William P. Kellogg, of Louisiana. Mr. Brewster, while fully appreciating the gravity of the situation, showed no hesitation, after reviewing the facts, in coming to a decision. He took the ground that his official oath required him to administer the laws impartially; that so long as the responsibility for their enforcement remained with him, he should recognize no distinctions of party, persons, or pecuniary condition; that where a man, honored by the poople with a high and sacred trust, stooped to take bribes, the crime should be followed by the more certain and speedy retribution. He ended by directing me to notify counsel that he accepted Mr. Price as a witness for the Government.

Early in 1882, Thomas A. McDevitt notified me that he was about to be forced to trial on the Philadelphia indictments. Believing that the implied faith of the Government could not and would not be broken, I wrote him to employ no lawyer, to go to no expense, and to rest in peace. However, the case was pressed. The Attorney-General refused to interfere. Feeling that my own honor was involved in the protection of a man who, at the invitation of the Government, had through me placed himself at its mercy, I appealed to District Attorney Valentine. This act of intervention, though severely censured, led to a postponement of the case.

In the fall of 1882, in the teeth of my remonstrances, McDevitt was tried, convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for one year.

At my solicitation, Messrs. Merrick, Bliss, and Ker recommended his pardon. Ex-Postmaster-General James placed on file a manful letter, assuming his full share of responsibility for the overtures which induced McDevitt to testify in August, 1881. Pained by the failure of efforts dictated solely by a sense of duty, on the 8th of February, 1883, I addressed a communication to his Excellency, the President, in which, after reciting the facts, I closed as follows:

In collecting the star-route evidence, I have performed an obscure but laborious work. At every step I have aimed to be true and faithful, not only to the Government, but also to the offenders who, through me, have been invited to trust that Government. I should never have listened to the story of McDevitt, had I not been previously assured by the high officials who directed my actions that he would be saved from harm, provided he acted with frankness and truthfulness. This, in my judgment, he did. That the case in which he might have been an invaluable witness was not brought to the front, arose from no default of his.

In the trial and conviction of McDevitt the solemn pledges of the Government have been broken. Let me, as one who has also been wronged in this matter, ask you to review the facts at an early day, and to exercise such clemency as your judgment and sense of justice may dictate.

The above appeal I forwarded through the Attorney-General, accompanied by the following letter:

WASHINGTON, D. C., February 11, 1883.

SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith a communication to His Excellency, the President, which I think should be forwarded through you. If for any reason you do not wish to transmit it, please return it to me.

At the indirect solicitation of a Cabinet officer, upon conditional promises of immunity, Thomas A. McDevitt came to Washington at his own expense, and under oath made statements which provisionally at least were accepted as satisfactory. He did nothing subsequently to forfeit his claims.

The innocent part borne by me in this and in one or two other transactions, which somewhat similarly have gone amiss, have caused me intolerable pain and humiliation, and have seriously embarrassed me in the performance of my official labors. While not primarily responsible for the pledges referred to, I cannot shirk my duties to the men who have been asked through me to trust the Government of the United States.

Extreme reluctance to obtrude my own personality, or otherwise make myself disagreeable, cannot absolve me from my obligations.

Very respectfully,

P. H. WOODWARD,

Post-Office Inspector.

Hon. BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER,

Attorney-General, &c.

In the treatment ac

McDevitt served the full term of the sentence. corded to him a grave mistake, in my judgment, was made. I have never for a moment, however, questioned the conscientiousness of the Attorney-General. As viewed by him the path of duty led in one direction; as viewed by me, in another. From association with Mr. Brewster in these cases, I have reached the conviction that his actions are guided by lofty sentiments of personal and professional honor.

The second star-route trial ended June 14, 1883. The evidence and argument fill four volumes, aggregating nearly six thousand pages. Notwithstanding the adverse verdict of the jury, the record will remain a permanent memorial of the thoroughness with which the case was prepared, and of the completeness with which the charges were proved. Some of the salutary results accomplished by the star-route prosecutions can hardly be appreciated by persons unfamiliar with the revolu tion it has helped to effect in the methods of the Post-Office Department. Since April, 1881, when the investigation began, two millions and a half a year have been lopped from the expenditures for star and steamboat service, notwithstanding an increase of mileage; an annual deficiency extinguished; letter postage reduced; and the Contract Bureau transformed into a model of purity and efficiency.

