Year: 1872

held it to be to the advantage of the
government as we'll as Of the people o


the United States to show to Europe


what they have accomplished and could
accomplish. At this particular time


when emigration from Europe was 60
large, it was important that the United
States should be well represented at the


Vienna Exposition.


Mr.. Kelley. Of Pennsylvsnis, stated,
10 reply to Mr.. Morgan, that it was not
the inventors Of the country who were
to be benefited by the bill. They were
the only people who would be injured
by the Exposition, and he would advise
them not to send their wares there, unless
they were guarded by further legis-
lation on the part of Austria.


After further debate the morning
hour expired, and the bill went over
until to morrow.


Mr.. Brooks, OF New York, then rose
to question OF privilege connected with
a statement in the New York Herald
and World, that II. S. McComb had
testified before the Credit Mobilier in
vestigsting committee that he Brooks
had received certain shares of stock in
order TO influence him, and through
him, the Democratic side of the House
in legislation beneficial to the Union
Pacific Railroad Company He said
he had been in public life quarter of
a century, aud this was the second time
in which he had ielt it his duty to repel
a personal charge of that nature. He
was now q member of one Of the most
important committees of the House.
the Committee on Ways and Means
and, if the charges were true, he was
unfit to be a member Of the House,
and ought to be expelled, not only from
the House, but from all association
with decent men. When charges
against prominent Republican officials
were made, during the last Presidential
campaign, in Connecticut, he had
avaled himself of every opportunity,
public and private, to say that there
was no truth in them 40 lar as he knew.
and he spoke with some authority, as he
was and had been for many years q
director OF the Union
Pacific Railroad Company. He thor.
oughIy denied the statement made in
regard to himself. He referred to Nc
Comb as a man Of no character-as
a mere reckless advpnturer. He
said that he did not know Of any
law that prohibited him or any other
member of the House from holding
property. He did not recollect that he
had given a vote on any matter con.
nected with the Union Pacific railroad.
He had refrained from doing 70. not
because he had not a right to vote in
moral, religious and Conscientious point
of view. but because he had delicacy on
the subject. He had never owned. dl.
rectly or indirectly. single share OF
Credit Mobiller stock, despite the testl'
moby of McComb. 1t was fiction, q
figment Of McComb's viIlainous inau-
guration. He had daughter who was
married to a person who some time
aimee speculated in Wall street, and 1t
tha, person chose to buy Mobil'er
stock he (Brooks) was not re-
sponsibYe for that. He under
stood that person had bought
fi'ty shares Of that stock, paying Tor II
five hundred and thirty three dollars
and it was out O. that Fl ,ment, perhaps
that McComb had made up the whole
story about fifty shares being given to
him (Mr. Brooks) to buy up the whole
Dem ocratc side Of the House: In con-
clueion. he appealed to the Committee
Of Investigation to search his conduct
from beginning to end from top to
bottom, and if they found any fault In
him, to report it to the House and dis
grace him. ,,


After Mr. Brooks remarks, desul-
torv discussion took place as to eniarg-
ing the scope OF investigation, and ae 10
sitting with open doors, but no action
was taken.