« AnteriorContinuar »
ing these exhibits already made it was a comparatively easy matter, and after some days' looking over the matter and talking it over, I recommended that a number of routes be selected and inspectors of the Postoffice Department sent out to examine them, and a number of the inspectors of the Department were summoned here from different points, and I drew up the instructions for them. The object was that reliable men should go over the routes, ascertain the character of the country traversed, the number of people, approximately, at the intermediate points, and how the service was performed, whether it was carried upon horseback or buckboard, or in a stage-coach, the number of men employed, and the number of horses used. These gentlemen came here and they were furnished with these instructions, with a map of the routes, abstracts from the route books giving the terminal and intermediate points, and the various orders that had been made upon the routes, and a copy of the oath made by the contractors, and they went out to make their examinations. In the mean time the Attorney-General sent for me one day and I went up to his office. He took me to one side and said that Mr. Dorsey had made a written statement of his connection with the mail coutracts, accompanied by some exhibits which had been shown to the President and to Mr. Windom (Secretary of the Treasury), and that that statement had made an impression favorable to Mr. Dorsey and that some answer had to be prepared to it, and he gave me the paper and instructed me to make an answer to it. I examined the paper. It was a very able and very ingenious statement. I began very soon to make the necessary preparations to an. swer it. At the same time a number of persons had been engaged in bidding for routes, usually small routes in the different States, East, North, West and South. Mr. A. E. Boone was the principal party, he having been a clerk in the Sixth Auditor's office who had subsequently engaged with Mr. Dorsey in the original bidding, and I found upon examination that these different parties had a great many routes and that there were uniformly the same bondsmen. I called upon the Postmas. ter-General for two inspectors to make an examinatian of these bonds. men and ascertain whether they had any property. Mr. Shallcross and Mr. Tidball were directed to make that examination.
Q. Who were the bondsmen ?-A. Oh, there were quite a number of them. Another clerk, Mr. Finley, I set to work to make a schedule from the papers in the contract office of the number of routes and the bonds in which the same bondsmen appeared. That required a great deal of time and attention. This work ran along until the President was shot. I had made some progress on the answer to Mr. Dorsey's statement. At the same time I had taken up route 40101, from Santa Fé to Prescott, and San Antonio to Corpus Christi, and another route in Texas, which I considered the strongest cases that I had discovered up to that time, and they were prepared and made ready for such proceedings as might be determined upon. After preparing those particular cases, I was directed by the Attorney-General to prepare a general report upon the star-route service, which involved a great deal of work, examination of the work of the inspectors, as well as of all the records in the Department, and it was finished about the 1st of November. Meantime, the Attorney-General had gone with the President and the other Cabinet officers to Elberon, and I think about the 15th of Sep. tember, or probably a little earlier than that, he telegraphed me to meet him there with Mr. Cook. Upon calling upon Mr. Cook I learned that he had received a letter from the Attorney-General, and that the object was to meet Mr. Bliss to confer with him. I took along the papers in
the case of route 40101, from Santa Fé to Prescott and San Antonio to Corpns Christi, and the papers in the Dorsey case. We had a two-days' conference there, and the result was a determination to proceed in the case of route 40101 by submitting it to the grand jury. Mr. Cook returned immediately to Washington for that purpose, and I was delayed a day or two longer. When Mr. Cook reached here the grand jury had been adjourned. It was then determined to proceed by information, the statute of the District of Columbia allowing process by information. The matter was examined very carefully by Mr. Brewster, and Mr. Bliss, and Mr. Cook, and Colonel Cook and myself proceeded to prepare to change the indictments into an information, and that was filed. In the meantime my report on the general subject of the star-route service was completed about the time Mr. MacVeagh retired. He had left very soon after the President's funeral, and he came over some time in the latter part of October or early part of November and sent for me, and I met him at Wormley's Hotel. He told me that he had come over to take formal leave of the Department and turn it over to the SolicitorGeneral. He asked about my report, and I told him I had practically finished it, and proposed to bring it to him. He said no, he was going out, and to make the report to the Postmaster-General by his direction, which I did. Mr. James, I believe, a little after that, went to New York and was gone some time. He returned here and remained a week or ten days to complete his annual report previons to going to Florida on a trip. I obeyed the instructions of the Attorney-General, and sub. mitted the report to the Postmaster-General, and he directed that it should accompany his annual report to Congress. I left and went to New York.
By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE : Q. It was published in Ex. Doc. No. 1, part 4, Forty-seventh Congress, first session !-A. Yes, sir.
