sation to which I have testified, when he spoke of the proposed submission and stated that the grand jury would not indict.

There are some other things that might be corrected, but I hardly think it necessary, in view of the fact that they are covered by my general testimony.

With great respect, your obedient servant,

Hon. WM. M. SPRINGER.

The examination of Mr. BLISS was resumed.

R. T. MERRICK.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee are now ready to hear whatever additional statement you desire to make, Mr. Bliss.

The WITNESS. Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether there went into the record on Saturday last the statement which I made here with reference to the testimony of Mr. Ker, which appears on page 530 of your record, as to the alleged attempt to get the bill of fare of the Dorsey dinner before the jury on the trial.

The CHAIRMAN. The stenographer informs me that it is in the record. The WITNESS. Very well. In view of what the record of the trial shows on that point, the committee will see that the natural indignation of Mr. Stewart, the expression of which appears on page 532 of your record, as to the irregularity of that alleged proceeding before the court, was not called for, and that the implied reflection upon Judge Wylie, by supposing that he had allowed what Mr. Ker stated to be done, was not deserved, because in fact no such thing ever occurred as was testified to here by Mr. Ker. I have already called your attention to what the record shows on that point, and I have here the certificates of the stenographers that the record is absolutely correct in that respect, and that nothing such as is stated by Mr. Ker occurred. It is a little difficult, therefore, it seems to me, to reconcile Mr. Ker's elaborate statement, given in evidence here in great detail, with any theory that is consistent with an attempt to be accurate. We always knew, or we knew for a long while, during the trial, that it was almost impossible for Mr. Ker to be accurate as to dates, figures, or amounts. I have received a letter from Mr. Woodward, written since Mr. Ker's examination here, in which he says, "I have long known Ker to be inaccurate, perhaps from infirmity of hearing." We all knew that. There is another inaccuracy of another kind in Mr. Ker's statement here. On page 531 he says, referring to the bill of fare of the Dorsey dinner:

This bill of fare was exhibited by Mr. McSweeney to show that the President and the Attorney-General had favored Dorsey in the days of his influence. Of course Mr. McSweeney was not permitted to get the book into the case, but he made the attempt. It turned out that the book had been given to him by Mr. Bliss.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. Was Mr. McSweeney counsel for one of the defendants?-A. He was one of the counsel for Dorsey, and he pulled this book, which belonged to Colonel Bliss, out of his pocket to show the jury that Colonel Bliss and these other gentlemen had attended this dinner that had been given to Dorsey.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Was that in the argument of the case before the jury?-A. Yes.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. He did not show the book to the jury, did he?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did he allude to it in his argument ?-A. Yes. He was talking as rapidlyļas he could about Dorsey and about this dinner, and he just pulled out the book and showed

it.

Q. That was entirely irregular, of course ?-A. Yes, of course it was irregular. and so on.

Now, as to that, the answer I have to make is that Mr. Ker is again inaccurate; that that did not occur; that the record shows that in point of fact it did not occur. There is in the record, let me say, apparently a break of a line at that point, and, as it seemed a little incomplete, I took the pains to ascertain how that came about, and I found that that was the point at which one stenographer closed and another one commenced. Therefore I went and got the certificates of both the stenog. raphers, the one who closed at that point and the one who succeeded him, that the record is correct.

As to that Dorsey dinner bill of-fare about which so much has been said, the fact about it is precisely this-that in that conversation which always occurs between counsel on a long trial, Mr. McSweeney said to me one day, "Colonel, I am going for you; you were at that Dorsey dinner, I understand, and I am going to warm you on it," or some such expression as that, I cannot say exactly what it was, and I made some reply, I do not recall what; but I came to the conclusion that I would, as the phrase is, "copper" that reference by making a reference to the dinner myself. So I went home and got out the Dorsey dinner bill-offare (which the chairman now holds in his hand) and brought it down to court with me. I showed it to the counsel on our side, and then I showed it to Mr. Jere Wilson, one of the counsel on the other side, and it was passed round, and I think all the counsel on both sides saw it. Then it was taken up and showed to the judge, and there it was.

Q. Were all the guests named in this bill of fare present at the dinner!— A. No, sir; they were not all present by a good deal. I got the book and kept it, as I supposed, in a bag in which we had all our papers, and which was brought into court every day with the papers and taken out with them; it was the bag that had performed the same service in connection with the Guiteau trial, a bag which belonged to the district attor ney. I intended to make reference to the Dorsey dinner in the commencement of my closing speech, but some doubt arose in my mind as to the propriety of doing it then, and I passed it for the time, and thought the matter over, and came to the conclusion that I would do it near the close of my speech. But my close was a somewhat hurried one, because I wanted to catch the train. I think it was on Friday afternoon, and I was very desirous of catching the afternoon train, because I had just learned that my wife was very ill and that it was supposed that that she would not live a week. The knowledge of her condition had been kept from me until I got through my speech, or till they supposed I was through. They then informed me of it, and I closed very hurriedly, and did not make any reference to the Dorsey dinner. I went off and left that bill-of-fare here with the other papers. I don't know how it got into Mr. McSweeney's hands; I never gave it to him; I had nothing to do with his possession of it; it was not produced before the jury; I was hundreds of miles away when it was referred to, and when this transaction is alleged to have occurred, and there is no excuse for the insinuation made here by Mr. Ker that I gave the book to Mr. McSweeney. Mr. Ker first made the square statement that I had done so, and then toned it down into an insinuation to the same effect. All I have to say about it is that the book was here, and Mr. Ker was here, and that he is much more likely to have given it to Mr. McSweeney than I am, because he was on much more intimate terms with Mr. McSweeney than I was. I do not say that he did give Mr. McSweeney the book; I do not know how it got into Mr. McSweeney's hands; but I know that I had nothing to do with the matter.

