Dorsey indictment was found, which was afterwards quashed as to Rerdell by reason of the fact that he was indicted only by his initials, had no district attorney before it on that indictment. Mr. Woodward was sent in with the papers on a given route, and he would go through them and explain before the jury. It was alleged, and I guess truly, that Mr. Woodward used to kind of sum up the case before the grand jury on each route. He was full of the matter and he used to make a statement of his views. The strawbond cases went before the grand jury in the same way, without any district-attorney. It is not the practice here for the district-attorney to go before the grand jury, and moreover, in that particular case and at that particular time, Mr. William A. Cook was very anxious to get before the grand jury, and I did not mean that he should, but I could not well go before them and leave him out, so no district attorney went. The first indictment was found, therefore, with no district attorney before the grand jury. This is pertinent to some discussion, which was conducted at considerable length and with considerable ingenuity, with reference to Mr. Woodward going before the grand jury in connection with the Venita and Las Vegas and other routes. No district attorney went before the grand jury that found the first Dorsey indictment, and none before the one that found the strawbond indictments, so far as they were found at that same term, and I think they were all found then. Subsequently, when we found the error in that indictment and had to get a new one ready, we had to do it in a hurry, and it was announced publicly in court that I was before the grand jury trying to get another indictment. I was, and we got that through much more quickly than the other, examining only twentyfour witnesses instead of forty-nine. That was the same grand jury that did not indict in the Venita and Las Vegas case. The business was put before them in the same way upon the one route as on the other, and they indicted in the Dorsey case, but did not indict in the other case. Now, the examination here was directed to show that I put Mr. Woodward in there before that grand jury only as a witness, and did not give him a chance. That is true. The fact was that on the 11th of April there had come up a plea in abatement on the first indictment, in which the parties set out that

At and during the time the grand jury was considering the matters charged against said defendant, as set forth in said pretended indictment, one P. H. Woodward, an inspector of the Post-Office Department, and a layman, who was not an officer of this court, without personal knowledge of the matters and things connected with, concerning, or in any wise appertaining to any of the post-routes and the alleged acts of the said defendants, about which the grand jury was inquiring, was selected and sent before the said grand jury by some person or persons to the said defendant unknown, and that the said Woodward, claiming to be regularly subpoenaed and sworn as a witness in the case of the United States against the said defendant, when, in truth and fact, he was not so subpoenaed and sworn, was permitted to, and did, enter the grand jury room while said grand jury was in session, and considering the matter as aforesaid, and was permitted to, and did, make verbal and written statements of matters and things not of his personal knowledge, but derived from writings and ex parte statements made by other persons, and did produce, use, and read varions statements prepared by himself, purporting to be narratives of pretended facts, together with observations, inferences, deductions, surmises, and innuendoes of his own, skillfully blended and ingeniously arranged so as to falsely represent the lawful acts of the said defendant, for the purpose of affecting and influencing improperly the minds of the members of the said grand jury.

They came in so late to file that plea that we were able to object that they had waived their opportunity to do so. We also objected that if the grand jury, having a witness before them, received inadmissible evidence, that did not invalidate the indictment. Mr. Woodward had gone before the grand jury without any district attorney, and they had allowed H. Mis. 38, pt 2—44*

him to take his own course. Now, when I went before the second grand jury, I had this matter in mind. I did not believe then, and I do not believe now, that if Mr. Woodward did these alleged things before that first grand jury, and if you could get proper evidence of that fact, the indictment could stand. At all events I thought that in a case where Mr. Woodward was sent with papers to produce them before the grand jury and identify them, if the grand jury took him up, and questioned him, and allowed him to explain and to sum up the cases, that was a very different thing from what it would be if I, being there as the district attorney with Mr. Woodward as a witness, should permit him to go on and do the same thing. I didn't think I had any right to do that, and therefore when I had him as a witness before the grand jury on the Vinita and Las Vegas case, I confined, or tried to confine, him strictly to his duty as a witness, producing papers and identifying them, and explaining the methods of the Department. He was so full of the business that he did want continually to get in other things, so that I had to stop him. There never was a word of complaint from him about it; but I think he always felt that he did not have quite so good an opportunity before that grand jury as he did before the other, and I do not think myself that he had. These were the motives that governed me in what I did in that case, and I think I was right.

By the CHAIRMAN :

Q. What was done with that plea in abatement?-A. It was too late. It was argued at considerable length, and the judge said he thought that even if the grand jury had taken inadmissible evidence it would not invalidate the indictment.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Did you tell Mr. Ker to cease preparing indictments, because you had agreed to arbitrate certain of these cases?-A. I am coming to that directly, if you will allow me. Now, with reference to the indictments: The Star of March 20, 1882, contains an interview with Mr. Ker, taken from the Philadelphia Times, in which he says:

"Colonel Bliss didn't supervise the bills of indictment at all; they were left entirely to me. Sometimes, coming into my office out of mere friendship, he would casually glance over the sheets as they lay on the table, but he never examined any of them. When the papers went before the grand jury no one thought there would be so much work. There was altogether too much for one grand jury. Colonel Bliss has been at the cases five or six months, and he has been working almost night and day. I have known him to continue his examination of the contracts many a time up to o'clock in the morning. The cases will come up next Thursday. I expect that the court will make some peremptory order, and then I suppose I will be called to Washington to resume work."

