OCR Text |
Show TELEGRAPHIC i Yho III l no Komi HiinIiiomh Itrl 11 otitic Out I lie Itutluni I' ItClN. U'tmhini;Utn,l.'. Tho sub judiciary I'ominiiloti uf the house lo-day coin-niencud coin-niencud iiiTtiiituiii of the- cliurgt'i uuiiiMl ui-Spciikcr Bliiiiie in ruhition in the Kurt Smith and Little Rock niilniad bniuU. Jnliu C. S. Harrison ol IndiAn-upolin, IndiAn-upolin, in rpnK)nao to the question put by Hunton, nliturmnn ol tlie aiib comnutleo, ten tilicd Unit he was tho I litrrition alludpit to in nn urticli1 inl lislind in the Cincinnati (JuLtite ul April l, lH7t, and that the interview i4 piiLlitihcd in that jotinml wm cor rcctly reported. Ho hint been 11 (ovi'rnment ilirectni oi th Union I';ii ilii: railway lor about four vnm. Clark, preiident of tho Union Pacific railway, told witnetta tlmt he hud ex changed seventy-fivo bond a ol the Eort Smitli and Liltlo Hock road fur lif-ifcn lif-ifcn of the new tnjndit to be issued by the Union Pacific. Wituesft UiourIiI it a strange trans ictiou, and ul a mcrtiiiL' of tho buird of directors in St'ptciuber 1S7-, moved tlial i c )in nr.ttce nf three bo apu.'iintcd U) in vi uli.tlp tlie 111 alter, itollino cm tin to witness and aLed him to withdraw tliu unuinn, m an invuitd itiou would iiivnlvti ex Speaker Ltlaine, and niiubt defeat liis re-election to tlie bouse. Wishing to fully under-flu under-flu nd the mutter he took Millard to Omaha With him tlie next day to ne Uollina and anked him further in regard to tho matter, and Kulliin tlieu g:tid it would involve a prominent promi-nent member of the republican party. When tne houso was investiuilinK the Credit Mobilier case and lull 1 111a was on tho stand, witnesa wrote Lo Wilson ol Iowa and asked him to propound certain questions in relation Ui the matter to Holhna, but saw from the daily reports Unit it was not d me. Wilnew found an entry on the biM.ks of the executive committee dirret'mp; Morton, Blisf Sl Co. to draw nn the treasurer for $(11,000, and lul.l Fort Siuilh and Little Kock bondd as collateral security. lu the following March an effort was made to chanyu the whole board of directors. Witnc-ta did not receive any letter from Secretary Secre-tary Delano, but be had a letter in hid posseaaion written by Delano to Senator Morton, na follows: Department of Interior, Washington, D.C., Feb. 30, 1S73. Dear Srt As I promised in our conversation yesterday, I now write to say th.il it id deemed advisable to change the entire lonrd of directors for the Union Pacific railroad, I shall therefore feel obliged if you will give tome name for Indiana in place of John C. S. Harmon, against whom there ia no personal objection what ever. ery rt-specuuny, your ooeai-enl ooeai-enl servant, fc Dela.no. Hon. C. P. Morton, U.S. Senate. Witness never made any investigation investiga-tion about the matter, but understood that Wilson bad done so. Morton, Bliss A Co. drew on the company for $i4,0O0and KoUins. treasurer, paid it. Witness regarded the transaction on the book3 as a very mysterious one, but perhaps it could be satislactorily explained. Harrison said that the Union Pacific railroad did not now own the Little Rock bonds spoken of. He had heard that Oliver Ames had given bis check ior $lJo,000 for them, but did not know whether it was true or not. Witness Bid he knew nothing noth-ing further about the matter. Joseph H. Millard of Omaha, tea tifi-d that he had been a government director of the Union Pacific railroad ab nil four years. He wan present at a conversation between Rollins and Harrison in September, aud heard Koilint say that- an investigation stpeken of by Harrison would involve a gentleman high in political circles. He understood it to refer lo BUiue, although he did not recollect that bis name was mentioned. Harrison Did i not say to you after we had come out to stick a pin on what Rollins said about B'aine ? W it. I rrx iml t-Kfnl l.-ct ll Witness knew nothing about tlie bonds tipoken of, only what appeared on the reconle of tlie executive com- i uiitlee of the company. He never) made any investigation of the 111 titer. Rulliue had since told witness duvrl times that he woa mistaken about Blaine being mixed up in the matter, and that there was nothing wrong ! jiltoiil it. Blaine Did Harrison ever aak for nn examination of tlie matter in any meeting held by the Iward of directors? direc-tors? I Witness No, sir. Witness knew nothing about Blaine's ownership of any Fort Smith and Little Rock bonds; thought at the time the conversation con-versation between Harrison and Ril-lius Ril-lius took. place that Bhiiue was mixed up in the transaction, but from eon-vcisation eon-vcisation with Rollins t-ince that lime all tlmt impression had been dissipated. dissi-pated. He understood that an effort was made the next spring to change tlie entire board of directors, but civil not know that it had anything to do with their action ubout t ese particu lar bonds; thought the Credit Mobilier inquiry bad sometning