trial. They correspond nearly with the dates in the bill of particulars that he had put in before the trial in his suit here, and with an affidavit that he had made in New York, although those two do not entirely agree. They correspond nearly with that bill of particulars, the one he stated here that there was a correction of afterwards. I mention this merely as showing that on the 28th of September, 1881, that same error-if it was an error—in the dates and amounts advanced by Walsh to Brady existed. He goes on, after stating the amounts of money, and referring to the Congressional investigation, to recite some other matters, and then comes down to this:

After the investigation in Congress, Walsh asked Brady for a settlement. Brady remonstrated and acted very independently; asked him if he thought all that had been done for him was for love. Walsh replied that he thought he had not got anything out of the Department that had not cost him a great deal of money; that he had got into the business by discounting the drafts of McDonough and Fisher;

*

that he had found Mr. Hinds bad more influence in the Department than he had, and had given trouble and annoyance; that Mr. Fisher had found means of so influencing the Sixth Auditor's Office that, notwithstanding the drafts which Fisher had given him, which were on file, Mr. Fisher had been enabled to draw the money. U. E. Fisher tells about this in his affidavit made June 9, 1881. Walsh further stated to Brady that he would have stopped long ago, before his advances to McDonough and Fisher, if Mr. Brady had not assured him that their service would be increased, and especially on 40101. And generally there was a big row between Brady and Walsh. Brady, however, at this time or about this time, gave Walsh a payment on the money borrowed, two drafts given by Price on route No. 31120, Indianola to Corpus Christi. These drafts were drawn to the order of Price, and indorsed by Price for the sum of $1,250 each.

Then comes a passage stricken out by Walsh, in his own handwrit ing, on page 52, and on asking him why he had struck it out he replied, acccording to a memorandum made by me at the time, "Struck out because only an impression." That was as to how Brady got those two Indianola drafts, but I call the attention of the committee to the fact that although it is stated that there was a row between Walsh and Brady, there is no mention of the stealing of any notes by Brady, or of the existence of any notes of Brady's to Walsh, while there is the direct and precise statement that at or about that time Mr. Brady made a payment to Walsh on account, which is certainly inconsistent with the story which Walsh has told to this committee.

There is more here that I might read, but I do not care to go into it in this connection. I will call your attention, however, to another very extraordinary fact, and that is one which had, until night before last, entirely escaped my notice, because when I read this paper originally the Price matters were not under consideration. You will see that this is important in connection with the case of Mr. Kellogg. Mr. Walsh has sworn here, and Mr. Ker says he stated before the grand jury, that the drafts on which Walsh's name appeared, on the San Antonio and Corpus Christi route, the $20,000 or the $25,000 in drafts and the $5,000 note, were brought to him by Kellogg from Price, and that Kellogg afterwards received some of the proceeds of them. Now, in this statement Walsh says that those post-office drafts and that note were received by him, not from Kellogg, but from Brady. Here is what he says:

Walsh at various times had pressed Brady for a settlement. Brady put him off from time to time, but finally on one occasion when Walsh had been more persistent than usual, Brady said that he had no money, but that he had drafts, and that he would give them to him on account, and thereupon he turned over to Walsh five drafts drawn by J. B. Price, and some Shakspeare mining stock.

As bearing upon Walsh's testimony and credibility in connection with the whole matter, and as bearing upon the evidence in the Kellogg case, this statement of Walsh's is, I submit, pretty important.

Q. Did he swear to that statement?-A. He did not swear to it, but it was all read over to him, as I have told you, and he made the corrections as we went along.

Q. That was his statement of what his evidence would be if he was called as a witness?-A. Yes. Now let me say that when I interjected into Mr. Merrick's statement something about Mr. Kellogg's admission to me, I think I probably stated it correctly, but the newspapers do not report it correctly, or at any rate it is given more briefly than I desire to give it, so I will restate it now: Mr. Kellogg came to me with the letter of the Attorney-General, which I produced here the other day, and which he told me he had obtained from the Attorney-General at Wormley's; he said he had found him in his room, and he made some other statement, which I will not go into now. But he brought me this letter:

MY DEAR Mr. BLISS :

