The body is in the handwriting of J. R. Miner, but the signature is by S. W. Dorsey. Hodges wrote the petitions on routes 40104 and 40105. Both were made the basis of large increases.

After I was served with a subpoena duces tecum to appear before the Congressional investigating committee in 1880 I tore a number of leaves from my letter-press copybook, as the contents were of a compromising character. Some of them I still have. In the letter of December 28, 1870, to D. W. C. Wheeler, page 466, refers to a payment of $200 to A. M. Soteldo, through George H. Giddings.

"Our friend," referred to on page 457, is J. E. Reeside. He demanded $20,000 as the price of letting up on the contractors. The second clause in the list of reasons refers to A. M. Soteldo. Negotiations with Reeside were conducted by Boone. A large salary on the Pacific slope was offered him, which he declined.

Wheeler had been sent to Washington by S. W. Dorsey to look after his interests. He expected $2,500 from the company for going upon its bonds as surety. He told me that he made the arrangement with Senator Dorsey himself, who guaranteed the payment. The Senator subsequently tried to throw the obligation upon Miner. When I spoke to Miner he said he had never seen Wheeler; that it was Dorsey's own arrangement, and declined to do anything about the matter. This claim is referred in the closing paragraph.

In the letter dated January 9, 1880, to D. W. C. Wheeler, pages 468-'69-'70, the clause on page 469 running, "Now, so far as the party whose letter I return to you is concerned, we do not fear him any more, and propose to let him go to the devil," means J. E. Reeside. We had come to the conclusion not to be blackmailed by J. E. Reeside. Letter of May 22, 1880, to J. W. Bosler, pages 358-'60:

"General B. is very much alarmed, and he and I had a long conversation to-day, during which he made several valuable suggestions, which I shall follow." (Page 360.) May 21, 1880, I was served with a subpoena duces tecum. The next day I called on General Brady. He asked in substance, "Have Dorsey's books been kept in such a way that they can safely be carried before the committee?" I replied "No. There are some accounts showing large cash payments which will require explanation." He then asked if the books were large, or if there was so much in them that they could not be copied. I informed him that the contents were not voluminous and that they could be copied in a short time. He then suggested, being the first person to put the thought in my mind, that new books be made, omitting the objectionable accounts. I acted at once upon his advice. He added, "Dorsey is a damn fool for keeping books."

As before stated, the account of Wm. Smith, alias Thos. J. Brady, was opened with a charge of $18,000. A few days afterwards I went to the bank of Middleton & Co., with S. W. Dorsey, who drew $7,000 in cash, in several checks-three, as I now remember. We walked down F street together to the Post-Office Department. We separated at Brady's door, he telling me to wait for him in Turner's room, which I did. After the lapse of fifteen or twenty minutes Mr. Dorsey rejoined me, when we left the Department building.

Either that or the following day Senator Dorsey asked me if I had given him credit for the amount paid to Brady. "No," answered I, "There is no account with Brady.” "Well, with Wm. Smith," he continued. "It is all the same. Damn it, I supposed you knew it."

On the books I credited S. W. Dorsey with $7,000, and charged the same to Wm. Smith.

I remember going over the stubs and finding that the checks used for the purpose aggregated $7,000 also.

MONTFORD C. RERDELL. Subscribed and sworn to at Washington, D. C., January 17, 1883, before me. P. H. WOODWARD, Post-Office Inspector.

Rerdell made these two affidavits. They were submitted to me; the first one probably before the trial commenced and the second one dur ing the progress of the trial. I examined them with very great care and found that they contained a great deal of very important information, some of which was corroborated by written papers. I held the affidavits for a long time, and held the question of permitting Rerdell to become a witness under advisement up to, I think, the very day before he was put upon the stand. We consulted in regard to it at various times-Colonel Bliss and Mr. Ker and I-but the determination to allow him to become a witness was not reached, I think, until the evening before he went upon the stand. Now, my reason for using him at

that time was this: As I have said, there was ample testimony in the first case to justify a conviction, and we had all of that evidence already in the second case; but on the second trial, instead of having an intelligent jury, we had the worst jury I ever saw summoned to the box. I have never in this jurisdiction or any other seen so bad a jury.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Bad in what way?-A. Bad in intelligence, bad in every respect. I will tell you, gentlemen of the committee, why it was so bad. The first trial of this case, of course, attracted the attention of the people of Washington and of the entire country. Diligent and enterprising reporters were on hand during the whole of the first trial to report everything that was said by counsel, court, or witnesses. The journals throughout the country contained a very full report of the proceedings. The papers of this District contained quite a full record of everything that had transpired on that trial. According to the law of this District and the common law, a person is not competent to serve upon a jury who has formed and expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the person that he is called to try. There have been some slight relaxations of the rule as to the strength of the opinion and as to whether it can be removed by testimony, and so on, but it still stands as a rule of law, that if the man has formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, he is not a competent juror. Now, almost every intelligent man in the District of Columbia had formed and expressed an opinion in this case, and when those summoned as jurors were asked in the examination upon the voir dire as to the character of that opinion, its firmness, and the difficulty of removing it, they generally testified that their opinion was so decided that they did not think any testimony could change it; and those who, in the first instance, indicated that their opinion might possibly be changed, came to think that it would be more difficult to change it as they contemplated the prospect of sitting in that box for four or five months. [Laughter.]