By the CHAIRMAN : Q. This is the report to which you refer ?-A. Yes, sir. This had been put in type; but while I was in New York, Mr. Finley telegraphed me that there was some trouble about it, and I came back here and found that quite a tempest in a teapot had been raised about this report. It had led to some complications, to a dispute with the Solicitor-General, and to publications in the newspapers, which were inspired by officers of the Department of Justice, to the effect that I had no conDection with the Department whatever, the practical effect of which was that the Department of Justice was arrayed on the side of the accused persons. Practically my counection with the cases terminated at that time. I had something to do subsequent to that with the prepa. ration of some indictments, and appeared before the grand jury in one case.
By Mr. MILLIKEN: Q. Wbat date was this ?-A. This in regard to the report was some time in the latter part of November.
Q. Was that the time that your services terminated ?-A. My serv. ices terminated formally-I resigned some time in January, 1882, I think.
Q. What time did your services commence?-A. On the 22d of April, 1881.
Q. What did you say about the Department of Justice being on the side of the accused -A, I said that on account of the row that was
raised about this report of mine on the general subject of the star-route service, officers of the Department of Justice caused publications to be made in the various newspapers to the effect that I had no connection with the Department of Justice, and was not authorized to make any such report; the effect of which was, so far as the public was concerned, to array the Department of Justice on the side of the accused.
Q. What do you mean by “so far as the public is concerned ?"-A. The general public.
By Mr. STEWART: Q. Do you mean to say that in the estimation of the public, or that in fact, the Department of Justice was arrayed on the side of the accused -A. I inean to say that the effect of the publications was to lead the public to suppose that the Department was arrayed on the side of the accused.
By the CHAIRMAN : Q. They were intended to have that effect on the public mind 1-A. Undoubtedly they were intended to have that effect.
By Mr. MILLIKEN: Q. Who raised this row -A. Well, Mr. Woodward was the orig. inator of it.
Q. What did the row consist in? What was it? What kind of a row was it -A. Objections to the report. Mr. Bliss requested me to change the report and address it to the Solicitor-General, and to send the Solicitor-General a proof-slip of it, stating that he (Mr. Bliss) had had a conversation with Mr. Phillips, and that that was all that would be necessary. I had occasion to go to New York, and I left on the same afternoon that the proof-slip was sent to the Solicitor-General, and the chief clerk of the Department of Justice declined to receive it. That led to a correspondence between the Solicitor-General and myself; but I have no desire to go into anything of the kind here. The records of the Department speak for themselves. It resulted also in Mr. MacVeagh writing two letters, which I will put in evidence here.
LAW OFFICE OF WAYNE MACVEAGH, GEO. TUCKER BISPHAM,
402 WALNUT STREET, PHILADELPHIA,
December 2, 1881. MY DEAR SIR: I inclose you a copy of a letter I bave just written to Mr. Phillips, in reply to his request for information on the subject of your appointinent, which I trust will be satisfactory.
I have not yet received a copy of the exhibits annexed to your report, but the report itself is certainly most admirable. To my mind it is a clear, forcible, unanswerable statement, enabling any person of ordinary intelligence to understand the origin, the methods, and the results of the star-route robbery.
In view of the appalling records they have themselves made, and of the white light in which you have placed them, so that “a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein," they do well in trying to shift the public attention from them and their frauds to the men who have brought them to the notice of the honest people of the country.
For myself, it is a dull day now when the thieves or their apologists do not invent at least one new falsehood about me. As, however, I have only done my duty, they do not even annoy me. Very truly, yours,
WAYNE MACVEAGH. To A. M. Gibson, Esq.
The following is a copy of the copy of the letter to Mr. Phillips inclosed with the above:
PHILADELPHIA, December 2, 1881. MY DEAR SIR: It goes without saying that you could no more desire to embarrass Mr. Gibson in his work than I could. Such an idea could never enter your head about me or my head about you. The story of Mr. Gibson's appointment is briefly this: Mr. Wood ward and the Postmaster-General represented to me the necessity for the constant presence at the Post-Office Department of a representative of the Department of Justice who would work in entire harmony with Mr. Woodward, and under the supervision of the Postmaster-General, in the investigation and preparation for trial of the star-route cases. Mr. Woodward recommended Mr. Gibson very warmly, and the Postmaster-General as warmly indorsed the request. Their request seemed to me to be entirely proper, and as the cases were to be tried in the District of Columbia, it seemed to me equally proper to appoint the person they desired an assistant attorney of the District. The result was that, after obtaining the approval of the President, I informed Mr. Gibson that he was appointed at the request of and for the purposes mentioned by the Postmaster-General and Mr. Woodward, and directed him to devote himself to the work in question.
