By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. I think I have seen a letter from the Attorney-General to the effect that he acceded to your retirement for a different reason.-A. I have here the correspondence that passed between the Attorney-General and myself at that time, which I shall read:

WASHINGTON CITY, March 31, 1884.

SIR: I have the honor to renew the request, heretofore on two or three occasions made by me, that I may be relieved from further participation in the prosecution of the star-route cases.

The most important of those cases in which it is likely any further action will be taken by the court is the case of the United States against William Pitt Kellogg, and in this case there are conditions at present existing and others likely to arise which, in my judgment, render my retirement desirable.

With a grateful appreciation of the legal and moral support I have received from you at all times throughout the progress of these cases, and with the assurance of my high regard for you personally, I remain, with great respect, your obedient servant, R. T. MERRICK. Hon. BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER,

Attorney-General.

To that letter I received the following reply:

WASHINGTON, April 1, 1884.

MY DEAR SIR: In conformity with your letter dated the 31st of March, I consent to your renewed request to be relieved from further participation in the prosecution of the star-route cases. This is a proper time for you to take the step you do Hitherto I have declined, because I saw there was a necessity for your presence. Now I do not see it, and I agree with you in the reasons you have given.

I am deeply obliged to you for your handsome allusion to myself, and I must add that the Government is in debt to you for the integrity, ability, and earnestness with which you have conducted these cases ever since I confided them to you.

I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant,

Hon. RICHARD T. MERRICK,

Attorney at Law, Washington.

By the CHAIRMAN:

BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER,

Attorney-General.

Q. The Attorney-General says therefore "the reasons you have given;" what were these reasons?-A. They are in my letter, Mr. Chair

man.

Q. I did not understand that they were.-A. Yes, sir; read my letter.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Did you give, orally, any other reasons than those contained in your letter?-A. There was a conversation between the Attorney General and myself upon the subject. There was one reason which operated very strongly upon the mind of the Attorney-General, and although it was a reason affecting to some extent my sensibility, yet I did not regard it as one that would control me in the performance of a duty. That was that from the first of this Kellogg business there had been an outery in certain quarters against me, upon the alleged ground that I was pursuing Mr. Kellogg from personal ill-will and party malice. Mr. Kellogg himself, I understood, was saying this in every possible direction; everybody, I believe, understood that the statement had been made; and I am impressed with the conviction that the AttorneyGeneral thought that possibly my presence in the case might be ascribed to such a feeling; that I would, therefore, be open to attack from the counsel on the other side; that the jury would have heard of this thing, and that all these circumstances would tend to lessen the weight of any argument I might address to the jury, and would be calculated to place me personally in an embarrassing position.

Q. Have you had your attention called to a letter from Mr. Brewster to Mr. Bliss, printed on page 288 of our record? If not, please look at it.-A. (Looking at the letter.) I see here an expression which indicates on the part of the Attorney-General entire concurrence in what I have just stated to the committee, where he says:

Mr. Merrick will withdraw from the cases also. This is a piece of personal information that I give you. He has for some time past, by letter and orally, urged me to be permitted to withdraw. I never have intended that he would try the cases after the vehement charges made by Mr. Kellogg that Mr. Merrick was instigating the cases for malicious reasons. I thought that Mr. Merrick's own dignity of character and self-respect would forbid his taking charge of the case when he rested under such accusation from the defendant, and so Mr. Merrick thought himself.

Now, in connection with this letter of mine to the Attorney-General, I may as well say that the closing paragraph of it, which assures the Attorney-General of my appreciation of the legal and moral support that I had received from him was not a matter of form, as such things often are, even in official communications; it was a matter of substance. And, whilst I decline to express opinions generally here, there are two classes of individuals in reference to whom I think the committee have a right to an opinion from me; those are my immediate superiors and my immediate inferiors. The Attorney-General was my immediate su perior. From the beginning of my relation to these cases to the end I found him to be an unfailing, firm, and resolute advocate of justice, determined, if he could accomplish it, that the ends of justice should be reached. I believe that he has never been swerved by any consideration of any kind from that line of duty. In the first trial of the Dorsey case I consulted with the Attorney-General day after day and time after time, and the instructions in that case, which are quite elaborate, were prepared by me in consultation afterwards with my brothers; I dictated them, I think, in the presence of Mr. Ker, and they were the results of repeated conferences with the Attorney-General. He kept up with the evidence, examined it, and discussed it with me from time to time and made the closing argument in the case. My immediate inferiors with whom I was brought more directly in contact than with anybody else, were Mr. Woodward, whom you have had before you, and Mr. Lyman the present Second Assistant Postmaster-General, and two more diligent, faithful, and earnest offi cers neither this, nor, in my judgment, any other Government ever had. Now, in connection with this letter of resignation, I deem it proper to bring before the committee, to complete the record of that transaction, another letter which I wrote to the district attorney [reading]:

1308 F STREET, WASHINGTON CITY, March 31, 1884,

DEAR SIR: After mature consideration, and partly in view of what transpired in court on Saturday, I this morning addressed a letter to the Attorney-General repeating the request, that I had heretofore made of him on two or three occasions, to be relieved from further participation in the prosecution of the star-route cases.

