duty with ability and earnestness and strict integrity, but I write because I wish in a formal way to call your attention to them, and to depute you to act in the premises with earnestness and energy; and do not under any circumstances allow the statute of limitations to protect any of these parties from prosecution. I am, with great respect, yours, MESSTS. BLISS, MERRICK, AND KER. BREWSTER, I asked Mr. Woodward about these cases, but as I have already stated, the statute of limitations had barred the cases because they had not been presented in June, and of course I could not do anything with them. I do not think I made any written communication on the subject to the Attorney-General, but I told him verbally that the matter was entirely in the hands of Colonel Bliss, who had assumed the responsibility and had agreed to arbitrate the cases. I do not recall exactly what the Attorney-General said, but it was something to the effect that he wanted no arbitration-that he wanted the guilty punished. However, it was too late then to talk about punishing them. In the summer of 1883 the Attorney-General sent an order to me to give him a report upon the status of those cases. In order to make that report, to ascertain what witnesses had been examined before the grand jury and what the grand jury had done, I went to the office of the district attorney and called for the grand jury minute-book. Each grand jury keeps a minute of its proceedings. At every session of the grand jury they enter in a book provided for the purpose the names of the witnesses who appear before them and what disposition they make of each case that is submitted to them. The grand juries in the District Columbia have evidently kept minutes of their proceedings from the time the grand jury was formed. When I called for this book I was told that there was no minute of the March grand jury. I asked for the minute book; this one was handed to me, and I was extremely surprised to find that that grand jury had kept no minute whatever of its proceedings. I asked the clerk in the district attorney's office, who was responsible for that omission, and he said he did not know. I asked Mr. Taggart, the gentleman in the district attorney's office who usually attends the grand jury, how it was that this grand jury had kept no minutes of their proceedings. Mr. Taggart said that he had had nothing at all to do with that grand jury; that it was all taken out of his hands. Mr. Corkhill, who was then District Attorney, is responsible, I suppose, for the omission to keep any minutes of the proceedings of that grand jury. There is not a scratch of a pen to show that there was a grand jury in session here during March, 1882. Q. Please look at this book which I now hand you, and say whether it is one of the grand jury minute-books kept in the District of Columbia.-A. (After inspecting it.) Yes; this is the grand jury minute-book. The CHAIRMAN. I will state to the committee that yesterday I addressed a note to Mr. Worthington, the district attorney, asking him to send me the grand jury minute-book, and he transmitted me the book which I have now shown the witness, and which he identifies as the grand jury minute-book kept in this District. Q. Now, please point out the place where this omission occurs.-A. On page 81 of this book I find the date March 4, 1882. That was the grand jury that assembled in 1881, the one that found this batch of indictments. That grand jury made an entry, as you perceive, that they had found indictments against Brady, Miner, Peck, the two Dorseys, Henry M. Vaile, M. C. Rerdell, J. L. Sanderson, and William H. Turner. Q. Those are the parties in the Dorsey-Brady case that was tried?— A. Yes, that is the Dorsey-Brady case. They also made a record of every one of these indictments, with a list of the witnesses called to substantiate the facts. Q. Now, please read the minute that you find there.-A. (Reading.) The following presentments were returned to the grand jury by the special prosecuting officer of the Government, Mr. George Bliss; he having, for some reasons best knownto himself, failed to prepare and submit indictments: Edwin J. Sweet, William J. Barringer, James B. Henderson, and J. L. Sanderson, for perjury. Q. According to this minute there was an indictment ordered against each of those individuals separately for perjury?-A. It seems that the grand jury had presentments that were returned to them without being placed upon the records of the court. If the jury had gone into court and handed the presentments to the judge that would have been entered upon the minutes of the proceedings of the court for that day; but from the reading of this it appears that the grand jury handed these presentments to Colonel Bliss, who returned them to the grand jury. That is the way this reads. Q. And failed to prepare indictments in those cases?-A. Well, I don't know anything at all about that. Q. The record states that he failed to prepare indictments, does it not?-A. This is the record of the grand jury. Q. It appears, does it not, from an examination of this book, that each day's session of the grand jury is entered, with the cases examined and the names of the witnesses appearing?-A. Yes, sir. The grand jury keep a record of the proceedings and the names of the witnesses for the guidance of the district attorney. By Mr. HEMPHILL: Q. Which grand jury was it that made those minutes in that book!A. The grand jury whose term extended up to the 4th of March, 1882. Q. Which one was it that made no minutes at all?-A. The grand jury of March, 1882. There are three terms, you know; one beginning on the first Monday in December, another on the first Monday in March, and another on the third Monday in June. Q. And you say the grand jury of March, 1882, made no minutes of its meeting?