Year: 1873

ll1IO IL tll1G uC 10 CnGC111lS lAIOOLAO w hloh
shall by no possibility affect his public
conduct.


It was the object of this committee
as far as they could consistently do so
within the limits Of the power which
was delegated to them, to strike blow
and to cast censure upon all who
were so indiscreet and blind and so
grossly negligent as willfully to place
themselves in the line Of temptation.
The committee were well aware that
practices had been indulged in and
that scandals had come upon the Legis-
latures of this nation, both national
and State, by men crowding into places
Of high trust filled to overfowing with
d self-interest which blinded and warp
ed their judgments and was prejudicial
to the national interests, because under
its inducements they were pandering
to their own private purposes and gains
and utterly disregarding the public
good. I am willing and anxious that
this report so understood shall 60 forth
before this country; and then when it
| is conceived and interpreted in the
spirit in which it was written, men
will cease to say that this is white
washing report.


We see scandals before us greater per-
haps, and more enormous, Mr.. Speaker,
than the scandal which we are called
on to pass judgment upon here. We
see in the Halls Of Congress, and in
the halls of the various State Legisla-
lures, men rushing into them, men who
60 there for the express purpose of sub
serving their own personal interest,
men seeking to be placed upon COM
mittees where they shall have an op-
portunity of crushing out and prevent
ing action upon those things in regard
to which they have the iveliest and
deepest personal interest to prevent
Legislation. The object Of the COM
mittee in the remarks they made in
that direction is to bring back the pub
lie mind to a sound and wholesome
estimate of what are public morals and
the duties of public Legislators. That
was what we had in view in this con-
nection. That was the spirit and pur-
pose of the committee.


Further than that, Mr.. Speaker, we
have been accused of making scape-
goats of two individuals. Had we
possessed jurisdiction over other men
whose names were presented to the
COMMITTEE, and with regard to whom
Testimony was taken, perhaps the re-
suit would have been that there would
not have been an exact balance between
political parties in the Judgment which
was pronounced by the committee. =
But we had not jurisdiction over all
the men with regard to whom, Incl
dentally, it became our duty to make
inquiries. And if it be so that it has
happened that there is one Of one great
political party and another of another
great political party, [ may be allowed
to say that partisan considerations did
not cross the threshold of that COM
mittee-room. We had a grave judicial
duty to perform. 1t was as solemn an
obligation upon us to acquit those men,
with regard to whom the evidence did
not satisfy us of guilt in respect to the
matter which was charged, as it was to
find a judgment of guilty against those
with reference to whom the proof in
our Judgment was complete. And it
is one of the proudest circumstances of
my life to believe that each and every
member of that committee felt that it
was as solemn duty to find a verdict
of not guilty with respect to those
whose guilt was not established as it
was to render the painful verdict of
guilty with regard to those whose guilt
was proved to us beyond the possibility
of a reasonable doubt.


Men have jumped, Mr.. Speaker, to
hasty conclusions with reference to
these men by not bearing in mind the
fact that the transactions out of which
these complications grew, and of which
we and all the world now possess a
knowledge, were not knownat the time
Of the occurrence Of these transactions
as they are now known to all men to-
| day. And therefore it was that the
committee said in that sentence, of
which | have made a criticism, that
had it appeared that these gentlemen
were aware of the enormous dividends
upon this stock and how they were
earned we could not have acquitted
them. 1t requires, Mr.. Speaker, those
who have been accustomed to compare
and analyze evidence, to consider and
weigh questions of guilt and innocence,
to discriminate between the facts as of
the present time and the facts which
are shown to have been in existence
and within the knowledge of the par
ties at the time the acts of guilt are
Imputed to them. Now, sir, there was
no evidence, I challenge any candid
man to look through that record and
say there was any satisfactory evidence
apon which this committee could act,
upon which it could come to any con-
clusion, showing that those members
Of this House with regard to whom we
have not brought in any condemnatory
resolution were aware at all at the time
they made the contracts in question of
the existing state Of facts which were