North Carolina Newspapers

    J walchma:i Supplement oj
H A Y H fl I) MX I B
v OF
was the corporation that built the Union Pacific Railroad. Oakes
Ames handled its stock, and bribed members of Congress to pass
the bill hy giving them stock. The whole of the facts! came out
in the Forty-second Congress, before the Poland Republican
Congressional Investigating Committee. They are as fallows:
Oakes Ames swore that in January, 1868, he got fcfr Garfield
ten shares of the Credit Mobilier stock; Ames paid forjthe stock;
Garfield did not pay him any money; Ames sold the bonds for
$776, and received a cash dividend on the stock of $6o!o, leaving
due to Garfield $329, after paying for the stock, which mount he
swore he paid him in cash, and he submitted the account as follows:
rThe following memorandum referred to by witness as a statement
of his account with Mr. Garfield was placed in evidence:
J. A. G. Dr.
1868. To 10 shares stock Credit Mobilier,
A $1,000 00
Interest - 1 47 00
June 19, To Cash 329 00
By dividend bonds Union Pacific llai'r ad A,
$1,000 at 80 per cent, less 3 per cent . . . . ,
June 17. By dividend collected for you ,
$1,376 00
$1,376 00
showed the following entries of Senators and members of Con-
gicss, and the amounts received by them:
Bingham .
Allison . -Kelley...
Wilson . ,
Garfield .
him any
I did not
II. L. Dawes $ 600
Schofield 600
Patterson 1,800
Painter 1,800
Wilson 1,200
Colfax.... 1,200
Ames swears mat alter me matter Decame public, oarheia
wanted to treat it as a loan, and says
I stated to him thatie had never asked me to lend
money; that I never knew he wanted to borrow any
know he was short. I made a statement to him showing the
transaction and what there was due onjt; that 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
lend him any money, and I never loaned him any,
I told him he knew very well that that was a dividenid. I made
out a statement and showed it to him at the time. In one con
versation he admitted it, and. said, as near as I can remember,
that there was $2,400 du him in stock and bonds. lie made a
little memorandum of $1,000 and $1,400, an-!, as I recollect, said
there was $1,606 of Union Pacific Railroad, stock,! $1,000 of
Credit Mobilier stock, and $400 of stock or bonds; I do not
recoiled what. My impression is that he wanted to Say as lit le
about it as he could, and to get of as easily as he could. That
was about the conversation 1 had with him about the long and
short of it. . I
Q. Have you the memorandum Mr. Garfield made ? A.
I have the figures that lie made.
Paper shown to the Committee containing figures as jfollows:
$1,000 j
Q. You say this figures were made by Mr. Garfield ? A.
Yc.n, sir.
: C. What do these sums represent ? How did he put them
down? A. $1,000 Union Pacific Railroad stock, $1.000 Credit
Mobilier stock, and $400 which he could not remember whether it
was to be in cash or stocks or bonds.
! Garfield swore before the Committee that he simply borrowed
$306 from Ames, and afterward repaid him the money.
The Committee did not believe him, and did believe Oakes
Ames; and its report to the Forty-second Congress contains the
following: .
: "The facts in regard to Mr. Garfield, as found by
niittee, are identical with the case of Mr. Kelley to the point of the
reception of the check of $329. He agreed with Mr. Aimestotake
ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock, but did not pay for the same.
Mr. Ames received the 80 percent, dividend bonds and sold them
for 97 per cent., and also received the 60 per cent, cash dividend,
which, together, paid the price of the stock and interest and Jeft
a balance of $329. This sum was paid over to Mr. Carfielcf by
a check on the Sergeant-at-Arms, and Mr. Garfield then under
stood this sum was the balance of dividends after paying for the
stocky. Mr. Ames received all the subsequent dividends; and the
Committee do not find that, since the payment of the 329, there
has been'any communication between Mr. Ames and Mr. Gar
field on the subject until the investigation began." . ;v j;
He voted for the railroad charter, received the proceeds of the
"stock, tried totreat the 'transaction as a loan, -swore that he
receivea no aiviuena, ana ,ou juuges, uic vvuuuiucc, uow
lieved him. :
(New York Times, February 19th, 1873.)
Messrs. Kelley and Garfield present a most distressing figure.
Their participation in the Credit Mobilier affair is complicated by
tne most umonunaie contradictions 01 testimony.
(New York Tribune, Febmary.lgth, 1873.)
James A." Garfield, of Ohio, had ten shares; never paid a dollar;
received $329, which, after the investigation began, he was anxious
to have considered as a loan from Mr. Uakes Ames to tmnselL
the Com-
Well, the wickedness of all of it is that these men betrayed the
trust of the people, deceived their constituents, and, by evasions
and falsehoods, confessed the transactions to be disgraceful.
