You will remark that Mr. Bliss here says that he hasn't the remotest idea what that account was for. Now, I will tell you what it was for. After I had testified before the traverse jury in the first Brady-Dorsey case and had been discharged I was about to leave Washington, when Mr. Merrick called upon me at Wormley's, where I was stopping, and said, "Mr. Walsh, when are you going?" I said, "I think I shall go to-night or to-morrow morning. It is very warm here, and I am tired and very badly disgusted, and I want to get away as quickly as I can. You have had me under subpoena a long time." Mr. Merrick said, “Now, Walsh, you do not want to go away; I wish you would not go; it is particularly desirable in the interest of the Government that you should not go. I want to talk to you in reference to certain persons that are going on the stand in behalf of the defendant, for I cannot cross-examine them intelligently without having somebody to talk to. Stay here, and whatever your charge is it will be paid you." I demurred. Mr. Merrick said, "They are going to bring other witnesses on the stand to contradict you, and really you ought to stay here." He put the case very forcibly and I did remain, and when I got ready to go away, or perhaps later, I rendered this bill to Mr. Bliss, saying, "Here is a bill which I think the Government owes me; I have put the amount at $350. If it is not enough increase it; if it is too much cut it down.” I had no idea at that time that the lawyers were getting such enormous fees. Mr. Bliss said, "It is enough." I said, "Will you pay it?" "Oh, yes," said he, "it will be paid." "All right," said I. Mr. Bliss said it would be paid, but he did not say when. I let the matter drop for the time, but two months afterwards, on October 26, as you will see by that letter, not receiving a check for the amount, I dropped Mr. Bliss a line about it. I never heard anything further from him on the subject. He never answered my note. I came over here under subpoena to go before the second traverse jury and before the third grand jury, and Mr. Woodward said, "Mr. Walsh, I have just learned with the greatest surprise that you have not been paid that $350." "Oh," said I, "are you really surprised at that, Mr. Woodward?" He said, "Yes, I am astonished." "Oh, well," said I, "I suppose the Treasury reserves will be disturbed by any such payment as that; I do not think the Treasury is in a condition now to meet such an enormous claim." Mr. Woodward said, "That is facetious; but Mr. Bliss is paid very largely and he is paid largely for the purpose of paying just such bills as that." "Well," said I, "Mr. Woodward, I don't care what Mr. Bliss is paid for or what he is not paid for; Mr. Bliss shall not pay me that fee; I shall be paid that by a check on the Treasury or not at all. Mr. Bliss can pocket his own fees, but I am no appendage of Mr. George Bliss or anybody else." "Why do you take that view of it?" said Woodward. I told him that I took that view out of regard to my own dignity and self-respect. I said to him, "You don't think that I am taking money from Mr. George Bliss, do you, for my services? What I receive I shall receive from the United States." "Well," said Woodward, "Bliss doesn't seem to want to pay you at all." "Well," said I," he can't pay me in that way." I happened in Mr. Merrick's office on one occasion and he said, "Walsh, I feel very badly about that $350 not being paid you." "Well," said I, "I feel badly too, but what are you going to do about it?" Said he, "I have talked with Mr. Bliss about it; I learn with surprise from Mr. Woodward that you had not been paid and you certainly ought to be paid. I said, "I think so, and I am ready to receive the money." Said Mr. Merrick, "I told Mr. Bliss that we ought to pay that; that each of us ought to contribute to its

“I

payment, but Mr. Bliss says that he does not consider that he ought to contribute anything; he considers that the Government owes you that money and the Government should pay it."

