''%: 
 
 -.^■ 
 
 'X' 
 
 
 ■-■m^^ 
 
 
 
 
 <^. 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 
 'rA'S&<5?^A,'o 
 
 .3- 
 
 .0^ 
 
 ■ ,0^^ .. 
 
 •^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 -f 
 
 '^, 
 
 ■^- .V 
 
 ^a^S 
 
 ^n77py._. 
 
 
 ^' 
 
 
 
 ^^Q^ 
 
 ^1- 
 
 Ho. 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^v-. 
 
 -V 
 
 
 ■^" 
 
 ..0^* ^^^ 
 
 ^. 
 
 "''^^^.^ .s*^^. 
 
 
 c^^ ;aW/>V'' 
 
 ,T!- 
 
 o ° " ° ^ o 
 
 
 vV 
 
 v^ :pt&- 
 
 '^^0^ 
 

 A R G U M E N T 
 
 HON. ROSCOE CONKLING, 
 
 JUNE 26, 1866, 
 
 Before a Special Coninittec of the House of Representatives, raised to invest i- 
 gate the administration of the Bureau of the Provost Marshal General, and 
 also the act of James B. Fry, the head of the said bureau, in sending to the 
 House a letter lihelling the character of one of its members, and also the 
 truth of said letter. 
 
 Mk. Chairman and Gentlemeiv of the Committee : Before proceeding 
 to the argument itself, I wish to remind you of the circumstances out of which 
 this investigation grew. On the 24th of April the House of Representatives 
 had under consideration the " Army bill." The Military Committee had been 
 induced to adopt a section rendering the office and bureau of the Provost Mar- 
 shal General perpetual — transforming it from a temporary invention of the war 
 into a permanent element of the peace establishment. A motion was mjide by 
 me to sti'ike out this section, and my reasons for the motion were given in the 
 House at the time. In assigning these reasons I reviewed the public adminis- 
 tration of an executive officer, and the management of the bureau of which he 
 was the head. 
 
 As a part of my remarks, I caused to be read a letter from the Lieutenant 
 General of the army, Avhich letter had been addressed and sent to a member of 
 the Military Committee of the Senate, and had been used as evidence and in- 
 formation against the proposition to continue by legislation the office of Provost 
 Marshal General. This letter was called out by a communication addressed to 
 the Lieutenant General by a' member of the Senate committee, and had been 
 sent to me to be used in debate in the House of Representatives, 
 
 In reply to the motion made by me, and to the remarks submitted in support 
 ;>f that motion, and to the letter in question, a member of the House, Mr. 
 Blaine, made a personal attack on me. He charged that the letter of the 
 Lieutenant General had been improperly brought into the House by me. The 
 term he used was, " smuggled in," and, having uttered this imputation, he pro- 
 ceeded further to arraign my motives. He charged that I had had "quarrels" 
 with General Fry; he charged that in these "quarrels" I "came out second 
 best at the War Department." He charged that I had traduced General Fry, 
 and had done so in his absence, and in a place where he could not be heard. 
 In a subsequent portion of his remarks he said that he understood there were 
 "personal difficulties" between myself and General Fry; and, speaking ol 
 General Fry, he used the iollowing words: "And he is ready to meet the gen- 
 tleman from Nev/ York, and all other accusers, anj^wherc and everywhere." 
 
 In answer to these personal and offensive remarks, I pronounced them false, 
 and, denying all intention to confine the statement of my opinion and knowledge 
 of General Fry's administration to a place where General Fry could not be 
 heard, I stated that I was ready to make my statements good wherever the 
 question of their correctness might be raised. The House, by an almost unani- 
 mous vote, sustained the motion to discard the office of Provost Marshal General. 
 
' 2 
 
 jay here remind tlie 'committee that to pic uuifcc •■"rse?e^'''a statement, or 
 ii the report of a committee, is the right of a member of a parliamentary body, 
 ad in doing so, he does not transgress the limits established by parliamentary 
 practice, the distinction being between imputing an intentional falsehood to 
 another, aM prpiaouncing false a statement itself. This distinction is especially 
 palpable in a case where the statement made is of such a nature as to^ show 
 upon its face that it does not originate with the member who utters it, but de- 
 pends for its truth upon the statement given him by some third person. 
 
 On the 30th of April, six days after the proceedings referred to, General Fry ' 
 sent, and Mr. Blaine brought into the House and caused to be read, a lengthy 
 letter, accompanied by various exhibits and documents foi-raally certified. This 
 letter contains an elaborate and studied libel, or rather a lon^ series of libels, 
 upon my private character, the undisguised purpose being to iilflict injury upon 
 me in retaliation for words spoken in debate. 
 
 The House, in vindication of its own honor, ordered, at my suggestion, an in- 
 vestigation, not only of the administration of the Provost Jlar^hal General and 
 his bureau, but also of the act of sending the letter in 'question, and of the 
 contents of that letter. The committee in entering upon its duties resolv<.d 
 that before proceeding to investigate the official conduct of General Fry at 
 large, they would first of all investigate his act in sending a libel into the House 
 of Representatives in revenge upon a member for words spoken and votes 
 given in the House. This inquiry involved the truth of that libel, and the 
 motives with which it was written and sent. In one sense such an inquiry 
 may be deemed personal, and in so far it is narrow and unimportant, but in the 
 true sense, the inquiry is broaii and important, and not confined to the interest of 
 any individual. 
 
 The right to speak freely in debate and to vote without interference, while it 
 is the right of the representative, is still more the right of every constituency. 
 It is the great right of the people, and as such has ever been cherished in every 
 system of free government. In England it has been maintained for centuries 
 as the supreme prerogative and privilege of the public. And our fathers, in lay- 
 ing the foundations of government, jealously preserved in the spirit and letter 
 of the institutions they formed, the same absolute exemption. Since the Con- 
 stitution was adopted nearly a century has elapsed, and never until now has so 
 audacious and offensive an attempt been made to strike a senator or representa- 
 tive in his private character in revenge for acts done officially. It is submitted 
 that a more enormous breach of privilege can scarcely be conceived of. A man 
 who out of the House commits a bodily assault upon a member is held guilty of 
 a high offence. A man who should go into the presence of the House and du- 
 ring its session should commit an act of personal violence upon a member, 
 would be held to have defiled all the sanctities of the place, trampled upon the 
 rights of the body, and struck at the very principle of its existence ; and yet 
 will any one affirm, looking to the private or the public wrong attempted, that 
 a bodily injury of such a kind is greater in criminality or extent than the act 
 of a man who sends into the House, to be read in its foce, and published to the 
 world, a reeking malignant attack upon the personal character and official re- 
 putation of one or more of its members. % 
 
 The assailant in this case is a military officer, a man bound by official obliga- 
 tions and invested with official advantages. He is bound by an oath of office 
 to support the government in all its branches, and to maintain the Constitution. 
 On the other hand, he has opportunities insured to him, which are denied to 
 citizens at large, of vindicating himself from injustice or misconstruction as to 
 his official acts. If wrong was done him in the criticisms made upon his admin- 
 istration, it was his privilege to demand a court of inquiry, or to invite a court- 
 martial, and thus to create for himself a tribunal composed of men of his own 
 profession, and certain to be, at least, impartial towards him. It was his right 
 
so to ask a congressional investigation. Eitlxer of these courses would have 
 indicated General Fry, if, in truth, he had been innocent. Indeed either of 
 lem would .have secured his acquittal had there been a reasonable doubt of his 
 ailt ; but in place of resorting to any proper and lawful means of vindication 
 .' defence, he chose to obtain or accept the connivance of a member of the House, 
 id through him to make a foul attack upon the character of another member 
 hom he held responsible, in part at least, for the rejection of his bureau, 
 ad for the debate which occurred at the time. There can be no pretence that 
 le letter in question was designed as a plea in self-defence. The only allusions 
 lade to any matters tending to the vindication of General Fry are incidental 
 id subordinate, its whole aim and purpose being to blacken the character of 
 le person assailed and to spread its imputation beyond the reach of counter 
 :Lion. All this would be true even if the statements of General Fry were 
 )unded in fact, or if they had been by him believed to be true. But the case 
 
 aggravated by reason of the wantonness, the bad faith, and the malevolence 
 y v/hicli the writer was prompted. Six weeks have been spent by General Fry 
 I an effort to hunt up or invent something from which the committee might 
 ifer that he believed what he said ; but despite all these endeavors the fact is 
 alpable as to every substantial statement of his letter that he neither believed 
 or suspected it to be true, but knew it to be false when he made it. 
 
 I shall endeavor to shoAV by the evidence, with equal certainty, that the mo- 
 ve of General Fry was base and malicious beyond the baseness and malice 
 'hich ordinarily prompt the utterance of injurious falsehoods, and, therefore, for 
 le purposes of this argument, 1 assume the position and undertake the task of show- 
 ig affirmatively, item by item, the untruthfulness and malice of General Fry. 
 have preferred not to leave the matter in any of its parts to stand upon the 
 lere absence of evidence to uphold it. I have preferred not to avail myself of 
 ay presumptions Avhich the law raises against unproved slanders, and I have 
 vailed myself of the broadest permission the committee would give, to introduce 
 Sirmative evidence. This permission has been a narrow one. The committee 
 lied that iipon this branch of the investigation, no evidence would be received 
 scept that bearing directly upon the motive with which the letter Avas written, 
 f upon the truth or fsilsity of the statements in the letter bearing directly upon 
 le. Notwithstanding the taut rein thus held, enough evidence has been re- 
 Bived to show General Fry guilty not only of falsehood and dishonor as a man ; 
 uilty not only of the most cowardly slander ; guilty not only of violating his 
 ffic'al oath ; guilty not only of breaking the rules, violating the regulations, and 
 •ampling upon the most cherished virtue of his profession, but guilty also of 
 .ich official malfeasance as closes the door of charity and credulity against all 
 stenuation. 
 
 In order to determine how for I have v/arrant for these allegations, I proceed 
 ow to review and examine the evidence. Let us begin with the first substan- 
 'al statement made by General Fry. He says : " I am enabled to say that your 
 ssertions touching Mr. Conkling's difficulties with this bureau are amply and 
 Dmpletely justified by the facts which this letter will disclose." 
 
 These words contain an imputation of falsehood, as do other subsequent 
 'ords in the letter relating to the same subject. I shall not forget to recur to 
 lem again, and show the committee their effrontery and groundlessness. But 
 ir convenience I will pass them now, and consider them with the subsequent 
 arts of the letter with which they belong. The next passage in the letter is 
 lis : 
 
 " My official intercourse with representatives in Congress during the past 
 iree years has been constant, and in many cases intimate, and, with the soli- 
 iry exception of Mr. Conkliiig, it has been marked, so far as I remember, by 
 iutual honor and fair dealing. ]Mr. Conkling being thus an exception, it is my 
 
purpose to give a brief summaiy of bis connexion and intercourse with tliis 
 bureau " 
 
 I ofiered to prove by different member.s of Congress the total falsehood of this 
 statement. I offered to show that the intercourse of General Fry with other 
 representatives in Congress had been unfair and dishonorable, his conduct inso- 
 lent, and his language profane, and that he had been denounced to himself as a 
 dishonored man. This the committee excluded because it overthrew that part 
 of the statement which had no reference to me. But beside this portion of it, 
 there is a distinct suggestion that there has been dishonorabh^ and unfair deal- 
 ing on my part with General Fry ; and availing myself of the opportunity, evi- 
 dence has been given to show that, in all the intercourse between the Provost 
 Marshal bureau and myself, nothing has occurred to justify or extenuate this 
 statement. On the other hand. General Fry has offered no evidence tending 
 in any way to explain or excuse the imputation, much less to prove it, and 
 leaving the committee to pronounce upon it, I pass to other matters. 
 
 The next allegation of General Fry is in these words : 
 
 " In the summer of 1863 Mr. Conkling made a case for himself by telegraph- 
 ing to the War Department that the provost marshal of his district re([uired 
 legal afZr/ce,' which he was thereupon empowered to give." 
 
 This stands as the first specification in the charge of unfair dealing with the 
 Provost Marshal General. The circumstance to which reference is made has 
 been detailed to the committee by Judge Hunt and other witnesses. These 
 facts disprove the allegation ; but if that were all, room would be left to sup- 
 pose that General Fry made his statement under some misapprehension. 
 
 The attention of the committee is, therefore, invited to the question, whether 
 there can have been an honest mistake on this subject. Unless General Fry 
 had something upon which he relied in making his statement, his assertion was 
 certainly dishonorable. If he had no knowledge or information one v.'ay or an- 
 other, he would be Avholly indei'ensible, however the truth might be. It is mf:- 
 terial, therefore, to inquire whether he had ever heard or seen any statement to 
 bear out his accusation. He offers no proof of any. He omits and refuses 
 himself to testify lo any ; and the proof before the committee demonstrates that 
 he had full knowledge of the truth, and that he purposely misstated it. In- 
 deed, this passage is Oi.o of the most frigid, premeditated falsehoods in a column 
 of wilful misstatements. The occurrence referred to was somewhat old and 
 far-fetched. It had evidently been hunted up. It w\as hunted up, perhaps, as 
 long ago as the commencemeitt of the session, Avhen a resolution was offered by 
 me inquiring into the necessity of prolonging the Provost Marshal's bureau. 
 Mr. Stanton, it will be rem'embered, said that General Fry asked him a long 
 time ago whether he had any objeclion to his making a defence of himself; and 
 the age of the circumstance in question, and its remoteness from anything 
 brought in question in the House with regard to General Fry, raises a strong 
 presumption that it had been looked up Avith malice aforethought. The mode 
 of stating it also shows that the despatches had been referred to. The time 
 is given as the summer of 18G3. It is stated that the communication was by 
 telegraph, and various ear-marks show that the telegram was within the knowl- 
 edge of the writer at the date of the letter. Yet that telegram, proved as it is 
 to be literally true in all its statements, shows a reckless violation of truth by 
 General Fry. It shows that I did not " make a case for myself," and it shoA\s 
 that I did not telegraph that the provost marshal, or any other person, needed 
 "legal advice ;" but simply that I communicated facts of an important nature, 
 and recommended that the ofhcers of the government sliould be directed from 
 Washington as to the action they should take. 
 
 The evidence discloses that the representative of the district at the time, Mr. 
 Kernan, could not be called on to confer wnth the authoiities at Washington, as 
 he was the counsel conducting the proceedings against the government officers 
 
who bad arrested and held the alleged deserter ; that the officers had in vain sought 
 instruction and advice ; that an attachment was in the hands of the sheriff to 
 compel the provost marshal to produce his prisoner, which he refused to do ; and 
 that the time, the occasion, and the circumstances were such as to disturb the 
 community with the fear of forcible collision between the State and national 
 authorities. 
 
 Having been the representative of the district, I was asked to communicate 
 the facts to the government at Washington, and I did so by a communication 
 prepared in the presence of many persons. This was my whole action in the 
 matter. 
 
 The facts were Avell known to General Fry at the time. This clearly appears, 
 because the answer to my communication has been produced, and is from Gen- 
 eral Fry himself, and v/e find him afterwards writing a letter about the same 
 matter, and making requests in regard to it. 
 
 Yet, in defiance of all the facts, this obvious and blameless occurrence is trumped 
 up, and an infamous insinuation put forth in regard to it. 
 
 The comment which this part of the letter of General Fry deserves is left to 
 the committee. 
 
 I ask you now to consider the next passage, Avhich is as follows : 
 
 '•In April, 1865, Mr. Charles A. Dana, then Assistant Secretary of War, 
 without notifying- me, had Mr. Conkling appointed to investigate all frauds in 
 enlistments in western New York, with the stipulation that he should be com- 
 missioned jndge advocate for the prosecution of any cases brought to trial, and 
 he was so appointed to prosecute before a general court-martial Major J. A. Had- 
 dock. Mr. Dana vested him, by several orders issued in the name of the Secre- 
 tary of War, -without the sanction of Mr. Stanton, with the most extraordinary 
 powers." 
 
