ion, in talking to Mr. Bliss, that his bill as presented was reasonable, and that may or may not have been upon the basis of $100 per day. Í do not think his charge was a per diem up to the time I went out; but however that may be, he certainly must have seen my letter to Mr. Phillips as Acting Attorney-General, in which I distinctly stated that he could not make such a contract to bind my successor.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. I suppose, after these gentlemen had notified the Department of Justice that they expected $100 a day for their services, unless the charge was disapproved in some express terms, they might reasonably expect that that would be the basis of their compensation, might they not?-A. I suppose they might; but it would appear that they hardly took that view, because Mr. Brewster, one of the gentlemen, made no bill for a per diem at all.

Q. But he very soon came into office as Attorney-General?—A. Well, I am speaking of the only bills that were presented at that time, and I assume that those gentlemen must have seen and known of my letter. to Mr. Phillips, in which the idea of such a contract was disclaimed. I do not think this matter could for a moment rest upon any misunderstanding as to contract. I think it must rest upon reasonableness; for this reason, that while those gentlemen asked in their letter that some such contract should be made, I inclosed that letter to the Acting Attorney-General, and wrote to him declaring (what had been talked over between us, and was understood) that he was doubtless aware that he could not make any contract in the matter which would bind my successor, and in that letter I say: "I think, however, it would be proper for you to say that you recognized fully the gravity of the cases in their charge, the very great amount of labor connected with their prosecution, and the entire reasonableness of their expectation that the Department will compensate them fairly and justly for the industry and ability it knows they will devote to the matter in question. Of course, I only offer these suggestions for your consideration and decision, for you are Acting Attorney-General, and I am only awaiting the appointment of my successor," as they knew. On that letter the Solicitor-General made the indorsement that he would "carry out the contract at a compensation to be determined, &c. (see letter appointing these gentlemen), that I was indisposed to do more than pay them $2,500 on account of services in general, and say nothing of the $100 per day, &c."

Q. That is a memorandum made by the Solicitor-General?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you a copy of the letter to which he refers ?-A. I have not. I do not know to whom the letter was sent, but the bills were not approved on the per diem basis I think; in other words, that the matter of these payments must have rested in the mind of the Attorney-General upon what was a reasonable and just compensation for the services of these gentlemen. But of course I knew nothing about that. He may have erred and supposed that there was some contract relating to it, but there certainly, was none in that sense.

The CHAIRMAN. For the purpose of settling the question whether these bills for services up to the end of December, 1881, were on a per diem basis or otherwise, I call attention to Mr. Bliss's account, which shows that it was not, because on the per diem basis the account would have amounted to much more. There is a note at the bottom of the page which reads: "September 14 to December 25, constant services

in New York between these dates, other than those occupying an entire day, or when absent, as above, $6,000."

The WITNESS. I thought it was not on a per diem basis. I thought Mr. Phillips had declined to allow that.

The CHAIRMAN. The time covered by the account would be about 93 days. Now, during the time that that bill covers Mr. Bliss's services, at the per diem rate, would have amounted to about twice as much as his bill, would they not?

The WITNESS. Yes; if the figures which you have shown me are correct.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. You made an incidental reference to some suits in Philadelphia in connection with star-route matters. Will you please state what those suits were?-A. I referred to those merely as an illustration. They were, according to my recollection, suits for making fraudulent bonds in connection with star-route mail service.

Q. What were known as "straw-bail" cases? A. Yes. They were a branch of the general division of the frauds known as straw bond and bail cases.

Q. Who were the defendants in those cases?-A. There were several-Black, McDevitt, Carson, Arbuckle, and I do not remember whether there were any others or not.

Q. Was there any consultation among the attorneys in the star-route cases in regard to the propriety of prosecuting any of those parties at that time?-A. I would not be able to recall the details of any such consultation.

Q. Do you remember whether anything was said in consultations of the star-route attorneys, with regard to the propriety of granting immunity to any one of those defendants in order to use him as a witness?A. No, I do not specifically. I know that the Postmaster-General and Mr. Woodward had general charge of that subject, and whatever they thought wise to do would have been, as far as I was concerned, unhesitatingly approved, unless it had met some sufficient objection.

