Mr. DUNN. Would he express opinions pro or con with regard to the campaign in general?

Mr. HOLMES. He would, particularly in Chicago.

Mr. DUNN. You may state what you know about Mr. Conoyer keeping Mr. Martin posted on the political situation, so far as it related to the action or opinion of the employees of the Bureau of Animal Industry at South Omaha.

Mr. HOLMES. I can not say as to that any more than what Mr. Martin told me.

Mr. DUNN. What did he tell you?

Mr. HOLMES. He told me, "You know how Charles Conoyer is; he is in the habit of carrying stories."

Mr. DUNN. Did he tell you anything particular that Mr. Conoyer had related, or did he merely speak in a general way?

Mr. HOLMES. Just in a general way.

Mr. DUNN. You may state whether or not you were called upon by any person or persons during that campaign to do political work. Mr. HOLMES. I was.

Mr. DUNN. By whom?

Mr. HOLMES. By Euclid Martin.

Mr. DUNN. How did you receive the notification from Mr. Martin that he desired you to do any political work?

Mr. HOLMES. I received it through a letter sent by Mr. Martin to me in care of the Bureau of Animal Industry at South Omaha.

Mr. DUNN. Is it not a fact that all of the employees at South Omaha received such letters from Mr. Martin?

Mr. HOLMES. It is.

Mr. DUNN. Can you state from your own personal knowledge, or from your conversation with the different employees, whether they all received such letters from Mr. Martin?

Mr. HOLMES. Not all; but I spoke to a great many of them who told me they did. I saw them going up there for the purpose of calling on Mr. Martin the same as I did.

Mr. DUNN. Have you the letter?

Mr. HOLMES. No; I have not the original; a copy is in the testimony. Mr. DUNN. Do you know where the original is?

Mr. HOLMES. I mislaid the original.

Mr. DUNN. You have looked for it?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.

Mr. DUNN. You have been unable to find it?

Mr. HOLMES. I have been unable to find it. I thought I had it, but

I think during the last investigation I probably mislaid it.

Mr. DUNN. Did you see more than one of those letters?

Mr. HOLMES. Not the letters themselves. I saw them come in a

bunch, but not to read them.

The CHAIRMAN. The letter is in evidence?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes.

Mr. DUNN. You went to Mr. Martin's office?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.

Mr. DUNN. What did he say to you?

Mr. HOLMES. He told me that he did not wish to have me make a fight for Bryan and free silver.

The CHAIRMAN. Who told you that?

Mr. HOLMES. Euclid Martin.

Mr. DUNN. Did you make any reply to that request!

Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.

Mr. DUNN. What reply did you make?

Mr. HOLMES. I think I first asked him who it was who was bringing in the stories from South Omaha in regard to the employees there. Mr. DUNN. What made you believe that someboby had been bring. ing in stories?

Mr. HOLMES. The manner of his speaking, stating that I was making a fight for Bryan and free silver.

Mr. DUNN. Did he say to you that that was the case or that he so understood it?

Mr. HOLMES. That he so understood it; that that fact had been reported to him.

Mr. DUNN. He said that he did not want you to do it?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.

Mr. DUNN. Did he say anything about why he did not want you to do it?

Mr. HOLMES. He stated that himself, T. J. Mahoney, and I do not know whether he mentioned the name of Mr. McHugh or not, but he mentioned others, had taken up the fight here for Palmer and Buckner, and that it was his desire or the desire of J. Sterling Morton that the employees of South Omaha should do what they could in support of the Palmer and Buckner ticket, or at least not support the Bryan ticket.

Mr. DUNN. Now, directing your attention to a part of your remarks, will you, if you can, give the exact language of Mr. Martin when referring to the desire of the Secretary of Agriculture, J. Sterling Morton? Did he use Morton's name, or did he say the Secretary of Agriculture, or what? Give us his language as near as you can. Mr. HOLMES. He used Morton's name two or three times. At one time he used the word "Secretary" in connection with Secretary Morton. Mr. DUNN. And he said that it was the desire of Secretary Morton that the employees of the Bureau of Animal Industry should either support Palmer and Buckner, or at least not support Bryan?

Mr. HOLMES. That is right.

Mr. DUNN. Did Mr. Martin at that time, or any other time, object to your supporting Mr. Bryan upon the ground that in taking part in politics in that way you would be neglecting the duties of your position?

