in contracting with Mr. Ames had any corrupt motive himself, or was aware Mr. Ames had any. Nor did either of them suppose he was guilty of any impropriety, or even indelicacy, in becoming a purchaser of this stock.' And finally, that the committee find nothing in the conduct or motives of either of these members in taking this stock, that calls for any recommendation by the committee of the House.'

In the case of each of the six members just referred to, the committee sum up the results of the testimony, and from that summary the conclusions above quoted are drawn. In regard to me, the committee find, that in December, 1867, or January, 1868, I agreed to purchase ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock of Mr. Ames, for $1,000, and the accrued interest from the previous July; that in June, 1868, Mr. Ames paid me a check on the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House for $329, as a balance of dividends on the stock, above the purchase price and accrued interest; and that thereafter, there were no payments or other transactions between us, or any communication on the subject until the investigation began in December last.

I took the first opportunity offered by the completion of public business to call the attention of the House to the above summary of the testimony in reference to me. On the 3d of March I made the following remarks, in the House of Representatives, as recorded in the Congressional Globe for that day:

I rise to a personal explanation. During the late investigation by the committee, of which the gentle

man from Vermont was chairman, I pursued what seemed to be the plain path of duty, to keep silence except when I was called upon to testify before the committee. When testimony was given which appeared to be in conflict with mine, I waited, expecting to be called again, if anything was needed from me in reference to these discrepancies. I was not recalled; and when the committee submitted their report to the House, a considerable portion of the testimony relating to me had not been printed.

In the discussion which followed here, I was prepared to submit some additional facts and considerations, in case my own conduct came up for consideration in the House; but the whole subject was concluded without any direct reference to myself, and since then the whole time of the House has been occupied with the public business. I now desire to make a single remark on this subject in the hearing of the House. Though the committee acquitted me of all charges of corruption in action or intent, yet there is in the report a summing up of the facts in relation to me which I respectfully protest is not warranted by the testimony. I say this with the utmost respect for the committee, and without intending any reflection upon them.

I cannot now enter upon the discussion; but I propose, before long, to make a statement to the public, setting forth more fully the grounds of my dissent from the summing up to which I have referred. I will only say now that the testimony which I gave before the committee is a statement of the facts in the case as I have understood them from the beginning. More than three years ago, on at least two occasions, I stated the case to two personal friends, substantially as I stated it before the committee; and I here add that nothing in my conduct or conversation has at any time been in conflict with

my testimony. For the present I desire only to place on record this declaration and notice.

In pursuance of this notice, I shall consider so much of the history of the Credit Mobilier company as has any relation to myself. To render the discussion intelligible, I will first state briefly the offenses which that corporation committed, as found by the committees of the House.

The Credit Mobilier company is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, and authorized by its charter to purchase and sell various kinds of securities, and to make advances of money and credit to railroad, and other improvement companies. Its charter describes a class of business, which, if honestly conducted, any citizen may properly engage in.

On the 16th of August, 1867, Mr. Oakes Ames made a contract with the Union Pacific railroad company to build six hundred and sixty-seven miles of road, from the one hundredth meridian westward, at rates ranging from $42,000 to $96,000 per mile. For executing this contract he was to receive in the aggregate $47,925,000, in cash, or in the securities of the company.

On the 15th of October, 1867, a triple contract was made between Mr. Ames of the first part, seven persons as trustees of the second part, and the Credit Mobilier company of the third part, by the terms of which the Credit Mobilier company was to advance money to build the road, and to receive thereon

seven per cent. interest, and two and one-half per cent. commission; the seven trustees were to execute the Ames contract, and the profits thereon were to be divided among them, and such other stockholders of the Credit Mobilier company as should deliver to them an irrevocable proxy to vote the stock of the Union Pacific held by them. The principal stockholders of the Credit Mobilier company were also holders of a majority of the stock of the Union PacifVic railroad.

On the face of this agreement, the part to be performed by the Credit Mobilier company as a corporation was simple and unobjectionable. It was to advance money to the contractors, and to receive therefore about ten per cent. as interest and commission. This explains how it was that, in a suit in the courts of Pennsylvania, in 1870, to collect the State tax on the profits of the company, its managers swore that the company had never declared dividends to an aggregate of more than twelve per cent. The company proper did not receive the profits of the Oakes Ames contract. The profits were paid only to the seven trustees, and to such stockholders of the Credit Mobilier as had delivered to them the proxies on their Pacific railroad stock. In other words, a ring inside the Credit Mobilier obtained the control, both of that corporation and of the profits of the Ames

contract.

By a private agreement, made in writing, October 16, 1867, the day after the triple contract was signed, the seven trustees pledged themselves to each other

so to vote all the Pacific railroad stock which they held in their own right, or by proxy, as to keep in power all the members of the then existing board of directors of the railroad company not appointed by the President of the United States, or such other persons as said board should nominate. By this agreement, the election of a majority of the directors was wholly within the power of the seven trustees. From all this it resulted that the Ames contract and the triple agreement, made in October, amounted, in fact, to a contract made by seven leading stockholders of the Pacific railroad company with themselves; so that the men who fixed the price at which the road was to be built were the same men who would receive the profits of the contract.

The wrong in this transaction consisted, first, in the fact that the stockholding directors of the Pacific railroad, being the guardians of a great public trust, contracted with themselves; and, second, that they paid themselves an exorbitant price for the work to be done; a price which virtually brought into their own possession, as private individuals, almost all the property of the railroad company. The six hundred and sixty-seven miles covered by the contract included one hundred and thirty-eight miles already completed, the profits on which inured to the benefit of the contractors.

The Credit Mobilier company had already been engaged in various enterprises before the connection with the Ames contract. George Francis Train had once been the principal owner of its franchises, and