Democratic Sentinel, Volume 4, Number 25, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 30 July 1880 — GARFIELD AND PATTERSON. [ARTICLE]

GARFIELD AND PATTERSON.

[From the New York Bum] Senator Patterson catne otifc of the Credit Mobilier investigation of 1873 in about the same condition as Schuyler Colfax, and James A. Garfield. The people’s belief in his personal integrity was gone, the respect of honest citizens was lost, the Republican press unhesitatingly declared its opinion of his guilt and shame. . Convicted upon very nearly tho same testimony that convicted Mr, Garfield, Senator Patterson sank out of sight. So completely out of sight did he sink that it may be necessary now, in resurrecting his name for a moment, to distinguish him from the carpet-bag Senator of the same name who once boasted that there were “ two years more good stealing in South Carolina.” The Credit Mobilier Patterson was from New Hampshire. He had nothing in common with the South Carolina Patterson, except a willingness to profit by dishonest use of his position as legislator. of New Hampshire, was a well-educated man of easy manners. By many people in New England, especially by certain members of the faculties of New .England colleges, he was held to be* the finest type of the “ scholar in politics,” a being much prayed for about that time. He was a polished orator, and went from college town to college town instructing young men as to the higher possibilities of public life and the purer methods of effecting the objects of government. No prominent man of that day could deliver a noble sentiment in more elegant language than James W. Patterson, of New Hampshire. Oakes Ames’ memorandum book and the corroborative testimony ruined Patterson. He had been assigned trlPty shares of the corruption stock, which he “bought” at par when it was worth 300, 400, or 500 cents on the dollar. He received two large dividends on the same, one of SI,BOO and one of $2,223, on a cash investment of $3,000, and within a few months. When the investigation began, he went upon the stand and swore : “I never received, directly or indirectly, nor did any one ever hold for me in trust, one penny’s worth of stock in the Credit Mobilier.” Later, he declared: “I never did receive—and I say it under the most solemn oath—one share of Credit Mobilier stock in my life.” Then Oakes Ames produced the following receipt, signed by Patterson himself : Washington, June 22, 1868. Received of Oakes Ames SI,BOO on account of dividend received by him as trustee on stock held for my account. J. W. Patterson. And also this receipt: Boston, May 6, 1871. Received of Oakes Ames 200 shares of Union Pacific railroad stock, $757.24 in cask on account of Credit Mobilier stock, and there are still due on the transaction thirty shares of stock in the Credit Mobilier of America, and 2,000 in the income bonds of the Union Pacific railroad. J. W. Patterson.

More than this. The certificates of the very stock which Patterson swore he had never owned were found, indorsed to him by Oakes Ames, in the safe of a New York banker, where they had been deposited by Patterson. And the check for .11,800 on the Sergeant-at-Arms was produced, bearing Patterson’s indorsement. Patterson invested in Credit Mobilier a sum of cash besides his influence as a Senator; and he received large returns for liis dishonor. Garfield invested nothing but his smaller influence as Congressman, and got smaller pay for precisely the same degree of dishonor. But the parallel between tho cases of Patterson and Garfield extends beyond the bribe-taking and the perjury. Both of them, after the exposure, attempted to induce Oakes Ames to swear falsely in order to shield them. Garfield went to Ames and besought him to let the $329 dividend “go as a loan.” Patterson wrote a piteous letter to Ames, under liis own signature, saying: ‘ ‘ Don’t fail to correct your original statement before the committee. It must not he reported its it now stands.” This was after Oakes Ames had testified to Patterson’s ownership of the stock, but before tho documentary evidence had been produced. Less than two weeks ago, at a Garfield ratification meeting in Lebanon, New Hampshire, the forgotten James W. Patterson spoke for forty minutes in behalf of the Republican nominee. To Schuyler Colfax’s certificate of Garfield’s good character, Patterson added his equally valuable testimony. Unfortunately, there was no stenographer present to take down Patterson’s exact wordß. From the Kearsarge Sentinel of June 26 we derive this abstract of his remarks : He gave liis reasons for his choice of Gen. Garfield in preference to the other candidates. Being acquainted with the General, he spoke of him in high terms as a purqman and Christian statesman. Toward the close of tho Senator’s speech, he referred to the Credit Mobilier—how men iiad been injured by tho press, by correspondents at Washington, who would write a man up or down for $5 ; that notone in a hundred that talked of Credit Mobilier knew even the moaning of the word ; and before closing remarked that if anyone wanted to discuss Credit Mobilier he would be ready for them. Since the Republican party saw fit to invite another public verdict upon the Credit Mobilier business, by putting up a Credit Mobilier ticket, the full ticket should have been Garfield and Colfax, or Garfield and Patterson. As neither Colfax nor Patterson is the Republican candidate for Vice President, both of them are free to take the stump in order to “ discuss Credit Mobilier,” and to defend Garfield’s reputation.