The daily gazette., 1880-06-29
GARFIELD'S BRIBE ,sr AKING.
From the N. Y. sun, June "a.
A QUESTION OF DATES.

QUESTION OF DATES.
We regret the. necessity of rebuking
our neigbbor, the Tribune, for what is
manifestly an attempt to deceive its read
ers and to mslead the public on mat
ter of record.
A correspondence of the Tribune,
writing in regard 10 Mr.. Garfpld's partic-
ipalIon in the Credit Mobllier, asks
"Was it quite worthy of the Tribune to
ignore the quotation have seen of your
own adverse opinion at the time? Should
you net retract itp Did you not yourself
at the time unhesitatingly and emphati-
cally condemn Gen. Garfield?"
10 this direct and iiiconvenient ques-
tion, the Tribune on Saturday replied:
"On the contrary, the Tribune, OH its
own examination of the evidence,
promptly acquitted him." In support Of
this assertion it quotes from its files the
following paragraph, as having appeared
''on the editorial page, in the issue of
Jan. Is, 1879" and as showing "what
Gen. Garfield on the production of Oakes
Ame's testimony"
Eve take great pleasure In saying that
the testimony seems to exculpate Gen.
Garfield completely from any blame in
the Credit MObilier scandal. This re-
suit may well be made a subject Of sim
cere cor graduation by the country at
large. Gen. CART leld is one Of the most
valuable members of the House. and has
been looked to wi h most regard by earn
est friends of reform. That such man
should have been involved in this dis
graceful scandal was bad enough; that
he should come out with skirts clean is
what his friends expected, and the coun-
try had right to demand"
This pl ompt acquittal OF Mr.. Garfield
by the Tribune was on Jan. 10, 1878.
As the leading events in the nvestiga-
ton of Mr.. Garfield's part IN the Credit
MobilIer bribery may not DOW be FAM
iliar TO all our readers and the Tribune's
| readers, we present them chronOlogically.
On Dec. II, 1872, Oakes Ames made
his first appearance ON the stand. He
was a reluctant witness on this occasion,
and not only failed to produce any evi-
| dence to incrimnafe the accused Con-
oressmen, but did his utmost TO shield
them.
On Jan. Ia, 1873, Mr.. James A. Gar
field made his first appearance before .he
committee, and swore that he had "nev-
| Cl vi oSiCCh W iOSCiNN
any stock of the Credit Mobiier or of
the Union Pacific Railroad, nor any div
idcnds or profits arising from either of
them"
On Jan. 90, 1878, Oakes Ames made
his second appearance on the witness
stand. In the meanwhile, MIR. Garfield
had visited him and endeavored to
persuade him to let the 1920 dividend
''go as loan.'' He lad invited Mr..
Ames to commit perjury in his (Gar-
field's) behalf. On Jan. 90, Mr.. Ames
for the first time testified as to Mr..
Garfield's stock in the Credit Mobilier,
and as to the payment Of a dividend
to him.
On Jan. 80, Mr.. Ames produced the
memorandum in Mr.. Garfield's hand
writing, in which, after the investiga-
ton had begun, Mr.. Garfield had fig
ured that there were still due him 81,
400 on account of his Credit Mobiliel
and Union Pacific stock.
On Feb. II, Oakes Ames produced,
for the first time, the famous diary
containing the accounts of all the Con-
gressmen who had been bribed with
Credit Mobilier stock, as well as the
entries showing payments of dividends
to Mr.. Garfield and the rest.
After his first appearance and sworn
denial Mr.. Garfield did not again go
upon the witness stand nor did he take
advantage of the opportunity to cross
examine Mr.. Ames, as Mr.. Kelley, Mr..
Colfax and others did.
On Feb. 18, the Poland committee
made its report, declaring that Mr..
Garfield had held stock in the Credit
Mobilier, and had received dividend
of 1920 on his stock, understanding at
that time that it was dividend on
Credit Mobilier stock.
The paragraph of Jan. 15, 1878,
which the Tribune offers TO its Inquir-
ing correspondent as showing that 'on
the production of Oakes Ames' testi-
mony,' and "on its own examination
of the evidence" it promptly acquit-
ted Mr.. Garfield of conupioIs was
printed OIL the day after Mr.. Garfield
general denial, seven days before Mr..
Am s charged that he had received
stock and taken a dividend, two weeks
before the first statement of Mr.. Gar
fields account with Credit Mobilier,
more than three weeks before the pro-
6uction of the documentary evidence
contained in the memorandum book,
and more than one month before the
committee finished its investigation
and pronounced Mr.. Garfield a per-
jurer.
On the other hand, the extracts
which we have printed from the Tri-
bune, and which may be verified by
any one to whom the files of that jour-
nal are accessible, were published after
Mr.. Garfield's denial had been met by
the evidence that convicted him of
bribe-taking and perjury.
Or md Excursion to COstey Ls-
| Fxa,d