Now, as to this alleged interview with me at Alexandria Bay, I never

knew that I was being interviewed there. I did learn, however, that the son of a friend of mine, whom I remember to have met at Alexandria Bay, had talked with me about State politics, and probably there was something said about the star-route cases, and the "interview" was published, and it represented me as saying, "The one against Mr. Dorsey is admitted to be the weakest of the lot." That is the form of the statement as published in the interview. In fact, however, I never said anything of that kind; never thought anything of that kind in any manner. If it is thought necessary to produce any evidence on the question of fact as to whether the case against Dorsey was the weakest case, I think you can take Mr. Merrick's testimony upon that point. When I heard of this alleged interview, I telegraphed a dispatch to the Herald. I had then learned who had given the interview for publication, and I was disposed to be as mild with him as I could, but in my dispatch to the Herald I said:

I have never by word or thought questioned ex-Senator Dorsey's prominence in the route conspiracy. I have only said that, owing to the exclusion of testimony by the court, the case proved was not as strong against Dorsey as against others.

That undoubtedly was to a considerable extent the fact.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Who was this person who published the interview with you?-A. The son of Lieutenant-Governor Alvord, of New York.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. When did you bring that bill of fare here ?-A. O, I brought that bill of fare here at least a month before the case closed.

Q. Was it after you had the conversation with Mr. McSweeney?A. Yes, sir.

Q. Not before?—A. No, sir; not before. He spoke of it in the way I have stated. This matter of the dinner and the bill of fare had been published, had been referred to in the newspapers, and had been commented upon in the Critic here from time to time, so that there was no secrecy about it at all.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Was there any reference made to the fact that Kellogg was present at that dinner?-A. No, sir; and I do not think he was.

Q. I see his name on the list of guests.-A. Yes; his name is there, and so is the name of Senator Edmunds, and he certainly did not attend. That is a list, not of those who attended, but of those who were invited. A great many people were there who do not want to own up to it now; but I do not think Mr. Kellogg was at the dinner.

Q. Was Mr. Blaine there? I see his name on the list.-A. I think not.

Q. Was Mr. Logan ?-A. I cannot tell you that, any more than I can tell you whether the future Democratic candidates for President and Vice-President were there.

Q. Their names are not on the list -A. Their names were not on the list, and I have no doubt they regretted it.

Now, on page 534 of your record, Mr. Ker goes into the question of his dealing with witnesses and his getting witnesses here, and the gen eral idea he seeks to convey is that he brought here on the second trial a good many new witnesses, and also that he drew from the old witnesses a good deal of additional information. As to that, let me say

that on the 25th of September Mr. Brewster, not having then acted upon my request to be allowed to withdraw from the star-route case before the second trial, wrote me in response to a letter I had written him urging that he should act upon that question, as the preparation for the second trial ought to be made, and I have here his letter, writ ten from Newport:

NEWPORT, N. J., September 25, 1882.

MY DEAR BLISS: Your note was handed to me at Albany by Mr. Sheppard. In it you say that preparation should begin in order for the December trial. Pray get that on foot by giving proper directions to Mr. Ker or to some other person who can begin such preparation as is required. You know whom to direct. I do not. So do not let the case suffer for want of our preparation.

I would not on any account have us miss a trial in December. It will give great public dissatisfaction. As you may be occupied and unable to start and direct things for preparation, please to direct it to be done as soon as you think proper. I may not be in Washington for a month; I am worked out and need rest, and then, too, my own affairs, political, professional, and personal, in Pennsylvania, will require me to be in Philadelphia at least all of October.

I will be here for a week yet.

I am, truly, your friend, as ever,

Colonel GEORGE BLISS,

New York.

BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER.

On the 24th of October I received a letter from Mr. Ker from Washington, as follows:

MY DEAR COLONEL: The Attorney-General sent for me to come back here and assist in the bribery cases. I returned yesterday, but my assistance so far consists in looking on and waiting patiently.

I have been looking everywhere for the list of witesses you were to leave for me. I have reached the conclusion that you took it along with you. Whenever you are ready send the list to me with the proper instructions and I will attend to it. You can send it either to the Ebbitt House or to the Department.

On the 25th of October I wrote to Mr. Ker as follows:

OCTOBER 25, 1882. DEAR KER: I inclose you the list of witnesses. Those with an X are to be subpœnaed; those with an O definitely omitted. Post-office clerks, I presume, will not need subpœnaes.

