Rensselaer Union, Volume 5, Number 23, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 February 1873 — The Report of the Poland Committee. [ARTICLE]

The Report of the Poland Committee.

Washtwotoh, February is. • imp Spectal Credit- MoMterCommlttM of UoHoom submitted its report to the House i. ' Alter quotlug the resolution under which ttey *m appointed end scted, the Commltof th ® com, ectlon of the n° bl 2 # l <J ?5 lp J? y Union Pa cue Bellraed, by the Hoxle end Ames contnetA The Committee then rehearsed the operMtous of Mr. Ames In placing some of &«oek §* Credlt-Moblller and the dlfflcuitles which arose between him, Durant and MeComb. Prior to the session of December, 1867, Ames had had no negotiations jrtth.Oongreesmen, eftept Mr. Schofield. The Committee say they cannot entertain any doubt as to the motive and purpose of Ames In contracting to let Congressmen have Credlt-Moblller stock at par when It was worth double that sum. He desired to enlist friends In Congress to, resist any encroachments upon the privileges already secured, and his purpose to create In them an Interest Identical with ® clearly ‘ To y ed in his letters to MeComb, especially in those in which he nd Pi*mng stock where it will do most good, and we want more friends In Congress Another letter gives the philosophy of his action where he* says- “f have mupd no difficulty In getting men to look after tbelr own property.” The committee tka ‘ Ames feared that tv.hen the grdp profits became known there would be danger of Congressional Investigation. Of Wlose with whom he dealt he did not fear any hostile legislation, and the committee believe Aases specially designed to secure efforts of tbe \Vashburnefl - P*^rlscpiiAiiLand Illinois to rejrulate trail*portations over the Pacific Road and other measure&aad they quote a reference of Ames to Washburns, in one of his letters, In support of this belief. The cadence in regard to members of the present House, the committee proceed to u-T.wHP o ®*, pai " fn ' 1 y conflicting. They Ana that Speaker Blaine did not take any stock, althongh he was recommended to by Ames. v,*L Daw ?? received no other benefit from his transaction with Ames than ten per eest. *!™. n .fc i 8 / non , e3r V* after »eHling with Ames had no further interest-in tbp-rtock. The evidence relative to Mr. Schofield is rehearsed, showing also that Schofield jrave up his Credlt-Moblller, but retained SI,OOO in l-nion Pacific. The precise terms of the settlement are unknown from lack of data, hut .ssa udaasssj"" "** h " l -» ■" g A a ”’ i I COnnect ' on with the matter was settled by Ames retaining' the thirtv ineto B mi^h^!^F-- m t r i to ' t!k “-<1 accountmg to Bingham for such dividend upon il as a ?K was treated as the real owner of the eto-k e i^ e^. f *h h ® a ? rf ‘ e “ ent . late in Des It th ® settlement in February, ?? d vlt he b f neflt of al! ‘he dividends t m f 6 , nor Bingham had *“ e h records of their dealings as to be able denda the preaiie atnoll nts of these diviThe Committee find that Mr. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, had ten shares of Credit-Mo-taken upon the solicitation of Ames §Stg||g3«gff»* it for Kelley until the S lSfi?F d ] ° r it ’ and that on the 23d of Kelley received *329 from Ames Jf n a cb ?f k , oll ‘he Sergeant-at-Arms. Subseqnent dividends were paid in Union Pacific £“”**•• In -September, 1868, Kelley S SO fr °. m Ames ’ wh ‘ch was unaerin advance to be paid out of the dividends; but there has never been anv ad-fr-Mofth..*.. and there is an entire VMiMice in the testimony of both as to what tins transaction was. Subsequent conversanegotiations Committee do6s “ r t Gar fleld. the Committee ”“. dth „ e , ,ame facts as in Kelley’s case to the point of the reception of a check for *329. The Committee do not find that since the payment of the *329 there has been any coratbA o lk- on ( be *^ e ??. Ames and Garfield on l Eg* ect HE this investigation began. Some correspondence between Garfield and f,™ es ’ a ° d some conversation between them during the investigation will be found in the reported testimony. .The G ° mm ‘“ e . e »‘ate that it appears that Ames did not give any details of the rela.turns between the Credit-Mobilier and the Union Pacific Company, nor did anv of the parties know that dividends would be paid in stock or bonds of the latter. The Committee say that the Credit-Mobilier was a uE 110 ’ 1 not to Congressional legislation, and the fact that its profblildwe^fP^ ted TT t 0! be der *ved from the building of the Union Pacific Railway did not apparently create such an interest in rvSIJfSEK? B \ to d ‘squalify the holder of .oo w^? b .\ er stock from participating in on affecting the railway compan7;. An ? ea assured Congressmen when questioned on the subject, that-their ownerfh'P.ot stock would not Interfere with their legislative duties. The Committee, thsrefore, do not find that the Congressmen were a ware of Ames’ object, or that they had any other purpose thin profltable investment. It is apparent that those who advanced their money to pay for their stock present more of the appearance of ordmary investors than those who did not.. Bat the Committee do not feel at liberty to bn „ d a “5" corrupt purpo-e or knowledge founded upon the fact of non-payment alone. The Committee think that members, in taking stock, were not sufficiently careful ia ascertaining what they were getting. Ihe Committee find nothing in the conduct of the above named members calling for any recommendations. The Committee say the case of Mr. Brooks stands upon a different state of facts from the others. They rehearse at length the evidence, showing Mr. Brooks’ efforts in the press and in his official position in behalf of the road, and his operations with Durant, etc. After leferring at great length to the evidence relative to Brooks, the Committee say without farther comment upon the evi dence: “The Committee find that one hundred and fifty shares of stock appearing on the books 6f the Credit-Mobilier in the name of Neiison were really the stock of Brooks, and subject to his control, and that it was understood by both parties. Brooks had taken such an interest in the Credit-Mo-bilier Company and was so connected with Durant that he must be regarded as having full knowledge of the relations between that company apd the railway company, and of the contrails between them. He must' have known the Cause of the sudden increase of value of Credit-Mobilier stock, and how large the expected profits were to be made. We have already expressed our view of the propriety of members of Congress becoming owners of stock, possessing that knowledge; but Brooks was not onlv a member of Con-

