Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-07-07
/ 600
1,400
400

lie found this little piece OF paper on his
table a few days after the conversation, and
thought that, as there was conflict Of testi-
inony it might be worth preserving.
Except this scrap Of paper, Mr.. AInes rec
objection was not, up TO this point supported
by any documentary evidence whatever. He
had produced no original paper, memoran-
DUN, entry, or check Of any kind, by himself
or any one else, showing that Mr. Garfield
had ever agreed to take the stock, or receive
the dividend on it. He stated the circum-
stances entirely from memory, and, when
pressed for particulars, said he had forgotten
them. According to his own testimony his
memory was of little value as evidence
People ask me about things that happened
a year ago, and l cannot tell whether it was
ten years ago or one" illusions to this de-
feet OF memory were frequent during his ex-
animation.
On February 18th the case took a new turn
by the production of MIR. Ames celebrated
inemorandum.bo 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............ 1910. 81, COO 90
mos 10 days. Observation-Disclosures. IS SO
l,o.s So
so p c. dividend at 81 .......,.......... no 90
Interest to June goth. ................. 20 g. g.
I'll co
I,ooo G N.
1000 u. P.
This is calculation showing that on June
20sh Mr. Garfield still owed S271 on bis stock.
which, being deducted from the dividend of
5000 declared about the same time leaves the
balsnce Of 1929, which Mr.. Ames asserted he
had paid But it will he seen that the MEM
orsndum gives no evidence of this payment.
When pressed for the last time to state how
it was understood that the payment was on
account OF the dividend. he replied al sup
posed it was like all the rest; but when Mr..
Garfield says he nistooll it for a loan, that he
always understood it to be loan, that did
not make any explanation to him, and did not
make any statement to him, may be mis-.
taken. | am a man of few Words and | may
rot have made myself understood to him."
This terminates the case of the plaintiff.
1t does not appear that the defendant was
present either in person or by counsel; at
least i'll our examination Of the testimony we
have found no instance in which the witness
was cross examined, either by Mr.. Garfield or
on his behalf. The latter, however, made a
brief statsment to the committee, and alter
wards privately printed an examination of
the testimony. This has the appear
ance of straightforward and salts
factory explanation Of his apparent connec-
ton with the affair. Weak points Of the
evidence are not picked ont for refutation.
AMI strong ones ignored. as is common in such
cases, but the strongest points are presented
verbatim, folio ed by explanations of their
bearing or origin. When We look into
the matter we find the conflict If
testimony to be less than it appears at fret
sight; and, except on a single point, there
is little difficulty in forming quite satisfac.
tory Judgment of the essential facts.
We first call to mind that Mr.. Ames held
the stock as trustee, and therefore could de.
rive no personal benefit from it. Hence he
could afford to be liberal in disposing of it.
The smallness of the amount at his disposal
shows that the object was rather to assoei-
ate influential names with the enterprise, in
order to give it responsibility. than to secure
any favorable legislature. In the event Of AN
exposure it was evidently desirable to have
the hest possible regulations at risk, and
therefore very natural to offer stock to men of
the right kind on very liberal terms. About
the end of 1867 Mr.. Garfield was approached,
both by George Francis Train and Mr.. Ames,
with offers OF ten shares Of stock at par, with
the assurance that it would pay good disi-
dends He neither positively declined nor
accepted, but held the matter under advise
ment Some time during the next few months
Mr.. Garfield, having exhausted his funds by
journey to Europe, borrowed $500 of Mr..
Ames Whether this loan, which he admits
having received, is really identical with tie
dividend OF 1929 which Mr.. Amcs professed
to have paid him, may be an open question,
but the preponderance Of probability seems
to be in the affirmative, for the simple reason
that it was very natural that hIr. Ames'
,.,a oh rows m a p. orv chn,id no va iaep slohtlv
at ianlt after the lapse Of five years. We
might pertinently ask whether one can COR
rectly be said to remember payment when
he cannot recall a single one of the at
tendant circumstances Alr. Ames pro-
duced three checks for 1920 which he had
drawn on the Sergeant-atArms. One or two
of these had initials on them indicating whom
they were Tor, but the one he supposed TO be
Mr. Gsr6ela's Lad 10 mark whatever con-
nscting that gentleman with it nor could
Mr. Aines say whether he had drawn the