Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-07-10
THE RUTLAND HERALD
MONDAY. JULY Z, 1878.
AN UNsATIsFAUToRY REPORT.

managers of the Vermont Central and
Vermont & Canada railroads, emitting
only the Introductory portion, which
merely recites, 0er6atjna, the joint reso-
luton of the General Assembly, under
which they were appointed, and the fact
of the employment of counsel by the
committee. While the report is a COM
plete exculpation of the trustees and
managers from all charges of frauds,
peculation, corruption and mismanage-
ment, yet we venture to say that 1t IS
one of the most extraordinary reports
that ever emanated from a legislative or
any other committee The committee
seem to have found-and, in fact, so re-
port-that there has been nothing par
ticularly amiss in the management OF
the trust, yet they appear to be laborlng
under the idea that the individuals and
newspapers that have been so persistent
in their onslaughts on the interests in
volved, and in their warfare against the
individuals comprising the arrangements,
are entitled to large degree of consider
alton and must in some way be cOncili-
ated. There is no withdrawing Of
the managers, yet it is out of this kind
of reports that the use of that term has
come into vogue. 1t may be, and prob
ably is. as the ST. Adams Messenger
characterizes it, compromise report, p"
but the committee were not appointed
for any such purpose. We know moth
ing of the desires and wishes of the par
ties against whom the charges were
made, but we presume to say that they
did not want any compromise report. j"
We know what the Legislature and peo-
pie of Vermont desired and expected.
They desired and expected an investi-
CATION and report, conducted and made
in the spirit and language of the oath
administered to grand jurors, that they
would present no man for envy, hatred
or malice, neither would they leave any
person unpresented for love, fear, favor,
affection, or hope of reward, but that
they would "present things truly as they
came to their knowledge"
In reference to the actual finding of
fact, by the committee, but one con-
Clusion, it seems to us, can be drawn,
and that is, that the managers are COM
pletely indicated. We are speaking
now simply of the investigation so far
as their acts, as affecting themselves and
theirs, were concerned all other indi-
viduals, officials, companies and corpo-
rations being, also, indicated. No
other inference can nationally be drawn
from the report. Why not say so, then
What was the use of endeavoring to
qualify every statement? Why make
compromise report If such it is-in
order to have it unanimous? The COM
mittee were, in one sense, somewhat in
the position of petit jury as well as a
grand jury. They were to investigate
and present-that is, report fearlessly
and impartially, but an unanimous YER
dict was not required. If the individual
members of the committee did not agree,
it would have been more satisfactory to
the Legislature, from whom they de-
rived their appointment, and to the peo-
pie to have had separate reports, each
stating his own conclusions from the evil
dence. This would have been much
more satisfactory than the attempt to
harmonic conflicting views-if their
views actually did conflict-and would,
at least, have made the several reports
respectable, and entitled to respectful
consideration, even if we did not agree
with their conclusions.
There is another particular in which
the report is UNSATISFACTORY does not
give the least scrap of testimony upon
which it is founded. The committee, to
be sure, commend the careful perusal
"of the testimony to the Legislature
"and people of Vermont" but how are
they to obtain the opportunity of care
fully peru7ing it? In ordinary legisla-
tive and congressional reports, we are
presented WITH at least, a review of the
testimony, so that each one can judge
for himself, whether the conclusion of
the committee are sustained by the evil
dence or not. Even in courts of JUS
tice, judge never renders an opinion
without giving careful, though brief,
resume of the testimony, so that it may
be seen, at glance, upon what basis he
places his decision. Here, however, we
have not the first scrap of, or the least
quotation from, the testimony, but only
the unsatisfactory conclusions of the
committee therefrom. If the commit
tee had followed the course established
by precedent, their report would have
been more extended, but the people
would have had something tangible upon
which to base an opinion.
We do not intend to go into a general
review of the report-preferring rather,
that everyone should read and Judge for
himself-and will, therefore, refer, at
present, only to one branch thereof, as
Illustrating the unsatisfactory, if not
contradictory, nature thereof. 1t will
be seen that the whole document is of
the same character, and, apparently, in
spired from the same causes, whatever
these causes may have been. AS we
publish the report IN full III another
place, we do not, in taking this coarse,
render ourself liable to the charge of
garbling, because every reader can see
and determine, for himself, whether or
not our criticisms are just. We take the
portion in reference to Legislative cor
ruption, to Illustrate our idea of the
extraordinary character of the report,
because we, as people, are the most
Interested therein. The committee find,
in reference to the "Hatch voucher" So
called, that there was ''no evidence tend |
. ing to show that any on this list who |
had prior to 1869 receiyedmoney from
the Vermont Central railroad. did so
9 for eng bat legitimate and Mufgl mr.
"poses." The attorneys, on said list or
voucher who were not members of the
r acricl "a