ecution of these cases by reason of his relations with the Chief Magistrate.

Mr. STEWART. I do not think that is any reason. It does not appear that Mr. Bliss was appointed by President Arthur or at his suggestion or request. He was appointed really by the former Postmaster-General and Attorney-General, and I think it is going far enough to put in the communication to the Attorney-General. Of course, viewed in any light, the letter is entirely an ex parte statement. It is merely a statement of what Mr. Walsh conceived to be the true situation at that time. I think there can be no impropriety in putting in the letter to the Attorney-General, but I do not think the communication to the President is in the nature of any evidence that we ought to consider or receive.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course a letter simply addressed to the President would not commit him to anything. I suppose if we look into the matter it will appear that the President simply referred the letter to the Attorney-General.

Mr. STEWART. Yes; but the President cannot say anything as to what he did; we are not a committee appointed to investigate the President of the United States; we are investigating the Department of Justice, and anything that falls within the scope of that Department, from the Attorney-General down, properly comes within our jurisdiction. It is entirely proper for Mr. Walsh to communicate his understanding of the situation to the Attorney-General of the United States, and I think that any communication made to him on the business of the Department is proper evidence to be received by us. Of course every citizen has a right to address a communication to the Chief Magistrate. I do not question at all the propriety of Mr. Walsh's act in writing to the President, but I think the matter ought to stop there. It is nothing to us what he did. In other words, I do not see what bearing it has upon any issue that we are trying or investigating. It is a mere matter of gossip to state here what he wrote to the President. We have seen enough of Mr. Walsh to know that he understands tolerably well how to put his ideas together either on paper or orally, and it is quite apparent that he can state a very strong case without any great amount of effort. Now I think that if we put in his statement of the case to the Attorney-General and then his further statement, which we have already, that he addressed a letter to the President setting forth more fully his view of these matters, we ought to stop there.

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. Our investigation has taken a very wide range. It has been sworn to, I think, by one of the prosecuting officers in the star-route cases, and a late Attorney-General of the United States, that those prosecutions during some portion of their progress did not have even the moral support of the Administration. That is very well so far as it goes. Then I suppose the purpose of this evidence is to show that the Department of Justice has been derelict, and I think that perhaps, under all the circumstances of the case, it might be well enough to receive the explanation, or what may be presumed to be an explanation in part, with the allegation.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Was this letter to the Attorney-General written on the date which it bears, November 3, 1882 ?—A. It was.

Q. Are the facts stated in this letter true?-A. Undoubtedly, sir; to the best of my knowledge and belief. Of course I do not undertake to state anything else.

Q. I understand that you desire to present this letter as a part of your evidence in relation to matters that were then taking place with reference to the star-route prosecutions ?-A. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, the letter to the AttorneyGeneral will be received.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Now, as to the letter to the President; was it written at the date it bears, December 18, 1882?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are the facts stated in that letter correct?—A. Yes, sir; to the best of my knowledge and belief.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the pleasure of the committee as to the reception of this letter?

Mr. Fyan moved that the letter be received and made part of the record.

After some further discussion the committee decided by a vote to receive for examination the letter to the President and the other letters offered by the witness in evidence but not read, postponing for the present the determination of the question of their admissibility. The letters were subsequently admitted and will be found at the end of this testimony.

The witness offered to read in evidence an editorial published in the New York Herald calling upon the President if he wished the prosecu tion of the star route cases conducted honestly to dismiss Mr. Bliss. Objection was made to the reception of the editorial and the objection was sustained.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Walsh, you may proceed with your state

ment.

The WITNESS. I have here a letter which I addressed to the Second Assistant Postmaster-General, Mr. Elmer, in relation to the month's extra pay, which I should like to read.

The witness read the letter as follows:

R. A. ELMER, Esq.,

2 Asst. P. M. G., Wash.:

WASH., Jan. 21, '82.

SIR: Touching the matter of the month's pay on route No. 40101, I would most respectfully suggest to the Department that in all fairness and as a matter of law payment should be made me without any further delay. It is not the theory of the Government that injustice should be done any of its citizens, especially when the latter in their dealings with it are not charged with fraud or evasions of the term of contract had with it. In my contract with the Department on route No. 40101 I faithfully executed the provisions contained therein, and on that point I challenged the most rigid inquiry, from its commencement down to the time of its discontinuance. As I understand it, the principal obstacle lying in the way of this payment to me is based upon an order made by Mr. Brady (then 2 Asst. P. M. G.) annulling my contract, because, as he was pleased to allege, of "abandonment of service." In point of fact there never was an abandonment of service on my part, and the record does not support him in his alleged reason for aunulling my contract. There is no occasion, however, for my discussing this point, as the bureau over which you preside has substantially refused to believe that I abandoned the service. All that I ask now is that you carry out legally and logically to the end the spirit expressed in the orders issued by you rehabilitating me, orders bearing on their face the impress of the fact that the Department very properly discredited the action taken against me by the late 2nd Asst. P. M. G.

