« AnteriorContinuar »
be questions of memory; but when a witness undertakes, under the solemnity of his oath, to say that another witness states a falsehood and manufactures testimony, why then your question does not apply in the same way. It is then a question of veracity.
Q. The reason I asked the question is this: It seems to me that a great many of these points on which you gentlemen differ are not of enough importance to cause questions of veracity to arise between gentlemen. That is the reason I asked that question.-A. Well, I have a right to answer the question. I am very sorry, however, that you did not assume that position two or three days ago. In my previous testimony I had no idea of making an attack upon Colonel Bliss. I had no idea of raising him to the dignity of a scape-goat, or, as he popularly terms it, of “unloading" upon him. There was no occasion whatever for that. I came here and made a plain, simple statement of facts, and upon the strength of that Colonel Bliss comes here and attacks me personally, and it is tbat personal attack upon me that has drawn from me these statements, and the criticisms which are necessary in order to substantiate my position, and to show that I am not to be held up before the world as a perjurer.
Mr. FYAN. I understood Mr. Bliss to make the declaration publicly to this committee that there was a combination here to unload" apon him. That is my recollection of what he said.
By Mr. MILLIKEN: Q. I desire to ask you another question ; it is not exactly in the line in which you have been testifying, but I ask it now lest the matter should escape my memory, and I ask it because I have had an intimation from you that it would not be disagreeable to you to have the question asked.-A. You had better write it first and hand it to me.
Q. No; I will ask it now. Do you not believe that the attorneys in the star-route cases acted faithfully and did the best they could, according to their best judgment, for the conviction of the defendants !-A. Mr. Milliken
Mr. MILLIKEN (interposing). You will recollect that when I asked that question of Mr. Bliss, and he answered it, you intimated that I might ask you the same question, and I do so now because you so intimated.
The WITNESS. Well, Mr. Milliken, I did not understand the question in that way.
Q. You were present when I asked the question of Mr. Bliss, and he answered it in your presence. Did you or did you not then suggest to me that if I should ask you the same question you would answer it in the same way that Mr. Bliss had answered it!-A. I did.
Q. Very well. Now I have asked the question upon your suggestion. The WITNESS. Very well, but I suppose I am not bound to answer it. Mr. MILLIKEN. Of course not.
The WITNESS. Because it is a matter of opinion, and I think it is better for me not to express any opinion.
Mr. MILLIKEN. Well, I will ask you another question, and you need not answer that either, if you do not wish. I do not know but it is an improper question, and, if you think it is, you need uot reply. I guess I will not ask it, though; it is about a private conversation between you and me, and I will not ask the question.
The WITNESS. I do not object to anything. I am here to be exam. ined. Mr. MILLIKEN. Well, I guess I will not ask the question. The WITNESS. I want to repeat again that Colonel Bliss is a shrewd,
sharp, keen lawyer of great ability and of untiring energy, and that he handled the papers and the testimony in the case in a manner that was simply wonderful. I do not pretend that I could have mastered the case and the papers as he mastered them. I think that his services in that respect were invaluable.
Mr. MILLIKEN. Now you have suggested another question by that statement. Do you think his services were worth what he was paid for them by the Government ?
The CHAIRMAN. Do you introduce the witness now as an expert ? Mr. MILLIKEN. Yes.
The WITNESS. Well, I am not an expert in the matter of pay or compensation. Colonel Bliss had a right to receive all that was agreed to be paid him. I had no objection to his receiving all that he could get, or all that was due to him. Whether it was proper or improper it is not for me to say.
WASHINGTON, June 20, 1884. GEORGE BLISS resumed the stand and testified as follows:
What I said about the initials of Rerdell appearing in the directory of the year when he was indicted is a matter that I did not know anything of until after the question in regard to Rerdell was raised by the objection taken in court. As to that, you are to have Mr. Sloan here as a witness, who is the gentleman who was immediately concerned with Mr. Ker in the preparation of the indictments, and if you will ask him he will inform you, as he informed me the other day, that no question was raised about looking for the name of Rerdell until after the question had been raised by the objection in court.
Mr. Ker says that I quarreled with Price. Not so. I never saw Price; I never knew him. I should not know him if he should come into this room to-day. I never had any connection with him direct or indirect, with either Price, J. B. Price, or Celsus Price.
The CHAIRMAN. I think Mr. Ker modified his statement on that point.
