The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-02-25

lar OF the debt would be
due until 1897, SO that de-
fault could not be declared. Suppose
a receiver was appointed. government
would receive worthless piece OF
property, which it could not operate
without loss. A road cut off at both
ends, road without any connection
With the great market of the Pacific
Coast. 1t would be al ma Gus in the
history of lawsuits to appoint receiver
where no part of the interest was due.
| Turning his attention to Commissioner
Pdttisons minority report the witness
said it required more of a lawyer than
he (witness) was to understand how
Congress could forfeit the charter to a
railroad company, granted by State
aud Territorial governments. He could
not understand how tattison would
forfeit the charters of the Pacific
roads branch lines, when Congress had
II thing to do with granting these
charters.
Weber inquired what were the SUBJ
stantial reasons for granting more
| reasonable terms to the Central Pacific
than to the Union Pacific.
Litter replied that it was not because
these people were entitled to any con-
sideration a. the hands of Congress.
He was here to represent the govern
ment. He would, if q member of Con-
gress. ignore for time the crimes and
shortcomings of these men. He would
treat the debt as business matter on
business principles. He did not believe
the people of the country were crying
for the blood of the managers so much
as for the money they owed the govern
meDt. 1t was the duty of the COM
mittee to recover this money, and
if it acted wisely, it would be able
to do so, notwithstanding the
sorrowful picture he had drawn
of the present condition of the road.
He did not know whether the CON-
pauies would accept the provisions re-
quiring them to institute suits against
their former managers for malfeasance,
but any bill reported by the committee
should include the provision. Unless
the committee settled this matter on
business principles, the government
would in 1897 lose $50 600 900 through
the Central Pacific I'll acted wisely.
in ten years $40 900 060 would have
been paid TO the government, and it
could Fest in the belief that the entire
debt was in course OF extinction. 1t
was matter of no consequence
whether it gave the company so
or 100 years. The government
had money enough in the treasury at
present, and found it impossible
to keep the revenue down to expenses.
Littler said he had found President
Cleveland to be clear-headed business
man, ready to treat the subject as a
matter of business
At this point recess was taken.
After recess Littler said he desired to
reply to the question which had been
addressed to him as to whether the
frauds committed in the management
# the Pacific road would not furnish a
basis for the appointments of receiver.
He thought that il these frauds did fur
nish such basis, the right to a re
ceiver existed independent of any action
on the part of Congress, and that moth
ing remained to be done except for the
Attorney General TO proceed with his
application.
Commissioner Anderson then ad-
dressed the committee. There
were, he said, two points of
view from which to look at the
Pacific Railroad question. One
was moral question, involved in the
remarkable management and, in some
cases, crime of the directors of the
road, and the other was q business
question of dollars and cents 1t would
not be becoming in Congress, as the
custodian OF the honor of the country,
to say that it would pay no attention
to the latter question, and to con6ne
itself to the consideration of tie ques-
ton of dollars and cents. While it was
the duty of the government to see that
the law was enforced, no direct personal
insult rad been offered to the honor of
the United States. The wrong done
was not such q government should
seek revenge for by the destruction of
the corr orations, but it was wrong done
by individuals who should be punished
therefor In tne commission bill, one
of the terms of acceptance was that the
companies should give the United
States the righc to bring suit in the
name OF the corporations against per-
sons who had committed frauds. He
was satisfied that the Union Pacific
would ne yer make any trouble about
the provision, because the administra-
tionof that road since 1884 has been alb
soiutely honest and fair. In regard to
the Central Pacific, that was a q ID nut
to crack. He did not feel JUSTIFIED in
saying that the bill would be accepted |
by it. Looking at the question from its |
moral side, If it was the object of gov
eminent to punish the men who had
stolen the money, it should pass |
q bill with the provision that the COM
pany accepting it should give |
right to sue the wrongdoers. He did |
not subscribe to the suggestion that the |
government should settle with the |
Central Pacific on 20 per cent. basis. |
He did not think Congress could afford |
to go before the country with two bills,
one saving 10 the Union Pacific: Your |
management of recent years has been
everything that could be desired. and |
we will make an extension on per
cent. basis" and one saying to the
Central Pacific: You uumitigated set |
of scoundrels, you have robbed from
first to last, and you have your hands
to-day where they should not be; but !
we will settle with you on per cent. |
b lsis." Adjourned.