TREASURY DEPARTMENT, SIR: In compliance with your request of this date I herewith return the last account of George Bliss for services rendered in the star-route cases. SIR: In reply to your favor of 19th, this day received, I have to say that in fact during the period referred to in the bill of $9,200, now before you for apportionment, I devoted some considerable time to the civil suits against the star-route contractors; but you did not in form transmit the papers in the Dorsey cases till after the time referred to in the bill had expired. I devoted this time because I assumed that under my original retainer by Postmaster-General James and your subsequent approval of it I should have something to do with the civil suits, though you had in effect subse quently withdrawn or suspended my relations to those cases and not renewed it till after the close of the period covered by the bill. Under these circumstances I did not feel that I had any official right to charge for that time devoted to the civil suits, and though the bill was intended to be in full of all matters to its date it was not increased in amount by reason of the civil suits. Yet I think I gave to these suits time which if I had been properly retained I should have been entitled to charge several hundred dollars for. In short, I regarded that time like a good deal else in these cases as given to the Government. After the Dorsey case closed I went into a most careful and exhaustive examination of all the remaining cases, going over all the facts and evidence. This extended over many weeks, and was, of course, chiefly of the criminal cases, but also embraced, as I have said, the civil claims to some extent. Your obedient servant, Hon. BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER, GEORGE BLISS. Special Assistant Attorney. Attorney-General. NEW YORK, January 22, 1884. DEAR SIR: Yours of the 19th came to hand only this morning. I have replied in another letter to the specific questions you put to me with reference to the items of my account. I place in this distinct form some reply to other matters in your letter. 1. It is not important, but in fact my letter of the 18th addressed to you personally was posted by me in Washington on Friday last, not in New York, as you say. I wrote it and retained till just before I left. First, because I did not wish to act under irritation; and, second, because I wished to wait till the last moment to see if you took any action on my bill. As it was before you, and as I had no intimation that waything else was wanted from me, I did not choose to speak with you of it. If you had wanted the further statement you now ask I should have been so informed. Mr. Cameron said you were going to write for something of this kind, but you never hare done so till this letter was received. What Mr. Cameron said you would ask for was something quite different from what you now ask. The one I can and do give; the other I could not give. 2. As to the form of certificate to the account: Before you certified it I saw you formally, told you I believed you were misinformed as to any decision of the Comp troller's having been then made, and asked you to certify the bill precisely as you did that of the previous year under similar circumstances, that I might be in a condition to raise a case before him "in all forms" with the one formerly decided. If I mis take not in my letter transmitting the account I made the same request. In my personal interview you acceded to it. The bill went without such a certificate, and the Comptroller having a different case was unable to make a different decision without absolute inconsistency. Then came the necessity of splitting up. 3. I have previously given you as well as I could the proportions of time in Wash ington and New York. As to how much time was spent in the civil suits, I have now the request for the first time, as already stated. If that was all that delayed my bill the request could have been easily made long since and easily complied with. 4. You object to my reference to your letter written before you became AttorneyGeneral and accuse me of doing what is "not usual among gentlemen." A hard charge and unjust, particularly when read in connection with the clause which follows it. I can see no justification of the charge unless I am to understand that you take the extreme ground that no one, friend or not, has a right to write you a personal letter, as mine was expressly marked, about a matter before you officially, and if he does he pursues a course "not usual among gentlemen." I have not supposed that was your position, nor have I supposed everything received from you since you became Attorney-General was to be treated as official. Surely there was nothing "not usual among gentlemen" in using your own words, written to me when you were in the same relative position that I am now, to show you that in the feelings I expressed I was not singular, but had a good prototype. 