all the States" where he thought he could buy profitably. The last year of the war he was on the steamer Amazon, running between Savannah and Augusta. He is said by some of the witnesses to have had considerable influence with "the dangerous classes." He appears to have been an impulsive man, kind-hearted and generous toward persons in trouble and needing his aid. His predominant quality was a desire to speculate and make money. His political sympathies and principles were never very strong.

In the fall of 1860, when the question of secession was beginning to be agitated, we think Mr. Dillon sympathized with the Union cause. His kind-hearted conduct toward Mr. Blyler, when he was tarred and feathered in November, 1860, and the language that he used in the news paper-office, about the same time, and other acts referring to the same period, indicate sympathy with the Union cause. But, after the State of Georgia had seceded, and public opinion at the South was nearly unanimous for the Confederacy, and the war had begun, we think Mr. Dillon went with the current. As his friend and witness, Mr. William R. Simons, says (vol. iii, pp. 14, 15), "he was openly a Union man before the commencement of the war." Mr. Simons cautioned him at that time about expressing his Union sentiments so openly, and he says, "I noticed that after I gave him the caution I could never hear any remarks that he made; that is, when he found that secession was a fact accomplished, so far as it might be up to that time." So, too, in February, 1865, near the close of the war, after the capture of Savannah, when all could see (to use Mr. Dillon's expression to General Fry) "that the Confederacy was gone up," he again came out a bold and decided Union man. But, during the nearly four years of the war, betwen these two periods, his acts, so far as we can get proof of them, favored the Con. federate cause.

AS TO THE LOYALTY OF MR. DILLON.

We will consider

I. The evidence of the witnesses produced by Mr. Dillon to prove his loyalty.

II. Mr. Dillon's own testimony, and the question of his credibility. III. His disloyal acts as admitted by himself, but claimed to have been done under duress.

IV. The evidence reported by the special agents on behalf of the gov

ernment.

Before considering the evidence on behalf of Mr. Dillon to prove his loyalty, his acts, and the evidence against him, we deem it our duty to refer to the printed brief of claimant, lest the references there made to affidavits which are not evidence and to loyal acts said to be proved by such affidavits might mislead.

1. The claimant's counsel in their printed brief refer on pages 2 to 10 inclusive to the so-called testimony of twenty-eight witnesses included in Exhibit A. On page 17 of the brief they speak of "forty witnesses, the most of whom were rigidly cross-examined by the commissioners." Of this number of forty, twenty-eight are included in Exhibit A. On pages 21 to 23 of the brief, under the head of "special acts of loyalty on the part of Mr. Dillon," twenty-four of such alleged acts are enumer ated, and of them twenty-two stand solely upon the proof shown in the affidavits included in Exhibit A.

We deem it our duty, therefore, to state at the outset, that all these alleged affidavits in Exhibit A are not evidence in the case, and are not

transmitted to Congress. The act of Congress expressly provides that, "No claim where the amount exceeds $10,000 shall be examined, decided and reported by the commissioners to Congress, except the testimony on behalf of the claimant shall have been taken orally before the commissioners, or some one of them, personally, or shall have been taken previous to 3d March, 1871, to be used in the Court of Claims, or before some department of the government." Now, none of these affidavits in Exhibit A were "taken to be used in the Court of Claims, or before some department of the government." They were all taken prior to, or in, June, 1865, and at least a year and three months before Mr. Dillou presented any part of this claim to any department of the govern. ment. In October, 1867, he presented a claim to the Commissary General for the first six items of this claim, amounting to $31,115.67; the rest of the claim No. 7451 was never presented to any department of the government until September 23, 1871, when his petition was filed in this case. Items 11 and 12 in No. 7451 (which are quartermasters' stores), and the whole amount of the claim in No. 5235, being $272,000, were never presented to any department of the government until filed before this commission, 20th July, 1871. In June, 1865, therefore, and for a long time thereafter, he had uo claim before any department of the government.

Eighteen of the twenty-eight affidavits appear upon their face to have been taken for use before the United States district court at Philadelphia; three are certificates, "to all whom it may concern." The remaining six are ex parte affidavits taken prior to, or in, June, 1865, and it does not appear for what use they were taken. In October, 1867, when claimant filed his claim for $31,115 before the Commissary General, he then filed as proofs in the Commissary Department these papers included in Exhibit A, all of which are mere copies of affidavits previously taken. None of these papers in Exhibit A are the original affidavits. They purport to be copies of affidavits previously taken. If we had the originals we could tell by whom they were written and whether by any attorney of the claimant. They are all ex parte or substantially ex parte affidavits.

