Christi and San Antonio route?-A. Well, if I had known that the question was to be asked me I would have looked it up. But in the first place, you know, in regard to those late matters I had nothing to do with the grand jury. I simply prepared the evidence and turned it over to Colonel Bliss; but I know that they were indicted successively; that is, at first Brady and Price were indicted. I do know something about the introduction of Price as a witness, because that I had something to do with, but that came along afterwards. That rested within my own knowledge; the other matters Mr. Bliss or Mr. Ker would be much more competent to testify about than myself. Is that what you refer to ?

Q. Yes.-A. Well, in the year 1882, I went to Connecticut to spend the holidays, and perhaps the day after Christmas I was telegraphed to to come back immediately to Washington. I came here and was told that a controversy had arisen between the counsel respecting the acceptance of Mr. James B. Price as a Government witness, and that the matter had, in a certain sense, been referred to me. I was handed a statement, unsigned and unsworn to, which purported to give what Mr. Price was willing to testify to, and was told to see him and obtain more explicit information. I spent two days with Price, taking down his statements. He put them in my hands in trust, to be returned to him in case he was not accepted as a witness. I called on the AttorneyGeneral and read this statement. He asked me more or less questions about the relations of the testimony of Price and Walsh to each other and to the case. I explained everything as well as I could, and there seemed to be no doubt in his mind with regard to the propriety, and, in fact, the necessity of accepting Price as a witness.

Q. To what did that testimony relate?-A. It related to the Corpus Christi and San Antonio route; it related to the payments of money toward the fund which was raised to influence the action of Congress in 1882, when the appropriation bill for $1,200,000 was pending; and it related to some steamboat service in Missouri, I think, which was comparatively unimportant; and to the payment of a check which was given for the benefit of Mr. Brady. I have not read the affidavit for a long time; that is, that part of it. I have read the part with reference to the San Antonio and Corpus Christi route within a couple of months, but the rest I have not read for a great while.

Q. What were the facts with regard to the payment of money to General Brady?—A. That has passed out of my mind. It is embraced in the affidavit, but I could not testify to it now.

Q. What amount of money was it?-A. I think it was a check for $500; I do not recollect the circumstances of the payment sufficiently to testify to it; my recollection is that General Brady was the beneficiary of this payment, and that it had to pass though a bank in some

way.

Q. Was that the same payment collected by Walsh afterwards?—A. No, sir; it had nothing to do with that. It is in the affidavit, which is at your service at any time.

Q. Did that affect in any way the finding of an indictment against Senator Kellogg ?-A. Yes; this led to the indictment of Senator Kellogg. The Attorney-General directed me to notify the counsel that he accepted Mr. Price as a witness. I know that it was on the 31st of December that I had this interview with him; I think that was very near the end of the week; perhaps it was Saturday night; my impression is that it was.

Q. Was there anything said between you and the Attorney-General H. Mis. 38, pt. 2-23*

pending the consideration of the question of receiving Mr. Price as a witness, as to whether his testimony would cause an indictment to be found against Senator Kellogg ?—A. Oh, yes, sir. That was the essential matter of discussion.

Q. What did he pretend to say in reference to that?-A. Well, he took the general ground that in the discharge of his duties he could know no distinction of persons, and that the more elevated the rank of a wrongdoer the more certain should be his punishment.

Q. With that full knowledge of the fact that Price's testimony would probably cause the indictment of Mr. Kellogg, what instructions did you receive from the Attorney-General with regard to the acceptance of Mr. Price?-A. He told me that he accepted Mr. Price as a witness, and he instructed me to notify the counsel to that effect.

Q. Did you do so?—A. I did. I wrote a letter and presented it jointly to Messrs. Merrick, Bliss, and Ker, informing them that I was instructed by the Attorney-General to notify them of the acceptance of Mr. Price as a witness.

Q. Who is Price?—A. He lives in Missouri. He has been a mailcontractor for a long time, and he had considerable service at the time these investigations began in Texas and in the southwest.

Q. He was a contractor?—A. Yes; he was a contractor.

Q. Have you a copy of the letter which you wrote to the counsel ?— A. I presume I have. I keep copies of all letters now. It was simply a notification that the Attorney-General instructed me to inform them that he accepted Mr. Price as a Government witness.

Q. Did you have any conversation with any of the counsel after this on that subject?-A. Yes. I talked with Mr. Merrick and Mr. Bliss. It led to considerable disturbance. Mr. Merrick took the ground, even before this action of the Attorney-General, that Mr. Price ought to be accepted as a witness, because where the contractors or the lesser crimimals come forward and gave evidence against greater criminals, they should be allowed to testify, and that the implied obligation which the Government came under to witnesses under such circumstances should be observed.