Q. You do not know whether you recommended giving immunity to any person there?-A. No, sir; I do not, to any particular person.

Q. Do you remember the case of McDevitt?-A. I remember his case. I do not have a distinct recollection that at any time his statements were sufficiently satisfactory to my mind to induce me to take that action. I do remember that at one stage they were not satisfactory, and I do not remember that they subsequently became so. The Postmaster-General and Mr. Woodward would both probably be able to recall such a circumstance, but I do not. It is a matter in which, of course, I would depend upon them, because they were familiar with the details and I was not.

Q. You do not remember, then, whether any of those defendants were suggested as useful witnesses in the prosecution?-A. Oh, I remember that Mr. Woodward thought that McDevitt would be a very useful witness indeed, and that he was disposed to give a great deal of valuable information pertaining to some one of the combinations; I remember that Mr. Woodward had frequent interviews with him on the subject, and that Mr. Woodward's views were shared by the PostmasterGeneral, but I do not remember that I assented to them or that I dissented from them. That, however, would not be important one way or the other. Whatever the Postmaster-General and Mr. Woodward concluded on that subject would probably have been carried out, as I would

be disposed to yield my judgment to theirs, because of their greater familiarity with the subject.

Q. State whether, during the time you were Attorney-General, and before the death of Mr. Garfield, or before his wounding, you made any recommendation with regard to the arrest of any of the star-route defendants.-A. I do not think I did. My relation to the cases from first to last was generally as a quasi political officer of the Government, as well as a legal adviser.

Q. I think I have seen it stated in the press that there was at one time a general movement to arrest a number of these parties. Do you remember that?-A. No, I think not. I do not think there was anything contemplated but what was done at the time.

Q. Have you a copy of your letter of resignation of the office of Attorney-General?—A. I believe I have.

Q. That explains your reasons for retiring from the Cabinet?-A. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Please leave a copy of that letter with the committee.

The WITNESS. I will do so.
The letter is as follows:

PHILADELPHIA, November 8, 1881.

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Your letter has just reached me, and I will come to see you and talk over once more the subject of which it treats in the same spirit of conciliation in which we have heretofore discussed it. I will telegraph yon in advance of my coming, which will be just as soon as I can free myself from engagements here. In the interval I wish you to consider again the reasons why I cannot share your opinions upon this subject. As I have already told you, I knew comparatively nothing about the star-route frauds until President Garfield called my attention to them. He spoke very earnestly of his duty to have them thoroughly investigated, to remove all persons who ought to have prevented them, and to see that all persons were prosecuted against whom reasonable grounds for such a course were developed by the investigation. He said he had explained to the Postmaster-General the same views, and also why he wished him to consult me rather than the district attorney of the District. The Postmaster-General called upon me, and we went together to the President. He was quite as emphatic as before in the expression of his own opinion upon the subject. He spoke of the frauds as unparalleled villanies, as a loathsome ulcer on the body politic, needing to be cut out, with all its roots, no matter where they extended. He stated that while it did not belong to my Department, certainly not at all at that stage of the matter, yet he wished to associate me with the Postmaster-General to the extent of having the latter feel at perfect liberty to consult me at any time about it. He said he intended to remove General Brady as soon as the PostmasterGeneral could find a satisfactory successor. At a subsequent interview he regretted the delay in that matter, and urged his immediate removal, as he held him principally responsible for the great frauds which he evidently was convinced had been committed.

As soon as General Brady's resignation had been demanded, his newspapers, not unnaturally, began abusing President Garfield, the Postmaster-General, myself, and everybody in any way connected with the investigation. On this subject I speak without the slightest personal warmth, for thenceforth I ceased reading them, and I only know what I have been told by others or read in other newspapers. President Garfield subsequently expressed regret that he had exposed me to such attacks by connecting me with a matter not necessarily part of my duty; but I told him that I regarded it as an honor to be abused in his company. I added the general proposition that in these days the abuse of thieves is the only decoration in our public life worth the winning or the wearing, and is the surest possible passport to the good opinion of honest men.

