$6,700 by this change which I have mentioned. Then the other award which I made to him by that opinion which I have given you has been paid, I believe; I am very sure it has been paid. He has accepted the result of my finding. He did not, by any application, dispute my decision; he accepted it.

Q. There have been some statements made before the committee with regard to what occurred at a conference at your residence, when Mr. Bliss and Mr. Merrick and Mr. Ker submitted to you the question as to the acceptance of Price as a witness. Will you state whether it was understood at that interview that your decision was to be final as to the acceptance of Price as a witness for the Government?-A. My attention was called the other day to the testimony on page 303 of your record, (which is about the only page of it I have read). There is on that page a very fair statement by Mr. Bliss himself of what happened there. At that time there was quite a contention between those gentlemen, and Mr. Bliss and Mr. Merrick got very warm. It was in my house, and I thought I ought to stop it. They both threatened to leave the case; Mr. Merrick if the prosecution did not go on, and Mr. Bliss if it did go on; and I checked them both. I said, "Now, gentlemen, just stop, if you please. I cannot consent to this. It is in my own house, and I must be very careful, for I want to treat you with entire kindness and courtesy, but there is something due to me officially and to the case, and it is not proper for you to talk in that way. Neither of you will leave this case." They both behaved very well and said civil words to each other, and expressed their regret for what had occurred, and I said, "Never mind; there is nothing to regret; but I want to prevent this matter going any further"; and the result was the restor ation of a pleasant state of feeling. Then Mr. Bliss said, after they had discussed the whole case, that if, after I had seen Mr. Price's affi davit, I would say the case should go on, he would acquiesce. He has testified, as appears on page 303 of your record, that he subsequently did acquiesce, and he believed I was right in what I did; although he did shortly afterwards write me a note which I believe has been put in evidence here by him in which he stated that he respectfully protested or objected to the conclusion at which I had arrived. On page 303 he says as follows:

The moment I learned of the production of those papers and what was in them, I stated to the Attorney-General that in my opinion that changed the position of the case entirely, and that it was a proper one to be proceeded with, and that it was proper to let go of Price and proceed against Kellogg, and I have not changed my mind or view upon that subject.

That, however, did not change his position in the case. I have been told that it was said here and elsewhere, I had instigated some assaults upon Mr. Bliss. As to that, I have only to say it would be a very unworthy thing for me to do, and that I never did it in any way, and I I wish that nothing reflecting on Mr. Bliss had been said or any as saults made upon him as counsel in the case. The statements that were made about him and his conduct I had no knowledge of whatever. Mr. Ker had not seen me for a month or two, nor had I communicated with him directly or indirectly in any way before he gave his testimony, and I had no idea he would give any such testimony. I have abstained from talking with any of these gentlemen about these matters; if I had known in advance Mr. Ker intended to give any such testimony, I would have suggested that the courtesy and good feeling that should exist between counsel engaged in the same case ought to modify what he had to say, not to induce him to conceal the truth, but to abstain from

saying harsh things. I wish those things had not been said for the sake of the proprieties of the case. But to come back. Mr. Merrick called upon me a few days ago and told me, or, may be I read it in the report in the newspaper, that Mr. Bliss left the Dorsey case when it was on trial and was absent for a day in consequence of my ruling as to the acceptance of Price as a witness in the Kellogg case. I never knew that fact until I was told it or read it the other day. I never knew that Mr. Bliss had left the case. I am told Mr. Merrick said that Mr. Bliss gave as a reason that he considered I had acted with a want of courtesy towards him, in not giving him notice of my intention to take Price as a witness. I never intended any discourtesy to Mr. Bliss. I knew I had a perfect right to decide as I judged right about that matter, and it was so understood at the interview which took place at my house, at which, as Mr. Bliss himself has testified, the question was left to me, so that there was no occasion to call upon him afterward or to make any explanation. It was left to me to say whether the case should or should not go on, and when Mr. Bliss wrote me the letter objecting to the decision I had made to have the case prosecuted, he never complained of any discourtesy and I never heard of it at all until Mr. Merrick's testimony was given here. If I had known of it at the time I would, of course, have said to Mr. Bliss, "There is no discourtesy intended, and you ought to know that, and I hope you will not think there is."