 I propose to examine this piecemeal. First." Without notifying me ^ These 
 words, bursting with self-importance, are also full of untruth. The transaction 
 to which they refer took place, as the papers show, on Monday, April 3, 1865, 
 and the proof is conclusive that on the same day, and early in the day, and as 
 soon as the matter occurred, it was fully communicated to General Fry. The 
 subject was first broached the day previous, April 2. On that day the Secretary 
 of War proposed the matter, and it was discussed and held under consideration, 
 and even this, on the same day that it occurred and before any conclusion had 
 been reached, was communicated to General Fry, and was known to him from 
 his own observation also. Mr. Stanton and Mr. Dana both prove this positively. 
 AVho denies it ? Does General Fry dare testify, that he had forgotten it when 
 he asserted to the contrary? 
 
 One of the counsel, while in actual consultation with his client during Mr. 
 Dana's examination, put leading questions to show that the papers relating to 
 Haddock and his alleged crimes, were sent for on the 2d of April to be sub- 
 mitted to me, and that General Fry was sent for in person also, and came in 
 and saw the papers actually undergoing examination. They seemed to forget 
 that, Avhile thus pursuing some other point in the case, they were uncovering the 
 fact that General Fry knew and remembered the very thing wdiich in his letter 
 he denies. 
 
 In this same examination of Mr. Dana it appeared that General Fry was 
 expressly informed on the 2d of April, both by Mr. Dana and myself, that I 
 was in Washington at 'the request of the Secretary of War, and that the sub- 
 ject of my visit was the alleged wrongs in recruiting in Haddock's division. 
 The allegation xmder consideration, then, was certainly and intentionally false. 
 
 Let us look at the next step. 
 
 Second- "Mr. Dana had Mr. Conkling appointed to investigate all frauds in 
 ei:ilistment in Avestern New York." 
 
 Did General Fry believe this statement when he wrote it 1 In a subsequent 
 
part of the letter lie speaks of Mr. Dana as "his (my) friend Mr. Dana," and 
 the imputation is that my employment was not the act of the Secretary of "War, 
 but M'as brought about b}^ management and cuddling betAveen IMr. Dana and 
 myself. 
 
 If General Fry believed anything of this sort, he derived the impression 
 somewhere and somehow. He saw something or heard something or other 
 which led him to think so. What Avas it 1 Does any such crumb of evidence 
 come to us on which charity can feed ? He dare not testify that he had any 
 reason to believe it, or that he did believe it. He did not believe it ; had he 
 done so even Avithout evidence, but from sheer blind malignity, he Avould have 
 spoken of it at some time to Mr. Stanton and been undeceived. 
 
 Let us go a little further : 
 
 Third. " With the stipulation that he should be covimissiojicd judge advo- 
 cate for the prosecution of any cases brought to trial, and he was so cq^pobitcd,'' 
 &c. 
 
 How came this statement to be made 1 It was not inadvertent, because upon 
 it he founds a charge of very grave character. It is false, however. There is 
 no evidence of its truth, but evidence of record to the contrary, which must 
 have been familiar, and which is shown to have been familiar to General Fry. 
 It looks like a studied statement for a carefully considered purpose, and it can- 
 not have been innocently made. 
 
 But again : 
 
 Fourth. " Mr. Dana vested him hy several orders issued i?i tlie name of the 
 Secretary of War, without the sanction of Mr. Stanton, with the most extra- 
 ordinary poivers.'" 
 
 Here arc three printed lines, and four separate untruths. 
 
 1. It cannot be that General Fry believed that Mr. Dana did what was done 
 at all. He was informcul and knew to the contrary, as has been already shown. 
 
 2. " In the name of the Secretary of War." This is disproved by the 
 papers themselves. 
 
 o. "Without the sanction of Mr. Stanton." We have the oath of Mr. Stanton 
 and of 3Ir. Dana to the falsity of this. But let us suppose for a moment that it 
 had been true, in order to test the integrity of General Fry. If it had been true, 
 no one coidd have known it in the first place but IMr. Stanton and Mr. Dana, 
 and any disclosure of it must have come from one of them. Indeed, the nature 
 of General Fry's statement implies, and his language implies, that he sjieaks by 
 authority of the Secretary of War. At all events, if General Fry made his 
 statement in good faith, he must have supposed that Mr. Stanton or Mr. Dana 
 had said something to warrant it. Both these gentlemen have been on the stand 
 as witnesses, Avitli full opportunity to General Fry and his counsel to cross-ex- 
 amine them. Did they venture to put any question going to show that it was 
 pretended that either of them had ever hinted anything giving color to such 
 an idea? It must not be forgotten here tliat all three of the papers referred to 
 expressly state that they Avere made and given not only with the "sanction," 
 but by the direct warrant, of the Secretary of War. 
 
 It nuist be remembered also that General Fry Avas pointedly informed, both 
 before and after the jiapers Avere made, th.at the Avhole thing Avas the jiersonal 
 act of Secretary Stanton himself. 
 
 Yet in the face of all this. General Fry charges Mr. Dana Avitli an official act 
 not only surreptitious and dishonest, but amounting virtually to forgery. 
 
 Is this a malignant man 'i All unprincipled and untruthful men are not ma- 
 lignant. This inquiry is made of the committee at this point, because at an- 
 other point it Avill be necessary to inquire Avhether General Fry is capable of 
 Avay laying the character or person of another; Avhether he is capable of suborning 
 Avitnessea, or of seeking false evidence to stab the reputation of an enemy. 
 
 Look at the remainino^ statement in the three lines I am considerinjr : 
 
4. "TVitli the most cxtraordiuaiy powers." Mr. Dana and Mr. Stanton both 
 prove that so far from this being true, the papers were ordinary routine papers, 
 and conferred less than the powers commonly granted in similar cases familiar 
 to General Fry. 
 
 Thus we see that the last quoted portion of the letter is knowingly false, not 
 in some particular, but in every particular. 
 
 Please look at the next/ sentence and see whether it contains one single truth, 
 or one innocent mistake. I quote: "Among these (the extraordinary powers) 
 was the right to examine the dcspatclics in all telegraph offices in the western 
 division of New York, which enahled a violation of the sanctity of iiersonal and 
 business correspondence.'" 
 
 Here is a distiiict assertion — -first, that all despatches, or the despatches gen- 
 erally, in the various telegraph offices, were, by the terms of the authority, ex- 
 j)osed to examination ; and, second, that the sanctity of personal and business cor- 
 respondence was in fact violated. 
 
 The first assertion is sufficiently refuted by the written authority itself As 
 will be seen, it is a request merely, and asks that access be afforded to such de- 
 spatches as will lead to the detection of frauds, &c. Here it is in full : 
 
 War Department, 
 
 Washington City, April 3, 1SG5. 
 
 Honorable Roscoc Conkling having been appointed by the Secretary of Wa^ 
 to investigate transactions connected with recruiting in the western division o*^ 
 New York, all telegraph companies and operators are respectfully requested to 
 afford him access to any despatches Avhich he may require for the purpose of de- 
 tecting frauds and bringing criminals to trial. 
 By order of the Secretary of War : 
 
 C. A. DANA, 
 Assistant Secretary of War. 
 
 But the matter in this part of General Fry's statement which needs attention 
 most, is the infamous suggestion that, under color of the authority given me, I 
 looked into private and business correspondence. 
 
 Even if the authority were broad enough to admit of such abuse, what pallia- 
 tion is there for the assertion that it ever occurred ? 
 
 Does General Fry dare to present himself as a witness and testify that he 
 ever heard or dreamed anything of the kind? On the contrary, he has been 
 called upon repeatedly, in the presence of the committee, to come forv.'ard as a 
 witness and purge himself. He has been notified, as the record shows, that it 
 was charged and believed that he dare not submit himself to cross-examination; 
 and yet he has refused, and has even submitted to the degradation of hearing 
 his counsel announce, to go down on the record, that he declined to be cross- 
 examined, and that if I obliged him to testify, or if the committee obliged him 
 to testify, it must be as my own witness, and with the understanding that I 
 should not be at liberty to impeach or contradict him ! 
 
 I ask you, gentlemen, to contemplate the spectacle of a soldier and an officer 
 publishing under his own signature charges of such a character, and then, when 
 called upon to prove them or excuse them, being able to offer no legitimate 
 evidence, and when required to testify to his own good foith in stating what 
 he did, refusing to do so, and taking the ground, in so many words, that he will 
 only testify upon compulsion, and then with the understanding that he shall not 
 be impeached or contradicted ! 
 
 Does not such a soldier stain the honor of his profession 1 Should he admin- 
 ister a bureau, should he remain an officer of the American army, or should 
 he " sleep in honor's truckle-bed? " 
 
 Look, if you please, at the next sentence of this libel : 
 
"For his services in this connexion Mr. Conkling received, on the 9th of N 
 vember last, from the United States the modest, fee of $3,000." 
 
 The essence of this statement is that the sum paid was excessive, and there 
 is a suggestion running through the whole that tlie employment was improperly 
 sought after, improperly obtained, and improperly charged f;ir. 
 
 General Fry surely knew all these things to be untrue. , Let us see if he 
 did not. 
 
 He knew that the employment was not sought after. A letter has been put 
 in evidence, written by me to General Fry, and brought here from his files, 
 dated April 24, 1865, expressive of reluctance to go on with the service, and of a 
 wish that I might be relieved. Mr. Stanton and Sir. Dana both testify that the 
 employment was declined ; that 1 named another lawyer and tidvised his selec- 
 tion, and consented to act only upon Mr. Stanton's urgent request. (See testi- 
 mony of Mr. Stanton and Mr. Dana.) Besides, the record of Haddock's con- 
 viction, which General Fry is shown to have examined long ago, disclosed facts 
 showing that the employment was not sought or obtained by any act of mine. 
 
 General Fry knew, also — for the same files of the department from v»'hich he 
 learned that compensation had been made disclosed the fact — that the fee was 
 not fixed by me, and that no chai-ge whatever was ever made. He knew fur- 
 ther that Mr. Stanton fixed the compensation, and he knew the general extent 
 of the services, and the amount of money obtained by the government. This 
 amount was not less than two hundred thousand dollars, besides the fine 
 of ten thousand. (See the review of Judge Advocate General Holt, which 
 is in evidence. ) 
 
 Can it be supposed that General Fry believed that Mr. Stanton had fixed and 
 paid an improper or excessive fee ? If he knew the value of the services, or if 
 he inquired of others who did know, he cannot have supposed the compensation 
 was too much ; and if he did not know and did not inquire, he cannot have 
 believed that j\Ir. Stanton had acted in ignorance or bad faith. 
 
 As to the reasonableness of the allowance. General Fry has offered no evi- 
 dence, but the committee has heard the testimony of several witnesses well 
 qualified to speak. Judge Hunt says $5,000 would have been reasonable and 
 just. This witness has a minute knowledge, as his examination proved, of all 
 the particulars necessary to form a judgment of the value of the services, and 
 his evidence shows, as does that of Mr. Itoberts, an actual pecuniary loss sus- 
 tained from the neglect aud surrender of other professional business greater than 
 the fee in question. Mr. Stanton swears to his o])inion,aud says that he thought 
 at the time the allowance should have been $5,000 instead of $3,000. 
 
 Mr. Dana, Avho well knows what other persons received for jirofessional ser- 
 vices rendered the War Department, says $5,000 or $G,000 Avould have been 
 moderate. 
 
 That we need not lack light on this subject, the committee called before it 
 the head of the American bar, if any man is accorded that distinction. I was 
 not present, but the record shows that in answer to the chairman of the commit- 
 tee, the Honorable Reverdy Johnson said $5,000 would have been a moderate 
 charge for the service. And it was admitted by the counsel before the com- 
 mittee that such would be the testimony of other eminent lawyers. 
 
 The reasonableness of the fee paid is thoroughly established ; the propriety, 
 in fact, of its payment and receipt, cannot be questioned, and is not now ques- 
 tioned; and the committee will be able to say whether the anbmts of the pre- 
 tence to the contrary could have been honest. 
 
 That the request to render the service was proper in laic, that the rendition 
 of the service was proper, and that it was right by law, technically, in form and 
 substance, to make compensation on the one side and to receive it on the other, 
 I shall endeavor to satisfy the committee in the proper place ; but as that is a 
 question of law, I will speak of it separately. 
 
9 
 
 Let me first continue tlie examination of General Fry's statements of fact. He 
 proceeds to say: " Whether he received, as has been reported, from his district 
 85,000 more for the same service, and Avhether he received additional fees frqjn 
 g-uilty parties for opposing proceedings at Utica, I am unable now to say." 
 
 The iirst statement here is under cover of an alleged rumor, and is in the 
 form of insinuation. It would therefore have been competent for General Fry 
 to prove anything verbal or written, by way of hearsay, or scandal even, that 
 had reached him, and to which he had reference at the time he wrote his letter. 
 
 A member of the committee put to Mr. Roberts the question whether he had 
 ever heard such a report. General Fry certainly kneAv, therefore, that that 
 kind of evidence was available if he had it, yet no attempt has been made to 
 prove that any human being ever whispered or hinted such a thing. If Gene- 
 ral Fry ever heard or heard of such a report, he was a competent witness, the 
 witness of all others to state it, yet he recoils from the witness stand as he 
 would from the sting of an adder. 
 
 The committee Avill see that such a report as is suggested never could have 
 prevailed, for malice would never invent so preposterous and bungling a state- 
 ment. Why % Because my district consists of one county — counties in New 
 York are represented for such purposes only by boards of supervisors — and the 
 statutes of the State require accounts of moneys to be so kept and so published 
 that no sum could have been paid for such an object by any custodian of public 
 money Avithout the records showing it to the v/orld. The proposition is upon 
 its face impossible and absurd. 
 
 The second branch of this atrocious accusation is not pretended to be found- 
 ed on rumor — it is stated as a belief generated in the mind of the writer by some- 
 thing he knows. He then states, in substance, that he can mention something 
 tending to account for his belief, and straightway he proceeds to yet another 
 deliberate untruth, which, as we shall see in a moment, was intentional. 
 
 But, first of all, what will the committee say of a man capable of making such 
 a chai'ge without an atom of evidence to substantiate it, or to explain his making 
 it? 
 
 The next words in this letter are these : " But, as hereafter shown, he was as 
 zealous in preventing prosecutions at Utica as he was in making them at El- 
 mira ; and the main ground of difficulty between Mr. Conkling and myself has 
 been that I wanted exposure at both places, while he wanted concealment at 
 one. I suppose there can be no doubt among high-minded men as to the char- 
 acter of Mr. Conkling's course in this matter." An effort has been made to 
 change this assertion from a bald and naked falsehood, into a reference to some- 
 thing that General Fry believed had occurred in relation to the following per- 
 sons : Captain J. P. Richardson, provost marshal, dismissed December, 1 8(34 : 
 Captain P. B. Crandall, provost marshal, suspended March 13, 1S65; dis- 
 charged May 31, 1865, Aaron Richardson, of Albany, the accomplice of Had- 
 dock. 
 
 The attempted explanation only aggravates the crime of making the charge, 
 because the explanation is in bad faith in each instance. Let us see. 
 
 The effort to conjure up anything of the kind in the case of J. P. Richardson 
 was a fraud upon the committee, and a wretched subterfuge. There could be 
 no possible room for General Fry to suppose that I wanted concealment as to 
 Captain Richardson, or that I had prevented any prosecution against him. He 
 knew to the contrary. In the first place, the only part I took as to the removal 
 of Captain Richardson vv'as to advise and ask for publicity and investigation, 
 that we might know what, if any, wrongs had been done. My action was all in 
 connexion with that of numerous leading citizens, and no malice could honestly 
 torture it into impropriety. 
 
 This appears from letters brought from the files of the War Department, from 
 tiie folio vnng citizens of Utica : Hon. William J. Bacon, Hon. Ward Hunt, 
 
10 
 
 Ellis H. Roberts, esq., T. R. Walker, esq., Erastus Clark, esq., Charles II. 
 Hopkins, esq., and others. These men are neither "drunkards," " coNvards," 
 " thieves," nor " sneaks," nor are they " demoralized" or '' dishonest," as Mr. 
 Dana testifies General Fry said all the people in Oneida county were, and their 
 letters as to Captain Richardson, concurred in by me, demanding investigation, 
 tell too plain a tale to leave any escape from the conclusion that the pretence is 
 dishonest that Greneral Fry supposed concealment was sought in the case of 
 Captain Richardson. 
 
