The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1880-07-22

I
By MIR. Merrick-The 1923 which you paia
him was the surplus Of earnings on the stock
above the amount to be paid for it-par value?
A:-Yes, sir. He never had either the Credit
Mobiller stock or Union Pacific railroad stock.
The only thing he realized from the transaction
| Q.I see on this st atement in the account
with Gen. Garfield there is a charge of $47: It
Yes, sir. 80
| Q-And the $776 on the credit side is the 80:
percent bond dividend sold at 81 per cent?
| A.-Yes, sir.
| Q.-And the 5000 on the credit side is the
money dividend? A-Yes, sir.
! Q-And after you had received these two
| sums they in the aggregate overpaid the prices
OF the stock and interest s329, which you paid
him? Axes, Sir
| Q.-You did not declare certificate of stock
that.
| Q.-Why did he not receive certificate?
! Al do not know
| Q-Do you remember any conversation be-
| tween you and him in the adjustment Of these
accounts? Al do not. =.
Q-fou understood that yon were the holder
OF his ten shares? A.-Yes, sir
| Odd no SO understand it? Al pre-
sumo so; it seems to have gone from his mind.
however.
| Q.-Was this the only dealing YOU had with
him in reference to any stock? Al think So
| Q.-Ihere were dividends of Union Pacific
| railroad stock OH these ten shares? A.-Yes,
sir.
Q.-Did Gen. Garfield ever receive tLese?v
A..No, Sir never received but 1929.
Q.-Has there been any conversation between
| You and him Ill reference to the Pacific stock he
was entitled to? A.-No sir
Q.--has he ever called for it? A.-No, Sir
~ u. Have yon ever offered it to him? A.
! No, Sir.
Q.-Has there been any conversation in rela-
ton to it? A.-No, sir.
Summed up, the statement is that
Ames made memorandum that 81, 600
OF this stock in his hands was held for..
Garfield; that the stock earned 81 ,329;,
that he paid Garfield $329-tho surplus
after paying for the stock that during
the five years following, though the
stock continued to earn dividends, he
never delivered the stock itself, nor any
dividends, to Garfield, and had never
any conversation whatever with him OH
the subject. According to Ames, the
stock was Garfelds, but was never asked
for nor delivered, though for years after
it was paying dividends, all Of which
Ames received and kept to himself.
Mr.. Garfield's explanation was, that
George Francis Train had advised him
to invest in the stock, but he had de-
clined that, in want Of money, he Oh
tanned a loan Of $500 from Ames, which
loan he subsequently, paid. Ames sail
he paid Garfield 1929; Garfield said he
borrowed $500. As Ames kept the stock
which he said belonged to Garfield and
all the dividends thereon, and neverthere
after had any conversation with Garfield
on the subject, there is unquestionable
room for the belief that the transactions
we're confounded in Ames' mind.
The committee of the House made IL
iull report Of all the testimony. con-
menting upon the case of each member
named in the McC Comb list. After
commenting upon the cases of Mr.
Blaine, Mr.. Dawes, Mr.. Scofeld, Mr..
Bingham and Mr.. Kelley, it thus com
mented upon the case Of Garfield:
The facts in regard to Mr.. Garfield, as found
by the committee, are identical with the case of
MIR. Kelley to the point Of reception of the
check for $329 He agreed with MIR. Ames to
take ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock, but
did not pay for the same. Mr.: An,es received
the 50 per cent. dividends in bonds, and sold
them for 81 per cent, and also received the GO
per cent cash dividends, which, together, paid
the price of the stock and interest, and left
balance of 1929. This sum was paid over to
Mr.. Garfield by a check OIL the Sergeant at
Arms. and Mr.. Garfield then understood tl,.
sum was the balance of dividends after paving
for the stock. Mr. Ames received all the sub
sequent dividends, and the committee do not
find that, since the payment Of the 1929, there
has been any communication between Mr.. An,es
and Mr.. Garfield on the subject until this in
vestigation began
The committee, speaking Of the men,
bers named, report:
The committee, therefore, do not tind a. to
the members of the present House above
named, that they were aware Of the object OF
Mr.: Ames. or that they had any other purpose
in taking this stock than to make profitable
investment. 1t is apparent that those who ad-
| vanced their money to pay for their stock pre-
sent more the appearance of ordinary investors
than those who did not but the committee do
not feel at liberty to find any corrupt purpose
or knowledge founded upon the fact Of non
payment alone.
The committee have not been able to find
that any of these members of Congress have
been affected in their official action in consc-
| quence Of their interest in Credit Mobilier
| stock.
The committee do not find that either Of the
above-named gentlemen, i'll contracting with
MIR. Ames, had any corrupt motive or purpose
himself or was aware that Mr.. Alnes had any,
| nor did either of them suppose he was guilty Of
ing purchaser of this stock. Had it appeared
| that these gentlemen were aware of the enor-
| nous dividends upon the stock, and how they
were to be earned, We could not thus acquit
! them.
And that is the whole story told by
tho Investigating Committee. The
whole variance between Ames and Gar
| field was as to whether Ames paid him
1929 or whether Ames loaned him $500.
In either case Ames declares that Gar
field never received any stock or certifi-
Gates, nor any dividends which the stock
earned from 1867 to 1873.
The report expressly acqtuts all the
persons snamed-Blaine, Dawes, Scofeld,
Bingham, Kelley and Garfield-of all
corrupt or improper action or completely
IN the matter. In that acquittal the
| Democratic members of the committee
concurred with the others.
Garfield as Soldier.
The Democrats have opened fire on
Gen. Garfield's war record. They know
little about it OF they would not have
made such mistake. Did any one
ever hear soldier OF soldiers friend
say aught against Garfeld's courage.
enterprise or efficiency as a soldier?
Did Gen. ROsecrans ever speak other
than words of highest commendation OF
the tireless officer who was for so many
years his chief of staff? Did he not
give him full credit for suggestions and
plans as to important campaigns?
There were 10000 OF 80, 600 disheart-
ened soldiers gathered around Thomas
on the second day Of the battle at
Chickamauga when Garfield came with
the all-important information that
caused new formation of lines. Did
any one ever hear single one Of those
10000 soldiers say that he was not proud
of Garfeld's courage, persistence, and
pluck?
In 1862, Giddings' old district in Ohio
elected Garfield to Congress. He told
his constituents that he could not leave
the army. They replied that they
would keep the place open for him, and
fhav did until December 1263 when