called on this one, the Department having simply sent one clerk instead of another with the papers that we had asked for.

Of the new witnesses, one was a man who replaced a dead witness. The postmaster at Ouray, in Colorado, Dr. McDonald, had resigned and was here as a witness, but before the second trial he died, and we subpoenaed his successor. Another witness was obtained in this way: There were two men, partners in running a route out in one of the Western States or Territories, and on the first trial we subpoenaed one partner, and on the second trial the other. Another witness was a deputy postmaster, who was examined merely to prove the time of the arrival and departure of mails at the office at White River, in Colorado. His brother, who was the postmaster, had been subpoenaed on the first trial, but did not attend in consequence of sickness. Another witness was Mr. George Haycock, whom we substituted in the place of Mr. Powell Clayton. We found that the evidence of Mr. Clayton, so far as it was not supplied by that of Rerdell, we could supply by documents. We needed Clayton on the first trial because he proved the introduction to Mr. James, but after Rerdell himself came on the stand that was not necessary. Another witness was Mrs. Powers, wife of a postmaster in Oregon. She came here with her husband, and in conversation with the husband I ascertained that his wife knew some things about the mails there, and I subpoenaed her myself. Now, you will notice that in this letter of mine to Mr. Ker, which I have read, I suggested that Shaw and another one be engaged to look up additional witnesses. They were so engaged, and they brought on two additional witnesses; that being done in obedience to my request. I suggested also in that letter that Steinegger would supply the deficiency. He was a subcontractor out on the Silverton route in Colorado. We had on the former trial one of his drivers.

We were criticised a little then by the other side because that witness did not entirely fill the bill, so I substituted Steinegger in place of Carson. You will notice that Krider, on the Mineral Park route, was suggested to look up somebody who would prove the geography of the route. He brought a man named Wright here. On one of the routes we had had on the first trial no witnesses, but solely record evidence. That was a subject of criticism, and therefore, on the 26th of October, I wrote Mr. Brewster a letter, which I will not read, in which I simply asked that Marshal Tidball, who had been a post-office inspector, and was out there at the time, should be sent over that route, and should bring witnesses here; and Mr. Tidball went over that route and made a report upon it, and sent Mr. Steele here. From a route in California, in relation to which we had had one witness, the contractor, we had on the second trial a second witness, a man named Hayes. His name appeared in the papers relating to that route, but it was accompanied by such statements from the post-office inspector that on the first trial we thought he was hardly a safe witness to bring, and therefore we did not bring him. It was represented that he was in a chronic row with the people there. But on the second trial he was subpoenaed at my request. There was one route as to which we determined we would bring every subcontractor in the whole history of the route, for the purpose of showing that at no time during the existence of the route was the number of men increased at all, after expedition, over the number used before. On the first trial we had all the subcontractors but one, and we had also somebody connected with the missing subcontractor, but his wife got sick, or, at any rate, for some reason or other he was allowed to go home, and on the second trial we brought him here again. There was one addi

tional witness who was brought to prove a letter which we had had unexpected difficulty in proving on the first trial. Forty-nine of the new witnesses who testified on the second trial, but who had not testified on the first trial, are thus accounted for.