 But, again, in December, 1864, more than three months before I was re- 
 quested to prosecute Haddock, or to make any investigation for the government, 
 General Fry wrote to me (see the letter) that the charges against Captain 
 Richardson had been placed in the hands of William A. Dart, United States 
 district attorney, at Pottsdam, New York, upwards of two hundred miles from 
 my residence. He knew, therefore, that in April, 1865, Captain Richardson 
 was not and had not fur months been connected with the Provost Marshal's 
 bureau, or with the military service, and that his case had been specially handed 
 over to the civil tribunals, and placed in the hands of the regular prosecuting 
 officer there. Yet, in the face of all this, General Fry has the hardihood to 
 pretend that he meant in his letter merely to say that I ought to have prosecuted 
 Captain Richardson, and omitted to do it. This is a mere fetch; it is in the 
 face of all light and knowledge. General Fry knew that I advised that Captain 
 Richardson's acts should be investigated at once upon his removal; he knew 
 that I never, by word or act, put any obstacle in the way; he knew that I was 
 never instructed or authorized to take charge of the case, but that it was specially 
 placed in other hands, and therefore he knew that I could not have neglected the 
 matter, much less been "zealous in 2^rci'cnting pTosecutiony 
 
 The attempt to escape from the responsibility of this groundless cliarge, by 
 pretending that it refers to an omission to prosecute Captain Crandall, is, if 
 possible, more unpardonable and false than the same pretence in the case of 
 Captain Richardson. 
 
 The proof is conclusive that there was no room for criticism in this regard in 
 connexion with Captain Crandall. Immediately upon tiic suspension of this 
 officer I forwarded to General Fry all tlie information I had relating to the 
 matter, although under no obligation beyond any other citizen to do so. 
 
 A letter on the subject received from ]\[r. Secretary Dana was handed to Mr. 
 Hunt, with the request that he would answer it, which he did in full. Mi*. 
 Roberts and other citizens at the same time communicating fully to General 
 Fry by telegraph and letter, all the light they could give. 
 
 In transmitting the evidence within my knowledge, I expressed to General 
 Fry, the opinion that Captain Crandall v/as honest, and that the wrong was 
 with Haddock, and the proofs at the same time enclosed to him fully sustained 
 this belief. (See the letters, etc., enclosed to General Fry, March 13.) 
 
 On the 2d and 3d of April General Fry had before him all the charges which 
 he and Haddock had been able to invent or collect against Captain Crandall, 
 and they covered all the aspersions which have ever been put upon him. 
 
 In addition to this, he had caused an inspection to be made of Captain Cran- 
 dall's doings, by an officer selected by himself, Avho went under " verbal instruc- 
 tions" from General Fry, the spirit of which may be inferred from what has 
 appeared in the case, and the result of this " inspection" v/as before him, as Avere 
 also full reports from Capt.uu Crandall and his counsel as to the 820,000 of 
 bonds. 
 
 In the light of all this, (feneral Fry, on the 2d of April, (Sunday,) admitted 
 twice over to Mr. Dana and to me that lie knew of nothing upon the case as 
 stated which Captain Cramlall should have done or omitted which he had not 
 done or omitted ! (See Mr. Dana's evidence.) 
 
 Add to this that, in the presence of the committee at the AVar Department, 
 
11 
 
 General Fry admitted, in answer to a question from the Secretary of War, that 
 he never had charged Captain Crandallwith wrong, and never had supposed he 
 could be prosecuted, and we shall have some idea of the good faith of pretending 
 now that Captain Crandall should have been tried. Knowing as General Fry 
 did, and as he knew the Secretary did, that I believed entirely in Captain 
 Crandall's integrity, morally, as Luddington did "legally," he, of course, cannot 
 have supposed that I was to prosecute Crandall. No imbecility on his part 
 would admit of such a supposition, and hence there is no room for believing that 
 an omission to prosecute Crandall can have appeared to General Fry a violation 
 of the duty assigned by the " appointment," as he calls it, of April 3. 
 
 Again : General Fry knew that no proposal had ever been made by him or 
 any one else to have charges drawn against Captain Crandall, or a court-martial 
 ordered to try him, and without this, as he well knew, Captain Crandall could 
 not be tried. 
 
 He knew also that, on the 31st of May, he himself " discharged'' Captain 
 Crandall from the service; that he did not dismiss him, nor dishonorably dis- 
 charge him, nor hold him for trial, nor keep him relieved till further investigation, 
 but that he discharged him. (See order.) , 
 
 He knew also that in the Haddock trial the alleged wrongs at the U tica 
 office were fully investigated ; that Crandall was shown to be the foe through- 
 out of the operations of Aaron Richardson and other brokers Avith w^iom 
 Haddock was colluding, and that the idea of prosecuting Crandall would have 
 provoked only indignation and derision Avherever the facts were kuown. 
 
 He knew also that I had no part in selecting Captain Crandall as provost 
 marshal ; that I merely concurred in the sel-ection made by others who deemed 
 Captain Crandall eminently trustworthy; and that, in expressing confidence. in 
 his integrity, after Haddock marked him for destruction, I only united with the 
 most honored citizens of the district, and only uttered the voice of the whole 
 community. Nevertheless, and in the face of the positive evidence of Judge 
 Hunt and Mr. Eoberts that I declined to take part in selecting a provost mar- 
 shal, and that Captain Crandall was selected wholly by others, I only forwarding 
 the name and concurring in it, the counsel of General Fry here to-day indulge 
 the malevolence of their client by insisting that Captain Crandall was selected 
 by me " exclusively," as they put it. 
 
 He knew also that the facts and results fully vindicated the confidence 
 expressed in Crandall. 
 
 But let us pass on. 
 
 The attempt of General Fry to maintain the imputation of suppressing prose- 
 cutions while pretending to conduct them, by giving evidence in relation to the 
 arrest of Aaron Richardson, and his release without trial, is more infamous than 
 almost any other proceeding witnessed by the committee. 
 
 Patrick J. Kinney did not appear on either list of witnesses asked for by 
 General Fry ; his name was never handed to the committee, nor to any member 
 of it, nor was a summons applied for, until after he had been brought to Wash- 
 ington. He was brought to Washington surreptitiously. He was telegraphed 
 by General Fry, May 23, to come to his "office," and again i\[ay 24. He did 
 come, and sav/ General Fry in person, and informed him of Avhat he knew ; and 
 after this. General Fry introduced him as a witness, with the deliberate design 
 of creating an inference which lie knew to be as false as it was blasting. The 
 inideniable intention of General Fry was to create the impression or suspicion 
 that I had been guilty of a w^rong, and had acted in collusion with Richard- 
 sou, or for his benefit, and not in the interest of the government, when I gave 
 the officers about to carry him away under arrest to understand that he was 
 making disclosures to the government. 
 
 Consider such an act ! General Fry all the while knew that Aaron Richard- 
 sou was the accomplice through whom largely came out the evidence of Had- 
 
12 
 
 dock's guilt. This foct was notorious, and was proved by the record of Had- 
 dock's conviction. 
 
 The record also showed fully the arrest of Richardson, and my entire con- 
 nexion with it, and General Fry's letter shows that he examined this record at an 
 early day. 
 
 If he did not knov,^ that the Secretary of War and the Judge Advocate 
 Creneral had directed that Aaron Richardson should be used as a witness, or if 
 he ever honestly suspected there was anything wrong about Aaron Richardson's 
 not being tried, he most certainly would have asked the Secretary, or at least 
 have referred to the record at once. 
 
 In any aspect, this act of Greneral Fry is without any excuse. If the charge 
 in his letter had reference to Aaron Richardson, it was groundless and malicious ; 
 and whether his letter referred to this man, or whether he trumped up, after- 
 ward, the allegation that it did, the covert effort which has been witnessed to 
 create an impression known to be false, and of so injurious a character, evinces 
 a turpitude almost incredible. 
 
 Look at the next passage of this letter : 
 
 "As to the animus of Mr. Conkling's calumnious assault upon mo, it is true 
 (notwithstanding his assertion that he had no personal quarrels with me) that 
 the differences between him and myself arose altogether from my unwillingness 
 to gratify him in certain matters in which he had a strong personal interest. It 
 is true also that he Avas foiled in his efforts to obtain undue concessions from 
 my bureau, and to discredit me in the eyes of my superiors." 
 
 Is any part of this true? No proof is offered sustaining any part of it, but 
 its falsity is affirmatively established. 
 
 Mr. Dana testifies that there nfever was any matter in which I had any interest 
 whatever at the War Department or at any bureau in it. If there was any such 
 matter it was easy to point it out. 
 
 Even upon his own showing General Fry has here m.isrepresented the most 
 trifling incident in this statement, viz: that I was foiled in efiorts to discredit 
 him in the eyes of his superiors. The oidy instance he attempts to give of any 
 such effort, is the letter to IMr. Dana, containing charges against Haddock, and 
 saying that (xeneral Fry, if pure himself, is imposed upon. If this was an effort 
 to " discredit" him, I certainly was not "foiled" in it, inasmuch as the Secretary 
 of War put Haddock upon trial and selected me to prosecute him. If I had 
 been "foiled" in having Haddock brought to justice, I miglit have escaped, and 
 my district might have escaped, the vengeance of an unprincipled oflicial. 
 
 Let me go to the next assertion in this letter : 
 
 "There have been three main issues between Mr. Conkling and myself. 
 The first arose in consequence of the removal of Captain Richardson, (the first 
 provost marshal of Mr. Conkling's district,) upon a report of Judge Advocate 
 Turner tliat the proofs in his case disclosed a reckless persistence in fraudulent 
 practices. Mr. Conkling complained of my action both to the President and 
 War Department, but failed to procure any modification of my course." 
 
 This statement, as the correspondence which alone could sustain it shows, is 
 utterly groundless. 
 
 There was no "complaint" whatever. The letter to the President was sign(;d 
 by many citizens as well as myself — among them. Judge Bacon, Mr. Walker, 
 Mr. Clark and Mr. Roberts — and the representations it contained related to Major 
 Haddock and not to General Fry. 
 
 He next says : " The second issue was iis lo the restoring of Captain Craiulall, 
 (the second provost marshal of the district,) after I had secured his removal from 
 duty on the recommendation of Major Ludington, who thoroughly inspected the 
 district, and reported that though not legally guilty he had morally perpetrated 
 a most glaring and inexcusable fraud on the government he was sworn to serve, 
 and that he had quieted his conscience by casuistry and regulated his actions 
 
13 
 
 by the counsel of unscrupulous legal advisers. Mr. Conkling failed to get Cap- 
 tain Crandall restored, and the officer selected by me continued in charge of the 
 business until the office was closed." 
 
 This curiously illustrates General Fry's want of singleness of purpose even 
 in misstatement. 
 
 Captain Crandall was suspended and removed from duty March 13, two weeks 
 before Major Ludington recommended anything. He was never suspended fur- 
 ther, till May 31, when he was finally discharged. In ou,e of his printed letters 
 in the Globe General Fry states that Crandall was "suspended from office" on 
 the 9th of March because he did not turn over the bonds. 
 
 But the important fact here is, that Luddington's report was dated March 31, 
 and my sole act after that, as to Captain Crandall, was a simple recommenda- 
 tion or expression of opinion. And yet General Fry makes the statement I 
 have read. 
 
 What next? "The third issue was as to the governments emjiloying counsel 
 to dejend Cajitain Crandall after he had been relieved, and had carried with 
 him, in violation of the orders of the department, some twenty thousand dollars 
 local hounty deposited with him in behalf of recruits, and in regard to which he 
 got into litigation. 
 
 " In this Mr. Conkling failed. Counsel has not, to my knowledge, been author- 
 ized, nor have any lawyers been paid by the government in that suit." 
 
 In general, this passage is intended to convey the idea that I was seeking 
 some advantage to myself or to others from the government. It is groundless 
 and malicious taken together, and its particulars are all wilfully distorted in order 
 to deepen the injury to be done. 
 
 1. There never was any isstte whatever on the subject. I did nothing in re- 
 gard to it except to forward a letter to the War Department with the recom- 
 mendation that attention should be given to the matter. 
 
 2. I never proposed or suggested the employment of counsel, oi any other 
 action, for the purpose alleged, to wit, "defending Crandall." On the contrary, 
 as proved by Judge Hunt, Crandall liad no interest in the matter, one way or 
 the other. He never claimed, and could not claim, a farthing either way. 
 
 The whole question was, whether the government should assert its right to 
 $20,000 of bonds; and I had no part nor lot in the matter save to transmit, when 
 requested to do so, a statement of facts to the government. 
 
 3. It is equally flilse that Captain Crandall " carried with him " these bonds, 
 and, if possible, still more false that he had done so " in violation of the orders 
 of the department." He never carried the bonds anywhere, but, on the contrary, 
 he sacredly deposited them in a bank, and at once advised the " department " 
 that he had done so. 
 
 When Major Haddock sought to possess himself of them for uses of plunder, 
 as was believed. Captain Crandall consulted eminent counsel as to his duty, and 
 Avas advised to preserve the bonds until the facts could be represented to Gen- 
 eral Fry, and his direction obtained. Elaborate and respectful statements, in 
 duplicate, were at once forwarded to General Fry, through Major Haddock, and 
 also directly. The facts were given minutely, and his direction solicited. This 
 was repeated again and again. He was specially asked to direct Crandall to 
 turn over the bonds to the government. But all to no purpose. He maintained 
 a contemptuous silence, broken only by puerile and incoherent inquiries, show- 
 ing an incapacity, almost imbecile, or else a poorly disguised privity with plun- 
 derers. 
 
 4. These bonds were not "local bounty," nor were they " deposited in behalf 
 of recruits." On the contrary, as was repeatedly explained to General Fry at 
 the time, in a way so simple and clear as to come Avithin his comprehension, 
 they were pledged, not as bounty at all, not in behalf of recruits, but as secu- 
 rity against desertion, and by a recruit broher. 
 
14 
 
 An effort was made to induce the government to claim and bold the bonds 
 that tbe amount migbt go to tbe treasury. General Fry, by stupidity or dis- 
 honest neglect, trifled them away, utterly and. persistently withholding aid or 
 direction, until at length the county of Oneida volunteered to contest the case 
 with the broker. 
 
 For directing the attention of the War Department to the propriety of look- 
 ing after this sum of money, and. securing it to the public treasury, an act for 
 which there could have been no possible motive, selfish or personal, I am siib- 
 jected. by an unprincipled delinquent to a scurrilous imputation. 
 
 The assertions as to Captain Crandall and the bonds conclude with a fling 
 about my efforts to invoke the attention of the government having " failed." 
 It will be some one's duty, in the future stages of this investigation, when that 
 range of evidence is in order, to show ivliy those efforts "failed," and the same 
 evidence may show also, perhaps, why Ave have "failed" in all efforts to coax 
 or drive General Fry to the witness stand, where he could be cross-examined 
 and exposed. 
 
 Here is General Fry's next statement : 
 
 " In support of his denial of difierenccs with me Avhich influenced his action 
 Mr. Conkling states the fact that we had but one personal interview. That is 
 true, but it proves the reverse of what Mr. Conkling asserts, for it was of such 
 a nature as to render other interviews very objectionable. I was called to Mr. 
 Dana's oflice to have a verbal discussion Avith J\[r. Conkling on the questions at 
 issue, but I had by this time learned too much of this gentleman to transact 
 business Avith him in that way, and. I declined to do so. We had, directly and 
 indirectly, much correspondence, and generally of an unpleasant character, and 
 I presume under such circumstances it Avill be granted that men's personal re- 
 lations will be bad, although they may have had but one personal intervicAV." 
 
 I propose at this point to consider this statement as to its OAvn truth or false- 
 hood merely. It is one of several passages in the letter designed among other 
 things to disprove my denial in the House of having had personal "quarrels" 
 Avith General Fry, in Avhich " quarrels" 1 Avas " worsted." 
 
 When I come to the last of these passages I will consider them together, and 
 shoAv the groundlessness of the charge they are inserted to sustain. But, first, 
 let me show how essentially dcA'oid of truth they are separately, and now how 
 untrue this one is. 
 
 JEr. Dana, while fixing the brand of falsehood upon General Fry in many 
 other instances, does not omit thi.s. He testifies as to this interview very 
 minutely and positively ; and hoAv shall Ave escape the conclusion that General 
 Fry, in pretending to give an account of it, Avas guilty of the most degrading 
 misrepresentation if 
 
 Mr. Dana testifies that General Fry Avas not called in, as he says he was, 
 "to have a A-erbal discussion Avith Mr. Conkling," but to explain something in 
 the papers concerning Haddock, which was not Intelligible from the papers 
 themselves. 
 