Could the honest and courageous officers at the head of the Department have succeeded in enforcing such far-reaching economies without the aid derived from the criminal proceedings? I think not. For years its corridors swarmed with professionals, each aiming to procure fat contracts, not by fair and lawful competition, but by unfair and irregular, not to say illegal, special orders. These men were upheld by all sorts of personal, political, and financial supports. The ordinary employé craved their favor and dreaded their enmity.

Yet, the power, once so firmly entrenched, has been completely dis lodged. The reform begun in the spring of 1881 has never halted in its successful march. In the ordinary course of affairs the departmental administration which attempted to clean the Augean stable would have been crushed. In this case the triumph of the honest and economic policy was made possible by the vigor of the prosecution.

We might go still farther and claim that the standard of public morals has been elevated. On the one hand, the people have grown more intolerant of wrong-doing; and on the other, men in positions of trust have grown more timorous about yielding to dishonest inclinations.

I have seen my associates give days and nights of anxious toil to this work; their labors, though ending in a disappointment, were not in vain.

WASHINGTON, April 11, 1884.

P. H. WOODWARD recalled and further examined.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. On yesterday you stated that Mr. Cook, in the interview with President Garfield, at which you and Postmaster-General James were present, made some statement with regard to the prosecution of exSenator Dorsey; please state all that was said upon that subject at that interview. Answer. Well, I only remember that he urged that immunity should be granted to Mr. Dorsey on the ground of his great services to the Republican party. The language in which it was put I don't remember, but the circumstances I very distinctly recall. I had said very little during this conversation, but at that I spoke, giving utterance to the idea which I expressed yesterday.

Q. Did he indicate what those services were ?-A. No, sir.

Q. Did he make that remark to the President or to the PostmasterGeneral?-A. To the President.

Q. Was there any indication of approval or disapproval on the Presi dent's part?-A. Not at all. President Garfield was a good listener, and he said very little during the entire interview.

Q. Was that all that occurred at that interview on the subject?—A. That is all that I remember with regard to that point. I know that the President did not indicate any opinion of his own at all, or any purpose of his own. Mr. Cook took one side, I took the other, and the President gave utterance to no opinion whatever.

Q. Before that interview closed was there anything said by the Presi dent which indicated his purpose with regard to prosecuting all the offenders-A. I know it was his general purpose to push these prosecutions.

Q. Was that the interview at which the remark was made to which Mr. James referred about "cutting the ulcer out"?-A. No, sir; that was at the first interview we had with the President. That was at the time when this first table of routes was shown to the President.

Q. Was Mr. Cook present at that interview?—A. No, sir; he hadn't come into the case at all at that time.

Q. Is there any further fact which you remember which convinces you that that was the first interview with reference to the star-route cases that Mr. Cook had had with the President?-A. I know he was introduced to him that night. That was the first time they had metunless the President was acting a part, which I do not believe he was doing.

Q. Did the President indicate from his manner that that was the first presentation of Mr. Cook ?—A. Certainly. That was the understanding of Mr. James and myself, that Mr. Cook was going up that night to be introduced to the President; and he was introduced. Of course I don't remember the minute circumstances, but we were both thoroughly satisfied on that point.

Q. Did the President ever say anything to you about having instructed Mr. Cook to report to him directly upon those cases -A. Never.

Q. With whom did he consult with regard to the prosecutions ?—A. I presume chiefly with the Attorney-General, who was the law officer of the Government.

Q. Did you know of any failure of his to consult with the AttorneyGeneral in regard to the prosecution of these cases?—A. No, sir. That

is something that I would not know about; I was not a member of the Cabinet.

Q. If there was any disposition to avoid any of the members of the Cabinet in matters pertaining to the prosecution, you did not know it? -A. I did not know it.

Q. There was something said about the failure to indict J. L. Sanderson; it was explained by Mr. Bliss by saying that he ought not to have been included in the first indictment. Please state what you know about Sanderson's case?-A. Well, I was very much surprised when he was included in the first indictment, because he did not in any way belong to the Dorsey combination. He was a subcontractor on the route from Saguache to Lake City, which belonged to John R. Miner. He took it from Mr. Miner either at the beginning of the contract term or perhaps shortly before-my recollection is that it was shortly before the contract term; and so far as the papers showed he had no previous connection with that combination, and no subsequent connection. Afterwards we found that he was perhaps the beneficiary on a short route from Ouray to Los Pinos-perhaps twenty-miles long-once a week service, where the annual pay was between three and four hundred dollars. That service was duplicated; that is, there was also daily service between Los Pinos and Ouray; but at the time of the indictment I do not think we knew of Sanderson's connection with this small route.