I said, "Mr. Bliss is singularly correct about that. The Government does owe it, or else nobody owes it." Mr. Merrick said, "No; I think we ought to pay that." Said I, "No, Mr. Merrick; Mr. Bliss is right about that. I do not agree with you." Said he, "And if you say so I will give you my check for my share of it." I said "No, sir; keep your money; reserve it for charitable purposes; the United States owes me that money and when it is ready to pay the money I will receive it, and if the United States does not pay me I will sue it." Said he, "I think you are wrong;" but I insisted that I thought I was right. Now, you will see from that whether Mr. Bliss knew anything about this claim or not. The money remains unpaid to this day. When I came here and read this statement of Mr. Bliss putting me in this attitude with reference to this matter, I went to Mr. Merrick and said, "I have learned with surprise that Mr. Bliss in his testimony has made a reference to that $350." Said he, "I have not read his testimony." Said I, "You ought to read it, for many reasons." I think he ought, too. I called his attention to this statement made by Bliss, and he looked at it and said, "That is bad. That is bad." 66 Now," ," said I, "Mr. Merrick, the time has come when that ought to be paid. Its payment will be the most complete refutation of Mr. Bliss's statement," and I added, "Here is the bill; will you approve it?" Mr. Merrick took the bill cautiously, as if it were dynamite, and said, "Yes, that bill ought to be paid." Said I, "Yes, I think it ought; it has been due now pretty nearly two years." "Well," said

he, "that is all right, Walsh;" handing me back the bill. Just at that moment Mr. Woodward came into the office and his coming seem to be a source of relief to Mr. Merrick. He turned to Woodward and said, "Woodward, you know about that bill of Walsh's?" Mr. Woodward said, "Yes; that bill ought to be paid; it ought to be paid now." Mr. Woodward, you see, not being a great man, knew that it ought to be paid at once. [Laughter.] I said, "Will you approve the bill, Mr. Merrick?" Said he, "I would rather not, Walsh; I would rather not; but there is no doubt the bill will be paid." I said, "It isnot the money I care about particularly, but does it not occur to you that in justice to me there ought to be something done about it?" Well, Mr. Merrick did not approve the bill. I went up to see Mr. Cameron, at the Department of Justice and asked him what was necessary in order that the bill might be paid. He said that Mr. Merrick's approval would be all that would be required. I then wrote Mr. Merrick the following letter:

Hon. R. T. MERRICK, Wash'n :

WASHINGTON, May 7, 1884.

MY DEAR SIR: I have seen Mr. Brewster Cameron since seeing you yesterday in relation to the matter of the Government's indebtedness to me for services rendered as per account shown you by me yesterday, which voucher you will please find inclosed. As Mr. Geo. Bliss has referred to the matter in his testimony before the Springer committee (p. 308), I think it is due me that I should now be paid. Mr. Cameron informs me that all that is necessary to secure payment of the said account is your approval. In justice to me, I beg that you give the voucher your approval, and oblige, yours respectfully.

J. A. WALSH.

I have never received an answer to that. I suppose I shall have to litigate for my money.

In reading over the testimony of Mr. Bliss, I find the most glaring inconsistencies in different parts of it, and if Mr. Milliken has no objection I will rapidly recite some of them.

Mr. MILLIKEN. You may recite them all so far as I am concerned. The WITNESS. On page 191 Mr. Bliss lauds Price as a man from whom valuable testimony was to be obtained. He says that his, Bliss's, theory was to prosecute the officers of the Government and give immunity to contractors, and so on.

On page 210 Mr. Bliss expresses himself as being opposed to granting immunity to Price for the purpose of indicting Kellogg.

On page 241 he says, "I differed with my brothren (about Price), and while Price's testimony might be morally convincing, it would not secure the conviction of Kellogg.

Again Mr. Bliss says, the money did not go to Brady; that is, Price would so swear, yet Kellogg, who according to him did get the money, was not indicted, and Brady who did not get it, was indicted.

On page 212 Mr. Bliss says his impression was that Brady did not get any of the money in the case of the Corpus Christi route, the orders having been obtained by political influence. Then, if Brady did not get any of the money, why was he indicted in that case?

On page 303 Mr. Bliss again says that he was opposed to giving im munity to Price. On the same page, farther down, when he heard of the production of the additional papers and what was in them, he says, "I stated to the Attorney-General, &c., &c., it was proper to let go of Price and proceed against Kellogg, and have not changed my mind or view on that subject."

