^ H. Sp^ep 
 
 'TP>e Credit t^ob‘\l(ep 
 Robbery 
 
Return this book on or befo^ the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
/f 
 
 
The Credit Mobilier Robbery 
 
 LIBRARY 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 HON. MILTON SPEER, 
 
 OF FENISTS YL V A.Fri^, 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 FEBRUARY 27, 1873 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 F. & J. RIVES & GEO. A. BAILEY, 
 REPORTERS AND PRINTERS OP THE DEBATES OP CONGRESS, 
 
 1873 . 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archlve.org/detalls/credltmoblllerroOOspee 
 
3i'-i 
 
 Resolution of Censure of Hon. W, D. Kelley. 
 
 SPEECH OF HON. R. M. SPEER, 
 
 Delivered in the House of Representatives, February 27 , 1873 . 
 
 ‘-0 The House having under consideration the report 
 
 from the select Committee on Alleged Bribery of 
 Members, Mr. Speer offered the following: 
 
 Whereas it is shown by the report of the select 
 committee of the House to investigate charges of 
 alleged bribery of members by Oakes Ames and 
 others, that William D. Kelley, a member of Con- 
 gress from the State of Pennsylvania, did receive, 
 while a member of this House, from Oakes Ames 
 the sum of $329 on the 23d day of June, 18(38, and the 
 further sum of $750 in September, 1868, as dividends 
 on stock of the Credit Mobilier of America, without 
 having paid anything therefor; and whereas the 
 said dividends arose from a dishonest contract and 
 arrangement between the said Credit Mobilier and 
 the Union Pacific Railroad Company, which com- 
 pany was and is largely indebted to the United 
 States, resulting in a gross fraud and wrong upon 
 the Government: Therefore, 
 
 Resolved, That for the receipt and use as aforesaid 
 of the said Credit Mobilier dividends, William D. 
 Kelley deserves and hereby receives the unquali- 
 fied censure of this House. 
 
 Mr. SPEER. Mr. Speaker, I trust I am 
 not insensible to the gravity of this hour and 
 its duties; and I may hope that those who 
 know me believe that no feeling of party or 
 faction has prompted the action that I have 
 taken here this day. I declare before the House 
 and the country that I have taken it with deep 
 regret. For the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
 [Mr. Kelley] affected by the resolution which 
 I have felt it my duty to offer, I have personally 
 no unkind feelings. I have known him by 
 name for years as a prominent member of this 
 House and as an influential member of his 
 party ; and I would rather let my right arm 
 fall from my shoulder than be the instrument 
 here or anywhere of doing him intentional 
 injustice. But, Mr. Speaker, I have a duty to 
 perform higher than personal friendships, 
 higher than my regard for personal feelings ; 
 
 and I rise here this hour to perform it, regret- 
 ting that it involves the dishonor of a Repre- 
 sentative of my State — regretting that the proud 
 State in whose bosom I have been reared, and 
 upon whose soil I expect to be buried, bows 
 her head in shame and grief over the evidence 
 now before the House and the country, with 
 its exposure of the conduct of her Represent- 
 ative. 
 
 My colleague says he has been charged with 
 a crime and is here on trial unheard. Mr. 
 Speaker, this investigation was ordered on 
 your motion and he has been heard from 
 his own lips and with great patience, fairness, 
 and even tenderness, by the committee. He 
 had the process of the United States to sum- 
 mon any and every witness he desired, and 
 through an investigation covering six weeks, 
 with the power of the Government at his back, 
 he has borne an almost death-like silence. 
 
 But who is his accuser, if he is here this 
 hour upon trial ? If he is to be convicted, will 
 it not be on the testimony of a member of this 
 House of his own party, strengthened and forti- 
 fied as it is by his own evasions and prevarica- 
 tions? No, sir; I would condemn no man 
 unheard; but when opportunity has been given 
 for six long weeks, and after as fair and impar- 
 tial a committee as was ever appointed by this 
 House have sat with open doors until nothing 
 else was to be offered, until the last hours of 
 the session, it is unjust to them, it is unjust to 
 truth, to say he has not been heard. If he 
 had witnesses, who are they? Where are 
 
 S 008403 
 
4 
 
 they? The world has never heard of them 
 and it never will. 
 
 My colleague complains about my reference 
 to him in a brief speech I made this morning. 
 1 did not know whether he was in the Hall or 
 not, but I do know if he was not here it was 
 his duty to be here. But the complaint is 
 strange, for when I now offer him the floor he 
 declines to speak. I did make reference to 
 him, as I also made reference to the gentle- 
 man from Massachusetts [Mr. Dawes] and to 
 my colleague from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Sco- 
 field ;] and in that reference I did what I 
 thought a simple act of justice, due to my 
 convictions upon the evidence, to the cause of 
 truth and due to these two gentlemen. I said 
 that I believed upon the case as presented 
 they were innocent, and I would vote for no 
 resolution of expulsion or censure of either of 
 them. I certainly had no political or personal 
 motive in making such a declaration. They 
 are both active members of the Republican 
 party, one of them prominent as a leader of 
 that party in my own State ; and if I had 
 been governed by party considerations it 
 would have been my party interest to strike 
 him down, or at least to keep silence where 
 I could not justly condemn. 
 
 But I trust, Mr. Speaker, I shall be true to 
 my own sense of justice and of right, regardless 
 of whether such course may help or hurt my 
 party. I am not the slave of party. I am the 
 Representative of my people. And, sir, I would 
 feel myself unworthy of a seat upon this floor 
 if I should seek here or elsewhere to take ad- 
 vantage of the just indignation of the people 
 at the Credit Mobilier frauds to do a wrong 
 to any gentleman whose name has been con- 
 nected therewith. 
 
 I have asked the gentleman from Pennsyl- 
 vania [Mr. Kelley] to speak. I have asked 
 him to have his friends speak. I have made 
 the public offer here that he might haye, as 
 far as I could give it, as many hours for public 
 discussion as he desired, reserving only one 
 hour for myself to close debate. That offer 
 was declined, and I thought in a way unworthy 
 of the spirit in which I made it. I have yielded 
 a part of my hour to the gentleman’s friends 
 who desired to speak, and I now propose 
 briefly and fairly to review the evidence as it 
 
 lies printed before the House. The commit- 
 tee have found a special verdict, and it is now 
 for this high court of the people to enter judg- 
 ment upon that verdict. 
 