In this spirit and in this companionship I went on advising with the President and the Postmaster-General as occasion arose. My functions were slight and infrequent. Mr. Woodward was the special agent of the Post-Office Department, best acquainted with these frauds and most zealous in their investigation. He not only possessed the entire confidence of the Postmaster-General, but had been commended to me personally by Senator Hawley as a man of excellent judgment, and not only of undoubted but of aggressive honesty. When, therefore, Mr. Woodward thought it desirable that he should have the assistance of Mr. Gibson and the Postmaster-General coincided in that opinion, I went with the latter to President Garfield, explained the matter to him, H. Mis. 38, pt. 2--4*

and received his directions to employ Mr. Gibson. When subsequently Mr. Woodward and Mr. Gibson agreed in requesting the employment of Mr. Cook, precisely the same course was pursued with the same result. Whenever they brought me any person supposed to possess knowledge of these frauds I advised him to tell the truth, and whenever I received letters suggesting sources of information I wrote to the parties indicated expressing the desire of the Government to obtain any knowledge or papers relating to the subject under their control; and whatever responses were received I, of course, turned over to the gentlemen charged with the inquiries which were progressing. I also insisted from the first and upon all proper occasions that there was no possible vindication for anybody accused except an open trial before a court and jury or a frank abandonment of the cases by the Government if the evidence did not, in the opinion of the President, justify a prosecution. That was my whole connection with the cases up to the wounding of President Garfield, except that the day before he was shot he repeated to me his efforts to have Mr. Riddle appointed district attorney of the District by President Hayes, and directed me to see Mr. Riddle, offer him the place in his name, and if he accepted it to advise him by telegraph and he would reply, asking me to request Mr. Corkhill's resignation. I wrote Mr. Riddle, asking to see him, but he did not see me until the night of the day President Garfield was wounded, and when we were expecting him to die very shortly. I then told Mr. Riddle, in one of the upper rooms of the White House, what had occurred.

As you had the best of reasons for knowing I never expected President Garfield to recover, and as I did not for a moment entertain the idea of remaining in the Cabinet after his death, I supposed such connection as I had had with the star-route cases was substantially ended, and that any further relation which the Department might have with them would devolve upon my successor. As, however, President Garfield continued to live, I continued to do whatever was needed and necessary, but nothing more. When we were considering the removal of the President to Long Branch, Mr. Corkhill asked me if I knew whether any of these cases would be ready for the grand jury. I told him I knew nothing of the details of the cases, and that of course Mr. Cook, his own special assistant in the cases, was the person to give him any information he desired.

As I felt sure the responsibility of the Government would devolve upon you at an early day, I desired to do nothing which I could avoid to embarrass or commit you or my successor. I therefore postponed the selection of leading counsel until I was assured by the gentlemen in charge of these matters that it ought to be delayed no longer. Thereupon the Postmaster-General and I met and discussed the subject. We agreed that in view of the circumstances, we ought to select from the leaders of the bar gentlemen not only of the highest ability and character, but gentlemen also whose personal and political relations would very probably be not only cordial but confidential with you and with my successor, so that you should approach these cases with every possible advantage. It was in this spirit we selected Mr. Bliss and Mr. Brewster, and with the selection of those gentlemen I considered my relation to the star-route matters as ended.

As soon as President Garfield died I informed you of my determination to leave the Cabinet as soon as you could conveniently appoint my successor, and a few days afterwards I made a public announcement of that determination. After your return from New York you kindly asked me to reconsider it, and I as kindly explained to you why I could not do so. You then decided upon my successor, and upon your assurance that he would be nominated to the Senate not later than Wednesday, October 26; I left Washington Tuesday afternoon, October 25, having made my adieus, and leaving the Solicitor-General, with your approval, in charge of the Department. On Tuesday last at the depot you explained to me why you had not been able to do as you expected, and why you had decided to leave the Solicitor-General in charge until the meeting of Congress. I really think therefore the first thing in order is your acceptance of my resignation.

