Omaha daily bee., 1896-02-25
CENTRAL PAClFIC'S DEFENSE
Its Representative Appears Before The
House Committee.
SAYS IT HAS PERFORMED ITS DELEGATIONS
Maintains The statement, in thc rnui-
son Report Are ENnggrrntcd
und Not wnrrantcd-proHts
Not Large.

WASHINGTON, Feb 81. Tho Pacific rail-
roads committee of the house resumed its
hearing Thomas Hubbard. representing the
Central Pacific. appeared in behalf Of that
road to argue that 50 far as the Central Pa
cinc was concerned 1t had fully performed
Ito obligations TO the government. He un-
dertooL to answer the allegations In the
Anderson report. Whatever existed In the
minds of the public which was adverse to
that road was embodied in that report. Tho
difference between the two suggested methods
OF settlement in the report of the commits
sion and the Frye bill was that the former
proposed to extend the debt for fifty years
at per cent and the latter for 100 years at
2 per cent.
Taking up the minority report of the COM
mission made by Governor Pattison, he
characterized its statements as exaggcrat ed
producing az IT did fabulous figures as to
the profits of the constructors Of the road
based OH compound interest for thirtyonc
years. Applying the same method of reas
oning to the advantages which accrued to
the government to the increase OF its land
values, etc, he said the result would be
equally fabulous. lie challenged also some
OF the figures given The report placed the
amount realized from sold lands at 81, 300, 900,
when in fact the latest estimate was but
S3,OO0,0OO so realized.
He then took up the majority report and
called attention to its conclusion regarding
tho several requirements of the acts in aid
of the road. He said 1t was apparent that
the road had been built according to the
requirements, and had been completed six
years before the agreement 1t had per-
formed Its obligation also in the transporta-
tion of troops and in its payments from its
earnings. In the light Of these facts, he
said 1t seemed strange that the companies
were constantly referred to as insolyent or
as undeserving, and the question was con-
stantly asked: why not make the Pacific
railroads disgorge? Why not force them to
make restitution?"
The grounds upon which these questions
were constantly reiterated were not that
the obligations of the company had not been
performed, but that assets of the company
had been diverted by undue profits during
the construction. But unless the profit to
the contractors was limited by the provisions
Of the act. who was to measure what the
profits should be? AS a matter Of fact, the
profits had resulted from the enhancement
Of the value Of the stock, which was en-
tirely unstable when the roads were COM
pleted Several years afterward however,
most of this stock was sold abroad, and its
value increased until 1t was worth 80. 1t
had since been as high as 80 and low
as 10 or 15
General Hubbard thought that the ques-
tion OF settlement should be considered as
a business proposition, and as one between
individuals. The question Of what profit
each party to it had made should not enter.
The fundamental error in the minds of the
public was that the men who built the road
were treated as trustees The government
wanted road across the continent, and 1t
did not want to build it itself. 1t agreed
to contribute bonds, the latter to be u-
timately redeemed The constructors were
expected to do the rest, certainly not with
out an expectation Of profit.