By the CHAIRMAN :

Q. And that was before President Garfield died ?—A. That was before President Garfield's death, according to my recollection, but after his assassination-after his wound.

Q. It was in the summer, then?-A. Yes, sir; it was in the summer of 1881, after the 2d of July. I know that on the 2d day of July, the day of his assassination, I was at Parkersburg, W. Va., attending the Federal court there when the news came, and of course it was a matter of astonishment to us all. I am not entirely certain whether Dr. Colegrove ever spoke to me before President Garfield's assassination or not; but I know it was during President Garfield's sickness that some of these matters transpired.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. You went to Mr. Cole because he was a partner of Colonel Cook's? -A. I cannot help but say that, gentlemen.

Q. And at that time you knew that Colonel Cook was in the Government service?-A. I knew that Colonel Cook was in the Government service.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. And Mr. Cole went from your presence into the room where Colonel Cook was, and asked him about it?-A. Yes, sir; and came back and reported to me.

Q. Did he state how much he desired to be paid down, and what would be paid thereafter?-A. He demanded then $500.

Q. Did he say then that he had to divide part of it with Colonel Cook-A. I cannot say that he said at that time that he had to divide with Colonel Cook, but he said that he had to use money other ways than what he would retain himself. But he subsequently told me

Q. (Interposing.) When did he subsequently tell you?-A. During that summer and fall certainly, because I had a good many interviews. I was here at that time, and I had interviews with him almost daily.

Q. What did he tell you?-A. That he had to divide with Colonel Cook, and that he had paid Colonel Cook money, a part of that received from Dr. Colegrove. I think he told me that he paid more than half. Q. What did Dr. Colegrove tell you about it?-A. I do not think Dr. Colegrove ever told me anything about how the money was divided. I have no recollection of his ever having told me so. I saw Dr. Colegrove there at the office several times. He went there with me at first, and then afterwards I met him there, sometimes by appointment and sometimes accidentally.

Q. Do you know whether Dr. Colegrove was indicted or not?-A. He was not indicted, as I understand, and I do not believe he ought to have been. If I had supposed he deserved indictment I would not have interceded for him.

Q. He told you that he was a contractor, did he?-A. Yes, sir; he told me that he was a contractor, and he told me that he did not want the notoriety of an indictment, and would rather give something than to have the notoriety of it, although he said he could defend himself successfully. I had known him a good many years. We occupied an office together in Saint Louis for a year and a half or two years, and I suppose it was for that reason that he came to me, probably.

Q. Do you know what routes he was interested in?-A. I do not; I never inquired into that matter.

Q. Did he tell you?-A. I do not think he did. He may have told

me some of his routes. He had a large number of routes; that I recollect very distinctly, but the numbers of them I am unable to give you. Q. He said he would rather pay to keep from being indicted than to pay for the defense?-A. Yes, sir; that he did not want the notoriety of it.

Q. He did not want to be published as having been indicted ?—A. No, sir; he did not want it published.

Q. Did he tell you that he paid that money for this purpose?-A. I cannot say that he ever told me that in so many words.

Q. What did he tell you?-A. He told me that he had paid money, and I knew it was for that purpose, because I made the arrangement. By Mr. FYAN:

Q. At this first interview with Mr. Cole, did you tell him it was your object to prevent his being indicted?-A. Yes, sir; that is what I told him.

Q. What other conversation occurred ?—A. Why, I asked him if he could not prevent it through the instrumentality of Colonel Cook. Q. What did he say?-A. He said he thought he could, and went and conferred with Colonel Cook, and came back and informed me that he could.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. What did you do then; did you inform Dr. Colegrove?-A. Yes, sir; I informed Dr. Colegrove, and we made an appointment and had a conference together.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. You told him at this first interview that Mr. Cole required the payment of $500 down as a retainer.-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And he subsequently told you that he paid that?-A. Yes, sir; and Mr. Cole told me the same thing, and I think told me he got $250 more. I would not say affirmatively that Mr. Cole ever told me that, or I would not say affirmatively that he ever did get $250 more; but such is my present recollection.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. And he told you in addition to that, that Colonel Cook got the larger portion of what he got before?-A. That is my recollection of it. He certainly told me that he divided with Colonel Cook.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. When you came back with Dr. Colegrove, what took place in that conversation?-A. They had a conference, and Mr. Cole told Dr. Cole grove that he would protect him. I am very much of the impression that I was present when the money was paid over-such is my present recollection-when the $500 was paid.

