118 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATF.S. 



ment of the contract to Mr. Oakes Ames, Mr. 

 Brook* took his position as a Government 

 director." 



Mr. Brooks, of New York, said : " That is 

 not correct ; it U not a true statement of the 

 facts on record. The record it that I was nom- 

 inated for that office on the 1st of October, 

 1867; that I accepted it on the 2d of January, 

 1868 ; that the Oaken Ames contract was made 

 on August 16, 1867, and that the transfer was 

 made on October 5, 1867, long before January 

 3, 1868, when I first acted as a Government 

 director. That is the record." 



Mr. Poland: "1 would not for my right 

 hand misrepresent the smallest fact in refer- 

 ence to the gentleman's case. All he has said 

 is not in the slightest degree in conflict with 

 what I have stated. The Oakes Ames con- 

 tract was executed in August, but it was found 

 tint that trap was not properly set, and the 

 new machinery necessary in order to run it 

 successfully, so as to cheat the United States 

 and the Union Pacific Railroad, was not entire- 

 ly completed until about the middle of Oc- 

 tober. 



"Mr. Brooks had become on the 1st of Oc- 

 tober a Government director. There is not the 

 slightest evidence that Mr. Brooks ever con- 

 sidered him*. -If any thins but a full-fledged 

 Government director. We had no evidence 

 of any official act of his in the meetings of the 

 company until the 3d of January, 1868. But, 

 if yon look into the evidence of Mr. Brooks 

 hiimdf, and of Dr. Durant, you will see that 

 in December, when the first one hundred 

 hires were purchased from Durant. the reason 

 Mr. Brooks could not take them in his own 

 name was, that he was a Government director 

 of the road. He never on any occasion signi- 

 fied to anybody in the slightest manner that 

 he hod not accepted that office, and tint all 

 iU dntie* were not incumbent upon him. I 

 would not insinuate that Mr. Brooks said any 

 tiiini: thill was not true, but ho first s.iid that 

 it h.id never acted as a director until the 

 : 'win'.', but it turned out that a long 

 in December, at the time of 

 transaction between him and Durant by 

 whirli lie her .uno the owner of the first one 

 hundred share*, li" siid li" could not hoi 

 stock beciiuvj he wa* a Government director.' 1 



Mr. KMridge, of Wisconsin, said: "I wish to 

 rail the n: tli gentleman from Ver- 



mont to a question on which I would like to 



hear liic,,:n nu. Whether ho expect* the 



Homo to act differently in . Mr. 



k' oas* because he was a Government 

 or? Whether what he did ns a Gov- 

 ernment director is a proper reason for his 

 expnliion? Whether that is not r that 



i another tribunal than that of 

 thi lloii*i- 1 If he did wroinr. or if he obtained 

 bribe* in consequence of being n Government 

 or. i< not tint n mutter lor impeachment 

 rather than for expulsion ? " 



Mr. Poland : " I have no donbt that it 



would be a matter entirely within the juris- 

 diction of the House, both ill point of time 

 and in point of essence, as a proper tmbject for 

 his expulsion. In relation to the time when 

 it was done, if done at all, I shall have some- 

 thinz to say before I get through. 1 say th.it 

 Mr. Brooks must have been perfectly familiar 

 with the value of this stock, in consequence 

 of his connection with Dr. Durant, and in 

 consequence of his official duty as a director 

 of the Government, set there to guard and 

 watch and to look after the interests of the 

 Government in connection with that railroad 

 company. We cannot suppose that, when ho 

 was employed by Dr. Durant as an ageut to 

 go out for the purpose of promoting the sale 

 of that stock among the capitalists of New 

 York, ho was not well informed of the condi- 

 tion of it and of its value, and of the reasons 

 why it was valuable or not valuable. And 

 when he became a Government director, set 

 thoro for the purpose of watching the inter- 

 ests 67 the Government, we cannot suppose 

 that he did not perform that duty at least far 

 enough to inform himself of the important and 

 mat. -rial facts in reference to it. 



" Mr. Brooks then knew of this Oakes Ames 

 contract, and, when in November and Decem- 

 ber that stock began to go up in value like a 

 kite, he knew the reason of it; he knew why 

 it was so. There had been some negotiations 

 between him and Dr. Dnrant in reference to 

 his takinz some of this stock when it was not 

 so valuable. But Mr. Brooks did not choose 

 to take it then. The committee find from the 

 evidence, from his own evidence, that there 

 was no contract or agreement between him 

 and Duraut that could have been enforced. 

 About the middle of December he applied to 

 Durant and claimed that he was entitled to 

 have two hundred shares (the very maximum 

 that he ever had talked about taking), and to 

 have it at par. 



"Dr. Durant said that he had parted with 

 the stock, and that it was then in such demand 

 that it was very difficult indeed for him to let 

 Mr. Brooks have that amount of stock, or to 

 let him have any. After a long negotiation 

 between them, it finally resulted in Durant 

 agreeing to let Mr. Brooks have a hundred 

 shares of that stock at par. In reference to 

 the other hundred shares which ho claimed, 

 Durant bought him otf by irivintr him $5,000 

 of Union Pacitie Kailroad bonds, which were, 

 then worth very nearly if not quite par, ami 

 $20,000 of Union Pacific Railroad stock, the 

 value of which was probably somewhere in 

 the neighborhood of thirty dollars per share. 

 The committee have not reported, we did not 

 fool ourselves justified, or rather compelled, to 

 find that in this transaction between him and 

 Durant Mr. Brooks stood upon hi, othVial 

 position. The committee thought that it pos- 

 sibly iiiiirht be that in consequence of the 

 friendship Brooks had manifested for him, in 

 consequence of the aid he attempted to render 