The WITNESS. May be he did. He has referred here to the evidence of Coll McLellan. It is true that McLellan gave that evidence on the second trial, but not on the first; and it had a bad effect in this way: McLellan having been examined on the first trial, and having made an affidavit before the post-office inspector which did not contain this statement which he supplied on the second trial, when he came on the stand and testified to this new matter, and when Cabell was brought here to prove the same thing, and then when it was brought out that Joe Pennell, who was one of our most important witnesses, had been taking such a personal interest in the case for the Government that he had gone off to Dakota to bring Cabell here, the effect on the jury I thought was bad, though I had no question that McLellan was telling the truth. And when McLellan testified that he had never been examined by the counsel, I was in this position: I could not discredit McLellan, my own witness, by saying to him, “Are you not wrong?” I could not do that and produce the affidavit in which he stated that he had told the whole story, and yet which did not contain the very statement that he had just made upon the witness stand. Of course it would have been out of the question for me to have done that.
Mr. Ker said that I made a remark about Mr. Brewster Cameron here, knowing that he was out of the city. I did not know it. On the contrary, a gentleman told me that Mr. Cameron told him at Chicago that he was coming back, and until Mr. Ker testified about it to-day I supposed he was in town.
Upon the question of what occurred on the summing up by the Attorney-General on the first trial of the Kellogg case and the inquiry that was put to him by Judge Wylie, the record shows the transaction, and shows that it did not occur as Mr. Ker states it, and I think that if the judge should be asked what did occur he would confirm the record. Mr. Ker does state in his evidence that I left the case and went to New York and was gone several days, and that they finally persuaded me to come back.
By Mr. FYAN:
Q. Can you find where he says it !-A. If you will give me a copy of the testimony I will find it, because I do not desire that there shall be any question about it. On page 556 of your record he says: After that indictment was found Mr. Bliss left and went to New York.
In the first place you will see that it was not after the indictment was found. The indictment was found considerably later. He should have said after the decision of the Attorney General. Then, too, he says that I went to New York. I did not go to New York. staid here, and was out of court one day, and appeared and opened the proceedings the next morning.
Mr. Ker goes on to say:
He said he was not coming back again. He was indignant at the indictment being found. We coaxed him to come back, told him that he was not running the thing; that the Attorney-General controlled it'; that the Attorney-General wanted the indictment found, and that we were proceeding under his direction, and finally Colonel Bliss agreed to go on with the case.
Now nothing of all that occurred.
Q. As a matter of fact, did you get angry and leave the case because the Attorney General had decided to accept Price as a witness:-A. No, sir. I have already testified that I did not. But I thought there had been bad faith shown in procuring a decision of that question from the Attorney-General without consulting me, and I thought Mr. Merrick had been concerned in it, and the moment Mr. Merrick assured me that he had had nothing to do with it, I accepted his statement and returned to the case.
Q. Had you prior to that explanation expressed a determination to go out of the star-route case -A. Yes; I had told Mr. Merrick that if I was to be so treated by my associate counsel not having confidence in me, I could not remain in the case with self-respect, and I would not remain. I was pretty mad. I thought it was a case of bad faith. I was satisfied afterwards that I had done Mr. Merrick injustice, and that there had been no bad faith so far as he was concerned. It was simply a misunderstanding, such as will often arise, and when it was er. plained the matter was all over.
I never said that I ran the Department of Justice, nor did I make an apology to Mr. Brewster Cameron. I will send the committee that correspondence. I am a little different from the Department of Justice in the fact that I have got copies of all the papers on both sides. The Attorney-General has not. He is trying to get them, and he has got copies of some of them through this committee.
Now, as to the Kellogg business, Mr. Ker has read to you at some length from Mr. Woodward's statement. I never saw and I do not be
lieve there existed at that time any report or statement of Mr. Woodward in March, 1882, which connected Mr. Kellogg as a guilty man with any of the star-route cases in any manner. I say that I never saw any such statement, and I do not think that any such existed at that time; nor that Mr. Woodward will say it did. The question turns entirely upon whether in March, 1882, I knew of Kellogg's guilty connection with the star-route business. I say that I did not, upon my honor as a man and upon my honor as a professional man, and under oath. Mr. Walsh has testified that at that time he had never talked to any of the Government counsel iu the case. The pretense that because a man had signed a petition for increase of service or expedition upon a route, you could therefore infer that he had a guilty connection with that route, is ridiculous. If that is the ground that is to be taken you can have pretty much all the meinbers of the Senate indicted. Mr. Kellogg's name may have appeared on some paper in that way, but that you could get his name from that source for the purpose of preparing an indictment against him is, of course, a perfect absurdity. There is no criminality in applying for expedition. You have Mr. Walsh's statement that at the time in question he had not talked with any of the Government counsel, and would not talk with them; that he had not produced any of his papers; that he did not produce his papers before the first grand jury, or that he read only one of them to that grand jury, in which statement he was mistaken. We had not then got Price as a witness against Kellogg; we had not Walsh ; we bad not any body, We had simply Kellogg's name on a petition for increase or expedition. But when we came to the July grand jury we were very differently situated.
