Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1884-03-12
STAR ROUTE DISCLOSURES.
FURTHER TESTIMONY OF W. A. COOK
MIR. A. M. GIBSONRECALLED
QUESTIONED AS TO HIS SERVICES TO BoslE Err

The examination OF Mr. W. A. Cook was con-
tinued before the Springer committee this morning.
He made correction in Lis testimony OF yesterday.
substituting 10000 for ,OI0 that Col Wood had
offered him as a retainer for the defense.
In relation to the opening proceedings in the star
route trials he said that when he heard OF Mr. Bliss
proceeding in the Police Court. without consulting
MN COOK. he wrote letter TO Mr.. Bliss. stating
silat ne let hurt at their acting without consulting
MIN. He said he did not approve OF the ease being
presented In the Police Court In that state. lie said
he Thought that the government should have pre-
Stnted Its case In the Police Court In two days: but
that the case was actually prolonged for nearly Two
months The trial upon the Indictments WAS pro
iohged unnecessarily in the same way. After going
out OF the cases. witness said and being about the
court a great DEAL lie had watched the trial with
some Interest, and he had noticed no new evidence
In Dehalf OF the prosecution. The testimony dcNel
oped nothing that Was not known when he was In
the case.
EXPERT KER N THE CASE.
He said that the first thing he heard OF the
employment OF Mr.. ker. so-caled expert. OF Phil
adelpha. was when Mr.. Bliss told him that Ker had
been employed to draw up Indictments. Prior TO
this time he (wirneSSl had drawn up the forms OF
indictments in connection with Mr. Bliss and Mr..
Gibson. The great trouble In the prosecution OF
the cases Was that the indictments. presented.
included large number OF routes which We're
widely separated. and could not be inteilgently
presented to the jury. The witness had drawn up
an Indictment In but one case against Mr. Brady
and one contractor. This was TO simplify the
matter. He said that when it became apparent
that President Garfield could not live. the Attorney
General consulted with witness and said that they
would have TO employ more counsel in the cases,
and the names of Bliss and Brewster We're pro-
posed. 1t fell TO his uhe witnesS0 lot
TO CONSULT WITH MR.. BLISS.
a nd he went to New York, saw that gentleman at
the 5th Avenue hotel and explained the cases to
him. The next day he got an answer from Mr..
Bliss, which was that he would undertake to act
q ~ - mi jr, ft.a.
IN answer To a question by the chairman. witness
said he had advised against the employment OF ad
ditlonal counsel He thought that should be LETT
for the new administration To do.
The chair asked if there were other than poti-
cal reasons for employing additional counsel
Witness said he thought not
COOK ASToSIsBED.
Witness said he heard the announcement that
Mr.. Bliss was TO receive 800 per day with asonsh
ment. This announcement was made by the Attor-
ney General and then by Mr.. Brewster: But # was
explained that this was to include general eNnen-
Ses. After this. however. the accounts showed
numerous charges for car fare, board. hack hire.
and even washing He referred 10 one account OF
over 900 Tor few days board lirst-ciaSS hotel:
$40 DER day OF Which Was Tor private pariOr, and
$50 for washing.
Mr. stewart here objected. that the committee
could Judge OF these matters for themselves
The chairman then asked II. beyond the mere dif-
ference OF men. there WAS any reason why Bliss
should have received more pay than witness. If he
could have been more devoted or spent more time
upon the cases?
Witness said there was no reason beyond the diff
ference OF men. and that Mr.. Bliss could not have
devoted more time to the cases than he Ghe wit
ness had. Witness had devoted MS whole time TO
those cases. to the exclusion Of every thing else.
what would you say filth regard to the compen-
satlon given Mr.. Bliss" asked Ir. Van Alstyne.
II should call it," replied the witness,
"EXTRAvAGANT, UNJUSTIFIABLE AND UNEARNED."
son what terms are you with Col BliSS?" was
asked.
