The Attorney-General, who had thought it unnecessary to collect more testimony by putting the defendants on the stand under oath, testified, of course, that there had been no suppression of testimony. The seller of peace himself, when he was afterwards brought to book before the Legislature, attempted to stand to a similar denial that he had in any way been unfaithful to his trust as the expert of the State and representative of the people. But he broke down. He was asked if his agreement with the company had any relation to this case. "Unquestionably. To all cases--this case and all others." "You were to do nothing further for the Commonwealth in this or any other case?" "Precisely." "If the Supreme Court had subsequently reversed the case, and it had gone back for a new trial, and had been tried before a jury, so that the company's officers could have been subpoenaed and compelled to testify, would you then, after receiving this money, have been at liberty to assist in getting that testimony together for the Commonwealth, and aiding the Commonwealth?" "I should say not." "You were free to do it prior to your arrangement?" "Certainly." "By whom was it"--the negotiation--"begun?" he was asked. "By the representative of the company," he replied, naming him.[336] When this bargain was arranged and the first payment made only an opinion had been filed. No judgment had been entered. There was still time to make any one of many moves. Reargument and new trial both were possible. These men seduced this representative of the people only to cast him aside, as seducers always do. They did not pay him "cash down" when they bought his "peace," but in instalments, and part of his pay was in the shape of $5000 for a year's service for which he was to do no work. This kept the whip-hand of him until the tax matter was finally settled and irrevocably past reopening. When that had been done they cast him off with scorching contumely. The secretary of the trust waved him into obloquy as a black-mailer. When the trustee who negotiated the "peace" was before the committee of the Pennsylvania Legislature in 1883 which investigated this miscarriage of justice in the tax cases, he was asked if the man of whom he had bought "peace" had used the positions he had held in the producers' and other associations to further his own ends. He answered: "I think he would prostitute anything to further his own mercenary ends."[337]