The Life and Work of James A. Garfield, Twentieth President of the United States / Embracing an Account of the Scenes and Incidents of His Boyhood; the Struggles of His Youth; the Might of His Early Manhood; His Valor As a Soldier; His Career As a Statesman; His Election to the Presidency; and the Tragic Story of His Death.

by John Clark Ridpath

“Long before any such purpose was realized, long before any pressure came upon Mr. Ames, most of the men who had been invited to purchase that stock had either declined to purchase or had purchased and realized, or had purchased and sold out. But in 1872, in the midst of the Presidential campaign, an article was published in the public journals charging that sixteen prominent members of Congress—Senators and Representatives—had sold their votes for money or stock; that they had accepted bribes. You remember that I was running for Congress in this district at that time. When that news came I was away in the Rocky Mountains. I came home, and the first day after my arrival at Washington I authorized to be published a statement concerning what I knew about the Oakes Ames business. A great many people suppose now and say—and it has been repeated a hundred times in this district, and especially in this town during the last two weeks—that Mr. Garfield hedged and denied any knowledge of the Credit Mobilier business, until finally the investigation brought it out. I repeat that immediately on my arrival in Washington I made a statement to the correspondent of the Cincinnati Gazette, of which the following is a copy:

“‘Washington, September 15, 1872.

“‘General Garfield, who has just arrived here from the Indian country, has to-day 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.’

“Now I want my audience to understand that in the midst of that storm and tempest of accusation, and only a little while before the election, I started it and let it go broadcast to the daily press, that I did know something about the Credit Mobilier; that I had on two occasions discussed the matter; that I had taken it into consideration, and that finally I had declined to subscribe; that I never had owned or held a share; had never seen a certificate of the stock. Now, I am not asking you at this moment, to discuss the truth of that statement, but only to say that I stated it long before there was any investigation talked of; that I never dodged or evaded or denied having knowledge on the subject, but at the first declared plainly and finally what I did know about it.

“When Congress met, Speaker Blaine and the rest of us whose names were concerned in it, at once, on the first morning of the session, demanded a committee of investigation to go through with the whole subject from beginning to end. I want those gentlemen who talk about Mr. Garfield being got after by committees of investigation to know that no investigation into any public affair has been held in the last three years in Washington that I have not helped to organize and bring about. [Applause.]

THE COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION.

“Now what was the investigation? You will remember that before the investigation had gone far a feeling of alarm and excitement swept over the whole country that has hardly been paralleled in American history. Some men whose names were connected with the charges of the Credit Mobilier matter, shocked at the terrible charge of bribery thrown at them, in the hurry of the moment so far forgot themselves as to give equivocal answers as to whether they knew any thing about the matter or not, and the impression was made throughout the country that most of them had denied that they knew any thing about it. The fact was that the country was settling down to the belief that the whole thing was a mere campaign slander, and had no foundation in fact. Looking at the subject from this distance, I am inclined to believe that the impression left upon the American mind is that the faults of those who were charged with buying stock was not that they did any thing wrong in reference to the stock, but that afterwards they prevaricated, or lied about it. Now, without discussing any body else, I call you to witness that I stated at once what I knew about it the first time that I knew the thing was going the rounds of the newspapers. When the committee of investigation came to make up

THEIR REPORT

there was one thing in that report to which I personally took exception, and only one. I understand that a gentleman occupied this room a few nights ago who undertook to make the impression upon his audience that Mr. Garfield was found guilty of some improper relation with the Credit Mobilier. Let me read you a sentence or two from that report. The committee say:

“Concerning the members to whom he 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 ten 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 that 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.)