which he made this high charge. Mr. Woodward had in his exclusive custody all of the papers which Mr. Bliss alleged he examined in New York, and he stated that the charge made for that service was excessive, and that such work could be done in a very short time.

In fact, upon February 11, 1884, I did write to Mr. Bliss relating to this very charge, telling him that I did not know he had performed it, and that it was a service which I had determined not to anthorize till I had considered the advisability of at present pursuing any of the pending criminal cases.

After this expression of opinion by me to Mr. Bliss, made February 11, 1884, he undertook, on the 18th February, 1884, to change the basis of his apportionment so as to avoid my ruling, and assigned to the last fiscal year $6,750, instead of $4,700, and to the present fiscal year $3,500 instead of $4,500.

This cannot be permitted. It is experimenting upon the Department. When Mr. Bliss in the first instance, with deliberation, assigned $4,700 of his bill to the last fiscal year he knew exactly what was right, and what work was done in that year, and he was the only man who did know. He did it with deliberation after he had objected to the call of the First Comptroller to have such an apportionment. The advantage he would obtain by this change would be to transfer more than $1,000 of that which he said was for work done in reviewing the cases and papers, to work done of a wholly different character in trying the cases in Washington, and that work done in Washington had not been objected to as being without authority, while the other work I had already declared to him was unauthorized.

By this act he reduced his claim for the present fiscal year to $3,500. Of that he has received $2,500, and that leaves only $1,000 due to him in this present fiscal year, and only $1,000 subject to the objection that I had expressed to him as being expense incurred for unauthorized labor, and at a rate that was inadmissible. It is very plain that it would be an act of injustice to the Government to permit him now, as an afterthought, to charge $6,750, which he can secure for services which a few months ago he valued at $4,700, a change made solely for the purpose of escaping from my ruling of 18th February, and thus secure that which he knew I had resolved to reject as being for unauthorized and unnecessary services rendered in New York within this fiscal year when all that was charged in the last fiscal year was necessarily for services given in Washington in the Dorsey and Brady trial.

I concur with the opinion expressed by those officials to whom this matter has been referred, and who have carefully examined it, that Mr. Bliss has received and been paid all that he has a right to receive and be paid for every service rendered by him between July 1, 1883, and November 19, 1883, and that the $2,500 which he has received is the utmost that ought to be allowed him, and even that I fear is excessive. But as professional charges cannot be measured as ordinary business transactions for merchandise or other commodities, and as there is no positive standard to go by except the circumstances connected with each particular case and the position of each particular person who charges, and because the Solicitor-General did allow this payment of $2,500 without a knowledge of all the facts which were revealed by these subsequent inquiries made of Mr. Bliss by my direction, and this subsequent action of Mr. Bliss himself reapportioning his bill in this irregular way, I am constrained reluctantly to confirm even this.

Since Mr. Bliss presented his bill for $9,200, he has rendered a second and other bill for services professed to have been given from November 19, 1883, to February 17, 1884, beginning where the last bill ended. That bill is for $2,100.

The charges are for services against Spencer and Kellogg, and some miscellaneous work probably. I concur in the judgment of the officers who have investigated this account, and I think the charge should be reduced. Spencer's case was a failure and signally so, according to the judgment of the court, from a very serious oversight and neglect upon the part of Mr. Bliss.

The large expense incurred first in hunting the man up, and then in bringing him here, was all wasted and lost by an act that Mr. Bliss alone is responsible for, as in effect is expressed in the opinion of the judge. In the Kellogg case I know of no service that Mr. Bliss rendered except in advising those who were seeking to subpœna Mr. Walsh, and for most he did in that matter part of the $2,500 allowed him from July 1, 1883, can very properly be applied. As to the general services in the Kellogg case, remembering he disfavored the prosecution, I cannot see how any charges could be made by him in that case except those that related to the attempt to obtain Mr. Walsh.

I therefore decide that on this last account Mr. Bliss can only receive and be allowed the sum of $1,600.

BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER,
Attorney-General.

George Bliss's second apportionment of his account for services from April 7, to November 19, 1883, rendered for $9,200. (See letter February 18, 1884.)