When questioned concerning Colonel Cook's reference to the irregular manner in which the counsel had been employed, he (Mr. Ker) said that he knew of no irregularity. On the contrary, he thought that so far as his knowledge of the law went everything had been done regularly and properly.

"There is enough documentary evidence on file now," said Mr. Ker in conclusion, "to convict these people without the use of a single witness on the stand."

As to the indictments, my view of Mr. Ker's relation to the business is not entirely the same as his. He states that he was expected simply to do clerical work-simply to take names that were furnished to him. I do not think that was entirely so. He had all the papers and all the evidence, and while it was suggested to him that certain names should go in, yet it was a matter of discretion with him as to what should go in. It was agreed, in general terms (and that is the way Sanderson came in) that every one who had made an affidavit on any one of the routes should be put in. As to the list of names referred to, from

which Mr. Ker prepared the indictment, if my memory serves me right, and if I am correctly informed by one of the clerks who assisted him, he is wrong in supposing that the list was in my handwriting. It was in Mr. Woodward's. That, however, is unimportant. The selection was made among us all. Mr. Woodward has testified before you that he was responsible for the error in the name of Vaile, who was called "Henry" in the indictment instead of "Harvey."

Now, a word as to the question of initials. Mr. Ker says that the omission of the name and the use of the initials was right, and that I told him the name could not be found. In that he is wrong. I never was asked to find out about the name; there never was any inquiry made about the name. To show you how little inquiry there was made, M. C. Rerdell's name appeared correctly in the Washington Directory of that year, and yet they say it cannot be found. In conversation with three of the clerks who were actively engaged in assisting Mr. Ker at that time, I find that they say that he is wrong, and that there was no inquiry made in reference to this point until after the question about the initials was raised in court. The only reference there was to the initials before that was this: In looking over the indictments about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, before they were to go into court, I saw that the initials of Rerdell and others were there, and I suggested that it was necessary to allege that the first name was unknown, and that that would make the indictment correct. Mr. Ker said it was not, and that I was misled by a recollection of the rule that where you undertake to plead a forged instrument you must allege that cannot make a copy of it, or something of that sort, and that what I suggested was not necessary. I do not think I was entirely convinced, and yet Mr. Ker knew so much more about criminal pleading than I did that I accepted his view and let it pass. I presume the sheet might have been rewritten and a new one put in, but it passed off as a mere casual matter. I repeat that I had nothing to do with looking for the name. Mr. Ker is mistaken about that, and I cannot think that there was any serious attempt made to find it at that time, because as I have said the Washington Directory of that year had Rerdell's name in full.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ker desires to make a statement in regard to the point of his alleged connection with this jury-bribery matter.

Mr. KER. In giving my testimony before this committee some days ago, I told them that I had no criticisms to make upon anybody else; that I desired simply to give them the facts as I knew them personally, or as they had come to my knowledge; and that is what I did. I did not criticise any body. The facts that I stated were those that were either on record or of which I was personally cognizant. In my statement of a conversation that I had with Mr. Merrick about Mr. Bliss, I simply stated what Mr. Merrick had said to me. I did not give the conversation as embodying my own views. The subsequent matters about the use of the Dorsey dinner bill of fare on the trial, the interview with Mr. Bliss published in the New York Herald, the failure of Mr. Bliss to mention Dorsey in his summing up, all these things I stated here as the moving causes which led Mr. Merrick to go to the Ebbitt House and engage rooms for me in which to receive and examine witnesses. If it had not been necessary to make that explanation in regard to an item of expenditure that had been criticised, I should not have mentioned the matter at all.

Now, as to what Colonel Bliss calls my misstatements here about what occurred on the trial, probably when the Attorney-General comes upon the stand, he, having been in court with me at the time, will be

able to tell the committee just what did occur. Certainly an attempt was made to introduce that book.

The CHAIRMAN. You desired to make some statement, I believe, in relation to the use of your name in connection with the alleged attempts to bribe the first star-route jury.

