Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-10-25
1d!lcastcr t,lteikgenrer.
MONDAY EVENING, OCT. 25, 1880.


PierrepOnt. Grants attorney general
and minister to England, man bold
enough to seek to show that Garfield
was innocent of perjury in the testimony
he gave before the Poland committee in
the Credit Mobilier matter. Mr.. Pierre
j,ont examines the evidence in letter to
the New York .Sua, starting in with the
following accurate statement of the oath
and the charge, and admitting that if
Garfield swOre to what was not true, 10
man ought to vote for him:
On the 14th Of January, 1879 Gen. Gar
field, before a committee Of Congress,
sw0re
81 never owned, received, or agreed to
receive any stock of the Credit Mobilier or
Of the Union Pacific railroad, nor any div
dcnds Or profits arising from either of
them
1t is charged that - this was perjured
statement 1t was deliberately made and
in the course of the testimony it was reit-
Grated with emphasis. II it was false, no
honest man ought to vote Cor General Gar
field.
We can ask nothing more from any
Republican than that he shall withhold
his vote from MI Garfield il he is salts
fed that that he committed perjury. Mr..
Pierrepont tries to show from the evidence
that he did not, and if that is his sincere
belief nothing in this matter stands in the
way of his giving him his vote: and if
his argument satisfies the Republican
voter he can go rejoicing Oh his way to
the polls. We have believed that no
sclf-re:pecting Republican could go,
with head erect, to deposit his ballot for
Garfield, the evidence against him seem
ing 50 damning. Mi. Pierrepont does not
make it seem less so. lie arrives at his
deduction by emitting to consider some
OF tho evidence and 10y discreditins that
of Oakes Ames. He recites the testimony
give" by Ames in the beginning of the
investigation. wien lc hoped to be able
to shield the guilty congressman, but
steers as clear rs lie can from the more
emphatic utterances of his subsequent
evidence. Yet he finds that Ames swears
that Garfield received the Credit Mobilier
stock which Garfield swore he did not re-
ceive, and tha: to clear Garfield he must
diScredit AmeS. This he does. alleging
that .AmeS had an interest in swearing
falsely, since he was threatened with 4
suit to make him account for the stock.
This is Mr.. Perrepont'S case rs he sums
it up:
Tf A.. l,,,l
McCOmb and been threatened by Mr..
Durant with another suit to make him ac-
count for the stock, no such charges would
have been made against Gen. Garfield.
Gen. Garticld's testimony is positive and
explicit.
Every circumstance confirms its truth,
and there is nothing in the evidence which
shakes it. The report is not evidence, nor is
there evidence to sustain the report.
The report says:
He Garfield) agreed with Mr.. Amcs
to take ten shares OF Credit Mobilier stock,
but did not pay for the same. Mr.. Amcs
received the eighty per cent. dividend iE
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, lett a bal
ance of $500. This sum was paid over to
Mr.. Garfield by Il check on the sergeant-at-
arms
This is in direct conflict with Gen. Gar
fields sworn statement, and it is fairly ar
S,led that il the report is accurate, Gen.
Garfie!d's s testimony is false. The report
is signed by Judge Poland, chairman. by
Judge McCrary and 10y Gen. Banks, all Of
them Republicans and men of character
an.l honor. aud each OF them has since
publicly announced his fullest confidence
in the integrity. truth. purity, and honor
Of Gen. Garfield, thereby admitting the i'll
accuracy Of this part CT the report.
Mr.. Pierrepnnt gets over the remarka-
bly ugly fact that the committee, with
its three Republican members, Poland,
Banks anl McCreary, unanimously re-
ported that Garfield had done What he
Swoye hn had no: done, by composedly
stating that Poland and McCreary have
expressed their confidence in Garfield
since his nomination which Is; SO mani
fes:ly insufficient To efface the effect of
their opinion us Judges at the time of
this inquiry that we may assume that
any Republican voter who will he salts
fed with il is SD easily satisfied il,at it is
not worth while to talk to him.
If this case rested on Mr.. Alnes' les
timony MIR. Pierrepont would have
done his work 10y discredi:iEg hi, evil
dence w;,ici lie has no. done. The mo-
tive assigned for Mr.. Ames' perjury is
manifcStly insufficient. Admitting that
the amount involved in this case was
enough to tempt to perjury Il man of his
great wealth il is nevertheless manifest
that his testimony in no way secured it
to him. That showed that the ownership
OF the stock was in Garfield; but that
Garfield had not lifted it : therefore until
claimed by Garfield it en,,rel 10 the be,l-
eft Of The company. If it had been is
sued to -Ames, ,Ames' testimony deprived
him of it instead of securing it to him.
Mr.. PierrepoEt's motive vanishes.
But Mr.. Ames' testimony is Sis.
tained. not only by the unanimous report
of the Poland committee and other testi-
mony taken by ii. but it is shown to lie
true by Gariield's admission to Judge
Black, made before ne testified in
the congressional inquiry: that lie
had received the Credit Mobilier
stock but had taken it innocently and
without knowing the nature of the COM
pany. Mr.. Pierrepont brings in Judge
Black rs 4 witness to prove Garlield's
honesty in his private life, thus:
T.,