 What are the facts? On the first day of 
 this session the Speaker of this House rose 
 to what he called a “ question of the highest 
 privilege,” and after stating that “ during the 
 recent presidential campaign there was a wide- 
 spread accusation of bribery of members of 
 this House to perform certain legislative acts 
 for the benefit of the Union Pacific Railroad 
 Company by presents of stock in a corpora- 
 tion known as the Credit Mobilier,” and after 
 stating further that the charge embraced him- 
 self and several other members, among them 
 my colleague, [Mr. Kelly,] he offered a res- 
 olution for the appointment of a committee of 
 investigation. The resolution was adopted, 
 the committee appointed, and its report is now 
 before us. 
 
 Now, as my colleague’s name was mentioned 
 by the Speaker in connection with this charge 
 on December 2 last, he had notice then that 
 the investigation might involve him, and hence 
 he had ample time for preparation. 
 
 What does the report find to be the facts in 
 reference to my colleague? I take the follow- 
 ing from page 7 : 
 
 '"Mr. William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania. 
 
 “The committee find from the evidence, that in the 
 early part of the second session of the Fortieth Con- 
 gress, and probablv in December, 1867, Mr. Ames 
 agreed with Mr. Kelley to sell him ten shares of 
 Credit Mobilier stock at parand interest from July 1, 
 1867. Mr. Kelley was not then prepared to pay for 
 the stock, and Mr, Ames agreed to carry the stock 
 for him until he could pay for it. On the 3d day of 
 January, 1868, there was a dividend of eighty per 
 cent, on Credit Mobilier stock in Union Pacific 
 bonds. Mr. Ames received the bonds, as the stock 
 stood in his name, and sold them for ninety-seven 
 per cent, of their face. In June, 1868, there was a 
 cash dividend of sixty per cent,, which Mr. Ames 
 also received. The proceeds of the bonds sold, and 
 the cash dividends received by Mr. Ames, amounted 
 to $1,376. The par value of the stock and in rerest 
 thereon from the previous July amounted to $1,047 ; 
 so that, after paying for the stock, there was a 
 balance of dividends duo Mr. Kelley of $329. On 
 the 23d day of June, 1868, Mr. Ames gave Mr. Kel- 
 ley a check for that sum on the Sergeant-at-Arms 
 of the House of Representatives, and Mr. Kelley 
 received the money thereon. 
 
 “ The committee find that Mr. Kelley then under- 
 stood that the money he thus received was a balance 
 of dividends due him after paying for tho stock. 
 
 “ All thesubsequentdividends upon tho stock were 
 either in Union Pacific stock or bonds, and they 
 were all received by Mr. Ames. In Soi)tcmber, 1868, 
 Mr. Kelley received from Mr. Ames $750 in money, 
 which was understood between them to bo an ad- 
 vance to bo paid out of dividends. There has never 
 been any adjustment of tho matter between them, 
 and there is now an entire variance in tho testimony 
 
5 
 
 of the two men as to what the transaction between 
 them was ; but the committee aro unanimous in 
 finding the focts above stated. The evidence re- 
 ported to the House gives some subsequent conver- 
 sations and negotiations between Mr. Kelley and 
 Mr. Ames on this subject. The committee do not 
 deem it material to refer to it in their report.” 
 
 There, Mr. Speaker, the committee find that 
 Mr. Kelley received in June, 1808, $329; in 
 September, 1868, $750; making $1,079 in 
 cash. For what? Had he ever invested a 
 dollar? He had never paid a dollar ; but out 
 of only two dividends he had become the 
 owner of ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock 
 worth two or three thousand dollars, and had 
 received a check of $329, which he put in 
 his pocket and went to the Sergeant-at-Arms 
 afterward, and upon it drew the money, and, 
 impatient for further dividends, and although 
 they had amounted to more than one hundred 
 per cent, from January to June, he received 
 from Mr. Ames in September following the 
 further sum in cash of $750 dollars, which the 
 committee finds “was understood between 
 them to be an advance on dividends.” 
 
 Thus, without the payment of a single penny, 
 Mr. Kelley had received from Mr. Ames, out 
 of Credit Mobilier dividends, in about six 
 months, $1,079 in cash, and had become the 
 owner of stock worth from two to three thou- 
 sand dollars. When it is remembered that 
 these enormous dividends were paid — part out 
 of the money and proceeds of lands given by 
 the Government to the Union Pacific Rail- 
 road Company, and that Mr. Kelley had been 
 a member of Congress when the acts were 
 passed granting to this company these sub- 
 sidies, this House and the country will need 
 no aid from me to enable them to form a cor- 
 rect judgment of his conduct. 
 
 Now, while I agree with the committee in 
 their finding of the facts, I do not agree with 
 them in all the inferences they seem to draw 
 from those facts. After finding that Mr. Kel- 
 ley had never paid a dollar, but had been the 
 receiver of $1,079 from Mr. Ames in the 
 shape of dividends and advances, they say, 
 page 8 : 
 
 ” The committee, therefore, do not find, as to the 
 members of the present House above named, that 
 they were aware of the object of Mr. Ames, or that 
 they had any other purpose in taking this stock 
 than to make a profitable investment. It is appar- 
 ent that those who advanced their money to pay for 
 their stock present more the appearance of ordinary 
 investors than those who did not; but the committee 
 do not feel at liberty to find any corrupt purpose or 
 
 knowledge founded upon the fact of non-payment 
 alone.” 
 
 Sir, tell me what kind of an investment that 
 is in which you place no money. Is it buying 
 a house, when you pay nothing for it? Or is 
 it buying bank stock when, instead of paying 
 money for it, money comes to you? And yet 
 the committee attempt to draw the inference, 
 gently, I admit, that this transaction between 
 Mr. Ames and Judge Kelley was an invest- 
 ment upon the part of Judge Kelley ! 
 
