Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1873-10-02

pie that was guarded in the first act was
sacrificed in the second
We know that the security Of the gov
eminent was subordinated to first mort
gage amounting to over sixty millions of
dollars, that the reservation of any part of
the bonds, until the road should be CON-
pleted was repealed. Alse the five per
centnet earnings to apply to iquidate the
bonds, and the provision for applying the
earnings of the roa2 on government trans
portation was altered so as to require
but one half to be so applied, and all re-
striction as to the amount Of stock that
any one man could hold was removed.
The land grant was doubled-giving the
different Pacific roads territory, accord
ing to the report of the Commissioner of
the General Land Office, within one
fourth> of twice the area of England,
Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Guernsey, Jer-
sey, the Isle Of Man, and the Islands of
the British seas; and less than tenth Of
being equal to the French Empire
proper, and nothing that the inge-
nuity of man could invent for their
benefit was withheld This is the present
aspect of affairs"
After going on describing the progress
of the work and the various schemes con-
nected with it, said:
"Now, Mr.. Speaker, l will assert, prove and
maintain that the government Of the United
States will furnish every dollar necessary to
build these roads, and that for these vast advances
the government has practically no security what
ever. . -.
By computation, it appears, that the govern
ment subsidy will average about $50 COZ per mile.
able railroad men, there is not to exceed three
hundred miles of the entire line that will cost to
exceed that sum per mile while large part Of the
rest of the hne will cost far less yet fno that
when the bill of 1854 was up for consideration it
was stated ON the floor Of the House that there
were many miles that would cost $4,000 per
II have already said that this road could be
built for the government subsidy and 1 reiterate
that, provided it is built as other roads are built,
the road cost the stockholders no more than abso-
lu:ely necessary and at the same time to make it
represent nominal cost that would relieve the
money Of their own, and also to relieve them from
the ten per cent. dividend proposition, they re-
sort to device unheard Of before in thie country
The stockholders of the Pacific road are few in
number. 49,
They could easily have made contract with
themselves, for the building OF the road, without
bids or advertisements OF any kind. They could
have agreed to have paid themselves one or two
nominal cost to sul1 a figure as to have neutral
lied the ten per cent proviso IN regard TO earn
garded as an honest or legitimate and stralghtfOr-
ward one, and binding on the government! Clearly
not. Would transaction which amounts 10 pre-.
cisely the same thing, arrived at in an indirect
manner be any more honorable and stralghtfor-
ward or binding on the government! Instead OF
contracting for the construction OF the road as all
other roads have been built, what did they do!
A, b, and d are the stockholders of the COM
pany. A, b, G and d, under charter from the
state Of orgaazed themselves Ell into
ca A. B. and ID, stockholders, enter into q
contract with the Credit Mobilier; to build this
road at fabulous prices, and the Credlt Mooliier
lets out the contract at the lowest figure at which
it can be built making clear profit of the differ
ence between the price at which the contract is
taken and the price actually paid to those who DO
short of many many millions of dollars. 1t will
readily be seen from this that the company practi
cally contracts with itself to build the road, and
that the enormous figures they exhibit as repre-
senting the cost of the road are absolutely ncti-
iOsn'
This was the first exposition of the
Credit Mobilier ever made in Congress or
elsewhere.
How much truth there is in the asser-
ton of my good friend Calkins about my
being Champion Of the,Credit Nobilier,
YOU NAV see from what have said. One
year ago, in a speech made in front
of the PlankintOn House in Milwaukee,
l spoke of this Credit Mobilier to re-iter-
ate what l had said in Congress, but l
added that the names of several members
of Congress in high standing had been
with it by one McComb, that
those gentlemen had all denied it, and
that / belived them. They were all men
whose previous character justified that
belief 1t was afterwards proved that
those gentlemen, driven by stress of
weather, took refuge in falsehood and
| was deceived in regard
to those individual men, but I never
uttered a thought inconsistent with the
speech made in 1868, from which have
read l adhere to it all, and only regret
that the public were not as virtuous then
as now, as in that event much of the
scandal that has since arisen might have
been avoided. But | got little support
from any quarter, on the contrary, quite
the reverse. But | will dwell no longer
on that subject.
BACK PAY OF 1866 AND 1875, 900 SAL
AIRY ENOUGH.
In Sentor Carpenters speech at James
vile, he made use OF this language:
"In 1866 the delegation from Wisconsin in the
House consisted of c. c. Washburn, /. e. Sloan,
Washburn voted for the bill; Sloan and McIndoe
did net vote All four received the back pay voted
by the bill Is there any man here tonight will
ing to brand Gov. Washbprn as thief.
l think may reasonably hope that his
audience, mentally at least, answered his
interrogatory in the negative. But the
Senator fell into grave error in repre-
senting that | voted for the increased pay
bill in 1866 The simple truth is, that I
was not a member of Congress at that
time, and how the Senator happened to
fall into such an error, cannot quite I'M
derstand | cannot but regret that he had
not examined the record with more care
before making the statement he did [
felt ANNOYED at the mistake. The speech
had a very wide circulation, and cannot
expect to correct the error, except at
home, which in justice to myself ought
to do. am sure that the error was unin-
territorial While l did not vote for the
bill of 1866, and am confident that
should not, had I been in Congress, there
was perhaps little justification for 1t.
But for the act Of 1873, there was, in my
Judgment, no justification whatever. The
salary of $5,O00-was ample. 1t was far
more than the value of the services OF the
average Congressman outside of Congress.
The idea that has been advanced, that at
that salary poor men were excluded from
Congress, is the veriest nonsense. Did
you ever know citizen of Wisconsin to
decline favorable opportunity to go to
Congress, and especially the Senate, be-
cause of the inadequacy of the salary !?