New-York tribune., 1873-01-18
TIE CASE OF MR. BROORS.

TIE CASE OF MR.. BROOKS.
We presume that the gentlemen implicated
in the questionable transactions of Mr. Oakes
Ames with Credit MObilier stock are now
sorry they did not make a frank statement of
their cases in the beginning, and trust 10 the
charity of the world for placing upon them
the most favorable Interpretation they could
be made to bear. If they had honestly
acknowledged that they did buy stock, but
declared that they paid for it with their own
money, and saw no wrong in doing, so, many
of their constituents would have been ready
TO believe them innocent, though perhaps
foolish and imprudent All those who spoke
at all, however, before the inquiry began,
strove to convey the impression that they had
never owned any shares of this stock and
never had any dealings with Mr.. Oakes Ames,
the story of McComb being sheer invention
from beginning to end. When it is now dis
covered that number of these gentlemen
have held the stock, and that others have been
in negotiation for it, and that tho denials,
though some Of them may have been true in
letter were all more or less false in spirit, sus-
picions are fixed more firmly than ever and
the world says, there must have been some
deception about it
Mr.. James Brooks ia one Of the most con-
spicuous sufferers by this inconsiderate readi-
ness TO deny everything. When it was re-
ported that he had been guilty of some cor
rupt transactions with the Credit Mobilier, he
made heated defense of himself in the House
of Representatives, wherein ne said:
"I have never owned, directly indirectly, single
dollar or share Of the Credit Mobilier. The rea-
son why did not own IL was because as Gov
ernmen could not any stock in the Union
Pacific Railroad Company aud did not feel t right or
proper when the laws of the country forbid me to
stock in Pacific Railroad Company to own indirectly
iu another form, the stock OF the Credit Moblier."
And then Mr.. Brooks went on to explain
that the rumOrs respecting him undoubtedly
arose from the fact that his sOn-in-aw, Charles
II. Nelson. had bought fifty shares OF Credit
Mobilier and paid for it 35,233 49, in conirma-
tiop of which statement he showed the receipt
of Sidney Dillon President of the Credit Mo-
biler to Charles H. Nelson, for the amount
specified. Mr. Brooks did not expressly say
that he had nothing to do with this purchase
by his son-iniaw but he managed to convey
that impression A few days afterward Col.
McComb testified that Mr.. Brooks had received
100 shares and transferred them TO Nelson,
and that he was present when Mr.. Brooks
afterwards urged Mr.. Alley to let him have 80
more, iii consideration of his services to the
Company; Mr.. Alley consented, and this addi-
tional stock, as he supposed, was likewise
transferred to Nelson. All this Mr.. Alley
positiyely denied, and Mr. BrOokss cashier
and business manager, Thomas b. kingsland,
wrote a letter in which he said
"Mr. James Brooks loaned large sums OF money to
Mr. T. c. Durant at different times and also to the Union
Pacific Railroad As his cashier and business manager
must have made all the settlements and drawn all the
checks and settl all with Mr.. Crane Mr. D
rants manager both for the loans and the Union Pacific
Railroad Mr.. Brooks's checkbook shows no check for
$1,000 to Mr. Durant or s. 33 49, and never acting for
Mr. Brooks with Mr. Crane paid for any 100 or so shares
of the Credit Mobier for Mr. Charles II. Nelson. am
certain that Mr. Brooks could not have made any such
large operations In money without his checkbook or
bank account showing it, They make no such showing"
But when Mr., Nelson was called this whole
fabric Of denial suddenly melted away. He
frankly acknowledged that Mr. Brooks had
bought the first hundred shares and caused
them to be transferred to him. "Tbe arrange
"ment was made simply by Mr. Brooks adj
" vanclng the money MIR. Brooks dld the
"business Mr.. Brooks originally mentioned
{" the matter to me, but made no explanation
"beyond saying he did not care to hold the
4" shares himself When L went to the
" office to get the stock found it already paid
Z" for and in my name" Mr.. Nelson further
testified that with these 100 shares of Credit
Mobilier he received S22 shares of stock and
five first mortage bonds of the Union Pacific
Railroad, and about the same time, or shortly
after he received cash dividend of $4,000.
subsequently Mr.. Brooks informed him that
he was entitled TO 80 shares additional, and
told him to go and get It," He paid for these
shares with money (s5,233 83) borrowed from
Mr.. Dillon, the President of the Company, and
70 cover the loan be gave Mr.. Dillon some Of
the Union Pacific stock which he had received
"a dividends. This is the only payment he
ever made of this loan. In other words, he
boucbt the second block of shares with part of
the dividend he had received on the first. Mr..
Nelson also declared that he had paid over to
Mr.. Brooks the cash dividend of $4,000, and
had given him i'm addition part of his Union
Pacific stock.
The testimony Of Mr.. Nelson was clinched
by that of Benjamin r. Ham, Treasurer of
the Credit Mobilier. and II. C. Crane. Assist
ant Treasurer. Mr.. Ham produced one Of the
hooks of the concern on which the name of
Charles ii. Nelson appeared Immediately after
AN erasure, as the owner of 80 shares of stock,
and though he had no recollection of what
name had been originally written there. he