was to leave him something fresh to talk about. It was only fair that I should do so, and I was very glad to do it. So, in my closing speech I took up the different kinds of frauds and grouped them without much reference to the particular routes. I brought the different parties before the jury in connection with the different kinds of frauds in which they had taken part, as, for instance, the making of false affidavits and various things of that sort. Now, in pursuing that course of argument, as the committee will see, Mr. Stephen W. Dorsey did not naturally come up for mention so frequently as others because he had been under cover. For the first year of the conspiracy he had been a United States Senator. In the second year he was absent from Washington the greater portion of the time, and he attended very little to details. They were left to Rerdell. For instance, Dorsey made no affidavits. He wrote letters and directed the getting up of petitions and things of that sort, and to those I carefully called attention in connection with other matters as I went along. Having gone all over that class of frauds I said, near my close (page 2646):

But, gentlemen, the evidence does not stop there. I have gone over substantially the ground that has been allotted to me. It has been allotted to me to deal with the facts in this case, and not to deal with the law and the immediate application of the law to these defendants. All that mass of detail and interesting evidence which there is in the case which will show the way in which these defendants are mingled together, and are combined together, aiding each other all the time in spite of alleged divisions, in spite of alleged conferences and separations, and all that class of evidence is so mingled with the questions of law as to conspiracy, that I pass it by, leav ing it to my abler associates who are to deal with the more important questions of the law as bearing upon this case.

I did that, but I had not omitted Mr. Stephen W. Dorsey in my sum ming up. On page 2598 of the record of the trial, you will see that I referred to a letter which Dorsey had written to a subcontractor who was getting fined; I referred to Dorsey's statement that the man was claiming that he was not getting money enough, and I called attention to the fact that Dorsey said to him in substance, "You are a fool. It wouldn't cost any such money as that. Don't talk so." I called atten. tion to that, and I contrasted it with the claim in the affidavits that more money was necessary.

On page 2579 I referred to another letter of Dorsey's, and on the same page I referred to

One of these little open and shut arrangements by which Mr. Rerdell, or Mr. S. W. Dorsey, or somebody else, had a subcontract on file, and therefore the subcontractor, who was actually performing the service, could not get his subcontract on file, and consequently could not secure the payment of his money; and this man said, if he had got his money directly from the Government, $10,000 was first-rate pay.

On page 2621 I quoted in full a letter of S. W. Dorsey's, and commented upon it all the way through. On page 2642 I referred to Dorsey as having sought out Boone as a man to supervise the business and arrange it, and all that. On page 2643 I said that there was a peculiar clause in these subcontracts put in-we could not ascertain whether at the suggestion of Miner or of S. W. Dorsey or his brother—and I closed by saying to the jury that we called upon them for a verdict as against "all" of the defendants. That was the case. Now, if I had omitted S. W. Dorsey, or had not gone for him sufficiently, here was this condition of things: After, as Mr. Ker falsely says, Mr. Wilson had got before the jury that interview of mine; after, as Mr. Ker falsely says, Mr. McSweeney had got the Dorsey dinner business before the jury, after I had closed and after Mr. Wilson had closed, and after Mr. Henkle had begun (Mr. Henkle preceding Mr. Merrick). Mr. Merrick

telegraphed me as follows, and I quote this merely to show that, with all this "viciousness" of mine, I had not been very effective in "protecting" anybody-Mr. Merrick telegraphed me stating that Mr. Henkle was speaking; that the Attorney-General was to be there on Tuesday, and then he closed with these words: "They are beaten and demoralized." So that it would appear that in Mr. Merrick's opinion, at least, if I had been endeavoring to protect Mr. Dorsey, I had not been very efficient.

Now, finally, on this question as to whether I was endeavoring to proteet Mr. Dorsey, or to do anything in that direction, I feel at liberty to state to the committee that, meeting Judge Wylie the other day, I said to him that I would like to ask him a question which he might answer or not, just as he chose, or just as he felt at liberty, and I then asked him this question: "Did you see anywhere during that trial any disposition on my part to let up on Stephen W. Dorsey?" The judge replied promptly: "Why, the idea is a perfect absurdity!" And he then went on to express his view of my services on the trial in terms which I shall not repeat, because I trust that this committee will have Judge Wylie before them. It is sufficient to say that a man with the most unbounded vanity could not desire more than Judge Wylie said upon that subject. None of the counsel in the case ever intimated to me that there was any question of my fidelity with reference to the prosecution of Dorsey. I never dreamed of it until Mr. Ker trotted it out here, and trotted it out at the instigation and with the fixing up of Mr. Brewster Cameron. Mr. KER. There is no truth in that at all.