I certainly supposed the usual formalities had been observed, but it seems those formalities were omitted. Mr. Gibson's appointment was, however, matter of public notoriety. It was, I feel sure, very generally published at the time, and I remember to have been told that it was made, for a considerable period, the ground of accusations in the star-ronte organs against the Postmaster-General and myself.
I was therefore surprised when, before leaving the Department, I learned that tbere was no forinal record of Mr. Gibson's appointment, and I hastily wrote him the note to which you allude. That is the whole story so far as my recollection about it now serves me, but if anything else occurs to you I will be very glad to give any further aid I can to place the matter upon a proper basis. Very truly, yours,
WAYNE MACVEAGH. Hon. SAMUEL F. PHILLIPS,
Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
The letter from Mr. MacVeagh to Mr. Phillips satisfied the latter, and my report was received. Mr. Phillips was simply mislead in the matter.
Q. What were the formalities which had been omitted 1 You were pot com missioned and sworn ?-A. The formality is a letter stating that you are employed.
By Mr. STEWART: Q. If I understand you, I gather from what you say that there was some difficulty which arose between Mr. Woodward and yourself as to some point of official etiquette. Was not that about it?-A. I knew nothing of it.
Q. Do you know what Mr. Woodward's complaint was ?-A. He never made any complaint to me.
Q. That is not the question whether he made any to you, but whether you know what his point was?-A. Oh, after I came back from New York Mr. Woodward complained about it, and I assured him that I had no intention whatever.
Q. I am only trying to get at the fact.-A. Oh, you are under a misapprehension if you understood me to say anything of the kind.
Q. Well, you have intimated that Mr. Woodward made some trouble about it, and the point I was getting at was that it should, in justice to bim, appear that there was some difference as to some point of official etiquette.-A. I understood, but Mr. Woodward did not say to me that he thought this ought to have been a joint report. You understand that I was simply obeying the instructions of the Attorney-General to make the report. The report was read at various times to Mr. Woodward, but, as he stated, he did not understand the general purport of
it, and that may have been very likely, as he was engaged in other matters at the time.
By the CHAIRMAN: Q. Was the first official report made to any Department of the Gov. ernment in regard to these frauds 1-A. Yes, sir; on the general subject.
By Mr. MILLIKEN: Q. You said you were asked to change your report; do you mean the substance, or simply the address of it?-A. Simply the address of it. The report was addressed to the Attorney-General originally. Mr. MacVeagh leaving at that time (although his resignation had not been accepted, and the claim was made then, and for some time afterwards, that he was really the Attorney-General), and determining to close his relations with the Department, formally took leave of it, and directed the Solicitor-General to act under the statute. He stated to me the complications he was in at the time and requested me to address this report to the Postmaster-General by direction of the Attorney-General.
By the CHAIRMAN: Q. In the preparation of this report, did you have the benefit of the reports made by special agents of the Post-Office Department to the Postmaster-General ?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you examined the reports that were transmitted recently to the House of Representatives, and are published in Ex. Doc. No. 1001A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were these reports examined by you previous to making your report?-A. Such of them as were received previous to the date of that report.
Q. Your report was dated when ?-A. The date of my report is the 31st of October, but the exhibits were not completed at that time.
Q. It was transmitted to Congress at the session beginning the 1st of December afterwards ?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were the inspectors, whose reports appear in Ex.Doc. No. 100, those whose appointment you had suggested, and to whom you had given instructions ?-A. Yes, sir; these gentlemen acted under my instructions. In some of the reports you will find that they refer to the instructions. They were quite minute. I directed them what to do and how to do it.
Q. State the names of those inspectors who were acting under your direction.-A. They were not acting under my direction.
Q. I mean under the instructions which you had prepared.—A. All the names are here in the document: Messrs. Stuart, Sigbold, Furay, Sharp, and Mr. Henry R. Gibson. Previous to that I had the Attorney-General detail A. B. Newcombe, an agent of the Departinent of Justice, and the Postmaster-General gave Mr. J. J. Hinds a commission as inspector, and they went to New Mexico and Arizona and gathered some evidence and made some reports upon routes there. Mr. Brewster Cam. eron was one of the inspectors.
By Mr. MILLIKEN : Q. What led you to commence investigation of the Post Office De. partment in 18721-A. That was the time of the investigation by the House of Representatives into straw bidding. There have been two systems of fraud in the Post-Office Department of recent years; first, what was called straw bidding. A number of persons would take their stablemen, drivers, and other employés, and they would bid in the