By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. Don't you think that Mr. Woodward is one of those industrious, digging men that we sometimes meet, and really a very good man for the details which he furnished in these cases?—A. One of the most inefficient and unfortunate men to select for any position of that kind that could possibly be chosen. Let me tell you why, as you have asked that question. Statements are of no value to a lawyer, as you know, excepting the mere cold facts. Now, the invariable practice of Mr. Woodward is to interweave, with any statement of facts that you may request him to make, his own inferences, deductions, suspicions, and conjectures; so that if he presents you a paper purporting to set forth the facts of a case you will have a much larger proportion of it occupied by his own views, opinions, and conjectures than by facts, and he insists with pertinacity upon weight being given to thein. All such statements are of no value to a lawyer, and I declined to receive from Mr. Woodward. They were of no value to me. I speak more decidedly on this point with regard to Mr. Woodward, because in the case of the United States against Hinds, in which I was employed by the defense, and in which Mr. Hinds was acquitted—a case for violation of the postal laws-I had a full opportunity of ascertaining what Mr. Woodward's capacity and ability might be, and it was partly the view I obtained of the capacity of the man in that case that led me to distrust investiga. tions made by him when I was engaged in the star-route cases and to set them aside. I might add other facts.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. You have stated that if the prosecution had been continued in the manner agreed upon during President Garfield's administration there would have been some convictions?-A. I have never had any doubt of it.

Q. State in what cases those convictions could have been had, in your judgment?-A. A conviction could have been had in the case in which Mr. Walsh was interested-route No. 40101, from Prescott to Santa Fé. It has been stated here (perhaps by Mr. Bliss) that that convic tion depended upon the testimony of a single witness. That is not correct. I made a thorough investigation of that case, and I may say now, without involving any person or reflecting upon any person, that I would have produced evidence of money passing through the hands of different individuals, apart from Mr. Walsh, in connection with that contract, and would have shown interviews between parties involved in the case, in New York and here, and other facts.

Q. Is that the Prescott and Santa Fé route on which Mr. Walsh became a subcontractor?-A. Yes, sir; and in which, let me say, a paper was signed by which increase was recommended-signed by Mr. Woodward, among others, in my absence-a paper which never would have been signed if I had been here. That brings up another fact, Mr. Woodward has said that I destroyed a letter; I never destroyed any letter in that case.

Q. You recommended the remission of the fines?-A. I did not. I had that subject under consideration at one time, as to whether the fines should be remitted or not, but we had not ultimately determined the question when my more active connection with the case ceased.

Q. In what other cases, then, do you think convictions would have been had?-A. The case that was tried might have been so conducted that there would have been a conviction of some of the parties, but it

could not have been done by the complicated and intricate method in which the case was presented.

Q. Did you make any examination of the Salisbury and Parker cases?A. A limited examination; and I had at one time an interview with Mr. Salisbury and others in the Post-Office Department, in which I stated with some emphasis to Mr. Salisbury, when he was urged to make an adjustment, that he had better, perhaps, be less better, or that in due time, from the cursory examination I had made, I judged he might be in a more unpleasant position than he was in then.

Q. What matters did he want to have adjusted?—A. At that time, if I remember correctly (and please bear in mind that I may be mistaken about some details at times, for this matter has largely passed out of my memory), there was an attempt to have some adjustment of his ac counts on some of his routes.

Q. He was willing to pay up, to settle without the matter going to the grand jury?-A. Yes, sir; and nobody that has ever been willing or able to pay up has ever been indicted, or ever would be.

Q. There is no evidence that anybody did pay up?-A. I said anybody that was apparently willing to pay up. You have not got at the foundation of the case, and never will, perhaps. You have labored well and carefully and industriously, but you have not got to the bottom.

Q. Did you reach the foundation yourself?-A. Not since the case passed out of my hands.

Q. Did you reach it while it was in your hands?-A. To some extent. Q. Will you reveal some of those foundations that are still concealed?— A. I have just told you how a conviction could have been had in the Prescott and Santa Fé case.

Q. And from the examination you made you think there could have been a conviction in the Salisbury case?-A. That has been my opinion, but of course it is only an opinion, not fully matured.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. Do you think the attorneys who acted in these cases failed because of lack of capacity, or because they did not want to bring the defendants to grief?-A. In an interview, which I published immediately after my retirement, I stated that I doubted very much, now that the cases had passed into the hands of Mr. Bliss, whether there ever would be a conviction, and that time would tell whether there would be or not. That was said long ago.

Q. But that does not seem to answer my question at all. Do you think the attorneys in those cases failed because of lack of capacity or because they did not want to bring the defendants to grief?-A. Because of both.

