be nothing improper in his going to Mr. Merrick and, as he had nothing to conceal, making a full, fair, square statement of the thing just as it stood, and I thought that when Mr. Merrick saw how the thing was he would not have an indictment found. I learned from Dr. Colegrove that he went and saw Mr. Merrick, and I believe he did, from what he told me. However, no indictment was found. I know the matter was before the grand jury and no indictment was found in relation to it. That related to a route in South Carolina, I think; it was a Southern State, I remember.

Q. Did you make any efforts to prevent his indictment?-A. No, sir; not other than I have told you, with one exception, and I cannot say that that was an effort to prevent his indictment. I went to Colonel Cook while he was counsel for the United States, and inquired of him if Dr. Colegrove's name was amongst the parties who were likely to be indicted, and he informed me that he could not say how that was, but that his name was amongst those who were being investigated or who were to be investigated. I told him that I had been looking into these matters somewhat, and it did not seem to me that there was anything that he ought to be indicted for. Well, he told me that he knew nothing about the case; that it had not been reached for investigation, and would not be for some time; but when it was, I asked him if he would have any objection to seeing Dr. Colegrove and talking with him in relation to it. He said that he could not say at that time, but the policy of the Department of Justice, as he understood, was not to indict anybody who ought not to be indicted; and that so far as anything he knew then, he would be willing to see Dr. Colegrove and converse with him whenever the matter was reached, but he was too busy then to take up matters until they were reached in their regular order. That was the only conversation I ever had with Colonel Cook about it, and during the time he was representing the Government in those matters the case was not reached. At all events I heard nothing about it after that time until a year, probably, after Colonel Cook's connection with the cases ceased, and the occurrence transpired which I related to you a few moments ago, when Dr. Colegrove came to me and told me they were about to send witnesses before the grand jury, or had sent them, or something of that sort, and wanted to know what I thought about his going to the Government counsel, and I advised him as I have told you.

Q. Did he pay you any fee, directly or indirectly, for this service by yourself or others?-A. No, sir.

Q. He did not?-A. No, sir. Well, now, I do not know what he may have intended. He paid me the money, as I understood it, for the serv ices that I rendered him. These conversations about the probability or possibility of his being indicted were simply incidental matters that he mentioned to me from time to time while I was his counsel. He certainly never paid me, nor I never demanded any pay for anything I advised him in relation to those matters as a separate matter, nor did I make, in any charges I ever made against him, any charge for anything of that sort; I considered it merely an incidental matter.

Q. What was the nature of the other business that you did for him; did you bring any suits?-A. No, sir; I cannot say that I brought any, personally. The suits that were brought up in Pennsylvania were brought under my direction and upon my advice, but I did not prepare the papers, because I did not have knowledge of their practice up there which was sufficient; he employed local counsel there to act in connec tion with me.

Q. Did you give a written opinion in the case?-A. Yes, sir; I gave a written opinion in the case, and corresponded with his counsel in Pennsylvania in relation to it, and there was considerable testimony to be taken here in Washington.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Who was his counsel; who were the suits brought by?-A. I am not able to give you the names here; I can get them at my office. Q. In what county were they brought?-A. I cannot remember the county.

Q. Who brought suits against him in Missouri?—A. I cannot give you the names of the parties, but they obtained judgment in Missouri.

Q. In the United States or the State courts?-A. I think it was brought originally in the State court and removed to the United States court. There was a judgment obtained against him there, and Senator Vest has charge of it now. I had a letter from Senator Vest a few days ago, calling my attention to it and threatening suit against Mr. Colegrove here unless he paid it.

Q. How did he get service or attachment?-A. Dr. Colegrove used to live there and had some business matters there, and I think on one occasion when he was there they served him with the papers, or possibly they attached his property, and then he made a personal appearance there.

Q. Has he got property there?-A. I understood that he had.

Q. Where?-A. I do not know. I understood that he had property there at that time; whether he has any there or not I do not know.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Do you know the names of the parties?-A. I do not know the names of the parties, though I have papers in my office that I think would show the names of the parties there, and the court in which it was obtained. Senator Vest represents the parties who got the judg ment against Dr. Colegrove.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Who made application for the change of venue-Dr. Colegrove?— A. I do not know anything about that.

Q. He got the change because of non-residence, because he was a resident of another State?-A. Yes, if he got it. Mind you, I do not say that he did.