5. As to the amounts of your bill and mine, I have not intimated that yours was too large, though I have perhaps said it was as large relatively as any that had been rendered in the case. Your quotation from mine of December 30, 1881, is correct. I felt then what I wrote, and felt the same when I repeatedly asked to be allowed to retire from the case, and when I expressly notified you that if I remained I could not afford to work for less, and would not. As for a plan for reduction, I did suggest it. It was, in brief, that Mr. Ker be retired except for drawing indictments and defending them when attacked; that I remain, if you thought I must remain, somewhat formally, and as consulting counsel, so as not to require such long and constant absences from home, and that, if necessary, some Washington attorney be employed to do "grub work" for Mr. Merrick. 6. Your intimation that I was not sincere in my desire to retire is unfair and not justified by the facts. The correspondence and the facts will show that until my wife's health ceased to be critical I insisted upon retiring as a right. When her health improved I had no right to retire without your consent. I thought and still think that after the first trial I could have retired without serious injury to the cases, though there would have been some temporary inconvenience to those engaged in them. You appeal to me not to put any "unhappy feeling" into my letters, not to "intrude temper," &c. You surely do not want me to conceal my feelings, and whatever might have been your opinion as to my right to be irritated before you cannot be surprised that when you accuse me of doing what is "not usual among gentlemen," and when you insinuate that in my desire to retire I was "playing a bluff game," under such circumstances you cannot be surprised that I have and that I express some feeling. Indeed, if you reflected on the charge made of ungentlemanly conduct you must have anticipated if not intended to arouse some feeling. Your obedient servant, Hon. BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER. GEORGE BLISS. POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., February 1, 1884. SIR: In obedience to your instructions that I call upon Mr. Woodward, post-office inspector, and ascertain from him the amount of time necessary to make "a most careful and exhaustive examination of all the remaining cases, going over all the facts and evidence," that is the star-route cases remaining "after the Dorsey cases closed," I have the honor to report that I called upon Mr. Woodward in his office, room 24, Post-Office Department (where I am, with his aid, preparing this memorandum), and handed him the letter of Col. George Bliss, dated January 22, 1884, in which he says that his examination into pending cases above referred to "extended over many weeks" during the present fiscal year, and for which services he charges the sum of $4,500. The facts are these: The indictments against A. E. Boone were quashed, involving almost necessarily the permanent suspension of proceedings against his codefendants, charged with the preparation of worthless and fraudulent bonds, through which the Government had really lost nothing up to the time of their indictment. The papers containing "all the facts and evidence" against Brott and Lilley are now in Mr. Woodward's safe, in this room, where they have been since the 1st day of July, 1884. Admitting that Mr. Bliss has seen these papers during the present fiscal year, which is improbable, in view of the position in which they were left and found, I say, granting that Mr. Bliss, who was familiar with the cases, made "a most careful and exhaustive examination" of this case, it could not have occupied him longer H. Mis. 38, pt. 2-59 than fifteen minutes or a half hour. For Mr. Woodward is of the opinion, in which I concur, that a lawyer unfamiliar with "all the facts and evidence" could thoroughly master the case in an hour. Meserole and Brady were indicted on the route from Monument to River Bend, Colo. The facts in the case were few and simple. The case is comparatively a weak one, and there could have been no conceivable reason for reviewing it at this time; but if such review were necessary I am informed by the gentleman who collated “all the facts and evidence" that any person familiar with the case, as Mr. Bliss must be and is, could refresh his memory on all the essential points in twenty minutes or half an hour. These are all the cases Mr. Woodward can recall, except that against Kellogg, and another against Brady, growing out of the Price routes-the same transaction. Mr. Woodward has bad personal custody of the documentary and other written evidence in these last-mentioned cases, and Mr. Bliss has not reviewed this evidence, so far as he knows, during the present fiscal year, nor in fact at any time since the conference at your house between counsel, or about that time-the time when Price was accepted as a witness, over a year ago. In fact there is nothing to review; the case is a very simple one. In view of the above statement of facts it is very difficult to see clearly what this claim meaus or where the alleged services could have been expended. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER, Attorney-General. BREWSTER CAMERON, General Agent, Department of Justice. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: Your account for $9,200 for compensation as counsel for the United States from April 6 to November 19, 183, is before me. That account has been approved by the Attorney-General. But inasmuch as it covers parts of two fiscal years, the First Comptroller, upon its going to him, has required that it be apportioned accordingly. Being notified of this requirement, you have thereupon accordingly placed $4,500 of the charge in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883, and the remainder $4,700 in the present fiscal year. I transmitted that apportionment to the Comptroller and he has returned it requiring my approval thereof. I do not readily find in this Department the terms of your compensation on behalf of the United States. Outside of express terms the arrangement depends, according to the custom of this office, very much upon the personal discretion of the AttorneyGeneral. I will do nothing to embarrass the exercise of that discretion by casual action during his brief absence-the more that he has acted thereon frequently during the past two years in making payments to you. It was suggested to Mr. Falls, who has represented you here, that perhaps you might make a further statement of détails as would give me information, but he tells me today that this cannot be done. Upon the whole, then, I will allow to-day without prejudice $2,500 of your account, which I believe practically leaves the whole matter to the Attorney-General at his return, upon the same footing as if he were now here; and I hope will be of no concern otherwise, as it involves a delay to you of probably only a week. Very respectfully, GEORGE BLISS, Esq. S. F. PHILLIPS, FEBRUARY 8, 1884. SIR: In your letter of January 10, with reference to my account for services pending before you, you ask for some information, and add, "If you decline to answer this request, very well; I shall approve your account anyhow." Further along you say that if I do not answer your question you will assume the account relates to the star route-cases, "and I will allow your bill upon your sworn statement, which must be respected." I replied to your letter and question on —, giving such information as I could. Since then I have heard nothing of my account, except that I learn from my attorney that no action has been taken. It is going on three months since that account was forwarded. Its amount was formally approved by you many weeks since. Owing to the action of the Comptroller it has been returned to you for apportionment, and has been in your hands about for that purpose. I have been called upon for information at intervals and have always replied promptly. You assure me in your letter that there is no desire for delay. In view of these facts I submit that I am entitled to ask for action upon my account, so that such portion of it as is chargeable to a fund for which there is an existing appropriation may be paid. Your obedient servant, Hon. B. H. BREWSTER, GEORGE BLISS, Special Assistant Attorney.. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: I have your letter dated 8th instant, in which you inquire as to the delay in the apportionment of your account for $9,200. You refer to my letter of the 19th ultimo, asking you for further information about the matter, in which I said: "If you decline to answer this request, very well; I shall approve your account anyhow." You also quote me correctly in saying that I wrote you in the same letter as follows: "I must assume, as I will, that your oath to the bill confines itself strictly and exclusively to the services rendered in the prosecution of the star-route cases as having no connection whatever with the civil suit, and I will allow your bill upon your sworn statement, which must be respected." In your reply to my letter of the 19th ultimo, dated 22d of January, you say : "After the Dorsey case closed, I went into a most careful and exhaustive examination of all the remaining cases, going over all the facts and evidence. This extended over many weeks." Your charge, therefore, appears to be for specific services which I did not know you had performed, and which I had determined not to authorize till I had considered the advisability of at present pursuing any of the pending cases. I have caused a careful inquiry to be made as to the time necessary to make a careful and exhaustive examination of all the facts and evidence in these cases, and am informed that the cases are unimportant ones; that the facts are few and plain, and that the evidence is not conclusive, as to most of the cases at least. Your letter of the 22d of January changes the case to such an extent that my letter of the 19th ultimo is no longer applicable; and I do not feel warranted in approving this bill until I have had time to examine personally and with care into the pending cases, for the inspection of which you charge in the bill now before me. Very respectfully, Special Assistant Attorney, New York City, N. Y. GEORGE BLISS, Esq., DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: Your letter of the 8th instant, with reference to the Kellogg case, has been received. This case must be tried if it can be. It is the duty of the Government to try it, both on account of the public interest and also because Mr. Kellogg ought not to be delayed unless there is an absolute necessity for delay. It is a discredit to the Government that a man so conspicuous and well known as this Mr. Walsh cannot be served with a subpoena. It seeins that wherever the Government's interests are concerned, and a person is disposed to retire, he cannot be had. This was notoriously so in Spencer's case, and has been conspicuously so in this case of Mr. Walsh. It is my wish that every effort should be made to procure him. If the man cannot