Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1873-03-05
Pnlitical.
The Credit Mobilier Dis
cussion.
Speech of Hon. Luke p. Poland,

'P'NNh VI hvh. buht II GOlAUu,
In House of Representatives., ftb'y Is. 1879
Mn. POLAND opened the case for the pros.
ecution, in speech recting the facts and
justifying the report Of the select commit
tee. Aftcr showing by the testimony that
at the time Of the transactions the stock OF
the Credit Mobiler was worth from 200 to
300 per cent. he asked whether Mr.. Ames
was so utterly insensible TO the profit which
he could have derived from that stock, had
he chosen to sell it, that he preferred to
let members Of Congress have it without
any profit to himself? How came his char.
table disposition all at once to be so ex-
tended in favor Of members of Congress-
His ostensible business iu Washington that
winter was his position as a member Of the
House-but bis actual business was tho
peddling of ten shares Of stock to members
Of Congress.
Mr.. Biggs, Of Delaware, intcrruptipg
the argument Of Mr.. Poland, asked him TO
state whether or not the evidence showed
that these leading members to whom Mr..
Ames was peddliug this stock knew it to
be worth from 200 to 800 per cent.
Mr.. Poland suggested to his friend from
Delaware that If he would wait he (Mr.
Polandl would get along to that point
Mr.. Biggs-we will wait patiently.
Mr.. Poland went on with his argument,
and said that there was some balancing mo-
tive 10 the mind Of Mr.. Ames which Undue.
ed him TO let certain men have this stock
at 100, when he could have got two or three
or four times as much for it. Was there
any possible doubt Of the motive Of Mr..
Amesl He had designed to get this stock
into the hands Of members, not merely to
rely on feeling Of gratitude which they
might have to him because he had Civ
ven them something worth two or three
or four times as much as they paid for it,
but he relied on something stronger than
that. Mr.. Ames had lived long enough
in the world to know that man sometimes
forgets kindnesses: that mans graft.
tude for kindly act does not last always.
He bad read enough Scripture to know
that "where a mans treasure is there will
be his heart also." (Murmurs and Ap-
plause) Mr.. Ames had avowed his whole
philosophy on that subject. He had said
that the difficulty is that you cannot get .
man to give attention to thing unless be
he has an interest to do SO. He had there
fore, to contrive some means or other by
which be could make the interest Of those
leading men in Congress identical with his
own, so that they should be as watcbful in
relation to this matter as be himself. Ames
knew that himself and his friends had
started on a voyage which, sooner or later,
he knew would be exposed. He knew
that the nation had been by their perform
ances dsfrauded Of millions, and be UNDER
stood it would be good thing when that
time came that he should have, if possible,
some strong backers---and be had intended
by his course of conduct to provide himself
with them. He had done so for the purpose,
and with the intent to influence their action
as members OF Congress on matters to come
before them. That was an act Of bribery
in Mr.. Ames, for which he might have
been sent to the penitentiary, even although
every member had received the stock from
him in entire innocence. The law did not
require the intent to be known to the per-
sou to whom the present was made. 1t
was the insidious attempt to undertake to
bind man over by gratitude that con.
stituted bribery Ii would not do for Mr.
Ames to plead ignorance 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 bene-
fit Of millionaire and of ten years
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 that he was
violating it ? If mans moral sense saw
no wrong in that which their predecessors
had declared a penitentiary offence, and
should forever disqualify man from hold
ing the meanest office, was such man fit
to sit here as one Of the law makers of the
nation Mr.. Poland submitted whether,
even in the most charitable view of Mr..
Ames' conduct that man was one who
ought to be tolerated as member Of the
House.
ATTACHMENT OF JAMES BROOKS.
Passing then to the case of Mr.. James
Brooks, of New York, Mr.. Poland stated
the facts in evidence which justified the
resolution reported for the expulsion Of
Mr.. Brooks. He dwelt somewhat on the
fact that at the time Of the Oakes Ames
contract, Mr.. Brooks was thoroughly famil.
lar with the whole subject, FIRST, as the
agent of DR.. Durant, for placing the shares
of Credit Mobiier stock among the capital.
lists of New York; and second, as Govern
ment director Of the Union Pacific Railroad
CJmpany.
Mr.. Brooks interrupting, corrected Mr..
Poland's statement as to his being Gov
ernment director at the time Of the Oakes
Ames contract. That contract was dated
in August, in 1867, was assigned in Octo-
Der, 1867, and he (Brooks) was not nomi-
mated till October, 1867, and had not ac.
cepted the Office till January, 1868.
Mr.. Poland protested, that he would not
for his right hand misrepresent the small.
est fact in reference to the case. All that
Mr.. Brooks had said was not in the slight
est degree in conflict with what he (Poland)
had said. The Oakes Ames contract had
been executed in August, 1867. but it
had been found that the trap was not prop
erly set, and under the advice of cunning
counsel new machinery had to be devised
in order to run it successfully. 10 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 the LIST
Of October. There was not the slightest
evidence that Mr.. Brooks ever considered
himself as anything but full.fedged Gov
ernment director. There was no evidence
that he had performed any official act be-
frc January, 1868, but it had never been
suggested that be had not accepted the Of.
fee, and that all its duties were incumbent
on him.
Mr.. Eldridge, Of Wisconsin, asked Mr..
Poland whether he meant that Mr.. Brooks
should be treated differently from any 9TH
or member because he had been Govern.
ment director?
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. Mr.. Brooks must
have been perfectly familiar with the whole
scheme of fraud from his intimate acquaint.