Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-05-11

ness of the Union Pacific and its branches
the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company, and
the Central Branch Pacific Railroad Com
pany only, but did not include or make any
reference to the Central Pacific.
That was omitted entirely. The com.
pany representing the company and its
branches that is indebted to the Govern
ment in sum nearly equal in amount to
that of the company that the committee
has dealt with has been silently, for some
reason, ignored and not only that, but
seven long months have transpired since
this select committee made its report with
reference to the Union Pacific and its
branches, and yet it makes no sign what
ever in reference to the other great cOntro-
versy in which the Government of the
United States is so largely interested.
Following is statement of the bonds
issued to these companies
To Central Pacific S2 SS5 100
10 western l9'U'ooo
Total Central Pacific and Western
81 S55, $50
Union Pacific s27 2S6, 512
The kansas Pacific. 6,303, 600
Central Branch Union Pacific........-.. 10000
sS5, l39 $50
If there were anything in the suggestion
made by my friend, the Senator from
Maine [Mr. Fryel, the Chairman of the
committee, that the circumstances sur
rounding the two cases were so different
as to require the application of different
remedies, then why is it that after having
reported bill seven long months ago,
which only dealt with one branch of the
case, the committee has not since then,
with all this lapse of time, taken up the
other branch of the case to which it is
claimed different remedy should be APP
piled, or at least remedy containing diff
ferent terms, and report that to the Senate?
This whole Investigation started in the
first place upon the theory that it was
ONE GREAT CONTROVERSY,
And that there should be thorough inyes-
tigation of the whole business. One Act of
Congress covered the whole business when
the Commission was appointed with in
structious to investigate the whole matter
That Commission made a report in which
they accompanied what they had to say by
way of report with two bills, one looking
to the funding, security, and ultimate pay
ment of the debt of the Union Pacific and
its branches, and another bill in the same
book and as part of the same report, sug-
costing legislation looking to the funding
of the debt of the Central Pacific, with Sc
curity so far as security could be obtained,
and its ultimate payment when it became
due.
Therefore insist that it is not wise now
TO have the roads fork at this stage of the
procession, to proceed with one part of the
controversy in each branch of Congress,
and permit the other parts of the contro.
versy to remain untouched, unconsidered,
until We find out what the outcome may
be of the bill which has been reported
The question now arises, why is it, after
all the steps indicated by me have been
taken-the passage of the Act of March 3,
1897, unanimously by Congress, without a
dissenting vote in either House, the ap-
pointment of the Commission, the investi-
CATION, the report the suggestions of the
President of the United States, the order
of the Senate creating the select commit
lee, the lapse of over six months before
submitting any measure whatever-that
such committee should then in their report
and in the bill submitted by them deal
with one road only, the Union Pacific and
its two branches, the Kansas Pacific Rail-
road Company, and the Central Branch
of the Union Pacific Railroad Company,
and entirely omit from the provisions of
the bill all the other Pacific railroads; or
rather, the Central Pacific Railroad Com
! pany os California, and the Western Pa
| citic Railroad Company, which was in
Guided in every step taken prior to the re-
port of this committee, including}the very
order of the the Senate that breathed the
breath of life into it and caused it to live
and act?
| THE THURMAN ACT A MOST CONSPICUOUS
FAILURE.
In 1873. when what is known as the
| Thurman EnnAipn Acfx
sion in the Senate, | opposed it with all the
power l could command, and for reasons
which then gave on this floor; and for
! the reasons then given, the validity and alb
solute soundness of which, although not
| received as such at the time have been
vindicated beyond all question by the his
| tory OF the operations of that Act. / shall
now, and always oppose any further legis-
lation which has for its basis the underly-
| ing principle upon which the Thurman
Act is predicated.
| l must not be misunderstood or misre.
presented. l was never opposed to some
suitable, proper and effective legislatic n
| looking to the funoing of the Pacific Rail-
then, am now, and always have been, and
always expect to be- earnestly in favor OF
such legislation. Not only so (; I was when
the Thurman Funding Act was passed, as
/ was a large minority of this Senate, in
| favor of certain, specific measure, agreed
| upon in committee after most thorough
and careful consideration of the whole
subject, and which looked to q final and
| complete settlement of this whole contro.
versy on basis of mutually of agreement
! between the Government and the compa-
MES, and the reimbursement. on fair and
/ reasonable terms. to the Unit d States OF
H.
| interest of bonds issued to the aided roads
! Nor am unmindfui, Mr.. President, OF
| the fact that it was quite fashionable eleven
years ago, when the Thurman funding bill
was under discussion. for certain men,
some OF them then and now Senators, to
| dsnounce ell who opposed it and who
| favored another measure for the settlement,
| OF this great question, as working in the
| interest of corporations and in opposition
10 the true interests of the United States.
| Time, however, sets all things even; the
| imperishable records of history sometimes
come to the rescue and vindicate the in-
| tegrity. and judgment OF men as well. In
reviewing this subject and its history the
past few years. we may correctly conclude
| not only as to the motives, but the relative
| judgments of men as well. We may not
infrequently CLEAN instruction by consult
| ing the records of the past. | propose at
this time, as bearing materially and directly
on the subject under discussion, 10 review
the history of the controversy in this
Chamber in the spring of 1878, which re.
suited in the passage of the Thurman bill
to compare the Thurman Act and its practi.
cal operations with the bill and its probable
operations, had il been adopted in its stead
as reported from the Railroad Committee oil
the Senate, March IL. 1873. of which com,
mit,ee / had the honor at the time to be
Chairman.
This bill was reported from that com
mittee, however. not by myself, although
it had my earnest and unqualified support
as well as the earnest and unq 1aliied sup
port of every member of that committee
then composed of the following-namet
Senators: Henry L. Dawes of Massachu