So that, in point of fact, the operation of the rule excluded the intelligence of the District of Columbia from the jury-box, and the few intelligent men who were on the jury-that could be called intelligent men-were accepted, notwithstanding their opinions, and without regard to the rule. I think there were some men on that jury that could neither read nor write. The Government had three peremptory challenges, and only three, and I was obliged to exhaust one of those challenges, as the record will show you, upon a man of this description. He was a colored man; I think he came from the county, and had been laboring on a farm. He gave his name and occupation, and when asked whether he had formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of these defendants, he said he had not. When I asked if he had ever heard of the star-route case, he said he never had heard of such a case in his life. He was so entirely innocent of any knowledge of this transaction that I was naturally led to inquire whether he could read or write. No; he could not read a word of print. I appealed to the court to say that he was an incompetent juror, because the case involved an inquiry into forgery. Some of the most material inquiries in the case were as to forgeries.

The court said that under the law he seemed to be probably the most competent juror that had been offered. [Laughter]. I endeavored to get the court by some means or other to pass him by. All that was unavailing, but I could not consent, as the representative of this Governmens in the trial of such a case to allow that juror to be sworn after

what he had disclosed, so I was obliged to exhaust one of my peremptory challenges in order to get rid of that ignorant man. Of course, the defendants challenged every intelligent and competent man within the limits of their challenges. They did not want intelligence; and with their challenges and under the operation of this rule of law, the defendants got all they wanted, including a verdict of not guilty. Now, that being the character of the jury, I considered that, although the evidence without Rerdell's would certainly have been amply sufficient before an intelligent jury, I needed something further before such a jury as that, and as Rerdell's testimony was particularly personal to individuals and developed facts in a way that would help to explain the obscure records even to the most unintelligent mind, I deemed it allimportant to put him upon the stand, and I did put him upon the stand.

Q. That was after examining the affidavit that had been submitted to you?-A. After having had that affidavit under my examination for some months.

Q. Did Rerdell set forth in his affidavit and state in his testimony before the jury the relations that had existed between him and Mr. Dorsey in star-route matters ?-A He did, fully.

Q. Did that statement show that Mr. Dorsey was a party to these star-route frauds?-A. Certainly it did, sir.

Q. Was there any question raised by his testimony as to the propriety of calling as a witness for the Government Mr. James W. Bosler, of Pennsylvania?-A. There had been a great deal of talk about Mr. Bosler in both of these trials. Bosler was regarded as a friend of the defendants, and in the first trial we did not have sufficient faith in his integrity to believe that his appreciation of duty would override the obligations of that relation. We thought, moreover, that they would call him. In the second trial Mr. Bosler was summoned to appear as a witness, and I think a subpoena duces tecum was was served upon him to produce his books and certain papers. I find a passage in Rerdell's affidavit as follows:

I go back now to explain the connection of James W. Bosler with the business. In May, 1879, I learned from the letter-books that Dorsey had made a proposition to Bosler. The letter bears date May 13, 1879; was written by S. W. Dorsey, and an impression was taken by me in the copy-book, page 995. It showed the state of the service at the time; the amounts already paid to "T. J. B." (Thomas J. Brady); also the amounts advanced by S. W. D. (Stephen W. Dorsey); the sum, $20,000, borrowed from "P. B. P."; and an annual net profit of $54,000. It further stated that he had assurances that in a short time the service would be so increased as to yield a yearly profit of $100,000, out of which additional payments amounting to either $10,000 or $20,000, I forget which, were to be made to "T. J. B."

Q. Was there any effort made on your part to obtain from Bosler the letter as to which Rerdell testified that he had seen a copy of it in Dorsey's book?-A. I regarded that letter as a very important paper. I examined it with a great deal of care, as did the other counsel, and we consulted with regard to it; that is, we examined the letter-press copy, and we were resolved, if possible, to get the original letter. It was necessary, in order to introduce the letter-press copy, that we should show that there was an original, and that it had been in the possession of the party to whom it was addressed, and, of course, that it was lost. Mr. Bosler was put upon the stand and interrogated very closely by Mr. Bliss in regard to this subject. He swore positively that he had no such letter, that he never had received such a letter, and that no such letter existed so far as he knew. You will find his testimony on this subject on pages 2611 and 2612 of the record of the second trial.

