Ottumwa weekly courier. (Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa) 1872-1899, 1876-08-16
The committee were charged to in
uuire how the Union Pacific Railroad

/
Company had come into possession o1
certain bonds, from whom it had OBJ.
tanned them, and for what considera.
ton. On the first day of the investi.
CATION three witnesses were called
Col. Thomas A. Scott, Mr.. Carnagie
and Mr.. Morton, banker In New
York, all of whom testified to their
personal knowledge of the manner
in which the bonds were obtained
The testimony of these witnesses
showed conclnsively that the Union
Pacific Railroad purchased said bonds
from Col. Thomas A. Scott, and that
Col. Scott purchased them from Mr..
Caldwell, and that MFR. Blaine was in
no way, shape, or manner connected
with the transaction, either directly
or indirectly. Why were these facts
not reported?
Sir, cannot but call to mind nm.
other investigation by committee of
this House, and cannot but here con-
trast the course taken by the two
committees. In one case the gentle
man was an honored ex-Speaker of
this House in the other the accused
was the Speaker of the House. Both
were men of the highest character ;
one was Republican and the other d
Democrat. When the testimony con-
cerning the ex-Speaker was complete
and overwhelming in his viRdication,
the judiciary Committee refused to
report, and continued the investiga-
tion, sending out for further testi-
mony and seeking to find somebody
who, perchance, might contradict
some one of those witnesses who had
testified in his vindication. Month
after month the inquiry went on, aft
er, as have said, three witnesses of
the highest character had testified to
their personal knowledge that the ex-
Speaker had no connection whatever
with the transaction i'm question, and
after he on his oath had asserted the
same thing.
How different was tha course of the
committee in the case of the Speaker
of the House. When he was accused
by the testimony of witness on the
stand, how swift was the committee
to send for other witnesses to impeach
the accuser, and how prompt was the
committee to come in with their re.
port vindicating entirely the Speaker
from these charges. And how ready
and generous was every member up-
on this side of the House in Joining
with one voice, without dissent, i'm
vindicating him against what we all
believed to be false charge. Fully
believing as do, in the entire inno-
cence of the Speaker, truth compels
me to say that his vindication was not
so thorough, was not SO complete, was
not so overwhelming as the vindica-
tion Of James j. Blaine by the testi-
mony adduced on the very first day
of the investigation concerning him.
Is that fair, is that impartial? Sir, if
James G. Blaine had been our demo-
cratic Speaker, how prompt, how
complete, how emphatic, and how
unanimous would have been his vim
dication at the hands of this House.
The report now made to the House
is based upon the ground that the
telegram was not evidence under the
law. | cannot but remark another
thing. and that is that upon the other
side of the House there are gentlemen
who are exceedingly technical in de-
manding legal evidence when it is
convenient for them and for the in
terest of democracy to be so, but who
utterly disregard the rules of evil
dence when a Republican is charged
and may be smirched by admitting
that which is not evidence.
! have here the testimony in an in
vestigation in which Republican
ex-mcmber of this House, late min
lister to England, General Schenck,
was concerned. In hurriedly looking
over these pages, l have counted some
thirty dispatches, not one signed by
the party accused, nor by anybody
authorized by him, no more compe-
tent as evidence than the Caldwell
dispatch, all of which are spread up-
on the record and published abroad
as evidence in the investigation, and
for the purpose of smirching him.
And you must secrete, you must sup
press, You must keep out of the record
a dispatch which exonerates and vim
dicates a Republican member Of this
House, because it is not evidence.
Sir, / cannot 60 further into this
discussion now. say, however, that
if the rule which has been followed
when a Democrat was to be investi-
gated, if the policy which has been
pursued when a Democrat was con-
cerned, had been followed i'm the case
of James q. Blaine, we long ago
would have had report eXonerating
him and vindicating his good name.