 Let me, Mr. Speaker, call the attention of the 
 House to what the committee must have found 
 before they drew this inference. Mr. Kelley 
 was sworn before them as a witness. Oakes 
 Ames was sworn before them as a witness. 
 Those two witnesses differ radically and vio- 
 lently in their statements ; and when the com- 
 mittee find in substance that the statements of 
 Oakes Ames are true, as they do find, it fol- 
 lows inevitably they must find that Mr. Kel- 
 ley’s are not true. Now, what does Mr. Kel- 
 ley say about this transaction ? In the first 
 place the committee say that they have no evi- 
 dence that Mr. Kelley knew the nature of 
 this corporation. As to that I turn to page 
 198 of the testimony, where we find Mr. Kel- 
 ley under oath stating that — 
 
 “At this distance of time 1 do not pretend to re- 
 peat the conversation verbatim, but I remember the 
 substance of it pretty accurately. Mr. Ames said 
 to me that while that was a speculative thing, 
 he felt disposed to let me have an investment which 
 would be of a better character, and spoke of the 
 Credit Mobilier, of which I thought I knew some- 
 thing from the fact that it was chartered by my own 
 State some years before I became a member of Con- 
 gress, and the provisions of the charter of which I 
 had discussed somewhat with my professional 
 brethren, both in my office and in the court-room 
 while waiting for trials or arguments.” 
 
 Mr. Kelley is a Pennsylvania lawyer, and 
 was a Pennsylvania judge. The Credit Mo- 
 bilier is a Pennsylvania corporation ; and Mr. 
 Kelley swears that he was familiar with the 
 provisions of its charter from having discussed 
 it with his profesional brethren in the court- 
 room of Philadelphia. And yet the commit- 
 tee seem to intimate that this lawyer, this 
 judge, this Pennsylvania judge, who had dis- 
 cussed the provisions of this charter, did not 
 know what they were ; did not know the 
 powers they conferred nor the uses to which 
 the charter could be put. 
 
 Mr.> POLAND. Will the gentleman yield 
 to me a moment ? 
 
6 
 
 Mr. SPEEIt. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. POLAND. There was nothing in the 
 charter of the company that was in any way 
 wrong. The whole difficulty grew out of 
 some contracts that were afterward made. 
 
 Mr. S|^EER.. I understand that. What 
 the gentleman from Vermont says is abstractly 
 true ; but the charter was one of those anoma- 
 lous things that too often crawl through the 
 Pennsylvania Legislature, and after having 
 been passed it was taken to New York, and 
 there bought, I believe, by some of these par- 
 ties for the express purpose of making the use 
 of it which has been made. It was a charter 
 of almost limitless power, authorizing those 
 operating under it to go to almost any place 
 and do almost anything. It was just the charter 
 these Union Pacific railroad men needed. It 
 was just the charter that no honest company 
 would want. 
 
 Now, I say that Judge Kelley knew the pro- 
 visions of that charter. He knew the Legis- 
 lature that passed it. He knew there was 
 litigation in Pennsylvania about that charter 
 and the right of the State to tax the dividends; 
 and yet with his knowledge of all these things 
 he took that stock. I may say here that the 
 State of Pennsylvania brought suit four or five 
 years ago to recover about $1,000,000, I think, 
 as tax due on the dividends of the Credit 
 Mobilier. She obtained judgment twice in 
 the lower court, but the judgment was twice 
 reversed by the supreme court of the State ; 
 the last time on the ground that the Credit 
 Mobilier as a corporation did not earn the 
 dividends, but that the trustees did. 
 
 I refer to this, not to criticise the action of 
 the supreme court of Pennsylvania, but to show 
 how notorious the facts were. l"therefore deny 
 the correctness of the inference of the commit- 
 tee as to the knowledge and means of knowl- 
 edge of Mr. Kelley. I cannot escape the con- 
 viction that he did know all about it. But if he 
 had not knowledge beforehand, what are the 
 members of this House to think of a member 
 of Congress who, without a turn of his hand 
 or the scrape of his pen, or the payment of a 
 dollar, by some magic unknown to the race of 
 ordinary mortals, came into possession of 
 $1,079 in cash, and became the owner of ten 
 shares of stock worth $3,000 more, all in about 
 
 six months, and yet did not know what kind 
 of a hen was laying these golden eggs 1 Did 
 not Mr. Kelley know that it must be a cor- 
 rupt corporation from the enormous dividends 
 that were being so rapidly declared and which 
 he was receiving? Tell me that a man can 
 stand quietly by, in this age and in this land, 
 and receive an eighty per cent, dividend in 
 January and a sixty per cent, dividend in 
 June, and a seventy-five per cent, dividend in 
 September, and not know or at least not have 
 cause to suspect that the corporation which 
 declared them was corrupt to the core ! I seek 
 not to torture the evidence ; but this case so 
 bristles with facts pointing irresistibly to the 
 conclusion I have formed, that I cannot escape 
 it. Who can? 
 
 What further? Mr. Kelley attempted to 
 turn this transaction with Mr. Ames into a 
 loan, but th& committee have exploded that 
 idea as every sensible man will explode it on 
 reading the testimony. But what does Mr. 
 Kelley say? On page 199 of the reported 
 testimony he says: 
 
 “Thus ended all connection of mine with the mat- 
 ter. During that time, nor subsequently, have I re- 
 ceived directly or indirectly any money, stock or 
 bonds as dividends of the Credit Mobilier, or any 
 interest in stock of Union Pacific railroad or bonds. 
 I have never to my knowledge seen a share of the 
 stock in Credit Mobilier or in the Union Pacific Rail- 
 road Company.” 
 
 And on page 201 : 
 
 '"Question. The conversation you had with Mr. 
 Ames resulted in an agreement on your part to take 
 ten shares? 
 
 "Ansioer. Yes, sir; and I wish it to be distinctly 
 understood that it was not my fault that I did not 
 get it. I supposed I had contracted for ten shares 
 of stock. 
 
 "Question. Were any dividends ever paid to you 
 on it? 
 
 "Anstoer. No, sir ; I received nothing from it. 
 
 "Question. The result of the money transaction in 
 reference to the Credit Mobilier stock, then, was that 
 you neither paid Mr. Ames anything nor received 
 anything on that account? 
 
 "Answer. Yes, sir.” 
 
 Now, what will the country think of a mem- 
 ber of the American Congress who having 
 taken a check from Oakes Ames for $329 to 
 the Sergeant-at-Arms of this House, and drawn 
 the money upon it, and having received in 
 cash from Ames $750, both sums found by the 
 committee to be on account of dividends from 
 the. Credit Mobilier, now states on oath that 
 he never saw, or touched, or received a dollar 
 from the Credit Mobilier? This testimony 
 was given before Mr. Ames had come to the 
 
7 
 
 stand for the second time. Mr. Ames at first 
 was mild, and coy, and gentle as a maiden 
 with these gentlemen ; but when he discovered 
 that they intended to put the whole respons- 
 ibility of this transaction upon him alone, he 
 gathered himself up, and shook his mane like 
 a lion, and came back, armed with a power 
 that struck consternation into those men who 
 were trying to escape by putting their sins 
 upon him. Here is the evidence ; on page 
 201 Mr. Kelley states : 
 
 “ Question. State whether the borrowing of that 
 thousand dollars frem Mr. Ames had any connec- 
 tion in any manner with the Credit Mobilier stock? 
 
