The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1880-07-02
GEN. GARFIELD AND CREDIT MO.
BILIER.
tfro,n The CHICAGO fribune.i

who had been partner in all the Pacific
railroad transactions with Cakes Ames,
brought suit in q Pennsylvania court
against various parties for settlement
of accounts. Among the papers filed
was a letter from Cakes Ames, stating
that he had disposed of certain shares
of the Credit Mobilier stock to certain
persons indicated by initials on list,
and McComb explained that these ini-
tails indicated persons az follows:
J.. q. Blaine, 5000; Senator Patterson,
$1,000; Senator Wilson, $4,000; s. Colfax,
$1,000; Elliott, Of Massachusetts, 5000;
Dawes. of Massachusetts, $4,000; Boutwell,, OF
Massachusetts,, $1,000 Bingham and Garfield,
Of Ohio scoGeId and Kelley, Of Pennsylvania
Fowler, Of Tennessee.
At the meeting of Congress in Deem
Der, 1872, on motion of Mr.. Blaine, a
committee was appointed to examine
and report the facts Of the case. Of
this committee Judge Poland, of YER
mont, was the Chairman. The COM
mittee took full evidence of all thepar-
ties implicated, and of other persons.
As the result OF their investigation they
reported two resolutions, one for the ez-
pillsion of Cakes Ames, and the other
for the expulsion of James Brooks. The
whole testimony in the case, 80 far as it
related to Mr.. Garfield, was given by
Cakes Ames. The statement Of Cakes
Ames concerning Garfield was brief. It
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 stOck2 Al got for Mr.. Garfield ten
shares of the Credit Mobilier stock, for which
lie paid par and interest.
Q.-When did you agree with him for that?
A.-That agreement was in December, 1867, or
January, 1868. About that time. About the
time l 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 1000 Of stock at 81,
making S776. In June j received dividend
ance due him of 1929, which paid him. That
il all the transaction between us. did not
deliUer 10 him any stock before or since. That
is the transaction and the only one.
by Mr.. Merrick--The 1929 which Won paid
him was the surplus OF earnings on the stock
above the amount to be paid for it-par valuet
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 1929.
o. see on this st atement in the account
with Gen. Garfield there is a charge Of SAT. 1t
is interest from the July previous, is 1t? A
Yes, sir.
Q.-And the s776 on the credit side is the 30
percent bond dividend sod at 81 per cent?
A.-Yes, sir.
Q.-And tho 5000 on the credit side is the
money dividend2 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 q certificate of stock
to him2 A.-No, sir he said nothing about
that.
Q.-why did he not receive a certifcate2
Al do not know.
Q.-Do you remember any conversation be-
tween you and him in the adjustment Of these
accounts2 Al do not.
Q.-You understood that you were the holder
of his ten shares? A.-Ycs, sir.
Odd he 80 understand 1t? 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 30.
Q.-There were dividends OF Union Pacific
railroad stock on these ten shares? Ayes,
sir.
Odd Gen. Garfield ever receive these?
A.-No, sir never received but 1929.
Q.-Has there been any conversation between
you and him III reference to the Pacific stock he
was entitled to2 A.-No. sir.
Q.-Has he ever called for it2 A.-No, sir.
O. Have you ever offered 1t to him? A.
No, sir.
Q.--Has there been any conversation in rela-
ton to it2 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;
L., 81 H,n
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.. Garfield'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 $500. 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 COMPOUNDED in Ames' mind.
The committee of the House made
full report of all the testimony, COM
menting upon the case of each member
named in the McComb-Amcs 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
Dir. Kelley to the point Of reception of the
check for 1920. He agreed with Mr.. Ames to
take ten shares Of Credit Mobiier stock, but
did not pay for the same. Mr.. Ames received
the 80 per cent. dividends in bonds, and sold
them for % per cent, and also received the GO
per cent. cash dividends, which, together, paid
the price of the stock and interest, and left q
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.. Ames
and Mr.. Garfield on the subject until this in
vestigation began.
The committee, speaking of the men,
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
in taking this stock than to make profitable
investment. II 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 j; 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
been affected in their official action in conse-
quence of their interest in Credit Mobilier
stock.
The committee do not find that either of the
above-named gentlemen, in contracting with
Mr.. Ames, had any corrupt motive or purpose
himself, or was aware that Mr.. Ames had any,
nor did either of them suppose he was guilty OF
any improperly, or even indelicacy, in becon-
ing purchaser of this stock. Had it appeared
that these gentlemen were aware Of the enor.
nous dividends upon the stock, and how they
We're to be earned, VIC could not thus acquit
them.
And that is the whole story told by
the Investigating Committee. The
whole variance between Ames and Gar
field was as to whether Ames paid him
1929 or whether Ames loaned him $500.
In either case Ames declares that Gar
field never received any stock or certifi-
Gates, nor any dividends which the stock
earned from 1867 to 1873.
The report expressly acquits all the
persons named-Blaine, Dawes, Scofield,