Q. The work on which he was employed?-A. Part of the general work on the post-office.

Q. Did you have any conversation with him about how he was to vote --A. No, sir.

Q. Had you heard him say anything about how he was to vote ?—A. No, sir.

Q. Did you know how he was to vote?-A. No, sir.

Q. Had his political sentiments anything to do with his discharge ?A. Not at all.

Q. With regard to Michael Kilduff, did you know him?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you know how he was going to vote?-A. I did not.

Q. Did you have any conversation with him about it?-A. No, sir. Q. Did his discharge have reference to his political sentiments at all? A. Not the least mite.

Q. Why was he discharged?-A. For the want of employment.
Q. For the same reason as in Daly's case?-A. Yes, sir.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Did Tuttle get the work at which these men had been engaged?— A. Part of it.

Q. What part?-A. Mr. Tuttle got the laying of the brick.

Q. Were those men engaged in that?—A. They were assisting in a part of that work.

Q. Were they masons?-A. They were not. They were laborers. Q. The work that Mr. Tuttle took comprised the work at which they had been engaged, did it?-A. Partly.

Q. Were any men retained there at work of the character of that at which these men had been engaged?-A. We kept our mortar men because we had to set stone. We kept them for that purpose. We kept

no men for cleaning brick.

Q. When did you get men to clean brick again ?—A. Somewhere about the last of March or first of April.

Q. The work was partly suspended, then ?-A. The work was partly suspended.

Q. How many men were you required to take on in March to clean the brick-A. We put on about eight.

Q. In March Mr. Tuttle put on eight men to clean brick ?--A. Not to clean brick alone.

Q. To do that kind of labor, or work of that description ?—A. Not that kind of work.

Q. Some of these men who were put on were engaged in cleaning brick as part of their work --A. Yes.

Q. Was that which they were engaged to clean a part of the same brick upon which the men who were discharged had been engaged ?--A. Part of the same.

Q. Then you hired more meu in March to clean more?--A. Yes.

Q. How did Mr. Tuttle's getting the work interfere with the cleaning of that brick?-A. It interfered with it to this extent. We are not allowed by the department to clean brick, and Mr. Tuttle's contract called for his furnishing the brick from the start, while this brick was government brick.

Q. It was government brick in October and government brick in March-A. Certainly.

Q. But as many men were taken back in March as were allowed to go in October?-A. About the same.

Q What are your politics?-A. Republican.

Q. (By Mr. PLATT.) Mr. Tuttle was General Butler's friend?—A. That was the common understanding, and the public press says that the men on the ground were his friends.

Q. (By the CHAIRMAN.) The men who were discharged were Butler men?-A. It is so said.

Q. How many of them were Butler men?-A. I could not tell you. Q. (By Mr. PLATT.) Were they all voters ?-A. I don't really believe they were; not to my knowledge.

By Mr. McDONALD:

Q. Did you try to ascertain whether they were all right?—A. I did

not.

Q. You are a voter ?-A. I am.

Q. How did you vote?-A. I voted for Mr. Talbot.

Q. You were decidedly for Mr. Talbot?—A. I was.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Are you an active man in your ward?—A. No, sir.

Q. Why not?—A. I mind my own business.

Q. Did you belong to a club?—A. I did not.

ALEXANDER R. ESTEY sworn and examined.

By Mr. PLATT:

Question. What position did you occupy in 1878 with reference to the post-office building?-Answer. Superintendent of construction. Q. Are you such now ?-A. I am.

Q. So far as you were concerned, were any influences exercised by you or by anybody under your control or by anybody with your knowledge to control or constrain the votes of the men who worked on that building in 1878 ?-A. No, sir.

Q. In any way, shape, or manner ?-A. No, sir.

WILLIAM A. SIMMONS sworn and examined.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. Were you collector of the port of Boston, and, if so, when? -Auswer. I was; from 1874 to 1878.

Q. Did you keep a record or memoranda in the office of the collector for your private guidance as to the character or position of the men who were your employés there?—A. Yes, sir

Q. Have you that record ?-A. I have; I have kept a copy of' everything counected with the custom-house.

(The witness here exhibited a book which he retained and to which he occasionally referred in the course of his subsequent examination.) Q. Have you knowledge of the case of George J. Hinds, who has been removed?-A. I know him; I don't know of the case.