The WITNESS. I know what I am saying. Of course Mr. Brewster Cameron has been very efficient in his services, but the most fruitful investigation that this committee could make would be to investigate Mr. Cameron in connection with what are known as the jury-bribery cases. That happens to be the only portion of the investigation which does not hit anybody but Democrats and Mr. Brewster Cameron. It hits Mr. Ker, and it hits other gentlemen; it does not hit me; but this committee has, somehow, managed to pass that all over, and, with Mr. Brewster Cameron in attendance here every day, there has been no move made to investigate that part of the case.

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. We are pleased to have our attention called to it. We have never had it brought to our attention before.

The WITNESS. I have called your attention to it now, gentlemen. Mr. FYAN. You ought to have done it when you were on the stand before.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. What do you understand to be the facts of that matter?—A. I know nothing about that, and am not going to testify about it. The charge was made that Mr. Brewster Cameron undertook to bribe the jury on the first trial, and out of that there came a scandal that affected the whole case, and various attempts at indictments; all of which, I submit, it is desirable to investigate. Mr. Brewster Cameron went and had an interview, out of which grew a scandal.

Q. Did you have your attention as Government counsel called to the fact that there were attempts to bribe the jury on either trial ?—A. No, sir; to no facts of that kind except those arising out of this matter, and the Attorney-General directed me expressly by letter to have nothing to do with anything connected with the bribery investigation, as he was attending to that himself.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE :

Q. You do not pretend to understand that affair in its full scope ?— A. I do not know anything about it. I simply know what I read in the papers, but from them I do know that there was a dirty scandal there, and that the charge was that the Department of Justice and the prosecution were endeavoring to bribe jurors on their side; and, inasmuch as you saw by Mr. Merrick's testimony that, as Mr. Stewart said, Mr. Merrick left only one inference, that that jury was corrupt, if the prosecution rested under any suggestion that they, too, had attempted to bribe the jury, why, then, it was a case of "the pot calling the kettle black."

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. What you say about it now is, that if the prosecution was engaged in any such thing you had nothing to do with it?-A. I do not mean to say that they were engaged in it; I mean to say that a scandal arose out of Brewster Cameron's interview with Dickson and some others, and that I had nothing to do with that matter.

Q. What authority have you for saying that there were none but Democrats implicated in that affair? Brewster Cameron is not a Democrat, I believe.-A. I have this authority, simply speaking from the papers, that Mr. Ker was concerned more or less, as I understand it, in advising Brewster Cameron to go and have that interview.

Q. Do you mean to intimate that Mr. Ker was a party to that?—A. I do not mean to intimate anything of the kind.

Q. Didn't you say awhile ago that this committee had failed to investigate that matter, and that an investigation would develop the fact that there was nobody implicated in it but Democrats and Brewster Cameron-A. I think so.

Q. What was your authority for that statement?-A. My knowledge of the case.

Q. But you do not know any of the facts of that matter?-A. I don't know anything about it but what I have heard. Mr. Cameron himself testified that he went there and had the interview.

The CHAIRMAN. He has not so testified before this committee.
The WITNESS. I know that.

Q. Can you name any other Democrat than Mr. Ker that you think is implicated in that business?-A. Mr. Dickson is a prominent Democrat, and he was implicated-I do not mean to say whether guiltily or not guiltily.

Q. You understand the meaning of language, and I understand you to say, or to convey the idea, that one reason why this committee did not examine into that matter was that there were none but Democrats implicated in it, except Mr. Brewster Cameron. Is that the idea that you wished to convey?-A. I don't know whether that is the reason or not; I simply state the fact. I think that probably had some influence in my mind. That is my judgment. I think also that the services of Mr. Brewster Cameron in various ways to this committee would naturally lead to anything that led up to him not being touched. That is my judgment about it.

Q. Have you any knowledge on which to base your declarations? Do you know that this committee ever had any such information before it — A. No; I have no knowledge that this committee ever had any such information; but, inasmuch as you have had before you the evidence of Mr. Dickson relating to his reading a paper in the jury room, and about his being approached to be bribed, and all that sort of thing, and as

there was just as much in the press about that scandal and more than there was about other things which you have investigated, all I have to say is that if the knowledge of that matter now reaches this committee for the first time, why, really, the committee have not been so wide awake as I supposed they were.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee have had information brought to their knowledge that attempts were made in both directions, and have received some ex parte testimony.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. Were those attempts to bribe made on the part of the Government?-A. They were alleged to have been so made. It was alleged that there were attempts on the part of Brewster Cameron and others to secure a conviction in that way; and then it was alleged that after that was exploded and it got into court there was an attempt on the part of the Government to squelch the investigation. I do not mean to say that any such charge as that was well founded, but that was the allegation.

