USA > Iowa > Buchanan County > History of Buchanan County, Iowa, with illustrations and biographical sketches > Part 134
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103 | Part 104 | Part 105 | Part 106 | Part 107 | Part 108 | Part 109 | Part 110 | Part 111 | Part 112 | Part 113 | Part 114 | Part 115 | Part 116 | Part 117 | Part 118 | Part 119 | Part 120 | Part 121 | Part 122 | Part 123 | Part 124 | Part 125 | Part 126 | Part 127 | Part 128 | Part 129 | Part 130 | Part 131 | Part 132 | Part 133 | Part 134 | Part 135 | Part 136 | Part 137 | Part 138 | Part 139 | Part 140
Q. It says "paid."-A. Yes, sir; well, I did pay it.
--
Q. What I want to know is, whether the list was made out before or after payment ?- 1. About the same time, I suppose; probably before.
These are marked paid, and dated June 31st, and is left for its own comment.
Here follows another from p. 459 :
Q. Now turn to any entries you may have in reference to Mr. Gar- field .- A. Mr. Garfield's payments were just the same as Mr. Kelley's.
Q. 1 find Mr. Kelley's name on the list of June dividend payments for three hundred and twenty-nine dollars. That I understand you to be the amount of the June dividend after paying the balance due on his
67
A CHAPTER ON SLANDERS.
stock ?- A. Yes, sir; the general statement made up for Mr: Garfield is as follows :
GARFIELD.
10 shares Credit M. .$1,000
7 mos. 10 days. 43 36
1,043 36
80 per ct. bd. div., at 97 776
267 36
Int'st to June 20 3 64
271 00
1,000 C. M.
1,000 U. 1'.
Q. You received six hundred dollars cash dividend on his ten shares ?- A. Yes, sir.
Q. And, as you say, paid him three hundred and twenty-nine dol- lars, as the balance of the dividend due him ?- A. I think I did.
Q. This general statement is not crossed off ?- A. No, sir.
Q. In this list of names for the June dividend, Mr. Garfield's name is down for three hundred and twenty-nine dollars .- A. That would be the balance due.
Q. The cross opposite his name indicates that the money was paid to him ?- A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clark remarked that Mr. Ames was not certain whether this amount was paid Mr. Garfield by check or in currency.
The Witness. If I drew the check I may have paid him off in cur- rency, as I find no check with initials corresponding to his.
Q. We find three checks for the amount of three hundred and Iwenty-nine dollars each; one is in blank; there are no initials written in. There are, however, the same number of checks for that amount as are called for by the names on this list for that amount .-- A. I am not sure how I paid Mr. Garfield; I paid him in some form.
Q. This statement of Mr. Garfield's account is not crossed off, which indicates, does it, that the matter has never been settled or ad- justed ?- A. No, sir; it never has.
Mr. Clark remarked that he supposed it was understood that no one of these gentlemen had ever seen the entries in this book.
Q. Can you state whether you have any other entry in your book relating to Mr. Garfield ?- A. No, sir.
From page 471 I quote the last of Mr. Ames' state- ments as to the facts themselves, made as follows:
Q. In testifying in Mr. Garfield's case you say you may have drawn the money on the check and paid him; Is not that answer equally ap- plicable to the case of Mr. Colfax ?- A. No, sir.
Q. Why not ?- A. I put Mr. Colfax's initials in the check, while I put no initials into Mr. Garfield's check, and I may have drawn the money myself.
Q. Do you say that if you put any initials before the words "or bearer" into a check, that is evidence that you gave him the check, and that he drew the money on it ?- A. I am satisfied that I gave him (Colfax) the check any way, because it belonged to him.
Q. Did not Mr. Garfield's check belong to him ?- A. Mr. Garfield had not paid for his stock. He was entitled to three hundred and twenty-nine dollars balance; but Mr. Colfax had paid for his stock, and I had no business with his one thousand, two hundred dollars.
Q. Is your recollection in regard to this payment of Mr. Colfax any more clear than your recollections as to the payment to Mr. Garfield? -A. Yes, sir, I think it is. Do you doubt that I gave him (Colfax) the check ?
