Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-02-26
1867, and had not accepted the Office till

l
January, 1868.
Mr.. Poland protested that he would not
for bis right hand misrepresent the case.
All that Mr.. Brooks had said was not in
the slightest degree in conflict with what
he (Poland) bad said. The Cakes Ames
contract had been executed inlAugust, 1867,
but it had been found that the trap was
not properly SET, and under the advice of
cunning counsel new machinery had to be
devised In order to run it successfully so as
to cheat the United States Government, to
cheat the State of Pennsylvania, and to
cheat the Union Pacific Railroad Company.
The matter was not completed until about
the middle Of October, and Mr.. Brooks had
become Government Director on tie LIST
| of October. There was not the slightest
evidence that Mr.. Brooks even considered
himself as anything but full pledged Gov
eminent Director. There was no evidence
that he had performed any official act be-
fore January, 1868, but it had never been
suggested that he had not accepted the
Office, and that all its duties were incun-
bent on him.
Eldridge asked Poland whether he meant
that Brooks should be treated differently
from any other member because he had
been q Government Director.
Mr.. Poland had no doubt that the acts
of Brooks as Government Director would
furnish cause for his expulsion as a mem
Der of the House. Brooks must have been
| perfectly familiar with the whole scheme of
! fraud from his intimate acquaintance with
| Durant and from his official relations as
| Government Director. Il could not DO
| supposed that while he was employed by
Durant to place his Credit Mobiler stock
among New York capitalists, he was not
well informed as to the reasons why that
| stock was valuable or not valuable.
At the expiration Of the hour allowed for
| each member in debate, Mr.. Potter moved
| that Mr.. Poland's time be extended for
| half an hour, which was agreed to unani-
| mously, and he proceeded with his argu-
ment, Analysing the testimony referring to
| Brooks and to the relations OF his s0n-in-
| law, Nelson with Credit Mobilier stock
as its ostensible owner. He declared that
| Brooks, knowing the whole fraud, had de-
liberately put himself in a position to share
| in the spoils. The committees held that the
| facts proved abundantly official misconduct
on the part of Brooks, and the committee
| also held that as a matter Of law there was
good and sufficient grounds for his expul-
sion as a member of Congress. It had been
argued yesterday IN
Something Called a Report
of the Judiciary Committee that Congress
had no jurisdiction over matter OF thi
kind and had no right to exp5l man for
something done prior to his official term as
| a member. The committee differed entire
| ly with that gentleman and the few endors-
ers whom he had got and whom be called
members of the Judiciary Committee.
| Laughter The select committee differed
toto colo with these gentleHsen IN regard to
the law on thai subject, 1t never had been
law, and he trusted in God that it never
| would be, or that it was ever to be had in
this country, that the vilest criminal, a
murderer even, who bad concealed his
| crime from the public and who he'd been
elected a member of the House, WAS
to come here and be allowed to sit beside
| such Christian gentleman as was here
from Massachusetts, QaughterO and that
the House had.no power to expel such man,
but that the members must take him to
| their bosoms as an associate. To say that
such was law was mockery. He believed
no lsuch absurdity and no such iDgenu-
| ity on the part of the gentleman from Mas
sachuSetts (Butler) or anybody else could
ever make the intelligent people Of the
country believe it. 1t needs the man who
was the inventor of the Credit Mober ma
chine to have devised such doctrine.
Laughter and applause.l
MIR. Beck here interrupted Mr.. Poland
and said he wanted 10 ask him question,
as the point be Was discussing was the
point of difficulty with him. They had
both been members of Congress when
Bowen, of South Carolina, presented him
self to be sworn in member.
Mullins, OF Tennessee,
had then risen in his place, and said Bow
en-, while Major in the Confederate army,
had killed his Colonel, for which he was
arrested, tried and imprisoned; that while
in prison the Federal army came along and
broke his letters; that he then became
loyal citizen, and that Gen. Sickles had
told him (Mullins) that Bowen's conduct
had been so bad that he incarcerated him
again. The man was known to be biga-
mist, yet he had been sworn in and no
member of the House had ever moved to
expel him. He (Poland) was a member
of the House at that time, and had not
made such move. He, himself, (Beck)
had thought that the House was disgraced
by the presence of men, white and black,
of infamous character sent to Congress
from Southern States, but the trouble was
the power or right to expel them.
Mr.. Poland did not see the precise point
of Mr.. Beck's question. He might as we'll
ask it of timseif as OF him.
Mr.. Beck-The gentleman says that the
House has clear Jurisdiction over the past
conduct of members prior to their election?
Mr.. Poland had not the slightest doubt
of it. When the question as TO Mr.. Bowen
had been raised, it had been prematurely
raised. A man being murderer did not
make him ineligible as a member of Con-
gress. The votes cast for him had
to be counted, and he had to
be admitted, but as soon as
he had got seat it was the duty Of the
other members of the House, as honest and |
decent men, to expel him, and if what |
was alleged against Mr.. Bowen was true |
he ought to have been expelled. The gen.
tleman from Kentucky (Mr. Beck) seemed |
TO know more about that case than be (Mr. |
POland) did, and therefore he was to be |
more blamed for non-action in the matter |
than himself If Mr.. Bowen had been |
guilty of the charges alleged against him,
the House had the amples5 and fullest legal |
jurisdiction of the matter, and most GER
tainly if the case had ever been properly |
presented, and if his conduct had appeared |
what was charged, he (Mr. Poland) would |
have voted for expulsion.
Mr.. Poland then proceeded to discuss
the report made by Butler, of Massachu-
sets yesterday and denied that there was
any precedent in Parliamentary history for
the assumption in that report. On the |
contrary, with the little search he had been |
able to make sinc3 last evening he had |
found in English Parliamentary history two
cases subsequent to that of John Wilkes,
the case of Ward charged with forgery and
the other that Of Atkins, charged with per-
jury, who were both expelled from the
House of Commons, the offences having |
been committed before their election.
There never had been question raised in
the English Parliament as to the power to
expel unworthy members, no matter when
their offences were committed.
Mr.. Eldridge-DOes the gentlemen claim
that Congress has tho same power as Brit
ish Parliament.
Mr.. Poland-Certainly do.
The half hour extension time having
come to az end, it was proposed By some
member that the time should be extended.
Mr.. Butler of Massachusett-Th gentle
r p1l. \ al L =