mind that the eight persons concerned in and signing this contract and assignment, were all directors of the Union Pacific railroad company; that four of them were the executive committee; that one of them was the contractor, and all of them stockholders in the Credit Mobilier, probably at that time constituting that entire corporation; and that seven of them were trustees for some persons, company, or corporation, or what appears still more probable, for themselves, and Oakes Ames, the contractor, and we can account for the wholesale robbery of the people, perpetrated by these eight men with the aid of congress, as above shown. But how the five non-stockholding directors, appointed by the president, who are presumed to act for the government and its interest, could have been ignorant of the whole matter, is not so easily understood. The act of congress of July 2, 1864, section 13, provides: "That at least one of said government directors shall be placed on each of the standing committees of said company, and at least one on every special committee that may be appointed. The government directors SHALL from time to time report to the secretary of the interior, in answer to inquiries he may make of them touching the condition, management, and progress of the work, and shall communicate to the secretary of the interior, at the same time, such information as should be in the possession of the department. They shall, as often as may be necessary for a full knowledge of the condition and management of the line, visit all portions of the line of road, whether built or surveyed, and while absent from home, attending to their duties as directors, shall be paid their actual traveling expenses, and be allowed and paid such reasonable compensation for their time actually employed as the board of directors may decide." If these government directors and the company observed the law, then one of them was on the executive committee of the Union Pacific company and must have known of this fraudulent contract and its assignment. If no one of them was placed on the executive committee, then in the discharge of their duty they should have reported the facts to the secretary of the interior. One of two inferences is irresistible. 1st. That they were ignorant of what it was their duty to know, or 2nd. That they were unfaithful to the public trust confided in them.