On the 25th April, 1873, when the counsel for the claimant offered the papers included in Exhibit A as evidence, the commissioners informed them "that as the claim amounted to more than $10,000, all the testimony in support of it must be taken before the commissioners personally, and that the affidavits would be received for reference only, and could not be transmitted to Congress with their report." (See memorandum of the short-hand reporter, vol. iii, pp. 48 and 49.) General Roberts and Mr. Middleton, who were then of counsel for the claimant, were present. Both have since died. In the brief presented by General Roberts, in writing, they are not referred to as evidence. It was fully understood by all the counsel at that time that these papers were not evidence in the case, but were merely left with the commissioners for reference to aid them in their inquiries, if they saw fit to use them. The counsel who made the brief, and who was not then in the case, and who has been recently employed to make the brief, was not aware of these facts, or he would not have referred to them as evidence. We impute no wrong intention to him.

As these affidavits are so fully commented upon in the printed brief, we deem it proper to say that a careful examination of them will show that they were taken ex parte or substantially ex parte; that the witnesses testify in a loose and general way, without specifying dates, where dates are highly material, or persons or facts, so as to enable the gov

ernment to corroborate or contradict them; that often, when they profess to testify to facts, they speak from mere hearsay and report, and often to facts in the highest degree improbable. Such testimony, if subjected to a thorough cross-examination, would leave but a small residuum of credible evidence The affidavits of Weston, Young, and Bosten, which are the most important, apply to Mr. Dillon's acts in February, 1865, after Savannah was taken, and when all could see that the end of the Confederacy was near. We have no doubt that Mr. Dillou had then made up his mind to join the Union side.

2. The judgment of the United States district court of Philadelphia finding Mr. Dillon loyal is not binding upon us, and the evidence there taken is not evidence upon which we can act, or which we can transmit to Congress. Claimant's counsel were so informed when they offered that record in evidence on the 18th February, 1874.

The testimony to prove Mr. Dillon's loyalty, which we transmit to Congress herewith as evidence in the case, cousists of the depositions of the following witnesses taken orally before us:

1. David R. Dillon (claimaut), vol. i, pp. 82-141.

2. Col. James McDonald, vol. i, pp. 1-16.

3. John H. Tucker, vol. i, pp. 20-82.

4. Frank P. Yalger, vol. ii, p. 16.

5. Augustus Kobler, vol. ii, p. 56.

6. William R. Simons, vol. iii, pp. 1–37.

7. D. A. O'Byrne, vol. iii, p. 37.

8. Robert Erwin, vol. v, pp. 8-48.

9. Henry C. Wayne, vol. v, pp. 46–78.

10. Matthias H. Meyer, vol. vii, pp. 12-15.

11. Edward G. Dike, vol. vii, pp. 24-30.

12. Joshua Hill, taken before A. O. Aldis March 26, 1873.

Of these witnesses three, viz, Senator Joshua Hill, Colonel McDonald, and Captain Dike, knew nothing of Mr. Dillon till after the capture of Savannah.

Senator Hill says that he saw Dillon at Augusta in December, 1864, and January, 1865, a short time after General Sherman took Savannah. He says: "Prior to these conversations I had had no opportunity to know what his opinions were."

Colonel McDonald never saw or knew anything of Dillon till March, 1865. Dillon was at Augusta from the fore part of December, 1864, till March 3, 1865, when he arrived at Savannah from Augusta with his boat.

Captain Dike came to Savannah with the Union Army the last of December, 1864. He does not testify with regard to the loyalty of Mr. Dillon, but to what Captain Weston told him about meeting Dillon and the Amazon the latter part of February, 1864, and about the seizure of the Amazon by the Navy.

We have no doubt that Dillon, after the capture of Savannah, decided in his own mind to come out strongly for the Union cause. At that time all could see that the end of the Confederacy was near, and Mr. Dillon did not hesitate to make the strongest professions of loyalty to the Union cause when he met Union men.

But the question is, was Mr. Dillon really loyal from the beginning of the war till about the time of the capture of Savannah, December, 1864 ? Of the nine remaining witnesses (including Mr. Dillon) who testify to this point

M. H. Meyer (vol. vii, pp. 12, 13, and 14) says Mr. Dillon " was an open-spoken Union man. I have often heard him express himself as such;" but when asked to state all he knew about it, he makes no response; and when asked if he ever knew him to assist any Union men or soldiers to go beyond the lines, replies, "I could not say so positive." That is all of Mr. Meyer's testimony. He gives no dates and states no conversations and says nothing as to his reputation for loyalty. Mr. Meyer was an alderman of Savannah, a judge of Chatham County, and one of the most respectable of Mr. Dillon's witnesses. The meagerness of his testimony, the omission of dates, and of anything in regard to Dillon's reputation for loyalty, are quite significant.

Henry C. Wayne (vol. v, pp. 56-78) was a major-general in the Confederate service throughout the war; had his headquarters at Milledgeville, and was more generally in the upper part of Georgia, but frequently went to Savannah to make inspections and on other business. He says: "After the war got pretty warm my time was principally spent on the Tennessee line, and was in Savannah only on business."