Now, let us see whether he changed his mind. On page 304 he says, "The Kellogg case was one that the Government ought to proceed with." In an interview in the New York Herald of May 2, 1884, Mr. Bliss says:

It is a well-known fact that I did not favor the indictment of Kellogg. My reason for not doing so was that in the effort to convict Kellogg we would have to promise immunity to Price, and I did not think we should do that.

In reference to the Kerens case you will find the same. Mr. Bliss, in making his apology to me in the ante-room of the grand jury, told me that Mr. Kellogg had admitted his guilt to him, Bliss. He also told the same thing to Mr. Merrick and Mr. Ker. In an interview published in the New York Tribune June 16, 1883, Bliss said:

There are some strong elements in the case against Brady and Kellogg, but I have always thought that when that case came up for trial some of the best testimony would have been spirited away.

Mr. Bliss was there referring to me. I have also heard that he sug gested to Mr. Merrick, during the first star-route trial, that the case against Dorsey should be dismissed, and that the suggestion excited considerable feeling on the part of Mr. Merrick. I have been told by a newspaper man that Mr. Merrick told him that Secretary Chandler had called upon him, Merrick, and asked that he should desist from his prosecution of Kellogg.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Who is that newspaper man ?-A. Mr. Nelson.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. You have said that Mr. S. B. Elkins came to you early in these transactions, which you have detailed here, and desired you to pay Mr. Hinds a certain amount of money?-A. Yes.

Q. Will you explain what interest Mr. Elkins claimed to have in the matter?-A. Mr. Elkins did not claim to have any particular interest. Q. Whom did he represent ?—A. Oh, he said that he came in the in

terest of Brady. He said, "I am a friend of Brady's, Mr. Walsh, and I would like to see things go along amicably and peaceably. Congress is in session, and, in a resolution of two lines, or not to exceed four, perhaps, they may abolish all this expedition, and then where will you get your money from? You certainly won't get your money that way. Now hadn't you better placate this man?" I said, "Mr. Elkins, I cannot look at the matter in that way. The proposition is such a monstrous one that I should pay a large sum of money to a man whose firm owes me a great deal of money already." "Oh," said he, "that is not the way to view it. Divest yourself of that view, Mr. Walsh." "Well," said I, "I won't pay the money." "Well, then," said he, "there will be trouble."

Q. Was Mr. Elkins interested in any of the contracts?-A. Not so far as I know.

Q. Did he state that he had any interest in them other than your interest or the public interest, or Brady's interest? Whom did he say that he represented?-A. Oh, he was speaking generally. Contractor Kerens was generally supposed to be friendly with Mr. Elkins, but Elkins did not say that he had any particular interest in the matter.

Q. He came to you as a friend of Brady?-A. Yes; he came as a friend of Brady, and also in the general interest of all parties having those contracts, feeling that it would be very unfortunate to have any conflict arise at that time lest Congress should rescind the whole matter. He suggested that that might be done in a very short resolution not to exceed three or four lines, and that then I wouldn't get my money. I replied, "Really, Mr. Elkins, I cannot take that view of it." "Well," said he, "I am sorry." I said, "I am sorry too, but I cannot do it." I had no previous acquaintance with Mr. Elkins; he merely knew me by sight and I knew him by sight. That was all. Adjourned.

WASHINGTON, June 5, 1884. The committee met at 10 a. m. The chairman called attention to the necessity for a decision of the pending question as to the admission of the letters offered by the witness, John A. Walsh, as a part of his tes timony. After examining the letters, the committee decided to admit the letters, which are as follows:

MR. WALSH TO MR. MERRICK.

NEW YORK, November 6, 1882.

Hon. R. T. MERRICK,

Special Counsel, &c., Washington, D. C.:

SIR: As special counsel for the Government, I call your attention to the following extracts from a letter written by Mr. F. H. Fall July 12th, '82, he being at that time in the employ of the United States, addressed to Brewster Cameron, special agent of the Department of Justice: "1. The grand jury has, as I have intimated, gone back on the Government and found no indictment." "2. It means that Brady, Kellogg & Co. have fixed some of them, as indicated through the information I have received from Lemar," &c.

