1876.] OF THE SENATE. 927

The resolutions directed your Committee to make the fol-
lowing specific inquiries:

First. * * * Whether the said subscription by the
Treasurer of the State of Maryland to the capital stock of
the Southern Maryland Railroad Company, was induced to
be made by false and fraudulent representations.

Second. Whether the said sum of one hundred and sixty-
three thousand dollars, or any part thereof, was induced to
be paid by the Treasurer of the State of Maryland, to said
Southern Maryland Railroad Company, by false and fraudu-
lent representations.

Third. What disposition has been made by said South-
ern Maryland Railroad Company, or any officer thereof, of
said sum of one hundred and sixty-three thousand dollars.

Fourth. Whether any other stockholder than the State of
Maryland is a bona fide stockholder of said Company, and

what is the best course for this State to pursue in connection
with its interest in said Company.

Although these resolutions were passed as early as Jan-
uary 25th, 1876, the Committee has only examined four wit-
nesses, viz : A. C. Tennison and A. A. Lawrence, formerly
County Commissioners of St. Mary's county, and Samuel S.
Smoot, President, and Hamilton G. Fant, formerly, Treas-
urer of the Southern Maryland Railroad Company.

A list of witnesses (copy hereto annexed, marked A,) who,
in the opinion of the undersigned, could have given most im-
portant testimony, was laid before the Committee, who de-
clined to summon most of them, and the Committee resolved
to discontinue the investigation against the protest of the un-
dersigned. The Committee failed to procure the attendance
of the Comptroller of the Treasury, or of the late Treasurer
of the State, the officers entrusted by the law of 1868 with
the subscription to the stock of the Company and the pay-
ment of the money to the same, and only examined in rela-
tion to the charges against the officers of the Company, those

very officers themselves.

In view of these facts the undersigned are constrained to
report that, in their candid judgment, the thorough investi-.
gation contemplated by the resolutions, and demanded by the
people of the State, has not been had.

The undersigned, however, from the meagre testimony ta-
ken before the Committee, have arrived at the following con-
clusions :

The General Assembly of Maryland at its Session of 1868,
passed an Act (chap. 454) appropriating the sum of five hun-
dred thousand dollars for works of internal improvement in