5. I however arranged for a thorough examination of my papers, so that I could transmit any I might have, or which should be found, to the Post-Office Department. Before this examination was completed I received a letter from the chief clerk of the Department of Justice requesting a return of papers in my possession.

It affords me pleasure to send you the accompanying papers, as well as to comply with any request I can which your sense of justice or right will permit you to make. If I hereafter find even a fragment of a paper in relation to the "star-route cases,” I will transmit it to you.

Of no use to me, the returned copies of abstracts I think can be of no use to any one else. 6. I return the copy of Mr. Bliss's letter sent me dated March 24, and addressed to you, and I indulge the hope that in inclosing it to me it was not your intention to indorse its positive falsehoods and base insinuations.

Regretting that from any cause this burden has been added to the arduous labors of your exalted position,

I am, with great respect, &c., yours,

Hon. BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER,

WILLIAM A. COOK.

Attorney-General of the United States.

WASHINGTON, June 28, 1884.

DAVID G. SWAIM sworn and examined.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. Please state your age, residence, and occupation.-Answer. I am Judge-Advocate-General of the Army; I was fifty years of age last December.

Q. How long have you been in the Army ?-A. Twenty-five years, lacking two or three months.

Q. When were you appointed Judge-Advocate-General ?-A. In December, 1880.

Q. Were you acquainted with the late President Garfield?-A. I was, sir.

Q. Were you intimately acquainted with him?-A. I was very intimately acquainted with him.

Q. Were you frequently with him during the time he was President?A. Yes, sir; daily.

Q. Had you ever any conversation with President Garfield in regard to the appointment of William A. Cook as special counsel in the starroute cases?-A. Yes, sir; in regard to the employment of Mr. William A. Cook and Mr. Gibson. The President asked me one evening, I think, or one day, when we were talking, if I knew who had been employed to investigate the star-route matters. I told him that I had heard. He expressed great surprise and indignation that certain persons of whose character he had heard unfavorable reports had been employed; and I think he named those two as persons who he thought should not be employed in that service, from what he had heard of their character and reputation.

Q. Did he say anything about having learned any fact in reference to Mr. Cook from a judge of the supreme court of the District of Columbia?-A. Well, our conversation was very confidential, and I cannot remember at this time positively whether he told me that he had been so informed or not. I got that impression, however, from the President, or perhaps from seeing him and hearing him converse with different persons that were there.

Q. What impression did you get?-A. The impression that he had been informed of the character of these men.

Q. By whom? Did he mention any one that had informed him?—A. I think not. At least I cannot remember the name of any one being mentioned.

Q. Did he mention the fact that he had been informed by a judge of the supreme court of the District of Columbia that Mr. Cook was not a fit person to be appointed?—A. I cannot say positively as to that, but he may have done so. He spoke generally of his having been informed in regard to the matter.

By Mr. VAN ALSTYNE:

Q. Did he take exception to Mr. Cook's ability or legal knowledge?A. I don't know that he did; I don't know that he knew anything about that. I think it was Mr. Cook's reputation, perhaps his moral reputation, that the President referred to.

Q. He said that he was a man of questionable character ?-A. That was the impression I got from what was said.

Q. Do you know whether President Garfield obtained information directly or indirectly?-A. Directly, I think, sir.

Q. From a judge of the supreme court of the District of Columbia?— A. I would presume that.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Can you state definitely what conversation you had with President Garfield in regard to this appointment?-A. We had many conversations in regard to it. I know we talked generally about the policy of employing men who had any taint resting on their moral character or any question about it, and I think I told him that, in my judgment, such men should be kept away from that investigation, and that it should be left entirely in clean hands, and with men above suspicion. One remark that I remember in some of the conversations was this: He said that it was impressed on him strongly that it took a rogue to catch a rogue; and I recollect that my reply was, "Who will catch that rogue? You must evidently, to be successful, end with an honest investigation by men of character in whom you have confidence, and in whom the public have confidence."

