The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1873-01-27
CRIMINALS IN CONGRESS.
STARTLING DEYELOPMENTS OF THE
CREDIT-MOBILIER BRIBERY.

Startling DEVELOPMENTS OF THE
CREDIT-MOBILIER BRIBERY.
Oakes Ames Controverts the Statements
ofseveral Congr.ssmen-A Clear State
ment of the Transactions of Each Ac-
cused sIember--A Disgraceful Exhfbtt
OF fCorruptfon--ColfaI In a Bad FIX.
The Credit. .Mobiller investigation, OF Wash
ington, has developed 30 shameful condition
of things that no one any longer attempts to
shield the parties implicated, and The leading
Journals of all shades Of opinion unite In
roundly denouncng the whole dirty business.
The Washington correspondent of the New
York Tribune writes as follows 10 regard to
the terribly damaging evidence given by Mr.
Oakes Ames on Wednesday last:
IrOakes Ames told the truth to-day, there
is no escape from the conclusion that num-
ber of congressman have literally made false
statements about their connection with the
Credit Mobilier, either from sense OF wrong
doing, or from a cowardly tear OF public
opinion. The position OF these congressman
Is deplorabe. They can hardly hope TO make
Inc public believe that Mr.. Ames's Story Is false,
the checks he drew upon the sergeant-at
arms of the House, TO pay dividends upon
their stock, as he alleges, were a part OF q
cunniuglY devised scheme to entangle them.
Mr.. Ames deposited $4,000 with the sergeant.
alarms in the long session of 1868, for the ex-
press purpose, az he declares, oil drawing
checks upon 1t 10 pay the dividends Of the
Credit MobilIpr shares which ne held ior con.
gressmen, He states the amount he drew Tor
each, and the checks and books In the ser
geant-at.arms' office corroborate his state
ment. In some cases the initial OF the payee
was inserted; in others the check was payable
10 bearer, Without any name. There was one
lame point In his evlcence. He did NOT pro,
duce his original memoranda, but exhibited
statements OF accounts drawn from them, In
which the transactions with the members
were set down on half sheels OF paper, under
the heads OF debit and credit. Perhaps the
original memoranda book would show some
things which Mr.. Ames would not like to have
dlvulged
MIR. Ames began his statement to-day with
an account of his dealings with Mr.. ColiaX.
In January, 1868, he said Mr.. Colfax agreed to
take twenty shares of Credit Mobllier stock.
He paid no cash. In February Mr.. Ames re-
celved the eighty per cent. dividend In first
mortgage Union Pacific bonds, sold them, and
credited Mr.. Colfax with the proceeds. On
March Mr.. ColfaX paid him the balance due
check on the sergeant-at-arms for 1884 II. In
the following June Mr.. Ames paid him cash
dividend of $1,000 by check on the sergeant
alarms, payable 10 8 G. or bearer. He never
handed hlm the stock dividends declared
but still held them, walling the result OF the
McComb suit. He considered them and the
twenty shares of Credit Mobiler stock 10 be
still MIR. Cofax's property. Mr. ColfaX had
never paid back The $1,000.
Mr.. Colfax cross-eXamined Mr.. Ames at
some length, but only verified the old adage
that, "He who ls his own lawyer has fool Tor
client" He tried hard to get Mr. Ames to
adult that he {Ames) might have got the
money himself on the $1,000 check, but Mr..
Ames was positive that he gave Mr.. Coliax
the check. To all questions about his reasons
for not stating all the facts when he first tes-
tilted. Mr.. Ames gave such answers as these:
"I was willing 10 believe II was as you said; l
had not my memoranda; you told me IL was 80
and presumed It was, or you wouldn't nave
said so." Mr.. Colfax. In conclusion, POSI-
lively asserted on bis onth that he had never
received the $1,000 dividend.
lerred to, and Mr.. Ames confirmed Mr.. Will
sons statement of the transaction. Senator
Patterson,s case having beer disposed OF yes
terday, nothing was said regarding 1t. Sena-
tor-elect Allison, according to Mr.. Ames,
agreed to buy ten shares Of the stock In Jan
uary, 1868, and In April paid s27l as The differ
ence between the proceeds oil the sale OF the
bond dividend and the cost OF the bond with
interest. This was also paid by check on the
sergeant-at-arms. Mr.. Allison got The other
dividends some time in the full OF 1868. Mr.
Allison aoL alarmed by the lawsuit, and gave
Mr., Amps receipt stating he held the STOCK
as Ames's properly. To make show OF buy
Ing them back, Mr.. Ames paid him five cenle.
Some time ago he got an envelope mailed al
Dubuque, containing ten shares OF Credit Mo-
bilier and ten Union Pacific shares. He sup.
posed lhey were Allson's; he thought he got
the envelope In October last, but he observed
by the postmark that 1t was mailed In March,
1872. Mr.. Allison came into the committee
room soOn after Mr.. Ames had finished all OF
his evidence that related to him. He made
statement which did not materially differ from
Mr.. Ames's. He said that he had told Mr..
Ames that he did not want to keep lac stock
as long ago as 1853, not on account oil the law
suft but because he had been assailed Tor own
ing stock in the Sioux City Railroad. Finding
the stock among the papers he returned IL.
Mr.. Allison said be had sent Mr.. Ames check,
refunding the dividend, but Mr. Ames said Inc
check was to settle another account.
1--WE will now 60 10 the other wing Oh the
Capitol,n said Mr.. Poland when MIR. Ames had
finished his account of his business with ALL
sou. "Wnat about Mr.. Blalne?" Mr.. Ames
replied that Mr.. Blaine never held any stock
or got anv advantage from the Credit Mo6lller
exeept abuse on Its account. Mr.. Dawes, he
said. bought ten shares and paid Tor them.
OF The first bond dividend Mr. Ames paid him
about $4OU, the balance being retained 10 SET
tie another transaction. He also got the
second dividend. In December, 1868, Mr.
Ames settled with him, and believed that 10
The whole transaction the latter only got his
money back with ten per cent. Interest. Mr.
Garfield agreed TO take ten shares OF the stocE,
and the first two dividends paid for The shares
and left balance of 1929, which Mr. Ames
said he paid him In June, 1868. That ended
the transaction, and there were no more pay.
ments and no conversation about The affair Till
this winter, when Mr. Garfield told him that
he thought II was loan and not dividend
he got. Mr.. Ames's recollection was positive
it was a dividend, and supposed Mr.. Garfield
90 understood 1t when he took the check for
the money. Mr.. Garfield had never taken 1t
back.
MIR. Keleys case, Mr.. Ames went on 10 say,
was Identical with Mr.. Gar6elds. The same
number of shares were barganed for, and
there was the same payment OF 1929 IN June,
1868. In October, Mr.. Kelley borrowed $3.50
from him, and Mr.. Ames supposed he got this
confused with the dividend, when he testified
to having borrowed $1,000. The money mad
not been returned, aud Mr.. Ames still held
the Credit Mobilier shares and the Union
Pacific stock dividends on them subject 10 MIR.
Kelley's order. Mr. Scoaeld LOOK ten shares,
too. but paid the cash tor them. He got
irIrhtened at the same time Mr.. Dawes did,
and Mr.. Ames settled with him, and took the
stock of his hands. Mr.. Bingham's statement
10 the committee Mr.. AInes cOrroborated, but
eta ha noid him S8O0 more than Mr. Bingham