Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Q. That must have been the subletting on the increase.-A. No; that was the original letting. The contract went into effect July 1, 1878, the first order adding trips was made August 26, 1878; that is, one month and twenty-six days after the contract began to take effect, September 12, to the beginning of the next quarter; so that he was running at a loss the first quarter, and the addition of four trips brought it up to just about what he was paying the subcontractor.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Did you explain to Mr. Bliss the evidence that was accessible in those cases?-A. It was set out in my papers. I have no papers at all. I left everything there when I left the Department, even those that I took there when I went in, and haven't seen them since. My recollection is that I set out in great detail all the circumstances connected with that route; the payment by the contractor of $20,000. I am not positive that it is set out in writing, but my recollection is that I did so set it out.

Q. But the fact is nevertheless the same?-A. The fact is nevertheless the same, and was stated to Mr. Bliss. Mr. Price gave five drafts, known as postal drafts, drafts drawn against future pay on a route, for $3,000 each, and he gave a note drawn by Hugh White and indorsed by Monroe Saulsbury for $5,000.

Q. To whom were those payments made ?-A. The evidence submitted to the grand jury subsequently showed that Mr. Price had given those drafts. Mr. Price himself has made an affidavit in which he swears that he gave William Pitt Kellogg the five drafts for $3,000 each, and a note for $5,000. Mr. Walsh testified that Mr. Kellogg gave him the drafts and the note for collection. Mr. Walsh was at that time a banker doing business at 914 F street, I think.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. That he gave them for collection?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. In behalf of whom?-A. Mr. Kellogg; one-half to be placed to the credit of Mr. Brady and one-half to Mr. Kellogg; that is the evidence. I do not state the fact as of my own knowledge; I simply state the evidence.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Was that evidence brought to the attention of Mr. Bliss at the time you speak of?-A. At the time I originally speak of I did no more than write on the slip of paper, as I have stated, but subsequently it was all stated to him in great detail, not only by me, but by the witness, Mr. Walsh.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. About what time?-A. Before the filing of the information, in 1881.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Did he give any reason for not having indictments found in those cases at once?-A. Just let me think a moment, now. I do not know whether Mr. Walsh in 1881 stated that to him or not. I prepared a statement of what Mr. Walsh had told me, and reduced it to writing, and Mr. Walsh called upon Mr. Bliss and read it to him, and stated that that was his statement. Now, that related probably to only route 40101. What he stated to him in addition to that at that time I do not know. But while the trial of the case against Brady and Dorsey and

others was going on, Mr. Merrick called upon me. I was sick at the time, and had been for some six weeks, and the case was going on. The first day that I got out I drove down to the city hall, and I met Mr. Merrick coming out, and told him that he was or had been misled, that he didn't know what he was about, that he had taken the wrong case. I had some more conversation with him, and that evening he called upon me at my house, and I told him to send for certain papers to the Post Office Department, which he did. Their case was about being laughed out of court, and Mr. Merrick was very much concerned about it, and he came to me again, and at his request I had Mr. Walsh brought here-not brought here-I had him come here; I wrote to him to come, and he came. Mr. Merrick told me that he had tried to get Mr. Bliss to find him or have him found, but could not succeed, and Mr. Walsh came here and met Mr. Woodward, and through Mr. Woodward arranged a meeting between himself and Mr. Merrick, as he subsequently told me.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. When was this?-A. During the progress of the first trial of the Brady and Dorsey case.