Q. What was his character as a clerk?—A. He was a very good officer.

Q. How long was he in employ-A. He was there during my administration and some several years prior to that, I think; I do not know exactly how long.

Q. It was testified that Mr. Hartwell was put in the place of Mr. Hinds. Do you know Mr. Hartwell?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. What position did he occupy in the custom-house before?—A. During my administration?

Q. Yes, sir.--A. He was auditor in charge of the accounts.

Q. What was the record of Mr. Hartwell as auditor in the customhouse?-A. Mr. Hartwell was not a very efficient officer. Mr. Hartwell's position was abolished, I think, in 1875. He kept a record of all the accounts of the custom house, and kept the collector's accounts. So far as those accounts were kept, they were not kept very efficiently during my administration, and when I was called upon to look after the previous collector's accounts, we found it impossible to settle them. They were in a very great muddle, and at the date of my leaving the custom-house they had never been able to settle them. My predecessor, Judge Russell, wrote from where he then was (I think in one of the South American states) to have Mr. Hartwell employed by him to settle them, but they had been kept in such a way that Mr. Hartwell was unable to settle them, and I guess that nobody has ever been able to settle them; but to my knowledge they had not been settled when I left. I think that Mr. Hartwell stated to me, the last time that I said anything to him, that they had not been settled. Mr. Hartwell gave us considerable trouble in his accounts. That is all I know about it. I know nothing about him as a man.

Q. Do you know anything of the political proclivities of Mr. Hinds and Mr. Hartwell?-A. Nothing, except that they are good Republicans, I presume.

Q. Do you know whose special friend Mr. Hartwell is, or whose special friend Mr. Hinds is in the divisions of the Republican party here; are there any such ?-A. Oh, no; I think we are all united. In a national sense, I think, you speak of it.

Q. Certainly; I speak of it also, however, with reference to Massachusetts, as to any divisions that there may be here. We are in search of light. Is there any prominent Massachusetts man who is a special friend of Mr. Hinds and to whom Mr. Hinds is specially favorable?—A. I do not know that unless you might take me for an apology for a prominent man.

Q. Who is the special friend of Mr. Hartwell?-A. By the pressure that was brought to bear to get him back, I should say Judge Hoar.

Q. (By Mr. BLAIR.) Do you speak of George F. or E. Rockwood Hoar? -A. Of both of them. Allow me to qualify that statement by stating what took place about the time of the abolition of the office of Mr. Hartwell in common with a number of other offices. There had been quite a number of offices abolished, and, as every one who has been in a public office knows, when there is an abolition of an office there is a very great pressure to get the gentleman who has been deprived of an office back again, and sometimes without much regard to his qualifications. I expressly stipulated with the Secretary of the Treasury that if he expected me to reduce he should take the list as sent him, that I could not reduce and at the same time take back men who were the least desirable, because I had once before abolished the office of Mr. Hartwell, and, through the pressure brought to bear by Judge Hoar and through the Senator, then in Congress, the order was revoked. I thought that the order was useless if there was to be a continued pressure to keep a man there whose office had been abolished. Mr. Bristow made the stipulation with me and kept it in good faith, and I did the business. Mr. Hartwell did Lot get back during my administration.

Q. Mr. Hartwell has been appointed since your connection with the custom-house has ceased?-A. Probably the pressure was greater than it was upon me at the time.

Q. Will you state what was the record of Mr. Hinds as a soldier, if you have such a record ?—A. I have with me here certain custom-house books. I did not know what books would be wanted here, but I brought with me records of the lists of custom-house officers, lists that they had when I was there, and I can answer from those. These are my own records. [Reading from book:] "Hinds; soldier in the First Massachusetts Volunteers; a private.

Q. How long was he in the service?-A. I think three years; during the term. I knew him very well personally, because he succeeded me as commander of the John A. Andrew Order of the Grand Army of the Republic.

Q. Was he an efficient and reliable clerk ?-A. One of the best in the building.

Q. What do you know of the case of Frederick G. Pope, an assistant weigher? It is alleged that he was removed for causes established by Special Agent Bingham and because he was inefficient?-A. I do not know as to his inefficiency under the present administration. During my administration he was certified by his chief officers to me as being a very faithful and efficient officer. That was at the time of my leaving there and up to that time.

Q. What was the record in the army of Col. F. G. Pope ?-A. I think bewas a lieutenant-colonel in the cavalry. [Reading:] "Lieutenant-colo nel, Second Massachusetts Cavalry."

