Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1873-03-20

u
a right. bat when MS claim was esnceael
then b. revealed bis guilty koowiea se, ou
patiently for. any ere % faii "a see il. be-
cause In the very moment uf its concession
to bin he said. that hs being Govern
ment director, could not take il IN his own
name; and when. an3 emily when n lssc~.s-
eeded 70 him as a rigi,, does he transscs
il to his soa-ia-law. Who can say. VIA,
rational being can say By transferring
this thing which he FIRST claim. md gets
possession ofin his own right TO his SIN.
'n-law. he thereby purged himself OF sha
iniqaity! The iuiqaiiy attached a, the
time he demanded aud received the title 10
himself: and * il rested IN him but an Ia
slant. how can IL be said he is guiltlcss
OF sicmssaing and receiving in ihs CHAR
aeter of u Government director that which
he. By confession OF hi, own mouth. ai-
mit'ed he vas not entitled to receive. be-
cause he was disqualified BY the official
position which he held froru staining hi.
hands with it. aud with reference 10 which
he was charged with the duty Of being a
disn'eres,ed trustee for the public. the
American people. And will you tell me
that rnan can be held gui,less because
when he claims thing as right ani it
Is conceded to him as a right he is dis
charged because he transfers It over 10
his son-in-iaw, a man living in his own
honse and charged secundari'y with the
protection aud support Of THAI daughter
whom he hiu Sc f primarily. Ly the
bonds of nature. was bound to provide
for! Why. sir, You Nigh, as well saw
that man is not corrupt who for the sake
of Official influence Insists With some man
who has patronage. Il demand that YOU
shall give 20 me in return Cor nv services
the disposition ola profitable oncr: can
not receive it for myself, bu: | will trans
fer it 10 my son or 10 my nephew or to
my son-in-law." l. he guiltless who thus
claims IT for his family. any more than if
he claimed it aud had the manlincss to
take il and to profess 70 do so for himself,
Now. sir. so mnch for the guilty kaowl.
edge of James Brooks at that tune. He
then acted as Government director on the
Ind day of January and on the Oh o.
February He thereafter soon claimed
the accre,ion Of fifty shares by virtue OF
his ownership Of tue original one hundred
shares. IN whose name did he make
that negotiation? By what right did he
insist on that additional amount? Sill
in the nanlc Of james Brooks. StiH tho
nights OF James Brooks were asserted.
Siil! the rigt's aud tue name eff Jamcs
Brooks were held prominently before
those who were concerned in the DISPOSE
;'on Of this matter. Then at last. when
the right of James Brooks was conceded on
on the .9;h Of February. 1868, he comes
in again and orders this &c be transferred
TO lis son-in-law. The right is demanded
IN his own name; the CONCESSION is made
to him III his own name; and the trans.
fer of the fruits of bis guilt is made
to his son-inlaw, and that, foysooth, is
matter of complete purgation!
NV, SIR, il you desire croor with refer
encc to that, turn 10 the testimony of Dill
Ion. to be found on page 2i3 Of the prin-
ted testimony:
"QasioH I understand that in the
negotiation You had with Mr. Brooks in
regard 10 the proposed increase of stock
which be claimed that he vas entitled 10.
You do not remember whether Brooks.
Nelson. or anybody elsc's name was men,
toned? The question in negotiation was
whether they should have the stock?
"insUsr When Mr Brooks came n
me he said he was entitled to so much
stock. BIZ, when he found that it was going
to be given to him by the majority of the
s,ockhnliers OF the Credit Mubilicr. he
then said directly in substance that /, was
to 60 to his sonin-iaw, aud not TO him"
And turn TO the resolution of the board
making the allowance of that stock. to be
found on page S45 Of the printed tes,imo.
ny: .F
1--WE. tho unhersisne stockholders in
the Credit Mobilicr of America. consent
to the sale of one hundred shares &c its
stock at par TO General g. NJ Dodge
Another man am sorry the committee
has no; jurisdiction over also
"c'icf engineer Of The Union Pacific Rail-
road Con, pany. and also 20 the sale to Hon
james Brooks of the balance he is entitled
to under his agreement with T. G. Du-
rant. the said Brooks to pay par value for
the same" .....
That wa. granted on the Goth of Feb
ruary, 1868. a few days after that agree
meat was catered iu;o. Then look at the
stock ledger and you will see an erasure
of Cts shares in somebody's name. anil
the name OF Charles ii. Nelson inserted
In lieu thereof.
But further than that. Nr. Speaker.
what does Mr. Brooks say himself with ref
erenS to these matters a. page a51?
Question. Did you ever know that
the persons who were entitled TO take f.-
tv per cent additional stock were entitled
TO have the same amount Of Union Pacific
railroad tonj,!'
...-AKsrer. | did no: know tie par,ic-
ulars kaex it hroa=at n large prfi: in
what form | did not kaOS. and | careful.
~ avoided kloxing' -r s4.-. 80.
Why .dii he So carefully avoid tnovins?
A man who deliberately s'iua his ete 10
the profits. the enormous rrct.s whTcit he
insists upon possessing, mus; have knows
a; least that there was something wrong
10 reference 10 il or he woald not have
bern 40 careful ~ e1c,ads the knowiejs e
from bis own mind. Blu, he lid know
i, because when yoa turn back to see
whai his Son-in-las did with the rrceeeds
Of abe one, huudrsd shares Of stock he 20, i.
the scn-in-law SAYS Mr. Brooks advanced
the money for him. aud in turn received