Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1873-01-08
The Congressman who Did and
who Did Not Receive Stock
or Bonds.
4 Most Disgraeeful Exhibitor
ruptiOn upon Corruption
Ames Disgraced.
COlfax Takes Care of Himself, and
Knows Nothing Of Any
body Else.
Alley as a Whitewasher- They
are All Honorable Men
Good Men.

WASHINGTON, January 6.-The fol-
/ lowing is the additional testimony given
/ by Oakes Ames to the Credit Mobilier
/ Investigation Committee in the Nc
! Comb examination:
Question-Did you understand that
other stock was given TO other persons,
/ excepting those named in your memo
randum?
Answer think he (Ames) claimed
! that Brooks, a member of Congress, got
/ what was appOrtiOned TO him out of this
amount. Brooks is the only member of
Congress who is known tOhave received
any of this stock without fair consider
alton.
Q.-Are you speaking of stock OBJ
| tanned for him by Ames?
! A portion of the thirty-twO shares
came from him.
Q.-Was this stock put into his hands?
Al do not know; l think the stock
/ Mr.. Brooks received was given by Al
/ ley's direction, and not by that of
Ames. All know in regard to Brooks
/ receiving any of the stock is this: / saw
/ Brooks and Alley together several
times, and heard Brooks pressing Alley
10 let him have fifty shares of Credit
| MObilier stock. / heard him say to AL
! ley that if he would accord him that
privilege (give him stock he would
take care of the Democratic side Of the
House. Brooks was all that time either
Government Director, or said he would
have himself made Government Direct
or Of the Union Pacific railroad. /
overheard such, a conversation between
Brooks and Alley. Alley finally consent
ed to give him fifty shares of that stock.
II was transferred to Brooks or his SON
in-law, Wilson. ] don't know precise
ly when the transfer was made. Alley
gave his pledge that Brooks should
have the stock.
Witness testified that he received
from Colfax the par value of twenty
shares, although the stock was never
transferred to him. Ii was the impress
sion of witness that Colfax received the
dividends of this stock, but he could not
recOllect whether or not he paid them TO
COlfaX. He is now the owner of twenty
shares, and is entitled to dividends on
them.
In December, 1867, witness sold Viii
son twenty shares for two thousand
dollars as an investment for Wilson, but
some months afterward the money was
returned, as Wilson did not think the
investment a good one.
Mr.. Patterson bought thirty shares,
which by his direction We're transferred
to the New York Banking House for
him.
Witness agreed that the transaction
with Blaine was substantially as Blaine
stated it.
Witness did not know whether Dawes
received any dividend on the stock on
which ne invested one thousand dollars,
but which was never transferred to him.
Dawes was on his own request received
back, one thousand dollars from wit
ness, with ten per cent. n.erest guar
anteed thereon, sometime after he had
given it to witness to invest, but how
long afterward witness could not say.
Bingham bought twenty shares from
witness at par, and in 1870 witness took
the stock off his hands at its market
value. In the meantime Bingham re-
ceived whatever dividends were de-
clared upon il. Witness bought Bing-
hams dividends, consisting of Union
Pacific stock, at nineteen per cent. pre-
MUM. Garfield never took any stock,
and witness thinks he never received
any dividends.
Garfield once received three or four
hundred dollars from witness, which
Garfield says ne considered a loan.
Witness so considered it; does not re-
collect of paying him any dividend.
In regard to Boutwell, and Kelly,
neither received any stock or dividends
from witness. Witness advised Kelly
to take stock, but he did not
SchOfield paid witness par value for
ten shares, but afterward became dissat-
isfied and witness took it back. Witness
thought SchOfield received dividends
during the time he had and retained
them.
Fowler never received stock.
Wilson and Allison received ten
shares.
Senator Conkling was never owner Of
any stock. There were never any negO-
tiations between him and witness. Wit
ne,s identified letter to McComb con-
cerning the assignment of stock. Stock
was given witness to distribute as ne
saw fit. His plan was to sell stock, and
not give it, but lac had not 50 pleased.
McCOmb wrote TO witness, asking that
his friends should have stock.
@. Did any member of Congress ever
receive any shares from you except Icy
paying for them?
A. No, sir, never.
In the course Of further examination
in regsrd to the list in McCOmb's letter
witness briefly recapitulsted that Patter-
son New Hampshire) had thirty shares,
Painter, reporter for the Inquirer, thirty
shares, Dawes Massachusetts ten
shares. He never had any purpose Of
exercising any influence over these men
in this or any other way. These per-
sons were friends of the road. Witness
had no intention of influencing these
parties in Congress. He did not want
any legislation at that time. Witness
could not specify any one who spoke
for stock, there were so many Of them.
He thinks Patterson, Dawes. kSchofield,
Bingham, Wilson and COlfaX applied.
They applied when they heard it would
be a good investment. This terminated
the cross-examinatiOn.
The following IS an abstract Of the tes-
timOny given by Oakes Ames at the
meeting of the committee on the seven
teenth Of December. Ames testified to
the correctness Of his previous testi-
mOny, as reduced to writing. In an
swer to questions by the Chairman, he
gave further testimony, as follows:
The Credit MObilier is still in existence
as a corporation, with Sidney Dillon as
President, and Benjamin Ham as Secre-
tary; but the forty-five million contract,
as II was called, was not guaranteed by
the Credit Mohilier. He thought that
the company had nothing to do with the
building of the railroad after his con-
tract. He could not give the dates of
the various transactions between him
and several members of Congress, in re-
gard to their becoming owners of Credit
MObilier stock. He could neverremem-
Der the dates when the stock of the
Credit Mobilier Company was increased
from two and half millions to three
and three-quarter millions. The increase
was not dividend. The shareholders
were entitled 70 take increase only when
they made pro rata payments. Ames
took his pro rata share Of the additional
stock, but had to dispose Of it, as he did
not think il was the object TO keep it.
John b. Alley testified that be never
had any conversation with Brooks rela-
tive to shares; never gave or sold shares
of the stock Of Credit Mobilier to Brooks
or any member; the statement of Nc
Comb is false. Alley then detailed the
history of the first starting of the sub
scfiptiOus for the road; Credit MobilieE
started IL; it was only on the most earn
est solicitation of Oakes Ames, that he
Alley was prevailed on to take stock