Democratic Sentinel, Volume 4, Number 30, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 3 September 1880 — Undisputed Facts. [ARTICLE]

Undisputed Facts.

When about to distribute Credit Mobilier shares where they would “produce most good” to the men who dreaded the action of Congress, Oakes Ames, who knew his colleagues well, selected Garfield, of Ohio, as one who could probably be bribed. The letter addressed to the American people by the sons of Oakes Ames naturally denies the intent to bribe. But Oakes Ames himself, on Washington’s birthday, 1868, wrote to Col. McCorub, in regard to the shares distributed to Garfield and others : “We want more friends in this Congress, and if a man’will look into the law (and it is difficult to gef fLem to do it unless they

have an interest to do so) he cannot help being convinced that we should not be interfered with.” The Messrs. Ames offer, as a leading argument to show’ tlyvt there was nothing wrong in the transaction, the fact that no legislation was wanted of Congress at that time. Precisely so. As Oakes Ames’ letter to McComb shows beyond the possibility of doubt, it was to prevent legislation that the shares were put where they would “produce the most good.” On Ames’ ow’U construction of the matter, the Congressmen were to be hired to adopt his view of the meaning of the law by making their interests identical with the interests of the company. That is what was done ; and that is what constitutes bribery. Garfield’s share in Credit Mobilier was not an investment m a promising stock recommended by a friend. Gar field was to pay nothing. He was assured that the stock offered to him for nothing would realize $2,400. He admits this, for in his defense, published not until after the death of Oakes Ames, he attempts to explain the memorandum of $2,400 in his own handwriting in this way: Before I left his room [the interview after (lie investigation had begiinl ho Raid lie had some memoranda which seemed to indicate that the money I had of him was an account of stock, and asked me if he did not, some time in 1808, deliver to me a statement to that effect., I told him if ho had any account of that sort I was neither aware of it, 'nor responsible for it, and lli< reuiKui 1 made sr.’eslaiui.illy tlio following statement: “Mr- Ames, the only memorandum you ever showed mo was in 1807 'OB, when, speaking to me of this proposed sale of stock, you figured out on a little piece of paper what you supposed would be realized from an investment of ()1,000, and, as 1 remember, you wrote down these figures : 1,000 1,000 400 2,400 as the amount you expected to realize ” While saying this to Mr. Ames I wrote the figures as above, on a piece of paper lying on Ins table, to show him what the only statement was ho had made to me. But, in the face of, this declaration that he knew in 1868 of the enormous profits to bo made out of Credit Mobilier stock, Mr. Garfield' elsewhere claims that he did not know anything of the character of the stock or the nature of the profits to be forthcoming until warned by Judge Black, a year or two later, that the transaction was suspicious ! Leave entirely out of sight Oakes Ames’ sworn testimony, which the Poland Committee believed and the country believed, that. Mr. Garfield received a dividend of $329 on Credit Mobilier stock, understanding it to be such a dividend, and there is still evidence enough, in Garfield's own statements, to convict him of the bribe-taking and the jierjury. —New York San.

Why Col. Forney Is for-Hancock. Having decided to support Hancock for President of the United States, however, I find that there is another audience not quite as anxious to hear what I have to say ; that • one decides against me in advance. The parties to this proceeding are gentlemen who think that it is an offense for an independent Republican to have any voice in public affairs that is not set to the chorus of the Republican ring. As long as you sing in their choir, and echo their sentiments, and obey their covenants, you are a saint; but if you utter a discordant note you are a traitor. I am a traitor now because 1 do not swing the censer to Gen. Garfield. I am inconsistent because I spoke well of Gen. Garfield after his nomination for President. I am glad I did. His nomination was a relief from the men who assassinated Grant at Chicago. Gartieid was better than the office-holding nml office-hunt-ing politicians, who, after hunting down the lion, expected to drink his blood, to feed upon his fame and to rally the party he had saved twice from ruin to thensupport. Garfield was better than the hypocrites who, howling civil service and holding up a third term, as they said, sought the Presicleucy only for themselves, after having been longer in office than four times the length of one term. But I did not know Gen. Garfield’s record ; I had never examined it. was not my business to keep a list of jobs. I have not been five times in Washington in ten years, and I do not s'ftow what the new loaders of the Republican party have done—certainly not their secret work to help themselves. Till his nomination for President the country was almost as ignorant as myself. What it is all men know now; and, if I revolted from it, it was because I found it different from what I honestly believed it to be. Gen. Garfield’s accusers were not Democrats. He was brought to the bar by his own party, by the Republican press and the Republicans of his own county ; by the Republican committees of his own Congressional district, by the Republican Congress of which he was a member, and by a Republican court of justice. Had this record been known at Chicago, Gen. Garfield could not have been nominated. Full information enables me to speak by the book when I assert that there was net a Republican leader of any note, equally those on the ground to stay and those who came to save Grant, that did not admit, on reflection, that Garfield’s selection was a blunder, and that that blunder was worse than a crime.