from Colonel Bliss; I went to the Department of Justice and I saw it in a drawer and opened it. I was astonished to find that one of the few letters that I received from Colonel Bliss was lying there, and probably, as he has read mine here, I may as well read his:

MY DEAR SIR: If the Government would pay my bill I would advance Semple what is needed. Otherwise, you must do the best you can. I have no faith in the Colorado marshal or any others there. They are all against us.

Yours, truly,

WM. W. KER, Esq.

GEO. BLISS.

That letter was sent to me by Colonel Bliss from 160 Broadway, New York, and by it you will see that I was engaged in the business of getting the witnesses; so that his own letter corroborates what I say. 1 know that I had trouble in getting the money to pay witnesses; I had to advance it to them, and Colonel Bliss here offers to advance them money if the Government will pay his bill. Well, as I had nothing to do with the Government paying his bill, I could not avail myself of that offer, and I had to pay that money myself, part of it, and part of it was obtained through an order from the Attorney-General-I believe it came from the President of the United States. Probably that was at Colonel Bliss's suggestion. If it was, I am very much obliged to him, because it aided me materially in settling with the witnesses.

Then, again, he says that he did not give me the name of M. C. Rerdell to be placed in the first indictment. You will remember that I testified that I came here a stranger. I had nothing to do with the cases until I came here to prepare the indictments. I conversed with Colonel Bliss and he furnished me the names; otherwise I should have had no way of getting them. He went over the case with me and talked about the names to be put in, and among others given to me was the name "M. C. Rerdell.” Now, of course Colonel Bliss denies most emphatically that I spoke to him about the name of Rerdell, or about getting his Christian name. I made no attack upon Colonel Bliss as to M. C. Rerdell-about not getting his Christian name. If the colonel did not know the name that was a full excuse. But he was not content with that. He must indulge in reflections against me, and now I want to show who tells the truth. Colonel Bliss says that he asked threeof the clerks that were assisting me at that time and that they say they never heard any question raised about the christian name. Well, that is probably true. I do not think I discussed that matter with the gentlemen who were merely copying the indictments. I do not think that I went to the clerks for information concerning these cases. I went to the gentleman who was assigned to direct me, and that was Colonel Bliss, and I got my information from Colonel Bliss, or from Mr. Woodward, or from Mr. Shallcross, or from Captain Tidball. Those were the persons who I supposed could give me information. Now, I do not doubt that Colonel Bliss did go and ask some of those clerks, but he was not kind enough to mention their names, and, therefore, I could not, in the short time that I have had, run around and hunt them up; but even if I had the time I do not think I should have done so, because, as I say, I do not recollect that I mentioned the question to them at all.

Now, if this committee are to decide who tells the truth in this matter, let them decide it on the preponderance of evidence. On page 352 of your record, in Mr. Woodward's testimony, I find this:

Q. He was indicted by his initials, as were also one or two others?-A. Yes, sir. H. Mis. 38, pt. 2-47*

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Whom is he speaking of?-A. I do not think that is material; he was speaking, I think, about the name of Sanderson, but the material point is stated in his next answer, and which will appear, when I come to read it. Mr. Woodward goes on:

With regard to the indictment by initials, Mr. Ker asked me once or twice what the first name of M. C. Rerdell was; I never saw his name signed in any papers except "M. C. Rerdell." Afterwards the clerks hunted among the bids and they found some proposals which were signed "Mout. C. Rerdell." One or two of the grand jurors asked me about this also. I was very busy and did not pay much attention to it. I suppose I am responsible for the misnomer of Vaile. One of the jurors asked me what his name was, and I had never seen it in the papers except as H. M. Vaile; but I made some inquiries, where and how I do not recall, and as a result reported to the grand jury that his name was Henry. So that that mistake originated through me.

