The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-09-28
The .BrIbed Congressmen.

The Grant organs are In q terrible stew
over the developments in regard to the
bribery Of their leaders in Congress by the
schemers OF the Credit Mobilier. The cards
and explanations that have been given TO
the public do not dissipate the suspicion
which the first publication created; and it
is certain that nothing con dispel that sus-
plcion except a full, frank aud complete ex-
posure9 OF the whole business. The card
from Speaker Blaine, and the public denials
made and authorized to be made by Senator
Wilson and Messrs. Dawes and Garfield,
may be literally true as far as they go, but
they evidently leave something untold and
undenied. The letter OF Hon. Cakes Ames
has the marks ola deliberate and studied
falsehood, and a portion OF the press OF his
own State do not hesitate to denounce him
as a falslier. Mr.. Ames says:
sAll the executive officers of the company
and several of Its largest stockholders, In
Guiding myself, have answered in said suit
long since, under oath, that the charges were
entirely false, that not a single share of the
stock of that company was ever given to any
member Of Congress, directly or indirectly, by
me or any one else, to my knowledge. now
relterate and reafirm the statement, with the
further declaration that I never gave a share
of stock of that or any other { ..hpany, direct
ly or Indirectly, to any member of Congress-
This statement is certainly false In spirit,
even il its allegations we're literally cor.
rect. Mr.. Ames has, indeed, made an answer
in the suit OF McCombs against the Credit
Mobilier; but that answer was held to be
not sufficient, and all the efforts Of the court
to bring him In person before it to answer
questions have been u~navailing. For some
special reasons that Mr.. Ames could tell II
he would, he avoids confronting the court
and submitting to an examination. Such
an examination would make the whole mat
ter clear; but that seems to be the very
thing he does not want done, and therefore
he refuses to come within the reach OF q
bench warrant issued by the Pennsylvania
Court. He would there meet McC0mbs
face to face, and have an opportunity OF
proving him guilty Of SANDER, II he could;
but, strange to say, instead OF availlng him
self of this opportunity, he carefully avoids
it. Mr.. Ames's assertion that he ''never
.tgaye a share of stock OF that or any other
company, directly or indirectly, to any
.member OF Congress-" is believed to be a
mere play upon words. He may never have
giuen the stock to members OF Congress,
and yet sold it to them at one-fourth it's
market value. The stock was paying enor-
nous dividends, and one OF these dividends
may have been held back to pay for the
stock transferred to q member OF Congress
or some one else, 30 as to divest the transfer
OF the attributes Of a gift, and give 1t the
nominal character of a sale. Mr.. Ames's
card does not say that something like this
was not done. Concerning the list Of names
with shares Of stock annexed, which 30
startled the public, Mr.. Ames says
sand the last list of names given by
McCombs, as Endorsed on my letter and pub
lished, were written by himself, as he stated,
when under oath In the hearing in Pennsylva-
mia. He had no authority from me for making
any such statement"
This is not true. The list OF given
by McCombs "were written by HIMSELF"
but Mr.. Ames read them of from o book as
McCombs copied them, as the plaintiff in the
suit declares under oath before the court.
The list, therefore, came from Ames, and he
is responsible for the imputation which it
contains. McCombs did nothing more than
yield it up to the court in compliance With
an order which he could not dfsobey. This
list ascribes certain shares or amounts OF