to recover such dividends. The bill is a model for future generations to follow, and will ever stand as a most beautiful combination of English words, but it would require two or three acts of Congress to understand its objects and intent.

In consequence of this report, Congress, in 1876, instructed the attorney-general to institute a suit in equity for the recovery of all property wrongfully appropriated.

The statute under which the suit was brought authorized a moneyed decree in favor of the Railroad Company for money due for capital stock, or money or property received from it on fraudulent contracts, or for money or property which ought in equity to belong to the company; and it authorized

decree in favor of the United States or the company for money, bonds, or lands wrongfully received from the United States which ought in equity to be paid or accounted for.

The Supreme Court of the United States in 1879, has affirmed a decision previously rendered in the United States Circuit Court of Connecticut, upon the suit thus instituted, and has decided that

This bill exhibits no right to relief on the part of the United States founded on the charter contract. The company has constructed its road to completion, keeps it in running order and carries for the government all that is required of it. It owes the government nothing that is due, and the government has the security which by law it provided. Nor does the bill show anything which authorizes the United States, as the depository of a trust, public or private, to sustain the suit.

The Court adds:

The truth is, that the persons who were actually defrauded by these transactions, if any such there be, were the few bona-fide holders of the stock of the corporation, who took no part in these proceedings, and had no interest in the fraudulent contracts. But it is not alleged that there were any such.

We need not pursue the report of the Wilson committee any further. We have attempted to show the true relations of the Credit Mobilier and the Union Pacific Railroad, also the relations between the Credit Mobilier and the trustees. We hope we have made the subject plain. The complications were great, the distinctions finely drawn. But the positions taken by the parties at the time have been sustained by the highest court of justice in the world; their position has been declared impregnable, and no court has been found to declare that fraud was used against the government in the construction of the Union Pacific Road.

This was the report of the "Wilson Committee." The evidence has been alluded to in the former part of this work. Here we leave this portion of the subject, and proceed to the work of the other committee of investigation.

VIII.

THE POLLAND COMMITTEE.

THE first witness examined by the Polland com

mittee (after the statement of James G. Blaine) was Mr. H. S. McComb. His testimony was to the effect that, in conversations with Mr. Ames, admissions were made by Mr. Ames that he had used the stock of the Credit Mobilier for the purpose of influencing members of Congress to vote in the interests of the Union Pacific Railroad; that Mr. Ames had told him that such was his intention in getting the stock, and that once Mr. Ames asked him if he did not consider it a good use of the stock which he gave to Mr. Colfax, then Speaker of the House, in view of the decision or ruling made by him on the Washburne motion. Mr. McComb alleged that, by some parliamentary ruling, the Speaker had killed such motion. The evidence was also positive that Mr. McComb overheard a conversation between Mr. Brooks and Mr. Alley, in which Mr. Brooks demanded the giving to him of fifty shares of the Credit Mobilier stock, and promising, if that was done, that he would look out for the Democratic side of the House, in all legislation concerning the Union Pacific Railroad; and that, in consideration of such

promise, Mr. Alley did cause to be issued to Mr. Brooks the fifty shares of stock which he demanded. Mr. McComb's testimony in regard to this was most positive and direct, and he fixed the time within fifty-seven days of when it occurred; that there were several conversations concerning it, but all occurred within this time, which he could fix by the absence of Dr. Durant in Europe, and that he always thought Mr. Alley was taking advantage of such absence, in giving away this stock.

Mr. McComb also produced the letters which we have set out, and commented upon them in an unfavorable light; he claimed that the letters were written in a manner denoting great confidence, such as Mr. Ames had always placed in him; that Mr. Ames had told him many times that he had used the stock assigned him, for the purpose of influencing members of Congress, and that that was the purpose for which the Credit Mobilier had given him the stock; that though he had offered it for par, it was at the time offered worth far more than that.

No other evidence was tendered or produced upon this point, and the entire testimony regarding any admission by Mr. Ames, or any conversations by him, was that of Mr. McComb. His testimony in this respect stands unsupported and alone, except for what color may be given it by the letters which he produced, and which Mr. Ames never denied having written. A large amount of the testimony

related to the work of the Credit Mobilier, which we have already considered, and the manner in

which members of Congress had invested in the stock; but with the testimony of Mr. McComb, his assertions stand exactly as he left them, to be met and overturned by a multitude of witnesses.

Mr. Ames denies, positively, that he ever had any such conversations with Mr. McComb; denies that he ever made any such admissions ; denies that he ever entertained a thought of influencing a member of Congress, in his legislative action; claims that he sold the stock to the several members of Congress at a time when that stock was not above par, at a time when it was being freely offered to the public, without finding a buyer, and that it was sold to those who bought it only upon the representations of Mr. Ames that it would be a good paying investment; that he had no thought of corrupting members, for he had no legislation to ask for, and had no reason to expect any adverse to the interests of the Union Pacific road; that the letters which he had written Mr. McComb were in response to others written by Mr. McComb, and in reply to questions proposed by him; and in view of the struggle Mr. McComb was making to gain possession of this stock, he naturally addressed him in such language as would tell him that he was working for the prosperity and success of an enterprise in which Mr. McComb had a deep interest, like himself. The letters were framed for a specific purpose, and to accomplish a particular end; their bearings were not reflected upon or considered; they were written. hastily in the press of business, and in that freedom