The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1884-05-01
5-I-77----1 = - : - - -
EDMUNDs.rHELpS CONTROVERSY.
The Vermont senntOr'n LOtter nnd Mr..
Phelps Answer. .,.

l D
The Vermont Senator's Letter nnd Mr..
Phelps Answer. 1
: WASHINGTON, D. T., April 30.-Tho fol.
lowing correspondence recently passed be-
tween Senator Edmunds and William
Walter Phelps: .s
UNITED STATES SENATE, /.
WASHINGTON, April IS.
DEAR siR:-I have read your letter in
defense OF Mr.. Blaine III Sundays Tribune,
and alec tho editorial OF the Tribune, in
which you say, "Senator Edmuuds waa
understood to have block Of Burlington
4 Missouri securities, and they acquired
tholr interests in the Burlington 4 Missouri
road whom they were in the Senate. They
both supported the bill to restore The land
grant 10 theirroad." heSealatements,! ,!aken
In connection with tho rest OF yenr letter,
evidently mean that at tho time OF tho
legislation referred 10 was in aome way
interested in that rad or its securities,
and tho editorial in the Tribune states ex.
preeely as being your statement. Both
yourself and the Tribune are badly mis-.
taken. 1haye hunted up Whist suppose
to bB the joint resolution to which you re.
fer, being Senate Joint Resolution No. 90,
| first session OF the Forty.trst Congress, OF
which had no recollection whatever be.
fore, but see on looking 1t the Congress.
siondl Globe Of that time that l did nuke
single remark on the subje to the lIouso
amendment, which remark commend
to your careful consideration. l had not
at that time nor never had before any
ownership or interest In any bond or stock
that road or my other out OF the State Of
Vermont, and never expected TO have,
and had no moro connection with tho
passage OF tho joint resolution than you
had or no more than YOU, which assume
was nothing at all, excepting what may. be
Inferred from my remark on my House
amendment more than three months after.
wards, and on tho 18Th OF july; 1860,
l find on looking at my old books snb-
scribed for r195 shares OF stock md G000 =
bonds Of the Burlington 4 Missouri River
railroad company in Nebraska, which as.
slime was the rOnd in some way affected by
the legislation referred. l paid In cash the
same price all other subscribers did and
held the stock for several years, when
sold il in tho Boston market at market
price, and no more,N and then afterwards
bought more OF the bonds OF the came COM %
pany which still hold. This ie tho whole ~
story, and Igivo you authorityto veriiyit
by, an examination OF the books ot the
company In Boston, or examination OF my
books, or both. f.
1t is OF some consequence to men who in.
tend to be truthful. as don't doubt you 4
do, to be somewhat accurate in making q
statement about the actsand doines OF other
people. II you or anybody else wish to
know anything concerning my business or
any transaction at any time, l shall be
happy to put you in possession OF precise
information, 80 you will be certain
that what you say is true. Il am
neither willing or desirous OF be-
ing candidate for President,
which everybody who has ever spoken or
written to me upon the subject knows.
But as l naturally like TO stand well with
my fellow citizens, dislike to be accused
oil corruption, bias, Heliishness or acting on
public questions in which have u private
interest, when such accusations are untrue.
Respectfully you're, .@.
GEO. F. EDuuSDs,
10 Hon. William Ilaller Phelps, HOase OF
Delegates.
PHILIPS REILLY.
Mr.. Phelps in substance replies as fol.
lows: 81 have this moment your letter Of
this morning and hasten TO correct some
impressions that have been gotten either
from my letter to the Post or probably from
some Of the numerons newspaper COM
ments. regret il you think that in using
your name as an illustration ofG principle
l have i'll any way nurt your reputation.
It is reputation which you and the coun.
try may well be proud, and as l said in
my letter the facts do not and ought not to
hurt any mans reputation.
The principle sought to illustrate waa
that legislator has no right to refuse
justice to corporate interest because ho
happens to have ssme share in the pro-
perty that would be benefited, and that it
was not necessarily wrong thing fora
legislator to acquire interest in corporate
property after Legislative action in which
he has assisted and acted on. AS an illus-
tration Of your conduct that Of many other
legislators, which neither nor any one
else censured, I asked why such con. 4
duct was censurable in Blaine and not
in any one else. Blaine did not vote but
did rule 30 that the Little Rock i Fort
Smith road got its land grant confirmed, 4
knowing no more OF tho road at the time
than did, and forgot the fact Three
months ntterward Blaine bought his in
terest in that road. You voted, ,IecRusa
the assent was unanimous, and you were
present 10 confirm the land grant OF the
Burlington & Missouri roud, knowing
at that time little more OF 1t than did.
IL "a " r.. I, f..l II.