Q. That is not a proper question for me to answer; if it were I should. As bearing on the unmarked check of June 22, 1868,
the check of the report, Mr. Dillon, the cashier, said :
Q. There is a check payable to O. A. or bearer; have you any recollection of that ?- A. That was paid to himself.
Q. Have you any memory that it was, or do you judge of that by the form in which the check is drawn ?- A. No; I have no distinct memory about it. ] have no doubt myself that I paid that to Mr. Ames. -Poland Reports, page 479.
I observe of these statements --- that so far from claim- ing that he had any, the least memory of the payment of a dividend to Mr. Garfield, Mr. Ames several times says that he had none. His first testimony directly con- tradicts what he subsequently testified.
He is sustained by no witness. He is not corrobor- ated by any writing of his own. His first account is marked paid June 19, 1868. The sole check by which it could have been paid bears a later date. In his list of June 31st, it is marked as paid. He declares that though marked paid, this was a list of men to be paid, though the claim is that Garfield was paid before. And the list of January 2, 1869, was also that of men then unpaid, of whom Garfield was one, and, finally, that the account never was settled. Thus these papers, so far from sustaining the witness, contradict him, and impeach each other.
The strangest feature of the case is yet to be named. Ames sold to Garfield ten shares of stock, and held it for him as trustee; made one payment in June, 1868, and, though he continued to hold it, and collect the di- vidends, of course, from that day of payment to his ap- pearance before the committee-a period of five years --- he never again so much as mentioned the subject to Garfield. He swore he did not. And, stranger yet, here was this young man, owner of this money-coining stock, impecunious, running about for money and never going to Ames for it on this stock, never to the present time calling him to account, oblivious of ownership, declaring he did not own it, and all the time the sky was serene, and Ames was collecting dividends as owner of the stock, and without a pretense that he had repurchased it. Owner cestui que trust and trustee never so conducted themselves toward the prop- erty. The parties never for an instant held this relation to this Credit Mobilier stock. To pretend they did is the feeblest of sham.
It is remembered that Garfield authorized the state- ment in the Gazette of September 15th, and quietly awaited events. He was not called before the committee until the 14th of January.
As preliminary, I quote a paragraph from his expose of May 8, 1873, page 8. After saying that Mr. Ames sought him, he continues:
68
LIFE OF JAMES A. GARFIELD.
Soon after the investigation began, Mr. Ames asked me what I re- membered of our talk in 1867-8 in reference to the Credit Mobilier Company. I told him I could best answer his question by reading to him the statement I had already prepared to lay before the committee when I should be called. Accordingly, on the following day, I took my written statement to the capitol, and read it to him carefully, sen- tence by sentence, and asked him to point out anything which he might think incorrect. He made but two criticisms; one in regard to a date, and the other, that he thought it was the Credit Foncier, and not the Credit Mobilier, that Mr. Train asked me to subscribe to in 1866-7. When I read the paragraph in which I stated that I had once borrowed three hundred dollars of him, he remarked, "I believe I did let you have some money, but I had forgotten it." He said nothing to indi- cate that he regarded me as having purchased the stock; and from that conversation I did not doubt that he regarded my statement sub- stantially correct. His first testimony, given a few days afterward, confirmed me in this opinion.
I give his testimony entire. Poland's report, page I28:
WASHINGTON, D. C., January 1.4, 1873.
J. A. Garfield, a member of the United States house of represen- tatives from the State of Ohio, having been duly sworn, made tne fol- lowing statement :
The first I ever heard of the Credit Mobilier was some time in 1866 or 1867-I 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 Mobilier of France; that the object of the company was to purchase lands and build houses along the line of the Pacific railroad at points where cities and villages were likely to spring up; that he had no doubt money thus invested would double or treble itself each year; that subscriptions were limited to one thousand dollars cach, and he wished me to sub- scribe. He showed me a long list of subscribers, among them Mr. Oakes Ames, to whom he referred me for further information concern- ing the enterprise. I answered that I had not the money to spare, and if I had I would not subscribe without knowing more about the pro- posed organization. Mr. Train left me, saying he would hold a place open for me, and hoped I would yet conclude to subscribe. The same day I asked Mr. Ames what he thought of the enterprise. He expressed the opinion that the investment would be safe and profitable.
