Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1880-06-23
"a COMPLETE ANSWER,
Judge Blacks Vindication of Gen
eral Garfield.
The Credit Mobilier Charge Erploded--.5mes'
Testimony Gdrfsid's -4nswer and HIS
Subsequent Indorsemen' bv The People Of
His Orn Slate Judge Black Err
pLodes the Charge tR q Strong
Letfer-Sc &c.

Subsequent Indorsemen' bv The People Of
His Orn Slate Judge Biack Err
plodes the Charge IN q Strong
Letty-Se, &c.
II seems almost an insult to public
intelligence to make defense OF Gen.
James A. Garfield against the virulent
abuse of democratic sheets, based as it
is upon the most insubstantial Of insub-
stantial facts. The gravamen and only
item in the charge are that Gen. Gar
field received 1929 some years ago as
dividend on Credit Mobilier stock. 1t
is not claimed that be ever had posses
sion of the stock, and it is not proved
that he ever sgreed to subscribe for the
stock. His accuser, Oskes Ames, who
was corrupt lobbyist, never went fur
ther in the charge than to swear that in
a private conversation years before Gar
field had agreed to take some stock.
Ames fatty declared that Garfield never
received the stock or even asked for il,
but asserts that the stock was left with
him Ames) anc he drew the dividends
and applied them to the paymen, of the
stock. When the accumulated divi
dends exceeded the cost of the STOCK
By 1929, Ames declared be gave a
check Tor that amount to Gen Garfield,
but when asked to exhibit the check
he presented this paper, which, it will
be noticed, bears no suggestion that it
was intended for any other than the
drawer himself, Oakes Ames:
June 90, Is6s.-Pay o. A. or bearer three
hundred and twenty-nine dollars and charge
to my account. CAKES ANEs.
To this miserable tale of Ames, Gar
field entered solemn denial, averring
that though Ames had requested him to
purchase the stock he never consented
to take it and never did !; that the only
money transaction he ever had with
Ames was when be borrowed $500,
which be repaid. On this denial Gen.
Garfield went before bis people for re
election to Congress. His enemies re-
sorted to every means in their power to
accomplish his defeat, distorting the
credit mobilier charges until they as
suued horrible shape Notwithstand-
ing this, Gen. Garfield was elected by
a handsome majority, and his subse-
quent re elections hsve been made by
largely increased msjorities. Last fall
he presented himself to the people of
OHIO as q candidate for United States
Senator bis canvass was thorough and
against determined opposition. But
the people again expressed their conf
dence IN our standard bearer By elect
ing a Republican Legislature, which
unanimously selected Gen. Garfield for
United States Senator for six years
from March 4. 1881. With = man so
constantly before bis own people for
their suffrages and so frequently en-
dorsed by the popular vote in his own
district and State, can it be possible
that the people Of the United States
ask any other vindlcation than that thus
presentedl
When the Credit Mobilier charge
was first made against Gen. Garfield,
be prepared a review Of the subject for
his immediate constituents, in which he
claims the following conclusions from
the evidence:
"That | neither purchased nor agreed
to purchase the Credit Mobilier stock
which Mr.. Ames offered to sell me, nor
did L receive any dividend arising from
1t. This appears not only from my own
testimony, but from that first given by
Mr.. Ames, which is not over;hrown by
bis subsequent statements, and is strong
ly confirmed By the fact that in the
case ot each of those who did purchase
the stock there was produced as evil
dence of the sale either a certificate OF
stock, receipt of payment, q check
drawn in the name of the payee or en-
tries in Mr. Ames' diary Of stock &C.
count marked adjusted and closed, but
that no one of these evidences existed
in reference to me. This position is
further confirmed BY the subsequen,
testimony of Mr.. Ames, who. though
he claimed that l did receive 1929 froul
him on account of stock, vet he repeat
edly testified that beyond that smouB,
never received or demanded any divi-
dend, that none was ever offered to me,
nor was the subject alluded to Iii con
versatIon. Mr. Ames admitted in hi,
testimony that after December, 1867,
the various stock aud bond dividends
amounted to an aggregate of more than
500 pr cent. and that between Janu-
ary, 1868. and May, 1871, all these
dividends we're paid to several of those
who purchased stock. My conduct was
wholly Inconsistent with the supposi-
tion of such ownership, for during the
year 1869 | was borrowing money to
build house In Washington, and Sc
curing my creditors BY mortgages on
my property and all this time it is
admitted that | received no dividends
and claimed none. The attempt to
prove q sale Of the stock to me is wholly
inconclusive, for it rests first on check
pay able to Mr.. Ames himself, concern
ing which he said several times in his
testimony he did not know to whom 1t
was paid, and, second, upon loose un-
dated entries 10 his diary, which neither
prove sale of the stock nor any pay
ment Oh it. The only fact from which
it is possible for Mr.. Ames to have in
/ i.s.-red an agreement to buy the stock
was the io.a to me of $500. But that
loan was made mouths before the check
of June %, 1868, and was Teraid in
the winter of 1869, aud after that date
there were no transactions of any sort
between us, and before the investiga-
tion was ended Mr.. Ames admitted that
on the chief point of difference be-
tween US be might be mistaken.
That the offer which Mr.. Ames made
to me, as l understood it, was one
which involved no wrong or improperly.
! 1 had M rnaaps of knowino and h,d M