Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-07-19
GARFIELD's DEFENs II.

The defense of Mr.. Garfield against the
charge that he was q stoc kholder and psrti-
cipated in the profits of the Credit Mobilier
of America is lame and impotent one, when
considered in connection with his own testi-
mony and the report of the Poland commit
tee that had charge of the investigation,
and will deceive only the few who are willing
to be deceived. He asserts most positively
that he neither purchased nor agreed to
purchase Credit Mebilier stock, nor did he
receive any dividends arising from it, but
admits having received loan of three hun
dred dollars from Cakes Ames to assist in
paying for house he was then building in
Washington. Unfortunately this. statement
does not tally with his testimony before the
committee or with the statements of his
counsel. When taken to task he admitted
having agreed to take the stock, but claimed
that he had afterwards repented of his deter
mination and never accepted ii. The stock,
nevertheless, remained in his name. The
''loan" was few years ago said to be 1929,
but now the odd 500 have been dropped SO
as to give it the appearance of a legitimate
business transaction. Both Mr.. Garfeld's
own admissions and the positive evidence
OF Mr.. Ames agree in placing the amount at
the latter figures, and throw upon Mr.. Gar
field the duty of explaining why he borrowed
SO unusual an amount as 1929, when he
might as we'll have made it an even $3.50.
In summing up the evidence in the case
Mr.. Garfeld's attorney, Judge Black, adj
mitted openly that his client had been dab
bling in Credit Mobilier stocks, but entered
the plea on his behalf that he did not know
he was doing anything wrong. The Con
gressional committee, composed of his
political friends and associates, did not take
such a charitable view of his conduct, and
in its report submitted to the House on the
18th of February, 1873, said:
The facts in regard to Mr.. Garfield, as found
by the committee, are that he agreed with Mr..
Ames to take ten shares of Credit Mobilier
stock, but did not pay for the same. Mr.. Ames
received the eighty per cent. dividend in bonds
and sold them for ninety-seven per cent, and
also received the sixty per cent. cash dividend,
which, together with the price of the stock and
interest, left balance of 1929. This sum was
paid over to MIR. Garfield by check on the
sergeant-at-arms, and Mr.. Garfield then under
stood this sum aeas the balance Of dividends after
paying for the stock.
This report was agreed upon reluctantly
after full consideration of all the evidence
submitted, and ought to be conclusive
of at least knowledge of the fact
on Mr.. Garfeld's part that he was partici-
pating in Legitimate profits. No denial on
his part can lessen the force of the commit
tees verdict, and the attempt to do SO only
adds to the enormity of the offense.
In the matter of the DeGolyer pavement
he claims that he appeared as an attorney,
| not as Congressman, as matter of accom-
| mediation to friend. AS that friend paid
him five thousand dollars for about an
hours argument it would appear to most
people that the accommodation was mutual.
Mr.. Garfield will have to give more consis-
tent explanation of his dubious transactions
before he can expect to receive belief.