CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



221 



of which they gave him for $5,000 fifty shares 

 of stock that were then worth $20,000. 



" I will say in reference to Mr. Brooks as I 

 say in reference to Mr. Ames, and as I say in 

 reference to all these men, they are not men 

 that are careless ahout their dollars ; they 

 know a dollar when they see it. They are 

 none of them men who want to throw away 

 any thing without receiving something for it. 

 They are none of them men who would want 

 to throw away ten or fifteen thousand dollars. 

 None of them felt that kind of generosity to 

 Mr. Brooks that induced them to give him 

 stock for $5,000 that was worth $20,000. What 

 was The motive? What was the motive, Mr. 

 Speaker? They were not more than other 

 people acting without motive. 



" We had a witness before the committee 

 who testified, who swore expressly that he 

 heard a conversation between Mr. Brooks and 

 Mr. John B. Alley, wherein Mr. Brooks de- 

 clared, and declared more than once, that he 

 eitherwas orwould procure himself to be made 

 a Government director ; and that as he was a 

 member of Congress he would take care of the 

 Democratic side of this House. Now, sir, I 

 know that Mr. Brooks and Mr. Alley both 

 denied this. Upon this naked proposition, 

 if there was nothing else about it, we should 

 not feel justified in believing McComb against 

 Alley and Brooks both. But that that was 

 said to somebody it may have been that Mr. 

 McComb may have been mistaken as to whether 

 this conversation was between Mr. Brooks 

 and Mr. Alley but that there was such con- 

 versation between Mr. Brooks and somebody 

 I just as firmly believe as that I stand here in 

 your presence. It is utterly incomprehensi- 

 ble the thing cannot be explained, npon any 

 of those grounds or motions that govern the 

 actions of men, npon any other hypothesis. 



The action of Mr. Brooks was all corre- 



>on 

 ley 



and this evidence of Mr. McComb in reference 

 to what he heard Mr. Brooks say and it may 

 he that it was not said to Mr. Alley and upon 

 all this train of circumstances travel on at an 

 even pace to the plain and irresistible con- 

 clusion that these men yielded to this demand 

 of Mr. Brooks because they feared to offend 

 against his official power. If it was go, Mr. 

 Brooks knew that it was BO. It is utterly im- 

 possible under the circumstances that the fact 

 could have existed without Mr. Brooks's know- 

 Ing it. 



" The act of 1803, punishing offenses of this 

 kind, punishes every man who gives or prom- 

 ises with intent to influence the action of a 

 member of Congress or a Government officer, 

 and punishes also every man who receives; it 

 does not say with what intent he receives it, 

 bnt of course it must be an unlawful intent. 

 Wh.it is the fair meaning of that statute? 

 Does it mean that the receiver must make a 

 corrupt agreement or promise that he will carry 



spondent with that, so that the committee, up 

 this evidence, npon the evidence of Mr. All 



it out? That, I apprehend, is not a correct 

 understanding of the law. 



" But, sir, if a man receives a gift or present 

 for the purpose of influencing his official con- 

 duct as a member, knowing that that is the in- 

 tent of the giver, it is an unlawful act. The 

 evidence in this case is abundantly sufficient to 

 establish that intent on Mr. Brooks's part. 

 Every member of the committee believed so, 

 and I think every member of the House ought 

 to do so. 



" A word more in relation to the Govern- 

 ment directorship. The committee believed 

 that, if Mr. Brooks was guilty, as aGovernment 

 director of this corporation, of corruption in 

 office, it was a good cause for his expulsion 

 from this House, and before I get through I 

 will have a word to say in reference to the 

 question raised in the argument of the gentle- 

 man from Massachusetts (Mr. Butler) in this 

 case yesterday, in relation to the time when 

 the act was committed. Was he guilty of ny 

 corruption in office? On the 1st of October 

 he received his appointment as Government 

 director, and there is no evidence that he ever 

 intended or signified to anybody, in the slight- 

 est degree, that he did not intend to accept 

 and hold that office, and as early as January 

 we find him acting officially in the meetings 

 of the company. Here was a contract entered 

 into after he became a Government director; 

 that was completed, and the unlawful machin- 

 ery was set up after he became a Government 

 director. 



" He said in his testimony that he never 

 looked at that contract, and did not regard it 

 as his duty to do so. The committee say that 

 it was his business; that he ought to have 

 looked at it ; that it was official negligence if 

 he failed to look at it ; and we believe he did 

 look at it and understood it just as well as the 

 other men concerned in this business. We 

 say that it was in consequence of the comple- 

 tion of that machinery that there was a sudden 

 increase in the value of Credit Mobilier stock. 

 We believe he did know it, and that knowing 

 it he put himself in a position to share in the 

 spoils of that which he was set by law and by 

 the Government to protect and care for. The 

 committee hold that the facts r.bundantly 

 prove this official misconduct on the part of 

 Mr. Brooks; and we hold that as a matter of 

 law it is good and sufficient ground for bis ex- 

 pulsion as a member of Congress. 



"Bnt, Mr. Speaker, these transactions took 

 place five years ago; they took place in the 

 Fortieth Congress. It has been said elsewhere 

 and said here, and it was urged at great length 

 in something called a report of the Judiciary 

 Committee, yesterday, that Congress had no 

 jurisdiction over a matter of this kind, or to 

 punish a member for something done prior to 

 the commencement of his official term as a 

 member. 



" Now, Mr. Speaker, the committee differ en- 

 tirely with that gentleman and with the few 