-A. None whatever. The CHAIRMAN. In this book, on page 82, is the memorandum which was read by the witness showing the failure of Mr. Bliss to prepare in. dictments. The last day in that term was March 4, 1882. That was the grand jury of which Mr. J. B. Wilson was foreman. The next entry is on page 85, under date of October 9, 1882. Q. What grand jury was that whose entry is made on page 85!—A. That was the grand jury that came into session on the third Monday of June, 1882. Q. And that grand jury was in session up to October 9, 18821—A. No. Let me explain that. Previous to that time they had heard the case of Kellogg, and adjourned, but they failed to make any minute of that case. Q. Then there was an omission on the part of these two grand juries? There is no record, you say, of the proceedings of the grand jury in ref erence to the Kellogg case?-A. No. They kept that out. Q. And there is nothing in this book, you say, in reference to the Mitchell grand jury?—A. There is no record of its proceedings. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mitchell, the foreman, testified that they kept notes and that at the end of the session they destroyed them, burned them up before they left the grand jury room, and that he said also that it was not customary for the grand jury here to keep minutes. Now this minute-book shows very full entries of the proceedings of the grand juries all the way through, with the exceptions that have been mentioned here by Mr. Ker. The WITNESS. Of course I had to make a report to the Attorney-General that it was impossible for me to tell him who had been examined or what had been done in the cases, because no record had been kept and nobody could tell anything about it. Now, whoever is responsible for that omission ought to be held accountable for it. Q. Whose duty was it to keep the minutes of the grand jury and to see that they were properly entered?-A. It was the duty of the secretary to keep the minutes. It is the duty of the district attorney to see that the grand jury perform their duty. It is the business of the district attorney to see that the minute-book is properly kept. If Mr. Taggart had been before the grand jury he would no doubt have seen that it was properly done, but his explanation is that he had nothing to do with that grand jury. Q. Who is Mr. Taggart?-A. He is an assistant district attorney. He is at present assistant to Mr. Worthington. He was at that time assistant to Colonel Corkhill. Q. In the ordinary business which comes before the grand jury here does Mr. Taggart look after the records of the jury?-A. Yes, sir; he takes care to see that the matters are kept straight. He is a very efficient officer. Q. Who appeared before the grand jury for the Government during the time when no entry was made of their proceedings?-A. I cannot answer that from knowledge. By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE: Q. You understood, however, that it was Mr. Bliss?-A. Well, he told me himself that he was before the grand jury with this case-the Dorsey case. There were several other indictments found at the same time. That same grand jury, at the March term, found the indictment against John W. Dorsey and others-the second indictment; also an indictment against John H. Wallace for perjury; also an indictment against Marshall G. Candee for perjury; also two indictments against George V. Meserole and Thomas J. Brady for conspiracy; also an indictment against Price and Thomas J. Brady for conspiracy. They omitted Mr. Kellogg from that indictment. I had Mr. Kellogg's name included and had to re-write the indictment with Kellogg's name omitted. Q. How did it happen that you prepared the indictment including Mr. Kellogg's name ?—A. I did it from information that I had obtained and in examining the papers. You see I had to anticipate the work somewhat; I had to get the indictments ready in advance, otherwise I would not have been able to get them ready in time for the grand jury. Therefore, when Kellogg was left out I, of course, had to re-write that indictment omitting Kellogg's name. Q. The June grand jury was within the statute so far as the alleged offense in that case was concerned?-A. Oh, yes; and the others too. I think I had better make Mr. Kellogg's case a separate one here, and state it by itself, because in that way you will understand it better. I simply call attention now to the fact that there was no memorandum made in this grand jury minute-book, which was provided expressly for the purpose of keeping such minutes. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. I see that Sanderson's name is mentioned; was there any indictment ever found against him by the grand jury in any case except the Dorsey-Brady indictment from which he was dropped?-A. None at all. Of course, as I told you yesterday, the understanding that I had was that these different combinations would be taken up in their order, that the parties belonging to each combination would be indicted in order, and that Sanderson would come up in his own combination. Q. And while the grand jury was in session deliberating upon that, you were preparing indictments against the parties in the other combinations, when Mr. Bliss informed you that you need not proceed any further in the matter?-A. Yes; that is what I was doing, getting the indictments ready, so that when the grand jury presented the parties I could hand in the indictments. By Mr. HEMPHILL : Q. Why did you cease your work on those indictments?-A. Colonel Bliss told me to stop; that he had agreed to arbitrate the matter. It did not annoy me much to stop. I was tired of it. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. You are certain that that statement about the proposed arbitration was made by Colonel Bliss at that time?