that I was not going to express an opinion as to what should be done about it. He sat down and undertook to argue that the Government could not establish its claim. I simmered it down finally to the point that we could establish the claim to the money in Alexandria. He said we could not, but finally I said to him, "Will you make a proposition to pay over the money at Alexandria?" He said he would not; he refused to do it; he said he would have the whole or none. "Very well, then," said I, "I will report against you." He then said, finally, that he was going to send for Ottman to come over and see about it. I told him I was not going to delay my report on that account, and I put in the report as it was. I went to Mr. Brewster with it. He asked me to state its contents, in general terms, and I did so. I think it would not have required much urgency to have induced him to approve the report on the spot, simply on looking it over and my reading it to him, but I said to him, "Now, Mr. Attorney-General, you want to consider that. It presents a very serious question. There will be a racket about it some time or other. It is going to come upon you practically, and these are the facts." He said I was right, and he would think it over. Then, either at that interview or at a subsequent one, I went a little into detail as to the evidence (I had not gone into detail in the report), and called his attention to various things that had occurred to me in connection with the case. A day or two afterwards I went in and we talked it over, and he said that he had decided to authorize me to see whether that arrangement could be made. I remember that on that occasion Mr. Brewster said, when I told him that there would be criticism of this matter, and that the public probably would not understand the giving up of money of which the Government claimed to be the owner, although the claim could not be established-I remember that he said that he had taken up the office with honor and that he meant to lay it down with honor, and that he should not have the approbation of his own conscience if, for fear of criticism, he refused to do anything which it seemed to him was right, and that he did not think it was right for the Government to sit there and hold on to this money which they had tried to establish a claim to and had failed. Then he authorized me to

make this negotiation. Mr. Crowley brought Ottman here. Ottman got up very much on his high horse, and at first would not agree to any thing of the sort. I saw him for a few moments. Afterwards, either later in the same day, or subsequently, they came to me and said they would agree to the arrangement; but they wanted that I should agree to take the lawsuit practically at Alexandria, for there was a suit there for the $12,500. That was a suit based upon the ground that there was a deposit to Ottman's credit and that the money out of which that deposit was made was the proceeds of these stolen bills, but the bank had issued a certificate of deposit for the amount, and that certificate had passed, subsequent to the arrest, into the hands of Matt. Carpenter, and he had passed it over to Russell Sage. I said, "No, that won't do. There will be a fight there, and I do not know how far they may come in, and I won't do that. You shall pay the Government that amount out of this other money which is here in Washington, and you may have your litigation with Matt. Carpenter's estate and with Mr. Sage." On that we differed for a while, and———

Q. You knew that that certificate was passed to Mr. Carpenter for fees that he had earned in defending Ottman?-A. I do not know whether I knew that or not. In fact, I never knew it; but I assumed it to be so. Then, I went on and made that statement, and reported it to the Attorney-General, and was authorized to carry it out, and did carry it out.

Q. Was it your opinion that in order to succeed in the civil suit it would be incumbent on the Government to prove Ottman's guilty par ticipation in the receipt of the money?-A. It was my opinion that if Ottman had innocently received the money, and that money had been changed innocently into any other form, it could not be followed into that form; but that if the specific thing stolen could be traced, whether Ottman had got it in good faith or in bad faith, it could, I supposed, be seized; but the trouble in the case was that, in my opinion, the specific thing stolen could not be followed. All the evidence there was on the subject was the evidence of one man in the Treasury Department, that some bills put up in that package which was stolen were in the numbers of seven thousands. Of the series to which those bills belonged, there were some twenty-eight millions outstanding, and there were a hundred million and odd, I think, of that sort of notes, only that the series differed. They were issuing, at the time of the theft, bills which were in the current numbers of about forty-six thousand or forty-seven thousand. Now, the bills that were put up at that time were bills that had been issued once, and had in some form come back to the Department, and they took those bills in the six or seven thousands. And here again let me say that Mr. Wells is wrong in his testimony. The bills stolen did not follow in consecutive order, or in numbers which would be accounted for as not having changed their position. That was true of some of them; but there were breaks intervening. Mr. Wells's idea is that they, in making these bills, chopped down, making four at a time, and that they came in regular order; but that is wrong. You very often got a bill between the fours. And, moreover, the officer who took them from the vault and put them on the table swore distinctly not only that some of the bills had been previously issued, but that the bills put into that package had been disarranged.

Q. Was there not proof to show that a portion of this $19,000 that was in Washington was made up of bills which were in the continuous series of fours?-A. Some of them were in continuous numbers of fours, but, as I have said, there were some breaks between them. For instance,

instead of fours there would be twos between. The officer swore distinctly that they had been previously issued, and also that numbers of that size must have been issued as long as six or eight months before. Therefore those bills had probably been out of the Department somewhere six or eight months, and they had subsequently come back. Now, there was no reason why they might not have been passed honestly into Ottman's hands, even if they had been kept together. That was the argument used, but, of course, I did not believe that the fact was so.

Q. You believed, from the evidence in the case, that those were the actual bills stolen-A. I did form that opinion; and yet, as a jury man, I would not have found a verdict of guilty upon the evidence.

Q. If that was so, how did you arrive at the conclusion from reading the evidence that those were the actual bills stolen ?—A. Well, simply from the evidence; but if I had been asked, as a juryman, to find a verdict of guilty on that evidence, it would have been different. Q. Still, in the civil suit, would not the case have been decided upon the preponderance of evidence, and would not the evidence which de cided your mind probably have satisfied the average juryman ?—A. I think not. I thought that the evidence to establish the identity of the bills was not sufficient even for a civil suit.

Q. In a civil suit it was not necessary that the jury should believe the fact to be so beyond a reasonable doubt. It was only necessary that they should believe it?—A. Yes.

Q. As you believed it ?-A. Yes.

Q. Now, under those circumstances, believing from the reading of the evidence in the case that that was the actual money stolen from the Government, why did you not recommend the continuing of the civil suits and let the claim of the Government in the premises rest upon the result of the trial, whatever it might be?-A. As to believing that this was the Government's money, I formed the opinion from the evidence, as I read it, that there was not enough of it to lead to the obtaining of a verdict for the Government in a civil suit. I may have been wrong, but that was my judgment of the evidence.

Q. But you say the evidence did convince you?-A. You say it convinced me.

case

Q. You believed that the money belonged to the Government?—A. Yes; but if I had been acting under an oath as a juryman, in where I was to pass upon the property of an individual in that way, I do not think that I could have found such a verdict. I am bound to say, too, that there probably entered into my mind the consideration that I was perhaps a little better able to discard the doubts that would be thrown around the question than an average juryman would be. I came to the conclusion that there could not be a verdict for the Government recovered in the civil suit, and I did not find anybody who thought there could be one except Mr. Wells. Mr. Wells seemed to have some idea of that kind. There was no attachment suit pending which attached all this $19,000 in this District. The attachment had been practically worked out upon some land which proved to be mortgaged for all it was worth and upon a racing horse which ate itself up. Mr. Wells seemed to have some idea of extending the attachment so as to cover this property or some idea of bringing a new suit, but he was the only per son who suggested to me the idea that the money could be recovered, and there were reasons why I did not give to Mr. Wells' opinion the same weight that I gave to that of other gentlemen.

Q. Can you cite a precedent in which the property in controversy