Q. And I understand you to say that Mr. Brewster, the AttorneyGeneral, directed you by letter to have nothing to do with that investigation-A. Mr. Brewster did, I think by letter.

Q. Have you that letter?-A. I think I can furnish it. I have not got it here.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. So far as regards the point of none but Democrats being impli cated, that allegation is not based upon the fact that the foreman of the jury was Mr. William Dickson, and that he was the person upon whom the attempt at bribery was made; and was not he the only Democrat connected with the affair?-A. I do not know that any Democrat was wrongly connected with the matter.

Q. But I ask you whether Mr. Dickson is not the only Democrat whose name was mentioned in connection with the subject?-A. I simply say that the names published in connection with that matter were Brewster Cameron, Mr. Ker, Mr. Dickson, and a man named Falls.

Q. Who was Falls?-A. Some kind of a lawyer here-not the lawyer of the same name who was formerly chief clerk of the Department of Justice.

Q. Do you not know that the only Democrat supposed to be implicated in that matter was Mr. William Dickson, unless you mean to implicate Mr. Ker?-A. I do not mean to implicate even Mr. Dickson. I simply say that the names mentioned in connection with the matter were those I have stated here, and that of those, Mr. Brewster Cameron was the only Republican. I have no reason to believe that Mr. Ker was or would be engaged in any attempt at bribery. I have no reason to believe any such thing at all, but my recollection is very distinct that Mr. Ker's name was connected first with the giving of advice to Mr. Brewster Cameron to go and have the interview at which Mr. Dickson alleges that there was an attempt made to bribe him, and, moreover, that in the investigation consequent upon the alleged attempt at bribery Mr. Ker had a good deal to do. I do not mean to say at all that there was anything improper on the part of anybody there; but there was a bad odor.

Now they say that the Attorney-General was very angry about that

interview of mine which was published in August, 1882, but on August 10 he wrote me as follows:

Colonel BLISS:

MY DEAR SIR:

*

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, August 10, 1882.

It is due to your careful, unexampled, and skillful marshaling of it and the conduct of it that the case has prospered. About this I propose to say something that the public will hear of as an act of justice to you, for you have endured much on account of it.

I regret your indisposition; it gives me pain to know that you are in any way afflicted, and I hope you will soon be better.

Convey the contents of this letter to Mr. Merrick, and express to him my thanks also for all that he has done so bravely and so well. I am, truly, with great respect, your friend,

BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER,
Attorney-General.

If, as has been intimated, I was recreant to my duty with regard to the prosecution of Mr. Dorsey, it appears that Mr. Merrick did not think I had injured the case very much, for, as I have stated, before he had spoken at all he telegraphed me that the other side was “beaten and demoralized." On the 15th of September the Attorney-General wrote me from Newport as follows:

NEWPORT, R. I.,
15th September, 18-2.

DEAR SIR: Your two letters, both within the same envelope, came here to-day. Of course, your own personal convenience must rule in the matter. I can hardly entertain the idea of your leaving the case; you have been and are so essential to its safe and prosperous conduct.

Do not proclaim this proposed withdrawal in any way till we see each other, or at least until I can be back in Washington and be able to adjust matters. As to this, I must respectfully and kindly insist that you will withhold your public or private announcement of it in any way for the present.

I am, believe me, truly,

GEO. BLISS, Esq.,

New York City.

BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER.

That is written by the Attorney-General to a recreant counsel!
On October 7, 1882, he wrote me officially as follows:

I wish to assure you that your conduct of this important case meets with my hearty approval. Your untiring energy and persistency, and the thorough knowledge you possess of all the details in this case, are fully appreciated by me; and it is but fair that in the forthcoming trial you should not be called upon to make advances from your private purse to pay any demands that may arise. I shall give instructions hereafter so there may be no delay in making such advances as are needed for the attendance and expenses of witnesses.

I am, with respect, your obedient servant,

By Mr. FYAN:

BREWSTER,
Attorney-General.

Q. Was that written before or after the second trial?-A. Before the second trial. The allegation you know is that I did my duty in the second trial, but that I did not in the first trial. There is another letter that I ought to have read. Mr. Brewster was so overflowing with gratitude to this recreant counsel that on the 25th of October he wrote

me

In the star-route case you have done your duty faithfully, industriously, ably, and with the strictest integrity.

As to the future, my conviction is that your presence in these cases is essential, and it is my desire that you will remain in them. The good of the cases requires your presence, and every consideration of prudence would make your absence a thing to be regretted. However, we will talk further or write further about this hereafter It is a happy thing that the health of your wife will permit you to act in them. As to your colleagues in the case, I have not conferred with them, for Mr. Ker is