Q. If there was no evidence implicating him why was it that his name was included in the first indictment?—A. I know nothing about that. I had nothing to do with it and know nothing of it of my own knowledge; and I was surprised when his name appeared there.

Q. You did not furnish his name, or draw the indictment, or make any suggestion ?-A. No, sir; I did not make any suggestion with regard to the inclusion of any one. That was something I had nothing to do with.

Q. Did the papers contain his name or show any connection with the route?-A. Yes, sir; the route from Saguache to Lake City was one of Mr. Miner's routes. It belongs to that group. Our inspectors had investigated the service on it, and the history of that route was among the papers which I turned over to Colonel Bliss; and to a person casually looking at them, Sanderson might seem to have some connection with the conspiracy. He had some connection with the route but not with the conspiracy.

Q. Who was responsible for putting his name in the indictment?— A. I do not know; that is a matter that rests between Mr. Ker, who drew the indictment, and Colonel Bliss, who managed the business generally. But I have no personal knowledge of that.

Q. There must have been some evidence before the grand jury?—A. All the evidence that was put before the grand jury I put before them, and it included this Saguache and Lake City route.

Q. Did you testify before the grand jury to any fact which would have warranted the placing of J. L. Sanderson's name in this indictment?-A. Well, theoretically, I would not be perhaps a competent person to pass upon the sufficiency of evidence for the inclusion of any

one.

Q. Did you testify to any fact implicating him?-A. I put before them in the ordinary course of business the history of that route in which Sanderson figured as contractor at the full rate of pay, showing that he was the substantial owner of the service; but the reason for not including him was that he had no connection before or after this time with the Dorsey combination. I mean no close connection which would indicate that he was one of them.

Q. There must have been some evidence before the grand jury implicating him or the grand jury would not have reported him for indictment; or else his name was surreptitiously put into the indictment ?— A. I have an indistinct recollection that the oath on that route was made by Sanderson. I presume it was on that that he was embraced in the first indictment.

Q. Was that oath true or false?-A. False, I think; but every one of them that we investigated was a false oath without any exception. Q. Do you remember particularly whether the facts stated in their affidavits were true or not?-A. Yes; I remember distinctly that they were not true.

Q. Then there was evidence upon which he could be indicted in the first indictment?-A. Not as a conspirator with the Dorseys. I know that Sanderson came to me, and his attorney came to me, at my office. I told Sanderson that I thought he was indicted in this case by mistake, and that when we went for him we should go for him not on any baby case but on the strongest case we could make against him. seem to comfort him much, but it was all that I could say to him.

It didn't

Q. If he swore falsely to that affidavit, would not that be ground for indicting him for perjury?-A. Well, I am not up in the law, but I think that that matter was discussed by counsel from time to time, and they thought these oaths were not papers that actions for perjury could be sustained on; that they could only be introduced as part of the general evidence to prove a conspiracy.

Q. That they were not such judicial oaths as the statute imposed the penalty of perjury upon ?—A. I think that was their conclusion, but of course I would not be a competent person to testify to matters of that kind.

Q. No, but I am only asking you with regard to the general course of the prosecution ?—A. I don't remember that any one was ever indicted on any of those oaths for perjury; perhaps one or two were. I do not know of my own knowledge. Some of them were very rank perjuries, undoubtedly. The reason that I say he ought not to have been embraced in that first indictment was that he had no close connection with that conspiracy, and that, when indicting him, we ought to have indicted him on the very strongest case we could find. This was a weak one; we could have done better. I will say, furthermore, with reference to the route from Garland to Ouray, that right in the midst of my work I was called into court (in June, 1882), and the work of further preparing these cases was there permanently suspended.

Q. Do you know how it happened that the name was left out of the second indictment?-A. I do not.

Q. He was indicted by his initials, as were also one or two others?— A. Yes, sir. With regard to the indictment by initials, Mr. Ker asked me once or twice what the first name of M. C. Rerdell was; I never saw his name signed in any papers except "M. C. Rerdell." Afterwards the clerks hunted among the bids and they found some proposals which were signed "Mont. C. Rerdell." One or two of the grand jurors asked me about this also. I was very busy and did not pay much attention to it. I suppose I am responsible for the misnomer of Vaile. One of the jurors asked me what his name was, and I had never seen it in the papers except as H. M. Vaile; but I made some inquiries, where and how I do not recall, and as a result reported to the grand jury that his name was Henry. So that that mistake originated through me.

Q. Will you explain what efforts were made by you and the counsel for the Government to secure indictments in connection with the Corpus