He never heard Dillon's loyalty to the United States questioned. Dillon was reported to him as a dangerous man and one who was loyal to the United States. He is unable to state who reported Dillon to him as a Union man, or a dangerous man, or what Dillon had either said or done to justify such a report, or what sentiments Dillon was said to have uttered. On one occasion he had a conversation with Dillon at the Pulaski House in his own room. This was the only conversation he ever had with him during the war, and it was "in the early part of 1862." as he thinks. He does not appear to have any means of fixing the exact date. He says he did not send for Dillon, but Dillon called ou him. (See page 23.) He says, "We were sitting there talking by ourselves and I then said to him that he had been mentioned to me as a dangerous man, and I said, 'Now, Dave, all I have got to say is this, you are entitled to your own opinions, of course, but don't commit any overt act or commit yourself so that I shall be able to take hold of you ;'" and when asked what Dillon said to that he replied, "He gave me to understand that he would do it (that is, follow my advice). It was just one of those casual conversations with an old schoolmate that one would have." General Wayne thinks the date of this conversation was "early in 1862." He has no means of fixing the date. If he had fixed it "early in 1861" it would have been highly probable and consistent with Mr. Dillon's language at that time.

It seems rather strange that Mr. Dillon, instead of calling his respectable and substantial neighbors at Savannah to testify to his loyalty, should call General Wayne, who, during the war, lived more thau one bandred miles from him, and only saw him and conversed with him once. Robert Erwin (vol. v, p. 8) was captain and major in the Confederate army for about two years and a half; was then taken ill and came home; was in the First Georgia Regiment, and for nine months in a northern prison. His testimony and appearance showed him to be a willing wit ness for claimant.

He says, "Dillon was looked upon by every one as a Union man." When asked to mention any person who said to him that Dillon was a Union man, he says that his partner, Maj. Charles S. Hardee, who was a conscript officer, told him repeatedly that Captain Dillon had charge of the steamer Amazon for no other purpose in the world than to avoid service. When asked if he had any further conversation with any one that he can recollect, he replied: "Yes, sir; if you desire something real pointed in

regard to it, I can mention this. Near the close of the war I had a conversation with General Fry, who was in command of the Confederate army at Augusta. General Fry had told me before that he knew of Dillon's disloyalty, and was watching for an opportunity to get him tied up. (The witness does not tell when this "before" was. He proceeds:) Mr. Dillon went to General Fry's office on one occasion and told General Fry outspokenly that he wanted to go to Savannah where his family was, and where his home was, and that he believed the Confederacy was gone up, and that he had no confidence in it in any way, and that he wanted to go; and General Fry then ordered him out of his office. This was after Savannah was taken, and in the month of February, 1865.” The above is the story which General Fry told the witness. He says Colonel Pritchard told him that General Fry then ordered him (Pritchard) to arrest Mr. Dillon, and to put an officer and a guard of ten men on the boat, and on the first intimation of Mr. Dillon's attempting his escape to shoot him down. Colonel Pritchard does not appear to have arrested Dillon, but a guard was put on the boat. He never heard of any other molestation of Mr. Dillon, except that occasionally, when ou his boat going up and down the river, he saw a guard on it.

He is unable to state any other conversations, or anything except general reputation to prove his loyalty. The first conversation with Hardee shows that Dillon was anxious to avoid going into the army; the other conversation was in February, 1865, and just before Dillon, getting this guard of ten men to go ashore near a whisky-still, did escape with his boat to Savannah.

William R. Simons (vol. iii, p. 1) went into the military service of the Confederacy in 1862 and remained in till the close of the war. Much of his testimony in favor of Mr. Dillon is partial, inconsistent, and improbable. He says he had several conversations with Mr. Dillon in 1861. That Dillon told him he was a great fool for going into the Confederate service. He says he told Dillon (and from his subsequent testimony it would seem to have been before Fort Sumter fell) that no man could express himself so openly in favor of the Union without getting into trouble, and that he was doing very wrong to talk so openly, and if he did not stop he should report him. That Dillon was a boisterous off-hand speaking man, but after that caution he became more reticent. He says: "I noticed that after I gave him the caution that I could never hear any of the remarks that he made; that is, when be found that secession was an accomplished fact." "Still," he says "we knew that he was with Union men every night; that Mr. Dixon and Mr. Osgood, the postmaster, told him of Dillon's meeting every night with Union men;" but, on further examination, it turns out that they were merely casual meetings of gentlemen, and not secret. A large share of this witness's testimony is mere hearsay, and is plainly colored by his desire to help Dillon. As this witness referred to Mr. Osgood, the postmaster, and as Mr. Dillon denied that he assisted Mr. Osgood, we wrote to him inquiring about Dillon's loyalty. He replies (see his letter of February 29, 1873), "I have no positive knowledge of his loyalty. I do not think he was generally regarded as being loyal to the United States Government during the late war. It was difficult to ascertain how many men felt. I have reason to believe that he rendered some assistance to loyal men during the rebellion. I think he was employed by the rebel government in carrying supplies on the Savannah River. I do not believe he would have been trusted in such business if he had been known by the authorities to have been a Union man." These statements in Mr. Osgood's letter make it very improbable