I heard nothing further on the subject for a year or more, and it was almost forgotten, when some time, I should say, during the long ses- sion of 1868, Mr. Ames spoke of it again; said the company had or- ganized, was doing well, and he thought would soon pay large divi- dends. He said that some of the stock had been left or was to be left in his hands to sell, and I could take the amount which Mr. Train had offered me, by paying the one thousand dollars and the accrued inter- est. He said if I was not able to pay for it then, he would hold it for me till I could pay, or until some of the dividends were payable. I told hin ] would consider the matter; but would not agree to take any stock until I knew, from an examination of the charter and the condi- tions of the subscription, the extent to which I would become pecuni- arily 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 him, but would have them after a while.
From the case, as presented, I probably should have taken the stock if I had been satisfied in regard to the extent of pecuniary liability. Thus the matter rested for some time, I think until the following year. During that interval I understood that there were dividends 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 contro- versy with the Pacific railroad, and that Mr. Ames' right to sell the
stock was denied. When I next saw Mr. Ames I told him I had con- cluded not to take the stock. There the' matter ended so far as I was concerned, and I had no further knowledge of the company's opera- tions until the subject began to be discussed in the newspapers last fall.
Nothing was ever said to me by Mr. Ames or Mr. Train 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. Mr. Ames never gave, nor offered to give, me any stock or other valuable thing as a gift. I once asked and obtained from him, and afterward repaid to him, a loan of three hundred dollars; that amount is the only valuable thing I ever received from or delivered to him.
I never owned, received, or agreed to receive any stock of the Credit Mobilier or of the Union Pacific railroad, nor any dividend or profits arising from either of them.
By the chairman:
Question. Had this loan you speak of any connection in any way with your conversation in regard to the Credit Mobilier stock ?-- A. No connection in any way except in regard to the time of payment. Mr. Ames stated to me that if I concluded to subscribe for the Credit Mo- bilier stock, I could allow the loan to remain until the payment on that was adjusted. I never regarded it as connected in any other way with the stock enterprise.
Q. Do you remember the time of that transaction ?- A. I do not remember it precisely. I should think it was in the session of 1868. I had been to Europe the fall before, and was in debt, and borrowed several sums of money at different times and from different persons. This loan from Mr. Ames was not at his instance. I made the request myself. I think I had asked one or two persons before for the loan.
Q. Have you any knowledge in reference to any dealing of Mr. Ames with any gentlemen in congress in reference to the stock of the Credit Mobilier ?- A. No, sir; I have not. I had no knowledge that Mr. Ames had ever talked with anybody but myself. It was a subject I gave but little attention to; in fact, many of the details had almost passed out of my mind until they were called up in the late campaign. By Mr. Black:
Q. Did you say you refused to take the stock simply because there was a lawsuit about it ?- A. No; not exactly that. I do not remember any other reason which I gave to Mr. Ames than that I did not wish to take stock in anything that would involve controversy. I think I gave him no other reason than that.
Q. When you ascertained the relation this company lind with the Union Pacific railroad company, and whence its profits were to be de- rived, would you have considered that a sufficient reason for declining it irrespective of other considerations ?- A. It would have been as the case was afterward stated.
Q. At the time you talked with Mr. Ames, before you rejected the proposition, you did not know whence the profits of the company were to be derived ?- A. I did not. I do not know that Mr. Ames withheld, intentionally, from me any information. I had derived my original knowledge of the organization of the company from Mr. Train. He made quite an elaborate statement of its purposes, and I proceeded in subsequent conversations upon the supposition that the org.inization was unchanged. I ought to say for myself, as well as for Mr. Ames, that he never said any word to me that indicated the least desire to in- fluence my legislative action in any way. If he had any such purpose, he certainly never said anything to me which would indicate it.
Q. You know now, and have known for a long time, that Mr. Ames was deeply interested in the legislation on this subject ?- A. I supposed that he was largely interested in the Union Pacific railroad. I have heard various statements to that effect. I cannot say I had any such information of my own knowledge.
Q. You mean that he did not electionecr with you or solicit your
.
69
A CHAPTER ON SLANDERS.
vote ?- A. Certainly not. None of the conversations I ever had with him had any reference to such legislation.
By Mr. Merrick:
Q. Have you any knowledge of any other member of congress being coneerned in the Credit Mobilier stock ?-- 1. No, sir; I have not.
