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

money himself or given the check to Mr..
Garfield, which seems to US almost eaui yalent
to saying that he did not remember anything
at all about it. Mr.. Garfield says that when
Mr.. Ames lent him the money the latter said
that if he took the stock they could settle
both matters together, so that it was easy for
the transactions to have been associated in
Mr.. Ames' mind. He also says that when he
repaid this loan he took no receipt. as he had
given none, but verbally declined the proposal
to take the offered stock. Nor is there any
thing improbable in the supposition that Mr..
Ames may have rendered the check, and that
Mr. Garfield. being in want of money, may
have accepted ii as loan in case he finally
declined the stock, and dividend in case he
took it, However this might have been. both
agree that there was no further communica-
ton between them on the subject, and that
MIR. Ames never paid or offered to pay him
subsequent dividends, and never rendered
him any evidence of ownership.
This last fact seems conclusive of the main
question, because it proves that Mr.. Garfield
never considered himself the owner of the
stock. 1t is highly improbable that he al
lowed Mr.. Ames to hold for him stocks and
moneys of a cash value of one or two thou
sand dollars for four years without scrap of
evidence to prove his claim in case of Mr..
Ames' death, without once asking for dollar
of the dividends, and without making any at
tempt to realize upon dangerous invest
ment To add to the improbabiiity
of the case, he had, in the meantime, built
himself house, a proceeding which usually
impels men of slender means to search dill
gently for all moneys to which they are en-
titled. In addition to all this, if Mr.. Gar
field held the stock, knowing it to be disrepu-
table, he had an additional motive for dis
connecting his name from it; SO that the
81 :,
MED himself his money in this inexplicable
manner, but that he did SO under peril OF ex-
posture.
We consider the admitted conduct of both
parties during the four years alluded to, from
1868 to 1872, as sufficiently refuting the I'M
certain and vacillating testimony of Mr.
Ames as to what MIR. Garfield agreed to
Go. No doubt he held the ten shares
of stock for Mr. Garfield; he was
very DESTROYS that the name and good
will of that gentleman should be secured, and
he had no reasons for otherwise disposing of
the stock. The transaction, entirely verbal
in its form, was one in which there was room
for indefinite misunderstanding on both
sides, and it is quite possible that MIR. Ames
might have forgotten any verbal refusal of
the stock. AT the same time his failure to
tender either dividends or evidences of owner
ship lends color to the suspicion that he no
more looked upon Mr.. Garfield as owner than
the latter did himself. His apparent state
ment that Mr. Garfield, after he had been
implicated by the testimony, claimed 50, 400
due him, is SO preposterous that we need not
quote Mr. Garfeld's explanation Of the mis-
take.
At the same time it is to be remembered
that the Congressional Committee, which
contained such Republicans as Mr. Poland
Mr.. Banks and Mr.. McCrary. did find
that Mr. Garfield agreed to take the stock,
and received the dividend of 1929; in other
words, they believed Mr.. Ames' story, and
did not believe Mr.. Gar6eld's denial But
the evidence on which they based their con-
clusion is before the world, and they have no
such judicial authority as to make their find
ing anything more than very disagreeable
fact for MIR. Garield's friends and a very use
full one for his enemies. We must say for our
own part that until now we had overlooked the
long interval which elapsed between the distri-
button of the stock and pay ment of the divi-
dend and the investigation. We are satisfied
that Mr.. Ames' admitted failure during all
that period of four years either to attempt to
deliver the stock or to pay any subsequent
dividends ON it, and Mr.. Garfield's admitted
failure to ask for either stock or dividends,
though confessedy in great need of money,
give Mr.. Garfield's version of the transaction
the strongest kind of confederation, and,
taken in connection with what is known Of
his life and character, would be sufficient, if
he were not Presidential candidate, to clear
him in the eyes of all reasonable men of
every imputation arising out of it,