The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-06-06
THE HOUSE.
The Pacific Railway Extension Bill-A Spat
Between Crisp and Holman.


ton from $3.50, 900 to 100000.
On motion of Mr.. Struble, of Iowa, a Senate
bill was passed appropriating 100000 for the
| erection of public building at Sioux City. Ia
Mr.. Crisp, of Georgia, from the committee on
commerce, reported bill authorizing the con-
struction Of a bridge across the Tennessee river
at Chattanooga. Placed on the House calendar.
An informal conversational discussion then
arose as to the procedure Of business to-day, Mr.
Holman, of Indiana expressing desire to call
up appropriation bills but was willing to test
the sense of the House upon the question.
Mr.. Throckmorton, of Texas, and Mr.. Crisp,
of Georgia. advocated the claims of the commit
tee Pacific railroad to the floor. and Mr.
O'Neill OF Missouri contended that the day
should be assigned TO the consideration OF bills
relating to labor questions.
The House having resolved to 60 into commit
tee of the whole the legislative appropriation
bill. the contest for precedence narrowed down
TO the committee on Pacific railroads and the
committee on labor, the former coming out VIC
torious.
Mr. Crisp thereupon called I'D the Pacific rail
road extension bill. and by vote of 123 to Al
the House determined to consider it, 1t was
agreed that the previous question should be con-
sidered as ordered at o'clock unless the debate
should exhaust itself at an earlier hour
of the relations between the Pacific companies
and the government and called astention to the
fact that the Indebtedness to the government
was increasing at the rate of over 81, 600 600 an
nually, and that the time was rapidly draw
ing near when the companies must be
called upon to pay the debt The question
presented was whether Congress would permit
the debt to go on increasing until the time OF
its maturity and risk the possibility of the com
panies being able to meet their obligations at
that time He then proceeded to take up the
sections of the bill and explain their provisions
pointing out the advantages which would accrue
to the government by their enactment into law
Mr.. Henley, of California, opposed the bill
He attributed to Charles Francis Adams a state
ment that the free-pass list of the Union Pacific
Railroad Company cost the government 81, 900
day.
Mr.. Long, of Massachusetts said that Mr.
Adams courted the fullest investigation. There
was nothing to be concealed in the management
of the road.
Mr. Henley said that if the allegations con-
tanned in the resolution were true. Charles
Francis Adams and his associates should be
wearing the stripes of conyicts in a penitentiary
If the allegations had been made against the
gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Longl or
any other honorable he would have
rushed into the presence of the Pacific rail-
road committee and have said, Gentlemen,
here are allegations in the form of resolution
introduced In the House rejecting on the integ
rity of my company and myself as man. and l
demand that these matters shall be inyesti-
gated"
Mr.. Long (emphaticallyl Adams demands
an investigation.
MI Henley-He did not appear before the
committee to invite an Investigation.
Mr. Richardson, of Tennessee-Mr. Adams
did appear before the committee and said he
would invite any examination that the House
saw fit to make
Mr.. Henley reahirmed his belief that Mr..
Adams would not submit to an investigation If
he could help it
Mr.. Long-I challenge you to put it to test.
Mr.. Henley proceeded to argue against the
bill, and declared that it was time to apply
heroic remedy to the cases of the Pacific rail
roads.
MIR. Hayden, of Massachusetts, inquired who
it was that had drawn up the resolution of inves-
tgaton offered by Mr. Henley.
Mr.. Henley replied that that made differ
ence-the question was, whether the allegations
were true. He assumed the paternity of the
resolutions.
Mr. Hayden-I know who gave you the reso-
buttons. He Is professional philanthropist
from New York-Coonel Jones.
Mr.. Henley said the given him by Mr..
Jones had been presented to the committee. It
does not matter who prepared the resolutions,
or what the animus was that inspired them All
want to know is whether the allegations are
true
Mr.. Weaver. of Iowa. opposed the bill, and ad-
vocated the propriety of the government, IN
eleven years. paying off the debt
Mr.. Warner, of Ohio, opposed the bill and ex-
pressed the opinion that the proper thing for the
government to do was to pay off the frst-mort
gage bonds and become the sole mortgage of
the property.
Mr. Springer opposed the bill. declaring that
the roads were in prosperous condition, and
contending at the time the debt would mature
under existing laws, the roads would be valuable
property. 1t was proposed now to investi-
gate the management of the railroads, and
he thought investigation should take
place before Congress passed law which would
put the question ont of its hands for seventy
years. He favored postponing further consider
alton of the bill until the next session of Con-
gress, when the House might be in possession Of
information which would enable it to act intelli
gently.
Mr.. Holman, of Indiana, opposed the bill, and
quoted from the report of the Commissioner of
Railroads to the effect that the net annual earn
ings of the Union Pacific were &c. 73S 402 and Of
the Central Pacific 1890, 37L
Mr.. Morrison, of Illinois, said that the gov
eminent was receiving from the Pacific railroad
companies less money year by year, and that
the roads were falling further short every year
Of paying interest If he knew that this bill would
better secure the debt owing the government
or. if he believed tilt the government could get
more money out of the railroads, of course he
would vote for it. AS he did not know it, he did
not know how he was going to vote In answer
to reference made by Mr. Weaver to Mr.. Nor
risons vote on the act in 1864, Mr.. Morrison said
he remembered we'll what had occurred on the
night that the House passed the act in 1864 He
remembered that more men had come to the
House than had come to vote The only men he
remembered that voted who were in the present
Congress, were the gentleman from Indiana Mr..
Holman and the gentleman from Illinois him
self He had voted on side and the gentle
man from Indiana on the other He had come
from the army, and was Union man. and the
gentleman professed to be llaughterl, and he
supposed he On the Pacific ocean was
brave, intelligent people. largely Southern
men, with big brains and big hearts,
who wanted to get away. Union men wanted to
tie them on. He had stood in his place and
voted. he believed mostly with Republicans. to
s.tie them on and he took whatever response
bility belonged to it. [ApplauseI He believed
that it was best at the time. and he always did
was not here to apologize for it.
Mr. Crsn of Georgia said that the gentleman