Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1873-06-11
Gen. GarfeId's Explanation Of the
Crndit Mnhiliar Affair.

ullY NlQulCAlo ulAu AAOA bAo eA7FN~
ions cast upon his reputation in con-
lection with the Credit Mobilier in
7estigation. We have received from
him a closely printed pamphlet of
.wenty-eight pages, being a review
,f the testimony elected during the
of the subject, and Incl
dental comments and explanations
The conclusions which the writer
,ays are fairly and clearly established,
are as follows:
I, That the Credit Mobilier Com
pany was a State corporation regular
iv Organized; aud that neither It's
Charter nor the terms of its contract,
of October Is, 1857, disclosed anything
which indicated that the company
was engaged in any ffaudulentor I'M
proper enterprise.
III. That a ring of seven persons
inside the Credit Mobilier Company,
calling themselves trustees, obtained
the control of the franchises, and OF q
of the stock OF ooth the
Credit Mobilier and Of the Union "a
cific Railroad Company; and. while
holding ,such double control, tney
made a contract with themselves, by
which they received for building the
road an extravagant sum, greatly De,
yond the real cost of constructloniand
in adjusting the payments, they re-
eeived stock and bonds of the railroad
company. at heavy discount, and by
tI,ese means virtually robbed and
Numbered the road, which was IN
great part built by the aid OF the Uni
ted States.
That these exorbitaDt profits were
distributed, not to the stockholders OF
the Credit Mobilier proper, but to the
ring of seven trustees and their prox-
iesothe holders of this ring stock
and that this arrangement was kept q
close secret by its managers.
III. That in 1S67-'6S, MI. Ames
offered to sell small amounts OF TINS
stock to several leading members OF
Congress, representing 1t as an ordl-
nary investment promising fair prof.
ITS: but in every such offer he con-
cealed from such members the real
nature of the arrangement by Wnlcn
the nrofits were to be made, as well as
the amount Of the dividends likely 70
he realized. While thus offering ms
stock. he was writing to one OF ms
ring associates that he was disposlng
of the stock "Where it would DO most
0ood. - intimating that he was thereby
flaming influence IN Congress, TO pre-,
Vent Investigation into the affairs ol
the road, His letters and the list Of
names which he gave IN McComu
represent many persons as having
bought the stock who never did buy
or a9ree to buy it, and also represent
a much larger amount sold than ne
did actually sell. Mr.. Ames' letters
and testimony abound IN eontraule'
tions, not only Of his own statements
Int also of the statements OF most oi
the other witnesses; and it is fair, IN
iudeing Of its credibility, to take into
account his interests involved In the
controversy. =.
~. That in reference to myself
the following points are clearly estab'
lished by the evidence:
| L That 1 neither purchased mol
agreed to purchase the Credit MODIFIED
| stock which Mr.. Ames offered 10 sell
me: nor did l receive any dlvldehc
arising from it. This appears from
nv own testimony; and from the mrs
testimony given by Mr.. Ames, WhlcL
is not overthIown by MS suOsequeh
statements; and is strongly connrme'
by the fact that in the case OF each o
those who did purchase the STOCK
there was produced as evidence OF INT
sale. either q certificate of stock, re
ceipts of payment, a check drawn II
the name of the payee, or entries II
Mr. Amesi diary of stock accoun
marked. adjusted and closed; but tina
no one of these evidences exists II
reference to me. This position
Irther confirmed by the subsequen
testimony Of Mr.. Ames, who, tnougl
he claims that 1 did receive S329 iron
him on account of the stock, yet d
reDeatedly testifies that beyond tina
amount I never received or demande'
anv dividend. that he did not one
me anv. nor was the subject alude'
70 in conversation between US
Mr.. Ames admits, on page 4O OF Tn IN
testimony, that after DeeemoerI 1o9i
the various stock and BOND dlVloenus
on the stock he had sold, amounted
an aggregate of more than SOO pc
cent: and that between January
1s6S. and May, 1871, all sthese divl
dends were paid to several Of thos
who purchased the stock. My con
duet was wholly Inconsistent wit
the supposition of such ownership
for. during the year 1869, was Dol
rowing money to build house her
. in Washington, and was securing m
creditors by giving mortgages on m;
nronertv: and all this time 1t IS ao
: mitted that I received no dividend
? and claimed DOne.
The attempt to prove a sale OF IN
stock 10 me is wholly incOnclusive
for IL rests, first, on check payable
Mr.. Ames himself, concerning whie
he several times says ne does nc
, know to whom it was PAID; ana sec
ond, upon loose undated entries l
his diary, which neither prove sal
of the stock nor any payment on az
count OF it.
The only fact from which it is pos
sible for Mr.. Ames to have inferre
an agreement to buy the stock wa
the loan to me Of $500. But that loa
! was made months before the check
, June %, 1868, and was repaid in th
, winter Of 1869; and after that dal
there was no transactions OF any sol
between US.
= And finally, before the inyestiga
tion was ended, Mr.. Ames admitte
that on the chief point Of ditferenc
between US he might be mistaken.
on page 356 he said he "considere
me the purchaser oil the stock, unle:
+ il was borrowed money 1 had Of him;
, and on page 461, at the conclusion
his last testimony, he said:
Mr.. Garfield understands this ma
e ter as a loan; he says 1 did not e.
a plain it to him. =,
o. You need not say what M
Garfield says, tell us what you thinl
A. Mr.. Garfield might have mi
}, understood me. L suppose
was like all the rest, but when M
|. Gan field says he mistook 1t for ; loal
: that he always understood 1t TO oe
r loan; that did not make any expli
4 nation to him and did not make an
: statement to him; l may be mlsIakel
4 / am a man of few words, and ms
q not have made myself understood
b him.
3. That the offer which Mr.. Am
e made to me, as 1 understood IT, WI