Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1873-01-22

From ulc New York Herald
''How not to do it' appears to be the
motto OF the committee, who content
themselves with listening to carefully
prepared written statements. revised hy
a good lawyer, and then ask a few ques-
uOns about it. This may satisfy the
venerable Poland and his associates. but
the people will want 10 have a little
more information. They will want TO
know exactly how many shares were
placed; on what days they were placed :
who was 70 receive the dividends there
on; on what days those dividends were
paid, ana when the stock was returned
10 Ames; an what days it was returned.
The platit1des of Alley are too thin. and
dates are demanded.
CRUsH GIT vILLAINY.
The portion of the inquiry at present
more directly before the country is that
which relates IL the connection of mem
bers Of Congress with the scheme. When
il il is remembered that any member
interested in this company had the
power OF directly influencing by his vote
the spending of public money in its aid,
or the sitting of inquiry on the sinister
doings Of the Ring, the enormity at
tempted viii be manifest. The testi-
mOny of Oakes Ames, a member of
Congress dUring the greater part of the
schemes manipulation and its prime
plotter, IS highly interesting. The un-
errlng Sagacity which led him to TAP
proach men Of influence on public
opinion, y naturally selected his fellow
members as appropriate subjects for bis
Establishments. He put the bait into
sWalloWaoie form by making it a pur-
chase and not an out-and-Out gift, with
also the easy condition that il could be
sold back al any time. 1t may, per-
maps, be some tribute to Congressional
Seli-respect 20 say that these precautions
were adopted, just as RochefOucauld de-
nnes all hypocrisy to be tribute TO viz
tue. Are we, however, called on to be-
lleve that the keen-eyed members who
"blt' were the gUdgeOns which an ig-
nor2nce Of something beyond what ga
BONA rdc transaction would imply2
The case ef Nice-President elect Wilson |
rs one which we would not willingly /
mlsrepresenL The story Of his cOnnec- /
ton with the Credit Mobilier, as told in /
the testimony, viii explain itself II !
forces unfortunately, conclusions OF a
curious nature. On the occasion of
his ''silver wedding a purse of
two thousand dollars was pre-
sented 10 his wife. This was
invested i'm twenty shares of Credit |
Nobilier. On the breaking out of the !
McCOmb lawsuit in Philadelphia, Mr.. 4
Wilson caused the stock 10 be returned. /
The possession OF the stock may not be /
criminal in itself; it is in the bearing
which that possession may have had
upon legislation the harm lies. Mr..
ColfaX paid for some stock; ii was never
transferred TO him. Why? Mr.. Ames
may not remember having paid over
dividends to Mr.. Colfax; but were they
paid: Does the stock still stand in his
interest? Has the payment of money
for stock by him influenced legislation
IN any way? Senator Patterson paid
FOR thirty shares, but never had them
transferred TO him. Why2 He received
dividends. Is il a sin against piety of
exterior to ask, Did be always vote
against increasing those dividends? Mr..
took twenty shares, and paid for
them. Ames took the stock back in
1870. Was il uninfiuential in the inter-
val? Mr.. Dawes bought ten shares, but
became alarmed and gave them back.
Ames says that at Mr.. Garfield's re-
quest he kept ten shares for him until
ne could pay. He did not pay. Did
sven that slim understanding have no
weight in determining legislation?
speaker Blaine and Secretary Boutwell,,
70 their honor be ii said, are proved
llameless in the transaction. They
Jwned no stock. The testimony of Nc
JOmb regarding "the placing OF stock"
ID all directions is pretty piece of in !
lOcence, for which all concerned should
get the credit. John B. Alley, who APP
Dears TO have acted as q reference for his
colleague, Oakes Ames, in the Credit
Aobilier stock, shows i'm his testimony {
low neatly the parts fitted into each !
,theT.
TESTIMONY or M'COIB AND oAKEs
AMES. '
rom the New York Tribune
There is a marked contrast in the I
Of the two narratives. q
,icComb's story is ingenious-if not a
llain recital Of facts-and is full of !
'Oints which are too aptly corrobOrated I
" external evidence. Ames's testimo- :
~, which was in a written document.
s plea in eXtenuation; il is parryingI :
md defensive. Ii would appear that !
he relation 81 certain Congressmen tol (;
he Credit MOhilier scheme was effected
n some such way as this: Ames desired
o place certain shares Of the stock !,
where il would bring influence to the
-nion Pacific railroad enterprise, then !
q feeble condition. This stock, the
Xact amount OF which is in dispute, c
7as set apart 10 Ames, with the un- /
that he was to use il at dis 6
rehon. MctAmb was asked to sign a e
aper agreeing 10 the transaction; be
{ first refused, but subsequently signed ;
paper which he did not read. Out of i
hat transaction grew g dispute about O
he disposition Of the stock McComb u
ays he did not approve of placing it
mong COngressmen without a fair
quivalent in money. Ames says hedid r
lace the stock; but he is not sure how !
lany Congressman agreed 10 take il =
nd as he supposed postpone paym. at h
'ut that the stock was distributed >
mong the Congressmen there is now no
ispute. Ames, who placed the shares,
sed every argument 10 persuade mem >
ers that IL was fine investment a
icComb says that the stock was held 1
Y Ames 'in trust'' for the investors in y
lany instances, and that the investors i
id not generally pay cash down for
+; but they let IL remain in Ames's I,
]
ted enough 10 meet the cost L
rice OF the shares. This view Of e
he transaction is not contrOyerted Il
y Ames. For Instance, in the case of a
peaker COlfax, Mr.. Ames says
now he Mr.. Colfax) wanted to get K
,me stock, and ] am pretty confident a
e has paid me for il, though il was Fl
ever transferred to him, nor can / re- il
lember having paid over to him any el
ividends," In these general particu- V
rs, then, the sales Of Ames and Nc
omb agree. From his point of view, 7
-r. Ames saw no wrong in disposing of :,
he stock among Congressmen. To n
note his own language al intended n
othlng that ought to brand me with .
sgrace." 1t should be observed that I'
ally in few particulars do Ames aud q
.cComb disagree as to the equivalent u
hlch the Congressman rendered for
he stock which they received. We
Dme next 10 the exact disposition %
stock among Congressman. The pen u,
led memorandum on the Ames letter, "
} often referred to, gave the list OF "
3mes 10 which the shares We're allotted 4
2 Ames. The memorandum was writ u
n by McCOmb while Ames read the u
ames from his eWn private memoran- VI
/. There is some dispute about this, le
Ames positively denies I" debating
imes TO McCOmb. But McComb ii
,es not pretend that Ames dictated d'
lything, on the contrary, he leaves the to
lpressiOn that be made the memOran- to
Ina furtively and rapidly while Ames q
as reading the list, without suspicion bl
g that a copy was being made Further, h
cCOmb declares that there were some bl
lOtments of stock which were not in IL
at list; and those that We're there were re
terward changed. For instance, he
US that certain stock which he Me- D
lmb) had solicited for Senator Bavard s,