Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1873-03-21
Terms: S2,ss in. in advance. aldl5I;l &c ..

. .iLOlHIO +QE,3 1uodOf dllCO.st
you. shall give to me in return for nv
services the disposition of a profitable
office;1 cannot receive it for myself,
but | will transfer it to my son or to
my nephew or to my tson-in-law." Is
he guiltless who thus claims it for his
family, any more than if. he claimed it
and had the manliness to take it and
to profess to. do so for himself? -.
i Now, sir, so much for the guilty
knowledge of James Brooks at. that
time. He then acted as Government
director on the I'd day of January and
OIL the 9Th of February. He thereaf-
lterssoon claimed the accretion of fifty
shares by virtue Of his ownership Of
the original one hundred sharesy In
whose name did he make that,negotia-
Ition? By what right did he insist on
that additional amount? Still in the
name of James Brooks. Still therights
Of James Brooks were asserted. Still
the, rights and the name of James
Brooks were held prominently before
those who were concerned in the dis
position of this matter. Then at last,
when the!right of James Brooks was
conceded on the29th of February, 1868,
he comes in again andorders this to be
transferred to his son-in-law. The
The right is demanded in his own
name; the concession is made to him
in his own name; and the transfer Of
The fruits of his guilt is made to his
son--in-law, and that, forsooth, is a
matter of complete purgatiollI So
= Now, sir, if you desire proof with
reference to that turn to the testimo-
ny of Dillon, to be found on page 233
Of the printed testimony: - - .2ns
ru Question. I understand that in the nego-
Itiation you had with Mr.. Brooks in regard
to the proposed increase of stock which he
claimed that he was entitled to, you do
not'remmber whether Brooks, Neilson,o or
anybody else's name was mentioned The
question in negotiation was whether they
should have the stock?
Anstoer. When Mr.. Brooks came to me
he said he was, entitled to SO much stock,
but when he found that itwas going to be
given to him by the majority of the stock
holders of the Credit Mobilier, he then
: said directly in substance that it was to
go to his son-in-iaw, and not to him. 'aGa
sdAndi turnato the resolution of the
board making the allowance of that
stock, to be found on page 345' of
the printed testimony:i.l5Teea ra gaj og
aiWe3 the undersigned, stockholders in
the, Credit M ebilier of America, consent to
the sale of one hundred shares of its stock
at par to General G.. M. Doge-
Another man I am sorry the com:
; mittee has not Jurisdiction over slso-
chief engineer of the Union Pacific Rail-
: road Company, and also to the sale to Hon.
James Brooks of the balancehe is entitled
founder his agreement with T.C.a Durant,
the said Brooks to pay par value. for the
same, ...-.
, That was granted on the 29th. of
February, 1868, a few days after that
agreement was entered into. ? Then
look at the stock led ger and you viii
see an erasure Of fifty shares In someG
body's name, and the name of Charles
Nelson inserted in lieu thereof.tiz
!. - But further than that, Mr. Speak
, er, what does Mr., Brooks say himself
with reference to these matters at page
251?. --.. -; ..-..s.. -.
Question. Did YOU ever know that. the
persons who were entitled to take fifty per
cent additional stock were entitled to have
the same amount of Union Pacific railroad
bonds -,s.l.. ....s-a - ..- 79..@-
Anss0er. did not know the particulars.
I knew it brought large profit; in what
: form I did not know, and I carefully a.
voided knowing. -..s -s' '..l..s
Why did he so carefully avoid know
ing? A man who deliberately shuts
his eyes to the profits, the enormous
profits which he insists upon posses
sing, must have known at least that
there was something wrong. in refer
ence to it or he would not have been
so careful to exclude the knowledge
from his own mind. But he did know
lit, because when you turn back to see
what his son-in-law did with the pro-
ceeds Of the one hundred shares of
stock he got, the son-in-law says Mr..
Brooks advanced the money for him,
and in turn received the stock divi-
dends, and he would have us to pre-
sumo that he deposited with his. faith
ea-in-law, Mr.. Brooks, as collateral Sc
lcuriety for this sum, large proportion
of these Pacific railroad bonds which
he had received as first dividend on
these one hundred shares. - y q.
], Now, again, sir, to show the guilty
knowledge in reference to this matter
with regard to the collaterals and the
distribution made of the proceeds Of
this stock, Mr.. Brooks says that he
knew nothing about it, that he does
not recollect that Nelson gave himany
Of these eollaterals, and never touched
cent of the proceeds. You will find
on page $40 Of the record the follow
ing: aF-" -sa4- +Ea. asrt 49, q .5-.,.sa.-L
Ans,oer. I passed everything over toAfr.,
Nelson. IZnever touched cent of the
proceeds of the transaction,
! qQnestiop. Do you remember whether
these bonds were actually in your posses
sion E.
.Ans,ocr. If they were, it would have been
only long enough for him to go to my place
OF for me to go to his place. q ..s.- =
Question. Do you think these bonds could
have been placed with you as security for
leosTIEUEp oE THIRD PAaz.I