be procured, when the day comes for the hearing of the case, within a reasonable time before it, the fact will be known to you and to the Department, and Mr. Kellogg can then be advised through his counsel that I will not call the case. Very respectfully, GEORGE BLISS, Esq., BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER, Special Assistant Attorney, &c., 160 Broadway, New York City. BLISS & SCHley, New York, SIR: I have your favor of February 11 with reference to my account rendered, in which you say, basing your change of ground on my statement that after the close of the trial of the Dorsey case I went into an examination of the other cases, that this was service you did not authorize and in substance express the opinion that "the facts are few and plain," "the evidence not conclusive," the examination could have taken little time, and therefore you decline to approve my bill. I assume this means that you withdraw the approval theretofore given of the entire bill, and decline to apportion any of it to the current appropriation, and that my oath, which on the 19th ultimo you thought conclusive, is no longer good for anything. Now, in the first place, I claim that I had authority as special assistant attorney, and under the discretion you gave me from time to time as well as under the terms of my original employment, to do what I did. I claim that I earned under the terms the sum charged in the bill. As to the distribution of the amount between the different appropriations, I have not spoken with the same confidence because it is in the nature of the case almost impossible to decide it with entire accuracy, for reasons I have pointed. I have seen for considerable time to what the matter was tending, with its repeated calls for this and for that information, to wit, a delay until the current ap propriation should be exhausted. This is the inevitable result, whether intended of not. Against that I protest. I am entitled to be paid for services rendered. I be lieve I am entitled to be paid now some sum from the current appropriation. For the first time now you raise a question as to the accuracy of my entire bill or of the bal ance not payable from the present appropriation, but belonging rightfully to what is to be paid under a deficiency bill, if there is one. Now, I propose to go carefully over all my correspondence and books, not only the correspondence with reference to the Government cases, but as to all other matters, and see how far I can account for what I did every day covered by the period embraced in the account, and thus, if possible, by exclusion (showing that on a given day I did nothing for the Government because engaged in other matters) and by inclusion (showing that on a given day I gave my whole time or a portion of my time to the Government), arrive at a more definite conclusion. This will take much time and must be done in the intervals of business unless I arrange to give up a day or two to it. I will then arrive at a result which I shall be in a great measure prepared to prove. I shall do this for my own satisfaction, not yours-because things have arrived at the condition where in your estimation my statements, even under oath, are not to be relied upon. I do not therefore expect that you will delay that investigation you are so earnestly desirous of making nor that you will withhold the decision you arrive at. By the same mail by which yours of the 11th is received comes yours of the 13th with reference to Walsh, with a hardly concealed reflection for the failure to find him. I have done my best so to do and failed. Under the circumstances permit me to suggest that it is your duty to set some one else at work on that business, who, if he has not more of success will have more of your confidence. This is proper for the double reason, that I have failed, and that as I have already informed you the clue, if any is to be found, must in my opinion be taken up at Washington. Independently of this, it will occur to you that it is not the duty of counsel to enter into a detective search for witness. I have been willing to do this and am still so willing, but do not feel called upon to go outside of my legitimate duties in a matter where I am so plainly told that my failure is my fault. In this as in all other matters in these cases, I have done my full duty, and so long as I remain in the cases I shall continue to do so. At some time, you will become convinced of the injustice you do me. Your obedient servant, Hon. BENJAMIN H. BREWSTER, GEORGE BLISS, Special Assistant Attorney. I may add that, as far as I know or can forsee, Walsh will not be available as a witness at the March term unless something is done in and from Washington. I have one possible clue still remaining, which I thought a week ago would lead to something, but the lapse of time has caused me almost entirely to lose confidence in it. Unless, therefore, you receive contrary information from me you can consider it settled that in my opinion Walsh's attendance cannot be procured. You may have better success than I in finding him. NEW YORK, February 18, 1884. SIR: I have spent the greater part of two days in going over all my letter-books letters received, bills, registers, &c., and am now prepared to make a statement as to the services rendered the Government during the period from April 7 to November 19, |