Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-03-06
and to sustain bis proposition by parlia

Mobilier and its inventors. He said it
did not require great ingenuity to get up
a scheme to beat the government out of
forty million dollars, but it did require a
good deal of wit to get up the machin-
cry to run it successfully. They had
contrived the scheme, but there was no
man in New York smart enough to get
up the running machinery. They had
to sent almost as far as Boston to get a
man, and they got the right man. But
difficulty grew out of that. This Bos-
ton lawyer said, ga mill with forty
seven millions in the hopper, mill with
which you are going to fetch more than
half that sum out of the government
when you have got man with wit
enough to devise the means by which
you can do that and cover it up you can
not put off that man with fee of three
Thousand dollars, he must have six thou
sand. The machinery had just got into
operation so that there would be no diff
ficulty if they could stop investigations
in Congress and not be troubled by gov
ernment directors. Congress and the
governmant directors were the only
things left that were to be feared, and
these had to be taken care of. Accord
ingly Mr.. Ames had come to Congress
with shares of Credit Mobilier stock in
his pocket, and went around to various
members of Congress and leading men
and said that he had got an excellent in
vestment, thing which would pay ten
per cent, and offered it tomembers who
he said had been good friends to the
Union Pacific railroad. He was fixing
it so that those who took shares from
him should think it was an honest thing.
He had found it necessary to clothe it in
the habiliments of honesty.
The hammer fell, the debate closed,
and the House was brought face to face
with the question.
Mr.. Farnsworth of Illinois, for pur-
pose of referring the whole matter to
the public, moved to lay it on the
table.
The vote was taken by yeas and nays,
and resulted yeas SO, nays 164.
While the vote was progressing Mr..
Brooks sat at his desk with his head
down, apparently absorbed in reading,
while Ames sat in one of the front rows
of seats, the one usually occupied by
Mr.. Wallace of South Corolina, leaning
his head on his hand and apparently fol-
lowing the vote attentively. A hand
some bouquet, offered by some sympa-
thizing friend, stood on the desk before
him. The vote was taken in perfect
silence and with a solemn stiffness pre-
vading the hall.
The question then was taken ON Mr.
Sargent's substitute offered this morn
ing, expressing doubts as to the partia-
mentary powers of the House, but Gen.
suring Oakes Ames and James Brooks.
1t was carried, yeas lis nays 10.
Mr.. Randall, of Pennsylvania, asked
whether in case the resolutions to dis
charge the committee were not adopted,
1t would be in order for any member to
offer, as a privileged question, resolu-
tions as to other members affected by
the testimony.
The Speaker replied that if the House
did not discharge the committee from
the further consideration of the subject,
it would of course -be still before the
House If the committee were dis
charged the subject would be taken
away from the House as a question of
privilege.
A vote was taken and the resolution
discharging the committee was rejected !;
104 to ia. There was more excitement
during the progress of the vote than at
tended any of the other votes, as the
failure of the resolution would reopen
the whole subject.
A question recurred on the preamble
of Mr.. Sargents substitute, stating that
the acts complained of occurred more
than five years ago, that two elections
have intervened since and that there are
grave doubts of the power of the House
to expel, etc.
Mr.. Sargent, of California, moved to
lay the preamble on the table.
In reply to excited and various ques-
tions from all quarters as to the effect of
the motion, the Speaker stated that it
would carry the whole subject on the
table and put an end to it, except as to
the resolutions already adopted They
had been finally disposed of and were
not before the House
Mr.. Sargent's motion was rejected, 78
to 131.
The preamble was rejected, 90 to 113.
Several members addressed the Chair,
having resolutions to offer.
The Speaker recognized Mr.. Hale, of
Maine, who moved that the report of the
committee be recommitted and moved
the previous question.
Mr.. Wood inquired whether it be in
order, if that motion was agreed to, TO
offer resolution of instructions to re-
port back the resolutions in regard to
other gentlemen implicated.
The Speaker thought not.
The House refused to second the pre-
vious question, n to SO.
Mr.. Wood offered resolution censur-
ing all members who became interested
in the Credit Mobilier.
Mr.. Randall made point of order
that resolution to censure should be
confined to one individual.
The Speaker sustained the point OF
order and stated his reasons for the
ruling.
Mr.. Speer offered resolution censur-
ing William D. Kelly of Pennsylvania,
which provoked long discussion-sev-
eral substitutes were proposed, but Mr..
Speer, having the floor, refused to per-
NIT them to be offered. A motion was
finally made to lay the resolution on the
the table.
The motion to table the resolution
censuring Mr.. Kelly was agreed to by