I have determined that I will not in any event take part in the Kellogg case. I beg leave to say to you that it will give me pleasure at any time to give you any information I may have in regard to that case, and which will in any way aid you in conducting it.

The case has been carefully and thoroughly prepared, and after a most deliberate and conscientious examination of the evidence, in my judgment there cannot be a doubt as to the guilt of the accused.

Very truly, yours,

A. S. WORTHINGTON, Esq.,

District Attorney.

R. T. MERRICK.

To that letter I received the following reply:

[United States District Attorney's Office.]

WASHINGTON, D. C., April 1, 1884. MY DEAR SIR: Your note of yesterday is just received. I also received to-day from the Attorney-General notice that you would not take further part in the Kellogg

case.

I am very sorry that you have thought it best to take this course. I shall avail myself of your kind offer to give me information in regard to the case; and, for that purpose, will try to call on you at a very early day.

Yours, very truly,

Hon. R. T. MERRICK,

Washington, D. C.

A. S. WORTHINGTON, Attorney of the United States for the District of Columbia.

That ended my connection with the star-route cases.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Mr. Kerr testified to a conversation that took place between you and Mr. Bliss with regard to the question whether a prosecution should be instituted against Senator Kellogg in which Mr. Bliss stated that Mr. Kellogg had admitted to him that he had accepted or received this money, and explained the circumstances under which he had received it. Do you remember such a conversation?-A. Mr. Chairman, I regret very much that Mr. Ker has deemed it expedient to speak of what passed between counsel in their conferences. I shall not do so except where it is necessary to correct something that he has said. In those particulars in which he has spoken I suppose I am obliged to speak. There was such a conversation between Mr. Bliss and myself, and my recollection of that conversation is, that Mr. Bliss informed me that Mr. Kellogg admitted that he had received this money, but not for himself; that he had not used it for his own purposes, but that it was used for some political purpose or measure. That is my best recollection of the statement; it is possible that I may be mistaken.

Mr. BLISS. In substance you are right. I will tell you or the committee about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that the substance of the conversation?

Mr. BLISS. Well, yes. Mr. Kellogg called upon me with a letter from the Attorney-General desiring me to see him. He stated, in the course of the conversation, that he did have certain post-office drafts from Price, and that the transaction was this: That he made an application to Mr. Price to contribute towards political expenses, and that Mr. Price said he hadn't any money. I think Mr. Kellogg gave me the impression that he thought Mr. Price was giving that as an excuse. He said that Price said he had no money, but he had some post-office drafts, and told him that if he, Kellogg, could arrange to get them cashed he would give him a certain portion of the money. I have an indefinite recollection that the amount was named as several thousand dollars-four or five thousand, I think. He said that he took the drafts; that there was an arrangement made to get them cashed, and that he got a portion of the money; but he insisted that he had had nothing to do with the origin of the drafts, or anything of that kind, and that it was merely a way of getting from a party. who was largely concerned and interested in his own State, a political contribution.

The CHAIRMAN. You have stated that you received a letter from the Attorney-General with regard to this matter.

H. Mis. 38, pt 2-41*

Mr. BLISS. I received a letter from the Attorney-General asking me to see Mr. Kellogg. Mr. Kellogg brought it to me.

Q. Was that the time when the conversation with Kellogg occurred?-A. My recollection is that this was the time. The letter is not dated, and therefore I cannot absolutely fix the date, but my impression is that that conversation was at the time I received this letter. I happen to have the letter here if you want it. The letter was read as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington.

MY DEAR MR. BLISS: See Mr. Kellogg, and oblige your friend,

B. H. BREWSTER.

I know the signature to be Mr. Brewster's, although it is not easy to recognize it. I have no doubt that Mr. Kellogg was pursuing the Attorney-General to such an extent that he was glad to get rid of him by sending him to anybody.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that statement made by Mr. Kellog with a view to get the counsel to suspend the prosecution?

