He states that he made a similar application in December, 1877, on which no action was taken. Since I received your letter, I have devoted much time to the examination of the case. I have received from Colonel Corkhill a large mass of papers, many of them originals, of importance. I have procured and examined the elaborate minutes of the testimony taken on the two trials of the indictment, though the copy is not quite complete. As one trial lasted about twenty-two days, and the other fifteen, this alone has involved no slight labor. I have also consulted Judge MacArthur, who tried the case the last time. Judge Olin, who presided at the first trial, is dead. I have consulted Mr. Wells, who, as district attorney, tried the case, and Mr. Jeremiah Wilson, who, as special counsel, assisted him. I have also seen Mr. Merrick, who was one of Ottman's counsel, and I think I have ascertained all that can be learned. The facts are substantially as follows: Early in June, 1875, there disappeared from the Treasury Department a package of money containing something over $47,000. It had been put up for the Park Bank, New York, and was discovered to be missing when the packages of that day were sent to the Adams Express office in the room under that in which it was put up. The circumstances of the disappearance left no doubt that it had been stolen by or with the connivance of some one employed in the room where it was put up. Some months subsequently, Benjamin B. Halleck, who was employed in the room, was arrested for the robbery, and Mr. Ottman was arrested charged with knowingly receiving the money, and the civil proceedings specified were also taken against him. Halleck was tried and convicted, but his conviction was set aside at general term. Ottman was tried in April, 1876, before Judge Olin and a jury, and the jury disagreed, standing five for conviction and seven for acquittal. On this trial the court obviously leaned very strongly against the accused, and Halleck's alleged statements, made out of court, under inducements, more or less direct, while he was under arrest, were admitted in evidence. Ottman was tried a second time, in April, 1877, before Judge MacArthur and a jury. On this trial the case of the Government was prepared and presented with wonderful industry and great ability. Every apparent trace of evidence was followed out by the district attorney and special counsel employed. I have never known of a case which seemed more carefully prepared or more thoroughly tried. On this trial Halleck became a witness for the Government under a written agreement with the Attorney-General that if he should testify fully and fairly in this and other cases growing out of the transaction he should himself be freed from prosecution. His story upon the stand was in many respects absurd and improbable. In conversation with me the counsel for the Government do not pretend to believe it was true in important respects. Hulleck's story was, briefly, that he did not take the money and knew nothing of its being taken, but that some ten days after it was taken, one Gates, an utter stranger to him, approached him in a drinking saloon and, with very preliminary caution, in effect told him that he, Gates, stole the money and had hidden it in a water closet in the Treasury building and wanted Halleck's assistance to remove it. Halleck claims that he undertook the job, after consultation with Ottman, and that some days afterwards they got the money away and Ottman kept it, and that they promptly cheated Gates of any share in it, an outrage which he seems to have endured quietly. No man ever saw or heard of Gates. He is a myth. I have no hesitation in saying he never existed, and it is physically impossible the money could have been taken in the manner Halleck says Gates told him he took it. In short, Halleck appeared upon the witness stand the self-confessed recipient and taker of stolen money. He told a story which was in one important respect-the creation of the fabulous Gates-a patent untruth. It was too much to ask a jury to believe anything such a man said. Had he come forward and admitted that he was the thief and was repentant, and wanted to aid the Government to get its own, I think it quite probable he would have been believed. As it was, he was torn to pieces under cross-examination, involved in contradictions, and, if I may judge from the evidence and from what is told me, must have presented a pitiable spectacle. Apart from Halleck there was no direct or indeed any really incriminating evidence against Ottman. It was shown that Ottman was shortly after the robbery in possession of large sums of money. This money was much of it in bills of $500, which was the denomination of those stolen. There was millions of such bills outstanding. The nearest that the Government could come to an identification of the bills that Ottman had with those stolen was the general recollection of one clerk that among the bills put up that day, those in the stolen package included some numbered in the seven thousands, and a considerable number of the bills found in Ottman's possession were numbered in the seven thousands. Ottman was at the time the proprietor of a large drinking saloon, doing a large business and a man of some means. Some attempt was made on his part to show the possession of considerable sums, but on the whole I do not think, except possibly as to one witness as to one occasion, they were at all successful in showing Ottman possessed at any time of any such amounts of money as were traced to him at this period, while some of his witnesses on this point were, I think, undoubtedly liars. At that time Ottman could not be a witness in his own behalf. Both before and after his arrest Ottman acted in a very extraordinary manner as to the money found in his possession and as to other money shown to have been disposed of about that time