procure the last testimony of Mr. Bliss, and there is much in that testimony to which I desire to call the attention of the committee, and also because I have not had an opportunity to refresh my mind with regard to certain facts. After the intimation that I have received from you as chairman of the committee, I do not propose to go into this matter at any great length at the present time. I have made no sort of preparation and taken no notes whatever, and have only partially read the evidence from time to time as I have been able to get hold of it in installments. I have noticed, however, that much has orept into your record reflecting upon me, and it is with regard to this testimony that I desire now to submit a few remarks. I shall endeavor to be as brief as possible, because you have intimated to me hat the committee desire to get through immediately and adjourn.

The fact that I have been charged with complicity in improper transactions in connection with star-route matters is, of course, well known. The nature of the indictment the committee is doubtless well acquainted with, and I may be pardoned for referring here to the fact that it is an indictment predicated upon the statute of 1782, prohibiting members of Congress from receiving compensation for services rendered in connection with any of the departments of the Government, or in matters where the United States is a party. I notice with regret that a number of witnesses, especially some of the attorneys for the prosecution, have dwelt with great emphasis upon that indictment as though it charged me with an offense involving bribery. I believe there is no charge anywhere-certainly there is none in the indictment-that there was any improper or undue action on my part unless it be receiving compensation for influence as alleged, or for services rendered in procuring the contract, or the two contracts, involved. There is no charge anywhere that I paid Mr. Brady anything, unless it be the statement of Mr. Walsh that I told him when I delivered certain drafts to him that I desired him to set one half of the proceeds to the credit of Mr. Brady and one-half to my credit; which statement I utterly deny.

The first question is as to whether I rendered any service or whether I promised Mr. Price to render any service in connection with the procuring of these two contracts. The two routes referred to are, one in Northern Louisiana, from Monroe to Shreveport, and the other from San Antonio to Corpus Christi. If Mr. Brady is called upon to testify here and swears to the truth, he must swear, and I believe will swear, that I never approached him in any manner, directly or indirectly, in regard to either of those two routes. I state here that I never did approach Mr. Brady, and never did attempt to influence him in any manner, directly or indirectly, in regard to the expedition of either of those two routes. The principal expedition, I am told, was upon the San Antonio and Corpus Christi route. Mr. Blackmar, of the Post-Office Department, is here to produce certain papers relating to that route, and the jacket which he has handed me contains a statement (usually called a "brief," I believe) of the merits of the case, together with the names of the persons recommending the expedition. Upon the back of this statement are the words, "Do it from August-Brady." Then here is the order:

From August 1, 1879, expedite service so as to require it to be performed by a schedule of departures and arrivals not to exceed 29 hours' running time each way.

Then follow the usual provisions. This is signed French, and, as I have said, the indorsement is, "Do it from August-Brady." Here [showing it

to the Chairman] is the jacket. The jacket refers to a letter which I will read :

[Maxey, Lightfoot & Denton, Attorneys and Counsellors at Law.]

PARIS, TEX., July 5, 1879. DEAR GENERAL: I beg to call your attention to the mail service between San Antonio and Brownsville, Texas. If this service can be expedited I shall be grateful. San Antonio is the Army headquarters of the Department of Texas. Brownsville is an important point on the Lower Rio Grande, at the most important American town on our Rio Grande frontier, connected with the points along the river. It is in the interest of peace and quiet on the border to have as speedy communication between San Antonio and these points as circumstances will admit. To these reasons, of course, the usual commercial reasons may be added.

Most respectfully, yours,

Hon. THOMAS J. BRADY,

S. B. MAXEY, United States Senator, Texas.

Second Assistant Postmaster-General, Washington, D. C.

This letter is dated July 5, 1879, and the filing was on July 9, 1879. Accompanying this communication is the following:

WILLARD'S HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D. C., July 8, 1879.

DEAR SIR: Please let me know if you will act upon applications on file for temporary service, San Antonio and Corpus Christi route.

Yours, respectfully,

Gen. THOMAS J. BRADY,

Second Assistant Postmaster-General.

That letter was filed July 9. I find also the following:

J. B. PRICE.

WASHINGTON, D. C., July 15, 1879. Statement of contractor on route No. 30140, San Antonio to Corpus Christi, Texas, as to difference in cost of operating said route under existing schedule and proposed expedited schedule:

Under present schedule of 40 hours, 150 miles, six times a week and back, can be performed with 20 animals and 8 men; but should speed be increased so as to run the route in 294 hours, it would take 74 animals and 23 men.

J. B. PRICE, Contractor. WASHINGTON, D. C.: Personally appeared before me this 15th day of July, 1879, J. B. Price, who signed the foregoing statement, and, being duly sworn according to law, says upon oath that said statement is true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

[SEAL.]