"Mr. Bliss and l." replied the witness. shave
hloT, h1Sf
with him In cases prior to the star route. I've not
been on any terms with him since our connection
In the star route eases ceased have no enmty
towards him, and none, hope, towards any nu-
man being. MIR Bliss and l had no rupture.
have no unkind feeling towards him. 1 have
feeling that arises from deep conviction and the
knowledge had OF the cases that they We're i'm
properly handled, and that the charges for ser
vices done We're excessive. His eXorbitant charges
are not matter Of personal interest to me at all"
Mr.. COOK said that when he entered upon the star
route cases he gave up virtually, his private prac
tice; His opinion with regard TO the management
OF the cases ultimately differed from that OF Bliss
though at first they agreed.
WHY Mr.. BLISS WAS EMPLOYED.
Mr.. Cook took the responsibility OF saying that
Bliss's employment was political altogether. Bliss
was an intimate personal friend of Mr. Arthur and
for that reason he was employed. Bliss was never
employed by the President A consultation was
held by the Attorney General. Postmaster General,
and counsel. and the question OF employing addi-
tiOnal counsel was considered. 1t was said that
Garfield would surely die and it was important to
employ somebody on good terms with Mr.. Arthur.
AT that conference Mr.. James did say that Bliss
was good lawyer
question. Was not the fact that Bliss was an
able and sklllful criminal lawyer taken into consid
Grafton in his employment?
Mr.. Cook said he regarded Bliss as a lawyer OF
ordinary ability. but he favored his selection be-
cause OF his Intimacy with the incoming President.
He was not aware that Bliss had large and valu-
able practice. He called Ker
A"sUPPosED EXPERT
because he was selected by Brewster to prepare
indictments, because of his competency to do So
But witness found In the first Indictment Eer drew
stupid and unIuStitable blunders. He called him
a supposed expert because he was not in fact an
expert. His blunder was 1nexcusable and lost the
government good deal OF money uSeleSsly. He
knew that the full names OF Rerdell and Sanderson
accessible and could not account for only the
initials being used. He knew that ker made an
effort to excuse his blunder by claiming that the
use Of the initials was proper.
WHAT BLISS rs SAID TO HAVE TOLD SANDERSoN.
"Sanderson," continued the witness s.swhose
initials were not in the first Indictment was not
included in the second indictment He was here
and stopped at the National hotel. He told gen.
tleman that he was going home. as Mr.. Bliss had
told him that he could not be indicted. Wit1esS
said he could give the name OF the man to whom
SanderSOn told this"
Mr. COOK AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BREWSTER.
Col. Cook next reverted to an interview published
some months ago in the Philadelphia Press with
Attorney General Brewster, who said that the star
route defendants bought eX-cOunsel OF the govern
aso Mr. GoD Si tSa he
(the Attorney GeneraD dismissed Cook anu Glib
son, etc.
Mr.. Cook read a copy OF letter he wrote to
Attorney General Brewster inquiring IL he had
made the charge as quoted. He said he had never
another letter he addressed to the Attorney Cen
eral, in which he Cook pronounced as utterly
false the story that any OF the defendants bought
him, and accused Brewster with having told
untruthS.
THE WARNING TO PRESIDENT GARFIELD.
"When you spoke to President GARFIELD before he
| was shot," asked Mr. Van Alstyne, sdid you not
say to him that you might be able at some future
time to inform him wherein the danger exiSted?''
Witness replied that he believed he had said
something OF that kind; that number of threat
entng anonymous letters had been received by the
Attorney General and he hoped he might ind out
something about them.
At this juncture Col. Cook was subpnnaed to an
pear before the House committee post Offices and
post roads The committee agreed to let him 60
and he said that ii hereafter any essential state
| the privilege OF appearing before the committee
that he might sustain his statements by corrobora
tive evidence
He was informed that the committee were not
yet through with him. He said he would return at
any time he was wanted.
Mr.. Stewart, OF the committee 1ntimated that
Col Cook was going over good deal of ground.
He said there were cnly two points the committee
wanted to inquire about One was the matter OF
compensation paid, whether 1t was judiciOus and
fair, and the other was whether or not there was
good faith on the part OF the prosecution in press
ing the cases
Mr.. A. N. GIBSON WAS RECALLED
and said that he and Col Cook drew the indict-
ments against ulley and Brott There were sew