-A. Why, certainly; I was preparing the indictments and I stopped and tore them up, because I did not want to give them to anybody else. Q. Then how do you account for the fact that when the grand jury did ignore those bills their action made Colonel Bliss "sick"?—A. I had nothing to do with Colonel Bliss's "sickness"; I simply tell you what I know, what was told me; Colonel Bliss certainly did not consult me about it; I told him what I thought of it. Q. When he told you he proposed to arbitrate the matter and you said that it could not be done, what did you mean by that?—A. The worst section contained in any act of Congress is section 3469, which allows suits that the Government has instituted to be compromised. More corruption is engendered by that section than by any other that you have in your statute book; but section 3469 says explicitly that its provisions shall not extend to matters pertaining to the Post-Office Department. Q. Did you call Colonel Bliss's attention to that?-A. No, I did not; having been a district attorney, he ought to have known it. When he said he proposed to arbitrate I told him that it could not be done. That was all. He said, "Why not?" He never entered into any explanation of the matter; he just said, in an off-hand way, "Why not?" By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE: Q. You took his remark and the manner in which he made it as a finality so far as that conversation was concerned?-A. Well, he was directing the cases; he was my superior; and beyond making an expression of opinion I had no right to interfere at that time-I felt that I had no such right. Now, about these indictments prepared by me, you see that they are very large and voluminous. In my State I could have prepared this Dorsey indictment on about six or eight sheets of paper, but in the District of Columbia you are bound to set out everything. You cannot call a thing by its right name merely, but must set it out in words and figures a perfect fac simile. For instance, where you propose to indict for perjury, you must give the commission of the officer before whom the perjury was committed. They have here all the ancient and antiquated law forms, many of which have come down from the time of Edward III, and some of which do not seem to have been lopped off even in England until the reign of Queen Victoria. Therefore I was compelled to make these indictments very elaborate. They were prepared to meet any objection that might be made on the ground of the want of particulars, and therefore they are a little more extensive than anything that I had ever engaged in before, or than anything I want to ever engage in again. There have been some criticisms of my charge for my services. Some of the gentlemen who have preceded me as witnesses here have said that the charge I made for preparing these indictments was preposterous and ridiculous, and therefore I thought it was my duty to fortify myself in what I had done by testimony. With that view I applied to some members of the bar in my own city, who are recognized as leading criminal lawyers. I have here a letter from Mr. James H. Heverin, a lawyer who has an exceptionally large criminal practice, and also some letters from other gentlemen. Before presenting them I wish also to say to the committee that I do not make a practice of preparing indictments. My friends give me credit for having some ability that way, but I do not prepare indictments for everybody. Sometimes when friends are in difficulty about such matters they come to me and I help them out, and for services of that kind I usually get paid very liberally. I explained these cases and the labor that I had to undergo in them to Mr. Heverin, and showed him what I had done, and he wrote me the following letter: PHILADELPHIA, May 22, 1884. MY DEAR SIR: I have carefully examined the printed indictment submitted to me in case of United States rs. John W. Dorsey et al. I regard it as a model specimen of criminal pleading, and am sure that there is no other lawyer at our bar, and doubtless very few in the country, who could have acquitted themselves so creditably in this line of labor. In view of your exceptional experience and efficiency in this character of work and the vast amount of labor required, I consider your charges reasonable and moderate. I am sure you can recall many cases where I, as well as other practitioners of our bar, have paid you more in proportion for similar services. Yours respectfully, Hon. W. W. KER. JAMES H. HEVERIN. I have also a letter from Mr. William B. Mann, who was prosecuting officer in Philadelphia for twenty-five years. He is a Republican, and therefore not politically favorable to me. While he was in office he frequently sent for me and requested me to assist him in preparing indictments, and for such service I have been paid quite large amounts. For example, for an indictment that I could write in about two hours he would pay me $150; because it is difficult to get people to do that kind of work. Mr. Mann examined the indictment in the Dorsey case and it was his opinion that a charge of $1,000 for preparing it would not be out of the way. This is the letter that I have received from Mr. Mann: PROTHONOTARY'S OFFICE, COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, DEAR SIR: I have carefully looked over the indictment against Dorsey and others, and in view of the labor necessarily involved in the examination that was required before the actual drawing of the paper, as well as the care and engrossing attention displayed throughout such a prolonged arraignment, I am very clear in my mind that a charge for the drawing of it of $1,000 would not be excessive-particularly as the H. Mis. 38, pt. 2—36* |