that I have just read he says, "That Kellogg gave me." Then he was further examined as follows:

Q. You say that Kellogg gave you the $5,000 note?-A. He gave me $15,000 in postal drafts and $5,000 in a note of J. B. Price.

Q. A $5,000 note ?-A. Yes.

Q. That you are sure of?-A. Very sure of it.

Q. As sure as you are of anything you have stated?-A. I am very sure of it; Jes, sir.

Q. And you gave him [Brady] credit for that $5,000?-A. As the examination afterwards shows.

Now, I want to call the attention of the committee to page 1752 of the record, where there is a schedule or bill of particulars given, together with the affidavit of John A. Walsh, in a suit that he had brought against General Brady, a suit entered in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. In this suit, in his petition Walsh gives Brady credit for this identical $5,000 note-i. e., $4,700 and $300. In this affidavit he states that it is a bill of particulars, and he predicates it upon an unliquidated account; whereas afterwards he testifies in regard to the existence of notes. If the committee cared I could tell them just how that originated, and how it was set up, and how Walsh came to testify about those notes. I could give you the name of the lawyer who was called in, and could tell the manner in which that whole thing was set up so that Walsh should testify about those notes and interject into his evidence the statement of what Brady had said to him on the occasion of the interview, and that Brady had wrested those notes from him-a ridiculous story, as seems to have occurred to some of the members of this committee, because I observe that in Walsh's examination here Governor Stewart remarked to him, "You are not a weakling" In the same way it was arranged that he should inject. into his testimony in regard to that interview the language which he put in Brady's mouth-"I expect you to pay just what all the other contractors pay." However, I will not dwell upon that part of the case, but I cannot pass from it without making one additional remark. Í make no charge, but I want to call attention to the testimony of certain witnesses here. Mr. Bliss says in this connection, at page 207 of your record:

Now, as regards Mr. Walsh, he could not testify to the payment of any money in the Dorsey routes or anything of that kind. Walsh's testimony related solely to his own route from Prescott to Santa Fé. He claimed to have paid money to Brady; that he gave that to Brady from time to time as loans, and when he called upon Brady for a settlement, that Brady then said, "Why, I don't owe you any money; I have done enough for you. Have you not had a good contract, and various things of that sort?” That is the way it was presented in connection with the original statement regarding the route from Prescott to Santa Fé. On that basis of things, as a lawyer I should say it was exceedingly doubtful whether that evidence of Walsh would have been admissible in the Dorsey case, which related to entirely different routes; to entirely different parties. I thought it would hardly come within that class of decisions which allow you (where you are trying a man for false pretenses in a particular case) to prove that he made other false pretenses to other persons of the same general nature. At any rate, it appeared to be very doubtful whether it would be allowed as evidence against Dorsey. I remember that I gave the matter careful consideration. It turned out, however [the committee will notice the language, "it turned out"], that according to Mr. Walsh's version of his interview with Mr. Brady during that time, when he was having this discussion, that they went to work, and had some figuring, and that Mr. Brady said to him in substance, "You must pay such a percentage of expedition, and such a percentage of increase, just as the other contractors do," indicating very plainly by that that all of the other contractors were doing that thing.

After an elaborate argument, as I recollect it, extending over two or three days, Judge Wylie admitted that testimony into the Dorsey case. You will not find it in

the original brief of what Mr. Walsh would testify to in connection with the Prescott and Santa Fé route, which these gentleman produced at Long Branch. It came

to my knowledge incidentally, considerably later on. With Mr. Walsh I had comparatively little to do. He early conceived a hostility to me. Mr. Merrick was the party who, after my first interview with him, had dealings with Mr. Walsh, as a rule. It was Mr. Merrick who ascertained from time to time what Mr. Walsh could testify to. I read now from Mr. Merrick's testimony, page 598:

Q. When did you first learn the fact that Mr. Walsh was a material witness for the Government in that case ?-A. At some time in the progress of the trial I learned it, I think from Mr. Woodward, and possibly Mr. Bliss also may have spoken to me about it. After I learned of it we had a consultation about it. I know that before Mr. Walsh testified Mr. Bliss and I had a consultation about his testimony-a very full talk. Now, just when I first learned of it I do not know, but it was after the trial began, and my impression is that it was brought to my attention by Mr. Woodward. The discussion between Mr. Bliss and myself was in regard to the admissibility of the testimony, and we agreed that the testimony was admissible in the case for the reason that Walsh would say [notice the language, "Walsh would say"] that Brady had avowed that the rule which he sought to apply to him (Walsh) was the rule applicable to all contractors, and therefore it embraced these contractors.

Mr. BLISS. But that statement was only obtained from Walsh after the trial commenced.

The WITNESS. That may have been.

Now, I do not want it understood that I charge Mr. Bliss or Mr. Merrick, or any of these attorneys, or Mr. Woodward, with having per suaded Mr. Walsh to change his original statement, which they had in their hands-the statement he had made in September, 1881. I cannot imagine that those gentlemen would induce Mr. Walsh to resort to the extraordinary story that he did resort to. Still, he must have told it to them, and he did tell it to them in this connection, and I repeat that I know of the lawyer with whom he consulted, and who advised him that he could not maintain his suit against Brady upon an open account; that no person in the world would believe that story any more than the grand jury would believe it, or did believe it; and thereupon Walsh changed his plan entirely, and resorted to the story of the notes. Now, I have shown that Mr. Walsh, according to his own testimony, did not pay me that $5,000 note, or any part of it, and that he swears unqualifiedly that he gave Mr. Brady credit for the proceeds of the note. But he says in an interview-and I take his interview rather than his statement before the grand jury

Mr. STEWART. If you will allow me to make a suggestion, Mr. Kellogg, it seems to me that your case would be better presented if you would state the facts as you understand them, and pay your respects to Mr. Walsh afterwards.

The WITNESS. I admit that my statement is somewhat disconnected, because it is so hurried and incomplete. If I could take my case consecutively and have a day or two in which to state it fully, it would be much more satisfactory to me, and also, I think, to the committee; but the circumstances seem to forbid that at present. I am just going to pass from Walsh. I am simply on the question of payments now. Mr. Walsh states that he gave me a number of checks and drafts; he calls them drafts, but I call them checks, and I think they are called checks in common parlance. I am very anxious that the committee should see those checks, and I will show them a copy presently. One of them is a check for $2,000, which Mr. Walsh says represents a part of this note and drafts. There is also a check for $500, paid to Shellabarger & Wilson about that time. Now, I am prepared to show the committee that that $2,000 check given by Mr. Walsh to me related to an entirely different matter. He has sworn in the first star-route trial that he gave Mr. Brady credit for the whole of the $5,000, but I will show the committee that all the money that he paid me proceeded from an entirely different

source, and was paid for an entirely different purpose. Mr. Walsh owed me money, and if the committee desire I have any amount of documentary evidence to show that fact, and if you are willing to examine the witnesses who make these affidavits I will bring them here and prove the existence of that indebtedness on the part of Mr. Walsh to me. He owed me money. I had just returned from New Orleans in December, and on the 23d day of December I went to Mr. Walsh for the fourth or fifth time and told him that I wanted him to pay me a certain amount he owed me, and he agreed to give me, and did give me, a check. It was a check upon the bank of Lewis Johnson & Co., and was payable on demand. I told Mr. Walsh that I must have the money. He said that he had not the money to spare at that time, that he was endeavoring to stock his route anew, and had no money to spare, but that if I would agree to indorse a note for him of $2,000, and have it discounted, as I was going to New York the next day, and set the amount to his credit at the banking house of Winslow, Lanier & Co., he would pay me $2,000 that day; and then when this note came due, thirty or forty days later, he would take it up. I was going to Worcester, Mass., to spend the holidays, and going through New York, leaving here on the night of the 23d, and in order to get my money, I agreed to Walsh's proposition. I took the check that he gave me to Lewis Johnson & Co. and had it cashed. I took his note, which he gave me that day, with me to New York, arriving there on the morning of the 24th. I went down to the banking house of Winslow, Lanier & Co., and went into Mr. Charles Lanier's office. Walsh had an account there, but he had run it down pretty well, because, as I was told by him, on account of his expenditures in stocking his route. I said to Mr. Lanier that I wanted him to discount Walsh's paper, and give him credit for $2,000. He hesitated a little about it, but finally said, "If you will indorse it I will do so." I sat down and indorsed the note. He rang his bell. Mr. Chamberlain, his cashier, came in, and Mr. Lanier told Mr. Chamberlain to discount that, and the "ticker," as they call it in bankers' parlance, shows that it was discounted, and they gave me their check for $1,987.56, and I indorsed it and sent it to Walsh. The only way I have of judging the length of time the note ran is the amount of discount at the rate of 6 or 7 per cent. When I saw these papers published by Walsh, and understood that he was trying by means of them to connect me with this Price transaction, I was quite certain that that $2,000 check had come in some peculiar way, at his instance, but the circumstances I could not recall. The grand jury had failed to indict; Walsh had published his interviews in the Herald on the 17th and 20th of November, 1882. After the failure of the grand jury to indict me, he went to New York, and in a few days made a publication setting forth his testimony before the grand jury, with notes, checks, &c., this check being among them. As I have stated, I felt that this check had come in some peculiar way, and I tried to recall the circumstances and to investigate the matter, but I could find no clue to it among my papers, because I keep no books. Walsh testified that he had kept books, but that they had been taken to Welcker's and sold for old paper. How to get at this matter I did not know, when, one day, at the Fifth Avenue Hotel, I was talking with Governor Warmoth, and he said, as nearly as I recollect: "I know that fellow very well. There is a catch in that; didn't he have you indorse that over to somebody else in some way?" I said, "That is not possible; I remember very well sending him back a check sitting at Mr. Lanier's desk." "But," said Governor Warmouth, "are you sure that H. Mis. 38, pt. 2—53

it was payable to him?" I said, "I am not so sure about that." "Well," said he, "let us walk down there." We walked down to the office of Winslow, Lanier & Co., and took the cashier into our confidence. He put two or three of his men at work, and they ran through the papers and found the check, a copy of which, with the indorsements and the certificate of the notary, I will read :

No. 91423-B

NEW YORK, Dec. 24th, 1879.

The Third National Bank pay to the order of W. P. Kellogg nineteen hundred and eighty-seven dollars. WINSLOW, LANIER & CO.

$1,987106.

National Bank Note Company, New York.

(On the margin :) Winslow, Lanier & Co.

Indorsed as follows:

Pay to Benj. Scheckel, or order.

W. P. KELLOGG.
BENJ. SCHECKEL.

[Stamp.] [Stamp.]

Pay to the order of the National Park Bank, N. Y., for account of Lewis Johnson & Co., Washington, D. C.

The National Park Bank, of New York. Paid.

I hereby certify that the above is an exact copy of the original draft No. 91423, issued by Winslow, Lauier & Co. on the Third Nat'l Bank, N. Y., and of the indorsements thereon.

[SEAL.]

HUMPHREY J. MONAHAN, Notary Public, City and County of New York, Nor. 30th, 18-3.

I have here also a letter from Winslow, Lanier & Co., transmitting this and expressing regret that they cannot consistently take the orig inal from their files or otherwise they would send it. This accounts for the two thousand dollar check. When I saw this, the matter came back to my mind in a moment. Ben. Sheckel was Walsh's clerk; he is now a clerk in the War Department. He did not keep Walsh's books, he says; Walsh kept his own books; but Sheckel ran backwards and forwards and collected for him. Sheckel received that check, and if you send for the check and for Mr. Sheckel he will testify to that fact. I have seen the check. I know that the indorsment is in Mr. Sheckel's handwriting and he received the money for Walsh. That accounts for the two thousand dollar check published by Walsh. Now, I say to this committee that I have evidence of indebtedness, and affidavits and documents from New Orleans, showing an indebtedness on the part of Mr. Walsh to me of several thousand dollars, if the committee cares to go into that matter now or at any time hereafter. It is enough for me to say at present that I account now for the principal draft of $2,000, and that I will account for every single draft or check that Mr. Walsh has paid me. One is for $500, less a discount of 7 or 8 per cent., payable to Messrs. Shellabarger & Wilson, my attorneys, and dated in July, 1879, I think. The next is for $500, I think, and there is another for $625, and one for $600; another is this one for $2,000, and later on I think there is one for $1,500 that Walsh says, I am told, that he has lost, but I say to this committee that I am prepared to show that these payments all related to legitimate in debtedness of Walsh to me and had no relation whatever to these postal drafts, and that the money he paid me belonged to me of right, without regard to any supposed service that I had rendered in relation to mail matters, and I am prepared to show the origin and basis and nature of that indebtedness in géneral and in detail, if the committee desire.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. You say that Walsh gave you a check for $2,000?-A. He gave me a check for $2,000 on the 23d of December.

Q. A check on what bank?-A. On Lewis Johnson & Co., in this city. He gave me the check and I received the money.

Q. You received the money in this city?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then, for his accommodation, you took his two thousand dollar note and indorsed it, and Winslow & Co. discounted it?-A. Yes, sir. Q. And, on account of that note which was discounted, you received this two thousand dollar check, less the discount?-A. I received the two thousand dollar check.

Q. And that check you indorsed to Walsh's clerk?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And it was transmitted to him or to Walsh?-A. To Walsh. The moment my eye fell on that I remembered that he had told me to indorse it to Sheckel.

Q. Did Walsh pay the note to Winslow, Lanier & Co. when it matured?-A. Certainly he did.

Q. And that was all there was of it?-A. That was all there was. That accounts for the two thousand dollar draft; it shows you the origin and nature of that transaction, and the use he made of it shows the methods he adopted to cut off all evidence of indebtedness, and if I had time I could show his tracks all the way through this conspiracy. If Walsh had been an honest banker, simply doing a regular banking and collecting business as he said, and if the transaction had been such as he described, and if I was to have the half of that note, he would have paid me my $2,500 in full; he would not have stopped with paying me $2,000; but he not only did not pay me $2,500, which would have been half the amount of the note, but he did not pay me even $2,000 until I myself indorsed his note and procured a discount on it, which note he paid later, and on an indebtedness due to me.

Q. Do you remember why you indorsed that check to Sheckel instead of to Walsh, if Walsh was to have the benefit of the money?—A. That was at the instance of Walsh. He told me to indorse it to Sheckel;

why he told me so, I do not know.

Mr. WILSON (counsel for Mr. Kellogg). It may have been to enable Sheckel to indorse the check in Walsh's absence.

The WITNESSs. No; Walsh was here.

Mr. WILSON. But he might have been going away.

The WITNESS. Well, I never did understand the reason of that, any more than I understood the reason of a good many other things that Walsh did.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. You say Walsh had an account with Winslow, Lanier & Co.; why didn't you leave the money to his credit there?-A. Because he desired me to send it to him, in order to replace the $2,000 that I had got from Johnson & Co. a day or two before on his check.

Q. Do you remember the date of that check?-A. It is dated December 23. The check as published by him is correct, I think.

Q. At the time you received that two thousand dollar check here in Washington, you say it was paid to you by Walsh on account of an indebtedness from him to you?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that, you say, was indebtedness growing out of your past business transactions?-A. Yes, sir; in New Orleans.

Q. Was it in any way connected with his star-route transactions?—A. Not in the slightest degree.