or a reference to some authorities, and he furnished me his brief that he made in General Babcock's case.

Q. Do you mean the Saint Louis whisky case?-A. Yes, sir; the Saint Louis case. He did not appear there in that case to argue it, but General Babcock was indicted here also, as you will remember, and he tried the case here and made a brief, or he and Mr. Storrs did together; I think Mr. Storrs's name is on the brief also.

Q. Who paid you that $2,500?—A. Mr. Rerdell. It was paid in this way: Mr. Rerdell brought me a sight draft drawn by Stephen W. Dorsey on Mr. Bosler for $2,500.

Q. Who employed you?-A. Mr. Rerdell.

Q. In person?-A. Yes.

Q. Who was with him at that time?-A. I am not certain that anybody was, and yet I have a sort of impression that Mr. Boone was with him at the time.

Q. Were you acquainted with Mr. Bosler?-A. I never saw Mr. Bos ler in my life, and would not have known him if I had seen him.

Q. And the $2,500 was a draft drawn by Mr. Dorsey on Mr. Bosler?-A. Yes.

Q. Who cashed it ?-A. It was cashed by Mr. Bosler, I imagine. I put it in bank and collected it through the bank.

Q. What bank?—A. I sent it to a friend of mine in New York, and he collected it through the bank. I do not know what bank he collected it through.

Q. Mr. Bosler lived at Carlisle, Pa. ?-A. Yes, sir; at Carlisle, Pa. Q. What is the name of your friend in New York?-A. Storrs.

Q. Do you know his address?-A. Yes; Samuel J. Storrs. He has an office in the Equitable Building, at No. 120 Broadway, New York. I had some financial transactions with him, and I sent him the draft and requested him to collect it through the bank and send me his check for it, and he did so.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Did not Rerdell tell you that ex-Senator Dorsey was furnishing money for his defense?-A. Yes, sir; I so understood it. I understood from Mr. Rerdell that ex-Senator Dorsey owed him a large sum of money, and that he had been trying to get him to pay it and had not been able to get it out of him, and that this money that was paid to me was a partial payment by Dorsey to Rerdell of money that he owed him. Rerdell also claimed that Bosler was largely indebted to him for serv ices rendered that he had not paid him for. I know nothing about the facts myself.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. What was the date of that draft?-A. I do not know.

Q. Well, approximate it.-A. It was some time in the latter part of May or the early part of June of that year that the star-route case was first tried, and my recollection is that was 1882.

Q. Do you mean when you were employed?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. It was before you appeared for him in court?-A. Yes, sir; I would not have appeared until I had my retainer or had it secured. I told him I must either have the money or have it secured, and he brought me this draft.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Can you tell why it was that he went outside of the attorneys employed by Mr. Dorsey for his own defense?—A. I can tell you the

reason that he gave me, though I do not know whether I ought to; whether it would be disclosing things that counsel ought to disclose or not. I submit that to you, gentlemen. If you say that it is not improper, I have no objection to telling it.

The CHAIRMAN. We do not know what it is until you state it. It is for you to determine whether it is or not.

The WITNESS. It does not seem to me that there can be any objec tion to it; I certainly have none myself. I would much prefer however, before I tell it, that Mr. Rerdell should say that he had no objec tion. I do not know where he is, however. I think the reason he gave me was a proper one and a commendable one. He seemed to be laboring under the impression that possibly when they got into the trial of the case and developments were made, that if he was not represented by counsel who were not employed by somebody else, an effort might be made to clear others at his expense, and for that reason he said to me that he wanted somebody in the case who would represent him and nobody else, to look out for his interests and see that he was properly treated through the trial by other defendants.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. He was convicted, was he not?-A. Yes; the first verdict convicted him and a man by the name of Minor.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Did you make an argument in his behalf before the jury?-A. No, sir.

Q. Did he desire to let the matter go by default?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Had he made up his mind, then, to plead guilty?—A. No, sir. Q. Why did he allow the matter, then, to go without a contest?—A. It was determined in a consultation where Rerdell and I think pretty much all the other defendants were present, and the counsel of all parties, that in view of the fact that Rerdell had at one time made what was said to be a confession, that the more he was kept in the background during the trial the better it would be; not to make his part of the defense conspicuous.

