Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1873-02-25
mn. roLkSD's ARGUMENT.

q
Der OF Congress had been hriecd by osles
Ames, and after a fun investigation the com
mittee found hat Mr.. Ames had bribe.l mem
eeIs and that MIR. Brooks, OF New Work. ~as
hrioed. The committee did not ind that there
vas anything with regard 20 other members
that required they shoatd rerorf except a. make
up a special verdict A. they had done. Poland
then proceeded 70 review the testimony relating
%
THE CASE OF M. oAKEs ANrs.
and lie said IL all showed that Mr.. Ames' object
in placing the stock was O. secure friensis IN
Congrcss. lie was here o-tcnsihly A. a iegt~la-
& Y. but he was really I.cddling oai credit m,-
bilicr stock. He thought there could he no
doubt OF Amos In that matter. lie wanted 10
influence members tor their votes. ana this con
duct Ct Amcs wss unquestionably bribery tn
Law. IL Ma penitentiary offence GA Ames'
part, althcugh all To n HON he offered the money
might be perfectly innocent. They could not
possibly understand Mr.. Ames' motive in the
matter 80 far a. Ames concerned a. was
mihateIiAl whether the members v 10 got the
st.ck received Il with corrupt infant or not.
MI. Poland then rc.erred 20 the fact that
Ames excused himself and his friends excused
him, ON the ground hat he was ignorant OF the
law, and did not believe ne MAS comm ttiUs a
httgal act. ignorance of the Law ~as not an
excuse for the most imhruted criminal s,,A
shall u he made an excuse for a millionaire AMI
a ten-year member OF Congress- N Va -,
said that Aines dad not think IL hal done any
thing IMMORAL Perhaps his moral perceptioUs
had not reached 20 high an elevation buf Il A.
no excuse for his crime.
THE CASE 90 JAMES RHooK-
was then alluded 90. Mr.. Poland referred 4,
the fact that he was a leading man in H. uarf,,
and ina the counstls Of the nation and he was
moreover a Director OF the Union Pacific rail-
road. He did not receive his stock from oakes
Ames, bat lac did receive n from other partisS
and TOR the sake of bribery and influencing his
action. He accepted This stock while he was a
government director, knowing fun well IT, ri-
icct aud what IL was worth.
Mr.. Eldridge inquired whether Brooks was 10
be expelled for acts done - a government di-
rectoror whether that was not a question for
another tribunal elsewhere 10 determine BY a
Mr.. Poland replied that be had no doubt what
ever that Brooks " a. liable 10 expulsion for the
act he had committed. lie referred 10 Brooks
negotiations with Dursnt, and said n was i'm
possible that u. should not have known the
value OF the stock. When the stock Was first
offered him il not 40 valuable and he would
not have II, but when Il became valuable he
took II from Durant for services rendered
Brooks knew that he could not hold the STOCK
himself, and ne therefore had it transferre, 10
his son-in-law. Neilson. The money tor the
stock was paid BY Mr.. Brooks. aud vet there
was not scrap Of evidence To show that any
obligation was given. or that the money was
loan TO Nelson. Reference was made 20 the
testimony as showing how the profits we're
made by the purchase OF the credit mobilier
stock. IL was impossible that Brooks did not
know the nature Of the stock. He had not only
received the original 1oa shares. but when the
stock Was valuable, aud was yielding large
profits, he demanded an additional fifty shares
Mr.. Nelson had no Official position, and h.
would never have received the advantage OF
the stock but for the name and official position
of his father-in-law. Nelson was all the time
a mere fgnre- head; he was never really known
to the credit mohiler OF Union Pacific ra .lroad
company. Nelson himself testified that he had
never pad for the stock, but that Brooks had
advanced the money.
