As you know, I have never had any great faith that the case would succeed. If the evidence first produced by Walsh before the last grand jury were in possession of the Government, I should feel differently. I speak only from Mr. Ker's report as to those letters. But the Government has neither the letters nor copies. I fear Walsh cannot be relied upon. However this may be, I of course should do my best, if I went into the case. Perhaps some one who feels surer of success than I do would do better. Mr. Merrick and Mr. Ker are, of course, fully competent to manage the case without assistance from any one, but an attempt has been made to give a political turn to the case to the detriment of Mr. Merrick, and he as well as the Government ought to be protected from this. Some Republican ought to be associated with them. I am not sure I am the best man, but you have a right to my services.

Yours, truly,

Hon. B. H. BREWSTER,
Attorney-General.

GEORGE BLISS.

Mr. Walsh to Mr. Brewster.

NEW YORK, September 25, 1883.

SIR: Learning from a source deemed by me reliable that you have written a letter to the Hon. W. E. Chandler, Secretary of the Navy, wherein you make strictures of an unfavorable character concerning me in relation to the case of the United States against William Pitt Kellogg and my appearance therein as a witness for the Government, I beg leave to request that you furnish me with a copy thereof, as well as the date of the same.

Very respectfully,

Hon. B. H. BREWSTER,

Attorney-General, Washington, D. C.,

Care of Judge E. H. Grandin, 18 Broadway, New York.

By the CHAIRMAN:

J. A. WALSH.

Q. Mr. Bliss made some statement with regard to your appearing in the first Dorsey trial and not appearing in the second, and made some criticism upon your conduct in that respect. Will you please explain that?-A. The occasion of my appearing?

Q. Yes; the occasion of your appearing in the one case and not in the other.-A. It was the common judgment of all the counsel in the case, and my judgment—and I was the person to be considered in that respect and also the judgment of Mr. Woodward, that it was a very proper thing for me to appear, and it would perhaps be considered rather an improper thing if I did not appear. I had gone into court occasionally during the trial of the case; the counsel had frequently sent for me to be there. They said my presence would help it, particularly in what they thought were the pinches of the case, where points were to be argued, interlocutory points that might affect results. Sometimes I was not able to go, but I went frequently. When the first case was about to close, upon very deliberate reflection, it was determined it would be a proper and an important thing for me to appear there at the end and speak to the case in conclusion, and it would be a very improper and unexplainable thing if I did not appear and speak.

For the purpose of preparing myself, I went over the whole of the testimony that was taken; then I had it cut out and condensed, and here [indicating a large mass of papers] you see evidence of the preparation I personally made for my argument in the case. This is an abridgment of the evidence in the case. I went over it with great care. I sat up at nights-many a night-working at it, because in the daytime I had other duties and I was interrupted and could not study when so interrupted. It was very hot weather, but I remained here, at great personal inconvenience, until the 16th day of September, long after ConH. Mis. 38, pt. 2-55

gress had adjourned, in order to conclude that case. There was not a line of testimony or a line that counsel spoke I did not read and study. I sent for Mr. Woodward and conferred with him. He was kind enough to sit up with me and take part with me in the preparation, and his assistance proved to be very valuable. It was arranged I was to follow Mr. Wilson and Mr. Ingersoll, and close the case, and I determined, as a point of judgment, that I would confine my speech to such matters as their speeches developed and made it necessary for me to deal with, and I did so. Here is my argument, which will speak for itself. I made a brief argument, for the case had been elaborately discussed from beginning to end, and I did not undertake to touch upon all the points, because I thought it would be very wasteful and unnec essary and tiresome, and I thought it would be bad advocacy for me in the concluding speech to take advantage of that opportunity to go over the whole ground again. So, with a full knowledge of the whole case, I selected only those points which it seemed to me desirable and necessary for me to consider, and I spoke to them. The speech occupied the business part of two days, and then I left the case. I have been told that some little or puerile criticism was made here upon an incident which occurred while I was making my argument. The fact that it was commented upon here rather surprised me, for I could not see the purpose of it. It was silly and spiteful.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose you refer to a statement which was made here to the effect that near the close of your argument the judge called your attention to an omission, and that you had some difficulty in answering him. Do you remember that?

