The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-06-06
HOUSE.

wAsHISSTos, June 5.-The House
took up the Pacific Railroad extension
bill. r.llse -D..ai 81 -
Cultivate reviewed the status Of the
relations between the Pacific companies
and government. and called attention
10 the fact that the Indebtedness to
government was increased at the rate
OF over 81 10000 annually and that the
time. was rapidly drawing Lear VIII n
the companies must be called upon
10 pay lhe.debt, and the question pre-
sented was whether Congress would
permit the debt to 60 on increasing
till the time OF lis maturity and risk the
possibility OF the companies being able
10 ureet their obligations at that time.
lie then proceeded to take up seriatim
sections of the bill to explain their pro
visions and 10 point out the advantages
which would accrue 10 government by
their enactment into law.
Mr. Henley. of California, opposed
the bill He attributed 20 Charles
Francis Adam the statement that the
free pass list OF the Union Pacific Rail
road Company cost the government
81 100 per day. :
Mr.. Long, of Massachusetts,. said
Adams courted the fullest
There was nothing 70 be concealed in
the management Of the road.
Nj. Henley said il the allegations
contained in the resolution were true,
Charles Francis Adams and his associ-
ates should be wearing the stripes OF
the convict in tue penitentiary. Hen
ley proceeded to argue against the bill.
snd. declared IL was time 10 apply the
h..- "a aflrF IN The Of tho p~effs
railroads. .
Mr.. Hayden, # Massachusetts,, in
Quired who il was that had drawn up
tue investigation offered BY Mr.. Hen
ley. r.dia.
Mr.. Henley replied that that made no
difference. The question was whether
the allegations were true He assumed
the paternity OF the resolutions
Mr.. Hayden-I know who gave YOU
the resolution. He is q professional
philantrophist from New York-Colonel
Jones. -i,.J .-c- lisr
Mr. Henley explained there had been
two sets Of resolutions. one OF which
had been presented in the House. The
other. the one gwen him BY Colonel
Jones, had been presented 70 him by
the committee.
Mr.. Hayden Where did be get it7
/ Mr.. Henley-I don't know, and i
don't care. 1t may have been done TO
advance the stock transactions. ] don't
know. AL care is TO know whether
the companies have been transgressinR
the law. It does not matter who issued
the resolution or snimus that inspired
them. All I want TO know Is whether
the allegation is true.
Wesver opposed the pelding bill, and
advocated The propriety Of the govern
nnent IN eleven years pay ing OF the first
mortgage .- -
Mr. Warner, of Ohio, opposed the
bill, and expressed the opinion that the
proper thing for the government 10 do
was to pay of the FIRST mortgage bonds
and become the sole mortgages Of the
property. 90
= Nj. Springer also opposed the bill,
declaring that the roads were in pros
porous condition and contending thst
at the time that debt would mature
under the existing law the roads would
be valuable properties. ,. :,
Holman opposed the bill and quoted
from the reportof the commissioner OF
railroads 70 the effect that the net
annual earnings Of the Uni0n Pacific
road were s., rs, f07, and Of the Central
Pacific 81. 5sO.37L
Mr.. Crisp said that ne gentleman
from Indiana, NJ. Holman. reading
from q report OF the Secretary OF the
Interior, had made statements which
were calculated. and which be sub
mitted, were deliberately intended 70
deceive the House. He Crisp had oe,
fore him the identical document used
by the gentleman, and IN the book N
connection with the identical statements
from which be read, were clear ana
distinct rsfutations OF what be bad
stated. The gentleman bad stated that
the net earnings OF the Union Pacinc
Railroad were IS. 73i 900, when the very
same book showed that the earnings OF
the company within the meaning OF me