Q. Did Mr. Bliss oppose taking any steps to secure indictments against Mr. Kellogg for any reason, and if so, what were those reasons? -A. I know nothing whatever upon the subject, except what Mr. Walsh has published.

Q. Did Mr. Bliss say to you, or write letters to you, saying that you should consult anyone in regard to the effect of the prosecution of Kellogg from a political point of view?-A. On December 20, 1882, he did write me a letter upon that subject, as follows:

Mr. Bliss to Mr. Brewster.

POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., December 20, 1882. MY DEAR SIR: As to the matter which I spoke of to you this a. m. as to the using of Price as a witness, why not consult with Secretary Chandler on the political view of it? Of course you would not consult any one in the legal aspect. But the matter may be productive of great difficulties. Merrick may get ugly if he does not have his own way and make trouble in the case on trial. At the same time we caunot, any of us, allow Price who is indicted and guilty to escaps unless he gives us some one more guilty and does it certainly. Without Walsh, Price is of little or no use to us and Walsh is not now available to us. With Walsh even we do not get a clear case through Price's assistance against any one, except, perhaps, Brady, and situated as we are now we do not need to give up any one to get proof against Brady in another case than that on trial. Price cannot aid us in the one on trial.

Merrick has become greatly interested to attach Kellogg. I think politics affect him. He may claim to have promised Price protection. I think in fact he has done so only conditionally. He certainly had no legal right to do it without consulting you and getting authority from you. He had no moral right to do it without consulting me. I think in fact he has not done it, but he may be willing to have it supposed he has, as being more likely to get your approval of something he has done than your consent to do the same thing.

The matter may come to a shape where you will have to "put your foot down," but I think the wise way is to temporize, at least till this trial is over. At worst it may become necessary to accept anything Merrick has done in promising Price immunity, but that does not involve consenting to prosecutions against others with Price's assistance unless your judgment tells you that such prosecutions ought to be instituted.

I am very anxious about the whole matter.

Yours, truly,

Hon. BENJ. HARRIS BREWSTER.

GEORGE BLISS.

Q. Did you make any reply to that letter of Mr. Bliss ?-A. No.

Q. Did you act upon the suggestion contained in it ?-A. No. I just put it aside, for I was not pleased with it. It was a very difficult thing for me to deal with this subject. Here was a gentleman, Mr. Bliss, in charge of these cases, enjoying the confidence of the Post-Office Department, and having knowledge of all the papers in the cases, and really having great usefulness in the prosecutions, and, of course, I did not want to have any conflict with him of any kind. I could not dispense with Mr. Bliss. So, also, when the amount of the payment that he demanded was a subject of criticism, I could not dispense with him; although I did admonish him he ought to abate his charges because the amount would be criticised and complained of. I thought any rupture with him would be a great shock to the prosecutions, and I therefore believed it was both my duty and my policy to keep him in the cases and to avoid any such conflict. These things occurred and I did not like them, but I thought it would be unwise to have any controversy with him.

Q. He suggested the propriety of consulting somebody as to the po litical effect of the prosecution of Senator Kellogg; did you have any such consultation with anybody?-A. No, sir. I made up my mind that I would not permit anybody to talk with me upon the political relations of this case or of any other case. I thought it would be a scandalous thing for me to do. I did not come into the office of AttorneyGeneral to dispense the justice of the United States upon political considerations. I would rather never have taken it-I would rather leave it than do that.

