3890                      U. S. PACIFIC   RAILWAY  COMMISSION.
Q. Are you an anti-monopolist ?—A. To a certain extent 5 yes, sir. I believe in making monopolists conform to law as well as poorer citizens.
Q. To whom else did you report that ?—A. To Senator McPherson.
PUBLISHED HIS STATEMENT IN NEW YORK WORLD.
Q. Who else ?—A. When I found that Mr. Cleveland would not do anything with that, I presented one statement to the New York World.
Q. A communication?—A. Yes, sir; to get the benefit of public opinion.
Q. How was that headed ?—A. I could not tell you now.
Q. Was it a communication ?—A. I hardly know that it was. It was simply a statement founded on the reports of the Union Pacific Company.
Q. Did you prepare it yourself ?—A. I did, sir.
Q. Was it printed as you prepared it ?—A. I think it was, with several slight mistakes.
Q. Did that appear in the form of a communication over your own signature ?—A. It did not.
NOT PRINTED AS AN EDITORIAL.
Q. Did it appear in the form of a communication at all, or did it appear in the form of an editorial ?—A. It was not an editorial; it was printed on one of the side pages.
Q. Were you a correspondent of the World ?—A. No.
Q. Where was that prepared ?—A. It was to force public opinion to take notice of the issue.
Q. Was that prepared in Washington ?—A. Yes.
Q. Was it sent in the form of a communication from Washington?— A. No; I gave it to Mr. Crawford, whom I knew.
Q. Did you ever prepare more than one article for the World ?—A. Two, I think, were the utmost.
Q. Did you ever prepare any for any other paper ?—A. No.
Q. Did you ever have any conversation or report the result of your conversation to any one here in New York ?—A. No; on the contrary, I refused to do so.
Q. You stated broadly this afternoon that the Union Pacific Company had violated the act of 1873.—A. Yes.
PARTICULARS OF UNION PACIFIC'S VIOLATION OF  THE ACT OF 1873.
Q. I wish you to specify the particulars, and how you know it ?—A. I should say that it violated the Jaw in issuing collateral trust bonds of various dates, and in issuing the $10,000,000 of stock. I think that indorsing the Oregon Short Line bonds was a violation of the law of 1873. The indorsement of the Saint Joseph and Grand Island bonds was a violation of the law of 1873.
Q. Does that complete the catalogue of violations known to you?— A. There may be more.
Q. When, therefore, you said that the Union Pacific Company had violated law you meant that it had issued this stock, had issued these collateral bonds and made these guarantees; that is what you meant, is it ?—A. Practically, yes.