 This is comparatiA'ely a small discrepancy at first vicAv; it might almost be 
 deemed accidental if it stood alone, but the rest of the sentence sIioavs it to be 
 a studied untruth, Avritteii in malice. 
 
 The letter says: "I had by this time learned too much of this gentleman to 
 transact business Avith him in that way, and I declined to do so." 
 
 Mr. Dana testifies that General Fry was informed, on entering the room, that 
 the Secretary of War had summoned Mr. Conkling to Washington in regard to 
 Major Haddock, and the Avitness then narrates what folloAved. 
 
 Did General Fry "decline to discuss" the matter? On the contrary, he 
 proceeded to indorse and eulogize Haddock, and to stigmatize as corrupt those 
 Avho accused him or questioned his character or conduct. He said those Avho 
 suspected Haddock Avere themselves 'dishonest. He declared that he had asked 
 
15 
 
 an investigation for Haddock in order to enable Haddock to vindicate himself, 
 a result wliicli doubtless would have been reached had the proceeding been, as 
 was intended, under the auspices of General Fry. 
 
 After admitting himself unable to say that Captain Crandall liad done wrong, 
 he proceeded to asperse the whole people of Oneida county as " demoralized 
 and dislioncstr and denounced them as '■'• drunliards, tlucces, and coicardsT 
 (See Mr. Dana's testimony.) 
 
 Mr. Dana says General Fry did most of the talking, nobody disputing with 
 him, quarrelling with him, or in any way impeding him in the exhibition he made. 
 Having fully expressed himself in this choice language of a soldier and an 
 official, he was allowed to retire. 
 
 This is the interview of which he has dared to publish the version already 
 referred to ; and in continuance of his assertion that he was " quarrelled " with, \vd 
 adds, that " much correspondence " has occurred between himself and me, 
 " generally of an unpleasant character." 
 
 Where is this correspondence? General Fry's habit of treasuring letters 
 from all quarters, Avhether private or not, and his freedom in making use of them, 
 renders it certain that had any such correspondence occurred, it would have 
 been produced, or at least sworn to by some one. 
 
 General Fry next parades in various forms the assertion that he did not 
 sustain Haddock " a day " after he had " proper evidence " of his being un- 
 worthy, and then adds that he required " better testimony than Hon. Roscoe 
 Conkling." He says, further, that he approved of Haddock being tried; that 
 he suspended him from duty, and wanted him punished, not for the crimes with 
 which Mr. Conkling charged him, but for those of which he " was really guilty," 
 and he asserts that Major Haddock pointed out to him " instances of imfairness 
 in liis trial." This part of the letter is within the present branch of the investi- 
 gation, because it assails the truth of statements made on the floor by me. The 
 attention of the committee is invited to these statements and insinuations 
 separately. 
 
 1. Is it true that General Fry did not sustain Haddock after he had evidence 
 of his uuworthiness ; or is it true that he upheld him after knowledge Avas 
 brought home to him again and again of the most crying abuses, and itutil at 
 last they became so flagrant that the Secretary of War suddenly took the matter 
 in hand and arrested Haddock in mid career % 
 
 It will be remembered that Luddington's report was dated March 31, 1865, 
 and General Fry professes to have presented it to the Secretary of War April 1. 
 Two days at least before this Mr. Stanton, as he himself testifies, had telegraphed 
 me to come to Washington for the purpose of having Haddock tried. Colonel 
 Tracy testifies that he arrested Haddock on the order of the Secretary of War, 
 which reached him April 4, and that Haddock was then in full blast in his 
 office at Elmira. 
 
 It cannot be denied that General Fry sustained Haddock most zealously up 
 to April 1, which was some days after Mr. Stanton had determined to put him 
 on trial, and yet the evidence shows conclusively that during a whole month 
 General Fry had before him such information of the corrupt practices of his 
 favorite as no honest man could ignore. Indeed, the proof already admitted as 
 falling within even the narrow limits of the present branch of the investigation 
 points to instances of guilt in Haddock, so far abetted by General Fry as to 
 more than suggest a criminal collusion between thelii. 
 
 On the 28tli of February, 1865, Peter A. La France transmitted to General 
 Fry a lengthy written statement setting forth with much particularity various 
 guilty practices in Major Haddock, of which he offered proof. 
 
 It is difficult to read this catalogue of accusations and see how a man of 
 such capacity for believing as General Fry lays claim to, can have disrnii^sed it 
 
16 
 
 uucared for. It is still more difficult to understand how he could have referred 
 it to Haddock himself, as he informed the committee he " presumes he did." 
 
 Haddock was afterwards convicted of the offences charged by La France, but 
 General Fry did not deem the matter worth his while. " One swallow proves not 
 spring," and one contradiction of an assertion of General Fry ought not, perhaps, 
 to impeach it; let us see if his assertion last referred to is further contradicted. 
 
 Edward Maloy, a detective of the War Department, was sent in February to 
 Utica to make a secret inspection. He did so, and reported that nothing was 
 wrong with the officers there. He was then sent by Baker to Elmira. There 
 he made a thorough inspection, and detected Haddock in the same kind of offi- 
 cial corruption which La France alleged. This was February 25. He found 
 two bounty brokers, Daltou and "VVeibel, in collusion with Haddock, and made 
 his report at once to Baker, accusing all three. Baker came to Washington, 
 and laid the matter before Genei'al Fry. Forthwith Dalton and Weibel were 
 arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to the penitentiary. 
 
 Maloy's report, to borrow General Fry's language, was "projjcr evidence" 
 for the incarceration of two of three confederates in crime ; but Lladdock being 
 the third, justice was satisfied without molesting him; it was enough to exter- 
 minate the vermin, without expecting to disgrace a favorite of a sagacious 
 superior, so Haddock rolled on. 
 
 If any part of IMaloy's statement is mitrue. Colonel Baker knows it. General 
 Fry knows it ; where are they ? 
 
 Let us go a little further : 
 
 March 11 and 12, Judge Hunt, Mr. Koberts, Yn: Hopkins, Mr. Walker, and 
 others, telegraphed and wrote to General Fry, directly and positively charging 
 Haddock with the most flagrant corruption. 
 
 Was this "proper evidence," at least to put General Fry upon inquiry? 
 Was it proper evidence for him to communicate to the Secretary of War or to 
 some one ? 
 
 Is it pretended that any use was made of it ? 
 
 March 12 or 13, Captain Crandall and Commissioner Munroe having fur- 
 nished me Avith many facts from which the guilt of Haddock was palpable, and 
 these facts having been put iipon paper, together with verbatim copies of letters 
 and despatches implicating lladdock, the whole was put in print for General 
 Fry's convenience, and transmitted to him. The committee is asked to examine 
 these printed statements, and see whether for disregarding them at the time, 
 and for asserting now that they afforded no ''proper evidence" for action. Gen- 
 eral Fry can be acquitted of corruption except by being convicted of incapacity 
 beyond belief. 
 
 No act or omission in this connexion stajnps General Fry with delinquency 
 more than the report of Luddington, and the orders which led to it. 
 
 Luddington was an officer selected by General Fry. What for? What does 
 he say, in his application to the Secretary of War, he wants Luddington placed 
 at his disposal for? To make inspection at New York, Elmira, and Utica. He 
 obtained, upon this application, an order directing Luddington to report to him 
 (General Fry) for "verbal instructions." Now, look at the report and sec what 
 instructions General Fry gave him. With all the proofs of Haddock's venality 
 heaped up before him, did he direct Luddington to inspect at Elmira? With all 
 the nauseating details of the corrupt burlesque at New York and Hoboken, of 
 which I will speak presently, before him, did he direct Luddington to inspect 
 at New York? Oh, no. " The board of enrolment of the 21st district of New 
 York" — that was the sole object to which General Fry instructed Luddington 
 to direct his inspection. Why? The board was already suspended, and the 
 administration there in the hands of those selected by General Fry and Haddock 
 themselves. Everything vras safe. What was the need of an inspection there 
 post haste? 
 
17 
 
 What sort of instructions does the committee suppose General Fry gave this 
 ofBcer thus despatched ? What is the value and what the mockery of such an 
 ex parte investij^atiou thus inspired by General Fry 1 But Luddington went, 
 and returned -srith a long report, saying that he had been instructed to inspect 
 the 21st district, and then detailing all that he heard against that district, and 
 at the end it just barely crops out that ''incident to the inspection of the 21st 
 district" — mark the expression, "incident" to this — "ftxcts were educed which 
 led me to the conviction that Major John A. Haddock is unfit for the position 
 be holds." 
 
 This innocent inspector having let the cat out of the bag, by showing in his 
 report that he was to do nothing, and did nothing, but to inspect the Utica 
 district, with still more guileless simplicity discloses that, as he understood what 
 was expected of him, the enormities of Haddock, who ruled over fourteen con- 
 gressional districts, were "incidental," and of no account; but when he stumbled 
 over some of them two hundred miles from Elmira, where Haddock's headquar- 
 ters were, he just makes a charcoal dot by the wayside. 
 
 In this place let it be remembered that though, on the 3d of April, General 
 Fry was expressly directed by the Secretary of War to deliver to me all the papers 
 bearing upon Haddock's case, I was compelled to prepare the charges and speci- 
 fications without them, and on the 24th of April was still writing for them. 
 The charges were filed April 14. (See letter.) 
 
 Does any member of this committee doubt, if we pause at this point, that 
 Haddock was improperly screened by General Fry? He casts an imputation 
 upon me by denying that he had evidence against Haddock, save that which 
 came from me, and by alleging that evidence from me was unworthy of confi- 
 dence; but the proof fixes upon him malicious falsehood, if it does not establish 
 collusion with Haddock beside. 
 
 Let us pass to the second portion of this same passage in which General Fry 
 attests his willingness to have Haddock tried, and his action to that end. 
 
 It is not true that he suspended Haddock from duty, as we have seen. 
 
 It is not true that he approved of Haddock's being tried. 
 
 Mr. Dana shows that he declared, after doing what he calls suspending him 
 from duty, that he had done so in order that such an investigation might be had 
 as would vindicate Haddock. 
 
 Mr. Dana shows, also, how excited and agitated he was at learning that I 
 was to try Haddock. 
 
 Mr. Dana says he acted like a man greatly disturbed " internally," and "con- 
 strained." What about ? Why, if there was nothing betv,^eeu himself and 
 Haddock, should he be confounded at the tidings that a lawyer had been sent 
 for to prosecute Haddock, whether guilty or innocent ? 
 
 "What's he to Hecuba, or Hecuba to him ? "' 
 
 What is meant by wanting Haddock punished for the crimes of which he was 
 really guilty, " not for those with which Mr. Conkling charged him V 
 
 The court before which he Avas tried convicted him of every charge made 
 against him. He was convicted also of every aggravated specification, either 
 literally or substantially, and these charges and specifications contain every ac- 
 cusation I ever made against him. 
 
 General Fry knows this, and he also knows that the Judge Advocate General, 
 in reviewing the case finally, says that there was a superabundance of evidence 
 to uphold the findings ; that the turpitude of the accused was almost without 
 example, and that the sentence was surprisingly light. (See the review by 
 Judge Holt.) 
 
 This false fling in Haddock's behalf is only the outgrowth of the affinity be- 
 tween them. 
 
 Of the same character is the aspersion cast upon the court and upon the Sec- 
 2 
 
18 
 
 retary of War, and the President, who approved and executed the sentence, by 
 the assertion that there were "instances of unfairness " in the tviah 
 
 I v.-ish now to gather up and ask attention to all parts of this letter which 
 challenge my veracity. A man who stands convicted over and over again, by 
 the oaths of his official superiors and of others, as well as by records, of the 
 most despicable and malicious falsifying, and who has meanly impugned the 
 characters of many persons, may not have expected much stress to bo laid upon 
 a mere charge of untruthfulness. But I ask the committee to scrutinize this 
 issue thoroughly. 
 
 The point is upon my having had "quarrels" Avith General Fry, in which 
 "quarrels" I was "worsted." Because I denied that assertion General Fry 
 has charged me with falsehood. 
 
 The letter opens by affirming the truth of the assertion whicli I had denied, 
 and then follow several statements introduced to show its truth. Each one of 
 these statements has been proved conclusively to be false. 
 
 But, without confining the inquiry to the matter referred to by General Fry, 
 where can a shadow of defence be found for this reiterated statement 1 
 
 1. If the attempt of General Fry to screen Haddock, and my effort to im- 
 cover him, could be deemed a " quariel," certainly I was not worsted in it. But 
 of course it was in no sense a quarrel, either with Haddock or General Fry, 
 any more than any prosecuting counsel is to be deemed to quarrel with the felon 
 whom he tries, or Avith his accomplices or sympathizers. 
 
 I ask the committee to consider the repeated instances in this letter in which 
 General Fry directly and indirectly imjnites to me a want of veracity because 
 I repelled the assertion that I had had " quarrels " with him, in which I was 
 " worsted ;" and a report is earnestly asked for upon the question whether the 
 denial I made subjected my veracity to any just aspersion. 
 
 I have now gone through this letter as far as it reflects upon me — and that is 
 as ftir as yoii have allowed me to go — and I have shown it to be a tissue of base 
 and groundless calumnies. Aspersing, as it does, several persons besides my- 
 self, it was written and published in bad faith, and for the purpose of blackening 
 public and private character. The act was in defiance of the privileges of the 
 House of Kepi'esentatives, in violation of the rules and articles of war, and of 
 the official oath of the writer, and a breach of the regulations of the department 
 in which General Fry is a subordinate. To this is to be added the failure be- 
 fore the committee to give any excuse, the refusal to testify himself, and the 
 effort to manufacture a defence by sinister and disingenuous offers of testimony, 
 and statements of what witnesses were expected to prove. Here, in one aspect, 
 I might stop, because the duty of the committee and of the House is already ren- 
 dered clear. The tm-pitude involved, the flagrant character of the offences, and the 
 infraction they constitute of the military law to which General Fry is amenable, 
 first as a soldier, second as an officer, and again as anexecutiveofficer of the gov- 
 ernment, would before any tribunal point to but one result. Malicious falsehood, 
 denominated in the military code " lying," alone, as the committee is aware, is one 
 of the most heinous crimes an officer can commit. Mere cowardice is punished 
 with the last severity and ignominy; but what cowardice could be more detest- 
 able than that which, having sought by false accusations to destroy character, 
 skulks away both from reparation and responsibility, and, having no other 
 pi'oof to substantiate its assertions, shrinks from the ordeal of a personal exami- 
 nation, and, even upon an investigation like this, resorts to the attempt to fabri- 
 cate and sustain fresh imputations known to be false 1 If the evidence has this 
 extent, it would seem to be painfully abundant. 
 
 But the worst yet remains to be told. General Fry stands convicted, beyond 
 all this, of official delinquency, with which the committee must deal. 
 
 In the branch of the investigation which is about to close, the committee has 
 observed a rule of evidence Avhich has, for the time being, shielded General 
 
19 
 
 Fry from all proof of general misconduct, such as will come witliiii the range of 
 the branch of the investigation reserved for the future. No evidence has been 
 admissible against General Fry thus far, unless it bore distinctly upon one of two 
 points. It must show the falsity of some statement in the letter relating to me, 
 or else it must show to the motive with which the letter was written and pub- 
 lished. 
 
 Restricted to this narrow range, the evidence reveals a state of facts and fixes 
 them past controversy, in the face of which no man, by the lavv^s of this country, 
 can remain the head of a bureau or an officer of the army. 
 
 General Fry has had the fullest opportunity to answer the proof referred to 
 in any and every way. Every mode known to me has been resorted to to in- 
 duce him to make denial by his own oath, but in vain. He steadily, by the 
 advice of counsel, one of them a military officer, as well as a lawyer, has declined 
 to present himself as a witness. He has even omitted, after deliberation, to call 
 other witnesses who could certainly contradict the testimony to which 1 refer, 
 if, indeed, it had been false. Instead of this, he has offered letters and despatches, 
 written by himself, and papers of other kinds, which, it will be found, are not 
 to the purpose. 
 
 If after this full opportunity, in his own defence, General Fry is found to be 
 guilty of the gravest official and personal crimes, it is believed that the com- 
 mittee, imder its responsibilities, must so pronounce, and must recommend such 
 action also as is called for by the facts. I will endeavor to put before you, as 
 briefly as I may, the results of the evidence now referred to. 
 