Q. Which was immunity?—A. Which was immunity. Of course there was nothing said about immunity, but it was always understood that if any witness was accepted that carried with it immunity. Mr. Merrick took the ground that a high officer of the United States, whether the Second Assistant Postmaster-General, or a member of Congress, or a Senator of the United States, who took bribes under such circumstances, was far more guilty than a contractor who was acting under more or less compulsion although acting voluntarily. Mr. Bliss, on the other hand, contended that the evidence against Price was strong and conclusive, that he was already indicted, and that the Government had no right to give him up to take anybody else; that he was sufficiently guilty to hold him, and that it would be wrong to give him up for the sake of taking Senator Kellogg. That was the ground of difference between them.

Q. Did the indictment of Mr. Kellogg turn upon the acceptance of Price as a witness?-A. It did. Mr. Kellogg does not appear in the record anywhere. But Mr. Price testified that he gave him $20,000— $15,000 in drafts and $5,000 in a note-to secure the expedition on two routes. Walsh testifies that he received the same drafts and notes from Mr. Kellogg, with instructions to collect and pay half the money to Mr. Kellogg, and the other half to Mr. Brady. In fact it took both Walsh and Price to make one complete witness.

Q. What did Colonel Bliss say as to whether Price should be accepted as a witness under those circumstances?-A. I have given you the substance of all I know about it. He opposed it.

Q. Do you know what course he took in reference to other prosecutions on account of this action of the Attorney-General ?—A. What do you refer to ?

Q. Whether he ceased in any way his efforts in prosecuting other cases for the Government for any time by reason of this.-A. Well, he felt personally aggrieved by the action of the Attorney General. He thought there was something in it which was injurious to him; he took offense at it-I don't know why altogether-but the whole transaction was perfectly above board, so far as these gentlemen were concerned— Mr. Merrick and the Attorney-General-and I saw no reason why he should be aggrieved.

Q. Did he withdraw from the prosecution in any way?—A. He staid out of court for two or three days.

Q. Pending what trial was this ?-A. The second star-route trial was then in progress.

Q. And Colonel Bliss felt aggrieved at the action of the Attorney. General and withdrew from the court for two or three days on that account?-A. Yes; he was in ill humor for two or three days.

Q. Who conducted the prosecutions during this time?-A. Mr. Merrick and Mr. Ker. I presume I prepared the papers. Perhaps Mr. Ker did; I don't remember. Mr. Bliss had a great familiarity with the papers, and whenever he was absent from any cause it was very embarrassing to us on account of his great familiarity with the papers, and his facility in putting them in.

Q. Did he remain in the city during that time?-A. I think so, but I do not know.

Q. Can you give the exact date?-A. It was on the 31st day of December that I called on the Attorney-General, and this occurred the following week. That would be the first week of 1883.

Q. What time in the week?-A. Unless I am mistaken, the 31st of December came on Saturday. That is simply my impression.

Q. And Mr. Bliss did not reorder the prosecution for two or three days?—A. I think not.

Q. Now, as to the papers which were supposed by the Government counsel to have fallen into the hands of the defendants, what information did you obtain as to the number and character of those confidential papers that fell into the hands of the star-route defendants?—A. Well, I know, in a way that I cannot explain, that they had our evidence in almost all of the routes. I know that they did not have our evidence on the route from Mineral Park to Pioche, or on the route from Garland to Parrot City, and by a coincidence that is perhaps not singular, our evidence on those routes was not sent to Mr. Cook.

Q. Are the papers to which you refer those which were finally introduced in evidence, or other papers which you did not intend to put in evidence at all?-A. They were not introduced in evidence. They were simply our briefs of the case. They were papers from which the lawyers made up the indictment, and they were the guides of the lawyers all through the case in putting in the evidence. They followed those briefs.

Q. Were any of those papers put before the police court at any time?— A. No, sir; the police court did not consider the matters embraced in those at all. They considered only the straw-bond cases, with which I had nothing to do.

Q. Pending the trial of the case, were the papers to which you refer
handed over to the attorneys for the defense so that they could examine
them before introduction?-A. Never. This was our case.
allowed to go to the Department and examine the public files and rec-
They were
ords. They had free access to them to dig out whatever they chose to,
but these abstracts were our private papers.

Q. They were not put on the files or accessible to the public?—A. They were not accessible to the public. They were turned over to the lawyers for their exclusive use in the prosecution. You are a lawyer in a case; now, the other side had no more right to those papers than the side opposed to you would have a right to your brief.