to do with U, About that time. Neither witness nor Harrison were directors at the time of the Credit Mobilier transaction, and they were both reappointed directors of the Union Pacific. In response lo another question witness swore that he knows nothing whatever about the case under investigation. in-vestigation. James F. Wilson testified that he had been a government director of the Union Pacific railroad company since 1869, and in ieply to a question propounded by Representative Hunton, Hun-ton, said he had seen by reports that certain bonda of tlie Little Rock and Fort Smith railroad company had come into the possession o: the Union Pacific railioad company. He had heard they came through Colonel Thomas A. Scott, who was president of the company from 1871 to 1872. He had no knowledge of John C. S. Harrison having introduced at a resolution inquiring how the bonds came into the possession of the company, com-pany, but Harrison had informed him that he had introduced such a resolution, and that Rollins told him that Blaine would be implicated il there should be an investigation. Wilson afterwards had a conversation with Rollins on the subject, when Rollins Baid that Harrison had no right to me Mr. Blaine's name in that connection. Witness mentioned it to Blaine a lew months' after September, 1872, when Blaine serted that he had no io : terejt in these bonds, and no one could be moro surprised than himself that his name should be connected con-nected with them. This interview between Blaine and himself look place in Washincton. Blaine in this interview denied that he ever had possession of any Little Rock and Knit Smith bonds except thono for which he subscribed and paid, Blaine did not ?ay he held tlie 75 bonds for any ol bin constituent. On the con-trary con-trary lie miid ho did not, and that he had nothing to do with the 75 bonds passed to the Union Pacific railroad company. Wilson lilked with Dillon anil others 011 this subject. Dillon h id for iwu years been president of the comp tny, and the only explanation explana-tion he oMauiHl was that the bonds were put in by Col. Scott in accordance accord-ance with an arrangement between him and tho Union i'acific railroad company. Thtur bonds remain on the hooks of tho company an unadjusted unad-justed question, and Col. Scott has not yet received his salary for the timo ho was president of the company. com-pany. K. H. Rollins hccretary and treasurer treas-urer ol the Union Pacific railroad company, testified, and on being in tttrrogaled by 1 union said he did not think Harrison offered a resolution in tho board of directors to invesli-1 gate the subject of tlie ownership of the 75 bonds by the Union i'acific railroad comp my. but he thought that he siinp y in de an informal ni'ilion to invc-ilii: tt - the transaction at that ti HoIIiim h:id slated that tiif. bonds heloiijnl to Blaine, but he could 1.0'. say from wnoin he derived the inform alio,.. He could only I slate the fact that whhn fi irrieon ma le nut nio'.icn or suggestion it ro-iii'-oii.i-rr that the board and its niiiKieiuenl had been the subject ol several severe criticisms in the nevvspapf rs and elsewhere. As this transaction had been closed up he deaired lo obviate- 1 scandal in con-nectiin con-nectiin with Blaine's name. Whether the report was true or false, he may have taid to Harrison under thrwe circumsUnCPS that the bonds in question ques-tion were Blaine's, or some equivalent exprt sion. Hunton And that an investigation won M involve Blaine? A I may have said that they were Blaine's , bonds, or that he would be involved in the matter. I may have usod words j equivalent to them. I merely state a matter of memory that I heard these were Blaine's bonds, and that ', Blaine might ba involved. j (, Then you confirm Harrison's statement? A. I have given you , my statements. I" Rollins in further testimony said that Harrison was mistaken as to the time of the alxive mentioned occur- rence, the Maine election having ! taken place two days previous to the meeting, when Blaine was triuniph-' triuniph-' unity elected tocongrees. Rollins did i not ask Harrison to withdraw his motion, but may have said to him - that an investigation would involve Blaine. 1 Q. How would the ownership of : these seventy fivo hoods involve : Blaine? A. Because it would be thought a questionable transaction, aa he could not see why the Union Pacific railroad company should buy i bonds of the Little Rook and Fort Smith railroad company or any other company. j Rollins in further response to questions ques-tions said that in acting as he did he desired to avoid scandal. j Q. What scandal did you desire to avoid? A The report connecting Blaine with the bends. ) Q. In what connection was it a S-'andal? A. It was treated as a Bcandal then and I presume it is now. Unaccompanied by any explanation , from Blaine it would be regarded as a jSiondal. The public would think it I not right. That would be their judg- 1 ment. |