Mr.. POLAND then referred 10 the fact that the
stock was all the while I'm the possession of
Brooks. IL Was i'm his safe, and under his con-
a IN HQrs n IA ell
was not a regular stock operafor-he was a mere
anate UT, and Mr.. Brooks allowed him money
70 be operated with, but u newhere appeared
but that the proceeds OF the stock went into
Brooks own pocket. He fPoiand) thought the
committee was perfectly justified In surprising
that Brooks was the real owner of the stock.
company yielded to Brooks demand for the
stock, because they feared his oHhclal action.
The committee believe that il Mr.. Brooks WAS
guilty OF corruption a government director
be Vas clearly liable 10 expulsion, aud that too.
without reference 20 the time when the cOrruI,t
act was committed. The committee believe he
placed himseli i'm a position 60 share in the
spells OF a company whose interest IL was his
duty 10 protect.
MIR. Poland then referred 10 the report yester-
terday submitted from the judiciary committee,
and he said the committee on the credit mobi-
lier differed in toto from the judiciary commit
ttee. IL was not the law, and he hoped 10 Cod
IL never would he the Law that a man could not
be punished for crime committed years before.
hide his crime for years. and then coald not
be punished upon discovery Will IL he said
mat murderer even, who could hide his crime
could be elected TO Congress and come in here
and sit beside
EvEN sUoH CHRISTIAN GENTLEMAN
As General Butler lLaughter.l IL was proper
INVENTOR OF THE CREDIT NosurrR SCHEME
should desire such a legal ruling a. that pre-
sented I'M the report yesterday. He had not
doubt that Congress could punish men for acts
I'm frs1 n Hlr.nhr n
criminals.
Mr.. Beck, interrup,ing. said he and Poland
were both members of the 10th Congress When
L. c. Bowen, OF South Carolina, presented HIM
SELF 10 lie sworn in, Mr.. Mullins, OF Tennessee.
objected, and showed that Bowen had killed his
colonel while in the army, and yet the House
anowCd Bowen 10 be sworn in, and no ATTEMPT
was made 20 eSpel him for the murder.
Mr.. Poland replied that IL Bowen was guilty.
as IL was charged he was, il would have been
case had been made up and the facts had been
proved he would have voted for expulsion.
Mr.. Poland then referred to the
and said il had always claimed the right 20 es-
pei members for acts committed before cleo
ton. He then quoted some American prece-
dents 20 the same effect.
Mr.. Eldridge inquired whether il was claimed
that this House had the same power a. the
British House Of Commons.
Mr.. Poland had not the least doubt of il. He
Mr.. ANEs HAS THE FLOOR.
MT. Cakes Ames Was then assigned the floor,
and he requested the Clerk, Mr.. Mcpherson. TO
read statement he had previously prepared.
In this statement MIR. A mes goes into an elabo-
rate history OF the organization, rise and pro
gress of the L. II. X. X. 60. lie refers to the
contracts that were entered into for the con-
struction Of the road. reference IL then made
TO the Oakes Ames contract of ise5-ts. The
alleged corrupt transactions imputed 60 him
are all charged 20 have been contracted fn
December 1861. No legislation at all affecting
the eeuniary interests OF the road was asked
Tor the three years after the date OF alleged
sales Of credit mobilier stock. Under these
circumstances. and with all the legislation
sought for granted. he lie charged with corrup-
ton by selling credit mobilicr stock. Iii this
charge is true" says Mr.. Ames, s.it is predica-
ted upon three facts, all of which should he
shown TO the satisfaction Of this body I'm order TO
Justify the extreme measures recommended by
the committee"
LIST. The shares must have been sold at prices
so manifostly aud palpally below the true value
ms TO conclusSyely presume the expectation of
some Of the Ncuniary advantage In addition 20
the price paid.
ID. The shares must have been OF such a
nature as that their ownership would create i'm
the holder corrupt purpose TO shape icgisla-
ton in the interest of the seller.
81. Some distinc: and SPECIFIC matter 90 thing
70 be brought before Congress, and ON which
the votes and decisions of menbcrs arc sought
TO be Influenced, should be alleged and prov ed
With regard 90 the first fact Mr.. Ames denied