 "‘Answer. I am here reminded of what Judge Bing- 
 ham said on the uncertainty of speaking of what 
 may have been passing in a person’s mind so long 
 ago, and of all the considerations that may have 
 entered into his motives.” 
 
 Now, sir, was that such an answer as the 
 committee and this House had a right to expect 
 to a plain question involving the character of 
 this transaction and the motives and under- 
 standing of my colleague in reference to it ? 
 
 The House will observe that what I am 
 reading here is the sworn testimony of the 
 witness, Judge Kelley, himself. 
 
 But what does Mr. Oakes Ames say about 
 that transaction. This, on page 298 is the 
 account between Mr. Kelley and himself. 
 
 It is as follows : 
 
 The memorandum from which witness testified in 
 regard to Mr. Kelley is as follows : 
 
 W. D. K. Dr. 
 
 1868. To ten shares stock Credit Mobilier 
 
 of America $1,000 
 
 Interest 47 
 
 Jan. 19. To cash 329 
 
 $1,376 
 
 1868. By dividend of bonds Union Pacific 
 railroad $1,000, at 80 per cent, less 
 
 3 per cent $776 
 
 June 17. By dividend collected from your 
 
 account 600 
 
 1868. $1,376 
 
 Sept. 29. To cash loan 700 
 
 ” Question. Do you think Mr. Kelley understood, 
 
 when he received that check from you, that that 
 
 was the money he was borrowing from you ? 
 
 “Answer, I did not think so; you can judge as 
 well as I can of it. 
 
 “Question. Was anything said about its being a 
 loan ? 
 
 “ Answer. Not that I know of. 
 
 “ Question. Did you have any conversation with 
 Mr. Kelley after that in reference to this transac- 
 tion in Credit Mobilier stock ? 
 
 “Answer. Yes, sir; he inquired about the divi- 
 dends, whether there were any more. I told him 
 there would not be any more until this suit was 
 settled.” 
 
 In October or November, 1868, suit was 
 brought against this corporation in Pennsyl- 
 vania, and the dividends on the stock which 
 Oakes Ames held as trustee ceased. Mr. 
 Kelley then comes to Mr. Ames and inquires, 
 “Brother Ames, are there any more dividends 
 due?” “ What has become of the Credit Mo- 
 bilier?” “A suit is pending, Mr. Kelley, and 
 you cannot get any more dividends until that 
 suit is determined.” Now, the gentleman from 
 Massachusetts [Mr. Butler] says that Ames is 
 a truthful man, and the committee have found 
 his statement as to this transaction to be true. 
 Then what are we to conclude ? It is that when 
 that suit pending in the supreme court of Penn- 
 sylvania shall be determined, if favorable to 
 Mr. Ames, the dividends are to be paid to Mr. 
 Kelley as before; or rather, that in such 
 event they would have been paid if this inves- 
 tigation had not been had. 
 
 Now, did not Mr. Kelley know that the 
 Credit Mobilier was a fraudulent corporation? 
 Did he say “I wash my hands of it; I have 
 been misled; the people and the Government 
 are being wronged?” No, nothing of the kind. 
 All he said was, “ What has become of the 
 dividends?” I read from page 299: 
 
 ” Question. Did you understand from that conver- 
 sation that he considered himself entitled to further 
 dividends if there were any more made? 
 
 “ Ansxeer. I suppose so. 
 
 “Question. You continued to hold that stock for 
 him ? 
 
 “Ansxoer. I did; and that is all Mr. Kelley has 
 received out of it, the $329.” 
 
 And now what lesson do you learn from this 
 prevarication, evasion and denial on the part 
 of Mr. Kelley? Are not evasions and denials 
 of this character in court always taken against 
 the man who makes them? Is it not right and 
 just for the law to presume that if a man will 
 not tell the truth it is because the truth will 
 hurt him? What motive can Mr. Kelley 
 have for withholding a plain statement of the 
 facts ? It is because the truth was damaging, 
 and he would rather — I will not say willfully — 
 swear an untruth ; but he seems to prefer the 
 path of evasion to the plain road of frank 
 statement. 
 
 Why deny the ownership of the stock ? Why 
 deny the receipt of these dividends, unless 
 there was guilty knowledge? What motive on 
 earth could my colleague have to deny the 
 
8 
 
 ownership of honestly acquired property? If 
 you own bank stock, and your money has been 
 paid for it, why deny it, and deny it under 
 oath? 
 
 Mr. Speaker, you know very well that if ray 
 coat was stolen and it was found in your pos- 
 session — or I will reverse the illustration, and 
 say that if your coat was stolen and it was 
 found in my possession, and when arrested with 
 it on my back and asked where I got it I 
 should prevaricate, and say I found it here or 
 got it there, or refuse to account for my pos- 
 session of it, you know what is the presump- 
 tion of the law and of common sense. It is 
 that I got it unlawfully, or that I got it from 
 some person who had got it unlawfully. In 
 other words, that I was ashamed or afraid to 
 say how, or where, or from whom I had got it. 
 
 Why, then, when the managers of the Union 
 Pacific railroad, which had been richly en- 
 dowed by the action of Congress, were rob- 
 bing the Government through the Credit 
 Mobilier corporation, and when that plunder 
 and spoil were being divided among the Rep- 
 resentatives of the people whose duty it was 
 to protect their interests, why should any one 
 of them when charged with sharing the spoil 
 seem to attempt for a moment to withhold the 
 whole truth? Would not his interest, and his 
 honor, his name, and the name and the honor 
 of his family and friends alike, induce him to 
 state the truth, if the truth would help him ? 
 
 But what further have we here ? This evi- 
 dence presents another fact, which is that not 
 only did Mr. Kelley prevaricate before this 
 committee, not only did he attempt to conceal 
 the truth, but he virtually attempted to get 
 Mr. Ames to conceal it under oath. He feared 
 that his own concealment would not be suffi- 
 cient, and if Mr. Ames is to be believed, Mr. 
 Kelley attempted to get him to swear to what 
 was not true. 
 