H. B. ZEVELY,
Notary Public.

Lest I forget it, I desire to say at this point that I understand there is no question made as to the propriety of that expedition, and I think it will be conceded that the propriety of it is not questioned. I mention that in justice to Senator Maxey. The route runs through a densely populated country, and the demands and requirements of the people, commercially and otherwise, are such as to justify the expedition. So much for that. The other expedition in question was upon route 30183, from Monroe to Shreveport. Monroe is the terminus of the railroad running from Vicksburg, or from a point opposite Vicksburg called Delta, 90 miles, I think, into the interior of North Louisiana. There is a railroad being rapidly built now between Monroe and Shreveport. It has been projected for 15 or 20 years, and it was partially graded fifteen years ago. The distance between Monroe and Shreveport, I think, is about 165 or 170 miles. Shreveport is the second city in Louisiana, the eastern terminus of the Texas Pacific Railroad, and at the time of this expedition the Texas Pacific road was completed, of course, and about

that time or soon after, connected by way of Fort Yuma, on the Rio Colorado, with the coast line running to San Francisco. Here is the application of Mr. Price for that expedition :

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo., June 25, 1870.

DEAR SIR: The present schedule time on route 30183 from Monroe to Shreveport, La., is forty hours. The press and people are anxious to have the service expedited, at least during the summer and fall months when low water in the Red and Ouachita rivers interrupts navigation, much to the prejudice of commerce. This route is the most important land route in Louisiana. It distributes double the mail matter of any land route in the State. It connects important business cities and supplies a large population of industrious and intelligent people. By reducing the runuing time eleven hours from May to January each year, which would cover the low-water season, the citizens supplied by this route would receive their mails from fifteen to twenty hours sooner than they otherwise would, by reason of closer connections with the railroad at Monroe and Shreveport. I therefore propose to convey mails in twentynine hours each way, at the general pro rata increase of pay allowed by the Department in similar cases, for the eight months embraced between May and January. Respectfully, your obedient servant,

Hon. T. J. BRADY,

Second Assistant Postmaster-General.

J. B. PRICE.

Below this communication is the following indorsement :
I fully indorse this application.

J. B. ELAM,
M. C. Fourth District.

This district is the one through which, in part, this route runs, and Shreveport is the principal town in the district, which was then repre sented by Mr. Elam. The indorsement is signed also by "E. W. Robertson, sixth district." Mr. Robertson represented the district just be low, in which Baton Rouge is situated, and which is now represented by Mr. Lewis, and the distribution of the mails for all that district of country from the northwest, from up in the neighborhood of Shreveport, and from Arkansas and Western Texas is, of course, by way of Shreve port. I mention this to explain the interest taken in that route by Mr. Robertson. Below the indorsement signed by these two gentlemen is another, and I ask the committee to notice the manner in which my sig nature appears here:

I concur in this petition.

W. P. KELLOGG.

You will see (exhibiting the paper) that my name appears down in the corner, and that it is written carelessly, as I oftentimes indorse papers. Mr. Price says in his testimony that he thinks he came to me after having gone to Mr. Elam and Mr. Robertson and got me to add my indorsement. My indorsement, you will notice, is in the words, "I concur in the above." Now, I suppose I write that from twenty to thirty times a month upon different papers-sometimes every day. Sometimes I step into a store to borrow a pen to write it, sometimes I write it in the corridor of the capitol, sometimes on my table, and sometimes at my desk. At that time I was doing a great deal of indorsing of applica tions, perhaps quite as much, or more, than now, because our offices down there are pretty well settled now. The civil service rules were not in force at that time, and everybody seeking an appointment as a clerk there would come to me for an indorsement, and I was constantly writing indorsements, and my usual manner of indorsing such a paper, especially if I had no particular interest in the matter, was, "I concur in this "petition, or application, or whatever it might be.

Now, I want to say to the committee that they will not find anywhere in the evidence-anywhere-the slightest proof that I rendered any service whatever in connection with the procurement of this expedition except writing this simple indorsement. Some gentleman here-I think it was Mr. Woodward, or perhaps it was Mr. Ker-said that Mr. Kellogg did render service in connection with this matter because he indorsed the application. I find in the testimony of Mr. Bliss, on page 209 of your record, these questions and answers:

Q. And he (Mr. Walsh) stated before the grand jury that he had made money payments to Kellogg ?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And it was on account of his influence?-A. No, sir; Mr. Walsh did not know anything about that. That is just where the break came."

Mr. Bliss, certainly, if not another of the attorneys connected with the prosecution, has said repeatedly that there was a missing link in the evidence in this case; that they never could prove any service rendered by me; and there is a member of the House upon the Democratic side who heard Mr. Bliss say that he thought it would be utterly impossible to make a case against me, for the reason, if for no other, that there was this missing link, and if the committee care to know the name of that member I will give it to them. You will find that ground taken repeatedly by Mr. Bliss, I believe, and perhaps by some others, in the course of the history of this case.

