Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1881-10-12

IluuItSiil IclhlttahSo VI SltNVVi WnlCl
Collax admitted he had received regu
: larry. Yet between two OF these peri
odical payments Coliax pretended tina
he had received an extra $1,000 bill
I from sharp business man, who wa
, ia the habit of sending him "checki
for safety"
Only two witnesses were brough
forward by Coliax to sustain his Aimsy
story, invented five years after tht
real transaction. A 'thousand-dollai
bill passed round from hand to hanC
and examined" after special attention
had been called to it, was a fact likely
to be remembered if it had ever hap
pened. But it was not confirmed by
either OF the witnesses, who were
members of his own family, with the
fullest confidence in bis integrity and
doubtless willing to have their memo.
ries refreshened by his statements.
George w. Matthews, the stepiather,
was clerk IN the House of Represent.
atives, who owed his appointment to
Colax. After being coached, Mat.
thews testified
"Aiter the servant went out he
opened the letter, which was written
on ordinary paper. IIo held it up a
moment or two so that we could look
at it, and said "A thousand.dollar
bill from a gentleman who is almost a
stranger"
Mrs. Hollister, Collax's halfsster,
was brought from Utah to help him
out of the scrape She was asked
"Q.-State il you have any recollec.
tion or knowledge Of the receipt OF a
letter by him, enclosing u thousand.
dollar bill, in June, 1868. Al re.
member he received a thousand, dollar
bill in June, and he said it came from
Mr. Nesbit, of New York.
"Q,-You saw the money that came
in the letter. Al cannot say posi-.
tiveiy that Saw il.
"Q,-Do you remember whether Mr..
COliax exhibited the money that was
in it so that you could see it2 Al
could not say as 10 that"
These are the family witnesses, and
they do not corroborate Colfax in any
essential point. Tho bill was not
handed around the room and examined, +,
as be swore it was, and the whole tes-
timony turns upon what ho "said."
No. / and No. 2 of the letter may be
dismissed.
No 3 is unpleasantly chara oteristic
OF Coliax. In bis artiul knavery he
asks why no receipts were passed for
the dividends and money paid out by
Ames. He thinks ii incredible that
any business man would act in that
way. Here were members of Con.
gress corruptly confederating for gain,
all Of whom made Ames their trustee
in order to conceal their venality.
Yet one Of them tries to make a point
in his behalf by exclaiming that no
vouchers were exhibited, and offers as
proof that he and bis associates were
not corrupt, the fact that they did not
sign papers which would have sent
them to the penitentiary
Mr. Hale, acting as counsel for Col
fax, undertook to badger Ames, with
the following result:
"Q.-Did you take any receipt,
voucher or acknowledgment from Mr.
Coliax payment OF the 81, 200 which
you stated you gave him in Junel A.
i do not think | did. gave him a
check and he dreio the money"
"Q.-The last part of your answer
is not responsive TO my question. A.
IT is true nevertheless.
"Q.-Tho payment you have now
testified of s6075, made on the 22d OF
January, 1869, did you take any re.
ceipt or voucher for that2 A.-No,
sir; it was his money.
No. 4 alleges that John T. Drew, q
Vermont lawyer, who was in Europe
during the session of the Credit Mobi.
lier committee, saw Ames present the
S. G. check for $1,000, and pay the
proceeds to third person.
After the death OF Mr. Ames there
turned up a host of defenders of the
Credit Mobiier jobbers, who had
never dared to utter a word whilo he
lived. Among them was this lobbyist,
Drew, who was seen in Washington
while the investigation was going on,
though he claimed to have been in
Paris all the time He says that be
went to Ames with letters OF introduo.
ton, and accompanied him to the office
of the Sergeant-at Arms, where, while
talking business, he spied out the name
and amount on a check in Amcs's
hands. The fellow addressed letter
to Judge Poland, and, although coming
from the same State and protesting to
know him personally, he thought il
necessary to fortify himself with Ger,
udcates OF character. In that letter
ho says;
"On the goth and 22d of June, 1868,
as my diary for that year shows, |
called upon the Hon. Oakes Ames,
The first call (the 20th) was with a
note of introduction from either the
Hon. W. b. Washburn, or the Hon. L.
Il. Woodbridge, | do not remember
which [although he keeps n diary, !
The second time (tho 22d) | met Mr..
Ames bad letter from Major Gen.
eral Veatch, of Indiana, which | read
to him. | walked by bis side to the
Sergeant.at,A Arms desk. While we
were talking [ noticed check in Mr..
Ames's hands. remember very dis
tinctly that it was drawn to IS. G. or
bearer, and was for $1,000 / know
thought to myself, WHO the dick.
ems is S. G. or bearerT This check
was then and there eashed at the deck
of the Sergeant-at.Arms, and | we'll
remember one $500 bill and several
500 bills. Walking back to the gen.
tleman he had first been talking to,
Mr.. Ames handed him this money and
received some kind of a written docu.
ment in return"
Drew's allegations are not made un.
der oath. That ought to settle him as
q witness. But there is more TO be
said. A good liar ought to have O
good memory. Drew kept diary,
and therefore was precise as to dates
and things. He positively saw this
S c. check paid TO Amos on the 22d
of June, 1865, at the second meeting
Now, that check was dated June 10
1t was paid to ColfaA June 20. And
the money was deposited on Monday
morning, June 22, by Coliax, on his
way to the Capitol, as appears by the
deposit ticket in bis own handwriting
and not disputed. Exit Drew.
This is the sort Of testimony which
| Colfax has the effrOntory TO parade fol