was alleged to have been stolen from the Government, and where the Government compromised the case by taking a portion of the alleged stolen property or money, giving another portion to the defendant or the person charged with the theft?-A. I don't know that I can. I have known of the Government doing things which were very much akin to I have known of the Government making seizures of goods and releasing a part of them. Q. But in those cases the Government never claimed to own the goods?-A. Yes; it claimed to own them because the moment smuggled goods are seized they are forfeited to the Government. Q. Yes; but the parties originally had the bona fide ownership of the goods; but here is a case where the money in controversy was either the property of the Government or it was not. Either that money was stolen from the Government or it belonged to Ottman, and the Government had no right whatever to it-is not that correct?-A. Yes. Q. Now, has it not been the universal practice in such cases for the Government to rest its claim upon the verdict of the jury or the court. in a civil suit?—A. I don't know whether that has or has not been the universal practice. Q. Of course you realize the fact that it is much more difficult to make the required proof in a criminal case than in a civil suit ?-A. It is more difficult, and in some classes of cases much more difficult. But in other cases I don't know that it is much more difficult. It is much more difficult to prove a murder so as to justify a verdict of guilty than it is to recover damages for assault and battery, though both prosecutions may arise out of the same fact. But, on the other hand, where you are going for money, and where in either case, civil or criminal, the question turns upon the identity of the money, negotiable Treasury notes which are in circulation, while it is undoubtedly more difficult to get a verdict in the criminal case, I do not think it is much more difficult. You have got to make the evidence pretty clear and strong to get a verdict in either case. Q. Ottman, in this case, was a saloon-keeper, I believe?-A. I understood that he was. Q. He was known not to be a man of large wealth, and not likely to have much ready money-$40,000 or $50,000?-A. Upon that point let me say that it did appear that there was one transaction where he had $10,000 or $12,000 available to make a purchase. Q. But he could account for that money and tell where he got it?— A. I don't know whether he could or not. Q. But suppose he had insisted that this money belonged to him, would it not have been incumbent upon him to account for it and to show how he had become possessed of it?-A. I think he would have had to account for it, but if Mr. Ottman were a rascal I felt that he would be able to account for it. Q. Was not the amount that was seized in this city, over $19,000, found concealed in such a manner as to indicate that he had not become possessed of it in any legitimate way?-A. I have no question about that. My recollection is that the money was put into a box and placed as a special deposit in the bank at Alexandria. There was a deposit there to Ottman's credit, and then he had this special deposit in this box, and among his suspicious transactions was the hiring of a negro about the jail to go down to Alexandria and get this box from the bank. All this showed that if those were not the proceeds of the Treasury robbery Mr. Ottman had probably got them under such circumstances that he did not want them to be traced or followed. instead of fours there would be twos between. The officer swore distinetly 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 hon estly 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 juryman, 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 decided 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. 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 a case 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 recov ered 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 was alleged to have been stolen from the Government, and where the Government compromised the case by taking a portion of the alleged stolen property or money, giving another portion to the defendant or the person charged with the theft?-A. I don't know that I can. I have known of the Government doing things which were very much akin to that. I have known of the Government making seizures of goods and releasing a part of them. Q. But in those cases the Government never claimed to own the goods?-A. Yes; it claimed to own them because the moment smuggled goods are seized they are forfeited to the Government. Q. Yes; but the parties originally had the bona fide ownership of the goods; but here is a case where the money in controversy was either the property of the Government or it was not. Either that money was stolen from the Government or it belonged to Ottman, and the Government had no right whatever to it-is not that correct?-A. Yes. Q. Now, has it not been the universal practice in such cases for the Government to rest its claim upon the verdict of the jury or the court in a civil suit?-A. I don't know whether that has or has not been the universal practice. Q. Of course you realize the fact that it is much more difficult to make the required proof in a criminal case than in a civil suit ?-A. It is more difficult, and in some classes of cases much more difficult. But in other cases I don't know that it is much more difficult. It is much more difficult to prove a murder so as to justify a verdict of guilty than it is to recover damages for assault and battery, though both prosecutions may arise out of the same fact. But, on the other hand, where you are going for money, and where in either case, civil or criminal, the question turns upon the identity of the money, negotiable Treasury notes which are in circulation, while it is undoubtedly more difficult to get a verdict in the criminal case, I do not think it is much more difficult. You have got to make the evidence pretty clear and strong to get a verdict in either case. Q. Ottman, in this case, was a saloon-keeper, I believe?—A. I understood that he was. Q. He was known not to be a man of large wealth, and not likely to have much ready money-$40,000 or $50,000?-A. Upon that point let me say that it did appear that there was one transaction where he had $10,000 or $12,000 available to make a purchase. Q. But he could account for that money and tell where he got it ?— A. I don't know whether he could or not. Q. But suppose he had insisted that this money belonged to him, Would it not have been incumbent upon him to account for it and to show how he had become possessed of it?-A. I think he would have had to account for it, but if Mr. Ottman were a rascal I felt that he would be able to account for it. Q. Was not the amount that was seized in this city, over $19,000, found concealed in such a manner as to indicate that he had not become Possessed of it in any legitimate way?-A. I have no question about that. My recollection is that the money was put into a box and placed as a special deposit in the bank at Alexandria. There was a deposit there to Ottman's credit, and then he had this special deposit in this box, and among his suspicious transactions was the hiring of a negro about the jail to go down to Alexandria and get this box from the bank. All this showed that if those were not the proceeds of the Treasury robbery Mr. Ottman had probably got them under such circumstances that he did not want them to be traced or followed. Q. Was there not proof of the fact that he was working off those bills?