By Mr. MILLIKEN :

Q. Does Mr. Brewster now deny that that was his letter?—A. I never heard that he did.

Q. Have you any idea that he does?-A. Not the slightest. I talked with Mr. Brewster after I received the letter, and made reference to his having sent it to me.

Q. Did he deny it?-A. No, sir.

Q. Upon a fuller examination of that letter, are you satisfied that is in Mr. Brewster's handwriting ?-A. I am. I have not any question about it at all. Allow me to say that I understand there were two people present when it was given.

Adjourned.

WASHINGTON, June 20, 1884.

GEORGE BLISS again appeared voluntarily before the committee and testified as follows:

Mr. Walsh has accused me of saying that I did not propose to protect the witnesses for the Government, and of using an expression about not feeling called upon to "fix up those fellows." Nothing of that sort ever occurred. Mr. Walsh was very earnest in his desire that Buell and Brady and everybody else who had attacked him should be prosecuted. That was during the trial, and the counsel all concurred that it was impossible to do anything of that sort while the trial was going on. However, at one time, by arrangement, Mr. Merrick went into court and called attention to the public attacks upon the witnesses for the Government, but that was all there was of it.

In connection with the question put as to Mr. Bosler, I intended to have called the attention of the committee to the fact that, upon the summing up in the first trial, the Attorney-General used this language: Mr. Bosler is a reputable man. Perhaps that is one of the reasons he did not want to be mixed up with a disreputable transaction. If Mr. Bosler had come here, being a reputable man, and having a good feeling for some of his associates who were in trouble, he might not like to have told what certainly would not help them, or they would have had him here. He was here in this city. He lives in Carlisle,

Pa., and is an honest, reputable man. Why is he not here? Are they afraid of his integrity As an honest, reputable man, he has a delicate feeling for these people, because he has associated with them as other men have, although he did not know the secrets of this conspiracy. He was not trusted. Now he finds glaring him in the face these horrible charges, and can connect his crystal with the other crystals in the case, that come from the North and from the South, and then comes the truth. It will not do to bring him. He did not want to come.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. In what connection was that said?—A. The other side had stated in the summing-up that we ought to have brought Bosler here as a witness, and the Attorney-General made this statement in reply to that suggestion.

Q. As you have brought that matter in, just state what was Mr. Bosler's relation to those cases.-A. After Mr. Dorsey went out of the Senate and became openly connected with the contracts he apparently wanted more ready money than he had at his command, and he made an arrangement with Mr. Bosler by which Bosler was to take charge of carrying out the contracts. Bosler was to furnish the money and receive the pay, and was to be paid-I do not know as it ever was stated in evidence, but there was an understanding somewhere that he was to be paid 10 per cent. interest and half the profits. At any rate, in

the account which I saw, I don't remember that the interest was calculated, but it was footed up, showing that Bosler was to get half of the net proceeds of the Dorsey contracts. After that time Mr. Dorsey was away from Washington a good deal, particularly the first summer, and apparently the way in which the business was done was that Rerdell staid here and attended to the post-office business, to the collecting of the drafts, and, largely, to all the details in connection with the routes. He drew the money and sent it to Bosler. The post-office warrants were issued after that time, payable to the order of Bosler, and Rerdell got from Bosler the money required to pay the expenses, and sent Bosler memoranda of the amounts necessary to be remitted to the subcontractors. Bosler came here from time to time in connection with the business, and when Rerdell was induced to withdraw from aiding the Government, after his interviews with Mr. James and Mr. MacVeagh, and was induced to make an affidavit denying what he had stated or implied to Mr. James and Mr. MacVeagh, we always claimed that the evidence showed that Mr. Bosler had induced Rerdell to make that retraction. One of the statements alleged to have been made by Dorsey to Spencer was that he was all right now, that Bosler had sat up all night with Rerdell and got him to retract.

Q. Was there any evidence of the payment of money to Rerdell for the purpose of inducing him to retract?-A. I do not think so.

Q. You saw no evidence of anything of that kind in Bosler's books?— A. No; nothing of that sort.

Q. No payments to Rerdell?-A: Oh, there were payments, as I recollect, to Rerdell.

Q. Was he paid by Bosler for Dorsey, or on account of Bosler himself?-A. I think he was paid on account of the two; it was chargeable to the interest.

Q. To the partnership?-A. Yes, if it was a partnership. I wish you would send for that book; it is in existence, I believe, at Carlisle, Pa. Q. Who is the executor of Mr. Bosler's estate?—A. I think it is Mr. Bosler's son or brother, Herman D. Bosler.

Q. Did you examine that book?—A. I did.

Q. Did it contain a record of any political contributions or assessments?—A. As I recollect it, it did. It had in it accounts of Mr. Bosler's interests in some other contracts not connected with the Post-Office Department.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Did it show any payments to Cook, or Gibson, or Cole ?-A. I have already testified to that. It showed entries of a payment to Cook, and also to Cole.

