Wyandot County Republican. [volume] (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1869-1903, 1873-03-20

r1cQ couple can DC udppN WleAOub having
one of these bedsteads. Laughter.
want to tell you that have got no divi-
dends on that stock, but If get every young |
married couple to buy bedstead OF the |
Knoblock Furniture Company will make |
large dividends very soon. Laughter and
applause.]
The gentleman from the Chicago Times |
says that Mr.. Birdsell got patent extended
through my influence with the Patent Office, |
and that have become partner in 1t. l
don't knew whether Mr.. Birdsen got an ex-
tension of his patent or not; but this 1 do
know, that he would not apply to me for
anything of that kind, for he has forgotten
more about the patents and the extension of
patents than I ever knew. Laughter The
last thing Mr.. Birdsell would do would be
to get me to get bis patent extended. If
there is one thing in this werld that do not
the Patent Office, and have nothing to do
with it. But the Birdsell Company did say
to me that, as I was coming back to live in
South Bend, they would like me to take
some stock in that Company, and l am
stockholder in that company and am not
ashamed of it.
am stockholder in the Union Chair
Company, and If every married couple
wants to be happy, they will buy their chairs
from the Union Chair Company. Laughter
and applause
1 mercy bring this forward to show you
the inexpressible littleness of all these
things. l ask you If 1t Is not the very refine
meRt and quintessence of littlenessg ask
the man himself if it Is MOTTO come down
/ here to my own town, in whose prosperity /
have always felt the liveliest interest, and
do this thing? mo response from the Times
correspondent I have never received
farthing of interest upon my investments
here. Is it not inexpressibly little to bring
cannot make a point against Colfax
LAUGHTER, applause and cries of eyes! yes!
It is."1
When get dividends from these compan-
les, as we shall get soon-and as expect to
get dividends from the clover huller as well
as the chairs laughter II will invest them
right here at home in this town of which we
are all SO proud. [Applause.
Now, if you had voluntarily withdrawn,
as had, at a pecuniary loss over four years
before from an agreement to buy such stock
in woolen factory, you would regard what
I have supposed as sufficient refutation of
charge that you had been bribed by gifts
of stock and enormous dividends, but if you
added to all this the frank statement mat
you had said you would be willing to buy
this very factory stock at par, and to hold it
if it would not involve you in litigation,
would you not think that your answer would
be full and thorough on every practical point
that the wanton calumny required you to
state? No one could have been misled by
my speech on the vital point; though no
such stock was ever given to me, 1 publicly
avowed nay willingness to bear all the re-
proach that could attach to an investment
of my money at par, as l then understood
it.
But do not intend to rest the argument
on this point. Here call nv enemies as my
witnesses. The New YORK Tribune of Sep
tember 26 published the telegraphic extract
of this speech, with the following heading,
showing that it fully understood my denial
was to the charge of having had the stock
m a
the Credit Mobilier that he did not pay for"
1t was eminently proper and fitting that this
same paper should, on January "a, print lit
orally quotation from the speech with the
essential word "give' left out, and then
| basely repeat charges of my untruthfulness
on the quotation it had thus altered and
| falsified.
Mr. Colfax here exhibited the paper
The Chicago Tribune, also, which has
almoss daily assailed me the past winter for
| alleged prevarication in the speech, did not
misunderstood it at the time. 1t declared
editorially, September 81, in commenting on
my speech:
''Mr. Colfax claims the right to purchase what
ever stock he thinks proper, even when offered him
| at par, and when the accrued dividends more
than equal to its par value
And September %, the next day, it said
(again quote its insinuation also, although
my payment of the 1884 disproves that part
| of it) as fellows:
s'Mr. Colfax claims that he had the right to pur-
chase the stock of the Credit-Mobiler any other
company. Ames got this stock put in his hands
that he might sell it at par and pay the par value of
it out of its then accrued dividends, which was, in
| fact, making present of it. According to Mr..
ColfaX, receiving Credit-Mobilier stock at par,
with accrued dividends equal to its price, would be
| straight-out purchase."
When testified on the 7th of January,
| after the holiday recess, during which recess
Hon. Mr.. Ames said he had refreshed his
memory, by his memorandum at home,
declared emphatically as 1 did here last
September, that had never received dol
lar from him for dividends, nor indeed on
| any account whatever. He was present in
| the committee room and did not deny this
| cross-eXamine me. On that verv afternoon
| he told Mr.. Crounse, of the New York Times,
| who swore to it afterward before the com
| mittee, that my statement was probably cor
| rect. On December IT, in his carefully pre-
pared and written-out original testimony, he
swore about me on page 20 of the report as
| follows: Nor can remember having paid
him any dividends," and Mr.. Alley, his asso.
| ciate, swore before the committee (see page
311 of the report), that before the holidays
Mr.. Ames told him that 1 was substantially
| correct in my statement as to the transac-
ton. In spite, however, of the original tes.
| timony of his which he declared embodied
the exact fact, and his expressing his con-
currence with my statement to Alley and
! Crounse, and listening without dissent to
| lily GcSblLuOuy vi JduudTy CdIu6 D6lOTe
the committee on January % with a check
for 81 200, payable to SO. G. or bearer,
which he claims he paid to me June 20, 1868
but which being payable to no ones name
required no Endorsement, and could as wei
be cashed by Mr.. "a" or Mr.. "B." or Mr.
, ''Z." or by Mr.. &C." or any one else. Neve
having seen any check of his in my life til
I saw this one in the committe
room, I asked him if my nam
; was indorsed on it, and he answers
"No;" asking him if he remembered wher
1 was when he handed it to me. he answers
''No;" asking him if he remembered what h
said when he paid it to me, he answers
''No;" asking him if he could not remembe
what said when SO large check was hand
ed me, he again answered ''No;" asking hiI
: if he had any receipt for it, he answere
t s'No;" asking him if he ever gave me a cel
e tiicate for the stock which he insisted sti
4 owned, he answered "No." Astounded q
: this attempt on check payable to initial
r and not to my name, not indorsed by mt
!: and for which no receipt could be produced
y to destroy my testimony, I Immediately ha
o the Sergeant farms, on whom it wa
I drawn, summoned, with his cashier an
y bookkeeper, to testify as to whether the
r r had ever paid me the money for any sue
r check, and they all answered that they ha
y no recollection of having done SO. But sui
e sequently Mr.. Dillon, the Cashier of tn
It Sergeant-at-Arms, testified that, while b
: could not swear with positive certainty afte
e the lapse of years, yet his very strong in
y preston was that he had paid this very 's
It c." check to Ames himself (see page AT {
a the report), and that when he had aske
!. Ames only thirty hours before if he had no
I done it Ames had replied that it was yer
likely (see page 4S1 of the report). Inregar
+ to one portion of the checks from Anne
4 drawn for this June dividend there is no COZ
. troversy. Four of them had the names
o full of Logan and Allison (both of whom r,
!. turned their dividends to him), Patterso
7 and James Wilson. Four of them, however
4 for this very same June dividend, wer
n made out payable to initials, namel,
e "s: c." 81. 200; another "S. CO. fe
y 5000; which he says was intended fe
: Scofeld; "W. D. K.," $329 elaine
!. by him to be for Kelley; one SO. A." 49,
i said by him to be for Garfield; but KELLEY
r Garfield and l have declared that neither
K US ever saw these initial checks Scofiel
;. says he may have received the money an
4 settled it afterward, but he does not remen
Der any such dividend. Kelley and CARTEL
,. are positive they never saw the checks, br
. that Ames loaned each of them $500 abor