1  _      -~   ~            -_- _-         I
T-I           R ANSACTIONS
R -E AT 1 E' W
OF TIIE
CREDIT MOBILIER COMPANY,
AND AN FXAMINIAT'ION OF01
THAT PORTION OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN BIY THE COMMITTEE1      I
OF INVESTIGATION AND REPORTED T TO T-lE lOSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AT THE LAST SESSION OF 
TIlE FORTY-SEICOND CONGIRESS
WHICH RELATES TO MR. GARFIELD.
WASHINGTON.
1873.








REVIEW
OF
TI IE TR AN.SACTIONS
OF THE
CREDIT MOBILIER COMPANY
AND AN EXAMINATION OF
THAT PORTION OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE
OF INVESTIGATION AND REPORTED TO THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AT-THE LAST SESSION OF
THE FORTY-SECOND CONGRESS
WHICH RELATES TO MR. GARFIELD.
WASHINGTON.
1873.








NOTE.
Since this review was written, the telegraph has announrced the death
of Mr. Ames. This circumstance may raise a question as to the propriety of publishing this paper; but I gave notice in the House of Representatives, on the 3d of March last, that I should publish such a review,
and I then indicated its scope and character. Furthermore, justice to
the living cannot wrong the memory of the dead.
In revising these pages, as they are passing through the press, I am
glad to find no expressions, prompted by a spirit of bitterness, which the
presence of death requires me to erase.
J. A. GARFIELD.
WASHINGTON, D. C., May 8, 1873.








JR EVI EAV.
The events of the late winter recall forcibly a declaration made more
than twenty-two centuries ago, by a man who possessed a profound
knowledge of human nature and society. In answering a grave charge
made against his public conduct, he said he did not stand on equal
ground with his accusers, for the reason that people listen to accusation
more readily than to defense. This remark has sometimes been thought
cynical and unjust; but there is much in our recent history that gives
it force.
In no period of the political life of this country has the appetite for
scandal been keener, or its exercise less restrained, than during the last
year. One of our most brilliant and influential journalists, in an address delivered a few  days since to a convention of his professional
brethren in Indiana, while speaking of the present tone of the press,
used this emphatic language:
The law presumes a man to be innocent until he is proved guilty.
The press, not merely usurping the functions of the law in arraigning'a man whom
the constable has no warrant to arrest, goes still further, and assumes him, prima facie,
to be guilty. After many weeks, if the case of the accused comes to trial, he is acquitted; the law makes him an honest man; but there is the newspaper which has condemned him, and cannot, with a dozen retractions, erase the impression left and the
damage done by a single paragraph.
It might not be becoming in a layman, who feels in his own case.the
force of this paragraph, to volunteer such a declaration; but it is quite
proper for him to testify to its truth when thus forcibly stated.
This paragraph from the address of the journalist finds a striking
illustration in the history of the subject now under review.
In the autumn of 1872, during the excitement of the Presidential
campaign, charges of the most serious character were made against ten
or twelve persons who were then, or had recently been, Senators and
Representatives in Congress, to the effect that, five years ago, they had
sold themselves for sundry amounts of stock of the Credit Mobilier Company and bonds of the Pacific Railroad Company. The price at which
different members were alleged to have bartered away their personal
honor and their official influence was definitely set down in the newspapers; their guilt was assumed, and the public vengeance was invoked
not only upon them, but also upon the party to which most of them
belonged.
CREDIT MOBILIER INVESTIGATION.
By a resolution of the House, introduced by one of the accused members, and adopted on the first day of the late session, an investigation
of these charges was ordered. The parties themselves and many other
witnesses were examined; the records of the Credit Mobilier Company
and of the Pacific Railroad Company were produced; and the results of
the investigation were reported to the House on the 18th of February.
The report, with the accompanying testimony, was brought up in the




6
House for consideration on the 25th of -February, and the discussion
was continued until the subject was finally disposed of; three days
before the close of the session. The investigation was scarcely begun
before it was manifest that the original charge that stock was givien to
members as a consideration for their votes was wholly abandoned, there
being no proof whatever to support it.
But the charge assumed a new form, namely: That the stock had
been sold to members at a price known to be greatly below its actual
value, for the purpose of securing their legislative influence in favor of
those who were managing and manipulating the Pacific Railroad for
their own private advantage and to the injury both of the trust and of
the United States. Eight of those against whom charges had been
made in the public press, myself among the number, were still members of the House of Representatives, and were specially mentioned in
the report. The committee recommended the adoption of resolutions
for the expulsion of Messrs. Ames and Brooks, the latter on charges in
no way connected with Mr. Ames or the other members mentioned.
They recommended the expulsion of Mr. Ames for an attempt to influence the votes and decisions of members of Congress by interesting
them in the stock of the Credit Mobilier, and through it in the stock of
the Union Pacific Railroad. They found that though Mr. Ames in no
case disclosed his purpose to these members, yet he hoped so to enlist
their interest that they would be inclined to favor any legislation in aid
of the Pacific Railroad and its interest, and that he declared to the
managers of the Credit Mobilier Company at the time that he was thus
using the stock which had been placed in his hands by the company.
Concerning the members to whom le had sold, or offered to sell,
the stock, the committee say that they "do not find that Mr. Ames, in
his negotiations with the persons above named, entered into any detail
of the relations between the Credit Mobilier Company and the Union
Pacific Company, or gave them any specific information as to the
amount of dividends they would be likely to receive further than has
been already stated, [viz, that in some cases he had guaranteed a profit
of 10 per cent.] * * * They do not find as to the members of the
present House above named that they were aware of the object of Mr.
Ames, or that they had any other purpose in taking this stock than to
make a profitable investment. * * * They have not been able to
find that any of these members of Congress have been affected in their
official action in consequence of interest in. the Credit-Mobilier stock.
*  * * They do not find that either of the above-named gentlemen in
contracting with Mr. Ames had any corrupt motive or purpose himself
or was aware Mr. Ames had any. Nor did either of them suppose he
was guilty of any impropriety or even indelicacy in becoming a purchaser of this stock." And finally, that "the committee find nothing
in the conduct or motives of either of these members in taking this
stock, that calls for any recommendation by the committee of the
House."  (See pp. viii, ix, x.)
In the case of each of the six members just referred to, the committee sum up the results of the testimony, and from that summary the
conclusions above quoted are drawn. In regard to me, the committee
find: That in December, 1867, or January, 1868, I agreed to purchase
ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock of Mr. Ames, for $1,000, and the
accrued interest from the previous July; that in June, 1868, Mr. Ames
paid me a check on the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House for $329, as a
balance of dividends on the stock, above the purchase-price and accrued
interest; and that thereafter, there were no payments or other transac