I have here a schedule containing all the names of the witnesses, and I desire only to say that every one of these men was brought here by subpœnas issued at my suggestion, except the witnesses that were obtained here in consequence of the information given by Rerdell, such witnesses as Mrs. Rerdell, Rerdell's brother, Mrs. Cushman, the hotel clerk, and so on. As Mr. Ker boarded at the Ebbitt House it is possible he had something to do with bringing that clerk as a witness, though the suggestion came from Rerdell. There was only one single witness produced on the second trial through Mr. Ker's exertion. That witness was a man named Cabell, who was brought here from Dakota. In the middle of the trial Joe Pennell, who was a very useful man, desired to return home to attend to some business, and he also thought that he could find some additional witnesses. In the examination of the witnesses out of court Mr. Ker discovered that a man named McClellan had stated that John W. Dorsey when out there in 1879 made a statement as to the connection of his brother, Senator Dorsey, with the business, though McClellan had been examined on the first trial and had said nothing about this. It was said that the statement had been made in the presence of this man Cabell, and they sent for him and brought him here, and he so testified, and McClellan so testified. I always felt that the bringing of Cabell here injured our case, because it enabled them to say, and they did say, and pressed the point with considerable earnestness on cross-examination and elsewhere, that there had been a fixing up of this testimony; that McClellan had been examined on the first trial and had said nothing of this kind, and that now here was another witness brought from Dakota to support McClellan's manufactured statement. And another way in which it injured us was that it seemed to show that Joe Pennell, who was a very valuable witness, was appearing as a sort of partisan in the case. As I have said, I felt that the bringing here of Cabell was a mistake, and Judge Wylie has said to me within ten days that he considered it a great mistake. Mr. Ker is entitled to the credit of bringing that witness here.

Now, perhaps it is just as well to account for the witnesses who were examined on the first but who were not examined on the second trial. Twelve of them were clerks in the Department, who were replaced as witnesses on the second trial by other clerks. Four were witnesses to prove matters which were ruled out on the first trial. Four were witnesses who were exchanged for others. One was a witness called on the first trial to contradict a witness for the defense. This was Mr. Nelson, a newspaper man, but inasmuch as the defense did not produce their witness on the second trial, of course it was not necessary to call him. One was rendered unnecessary by Rerdell's testimony, and there was one who had gone back on us on the first trial. Three we found to be cumulative and not needed. Another one was not needed because of the failure of the defense to cross-examine Walsh on the second trial. The result of that failure was that an important witness who would have confirmed a valuable part of Walsh's testimony was not admissible, because Walsh was not impeached. One was a United States Senator whose testimony we did without, as it was not important, and one was postmistress at The Dalles in Oregon. She was the widow of a member of Congress. We had brought her here on the first trial, summoning her by her initials, not knowing that she was a female, and

we thought it would be a pretty hard thing to bring her here again on the second trial, so we got along without her. That was the way those witnesses were disposed of.

Mr. Ker (page 528) mixes up Walsh and Moore, so far as dates are concerned, extraordinarily. He says I told him that Walsh was a man of bad character, whom no one would believe. I do not think I ever told him anything of that kind; I certainly never told him anything of the kind at that time. Mr. Walsh had not originally made the statement which rendered him admissible as a witness, or clearly admissible. He had made a written statement, and I am going to call the attention of the committee to that statement directly, as going to show how far he is to be believed. He had made a statement of dealings that he had had with Brady in connection with Route 40101. He never bad said or lisped a suggestion that Brady, in any conversation, had said to him, "You must do as the other contractors do, to wit, pay such and such a percentage." Of course, the moment Walsh did make that statement he became an admissible witness in the Dorsey case. Before that we were hoping to get him in as a witness, and I had looked up, with some labor, cases about false pretense, as, for instance, cases which, in a trial on a charge of false pretense, you are allowed to prove that the accused has made similar false pretenses to somebody else. Also, where, or a trial for passing counterfeit money, you are allowed to show that ti man had passed other counterfeit money. We were looking to see Vether we could not get him in under that rule, and I was looking into that question when, along in the first trial, Mr. Woodward got his pumps on to him and came in one morning and told me what he had done with Walsh, and I think he showed ine a statement which contained this remark of Brady's. Of course I said at once that that rendered Mr. Walsh an admissible and an important witness; and as soon as I saw Mr. Merrick on that day I said the same thing to him. He told me he had already heard of it, aud that he considered that it was a very important point. But this, you will remember, was not until late in the trial. Bear in mind that I had had an interview with Mr. Walsh on the 28th of September, 1881, in which, in writing and in de tail, I went over with him everything that he knew in relation to the case, and he took that statement away and corrected it in his own hand. writing. Then I got it again, and went through every statement, and you will see [exhibiting the paper] that the margius are filled with changes and corrections and notes, and yet from the beginning to the end of this statement Mr. Walsh does not mention anything about this remark of Brady's. And before I get through I will show you a still more remarkable omission on the part of Mr. Walsh.

