The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1880-07-14

stock He declined to do so. He afterward
saw Mr.. Cakes Ames, who expressed the
opinion that the Investment would be good
one. He heard no more on the subject for
year or more and then Mr.. Ames, during
the long session of 1868, called his attention
to it, and said he had some of the stock to
sell, and that he might have the amount
which Mr.. Train had offered him by paying
the thousand dollars and accrued Interest,"
He said to Mr.. Ames that he would consider
the matter, and thus the question was left
until, as he thinks, the following year. In
the meantime he heard that the Credit Mob
ilier Controversy with the Pacific Railroad,
and that the right of Mr.. Ames to sell the
stock was denied. The next time he saw Mr..
Ames, he told him that he had concluded not
to take the stock and here the matter end
ed, SO far as he was concerned, and thereafter
he had no knowledge of the Company's oper-
ations until the subject began to be discussed
in the newspapers. He "never owned, re-
ceiyed, or agreed to receive any stock of the
Credit Mobiier or of the Union Pacific Rail-
road, nor any dividend or profits arising from
hundred dollars of Mr.. Ames, and afterward
repaid him. He had no knowledge that any
member of Congress had bought or agreed to
buy any of this Credit Mobilier stock.
This is, for substance, the story which
General Garfield told before the Poland Com
mittee. And, while the statement is straight
forward and CONSTANT, it, with single ex-
ception, perfectly harmonizes with and is
corroborated by the testimony of Mr.. Ames
in his first Examination. That exception re-
lates to the question whether he agreed to
take ten shares of tho Credit Mobilier stock.
he did not Both may have been perfectly
honest in their respective statements. Wheth-
er be did or did not agree to take the stock,
Mr.. Ames says that he never took IL, never
paid any money for it, and never received
from him any dividends on account of it, and
that he once let him have three or four hun
dred dollars and this is what General Gar
field says. The explicit denials of the latter
are confirmed by the testimony of the former.
It is true that Mr.. Ames, in being again
summoned before the Poland Committee, on
the 22d of January, 1878, contradicted this
statement of Gen. Garfield, and claimed that
he had paid him three hundred and twenty
niue dollars as profit on Credit Mobier stock
(which he held for him, and just as emphati-
cally contradcted himself, presenting some
memoranda of his own which he failed to
connect with General Garfield IN any way
That is to say, Mr.. Ames tells at two different
periods essentially contradictory stories about
the same matter, in one of which be confirms
and in the other dscredits the statement
made by General Garfield, and in one OF which
he discredts himself as to what he said In the
other. The Democrats, assuming that he
meant to tell the truth and did tell the truth
| in his statement, and emitting to refer to the
fact that, il this be so, then he did not and
did not mean to tell the truth in his former
statement, seek to palm off upon the commu-
nifty false and unjust exhibit Of the CASE
| They make no reference to the first story OF
Mr.. Ames and dwell only upon the last, in
which he contradicts General Garfield and
here they take for granted that General Gar
field, and not Mr.. Ames was the liar. This
is the conclusion which, for purely party rea-
sons, they are determined to have, whether il
be true or false.
Now, we submit in all candor that there Is
not court in the land that would not, in the
light of the testimony, acquit General Gar
field, not only as to any wrong doipg in the
Credit Mobilier matter, but as to any falsfi-
cation of the truth. We believe that he
spoke the truth as it existed in his own mind
and as it was, in point of fact, when he testi-
fed before the Poland Committee. The only
witness that discredits him is Mr.. Cakes
Ames and it SO happens that this Mr.. Ames
Just as much discredits himself, besides being
convicted Of an attempt to bride members Of
Congress. BY his own showing, he was false
to the truth in one of his statements and
If so, then he is very poor witness to prove
another man liar, especially man of such
a record as that of General Garfield. He Ii
supported by no documents, receipts. or Other
papers with which General Garfield has any
connection or for which any responsibility.
Moreover the testimony which Mr.. Amei
gave as to the transaction between himself
and the Hon. William d. Kelly, of Pennsyl
yania differs most essentially from that giver
by Mr.. Kelley in regard to the same matter
If Mr.. Kelly is to be believed, then Mr.. Amel
did not speak the truth in respect to him.
The statements of the two men are irrecon-
eilable quite as much SO as the latter state
ment of Mr.. Ames and the statement of Gen
eral Garfield The fact is that Mr.. Ames is {
discredtable witness, by his own showing
and by that of other witnesses and yet it II
solely upon this testimony that the Democrats
are now seeking, for political reasons, to bias
the character Of General Garfield as man o
truth. We have no doubt that General Gar
field can stand II, and that he will stand it II
the judgment of the people. AS to the ques
ton of veracity between the two men, WI
have no hesitation We believe that Genera
Garfield spoke the truth in his statement be
fore tho Poland Committee, and that Mr.
Ames did not speak the truth, in so far as h
contradieted that statement.
Will somebody please inform us why
- n - r. IL ~ =.