greas, but be was a Government Director in the Union Pacific Company. As such it was his duty to guard and watch over the interests of the Government in the road, and see that they were protected and preserved. To Insure such faithfulness on ■ - the—part of Government Directors, Congress very wisely provided that they should notr&e stockholders in the road. Brooks readily saw that, though becoming a stockholder in the Credit-Mobilier was not forbidden by the letter of the law,-yet it was a violation of its spirit and essence, and therefore had the stock placed in the name of his son-in-law. The transfer of Oakes Ames’ contract to trustees for the building of the road already under contract,

from which the enormous dividends were all derlvedj was all during Brooks’ official life as Government Director, and must have been within his knowledge, and yet parsed without the slightest opposition from him. The Committee believe this could not have been done Without au entire disregard of his official obligations anddnty, and that while appointed to guard the public Interest in the road he Joined himself with the promoteis of a scheme whereby the Government was to be defrauded, and shared in the spoils. In the eon elusion of this fact upon the evidence the committee are entirely agreed.” The Committee discuss at great length the Jurisdiction of the House -over its members, concluding that the facts in the present cases amply justify the taking es jurisdiction. The Committee submit to the House and recommend the adoption of the following resolutions: Wanau, Hr. Oakes Ames, a Representative in this H oose from the State of Massachusetts, has' been guilty of selling to members of Congress shirplof stock In Credit-Mobilier of America, for prices mach below the value of each stock, with intent thereby to influence the voles and decisions of sncb members in matters to be brought before Congress for action; therefore, >. ItonlMd, That Oakes Ames be and U hereby expelled from hi* seat as a member of this House. * Mf»t«. Hr. James Brook*, a Representative *» U 4« Uoutu t.f» the State of Now York, did pro-

curs tha Credlt-Moblller Company to lsna and deliver to Mr. Charles U. Xellson, for the nse and benefit of said Brooks, fifty shares of stock of said Company, at a price much below its real value, well knowing that 'the aaate was issued and delivered withiutentto influence the vote and decision"-of said Brooks as a member of the Bouse on matters to be brought before Congress for action, and alao to influence the action of said Brooks as a Government Director in the Union Pacific Haiiratti JBmMuiy-.theMfhfe ._ It untied, That Mr. James Brooks be end Is hereby expelled from his seat aa a member of this House.