The WITNESS. Yes. It is the first time that I ever knew that my name was mentioned in connection with any attempt to bribe the jurythe first time I ever heard of it at all. The facts of the case are that I was in Mr. Merrick's office when Mr. Brewster Cameron came there and said that he had been asked by somebody to go and see Mr. William Dickson, the foreman of the jury, as Dickson wanted to talk to him. Mr. Cameron had come around to consult with the counsel to know whether it would be proper for him to go and talk with Dickson or not, as Dickson was the foreman of the jury. Mr. Merrick at once told Mr. Cameron to go. Mr. Cameron objected to going, saying that there might be some reflection cast upon him for going to see the foreman of the jury. Mr. Merrick said that he supposed that Dickson's object in desiring to see Cameron was a proper one; no doubt he intended to give him some information connected with some attempt to bribe the jury, some information that would be a benefit to the Government, and we both agreed that Mr. Cameron should go and see Mr. Dickson. That is what occurred. That is what I personally know about it, and that is all I had to do with the matter. Mr. Merrick was there with me and he will say the same thing. I know by hearsay that Mr. Cameron went to see Mr. Dickson, but I did not see him and had no conversation at all with him. I had nothing to do with that. I have stated all that I had to do with the matter. I have told the whole story so far as my connection with that business was concerned.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Do you say that Mr. Cameron did not see Mr. Dickson-A. He did not see him; that is, he did not converse with him.

Q. Is that all you know about the bribery business?-A. That is all that I know or had anything to do with, except to prepare the indictments against the parties.

Q. Was there any investigation started, with your knowledge or after consulting with you, for the purpose of determining whether efforts had been made to bribe the jury; if so, what were they?-A. Yes, sir; there was some effort made to ascertain that; as I stated in my examination before, that matter was put into the hands of Mr. H. H. Wells as special counsel; there are some eight people who were indicted in connection with that matter. Mr. Falls I did not know; I never saw the man in my life that I know of; I had no connection with those people whatever, either through a detective or by a detective. I had no detective. Q. If there were any Democrats in that jury-bribery matter, who were they?-A. Well, Mr. Dickson is reputed to be a Democrat, and he is the only one I know of that was mentioned in connection with that matter; the rest are so-called Republicans, so far as I have been able to learn, although I do not know that that is the fact; we never investigated their politics.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. So far as politics are concerned, you were a Democrat and Mr. Merrick was a Democrat?-A. Yes, sir; and I am not sorry to say that.

Q. Mr. Cameron was a Republican?-A. Yes, sir. He was the general agent of the Department of Justice, and my idea in coinciding

with Mr. Merrick in advising Mr. Cameron to go and see Dickson was that as he was the head of the secret or detective service of the Department of Justice, I thought if there was anybody who ought to go to see Mr. Dickson to ascertain whether any crime had been attempted he was a fit person. We had a very high appreciation of Mr. Dickson's character at that time; believed that it was away above the ordinary, and that he would not do anything wrong, but probably desired to see Mr. Cameron to tell him about some attempt in the interest of the defendants to bribe the jury.

In regard to what Mr. Bliss has said about Mr. Cameron and myself, I desire to say here that Mr. Cameron is a high-toned gentleman whose friendship I am proud of. I have never seen any thing in his character that would lead me to think him anything else, and he has never ap proached me as Mr. Bliss suggests, or anything of that kind. I did not know that he and Colonel Bliss were on bad terms; on the contrary, I thought they were on reasonably good terms. Mr. Cameron never suggested to me what I should say here, nor did any other person. I told the facts which led to the expenditure for the rooms which I occupied at the Ebbitt House, and I told them for the purpose of explaining that item of expenditure and without any feeling at all against Colonel Bliss.

Mr. BLISS. I think I have a right to object. I don't think it is proper to have a running commentary upon my evidence until I get through with it. I may say here that my understanding of Mr. Ker's connection with the bribery business was precisely as he has stated-the sending of Mr. Cameron to Mr. Dickson. It was an extraordinary thing to do, but Mr. Merrick concurred in it, and I had nothing to say about it.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. You did not know at the time that Mr. Merrick and Mr. Ker had advised Mr. Cameron to make this visit to Mr. Dickson?-A. I did not. It was a perfect surprise to me.

Q. Did you not know that this morning, when you made your statement about it?-A. I knew that they had advised him to go, but I did not know the motives that influenced them, nor anything about them. I certainly thought it was a very extraordinary thing to do; and I mean to say now that if anybody standing less high than Mr. Merrick had done such a thing I should have felt very strongly about it, but Mr. Merrick stands so high as an honorable man, and is so honorable a man, that I do not criticise his conduct in that matter.

If Mr. Merrick believed that an attempt had been made to approach the foreman of the jury it would have been proper for him as Government counsel to have ascertained that fact, would it not, in your judgment?-A. No, sir; if you want to know my opinion. If I learn that there is an attempt made upon a juryman in a case on trial, and I am the prosecuting officer, I have no right as a prosecuting officer to get into communication with the jury. My duty is to go to the court and tell the court that I have learned certain things, and let the court deal with the matter.

Q. But they had not learned the facts; they wanted to learn them.— A. Well, I don't think a prosecuting officer has any right to communicate with any member of the jury after the jury is empaneled on any subject connected with the case. That is the doctrine in which I have

been brought up.

Q. But if a juryman desires to communicate with the counsel, and to inform them that an improper attempt has been made―A. (Interpos