Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1873-03-07


every member had received stock from
him in entire innocence. The law did
not require the intent to be known to the
person to whom the present was made.
1t was the insidious attempt to under
take to bind man of honor by gratitude
that constitute bribery.
1t would not do for Mr.. Ames to
plead innocence of the law; that plea
was not permitted to the most debased
and ignorant criminal, and was the House
to liberalize that rule of law for the ben
eft of millionaire, AMI of ten year
member of Congress Was that man to
stand up in such presence, or anybody
for him, and say that he did not know
what the law was, and did not know he
was violating it? If a mans moral sense
saw no wrong in that which their prede-
cessors had declared a penitentiary of.
tense, and should forever disqualify a
man from holding the meanest office,
was such man fit to sit here as one of
the law makers of the nation? Mr.. Po-
land submitted whether, even in the most
charitable view of Mr.. Ames's conduct,
that man was one who ought to be toler-
ated as member of the House.
HOW DOES MR.. BROOKS STAND.
Passing then to the case of James
Brooks of New York. Mr.. Poland stat
ed the facts in the evidence which justi-
fed the resolution reported for the ex-
pulsion of Mr.. Brooks. He dwelt some
what on the fact that at the time of the
Cakes Ames contract Mr.. Brooks was
thoroughly familiar with the whole SUBJ
ject, first as the agent of Durant for
placing the shares of Credit Mobilier
stock among the capitalists of New York
and second as a Government Director OF
the Union Pacific Railroad Company.
MR.. BROOKS CoNTRADIcTs.
Mr.. Brooks, interrupting. corrected
Mr.. Poland's statement as to his being
a Government Director at the time OF
the Oakes Ames contract. That contract
was dated in August, 1867, was assigned
in October, 1867, and he (Brooks) was
not nominated till October, 1867, and
had not accepted the Office till January,
| 1868.
MR.. POLAND RESUMES.
Mr.. Poland protested that he would
not for his right hand misrepresent the
smallest fact in reference to the case,
What Mr.. Brooks had said was not in
the slightest degree in cohict with what
he Poland had said. The Cakes Ames
contract had been executed in August
1867, but it had been found that the trap
was not properly set, and, under the ad
vice of cunning counsel, new machinery
had 20 be devised, in order to run it sue.
cessfully, SO as to cheat the United States
Government, to cheat the State of Penn
sylvania, and to cheat the Union Pacific
Railroad Company. The matter was not
complete until the middle of October,
and Brooks had become Government
Director on the LIST of October There
was not the slightest evidence that Mr..
Brooks ever considered himself as any
thing but fullfedged Government Di-
rector. There was no evidence that he
had performed any official act before
January, 1868, but it had never been
suggested that he had not accepted the
Office, and that all its duties were incum.
bent on him.
A PERTINENT QUERY.
Mr.. Eldridge asked Mr.. Poland wheth-
er he meant that Mr.. Brooks should be
treated differently from any other mem
Der because he had been Government
director.
MR.. BRooKs's RESPONSIBILITY.
Mr.. Poland had no doubt that the acts
of Mr.. Brooks as Government director
would furnish cause for his expulsion as
member of the House. Brooks must
have been perfectly familiar with the
whole scheme of fraud from his intimate
acquaintance with Durant, and from bis
official relations as Government director.
1t could not be supposed that while he
was employed by Durant to place biz
Credit Mobilier stock among New York
capitalists, he was not we'll informed as
to the reasons why that stock was valua-
BILE or not.
MR.. PoLAND's TIME EXTENDED.
At the expiration of the hour allowed
for each member to debate, Mr.. Potter
moved that Mr.. Poland's time be extend.
ed for half an hour. This was agreed
to unanimously, and he proceeded with
his argument, Analysing the testimony,
referring to Mr.. Brooks and to the rela-
tions of his son-in-law Nelson with the
Credit Mobilier stock as its ostensible
owner. He declared that Brooks, know
| ing the whole fraud had deliherat elv