The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-01-24
CONGRESSMEN NOT BRIBED
Col. r. W. Thompson Says There Is No
American Side TO the Panama Scandal.
Large Sums of Money We're Spent in Buying
Dredges, Locomotives and Cars, but None
in COrrupting Legislators.
NO BRIBERY In AMERICA.

Ex-secretary OF the Navy Thompson Talks
About the Panama Canal Company.
NEW YORK, Jan. 23.-The Herald pub
fishes the following from its correspondent
ut Terre Haute, Ind:
81 had two hours conversation with
ex-Secretary OF the Navy Thompson, late
American president of the Panama Canal
Company. Colonel Thompson talked free
ly and unreservedly on the subject of the
American branch OF the Panama company.
Il would gladly give he said. any informa-
tion that would throw light on the Panama
Canal Company, and, particularly. any
light that might disclose bribery or corrup-
tlon In any form In the American branch,
but L must say that If there was any
bribery i am not aware of 1t, and do not
thinh there was in the American branch.
Il see that Mr.. Fellows. who has just IN
troduced his resolution OF inquiry, insists
that bribery In Panama affairs began on
this side of the water. Well, if it did, that
Is news 20 me. L don't know who could
have been bribed. The only occasion when
the Panama Canal Conn pany was interested
IN Congress was in 1881, when Representa-
tive CrapO. Of Massachusetts. held up hrs
resolution declaring that the construction
of the Panama canal by foreign capital and
by foreign power was contrary to the
spirit or the Monroe doctrine. That reso-
luton was referred to the committee on
foreign affairs of the House. Now, if any
body was bribed 1t was this committee, for
this committee smothered that resolution
after full and far discussion lasting
some days. and 10 was never heard
of again. IL that resolution of Dir.
Grapes had passed it would have end
ed the Panama canal dozen or
so distinguished gentlemen, some or w hom
were Allen Tborndyke Rice, Admiral
Ammen and james B. Eads. made arguments
before that committee. intending TO bripa
about Just that resnlt / was the only
person on the Panama side L made an ar
gument in favor OF the canal and the COM
mittee unanimously concurred IN my con-
illusions. l held that the resolution Of
Mr.. Crapo did not properly enunclate the
Monroe doctrine; that that doctrine ex-
pressly was not violated by private corpor-
htion, and would not unless the government
nj France assumed political jurisdiction
bn the isthmus which strongly opposed.
i remember declaring thaJif the French
government attempted 10 do so il was the
guty or the American government 10 drive
Them away from the isthmus and showed
Ihe commission that section of the cVar-
Ter granted by the Colombian government
expressly gave the Supreme Court of that
state jurisdiction 20 annul and set aside the
Panama concession IN case an foreign coun-
try attempted political control
This committee of the House held its
first session Jan. ii, 1881 and L made my
hrst argument on Jan. Is My argument
covered several days. and if remember
correctly had no less than forty Interrupt
tions from tho committee. / suggested
many new iDtepretations 10 the Monroe
doctrine that they had apparently not con-
eldered. and that was the cause of so MANY
Inquiries being directed at me. The nine
gentlemen who composed the foreign affairs
committee and who decided In favor of the
ssnsl were ;. ;. Cox Of New York. who