Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

sel and witnesses for the Government. I called Mr. Bliss's attention to the matter two or three times, and told him that that man ought to be removed, and in an interview in his room one evening the discussion between us became a little excited. I told him that he as a friend of the President ought to go to the President and have the man put out. Mr. Bliss said it could not well be done, and it was not done.

Mr. BLISS. It was done.

The WITNESS. It was not done during the first trial. It was done just before the second.

Q. Was there any discussion between the counsel as to the propriety of removing the district attorney, Colonel Corkhill?-A. Never with me. I do not think I ever had any discussion with any of the counsel upon that subject; none that I recollect.

Q. Did you desire, as counsel for the Government, that there should be any change in that office, so as to have a district attorney more in harmony with the prosecution than Colonel Corkhill was supposed to be?— A. Well, I can hardly answer that. All that matter had been fully settled, as I understood, when I came into the case. I think it had been a matter of controversy before the case was first brought on for trial with the counsel then in the case-before I entered it-but when I came in I accepted the situation as I found it, and that situation was this: That the district attorney was to have nothing to do with the cases, and I think he had nothing to do with them at all. I was never brought in contact with him in the conduct of the cases, and his remaining in office or his removal was never a subject of consideration with me.

Q. Colonel Bliss, and, I think, some other witnesses, have referred to the fact that in serving the processes of the court in the star-route cases you could not rely upon the United States marshals. What do you say about that?-A. My impression is that Colonel Bliss mentioned that subject to me.

Mr. BLISS. Not the marshals here, but the marshals generally.

Q. I do not mean here in the District of Columbia, I mean through. out the country.-A. Mr. Bliss did mention that subject to me. He had charge of the business of serving the processes, and, now that you have recalled the subject to my mind by mentioning the word "marshals," I will say that there was one of the officials that I did think ought to be removed. I speak of the marshal of the District of Columbia at the time of the first trial. I thought he ought to be removed during the first trial; I thought he ought to be removed because he had been openly in sympathy with the defendants, and went out West and made a publication against Mr. Bliss, assailing him in the most violent and personally abusive manner.

Mr. BLISS. That was after the trial.

The WITNESS. No; it was not. I think it was during the trial. I thought that an attempt to demoralize the counsel was certainly an attempt to demoralize the case, and, when abuse was heaped upon one of my associates, I immediately took it up; not from any particular personal feeling for them, but because I felt that it was an attack upon my case. I did it in court and out of court.

Q. Who was this marshal?—A. Mr. Henry.

Q. Was he removed on that account?-A. I do not remember what the removal was made for.

Mr. BLISS. The postmaster and the assistant postmaster here were removed also, and the postmaster, in revenge for it, subsequently got himself appointed chairman of the State convention in Michigan and insisted that no resolutions in favor of the administration should be

passed. The marshal, the foreman of the Congressional Record, and one other, whose name I do not remember, were removed on my written request.

The WITNESS. That was done after the first trial, and just before the second.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Then you did find yourself, in the particulars you have mentioned, obstructed by persons in the service of the Government of the United States in the prosecution of this case, at least so far as the influence of public sentiment against the prosecution was concerned?-A. Public sentiment in the District of Columbia was very much influenced in some way against the prosecution from the start-the atmosphere around the court-room-and it was generally thought that the administration did not desire the conviction of Mr. Dorsey or of Mr. Kellogg. I do not know whether that was true or not true, as to their desire; but that idea was abroad in the community, and the defendants tried to impress that belief upon everybody about the court-house.

Q. That the administration was against the prosecution ?-A. That the administration was against the prosecution.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Against the prosecution of the two individuals you have mentioned?-A. Of the two individuals I have mentioned. I fought against that impression in my closing argument in both cases, I think. I paid tribute to the administration for the earnestness with which they were prosecuting men who were so closely identified with them in political relations. I know nothing whatever about the feelings or views upon this subject of the individuals composing the administration, except the Attorney-General, for I have never talked with any of them on the subject. I think I have probably passed a remark or two with the Secretary of State, from which I was satisfied that he was earnestly in favor of attaining the ends of justice.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. I notice that on page 456 of the record of this investigation, Mr. Walsh says that at the time of his interview with you, to which you have referred, when he told you what he knew, he puts this language into your mouth, speaking of Mr. Bliss: "He never told me of it. He has suppressed it all; and with that evidence, Mr. Walsh, the case that is now pending in court against Dorsey, Brady, and others, and which is in extremis, with that evidence we can achieve success." The point to which I wish to call your attention is, whether you told him that the case against Dorsey and Brady was in extremis?-A. I do not think I used that expression. I may have told him that the case in its then condition did not present a very favorable appearance, or something of that sort; but I used no such extreme expression as in extremis. As I told the committee on yesterday, when these various records were brought in and presented to the jury, it was very difficult for an ordinary mind to find in those records the bands that united the parties in the conspiracy. All that material was in the record, full and complete, but you will bear in mind that the conspiracy (which was the charge in the indictment) was a thing to be primarily established before you could prove any of the individuals to be conspirators. Whatever amount of fraud you might prove, whatever amount of ordinary criminality you might establish as to any of the respective individuals, or as to all of them, would have been unavailing