— A. To show how completely a gentleman may be in error in his recollection (I speak after having read over again the stenographer's minutes of the trial since this inquiry has been going on here), Mr. Wells testified that up at Saratoga, N. Y., there was a bill passed of that denomination. The witness from Saratoga said distinctly that he did not remember anything at all about the denomination of the money passed there; yet Mr. Wells gave you a different account of that evidence, and gave it, of course, in perfect good faith. He also told you that they proved the passing of some of this money at Worcester, Mass. Now, the witness from Worcester said distinctly, "I cannot identify the man ["Peg-leg" Brown] as the man from whom I got it." The identification in those cases was not satisfactory. There had been dealings with Brown. Brown had gone to Saratoga, and had bought some drafts and made some remittances from there, but it did not appear in evidence that they were bought with $500 notes. Mr. Wells was wrong about that. It did appear also that Brown was there at Saratoga; that the races were going on; that there was some betting upon the races, of course; and therefore there was a theory on which that money transaction could be explained. It appeared that there had been put into one Boughton's hands six or eight or ten thousand dollars in $500 bills, and there were certain $500 bills undoubtedly that were traced directly to Ottman. At least, that is my recollection. I notice that there must have been a desire at some time in this examination on the part of some member of the committee to make Mr. Cook say, and finally perhaps he was made to say, that the Treasury clerks recognized the denomination of the bills as found; and, at another stage, that the envelope in which the bills were put up was found. All I have to say about that—and I say it after reading the testimony on the trials, and I shall be happy to give the committee the references if necessary-all I have to say about it is, that it appeared positively from the evidence on the trial that when the bills were found there was no envelope. If there had been an envelope it had been destroyed or had disappeared; the bills were simply strapped up. And as to the recognition of the bills, there was only one witness, I think, a Mr. Whitney, from the Treasury Department, who had any recollection of the money, and Mr. Whitney's only recollection was that among the bills that went into the stolen packages were some that were in the seven thousands. These packages contained some bills in fours and fives, and some in sixes and sevens-quite a number in sevens. Then, again (it is unimportant, probably, but I merely call attention to it as showing the fallibility of recollection), Mr. Wells told you that the package had passed along among the people in the Treas ury, and that Halleck was the fourth man to who it had been passed, and that it never was seen after it came to him. Now, in point of fact Halleck was the first man; his seal was put upon it and then it passed immediately on. In the next place, Mr. Wells told you that it was possible for somebody upon the outside to have reached over and stolen that money. I could refer you to passages in the testimony on the two trials where it is stated affirmatively that it was not possible to do that, but it is sufficient to say that Halleck himself testifies that when the mythical Gates told him that he had taken the money in that way, he, Halleck, at once said to him, "That is too thin; that would not work;" and it appears affirmatively that this was the first package put up, that they were piled quite high upon the table, and that this was one of the under packages, the others being piled on top of it. As to Gates, it does not make any difference whether he existed or not. I say he did not. Upon that point, Mr. Wells placed a good deal of reliance upon the fact that there was a memorandum found on Ottman which he said was signed C. Gates. In fact, there was not any such memorandum found. There was a little slip of paper which had upon it a "C" and something that you could make out as "G." It did not relate at all to a division, although it related to money. Halleck's statement as to Gates was this: that the money had been stolen; that all the people in sight were under suspicion including himself; that he was in a drinking saloon, not Ottman's, and that somebody whom he had never seen before approached him and asked if he was Halleck, employed in the Treasury Department; that he said he was; whereupon this person told him that his name was Gates, and said, "Now if I can turn up that money or tell you where it is, will you divide?" Halleck said that without a moment's hesitation he answered that he would. On cross-examination he was compelled to admit that at the time of this alleged interview he knew he was under suspicion, and that he thought every man was a detective upon him, and he was unable to state any reason why, under such circumstances, he so promptly "gave himself away" in this manner. He went on to say that Gates took him into a closet in this drinking saloon and pointed up on top and showed him there one $500 bill as a specimen; that subsequently it was taken down; that then Gates told him that the money was deposited in the water-closet in the Treasury Department; that he, Gates, would not bring it away, and that he, Halleck, would not bring it away, because it would cause suspicion, but that Halleck put his hand down and felt something like money under the seat, and felt the strap on the package, which convinced him that the money was there; that he went away to get some body to get it out, and that he went and talked with Ottman; that Halleck went into one of the closets and took this money out and found a memorandum, which he destroyed, and went into the next water-closet and turned around towards Ottman, and that Ottman pulled the package out and took it away; that he, Halleck, never saw it afterwards; that he did see Gates once or twice afterwards, and that he and Ottman proceeded incontinently and promptly to cheat Gates out of his share and gave him no portion of it. Halleck could not name any person who had ever seen this "Gates" or knew where he lived. He did say, on cross-examination, that he had heard of one man who knew him, and then he explained that he had taken "Gates" into a soda water saloon, and that this man had served them, but did not know that that was Gates. Halleck had previously made several confessions, in which he had admitted that he had stolen the money himself; and it is a remarkable thing, in view of the testimony of Mr. Wells here the other day, that he expressed the opinion upon the first trial in his address to the jury that Halleck was himself a thief. I don't suppose it makes any differ. ence as to the propriety of the settlement whether "Gates" existed or did not exist, but I am entirely convinced from the evidence, and so was Mr. Jere. Wilson, who was the brains of the prosecution, that "Gates" did not, in fact, exist, and that Halleck himself stole the money. Q. Halleck stole the money and the Government lost the money ?— A. The Government lost the money and Halleck stole it. I have no question about it. However, if I were acting as a juryman and dealing with a man's property or money, I believe I could not have found such a verdict on the evidence. Still, my belief is that that was the Government's money which was found in Ottman's possession. Q. Something was said in your report about the bona fides of the other |