There is the magnanimity of the true gentleman; he takes the blame to himself of having given the wrong name of Vaile, and corroborates me in my assertion that I inquired about the Christian name of M. C. Rerdell. Colonel Bliss says the name was found in the city directory. Colonel Bliss was my superior in this case. He was the man who took the indictment to the grand jury. He says he said to me, "Ought you not to put in whose Christian name is to the grand jurors unknown?"" and that I said, "No; it is not necessary." He told you the day before yes. terday that he made that suggestion before he took the indictment to the grand jury. Well, as a matter of law, I say again that it was unnecessary. If that averment had been put in it would not have stopped Rerdell from putting in his plea in abatement, and therefore I thought it was unnecessary, and I think so yet; but, with Colonel Bliss's attention directed to the fact that M. C. Rerdell was indicted by his initials, and with the information in his possession that Montfort C. Rerdell's name was to be found in the directory, look at the position he placed me in by refusing to give me that information.

Mr. BLISS. Gentlemen, let me say

Mr. FYAN (interposing). I object. Mr. Bliss himself objected to interruption the other day.

The CHAIRMAN. There is objection. later, Mr. Bliss.

You can make your statement

The WITNESS. If he says he did not know of the name being in the directory at that time, then it was only introduced here for the purpose of stabbing at me. I did not know it. Of course, as I say, I did not converse with the clerks, and therefore I have not thought that there would be any use in appealing to them for information. In order to substantiate his position, Colonel Bliss might just as well have gone and asked the watchman in the lobby, or the doorkeeper. I never talked to either of them about the matter.

The next thing he says is that he did not say that Mr. Walsh was a "man of bad character who could not be believed." Now, I told you that I was to examine the witnesses, by direction of the Attorney-General, but that Colonel Bliss said that he would examine them himself. He has produced before you a paper I never had the pleasure of seeing before. It purports to be the statement of Mr. Walsh, written out by A. M. Gibson, and said to have been corrected by Mr. Walsh, after having it read to him by Colonel Bliss. That I think was in 1881. Therefore, in 1882, the time I was speaking about, somewhere about April or May or June, 1882, Colonel Bliss did know Mr. Walsh, and did know something with reference to the testimony that Mr. Walsh would be likely to give. Well, I reiterate, Colonel Bliss told me that "Walsh was a man of bad character and was not to be believed." He says he did not tell me that.

It is a question of veracity between us. Somebody will have to settle that question, but in settling and deciding the question I will ask the committee to remember that Mr. Walsh claims that there were some disparaging remarks made about him by Colonel Bliss, and that he took offense at those remarks, and that that was a reason why he did not want to appear in the case. You will also remember that Mr. Merrick testified that he had to conciliate Mr. Walsh in order to get him to testify; and if Mr. Merrick had to conciliate Walsh, why, of course, the inquiry would naturally arise, upon what ground was Mr. Walsh offended and why did he have to be conciliated? It is very evident that Mr. Walsh and Colonel Bliss were not good friends. Colonel Bliss says Mr. Walsh attacked him. Mr. Walsh says Colonel Bliss began it. The evidence shows that there was bad feeling existing between the two, and I must naturally have known that. I say I did know it, and when I spoke about Mr. Walsh to Colonel Bliss I received the reply I have quoted. You will also remember, gentlemen, that throughout the cases Colonel Bliss was in the unfortunate position of quarreling with every material witness that the Government had. He opened his quarrel with Mr. Walsh. He quarreled with Mr. Boone. He quarreled with Mr. Price. He was opposed to accepting Price, and it kept Mr. Merrick busy propitiating the witnesses that Colonel Bliss had been driving off. If it had not been for the exertions of Mr. Woodward, who introduced or brought Mr. Walsh to Mr. Merrick, the Government would never, I think, have been able to have secured the testimony of Mr. Walsh at all. Taking all these facts into consideration, I think there will be little hesitation in accepting my statement that Colonel Bliss must have said something to me in regard to Mr. Walsh; but if he did not say any such thing to me, then I deserve the most severe censure for not having made some effort on my own behalf to get Mr. Walsh as a witness.

