, 1888-02-25

Pattlson's minority report, witness said it
required more of a lawyer than he (wit-
ness) was to understand how congress
could forfeit the charter to a railroad com.
pauy granted by state and territorial gov.
ernments. He could not understand how
Pattison would forfeit the charters of Pa
clic roads branch lines when congress
had nothing to do with granting those
charters.
Weber inquired what were the substan-
tlal reasons for granting more reasonable
terms to the Central Pacific her to the
Union Pacific.
Littler replied that it was not because
these people were entitled to any consid-
Grafton at the hands of congress. He
was here to represent the government; he
would, if q member of congress, ignore
for the time the crimes and shortcomings
of these men; he would treat the debt asa
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
government. 1t was the duty of the
committee 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 roads. he did not know whether the
companies would accept the provision re-
quiring them to institute suits against
their former managers for malfeasances,
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 Pa
cifc. If it acted wisely in ten years sl0,-
600, 900 would have been paid to the gov
eminent and it could rest in the belief
that the entire debt was in course of ex
tinction.
Commissioner Anderson then addressed
the committee. There were, he said, two
points of view from which to look at the
Pacific railroad question. One was the
moral question involved in the remark
able management and in some cases the
crime Of the directors of the roads, and
the other was the business question of
coming in congress, IS the custodian of
the honor of the country, to say that it
would pay no attention to the latter ques.
ton and coniue itself to the consideration
of the question of dollars and cents.
While it was the duty of the government
to see that the law was enforced, no direct
DClCOlId iStltb "a bGCu OllClCu Ut llpllbl
| of the United States. The wrong done
was not such as the government should
seek revenge for by the destruction of the
corporations, but it was Il wrong done by
individuals, who should be punished
therefor. In the committees bill one Of
the terms Of acceptance was that the com
panies should give the United States the
right to bring suit in the name of the
corporations against the persons who had
committed fraud. He was satisfied that
the Union Pacific would never make any
trouble about the provision, because the
administrator Of that road since 1884
had been absolutely honest and
fair. In regard to the Central Pacific,
that was a hard nut to crack. He did not
feel justified in saying that the bill would
be accepted by it. Looking at the ques-
ton from Its moral side, if it was the OBJ
iect of the government to punish the men
who had stolen the money, it should pass
a bill with the provision that the company
accepting it should give the right to sue
wrong doors. He did not subscribe to
the suggestion that the government should
settle with the Central Pacific on a . per
cent basis. He did not think congress
could afford to go before the country with
two bills, one saying to the Union Pacific:
Your management of recent years has
been everything that could be desired,
and we will make an extension on a 3 per
cent basis" and one saying to the Cen
trail Pa fife, You uumitigated set of
scoundryls, you have robbed from first %
last and you have your hands to-day
where they should not be, but we will set
tie with you on a . per cent basis.