 Do I state it too strongly? Blot out my 
 words, then, and take the words of Oakes 
 Ames. I quote his sworn testimony, page 
 360; 
 
 " Ansroer. Mr. Kelley spoke to me about this 
 matter and said he called it a loan ; he said he had 
 stated it was a loan, and then wanted to pay me 
 the amount. I told him that I did not so consider 
 it; that I had let him have $750 on account of the 
 dividends that I held. He wanted to call it a loan 
 and wanted to repay me.” 
 
 Almost five years after he had received the 
 money, when this investigating committee was 
 hard after him 1 
 
 “He said he would give me a check on his bank and 
 wanted to know when he should date it. I told him 
 I did not know that it would make any difference, 
 and he gave me a check for $1,000. That was before 
 any testimony had been given, but after the invest- 
 igation Was ordered. I tore the check in two and 
 handed it back to him and called it a payment,” 
 
 Mr. Kelley had got from Mr. Ames $1,079, 
 which, with interest, would have amounted to 
 over $1,300. Hence, if it was a loan, why 
 not pay all, if any ? 
 
 What a scene that must have been — the 
 honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
 Kelley] and his honorable friend from Mas- 
 sachusetts [Mr. Ames] concocting in the dark 
 hour of the night a story to cover up a trans- 
 action of which they were both ashamed ! 
 
 I say, then, I can come to no other con- 
 clusion upon this testimony than that the find- 
 ings of fact by the committee are justified, 
 amply, overwhelmingly justified, by the evi- 
 dence. For belief is not a matter of choice ; 
 we must believe upon evidence, and some- 
 times the most unpleasant convictions are 
 forced upon the conscience. So here I take 
 no pleasure in stating my conviction formed 
 upon this testimony ; but there are the facts 
 spread before this House and the country, and 
 there is not water enough in the Potomac to 
 wash away this record which Mr. Kelley and 
 Mr. Ames have made for themselves. 
 
 No charges of persecution can be brought 
 against the honorable committee or against 
 this House. These men, if condemned, are 
 self-condemned ; they are their own accusers ; 
 and upon the record which they have made 
 for themselves in this case they are now being 
 tried by this House in the presence of the 
 country, and by that record the case will be 
 determined. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, we have been told that the mob 
 are crying, “ Crucify him I ” “ Crucify him ! ” 
 No, sir, it is not the mob, and that is not the 
 cry. It is the people who make the cry, and 
 the cry is, “ Punish the men who have been 
 robbing the Government, and punish the men 
 who have been sharing the spoil.” To that 
 cry this House of the people should respond, 
 “Amen 1 ” 
 
 The American people demand no victim ; 
 
9 
 
 they are just and brave and generous; but 
 having been plundered for long years by these 
 corporations of immense power and wealth, 
 they are trying now, Samson-like, to burst the 
 bands that have bound them. They are at- 
 tempting to reassert their mastery over their 
 servants and to teach their Representatives 
 that they have other duties to perform than to 
 aid by their influence and legislation here 
 schemes of personal profit. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied upon this evi- 
 dence of the truth of the finding of the 
 committee ; and being thus satisfied I should 
 be false to myself, to the people who have 
 sent me here, and to my duty at this hour, if I 
 faltered for onefmoment. I believe Mr. Kelley 
 is guilty as the committee find him, of receiv- 
 ing these enormous dividends of the Credit 
 Mobilter without consideration ; and I further 
 believe he had every reason to know they 
 were corruptly declared and were paid to him 
 with the expectation of securing his friendly 
 interest as a member of Congress in any meas- 
 ures that related to that fraudulent corporation. 
 Thus believing, I recognize the jurisdiction 
 of the House over the offender and I regard 
 the offense as deserving its unqualified cen- 
 sure. The American Congress should be the 
 political sanctuary of the people ; and those 
 who compose it, in fidelity to their high trust, 
 should oppose and denounce all schemes of 
 plunder. Popular liberty is here on trial, and 
 the great question of the hour is, shall the 
 people rule this land or shall they surrender 
 it to the greed and corruption of mammoth 
 corporations? 
 
 But it is said that these gentlemen impli- 
 cated in the Credit Mobilier swindle have 
 heretofore borne good characters. I admit 
 that in a case of doubt good character is a 
 fact to be considered by the triers. But tell 
 me what is character worth against clearly- 
 proved guilt? If a man confesses himself 
 that he has committed a crime, does the fact 
 that he has previously borne a good name 
 prove that he did not commit it ? When the 
 check is produced by the Sergeant-at- Arms for 
 $329, and Mr. Ames swears he gave that 
 
 identical check to Mr. Kelley for Credit 
 Mobilier dividends and that he drew the 
 money thereon, does my colleague’s saying, 
 “for many years I have been an honored 
 Representative of the people of Pennsylvania 
 on this floor,” show that he did not take the 
 money? 
 
 In some cases good character may be 
 allowed to create a doubt; but in this case, 
 if the check drawn to “ W. D. K.” or bearer 
 and paid by the Sergeant-at- Arms on the 24th 
 of June, 1868, was not for Credit Mobelier 
 dividends, as Ames swears it was, should not 
 Mr. Kelley state what it was for, or at least 
 give some explanation of it? With his failure 
 to do either, what is the use of talking about 
 doubt? And how ungrateful it is for the gen- 
 tleman from Pennsylvania, now in the hour of 
 his old friend’s trial, to seek escape for him- 
 self in the ruin and dishonor of Oakes Ames I 
 a man who, whatever else may be said of him 
 in connection with this investigation, has shown 
 the most singular persistence in trying to shield 
 all the members of Congress involved with 
 him ; this man who was so good and so kind 
 as to loan Mr. Kelley (as he alleges) $1,000 
 without note or security nearly five years ago, 
 and who has never even inquired about either 
 principal or interest during all that time! 
 How ungrateful now to turn and seek the vin- 
 dication of his own character by destroying 
 that of his friend I 
 
 It has been said “that he who deserts a 
 friend deserves a foe,” and if Mr. Ames was 
 worthy to be the companion and the financial 
 adviser of Mr. Kelley for years, it surely is not 
 becoming in my colleague now, when the storm 
 of public wrath is gathering, to seek shelter 
 for himself by ingratitude to his old friend 1 
 
 This investigation has engaged the earnest 
 attention of the country; not from any thirst 
 for vengeance, but because it has involved the 
 honor of the nation, as well as the honor of 
 those who have heretofore stood high in its 
 love. The record of this day will pass into 
 history, but it will prove fruitless of practical 
 good if it do not become to all those in place 
 and power a lesson and a warning. 
 
