The new North-west. [volume] (Deer Lodge, Mont.) 1869-1897, 1880-07-16
I,WU
1,400
2-4nn

t1o 1Ouuu tlttlc piCSc VI PaPch WI LIS
table few days after the conversation, and
thought that as there was conflict OF tes-
timony, 1t might be worth preserving.
Except this scrap of paper, Mr.. Ames'
recollection was not, up to this point, sup
ported by any documentary evidence what
ever, He had produced no original paper,
memorandum, entry or check of any kind,
by himself or any one else, showing that
Mr.. Garfield had agreed to take the stock
or received the dividend on It, He stated
the circumstances entirely from memory
and, when pressed for particulars, said that
he had forgotten them. According TO his
own testimony his memory was OF little val
ne as evidence "People ask me about
things that happened year ago, aud
cannot tell whether it was ten years ago or
one." Allusions to this defect Of memory
were very frequent during his examination.
On February IL the case took new turn
by the production of Mr.. Ames' celebrated
memorandum book, showing his dealings
with each Congressional subscriber to the
stock. The following Is the only entry
bearing on our present inquiry:
GARFIELD.
10 shares Credit M. 81 10000
z mos. 10 days 1895
1,O43.36
80 p. @. dividend at .07 776.0O
Interest TO June 20 3.64
271.00
1000 G. M.
1000 U. p.
This is q calculation showing tat on
June 20 Mr.. Garfield still owed $27l on his
stock, which, being deducted from the div
idend of 5000 declared about the same time
leaves the balance Of $500, which Mr.. Amss
asserted he had paid. But 1t will be seen
that the memorandum gives no evidence OF
this payment. And when pressed for the
last time to state how 1t was understood
that the payment was on account OF the
dividend, no replied: 81 suppose 1t was
like all the rest but when Mr.. Garfield
says he mistook 1t for loan; that he al
ways understood II 10 be loan that did
not make any explanation to him, and did
not make any statement to him, may be
mistaken. am n man OF few words and
may not have made myself understood to
him.
This terminates the case for the plaintiff.
Ii does not appear that the defendant was
present either In person or by counsel; ut
least, Ia our examination OF the testimony
we have found no instance In which the
witness was cross-examined, either by Mr..
Garfield or on bis behalf. The latter, how
ever, made brief statement to the COM
mittee, and afterwards privately printed an
examination Of the testimony. This has
the appearance OF n straightforward and
satisfactory explanation OF bis apparent
connection with the affair. Weak points OF
the evidence are not picked out for refuta-
ton, and strong ones ones ignored, as IL
common In such cases, but the strongest
points are presented csrbat,a, followed by
explanations OF their bearing or origin.
When we look into the matter We find the
conflict of testimony to be less than II ap
pearx nc first sight; and, except on single
point, there In little difficulty In forming a
quite satisfactory Judgment Of the essential
facts.
We first call TO mind that Mr.. Ames held
the stock az trustee, aud therefore could
derive no personal benefit from Il. Hence
he could afford to be liberal In disposing Of
II. The smallness OF the amount ct his
disposal shows that tho object Was rather
to associate influential names With the en-
terprise, in order TO give ID rospcctAbiIity,
than 10 secure any favorable lcgislatien. In
the event Of an exposure II was evidently
desirable TO have the best possible reputa-
tions 1t risk. and therefore very natural "a
ofYer stock TO men Of the right kind on very
liberal terms. About the end Of 1887 Mr..
Garfield was approached, both b. George
Francis Train and u. Ams1, with Cnerl
Of ten sharos Of the stock ct par, with the
Assurance that II would pay good dividenda
He neither positively declined nor eoceptsd,
but hoId the matter under odviso0snt.