« AnteriorContinuar »
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—Í 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 organ: ized. 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 con. nected 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 1-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 be 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 At. torney-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 einbraced in that information !-A. The only one.
Q. Against whom was it supposed that the statute of limitations would runt-A. Mr. S. P. Brown.
Q. When was the first indictment found in the cases 1-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 1-A. I do not recollect the 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 1-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 I-A. I do not.
Q. What was the next indictment they found ?-A. It would be bet. ter 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,
Q. Is that the case that was tried 1-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 1-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 I-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 1-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 appearl-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 indict. ments 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 1-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 I-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 indietment 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 I-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 proceeding 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 decisiou, 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*
Q. But I understand the information was not tried upon its merits at all.-A. No, sir.
Q. Where is it of record, then ?-A. In the Post-Office Department.
Q. It was not produced in court 1-A. It could not be produced in court, you know, under the ruling of the court.
Q. Did you examine that evidence that was in the Department at the time the information was filed ?-A. Yes, sir; I prepared all that evi. dence.
Q. Did you submit it to Mr. Bliss ?-A. Oh, yes, sir. It was submitted to him at Elberon.
Q. Was that evidence deemed by you and Mr. Bliss and the others who examined it sufficient to sustain the indictments on trial, or the information on its merits -A. I do not suppose that Mr. Bliss would bave consented to file an information if he had not believed it was.
Q. That does not quite answer the question. In your opinion it was sufficient ?-A. Undoubtedly.
Q. What route was that ?-A. From Prescott, Ariz., to Santa Fé, N. Mex.
Q. And the parties you have mentioned were those in interest on that route !-A. Those were the parties included in the information.
Q. Do you remember what was the original letting for that contract, and how it was advanced or expedited ?-A. Oh, there was a doublebarreled arrangement. It was originally worked up and let, and then knocked off and relet. It is a long history, which is on record in the Department, but it is more than two years since I have seen it and a long while since I have thought anything about it, and of course I can. not carry those things in my head.
By Mr. MILLIKEN:
Q. Was that the case you thought ought to be tried instead of the one that was tried -A. Yes, sir; that and the cases that I spoke of as being collateral to it.
Q. Who were the defendants in that case -A. Do you mean 401013
Q. Yes; the one that you thought ought to have been tried.-A..S. P. Brown, Brady, French, and Turner. Brady was Second Assistant Postmaster General; Turner was chief clerk, and French was a contract clerk or corresponding clerk.
Q. It did not include Mr. Dorsey 1-A. Oh, no; he had nothing to do with it.
Q. What was the other case that you thought ought to be tried !-A. The case of the route from San Antonio to Corpus Christi.
Q. Who were the defendants in that case -A. James B. Price was the contractor, and an indictment was found against Price and Brady in 1882. In 1883 an indictment was found against Brady, and an indictment was found also against Mr. Kellogg.
Q. Who was Pricel-A. The contractor.
Q. He had no connection with the Government otherwise than as a contractor I-A. No, sir. Q. Did any other of those cases include Dorsey ?-A. No, sir.
By the CHAIRMAN : Q. Can you state from recollection or from any data you have before you, what was the amount of the original contract on the Santa Fé and Prescott route, and how much it amounted to after having been expe. dited ? Have you the first and the last amount -A. It was originally