by him. Without going into details, his conduct with reference to the money was such as, it seemed to me, to leave no reasonable doubt that the money he had he desired to conceal and to dispose of without being known. If it was not a part of the money stolen from the Government, it must have been, to judge from Ottman's actions, the proceeds of some other improper transactions. The whole evidence leaves no moral doubt upon my mind that the money seized was in fact a portion of the $47,000 stolen from the Government, though I am not prepared to say that were I a juror, under oath, I could so find; and it is of course possible that Ottman under oath could show that my belief in this respect is not correct. I think as the evidence now stands I should turn Scotchman and say, "not proven." The condition of things is, then, this: The Government lost $47,000. It has seized in Ottman's possession, or as his, about $33,000, which is I believe a portion of this money. This occurred in 1875. The Government has since in two trials, one in 1876 and one in 1877, sought to satisfy a jury of this latter fact and has failed. On the first trial it had the advantage of a court which ruled strongly in its favor. On the second trial it had the advantage of a case prepared with greater care than often happens. The defendant's mouth was shut. The undoubted thief was seeking under every inducement to swear himself into immunity and freedom. The recollection of the facts were fresh in the minds of all the witnesses, and none were missing. I do not see how the Government could ever again expect to have so favorable situation. If another trial was now had it would appear that Halleck had been discharged on his own recognizance and has gone to one of the Western Territories. If he were found, as I assume he could be, and were brought here as a witness-though I am told that he would not come if he could avoid it-he would not feel himself in any danger from the Government, and would, therefore, not be a very earnest witness in its behalf. I am told he feels that he was badly treated by the Government; be would naturally not care to revive and repeat the story of his own disgrace. Assuming, however, that he were as honest and willing as ever, he must, so far as possible, tell the same old story, with all its patent absurdity as to Gates. As much of his story is an undoubted lie, he must of necessity become more and more involved in contradictions. It would be impossible after this lapse of time that, under crossexamination, he should not be involved in even greater contradictions and absurdities than before, so that he would be utterly discredited. Without him, the evidence for the Government would be wholly inadequate. With him, it would be largely discredited. As Ottman can now testify in his own behalf he would, even if he were guilty, have no great difficulty in giving a story to account for his possession of so much money, which could be discredited only in case he were a man unable to stand a cross-examination. I do not know what sort of a person he is. but, if guilty, Ineline to think that he could at this late day "stand the racket." One or more of the witnesses against Ottman are dead. In only one respect has it been suggested that the Government would stand better now than it did on former trials. The moral atmosphere of the court and jury rooms is believed to be more favorable to justice now than it was at the time of the former trials. The court could not possibly be more favorable than Judge Olin was on the first trial. On the second trial Judge MacArthur seemed to have been fair and to have believed the money found in Ottman's possession was the Government's, but that it was not proven to be so. As to the jury, they stood, as already stated, on the first trial five for conviction and seven for acquittal. On the second trial they stood eleven for acquittal and one who refused to vote either for conviction or acquittal, saying there was not enough to convict. Among the eleven there was at least a majority of fair, honest men, than whom no better men could be found in the jury-box on a new trial. I have no idea that on a third trial a conviction could be had. I have found no one who will say he thinks so. Mr. Merrick, who defended Ottman, is confident that such a result could not be obtained, and his judgment is entitled to some weight, because he is careful not to say that the money is not in fact the Government's. Judge MacArthur informs me that he does not think a conviction could be had, though I judge he believes Ottman guilty. Mr. Jeremiah Wilson, who tried the case as special counsel for the Government and is strongly convinced of Ottman's guilt, does not venture to express an opinion that a conviction could be had, though thinking that if Ottman were forced to a new trial he would settle by giving up all claim to the money. As, however, some of it has passed from him by assignment, he could not control it. Mr. Wells, who was district attorney, says he has no idea a conviction could be had. The case in its final result is then this: The Government has tried twice to convict Ottman under circumstances more favorable to it than could again occur. It has failed, and by a great preponderance, with the jury. It has done nothing for over five years. During that time it has held $33,000 of money found in Ottman's possession or under his control, and maintained its attachment on $14,000 more. Ottman now asks that the proceedings, civil and criminal, should be dropped and the money returned to him. I do not see how the Government can refuse this request so far as the criminal proceedings are concerned. It has no right to expect to be able to convict him. Assuming as I do that the money is part of that stolen from the Government, still I am confident that no jury will ever in a criminal case be convinced of that. As to the civil