By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Please explain the nature of the proceeding by which the court finally held that the evidence which you offered was not admissible on the trial.-A. Well, we have on record the decision of the court upon that point. The substance of it was this: We called Price, who testified to having given Kellogg the drafts and the promissory note. Colonel Ingersoll moved to strike out Price's testimony, which was a novel way of proceeding. I wanted to get them to demur, so that I could join in the demurrer and get a verdict on them if the court decided in my favor; but the court resolved not to hear any more testimony, but to hear the counsel argue that point. We did argue it. I endeavored to show the court that the position that we had assumed in the beginning was sound; that these drafts were simply like a check, or an order on somebody to pay money, and that the offense ought to be dated from the time when the money was actually received. The court, however, decided that the time of the taking of the drafts was the period at which the offense began, and therefore decided against us, and, of course, we had nothing to do but to submit. You know the Government has no appeal. If we had had an appeal I would have taken it, because I do not believe the decision of the court is good law. I do not say that disrespectfully to the court, because Judge Wylie is as good a criminal lawyer as I ever practiced before, and in all his multitudinous decisions in these cases, there were only two in which I thought he was wrong. One of those was the quashing of the indictment against Rerdell, on the ground that the Christian name was not given, and the other, this decision.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

But I

Q. Those two instances in which you differed with the judge are the two particular instances where his decisions ran against your propositions?-A. No, sir; not by any means. He decided a great many hundred propositions, and several of them were against me. don't think it is any disrespect to the court to differ with the court. We do that when we take an appeal, and it is one of our privileges and prerogatives to hold our own opinions upon the law. Of course I may be wrong, but if I had had an appeal I would have taken it in

that case.

By the CHAIRMAN :

Q. Then the decision of Judge Wylie ended the proceedings, so far as the Government was concerned. Was there any date in the indictment that was barred by the statute of limitations?--A. None at all. You see, we had either to indict Mr. Kellogg for receiving the drafts, which would have been barred by the statute, or we had to indict him for receiving the separate sums of money. We did indict him for that, and it was the only thing that was left for us to do. We believed that we were right, and that we had a strong case, because whatever doubt might have attached to the entire transaction was dispelled by what we were told. Colonel Bliss, in discussing the case with Mr. Merrick and myself, told us that Mr. Kellogg had called to see him, and had told him that he had got the money. Colonel Bliss told us that he said to Kellogg, "What did you take it for ?" and that Kellogg answered, "Well, I took it and used it for political purposes in Louisiana." Colonel Bliss told Mr. Merrick and myself that, and that was one reason why we determined that the man should be prosecuted.

In December, after I had filed the affidavit setting forth what we ex

pected to prove by Walsh's testimony, Mr. Kellogg was very indignant, and went around to the newspaper offices talking to the correspondents, and he went, among others, to the correspondent of the New York Times, Mr. Dunnell, and told him (and I have no doubt that it was intended to be repeated to me) that he either ought to, or that be was going to, "take a shotgun and blow" my "brains out." Well, now, I have only to say that if Mr. Kellogg will let me know the time and place when he wants to put that in practice I will be on hand. My character has never been assailed. I don't want to do Mr. Kellogg any injustice, but if he thinks that he wants that kind of satisfaction I am willing to give it to him.

Mr. MILLIKEN. I judge from the latter part of your testimony that you and Kellogg are not on terms of the warmest friendship.

The WITNESS. Don't you know that there is a divinity that hedges a member of Congress so that you cannot get at him? [Laughter.] Mr. MILLIKEN. I am glad to hear that. I feel safer now than I did before.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Is there any further statement that you desire to make?—A. I don't know of any other.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. How long were you employed by the Government in these cases?— A. One year and eleven months.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. How much do you say your bill was cut down?-A. I don't remember exactly now.

By Mr. MILLIKEN :

Q. How large a bill did you render against the Government?—A. I don't remember now; I did not keep any account of it; the Attorney-General cut it down. You see I came from his own city, and he knew me, so he did not take as good care of me as he did of some of the others. Q. You received $31,000, did you?-A. Yes, sir.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. During the progress of those two trials were there not frequent adjournments for several days at a time?—A. No, sir.