Q. I have forgotten that date; can you state when it was?—A. The grand jury for the June term had been adjourned. It was not organized. It had been adjourned by the court until after the summer holidays, so that this was some time in June or July, 1882. The result was that Mr. Walsh, very much against his own inclination, consented to be a witness in that case, and as Mr. Merrick has informed me subsequently, and as he will tell you, saved the case from being thrown out of court.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. The Brady case?-A. Yes, sir. The Brady-Dorsey case was on trial, and I state upon general information, and upon the authority of Mr. Merrick, that their case was practically beaten; they had not been able to make out a case. They believed that the court would rule that they had not established a conspiracy and could not connect the different parties. And although Mr. Walsh had a suit then pending in the supreme court of the District of Columbia against Brady, and I was acting as his counsel, against my inclination and against his own he consented to be a witness in that case as to collateral matters not connected with the case at all. It was a great injustice to him to compel him to be a witness in that case.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. You say that his testimony saved the case?—A. Yes, sir; I have no hesitatlon in saying that.

Q. It did not secure a verdict, I believe?—A. No, sir; but it saved the Government the mortification of being laughed out of court.

Without concluding the examination of the witness, the committee adjourned until Monday, March 10, 1884.

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 10, 1884.

A. M. GIBSON recalled and further examined.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. When the committee adjourned on Saturday you were about to make a statement with regard to the testimony of Mr. Walsh in the trial of the star-route cases, or had you completed all that you desired to say upon that subject?-Answer. I think I had.

Q. Can you state from recollection the names of the persons who were embraced in the information proceedings against certain parties charged with frauds upon the Government in the star-route mail service?-A. Thomas J. Brady, S. P. Brown, John L. French, and William H. Turner.

Q. Was Sanderson one of them?-A. No, sir.

Q. Who advised the bringing of an information instead of an indictment against those parties?-A. At the conference at Elberon, at which Attorney-General MacVeagh, Mr. Bliss, Mr. William A. Cook, and myself were present, it was determined to proceed in the case of the route from Prescott, Ariz., to Santa Fé, N. Mex., and Mr. Cook came to Washington for the purpose of submitting that case to the grand jury. When he reached here he found that the grand jury had been adjourned; and inasmuch as the statute of limitations would run very soon as to one of the parties, as our information then was, after consideration by the Attorney-General, Mr. Brewster, Mr. Bliss, and Mr. Cook, they determined to proceed by information, and the information was accordingly prepared and filed.

Q. Were the parties you have named those who were interested in the Santa Fé and Prescott route?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was that the only route embraced in that information ?-A. The only one.

Q. Against whom was it supposed that the statute of limitations would run?-A. Mr. S. P. Brown.

Q. When was the first indictment found in the cases?-A. The first indictments found, I believe, were against F. B. Lilley and George. Brott; that is my recollection.

Q. Have those indictments been tried yet?-A. No, sir.

Q. What routes were those in relation to ?-A. I do not recollect tha routes.

Q. Who were those parties?-A. Fred. B. Lilley was deputy sixth auditor.

Q. Who was Brott?-A. Mr. Brott was a contractor.

Q. Was it a charge of conspiracy?-A. I think it was a charge of payment of money to an officer-I forget, though, exactly what it was. It has been quite two years ago, and I did not give much attention to it. I appeared before the grand jury, and that was all I had to do with it.

Q. Do you know why that case has not been prosecuted or disposed of-A. I do not.

Q. What was the next indictment they found?—A. It would be better to go by the record in reference to things of that kind. Those matters are of record. My recollection is that the next indictment was that against Thomas J. Brady, Stephen W. Dorsey and John W. Dorsey, Vaile, Miner, Peck, Rerdell, and J. L. Sanderson.

Q. Those parties belonged to what was known as the Dorsey combination?-A. Yes, sir.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. Was that the indictment that was tried?—A. No; they were not tried on that indictment.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. What became of it?—A. I don't know whether it was ever formally nolle prossequied or not. It was abandoned by the Government.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. Was it abandoned before or after the trial of Dorsey?—A. It was abandoned before the trial.

Q. Do you know why?-A. Yes; I think I do. Mr. Ker, who drew the indictments, included Sanderson and Rerdell by their initials only, and of course they pleaded to the indictment. Sanderson did not; he was not here; he was here when the indictment was found and left the same evening, but Rerdell entered his plea and the case was dismissed, so far as he was concerned.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. On the ground that his initials only were given ?-A. Yes; that it was not certain.