Q. I understood you to say that he did.-A. I say I have a sort of general impression that the suit was brought in the State court and then removed to the United States court, but I may be in error about that; that was only the impression I got from Dr. Colegrove. I had nothing to do with the suit there, but I learned from Dr. Colegrove that judg ment was obtained against him there very much to his surprise; he did not expect they would succeed. But the judgment was obtained for a sum much larger than he supposed he was liable for.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. How much was the amount of the judgment against him?-A. I think it was about $1,800; that is my recollection.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. What were these suits for; was he the original contractor or subcontractor; were they brought by contractors or citizens; what were they about?-A. The suit in Missouri, as I understand (I have not seen the record, and all I know about it is information I derived from Dr.

Colegrove in talking with him about it), was brought by some subcontractors of his who claimed that he was liable to them in damages for services in carrying the mails there. There was a controversy between them in relation to it.

Q. These suits that were brought in Pennsylvania, were they against contractors?-A. The suits that he brought in Pennsylvania were against his subcontractors, who had undertaken to carry the mail on certain routes for certain sums and had failed to do it.

Q. Had they sublet them to the Missouri men?-A. Oh, no; they had no connection with each other; the Pennsylvania and the Missouri suits had no connection with each other at all. I may be in error about the suits being in Pennsylvania. Since I began to speak about it, it seems to me they were in Northern New York instead of Pennsylvania. But I have memoranda at my office by which I can find out in what courts they are there, and whether in Pennsylvania or New York; I am not quite certain in relation to it. It has been some two years since the suits were brought, or three years, I think, since they were brought, in Pennsylvania or New York, and I do not remember distinctly which State they are in. The Missouri case was an earlier one even than the New York cases. It was pending there, as I understand, in Missouri, when I first became acquainted with Dr. Colegrove. That was among the first things he ever consulted with me about.

Q. What part of Missouri did he live in?—-A. I do not remember. It is some years ago since he left there. He has been living here in Washington ever since I knew him, and, I understand, some years before.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Did you give a written opinion in the Missouri case too, as to Dr. Colegrove's rights and liabilities?-A. I do not remember; I do not think I did, for when he first consulted me that suit was then pending; he was then defending it, and I think his consultation with me was in regard to some points of the defense, as to what witnesses he would need at the trial, and what facts he would wish to prove. I think that my only connection with that case was first to advise with him about what he would need at the trial, and secondly as to a defense to be made against the suit that should be brought here upon the Missouri judgment, if one should be brought.

Q. Your entire services, then, to him were in matters of consultation and not in regard to the bringing of suits?-A. It was something more than consultation, for I did a good deal of work for him in the way of corresponding with counsel who brought the Pennsylvania or New York suits. I have done considerable work for him in the way of corresponding with his subcontractors in the West, some of them. I remember an instance now, where a subcontractor threatened to sue him here, and sent his claims to a firm of lawyers in this city, and he was written to and came to me, and I had to write West and investigate the matter. I had several consultations and considerable correspondence, and finally advised him that he was not liable to pay the demand, and to stand suit. I so advised the lawyers here who had charge of the matter and they did not risk the suit; at all events they never sued him.

Q. These were all merely civil suits?-A. Yes, sir; they were civil suits.

Q. In which you were engaged for Dr. Colegrove?-A. Yes, sir; and Dr. Colegrove's wife has a separate estate of her own, and some years ago, some of the first business I ever did for him when I was introduced

to him by Mr. Coleman, was to advise him in relation to her rights in that property and how she could transfer it. She desired to make a transfer or exchange of it and to sell that property, and I drew the papers, and some of the contracts between her and the parties who built her house; and, as I go on to talk, I remember that there were twenty, twenty-five, or thirty matters that I advised Dr. Colegrove about, from first to last.

Q. In the matter of services to his wife you have received your compensation in the fees that you have stated that you received from him?— A. Yes, sir; I never received anything directly from his wife. He always came directly to me in relation to those matters, and I only saw her when it was necessary to have her execute the papers, and so on.

Q. When were these payments made for services in the Pennsylvania, Missouri, and New York cases?-A. The $200 or $250, which was first paid, was understood to be a sort of general retainer for me to look after his business, and when I thought I had rendered services enough to cover that he would pay me more.

Q. When was that first retainer paid?-A. As I tell you, I cannot fix the date now; I might, possibly, if I were at my office. But it was not far from the time that I was retained by Mr. Rerdell.