Q. Do you mean to say that the attorneys who prosecuted the cases lacked both brains and heart?-A. No, sir; I mean to say that they lacked, in a case of that magnitude, the methodical power and discrimnating ability necessary to gather a case out of the mass of crude material that they had, and to condense it and present it in a reasonably brief time, so that the jury could comprehend it, bear the facts in memory, and arrive at a correct conclusion.

Q. Then you think they did the best they could with the power which they bad; in other words, that they used all the ability that they had? A. Some of them did. You are asking me now for an opinion, and I answer accordingly.

Q. Well, you have been giving opinions all morning.-A. No, sir; not all morning; part of the time. I doubt, and ever have doubted, H. Mis. 38, pt. 2-51

whether there was a sincere purpose to convict from January 1, 1882, until the close of the cases, on the part of all the attorneys.

Q. Do you mean to say that all of them lacked sincerity?—A. No, sir; there was one attorney that evidently was anxious to convict; that was Mr. Merrick. There is no question about that at all. The motives that may have controlled Mr. Merrick in that I cannot determine, but the error of Mr. Merrick was really in being too bitter, too censorious, too denunciatory, so that there was a revulsion of public feeling, even on the part of the jurors and others. Of Mr. Merrick's sincerity I have no doubt.

Q. Do you think that his bitterness grew out of his zeal to convict? -A. Yes, sir; out of his zeal; and then, too, out of an additional fact. He is a man who cannot control his partisan feelings as they ought to be controlled. There was too much partisanship underlying his prosecution of Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Kellogg. This he seemed to feel toward the end. You cannot convict a man of previous good character and standing in that way.

Q. Do I understand you to say that you think Mr. Merrick wanted to convict Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Kellogg because they were Republicans?A. No, sir; but that the fact that they were Republicans intensified, perhaps unconsciously, his feelings, and rendered him more bitter and earnest in his efforts than he otherwise might have been.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Have you any knowledge that any one of the counsel for the Government in this case was corruptly influenced in his action in connection with the prosecution?-A. No; I have no direct knowledge. I have an accumulation of facts, but you would not want them. I have facts and inferences, but I might state a great deal that would not be evidence.

Q. Is it such an accumulation of facts as has been brought out before this committee and through the press?--A. Certainly; and perhaps some additional, but they are not such as I ought to introduce as testimony. I occasionally indulge in opinions, especially when called for: but after all they are not evidence.

Q. Did any of these defendants ever approach you, directly or indi rectly, with propositions for securing immunity-A. I answer that question according to the terms in which you put it, and place the em phasis where you will comprehend it. No defendant ever approached me.

Q. Did any defendant ever by his counsel or by a friend?—A. No defendant, so far as I know, through a counsel; but I have already stated that I was once approached. I was once approached with a prop osition that would involve corruption on my part, and I arranged to explode the whole scheme.

Q. Has that been stated in your previous testimony?-A. I have stated that.

Q. I do not remember that you stated that before.-A. I think I did. I was once approached. I think I so stated. I intended to do so at all

events.

Q. Was that the case in which you were to be employed as counsel by -A. That was a case where there was a proposition made to me to withdraw from my employment on behalf of the Government for a pecuniary consideration, and have it paid in some mode which would make it impossible to trace it.

Q. I do not think you have explained that to the committee.-A. Well, do not ask me for the name, and I will give you all that occurred. Q. Give us all that occurred, and we will see about the name after

wards.-A. Yes, sir. That approach was made by a gentleman who came to my office, and, after one or two interviews, stated that he wished to talk to me on this subject. I arranged an interview and at the same time arranged to have one or two persons in my office, so that it might be ascertained that he had called there. When he called, those persons were present. I finally took him up-stairs in one of my upper rooms, where there is a bed that Mr. Cole generally occupies. I had placed a gentleman under the bed for the purpose of hearing the proposition and what might take place. This man suggested to me, after some time, that he would rather see me at the Portland, and I told him that I would consider that proposition. In the mean time he had ascertained in some manner, as I was afterwards informed, that I had a watch upon him and it would not be safe for him to come to my office, and so the matter ended.

By Mr. MILLIKEN: ·

Q. Did he discover that there was anybody under the bed?—A. No, sir; he did not. I don't do things in that way.

Q. Did he make his statement while the other party was under the bed?-A. In part. He commenced it.

Q. What stopped him?-A. He said that he would prefer that I would come and talk to him at the Portland, and then he stopped.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Did he disclose the nature of his proposition?-A. His proposition was just what I have stated; that if I would withdraw, or if, or if while I remained in the case, I would so act as to protect some of the defendants, whom he did not name, or "the defendants," a large sum of money could be placed in my hands.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. Was that man a private citizen?-A. He was a private citizen.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Of ability to pay?-A. I believe he had the ability.

Q. Did you regard him as representing some of the defendants?—A. I could have no other idea but what he came to me representing, from motives friendly or otherwise, some of the defendants.

