Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-02-26

1 Wa1NAC0 oebCheAlCAI bnO dUuAOuOCs IL IL
cited at length the history Of the Credit
Mobilier transactions and contends that il
is unreasonable and unjust to accuse OF
bribery where it is not shown that any ore
has been bribed. He controverts the law
as applied in the case by the Poland Com
mittee, shows the advantages to the Gov
eminent of the Credit Mobilier, and in
conclusion declares that it seems to be the
object to have him made the single victim,
but if this body shall order that victim, he
shall accept its mandate and leave to his
tory his vindication, which is denied him
here.
Some Of the close, keen hits in the argu-
ment ELECTED whispered comments of ap-
proval and occ2sioned laughter. 1t was
listened to throughout with the greatest
attention. The peroration was splendidly
read, so that even the sensiblities of Ames
himself could not be restrained sufficiently
to keep tears from suffdsing his eyes, and
it was received with half suppressed MUIR
murs of appreciation all over the House.
Mr.. Butler reverting to the two prece-
dents cited on Poland to-day rem arked
I that though the persons who were referred
to were expelled for acts committed before
their election, yet they had been indict ed
for them during the sitting Of Parliament.
| FaruswOrth to the Rescue.
! Mr.. Farnsworth then rose and proceeded
to make argument in favor Of the accused
and against the conclusions of the select
| committee. What he asked was the state
ment of the committee as against Amss,
first, that he bribed his friends; second, that
they did not know that they were bribed;
| third, that they were not affected with the
| bribery, and fourth, that neither Ames nor
the persons bribed knew what they were
to do or abstain from doing. And yet this
committee had concluded its report by
charging that Ames was guilty Of bribery
because he made these salesOf stock. He
| (Farnsworth) could not so understand the
| law of bribery. In the first place, enc
man could snot commit bribery any more
| than one man could commit q conspiracy,
or any more than one person could commit
n.atrlmony. [Laughter.l 1t required two
parties. Again, there could not be bribery
unless the person bribed was to do or alb
stain from doing something. Besides, a
man did not bribe his friends. A man never
went to his friend already committed to his
side of the case and in favor of his interest
| to bride him. Brides vera offered to men
to convert them. They were offered to
those who were disinclined, to prevail upon
I them to do what the briber desired them
| TO do.
| Passing the case of Mr.. Brooks, Mr..
| Farnsworth called attention to the fact that
! the matter charged against him took place
during the time when Mr.. Brooks was not
a member of Congress and when he was
under no greater obligation Of duty IN re-
| gard to the matter than were Durant, Dill
| Ion, or any one of those gentlemen who
| engaged in the enterprise. II was then that
Mr.. Brooks made the negotiation for the
| Credit Mobilier stock. The subsequent
transfer of this stock by Mr.. Brooks to his
son-in-law was only proof of his extreme
delicacy in not wishing to be connected
personally with the matter While he was
a Government Director. Besides It was
| the most natural thing in the world for
man 70 look after the interest Of his own
ki.h and kin. The people had been told so
very often within the past year in respect TO
| persons IN
Higher eAice
than Mr.. Brooks. L2ughtsr.] II this
! transfer to Mr.. Nelson had teen attempt
ed on the part Of Mr.. Brooks to cover upa
bad transaction, he never would have Sc
| lected his sUn-inlaW. No man, he was
going to say, with the sense necessary TO be
a member of Congressional was not put
| ting it Very high Laughter but with
sense enough to be q country Justice OF the
! Pesce-that was Observation-Disclosures
ever have resorted TO so imsy a dodge as
| to select his s0n-in-l law in order TO cover
| up bad transactions. To his mind, on the
| face Of it, it was not badge Of fraud but
badge of fair dealing, and it would be so re-
| garded by every sensible Judiciary tribunal
| IN tie land. He did not wish to be under
stood as approving this matter in all its
length and breadth. BE thought the pur-
chase of Credit Mobilier by member OF
! Congress was very imprudent thing, but
| he did not propose himself to cast stone
at those did t. He did not think IL was
precisely the right thing to continue sort of
machine that might have been ubiquitous,
| but if so, the House should go back and
punish the men who made the continuance.
Let the men who contrived the iniquity be
taken up and expelled, if there were such
in the House, instead of expelling one man
| because he sold stock and the
| other because he bought it.
After passing eulogies on the characters
of Ames and Brooks, he remarked that il
had been said thaG SANDER loves shining
| mark. 1t was so in this case. Men who
had been chairmen of committees of the
House, and who had been regarded as lead
ers of the House, and whom he had always
| believed and still believed to-day to be
among the best men in the House, had been
! singled in this case. He had had many a
bout with some of these men; had had many
! sharp encounters with them in debate; but
the sharp words which had been uttered on
either side had been forgotten and forgiven.
he was not, IS he was about to leave the
hall, going to throw stones at these men.
1t was most deplorable that such men
should be singled out for these shafts. He
reminded the House that some men
Compound for sins they are inclined to,
By damning hose they have q mind to,
and so vicious people, men not half so good
as those they condemn, would compound for
S ms ten times worse, and would justify in
their conscience the sins they commit if
they could but drag down to their own
level a bright and shining mark. This
question after all resolved itself into the
single question whether the stock Of Credit
Mobilier was contraband property. Was it
iu and of itself ubiquitous, so as to corrupt
the man who heidi it. TIE Committee did not
Guy RlObOnA " bAo VI bhNs
proposition. On the contrary, Ames was
one of the largest stockholders of Credit
Mobilier stock and yet it was not proposed
to punish him because of that fact. The
House was permitted to take it for granted
that the property or proprietorship did not
corrupt or faint the holder, and they were
then driven 10 examine the conclusion of
the committee, to-8it: Whether there was
bribery. On that question be would say
no mere.
After few further remarks, the hammer
fell and Merrick, Democratic member OF
the Select COMMITTEES took tie floor, and
spoke at length in defence Of the report. In
relation to the other members whose ex-
pulsion was not recommended, he said it
Lad been the object of the committee so
far as it could do so, within the limits of
its power to strike blow and 10 cast CEN
sure on all of them. 1t they had been
aware of the enormous dividends that were
to grow out of the contract which they
msde with Ames, the committee could not
have acquitted them. But there was no
evidence that they did not know it.
Mr.. Eldridge remarked that they must
have known it when they received the large
dividends.
The Louisiana Message.
Mr.. Merrick continued until the hammer
l. LII hafrN a nrrz