7
tions between us, or any communication on the subject until the invesgation began in December last.  (See Report, p. vii.)
I took the first opportunity offered by the completion of public business to call the attention of the House to the above summary of the
testimony in reference to me.  On the 3d of March I made the following remarks, in the House of Representatives, as recorded in the Congressional Globe for that day:
Mr. GARFIELD, of Ohio. I rise to a personal explanation. During the late investigation by the committee of which the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. POLAND] was the 
chairman, I pursued what seemed to be the plain path of duty, to keep silence except
when I was called upon to testify before the committee. When testimony was given
which appeared to be in conflict with mine, I waited, expecting to be called again if
anything was needed from me in reference to these discrepancies. I was not recalled;
and when the committee submitted their report to the House, a considerable portion
of the testimony relating to me had not been printed.
In the discussion which followed here I was prepared to submit some additional
facts and considerations in case my own conduct came up for consideration in the
House; but the whole subject was concluded without any direct reference to myself,
and since then the whole time of the House has been occupied with the public business.
I now desire to make a single remark on this subject in the hearing of the House.
Though the committee acquitted me of all charges of corruption in action or intent,
yet there is in the report a summing up of the facts in relation to me which I respectfully protest is not warranted by the testimony. I say this with the utmost respect
for the committee, and without intending any reflection upon them.
I cannot now enter upon the discussion; but I propose, before long, to make a statement to the public, setting forth more fully the grounds of my dissent from the summing up to which I have referred. I will only say now that the testimony which I
gave before the committee is a statement of the facts in the case as I have understood
them from the beginning. More than three years ago, on at least two occasions, I stated the case to two personal friends substantially as I stated it before the committee,
and I here add that nothing in my conduct or conversation has at any time been in
conflict with my testimony. For the present I desire only to place on record this
declaration and notice.
In pursuance of this notice, I shall consider so much of the history
of the Credit Mobilier Company as has any relation to myself.  To render the discussion intelligible, I will first state briefly the offenses
which that corporation committed, as found by the committees of the
House.
HISTORY OF THE CREDIT MOBILIER COMPANY,
The Credit Mobilier Company is a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Pennsylvania, and authorized by its charter to
purchase and sell various kinds of securities and to make advances of
money and credit to railroad and other improvement companies.  Its
charter describes a class of business, which, if honestly conducted, any
citizen may properly engage in.
On the 16th of August, 1867, Mr. Oakes Ames made a contract
with the Union Pacific Railroad Company to build six hundred and
sixty-seven miles of road, from the one hundredth meridian westward, at
rates ranging from $42,000 to $96,000 per mile. For executing this contract he was to receive in the aggregate $47,925,000, in cash, or in the
securities of the company.
On the 15th of October, 1867, a triple contract was made between
Mr. Ames of the first part, seven persons as trustees of the second part,
and the Credit Mobilier Company of the thirdpart, by the terms of which
the Credit Mobilier Company was to advance money to build the road,
and to receive thereon 7 per cent. interest and 2~ per cent. commission;
the seven trustees were to execute the Ames contract, and the profits
thereon were to be divided among them, and  such other stockhold



8
ers of the Credit Mobilier Company as should deliver to them an irrevocable, proxy to vote the stock of the Union Pacific held by them.
The principal stockholders of the Credit Mobilier Company were also
holders of a majority of the stock of the Union Pacific Railroad.
On the face of this agreement, the part to be performed by the Credit
Mobilier Company as a corporation was simple and unobjectionable.
It was to advance money to the contractors and to receive therefor
about ten per cent. as interest and commission. This explains how it
was that in a suit in the courts of Pennsylvania in 1870, to collect the
State tax on the profits of the company, its managers swore that the
company had never declared dividends to an aggregate of more than
twelve present. The company proper did not receive the profits of the
Oakes Ames contract. The profits were paid only to the seven trustees
and to such stockholders of the Credit Mobilier as had delivered to them
the proxies on their Pacific Railroad stock. In other words, a ring
inside the Credit Mobilier obtained the control both of that corporation
and of the profits of the Ames contract.
By a private agreement made in writing October 16, 1867, the day
after the triple contract was signed, the seven trustees pledged themselves to each other so to vote all the Pacific Railroad stock which they
held in their own right or by proxy, as to keep in power all the members
of the then existing board of directors of the railroad company not appointed by the President of the United States, or such other persons as
said board should nominate. By this agreement, the election of a
majority of the directors was wholly within the power of the seven
trustees. From all this it resulted that the Ames contract and the triple
agreement made in October amounted in fact to a contract made by
seven leading stockholders of tje Pacific Railroad Company with themselves; so that the men who fixed the price at which the road was to be
built were the same men who would receive the profits of the contract.
The wrong in this transaction consisted, first, in the fact that the
stockholding directors of the Pacific Railroad, being the guardians of a
great public trust, contracted with themselves; and, second, that they
paid themselves an exorbitant price for the work to be done; a price
which virtually brought into their own possession, as private individuals,
almost all the property of the railroad company. The six hundred
and sixty-seven miles covered by the contract included one hundred
and thirty-eight miles already completed the profits on which inured to
the benefit of the contractors. (See Report of Credit Mobilier Comliittee
No. 2, p. xiii.)
The Credit Mobilier Company had already been engaged in various
enterprises before the connection with the Ames contract. George
Francis Train had once been the principal owner of its franchises, and
it had owned some western lands; (Wilson's Report, pp. 497-8;) but its
enterprises had not been very remunerative, and its stock'had not been
worth par. The triple contract of October, 1867, gave it at once considerable additional value. It should be borne in mind, however, that the
relations of the Credit Mobilier Company to the seven trustees, to the
Oakes Ames contract, and to the Pacific Railroad Company, were known
to but few persons until long afterward, and that it was for the interest
of the parties to keep them secret. Indeed, nothing was known of it to
the general public until the facts were brought out in the recent investigations.
In view of the facts above stated, it is evident that a purchaser of
such shares of Credit Mobilier stock as were brought under the operation of the triple contract would be a sharer in the profits derived by




9
that arrangement from the assets of the Pacific Railroad, a large part of
which consisted of bonds and lands granted to the road by the United
States. The holding of such stock by a member of Congress would
depend for its moral qualities wholly upon the fact whether he did or
did not know of the arrangement out of which the profits would come.
If he knew of the fraudulent arrangement by which the bonds and lands
of the United States delivered to the Union Pacific Railroad Company
for the purpose of constructing its road were to be paid out at enormously extravagant rates, and the proceeds to be paid out as dividends to
a ring of stockholders made the Credit Mobilier Company, he could not
with any propriety hold such stock, or agree to hold it, or any of its
proceeds.  And for a member of Congress, knowing the facts, to hold
under advisement a proposition to buy this stock would be morally as
wrong as to hold it and receive the profits upon it.  If it was morally
wrong to purchase it, it was morally wrong to hesitate whether to purchase it or not.
I put the case on the highest ethical ground, and ask that this rule be
applied in all its severity in judging of my relation to this subject.
PROPOSITIONS TO BE DISCUSSED.
The committee found, as already stated, that none of the six members
to whom Mr. Ames sold, or proposed to sell, the stock, knew of this arrangement.  I shall, however, discuss the subject only in so far as relates
to me, and shall undertake to establish three propositions:
First. That I never purchased nor agreed to purchase the stock, nor
received any of its dividends.
Second. That though an offer was made, which I had some time
under advisement, to sell me $1,000 worth of the stock, I did not then
know, nor had I the means of knowing, the real conditions with which
the stock was connected, or the method by which its profits were to be
ma de.
Third. That my testimony before the committee is a statement of the
facts as I have always understood them; and that neither before the
committee nor elsewhere has there been, on my part, any prevarication
or evasion on the subject.
MR. GARFIELD'S TESTIMONY.
My testimony was delivered before the investigating committee on
the 14th of January. That portion which precedes the cross-examination, I had written out soon after the committee was appointed.  I quote
it, with the cross-examination, in full, as found recorded on pp. 128 to
131:
WASHINGTON,,D. C., January 14, 1873.
J. A. GARFIELD, a member of the United States House of Representatives from the
State of Ohio, having been duly sworn, made the following 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 that money thus invested
would double or treble itself each year; that subscriptions were limited to $1,000
each, and he wished me to subscribe. He showed me a long list of subscribers, among
them Mr. Oakes Ames, to whom he referred me for further information concerning
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 proposed organization.  Mr. Train left




10
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 session of 1868, Mr. Ames spoke
of it again; said the company had organized, was doing well, and he thought would
soon pay large dividends. 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 $1,000 and the accrued interest. 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 him I would consider the matter; but would not agree to take any stock
until I knew, from an examination of the charter and the conditions of the subscription, the extent to which I 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 him, but.would have them after a while.
From the case, as presented, I should probably 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 mean time I had beard that the company was involved in some controversy
with the Pacific Railroad, and that Mr. Ames's right to sell the stock was denied.
When I next saw Mr. Ames I told him I had concluded 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 operations until the subject began to be discussed in the newspapers last
fall.
Nothing was ever said to me by Mr. Train or Mr. 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. 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 $300; 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 dividends 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?-Answer. 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 Mobilier 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 him for the loan.
Q. Have you any knowledge in reference to any dealings 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 that this company had with the Union Pacific
Railroad Company, and whence its profits were to be derived, 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 kn'ow 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 organization 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 influence 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