The WITNESS. What statement do you refer to?

The CHAIRMAN. That the money was used not for his personal benefit, but for political purposes?

Mr. BLISS. Mr. Chairman are you not as competent to judge of that as I am?

Examination of Mr. MERRICK continued.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. What were the circumstances that induced Mr. Bliss to make these declarations?-A. These declarations were made by Mr. Bliss in our intercourse as counsel in the same case.

Mr. BLISS. The fact is that I told you that as indicating what I thought would be Kellogg's defense.

The WITNESS. My impression is Mr. Bliss is correct in that statement.

Q. Did he give that as one reason why Kellogg should not be indicted?-A. Oh, no, sir. Mr. Kellogg was indicted, if I am not mistaken, at the time this conversation occurred.

Mr. BLISS. I think not.

The WITNESS. Yes; he had been indicted.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. My question was whether the statement was made for the purpose of determining whether he should be indicted or not, or prosecuted.-A. I think he had been indicted at the time.

Q. Was there any disposition on the part of yourself or your associ ate counsel to suspend proceedings or to quash the indictments in that case on the ground of this supposed defense?-A. None whatever that I know of, upon that ground.

Q. None on your part?-A. None whatever, sir.

Q. You have spoken about the co-operation which you had from the Attorney-General and Mr. Woodward and Mr. Lyman. I see in the New York Times a report of an interview purporting to have been held with you, in which this language is attributed to you:

There are some leading men who have been in sympathy with the thieves, and who have obstructed my course, and embarrassed my action, and sought to influence the administration of justice in every way, to allow the indicted scoundrels to escape. I have heard that Kellogg threatened to tell all about the transactions of 1876 in Louisiana. I do not know that he has made this threat, but I am certain that he could tell a great deal if he would that certain persons I could name would not like to hear.

State, if you please, whether leading men in official station did use any influences, so far as you know, to obstruct the administration of justice in this case?-A. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is a difficult question for me to answer. I probably said something like what is reported there. I may have said that I had my suspicions and my beliefs, but, whatever they may have been, they are hardly competent evidence; and if I had any fact I would give it to you cheerfully. No leading man ever approached me about the matter, nor any man who was not leading-no man at all that I know of ever did so. I see that Mr. Walsh has said in his testimony, somewhere, that I stated that Mr. Chandler had been to see me about this case; that he heard it from somebody who had heard it from somebody else, probably. I never said anything of the kind; never. Mr. Chandler never opened his mouth to me upon the subject. Mr. Walsh also stated in his testimony that I had said to him (Walsh) that Mr. Bliss and Mr. Kellogg had had a meeting at Mr. Chandler's house. He is altogether mistaken. I never said anything of the kind, to the best of my recollection, and I certainly never knew of anything of the kind. The air was filled with all sorts of rumors of every kind and description, which were coming to me all along, but I had no knowledge of any fact.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. Had you any reason to believe that any official connected with the Government here in Washington cast any obstruction in the way of the prosecution of these star-route cases?-A. Well, "reason" is a very broad term. There is no fact within my knowledge-within my personal knowledge-which I can state to the committee that would form the basis for such a conclusion.

Q. It is an open secret, I suppose, that Mr. Kellogg was quite busy against Mr. Arthur and his administration because he was under the impression that he had been very much persecuted, and whether any of the members of the administration were trying to help him is what I am trying to find out from you, or whether you had any reason to suspect that they were doing so?-A. Well, if I knew any fact upon the subject of course I would give it to the committee, but I know of no fact. By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Then the statement in this interview, to the effect that leading men had been in sympathy with the thieves and had obstructed your course and embarrassed your action, was based upon rumors that came to you, and upon hearsay, which you do not regard as testimony?-A. Mr. Chairman, we lawyers all understand that we and other people, all mankind in fact, do take up impressions, and sometimes very erroneous impressions, and that when asked to give in detail on the witness-stand a reason for those impressions, it becomes extremely difficult to do so. At the time of the first trial of the Dorsey case, the atmosphere was filled with the belief that the administration did not desire the conviction of Mr. Dorsey. We all understood that. Colonel Bliss in his communications with me subsequent to that, frequently said that we would have a better atmosphere at the next trial.

Mr. BLISS. We did have.

The WITNESs. And when the next trial came on a number of individuals were removed from office, at Mr. Bliss's suggestion, who had been supposed to be in sympathy with these defendants. At the first trial, Mr. Helm, who held a position under the Public Printer, was also, as we understood, an editor of the Critic, which paper was most virulent, unpardonably virulent, in its attacks upon the court and upon the coun