Ml 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



related to the Credit Moblller and its stock- 

 holder*, Mr. Charles II. Neilson was an insig- 

 nilirniit man. They would not for any in- 

 fluence he had have yielded a single farthing. 

 It was the name, and, as the committee be- 

 lieve, the official position and strength and 

 power of Mr. Brooks which enabled him to 

 force oat of that company and its stockholders 

 fifty shares of stock, which at that time were 

 worth four times the amount he paid for them. 

 "The whole evidence, Mr. Speaker, on this 

 subject shows that Mr. Charles H. Neilson 

 was a mere figure-head; he never appeared 

 anywhere. He appeared merely to receive 

 the transfer. After Mr. Brooks had carried 

 this whole business through, after the stock- 

 holder!) had been procured to sign a paper to 

 irive these additional fifty shares of stock to 

 Mr. Brooks, after it had all been brought 

 about, then Mr. Brooks informed Mr. Charles 

 II. .N'eilson there were fifty shares of stock in 

 that company for him, and to go and get liis 

 certificate. These fifty shares of stock were 

 not issued nntil the date of the certificate. 

 29th of February. 18<>8, in fact were not issued 

 until the 3d of March, 1868. These shares 

 went back and had an eighty per cent, divi- 

 dend paid on the 4th day of January previous- 

 ly, eighty per cent, in bonds, and one hundred 

 per cent, in Union Pacific Railroad stock all 

 wi-nt with the subsequent sale and transfer of 

 the fifty shares made to Mr. Brooks or Mr. 

 Neilnnn". Indeed, so little did they know about 

 Charles II. N'eiUon that when that stock was 

 i'd on the books it was doubtless entered 

 in the name of Mr. Brooks. 



" In two places on the stock ledger it was so 

 entered, and the name of Mr. Brooks in both 

 places has been erased on the ledger and the 

 name of Mr. Neilson written over it. So it was 

 undoubtedly they knew so little of there being 

 a man named Mr. Neilson that his name never 

 entered into the transaction until he got the 

 certificate. The stock was paid for by turn- 

 ing over the portion of the dividend which 

 came at the same time. These past dividends 

 ware paid and received by Mr. Neilson witli 

 the certificate when he went to receive it 

 Four thousand dollars of li.nnU in fifty shares 

 of stock were left with Mr. Dillon as collat- 

 eral security for $fi,000 and a little interest 

 piid np.>n it. for fifty shares of stock. Mr. 

 NeiUnn when first before the committee testi- 

 fied he never paid this money to Mr. Dill.ni. 

 that he supposed Mr. Brooks had paid the 

 money for it; that be had never paid fur it. 

 When we get to Mr. Brooks, he says he never 

 paid t'r it: Dillon nays that lie had his pay, and 

 a* he cannot find theseeoltaterals left with him 

 he inppone* he sold them and paid him*. -It' 

 ont of the proceeds. So the result is that the 

 fifty shires paid f.>r themselves with the divi- 

 ' which came with them more than paid 

 for the stock when it was received. 



" But I must hasten on with this history. It 

 ran on until June, where there was a dividend 



of sixty per rent, in money on the stock of 

 the Credit Mobilier. Nine thousand dollars 

 was received in cash, the only money dividend 

 upon this stuck. It was drawn by Mr. .Neilson, 

 as the stock was in his name, but thai 

 day that $9,000 went into the till of Mr. 

 Brooks. It paid this loan he had made in 

 paying for these shares of stock, excepting 

 $1JOOO. Neilson said Mr. Brooks then liad 

 $16,000 in Union Pacific bonds, which he held 

 as collateral security for the payment of that 

 $1,000 which was leit of the loon. Mr. li; 

 continued to hold $10,000 of bonds as security 

 for the payment of it subsequently. 



" Neilson within the lust year has borrowed 

 $14,000 of Mr. Brooks; so that he owes him 

 now pretty nearly the amount of the. collateral. 

 But for four years, from 1868 to 1*72. Mr. 

 Brooks, according to his story and the testi- 

 mony of his son-in-law. Neilson, was holding 

 as against him $16,000 of collateral security 

 to secure a debt of $1,000. 



"Mr. Speaker, it was claimed by Mr. Neil- 

 son, and it was also testified t<> by Mr. Brooks, 

 that the Union Pacific stock that wiis received 

 in dividends upon these shares had gone into 

 the hands of the son-in-law, Mr. Neilson. \\'o 

 bad no evidence upon the subject except tho 

 testimony of those two men; and therefore wo 

 do not feel that we should be justified in be- 

 lieving that it is not as they state. Hut this) 

 son-in-law of Mr. Brooks is not, as wo heard 

 here upon a former occasion, a regular stork- 

 dealer. That is not his business. He is a kind 

 of amateur stock-dealer, lie deals a little in 

 some kinds of stock. That Mr. Brooks should 

 allow him to try his hand to practise upon this 

 Union Pacific stock which nobody seems to 

 have treated as of very hiirh value, docs not 

 seem to be very remarkable, considering tho 

 relations between them. But the cash, tho 

 money that was received, the Union Pacific 

 Railroad bonds that were received, any thing 

 that had a solid and linn value that came from 

 this stock, went into Mr. Brooks's own p. < 

 That was the cose with this Union I'ariti.-. 

 stock, and they issued it in quantities to suit 

 purchasers and takers. Almost everybody 

 who wanted any had as much as he wanted : 

 and Mr. Brooks allowed that to be turned over 

 and dealt with and speculated upon by this son- 

 in-law ; and that seemed to have been about 

 all tho real connection Mr. N.-ilson had with it. 



" Without taking any more time, Mr. 

 Speaker, in reference to tho history of this 

 matter in relation to Mr. Brooks, I ask, are tho 

 committee justified in finding that these titty 

 shares of stock were yielded to Mr. Brooks in 

 consequence of his ollirial position as a mem- 

 ber of Congress and as a Government dim tor ! 

 All claim that he had upon anybody was mi 

 Durant. Whatever that was, either Uyal or 

 moral, Dnrant had settled with him. paving 

 him liberally. What power was Mr. I'.. 

 able to bring upon Mr. Dillon and all the 

 stockholders of this committee, in consuimeuco 