The WITNESS. There was no omission at all. That is a mistake. I will tell you about it. Just as I was about to end, and while my mind was hurrying to a conclusion, I said, in effect, "Gentlemen of the jury, I am about to end this tedious and protracted discussion," and the judge at that point stopped me and propounded a question to me. It was a very intensely hot day, and I was very tired, and I did not catch the question. Judge Wylie's voice is a little low, and I did not quite understand what he said. I thought I had it, but I was not certain I had a perfect conception of what he meant, and, not wishing to make a mistake in any way, I turned around to speak to Mr. Merrick, who was sitting by my side, and ask him what it was the judge said, and he jumped up to explain the matter. My question to Mr. Merrick was, "What did he say? What does he mean?" Mr. Merrick rose and undertook to answer the court for me, and I sat down. I was glad to sit down, being very tired. Mr. Bliss was not present at myspeech except at this last part of it. He was away. Then Mr. Wilson, for Dorsey, got up and said if Mr. Merrick was allowed to speak the défense would claim the right to speak again. I am testifying now from recollection, but I think my recollection will prove to be good. The court interposed and gave Mr. Wilson to understand that it was perfectly proper, that the Attorney-General was a little fatigued, and Mr. Merrick proposed to relieve him for a minute. The counsel upon the other side persisted and were quite eager. In the meanwhile, Mr. Ker leaned over to me and said, "The question the judge put to you was as to whether the indictment should lay the overt act to have been committed when the affidavit was sworn to or when the paper was filed." I was perfectly familiar with that subject, because when the counsel were considering how they would lay that in the bill of indictment, I was consulted by Mr. Ker, and if there was anything in the case I understood it was that. Seeing this altercation, I turned around and said to the court, "May it please your

honor, I can answer. I was a little puzzled by your interruption, and as you were referring to dates and papers, I was afraid that you were referring to something that I had not seen. I now understand your question, and I will answer it." And I did answer the question of the judge. And then the case went right on. That is the history of that transaction. It was a silly, senseless thing to allude to it here. Such things happen in almost every case, and certainly in every case of any magnitude; frequently counsel do not hear what the court says, and their fellow counsel get up to assist. That is the experience of every lawyer, at least. I am sure it is my experience. No one there treated the incident as harmful, but on the contrary, when soon after that I closed, all the counsel for the Government came around to me and thanked me for "the help" they were then pleased to say I had given the case by my condensed and pointed review of all that was needed, and no one was more gracious and applauding than Mr. Bliss.

Q. You did not appear in the second trial?-A. No, sir. It was considered whether or not I should appear, and all of the counsel, Mr. Bliss included, were anxious I should appear. The court assented to it, but the other side would not consent to it. They said: "If the AttorneyGeneral concludes, he must conclude, and Mr. Merrick cannot speak in the case, as you gentlemen propose." I had not been present much during the trial, and Mr. Merrick had borne the brunt of the case in a most manful way, and I thought it would be great injustice to him, and an act of great discourtesy for me to supplant him at the end, and I so expressed myself in a letter to him and Mr. Ker. The counsel for the Government all round said they felt regret that I did not appear. They wanted me to appear, for they said the aid of my official presence was of value to the case. And Mr. Bliss was most earnest of all in this wish, because, he said, my "forensic ability" and official position had been felt in the first trial to its great advantage.

I find upon page 15 of Senate Document 156, in a letter there published, written by Mr. Bliss, the following clause:

I assume there will be no further trials till fall, but that one or more should then take place.

As for your own past relations to the cases, permit me to say that it seems to me you have done all that the public expected or had a right to expect, and what is more all that any fair-minded men could expect. Your constant appearance in court was an impossibility. In view of your other duties it would have been an impropriety. In yielding your right to close to Mr. Merrick, you showed yourself above personal considerations and ready to sacrifice a great opportunity for personal aggrandizement to the good of the cause, for you rightly judged that, however great the difference in forensic ability, a counsel who had sat through a long case like this from day to day would be better prepared to deal with its infinite details than one who had prepared himself from the daily records, to say nothing of the inevitable springing upon counsel of new questions and new views just at the close of the defendant's argument.

Q. There was some question raised here as to whether the case that was actually tried-the Dorsey-Brady case-was the strongest that could have been selected for trial. Were you consulted in regard to that matter, or was that the act of the attorneys?-A. That was the act of the attorneys, but especially of Mr. Bliss. He selected it as the strongest case, and I had to depend upon his judgment. My impres sion is his judgment was approved of by Mr. Woodward; at all events, I had in that respect to depend entirely upon Mr. Bliss, whose knowl edge of all the papers and of the details made it necessary for me to defer to him.

Q. If there were any other cases that should have been brought to the attention of the grand jury, and in which indictments should have

been found, upon whom was the responsibility in that matter?-A. That duty was cast upon Mr. Bliss.

Q. If there were cases in which indictments should have been found, and in which they were not found, the responsibility for that, as you say, was with Mr. Bliss ?-A. As the duty was with Mr. Bliss, the responsibility would have been with him. I have understood, and I believe it is undisputed, that Mr. Bliss, from first to last, controlled the selection of the cases, and he chiefly presented them to the grand jury. The reason given why Mr. Ker was kept in court was that Mr. Bliss had constant occasion to be before the grand jury.

