Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

lawyers and those fit for the offices. Even with the dignity and position of judge in this district it is always difficult to find a proper man for the place, and the selection is always and necessarily confined to those having a private income. With district attorney and marshal the difficulty would be greater to get good men for inadequate salaries—that is, salaries inadequate as rates prevail here. An efficient and competent district attorney saves to the Government here tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year by the energy and ability with which he defends the thousands of suits which in effect settle the rates of duty to be exacted throughout the country in millions of dollars' worth of importations.

When legislating on this subject some provision ought to be made as to the bailiffs and officers attending upon courts. There are three and four terms or branches of the courts in session here nine or ten months in the year. The attending officers are now paid inadequate sums, and even that under some device to comply in form with the law.

While writing, may I avail myself of the opportunity to make an explanation, which I desire should be brought to Mr. Fyan's attention, and which should perhaps go in some form into the record.

Mr. Fyan asked me if I had ever said that I was satisfied with the action of the grand jury or that I was only dissatisfied as to one case, and I answered I had not. While this is strictly correct, I have an indefinite impression that in conversation with one or more of the jurymen, who were apparently desirous of talking on the subject, I did say that I had no right to complain of their action, though I could not agree with their judgment, meaning that I did not share in some current complaints as to undue influence. I think, also, that on one occasion when a jurymau referred to the Soledad and Newhall route, on which I thought we had failed, I did say in substance, "We'll accept your action as to all the others; I can't see the wisdom of your course as to one route," which I named; I cannot say whether it was Fargo and Pembina or Wells and Hamilton. As to all this my recollection is indefinite; I was in an embarrassing position with the jurymen; I had no evidence of improper influences or motives, yet I dissented from their action, and therefore when any of them spoke to me I slid over" the matter easily.

Mr. Fyan also asked me as to a witness named Parrish, whom he connected with a. Salisbury route. I do not remember to have ever heard of him in connection with any route, but Mr. Brewster Cameron informs me that a man named Parrish was connected with the Vinita and Las Vegas ronte, which was known as a Parker route, not; a Salisbury. I know nothing about it, however, but Mr. Cameron can doubtless tell you.

Your obedient servant,

Hon. Wм. M. SPRINGER,

GEORGE BLISS.

Chairman.

WASHINGTON, May 7, 1884.

The following letter from Mr. George Bliss was received and ordered to be inserted in the record:

160 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, May 1, 1884. DEAR SIR: In returning the proof of my testimony corrected I ought, perhaps, to call your attention to the fact that while iny answer to the second on page 300 is correet, I ought, perhaps, to say that the Attorney-General when deciding that Mr. Kellogg should be prosecuted directed that the case should not be proceeded with until he ceased to be Senator. My answer, "No human being", &c., is so much broader than the question that I have thought I ought to mention this fact, lest it might appear that I misled you.

Your obedient servant,

[blocks in formation]

Question. Please state your residence and occupation.-Answer. I reside at 913 E street N. W., in this city. My occupation is that of an independent detective.

Q. State whether at any time you were employed by any of the attor

[ocr errors]

treated on that point. I found, therefore, that Halleck was not a very available witness in any form. matter. Mr. Wells expressed the opinion that he could succeed in the I was a good deal bothered about 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 proceeding 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 Alexan

dria?" 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. racket about it some time or other. It is going to come upon you practiIt presents a very serious question. There will be a cally, 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. talked it over, and he said that he had decided to authorize me to see A day or two afterwards I went in and we whether that arrangement could be made. casion Mr. Brewster said, when I told him that there would be criticism I remember that on that ocof 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 participation 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 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 person 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 go ing 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.

« AnteriorContinuar »