meant simply that he was acquainted with many capitalists, and had peculiar facilities for placing bonds. Does it not occur to you that, if Mr. Elaine had meant this, it would have been the most natural thing for him to say so? But he did not say so. He did say something else. I expressed the opinion that Speaker Elaine meant to point to the exercise of his official power as the channel of his usefulness. I think this, for the simple reason that this was the thing, and the only thing, he did point at in two letters written on one day, requesting that Mr. Caldwell be told of it, and at the same time repeating his urgent demand for a share in Mr. Caldwell's interest. On which side do we find the evidence, the only evidence there is—on yours or on mine?
2. You say this was, after all, a very innocent matter, for “it is one of the most gratifying things in life to a man charged with legislative duties to encounter a person to whom he has fairly rendered a service,” and to mention it to him, and that it is the “acme of uncharitableness” to see anything wrong in it. Very well. Let me adopt one of your illustrations. You meet an old soldier and say: “My old friend, I have worked to get you your pension, and did get it for you. It has given me great pleasure.” This is virtuous and pleasant. But how would it be if you said: “My old friend, I got your pension for you, and now I want twenty per cent. of it”? When the Speaker says to a railroad man: “I rendered you and your road in a perfectly proper way a great favor, and I am glad I did it,” that is one thing. But when the Speaker says to a railroad man: “I did you such and such a service by the exercise of my power, and now I want you to give me a valuable interest in your enterprise; I know I am not going to be a deadhead in it, and I see various channels in which I can be useful”—is not that quite another thing? But that is just what Mr. Blaine did.