 In the first place let me bring together the facts which must be treated as 
 incontestable. 
 
 In February, 1865, a scheme was set on foot, General Fry being privy to it, 
 to " capture bounty jumpers and deserters " at Hoboken, Nev^ Jersey, a locality 
 historic for tragic occurrences and startling effects. The plan in brief was this : 
 A recruiting office was to be opened, and " bounty jumpers " Avere to be baited 
 and enticed until it should become a crowded resort, and then, when the time 
 was ripe, great numbers were to be " bagged," in the phrase which seems to 
 have been employed. 
 
 The modus operandi was to be as follows : Day by day a limited number of 
 "jumpers" were to be enlisted, and to be paid the amount of local bounty being 
 paid at the time in New Jersey to volunteers, and then they were to be immediately 
 allowed and induced to desert, carrying their bounty with them. These "jump- 
 ers " were expected to spread the news of the Hoboken " walk away " to the 
 other "jumpers" around about, and as the fame of it went abroad, more and 
 more "jumpers " were looked for to come, and at the appointed day all who 
 came were to be taken in and held under arrest. The operation began on or 
 about the 4th of March, and from four to seven "jumpers " a day were enlisted, 
 paid six hundred dollars each or thereabout, and taken to the back door, and 
 suffered to depart. On the 10th of March, 183 "jumpers" were enlisted, and 
 in place of being passed out the back door, Avere passed up a stairs into a room, 
 Avhere they were held. They Avere transferred thence to Fort Lafayette, and there 
 confined a mouth or so, and then discharged without trial. 
 
 This is the naked statement of the first cliapter of this history, putting it in 
 the light most f;xvorable to General Fry, and, before going to the Averse stages 
 of it, I Avish to direct attention to one or two considerations. The plot was very 
 unique. Men Avere enlisted as soldiers, and paid large bounties on purpose to 
 have them desert, which they were allowed and induced to do confessedly Avith 
 the connivance of General Fry. Of course it was not expected to punish these 
 men for thus deserting, because the government Avas itself made the instigator. 
 But it is explained to us that the purpose was through those Avho thus deserted 
 by collusion to allure others to come that they might be arrested. Arrested for 
 what? For some past desertion or other crime? How could this be? If there 
 
20 
 
 were men who could be identified, and held, and convicted for any oftence pre- 
 viously committed, how could it be necessary, how could it be even an honest 
 farce, to go through the ceremony of enlisting them as soldiers, merely as a 
 mode of arrest, merely as a mode of taking their persons into custody ? 
 
 It cannot be said, either, that, having been mustered into the military service, 
 any of them were to be held for the act of being thus mustered in, without de- 
 serting afterwards. 
 
 What, then, is the apology for the I*rovost Marshal General of the United 
 States being a party to such a transaction, even if this were the whole of it ? 
 But let us see what further is undisputed. 
 
 These " jumpers," thus to be enlisted without any design that they should 
 ever enter the military service, but with a positive design that they should not, 
 icere to he credited upon quotas and returned and counted as so many recruits 
 furnislied, to the arm.ij. 
 
 This was by a private order issued by General Fry himself, and produced to 
 the committee. 
 
 It will be observed that this order was not issued as orders usually are, 
 through a subordinate, but by General Fnj in 2^erson, aud marked " sju'cia? and 
 confidential y (See the order.) 
 
 It is not denied — it cannot be denied — that this order had reference to these 
 fraudulent and fictitious enlistments, and that it was issued expressly to cover 
 them, and for no other purpose. 
 
 If there is anything to palliate this ; if General Fry had any understanding of 
 facts, or considerations which excused it ; if he was a dupe in the mattei, he 
 knows it, and he could state it. Truth is never left to stand alone. If there 
 was an honest or an innocent reason for this, however mistaken it may have 
 been, or however hard it may be to imagine it. General Fry would have been 
 safe in stating it; nay, would he not have been impelled to state it ? 
 
 But let us go a little further. Not only were these men to be '•' credited " a8 
 ^(Af}aiixf>, hut a firm of hountxj brokers were, hy an understanding witli General 
 Fry, to he allowed to sell tJiese " credits,'' to any locality ivhich icould pay the 
 highest 'price for them. 
 
 Perhaps I am not literally correct in speaking of this as an nncontested fact. 
 Let us sec Avhether it is controverted or even denied. 
 
 It is admitted that local bounties were to be advanced to the men at the time 
 of enlistment ; at all events, this was to be so up to the last day. This was, 
 of course, an indispensable part of the scheme. It Ls admitted, also, that Allen, 
 Hughes & Riley were to furnish these bounties, as they did do in fact. It 
 is not even suggested that these brokers were put in funds to pay the bounties, 
 but it is conceded that they provided the money themselves. It follows that 
 the only way they could reimburse themselves for these advances, indeed 
 the only way they could keep themselves in funds to pay the bounties day by 
 day, amounting as they did to several thousand dollars daily, Avas to dispose of 
 the credits and realize upon them at once. It cannot be denied that the recruit- 
 ing officer who acted under the orders of General Fry, the provost marshal of 
 the district to which the credits were sold, the authorities of that district, the 
 brokers themselves, and all concerned in the transaction, v/hether privy to 
 it, or imposed upon by it, acted upon the idea that the credits were to be sold 
 as they were in fact sold, and there is nothing to show that there Avas any dif- 
 ferent design on the part of General Fry, but, on the contrary, everything shows 
 that he intended and arranged that the sale should take place. 
 
 It must not be forgotten either, that Allen SAvears that his firm paid the en- 
 tire expenses of all kinds of the Hoboken exploit, and this fact is nowhere de- 
 nied or disproved. 
 
 Having thus spoken of what it was intended to do, let us come to what was 
 done. 
 
21 
 
 Having sold credits for all of these enlistments made previous to March 10, 
 having received the money, and liaving in several ways General Fry's indorse- 
 ment of the act, Allen & Co. and Lieutenant Colonel Ilges (the officer detailed 
 by General Fry to do the business pursuant to an arrangement between General 
 Fry and Allen) proceeded on the 10th of March, as has been stated, to muster 
 in one hundred and eighty-three "bounty jumpers." The same proceedings in 
 all respects were taken as to these that had been taken as to their predecessors, 
 except that they were not induced or allowed to desert, and no bouiity was paid 
 to them or to most of them. But they were regularly examined, enlisted, and 
 mustered in, their enlistment papers and muster-rolls made out and certified and 
 signed by Colonel Ilges, who, it is fair to say, seems to have acted imder jn-otest 
 at every step. All this being done, tliest credits -were sold to Jersey City hy 
 Allen Sf Co, with the knowledge of Colonel Ilges, and General Fry teas at once 
 informed of it. The jxipers were handed over to the mayor of Jersey City, and 
 he paid Allen &f Co. for the credits the sum of one hundred, and twenty-five 
 or one hundred and tiventy-six thousand dollars. 
 
 At the time the money was paid Colonel Ilges referred to a general order 
 which he said he should enforce in the case before him, and which required the 
 mustering officer to detain from the broker $300 per man for every man put in 
 by hi.''-. This amounted to $54,000, which Rieley, the member of the firm of 
 Allen & Co., who seems to have acted as cashier, thereupon paid to Colonel Ilges 
 under the reqiiirement already stated. 
 
 It may be useful to bear in mind what sort of a fund this S54,000 was, and 
 where, in fair dealing in cases of ordinary enlistments, it would have belonged. 
 Had the enlistments been bona fide, and had the men gone to the field, the $300 
 per man would have belonged to the recruits ; had they deserted, the 8300 per 
 man would at once have become deserters' money, and been turned over as such 
 to the United States. 
 
 These men did not go into service, but were treated as deserters, though pres- 
 ently discharged, and it would seem that if, imposed upon by the appearances held 
 out by those who for this purpose represented the government, Jersey City was 
 led to pay its money in good faith for the credits, and the money, or any part 
 of it, afterwards came under the control, of the government, the natural and just 
 course was this : the credits should have been allowed, on the ground that they 
 had been honestly paid for under circumstances for which they were responsible, 
 whose acts bound the government as to innocent third persons, and the money 
 should have gone into the treasury. It is submitted that, iinless some agreement 
 made by General Fry, or some act of liis, changed the original rights of the 
 parties, this was the situation of the matter at the time of which I am about to 
 speak. 
 
 Mr. Stanton took the same view, in part at least, as appears from his order 
 made afterwards, which shows that he felt constrained, even by what came to 
 his knowledge, to hold that Jersey City had so far acted upon the faith of acts 
 done in the name of the government, that the credits given could not justly be 
 revoked. 
 
 Let us see now what became of this $54,000 — what General Fry did in re- 
 gard to it, and hoAv his conduct reflects upon this case. 
 
 This brings us to the testimony of Theodore Allen, and the testimony which 
 corroborates Theodore Allen, and the committee is asked to scrutinize it in every 
 Avay, and especially to note the respects in which Allen, by his testimony, ex- 
 poses himself to contradiction if he is false. 
 
 The narrative of this witness is briefly as follows : 
 
 He was, in January and February, 1865, with his partners, engaged, in New 
 York, in the recruit and bounty brokerage business. He was applied to by 
 Colonel L. C. Baker, who came as the confidential representative of General 
 Fry, to aid him in breaking up frauds in recruiting. Much negotiation ensued 
 
22 
 
 and Colonel Baker entered into an arrang^cment M'itli him, wliicli General Fry 
 was, by Baker, pledged to carry out. The witness was fully cross-examined 
 by the counsel for General Fry and in tlie presence of General Fry, as to the 
 terms of this understanding, so as to lay the foundation for a contradiction, and 
 the form of the examination clearly implied that such was its purpose. The 
 witness stated that Colonel Baker agreed that "jumpers" should be credited 
 and the credits sold for the highest price, and went minutely into the conditions 
 which Colonel Baker made in advance of Allen's seeing General Fry person- 
 ally. It was vital to contradict him in these particulars if possible, because, 
 as he testified that he related them to General Fry in their first interview, it 
 would have destroyed the witness utterly to impeach the foundation of his 
 story. The form of asking for a summons from Colonel L, C. Baker was gone 
 through with, and although it appeared in the testimony that Colonel Baker 
 Avas in the city of Washington at the time, it is impossible not to notice, in 
 passing, that we liavc not seen him upon the stand. 
 
 But continuing the narrative, Allen testifies that, on a day which he fixes, 
 Colonel Baker came to him saying that General Fry wanted to see him in 
 Wa.shington. Here is a fact which requires us to pause a moment. I say fact, 
 because if it were not a fact. Colonel Baker would certainly have been called to 
 disproA-e it. Why did General Fry want to see Allen ? 13akei was constantly 
 passing to and fro between Washington and Xew York, and he and General 
 Fry kept the wires vibrating with interchanges of thought. General Fry knew 
 from Baker what had occurred, and -wliat had been agreed upon with Allen. If 
 Baker had not told him. Baker could have told him fully as to all that. But he 
 wanted to see Allen in person, and Allen went to Washington. 
 
 He says General Fry received him very cordially, and requested two persons 
 whom he fovuul in the room to leave tlicni in privacy. Is this statement true ? 
 It is not denied that Allen came to Washington to see General Fry, that he did 
 see him, and at his office in the War Department. Did he see him alone? If 
 not, Avhere is the person who was present ? No suggestion was made to the 
 Avitness on his cross-examination that any one was present, but a young man is 
 brought from Philadelphia to swear that he was the clerk of General Fry, and 
 that he was not present Avhen Allen was, and was not one of those asked to leave 
 the room. De Corsa is this gentleman's name, and his identification with Gen- 
 eral Fry is suggestive of the "Corsican Brothers." Does he prove anything, 
 hoAvevcr, which in the remotest ■\\-ay militates with what Allen says ? 
 
 Allen states that a full talk was had between himself and General Fry at the 
 time in question, in Avhich talk it was agreed that sham enlistments should be 
 made, that credits for these enlistments .-^liould be given, and that these credits 
 should be sold for whatever they would bring, and the profits of the operation 
 should go — not into the treasury, certainly. 
 
 A satisfactory understanding having been reached, the jiarties separated after 
 arranging some details. Allen requested, he says, that Colonel llges should be 
 selected as mustering officer, as he had mustered for his (Allen's) firm before, 
 and that an order should be made as to the credits which among other things 
 should remove an impediment likely otherwise to be found in the fiict that Colonel 
 llges was a regular army officer, and not, therefore, authorized to act in connex- 
 ion v/ith the provost marshal, or the provost marshal in connexion with him, 
 in allowing credits. This, he says, General Fry agreed to do, and Ave knoAv it 
 was done. (See ordei.) Allen returned to Ncav York, and at once set about 
 his labors. 
 
 He says that after his doings at Hoboken had culminated, as I have previously 
 related, and about the IGth or 17th of March, General Fry telegraphed to Ncav 
 York that he Avauted to see him (Allen) again. Here is another ver^' exposed 
 point. Allen says Colonel Baker saAv the despatch, and. besides, files and rec- 
 
23 
 
 ords are kept; and tlie date being fixed by Alleu, if such a despatch was not 
 sent, the operator at cither end of the Ike could contradict him. 
 
 lie came at ouce to Washington, and tlie train being delayed he reached the 
 War Department, as he says, after business hours. Being denied entrance to 
 the War Department and to General Fry, he told the doorkeeper that if Gen- 
 eral Fry knew he was there he would see hin\, and sent in his card. As he 
 predicted, this gained him an audience instantly. He says General Fry saw 
 him in his room alone, having signified his wish to be private. But Mr. De 
 Corsa doesn't remember being there when this happened. He says he didn't see 
 Allen then at all. Is it denied that Allen was there, and there at that time, and 
 had a private interview with General Fry, and on the subject which Allen says 
 was the subject between them? Is any part of this denied? If it is not, 
 why go through the parade of calling Mr. De Corsa froi^n Philadelphia ? If 
 it is denied, the denial is shown to be false, as we shall presently see by evi- 
 dence, documentary and otherwise, which puts it beyond all question. 
 
 The committee is asked to read the whole of this interview as detailed by 
 the witness, between the almost incessant interruptions and contests over the 
 form and technicalities of the questions put to him, by which a day Avas con- 
 sumed. Its attentive, searching reading will reveal many tests of its truth in 
 connexion with other evidence. 
 
 Allen says he reminded General Fry that he had come in answer to his 
 despatch. General Fry said yes, and at once referred to the Hoboken matter. 
 General Fry presently inquired " ichat Jicul become of tlic money V Alleu said 
 he had over $60,000 of it. General Fry then inquired, loliat he was going to 
 do tcitlb it I Allen said he was going to keep it, according to their previous 
 agreement. General Fry then inquired if Baker had not ashed for some of it ? 
 
 Allen, soon after this, explained that there was $54,000 more in Colonel 
 Ilges's hands, Avhich his firm had been compelled to pay in, as heretofore ex- 
 plained, and that he v/anted an order for it from him (General Fry,) as he 
 could not get it without. 
 
 Suggestive as the interview had been w^ to this point, when we consider the 
 circumstances and the -parties to it, it here became §till more significant. Gen- 
 eral Fry, the witness says, approached him, putting his hands on his shoulders, 
 and Avith a spirit and manner which may be better inferred from what followed 
 than described, he proceeded to ply him vrith the very lechery of persuasion. 
 He informed the witness that what he wished most to talk with him about, 
 and what he sent for him for, was a matter at Utica, and this he proceeded to 
 explain. He fold him that he v/anted evidence which Avould convict Captain 
 Crandall of fraud, and which would fasten some imputation upon me (Mr. 
 Conkling;) this was the point he labored. Alleu told him that from his in- 
 formation he believed that the facts at TJtica would point to Haddock as the 
 guilty party, and not to Crandall. To this General Fry at once replied that 
 he did not want evidence against Haddock, but against Crandall, and that he 
 wanted something " at all hazards'' which would implicate me (Mr. Conkling;) 
 that I had set myself up as a champion of Crandall, &:c., &;c., and that he 
 wanted to find something against me. He told the witness that he knew he 
 could do it, and he did not know any other man who could ; that he Avould 
 not trust any of Baker's men, &;c., &c., and that he must go to Ulica and do 
 what he Avanted ; and if he would he (General Fry) Avould make an order 
 while he was gone directing the $54,000 to be paid over to him. After some 
 further coxiversation, Allen said he would see what he could do. He then told 
 General Fry that the order had better be to pay the money back to the party 
 Avho paid it, as Riley was the cashier of the concern and had paid it to Ilges, 
 and was the one to receive it. 
 
