Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1873-03-09

I ~ my WILLINGNESS 70 Ddy, own ana uOlu
twenty shares Of it, If could do 1t with
out buying into lawsuit, and thus ac.
| cepted all the odium that could attach
| TO 1t as l then understood it. ] have
been charged with pTevarication because
did not 20 fon and state that | had
Withdrawn years before from an incom-
plete contract TO buy twenty shares, los
1 ing what had paid on the account,
, | had supposed That u denial or expla-
nation Of an entirely different charge
than these that was answering would
be required OF me, as ! should certainly
have done so as il would have strength
ened instead OF weakening what was
stating, but that I could not foresee.
] An eminent divine once said rather IT.
reyerently, if mans foresight were only
as good as his hindsight be would be
! but little lower than the angels, and
my voice in speaking has always been to
| discuss and explain the pending ISSUES
and not to discuss OF explain those that
were not pending; but let us test this by
an illustrative method, which often
brings out disputed point more vivid
ly than an argument. Suppose any one
of YOU had been charged with having
been given shares in wooden factory,
that from these shares you had received
enormous dividends, and that as pay
ment for these gifts and dividends you
had aided corruptly ia carrying through
legislation in regard to duties on wool,
would you not regard it as sufficient
answer to such charges 70 tell the public
you have been all your life publicly adj
vocating the scale of duties alleged to
have been carried By corruption. Besides
this, those enactments had been passed
a year before these alleged gifts; you had
never owned any stock in wOOlen factO-
ries or anything else that you had not
paid for; that your shares had never re-
ceived any such dividends. Now if you
had voluntarily withdrawn, as / had a
pecuniary loss four years before from an
agreement to bug such stock in a woOlen
factory, you would regard what / have
supposed as a sufficient refutatiOn of q
charge that you had been bribed by gifts
of stock and enormous dividends. But
if YOU added to all this the
frank statement that you had
said you would be willing to
buy this very factory stock at par,
and to hold il. II it would not involve
you in litigation, would you not think
your answer to be full and thorough on
every particular point that the want or
calumny required you to state? No one
could have been misled in my speech,
in the vital point that though no such
stock was ever given to me, l publicly
avowed my willingness to bear
all reproach that could attach
an investment Of my money in it at
par as l then understood it; but l don't
intend to rest the argument on this
point here. | call my enemies as my
witnesses. The New York Tribune OF
September 26th published the telegraph
ic extract of this speech with the follow
ing heading showing that il fully under
stood my denial was to the
charge of having had the
stock given me: "He never owned q
share in:credit mObilier that he did not
pay for.n 1t was eminently fitting that
the same paper should January oath
print literally quotation from a speech
with the essential word ''give" left out,
and then basely repeated the charge Of
my untruthfulness on the quotation il
had thus altered and falsifed.
INF. COlfaX here exhibited a
paper The Chicago Tribune also,
which has almost daily assailed me the
past winter, for alleged prevarication
in the speech, did not misunderstood il
at the time. It declared editorially, on
September 9th, in commenting on my
speech, "Mr. COlfaZ claims the right to
purchase whatever stock he thinks
proper, even when offered him at par,
and when the accrued dividends are
more than equal to its par value And
on the twentY-seVenth of September,
the next day, it said again, and /
quote its insinuatiOn also. although my
payment of five hundred and tkirty-
four dollars disperses that part of it as
follows: "Mr. ColfaX claims he had the
right to purchase the stock of the credit
mObilier or any other company. Ames
got this stock pCt in his hands that he
might sell it at par and pay
the par value of 1t out of
its then accrued dividends,
which was in fact making a present Of it.
According TO Mr.. ColfaX, receiving
credit mObilier stock at par, with ac-
crued dividends equal to its price, would
be strsightout purchase" When tes-
titled, on the seventh of January, after
the holiday recess, during which recess
Ames said he refreshed his men,
ory by his memorandum at
home, l declared emphatically
as / did here last September; that bad
never received a dollar from him for
dividends, nor indeed on any account
whatever. He was present in the COM
mittee room and didn't deny this nOr
dissent from il, though I asked him to
eross-exam0e me. On that very after
noon he told Nr. Crozier of the New
York Times, who swore to il
afterward before the committee,
that my statement was probably cor
rect. On December 18th, in his care
fully prepared and written out original
testimony, he swore about me on page
twenty of the report as follows: "NOl
can remember having found him any
dividends; "and Mr.. Alley, his associate,
swore before the committee (see page
three hundred and eleven of the report
that before the holidays Mr.. Amee
told him was substantially correct in
my statement as to the transaction. in
spite, however, of the original testimO-
nv of his, which he declared embodied
the exact fact, and his expressing his
concurrence with my statement to Alley
and Ames, and listening without dis
sent to my testimony Of January 18th,
he came before the committee on Janu-
sry odd with a check for twelve hun
dred dollars payable to Schuyler Colfaz
or bearer, which he claims
he paid 10 me January 20th
1865, but which, being payable to no
ones name, required no Endorsement
and could as well be cashed by Mr.. a,
or Mr.. B, or Mr.. z, or Mr.. G, or any
one else. Never having seen any check
OF his in my life till this one in the
committee room, l asked him if my
name was indo-sed upon it, and he an
swered, "No." asking him if he re-
membered what he said when he paid Il
to me, he answered, "No.n Asking him
if he could not remember what l said
when so large a check was handed me
he again answered, "No." Asking
him IL he had any receipt for it, h'
answered "NO." Asking him If he eve
gave me a certificate for the stock which
| he insisted / stir owned, he answered
''no." AstOunded at this attempt-on ;
check payable to initials, and not to m'
name, not endorsed by me, and 70
which no receipt could be produced-t'
destroy mys testimony, ! immediatel.
had the serGeant-at-arms, in who's
| initials it was drawn, summoned, will
! his cashier and bookkeeper, to testify a
to whether they had ever paid M
money for any such check, ant
they all answered that they hat
no recollection Of having done so, bu
subsequently Nr. Dillon, the cashier o
| the sergeant-at-arms, testified tina
while he could not swear with positiy,
certainty after the lapse of years, We
his very strong impression was that b.
had paid the very same check TO Anne
| himself (see page four hundred ant
seventy-seven Of the report, and tina
when he hsd asked Ames only thirt,
hours before il he had not done so, Anne
had replied that il was very likely. (Se
page 4Sl Of report IL regard to on
4 portion of the checks from Ames, that
| drew for the June dividend, there is n
controversy. Your of them had name
] in fnll-I ogan and AllIson-both {