Q. Were you present at that consultation?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you agree to it?-A. Yes; it seemed to me to be the true policy.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Did Rerdell say that he had made this confession with any hope or promise of immunity on the part of Government counsel?—A. He said to me that at the time he made it he had reason to believe that if he did make it it would not only stop everything as against him, but all the balance of the parties.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. To whom did he refer, to all the parties?-A. To the other persons who were indicted with him.

Q. Do you mean Dorsey, Brady, and Vaile?-A. That is what I understood him to say.

Q. Will you repeat that again? I did not exactly catch the force of it.-A. The statement that he made was that he hoped by making the statement, and had reason to believe, that the making of it would stop all further proceedings against him and the others.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Did he say that the parties who made it held out that inducement?-A. No, sir; I do not think he did.

Q. Or left that impression on his mind?-A. He left the impression on my mind that some person that he supposed had the power and authority to do so had made him that promise, but he did not tell me who it was.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Did Rerdell consent to this arrangement by which he was not to have his case presented to the jury in the first trial?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Why was it that you agreed to go in and consult with the other counsel when he had employed you for the purpose of having his case separately defended; for fear the other people would sacrifice him?-A. It was understood from the beginning that we would all consult together and would all act together for the good of all. His object in employing separate counsel, as I understood, was to have some person that he could rely upon that he knew was not interested for anybody else, and whose judgment in relation to the matter should not be biased by having any other person's interest in charge. I did not understand that Rerdell had any suspicions against the other defendants or their counsel, but that the other counsel having other interests at stake, their judgment might be biased by that fact, and he wanted some person who should not be interested for any other defendant, so that he might have the unbiased judgment of that man.

By Mr. FYAN :

Q. When was this trial?-A. It began early in June.

Q. When was this consultation?-A. Oh, the consultation was after the evidence was all in; that is the consultation that resulted in determining that no speech should be made to the jury for Rerdell.

Q. As I understand you, when he employed you it was in May, you think?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. It was either in May or June, and he paid you $2,500, and he did that because he was fearful lest the others would throw off on him?— A. That they might.

Q. And then immediately after he had paid you that $2,500 he came to the conclusion that he did not want to be represented at all, but would rely upon this promise that had been held out?-A. Oh, no; you are mistaken about that. It was months from the time that he employed me before the consultation I speak of. We were all the months of June, July, and a part of the month of August putting the evidence in in that case, before we got to the point where we came to consider the question of the argument to address to the jury.

Q. Then in the month of August, after the evidence was in, he changed his mind?-A. No; he did not change his mind. Rerdell was present at the consultation, and we determined what would be the best course, and who should make speeches to the jury and who should not, and it was determined there that certain counsel should speak and certain others of them should not.

Q. He concurred in that?-A. Yes, sir; he concurred in that.

Q. He did not want to be specially represented, then, by counsel in the argument?-A. Not in the argument he did not, particularly. In the argument on the law and the instructions to the jury I participated.

Q. Were you present when the evidence was taken in court?—A. Yes, sir; I was there every day while the evidence was being taken; every hour.

Q. Did you ask any questions?-A. I do not remember whether I

cross-examined any witness or not; I think I did; two or three of them whose evidence was specially aimed against Rerdell; but I am not positive about that.

Q. Did you make any argument on legal propositions?-A. Yes, sir; on several, and I prepared a somewhat elaborate argument upon what I considered to be the leading proposition in the case, and was ready to deliver it, but the judge shut off discussion upon that subject by saying that he had determined to submit certain evidence to the jury, and there were no arguments delivered upon that point. Perhaps I ought to explain that a little more fully. In the early part of the trial they offered that confession of Rerdell's. Colonel Ingersoll, who appeared for some of the other defendants, made a short argument against its admission as evidence, and the judge who was presiding sustained the objection, saying if it was evidence at all it would not be until a foundation had been laid for it, until a conspiracy had been proven. The Government hereupon withdrew it, and gave notice that at a future stage of the tial, when they got further along, they would offer it again. Well, it seemed to me that that was the turning point in the case. As the evidence went along I digested it, and I digested the law and prepared what seemed to me, of course, a conclusive argument upon the law and the facts, to show that the facts did not tend sufficiently strong to prove a conspiracy to justify the court in admitting that confession. I had great confidence in getting the court so to hold.

