New-York tribune., 1873-02-19

cure himself to be made Government Director ana ana
also that being member Of Congress- no Woug Rroas
and Mr Alley 10th deny having had any such converse
tion that sr Brooks ever made such satemenu 70
Mr. Alley. IT, therefore, this matter rested Wholly sPott
the Testimony Of Mr. McComb, the committee wOud ot
feel justified in finding that Mr. Brooks procured .ne
stances seem point exactly IN that dlreeuqn ION,
and we can find other satisfactory SOLUTION SOLUTION
Claim eli anf Mr. BOOKS had to the stock either legal
moral had been adjusted and sanel Dy DT DE- ~ b
sonin-aw we believe, from the circumstances @ @at.omu
ing the wnole transaction that ne oDianeu ~ hUMs ecs
aud with the intent his favor ana lnnuence III
nch nositons Mr. Brooks claims that he has no intel
est I'M this stock whatever the benefit and adyan-
tage Of his right % have it he gave 10 M[ nssD & '
MR. BROOKS THE REAL OWNER OF THE STOCK.
Ts Committee are unable to nd this to be the case,
for in their Judgment all the facts and circumstances
show Mr. Brooks to be the real and substantial owner
and that Mr. Nelson's ownership is merely nominal ana
colorado June, 1861 there was cash DIVIDEND ol
5000 upon these $50 shares of stock Nelson received
same day it paid over to Mr. BROOKS os NeiI d
son says to, pay so much OF the $1,000 stocS SG'
This, then. repaid all but $1,000 of the nc
s a o tSe 1non Pacific bonds which Nelson says
he gave him collateral security, ana 70 arg" ee III
upon all but $1,000 The interest upon ts o'l a
at one time In his testimony he spoke OF the amount e
was allowed being Christmas aud New-fears pres bo
ens Mr. Nelson SAYS that during the last summer ne
borrowed $4,000 of Mr.. Brooks, and now he owes hr:
Brooks nearly as much as the coateIa terra Du' s
in bonds security for 81 CO., and received the interest
Seeh Kept oi Sesween Mr. BROOKS ana Selson
doubtless what sums he has received from MI Br0GhS
out of the dividends were intended as presents r"cr
than the delivering OF money belonging to him hr;
Brookss efforts procured the stock ana ms ia9hey p m
for all the cash dividend He has received ana hods an
the bonds except those Dillon received which seem 10
have been applied toward paying for the ffty shares
TIE FINDING OF THE COMMITTEE.
tba
mtee finds that the $50 shares of the stock appearing on
the books Of the Credit Mobier in the Of Nelson
were really the Of Mr. Brooks and subject to bis
control and that 1t was so Understood by both parties
Mr.. Brooks had taken such interest in the Credit
obheT Company and was 50 connected Tdg,ydt6 TIsa
as as having full i' knowledge of tho ,rela;;
tions between that Company and the Railroad
have the Of the sudden increase in value OF
the Credit Mober stock, and how the large expected
our view Of the prOprety OF a member OF Congress
becoming the owner OF stock possessing the knowledge
he was a Government Director in the Union Pa
eae Company As such M 1T was ntsrosts as dSy tho te
Government in the road and 10 that they were pro-
tected and preserved To insure such faithfuness
the part Government directors Congress very wisely
provided that they should not be stockh1ders IN the
sockhoder in the Credit MObilier was not forbidden by
the letter the law, yet 1t violation OF ITS spirit
aud It's essence, and therefore had the stock placed In
ihe name OF his son-nliw. The transfer Of the OIkes
Aes contract the trustees the building of the road
under the contract from which the enormous dividends
we're all derived was all during Mr. Br0Okss official life
as Government director, must have been within his
knowledge and yet passed without the slightest Oppo-
stion from him. The Committee believe TINS could not
have been done without an entire disregard OF ms ON
cll oDlgitlons and duy, and that WINE 1ppPiHhCu ~
guard tho public interests IN the road he joined himself
with the promoters OF scheme whereby ~ the %2gern
to b. delrauded and shared In the spoil In me
conclusions Of fact upon the evidence, the Committee
are entirely agreed. In considering what acton we
ought to to the House upon these facts, the
Committee encounter question when mas Deeh lnucn
debated: Has this House power and jurisdiction to
inquire concerning Of3nses committed by ts members
prior their election, and to punish the Dy ccA'ue VI
'Af THE JURISDICTION OF THE HOUSE.
The Committee unanimous upon the right Of urs-
dction OF this House over the OF Mr. Amcs and Mr.
Brooks upon the facts found In regard to them. Upon
tho question Of jurisdiction the Committee present the
following views The Constitution, in the 5th section
OF the Article defines the power Of either House
follows:
may determine ue ru. q it, proceedings punish is
IL viii be observed that there qualification of the
manner OF its exercise. It must De done with the
Of twOthrds The close analogy between this
power and the of impeachment Is deserving of
consideration. Tue great purpose OF the power OF im-
parchment Is 10 remove an unit and unworthy incum
@an DSa rE %ay oo' To some % eSGst as
aan hST are B not subject to be- nPeaehe1
but may he expelled. and the principal
purpose Of expulsion is not as punishment but TO re-
move member whose character and conduct show
that he is unfit man TO participate in the debera
tons and decisions OF the body and whose presence IN
IL tends 10 bring the body into contempt and disgrace
In both Is power OF purgaon and publication,
TO be exercised for the puoc safety and In the case OF
expulsion, for the protection and character OF the
House. The Constitution defines the causes of
impeachment to WIT: treason, bribery, ,ror or
other high crimes or miIiemeanogs; The The
the that OF tho power to impeach that we think
II may be safely assumed that whatever would be a
good cause OF impeachment would also be good cause
Of expulsion. IL has never been contended tnat the
power to ipeach for any OF the causes enumerated was
after appointment TO civil ONCE so that clVI 0lcer
who had secretly committed such Ofense before
detection and exposure, to be convicted aud
removed from Office. Every consideration OF
Justice and sound policy would seem to require that the
public interests be secured and those chosen to be their
guardians he free from the pollution OF high crimes,
matter at what time that pollution had attached III this
be so in regard to other civil officers under institutions
which rest upon the intelligence and virtue OF the peO
sentative may be vile and criminal with impunlty pro-
vlded the evidences Of his corruption found to ante
John Quincy Adams, in December 1907 upon the Of
John Smith Of Ohio the following Language Is used:
cpe, from the interests Of the nation that tbe high
elective Il is not to be presumed boy
the deposit 70 the keeping worthless & e'eI but when nan whom
spess reputation degraded himself the commission Of Infamous
defective Indeed voo institution be which should be
discard It's bosom the eoBon Of such memberwhc should
remedy Of AmPuAOn apply until the poison had reached the
The case Of Smith was that OF Senator who after his
election but not during session OF the senate had
been involved in the reasonable conspiracy OF Aaron
Burr Yet tho reasoning is general and TO antago
nze portions which had been taken In the Of
Marshall Senator from Kentuokythe Senate in that
having among other reasons decnhei 70 take Ju
rsdicOn OF the charge for the that the alleged
oh-nse had been committed prior to the Sem
ator'5 felectiOn, and matter cOgui- |
zable by the criminal courts OF Kentucky |
None OF the commentators upon the Constitution upon
parliamentary law assign any such Limitation to the
time OF tho commission OF the ohense or the nature OF
H which shall contest and limit the power OF expulsion
on the contrary, they all assert that the power its
very s discretionary one, TO be exercised OF
course with grave crcumspecton at all times and only
for good cause Story Kent. and Sergeant all TO
ACCEPT upon the exposition OF Mr. Adams In the