Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1873-03-21

- .---.4-z :. z--.-.lL- Z & no;zlz-z 81
: TGEe = s5t.E97T -! y G-IJlE72l1sI 5sEFT ~
5 Now, Mr. Speaker, this brings 1neto
the consideration of the questions af-
fecting the gentleman with reference
! to whom the committee have made a
specific report. With regard to the
case of James Brooks-and lam panied
) to mention the name of one who has
/ heretofore been honored in the country
l and in the party of which I am mem
: ber-in reference to his case the COM
mittee could not shut their eyes to the
. fact that he must have known from
the beginning all the relations between
these two corporations. He was from
: the first an active agent in cooperation
: with Durant and the other men in
placing this stock. He made. efforts
thereto for nearly year, as the evi-
dence shows. He claims credit and
= exculpation from the fact that he had
made diligent efforts to place that
stock. -Four OR five hundred thousand
J dollars of that stock he was endeayor-
ing to locate with various, men, He
was on intimate relations with Durant.
He was in intimate relations with all
the operations of the Pacific railroad.
He was in daily communication with
, them. He could not have failed to
know the relations between the Credit
Mobilier and the Union Pacific Rail-
} road. s'~.. 49,. - 2''rf. 7t'G ~ % ?"
He claims tohave had sort of run
ming, floating contract with Durant,
running from the commeneement2o of
March, 1867, down to the time when
he econsummated the earrangementwith
? Durant by virtue of which he became
: possessed of one hundred shares of
: Credit Mobilier stock. How and when
did he become possessed of that stock
, He had been made a Government di-
rector of the Union Pacific Railroad
, in the month of October, 1867 He
Z had all the time, by virtue Of this OPP
tional contract of which he speaks, the
right, as he says and claims, to become
possessed of one hundred shares in that
{ corporation. Why did he not take it
under the contract, fit were an .inno-
cent contract, when the stock was not
: worth so large a profit in the market
!, as it afterward came to be worth !? :
l When do you find him rakiing from the
e dead ashes this pretended right of his:
: On the 18th day of December, 1857
I the Credit Mobilier had declared a
e dividend of eighty per cent. in Union
Pacific Railroad bonds. which were
worth in the market ninety seven PEI
cent. In twelve days after ithataaivi-
> dend was declared you find him for the
} first time asserting his claim to the
? possession of these hundred shares OF
! Credit Mobilier stock, insisting on the
. possession of these shares, with the
: commission Of Government director
in the Union Pacific Railroad in his
pocket. .-.lE,E - - " ; '.1''.- .-''
It is very significant circumstance
that he should have suffered this claim
of his to thus lie dormant until he had
become a Government director, and
until the stock had become enormous:
ly profitable, until it had come to thai
, point where it was worth one hundred
! and sixty, two hundred, or three hun.
dred per cent. in the close market tc
which it was confined. It was not on
= the common stock board, I agree; but
it was within the knowledge of a Sc:
! lected few. He seems to have posses
sed that knowledge, for he insisted
: upon his supposed rights at the most
propitious time for their yielding the
largest pecuniary results. He claimed
and insisted on having this stock grant.
ed to him then; and when his claim
was conceded, not as a right, but when
his claim was conceded, then he re.
vealed his guilty knowledge too patent
ly for any eye to fail to see it, because
in the very moment of it's concession
!, to him hessaid, that he being a Govern
ment director, could not take it in his
own name; and when, and only when
it is conceded to him as. a right does
he transfer it to his son7in-laW Who
can say, what rational being can say
by transferring this thing which. he
first claims and gets possession of in
his own right, to his son-in7laW, he
t thereby purged himself of the iniquity:
The iniquity attached at the time he
demanded and received the title to
.. himself; and if it rested in him but an
, instant, how can it be said he is guilt
, less of demanding and receiving in the
; character of a Government director
that which he; by confessions of his
, own mouth, admitted he was not enti-
! tied to receive, because herW dis
, qualified by the official position which
he held from staining his'hands with
, it, and with reference to which he was
charged with the duty of being dis
/ interested trustee for the public, the
American people. And will you tell
, me that man can be held guiltless
) because when he claims .a,thing as a
right and it is conceded to him as a
righthe is discharged because he trans
: fers it over to his son-in- law, a man
J, living in his own house, and charged
, secondarily with the protection and
, support of that daughter whom he
i himself primarily, by the bonds Of ma
. ture, was bound to provide for? Why,
sir, you might as well say that man
J is not corrupt who for the sake Of Of
) fetal influence insists with some man
who has patronage, 81 demand that