Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1880-06-23
GEN. GARFIELD AND CREDIT
MOBILIER.

u6uCy. 1Hey are ItIlloly 0ASi'lNou 1o'o0
Gen. Garfield has been guilty of some
grave improperly which would unfit
him as proper person for the chief
executive of the nation. And the most
ridiculous feature of the case is that these
men who are so willing to condemn Gen.
Garfield and regard him as such bad
man, were ardent supporters four years
ago of that old fraud Sammy Tilden.
This shows how thin-skinned these fell
lows are, and how hypocritical their pro-
LESSONS are as to political morality. Any
one who could have the stomach to swal-
low Tilden-who is the very essence OF
rottenness and corruption and everything
that is bad in politics a presidential
candidate would appear to better advan-
tage by not critieising Gen. Garfield,
than by retailing old and worn out SLAM
ders such as those now employed against
him. The Democrat was filled last week
with matter of this kind, but there is no
danger that it will find any believers if it
will only give all the facts AS regards
the charges made against Gen. Garfield,
the fullest publicity is courted He has
nothing to fear His record is as clear
as the monday sun. For nine consecu-
tive terms a representative in congress
from the district in which he was born
and reared, he has a record as a public
man, of which anyone might well be
proud. The attempt to smirch him on
account of his connection with Credit
Mobilier will not succeed any better now
with the people than it did years ago
when the matter was the subject of con-
gressional investigation. We copy from
the report of the Poland committee some
of the testimony of Cakes Ames, that our
readers may see how exceedingly fimsy
the proof is against Gen. Garfield
ON regard to Mr.. Garfield state to the COM
mittee the details of the transactions between
you and him in reference to Credit Mobilier
stock? Al got for Mr. Garfield ten shares of
the Credit Mobilier stock, for which he paid par
and interest (O
Q.-When did you agree with him for that?
A.-That agreement was in December, 1867, or
January. 1868. About that time. About the
time had these conversations with all of them.
1t was all about the same time
Q.-State what grew out of it. A.-Mr. Gar
,o1J Al, ii,
belonging to his $1,000 of stock at 81 making
S776. In June received a dividend in cash on
his stock for 5000, which left balance due him
of $780, which paid him. This is all the trans
action between us. did delirer to him any
stock before or since That is the transaction and
the only one,
BY Mr. Merrick-The 1929 which you paid
him was the surplus of earnings on the stock
above the amount to be paid for it-par value?
Ayes, sir HIS never had either the Credit
Mobilier stock, or Union Pacific railroad stock.
The only thing he realized from the transaction
was the 1929.
Q.-Was this the only dealing you had with
him in reference to any stock? Al think so.
Q.-There were dividends of Union Pacific
railroad stock on these ten shares? A.-Yes sir
Odd Gen. Garfield ever receive these? A.
No, sir: never received but 1929.
Q.-Has there been any conversation between
you and him in reference to the Pacific atock he
was entitled to Ono, sir
Q.-Has he ever called for it? A.-No, sir.
Q.-Have you ever offered it to him A.-No.
Q.-Has there been any conversation in rela-
ton to ii? A.-No.
On cross examination Mr. Ames testi-
fed as follows
ON reference to Mr.. Garfield, you say that
you agreed to get ten shares for him, and to hold
them till he could pay for them, and that he
never did pay for them nor receive them? A.
Yes, sir.
PIE never paid any money on that stock
nor received any from it? A.-Not on account
of it.
Q.-He received no dividends? A.-No, sir;
I think not. He says he did not My own rec
objection is not very clear.
$50 that, as you understand, Mr.. Garfield
never parted with any money nor received any
money on that transaction A.-No, sir. He
had some money from me once, $500 or $500 and
called it "a loan. He says that is all he ever re-
ceived from me, and that he considered it loan.
He never took his stock, and never paid for it.
Q.-Did you understand it SO? Ayes 1 am
willing to so understand it. 1 do not recollect
paying him any dividend, and have forgotten
that paid him any money.
Q.-Who received the dividends? AFR.
Patterson, Mr.. Bingham, and James F. Wilson
did, and 1 think Mr.. Colfax received part of
them do not know whether he received them
all or not. I think Mr.. Scofeld received a part
of them. Messrs. Kelly and Garfield never paid
for their stock, and never received their divi-
dends.
As to how this money was paid to Gen.
Garfield, Mr.. Ames tells different stories.
At one time he swears it was paid in cur
rency then he says it "may have BEEN
paid in currency afterwards he testifies
that he thinks the payment was by
check on the sergeant-at-arms, and final
ly he says he don't know how it was
paid, and that he has forgotten whether
or not tbo noonov was maid at all