The Portland daily press., 1876-04-25
PHILADELPHIA, April 81, 1876.

PHILADELPHIA, April 81, 1876.
Sidney Dillon, Esq, President of the Union Pacific
NV dear sir@i have YOUR letter under the date of
New York, April Is, 1876 stating that the press of
the country are making allegations 5nar certain
chased by the Union Pacific Railroad Co. IN 1871
were obtained from Hon. j. G. Blaine OF Maine, or
that the avas in some form went to his Denent that
there never were any facts to warrant them
that is your desire president OF the company TO
repel any such inference in the most emphatic maui
and asking me to make statement IN regard to
the matter. ~
In reply beg leave to say that much as l dislike
the idea of entering into any OF these
from which few men in public life seem to be exempt.
feel it my duty to state that the Little ROCK Fort
Smith bonds by o ne "a
ceived from Mr.. Blaine, directly or indirectly, and
that Of the money paid by the Union Paeihc Rail
went to Mr.. Blaine to any person TOR him, or for
his benefit in any form. All statements to the effect
that Mr. Blaine ever had any N with me-
of any kind are absolutely without foundation in
fact. 1 take pleasure in making this statement to
best for the interests of the Union Pacific Railroad
Very truly yours,
THOMAS A. SCOTT.
and this closes the testimony have wished to
offer.
Reasons for not Asking an Investigation.
Several newspapers, doubtless some of them
ask for committee to investigate these charges.
I might have done that and awaited the delay
and slow progress that inevitably attend allCon-
gressional Investigations. Three and half
years ago moved committee to investigate
the Credit Mobier charges, and though every
particle of proof in complete exculpation Of
myself was before the committee in thirty-six
hours after its first meeting, was compelled
to wait for more than two months, indeed, sew
enty full days before got public report exon.
Grating and indicating me from the charge.
Had asked for committee to investigate the
pending matter should have been compelled
to wait its necessarily slow action with the
charges all the while hanging over me undenied
and unans wered, and pending the proceedings
of an investigation which had myself asked
propriety would have forbidden my collecting
and publishing the decisive proofs which have
now submitted. For these reasons have deem
ed that the shortest or most expedi tious mode
of vindication was the one which l was bound
to choose by every consideration of myself per-
sonally, and of my official relations. I have
not omitted the testimony of single material
witness to the transaction on which the ac3usa-
ton against me is based, and unless misap-
prehend the scope and force of che testimony it
leaves no charge against me.
am ready to submit the whole matter to the
candid Judgment of the House and the country,
and if the House thinks the matter should be
further inquired into, beg to express my en- .
tire readiness to give all the assistance in my
power to make the investigation as thorough,
as rigid and as impartial as possible.
Another Unfounded Statement.
To give seeming confederation of or founda-
| ton to the story which l have disproved the
absurd rumor has lately appeared in certain
| newspapers that was the owner of from $3.50,
600 to $3.50, 900 worth of the Little Rock & Fort
Smith railroad bonds, which 1 received without
consideration, and that it was from these bonds
| that Thomas A. Scott received his $75 O0O The
of for offIif0 md FOL
| responsible author appears anywhere for this
unfounded story, but in discussing it desire to
made the following explicit statement.
The History of the Little Rock q Fort
Smith Road.
More than % years ago, iu the closing days
| of Mr. Fillmore's administration, the govern
ment granted to the State of Arkansas some
public lands within its own limits to be applied
| to the construction of railroads in that state,
The Legislature of Arkansas incorporated the
Little Rock & Fort Smith Railroad Company
| the same year, and gave to the company a por-
| tion of the lands it had received from the gen.
| eral government to aid in the construction of
| the road, about 5000 acres to the mile think,
but the company were unable to raise auy
| money for the enterprise, though they made
| the most strenuous efforts, and when the war
| broke out in 1861, eight years after the state
| had given the lands to the company, not mile
| of the road was built. OF course nothing was
Il QOD6 uuEluS Ju6 war. AII6F bn6 war all tQ6
grants of land previously made to the Southern
States were renewed in gross In the session
| of 1866, the Little Rock & Fort Smith Com
pany again received grant from the state and
ag ain tried to raise money to build their road.
1866, 1866 and 1867 passed without their getting
dollar. Finally, towards the close of 1868, a
company of Boston gentlemen representing
considerable capital undertook its construction.
Insuring the requisite means they placed the
bonds of the road on the New England market
in the summer of 1869, offering them on terms
which seemed very favorable to the purchaser
and offering them at time when investments
of this kind were fatally popular
MIR. BIaine's Investment i'm the Bonds of
the Road.
In common with hundreds of other people in
New Engia and other parts of the country
bought some of these bonds not very large
amount paying for them at precisely the same
rate that others paid. l never heard, and do
not believe that the Little Rock Company,
which 1 know is controlled by highly honorable
men, ever parted with bond to any person ex-
cept at the regular price fixed for their sale.
The enterprise, though apparently very prom
Using, proved unsuccessful as did so many SINH
lar projects about the same time. L lost con-
siderable sum of money, over $4,000, by my
investment, and presume New England made
a net loss of $2,000,00O in completing that road
for Arkansas, as she lost over one hundred mill
lions by similar ventures West and South with
in the last twelve years. In addition to my in
vestment in the bonds, united with some 9th.
ers in raising some money for the company
when it met its first financial troubles. Pro.
ceedings are now pending in the q. s. Circuit
Court lntArkansas, to which l am party of
record, tor the reimbursement of the money so
advanced. All the bonds 1 ever purchased l
continued to hold, and when the company was
reorganized in 1874 exchanged them for stock
and bonds in the new concern, which still
own. My whole connection with the road has
been open as the day. If there had been any
thing TO conceal about it should never have
touched it. Wherever concealment is desira-
BILE avoidance is advisable, and do not know
any better test to apply to the honor and fair.
ness of business transaction.
The Propriefy of the Investment.
As to the question of propriety involved in
member of Congress holding an investment of
this kind, it must be remembered that the
lands were granted to the State of Arkansas,
company derived its life, franchise and value
from the state, and to the state the company is
amenable and answerable, and not in any
sense to Congress. Since I purchased the
bonds but one act of Congress has passed in
any way touching the subject, and that was
merely to rectify previous mistake in legisla-
ton. take it when any security, from govern
ment bonds to town scrip, isioffered at public
sale to any one who can pay for it, every
American citizen is free to buy it, If yoa
exclude Representative from the investment
on the ground that in some secondary or re-
mote way the legislation of Congress has
affected or may affect the value of the article,
then you exclude every man on this floor, not
only from holding a government bond or a
share in national bank, but also from owning
a flock of sheep or field of hemp, or tobacco
plantation, or cotton mill, or an iron furnace,
for all these interests are vitality affected by
the tariff legislation, on which we vote eyery
session, and of which an important measure is
even now pending in the Committee of the
Whole. In the seven intervening years since
the Little Rock and Fort Smith bonds were
placed on the market, know few investments
that have not been more affected by the legs-
lation of Congress. But this case does not
require to be shielded by any such comparisons
or citations, for repeat that the Little Rock
road derived all it had from the State of Ar
kansas, and not from Congress. 1t was in the
discretion of Congress to give or withhold from
the state, but it was solely in the discretion of
the state to give or withhold from the Little