Q. In neither trial?-A. No.

Q. Were there not adjournments from Friday until Monday or Tuesday -A. Oh, yes; from Friday to Monday.

Q. And sometimes longer?-A. No; unless a legal holiday intervened.

Q. At whose instance were those adjournments?-A. By the order of the court.

Q. They were not suggested or controlled by the attorneys ?-A. Oh, no; we had nothing to do with that.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. What contract did you have with the Attorney-General with regard to the compensation you were to receive for your services ?—A. The only contract I had was my commission. I was employed "at a compensation to be determined by the Attorney-General when the suits are ended."

Q. Your contract was made with Attorney-General Brewster ?—A. We don't make contracts in our city.

Q. I mean your appointment was made by Mr. Brewster during his term as Attorney General?-A. Yes, sir; as I have stated. I did not charge for my services by the day; we don't do that kind of business in our city; we charge what the service is worth. I never heard of a per diem charge for a lawyer before. I took my account and averaged it and made it up to what I thought I ought to receive. In doing so I kept in mind the fact that I had abandoned my private business to attend to these cases.

(Adjourned.)

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 6, 1884.

CHARLES C. COLE sworn and examined.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. Please state your age, residence, and occupation.-Answer. I am forty-three years of age. My residence I suppose is in the District. of Columbia, though I claim to be a citizen of the State of West Virginia; I have resided in Washington for the last six years. My occupation is that of a lawyer.

Q. Were you attorney at any time for any of the persons known as the defendants in the star-route cases or contractors in the starroute mail service?—A. I was attorney for a man by the name of Rerdell; I think his name is M. C. Rerdell. He was one of the defendants in the case that was tried twice in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, known as the star-route case, in which Dorsey and Brady were the principal defendants. I was his counsel during that first trial. I was not his counsel during the second trial. I was employed by him about the first of June, at all events a few days before that first trial commenced. I do not remember now what year that was; I think it was 1881, but I am not certain about the year; but it was just a few days before the trial commenced that I was employed.

Q. During the first trial?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was it during the first or the second trial that he entered a plea of guilty?-A. It was during the second trial.

Q. Were you then his counsel ?-A. No, sir; I ceased to be his counsel a few days before the commencement of the second trial. I retired from the case and he employed another man to represent him (Judge Wilshire, of Arkansas) in the second trial.

Q. Then, during the time that you were counsel for Rerdell he did not enter a plea of guilty in the case?-A. No, sir; he did not actually enter it, although he had the subject under consideration.

Q. During the first trial did you represent him in court during the trial of that case?-A. Yes, sir; that is, I was there for the most of the time. I think about the first of August, after the evidence was already in and the arguments commenced, I was somewhat ill from malaria and one thing or another, and tired, and I went away for a few weeks. I think I was gone two weeks, and returned before the arguments closed, and was present when the case was finally submitted.

Q. Did you appear for him at his instance or at the instance of some of his friends?-A. At his instance.

Q. At his own instance?-A. Yes, sir; I had no negotiation with anybody else; I negotiated with him. I do not remember now that any of his friends ever spoke to me in regard to acting for him.

Q. He was not, I believe, a principal in the case, but merely a clerk ?—

A. Yes, a clerk; a clerk for ex-Senator Dorsey, I think, and perhaps some of the other star-route men.

Q. Were you consulted by any other star-route contractors in a professional way or in any way?-A. Yes, sir; I was consulted by one other person who was indicted, Samuel G. Cabell. He was indicted, I think, for perjury, perhaps, in putting in straw bonds or something of that sort. I had been Mr. Cabell's counsel in other matters, and after he was indicted he came to me in relation to the matter and consulted with me somewhat, but it did not result in my being retained. I never was retained by him in that case, in the case in which he was indicted, although I had some conversation with him about it. He may have considered me as retained, or as his counsel, or one of his counsel in the case, but he never paid me any retainer, and I never considered my self retained.

Q. His case never went to trial?-A. No, sir; it never went to trial. Q What time were you retained in his case?-A. I am not certain, but it was about the time Rerdell retained me; whether just before or just after, I am not certain when he had his conversation with me. I know we had some discussion with regard to the fee that he was to pay me, and he mentioned the fact that he had several other attorneys. He never came around to pay the retainer, and I never considered myself as retained in that case.

Q. Were you retained in any other case of those indicted or likely to be indicted, or against whom any charges were pending, or parties who feared they might be indicted?-A. No, I do not think I was ever retained by any of the others. There were two men that talked with me, two that I remember now, in relation to it.

