The true northerner., 1873-03-14
Mr.. COlfay's Case.

Colfax's case. The House Committee
on the Judiciary has reported that it has
no jurisdiction over ofienses alleged TO
have been committed before the official
accused came into office, and the matter
has been postponed till tomorrow We
regret that the Judiciary Committee
found it necessary to dismiss the ease ON
s'ich narrow grounds. If Mr.. Ben But-
Ter had not been 50 anxious to pick II
flaw in the report of the Poland commit
tee, in behalf of his alleged client, Mr..
Oakes Ames the report might have been
more conclusive. However, il is settled
now that Mr.. ColfaX is to return to pri-
vate life, after having submitted 10 Il
tedious and complicated investigation,
without the Judgment of any competent
tribunal upon the evidence thus elected.
We believe this TO be Il great misfortune,
and, III certain sense, a great wrong To
the Nice-President and we propose
now TO state the principal facts III 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, ,,
with testitying 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 he
cause it was liable to bias their official
actions, and because the company made
its profits by substantial fraud upon
the Government Mr.. Colfax may not
have known the facts on which this
opinion is based. He ought to shave
known them, however, and his failure to
do SO is not creditable TO him.
The second charge is not proved. 1t
is based on several specifications. 1t is
alleged that Mr. Colfax suppressed the
truth. with intent to deceive, in his
speech at South Bend on the 2jth Of
September last. The speech does not
sustain the allegation. He had been
charged with receiving Credit Mobilier
stock as gift, and with accepting large
dividends on it. Those accusations he
denied, but hc claimed the right to have
purchased il if ne chose said that the
stock at par would have been good IN
vestment, and alluded indirectly to the
" lawsuit on top of it. lie next APP
peared before the Poland committee at
Washington, and his statements there
have been contradicted in most particu-
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 1000, with inter
est from july ;. Both agree that the
following March sum of S53i. - 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 So to the
end. Mr. Amcs says that when this
money was paid he rendered statement
showing that the stock had earned divi-
dends enough up to that time to pay for
itself within that amount, and that the
1914 70 was the final payment ON the
stock and completed Mr.. Colfax's owner
ship iii it, Mr.. Colfax. on the contrary,
says that he regarded this as the first
installment of payment for the 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
1865 he learned from Mr.. Ames that the
Credit Mobilier Company was involved
in litigation, and therefore desired 10
Withdraw from the agreement To take the
stock, saying nothing of the $500. This
Mr.. Ames partly admits at one time, and
denies at another. Subsequently Mr..
Colfax stated TO Mr.. Ames. in conse-
quence of that gentleman'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 81 200,
and subsequently the interest on some
bonds, received as dividend, to the
amount of $50. -. If Mr.. Colfax had
received these dividends in 1865, he could
not have offered to surrender the $500 TO
Ames, for Ames would not have owed it,
If Ames did not owe it, he could not have
received such II statement from Colfax
Yet, on the DIST of January, Mr.. Ames
was asked by the Chairman:
90. What do You say in reference to that
statement about his making present 10 You
OF 800. saying that he might keep the $500 he
paid YOU; y He made some remark of that
sort to me.
Mr.. Colfax's statement is sustained
by that of Il member of his family, who /.
testities that Mr.. Colfax mentioned his /.
of $500 To Mr. Ames III his I
family circle.
The next point of dispute is the pay
ment of the 81, 200 dividend, alleged by |
Ames and denied by Colfax. Ames' tes- |
timony is supported 10y the production .
of the check on the Sergeant at Arms, /
made payable to "S c., 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 Jan. % that he
deliberately sworc to falsehood in tes-
tifying that he could not remember pay
ing dividend 10 Mr. Colfax, though mt
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
in payment of debt. One
thousand dollars from Mr. Nesbitt, of
New York, as IA contribution to election
expenses. This statement Is variously