Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-02-25

OOugTeSS. Io WAS ntTe 10 represent
the Government. He would, if a
member Of Congress, ignore for a
time the crimes and shortcomings of
these men, and would treat the debt
as business matter and on business
principles. He did not believe that
the people of the country were crying
for the blood of the managers so
much as for the money they owed the
Government. He did not know
whether the company would accept
the provision requiring them to bring
suits against their former managers
for malfeasance, but any bill reported
by any committee should include this
provision. II was matter of no
consequence whether the Government
gave the company so or 100 years.
The Government b. d money enough
in the treasury at present, and found
it impossible to keep the revenues
down to the expenses.
AFTER THE RECESS,
Littler said that he desired to reply
to question which had been ad-
dressed to him as to whether the
frauds committed in the manage
ment of the Pacific Railroad did not
furnish basis for the appointment
of a receiver, and he thought that if
these frauds did not furnish such
basis, the right to a receiver existed
independently d any action on part of
Congress, and snothing remained to
be done, except for the Attorney
General to proceed with his appli-
cation.
AN ADDRESS BY ANDERSON.
Commissioner Anderson then ad-
dressed the commission. There were,
he said, two points of view from
which to look at the Pacific railroad
question. One was the moral .ques-
ton involved in the remarkable man
agement and in some cases the
crime of the directors OF the
road, and the other was busi-
ness 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 former question and
confne itself to the consideration Of
the question of dollars and cents.
While it was the duty OF the Gov
ernment to see the law enforced, no
direct personal insult had been offered
to the honor of the United States.
The wrong done was not such as the
Government should seek revenge for
by the destruction of corporations, but
it was the wrong done by individuals,
who should be punished therefor. In
the commission bill one OF the terms of
acceptance was that the companies
should give the United States the
right to bring suit in the name OF the
corporations against the persons who
had committed the fraud. He was
satisfied that the Union Pacific never
made any trouble about the provis-
ion, because the administration of
that road since 1884 had been abso-
lutely honest and fair.
In regard to
THE CENTRAL PACIFIC,
That was hard 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 the
Government to punish the men
who had stolen the money. it
should pass a bill with a provision
that the company attempting it
should give the right to sue the
wrong-doers. He did not subscribe
to the suggestion that the Government
should settle with the Central Pacific
on 2 per cent. basis. He did not
think that 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 3per
cent. basis" and one saying to the
Central Pacific "You unmitigated 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 2-per
cent. basis" The meeting then ad-
journed.