Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-07-10
LEGISLATIVE CORRUPTION.

LEGISLATIVE CORRUPTION.
One branch of our inquiry, and the
one which, more than all others, Occas-
toned this investigation, was in reference
to legislative corruption, to which the
public attention had been called by the
publication of the ''HatCh Voucher so
called in the Boston TTdUe5EeY and other
newspapers. This voucher purported to
be a statement of a special account rem
dered by 10 D. Hatch, December 6, 1869,
against the trustees and managers of the
Vermont Central and Vermont & Can
ada railroads, and receipt for the pay
ment of the same. The sum charged by
Hatch was one thousand dollars, and in
his account rendered he stated it was for
8" expenses at Montpelier, session of
1869, in resisting adverse legislation,
g and in preparing for and opposing APP
q plication for parallel road from Bur
O lington to Canada line" etc. etc; and
in his account accompanying this gen
eral statement, it appeared that at or
near the close of the session he had paid
several prominent members of the Leg
| islature each the sum of $50 and had
also paid money to attorneys not mem
beers of the Legislature. The balance of
the one thousand dollars, being the sum
of four hundred and thirty dollars, was
for his own ''bill at Pavilion, and sun
dry expenses during the session of 1869 p"
By the terms of this voucher it will be
seen that money has been paid to resist
adverse legislation, and unless explained,
the Legislature of Vermont for 1869, or
at least certain prominent members,
would rest under the implication of hav-
ing corruptly received money to infu-
ence their official acts, and the trustees
and managers would stand charged in
the public estimation with having paid
money for that purpose. A copy of this
so-called Hatch Voucher and list accom-
panying it will be found in the appendix
marked "exhibit A." and against the
names of each of those gentlemen on the
list, who were members of the Legisla-
ture in 1869 and received money from
Hatch, is a cypher. The committee
find that the list of names was made by
Hatch as a memorandum in 1869, and
comprised the names of gentlemen who
had been employed professionally in the
interests of the Vermont Central rail-
road together with those who were
thought to be friendly to its interests,
and we find no evidence tending to show
that any on this list who had, prior to
1869, received money from the Vermont
Central railroad, did so for any but legi-
innate and lawful purposes. All those
who received money in 1869, as appears
by this voucher were attorneys, except
one, who was not n member, and receiv-
ed the sum of twenty dollars, which it
is claimed was paid him for tronble he
had been put to in adjusting some diff
culties with the railroad-which fact we
find to be as claimed. The attorneys
who were not members, except Col.
VeaZey, We're at Montpelier during the
session of 1869 in the interest Of the
Vermont Central, and we find no testi-
mony which in any way indicates that
they attempted to influence legislation in
aEy improper manner, or were there for
any such purpose. BY referring to the
testimony, page 1, it will be seen that
Col. VeaZey earned his money and could
in no way be charged with any corrupt
motive or practice. This disposes of all
those whose names appear on the vouch-
er, except such as were members of
either the Senate or House in 1869. In
respect to those gentlemen, we do not
find that any of them received the money
believing it was paid for any services
they had performed or were to perform
for this railroad in their official capacity,
but on the contrary supposed that the
reason assigned for their employment
was as stated by Hatch, for the purpose
of retaining them in a legitimate and
proper manner, and placing them under
obligation to render for the railroad
such professional services as they might
be called upon thereafter to perform.
We are not equally fortunate in being
Il Il l..
solely for reasons assigned, that it was
entirely for the purpose of having coun-
sci in different parts of the State to look
after the interests of the road by attend
ing to the business that might arise in
their immediate localities, in their pro-
fessional capacities as lawyers. If such
was the fact then the distribution of
their retainers was exceedingly injndi-
cious and ill-advised, or at least the
claims for ''lost baggage" ''overcharges
of freight" and other and similar
claims were'more numerous and trouble
some in those localities where energetic