Fiscal year 1883:

Services in Washington and travel to and from (sixty-four days)
Services in New York......

$6,400
350

Fiscal year 1884:

$6,750

ness..

Services in Washington in Kellogg matter and other Government busi

Services in New York in Kellogg case, &c

500

Examination of all the other star-route indictments and of reports and evidence in the untried cases, &c.....

1,000

2,000

3,500

10,250

NOTE. The several items stated by Mr. Bliss in the above apportionment, if added together, come to $10,250, but he has not gone so far as to ask more than $9,200, the sum for which the account is rendered.

Comparative table of above apportionment, and the former and original one in letter of De

SIR: Having read a newspaper interview with Mr. Kellogg in which he denied your statement to a Star reporter in this city, that he appealed to you to be relieved from persecution, and that he cried and implored your help, my recollection of his personal importunities at the Department of Justice from the very beginning of the proceedings against him has been roused, and I feel it my duty to make the following statement; and in that way make a record which I can leave with you to counteract any reckless stories that he may wantonly utter, when I will be far away in my new employment and unable to respond promptly to any call you might make for a counterstatement from me.

I saw Mr. Kellogg repeatedly in your office in the Department of Justice in the summer of 1882, while he was still a Senator of the United States, and at or about the time when the proceedings were first begun against him before the grand jury, beseeching you not to permit him to be indicted.

The first time I saw him in conversation with you elsewhere was also in the summer of 1882, at your rooms in Wormley's Hotel, where he was on his knees in front of your bed, holding one of your hands in both of his and crying aloud, and imploring you most piteously to save him. Mr. Kellogg did not see me when I opened the door of your bed-room, but when you looked up and told me to come in, Mr. Kellogg said to me, sotto voce, that he was engaged with you in private conversation and indicated that I step out. You interrupted him and said you wanted to see me and told me to remain, which I did. Mr. Kellogg then rose from his knees, but still holding fast to your hand, and, with tears rolling down his cheeks, he thanked you for a note you had given him, and begged you to interpose and save him. You told him to go and hand Mr. Bliss the letter you had given him, which you had written and handed to him before I came. He then left in a much disturbed condition of mind and manner. You then arose from your bed where you had been lying, and said you were much worn out by the intense heat of the weather and by the constant application to your duties, and by your study of the star route case (you were then preparing yourself to close the argument), and you told me that Mr. Kellogg had been harassing and worrying you, and that you had in vain asked him to leave you and let you have rest, and finally, to get of him, you had told him to go to Mr. Bliss, who had charge

of the prosecution, and talk with him, and that Mr. Kellogg had said to you that Mr. Bliss, perhaps, might not feel authorized to listen to him, and he therefore asked you for a note to Mr. Bliss, and you had scribbled off one; and that that was the note I heard you speak of to Mr. Kellogg. You then said to me that your only object in giving Mr. Kellogg that note was to get rid of him, for you were resolved to have that case disposed of ou its merits.

I replied that Mr. Kellogg would surely abuse the note and persuade Mr. Bliss to take some action in his behalf, which you did not wish, using it as a kind of letter of authority for such purpose. You said Mr. Kellogg had always been amiable to you, but if there was any danger of that, I should go at once to the "Arlington" Hotel and see Mr. Bliss, and explain to him how you had given it, merely to get rid of Mr. Kellogg, and he must not regard it in any other light.

I accordingly at once left you and went to Mr. Bliss at the Arlington, and after some delay saw him and told him you said he should attach no importance to the note; that you had directed me to say that you were tired and worn out and that you were obliged to give the note to Mr. Kellogg, who was in great trouble, to get rid of his appeals. This is one of the many appeals he made to your sympathies in my presence.

I do solemnly swear that the above statement is correct and true in each and every particular, so help me God.

Hon. BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER,

Attorney-General.

BREWSTER CAMERON.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 23d day of June, A. D. 1884, at Tucson, Ariz. C. S. JEFFORDS, Clerk.

Mr. Bliss to Mr. Brewster.

(Personal.)

NEW YORK, January 9, 1884. DEAR SIR: I judge an investigation is to be made of the Department of Justice. For my part I am glad of it. It will cause you-and me to a less extent-some inconvenience, but it is the only way of meeting the misstatements and mis-inferences of the reporters and the thieves. In view of it, however, permit me to suggest that before you make any statements as to the star-route, Ottman, &c., you cause your records to be fully examined. I suggest this because in going over my papers I find that you have on various occasions forgotten things which had been done, a result quite natural in your mass of business and yet to be avoided in a public investigation. For instance, it has escaped you apparently, as it had me, that the rate of payment of $100 per day and expenses was fixed by a letter from you to MacVeagh and his acceptance of it, though there had been previous verbal communication between me and Mr. MacV. Again, as to the civil suits. They were placed in my hands by Postmaster-General James before you became Attorney-General. You approved it in writing both before and after you became Attorney-General. Subsequently you have treated the matter as undecided where they should go and then sent the Dorsey cases to me (though you have never yet answered as to whether this covered Vail). course in this matter you have acted with my entire concurrence, but I wish to remind you of this record. So in the Ottman business there should be accuracy as to what was done and why and how. Your records will show all this, I think. In the civil suits I failed in my scheme to get jurisdiction of Dorsey here because Bosler died. I do not, however, give it up absolutely.

Your obedient servant,

Hon. BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER.

GEORGE BLISS.

Of

Extract from letter to George Bliss, signed by the Attorney-General.

JANUARY 10, 1884.

As to the Ottman case it was brought to my knowledge in the first instance by yourself. You urged the hearing of it, and the disposition of it, and satisfied me by your statements that it ought to be disposed of. In view of your knowledge of the subject, which was made plain to me by your statements and your urgent request to have it disposed of, and because of my confidence in you, I requested you to examine it and report upon it, upon a condition suggested by yourself that you receive no pay

H. Mis. 38, pt. 2—60

for so doing; and you consented to do so. I approved of your report, and I do not disapprove of it now. Perhaps it would have been better, in the light of the criticism that it has been subjected to, that instead of sending it to you I had sent it to the Solicitor-General and had him dispose of it, but at the time I did it I was not very familiar with the machinery of the office. I know now what I would do; I would send it to the Solicitor-General. But under any circumstances I see nothing in it that has been done to be condemned, unless it is distorted and abused.

Mr. Bliss to Mr. Brewster.

(Personal.)

BLISS & SCHLEY, ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS,

160 Broadway, New York, January 11, 1884.

DEAR SIR: I have yours of 10th. It illustrates the importance of what I wrote you as to the necessity of accuracy in the matters which, out of the myriad which have passed under your charge, are likely to be the subject of investigation. You say, "As to the Ottman case it was brought to my knowledge in the first instance by yourself" (me). Now this is a great mistake, and a moment's reflection will convince you of it. Had I brought it to your knowledge you never would have committed the manifest impropriety of referring it to me to investigate.

In fact it was brought to your notice by Colonel Corkhill, who stated that Ottman had made an application to him, that he had been Ottman's counsel and could not act. You will find Colonel C.'s letter on file, though I think that was written after a prior interview. You consulted me as to who should be employed to look it up. There was a suggestion of Totten, but he was then in the star-route case against us, and moreover you distrusted anything that seemed to be suggested by Corkhill or Ottman. Jere Wilson, Wells, and others who had been in the case were all talked over and dismissed. You asked me to quietly find out something about the Washington lawyers. My quest was unsatisfactory, and then it was suggested that I should act. I agreed to do so provided I was to do it as a friendly matter to you, and was not to be paid, and I did it. I merely call your attention to this as it emphasizes what I said before.

You are wrong in saying I knew anything about the case when you first spoke to me about or when you referred it to me, except as stated in Corkhill's letter. I got my knowledge afterwards.

Yours, truly,

Hon. BENJ. HARRIS BREWSTER.

GEORGE BLISS.

Mr. Brewster to Mr. Bliss.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, January 12, 1884.

MY DEAR SIR: Your letter of January 11 is received. Notwithstanding your letter, my recollection now is distinct that you did speak with me about the Ottman case, and disclaimed any interest in it, the first I knew of it-disclaimed any personal interest in it whatever, and referred me to Colonel Corkhill upon the subject.

There was no manifest impropriety in my appointing you to look after it. If there was I should have been advised of it at the time, and I do not believe that there was any at all. I did not think so then and I do not think so now; unless there is something that I know nothing of. You spoke to me upon the subject, stated that you had been spoken to, and having confidence in you then, as I have now, I asked you to look into it, because you had spoken to me, or I never would have spoken to you. But that is a matter of no consequence, whether you did or did not speak to me first. If there was a shadow of impropriety in my sending it to you, you were the first person to see it and would have told me of it, and I am yet to learn it now, except from the slurs and slings that are made at you by insolent, defaming newspaper writers. It matters not whether you or Colonel Corkhill called my attention to it. I have to say this as to it: it was a thing wholly unknown to me until my attention was called to it, and my recollection is you were the person that called my attention to it, and the letter that Colonel Corkhill subsequently gave me I obtained from him. You were, as you say, consulted by me as to who should be employed to take it up

and look into it, because it seemed to be a complex thing that required to be sifted; and Mr. Totten's name was mentioned. If it was by Mr. Corkhill I do not know. Certainly at that time we both distrusted Mr. Corkhill, for you wrote me a positive letter that you would withdraw from the case unless he was expelled from the district attorneyship, and he stood in that light when we began. And you mentioned these other names, none of whom I knew at that time. I hardly knew Mr. Totten, and as to Mr. Wilson and Mr. Wells, I did not know them; and in talking with me you mentioned over these other names. They were men unknown to me, and I was guided by your judgment of them, and knowledge of them.

I did suggest that you should take it, and you did agree to do it as a friendly act for me, and that you were not to be paid. But I do not see what matter it makes whether you spoke to me first or last. I have written to you according to the best of my recollection and belief, and that recollection and belief I still maintain. I do not see how it affects the result in any way. The purpose of the submission was a prudent, judicious, aud honest one, for the good of the public service, and to dispose of a suspended and vexed question that ought to have been disposed of, and I believe it was properly disposed of, and if I had to do it again I would do it to-morrow just as I did it then, except in this: That having a better knowledge of the details of the business of the office than I then had, and having been brought more directly in contact with its different officials, I would have asked the Solicitor General to take it in charge, and make his report upon it. I did not do that because, as I say, I saw he was occupied in court, and I did not suppose he would be willing or able to assume such an investigation, but I have since learned that he is both willing and able, and does it, as he does everything else, with ability and integrity, and for the public good. Very truly, yours, BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER, Attorney-General.

GEORGE BLISS, Esq.,

Special United States Attorney, &c., New York City.

Extract from a letter of George Bliss to Attorney-General, dated New York, September 27,

1882.

You call upon Cameron and Bowen to answer Dickson's charges. When they do this give Dickson a chance to present any evidence or statement, and publish the whole. Cameron and Bowen's statements will put Dickson in a bad position.

Mr. James to Mr. Bliss.

POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT,

Washington, D. C., December 17, 1881. SIR: From an examination of the records of this Department, I have been convinced that money has been paid out of the funds of the Government to certain persons under circumstances which bring such payments within section 4057 of the Revised Statutes in a number of instances.

The evidence, which seems to me sufficient to maintain suits by the United States to recover such moneys, is on file in this Department. Copies of much of it are already in your hands.

In compliance with law I hereby request that unless you shall differ from me as to the weight of the evidence you will cause suits to be instituted in the name of the United States for the recovery of said moneys illegally paid from the parties who received the same.

Very respectfully,

Hon. GEO. BLISS,

Of Counsel in Star-Route Mail Cases.

Mr. Bliss to Mr. James.

THOMAS L. JAMES,
Postmaster-General,

WASHINGTON, December, 18, 1881. DEAR SIR: The request contained in your letter of yesterday that suits should be commenced to recover moneys illegally paid to contractors with the Post-Office Department is received.

When I first became connected with the cases known as the star-route cases I called the attention of the Attorney-General to the propriety of commencing civil