CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



219 



him, although it never seemed to amount to 

 any thing, yet Dr. Durant might entertain 

 such feelings of gratitude and friendship tow- 

 ard Mr. Brooks as to give him those hundred 

 shares. But it was somewhat extraordinary 

 that he should have rewarded Mr. Brooks's 

 friendship and Mr. Brooks's services, which 

 seemed to have no value at all, with quite so 

 munificent a present as was made by the sale 

 of that hundred shares of this stock at par. 



" The son-in-law of Mr. Brooks, Mr. Charles 

 II. Xeilson, first makes his appearance when 

 it became necessary to have that hundred 

 shares transferred. Mr. Brooks says : 'lama 

 Government director, and the law forbids 

 Government directors from being stockholders 

 in the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and 

 although being a stockholder in the Credit 

 Mobilier Company, which is a stock corpora- 

 tion, does not come within the letter of the 

 law, yet from my relations with this company, 

 I know that being a stockholder in the Credit 

 Mobilier Company makes me equally inter- 

 ested in the Union Pacific Railroad Company, 

 and it will not look well for me, a Government 

 director, to hold this stock, and therefore I 

 transfer it to Mr. Charles H. Neil son, my son- 

 in-law.' That was done. Mr. Charles H. Neil- 

 son walks up to the office and takes the certifi- 

 cate of transfer of those one hundred shares. 



" But there was a more important act to be 

 performed in that ceremony than taking the 

 transfer of the shares; and that was paying 

 the $10,000 that was to be paid for the stock. 

 That little act Mr. Brooks did himself. The 

 $10,000 that had to be advanced to pay for 

 those one hundred fhares came out of Mr. 

 Brooks'g pocket. It is now said that this was 

 n loan of that amount from Mr. Brooks to his 

 son-in-law, Mr. Neilson. But not the slight- 

 est evidence was ever preserved by either of 

 them of any loan. No note, or obligation, or 

 security, of any sort was given, except that 

 Mr. Brooks kept as security for the $10,000 

 he hnd advanced the $5,000 in Union Pacific 

 bonds that came with the stock and was 

 thrown in as a honns. If Mr. Brooks required 

 security at all, if he wanted security from his 

 son-in-law, why did he not have security to 

 the full extent of the loan ? He took just what 

 came; whether greater or less does not seem 

 to have made any difference just what wns 

 the natural course of events. What was brought 

 to Mr. Brooks with the stock he took ; but 

 that was nil he required. In that way these 

 one hundred shares of stock were paid for. 



" I allude to this in view of its effect upon 

 what afterward took pi are, because the com- 

 mittee have not reported that they find there 

 waa any thing wrong in the reception of those 

 one hundred shares. There was something 

 exceedingly suspicious in it. It would be very 

 dillicnlt for any man hearing the testimony of 

 Mr. Brooks, the testimony of his son-in-law, 

 the testimony of l)r. Durant, and looking at 

 the relative position of all those men, to be- 



lieve that Dr. Durant yielded to the demand 

 of Mr. Brooks except upon the ground that 

 Mr. Brooks held such a position that it would 

 not do to refuse what he asked. 



"At one time, as members who are familiar 

 with the report doubtless know, there was an 

 increase of the stock of the Credit Mobilier of 

 fifty per cent. It was raised from two and a 

 half million dollars up to three and three- 

 quarter millions; and the original holders of 

 the two and a half millions were entitled to 

 take this fifty per cent, themselves ; and with 

 it they were entitled to take an equal amount 

 of Union Pacific bonds. That is, a man bought 

 a Union Pacific bond at par, and the stock was 

 given to him. 



"After those one hundred shares had been 

 thus obtained from Dr. Durant, Mr. Brooks 

 asserted that he was entitled to fifty per cent, 

 more, although he had forced Durant to give 

 him one hundred shares at par, when, accord- 

 ing to the statement of Durant himself, it was 

 worth, not $10,000, but $20,000; and with 

 those shares Dnrant had also given Mr. Brooks 

 Union Pacific securities which he called worth 

 $9,000. After that Mr. Brooks set up a claim 

 that he was entitled to fifty per cent, addition- 

 al on the ground of this old increase of stock. 

 Durant himself testified before us that this 

 additional stock had all been issued, this very 

 stock that Mr. Brooks received being a part 

 of that increase. The claim was utterly and 

 wholly unfounded ; and from Mr. Brooke's 

 familiarity with the proceedings of that com- 

 pany, its business, and the connection between 

 the two, Mr. Brooks must have known per- 

 fectly well that his claim wns unfonnded. But 

 he went to Mr. Sidney Dillon, who had re- 

 cently become president of that company, and 

 asserted to him this claim for fifty additional 

 shares. Mr. Dillon said: 'I do not know 

 about that ; I am recently in this office; and 

 whether yonr claim is a good one I do not 

 know.' Thereupon the stockholders had to be 

 consulted ; and all the principal stockholders 

 were required to sign a paper. 



"If Mr. Brooks had been entitled to his 

 shares, they would have been issued to him 

 as a matter of course; it would not have been 

 necessary to institute any of this machinery. 

 He would have gone to the proper officer of 

 the company, who would have transferred the 

 stock to him. But no, the consent of all the 

 principal shareholders in the company had to 

 be obtained to a written instrument authoriz- 

 ing the issue of those fifty shares to Mr. Brooks. 

 That instrument in its. terms authorized the 

 issue of fifty additional shares to Mr. James 

 Brooks, not to Charles II. Neilson. the whole 

 dealing, the whole information to the whole 

 body of stockholders was that they were 

 yielding to the demand, the imperative demand 

 of Mr. Brooks, and not to any demand of 

 Charles II. Neilson. So far as they were con- 

 cerned (and I desire to say nothing in dispar- 

 agement of Charles H. Neilson), so far as 