unless you could have brought them together in harmony and in concert in the perpetration of that fraud by a common effort and for a common benefit, as co-conspirators. The general impression was that the court was extremely adverse to the prosecution, upon the ground that the evidence thus far presented was not sufficient, particularly not sufficient to involve Mr. Brady. In that condition of the case I told Mr. Woodward that I must have some further proof, and I said to him, I remember distinctly, "Now is the time, and I must have it." Then it was that Mr. Walsh came forward, and I probably explained to Mr. Walsh that condition of the case. And, as I said on yesterday, when we offered Mr. Walsh upon the stand, and offered to prove by him what he subsequently testified to, an argument arose as to its admissibility, and that argument gave us an opportunity to develop fully to the jury the relations between these several parties by the records, which there tofore had been a mass of confusion, and Walsh's testimony cast a light that made the bands that bound the conspirators together visible to the dimmest eye.

Q. To the unprofessional eye?—A. Yes, sir.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. There is one more question that I desire to ask you. Colonel Bliss testified before this committee in regard to the proposal to compromise some of these cases by an arbitration, and he said that he called upon you after the Mitchell grand jury had ignored the bills in the Parker, Salisbury, and other routes, and suggested the propriety of arbitrating those cases. Please state now what occurred between you and Colonel Bliss in regard to the matter of the arbitration of the civil suits grow. ing out of the star-route cases.-A. The subject has been brought to my attention by one or two inquiries of late and by Colonel Bliss's testimony, and I have endeavored to recall, as well as I could, all that occurred connected with that matter. In the first place, I did not regard myself as counsel in those civil suits at all. They were matters with which I had nothing to do. In the second place, Colonel Bliss had exclusive charge of preparing the testimony in all the cases for the grand jury, as he himself has said, and of presenting that evidence to the grand jury. I remember that upon one occasion during the first trial of the Dorsey-Brady case after the adjournment of the court when Colonel Bliss and I were walking down from the court-house to the Post-Office Department (I think he had just come from the grand jury), he said to me: "In these Salisbury and Parker cases the grand jury will not indict, and I have a proposition from Mr. Ingersoll to submit"-not to arbitrate, but to submit the cases- "to submit the liability of these par ties to the Government for money due to Mr. Elmer, the Second Assistant Postmaster-General (I think it was), Mr. Ingersoll, and myself." I replied, if I recollect aright, "That is a very good tribunal for the Gov erment, and if the grand jury are not going to indiet, it would be very well to obtain if possible a few hundred thousand dollars, for it will be something in case we fail to convict." "Well," said he, "they are not going to indict," and my impression is that he said that the evidence in the criminal cases was very weak. I knew nothing about the cases at all.

Q. Was the grand jury still in session?-A. The grand jury was in session. That is my decided impression, for the conversation was as to the future, as to what they would do. I see that Colonel Bliss has stated in his testimony that he came to see me afterwards upon the sub

ject, and that we consulted and looked up authorities. I think Colonel Bliss must be mistaken.

Mr. BLISS. I don't think I said that we looked up authorities.
The WITNESS. That is the way I read your testimony.

Mr. BLISS. Well, I am very sure that we did not.

The WITNESS. Let me see what was said [referring to the testimony of Mr. Bliss on this point]. I see that Colonel Bliss also said in his testimony, pages 200 and 201, that in the Salisbury cases no sufficient papers were on file. I think that in this interview, to which I have referred as taking place when we were walking from the court-house, or at his room, Colonel Bliss stated to me that the difficulty in those cases was that the contracts were not taken in the names of the parties who were really guilty, but were taken in the names of some of their subordinates, and that there would be difficulty in showing the real beneficiaries of the contracts or the real parties in interest, the contracts having been thus taken in the names of nominal parties. He has stated here, as I have just said, that he came to my house and consulted with me upon the subject, and, as I recollect his statement, that we examined some authorities. I do not recollect any occasion when Colonel Bliss came to my house at night, or in the day either, and consulted with me upon that subject, or when we discussed it together. I think he must have been mistaken about that; he must have been thinking of some one else with whom he talked upon the subject, for I am positive he did not come to my house and consult with me about it.

