Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1873-03-13
Mr.. COlfax,s Case.

Mr.. COlfax's Case.
Congress will not do anything in Mr..
Colfax's case. The House Committee
on the Judiciary has reported that it has
no jurisdiction over offenses 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 case on
such narrow grounds. IF Mr.. Ben But
Ter had not been so anxious to pick
flaw in the report of the Poland commit
tee, in behalf of his alleged client. Mr..
Cakes Ames, the report might have been
more conclusive. However, it is settled
now that Mr.. Colfax is to return to pri-
vate life, after having submitted to
tedious and complicated Investigation,
without the judgment of any competent
tribunal upon the evidence thus elected
We believe this to be a great misfortune,
and, In certain sense, a great wrong to
the Vice-President and we propose
now to state the principal facts in 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, 1, with agree
ing to buy an improper stock, and, 2,
with testifying falsely with reference to
the purchase. The first charge we be-
heve to be well founded. He did agree
to buy the stock, and it was an improper
one for Congressman to hold-both be-
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 have
known them, however, and his failure to
do SO is not creditable to him.
The second charge is not proved. It
is based on several specifications. It is
alleged that Mr. Colfax suppressed the
truth, with intent to deceive, in his
speech at South Bend on the 25th 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 he claimed the right to have
purchased it if he chose said that the
vestment, and alluded indirectly to the
ldMoulC OH bOp VI III. he u6AG dD-
peared before the Poland committee at
Washington, and his statements there
have been contradicted in most particu-
lars by Cakes 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 $4,000, with inter
est from July 5. Both agree that the
following March sum of 1854. rs 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.. Ames 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
1884, Is was the final payment on the
stock and completed Mr. Colfax's owner
ship in it. Mr.. Colfax, on the contrary.
says that he regarded this as the first
lpstallment of payment for the stock,
beng 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
Credit Mobilier Company was involved
In litigation, and therefore desired to
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 a dividend, to the
amount of SCOTS. If Mr.. Colfax had
received these dividends in 1868, 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 statement from Colfax.
Yet, on the 21st of January, Mr.. Ames
was asked by the Chairman:
80. What do you say in reference to that
statement about his making present TO YOU
of $500, saying that he might keep the $500 he
paid you? A. He made some remark OF that
sort to me-"
Mr.. Colfax's statement is sustained
by that of a member of his family, who
testifies that Mr.. Colfax mentioned his
surrender of $500 to MIR. Ames in his
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 by the production
of the check on the Sergeant-at-A arms,
made payable to IS. c., or bearer" and
by the fact that two days after it's date
Mr.. Colfax deposited in bank, with GER
tain checks, currency to the exact amount
of the check-$1, 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 swore to a falsehood in tes-