Democratic Sentinel, Volume 4, Number 22, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 July 1880 — SCHUYLER UOLFAX AND JAMES A. GARFIELD. [ARTICLE]

SCHUYLER UOLFAX AND JAMES A. GARFIELD.

[From the New York Sun.] In the summer of 1872, when the Sun first made public the testimony of Col. Henry S. McComb in the Credit Mobilier suit, Schuyler Colfax and James A. Garfield were both conspicuous leaders of the Republican party. Mr. Colfax was Vice President of the United States; Gen. Garfield was Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations. Writing to Col. McComb in 1868 in regard to Credit Mobilier stock set apart, for the purpose of corrupting legislators, Oakes Ames had said, “ I have used this where it will produce most good to us, I think.” Penciled on the back of the same letter was Oakes Ames’ memorandum list of Senators and Congressmen bribed. There were thirteen names in all. Hero are two of them : 8. Colfax, Speaker $2,000 Garfield, Ohio 2,000 Most of the persons affected by this preliminary revelation hastened to deny their guilt. The denials of Schuyler Colfax and James A. Garfield were alike explicit and impressive. Colfax went from his desk in the Senate Chamber before a committee of the House of Representatives, and, having sworn in the name of God to kill the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, made this statement : I state, explicitly, that no one ever gave or offered to give me any shares of stock in the Credit Mobilier of Uie Union Pacific railroad. I had never received, nor had tendered to me, any dividends in cash, stock o r bonds accruing upon any stock in cither of said organizations. I never received a dollar in bonds, stocks or dividends. In the Senate Chamber, again, Colfax shed tears while protesting his innocence, and appealed to the Eternal Tribunal of Justice to establish the truth of his words. Gen. James A. Garfield also swore in the name of God to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ; and, having taken that solemn oath, he said : 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 cither of them. 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- —The loan you have repaid, if I understood you correctly? A.—Yes, sir. Both Colfax’s and Garfield’s sworn denials were made under the pressure of the emergency, and before it was known or supposed that Oakes Ames would ever be a witness to the truth. Circumstances, which it is not now necessary to recall, brought Qukeg Afflcg te&egfcwd,

with his memorandum book. By the record of his transactions with Colfax the account stood : . Colfax, twenty shares Credit Mobilier, cost $2,000 ; interest for seven months and ten days, $86.72, making a total of $2,086.72, le.s 80 per cent, bond dividend at 97, $1,542 —$534.72. The same book showed that a 60-per-cent. cash dividend of $1,200 Avas paid by him to Colfax. Gen. Garfield’s account in the same memorandum book was as follows : Garfield, ten shares Credit Mobilier, SI,OOO ; seven months and ten days’ interest, $43.36 $1,043.36 ; 80 per cent, bond dividend at 97, $776 —$267.36; interest, June 20, $3.64; balance, $271. Ten shares Credit Mobilier stock, ten shares Union Pacific stock. And in another place a general statement : J. A. G. Dr. 1868.—T0 ten shares Credit Mobilier of A $1,000.00 Interest 47.00 June 19. —To cash 329.00 $1,376.00 1868. CV. By dividend 1 Kinds, Union Pacific railroad, SI,OOO, at 80 per cent., less 3per cent $ 776.00 June 17.—8 y dividend collected for your aeccunt 600.00 $1,376.00 Schuyler C< >lfax swore that he had never received the $1,200 Avliich Ames claimed to have paid him as cash dividend. Oakes Ames swore that lie had paid it by check on the Sergeant-at-Arms. Sergeant-at-Arms Ordway produced the canceled cheek : Washington, June 20, 1868. Sergcant-at-Ariup, IT. S. House of Representatives: Pay to S. C. or bearer $1,200, and charge lo my account. Oakes Ames. This check, which Colfax swore he had never seen, was drawn June 20. The books of the Sergeant-at-Arms showed that it Avas paid June 21. The books of the First National Bank of Washington, where the Vice President kept a private account,, showed that on June 21 Schuyler Colfax deposited there $1,200 in cash, and the deposit ticket in his own handwriting was produced. His perjury as well as his bribe-taking was proved. His closest friends ceased trying to defend him. Alter one effort, pathetically absurd in its weakness, he ceased to try to defend himself. James A. Garfield’s case Avas even worse. To the evidence of his corruption and perjury Avas added evidence of an attempt on his part to suborn perjury. His cash dividend, paid to him June 19, 1868, by Oakes Ames, amounted to $329. After the investigation liad begun, he went to Amos and besought him to let this payment “go as a loan,” and when Ames had refused to perjure himself to sua'o him he made figures to show that Ames still owed him $2,400 of the bribe money ! Oakes Ames testified as follows : Q. You may state whether, in conversation with you, Mr. Garticlfl claims, as lie claimed before us, that the only transaction between you was borrowing $300? A.—No, sir ; ho did not claim that with me. Q. —State how he does claim it with you : what was said? State all that occurred in conversation between you. A.—l cannot remem r her half of it. I have had two or three interviews with Mr. Garfield. Ho wants to put it on the basis of a loan. Q. —What did you say to him in reference to that state of the case? A. —I stated to him that ho never asked me to lend him any money; that 1 never knew lie wanted to borrow any. I did not know he was short. I made a statement to him showing the transaction and what there was due on it; t hat deducting the bond dividend and the cash dividend there was $329 due him, for which I had given him a check ; that he had never asked me to loan him any money, and I never loaned him any. Q. —After you made that statement, what did he state in reply ? A.—Ho wanted to have it go as a loan. Q. —Did lie claim that it was in fact a loan ? A.—No, sir ;1 do not think lie did. No, lie did not.

Q. —State all you know in reference to. it. A. —I told him he knew very well it was a dividend. I made out a statement and showed it to him at the time. In one conversation he admitted it, and said, as near as I can remember, there was $2,490 due in stock and bonds. He made a little memorandum of SI,OOO and $1,400, and, as I recollect, said there was SI,OOO of Union Pacific stock, SI,OOO of Credit Mobilier stock, and S4OO of stock or bonds, I do not recollect what. Q. — IlaA'C you the memorandum that Mr. Garfield made? A. - 1 have the figures that he made. Paper in Mr. Garfield's handwriting was shown to tho committee, containing figures as follows : SI,OOO 1,400 $2,400 Q. —Yon say that those figures were made by Mr. Garfield? A. Yes, sir. Q. —That was his idea of what was coming to him? A. —Yes, sir. All this, be it remembered, occurred after tbe investigation had begun—-after James A. Garfield liad sworn that he “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. ” _ And, after Garfield had sworn to this falsehood, a Republican committee of the House of Representatives, made up of his own political and personal friends, and Avitli Judge Poland, of Vermont, as its Chairman, branded him forever as a bribe-taker and a perjurer in these blasting words: He (Garfield) agreed with Mr. Ames to take ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock, but did not pay for the same. Mr. Ames received the 80 percent, dividend in bonds, and sold them for 97 percent., and also received the 60 per cent, cash dividend, which, together with the price of the stock and interest, left a balance of $329. This sum was paid over to Mr. Garfield by a check on the Sergeant-at-Arms. The Credit Mobilier exposure shattered a good many reputations; but it left no characters worse damaged than those of Schuyler Colfax and James A. Garfield. Schuyler Colfax, unnoticed, is living out the last years of a dishonored life ; while, l»y a curious turn of a memorable struggle in a nominating convention, James A. Garfield, his fellow criminal, is the Republican party’s candidate for President of the United States.