11
interested in the legislation on this subject?-A. I supposed that he was largely interested in the Union Pacific Railroad..1 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 electioneer with you or solicit your 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 concerned in
the Credit Mobilier stock?-A. No, sir; I have not.
Q. Or any stock in the Union Pacific Railroad?-A. T have not. I can say to the
conmittee that I never saw, I believe, in my life a certificate of stock of the Union
Pacific Railroad Company, and I never saw any certificate of stock of the Credit Mobilier, until Mr. Brooks exhibited 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 $300 you have repaid, if I understood you correctly? —A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. MCCRARY:
Q. You never examined the charter of the Credit Mobilier to see what were its
objects?-A. 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?-A. I understood from the statement
of Mr. Train that its objects were connected 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.
Q. He stated it was for the purpose of purchasing land and building 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 case as I understand it, and as I have always understood
it. In reviewing it, after all that has been said and written during the
past winter, there are no substantial changes which I could now make,
except to render a few points more definite. Few men can be certain that
they give with absolute correctness the details of conversations and
transactions after a lapse of five years. Subject to this limitation I
have no doubt of the accuracy of my remembrance concerning this transaction.
From this testimony it will be seen that when Mr. Ames offered to
sell me the stock in 1867-'68, my only knowledge of the character and
objects of the Credit Mobilier Company was obtained from  Mr. Train,
af least as early as the winter of 1866-'67, long before the company
had become a party to the construction contract.  It has been said that
I am mistaken in thinking it was the Credit Mobilier that Mr. Train
offered me in 1866-'67.  I think I am  not.  Mr. Durant, in explaiining
his connection with the Credit Mobilier Company, says, (pp. 169, 170.)
I sent Mr.-Train to Philadelphia. We wanted it (the Credit Mobilier) for a stock
operation, but we could not agree what was to be done with it. Mr. Train proposed
to go on an expanded scale, but I abandoned it. I think Mr. Train got some subscriptions; what they were I do not know.
It has been said that it is absurd to suppose that intelligent men,
familiar with public affairs, did not understand all about the relation of
the Credit Mobilier Company to the Pacific Railroad Company.  It is a
sufficient answer to say that, until the present winter, few  men either
in or out of Congress ever understood it, and it was for the interest of
those in the management of that arrangement to prevent these facts from
being known. This will appear from the testimony of Hon. J. F. Wilson,
who purchased ten shares of the stock in 1868.  In the spring of 1869
he was called upon professionally to give an opinion as to the right of




12
holders of Pacific Railroad stock to vote their own shares, notwithstanding the proxy they had given to the sevfen trustees. To enable him to
understand the case, a copy of the triple contract was placed in his
hands. He says, (page 213:)
Down to the time these papers were placed in my hands, I knew almost nothing of
the organization and details of the Credit Mobilier, or the value of its stock, but
then saw that here was abundant ground for future trouble and litigation, and, as one
of the results, sold out my interest.
And again, (p. 216:)
Q. Do you, or did you know, at the time you had this negotiation with Mr. Ames
the value of the Credit Mobilier stock?-A. I did not; and I wish to state here, in
regard to that, that it was a very difficult thing to ascertain what was the value of the
stock. Those who, as I say in my statement, possessed the secrets of the Credit
Mobilier, kept them to themselves; and I never was able to get any definite information as to what the value of the stock was.
When, in the winter of 1867-'68, Mr. Ames proposed to sell me some
of the stock, I regarded it as a mere repetition of the offer made by Mr.
Train more than a year before. The company was the same, and the
amount offered me was the same. Mr. Ames knew it had formerly been
offered me, for I had then asked him his opinion of such an investment;
and having understood the objects of the company, as stated by Mr.
Train, I did not inquire further on that point.
There could not be the slightest impropriety in taking the stock, had
the objects of the company been such as Mr. Train represented them to
me. The only question on which I then hesitated was that of the personal, pecuniary liability attaching to a subscription; and, to settle that
question, I asked to see the charter, and the conditions on which the
stock were based. I have no doubt Mr. Ames expected I vould subscribe. But more than a year passed without further discussion of subject. The papers were not brought, and the purchase was never made.
In the winter of 1869-70 I received the first intimation I ever had of
the real nature of the connection between the Credit Mobilier Company
and the Pacific Railroad Company, in a private conversation with the
Hon. J. S. Black, of Pennsylvania. Finding in the course of that conversation that he was familiar with the history of the enterprise, I told
him all I knew about the matter, and informed him of the offer that had
been made me. He expressed the opinion that the managers of the
Credit Mobilier were attempting to defraud the Pacific Railroad Company, and informed me that Mr. Ames was pretending to have sqld
stock to members of Congress, for the purpose of influencing their action in any legislation that might arise on the subject.
Though I had neither done nor said anything which placed me under
any obligation to take the stock, I at once informed Mr. Ames that if
he was still holding the offer open to me he need do so no longer, for I
would not take the stock. This I did immediately after the conversation with Judge Black, which, according to his own recollection as well
as mine, was early in the winter of 1869-'70.
One circumstance has given rise to a painful conflict of testimony between Mr. Ames and myself. I refer to the loan of $300. Among the
various criticisms that have been made on this subject, it is said to be
a suspicious circumstance that I should have borrowed so small a sum
of money from Mr. Ames about this time. As stated in my testimony, I
had just returned from Europe, only a few days before the session
began, and the expenses of the trip had brought me short of funds.
I might have alluded in the same connection to the fact, that before
going abroad I had obtained money from a banker in New York, turn



13
ing over to him advanced drafts for several months of my congressional salary when it should be due. And needing a small sum,
early in the session, for current expenses, I asked it of Mr. Ames, for
the reason that he had volunteered to put me in the way of making
what he thought would be a profitable investment. He gave me the
money, asking for no receipt, but saying at the time that if I concluded
to take the stock we would settle both matters together.  I am not able
to fix the exact date of the loan, but it was probably in January, 1868.
Mr. Ames seemed to have forgotten this circumstance until I mentioned
it to him after the investigation began; for he said in his first testimony
(p. 28) that he had forgotten that he had let me have any money. I
neglected to pay him this money until after the conversation with Judge
Black, partly because of my pecuniary embarrassments, and partly
because no conclusion had been reached in regard to the purchase of
the stock. VWhen I repaid him  I took no receipt, as I had given none
at the first.
Mr. Ames said once or twice, in the course of his testimony, that I
did not repay it, although he says in regard to it, on page 358, that he
does not know and cannot remember.
ADDITIONAL TESTIMIONY.
On these differences of recollection between Mr. Ames and myself,
it is not so important to show that my statement is the correct one, as
to show that I have made it strictly in accordance with my understanding of the facts. And this I am  able to show  by proof entirely independent of my own testimony.
In the spring of 1868, Hon. J. P. Robison, of Cleveland, Ohio, was my
guest here in Washington, and spent nearly two weeks with me during
the trial of the impeachment of Andrew  Johnson. There has existed
between us an intimate acquaintance of long standing, and I have often
consulted him on business affairs.  On meeting him since the adjournment of Congress, he informs me that while he was visiting me on the
occasion referred to, I stated to him the offer of Mr. Ames, and asked
him  his opinion of it. The following letter, just received from  him,
states the conversation as he remembers it:
CLEVELAND, OHIO, May 1,1873.
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 stopping iu 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 determined 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, I could do RO. 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 I would give the subject thought, and perhaps talk with Ames, I told you one evening that I did not think well of the proposition, and had not spoken to Ames on the subject.
Yours, truly,
J. P. ROBISON.
Hon. J. A. GARFIELD.
I subjoin two other letters, which were written about the time the
report of the committee was made, and to which I refer in my remarks
made on the 3d March in the House of Representatives.  The first is
from a citizen of the town where I reside; and the time of the conversation to which it alludes was, as near as I can remember, in the fall of
1868, during the recess of Congress:




14
HIRAM, OHIO, February 18, 1873.
DEAR SIR: It may be relevant to the question at issue between yourself and Mr.
Oakes Ames, in the Credit 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 before 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 the Credit Mobilier stock; that you told him that you had no money to invest in
stocks; that subsequently you had a conversation in relation to the matter with Mr.
Ames; that Ames offered to carry the stock for you until you could pay for it, if you
cared to buy it; and that you had told him in that case 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 carry the stock until you should
decide. In this way the matter stood, as I understood it, at the time of our conversation. My understanding was distinct that you had not accepted Mr. Ames's proposition, but that the shares were still held at your option.
You stated, further, that the company was to operate in real property 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 it was certainly
three, and probably four, years ago.
Very truly, yours,
B. A. HINSDALE,
President of Hiram College.
Hon. J. A. GARFIELD,
Washington, D. C.
The other letter was addressed to the Speaker of the House, and is
as follows:
PHILADELPHIA, February 15, 1873,
MY DEAR SIR: From the beginning of the investigation concerning Mr. Ames's 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 conversation, 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 acted in profound ignorance of the nature and character of the thing which
Mr. Ames was proposing to sell. He had not the slightest suspicion 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
lacks 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's list; that Ames charged him with being one of his distributees; explained to
him the character, 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 Congress to hold stock in it without bringing his private interests in
conflict with his public duty. That all this was to him a perfectly new revelation I
am as sure as I can be of such a fact, or of any fact which is capable of being proved
only by moral circumstances. He told me, then, the whole story of Train's offer to
him and Ames's subsequent solicitation, 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. I watched carefully 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. I
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's admission that he gave no explanation whatever




15
of the matter to General Garfield; then reflect that not a particle of proof exists to
show that he learned anything about it previous to his conversation with me, and
I think you will say that it is altogether unjust to put him on the list of those who
- knowingly and willfully joined the fraudulent association in question.
J. S. BLACK.
Hon. J. G. BLAINE,
Speaker of the House of Bepresentatives.
To these may be added the fact, recently published by Colonel Donn
Piatt, of this city, that in the winter of 1869-'70 he had occasion to
look into the history. of the Credit Mobilier Company, and found the
same state of facts concerning my connection with it as are set forth in
the letters quoted above.
Whether my understanding of the facts is correct or not, it is manifest from the testimony given above that in the spring of 1868, and in
the autumn of that year, and again in the winter of 1869, when I could
have no motive to misrepresent the facts, I stated the case to these
gentlemen, substantially as it is stated in my testimony before the committee.
RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES IN SEPTEMBER, 1872.
But it has been charged in the newspapers that, during the Presidential campaign, I denied any knowledge of the subject, or at least
that I allowed the impression to be made upon the public mind that
I knew nothing of it. To this I answer, I wrote no letter on the subject and made no statement in any public address, except to deny, in the
broadest terms, the only charge then made, that I had been bribed by
Oakes Ames.
When the charges first appeared in the newspapers, I was in Montana
Territory, and heard nothing of them until my return on the 13th or
14th of September.  On the following day I met General Boynton, correspondent of the Cincinnati Gazette, and related to him  briefly what I
remembered about the offer to sell the stock. I told him I should write
no letter on the subject, but if he thought best to publish the substance
of what I had stated to him he could do so. The same day he wrote
and telegraphed from  Washington to the Cincinnati Gazette, under
(late of September 15, 1872, the following, which is a brief but correct
report of my statement to him:
General Garfield, who has just arrived here from the Indian country, has to-day had
the first opportunity of seeing the charges connecting his name with receiving shares
of the Credit Mobilier from Oakes Ames. He authorizes the statement that he never
subscribed for a single share of the stock, and that he never received or saw a share of
it. When the company was first formed, George Francis Train, then active in it, came
to Washington and exhibited a list of subscribers, of leading capitalists, and some members of Congress, to the stock of the company. The subscription was described as a
popular one of $1,000 cash. Train urged General Garfield to subscribe on two occasions,
and each time he declined. Subsequently he was again informed that the list was
nearly completed, but that a chance remained for him to subscribe, when he again declined, and to this day he has not subscribed for or received any share of stock or bond
of the company.
This dispatch was widely copied in the newspapers at the time, and
wwa the ouay tatement I made or authorized. One thing in connection
with the case I withheld from  the public. When I saw the letters of
Oakes Ames to Mr. McComb, I was convinced, from what Judge Black
had told me in 1869, that they were genuine, and that Ames had pretended to McComb that he had sold the Credit Mobilier stock for the
purpose of securing the influence of members of Congress in any legis



16
lation that might arise touching his interests. I might have published
the fact that I had heard this, and now believed Ames had so represented
it; though at the time Judge Black gave me the information I thought
quite likely he was mistaken. I did not know to what extent any other
member of Congress had had negotiations with Mr. Ames; but knowing
the members whose names were published in connection with the
charges, and believing them to be men of the highest integrity, I did
not think it just either to them or to the party with which we acted, to
express my opinion of the genuineness of Ames's letters at a time when
a false construction would doubtless have been placed upon it.
Here I might rest the case, but for some of the testimony given by
Mr. Ames in reference to myself. I shall consider it carefully, and shall
make quotations of his language, or refer to it by pages as printed in
the report, so that the correctness of my citations may, in every case,
be verified.
POINTS OF AGREEMENT AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MR.
AMES AND MYSELF.
To bring the discussion into as narrow a compass as possible, the
points of agreement and difference between Mr. Ames and myself may
thus be stated:
We agree that, soon after the beginning of the session of 1867-'8,
Mr. Ames offered to sell me ten shares of the Credit Mobilier stock, at
par and the accrued interest; that I never paid him any money on that
offer; that I never received a certificate of stock; that after the month
of June, 1868, I never received, demanded, or was offered any dividend,
in any form, on that stock. We also agree that I once received from
Mr. Ames a small sum of money. On the following points we disagree:
He claims that I agreed to take the stock. I deny it. He claims that
I received from him $329, and no more, as a balance of dividends on the
stock. This I deny; and assert that I borrowed from him $300, and no
more, and afterwards returned it; and that I never received anything
from him on account of the stock.
In discussing the testimony relating to myself, it becomes necessary,
for a full exhibition of the argument, to refer to that concerning others.
MR. AMES'S FIRST TESTIMONY.
It has been said that in Mr. Ames's first testimony, he withheld
or concealed the facts generally; and hence, that what he said at
that time concerning any one person is of but little consequence. The
weight and value of his first testimony concerning any one person can
be ascertained only by comparing it with his testimony given at the
same examination concerning others.
In that first examination of December 17, as recorded on pp. 15-58,
Mr. Ames mentions by name (pp. 19-21) sixteen members of Congress
who were said to have had dealings with him in reference to Credit
Mobilier stock. Eleven of these, he says in that testimony, bought the
stock; but he there sets me down among the five who did not buy it.
He says, p. 21, " He [Garfield] did not pay for it or receive it."
He was, at the same time, cross-examined in regard to the dividends
he paid to different persons; and he testified (pp. 23-41) that he paid
one or more dividends to eight different members of Congress, and that
three others, being original subscribers, drew their dividends, not from
him, but directly from the company. To several of the eight he says