And assuming that to have been done I will restate why I was convinced that it was desirable on public grounds alone. If the star-route cases are tried they must be principally tried in the District of Columbia, and the jurors must be selected from its residents. Now, in that District, I am assured, twice each week day and once on each Sunday, a newspaper is published and circulated among the people from whom the jurors are to be selected, filled with abuse of everybody connected, during President Garfield's lifetime, with these investigations. That is said to have gone on constantly as to President Garfield up to the day he was shot and as to all the rest ever since, and the influence of such a steady outpour upon a community of jurors is sure to be very great. It is very true that the New York Times in this case, as in the Tweed case, has printed very many of the records, and, with the aid of the press generally, has doubtless carried conviction to the general public; but among the public of the District of Columbia the papers, controlled by Mr. Brady and edited by Mr. Gorham and others, circulate I have no doubt greatly in excess of newspapers published elsewhere. Now, while these newspapers have been abusing me they have been as stead

ily praising you, and to such an extent that they are ometimes foolishly mistaken for and called your organs.

Then, too, you will have observed that, both before and since I left Washington, all kinds of falsehoods concerning our relations have been published, purporting to be semi-official, and if not inspired at least not discouraged. Of course I know how absolutely untrue all this is, but it serves the purpose of leading the people of the District to suppose that you are very hostile to me, and it is useless to close our eyes to the fact that Mr. Gorham's relations with some of your most influential friends gives these pretensions very considerable weight with unreflecting people. I do not mention these tactics of the accused parties to make any complaint of them. Quite likely they were to be expected in such circumstances as have surrounded these cases. Indeed, I foresaw to some extent that such methods would be employed, and successfully, and I have therefore always believed, but never so firmly as to-day, that my remaining in office after President Garfield died, or assuming any special responsibility for these cases in any shape, would be construed, in the District itself, as notice that you were not in sympathy with the prosecutions, and that you intended President Garfield's administration and not yours should be responsible for the further conduct of them. If I had needed any additional evidence that I was right in this conclusion I would have found it in the frantic demands of the accused parties themselves that I should continue responsible, and their loud prophecies that you would not accept my resignation unless I agreed to continue such responsibility. They know, as well as you and I know, that the five gentlemen now in charge of the cases, are all that can be either usefully or beneficially employed in them, and that they will do all which can be done to bring them to a successful conclusion; but they desire to point to my supervision of them as proof that they are controlled by influences to which you are hostile. In the District of Columbia that consideration would certainly be very powerful and might be fatal.

I have written you a long letter, but it is because I recognize the gravity of the subject and because I wish you to look into my mind upon it as through an open window. In this matter, as in all others, however much I desire to oblige you, I must stand upon my own convictions of duty, and I cannot therefore do as you wish, because I believe it would be wrong. If, however, there is any other way open in which I can serve you, I will gladly do it. If you wish to satisfy yourself of the utter and shameless iniquity of these transactions by a personal examination of the records I will cheerfully come to Washington and assist the Postmaster-General in laying them properly before yon. A dozen typical cases can be fully examined in a few hours. If, then, you can consistently give public expression to the conviction that the Government has been shamefully robbed, and that the men engaged in trying to bring the wrong-doers to justice have your hearty approval, you will, in my opinion, do far more towards securing a just result than is possible in any other way. Meanwhile, Whatever service I can render which is calculated in my judgment to help, and not hander, the good cause, I will gladly render without stint and without reward. I will Consult and advise to the best of my ability with you or with my successor, or the gentlemen in charge of the cases, or anybody whom you may suggest, for in that way, if I am of little use, I will at least be sure I am not doing harm. And now I have given you once more my deliberate opinions upon this whole matter, and a full statement of my connection with it.

Sincerely yours,

WAYNE MACVEAGH.

Q. It has been stated in the public prints that previous to the Wounding of President Garfield he had contemplated removing you, on account of the pressure brought to bear upon him by persons implicated, or supposed to be implicated in the star route frauds. Do you know anything about that ?-A. I only know that I came into the Cabinet, as I knew, and as the President was kind enough to say, of his choice. That is, I never allowed any zealous friends (and everybody, I suppose, has such friends) to ask the President for any appointment for me, but, on the contrary, I prevented that from being done, and took abundant means to make him know that I did not seek or desire a Cabinet place, and when he surprised me by tendering it to me, he knew, and it was perfectly and frankly understood between us, that I came because he wished me to come, and not because I wished to come. I cannot believe that he contemplated any such action as your question suggests. Of course, I can only speak of the fact that I never knew of any such intention or desire on the part of the President; but,