If, however, the way does not appear clear to you at this time to allow me the month's payment on the entire length of the route, as it stood originally from Albuquerque to Prescott, then I suggest that I at any rate be now paid the one month's pay on that part of the service which was ordered carried by mail from Albuquerque to Fort Wingate. The order issued by Mr. Brady discontinuing star service from Albuquerque to Fort Wingate preceded this one, wrongfully annulling my contract from Fort Wingate to Prescott, and on its face I was entitled to the allowance promised by law in such cases. Route No. 40101, as you found it and as yon discontinued it, was from Fort Wingate to Prescott. I again repeat that Mr. Brady had discontinued that part

of No. 40101, from Albuquerque to Fort Wingate because of completion of railway, and it is on that part of the said route that I think there certainly can be no ground for longer withholding the month's pay. I cannot refrain from trusting, however, that you will find me entitled, in your judgment, to payment now in full of the entire allowance.

In conclusion, I thank you for the patient hearings which you have given me in this matter and the sense of justice which has directed you in repairing, as far as legally lay in your power, the injustice which had been done me by the corrupt and unscrupulous act of your predecessor.

Respectfully,

J. A. WALSH.

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. I object to the admission of that letter in evidence, on the ground that it is entirely irrelevant to the matter in hand and is not within the scope of our investigation.

Mr. MILLIKEN. It seems to me that the letter is irrelevant. The CHAIRMAN. I think I can explain the relevancy of it. Mr. Walsh was objected to by Mr. Bliss as a witness for the Government, Mr. Bliss charging upon him that he was a co-conspirator with the other parties, and that he ought to be a defendant instead of a witness. Mr. Walsh explained yesterday the nature of the claim that he had against the Government on account of his service as a mail contractor. His claim is either one that is made in good faith and based upon his legal rights, or else it is one that the Government ought not to pay. If it is claim made in good faith then the officers of the Government ought not to have been prejudiced or influenced in relation to the acceptance of Mr. Walsh as a witness by the fact that he had made a claim of this kind and insisted upon its payment. Now, this letter sets forth and explains the grounds of the claim, and for that reason seems to me to be relevant.

Mr. MILLIKEN. Has not Mr. Walsh brought suit against the Government for this very claim?

The CHAIRMAN. I don't know.

Mr. MILLIKEN (to the witness). Have you not?

The WITNESS. Yes, sir. Mr. Bliss, himself, told me that this claim ought to be paid, although he swears here before this committee that the claim is unjust and that I am not entitled to it. Now, I am prepared to prove that Mr. Bliss sent me word that the claim was a proper one, and that it ought to be and would be paid.

Mr. MILLIKEN. Is the suit now pending?

The WITNESS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLIKEN. Well, is not the court the proper place for you to put in this testimony, and ought we to receive it here while your case is pending in court?

The WITNESS. I am not putting it in as testimony to establish my claim against the Government. I am offering it here in contradiction of certain testimony given by Mr. Bliss before this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Refer to the testimony of Mr. Bliss to which you think this letter relates.

The WITNESS. If you choose we will hold this in abeyance until I come to it in regular course. Mr. Bliss swears that the claim was an improper one, but, as I have said, I am prepared to prove that he sent me word that it ought to be paid, and that he told me personally it ought to be paid. This being so I submit that in fairness and justice the rest of Mr. Bliss's testimony ought not to be deemed worthy of credit, and it is upon that point that I offer this letter, and not to affect my suit in any way. On page 222 Mr. Bliss, referring to this matter, says:

When he was declared a failing contractor his pay was stopped, and he now came in and claimed that, in some form, he had been made a failing contractor through the

unjust action of the Department, and, therefore, that he ought to be paid the balance due him, $6,000 or $8,000, I think it was, that he claimed, and they gave him the benefit of the doubt and paid him the money, and then supposed that his case was all settled. But pretty soon Mr. Walsh came around with a claim for a month's extra pay. When a contractor's contract is terminated by the Department, not for any fault of his own, he has a right under the law to a month's extra pay, and Walsh claimed that paying him this $6,000 or $8,000 on the ground that he had been made a failing contractor through some unjust action of the Department showed that he was not at fault and was a failing contractor through no fault of his own, and that, therefore, he was entitled to this month's extra pay, and he was very earnest to get it. On the other hand, the officers of the Department considered that when they had paid him that money there had been an agreement that that was to be the end of the matter, and the present Second Assistant Postmaster-General was very earnest in that view, and regarded the assertion of this later claim as an act of bad faith on the part of Mr. Walsh. I may say in passing that Mr. Walsh has since gone into the Court of Claims in an endeavor to establish that claim, and that the Government is fighting it there.

