Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1873-03-06
The Report of the Poland Committee.

to-day. -.
After quoting the resolution under when
thev were appointed and acted, the Coiihil-
tee give history of the connection of the
Credit Mobilier Company with the Union
Pacific Railroad, by the Hoxie and Ames con-
tracts. The Committee then rehearse the
operations of Mr.. Ames in placing some OF
the stock of the Credit-Mobilier and the OH
ficulties which arose between him, Durant
and McComb Prior to the session OF De-
cember. 1867, Ames had no negotiations
with congressman, except Mr.. Schofield.
The Committee say they cannot entertain
any doubt as to the motive and purpose OF
Am IS in contracting to let congressman
have Credit Moblier stock at par when IL
was worth double that sum. He desired TO
enlist friends in Congress to resist any en-
croachments upon the privileges already
secured, and his purpose TO create in them
an interest Identical with his own is clearly
avowed in his letters to McCemb, especially
in those in which he says: 81 intend plac,
ing stock where it will do most good, and
we want more friends hi Congress.
Another letter gives the philosophy OF
his action where he says: 81 have
found no difficulty in gel ting men to look
after their own property" The committee
are satisfied that Ames feared that when the
great profits became known there would be
danger Of Congressional investigation. VI
those with whom he dealt he did not fear
believe Ames specially designed to secure
the defeat of the efforts of the Washburnes
of Wisconsin and Illinois to regulate trans
portations over the Pacific Road and other
measures, and they quote a reference OF
Ames to Washburne, in one OF his letters, III
support IF this belief
The evidence in regard to members Of the
present House, the committee proceed to
state, is in some instances painfully conflict
ing. They find that Speaker Blaine did not
take any stock, although he was recommend
ed to by Ames.
Mr.. Dawes received no other benefit from
his transaction with Ames than ten per
cent. upon his money, and after settling
with Ames had no further interest in the
stock.
The evidence relative to Mr.. Schofield is
rehearsed, showing also that Schofeld gave
up his CreditMobiier, but retained 81, 900 in
Union Pacific. The precise terms of the set
tlement are unknown from lack of data, but
since the settlement Schofeld has had no in
terest in Credit Mobiler.
Mr.. Bingham's connection with the matter
was settled by Ames retaining the thirty
shares of Credit Mobilier stock and account
ing to Biz CHAM for such dividend upon it as
Bingham had not already received. Bingham
was treated as the real owrer of the stock
from the time of the agreement, late in De-
cember, 1867, to the settlement in February,
1872, and mad the benefit Of all the dividends
upon it. Neither Ames nor Bingham had
such records of their dealings as to be able
to give the precise amounts of these divi-
dends
The Committee find that Mr.. Kelley, of
Pennsylvania, had ten shares of Credit Mo-
bilier, taken upon the solicitation of Ames,
the latter carrying it for Kelley until the
dividends paid for it, and that on the sd of
June, 1868, Kelley received 1929 from Ames
IN check on the Sergeant alarms. Suisse
quent dividends were paid in Union Pacific
stock Or bonds. In September, 1868, Kelley
received $3.50 from Ames, which was under
stood to be an advance to be paid out of the
dividends; but there never has been any ad
Justment of the matter, and there is an entire
variance in the testimony of both as to what
this transaction was. Subsequent converse
tons and negotiations between them are in
the evidence, but the Committee does not
deem it material.
Relative to Mr.. Garfield, the Committee
find the same facts as in Kelley's case to the
point of the reception of a check for 1929.
The Committee do not find that since the
payment of the 1929 there has been any COM
munlcation between Ames and Garfield on
the subject till this investigation began.
Some correspondence between Garfield and
Ames, and some conversation between them
during the investigation will be found in the
reported testimony.
The Committee state that it appears that
Ames did not give any details of the reIa-
tions between the Credit Mobilier and the
Union accompany, nor did any of the
parties know that dividends would be paid
IN stock or bonds Of the latter. The Com
mlttee say that the Credit-Mobilier was a
State corporation, not subject to Congress
ional legislation, and the fact that its prof
lis were expected to be derived from the
building OF the Union Pacific Railway did
not apparently create such an interest in
that company as to disqualify the holder of
Credlt-Mobilier stock from participating in
any legislation affecting the railway COM
pany. Ames assured congressman when
questioned on the subject, that their owner
snip of stock would not interfere with their
legislative duties. The Committee, there
fore, do not find that the Congressman
above named were aware of Ames' object, or
that they had any other purpose than profit
able investment. 1t is apparent that those
who advanced their money to pay for their
stock present more Of the appearance of
ordinary investors than those who did not.
But the Committee do not feel at liberty TO
find any corrupt purpose or knowledge
founded upon the fact of non-pavment
alone.
The Committee think that members. in
taking stock, were not sufficiently careful
IN ascertaining what they were getting
The Committee find nothing in the conduct
of the above named members calling for any
recommendations.
The Committee say the case of Mr.. Brooks
stands upon different state of facts from
the others. They rehearse at length the
evidence, showing Mr.. Brooks efforts in the
press and in his official position in behalf of
the road, and his operations with Durant,
etc. After referring at great length to the
evidence relative to Brooks, the Committee
say without further comment upon the evil
dence: "The Committee find that one hun
dred and fifty shares of stock appearing on
the books of the Credit Mobilier in the
name Of Nelson were really the stock of
Brooks, and subject to his CONTROL and that
it was understood by both parties Brooks
had taken such an interest in the Credit Mo-
bllier Company, and was SO connected with
Durant, that he must be regarded as having
full knowledge of the relations between that
company and the railway company, and of
the contracts between them. He must have
known the cause of the sudden increase of
value of Credit Mobilier stock, and how
large the expected profits were to be made.
we have already expressed our view of the
proprlety OF members of Congress becoming
owners OF stock, possessing that KNOWLEDGE:
out BROOKS was not only a member of Con
gress, but he was Government Director in
the Union Pacific Company. AS such it was
his duty to guard and watch over the inter
ests OF the Government in the road, and see
that they We're protected and preserved To
insure such faithfulness Oh the part of
Government Directors, Congress very wisely
provided that they should not be stockhold-
ers in the road, Brooks readily saw that
though becoming stakeholder in the
Credit -Mobilier was not forbidden by the let.
Ter OF the law, yet it was vioI alton of its