17
he paid all the dividends that accrued. But in the same cross-examination, he testified that he did not remember to have paid me any dividends, nor that he had let me have any money. The following is the
whole of his testimony concerning me, on cross-examination:
Q. In reference to Mr. Garfield, you say that you agreed to get ten shares for him,
and to hold them till he could pay for them, and that he never did pay for them nor
receive them — A. Yes, sir.
Q. He never paid any money on that stock nor received any money from it — A. Not
en account of it.
Q. He received no dividends?-A. No, sir; I think not. He says he did not. My
own recollection is not very clear.
Q. So that, as you understand, Mr. Garfield never parted with any money, nor received any money on that transaction?-A. No, sir; he had some money from me once,
some three or four hundred dollars, and called it a loan. He says that that is all he
ever received from me, and that he considered it a loan. He never took his stock, and
never paid for it.
Q. Did you understand it so?-A. Yes; I am willing to so understand it. I do not
recollect paying him any dividend, and have forgotten that I paid him any money.(P. 28.)
v              *         *         *         *          *         *
Q. Who received the dividends?-A. Mr. Patterson, Mr. Bingham, James F. Wilson
did, and I think Mr. Colfax received a part of them. I do not know whether he received them all or not. I think Mr. Scofield received a part of them. Messrs. Kelley
and Garfield never paid for their stock, and never received their dividends.-(P. 40.)
Certainly it cannot be said that Mr. Ames has evinced any partiality
for me; and if he was attempting to shield any of those concerned, it
will not be claimed that I was one of his favorites.
In his first testimony, he claims to have spoken from memory, and
without the aid of his documents. But he did then distinctly testify
that he sold the stock to eleven members, and paid dividends to eight
of them. He not only did not put me in either of those lists,.but distinctly testified that I never took the stock nor received the dividends
arising from it.
MR. AMES'S SUBSEQUENT TESTIMONY.
His second testimony was given on the 22d January, five weeks after his first. In assigning to this and all his subsequent testimony its
just weight, it ought to be said that before he gave it an event occurred
which made it strongly for his interest to prove a sale of the stock
which he held as trustee. Besides the fact that McComb had already
an equity suit pending in Philadelphia, to compel Mr. Ames to account
to him for this same stock, another suit was threatened, after he had
given his first testimony, to make him account to the company for all
the stock he had not sold as trustee.  His first testimony was given on
the 17th December, and was made public on the 6th of January.  On
the 15th of January T. C. Durant, one of the heaviest stockholders of
the Credit Mobilier Company, and for a long time its president, was
examined as a witness, and said, (p. 173:) "The stock that stands in
the name of Mr. Ames, as trustee, 1 claim belongs to the company yet;
and I have a summons in a suit in my pocket waiting to catch him in
New York to serve the papers." Of course, if as a trustee he had made
sale of any portion of this stock, and afterward as an individual had
bought it back, he could not be compelled to return it to the company.
Nowhere in Mr. Ames's subsequent testimony does he claim to remember the transaction between himself and me any differently from what
he first stated it to be. But from  the memoranda found or made after
his first examination, he infers and declares that there was a sale of the
stock to me, and a payment to me of $329 on account of dividends.
2 c




18
Here, again, his testimony concerning me should be compared with his
testimony given at the same time concerning others.
The memoranda out of which all his additional testimony grew, consisted of certificates of stock, receipts, checks on the Sergeant-at-Arms,
and entries in his diary. I will consider these in the order stated.
To two members of Congress he delivered certificates of Credit Mobilier stock, which as trustee he had sold to them; (see pp. 267 and 290;)
and in a third case he delivered a. certificate of stock to the person to
whom  a member had sold it. But Mr. Ames testifies that he never
gave me a certificate of stock; that I never demanded one; and that no
certificate was ever spoken of between us. (See pp. 295, 296.)
In the case of five members, he gave to them, or received from them,
regular receipts of payment on account of stock and dividends.  (See
pp. 21, 113. 191, 204, 337, 456, and 458.)  But nowhere is it claimed or
pretended that any receipt was ever given by me, or to me, on account
of this stock, or on account of any dividends arising from it.
Again, to five of the members, Mr. Ames gave checks on the Sergeantat-Arms, payable to them  by name; and these checks were produced
in evidence. (See pp. 333, 334, and 449.)  In the case of three others,
he produced checks bearing on their face the initials of the persons to
whom he claimed they were paid. But he nowhere pretended to have
or ever to have had any check bearing either my name or my initials,
or any mark or indorsement connecting it with me.(
In regard to dividends claimed in his subsequent testimony to have
been paid to different members, in two cases he says he paid all the dividends that accrued on the stock from December, 1867, to May 6, 1871.
(See pp. 191 and 337.) In a third case, all the accretions of the stock were
received by the person to whom he sold it, as the result of a resale. (See
p. 217.) ~ In a fourth case he claims to have paid money on the 22d
September, 1868, on account of dividends, (see p. 461;) and in a fifth case
he claims to have paid a dividend in full, January 22, 1869. (See p 454.)
One purchaser sold his ten shares in the winter of 1868-'69, and received
thereon a net profit of at least $3,000. Yet Mr. Ames repeatedly swears
that he never paid me but $329; that after June, 1868, he never tendered to me nor did I ever demand from him  any dividend; and that
there was never any conversation between us relating to dividends.
(See pp. 40, 296, and 356.)
As an example of his testimony on this point, I quote from page 296.
After Mr. Ames had stated that he remembered no conversation between
us in regard to the adjustment of these accounts, thecommittee asked:
Q. Was this the only dealing you had with him in reference to any stock?-A. I
think so.
Q. Was it the only transaction of any kind?-A. The only transaction.
Q. Has that $329 ever been paid to yon?-A. 1 have no recollection of it.
Q. Have you any belief that it ever has?-A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever loan General Garfield $300 — A. Not to my knowledge; except that
he calls this a loan.
Q. There were dividends of Union Pacific Railroad stock on these ten shares? —A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Did General Garfield ever receive these — A. No, sir. He never has received but
$329.  *
Q. Has there been any conversation between you and him in reference to the Pacific
stock he was entitled to? —A. No, sir.
Q. Has he ever called for it?-A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever offered it to him — A. No, sir.
Q. Has there been any conversation in relation to it?-A. No, sir.
The assertion that he withheld the payment of dividends because of
the McComb suit brought in November, 1868, is wholly broken down




19
by the fact that he did pay the dividends to several persons during a
period of two years after the suit was commenced.
The only other memoranda offered as evidence are the entries in Mr.
Ames's diary for 1868. That book contains a separate statement of
an account with eleven members of Congress, showing the number of
shares of stock sold or intended to be sold to each, with the interest and
dividends thereon. (See pp. 450 to 461.) Across the face of nine of
these accounts, long lines are drawn, crossing each other, showing, as
Mr. Ames says, that in each such case the account was adjusted and
closed. Three of these entries of accounts are not thus crossed off, (see
pp. 451, 458, and 459,) and the three members referred to therein testify
that they never bought the stock. The account entered under my name
is one of the three that are not crossed off. Here is the entry in full.
(See p. 459:)
G.nRFIEL.D.
10 shares Credit M.$...............                         $1,000 00
7 mos. 10 daysa...................-.......-.........................    43 36
1,043 36
80  per ct. bd. div., at 97..............................................  776  00
267 36
Int'st to June 20...............................          3  64
271 00
1,000 C. M.
1,000 U. P.
This entry is a mere undated memorandum, and indicates neither payment, settlement, or sale. In reference to it, the following testimony
was given by Mr. Ames on cross-examination, (see p. 460:)
Q. This statement of Mr. Garfield's account is net crossed off, which indicates, does
it, that the matter has never been settled or adjusted?-A. No, sir; it never has.
Q. Can you state whether you have any other entry in relation to Mr. Garfield?-A.
No, sir.
Comparing Mr. Ames's testimony in reference to me, with that in
reference to others, it appears that when he testified from his memory
alone, he distinctly and affirmatively excepted me from the list of
those who bought the stock or received the dividends; and that subsequently, in every case save my own, he produced some one or more of the
following documents as evidence, viz, certificates of stock; receipts of
money or dividends; checks bearing either the full names or the initials
of the persons to whom they purported to have been paid; or entries,
in his diary, of accounts marked "adjusted and closed."  But no one of
the classes of memoranda here described was produced in reference to
me; nor was it pretended that any one such, referring to me, ever existed.
In this review, I neither assert nor intimate that sales of stock are
proved in the other cases referred to. In several cases such proof was
not made. But I do assert that none of the evidences mentioned above
exist in reference to me.
MR. AMES'S MEMORANDA.
Having thus stated the difference between the testimony relating to
other persons, and that relating to me, I now notice the testimony on




