The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1880-06-25

| m1ttee TOOK frlll evidence or all thGpar-
ties implicated, and of other persons.
As the result Of their investigation they
reported two resolutions, one for the ex-
pulsion Of Cakes Ames, and the other
for the expulsion of James Brooks. The
whole testimony in the case, SO far as it
related to Mr.. Garfield, was given by
Cakes Ames. The statement of Cakes
Ames concerning Garfield was brief. 1t
is as follows:
On regard to Mr. Garfield, state to the
committee the details of the transactions be-
tween you and him in reference to the Credit
Mobilier stock? Al got for Mr.. Garfield ten
shares of the Credit Mobiler stock, for which
he paid par and interest
Q--When did you agree with him for that
A.-That agreement was in December, 1867. or
January 1863. About that time. About the
time / had these conversations with all of
them. 1t was all about the same time.
Q.-State what grew out of it. AIR. Gar
field did not pay me in money. / sold the
bonds belonging to his 81, 900 of stock at 81.
making $776. In June I received a dividend
in cash on his stock for 5000, which left bal
ance due him of $685. which I paid him. That
is all the transaction between lis. I did not
dellUe7' TO ham d11y stock before or since That
is the transaction ard the only one.
BY Mr.. Merrick--The 1929 which you paid
him was the surplus of earnings on the stock
above the amount to be paid for it-par value?
A.-Yes, sir. He never had either the Credit
Mobilier stock or Union Pacific railroad stock
The only thing he realized from the transaction
was the $329
o. see on this st atement in the account
with Gen. Garfield there is a charge of $47. It
is interest from the July previous, is 1T? A
Yes, sir.
Q.-And the s776 on the credit side is the So
no oo104 bCo1 oo1l -
A.-Yes, sir.
Q.-And the 5000 on the credit side is the
money dividend? A.--Yes, sir.
Q.-And after you had received these two
sums they in the aggregate oyerpaid the prices
Of the stock and interest 1929, which you paid
him? A-Yes sir.
Q.-You did not declare certificate of stock
to him? A.-No, sir; he said nothing about
that.
Q.-Why did he not receive certificate?
Al do not know.
Q.-Do you remember any conversation be-
tween you and him in tbs adjustment of these
accounts? Al do not
Q.-You understood that you were the holder
of his ten shares? A-Yes, sir
Odd he so understand it? Al pre-
sumo so; it seems to have gone from his mind,
however.
Q.-Was this the only dealing you had with
him in reference to any stock? Al think SO.
Q.-There were dividends of Union Pacific
railroad stock on these ten shares? A.--Yes,
sir.
Odd Gen. Garfield ever receive these?
A.-No, sir never received but 1929.
Q.-Has there been any conversation between
you and him In reference to the Pacific stock he
was entitled to? A.-No, sir.
Q.-Has he ever called for it? A.-No, sir.
O. Have you ever offered it to him? A
No, sir
Q.-Has there been any conversation in rela-
ton to it? A.-No, sir.
Summed up, the statement is that
Ames made memorandum that 81, 900
of this stock in his hands was held for
Garfield that the stock earned 81, 329;
that he paid Garfield $329-the surplus
after paying for the stock that during
the five years following, though the
stock continued to earn dividends, he
never delivered the stock itself, nor any
dividends, to Garfield, and had never
any conversation whatever with him on
the subject. According to Ames, the
stock was Garfield's, but was never asked
for nor delivered, though for years after
it was paying dividends, all of which
Ames received and kept to himself
Mr.. Garfeld's explanation was, that
George Francis Train had advised him
to invest in the stock, but he had de-
clined; that, in want of money, he OBJ
tanned loan Of $500 from Ames, which
loan he subsequently paid. Ames said
he paid Garfield 1929; Garfield said he
borrowed $780, AS Ames kept the stock
which he said belonged to Garfield and
all the dividends thereon, and never there
after had any conversation with Garfield
on the subject, there is unquestionable
room for the belief that the transactions
were confounded in Ames' mind.
The committee Of the House made a
full report Of all the testimony, com
menting upon the case. of each member
named In the McComb-Ames list. After
commenting upon the cases of Mr..
Blaine, Mr.. Dawes, Mr.. Scofeld, Mr..
Bingham and Mr.. Kelley, it thus COM
mented upon the case of Garfield
The facts in regard to Mr. Garfield as found
by the committee, are identical with the case of
Mr.. Kelley to the point of reception of the
check for 1929. He agreed with Mr.. Ames to
take ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock, but
did not pay for the same. Mr.. Ames received
the 80 per cent. dividends in bonds, and sold
them for 81 per cent, and also received the 60
per cent cash dividends, which, together. paid
the price of the stock and interest, and left
balance Of 1929. This sum was paid over to
Mr.. Garfield by a check on the Sergeant-at-
Arms, and Mr.. Garfield then understood this
sum was the balance Of dividends after paying
for the stock. Mr.. Ames received all the sub
sequent dividends, and the committee do not
find that, since the payment of the 1929, there
has been any communication between Mr.. Anes
and Mr.. Garfield on the subject until this in
vestigation began.
The committee, speaking of the mem
bers named, report:
The committee, therefore, do not find, as to
the members of the present House above
named, that they were aware Of the object of
Mr.. Ames, or that they had any other purpose
i'm taking this stock than to make profitable
Investment. 1t is apparent that those who adj
vanced their money to pay for their stock pre-
sent more the appearance of ordinary investors
than those who did not but the committee do
not feel at liberty to find any corrupt purpose
or knowledge founded upon the fact Of non
payment alone.
The committee have not been able to find
that any of these members of Congress have
/