I

The next thing that Colonel Bliss claims is, that I reflected upon him for not sending for Mr. Moore. I did not reflect on him for that. I did not mention about his not having sent for Mr. Moore for the purpose of casting any reflection upon him. He has read to you what the postoffice inspector wrote about Moore's general character. I suppose that the post-office inspector, was a fair and reliable man. We found them all, with one exception, to be such. A better body of men never existed than the post-office inspectors; they are fair, honest, manly men. presume that the post-office inspectors found out that Mr. Moore was considered a "bad man" by the people he was then living among. So he was a very bad man to attack, quick on the trigger, and a bad man-a rough customer, who was used to the mines, and thought nothing of pulling his revolver out and giving the contents of it to whoever attacked him. In that sense he was "bad." The Post-Office inspector made a report about him, and he was not brought here at the first trial. I do not say that it was any fault of Colonel Bliss in particular, but if Colonel Bliss had permitted me to have examined the witnesses, in all probability I should have taken more pains to ascertain what kind of a man Mr. Moore really was, and to get into communication with him because of the evidence that he was supposed to possess. He was alleged to have some letters written to him by Mr. Stephen W. Dorsey, and we were anxious to get those letters to use them in evidence against Mr. Dorsey. No matter how bad Moore might be, the letters would speak for themselves. Well, we might have got Moore, but, as I said, Colonel Bliss quarreled with Mr. Boone. He had indicted Boone (I had prepared the indictments), and Mr. Boone was characterized as the head and front of the great combination to put in bogus securities.

Mr. Boone was indicted and followed up, although it was Mr. Woodward's strong desire at that time to get into communication with Mr. Boone in order to get Boone's testimony, as it was supposed that he was a man who could tell a great deal if he wanted to speak. Mr. Boone would not talk to us. Mr. Woodward faithfully persisted in his efforts, and finally brought Mr. Boone into contact with Mr. Merrick. Mr. Boone naturally felt aggrieved at what had been said about him and at his having been indicted, but after a great deal of coaxing and persuasion he was induced to tell us a part of what he knew; and when he did tell us a part of what he knew we found that it was one of the most damaging pieces of testimony that could be imagined against Stephen W. Dorsey. He testified, but he did not testify to all that he might have testified to. Boone was Moore's particular friend. Mr. Moore trusted in Boone, and through Boone we could get Moore; but without Boone we could not get Moore. Therefore, if we had been in communication with Boone we could have secured Moore. Now, as I said before, I do not ascribe that failure to Colonel Bliss in particular. I merely say, in answer to what he has stated in regard to my reflections about Moore, that it is just possible that we might have been able to have secured Moore at the first trial if Colonel Bliss had allowed somebody else to have relieved him of the burden of examin ing the witnesses and taking charge of them. Finally, on the second trial, Mr. Moore did come here. We got Mr. Boone to send for him. It appears that in moving, Mr. Moore's papers were lost, for he was a man of a roving character. The letters that we wanted were not to be found, but he proved a very valuable witness. Of course it did not make any difference as to the final result who testified, but there were other people to be satisfied besides the jury. You, gentlemen, members of Congress, were to be satisfied, and the people were to be satisfied that there was a case made out against the parties accused, and Moore contributed his full quota of evidence to making a case against Mr. Stephen W. Dorsey. His testimony bore directly against Dorsey, as the testimony of Boone did, and even Colonel Bliss says that Moore was a valuable witness.