20
which it is attempted to reach the conclusion that I did agree to take
the stock, and did receive $329 on account of it.
On the 22d of January, Mr Ames presented to the committee a statement of an alleged account with me, which I quote from page 297:
J. A.G.,                           Dr.
1868.   To 10 shares stock Credit Mobilier of A.......................... $1,000 00
Interest.......................................................  47  00
June  19. To cash.........................................................  329  00
1,376 00
Cr.
1868.   By dividend bonds, Union Pacific Railroad, $1,000, at 80 per cent.
lees 3 per cent.................................................  $776  00
June 17. By dividend collected for your account...........................   600 00
1,376 00
This account, and other similar ones presented at the same time, concerning other members, he claimed to have copied from his memorandum-book. But when the memorandum-book was subsequently presented, it was found that the account here quoted was not copied from
it, but was made up partly from memory and partly from such memoranda as Mr. Ames had discovered after his first examination.
By comparing this account with the entry made in his diary, and
already quoted, it will be seen that they are not duplicates, either in
substance or form; and that in this account a new element is added,
namely, an alleged payment of $329 in cash on June 19. This is the
very element in dispute.
THE CHECK ON THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.
The pretended proof that this sum was paid me is found in the production of a check drawn by Mr. Ames on the Sergeant-at-Arms.  The
following is the language of the check, as reported on page 353 of the
testimony:
JUNE 22, 1868.
Pay O. A. or bearer three hundred and twenty-nine dollars, and charge to my
account.
OAKES AMES.
This check bears no indorsement or other mark, than the words and
figures given above. It was drawn on the 22d day of June, and, as
shown by the books of the Sergeantatat-Arms, was paid the same day
by the paying-teller.  But if this check was paid to me on the account
just quoted, it must have been delivered to me three days before it was
drawn; for the account says that I received the payment on the 19th of
June.
There is nothing but the testimony of Mr. Ames that in any way
connects this check with me. And, as the committee find that the
check was paid to me, I call special attention to all the testimony that
bears upon the question.
When Mr. Ames testified that he paid me $329 as a dividend on
account of the stock, the following question was asked him, (p. 295:)
Q. How was that paid?-A. Paid in money, I believe.
At a later period in the examination, (p. 297:)
Q. You say that $329 was paid to-him. How was that paid — A. I presume by a
check on the Sergeant-at-Arms. I find there are checks filed, without indicating who
they were for,




21
One week later, the check referred to above was produced, and the
following examination was had, (p. 353:)
Q. This check seems to have been paid to somebody, and taken up by the Sergeantat-Arms. Those initials are your own — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know who had the benefit of this check?-A. I cannot tell you.
Q. Do you think you received the money on it yourself?-A. I have no idea. I may
have drawn the money and handed it to another person. It was paid in that transaction. It may have been paid to Mr. Garfield. There were several sums of that
amount.
Q. Have you any memory in reference to this check — A. I have no memory as to
that particular check.
Still later in the examination occurs the following, (p. 354:)
Q. In regard to Mr. Garfield, do you know whether you gave him a check, or paid
him the money?-A. I think I did not pay him the money. He got it frbm the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Still later, in the same examination, occurs the following, (p. 355:)
Q. You think the check on which you wrote nothing to indicate the payee, must
have been Mr. Garfield's?-A. Yes. sir. That is my judgment.
On the 11th February, twelve days later still, the subject came up
again, and Mr. Ames said, (p. 460:)
A. I am not sure how I paid Mr. Garfield.
Still later, in a cross-examination in reference to Mr. Colfax, the following occurs, (p. 471:)
Q. In testifying in Mr. Garfield's case, you say you may have drawn the money on
the check and paid him. Is not your answer equally applicable to the case of Mr.
Colfax — A. No, sir.
Q. Why not —A. I put Mr. Colfax's initials on the check, while I put no initials on
Mr. Garfield's, and I may have drawn the money myself.
Q. Did not Mr. Garfield's check belong to him?-A. Mr. Garfield had not paid for
his stock. He was entitled to $329 balance. But Mr. Colfax paid for his, and I had
no business with his $1,200.
Q. Is your recollection in regard to this payment to Mr. Colfax any more clear than
your recollection as to the payment to Mr. Garfield?-A. Yes, sir; I think it is.
And finally, in the examination of Mr. Dillon, cashier of the Sergeantat-Arms, the following is recorded, (p. 479:)
Q. There is a check payable to Oakes Ames or bearer. Have you any recollection of
that — A. That was paid to himself. I have no doubt myself that I paid that to Mr.
Ames.
Reviewing the testimony on this point, (and I have quoted it all,) it
will be seen that Mr. Ames several times asserts that he does not know
whether he paid me the check or not.  He states positively that he has
no special recollection of the check. His testimony is wholly inferential.
In one of the seven paragraphs quoted, he says he paid me the money;
in another he says he may have paid me the money; in three of them
he thinks, or presumes, that he paid me the check; and in the other
two he says he does not know.
The cashier of the Sergeant-at-Arms has no doubt that Mr. Ames himself drew  the money on the check.  And yet, upon this vague and
wholly inconclusive testimony, and almost alone upon it, is based the
assumption that I received from Mr. Ames $329, as a dividend on the
stock. I affirm, with perfect distinctness of recollection, that I received
no check from  Mr. Ames.  The only money I ever received from  him
was in currency.
The only other evidence in supiport of the assumption that he paid me
$329, as a balance on the stock, is found in the entries in his diary for




22
1868. The value of this class of memoranda depends altogether upon
their character and upon the business habits of the man who makes
them. On this latter point the'following testimony of MIr. Ames, on
page 34, is important:
Q. Is it your habit, as a matter of business, in conducting various transactions with
different persons, to do it without making any memoranda?-A. This was my habit.
Until within a year or two I have had no book-keeper, and I used to keep all my own
matters in my own way, and very carelessly, I admit.
The memorandum-book in which these entries were made was not presented to the committee until the 11th of February, one week before
they made their report. This book does not contain continuous entries
of current transactions, with consecutive dates. It is in no sense a daybook, but contains a loose, irregular mass of memoranda, which may
have been made at the time of the transactions, or long afterward. Mr.
Ames says of it in his testimony, (page 281:)
Q. What was the character of the book in which the memoranda were made?-A. It
was in a small pocket memorandum, and some of it on slips of paper.
It is not pretended that this book contains a complete record of payments and receipts. And yet, besides the check already referred to,
this book, so made up, contains the only evidence, or pretended evi-'
dence, on which it is claimed that I agreed to take the stock. It should
be remembered that every portion of this evidence, both check and book,
is of Mr. Ames's own making. I have already referred to the undated
memorandum of an account in this book, under my name, and have
shown that it neither proved a sale of stock, or any payihtent on account
of it.
There are but two other entries in the book relating to me, and they
are two lists of names, substantially duplicates of each other, with
various amounts set opposite each. They are found on pages 450 and
453 of the testimony.  The word "paid" is marked before the first name
on one of these lists, and ditto marks placed under the word " paid" and
opposite the remaining names. But the value of this entry as proof of
payment will be seen from the cross-examination of Mr. Ames, which
immediately follows the list, (p. 453:)
Q. This entry, " Paid S. Colfax $1,200," is the amount which you paid by this check
on the Sergeant-at-Arms?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was this entry upon this page of these various names intended to show the
amount you were to pay, or that you had paid; was that made at this date?-A. I do
not know; it was made about that time. I would not have written it on Sunday; it
is not very likely. It was made on a blank page. It is simply a list of names.
Q. Were these names put down after you had made the payments, or before, do you
think?-A. Before, I think.
Q. You think you made this list before the parties referred to had actually received
their checks, or -received the money?-A. Yes, sir; that was to show whom I had to
pay, and who were entitled to receive the 60 per cent. dividend. It shows whom I had
to pay here in Washington.
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?-A. About the same time, I suppose; probably before.
The other list, bearing the same names and amounts, shows no other
evidence that the several sums were paid than a cross marked opposite
each amount. But concerning this, Mr. Ames testifies that it was a
list of what was to be paid, and that the cross was subsequently added
to show that the amount had been paid.
Neither of these lists shows anything as to the time or mode of payment,
and would nowhere be accepted as proof of payment.  By Mr. Ames's