24 
 
 The interview closed with further and repeated injunctions by General Fry 
 to obtain the desired evidence, and assurances that the order should be made. 
 Allen returned to New York, and, as he says, disclosed to four persons, who 
 are named, what had transpired between himself and General Fry. I could 
 not call these persons to testify to what Allen told thera ; the rules of evi- 
 dence would not allow it ; but Gtneral Fry could have called them, and would 
 have done so if they could have contradicted Allen. 
 
 The committee, however, permitted some things to be proved by Allen and 
 others as to what followed this interview of March IS. 
 
 Allen and the four persons to Avhom he revealed the interview with General 
 Fry held frequent consultations as to what course to pursue, and as the result 
 of these consultations, the following plan was hit upon : 
 
 Allen did not go to Utica, but waited quietly for five days, visiting Albany 
 meanv/hile, and at the end of this time, and on the 24th of March, a sufficient 
 space having elapsed to have enabled him to go to Utica, a despatch was writ- 
 ten to General Frj' by one of the four persons in the secret, signed by Allen, 
 and sent to General Fry. Plere is the original despatch : 
 
 "AsTOR HoLSH, New York, March 24, 1865. 
 "Brigadier General Yr\, 
 
 "Provost Marshal General, Washingfo//, D. C. 
 "7 have just returned from Utica, and Colonel llges refuses to deliver the 
 money received from me because your order is dated, the lltJt instead of 10th 
 March. Please ansirer tJtrough Colonel Baker. 
 
 "THEO. ALLEN." 
 
 We shall see in a moment what order these dates referred to ; but lirst let us 
 follow the sequence of events. 
 
 This despatch did all that its authors contrived it to do, and in a few hours 
 the desired answer came, "through Colonel Laker," as requested. Hero it is : 
 
 "War Din'AKT.MKN'r, Liiovosi' jMarshal General's Bureau, 
 
 " Washington, D. C, March 24, 18C5. 
 " I have been informed by Theodore Allen, of New York, that Colonel llges 
 declines to turn over the money received IVom the bounty jumpers, as directed 
 by me, on the 11th instant. / ivish you to see Colonel llges and have him turn 
 over this mono/ as directed. 
 
 "JAMES- B. FRY, 
 " Provost Marshal General. 
 "Colonel L. C. Baker, 
 
 "No. 12 Vcsey Street, New York.'' 
 
 Baker took this despatch to Colonel llges, and he went,with Allen and his 
 partners to the Broadway National Bank and there made a check, payable to 
 Allen's firm, for $o4,000, and the money was paid over on the spot. (See check 
 copied in report of Colonel llges.) 
 
 Speaking as this transaction is, in its fixed and unmistakable features, and 
 positively as it is sworn to, it is just to General Fry that the committee should 
 require Allen to be fortified. Partly for this reason and partly to put upon Gen- 
 eral Fry a necessity to submit himself to examination, which it seemed to me 
 he could not disregard, I offered in evidence, in connexion with the testimony 
 of All(Mi, the testimony of Edward IMaloy, who corroborated every statement 
 which the rules of law and the objections made by the counsel for General Fry 
 would permit me to inquire into. I offered also certain despatches from General 
 Fry, which may be referred to here as wcdl as anyAvhere. The first is as fol 
 lows : 
 
or; 
 
 "Provost Marshal General's Bureau, 
 
 " WasJiington, D. C, March IS, 1866. 
 '• Colonel L. 0. Baker, Xo. 12 Vescy Street, Neiv York. 
 
 '^ Alien is here, and tells me lie can provide information ahout the Utica dis- 
 trict. I have told him to do so. He starts hack to Neiv York to-night, and will 
 see you. Produce all the facts in the case. 
 
 "JAMES B. FRY, 
 " Provost Marshal General.'" 
 
 It will be seeu that this despatch proves beyond cavil that Allen was in 
 Washington at the time he says he was; that he had a conference with General 
 Fry on the subject of "2>i'oviding" information about the Utica district. 
 
 The committee is asked in the light of this despatch, and in the absence of 
 all explanation, and with General Fry declining to trust himself upon the wit- 
 ness stand, what General Fry summoned Allen to Washington for, and how he 
 came to be in confidential intercourse with him about "jnovidijig" information 
 in regard to Utica 1 
 
 How came Allen to "tell" him he could "provide" such evidence? A few 
 other questions as to this mysterious interview may test Allen's truthfulness. 
 
 What honest use had General Fry for Allen in such a connexion ? He had 
 Haddock and his corps of detectives and messengers ; and he knew that Had- 
 dock's salvation depended iipon shifting from his own shoulders to Captain 
 Craudall's, the guilt which must rest somewhere for what had been done and 
 attempted at Utica. It was certain, therefore, that Haddock would leave no 
 evidence unfound. General Fry had Colonel Baker and his emissaries also at 
 his beck and nod. He had them actually at that very time on the scent, as 
 the evidence shows, to hunt up something at Utica. Oarlile and Gall had been 
 to Utica already, as he knew ; so had Maloy ; all being picked detecti/es. 
 
 Besides all this. General Fry had at this time selected an officer. Major Lud- 
 dington, to go to Utica. He had procured him to be detailed, subject to his 
 "verbal instructions," and Luddington had been despatched to Utica, and 
 Baker had been telegraphed to help him. 
 
 All this machinery was in General Fry's hands ; all of it had been set in 
 motion against Crandall ; nothing had been done toward investigating Had- 
 dock, though proofs and accusations against him lay in piles before General 
 Fry ; and yet Theodore Allen, in addition, is telegraphed to Washingtoji to 
 "provide" information as to the Utica district. 
 
 Was this interview with Allen on March IS a private one 1 If it was not, 
 who is the man who witnessed it 1 If it was private, what was the occasion 
 of privacy 1 Did General Fry have any private or public business with Allen 
 at that time which he is willing to explain ? Was any suggested on Allen's 
 cross-examination ? Did he make any record of his business with Allen on 
 that day? 
 
 It must not be forgotten that the counsel for General Fry, with General Fry 
 present and prompting him, in his questions to Allen, on cross-examination, as 
 to the interview of March 18, pointedly assumed that the $54,000 was a sub- 
 ject of discussion. 
 
 Look at another despatch sent the day after General Fry believed Allen had 
 been to Utica, the day after he made the order to pay him $54,000 : 
 
 "Provost Marshal General's Bureau, 
 
 " Washington, D. C, March 25, 186-3. 
 " Colonel L. C. Baker, New York : 
 
 " You must prepare all the facts in the case of the Utica district without ref- 
 erence to Major Ltiddington' s report. It is absolutely .necessary for me to 
 
26 
 
 liave them, lohctlier Major Luddington lias hccn ahle to ohtain tltcm or not. 
 See Allen and let liim malce it his business to straighten this matter out. 
 
 "JAMES B. FRY, 
 "Provost Marshal General.'" 
 
 This despatch is ten clays after Baker liad telegraphed General Fry — 
 
 ^' I hare discovered extensive and astounding enlistment frauds at Elmira, 
 New York. I am well satisfied that Major Haddock is a jmrty indirectly con- 
 nected icith these fratids," Sfc. 
 
 Yet no anxiety is felt to explore Haddock, but General Fry is in frenzied 
 pursnit of an object at Utica. The committee will find food for reflectioii here. 
 
 In further corroboration of Allen's statement is an order to Ilges, dated 
 March 19, the day after Allen's second interview with General Fry, in which 
 Ilges is ordered to pay over the money received in connexion with the "jump- 
 ers," and saying that the credits are to be disalloived. If the committee can 
 discover any relief for General Fry, in the fact that, in addition to all his other 
 acts, he proposed to deprive Jersey City of the credits for which the money had 
 been honestly paid, and paid in consequence of his own plan and his own orders, 
 he will, no doubt, receive the full benefit of the fact. I am not able to suggest 
 any argument to be derived from it, except one which sinks General Fry still 
 lower as an officer and a man. 
 
 It may bo argued that General Fry acted in ignorance of some fact in order- 
 ing Colonel Ilges to pay the money to Allen's firm. It may even be insisted 
 that General Fry did not know to whom it was to go ; that he may have sup- 
 posed it was advanced by the authorities of Jersey City, and would go back to 
 them. To show that all this would be an afterthought if suggested, as it is 
 fair to the counsel for General Fry to remember that it has not been, and also to 
 sustain Allen, I refer to the report of Colonel Ilges, and to the letters to and from 
 General Fry, which there appear. It will be seen that every fact was brought home 
 to General Fry's knowledge ; that the action of General Fry shocked and confoun- 
 ded this officer ; that he obeyed orders under protest, and delayed obedience till he 
 could confer with General Fry by letter, and that he actually proceeded to 
 AYashiugton and laid the case in person before him, and that General Fry or- 
 dered the money paid to Allen, Riley, and Hughes, after all this. 
 
 The following passages in this report are commended to the attention of the 
 committee. 
 
 It will be seen that they corroborate Allen thoroughout, and render yet more 
 clear the guilt of General Fry. 
 
 Extract from the statement (f Lieutenant Colonel Ilges. 
 
 "Messrs. Allen, Riley, and Hughes furnished the recruits with the local 
 bounty. The amount was established by me as three hundred dollai'S, this be- 
 ing the amount of bounty paid elsewhere. These gentlemen were permitted at 
 and admitted to my office for the following reasons : 
 
 "I. They came to me through Colonel Baker. They were recommended to 
 me as the instruments of, and in the confidence of, the government. 
 
 "II. They produced to me a document showing that they were the represent- 
 atives of the city of Ilobokcn, New Jersey, the said document being a contract 
 between them and ihe city council of Ilobokcn to fill the quota of said city. 
 
 " III. They farnishedme v/ith a copy of the following telegraphic despatch, viz : 
 
 "'\Yar Dki'art.mknt, Provost Marshal General's Bureau, 
 
 '" Washington, D. (L March 5, ISO;''. 
 (•' 'Original bj telegraph.) 
 '"Captain Harry J. Mili,s, Provost Marshal, Neicark, New Jersey. 
 
 "'Until otherwise ordered, you are directed to allow credits for such men as 
 Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Guido Ilges. captain 14th United States infantry, 
 
27 
 
 certifies to you arc enlisted by him. He is recruiting at Hoboken. Inform 
 Colonel Ely of this order. The case -is special and covjidential. 
 
 '"JAMES 15. FRY, 
 ^^^ Provost Marshal General.' 
 
 "In order to muster in volunteers, as I was instructed to do, Iliad to obtain 
 the money to be paid to them as bounty and to brokers as hand money from 
 some quarter, and these three men came to me with the sanction and in the con- 
 fidence of tl'c authorities, and as proper representatives of certain localities. 
 Therefore I felt justified, and still feel so, under the then existing circumstances, 
 that I was then doing right and endeavoring to promote the interests of the 
 government. Besides, Colonel Baker was fully aware of the manner in which 
 the business of my office was transacted, as in conversations with him at differ- 
 ent times I informed him of everything in connexion with my office. On the 
 10th day of March, 1S65, when the aforementioned one hundred and eighty- 
 three bounty-jumpers were mustered in by me and kept by me in confinement, 
 and also on the following day, I hesitated and declined to credit these men to 
 any of the localities ; but upon consideration and the re-reading of the order 
 received in regard to credits, (copies of which are given with this report and 
 made a portion thereof,) and when the mayor of the city of Jersey City informed 
 me that Colonel Baker had assured him that the credits allowed by me are " all 
 right," I concluded to pursue the following course: 
 
 " To take charge of the $300 bounty money of each one of these 183 recruits 
 and to deposit the same in National bank, subject to the order of the Provost 
 Marshal General. 
 
 " I considered it my duty under the then existing orders regulating the mus- 
 tering service, that the bounty money of each one of the 183 recruits should 
 either be paid into their own hands, or should be deposited and in my own hand at 
 all events, that this money should actually be paid by the parties who received 
 the credits. 
 
 " I thought then, and still think, that these men, if they were to be kept in 
 the service without being proven deserters of other military organizations before 
 their enlistment with me, were fully entitled to the amount of local bounty ; but 
 that if they were proven deserters, the United States treasury should be the 
 recii)ient of this money. 
 
 " Messrs. Allen, Riley and Hughes accordingly paid into my hands the sum 
 of $54,000, this being the amount of bounty claimed by me as due to 180 re- 
 cruits. The said party were to pay into my hands the sum of $900 more, for 
 the remaining three recruits ; but they failed to do so, telling me, upon my re- 
 peated application for this amount, that it was not necessary for them to do so, 
 as the amount in my hands /^$54,000y' tvould he paid back to thevi ivithi7i a 
 few days hy order of the Provost Marshal General. This amount (54,000) 
 was deposited by me in the Broadway National Bank, March 15, 1866. 
 
 " I immediately v/rote to the Provost Marshal General at Washington, D. C, 
 asking for instruction whether to pay this amount to the recruits then in con- 
 finement, or to the commanding officer at Fort Lafayette, who had charge of 
 these men, or whether I should turn it into the United States treasury. In 
 reply to this letter I received, on the 20th of March, the following communica- 
 tion : 
 
 '" Waii Depart.me^t, Provcst Marshal General's Office. 
 '" Washington, D. C, March 19, 1865. 
 "'CoLOXEL: lam directed by the Provost Marshal General to inform you 
 th.at the credits of the men mustered by you March 11, 1865, at Hoboken, New 
 
28 
 
 Jersey, and credited to Jersey City at large, are disallowed, «w.7 that you will 
 refund the money to the 2)art'ics tcho advanced it. 
 
 " ' I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 '"W. OWENS, 
 " ' Captain Qth United, States Cavalry, A. A. A. G. 
 " ' Brevet Lieut. Col. Guido Ilges, U. S. A. 
 
 " ' Mustering Officer Hohoken, Neiv Jersey. 
 
 '" Thinking that the Provost Marshall General might Jiot fully understand, 
 this 2vhole matter, I deemed it my duty to loriteto him the foil oxcing communica- 
 tion in explanation lie fore faying back the money, viz : 
 
 " 'Eecruiting Service, 14th Infa.xtrv, 
 
 " ' 163 Hester street, Neio York city, March 21, 1865. 
 
 '• ' Cai'taix : I liave the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communi- 
 cation of March 19, 1865, informing me that the credits of men mustered by me 
 March 11, LS65, at Hoboken, New Jersey, and credited to Jersey City at large, 
 are disallowed, and instructing me to refund this money to the parties who 
 jidvanced it. 
 
 " ' I beg leave to state that no men were mustered by me on the aforesaid 
 date, but I infer that this communication meant to say the 10th instead of the 
 nth of March, 1S63. 
 
 " ' I would respectfully state that on tlu^ said day four regulars were mustered 
 by me, and that if their credits are not to be effected they should be excluded in 
 the order. 1 mustered on the 10th day of March one hundred and eighty- 
 three volunteers for three years, so-called bounty -jumpers, and they were cred- 
 ited to Jersey City at large, with the exception of fifteen recruits that were 
 credited to Clinton township, Essex county, fourth congressional district, New 
 Jersey. 
 
 " ' I would f'urtlier state that 1 have at my disposal $300 local bounty for each 
 of these one hundred and eighty-three recruits, and that I received this amount 
 from Allen, Riley Sf Co., who had contracted with the counties for these credits ; 
 and I would, therefore, respectfully request that you inform me whether or not I 
 am to refund this money to these parties, or to the proper representatives of the 
 places tcho received the credits. 
 
 "'These one hundred and eighty-three recruits vrere properly mustered into 
 the service by me, and 1 credited them according to instructions and orders 
 regulating the mustering service. None of these recruits have as yet been proven 
 to have been credited before ; and when I gave these credits I did so as a United 
 States oflicer, believing that I v/as doing my duty, and advancing the interests 
 of the plan of Colonel Baker, sanctioned by the Provost Marshal General. I 
 am informcMl that the county representatives who received these credits paid u 
 large amount of premiums to Messrs. AUen, Riley & Co. besides the $300 local 
 bounty; and as they have done so after having been informed by me of the correctness 
 of these credits, I would respectfully call your attention to the fact that when 
 these credits are disallowed the said localities will lose a large amount of 
 money paid out by them in good faith. 1 am not aware what amount of money 
 was paid to Messrs. Allen, Riley & Co. for each recruit, and cannot even give 
 a probable guess, as I only collected the usual amount from them — $300 for each 
 recruit, this being the amount of bounty paid to a recruit enlisted at Hobo- 
 ken, New Jersey. 
 