On page 535 of your record, Mr. Ker gave some testimony with refer ence to the witness Moore (I think there is something on that subject earlier in his testimony), but, at any rate, the implication seems to be that Mr. Moore was obtained by Mr. Ker as a witness, and brought here from Montana, and that I ought to have had him on the first trial, and also that I ought to have had him on the second trial. Let us see what the record shows in regard to that. Post-Office Inspector Sharp was sent to Oregon to look up the routes there, and all the knowledge we had of what Mr. Moore could testify to was obtained through Mr. Sharp's report. Mr. Sharp went to see Mr. Moore, and got a statement from him, which was somewhat inadequate, and he made a special report on the 4th of August, 1881. Mr. Sharp is now Chief Inspector of the Post-Office Department, and Mr. Lyman will tell you that he is as thoroughly reliable a man as exists. He made a report, in which he characterized Mr. Moore, and

it was upon that record that I was asked to put in on the first trial a witness of whose possible testimony we had very inadequate knowledge, and of whom Inspector Sharp said:

He is a disreputable and unreliable rascal, about as low a specimen of humanity as I ever saw. He lives at Cascade Locks, where he has a respectable wife and several small children. He is now engaged in conducting a hurdy-gurdy house, in other words, a house of prostitution. He has a house erected on an old scow, in which he keeps a lot of prostitutes of the lowest order, and a bar, and dance hall. This scow he moves up and down the Columbia River, between the Cascades and The Dalles, according as the camp of railroad hands move, who are building a railroad on the river bank between the above points. I do not think that he would hesitate a moment at swearing a lie, or doing any dishonorable or disreputable thing. His looks, actions, and talk are alike disgusting. I do not believe that he has any letter of Senator Dorsey or any one else that is so important as he would like to have us believe. evidently a great blowhard and liar, for some of the statements made to me I know to be untrue. I think Dorsey and Miner were deceived in him, and soon found out that he was but a loafer and threw him overboard. He did come to The Dalles and try to sublet the contracts, but people there informed me that they soon saw that he was a loafer, and would have nothing to do with him, and he did not succeed in subletting any of the contracts. He seems to have done a great deal of talking and blowing, but that was about all.

He is

I have a sharp, shrewd fellow working on him, and if he has any such a letter as be represents, I think he will eventually get it, but I have no contideuce in his having any such letter.

Will at once notify you if anything is got out of him.

Mind you, all we knew of the witness Moore was from this report o Inspector Sharp, and the question was whether we should bring him here at an expense of five or six hundred dollars. Mr. Merrick told me, going up in the cars, after he had testified here, that he had intended to say something about Moore, and to have told you that the omission to call him upon the first trial was a matter which we had talked over, and that it had been done with the concurrence of us both. Prior to the second trial, Mr. Boone, who had Mr. Moore as a protégé, and had brought him into the service of Dorsey and those people in that connection, became more friendly to the Government, and, as the boys in the country say, he "gave down" a good deal more information, and he came and urged upon me that Moore ought to be called as a witness, and told in detail what Moore could testify to. By the way, I should have said that this report of Sharp's was filed by Mr. Woodward and indorsed by him, and in that indorsement, among other things, is this, referring to the witness: "Low and unreliable." That is the condition in which the report came into my hands. As I have said, Mr. Boone talked with me about Moore and urged that he should be brought here, and told me what he could testify to. It was a great deal more than we had ever expected; and further than that, Boone denied that Moore's character was so bad as it had been represented. Let me say, too, that Moore is the witness as to whom I have already told you that the counsel for the defense showed by their cross-examination that they had possession of our information, because when Moore was on the stand they' began asking him what he was doing, and pretty soon they showed that he kept a saloon on a boat. Then they questioned him as to who was on the boat. He said there were two fellows. Then the counsel, anxious to get at the women, said, "Well, what were their names?" Said he, "One I do not know; the other was Lou Maline." The counsel thought they had a fine point, for they assumed that "Lou" must mean Louisa, so they insisted upon his telling the first name in full. "Well," said he, "I don't know, but I suppose it was Louis." It was a disappointment to the counsel that "Lou" turned out to be a man, but all through the examination of Moore it was perfectly clear to us that they had had