Jurisdiction of the House. 
 
 KEMARKS OF HON. R. M. SPEER, 
 
 Delivered in the House of Representatives on the same day, under the ten 
 miniites^ rule. 
 
 Mr. SPEER. Each member of this House 
 is this day confronted with a solemn duty ; 
 and however willing he may be to escape it, 
 he cannot do so without proving false to him- 
 self and false to his constituents. 
 
 This duty is painful to me almost beyond 
 expression ; but I have lived long enough to 
 learn that duties are not to be avoided 
 simply because their performance is not pleas- 
 ant. 
 
 I came to this House two years ago a 
 stranger to all the gentlemen who are impli- 
 cated in the Credit Mobilier investigation ; 
 but I came with the kindest prepossessions in 
 favor of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. 
 Brooks.] I had long heard of his name and 
 his fame ; I had learned to treasure them as 
 a part of the history of my party and of my 
 country. Hence, in the examination of this 
 evidence, so far as it affects him, I was a par- 
 tial judge in his favor ; but, step by step, as I 
 advanced, my mind was brought irresistibly to 
 the conclusion which I am now about to ex- 
 press to this House. I would intentionally 
 add no weight to the sorrow that crushes his 
 heart, but I must obey my convictions of duty 
 regardless of all personal considerations. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, there are but two questions 
 here: first, has this House jurisdiction ? If it 
 10 
 
 has not, that is an end of the inquiry. If it 
 has, then what, if any, are the offenses which 
 have been committed by the gentlemen named, 
 and are they such as to justify their expulsion 
 or censure? For myself I have no more doubt 
 of the power of the House to expel a member 
 for an offense committed before his election 
 than I have of my existence. The power is 
 expressly given in the Constitution, article 
 one, section five, which declares : 
 
 “ Each House may determine the rules of its pro- 
 ceedings, punish its members for disorderly beha- 
 vior, and with the concurrence of two thirds expel a 
 member.” 
 
 “Punish” them “for disorderly behavior” 
 committed when and where? Committed in 
 the presence of, or d ring the session of the 
 House? The Constitution does not say so. 
 Committed during the session of Congress, but 
 in a recess? The Constitution does not say so. 
 The time when the offense shall have been 
 committed is not stated. The power is abso- 
 lutely given, with this single limitation and 
 qualification of its exercise, that it shall be by 
 a two-thirds vote of the House. In terms the 
 grant of power is limitless; but' its exercise 
 should be guided by a wise, honest, and con- 
 scientious discretion. The grant is dangerous ; 
 but this fact appeals only for care and caution. 
 The express grant of a power like this is not to 
 
11 
 
 be rendered worthless by the charge that it may 
 be abused. This House has the absolute power 
 to expel a member, but the true inquiry in each 
 case is, do the facts justify the exercise of the 
 power? 
 
 Now, in properly construing this grant of 
 power, we should inquire what was the pur- 
 pose for which it was given, what is its use 
 and necessity ? It is a self-protective power, 
 a self-purifying power. If, then, it has been 
 given to the House for the purpose of en- 
 abling it to protect itself against unworthy 
 members, I ask whether the House does not 
 need this power to protect itself from a mem- 
 ber who may have become unworthy yester- 
 day, as well as against a member who has 
 become unworthy to-day? Shall the date of 
 the crime measure its moral guilt or turpitude ; 
 and if not, shall the date of its commission 
 measure the power and jurisdiction of this 
 House? I do not think so. Let us look for 
 one moment at two or three illustrations to test 
 this doctrine of jurisdiction. J[f I understand 
 the position of the learned gentleman from 
 Kentucky [Mr. Beck] and others who deny the 
 jurisdiction of this House, it is that if a man 
 on the last hour of the last night before the 
 election should commit a rape, or a burglary, 
 or a murder, and in virtue of an election held 
 the next day should come into this House, we 
 are powerless to protect ourselves against his 
 presence ; but if the offense was not committed 
 until the moment after the ballot-box was < 
 closed, then we can take jurisdiction and expel 
 him. 
 
 The decision of Chief Justice Shaw, cited 
 by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
 Butler] last evening, states that the legis- 
 lative body has undoubted power to expel a 
 man who has an infectious disease, and this 
 the gentleman from Kentucky admits ; but if 
 the doctrine of my learned friend from Ken- 
 tucky is true, the man must have contracted 
 the infectious disease after his election to give 
 the House power to expel him. If the disease 
 had been contraced before his election the 
 House would be powerless. Now, Mr. Speaker, 
 
 I draw an exact analogy between this illus- 
 tration of an infectious disease and the crime 
 with which these gentlemen here are charged. 
 We have here an offense not dying at the 
 
 moment it is committed, but the fruits of which 
 are intended to run through the congressional 
 career of the man who commits it — intended 
 to control his voice and his vote on this floor 
 as long as he remains a member ; month after 
 month and year after year he puts into his 
 pocket the price for which he has agreed to 
 surrender his independence and honor as a 
 Representative, in precisely the same way as 
 the man who contracts an infectious disease 
 on the night before the election may carry it 
 with him for one, two, or three years after- 
 ward during his occupancy of a seat here. The 
 member makes a contract for a bribe, and sits 
 here by the side of my honorable friend from 
 Kentucky with the gold which is the price 
 of his dishonor in his pocket ; yet, according 
 to the view of my friend, the Representatives 
 of the people are powerless ! The corrupt 
 bargain may have been made before the elec- 
 tion and carefully concealed until after; and 
 yet this concealment saves the guilty party 
 from defeat perhaps at the polls ; and the 
 offense fortunately antedating the election, 
 strips this House of all jurisdiction of the 
 offender. 
 
 This is not the case of a criminal prosecu- 
 tion ; it is the cause of the people — -a cause 
 involving the honor and the integrity of the 
 Congress of the United States, the character 
 and fair fame of the whole American people. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, if there is any doubt about the 
 jurisdiction of the House in this case I think 
 the gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks] 
 himself has settled that question. Mr. Brooks 
 rose in his seat on the 17th of December last 
 to a question of privilege, and in defining his 
 position in relation to the Union Pacific, rail- 
 road and the Credit Mobilier, with uplifted 
 hand and eye used these words: ““ But as a 
 member of Congress and as a member of one 
 of the most important committees of the House 
 in which millions of dollars are directly or in- 
 directly pending, if what Mr. McComb says be 
 true, I am unlit to be a member of this House 
 and ought to be expelled not only from this 
 House, but from all association with decent 
 men here or elsewhere.” 
 
