Year: 1873

In the Credit MObilier Committee


to-day, Chairman Poland decided that


the records of the War Department,
asked for by Mr.. Brooks, to show the
character of McComb, were foreign to
the subject under investigation.


Nelson, Brooks law, testi-
fed that he borrowed s., 600 of Dillon
after six months acquaintance and
without any previous transactions,
giving Dillon Union Pacific stock as
security. He was told by Brooks that
he was entitled to fifty additional
shares of the Credit Mobilier.


Hon. James A. Ga field testified /:
The first / ever heard of the Credit
Mobilier was some time in 1866 or
1867, l cannot fix the date, when
George Francis Train called on me
and said he was organizing a company
to be known as the Credit Mobilier of
America, to be formed on the model
of the Credit Mubilier of France /; that
the object of the company was to pur-
chase lands and build houses along
the line o1 the Pacific railroad, at
points where cities and villages were
likely to spring up; that he had no
doubt that money thus invested would
double or treble itself each year; that
the subscriptions were limited to ST.
600 each, and he wished me TO sub
scribe. He showed me a long list of
subcribers, among them Oakes Ames,
to whom he referred me for further
information concerning the enter
prise. answered that 1 had not
money to spare, and if l had, l would
not subscribe without knowing more
about the proposed organization. He
then left me, saying he would hold a
place open for me, and hoped would
yet conclude to subscribe. The same
day / asked Ames what he thought of
the enterprise. He expressed the
opinion that the investment would be
safe and profitable. 1 heard nothing
further on the subject for a year or
more, and it was almost forgotten,
when sometime, l should say, during
the long session of 1868, Ames spoke
of it again. He said the company
had organized, was doing well, and he
thought would soon pay large divi-
dends. He said some of the stock had
been left, or was to be left, in his
hands for sale, and 1 could take the
amount which Train had off red me
by paying one thousand dollars and
accrued interest. He said if / was not
able to pay for it then, he would hold
il for me until 1 could pay, or until
some of the dividends were payable.
I told him would consider the mat
ter, but would not agree to take any
stock until / knew from an examina-
ton of the charter and conditions of
subscription the extent to which 1
should become pecuniarily liable. He
said he was not sure, but thought a
stockholder would be liable only for
the par value of his stock that he
had not the stock and papers with
h;I, but would have them after a
while.


From the case as presented, prob
ably should have taken stock if had
been satisfied in regard to the extent
of the pecuniaTy liability. Thus the
matter rested for some time, l think,
until the following year. During that
time l understood there were divi-
dends due, amounting to nearly three
times the par value of the stock, but
in the meantime I had heard that the
company was involved in some con-
troversy with the Pacific railroad, and
that Ames' right to sell the stock was
denied. When l next saw Ames, /
told him had concluded not to take
the stock. Then the matter ended, so
far as was concerned, and / had no
further knowledge of the company's
operations until the subject began to
be discussed in the newspapers last
fall.


Nothing was ever said to me by
Train or Ames TO indicate or imply
that the Credit Mobilier was or could
be in any way connected with the
legislation of Congress for the Pacific
railroad, or for any other purpose.
Ames never gave DOR offered to me-
any stock or other valuable thing as
gift. 1 once asked and obtained from
him, and afterwards repaid him, a
loan of three hundred dollars. That
amount is the only valuable thing
ever received from or delivered to him.
I never owned, received, or agreed to
receive any stock of the Credit Mo-
bilier or of the Union Pacific railroad,
nor any dividend or profits arising
from either of them.