The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1873-03-10

then understood. / nave Deen charged
with preYarlcation because ! did not &C
on and state that had Withdrawn years
ago from an incomplete contract to buy
twenty shares, losing what had paid or
account. II hadsupposed that denia
or explanation of an entirely different
charge than that was answering would
be requested Of me- ] should certainly
have done 80, as 1t would have beer
Strengthening instead OF weakening what
l was stating; but that l could not foresee
An eminent divine once said rather jrreV'
erently: "Il mans foresight were only at
good as his hindsight, he would be buI
! little lower than the angels, /" and my rule
in speaking has always been to discuss
and explain pending Issues, and not u
discuss or explain those that were not
pending. But let.us test. this by ah illus
tration, q method which often brings out
q disputed point more vividly than argu'
ment. Suppose any one Of you had been
charged with having been given shares IN
a woolen factory, that from these shares
YOU had received enormous dividends,
and that as a payment for these gifts and
dividends you had aided corruptly In car.
rying through Legislation in regard to the
duties on wool, would you not regard
it as sufficient answer to such charges to
tell the public that you had been all your
life publicly advocating the scale Of duties
alleged to have been carried by corrup--
tion. Besides this, their enactment had
been year before these alleged gifts;
that you had never owned any stock in
wooden factories or anything else that you
had not paid for; that your shares had
never been given you, and that you had
never received any snch dividend. Now,
fyou had voluntarily withdrawn, as l
had, at a pecuniarY loss, over four years
before, from an agreement 10 buy spch
stock in a woolen factory, you would re-
gard what I have supposed as sutt
cient refutation Of charge that you had
been bribed by gifts, stock and enormous
dividends, but If you added to all this the
frank statement that you had said you
would be willing to buy tins very factory
stock at psr, and to hold 1t itltwould not
involve you IN litigation, would you not
think that your answer would be a full
and thorough one on every practical
point that tho wanton calnmny required
you to stateG No one could have been mis-.
led BY my speech on the vital point, that
though no such stock was ever given to
me, [ publicly avoRed my willingness 10
bear all reproach that could attach
to au investment Of my money in
1t at par, as l then understood il;
but do not intend to rest the
argument on this point here. l call my
enemies as my witnesses. The New
York Tribune published the telegraphic
extract Of this speech with headings show
ing it fully understood that my denial was
to the charge Of having had the stock
given to me. He never owned share
In the Credit Mobilier that he did moi pay
for. 1t was eminently fitting that this
same paper should'on January Gath print
literally a quotation from the speech with
the essential word "give" lett out, and
then basely repeated the charges dl my
uptruthfulness in the quotation 1t llGi
thus altered and falsifed. Mr.. CoIHX
here exhibited the paper) The Chicago
Tribune also, which has almost daily us
sailed me the past winter for alleged pre-
yaricstion in the speech, did not mIsun'
derstand it at the time. II declared eii'
torialy on September27th, in com neniing
on nv speech "Mr. ColGax claims the
right 10 purchase whatever stock he thinks
proper, even offered him at par and when
The accrued dividends are more than
equal to its par value" And September
2Sth, the next day, it said again, and l
quote its insinuation also, although my
payment of $534 disposes Of that part ol
it "Mr. CollaX claims that he had tue
right to purchase the stock OF the Credit
Mobilier or any other company. Ames
got this stock put in his hands thnt he
might sell II at par and pay the par vnlre
OF It out OF Its then accrued dividends,
which was in fact making present OF It.
According 10 Mr.. Colfax, receiving Credit
Mobilier stock at par with accrued divi'
deuds equal to its price, would be u
STRAIGHT out purchase. When testified
on the 7th OF January, after the holiday
recess, during which recess hon. OaEes
Ames said he refreshed his memory BY his
memorandum at home, / declared en-
phatically, as I did here last September,
that | had never received dollar from
him for dividends, nor indeed on any &C
count whatever He was present in the
committee room and did not deny this,
nor dissent from 1t, though asked him TO
cross examine me on that phint. That
yery afternoon he told Mr. Crounse, OF
the New York 1imcS, he swore to it alter
wards before the committee, that my state
ment was probably correct On Decem-
Der 18th, in his carefully prepared and
written out original testimony he swore
about me on page 90 Of tho report as fol-
lows: Nor can remember having paid
him any dividends and Mr.. Alley. His
associates were before the committee.
tSee page "a OF the report) That before
tbe HOLIDAYS Hlr. Ames tOlG him that l
was substantially correct in my statement
as to the transaction. In spite, however,
of the original testimony OF his, which
he declared embodied the exact fact, and
bis expressing his concurrence with my
statement Of Alley course, and listening
without dissent to my testimony OF Jan.
9TH, He came before the committee on
January 22d with check for $l,2OO pay'
able to"S G, or bearer, whichhe Claims
he paid to me June 20, 1868; but which
being payable to no ones name required
no endorsement, and could as well be
cashed BY Mr. A. or Mr.. B. or Mr.. 2 or
Mr.. O., or any one else, Never having
seen any check Of his In my life till ! saw
this one in tho committee room, ! asked
him II my name was endorsed on 1t and
he answered no; asking him II he remem'
bered where was when he handed II 10
me, he answered no; asking him II he re-
membered what be said when he paid 1t
TO me, he answered no; asking him II he
could not remember what said when so
large a check was handed me, he again
answered no; asking him il he had any
recent for It, he answered no. asking him
| II he ever gave me certificate for the
stock which he insisted still owned, ho