 I ask the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. 
 Beck,] who is in his seat, for what purpose 
 or by whose authority it is he interposes the 
 
12 
 
 plea of jurisdiction here when the jurisdiction 
 and the necessity for its exercise, if the facts be 
 found, are expressly conceded by Mr. Brooks 
 himself? That he admits the right and the 
 power of this House to expel him if the facts 
 alleged against him be true his careful and 
 elaborate speech made upon this very subject 
 most clearly shows. 
 
 Next we come to the facts. I have not time 
 to discuss them. I agree with the committee 
 in their finding and recommendation as to Mr. 
 Ames and Mr. Brooks, and I agree with Mr. 
 Brooks, the facts being found, that they pre- 
 sent a proper case for expulsion. I say fur- 
 ther, while I have read and reread with anxious 
 care this morning the testimony in relation to 
 the gentlemen implicated, so far as the gen- 
 tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Dawes] and 
 the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Sco- 
 field] are concerned, I cannot and will not 
 vote either to expel or to censure either of 
 them. I owe them nothing personally or 
 politically ; but I owe it to my conviction as a 
 man, I owe it to my sense of duty, I owe it 
 to the cause of truth to say, after the most 
 
 careful examination of the testimony and the 
 facts in relation to them, I believe them to be 
 innocent of corrupt intent or conduct. But 
 when I come to Mr. Kelley and to Mr. Gar- 
 field I say with the same honesty of purpose 
 and the same sincerity of conviction I cannot 
 believe them guiltless. They never paid a 
 dollar. Mr. Kelley received $1,079 in divi- 
 dends. For what? For nothing. Without 
 the investment of a single dollar he became in 
 six months the owner of a thousand dollars 
 of stock in the Credit Mobilier, worth three 
 or four thousand dollars, and he pocketed 
 $1,079 in cash besides. 
 
 [Here the hammer fell.] 
 
 Wote. 
 
 After Mr. Speer introduced his resolution 
 and the House voted to consider it, he offered 
 half of his hour to Mr. Kelley. The latter 
 rose and stated that he had not been heard 
 before the committee, and did not wish to 
 speak until after Mr. Speer had spoken. In 
 order that no injustice may be done him, his 
 defense, as made by himself, at the time 
 chosen by himself, is hereto annexed. 
 
REPLY 
 
 OP 
 
 HON. WILLIAM D. KELLEY 
 
 To the speech of lion. R. Milton Speer, delivered in the House of Represent- 
 atives on the evening of February 27 , 1873 . 
 
 Mr. KELLEY. I hope, Mr. Speaker, for 
 the calm and dispassionate hearing of my 
 judges, I shall detain the House from its legit- 
 imate business for a very brief time. The 
 occasion is one of too much dignity, of too 
 much importance to me and my family, to 
 permit me to divert it to personal or partisan 
 discussion. I shall, therefore, not follow or 
 attempt to reply to the remarks of my young 
 colleague who brought my name thus before 
 this House and the country. There are those 
 on both sides of this House who have asso- 
 ciated with me for twelve long years. The 
 4th of March, now rapidly approaching, will 
 mark twelve years since I became a member- 
 elect of the American Congress, and the 4th 
 of next July will mark twelve years since when, 
 on the threshold of the most eventful period 
 of my country’s history, I took the oath of 
 office. Since then the senior members of 
 yonder side of the House, as well as many of 
 the gentlemen around me here, have been my 
 almost constant associates ; and, sir, were it 
 proper I should adduce witnesses here and 
 nov/, I would invoke, irr spite of past partisan 
 or personal controversies, the testimony of 
 each and all of them to my integrity ; but it is 
 not proper. 
 
 My case is not ready for argument. My 
 witnesses have not been heard. The commit- 
 tee acting as a grand inquest ignored the 
 charges against me ; and yet I am showing 
 cause why I should not respond by standing 
 up for sentence. It is not proper, therefore, 
 that I should now invoke your testimony. I 
 may,' however, should the Congress of the 
 United States so deny me the privileges ac- 
 corded to the veriest criminal brought before 
 any of the courts of the country — may and 
 13 
 
 will teach the boy who bears my name, when 
 he shall meet any of you, to challenge you as 
 to the blamelessness of my life among you, 
 as to whether my habits have been such as to 
 cause suspicion of extravagant expenditure 
 or of the undue pursuit of wealth. It shall 
 be his privilege to ask from any and all of 
 you whether his father passed his life in 
 your presence in luxurious or riotous living, 
 whether he neglected his public duties for the 
 pursuit of gain, whether his habits were not 
 unostentatious, inexpensive, laborious, and 
 whether for the best twelve years of his life he 
 did not place, not only before him, but before 
 his associates in every walk of life, the ex- 
 ample of a life of labor and self-denial. 
 
 What is now announced as the charge 
 against me ? That I have accepted $329 as a 
 bribe. Mr. Speaker, the last ten years have 
 been said to be years of extravagant ex- 
 penditure and profligate outlay of land and 
 money. I was for four years a member of your 
 Naval Committee when it was considering 
 questions involving contracts for millions and 
 tens and thirties of millions of dollars, but 
 who here or elsewhere ever heard my name 
 connected with the profits of a contract or the 
 allegation that one dollar of my country’s 
 money not received as salary for my services 
 during that period stuck to my hands ? I have 
 been for four years a member of the Commit- 
 tee of Ways and Means ; a committee, sir, 
 whose decisions touch more largely the pecun- 
 iary condition of the country and the people 
 thereof than those of any other committee of 
 the House. On what question before that 
 committee have I reserved my opinion until 
 parties in interest might confer with me and 
 determine my vote ? Have I ever failed to* be 
 
14 
 
 outspoken on any question before that or any 
 other committee of this House, or the House 
 itself? It has been sometimes complained of 
 me that I have been rash in the utterances of 
 ray opinions and imperative in ray demands ; 
 but 1 have yet to hear for the first time the 
 suggestion that my opinions have halted until I 
 could adjust them to the interest of others, nor 
 do I believe there is a member of this House, 
 or any one who has been a member since the 
 Thirty-Seventh Congress organized, that ever 
 entertained such a suspicion. In 1845, or early 
 in 1846, I began to devote the leisure allowed 
 me by my professional labors to bringing before 
 the people of Philadelphia, and through them 
 to the attention of the people of the country, 
 the project of connecting the waters of Lake 
 Michigan with those of the Columbia river and 
 Puget sound. 
 
