of the District of Columbia, they being the head, I suppose, of the police force of this District. They kept it in their possession, and it was used as evidence upon both trials against Mr. Ottman. In 1878 or 1879, and after the failure of the second trial in 1877, Mr. Morgan and his associ ate Commissioner took the $19,525, sealed it up in a package, took it to Mr. Gilfillan, Treasurer of the United States, and made a special deposit of that package with him; and when this compromise was effected, as has been testified to and as I have stated, I went with Mr. Morgan, the District Commissioner who held the receipt of Mr. Gilfillan, and with Mr. Bliss, and met Mr. Gilfillan in the Treasury Department and this package was brought out. The seals were broken and it contained $19,525, a deed of trust, and some papers and small articles, the personal property of Mr. Ottman. This was $19,525 in currency; there was in the German Savings Bank a deposit of $10,000, made by Mr. Ottman in 1875 or 1876, I forget which year it was now. For that a certificate of deposit was made to him. It bore interest for a short time, and then there was written across the back of it an agreement that the bank was not to pay interest after that. That was the money that the Government had notified the bank officers not to pay while this suit was pending to determine who was the owner of it. When this suit was settled by the Government claiming that they could possibly succeed in the civil suit in Alexandria as against that money, with interest, the interest was figured up, and the principal and interest amounted to about $12,700, according to my best recollection, Mr. Bliss stated that they did not propose to take a lawsuit, and that while they were willing that Mr. Ottman should have and use the name of the Government to protect his rights in the suit pending by the United States against him and against the bank, they should insist that that amount, $10,000, with interest from the time of its deposit up to the time of this settlement, should be paid out of these moneys on special deposit with Treasurer Gilfillan, leaving Mr. Ottman to fight this suit in Alexandria as best he might. That was assented to by Mr. Ottman in person. We met, as I have stated, at the Treasurer's office. This package was produced, the seal was broken, and it was found to contain $19,525; $12,700 was paid to Mr. Bliss to be deposited to the credit of the United States; the balance was paid to me. I retained my fee of $5,000, in accordance with the letter which I have read here and placed in evidence, and the balance I paid to Mr. Ottman in New York City, and took his receipt for it.

Q. What was that balance?-$12,700 paid to the Government, $5,000 paid to myself, makes $17,500, and the balance is the difference between that and $19,525. When Mr. Ottman was in Washington he asked me to loan him $95, and when the settlement was effected I retained that amount out of the balance and paid the rest to him, and that is his signature at the bottom of that paper. Then that left the suit in Alexandria pending. Before Mr. Carpenter's death, as Mr. Ottman informed me, and as Mr. Coleman, the surviving law partner of Mr. Carpenter, also informed me, this certificate of $10,000 for the money deposited at Álexandria, had been turned over to Mr. Carpenter in payment, or as security, or both, for services which be had rendered to Mr. Óttman, and was to render in the future in the management of his cases. I called upon Mr. Coleman who was the law partner of Mr. Carpenter, and he produced the certificate stating that it had been sent to him by Mr. Russell Sage of New York City, who claimed to be the owner of it (this was after Mr. Carpenter's death), and that he had instructions to commence suit against the bank at Alexandria to recover the amount of

that certificate. I went with Mr. Coleman and Mr. Ottman to Alexandria. I there saw Mr. Francis M. Smith, whose father before him had been, and who was himself, in my time, attorney of record for Mr. Ottman in that suit in Alexandria, and talked over the matter of adjusting this certificate of deposit.

Q. Was that certificate for the whole amount of the deposit of $10,000?-A. Yes, sir; just $10,000. No conclusion was reached. Mr. Coleman commenced suit in the name of Mr. Russell Sage against the bank, and I think also against Mr. Ottman, claiming to be owner of this certificate of deposit and the money which it represented. I went afterwards with Mr. Coleman, twice I think, certainly once, to Alexandria, and saw the cashier of the bank, the attorney of the bank, and Mr. Smith, the local attorney of Mr. Ottman, and we had a consultation with regard to the matter, but failed to arrive at any adjustment of the conflicting claims of the bank and Mr. Ottman and Mr. Sage. The matter stood in that shape until last summer. Last summer I was called to California by matters almost beyond my own control, and was absent for some time during June and July, and while I was absent I understand that this suit of Mr. Russell Sage against the bank and against Mr. Ottman (if it was against Ottman, I am not so certain about that) had been settled and adjusted between the bank and Mr. Ottman, represented by Mr. Smith, and by Mr. Coleman, representing Mr. Sage. I was not present at that settlement, and had no part in it further than I have mentioned already. I am informed by Mr. Ottman, and also in substance by Mr. Coleman, that the basis of that settlement was that Mr. Russell Sage claimed to have bought the certificate of Mr. Carpenter, paying therefor $6,000, and that he received of the amount of money deposited in Alexandria (upon which the bank did not pay interest except for two or three months) his $6,000, with, I think, 3 per cent. interest from the time of the purchase of the certificate down to the settlement, that being the amount of interest which the certificate bore on its face; and that the balance of the money was paid to Mr. Ottman.

Q. Mr. Russell Sage obtained $6,000 with 3 per cent. interest from the time he purchased the certificate of Mr. Carpenter until the time of the settlement?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that was deducted from the $10,000 certificate of deposit?A. Yes; and the balance paid to Mr. Ottman, as the parties informed

me.

Q. Do you know what Mr. Ottman received on that balance?—A. I do not, except that it would be the difference between those sums. I don't remember the exact time of the purchase of the certificate, but the complaint would undoubtedly show it. It was the difference between $6,000, with the interest added from the time of the purchase of the certificate, and $10,000.

Q. Did the bank allow interest at 3 per cent. ?-A. It did for a short time, and then by agreement between Mr. Ottman and itself it ceased to pay interest after a certain date-the date of the agreement which was written across the face or on the back of the certificate of deposit. Q. Was the date of that agreement after the time when the money was attached? A. I think it was before that, though I am not certain. Q. Then the Government did not get any part of the money on deposit in Alexandria ?—A. No, sir; the Government retained in this settlement out of the special deposit with Treasurer Gilfillan the $10,000 which it had sought to attach in Alexandria, with interest from the date of the attachment down to the time of the settlement, the amount

being $12,700. That, gentlemen, in brief, is my connection with the Ottman case, and the facts of the case so far as they are known to me. I am now ready to answer any questions which any member of the committee may desire to ask.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Can you explain why you were of opinion that the Government could recover the $10,000 deposited in bank at Alexandria, but could not recover the $19,000 and odd held here in Washington, both sums being part of the same transaction?—A. I did not express the opinion that the Government could recover the $10,000 on deposit in Alexandria. I expressed the opinion that they could not recover that

amount.

Q. Well, it was the opinion of Mr. Bliss that the Government could recover the money deposited in Alexandria?-A. The opinion of Mr. Bliss was that they possibly could succeed in the civil suit in Alexandria as against that amount alone.

Q. When did you have the first conversation with Mr. Bliss in regard to this compromise?-A. It was some time in January, 1882, according to my best recollection.

Q. Did Mr. Bliss know anything about the case then?—A. Nothing at all, to my knowledge. It was the first time that I ever talked with him about it, and I had no information or knowledge that he had ever heard of the case before.

Q. Did he state to you that he would call the attention of the Attorney-General to the case?-A. To this petition which Mr. Ottman had presented.

Q. Did you call upon the Attorney-General at all in reference to the case?--A. I have no recollection of calling upon the Attorney-General in connection with the case at all.

Q. Whatever you did with the Department of Justice with reference to the settlement of this case was done through Mr. Bliss?-A. Entirely.

Q. After his first interview in reference to the case with the AttorneyGeneral, at your instance, what did Mr. Bliss report to you as to the condition of things?-A. The substance of it was that he had called the attention of the Attorney-General to the case, and that the Attor ney General had said he would call the attention of the district attor ney, Colonel Corkhill, to the matter.

Q. Did you suggest at any time to Mr. Bliss that he should be appointed a special attorney to settle this matter?-A. No, sir; I did not. Q. Did he suggest to you in any way that he would get that appointment?-A. No, sir; I did not know whom the Attorney-General would appoint. Colonel Corkhill, the district attorney, being disqualified from acting in the case by his previous service as an attorney of Ottman, my simple desire was that somebody should be appointed to go into court on the part of the Government and take charge of the cases; I did not care who it was; it made no difference to me. I expected then to have to go into court with the cases.

Q. You expected to have to represent your client in the courts!— A. I did so expect, and I did represent him in the court.

Q. But at the time you presented the case, through Mr. Bliss, to the Department of Justice, did you present it upon the theory that you were demanding trial for your client in the courts on both the civil and criminal cases, or upon the theory that you desired to have the matter settled outside of the courts?-A. My theory was that I was acting

within the courts and that I wanted somebody to represent the District Attorney, who was disqualified from acting in the cases. And let me say here that if the Attorney-General had not appointed somebody to act in the place of Colonel Corkhill, or to represent him in that matter, I should have gone into court, and, upon the presentation of the facts of the case and the records, I should have asked the court to make an order directing the district attorney to move those cases for trial or dismissal. The civil action could have been noticed for trial.

Q. Did you prepare the petition that Ottman submitted to the Attorney-General, which is dated January 21, 1882?-A. I think not; but I gave direction for its preparation to one of my clerks in my office. caused it to be prepared.

I

Q. It was done at your instance as Ottman's attorney ?-A. Yes. Q. Was it your intention, then, to defend this criminal case, and also the civil case in the courts?-A. It was.