Q. And to Gibson?-A. And to Gibson.

Q. Do you remember the amount that it showed had been paid to Gibson? He testified to having received $2,500.-A. I should say from recollection that Mr. Gibson's payment was $3,000, but it may have been only $2,500. I will not undertake to say.

WASHINGTON, June 20, 1884.

WILLIAM W. KER again appeared and testified as follows: The WITNESS. When I appeared before this committee to testify, I understood that my testimony was to be given in relation to facts that occurred and upon which the expenditures in the Department of Justice

were based, and I thought that it was my duty to testify fully before this committee, to all facts within my knowledge that in any way had relation to any such expenditure. I believe I have done so, and in doing that I was compelled to mention two or three incidents that oper ated upon Mr. Merrick's mind and caused Mr. Merrick, who was the senior counsel in the case, to incur an expense which has been credited to me, and of course has been criticised. I felt that it was my duty to explain to the committee how that expense was incurred, knowing that the gentlemen who were interested in the matter would be able, probably, to set it right and furnish the necessary explanation. For some reason that I cannot understand, Colonel Bliss has assumed that I made a wholesale attack upon him. In that idea he is entirely mistaken, and I do not think my testimony will bear him out. In his statement before this committee, the day before yesterday, he went over my testimony critically, and many things in it, that in no way related to Mr. Bliss, were treated by him and criticised by him as reflections upon himself. Now, I want to say for Colonel Bliss that he is a keen, bright, sharp lawyer of great ability and untiring energy. During the progress of the case he became familiar with the papers in a manner that was simply wonderful. There was no person connected with the case who had the same command of the papers that Colonel Bliss bad. He seemed to know every one of them by heart, and was able to pick them out, no matter when called upon, and it is no wonder that Mr. Merrick thought that he was a very useful gentleman in the case. We relied in that re

spect in a great measure upon Colonel Bliss, because he had the facility of understanding these papers and handling them, and in fact there was hardly anything connected with the case that Colonel Bliss was not cognizant of. I mention that in this connection now, so that the committee may see as I go along the reasons that probably actuated Mr. Merrick in what he did, and that guided me. Now, 1 want to answer Colonel Bliss's statements in regard to myself-those that require answering-because I shall allow the matter in my testimony already given that he has wrongfully chosen to attribute to himself to stand, as those who may read it hereafter, or at least the committee, will see that I have in no way alluded to him there, and that therefore his criticisms or answers on those points do not require any further answer from me.

Colonel Bliss started out by saying that "Ker's inaccuracies were long known to the counsel." Now, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, if I was inaccurate, and that was known to Colonel Bliss, it was his duty to have informed the Attorney-General of that fact, and have me dismissed from the case. If I was inaccurate, certainly Mr. Merrick would be likely to have said something of the kind, and if he has not said it I hope he will come forward and say now if he thinks there is any truth in it. Colonel Bliss says that he has received a letter from Mr. Woodward relating to that point. We have not had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Woodward's letter, but Colonel Bliss makes the statement that Mr. Woodward said "he had long known that Mr. Ker was inaccurate." Mr. Woodward is a very intelligent, upright gentleman, one who reudered great aid in this case, and a man remarkable for his intense precision; a comma out of the way would lead Mr. Woodward to think that the person was inaccurate; therefore, I do not doubt that Mr. Woodward thinks that in some minor particulars I am inaccurate, and I do not claim that in some such instances I am not inaccurate. But I do not think that Mr. Woodward would come here and deny the gist of the statements that I have made before the committee, or the facts that I have narrated to them. Colonel Bliss says that he did not fur

nish the bill of fare of the Dorsey dinner to Mr. McSweeney. Now, I stated in my examination that I did not see Colonel Bliss furnish it. If he had contented himself with denying that, I would have nothing further to say about it; but he has chosen to characterize my assertions as "manufactured," and as "false," and he having made that direct attack upon that portion of my testimony, it is now my duty to show that it is not manufactured and is not false. He has also insinuated that probably I furnished that bill of fare to McSweeney, and he has stated that I was intimate with Mr. McSweeney. Judge McSweeney was a stranger in Washington like myself. I met him at the hotel. I found him a very pleasant and agreeable gentleman who agreed with me politically, and, upon a number of occasions, I spoke to Mr. McSweeney, and tried to the best of my ability to make his stay here as pleasant as was in my power. Beyond that there were no other relations existing between Judge McSweeney and myself.

Having my attention called to this matter by the imputation cast upon me, I have thought over every circumstance connected with the production of that book, and I remember now that Mr. McSweeney told me, standing at the corner of Fourteenth street and the Avenue, at Willard's Hotel, that he had received that book from Colonel Bliss. Mr. McSweeney lives in Ohio; he is a well-known lawyer, and I am certain that a letter from the chairman of this committee would get from him the entire truth of the matter. I deny most emphatically that I gave the book to Mr. McSweeney, or that I ever saw it until it was thrown on the table.