proceedings in the case pending in this District, the United States has realized on what property it attached and has no very marked interest to proeeed with that suit, unless it could extend its attachments either on mesne process or execution to the $19,500 seized by the police. Assuming that it could do this, it could only hold it by proving in that suit that it had failed to prove in the criminal suit. It must prove Ottman's guilty participation in the receipt of the money. There is no evidence it could rely upon other than what it had in the criminal suit. Halleck would be needed to swear to the same story and would be equally discredited. There would be the same detail of evidence as to the $500 bills. Twelve days after the robbery Ottman was in possession of about $10,000, most of which was in bills of $500 some of or all of them being Treasury notes. There is no proof of their number or anything to identify them with those stolen. There were at that time about 148 million dollars in $500 Treasury notes outstanding, and about 28 millions of that particular series. A month or so later he is shown to have had other bills of the same denomination to the extent of several thousand dollars; but there is just as little proof of their identification. The bills found in the box deposited in the German bank were 29 bills of $500 each. They were Treasury notes, all even numbers, one numbered 2342, one 5172, one 5200, eight between 6950 and 6998, but in no case continuous numbers, and 16 between 7006-7158, but in no case continuous numbers. The ordinary run of notes of these numbers had been issued from the Treasury Department eight or ten months previously, and at the time of the robbery the Treasury was issuing notes numbered from about 48000 upwards. There had, however, shortly before the robbery, been received for redemption a package of notes which had been issued at some previous time, and the package put up for the Park Bank was made up from these notes so received. Among them one witness remembered, as already stated, that there were some notes numbered in the seven thousand, but he said the numbers were "mixed up." There was no other identification of the notes stolen with those seized than is found in the foregoing facts. It is, of course, singular that Ottman should be found eight or ten months after the original issue with so many notes numbered from 6900 to 7100. But there were two numbered in the five thousands and one in the two thousands in the same lot. Moreover, the theory that the bills found in Ottman's box were a portion of those put up for the Park Bank involves the assumption that some person or institution had had in his possession these bills with numbers so nearly continuous for many months and had returned them to the Treasury for redemption, though they were in fact nearly new. Obviously if a person could keep them so long and send them to the Treasury, it is equally possible that a person could keep the bills in the same manner and pass them directly or indirectly to Ottman. I do not suppose this did in fact occur, for I believe the money in Ottman's box belonged to the Government; but apart from Halleck's evidence the only proof of that is this proximity of numbers, and that, together with Ottman's acts and his anxiety to conceal the box, constitutes the only evidence of Ottman's guilt. I don't believe it would convince a jury any more than it did in the criminal case. The fact of the bills being only even numbers with no odd ones would seem to show that they are not in the order in which they originally went from the Treasury Department, for I learn on inquiry that bills when first issued are carefully kept in their numerical order. Mr. Wells, the former district attorney, seemed, on an interview, to think that, as the suit in Virginia was in equity, and therefore no jury would be needed, a decision favorable to the Government could be had there. But it would be necessary to prove Ottman's guilt in the same manner as in the other cases. The money deposited in the bank by Ottman could be shown to have been in part at least bills of the denomination of $500, or the proceeds of such bills. But there is no proof as to the numbers of any of them. Other than this the Government must rely upon Halleck and such other evidence as it had in the criminal case. I do not quite understand the nature or theory of this suit in equity, but, assuming that Mr. Wells states it correctly, it could at most result in a judgment for the $12,500 remaining to Ottman's credit. Having arrived at the conclusion that the Government cannot succeed in its suits, civil and criminal, I have still been impressed by a strong reluctance to advise the absolute surrender of the money the Government holds, for, as I have already said, I believe it is part of the stolen money, and I am unwilling to see such a total failure of justice as I believe would be involved in that course. I have therefore sought to see if, so far as the civil suits were concerned, some compromise could not be effected. I have been baffled in this attempt by the fact that a considerable portion of the money has, by assignment, passed from Ottman's control, and that the legal title to much of it is subject to the claim of the Government in other and bona fide holders. Within a few days, however, I have been led to believe that if it were understood that the Government would take no action unless that course were pursued, an arrangement could be made by which, on the release of all its other claims, the amount attached in Virginia, about $12,500, would be surrendered. This is the sum embraced in the pro ceeding in which no jury would be necessary, and is all that, in my opinion, the Government would stand the remotest chance of securing by litigation. If you will authorize me to make a negotiation of that sort, I have considerable hope that I can