Q. Who were they?-A. Mr. Albert E. Boone was one. I think about the time that Rerdell retained me Mr. Boone saw me and said something about retaining me. But there was some arrangement made between him and the counsel of the Government by which I do not think he retained counsel. While he was a defendant in one of those cases and indicted, I understood that he had some arrangement with them by which he was not required to employ counsel, and so he did not retain

me.

Q. Was there any other?-A. There was a man by the name of Colegrove who talked with me about star-route matters, but he never retained me in relation to anticipated prosecutions against him as a starroute man. He had some litigation in Missouri and some in Pennsylvania, growing out of his subcontracts with star-route men in those States, and some other matters; I do not remember whether they all grew out of his star-route contracts or not. But he had been sued in Missouri, and he wanted to sue some parties up in Pennsylvania, and thought that he might want to sue some of the subcontractors here in the District of Columbia, and he retained me in relation to those matters.

Q. Did he pay you any fee for your services?—A. Yes, sir; he paid me something, I do not remember now how much. A part of the money I did not receive directly from him; I received it from another attorney who was employed conjointly with me.

Q. Who was that?-A. That was Mr. C. D. Coleman. In that connec tion Mr. Colegrove, as I now remember, was brought to my attention by Mr. Coleman. Mr. Coleman had lived in Missouri some years ago, and so had Dr. Colegrove, as I understood it, and they were acquaintances there.

Q. How much of a fee did you receive in that case from Dr. Colegrove

and Mr. Coleman together?-A. I do not remember how much, off and on. I think at the time I was retained I received somewhere in the neighborhood of $200. The matters he wanted to consult me about were not of very great importance, and required only a consultation at that time. He was anticipating that a suit would be brought against him here by some Missouri parties, and he wanted some advice about that, and some advice about a Pennsylvania matter where he wanted to sue some parties; and I think there were one or two other matters that I cannot call to mind now, but they were not of very great importance. My recollection is that I received at that time $200, or possibly $250; and then afterwards he had to bring a suit in Pennsylvania, and I took some testimony in it, and rendered him some services in relation to the conveyance of property here in Washington which belonged to his wife, and such things as that, for which he paid me small sums along from time to time, the amount I do not remember; I do not know, indeed, whether I have an account of it; possibly I have.

Q. How much in all did you get from Mr. Coleman on account of the matters which you have referred to?-A. My recollection is it was either $200 or $250, I am not quite sure which.

Q. But not exceeding $250 ?—A. I do not think so.

Q. And how much did you get from Mr. Colegrove?--A. I do not know exactly. I have been and am yet his counsel in some matters, quite a number of different matters, and he has handed me, down to date, possibly all told, in addition to what I got in the first place, maybe $200 more; I should think that would be the outside figure.

Q. Not exceeding that?-A. No, sir.

Q. For any purpose or for professional services?-A. Professional services or otherwise.

Q. For any service?-A. For any service. Four hundred and fifty dollars would cover every cent paid me, and more too. I think I have stated it too high.

Q. In both cases?-A. Yes, sir; in what I received from Mr. Coleman and what I received from Dr. Colegrove directly.

Q. Was Dr. Colegrove a star-route contractor?-A. Yes, sir; he is a large star-route contractor. He has a great many contracts, and has had for years, for carrying the mails over the country in the West and South, and some in New York and Pennsylvania that I have advised him about, off and on. And there was talk, along soon after the starroute investigation commenced, that he would be indicted. There was quite a piece in one of the New York papers about it, and he was a good deal stirred up over it, and some time afterwards, I do not remember just how long, after I had been retained for him through Mr. Coleman in relation to these other matters, my attention was called to that by the doctor, and he feared that he might be indicted, though he always claimed, and I thought from what he showed me, there was no ground for an indictment. And I will say further, that towards the close of the star-route investigations, amongst the very last investigations before the grand jury, they brought up this case of Colegrove's and sent witnesses before the grand jury, as I was informed by Mr. Colegrove. He came to me at that time and protested, and said that there was nothing that there ought to be an indictment against him for, and he wanted to save the scandal of it, and wanted to know what I thought of his going to the Government counsel and showing them just how the thing stood. I did not know the Government counsel, except Mr. Merrick; I was pretty well acquainted with him, and knew him to be a pretty fair sort of a man, and I told Dr. Colegrove I thought there would H. Mis. 38, pt. 2—37*