Q. Or any stock in the Union Pacific railroad ?-. A. I have not. ] can say to the committee that I never saw, I believe, in my life a certifi- cate of stock of the Union Pacific railroad company, and I never saw any certificate of stock of the Credit Mobilier, until Mr. Brooks exhib- ited one, a few days ago, in the house of representatives.
Q. Were any dividends ever tendered to you on the stock of the Credit Mobilier upon the supposition that you were to be a subscriber? -A. No, sir.
Q. This loan of three hundred dollars you have repaid if 1 under- stood you correctly .- A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. McCrary:
Q. You never examined the charter of the Credit Mobilier to see what were its objects ?- \. No, sir; I never saw it.
Q. If I understood you, you did not know that the Credit Mobilier had any connection with the Union Pacific railroad company ?- AA. I understood from the statement of Mr. Train that its objects were con- neeted with the lands of the Union Pacific railroad company and the development of settlements along that road; but that it had any relation to the Union Pacific railroad, other than that, I did not know. I think I did hear also that the company was investing some of its earnings in the bonds of the road.
He stated it was for the purpose of purchasing land and build- ing houses ?- A. That was the statement of Mr. Train. I think he said in that connection that he had already been doing something of That kind at Omaha, or was going to do it.
Q. You did not know that the object was to build the Union Pacific railroad ?- A. No, sir; I did not.
This is the clear, distinct statement of a man giving a succinct account of a transaction in strict accord with all we have learned of the facts. Mr. Ames' first testimony fully corroborates and sustains it in all details.
Garfield received the first information of the real use made of the Credit Mobilier from Judge Black. On re- ceiving that he put an end to all negotiations with Ames.
In corroboration of his evidence, and that this was al- ways his statement of the case, I produce Judge Black's statement bearing date before the report of the committee was made. It covers the whole case and should silence even malice.
PHILADELPHIA, February 15, 1873.
MY DEAR SIR. From the beginning of the investigation concerning Mr. Ames' use of the Credit Mobilier, I believed that General Garfield was free from all guilty connection with that business. This opinion was founded not merely on my confidence in his integrity, but on some special knowledge of his case. I may have told you all about it in eon- versation, but I desire now to repeat it by way of reminder.
I assert unhesitatingly that, whatever General Garfield may have done or forborne to do, he aeted in profound ignorance of the nature and character of the thing which Mr. Ames was proposing to sell. He had not the slightest suspieion that he was to be taken into a ring organized for the purpose of defrauding the public ; nor did he know that the stock was in any manner connected with anything which came, or could come, within the legislative jurisdiction of congress. The case against him laeks the scienter which alone constitutes guilt.
In the winter of 1869-'70, I told General Garfield of the fact that his name was on Ames' list; that .\mes charged him with being one of his distributees; explained to him the eharaeter, origin, and objects of the Credit Mobilier; pointed out the connection it had with congressional legislation, and showed him how impossible it was for a member of con- gress to hold stock in it without bringing 1 is private interests in conflict with his public duty. That all this was to him a perfectly new revela- tion I am as sure as 1 can be of such a fact, or of any fact which is capa- ble of being proved only by moral circumstances. He told me, then, the whole story of Train's offer to him and .Ames' subsequent solicita- tion, and his own action in the premises, much as he details it to the committee. I do not undertake to reproduce the conversation, but the effect of it all was to convince me thoroughly that when he listened to Ames he was perfectly unconscious of anything evil. 1 watched care- fully every word that fell from him on this point, and did not regard his narrative of the transaction in other respects with much interest, because in my view everything else was insignificant. 1 did not care whether he had made a bargain technically binding or not; his integrity depended upon the question whether he acted with his eyes open. If he had known the true character of the proposition made to him he would not have endured it, much less embraced it.
Now, couple this with Mr. Ames' admission that he gave no expla- nation whatever of the matter to General Garfield; then reflect that not a partiele of proof exists to show that he learned anything about it pre- vious to his conversation with me, and I think you will say that it is al- together unjust to put him on the hst of those who knowingly and will- fully joined the fraudulent association in question.
1. S. BLACK.
HON. J. G. BLAINE, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Judge Black was not the attorney of Garfield, and not a political friend. He revealed to Garfield the facts of the relation of the Union Pacific company and the Credit Mobilier, when Garfield had no motive to conceal his own position. He also revealed to him the existence of Mr. Ames' list. On this information Garfield acted.
