The Andrew County Republican. [volume] (Savannah, Mo.) 1871-1876, 1873-03-21
Mr.. COlfax's Case.

accused came into. office, and the matter
has been postponed till tomorrow. We
regret that the Judiciary Committee
found it necessary to dismiss the case on
such narrow grounds. If Mr.. Ben But
Ter had not been so anxious to pick a
flaw i'll the report of the Poland commit
tee, in behalf of his alleged client, Mr..
Oakes Ames, the report might have been
more conclusive. However, it is settled
now that Mr.. Colfax is to return to pri-
vate life, after having submitted to
tedious and complicated investigation,
without the judgment Of any competent
tribunal upon the evidence thus elected
We believe this to be a great misfortune,
and, in certain sense, a great wrong to
the Vice-President; and we propose
now to. state the principal facts in his
case, as they were developed before the
Poland committee, that the public may
form candid opinion with reference to
them.
Mr.. Colfax is charged, /, with agree
ing to buy an improper stock, and, 2,
with testifying falsely with reference to
the purchase. The first charge we be-
lieve to be well founded. He did agree
to buy the stock, and it was an improper
one for Congressman to hold-both be-
cause it was liable to bias their official
actions, and because the company made
its profits by substantial frauds upon
the Government. Mr.. Colfax may not
have known the facts ON which this
opinion is based. He ought to have
known them, however, and his failure to
do SO is not creditable to him.
The second charge is not proved It
is based on several specifications. 1t is
alleged that Mr.. Coifax suppressed the
truth, with intent to deceive, in his
speech at South Bend on the 25th of
September last. The speech does not
sustain the allegation. He had been
charged with receiving Credit Mobilier
stock rs gift, and with accepting large
dividends on it. These accusations he
denied, hut he claimed the right to have
purchased it if he chose; said that the
stock at par would have been good in
vestment, and alluded indirectly to the
lawsuit on top of it." He next ap-
Feared before the Poland committee ut
Washington, and his statements there
have been contradicted in most particri-
lars by Oakes Ames. Both agree that in
the session of 1867 Mr. Colfax agreed to
purchase of Mr.. Ames twenty shares of
stock of par value Of 1900, with inter-
est from July >. Both agree that the
following March sum of 1874. - was
delivered by Mr.. Colfax to Mr.. Ames
toward payment for the stock. At this
point the two men begin to contradict
each other, and continue to do 81 to the
end. Mr.. Ames SAYS that when this
ANIL Ia. ran.1,r.I tnt.
showing that the stock had earned divi-
dends enough up To that time to pay for
itself within that amount, and that the
1884, 10 WAS the final payment on the
stock and completed Mr. Colfax's owner
ship in it. Mr. Colfax. on the contrary,
says that he regarded this as the first
installment of payment for tn. stock,
being twenty-five per cent. Of the prin-
cipal and accrued interest. There are
no material circumstances to sustain
either side
Mr.. Colfax says that in the summer Of
1868 he learned from Mr. Amcs that the
Credit Mobilicr Company WAS involved
i'll litigation, and therefore desired to
withdraw from the agreement to take the
stock, saying nothing of the 500. This
Mr.. Amcs partly admits ut one time, and
denies at another. Subsequently Mr..
Colfax stated to Mr.. Amcs, in conse-
quence of that gentlcman's financial en-
barrassments, which he regretted, the
sum paid might be dismissed from his
mind. This is an important point in the
case. Mr.. Ames swears that, in 1868,
he paid Mr.. Colfax dividend of 81 300,
and subsequently the interest on some
bonds, reGtard as dividend, to the
amount Of ar9.75. II Mr.. Coifax had
received thcse dividends in 1868, he cpuld
not have Offered to surrender the 500 to
Ames, for Anles would not have owed it.
IL Amcs did rot owe it, he could not have !
received such statement from Colfax. |
Yet, on the 2lst of January, Mr.. Ames
was asked by the Chairman:
%. What do you say III reference to that
statement about hia making present to you |
of $500, saying that he might keep the $500 he
paid you: A. lie made some remark of that
sort to me-.
Mr.. Colfax's statement is sustained
by that of member of his family, who
testifics that Mr.. Colfax mentioned his
surrender of 500 to Mr.. Ames in his |
family circle.
The next point of dispute is the pay
ment of the 81, 200 dividend, alleged by
Ames and denied by Colfax. Ames' tcs- |
timony is supported by the production
of the check ON the Sergeant at Arms,
made payable to IS. G., or bearer" and
by the fact that two days after its date
Mr.. Colfax deposited in bank, with GER
tain checks, currency to the exact amount
of the check-Sl, 200. TO meet this Mr..
Colfax has two lines of defense. One is
that Mr.. Ames is not credible witness,
he having declared on Ian. % that he !
deliberately swore to falsehood in tes-
tifying that he could not remember pay
ing dividend to Mr.. Colfax, though at
the time he knew he had paid one of |
81 200. The SECOND defense is that the
81 200 deposited in bank on the 22d of |
June were received from other sources. |
Two hundred dollars came from his
father-in-hw, in payment of debt One
thousand dollars from Mr.. Nesbitt, of |
New York, rs contribution to election |
expenses. This statement is variously |
confirmed first, by the testimony of the |
father-in-law to the payment of the 800 |
by him second, by the production of n |
draft for 81 900 purchased of the bank
on the day of the deposit, and sent to the |
Chairman of the State Committee of In
diana third, by the testimony of Mr..
Colfax's father-in-law and of Mr.. Col
fax's half-sister to the receipt of the re-
mittance from Nesbitt and fourth, by a
letter from sister in Iowa, testifying
that Mrs. Colfax had written to her CON !
cerning 81, 900 bill sent to her son.
Against Mr.. Colfax's statement it is
alleged that it cannot be affirmatively
proved. That is so. The statement NAV