How Members of Congress Are Bribed — Edition Insights

(0 User reviews) 312

In Category - Adventure Picaresque Fiction

Authors: Moore, J. Hampton (Joseph Hampton), 1864-1950 Digital Source: Project Gutenberg Gutenberg Release Year: 2002 First Publication Year: Not confirmed

Key Word: United States. Congress; Bribery Target Reader: Readers of public-domain and historical texts

Book Edition: Project Gutenberg digital edition Book Language: en

Edition facts

Words 7,336

Reading time 32 min

Text sections 1

The source record for How Members of Congress Are Bribed — Edition Insights measures this digital text at 7,336 words, 32 min estimated reading time, and 1 detected text section.

The text analysis averages about 22.4 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “United States. Congress,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Source: Project Gutenberg record #3316

An open letter from a California citizen to Congress, using the Huntington-Colton letters to argue that railroad magnate Collis P. Huntington operated as a lobbyist who bribed legislators and manipulated territorial governments for private gain.

Editorial Edition Score 4.3/5

★★★★★ ★★★★★

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated

Description quality20 pts
Title & short description10 pts
Source metadata20 pts
Text length15 pts
Chapters / structure15 pts
EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

File: pg3316

Read the Text

That was the safest way. It is not wise to allow great numbers of thinking people to read that they are victims of chicanery, corruption in high places, bribery, hire and salary, and oppression through conspiracy. There might be something more than a spice of danger in much carelessness.

The letters under consideration, written during the four years from October, 1874, to October, 1878, tell a plain enough, tale of their own. They abound with cool and easy allusions to various men and things: to "convincing" public servants; to "fixing" committees in Congress; to "persuading" the most exalted officials; purchasing National legislators, as well as Territorial Governors; to deceiving local communities, and the United States generally, with well considered cunning; to working noisily with blatant instruments and quietly through masked agents; to creating public opinion by means of false showings; to electing or defeating candidates for office; to smiting enemies and rewarding friends.

Viewed as a contribution to the literature of fatal political infection the letters are unique. They embody an epitome of just such work as their writer is prepared to now continue, if the temper of the American people will permit him to do so.

The plane upon which his exertions will possibly be made may be justly imagined from the intimate knowledge and implied approval of bribery on a collossal scale which he mentions frankly and carelessly thus:

"I returned from Washington last night. The sub-committee of the R. R. Committee of the House have agreed to report Scott T. and P. Bills through to San Diego, and I am disposed to think the full committee will report it to the House. It can be hoped, but I doubt if it would be worth the cost, as I do not think it can pass the House. Scott, no doubt, will promise all the--say $40,000,000 that the Act would give him." (No, 428. N. Y., Feb. 23, 1878.)

"The T. and P. folks are working hard on their bill. * * * They offered one M. C. one thousand dollars cash down, five thousand when the Bill passed and ten thousand of the bonds when they got them, if he would vote for the Bill." (No. 455. N. Y., May 3, 1878.)

The thought naturally occurs here: If such matter-of-course mention of appalling debauch cry of political honor and morality reflects the character of a conscience and foreshadows the scope of a purpose,--if such were his estimate of Congress, and such his belief then--how much are the Central Pacific magnates disposed to promise now to soon evade and eventually escape payment of, say, $67,000,000 now nearly due to the Government?

"The People Can Never Have an Open Highway."

In 1874, Thomas A. Scott, of Pennsylvania, proposed to build the Texas and Pacific Railway, and to secure subsidies for that purpose from the Southern States, as well as from Congress.

[With the question of subsidies in the abstract, this writing has nothing to do.]

If he succeeded, the Southern Pacific would lose its early clutch on the throat of our commerce, an hundred thousand voters would escape from political bondage--its paralyzing grip would be weakened, if not broken. There was deadly issue at once.

Scott wrote to Huntington Dec. 9, 1874:

"We expect to build our road to San Diego, as already pledged to the public to do so." (No. 416. N. Y., Dec. 10, 1874.)

Later, Huntington wrote to Colton:

"Scott is doing all he can to push his Texas Pacific Road, and his strength all lies in one thing: The Southern Pacific of California is controlled by the Central Pacific and Union Pacific, and will be used only to help those great monopolies, and if we are beat by Scott, it will be because our friends have persisted in helping him to convince the public the above is true, and the people can never have an open highway so long as the Central Pacific controls all the roads that reach out to the Pacific." (No. 267. N. Y., April 3, 1877.)

