In one case where the salary to be paid a certain individual was under consideration, Huntington wrote Colton frankly that it was important that the man’s friends in Washington should be on the railroad’s side, and that if this could be brought about a salary of $10,000 to $20,000 a year would be worth while. Huntington wanted the man to make a proposition in writing, however, that he would control his friends for a fixed sum.[319] When asked about the meaning of his correspondence, Huntington denied that these expressions had any vicious significance. He said he kept on high ground,[320] and even objected to the free use of liquor and cigars.[321] Specifically, he gave instructions to his people never to use money in any immoral or illegal sense. “Buying votes in a legislature was bad policy,” said he, and his position in these matters received the formal support of Stanford. But such assertions are entitled to less weight than Huntington’s less guarded phrases. Heavy General and Legal Expenses There is no question that the control exercised by the Central Pacific management over the legal and miscellaneous expenses of the company was informal to the last degree. Huntington had a great deal of money to spend and he turned it over to trusted agents without too many questions. He would pay $5,000 or $10,000 at a time to General Franchot, for instance, without inquiring where it went or how it was paid.[322] Checks were made out in all cases to I. E. Gates, Mr. Huntington’s assistant in New York, and were indorsed by him either to payee or in blank.[323] Vouchers covering such items were made out simply to “Expense,” or to “Legal expense.”[324] In many cases expenditures authorized by Stanford, Crocker, or Huntington were represented by no vouchers at all,[325] the filing of vouchers being subsequently waived at stockholders’ meetings. All in all, the general and legal expenses of the Central Pacific between the years 1875 and 1885 averaged over $500,000 annually. The only reply to the government inquiry as to what this money had been paid out for was Stanford’s statement already quoted that vouchers to which there were objections would not be included in any settlement with the United States, but that the moneys would be treated as still in the treasury.[326] This was plainly an evasion of the point at issue. Company in Politics