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?-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 evidence.

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 have 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 cannot carry those things in my head.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. Was that route 40101?—A. Yes, sir.

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 40101 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?—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 Price?—A. The contractor.

Q. He had no connection with the Government otherwise than as a contractor?-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 expedited? Have you the first and the last amount?-A. It was originally

let for $13,313; three trips a week; four trips were added, the price was increased $17,750.66, the running time was reduced, and the pay increased $43,486.34, making total pay $78,661.33. Then it was reduced to the original price. Then it was let at $18,500; three times a week service. The running time was reduced, and $39,735 allowed therefor. Four trips were added, and $77,700 was added to the price.

Q. Making what amount at last?—A. Bringing the price up, I believe, to about $105,000 per annum.

Q. Can you explain why proceedings in that case were not continued by indictment?-A. I cannot.

Q. Do you know of any reason why they should not have been ?—A. I do not know of any reason.

Q. You were not in the service of the Government at the time they should have been proceeded in ?-A. Here is a letter that I wrote the Attorney-General, which I may as well put in here as at any other place. It is dated January 24, 1882:

SIR: As I stated to you on yesterday, I deem it of the utmost importance that the case in which the information was filed should be brought before the present grand jury. You will probably recollect that that case was the United States rs. S. P. Brown, Thomas J. Brady, John L. French, and William H. Turner, and that the defendants were charged with having conspired to defraud the United States out of large sums of money in connection with the carrying of the mails of the United States on a long mail route, No. 40101, from Prescott, Ariz., to Santa Fé, N. Mex. It was believed at the time of filing the information in this case that the statute of limitations would run as to S. P. Brown on October 2, 1881. Since that time, however, the Government has obtained conclusive evidence to prove that Brown received a large sum of money in connection with and on account of the increase of service on mail route 40101 as late as April, 1879.

The present grand jury expires on the first Monday in March, which practically leaves but one month longer in which to accomplish a great deal of work. The case 40101 is quite simple and there are but few witnesses to be examined in connection with it. Some of those witnesses, however, are not here, and it will require a week or ten days to bring them.

There have been so many delays heretofore in organizing the grand juries and getting to work on the star-route cases, that I did not believe it would be safe to allow the present grand jury to expire without having considered the case of 40101. The statute of limitations will certainly run in Brown's case early in April, and inasmuch as two months of the present grand jury's existence has expired without any of the star-route cases being considered by it, I greatly fear that some unforeseen accident may prevent the grand jury of the March term passing on 40101 before early in April. The case of 40101, you will recollect, was thoroughly prepared before the information was filed in September last. It unquestionably is the strongest case the Government has. I regard the evidence as absolutely conclusive as to Brady and Brown. Moreover, there are collateral cases of bribery and fraud of public officials, and perhaps other misdemeanors, which the consideration of those cases by the grand jury will develop.

I have reason to believe that delay in this case has already been very detrimental to the interest of the Government, and I greatly fear that further delay will result in the loss of witnesses whose evidence is of the utmost consequence.

The foreman of the grand jury assures me that if necessary he will cause their sessions to begin at 9.30 a. m. and continue till 4 p. m., in order to accommodate us and facilitate the hearing in any of our cases. He also assures me that they can readily have before them, as unfinished business, several cases at the same time. As the jury is a very intelligent one, I can see no reason why the consideration of the strawbond cases, the Dorsey case, and that of 40101 could not be proceeded with at the same

time.

Inasmuch as I have only been charged with the preparation of these cases and not with the duty of bringing them before the grand jury, I have not felt at liberty to take any steps in that direction. If you will direct me I will cheerfully undertake the duty, and have no doubt of the result being entirely satisfactory.

Very respectfully,

To B. H. BREWSTER,

A. M. GIBSON. Assistant Attorney for United States.

Attorney-General.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. Did you receive any reply to that letter?-A. No, sir.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Was that letter sent by mail, or was it delivered by you in person to the Attorney-General?-A. I forget.

Q. You are sure that it reached him ?—A. Oh, I have no doubt of its reaching nim. I either mailed it or sent it by messenger.

Q. You state in this letter that there were collateral cases. -A. Yes; that was the case of the route from San Antonio to Corpus Christi, and another route from Corpus Christi, which I forget now. It was a Texas case; it was from Indianola to Corpus Christi.

Q. That was a case, you say, which would have been developed by the testimony in this other case?-A. Yes; the grand jury could not have heard one case without bringing out evidence in regard to the other.

Q. What would have been the nature of the evidence brought out in regard to the Indianola route-A. The payment of money by Price, the contractor, to obtain increased trips and expedition.

Q. To whom was that paid?-A. He states in his affidavit that he paid it to Mr. Kellogg. I dislike to testify about these things in this sort of way. The record in the Department shows it all.

Q. Do you refer to the reports or briefs that you made up in these cases-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Explain what those were.-A. The brief in the case 40101, from San Antonio to Corpus Christi, and from Indianola to Corpus Christi. Q. Did you prepare briefs in those cases and submit them to the Attorney-General or to Mr. Bliss ?—A. I did.

Q. Were the statements of fact in the briefs to which you refer based upon information obtained through official sources and through the investigations instituted by the Department for the purpose of ascertaining all the facts?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. To whom did you present those briefs?-A. I forget whether I submitted them formally to Mr. MacVeagh while he was Attorney-General or not. If I did not I told him all about them. I had all of them with me at Elberon, I think. It is pretty difficult, you know, to carry in your mind the details of what occurred two years ago. I remember what I told Mr. Merrick, as I said on Saturday. He called to see me about it, and I told him to send and get the papers, and he sent and got them, and he was so thoroughly convinced of the importance of proceeding in those cases that he insisted upon having the grand jury reconvened, and wrote a letter to the Attorney-General, or at least it was published in the newspapers that he had written to the Attorney-General demanding that the grand jury should be reconvened. So far as that is concerned, I speak from what I saw in the newspapers.