 "'I Avould here add that Messrs. Allen, Riley & Co. are the parties who car- 
 ried out the plan above referred to, and I only allowed them to be present in 
 my office, and to contract for these credits contrary to existing orders, after I 
 had been assured by Colonel L. C. Baker, special agent of the War Department, 
 
29 
 
 that the whole proceeding was sanctioned by the Provost Marshal General 
 United States army. 
 
 " ' I therefore respectfully request that you inform me, at your earliest con- 
 venience, what disposition I am to make of the money referred to. 
 "'I remain, captain, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 '"GUIDO ILGES, 
 '" Capt. l^th Infantry, Brevet Lieut. Col. Vols., Recruiting Officer. 
 
 ' " Captain W. OwEXs, 
 
 '"5tk U. S. Caralrij, A. A. A. G., WasJiington, D. C 
 
 "In reply to this letter of the 21st 1 received on the 24th of the same month 
 the following reply : 
 
 '"War Department, Provost Marshal General's Bureau, 
 
 "'Washington, D. C, March 23, 1865. 
 '" Colonel: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communif 
 cation of the 21st instant, and, in reply, would state that the communication o- 
 the 19th instant, referred to, was intended to cover the cases of the 183 so-called 
 bounty-jumpers, and that the amount which you received for the purpose of 
 paying bounties to these 183 so-called bounty-jumpers the Provost Marshal 
 directs to be refunded to the i^drtics who advanced it. 
 
 " ' I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 "'W. OWENS, 
 "' Captain 5th U. S. cavalry, A. A. A. G. 
 "'Brevet Lieut. Colonel Guido Ilgis, 
 
 "' United States army, Hester street, New Yorh.' 
 
 "Messrs. Allen, Riley and Hughes, in company with the aforesaid Mr. 
 Staidey, called upon me on the 24th of March, and they (seeming aware of the 
 foregoing order) demanded of me the S54,000, and, upon my refusal to give up 
 the money to them until I could see Colonel L. C Baker and ask his advice in 
 the matter, they informed me that legal proceedings would be forthwith instituted 
 in order to compel me to give up to them their money. I immediately called 
 upon Colonel L. C. Baker at his oiEce, but being unable to see him then; I pro- 
 ceeded to the office of the United States district attorney, D. L. Smith, No. 12 
 Chambers street, and laid my case before one of the attorneys of his office, who 
 advised me not to give up the money until I had further orders from Washing- 
 ton. I also called upon several other regular array officers of the city, and was 
 by them advised to the same effect. 
 
 " On the 25th of March, 1865, 1 was again sent for hy Colonel L. C. Baker, 
 
 and upon my arrival at his office I loas shoicn by him a telegraphic despatch 
 
 from the Provost Marshal General to him, directing him to order me to turn 
 
 over the arnountof money ($54:,QQQ) held hy me as bounty for these 183 so-called 
 
 bounty- fimpers , to Messrs. Allen, Riley Sf Co. 
 
 "Alter hesitating and waiting nearly one hour at Colonel Baker's office, I 
 proceeded to the National Broadway Bank, accompanied by Messrs. Allen, 
 kiley, Hughes and Stanly, and there drew the following check, viz : 
 
 "'No. 24. New York, March 25, 1865. 
 
 " ' National Broadicaij Banh. nay to Messrs. Peter Riley Sf Co., or bearer, 
 fftyfour thousand dollars. 
 " ' S54,000. 
 
 '" GUIDO ILGES, 
 " ' Capf. \M! U. S. Ivf., Brevet Lieut. Col. U. t>. A., 
 
 " 'Recruiting Officer.' ' 
 
30 
 
 " Which check I handed to Mr. Peter Riley in presence of the aforesaid 
 gentlemen, who presented the same to the paying teller at the said bank, and 
 received $54,000 in national currency therefor. 
 
 "It is also proper for me to state that on the 1 7th of March, having received 
 permission, I proceeded to Washington city, and in person related to the Provost 
 Marshal General United States army all the details connected with the office at 
 Hohohen, the cajiturc of these 183 so-called hounty-jumjjers, and the amount of 
 money in my hands ; asking at the same time for instructions in regard to the 
 disposal of this money ; to which he replied that further orders would be sent 
 to me by mail. 1 expressed to him my fear that at some future day I might be 
 called upon for explanations Avhy I had at my office at Hoboken acted con- 
 trary to existing orders and regulations governing the mustering service, and 
 that I intended to ask for a court of inquiry, whe?i the Provost Marshal General 
 ass7ired me that I had done my duty well, and. only obeyed orders." 
 
 What answer docs General Fry make to all this evidence, direct and circum- 
 stantial, oral and documentary 1 He attempts to impeach the general character 
 for truth of Theodore Allen. We shall see, if we have not seen already in the 
 argument, that Theodore Allen is only one of the rivets fastening the evidence, 
 and that if we were to drop him altogether from the case General Fry would 
 still be hopelessly entangletl. 
 
 But as all parts of the evidence should be fairly weighed, let us examine the 
 attempted impeachment, and while we do so let us forget how far-fetched such 
 evidence was, compared with other kinds of proof at once accessible and effectual 
 against Allen, if Allen testified untruly. When this witness was introduced to 
 the committee-room it could not be, or rather it was not, disguised that the 
 counsel for General Fry was somewhat nonplused. No sooner was the general 
 nature of his testimony apparent than motions ibr delay began. Various reasons 
 were assigned for a postponement of the examination of the witness, and at last 
 the day Avas worn out in these repeated efforts on behalf of General Fry. But 
 before the sitting ended there was entered on the record a full notice in sub- 
 stance of what the Avitness was relied upon to prove. After this, an entire week 
 elapsed before (Jeneral Fry was compeHed to proceed with his evidence in 
 reply; so that very ample time was allowed to collect impeaching testimony. 
 
 The result is before tlie committee. Three witnesses from New York were 
 asked for. One of these, Mr. Kennedy, superintendent of police, Avas afterwards 
 stopped in coming, it seems, on tlie application of the counsel of General Fry to 
 a member of the committee. It subsequently dropped out, on the examination 
 of Carpenter, that Mr. Kennedy knew Allen well, and had been heard to speak 
 of his character, but not in the direction desired by General Fry. 
 
 But Carpenter and I'ettey came. It i;^ enough to say of Carpenter that he on 
 the stand confessed that after being applied to some three days previous to the 
 day on which he deliveied his testimony, he went around to see if he could find 
 some one who would speak against Allen, in order that he might refer to them 
 as the persons whom he had heard speak against him. He said he knew it was 
 customary to ask witnesses Avhether they had heard others speak against the 
 witness to be impeached, and he intended to qualify himself before he started. 
 It only remains to say of this witness, that he further stated that he disclosed 
 his testimony to General Fry in person, before being called to the stand. There 
 was, therefore, no surprise about his testimony, and no mistake about the act of 
 advisedly bringing the witness forward. 
 
 Mr.Pettey Avas not asked Avhether he Avould believe Allen on his oath, although 
 attention Avas called at the time to the omission. 
 
 General Fry next called a policeman avIio has lived in Washington five years, 
 and knew Allen seven years ago. This was the third witness, and Avas pro- 
 duced after a personal interview with General Fry. He, also, was not asked 
 
31 
 
 whether he would believe Allen, although he was called for the purpose of being 
 so asked, as we were given to understand. 
 
 The fourth and last witness was a young officer who never lived in New York, 
 but served at that place on the staff of General Dix for a large part of a year. 
 He had heard comments by other members of the staff upon Allen in regard to re- 
 cruiting, and nothing else. The witness, without being asked whether or not 
 he would believe Allen, Avas allovi^ed to close the procession, four in number, of 
 impeaching witnesses. It is not too much to say, when the nature of the testi- 
 mony given by Allen is borne in mind, and also his admitted relationship to- 
 ward General Fry, and his avowed connexion with the Hoboken transaction, 
 that the idea of withholding both Generals Fry and Baker as witnesses, and at 
 the same time making a labored effort at attacking the general character of the 
 witness, is a display of tactics almost, if not altogether, grotesque. It is a 
 Chinese warfare. But when we compare the performance with the advertise- 
 ment, it awakens renewed wonder that General Fry should not have felt able 
 to brave the dangers of giving testimony himself of matters known to him better 
 than to any one else, and which call so loudly for explanation or denial. 
 
 The expedient of endeavoring to distract attention from the absence of the 
 evidence for which instinct and reason alike cried out, if indeed Allen were 
 untruthful, was rendered the more sorry by the appearance of nine or ten 
 well-known, respectable citizens of New York, including a member of the 
 House, who fully sustained the witness and overthrew entirely the faintly 
 attempted impeachment. 
 
 I propose now to examine in some of the more obvious aspects of the case the 
 question whether the testimony, of which the statement of Theodore Allen is a 
 part, is true. 
 
 lu order to do this, we must first see what weight of testimony is requisite to 
 establish the alleged fact ; then what can be learned from the probabilities in- 
 dependent of the testimony to be tested ; then how far the evidence is cor- 
 roborated directly, and thus we shall arrive at the value of the evidence and at 
 the truth of the matter. 
 
 First. As to the force the testimony must have to produce conviction. 
 
 What is it that makes us require evidence of guilt ? The presumption of 
 innocence. What is that? It is faith or belief that the person is incapable of 
 the crime. 
 
 Does that presumption still exist in this case ? Does it continue in spite of 
 the evidence as to matters distinct from the New Jersey affair ? 
 
 What is the philosophy of the maxim, " Falsus in imo,fahus in omnibus V 
 Is it not simply, that after the absence of integrity is once established, no proof 
 is necessary to establish it again? Apply that principle to the facts before us. 
 Here is a man confessedly capable of deliberate and malicious falsehood; capa- 
 ble of violating the first principles of honor ; capable of disregarding the cardi- 
 nal virtue of his profession; capable of violating the professional and official 
 obligations by which he is bound; capable of violating the privileges of Con- 
 gress, and of aspersing his superior officers ; capable of blackening private 
 character from motives of revenge ; capable of endeavoring to present evidence 
 to substantiate allegations which he does not believe; capable of sitting down 
 under proof against him utterly destructive of his character, which, if false, 
 he could explode at once by his own testimony, and willing to assume the 
 position that if compelled to testify it shall be with the understanding that he 
 shall not be impeached or contradicted. 
 
 What presumption of innocence remains in such a case ? 
 
 Second. What probabilities are there, independent of the evidence in (ques- 
 tion, from which we can judge of what is likely to be true? 
 
 The case abounds in evidence that General Fry had a most determined, and, 
 indeed, violent feeling toward the people of my district, toAvard the provost 
 
32 
 
 marshal, and especially against me. He Avas resolved to discipline us all with 
 great severity. In addition to this, he was zealous and headlong in his parti- 
 sanship of Haddock. Mr. Dana testifies that even as late as April 3 he stig- 
 matized as corrupt all those who imputed blame to Haddock. Previous to the 
 18th of March General Fry knew that I had charged Haddock with the frauds 
 which he (General Fry) Avas seeking to fasten upon Captain Crandall. He was, 
 as the event has shown, intensely angered. His bridled emotion, described by 
 Mr, Dana, proves this, and it appears in various Avays that he had put himself 
 upon destroying Crandall and sustaining Haddock. 
 
 With Avhat we knoAv now of the lengths to Avhich General Fry's re\'enge Avill 
 carry him, is it probable or improbable that he Avas at the time in question long- 
 ing for some Aveapon to use against me ? This is a very pregnant question in 
 considering the naturalness or unnaturalness of Allen's story. 
 
 If General Fry Avas, at the time referred to, in quest of something which might 
 aid him against me, Avas Theodore Allen a man Avhom he Avould have been likely 
 to trust on such an errand 1 This also is an important question. 
 
 Who Avas Theodore Allen ? He was a man of address, of nerve, of talent, and 
 he kncAv men. He had been selected by Generals Baker and Fry as the shreAvd- 
 est and aptest man AA'ho could be found in the city of New York, both for dis-. 
 coveries and concealments. It Avas in tliis character that General Fry knew him 
 
 General Fry had once confided in him, so much as to put himself far into his 
 poAver, and to show that he trusted him. Look for proof of this at the admitted 
 facts of the Hoboken affair. 
 
 Moreover, Allen Avas largely in Gen(;ral Fry's power. Sixty-six thousand 
 dollars, less the expenses, liad already been realized from a very questionable 
 transaction, to say the least, Avith which both* Avere connected. Fifty -four 
 thousand more depended on the favor or the exactions of General Fry. Moreover 
 General Fry had the poAver to order his arrest at any moment, as he afterAvards 
 did Avhen he found Allen had failed to gratify his reveSigeful intention to manu- 
 facture evidence. In these circumstances Avas Allen the man he Avould trust or 
 not 1 General Fry's counsel says he never had seen him but tAvice, and lie Avas 
 too much of a stranger to be selected for such a purpose. Experience and human 
 nature are opposed to this idea. It is not the rule for men in poAver to select 
 those they luu'e knoAvn long, and Avho have knoAvn them Avell, for employments 
 Avhich are aAvkward to talk about. 
 
 A second intervicAv seems rather a nick of time for such a purpose. 
 
 It Avas at the second interAaoAV that Macbeth proposed Banquo's murder to 
 the man he thought might do the Avork, and it happened also that lie requested 
 the attendants to leave the room. 
 
 Is it not CA'en possible, I suggest to the counsel, that Allen may have jdagarized 
 this and other examples, deemed true to nature by the great masters of the human 
 heart ? 
 
 At this point let me ask. What is the precise presumption left to be overcome 
 by Allen's testimony ? Is it the presumption that General Fry Avas incapable 
 of making use of unfair me;ins against a man lie hated, or is it the presumption 
 that General Fry Avould not have selected Theodore Allen? 
 
 NoAV, let us turn to Allen's testimony for a moment. What part of it stands 
 alone ? 
 
 Is he not corroborated in nearly every particular? Is he contradicted in any 
 one particular? 
 
 I Avill speak oxdy of the one point in his testimony most A'ital, and of course 
 most contested in argument, to Avit : The statement that General Fry proposed 
 to him to go to Utica and find something, at all hazards, which would fasten im- 
 putation upon me, and that upon a compliance Avith this request, hinged the 
 .$54,000. 
 
The despatch ^^eut by General Fry to Colonel Baker Mardi IS, already re- 
 ferred to, proves four things beyond all question : First, that Allen was in 
 Washington that day ; second, that he had an intervie\y with General Fry ; 
 tJiird, that in that interview the subject of getting evidence at Utica was 
 talked of; and fourth, that Allen undertook to inovide information. 
 
 About this same time, indeed only the day before, we find General Fry, in 
 another despatch to Colonel Baker, expressing his great anxiety to procure 
 evidence from Utica, and mentioning in a hostile manner that I, (Mr. Conkling,) 
 "deny Crandall's corruption." The committee cannot fail to see the coincidence 
 here again between this despatch and Allen's testimony. 
 
 \v'e find that Allen goes back to New York, and that after a disclosure by 
 him to them of what had occurred, he and his confidential advisers are in daily 
 consultation, until that consultation ends in sending a despatch to General Fry 
 in Allen's name. 
 
 The committee is asked to examine this despatch, and see if it is explainable 
 in any way except as Allen's testimony explains it. Why did he telegraph 
 General Fry, "/ Juice just returned from Utica P' If going to Utica had 
 nothing to do with the $54,000, it would have been very strange to put it in a 
 despatch and pay for its going over the wires to General Fry. This would have 
 been very strange, even if Allen had in truth been to Utica ; but how much 
 more strange it would be, when he had not hcen to Utica, to telegraph that ho 
 had been, if there was no connexion between going to Utica and getting an 
 order for the $54,000. Could anything be more speaking ? 
 
 Why did Allen wait five days before sending this despatch if it was not to 
 allow time to have gone to Utica ? 
 
 Why did General Fry forthwith send back by telegraph an order for the 
 $54,000? 
 
 Why did General Fry on the next day telegraph Baker to commit the Utica 
 matter to Allen ? 
 