Q. Your expectation was to be able to defeat the Government on the trial?-A. I expected either to have the case tried in court or dismissed in court.

Q. Did you demand, or intend to demand, a speedy trial?-A. I did, just as soon as I ascertained that Colonel Corkhill was disqualified; I came here for that purpose; and when I learned that he had been of counsel for Ottman (which I did not learn until I came to Washington in July), then I expected as soon as somebody should be appointed to represent the Government to proceed to the trial of the cases.

Q. In Ottman's petition to the Attorney-General, dated January 21, 1882, he says:

I now respectfully ask you to carefully examine, or cause to be examined, these civil and criminal actions, and if consistent with the public interests, the due administration of justice, and your sense of public duty, that you will direct or authorize the proper district attorneys for the District of Columbia and the castern district of Virginia to discontinue said civil suits and enter a nolle prosequi on said indictment.

That does not seem to indicate that he desired any trial of the cases, but simply asked, in view of the long delay that had occurred, that the suits should be discontinued.-A. I expected, Mr. Chairman, that when counsel for the Government came to examine those cases, and to ascertain that there had been two trials of the criminal indictments, both of which had been failures, that several years had elapsed since the commencement of the civil suit, and that no further action had been taken in that suit since its commencement, he would make up his mind that he could not succeed in the cases, and would himself dismiss them.

Q. Did you ask Mr. Bliss, as special counsel for the Government, to have either the civil or criminal Ottman cases set down for trial?—A. I did not.

Q. Did you not solicit him to compromise the cases outside of court, instead of going to trial?—A. I insisted that Mr. Ottman was entitled to have this indictment nolle prossed, and to have this civil action dismissed, upon the ground that the Government had made an utter failure in its attempt either to establish its right to the money or to establish his guilt.

Q. But the Government had never had a trial of the civil suit?—A. That was the fault of the Government.

Q. But it was not yet too late to have a trial of that suit, so far as the Government was concerned?-A. No, sir.

Q. You believed then, as attorney for your client, that the Government was not entitled to any of this money?-A. I did so believe, from

the action which had been taken in the case, and the result of that action, and from the statements of Mr. Ottman.

Q. You believed that the Government could not recover any of this money-A. I did, and I do now.

Q. Then, instead of compromising the matter and paying the Government a portion of the money, would it not have been better for you to have insisted upon a trial, which, according to your view, would have given you all the money?-A. Possibly not; for this reason, which I stated partially in my direct statement: The Government could try these cases at almost any time it saw fit. It should have tried them before, but it could try them when it pleased. The Government of the United States was rich and powerful. Ottman was poor. If this was his property, the Government had all of his property. He was at the mercy of the Government, and, in my judgment, to buy his peace was better for him under the circumstances than to undergo litigation, civil and criminal, which would probably last through a long period of time, perhaps through years, before it could be disposed of.

Q. Was he released on his own recognizance, or had he given bail?— A. I never saw the bail bond, but I understood that he had given bail in regular form. The records of the court will show that, however.

Q. These cases having dragged along in the courts for so many years, could you not have rightly insisted upon having them set down for trial? A. Not necessarily.

Q. How long may the Government keep indictments pending?-A. Well, if you will tell me who administers the Government, I will perhaps answer that question.

Q. Mr. Corkhill in this case.-A. Mr. Corkhill was disqualified from acting in the case, because he had been counsel for Ottman.

Q. But he was not disqualified from appointing an assistant?—A. No, sir; he could appoint his regular assistants; but I should doubt the propriety of an assistant appointed by Mr. Corkhill conducting the case, because his action would be the action of Mr. Corkhill. The only course that seemed to me proper was for Mr. Ottman to ask that somebody should be appointed to represent the Government in the matter, and then insist that the cases should be either tried or dismissed. That is what we did, and that was all; and after having the cases tied up for seven years that was our right. Of course, I don't want to testify here as to what I would do or might do, or as to what my processes of rea soning about the case were or might be. I want to give you simply the facts; but if you want me to reason about the case, or to theorize about it, that is another thing.

Q. Did you consult with Mr. Bliss with regard to the preparation of his report?-A. I did not. I never saw his report until last week. Q. Didn't you know what he had recommended to the Attorney General?-A. I did not; except as he stated it to me after he had

made it.

Q. What did he state to you that he had recommended?—A. As I have already said, he stated that he had reported he did not believe that the Government would succeed in the criminal case, but thought it possible it might succeed in the civil suit.

Q. It was not material, so far as the recovery of the money was concerned, that the criminal suit should be prosecuted at all, was it!-A. No, sir.

Q. So far as that was concerned, the Government might have nolle prossed the criminal suit and still have maintained its action in the civil suit? A. Yes, sir.