Q. Was he a lawyer?-A. He was not. He may have made the proposition on his own responsibility.

Q. He was exceedingly anxious to have perfect privacy, was he?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And he was somewhat mysterious in his movements?-A. Yes, sir. His first statements when he first came into my office were plain enough to me.

Q. What answer, if any, did you give to this tempter?-A. To the invitation to go to the Portland? I said that I would consider whether I should go or not, and possibly I should let him know at some future period. Of course I had no intention of going to the Portland.

Q. Was there any other occasion on which an effort was made to corruptly influence your action while you were Government counsel ?—A. No, sir; no one else ever approached me.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. At what period did this occur?-A. It occurred in the fall of 1881. By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Was it before the trial began?-A. Yes, sir; before the trial began. There was an effort, as I have stated heretofore, and this may

have been a part of that effort, to get me to retire from the cases and accept employment on behalf of the defendants.

Q. Mr. Woodward states somewhere in his testimony that you made the statement to the President that Mr. Brady had approached you.A. I never made any such statement. He also stated, I remember now, that I had stated to the President, in substance, that Mr. Dorsey should be protected because of his great political influence and the aid he had rendered in the then late campaign. I never made any such statement. No one would suppose that I would venture to make such a statement to the President of the United States. I did say that I regretted that any one who had occupied the high position that Senator Dorsey had occupied was involved in the accusations that were made against him. I regret it now. That is what I stated, and Mr. Woodward may have misunderstood what I did say.

With the permission of the committee I will submit a copy of a letter which I addressed to the Attorney-General in relation to the papers that it was claimed were in my possession:

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 28, 1882. SIR: Agreeably to my communication of yesterday I herewith transmit you the following papers, viz: 44,154 (Part 2), 44,154 (Part 1), 38,135, 38,140, 34,149, 38,113, 44,140, 38,134 (Part 1), 38,134 (Part 2), 44,155 (Part 2), 34,124, 38,135, 35,051 (Part 2), 33,264, 34,124, 35,013, 35,015, 34,042, 35,015, 34,042, 35,043, 33,259, 35,042, 35,015, 34,042, 35,043, 33,259, 35,042, 35,015, 44, 160, 44,119, 38,152, 44,140, 35,051.

These include others than those referred to by Mr. Bliss and are of a different class. None of them came into my hands through Mr. Woodward. The first eleven were exhibits of the report made by Mr. Gibson in the so-called Dorsey cases. The original report I believe passed into the hands of Mr. Bliss at Elberon. They all were received from H. J. Finley, a former clerk in the rooms set aside for the investigation of “ the star-route cases."

2. It may be proper for me to add that there seems to me to be a concerted effort on the part of Mr. Bliss and Woodward to place me in a false position in relation to papers in "the star-route cases."

On the 6th of January last Mr. Bliss addressed me a communication requesting me to return "original" papers in my possession. In replying on the 9th of that month, I stated, in substance, that I had no such papers, and never had taken any from the Post-Office Department, and that I was unable to conjecture why he made the request, and that I feared that he had received incorrect information. I then took occasion to state that for some time I had been unable to get even a glimpse of "originals" or to procure copies, or the return of some copies temporarily obtained from me, and that the usual reply of Mr. Woodward was, "they are in use," "Mr. Bliss has them," or something of this kind.

3. When I received his communication of the 16th instant,, asking me to send him “reports" which Mr. Woodward furnished me in the Dorsey routes, I replied truthfully that I never was furnished any "reports" by Mr. Woodward, in the Dorsey or any other routes. And I added that I had repeatedly requested copies (of "reports"), but was unable to obtain even these except in a few instances, and that these were taken away or returned, in part by Mr. Gibson; and that it did not seem to be the first time incorrect information in relation to "star-route papers" had been given him; but that I would carefully examine my papers, and if I found any, I would with pleasure send them to him.

4. On the 17th instant I received a communication from Mr. Bliss, stating that it was not "reports," but "abstracts" prepared by Mr. Woodward, and furnished me, he desired, and that he remembered to have seen some of them in my possession, and that I referred to others. This letter was placed on my desk and I did not see it until late in the evening of its date. That night I had a severe attack of sickness-dangerous in its nature-from which I have not yet fully recovered.

(1.) But self-respect, had I been in a condition of health to have responded to Mr. Bliss's letter, would have prevented me from doing so; for it was not true that Mr. Woodward had furnished me abstracts, and it was not true that Mr. Bliss had seen such "abstracts" in my office. He did see other and returned papers, and carried some in person away from my office.

(2.) On the morning of the 18th instant an interview with Mr. Bliss appeared in the Post, of this city, followed by one in the New York Herald, so denunciatory of me and so incorrect in some of its statements, that I determined that I would hold no fur ther correspondence with him; nor have I.