These Colton letters emphasize Huntington's opinions, and expose his methods during the struggle. Not completely, of course. One must read between the lines occasionally. Something is left to surmise--to the reflection, of Hamlet's Uncle, that

"In the corrupted currents of this world offense's gilded hand may shove by Justice; and oft 'tis seen the wicked prize itself buys out the law."

Continue Reading →

J. Hampton Moore’s How Members of Congress Are Bribed is an open letter, protest, and petition addressed to the United States Congress by a self-described “Citizen of California.” Rather than a work of fiction, it is a polemical exposé that draws heavily on a cache of private correspondence—the Huntington-Colton Letters—to accuse railroad magnate Collis P. Huntington of systematic bribery and political corruption. The text is structured as a series of short chapters with titles such as “The Lobbyist,” “A Search-Light,” and “Nature and Value of Picnics,” each building a case that Huntington’s influence extended from congressional corridors to territorial legislatures. Moore’s tone is indignant and moralistic, framing Huntington as “the spirit incarnate of Monopoly in its most aggressive form.”

The Lobbyist as a Character

Moore opens by defining a lobbyist in sweeping, condemnatory terms: “a persistent intermeddler without proper warrant in Government affairs, an unscrupulous dealer in threats and promises amongst public men.” He then declares that Collis P. Huntington fits this description exactly. The portrait is vivid and unsparing: Huntington is called “a constant menace to sworn servants of the people,” “a tempter of the corrupt,” and “a remorseless enemy to wholesome legislation.” Moore contrasts American tolerance of such figures with the practices of other nations, claiming that “the English Parliament would relegate such an intruder to the street” and that “French Deputies point to his credentials with infinite scorn.” This rhetorical strategy positions Huntington as an international anomaly, a uniquely American problem. The language is deliberately inflammatory, using phrases like “dangerous with their power, perilous with the insolence of their courtesies” to paint Huntington as both a threat and a master of manipulation.

Evidence from the Letters

The core of Moore’s argument rests on excerpts from the Huntington-Colton letters, which he presents as documentary proof of bribery. One letter, dated January 14, 1876, discusses paying a man named Carr $10,000 to $20,000 per year to “control his friends” in Congress, and requests a “written proposition from Carr, in which he would agree to control his friends for a fixed sum.” Another, from September 27, 1875, proposes spending $25,000 to have the Governor of Arizona call the legislature to grant railroad charters. A third letter, from October 29, 1877, quotes the Governor of New Mexico suggesting that a bill could be passed “with very little or no money” if sent to him directly, avoiding a paid agent. Moore uses these quotes to argue that bribery was not occasional but systematic, asking rhetorically: “Why should it cost a specific $200,000 to pass any proper bill through Congress? $25,000 to convene a Territorial Legislature?” The letters are treated as self-evident proof of corruption.

The Role of Indirection and Picnics

Moore acknowledges that bribery was not always direct. In a chapter titled “Nature and Value of Picnics,” he describes how Huntington arranged junkets for members of Congress. One letter mentions working “for the last two month to get a party, of say, 25 Southern members of Congress to go out to California and over the line of the Southern Pacific” at the company’s expense. Moore presents these excursions as a form of influence peddling, where hospitality masked bribery. He also discusses the creation of “boss” rule in California politics, arguing that the railroad monopolists controlled elections through paid bosses who drove voters “in the harness of their various parties to the polls.” The result, he claims, was “glittering heaps of spoils, concentrated in a few hands.” This section shows Moore’s broader critique: that corruption was not limited to Washington but pervaded state and territorial politics.

Readers should approach this text as a primary source document of Progressive-era muckraking, not as a neutral investigation. Moore’s use of the Huntington-Colton letters is selective, and his framing is openly partisan. The work is valuable for its raw, unvarnished depiction of how railroad interests operated in the late 19th century, but it should be read alongside historical accounts that provide context and balance. The excerpts offer a window into the language and tactics of anti-monopoly reform.

I finished that California letter about Huntington last night, and it stayed with me—how quietly power moves when no one’s watching. It reminded me of something older, about how easily a free press gets tangled in those same shadows. There’s a gentleness in tracing it back. Liberty and the news — Reading Companion felt like sitting with that thought longer, without needing to solve it.