Next, Colonel Bliss denies that he did not bring out all the testimony in the case. If he had not denied that I would not have said a word more about it. I did not charge him with not bringing out all the testimony in the case. I did not make any such allegation against him. I said that it subsequently appeared upon my examining these witnesses that "they had not testified on the first trial to all they knew." If he had let the matter stop there, I think he would be a happier man to-day. Now, of course, I could go over this record seriatum, and read the testimony of all these witnesses. I thought I had banished the case from my mind for good and all; I hoped I had, but, in recalling these facts for my protection, I remember one instance of a man named Coll McLellan. Now, I will not tell you what I think about it; I will read it to you. On page 2656 Mr. McLellan's examination in chief is going on. The subject was a conversation between John W. Dorsey and the gang of laborers who were building stations along the route at a time when the service was only once a week, I think, and the pay a couple of thousand dollars, and as they were building these stations, at, I think, a cost of $6,000, the men could not see how the contractors could spend $6,000 while they received only $2,000, so they became afraid of their wages and had a row, and John W. Dorsey told the men this around the camp fire, in order to quiet them, and the truth of the matter was that John W. Dorsey's words came out precisely true. The route was

increased up to $150,000, made tri-weekly and daily, just as prophesied by him.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Was that evidence brought out on the second trial and not on the first?-A. Yes, sir. Now, Colonel Bliss examined Coll McLellan at the first trial and also at the second trial, and I want to point out to you in this instance how mistaken Colonel Bliss is, and how grateful he would probably be to himself if he had omitted his attack on me.

On page 2656 of the second trial, in McLellan's examination-in-chief, he was asked whether he had any conversations with John W. Dorsey, and then the following took place:

Mr. HENKLE. I object, on account of the date, and reserve an exception.

A. Yes, sir; we had different conversations.

Q. What did he say ?-A. I cannot give the exact conversation.

Q. Well, give the substance of what you remember.-A. He told us that he intended to have the service increased. In about three months, I think, he expected a tri-weekly service; and in about three months after that he expected a daily service. Q. Did he say anything about the profits or cost of it?-A. Yes, sir; he said that while they were having a weekly service they expected to lose money on it, but when it was increased and the time expedited they expected to make a very good thing of it.

Q. Were any sums named?-A. I think he mentioned $150,000 as the sum to be realized.

Q. Did he say anything about how he expected to get it increased?-A. Yes, sir; he told us that his brother, Senator Dorsey, was chairman of the Post-Office Committee, I believe it was, and through his influence he expected to get the increase, or partly through his influence.

Q. Did he say anything as to who was interested in the route?—A. He did not say who all of the parties were.

Q. Did he name any ?-A. I don't remember any except Senator Dorsey and the Second Assistant Postmaster-General.

Then on page 2661, in the cross-examination by Mr. Wilson, McLellan was examined as follows:

Q. You were here for three months, as I understand you, during the former trial?— A. Somewhere near that; about that; I do not remember how long.

Q. You were brought here as a witness, were you?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And remained here for three months?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And were constantly seeing these Government officers, were you?-A. I have seen them frequently, although I have had very little conversation with them.

Q. I am not talking about that. You have frequently seen them?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And they asked you what you knew, did they not ?-A. No, sir.

Q. Before you went on the stand?-A. No, sir.

Q. They never asked you a question about what you knew?-A. No, sir; I don't think they did.

Q. Nobody -A. I don't think they did. I may have had an interview with Woodward; I don't remember.

Q. Don't you know you did?—A. I don't remember it.

Q. Do you not know you did have an interview with Mr. Woodward in which he interrogated you as to what you knew?

Mr. DAVIDGE. Think well.

A. I do not remember it.

Q. What makes you think you might have had it, if you do not remember it?-A. He sent word to me, I think, that he wanted to have an interview with me, but I do not think that we had the interview; I don't remember.

Q. Before you came here had you had an interview with somebody, and told him what you would swear to ?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. So the Government had interviewed you before you came here with reference to what your testimony would be?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you told them, did yon?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who was the man who interviewed you?-A. I don't remember his name; he was a post-office inspector.

Q. You told him what you have here testified to, did you?-A. I gave him all these facts.

Mr. MERRICK. Was not all that gone into?