See Mr. Kellogg, and oblige
Your friend,

B. H. BREWSTER.

Mr. Kellogg came to me at my room at the Arlington, and I think that was the only time he ever called on me, except one visit in New York which he made last winter, which also was made by direction of the Attorney-General, and which I at once reported to the AttorneyGeneral. My recollection is that he came with this letter after the grand jury had been directed to reconvene (as the expression is), which would make it the second week in July, 1882. I was a good deal embarrassed. I did not want to be talking with a man that I was going before the grand jury against, but here was a letter from my superior, requesting me to see him, and I did, but I endeavored to get rid of him as soon as I could, and did not prolong the conversation by asking him any questions, except, possibly, a single one. In that conversation Mr. Kellogg insisted upon talking about the matter to some extent. He said, in substance, that he and Walsh had had rooms at the same hotel-I think he said they were connecting or adjoining, or at any rate rooms close by each other. I think he said that Price was going out of town, and that Walsh was out of town, and that before Price went away he brought to him (Kellogg) a large envelope for Walsh, and asked him to give it to Walsh, and that he said he would. Price, he said, brought the envelope to him, and he (Kellogg) promised to give it to Walsh, and he said he did not know what was in that envelope. That was the only point where I at all prolonged the conversation, as I recollect, by asking a question. I said to him something like this: "Why, Mr. Kellogg, you must have known what was in that envelope;" or, "Didn't he state what was in the envelope?" I may have put it negatively, one way or the other. I put that question because, before I put that question, Mr. Kellogg had gone on to say to me that he did subsequently receive from Walsh some money, which he used for political purposes, and I said to him, “Didn't you know," or, "Didn't you state" (some expression of that sort) "what was in the envelope?" He claimed that he did not; "but," said he, "Walsh says that the money was out of the proceeds of those drafts." Well, I undertook to ask him how he came to get the money, but I saw that I was prolonging a conversation that I did not want prolonged, so I stopped. In the mean time, however, he told me, in the course of the conversation, that while he (Kellogg) was governor of Louisiana, a long time prior to this, Price had contributed toward political expenses, and, H. Mis. 38, pt 2———45*

as I recollect it, and as I stated it the other day, that there had been an application on his part to Price for money for politics or something of that sort. At any rate, he said to me that he took the envelope and gave it to Walsh, and that Walsh claimed that it contained the drafts, and Mr. Kellogg did not seem to have any doubt that it did contain the drafts. He claimed that in that transaction he was a mere messenger, but admitted that after that time he received money from Walsh, which Walsh said was part of the proceeds of those drafts.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. Had you seen those drafts at the time you had this conversation with Mr. Kellogg ?-A. I think I must have seen them.

Q. Does not Mr. Kellogg's name appear upon them?-A. No; his name does not appear on any draft. Kellogg's name appears on no Government paper whatever. His name does not appear upon the files of the Department anywhere, except on a recommendation of expedition. Mr. Ker will agree with me in that, I think.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. The place where Kellogg's name appears is on the checks?—A. I am going to have something to say about that directly.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. Did Mr. Kellogg explain to you to what special political interests this money that he received was applied?—A. Not at all.

Q. He did not tell you that it was used to pay the debt that was contracted by the returning board of Louisiana in 1876?-A. I have already denied that once, and I deny it now again. He did not say anything of the kind. The fact is that Mr. Kellogg, if I had let him, would have talked all night.

Q. Why did you not let him go on ?-A. Simply because I considered myself in a very embarrassing position, and I did not want to talk to him about it.

Q. There is no harm in being a reservoir, is there?-A. Yes, sir: there is harm in being a reservoir if you are liable to be tapped. Mr. Kellogg undertook to account to me for his getting that money, but I would not let him go on, and he did not go on. I confess that I believed thoroughly at that time that the money was money that he had got from the proceeds of those drafts, and I could not resist feeling that he must have known what he had in that envelope.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. Did you know anything about it, really?-A. No, sir; nothing whatever, and I got rid of that interview as quickly as I could.

Q. Was your belief founded upon any evidence, or only upon a gen eral impression?-A. My belief was founded on the statements that I understood that Walsh had made, and on the fact that here was a case in which Mr. Kellogg substantially admitted that he carried the drafts to Walsh (he said as a messenger), and that not long afterwards he got money from Walsh.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. Had you at that time seen the checks which Walsh gave Kellogg, and on which Kellogg's indorsement appears ?-A. My impression is that I had not-that I knew of them, but had not then seen them.

Q. Is there any allusion, in Walsh's statement, to those checks?—A. No. This statement of Walsh does not go into the question of Kellogg

at all.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. Did Kellogg explain the motive of his coming to you and having that interview?-A. His idea in coming to me was to convince me that he had not done anything wrong. I remember that I said to him, "Mr. Kellogg, you need not waste your time in trying to convince me of that. I have not anything to do with that. I am directed to go on with this case, and I am going on with it; you must convince the Attorney-General, if there is to be any interference with it; and I will say further, that as the matter has become in one sense public property, I think it is wiser for you not to attempt to convince anybody out of court."

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. Do you know why the Attorney-General sent him to you. Was he sick at that time?-A. I know nothing, sir, except what was stated to me indirectly as to the circumstances under which that letter of the Attorney-General was written. I understand that there has been an interview published in a paper as to the circumstances under which it was written, and I prefer to say nothing about it.

Q. Did any messenger come to you from the Attorney-General before the interview with Mr. Kellogg, and after you received that letter ?—A. No; I do not remember anything of the kind.

Q. Did Mr. Brewster Cameron come to you after the Attorney-General wrote the letter and request you not to have an interview with Kellogg?-A. No, sir.

Q. You did not receive any such request?-A. No, sir.

Q. No such request reached you before you had the interview ?—A. No, sir. This is the first suggestion I ever heard of anything of the kind.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. Did you call the Attorney-General's attention to the letter and to the fact that you had received this letter at the hands of Kellogg ?—A. Yes, sir; I subsequently spoke of it to the Attorney-General.

I

Q. What did he say -A. He did not say anything. He treated it as a matter of course. He knew that he had written such a letter. told him that Kellogg had admitted to me the receipt of money from Walsh, and I said to him as I said to the other counsel when we were talking about the Kellogg case from time to time, that I thought that inlicated what would be Kellogg's defense-that he would claim that he got the money from Price for political purposes.

Q. Did the Attorney-General make any explanation of the letter or of his motive in sending it ?—A. None, whatever. It did not seem to call for any. I told him that I had seen Mr. Kellogg on his letter, and that was all.

Mr. STEWART. The Attorney-General can explain that.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. I ask you whether at the time of this interview with Mr. Kellogg you had seen these checks that bear Kellogg's indorsement?—A. I think

not.

Q. If so, did Mr. Kellogg offer any explanation?-A. I am quite con

fident that he did not. That would only have come about by my asking him questions, and I was anxious to get him out of the room.

Q. Was this after Kellogg was indicted?-A. No, sir; it was when the grand jury was about to be reconvened.

Q. Were you present when Walsh appeared first before the grand jury? If so, state whether at that time Mr. Walsh exhibited to the grand jury or to you, or whether you knew that he had in his possession those checks.-A. As I have stated, the reference to Mr. Kellogg by Mr. Walsh before the first grand jury was entirely casual as far as I know. Mr. Walsh states in his testimony (page 478 of your record) that up to that time he had not talked to the counsel and that he had not shown them his papers. He claims that I knew the facts, but when he is asked how, he says I must have known them from Mr. MacVeagh. Now, Mr. MacVeagh never talked with me about Kellogg in any maner, and I do not know to-day what Mr. MacVeagh knows about Kellogg, except that I know from his testimony here and from prior information that he considered that Kellogg was in some way wrongly involved in these star-route matters. Mr. Walsh states (page 478) that he read to the grand jury only one paper. In his evidence he mixes up what occurred before different grand juries, because he locates before the Mitchell grand jury the alleged conversation about indicting a United States Senator, when there was no pretence that that occurred until later.

When I was here before I could not tell what papers Mr. Walsh had produced before the first grand jury, except that I was quite confident that he did not produce many. From a memorandum brief which I made at that time, similar to those that were submitted in the Venita and Las Vegas case, and which bears on the back of it the indorsement of the grand jury that a bill was found-from that brief I have ascertained what papers Mr. Walsh did produce before that first grand jury. He produced, in the first place, the letter that he has spoken of, and that has been generally spoken of, as the "ginger letter" from Brady. In the second place, he produced the letter making the appointment for the meeting with Brady, stating that there would be a fire at such a time in such a room, and proposing a meeting. Then he produced the envelope of that letter. He also produced a letter from J. B. Price, as fol lows. When he was asked about the Price draft, he brought this letter

out:

ASTOR HOUSE, New York, May 18, 1881.

DEAR SIR: Please send me a statement showing date, amount, number of route, &c., of all notes and drafts of mine discounted by you; also the discount, or shave, taken off. I have lost or mislaid my cash book, and must rely on you to give me facts in order to remedy loss and rewrite my book.

Respectfully, yours,

Mr. JOHN WALSH, Washington, D. C.

J. B. PRICE,

Address care Real Estate Trust Company, No. 115 Bowery, N. Y. P. S.-I must have a specific answer to questions, as I must know amounts, dates, &c. He claimed that Price had become alarmed at the transactions by which he, Walsh, had got the drafts, and wanted to represent it as an ordinary discount, but he stated that he had never discounted any drafts for Price, and in that connection he produced this letter. I think, but will not be positive, that he produced a letter from a man named Peterson, dated Washington, D. C., September 29, 1881, as follows:

WASHINGTON, D. C., September 29, 1881. DEAR SIR: The consideration for which I gave you drafts on route No. 30162, Louisi ana, having ceased, the expedition having been cut off, and the original schedule hav