Q. Did you have any consultation with Mr. Bliss with regard to instituting proceedings by indictment in the cases which you have just referred to?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did he say with regard to procuring indictments?—A. Oh, Mr. Bliss published in the newspapers an interview in which he said that he was not going to be forced against his judgment to take up cases; that he was acting upon his own judgment and upon his own responsi bility.

Q. Where and when was that interview published?-A. It was published in the Cincinnati Commercial some time in 1882.

Q. Do you know whether the facts in relation to the cases to which

you have last referred were ever brought to the attention of the grand jury-A. The grand jury found indictments.

Q. In which case?-A. In all except 40101.

Q. You refer to the indictments in the Corpus Christi route?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. But was any effort ever made to procure an indictment in the case 40101-A. No; the statute of limitations ran against that case.

Q. And there were sessions of the grand jury intervening between the time of the information and the time that the statute ran?-A. I saw the foreman of the grand jury myself and gave him a copy of the information, and told him it was his duty to proceed independently of anything on the part of the Government, and he made some inquiry and was told that the Government did not want to proceed in that case. By Mr. FYAN :

Q. I understand that the grand jury was in session at the time this letter was written in January, and the statute would not run until the April following.-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know who told him that ?-A. I do not.

Q. Who was the foreman of the grand jury?-A. Jesse Wilson.

Q. He was told that the Government did not want to proceed in that case-A. Yes, sir.

Q. How do you know that?-A. He told me.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. You presented to him a copy of the information which set forth all the facts, and asked him to proceed independently?-A. Yes, sir. Q. And he informed you that the Government had informed him that it was not desirable to proceed against those parties?-A. No; I did not say against those parties

Q. Well, in that case?-A. In that case.

A. And you yourself know of no reason why proceedings were not instituted in that case?-A. No. The fact of no answer being returned to that letter of mine to the Attorney-General, and also the fact that I could get no answer to a bill which I had rendered to the Government for services, led me to write to Mr. MacVeagh. Mr. MacVeagh came here, and I saw him after he had had an interview with the AttorneyGeneral. My bill was originally rendered for $7,500, which Judge Black told me was one-half less than I should have asked for. Mr. MacVeagh informed me that I could only get my account settled by assuring the Attorney-General that I would resign. He said that they wanted me out of the cases, and were afraid to ask for my resignation.

By Mr. MILLIKEN :

Q. Who wanted you out of the cases?-A. The Attorney-General and Mr. Bliss.

Q. So your disconnection with these cases and your resignation were not quite on amicable terms between you and the Government? - A. Well, I called upon the Attorney General, of course, immediately after. receiving information of that kind. As soon as Mr. Brewster was nominated as Attorney-General I went to Philadelphia and saw him. I was the means of his being employed in the cases originally, through Judge Black, and I went and saw him and told him I did not want to continue in the cases at all; that I could see a great many reasons why I should not do so; that my relations with the Government would not be perhaps satisfactory to many people; and he assured me that I must remain; that they wanted me. A short time previous to Mr. MacVeagh's com

ing here Judge Black was in Washington, and of his own motion called upon the Attorney-General, and the Attorney-General assured him that he could not dispense with my services, and would not think of doing iso. Of course I was very much surprised when Mr. MacVeagh told me they wanted my resignation. I immediately called upon the AttorneyGeneral and said to him that I would tender my resignation. He said he could not take the responsibility of accepting it. Then I wanted to know why he had told Mr. MacVeagh that if I would resign my account would be settled, and the relation swould be pleasant thereafter, and so on. He asked me if Mr. MacVeagh had told me that; I said he had. Then he said he would accept my resignation of course; and I sent it. Q. Why did Mr. Brewster, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Bliss desire your resignation ?—A. `I don't know, further thau that it was supposed that I was not of the same politics.

Q. Of the same politics as whom?-A. The gentlemen in power.

Q. Were not gentlemen of both political parties engaged in the trial of those cases?-A. They were, but at that time I was the only one supposed to be on the other side.

Q. What were the politics of Mr. Merrick?—A. That was subsequent.

Q. Then it seems, if they wanted to get rid of you on account of your politics, that they afterwards concluded to employ other men as counsel of the same politics as yourself?-A. Well, they were rather guessing at my politics anyhow, and I think that afterwards they thought it would be well enough to have a Democrat of Mr. Merrick's standing to shoulder some of the responsibility.

Q. That is your opinion-what is it founded upon ?—A. General information.

Q. Have you any knowledge about it?-A. No personal knowledge. I have stated it as my opinion.

Q. Now did the Government find any fault with you?-A. None whatever.

Q. Did anybody connected with these cases who were Government officials raise any questions as to your fidelity to the Government ?—A. Not to my knowledge.

"

Q. Was it never intimated to you by any of them that they thought you had in any degree "given away the cases to the other side?—A. Oh, no, not at all.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. What did Mr. MacVeagh say was the reason they desired your resignation?-A. Well, they wanted everybody out of the cases that had been connected with him in any way.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. Did Mr. MacVeagh say so?-A. Yes. sir; that was one of the things he stated to me.

Q. That who wanted them out ?-A. The Government.

By Mr. FYAN:

Q. Do you mean that he told you that Mr. Brewster told him that?— A. Oh, no.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Mr. MacVeagh, you say, was of the opinion that the AttorneyGeneral and Mr. Bliss-A. (Interrupting.) Oh, I don't know that he

said that.