The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-02-14
BALTIMORE.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY IA, 1860

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY ID, 1860
We have uniformly and energeticaly opposed
the action of the City Council in reference to the
City Passenger Railway We did not COMPLAIN
because Messrs. TRAvERs & Co. had not sufficient
capital, nor did we object to the introduction of
Philadelphia capital here. Our answering oppo-
siton to the ordinance was based upon the convic-
ton that 1t was conceived in sin and born in
'iniquity," and that the whole scheme, by which
it was originated and perfected, was one stupend-
Gus fraud. 1t was because bribery and corruption
and falsehood had been unblushingly resorted to
by the gang of spectators who obtained this
grant, that we denounced the proceedings of the
Council, and have appealed to the Legislature to
withhold the charter for which these parties have
applied. The evidence which has been taken by
the Committee appointed to investigate this mat
ter has now demonstrated the truth of our allepa-
tons. It has not yet been concluded, and its
length will preclude US from re-pubshing it, but
we propose to refer to certain portions of it in
order to show how fully it confirms the charges
we have never hesitated to prefer, from the very
inception of this scandalous conspiracy to plumber
this city through the agency of those who were
specially delegated to protect its interests The
whole plan was devised simply to obtain, through
influential politicians, and by nefarious means, a
profitable monopoly for BROCK & Co., of Phladel-
phia, and how far it has succeeded we all unfor-
tunately know.
The testimony, so far as it has gone, shows that
Mr.. THOMAS II. GARDNER, Clerk of the Criminal
Court, ostensiby made up this party to build a
City Passenger Railway in Baltimore 1t might
be supposed that Mr.. GARDNER, before applying for
an ordinance, had formed an association with the
capitalists who were to aid him, and had counted
the cost of the undertaking. But it was not in
such business-ke mode as this that so dashing
speculator proceeded. He went to Mr.. JAS. H.
WOOD, of the City Council, and informed him of
bis purpose, and while bespeaking the sympathies
of this gentleman in favor Of his scheme Mr.
GARDNER desired him to furnish few partners,
who would take part in it. Here is the members
account of the affair:
"Wtness a member of the Council that passed the
Travers BILL introduced the bill that passed which
the original Travers bill; introduced the at the
stance of Thos H. Gardner Clerk CT the Criminal Court
applied to Mr.. Travers, Mr. Browning and Mr. Sumwalt
for the use OF their names as grantees"
into such partnership does not very clearly ap-
pear; nor has it yet been made apparent how
they expected to procure money with which to
carry out their contract. Mr. TRAvERs allowed
his name 10 be used as he thus tells us:
~ did it of friendship and Also because be-
eved it was the policy of the city Baltimore bring
capital from other places be invested in it, and because
l believed it would give employment to large number
of the citizens of Baltimore, in the matter contracts
of the things that commended it my favorable at
tenton, the fact that capital to be brought
Baltimore
He does not, in his anxiety to advance the CITY,
seem to regard the possibility of being compro-
missed in character or fortune, by engaging, with
out pausing to reflect, in business of such mag
nitude The fact that "capital was to be brought
"to Baltimore" was enough for him, and he
boldly accepted all the risks. We must presume
that the other individuals who joined him, and
eventually obtained the grant. were actuated by
the same disinterested motives.
Mr. GARDNER does not appear as one of the
grantees, but he had initiated the project, and
had used every endeavor TO obtain for it the APP
prevail of the Council. He tried also, to influence
public opinion and spent his money freely. When
questioned about the violence which broke up the
meeting that was called in the Square, to protest
against this very ordinance, he had the audacity
to admit that he
asked Mr.. Wilmot to go there and speak or pre-
side, offering him 500 for doing So"
81 told Mr.. Baer clerk in my Office to take carriage
and around and of friends to be present.
and told him that would pay for the carriage"
Now, it will certainly be surmised that man
who put himself TO all this trouble and expense had
a very considerable as we'll as certain interest at
stake. But such is not the case. From his own
lips we here learn the amount of his investment at
that time:
Questionable you expect to have any interest in this
railroad grant at the time it passed
Answer.-I did so expect, certainly, but did not know
to what EXTENT
Like all the rest of the parties connected with
this transaction, he was laboring to have rail-
road built, though he did not know the proposed
grantees were able to perform the undertaking,
nor that the contract to be assigned, and had,
himself only an indefinite and prospective interest
in the business. We are at loss for language
sufficiently strong 10 commend the course of these
public spirited citizens. Having obtained mo-
nopoly for which they were offered, they say
$780, 900 just after the passage of the ordinance
they assigned it over to BROCK Co. for a nomi-
nal consideration. These prudent partners are
unable to tell what was the price obtained for this
valuable franchise. Mr.. TRAvERs says:
II received after the assignment but in no considera-
ton whatever of the assignment the of $500
proprietOrs, &c; did consider that what received
was in consideration for the assignment"
His Ignorance about the receipts OF his partners
will appear from the following extract;
"ouestion.-You have no knowledge of any sum OF
ment2
Answer-I speak ofmy own connection with the mat
ter; what the grantees understood do not know
Was there ever a valuable-marketable franchise
so cheaply parted with? It's gratifying to learn,
however, that Mr.. TRAvERs' colleagues did make
something, though Of course he did not know
it. for when it appeared in evidence that one of the
grantees, brother of member of the Council, had
received $500, the counsel of BROCK & Co. made
this explanation
Gov Pratt-The $500 the witness speaks of the $500
given to each of the grantees for the Recommendations
$4,000 in ALL which we admit"
But whatever differences of opinion may exis
between these immaculate partners as to whethe
they were paid for their common property or not
there can be no doubt about the fact that some O
the Councilmen were rewarded for their efforts t.
advance the city's interests. One witness saws:
"Mr Cathcart, of the Second Branch and Mr. Beach
of the First Branch, in laying thu
road; John W Randolph, another member of the City
Council furnished the lumber for the road told BY
the who hauled the lumber that it came from Mr.
Randolph's yard
Mr.. WooD thus confirms the statement:
There a contract given to Mr. Shoemaker ant
Gessrs Cathcart and Beacham, of the Council becam
parties to the contract There contract given
Mr. Randolph. Mr.. McComas repaired their stables OF
the Point, and heard that Mr. Taylor was work
ing on the stables up town.
But what had the present applicants for a char
ter to do with all these singular arrangements
Were they connected with the original grantee
from the outset? Mr.. WooD the energetic mem
Der of the First Branch was not aware tina
they were until the assignment was about to b.
made. Here is his evidence on this point:
"Question.-Have you ever stated to any person tina
the grant be assigned to the parties befor
it passed the Councs9
Answer.-No, sir. | never made such statement be
cause had no such knowledge
1t is somewhat strange that Mr. TRAvERs wht
only engaged in the business on Mr.. WooD's APP
plication, should have known more about tn
matter than his principal. He was fully aware O
the fact that an assignment was in contemplation
Here is the proof of 1t in his own words:
"Question.-How soon after the passage of the ord
did become acouainte an