By Mr. FYAN: Q. After you talked with Mr. Sloan, were you not satisfied that Mr. Ker had prepared the indictment which you had previously sworn that he had not prepared !-A. No, sir; not for the March grand jury.
Q. Was there any other time at which he could have prepared it?A. In July, of course; he prepared it then. I have no question about that.
Q. Do you know that he did prepare it then ?-A. I do know it, in this sense, that it was arranged that he should prepare the indictments.
Q. Did you ever see the indictment that was prepared for the July term !-A. All I can say about that is that after the question came up of reconvening the grand jury I had a conversation with Mr. Ker about the preparation of those indictments in anticipation of the action of the jury. In Mr. Woodward's letter of July 6 he writes to Walsh to come here, telling him that it has been arranged by the counsel that the grand jury is to be reconvened on the following Monday. In point of fact, however, it did not meet until Wednesday. The statute of limitations would run on the 19th, and it was arranged, necessarily, that the indictments expected to be obtained should be prepared beforehand. It was expected that there would be more than one indictment obtained against Kellogg. I had some conversation with Mr. Ker about the preparation of the indictments for that grand jury. He told me he was preparing them, and, being in the office, I saw papers lying there that looked like indictments.
Q. Upon what did you base your idea that he prepared the indictments at that time?--A. Upon wbat I saw and what he told me.
Q. Did you see any indictments prepared !-A. I saw what I beliered to be the indictments.
Q. At the July term ?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he tell you that he was preparing the indictments ?--A. Yes, sir; we all talked it over.
Q. Where were you when he told you that?-A. Where we talked that over I cannot say. I should think it must have been in the De. partment of Justice, or it may have been when we were walking along the street. I will not undertake to locate it.
Q. Was there anybody else present but you and him !-A. That I would not undertake to say.
Q. But you have a distinct recollection of his telling you that ?-A. I have a distinct recollection of our talking of the preparing of the indictments for the July term.
By the CHAIRMAN: Q. Was that an indictinent containing these three names ?-A. I will not undertake to say about that, but I would say that I never heard of any such indictment being prepared for the March term. I don't see how it was possible for any indictment to be prepared for the March term. I never knew of Mr. Kellogg as being connected with the case at the March term. There were no papers which connected him with it, except the mere petition for expedition which he had signed, and which was certainly no ground for an indictment. Walsh had not given his testi. mony at that time, as he swears. I do not know of any statement of Mr. Woodward's at that time that connected Kellogg with the case in any manner. All I have to say on that point is that if Mr. Ker did prepare such an indictment, I think he is mistaken as to the term at which it was prepared, but I have no doubt that it is a mistake made in good faith.
Q. How can Mr. Ker be testifying in good faith when he says that at the same term he subsequently drew an indictment leaving out Kellogg! Now, at the July term there were no parties indicted.-A. No; but we expected that there would be.
Q. You say that he made that mistake here in good faith-A, I do. I believe he did.
Q. Did you not understand him to say that when the jury failed to present these three men and he had to leave Kellogg out, be tore up that indictment and prepared another against Brady and Price !-A. I believe he did say that.
Q. Well, there was no such indictment prepared at the July term, was there ?-A. That does not prevent its being a mistake made in good faith. I think Mr. Ker is mistaken upon this subject; I do not think be prepared any indictment with Mr. Kellogg's name in it for the March term; I do not see how he could have so prepared an indictment at that time; I believe Mr. Ker conscientiously thinks that he did prepare the indictment, but I have stated the reasons why I think he could not have so prepared it; I cannot see any source from which he could have got information at that time on which to indict Kellogg. I had no such information. Walsh says he had given no such information ; Price was not available; there was no paper in possession of the Government in which Kellogg's name appeared except this petition for expedition of the service. Therefore, I say I think he could not have prepared the indictment for that term as he says he did. But, as pertinent to myself, the important thing is this: That I never knew of the preparation of any such indictment for the March term ; never knew that Kellogg was to be indicted at that term. In this very brief that I put before the grand jury and which was indorsed by them, I said, “ Indictment de