Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1873-02-26
The Credit MobiIler Report.

will be found upon our first page, and Of
the character of its reasoning and conclu.
sions our readers will form their own esti.
mate. Practically all speculation upon the
subject is useless, as the whole subject came
up for discussion in Congress yesterday, and
doubtless will occupy large share of the
remaining time Of the session before a re-
suit is reached.
Asis well known, the report recommends
the expulsion Of Cakes Ames and James
Brooks. so far as the others are concern.
ed, it does not recommend any action, but
simply presents the facts aud the Just in.
| fcreuces
ln the case Of those recommended for
expulsion, we can hardly see room for
difference of opinion. Cakes Ames sought
to place" his stock among Congressman
with an insidous purpose, which is trans
parent in his published letters and in his
whole operations. The character of his
offence is plain twas clearly an attempt
to do what was equivalent to bribery.
Those who retort with the seemingly smart
question" How could he bride if there
were none bribcd ?" entirely miss the
point. The charge against him is not that
he succeeded in bribiug, but that he in.
tented to bride. The intent was clear it
is virtually undisputed. Now, then, can
the House decently refuse to expel him
So in the case Of Brooks. He was
Government director, and specially charged
with the protection of the government in-
terests. He was fully aware Of the nature
of the transactions between the Union Pa
cidc road and the Credit Moblier company
which constructed it. He secured a large
amount of stock in substantial violation of
law, by virtue of his position and had it
entered in the name Of his son.in.law
The profit in his case amounted to nearly
hundred thousand dollars. He was, 10 re-
atty, one Of the king operators, and belong
ed to the group Of Ames Durant, and the
associates who manipulated the matter. In
other words, while specially charged with
the custody of the governments interests,
he was making tens of thousands by his
partnership in the Credit Mobilier plunder.
Now, as to the rest, it is clear that they
are not free from blame. But what is the
nature Of their offence2 Does anybody
venture to charge them with being bribed
Certainly the evidence shows no such thing;
and SO far as some of these men are con.
cerned, the record shows that they we're
not bribed in point Of fact, as they voted
against the interests Of the Pacific road
and Credit Mobilier. Under such cir.
cumstances there is no warrant for the i'm
putation of bribery, and so the committee
find What, then, icds their wrong
Their wrong was that they did not frank.
y and fully tell the truth--that they con-
cealed and prevaricated aud msrepresented.
This is the whole Of it. We do not at.
tempt to shield them from the charge Of
deception They resorted to it and must
suffer the consequences. But does this
degrade them to the same plane with Ames
and Brooks Does it show them equally
dishonorable ? Does it prove that they
acted corruptly? Does it afford Just
ground for e1pelling them To bride or
attempt to bribe-to be bribed or to betray
corruptly an official trust. is manifestly
lawful reason for expulsion. But does the
offen@c Of prevaricating about what was it.
self an innocent transaction constitute
lawful reason for so severe a punishment 2
Plainly there is marked disti1btion.
Nor is it impossible to fnd an explanation
which somewhat extenuates if it doe not
excuse or justify their course. They we're
conscious that they had not been guilt Of
corrupt act Yet they saw the popular
mind, under the influence of a campaign
misrepresentation regarding the mere Ios-
session Of share Of Credit Mobiler stock
as itself proof Of corruption and criminal
ity. And SO, frightened at the storm, tley
denied or perverted where they ought to
have told the truth. This is the whole
story. We do not condone any wrong.
But let US, in the name of justice, under
stand aud honestly say just what the wrong
was
Meanwhile, the entire unanmity of tie
Committee in recommending the expulsion
of Ames and Brooks, and finding moth.
ing corrupt in the action of the 9th.
ers, will lend great weight to its judgment
fla Committee thus politically divided
but with an opposition majority, fully agree
as to the character of the various cases,
there must be good reason, if not for ac-
cepting its conclusions, at least to free it
from the charge so freely banded in the
opposition papers of "infamous partizan.'
ship"
The consideration of the report, which
was set down for yesterday, will evoke an
earnest and exciting discussion. Various
questions are involved. These transactions
took place in 1867 and 1868. How far
has the present House jurisdiction over
what occurred in a previous Congress
How far does the present power of the
House to expel extend ? Can it expel if
there was no real bribery Can it expel
upon the general ground that member ha.
proved himself unworthy of seat7 These
and various other questions are involved
in the action Of the House on the subject.
We trust it will speak with an unmistaka-
bic voice.
by throwing out the Electoral Votes
of Louisiana and Arkansas, the number Of
such votes given for the reelection of Pres
ideut Grant is reduced to 2s6, from the
/ pl0 liu aaai e.. H.. 4