Q. Do you know the man who was put in his place, Charles C. Burt?— A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was his business before being put in Col. Pope's place ?-A. I do not know; he was there when I went into the custom-house.

Q. He was in employ?—A. He was employed as a clearance clerk when I was there.

Q. So far as you know, the record of Mr. Pope was a good one?—A. The record of Mr. Pope was good during the time of my administration. 2. Do you know anything about the political tendencies of Mr. Pope, whom he was for for official place in Massachusetts?-A. Do you mean as a Republican in Massachusetts? If you took the language of the street I should call him "a red-hot Butler man;" that is, he was a Republican with proclivities for General Butler, if he should be up for goveruor, I should say.

Q. What were the proclivities of Mr. Burt?—A. Mr. Bart came from another State; Mr. Burt was dismissed early in my administration, and I do not know much about him except that during his period of service there, some complaint was made about the manner of his dischargin bis duties. It was in this way: the clearance officer does business wit the captains of vessels, and complaint was made that Mr. Burt was i the habit of delaying the duties until after three o'clock, and then doin the business for the captains and charging them so much a head That being found to be true, when the next removals were made and offices abolished, he was one of those who were included, and the practice was stopped.

Q. He has been restored?—A. I do not know.

Q. He is now in the custom-house, at least it was so testified yesterday by Mr. Beard.-A. I scarcely know him by sight. The man who was put in in his place was one of the very few men who were put in at

the special request of General Butler. I remember that circumstance; there were three or four of them; he is there now, I believe.

Q. Do you know C. S. Mixter ?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. It seems that his office was abolished; what is his character ?—A. Mixter was a clerk for me before I went in the custom-house, for years; he is one of the finest Christian men whom I know of in public service, not one of "the few." but one of the good, Christians in the service.

Q. (By Mr. BLAIR.) He was a Christian soldier, is that the understanding?-A. "A Christian soldier" is the favorite term here, I think.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Was he a soldier?-A. Yes, sir; he served three years.

Q. In a Massachusetts regiment?-A. As adjutant, I think, in the Twenty-second Massachusetts Regiment.

Mr. PLATT. I do not think that Collector Beard said anything of him disparagingly.

The CHAIRMAN. No, he simply said that he understood that Mixter had been a soldier, but that the office which he held was unnecessary. [To the witness:] In the custom-house, when you want to get rid of a man under you, is it customary to abolish his office?

THE WITNESS. If you will pardon me, I will say this in regard to Mr. Mixter: He was one of the only few personal friends that I had in the Boston custom house; the office which he had was not an office which had been created for him; the duties which he discharged were set up for him by a commission of special agents who came here from Washington and he was put in to discharge them because they thought that that plan would be better than any other. As my predecessors or successors will tell you, there is sometimes a difference in the plans of special agents; the plan on which Mr. Mixter worked was no creation of an office, but Mr. Mixter was taken from one desk and put at another, because this commission of gentlemen, who thought they knew all about these things, believed that the duties could be best performed in that way. I say that in justice to Mr. Mixer.

Q. What was his former position in connection with the Bureau of Statistics in the department at Washington?-A. He was one of the chief men under Mr. Walker, I think, and afterwards chief clerk of the Bureau of Statistics. I took him from there, if I remember rightly.

Q. The office, then, was one of importance, in your judgment?-A. It was when I was there. I do not know what it was later. It was an arrangement made by all the deputies of the divisions in accordance with the special agent's desire.

Q. Mr. Searle was taken in; do you know anything about him?—A. No, sir; I know nothing about those who were taken in.

Q. Do you know anything about Mr. Chadwick?-A. Yes, sir; I think I remember Mr. Chadwick. He was a clerk when I was there. He was an old man, and in the abolition of the offices he was put in a place, made a laborer, and at General Swift's request, being an old man, he was permitted to do certain clerical work, though being upon the laborers' roll-this being as had sometimes been done under all the previous administrations.

Q. The testimony of the collector as to Mr. Chadwick is as follows [reading from stenographic report]:

Mr. Chadwick was a clerk in the custom-house, having care of triplicate invoices and other duties. After my appointment as collector, and before I qualified, during the interim, changes were made. Mr. Chadwick was transferred from that clerkship to be an assistant storekeeper at $800 a year. The salary of that clerkship was $1,000 a year, and a man by the name of Ham, from New Hampshire, was appointed to all the