By Mr. FYAN :

Q. Thrown on the table when?-A. During the argument of Mr. McSweeney before the jury. On page 2780 of the record of the first trial, Mr. McSweeney, in his argument says:

Dorsey has found the lines of the poet to be true, that he who ascends the mountaintops shall find the loftiest summit crowned with ice and snow: he who surpasses or subdues mankind must look down on the hate of those below. He has been stabbed in the house of his friends. Here is a little book [exhibiting a small volume] that you will look upon, inscribed "George Bliss." It is not in evidence. Scarce had the shoes grown old that stamped their loud approval of Senator Dorsey, two months, nay, not two months ago, until the roar of accusation burst out against him.

That is the incident and that is the paragraph that I referred to; that is the book that I referred to, which Mr. McSweeney exhibited, and threw upon the table, and I say now, if you will write to Mr. McSweeney he will tell you, I think, as he told me, that he got it from Colonel Bliss. Now I submit, gentlemen of this committee, whether what I testified to before you is false or whether it is true. If Colonel Bliss has any answer to make, let him make it.

Mr. BLISS. I ask the committee to compare that Ker's original statement on this subject.

statement with Mr.

The WITNESS. Let me go on to another point. In speaking of the interview in the New York Herald, that I testified to as one of the things that made Mr. Merrick and the Attorney-General both angry, and a thing which at that time had a serious bearing upon the case, of course I did not assume to know, nor do I now know, whether Colonel Bliss actually stated to the reporter what was published in that interview, or not.

He denied it afterwards in a card. I did not introduce that here to injure him. I introduced it as one of the moving causes that had operated on the mind of Mr. Merrick. Colonel Bliss denies that the effect of that interview was such as I have stated in my testimony. He denies that there was any such use made of that interview as I have

stated. He goes so far as to say that he has conversed with Judge Wylie, and that Judge Wylie says there was nothing of the kind. Well, I don't know what he told Judge Wylie, but I do know that if Judge Wylie were brought here he would tell the truth of the matter. Now I do not want to permit this controversy to stand as a simple question of veracity between Colonel Bliss and myself. At the time Colonel Bliss was not in court; I was; I saw what took place, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will ask the Attorney-General, when he comes to be examined, whether he remembers this incident. Now let us see what did take place. I told you, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Wilson, one of the counsel for the defense, attempted to use this interview before the jury. He held the paper in his hand and started to read it. Now, we will stand by the record, as much as is in the record. On page 2884 of the first trial, Judge Jere. M. Wilson is addressing the jury, and he

says:

As to Dorsey, my brother Merrick thought that this testimony was a very flood which was to drown him, but Brother Bliss thought it was not very much of a shower, so far as Dorsey was concerned. My brother Merrick had a great deal to say about the newspapers, and he has told you a great deal about what the newspapers have said and are saying in regard to this case. Well, the newspapers, it happens, saw this very wide difference that existed between Mr. Merrick and Mr. Bliss upon this subject, and one of them went so far as to say that they were going to watch and see whether the learned Attorney-General was going to side with Bliss in saying that this was not so much of a sprinkle, as far as Dorsey was concerned, or whether he was going to side with Merrick and say that it was a flood, so far as Dorsey was concerned; and that brought out this [taking up a newspaper slip]: "Alexandria”. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (interposing). Wait! wait! Is that proper, your honor!

The COURT. No.

Mr. WILSON. Never mind; I will pass that over. I thought that as so much liberty had been taken as to what the press had said, it would not be out of place for me to follow in the footsteps of my illustrious predecessors.

Such is the statement in the record of what took place there. Judge Wilson had the New York Herald interview in his hand. He referred to the editorial that I read to you here, which wanted to know whether the Attorney-General was going to take sides with Mr. Bliss or with Mr. Merrick. He stated the substance of the article. There was not a man upon that jury who hadn't it within his power, and I have no doubt they did have the curiosity, to read the article which had excited so much comment, and which was attempted to be read before them and suppressed. Now, as Colonel Bliss was not present, of course he did not know what did take place in court; but before he got on this stand and, on his solemn oath, stated that I had told a falsehood here and "manufactured" my statement, he might have read the record. That is the second instance in which I think I have shown that what I have stated before this committee is absolutely true.

Colonel Bliss says that he furnished me with a list of the witnesses. You know, gentlemen, I told you that I had subpoenaed the witnesses. Mr. Merrick told me to subpoena them, and I have told you that after they came here I took them to my room and examined them. I did not say and I do not say that Colonel Bliss had nothing to do with subpœnaing the witnesses. I said that I was to subpoena the witnesses. So I was. He was not, and I was. He sent me a list of the witnesses that he thought ought to be subpoenaed. I was thankful to get it; glad to get it. I took it and used it. There was no trouble about that. I did not say that there was anything wrong with him in relation to the subpœnaing of witnesses. I did not accuse him of anything. He read you my letter and he read his own letter to me. Nowhere in my testimony is there anything said that reflects on him about that. I have here a letter