De Golyer & Company were parties who had a patent pavement
which they wanted the Board of Public Works of Washington
and Congress to buy and lay down. Sheppard was then in control
of city altaiis, and Garfield was the Chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations in the House of Representatives. In order to
obtain the contract they had to pass through both these bodies.
The subject was investigated before a Committee of Congress, and
it fully appeared, by the testimony of Garfield and others, that the
agent of De Golyer & Co. paid Garfield a fee of $5000 for his
agency in procuring the contract for them; that he never filed
with the Board of Public Works or elsewhere a brief or opinion
on the subject of the patent pavement, but that he did speak to
Gov. Sheppard once on the subject. The contract was given to
De (Golyer & Company. It cost the Government about $1,200,000
The profits to the contractors were about $400,000. It could not
have gotten through the Committee on Appropriations without the
influence of the Chairman. Garfield was the man to reach. His
influence was secured by the $5000 fee, for which he gave no
opinion, except to speak to Sheppard. The pavement was a
cheat and a swindle.
The question came up in court in Chicago as Chittenden, the
man who secured Garfield through Parsons, brought suit against
De Golyer and M'Clelland for this service after they had secured
their money on the paving contracts. His claim was that he had
secured Garfield, not as a lawyer, but on the distinct ground that
he was Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. The plea
of the defendants was that this was a claim for lobby services that
the court could not recognize, because to do so would be
against public policy, and their counsel quoted the opinion of
Justice Swayne in a much weaker case than this of Garfield. The
plea was sustained by Judge Farwell, of the Circuit Court of the
United States in Chicago, and the case there ended with the defeat
of the plaintiff. '.
The evidence was overwhelming, not only that the pavement was
worthless and over-charged, but that the contract had been ob
tained through the influence of J. A. Garfield, member of Con
gress, and Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, through
which committee the bill for that and all other District expenses
would have to pass, and Richard C. Parsons, Garfield's friend and
United States Marshal for the District. The pernicious effects of
these official influences were so apparent, and presented a case so
analagous to that of Trist vs. Child, passed on by Justice Swayne
in the United States Supreme Court, that Judge Farwell took the
identical ground, and even employed the same language which
had been so happily suggested by Judge Swayne:
"The agreement with General Garfield, a member of Congress,
to pay him $5000 as a contingent fee for procuring a contract
which was itself made to depend upon a future appropriation by
Congress which appropriation could only come from a com
mittee of which be was chairman was a sale of official influence
which no veil can cover, as against the plainest principles of
public Policy.
The report of the committee and the testimony annexed are
conclusive proofs of the facts here stated.
On the 8th of March, 1867, at the first session of the Fortieth
Congress, Mr." Fernando Wood asked unanimous consent to offer
the following resolution : j
A'esolved, That this House extends its sympathy to the people
of Ireland in their pending struggle for constitutional liberty. If
the despotic governments of Europe shall be allowed to establish
monarchial institutions in America, so should the United States
foster and promote the extentiori of republican institutions in Europe.
Mr. Broomall (Rep.) objected. The motion was then to sus
pend the rules to enable the resolution to pass. The question was
taken, and there were 104 yeas and 14 nays. Thirteen of those
who voted nay were Republicans, and James A. Garfield was one.
Perhaps this affords a reason why Irishmen should rally to the sup
port of Garfield.
In the Congressional Globe, April 17, 187 1, First Session,
part 2, page 735, will be found the following:
Mr. Kinsella. I move a suspension of the rules and the adop
tion of the following resolution, which I send to the desk: ,
Whereas, The prolonged incarceration in the prisons of the
Dominion of Canada of persons accused of violating the neutrality
laws is a source of irritation to a large number of American citi
zens; therefore, . i : -
Resolved, That the President of the United States is respectfully
requested to have the. case of rsucb persons presented before such
Joint High Commission, to the 'end that their release may be
effected. . ' - 1 .1. "
James A. Garfield objected, and voted against the passage of
the strictly just resolution, showing thereby his hatred not alone of
the unfortunate Fenian prisoners referred to in the resolution, who
were then confined in Canadian dungeons for more than five years,
but of the whole Celtic race.
As early as February 12, 1872, Mr. Mercur, of Pennsylvania,
moved a resolution directing the Committee of Ways and Means
to report a bill repealing the import duties on tea and coffee. The
motion was agreed to without debate, for it was made under a sus
pension of the rules. Mr. Garfield is recorded in the negative.
fGlobe, part 2, Second Session Forty-second Congress, page 974.
On the following Monday, February 19, Mr. Mercur made
another motion of like import by moving to discharge the Com
mittee of the Whole from the further consideration of a bill to re
peal existing duties on tea and coffee. This was adopted also
under a suspension of the rules. Mr. Garfield is again recorded
against it. f Ibid. page. in 8.