23
own showing, they are lists of persons to whom he expected to pay the
amounts set opposite their names. They may exhibit his expectations,
but they do not prove the alleged payments. If the exact sum of $329
was received by me at the time and under the circumstances alleged.by MSr. Ames, it implies an agreement to take the stock. It implies
furthermore that Mr. Ames had sold Pacific Railroad bonds for me;
that he had received also a cash dividend for me, and had accounted
to me as trustee for these receipts, and the balance of the proceeds.
Now, I affirm, with the firmest conviction of the correctness of my
statement, that I never heard until this investigation began that Mr.
Ames ever sold any bonds, or performed any other stock transactions on
my behalf, and no act of mine was ever based on such a supposition.
INTERVIEWS WITH  MR. AMES DURING  THE INVESTIGATION.
The only remaining testimony bearing upon me, is that in which Mr. Ames
refers to conversations between himself and me, after the investigation
began. The first of these was of his own seeking, and occurred before
he or I had testified. Soon after the investigation began, Mr. Ames
asked me what I remembered of our talk in 1867-'68 in reference to the
Credit Mobilier Company. I told him I cduld 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, sentence 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-'67.
When I read the paragraph in which I stated that I had once borrowed
$300 of him, he remarked, " I believe I did let you have some money,
but I had forgotten it." He said nothing to indicate that he regarded
me as having purchased the stock; and from that conversation I did not
doubt that he regarded my statement substantially correct. His first
testimony, given a few days afterward, confirmed me in this opinion.
I had another interview with Mr. Ames, of my own seeking, to which
he alludes on pages 357 and 359; and for a full understanding of it,
a statement of some previous facts is necessary.. I gave my testimony
before the committee, and in Mr. Ames's hearing, on the morning of January 14. It consisted of the statement I had already read to Mr. Ames,
and of the cross-examination which followed my reading of the statement, all of which has been quoted above.
During that afternoon, while I was engaged in the management of an
appropriation bill in the House, word was brought to me that Mr. Ames,
on coming out of the committee-room, had declared in the hearing of
several reporters that " Garfield was in league with Judge Black to
break him down; that it was $400, not $300 that he had let Garfield
have, who had not only never repaid it, but had refused to repay it."
Though this report of Mr. Ames's alleged declaration was subsequently
found to be false, and was doubtless fabricated for the purpose of creating difficulty, yet there were circumstances which, at the time, led me
to suppose that the report was correct. One was that Judge Black
(who was McComb's counsel in the suit against Ames) was present at
my examination, and had drawn out on cross-examination my opinion of
the nature of Mr. Ames's relation to the Credit Mobilier Company and
the Union Pacific Company; and the other was, that in Mr. Ames's testimony of December 17, he had said, (p. 28,) "He (Mr. Garfield) had some




24
money from me once, some three or four hundred dollars, and called it
a loan."  The sum of four hundred dollars had thus been mentioned in,his testimony, and it gave plausibility to the story that he was now
claiming that as the amount he had loaned me.
Supposing that Mr. Ames had said what was reported, I was deeply.
indignant; and, with a view of drawing from him a denial or retraction
of the statement, or, if he persisted in it, to pay him twice over, so that
he could no longer say or pretend that there existed between us any unsettled transaction, I drew some money from the office of the Sergeantat-Arms, and, going to my committee-room, addressed him the following
note:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Jalnary 14, 1873.
SIR: I have just been informed, to my utter amazement, that after coming out of the
committee'-room this morning you said in the presence of several reporters that you
had loaned me four instead of three hundred dollars, and that I had not only refused
to pay you, but was aiding your accusers to injure you in the investigation. I shall
call the attention of the committee to it, unless I fipd I am misinformed. To bring the
loan question to an immediate issue between us, I inclose herewith $400. If you wish
to do justice to the truth and to me, you will return it and correct the alleged statement if you made it. If not, you willkeep the money and thus be paid twice and more.
Silence on your part will be a confession that you have deeply wronged me.
J. A. GARFIELD.
Hon. OAKES AMES.
After the House had adjournedifor the day, I found, on returning to
my committee-room, that I had omitted to inclose the note with the
money, which had been sent to the House post-office.  I immediately
sought Mr. Ames to deliver the note, but failed to find him at his hotel
or elsewhere that evening. Early the next morning, January 15, I.found
him, and delivered the note. He denied having said or claimed any of
the things therein set forth, and wrote on the back of my letter the following:
WASHINGTON, January 15, 1873.
DEAR SIR: I return you your letter with inclosures, and I utterly deny ever having
said that you refused to pay me, or that it was four instead of three hundred dollars,
or that you was aiding my accusers. I also wish to say that there has never been any
but the most friendly feelings between us, and no transaction in the least degree that
can be censured by any fair-minded person. I herewith return you the four hundred
dollars as not belonging to me.
Yours, truly,
OAKES AMES.
Hon. J. A. GARFIELD.
From inquiry of the reporters to whom  the remarks were alleged to
have been made, I had become satisfied that the story was wholly false,
and when Mr. Ames added his denial, I expressed to him my regret that
I had written this note in anger and upon false information. I furthermore said to Mr. Ames that, if he had any doubt in reference to the repayment of the loan, I wished him to keep the money. He refused to
keep any part of it, and his conversation indicated that he regarded all
transactions between us settled.
Before I left his room, however, he said he had some memoranda
which seemed to indicate that the money I had of him was on account
of stock; and asked me, if he did not, some time in 1868, deliver to me
a statement to that effect. I told him if he had any account of that sort,
I was neither aware of it, nor responsible for it; and thereupon I made
substantially the following statement:
Mr. Ames, the only memorandum  you ever showed me was in 1867-'68, when
speaking to me of this proposed sale of stock, you figured out, on a little piece of paper,




25
what you supposed would be realized from an investment of $1,000; and, as I remenrber, you wrote down these figures:
1,000
1,000
400
2 400
as the amounts, you expected to realize.
While saying this to Mr. Ames, I wrote the figures as above, on a
piece of paper lying on his table, to show him what the only statement
was he had ever made to me. It is totally false that these figures had
any other meaning than that I have here given; nor did I say anything
out of which could be fabricated such a statement as appears on pages
358, 359.
In his testimony of January 29, Mr. Ames gives a most remarkable
account of this interview. Remembering the fact, by him undisputed,
that there had been no communication between us on this subject for
more than four years before this investigation began, notice the following, (p. 358:)
Q. Did you have any conversation in reference to the influence this transaction
would have on the election last fall?-A. Yes, he said it would be very injurious
to him.
Q. What else in reference to that — A. I am a v6ry bad mua to repeat conversations;
I cannot remember.
That is, he makes me, on the 15th January, 1873, express the fear
that this transaction will injure me in the election of October, 1872!
Again, pages 357, 358:
Q. You may state whether in conversation with you, Mr. Garfield claims, as he
claims before us, that the only transaction between you Fas borrowing $300.-A. No,
sir, he did not claim that with me.
Q. State how he did claim it with you; what was said.-A. I cannot remember half
of it. X   * He [Mr. Garfield] stated that when he came back from Europe, being
in want of funds, he called on me to loan him a sum of money. HRthought he had
repaid it. I do not know; I do not remember. *   *
Q. How long after that transaction [the offer to sell Credit Mobilier stock] did he go
to Europe?-A. I believe it was a year or two.  *
Q. Do you not know that he did not go to Europe for nearly two years afterward?
-A. No, I do not. It is my impression it was two years afterward, but I cannot remember dates.
I should think not, if this testimony is an example of his memory!
It is known to thousands of people that I went to Europe in the
summer of 1867, and at no other time. I sailed from New York on the
13th of July, 1867, spent several days of August in Scotland, with
Speaker Blaine and Senator Morrill of Vermont, and returned to New
York on the 9th of the following November-three weeks before the
beginning of the session of Congress.
The books of the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House show that, before
going, I had assigned several months' pay in advance to a banker, who had
advanced me money for the expenses of the trip. To break the weight
of this fact, which showed why I came to need a small loan, Mr. Ames
says I did not go to Europe till nearly two years afterward.
If a reason be sought why he gave such testimony it may perhaps
be found on the same page from which the last quotation is made:
(page 359:)
Q. How did you happen to retain that little stray memorandum?-A. I do not know.
I found it in my table two or three days afterward. I did not pay any attention to it
at the time, until I found there was to be a conflict of testimony, and I thought that
might be something worth preserving.
How did he find out after that time that " there was to be a conflict of