Q. Was the press copy of that letter from the books of Mr. Dorsey submitted to you by Rerdell?-A. Yes, sir; we had the letter-press copy in full.

Q. And was it the opinion of the counsel for the Government before the introduction of Bosler as a witness that his testimony would estab lish the fact of the receipt of that letter by him?-A. I thought that it would; but I never had myself any conversation at all with Mr. Bosler. I never spoke to him in my life.

Q. You simply assumed that a letter appearing upon Mr. Dorsey's letter-book addressed to Bosler would be a copy of one actually sent, and that Bosler must have received the letter?-A. I did. I took it for granted that Bosler had received the letter.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. And you assumed that he would tell the truth about it?—A. I hoped that he would.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. It was absolutely necessary to prove the existence of the original letter before you could introduce secondary evidence, and therefore you had to put Bosler upon the stand?-A. Yes, sir.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Did Rerdell testify that an original letter of the kind found in the letter-book had been sent to Bosler by him?-A. I think he did. My impression is that he did; and the object of examining Bosler was to prove the loss of the letter.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Did he swear he never received it?-A. He swore he never received any such letter. There were two letters that had been sent to Bosler which are mentioned in Rerdell's affidavit that I wanted to get in, and it turned out, I believe, that Bosler had never seen either of them; at least, he said so.

Q. Who wrote those letters ?-A. S. W. Dorsey wrote the important letter to which the chairman has just now referred, in which there is an account given of the profits of the business and the amount to be paid to Brady; and Rerdell wrote the second letter, telling Bosler of the demand of the House committee of investigation that he should go before it with the books of the company and of an interview that he had had with Brady upon that subject.

Q. I understood you to say awhile ago that there was such a letter?A. Mr. Dorsey swore there never was any such letter. Mr. Rerdell swore that there was. Rerdell had taken the letter-press copy.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. You are speaking now of the second letter; in whose handwriting was the first one?-A. I remember very distinctly the image upon my mind of the signature of Dorsey to that letter; that is, what I supposed to be his signature.

Q. Did Bosler swear that he had never received either of the letters?— A. He swore positively that he had never received either of them.

Q. Then it was a matter of necessity for you to put Bosler upon the stand?-A. Yes, sir; he was put upon the stand for the declared purpose of proving the loss of the letter, and not for anything else.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Was there any other evidence than this within his knowledge that was material, and which you desired to produce?-A. None that I know of. I am unable to say what he knew, because, as I tell you, I had no conversation with him at all.

Q. Was he served with a subpoena duces tecum to produce his books?A. He was.

Q. Did he respond to that demand to produce his books?—A. In order that I may save you the trouble of asking various questions in the direction in which your examination is tending, I will say that I had nothing whatever to do with Bosler. Mr. Bosler came here, as I was informed by the Attorney-General, and also by Mr. Bliss with his books, and expressed a desire that I should not see his books.

Q. For what reason?-A. Because I was a Democrat and he was of a different political faith, and his books contained some political entries and some private matters which he did not desire submitted to the examination and criticism of one of the adverse political party; and the Attorney-General, speaking on the subject, indicated that that was Bosler's wish, and I think that Colonel Bliss may have indicated the same thing. I do not remember as to that; but it was then understood that Colonel Bliss should look at the books. I said at once, "I do not want to examine his private affairs; I do not want to see the books for any other purpose than to use whatever they may disclose that would be evidence in this trial, and I take it for granted that my associate will examine them just as well as I could."

Q. Where did Mr. Bosler live when at home?-A. At Carlisle, Pa. Q. Then there were objections to your looking at his books for the reason that there were some political entries in them?-A. That I understood to be the objection, and the reason why he did not want to submit his books to my examination.

Q. You yielded that point?-A. Of course, sir, readily.

Q. But Colonel Bliss examined the books?-A. Colonel Bliss, I take for granted, did, and I believe he has so stated.

Q. How long was Bosler held here as a witness by the Government?— A. He was held here for several weeks; whether all the time in attendance upon the court I am unable to say, but he was in attendance from time to time.

Q. Did he make any request to be relieved from the subpoena?-A. He never made any such request of me, because, as I have told you, I had no conversation with him.

Q. Did he desire to be relieved from appearing before you because of the reasons given, or for any other reason?—A. I never had any communication with him.

Q. Did any other person have any communications with you in his behalf or for his benefit?-A. Well, there was a gentleman who spoke to me upon the subject.

Q. Did he desire to be relieved from appearing before the court in this trial on the ground of wishing not to disclose any of his business matters in court?-A. He desired to be released from the obligations of the subpoena which kept him in attendance here.

Q. Was that merely on account of the inconvenience, or for some other reason?-A. As I recollect, what was said was that he did not desire to have his private matters in his books made public. As to whatever related to this case there was no objection. Now, I am stating what was said, but I do not believe it is competent evidence, if you will pardon me.