access to this report of Inspector Sharp, and Mr. Woodward and I disIcussed it at the time.

The CHAIRMAN. How they obtained it is one of the mysteries of the case?

The WITNESS. Not a bit of a mystery. I do not think this committee has any doubt on the subject. Boone having talked to me about sending for Moore, I told him to go and talk to Mr. Merrick, and on the 4th of November Mr. Merrick wrote me as follows:

WASHINGTON, D. C., November 4, 1882.

MY DEAR COLONEL: Boone called to see me to-day, and has had with me the same interview, substantially, that he bad with you.

It seems to me that it would be well to summon Moore, and to send Keitner, Boone's son-in-law, to bring him.

The possibilities fully justify the experiment.
Sincerely yours,

On November 6 I wrote to Mr. Merrick :

R. T. MERRICK.

NOVEMBER 6, 1882.

MY DEAR MERRICK: I have yours of the 4th. I fully assent to your views as to summoning Moore, though I shall be surprised if it produces any good results; but we must try everything. Letters on file from the Post-Office special agent, who went to find him last summer or winter, will show where he then was. He can be followed from The Dalles or from the place referred to. Colonel Parker's assistant, Maynard, has those letters, I think, though it is possible Moore has them among my files.

The Post-Office people have for some time been trying to arrest Spencer, and don't do it. What do you say to employing Pinkerton on that? If you agree, get me a duplicate warrant and send it to me. By leaving the other warrant in the Post-Office people's hands we avoid suspicion of what we are going to do. I think about November 20 means should be taken to locate Dorsey and Brady, and be prepared to meet affidavits for postponement of the trial. Of course other defendants are as good as they for this purpose, but they-especially Dorsey-are the men as to whom such application is to be feared; still, it would be well to locate all.

How about Rerdell? Has he done anything with Woodward? I have had a very pleasant taffy letter from Brewster as to my going out of the cases and wishing me to stay in. Still I doubt. Lawrence, First Comptroller, has hung up my bill, and Brewster don't seem to assert his rights as to it. If he don't do so, out I go. I shall be in Washington soon, but not till after the bill question is disposed of. I'm not going to run after it.

Brewster has also sent me a letter addressed to yon, Ker, and myself about other prosecutions. I presume you have the same. I have answered it at length and shown the situation. I would be glad to have you drop in at the Department and see it.

Yours, truly,

Hon. R. T. MERRICK.

GEO. BLISS.

The letter there referred to was Mr. Brewster's letter asking about the Salisbury cases; you will remember that that was a circular letter addressed to us all by the Attorney-General, and certainly if the responsibility for not procuring the indictment of the Salisburys had rested solely with me up to that time, from that time on Mr. Brewster placed it on all of us.

Well, we brought Moore here, and he was a very useful witness. We were a good deal alarmed at times about him, because they went into a cross-examination tending to show that he had made statements out of court to Colonel Pelham and other people contradicting his statements here. Moore had associated with those people a good deal, and they claimed that he had made such statements; but finally they did not at tempt to contradict him, and he gave us a good deal of information about Dorsey, which the other side on the trial denied utterly, of course, but which, we thought, was entitled to weight. After Moore got here his wife died, and one of his children got sick of scarlet fever, and he in