2Q
testimony "" The figures were made on that piece of paper January 15,
the day after I had given my testimony, and four weeks after he had
given his first testimony. There was no conflict except what he himself
made; and that conflict was as marked between his first statement and
his subsequent ones, as between the latter and mine.
There runs through all this testimony now under consideration an
intimation that I was in a state of alarm, was beseeching Mr. Ames  to
let me off easily," " to say as little about it as possible," "to let it go as
a loan," "to save my reputation," that I "felt very bad," was "in great
distress," " hardly knew what I saicd," and other such expressions.
I should have been wholly devoid of sensibility if I had not felt keenly the suspicions, the false accusations, the reckless calumnies with
which the public mind was filled, while the investigation was in progress. But there is not the smallest fragment of truth in the statement,
or rather the insinuation, that I ever asked or wanted anything from
Mr. Ames on this subject but simple justice and the truth.
The spirit in which a portion of the public treated the men whose
conduct was being investigated, may be understood from the following
question, put to Mr. Ames (page 361) in the midst of an examination,
not at all relating to me:
Q. In that conversation with Mr. Garfield, was anything said by him about your
being an old man, near the end of your career, and his -being comparatively a young
man?-A. No, sir; nothing of that sort.
It is manifest that this question was suggested by some of the inve ntive bystanders, in hopes of making an item for a new sensation.
The most absurd and exaggerated statements were constantly finding
their way into the public press, in reference to every subject and person
connected with the investigation, and this question is an illustration.
In no communication with Mr. Ames did I ever say anything inconsistent with my testimony before the committee.
Conscious that I had done no wrong from the beginning to the end of
this affair, I had nothing to conceal and no favors to ask, except that
the whole truth should be known. I was in the committee-room but
once during the investigation, and I went there then only when summoned to give my testimony.
CONCLUSIONS.
From a review of the whole subject, the following conclusions are
fairly and clearly established:
I. That the Credit Mobilier Company was a State corporation regularly organized; and that neither its charter nor the terms of its contract, of October 15, 1867, disclosed anything which indicated that
the company was engaged in any fraudulent or improper enterprise.
II. That a ring of seven persons inside the Credit Mobilier Company,
calling themselves trustees, obtained the control of the franchises, and
of a majority of the stock of both the Credit Mobilier and of the Union
Pacific Railroad Company; and, while holding such double control, they
made a contract with themselves, by which they received for building
the road an extravagant sum, greatly beyond the real cost of construction; and, in adjusting the payments, they received stock and bonds of
the railroad company, at a heavy discount, and by these means virtually
robbed and plundered the road, which was in great part built by the
aid of the United States.
That these exorbitant profits were distributed, not to the stockholders
of the Credit Mobilier proper, but to the ring of seven trustees and their




27
proxies-the holders of this ring stock-and that this arrangement was
kept a close secret by its managers.
III. That in 1867-'68, Mr. Ames offered to sell small amounts of this
stock to several leading members of Congress, representing it as an ordinary investment promising fair profits; but in every such offer he
concealed from such members the real nature of the arrangement by
which the profits were to be made, as well as the amount of dividends
likely to be realized. While thus offering this stock, he was writing to
one of, his ring associates that he was disposing of the stock " where it
would do most good," intimating that he was thereby gaining influence
in Congress, to prevent investigation into the affairs of the road. His
letters and the list of names which he gave to McComb represent many
persons as having bought the stock who never did buy or agree to buy
it, and also represent a much larger amount sold than he did actually
sell. Mr. Ames's letters and testimony abound in contradictions, not only
of his own statements, but also of the statements of most of the other
witnesses; and it is fair, in judging of its credibility, to take into account his interests involved in the controversy.
IV. That in reference to myself the following points are clearly established by the evidence:
1. That I neither purchased nor agreed to purchase the Credit Mobilier stock which Mr. Ames offered to sell me; nor did I receive any
dividend arising from it. This appears from my own testimony; and
from the first testimony given by Mr. Ames, which is not overthrown by
his subsequent statements; and is strongly confirmed by the fact that in
the case of each of those who did purchase the stock, there was produced
as evidence of the sale, either a certificate of stock, receipt of payment,
a check drawn in the name of the payee, or entries in Mr. Ames's diary
of a stock account marked adjusted and closed; but that no one of these
evidences exists in reference to me. This position is further confirmed
by the subsequent testimony of Mr. Ames, who, though he claims that I
did received $329 from him on account of the stock, yet he repeatedly
testifies that beyond that amount 1 never receive or demanded any
dividend, that he did not offer me any, nor was the subject alluded to
in conversation between us.
Mr. Ames admits, on page 40 of the testimony, that after December,
1867, the various stock and bond dividends, on the stock he had sold,
amounted to an aggregate of more than 800 per cent.; and that between
January, 1868, and May, 1871, all these dividends were paid to several
of those who purchased the stock. My conduct was wholly inconsistent
with the supposition of such ownership; for, during the year 1869, I was
borrowing money to build a house here in Washington, and was securidg my creditors by giving mortgages on my property; and all this
time it is admitted that I received no dividends and claimed none.
The attempt to prove a sale of the stock to me is wholly inconclusive;
for it rests, first, on a check payable to Mr. Ames himself, concerning
which he several times says he does not know to whom it was paid;
and second, upon loose undated entries in his diary, which neither prove
a sale of the stock nor any payment on account of it.
The only fact from which it is possible for Mr. Ames to have inferred
an agreement to buy the stock was the loanf to me of $300. But that
loan was made months before the check of June 22, 1868, and was repaid in the winter of 1869; and after that date there were no transactions of any sort between us.
And finally, before the investigation was ended, Mr. Ames admitted
that on the chief point of difference between us he might be mistaken.
On page 356 he said he " considered me the purchaser of the stock, un



28
less it was borrowed money I had of him;" and on page 461, at the conclusion of his last testimony, he said:
Mr. Garfield understands this matter as a loau; he says I did not explain it to
him.
Q. You need not say what Mr. Garfield says. Tell us what you think.
A. Mr. Garfield might have misunderstood me. * * I supposed it was like all the
rest, but when Mr. Garfield says he mistook it for a loan; that he always understood
it to be a loan; that I did not make any explanation to him and did not make any
statement to him; I may be mistaken. I am a man of few words, atd I may not have
made myself understood to him.
2. That the offer which Mr. Ames made to me, as I understood it,
was one which involved no wrong or impropriety. I had no means of
knowing, and had no reason for supposing that behind this offer to sell
me a small amount of stock, lay hidden a scheme to defraud the Pacific
Railroad and imperil the interests of the United States. I was not invited to become a party to any scheme of spoliation, much less was I
aware of any attempt to influence my legislative action, on any subject
connected therewith. And on the first intimation of the real nature of
the case, I declined any further consideration of the subject.
3. That whatever may have been the facts in the case, I stated them
in my testimony as I have always understood them; and there has been
no contradiction, prevarication, or evasion on my part.
This is demonstrated by the fact that I stated the case to Mr.
Robison, in the spring of 1868, and to Mr. Hinsdale in the autumn of
that year, and to Judge Black in the winter of 1869-'70, substantially
as it is stated in my testimony before the committee.
I have shown that during the presidential campaign, I did not deny
having known anything about the Credit Mobilier Company; that the
statement published in the Cincinnati Gazette, September 15, is substantially in accord with my testimony before the committee; and finally, that
during the progress of the investigation there was nothing in my conversation or correspondence with Mr. Ames in any way inconsistent with
the facts as given in my testimony. To sum it up in a word: out of an
unimportant business transaction, the loan of a trifling sum of money,
as a matter of personal accommodation, and out of an offer never ac-.cepted, has arisen this enormous fabric of accusation and suspicion.
If there be a citizen of the United States who is willing to believe
that, for $329, I have bartered away my good name, and to falsehood
have added perjury, these pages are not addressed to him. If there be
one who thinks that any part of my public life has been gauged on so
low a level as these charges would place it, I do not address him-I address those who are willing to believe that it is possible for a man to
serve the public without personal dishonor. I have endeavored, in this
review, to point out the means by which the managers of a corporation, wearing the garb of honorable industry, have robbed and defrauded a great national enterprise, and attempted, by cunning and
^deception, for selfish ends, to enlist in its interest those who would have
been the first to crush the attempt had their objects been known.
If any of the scheming corporations or corrupt rings that have done
so much to disgrace the country by their attempts to control its legislation, have ever found in me a conscious supporter or ally in any dishonorable scheme, they are at full liberty to disclose it. In the discussion
of the many grave and difficult questions of public policy which have
occupied the thoughts of the nation during the last twelve years, I have
borne some part; and I confidently appeal to the public records for a
vindication of my conduct.
JAMES A. GARFIELD.