Q. There was some effort made during the progress of these cases to bring about an arbitration. What do you know about that?—A. In reference to the Salisbury cases, I know nothing about itt, excepting what Mr. Bliss told me. I heard of the Salisbury cases, and that they were important cases. Mr. Bliss used to come every day, and sometimes twice a day, to report to me what was going on, and after some time he told me that these Salisbury cases had failed before the grand jury, that they were not strong cases, were not well made out, and he had arranged with Mr. Ingersoll an arbitration should take place, and it was done with the consent of the Post-Office Department. I said, "Well, if the Post-Office Department assents to it, I have nothing to say." When he told me who were to be the arbitrators, Mr. Elmer, Mr. Ingersoll, and himself, I expressed my surprise at his selecting Mr. Ingersoll, or consenting himself, to be made an arbitrator with him after the violent scenes between them in court and the frightful insult Mr. Ingersoll had inflicted on him. He said as to himself another could be substituted. I said, "As long as Mr. Ingersoll remains, some counsel of the Government ought to be one of the arbitrators." I thought there was propriety in that, provided Mr. Ingersoll, one of the counsel on the other side, was to be an arbitrator; but it seemed to me the proper way would have been to have had some persons selected who had nothing to do with the conduct of the cases as counsel.

Q. What did Mr. Bliss say was the object of the arbitration?—A. To settle the civil liabilities of the Salisburys; he said inasmuch as the criminal cases could not be well made out, if the parties were willing to pay whatever might be found against them, it would be a great advan tage to the Government to get them to consent to arbitrate without the delay incident to protracted proceedings in court; he seemed to regard it as quite an advantage to get an agreement to arbitrate; I never saw the advantage myself, but the Post-Office Department had assented to the agreement, and it was not for me to interfere.

Q. Were you consulted as to the legality to do it?-A. After wards Postmaster-General Howe and Mr. Elmer, having occasion to consider just how it stood, Mr. Howe came to me and talked about it, and I said, "I cannot see where you have the power to arbitrate. There is nothing to prevent the other side from revoking after they get a knowledge of your case." He submitted the question to me in writing, calling for an opinion upon the subject, and I gave an opinion, which is, of course, of record in the Post-Office Department, or in the Department of Justice, or in both, in which I expressed the view the submission was invalid, and it fell through in consequence of that opinion. Postmaster-General Howe was of the same opinion with me. I believe I have stated I knew nothing of that submission until after it was made, and I know nothing about the Salisbury cases, except as I have been told.

Q. Dld Mr. Bliss state that the case against the Salisburys and the Parkers was a weak one, and did he give that as one of the reasons for

submitting to an arbitration ?-A. That is my recollection; indeed, I am clear about it.

Q. That is the criminal case?-A. The criminal case is the one I am alluding to, the case that went before the grand jury.

Q. Was this conversation which you have related prior to the submission to the grand jury, and to their decision?-A. It was afterward; it was told to me all at once; I was told at the same time the bills had been ignored-the grand jury do not find bills here; they make presentments, and the bills are prepared afterwards-I was told by Mr. Bliss the grand jury had refused to present those cases, and that the cases were weak, and he had succeeded in making this agreement to arbitrate, and he considered it was a very successful thing that he had achieved, and an advantage to the Government.

Q. Speaking of these civil suits generally, has the Postmaster-General at any time transmitted to you as Attorney-General a statement of the aggregate amounts which were estimated to be due from star-route contractors for overcharges, or illegal charges on account of expedition?-A. With reference to these civil cases, I will tell you all I know about them. When I first went into office Mr. Bliss spoke to me upon the subject of the civil suits, and in a letter which I wrote to him, and which was published, I alluded to those suits. It was the intention then to pursue them at the same time with the criminal suits, and I so expressed that intention in the letter I wrote him; but, upon conference, it was agreed that it was an impracticable thing, and not altogether a proper thing to do; that the civil suits might well be deferred until the criminal suits were disposed of as the statute of limitations would bar many of the criminal suits, but would not the civil suits. Mr. Bliss gave me to understand that Mr. James had said he should take charge of those civil suits. There the matter rested until about the end of the second Dorsey and Brady trial. Mr. Bliss then began to correspond with me on the subject of these suits. In the mean time Postmaster-General Gresham came in, and it was made a subject of discussion as to whether or not those suits ought to be pursued, and whether it was worth while to do so; whether they would not be fruitless in many instances; whether these parties sued at remote distances (as we had no faith in them at all, or in their methods of conducting business), would not interfere with juries and prevent verdicts, and make it a costly and interminable business to the Government. All this was canvassed and considered; but it was finally determined that the government did not pursue these kind of suits for the purpose of making money. That was my opinion, and it was accepted because the object was to show a determination on the part of the Government to follow whoever had wronged it by way of example, be the remedy civil or criminal, to let ali such men feel they could not escape, and to see to it if they did escape it would be only after they had had their day in court.

Then the Postmaster General undertook to have the cases put in order for the purpose of bringing civil suits. Some time last autumn he sent me a very full and abundant letter upon the subject, and sent over the papers to the Department of Justice. I do not know that he sent all of them, but many of them, and I think all. Then Mr. Bliss wrote me several letters upon the subject, in which he showed a great anxiety to get possession of those cases and to pursue them; but, on conference with the Postmaster-General, it was concluded that it would be better not to give them to Mr. Bliss; that he had his hands full with the criminal suits; and then, again, that it might be an expensive thing to let him take charge of these civil suits; at any rate, it was not considered