The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-06-25
fORTY.NTETH CONGRESS-.
TIE UNION PACIFIC ROAD DIS.
CUSSED IN THE HOUSE.
Some Progress on the Sundry Civil
Appropriation Bill-Preceed.
iBgs In the Senate.

WASHINGTON, June 24.-Hou&.
NJ. Long MAS rising TO a conec-
toa of the Record, said tina, in
tleman from California Henley had
charged that Charles Francis Adams,
OF tue Union Pacific railroad, had
committed gross violations OF law.
He had asked thegentltman TO specify
wis these violations were, and the
only specific reply made by the gen.
tleman was that Mr.. Adams had him
self etatsd that the matter OF free
passes given by the Union Pacific
ccst the government some $1,000 a
day. He (Mr. Long had denied the
correctness OF this statement, and he
found that his denial was altogether
too broad. As il appeared from his
published speech, Mr.. Henley had
said that il cost the company $1,000
day. Mr.. Adams, in his testimony
before Senate committee, had stated
that free passes cost the company
$1,000 day. Bat this was not vio-
lation OF law, aud the statement was
accompanied by the modifying re-
mark that many Of the pastes were
Issued 10 the railroad mployeq. In
extending his remarks in the Record,
Mr.. Henley bad made what purported
10 be a quoiaion from Mr.. Adams
him elf, consisting OF some fiity-eight
lines and containing some very severe
reflections on the Union Pacific
aud on Mr.. Ames and the gentlemen
connected with him in the construc.
ton OF the road. II seems to be a
quotation from a book or pamphlet
written by Mr.. Adams In 1869. He
found upon examination that TIE first
twenty four lines OF that alleged quo
tation were words which were taken
from that book or pamphlet, but the
remaining thirty-four lines were words
which Mr.. Adams had never uttered
and never written and which were in
correctly and improperly attributed
TO him by the gentleman from Cali
fornia. About eighteen months ago
an enormous pamphlet had been pub.
Ished containing q severe criticism
on Mr.. Adams. In this pamphlet
appeared the first twenty-four lines of
the quotation. Then followed in diff
ferent type certain disconnected pas
sages which had now been put In Mr..
Adams's mouth. He knew that the
gentleman from California was not
guilty Intentionally OF putting in Mr..
Adams's mouth words he had never
uttered and he knew that the gentle.
man would have no objection TO hav-
ing the correction made in the Record. |
Mr.. Henley said that the gentle
man was right in the statement that
he Mr.. Henley had attributed GER
tain language 10 Mr.. Adams which he
had never uttered or written. When
he prepared his speech he remem-
bered that good many years ago, Mr..
Adams had written scathing arraipn-
ment OF the Union Pacific, lis direc.
tors, the Credit Mobiller and Oak
Ames. Before the Senate Committee
Mr.. Adams had become not only the
apologiet but the eulogist OF the Union
Pacific, which he had previously de-
nounced. He (Mr. Henley lad
: ought II a fair matter of criticism
- him 10 criticise Mr.. Adams past
I'D present utterances. Not having
.5'iE Adana2 pamphlet at hand, he had |
cen Obliged 10 rely on what pur-
ported 70. be a correct copy OF IL In
newspaper, aud he had used il, not
dreaming that there was anything in
II that could not be properly attrlb-
uted TO Mr.. Adams. He would make
the correction but he wanted TO call
attention to the precise injury which
Mr.. Adams fancied he had sustained
at his hands. In the part OF
the quotation which was conceded TO
be correct, the sentiment and denun.
citation was in exact accord and entire
harmony with that part which had
been improperly attributed to Mr..
Adams. de could not G nceive that
gentleman had suffered injuries
at his hands. There were other things
in his speech to which Mr.. adams
could address himself and complain
about IL they were not true. The log
icAl result Of the compla mt Mr.. Adams
had made was that ne had no denial
10 make Of the charges.
Mr.. Long then took up the charges
made in mir, Heniey's published speech
and denied them ali in detail. The
first charge was that Charles Francis
Adams and bis co-directors had GRIM
inally violated the law in issuing &c.
100000 per cent collateral trust
bonds in 1888 That transaction had
taken place before Mr.. Adams became
even a director. The second charge
was that Mr.. Adams and the directors
had violated the law IN paying divi-
dends in 1883 and 1884, in the teeth
OF the existence of q floating debt
OF SlS,000,000. 1t was not a vio-
la'ion Of law TO pay dividend when
there was floating debt. The |
thiidchHge Yves that Mr.. Adams and |
diIec ors bod violated the law in plcc- |
ing the indsrsement of the Union Pa |
cidc n ABOUT So, 100000 OF bonds OF |
the Oregon Short Line Company. That
wa perfectly legitimate, and had oc,
Cured three years before Mr.. Adams's
connection with the company The
fourth charge was that Mr.. Adams
and die directors had deliberately de-
irau6ed the assets belonging to the
government lien by anticipating the |
payment of the third mortgage bonds.
The answer to that was, that there
were no third mortgage bonds at all. |
Mr.. Henley-"Everythirg | sllege
there can be proven"
The matter was then dropped, and |
Mr.. Randall [Ps. moved TO dispen.e
with the mor1ing hour.
Mr.. Reed Me. inquired sarcastically |
whether It was the intention TO eau |
up the sun1ry civil bill,
"You will s'e in the regular course
Of business, replied Mr.. Randall.
g he other wing Of the Democratic |
party ems 10 have taken charge to- |
day." observed Mr.. Reed.
"Oh, both wings will ZAP together
after awhile" reiorled Mr.. Randall, |
amid applause on the Democratic side. |
TIE motion having been agreed to,
the House went into Committee OF the |
Whole Mr.. Reagan Tex in the |
chair on the snndry civil bill, Mr.. |
Reed rsmsrking that the very sensible
wing of the Dsmoc-a'ic party had |
control today. This was greeted with |
loud applause on both sides Of the
H1use.
The pending amendment was that
offered by Mr.. Warner [0.l providing