The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1880-07-09

out discussing anybody else, I call you
to witness that stated at once what I
knew about it, the first time that I knew
the talk was going the rounds of
the newspapers. When the commit.
tee. of investigation eaiiie I'd fiiake up
their report, there was one thing In that
report to which / personally took excep-
tions, and only one. understand that
a gentleman occupied this room a few
nights ago who undertook tn make the
impression upon his audience that Mr..
Garfield was found guilty of some i'm
proper relation with the Credit Mobilier.
Let me read you sentence or two from
that report. The committee says:
Concerning the members to whom
he has sold, or offered to sell, the stock,
the committee says that they do not
find that Mr.. Ames, In his negotiations
with the persons above named, entered
into any details of the relations between
the Credit Mobilier company and the
Pacific company, or gave them any spe-
cific information rs to the amount of div
idends they would be likely to receive,
further than has already been stated,
viz. that in some cases he had guar
anteed a profit Of 10 per cent. They do
not find rs to the members of the pres
ent house above named that they were
aware of the object of Mr.. Ames, or that
they had any other purpose III taking
this stock than to make a profitable in
vestment. They have not been
able to find that any of these men,
bers of congress have been affect
ed in their official action in con-
sequence of interest in the Credit Mo-
bilier stock. They do
not find that either of the above-named
gentlemen in contracting with MIR. Ames
hal any corrupt motive or purpose him
self, or was aware Mr.. Ames had any,
nor did either of them suppose he was
guilty Of any improperly or indelicacy
in becoming q purchaser of his stock.
And, finally, that the committee find
nothing in the conduct or motives of
either Of these gentlemen in taking this
stock that calls for any recommendation
by the committee of the house," See
pages 8, 8 and 10.
In Mr.. Ames' first testimony he names
sixteen members Of congress to whom he
offered the stock, and says that eleven Of
them bought it, but he sets Mr.. Garfield
down among the five who did not buy it.
He says: "He [Garfeldl did not pay
for it or receive it. He
never paid any money on that stock nor
received money on account OF it. Let
me add that the last grant to the Union
Pacific railroad was by the act of July,
1864, and that Cakes Ames had nothing
to do with Credit Mobilier till more than
two years after that date.
The point to which took exception
to the report of the committee was this:
the report held that Mr.. Ames and Mr..
Garfield did agree upon the purchase Of
the stock, and that Mr.. Garfield received
1929 on account Of 1t. / insisted that
the evidence did not warrant that con-
clusion, and rose in my place in the
house and announced that should make
that statement good before the American
public; that held myself responsible to
demonstrate that the committee was
wrong; that, although they charged me
with no wrong, they still had made
mistake of fact which was against the
evidence and unjust to me. Soon after
published pamphlet Of twenty-eight
pages, in which l carefully and
thoroughly reviewed all the testimony
relating to me. have now stood before
the American people since the 9Th day
of May, 1873, announcing that
the following propositions were
proven concerning myself: That never
agreed even to take the stock of Mr..
Ames; that l never subscribed for it,
never did take it; never received any
dividends from it, and never was in any
way made a beneficiary by it. Seven
thousand copies of that pamphlet have
been distributed throughout the United
States. Almost every newspaper in the
United States has had copy mailed to
it. Every member of the Forty-second
congress-Democrat and Republican,
had copy, and there is not known to
me man vino, having read my review,
has denied its conclusiveness of these
propositions. have seen no newspaper
review of it that denies the conclusive
ness of the propositions. 1t is for these
reasons that great public journal, the
New York Ecening Post, said few
days ago that on this point Gen. Gar
fields answer had been received by the
American people as satisfactory. APP
plause. understand that a Mr..
Tuttle, of gainesville, said here
on this platform few nights
ago that either the committee of
investigation of the house of representa-
tives or Mr. Garfield had committed
perjury in regard to this Credit Mobilier
matter. 1 wonder if he ever heard of
two men making their statement Of
case differing materially from each other
without one or the other of them being
perjurer. If L were in the habit of
calling names it would not be difficult to
find name for man whose intellectual
vision leads him to such n conclusion.
If there is any gentleman in this audi
ence who desires to ask any questions
concerning the Credit Mobilier shall
be glad to hear it. No response. If
not, would it not be about rs well to
modify the talk on that subject hereaf-
ter? Applause.