The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-01-08

was now paying s, 500. 900 a year; by the
terms of the bill, it's payments would
amount to but 81 $4,000 a year. running
over d period of So years. 1t was useless
/ 10 expect any one to raise the money re-
( CURED by the bill TO make it effective.
/ The oroba bilities of the future We're too
uncertain to make the security of the
! government stable. IT depended alto
gether upon the indisSolubility OF the tie
] between the Central and Union Pacific
1 companies The failure of one or the
other in the future. and that could easily
/ be brought about under certain condi-
lions. would absolutely destroy the Sc
curtty of the government under the
pending bill. The fatal point in the bill
was the failure TO make q controlling
mortgage upon the property of both
l.2es from the Missouri river to the Pa
ciflc ocean. That ought to be done. and
could be done, because the goverT0ent
owned the control from the mortgage.
Mr. Watson (Rep). OhiO-What does
the gentleman mean by controlling
mOrtgage?"
Mr.. Hubbard-The largest mortgage a
man who has the greatest amount in
vested in property controls it because
he won't let it so for less than that
| Continuing. Mr.. Hubbard said that all
the roads indebted to the government
should have been brought into court
and the mortgage foreclOSed. BY the eN-
/ penditure of less than s300O0.000 the gov
eminent could at foreclosure gain posses
sion of either property. terminals and all
OF both the Union and Central Pacific
railroads.
CONSOLIDATION
Mr.. Ellery Anderson. a government di-
rector, had recommended that the mort
cages should be foreclosed and the Cen
trail and Union Pacific consolidated No
government ownership was involved IN
that proceeding. for such property,
cleared of debt. would attract bidders who
would take it off the government s
hands a a profit. Discussing the mat
ter of his objection that the pending bill
III ID. rler l.NNfs nr
combination of the two roads Mr.. Hub
bard asserted that the mortgage of the
government did extend over the terminals
of the Union Pacific, including the Omaha
bridge, the supreme court having decided
in the case of Hall VS.. the railroad COM
pany that the Union Pacific began at
Council Bluffs and ended at a point five
miles west of Ogden, Utah This, he
said. overthrow the position of Mr..
Powers and those who held with him.
SOME STRANGE THINGS.
Mr. Hubbard went with much detail
into some of the mortgage transactions
of the Union Pacific company, which, he
said. showed some strange things 1t
might be that they were intended to hide
or cover uD something, but he could not
assert it, for it was almost practically
impossible TO get information regarding
these opera tons They did give weight
to the charge that the company was ar
ranging to settle with the government.
Mr.. Powers, he said, had been asked a
pertinent question as TO why the Dill ultl
not require the Union Pacific company 10
mortgage its bonds. stocks, and other Sc
curities as it did require the Central
Pacific company to co, and he had re-
sponded that the requirements upon the
two companies were not the same. Mr.
Hubbard denied that statement. The
bill required the Central Pacific company
only to mortgage its bonds and Stocks
AS a matter of fact. it did not have a
dollar of such securities in its possession.
while the Union Pacific. holding. about
SOC. O00. 600 of these securities, is absOiVed
from piedSing them to the government:
The bill would not result in any practical
benefit to the government. IT would
simply extend from So years the period
within which the companies could escape
paying their debts and increase the sum
which the government would be then re-
CURED to pay over 100.OO0OO0 to secure the
property. which would now be acquired
for less than $50. 900.
BELL ALSO DIssENTs-
Mr. Bell Oem). Texas. who also
printed some views dissenting in the re-
port of the committee. followed in OPPOSE
ton to the bill. He said that the stock
holders of these CORPORATIONS were not
in a position to come to congress and ask
of it any consideration whatever, much
less to ask grant of substantial
character as a matter of right And II
astonished him to know that there was
any one in the United States who be
lieved that the men who built the rail-
roads and were now stockholders had
dealt fairly or honestly with the govern
ment. Every proposition looking 70 the
establishment of "A sinking fund mad been
defeated by one means or another. After
the Thurman act was enacted, the Cen
trail Pacific was leased to the southern
Pacific. so that there was no . per cent
of net earnings left TO pay into the treas
ury. The roads had been operated so as
to make money for the owners. ana.
therefore. il was unsafe to assume that
the corporations were insolvent and I'M
able to pay their debts. He thought 1t was
preposterous to propose such settle
ment as that provided in the Dill Ihe
government was asked to practically give
them the use of per cent upon the total
debt of SIP eco, 000 the roads not being
required to do thing i'll return
ILL-GOTTEN GAINS.
..Oh. no." said Mr. Bell. IF the COM
panies want any such favor as asked for,
let them go down into their pockets. sell
some of the iil-gOtten gains. securities
and other property and make the gov
eminent secure and then we will treat
with them. (Applause.)
Mr. Bell doubted the statement that the
additional security to be given the gov
eminent under the bill for increasing
the face OF the mortgage was sui1cient
reason for making the increase one or
the items was the land grant stu un-
sold The lands were assessed at 80 an
acre, but they had been offered for sale
for years at that figure, or less. without
finding purchasers. The security offered
for the Central Pacific debt that of the
Southern Pacific railroad of kentucky,
Mr. Bell said, was far from satisfactory.
1t had little or no property. he under
stood and it was no improbable thing
10 anticipate that the company, finding
itself burdened with the proposed liability
would simply drop out and be succeeded
bv some other corporation not bound by
. the bill.
The accumulation of wealth by the pro
iectors of these enterprises. and the
owners. Mr. Bell vehemently asserted,
was a matter of interest to the pubic
and he denied the statement OF the gen
tlenan from Vermont that 1t was none
of the public's business.
IF man by watering the stock and
adding to the burdens of the people gains
great riches. he is an enemy to the public
and ought to have no friend stand up
here for him and has no right to come
to congress and ask for great and sub
stantial benefits" (ADplause).
PURELY BUSINESS.
The matter. however. was a business
one purely Mr.. Bell said, as had been
stated by Mr.. Powers. There were three
PROPOSITIONS under consideration. one
vas 10 take the roads under the mort
gage and operate them This he found
Objectionable as he did also the second.
which was to sell the property and
pocket the loss if any occurred. He
particularly opposed the idea or govern
ment ownership or operation OF rallroadS:
and if the government was going into
that business, he did not want to expert
ment with these roads, in a thinly Dopu-
lated part of the country. He repudiated
so much of the language of the act OF
1867 as imputed to congress an aSsum0-
ton of the doctrine of ownership. CAD
Dlause) The third proposition was one
re recommended as an amendment of
tho committees bill, to extend the in
debtedneSs of the companies for reason