Mr. HOLMES. No; on the contrary, I first stated to him that I would not take any part in the campaign for the reason that the office was under the civil service. He assured me at that time that the persons who would aid them in giving a respectable vote for Palmer and Buckner, or aid in defeating Bryan in this, his home State, would not be forgotten by the Administration.

Mr. DUNN. Were you requested to do any particular work, or to take an active part?

Mr. HOLMES. He spoke considerably of the second ward-the ward where I live. I did not pay much attention to it. I did not tell him that I would support Mr. McKinley or Mr. Palmer.

Mr. DUNN. Did he at any time request you to take an active part in and to do political work during the campaign?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.

Mr. DUNN. He did ask you to do political work?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.

Mr. DUNN. You may state whether or not you did any political work during that campaign.

Mr. HOLMES. No, sir.

Mr. DUNN. State whether or not at any time while you were under the civil service at South Omaha any other person or persons requested you to do political work.

Mr. HOLMES. Do you mean in the last year?

Mr. DUNN. I mean any time while the office was in the classified service.

Mr. HOLMES. Oh, yes; I think so. Yes, in the Citizens' movement, a year or so before that. We were in the classified service then, I think. Mr. DUNN. During the Citizens' campaign what, if any, political work were you requested to do?

Mr. HOLMES. I was requested to do what I could to support the Citizens' ticket at the polls on election day.

Mr. DUNN. Who requested that?

Mr. HOLMES. I think it was Mr. Sheean.

Mr. DUNN. By letter or verbally?

Mr. HOLMES. Verbally.

Mr. DUNN. Mr. Sheean constituted part of the committee here of what was known as the Cleveland wing of the Democracy-the Administration wing?

Mr. HOLMES. He did.

Mr. DUNN. State whether or not you were requested or authorized by Dr. Ayer to leave the department and to leave your work at any time during that campaign to do political work.

Mr. HOLMES. Not directly; indirectly I was.

Mr. DUNN. What do you mean?

Mr. HOLMES. His clerk, Mr. Conoyer, told me the night before that Ayer had made arrangements with the boys uptown-Mr. Sheean or Mr. McHugh; both, I think he stated-that we were to come down and report in the morning and go back and attend to the election.

Mr. DUNN. That was in the fall of 1895?

Mr. HOLMES. I think it was in the fall of 1895.

Mr. DUNN. It was during the Citizens' campaign?

Mr. HOLMES. In the Citizens' campaign.

Mr. DUNN. You knew Mr. Murphy, Mr. Zeller, and Mr. Seay!
Mr. HOLMES. I did.

Mr. DUNN. Did they all work with you at the same abattoir!

Mr. HOLMES. Mr. Zeller, I think, from the time he was reinstated until he was removed, worked generally in the same abattoir.

Mr. DUNN. Did you have an opportunity to observe the conduct of Mr. Murphy, Mr. Zeller, and Mr. Seay as to negligence or incompetency during that time?

Mr. HOLMES. To a great extent I did.

Mr. DUNN. State whether or not at any time you knew any one or all of those parties to neglect their duties or fail to be there during working hours.

Mr. HOLMES. Not while they were at abattoir 14.

Mr. DUNN. State whether or not you ever heard anybody complain of their work.

Mr. HOLMES. I did not.

Mr. DUNN. State whether or not their work appeared to be properly done, so far as you were able to observe.

Mr. HOLMES. It did.

Mr. DUNN. State whether or not the rating of employees there was made upon the efficiency of their work in their particular department. Mr. HOLMES. It was not.

Mr. DUNN. State whether or not you know a relative of Dr. Ayer named Chase.

Mr. HOLMES. I do.

Mr. DUNN. State, if you know, what his employment is as it appears on the records of the Bureau of Animal Industry.

Mr. HOLMES. Tagger.

Mr. DUNN. State whether or not he ever performed any service as tagger.

Mr. HOLMES. He never did, to my knowledge.

Mr. DUNN. What is your knowledge?

Mr. HOLMES. My knowledge is that I saw him daily, or very nearly daily, for a year and a half or two years prior to the time I was removed. Mr. DUNN. Performing what duty? What was he doing?

Mr. HOLMES. He was acting as stock examiner.

Mr. DUNN. Do you know what his rating is or was at the time he was rated?