Q. Mr. Walsh has stated in his testimony that you have some corres pondence with Secretary Chandler in regard to this case. Is that correct? A. Yes. I had some correspondence with Secretary Chandler in regard to this case. You have called for those letters, and I will give them to you. Mr. Walsh wrote a letter to the President, which will speak for itself, and in that letter he charged or intimated, among other things, I was a party to Mr. Bliss's determination to suppress this case, and I did not intervene, as I ought, to compel Mr. Bliss to do otherwise: and the letter was intended to leave an impression upon the public mind that I was participating in an attempt to strangle the case. Among other things, Mr. Walsh charged in the letter that "a member of the Cabinet had a conference with Mr. Bliss upon the subject, the purpose of which conference was to suppress the case." I wrote to Mr. Bliss about that. I thought it my duty to call his attention to it. I did not believe it-did not believe a word of it-but I still thought it my duty to call Mr. Bliss's attention to it, and I wrote him a letter about it. That letter is here. It did not reach Mr. Bliss promptly, in consequence of his coming to Washington at the time when the letter went to New York; and then I believe the letter came back here just when he returned to New York, and I was absent for some days; and the result was his reply was delayed. When he did reply he wrote in the most emphatic way, denying the charge, and said a great many things in that letter-a letter which will speak for itself. He intimated, among other things, that Mr. Walsh was a wit ness for the Government, and I ought to be very careful not to let his denial or anything else to the prejudice of Walsh be made known, because Mr. Walsh would take advantage of it as an excuse for not appear. ing, for he believed Mr. Walsh was really in the hands of the people who were opposed to the Government. Now, I am speaking of this from recol lection, and I cannot quote the letter accurately, but that was the sense

of what he expressed in the letter, and he denied all that was alleged against him. In the mean time it seems Mr. Chandler-I may as well state it because it is in my letter to him-spoke to the President and said he wished to take notice of this charge, and wanted me to write him a letter asking him whether the charge was true. When I was applied to about it, I said, "Walsh's letter does not name Mr. Chandler; there is no Cabinet officer named; it speaks merely of a Cabinet officer." Still I was given to understand that Mr. Chandler believed that it was intended for himself and he wanted me to write him a letter. I delayed writing a letter because I was waiting for the reply of Mr. Bliss. By and by Mr. Bliss's reply came and I took it and wrote a letter myself to Mr. Chandler stating why it was I wrote to him, apologizing for doing it, and saying it would be a very indecorous thing for me to do if he had not expressed a desire I should do it, and I would not do it even then but for the way in which the expression of his desire had been conveyed to me. Then I said to him, as an act of civility, that he need not regard Mr. Walsh's statement; from what I could learn of Mr. Walsh he was a shameless kind of person; that I had been waiting for Mr. Bliss's reply, and I had now received it and sent him a copy of it. I also said to him, "You will please observe that Mr. Bliss gives a caution as to the use that is to be made of his letter or of anything that he says about Mr. Walsh-urges we ought to be careful that it shall not become public, because if it does Mr. Walsh will take offense and make it an excuse to avoid appearing as a witness." I got a reply from Mr. Chandler in which he positively denied the whole matter, and concurred in Mr. Bliss's suggestion as to the caution that should be observed not to let it become known to Mr. Walsh there were any remarks made about him or anything to his prejudice, lest it should give him an excuse to keep away. There the matter rested. I never showed that letter to any human being; I am sure I did not. It was locked up among my private papers. In the summer of last year, when I was away, I got a letter from Mr. Walsh, which was subsequently published, as all his letters have been, stating I had written such a letter to Mr. Chandler, in which I had reflected upon him, and intimating it was a very indecorous thing for me to be commenting unfavorably upon him when I depended upon his testimony, thus showing a knowledge of the letter, and demanding the production of it. I never answered the letter of Mr. Walsh. Mr. Chandler had a like letter sent to him, which was not answered. How anybody came to a knowledge of those letters you have called for I do not know, for they were in my special custody, kept by me privately, and not put upon the records of the Department-purposely kept from the records for the reason Mr. Bliss assigned in his letter, that it was not prudent to put anything of that kind in a public place where it could become known to Mr. Walsh, and give him an excuse to remain away. You have called for the letters, and I have them here and will give them to you.

The CHAIRMAN. They were called for by a resolution of the committee. The WITNESS. They were, and they have been ready for some time, but I thought that by your leave I would keep them until I would come before you to testify.

The letters were produced and put in evidence, as follows:

Mr. Walsh to the Attorney-General.

NEW YORK, November 3, 1882. SIR: In the month of June, 1882, a subpoena was served on me in this city to appear before the grand jury of the District of Columbia to testify in the matter of the

United States rs. Brady et al. In accordance with this summons I appeared before the grand jury whose term expired June 30, 1884. Mr. George Bliss, counsel for the Government, was present during my examination. On my testimony an indictment was found by the jury against ex-Assistant Postmaster-General Brady and mail contractor James B. Price for conspiracy to defraud the Government of the United States. During the following month-July, 1882-one of the special counsel for the Government in the star route cases, with whom I then had no acquaintance personally, called on me in his official capacity, and during the conversation recited that which he had heard rumored as having been the tenor of my testimony before the grand jury, whose term had just then expired, and asked of me confirmation. I then related to him substantially my testimony, whereupon he expressed the greatest indignation and astonishment at the action of the grand jury in not including in the Brady-Price indictment, Senator Wm. P. Kellogg. I inquired of him if this was the first official information that he had received of the character of my testimony, and to my surprise he said it was. A few days after this interview the grand jury (a new body) was called together in extraordinary session; indeed, the gentleman after listening to my recital, said he would have the jury called together immediately. In the mean time I had been subpoenaed to appear as a witness before the traverse jury in the suit of the United States vs. Brady, Dorsey et al., and while awaiting to be called, I was summoned to appear before the grand jury of the District of Columbia bringing with me my books and papers. I was before this body the greater part of two days giving my testimony and exhibiting original papers, &c., with the result, as is known to all the world-a result as insulting to all law and justice as it was mortifying to me, reflecting as it did on my veracity. The purposes of this negative action, i. e., not finding an indictment, were, in my opinion, two. First, to the end that a distinguished Senator should escape indictment, and, secondly, to vitiate my testimony, which I was to give before the traverse jury in the case of Brady et al., then on trial. That influences of a most potential character were brought to bear on the grand jury to accomplish such a result, unhappily, does not admit of a doubt. Manifestly testimony which was considered ample on which to find an indictment against Brady and Price had not been deemed strong enough to reach a Senator. This was the finding of the first grand jury whose term had expired June 30, 1882. The ding of indictments against comparative pigmies, the oi polloi, and allowing offici giants to escape had become embarassing, for some jurors revolted against other system on the first jury, and hence this latter grand jury, to avoid similar complications, determined to indict no person. In order to furnish them, if possible, with something like a reason for not finding an indictment in accordance with my testimony, the conspirators on the grand jury had presented to them by their associates outside, for the undoubted purpose of influencing the minds of their fellow members, a copy of the testimony in the case of Spofford rs. Kellogg, a contested election case in which I had testified. My testimony before this jury was direct and positive, and supported as it was by documentary evidence, simply overwhelming. What could possibly be the reason, then, for the remarkable action of this grand jury? Were they dazed by reason of the high official position of one of the persons against whom my testimony bore most heavily? Or could it be that they concurred with the special prosecuting officer of the Government, who, in the grand jury room, gave expression to the opinion "that it was a serious matter to indict a Senator of the United States?" Were the jurors influenced by the SpoffordKellogg testimony? Who directed them to inquire into the case of Spofford rs. Kellogg? Whether they were or were not influenced by the testimony, the criminal object had in view by those who brought it there was to influence them. Precisely the same object which, the prosecution say, William H. Dickson had in view when he, as foreman of the traverse jury, read to its members his statement of the alleged attempt of the Government to bribe him, and for which attempt to influence the minds of the jury he is now being prosecuted. I assert that whoever brought into the room of the grand jury the Spofford Kellogg testimony is far guiltier than William H. Dickson. That this book was there does not admit of doubt, as counsel for the Government, Mr. Bliss, will bear me out.

In behalf of justice, and of law and of order, I call upon you, as the highest law officer of the Government, to discover who it was that brought into the grand jury room the testimony in the case of Spofford rs. Kellogg; who it was on that grand jury that entered into the conspiracy to protect these men from indictment, and, by rendering me discreditable thereby, tending to break down the case of the Government against Brady, Dorsey, et al. This is a discovery, sir, which the Government owes me and owes to itself.

You will please recall the condition of the Government's case at this juncture; I mean that against Brady et al. To say that it was in extremes would be untrue, for it hardly had life enough to die; indeed it was generally understood that a motion to dismiss it would be listened to by the court. A material witness of the Government, indeed an officer thereof, then under subpoena, was moved, as he has said, to go away aboutthis time, for the reason that he was satisfied the case would be dismissed, and