Q. It was during the trial of the first star-route case?-A. No, sir; it was prior to the trial, because Mr. Rerdell employed me a few days prior to the trial, and I think Dr. Colegrove employed me a few days before Mr. Rerdell did. But it may have been a considerable time before; I am not positive about the time. That original employment by Dr. Colegrove, and indeed all matters connected with Dr. Colegrove, was entirely out of my mind when I came here this morning. I had not thought of him at all, and therefore what I have said is purely from recollection of matters that occurred, some of them, three or four years ago, without any data to go by or anything to refresh my recollection.

Q. Are you in partnership now with any one, or were you at that time?-A. I have a sort of partnership with Colonel Cook, and have had ever since the 1st day of January, 1880.

Q. What do you mean by "a sort of partnership"?—A. I will explain to you just what our arrangement is. When I first came to Washington I went into the office with Colonel Cook without any understanding between him and myself about it, except that he had a large practice, a great many cases on hand, and he was in failing health at that time, and not able to devote much time to the cases. He permitted me to go into court and take charge of his cases precisely as if they were mine, introduced me to his clients, and I took charge pretty largely of the civil cases. I had nothing to do, and never had anything to do, with Colonel Cook's criminal practice. That is very considerable here at this bar, and I have had nothing to do with it. I never have been associated with him in a criminal case, and have never received any part of the fee that he has ever had in a criminal case, whether he appeared for the Government or against it. Q. Did you divide with him the fees that you had in these cases? -A. I will tell you in a moment, if you will let me go along in my own way, just what the arrangement was. I continued in that way to do a great deal of the work, most of the work of preparation, and always participated in the trial, or took part in the trial, of important civil cases in court up until, as I remember now, the 1st of January, 1880. We had no arrangement as to fees or what I was to receive at all, but whenever a case was settled and the fees realized out of it he would suggest that I ought to have such a part of the fee, and we

divided the fee in each case along in that way and never had any dif ficulty about it. We understood each other, and I was always satis fied with what he suggested I might keep out of the case. My main point was to become acquainted with the bar and with clients, and to familiarize myself with the practice in the District of Columbia rather than to consider the matter of fees for these first few years.

Q. Was that in civil and criminal cases both?-A. It was only civil cases. As I said before, and I repeat again, from the time I first came to Washington to the present time I never have had any interest in any criminal case that Colonel Cook has ever been interested in or tried, whether he appeared for the Government or against it. And I have none of his criminal practice to day. I believe it is safe for me to say that I have not appeared as counsel in more than half a dozen criminal cases since I have been in Washington, and in those I have been em. ployed entirely separate from Colonel Cook. His clients understand that they do not secure my services when they employ him in criminal

cases.

Q. But they do in civil cases?-A. Yes. On the 1st of January, 1880, Colonel Cook and I made a permanent agreement or arrangement that has continued down to the present time, that as to all new business from that time, new cases, actual cases in court, I was to have one half and he one-half of the fees.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. While Colonel Cook was employed as Government counsel A. (Interposing.) If you will allow me to get through with my statement I will be glad to answer that?

Mr. FYAN. I beg pardon; I thought you were through.

The WITNESS. That arrangement applied only to civil cases where suits were actually brought or defended in court. In criminal cases where he was retained I was to perform no services unless I saw fit to do so, and was to have no part of the fees. In all office business that came to me, in business that I did that did not result in actually bringing suits in the courts of the District of Columbia I kept all the fees, and he did the same thing. That was our arrangement, and it has continued down to the present time. Now I would be glad to answer any questions.

Q. While Colonel Cook was acting as counsel for the Government did you defend any of the parties against whom indictments were found or were likely to be found?-A. No, sir.

Q. Were you employed by any of the defendants?-A. No, sir; not while he was Government counsel. He resigned in March, 1882, I think it was, and I was employed the latter part of May or the first of June following. I do not remember the year, whether it was 1881 or 1882. Q. You were employed by whom?-A. By Mr. Rerdell.

Q. How much did Mr. Rerdell pay you?-A. He paid me $2,500. Q. He was not indicted was he?-A. Yes, sir; he was indicted at that time, and it was understood then that the trial would come on in a few days.

Q. Did you divide any portion of your fee with Colonel Cook?-A. No, sir; I did not.

Q. Did you consult with him about that case?-A. No, sir; I did not consult with him about it; but after I had been employed, I knew that he had been counsel some years ago in General Babcock's case where the charge was conspiracy, and I knew he had investigated the subject pretty closely, and I asked him if he had a brief or anything to give me,