The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1884-05-06
WANTS VINDICATION.
Congressman Kellogg Asks Springer Is
Committee to Investigate Him.
Important Railway Decision 30 ssa-
stricting Alien Ownership OfLands
-WeIIer's objeetiOn-Pro-
eeedi9gs In Congress.

WASHINGTON CRY, May 6-At the meet
ing of the house commit "a on expenditures of
the department of justice, Mr. Springer
read a letter from Mr. Kellogg
in which the latter asked to be allowed q ap-
pear before the committee with counsel.
Kellogg further said that if the committee
did not investigate him, he would ask the
house to appoint a special committee to con-
duct the Investigation.
Mr.. Fyan remarked, after bearing the let
ter read: "This looks suspicious; it looks as if
this committee was called upon to white
wash Kellogg. Price, the man who testified
against him, has gone, and his own witnesses
are here to be called"
Mr.. Stewart said: 81 think Mr.. Kellogg
ought to be informed that it is not part of
the business of this committee to determine
whether he is guilty or innocent; we make
ourselves ridiculous by exceeding our juris-
dction
"Mr. Kellogg wants to prove that he is a
good, virtuous, Christian gentleman" inter-
posed Miiliken. Il would like to accommo-
date him" he continued, "but-"
"Pm not willing to accommodate any one, !"
said Mr.. Stewart, "but would like to know
if there was any deviltry on the part of any
body to shield Kellogg"
kellogg is member of the house, and it
wouldn't be right to bring in testimony
against him." said Stephenson.
"As to the question of jurisdiction"
Stewart interposed, "we've got out of our
jurisdiction 400 times, and it hardly looks
fair to bring up that question now"
The committee instructed Mr.. Springer to
confer with Mr.. Kellogg and suggest that
the latter offer a resolution in the house ask
ing for an investigation.
Important Supreme Court Decision.
WASHINGTON CITY, May Ga decision
has been rendered by the supreme court of
the United States in the important case of
the Pacific Railroad company of Missouri,
appellant, against the Missouri Pacific
Railway company, C. P Garrison, Jay
Gould and Others appealed from the
circuit court Of the United States
for the eastern district of Missouri This suit
arises out of the alleged fraudulent foreclos-
ure in 1876 of the mortgage of the Pacific
railroad of Missouri; the sale of that road
under decres of foreclosure, and its reor-
ganization in the hands of Garrison, Gould
and others under the title of
the Missouri Pacific Railway company.
The suit, therefore, is virtually
ono brought by the former holders
of the railroad property against the present
holders to recover the legal title to it, on
the ground that they were deprived of it by
gross fraud. 1t was alleged by the appel
liant in the court below that the default in
the payment of interest on its bonds, which
was made the preteXt for foreclosure
and sale of the road, was fraud
ulently caused and procured by means
OF dishonest collision between its
unfaithful board of directors and the
present appellees, and that, therefore, it is
entitled to have the decree of foreclosure and
sale set aside, and its property restored to it.
The appellees demurred in the court below,
upon various grounds, which this court, il
an elaborate opinion by Justice Blatchford,
declares to be insufficient This court holds
that the fatal charges Of fraud in the
bill were sufficient to warrant the discovery
and relief, has ed on these charges. The
decree of the circuit court, is, therefore, re-
versed, and the case remanded, with direc-
tiOns to overrule the demurrers, with costs,
and take further proceedings not inconsistent
with this courts opinion
The railroad property in controversy in
this case was bought in at foreclosure sale
in 1876 by James Baker for C. K. Garrison,
Russell Sage and others, and the controlling
interest in it afterwards sold by the latter to
Jay Gould, and it has since that time formed
an important link in Jay Goulds sys-
TEN. The present case came to the
court on legal technicality in 1880, and was
decided against the plaintiffs or original
owners of the road. The decision rendered
will enable the plaintiffs to bring the case
here upon its merits, and get final decision
of this court, upon the charges of unfaithful-
ness and fraud, which, it is alleged, were the
means by which the road was wrecked