succeed. I ought to add that in such an arrangement all claim by Ottman or his assigns for interest or damages should be waived. If the result of litigation were against the Government the amount of this claim would be considerable. Your obedient servant, Hon. BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER, GEORGE BLISS. Attorney-General. REPORT OF GEO, BLISS, ESQ., RELATIVE TO THE SETTLEMENT OF THE OTTMAN CASES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEAR SIR: Acting upon the authority given me by you on the presentation of the report I made in the case of the application of W. H. Ottman, I have with much difficulty agreed upon the following compromise: 1. Mr. Ottman is to surrender to the Government a sum equal to the amount secured by the attachment in Virginia, to wit, twelve thousand five hundred dollars, and to release all claim for interest, damages, &c. 2. The Government is to release all claim upon all other funds seized or attached, and to discontinue all civil proceedings pending, but the proceedings in Virginia to be left pending until Mr. Ottman can have an opportunity to make arrangements with claimants who will assert their claims after the Government claim is discharged by the payment to it by the agreed sum of $12,700. 3. The criminal proceedings will of course be dismissed, as all agree that they cannot succeed. This should be done as a matter of justice, independent of any compromise as to the money claims. If you ratify this arrangement I suggest that to carry it out you direct the district attorney of the District to dismiss all civil and criminal proceedings in this district, and that you request the Commissioners of the District to surrender the money in their charge, except that $12,700 thereof should be paid into the Treasury of the United States. A letter should be addressed to the district attorney having in charge the suit in Virginia to dismiss that suit, but that money be delivered to Mr. Ottman for use when he shall so desire. If this is done the matter will be closed, and, under the circumstances, greatly to the advantage of the Government in my opinion. Your obedient servant, Hon. BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER, GEORGE BLISS. Attorney-General. THE ARLINGTON, Washington, D. C., June 7, 1882. DEAR SIR: The adjustment authorized by you in the case of Ottman has been carried out, and there has been deposited $12.700 in the Treasury to the credit of the United States. I inclose you the certificate thereof. I also transmit a release and transfer executed by Ottman. Release not inclosed; will be sent.-G. M. Hon. BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER, GEORGE BLISS. (Duplicate No. 26407.) Attorney-General. Copy of certificate. TREASURY OF THE U. S., Washington, D. C., June 6th, 1882. 9 I certify that Attorney-General of the United States, has this day deposited to the credit of the United States Twelve thousand seven hundred Dollars on account of Hallack defalcation of June 24, 1875, with personal credit to Treasurer U. S. ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO THE CASE. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: Referring to previous correspondence concerning the case against W. H. Ottman, I have to inform you that George Bliss, esq., to whom the case was committed as special counsel for the United States, has this day reported to this Department that a settlement has been reached, which settlement I have ratified and approved. (1) According to the settlement, Mr. Ottman is to surrender to the Government a sum equal to the amount secured by the attachment in Virginia, to wit, $12,700, and to release all claims for interest, damages, &c. (2) The Government is to release all claim upon all other funds seized or attached, and to dismiss all civil proceedings pending, except the proceedings in Virginia, which are to remain for such time as may be necessary for Mr. Ottman to make certain arrangements with claimants, after the claim of the United States is discharged. (3) All criminal proceedings are to be dismissed at once-all agree that they cannot succeed. Accordingly you are hereby directed to dismiss all civil and criminal proceedings against Ottman in this District. Very respectfully, BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER, Attorney-General U. S. Attorney, Washington, D. C. GEORGE B. CORKHILL, Esq., DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, GENTLEMEN: The cases of the United States against W. H. Ottman, both civil and criminal, have been settled. The terms of settlement, so far as you need be cognizant of them, are as follows: (1) Mr. Ottinan is to surrender to the Government a sum equal to the amount seeured by the attachment in Virginia, to wit, $12,700, and to release all claim for interest, damages, &c. (2) The Government is to release all claims upon all other funds seized or attached and to dismiss all civil proceedings pending except the following in Virginia, which are to be left pending until such time as Mr. Ottman can have opportunity to make assignment with claimants who have claims after those of the Government. (3) All the criminal proceedings against Ottman are to be dismissed. According to this arrrangment you are requested to surrender to Ottman the money. in your charge, $12,700, which should be paid into the Treasury of the United States. Very respectfully, BENJAMIN HARRIS BREWSTER, The COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Attorney-General. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: In reply to yours of the 30th ultimo, which refers to a bill in equity pending at Alexandria, Va., against W. H. Ottman, and incloses correspondence betwixt yourself and the United States attorney for Virginia in the same connection, I have to say that I had supposed that the office of the latter contained information of the arrange |