My idea would be to summon the witnesses on routes 34149, 38134, 38135, 38140, 38145, 38152, and 38156, for opening of the trial; on routes 35015, 35051, 38113, 40104, 41119, for about December 15, and rest for about December 20. As for mode of service I would to all the Colorado routes, except 38113, use James M. Semple, of Rico

Mr. Semple, I think, must be the young lawyer Mr. Ker says he employed to get witnesses and whose name he did not care to give. If there was any other young lawyer employed I had no knowledge of it. Mr. Semple did the business and did it very well

Ouray county, Colo., who served them before. On 38113, and 41119 Colonel Parker can doubtless arrange service for us. So in 46132 and 46247. On 35051 I would send to J. Pennell. On 34149 Grimes, the postmaster, who is himself a witness, will doubtless attend to it. So on 35015, Shaw. On 38145 Semple to serve. On 40104 Krider is a postmaster; came before on telegram and would doubtless do so again. It would be well if he could bring another witness familiar with geography, &c., with him. If there is any trouble about Krider, Tidball, the marshal, can arrange service. On the Oregon route BB. Tuttle, who is post-office officer at Portland, served many before. Inspector Sharp in Washington knows about it. My idea would be to send all to Tuttle and authorize him to employ Fisk on 44155, McBean on 44160, if necessary, either one or both. Were there other Oregon routes? Haycock and Clendenning and Clayton, Colonel Parker can doubtless arrange for. Spencer I hope to have under arrest before trial.

Now as to funds, I don't mean to go into the business of advancing again to any extent. By President's order money should be advanced to the marshals at San Francisco, Portland, and Bismarck, and whoever serves the witnesses in these regions

should be able to get from them the amounts necessary to advance to the witnesses. It appears that the post-office inspectors are bonded officers. Mulliken can tell you if there is any difficulty in advancing money to them. If there is not, Tuttle, at Portland, could receive the advance instead of the marshal, and the post-office inspector who goes to the California routes could receive the money instead of the marshal at San Francisco; and the inspector who goes to Utah and to 38113-I presume from Saint Louis-could receive the advance; otherwise the marshal at Saint Louis. Semple I "staked " before, and must probably do it again. The witnesses on 34149 and 35015 will probably need no advances, but if they do, it will easily be arranged. Krider will need no advance.

I will to-day write the Attorney-General about these money matters, and refer him to you.

I would send to Pennell some blank subpouas, to be used in his discretion; also to Tuttle and to Semple. I would invite suggestions of other witnesses from French and Shaw.

As for witnesses not in the list, I remember that on 38156 some criticism was made because we had only three who drove in the summer, but Steinegger will probably cover that. On 38134 we tried to find Eli Hanson but failed. He had come East. My impression is we did not need him; he was the paid subcontractor. On 33135 one Ames was sought; he was a telegraph operator on Union Pacific Railroad. One of Semple's letters on file with Moore shows where. I have an impression it would be well to have him.

I left at the Arlington, addressed to you, a bundle containing the subpoenas and a copy of the record. There is another bundle of the record left there for Sloan last summer which he has not called for. Send for both.

I wrote the Attorney-General yesterday my views as to going out of the case.

Yours, truly,

W. W. KER, Esq.

GEORGE BLISS.

That contained a list of the witnesses. Mr. Ker, on page 537, makes a very incorrect statement as to the comparative number of witnesses on the first and on the second trials. He says that there were 77 witnesses examined for the Government on the first trial and 13 subpoenaed who were not examined. The record shows that there were 98 witnesses examined; the list is in the index in the third volume of the record of the trial, with the page where each witness's testimony begins. There were 98 witnesses examined instead of 77, as stated by Mr. Ker. He says that at the second trial there were 150 witnesses.

Mr. Ker makes a good deal of talk about the new witnesses that he obtained. The fact was, as I have said, that 98 witnesses were examined for the Government on the first trial and 121 on the second trial. Thirty who were examined on the first trial were not examined on the second. Thirty-three were examined on the second trial who were not examined on the first. The index shows the number of witnesses examined on both trials. As to those new witnesses who were produced on the second trial, I shall endeavor to show the committee just what the fact is. Rerdell became a witness on the second trial. There were 50 new witnesses examined on that trial who were not examined on the first, though the aggregate number of witnesses on the second trial was only 33 greater than the aggregate on the first trial. Twenty-seven of those new ones were witnesses who were made possible by Rerdell's testimony. Among them was Rerdell's wife; there was a Mrs. Cushman, there was a clerk at the Ebbitt House, there were some eight or ten Western Union Telegraph men who were brought from New York for the purpose of proving the destruction of a telegram, the substance of which we were prepared to prove, as to Dorsey. Twenty-seven of the new witnesses were made possible by Rerdell's testimony, and they were all got either by Rerdell or by myself. Eight of the new witnesses were clerks in the Department, who were called simply to produce and identify papers in the place of 12 other clerks who had been called on the former trial but were not