Q. They were intended for the confidential and exclusive use of the counsel for the Government?-A. For the counsel of the Government, and no one else except those who were assisting them in some way.

Q. But there were papers that were handed over to the other side?A. All the files of the Post-Office Department they had access to; that was proper. They were public records. our arguments all the way through. They developed what we conBut these papers contained sidered the frauds and their significance.

Q. So there there were two kinds of papers used; one kind which there was no objection to any one seeing, and the others confidential papers which were prepared exclusively for the use of the Government?-A. Certainly.

Q. And it was these confidential ones to which you refer that could have gotten to the prosecution in no way, except the one which you have described?-A. I described yesterday the only way in which that Kidder paper could have got to them.

Q. Now, please state before what grand juries you appeared, and in what cases you testified?-A. I was summoned before the grand jury first in February, 1882. It was the grand jury of which Mr. Wilson was foreman, and I think I was the only officer of the Government who appeared before that grand jury at all. I put before them the evidence on which the first indictment against the Dorseys was found. I went before them because they kept sending for me, and I went without asking any questions. It was a very competent, careful, conscientious, and painstaking body of men.

Q. How many times were you before that grand jury?-A. I think it ran over a period of perhaps three weeks. Probably a prosecuting attorney or lawyer would have done the work in much shorter time, but I was really under their control and not claiming in any way to exercise any direction over them.

Q. What did you do before the grand jury, and what was the nature of your services?-A. I took in the the files of the Post-Office Department; took in all our evidence; told them what the different witnesses would testify to, and gave them their names. instance, on, say, the route from Trinidad to Madison. I would explain I would go in, for the frauds as developed by the files and the record, and I would give them a list of the witnesses, and perhaps tell them in a few words what they would learn from each witness.

Q. Please state what your duties were generally in regard to these cases?-A. Well, it is rather difficult to say. It would take a book. I had the general charge of the preparation of the evidence and the custody of the papers.

Q. Was there any other person who had the custody of those papers than yourself?-A. Well, primarily I had custody of them, of course

subject to the direction of the Postmaster-General, if he had ever chosen to give any; but nobody ever did give me any.

Q. Were those confidential papers obtained or prepared after General Brady's removal from the office of Second Assistant Postmaster-General? A. He was removed in April, I think, or perhaps May, and I did not begin preparing those papers until late in September.

Q. Could he have taken any of those papers out of the office with him?-A. Not one.

Q. Did you take the papers which embraced the Government case before the first grand jury before which you testified?-A. I presume I took them in for the purpose of refreshing my memory.

Q. Did you hold on to them or did you leave them with the grand jury?—A. Oh, I never left one of them, I think. If I did, they were returned to me immediately. I would not say absolutely that I never left a paper there, but I cling to papers pretty tightly.

Q. State whether the papers that came before the grand jury embracing the Government's case could have gotten there through any other person than yourself without your knowledge?-A. I do not know that I fully understand your question.

Q. Was there any other person in the employ of the Government who could have furnished this information to the grand jury from the papers you had in your custody without your knowledge?-A. Well, if I had been in the city I should have known of it. I had the general custody of them, but of course the counsel would control my actions. Q. I am not speaking of the counsel. I am speaking of any other post-office inspector or employé who would have those papers in his reach-A. We have two or three clerks there who would have access to them in my rooms; that is all. Nobody has ever handled these papers except the few of us who were employed in those rooms. At the time they were first presented to the grand jury I do not think we had more than two or three clerks left there, perhaps not so many.

Q. Can you state how many times you were before that grand jury?— A. I should say I went at least four times a week, or perhaps five times a week, for nearly three weeks.

Q. Did you take the papers in each of the 19 routes on which the indictment was founded in the conspiracy case, and explain them?—A. I explained the history of each route so far as I thought it was necessary. I did not take out every paper in the files on the route, because a great many of them would not indicate any fraud. I took out those papers which in my judgment went to prove fraud, and put them before the grand jury.

Q Then you must have been at least several hours a week for three weeks before that grand jury in this one case?-A. Yes, sir. I was very sorry that all the cases could not have gone before that grand jury, because they came to understand this star route business very thoroughly, and I think they were animated by a desire to do their exact duty; but the grand jury came to an end about that time by the expiration of its term.

Q. That grand jury before which you appeared so often did find certain indictments?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Against whom?-A. Against Stephen W. Dorsey, John W. Dor

sey

Q. (Interposing.) They found the indictment against the Dorsey combination -A. They found the first indictment against the Dorsey combination. That indictment was relinquished on account of the misnomer of Vaile, and the indictment of Rerdell by his initials.