It was in the Court of Claims when Mr. Bliss sent me word it ought to be paid.

Q. What is the amount of that claim for the extra month's pay?-A. I think it is $14,000.

Q. One-twelfth of $105,000 a year?-A. No; that would be only eight or nine thousand dollars. There is so many changes on these routes that you cannot take the pay at any given time as a basis of such a calculation. I think the amount is about $14,000, but I may be wrong. So much for that. There was Mr. Walsh in that position, with a claim upon the Government and making an allegation that he had paid money to Mr. Brady. His claim was that he had loaned money to Mr. Brady. The impression was very strong on my mind from the outset that if Walsh had had these money transactions with Brady they probably would turn out to have been of a different character from what he stated. He did not admit and would not admit at any time that he had had any corrupt dealings with Mr. Brady.

And yet Mr. Bliss undertakes to swear that I had.

The idea he gave out was that Brady had undertaken to blackmail him.

Of course Mr. Bliss would not believe that!

At all events he claimed that he had paid this money to Mr. Brady.

Q. Do you know whether that claim of Walsh's for the extra month's pay has ever been paid?-A. No, sir; it has never been paid; it is in litigation in the Court of Claims, and from what I learn of the evidence I apprehend that it never will be paid.

Q. Did Walsh demand that pay in consideration of testifying before the grand jury-A. I cannot say as to that. I had nothing to do with it.

Now, I am prepared to prove, by Mr. Woodward, that Mr. Bliss did have to do with it, and that on his own motion; and, so far as I could understand, moved by a sense of justice, he sent me word by Mr. Woodward that the claim ought to be and would be paid. He afterwards said that he was "not sitting up o'nights to rectify the wrongs done Walsh, who had been abusing him in the newspapers," and that he "be blowed" if he was going to pay any more attention to the matter; so you see that, having angered a great man, he resolved to "sit down" upon me. He comes in now before your committee, and swears that the claim was unjust, and that he thought it ought not to be paid. Now, it is in that connection, and with reference to Mr. Bliss's testimony on that point, that I have offered this letter in evidence, and I offer further to prove by Mr. Woodward what I have already stated, that Mr. Bliss himself sent me word that the claim was just, and ought to be paid.

The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me to be admissible, in answer to Mr. Bliss's testimony on that point.

Mr. Van Alstyne appealed from the decision of the chair, and the decision was sustained.

The WITNESS. Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe you want me to speak of what took place before the third grand jury.

The CHAIRMAN. State when you next appeared before a grand jury in the District of Columbia.

The WITNESS. I was served with a subpoena some time in the early part of 1883, in January or February, I think.

Q. When did you appear before that grand jury?—A. As my memory serves me, it was in the month of March, 1883. I was also summoned to appear as a witness in the Brady-Dorsey case. It was the 6th of April.

Q. Who appeared before that grand jury to represent the United States -A. W. W. Ker.

Q. To what cases did he call the attention of the grand jury, in your presence?-A. To the case of the Corpus Christi and San Antonio route; contractor, James B. Price.

sir.

Q. Were you called upon to give evidence in that case?-A. I was,

Q. Did you submit the evidence that was in your possession, or that was within your knowledge in relation to that contract?-A. I submitted the same evidence on that occasion that I did on the two other occasions. I have the papers here, and I tender them to the committee.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. Did you submit the same evidence that you had submitted on former occasions, without increase or diminution?-A. Yes, sir; here it is.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Do you say that you presented to the third grand jury the same evidence that you had presented to the previous grand juries before which you had appeared?-A. The evidence that I had presented to the second grand jury particularly. The first grand jury before which I appeared considered that they got enough in about fifteen or twenty minutes, but the second went into the subject exhaustively. I presented to the third grand jury precisely the same evidence that I had presented to the second-before which Mr. Bliss had said that it was a serious matter to indict a United States Senator.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. Was the same party or parties accused of criminal conduct in both instances?-A. The testimony related to the same parties, Brady, Price, and Kellogg, but Kellogg was the subject of investigation exclusively, in my mind, before the third grand jury; Brady and Price having been indicted previously.

Q. Please state what case was being investigated by that Mitchell grand jury when you appeared before them.-A. The Mitchell, or the first grand jury as we have designated it here, investigated the case against Brady, Price, and Kellogg.

Q. What presentments did they make?-A. They presented Brady and Price, and no others. They left Mr. Kellogg.

Q. The grand jury of which we are now speaking, the third-what presentments did they make?-A. Kellogg was indicted.

Q. I understand you to say that you presented precisely the same case to the third grand jury that you did to the second.-A. Precisely.

Q. And I understand you to say that when you appeared before the first grand jury you had in your possession the same papers that you produced before the third grand jury.-A. Yes, sir.