The new North-west. [volume] (Deer Lodge, Mont.) 1869-1897, 1880-07-16

Garfield, having exhausted his funds oy
tourney to Europe, borrowed $500 from Mr.
Ames. Whether this loan, which he ad-
mits having received. is really identical with
the dividend OF $329 which Mr.. Ames pro-
fesses to have paid him, may be an open
question, but the preponderance OF proba-
b,hty seems to be in the affirmative, for the
simple reason that IL was very natural that
Mr.. Ames' treacherous memory should
have been slightly at fault after the lapse
of five years. We might pertinently ask
whether one can correctly DO said TO remem-
Der payment when he cannot recall SIN
gle one Of the attendant circumstances. Mr..
Ames produced three checks for $329 which
he had drawn on the Sergeant-at-arms.
One or two of these had initials on them In
dicating whom they were for, but the one
he supposed to DO Mr.. Garfeld's had no
mark whatever connecting that gentleman
with It; nor could Mr.. Ames say whether
he had drawn the money himself or given
the check to Mr.. Garfield, which seems al
most equivalent to saying that he did not
remember anything at all about It. Mr..
Garfield says that when Mr.. Ames lent him
the money the latter said that II he took
the stock they could settle both matters to-
pether, 30 that it was easy for the transac-
tiops to have been associated in Mr.. Ames'
mind. He also says thst when he repaid
this loan he took no receipt, ss he had CIV
en- none, but verbally declined the propo-
sal to take the offsred stock. Nor is there
ANYTHING improbable in the supposition that
Mr.. Ames may have rendered this check,
and that Mr.. Garfield, being in want OF
money, may have accepted it an loan in
case he finally declined the stock, and a
dividend in case he took 1t. However this
might have been, both agree that there
was no further communication between
them on the subject, and that Mr.. Ames
never paid or offered to pay him subse-
auent dividends, and never rendered him
any evidence of ownership.
This last fact seems conclusive OF the
main question, because 1t proves that Mr..
| Garfield never considered himself owner OF
the stock. 1t is highly improbable that he
allowed Mr.. Ames to hold for him stocks
and none of cash value OF $1,000 or "
600 for four years without scrap OF evi-
dence to prove his claim in case OF the lat
ter't death, without once asking for dol
lar of the dividends, and without making
attempt to re.lize upon dangerous invest
mept. To add to the improbability Of the
case. he had, In the meantime, built him.
self house, o proceeding which usually
impels men of slender means to search dill
igently for oil moneys to which they are en-.
titled. In addition to all this, If MIR. Gar.
field held the stock, knowing it to be dis
reputable, he had an additional motive for
discounecting bis name from it; so that the
plaintiffs case implies, not only that he de-
MED himself his money in this inexplicable
manner, but that he did SO under peril OF
exposure.
We consider the admitted conduct OF
both parties during the four years alluded
to. from '6S to '72, az sufficiently refutipg
the uncertain and vacillating testimony OF
MIR. Ames as to what Mr.. Garfield agreed
to do. No doubt be held the ten shares OF
stock for Mr.. Garfield; he was very desir-
GUS that the name and good will Of that
gentleman should be secured, and be had
no reasons for otherwise disposing OF the
stock. The TRANSACTION, entirely verbal IN
its form, was one in which there was loom
for infinite misunderstanding on both sides,
and it is quite possible that Mr.. Ames may
have forgotten any verbal refusal of the
stock. At the same time, his failure to ten
der either dividends or evidences of owner
ship lends color to the suspicion that he no
: more looked upon Mr.. Garfield as owner
than the latter did himself. His apparent
statement that Mr.. Garfield, after he had
been implicated by the testimony, claimed
g., 400 due him, is so preposterous that we
.. need not quote Mr.. Garfield's explanation
OF the mistake.
At the same time 1t Is to be remembered
that the Congressional Committee. which
contained such Republicans as Mr.. Poland
! Mr.. Banks and Mr.. McCrary. did find that
Mr.. Garfield .greed to take the stock, and
received the dividend Of $500; IN othel
words, they believed Mr.. Ames' story an6
did not believe MIR. Garfeld's denial. Bu
the evidence on which they based theil
. conclusions is before the world, and they
, have no such judicial authority as to make
their finding anything more than very
disagreeable fact for Mr.. Garfeld's fr1end'
: and a very useful one for his enemies. W.
must say for OR own part that until nov
; we had overlooked the long interval which
elapsed between the alleged distribution O.
the stock and payment Of the dividend and
the investigation. We are satisfied tina
Mr.. hmes' admitted failure during all tina
period of four years either to attempt Il
deliver the stock or to pay any subsequen
dividends on it, and Mr.. Garfeld's admitted
failure to ask for either stock or dividends
though confessedly In great need of money
give Mr.. Garfield's version of the transac
: ton the strongest kind of confederation
=, and taken in connection with what ]
known of bis life and character would b
sufficient, IL he were not Presidential can
didate, to clear him la the eyes Of all reason
; able men Of every imputation arising out
!, it.
/