Q. Do you remember an occasion on which an interview was had be tween the President and Mr. Cóok?-A. The President said that he would send for Mr. James and give him his views thoroughly on this subject; that he was in a delicate position; that while he did not feel that it would be proper for him to take this investigation out of the hands of those who had charge of it, yet he would urge the necessity of the employment of the best class of men that could be obtained for the service. He did send for Mr. James, and he had several interviews with him. I think the last interview that I remember was shortly be fore the assassination. I think Mr. James and Mr. Woodward and Mr. Cook were there.

Q. That, you say, was a short time before the assassination?-A. Yes, sir; I think a very short time. My recollection is that it was but a few days before it.

Q. Did Mr. Cook have any other interview with the President —A. Not that I know of. He came to the White House, and I had a con versation with him.

Q. When was that?-A. That was some time before this. In that conversation he spoke of attacks and assaults that had been made on his character, and my recollection is that he had with him a pamphlet, or something of that kind, with certificates as to his standing. That is my recollection.

Q. Was President Garfield present?-A. No, sir; he was not.

Q. Did Mr. Cook ask to see the President, or to see you?-A. That I do not remember. My impression is that he asked to see the President, or came there for that purpose, and that I was requested to go out and see him.

Q. Were you at the White House in business hours every day through the greater part of President Garfield's term?-A. I was there a good deal of the time. I would stop there in the morning as I went to my office, and I would stop again in the afternoon as I came back-generally about 1 or 2 o'clock in the afternoon.

Q. If there were any other interviews of Mr. Cook with the President, prior to the one with Mr. James, you have no knowledge of it?A. I have no knowledge of it. I heard of none.

Q. Was the question as to the removal of Mr. Cook as one of the star-route attorneys discussed between you and the President at any time?—A. Oh, very frequently. Mr. Cook and Mr. Gibson-I associate those two names, for they were spoken of by the President together. He felt very indignant at the employment of those men, but he was restrained by a feeling of delicacy from interfering, or appearing to interfere, in work that he had assigned to others.

Q. What had been the President's relations with Mr. Cook prior to this employment? Had he any acquaintance with him at all?-A. I think not. He never spoke of it.

Q. You may state in this connection what was the position of the President generally with regard to the prosecution of these star-route cases.—A. He was very anxious to have a thorough, searching, and honest investigation, and he was willing to sacrifice any personal feel. ing that he might have in regard to the employment of men who were personally offensive to him, in order to secure that end. He was also anxious and solicitous that nothing in the nature of personal hostility or anything that looked like persecution should be indulged in.

Q. He desired a legitimate investigation for the purpose of ascertaining the true state of facts?-A. Yes, sir; so that the dishonest parties, whoever they were, should be brought to the surface and punished.

Q. Did that opinion and position of his continue unchanged up to the time of his death, so far as you know?-A. Yes, sir; always.

Q. So far as you know, then-and you knew his sentiments on this subject he was in earnest in the matter of these prosecutions up to the time of his death ?-A. Thoroughly so; and I know of no subject that caused him greater anxiety than that. His desire was that the work should be done fairly and fully. He so expressed himself and so acted, so far as I ever knew.

H. V. BOYNTON sworn and examined.

By the CHAIRMAN:

WASHINGTON, June 28, 1884.

Question. Please state your age, residence, and occupation.-Answer. I am forty-nine years of age. I am the Washington correspondent of the Cincinnati Commercial-Gazette.

Q. How long have you resided in Washington ?-A. Since December, 1865.

Q. Were you acquainted with the late President Garfield?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Intimately acquainted with him?-A. I knew him very well. I do not claim to have had an intimate acquaintance with him.

Q. Did you have any conversation with him during his Presidency in regard to the employment of special counsel in the star-route cases?— A. I had a conversation with him in regard to the employment of Mr. William A. Cook only.

Q. State what that conversation was and when it occurred.-A. It occurred about within a day or two days of the announcement of Mr. Cook's employment by the Government. I should say it was about a month before the President was assassinated.

Q. What was the nature of that conversation?-A. Well, it began by an inquiry on my part as to whether a report which I had heard, that Mr. Cook was to be employed as special counsel in the star-route cases, was true or not.

Q. What did President Garfield say?—A. He said that he knew nothing in reference to Mr. Cook; had no acquaintance with him, and he asked me about him.