Q. Was there anything said at the interview to the effect that one grand jury had ignored the bill?-A. I do not think there was, at that interview. But he subsequently informed me that one grand jury had ignored the bill. And, in view of the fact that the grand jury had failed to indict, and of what I learned from him of the case, believing that he had done his full duty in presenting it to the grand jury and had used all the evidence he could command-and have no reason to believe to the contrary-I thought the submission of the case to such a tribunal was a judicious thing, and I was afterwards extremely anxious, when we did fail to convict, that it might be carried out. Had I consulted with Colonel Bliss afterwards upon the subject I should have suggested to him what was quite familiar to me, the proper way of carrying the submission out. Mr. Ker, I believe, has said in his testimony that it could not be done, but there was an easy way of doing it. They had only to draw up an agreement that the case should be submitted to those three people; then let the defendants go into court in a suit and have an order of court under the Maryland statute (which is in force in this District), referring the case to those three men. Then their award would stand on the record of the court as a judgment. That is not an arbitration; it is a submission, under the rule of the court.

Q. But that is not what was done in this case?-A. I do not know what was done. That is the way it could have been carried out. I also, however, suggested to Colonel Bliss that he had better get a bond, and I was anxious that everything should be done to comply with whatever the court would require.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. You were not consulted as counsel in reference to that matter?— A. I had no relation to the civil cases whatever, as Colonel Bliss is perfectly aware.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Are you certain that when this matter of arbitration was first

broached the cases were still pending before the grand jury?—A. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, what was before the grand jury. I can only tell you what Mr. Bliss said to me, to the best of my recollection.

Q. Did he say that the grand jury would not indict or had not indicted-A. He said, "The grand jury are not going to indict," or "will not indict"-I think his expression was "are not going to indict." I suppose that he had come to that conclusion from being with the grand jury and seeing them. He knew what they were doing, and he could have judged what they were going to do.

Mr. BLISS. I had notice from them that they were not going to indict. They were still in session. On referring to my testimony I find that I did say that we consulted authorities on the subject at Mr. Merrick's house. I think I was wrong in that. I do not think we did consult any authorities there.

The WITNESS. You were wrong in saying that you came there to consult about it. I certainly never saw the paper which is called the arbitration paper.

Mr. BLISS. Oh, no; you never saw it, of course.

The WITNESS. Well, if we had consulted about the matter I certainly should have seen it.

Mr. BLISS. It had not been drafted at that time.

The WITNESS. Well, if we had consulted about it, it would have been drafted before we separated.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Did Colonel Bliss suggest to you at any interview that the grand jury had already ignored those bills, and that the attorneys for the accused had not yet learned that fact, and that therefore before they learned it would be a good time to procure an agreement from them to submit the matter to arbitration?-A. Your question, Mr. Chairman, supposes an interview after the ignoring of the bills.

Q. Yes.-A. I have already said that I do not recollect any interview after that. I think that in this same interview which we had while casually walking down he did make the suggestion, "They are not going to indict, and I had better close it up before the other side know what has transpired."

Q. Was that the only interview at which conversation was had between you with regard to the proposed arbitration?-A. That is the only interview that I can recollect in reference to the arbitration and its organization. We had some conversations afterward about its not being proceeded under, and Mr. Bliss complained of the negligence of the Department of Justice, or the Post-Office Department, in not proceeding to do something; but it was a matter that I was not interested in at all, for I was not counsel in those cases.

Q. In the conversation that occurred upon the street as you and he were walking along, did Colonel Bliss leave the impression upon your mind that he was disappointed at the action of the grand jury, or that the evidence was so weak that it would not have justified them in finding an indictment?-A. Mr. Chairman, I have given you the fact as fully as I can recollect it; now, do not ask me for impressions; it would be very difficult to give them to you.

Q. Did he say that he was surprised that the grand jury would not indict?-A. No; he expressed no surprise, as I recollect the conversation.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. He did say, though, that it was a weak case?-A. He said that the

« AnteriorContinuar »