I find the above printed in the N. Y. Times of even date. The grand jury referred to in this communication is the same body that is now travestying justice in the District of Columbia, and the same that failed to find indictments on the oral and documentary evidence submitted by me to them, thus by their action endeavoring to stamp me as a witness unworthy of belief. If the language used by Mr. Falls in this letter means anything at all, it implies that this officer of the Government had some evidence-perhaps had submitted the same to the Department of Justice-going

to show that the grand jury had been tampered with, &c. As I have insisted on an investigation of this grand jury, as is evidenced by my letter to Hon. Benjamin Harris Brewster, of 3d inst., I regard the statement of Falls as very pertinent, and if properly inquired into calculated to aid in the discovery of the methods and the names of the persons that engaged in the conspiracy to thwart the ends of justice.

As the examination of Falls may begin to-day, or in the near future, will you direct or suggest to the gentlemen engaged in the prosecution that Falls be examined as to that part of his letter to Brewster Cameron hereinbefore quoted? I address you this communication for the reason that I understand this matter of the prosecution of the bribery cases is under your control and direction.

Respectfully,

P. S. Who is the Lemar that is referred to by Falls?

J. A. WALSH.

WALSH.

(Indorsed:) Letter to Hon. R. T. Merrick, dated Nov. 6th, '82, to which I received no response.

NOTE.-(Not contained in the original, however.) The Lemar referred to by Fall in his letter was a member of the (in) famous grand jury" composed of citizens of eminent respectability.”

MR. MERRICK TO MR. WALSH.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, December 16, 1882.

MY DEAR WALSH: I have been much disappointed not to have seen you here before this date.

I am now ready to vindicate you and to maintain by confirmatory proof the truth of your statement in court.

Your presence is required on Tuesday before the grand jury, which is, by the way, composed of men of high standing and intelligence. I have requested Mr. Bliss to have a subpana sent on for in New York, that your expenses, &c., might be paid.

Truly yours,

R. T. MERRICK. (Indorsed:) Letter from R. T. Merrick. Dec. 16, '82. Answered by me Dec. 19, 82.

Hon. R. T. MERRICK,

MR. WALSH TO MR. MERRICK.

Washington, D. C.:

NEW YORK, December 19, 1882.

MY D'R SIR: Yours of 16th inst. at hand and contents noted. To be frank with you, I scarcely know what you mean when you say that you are "ready to vindicate me," &c., &c. Has it reached a point, even in your mind, when I am in need of vindication "by confirmatory proof"? I do not think so, but if I felt that I needed vindication I know of no one to whom I would rather intrust it than yourself.

The only vindication that is needed, from my stand-point, is the vindication due justice and common decency by prosecuting the conspirators on the late grand jury, and especially by the prosecution of that member of the late grand jury who brought into the jury room, in violation of the statutes, the Kellogg-Spofford testimony. You have the evidence in your possession going to show how cruelly I have been libelled by Buell, Gorham, Dickson, and Helm; consequently do not need my presence to prove it, as documentary evidence thereof is in existence, and, as I said before, in your possession.

You say "Your (my) presence is required on Tuesday before the grand jury," &c. I do not know what for, as it seems to me that the prosecution ought to have the witnesses in the cases against Salisbury, Parker, Kerens, Elkins, Sanderson, Patrick, Brown, Andrews, and Colegrove before the grand jury. It cannot be possible that the Government has not summoned witnesses on these cases! Or can it be that the resolution to proceed against these men was adopted so late in the day that the witnesses have not had time to reach Washington? Of course, I know you cannot answer these queries, for the reason that you take charge of the cases only" after indictments are found," but they naturally present themselves to me for the reason that I find it strange that the Government is apparently unable to do anything in these cases unless