Litchfield enquirer., 1873-02-20
CONCLUDED NEXT WEEK. l
MT. CoIfax.

We should like gladly to accept the statement of MT. Colfax in respect to the $1 200. His story is corroborated by two witnesses, of his own family to be sure but their testimony might be put against that of Oakes Ames, whose memory is evidently confused in the multiplicity of his transactions, and his very loose man. her of bookkeeping is not favorable to clearing up matters if it were not for the "S. O." memorandum.
 But 1t is singular that Mr. Colfax could not, or did not recall this remarkable re- ceipt of a $1,0O0 bill, when he was first on the stand, when he said that he was so poor that $1 200 could not have been added to his income without his rec ollecing it. Now this $1. 900 was clear addition to his income, though he did spend it for political purposes, since he was called upon as a candidate, for money, and would have forwarded some to Indi- ana out of his own pocket, if this had not fortunately come to him. Does Mir. Col fax mean to say that when he was on the stand before he had forgotten about the receipt of this $1, ,000 bill? -...'. ..'..A
 If we, however, put this $1 200 one side, there are the other amounts of this fa- nous deposit which need explanation, in order to free MT. Colfax from the charge of receiving any dividends of the Credit MAobiiier. There are other queer coinci- dences to be explained. For instance, the exact amount of the deposit. was $1, ,968.83. If Mir. Colfax had owned twenty shares of the Credit Mobilier stock in 1868, he would have been entitled to a 60 per cent. dividend, or $1 200, and also 40 per cent. dividend in Union Pacific stock, which at par would have been $500. The value of the stock at that time was 99 and, allowing ? per cent. commission for its sale, the amount received would have been $767.82, which added to the $1, 200 makes $1 .968.82 Truly wonder full coincidence
 The evidence of MT. Ames and the tes- tlmony of his memorandum book points irresistably to the fact that Mir. Colfax did have dealings with him in Credit Mo- bilier stock that whether he ever had it Tn his own name or not, he did take divi- dends on it. Now, as this $1, 200 is ex- plained, the crime of perjury falls to the ground, but is Mir. Collar clear of intent to deceive the people of the United States
 We certainly understood, and all the country understood, MT. Colfax's speech at South Bend to be a sweeping and un- conditional denial of any complicity with Unc SISuII MODlll0f. It cleared the CQaf- acter of MT. Colfax in the public mind It seems to us that there can be no doubt 1t was intended to do that. He now says that we must lay emphasis on the word gave ;" MT. Ames never g0Ve him any stock. This 8 mere quibble. If he let him have sock at par which was worth a good deal more than par, if he let him take the dividends of thls stock without transferring 1t, so that no one could come upon him as an owner, that was about as good as 8 gift. If MT. Colfax had told the, truth-suppressing nothing, in his speech at Great Bend last summer, the case against him would be simply this: Is 1t proper for the presiding officer of the Senate to own stock in q corporation which receives direct aid from the govern ment; is 1t proper for him to own stock in company formed expressly to take the profits ot thls corporation and escape the responsibilities If it is, then does it look like an honorable transaction for him to conceal the fact that he is interested in this company, to take dividends from it, and to let the stock stand in another name so that he can disclaim it? If this is all right, is he justified, in public speech. in conveying the impres ion to the country that he has nothing whatever to do with this corporation or this company? -COtrGnt.