Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1884-06-25

of the House of Representatives, bill
renewing the land grant of the Little
Rock and Fort Smith Railroad, in the
State of Arkansas, was before the
House, and in his capacity of Speaker
he promoted it's passage because he had
a pecuniary interest in the road.
The truth is:
l. That Mr.. Blaine at the time of the
passage of the bill had no pecuniary in
terest whatsoever in the railroad or
it's land grant, and expected to have
none.
2. That he had no acquaintance with
any persons who did have any pecun-
larry interest in the railroad or it's land
grant.
3. That he did not promote" the
passage of the bill, and that it did not
need his influence, inasmuch as it had
already. passed the Senate by unani-
nous vote, and was not objected to by
anybody in the House. In fact, it
passed the House by unanimous vote,
as soon as it was before that body, on it's
merits.
4. That Mr.. Blaine's sole connection
ment lacking to it the very odious and
Objectionable land grant of the Texas
and Pacific Railroad, q measure which
ought not to pass, and which, if it had
been fastened to the Little Rock and
Fort Smith Railroad measure, would
probably have dragged it down to an
unmerited defeat. When this highly
offensive amendment was proposed Mr..
Root, one of the Arkansas members,
called the Speakers attention thereto,
and, at Mr.. Blaine's suggestion, Mr..
John A. Logan, then q member of the
House, raised the point of order that
the amendment was not germane, and it
was ruled out of order forthwith. The
bill then passed by unanimous vote.
Nearly three months after these
events Mr.. Blaine for the first time
obtained an interest in the railroad
purchasing the stock and bonds as any
other buyer might do, and then for the
first time formed the acquaintance of
those who had been instrumental in
pushing the enterprise in the State of
Arkansas. He bought block of securi-
ties belonging to the Little Rock and
Fort Smith Railroad, including stock
and first and second mortgage bonds,
in June, 1869, after the adjournment of
Congress, and placed the frst-mortgage
bonds during the three months follow
ing with number of his friends in
Massachusetts, ana Maine. The entire
series of bonds at his disposal was
closed out during the months of July,
August, and September, of 1869, so
the transaction was ended when, in his
letter of Oct 4, 1869, Mr.. Blaine wrote
to Fisher, and merely in the way of
curious Renaissance called attention to
the fact of his unsolicited and acciden-
tai services to the road the April pre-
vious, when he was in no way interested
in it's affairs, and had no reason to sup
pose that he ever would be. The truth
is, that his attention was first directed
to the railroad by its application to
Congress for renewal of its Immigrant,
and it first seemed to him a favorable
investment after it's land grant had been
renewed by a unanimous vote of both
houses of Congress.
Mr.. Blaine sold the securities of the
road to his friends, with personal
pro mise that if any loss should ensue
he would take back the stock and bonds
at the price for which he sold them.
Shrinkage did ensue, and the stock and
bonds were thrown back upon his
hands, and, though he had given no
written guarantee of redemption, he
paid for them, at great personal sacri-
flee, out Of his own pocket. The New
York EUeni71g Post has since alleged
that he unloaded his disastrous invest
ment upon the Union Pacific Railroad,
but it has produced no proof of any
such transaction, whereas Mr.. Blaine
has exhibited the sworn statements of
the officers of the railroad that no such
transfer was ever made; and his state
ment has been accepted as conclusive by
those who are familiar with the circum-
stances of the case. Indeed, it was this
part of the controversy that George
William Curtis considered in Ha7per's
Weekly when he wrote in May, 1876,
that Mr.. Blaine's statement was "as
thorough a refutation as was ever
made"
We are convinced that no candid per-
son can investigate without prejudice
all the facts connected with Mr.. Blaine's
record in this case without coming to
the firm conclusion that it was in all re-
spects honorable and proper, and cred
liable to him, both as a private citizen
and public man.-Chic0go Tribune.