The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1873-07-15
Vermont Central Railroad.

We give herewith the rcpor, Of the
committee to investigate the affairs of the
trustees and managers OF the Vermont
Central and Vermont & CauaJa railroads
emitting only the joint resolution of the
Legislature appointing them, aud the re.
cital Of the facts of the employment of
counsel, and the days and iimc occupied
by them in their lnbors The report, af-
ter these rccitals, commences with the
subject Of
LEGISLATIVE CoRRUprioN
One branch Of our inquiry, aud the
one which, more than all others, occasion.
ed this investigation, was in reference TO
legislative corruption, to which the public
attention had been called By the publica-
ton of the Hatch Voucher" so called by
the Boston Traveller and other newspa-
pcrs. This voucher purported to be u
statement Of a special account rendered
by 10. d. Hatch, December 6, 1869,
against the trustees and managers OF the
Vermont Central and Vermont e Cana
da railroads, and receipt for the pay
meut of the same. The sum charged by
Hatch was one thousand dollars, and in
his account rendered he stated it vas for
" expenses at Montpelier, session of 1869
" in resisting adverse legislation, and in
" preparing for aud opposing application
-" for parcllel road lium Burlington 10
" Canada line," etc etc.; and in his ac-
count accompanying this general state
men:, it appeared at or near the close OF
the session he had paid several prominent
members of the Legislator Q ch the sum OF
$50 and had also paid money to attorneys
not members Of the Legislature. The
balance OF the one thousand dollars, being
the sum of four hundred aud thirty dol.
lars, was for his own "bill at Pavilion,
aud suudry expenses during the session OF
1862"
Bv the terms Of this voucher it will be
seen that muuey has beeu paid to resist
adverse legislation, aud unless explained.
the Legislature of Vermont for 1863, or
at least certain prominent members, would
rest under the Implication OF having cor
ruptly received money to influence their
official acts, and the trustees aud mana.
gers would stand charged in the public
estimation with having paid money for
that purpose. A copy OF this so.callcd
Hatch Voucher and list accompanying it
will be found in the appendix marked
"exhlblt a, ana against the names Vi
each Of those gentlemen on the list who
were members of the Legislature in 1869
and received money from Hatch. is cy-
pher The committee finds that the list
of names was made by Hatch as Il men,
orandum ia 1862 aud comprised th
names Of gentlemen who had been en-
poyed professionally in the interests of
the Vermont Central railroad, together
with those who were thought to be friend
ly to its interests, aud 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 legitimate and lawful purposes.
All those who received money in 1869,
as appears by this voucher, were attor-
ucys. except one, who was not u member,
and received the sum of twenty dollars,
which it is claimed was paid him for trou.
bic he had been put to in adjusting some
difficulties with the rairoad-Nhich fact
we fad to be as claimed. The attorneys
who were not members, except Col
Vcazey, were at Montpelier during the
session of 1869 in the interest Of the Yer.
mont Central, and we find no testimony
which in any way indicates that they at
tempted to influence legislation in any
improper manner, or were there for any
such purpose BY referring to the testi
mony, page /. it will be seen that Col
Veazey earned his money and could in nc
way be charged with any corrupt motive
or practice. This disposes OF all those
whose names appear on the voucher, ex
cept such as were members OF either tn,
Senate or Hoasc in 1869 In respect t.
those gentlemen, we do not find that an,
OF them received the money believing i
was paid for any services they mad per
formed or were to perform Tor this rail
road in their official capacity, but on tn,
contrary supposed that the reason assign
ed for thcfr cmploym ment was as stated b.
Hatch, for the purpose Of retaining then
ip Legitimate aud proper mauuer, an'
placing them under obligation to rcnde
for the railroad such professional service
as they might be called upon thereaite
to perform,
We are not equally fortunate in bcini
able to tird that this Inouey was pal
solely Tor reasous asslEued, that 1t wa
entirely Tor the purpose Of having cout
sci iu different parts of the State to loo
after the Interests ot the road 10y attend
lug to the business that might arise
their immediate localities, III their pro
iessional capacities as lawyers. II sue
was the fact then the distribution Of the
retainers was exceedingly iujudlcious an
, i'll advised, or at least The claims for ''lol
baggage "oyercharges of ireisat," an
other aud similar claims were more ulI
erous and troublesome in those loeaiitl,
where energetic young lawyers united
their professional qualifications considers
BILE political activity aud iuAurhce.
We do not find that any pastlculi
; measures before the legislature WEI
passed or defeated in consequence
these retainers; or that legislation hi
. beer improperly influenced thereby, bl
c we believe it to be our duty to conden
, the practice OF employing more attorney
e in different parts OF the State than wou
Q be necessary to traDsact their legal bus
: ness, as one calculated to impair the co
Gdence of the public generally in the P
r rty of our legislation. Although it
b. fair to presume that 10 the employme
t Of these attorneys it was contemplated
). the time that the ro Ad might receive ~
a assistance from them in Il professional c
pacity, still we fiud that the chief obje
and purpose was to secure their irien
g ship TO the Interests of the road aud
u managers We do lot believe tina, III
g retained ATTORNEYS believing that