Now, I will call the attention of the committee to what Mr. Price says, and I will give it in the very worst form, for I want to be perfectly candid in this matter. As I gather from the testimony of Mr. Woodward, Mr. Merrick, and Mr. Bliss, Mr. Price, who was indicted in June, 1882, made an affidavit under these circumstances: Some months after he had been indicted his son went naturally enough to Mr. Merrick, at New York. Some of my Republican friends thought it a significant fact that Mr. Price's son is a member of the Democratic committee in Louisiana, from my district, but I do not attach any great importance to that. Mr. Price's son goes to New York, to Mr. Merrick, and has a conference with him upon this subject, as Mr. Merrick himself states. Mr. Price's son says to Mr. Merrick, "I want my father to get out from under this prosecution." "Well," says Mr. Merrick, "if you will make a statement against Kellogg"-that is just about the substance of it, as the committee will see from the testimony that has been given here-"if you will make a statement against Kellogg, I will agree to give your father immunity." "But," says young Mr. Price, "I want to be certain of it." "Well," says Mr. Merrick, "dont talk to me any more about it now; go away and send me an attorney." The attorney comes. I am not going to trouble this committee about that attorney, though I think I know who he was, and precisely what occurred. It is enough for me to say now that the attorney comes on; Mr. Merrick, or some one else, writes out a statement which they want Mr. Price to swear to; whereupon, to use the expression of one of the attorneys, they put Price into Woodward's hands in order that he might set his pumps to work." Now, let us see what Woodward says about Price's affidavit. I have not got Mr. Merrick's testimony here, so I speak of it from the report in the papers, and from what I have been told; but here is what Mr. Woodward says on this subject:

Well, in the year 1882, I went to Connecticut to spend the holidays, and, perhaps the day after Christmas, I was telegraphed to to come back immediately to Washington. I came here and was told that a controversy had arisen between the counsel respecting the acceptance of Mr. James B. Price as a Government witness, and that the matter had, in a certain sense, been referred to me. I was handed a statement, unsigned and unsworn to, which purported to give what Mr. Price was willing to

testify to, and was told to see him and obtain more explicit information. I spent two days with Price, taking down his statements. He put them in my hands in trust, to be returned to him in case he was not accepted as a witness. I called on the Attorney-General and read this statement. He asked me more or less questions about the relations of the testimony of Price and Walsh to each other and to the case. I explained everything as well as I could, and there seemed to be no doubt in his mind with regard to the propriety, and, in fact, the necessity of accepting Price as a witness.

This statement, which was handed to Mr. Woodward "unsigned and unsworn to," the committee will find, by turning to the evidence of Mr. Merrick and others, proved to be so unsatisfactory that it was handed back with the intimation that Price must make his statement more satisfactory and significant. Now, I have here the affidavit of Mr. Price, for it crept into the public prints, as pretty much everything of this kind did. I do not care to go into that question, but if I were to do so it would be quite interesting to show the committee how everything relating to my case was promptly made public, so that even when Price testified before the grand jury the Associated Press was furnished with a statement of his testimony direct from the grand jury room by some one, I believe, connected with the prosecution, who furnished what purported to be the evidence given against me-not the evidence as it was really given. In the first affidavit that was published, or that fell under my observation, there was a curious and significant omission. There was no statement that Price had delivered to me the petition and application for these expeditions. That was not in the first affidavit that I saw. I do not know whether the copy I saw was correct or not, but there was no such statement in it. In the next affidavit, however, were the words, "Kellogg said he would see Second Assistant Postmaster-General Brady and learn of him what could be done." I hold in my hand the affidavit given to the Associated Press as it appeared in the National Republican of this city of March 28, 1883, the day after Price appeared before the grand jury, and in that statement of the affidavit that Price had made, which was, as they stated, in the hands of the Government attorneys, and of which they give what purported to be an abstract “obtained from what are believed to be trustworthy sources," this occurs:

Affiant then applied in person to William Pitt Kellogg, whom he had known for inany years, saying to him, "If you succeed in increasing my pay on this route I will give you $20,000." Kellogg said he would see Second Assistant Postmaster-General Brady, and learn of him what could be done.

That statement appeared in the affidavit as given to the Associated Press. Now, what does Price testify to? I do not care to go into it in detail. The committee have the testimony before them, and can examine it for themselves; but I call their attention to the fact that nowhere in that testimony does Price make any such statement, or charge that in any conversation that he alleges he had with me in regard to this matter, I ever said one word to him of this kind, or ever said anything even implying that I would go to Mr. Brady and procure this service, or that the service would be procured by my intercession or influence in the Post-Office Department. No such statement, I think, is in Price's evidence. He makes a statement of what he alleges took place between us, and says that nothing more took place. He says that the conversation lasted but a moment or two. He says that his head has been out of fix, and that he does not recollect distinctly, and so on. In this connection I desire to read portions of Price's testimony bearing upon these two points. He does state, however, the point in regard to the delivery of the petition and the application. On his direct exami