Q. Did you give him any information ?-A. Well, I gave him my own opinion, sir.

Q. I will not ask you what opinion you gave, but I will ask what steps the President took or what he said in reference to the further employment of Mr. Cook.-A. He asked me to go to the Attorney-General and tell him what I had just said to him, the President, in regard to the

matter.

Q. Was that Attorney-General MacVeagh? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you do so?-A. Yes, sir; I did.

Q. Did that end the conversation that you had with the President — A. No, sir.

Q. What further was said?-A. I went there on that occasion to make an appointment with him for a friend of mine from Cincinnati; this was soon after noon, I should say, and we were to go back after the close of office hours that evening, and when we went back the conver sation in regard to this matter was resumed by the President himself.

Q. How long after the first interview was that?-A. It was a few hours; it was after the close of office hours at the White House that day.

Q. State what was said then by the President.-A. The President was very much annoyed at the employment of Mr. Cook; he expressed his opinion very decidedly in reference to it, and said that he had had no knowledge of the man up to the time of his appointment or employ

ment.

Q. Did he express any opinion as to the propriety of Mr. Cook's employment?-A. Yes, sir; he said he thought the employment of Mr. Cook was an outrage upon him.

Q. Did he give any reason?-A. The reasons proceeded upon the theory of the correctness of the conversation that he had had with me in regard to the matter. The conversation consisted chiefly in his asking me about the matter, and my talking with him in regard to it. Of course, my opinion was of no consequence, but that was what led to the expression of opinion on the President's part.

Q. Did you give him any facts in addition to your opinions?—A. I simply talked to him in reference to Mr. Cook's general reputation as an attorney in the District, as I understood it.

Q. Did you have any other conversation with President Garfield at any other time in reference to Mr. Cook -A. No, sir.

Q. Was there anything further said in this conversation in reference

to the subject-anything that you have not mentioned?-A. Well, Mr. Chairman, there was a great deal said, but much of it was my own talk and the President's remarks in reference to it. I do not suppose that my talk is of any consequence to the committee at all, and it is difficult to dissociate one from the other. There was a very considerable conversation on the subject.

Q. Did you see Attorney-General MacVeagh, as the President suggested?-A. Yes, sir; I went to see him immediately.

Q. What occurred there?-A. I told him that I had come at the Presi dent's request to repeat some statements to him that I had made to the President, and thereupon I proceeded to do it.

Q. Did he make any explanation in regard to Mr. Cook's employment?-A. He told me the theory upon which he was employed.

Q. What was that?-A. He said Mr. Cook was employed upon the theory of setting a thief to catch a thief. That is exactly what he said. He said he had had him engaged in a case once before and knew all about him. He stopped me in repeating what had been said at the White House, and said, "I know all about Mr. Cook; I have had him employed in cases before, and he is employed upon the theory of setting a thief to catch a thief."

Q. Did you repeat what the Attorney General had said to President Garfield?-A. I don't remember whether that particular statement was repeated to him, but I told the President that I had repeated to the Attorney-General what I had previously said to him, and it was in the conversation that arose upon that feature of the case that he said he thought the employment was an outrage upon him.

Q. You do not remember whether you repeated to the President what the Attorney-General had said?-A. I do not. Very likely I did, but I would not like to testify absolutely that I did. It was a very free conversation, and I think it is very likely that I repeated that remark of the Attorney-General.

Q. From the conversations that you had with President Garfield in regard to Mr. Cook, was it your understanding or impression that he would confide the secrets of the star-route prosecution to him or intrust the case in his hands?-A. No, sir; the statement made by the Attorney-General in regard to the employment of Mr. William A. Cook was in substance this: That he was employed rather in a detective capacity than any other, and that it was not expected that he would have any prominent connection with the conduct of the case before the public. Mr. MacVeagh was very decided in regard to that, and said that he would take care of that brauch of the case largely himself. In talking with the President in the evening I said to him that Mr. Cook had already risen in open court since I had called earlier in the day, and had asked to have the text of his employment by the Government spread upon the records of the court; at which the President was much astonished, and expressed his astonishment very emphatically.

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 30, 1884.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee had an executive session this morning at which the chairman was instructed to inform Mr. Cook that the committee did not think it was necessary for him to appear again as a witness, as he had been already examined in chief, and had also appeared a second time and made a reply to all the evidence theretofore