 Asa Whitney had fascinated me by the 
 grandeur of his scheme. It involved not only 
 the construction of a railroad across the desert, 
 but the peopling of that then almost unexplored 
 region with the poor of the world. Connected 
 with Mr. Whitney’s scheme for that great 
 national and commercial enterprise was the 
 magnificent and humane theory of bringing 
 from the oppressed lands beyond the Atlantic, 
 and gathering from the crowded cities of our 
 own eastern States, each year a fresh array of 
 laborers to cut the forests from around the 
 base of lake Michigan ; to move forward with 
 the construction of that railroad, and to leave 
 behind, as its guards for the present and its 
 patrons in the future, colonies each year, so 
 that when it should be finished the mails to 
 and from British India would drop their fat- 
 ness in our land as they passed through the 
 then thriving towns and cities of the Rocky 
 mountain region. And from that day to this 
 no scheme which promised success and pro- 
 posed to unite the ports of the Atlantic with 
 those of the Pacific has failed to receive my 
 early, ray ardent, my most liberal support. 
 
 We have granted lands by millions of acres. 
 But who has said, who believes — nay, sir, who 
 suspects, that one acre of those millions or 
 the proceeds thereof have lodged with William 
 D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, or any member 
 of his family. No man, sir; for ray life has 
 given the lie to such suspicions. Says the reso- 
 lution, he has been speculating in the stock of 
 the Credit Mobilier of America. I denounce 
 the allegation as false and unfounded. In 
 the twelve years that I have been a member 
 of Congress I have bought one bond, not in 
 ray own person, but through my counsel, 
 Henry C. Townsend, of Philadelphia, and 
 through the same hand, without ever having 
 seen it, have sold it ; and if that be specula- 
 tion in stocks and bonds, then have I erred in 
 denouncing that allegation. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the time 
 has not come for arguing my case ; nor do I 
 
 mean to do it. But a becoming respect to this 
 House — and I desire to treat it with all due 
 respect — requires me in suggesting the pro- 
 priety of pausing long enough to make some 
 inquisition into the correctness of the findings 
 of the committee, so far as they relate to me, 
 to say that if I have owned Credit Mobilier 
 stock I have not known it. If I have received 
 the dividends of Credit Mobilier, I have not so 
 understood it. That I have owed Oakes Ames 
 $1,000 borrowed money, I have believed. I 
 have given the committee evidence in answer 
 to the question whether it was not a little re- 
 markable that I should permit the loan to 
 stand so long — evidence very painful to me 
 to disclose, but which in vindication of my 
 good name I gladly disclosed ; that from cir- 
 cumstances involving no culpability on my 
 part my life during my whole congressional 
 career has been a terrible struggle against 
 adverse fortune — a struggle which has only 
 been relieved by the kindness of generous 
 friends who believed that if I could hold on 
 to the building lots and land I had purchased 
 with ray professional eavings they would be 
 reimbursed and there would be something for 
 the support of ray widow and children if I 
 should be summoned hence. 
 
 And in making that statement I have an- 
 swered satisfactorily to my own conscience and 
 to my own judgment for the delay that might 
 otherwise have looked suspicious. 
 
 Before your committee, Mr. Speaker, if 1 
 am permitted to appear before it, this will be 
 among the evidence I shall adduce : that on 
 the 7th of June, 1869 — mark you, gentlemen, 
 mark you, Mr. Speaker — I am -charged with 
 holding since 1868 Credit Mobilier stock or 
 with having it held in trust for me, and with 
 receiving from it or being entitled to receive 
 dividends from it so enormous that they alone 
 should have admonished me that the transac- 
 tion involved in its purchase was not fair and 
 honest — I say, sir, that among the evidence I 
 shall adduce will be the .officers of the Trades- 
 men’s Bank of Philadelphia to prove that on 
 the 7th of June, 1869, there was withdrawn 
 from a box, long on deposit in that institution, 
 ten $1,000 Union Pacific railroad bonds; that 
 they were carried by their owner to the parlor 
 of the president of the Fidelity Trust and 
 Insurance Company of Philadelphia, and in 
 my absence left there as collateral security for 
 a loan to be made to me by that company of 
 $7,000 at six per cent. 
 
 The understanding was with Hon. N. B. 
 Browne, the president, that I was to pay the 
 institution its fees for holding these bonds as 
 a safe deposit, and that I was to pay them 
 six per cent., and five per cent, to the owner 
 of the bonds on whatever sum was loaned 
 thereon, so that the $7,000 was to cost me, as 
 long as I retained it as a loan, eleven per cent. , 
 and ten dollars per annum as a fee for guaran- 
 
15 
 
 tying the safety of the bonds. And the records 
 of Philadelphia will show that on the next day, 
 the 8th of June, 18G9, I put on record a mort- 
 gage on unimproved and somewhat encumbered 
 real estate to indemnify the owner of these 
 bonds against loss by their use as collateral 
 security for me. Sir, if I had known that I was 
 the owner of stock and bonds of the Union 
 Pacific railroad, I should hardly in my poverty 
 have paid $360 a year for a loan of such secur- 
 ities in sufficieiJt amount to save my property. 
 
 Sir, this will be among the testimony that I 
 shall offer, and the witnesses referred to are 
 illustrative of the character of the many wit- 
 nesses I shall produce. 
 
 Sir, I pray nothing from the favor of my 
 associates on either side of the House. I ask 
 them to deal out nothing but equal justice to 
 me, and in their own behalf I ask them to do 
 
 it according to law. That is all I wish. What 
 becomes of me is of little importance now. 
 They who were old men when I entered this 
 House, Stevens, Wickliffe, Crittenden, and 
 others, have long slept the quiet sleep of death. 
 They who are now the white-headed leaders 
 of the House to-day were in the vigor of man- 
 hood when we first answered the roll-call. I 
 felt myself then to be a young man ; but with 
 three years of broken health I approach the 
 threshold of threescore years feeling that the 
 strength which might add another ten years to 
 life is not accorded to me. It is not therefore 
 for myself that I plead when I ask you to main- 
 tain the law and to give to me as a member of 
 the American Congress those privileges which 
 are secured to the vagrant, to him who is 
 charged with petit larceny, or to the assassin 
 who has deliberately murdered his brother man.