Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1880-07-29
$1,000
Loo


SZ,fUO
q. You say these figures were made by
Mr.. Garfield A. Yes, sir.
q. That was his idea of what was COM
ing TO him ? a. Yes, sir.
q. How did you happen TO retain that
little stray memorandum A. do not
know. did not pay any attention 10 ii
at the time, until ! found there was to be a
conflict of testimony, and / thought IL
might be worth preserving.
General Garfield never appeared he.
fore the committee after the foregoing
testimony had been given by Mr.. Ames,
thus leaving the sworn statement that
the memorandum was in his own hand.
writing uncontradicted. He subsequent.
ly issued an address to his constituents,
many of whom had revolted against his
reelection, in which he denied that he
had purchased or agreed To purchase
the stock, but he did not allude to the
damaging memorandum, and now his
formal defense presented for the Presi.
dental campaign, is also silent on the
point. Until General Garfield can deny
the genuineness Of the memorandum.
which as yet is undisputed, all attempts
at explanation Of the Credit Moblier
transaction must be worse than failures.
Another strange omission in his de
fense is his failure to take any note of
the unanimous finding of the Republi.
can committee that reported to the
House February Is, 1873, through Judge
Poland, as follows:
The facts in regard to Mr. Garfield. ne
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 a balance of 1929. This sum
was paid over 10 Mr.. Garfield by check
on the Sergeant-at-Arms,a and Mr.. Garfield
then understood this sum was the balance
of dividends after paying for the stock.
General Garfield was then, az new, a
member of the house. but he made no
protest on the floor against the judg.
ment of his political friends who thus
condemn him. This report and the
testimony of Mr.. Ames in regard to
General Garfeld's memorandum of
Credit Mobilier profits due TO him are
the two apparently conclusive facts
against him, and they are the two points
which he passes in silence in offering
his defense to his countrymen.
Another strange omission In General
Garfeld's defense must attract very
general attention. In his explanation
of the De Golyer fee OF Eve thousand
dollars, paid him for presumed protes-
sional services, he is strangely silent on
the solemn judicial decisions OF two
courts distinctly condemning his fee a.
corrupt and illegal. In suit brought
in the Cook county Circuit Court of
Illinois, to recover the full amount of
the corruption fund for the Washington
paving contracts, Of which General Gar
fields fee was a part, the defense de.
INJURED on the ground that the money
claimed was promised to influence the
official action Of General Garfield, chair.
man OF the Committee on Appropria.
tions, through whose official favor the
fraudulent contracts had to be paid
by government appropriations. Judge
Farwell sustained the demurrer because
such contract with General Garfield
was corrupt and could not be legally
enforced. The trial was had ut Chicago
in May, 1875, and the case was appealed
TO the Supreme Court OF the United
States, where Justice Swayne delivered