On the same day a resolution .vas offered directing, the Ways
and Means Committee, whenever it shall report a bill touching any
import duties, to place salt and coal upon the free list. Mr. Gar
field seems to have dodged this vote, for just lefore the vote was
taken he is recorded on a civil rights bill, and just after it on the
tea and coffee bill. Ibid. '
The following is from the Congressional Record of April 6, 8o:
Mr. Townshend, of Illinois. 1 move to suspend the rules so that
the Committee on Ways and Means be discharged from the further
consideration of House bill -No. 5265, and that the same be now
passed: The bill was read as follows:
" That sections 2503, 2504, and 2505 of Title 33 of the Revised
Statutes of the United Si ates be revised and amended so that the
duty on salt, printing Type, printing paper, and the chemicals and
materials used in the manufacture of printing paper, be repealed,
ana that said articles be placed on the Iree list."
Mr. Townshend, of Illinois. I call for the yeas and nays on
agreeing to the motion to suspend the rules.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken, and there were yeas 112, nays 80,
not voting loo. So (two-thirds not voting in favor thereof) the
motion to suspend the rules was not agreed to.
Mr. Gai field voted against the motion to suspend the rules and
pass the bill to relieve printing paper, and type, and salt from tax.
He voted for the salary grab and took the money.
He voted to grant millions of acres of public lands to R. R.
corporations, and against securing the rights of actual settlers on
the same. May, 1870.
He voted against instructing to investigate and try those con
cerned in the defalcations of the Freedman's Bureau.
He voted against the bill to restrict it.
STITUENTS. Sepember 7, 1876, Republicans of his Congressional District
adopted the following:
Resolved, That we further arraign and denounce him for his
corrupt connection with the Credit Mobilier, for his false denial
thereof before his constituents, for his perjured denial thereof be
fore a committee of his peers in Congress, for fraud upon his con
stituents in circulating among them a pamphlet purporting to set
forth the finding of said committee and the evidence against him,
when in fact material portions thereof were omitted and garbled.
Resolved, That we further arraign and charge him with cor
rupt bribery in selling his official influence as chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations for 5,000 to the DeGolyer pave
ment ring to aid them in securing a contract from the Board of
Public Works of the District of Coluin!ia; selling his influence to
aid said ring in imposing upon the people of said District a pave
ment which is almost worthless at a price three times its cost, as
sworn to by one of the contractors; selling his influence to aid said
ring in procuring a contract, to procure which it corruptly paid
$97,000 "for influence;" selling his influence in a matter that in
volved no question of law, upon the shallow pretext that he was
acting as a lawyer; selling his influence in a manner so palpable
and clear as to be so found and declared by an impartial and com
petent court upon an issue solemnly tried.
Injtheir address Sept. 10, 1876, they say:
The Republican party has done mudi to purify itself within
itself. Its Whiskey Ring Revenue officers are convicted and ini
prisoned, Belknap is deposed and impeached and only escaped
conviction by a technicality. Its Salary Stealing, Credit Mobilier,
Pavement Jobbing Congressmen are mostly retired. James A.
Garfield remains. Richard C. Parsons, his compeer as a great
patent pavement lawyer, nominated without opposition in a district
Republican last year by 6,500 majority, was buried at the polls by
Henry B. Payne, a Democrat, by 2,500 majority. The office
holders nominated himbut the brave, honest people rebuked him.
James A. Garfield fell from 10,935 majority in 1872 to 2,526
majority in 1874. "Oh, what a fall there was, my countrymen."
Rebuked, shorn of character for truth and integrity, all that is
noble in manhood, alm st defeated, he stands a sad and blackened
monument of avarice and greed.
Republican Candidate for Vice-President. He was Collector of
Customs for the port of New York.
He was removed by President Hayes in l879,and the following
reasons for the removal were given by the President and Secretary
of the Treasury to the United States Senate, in official letters.
Upon the strength of these charges of corruption and dishonesty
in his administration of the office, the Senate assented to his
" With a deep sense of my obligations under the Constitution, I
regard it as my plain duty to suspend you, in order that the office
may be honestly administered." R. B. Hayes to Collector Arthur,
January 31, i8jg.
" You have made the Custom House a centre of partisan poli
tical management." R. B. Ha)es to Collector Arthur, Jan. j,
" Gross abuses of administration have continued and increased
during your incumbency." John Sherman to Collector Arthur,
January 31, iSjg.
" Persons have been regularly paid by you who have rendered
little or no service; the expenses of your office have increased while
the receipts have diminished. Bribes, or gratuities in the shape of
bribes, have been received by your subordinates in several branches
of the Custom House, and you have in no case supported the effort
' o correct these abuses. John Sherman to Collector Aithur.

Page Text

This is the computer-generated OCR text representation of this newspaper page. It may be empty, if no text could be automatically recognized. This data is also available in Plain Text and XML formats.

Return to page view