Q. He came there for the purpose of fixing it up?-A. He came there for the purpose of perfecting the arrangement. I went preliminarily and made the preliminary arrangement, and then Dr. Colegrove and myself went there together.

Q. That was at the office of Cook & Cole ?-A. Yes, sir; at the office of Cook & Cole.

Q. Was Colonel Cook in the office at the time?-A. Colonel Cook was about. I know he was in the office when I had my first interview with Mr. Cole, because he went from his room into Colonel Cook's room, and had a conference. I saw him go, and saw him conferring with Colonel

Of

Cook through the door, and he came back and reported to me. course, I did not hear what Mr. Cole said to Colonel Cook. I was not within hearing distance, but I was where I saw them.

Q. He came back and reported what?-A. That he could protect Dr. Colegrove.

Q. And then you went to Dr. Colegrove and had a consultation ?—A. We made an appointment, I think, for the next morning.

Q. Did you stay with Dr. Colegrove until the arrangement was com pleted-A. I have the impression that I was there until the money was paid over.

Q. Was anything said about Mr. Cole's having transacted other business for Dr. Colegrove?-A. Dr. Colegrove did not know him up to that time.

Q. Did you introduce him?-A. Yes, sir; I introduced him. Dr. Colegrove did not know him up to that time. I think he has transacted business for him since; I have so understood.

Q. Did this payment have any relation to any legal services rendered him in regard to suits in Missouri, Pennsylvania, New York, or anywhere else?-A. Not at all; it was for that, and for that exclusively.

Q. Was any other subject mentioned ?-A. No other subject was mentioned at that time in my presence, nor was there as between me and Mr. Cole.

Q. When have you last seen Dr. Colegrove?-A. I have not seen Dr. Colegrove since prior to a year ago in March. I left here a year ago March, the 3d of March, I think, and I have been back here but once since until now. I was back here about the 1st of May or a little before the 1st of May. Other than that I have not been here since the first days of March, 1883.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. That is all you know in relation to the matter?-A. Yes, sir; that is all I know in regard to it.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Have you any written memoranda or diary which you kept at the time, by which you can refresh your memory as to the dates of the transactions about which you testify?-A. I think I have. I have always been accustomed to keeping a diary, and I think I kept one at that time, and that by referring to my diary I can give the dates of these transactions.

Q. Please then refer to your diary and state any matters which you find therein which will throw light upon the transactions referred to.A. I will do so whenever the copy of this evidence comes to me for my inspection. What I did in this matter was done for a friend. I received no fee or compensation whatever for what I did.

The committee then adjourned until Tuesday, June 10, 1884, at 10 o'clock a. m. -38*

H. Mis. 38, pt. 2

WASHINGTON, June 13, 1884.

RICHARD T. MERRICK Sworn and examined.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. Please state your occupation and residence.-Answer. I reside in Washington; I have been practicing law thirty years.

Q. Have you at any time been engaged in the service of the United States, and, if so,in what capacity?-A. I was commissioned as assistant attorney-general, charged with the duty of trying the star-route cases in, I think, the latter part of March, 1882. I think the date of the commission was the 31st of March, 1882.

Q. What was the purport of that commission?-A. It was a commission to me as special assistant attorney-general.

Q. When did you enter upon the discharge of your duties under that commission?-A. My impression is that I entered immediately upon the discharge of the duties. By reference to the printed record containing the arguments upon the questions of law preliminary to the trial of the indictment before a jury I find that I was in court on March 31. Before the issuing of that commission I had been, for some week or two probably, engaged in consultations with the counsel previously employed; it being then understood at the Department of Justice that I would accept the tender of the position that had theretofore been made

to me.