Q. And so with Sanderson ?-A. No; there was no plea as to Mr. Sanderson's case as I recollect. There may have been.

Q. Was there any effort made to obtain a second indictment of the same parties?-A. There was an indictment found of the same parties with the exception of Sanderson.

Q. His name did not appear in the second indictment against those parties?-A. No, sir.

Q. Who drew the indictments?-A. W. W. Ker. I see, October 26, Mr. Merrick charges for consultation as to new indictment which was found in No. 14336, Vaile et al. Rerdell was indicted by his initials only, a very curious thing, because his name in full, Montfort C. Rerdell, was in the City Directory.

Q. Was his name given correctly in the second indictment?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that the case that was tried?-A. Yes, sir. The first time the jury disagreed and the second time they acquitted him.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. Who were the defendants in the case that was tried?-A. Stephen W. Dorsey, John W. Dorsey, John R. Miner, Mr. Vaile, Montfort C. Rerdell, Thomas J. Brady, and William H. Turner. The case as to Turner was abandoned and Rerdell and Miner were convicted on the first trial.

Q. And as to the others the jury disagreed?-A. Yes, sir; and the court granted a new trial.

Q. A new trial as to all the parties?—A. As to all the parties. Q. Was that new trial granted upon the petition of the Government or of the parties who were convicted-A. The Government asked for a new trial.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Who appeared before the grand jury in reference to procuring the indictments against those parties, do you know?-A. That I only know by reputation.

Q. Did you appear?-A. I did not.

Q. You have stated that you appeared before the grand jury in the case against Brott and Lilley.-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did not appear in the other case?-A. No, sir.

Q. Did you appear about that time, or while you were in the service of the Government in connection with the cases, before the grand jury in any other case?—A. No, sir; I was out of the cases before the indictments against Mr. Brady and Mr. Dorsey were found. I appeared only as a witness.

Q. In what cases did you appear as a witness?-A. In the cases of Brott and Lilley.

Q. Any other cases?-A. No, sir.

Q. You did not appear before the grand jury as special counsel in the management of any of the cases?-A. No, sir.

Q. Can you explain why it was that the name of Sanderson was omitted from the second indictment?-A. No, sir; I cannot explain. I know nothing about it. He was there improperly in the first place. He had no connection with the case whatever. He had sublet a route to John R. Miner, I believe; and, as I stated to you on Saturday, when a man sublet a route he paid so much money for the contract.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. He was a subcontractor?-A. In a sense he was a subcontractor. There is no other way that you can get the routes except by a subcontract or power of attorney.

Q. He was not the original bidder?-A. He was not the original bidder.

Q. He got the contract from some one who had got it by bidding?— A. Yes, sir; but whoever the original contractor was, he had nothing more to do with the route thereafter.

Q. You say that Sanderson was improperly included in the first indictment?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was not that a good reason for not including him in the second indictment when that was ascertained?—A. I thought so.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Why was no subsequent proceeding instituted by indictment against the parties embraced in the information ?-A. That you will have to ask somebody else. It is a conundrum that I cannot answer. Q. Was there any subsequent proceeding instituted against those parties?-A. No, sir.

Q. The information was never determined upon the merits of the case at all, but only technically?-A. It was stricken from the records.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. Was there any decision of the court as to the legality of proceed ing by information?-A. There was. The court decided that the statute required proceedings of that kind to be commeneed before the police court. Mr. Cook and myself proposed to proceed before the police court and follow the form prescribed by the court in its decision, but we were overruled.

Q. By whom?-A. By Mr. Bliss. We proposed to submit the same. to the grand jury.

Q. Had this case that was tried already commenced when you were overruled?—A. No, sir.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Do you know what the nature of the evidence was that was in possession of the Government counsel against the parties that were embraced in the information ?-A. That was of record.

H. Mis. 38, pt. 2—6*

« AnteriorContinuar »