Q. Now, right there, Mr. Cole, do you mean to say that, as a lawyer, you came to the conclusion that that confession was not admissible as against Rerdell?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Or do you mean to say that that declaration or confession would not be admissible as against the co-conspirators until a prima facie case of conspiracy was established?-A. I say both.

Q. On what ground do you say it was not admissible as against him?-A. I will tell you. I will show you that the court and the Gov. ernment counsel in that very case, before they got through with it, supported that position and came around to it. That was a trial for a conspiracy and there must be more than one in a conspiracy. In order to convict of a conspiracy you must show that more than one person conspired. Rerdell confessed what they said amounted to a conspiracy between himself and certain other individuals named. Now, you cannot convict Rerdell of that conspiracy unless you prove that some of the other persons mentioned by him in his confession conspired with him. That is the position I took. And I took the position further, that the evidence introduced failed to show conspiracy on the part of any of those persons mentioned in Rerdell's confession, with him, and that, therefore, his confession was not admissible against them, and therefore not admissible against him, because he could not conspire with himself. As I said before, I had very great confidence in convincing the court that that was the law, and I believe to-day that if the court had listened, I will not say to my argument, but if the court had lis tened to the counsel on that point, I believe the case would have gone off on that point; and I believe if there had been a conviction and the case had been finally taken to the court in banc, that the court in banc would, of necessity, have sustained that position. There was not evidence enough in that case, when you take it altogether with its expla nations and details, I say there was not evidence enough to justify any court in saying that it was sufficient to prove a conspiracy. I do not pretend to know or say whether anybody stole money from the Govern ment or got it improperly, or whether there was extravagance, I do not

know about that. But I do undertake to say, as a lawyer, that there never was evidence enough in that case to go to the jury upon the question of a conspiracy.

Q. Colonel Cook did not appear in the court as counsel for the Government in this case?-A. No, sir; he had resigned before that time. Now, at the second trial, to illustrate what I state as the law, and as the court and the Government counsel finally understood it, Rerdell on the second trial confessed, he plead guilty of conspiracy, and it stands there of record, and the jury went on and tried the case and they brought in a verdict of not guilty as to the others. So that the jury found there was no conspiracy. Thereupon the Government counsel said, "Why, of course, we cannot let this confession stand here against Rerdell," and upon their motion-the motion of the Government counsel-Rerdell was allowed to withdraw his plea of "guilty," and plead "not guilty:" and then they entered a nolle as to him, sustaining the original position which I took in the case, and which was taken by other counsel too. I do not say I originated it, by any means; but I did prepare an argument on which I spent more time than on any other argument I ever presented to a court, and, for a wonder, I was pretty well satisfied with it myself, and I did want a chance to get it to the court, but I could not, and it will have to go down to my posterity among my archives.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. How can you reconcile the verdict of the first jury with the facts as proven before the jury?-A. I think the first verdict was entirely erroneous, that Rerdell and Minor were guilty

Q. And the men with whom they conspired not guilty?-A. Yes, the verdict was inconsistent. There has been a good deal said about the juries of the District of Columbia, and I do not desire to be understood as reflecting upon those men. Take that mass of testimony put in before that jury, and the confusing arguments of counsel and the charge of the court, and it is a wonder to me that a set of men could make anything at all out of it. I do not think that the jury ought to be reflected upon because they found a verdict which to a lawyer must certainly seem to be inconsistent.

Q. Did you divide the fees in civil cases that you attended to with Colonel Cook?—A. I did.

Q. The fees that you received from Dr. Colegrove and Mr. Coleman ?— A. No, sir; not the fees I received from them, because they were not in cases in the District of Columbia, and were not embraced in our arrangement.

Q. Did you make any division of those fees with Colonel Cook?—A. No, sir; he got none of them. That was for advice and office business I did, and that belonged to me.

Q. Did you say to Mr. Coleman that any portion of it would also secure the services of Colonel Cook?-A. No, sir; I did not.

Q. Or that you would divide any portion of your fee with him?—A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know whether any efforts were made to influence the jury in the first or second star-route cases other than through the efforts of counsel in open court?-A. No, sir; not of my own knowledge. Of course I heard a good deal said about attempts to influence the jury, both on the part of the Government and on the part of the defendants. Q. You refer to what was current in the newspapers?-A. Yes, sir; that is all.