Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1873-03-20

the contract which they made With him
the committee could net have acquitted
them; but there Is no evidence that the,
did know il; on the contrary. the evidenc,
Nthroughout 10 that he represented 10 them
that here was q good investment in fhs
stocks of q contracting company. with ref
erence to which he was prepared to guar
nnty to them dividend of ten Per cent
If they would consent 90 take such inter
cs, as be des;g mated in that stock.
So far as the evidence goes, il was upo,
the. faith of,ihese exclici. representation,
and assurances BY him at the time that they
entered into these unfortunate relations -
There is not scintilla Of svidtnce will
references % any Of thsn iii lhsy knew
what wa. to follow; that they knew wha
would he the enormous profits derived
from this arrangement. ,
Mr.. ELDREDGE. VIII the gentle.
men allow me TO call bis attention to the
fact that they knew that the stock va. &c
be paid for by the dividend?
/ Mr. MERRICK. | will undertake &c
say that the gentleman from Wisconsin,
Mr.. EldredgoI is not sustained BY the CIV.
iirncc in the assertion that he makes
There is no evidence that they did know
at the time they made the contract. with
him what the dividends would be. 1.-THE
genilcmcn will prove that FAC; to me. ]
will 90 with him. marching steadily on in
the face ofa!l the response oili;ies which be-
long TO me as sworn member Of the
House, apd as sworn Judge. in which
capacity stand here. 10 cxpcl each aud
every man Of them from the House.
Mr. ELDREDGE. II | am not insor-
rup'ing the gentleman too much, | would
like to call lis attention to this fact tina;
these gentlemen must have known when
they received 1920 as balance from the
the sac of the stock they received what
was really dividend on the stock which
they hal purchased
/ Mr. MERRICK. Does not the gen.
man from Wisconsin Mr. Eldredgc1 know
well. or has he not read the evidence al
all--docs he no, know well that the con-
tract with each and every ono ofthese men
was made in the months If December and
January. AMI that the dividends Of which
he speaks were not made until the 17th OF
June! How. then. could they in Deccm-
Der and January know Of that which did
no: take place until six month. thoreaf-
ter? -
Mr.. EIlrclrc. VIII the gentleman
yield to the for another question
r y
thing FOR The purpose Of a fair discussion
Of the facts in this cause. for, rs said,
am not here as an advocate. to seek to
convict the guilty. tu, that it is my high
Is: and most solemn obligation to do eve
rytting possible in scqui;;inS any and ev-
cry man who cab be proved TO be innocent
IAYplausc.
Mr. E.dreige. I have no other mo-
tive cxcep. to elici. the truth. and | pre-
sumo that the gentleman position and
mine are the same. aud If can conc to
the same conclusion at which he has ar
rived. shall be very glad Now, as
understand the report of the. committee,
this was a continuing crime which these
persons committed. continuing through a
long series of time after the original con-
tract was made. and long after the 1929
was received. which they knew to be a
balance of dividends after paying for the
stock they had purchased.
Mr.. Merrick. That affects another ques-
ton; it affects a question upon which. as
| have already intima:cd. the committee
did not feel themselves called upon by the
resolutions IF this House to pronounce.
Mr.. Lamison. Will the gentleman al
low me to ask him question
Mr.. Mcrriek. Perhaps I shall be able
20 make myself understood if | am not in
tcrrupaed; but if each and every member
of the House. before I speak sentence or
announce a proposition. interrupts me
with questions. how is it possible that |
can Euslow continuous line OF thought or
argument? The gentleman from Wiscon-
sin Mr.. E!drcdgel has asked me in refer
cree 10 their reception of the dividends in
the month Of June following. l confess the
fall force of the argument contained in
, tia; question. The committee itself was
pressed by the logical argument. how vas
i, possible that these gentlemen should
subsequently have received these large
dividends. and as innocent men continue
to receive the rewards of that which thew
must have known to be az ubiquitous trans
action. Tbs, was no, the question pre-
scented before the committee. Il was only
question If evidence reflect ne back upon
their motives. And it the proof had not
been distinct aud positive throughout. the
proof by their accuser. Cakes Amcs. and
the proof by themselves in their defense.
that they dil not know a. the time they
made the contract what vas the character
! of the dividends. what was the character
OF the relation between the Credit Mobil-
Ter aud the Union Pacific Railroad Com
pany-if the proof had no. been SO dis
, tine, upon this peiut from al quarters. IN
eontEad ictea ans there. aiea there would
have arisen \ most strong presump,ioa
nay, presumption almost amounting "a
conclusive proof. that they haa in the fire,
instance guilty knowledge OF the matter
But. rs | say. the evidence vas only such
! evidence from which an Inference nigh.
! be drawn. Being rebatted rs il was by
the character of the transaction. By the
uubrossa testimony Of alb parties eoucern-
cd in the matter. that these gentlemen q,
the time they entered into the contract
Ssss-ieasEass-a n AIS pas psse. va could mol
give TO ;hatPrePYps,sn seenulusive force
since in SAasa b he fssss of .il mel
il was bat prescription susceptible Of be.
ing repelied By positive proof 81
Mr.. Lamison. WIN the gentleman yielt
to me for question sLieh / think : per
I tincnsf -
4 Mr. Ncrrick Iwfll