Daily Kennebec journal., 1884-05-03
Nr. Phelps to Mr.. Edmunds
HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

WASHINGTON, u. u, Aprli 20, 1851.
DEAR SIR: have this moment your letter
of this morning, and hasten to correct some
impressions you have gotten either from my
letter TO The Post, or more probably from
some of the numerous newspaper comments.
! regret If you think that in using your name
as an illustration of a principle have IN any
way hurt your reputation. 1t is reputation
of which you and the country may well be
proud; aud. as said in my letter, the facts
do not and ought not to hurt any mans re-
putation. The principle sought to illustrate
was that a legislator has no right to refuse
Justice to corporate interest because he hap
pens to have some share in tne property that
would he benefited; and that it was not
necessarily wrong thing for legislator to
acquire an interest in q corporate property
after legislative action in which he had as
sisted; and cited as illustration your con-
duct and that Of many other Legislators,
which neither | nor any one else CEN
sured. Then l asked why such con-
duct was censurable in Mr. Blaine and not in
any one else. Mr.. Blaine did not vote, but
did rule, so that the Little Rock and Fort
Smith road got its land grant confirmed.
knowing no more of the road at the time than
I did-and forgot the fact Three months
afterward Mr.. Blaine bought his interest in
that road. You voted-because the assent
was unanimous. and you were present-to
confirm the land grant of the Burlington aud
Missouri road, knowing at that time little
more of it than did. for YOU debated it; you
forgot the fact; three months sfterward you
bought your interest in that road. The cases
were 80 analogous in all essential particulars
that II seemed proper to group them. Had
thought the action Of either of You discredits-
BILE, 1 should not have defended him, nor
mentioned you.
Where is there anv lack of accuracy in my
Statements about other peopler" | said !:
'.Senstor Edmunds Was understood to have a
block of Burlington and Missouri Road when
he was in the Senate: you say, on the 18th
Of July. 1859. you subscribed for 1876 shares
of the stock and six thousand s6,o0o) of the
bonds of the Burlington and Missouri River
Railroad Company. | am inaccurate in these
statements. then. only in case YOU were not a
member of the Sesate on the 18th of July,
1869, and in ease stocks and bonds do not
constitute block. | said; They both (you
and smother supported the bill TO restore
the land grant to their road p" You say on
this point nothing accurately; you had only
to say YOU "voted against the BILL Had
you done this I would cheerfully admit my
inaccurscy: but the official record shows YOU
present and speaking upon the resolution at
the moment OF It's passage ana tue recoru
shows that it passed without vote against it.
If The Tribune misapprehended me As say
ing you were in any way interested in the
road 1t the time of the passage Of the resolu-
ton, il is responsible and not l. suspect it
can take care of itself and prefers to. | made
no such representation, directly or by impli-
cation. Such fact would destroy the paral-
lelism between your case and Mr.. Blaine's.
He had no interest in the road at the time of
the passage of the resolution, as you had none.
He acquired his interest in Boston three
months after. just ~ you acquired yours in
Boston three months after. think my state
ments were as accurate as popular language
could make them. Had thought them "a
charge" I could have used the technical Ian
euage of legal pleading; but such language
would not have stated the facts more fairly.
do not want to know ANYTHING of your busi-
ness transactions except these facts which
the public has long known and of which you
need not be ashamed; nor do need any other
evidence than your own word for ANYTHING
you choose to communicate.
The fact that you. like your great associ-
ases, do not escape the misrepresentation of