The question now under consideration is not whether Garfield is venal in the matter of the Credit Mobilier stock. We know he was not, but whether he was guilty of perjury in denying that charge. Did he state the facts as he understood, and stated them to others at the time? These are important questions. On this point hear the following:
HIRAM, OHIO, February 18, 1873. DEAR SIR: It may be relevant to the question at issue between your- self and Mr. Oakes Ames, in the ('redit Mobilier investigation, for me to state that three or four years ago, in a private conversation, you made a statement to me involving the substance of your testimony he- fore the Poland committee, as published in the newspapers. The material points of your statement were these:
That you had been spoken to by George Francis Train, who offered you some shares of Credit Mobilier stock; that you told him that you . had no money to invest in stocks; that subsequently you had a conver- sation in relation to the matter with Mr. Ames ; that Mr. Ames offered to carry the stoek for you until you eould pay for it, if you carcd to buy it ; and that you had told him in that ease perhaps you would take it, but would not agree to do so until you had inquired more fully into the matter. Such an arrangement as this was made, Ames agreeing to carrry the stock until you should decide. In this way the matter stood, as 1 understood it, at the time of our conversation. My understanding
70
LIFE OF JAMES A. GARFIELD.
was distinct that you had not accepted Mr. Ames' proposition, but that the shares were still held at your option.
You stated, further, that the company was to operate in real prop- erty along the line of the Pacific road. Perhaps I should add that this conversation, which I have always remembered very distinctly, took place here in Hiram. I have remembered the conversation the more distinctly from the circumstances that gave rise to it. Having been intimately acquainted with you for twelve or fifteen years, and having had a considerable knowledge of your pecuniary affairs, I asked you how you were getting on, and especially whether you were managing to reduce your debts. In reply you gave me a detailed statement of your affairs, and concluded by saying you had had some stock offered you, which, if you bought it, would probably make you some money. You then proceeded to state the case, as I have stated it above.
I cannot fix the time of this conversation more definitely than to say that it was certainly three, and probably four, years ago.
B. A. HINSDALE, President of Hiram College.
HION. J. A. GARFIELD, Washington, D. C.
That he had not closed with the offer of Ames in the spring of 1868, is clear, from the following statement. He was then deliberating:
CLEVELAND, OHIO, May, I 1873.
DEAR GENERAL: I send you the facts concerning a conversation which I had with you, (I think in the spring of 1868,) when I was stop- ing in Washington for some days, as your guest, during the trial of the impeachment of President Johnson. While there, you told me that Mr. Ames had offered you a chance to invest a small amount in a company that was to operate in lands and buildings along the Pacific railroad, which he (Ames) said would be a good thing. You asked me what I thought of it as a business proposition; that you had not deter- mined what you would do about it, and suggested to me to talk with Ames, and form my own judgment, and if I thought well enough of it, to advance the money and buy the stock on joint account with you, and let you pay me interest on the one-half, 1 could do so. But I did not think well of the proposition as a business enterprise, and did not talk with Ames on the subject.
After this talk, having at first told you that I would give the subject thought, and perhaps talk with Ames, { told you one evening that 1 did not think well of the proposition, and had not spoken to Ames on the subject. . Yours, truly,
HON. J. A. GARFIELD.
J. P. ROBISON.
Both of these gentlemen are widely known and es- teemed in their own State.
This is all that belongs to the case. During the inves- tigation there was an interview between the parties, of which each gave an account. Neither throws any light on the case.
Garfield expected to be called before the committee, to reply to the new and inexplicable statements of Mr. Ames. He was not. The conclusion must be that Gen- eral Garfield never purchased Credit Mobilier stock of Oakes Ames; that he never received money from him as dividends on stock; that all his own statements in the case are in strict accord with truth.
CHAPTER II. SALARY GRAB.
Involves only a Question of Judgment. - Resolution requiring Gar- field's Resignation. Popular Phrenzy .- Garfield as Chairman of the Committee of Appropriations has Charge of the Bill .- Its Magnitude and Importance .- Scheme is an Amendment to it .- Votes Eighteen Times Against It .- His own Statement .-- Meets all his Accusers.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.