Q. Was there any contract made between you and the Attorney-General with regard to your compensation, and, if so, what was it?—A. There was no special contract whatever with regard to the amount. My impression is that the commission said "at a compensation to be de; termined by the Attorney-General," and in the course of conversations with the Attorney-General upon that subject it was understood that he was himself to determine the amount, and I submitted to him at that time that I would, with great pleasure, accept his judgment in the premises, and hoped that if he did not entirely concur with me when any account of mine was rendered he would reduce or enlarge it, as the case might be, according to his judgment of the value of the services.

Q. At what amount did he fix your compensation after the services had been rendered?-A. The entire amount I had received at the time I retired from the cases was some $37,000 or $38,000—under $40,000. Q. Were you paid a per diem, or according to the service rendered in special cases?-A. I charged according to my services; making the charges as moderate as I thought they could properly be made, appreciating that full and adequate compensation could not well be paid for such services under the circumstances.

Q. Was there any allowance to you for personal expenses?-A. Oh, none whatever.

Q. Have you settled in full with the Department?-A. I have settled in full with the Department, and, by a failure upon my part to present a bill before the close of the last fiscal year for services rendered during the latter portion of that year, and by combining a charge for those services with that for services subsequently rendered within the present fiscal year, I think $3,500 of my account was not paid. The Attorney-General suggested that it should go into the deficiency bill, and I told him I didn't want it so, and that if I had made a mistake, and they could not pay it, I would let it go.

Q. Have you received all you expect to receive?-A. I have received all that I expect to receive. For the amount that is yet due I shall make no demand.

Q. Please state the nature and extent of the services you rendered the Government; stating first how long you were employed.-A. I was in the service of the Government from the time indicated, that is, some few weeks before the date of my commission, down to the 31st of March, 1884, being two years. My position was, as I have stated, special assistant attorney-general, and my duty was, as designated by the Attorney-General himself, to represent him in these cases, as he could not give them the amount of personal attention which they required, particularly in the trial of the cases and as general counsel.

Q. Was it any part of your duties to decide questions as to who should be presented to the grand jury for indictment, or whether the evidence was sufficient in particular cases to justify the finding of indictments?-A. The duty of presenting the evidence to the grand jury and having the parties that were supposed to be guilty indicted belonged exclusively to Colonel Bliss; the preparation of the indictments belonged to Mr. Ker, and I was at hand to be consulted upon any subject upon which they might desire to consult me.

Q. Was it any part of your duties to examine the reports of the special agents of the Post-Office Department and to determine from them whether sufficient cases were made out against particular persons to justify an effort to have indictments found?-A. What was properly within the limits of my employment and belonged to my duty, of course the committee must determine from the statement I have made of the facts. My own judgment, concurring with that of the Attorney-General, was to the effect that I had nothing whatever to do with the preparation of the testimony to go to the grand jury, or with the presentation of that testimony to the grand jury. In fact the position which I occupied, under my commission, was one which did not justify me in appearing before the grand jury, nor would I have been allowed in their room under the law of the land; and, except in one particular, which may hereafter be developed in the course of this examination, Í never went beyond the limits which I have indicated as those prescribed by my own judgment as belonging to the appointment. I will hand to the committee a copy of my commission, which was, if I recollect right, substituted for a commission which had some two weeks before been issued, but which was in some particulars erroneous. The commission was produced, and read as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

March 29, 1882.

SIR: You are hereby appointed Special Assistant Attorney-General to aid in the prosecution of certain persons charged with being concerned in frauds on the United States in connection with what is known as the star-route investigation, at a compensation to be determined by the Attorney-General when the suits are ended. You will take the oath prescribed by law for district attorneys and transmit the same to this Department.

Very respectfully,

RICHARD T. MERRICK, Esq.,

Washington, D. C.

BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER,
Attorney-General.

Q. There has been some controversy in the testimony before this committee as to how it happened that the Dorsey-Brady case, the one that was actually tried, was selected for trial instead of other cases which have been mentioned. Can you explain to the committee what you know in reference to that?-A. Immediately after my appointment by the Attorney-General Mr. Bliss called to see me and we had a consultation in reference to the subject that we had in charge. That consulta