M. HOLMES. He was a stock examiner and was given a rating of 100 as a tagger.

Mr. DUNN. Is this the man for whom you went to the new post-office and for whom you tried to get a position?

Mr. HOLMES. I think not. I think the man I tried to get a position for was an older man. He was a stonecutter, and had a family. Mr. DUNN. Chase is Ayer's son-in-law?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.

Mr. DUNN. Dr. Ayer brought this man from Kansas to take that position?

Mr. HOLMES. I have been so informed.

Mr. DUNN. You do not know of your own personal knowledge?

Mr. HOLMES. Not of my own personal knowledge.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the salary of a tagger?

Mr. HOLMES. Seven hundred and twenty dollars a year.

The CHAIRMAN. What is a stock examiner's pay?

Mr. HOLMES. Nine hundred dollars a year.

The CHAIRMAN. You say this man was put on the pay roll as tagger, and not as stock examiner?

Mr. HOLMES. He was on the rolls as tagger and was doing stock examiner's work.

TESTIMONY OF J. ARTHUR TUCKER.

J. ARTHUR TUCKER, being duly sworn, testified as follows:

The CHAIRMAN. Where do you reside?

Mr. TUCKER. Omaha, Nebr.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your occupation?

Mr. TUCKER. Court reporter; stenographer of a court.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you employed by Mr. Huston, the agent of the Civil Service Commission, to take notes of the evidence in the investigation of charges against discharged employees in the Bureau of Animal Industry in South Omaha?

Mr. TUCKER. I was. I started the 11th of May.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you take the notes of the testimony in the case? Mr. TUCKER. I did.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you take the notes of the testimony of Dr.

Mr. TUCKER. I did.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. White has testified before this committee in the course of the investigation that the Civil Service Commission, through their agent, Mr. Huston, refused to report his testimony. Please state whether you took the notes of the testimony before Mr. Huston, and if so, what became of those notes.

Mr. TUCKER. They were sent with the record to the Civil Service Commission, directed personally to Mr. Huston.

The CHAIRMAN. I find by an examination of the record that his testimony does not appear.

Mr. TUCKER. No, sir; I will explain that, if you will allow me.
The CHAIRMAN. Please do so.

Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Huston was considering at length the expense and advisability of writing all of the notes as taken by me in the investigation, and he finally concluded that he would not have the whole of them written up-that is, the cross-examination, as made by Mr. Herdman and Mr. Lambert; and there was an agreement, as I understand, between Mr. Lambert and Mr. Huston. Inasmuch as he was not going to put the whole record in, Mr. Lambert did not want Dr. White's testimony to go in as I took it, but he would submit the testimony in narrative form; and that is the reason why the testimony was not written up. The CHAIRMAN. Did he direct you to transcribe in full the examination in chief?

Mr. TUCKER. With the exception of repetitions and what he termed irrelevant matter. There was one witness, I remember, who went on at length and testified about a stove, and he considered that irrelevant and asked me to leave it out.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he direct you not to report the cross-examination?

Mr. TUCKER. My contract was not to report it.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he do that on the ground that it was immaterial evidence?

Mr. TUCKER. It seemed to be a matter of expense with him, which he wished to avoid.

The CHAIRMAN. He was more solicitous about the question of expense when dealing with the cross-examination than when dealing with the examination in chief?

Mr. TUCKER. He seemed to have more regard for the expense of the cross-examination. Even after the bill in its entirety was rendered, he had a good deal of regard for it.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how much the investigation cost? Mr. TUCKER. I entered into a contract with him for my part for $200. The CHAIRMAN. You do not know what he paid the witnesses? Mr. TUCKER. I do not. I did not see him pay them anything. The CHAIRMAN. From his conduct did you get the impression that he was trying to have an ex parte report made?

Mr. TUCKER. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. LAMBERT. Were you in a situation to observe the conduct of Dr. Ayer and one Ed Shelden with reference to the examination?

Mr. TUCKER. Yes, sir; I was.

Mr. LAMBERT. You may state whether or not, of your own knowledge, Dr. Ayer and Mr. Shelden would as a rule take out all the witnesses favorable to their side and talk to them privately.

Mr. TUCKER. They did.

Mr. LAMBERT. You may state whether or not Mr. Huston, before a witness went on the stand, would particularly tell him of his privileges