something that ought not to go to the jury, the lawyer can argue the matter with the court, and tell the court what it was that he was going to tell the jury, so that the jury will get the benefit of it just as much as if he were talking to them. In this case Mr. Wilson said in a very innocent way, "I only wanted to show that Colonel Bliss, one of the Govern ment counsel, does not believe that Mr. Dorsey is guilty, and for that purpose I was reading from this interview with him in the New York Herald." That made the Attorney-General object, and he protested against either the reading of the interview or any argument or statement about it, and the court decided that Mr. Wilson could not be allowed to argue that question before the jury. The Attorney-General had at that time prepared a lot of material showing how Mr. Dorsey's name occurred in connection with the star-route business. As he was preparing himself to make the closing argument, he sent for me, and got me to verify his facts, and I think he modified his speech considerably from what occurred, because he resolved to drop most of the outside points, and to devote his whole time and attention to Dorsey. He found in his investigation of the papers that the name of Stephen W. Dorsey occurred ninety-six times in the transactions connected with the nineteen routes included in the case, and he devoted the best portion of his time to impressing that fact upon the jury in order to show that Stephen W. Dorsey was the head and front of the whole thing. Q. Did these transactions to which you refer appear in evidence in that case?-A. Yes, sir; in the evidence in that first case, Dorsey's name appeared ninety-six times; but if it had not been for the Attorney-General having the last speech, I don't know where we would have been with the case. We would have had the statement going to the jury uncon tradicted that Dorsey did not appear in the transactions at all. We had never dreamt that there was to be any such tactics as that-any attempt to show that Dorsey had nothing to do with the case-because he was the head and front of the whole affair. By Mr. STEWART: Q. What had you been doing in your presentation of the case? When you opened the case, did you not bring out the fact that Dorsey was connected with it?-A. Oh, yes. Q. Then what do you mean by saying that but for the Attorney-General having the closing speech Dorsey's connection would not have been brought out before the jury?-A. It was brought out before, but the attention of the jury was not called to it particularly. You may state a fact, but unless you direct particular attention to it, it simply appears along with the rest of the evidence and receives no special notice. In presenting the case, I said to the jury, "Here is a paper," and went on to explain what the paper was, but I did not particularize Dorsey more than any of the others. By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE: Q. You made a statement of what you expected to prove, and when Mr. Bliss came to sum up he forgot all about it so far as Dorsey was concerned. Is that it?-A. Colonel Bliss opened the case in the beginning, but I made the opening speech in the closing arguments, and I did not particularize Stephen W. Dorsey more than any of the other defendants. By Mr. STEWART: Q. Did you not call the attention of the jury to the fact that he was one of the defendants?-A. Yes, of course; to the fact that he was one of them; but there was a desperate effort made to save Dorsey and to show that he had really nothing to do with the case or with these star-route transac tions, except as a Senator trying to benefit his brother and his friends; that he had simply signed his name to these papers without having any special interest in them, or any thing particular to do with the transactions. The defense bent everything to making that impression upon the minds of the jury, and, therefore, it became a necessity on our side to take Dorsey alone and dwell upon his connection with the case and show that he was as deep in as the rest, and the result was that we found that his name appeared in a questionable light ninety-six times in the papers in connection with these star-route operations. The CHAIRMAN. I suppose, Mr. Stewart, that you see no further objection to the introduction of this interview and the comment upon it! Mr. STEWART. No. Mr. Bliss' letter makes that evidence admissible. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; and also the attempt to get it into the trial. Mr. STEWART. Yes. It was a very improper thing to say anything about it on the trial. The WITNESS. After the conclusion of the first trial, on the 15th of September, the judge fixed the 4th of the following Décember for the retrial of the case, the jury having disagreed. By Mr. STEWART: Q. Was Walsh a witness in the first trial?—A. Yes, sir; and so was Boone. Q. Was Moore a witness in the first trial?—A. No; he was not here at all. Q. Was Walsh impeached on that trial? Did they attempt to im peach him?-A. Oh, no. I do not think it would have been possible for them to have impeached Walsh. I made that a special study when it was determined that he was to be a witness, and I found that he could bring just as good men as any in this city to vouch for him and testify to his good character-bankers, brokers, and merchants. I was all prepared for any attempt to impeach him. Now, as I was about to say, after the first trial had ended by the disagreement of the jury, the Attorney-General wrote us a letter directing us to go on with the case and make every preparation to begin the second trial. Mr. Merrick came to me at that time and said that I must take charge of getting the witnesses and examining them before they went upon the stand-that that business must be put entirely in my charge. Colonel Bliss acquiesced in that, and Mr. Merrick said, that in order to do the work properly, it would be necessary for me to have a room some place, where the witnesses could come and be examined without the other side knowing what was going on. We talked the matter over and it was suggested that if I went to the Department of Justice and brought the witnesses there, the defendants, who had all or nearly all the detective force in Washington at their command-because the detectives here were in league with the defendants and against the Government-it was suggested, I say, and we all agreed, that if I brought the witnesses to the Department of Justice, these detectives who were watching our every movement would know all about it and wonld be able to report to the defendants the name of every witness that we We concluded, therefore, that the Department of Justice would be too public a place. On the other hand, I could not go to a private boarding house because they would not be willing to allow that rabble of witnesses to come to a boarding house. The only available place, therefore, was a hotel. I could not go to Willard's, because that was too prominent a place, and there were too many of the defendant's friends congregating there; and finally Mr. Merrick suggested that he would engage a room for me at the Ebbitt House where it would be quieter; he said he would engage a bedroom with a parlor attached, where the witnesses could come, and I could examine them quietly without attracting much attention. The idea was to have the witnesses come there one by one, to question them and write out their testimony and have it all ready so that they could be properly examined when they appeared in court. Mr. Merrick carried out that suggestion by making an arrangement with the proprietor of the Ebbitt House for a room, which was occupied and used as I have stated. I make this explanation, because it has been said that I paid an exorbitant price for board, and that I ought not to have paid any such price, and one of the papers here and a paper in New York have insinuated that I had my wife at the hotel and charged her board to the Government. I want to say, gentlemen, that I never did anything of the kind, and I don't think anybody but a contemptible, cowardly scoundrel would mix up a lady's name with such a transaction as that. As I have stated, Mr. Merrick engaged the room and fixed the price, and it was all done upon consultation with the other Government counsel. We arranged that Boone should send out to bring on Moore for the second trial, and after a great deal of persuasion Mr. Boone agreed to allow his step-son to go out to get Moore. The young man went out, and somewhere in Montana hunted up Moore and brought him on for the trial. I took the witnesses as they arrived, and examined them. I took them separately and talked to them about the case. It occupied a good deal of time. You cannot get out of a witness what he knows about a case like that in five or ten minutes' examination. You have to talk to him and allow him to talk in order to find out just what he knows and what testimony you can get from him. As the witnesses came here they were sent to me, and I examined them one after another, and took their statements, and in many cases I found that the witnesses had not testified at the former trial to all they could testify to. In some instances I was surprised to find that they had not told one-half of what they knew, or not more than one-half. I was surprised, also, to find that they had never been examined by Colonel Bliss in advance as I was examining them for the second trial. It appeared that Colonel Bliss simply called them in and asked them about their route. The witnesses would say yes or no, as the case might be, and that was the end of the examination. I examined them much more fully, and, when there was too large a crowd of them, I would sometimes take them up to the Department of Justice, or direct them to meet me there, and I would ascertain from those present what persons were most likely to be able to supply the missing link of information in regard to any particular route. Then I would either telegraph or send out a messenger to hunt up those witnesses that were suggested in that way. I found that the United States marshals were not to be trusted in the matter of getting the Government witnesses; that it was impossible for the Government counsel in conducting this trial to depend upon the marshals, because in most instances they were either in sympathy with the defendants or were people that could not be depended upon to do as they were directed. For that reason I was compelled to employ a young lawyer (whose name I do not wish to mention unless the committee insist upon it) to go out and hunt up the wit 550 TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE STAR-ROUTE CASES. of the defendants?-A. Yes, of course; to the fact that he was one of them; but there was a desperate effort made to save Dorsey and to show that be had really nothing to do with the case or with these star-route transac tions, except as a Senator trying to benefit his brother and his friends; that he had simply signed his name to these papers without having any special interest in them, or any thing particular to do with the transactions. The defense bent everything to making that impression upon the minds of the jury, and, therefore, it became a necessity on our side to take Dorsey alone and dwell upon his connection with the case and show that he was as deep in as the rest, and the result was that we found that his name appeared in a questionable light ninety-six times in the papers in connection with these star-route operations. The CHAIRMAN. I suppose, Mr. Stewart, that you see no further objection to the introduction of this interview and the comment upon it! Mr. STEWART. No. Mr. Bliss' letter makes that evidence admissi ble. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; and also the attempt to get it into the trial. Mr. STEWART. Yes. It was a very improper thing to say anything about it on the trial. The WITNESS. After the conclusion of the first trial, on the 15th of September, the judge fixed the 4th of the following December for the retrial of the case, the jury having disagreed. Q. Was Walsh a witness in the first trial?-A. Yes, sir; and so was Boone. Q. Was Moore a witness in the first trial?-A. No; he was not here Q. Was Walsh impeached on that trial? Did they attempt to im Now, as I was about to say, after the first trial had ended by the dis- of witnesses to come to a boarding house. The only available place, therefore, was a hotel. I could not go to Willard's, because that was too prominent a place, and there were too many of the defendant's friends congregating there; and finally Mr. Merrick suggested that he would engage a room for me at the Ebbitt House where it would be quieter; he said he would engage a bedroom with a parlor attached, where the witnesses could come, and I could examine them quietly without attracting much attention. The idea was to have the witnesses come there one by one, to question them and write out their testimony and have it all ready so that they could be properly examined when they appeared in court. Mr. Merrick carried out that suggestion by making an arrangement with the proprietor of the Ebbitt House for a room, which was occupied and used as I have stated. I make this explanation, because it has been said that I paid an exorbitant price for board, and that I ought not to have paid any such price, and one of the papers here and a paper in New York have insinuated that I had my wife at the hotel and charged her board to the Government. I want to say, gentlemen, that I never did anything of the kind, and I don't think anybody but a contemptible, cowardly scoundrel would mix up a lady's name with such a transaction as that. As I have stated, Mr. Merrick engaged the room and fixed the price, and it was all done upon consultation with the other Government counsel. We arranged that Boone should send out to bring on Moore for the second trial, and after a great deal of persuasion Mr. Boone agreed to allow his step-son to go out to get Moore. The young man went out, and somewhere in Montana hunted up Moore and brought him on for the trial. I took the witnesses as they arrived, and examined them. I took them separately and talked to them about the case. It occupied a good deal of time. You cannot get out of a witness what he knows about a case like that in five or ten minutes' examination. You have to talk to him and allow him to talk in order to find out just what he knows and what testimony you can get from him. As the witnesses came here they were sent to me, and I examined them one after another, and took their statements, and in many cases I found that the witnesses had not testified at the former trial to all they could testify to. In some instances I was surprised to find that they had not told one-half of what they knew, or not more than one-half. I was surprised, also, to find that they had never been examined by Colonel Bliss in advance as I was examining them for the second trial. It appeared that Colonel Bliss simply called them in and asked them about their route. The witnesses would say yes or no, as the case might be, and that was the end of the examination. I examined them much more fully, and, when there was too large a crowd of them, I would sometimes take them up to the Department of Justice, or direct them to meet me there, and I would ascertain from those present what persons were most likely to be able to supply the missing link of information in regard to any particular route. Then I would either telegraph or send out a messenger to hunt up those witnesses that were suggested in that way. I found that the United States marshals were not to be trusted in the matter of getting the Government witnesses; that it was impossible for the Government counsel in conducting this trial to depend upon the marshals, because in most instances they were either in sympathy with the defendants or were people that could not be depended upon to do as they were directed. For that reason I was compelled to employ a young lawyer (whose name I do not wish to mention unless the committee insist upon it) to go out and hunt up the wit |