 When these things can be explained away, it will be time to inquire why 
 Theodore Allen, without motive, unless his statement is true, should come here 
 to confront a man in official station, who would have dared in return to confront 
 him, but that'" conscience does make cowards of us all." 
 
 In conclusion, I have only to say that whenever the committee shall be pre- 
 pared to receive it, I shall be ready to point out evidence substantiating all 
 statements made by me as to the administration of the bureau of General Fry 
 
 MEMOEAXDUM OF LAW SUBMITTED IN CONNEXION WITH THE FOEEGO- 
 
 ING AEGUMENT. 
 
 General Fry has, by his counsel, submitted to the committee an elaborate ar- 
 gument to show that there is a technical im|)ediment in the Avay of a i-epresen- 
 tative elect conducting a criminal prosecution for the United States before a 
 military court. 
 
 The position assumed is, that though applied to, and appealed to, by the gov- 
 ei-nment to render it professional service, though tlie occasion is such that no 
 other citizen would be justified in refusing, and though special circumstances 
 may render it important, as Mr. Stanton testifies was the case in this instance, 
 that a particular person, rather than some other, shoxdd act, yet these consider- 
 ations ought not to govern if the person thus applied to is a representative elect 
 to Congress. 
 
 The suggestion is that such a professional employment constitutes "holding 
 an office," and that by law there is an incompatibility in the case. 
 
 The counsel for General Fry virtually concedes that no statute upholds this 
 view, and he rests his argument upon the Constitution. 
 3 
 
34 
 
 It fs submitted that this position is as unsound in law as it is in morals, pa- 
 triotism, and common sense, and it is insisted that a representative elect is, in 
 such a case, precisely in the same position, technically and substantially, as any 
 other citizen. 
 
 It is believed that the legislation of the country can hardly involve such ab- 
 surdities as would result from the doctrine expounded by General Fry. 
 
 It cannot be true that a lawyer, by being elected to Congress, thereby loses his 
 right to practice his profession. Nor is it true that the government is under 
 Any disability which prevents its exercising the right of every other litigant to 
 select the attorney or counsel M'ho in the particular case is most likely to be 
 useful. Nor is it true that though a representative or representative elect may 
 properly act as counsel for any and every other client, he may not so act for his 
 government. It may be asserted with some confidence that no such folly has 
 been committed as to allow members of Congress to act as counsel against the 
 government, as it is admitted by all they properly may, and at the same time 
 to prohibit their act'mg/hr the government, or in its aid. 
 
 The provision of the Constitution referred to (Sec. VI, of Art. I) has no ap- 
 plication to the case. The language is, " no person holding an office under the 
 United States shall be a member of either house during his continuance in 
 office." For several reasons this language has no application to the facts before 
 the committee. One reason will suffice, viz : that the act of prosecuting Had- 
 dock before a court-martial in no sense constituted "holding any office under 
 the United States." If this be so, there is, of course, an end of the argument, 
 and there would have been an end of it, even if Haddock had been prosecuted, 
 not by a representative elect, but by a representative after he had fjualificd as 
 such. 
 
 1. The office of judge advocate exists, and is, of course, created by law. It 
 is a well-defined office, as much so as the office of district attorney or marshal or 
 collector of internal revenue, (See 12 Statutes at Large, p. 598; 2 Brightley's 
 Digest, p. 25.) A judge advocate can be appointed in only oneway, (except 
 the temporary appointment during vacation of the Senate,) viz : " by the Presi- 
 dent, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." The President must 
 nominate to the Senate, and the Senate must confirm, and then a commission is- 
 sues to the appointee. (See same statute.) Judge advocates have the r«??X-, 
 'pay,und cmolMments of a major of curalry. (See the same statute.) This 
 gives a salary as well as military rank. 
 
 2. It need hardly be argued that no " oflce under the United States " can ex- 
 ist unless it is created by the Constitution or by act of Congress. It follows, 
 then, that the office of judge advocate exists only under the statute already cited, 
 because no other statute now exists and none other did exist in 1865 l)y which 
 such an office is created, and it is not created by the Constitution. We know, 
 therefore, exactly what the office of judge advocate is, and also its character, 
 jnode of appointment, tenure, jind compensation. Is there any pretence tliat this 
 affice was conferred in the case before the committee 1 There was no nomina- 
 tion to the Senate, no appointment by the President, and no commission what- 
 ever. 
 
 3. But it is said tlie Haddock court-martial should have had a regular 
 official judge advocate, and an argument is deduced from this that it did have 
 one. The point was raised on the trial of Haddock that the law required 
 an official judge advocate, duly appointed, &c. This point was overruled, and 
 properly so, as all the statutes on the subject expressly authorize persons not 
 judge advocates to act as such on trials, and Mr. Stanton testifies that during 
 his administration, in a majority of important military trials, the prosecution has 
 
6D 
 
 been conducted, not by those holdi:ig the office of judge advocate, but by coun- 
 sel employed for the particulai- trial. 
 
 4. It is still further suggested, however, that whoever is assigned to act as 
 judge advocate, and does act as a judge advocate, would, if he were present, 
 thereby actually becomes "judge advocate," and holds an "office." This 
 would seem a violent assumption, even if it depended upon general reasoning ; 
 but, in addition to this, several acts of Congress preclude the idea altogether. 
 
 a. Several acts of Congress provide that no man shall enter upon any office 
 without taking an official oath. This is universal, and the oath is prescribed in 
 so many words. Recent statutes prescribe an additional oath of office, without 
 taking which no man can hold an office. 
 
 Does any statute require these oaths to be taken by one who merely appears 
 to try a criminal before a military court ? Are these oatbs, in fact, taken by one 
 who merely thus appears 1 Was any such oath taken in the case in hand ? 
 
 Every "judge advocate" must take, and does take, these oaths before he can 
 become "judge advocate," but he does not take them because he appears, nor 
 when he appears, before a military court. 
 
 No official oatli is taken by anybody in organizing a military court. The 
 "judge advocate," if there is one, if not, the person officiating for him, the ste- 
 nographer, and the members of the court, all swear not to disclose the pro- 
 ceedings, (fcc, but will any one pretend that in thus swearing, they all install 
 themselves in " office?" 
 
 h. The statutes regulating courts-martial (see act of 1806, 1 Brightley's 
 Dig., SO) leave no room for argument as to the effect and nature of the oath 
 prescribed as a part of the proceedings. The provision is as follows : " The 
 judge advocate, or person officiating as such,^^ shall take tbe following oath : 
 (The oath is simply not to disclose the proceedings improperly.) 
 
 This is the only oath required, and it is to be taken as much by a judge 
 advocate, as by a counsellor who casually acts, and so vice versa. 
 
 Is this an oath of office ? If so, what is the sense of its being administered 
 to judge advocates who have already taken the oath of office ? 
 
 Do those who take this oatli thereby take upon themselves an office 1 It 
 so, the judge advocate, and all the members of the court, would necessarily ac- 
 quire each a second office, because all the members of the court take the same 
 oath substantially. The statement of the proposition shows its absurdity. 
 The oath is of the same nature as that taken by a grand juror, and no more 
 constitutes swearing into office than does the oath taken by Odd-Fellows, or 
 Masons, or members of any other body, whether established by law or not, 
 whose doings are private. ' 
 
 c. It is suggested that the order assembling the court-martial, and naming 
 those who compose it, confers an appointment to office, or constitutes an ap- 
 pointment to office. This idea can be so readily tested that argument cannot 
 be necessary. 
 
 In the first place, courts-martial are not ordered by the authority which alone 
 has the appointing power, and for that reason, if for no otlier, an appointment 
 could not be conferred in the mannner suggested. But suppose this were 
 otherwise ; suppose the power of appointment to office to reside in the same 
 hand which writes the order for a court-martial, would those mentioned in the 
 order thereby receive appointments to office ? If this were so, as Mr. Stanton 
 explained, a maximum court martial could not be detailed without making 
 thirteen men hold two offices each, one a military commission of rank as high 
 at least as the rank of the accused, and the other the office of member gf the 
 court. If the in'Sertion in the order of the person who is to act as judge advo- 
 cate is an appointment to office, he too, if a military man, would become the 
 incumbent of two offices. It will be seen that no court martial could legally 
 
36 
 
 exist, if the efiect of the order det.ailing its mombcr,s was as suggested ; it ■would 
 bo illegal to order a court at all. 
 
 d. It is said, again, that administering tlie oath to the witnesses implies official 
 position. The difficulty here is that the act of Congress provides otherwise, by 
 providing that the witnesses may be sworn by a judge advocate or ''other j)ct- 
 son'" who acts as judge advocate. 
 
 A foreman of a grand jury is empowered by the statutes of many States to 
 swear witnesses; but did any one ever hear that by doing so he acquired or be- 
 came invested with an office % The foreman of a grand jury is appointed by the 
 court. If he holds an "office " in the State of New York, at least, there could 
 be uo foreman of a grand jur}-, because the Constitution provides that no power 
 to appoint to office shall reside in a court. 
 
 So as to summoning witnesses, the statute provides that the summons sliall be 
 made out by the person acting as judge advocate, just as attorneys issue sub- 
 poenas and other writs; but does this clothe any one with an "office." 
 
 II. 
 
 Reference has been made to section 40 of tlie civil and diplomatic bill of 1S52, 
 as if that section and other like statutes had some bearing on the question be- 
 fore us. This section is as follows : 
 
 "No person hereafter who holds or shall hold any oflice under the government 
 of the United States whose salary or annual compensation shall amount to the 
 sum of two thousand live hundred dollars, shall receive compensation for dis- 
 charging the duties of any other office." 
 
 Those familiar with tlic object and history and settled construction of this and 
 similar ])rovisious, will be puzzled to understand how it can be supposed to have 
 any application to the matter before the conmiittee. The counsel for General 
 Fry frankly states that in his opinion it has no relation to the case, but it is re- 
 ferred to because it was read in the House by the member who connived with 
 General Fry in introducing into the House his libellous letter, or who invoked 
 General Fry's aid in a controver.sy begun by hims(;lf. 
 
 1. A representative in Congress is not at all within tlie words, "j-xt^ot^ who 
 holds an office under the government of the United States.'' Senators and rep- 
 resentatives do not hold offices under the government of the United States. They 
 arc part of the government, and therefore are not affected one way or tlie other 
 by these provisions. (Blount's Trial, U. S. Senate, pp. 22, 102; "Wharton's 
 S'tate Trials, pp. 260, 316; 1 Story on the Constitution, §§ 793, 802 ; Am. Ins. 
 Co. vs. Canter! 1 Peters, 511.) 
 
 a. Besides, one Avho, though he lias been elected to Congress, has not quali- 
 iicd, holds no office whatever; so that if the position of senator or representative 
 were an "office under the government," even then the present case Avould not be 
 reached by the statutes in question. 
 
 2. Although no such suggestion^ has been made, let us see wliether the pro- 
 vision in question might not be made to apply to the case so far as it would 
 apply if it means that one holding the office of judge advocate could not at the 
 same time be representative elect, and afterwards quality and receive his salary. 
 We shall see the fallacy of such a construction presently ; but let us suppose 
 that the provision applies to the case of one person holding two offices, one of 
 the offices being that of representative elect. Where then shall we land in this 
 case ? 
 
 a. .We are brought up at once by the fact that prosecuting Haddock, just vis 
 a judge advocate would have done, does not in any sense cous'titute holding an 
 "office." 
 
 b. But, again, not only is it a fatal trouble with the argument that there was no 
 "office," but the further difficulty must be met that there was no office with "a 
 
37 
 
 salary or annual compensation" of twenty-live liunclred clellars, or any sum 
 whatever. 
 
 Mr. Stanton made an allowance dependent wholly upon the value of the par- 
 ticular service, and graduated in no other way. 
 
 3. The greatest ditliculty, however, with this and all similar provisions is, that 
 they have no application to any case of two offices actually held at the same 
 time hy the same person. 
 
 These sections were all enacted to meet an entirely different contingency; and 
 so far as regards any inhibition tliey contain, one person might at once hold all 
 the offices known to the Constitution, from the presidency down. These pro- 
 visions hit the case of two offices held by separate persons, each drawing pay, 
 and one doing the duties and drawing the pay not only of his own office, hut of 
 the other office also, while at the same time the incumbent of the second office 
 receives his salary, or is entitled to it. The statute therefore cannot apply to 
 two offices actually held by the same person. (Converse vs. The United States, 
 21 How., 463; United States vs. Austin (U. S. cir't ct., Mss. Opinion of Cush- 
 ing, Att'y Gen'l, vol. 8 of Att'y Genl's Op'ns, 325; also opinion of Att'y Gen'l, 
 January 14, 18G3 ; case of General Eiley, jast decided in Court of Claims ; opin- 
 ion of Bates, Att'y Gen'l, in case of a coroner of District of Columbia.) 
 
 III. 
 
 Some of the newspaper counsel of General Fry have suggested that, f;iiling 
 in the theory that the act of prosecuting Haddock constituted holding an office, 
 it might be turned into a "contract" with the government, and in that way be 
 made to catch upon a technicality. 
 
 The act of ISOS has been cited, and the modest suggestion has been pub- 
 lished in a newspaper that the Secretary of War had made a " contj'act" to 
 have Haddock prosecuted by a representative elect, and for so doing was to be 
 "deemed and taken to be guilty of a high misdemeanor, and be lined in a sum 
 of three thousand dollars!" Those who published this, in the hope of influ- 
 encing the public or the committee, have, it is submitted, more need to know 
 their place than to know the law ; and though it may not be necessary, one or 
 two comments are suggested : 
 
 1. The essence of a contract is, that it binds at least two parties. Unless it 
 does this, it does not exist. Did the letter of April 3 constitute any such con- 
 tract 1 If the person requested to prosecute Haddock had at any time been 
 unable or unwilling to do so, and the government had thereby suffered loss or 
 inconvenience, could an action for damages have been sustained on the letter of 
 April 3, whether the person so refusing was a member of Congress or not 1 
 On the other hand, sujiposing the government suable like a private party, 
 could an action have been maintained on the letter of April 3, had there been 
 a refusal to allow the party to continue his services ? 
 
 2. Mr. Stanton and Mr. Dana both testify that no " contract" whatever was 
 made. There was only a recpest by the Secretary of War, and a written au- 
 thority to execute that request. The fact that after the service had been ren- 
 dered the Secretary made a reasonable allowance for it in no way aids the idea 
 that there w^as any contract. 
 
 3. It is no doubt true that a contract might be made between the govern- 
 ment and an individual, by which he would be bound on stipulated terms to 
 render professional services, and such a contract might be brought within the 
 letter of the statute, foreign as it would be to its spirit. However that might 
 be, there is no such case here. 
 
 4. In- this case, moreover, the person was not a member of Congress at the 
 time. The transaction was eight months before he took his seat or qualified 
 as a member of Congress, and for this reason the statute in question has no re- 
 lation to the case. 
 
"^ B ■ 2 1'^ 
 

 
 
 
 ^°-^^. 
 
 .0- 
 
 
 
 <<^ 
 
 <'. 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 S:^° ^^-^i^ ^.'^'^w': <^''^- 
 
 ^0' 
 
 ^ ::^v %/ :^Se^^ ^ -^ ~^^i^^"- ^ 
 
 
 ^ :V^lC^^ "^.^ :^MU'^ \c/ -'-^''^^ ^ -^ ;; 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 ^■* 
 
 -u 
 
 c 
 
 
 ;'-'^wffm3:,. 
 
 ^.^ ^^• -. "^^1^? ^, ^^ ^!^^' y 
 
 .^ 
 
 .^ 
 
 ' :M^v %/ :ii^ %.^ -'^S^-^ \/ ;^ 
 
 ■'^_ 
 
 
 \ -^ ^ • . ' < u 
 
 
 ^5^ 
 
 > 
 
 ,0 
 
 
 
 ,/.. 
 
 1^ 
 
 '-^ 
 
 ■^c 
 
 f^v ; ^0 
 
 '^'■^-^kw^ 
 
 ^<y ^^ ""^ ^° V^ "' ^<y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■l 
 
 o 
 
 .^■^'^'.%. /-iW/^^ sV^'"/^t-% ./ '>^ 
 
 y/%^.- 
 

 
 U'^^ 
 
 •:<^ 
 
 ''4 ' 
 
 .^' 
 
 A^ 
 
 ,^'^' 
 
 Wi^. 
 
 :^- ^ov-" :%, 
 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS