OLf/s/ 
 
 C9/3 
 
CORNELL UNfvrRSlTY I [P.RrtRY 
 
 924 062 620 236 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924062620236 
 
^REPORT 
 
 OP THE 
 
 SELECT COMMITTEE TO fflVESTIGATE 
 
 ALLEGED CREDIT MOBILIER BRIBERY. 
 
 MADE TO THE 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 FEBRUARY 18, 1S73. 
 
 
 WASHIl^GTOJSr: 
 
 GOVEENMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
 1873. 
 
II CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 became interested in the Union Pacific Company and also in the Credit 
 Mobilier Company as the agents for the construction of the road. The 
 Messrs. Ames were men of very large capital, and of known character 
 and integrity in business. By their example and credit, and the per- 
 sonal efforts of Mr. Oakes Ames, many men of capital were induced to 
 embark in the enterprise, and to take stock in the Union Pacific Com- 
 pany and also in the Credit Mobilier Company. Among them were the 
 firm of S. Hooper & Co., of Boston, the leading member .of which, Mr. 
 Samuel Hooper, was then and is now a member of the House; Mr. 
 John B. Alley, then a member of the House from Massachusetts, and 
 Mr. Grimes, then a Senator from the State of Iowa. Notwithstanding 
 the vigorous efforts of Mr. Ames and others interested with him, great 
 difficulty was experienced in securing the required capital. 
 
 In the spring of 1867 the Credit Mobilier Company voted to add 50 
 per cent, to their capital stock, which was then two and a half millions 
 of dollars ; and to cause it to be readily taken each subscriber to it was 
 entitled to receive as a bonus an equal amount of first-mortgage bonds 
 of the Union Pacific Company. The old stockholders were entitled to 
 take this increase, but even the favorable terms offered did not induce 
 all the old stockholders to take it, and the stock of the Credit Mobilier 
 Company was never considered worth its par value until after the execu- 
 tion of the Oakes Ames contract hereinafter mentioned. 
 
 On the 16th day of August, 1867, a contract was executed between 
 the Union Pacific Kailroad Company and Oakes Ames, by which Mr. 
 Ames contracted to build six hundred and sixty-seven miles of the 
 Union Pacific road a't prices ranging from $42,000 to $96,000 per mile, 
 amounting in the aggregate to $47,000,000. Before the contract was 
 entered into it was understood that Mr. Ames was to transfer it to 
 seven trustees, who were to execute it, and the profits of the contract 
 were to be divided among the stockholders in the Credit Mobilier Com- 
 pany, who should comply with certain conditions set out in the instru- 
 ment transferring the contract to the trustees. The Ames contract and 
 the transfer to trustees are incorporated in the evidence submitted, and 
 therefore further recital of their terras is not deemed necessary. 
 
 Substantially, all the stockholders of the Credit Mobilier comj)lied 
 with the conditions named in the transfer, and thus became entitled to 
 share in any profits said trustees might make in executing the contract. 
 
 All the large stockholders in the Union Pacific were also stockholders 
 in the Credit Mobilier, and the Ames contract and its transfer to trus- 
 tees were ratified by the Union Pacific, and received the assent of the 
 great body of stockholders, but not of all. 
 
 After the Ames contract had been executed, it was expected by tliose 
 interested that by reason of the enormous prices agreed to be paid for 
 the work very large profits would be derived from building the road, 
 and very soon the stock of the Credit Mobilier was understood by those 
 holding it to be worth much more than its par value. The stock was 
 not in the market and had no fixed market-value, but the holders of it, 
 in December, 1867, considered it worth at least double the par value, and 
 in January and February, 1868, three or four times the par value, but 
 it does not appear that these facts were generally or publicly known, or 
 that the holtlers of the stock desired they should be. 
 
 The foregoing statement the committee think gives enough of the 
 historic details, and condition and value of the stock, to make the fol- 
 lowing detailed facts intelligible: 
 
 Mr. Oakes Ames was then a member of the House of Eepresentatives, 
 and came to Washington at the commencement of the session, about 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIER. Ill 
 
 the beginning of December, 1867. During that month Mr. Ames en- 
 tered into contracts with a considerable number of members of Congress, 
 both Senators and Eepresentatives, to let them have shares of stock 
 iu the Credit Mobilier Company at par, with Interest thereon from 
 the first day of the previous July. It does not appear that in any 
 instance he asked any of these persons to pay a higher price than the par 
 value and interest, nor that Mr. Ames used any special effort or urgency 
 to get these persons to take it. In all these negotiations Mr. Ames 
 did not enter into any details as to the value of the stock or the 
 amount of dividend that might be expected upon it, but stated generally 
 that it would be good stock, and in several instances said he would 
 guarantee that they should get at least 10 per cent, on their money. 
 
 Some of these gentlemen, in their conversations with Mr. Ames, raised 
 the question whether becoming holders of this stock would bring 
 them into any embarrassment as members of Congress in their legisla- 
 tive action. Mr. Ames quieted such suggestions by saying it could not- 
 for the Union Pacific had received from Congress all the grants and 
 legislation it wanted, and they should ask for nothing more. In some 
 instances those members who contracted for stock paid to Mr. Ames the 
 money for the price of the stock, par and interest ; in others, where they 
 had not the money, Mr. Ames agreed to carry the stock for them until 
 they could get the money or it should be met by the dividends. 
 
 Mr. Ames was at this time a large stockholder in the Credit Mobilier, 
 but he did not intend any of these transactions to be sales of his own 
 stock, but intended to fulfill all* these contracts from stock' belonging to 
 the company. 
 
 At this time there were about six hundred and fifty shares of the 
 stock of the company, which had for some reason been placed in the 
 name of Mr. T. C. Durant, one of the leading and active men of the 
 concern. 
 
 Mr. Ames claimed that a portion of this stock should be assigned to him 
 to enable him to fulfill engagements he had made for stock. Mr. Durant 
 claimed that he had maile similar engagements that he should be al- 
 lowed stock to fulfill. Mr. MoComb, who was present at the time, 
 claimed that he had also made engagements for stock which he should 
 have stock given him to carry out. This claim of McOomb was refused, 
 but after the stock was assigned to Mr. Ames, McComb insisted that 
 Ames should distribute some of the stock to his (McComb's) friends, and 
 named Senators Bayard and Fowler, and Eepresentatives Allison and 
 Wilson, of Iowa. 
 
 It was finally arranged that three hundred arid forty three shares 
 of the stock of the company should be transferred to Mr. Ames to ena 
 ble him to perform his engagements, and that number of shares were 
 set over on the books of the company to Oakes Ames, trustee,j:o distin- 
 guish it from the stock held by him before^ Mr. Ames at the time 
 paid to the company the par of the stock and interest from the July 
 previous, and this stock still stands on the books in the name of Oakes 
 Ames, trustee, except thirteen shares which have been transferred to 
 parties in no way connected with Congress. The committee do not find 
 that Mr. Ames had any negotiation whatever with any of these members 
 of Congress on the subject of this stock prior to the commencement of 
 the session of December, 1867, except Mr. Scofield, of I'ennsylvania, 
 and it was not claimed that any obligation existed from Mr. Ames to 
 him as the result of it. 
 
 In relation to the purpose and motives of Mr. Ames in contracting to 
 let members of Congress have Credit Mobilier stock at par, which he 
 
IV CEEDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 and all otber owners of it considered worth at least double that sum, 
 the committee, upon the evidence taken by them and submitted to the 
 House, cannot entertain doubt. When he said he did not suppose the 
 Union Pacific Company would ask or need further legislation, he stated 
 what he believed to be true. But he feared the interests of the road 
 might suffer by adverse legislation, and what he desired to accomplish 
 was to enlist strength and friends in Congress who would resist any en- 
 croachment upon or interference with the rights and privileges already 
 secured, and to that end wished to create in them an interest identical 
 with his own. This purpose is clearly avowed in his letters to McComb, 
 copied in the evidence. He says he intends to place the stock " where 
 it will do most good to us." And again, " we want more friends in this 
 Congress." In his letter to McComb, and also in his statement prepared 
 by counsel, he gives the philosophy of his action, to wit, "That he has 
 found there is no difficulty in getting men to look after their own prop- 
 erty." The committee are also satisfied that Mr. Ames entertained a 
 fear that, when the true relations between the Credit Mobilier Company 
 and the Union Pacific became generally known, and the means by which 
 the great profits expected to be made were fully understood, there was 
 danger that congressional investigation and action would be invoked. 
 
 The members of Congress with whom he dealt were generally those 
 who had been friendly and favorable to a Pacific Itailroad, and Mr. Ames 
 did not fear or expect to find them favorable to movements hostile to 
 it; but he desired to stimulate their activity and watchfulness in oppo- 
 sition to any unfavorable action by giving them a personal interest in 
 the success of the enterprise, especially so far as it affected the interest 
 of the Credit Mobilier Company. On the 9th day of December, 1867, 
 Mr. C. C. Washburn, of Wisconsin, introduced in the House a bill to 
 regulate by law the rates of transportation over the Pacific Sailroad. 
 
 Mr. Ames, as well as others interested in the Union Pacific road, was 
 opposed to this, and desired to defeat it. Other measures apparently 
 hostile to that company were subsequently introduced into the House by 
 Mr. Washburn of Wisconsin, and Mr. Washburne of Illinois. The com- 
 mittee believe that Mr. Ames, in his distributions of stock, had specially 
 in mind the hostile efforts of the Messrs. Washburn, and desired to gain 
 strength to secure their defeat. The reference in one of his letters to 
 "Washburn's move" makes this quite apparent. 
 
 The foregoing is deemed by the committee a sufficient statement of 
 facts as to Mr. Ames, taken in connection with what will be subsequently 
 stated of his transactions with -particular persons. Mr. Ames made some 
 contracts for stock in the Credit Mobilier with members of the Senate. 
 In public discussions* of this subject the names of members of both 
 Houses, have been so connect«d, and all these transactions were so 
 nearly simultaneous, that the committee deemed it their duty to obtain 
 all evidence in their power, as to all persons then members of either 
 House, and to report the same to the House. Having done this, and 
 the House having directed that evidence transmitted to the Senate, the 
 committee consider their own power and duty, as well as that of the 
 House, fully performed, so far as members of the Senate are concerned. 
 Some of Mr. Ames's contracts to sell stock were with gentlemen who 
 were then members of the House, but are not members of the present 
 Congress. 
 
 The committee have sought for and taken all the evidence within their 
 reach as to those gentlemen, and reported the same to the House. As 
 the House has ceased to have jurisdiction over them as members, the 
 committee have not deemed it their duty to make any special finding of 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEE. V 
 
 facts as to each, leaving the house and the country to their owu conclu- 
 sions upon the testimony. 
 
 In regard to each of the members of the present House, the commit- 
 ted deem it their dutj' to state specially the facts they find proved by 
 the evidence, which, in some instances, is painfully conflicting. 
 
 MK. JAMES G. BLAINE, OF MAINE. 
 
 Among those who have in the public press been charged with im- 
 proper participation in Credit Mobilier stock is the present Speaker, Mr. 
 Blaine, who moved the resolution for this investigation. The committee 
 have, therefore, taken evidence in regard to him. They find from it that 
 Mr. Ames bad conversation with Mr. Blaine in regard to taking teu shares 
 of the stock, and recommended it as a good investment. Upon consid- 
 eration Mr. Blaine concluded not to take the stock, and never did take 
 it, and never paid or received anything on account of it; and Mr. 
 Blaine never had any interest, direct or indirect, in Credit Mobilier stock 
 or stock of the Union Pacific liailroad company. 
 
 OP MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 Mr. Dawes had, prior to December, 1867, made some small invest- 
 ments in railroad bonds through Mr. Ames. In December, 1867, Mr. 
 Dawes applied to Mr. Ames to purchase a thousand-dollar bond of the 
 Cedar Rapids road, in Iowa. Mr. Ames informed him that he had sold 
 them all, but that he would let him have for his thousand dollars ten 
 shares of Credit Mobilier stock, which he thought was better than the 
 railroad bond. In answer to inquiries by Mr. Dawes Mr. Ames said the 
 Credit Mobilier Company had the contract to build the Union Pacific 
 road, and thought they would make money out of it, and that it would 
 be a good thing ; that he would guarantee that he should get 10 per 
 cent, on his money, and that if at any time Mr. Dawes did not want the 
 stock he would pay back his monej' with 10 per cent, interest. Mr. 
 Dawes made some further inquiry in relation to the stock of Mr. John 
 B. Alley, who said he thought it was good stock, bat not as good as Mr. 
 Ames thought, but that Mr. Ames's guarantee would make it a perfectly 
 safe investment. 
 
 Mr. Dawes thereupon concluded to purchase the ten shares, and on 
 the 11th of January he paid Mr. Ames $800, and in a few days there- 
 after the balance of the price of this stock, at par and interest from 
 July previous. In Jnne^ 1868, Mr. Ames received a dividend of 60 per 
 cent, in money on this stock, and of it paid to Mr. Dawes $400, and ap- 
 plied the balance of $200 upon accounts between them. This $400 was 
 all that was paid over to Mr. Dawes as a dividend upon this stock. At 
 some time prior to December, 1868, Mr. Dawes was informed that a suit 
 had been commenced in the courts of Pennsylvania by former owners 
 of the charter of the Credit Mobilier, claiming that those then claiming 
 and using it had no right to do so.? Mr. Dawes thereupon informed Mr. 
 Ames that as there was a litigation about the matter he did not desire 
 to keep the' stock. On the 9th of December, 1868, Mr. Ames and Mr. 
 Dawes had a settlement of their matters in which Mr. Dawes was al- 
 lowed for the money he paid for the stock with 10 per cent, interest upon 
 it, and accounted to Mr. Amos for the $400 he had received as a divi- 
 dend. Mr. Dawes received no other benefit under the contract than to 
 get 10 per cent, upon his money, and after the settlement had no further 
 interest in the stock. 
 
VI CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 ME. G-LENNI W. SCOFIELD, OP PENNSYLVANIA., 
 
 lu 1866 Mr. Scofield purchased some Cedar Eapids bonds of Mr. 
 Ames, and in that year they had conversations about Mr. Scofield takrng 
 stock in the Credit Mobilier Company, but no contract was consum- 
 mated. In December, 1867, Mr. Scofield applied to Mr. Ames to pur- 
 chase more Cedar Eapids bonds, when Mr. Ames suggested he should 
 purchase some Credit Mobilier stock, and explained generally that it 
 was a contracting company to build the Union Pacific road ; that it was 
 a Pennsylvania corporation, and he would like to have some Pennsylva- 
 nians in it ; that he would sell it to him at par and interest, and that 
 he would guarantee he should get 8 per cent, if Mr. Scofield would 
 give him half the dividends above that. Mr. Scofield said he thought 
 he would take $1,000 of the stock ; but before anything further was done 
 Mr. Scofield was called home by sickness in his family. On his return, 
 the latter part of January, 1868, he spoke to Mr. Ames about the stock, 
 when Mr. Ames said he thought it was all sold, but he would take his 
 money and give him a receipt, and get the stock for him if he could. 
 Mr. Scofield thereupon 'paid Mr. Ames $1,041, and took his receipt there- 
 for. 
 
 Not loiig after Mr. Ames informed Mr. Scofield he could hare the 
 stock, but could not give him a certificate for it until he could get a 
 larger certificate dividend. Mr. Scofield received the bond dividend 
 of' 80 per cent., which was payable January 3, 1868, taking a bond 
 for $1,000 and paying Mr. Ames the difference. Mr. Ames received the 
 60 per cent, cash dividend on the stock in June, 1868, and paid over to 
 Mr. Scofield $600, the amount of it. 
 
 Before the close of that session of Congress, which was toward the 
 end of July, Mr. Scofield became, for some reason, disinclined to take 
 the stock, and a settlement was made between them, by which Mr. 
 Ames was to retain the Credit Mobilier stock and Mr. Scofield took a 
 thousand dollars Union Pacific bond and ten shares of Union Pacific 
 stock. 
 
 The precise basis of the settlement does not appear, neither Mr. Ames 
 nor Mr. Scofield having any full data in ref£i;ence to it; Mr. Scofield 
 thinks that he only received back his money and interest upon it, while 
 Mr. Ames states that he thinks Mr. Scofield had ten shares of Union 
 Pacific stock in addition. The committee do not deem it specially 
 important to settle this difference of recollection. Since that settle- 
 ment Mr. Scofield has had no interest in the Credit Mobilier stock and 
 derived no benefit therefrom. 
 
 ME. JOHN A. BINGHAM, OP OHIO. 
 
 In December, 1867, Mr. Ames advised Mr. Bingham to invest in the 
 stock of the Credit Mobilier, assuring him that it would return him his 
 money with profitable dividends. Mr. Bingham agreed to take twenty 
 shares, and about the 1st of February, 1868, paid to Mr. Ames the par 
 value of the stock, for which Mr. Ames executed to him some receipt or 
 agreement. Mr. Ames received all the dividends on the stock, whether 
 in Union Pacific bonds, or stock, or money ; some were delivered to Mr. 
 Bingham and some retained by Mr. Ames. The matter was not finally 
 adjusted between them until February, 1872, when it was settled, Mr.. 
 Ames retaining the twenty shares of Credit Mobilier stock, and account- 
 ing to Mr. Bingham for such dividends upon it as Mr. Bingham had not 
 already received. Mr. Bingham was treated as the real owner of the 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEE. VII 
 
 Stock from the time of the agreement to take it, in December, 1867, to 
 the settlement in February, 1872, and had the benefit of all the divi- 
 dends upon it. Neither Mr. Ames nor Mr. Bingham had such records of 
 their dealing as to be able to give the precise amount of those divi- 
 dends. 
 
 MB. ■WILLIAM D. KELLEY, OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 The committee find from the evidence that in the early part of the 
 second session of the Fortieth Congress, and probably in December, 
 1867, Mr. Ames agreed with Mr. Kelley to sell him ten shares of Credit 
 Mobilier stock at par and interest from July 1, 1867. Mr. Kelley was 
 not tben prepared to pay for the stock, and Mr. Ames agreed to carry 
 the stock for him uiatil he could pay for it. On the third day of Janu- 
 ary, 1868, there was a dividend of 80 per cent, on Credit Mobilier 
 stock in Union Pacific bonds. Mr. Ames received the bonds, as the stock 
 stood in his name, and sold them for 97 per cent, of their face. In 
 June, 1868, there was a cash dividend of 60 per cent., which Mr. Ames 
 also received. The proceeds of the bonds sold, and the cash dividends 
 received by Mr. Ames, amounted to $1,376. Thfe par value of the stock 
 andinterest thereon from the previous July amounted to$l,047; so that, 
 after paying for the stock, there was a balance of dividends due Mr. 
 Kelley of $329. On the 23d day of June, 1868, Mr. Ames gave Mr. 
 Kelley a check for that sum on the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of 
 Representatives, and Mr. Kelley received the money thereon. 
 
 The committee find that Mr. Kelley then understood that the money he 
 thus received was a balance of dividends due him after paying for the 
 stock. 
 
 All the subsequent dividends upon the stock were either in Union 
 Pacific stock or bonds, and they were all received by Mr. Ames. In 
 September, 1868, Mr. Kelley received from Mr. Ames $750 in money, 
 which was understood between them to be an advance to be paid out of 
 dividends. There has never been any adjustment of the matter between 
 them, and there is now an entii'e variance in the testimony of the two 
 men as to what the transaction between them was ; but the committee 
 are unanimous in finding the facts above stated. The evidence reported 
 to the House gives some subsequent conversations and negotiations be- 
 tween Mr. Kelley and Mr. Ames on this subject. The committee do not 
 deem it material to refer to it in their report. 
 
 MK. JAMES A. GAEFIELD, OE OHIO. 
 
 The facts in regard to Mr. Garfield, as found by the committee, are 
 identical with the case of Mr. Kelley to the point of reception of the 
 check for $329. He agreed with Mr. Ames to take ten shares of Credit 
 Mobilier stock, but did not pay for the same. Mr. Ames received the 
 80 per cent, dividend in 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 left a balance of $329. This sum was paid 
 over to Mr. Garfield by a check on the Sergeant-at-Arms, and Mr. Gar- 
 field then understood this sum was the balance of dividends after pay- 
 ing for the stock. 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. Garfield on the 
 subject until this investigation began. Some correspondence between 
 Mr. Garfield and Mr. Ames, and some conversations between them during 
 this investigation, will be found in the reported testimony. 
 
VIH CREDIT MOBILIEE 
 
 The committee do not find that Mr. Ames, in his negotiations with 
 the persons above named, entered into any detail of the relations be- 
 tween the Credit Mobilier Company and the Union Pacific Company, 
 or gave them any specific informatioa as to the amonnt of dividends 
 they would be likely to receive further than has been already stated. 
 They all knew from him, or otherwise, that the Credit Mobilier was a 
 contracting company to build the Union Pacific road, but it does not 
 appear that any of them knew that the profits and dividends were to be 
 in stock and bonds of that company. 
 
 The Credit Mobilier Company was a State corporation, not subject to 
 congressional legislation, and the fact that its profits were expected to 
 be derived from building the Union Pacific road did not, apparently, 
 create such an interest in that company as to disqualify the holder of 
 Credit Mobilier stock from participating in any legislation affecting the 
 railroad company. In his negotiations with these members of Congress, 
 Mr. Ames made no suggestion that he desired to secure their favorable 
 influence in Congress in favor of the railroad company, and whenever 
 the question was raised as to whether the ownership of this stock would 
 in any way interfere with or enabarrass them in their action as members 
 of Congress, he assured them it would not. 
 
 The committee, therefore, do not find, as to the members of the pres- 
 ent 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. It is apparent that those who advanced 
 their money to pay for their stock present more the appearance of ordi- 
 nary investors than those who did not, but the committee do not feel at 
 liberty to find any corrupt purpose or knowledge founded upon the fact 
 of non-payment alone. 
 
 It ought also to be observed that those gentlemen who surrendered 
 their stock to Mr. Ames before there was any public excitement upon 
 the subject, do not profess to have done so upon any idea of impropriety 
 in, holding it, but for reasons affecting the value and security of the iu- 
 :vestment. But the committee believe that they must have felt that 
 there was something so .out of the ordinary course of business in the 
 extraordinary dividends they were receiving as to render the invest- 
 ment itself suspicious, and that this was one of the motives of their 
 action. 
 
 The committee have not been able to find that any of these members 
 of Congress have been affected in their official action in consequence of 
 their interest in Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
 It has been suggested that the fact that none of this stock was trans- 
 ferred to those with whom Mr. Ames contracted was a circumstance from 
 which a sense of impropriety, if not corruption, was to be inferred. 
 The committee believe this is capable of explanation without such infer- 
 ence. The profits of building the road, -under the Ames contract, were 
 only to be divided among such holders of Credit Mobilier stock as should 
 come in and become parties to certain conditions set out in the contract 
 of transfer to the trustees, so that a transfer from Mr. Ames to new 
 holders would cut off the right to dividends from the trustees, unless 
 they also became parties to the agreement; and this the committee be- 
 lieve to be the true reason why no transfers were made. 
 
 The committee are also of opinion that there was a satisfactory reason 
 for delay on Mr. Ames's part to close settlements with some of these 
 gentlemen for stock and bonds he had received as dividends upon the 
 stock contracted to them. In the fall of 1808 Mr. McComb commenced 
 a suit against the Credit Mobilier Company and Mr. Ames and others. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. IX 
 
 claiming to be entitled to two hundred and fifty shares of the Credit 
 Mobilier stock upon a subscription for stock to that amount. That suit 
 is still pending. If McComb prevailed in that suit, Mr. Ames might be 
 compelled to surrender so much of the stock assigned to hiin as trustee, 
 and he was not therefore anxious to have the stock go out of his hands 
 until that suit was terminated. It ought also to be stated that no one 
 of the present members of the House above named appears to have 
 bad any knowledge of the dealings of Mr. Ames with other members. 
 
 The committee do not find that either of the above-named gentlemen, 
 in contracting with Mr. Ames, had any corrupt motive or purpose him- 
 self, or was aware that Mr. Ames had any, nor did either of them sup- 
 pose he was guilty of any impropriety or even indelicacy in becoming a 
 purchaser of this stock. Had it appeared that these gentlemen were 
 aware of the enormous dividends upon this stock, and how they were to 
 be earned, we could notthus'acquit them. And here as well as anywhere, 
 the committee may allude to that subject. Congress had chartered the 
 Union Pacific road, given to it a liberal grant of lands, and promised a 
 liberal loan of Government bonds, to be delivered as fast as sections of 
 the road were completed. As these alone might not be sufiicient to com- 
 plete the road. Congress authorized the company to issue their own 
 bonds for the deficit, and secured them by a mortgage upon the road, 
 ■which should be a lien prior to that of the Government. Congress never 
 intended that the owners of the road should execute a mortgage on 
 the road prior to that of the Government, to raise money to put into 
 their own pockets, but only to build the road. 
 
 The men who controlled the Union Pacific seem to have adopted as 
 the basis of their action the right to incumber the road by a mortgage 
 prior to that of the Government to the full extent, whether the money 
 was needed for the construction of the road or not. 
 
 It was clear enough they could not do this directly and in terms, and 
 therefore they resorted to the device of contracting with themselves to 
 build the road, and fix a price high enough to require the issue of bonds 
 to the full extent, and then divide the bonds or the proceeds of them 
 under the name of profits on the contract. All those acting in the mat- 
 ter seem to have been fully aware of this, and that this was to be the 
 effect of the transaction. The sudden rise of value of Credit Mobilier 
 stock was the result of the adoption of this scheme. Any undue and 
 unreasonable profits thus made by themselves were as much a fraud upon 
 the Government as if they had sold their bonds and divided the money 
 without going through the form of denominating them profits on build-^ 
 iug the road. 
 
 Now, had these facts been known to these gentlemen, and had they 
 understood they were to share in the proceeds of the scheme, they would 
 have deserved the severest censure. 
 
 Had they known only that the profits were to be paid in stock and 
 bonds of the Union Pacific Company, and so make them interested iu 
 it, we cannot agree to the doctrine, which has been urged before us and 
 elsewhere, that it was perfectly legitimate for members of Congress to 
 invest in a corporation deriving all its rights from and subject at all 
 times to the action of Congress. 
 
 In such case the rules of the House, as well as the rules of decency,, 
 would require such member to abstain from voting on any question 
 aifecting his interest. But, after accepting the position of a member ot 
 Congress, we do not think he has the right to disqualify himself from 
 acting upon subjects likely to come before Congress without some higher 
 and more urgent motive than merely to make a profitable investment. 
 
X CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 But it is not so much to be feared that in such case an interested mem- 
 ber would vote as that he would exercise his influence by personal ap- 
 peal to his fellow-members, and by other modes, which often is far more 
 potent than a single silent vote. 
 
 We do not think any member ought to feel so confident of his own 
 strength as to allow himself to be brought into this temptation. We 
 think Mr. Ames judged shrewdly in saying that a man is much more 
 likely to be watchful of his own interests than those of other people. 
 But there is a broader view still which we think ought to be taken. 
 This country is fasb becoming filled with gigantic corporations, wieldmg 
 and controlling immense aggregations of money, and thereby command- 
 ing great influence and power. It is notorious in many State legisla- 
 tures that these influences are often controlling, so that in efi'ect they 
 become the ruling power of the State. Within a few years Congress 
 has, to some extent, been brought within similar influences, and the 
 knowledge of the public on that subject has brouglit great discredit upon 
 the body, far more, we believe, than there were facts to justify. 
 
 But such is the tendency of the time, and the belief is far too general 
 that all men can be ruled with money, and that the use of such means 
 to carry public measures is legitimate and proper. No member of 
 Congress ought to place himself in circumstances of suspicion, so that 
 any discredit of the body shall arise on his account. It is of the highest 
 importance that the national legislature should be free of all taint of 
 corruption, and it is of almost equal necessity that the people should 
 feel confident that it is so. 
 
 In a free government like ours, we cannot expect the people will long 
 respect the laws, if tbey lose respect for the law-makers. 
 
 For these reasons we tliiuk it behooves every man in Congress or in 
 any public position to hold himself aloof, as far as possible, from all 
 such influences, that he may not only be enabled to look at every public 
 question with an eye only to the public good, but that his conduct and 
 motives be not suspected or questioned. The only criticism the commit- 
 tee feel compelled to make on the action of these members in taking this 
 stock is that they were not sufficiently careful in ascertaining what 
 they were getting, and that in their judgment the assurance of a good 
 investment was all the assurance they needed. We commend to them, 
 and to all men, the letter of the venerable Senator Bayard, in response 
 to an offer of some of this stock, found on page 74 of the testimony. 
 
 The committee find nothing in the conduct or motives of either of 
 these members, in taking this stock, that calls for any recommeudation 
 by the committee of the House. 
 
 ME. JAMES BEOOKS, OP NEW YORK. 
 
 The case of Mr. Brooks stands upon a different state of facts from 
 any of those already given. The committee find from the evidence as 
 follows : Mr. Brooks had been a warm advocate of a Pacific Kailroad, 
 both in Congress and in the public press. After persons interested in 
 the Union Pacific road had obtained control of the Credit Mobilier char- 
 ter and organized under it for the purpose of making it a construction 
 company to build the road. Dr. Durant, who was then the leading man 
 in the enterprise, made great efforts to get the stock of the Credit 
 Mobilier taken. Mr. Brooks was a friend of Dr. Durant, and he made 
 some efforts to aid Dr. Durant in getting subscriptions for the stock, 
 introduced the matter to- some capitalists of New York, but his efforts, 
 were not crowned with success. 
 
OEEDIT MOBILIER. XI 
 
 During thia period Mr. Brooks had talked with Dr. Duraut about 
 taking some of the stock for himself, and had spoken of taking fifteen 
 or twenty thousand dollars of it, but no definite contract was made 
 between them, and Mr. Brooks was under no legal obligation to take 
 the stock, or Durant to give it to him. In October, 1867, Mr. Brooks 
 was appointed by the President one of the Government directors of the 
 Union Pacific road. In December, 1867, after the stock of the Credit 
 Mobilier was understood, by those familiar with the affairs between the 
 Union Pacific and the Credit Mobilier, to be worth very much more than, 
 par, Mr. Brooks applied to Dr. Durant, and claimed that he should 
 have two hundred shares of Credit Mobilier stock. It does not appear 
 that Mr. Brooks claimed he had any legal contract for stock that he 
 could enforce, or that Durant considered himself in any way legally 
 bound to let him have any, but still, on accouut of what had been said, 
 and the efforts of Mr. Brooks to aid him, he Considered himself under 
 obligation to satisfy Mr. Brooks in the matter. 
 
 The stock had been so far taken up, and was then in such demand, 
 that Durant could not well comply with Brooks's demand for two hun- 
 dred shares. After considerable negotiation, it was finally adjusted 
 between them by Durant's agreeing to let Brooks have one hundred 
 shares of Credit Mobilier stock, and giving him with it $5,000 of Union 
 Pacific bonds, and $20,000 of Union Pacific stock. Dr. Durant testifies 
 that he then considered Credit Mobilier stock worth double the par 
 value, and that the bonds and stock he was to give Mr. Brooks worth 
 about $9,000, so that he saved about $1,000 by not giving Brooks the 
 additional hundred shares he claimed. After the negotiation had been 
 concluded between Mr. Brooks and Dr. Durant, Mr. Brooks said that 
 as ho was a Government director of the Union Pacific road, and as the 
 law provided such directors should not be stockholders in that com- 
 pany, he would not hold this stock, and directed Dr. Durant to transfer 
 it to Charles H. Neilson, his son-in-law. The whole negotiation with 
 Duraut was conducted hf Mr. Brooks himself, and Neilson had noth- 
 ing to do with the transaction, except to receive the transfer. The 
 $10,000 to pay for the one hundred shares was paid by Mr. Brooks, and 
 he received the $5,000 of Pacific bonds which came with the stock. 
 
 The certificate of transfer of the hundred shares from Durant to 
 Neilson is dated December 26, 1867. On the 3d of January, 1868, there 
 was a dividend of 80 per cent, in Union Pacific bonds paid on the 
 Credit Mobilier stock. The bonds were received by Neilson, but passed 
 over at once to Mr. Brooks. It is claimed, both by Mr. Brooks and 
 Neilson, that the $10,000 paid by Mr. Brooks for the stock was a loan 
 of that sum by him to Neilson, and that the bonds he received from 
 Durant, and those received for the dividend, were delivered and held 
 by him as collateral security for the loan. 
 
 No note or obligation was given for the money by Keilson, nor, so far 
 as we can learn from either Brooks or Neilson, was any account or 
 memorandum of the transaction kept bj^ either of them. At the time 
 of the arrangement or settlement above spoken of between Brooks and 
 Durant, there was nothing said about Mr. Brooks being entitled to have 
 50 per cent, more stock by virtue of his ownership of the hundred shares. 
 Neither Brooks nor Durant thought of any such thing. 
 
 Some time after the transfer of the shares to Neilson, Mr. Brooks 
 called on Sidney Dillon, then the president of the Credit Mobilier, and 
 claimed he or Neilson was entitled tofifty additional sharesof the stock, 
 by virtue of the purchase of the one hundred shares of Durant. 
 
 This was claimed by Mr. Brooks as his right by virtue of the 50 
 
XII CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 per cent, increase of the stock hereinbefore described. Mr. Dillon said 
 he did not know how that was, bat he would consult the leading stock- 
 holders, and be governed by them. Mr. Dillon, in order to justify himself 
 in the transaction, got up a paper authorizing the issue of fifty shares 
 of the stock to Mr. Brooks, and procured it to be signed by most of the 
 principal shareholders. After this had been done, an entry of fifty 
 shares was made on the stock-ledger to some person other than Neilson. 
 The name in two places on the book has been erased, and the name of 
 Neilson inserted. The committee are satisfied that the stock was first 
 entered on the boolis in Mr. Brooks's name. 
 
 Mr. Neilsou soon after called for the certificate for the fifty shares, 
 and on the 29th of February, 1868, the certificate was issued to him^ 
 and the entry on the stock-book was changed to Neilson. 
 
 Neilson procured Mr. Dillon to advance the money to pay for the 
 stock, and at the same time delivered to Dillon $4,000 Union Pacific 
 bonds, and fifty shares of Union Pacific stock as collateral security. 
 These bonds and stock were a portion of dividends received at the time, 
 as he was allowed to receive the same percentage of dividends on these 
 fifty shares that had previously been paid on the hundred. This matter 
 has never been adjusted between Neilson and Dillon. Brooks and 
 Neilson both testify they never paid Dillon. Dillon thinks he has 
 received his pay, as he has not now tbe collaterals in his possession. If 
 he has been paid it is i>robable that it was from tbe collaterals in some 
 form. The subject has never been named between Dillon and Neilson 
 since Dillon advanced the money, and no one connected with the trans- 
 action seems able to give any further light upon it. The whole business 
 by which these fifty shares were procured was done by Mr. Brooks. 
 Neilson knew nothing of any right to have them, and only went for the 
 certificate when told to do so by Mr. Brooks. 
 
 The committee find that no such right to fifty shares additional stock' 
 passed by the transfer of the hundred. And from Mr. Brooks's famili- 
 arity with the affairs of the company, the committee believe he must 
 have known his claim to them was unfounded. The question naturally 
 arises. How was he able to procure them ? The stock at this time by the 
 stockholders was considered worth three or four times its par value. 
 ISTeilson sustained no relations to any of these people that commanded 
 any favor, and if he could have used any influence he did not attempt 
 it; if he had this right he was unaware of it till told by Mr. Brooks, 
 and left the whole matter in his hands. It is clear that the shares were 
 procured by the sole efforts of Mr. Brooks, and, as the stockholders who 
 consented to it supposed, for the benefit of Mr. Brooks. What power 
 had Mr. Brooks to enforce an unfounded claim, to have for $5,000, stock 
 worth $15,000 or $20,000? Mr. McComb swears that he heard conver- 
 sation between Mr. Brooks and Mr. John B. Alley, a large stockholder, 
 and one of the executive committee, in which Mr. Brooks urged that 
 he should have the additional fifty shares, because he was or would pro- 
 cure himself to be made a Government director, and also that, being a 
 member of Congress, he " would take care of the democratic side of 
 the House." 
 
 Mr. Brooks and Mr. Alley both deny having had any such conversa- 
 tion, or that Mr. Brooks ever made such a statement to Mr. Alley. If, 
 therefore, this matter rested wholly upon the testimony of Mr. McComb, 
 the committee would not feel justified in finding that Mr. Brooks pro- 
 cured the stock by such use of his official position ; but all the circum- 
 stances seem to point exactly in that direction, and we can find no other 
 satisfactory solution of the question above propounded. Whatever 
 
CKEUIT MOBILIEE. XIII 
 
 claim Mr. Brooks had to stock, either legal or moral, had been adjusted 
 and satisfied by Dr. Durant. Whether he was getting this stock for 
 himself or to give to his'sonin-law, we believe, from the circumstances 
 attending the whole transaction, that he obtained it knowing that it was 
 yielded to its ofttcial position and influence, and with the intent to 
 secure his favor and influence in such positions. Mr. Brooks claims 
 that he has had no interest in this stock whatever; that the benefit and 
 advantage of his right to have it he gave to Mr. Neilson, his son-in-law, 
 and that he has had all the dividends upon it. The committee are 
 unable to find this to be the case, for in their judgment all the facts and 
 circumstances show Mr. Brooks to be the real and substantial owner, 
 and that Neilson's ownership is merely nominal and colorable. 
 
 In June, 1868, there was a cash dividend of $9,000 upon this one hun- 
 dred and fifty shares of stock. Neilson received it, of course, as the 
 stock was in his name ; but on the same day it was paid over to Mr. 
 Brooks, as Neilson says, to pay so much of the $10,000 advanced by Mr. 
 Brooks to pay for the stock. This, then, repaid all but $1,000 of the 
 loan ; but Mr. Brooks continued to hold $10,000 of Union Pacific bonds, 
 which Neilson says he gave him as collateral security, and to draw the 
 interest upon all but $5,000. The interest upon the others, Neilson says, 
 he was permitted to draw and retain, but at one time in his testimony 
 he spoke of the amount he was allowed as being Christmas and 'Sew 
 Year's presents. Neilson says that during the last summer he borrowed 
 $14,01,0 of Mr. Brooks, and he now owes Mr. Brooks nearly as much as 
 the collaterals ; but, according to his testimony, Mr. Brooks for four 
 years held $16,000 in bonds as security for $1,000, and received the in- 
 terest ou $11,000 of the collaterals. No accounts appear to have been 
 kept between Mr. Brooks and Neilson, and doubtless what sums he has 
 received from Mr. Brooks, out of the dividends, were intended as pres- 
 ents rather than as deliveries of money belonging to him. 
 
 Mr. Brooks's efforts procured the stock; his money paid for it; all the 
 cash dividends he has received; and he holds all the bonds, except those 
 Dillon received, which seem to have been applied toward paying for 
 the fifty shares. Without further comment ou the evidence, the com- 
 mittee find that the one hundred and fifty shares of stock appearing on 
 the books of the Credit Mobilier in the name of li^eilson were really the 
 stock of Mr. Brooks, and subject to his control, and that it was so 
 understood by both the parties. Mr. Brooks had taken such an 
 interest in the Credit Mobilier Company, and was so connected with 
 Dr. Durant, that he must be regarded as having full knowledge of the 
 relations between that company and the railroad company, and of the 
 contracts between them. He must have known the cause of the sudden 
 increase in yalue of the Credit Mobilier stock, and how the large expected 
 profits were to be made. We have already expressed our views of the 
 propriety of a member of Congress becoming the owner of stock, pos- 
 sessing this knowledge. 
 
 But Mr. Brooks was not only a member of Congress, but he was a 
 Government director of the Union Pacific Company. As such it was 
 his duty to guard and wacch over the interests of the Government in 
 the road and to see that they were protected and preserved. To insure 
 such faithfulness on the part of Government directors. Congress wisely 
 provided that they should not be stockholders in the road. Mr. Brooks 
 readily saw that, though becoming a stockholder in the Credit, Mobilier 
 was not forbidden by the letter of the law, yet it was a violation of its 
 spirit and essence, and therefore had the stock placed in the name of 
 his son in-law. The transfer of the Oakes Ames contract to the trustees 
 
XIV CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 and the building of the road under that contract, from which the enor- 
 mous dividends were derived,' were all during Mr. Brooks's official life as 
 a Government director, must have been within his knowledge, and yet 
 passed without the slightest opposition from him. The committee be- 
 lieved this could not have been done without an entire disregard of his 
 official obligation and duty, and that while appointed to guard the pub- 
 lic interests in the road he joined himself with the promoters of a 
 scheme whereby the Government was to be defrauded, and shared in 
 the spoil. 
 
 In the conclusions of fact upon the evidence, the committee are 
 entirely agreed. 
 
 In considering what action we ought to recommendi to the House 
 upon these facts, the committee encounter a question which has been 
 much debated : Has this House power and jurisdiction toinquire concern- 
 ing offenses committed by its members prior to their election, and to 
 punish them by censure or expulsion 1 The committee are unanimous 
 upon the right of jurisdiction of this House over the cases of Mr. Ames 
 and Mr. Brooks, upon the facts founded in regard to them. Upon the 
 question of jurisdiction the conftniittee present the following views : 
 
 The Constitution, in the fifth section of th« first article, defines the 
 power of either House as follows : 
 
 " Each House may determine the rales of its proceedings, punish its 
 members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two- 
 thirds expel a member." 
 
 It will be observed that there is no qualification of the power, but 
 there is an important qualification of the manner of its exercise — it 
 must be done " with the concurrence of two-thirds." 
 
 The close analogy between this power and the power of impeachment 
 is deserving of consideration. 
 
 The great purpose of the power of impeachment is to remove an unfit 
 and unworthy incumbent from office, and though a judgment of im- 
 peachment may to some extent operate as punishment, that is not its 
 principal object. Members of Congress are not subject to be impeached, 
 but may be expelled, and the principal purpose of expulsion is not as 
 punishment, but to remove a member whose character and conduct 
 show that he is an unfit man to participate in the deliberations and 
 decisions of the body, and whose presence in it teads to bring the body 
 into contempt and disgrace. 
 
 Ih both cases it is a power of purgation and purification to be exfer- 
 cised for the public safety, and, in the case of expulsion, for the protec- 
 tion and character of the House. The Constitution defines the causes 
 of impeachment, to wit, "treason,bribery, or other high crimes and mis- 
 demeanors." The office of the power of expulsion is so much the same 
 as that of the power to impeach that we think it may be safely assumed 
 that whatever would be a good cause of impeachment would" also be a 
 good cause of expulsion. 
 
 It has never been contended that the power to impeach for any of the 
 causes enumerated was intended to be restricted to those which might 
 occur after appointment to a civil office, so that a civil officer who liad 
 secretly committed such offense before his appointment should not be 
 subject upon detection and exposure to be convicted and removed from: 
 office. Every consideration of justice and sound policy would seem to 
 require that the public interests be secured, and those chosen to be their 
 guardians be free from the pollution of high crimes, no matter at what 
 time that pollution had attached. 
 
 If this be so in regard to other civil officers, under institutions which 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEK. XV 
 
 rest upou tbe intelligence and virtue of the people, can it well be claimed 
 that the law-making Kepresentative may be vile and criminal with im- 
 punity, provided tlie evidences of his Corruption are found to antedate 
 his election ? 
 
 In the report made to the Senate by John Quincy Adams in Decem- 
 ber, 1807, upon the case of John Smith, of Ohio, the following language 
 is used : " The power of expelling a member for misconduct results, on the 
 principles of common sense, from the interests of the nation that the high 
 trust of legislation shall be invested in pure hands. When the trust 
 is elective, it is not to be presumed that the constituent body will com- 
 mit the deposit to the keeping of worthless characters. But when a 
 man whom his fellow-citizens have honored with their confidence on a 
 pledge of a spotless reputation, has degraded himself by the commission 
 of infamous crimes, which become suddenly and unexpectedly revealed 
 to the world, defective indeed would be that institution which should 
 be impotent to discard from its bosom the contagion of such a member; 
 which should have no remedy of amputation to apply until the poison 
 had reached the heart." 
 
 The case of Smith was that of a Senator, who, after his election, but 
 not during a session of the Senate, had been involved in the treasonable 
 conspiracy of Aaron Burr. Yet the reasoning is general, and was to 
 antagonize some positions which had been taken in the case of Marshall, 
 a Senator from Kentuckj-; the Senate in that case having, among other 
 reasons, declined to take jurisdiction of the charge for the reasou that 
 the alleged offense had been committed prior to the Senator's election, 
 and was matter cognizable by the criminal courts of Kentucky. None 
 of the commentators upon the Constitution or upon parliamentary law 
 assign any such limitation as to the time of the commission of the often se, 
 or the nature of it, which shall control and limit the power of expulsion. 
 On the contrary, they all assert that the power in its very nature is a 
 discretionary one, to be exercised of course with grave circumspection 
 at all times and only for good cause. Story, Kent, and Sergeant, all 
 seem to accept and rely upon the exposition of Mr. Adams in the Smith 
 case as sound. May, in his Parliamentary Practice, page 59, enumerates 
 the causes for expulsion from Parliament, but he nowhere intimates that 
 the offense must have been committed subsequent to the election. 
 
 When it is remembered that the framers of our Constitution were 
 familiar with the parliamentary law of England, and must have had in 
 mind the then recent contest over Wilkes's case, it is impossible to con- 
 clude that they meant to limit the discretion of the Houses as to the 
 causes of expulsion. It is a received principle of construction that the 
 Constitution is to be interpreted according to the known rules of law 
 at the time of its adoption, and therefore, when we find them dealing 
 with a recognized subject of legislative authority, and while studiously 
 qualifying and restricting the manner of its exercise, assigning no lim- 
 itations to the subject-matter itself, they must be assumed to have in- 
 tended to leave that to be determined according to established jjrinci- 
 ples, as a high prerogative i)Ower to be exercised according to the 
 8 >und discretion of the body. It was not to be apprehended that two- 
 thirds of the liepvesentatives of the people would ever exercise this 
 power in any capricious or arbitrary manner, or trifle with or trample 
 upon constitutional rights. At the same time it could not be foreseen 
 what necessities for self preservation or self-purification might arise in 
 the legislative body. Therefore it was that they did not, and would 
 not, undertake to limit or define the boundaries of those necessities. 
 
 The doctrine that the jurisdiction of the House over its members is 
 
XVI CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 exclusively confined to matters arising subsequent to their election, and 
 that the body Is bound to retain the vilest criminal as a member if his 
 criminal secret was kept until his election was secured, has been sup- 
 posed by many to have been established and declared in the famous 
 case of John Wilites before alluded to. A short statement of that case 
 will show how fallacious is that supposition. "Wilkes had been elected 
 a member of Parliament for Middlesex, and in 1764 was expelled for 
 having published a libel on the ministry. He was again elected and 
 again expelled for a similar offense on the 3d of February, 1769. Being 
 again elected on the 17th of February, 1769, the commons passed the 
 following resolution : " That John Wilkes, esq., having been in this ses- 
 sion of Parliament expelled this house, was and is incapable of being 
 elected a member to serve in this present Parliament." Wilkes was 
 again elected, but the House of Commons declared the seat vacant and 
 ordered a new election. At this election Wilkes ^as again elected by 
 1,143 votes, against 296 for his competitor, Luttrell. 
 
 On the 15tli of April, 1769, the house decided that by the previous 
 action Wilkes had become ineligible, and that the votes given for him 
 were void and could not be counted, and gave the seat to Luttrell. Sub- 
 sequently, in 1783, the House of Commons declared the resolution of 
 February 17, 1769, which had asserted the incapacity of an expelled 
 member to be re-elected to the same Parliament, to be subversive of the 
 rights of the electors, and expunged it from the journal. It will be seen 
 from this concise statement of Wilkes's case that the question was not 
 raised as to the power of the house to expel a member for offenses com- 
 mitted prior to his election; the point decided, and afterward most prop- 
 erly expunged, was that expulsion per se rendered the expelled n)em- 
 ber legally ineligible, and that votes cast for bim could not be counted. 
 Wilkes's offense was of purely a political character, not involving moral 
 turpitude; he had attacked the ministry in the press, and the proceed- 
 ings against him in Parliament were then claimed to be a partisan 
 political persecution, subversive of the rights of the people and of the 
 liberty of the press. These proceedings in Wilkes's case took place 
 during the appearance of the famous Junius letters, and several of them 
 are devoted to the discussion of them. The doctrine that expulsion 
 creates ineligibility was attacked and exposed by him with great force. 
 But he concedes that if the cause of expulsion be one that renders a 
 man unfit and unworthy to be a member, he may be expelled for tl^^t 
 cause as often as he shall be elected. 
 
 The case of Matteson, in the House of Representatives, has also often 
 been quoted as a precedent for this limitation of jurisdiction. In the 
 proceedings and debates of the House upon that case it will be seen 
 that this was one among many grounds taken in the debate ; but as 
 the whole subject was ended by being laid on the table, it is quite 
 impossible to say what was decided by the House. It appeared, how- 
 ever, in that case that the charge against Matteson had become public, 
 and his letter upon which the whole charge rested had been published 
 and circulated through his district during the canvass preceding his 
 election. This fact, we judge, had a most important influence in deter- 
 mining the action of.the House in his case. 
 
 The committee have no occasion in this report to discuss the question 
 as to the power or duty of the House in a case where a constituency, 
 with a full knowledge of the objectionable character of a man, have 
 selected him to be their Eepresentative. It is hardly a case to be sup- 
 posed that any constituency, with a full knowledge that a man had 
 been guilty of an offense involving moral turpitude, would elect him. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. XVII 
 
 The majority of the committee are not prepared to concede such a man 
 could be forced upon the House, and would not consider the expulsion 
 of such a man any violation of the rights of the electors, for while the 
 electors have rights that should be respected, the House as a body has 
 rights also that should be protected and preserved. But that in such 
 case the judgment of the constituency would be entitled to the greatest 
 consideration, and that this should form an important element in its 
 determination, is readily admitted. 
 
 It is universally conceded, as we believe, that the House has ample 
 jurisdiction to punish or expel a member for an oifense committed 
 during his term as a member, though committed during a vacation of 
 Congress and in no way connected with his duties as a member. Upon 
 what principle is it that such a jurisdiction can be maintained 1 It 
 must be upon one or both of the following : that the offense shows 
 him to be an unworthy and improper man to be a member, or that 
 his conduct brings odium and reproach upon the body. But suppose 
 the offense has been committed prior to his election, but comes to light 
 afterward, is the, effect upon his own character, or the reproach and dis- 
 grace upoQ the body, if they allow him to remain a member, any the 
 less ? We can see no difference in principle in the two cases, and to 
 attempt any would be to create a purely technical and arbitrary distinc- 
 tion, having no just foundation. In our judgment, the time is not at 
 all material, except it be coupled with the further fact that he was re- 
 elected with a knowledge on the part of his constituents of what he 
 had been guilty, and in such event we have given our views of the effect. 
 
 It seems to us absurd to say that an election has given a man politi- 
 cal absolution for an offense which was unknown to his constituents. 
 If it be urged again, as it has sometimes been, that this view of the 
 power of the House, and the true ground of its proper exercise, may be 
 laid hold of and used improperly, it may be answered that no rule, 
 however narrow and limited, that may be adopted can prevent it. If 
 two-thirds of the House shall see fit to expel a man because they do not 
 like 'his political or religious principles, or without any reason at all, they 
 have the power, and there is no remedy except by appeal to the peoi^le. 
 Such exercise of the power would be wrongful, and violative of the 
 principles of the Constibution, but we see no encouragement of such 
 wrong in the views we hold. 
 
 It is the duty of each House to exercise its rightful functions upon 
 appropriate occasions, and to trust that those who come after them will 
 be no less faithful to duty, and no less jealous for the rights of free 
 popular representation than themselves. It will be quite time enough 
 to square other cases with right reason and principle when they arise. 
 Perhaps the best way to prevent them will be to maintain strictly pub- 
 lic integrity and public honor in all cases as they present themselves. 
 Nor do we imagine that the people of the United States will charge 
 their servants with invading their i)rivileges when they confine them- 
 selves to the preservation of a standard of ofiScial integrity which the 
 common instincts of humanity recognize as essential to all social order 
 and good government. 
 
 The foregoing are the views which we deem proper to submit upon 
 the general question of the jurisdiction of the House over its members. 
 But apart from these general views, the committee are of opinion that 
 the facts found in the present case amply justify the taking jurisdiction 
 over them, for the following reasons : 
 
 The subject-matter upon which the action of members was intended 
 to be influenced was of a continuous character, and was as likely to be 
 
XVIII CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 a subject of congressional action in future Congresses as in the Fortieth. 
 The influences brought to bear on members were as likely to be opera- . 
 tive upon them in the future as in the present, and were so intended. 
 Mr. Ames and Mr. Brooks have both continued members of the House 
 to the present time, and so have most of the members upon whom these 
 influences were sought to be exerted. The committee are, therefore, of 
 opinion that the acts of these men may properly be treated as offenses 
 against the present House, and so within its jurisdiction upon the most 
 limited rule. 
 
 Two members of the committee, Messrs. Niblack and McOrary, prefer 
 to express no opinion on the general jurisdictional questions dis- 
 cussed in the report, and rest their judgment wholly on the ground last 
 stated. 
 
 In relation to Mr. Ames, he sold to several members of Congress stock 
 of the Credit Mobilier Company, at par, when it was worth double that 
 amount or more, with the purpose and intent thereby to influence their 
 votes and decisions upon matters to come before Congress. 
 
 The facts found in the report as to Mr. Brooks show that he used the 
 influence of his oiflcial positions as member of Congress and Government 
 director in the Union Pacific Railroad Company, to get fifty shares of 
 the stock of the Credit Mobilier Company, at par, when it was worth 
 three or four times that sum, knowing that it was given to him with in- 
 tent to influence his votes and decisions in Congress, and his action as a 
 Government director. 
 
 The sixth section of the act of February 26, 1853, 10 Stat. United 
 States, 171, is in the following words : 
 
 "If any person or persons shall, directly or indirectly, promise, offer, 
 or give, or cause or procure to be promised, offered, or given, any 
 money, goods, right in action, bribe, present, or reward, or any promise, 
 contract, undertaking, obligation, or security for the payment or deliv- 
 ery of any money, goods, right in action, bribe, present, or reward, or 
 any other valuable thing whatever, to any member of the Senate or 
 House of Eepresentatives of the United States, after his election as 
 such member, and either before or after he shall have qualified and 
 taken his seat, or to any officer of the United States, or person holding 
 any place of trust or profit, or discharging any official function under or 
 in connection with any Department of the Government of the United 
 States, or under the Senate or House of Eepresentatives of the United 
 States, after the passage of this act, with intent to influence his vote or 
 decision on any question, matter, cause, or proceeding which may then 
 be pending, or may by law, or under the Constitution of the United 
 States, be brought before him in his official capacity, or in his place of 
 trust or profit, and shall thereof be convicted, such person or persons so 
 offering, promising, or giving, or causing or procuring to be promised, 
 offered, or given, any such money, goods, right in action, bribe, present,, 
 or reward, or any promise, contract, undertaking, obligation, or 
 security for the payment or delivery of any money, goods, right in 
 action, bribe, present, or reward, or other valuable thing whatever, and 
 the member, officer, or .person who shall in anywise accept or receive 
 the same, or any part thereof, shall be liable to indictment as for a high 
 crime and misdemeanor in any of the courts of the United States having 
 jurisdiction for the trial of crimes and misdemeanors; and shall, upon 
 conviction thereof, be fined not exceeding three times the amount so 
 offered, promised, or given, and imprisoned in the penitentiary not 
 exceeding three years ; and the person so convicted of so accepting or 
 receiving the same, or any part thereof, if an. officer or person holding 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. XIX 
 
 any sucli place of trust or profit as aforesaid, shall forfeit his offlce or 
 place; and any person so convicted under this section shall forever be 
 disqualified to hold any office of honor, trust, or j)rofit under the United 
 States." 
 
 In the judgment of the committee, the facts reported in regard to Mr. 
 Ames and Mr. Brooks would have justified their conviction under the 
 above-recited statute and subjected them to the penalties therein pro- 
 vided. 
 
 The committee need not enlarge upon the dangerous character of these 
 offenses. The sense of Congress is shown by the severe penalty de- 
 nounced by the statute itself. The offenses were not violations of pri- 
 vate rights, but were against the very life of a constitutional Govern- 
 ment by poisoning the fountain of legislation. 
 
 The duty devolved upon the committee has been of a most painful and 
 delicate character. They have performed it to the best of their abUity. 
 They have proceeded with the greatest care and deliberation, for while 
 they desired to do their full duty to the House and the country, they 
 were most anxious not to do injustice to any man. In forming their 
 conclusions they have intended to be entirely cool and dispassionate, 
 not to allow themselves to be swerved by any popular fervor on the one 
 hand, or any feeling of personal favor and sympathy on the other. 
 
 The committee submit to the House and recommend the adoption of 
 the following resolutions: 
 
 1. Whereas Mr. Oakes Ames, a Eepresentative in this House from 
 the State of Massachusetts, has been, guilty of selling to members of 
 Congress shares of stock in the Credit Mobilier of America, for prices 
 much below the true value of such stock, with intent thereby to influence 
 the votes and decisions of such members in matters to be brought before 
 Congress for action : Therefore, 
 
 Resolved, That Mr. Oakes Ames be, and he is hereby, expelled from 
 his seat as a member of this House. 
 
 2. Whereas Mr. James Brooks, a Eepresentative in this House from 
 the State of New York, did procure the Credit Mobilier Company to 
 issue and deliver to Charles H. NeUson, for the use and benefit of said 
 Brooks, fifty shares of the stock of said company, at a price much below 
 its real value, well knowing that the same was so. issued and delivered 
 with intent to influence the votes and decisions of said Brooks, as a 
 member of the House, in matters to be brought before Congress for ac- 
 tion, and also to influence the action of said Brooks as a Government 
 director in the Union Pacific Eailroad Company : Therefore, 
 
 Resolved, That Mr. James Brooks be, and he is hereby, expelled from 
 his seat as a member of this House. 
 
'CREDIT MOBILIEE 
 
 Washington, D. C, Thursday, December 12, 1872. 
 
 The committee met at 10 a. m. The following members of the com- 
 aittee were present : 
 
 jMr. LxJKE P. Poland, (chairman,) of Vermont. 
 
 Mr. E. P. Banks, of Massachusetts. 
 
 Mr. Geo. W. MoCraey, of Iowa. 
 
 Mr. Wm. E. Niblack, of Indiana. 
 
 Mr. Wm. M. Merrick, of Maryland. 
 
 Mr. Oakes Ames and E. C. McMurtrie, his counsel ; Henry 8. Mc- 
 vomb, -with Jeremiab S. Black and Samuel G. Thompson, counsel, were 
 ilso present. 
 
 Ja:iies G. Blaine, Speaker of the United States House of Eepresent- 
 :tives, was sworn, and testified as follows : 
 
 With the leave of the committee I will submit my testimony in 
 writing, for the sake of accuracy, and when I have finished, I shall, of 
 ourse, answer any questions which the committee may desire to ask by 
 ray of examination or cross-examination. 
 
 And I wish to state, without reservation or qualification, that I never 
 wned a share of stock in the Credit Mobilier in my life, either by gift, 
 iurchase, or in any way whatever. Nor did I ever receive, either di- 
 ectly or indirectly, a single cent derived in any manner or shape from 
 he Credit Mobilier or from the Union Pacific Railroad Company. No 
 erson holds, or ever did hold, for me, any stock in either corporation 
 s agent or trustee, or in any capacity whatever. I wish my testimony 
 a be taken as exhaustive and as intended to exclude every form or 
 base of ownership in the Credit Mobilier or the Union Pacific Railroad 
 iompany, both past and present. 
 
 I desire further to state that some time in the spring of 1868, the pre- 
 ise date I will not affirm, Mr. Oakes Ames asked me one day if I would 
 ke to purchase some stock in the Credit Mobilier. He said it would 
 rove a good investment, and he could sell me ten shares of the stock 
 t a rate somewhat above par — I think some ten hundred and sixty dol- 
 irs for the ten shares. We had some conversation in regard to the 
 latter, and Mr. Ames told me very frankly that in regard to these 
 liares there was a law-suit either pending or threatened, though he said 
 is right to sell the shares was perfect and undoubted. I concluded 
 lat I did not desire to purchase the stock, and therefore declined Mr. 
 Lmes's offer. 
 
 I beg to say, however, injustice to Mr. Ames, but more especially iu 
 istice to myself, that it never once occurred to me that he was attempt- 
 ig to bribe me, or in any way influence my vote or action as a Eepre- 
 jntative. I understood him to say that he was the owner of more of 
 le stock than he wished to carry, and was offering some of it to friends 
 Ix 
 
^ CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 at cost and interest to him, a slight advance above par value. The 
 amount offered to me was very small, and made little impression on my 
 mind; indeed, was well nigh' forgotten until recalled by the incidents 
 which led to this investigation. 
 
 Mr. Ames never oiierecl me any of the stock at any other time than as 
 I have just narrated, nor was any of the stock ever offered tome at any 
 tinie by "any other person or corporation." 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Question. Have you any knowledge in relation to any dealing between 
 Mr. Ames and any other member of the House of the character referred 
 to? — Answer. ISTone whatever, and I never heard of any until this pub- 
 lication. Mr. Ames is present, and I desire to ask him whether the 
 statement I have just made is correct. 
 
 Mr. Ames. Yes, sir ; your statement corresponds substantially with 
 my recollection of the facts. 
 
 By Mr. Meeeick : 
 Q. Have you any knowledge of any other member of Congress own- 
 ing stock in the Credit Mobilier ? — A. None whatever ; nor the remotest, 
 other than from the general newspaper reports. I have, of course, seen 
 these; and aside from them I have no knowledge of the subject in any 
 shape or manner, except as pertains to myself, as just given in my tes- 
 timonj'. 
 
 Washington, D. C, Friday, December 13, 1872. 
 
 The committee met at 10 a. m., all the members present, except "Mr. 
 Banks. 
 Mr. Ames and Mr. McComb, with their counsel, were also present. 
 
 Heney S. McComb sworn and examined. 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Question. State to the committee what knowledge or information you 
 have in regard .to shares of Credit Mobilier stock disposed of by Mr. 
 Ames to members of Congress. — Answer. If the committee please I 
 would prefer to have them ask me questions, and let me give direct an- 
 swers. I have with me my sworn testimony in the suit in Pennsylvania, 
 which has been instituted on this subject, which, if the committee desire 
 to refer to, will give them all the information I have. 
 
 Q. I see that you state in this testimony in your examination-in-chief 
 that three hundred and forty-three shares of the Credit Mobilier stock 
 were put in the control of Oakes Ames, and were given to members of 
 Congress. The question was then asked, " Where did you gain your in- 
 formation enabling you to make that precise answer ?" ' And the answer 
 given here is, " From Oakes Ames." 
 
 The Witness. Yes, sir ; and I repeat that answer. 
 
 Q. Are you a stockholder in this Credit Mobilier Company of Ameri- 
 ca ? — ^A. I am. 
 
 Q. Were you connected with it otherwise than as a stockholder and 
 are you familiar with its history and proceedings? — A. 1 have 'been 
 connected as a stockholder only, not as a director or manager. I was 
 familiar with its proceedings until the present officers took position 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 3 
 
 since which time everything has been kept secret, and I have never 
 been able to see the books or ascertain what has been going on. When 
 1 speak of the present officers I refer to Sidney Dillon, president, and 
 JohJa B. Alley, of the executive committee. I have never been able to 
 get anything out of them as to the management of the company in any 
 way or manner. The books are always withheld from my personal ex- 
 amination. 
 
 Q. Was Oakes Ames a member of that company? — A. He was a stock- 
 holder. 
 
 Q. Was he an officer "? — A. He was never an officer, but was an inti- 
 mate friend of all the officers and all concerned. 
 
 Q. There is a litigation pending now in the courts of Pennsylvania, 
 as the committee understand, in reference to your right to certain shares 
 in this company ? — A. Yes, sir ; a suit commenced four years ago. 
 
 Q. You claim to be entitled to three hundred and seventy-live shares ? 
 — A. Yes, sir ; to two hundred and fifty of the original shares, with the 
 accretions or increase, which would make three hundred and seventy-five 
 shares. 
 
 Q. That suit is in your favor? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Who are the defendants in that suit ! — A. The defendants are the 
 stockholders, managers, and corporation of the Credit Mobilier and 
 Oakes Ames and John B. Alley. 
 
 Q. Are you acquainted with the history of this corporation known as 
 the Credit Mobilier Company of America ? — A. Yes, sir ; I am acquainted 
 with its history up to the time I spoke of. 
 
 Q. By what authority was this company chartered? — A. The Credit 
 Mobilier corporation was the result of a charter obtained by a man 
 named Duff Green from the Pennsylvania legislature, called the " Penn- 
 sylvania Fiscal Agency." It was subsequently changed by legislative 
 enactment to the Credit Mobilier of America, and some little change 
 made in its provisions. It was purchased by Thomas C. Durant from a 
 man in Pennsylvania named Hall and George Francis Train. It was 
 purchased especially with a view of building the Pacific Eailroad. The 
 Pennsylvania legislature made an amendment in the charter allowing a 
 branch office to be in New York, and providing that it should be man- 
 aged by what was called a railway bureau, all of whom need not be 
 directors of the company. 
 
 Q. Do you know the organization of this Credit Mobilier Company — 
 whether it was managed in the interest of and managed by persons con- 
 nected with the Pacific Eailroad ? — A. It was obtained with that view. 
 
 Q. Can you state what use they made of this Credit Mobilier Company 
 and the relation it held to the Pacific Eailroad ? — A. Yes, sir. The idea 
 of the organization was to relieve the directors and shareholders of the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad Company from any individual responsibility in 
 building the road and enabling them to share the profits in building the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad. That was the design. It was obtained to cover 
 up anything that might have been done ; to relieve individuals from re- 
 sponsibility. I was never a director or manager of the Credit Mobilier 
 from its organization to the present moment. 
 
 Q. Your connection was simply as a shareholder ? — A. Simply as a 
 shareholder. 
 
 Q. How large a shareholder were you ? — A. I have held as much as a 
 thousand shares at a time. I am the holder in my own name of about 
 eight hundred and fifty shares. 
 
 Q. These are shares aside from those in dispute between you and the 
 company ? — A. Yes, sir. As a stockholder, 1 have frequently asked to 
 
4 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 look a* the books since the organization has been under its present man- 
 agement, but have never been accorded that privilege. 
 
 Q. When -was the management changed? — A-. In 1867; in May, I 
 think. I think Mr. Dillon was elected -president, and he, with Mr. 
 Hazard and. Mr. Alley, constituted the executive committee. These 
 are the men who have the control and who do control, with autocratic 
 power, everything connected with the institution. Just what suited Mr, 
 Alley's particular convenience was done, and what did not suit him was 
 not done. 
 
 Q. You claim two hundred and fifty shares of the original stock, and 
 half as muchmore, making three hundred and seventy-five. Your claim 
 is that, by a subscription made, you are entitled to these shares ? — A. 
 Y^'es, sir; by a subscription made the 3d of March, 1866. 
 
 Q. And these shares you have never received ? — A. No, sir ; nor any 
 of their accretions. 
 
 Q. And you have a suit pending to recover these shares '? — A. Yes, 
 sir ; that suit was instituted after a diligent effort on my part to obtain 
 the shares from the company amicably. 
 
 Q. About what time was the suit commenced ? — A. The papers were 
 filed in November, 1868, I think, and the suit is still pending. 
 
 Q. What has become of the three hundred and seventy-five shares 
 which you claim ? — A. Mr. Ames must answer that. 
 
 Q. What is your information in reference to if? — A. They went into 
 the hands of Mr. Ames — into the hands of Oakes Ames, trustee — and 
 so stood recorded on the books of the Credit Mobilier, two hundred and 
 fifty shares at one time and ninety-three shares, or whatever there was, 
 subsequently. 
 
 Q. These shares appear to be assigned on the books to Oakes Ames, 
 as trustee ? — A. Yes, sir; that was to distinguish them from his own stock. 
 He was a large holder of the stock of the company. 
 
 Q. And you understand these three hundred and seventy-five shares 
 to be the shares you claim ? Now, v.ill you state what knowledge you 
 have in relation to the disposition of these shares, or any of them, by 
 Mr. Ames? — A. My knowledge is from Mr. Ames orally and from Mr. 
 Ames in writing. 
 
 Q. Have you the writings you refer to? — A. I have the original of 
 letters from him, and I have photographed copies made of them. I do 
 not-desire to part with the originals. The committeeman examine them, 
 and compare them with the copies, and I desire the originals to be re- 
 turned to me. 1 now hand to the committee the original and photo- 
 graphed copy of a letter from Mr. Ames, dated January 25, ISGS. 
 
 The lettei- was read and placed in evidence, as iolIov.'s : 
 
 Washln-c.T(_ix, Jan. 25, 1868. 
 H. S. McCoMB, Esq. : 
 
 DE.UI Sir: Yours of tiio g3d ia at iiand,ir. Avhicli you say Senators Bayard & Fowler 
 have -writton you in relation to their etoek, 1 liave tpoken to Fowler, but not to Bay- 
 ard. I have never been introduced to Bayard, but will tse him soon. You say I must 
 not put too much in one locality. I have assigned as far as I have gone tn 4 from 
 Maes., 1 from N. H., 1 Delaware, 1 Tonn., 1 Ohio, 2 Penn., 1 lud., 1 Maine, & I have 3 
 to place, which I shall put where they will do most good to us. 1 am here on tlio 
 spot, and can better judge wliere they should go. I think after this dividend is paid, 
 we should make our capital to 4,000,000, and distribute the new stock where it will 
 protect us, let them have the stock at par, and profits made in the future ; the 50 per 
 cent, increase on the old stock I want for distribution here, and soon. All. -v is op- 
 posed to the division of the bonds ; says we will need them, &o., &c. 1 should think 
 that we ought to bo able to spare them, with Alley and Cisco on the finance com- 
 inittee— we used to be able to borrow '.fhen we had no credit and debts pressing. We 
 arenowout of debt and in good,credit — what sayyou about the bund dividend—apart 
 
, CREDIT MOBILIEE. ^ 6 
 
 of the purchasers here are poor, and want their bonds to sell to enable them to meet 
 their payment on the stock in the C. M. I have told th«m Tvbat they -n-ould get as 
 dividend, and they expect, I think, Tvheu the bonds the parties receive as the 80 per 
 cent, dividend, we better give them the bonds— it -will not am't to anything with us. 
 Some of the large holders will not care whether they have the bonds or certificates, or 
 they will lend their bonds to the company, as they have done before, or lend them 
 money. Quigley has been here, and we have got that yV that was Underwood's. I 
 have taken half, Quigley i and you J. J. Carter wants a part of it, at some future 
 day we are to surrender a part to him. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 OAKES AMES. 
 
 Q. In wliose handwriting was tbie original letter ? — A. That is in 
 Oakes Ames's handwriting-. 
 
 Q. You are acquainted with his handwriting ■? — A. Very well ; I have 
 seen him write frequently ; that is his handwriting. 
 
 Q. Tou received the letter — how? — A. I received it by mail. Let me 
 explain that the last paragraph of that letter has no reference to the 
 Credit Mobilier matter. That is on a different business entirely. That 
 refers to the Alexandria Canal, Eailroad, and Bridge Company, running 
 between Alexandria and Washington. 
 
 Q. What other letters have you ? — A. The second letter is dated Jan- 
 uary 30, 1868. I hand the committee the original with the photographed 
 copy. 
 
 The letter was read and placed in evidence, as follows : 
 
 Washington, Jan. 30, 1868. 
 H. S. McCoMB : 
 
 Dear Sie: Yours of the 28th is at hand, inclosing copy of letter from, or rather t®, 
 Mr. King. I don't fear any investigation here. What some of Durant's friends may 
 do in N. Y. courts can't be counted upon with any certainty. You do not understand 
 by your letter what I have done, & am to do with my sales of stock. You say none 
 to N. Y. I have placed some with N. Y., or have agreed to. You must remember that 
 it was nearly all placed as you saw on the list in N. Y., & there was but 6 or 8 m. for 
 me to place. I could not give all the world all they might want out of that. You 
 would not want me to offer less than 1,000 m. to any one. We allow Durant to place 
 58,000 to some 3 or 4 of his friends, or keep it himself. 
 
 I have used this where it will produce most good to ns, I think. In view of King's 
 letter and Washburne's move here, I go in for making our bond dividend in full. 
 We can do it with perfect safety. I understand the opposition to it comes from Alley; 
 he is on the finance com'ee, and can raise money easy if we come short, which I 
 don't believe we shall, & if we do we can loan our bonds to the company, or loan 
 them the money we get from the bonds. The contract calls for the division, & I say 
 have it. When shall I see you in Washington ? 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 OAKES AMES. 
 
 We stand about like this : 
 
 Bonds, 1st mortgage, rec'd on 525 miles, at 16 m 8,400,000 
 
 " " " " " 15 " "48m 720,000 
 
 " " " " " 100 ' "48m 4 800,000 
 
 13, 920, 600 
 10,000,000 sold & to sell to pay our deb ts 10, 000, 000 
 
 3, 920, 000 
 80 p'r cent, dividend on 3,700,000 C. M. of A - 3,000 
 
 920, 000 
 
 Gov't bonds received this day 960,000 
 
 Due for transportation 400 m ., one-half cash 200, 000 
 
 2, 080, 000 
 
 In addition to this we can draw Gov't bonds for f of the work done in advance of 
 track, if we desire it. 
 
 Oakes Ames's list of names as showed to-day to me for C. M. : 
 
b CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Blame, of Maine, 3,000. 
 Patterson, N. Hamp., 3,000. 
 Wilson, Mass., 2. 
 Painter, Eep. for Inq., 3. 
 S. Colfax, Speater, 2. 
 Elliott, Mass., 3. 
 Dawes, " 2. 
 Bout-well, " 2. 
 Bingham & Garfield, Ohio. 
 Schofield & Kelley, Penn. 
 Fowler, Tenn. 
 Feb'y 1, '68. 
 
 Q. Thislistof namesisnotiaMr.Ames'shandwritiug; in whose hand- 
 writing is it ? — A. In my own. 
 
 Q. How- came you to make that list ? — A. I wrote those names as Mr. 
 Ames read them to me from his memorandum-book. He sat one side 
 of the table and I sat the other, in the office of the Union Pacific Eail- 
 road Company In New York, just as we sit opposite each other no-w at 
 this table ; when he read I -wrote the names. This was early in Febru- 
 ary, 1868. My reason for writing that list of names was that I had 
 before written a list which he had gi-yen to me, and in that list he had 
 stated he had given a share to Senator James A. Bayard, of Delaware, 
 the old gentleman, which I found that he had not done. 
 
 Q. Have you other letters from Mr. Amos'? — A. I have other letters. 
 I have only one more here, and I would prefer not to produce it now 
 unless I am obliged to. I desire to say no more in this case than I am 
 compelled to say for my personal vindication. This investigation is 
 not of my seeking at all. 
 
 Q. If we are to inquire into your correspondence with Mr. Ames in 
 reference to this subject, it will be our duty to learn all there is. — A. It 
 is for the committee to say. I have only one letter here, and I have a 
 motive for withholding it just now, which I do not object to expressing 
 privately to you, gentlemen. 1 would like the committee to go through 
 with their examination with other witnesses before this letter is brought 
 in. I wiU bring it in after I have heard these other gentlemen testify. 
 I would rather not do it now. 
 
 Q. I see that in this letter of January 30 reference is made to the let- 
 ter Mr. Ames had received from you, inclosing a copy of a letter to Mr. 
 King. Have you that letter t—A. Mr. Ames has that letter, I presume. 
 I have not looked to see whether I have a copy of it or not. 
 
 Q. What Mr. King is that?— A. John L. King, of Springfield, Massa- 
 chusetts, who was a shareholder and an acquaintance of all these gentle- 
 men. 
 
 _ Q. The committee think whatever letters or writings on this subject 
 are in your possession they ought to have now. 
 
 The Witness. Can I not be permitted to withhold it until these 
 other gentlemen have testified ? 
 ' The Chairman. We are not trying any case between parties. The 
 
 committee desire you to produce the letter at this time. A. This is the 
 
 only letter I have here. I did want to withhold it, simply in reference 
 to a statement made by Mr. Blaine yesterday. That is the entire reason 
 I have for withholding it. Because in this letter, in addition to speak- 
 ing of members of Congress, it gives Mr. Ames's view of the value of 
 this stock, (at the time Mr. Blaine claims to have been.offered the stock ) 
 at a very much higher price than has been named in the newspapers. ' 
 
 Q. The letter which you produce is in Mr. Ames's handwriting? a." It 
 
 is. ' Here is the original, and I also have a photographed copy. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 7 
 
 The letter was read and placed in evidence, as follows: 
 
 Washington, Feb. 22, 1868, 
 H. S. McCoMB, Esq. : 
 
 Dear Sir : Yours of tlio 21st is at hand ; am glad to hoar that you are getting along 
 so well -with Mr. West ; hope you will bring it out all satisfactory, so that it will be so 
 rich that we cannot help going into it. 1 return you the paper by mail that you ask 
 for. 5fou ask toe if I will sell some of my U. P. E. E. stock. I will sell some of it at 
 par C. M. of A. I don't care to sell. I hear that Mr. Bates offered his at S300, but I don't 
 want Bates to sell out. I think Grimes may sell a part of his at $350. I want that 
 $14,000 increase of the Credit Jlobilier to sell here. We want more friends in this 
 Congress, & if a man will look into the law, (&itis difficult to get them to do it unless 
 they have an interest to do so,) he cannot help being convinced that we should not be 
 interfered with. Hope to see you here or at N. Y. the 11th. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 OAKES AMES. 
 
 The Witness. I have some more letters which I did not bring with me, 
 but I have sent my clerk to look them up, and ascertain whether they 
 have any bearing on this subject. I brought these copies which I had 
 photographed to be used in the suit to which reference has been made. 
 I was away when this investigation was ordered, and had no opportu- 
 nity to examine my papers after i received notice to come here as a 
 witness. 
 
 Q. If you have other correspondence which has bearing upon this 
 subject, we desire you to produce it. — A. I will do any thing that is de- 
 manded of me by the committee. 
 
 Q. State when you first had any conversation v/ith Mr. Ames upon 
 this subject. — A. Some time in the early part of JauuarJ^ 
 
 Q. Where was that conversation held ? — A. In ISTew York. I had beeir 
 asked to sign a paper allowing Mr. Ames to take some stock without 
 the purpose being specified. I signed the paper under protest, with the 
 distinct understanding, expressed by all the x^ersous present, that it 
 would not intefere with my claim. That was done at a meeting of the 
 seven trustees who were building the Union Pacific' Eailroad, under 
 Oakes Ames's contract. The meeting was in New York, in a room oc- 
 cupied by Mr. Durant, on the corner of Cedar and Nassau streets. I 
 did finally sign the paper under in'otest, and signed it without reading 
 it. The purport of it, as stated, was to allow him to take certain shares 
 of stock, but there was a distinct understanding at the time I signed it 
 that it was not to aft'ect my claim in any manner. 
 
 Q. Have you that paper ? — A. They have it; I have not. I never had 
 a copy of it. 
 
 Q. Are you able to state any more particularlj" the contents of that 
 paper than you have done ? — A. My recollection of the statement made 
 was, that so much of the Credit Mobilier stock should be allowed to be 
 taken by Mr. Durant and so much by Mr. Ames. I did not read it, as 
 I have said. It was stated to me in general terms. They wanted the 
 large stockholders to give their consent to these shares being so taken. 
 This statement was made by these gentlemen at this meeting of trus- 
 tees. 
 
 Q. At that meeting was anything said as to what disposition Mr. 
 Ames was to make of these shares ? — A. Not a word to me, that I heard 
 at that time, other than what I have stated. I was the last signer on 
 the paper, I think. 
 
 Q. About what time was this 1 — A. I could ascertain the time from 
 the books of the company if I had access to them. I think it was early 
 in January, 1868. 
 
"8 I CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. This paper was signed by yourself aud others °? — A. Yes, by five 
 or six. 
 
 Q. Do you remember the number of shares authorized to be taken by 
 Mr, Ames in this way ? — A. I think something like two hundred. I do 
 not remember the exact number. I had refused peremptorily to sign the 
 paper, and there was quite a wrangle or discussion in the meeting at 
 the time. John B. Alley was present, and I remember that he was very 
 suave in giving me to understand that it should not affect my claim. 
 Mr. Ames also stated that it should not affect my claim. 
 
 Q. Do you understand that the stock taken by Mr. Ames was the 
 identical stock you were claiming ? — A. ITo, sir ; I did not understand 
 any such thing at that time. It was so much of the stock of the com- 
 pany. There was considerable stock in the treasury of the company at 
 that time that would have given him his stock and me mine. 
 
 Q. Some time after that you had an interview and conversation with 
 Mr. Ames in reference to that stock. How long after that did you have 
 this conversation ? — A. I was seeing Mr. Ames every few days. I was 
 in Washington a good deal, and Mr. Ames was in New York a good 
 deal. 
 
 Q. Do you remember where you had your first talk with him about 
 it? — A. It was in the office of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company in 
 New York. The thing was brought to my attention, aud I asked Mr. 
 Ames what disposition he had made of this stock. He told me he had 
 divided it among members of Congress. 
 
 Q. State all that he said. — A. I want to say here, in explanation of 
 another thing, that a good many dividends had been paid on this stock 
 of the Credit Mobilier of America up to the time of this transaction. 
 I understood when I signed this paper that it would not include divi- 
 dends which had been declared prior to that time. Yet Mr. Ames took 
 with the stock all the past dividends, as well as those to be made in the 
 future. 
 
 Q. Can you state in round numbers about what amount of dividends 
 had been declared up to that time ? — A. I think about 260 per cent. 
 Mr. Ames states that he would not sell his own, although Mr. Grimes 
 might sell some of his at 350, and this was about the time he claims to 
 have sold this stocli at par. 
 
 Q. Was this first conversation prior to the date of these letters ■?— A. 
 O, yes. 
 
 Q. Now state as nearly as you can precisely -the conversation between 
 you and JNIr. Ames in its details.— A. That would be a pretty hard thing 
 to do. I do not know that I could give it in the precise words. 
 
 Q. State the substance of the conversation as nearly as possible. A. 
 
 Mr. Ames had shown me a list of names of members of Congress prior 
 'to this which I made a copy of as near asl could recollect. He stated 
 to me how he had apportioned the stock. 
 
 Q. Have you that list here?— A. I have not. It was simply a rough 
 memorandum, and I have not it with me. I think I have it among my 
 papers. 
 
 Q. Did you make the memorandum from what Mr. Ames said ? A. 
 
 I did not copy it from anything. I put it down from his personal re- " 
 marks. Prior to the time of receiving these letters, in a conversation 
 we had in New York, he had occasion to giveme the names of the members 
 of Congress to whom he had given this stock, and I took a memoran- 
 dum of these names from memory immediately after that. That is the 
 list of which I speak. The list I have produced here was read to me 
 by Mr. Ames from a memorandum-book he had. I could not get the 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 9 
 
 initials of the names, and 1 just put down the names as they were read. 
 After he had read them he put the memorandum-book in his pocket. 
 
 Q. At the time you made this memorandum from what he had stated 
 to you, what was the substanee of the statement he made ? — A. His 
 statement was : In the first list which I made a memorandum of, 
 he included Senator Bayard's name. When Mr. Ames told me 
 that he was going to give the stock he had to members of Con- 
 gress, some days after the paper was signed I asked him who he was 
 going to give it to, and he gave mo the names of some who are on 
 this paper and of some who are not. He said to me at that time, I re- 
 member, that he had given stock to Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, Bing- 
 ham, of Ohio, Speaker Colfax, and some others. I remember Mr. Bing- 
 ham's name from his being here on the trial of Mrs. Surratt and of his 
 being a prominent gentleman. I also remembered Mr. Wilson and the 
 Speaker from the prominent positions they held. I had some little 
 doubt about Mr. Ames doing what he said he was going to do, and I 
 said to him that if he was going to give stock to these members 
 of Congress, I would like him to give some to Senator Bayard, of 
 Delaware, and to Senator Fowler, of Tennessee ; also James F. Wilson, 
 of Iowa, and William B. Allison, of Iowa, members of the House. I had 
 known Mr. Bayard for many years. I knew he was incorruptible in 
 anything pertaining to money. I knew that if he had given him any 
 stock I should ascertain jUst the conditions on which he had been get- 
 ting it. I called Mr. Bayard's attention to it subsequently. He did not 
 understand it and wrote me for an explanation, which letter I received 
 about the l-ith of January, 1868, and immediately sent a copy of it to 
 Mr. Ames. ,Mr. Bayard stated in his letter that he could not receive 
 the stock if there was anything in connection with it that would come 
 in conflict with his duty. I had told him that Mr. Ames had some stock 
 to sell, and I stated that he was to pay for i,t if he got it. I sent a copy of 
 this letter, as I stated, to Mr. Ames, but in Mr. Ames's subsequent letter 
 to me he still apportioned one to Delaware. That is the reason which 
 induced me to be particular in getting his list of names. You notice 
 that he excludes Delaware in the list I have given you, though in the 
 letters he brings in one for Delaware. I asked him whether, in putting 
 down one to Delaware in this letter, he meant that he had given any to 
 Mr. Bayard. He said " No, I gave that one to Senator Conkling, of , Few 
 York ; and that he gave a thousand dollars of the stock to him." 
 
 Q. Do I understand that you have now given the whole of this first 
 conversation "? — A. I am endeavoring to give yon the first conversation 
 after the meeting in Few York, where these names were read out. But 
 that conversation is somewhat interwoven with others, because I kept 
 no record of the dates. 
 
 Q. Have you stated all that you remember took place in this first con- 
 versation you had with Mr. Ames ? — A. I am not positive as to the date, 
 because, as you understand, I had so many conversations with Mr. Ames. 
 I talked with him on this subject a dozen times, and it was because of 
 Mr. Ames's incorrect statements that I wanted to have something in 
 writing. It was for that reason mainly that this correspondence oc- 
 curred. 
 
 Q. Fow, state a little more fully and particularly the transaction when 
 you made the memoran'dum on this letter. — A. I made it early in Febru- 
 ary. I do not remember the date. It was very soon after I received the 
 letter. Mr. Ames happened to be in Few York, and I had his letter 
 with me. 
 
 Q. You produced the letter to him "? — A. Yes, sir ; I produced the let- 
 
10 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 ter to bim. That is the time he made the explanation about Mr. Conk- 
 ling. He had i^reviously talked about giving some of the stock to New 
 York, to which I objected, and that is the reason I said in my letter 
 " none to New York." I did not know Mr. Conkling, and was opposed 
 to his having any of the stock. 
 
 Q. But you made this memorandum from something which Mr. Ames 
 read there ?— A. Yes, sir ; he had a list of the names on a memorandum 
 inside his pocket-book, which he took out and read from. • 
 
 Q. Did you see the list ? — A. I saw a list of names in his pocket-book, 
 written in ink. He sat across the table from me, and I saw the list as I 
 see now what he is writing. 
 
 Q. And as he read them you wrote them -down ? — A. Yes, sir ; and 
 that is the reason why I only wrote the last name in each case, because 
 I wanted to follow him as rapidly as he read. 
 
 Q. This puts down Blaine, of Maine, at 3. Do you intend that to be 
 $3,000 s— A. Yes, sir ; $3,000. That is par value for the stock, thirty 
 shares. 
 
 Q. This memorandum puts down Wilson, Massachusetts, at 2. Is that 
 $2,000?— A. Yes, sir; $2,000, or 20 shares. 
 
 Q. Did he state to you whether this stock had really been transferred 
 to these men ? — A. O, no ; on the contrary, he stated that it was held 
 by him as their trustee. 
 
 Q. What was his language, as nearlj^ as you can remember, in rela- 
 tion to what arrangement had been made with any of them ? — A. The 
 statement that he made to me was that he had said to A. B. C, men- 
 tioning the names there, "you have $3,000 stock of the Credit Mobilier 
 and the bonds will pay for it. The dividend in excess of the payment 
 will be given to you." That is the reason I call it a gift, the stock being 
 worth so much more in the market than the value it was sold for. It 
 had just declared a dividend of 80 per cent, in bonds, which of itself 
 was four-fifths of the par value of the stock. 
 
 Q. You say that the par value itself was paid out of the dividend 
 declared? — A. That is it ; and the par value only Mr. Ames paid back 
 to the company. 
 
 Q. And what was divided beyond repaying this par value was a 
 gift ?— A. That is the point. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Ames say how this was done ? — A. He said he was to re- 
 ceive the bonds, convert them into money, and pay back the par value 
 to the company. You understand that I never said any of these gen- 
 tlemen got any stock whatever. I only state the information I received 
 from Mr. Ames. 
 
 By Mr. McCraey : 
 
 Q. What was the value of the stock at the time, in your estima- 
 tion ? — A. Mr. Ames estimated its value about that time as 350, and he 
 would not sell his at that price, although Mr. Grimes might a part of 
 his at 350. My understanding was that it was worth about 600 or 700 a 
 share, including prior dividends. 
 
 By Mr. NiBLACK : 
 Q. What Mr. Grimes was that ?— A. Senator Grimes, of Iowa. He 
 stood on the books of the Credit Mobilier as a subscriber to the stock 
 from the beginning. Mr. Ames, however, was a half-owner of his stock. 
 They owned it jointly. Mr. Ames collected dividends and divided them 
 with Mr. Grimes. It was an honorable subscription made from the be- 
 ginning, and before any dividends were paid. I knew Mr. Grimes well, 
 and knew him to be an honorable, high-toned gentleman. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 11 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Q. At the time you made this memorandum on the letter did you 
 have any further conversation on this subject with Mr. Ames! — A. I 
 did. Mr. Ames being a large holder of the stock, I knew that while 
 Mr. Alley was the nominal head, that he would follow, generally, any- 
 thing that Mr. Ames positively directed him to do ; that he would not 
 do much that he did not assent to. I knew Mr. Alley very well, and I 
 know perfectly well their relative positions. I therefore followed up 
 Mr. Ames pretty close to get him to settle this claim of mine. He 
 finally came out with the remark, " There is no stock for you. You con- 
 sented to give it to me for members of Congress." That put the thing 
 in a different position. If that was my stock, then I wanted him to be 
 my trustee, instead of the trustee of these other persons. 
 
 Q. What did he tell you in reference to the disposition of that stock 
 to members of Congress ? — A. l^Tothing, except that he had given the 
 stock — ^that he had appropriated it to them. He held it as trustee ; 
 and my understanding was that he apportioned the dividends to these 
 members either in money or in bonds, to them or to some friends of 
 theirs, in some way. 
 
 Q. Did you understand that other stock was given to any person 
 except to those nameH in your memorandum ? — A. I think he claimed 
 that Mr. Brooks, member of Congress, got what was apportioned to him 
 out of this amount. Mr. Brooks is the only member of Congress I know 
 to have received any of this stock without a fair consideration. 
 
 Q. Are you speaking of stock obtained from Mr. Ames by him ! — A. 
 A portion of it ; thirty -two shares came from him. 
 
 Q. Was this stock j)ut into his hands? — A. I do not know. I think 
 the stock Mr. Brooks received was given by Mr. Alley's direction, and 
 not by that of Mr. Ames. 
 
 Q. Mr. James Brooks is a member of the present Congress ; will you 
 state what knowledge you have in relation to this stock ? 
 
 Witness. Am I obliged to answer that question ? 
 
 The Chaieman. The committee desire you to answer it. 
 
 A. All I know in regard to Mr. Brooks's receiving any of this stock 
 is this : I saw Mr. Brooks and Mr. Alley together several times, and 
 heard Mr. Brooks pressing Mr. Alley to let him have fifty shares of the 
 Credit Mobilier stock, and I heard him say to Mr. Alley that if he would 
 accord him that privilege and give him the stock, he would take care 
 of the democratic side of the House. Mr. Brooks was at that time either 
 a Government director, or said he would have himself made a Govern- 
 ment director, of the Union Pacific Eailroad. I overheard such conver- 
 sation between Mr. Brooks and Mr. Alley on several occasions ; Mr. 
 Alley finally consented to give him fifty shares of that stock, and it 
 was transferred to Mr. Brooks, or to his son-in-law, Neilson. I do not 
 know precisely when the transfer was made. Mr. Alley gave his pledge 
 that Mr. Brooks should have the fifty shares. 
 
 Q. What is Mr. Neilson's full name ? — A. CharlesH. Neilson, Ithink. 
 That was along in the fall of 1868. 
 
 Q. It was subsequent to these letters that you have produced ? — A. 
 O, yes. 
 
 Q. You understand that that fifty shares of stock went to Mr. Brooks, 
 and that he had the advantage of them without making any payment ? — 
 A. Yes, sir; with all the accretions. The par value of |lOO a share 
 was paid out of the accrued dividends. I tried to follow this thing up 
 myself by getting access to the Credit Mobilier books, but they were 
 always sealed books to me. I was never allowed to look into them. 
 
12 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Do you understacd that the fifty shares which weut to Mr. Brooks 
 were a portion of the shares put into Mr. Ames's hands ? — A. Only from 
 Mr. Ames's statement that thirty-two shares of that amount put into 
 Ms. hands went to make up the amount which was to go to Mr. Brooks. 
 That was a mere passing remark; whether it was true or not I do not 
 know. 
 
 Q. You understood the remark to be made in accounting in part for 
 the number of shares Mr. Ames had placed in his hands ?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. State any other conversation you had with Mr. Ames in reference 
 to his dealings with members of Congress on the subject. — A. This 
 case has been going on several years. The counsel for Mr. Ames's side 
 had demanded, before proceeding with my cross-examination, the pro- 
 duction of Mr. Ames's letters. I evaded it for awhile, but finally I gave 
 him a copy of one of these letters, but he was not satisfied with that. I 
 insisted that these letters should not be made any part of the case on 
 my side. But the counsel for Mr. Ames demanded that the originals 
 should be made a part of the case in my suit. I visited Washington 
 about April of this year, and had an interview with Mr. Oakes Ames at 
 the Arlington House. I brought these letters, and all the letters I had 
 from him. I stated the fact that I was obliged to produce these letters 
 in the suit. I told him that I had no desire to produce them, but that 
 his counsel refused to go on with ray further cross-examination until 
 the letters were produced. I said to him, " If you will give me, over 
 your signature, an agreement that if I gain my suit you will account to 
 me for this stock, I will surrender all these letters to you, and when I 
 go back to Philadelphia will say to the counsel that I have not the let- 
 ters, and I will keep no copies of them." Mr. Ames replied, exhibiting 
 some petulance of feeling, "You can publish any letters you have from 
 me ; everybody knows that members of Congress are bribed, and every- 
 body does it." That he said at the Arlington Hotel in this city. I then 
 went back to Philadelphia and produced the letters, and that is how 
 they came out. Up to that time I supposed Mr. Ames had some little 
 consideration for his friends, and that he would try to shield them, but 
 he seemed to be entirely indifferent, and said I could publish the letters. 
 I did not see Mr. Ames after that until I met him in New York, at the 
 Fifth Avenue Hotel, after the publication of these letters. We had a 
 little spat between us at the time, and he and I have not spoken since. 
 
 Q. Have you stated the substance of all that has occurred on this 
 subject? — A. I think so, unless a further examination may bring to 
 mind something I have forgotten. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge in relation to transfers and arrange- 
 ments about stock between Mr. Ames 9,nd members of Congress, except 
 what you learned from him ? — A. I have not, and I want to be distinctly 
 understood as saying that I do not charge or know that members of 
 •Congress received any stock, or had anything to do with the stock, ex- 
 cept what I learn from Mr. Ames himself. In making this statement I 
 should except Mr. Brooks; also Senator Grimes, who 'bought his stock 
 originally as I have stated ; and I believe Mr. Hooper also had some 
 stock, which, he bought at the beginning. 
 
 Q. All the knowledge other than that which you have on this subject 
 is derived from Mr. Ames ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge other than that derived from Mr. Ames, 
 in relation to any member receiving stock in this company, from any- 
 body? — A. I have not. 
 
 Q. Have you made any arrangement yourself, in any way, with any 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 13 
 
 member of Congress ? — A. Never for a dollar, either in stock of this or 
 any other company, in money or any other consideration. I never did. 
 
 Q. Do you know that anybody else has had anything to do with that 
 stock, except what you have stated as coming from Mr. Ames 1 — A. No, 
 sir. I might say here, and it comes to my mind just at this moment, 
 that I was in the office at New York when Mr. Ham was transferring 
 some Union Pacific Eailroad stock to a Mr. Kennedy, of Washington. 
 Mr. Ham stated that Mr. Ames was transferring some of his trustee 
 stock to Mr. Kennedy as trustee. 
 
 Q. Do you refer to J. 0. Kennedy ? — A. I do not know his name. He 
 is a tall man, "with iron-gray hair. He has a brother who is a banker 
 or broker in New York. I do not know what bearing, if any, that had 
 upon this subject. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 
 Q. At the time of this agreement authorizing Mr. Ames to receive a 
 portion of that stock for distribution, did you understand that any of it 
 was to be divided among members of Congress ? — A. I did not. 
 
 Q. Did you ever afterward voluntarily or conditionally assent to any 
 such disposition of it ? — A. No, sir. I v/as never solicited. I knew 
 very little about the transactions of the Credit Mobilier after the time 
 I have referred to. It was managed in a secret kind of way, and these 
 gentlemen can best answer for themselves for what passed. 
 
 Q. What I want to know is whether you ever assented to this dispo- 
 sition of this stock 'i — A. No, sir ; I did not. 
 
 By Mr. Mebeick: 
 
 Q. I understand you to say that Mr. Ames represented that these 
 members of Congress youhave named were to be paid from this general 
 stock, which was to be contributed by the members of the company at 
 large. — A. This stock apportioned was to be taken from the general 
 treasury. You asked me if I could remember anything else. I do now 
 remember something else very distinctly which I would like to state. 
 Eeferenee is made in one of Mr. Ames's letters to Durant's action in 
 New York, and Washburne's move here. Mr. Ames "wrote to me — J. am 
 not sure but he told me — that E. B. Washburne, of Illinois, in his place 
 in the House had moved some kind of investigation into the affairs of 
 the Union Pacific Eailroad. I do not recollect the precise point. Mr. 
 Colfax was in the chair as Speaker of the House, and by some parlia- 
 mentary maneuver they blocked the game and defeated it. Mr. Ames 
 called my attention to it, and asked me if I did not think that in Mr. 
 Colfax's case the investment had paid. Eeferenee to the records of 
 Congress would fix about the day, and show what Mr. Washburne's 
 motion was, and what Mr. Colfax did. 
 
 Q. You stated that you were solicited to sign a paper contributing a 
 portion of the general stock to be used by Mr. Ames for distribution 
 among members of Congress? — A. No, sir j I did not say that. I did 
 not say I understood the purpose for which it was to be used. I said at 
 the time it was presented to me for my signature, it was at a meeting of 
 the seven trustees appointed to execute Mr. Oakes Ames's contract. I 
 am not sure "whether Mr. Oakes Ames's name "was on the paper. Oliver 
 Ames's name was on the paper, and several of the large holders of the 
 stock "were on it. The presentation of the paper to me was a matter of 
 surprise. If the stock was to be sold properly, it could have been done 
 by the officers of the company "without any such agreement. It was 
 eorapeteut for the president of the company to have sold any of the 
 
14 CREDIT MOBILISE. 
 
 Stock in the treasury, if it had been on a fair basis, without any such as- 
 sent by the stockholders. But they wanted to have the consent of the 
 large stockholders for a portion of the stock to be placed in Mr. Ames s 
 hands, as I liave stated. 
 
 Q. Was the use to be made of it discussed ?— A. Fo ; it was not 
 specified ; as I said, I had some angry discussion at that meeting with 
 the trustees ; I think all the trustees were present, and they assured 
 me that this stock should not be chargeable against any of my stock ; 
 thev gave me a general statement in regard to the paper, and I finally 
 put'^my signature to it ; I think the last on the paper. 
 
 Q. I understand you then that you gave your assent to that arrange- 
 ment, whatever it was, without having disclosed to you what was the 
 purpose for which the stock was to be used?— A. Yes, sir; I did not 
 know what it was to be used for ; they just asked me to sign the paper 
 for a special purpose, without disclosing the purpose; I did not know 
 what was to become of the stock ; I was very careful to receive from 
 them the assurance that it should not affect the stock claimed by me. 
 
 Q. When you came to learn from Mr. Ames that it was used for dis- 
 tribution to members of Congress did you remonstrate •?— A. I did, most 
 assuredly, and I told them I should demand that stock. This suit began 
 in the fall of 1868 ; notice was served upon Mr. Ames about the 10th or 
 nth of November, 1868 ; in the original bill I made no reference to mem- 
 bers of Congress. 
 
 By Mr. McOeAUY : 
 
 Q. What was the total amount of stock to be transferred to Mr. Ames 
 under the original agreement ? — A. I think, as far as I know, he got three 
 hundred and forty -three shares; he was to have two hundred and fifty 
 original shares with the accretions, making in all three hundred and 
 seventy-five. 
 
 Q. Was the amount named in the paper you signed ? — A, Not that I 
 recollect ; it was a very unusual and unwise thing on my part to sign a 
 paper I had not read. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether it was all transferred to him at one time or 
 not ? — A. I think he got it at several different times ; my recollection is 
 that the first he drew was fifty shares, and then there was a second in- 
 stallment ; I think I saw his name down for the first installment for fifty 
 shares, or perhaps it was one hundred shares. 
 
 Q. Do you know of his drawing ninety-three shares at any one time ? — 
 A. No, sir ; I was not applied to to sign the paper for that; in fact, it 
 seems to me that he got a portion of this stock before that. I did not 
 know at the time I signed the paper that there was another transaction 
 of ninety-three shares ; I do not know anything about that ; it was a 
 part of the same stock, I think, but I never had any conversation with 
 Mr. Ames about it. I had no expectation of any intention to apply the 
 stock I had claimed for this purpose until Mr, Ames said, as I have 
 stated, " O, there is no stock to give you ; you consented to my having 
 the balance of that stock," or something of that kind. 
 
 Q. Have you given all the names of the members of the present House 
 mentioned to you by Mr. Ames as having received shares of this stock ? — 
 A. There may have been more names on Mr. Ames's list than I have 
 written here. These are all I was able to write as he read the names. I 
 wrote them down as rapidly as possible. I did not ask him to repeat the 
 list, for I was afraid he would not do it. 
 
 Q. Did I understand that he gave you another list ! — A. He gave a 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 15 
 
 list of names on another occasion prior to this time. He did not Ifuow 
 that I took any memorandum of it. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Q. If you can find the first memorandum of names mentioned by you 
 you will please produce it, and the committee also desire you to examine 
 your other correspondence with Mr. Ames and produce any other letters 
 on this subject you may have. — A. I will do what I can. I have not 
 gone over my correspondence with Mr. Ames at all on this subject. 
 
 By Mr. NiBLACK : 
 
 Q. You referred to Mr. James A. Bayard, of Delaware, and spoke of 
 a letter from him iii regard to the matter. What has become of that 
 letter? — A. Mr. Bayard's original letter I think I have among my pa- 
 pers. A copy of it was sent to Mr. Ames in Washington. 
 
 Q. 1 was requested by Mr. Thomas A. Bayard, the present Senator 
 from Delaware, to ask the indulgence of the committee to have his 
 father's letter produced. — A. I cannot produce it now ; if I can find it I 
 will furnish it with pleasure to the committee. 
 
 Mr. Ames stated that he did not wish to cross-examine the witness. 
 
 WASHiNaiON, D. C, December 17, 1872. 
 
 The committee met at 10 a. m.; all the members .present. 
 
 Mr. McMurtrie, counsel for Oakes Ames, read to the committee the 
 direct testimony of Mr. Oakes Ames, which had been reduced to writ- 
 ing, as follows : 
 
 The charge is that I received from the Credit Mobilier two hundred 
 and fifty shares of its stock for the purpose of corrupting members of 
 Congress. That while I in fact paid the company the par value of the 
 stock, yet its actual value at that time so far exceeded par that the dif- 
 ference was in reality a gift, and the subscription a mere sham to conceal 
 the transaction. This charge is based on the testimony of Colonel 
 McComb as to statements I made him and letters I wrote to him. In 
 truth, the whole case lies in this short compass : In my efforts to raise 
 capital and enlist friends and influence to enable me to carry out success- 
 fully a gigantic undertaking, by which I was ultimately compelled to 
 ask an extension from my creditors, I had persuaded a number of per- 
 sons to agree to take this stock, and when I applied for and got this 
 little remnant of the unalloted stock the values had very materially 
 changed. My object — and it was concealed from no one — in getting the 
 ■ stock was to fulfill my engagements at a time that the value was very 
 different. Mr. McComb conceals that fact and invents another, viz, that 
 the stock was got for future contracts or dealings ; ^nd the difference in 
 value between the subscription price and the market- value he converts 
 into a bribe. 
 
 To enable the committee to appreciate the facts I will go back a little. 
 'ihe last grant of jjrivileges to the Union Pacific Eailroad by Congress 
 was by the act of June 4, 1864. After that not a favor even was asked, 
 unless you see fit so to style the authority to remove an office to Boston 
 to escape from a corrupt judge, (Barnard, the tool of James Pisk,) and 
 the right as a national corporation to have our causes heard iu the Fed- 
 eral courts. 
 
 I propose now to state the facts to which Mr. McComb has referred 
 
16 CKEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 as they really existed. And it will be found that his whole story lies in 
 suppressing facts of which he is as fully aware as I am, and which hap- 
 pily are known to many. 
 
 At the time this last snbsidy, a reward for accomplishing the great 
 national object of connecting the Pacific and the Atlantic by rail, was 
 offered to the public,'! had no connection with the enterprise, and no 
 expectation of such connection. It was not until the persons who had 
 undertaken it had halted and sought for assistance from me that I gave 
 my mind to the subject. I and my brother embarked very largely. 
 There were members of Congress who did the same. ISo one seems to 
 have thought this was corrupt, and yet it will be seen the acts I am 
 charged with are nothing more than this. 
 
 Those of us who were willing to aid this great enterprise were under 
 the impression our acts were praiseworthy and patriotic. We certainly 
 hoped we would make a profit, bat we knew the risk was enormous. 
 
 To give those who were willing to risk the capital required to aVail 
 ourselves of the assistance or reward offered by Congress, it was neces^ 
 sary that we should be our own contractors, and thus receive for build- 
 ing the road what Congress offered to any one who would do so. 
 
 To avoid the responsibility, as partners, we purchased this charter 
 of the Credit Mobilier, it being intended that this corporation should 
 be the contractor, and we, as its shareholders, should receive the profits 
 on the building. The profits were to be received in stock and bonds of 
 the Union Pacific Eailroad, which were paid on the building-contract. 
 
 It must be observed our profits were merely nominal or. contingent. 
 If the road was completed, and when completed could earn interest on 
 the debt, and profits besides, then our profits would be great. If our 
 road was not completed, or, when completed, unprofitable, not only would 
 our profits be lost, but our capital likewise. When I tell you that dne 
 of our contracts required the actual expenditure of $47,000,000, while 
 the resources were the original capital of the Credit Mobilier, all of which 
 had been absorbed in prior construction — the bonds lent us by the 
 United States land-grants and the bonds of our company, the whole 
 value of which depended on our ultimate success^ypii will perceive why 
 I was seeking for associates and assistance. • 
 
 We wanted capital and influence. Influence not on legislation alone, 
 but on credit, good, v/ide, and a general favorable feeling. If the com- 
 munity had confidHUCoin our ultimate success, that success was insured. 
 But if there was distrust or ill-will, the i-everse was as certain. For 
 unless we could get off our bonds and land-grants, to raise money to pay 
 our way, we must certainly fail. When, then, I tell you in the light of 
 these circumstances that I wished to enlist our public men as well as 
 capitalists, to obtnin their influence, have I not the right to ask you to 
 infer that I meant a proper influence'? Can I not appeal to the open- 
 ness of my statements at t'lo time and the utter absence of concealment 
 on my part, that I intended uotliing that ought to brand me with dis- 
 grace '? 
 
 At the start a number of public men had embarked with ns. As the 
 work progressed I solicited such men wherever there was a chance of 
 success. As our prospects brightened and the profit had become almost 
 certain, I persuaded men whose means were small to take the risk, and 
 this certainly on my part with the expeatation that they would reap a 
 proQt. I engaged, as I supposed at least, with a number of persons in 
 this way. Some asserted they had agreed to take the stock that I could 
 not remember, and I find that some differ from me as to our arrange- 
 ments. Bat it is very disagreeable to come in conflict as to past facts 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 17 
 
 known only to the disputants. Eior is it material for me to name per- 
 sons or go into details, for happily I can prove by a very considerable 
 number of persons that every share of stock with which corruption is 
 eharged was obtained.to enable me to fulfill these engagements. It is 
 certainly true that those I had expected to take the stock I thus re- 
 ceived and paid for declined doing so when they heard of the litigations 
 that were pending. It was claimed by one of these litigants that all 
 the capital we had subscribed in the Credit Mobilier and all our profits 
 belonged to them. 
 
 Mr. McOomb also asserted that this was his stock, and demanded a 
 specific transfer and an account of all profits. And perhaps not the 
 least motive was — what has culminated here — he charged that the ob- 
 ject in issuing this stock to me was the corrupting of members. 
 
 The result was, most of these men declined the stock, and those who 
 had long since paid me the price oh my promise to get the stock, asked 
 me to return the money, and I did so. 
 
 There was another motive I now recall that had an influence in this. A 
 few among us, better lawyers than others, were convinced that we were 
 all liable as partners in this immense undertaking. We had started as 
 a corporation, and without that shield would never have been con- 
 nected with it. Just before the $47,000,000 contract was made, a dispute 
 among us resulted in the compulsory abandonment of the corporation 
 and this contract was made with me, and by me put in trustees for the 
 persons who were stockholders. A most serious litigation has now de- 
 termined that the corporation was not the owner of this contract, but 
 that we had really assumed the jjosition of partners, acting by the 
 agency of a trust. I will not trouble you with the details ; they are so 
 complicated that one court was unable to perceive this, and it required 
 the judgment of the supreme court of Pennsylvania to make it clear 
 that the contract was an individual property,, and so were the profits. 
 The question arose on an attempt to tax the profits divided, as profits 
 and dividends of the corporation. 
 
 I must now go into the particulars relative to the issue of this stock 
 to me. You were told that the stock was, in January, 1868, worth more 
 than par. That is true, though the value stated by Mr. McComb is very 
 much exaggerated. The best test is actual sales. These were mad© at 
 160 or thereabout. 
 
 When I desired to secure the stock to enable me to fulfill my previous 
 engagements, not (as is falsely asserted) to purchase congressional in- 
 fluence, I applied to the company for the purpose. I was met by the 
 objection that it would not be fair to let any man have the stock at 
 par, because it would sell in the market for a higher price. I urged 
 the fact that I had taken a great part of the responsibility of the work, 
 and I had made many engagements, and that these had been beneficial 
 in enlarging the number interested, and thus operating to our advan- 
 tage. Mr. Durant asserted he was similarly circumstanced; that he 
 had promised to procure stock, and was bound to do so. Mr. McComb 
 also made the same assertion, and mentioned two or three persons that 
 he had engaged to get stock for. It was said to him, what right had 
 he to pledge the company's stock ; and it was said his right was equal 
 to mine. ' The committee seemed to, think Durant and myself were 
 entitled to some consideration, owing to the immense stock we always 
 had had in the enterprise. It was then verbally agreed that Durant 
 and myself should have all the unallotted shares to fulfill our engage- 
 ments. The president of the company-declined acting on Mr. McGomb's 
 2x 
 
18 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 verbal autliorization, and required a written consent by the large stock- 
 holders. It was prepared and signed. It reads thus : . 
 
 We, the undersigned, stockholders of the Credit Moblier of America, 
 understanding that $65,000 of the capital stock of this company, held 
 in trust by the president, has been promised certain parties by T. 0. 
 Durant and Oakes Ames, do hereby consent to and advise the trans- 
 fer of said stock to such parties as they, the said Durant and Ames, have 
 agreed upon and designated, sav, to Durant parties $37,000, and Ames 
 parties $28,000. 
 
 JOHN DUFF. 
 
 THOS. 0. DURANT. 
 
 S. BAEDWELL. 
 
 OAKES AMES. 
 
 OLIVER AMES. 
 
 JOHN B. ALLEY. 
 
 C. S. BUSHNELL. 
 
 SIDNEY DILLON. 
 
 H. S. MCOOMB. 
 
 The undersigned, stockholders in the Credit Moblier of America, 
 recommend the issue to Hon. Oakes Ames, trustee, of ninety-three (93) 
 shares of the capital stock of this company at par. 
 
 T. C. DURANT. 
 
 C. S. BUSHNELL. 
 
 OAKES AMES. 
 
 OLIVER AMES. 
 
 C. A. LOMBARD. 
 
 S. HOOPER & CO. 
 
 S. BARDWELL. 
 
 JOHN DUFF. 
 
 WM. H. MACY. 
 Mr. McComb denies that he read it. 
 
 It can be proved that he was present at the discussion which led to 
 it ; that he heard my reasons for wishing it; that he heard it read more 
 than once; that he was finally persuaded to sign it. The promise that 
 he asserts was made is untrue. It is quite different from what I am in- 
 formed he asserted when examined in the litigation. But it is quite 
 impossible that he did not know what the paper was if he did not read it. 
 There had been a lengthy discussion, a verbal agreement, a refusal to 
 act on that, a refusal on his part to sign a paper as a favor to Mr. Dillon, 
 with whom he had quarreled, and then his signature. They can be 
 proved by probably half a dozen, viz, the grounds of my demand and 
 grounds of hesitancy. 
 
 These facts can certainly be proved by several witnesses. They have 
 made the same statement under a judicial oatl^ long before anything 
 like this was anticipated. Mr. McComb's statement of my avowed pur- 
 pose is simply false, and what I did avow was as innocent as my own 
 subscription in the iirst instance. There is not a word of truth in this, 
 and I never stated anything that McComb thought was intended to 
 convey that meaning. He knew I had stated why I wanted the stock, 
 and he immediately began writing to get me to give some that I had 
 got to one of his friends. He had previously complained that I was 
 trying to make this a local concern. In my letter I tried to point out 
 the unreasonableness of his request; that I had less stock than was 
 required to fulfill my promises ; and to show him that, in making these 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIER. 19 
 
 engagements, I had endeavored to select the purchasers in all parts of 
 the country. 
 
 In point of fact I endeavored to carry out the engagements for which 
 the company allowed me to take the shares, fulfill prior engagements, or 
 what I considered engagements. As I have stated, most of them de- 
 clined taking the stock. Mr. McGomb says I dictated a list of names 
 for him to write down. It is not true. It is proved by the fact that I 
 could not have mentioned the names as stated by him as persons con- 
 nected, or expected to be, with that stock. It is, I believe, true that he 
 did ask who was to get the stock, and 1 have no doubt I mentioned the 
 Dames of some that I expected would take it, as I had promised to get 
 it for them, and had endeavored to persuade them to invest in it. 
 
 While the statements of Mr. McComb are entirely false with regard 
 to my alleged purpose and intent in disposing of stock to members of 
 Congress, and I never gave him the list of names as stated by him, yet 
 the fact is true, which I never tried to conceal from any one who had 
 any right whatever to know, that I did agree to sell to several, and did 
 actually deliver to some members of Congress, without as much as a 
 thought then or now of any wrong or corrupt purpose on my part or 
 theirs, a small amount of stock, and the names of such members I will 
 gladly furnish the committee if they desire, and leave it to those gentle- 
 men to say for themselves whether on my part, or theirs, there was the 
 most distant thought at the time of any impropriety, any more than 
 there would have been iu their buying of me so many shares of national- 
 bank stock. 
 
 I understand the committee as intimating that I was to state all the 
 particular instances in which I had transactions with members of Gon- 
 ,gress in reference to the Credit Mobilier or the Union Pacific Railroad. 
 For the purposes of this inquiry they may stand as one. And I under- 
 stand the inquiry to have reference to all acts of mine which are of the 
 character or supposed character of the particulars on which the charge 
 is based. 
 
 My connection with the road began by a subscription to the Credit 
 Mobilier in August, 1805. My determination to do so, of course, pre- 
 ceded that some short time. 
 
 I have pointed out the nature of the undertaking, and the necessity I 
 felt to enlist all men of influence or public opinion. 
 
 , I began by soliciting my intimate friends and men in Congress pos- 
 sessed of means, and capitalists iu large cities. Those whom I persuaded 
 to do so I have no difficulty in namiug, for they have continued to act 
 with me. But it is not so easy to recall others I failed to persuade. 
 Senator G-rimes, John B. Alley, aud Samuel Hooper, of the House, were 
 willing to go in, aud subscribed very largely in all these cases. I offered 
 to guarantee them against loss. I also distinctly remember applying to 
 W. P. Weld, as his prophecy of ruin made an impression. I have beeu 
 reminded, though I had forgotten it, that I had suggested it to Mr. 
 Scofleld when the organization was merely projected. Our capital soon 
 proved inadequate, and it was increased, and with difficulty. It was 
 again inadequate, and again increased, and this time obtained only with 
 the aid of an enormous bonus. 
 
 During l8t>5-'66, and until late in 1807, there were neither dividends nor 
 profits. During all this time I was constantly at work endeavoring to 
 enlist others. Confident of ultimate success, aud of the profit that would 
 come, I held out every inducement, and made every representation that 
 I believed to be justifiable- for this purpose. 
 
 Precisely who I spoke to or who formally agreed to take shares, but 
 
20 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 desired to postpone the time of payment, it is quite impossible for me 
 to recall. When the stock was obtained in 1868 there was a difficulty 
 about this, and time has not aided me in this respect. But as the time 
 approached for profits, the number of shares that remained, and with 
 which alone I could fulfill many engagements I had made, or supposed 
 I had made, was very small. I then applied and got the shares I have 
 stated. The agreement says two hundred and eighty ; my recollection 
 is it was two hundred and fifty shares, and this is confirmed by the share 
 list, which shows but two hundred and fifty were allotted to me. 
 
 From first to last I was influenced by the same motive— to aid the 
 credit of the road. 
 
 It was not until December, 1867, that there was a dividend. All these 
 were in bonds or stock. All looked very fair, but some of us knew there 
 was a risk yet. It so proved. The road was not completed till May, 
 1869, and in March, 1869, some of us had to raise on our private credit 
 several millions to enable us to complete the work. The contractors 
 were unpaid and their men had struck, and our bonds and stock and the 
 credit of the company discredited in the market. 
 
 But in the early part of 1868 our prospects were very flattering, and 
 I was compelled, in distributing the few shares I could get, to disap- 
 point many. But I strove to use them in a way that I thought most 
 advantageous in spreading our influence everywhere. 
 
 I will now speak of the transactions with the individuals named in the 
 letters produced by Mr. McComb in his testimony. 
 
 Mr. Colfax is one mentioned. I cannot remember which of us first 
 mentioned the subject, but I know he wanted to get some stock. I am 
 pretty confident he has paid me for it, though it was never transferred 
 to him, nor can I remember having paid over to him any dividends. At 
 the next session he said something about that thing being off. 
 
 Mr. Henry Wilson is another. There was a fund given Mrs. Wilson 
 on the twenty-fifth anniversary of her wedding, and I was consulted 
 about investing it. I recommended twenty shares of this stock for 
 $2,000, and the money was paid me ; some months afterward he objected 
 to the investment, and I felt bound from what had occurred to take it 
 off his hands, and return the money, which I did. 
 
 Mr. Patterson bought of this, thirty shares, and it was by his order 
 transferred to a banking-house in New York. 
 
 Senator Grimes. I have stated all I can say respecting his connection 
 with the business. 
 
 Mr. Blaine. You have heard Mr. Blaine's testimony in advance of 
 mine and my acquiescence therein. He declined the stock, and nothing 
 more needs be said. 
 
 Mr. Dawes. In December, 1867, he came to mp to purchase a Cedar 
 Eapids bond. I advised him to take the amount in stock of the Credit 
 Mobilier, which I thought a better investment ; that I would guarantee 
 him 10 per cent, interest on his investment and take it off his hands kt 
 any time he wished me to. After making inquiries, he gave me $1,000, 
 to invest in the stock. Some time after he came to me he asked what 
 Larned meant by asserting that he and his friends were the owners of 
 the Credit Mobilier. He then said he would rather not take the stock, 
 and the contract was rescinded. 
 
 Mr. Bingham asked me to invest some money for him in such stocks 
 or things that I knew would pay well. He furnished me about $2,500. 
 I invested it in twenty shares of Credit Mobilier, and the balance ih 
 Iowa Falls and Sioux City Contracting Company stock. I settled up 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 21 
 
 this matter with him ia 1870, I think, and paid him the amount due , 
 and took the stock off his hands at his desire. 
 
 Mr. GarJEield. I agreed to get ten shares of stock for him and hold 
 it until he could pay for it. He never did pay for it or receive it. 
 
 As to Mr. Boutwell, I offered him some of the stock, and there was 
 some negotiation, but it resulted in his not taking the stock, nor did he 
 receive any dividends. 
 
 As to Mr. Elliott, he never agreed to take any stock. I offered it to 
 him, but he declined. I cannot, therefore, believe I ever mentioned his 
 aame to Mr. McOomb, for I never had any reason to suppose he would 
 buy it. 
 
 Mr. Kelley is another. 1 recommended him to buy, and he said he 
 would like to, but had not the money to spare to pay for it. I told him 
 I would carry it for him till he was able to pay for it. He never took the 
 stock. My recollection is very indistinct as to this case of his. I made 
 a loan to him of $1,000, I think, which he has never settled. He re- 
 gards the stock as belonging to me. It being a transaction of long 
 standing, and of small amount to me, I have never given it special 
 thought. 
 
 Mr. Scofield. He frequently talked with me very early in the enter- 
 prise about having some stock in the Credit Mobilier, and I urged him 
 to take some, as I did many others. At that time I had got a number 
 of members of Congress to go on with me, Messrs. Grimes, Hooper, and 
 Alley, as I have stated. It was perfectly notorious that I urged every 
 member of Congress who I knew had any money to invest to do so, 
 from first to last, until every share of the stock in the Credit MobUier 
 was taken. And none suspected any wrong until the enterprise proved 
 to be a pecuniary success ; on the contrary, everybody that did so was 
 congratulated thoughout the country for their courage, enterprise, and 
 patriotism. Mr. Scofield agreed to take ten shares. He afterward paid 
 me par and interest and took a receipt. Subsequently hebecamedissatis- 
 fied with it, assigning that he had heard there was a personal responsi- 
 bility and returned it. I took it back, as I had agreed to do with him, 
 as in almost every instance I had done. 
 
 Mr. Fowler. I never sold any stock to him, and he never received 
 any that I am aware of. 
 
 James F. Wilson, of Iowa, also bought and paid for ten shares, and 
 so did Senator Allison, then a member of the House. Mr. MoComb 
 swears I told him I had given one to Senator Conkling. It is absolutely 
 untrue. I never said so, nor did I ever agree to get him one, nor was 
 he ever interested in the company. 
 
 I have now stated, I believe, the exact facts in relation not only to 
 all those parties upon Mr. McComb's list of names, but also in relation 
 to all sales of this stock to every member of Congress, with all the par- 
 ticulars of such sales, so far as I have now any recollection. I of course 
 include under the word sales every transaction by which any member 
 of Congress became entitled to a share. 
 
 As to what I said in my letter of January 25, 1 can add little to 
 what 1 have stated. The letter of McOomb, to which it was a reply, 
 sought to get the stock allotted to me for the persons he named, because 
 he had promised it to them. I endeavored to explain why I could not. 
 I did speak to Mr. Fowler, but nothing came of that. I also showed him, 
 McComb, that I had endeavored to select from those who had wanted 
 the stock, persons scattered over the country; and I desired to go on, 
 as we had done from the beginning, by making the number interested as 
 large as possible. That these were intended as sales they were to pay 
 
22 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 for this letter shows. It did not occur to me there was any impro- 
 priety in selling them because the thing was a success, any more than 
 it did when all was a speculation. In the letter to which mine of Jan- 
 uary 30, 1SC8, is a reply, we had been threatened with congressional 
 investigations, and suits before Judge Barnard, whenever I would not 
 agree to certain schemes, and he alluded to this, no doubt, because I 
 •would not let his friends have some of my stock. I had never been 
 able to discover anything that could make me fear such iavestigation ; 
 certainly, 1 had none to fear, and I told him so. There is nothing in 
 this letter that I have not given an explanation of the iutention under 
 which it was written, except the allusion to Mr. Washburn, and this I 
 will explain in connection with my proposal in the' letter of the 22d of 
 February, for they belong to the same subject : 
 
 It had become tolerably well known to all the world that the road was 
 likely to be a success, and those of us who had risked the chance had 
 won a prize. 
 
 There appeared to be a disposition then to complain of the grants 
 that had been ofi'ered without oiiposition. 
 
 There was first a complaint made by Mr. Washburn of the value of 
 the land-grants. In view of this I desired that we should put it out of 
 the power of any one to take from us what we had, in my view, paid 
 the Government for. It was to get these land-grants as private prop- 
 erty. I wanted them sold and the bonds divided. Mr. Alley thought 
 we could not afford to do this ; and the event proved he was right. 
 
 It was also complained that we were excessive in our charges for 
 freight and transportation, not that we exceeded our legal right, but 
 it was XToposed to trammel that right. Being a mere private right 
 1 had always found it difficult to induce any one to take the trouble to 
 look at the case. I did not want any assistance or privilege, but that 
 our legal vested rights should not be taken from us. I thought we had 
 fairly bought or earned them, and I knew if any one would examine he 
 would see this. For this reason I wanted more shares to be issued ; for 
 I have found that there is no difficulty in inducing men to look after 
 their own property. But no one seemed to think this was necessary, 
 and it was never done. 
 
 As bearing on my belief of my fairness of intention and the absence 
 of all evil purpose or design, I can state that when I wrote those let- 
 ters to Mr. McComb we were in no sort of confidential relations, though 
 our interests were largely connected. Before that time I had ascer- 
 tained facts connected with him that would prevent me placing any con- 
 fidence in him. 
 
 Before any publication of these transactions a threat of exposure was 
 communicated to me. My informant will name the person. The price 
 of secrecy offered was the compromising with MtComb. Though per- 
 fectly aware of what I had done and my motives, so confident was I in 
 my innocence of all evil design, that I refused to pay one dollar. 
 
 Since then, and after the testimony had been given by Mr. McComb, 
 I was again offered to be relieved from all the difficulty and a with- 
 drawal of all the charges if I would acknowledge that I held the stock 
 in trust for Mr. McComb. I told Mr. Black, who made me this proposi- 
 tion, that I could not and would not do this, as it was not true. 
 
 Mr. McComb says, in his evidence, he offered to surrender these let- 
 ters and deny he had any such if I would settle his claim, or something 
 to that eifect. He repeatedly made such offers, and I always refused to 
 have anything to do with him after the charges he had made in the suit. 
 He referred to these letters, and said they were very damaging. I told 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER, 23 
 
 Lira to publish tliem if he chose. I knew I had done or said nothinj? 
 that meant anything wrong to a fair mind. The remark he piits in my 
 mouth, viz, that all members of Congress are bribed, &c., is entirely 
 untrue. I said nothing of the kind to him. 
 
 The reading having been concluded, the examination of the witness 
 was continued as follows : 
 
 By the Ohaieman : 
 
 Question. Is the committee to understand that you put this in as 
 your testimony, and swear to the truth of it ? — Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. It is said in this last paper that was read that they were compelled 
 to abandon the Credit Mobilier Company. Do you understand that that 
 company is still in existence? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. It is still existing as a corporation! — A. Yes, sir; but the 
 $45,000,000 contract, as it was called, was not guaranteed by the Credit 
 Mobilier. That company had nothing further to do with the building of 
 the road after my contract, I think. 
 
 Q. Where is the office of that company, and where are its books 
 kept ? — A. In ZsTew York, I believe. The head oifice, I think, is in Phil- 
 adelphia. I was never a director in the company, and never had any- 
 thing to do with the books. 
 
 Q. Who is the president of the company now '? — A. Sidney Dillon, I 
 think. 
 
 Q. WTiere does he live ? — A. In New York. 
 
 Q. Has your company a secretary f — A. Yes, sir ; I think so. 
 ■ Q. Who is the present secretary of the company ? — A. I think Mr. 
 Benjamin P. Ham. 
 
 Q. Does he live in 'New York 1 — A. Yes, he has his office in ISTew 
 York; but his house, I think, is in New Jersey. 
 
 Q. And the books of the company you suppose are in New York? — 
 A. I suppose they are ; I have no knowledge on the subject. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge in regard to the manner in which the 
 books are kept! — A. Ijfo, sir; I do not think I ever saw their books. 
 
 Q. You do not know whether they had a stock-book as a corporation '? 
 — A. O, of course they had a stock-book. I wrote to Mr. Ham after 
 these charges were made to send me a list of the stockholders of the 
 Credit Mobilier, which he did. The stock-list of the Credit Mobilier is 
 given in this printed pamphlet, (handing it to the chairman.) 
 
 Q. Here is a list of stockholders in this pamphlet under date of De- 
 cember 12, 1867, and another list under date of February 20, 1868. Are 
 they the same lists that were furnished you by Mr. Ham, the secretary ? 
 — A. Yes, sir; I do not know whether there have been any changes or 
 not. I think not. 
 
 Q. In this first list of December 12, 1867, 1 see the entry of Oakes 
 Ames, trustee, ninety-three shares, and in the list of February 20, 1868, 
 the entry of Oakes Ames, trustee, two hundred and fifty shares. Do 
 you understand that the two hundred and fifty shares in the last list 
 embrace the ninety-three shares in the first list? — A. No, sir; I do not. 
 The two hundred and fifty shares and the ninety-three shares were the 
 amount that I received under the vote of the company to be disposed of. 
 
 Q. Can you tell what time it was that these two hundred and fifty 
 shares were assigned to you as trustee ? — A. No, sir ; I cannot. 
 
 Q. Do you understand that it was between those two dates — between 
 Decembei? 12, 1867, the date of the first list, and February 20, 1868, the 
 date of the second ? — A. I cannot tell you. I cannot recollect. It is 
 
24 CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 my impression that tlie ninety-three shares came after I had the two 
 hundred and fifty shares. 
 
 The Chaikman. It does not seem so from the two lists ? 
 
 Witness. But I received them both I thinli. 
 
 Q. At the time that this last number of shares— two hundred and 
 fifty — was assigned to you, was there at the same time an assignment 
 of shares made to Mr. Durant ?— A. I think so. They were voted to 
 Durant at the same time that they were voted to me. 
 
 Q. That vote assigning the stock to you and Durant, did it exhaust 
 all the stock of the company, except that which was held by other per- 
 sons ?— A. Yes, sir ; that was all the company owned which had not 
 been issued. 
 
 Q. Then this assignment of stock to you covered, of course, the two 
 hundred and fifty shares which Mr. McComb claimed he ought to have? 
 — A. Yes, which he claims now. They were either counted in my shares 
 or in Durant's. Mr. McComb claimed two hundred and fifty shares out 
 of those that were unallotted. 
 
 Q. Out of the stock which the company had to dispose of? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. In your statement you have referred to various transactions be- 
 tween you and several members of Congress in regard to their becom- 
 ing owners of stock in this Credit Mobilier Company ? — A. Yes, sir, 
 
 Q. I think that generally, and perhaps in all the cases, you have not 
 given any date for these transactions? — A. ]S"o, sir. One of the things 
 I can never do is to remember dates. 
 
 Q. Can you tell whether these transactions were all of them prior to 
 the time when the stock was assigned to you. 
 
 Witness. What do you mean by transactions ? 
 
 Chaikihan. What you have stated. 
 
 A. I have been talked to by a great many persons about getting an 
 interest in that stock, and I had promised it to a great many. I pre- 
 sume that most of them, or perhaps all of them, were promised it before 
 the stock was awarded to me. Perhaps some of them were promised it 
 afterward ; I cannot recollect positively as to that. 
 
 Q. Something has been said by Mr. McComb about a stock dividend, 
 at one time, of half the amount of the original stock ? — A. We increased 
 our capital stock at one time to half the amount ; that is from $2,500,000 
 to $3,750,000. 
 ~ Q. That was an increase of the capital stock ? — A. An increase of the 
 capital stock. 
 
 Q. You do not understand that it was a stock dividend 1 — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You understand that the increased stock was to be disposed of to 
 somebody? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Would a man who has subscribed for any given number of shares 
 in the original stock be entitled to any portion of this additional stock, 
 unless he bought it and paid for it? — A. No, sir; he would be entitled 
 to his pro rata of the increase. 
 
 Q. That is, he would be entitled to take it if he paid for it ? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. So that a man who was the owner, say of one hundred shares of 
 stock, would not be entitled to fifty shares more unless he chose to pay 
 for them? — A. No, sir; he would be entitled to take fifty shares more 
 and pay for them. If the stock was not all taken by stockholders the 
 company would have what was left. 
 
 Q. Tlien all the difference in that respect, between those who were 
 stockholders and those who were not, was that the stockholders were 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 25 
 
 entitled to take the additional stock if they chose 1 — A. Yes, sir ; but 
 we could not get it all taken. I took my pro rata, but I had to dispose 
 of it; I let Mr. Dana, of Boston, have $10,000 of it at 95 ; I did not 
 consider it an object to take that additional stock, but I had to take it 
 and got rid of it. I sold some of it to several parties at 95 ; I let them 
 take part of my stock at par. Bat when I could not get rid of it at par 
 I had to sell it at a discount. I refer to the additional stock which I 
 was entitled to take. 
 
 Q. Were any of the two hundred and fifty shares that were assigned 
 to you ever transferred on the books of the company to any member 
 of Congress ? — A. No, sir ; I do not think there was ever any of it 
 transferred. 
 
 0,. It continued to stand in your name ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And does so still ? — A. Nearly all of it, I guess — a good deal of it. 
 Most of it stands in my name. I do not know but that some of it may 
 have been transferred, but I cannot say. I have not seen the books of 
 the comjpany. 
 
 Q, Do you know how early any dividend was made on the Credit 
 Mobilier stock ? — A. I do not recollect any dividends being made on it 
 until about January, 1868. I think that was about the first. 
 
 Q Do you recollect the amount of the first dividend ? — A. No, sir ; I 
 do not. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect whether it was a dividend in money or in railroad 
 stock ? — A. I think the dividends have all been made, except one, in 
 bonds and stock. 
 
 Q. Did the Union Pacific Eailroad have any stock proper, aside from 
 its bonds ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And those dividends that were made, were they in the stock of 
 the Union Pacific Eailroad Company, or in its bonds ? — A. In both. 
 
 Q. The Union Pacific Eailroad Company had Government bonds, (so 
 much a mile,) and then was authorized to issue its own bonds, secured 
 by mortgage, so much per mile? — A. Yes, sir; to the same amount. 
 
 Q. Were the funds which were derived from, the sale of those two 
 classes of bonds kept separate and distinct 1 — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. The proceeds of the sales of both of them were used in the con- 
 struction of the road ? — A. They were used in the construction of the 
 road. 
 
 Q. Can you tell the amount of the first dividend that was made I — A. 
 No, sir; I cannot. 
 
 Q. Mr. McComb says that in January, 1868, there had been several 
 dividends, amounting in the aggregate to 260 per cent.; do you know 
 whether the dividends at that time did amount to that? — A.. No, sir ; I 
 do not. Probably that was in stock to come. I do not recollect. 
 
 Q. Now, in regard to these particular cases : In your statements with 
 reference to Mr. Colfax, you say that you are pretty confident he has 
 paid you for it^ although the stock was never transferred to him ? — A. 
 Yes, sir; that is my recollection. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect when that payment was made ? — A. No, sir; I 
 do not. 
 
 Q. Can you give us any idea in respect to the time? — A. I suppose it 
 must have been in December, 1867, or January, 1868. 
 
 Q. You think he paid for it? — A. Yes ; that is my impression. 
 
 Q. You suppose that he paid the par value of it ? — A. Yes, sir ; I did 
 not let anybody have it for less than par and accrued interest. 
 
 Q. Has that money ever been repaid to him, to your knowledge ? — A. 
 No, sir. 
 
26 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. You do not know whether it has ever been or not? — A. No, sir; 
 he paid for the stock to me. 
 
 Q. Is he still an owner of that stock?— A. It never has been trans- 
 ferred to him. I do not know whether he or I own that stock. 
 
 Q. Do you understand that the money which he paid for the stock 
 has ever been returned to him ? — A. Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Q. And do you not suppose that it has been 1 — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether he has ever received any dividends on it? — 
 A. It is my impression that he has, but I am not certain. 
 
 Q. Did you pay him the dividends yourself? — A. I cannot recollect 
 
 Q. If this stock stood in your name on the books, the dividends would 
 have been paid to you, I suppose? — A. That would be a natural conse- 
 quence. 
 
 Q. And can you recollect, do you recollect, whether yon paid divi- 
 dends to Mr. Colfax ? — A. No, sir ; I do not recollect ; it is my impres- 
 sion that I did. 
 
 Q. Have you any idea of the amount you paid him ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Or when you paid it? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you believe that of the dividends which have been declared 
 and paid on the stock Mr. Colfax has received his proportion? — A. I 
 think he received some of the dividends. 
 
 Q. And the contract between you and him in reference to his having 
 a certain number of shares of stock — can you recollect how many shares 
 he was to have ? — A. Twenty, I think. That is what I agreed to sell 
 him. 
 
 Q. And you understand that in equity Mr. Colfax is now the owner 
 of that number of shares? — A. I do. 
 
 Q. And is entitled to his dividends on it the same as any other stock- 
 holder ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. As to Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, you say that a certain amount 
 of money was contributed to Mrs. Wilson, and that $2,000 of it was 
 invested in twenty shares of this stock? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Can you tell when that was done? — A. That was done, I think, ia 
 December, 1867. I think that that money was received by her in the 
 fall, and Mr. Wilson applied to me to know what would be a good invest- 
 ment. 
 
 Q. And these twenty shares were paid for by that $2,000 ? — A. Yes, 
 sir; for Mrs. Wilson. 
 
 Q. And you say that some months afterward he objected to the 
 investment and the money was returned to him ? — A. Yes ; he said the 
 road would never pay anything. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether any dividends were paid on that stock 
 while it was held by Mr. Wilson or Mrs. Wilson ? — A. I do not think 
 there were. If there were, the amount was paid back ; I am sure of 
 that. I guaranteed him 10 per cent, for his money when he went in, 
 and when he went out my idea is that he took his money back, and that 
 I paid him 10 per cent, on it for the time. 
 
 Q. And you think that neither Mr. Wilson nor Mrs. Wilson received 
 any other benefit than to get 10 per cent, for their money while you had 
 it?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. As to Mr. Patterson, you say that he bought thirty shares, and 
 
 that it was transferred to a banking-house in New York for him ? A. 
 
 Yes, sir; by his direction. 
 
 Q. You say, also, that he owned it, and you think some dividends 
 were paid upon it. Does he still own it ? — A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. The contract never has been taken back? — A. No, sir; not by me. 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 27 
 
 Q. That is, he either owns it now or has disposed of it ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. For aught you know he is still the owner of that stock? — A. I 
 cannot give you any further information about it. 
 . Q. I see in that list of stockholders the name of the Fourth National 
 Bank of New York. — A. It was not to that bank that Mr. Patterson's 
 stock was transferred ; it was to his friends, Morton, Bliss & Co. I be- 
 lieve that they advanced the money to pay for it originally. His stock 
 is not on that list. I do not suppose it was transferred to them. I do 
 not know anything about it, however. 
 
 Q. You do not suppose it was transferred on the books to that firm ? — 
 A. That I cannot say ; I have no knowledge of it. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether those thirtj^ shares were ever, on the books 
 of the company, transferred to anybody, or whether they still stand in 
 your name ? — A. I do not know. I have not seen the books of the com- 
 pany. 
 
 Q. But you understood that you had really parted with those thirty 
 shares of stock for the benefit of Mr. Patterson, and that he, or somebody 
 for him, was entitled to take dividends on them? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And that that has continued down to the present time? — A. "Xes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. The contract has never been rescinded ? — A. Not by me. 
 
 By Mr. McCraet : 
 Q. What Mr. Patterson is that? — A. Senator Patterson, of New Hamp- 
 shire. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. You say, in reference to the transaction with Mr. Blaine, that you 
 agree that the transaction was as he stated it ? — A. Substantially so. 
 
 Q. In regard to Mr. Dawes you say that in December, 1867, he gave 
 you $1,000 to invest in that stock ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q, There never was any transfer of stock to him ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You go on to say that some time after that he said he would rather 
 not take the stock. What became of the thousand dollars which he 
 gave you? Was it returned to him ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Can you state about how long it was after this transaction in De- 
 cember, when he gave you the $1,000, until the time when the contract 
 ■was rescinded ? — A. No, sir ; 1 cannot. 
 
 Q. Can you state whether Mr. Dawes- ever received any dividends on 
 that stock? — A. I am not certain; I cannot state it positively. I think 
 that in the settlement with him he got his 10 per cent, and that the thing 
 ■was settled up. Whether he received any dividend and paid the money 
 back I cannot say. 
 
 Q. Do you think that he received any more money in that transaction 
 than his $1,000 with 10 per cent, interest? — A. I think not. 
 
 Q. In reference to Mr. Bingham you say that he was to have twenty 
 shares in the Credit Mobilier stock? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. -And that it never was transferred to him ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Can you state whether Mr. Bingham, during the time that that 
 arrangement existed, received the dividends that were paid on that 
 stock ?— A. He did. 
 
 Q. You say that in 1870 the matter was settled, and that you took the 
 stock off his hands ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you know how much Mr. Bingham received ? — A. He received 
 what dividends were paid on his stock.' 
 
 Q. The whole of the dividends ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. How much was paid back to him for the stock more than the par 
 
28 CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 of the stock ?— A. I bought his stock from him. and paid him the market 
 price for it. 
 
 Q. He received the stock at par, and when you took it back you paid 
 the market price. That was tbe basis of the settlement 1— A. Yes, sir ; 
 I think that the price of the Union Pacific stock I bought from- him was 
 nineteen. 
 
 Q. That is the stock which he had received as dividends ?— A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. How was it with the twenty shares of Credit Mobilier stock that 
 he had ?— A. It is my impression that I settled the whole thing with 
 him, and that he haS no interest in any of it now. My recollection is 
 that I settled with him, and paid him the whole thing, and bought his 
 Credit Mobilier stock from him. 
 
 Q. What was the market value of that Credit Mobilier stock when 
 you took it back ?— A. We thought it worth from twenty to fifty cents. 
 Somebody spoke the other day of selling it for five cents. 
 
 Q. In reference to Mr. Garfield, you say that you agreed to get ten 
 shares for him, and to hold them till he could pay for them, and that he 
 never did pay for them nor receive them ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. He never paid any money on that stock nor received any money 
 from it? — A. Not on account of it. 
 
 Q. He received no dividends? — A. l>ro, sir; I think not. He says he 
 did not. My own recollection is not very clear. 
 
 Q. So that, as you understand, Mr. Garfield never parted with any 
 money, nor received any money, on that transaction ? — A, No, sir ; he 
 had some money from me once, some three or four hundred dollars, and 
 called it a loan. He says that that is all he ever received from me, and 
 that he considered it a loan. He never took his stock, and never paid 
 for it. 
 
 Q. Did you understand it so ? — A. Yes f I am willing to so understand 
 it. I do not recollect paying him any dividend, and have forgotten that 
 I paid him any money. 
 
 Q. In reference to Mr. Boutwell, you say that Mr. Boutwell never had 
 any stock nor any dividend from you ; you received no money from him 
 and he received no money from you 1 — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. And the same with reference to Mr. Elliott ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. In reference to this transaction with Mr. Kelley, you said that there 
 was some talk between you and Mr. Kelley, and you recommended him 
 to take some stock "? — A. Yes sir. 
 
 Q. And that he never took it ? — A. He did not. 
 
 Q. But you say you made a loan to him of $1,000, which he never 
 settled; had that loan any connection with the stock of this com- 
 pany ? — A. Well, he expected, you know, that we were going to have 
 some dividends on the stock, and he came to me one day and said that 
 he was pressed upon a mortgage and wanted to raise $1,000, and, said 
 he, " I suppose that probably there will be some dividend on that stock;" 
 told him I did not know. He wanted to know if I would loan him 
 $1,000. I told him I would. I loaned him $1,000. He never has taken 
 the stock, and never has had any dividends. 
 
 Q. And he never paid anything for the stock ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. All the money transaction between you and him was that you 
 loaned.him $1,000 1— A. I think that that is, as nearly as I can recollect. 
 
 Q. In reference to Mr. Scofield, you say that he frequently talked 
 with you Very early in the enterprise, and that you advised him to take 
 stock ; that he agreed to take ten shares, and afterward took it, paying 
 for it par and accrued interest ; that subsequently he became dissatis- 
 
CEEDir MOBILIEE. 29 
 
 fied witlx it, and returned it. Mr. Scofleld was to have ten shares of this 
 stock, and paid the par value on it ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And afterward he became dissatisfied, and you took it back? — A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And you repaid his money ? — A. Yes ; I think so. 
 
 Q. Did he receive any dividend during the time he had it? — A. I 
 think he did. 
 
 Q. Do you know the amount? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did he retain whatever dividend he did receive? — A. It is my im- 
 pression that he did ; I am not certain ; I cannot recollect all these trans- 
 actions. 
 
 Q. You say that that was quite early in the enterprise ; can you state 
 what time it was? — A. No, sir; Mr. Scotield and I boarded together in 
 1866 and 1867, and had very frequent talks about this niatter, and I 
 urged him to take stock. 
 
 Q. Do you know at what time he did take it? — A. I told him a long 
 while before^ in 1866 and 1867, that I would get some of it for him. 
 
 Q. Can you tell at what time hie paid you the money for it? — A. It 
 was after the stock was awarded to me for distribution, in December, 
 1867 ; he could not have had the stock until after that. 
 
 Q. You received $1,000 from him ?— A. Yes. 
 
 Q. When the contract was rescinded and the money was returned to 
 him, what was done then? — A. I cannot recollect. 
 
 Q. Was there anything more than the $1,000 returned? — A. That I 
 cannot recollect. 
 
 Q. Can you recollect at what time this matter was rescinded ? — A. No,, 
 sir ; several years ago. 
 
 Q. In regard to Mr. Fowler, you say he never had any stock? — A. He 
 had not. 
 
 Q. He never paid anything nor receivled any stock? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. In regard to James F. Wilson, of Iowa, and Mr. Allison, of Iowa, 
 you say they got ten shares each ; they are the owners of those ten 
 shares now, for aught you know ? — A. No, sir ; Mr. Wilson sold his. 
 
 Q. The contract never was rescinded between him and you? — A. No, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. He received ten shares of stock and disposed of it as he saw fit ? — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And the same with Mr. Allison ? — A. I am not certain about Mr., 
 Allison ; I have not so distinct a recollection of that niatter. 
 
 Q. He received the ten shares of stock? — A. O, yes; he received ten 
 shares of stock and paid for it. 
 
 Q. What was the arrangement made with them by which they were 
 to become stockholders ? — A. That was before the time that the stock 
 was awarded to me for distribution. They both said that they were 
 promised fifty shares each, but I could only give them ten. Mr. Wilson 
 said that he had been promised fifty shares of the stock and could only 
 get ten. 
 
 Q. And they have continued to be owners of that stock, unless they 
 have disposed of it to somebody else ? — A. Yes, sir ; Mr. Wilson dis- 
 posed of his some time ago. 
 
 The Speaker, in connection with the question about Messrs. Wilson 
 and Allison, remarked to the committee that, in the Forty-first Con- 
 gress, there was an Investigation in regard to the alleged sale of cadet- 
 ships, which has led to serious proceedings iu the House, and that the 
 Committee on Military Affairs, which had the investigation in charge,, 
 acting on its own judgment, which was afterward affirmed in some form 
 
30 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 by the House, decided that it had no power, and that it was out of the 
 pale of propriety for it to investigate the transactions of men who had 
 been in Congress, but who had returned to civil life. He merely wanted 
 to make the suggestion to the committee. 
 
 All the proceedings before that committee, in the Forty-first Con- 
 gress, touching any members of the prior Congress, had been erased 
 from the record, and no report made of it to the House. 
 
 The Chairman. It is very clear that we cannot deal with Mr. Wilson 
 and Mr. Allison in any way, but perhaps we may with Mr. Ames. 
 
 Mr. MoCeary. If we go on with the inquiry in regard to those ex- 
 members, 6f course they must have a hearing, if they desire it. 
 
 The Chairman, to the witness : 
 
 Q. As to Senator Conkling, you say that he never was the owner of 
 any stock, and that there never were any negotiations between him and 
 you 1 — A. No, sir ; he never had any stock and never paid for any, and 
 never received any dividends from me to my knowledge. 
 
 The chairman handed to the witness the letters produced the other 
 day by Mr. McComb, and the witness identified them -as in his own 
 handwriting. 
 
 Q. Were those letters written at the various dates they bear — A. 
 Probably, unless I made a mistake in the date. They were intended to 
 be correct. 
 
 Q. In the letter of the earliest date, January 25, 1868, you say that 
 you have " assigned, as far as you have gone, to 4 from Mass. ; 1 from 
 N. H. ; 1 Delaware ; 1 Tenn., and 1" — as it seems to have been changed 
 by pencil to " 2 Ohio ; 2 Pa. ; 1 lud., and 1 Maine." You were writing, 
 I suppose, in reference to the stock of the Credit Mobilier '! — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. What did you intend by saying that you had assigned as far as 
 you had gone ? Do these figures refer to persons or to quantities ? — A. 
 To persons. 
 
 Q. They have no reference to the amount of stock, but to the number 
 of persons in each State ? — A. That is it. 
 
 Q. You say, " 1 have assigned as far as I have gone, to 4 from Mass." 
 
 Now, who were the four Massachusetts persons to whom you referred? 
 
 A. I meant that I intended to give it outto four from Massachusetts. 
 
 Q. You say that you " have assigned" as far as you have gone ?— A. 
 What I meant by saying that I had assigned was, that that was my in- 
 tention. For instance, I said that I had assigned one to Delaware, 
 whereas I had never spoken at the time to Senator Bayard, for whom I 
 had intended it. So, too, with Mr. Fowler, of Tennessee ; but my inten- 
 tion was to assign stock to each of them. This letter was drawn out 
 from me by a letter from Mr. McComb wanting me to give $5,000 in 
 stock to Senator Bayard, of Delaware, and $5,0U0 to Senator Fowler, of 
 Tennessee. This stock was given to me to distribute as I saw fit, and 
 I was intending to give some to Senator Bayard and to Senator Fowler, 
 that is, not to give it to them, but to sell it to them. That was the 
 way that I intended to place the stock, but I had not so placed it. 
 
 Q. Then the real meaning of the letter is that that is what you had 
 designed to do ?— A. That is what 1 had designed to do. It was in an- 
 swer to a letter from Mr. McComb, desiring that his friends should have 
 stock. I think that Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, was one whom he mentioned. 
 
 Q. This letter says, " The 50 per cent, increase on the old stock I want 
 for distribution here."— A. The old stock was the ninety-three shares 
 that I got afterward. My recollection is this, that the fifty-eight shares 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 31 
 
 were the Dumber unallotted of the original stock, before it was increased 
 50 per cent. I did not get but ninety-throe shares, while I should have 
 got one hundred and twenty-five shares. That is my recollection of it. 
 Q. In the last part of this letter you say, " Quigley has been here." — 
 A. That relates to another matter altogether. 
 
 Q. Mr. McComb was correct in saying that that has no reference to 
 the affairs of the Credit Mobilier 1—A. Yes ; that is the truth. 
 
 Q. Now, in reference to this list of names in the letter of January 30, 
 Mr. McComb says that the memorandum of the names was made by 
 him by your reading these names from some memorandum-book or 
 pocket-book where you had them entered. Now, will you state what 
 you know in regard to that transaction ? — A. I might have mentioned 
 names that I intended to give stock to, as I say in the fore part of the 
 letter — nameS of persons I intended to give this stock to. 
 
 Q. Did you have that list of names in a pocket-book or memorandum 
 book, or did you read that list of names to him from any book or pa- 
 per? — A. I cannot say. I may have had a memorandum of persons to 
 whom I intended to sell stock. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect whether you had or not? — A. I am not positive 
 Very likely I had a memorandum of persons on that list whom I did 
 not sell stock to, and the amounts in the list are not the amounts that 
 I gave, so that it could not have been taken from any list that Mr. 
 McComb saw. 
 
 Q. On this list he says, "Oakes Ames' list of names a sho'd to-day to 
 me for C. M., Blaine, of Maine, 3,000." Did you say anything to him 
 about Mr. Blaine? — A. No, sir; I do not recollect; I may have men- 
 tioned the names that I intended to enlist and sell stock to. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect whether you mentioned Mr. Blaine's name ? — A. 
 I do not. 
 
 Q. He says that you gave him the name of Mr. Blaine as one of those 
 who were to receive $3,000, or thirty shares ? — A. That cannot be cor- 
 rect. Mr. Blaine's name may have been mentioned, but Mr. Blaine never 
 was, in any idea of mine, to have more than $1,000. 
 
 Q. Was there any talk between you and Mr. Blaine about his having 
 more than ten shares ? — A. I have no recollection of it at all; I am very 
 certain that there was not. 
 
 Q. "Patterson, of N. H., 3,000." Do you recollect whether you men- 
 tioned Senator Patterson's name to him? — A. I do not; I cannot recol- 
 lect; I may have told him and I may have had a list of names of per- 
 sons to wiiom I intended to sell stock ; we did not mean to give away 
 any. 
 
 Q. Ton do not mean to have us understand that you ever gave any- 
 body any shares of stock? — A. No, sir; never. 
 
 Q. Did any member of Congress ever receive any shares from you ex- 
 cept by paying for them ? — A. No, sir ; never. 
 
 Q. "Patterson, of N. H., 3,000. How many shares did Mr. Patter- 
 son have ? — A. Thirty shares ; that is correct. 
 
 Q. Mr. Patterson did have thirty shares ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. " Wilson, of Mass., 2,000." You have told us all that there was in 
 regard to that ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. "Painter, reporter for Inquirer, 3,000?" — A. Yes, sir; he had 
 thirty shares. 
 
 Q. He became a stockholder? — A. Yes, Sir; he said he was promised 
 more, and was very indignant that he did not get fifty shares. 
 
 Q. "S. Colfax, Speaker, 2?" — A. Yes, sir; that is according to my 
 testimony. 
 
32 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. "Eliot, of Mass., 3 f— A. He did not have any. 
 
 Q. "Dawes, of Mass., 2?"— A. Mr. Dawes had ten shares. 
 
 Q. Did yoa tell McOomb that Mr. Dawes was to have twenty shares ?— 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Was there ever any negotiation for his having more than ten 
 shares ?— A. Ko, sir. He never talked about investing more than a 
 thousand dollars, which he wanted to buy a bond for, and I told him I 
 thought that this was a better investment. 
 
 Q. "Boutwell, 2!"— A. Mr. Boutwell never had any. He was one of 
 the men from Massachusetts to whom I intended to sell stock. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect whether you said anything to McOomb about Mr. 
 Boutwell ? — A. I don't know what names I did mention to Mr. McComb. 
 All that I know is that Mr. Boutwell was at one time intended. If I 
 said anything to McComb about him it was about what I intended to do. 
 
 Q. State whether in any of those negotiations with members of Con- 
 gress there was any purpose on your part of exercising any influence 
 over them, or to corrupt them in any way ? — A. I never dreamed of it ; 
 I did not know that they required it, because they were all friends of 
 the road and my friends. If you want to bribe a man you want to 
 bribe one who is opposed to you, and not to bribe one who is your friend. 
 
 Q. In the transactions that you had with them, had you any view of 
 obtaining their influence, or aid, or efforts in Congress? — A. No, sir; 
 all my idea was, to have enough people interested to look into the mat- 
 ter. "We did not want any legislation from Congress. We did not 
 know in 1867 that Jim Fisk and Judge Barnard were going to drive us 
 out of New Tork, and we did not know that we would have to ask to 
 have our office removed to Boston. I never made a promise to, or got 
 one from, any member of Congress in my life, and I would not dare to 
 attempt it. 
 
 By Mr. Mereick : 
 
 Q. Had you promised to all these members of Congress mentioned 
 in this written statement to procure for them stock of the Credit Mo- 
 bilier! — A. I cannot recollect. There were so many who talked to me 
 about getting an interest in it, when they began to think it was a good 
 thing, I cannot recollect all the names ; I do not know whether they 
 had all spoken to me before ; I know that several of them did. 
 
 Q. Can you specify any of those who did f — A. I do not know that I 
 can. 
 
 Q. Please state which of them did, so far as you recollect. — A. I have 
 no doubt that Mr. Scofield did, and Mr. Patterson, and Mr. Dawes, and 
 Mr. Bingham, and Mr. Wilson. 
 
 Q. Any others 1— A. I think that Mr. Colfax did. It is very difficult 
 for me to remember dates. 
 
 Q. I was not asking the dates, but the names. — A. I have given the 
 names as far as I recollect ; I cannot be positive as to all of them ; I 
 remember distinctly that these were previous to that time, and it is 
 my impression that most of them were, perhaps all of them, but 1 am 
 not certain. 
 
 Q. Can you state how long it was before the time that the stock was 
 awarded to you that you had these conversations with these gentle- 
 men ■? — A. Probably a few months before, or at the session of Congress, 
 beforcr— the summer before. 
 
 Committee adjourned till to-morrow at 10 o'clock. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 33 
 
 Washington, B. C, Wednesday, Becemher 18, 1872. 
 Committee met at 10 a. m. ; all the members present. 
 Examination of Oakes Ames continued. 
 
 By Mr. Meeeick : 
 
 Question. In these letters, copies of which have been filed with the 
 committee, of the 25th of January, the 30th of January, and the 22d of 
 February, 1868, you refer to letters of Mr. McComb of the 23d and 28th 
 of January, and the 21st of February, and your letters are replies to 
 these letters. Have you the letters of Mr. McComb to which these are 
 a reply"? — Answer. No, sir; I do not think I have. I do not generally 
 keep letters unless they are businesi? letters of importance. There may 
 be some of them among my own letters at Easton. 
 
 Q. These seem to be business letters? — A. Rehiting to this matter, 
 yes. If 1 were showed my answers they would refresh my memory as to 
 what they are answers to. 
 
 Q. Have you examined among your papers to see whether you have 
 these letters still '! — A. No, sir. My papers are at Easton, Massachusetts. 
 I think it very likely I burned these letters, as I generally did letters 
 that I did not consider important. I did not suppose anything in these 
 letters would ever be considered as referring t') bribery or anytliing of 
 that sort, and I did not regard them as important. 
 
 Q. In your letters of January 30 you refer to a letter of Mr. McOomb's 
 of the 28th, inclosing a copy of a letter from, or rather to, Mi\ King, in 
 which you saj;, " I do not fear any investigation here." State whether 
 you have that letter of Mr. King. — A. I cannot tell you. It is among 
 iny papers at Easton if I have it. I recollect very well the substance of 
 the letters replied to in buth cases. 
 
 Q. What did they refer to!— A. The first letter of Mr. McComb 
 wanted me to dispose of some of this stock to his friend Senator Bayard 
 and his friend Senator Fowler. I wrote back that I had seen Mr 
 Fowler, but I had never been introduced to Mr. Bayard. 
 
 Q. You state in your answer referred to here, of January 28, 1868, 
 '' You say I must not put too much in one locality." In your letter of 
 January 30 you say, " I do not fear any investigation here." Did the 
 letter you received from Mr. McComb refer to any iuvestigation, called 
 for or threatened °{ — A. I cannot say. I presume not. I know it was 
 frequently alleged in our ISTew York consultations that there would be 
 an investigation into the affairs of the Pacific Railroad, and I always 
 said I would like to have an investigation. I knew that I had never 
 done anything that I feared to have investigated. It was alleged that 
 things had been done before I had any connection with the road", in 
 connection with obtaining the original charter, which would not bear 
 investigation. About that time (). C. Washburn made a speech in the 
 House of Representatives, finding fault with the rates established, and 
 wanting to have them investigated ; charging that they were building 
 a poor road ; were trying to cheat the Governmeut,.and were charging 
 a great deal too much in the rates established. 
 
 Q. Have you kept any memorandum or any entries of these various 
 transactions with the different members of Cpngress, receiving stock 
 from the Credit Mobilier or Union Pacific Railroad Company? — A. I do 
 not know whether I have any memorandum or not. I suppose I proba- 
 bly did make a memorandum at the time. 
 
 Q. What have you done with these memoranda'? — A. I do not know 
 whether I have destroyed them if I made them. I have none here. My 
 l)Hl)ers are all at Easton, as I told you before. 
 
34 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 # 
 Q. Is it your habit, as a matter of business, in conducting various 
 transactions v?ith different persons to do it. without making any memo- 
 randa? — A. This was my habit. Until within a year or two I have had 
 no book-lieeper, and I used to keep all my own matters in my own way f 
 and very carelessly, I admit. I do not know that I have any memoranda 
 relating to these transactions, and still I may have. 
 
 Q. Then your answers and statements in reference to these various 
 transactions with members of Congress, contained in your written testi- 
 mony, were from memory and not from any records, memoranda, or 
 books? — A. From memory. I had no records or memoranda to refer to. 
 Q. What members of Congress requested you, during the last autumn, 
 to return to them the money they had invested in Credit Mobilier 
 stock ? — A. I do not know that any of them asked me to return their 
 money last autumn. 
 
 Q. I understood you to say in your statement that during'last autumn 
 you were asked by certain members of Congress to return the money 
 they had given you, and did so ? — A. I think you must be mistaken in 
 regard to last autumn. What I referred to was before that. 
 
 Q. You do not know what members of Congress they were, if there 
 wei^e any, who made such a request of you last autumn f — A. I do not- 
 remember any who asked me to return their money. 
 
 Q. You say you do not know of any requesting you to return their 
 money and cancel the sto/k during last autumn? — A. Some of them 
 sent me stock they had received. 
 
 Q. Who sent you stock ! — A. Mr. Allison sent me his stock. 
 Q. Is he a member of the House of Eepresentatives ? — A. Not now. 
 Q. What members of the present Congress asked you during last 
 summer or autumn to return their money and take back their stock ? — 
 A. I do not think any of them asked that last autumn. I think you 
 are mistaken in the time. 
 
 Q.. What members of Congress at any time asked you to return the 
 money invested by them and receive back the stock ? — A. Mr. Dawes and 
 Mr. Bingham. 
 
 Q. When did Mr. Dawes ask that ! — A. After that suit was brought 
 by Mr. McComb. I think it was in the autumn of 18G8 or 1809. It 
 was as long ago as that. 
 
 Q. W^hen did you cancel the transaction with Mr. Bingham ?— A. I 
 think perhaps in 1870 or 1871. 
 
 Q. Did all these gentlemen pay you nioney for the stock you had 
 assigned to them, or proposed to assign to them? — A. Not for what Ii 
 proposed to assign to them. They paid the money for the stock assigned 
 to them. 
 
 Q. Did any of them pay more than the par value of the stock ? A. 
 
 Mr. Dawes ])aid the par value and interest, and so did Mr. Bingham. 
 
 Q. How much did Mr. Dawes pay you '?— A. He paid me a thousand 
 dollars and interest. 
 
 Q. How much did Mr. Bingham ?— A. Two thousand dollars and 
 interest. 
 
 Q. Was it two thousand or twenty-flve hundred? — A. It was two 
 thousand. Mr. Bingham gave Die twenty-live hundred to invest for him, 
 but Mve hundred related to another matter. 
 
 Q. Did you pay these gentlemen any dividends upon their stock ?— A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 Q. What dividends did you pay' them ? — A. I cannot recollect. 
 
 Q. Did you pay them all the dividends tliat bad bi'eii declared? A. 
 
 I did not pay them any dividend.-, I think, after this suit was com- 
 menced. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 35 
 
 Q. Did you pay them any dividends at any time ?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Wiiat dividends did you pay them ? — A. I paid them what was re- 
 ceived. 
 
 Q. Did you pay them all the dividends that had accrued up to the 
 time of bringing this suit 1 — A. I think I did. 
 
 Q. This suit was docketed in November, 186S ; did you pay them al[ 
 the dividends that had been declared prior to November, 1868 1 — A. It 
 is my impression that I did. 
 
 Q. Can you state what these dividends were? — A. I cannot. 
 
 Q. Was there a dividend April 1, 1867, of 50 per cent., payable in the 
 first-mortgage bonds of the Union Pacific Railroad Company 1 — A. Tliat 
 could not have belonged to this stock. That was a long while before 
 they bought it. That was a dividend declared previous to the time this 
 stock was set apart. 
 
 Q. Did you pay them any dividends which were declared as early as 
 July 1, 1867, a dividend of 100 percent., Union Pacific Railroad stock? — 
 A. No, sir ; I think not. I think that did not belong to this stock at all. 
 I have no such recollection." 
 
 Q. Did you pay them any dividend declared January 4, 1868, of 80 
 per cent., first-mortgage bonds of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, 
 and on the same day a dividend of 100 per cent. Union Pacific Railroad 
 stock? — A. I cannot say. 1 presume I did. 
 
 Q. Did you pay them a dividend declared June 17, 1868, of 60 per 
 cent., cash currency, and the same day one of 40 per cent. Union Pacific 
 Railroad stock? — A. I cannot tell you. I presume I did to those who 
 had paid for their stock. Some of them never paid for their stock, and 
 were therefore not entitled to the dividends. 
 
 Q. Can you distinguish among those you dealt with as to who paid and 
 who did not pay, and as to who actually received the dividends ? — A. I 
 think Mr. Bingham had his dividends in full ; and I think Mr. Patter- 
 son did. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Dawes ? — A. I think he had it up to the time he declined to 
 take the stock. He declined early on account of this suit of Duff G-reen's, 
 as they called it. 
 
 Q. Did you pay them a dividend declared July 3, 1868, of 75 per cent. 
 Union Pacific Railroad stock, and on the sauie day a dividend of 75 per 
 cent, first-mortgage bonds of the Union Pacific Railroad Company ? — A. 
 I presume I did. 
 
 Q. The samo question is asked you in reference to a dividend declared 
 September 3, 1868, of 100 percent. Union Pacific Railroad stock, and the 
 same day 75 "»er cent, first-mortgage bonds Union Pacific Kailroad Com- 
 pan/? — A. It is my impression that I did. I do not recollect. It de- 
 pended on tie conditions on which they took the stock. Some gave up 
 their stock, sind some did not pay, and, therefore, did not get their divi- 
 dends, of coarse. 
 
 Q. And ol all these diversified transactions you say you have no mem- 
 orandnin?' — A. I have none here; I may have at home. 
 
 Q. Will you examine and see if you have such memorandum? — A. I 
 will. 
 
 Q. Did you receive thesp dividends upon the two hundred and fifty 
 shares imd ninety -three shares spoken of, as declared at these resfiestive 
 tiiiies?.— A. It is my impression that I did. I have no reason to doubt 
 it. 
 
 Q. Thej^ were assigne(J to you, if I understand, upon your claim to 
 the companj' that you had made arrangements with certain gentleaK^u 
 to transfer tiiese shares to t lem? — A. My statement is tliat people up- 
 
36 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 plied to me for stock, aiid that I promised to get them some if I could. 
 1 took this stock for the purpose of carrying out this arrangement as 
 far as I could. 
 
 Q. Were or were not these dividends which you say Afere distributed 
 to these gentlemen np to and including September 3, 1868, more than 
 an equivalent to the sums of money they had paid to you as the price 
 of the stock? — A. Yes, sir; I think they were. 
 
 Q. When these arrangements in reference to the transfer of this stock 
 were rescinded between you and these members of Congress, were the 
 dividends which you had paid them returned to you, or were they re- 
 tained by them ?— A. They were returned in some cases, and in some 
 thev have never been settled uj) yet. 
 
 Q. Be good enough to si)eciiy in what cases they were returned and 
 in what retained. — A. That I cannot te'l. 
 
 Q. Can you tell the names of any individuals who did return the divi- 
 dends they had received ?— A. I think Mr. Dawes did, and I think Mr. 
 Scofleld did. 
 
 Q. What was your molive in endeavoring to induce members of Con- 
 gress to become "shareholders in the Credit Mobilier and Union Pacific 
 Eailroad Company?— A. My object was to have associated with us men 
 of influence and character who would invet iigate and see for themselves 
 in regard to the riglsts and privileges of the Union Paqific Eailroad 
 Com[(any. 
 
 Q. Investigate what? — A. Investigate the whole matter. There was 
 a prejudice against the Union Pacific Eailroad. It was charged that 
 we were a set of scoundrels and swindlers, who had committed all kinds 
 of crimes against the public. 
 
 Q. Did you representor explain to these gentlemen, or did they know 
 incidentalfy, when they subscribed for this stock, the arrangements you 
 had made in reference to the Credit J-lobilier and the relations in which 
 the Credit Mobilier stood to the Union Pacific Eailroad ? — A. I do not 
 know that I made any full exphmation. 
 
 Q. And the character of the business transacted by the Credit Mobi- 
 lier ? — A. I suppose I told them the Credit Mobilier was a contractor to 
 build the Union Pacific Eailroad. I suppose everybody knew that who 
 knew anything about it. 
 
 Q. You supposed the relations between the Credit Mobilier and the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad to be a matter of public notoriety? — A. Yes; 
 everybody knew it. It was public. 
 
 Q. Were the terms and nature of the contract which is called the 
 " Ames contract," which was assigned to trustees for building six hun- 
 dred and sixty-seven miles of the Union Pacific Eailroad, known to 
 those who were concerned as owners of the stock of the Credit Mo- 
 bilier? — A, I presume so. They would be very apt to know it. 
 
 Q. V\'uuld these members of Congress know it with whom you made 
 arrangements to take stock in it ? — A. I cannot tell you. 
 
 Q. But it was a matter of public notoriety for everybody to know ; 
 there was no secrecy about it? — A. None whatever. 
 
 Q. Had you any motives or purpose in soliciting the influence of 
 these public gentlemen to take an interest in this Credit Mobilier and 
 Union Pacific Eailroad Company, to avert inquiry that might be raised 
 by the Government of the United States into the manner of conducting 
 the affairs of the Union Pacific Eailroad ? — A. No, sir ; never. Such an 
 iuvestigatiou could not have been avoided if we had desired it. We 
 had five Government directors whose business it was to sit with us in 
 every meeting of the board, and it was their duty to protect the inter- 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEH. 37 
 
 est of the Government, which they did to such aa extent as made the 
 road cost us a great deal more tUau there was any necessity for. 
 
 Q. Did these five directors of the Union Pacific Kailroad know of the 
 contracts made with the Credit Mobilier in reference to building the 
 road '? — A. The contract was made with Oakes Ames ; the Credit Mo- 
 bilier had no interest In it. 
 
 Q. 1 mean the transfer of that stock' to trustees. — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Stale whether the printed paper now handed to you is a correct 
 copy of that contract. — A. I presume it is. 
 
 Q. The paper I handed you is an exhibit connected with your answers 
 in the chancery suit heretofore referred to, and sworn to by yourself and 
 others'? — A. I presume it is correct. I do not know anything to the con- 
 trary. 1 could not answer fully without comparing it with the written 
 interrogatories to which it was an answer. I cannot testify absolutely 
 to the fact of its exactness, because I have not the original to compare 
 it with. 
 
 Q. Have you ever looked over these printed copies that purport to be 
 copies of the answers of yourself and others to interrogatories pro- 
 pounded to you on the part of the complainant in that chancery suit in 
 Pennsylvania? — A. I cannot say whether I have this printed copy or 
 not. My signature purports to be attached to it, 
 
 Q. If you cannot say now, I will ask you to take that paper and ex- 
 amine it before to-morrow. — A. I cannot say whether it is an exact copy 
 without having the original to compare it with. I suppose it is correct. 
 I have no reason to doubt it. I do not suppose the man would com- 
 mit forgery in copying. There may be clerical errors. It seems to be 
 substantially correct, and I am willing to admit that it is substantially 
 correct. 
 
 Q. I ask you if, at or about the time when these transfers of stock 
 were made by you to members of Congress, there was any threat or 
 rumor on the part of the Government of the United States to cause an 
 investigation to be made into the manner in which the affairs of the 
 Union Pacific Railroad Company had been conducted? — A. JSTo, sir; I 
 do not know that there was. The matter of an investigation had been 
 frequently talked over in New York, and I always said I was in favor of 
 it. 
 
 Q. Were there any movements in Congress looking to an investigation 
 as to whether the charter of the Union Pacific Railroad had been for- 
 feited at that time ? — A. Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Q. Or any movements in Congress looking to the ascertainment by 
 the Attorney-General of the United States, whether or not illegal divi- 
 dends had been made, and to cause re-imbursement thereof? — A. I think 
 some time after this, I should say a year after this stock was assigned, 
 Garrett Davis made such charges in a speech in the Senate. 
 
 Q. At {tie time this stock was assigned to you, or during your nego- 
 tiations with members of Congress, were there any movements made in 
 Congress, or any rumors or suspicions of movements to be made in Con- 
 gress, looking to such results '! — A. JSTo, sir, not to my knowledge. 
 
 Q. Do you know when the first movement was made in Congress 
 looking to the passage of the act of April 10, 1869, in the fourth section 
 of which the Attorney-General was authorized to investigate whether 
 the charter was not forfeited, and to ascertain if illegal dividends had 
 been made, and to cause the re imbursement thereof; also to see whether 
 any of the directors of the road or agents had violated any penal law ? — 
 A. 1 think that grew out of the Garrett Davis speech to which I have 
 referred, if I am not mistaken. 
 
38 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. 1 ask you if you know when the first movement was made in Con- 
 gress looking to the passage of that bill ?— A. I cannot tell you. I aui 
 the worst man to remember dates you 'ever saw. I recollect now there 
 was such a resolution introduced into the Senate, and if I am not mis- 
 taken inquiry was made. 
 
 Q. The movement ripened into this law of April, 1869 1—A. That is 
 probably the time. 
 
 Q. You say there was no movement nor rumor that such a thing 
 would be done during that winter and spring of 1868, nor was there 
 any apprehension in your mind or the mind of others connected with 
 the Credit Mobilier at that time that such movement would be made?— 
 A. No, sir; not to my own knowledge. I always wanted an investiga- 
 tion, as can be proved by many witnesses. 1 wished to have an iuves- 
 tigation. I knew I had done nothing wrong, nothing that was dishon- 
 orable, and I wished an investigation. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge as to whether James Brooks, of the 
 House of Eepresentatives, has been the owner, directly or indirectly, of 
 any stock in the Credit Mobilier? — A. No, sir; I never knew of it. 
 
 Q. Or in the Union Pacific Eailroad? — A. I think he is an owner of 
 stock in the Union Pacific Eailroad ; if he was not he could not be a 
 director. 
 
 Q. Does not the law expressly forbid Government directors from 
 owning any of that stock ? — A. He was at one time a Government direc- 
 tor. He is now a stock director. 
 
 Q. You transferred some of this stock to Mr. Wilson, of Iowa ; was 
 he not a Government director of the Union Pacific Eailroad at the time 
 you transferred that stock to him ? — A, No, sir. 
 
 Q. Was he a Government director afterward ? — A. Afterward he was. 
 
 Q. Did he retain his stock in the Credit Mobilier after he was a Gov- 
 ernment director ? — A. No, sir. I testified that he sold his stock in the 
 Credit Mobilier and the Union Pacific Eailroad before he left Congress. 
 My brother bought it of him. 
 
 Q. Can you fix the time ? — A. I cannot. It was before he left Con- 
 gress. 
 
 By Mr. McCeaRY : 
 
 Q. Can you tell us when the Credit Mobilier was chartered by the 
 Pennsylvania legislature ? — A. No, sir ; I cannot. I had nothing to do 
 with the Credit Mobilier until 1865, 1 think. 
 
 Q. It was prior to 1865, then ?— A. My impression is that it was an 
 old charter that George Francis Train had control of. Mr. Durant 
 bought it of him. Mr. Durant was one of the first stockholders of the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad. The object for which it was intended M'as that 
 the individual stockholders should not be liable for the debts incurred, 
 other than as they had paid for- their stock. They did not -vsjant to be 
 liable as general partners. Mr. Alley has been a director of the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad and a director of the Credit Mobilier, and you can get 
 all that information from him. 
 
 Q. When did this corporation, known as the Credit Mobflier, become 
 interested in the construction of the Union Pacific Eailroad?— A. I 
 think it had something to do with some of the early contracts, which 
 are set forth in this paper presentetl here. There was the Uoxie con- 
 tract, which, if I am not mistaken, was run by the Credit Mobilier. It 
 was used in this way in some shape for a year or two before I had any- 
 thing to do with it. ] think the first contract for the Credit' Mobilier 
 was the Hoxie contract, and the dates of it, as givea here, were August 
 8, 1864, May 12, 1864, and October 1, 1864. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 39 
 
 Q. When did ^ou comDience your negotiations witli public men, and 
 influential men, with a view of^ interesting tiiein iu this stock? — A. 
 When I first went in myself, some time, I think, in L865. I urged on 
 my friends to go in. I urged Mr. Alley to go in, and guaranteed him 
 against loss. I induced Mr. Samuel Hooper, a member of the House, 
 and Senator Grimes, and a great many others, out of Congress, to 
 become interested. Every man of influence and capital that I could 
 induce to go in I endeavored to induce. We wanted a great deal of 
 money and a great deal of strength, and it was my object to associate 
 in the corporation respectable and responsible men ; men of character 
 and standing, both in public and in private life. 
 
 . Q. Did you solicit all these members of Congress to take stock ? — 
 A. No; I think most of them solicited me. Some of them I solicited. 
 I solicited Mr. Scofleld when I first went in. He and I boarded to- 
 gether. I did not consider that there was any impropriety in owning 
 ^fcock iu any corporation, particularly when we did not want anything 
 of Congress. We asked no legislation and expected none, and there 
 liad been nothing asked of or granted by the Government since that 
 time that takes anything from the Government or benefits the Union 
 Pacific Railroad. The only thing I ever asked was the removal of the 
 office from New York to Boston in order to get rid of the injunction of 
 James Fisk and others granted by Judge Barnard's court, and the right 
 to transfer such causes to the United States court. That I did not con- 
 sider as requiring bribery or the use of corrupt appliances. The 
 gentlemen! am accused of bribing have always been friends of the 
 road and have always voted for it, exceptMr. Scofield. Ithinkhe voted 
 against it. But I do not think that owning a thousand dollars of the 
 stock would induce Mr. Scofield to violate his oath. 
 
 Q. Was this stock promised to these members of Congress in the fall 
 of 1865? — A. No, sir ; I think not. The stock of the company was all 
 taken up as we supposed, but this amount of stock which we divided 
 was in the hands of Mr. Durant, as I understand it. He had never paid 
 for it, and the company made him transfer it to the corporation, which 
 left that amount of stock for sale. 
 
 Q. What I want to get at is this. It seems from this agjeement or 
 consent of the stockholders that you and Mr. Durant were to make use 
 of certain shares. Shares had been promised to various parties. I want 
 to ask you if that promise was made as early as 1865 ; and, if not, when 
 it was made? — A. I think not. I think not before the summer or fallof 
 1867. 
 
 Q. Was not stock promised to any members of Congress prior to the 
 summer or fall of 1867 by you, or to your knowledge? — A. Some mem- 
 bers of Congress owned it before this; and I think some members of 
 Congress had spoken to me about it. I told them 1 would try to get 
 some, isut we had none to give them until the stock held by Mr. Durant, 
 not being paid for, was transferred to the company. I had sold some of 
 my own stock to parties. 
 
 Q. When was the act passed which subordinated the Government loan 
 to that of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company ? — A. In 1864. 
 
 Q.> Did any member of Congress hold any of this stock prior to that 
 time ? — A. I think not ; I do not know of any. I had nothing to do 
 with it till long after that time. 
 
 Q. When you received money from these gentlemen for stock was it 
 assigned to them, or did it still remain in your name? — A. It still re- 
 mained in my name; most of it. 
 
40 CRKDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Why was it not assigned ?— A. I don't know of any reason, except 
 that when a man bnys stock and keeps.it there is no use of trausferriug- 
 it; when the suit of' Mr. McGomb was brought, they did not, any one 
 of them, want to own the stock. 
 
 Q. Was it kept in your name because the transaction was such that 
 they did not want it to be public "I—A. No, sir ; I had no such idea. 
 
 Q. How frequently were dividends declared upon the stock of the 
 Credit Mobilier ■?— A. All the dividends that were declared were, I think, 
 from December, 1867, until about July, 18GS. I am not positive, but I 
 think there has been no dividend declared since. 
 
 . Q. How many within that time ?— A. I cannot tell ; three or four, I 
 think. 
 
 Q. I see in this printed pamphlet before me what purports to be a 
 list of dividends, and I wish to ask -you if that list is correct. It is as 
 follows : 
 
 April 26, 1866, 100 per cent, on Union Pacific Railroad stock. 
 
 April 1, 1867, 50 per cent, on first-mortgage bonds Union Pacific Rail- 
 road Company. 
 
 July 1, 1867, 100 per cent, on Union Pacific Railroad stock. 
 
 July 4, 1868, 80 per cent, on first-mortgage bonds Union Pacific Rail- 
 road Company. 
 
 Same day, 100 per cent, on Union Pacific Railroad Company's stock. 
 
 June 17, 1868, 60 per cent, on cash currency. 
 
 Same day, 40 per cent, on Union Pacific Railroad Company's stock. 
 
 July 3, 1868, 75 per cent, on Union Pacific Railroad stock. 
 
 Same day, 75 per cent, on first-mortgage bonds Union Pacific Rail- 
 road "Company. 
 
 September 3, 1868, 100 per cent, on Union Pacific Railroad Company's 
 stock. 
 
 Same day, 75 per cent, on first-mortgage bonds Union Pacific Rail- 
 road Company. 
 
 December 19, 1868, 200 per cent, on Union Pacific Railroad Company's 
 stock. 
 
 A. I think that is correct, except as to the first three named, which 
 were not dividends; I have no reason to doubt it. This list seems to 
 reach to December, 1868. 
 
 Q. I do not understand distinctly your answer to Mr. Merrick's ques- 
 tion as to how many members of Congress received these dividends 
 upon that stock, and what members did not receive it, among those you 
 have mentioned. — A. I think that all who paid for their stock re- 
 ceived their dividends up to the time this suit was commenced; that is 
 my impression. 
 
 Q. Who received the dividends? — A. Mr. Patterson, Mr. Bingham, 
 James F. Wilson did, and I think Mr. Colfax received a part of .them. 
 I do not know whether he received them all or not. I think Mr. Sco- 
 field received a part of them. Messrs. Kt^lley and Garfield never paid 
 for their stock, and never received their dividends. 
 
 Q. Have you mentioned all the members of Congress who took stock 
 in the Credit Mobilier? — A. I have mentioned all that have been named 
 here. 
 
 Q. Have you mentioned all who are members of the present Congress 
 who took stock ? — A. I think I have. 
 
 Q. Are you certain on that point? — A. There is no member of the 
 House now whose name I have not mentioned. 
 
 Q. Have you mentioned all members of the past Congresses whose 
 names were mentioned here before you commenced to testify ? — A. Yea 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIER. 41 
 
 sir; that was my understanding of the instructions given me. I sup- 
 . pose Mr. Wilson's and Mr. Allison's names would not have been men- 
 tioned if Mr. McCombhad not mentioned thein. ' — ^ 
 
 Q. Had noi a congressional investigation into the affairs of the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad Company and the Credit Mobilier, one or both of them, 
 been threatened prior to January 30, 1868 ? — A. 1 do not know whether 
 there had or not. It used to be talked about sometimes up there in New 
 York. I do not know that I ever heard anything of ifc here. 
 
 Q. Was there or not an investigation by Congress referred to in your 
 letter to Mr. McComb of January 30, 1868, in which you say, " I do not 
 fear any investigation here'?" — A. Yes, probably; I had nothing. to fear 
 from an investiffatiou. 
 
 Q. Then a congressional investigation had been suggested prior to 
 that time ? — A. Up there in New York ; not here that I know of. 
 
 Q. You say in the same letter that, in view of King's letter and Wash- 
 burn's move, you go in for making the bond dividend in full. What 
 did you refer to by " Washburn's move" here ? — A. Washburn made an 
 attack upon the Union Pacific Eailroad, that we were charging too much 
 fare ; that our lands were enormously valuable, worth five to ten dollars 
 an acre for the alkali regions on the plains; that they were not going to 
 build the road so as to be good for anything ; that the object was to get 
 the Government bonds, and ttien abandon the road to the Government. 
 
 Q. Had W^ashburn said anything about an investigation ? — A. I do 
 not recollect that he had. He wanted to fix a rate of fare by law, beyond 
 which we could not charge. He wanted us to be restricted to a certain 
 amount. That was one of the things he claimed. I do not remember 
 fully all he did claim. 
 
 Q. In your letter to Mr. McComb of January 25, 1868, you say you 
 think that the dividends having been paid you ought to make the Credit 
 Mobilier capital four millions, and distribute the new stock where it will 
 protect you, &c. Wbat do you mean by having stock placed where it 
 will protect you ? — A. Placed with men of character, property, and stand- 
 ing. I wanted that such men should own it and have interest with us. 
 
 Q. Did you have any reference to that protection which you might 
 get from favorable legislation in Congress ? — A. No, sir ; we did not 
 wish any legislation from Congress; we did not expect any. Congress 
 in 1864 had given us all we asked. That was before I had anything to 
 do with the road. We did not expect anything further. 
 
 Q. You speak in the same letter in regard to the 50 per cent, in- 
 crease on the old stock that you wanted for distribution here. How 
 did you propose to distribute that here in Washington 1 — A. To carry 
 out my engagements for stock. That was in January. The $25,000 of 
 old stock I had got was entitled to the increased stock when the iij- 
 crease. of capital was made. It was applied to that stock, and there is 
 where I got the ninety-three shares referred to. It was the increased 
 stock on the two hundred and fifty shares assigned me. 
 
 Q. The stock list shows that you had the ninety-three shares before 
 you had the two hundred and fifty ? — A. I cannot help that. That is my 
 recollection. I had both, at any rate. 
 
 Q. So you think the ninety-three shares is 50 per cent, additional stock 
 on the two hundred and fifty ? — A. Yes, sir. I should have had 
 one hundred and twenty-five instead of ninety-three. I only got ninety- 
 three. 
 
 Q. You speak of Alley and Cisco being on the finance committee. 
 What finance committee do you refer to ? — A. To the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad. 
 
42 CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. You did not refer to any committee of Congress ?— A. No, sir. 
 Mr. Cisco was not a member of Congress. I supposed that they could 
 raise money as members of the finance committee of the ITuion Pacific 
 Eailroad Company, if we came short. 
 
 By Mr. BANKS: 
 
 Q. What effect was produced on your mind, or that of the company, 
 by the reports made by one of the Government directors in 186G or 1867, 
 representing that the road had been improperly built ; that the struc- 
 ture was not suflBcient to sustain the traffic ?— A. The effect produced on 
 my mind was simply that we had to make it perfect. 
 
 Q. Had it anything to do with this transaction?— A. l^o, sir; noth- 
 ing whatever. Under a misapprehension in consequence of the report 
 you allude to, the Government at one time withheld their bonds on the 
 ground that the road was not built in the proper manner. I came to 
 Washington at that time with my brother and gave bonds for I do not 
 know how much, one or two million, that the road should be properly 
 constructed. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. I understood you to say that Mr. Brooks you never understood 
 was a stockholder of the Credit Mobilierl— A. Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Q. Do you know his son-in-law, Charles Neilsoa, in New York ? — A. 
 I do not know him. I know there is such a man. I have heard of him 
 as being a son-in-law of Mr. Brooks, and a stockholder. I think part 
 of the stock Mr. Durant distributed went to Mr. Neilson, as he! had 
 promised it. That, however, is only a matter of hearsay. I had noth- 
 ing to do with it. 
 
 Q. You have no knowledge nor information that that stock was held 
 for the benefit of Mr. Brooks in any way ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You have no information that leads you to believe that that or 
 any other stock was held for the benefit of Mr. Brooks by anybody ?— j- 
 A. I have no knowledge on that subject either way. I know nothing 
 about that. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 
 Q. In this arrangement with members of Congress by which you sold 
 them shares of stock, did you regard it as a private transaction between 
 you and them, or were you acting on behalf of the Credit Mpbilier of 
 America? — A. I regarded it as a private transaction between myself 
 and them. The stock was given to me to distribute as I pleased, to 
 •carry out my arrangements. 
 
 Q. Given to you without consideration? — A. No, sir; I paid par and 
 interest; I gave my checks for the amount. 
 
 Q. Then the money paid for it by members went into your own 
 purse? — A. Yes, sir; it was my private money. ' 
 
 Q. And when the money was refunded to them it was refunded by' 
 you and not by the Credit Mobilier? — A. Certainly. 1 had nothing to 
 do with the Credit Mobilier. I paid for the stock par and iutei-est. ' 
 
 Q. You received the stock as trustee ; for whom were you acting as 
 trustee? — A. I was not acting as trustee for anybody. I put it in that 
 way to distinguish it from the stock I held for myself. I do not know ? 
 why I stated it as trustee. In the examination last fall before the com- 
 missioner in Boston, I stated that I held it in trust. Mr. Bartlett asked 
 me whom I was trustee for, and I replied that I was not trustee for any- 
 body. I simply took it as trustee to distinguish the stock from that 
 which I held before for myself. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEK. 43 
 
 Q. Didn't I uuderstaud that, in point of fact, you acted as trustee 
 for several members of Congress to whom you sold the stock, allowing 
 it to remain in your name ? — A. It still remained in my name, but not 
 as trustee. 1 do not know that I acted as trustee for anybody, and I 
 ■was not authorized by anybody to act as trustee. 
 
 Q. When you received the dividends which you paid over to members 
 of Congress, who had received their assignments of stock, did you re- 
 ceive the dividend in your own name? — A. Tes, sir ; I received it and 
 receipted for it on the books of the company, in my own name, I acting 
 as the agent of these parties. 
 
 Q. You received the amount of the dividends in gross and distributed 
 among your friends as you understood your arrangements with them, 
 making it a private transaction between yourself and them "? — A. Yes, 
 sir; a private transaction. 
 
 By Mr. Meerick: 
 ' Q. I have seen it stated that J. C. Kennedy acted as a co-trustee for 
 these two hundred and fifty shares. — A. Yes, sir; that was one of Mc- 
 Comb's statements. 
 
 Q. Will you state whether he did act as co-trustee?— r A. Mr. McOomb*" 
 stated that he had seen on the books of the Credit Mobilier stock'trans- 
 ferred to a man by the name of Kennedy, as trustee. I do not know a 
 man by the name of Kennedy in Washington ; I never saw him and 
 never heard of him till now. 
 
 ,Q. You never had any transaction with him in connection with the 
 Credit Mobilier? — A. No, sir; I do not kno^r the man. 
 
 Q. You had no dealings with him at all in reference to the Union Pa- 
 cific Eailroad or the Credit Mobilier stock, either in respect to stock, 
 dividends, or otherwise? — A. Never. 1 will tell you -what Mr. McComb 
 makes that out of. Geo. W. Kennedy was a book-keeper of ours in 
 Massachusetts. I bought some stock in his name as trustee. I do not 
 think Mr. McComb ever saw him. He is not a large man, or a good- 
 looking man, or a man with gray hair. 
 
 Q. What was your object in putting the stock in his name as trustee ? — 
 A. I cannot tell you. I had it all transferred to myself a long while 
 ago. 
 
 Q. You had no object at all in putting it in his name as trustee? — 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You did it as a matter of pur^ caprice ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did he have any knowledge of its being in his name as trustee? — 
 A. Yes, sir; because he transferred it to me back again, and he had to 
 sign his name in the same way. 
 
 Q. Did you name to him any purpose for which you transferred it to 
 him as trustee? — A. Not that 1 know. 1 transferred it to him as 
 trustee without his kno.wledge. 
 
 . Q. And you did it without any motive whatever ? — A. I do not know 
 tbat I had any motive. A part of this stock stood in the name of those 
 parties who did not take their stock, and a portion of the stock I trans- 
 ferred to him was that stock. 
 
 Q. A portion of this unclaimed stock which you demanded to meet 
 your eiigagements? — A. Yes, sir; and it was transferred back to me a 
 year ago or more. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Q, It seems by this list that the dividends on the Credit Mobilier stock 
 began to be made as early as April, 1866, and there was another in 
 
44 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 April, 186G and 1867, and July, 1867. These two hundred aiid flfty 
 sharea of stock were transferred to you iu December, 1807, as I under- 
 stand you.— A. I cannot recollect. I think the stock was assigned ta 
 me iu December, 1867. 
 
 Q. There had been three dividends made up to that time. Dui these 
 dividends go with the stock?— A. No dividends went with the stock 
 except those declared after it was assigned to me. 
 
 Q. You did not understand that if you held the stock yourself you 
 were entitled to any prior dividends ? — A. IsTo, sir. 
 
 Q. Did any of these persons who received stock from you, and who 
 had made these arrangements with you, these members of Congress, 
 did they receive any prior dividends'? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. At the time these dividends were declared this stock was owned 
 by the company itself, and the dividends therefore were not made upoQ 
 that stock ?— A. That I cannot tell. If they were made at all they 
 were made to Dr. Durant. They stood in his name previous to that 
 time, as I recollect. 
 
 Q. If any persons received this stock from you they took it with the 
 .same rights that you had and with no right to prior dividends ?— A. 
 Certainly. 
 
 The chairman stated that the question had been raised as to whether 
 the counsel of Mr. McComb should be permitted to cross-examine wit- 
 nesses in this investigation. The committee think that while Mr. 
 McComb of course is not the prosecutor iu this proceeding, yet the pro- 
 ceeding is founded upon transactions sworn to by Mr. McComb, and 
 which in some way became public, and the inquiry being based upon 
 that, the committee are to ascertain whether hisstateraentistrueornot. 
 They think, therefore, they should have some means of determining the 
 accuracy of testimony which may be given against him, and are of 
 opinion that he should be permitted, through his counsel or otherwise, 
 to cross-examine the witness. 
 
 Mr. Banks. My reason for assenting to the decision of the committee, 
 which the chairman has stated, was that so far as the parties are known 
 to us Mr. McComb may be supposed to have information of the facts if 
 there has been anything wrong in this transaction. If we exclude his 
 testimony, or his inquiries, when rebutting testimony, it may be sup- 
 posed that we have suppressed information within our reach. There- 
 fore, not so much recoguizing his right as a prosecutor in any way, but 
 to get the full statement of the trufh in this case, I assent to his being 
 permitted to propound inquiries to witnesses, either by himself or his 
 counsel. 
 
 Mr. Mbbrick. It appears to me probable that Mr. McComb and his 
 counsel may have sources of information, and that they may be able, by 
 a cross-examination of Mr. Ames and other witnesses, to develop facts 
 connected with this inquiry which have not beea adverted to by mem- 
 bers of the committee in their examination. In order that all sources 
 of truth may be searched I think it expedient that Mr. McComb, by his 
 counsel, shall have the privilege of cross-examining Mr. Oakes Ames, 
 and of suggesting to the committee other facts to be inquired into which 
 have not already been made the subject of inquiry. 
 
 Mr. Alley. With the permission of the committee I wish to say, you 
 may remember, the other da.y, at the conclusion of Mr. McComb's testi- 
 mony you invited me to cross-examine him. I did not do so for two rea- 
 sons : I had not appeared here as counsel ; I was summoned here as a 
 witness, and I did not suppose it was proper for me to cross examine a 
 witness. 1 did not know that course waS to be pursued. I thought in- 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEK. 45 
 
 asmxicli as the committee had been raised it was eminently proper and 
 right that you should allow the fullest inquiry, and the most thorough 
 a.nd searching examination. I am very glad, for one, that you have taken 
 that course. I am, however, now in a position to have some interest in 
 this matter, more than simply as a witness. I did not avail myself of 
 the privilege you gave me the other day to cross-examine, for another 
 reason, which was that I was so utterly taken by .surj)rise, and so 
 astounded, having come here merely as a witness, to be called upon 
 in regard to so infamous a charge — infamous on my part if true, equally 
 so on his part if not true — I was so astounded, I will -not say discon- 
 certed, that I was unable to respond to your invitation, even if I had 
 deemed it proper. I would now like the privilege, before leaving the 
 room, if it is not improper, to propound to Mr. McComb a question or 
 two. 
 
 JMr. Black. It does interfere with the regular course of business of 
 course. There are a great many objections 1 could urge to that course. 
 I desire to put a very few questions to Mr. Ames, but before doing so I 
 wish to define as carefully as I can what the position is that Mr. Mc- 
 ■Comb occupies to this proceeding. He appears here solely as a com- . 
 pulsory witness, and in no other capacity. 1 do not ask for the right to 
 cross examine Mr. Ames, except as I am here simply as counsel in a case 
 into which this runs more or less, another and a judicial tribunal. 1 do 
 not propose to ask Mr. Ames any question concerning the subject-mat- 
 ter of inquiry here. , 
 
 The Chairman. If you examine witnesses at all you must examine 
 them under the leave we have given, and you must do it for the reasons 
 we give. It cannot be done in reference to the other case. We have 
 ■only ten or fifteen minutes before adjournment, and yon can go on in 
 that time if you desire. 
 
 Mr. Black. I do not want three minutes. 
 
 Examination by Mr. Black: 
 
 Q. Did Mr. McGomb give a true history of the Credit Mobilier ? — A. 
 I do not recollect what account he gave. 
 
 Q. Then I will ask you, particularly, was it a Pennsylvania corpora- 
 tion ? — A. I expect it was. 
 
 Q. Was the object of the organization, on the part of yourself and the 
 other gentlemen who were associated with you, to reap the profits of 
 building the road without personal responsibility ? — A. I believe that 
 was the original intention. 
 
 Q. What were these profits, and from whence were they derived? — 
 A. They were derived from the Oakes Ames contract, I believe. 
 
 Q. Whence did the money come from that constituted the profits of 
 making the road ? — A. I suppose it came from the sale of bonds. The 
 profits were what they got for building the road more than the actual 
 ■cash cost of the road. I suppose they were entitled to a profit. 
 
 Q. They were derived from the sale of the bonds which took prece- 
 dence of the loan of the United States ? — A. I do not know that. I did 
 not notice any distinction in the bonds. I suppose the coni])any sold 
 iiU the bonds of both classes, and that the proceeds of both were applied 
 to building the road. 
 
 Q. A part of them constituted the bonds for which the income of the 
 road was pledged "? — A. Not that I know of. 
 
 Q. And a part from bonds which were a lien upon the lands of the 
 company ? — A. I believe they were issued after the company got in debt, 
 
46 CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 and had to issue them, to pay for building the last part of the road. 
 That is my recollection. 
 
 Q. A part of the money was the proceeds of stock sold ? — A. Not 
 that I know of. 
 
 Q. None? — A. I do not know of any. 
 
 Q. Was the company solvent at the time these dividends were made ?— 
 A. Yes; I suppose so. 
 
 Q. Is it now ? — A. I expect so. 
 
 Q. How much stock' was issued f — A. I do not know. What has that 
 to do with this transaction ? 
 
 Q. Was there any money paid on that stock ? — A. It was paid for at 
 par, I believe. That was my understanding. 
 
 Q. Tou were of opinion at the time that this association was formed 
 for the purpose of dividing what you call profits ; that it was all right ?— 
 A. Certainly; and I believe we did it under the advice of Jerry Black. 
 I believe we consulted him, did we not ? 
 
 Mr. Black. No, sir ; you did not do that under any advice of mine. 
 
 WiTNipss. Well, you were counsel part of the time, and I suppose it 
 was all right, that part of it. 
 
 Q. Did it strike you that it was entirely proper for a member of Con- 
 gress to be concerned in that arrangement "I — A. It did, sir. 
 
 Q. Tou thought that it was also right for you to take in, either by 
 gift or sale, anybody else who desired to come in and who was a mem- 
 ber of Congress ? — A. Certainly. There is no.law and no reason, legal 
 or moral, why a member of Congress should not own stock in a road 
 any more than why he should not own a sheep when the price of wool 
 is to be affected by the tariff. 
 
 Q. That is your conviction now ? — A. Tes, sir; and always has been. 
 
 Q. Were you not apprehensive that any one might take a different 
 view on that subject '! — A. No, sir ; I was not. I did not know that 
 anybody had a different view until the other day you told me that you 
 thought it was wrong for a member of Congress to own a share of bank 
 stock or any other security which could be affected by the legislation of 
 Congress. You stated that we in New England were not as pure as 
 you were in Pennsylvania ; that you did not own a share of bank stock, 
 and that you thought no member of Congress ought to. Well, I am not 
 so pure as that. I think a member of Congress has a' right to own 
 property in anything he chooses to invest in. 
 
 Q. Did it strike you there might be some incompatibility between 
 your duty as a member of Congress, to guard the public money which 
 was held by a corporation in trust tor public use, and your interest as a 
 member of a ring, organized of persons for the purpose'of appropriating 
 it to their own private use ? — A. 1 do not know anything about any 
 ring. I never went into any ring. 
 
 Q. We Avill not call it a ring — an association. Did you see anything 
 incompatible between your position and an association such as that in 
 which you were joined? — A. No, sir ; I never did and do not now. 
 
 Q. Are you not aware that the proi)riety of that course has been very 
 seriously questioned ?— A. No, I am not. General Butler once, since I 
 have been in Congress, questioned the right of any member holding 
 bank stock to vote on a question in which national banks were con- 
 cerned, and I suppose on the same principle any man owning a Grovern- 
 ment bond would have no right to sit in Congress. 
 
 Q. Areyon not aware that in 1809 there was a discussion on this Sub- 
 ject in the Senate, and that opinions were expressed inconsistent with 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 47 
 
 those j'ou now express'? — A. I do not know. There have been all kinds 
 of opinions expressed, in the Senate and House both, on all subjects. 
 
 Q. Were you not present in a debate in the Senate in April, i869, in 
 which Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, and many other persons participated, in 
 which they thought the whole transaction a gross and stupendous 
 fraud'? — A. I think it very likely that such things were said in the Sen- 
 ate in 1869, and I do not know but Mr. Stewart may have said them. 
 
 Q. Were you not present when that discussion occurred? — A. 1 do 
 not know. I heard debates probably about tliat time in the Senate. 
 That was about the time, if I remember right, when we were trying to 
 fix the terminal point of the two roads, and I think it was in relation to 
 that. 
 
 Q. Was it not in regard to the other matter on which you stated that 
 legislation was asked, namely, the removal of the place of business from 
 New York to Boston'? — A.. I cannot tell you. 
 
 Q. And you do not recollect that you were present at the debate re- 
 ferred to? — A. I have been present when debates in the Senate have 
 occurred on questions of that kind. 
 
 Q. You do not recollect a debate on this subject in which Mr. Stewart 
 participated 1 — A. I remember something of such a debate. I cannot 
 recollect what Mr. Stewart said. I think the debate you refer to was on 
 the subject of fixing the junction of the two roads. He was speaking 
 in the interest of the Central Pacific Eailroad, and wanted to get the 
 junction as far east as he could. That was nothing we asked from Con- 
 gress, and it did not cost the Government anything except the time 
 spent in debate. There was no subsidy of any kind connected with it. 
 
 Q. How much stock do you own in the Pacific Eailroad now? — A. I 
 cannot tell you; I do -not remember. 
 
 Q. Can you not approximate it in conjecture"? — A. I should think I 
 owned 1,000 shares. 
 
 Q. How much did you pay for that stock '? — A. Various prices. 
 
 Q. Did you"get it directly from the company 1 — A. A part of it; but 
 what has that to do with this investigation ? 
 
 The Chairman. I should say that is one side of any inquiry we are 
 in pursuit of. . 
 
 Q. I want to ask you whether the Credit Mobiller was not discarded 
 as machinery for transfeiririi? these profits to the partners who were as- 
 sociated together originally under that name? — A. I think it was. 
 
 Q. But the contract continued to be held by the seven trustees? — A. 
 The Credit Mobilier A^as di -njanled, of course, as I testified yesterday. 
 
 Q. The object of the organization under the seven trustees was the 
 same as the Credit Mobilier hud been used for? — A. It was for the 
 benefit of the stockholders of ti a Union Pacific Railroad Company, in 
 order that, every man might have what he was honestly, fairly, and 
 justly entitled to. 
 
 Q. Then the partners who held that stock in the Credit Mobilier were 
 entitled to exactly the same div:. lends out of the profits they would have 
 received if the Credit Mobilier should continue to perform the functions 
 ■which it ^as original iy intended to perform? — A. You have seen the 
 records, I suppose, ami yon can aMiertain from that better than 1 can 
 tell yon. If you laaxe not, you cm have them; they are open to the 
 inspection of everybody. 
 
 Q. I will ask you another question. Did that change in any way 
 affect the right of the holder of Credit Mobilier stock to receive the 
 dividends they would otherwise have been entitled to ? — A. I am not 
 
48 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 lawyer enough to answer that question. I do not pretend to have any- 
 legal knowledge at all. 
 
 Q. Did you or did you not receive dividends yourself* — A. I received 
 all the dividends that were given me, at all times. I was always willing 
 to take dividends. 
 
 By the ChaiemAN : 
 Q. Can you state whether they were divided to the stockholders of the 
 Credit Mobilier?— A. I do not think it was intended they should be di- 
 vided to the stockholders of the Credit Mobilier. But the same parties 
 ■who owned formerly were entitled to receive stock under it. That is my 
 idea. I am not lawyer enough to understand the distinction Mr. Black 
 desires to make. I suppose he wants to entrap me in connection witli 
 the other case. 
 
 By Mr. Black : 
 
 Q. If you will receive my assurance of that fact, I have no such de- 
 sign. These contracts were made by you previous to the time when you 
 got your stock i 
 
 Witness. What contracts ? 
 
 Q. The contracts under which you subsequently agreed to hold this 
 stock for members of Congress and others. — A. I did not say I had 
 made any contracts with members of Congress. 
 
 Q. You had conversations with them about it, whether there was a 
 contract or not. — A. I had talked with them and it was understood that 
 when I got this stock I would give it to them. 
 
 Q. Was there no contract to give them stock ? — A. Ko contract. I 
 did not know I could get it. I had told i)ersons who applied to me for 
 stock that I would get it for them if I could. 
 
 Q. If you gave them this stock- 
 
 WiTNESS. I did not gi"ve it to them. 
 
 Mr. Black, Understand me, if you please. When you gave it to 
 them fbr a consideration had they a title to it which would give tbem 
 the right to receive dividends before the stock was actually transferred 
 to them 1 
 
 A. I do not know how to understand your question. Yon want to 
 know if I was undef any obligation to supply them with this stock. 
 
 Q. What I want to know is whether they were entitled to the stock at 
 any time before you actually received it for them ? — A. I do not suppose 
 I was under any positive obligation. I promised them I would get them 
 some stock if I could. 
 
 Q. This, then, had no relation backward of the time when the stock 
 was actually transferred ?— A. I do not know. I said I promised before 
 that I would get the stock if 1 could. 
 
 Q. The men you have mentioned as having received this stock, some 
 of them have it yet, and some of them have given you the back divi- 
 dends. What you have received back from these persons does not 
 amount to as much in the aggregate as that paid on the whole three 
 hundred and forty-three shares ?— A. Not to the persons named. I sold 
 some to other persons, not members of Congress. 
 
 Q. Can you state who they were'?— A. 1 do not know that that has 
 anything to do with this transaction. 
 
 Q. Yoa decline to answer?— A. You have no right to ask me for the 
 names more than you have to ask me whom I sold a dozen shovels to. 
 
 Q. Have you any portion of this stock as your own which you did 
 not dispose of '?— A. That is a question yon have no right to ask me. 
 This inquiry, I understand, is simply to affeet the suit in Pennsylvania. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEK. 4^ 
 
 Mr. Black. I admit that, ami I Avant to tell the committee that I 
 have uo other object in making auy other iuqiiiries, except in relation 
 to that suit in Pennsylvania. 
 
 The Cj^airman. Mr. Merrick suggests that you told him a larger 
 amount had been given to some men than you now admit. It was 
 proper for Judge Black to ask you whether you parted with the whole 
 of that two hundred and fifty shares, or whether some of it still remains 
 in your hands. 
 
 A. I may, perhaps, have a little of it. 
 
 The following interrogatories and answers, having been admitted by 
 the witness to be authentic, were j)laced in evidence : 
 
 J. T., 1868.— Supreme Court.— Xo. 19. 
 
 Henry S. McComb 1 
 
 vs. 
 The Credit Mobilier of A^rERiCA, Sidney 
 Dillon, John B. Alley, Eolaud G. Hazard, 
 Charles M. Ghriskey, Oliver W. Barnes, 
 Thomas Rowland, Paul Pohl, jr., Oakes 
 Ames, Charles H. Neilson, Thomas C. Du- 
 rant, John M. S. Williams, JBenediot D. Stew- 
 art, John Duff, Charles M. Hall, and H. G. 
 Faut. . J 
 
 Interrogatories to defendants. 
 
 1. State precisely what entries were made on the books of the Credit Mobilier 
 of America by the treasurer or assistant treasurer or other officers of the company, so 
 far as they relate to the contract or siihscription of the plaintiff for account of H. G. 
 Fant. On what books are those entries made ? When were they made ? Produce 
 copies of the entries and append them to this answer. 
 
 2." Was or was not a list of the stockholders of said company made out by the com- 
 pany or its proper officer, on or soon after the 3d day of March, 1866 1 And does or 
 does not the name of H. G. Fant stand next to the last on said list as the holder of two 
 hundred and fifty shares ? Was Fant the holder of any shares other than those men- 
 tioned in the plaintiff's bill as being taken for his account by the plaintiff ? 
 
 3. Who were the stockholders of the said Credit Mobilier of America, on or about the 
 12th day of December, 1867 ? Append to your answer a list of their names, with the 
 number of shares belonging to each, and state whether the name of Oakes Ames appears 
 there, and as the' holder of what number of shares. Is he there set down as the holder 
 of 250 or 343, or any other number of shares as "trustee" for persons not named ? 
 
 4. Who were the stockholders of said company on or about the 20th day of February, 
 1868 ? Append to your answer a list of their names, showing the nujnber of shares 
 held by each, and state whether the name of Oakes Ames does or does not appear on 
 said list as " trustee" for 250 shares. 
 
 5. State whether copies of the several lists of persons who held stock in the said 
 company on the 3d of March, 1866, the 12th of December, 1867, and the 20th of Feb- 
 ruary, 1868, were or were not made out on or about those days respectively, by the 
 proper officers or agents of the company, and delivered as authentic to the plaintiff and 
 other persons. Did the books exhibit a true statement of the stock taken and held at 
 those times, or were the said lists falsified by omitting therefrom the names of some 
 stockholders, or by placing thereon the names of other persons who were in fact not 
 stockholders ? If the said lists or either of them were false and deceptive, what was 
 the object of making them so? 
 
 6. Did or did not the same persons hold proportionally the same amount of stock in 
 the Credit Mobilier of America and in the Union Pacific Railroad Company ? Were not 
 the leading and active managers of each company holders of stock in both ? Append 
 to your answer a list of the stockholders of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, as 
 they appear from the books to havn held the stock of the last-named company on the 
 3d of March, 1866^on the 12th of December, 1867, and on the 20th of February, 1868. 
 
 7. Did the Union Pacific Railroad Company make a written, contract on the 8th 
 of August, 1864, for grading, building, constructing,' and equipping one hundred miles 
 of the^Undou Pacific railway and telegraph, Ijeginning at Omaha, with one Herbert M. 
 
 4 X 
 
50 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 t 
 
 Hoxie, at .$50,000 per ruiie, including all work and materials ? Was said contract signed 
 by Hoxie himself or by his attorney in fact? Who was Hoxie? Where did he live 
 and what was his business, occupation, and employment at tLe date of said contract ? 
 Was he a man of property or capital, or at all able to meet the resiiousibilities of such 
 a contract'/ Produce the contract with Hoxie referred to in this interrogatory and 
 append a copv to your answer. 
 
 8. Did not Hoxie soon afterward, to wit, on the 30th of September, 1864, agree and 
 bind himself in writing that he woujd transfer the said contract of .'^th of August, 
 lhG4, to Thomas C. Duraut or such person as Durant would direct? Was or was not 
 the said T. C. Dnrant at that time vice-president of the Union Pacific Railroad Com- 
 pany? Produce the written contract last referred to between Hoxie and Durant, and 
 append a copy to your answer. 
 
 9. Did or did not Hoxie, after the agreement As-ith Durant, to wit, on the 4th of 
 October, 1864, propose to the Union Pacific Railroad Company to extend the contract 
 to the one hundredth meridian west longitude, at the same rate of pay, namely, .$,"^0,000 
 per mile? Was not this proposal accepted th^ same day it was made? Is not the one 
 hundredth meridian 2.'i7-| miles (by the route of the railroad) west of Omaha? Pro- 
 duce the proposal herein referred' to and a copy of the resolutions accepting it and 
 appi;nd them to your answer. 
 
 10. Did Hoxie ever do or attempt to do any part of the work reqnired by the con- 
 tract, or furnish any of the materials or expend any money or time thereon? If yes, 
 what and how much ? AYere not all the materials furnished and paid for by the Union 
 Pacific Railroad Company, by and through the agency of its own officers? Or did the 
 officers of said railroad 'company distribute the same work to other contractors? 
 Did Hoxie ever receive or claim anything from the company for work done or mate- 
 rials furnished by him under his contract? If yes, how much and foi- what ? 
 
 11. How much was the actual cost of the whole road and telegraph from Omaha to ' 
 the three hundredth mile-post? Did not the proi)er officer make a report, or in some 
 other form communicate to the Union Pacific Railroad Company and to the Credit 
 Mcibilier, that the cost of the fir,st three hundred miles was $7,800,000, or $26,000 per 
 mile on the average? Did not this include all expenses for surveying the route, fur- 
 nishing iron and other materials, grading, laying, and building the road, putting up 
 the telegraph, and equiiiping the road with sufficient rolling-stock 1 State separately 
 how much was the cost of surveying, construction, stock, and iron, as nearly as you 
 can from recollection or from records of the company." Was not a total of $26,000 a 
 mile for all these together a very extravagant price, considering the nature and char- 
 acter of the work ? Make a fair estimate of the cost, at economical prices, and say 
 what would be a just compensation jier mile for the construction of such a road. 
 
 12. Did not the vice-presideut of the Union Pacific Railroad Company make a con- 
 tract with one L. B. Boomer, of Chicago, for the construction of 150 miles of the com- 
 pany's railroad and telegraph line west of the one hundredth meridian ? Produce the 
 contract referred to and ap^jend a copy thereof to your answer. Was this contract 
 made in good faith and with the intention that the parties should fulfill it? If not, 
 with what other intent, purpose, or object? Was the contract of Boomer ever carried 
 out by him in whole or in part ? Or was he ever called upon to perform it ? Or was 
 any attempt ever made by the company or any of its officers to compel performance? 
 
 13. Was there not also another contract made by one Williams with the said railroad 
 company for the construction of 267 fVo miles of the same road, commencing at and 
 running west from the one hundredth meridian ? Was this contract made with intent 
 that the contractor should execute it according to its terms f Was it in fact executed 
 or caxried into efiect in any manner by the said Williams? What was the object of 
 making or causing the said contract to be made? 
 
 14. Were not all the contracts-referred to and inquired about in the preceding inter- 
 rogations really and truly made for the benefit, use, and behoof of the Credit Mobilier 
 of America? Were not one or more of them assigned by the nominal contractors to 
 the said Credit Mobilier? Was not the contract with Williams assigned to said Credit 
 Mobilier or its stockholders? Did not the stockholders receive and divide among them 
 all the profits of all the said contracts ; that is to say, the whole contract-price, after 
 deducting therefrom the cost and expenses of the railroad company in surveying and 
 construciiag said railroad? 
 
 15. Was not a contract in writing made by Oakes Ames on the 16th day of October, 
 1867, and antedated as of August 16, 1867, with the Union Pacific Railroad Company, 
 for the construction of 667 miles of the said railroad, beginning- at the one hundredth 
 meridian and extending westward? Were not all the previous contracts merged iu 
 that? What prices or compensation did the Union Pacific Railroad Company agree 
 
 , by that contract to pay for constructions, materials, and stock? Produce the said 
 conttacts and append ^ true copy thereof to your answer. 
 
 16. Was not this contract assigned on the day of its actual execution, to wit, on the 
 16th of October, 1867, to seven "trustees?" What were the names of the trustees? 
 Were they not all stockholders of the Credit Mobilier of America ? And was not the 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 51 
 
 assignment coupled with the express coudition that the profits of said contract ehonld 
 be divided among the stockholders of the Credit Mobilier in proportion to the number 
 of shares which they respectively held in that company f Produce the said assignment 
 and append a copy thereof to your answer. 
 
 17. Was not the same contract upon the same terms extended so as to cover all the 
 road which was to be built between the one hundredth meridian and the terminus au- 
 thorized by the company's charter?" Produce a copy of the contract making this ex- 
 tension, together with copies of all resolutions and other records of the acts done by 
 both companies in relation thereto, and append them to your answer. 
 
 18. By whom and at whose expense, upon whose credit and responsibility, and with 
 whose capital was the road built and stocked which Oakes Ames agreed tii build and 
 stock? What were the pi-ofits thereupon ? IIow much did the contract price exceed 
 the actual cost of the construction and equipment '! To whom was the sui'plus paid ? 
 
 19. Is not the following a true and accurate statement of the dividends or allotments 
 made by the Credit Mobilier, or the trustees -Under the Ames contract, to and among 
 the stockholders of the Credit Jlobilier at the several times therein mentioned ? If 
 the statement be inaccurate in dates and amounts, state wherein and to what extent 
 such inaccuracy is found, and furnish a correct statement according to your knowledge 
 and the books of the company : 
 
 April 26, 1886, 100 per cent, in Union Pacific Railroad Company's stock. 
 
 April 1, 1867, 50 per cent. 1st mortg;ige bonds of Union Pacific Railroad Company. 
 
 July 1, 1867, 100 per cent. Union Pacific Railroad Company's stock. 
 
 January 4, 1868, 80 per cent. 1st mortgage bonds of Union Pacific Railroad Company. 
 
 Same day, 100 per cent. Union Pacific Railroad Company's stock. 
 
 June 17, 1868, 60 per cent, cash currency. 
 
 Same day, 40 per cent. Union Pacific Railroad Company's stock. 
 
 July 3, 186S, 75 per cent. Union Pacific Railroad Company's stock. 
 
 Same day, 75 per cent. 1st mortgage bonds of Union Pacific Railroad Company. 
 
 September 3, 1863, 100 per cent. Union Pacific Railroad Company's stock. 
 
 Same day, 75 iier cent. 1st mortgage bonds of Union Pacific Railroad Company. 
 
 December 19, 1868, 200 per cent. Union Pacific Railroad Company's stock. 
 
 20. Was there not also another dividend of 14 per cent, declared and made payable 
 either in gold or its equivalent in currency, or in Union Pacific Railroad Company's 
 stock at 30 per cent. ? Did not this purport to be for interest on the capital of the 
 company, at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum for the years 1867 and 1868 ? 
 
 21. State whether any other dividends or allotments have been made since December 
 19, 1868? Whether the profits of the company's business have accumulated in its 
 treasury since that time, and to what amount, and also whether its capital has been 
 lost or diminished, or expended in part or in whole ? 
 
 22. If the money, bonds, and stock referred to in the 19fch interrogatory, were actually 
 distributed to and among the stockholders of the Credit Mobilier, were they or were 
 they not paid to them as dividends upon their stock in said company ? If they were 
 not called and regarded as dividends, by what other right or upon what other ground 
 did the stockholders receive them 1 State also how it came to pass that the distribu- 
 tion was made only to stockholders of the Credit Mobilier, and to them always in exact 
 proportion to the shares they held in its stock. Say whether this was or was not a 
 mere accidental coincidence. If they were in fact dividends, but called or entered upon 
 the books or receipted for by another name, or if they were made to assume another 
 form, what was the object of giving to the transaction a false appearance ? 
 
 23. Were the shares in the Union Pacific Railroad Company's stock, which were 
 dividends allotted or given to the Credit Mobilier or its stockholders, regularly issued 
 by the said company and certified as fully paid up ? Were they, in fact, paid for by the 
 Credit Mobilier or its stockholders ? If yes, how much was paid for them ? If no, 
 what was the consideratioil for which they were given to the said last-mentioned com- 
 pany or its stockholders ? Did the Credit Mobilier, or the trustees under the Ames 
 contract, or the treasurer of either, give his or their check or draft to the Union Pacific 
 Railroad Company for the price or value of the said shares, and receive the check or 
 draft of the railroad company for the same amount, and thus pretend to be paying for 
 the stock, when in truth and in fact no payment whatever was made? If the last 
 question be answered in the aifirmative, state what was the object of the sham. 
 
 24. State whether Oakes Ames is a, member of the House of Representatives of the 
 United States, and how long he has had a, seat in that body. Are any other stock- 
 holders of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, or of the Credit Mobilier, members of 
 Congress, and who ? Were any of them members of Congress when the transactions 
 referred to in the preceding interrogatories took place, or when the charter of the 
 Union Pacific Railroad Company was passed, or when the said charter was amended 
 and changed? 
 
 25. State who were the holders of the " certain actual and valid shares of the stock 
 of said company," (to wit, the Credit Mobilier of America,) which are referred to in the 
 16th paragraph of the defendants' answer, and of which two hundred and fifty are 
 
52 CREDIT MOBILIKR 
 
 said in tlie same iiaragrapli to Lave been "dnlv Issued" by said company, and ''li'-W 
 by lawful owiiors thereof," before tlie 3d day of Maroli, lrfG6. Are the names ot said 
 holders on the list of stockholders made out 12th December, I'^ti", or on any other au- 
 thentic list of the stockholders of said compauy, or are the said names to be found any- 
 ■where in the books or records of said company 1 If yes, on what list, book, or other 
 record ? If the said shares were valid aud actual, duly issued by the company, and 
 held by lawful owners for several years before Oakes Ames became trustee thereof, what 
 was the object aud purpose of the company or its oflicers in falsifying Us records aud 
 lists 1 , , J. ii 
 
 26. Besides H. G. Fant, is there any stockholder named on any list or book ot the 
 oomiiany, whose name has disappeared from the more recent lists, and from the books 
 as lately made up, except in consequence of regular transfers? Did any lawful holder 
 of valid and actual shares duly issued by said company, ever transfer such shares to 
 Oakes Ames, or authorize them to be transferred to and held by him as trustee? If 
 yes, produce the proper documents or records which show the fact, and append copies 
 thereof to your answer. 
 
 27. Were not all the shares (three hundred and forty-three of them in number) 
 which are now or have been held by Oakes Ames, trustee, given, grauted, and issued 
 to him directly by the- said company, and registered in his name, on the mere motion 
 of the directors ; that is to say, without authority, direction, transfer, or power of 
 attorney, from any previous holder, real or pretended f Does or does not the registry 
 or grant of said shares to Oakes Ames purport on its face, or by any record of the 
 company, to be in pursuance of any transfer or direction of a previous holder or 
 holders ? 
 
 28. At the time when said shares were transferred and issued to Oakes Ames, had they 
 been paid for to the company by any person whatever, unless by the plaintiif or H. G. 
 Fant ? Did Oakes Ames himself pay for them at the time or before the time when they 
 were registered to him 1 If yes, how much ? 
 
 29. Were not the shares aforesaid given, granted and registered to Oakes Ames with- 
 out any consideration previously paid, but with an express understanding between him 
 and the board of directors that he should "place" them at Washington City according 
 to his discretion, to suit the interests of the compauy f Did he or did he not afterward 
 place them in the hands of several persons to the number of twenty-tive or more, by 
 agreeing to hold the title in his own name for the use of such persons? Did not the 
 persons for whom he agreed to hold the said shares in trust receive from the company, 
 either directly or through Oakes Ames, all the dividends which had accrued or been 
 declared before the placing of the shares as well as afterward ? What were the amounts 
 of the back dividends on the 8th and 20th of January, 1868 "? 
 
 30. Mention the persons with whom these shares were thus placed, or to whom they 
 were given, or for whom they are or have been held by Ames as trustee. State par- 
 ticularly tlie names of each beneficiary under said trust, the number of shares held or 
 placed for his use, the State in which he resides, the amount of dividends he received 
 along with the shares, and state at the same time how many of the said beneficiaries, 
 and which of them, are, or were at the time of such placing, members of Congress. 
 State also whether the company ever received from the said Oakes Ames or any other 
 person for said shares more than 100 jier cent. ; or whether Oakes Ames ever received 
 trora his cfstui que Irust anything beyond that amount in payment for said shares. 
 Was or was not this sum of one hundred dollars for each share paid out of the back 
 dividends ? Did not the back dividends at the time of the placing, as aforesaid, 
 amount to much more than one hundred dollars per share ? If yes, how much more 1 
 Were not the shares themselves and all the dividends beyond one hundred dollars per 
 share essentially and substantially a gift ? 
 
 31. Did not Oakes Ames, during the winter of 1867 and 1868, write from Washington 
 to one pr more officers and stockholders of the company, describing how he had placed 
 a portion of the stock which he held in trust, to what States of the Union he had dis- 
 tributed it, and how much he still held for distribution to others ? And did not the 
 said Oakes Ames afterward at the company's offlce in the city of New York exhibit to 
 the directors or some of them a: memorandum-book containing a list of names to whom 
 he had given or agreed to give shares of said stock ? Produce the said letters of Oakes 
 Ames, if you have them or copies thereof. Produce also the list of persons exhibited 
 by Oakes Ames ; produce all papers, records, or written documents showing the nature 
 and character of these transactions, and append coijies to your answer. 
 
 32. Did Charles H. Neilson receive thirty-two shares or more of the stock of the 
 Credit Mobilier ? Was not the same consideration paid for the said stock as was paid 
 for the three hundred and forty-three shares given to Oakes Ames as trustee ? Did not 
 said Neilson receive said stock for and on account of James Brooks, his father-iu-law, 
 then or since a Government director of the Union Pacific Railroad Compauy ? 
 
 33. When it was proposed among the directors of the company to give, grant, and 
 register the said two hundred and fifty shares to Oakes Ames as a trustee for such per- 
 son as he might himself designate, did not the plaintiff' x'rotest against such use of his 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 53 
 
 stock, and did he not then and there warn them that he was the owner of the two 
 hundred and fifty shares subscribed for by him on account of Fant ? And did not the 
 said directors or managers, and Oakes Ames, in effect, give the plantiflf a pledge that 
 no stock of his should be so used, and that his right to the stock he claimed should not 
 be affected by the said trust or by any act of said Ames, under or in pursuance of it ? 
 34. Produce the " dividend statement " referred to in paragraph 25 of the defendants' 
 answer, as made out on the l88th day of December, 1867, together with the receipts of 
 the plaintiff and other stockholders; produce also the several other writings referred 
 to in paragraph 26, and others alleged to have been subscribed by the plaintiff on the 
 4th of January, 17th of June, and 15th of July, 1868. If these papers be not in your 
 possession or within your power and control, describe them particularly, so that they 
 can be identified and produced by any person in whose custody they are. If you have 
 them, append copies thereof to your answer. 
 
 SAMUEL G. THOMPSON, 
 WILLIAM STRONG, 
 J. S. BLACK, 
 
 Pro Plff. 
 
 McCOMB i 
 
 VS. > S. C. January term, 18C8. No. 19. Equity. 
 
 The Credit Mobilier of Ajierica. ) 
 
 The answer of the-Credit Mobilier of America and others, defendants, uniting herein, 
 to the Interrogatories filed in this cause on the day of December, 1869. 
 
 We each answering positively as to all our own acts and doings, aud as to the acts 
 and doings of all other persons, to the best and utmost of our knowledge or informa- 
 tion and belief, do for answer as to so much of the said interrogatories as we are 
 advised we are inquired to answer, say : 
 
 To the first. The only entries inquired of are in the journal, under the dates of March 
 3, 1866, and June 29, 1866, and they were, we believe, made at those dates. We have 
 not the slightest reason to supect they were made at any other date. 
 
 " March 3, 1866 
 
 Cash $25,000 
 
 Dr. To capital stock |2.5,000 
 
 " For 250 shares, subscription of H. S. MeComb, for account H. F. Fant, Virginia, and 
 draft made on him this day for the amount. 
 
 "June 29, 1866 
 
 Cash 125,000 
 
 Dr. To cash .: $25,060 
 
 "For draft of H. S. MoComb, for account subscription of H. G. Fant, March, 3, 1866, 
 for 250 shares stock returned dishonored, and subscription canceled." 
 
 To the second. We never saw or heard of such a list, aud we, on information, believe 
 none such was ever made, and we know from the books of the company that no correct 
 list could have been made out with H. G. Fant's name ou it as a stockholder, as he 
 certainly never was such. Nor was he ever entitled to become such, saving in the 
 short interval between the subscription professed to be for his account and the return 
 of the draft for the price, which was dishonored, acceptance of it having been refused 
 by him. If such a list was ever made out with his name, and it was not done by 
 fraud or mistake, it oould only have been truly made in the expectation that he would 
 carry out the contract of subscription made in his name. On the contrary, he rejected 
 on the first opportunity by refusing to pay the price to the company, and the company 
 assented to this and canceled the contract. 
 
 To the third. We annex a list of the stockholders on the 12th day of December, 
 1867, and the number of shares they held. Oakes Ames did not hold any shares as 
 trustee on that day, but he did hold ninety-three shares as trustee ou the 1st day of 
 April, 1868, aud it was added to a list of the stockholders of the 12th day of December, 
 1867. 
 
 To the fourth. A list is annexed. Oakes Ariles does there appear as holding in trust 
 ninety-three shares and two hundred and fifty shares.' 
 
 To the fifth. We have no knowledge or information of any listomade outthe 3d day 
 of March, 1866, or about that time, nor of any list made out about the 20th day of 
 February, 1868. There was a list made out about the 12th day of December, 1867, 
 and delivered to the trustees of the Oakes Ames contract, of whom plaintiff was one, 
 to enable those to divide the profits agreeably to the terms of the contract, as herein- 
 after more particularly set forth. 
 
54 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 The books do exbibit a true state of the stock at tliose times subscribed for aud 
 taken, exceptiug certain shares set forth and exphiined iu answer to subsequent inter- 
 rogatories ; said lists were neither false nor deCL-ptive, nor intended to be so, so iar as 
 we can learn or have any reason to believe. . 
 
 To the Kixlh. The same persons were for the most part stockholders m the Union 
 Pacific Railroad and iu the Credit Mobilier of America— some persons who owned 
 stock in one company did not own any in the other, and the proportion in which the 
 two stocks were held by some differed' from those of others considerably. Some oi tee 
 most leading and active manasers in one company were not managers in the other 
 after May, 1867. Prior to that time, the more active men in either company were also 
 active managers in the other. We have no authentic list of the stockholders in the 
 Union Pacific Railroad at any time. The only lists that we know of that can be relied 
 on are in the books of the company, which is not a party, and which we would not be 
 allowed to copy if we were disposed to do so, for the purpose of answering this mter- 
 rogatory. j. x -ii 
 
 To the seventh. AVe have no knowledge, such as is inquired of, of the contract with 
 Hoxie referred to, except what is contained in documents of which copies are annexed. 
 Who Hoxie was, where he lived, his business, occupation, and employment at the date 
 of the contract, whether he was" a man of capital or able to meet the responsibilities of 
 the contract, we cannot say either from knowledge, information, or belief. 
 
 To the eighth. We believe he did make the agreement inquired of, and we annex a 
 copy. T. C. Durant was vice-president of the Union Pacific Railroad. 
 
 To the ninth. We have no other knowledge on the subject inquired of than is con- 
 tained in the paper, copies of which are annexed. 
 
 To the tenth. We believe that Hoxie never did anything under this, and that it was 
 afterward assigned or became the property of the Credit Mobilier. That company thus 
 becomes the contracting party, and executed the work under that contract. 
 
 To the eleventh. We cannot say, as we do not know, -what was the actual cost of the 
 road and telegraph from Omaha to the hundred-mile post, and have not materials in 
 ,our own possession to determine this by, nor do we know of our own knowledge that 
 any such report or estimate was made, though we deem it highly probable. We do not 
 think $26,000 per mile was an extravagant price, considering the nature and character 
 of the work and the risk that was run, but we are advised we are not bound to' make_ 
 an estimate such as is called for — it is a work none of us are competent to do, and' 
 would require an expensive outlay to employ an agent competent to do this ; and we 
 are further advised that there is no averment in the bill which shows that this is per- 
 tinent, or entitles the plaintilf to ask this discovery. 
 
 To the ttceJfth. We know nothing about th^ Boomer contract, except that such a con- 
 tract was understood to be made by the vice-president of the railroad company with- 
 out the knowledge of the company, and they never assented to it. As to the intent, 
 purpose, or object of, we know nothing, aud have no means of ascertaining. It was 
 never carried out by said Boomer, in wliole or in part, and he never was called upon to . 
 perform it, nor was any attempt ever made by the company to compel its performance. 
 To the thirteenth. There was a contract intended to be made with one "Williams, and 
 we believe it was of the character stated in the interrogatory, and we think that no 
 work was done under it ; but in consequence of disagreement among the parties in in- 
 terest or other causes, it was abandoned, as we believe, before being completed and 
 delivered. The object was to have a part of the road built under it. 
 
 To the fourteenth. We have already stated, as far as we know or believe, the facts in 
 relation to all of the suiiposed contracts. The contract with Hoxie we believe was 
 originally made with T. C. Durant, for the benefit, use, and behoof of the parties who 
 associated and organized under the name of the Credit Mobilier of America, but it was 
 a long time after said contract was made before it was assigned to the Credit Mobilier, 
 and no other contract was ever assigned to that corporation ; when the Oakes Ames 
 contract was made all possible claims under previous supposed contracts of every de- 
 scription were assumed by him with an agreement to indemnify the company therefor, 
 and upon the assignment of the Ames contract to the trustees, it was agreed with the 
 Credit Mobilier that all profits arising from the construction of the road on the first 
 hundred miles west of the hundredth meridian up to the 1st of January, 1867, should 
 be received by them in final adjustment of their claims and expectations, and the same 
 was accordingly paid them. 
 
 To the fifteenth. There was a contract made with Oakes Ames, by the Union Pacific 
 Railroad Company, for the construction of nine hundred and sixty-seVen miles of the 
 road, west of the hundredth meridian. , It was not antedated, but was dated and de- 
 livered on the 16th day of August, and was then in Mr. Ames's possession. Some new 
 and additional but entirely unnecessary approvals thereof were made on the 16th day 
 of October, 1867 ; but the contract between the directors and offtcers and Ames was 
 made and executed on the 16th day of August. All prior, possible, previous contracts 
 of every description were assumed by Mr. Ames, as before stated. From that time Mr. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 55 
 
 Ames, and the persons associated with him in the undertaking, were the contractors- 
 he the formal party, they, associated with him, though without any written arrange- 
 ment, but relying on his undertaking to act for theta, whicli he fally carried out to the 
 end of the business. 
 
 A copy is annexed which shows what price and compensation the railroad company 
 was to pay and did pay. 
 
 To the sixteenth. This contract was not assigned to trustees till the 16th day of Octo- 
 ber, 1867, for this reason : 'when the Ames contract was being negotiated, it was desired 
 by many of .those who were associated with hira, and to be interested therein, all of 
 whom were stockholders in the Union Pacific Railway, that after he got the contract 
 he should assign it to the Credit Jlobilier, and for this reason the parties who were to 
 be associated with him had taken stock in the Credit Mobilier, with the design that 
 this corporation should be the contractor for building the Union Pacific Railroad, and 
 they desired this that they might secure themselves from personal liability as con- 
 tractors beyond the capital they had subscribed tothat corporajtion, and their respective 
 .shares in that contract were in the proportions they owned stock in the Credit Mobilier. 
 But in May, 1867, the directors and otBcers of the Credit Mobilier were changed. This 
 led to hostile feelings, and there were men who had large interest in the Ames con- 
 tract and great influence in the Union Pacific Railroad who refused to acquiesce in 
 the assignment of the contract for building the road to the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 After long-continued and most earnest negotiation a result was arrived at, to which 
 all consented. The contract was assigned to trustees ; the profits were to be divided 
 among the same persons and in the same ratio as they would have been if the Credit 
 Mobilier had been substituted for Ames. That company agreed to supply or proonre 
 the funds the trustees required in executing the contract, and was to receive interest. 
 And they were also to guarantee the performance by the trustees and receive for this a 
 commission. When this wa? settled a contract to that eft'ect was executed, assigning 
 the Ames contract to the trustees. A copy is annexed. 
 
 The names of the trustees appear in that paper ; they were at first all stockholders 
 in the Credit Mobilier ; but one of these (Mr. Alley) retired, and in his place Mr. Duif 
 was appointed, who was not and had not been a stockholder for a long time. 
 
 To the seventeenth. There was, as the document shows, an option given by Mr. Ames 
 to extend the contract to the rest of this road, but it was not extended to the rest of 
 the road. We know of no resolution or other record of acta done by either company 
 in relation to the extension of the Ames contract. 
 
 To the eighteenth. So much of the road as Oakes Ames agreed to build and stock was 
 built and stocked at the expense and upon the credit and responsibility and with the 
 capital of the trustees and the persons for whom they were trustees ; and also, with all 
 the resources of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and the aid given them by the 
 United States, in loaning bonds secured on the road and the land-warrants. 
 
 The accounts of the expenditures connected with Ihe construction are not so far 
 closed as to enable us to state the cost of the construction and equipments. It can be 
 stated as quite certain, however, that the profits will not exceed 1.5 per cent, of the 
 price of the contract; many of us do not believe they will exceed 10 per cent. It 
 depends on what can be realized on bonds and stock of the Union Pacific Railroad. 
 The contract price was paid to the trustees as stated in the answer to the nineteenth 
 interrogatory, and was by them applied as agreed ; a part being divided among their 
 cestuis que trust, as stated in that answer." 
 
 To ihe nineteenth. The statement annexed to this interrogatory is incorrect. The first 
 three items were, either at the dates mentioned or about those dates, received by the 
 Credit Mobilier in payment of debts due them by the Union Pacific Railroad, as con- 
 tractor under the Hoxie contract. The stock of the company was sold and the cash 
 went into the ordinary business ; none of it was divided among its stockholders, nor 
 could they have done so without impairing the capital. The bonds were used to pay 
 premiums to persons who would subscribe additional cash capital. It was found to be 
 absolutely necessary to have more capital, and no one would subscribe ; to induce per- 
 sons to do so a premium was offered and paid in these bonds. Even with this induce- 
 ment there was difiScnlty in getting the subscriptions, and some stockholders refused 
 to put in any more. None were used to pay dividends. 
 
 The next four items, under dates of January 4, 1868, and June 17, 1368, were never 
 divided by or for the Credit Mobilier directly or indirectly. This stock and these bonds 
 were paid to and held by the trustees under the Ames contract, and were by them dis- 
 tributed among the persons parties to the assignment who complied with the condi- 
 tions of the assignment and trust, with an agreement, on their part, to restore the same, 
 or the proceeds ^jro ratu, if necessary to complete the contract — a contract which had not 
 only never belonged to that company, but which the parties refused to allow that com- 
 pany to own or take, even as a trustee or agent, and the transfer of which to or for the 
 use of the company was enjoined. They belonged, as did the contract out of which 
 they arose, to their trustees and their cestuis que trust; the persoils who, as individ- 
 uals, were associated with Oakes Ames when he made the contract. The trustees who 
 
56 CEEDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 received and divided them -vrere not trustees for the corporation, nor was the propertjr 
 or the profits thereof the corporation's nor had that company ever had any other con- 
 nection with or relation to the Ames contract, and the profits derived from it, except 
 the duty and the rights defined hy the contract of the 16th day of October, 1867. That 
 was the origin and definition of the right of the company, it'is true, and this may have 
 misled persons vs'ho have not taken tSe trouble to examine; the persons who received 
 the profits from the trustees are described as stockholders in the Credit Mobilier, but 
 they did not receive them from the company directly or indirectly, nor from prop- 
 erty of the company, but from property that had been their own before the contract of 
 the 16th day of October, 1867, was made, nor had the corporation ever at any time any 
 right or power to control or direct the payment of these profits. In no possible sense 
 were these dividends of the company. As to the last five items, under dates of July 3, 
 September 3, and December 19, 1868, the same were allotted or distributed at or about 
 those dates except the two items of September 3, which are mistakes, to the persons 
 who became parties to theindenture of the trust and assignment of the Ames contrjtct, 
 and complied with the conditions thereof, and in that character, and not as stockhold- 
 ers in the Credit Mobilier. It should, perhaps, be added, that in July, 1868, the trus- 
 tees demanded an advance of the Credit Mobilier, as stipulated to he made by the agree- 
 ment of the 16th day of October, 1867. That company was without means to perform 
 their engagement, and without credit to obtain means, owing to litigation about their 
 right to claim to be a corporation, andotber.questions which destroyed confidence. In 
 consequence of this, the contract was rescinde d, and the Credit Mobilier withdrew 
 from all connection with the Ames contract. 
 
 September 3 is a mistake ; there was, in fact, no dividend at that time. The value 
 of tl^ese allotments was very much less than the nominal price attached to them. 
 
 To the iwentieth. There was no such dividend or anything of the kind as that inquired 
 of. The whole truth, as respects the subject referred to in this interrogatory, is this : ' 
 In 1867 there was a settlement between the Union Pacific Railroad, through the trus- 
 tees, under the Oakes Ames contract, in respect of the work done by the Credit Mobilier 
 before the Ames contract took effect, and there was paid' them on account thereof cer- 
 tain stock, which was sold, and the proceeds divided, making a dividend of 6 per 
 cont. for 1866 and 6 per cent, for 1867 ; and there was no other dividend made by the 
 company or for it, or out of its property, directly or indirectly, during those years. 
 
 To the twenty-first. No other dividends were made by the company except the divi- 
 dend for 1866 and 1867, of 6 per cent, each, unless it be that an equalization of inter- 
 est on new subscriptions can be so treated. If this is the legal effect of that act no 
 one suspected it at that time, and in this the plaintiff participated. 
 
 There have been no profits on the business since August, 1867, for the siniple reason 
 the company did none. Its functions were gone by the refusal to let it take the Ames 
 contract. Its capital is locked up in the obligations and property taken when execut- 
 ing the Hoxie contract and the work prior to the Ames contract. Its capital is cer- 
 tainly diminished; hut to what extent will depend on what it can realize out of these 
 assets. 
 
 To the twenty-seeond. The money, bonds, and stock referred to were allotted and distri- 
 buted to and among the persons parties to the assignment in trust of the Ames contract, 
 upon their compliance with the terms of the trust, as hereinbefore stated. They were 
 not paid to them in the character of stockholders of the Credit Mobilier, but of that 
 trust, although their proportions of profit were to be determined by the amounts of 
 stock respectively held by them in the Credit Mobilier at the time of the creation of 
 the trust. The reason that such distribution was made only to parties who were stock- 
 holders in the Credit Mobilier and in the proportion which they held in the stock of 
 that corporation, was that it was originally expected by many of the parties that the 
 Ames contract would be assigned to the Credit Mobilier, and all the parties to said 
 trust and assignment were holders of stock in that corporation. When it was found 
 that there was not a concurrence in the desirableness of transferring the contract to 
 the Credit Mobilier, and the differences of opinion were reconciled by assignment of 
 the Ames contract to the trustees, as before stated, then the relative number of shares 
 of each, in the Credit Mobilier, was assumed as the basis of the respective interests of 
 the parties. We are aware of nothing in any of the books that gives or is intended to 
 give a false appearance to the transaction. 
 
 To the twenty-third. The shares of stock in the Union Pacific Railroad, which were 
 received by the Credit Mobilier up to the date of the Ames contract, and those received 
 by the trustees of that cbntract afterward, were fully paid, and by the parties receiv- 
 ing them, in this manner : That company and the said trustees were successively con- 
 tractors to build the road as already stated, and by the contract they were obliged to- 
 receive the stock in payment of part of the sums due under their respective contracts. 
 Thus, theUnion Pacific Railroad, instead of paying one hundred dollars to the contract- 
 ors, delivered them a share of stock, the face of which was one hundred dollars and 
 extinguished a debt of that amount by receiving this in satisfaction as a payment to 
 their capital. It is believed the form generally observed was to exchange checks. It 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 57 
 
 is believed no one having any conception of what constitutes reality -will suggest there 
 is anything looking like a sham in this. Probably no corporation whose stock is not 
 above par but would gladly receive subscription to capital on the same terras. 
 
 To the twonly-fiftli. The stock referred to was held in the name of Thomas C. Durant, 
 who was the president of Ihe corporation until the change of directors in May, 1867, 
 and he alleged he held it for persons who had agreed to take it, but who had not paid 
 in their subscriptions. The managers finding this was held without capital having 
 been paid in, on inquiry were informed it was held for persons who had agreed to buy 
 it, but had not yet paid in the price. They therefore required it to be transferred to 
 the then president, S. Dillon, and so it stood in the name of Mr. Dillon until the time 
 that the stock was transferred to Oakes Ames, as stated in their answers. The stock 
 was issued and the capital paid in and received by the company. It was stated — and 
 the company acted on this — that there were engagements to take this stock and that it 
 was transferred in fulfillment of these engagements. Those who had engaged with 
 Durant to take the stock had it transferred to him ; and those who had engaged with 
 Oakes Ames to take it had it transferred to him ; or rather it was settled for and trans- 
 ferred by the company to those two, on the allegation of these gentlemen that they 
 had made these engagements. Throughout the company dealt on the footing that 
 this stock was held to meet these engagements. None of this stock had ever beeu 
 bought by Fant or subscribed for by him, or for him, and if he had complied and taken 
 shares it would have been other shares, which he would have received, that is, shares 
 unallotted ; and those were ultimately and after his failure to comply with his sub- 
 scription subscribed for and taken by others. 
 
 To the twenty-sixth. No stockholder named on any list or book of the company that 
 any of us have any knowledge of have had their names withdrawn or dropped. Nor 
 have they disappeared from said lists or books except by transfers in the ordinary 
 manner, so far as we know or believe. Fant was no exception to this. He never did 
 become a stockholder, the plaintiff professed to have authority to subscribe for him, 
 and to draw on him for the subscription price, but Mr. Fant refused to honor the draft, 
 and the company acquiesced in his disavowal of the coutract, and, as already stated, 
 canceled the subscription. 
 
 We have already stated all that relates to the transfer of the shares to Oakes Ames 
 as trustee. Durant was the actual holder for undeclared purchasers. He transferred 
 them for.Dillon, the president, and he by the direction of all parties, including the 
 plaintiff himself, transferred them to ' Ames as trustee. The authorization signed by 
 the plaintiff we append a copy of, as follows : 
 
 "We, the undersigned stockholders of the Credit Mobilier of America, understand- 
 ing that $65,000 of the capital stock of this company, held in trust by the president, 
 has been promised certain parties by T. C. Durant and Oakes Ames, do hereby consent 
 to and advise the transfer of said stock to such parties as they, the said Durant and 
 Ames, have agreed upon and designate, say to Durant parties, $37,000, and Ames par- 
 ties, 128,000. 
 
 (Signed) "JOHN DUFF. 
 
 " THOS. C. DURANT. 
 
 "S. BAEDWELL. 
 
 " OAKES AMES. 
 
 " OLIVER AMES. 
 
 "JOHN B. ALLEY. 
 
 " C. S. BUSHNELL. 
 
 " SIDNEY DILLON. 
 
 " H. S. McCOMB." 
 
 "The undersigned, stockholders in the Credit Mobilier of America, recommend the 
 issue to Hon. Oakes Ames, trustee, of ninety-three (93) shares of the capital stock of 
 this' company at par. 
 . (Signed) 
 
 "T. C. DURANT. 
 
 " C. S. BUSHNELL. 
 
 " OAKES AMES. 
 
 " OLIVER AMES. 
 
 " C. A. LOMBARD. 
 
 "S. HOOPER &. CO. 
 
 "S. BARDWELL. 
 
 "JOHN DUFF. 
 
 " WM. H. MACY." 
 
 There were no other documents or records connected with this than the ordinary 
 transfer on the books. 
 
 To the twenty- seventh. We have already answered this interrogatory as fully as possible, 
 saying that the ninety-three shares, being a portion of the additional capital due on the 
 
58 CREDIT mobilip:r. 
 
 two hundred and iifty shares, were issued (on the request of the stockholders, including 
 the plaintiff) to the holder of the said two hundred and fifty shares as already stated. 
 
 To the twenttj-eif/hfli. At the time when these shares were issued to Oakes Ames as 
 trustee, he piiid the company' the par value for them in mopey. And exactly as much 
 was paid, and in the same manner, as was paid for any other shares; and this payment 
 was made in good faith ; it was not paid out of money received from the company, nor 
 from profits or dividends accrued ; no such profits or dividends were ever paid to the 
 holders of two hundred and fifty of those shares, nor on account of these shares \intil 
 long after this payment of the subscription and issue of the stock. Mr. Ames received 
 no share of profits or dividend on those two hundred and fifty shares until the 17th 
 day of June, 1868, when the dividend then made by the trustees was paid to him. 
 The dividends of December, 1887, and January, 1868, were paid him on the ninety- 
 three shares, on the 8th day of April, he having paid for the shares on the 1st day of 
 April. 
 
 To the thirtieth. Mr. Ames has not communicated to the company, and we have no 
 knowledge who the parties were that proposed to purchase the shares of him or in his 
 name. The company received |100 per share in caph for the stock, from Oakes Ames 
 as from every one else._ That amonnt Mr. Ames paid for the stock, and where he got 
 the money we are unable to say, but certainly not out of profits received on these 
 shares. He signed the obligations and agreements required by the trustees as 
 " trustee." 
 
 We do not know and have no information what Mr. Ames received, if anything, from 
 his cestiiis que triii^t. The $100 paid the company certainly was not paid out of back 
 dividends, as none such were paid except, as already stated, as to ninety-three shares. 
 The receipt-book of the trustees shows that no dividends were paid on these two hun- 
 dred and fifty shares until the 17th day of June, 1868, to Mr. Ames. 
 
 The back dividends did not, at the time Mr. Ames got and paid for the stock,, amount 
 to anything except as to the ninety-three shares, and these shares were not a gift or 
 anything like it ; but a sale at par in pursuance of old and existing contracts which it 
 was believed the parties were entitled to have fulfilled, and no one pretended or sup- 
 posed it was anything else, so far as we know. 
 
 To the thirtji-third. When the proposal was made to make the two hundred and fifty 
 and the ninety-three shares in the name of Oakes Ames, it was verbally agreed to by all 
 parties, including the plaintiff, although known to be all the remaining stock of the 
 company. The plaintiff at this time not only assented to and advised this transfer to 
 Oakes Ames, but did not mention that he had any claim to any stock on account of 
 any such Fant subscription, nor was any officer of the company at that period, nor 
 until some time afterward, aware that any such claim or pretended claim or subscrip- 
 tion ever existed. But subsequently one of the officers of the company refused to act 
 in this matter on a verbal agreement, having had some disputes with the plaintiff when 
 the written agreement (incorporated in the answer to the twenty-sixth interrogatory) 
 was prepared and the plaintiff asked to sign it ; he did not then pretend that he had 
 any right, through Fant or otherwise, to this specific stock, though he knew these were 
 the only shares remaining to be issued ; but he said the president had not treated him 
 properly when he informed him the first time, a few days before, of his claim, and had 
 told him his claim was all bogus ; and he would not even listen to him, and if treated 
 in this manner he would grant no favors and sign no papers. When asked what he 
 wanted, he stated he only wanted a fair hearing ; and one of these defendants then 
 stated he would undertake that he should be fairly heard, if he had any claim, if that 
 was all, and the plaintiff then signed the paper by which all the stock' not previously 
 paid for and issued was handed over to Oakes Ames upon the agreement above stated, 
 and afterward he, the plaintiff, joined in receiving the profits under the Ames con- 
 tract, and signed the receipts to the trustees, in which very document the profits were 
 allotted to Ames on these shares, and were received by him. In all these transactions 
 he never protested against this use of the stock, never pretended it was his, and gave 
 no warning or authority of the kind ; and it is obvious that such conduct would have 
 been absurd and contradictory, to have authorized stock to be transferred to strangers 
 and yet protest and claim this same stock as his own ; all that he did was to demand a 
 hearing on his claim. From what we Ijad heard and knew of it, we all regarded his 
 claim as without a pretense of foundation, but were willing to listen to him if he 
 wished to be heard, at least some of us ; others were impatient at what they deemed a 
 gross imposition attempted. No pledge was given, or anything said that he could tor- 
 ture into a pledge, that this stock should not be given to others, or that his rights to 
 this stock should be regarded, for he never pretended any, and the only object of the 
 whole business was to give authority to hand it over to Oakes Ames for others who 
 were purchasers thereof. His claim was to a right to be considered in consequence of 
 this Fant subscription. Certainly, however, he never pretended to a right to the stock 
 he thus asked the company to issue to another. 
 
 To the thirty-fourth. We cannot annex a copy of the dividend statement made out as 
 of the 28th day of December, 1867, as it has been mislaid ; but we annex copies of the 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 59' 
 
 receipts signed by the plaintiff aBd all other stockholders. These were declared and 
 paid by the corporation. We have obtained, and annex, the receipts of the dividends 
 made by the trustees of the Ames contract on the 4th day of January, 1868, June 3 and 
 July 3, and signed by the pjaintifif on the days stated, opposite his signature. 
 
 SIDNEY DILLON. 
 
 JOHN M. S, WILLIAMS. 
 
 JOHN B. ALLEY. 
 
 JOHN DUFF. 
 
 C. S. BUSHNELL. 
 
 E. 6. HAZARD. 
 Witness : E. H. Rollins. 
 
 State of Massachusetts, County of Suffolk, City of Boston, ss : 
 
 The foregoing instrument, subscribed and sworn to by Sidney Dillon, John M. S. 
 Williams, John B. Alley, John Duff, and C. S. Bushnell, and subscribed and affirmed 
 to by R. G. Hazard, at the city of Boston, this 10th day of February, A. D. 1870, before 
 me. 
 
 [SEAL.] A. W. ADAMS, 
 
 Commissioner for Peivnsytvania. 
 
 Before me, the subscriber, a notary public in and for the city of Washington, in the 
 District "of Columbia, personally appeared Oakes Ames, who, being duly sworn, says 
 the facts set forth in the foregoing answers (excluding the answer to the thirtieth in- 
 terrogatory, which this deponent has answered separately) are true. 
 
 OAKES AMES. 
 
 Sworn and subscribed before me this 14th day of February, A. D. 1870. 
 [SEAL.] N. CALL AN, 
 
 * Notary Piiblic and Commissioner- for State of Pennsylvania. 
 
 J^ist of December 12, 1867. 
 
 Names. 
 
 Stock. 
 
 Names. 
 
 Stock. 
 
 
 15 
 
 4,915 
 
 175 
 
 20 
 
 775 
 
 400 
 
 1, 005 
 625 
 620 
 
 1,690 
 412 
 
 4,680 
 410 
 300 
 
 1,620 
 380 
 750 
 500 
 250 
 290 
 380 
 750 
 185 
 945 
 380 
 
 1,955 
 622 
 623 
 750 
 137 
 50 
 
 
 750 
 
 Thomas C. Durant 
 
 Barton H. Jenks 
 
 500 
 100 
 
 L. Eugene French 
 
 Charles A. Lombard 
 
 Sidney Dillon, president 
 
 Sidney Dillon. 
 
 J. B. Pigot , 
 
 Harvey Sanford 
 
 Henry Trowbridge 
 
 Ezekiel H. Trowbrido^e 
 
 200 
 125 
 
 75 
 50 
 
 William T. Glidden 
 
 W. V. Day, cashier, in trust 
 
 Royal E. Robbius 
 
 100 
 
 G. M. S. Williams 
 
 K. G. Hazard 
 
 200 
 100 
 
 Oliver S. Chapman.., ... 
 
 Frank W. Andrew 
 
 100 
 
 Oliver Ames 
 
 S. H. Fessenden 
 
 50 
 
 C. S. Bushnell. 
 
 Nathan Peck 
 
 Pupont P. Foske 
 
 Elizabeth Hazard 
 
 Elizabeth Hazard, jr 
 
 100 
 
 William H. Macy 
 
 50 
 
 J. H. Scranton 
 
 34 
 
 R. GrisTvold Gray. 
 
 13 
 
 Joseph Nickerson 
 
 Ben j amin HoUiday 
 
 20 
 
 Mary P. Hazard 
 
 Lydia Torrey 
 
 10 
 
 Benjamin E. Bates 
 
 11 
 
 Frederick Nickerson 
 
 Anna Horner. . - 
 
 1 
 
 John B. Alley 
 
 Sophia Vernon 
 
 Henry Hotchkiss 
 
 William B. Bristol 
 
 Sylvester M. Beard 
 
 Ely Beard 
 
 Gamaliel Bradford 
 
 1 
 
 
 150 
 
 Samuel Hooper & Co 
 
 50 
 
 
 100 
 
 
 100 
 
 David tJones .-... .-- 
 
 100 
 
 Oakes Ames 
 
 Le Grand Lockwood 
 
 John R.Duff 
 
 Samuel S. Dana 
 
 John M. Da vies 
 
 Robert G. S. McNeil 
 
 E. C. Moore : 
 
 500 
 
 Klisha Atkins . .. ... 
 
 1,880 
 
 T^jzra H Baker .. .. . 
 
 100 
 
 H .7 McOomb 
 
 500 
 
 
 5 
 
 Ezra H. Baker, jr 
 
 10 
 
60 
 
 CREDIT MOBILIEE 
 List of December 12, 1867 — Continuecl. 
 
 Names. 
 
 Stock. 
 
 Names. 
 
 stock. 
 
 PanlPohl 
 
 6 
 380 
 150 
 712 
 710 
 300 
 
 80 
 
 5 
 
 128 
 
 150 
 
 300 
 
 80 
 
 
 405 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 Thomas Niekerson 
 
 Isaac Thaoher 
 
 James B. Johnston ..._.. ._--.. .. 
 
 92 
 
 George Opdyke 
 
 200 
 
 Josiah Bardwell , 
 
 B. M. Bover . ... . 
 
 75 
 
 Josiah Bard well, ir 
 
 
 100 
 
 C. C. Waite 
 
 Josiali Hedlea 
 
 100 
 
 B. D. Stewart 
 
 F. Skiuuer & Co 
 
 500 
 
 H. C. Crane . . 
 
 H. C. Crane, trustee 
 
 60 
 
 E. W. Gilmore 
 
 Charles H. Neilson 
 
 Oakes Ames, trustee . . . ... 
 
 50 
 
 Rowland Hazard 
 
 93 
 
 John L. King 
 
 
 
 
 
 HOXIE CONTRACT. 
 
 New York, Augtist 8, 1864. 
 To the Pj-esident and Committee on Contracts of the Union Pacific Railroad Company : 
 
 Gentlemen: I propose to enter into a contract to build and equip one hundred 
 miles of yonr railroad and telegraph, commencing at Omaha City, complying, as far as 
 practicable, to the general specifications hereunto annexed, upon the following terrps 
 and conditions, viz: 
 
 _ To proceed at once with the grading and bridging, and complete the same within the 
 time required by the acts of Congress specified, and in suoh manner as will comply 
 with the same; to assume all your contracts for ties, iron, and equipment — the com- 
 pany reserving the right, if they elect, to dispose of what iron they have, with the 
 exception of, say, five hundred tons, which may be required to facilitate the grading, 
 and also to dispose of the equipment not needed this season, except three locomotives 
 and ten platforni cars ; but, in case they elect to do so,. shall give me written notice of 
 their intention prior to the 1st day of October next. 
 
 To build all necessary side-track not exceeding 6 per cent, in length of the main 
 line, the contractor to have theright to change grades, provided the maximum grade 
 shall not exceed that of the New York Central Railroad. Also to have the right to 
 enter upon all lands belonging to said company for the purpose of obtainino- material 
 used in the construction of the road. ° 
 
 Should the company decide to Burnetize the Cottonwood used for ties, they shall pay 
 in addition sixteen cents for each tie, and for all other timber in like proportion. 
 
 The contractor shall not be required to expend in the construction of any onebridge 
 over eighty-five thousand dollars, nor shall he be required to expend for the erection 
 of station-buildings, machinery, machine shops, tanks, equipments, &c., more than five 
 thousand dollars per mile, or five hundred thousand dollars in the ao-gregate but the 
 same shall be expended as directed by the engineer. The contractor" to have' the use 
 of the road until the contract is completed. The work on the sections near Omaha 
 which have been let by the company, or which have been commenced, to be continued 
 by them or transferred to me, as may be agreed upon hereafter, and the cost of the 
 same to be charged to me in final settlement. Any excess in the cost of iron above one 
 hundred and thirty dollars per ton at Omaha to be allowed by the company Right of 
 way to be furnished by the company. The expense of engineers enga<»ed in the con- 
 «*'^"5^°" *o ^e l^^;*^,?y ^^J' contractor. The company to pay for the same at the rate 
 ot hlty thousand dollars for each and every mile so completed. Payments to be made' 
 as the work progresses, upon the estimate of the engineers, in making which the en- 
 gineer shall deduct from each section its proportion of the cost of equipment not then 
 turnished, station-buildings, superstructure, and cost of telegraph ; but all material 
 delivered or in transit for the account of the company may be estimated for. The con- 
 tractor to furnish money upon the securities of the company, as hereinafter provided 
 lor, in the construction of each section of the length required by the acts of Cono-ress 
 herembetore referred to, viz : v^^u^ioos. 
 
 The company shall proceed to mortgage the land acquired from the Government at 
 not more than sixteen thousand dollars per mile, bearing 7 per cent interest nav- 
 able semi-annually in the city of New Yoi^k, which bonds shall be receivable as^the 
 bonds of the company, at such prices as may be fixed upon from time to time as the 
 cash price of the lands. The company to proceed to the preparing of the first-mortgage 
 bonds, as provided foi' under the act, made and put on record, the mortgage secunng 
 the same, so- that the bonds may be ready for issue as soon as the provision! of the law 
 are complied with; and shall do everything necessary and requisite to obtain the 
 Government bonds at an early day. In the mean time, if required, the comnanv to 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 61 
 
 execute certificates of an amount to correspond to tbe first-mortgage and Government 
 bonds, changeable for the same upon the company's obtaining the United States bonds. 
 Said certificates to bear interest, payable semi-annually, at the rate of 6 per cent. 
 On these certificates I will advance, or procure to be advanced, the necessary funds to 
 the company at the rate of 80 per cent, of their par value, and on the land-grant 
 bonds, 70 per cent., reserving the right to dispose of them wlieuever the -amount 
 so advanced, including what maybe due on construction, shall exceed five hundred 
 thousand dollars, or whenever said advance shallhave been made over five months, but 
 not to do so for less than the prices above named. The company, in their option, to 
 decide whether I take the bonds or any portion of them at the pi-ices above named, in 
 payment for advances and interest, if called upon to do so within thirty days thereafter. 
 I will also subscribe or cause to be subscribed to the capital stock of your company 
 five hundred thousand dollars. I will assume and pay such obligations or accounts 
 as may have been certified to by the committee appointed by your board or executive 
 committee for services and expenses, the company paying me the amount of the obliga- 
 tion so certified to and assumed. In making this proposition it may be well to state 
 that I am connected with and agent for parties who have machines, oxen, and necessary 
 outfit for prosecuting the work, and am prepared to commence at once, having sent 
 cattle and tools, to Nebraska. 
 
 H. M. HOXIE, 
 By H. C. CRANE, 
 
 Attorney. 
 H. M. HoXLE, Esq : 
 
 Dear Sir : You will please go on with the work under the above proposition, and if 
 the company do not accept it before the first day of October next, they will pay you 
 upou the same terms and conditions for what work may be done, as shown by the 
 estimates of the engineers, made as provided in this proposition, first giving you thirty 
 days' notice that they do not accept. 
 
 , GEORGE T. M. DAVIS, 
 
 • Special Commttiee. 
 
 September 23, 1864. 
 
 Above contract is approved and ratified. 
 
 [SEAL.] • JOHN A. DIX, . 
 
 C. S. BUSHNELL, 
 GEO. T. M. DAVIS, 
 Special Committee ap2>ointed-for this purpose May 12, 1864. 
 
 New York, October 4, 1864. 
 To the PresiAent and Executive Committee of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company : 
 
 On condition that your company will extend my contract from its present length for 
 one hundred mUes, so as to embrace all that portion of the road between Omaha and 
 the one hundredth meridian of longitude, I will subscribe, or cause to be subscribed, 
 for five hundred thousand dollars of the stock, of your company. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 H. M. HOXIE, 
 By H. C. CRANE, 
 
 Attorney. 
 
 The above proposition is hereby accepted for and on behalf of the Union Pacific 
 Railroad Company. 
 
 JOHN A. DIX, 
 C. S. BUSHNELL, 
 GEO. T. M. DAVIS, 
 
 Special Committee. 
 October 4, 1S64. 
 
 TRANSFER OF THE HOXIE CONTRACT. 
 
 Whereas the Union Pacific Railroad Company have made a contract with H. M. 
 Hoxie, for the construction of one hundred miles of their railroad and telegraph, a 
 copy of which is hereto annexed : 
 
 Now, therefore, this agreement between the said H. M. Hoxie, for himself, and as 
 agent, party of the first part, and Thomas Durant, party of the second part, wituesseth : 
 The said Hoxie, for and in consideration of one dollar to him in hand paid, the receipt 
 
62 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 of which is herebv acknowleflged, hereby agrees to make over and assign to said Du- 
 rant, or any party or parties he may direct, who will furnish the necessary funds to 
 complete the sani'e, all the unfinished portion of the aboye-mentioued contract, and all 
 rights under the same, at auy time when called upon by the said Durant, or bis Heirs 
 or assigns, so to do, upon the payment according to the contract for all work done ana 
 materials on hand, said party of the first part to have five days' notice m writing, 
 at Omaha, of the intention of the party of the second part to take a transfer ol tbe 
 
 The engineers shall proceed at once to adjust the accounts and make up the estimate 
 of settlement for the work done according to the contract, which shall be completed 
 as soon as practicable, but the party of the second part is to become responsible lor all 
 labor or demands of every kind or description pertaining to the contract alter the ex- 
 piration of thfi dve days' notice; and from that time the party of the first part shall 
 not be liable for any work done or material furnished. The party of the second part 
 also to take at cost the oxen, shovels, picks, tents, and shanties on hand at the time 
 they take possession of the work, and also to pay the party ot the first part ten thou- 
 sand dollars in the stock of the company, and five thousand dollars m cash ; m con- 
 sideration of wliich the said party of the first part shall, if required, take general 
 supervision of the work until the expiration of one year from the 1st day ol August 
 last 
 
 In witness whereof the iiarties have hereunto set their hands this 13th day of Sep- 
 tember, lo64. TTnYTW 
 CSi'^ned') H. M. HOXIE, 
 (Signed By H. C. CRANE, 
 ^~ " Attorney. 
 
 THOS. C. DURANT. 
 
 [5-i_ent stamp.] 
 
 Agreement made this sixteenth day of August, 1887, between the Union Pacific Rail- 
 road Company, party of the first part, and Oakes Ames, party of the second part, wit- 
 nesseth : that the party of the first part and Oakes Ames, party of the second part, wit- 
 nesseth : That the party of the first part agrees to let and contract, and the party of the 
 second part agrees to contract as follows, to wit : 
 
 First. The" party of the second part agrees .and hinds himself, his heirs, executors, ad- 
 ministrators, and assigns, to build and equip the following-named portion of the rail- 
 road and telegraph line of the party of thefirst part, commencing at the one hundredth 
 meridian of longitude, upon the following terms and conditions, to wit : 
 
 1st, 100 miles at and for the rate of l|4-^000 per mile. 
 
 2d, 167 miles at and for the rate of $45,000 per mile. 
 
 ad, 100 miles at and for the rate of $96,000 per mile. 
 
 4th, 100 miles at aud for the rate of $80,000 per mile. 
 
 5th, 100 miles at and for the rate of $90,000 per mile. 
 
 6th, 100 miles at aud for the rate of $98,000 per mile. 
 
 607 miles. 
 
 Second. At least three hundred aud fifty miles shall be, if possible, completed and 
 ready for acceptance before the first day of January, 1868, provided the Union Pacific 
 Railroad Company transport the material ; the whole to be constructed in a good and 
 workmanlike manner, upon the same general plan aud specifications as adopted east of 
 the one hundredth meridian of longitude. The party of the second part shall erect all 
 such necessary depots, machine-shops, machinery, tanks, tuijn-tables, and provide all 
 necessary machinery and rolling-stock, at a cost of not less than $7,500 per mile in 
 cash ; and shall construct all such necessary side-track as may be required by the party 
 of the first part, uot exceeding 6 per cent, of the length of the road constructed and 
 to be constructed under this contract. The kind of timber used for ties, and in the 
 bridges, and in its preparation, shall be such as from time to time may be ordered or 
 prescribed by the general agent or the company, under the rules and regulations and 
 standard as recommended by the Secretary of the Interior, of the date of February, 
 1866. 
 
 Third. Whenever one of the above-named sections of the road shall be furnished to 
 the satisfaction and acceptance of the Government commissioners, the same shall be 
 delivered into the possession of the party of the first part, and upon such portions of 
 the road, as well as on that part east of the one hundredth meridian, now completed. 
 The party of the first part shall transport without delay all mea and material to be 
 used in construction, at a price to be agreed upon by the party of the second part, his 
 heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, and the general agent, but not less than 
 cost to the party of the first part. 
 
 Fourth. The party of the second part, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns. 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 63 
 
 shall have the right to enter upon all lands belonging to the company, or upon which 
 the company may have any rights, and talie therefrom any material used in the con- 
 struction of the road, and may have the right to change the grade and curvature 
 within the limits of the provisions of the act of Congress for the temporary purpose 
 of hastening the completion of the road, but the estimate aud cost of reducing the same 
 to the grade and curvatures as established by the chief cugijieer, or as approved from 
 time to time by the company, shall be deducted aud retained by the party of Ihe iirst 
 part, until such grade and curvature is so reduced. 
 
 Fifth. The party of the second part, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, is 
 to receive from the company and enjoy the benefit of all existing contracts, and^shall 
 assume all such contracts and all liabilities of the company accrued or arising there- 
 from for work done or to be done, and materials furnished or to be furnished for or on 
 account of the road west of the one hundredtll meridian, crediting, however, the party 
 of the first part on this contract all moneys paid or expended on account thereof. 
 
 Sixth. The party of the second part, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, 
 and assigns, stipulates and agrees that the work shall be prosecuted aud completed 
 vs'ith energy and all possible speed, so as to complete the same at the earliest practi- 
 cable day, it being understood that the speed of construction and time of completion 
 is the essence of this contract, and at the same time the road to be a fiist-elass road, 
 with equipments ; and if the same, in the opinion of the chief engineers, is not so prose- 
 cuted, both as regards quality aud dispatch, that the said party of the first part shall 
 and may, through its general agent, or other officer detailed for that purpose, take 
 charge of said work and carry the same on at the proper cost and expense ot the party 
 of the second part. 
 
 Seventh. The grading, bridging, and superstructure to be comjDleted under the supei- 
 vision of the general agent of the company, to the satisfaction of the chief engineer, 
 and to be of the same character, as to workmanship aud material, as in the construction 
 of the road east of the one hundredth meridian. It is, however, understood that all 
 iron hereafter purchased or contracted for shall be of the weight of not less than 56 
 pounds to the yard, and to be fish-bar joint. 
 
 Eighth. All the expenses of the engineering are to be charged to and paid.by the 
 party of the second part, except the pay and salary of the chief engineer aud consult- 
 ing engineer and their immediate assistants, and the expenses of the general survey of 
 the route. 
 
 Ninth. The depot-buildings, machine-shops, water- tanks, and also bridges, shall be 
 of the most approved pattern, and they, as well as the kind of masonry or other 
 material used, shall be previously approved by th • general agent aud chief engineer of 
 the company, and all tunnels shall be of the proper width fur a double track, and shall 
 be arched with brick or stone when necessary for the protection of the same. 
 
 Tenth. Payments to be made as the work progresses, upon the estirtfiite of the chief 
 engineer, in making which the engineer shall deduct from each section its proportion 
 of the cost of equipments not then furnished, station-bjuildings, superstructure and 
 cost of telegraplr, but all material delivered or in transit for the account of the oom^ 
 pany may be estimated for. 
 
 Eleve)ith. Payments hereon snail be made to the party of the second part, his heirs, 
 executors, administrators, or assigns, in cash ; but if the Government bonds received 
 by the company cannot be converted into money at their par value net, and the first- 
 mortgage bonds of the company at ninety cents on the dollar net, then the said party 
 of the second part, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, shall be charged 
 hereon the ditierence between the amount realized and the above-named rates, pro- 
 vided the first-mortgage bonds are not sold below eighty cents on the dollar, and if 
 there shall not be realized from the sale of such bonds an amount sufficient to pay the 
 party of the second part, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, for work, as 
 stipulated in this contract, and according to the terras thereof, then such deficiency 
 shall be from time to time subscribed by the said party of the second part, his heirs, 
 executors, administrators, or assigns, to the capital stock of said company, and the 
 proceeds of such subscription shall be paid to said party of the second part, his heirs, 
 executors, administrators, or assigns, on this contract. 
 
 Twelfth. On the first hundred miles on this contract, there shall be added to the 
 equipment now provided for and intended to apply on this section, as follows, viz : 
 
 Six locomotives, fifty box-cars, four passenger-cars, two baggage-cars, and a propor- 
 tionate amount of equipments of like character, to be supplied on the second section 
 of one hundred miles after the same is completed. 
 
 ThirteetUh. The amount provided to be expended for equipments, station-buildings, 
 &c., shall be expended under the direction of the party of the first part, and in such 
 proportion for cars, locomotives, machine-shops, station-buildings, &c., and at such 
 points as they may determine. The party of the first part to have the full benefit of 
 such expenditures, without profit to the contractor, or they may in their option pur- 
 chase the equipments and expend any portion of said amount, provided at any point 
 
64 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 on the road, where they may deem the same most advantageous to the company, 
 •whether on the section on which the said reservation occurs or not. ^ ■ + 
 
 Fourteenth. The telegraph line is included herein under the term railroad, and is to 
 he constructed in the same manner and with similar materials as in the line east ot the 
 one hundredth meridian. The said parties hereto, in consideration of the preunses and 
 of their covenants herein, do mutually agree severally to perform and lulhll their 
 several agreements above written. i j.- r 
 
 This contract having been submitted to the executive committee by resolution ot 
 the board of directors, August 16, 1867, and we, having examined the details ot the 
 same, recommend its execution by the proper officers of the company with the Honor- 
 able Oakes Ames, the party named as the second part. 
 
 Resolutions passed by executive committee of Union Pacific Railroad, at a meeting 
 held October 1, 1867 : . •„ ., ^ ^ ;, 
 
 Resolved, The foregoing contract between the Union Pacific Railroad Oompany ana 
 Oakes Ames, referred to the executive committee by a resolution of the board, Au- 
 gust 16, 1867, to settle the details, be approved, and that the proper officers ot the 
 company be instructed to execute the same, subject, however, to the written approval 
 of the stockholders of the company, as understood by the board of directors when the 
 
 same was voted upon. „,-,,-, i- ,-i j. ^.^ 
 
 Resolved, That the option to extend this contract to Salt Lake be relerred to tUe 
 board, with a recommendation thai the said option be accepted. 
 
 '(Siffued) OLIVER AMES, 
 
 ^ ^ ■• G. S. BUSHNELL, 
 
 SPRINGER HARBAUGH, 
 THdS. C. DURANT, 
 
 Executive Auilwrity. 
 
 TRANSFER OF AMES'S CONTRACT TO TRUSTEES, &c. 
 
 Memorandum of agreement, in triplicate, made this 15th day of October, 1867, 
 between Oakes Ames, of North Easton, Massachusetts, party of the first part; Thomas 
 C. Durant, of the city of New York ; Oliver Ames, of North Easton, Massachusetts ; 
 John B. Alley, of Lynn, Massachiis itts ; Sidney Dillon, of the city of New York ; Cor- 
 nelius S. Bushnell, of New Havm, Connecticut ; Henry S. McComb, of Wilmington, 
 Delaware; and Benjamin E. Bate3,^f Boston, Massachusetts, parties of the second 
 part, and the Credit Mobilier of America, party of the third part, witnesseth : That 
 whereas the party of the first part has undertaken a certain large contract for the 
 construction of 'certain portions therein named of the railroad and telegraph line of 
 the Union Pacific Railroad Company over the plains, and over and through the 
 Rocky Mountains, which will require a very large and hazardous outlay of capital, 
 which capital he is desired to be assured of raising at such times and in such sums as 
 will enable him to complete and perform the said contract according to its terms and 
 conditions ; 
 
 And whereas the Credit Mobilier of America, the party of the third part, a corpora- 
 tion duly established by law, is empowered by its charter to advance and loan money 
 in aid of such enterprises, and can control large amounts of capital for such purposes, 
 and is willing to loan to said party of the first part such sums as may be found neces- 
 sary to complete said contract, jjroDJdeti sufficient assurance may be made to said party 
 of the third part herein that such sums shall be duly expended in the work of com- 
 pleting said railroad and telegraph line, and that the payments for the faithful per- 
 formance of said contract by said railroad company shall be held and applied to re- 
 imburse said party of the third part for their loans and advances, together with a 
 reasonable interest for the use of the money so loaned and advanced; 
 
 And whereas said party of the third part fully believes that said contract, if honestly 
 and faithfully executed, will be both profitable and advantageous to the parties per- 
 forming the same, are therefore willing to guarantee the pbrformanoe and execution of 
 the same for a reasonable commission to be paid therefor ; ' 
 
 And whereas both parties of the first and third parts have confidence and reliance 
 in the integrity, business capacity, and ability of the several persons named as parties 
 of the second part hereto, and confidently believe that said persons have large inter- 
 ests as wellin the Union Pacific Railroad Company as in the Credit Mobilier of America, 
 they will execute and perform the said contract, and faithfully hold the- proceeds 
 thereof to the just use and benefit of the parties entitled thereto : 
 
 Therefore it is agreed by and between the parties of the first, second, and third parts 
 hereto as follows : that is to say, that said Oakes Ames, party of the first part hereto, 
 hereby, for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar, lawful money of the United 
 States, to him duly paid by the party of the second part, and for divers other good and 
 valuable considerations herein thereunto moving, doth hereby assign, set over, and 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. " 65 
 
 transfer unto the said Tliomas C. Diirant, OlivRr Ames, .Tohn B. Alloy, Sidney Dillon, 
 Cornelius" S. Bushnell, Henry S. McComb, and Benjamin E. Bates, parties of tlie second 
 part, all the right, title, and interest of, io, and to, tlie certain oontracts heretofore made 
 and executed by and between the Union Pacific Railroad Company and the said Oake* 
 Ames, bearing date the sixteenth day of August, 1867, for the construction of portions 
 of the railroad and telegraiili lino of said company, to which contract reference is 
 herein made, for them, the said parties of the second part, to have and to hold the same 
 to them and their survivors and successors, forever, in trust, nevertheless, upon the 
 following trust and conditions and limitations, to wit: i 
 
 , First. That they, the said part'e? of the second part, shall perform all the terms and 
 conditions of the contract so assigned, in all reajiect^, which, in and by the terms and 
 conditions thereof, is undertaken and assumed aiid agreed to be done and performed 
 by the said party of the first part herein named. 
 
 Secoiid. That they, the said parties of the second part, shall hold all the avails and 
 proceeds of the said contract, and therefrom shall re-imburse themselves and the party 
 of the third part hereto, all moneys advanced and expended by them, or either of thsm, 
 in executing or performing the said contract, -with interest and commission thereon as 
 hereinafter provided. 
 
 Third. Out of the said avails and proceeds to pay unto the parties of the second part 
 a reasonable sum as compensation for their services as such ti'iisfcees for eKocuting and 
 performing the terms and conditions of this agreement, which compensation shall nob 
 exceed the sum of three thousand dollars per annum to each and every one of the par- 
 ties of the second part. 
 
 Fourth. To hold all the rest and residue of the said proceeds and avails for the nso 
 and benefit of such of the several persons holding and owning shares in the capital 
 stock of the said Credit Mobilier of America, on the day of the date thereof, in pro- 
 portion to the number of shares which said stockholders now severally hold and own, 
 and for the use and benefit of such of the several assignees and holders of such shares 
 of stock at the times herein set forth for the distributionof said residue and remainder 
 of said avails and proceeds, who shall comply with the provisions, conditions, and lim- 
 itations herein contained, which are, on their part, to be complied with. 
 
 Fifth. To pay over, on or before the first Wednesday in June and December in each 
 year, or within thirty days thereafter, his just share and proportion of the residue and 
 remainder of the said proceeds and avails as shall be justly estimated by said trustees 
 to have been made and earned as net profits in s.iid contract during the preceding six 
 months to each such stockholder only in said Credit Mobilier of America who, being a 
 stockholder in the Union Pacific Railroad, shall have made and executed his power of 
 attorney or proxy irrevocable to said several parties of the second part, their survivors 
 and successors, empowering them, the said parties of the second part, to vote upon at 
 least six-tenths of all the shares of stock owned by said shareholders of the Credit 
 Mobilier of America in the capital stock of the Union Pacific Railroad Company on the 
 day of the date hereof, and six-tenths of any stock in the Union Pacific. Railroad Com- 
 pany he may have received as dividend or'otherwise, because or by virtue of having 
 heen a stockholder in said Credit Mobilier of America, or which may appertain to any 
 shares in said Union Pacific Railroad Company which have been so assigned to him at 
 the time or times of the distribution of the said profits as hereinafter provided ; and 
 this trust is made aud declared upon the express condition and limitation that it shall 
 not inure, in any manner or degree, to the use or benefit of any stockholder of the 
 Credit Mobilier of America who shall neglect or refuse to execute aud deliver unto the 
 parties of the second part his proxy or power of attorney in the manner and for the 
 purpose hereinbefore provided, or who shall, in any way, or by any proceedings, know- 
 ingly hinder, delay, or interfere with the execution or performance of the trust and 
 conditions herein declared and set forth; aud the abovo transfer and conveyance of 
 said contract is made upon these further trusts and conditions, to wit : 
 
 First. That said parties of the second part, their survivors and successors, trustees as 
 aforesaid, in all their acts and doings in the execution and performance of said con- 
 tract, and in the execution of their several trusts aud conditions herein set forth, shall 
 act by the concurrent assent of four of their number expressed in writing, or by yea 
 and nay vote, at a meeting of said trustees, either or both of which shall be recorded 
 in a book of the proceedings of said trustees, kept for that purpose by their secretary, 
 
 aud not otherwise. , ,, , a- • ^i ... i.,t ^r , 
 
 Second. Said parties of the second part shall keep an office in the city of Now Yor^, 
 for the transaction of the business incidental to said trust. Meetings of said trustees 
 may be held on call of the secreta-y on request of any two of their number; such call 
 may be made personally or by mail. , , , ,, 
 
 third. Tlie said trustees shall appoint a competent person as secretary, who shall 
 keep a faithful record of all their acts, proceedings, aud contracts, in book.-j provided 
 for that purpose, and shall cause to be kept suitable books of accounts and vouchers ot 
 all their business transactions. , , , , ^ ^ , j i ■ 4.1 
 
 Fourth. Tlie said trustees shall causa a monthly statement to be made, showing the. 
 
 5 X 
 
()6 CREDIT MOBILIKE. 
 
 c-.momit due from the Union Pacific Kiiilroatl Company ou account of work done, or 
 equipment or material furnished under the contract, according to the estimate of the 
 engineer of (he Union Pacilic Eailroad Company, as provided in said contract, a copy 
 ^f -nhich statement shall he fumished to the Credit Jioliilier of America. 
 
 And the above transfer and conveyance of said contract is made upon the further 
 "trust and condition : 
 
 First. That in case of the death, declination, disability by reason of sickness, or ab- 
 Bfiice from the country for the space of six months, or neglect to fulfill the duties and 
 obligations of said trust for the same time by either said trustee, the remaining or sur- 
 viving trustees may declare the place of such trustees to be vacant, and fill such va- 
 cancy by vote, in manner aforesaid. 
 
 Second. That in case any one of said trustees shall vtillfully neglect or evade the 
 performance of his duties as such trustee, or shall willfully attempt to hinder, delay, 
 obstruct, or interfere with the execution or performance of said contract, or the due 
 execution or performance of said trnst or condition, according to the true intent there- 
 of, or shall appropriate to his use or benefit any money or other valuable thing belong- 
 ing to or appertaining to said trust-fund or property, he shall not be entitled further to 
 act as such trustee or to receive any of the benefits of said trust, either as shareholder 
 in said Credit Mobilier of America or otherwise. 
 
 The parties of the second part do hereby accept the said trust, and agree faithfully 
 to execute and perform the same according to the terms, conditions, and limitations 
 herein set forth. 
 
 The party of the third part, in consideration of these premises, hereby agree to ad- 
 vance, as upon a loan, to the said parties of the second part, their survivors and suc- 
 cessors, all such sums of money and at such times as may be necessary to epable said 
 trustees economically and promptly to execute and perform the conditions of said con- 
 tract upon the call of said parties of the second part, their survivors and successors, 
 such sums never to exceed in the whole the amount x^rovided for in said contract to 
 be paid by'the Union Pacific Eailroad Company for the execution and performance 
 thereof, and to receive therefor interest at the rate of seven per centum per annum, 
 payable semi-annually on each sum so advanced, until the same are repaid. And the 
 said party of the third part do further agree for the consideration aforesaid, and for 
 an amount equal to two and one-half per cent, on the amount to be by them advanced, 
 to be paid to them as commission to, and do hereby guarantee unto the parties of the 
 first and second parts the due j)6rformance and execution of said contract according 
 to its terms and conditions, and to indemnify .and hold harmless the said parties of 
 the first and second parts of and from all cost, liability, loss or damage to them or 
 either of them arising from or ou account of said contract, and to the faithful perform- 
 ance of the agreements, contracts, and conditions hereinabove specified to be done and 
 performed by each. 
 
 And this conveyance and transfer is made upon the further trust and condition — 
 
 That the trustees shall adjust and pay over to the Credit Mobilier of America such 
 portion of the net profits of the work done and material furnished on the first one 
 hundred miles west of the 100th meridian, as was done and performed prior to Janu- 
 ary 1, 1867. 
 
 In witness whereof, the party of the first part, the several parties of the second part, 
 in their own proper persons, have hereunto set their hands and seals, and the party of 
 the third part has caused these presents to be executed by its president, attested by its 
 secretary, with the seal of said company, on the day and year above written. 
 (Signed) " OAKES AMES. 
 
 THOS. C. DUEANT. 
 OLIVER AMES. 
 JOHN B. ALLEY. 
 SIDNEY DILLON. 
 CORNELIUS S. BUSHNELL. 
 H. S. McCOMB. 
 BENJAMIN E. BATES. 
 
 Signed, sealed, and delivered and executed in the presence of — 
 (Signed) Clakk Bell. 
 
 The Ckedit Mobilier of America, bii Us President, 
 
 Attest : 
 
 Becdpt of dividend of Credit Moiilier. 
 
 sidney dillon, 
 benj. f. ham. 
 
 Assistant Secretary. 
 
 New York, , 1868. 
 
 Received from the Credit Mobilier of America, certificate No. , for shares of the 
 capital stock of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and scrip for , of a share, 
 
 in full payment of dividend, under resolution adopted December 28, 1867. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 67 
 
 Sc'ceipt to trustees under Ames's contract of dividend paid h\j Hum to the stoclchotders of the 
 Credit Moiilier, Decemler 12, 1867. 
 
 Received of Thomas C. Durant, Oliver Ames, John B. Alley, Sidney Billon, Cornelius 
 S. Bushnell, Henry S. McComb, and Benjamin E. Bates, the sums set opposite our re- 
 spective names in fuU of the dividends declared December 12, 1867, under and pursu- 
 ant to the foregoing contracts, and payable on the 3d day of Janpary, 1868, and we 
 do hereby severally, in consideration of the amount so received by us, consent to and 
 approve of the foregoing contracts, and agree severally to be bound by and conform to 
 all the terms and conditions of said agreement, and we do hereby release the said 
 Thomas C. Durant, Oliver Ames, and their associates, from all liability, personally or 
 otherwise, by reason of their acts as parties to said foregoing triplicate agreement.' 
 
 Beceijit, ^r., Januarif 3, 1868. 
 
 Received of Thomas C. Durant, Oliver Ames, John B. Alley, Sidney Dillon, Cornelius 
 S. Bushnell, Henry S. MeComb, and Benjamin E. Bates, the sums set opposite our re- 
 spective names in full of the dividend declared January 3, 1868, under and pursuant 
 to the foregoing contracts, and payable the 3d day of January, 1868, and we dg hereby 
 severally, in consideration of the amounts so received by us, consent to and approve of 
 the foregoing contracts, and agree severally to be bound by and conform to all the 
 terms and conditions of said agreement, and we do hereby release the said Thomas C. 
 Durant, Oliver Ames, and their associates, from all liability, personally or otherwise, 
 by reason, of their acts as parties to said foregoing triplicate agreement. 
 
 Receipt, 4-e., June 17, 1868. 
 
 Received of Thomas C. Durant, Oliver Ames, John Duff, Sidney Dillon, Cornelius S. 
 Bushnell, Henry S. McComb, and Benjamin E. Bates, the sums sot opposite our respect- 
 ive names in full of the dividends declared June 17, 1868, under and pursuant to the 
 foregoing contract, and payable on the 17th day of June, 1868, and we do hereby sev- 
 erally,! and in consideration of the amount so received by us, consent to and approve of 
 the foregoing contract, and agree severally to be bound by and conform to all the terms 
 and conditions of said agreement, and we do hereby release the said Thomas C. Durant, 
 Oliver Ames, and their associates, from all liability, personal or otherwise, by reason of 
 their acts as parties to said foregoing triplicate agreemeut. 
 
 r^eceipt, 4-c., July 3, 1868. 
 
 Received of Thomas C. Durant, Oliver Ames, John Duff, Sidney Dillon, Cornelius S. 
 Bushnell, Henry S. McComb, and Benjamin E. Bates, the sums set opposite our respect- 
 ive names in full of the allotment declared July 3, 1868, under and pursuant to the 
 foregoing contract, and payable on the 3d day of July, 1868, and we do severally, in 
 consideration of the amount so received by us, consent to and approve of the foregoing 
 contract, and agree severally to be bound by and conform to all the terms and condi- 
 tions of said agreement, and we do hereby release the said Thomas C. Durant, Oliver 
 Ames, and their associates, from all liability, personal or otherwise, by reason of their 
 acts as parties to said foregoing agreement, or either of them, and we agree to pay such 
 ratable sums as said trustees may call for, not exceeding the amounts so received, to 
 enable them to complete the construction contract. 
 
 LIST OF STOCKHOLDERS, CREDIT MOBILIER OF AMERICA, FEBRUARY 
 
 20, 1868. 
 
 Xamea. Stock. 
 
 Oliver W. Barnes 15 
 
 Thomas C. Durant 4,658 
 
 George F. Train 175 
 
 L.E.French 20 
 
 C. A. Lambard 150 
 
 Sidney Dillon 1,005 
 
 W. T. Glidden 625 
 
 J. M. S.Williams 620 
 
 R. G. Hazard 1,680 
 
 Kames. Stoci. 
 
 J. B. Johnson 200 
 
 E. H. Baker, jr 50 
 
 B.C. McComb 1,250 
 
 PaulPohl,jr 6 
 
 J.W.Grimes 380 
 
 G. Opdyke 712 
 
 J. Bardwell .: 730 
 
 J. Bardwell, trustee 300 
 
 C. C. Waite 80 
 
68 
 
 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Katces. Stock. 
 
 0. S. Chapman 412 
 
 Oliver Ames 4,680 
 
 C. S. BuslineU 510 
 
 W. H. Macy 300 
 
 J. M. Scranton 5 
 
 G.G. Gray 1,300 
 
 J. Nicterson 380 
 
 Bei). Holladay 750 
 
 B.E. Bates 500 
 
 l*". Nickerson 250 
 
 J. B. Alley 290 
 
 1. P. Hazard 380 
 
 Samuel Hooper & Co 750 
 
 H. Gilbert 185 
 
 H.I. Gilbert 137 
 
 C. P. McCormick 945 
 
 David Joues 380 
 
 Oakes Ames 1,9.55 
 
 E.Atkins 622 
 
 E. H. Baker 623 
 
 Mary P. Hazard 10 
 
 Lydia Torrey 11 
 
 Anna Horner 1 
 
 Sophia Vernon 1 
 
 H. Hotchkiss 150 
 
 W. D. Bristol 50 
 
 S. M. Beard 100 
 
 E. Beard 100 
 
 G.Bradford 100 
 
 LeGrande Lockwood 500 
 
 J. E. Duff ,..-. 80 
 
 J. M. Davies 500 
 
 E.G. S. Mc>reil 5 
 
 E. C. Morey 10 
 
 Juo. Smith 405 
 
 A. Hobart, ir 25 
 
 I. Thatcher ---. 92 
 
 Names. Stock. 
 
 B. D. Stewart 5 
 
 H.C.Crane 123 
 
 E. Hazard 300 
 
 JohnL. KiiiK 80 
 
 Fourth National Bank 750 
 
 A.A. Low 100 
 
 ,J. B. Pigot 150 
 
 Thomas Nickerson 150 
 
 II. Sauford 125 
 
 H.Trowbridge 75 
 
 E. H. Trowbridge 50 
 
 W.F.Day, Cashier, in Tr 100 
 
 W. A. Cnmmings 100 
 
 E. E. Eobhins 300 
 
 T. W. Andrews 100 
 
 S. H. Fessenden 50 
 
 N. Peck 100 
 
 P. B.Foster 50 
 
 Elizabeth Hazard :. 34 
 
 Elizabeth Hazard, Tr 13 
 
 Anna Hazard 20 
 
 B. M. Boyer 75 
 
 C. H. Nielson 100 
 
 J. Hedden , 100 
 
 F. Skinner & Co 250 
 
 Thomas M. Stetson 30 
 
 H. Blood 7 
 
 A. G. Lathrop 10 
 
 li. W. Gray 10 
 
 J. Eichardson .50 
 
 Oakes Ames, trustee 250 
 
 H. C. Crane, trustee 180 
 
 W. H. Newbold, Sou & Aertseu 400 
 
 H. A. Eobins 100 
 
 J. Gardner, trustee 625 
 
 F. Skin ner, trustee -_ 250 
 
 W. B. Stevens, trustee -....' 50 
 
 Washington, D. C, Thursday, December 19, 1872. 
 Committee met at 10 a. m.; all the members present. 
 H. S. McOoMB recalled for cross-examination. 
 
 By Mr. Alley : 
 
 Question. Ton stated in your testimony the other day that 1 ruled the 
 corporation with autocratic power, or refused to allow you to see the 
 books; that whatever I said or did was done, &c. Then you say, in 
 another part of your testimony, that while Mr. Alley was nomiually at 
 the head, he followed generally anything that Mr. Ames positiVely 
 directed him to do, and that he would not do much he did not assent to. 
 Both of these statements cannot be true; which one of them is true? 
 
 Witness. Put your questions separately, and I will answer them. 
 
 Q. My question is, which statement is true ? 
 
 Witness. Bead the iirst statement and ask me, and I will answer 
 fully in regard to it. 
 
 Q. I will ask you if you mean to say that I have refused to let you 
 see the books? — Answer. I do most emphatically, not only once, but a 
 number of times. 
 
 Q. When? — A. A number of times since you have been on the exec- 
 utive committee of the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 Q. And you say that you have not had the opportunity to see them ?— 
 A. Not with your consent. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 69 
 
 Q. Nor iu my presence; ' — A. Yes; I have seen them in your presence, 
 but not with your consent. 
 
 Q. You say that I h:ive ruled tlie whole corporation with atitocrfitic 
 [jower l—'A. I did, and I repeat it. 
 
 Q. And you say you saw the books in my presence, but not with my 
 sonsent "'. — A. I do ; I saw them in your i>resence once or twice without 
 your consent or your knowledge ; at least I did not know that you saw 
 me examining them. 
 
 Q. But in my presence? — A. You were in the room. 
 
 Q. Hovr recently did I refuse to allow you to see them? — A. Eve? 
 since you came into the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 Q. How recently ? — A. 1 have not asked yon, probably, v/ithhi three 
 years. Do you want to know why ? 
 
 Q. Xot particularly. You say in your testimony that when you heard 
 this conversation between iilr. Brooks and myself there was a distinct 
 agreement and understanding that he should control the democratic 
 side of the House ? — A. I say this, and I want you to note what I say 5 
 I say that you and Mr. Brooks, in my presence on several occasions, 
 were arranging that you should give him stock, and that he should give 
 you service. I say that you spoke to him about his demand for stock. 
 I say that ho spoke to me about his pleading with you to give it; and 
 I say that in this conversation I heard Mr. Brooks remark in substance 
 that he could compensate the company fully for all the favor done in 
 giving him this stock at par, and you dare not deny it. I say farther 
 that after that thing was done you spoke contemptuously of him. You 
 said you had given it to hira. and that you were compelled to ; thafi is 
 what I say. 
 
 Q. That is uoi: answeriiig my ({uestion.— A. It is answering your 
 question fully.- 
 
 Q. I ask you if, in that conversation, you mean to say that I required 
 Mr. Brooks, or that Mr. Brooks agreed, to control the democratic side 
 of the Plouse ? — A. Don't you put words into my mouth. The expres- 
 sion I stated I heard him use in this conversation was, that he would 
 take care of tiie democratic side of the House. 
 
 Q. He being in Congress ? — A. Yes ; and a Government director at 
 the same time, and the owner of one hundred shares of the Credit Mo- 
 bilier stock besides this, which his son-iil-law held at the time, although 
 a Government director. 
 
 Q. You are sure of that ': — A. Yes, sir; 1 am sure of that. 
 
 Q. He was a member of Congress at the same time? — A. Yes, sir; 
 ;i member of Congress and a Government director, and I am sure he 
 was a very pliant tool, and that you know very well. 
 
 Q. How long has he been a member of Congress I— A. I can tell you 
 that by reference to the record. 
 
 Q. i)o you know about the time ': — A. I think he has been in Con- 
 gress all of six or seven years ; I am. very sure that he was a member 
 of Cougress'Hhen, and a Government director besides. 
 
 Q. Yo;i think he lias been a member of Con.urt'ss six or seven years'? — 
 A. Yes, sir; dating from now back. 
 
 Q. And that he was a nsember of Ccugress at the time you allude 
 to ? — A. I say tliat is my belief. 
 
 Q. And the condition was, that lie was to take care of the democratic 
 side of the House '' — A. That he w;ts to take care of the democratic side 
 of the House. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether Mr. Broolcs was elected to the Fortieth 
 
70 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Congress ?— A. :^k), I do not. I do not keep the run ol.' Congress. I am 
 telling you what I believe is true. 
 
 Q. Yon are sure he was a member of Congress at this time? — A. Yes; 
 I feel sure of that, so l;ir as I know anvthing. Let me state myself 
 clearly; my recollection is that Mr. Brooks has been in Congress ever 
 since he has been connected with the Union Pacific Eailroad; that is 
 my recollection and belief; do- you doubt it ? 
 
 • Q. I am not on the stand. You have no recollection about Mr. Brooks 
 not being a member of Congress during this period ?— A. Without re- 
 ferring to some record, 1 have no recollection of ]Mr. Brooks not being a 
 member of Congress during this period. I do not know when he en- 
 tered Congress, or anything further than I have said. 
 
 Q. You do not remember whether he was a candidate for the Fortieth 
 Congress and was defeated, do you .'—A. I do not recollect that. I do 
 not Jiuow whether that was so or not. 
 
 Q. Kow, I would like to know about the time that conversation took 
 place ? — A. These conversations, some of them 
 
 Q. I want to know in regard to this particular conversation. — A. I 
 cannot give you the date of this particular conversation ; there were a 
 great many of them. 
 
 Q. Cannot you state generally about the time ? — A. I think in Janu- 
 ary, February, or March, 18G8. 
 
 Q. You are sure of that?— A. I am sure of one of these months; I 
 cannot give you the exact date ; I cannot answer you as to precisely the 
 day ; but I have a memorandum which, after I have consulted, will en- 
 able me to answer you. 
 
 Q. Then it is your impression that the conversation occurred within 
 the months you have named? — A. My impression is, that it was within 
 the months of January, February, and March ; and that the conversa- 
 tion occurred two or three times. 
 
 Q. And you know that Mr. Brooks was a member of Congress at that 
 time ? — A. I did not say that; I say that Mr. Brooks was a Government 
 director at the time I saw you making arrangements about giving him 
 stock, or that he was about becoming a Government director. 
 
 Q. Then he was not a Government director, and was not a member of 
 Congress? — A. He was a member of Congress during some of the time 
 I heard these conversations. 
 
 Q. Was he a member of Congress at the time I made arrangements 
 to give him this stock? — A. I cannot give you the exact dates. 
 
 Q. You were quite sure a while ago that it was in January, February, 
 or March? — A. I am quite sure that I heard these conversations in each 
 of these months, and in the fall of 1867 ; I should say in November. 
 
 Q. You are willing to swear that these conversations took place, then, 
 between the first of November, 186?, and the first of May, 1868, not 
 confining you to any brief period ? — A. I did not expect to be questioned 
 in reference to this matter, and I shall have to refer to memoranda I 
 have at home; I had no thought the matter of Mr. Brooks was what I 
 was to be examined on. 
 
 Q. I merely want to ask you whether it was within the months re- 
 ferred to? — A. I cannot answer that now until I refer to memoranda 
 which will show the exact facts. My recollection is, that in the latter 
 part of 1869 or early part of 1868, Mr. Brooks took one hundred shares 
 of Credit Mobilier stock and had it transferred to Charles H. Neilson, 
 his son-in-law. I saw Mr. Durant pay him $6,000 in dividends or in 
 excess of dividends, and at another time $8,000. I have, as I said, 
 memoranda in regard to another circumstance by which I can fix the 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 71 
 
 time when Mr. Alley and Mr. Brooks had the conversations referred to 
 -with regard to the fifty shares of stock, and I heard Mr. Brooks say in 
 that connection, distinctly, that he would take care of the democratic 
 side of the House. I noted it down at the time. I will tell you what led 
 me to take an especial interest in these conversations between Mr. Alley 
 and Mr. Brooks. While the negotiations were in progress Mr. Alley 
 expressed great disregard and contempt for Mr. Brooks, and Mr. Brooks 
 was abont as free in his expressions of friendly regard for Mr. Alley. 
 They both appeared separately to have about the same views of each 
 other, but together they hobnobbed in regard to this stock, and it dis- 
 gusted me with them both. The Union Pacific Eailroad occupied three 
 rooms in a building at the corner of Cedar and Ifassau streets. The 
 corner room on Cedar street was occupied by Mr. Durant. [Witness 
 here explained in detail the relative location of each of the rooms.] There 
 was a table in the second room, not so long as this, at which I was writ- 
 ing, when Mr. Alley and Mr. Brooks took seats at the opposite end of 
 the table and discussed Credit Mobilier stock. Mr. Brooks was implor- . 
 ing Mr. Alley to give these shares to him, urging that he had rendered 
 services which he thought were worthy of return. Mr. Alley thought 
 it was a pretty good thing, and did not want to let it go. He wanted a 
 finger in it himself, I imagine. They had several interviews, and I heard 
 the conversations take place to which I have referred, when Mr. Alley 
 awarded the stock, and said, " I guess we will have to let him have it." 
 Mr. Brooks made the remark, distinctly, that he would take care of the 
 ■democratic side of the House. 
 
 Q. Then, when these arrangements were made there was no signifi- 
 cance in the remark unless he was a member of Congress'? — A. Or ex- 
 pected to be. 
 
 Q. But you are not sure whether he was a member of Congress ? — A. 
 I say that is my recollection. 
 
 Q. Would there be any significance unless he was a member of Con- 
 gress ? — A. I cannot answer like that. He may have regarded it as for 
 past services, or he may have taken care of the democrats outside of the 
 House as well as in. 
 
 Q. Does your recollection confirm your remark, now, that he was a 
 member of Congress f — A. My recollection confirms that, most emphat- 
 ically, the remarks he made to you and the reply made by you was, 
 ^' Well, I guess we will have to let him have it." But I cannot now give 
 the date. 
 
 Q. You stated a moment ago, and were entirely certain, it was in 
 January, February, or March, 18G8 '? — A, T did not say that remark was 
 made within these months. I said to you that you had conversations 
 with him in these months. 
 
 By the Chairman: 
 
 Q. What is ^our best recollection as to when that remark was 
 made ". — A. My recollection is now that it was in the fall of 1867 or in 
 1868, running from January to July, 1868. I think it was certainly 
 within those months. Mr. Brooks was very frequently in the office of 
 the Union Pacific Eailroad. 
 
 Q. Is not your recollection any narrower than that? — A. I would not 
 like at this day to be positive as to the date of a conversation which 
 occurred four or five years ago. I have data, as I have stated, that I 
 can refer to which will fix it absolutely. 
 
 Q. If your recollection does not narrow it within smaller time than, 
 that, you can say so. — A. I can fix no month from recollection. I can. 
 
72 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 fix very nearly the precise month from the data to which I have referred. 
 There are circumstances connected -with it which will refresh my recol- 
 lection as to the date. 
 By Islr. Alley : 
 Q. You are, howe%^er, I understand you to say, ready to state most 
 postitively, and almost certainly, that it was between the month of No- 
 vember, 1807, and the month of May, 1868'?— A. I will say from July 
 to July ; from July, 1867, to about the same month, 1868. 
 
 Q. You are wil'ling to say you are positiye that it was within that 
 limit ^—A. I will tell you what will refresh my memory, so you may 
 see there is nothing about it to conceal. My recollection is that this 
 conversation took place and this promise was given to Mr. Brooks 
 during the time Mr. Durant was in Europe, and he was in Europe two 
 or three months. I can fix that time by memoranda I have. I do not 
 know how long he was away, but I can ascertain that fact, and also 
 ascertain whether Mr. Brooks was a member of Congress at the time 
 or not. 
 
 Q. You say that a portion of that stock— thirty-two shares— came from 
 Mr. Ames f— A. I said that Mr. Ames told me they took thirty -two of his 
 shares to make up Mr. Brooks's complement. I did not say that any of 
 it came from him. 
 
 Q. You say that Mr. Alley finally consented to give him fifty shares 
 of Credit Mobilier stock, and that it was transferred to Mr. Brooks or 
 his son-in-law, Neilson. When was that given and when was it trans- 
 ferred? — A. I have said that the agreement was made while Mr. 
 Durant was in Europe. Mr. Alley kept from me, so far as he could, 
 these records. To use a figurative expression, the records of the Credit 
 Mobilier were sealed to me. Anything I got from these records I never 
 got with his knowledge that I had obtained it, so that I did not have 
 any opportunity to look and see when the transfer was made. I would 
 like to say to the committee that bringing here the cash-books and 
 ledger and all the Credit Mobilier books and laying them down on this 
 table would enable me to answer a great many questions that I could 
 not answer now. 
 
 Q. Then you cannot state the date of the transaction? — A. Not being 
 a,n officer of the Credit Mobilier and not being present when the certificate 
 was transferred, I cannot say as to the date. 
 
 Q. Can you not say whether the certificate was gi\'eu to Mr. Brooks 
 or Mr. Neilson ? — A. My impression is that Mr. Brooks was, undoubt- 
 edly, too smart to take it in his own name. 
 
 Q. Yet you say here that I gave it to Mr. Brooks? — A. If I saw your 
 pocket-book given into another person's hands I should still say it was 
 your pocket-book. 
 
 Q. But you do not know whether it was given to Mr. Brooks or to 
 Mr. Neilson ?— A. You awarded it to James Brooks: vrhom you trans- 
 ferred it to I do not know. 
 
 Q. You have sworn here that this "was in the spring of 1808; you had 
 no hesitation then ? — A. That was my recollection. 
 
 Q. Your answer to the interrogatory as to what Mr. Neilson's full 
 name was, was " Charles H. Neilson, I think ; that was along in the fall 
 of 1868." — A. Well, I will be able to fix it by the data I have referred to. 
 
 Q. You are then asked, "It was subsequent to the letters you have 
 produced?" and you respond, "O, yes." — A. The circumstance of its- 
 'occurring during Mr. Durant's absence was not brought to my mind 
 until this morning; I know now that the occurrence took place while 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 73 
 
 Mr. Durant was iii Eurox^e, aud, therefore, I sliall be able to fix the date 
 by that circumstance. 
 
 By the CiiAiiir'.iA:-; : 
 
 Q. You understand that the one hundred shares of stock you Kpeak 
 of was really the property of Mr. Brooks ? — A. O, yes ; everybody about 
 tlie office understood that. 
 
 Q. Did you know anything about the original subscription of that one 
 hundred shares 1- — A. I would rather Mr. Durant v.-ould answer that 
 question ; I got my information from him, and I could only answer from 
 hearsay. 
 
 Q. You did personally know that Mr. Brooks received dividends '? — 
 A. I did personally know of Mr. Brooks receiving dividends, and that 
 Mr. Durant did not think he ought to have them. Mr. Brooks took at 
 one time $6,000 and at another $8,000; that was prior to this fifty 
 shares transactiou. I was present in the room and heard Mr. Durant 
 agree to give him the money, or the Credit Mobilier of America stock. 
 
 Q. Can you .r;ive us aboxat the time "J — A. I would rather Mr. Durant 
 would answer that. It was after the organization of the Credit Mobilier, 
 and after that while the Credit Mobilier transactions were being carried 
 on at Ilassau and Cedar streets ; I did not count the money that was 
 given in these settlements, you know. I only heard Mr. Brooks claim 
 that there was so much money he ought to have. Mr. Durant said he 
 v.'oukl give it to him, but that he did not think he was entitled to it. I 
 do not mean to say that I saw any money pass or anything of that kind., 
 
 Q. In regard to the fifty shares which you heard Mr. Brooks claim 
 from Mr. Alley, did you understand that he claimed that as this 50 per 
 cent, additional stock he would be entitled to as his original subscrip- 
 tion ? — A. ISo, because he would be entitled to that under the resolution 
 of the company. 
 
 Q. He would then have been entitled to fifty shares? — A. Yes, sir. 
 Allow me to say this: every man who stood on the books of the Credit 
 Mobilier at the time the stock was increased was entitled to his per- 
 centage of increase. The increase was in this form : the directors of the 
 Credit Mobilier, the large stockholders, Mr. Ames among the number, 
 agreed to increase the stock to the extent of twelve hundred and fifty 
 thousand dollars ; it was two millions beforp. With that increase they 
 gave a Union Pacific Railroad bond for each ten shares' worth the price 
 of the stock, so that the person could sell his bond and pay for his stock 
 if he chose to. For instance, if I had one hundred shares of Credit Mo- 
 bilier original stock, that would give me fifty new shares and $5,000 of 
 bonds ; I would give my check for $5,000, get the stock, and with it $5,000- 
 Union Pacific Railroad bonds. 
 
 Q. Yon understand that these one hundred shares of stock which 
 stood in the name of Mr. ISTeilson was really Mr. Brooks's stock? — A.. 
 Certainly. 
 
 Q. And he would, therefore, be entitled to the blessed privilege of 
 having fifty shares additional stock and the bond; do you know 
 whether he ever did have that fifty shares? — A. I don't know that he 
 ever did in his own name. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether the one hundred shares which stood in the 
 name of Neilson ever received its fifty shares, to which it was entitled ? — 
 A. I do not. 
 
 Q. Do you know that these fifty shares which you say Mr, Brooks sub- 
 sequently received was not the fifty shares he was entitled to by this 
 arrangement? — A. I do not say anything of that kind at all. I only 
 
74 CREDIT MOBIUER. 
 
 know this, tljnt if he had a right to it he had uo occasion to beg Mr. 
 Alley to let hiin have it. He could have got it by demanding it with- 
 out putting himself under obligations to anybody. 
 
 By Mr. Alley : 
 Q. You state that Mr. Brooks was at that time either a director or 
 said he would have himself 'made a Government director. Now, if ho 
 was Government director at that time, what was the necessity of mak- 
 ing himself so ?— A. That Mr. Brooks can better explain than I can. 
 
 By Mr. Banks : 
 Q. The idea is that you are not sure whether he said he was a Gov- 
 ernment director or would have himself made one '?— A. Yes, sir ; I know 
 there was a good deal of trouble at that time as to who should be ap- 
 pointed. Mr. Ames wrote me a letter wanting to have a certain gentle- 
 man appointed. I wanted to have Senator Bayard appointed. 
 
 By Mr. .A[cCraky: 
 
 Q. Who is tho Mr. Durant of whom you speak ?— A. Thomas C. 
 Durant, who was president of the Credit Mobilier, and was displaced 
 by these people. 
 
 'Q. Where is he now "?— A. In New York, I think. Mr. Durant to my 
 knowledge had taken proceedings or was about taking proceedings to 
 make Mr. Brooks repay for those fifty shares of stock. I saw the papers 
 as prepared, in which Mr. Brooks is charged with receiving fifty shares 
 without consideration. I saw the papers in Mr. Durant's office as pre- 
 pared by Mr. Tracy, his counsel. Mr. Durant told ine he had taken the 
 papers back, and included in them Mr. Ames, with his three hundred 
 and odd shares, in the same bill. 
 
 (The witness subsequently presented to the committee the following 
 letter, referred to in his testimony:) 
 
 Washington, Jamiary 14, 1868. 
 
 Mt DkaI! Sir : I recciveil this ovening youi- letter of this flate informing me that Mr. 
 Ames, of Massachnsetta, bad one or two thousand dollars of stock in tlie Credit Mo- 
 bilier for me. My son, in a letter which I received this morning, informed me of your 
 short conversation with him, and that it was to your friendly feeling I was indebted 
 for the subscription to what you tell me is "a good thing." I am, however, utterly in 
 the dark as to the nature aud objects of this corporation, and you will oblige mo if you 
 will give my son as much information as you have in relation to them. 
 
 I do not Itnow Mr. Ames personally, and must wait, of course, till he addresses mo 
 on the subject. I take it for granted that the corporation has no application to make 
 to Congress on which I shall be called upon to act officially, as I could not consistently 
 with my views of duty vote upon a question in which I had a pecuniary interest. 
 Whether I become tho owner of this stock or not, I am obliged to you for your inten- 
 tion to benefit ne. As I must, of course, pay for any stock I get, please let my sou 
 have full information as to its prospective value. 
 
 Your communication I consider, as you have indicated, confidential, except as to 
 him, and he and 'I are almost one i)erson. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 J. A. BAYAED. 
 
 H. S. McCoMJs, Es(|. 
 
 Washington, D. C., December 19, 1872. 
 
 John B. Alley, having been duly sworn, made the following state- 
 ment : 
 
 I wish to say first with regard to Mr. McComb's statement about my 
 agreeing to give Mr. Brooks fifty shares of the Credit Mobilier stock at 
 his intercession, or as he now modifies it to Mr. Neilson, which is the same 
 thing. I never had any conversation whatever of the kind referred to 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 7£ 
 
 by Mr. McOomb. I uever gave nor sold a share of stock iu the Credil 
 Mobilier to Mr. Brooks, or to any other member of Congress. I nevei 
 had any negotiations, or understanding, or talk with him or any othei 
 member of Congress, with a view to give him or sell him one siugh 
 share or any number of shares of the stock of the Credit Mobilier. ] 
 do not know how I can better or more fally answer than by saying thai 
 neither directly nor indirectly, in any way, shape, or manner did I evei 
 propose to give, or sell, or negotiate for, or have any understanding 
 about, directly or indirectly, with Mr. Brooks or Mr. Neilson, by o"] 
 through him or them, or any other party or person whatever. As tc 
 Mr. IsTeilson, I do not know him. I never saw him in my life, and nevei 
 had any conversation with anybody from him or through him, directlj 
 or indirectly. There could not be a more thorough and entire fabrica 
 tion from beginning to end than the statement of Mr. McComb. 
 
 By the Chaiejian : 
 
 Question. Eight here, Mr. Alley, let me ask you in regard to the one 
 hundred shares of Credit Mobilier stock, said to stand in the name ol 
 Mr. Neilson on the books of the Credit Mobilier ; do you know anything 
 in reference to Mr. Brooks having any interest in that one liuudred 
 shares of stock? — Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you any information upon that subject •. — A. None ; except 
 what I have obtained since this investigation came up. I talked witt 
 Mr. Brooks about it, and the only information I have on the subject is 
 from what he told me. It seems that Neilson appears as a stockholdei 
 of the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 Q. You never had any knowledge or belief that that one hundred 
 shares belonged to Mr. Brooks? — A. No, sir; I never had any reason 
 to suppose that they belonged to Mr. Brooks other than this ; when ] 
 come to that I will explain what was my understanding. 
 
 Q. Suppose you state it right here. — A. It will come in more jiroperly 
 at another point. 
 
 Q. So far as Mr. McComb's testimony goes in any way to implicate 
 you, it was wholly about Mr. Brooks, and the committee want to know 
 all you know, and to hear all you want to say ui)on that subject. Please 
 state all you know in reference to ownership in that company by Mr 
 Brooks ; whether he did or did not own any stock, and whatever passed 
 between him and you upon the subject. — A. I have no knowledge what- 
 ever of Mr. Brooks ever owning one share of stock. Since this investi- 
 gation commenced, and the charges were made, I asked Mr. Brooks 
 what there was in any way, shape, or manner that could have given 
 Mr. McComb any impression of that kind, or that I had anything to dc 
 with giving any stock to him or to his sonin-law, JSTeilson. 
 
 Q. We do not ask you >hat Mr. Brooks says about it. In all of youi 
 connection with this company, as an officer or stockholder, have yon 
 any knowledge of Mr. Brooks owning any of the stock of the compa- 
 ny ? — A. I have no knowledge whatever of his ever owning a share ol 
 that stock, directly or indirectly; none whatever. 
 
 Q. Did you ever have any conversation with him about his becoming 
 an owner of shares? — A, So, sir, never; not a word. 
 
 Q. Do you know anything in relation to any of these dealings between 
 Mr. Ames and any of the members of Congress, who have been named, 
 in relation to shares in this stock? — A. I have something that I would 
 like to say in relation to this matter a little further, in regard to Mr. 
 Brooks, in order to show to the committee that from the very circum- 
 stances of the case it would be not impossible, but exceedingly improb- 
 
76 , CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 able, that I shoakl li;ivc hail anything to do with him iu any such con- 
 fidential relations as this. Mr. McGonib has very fully stated here that 
 at that time my relations to Mr. Brooks were of an antagonistic char- 
 acter. I was politically opposed to him. and I was opposed to him in 
 the mauageinent of the Union Pacific liailroad Company. His views 
 did not correspond at all with mine. He was in favor of Mr. McComb 
 and his party. 1 did not feel any confidence in their management. 
 Consequently I stood in such relations to Mr. Brooks that I could not 
 have done anything of that kind with propriety. Then, iu addition to 
 that, let me say that so far from wanting him to be a Government di- 
 rector, and giving him fifty shares of stock to induce him to become a 
 Government director, 1 was opposed to his being appointed to that 
 position, and did all Icould to prevent his being appointed. I was in favor 
 of another man, and for the reason solely that I have stated. I think 
 Mr. Brooks is an able man, but he and I did not coincide iu our views in 
 regard to the management of the Union Pacific Ptailroad Company. 
 After Mr. Brooks came in as a Government director and found how 
 things were, he ascertained that my views and statements in regard to 
 this man :McComb corresponded with his own, afterward when he had 
 some experience as a member of the board of directors, and he frankly 
 told me so. Subsequent to that time, when he became a stock director, 
 I was in favor of his election as such, and he has had no hesitation since 
 that time in speaking of Mr. McComb about as I have done. It was a 
 matter of notoriety that Mr. aicOomb's feelings toward me were as 
 adverse as they could be. 1 have nothing further to say on that point 
 unless the committee wish to ask me further questions. 
 
 <qj. If you know anything in relation to any matters that have been 
 spoken of here respecting Mr. Ames or any of those members of Con- 
 gress, any one or all of the transactions referred to, you may state it. — 
 A. I would like to go into the whole history of this Credit Mobilier 
 business. 
 
 The chairman stated that that would be outside the sphere of this in- 
 vestigation. 
 
 The Witness. Then I will just confine myself to a statement of facts 
 bearing upon this particular matter ; but i am sorry the committee will 
 not allow me to go into the whole historj' of the Credit Mobilier. I know 
 that when Mr. Ames went into the Credit Mobilier it was his habit to 
 try to get everybody into it. He came to me at that time. I was then 
 a member of Congress, and as the circumstances in connection with it 
 are rather peculiar, let me go back a little and state that when the bill 
 was passed in ISM, Mr. Ames was on the Pacific Eailroad Committee. 
 Yon will remember that the feeling iu the House in favor of a Pacific 
 Railroad was intense, when the effective provisions making it practicable 
 to build the Pacific Kailroad became a law. In 1804, you will remember 
 that nearly everybody. was iu favor of building the road on almost any 
 terms. Mr. Lincoln, President of the United States, with whom I was 
 intimate, said a great deal about it to me. He urged me to go for it. 
 I did not like the provision in the bill about the lands, and said to Mr. 
 Ames that I thought it was too good a grant altogether. Mr. Ames 
 remarked that he thought it was none too good a bill. He said that 
 the committee desired it very much, and everybody was in favor of the 
 Pacific Eailroad. He made this remark : " You would not do such a 
 foolish thing as to put your money into it, even as good a bill as it is." 
 I replied, " No, I would not." That bill was passed with the assent, I 
 think, of every member of Congress from New England, and it received 
 almost the unanimous sanction of Congress. Everybody in all parts of 
 
CSEDIT MOBILIEK. 77 
 
 the country was iu favor of it. Those who procured the passage of this 
 bill thought the railroad under it should be put through. They went to 
 New York and enlisted capitalists to the amount, perhaps, of half a 
 million. After spending that half million it broke down substantially. 
 The gentlemen who had subscribed came to the conclusion that they 
 would rather lose what they had put in than to go lurther and risk their 
 all. Mr. Ames came to me in August, 1805, and said, "These gentlemen 
 have come on to see me. I have been looking this thing over, and I 
 think it is a practicable scheme, and I want you to go in with me. I am 
 willing to put in a large amount of money." I said to Mr. Ames, " IJo 
 man nor body of men can build that railroad under that charter, with 
 these provisions in it, with safety," pointing out the provisions in it to 
 which I referred ; that it was an utter impossibility; that no sane man 
 would invest money iu it, wi^h the provisions to which I referred, which 
 was a requirement in the charter that the books should be kept open 
 until $100,000,000 had been subscribed, and that not a share of the stock 
 should be sold at less than par. 1 told him that the literal fulfillment 
 of that provision would prevent the road from being built. He replied, 
 "I know that, because no body of men will take that responsibility. It 
 involves- the investment of at least $51,000,000, in order to enable the 
 parties to get control of the road. Now, capitalists are generally very 
 timid. At that time I knew that it would be absolutely impossible to 
 get capitalists to invest $51,000,000 in an experiment. I thought every- 
 body regarded it in that light. I conversed with members of Congress 
 about it, and they agreed with me. When Mr. Ames suggested that he 
 wanted me to go in with him, and said he did so because he regarded 
 me as a capitalist, (he was very much mistakffli in that,) and said he 
 wanted my iniiuence, my advice, and my assistance, he said, "1 tell you 
 that it is a great thing." He put his hand down on my desk iu my 
 «ounting-room. I said, "It is a great thing for the country, and 1 should 
 be glad if I could, with safety, be associated with you in putting the 
 ■enterprise through." He observed, "I believe it can be done, and I 
 am going to tell you how. It will be imj)ossible to build it under the 
 provisions of that bill, but you can construct it by a contracting com- 
 pany, to which parties owning stock in the railroad can subscribe a lim- 
 ited amount aiid be in no danger of losing any more than they have 
 subscribed. Now, my brother and myself are going to take hold of this, 
 and, if you will take hold with us, I believe it can be put through-, and 
 there is no danger if it is properly managed." He explained then in 
 regard to building sections of the road, and how it could be done safely 
 by a corporation. He went on, " I am willing to put in with my family 
 a million dollars, and I want you to put iu $50,000. I want you to be 
 identified with us. It can be made a safe thing to do and a reasonable 
 amount of profit can be got out of it." His chief argument to me was of 
 a patriotic character. The plan at that time struck me as hardly feas- 
 ible. I said I did not want to go into it; that it was outside my line of 
 business. He observed, "I want very much your influence, as well as 
 your money. We shall want pecuniary aid, and there is every consid- 
 eration with me why we want you to go iu." 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 Q. And did you go in? We desire you to make this general state- 
 ment as short as you can. — A. I will not say another word on that sub- 
 ject. You will remember that this is a matter of very great importance 
 to a very dear friend of mine, and therefore I desire to state very fully. 
 We went into the Credit Mobilier ; I put iu $50,000 under Mr. Ames's per- 
 
78 . CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 suasion ; be persuaded a great many of us to go in in the same way; 
 among others, Senator Grimes and Mr. Hooper, a member of the 
 House ; that is all I know about members of Congress. Mr. Hooper is 
 a member of Congress now, and it is proper that I should mention his 
 name; he went in at the same time and on the same ground that I did; 
 it never entered his mind, as it did not mine, that there was any corrup- 
 tion in it. After the election of directors of the Credit Mobiber we 
 went to ISTew York and found standing in the name of Thomas C. 
 Durant six hundred and fifty shares of stock which had not been 
 paid for. We called Mr. Durant's attention to it, and asked him what 
 it meant. He said that was for A, B, C. I do not think he mentioned 
 any names to me. Perhaps he did and perhaps he did not. If so, I have 
 forgotten. He said he held them in trust. We told him he must either 
 pay the money for it, or the gentlemen for ^whom it was held must pay 
 it. He rather declined. We told him that* it must be put into different 
 form, then ; that it did not stand properly on the books. After consid- 
 erable talking he transferred it to the company, and it was placed in the 
 name of Mr. Dillon, president of the company, and stood for awhile. 
 This was in the summer of 1867, according to my recollection. It was 
 for sale during that whole time. It was expected, I suppose, that Mr. 
 Durant would fulfill his promise to give it to the men whom he pre- 
 tended to be carrying it for. They were not ready, as he said, to take 
 it tlien. So it was carried along. It was very difficult to sell it; there 
 was not much call for it. Mr. Ames had great faith in it, and believed it 
 was a very great thing. When we were put in control and Mr. Durant 
 was turned out, there was a great controversy and a great deal of ill- 
 feeling, and, as you may say, a fight over the whole thing. Mr. Durant 
 and his party said the Credit Mobilier should never have another con- 
 tract. The Credit Mobilier had built over two hundred miles, and he 
 said they should never have another contract, and they never afterward 
 obtained a contract. While this condition was existing, everybody con- 
 nected with the road supposed that the Credit Mobilier would keep on 
 as it had begun, as the contracting party to build the road, but Mr. 
 Durant said no. His feelings were enlisted ; his pride and everything 
 forbade it. He and his party tried, until' there was an election in the 
 fall, to prevent it. We all of us supposed, however, that the final result 
 would be that it would be found for the interest of all the parties con- 
 cerned to allow the Credit Mobilier to build it. These six hundred and 
 fifty shares of stock still .remained for sale. Mr. Ames was trying to 
 sell it to everybody, especially to those who had influence, power, and 
 money. He had a very heavy load on his shoulders. He felt that hehad 
 a big enterprise, and he was soliciting men from every quarter to come 
 in. Finally, he told me one day that he believed this stock was going 
 to be worth several dollars for one; that it certainly would if we got a 
 contract to buijd the whole road. The capital stock of the company was 
 then $3,750,000. If the company undertook to build the road it would 
 be a long time, probably, before they would get enough out of it to make 
 very handsome profits on their capital. One day he said to me be was 
 going to let Henry Wilson have some of this stock, and remarked, " I 
 believe it is a mighty good thing. I have offered him some. His wife, 
 you know, has got some money to invest. Wilson is a good fellow, and 
 I think it will be a nice thing. I have told him that if he or his wife 
 will take a couple of thousand dollars of it, 1 will guarantee them 
 against loss, if he will give me half the profits." I think he said he- 
 would take it back at any time and give him 10 per cent, on his money. 
 A short time afterward Senator Wilson came to. me and asked me what 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. . 79 
 
 I thought of it. I do not know that I should say particularly that he 
 came to me. We were talking about it, and he asked me what I thought 
 he ought to do. He said Mr. Ames had offered to guarantee it in the 
 way I have stated. I told him he could not afford to lose anything, but 
 that if Mr. An^es had guaranteed it it would be perfectly safe, of course, 
 and I did not see why he should have any hesitation. He replied, 
 " No ; I shall take it." I supposed he did. I heard nothing about 
 it for some time, until he came to me and wanted to know what 
 this thing meant about the McComb suit at Philadelphia. He said 
 that somebody had sent him a pamphlet in which there were charges 
 of corruirtion, bribery, &c., made against Ames by this man MeComb. 
 I said to him, "Tou know who McComb is f He replied, "Yes." 
 It is not necessary for me to state what was said in regard to him. 
 He had come to the conclusion that if it would be mixed uj) in a suit of 
 that kind, or if there was to be a shadow or suspicion of any impropriety, 
 he did not wish to remain in the companj-. I told him I did not see any 
 impropriety in his owning twenty shares of stock, or in his wife owning 
 it. It was a lona-fide transaction. It was bought with her own money,, 
 as I myself knew, because a sum had been made up by Mr. Ames, my- 
 self, and many other friends as a present to Mrs. Wilson, on the occasion 
 of their silver wedding. Afterward I saw Mr. Ames, who told me about 
 what Wilson had done. I told him I did not see any use in his giving 
 it back ; still if he chose to give up what honestly belonged to him, it 
 was not for him to object. I remember using this illustration with Mr. 
 Wilson : said I, " You say you have no belief whatever in these charges 
 that Mr. Ames acted improperly in any way." He said no ; that he of- 
 fered him the stock, he knew, only to benefit him, (Wilson.) Then, said I, 
 " Have you not the courage to keep that stock 1 Would you get fright- 
 ened and return it to Mr. Ames if a pickpocket should cry 'thief in 
 order to get it himself "?" I think that is the illustration I used. He 
 said, " I do not know but you are right ; but I do not want even a breath 
 of suspicion against me. You know that if there is a man who is pure 
 in regard to these things, it is myself. I am as poor as a rat, and always 
 want to be, rather than have even a suspicion that I or my wife have 
 made a thousand dollars out o'f a transaction wrongfully. What is that 
 tome? I want it all taken back. I do not want to have anything to do 
 with it ; not that I have the slightest suspicion that Mr. Ames had any 
 wrong intentions in any shape or manner, for I know he did not." 
 
 Q. Please get on as rapidly as possible. As you understood, the money 
 was paid back to Mr. Wilson or Mrs. Wilson ? — A. I have understood 
 so since. I never heard any more about it till the charge was made in 
 the newspapers this last fall. Then he told me that it was all paid back, 
 and I suppose it was paid at the time. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. How long was Mrs. Wilson the owner of these twenty shares? — A.. 
 Some months, I should think. I do not know about that. I do not 
 recollect, for it was a long time ago,- and it has passed out of my mind. 
 
 Another case was that ' of Mr. Dawes. Mr. Dawes came to me and 
 said he had been talking with Mr. Ames about the Oredi t Mobilier. He 
 said that he went to Mr. Ames to buy a bond of $1,000 in one of his 
 Iowa railroads. Mr. Ames had sold several thousand dollars of them, 
 I think, to G-overuor Washburn. He said that he had been told that 
 I was a director of this Credit Mobilier, and would know all about it ;. 
 that he had understood that it was a good investment ; if it was he would 
 like to invest. Mr. Dawes is a moderately thrifty man, and has talked 
 
t 
 
 80 . CEEMT MOBILIEE. 
 
 to me sometiuic.-^. ;il)ont his iuvestments, which was very uatunil, as I 
 was his colleague. When he came to me he said that he went to Mr. 
 Ames to buy this bond ; that Mr. Ames had said he had none he could lot 
 him have, but that he could give him something better than that, and 
 that he then told him about the Credit Mobilier ; that he asked Mr. 
 Ames if he thought it was a good thing, and Mr. Ames replied it was, 
 and that Mr. Alley could tell him all about it ; that Mr. Ames had re- 
 marked that if he was not entirely satisfied with it he could bring it 
 back and he would give him the money at any time. 1 told Mr. Dawes 
 that that was perfectly safe, of course. He said he was going to take it, 
 and he did take it. He told me afterward that his neighbor Larned, in 
 Pittsfield, had said to him that the Credit Mobilier belonged to him, and 
 that he was going to have a lawsuit about it, and was going to oust Ames, 
 Alley, and all of us. He said to me, " What does it mean f I told him 
 it meant nothing. He did not like it at all ; did not want to be in a 
 company where there was to be such a suit as that. According to that 
 man's statement there would be a pretty heavy litigation. He went off, 
 and I heard no more about it till this affair came out in the papers. 
 Then Mr. Dawes told me that he at that time gave it back to Mr. Ames, 
 and he was very glad he did so, because of this fuss. I mentioned it 
 to Mr. Ames, who told me that it was so. This was all there was of that 
 case. 
 
 Then another colleague of mine, Mr. Boutwell, spoke to me. What 
 he said to me precisely I do not remember. I understood that he 
 agreed to take ten shares of the Credit Mobilier stock, and asked me 
 about it. I told him what I had told Mr. Dawes and Mr. AVilson. He 
 said he thought it was a very good thing. I said I did not think as 
 well of it as Mr. Ames ; but as he is very confident, and as he oftereji 
 to return you your money if you are not satisfied, I should recommend 
 it to you. He does that for everybody, for all his friends, which shows 
 that he has very great faith in it. Mr. Boutwell replied, " Yes, I see 
 he has, and think I shall take ten shares of it." I heard no more about 
 that till this talk in the newspapers, when I asked Mr. Ames in regard 
 to it, and he told me that Mr. Boutwell never had any of the stock; tha,t 
 he never took it ; that for some reason, he did not know what, he never 
 had had anything to do with it. There was nothing strange in Mr. 
 Boutwell coming to Mr. Ames and to me to talk about investments in a 
 small way. He is a man of moderate property, and thrifty in his man- 
 agement of it. He is as pure in his personal integrity as an angel in 
 heaven, if you will allow the expression. 
 
 Now, in regard to Mr. Scofield. I remember he came one day and 
 told me that Mr. Ames had been talking to him about the Credit Mo- 
 bilier, and he asked me about it. He had an idea in his mind that there 
 was a personal liability about it. I told him there was, and told him' 
 just the situation. At least I think I did when he came to me to talk 
 about it. What the conversation was I do not now recollect particu- ' 
 larly. I do not know about his ca§e, only that he told me he was going 
 to take some, or that Mr. Ames had agreed to let him have some of the 
 stock. Whether he took it or not I did not know until this affair came 
 out, when I went to Mr. Ames about it, and he said Mr. Scofield did ' 
 take some. I believe these are all the cases of members of Congress I 
 know anything about. 
 
 Without finishing the examination of this witness, the committee ad- 
 journed till January 7, 1873, at 10 a. m. 
 
(CREDIT MOBILIEE. 81 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 7, 1873. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members pres- 
 ent except Mr. Banks. 
 
 The chairman stated that he had received a letter from Mr. Banks 
 notifying Mm that it would be impossible for him to be present for sev- 
 eral days. 
 
 The following resolution of the House of Representatives was laid 
 before the committee ; 
 
 FORTY-SECOND CONGRESS, THIRD SESSION. 
 
 Congress op thk United States, 
 In the House of Eepresentatives , January 6, 1873. 
 On motion of Mr. Fkyk, 
 Sesolved, That the committee of this House appointed to investigate charges of cor- 
 ruption in the matter of stock in the Credit Mobilier be, and they are hereby, instructed 
 to continue such investigation witliout secrecy as to either their past or future proceed- 
 ings; and that the testimony hitlierto taken be made public. 
 Attest : 
 
 E. Mcpherson, cur};. 
 
 SCHUYLEE CoLFAS, Vice-President of the United States, appeared, 
 and, having been duly sworn, made the following statement : 
 
 I should like, if 1 may be permitted, to make a full statement of the 
 whole matter so far as ray name is connected with the subject of this 
 investigation, and then to answer any questions which may be asked in 
 the nature of a cross-examination. 
 
 Let me remark, in the first place, that what I am about now to read 
 was written immediately after my informal appearance before the com- 
 mittee on the 16th of December last, and it is therefore entirely un- 
 affected by anything that has been published since. I expected then to 
 have been examined immediately after Speaker Blaine. 
 
 I may add that Mr. Ames will recollect, when I .call to his mind the 
 circumstances of the transaction, that he never i>aid me a dollar, or the 
 value of a dollar, on any account whatever. I notice in the papers of 
 this morning that Mr. Ames's mind, when he was before the committee 
 as a witness, was unsettled in regard to the payment of dividends. I 
 wish to repeat that I never did receive a dollar, or the value of a dollar, 
 or any amount whatever from him, and I think Mr. Ames will recollect 
 that i did not, when I recall to his mind these circumstances, which 
 would of course impress themselves more on my mind than his, as it was 
 a larger matter to me than to him. 
 
 I had expected, after the Speaker had testified, that I would be the 
 next one invited before this committee. But, as this was not done, I 
 asked the committee on December 16 to be -allowed to testify, and that 
 my testimony might be made public. , 
 
 I state explicitly that no one eiver gave, or offered to give me, any 
 shares of stock in the Credit Mobilier, or the Union Pacific Railroad. I 
 have never received, nor had tendered to me, any dividends in cash, 
 stock, or bonds, accruing upon any stock in either of said organizations. 
 And neither Mr. Ames, nor any other person connected with either of 
 said organizations, ever asked me to vote for or against any measures 
 affecting the interests of either, directly or remotely, or to use any per- 
 sonal or official influence in their favor. 
 
 I desire, however, to state all the circumstances through which proba- 
 bly my name came to be associated with this organization. 
 
 Five years ago, about the time of the holiday recess, I was conversing 
 6x 
 
82 CEEDIT MOBILISE. 
 
 on the floor of the House with Mr. Ames in regaid to the Pacific Rail- 
 road, in favor of the building of which I had previously made hundreds 
 of public addresses. In the course of this conversation he asked me if I 
 would not like to purchase some stock in the Credit MobilieT. Up to 
 that time I knew nothing of its capital or profits ; and I inquired of 
 him as to its objects and the value of its stock. 
 
 As near as I can recall this conversation, after the lapse of so many 
 years, I was informed by him that it was a legally incorporated company, 
 composed of the principal stockholders of the Union Pacific Eailroad, 
 who were themselves building the road instead of letting it out to con- 
 tractors, who always expected large profits for their risk and their ad- 
 vances of money for supplies. I told him after his explanation that it 
 looked like a good nnd safe investment for one of limited nieans, and 
 that I would be willing to purchase twenty or thirty shares at a fair 
 price if I had the money. But I added frankly that I could not pay for 
 them till two or three months afterward, as my housekeeping' expenses 
 in the opening months of the session were much larger than the average. 
 He replied that he would contract to sell me twenty shares at par, if I 
 would in addition agree to pay interest until final payment. I inquired 
 what per cent, it would pay, and he replied that there had been large 
 dividends, but as the road was pushed farther into the interior, the 
 profits might not be so large, though they would be very surely remu- 
 nerative. 
 
 The Union Pacific Ea^ilroad had no legislation that I knew of pending 
 before Congress at that time, nor did I suppose there could be any in the 
 future, as the last amendment to their charter authorizing the issue of 
 first-mortgage bonds which should have priority of the Government lieu 
 had been enacted in 1864, over three years before this conversation. 
 Inferring that any questions arising under their charter would be judi- 
 cially settled, and supposing, at any rate, that I had the same right to 
 purchase this stock as to buy stock in a national bank chartered by Con- 
 gress, or in a manirfactory, I told him that I would agree to purchase 
 twenty shares at par and interest, to be paid for as soon as I had the 
 money. Some weeks or months afterward, at the same session, I paid 
 Mr. Ames about $500 in cash on this contract of purchase, being all the 
 money I had ; but received no dividend or certificate of stock, in whole 
 or in part. My impression is that he told me that one or two dividends 
 had been earned, but they were not in cash, and were as yet unadjusted. 
 Certainly I did not receive any, and was not offered any in cash, bonds, 
 or stock, then or since. A few weeks or months after this I heard a 
 rumor that unpleasant controversies existed among the largest stock- 
 holders, which were certain to involve the organization in prolonged 
 litigation. 
 
 The very day I heard this rumor I told Mr. Ames that no profits, 
 present or prospective, cbuld induce me to buy into a lawsuit ; that I 
 had never been, during all my life, a plaintiii" or a defendant in a 
 court of justice; that I must therefore recede entirely from the transac- 
 tion between us, as I did not want stock of any kind, on any terms, 
 that would make me a party to litigation. He assented to this, and 
 nothing was said as to the money paid, my anxiety being not to 
 get into a lawsuit. All these things occurred at the same session of 
 Congress, five years ago, which closed in the summer of 1868. The 
 next year, or the year after, Mr. Ames suspended payment, in conse- 
 quence, as was said^ of financial involvements connected with the 
 Pacific Railroad, and his creditors gave him an extension on his liabili- 
 ties. But, regretting his failure and its cause, I voluntarily told him to 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 83 
 
 dismiss from bis miud the small amount of money between us. I sup- 
 pose, but for this, he would have repaid me the money I had paid him. 
 I may repeat, therefore, that neither stock nor bonds were given to 
 me, nor offered to be given to me ; that I have never received a dollar 
 in bonds, stock, or money as dividends ; that I did contract to purchase 
 twenty shares of stock in the company at par and interest, but that, 
 after a partial payment, I withdrew entirely from what I regarded as 
 an uncompleted contract to purchase, from repugnance to being involved 
 in litigation ; and that, instead of being enriched by it one thousand or 
 twenty thousand dollars, as has been charged, I am voluntarily out of 
 pocket five hundred dollars, and have been for nearly five years. 
 
 By the CHAiEMAjir : 
 Q. I may, perhaps, inquire whether you have any knowledge of own- 
 ership of stoclc in the Credit Mobilier by any member of Congress I — A. 
 No, sir ; Mr. Ames did not mention anything to me in regard to the sale 
 of stock to members of Congress. I had made a good many speeches in 
 my own State and many other States in favor of baildiug the Pacific 
 Eaiiroad, and I asked him how the road was progressing, how it was 
 being pushed into the interior, and out of that inquiry grew this conver- 
 sation in regard to the Credit .Mobilier on the part of Mr. Ames, as I 
 inferred. I have no knowledge whatever of the ownership of stock in 
 the Credit Mobilier by members of Congress at all except through the 
 newspapers. 
 
 By Mr. 'MERPaCK : 
 
 Q. Hav§ you any knowledge of the relations between the Credit Mo- 
 bilier and the Union Pacific Eaiiroad Company! — A. No, sir; except so 
 far as Mr. Ames and these conversations explained them to me. I had 
 heard of the Credit Mobilier and of the Credit Foucier, as connected 
 with the Union Pacific Eaiiroad. I had known of them because per- 
 sons had spoken about the Credit Foncier and the Credit Mobilier. I 
 did not know what they were, except that they had some connection 
 with this road. When Mr. Ames spoke to me about it I asked what the 
 objects of the Credit Mobilier were, and, as nearly as I can recollect a 
 conversation that occurred five years ago, he told me it was composed 
 of the principal stockholders of the Union Pacific Eaiiroad Company; 
 that its object was to build the railroad, and I think he said they had 
 received or would receive considerable profits, and perhaps very large 
 profits, for the risk they ran and the advance of money made. At any 
 rate the impression he gave me was that the principal stockholders of 
 the road were themselves building it. The proposition seemed, as he 
 stated it, to be a reasonable one. I did not know then that Mr. McComb 
 was interested in it. I knew that Mr. Alley and Mr. Ames had the repu- 
 tation of considerable wealth, and that their credit would enable them 
 to purchase iron and other supplies, which I could not purchase without 
 advancing the money. What I understood to be the object of the Credit 
 Mobilier was to build the road within the subsidy proffers of the Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Q. Then you understood that the stockholders and officers of the 
 Union Pacific Eaiiroad Company were to contract with themselves as 
 stockholders and contractors to build the road, and derive for them- 
 selves the profits under the contract for its construction ? — A. Not quite 
 so strong as that.. The conversation was not exactly to that length by 
 any means. I am free to say that, as I recollect my impression of the 
 matter in 1865, 1 considered the project a natural one. If I had had 
 the money to spare I should have put it in myself as one of the original 
 
84 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 stockholders of the Uniou Pacific Eailroad, having so often nrged others 
 publicly to risk their money in its construction. I do not know that Mr. 
 Ames went fully into the organization of the Credit Mobilier. I do not 
 know that he told me what State had authorized its charter. I understood 
 that they were to build this road instead of letting it out to contractors 
 over the country, who Avould charge i)roportionate profits for the risks 
 they incurred. I inferred from these statements, as I have said, that 
 it would be a good investment for the reason that the men in it being 
 known as gentlemen of wealth could purchase supplies at less rates 
 than could have been done by others. 
 
 Q. Did he say that all the stockholders of the Union Pacific Eailroad 
 were stockholders of the Credit Mobilier ?— A. He did not say that all 
 of them were. I understood that the principal stockholders were. 
 
 Q. Did it occur to you at that time that there was any moral or legal 
 impropriety in the stockholders of a railroad company making a con- 
 tract with themselves to build the road °! — A. I do uot like to be called 
 upon to settle moral questions for others. I can say for myself that it 
 did not seem to be morally wrong. My impressions in regard to it were 
 as follows: 1 had heard of railroads being built and the contractors 
 paid in bonds furnished them at the low ilgures of 60 or 70 cents, on the 
 dollar, which the railroad ultimately had to pay for at par. In this way 
 the roads had to pay 75 or 100 per cent, profit. As these gentlemen 
 had put their money into an enterprise which was regarded by millions 
 of people as an uncertain and dangerous one, they would evidently de- 
 sire to build the road within the limits of the proffer made by the Gov- 
 ernment. Otherwise, if it had been let out to contractors and there had 
 been a large deficit at the end, they and the other stockholders of the 
 road would have had to meet it. I do not, however, as 1 have said, un- 
 dertake to decide questions of ethics or law as to others, and on mat- 
 ters not within my knowledge. I did not think there was anything 
 morally wrong in agreeing to buy this stock ; and my impressions about 
 it, whether right or wrong, were as I have stated. 
 
 I wish to say that, if any further testimony should be desired of nie, 
 I shall be ready to respond to the invitation of the committee at any. 
 time, without the formality of a summons. And I would also ask that 
 Mr. Ames and Mr. McComb, who are both present, should cross-examine 
 me now on any point that occurs to them. 
 
 [Both these gentlemen, being invited by the chairman to do so, replied 
 that they had no questions to proiwund to Mr. Colfax.] 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 7, 1873. 
 Examination of John B. Alley resumed : 
 
 Before resuming my testimony proper, I wish to make to the commit- 
 tee a very few observations. 
 
 I rejoice that these doors are thrown open to the public, and I hope 
 the committee will see their way clear now to allow what I so earnestly 
 plead for at the last meeting— the fullest and freest investigation into 
 all matters having a tendency to throw light upon all questions con- 
 nected with these charges. 
 
 It is hard for men who feel conscious, not only of deserving no censure, 
 but, on the contrary, meriting great praise, to have their nanjes inscribed 
 upon the enduring records of the nation as guilty of purposes which, 
 if true, sliould consign them to eternal infamy, without having the op- 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 85 
 
 portunity to show, iu the fullest manner possible, every act and cir- 
 cumstance which, in their judgment, would establish their innocence. 
 If this privilege is accorded, I think Mr. Ames will be able, not only to 
 show his own honest intentions, but, also, that the cry of '' Stop thief" 
 ■was raised by the thieves themselves. If allowed to reveal to you the en- 
 tire history of the Credit Mobilier and its whole connection with the 
 Union Pacific Railroad Company, I shall exhibit, 1 am sorry to say, a 
 sad and sorrowful record, but one in no way discreditable to that cor- 
 poration or any of its managers, and which will, I feel certain, leave no 
 impression on the public mind prejudicial to any member of the i)resent 
 House of Eepresentatives, however it may affect others. 
 
 I am here not only at your request, but at the earnest solicitation of 
 one of the most eminent lawyers of New England, distinguished as much 
 for his sterling integrity as great capacity. He is the friend of Mr. 
 Ames, and knows everything in connection with the history of the Credit 
 Mobilier and Union Pacific Eailroad Company. He said to me, " You 
 know as well as myself all the facts in connection with these corpora- 
 tions, and remember them with more distinctness than any one." "And," 
 said he further, "you and I know Mr. Ames to be a perfectly honest 
 man ; therefore I think it is your duty to go to Washington and testify 
 in his behalf." I said I would go, and I feel that if the American peo- 
 ple could know all the facts, insfead of bestowing upon Oakes Ames 
 one word of censure, they would far sooner erect a monument to his 
 name in grateful recognition of his eminent services. 
 
 I came here simply as a witness, having been for several years out of 
 the direction of the Credit Mobilier, and for a long-time out of the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad Company. I have very little interest in either. 
 I do not hold a single bond of any of their securities, and but a trifling 
 amount of stocif. I did not dream of any one charging me, or suppos- 
 ing! had ever bought, or sold, or given a share of Credit Mobilier stock 
 to any member or members of Congress, as I never had bought or sold, 
 negotiated or talked of negotiating, directly or indirectly, or given to or 
 had any conversation with any member of Congress, or with any one 
 else, with a view to selling or giving any stock to any member of Con- 
 gress. 
 
 Imagine mj' astonishment, coming here as a witness, and finding my- 
 self charged with yielding to the entreaty of James Brooks, and con- 
 senting to his being given, by Mr. Ames, or the company, or both, fifty 
 shares of stock, without consideration, for his congressional influence. 
 
 There seems to be a great mist hanging over the public mind in rela- 
 tion to this corporation called the Credit Mobilier. The honorable 
 Speaker remarked, in his testimony, that everybody knows that the 
 Credit Mobilier built the Union Pacific Eailroad. I did not know it ; 
 but I do know that the fact is otherwise. The Credit Mobilier did not 
 build but two hundred and forty-seven miles of the Union Pacific Eail- 
 road, and that was the first two hundred and forty-seven. The last 
 eight hundred miles were built by other contractors, and the Credit 
 Mobilier had nothing to do with it, directly or indirectly, except in guar- 
 anteeing a contract. The Credit Mobilier never made a dollar out of the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad. The Credit Mobilier has not paid 7 per. cent, 
 on its capital, and its stock is not now, and has not been for a long time, 
 worth sixty cents on the dollar. Its board of directors is now, and has 
 been for five years, composed of men of the highest respectability and 
 character. It has been plundered, swindled, and outraged more than 
 any corporation I have ever heard of. But for the honesty and sense 
 of iustice of Oakes Ames, who, with rare magnanimity, (considering the 
 
'86 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 treatment which he had received at that time from some of the largest 
 •stockholders,) let the stockholders all into his contract, and not only 
 enabled us to save ourselves from loss, but make something handsome 
 lipon our investment. 
 
 In order, however, to do it, all had to sign agreements and become 
 personally liable for the whole amount. When some of them found what 
 -an Immense risk they were taking, they were not so earnest to get into 
 it. This was the only contract in which anything was ever made. All 
 ■others resulted in loss. The net profit of this enormous contract of 
 $47,000,000, in compensation for its immense risks and prodigious labor, 
 were between eight and nine millions of dollars, provided they sold the 
 securities which they received in pay at their average market value be- 
 fore the first day of January, 1870, which was over seven months after 
 the road was opened. Oakes Ames's individual interest in that contract 
 ■was between five and six millions. He made less than a million, and he 
 has got no one of his several millions which has cost him one-half of the 
 effort, anxiety, and risk as this one has. He ought and would have 
 made two millions if there had been no plundering, and the road had 
 been well and economically managed in its construction. My interest 
 in that contract was less than half a million. I have sold all the securi- 
 ties I have ever received on account of it, and know what I have made, 
 and my books show $93,450. This w&s every dollar I ever made in the 
 construction of that road. I have got no money that I earned harder or 
 took more risk for. I aided the road and Mr. Ames nearly the whole 
 time with capital to the amount of three-quarters of a million. But 
 nearly all the looses, occasioned by plundering, cheating, and misman- 
 agement, were borne directly or indirectly by the stockholders of the 
 Credit Mobilier and the Union Pacific Eailroad. The Government has 
 not been wronged or cheated in any way that I am aware of. It has got 
 all that it required, and all that was agreed to— a first-class road, thor- 
 oughly equipped. The Government has been well treated, thanks to the 
 Ameses and their friends, and has got all that belongs t'o it. It made a 
 better bargain and got more benefit than any other party or parties. It 
 has the second lien upon the road for the loan of its credit, and the se- 
 curity is good. 
 
 I shall now submit my testimony in detail, and I hope without inter- 
 ruption, willing, then, to submit to any cross-examination, however 
 searching, by the committee or any one else. Although some of it 
 may appear irrelevant as I go along, I think you will find, when 
 through, that I could have omitted nothing and given a proper under- 
 standing of the case, or said less in justice to Mr. Ames and all those 
 members of Congress who are implicated with him in these chaTges of 
 corruption and fraud; every fact I 'shall state and every declara- 
 tion I shall make will be susceptible of the clearest proofs by 
 documentary evidence and oral testimony as unimpeachable as would 
 be that of John Marshall, were he living and present here to-day. It 
 was found by Mr. Ames and others that the management of the Credit 
 Mobilier and Union Pacific Eailroad, both being managed by the same 
 parties, Mr. Thomas C. Durant, (with Mr. McOomb, director in the 
 Pacific Eailroad Company, as coadjutor and friend,) as president of the 
 Credit Mobilier and vice-president of the Union Pacific Eailroad Com- 
 pany, it may be said that he had both completely and entirely under his 
 charge. 
 
 Mr. Ames and his friends and associates were greatly dissatisfied 
 with the management, and felt that a change must be effected, or 
 the road could never be comi^leted to his and their satisfaction ; Mr 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 87 
 
 Ames always contending that Lis sole object was, so far as pecuniary 
 profit was concerned, to make whatever money he should make out 
 of it by operating the road, and to attain this end the interests of the 
 Government and his own were identical, and he was determined that 
 it should be a first-class road, thoroughly equipped, as they had agreed 
 ■with the Government that it should be. Durant, McComb, and their 
 supporters believed that everything that could be made must be 
 made in the construction of the road, and that whoever depended 
 like Mr. Ames for profitable returns upon his investment in the 
 future earnings of the road was, to use Durant's own expression, " a 
 damned fool." Mr. Ames and his friends feeling that it was indispen- 
 sably necessary (in fact self-preservation required it at that time) that 
 they should get rid of Durant and compauy. While not able to turn 
 them out of the direction of the Union Pacific Railroad Company at 
 that time, they had the power to turn Durant and friends out of the 
 Credit Mobilier. They did so, and elected seven directors of the high- 
 est character and respectability, three of whom were appointed on the 
 executive committee. Mr. Sidney Dillon was elected president; Mr. 
 Eowland G. Hazard, of Ehode Island, a distinguished and wealthy citi- 
 zen of that State, and myself, together with the president, constituted 
 the executive committee, upon whom devolved chiefly the administra- 
 tion of the corporation. Immediately upon being installed into office 
 we discovered great irregularities. Enormous amounts of money had 
 been used for purposes which we could not discover, called, I believe, a 
 secret fund. We also found G50 shares of stock standing in the name 
 of Thomas C. Durant, the circumstances of which I have already re- 
 lated. As I have said before, it had been the purpose of all the parties 
 in interest to have built the road under contracts by the Credit Mobi- 
 lier ; but Mr. Durant and his friends declared that the Credit Mobilier 
 should never have another contract of the Union Pacific Eailroad Com- 
 pany. He and McComb and their associates in the board of direction in 
 Union Pacific Eailroad Company had sufiicient influence and power to 
 prevent being carried out the original design of building the road by and 
 through a contracting company called the Credit Mobilier. Through the 
 summer of 1867, from May to August, the two parties finding that nothing 
 but loss would accrue to each under such a state of things, finally agreed 
 that Mr. Oakes Ames could be trusted with a contract to any amount. It 
 was proposed to give Mr. Ames a contract to build 667 miles of road, 
 believing him to be a perfectly honest man, notwithstanding all the dis- 
 sensions and opposition to him upon other grounds. All were perfectly 
 agreed that he was perfectly honest and could be safely trusted with all 
 their enormous interests. Accordingly it was proposed to him, which 
 proposition he accepted, that he should build 667 miles, for which he should 
 receive in the aggregate the sum of $47,000,000. It was thought by all 
 concerned that it was a happy solution of the difficulty, and we believed 
 no other man in the country who had millions to lose, as Mr. Ames had, 
 could have been induced to assume such an immense responsibility. He 
 took it, however, upon himself with only this condition being attached 
 to it : that it should receive the assent of all the stockholders of the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad Company ; other than that there were no condi- 
 tions, and he would make no pledges. In reply to their solicitations he 
 would only say, " 1 am an honest man ; no man shall be cheated ; all 
 shall have what justly belongs to them." After the contract was 
 given to him he then said : " I knosv that this contract in honor and 
 honesty, belongs to the stockholders of the Credit Mobilier. I will 
 assign it to seven (7) trustees upon certain condition, ahd every 
 
88 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 individual member of that corporation shall be otfered the opportu- 
 nity of taking an interest in that contract, in pro rata proportion 
 to his ownersliip in the stock." This he regarded as nothing 
 but honest and just. In order, however, to obtain an interest in that 
 contract they must all sign certain agreeiueuts, and they all became in- 
 dividually liable for the whole amount. That was agreed to by all par- 
 ties. Wiien we came into the direction of the Credit Mobilier we found, 
 among other matters, that there was charged $41,000 for its charter of 
 franchise, which only cost $1,600. We also found that, in the transfer 
 of settlement of the Hoxie contract, there was charged an immanse 
 sum more than should have been, which went into the pocket of some- 
 body to whom it did not belong. Then there were other vast sums 
 claimed to have been spent as secret-service money in Washington. 
 This included sums charged to that account by both the Credit Mobilier 
 and the Union Pacific Railroad Company ; how much to each I do not 
 know ; Avhich was the only explanation ever obtained respecting this 
 enormous deficiency. McGomb, in his testimony before the court in 
 Pennsylvania, says that Mr. Alley denounced Mr. Durant and called 
 him dishonest, and told him (McOomb) that he was not fit to be trusted 
 with the funds of the corporation ; that a committee was appointed to 
 investigate, audit, and settle his accounts ; and that Mr. Alley was the 
 only man upon that committee who was not satisfied with his accounts. 
 Now, this is not true at all. Mr. Oakes Ames, as well as myself, and I 
 think some others, refused with me to sign the report. My recollection 
 is that no one but McComb was entirely satisfied, and Rowland G. Haz- 
 ard, one of the most eminent citizens of Rhode Island, who was upon 
 the executive committee of the Credit Mobilier with me, brought a suit 
 in the courts of Rhode Island charging Mr. Durant with the embezzle- 
 ment of very large sums belonging to the Credit Mobilier and Union 
 Pacific Railroad Company, for one or both, I am not certain which, and 
 which he refused to account for. He would only explain that expendi- 
 ture so far as one individual was concerned, and with him he had quar- 
 reled. That man was Thaddeus Stevens. He declared that he had 
 paid him $80,000 in a roundfibout Avay for getting bills through 
 Congress. He refused to reveal the name of any other mem- 
 ber. McComb was satisfied with his explanation, bub Mr. Ames 
 and myself were not, and I believe all our honest associates were 
 entirely convinced, after that attempt of Fisk, Durant, and McComb 
 to steal the road from us, that they were not only bosom-friends, 
 but partners in a greater or less degree in every wrongful scheme from 
 the inception of the enterprise to their dismissal from the direction. 
 Neither Mr. Ames, Mr. Hazard, nor myself believed a word of the story 
 about Mr. Stevens. We certainly should not have sanctioned it if it 
 had been true, and we were not going by any means to allow it when 
 we believed it false. Every circumstance within our knowledge for- 
 bids its belief: our opinion of Mr. Stevens, and the fact that at that 
 time everybody almost of all parties, in Congress and out, were in favor 
 of the bill, which destroyed all necessity or motive to bribe any one. 
 The President, Mr. Lincoln, was ardently in favor of it, and in fact was 
 willing to go for a more favorable bill, and told me that the capi- 
 talists of the country, if any such could be found, who would build the 
 road under that bill, would immortalize themselves. Durant and his 
 party finding themselves ousted from the Credit Mobilier corporation, 
 and finding themselves and their friends the owners of only about one- 
 fourth of the stock of the Union Pacific Railroad, resorted to a scheme 
 or trick, in association with Jim Fisk, by which they hoped to wrest 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 89 
 
 from its rightful owners the Union Pacific Railroad, and tlirow out these 
 men who had invested their millions in it in good faith, without Fisk, 
 Durant, or McComb iuvestiug an additional dollar in it, except, perhaps, 
 $140, which Fisk invested. But their machinations and intrigues did 
 not succeed. lu order, however, to fully thwart them, we had to raise 
 the enormous sum of $15,000,000 in a single day. Jim Fisk, McOomb, 
 and Durant came to grief in this attempt, and the result was Durant, 
 McComb, aud friends were put out of the direction. Some of them 
 were iinally re-instated upon a compromise, and this contract of Oakes 
 Ames for the benefit of the stockholders of the Credit Mobilier as I 
 have described went into effect. I was one of the trustees, at the 
 earnest solicitation of Mr. Ames, of this contract. I served two or three 
 months, when to the great joy of Durant and McComb, and to my own 
 great relief, I was, with the consent of Mr. Ames, permitted to withdraw. 
 After that I had nothing whatever to do with the construction of the 
 road. During the summer of 18GS, Jesse L, Williams, a Government 
 director and an honest man, ever watchful of the interests of the Gov- 
 ernment, complained bitterly to Mr. Oliver Ames, the president, and 
 others of the board, of the influence of Durant, McComb, and company, 
 and did not feel satisfied with the way in which the road was being 
 built, and pointed out certain defects which should be remedied. Mr. 
 Ames assured him that he desired as much as himself that the Govern- 
 ment should get a first-rate road. I asserted the same, and General 
 Dodge, our chief engineer, also, and we three pledged ourselves to him 
 that the interests of the Government should be protected, so far as in 
 our power, and they should have a first-class road. That pledge, I 
 think, Mr. Williams will testify was fully redeemed so far as we three 
 were concerned. We were all four then in the West on the line of the 
 road. On our return home we found that the executive committee had 
 passed resolutions conferring full authority to act upon the line of the 
 road upon Mr. Durant, the vice-president, amenable only to the execu- 
 tive committee, chiefly composed of his friends, practically ignoring the 
 president and chief engineer ; Mr. Oliver Ames, always honest and true, 
 yet often yielding reluctantly to these men, as I thought, because of the 
 excessive amiability of his nature. I denounced to Mr. Oakes Ames 
 this action of the executive committee, and predicted the ruin of the 
 enterprise if the management was to be given to such men as Durant 
 and McComb; that the Government would be wronged and cheated, and 
 that such men as himself would be plundered. Mr. Ames concurred 
 with me. I need only add that the passage of that resolution did nearly 
 bankrupt the comi>any. In my disgust I wrote to Mr. Oliver Ames, the 
 president, my view of the situation and his duty in the premises. This 
 letter was as follows,- and this is the original draught : 
 
 Boston, Jiily '25, 1868. 
 
 Dbak Sir : I have lieen reflecting upon tlie resolution passed l)y tLe execntiye com- 
 mittee, and the action and evident purpose of some of our directors, and X must say- 
 that, dissatisfied and iiueasy as you and others know I have been ever since I have heen 
 engaged with the road, I have never known anything in the action of these men that 
 ha(S silarmed me more than their present course. If our associates had been all of them 
 like you and your brotlier, disposed and desirous to do right and doing justice to the 
 stockholders and the Government, we should not now have been troubled with the in- 
 junctions and rascalities which, I fear, may injure us seriously. 
 
 You have acquiesced in and submitted to wrong ; and to the view of outsiders even 
 appeared to countenance and encourage it, until there is great danger, I think, of com- 
 promising your character by any longer acquiescing in their machinations and wrong- 
 doing. 1 feel that we have a trust confided to us which, as honorable men, we are 
 bound to administer in the interests of tlie stockholders, the Government, and the 
 American people. The Government has been liberal and generous, and is entitled to 
 
90 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 protection iu all its rights. We can afford and ought to give them a first-class road. 
 I know that you are as strongly in favor of that as I am, and that you have always 
 been. 
 
 We made strong pledges, and so did onr chief engineer, General Dodge, to Mr. 
 Williams, that no stone should he loft unturned to accomplish that end, and by no 
 vote or act of ours should anything be countenanced looking to auy different result. 
 Now, what do we find upon our return ? The executive committee practically ignoring 
 the board of directors, and no meeting of the board for four months ; the chief en- 
 gineer subordinate and insnited because ho is fearless and honest and ■wishes to protect 
 the rights of all ; your authority very much impaired and crippled — in fact almost de- 
 stroyed for the same reason. I have for many months struggled and battled for the 
 right in the interest of the road and the rights of the Government conscientiously and 
 industriously. I have countenanced measures and acquiesced iu proceedings that I 
 did not always like for the sake of peace. Yet notwithstanding, I have made myself 
 odious and hated, almost beyond eudurance, because I have stood up boldly and per- 
 sistently for what I knew was right. For this they attempted to throw me out of the 
 direction last spring, and almost succeeded, and at the next election will probably do 
 so. But if we are to get along in this way I shall be glad to retire now. I feel that 
 you and I both have endeavored to do right and countenance no wrong ; but just as 
 sure as we acquiesce and help these people to carry out their desigus we shall be 
 compromised and disgraced by their actions, as I fear we are already, to some extent. 
 Now, I do not feel that there is value enough iu the money we get to induce me to do 
 what my judgment and conscience condemn. Now, Mr. Ames, I advise you, as a friend, 
 and I earnestly implore you by every consideration of justice and right, and in 
 behalf of your own honor and that of ourselves, to resist, by all the power which yon 
 possess, these encroachments upon your rights and ours. For one, I will stand by you 
 and defend you with all the ability which God has given me. If you will, however, 
 allow yourself to be subordinated by such men and the board of directors ignored, the 
 rights of the stockholders trifled with, and our pledges to a beneflcont Government 
 trampled upon, then I must enter my solemn i>rotest ; and if such a state of- things 
 must continue, then let mo retire from the contest. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 JOHN B. ALLEY. 
 
 Hon. Oliver Ames, 
 
 Fresidbnt of the Union Pacific Railroad Company. 
 
 We found six hundred and fifty shares of stock, as I have before men- 
 tioned, standing in the treasury unsold. Mr. Ames, supposing that it 
 would finally be determined that the road should be built, as originally 
 contemplated, by a contract with the Credit Mobilier, he believed that 
 the stock of that company would be very valuable, and he urged his 
 acquaintances to buy who had capital, pow6r, or influence, as he had 
 done from the time of his first connection with the enterprise. Proba- 
 bly not a week elapsed at any time through the whole period until 
 every dollar of the stock was taken that he did not solicit his friends to 
 purchase some of that stock. 
 
 After the matter was compromised and Mr. Ames had made the 
 proposition to offer an interest iu that contract to everybody who would 
 take it, who owned stock in the Credit Mobilier Company, the stock of 
 that company being thus made the basis by Mr. Ames of the right to 
 an interest in his contract, immediately rose in value, and, from being a 
 drug in the market at $100 per share, became of maTketable value''at 
 $160 up to $200 almost immediately. Mr. Ames found himself some- 
 what embarrassed from having promised a great deal more stock than 
 the company could issue. He and Mr. Duraut had promised some sev- 
 enty or eighty thousand dollars of stock, as they alleged, each claiming 
 a right to sell, as had been their custom, and urging others to buy. It 
 was finally agreed that this stock should be divided between Mr. 
 Durant and Mr. Ames, Mr.Durant to have four hundred shares, I think, 
 and Mr. Ames two hundred and fifty shares, I believe, and sold to them 
 at par, although the stock was then worth at least $160, to fulfill engage- 
 ments which they had previously made. It was upon this ground, and 
 this only, the officers felt justified in disposing of stock at $100 when it 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEK. 91 
 
 was of far greater value. But the leading stockholders of the company, 
 after hearing a statement of the facts, concluded that it was no more 
 than justice required. Mr. McComb claimed that he had sold quite an 
 amount, and that he was as much entitled to have his Bargains recog- 
 nized and confirmed as Mr. Durant or Mr. Ames. On the other hand, 
 it was contended that Mr. McOomb had no right whatever to jwom- 
 ise any stoct ; that he had nev.er interested himself in its sale, and 
 I think the company had also no confidence in his representa- 
 tions, and they declined to issue to him any stock. But, upon 
 his positively asserting to Mr. Ames that he had engaged some of 
 the stock to several gentlemen, Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, Mr. Fow- 
 ler, of Tennessee, and some other gentlemen, I have forgotten whom, 
 Mr. Ames told him that he would do the best he could, and if possible 
 he would make good some of these engagements. Finally, after this was 
 a^eed upon, the President refused to issue any of the stock to anybody 
 unless he could be protected by the written consent and request of quite 
 a large number of the largest stockholders. A large number of gentle- 
 men, including Mr. McComb, joined in a written request to Mr. Dillon to 
 issue this stock to Messrs. Durant and Ames, as had been agreed upon. 
 Some time afterward, I think only a few days, Mr. McComb called the 
 executive committee together and stated that he had a claim against 
 the company for 250 shares of stock. He stated what the grounds of 
 his claims were, and then asked the executive committee what they 
 thought of his claim. The president told him that in his judgment it 
 was so base and so fraudulent that, in presenting it, he had shown him- 
 self to be a scoundrel unworthy to associate with gentlemen, and he 
 would not give such a bogus claim the slightest consideration. A few 
 days afterward Mr. McComb threatened to bring a suit against the com- 
 pany if the claim was not allowed. He i)roposed, however, to refer it, 
 and the president of the company said he should always be willing to refer 
 a case rather than have a lawsuit where he thought there was the least 
 semblance of a claim in justice and right; but where it was nothing but 
 bogus and an attempt at blackmailing the company, he should never 
 have his consent to refer such an infamous claim. Mr. McComb per- 
 sisted in his demand, and finally commenced a suit in which he claimed 
 that the company owed him 250 shares of stock, with all its accretions 
 and dividends, and this stock which had been awarded Mr. Ames be- 
 longed to him, and in his bill he set forth that this stock was taken 
 from him and distributed to members of Congress, without considera- 
 tion, for corrupt and fraudulent purposes. 
 
 That bill was answered by the oftjcers of the Credit Mobilier, by Mr. 
 Oakes Ames, by several of the stockholders, and every statement which 
 he made was flatly and fully contradicted upon these points. Then find- 
 ing Mr. Ames and the company determined not to be black-mailed, he 
 then resorted to threats of a little "diiferent character. He said that he 
 had letters from Mr. Ames which he would expose, in which Mr. Ames 
 stated that he had given this stock to certain members of Congress, the 
 names of whom Mr. Ames had given in these letters, as the recipients 
 of that stock which he had given them for nothing. Those letters would 
 be produced, and Mr. Ames would be forever disgraced if he did not 
 settle that suit. His counsel. Judge Black, called upon me, and had 
 several conversations upon the subject, in which he urged with great 
 force the necessity of Mr. Ames compromising this suit, and said that I, 
 as the friend of Mr. Ames, ought to do everything in my power to save him 
 from such terrible disgrace as the publication of these letters would oc- 
 casion. 1 told him I did not believe a word of it, and I would not believe 
 
92 CREDIT JIOBILIER. 
 
 anything tliat^McComb should state. I knew of iny own knowledge that 
 no stock had been given away to anybody. That inach was false I knew. 
 If lie would sijjy that he had seen the letters, and they were such as 
 he described, 1 should feel that it might be possible that it was 
 ])artially true; still.it was so contrary to everything that I knew of 
 Mr. Ames that I could not and I did not believe a word of it. Judge 
 Black told me that although ho could not say he had seen the letters, 
 yet he -had no doubt of it. I told the judge that never, with my consent, 
 should that suit be compromised and the Credit Mobilier, as a corpora- 
 tion, made to suffer. While I had no belief whatever that Mr. Ames had 
 done or would do any wrong in that direction, yet if he had, then upon 
 himself must rest the consequences. I certainly should not shield him 
 in any such business as that. Again he came to me and re-assured me 
 that the letters were as he described. I told him that it was a black- 
 mailing affair, and that the claim itself had no foundation in law, equity, 
 or justice, and he knew it as well as 1 did ; and be knew he had for his 
 client an infamous scoundrel ; and no man could know Oakes Ames as 
 he did without feeling that he was a perfectly honest man. " Well," 
 said be, " if you do not convey to Mr. Ames what I say, you will bo doing 
 great injustice to him." I told the president of the company ; I told my 
 colleague upon the executive committee, Mr. Hazard, what Judge Black 
 said. Thej' agreed with me that it was a story impossible to believe of 
 Mr. Ames ; that it was an attempt to black-mail the company and Mr. 
 Ames, in which Judge Black was lending his aid, and under no circum- 
 stances would they consent to reference or compromise. When' Mr. 
 Ames was told what they said, he said to me and the executive com- 
 mittee that he had written no such letters; that it was impossible he 
 could have written such letters, for the reason that if be had tliere 
 would not have been a word of truth in them ; that he had never given 
 a member of Congress a share of stock ; that he had never sold a share 
 of stock to any member of Congress with any hope, expectation, or idea 
 that he would thereby procure his congressional influence ; and no man 
 in Congress would say of him that they ever dreamed of such a thing. 
 He utterly refused to do anything about it. Judge Black still insisted 
 that McOomb had these letters, and the names of the parties he said were 
 inserted by Ames in the letters, and he understood that the names of 
 Colfax, Boutwell, and Wilson were among them, also Mr. Garfield. He 
 should be very sorry, he said, to expose Mr. Garfield, who was a particular 
 friend of his. He said it would be found that these gentlemen and sev- 
 eral others were stockholders who were also members of Congress. I 
 told him very likely. I know there were some members of Congress who 
 were small stockholders, but who they were I did not know, as I did not 
 deem it important enough to inquire. He asked me if I did not think 
 it wrong for Congressmen to own stock in our company. I told him, 
 under ordinary circumstances, no worse than owning bank-stock. He 
 said it was very wrong, in his estimation, for Congressmen to own bank- 
 stock. He would not own it if he were a member of Congress. I saw Mr. 
 Ames again and reported what Judge Black said ; he then said to me, 
 " Don't allow the judge or McComb to black-mail your company by any 
 such threats, as I have never done anything wrong, and I know I 'have 
 nothing to fear from any exposure of any transactions of mine in regard 
 to this or any other company." 
 
 In justice to Judge Black, I ought to say that I do not indorse this 
 opinion of Judge Black being a black-mailer. I told them, as I told the 
 judge, I thought his judgment was entirely blinded bv his prejudice 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEB. 93 
 
 against Aiues, and that his client had grossly deceived him as to the 
 facts. 
 
 Mr. Ames speaks in his letters to McComb rather co^iplainingly of 
 me, and said that I was the only person opposed to the distribution of 
 profits. That was true; he referred to the dividends upon the contract. 
 1 was opposed to any suck distribution ; I believed that no profits or 
 dividends should be given stockholders until the road was completed ; 
 I think all the honest stockholders would say now, as Mr. Ames frankly 
 says in his testimony, that I was right and they were wrong ; this,! 
 believe, was the only instance in which Mr. Ames and I differed in our 
 views of what was our duty to the stockholders and the Government. 
 
 These letters were written, not as they appear to be on the face of 
 them, by a confiding friend, but to one whom he knew was not to be 
 trusted. McComb and his party were continually scolding about Mr. 
 Ames's determination to place all the power by distribution of stock and 
 otherwise into the hands of his particular friends, and especially Mas- 
 sachusetts folks. Mr. Ames always disclaimed any such i)urpose, or 
 having any sectional feeling ; 1 have frequently heard him say, as he 
 says in those letters to McComb and others, that he always endeavored 
 to put it where it would do the most good ; that we needed all the in- 
 fluence we could get in every quarter; but it never entered my head or 
 the head of any one else but McComb's, that he had any improper de- 
 sign ; he knew what McComb was from me a long time before those 
 letters were written. 
 
 I 'met McComb, for the first time, when I went into the direction of the 
 Credit Mobilier, and I was favorably impressed with his appearance ; I 
 knew that he had a bad name in the leather trade, which he and I had 
 been engaged in all our life-time; my prejudices were against him, and 
 so I told Mr. Ames ; but his fine appearance and plausibility led me to 
 feel that he had been slandered. 
 
 I inquired of a mutual friend about him — Mr. Jackson Shultz, one of 
 the most prominent citizens of New York, and also in the leather trade — 
 as worthy as he is distinguished, and well known, I sujjpose, to the 
 committee. He told me that he thought that ho must be a much better 
 man than his reputation indicated; I expressed to him the same opinion. 
 A short time after Mr. Shultz came to me and said that if I had taken 
 any stock in McComb on the strength of anything he had said, he wished 
 to take it back, as he would be sorry to mislead me ; I asked him what 
 caused him to say this ; he told me that he had been talking with Mr. 
 Dana, editor of the Sun, and he had requested him to say, in his paper, 
 a good word for the Union Pacific Eailroad, as he had some friends in 
 the direction he would like to do a favor to. As he had assisted Mr. 
 Dana to get up the Sun, Mr. Dana replied and said he would be glad to, 
 and asked him who he had in that concern in whom he felt so much in- 
 terest. He told him that Mr. Alley was a particular friend of his, and 
 McComb he felt friendly to ; Mr. Dana replied that he could not say 
 anything in favor of any concern with such a man as McConrb in its 
 direction. Mr. Shultz asked what he knew against McComb ; he said 
 he regarded him as the most infamous scoundrel he knew, and that he 
 ought to be in the penitentiary instead of the direction of that com- 
 pany. He had robbed and cheated the soldiers and the Government 
 more than anybody could dream of, and the archives of the Govern- 
 ment would show it. He said he had discovered his infamy when he 
 was Assistant Secretary of War. Mr. Ames was told of this and 
 put upon his guard. This, I think, was a long time before he wrote 
 those letters to him. Shortly afterward a distinguished Senator came 
 
94 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 to mc and waated to know what we had that infamous wretch McOomb 
 as a director for. I asked what he knew about McOomb. His reply 
 was, "He ougtt to be in the State's prison. He had robbed the soldiers 
 and the Government, as the records of the Government could show, and 
 he being chairman of the Military Committee had occasion to know all 
 about it." This information was given to Mr. Ames, so that it was im- 
 possible he could have had the slightest confidence in McComb when he 
 wrote those letters. Mr. Ames, in one of his letters, speaks of fearing 
 no investigation. The Union Pacific Railroad Company and the Credit 
 Mobilier Company had been black-mailed in every conceivable way, by 
 insiders and outsiders, until the two companies were robbed of immense 
 sums for which they never received any value. They endeavored al way s 
 to accomplish their purpose when any large scheme was involved, and 
 it was resisted, by threats of exposure to the Government. The fright 
 occasioned by these threats too often succeeded, because these men had 
 embarked their millions, and a row with Congress, whether they were 
 right or wrong, was sure to bankrupt the road, and most of the indi- 
 viduals engaged in it. 1 knew Durant to carry his threats so far once 
 as to write a letter and put it in the post-ofiice, directed to Elihu B. 
 Washburne, accusiug the companies of the greatest rascalities. Had 
 this letter gone forward, you can realize the consequences. They 
 found they had gone a little too far, and McComb said he could get that 
 letter out of the post-office, as he knew the clerk well. The letter was 
 got out of the office by McComb. Mr. Oakcs Ames always claimed, 
 I believe, that they had nothing to fear from investigations, and I can- 
 not now recall to mind a single instance where I thought any such 
 threat influenced his action; but there were others equally honest and 
 true that did not possess quite his courage, and at that time he was not 
 a director. This misapprehension in the public mind in regard to the 
 Credit Mobilier, occasioned more than anything else by the blackmail- 
 ing suit of McComb, which was commenced more than four years ago, 
 beginning his suit with a false but sworn statement that the Credit Mo- 
 bilier had b«en making fabulous dividends, counting by the million ; that 
 its officers and principal stockholders were robbing the Government and 
 bribing Congress, whereas, since the dismissal of the Durant-McComb 
 party, I think I may say that no corporation in the country has a set-of 
 directors, each and every one of whom, if I except myself, are well 
 known to be, in the respective communities in which they reside, gentle- 
 men of unusual high character and probity; and they defy any human 
 being to show any wrongdoing by that corporation or" any member of it 
 toward Congress or the Government since they have been in charge of 
 its administration, since the 19th May, 1867, to the present time. It (the 
 McComb suit) has been the cause of great persecution, numberless law- 
 suits, and severe losses, besides great vexation. 
 
 First, the Duff and Green suit, so-called, suing us for the franchise 
 which they had forfeited, and these millions of profits McComb had 
 sworn to, when the whole amount that that party ever invested in it was 
 two old office-chairs and an old desk, and, I believe, a bogus check on a 
 broken bank, by a failed individual ! This, if possible, was more Tidio- 
 ulous than the Fisk claim. Fisk sued for millions, but he had actually 
 paid, in clean cash, $240, and had a bona-fide interest to that amount. 
 Next came the State of Pennsylvania, aroused by the sworn statements 
 of McComb to millions of profits. Her law-officers could not be made 
 to believe that any man could be so wicked as to make such statements, 
 under the solemn obligations of an oath, that were entirely false. So 
 they sued us for about a million for taxes upon these fabulous profits. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 95 
 
 A Pennsylvauia jury, reluctant to let such a large sum slip, seemed uu- 
 willing to believe the truth, and twice unjustly declared that we must 
 pay up for taxes on profits which existed only in the imagination of 
 McComb, so far as having any application of the Credit Mobilier Com- 
 pany. Twice the supreme court sent back the suit to the lower court, 
 and the second time with a severe rebuke to the judge for his absurd 
 rulings; then the case was dismissed, but a few months since. At last 
 there comes now, growing out of the same false swearing, an arraign- 
 ment of this company and Mr. Ames, charged with high crimes and 
 misdemeanors for selling a few shares of stock as a favor to a few per- 
 sonal friends, some of whom happened to be members of Congress; 
 but every man of them friends from the start, to their praise be it 
 spoken, of this great enterprise in which he was engaged, therefore of 
 all men needing no bribe to induce them to vote in that direction, espe- 
 cially when you consider that all required legislation, affecting in any 
 way the interests of the road, had been obtained three years or more 
 before, if you except perhaps one bill passed in 1866, which was not, 
 however, in the interest of the Union Pacific Eailroad, but against it, for 
 which Mr. Ames himself voted, and when denounced for it by Mr. Du- 
 rant as a fool for doing so, in my presence, as it damaged the company 
 millions of dollars, Mr. Ames said in reply, " I thought it was right, and 
 so I voted for it." Oakes Ames, with his millions to lose of his own 
 money, periled all in this great enterprise, took upon his own broad 
 shoulders one single contract of $47,000,000, when in all America 
 there was not another man who would have done the same. For all this 
 peril, anxiety, and abuse, he lias realized less than a million profit,, 
 which he will tell you if you will ask him; and his brother Oliver, who 
 was president of the road, upon my return from Europe in August, 1869,. 
 told me then, more than three months after the road was opened and 
 a success, such was the pecuniary embarrassment of the road even then, 
 and of such doubtful issue, he would give me half a million dollars if 1 
 would relieve him of his load and agree to hold him harmless. And 
 how mtfch worse was his brother Oakes's case! 
 
 One of America's most distinguished sons told me the other day, one 
 who has lately returned from Europe, where he had been engaged in an 
 important service for our country, that if our own people failed to ap- 
 preciate the prodigious service which Oakes Ames had rendered the 
 country, the thinking minds of all Europe were struck with admiration 
 for his great courage and boundless energy, culminating in such a grand 
 achievement. 
 
 Since your last meeting I have examined the books of the company, 
 and learned from them and the officers of the company that the fifty 
 shares of stock alleged by McComb to have been given to James 
 Brooks, or his son-in-law, ITeilson, by me or Oakes Ames, were fifty 
 shares of stock, belonging by right to ISTeilson, as the owner of a hun- 
 dred shares of original stock for which he paid $100 a share, and interest 
 from July 1, 1867. He was entitled to it under the resolution of the" 
 company, allowing 50 per cent, increase, as well as all the other stock- 
 holders. He was entitled to it the company believed from Durant, who 
 went to Europe and did not give it to him. The stock was demanded 
 expressly upon that ground, that it belonged to him, and the president and 
 treasurer issued a certificate to him for that reason only. It was the com- 
 pany's stock that was issued to him. I was not present, had nothing to 
 do with it, and never knew anything about it until the other day, it so 
 happened, but had I been present or consulted about it, I certainly 
 should have consented to it, because he was entitled to it by right. Mr. 
 
96 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 McComb was unfortunate under tlie circumstances iu selecting me as 
 the person to ascribe this transaction to. He might have selected almost 
 any one else and made his perjury less apparent- 
 Mr. MfiCoMB. Before the committee proceed with Mr. Alley's cross- 
 examination, I wish they would allow me to say a word, and to inject it 
 right at this point. 
 
 The Ohaieman. The committee prefer to allow Mr. Alley to proceed 
 with his testimony. If he has made any statements in the paper he has 
 read not proper to be made, they can be stricken out hereafter. 
 
 Mr. McCOMB. I simply want, inasmuch as this proceeding is public, 
 that the bane should go VTith the antidote. 
 The Chairman. It has been determined that the bane shall go first. 
 
 Examination by the Chairman : 
 
 We have here what purports to be interrogatories to the defendants 
 in this suit of McComb against the Credit Mobilier of America, with 
 the answers thereto. 
 
 Witness. These interrogatories and answers are not in the tax-suit, 
 but in the other suit to which I have referred. 
 
 Question. On the sixth page of these interrogatories is what purports 
 to be a list of dividends that were made on this Credit Mobilier stock. — 
 Answer. Yes, sir; these are the dividends that Mr. Ames speaks of iu 
 his letter, and to which I was opposed. 
 
 Q. Do you understand that all these dividends were declared and 
 paid as stated in these Interrogatories °? — A. Substantially, I suppose. 
 I have not looked at them' lately. [Paper handed to witness.] The 
 dividend as mentioned under date of April 2G, 1866, of 100 i)er cent, iu 
 Union Pacific Eailroad stock, is, I think, not correct. Iffeither is that 
 of April 1, 1867. That was not a dividend. The original capital of the 
 Credit Mobilier was $2,500,000. An increase of twelve hundred and fifty 
 thousand dollars was determined on, and it was very difficult to get the 
 stock subscribed. No bonds had then been sold. They had no market- 
 value. A good many of them were i^ledged in large sums, and large 
 suins in small amounts. The company felt that some additional capital 
 must be raised, and they voted to raise this twelve hundred and fifty 
 thousand from the stockholders who would pay in 50 per cent, additional, 
 and as an inducement to subscribe and pay in that amount they offered 
 them a bond for every thousand dollars of additional stock subscribed. 
 That is my recollection. 
 
 By Mr. MerRick : 
 
 Q. If I understand you, it was a premium rather than a dividend f — 
 A. Yes, sir ; it was not a dividend. The next dividend referred to here 
 is July 1, 1867, 100 per cent., Union Pacific Eailroad stock. That was 
 not a di\ndend. My recollection of both these items is that the Credit 
 Mobilier had subscribed for stock of the company for which they were 
 to pay $100 a share. I think that some $30 a share had been paid in. 
 'The company subscribed for that stock, and paid on it $1 a share or 
 something like that, assuming the liability to pay the balance. It was 
 in no sense a dividend. 
 
 Q. Who assumed the liability to pay the balance 'I — A. The parties 
 who took it. It was a subscription for stock on which $30 a share had 
 been paid. They gave four dollars a share, I think, for it, and became 
 liable, as I suppose, for the balance. This was a long time before I had 
 anything to do with the Credit Mobilier. That was when it was under 
 the supervision of Durant & Co.; that is as I understand the facts. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 97 
 
 # 
 
 By the Chairman: 
 
 Q. Eight here let me inquire la reference to the stock of the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad Company. What is the capital stock of that company '? 
 — A. The capital stock of the company is now about $36,000,000, as I 
 recollect. The original bill of Congress required that $100,000,000 should 
 be subscribed, and required books to be opened in the principal cities of 
 the Union ; the places at which they should be kept to be designated by 
 the President of the United States. The President designated for Kew 
 York the office of the company ; for Boston the Merchants' Bank. The 
 other places designated I do not recollect, but the books were to be kept 
 open until $100,000,000 had been subscribed. Therefore, as I said to 
 Mr. Ames when he called on me, as referred to in my other testimony, 
 it was impossible to build the road under that biU ; because, in the first 
 place, to get control of the road there must be an actual subscription of 
 $51,000,000, and no responsible men having money to lose would be 
 ■willing to risk it in any such enterprise as an experiment. 
 
 Q. It would seem here that there had been considerable dividends in 
 stock of that road. What I want to know is whether it amounted to 
 anything in money value? — A. When Mr. Ames took this contract of 
 $47,000,000, he was to take his pay in stock at par, and in bonds, I think, 
 at par. 1 am not certain whether the bonds were to be sold or not. The 
 stock was taken, I believe, at par, and paid for at par. At that time it 
 was worth I hardly know how much. I think some of it sold at twenty 
 cents on the dollar, but it had no real market value. 
 
 Q. How much stock was ever subscribed ? — A. The whole of it was 
 subscribed. By an arrangement with the trustees, to whom Mr. Ames's 
 contract of $47,000,000 was assigned, they subscribed for this stock and 
 paid for it at par. 
 
 Q. How much stock did they subscribe for ? — A. A good many mil- 
 lions, and actually paid over the money. But there was due them this 
 large amount as contractors, and they took their pay in stock, which 
 was subscribed on the books at $100 a share, and paid for at $100 a 
 share. 
 
 Q. That is, this company paid them on their contract ? — A. Yes, al- 
 though after this their profits were large, they were not in point of fact 
 out of debt. 
 
 Q. Was there any money paid over for stock of the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad in the ordinary way of subscribing for stock and paying for 
 it ?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. How much ? — A. That I could not now tell. 
 
 Q. Have you any idea of the amount ? — A. I do not think there was 
 any paid for in full, because in this way it was subscribed for and the 
 assessments paid. I think the highest that was paid for any of it in 
 ^ money was $50 a share, and that was afterward bought up. I do not 
 think there was ever any of that stock paid for in full, except in the 
 W9.y to which I have referred. 
 
 ' Q. Was this stock in the market ? Did it have a market value ? — 
 A. It had not until a long time afterward. It had a market value, as 
 I have said, previous to the $47,000,000 contract, and I figured it up 
 in this suit at between eight and nine millions as the profit on this 
 contract, taking the stock divided at the average market value at par 
 during the period I have named. Large quantities of it were sold for 
 13. I believ^e it has been sold as low as 10, and my impression is that 
 it has sold in the market as high as 46 or 47. But take the average 
 value of the stock and the other securities, from May, 1869, to January, 
 7x 
 
98 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 1870, if they had sold all their securities, the profits would have beeu 
 what I have stated. Mr. Ames and his brother have kept theirs. They 
 have always, from the start, said that if they made any money out of it 
 they should make it in the running of the road. 
 
 Q. Can you tell how much stock of the road Mr. Ames was to take 
 on that $47,000,000 contract, and how large a proportion of that amount 
 "was to be paid in stock 1 — A. I do not think it was especially agreed 
 upon, as to the amount of stock. That depended upon future events, I 
 suppose, in regard to what the profits should be. The expectation was 
 that a very large amount of it would have to be paid in stock, because 
 they had nothing else to pay with. It ate up all their securities pretty 
 much, except stock. The company came very near failing even at that 
 time, and after January, 1870, they had to resort to all sorts of expedi- 
 ents to keep it afloat, issuing new bonds and paying premiums to people 
 who would take the stock and bonds together. 
 
 Q. These dividends, or whatever is put down as dividends, are all in 
 Union Pacific Eailroad Company stock, or in first-mortgage bonds of 
 the Union Pacific Eailroad, with one exception. June 17, 1868, there 
 is a dividend of 60 per cent, in cash currency. — A. My recollection is 
 that that was a cash dividend. 
 
 Q. Was that the only cash dividend they made upon that stock ? — A. 
 That. is my impression. I could not say certainly without reference to 
 the books. 
 
 Q. All the other dividends, or whatever they were, were paid in 
 Union Pacific Eailroad stock or bonds ? — A. Yes, sir ; they were. They 
 were too hard run to distribute Government bonds. They sold them 
 almost before the ink was dry. That is my impression. It was a good 
 while ago, but I think I am right about it. 
 
 Q. What was the market value of the bonds of the road itself 1 How 
 high did they sell 1 — A. There were different prices. There was a great 
 variation. They went up as high at one time, I think, as 102, and they 
 have been sold down as low as 60 odd. There has been great fluctua- 
 tion as there has been in the stock. 
 
 Q. Can you tell what was their value in the market about 1867 or 
 1868, about the time these dividends were made 1 — A. I think they were 
 nearly up to par. Then there were certificates issued. .1 do not know 
 whether there was more than one paid in certificates. Certificates were 
 issued for bonds, payable in bonds when the company could spare them. 
 All these dividends, I think, were declared a little too soon ; as one 
 gentleman expressed it, " they ate the calf up in the cow's belly." 
 
 Q. How did they become entitled to the bonds for these dividends 
 made upon Credit Mobilier stock? — A. When these trustees took hold 
 to build the road under the Ames contract, for instance, when they had 
 gone a distance of a couple of hundred miles, a dividend would be de- 
 clared of the supposed profits. There were six hundred and sixty-seven 
 miles of road under this contract, and they had the privilege of one hun- 
 dred and fifty miles more, which they did not take. 
 
 Q. They declared the dividends upon the presumption that so much 
 profit had been earned ? — A. Yes, and they ascertained, when they came 
 to build the last one hundred and fifty miles of the six hundred and 
 sixty-seven miles contract, that the building of the road cost them a 
 good deal more than they got for it. 
 
 Q. But when they had built one hundred miles they knew how much 
 it had cost and knew how much they were to receive for it? — A. Yes, 
 and they declared their dividends. 
 
 Q. And the risk was whether they would continue to make a profit 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 99 
 
 on the other portion of the road ! — A. Exactly. The first portion of the 
 road under this contract was much less expensive than farther along. 
 I told them it was exceedingly unwise to declare dividends on the first 
 sections ; that they had better .wait until the road was finished and then 
 see what they had to divide. 
 
 Q. If I listened correctly to your written statement, you say that this 
 contract called the Ames contract was for a portion of the road not 
 built by the Credit Mobilier Company ? — A. No, sir ; the Credit Mo- 
 bilier Company had nothing to do with it, nor with any contract, except 
 for the first two hundred and forty-seven miles. 
 
 Q. That was not in the Ames contract "1 — A. No, sir ; but Mr. Ames 
 after he- had received the contract, these men who had put in their 
 money into Credit Mobilier stock, thought by right and justice they 
 ought to have what profit there was in building the road, and that con- 
 tract was assigned to seven trustees for that purpose. I was originally 
 one of the trustees, but I got out of it very soon afterward. 
 
 Q. While the road was being built under that contract were not divi- 
 dends declared upon the Credit Mobilier stock out of the profits? — A. 
 No, sir ; dividends, however, were declared to the persons interested 
 corresponding with their amount of stock in the Credit Mobilier. But 
 the Credit Mobilier corporation had nothing to do with it. 
 
 Q, Were these dividends declared upon the stock of the Credit Mobi- 
 lier, or only upon the stock of certain shareholders ? — A. Upon the stock 
 that had come in, I think. 
 
 Q. Was it not assumed that the Credit Mobilier was really entitled 
 to the benefit of that contract ? — A. No, sir ; the Credit Mobilier had 
 nothing to do with it as a company. Mr. Durant declared in the most 
 positive terms that the Credit Mobilier .should never have another con- 
 tract. 
 
 Q. Bat I understand you that the contract was assigned to certain 
 trustees. What I want to ask is whether the advantages of that con- 
 tract were not really in the shape of dividends upon the Credit Mobi- 
 lier stock ? — A. The Credit Mobilier stock was made the basis of the 
 amount of dividends going to the persons interested, so far as these 
 persons had signed a certain agreement. i 
 
 Q. Was it confined to them ! — A. Yes ; confined entirely, with one 
 or two exceptions. Where stockholders in the Credit Mobilier refused 
 to sign the agreement, as I refused for a considerable time on account 
 of the personal responsibility involved, they did not get their dividends. 
 
 Q. Were there not persons in the Credit Mobilier who were not in- 
 cluded in the trustees' arrangement? — A. I think of only two or three. 
 
 Q. Did they get their dividends ? — A. I think not. 
 
 Q. It was understood that these trustees held them for the benefit of 
 whatever stockholders should come into this agreement"? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q And for nobody else ? — A. For nobody else. Some were afraid of 
 their personal liberty, and declined coming in. I delayed myself for 
 some time, and I think Mr. Hazard was another. As I have said, I was 
 opposed to declaring, these dividends 5 but as one of the trustees I acqui- 
 esced in what was done. 
 
 Q. The division was made according to this stipulation in the assign- 
 ment of the Ames contract to the trustees 1 — A. Yes ; it is there stipulated 
 that they should sign an agreement to give up their proxies in the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad. They all became liable personally for the whole 
 amount. The stockholders in the Credit Mobilier were really losers in 
 this venture of theirs in the Union Pacific Eailroad. So far as the 
 stock of the Credit Mobilier was concerned, any man who owned that 
 
100 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 stock would be very glad to sell it with all the dividends ever received 
 upon ic, for par and interest, and give something besides.' I will mine, 
 at any rate. 
 • Mr. McOoMB. I will take your stock on those terms. 
 
 By Mr. Mekeick : 
 Q. You were not one of those embraced in this class of stockholders? 
 — A. Yes ; I held two hundred and ninety shares of that stock, and I 
 signed the agreement. If you count in the profits made, under the 
 trustees' arrangement, of course it was a profitable investment. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Q. What you mean, then, is, that taking the Credit Mobilier stock, 
 without participation in the Ames contract, you would not make any- 
 thing ? — A. That is what I mean. 
 
 Q. And whatever was really made by stockholders of the Credit 
 Mobilier was in consequence of the Ames contract ? — A. Yes ; so far as 
 the construction of the road was concerned. 
 
 Q. Those who entered into that arrangement, and shared in the profits 
 of that contract, got something? — A. Yes; I stated the amount made 
 according to my calculations, taking the market value of the securities 
 between May 19, 1869, and January 1, 1870. 
 
 By Mr. ISIielack : 
 
 Q. Is the Union Pacific Eailroad Company substantially controlled 
 by the sjime men who built it "? — A. I should hardly think it was. Mr. 
 Ames is now a director, but was not during the building of it, and has 
 not been till recently. 
 
 Q. Do the same class of men control the Credit Mobilier at the pres- 
 ent time, and for three or four years past, who are now controlling the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad "? — A. No, sir. They have scarcely anything to 
 do with the Union Pacific Eailroad. Mr. Hazard i& on the executive 
 committee, and Mr. Dillon is president of the Credit Mobilier. I believe 
 Mr. Dillon is a director of the Union Pacific Eailroad. I think he has 
 a small interest in it, and if I am not mistaken Mr. Hazard has no 
 interest in the Union Pacific Eailroad at all. 
 
 • Q. I understand, then, that the Credit Mobilier, as now organized, 
 has no control in the management of the affairs of the railroad com- 
 pany ? — A. No, sir. I think the directors of the Credit Mobilier have 
 scarcely any interest in the Union Pacific Eailroad. I do not know of 
 but one who is in the direction, and he is Mr. Dillon. 
 
 Q. I ask because it appears in the commencement that the Credit 
 Mobilier was purchased for the purpose of building the road. — A. Yes ; 
 but I have explained why it could not go on and build the road. 
 
 Q. An impression seems to exist in the public mind that the two are 
 the same, identically, yet co-operating together. — A. No, sir ; they are 
 not. 
 
 Q. Are not the principal stockholders in the Union Pacific Eailroad 
 now the principal stockholders in the Credit Mobilier ? — A. I should 
 think not. I could not tell without examining the books. They were 
 at one time substantially the same, but I think they are now different. 
 Some of the largest stockholders in the Credit Mobilier, as I understand, 
 do not own much stock in the Union Pacific Eailroad. I own, as I have 
 stated, 290 shares of the Credit Mobilier stock, but I own a very small 
 amount, indeed, of Union Pacific Eailroad stock, and scarcely any of 
 their securities. I have not been in the direction for sevei-al years. 
 
 Q. In point of fact what has experience demonstrated in regard to 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 101 
 
 the profits of running the Union Pacific Railroad by the men wlio own 
 it? — A. There are three classes of bonds. The first- mortgage bonds, 
 $27,000,000, 1 think ; the land-grant bonds, reduced, I believe, to about 
 $9,000,000, and the income-bonds of 810,000,000—1 should say about 
 $46,000,000 altogether. The road is running just enough to pay the in- 
 terest on these securities from its net proceeds. The Government bonds 
 are not included in this calculation. They are provided for in another 
 way. 
 
 Q. In your statement you say that Mr. Durant and his party always 
 insisted that anything to be realized from the road would be from the 
 construction, not from its earnings. — A. Yes; there were always two 
 parties on that question. 
 
 Q. What I want to inquire is, which party has proved to have been 
 more nearly correct in that regard ? — A. Mr'. Ames and his party. I 
 can speak, however, only for Mr. Ames himself, because I have had a 
 great deal of talk with him about it. He has always contended that it 
 is going to be a very valuable stock ; that while it is not worth much 
 now, its prospective value is very great ; that the increase of traffic will 
 be very great. He therefore keeps his stock and has not sold it. If it 
 proves to be worth 100 cents on the dollar he has made a very handsome 
 thing ; if it proves to be worth nothing he will lose money. 
 
 Q. So far as your connection with the road gives you information, 
 have you any reason to believe that the Union Pacific Eailroad Com- 
 pany will ever be able to redeem the bonds the Government has given 
 for its construction ? — A. I think so. I think at the end of 30 years, 
 the time the bonds have to run, ample provision will be made. If Con- 
 gress and the Government so decide the money will be collected, I 
 think, without any doubt ; that, however, remains to be seen. The 
 Government at the present time, in my judgment, has not been wronged 
 a single dollar in any shape or manner ; but those poor people who have 
 put their money into the road, if it doesn't earn anything, will lose. 
 
 Q. I have understood that during a portion of the time the manage- 
 ment of the' Credit Mobilier regarded these bonds as a bonus to the 
 railroad, to be divided among the gentlemen who control its direction ; 
 that the theory was that these bonds were so much clear to the com- 
 pany, withoub making any particular provision for redeeming them. — A. 
 I do not think any Government bonds were ever divided to the con- 
 tractors. The road cost too much. It was badly inanaged in its con- 
 struction. The road actually cost about $69,000,000, as I recollect. I 
 could tell you almost exactly by going into it. 
 
 Q. What amount of Government bonds have been received? — A. 
 Twenty-seven million dollars, or in that neighborhood. 
 
 Q. You have not had much to do, I suppose, in connection with the 
 Central Pacific Eailroad ? — A. I have never had any connection with it. 
 
 Washington, D. 0., Jamiart/ 8, 1873. 
 Examination of John B. Alley resumed. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. You saw wliat purported to be a list of the dividends in 
 the printed pamphlet we had yesterday. Do you know whether that 
 list included the dividends that were made from the profits of the Credit 
 Mobilier, and whether these profits were divided among the stock- 
 holders of the Credit Mobilier ? — Answer. I believe it does. 
 
102 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. As I understand, ■« hatever profits were made out of that contract 
 "were divided among the stockholders, or only to those who came within 
 that stipulation referred to! — A. Yes, sir ; that was the condition of the 
 contract. 
 
 Q. What I wanted to get at is whether this list of dividends includes 
 the dividends from that contract to these individuals? — A. I think it 
 includes all the dividends which were paid to individuals who were 
 owners of the Credit Mobilier stock and who is in the stipulatiohj that 
 is my impression. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether those dividends appear on the books of the 
 Credit Mobilier as dividends made to that company 1 — A. No, sir ; the 
 Credit Mobilier never had anything to do with that in any shape or 
 manner. They had no control or interest in it, and nothing whatever 
 to do with it. 
 
 Q. It was not true, then, that a dividend was made by that company 
 to its shareholders, and so appears upon the books ? — A. Not at all, it 
 was never so regarded. The dividends were made by these seven or 
 eight trustees to the persons who came under the arrangement I have 
 stated, and to nobody else, so far as I know. 
 
 Q. Do you know what was the market value of these Credit Mobilier 
 shares in December, 1867, and January, 186S 1 — A, There was really no 
 market value up to December, 1867. I know of a few shares being sold 
 at 95, and some were offered as low as 75. But late in December, 1867, 
 after Mr. Ames agreed to make tlie ownership in that company the basis 
 of the right to subscribe or take an interest in this contract of his, they 
 rose in value. I think the very last of December they brought 160, and 
 before the end of January they brought as high as 200, and I believe 
 later a few shares sold as high as 225. I do not know of any being sold 
 any higher than that. 
 
 Q. All that rise you attribute to the fact that they were entitled to 
 share in the Ames contract ? — A. Yes, they would be if they came in 
 under the stipulation. 
 
 Q. And they were entitled to come in ?^ A. They were entitled to come 
 in if they chose to come in; that is to say, they were not en tied to come, 
 but they were allowed by agreement of Mr. Ames and the other parties 
 interested, provided they signed the stipulation referred to. 
 
 Q. One shareholder had as good a right to come in as another ? — A. 
 O, yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you know how large a proportion of them had come in ? — A. I 
 think I stated yesterday that all came in with the exception of perhaps 
 one or two ; in fact, I rather think the whole stock was represented. 
 Those who did not come in sold out their right. 
 
 Q. Practically, then, the dividends were divided upon the Credit 
 Mobilier stock'?— A. Yes, sir; it was the practical result in the end, 
 because every man who owned that stock had the right to come in. 
 
 Q. I inquired of you the other day in regard to the persons who have 
 been named here as congressional holders of stock in that company, and 
 asked a question or two in reference to Mr. Brooks. It seems here that 
 one hundred shares of the Credit Mobilier stock were standing in the 
 nameof Mr. Neilson. Do you know Mr. Neilson ?— A. I do not. I never 
 saw him. 
 
 Q. He is said to be the son-in-law of Mr. Brooks ?— A. He is. I have 
 no doubt of that fact. 
 
 Q. Do you know anything in relation to the purchase of that first one 
 hundred shares of stock by Mr. Neilson ?— A. No, sir; nothing except 
 what appears upon the books. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 103 
 
 Q. You liave no personal knowledge as to who was the owner of that 
 or who paid for it ?— A. No, sir; only as I have stated, and from what 
 appears on the books, that Mr. Neilson was the owner and was entitled 
 to the additional fifty shares ; which I never knew anything about, as I 
 stated, until the other day. 
 
 Q. As I understand you, there was no negotiation and no conversation 
 between you and Mr. Brooks in relation to these other fifty shares Neil- 
 son had ? — A. None whatever. I never knew anything about it or heard 
 anything about it until the other day. 
 
 Q. Have you any personal knowledge as to who paid for the fifty shares 
 that Neilson had 1 — A. I have none at all only from what the books 
 show, that Neilson paid for it. 
 
 Q. And for aught you know it was paid by Neilson ? — A. For aught 
 I know or ijresume it was paid by Neilson. I happened to be away at 
 the time and knew nothing about the contract. He had a right to take 
 that as an increase and to take it at par, and he availed himself of his 
 right. 
 
 Q. You suppose the fifty shares which now appear in the name of 
 Neilson are the fifty shares he was entitled to in consequence of the one 
 hundred shares original stock owned by him ? — A. The books show it, 
 and the officers say it was so. 
 
 Q. You have no reason for knowing that it was not really Neilson's 
 stock and paid for by him "? — A. No, sir ; I presume it was. I know noth- 
 ing to the contrary. I never had any conversation with Mr. Brooks, 
 and I never knew Neilson. As I said before, 1 never knew anything 
 about this stock. It came, as I understood, from Mr, Durant. I can tell 
 you what Durant told me if you desire it. I know nothing of my own 
 personal knowledge. 
 
 By Mr. Mereick : 
 
 Q. You stated yesterday that yOu had prepared the statement read 
 to the committee upon the advice of one of the most eminent counsel of 
 New England. Will you be good enough to say who that counsel was 1 
 — A. I did not say I prepared it under the advice of eminent counsel. 
 I said I submitted it to him. 
 
 Q. Will you be good enough to state his name ? — A. Mr. McMurtrie, 
 of Philadelphia. 
 
 Q. The same gentleman who appeared here as counsel ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you any personal knowledge of any of these transactions other 
 than by conversation with Mr. Brooks, and that spoken of by Mr. Ames in 
 his testimony ? — A. Nothing, except in regard to the three gentlemen I 
 named, Mr. Dawes, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Boutwell ; and 1 stated fully 
 then all I knew in regard to them. 
 
 By Mr. McOraet : 
 
 Q. Do you know how much of the stock of the Credit Mobilier was 
 disposed of to members of Congress ? — A. No, sir, I do not. Mr. Ames's 
 subscription, I believe, is on the books, and so is that of Mr. Hooper, 
 Mr. Grimes, and myself. These are all I know of except what I have 
 stated in regard to the three gentlemen just mentioned; and, as I said 
 the other day, I only know in reerard to them that Mr. Wilson agreed 
 to take twenty shares, and Mr. Dawes ten shares. 
 
 Q. You do not know of any other members than those you have 
 named? — A. No, sir ; I never knew anything further until this investi- 
 gation, and since then I have been informed from the same sources of 
 information you all have. 
 
104 CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. How mucli did you take at the beginning ?— A. I took five hundred 
 shares. It was not all my own, but it was my subscription. I was the 
 owner of two hundred and ninety shares under this contract. 
 Q. You took it at par, I suppose ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. "When did that stock rise in value above par, or was it worth more 
 than par at the beginning?— A. No ; it was hard work to get people to 
 take it at first. I do not know that it could actually have been sold 
 at par before early in Januarv, 1868, and then it was sold at 160; and, 
 as I said before, it went to 200 before the end of January. After that 
 some of it was sold at 225. I do not remember of any being sold higher 
 than that — it may have been. 
 
 Q. You say it was worth more than par after the 1st of January, 
 1868 ; was it sold to members of Congress at par after that date ?— A. 
 I do not know of any being sold to members of Congress. The time I 
 have referred to when we had this meeting of prominent stockholders, 
 officers of the company, &c., when Mr. Durant and Mr. Ames came for- 
 ward and stated that they had sold to A, B, C, and D the six hundred 
 and fifty shares of stock, was, I think, early in December. I am not 
 certain as to the exact time, but I suppose the books will show. It was 
 then stated that this stock had been agreed for some time before. I 
 know Mr. Ames said he was a good deal embarrassed because some of 
 the parties claimed they had bought more than he thought they had. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether these particular contracts which were to be 
 carried out by the delivery of that stock were made by members, of 
 Congress alone, or by them and other parties'? — A. I do not understand 
 that it had anything to do with members of Congress particularly. I 
 know nothing about any members of Congress except those I have 
 mentioned, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Dawes. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether the stock was delivered to other persons 
 besides members of Congress after that permission was given to Mr. 
 Ames and Mr. Durant ? — A. Not of my own knowledge. I suppose it 
 was. I never made any inquiry in regard to it. 
 
 Q. Has any of the stock which stood in the name of Mr. Ames been 
 transferred of record to any other persons ? — A. That I do not know. 
 
 Q. You do not know whether it still stands in his name 1 — A. I do 
 not know ; I could not say ; my impression is that it does, most of it, 
 stand in his name as trustee. 
 
 Q. Can you explain why the transfer was not made if the stock was 
 actually sold to the parties, and why it was kept in Mr. Ames's name? — 
 A. That I do not know. 
 
 Q. That is not the usual mode of transacting that kind of business, 
 is it ? — A. It is frequently done with responsible men. Mr. Ames is a 
 very responsible man, and a person holding a certificate from him would 
 be just as safe as if the transfer was actually made on the books. In 
 the State of New York, I believe, such a certificate carries the stock with 
 it just the same as if it were entered upon the books. Of course with 
 those who hold stock temporarily it is a matter of convenience. In re- 
 spect to the Union Pacific Eailroad stock I am confident that not more 
 than two-thirds of it stands in the name of the parties who really 
 own it. 
 
 By Mr. Meeeick : 
 
 Q. They have certificates delivered to them with a blank power of 
 
 attorney, I suppose °! — A. Yes, and as I understand this was delivered 
 
 to Mr. Ames in the same way. Mr. Ames stated at the time that to 
 
 distinguish it from his other stock, as a matter of convenience, he wanted 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 105 
 
 it put iu liis name as trustee. . I do not know of any other reason, and I 
 do not suppose there was any other reason than that. I, however, had 
 nothing to do with the transfer ; I was not an officer of the company, 
 and had no occasion to inquire particularly in regard to it. 
 
 Q. It seems that most, if not all, of this stock, standing in the name of 
 Mr. Ames as trustee, really belonged to other persons ; what kind of 
 evidence of ownership had these other persons ? — A. I do not know; I 
 understood from the testimony here that he gave in some instances a 
 receii^t for the money with a promise to transfer the stock at some future 
 time, and his receipt was just as good to them as a certificate of stock, 
 and would perhaps obviate the personal-liability difficulty. That, how- ■ 
 ever, I only state as an inference ; I do not know what his reasons were ; 
 I only know the facts I have stated. 
 
 Q. The persons whose names stand upon the books of the company 
 would be the ones to "draw the dividends of the company if dividends 
 were declared ? — A. Certainly. 
 
 Q, And Mr. Ames drew the dividends on the stock which stood in 
 his name as trustee ? — A. I presume so, or he may have given orders to 
 the men to whom it belonged ; I do not know anything about that. 
 
 By Mr. McCeart : 
 
 Q. The Union Pacific Railroad was built largely if not exclusively by 
 the bonds and subsidies and land-grants of Congress ? — A. O, no, sir; 
 not by the bonds at least. As I stated yesterday, the road cost sixty- 
 eight or sixty-nine millions, and only received twenty-seven millions of 
 bonds from the Government. Very few lands were sold, or the title to 
 them obtained so they could be sold, until the road was completed. 
 They never realized much from their land-grant until the road was com- 
 pleted. They found when they came to finish it they w^ere very deeply 
 involved, and they had to raise a good many millions. Mr. Ames him- 
 self furnished quite a number of millions in the way of taking securities, 
 &c., and I suppose it is well kno^n here that he finally broke down ; he 
 took such a load that he could not stand up under it. 
 
 Q. Did you or not regard the success of the enterprise, the value of 
 the Union Pacific Eailroad stock, and also of the Credit Mobilier as de- 
 pending very much upon the friendly or unfriendly legislation of Con- 
 gress toward the road ? — A. No, it never entered my head when I went 
 into it that there would be any more legislation required, and I believe 
 that none was required or obtained which had anything to do with the 
 pecuniary matters connected with the road in any way. The Fisk raids, 
 &c., occasioned the company to go to Congress for authority to keep 
 itself out of the New York courts. 
 
 Q. Was there not a good deal of talk about investigating the affairs 
 of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company by congressional committees 
 at various times ? — A. Yes, sir ; and no honest man in that company had 
 the slightest objection to such an investigation. 
 
 Q. Would not an investigation, or even a threatened investigation, 
 most likely have affected unfavorably the value of the securities of the 
 road? — A. It very likely would; but that did not make any difference 
 to those men who went into it and expected to make their mony out 
 of the earnings of the road. As Mr. Ames very well knows, I said to 
 him a great many times that, so far as an investigation was concerned, 
 for one I would like to have it; and so far as he was concerned, as he 
 intended to keep his stock and make his money out of the earnings of 
 the road, it did not make any difference to him what Wall street thought 
 about the stock. As I have before stated, I do not think that either 
 
106 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Mr. Ames or his brother have parted with any considerable portion of 
 their stock in the road. 
 
 Q. Ton did not consider, then, that you had any interest whatever in 
 the vote for or against an investigation, if one had been proposed? — A. 
 So far as I am concerned there has never been a day that 1 would not 
 desire the fullest investigation into this whole matter. The people of 
 the country would have been better satisfied by it, especially after there 
 was so much misunderstanding in regard to the matters of the road, 
 growing out of the McComb suit. 
 
 Q. Did you regard it as important to have the office of the company 
 removed from New York to Boston? — A. Of course. Judge Barnard 
 had granted an injunction, and Fisk seemed to have fall control of his 
 court, risk came to me the very 'day the injunction was put on and . 
 said, " I will agree to settle this thing fbr $100,000, and relieve you en- 
 tirely." I said to him that never with my consent should the company 
 pay a dollar in any such way ; that all the interest he had in the con- 
 cern was $240. He replied, " It is a mere matter of dollars and cents, 
 and if your company does not do it I will damage you a million." I 
 said to him I did not care what the consequence was ; the company 
 would never with my consent pay him anything whatever. He did 
 damage the company, I suppose, to the extent of several millions. 
 
 Q. Then I u:nderstand you to say that the Union Pacific Eailroad 
 Company was largely interested in tlie bill providing for the removal of 
 its office to Boston !— A. The Union Pacific Eailroad Company I think 
 felt that it was a matter of life and death to them to get out of the 
 clutches of the corrupt iTew York courts. 
 
 Q. Would you, then, or not, regard a member of Congress who had 
 stock in that comi)any as interested in that question °? — A. He would be 
 interested, of course, as he would be in legislation affecting national 
 banks, if he was the owner of national-bank stock ; he would have no 
 improper interest that I can see. The whole country saw the necessity, 
 and justice of that action of Congress, and subsequent events have cer- 
 tainly shown that it was impossible for property or life even to be very 
 safe in th^ city of New York under the jurisdiction of these courts. 
 The directors of the company were arrested. I was arrested for one. 
 Oliver Ames, the president, was arrested, and the officer was told not 
 to take bail for him, but to put him in jail. One of the parties went 
 down and swore before Judge Barnard that he resisted the injunction 
 by violence, and upon that statement Judge Barnard told the officer 
 not to take bail for him, but to confine him in jail. 1 was present at the 
 time and know that Oliver Ames never lifted a finger. The moment the' 
 injunction was served he left the chair. He is one of the most amiable 
 men living. That is a specimen of the proceedings which were resorted 
 to. 
 
 Q. I understand you to be of opinion that because you had a good case 
 it was perfectly proper for an interested party in your favor to decide 
 it 1 — A. I did not say that. 
 
 Q. Is not that the effect of your statement ? — A. No, sir ; I do not 
 think so. You may be the owner of ten shares of national-bank stock; 
 there may be a raid upon national banks such as to require action upon 
 the part of Congress, and whether your ownership of that stock would 
 give you such an interest as to make it improper for you to vote upon 
 the question would be a matter about which you would have to be your 
 own judge. The coming into possession of the stock without anticipat- 
 ing any such proceeding certainly would not augur any impropriety in 
 voting for the measure, as I regard it. There may be diiference of opiu- 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 107 
 
 ion, however, as to the propriety of a member voting under these cir 
 cumstances. I was not in Congress at the time of the legislation for 
 the removal of the Union Pacific Eailroad office to Boston, and do not 
 know whether any membet interested voted upon it or not. 
 
 Q. What was the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury concern- 
 ing the payment of interest on the bonds of the United States granted 
 to the Union Pacific Eailroad Company ?— A. His decision was, I think, 
 that all the Pacific Eailroad companies should pay interest upon the 
 bonds that were loaned to them. That is my impression. 
 
 Q. Did the Union Pacific Eailroad Company pay in accordance with 
 that decision ? — A. They did not. They came to Congress for relief, 
 and the law appeared to be so plain to all the parties in interest that 
 they were able, I suppose, to convince Congress. I never knew a lawyer 
 of any standing, who examined the question, come to any other con- 
 clusion. 
 
 Q. Tou regarded that as a,n important subject of congressional legis- 
 lation, for the interest of the company, did you not? — A. 1 should say 
 so. At that time I had very little interest in the company ; I think I 
 was not then a director. Of .course everybody can see that it was a very 
 important matter to the interest of all concerned. I thought Congress 
 decided rightly, and if I had been a member I should have so consid- 
 ered it. 
 
 Q. If you had been a member at the time this act was passed in refer- 
 ence to the payment of interest, would you have regarded it as a ques- 
 tion upon which you could properly vote ■? — A. I hardly know. It is not 
 a matter I have given any thought to ; I have never had any occasion 
 to have any opinion about it. There were no members of Congress at 
 that time who had any interest amounting to anything. 
 
 Q. I am requested to ask you a question, which you can answer or not, 
 as you please. Did you not get, or have put into your possession, or un- 
 der your control, a hundred thousand dollars in money after Secretary 
 Bout well's ruling in reference to the interest due on the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad Company's Government bonds for the purpose of influencing 
 legislation upon that subject ? — A. I am very glad to answer that question 
 or any other question any gentleman may choose to put concerning this 
 matter. So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to challenge investi- 
 gation by anybody. No, sir ; I never had a dollar put into my hands 
 and never spent a dollar, directly or indirectly, for any such purpose. 
 
 Q. Were you here in Washington urging the passage of that bill 
 about the time it passed ? — A. Ko, sir ; I think not. That bill passed 
 March 3, 1871. I do not think I was in Washington after the 1st of 
 February of that year. I can ascertain that fact definitely and inform 
 the committee at a future day if they desire. 
 
 Q. Tou say there was no purpose in the distribution of this stock by 
 Mr. Ames, so far as you know,- to secure friendly action in Congress 1 — 
 A. No, sir J I never supposed any such thing, and do not believe now 
 he had the slightest idea of influencing legislation by letting his friends 
 have a few shares of that stock. No conversation I ever had with him 
 would lead me to suppose he ever dreamed of anything of the kind. 
 
 By Mr. MeekicK: 
 
 Q. It has been stated that the Union Pacific Eailroad cost altogether 
 sixty-eight or sixty-nine millions. What was the length of that road ? — 
 A. I think one thousand and fifty or one thousand and eightj' miles ; 
 speaking from recollection. 
 
 Q. When you give the amount stated as the cost of the road, do you 
 
108 CKEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 include the cost of coustruction only, or the cost of construction and 
 equipment ? — A. Of construction and equipment. A great deal of it 
 was spent foolishly, as I thought. I was constantly protesting against it. 
 
 Q. Did the cost of construction actually exceed $27,000 a mile 1 — A. 
 Yes, sir ; the entire cost, as I said, was nearly $70,000,000, including 
 equipment and everything. "What the cost of equipment was I do not 
 know. 
 
 Q. It has been suggested to me that the actual cost of construction 
 was $29,221,000, and the cost of equipment about $7,000,000, makingin 
 all $36,221,000. Is that or not a correct statement according to your 
 recollection ? — A. I should say not. I have' stated what the cost was. 
 It ought not to have cost as much as it did ; but I think the cost could 
 not have been less than $51,000,000 or $55,000,000, to say the least. 
 My statement of the cost of course includes the profit which was made 
 on the contract with Mr. Ames. i 
 
 Q. Do or not the books of the company show what has been the 
 actual expenditure for construction ! — A. I presume so ; th'cy ought to, 
 and no doubt they do. I think I could have taken that road and built 
 it, equipped it, and done everything that was done, for inside of 
 $50,000,000. I do not think I could have done it for $36,000,000, be- 
 cause there was necessarily an enormous expense attending the con- 
 struction of the first two or three hundred miles. There were no rail- 
 roads across the State of Iowa, and the rails had to be carried across or 
 sent around up the riA'er at a monstrous expense. Thel'e were heavy 
 losses and expenses that could not be avoided. Then out in that 
 country there was inevitably always a large amount of plunder. In 
 crossing the mountains, too, there were items of expense perfectly fear- 
 ful. For instance, ties were made to cost $5 apiece which should not 
 have cost but forty cents. But the G-overnment never was robbed or 
 cheated ; it was the parties who undertook to build tke road, who put 
 their money into it, and who ought to have got out of it whatever there 
 was. 
 
 Q. You have spoken of the price of Credit Mobilier stock ; did you 
 sell any of your shares of Credit Mobilier stock"? — A. Yes,. sir.' 
 
 Q. At what price did you sell ? — A. I sold mine at 200, I think. 
 
 Q. Did that include the dividends, or was it exclusive of the divi- 
 dends which had been declared and collected before the date of sale ?— 
 A. My impression is that it included all dividends which had previously 
 accrued. I never got any dividends on it. I sold it in January, 1868. 
 
 Q. To whom did you sell ?— A. I sold to Peter Butler, of Boston, for 
 himself, as I supposed at the time. I understood afterward that he 
 bought it for Mr. Bardwell, of Boston. I believe he and Mr. Bardwell 
 had a joint interest in it. 
 
 By Mr. I^Tiblack : 
 
 Q. I understood you to state yesterday that there were two classes of 
 stockholders in this Credit Mobilier, one interested in the Ames con- 
 tract and the other not, and that the stock represented in the Ames 
 contract was much more valuable than the other stock ? — A. No, sir ; I 
 did not say anything of that kind. I stated that, so far as the Credit 
 Mobilier stock was concerned, the corporation never made a dollar out 
 of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company ; that it had never paid 7 per 
 cent, interest on its par value ; that its stock was not now, and had not 
 been, for a long time, worth sixty cents on a dollar, and that statement 
 applied to all classes of the Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
 Q. Then I understand you to say that the stock Mr. Ames dis- 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 109 
 
 tributed amoug his friends, by allowing tbem to purchase it at par, was 
 regarded as a very good investment at the time ? — A. A very great 
 privilege, because the stockholders of the Credit Mobilier were per- 
 mitted by Mr. Ames to become interested in his contract in fro rata 
 proportion to their ownership in the Credit Mobilier, on signing an 
 agreement making themselves personally liable. 
 
 Q. And all those who received any of the two hundred and fifty 
 shares given to Mr. Ames as trustee participated in the benefits of that 
 contract ? — A. Yes ; and some of them took Mr. Ames's receipt instead 
 of a transfer of stock, supposing, I imagine, that they would not be 
 personally liable on the contract unless they signed the agreement. All 
 the stockholders of the Credit Mobilier, as I have stated, had the right 
 to an interest in the Oakes Ames $47,000,000 contract on signing the 
 stipulation, but the Credit Mobilier itself, as a corporation, had nothing 
 whatever to do with that contract. 
 
 By Mr. Mekeick : 
 
 Q. If there was a profit made on that six hundred and sixty-seven 
 miles covered by the $47,000,000 contract, how is it that the cost of con- 
 struction of the road itself exceeded $68,000,000'?— A. The sum I stated 
 of $68,000,000, or $69,000,000, covered the entire cost of the one thousand 
 and eighty-three miles of road. 
 
 Q. Do you know how much money Oakes Ames really put into Credit 
 Mobilier stock ; how many shares he subscribed and paid for "i — A. I do 
 not ; the books will show. He paid $100 a share into the treasury, to 
 my personal knowledge, for every share of stock issued to him. 
 
 Q. Did you not state yesterday that Mr. Ames put in $6,000,000 or 
 $7,000,000? — ^A. No, sir; I said that he had an individual interest in 
 this contract of between five and six million dollars, and that my own 
 individual interest in the contract was less than $500,000. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 9, 1873. 
 
 Examination of S. M. McOomb continued. 
 
 The Chairman stated that he had expected Mr. Ham, secretary of 
 the Credit Mobilier, to have been present this morning for examination 
 as a witness, but information had been received that he was detained, 
 and would be for several days, on account of the sickness of ,his wife. 
 The committee desired to have the books of the Credit Mobilier, in the 
 custody of Mr. Ham, present before calling other witnesses, and unless 
 Mr. McComb was prepared to iiroduce other papers to which he had re- 
 ferred in his previous evidence and to give further testimony, the com- 
 mittee would adjourn until Monday. 
 
 Mr. McCoMB said that upon reflection he had concluded not to make 
 any reply to anything that had been said or could be said by Mr. Alley, 
 preferring to let his life answer Alley's statement^. If future develop- 
 ments should render any further statement necessary, he would be glad 
 to avail himself of the permission of the committee. 
 
 Mr. Meeeick. Ton stated that you had other papers you could pro- 
 duce. 
 
 Mr. McOoMB. I have, and, if the committee wish, will produce them 
 now. When I left here before, it was to refresh my memory as to the 
 particular time a conversation occurred between Mr. Alley and Mr. 
 Brooks; and I stated that it 'occurred while Mr. Durant was in 
 
110 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 Europe. That fact was very strongly impressed on my mind. I can 
 now say that Mr. Durant left New York for Europe on the 8th day of 
 January, 1868, and returned the 5th day of March, 1868, being gone 
 fifty-seven days ; and the time this transaction occuri'ed between Mr. 
 Brooks and Mr. Alley, for the fifty shares of stock put in the name of 
 Neilson, was between these two dates. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Can you fix the date any nearer than that ?— Answer. No, 
 sir. The difificulty the other day was in being able to fix the precise 
 time of those conversations. I could not fix the precise date. These 
 conversations were very frequent. 
 
 Q. If you have any impression yourself as to what portion of the 
 period between the 8th of January and the 5th of March this conversa- 
 tion occurred, you may state it.— A. No, sir ; I have not. It was in 
 his absence. The whole thing impressed itself upon my mind as being 
 taken advantage of in his absence. Mr. Durant had, a few days before, 
 I think on the 26th of December, 1867, transferred to Mr. Brooks, or 
 rather sold to him, if you please to term it so, one hundred shares of 
 the Credit Mobilier stock for $100 per share, and had given with it 
 $20,000 of Union Pacific Eailroad stock, and $5,000 first-mortgage bonds, 
 for which Mr. Brooks gave his check for $7,000, and his draft for $3,000, 
 payable the 22d of January, 1868. Then, a few days after the 26th of 
 December, and before the 8th of January, 1868, Mr. Brooks claimed 
 from Mr. Durant $6,000 more of bonds and $6,000 more of stock, which 
 was given him; that was the payment teforred to in my testimony, 
 making 370 per cent, received, besides the stock of the Credit Mobilier 
 itself, for $10,000. 
 
 Now, I may say that I have refreshed my recollection on the question 
 of Mr. Brooks being a member of Congress. I find that Mr. Brooks 
 was a member of Congress in the fall of 1867, and in the spring of 1868, 
 during the time of this transaction. I also am able to state that Mr. 
 Brooks was appointed a Government director of the Union Pacific Eail- 
 road Company by President Johnson, the 23d of October, 1867, two 
 months and three days before he got this transfer of Credit Mobilier 
 stock, for one year, and re-appointed the 11th of March, 1868, until the 
 11th of March, 1869. Therefore, he was a Government director and a 
 member of Congress during the period of these transactions. I have 
 searched the records of Congress for information in regard to whether 
 Mr. Brooks was in Congress, and I have also a letter of Mr. Crane, 
 about this stock transaction. 
 
 Q. The committee propose to examine Mr. Crane as a witness, and 
 you, therefore, need not produce his letter. In regard to this transac- 
 tion in December you speak of, have you any personal knowledge ; were 
 you present, or is it something you have learned from others'? — A. I was 
 in the office when Mr. Brooks and Mr. Durant were talking. This con- 
 versation between Mr. Brooks and Mr. Durant occurred subsequent to 
 my signing the paper which these gentlemen presented. I heard the 
 conversation with reference to Mr. Durant giving or selling Mr. Brooks 
 the one hundred shares of Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
 By Mr. McCraet : 
 Q. What do you know personally about Mr. Brooks paying for it ; 
 and how do you know it ? — A. I do not know of his paying for it myself, 
 except by looking at the books of Mr. Durant with the entries of Mr. 
 Crane on them. I did not see Mr. Brooks make the payment. 
 
CKEDIT JIOBILIER. Ill 
 
 By Mr. Meerick : 
 
 Q. You speak of seeing the books of Mr. Durant ; do you mean the 
 private books of Mr. Durant, or the books of the Credit Mobilier 1 — 
 A. I mean the private books of Mr. Durant, kept by Mr. Crane. The 
 stock was transferred by Mr. Crane. Mr. Crane held the stock, and it 
 was transferred, by Mr. Brooks's direction,' to Mr. Neilson, on the boolts 
 of the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 Q. Was this the' general stock of the Credit Mobilier that Mr. Durant 
 controlled as an oflcer of the company, or some of the stock he himself 
 held ? — A. It was presumed to be a part of the six hundred and fifty 
 shares, testified to by Mr. Ames, held in trust for specific parties. 
 
 Q. It was a part of the stock Mr. Durant claimed should be trans- 
 ferred to him in order that he might comj)ly with his contracts with 
 various parties ? — A. That is what I understand the letter of Mr. Ames 
 to refer to, wherein he was to take three hundred and eighty shares to 
 keep himself or give to his friends. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. In this conversation between Mr. Durant and Mr. Brooks, was any- 
 thing said, that you remember, about the shares being transferred to Mr. 
 Neilson f — A. I do not think there was. These conversations were very 
 frequent with us all. It was the exciting time which has been testified 
 to by Mr. Ames, with the Credit Mobilier. It was very shortly after the 
 organization of this trusteeship for the execution of the Ames contract, 
 and there were meetings almost every day. Mr. Brooks was at that 
 time a Government director, and consequently a good deal about there. 
 I would not like to undertake to give words or expressions. 
 
 Q. Was there anything said that you remember as to whether this 
 stock was to be given in his name, or in the name of Mr. Neilson ? — 
 A. Nothing as between him and Mr. Durant. 
 
 Q. Do you remember the precise time when this increase of 50 per 
 cent, of Credit Mobilier stock was made? — A. It was made in April, 
 1867, some time before the Ames contract, and the rights under it were 
 by order of the board only allowed to stand for ninety days. Notice 
 was served upon each shareholder that his option to take his 50 per 
 cent, increase would expire in ninety days. 
 
 Q. In regard to those one hundred shares which Mr. Brooks, or some- 
 body, received by virtue of this transaction, in December, 1867, how 
 could that subscription of one hundred shares entitle a man to fifty 
 additional shares under this increase ? — A. It did not entitle him to 
 fifty per cent, increase, and it did not entitle him to anything. 
 
 Q. Then you claim that his taking the one hundred shares did not 
 entitle him to the fifty shares ? — A. No, sir ; that right had expired 
 long anterior to that. General Dodge got one hundred shares of Credit 
 Mobilier stock along about this time, and he has never got an increase 
 upon that, or been allowed to get it, or claimed it, that I know of, by 
 virtue of having one hundred shares of original stock. The one hun- 
 dred shares were held in the name of his wife ; not in his own name. 
 
 Q. Do yon know anything of Mr. Allison, of Iowa, being the holder 
 or owner of any shares of Credit Mobilier stock"? — A. I do not, and I 
 thought he was not, as I stated the other day, until Mr. Ames said he 
 was. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge whatever of his owning any Credit Mo- 
 bilier stock ? — A. None whatever. 
 
 Q. If you have any further papers to produce, you may present them 
 
112 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 now. — A. I will do so whenever desired. I did not know that I was to 
 be examined to-day, and haven't them in my pocket. 
 
 John B. Alley made the following statement in regard to his testi- 
 mony of yesterday : 
 
 I wish to answer farther to a question put to me yesterday. My tes- 
 timony in answer to the question " Were you here in Washington urg- 
 ing the passage of that bill about the time it passed f was " No, sir; I 
 think not. That bill passed March 3, 1871. I do not think I was in 
 Washington after the 1st of February of that year. I can ascertain that 
 fact definitely, and inform the committee at a future day if they desire." I 
 wish to say now that I have ascertained that it was as I supposed. I was 
 not here after the 1st of February. I came to Washington January 22, 
 and was here and iu the vicinity until the 30th of that month. I was 
 not here again until not far from that time the following January. I 
 have been in the habit, ever since I left Congress, of making visits to 
 Washington in January, and I was here then as I stated. 
 
 By Mr. Meeeick : 
 
 Q. Were you a member of Congress in 1867 or 1868 ? — A. No, sir ; I 
 went out at the close of the Thirty-ninth Congress, which expired the 
 3d of March, 1867. 
 
 Q. You had no connection with the Credit Mobilier stock before your 
 term in Congress expired ? — A. Yes ; I subscribed to this Credit Mobi- 
 lier stock in August, 1865, as I stated in my testimony, for five hundred 
 shares. 
 
 The committee adjourned until Monday next at 10 a. m. 
 
 Washington, January 13, 1873. 
 
 Henby L. Dawes, a member of the United States House of Eepre- 
 sentatives, having been duly sworn, made the following statement : 
 
 I have been ready at all times, whenever it should be desired l?y the 
 committee, to make a full statement of whatever connection I have ever 
 had with the Credit Mobilier, and regret that I have not had an earlier 
 opportunity. I was never the owner of any of the stock of that cor- 
 poration, yet I did agree to take ten shares of that stock, but the agree- 
 ment was rescinded before the stock was transferred to me, and it never 
 was transferred. 
 
 At the commencement of the session in December, 1867, I had due 
 me at the Sergeant-at- Arms' office $1,000 of my salary, that' I had then 
 no occasion to use. I asked a colleague of mine, Mr. Washburn, with 
 whom I was rooming at the time, what I could best do with it, and he 
 advised me to purchase with it a bond of the Iowa Cedar Eapids Eail- 
 road, of Mr. Oakes Ames, saying that he had been purchasing of him 
 a large amount of those bonds for 90 cents on the dollar for his 
 bank, and he thought it an excellent investment. I accordingly went 
 to Mr. Ames, and asked him to sell me such a bond as he had been 
 selling Mr. Washburn. He replied, that he had not got any of these 
 bonds then, for he had sold them all, but that he had some- 
 thing else as good, and he thought better. He would let me have 
 for my $1,000, 10 shares of Credit Mobilier stock. I said to him, 
 I did not know anything about that stock, and asked him to tell 
 me about it. He replied, "It^s a Pennsylvania corporation, which 
 has the contract to build the Pacific Eailroad ; it is a good thing, 
 
OEEDIT MOBILIER. 113 
 
 and I think it will make money out of it. At any rate I will guarantee 
 you 10 per cent, on your money, or if you don't want your stock at any 
 time, I will pay yon back your money and 10 per cent, interest." I told 
 him I would think of it and let him know. I then inquired of Mr. Alley 
 about this stock, and he said it was good stock, but he did not think it 
 was as good as Mr. Ames thought it was. On my telling him that Mr. 
 Ames offered to guarantee me 10 per cent., he said that I was safe enough 
 then, and I made no further inquiry, but went to Mr. Ames and told him 
 that I would take the stock. He said he could not transfer it to me then, 
 but that it was at his home ; that the first time he went home he would 
 get it transferred to me and let me have it. I thereupon paid him over 
 the $1,000, and took his accountable receipt for it, he saying at the 
 time he gave it to me, that if at any time I got sick of it he would take 
 it back and pay me back my money and 10 j)er cent. 
 
 Before he went home I had occasion to go home to Pittsfield, and 
 while there Mr. Edward Learned, a friend and neighbor of mine, who 
 was then, I believe, an officer in the Kansas Pacific Eailroad, came into 
 my oiffice and told me of a suit which Duff Green had commenced, or 
 was about to commence, in the Pennsylvania courts against Mr. Ames 
 and his associates to get possession of the Credit Mobilier charter, claim- 
 ing that it belonged to him and his associates, and had been wrongfully 
 taken possession of by Mr. Ames and those connected with him. When 
 I returned to Washington I told Mr. Ames what Mr. Learned had said 
 to me, and told him that I did not want any such stock. He replied, 
 "Well, you need not take it. I will pay you back your money and 10 
 per cent, interest if you prefer." I told him that I did. He thereupon 
 settled with me in that way, allowing me interest and paying me back 
 the money. In the mean time, and before I went to Pittsfield, he had 
 paid me a dividend once; I do not know how much it was, but I think 
 it was about 35 per cent. Whatever it was I allowed him in the settle- 
 ment, he paying me over the balance only. This was the end of the 
 transaction. The stock was never transferred to me at all. I have had 
 no other transaction with the Credit Mobilier or the Union Pacific Eail- 
 road. 
 
 Neith*! during this transaction, nor before it, nor since its close, have 
 I entertained any thought or purpose in connection with it] nor was 
 anything ever suggested to me in that connection in any way, directly 
 or indirectly, having reference to any ofiflcal conduct of mine in or out 
 of Congress. Nor did anything in connection with it pass between me 
 and Mr. Ames or any other person, other than would naturally have 
 passed had I purchased of him the Iowa railroad bond I endeavored to 
 get, or had I purchased any share of national-bank stock, or a United 
 States bond, either of him or of any banker outside of Congress. Before 
 and up to that time I do not remember to have heard the CreditMobilier 
 mentioned, or any measure touching the Pacific Eailroad since the leg- 
 islation of 1864, under which it was then being constructed ; nor did I 
 know of Mr. Ames's dealings with any other person in or out of Con- 
 gress. 
 
 In closing the statement of all that did occur in this transaction, I de- 
 sire to add that, although I have never desired or sought to conceal in 
 anyway anything that 1 have done in this matter, I have never made or 
 authorized any public statement in reference to it before to-day, feeling 
 that I could patiently wait until your committee should call upon me 
 for this statement ; nevertheless, there did get into print, without my 
 authority or knowledge, a private note written by me to a friend in New 
 8 X 
 
114 CREDIT -MOBILIER. 
 
 York, tliauking liiui for voluntarily and on his own responsibility deny- 
 ing the statement in the New York Sun that Mr. Oakes Ames had, for 
 corrupt purposes, given me stock in the Credit Mobilier. I desire to 
 make that note a part of this testimony, in order that all 1 have said, 
 as well as all that I have done iu reference to this matter, may become 
 a part of this statement. 
 
 The note is as follows : 
 
 PiTTSPiBLD, Massachusetts, Seplemher 11, 1872. 
 
 My* Dear Sip. : I thank you for denouncing as a false libel tlie charge of the New 
 York Sun, so far as 1 am concerned. Neither Oakes Ames, nor any other man, dead or 
 alive, ever gave me, directly or indirectly, a penny of the stock of the Credit Mobilier, 
 or of any other corporation'in this world. Iiiever owned a dollar of any stock or any 
 property of any kind that I did not pay the full value of, with my own money, earned 
 with my own labor. 
 
 ^'™'^^''""' H.L. DAWES. 
 
 By the Chairman: 
 
 Question. This sum of $1,000 you let Mr. Ames have was about the 
 beginning of the session of Congress '?— Answer. I am not entirely cer- 
 tain that" it may not have been before the end of the previous session, 
 but I do not think it was. I am sure it could not have been later than 
 the first week in December, 1867. I have no memorandum, and cannot 
 tell you the date. I think it was when I came back here at the begin- 
 ning of the session of 1867. 
 
 Q. You say the dividend was paid to you during the time of the 
 transactions between you and Mr. Ames. Can you date the time the 
 dividend was paid? — A. It was between the first of the session and 
 the time I went home. It could not have been more than a few weeks 
 after I paid the money. It was before the conversation to which I re- 
 ferred -with Mr. Learned. 
 
 Q. How soon after you returned was this matter closed up ? — A. Im- 
 mediately ; -within a week. I went right back and told Mr. Ames I 
 could not take it. 
 
 Q. If I understood the reading of your statement, the result of the 
 thing was that during the time Mr. Ames had the $1,000 he paid yon 
 ten per cent, interest ? — A. He paid at the rate of ten per cent, interest, 
 deducting out of the amount the dividend I had received. He did just 
 as he told me in the beginning he would if I preferred ; that is, that he 
 would allow me ten per cent, for my money. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Ames say anything or did you know anything in relation 
 to the market value of this stock at the time? — A. No, sir ; all I knew 
 at the time was that it was good stock — at least that Mr. Ames thought 
 the company would make out of this contract with the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad. He told me that he would guarantee me ten per cent., and 1 
 felt safe. The option was all I desired. 
 
 Q. The dividend you received you supposed to have been declared on 
 the stock after the time you made this arrangement? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you understand that you were entitled, if you took the stock, 
 to any accrued dividends 1 — A. No, sir ; I was to take it from the time, 
 as I supposed. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Ames say anything to you in relation to dividends that 
 had been previously made upon the stock ? — A. No, sir ; he did not. 
 
 Q. I think you say in your statement you had no knowledge or trans- 
 actions between Mr. Ames and any other member of Congress ? — A. 
 No, sir ; I did not know of his dealings with anybody else. I did not 
 inquire in regard to anybody else, and the first I knew about anybody 
 else was at the time I saw it in the papers last summer. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 115 
 
 By Mr. McCrary : , 
 
 •Q. The only paper you got from Mr. Ames was a receipt ? — A. That 
 was all. 
 
 Q. And that was canceled and delivered up? — A. That was deliv- 
 ered up. 
 
 .Q. That stock you never saw '? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 13, 1873. 
 Chaeles H. Neilson, sworn and examined. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. State your residence and occupation. — Answer. I reside 
 in the city of New York. I am an insurapce broker and adjuster of 
 marine losses, also a dealer in stocks ; that, however, is separate from 
 my regular business. 
 
 Q. Are you son-in-law to the Hon. James Brooks, member of the 
 House of Eepresentatives ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. State whether you are the owner, or have had at any time in your 
 possession any stock of the Credit Mobilier Company ? — A. I was the 
 owner of 100 shares of the original stock of the Credit Mobilier, and 
 subsequently of 50 shares more. I have here the receipt of the origi- 
 nal 100 shares Credit Mobilier stock, dated December 26, 1867, and 
 another certificate of stock, 50 shares in the same company, dated Feb- 
 ruary 29, 1868. 
 
 Q. Of whom did you purchase these first 100 shares ? — A. The first 
 100 shares was an original subscription to the company, as I under- 
 stand it. 
 
 Q. Did you sign for any number of shares ? — A. I do not recollect 
 that I signed for any number of shares. 
 
 Q. State the negotiation or transaction by which you became the 
 owner of those 100 shares. — A. The Hon. James Brooks, my father-in- 
 law, put me in the way of being the owner of it, and loaned me the 
 money, $10,000, to pay for it. The dividends that have come from it 
 have all come to me. I have received them all and have got them all. 
 
 Q. State what you did in reference to the purchase of that stock. — 
 A. I stated that Mr. Brooks put me in the way of possessing it and 
 loaned me the money. 
 
 Q. That is rather the result than the process. Did you do anything 
 yourself about the negotiation ? — A. No, I had no information person- 
 ally, and could not have got any myself. 
 
 Q. All the business was done by Mr. Brooks ? — A. Mr. Brooks told 
 me that he could not go into it himself, but that he had the chance to 
 put me in and he did so. This was the conversation. He advanced me 
 the money or advanced the money for me. I do not recollect which. 
 
 Q. Did you yourself actively have anything to do with that transac- 
 tion ? — A. Nothing except by receiving and receipting for the stock. I 
 authorized him to advance the money for me. 
 
 Q. How did you get the certificate? — A. I do not recollect. I got the 
 fifty shares directly from the company. The other was so long ago that 
 I cannot state how I got it. 
 
 Q. State whether this was delivered to you by the officers of the com- 
 pajiy or whether Mr. Brooks brought it to you. — A. I do not remember 
 distinctly ; to the best of my recollection I received it from the company. 
 
116 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Just-how you came iato possession of it you cannot state ? — A. I 
 do not remember distinctly. 
 
 Q. You previously had a conversation with Mr. Brooks about it, in 
 which Mr. Brooks said he would advance the money if you became the 
 purchaser ? — A. He said he would take care of it. 
 
 Q. And he did, as you suppose, pay the amount ? — A. I know that I 
 got the certificate and received the dividends ; that is all I know about 
 it positively. 
 
 Q. .You never paid for the stock directly to the company yourself?— 
 A. Not to my present recollection. I do not recollect that I did for the 
 one hundred shares. I have been in there very often to collect divi- 
 dends, but I do not recollect that I ever went there to pay for that stock. 
 
 Q. How was the matter arranged between you and Mr. Brooks in re- 
 ference to paying the $10^00 ? — A. The arrangement was simply that 
 he advanced the money and I presume paid the company. That is all 
 I know about it. He told me that he would advance the money or take 
 care of it. He gave me the certificate, I think, and I collected the 
 dividends and kept them all myself. They are all mine. In other words, 
 it was done for my benefit. 
 
 Q. Has this $10,000 which Mr. Brooks advanced to you been in any 
 way adjusted between you and him ? — A. I have a;n open account with 
 Mr. Brooks, and have given my collateral security for the amount of 
 the loan. 
 
 Q. When was that security given to Mr. Brooks'? — A. As fast as 
 money came into my possession that I could use in that way I gave it 
 to him. 
 
 Q. Did you give security to him at the time the money was advanced? 
 — A. No, I did not think it was necessary. 
 
 Q. You never gave any note or bond for the money ? — A. No, I do 
 not think that it is customary between father and son. 
 
 Q. It has remained as a matter of account between you ? — A. Pre- 
 cisely. I have never given him any note or any bond for the money — 
 that is, my individual bond. 
 
 Q. The matter then remains unadjusted between you and him ? — A. 
 It remains unadjusted up to this time. 
 
 Q. How soon did you begin to receive dividends upon this one hun- 
 dred shares of stock that you received 'i — A. I could not tell that from 
 memory ; it was very shortly afterward ; I could not recollect the date. 
 
 Q. Can you state the amount of dividends you have received upon 
 it? — A. Not accurately. I can state, approximately, that I received 
 about eight hundred and twenty-two shares, I think it was, of Union 
 Pacific Eailroad Company's stock iu the aggregate, and then some first- 
 mortgage bonds to the amount of about $20,000, par value — that is, 
 twenty one-thousand-dollar bonds. That is what I recollect. I am not 
 sure about it. 
 
 Q,. What would be the par value of the Union Pacific Eailroad stock 
 you received? — A. Of eight hundred and twenty-two shares, the par 
 value would be $82,200, but it never sold for anything like that. It sold 
 as low as $9 a share at one time. 
 
 Q. What was its market-value at the time yo,u received it ?— A. I do 
 ■ not think it was on the market. It was on the broker's board, but I did 
 not hear of any sales. 
 
 Q. How long a period of time was covered by these dividends ; when 
 did you receive the last dividend ? — A. I could not remember. I gave 
 receipts for all I received. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 117 
 
 _Q. Have you received any dividends in money ? — A. I have received 
 one dividend, if I mistake not, of $9,000. 
 
 Q. Was tliat $9,000 on the one hundred shares, or $9,000 on the entire 
 one hundred and fifty shares'? — A. That I do not recollect. My memory- 
 is clear that I received one dividend of $9,000 in money. 
 
 Q. Can you state what time that was? — A. ITo ; I cannot. 
 
 Q. These dividends of stock which you received are dividends on the 
 one hundred shares ? — A. The eight hundred and odd shares of stock, I 
 think, must have been dividends on the one hundred and fifty shares. 
 I am speaking of all I received altogether on the one hundred and fifty 
 shares. 
 
 Q. Have you repaid any portion of the $10,000 that Mr. Brooks ad- 
 vanced you ? — A. Yes ; since I received it ; although he did not demand 
 it, I went and gave the $9,000 dividends to his agent. I have received 
 other money beside from him. I have an open account with him. I 
 have borrowed money, and he has given me money from time to time. 
 
 Q. JTow, state what the transaction was in which you received the 
 second certificate of fifty shares by which you became the owner of 
 that amount of stock. — A. I went to the company and got it and paid 
 for it. 
 
 Q. That is, by yourself? — A. I did it, together with Mr. Sidney Dil- 
 lon. Dillon Avas there, and I saw him and got the money from him, and 
 gave collateral security. He loaned money to me individually. 
 
 Q. Had Mr. Brooks anything to do with the purchase or obtaining 
 these last fifty shares of stock ? — A. H"othing whatever. I think he was 
 out of town at the time. 
 
 Q. He furnished none of the money to pay for it ? — A. Not to my 
 knowledge. I obtained.it from Mr. Dillon. 
 
 Q. Did you say Mr. Brooks was away '? — A. He was not in town, I 
 recollect, because I remember going to see him that evening, and he was 
 away. I think he was in Washington. 
 
 Q. Had Mr, Brooks nothing to do, in any manner, about the negotia- 
 tion or payment for that fifty shares of stock 1 — A. Nothing. I know 
 that he told me that I was entitled to fifty shares of stock, and that I 
 went there and asked for it and got it. 
 
 Q. Did he tell you you were entitled to fifty shares of stock by virtue 
 of your having one hundred original shares ? — A. Yes, it was in con- 
 sequence of that. It was an increase of the capital stock by vhich the 
 holders of, original stock were entitled to the increase. 
 
 Q. Was there any question made, when you went to claim these fifty 
 shares, as to your right to it? — A. I went first and did not get it. The 
 second time I went I got it without any question. 
 
 Q. Whom did you see the first time? — A. I do not know the name of 
 the gentleman. It was somebody behind the desk. I told him I had 
 come for fifty shares I was entitled to. 
 
 Q. What did he say? — A. I have forgotten exactly what he said. I 
 know I did not get it at the time. It was unsatisfactory in some way. 
 
 Q. Who was the manyou had the transaction with at the time you 
 received these last fifty shares? — A. Mr. Dillon, who was president of 
 the company at the time, I believe. I gave him collateral security for 
 more than the whole. loan. 
 
 Q. He was the officer of the company from whom you received it ? — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. He not only loaned the money to pay for it, but he acted as officer 
 ou the part of the company to let you have the stock? — A. I do not 
 
118 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 know whether I got it from him or whether I got it from the desk. It 
 is a long time ago, and I do not recollect all these details. He was the 
 only one I had any words with, any conversation in relation to it. 
 
 Q. Has that loan been adjusted between you and Mr. Dillon ? — A. I 
 have not adjusted that loan with Mr. Dillon. 
 
 Q. You gave him security "? — A. He has the security and I have his 
 receipt. 
 
 Q. In what form ? — A. In Union Pacific Railroad Company bonds I 
 had in my safe. I deposited them with him as collateral security for 
 the loan. Whether the loan has been taken up yet I do not know. I 
 did not take it up myself. 
 
 Q. Nobody has taken it up for you to your knowledge ? — A. IsTotT;© my 
 knowledge. 
 
 Q. ' The last fifty shares of stock you received iu February. Did you 
 have that stock at par"? — A. I think I gave over par for it. I think it 
 was 104. 1 will not pretend to be accurate about it. It was over par,, 
 and I think it was four per cent, premium. 
 
 Q. Were you entitled upon that last fifty shares of stock and did you 
 receive any accrued dividends that had been declared before the (late 
 of the certificate? — A. Not at that time. I do not know whether I re- 
 ceived any subsequently. I received all that was to my credit on the 
 books of the company, but I have not examined the books since to see 
 whether I was entitled to more than I got or not. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether you did get any dividend prior to that 
 receipt? — A. That I do not know. I never took the trouble to examine. 
 
 Q. But with these last fifty shares you say Mr. Brooks had no connec- 
 tion in any form'? — A. Not with the purchase in any form. 
 
 Q. Has he had since in any way ? — A. Not in any form whatever. 
 
 Q. And all he had to do with the first one hundred shares of stock was 
 to loan the money to pay for it? — A. That was all; Whether he has 
 taken up my loan on thejifty shares or not I do not know. 
 
 Q. You have never employed him to do it? — A. I have never employed 
 him to do it. I authorized him generally to take care of everything,, 
 and let me know if there was anything for me to do. 
 
 Q. You have no knowledge that he has done anything in reference to 
 ■ the fifty shares ? — A. No knowledge. 
 
 Q. You have never made any request of him to do it? — A. Never any 
 request. 
 
 Q. If he has done anything in reference to it, it is by virtue of some 
 general authority he has to act for you ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. I suppose you are aware that the question has been made whether 
 this stock was yours, or the stock of Mr. Brooks, although standing in 
 your name. What we want to ascertain is whether, in point of fact, it 
 is yours, or whether, in point of fact, it is the stock of Mr. Brooks. — A. 
 In point of fact, that one hundred shares of stock and the supplemental 
 fifty shares are mine, and the dividends have been all collected by me, 
 and they are mine still; all the profits coming from the Credit Mobilier 
 are mine. 
 
 Q. You say that Mr. Brooks has no ownership, and has had no owner- 
 ship in any way in these shares, but simply advanced $10,000 to pur- 
 chase the first lot for you. He had no interest or concern iu it except 
 as loaning that amount of money?— A. Nothing beyond that. 
 
 Q. Was there any understanding that he was to have any profit or 
 advantage from it ?— A. No. On the contrary, the understanding was. 
 that it was to be mine. 
 
 Q. In regard to the $10,000 advanced to pay for it, was it understood 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. « 119 
 
 that it was to Toe a loan of money to you, and that you were to repay 
 it? — A. Notliing was said aboiit repaying it at the time. He simply 
 said he would advance it to me. 
 
 Q. Did you understand that it was a loan or a gift to you? — A. Not a 
 gift, but a loan. 
 
 Q. And you understood that you were to repay it ? — A. Yes, and I 
 did repay $9,000 in money, and he has security for the balance, with 
 the general open account between us. 
 
 Q. What security does he hold of yours? — A. First-mortgage bonds 
 of the Union Pacific Railroad Company. 
 
 Q. These you received in the way of dividends ? — A. Yes, I received 
 themln the way of dividends. 
 
 Q. Did you own any other stock in the Union Pacific Eailroad except 
 what you received in the way of dividends f — A. I never did. 
 
 By Mr. Meerick : 
 
 Q. Did you approach Mr. Brooks for the purpose of getting him to se- 
 cure this stock, or did he mention the matter to you personally '? — A. 
 Mr. Brooks originally mentioned the matter to me. 
 
 Q. Can you remember the substance of what he stated ? — A. It was 
 to the effect that there was a chance there for me to make money, and 
 that he would put it in my way, and had the power to do so. 
 
 Q. He had the power to piit your name in ? — A. It is so long since 
 that I cannot be certain. I cannot recollect these conversations as far 
 back as 1867. 
 
 Q. Did he explain to you how he could iDut your name in ! — A. He did 
 not make any explanation. He simply said to me that he did not care 
 to hold any himself. That was all he said. It was a speculation. He 
 told me he could put me in for one hundred shares. 
 
 Q. Did you advance any money at any time to him ? — A. I never 
 advanced him any money before I received the stock. 
 
 Q. Was this a sort of gift, an advancement to you as a matter of 
 fatherly generosity ? — A. It was an advance in the form of a specula- 
 tion for my account. 
 
 Q. Did he explain to you that there would be any money necessary to 
 pay for it? — A. He did not say anything of that. He said he would 
 take care of it for me. 
 
 ' Q. He never inquired where the funds were to be raised by which he 
 was to be paid ? — A. No, sir ; he left that entirely to me. 
 
 Q. Did you understand that payment could be made by the dividends 
 arising from it! — A. There was no understanding of the kind with me. 
 
 Q. Was Mr. Brooks at that time an ofiQcer of the Union Pacific Eail- 
 road Company? — A. I do not know. I do not recollect. The records 
 will show, I suppose. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 
 Q. You were at that time a son-in-law of Mr. Brooks? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. It has been stated to the committee, I do not recollect from what 
 source, that your subscription of one hundred shares to this Credit Mo- 
 bilier was not made in time, so as to entitle you, as a matter of fight, 
 to the increase of fifty per cent, at par ; that is, the arrangement by 
 which stockholders were entitled to this increase of fifty per cent, had 
 expired some months before the date of your first certificate in Decem- 
 ber, 1867, and therefore that you could not have obtained these fifty 
 shares of additional stock as a matter of right from the company. Have 
 you any knowledge or recollection on this point? — A. No knowledge or 
 recollection. I know nothing about it. 
 
120 • CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection of auy difficulty in getting it upon that 
 •ground ? — A. There was no ground given to me at first ; the answer 
 was simply unsatisfactory, that I tnust call again, or words to that effect. 
 I went subsequently and got it. 
 
 Q. And you understand that you got it as a matter of right under 
 some arrangement with the company '? — A. That M'as my. understand- 
 ing ; tliat I was entitled to it as a matter of right. 
 
 Q. Do I understand that you paid for the fifty shares'? — A. I have 
 somewhere a.receipt for the money paid out, I think at 104 ; I know I 
 paid a premium ; 1 do not recollect the exact payment. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 p. Do you know Avhether Mr. Brooks had any agency in getting 
 these last fifty shares ? — A. I do not know. He did not say anything 
 to me about it. 
 
 Q. You went ouce to the office and called for fifty shares, but did not 
 get it. You were told to call again, or had some i^ut-off of that kind; 
 did you make any application, or say anything, to Mr. Brooks upon the 
 subject of these fifty shares "? — A, 1 did. I told him I went to collect 
 it, but could not get it at the time. I was told to call again ; he told 
 me to go and get it. 
 
 Q. He stated that you were entitled to it ? — A. He stated I was en- 
 titled to it;. 
 
 Q. Did you understand at the time you made application, and did not 
 get the stock, that there was going to be any question or difficulty in 
 your obtaining it "? — A. I did not suppose there would be any difficulty. 
 Mr. Brooks came, 1 think, where I was living and told me there was 
 fifty shares of stock I was entitled to. 
 
 Q. This was before you went the first time ? — A. That was before I 
 went the first time. 
 
 Q. Was that the first knowledge you had that you were entitled to 
 fifty shares ? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did you have any conversation as to who you were to pay for the 
 fifty shares ?— A. Not at all with him. He left that entirely to me. 
 There was nothing, said about paying for it that day. 
 
 Q. There was nothing said about his advancing it ! — A. No ; not for 
 the fifty shares. 
 
 Q. There was nothing said as to how you were to raise the money for 
 the fifty shares ? — A. No ; nothing said about it. 
 
 Q. Did you understand whether Mr. Brooks had anything to do with 
 it ; whether he interfered, whether he had personally any interview in 
 reference to getting it ? — A. Not to niy knowledge. 
 
 Q. You mean us. to understand that Mr. Brooks had nothing to do in 
 any way or form about getting the fifty shares'?— A. Nothing to my 
 knowledge. 
 
 Q. Have you any reason to suppose he had '?— A. No reason that I 
 could fix upon. 
 
 Q. You have no reason to suppose that Mr. Brooks had anything 
 more to do about getting the last fifty shares than anybody else '?— A, 
 No reason, any more than he came to me and said, or wrote to me, that 
 I could get that fifty shares of stock. 
 
 Q. Can you tell at what time it was you got that information from 
 Mr. Brooks ; how long before you got the stock «— A. That I do not 
 recollect. 
 
 Q. Did you understand that he wrote to you, or that vou got this in- 
 
CREDIT MOBlLIER. 121 
 
 formation from him in consequeace of any negotiation witli anybocly ?— 
 A. No; 1 had no such" understanding. 
 
 Q; It was a mere statement of fact that you were entitled to fifty 
 shares additional stocls: because you were the owner of these one hun- 
 dred shares? — A. That was all. 
 
 By Mr. Meeeick : 
 
 Q. How long after you got this information before you got the stock ? 
 — A. I think it must have been several weeks. 
 
 Q. Was the stock dated at the time you got it "1 — A. That I don't 
 know. I did not look at the certificate to see what the date was, or 
 whether it corresponded with the time I received it or not. 
 
 Q. Did you recollect what time you got it '? — A. I do not rcicollect 
 that. 
 
 Q. Ton borrowed some money from Mr. Dillon at that time, and 
 pledged with him for the repayment of the money on certain bonds of 
 the Union Pacific Eailroad, which, you had derived as dividends 1 — A. 
 Yes ; some in my possession ; some of my own bonds. 
 
 Q,. Which you had derived as dividends on the previous shares ? — A. 
 I never had any but my own bonds. 
 
 Q. But they were derived from dividends previously declared I — A. 
 Previously declared — yes. 
 
 Q. How many bonds did you deposit with him, do you recollect, for 
 that five thousand dollars '? — A. About enough to cover the amount and 
 a little margin over, .enough margin to cover it. I think 1 gave him the 
 certificate. The certificate, however, was not of any value except upon 
 my indorsement on the back of it, which I see it has not, so that I must 
 have given him other security. 
 
 Q. You did not give him a certificate then 1 — A. I gave him bonds. 
 The certificate was worth no more than blank paper until my name was 
 indorsed upon the back of it. I have a memoranda which will show 
 exactly what I gave him. 
 
 Q. Have you got the memoranda with you 1 — A. I have not. 
 
 By Mr. McCrary: 
 
 Q. Can you tell the committee how many dividends you received upon 
 this stock °! — A. No, I cannot ; it is such a length of time. My memory 
 is not good enough to enable me to state. 
 
 Q. 1 find here a statement of dividends running from July, 18G6, to 
 December, 1868 ; look at this list and state whether you received all 
 these dividends. — A. If this is an accurate statement, I presume I must 
 have collected all. I do not recollect. 
 
 Q. Do you mean to say you collected those which had accrued before 
 you got your stock ? — A. I collected all I was entitled to — all that the 
 company gave me. That is all I can remember about it. 
 
 Q. Can you tell how much you realized upon that stock in the way of 
 dividends 1 — A. Do you mean in the way of money ? 
 
 Q. How much money and how much bonds'? — A. I know I received 
 eight hundred and odd shares of railroad stock and a cash dividend of 
 nine thousand dollars. I do not recollect any other cash dividend. 
 
 Q. From whom did you collect the dividends ; from what officer? — A. 
 I think it was from Mr. Ham. Generally speaking, I do not recollect 
 any other man. 
 
 Q. What position did he hold ? — A. I think he was secretary, aud he 
 may have been treasurer. 
 
 Q. Did you in all cases collect directly from him personally ? — A. That 
 
122 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 I cannot say. I do not know ^Thether I did or not. I do not recol- 
 lect. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Brooks collect any of the dividends and pay them over 
 to you ? — A. He never collected a single dividend. He could not do it 
 "without my authority, and I never gave him any such authority. 
 
 Q. Did any person collect them for you I — A. jS'o ; I collected them 
 personally. 
 
 Q. In regard to this additional fifty shares^ "which you got by some 
 arrangement with Mr. Dillon. How much money did you borrow from 
 Mr. Dillon ? — A. Over five thousand dollars. Five thousand and some 
 hundreds. I have forgotten the exact amount. 
 
 Q. Upon what time was that borrowed ? — A. No time fixed ; it was a 
 call loan. 
 
 . Q. Do you know whether that loan is still unpaid ? — A. I have not 
 paid it myself. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge as to whether anj- other person has paid 
 It ? — A. I have no knowledge. 
 
 Q. Have you any information upon that subject at all ? — A. No in- 
 formation. I have never spoken to Mr. Brooks at all about it, and he 
 "was not called upon to pay it. 
 
 Q. That loan "was of the same date as the certificate of 50 shares ? — 
 A. I do not know whether it is or not. It was dated when I received 
 the money and paid it over. 
 
 Q. Which was about February 28, 1SG8, about the date of the certifi- 
 cate ? — A. I presume so. 
 
 Q. He , gave you a receipt? — A. He gave me a receipt showing the 
 money he had loaned me, and also the collateral I had furnished him. 
 
 Q. He did not give you a receipt for the stock 1 — A. T do not know 
 that that was necessary. 
 
 Q. Did he give you a receipt for the money he had loaned you ? — A. 
 He gave me a receipt for the bonds I gave him for the loan, stating 
 that it was collateral on that loan. That was the only receipt he gave 
 me. , 
 
 Q. So expressed upon its face ? — A. So expressed upon its face. 
 
 Q. Have you that receipt 1 — A. Not with me. 
 
 ■ Mr. Meebick. Tou will please procure it and produce it before the 
 committee. 
 
 By Mr. McCkaey : 
 
 Q. Mr. Dillon has never called on you for a settlement of that money 1 
 —A. He has never on me. 
 
 Q. And you have never spoken to him on the subject?— A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. And have no reason to believe that it is settled '—A. I have not 
 spoken to him about it, but it may have been settled. 
 
 Q. Have you any reason to believe that Mr. Brooks settled it ?— A. 
 No. If anybody has settled it, it must have been through or for Mr. 
 Brooks. 
 
 Q. You said that you paid Mr. Brooks $9,000?— A. Yes: on account 
 of that loan. 
 
 Q. Have you let him have any of the stock or receive any of the divi- 
 dends ?— A. No. No stock is in his name and none has been transferred 
 to him. . , 
 
 Q. Have you paid Mr. Brooks any other money on that account ?— A. 
 I have given him nothing else except the bonds as collateral for the 
 loan. 
 
 Q. What bonds have you received ?— A. Union Pacific Eailroad bonds. 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEK. 123 
 
 Q. Did you turn over to Mm all the bonds you received in the way of 
 dividends 1 — A. 1 do not recollect what I turned over to him at the time. 
 He could not have had them all back. I gave some to Mr. Dillon, and 
 I must have retained some myself. 
 
 Q. Did you give Mr. Brooks all the bonds except those you turned 
 over to Mr. Dillon? — A. That I do not know. I gave Mr. Brooks enough 
 to cover his loan, and I gave Mr. Dillon enough to cover his loan. 
 
 Q. Have you any bonds now in your possession ? — A. I haVe ; they 
 are all mine. 
 
 Q. Are they in your possession ? — A. Some are in the possession of 
 Mr. Dillon. 
 
 Q. Have you any others except those you have hypothecated with 
 Mr. Dillon 1-^A. I do not think I have. I think I have given all the 
 bonds 1 have to Mr. Dillon and Mr. Brooks. 
 
 Q. Then if Mr. Dillon has turned over to Mr. Brooks the bonds you 
 gave to him, Mr. Brooks has received all the bonds paid you in the way 
 of dividends? — A. If he has, I suppose Mr. Brooks himself must have 
 transferred the loan to his own account. 
 
 Q. Then I understand you to say that you have not now in your jjos- 
 session any of the dividends upon this stock, unless these bonds are 
 with Mr. Dillon? — A. Nothing in my actual possession; they are hy- 
 pothecated on other loans. 
 
 Q. You do not know whether Mr. Dillon still holds these bonds or 
 not? — A. I cannot say ; I do not know. 
 
 Q. Are you certain you received but one cash dividend upon the stock? 
 — A. I'do not recollect any other; it must have been very small, if there 
 was any other, and made no impression upon me. 
 
 Q. According to this statement of June 17, 1868, there was a cash 
 dividend of 60 per cent. ; is that the one you refer to ?— A. That is the 
 one I refer to. It makes nine thousand dollars on the one hundred and 
 iifty shares. 
 
 Q. Were not the first-mortgage Union PacificvEailroad bonds equiva- 
 lent to cash ? — A. They were not par in value, I think. 
 
 Q. What were they worth ? — A. I do not know what they were worth 
 at the time — somewhere in the neighborhood of 75, perhaps not so much. 
 I do not think it was over that. 
 
 Q. What kind of bonds did you leave with Mr. Dillon? — A. They must 
 have been first-mortgage bonds. 
 
 Q. Some of your dividend bonds ? — A. I think so; the memoranda- 
 receipt will show. 
 
 Q. You did not leave with him any Pacific Eailroad stock ? — A. No. 
 
 Q. What have you done with the Union Pacific Eailroad stock re- 
 ceived in the way of dividend? — A. I have it in my own possession, 
 with the exception of three hundred shares, which I sold. 
 
 Q. I understood you to say that you had nothing in your possession 
 except the bonds you left with Mr. Dillon ? — A. I did not say I had no 
 stock. I said no bonds. I said, on the contrary, I had over eight hun- 
 dred shares of stock, which, with the exception of three hundred I sold, 
 I still have. 
 
 Q. What you have left in your, possession as dividends, then, is Union 
 Pacific stock ?— A. Yes. 
 
 Q. What is that stock worth? — A. To-day ? I do not know. It fluc- 
 tuates. One day it is forty or thirty-eight, and the next day it is down 
 to thirty-five. I have not heard what the market-value is to-day. 
 
 Q. It is between thirty and forty, then? — A. That is too wide a mar- 
 gin ; probably about thirty-five or thirty-six. 
 
124 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. Has Mr. Brooks, ever said anything to you about the settlement 
 of your account with Mr. Dillon ? — A. Not to my recollection. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 
 Q. According to your statement you are still the owner of something 
 over five hundred shares of the Union Pacific Railroad stock ? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. Is that stock in your own name ? — A. It is in my own name and 
 in my own jiossession. It is not hypothecated ; I have it. 
 
 Q. Has it been in your own name ever since it was issued ? — A. Ifc 
 has ever since it was Issued. It has never been changed. 
 
 Q. Then none of your stock has ever been in the name of Mr. 
 Brooks ? — A. Not one share of it. 
 
 Q. You received tliis stock as dividend from this Credit Mobilier?— 
 Y'es, sir. 
 
 By Mr. McCosiB : 
 
 Q. I understood you to say a moment. ago that fifty shares of the 
 Credit Mobilier stock you received by virtue of your ownership of the 
 first one hundred. Am I right in that ? — A. That is what I said. 
 
 Q. Do you know when the increase of Credit Mobilier stock was made 
 entitling the holders to that increase? — A. I do not know the exact 
 date. 
 
 Q. Did you get any notice from the Credit Mobilier corporation or 
 any person that you were entitled of right to take an increase of your 
 stock ? — A. I may have done so, but do not remember. 
 
 Q. Do you not know th^at they served a written notice upon every 
 holder of the Credit Mobilier stock to that effect ? — A. I do not know 
 that they did. I am not aware of it. I do not know many of the stock- 
 holders. 
 
 Q. From whom did you get the first hundred shares of that stock ? — 
 A. I explained all a moment ago to Judge Poland. 
 
 Q. Not with sufficient clearness, however. To whom did you pay 
 your money for the first hundred shares ? — A. I was unable to get that, 
 except through the influence of Mr. James Brooks, and he advanced 
 the money. 
 
 Q. Did he pay for it ? — he must have paid for it. — A. I do not know 
 the fact. 
 
 Q. Did you know to whom he paid it ? — A. I do not know. It was 
 paid and charged to my account, and the money must have been paid. 
 
 Q. But not to your knowledge by you? — A. I did not pay it myself 
 with my own check. 
 
 Q. When you went to the office to get the stock, you found it already 
 paid for, and standing in your name 1 — A. Standing in my name, yes, 
 according to the understanding. 
 
 Q. To whom did you make application for the first hundred shares ?— 
 A. I do not know ; it was the person I applied to in the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad office. 
 
 Q. There are a good many persons there, are there not 1 — A. There 
 are a great many there, I do not know which I applied to. There are 
 several gentlemen to whom! have applied on different occasions. 
 
 Q. Who are these several gentlemen "?— A. Mr. Crane I have some- 
 times been there to see. 
 
 Q. What about ?— A. I do not know. I have talked with him. 
 
 Q. Talked with him about this stock?— A. Not especially this stock. 
 
 Q. Had you any other business there except this ?— A. No. 
 
 Q. You do not know what you talked about? — A. T do nnf.romomiior 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 125 
 
 I know that I did not consider it a matter of sufficient importance to 
 make a memorandum of. " I got my dividend, but I have collected larger 
 dividends than that, frequently, on other transactions. ' 
 
 Q. When you got your certificate of one hundred shares, did you get 
 a dividend "? — A. I do not recollect whether I did on that day or not. 
 
 Q. Can you tell whether you did within two weeks of that ? — A. I 
 cannot. 
 
 Q. When did you get dividends on your stock "! — A. I got them at 
 various times, distributed over years. 
 
 Q. Tou do not remember when you got the first dividend ? — A. There 
 was one near the time I got my certificate of Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
 Q. You do not know whether you got it on that day or six months 
 after ? — A. I do not remember the time. 
 
 Q. Do I understand you that the dividends were distributed over 
 years ?^A. Over more than one year. 
 
 Q. Do you or not know that the original holders of Credit Mobilier 
 stock received every dividend from the first declared, which was in 
 April, 1866, whether retrospectively or prospectively ? — A. I do not 
 know about that. I do not know what all the holders did. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether you got that ? — A. I only know that I col- 
 lected all the dividends they would pay me. 
 
 Q. When you made application for the first certificate of stock you 
 received, did you not at the same time get a memorandum, made out in 
 regular form, with a description of stocks and bonds already accrued as 
 dividends?— A. I could not swear that I did. 
 
 Q. Did you not sign a book receipting for your dividends "t^A. I 
 always signed a book for receipts. 
 
 Q. Did you not sign a book without getting something ? — A. No, I 
 never did sign any book without receiving something for it. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect, when you gave the first receipt, what you re- 
 ceived 1 — A. I do not remember. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether you got anything?— A. I got something for 
 it, or I would not have given the receipt. 
 
 Q. Tou do not know that you received stock and bonds which had 
 accrued ; you do not know anything about that ? — A. No, sir, 
 
 Q. You say you got notice to go for this additional stock from Mr. 
 Brooks. Has Mr. Brooks given you a chance in other things ? — ^A. He 
 has put me in other good things. 
 
 Q. Did you ever receive chances from him in the Atlantic and Pacific 
 Telegraph Company ? — A. No, sir ; he never put me in any telegraph 
 company. 
 
 Q. Prom.whom did you get notice about the fifty shares of stock ? — 
 A. Mr. Brooks told me I was entitled to fifty shares of stock. 
 
 Q. To whom did you make application for that stock ? — A. To one of 
 the gentlemen in the office, I do not remember which. The only three 
 I knew in the office were Mr. Dillon, Mr. Crane, and Mr. Ham. 
 
 Q. What did you understand by Mr. Brool^s having power to put you 
 into this concern ?— A. I understood him exactly as I stated, that he 
 could put me into a good thing if I wanted to go in. That was my 
 understanding, that he would give me a chance and put me in the way 
 of making a good speculation. 
 
 Q. You say you got the money to pay for this additional stock from 
 Mr. Dillon, president of the company; that you received the bonds 
 which you gave him»at that time as collateral ? — A. I did not say that. 
 I gave him, as collateral, bonds which I had received long before. 
 
 Q. As dividends on the one hundred shares? — A. Yes. 
 
126 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Then you got dividends from the time you received the first stock 
 until the time you collected the fifty shares ? — A. I must have done. 
 
 Q. But you are not sure you did so ? — A. Perfectly sure. 
 
 Q. You "did not recollect it just now? — A. I did not recollect the date, 
 whether it was the 16th or 18th of any month. I recollect' getting the 
 dividends. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect from whom you collected them ? — A. I think it 
 was from Mr. Ham ; I will not be sure. 
 
 Q. Do you not know that the dividends were paid by- Mr. Crane, and 
 not by Mr. Ham? — A. No, sir; I do not know that. 
 
 Q. Do I understand you to say now that all the dividends you re- 
 ceived on your Credit Mobilier stock were paid you by Mr. Ham, in 
 1868 ?— A. I did not state that. 
 
 Q. From whom did you get that ? — A. I said I did not recollect. I 
 got them from Mr. Crane or Mr. Ham. I think 1 collected from both of 
 them. 
 
 Q. Then you say you have collected Credit Mobilier dividends from/ 
 Mr. Ham ? — A. I did not say that. I said from Mr. Crane or Mr. Ham ; 
 I do not remember which. 
 
 By Mr. McCkAKY : 
 
 Q. I see by this list of dividends that the last one mentioned was paid 
 December 19, 1868. Can you tell us whether any dividend has been 
 made since that upon the stock of the Credit Mobilier ? — A. I do not 
 remember. 
 
 Q. You cannot fix the date of the last dividend you received ? — A. I 
 cannot fix the date of it. 
 
 Q. JS^or tell the year you received them ? — A. No. I have had a great 
 many transactions of the kind, and I cannot swear as to the dates of 
 everything I have done. ■ 
 
 Q. You cannot recollect whether you collected any in , the year 
 1869 °? — A. I cannot recollect. 
 
 By the Chairman: 
 Q. I am requested by Mr. Brooks to ask you whether there was ever 
 any understanding in any way or form that Mr. Brooks should, realize 
 any benefit from your shares of the Credit Mobilier?— A. Not the 
 slightest understanding. On the contrary, it was the understanding 
 that I was to receive all the benefit. That was the understanding be- 
 tween Mr. Brooks and myself. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 14, 1873. 
 
 The Chairman stated that Mr. Brooks had yesterday requested the 
 committee to send to the War Department and get the records of some 
 military investigation in regard to Mr. McComb. He also gave the 
 names of several witnesses whom he desired to bave summoned. The 
 committee understand the purpose of Mr. Brooks in making this request 
 to be to prove that Mr. McComb had something to do with some other 
 transactions which were not creditable. They consider that this would 
 not be competent evidence, and therefore declined to go into it. 
 
 Mr. Brooks said that the allegation of Mr. McComb before the com- 
 mittee was that Mr. Alley gave Mr. Brooks fifty sharesof Credit Mobilier 
 stock upon condition that he should influence democratic mem- 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 127 
 
 bers of Congress. Mr. Alley denied that charge, and no proof of it was 
 alleged except the statement of Mr. McOomb. If the allegation had 
 made any impression or lodgment upon the mind of the committee he 
 desired the testimony referred to from the War Department for the pur- 
 pose of impeaching the credibility of Mr. McComb as a witness, and to 
 throw more light upon the question as to whether the committee should 
 believe Mr. McGomb or should believe Mr. Alley. 
 
 The Chaieman stated that the committee understood that to be the 
 object of offering the evidence, and have ruled that if produced it would 
 not be legal evidence for that purpose. 
 
 Examination of Chakles H. Xeilson continued. 
 By Mr. Smithees, (counsel for Mr. McOomb :) 
 
 Q. Judging from the report I have seen of your testimony yesterday, 
 you stated that you borrowed from Mr. Dillon the sum of upward of 
 $5,000. Am I right in tha!t statement? — A. The sum was fifty-two 
 hundred and some odd dollars. 
 
 Q. Will you be good enough to state how long you knew Mr. Dillon 
 anterior to thaf? — A. I was introduced to Mr. Dillon, I think, some six 
 months before that. I am not sure of the date. 
 
 Q. Was that introduction a casual one? — A. Not casual. 
 
 Q. By whom were you introduced to him ? — A. By Mr. Brooks. 
 
 Q. Had you, or not, had frequent interviews with Mr. Dillon after- 
 ward, or were they casual merely? — A. Merely casual. 
 
 Q. Can you give rne any information as to how many times you had 
 met Mr. Dillon between the time of your first introduction and this in- 
 vestment of money? — A. I cannot recollect. 
 
 ■Q. Were they frequent or infrequent? — A. Infrequent, comparatively 
 speaking. 
 
 Q. Then, if I understand you, Mr. DUlon was a comparative stran- 
 ger? — A. What do you mean by a comparative stranger? I would 
 know him if I met him on the street. 
 
 Q. Had you had any other business operations with him? — A. No 
 business operations with him specially. 
 
 Q. No business oijerations specially. Had you any generally? — A. I 
 had none. 
 
 Q. When this money was advanced, where was it advanced? — A. At 
 Mr. Dillon's ofiice. 
 
 Q. At the oface of the Credit Mobilier?— A. At the office of the 
 Credit Mobilier. 
 
 Q. How was it advanced — how paid — what form was it put in ? — A. 
 I cannot recollect the exact form, whether he gave me a check for it or 
 not. 
 
 Q. You do not know, then, how it was advanced ? — A. Not precisely. 
 It was so long ago, and I did not take any memorandum of it. 
 
 Q. When was this security, if any, given to Mr. Dillon to repay him ? — 
 A. I gave that security for the loan in the ordinary wav. 
 
 Q. When?— A. It was the 3d of March, 1868. 
 
 Q. At the time when you received the money from him ? — A. At the 
 time when I received the money from him. 
 
 Q. What was that security ? — A. I have a memorandum of it in my 
 pocket, if you would like to see it. 
 
 Q. A memorandum made at the time ? — A. Made at the time. 
 
 Q. The committee would probably like to see it. — A. This is the 
 'memorandum to which I referred in my testimony yesterday. It reads : 
 ' March 3, 1868. Keceived from Charles H. Neilson certificate 298, for 
 
128 CfeEDll' JIOfeiLIER. 
 
 20 shares ; 299, for 30 shares ; capital stock U. P. K. E. Co., and first- 
 mortgage bonds, as collateral for the loan of $5,233.33. Sidney Dillon." 
 
 Q. When was this Stock transferred to you ? 
 
 The Witness. Which stock do you refer to ? 
 
 Q. When were the fifty shares transferred to you 1 — A. On the 29tli 
 February. 
 
 Q. Did you, on the 29th of February, receive a certificate for thid 
 stock ? — A. ]^o, sir ; I did not. 
 
 Q. When did you receive the certificate 1 — A. When I paid for it, 
 
 Q. Then the certificate was made out before you borrowed the 
 money ? — A. The certificate is dated before I borrowed the money. 
 
 Q. Was it made out before ? — A. I am not an officer of the company, 
 and not a transfer clerk, and do not know. It was dated the 29th of 
 February. That is the only guide I have. 
 
 Q. How came you to adopt the plan of borrowing money from Mr. 
 Dillon? — A. I went to him and asked him on the spot. 
 
 Q. When; on that day? — A. On that day. That was the first of the 
 negotiation which I made with Mr. Dillon. 
 
 Q. Had the certificate been made out in your name, previously dated 
 the 29th of February? — A. The certificate was made out in my name, 
 dated the 29th of February. 
 
 Q. How long before that had you any knowledge ia relation to these 
 fifty shares ? — A. About the same time ; in the latter part of February. 
 
 Q. Your knowledge, if I understand you correctly, came through the 
 suggestions of Mr. Brooks ? — A. My impression is that he told me I was. 
 entitled to more stock there. 
 
 Q. Had you any specific information, or did you inquire as to th& 
 operation of the Credit Mobilier and to your rights un^er it? — A.. I 
 have made no inquiry as to my rights under it. 
 
 Q. You knew nothing of those rights, except as derived from Mr; 
 Brooks ?— A. ISTothing except as derived from Mr. Brooks. I was toldl 
 was entitled to fifty shares. 
 
 Q. That information came from Mr. Brooks originally ? — A. From Mr. 
 Brooks. I wish to say that I was summoned here at 10 o'clock Saturday 
 night, and came on Sunday night, without going back to my office, or. 
 looking over any papers I had on the subject. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 14, 1873". 
 
 J. A. Garfield, a member of the United States House of Eepresen- 
 tatives from the State of Ohio, having been duly sworn, made the fol- 
 lowing statement : 
 
 The first I ever heard of the Credit Mobilier was some time in 1866 or 
 1867—1 cannot fix the date— when George Francis Train called on me 
 and said he was organizing a company to be known as the Credit 
 Mobilier of America ; to be formed on the model of the Credit Mobilier 
 of France; that the object of the company was to purchase lands and 
 build houses along the line of the Pacific Eailroad at points where 
 cities and villages were likely to spring up ; that he had no doubt money 
 thus invested would double or treble itself each year; that subscrip- 
 tions were limited to $1,000 each, and he wished me to subscribe. 
 He showed me a long list of subscribers, among them Mr. Oakes 
 Ames, to whom he referred me for further information concerning * 
 the enterprise. I answered that I had not the money to spare, and if 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. ■ 129 
 
 I had I would not subscribe without knowing; more about the proposed 
 organization. Mr. Train left me, saying he would hold a place open for 
 me, and hoped 1 would yet conclude to subscribe. The same day I 
 asked Mr. A.raes what he thouglit of the enterprise. He expressed the 
 opinion that the investment would be safe and profitable. 
 
 I heard nothing further on the subject for a year or more, and it was 
 abnost forgotten, when some time, 1 should say, during the long session 
 of 1808, Mr. Ames spoke of It again; said tlfe company had organized, 
 was doing well, anil he thought would soon pay large dividends. He 
 said that some of the stock had been left or was to be left in his hands 
 to sell, and I could take the amount which Mr. Train had offered me, 
 by paying the $1,000 and the accrued interest. He said if I was not 
 able to pay for it then, he would Uold It for me till I could pay, or 
 until some of the dividends were payable. I told him I would consider 
 the matter; but would not agree to take any stock until I knew, from 
 an examination of the charter and the conditions of the subscrijition, 
 the extent to which! should become pecuniarily liable. He said he 
 was not sure, but thought a stockholder would be liable only for the par 
 value of his stock; that he had not the stock and papers with him, but 
 wowld have them after a while. 
 
 From the case, as presented, I probably should have taken the stock 
 if I had been satisfied in regard to the extent of pecuniary liability. 
 Thus the matter rested for some time, I think until the following year. 
 During that interval I understood that there were dividends due 
 amounting to nearly three times the par value of the stock. But in the 
 mean time 1 bad heard that the com])any was involved in some contro- 
 versy with the Pacific Railroad, and that Mr. Ames's right to sell the 
 stock was denied. Wheu I next saw Mr. Ames I told him I had con- 
 cluded npt to take the stock. There the matter ended, so far as I was 
 concerned, and I had no further knowledge of the company's operations 
 until the si^bject began to be discussed in the newspapers la^t fall. 
 
 Nothing was ever said to me by Mr. Train or Mr. Ames to indicate or 
 imply that the Credit Mobilier was or could be in any way connected 
 with the legislation of Congress for the Paci^c Eailroad or for any other 
 purpose. Mr. Ames never gave, nor offered to give, me any stock or 
 other valu-able thing as a gift. I once asked an(i 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 Eailroad, nor any dividend or proiits 
 arising from either of them. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Had this loan you speak of any connection in any way with 
 your conversation in regard to the Credit Mobilier stock If — Answer. No 
 connection in any way except in regard to the time of payment. Mr. 
 Ames stated to me that if I concluded to subscribe for the Credit Mo- 
 bilier stock, I could allow the loan to remain until the payment on .that 
 ■was adjusted. I never regarded it as connected in any other way with 
 the stock enterprise. 
 
 Q. Do you remember the time of that transaction'? — A. I do not re- 
 member it precisely. I should think it was in the session of 1868. I 
 had been to Europe the fall before, and was in debt, and borrowed 
 several sums of money at different times and from different persons. 
 This loan from Mr. Ames was not at his instance. 1 made the request 
 myself. I think I had asked one or two persons before for the loan. 
 
 . 9X 
 
130 ■ CKEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge in reference to any dealings of Mr, Ames 
 witb any gentlemen in (Joiigress in reference to the stock of the Credit 
 Mobilier ? — A. No, sir; 1 have not. I had no knowledge that Mr. Ames 
 had ever talked with anybody but myself. It was a subject I gave but 
 little attention to; in fact, many of the details had almost passed out 
 of my mind until they were called up in the late campaign. 
 
 By Mr. Black : 
 
 Q. Did you say you refused to take the stock simply because there 
 was a lawsuit about it? — A. No; not exactly that. I do not remember 
 any other reason which I gave to Mr. Ames than that I did not wish to 
 take stock in anything that would iuvolve controversy. I think I gave 
 Lim no other reason than that. 
 
 Q. When you ascertained the relation that this company had with 
 the Puion Pacific liailroad Company, and whence its profits were to be 
 derived, would you have considered that a sufiQcient reason for declining 
 it irrespective of other considerations 1 — A. It would have beeu as the 
 case was afterward stated. 
 
 Q. At the time you talked with Mr. Ames, before you rejected the 
 proposition, you did not know whence the profits of the .company were 
 to be derived? — A. I did not. I do not know that Mr. Ames withheld, 
 ititentionqliy, fiom me any information. I had derived my original 
 knowledge of the organization of the company from Mr. Train. He 
 made quite an elaborate statement of its purposes, and I proceeded in 
 subsequent conversations upon the supposition that the orgauizatioa 
 was unchanged. I ought to say for myself, as well as for Mr, Ames, 
 tkat he never said any word to me that indicated the least desire to in- 
 fluence my legislative action in any way. If iie had any such ijurpose, 
 lie certainly never said anything to me which would indica'te it. 
 
 Q. You know now, and have known for a long time, that Mr. Ames 
 was deeply interested in the legislation on this subject'? — A. I sup[)0sed 
 that lie was largely interested in the Uuioii Paciiio Kailroad. I have 
 heard various statements to that effect. I cannot say I had any such 
 information of my own knowledge. 
 
 Q. You mean that he d^d not electioneer with you or solicit your 
 vote? — A. Certainly not. None of the conversations I ever had with 
 Mm had any reference to such legislation. 
 
 By Mr. Mbkeick : 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge of any other member of Congress being 
 concerned in the Credit Mobilier stock ?— A. No, sir: I have not. 
 
 Q. Or any stock in the Union Pacific Railroad ?— A. I have not. I 
 cau say to the committee that I never saw, I believe, iu my life a certi- 
 ficate of stock of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and I never saw 
 any certificate of stock of the Credit Mobilier, until 'Mr. Brooks exhib- 
 ited one, a few days ago, in the House of Representatives. 
 
 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 I— 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. This loan of $300 you have repaid, if I understood you correctly ?— 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. McCeaKY : 
 
 C^. You never examined the charter of the Credit Mobilier to see what 
 were its objects? — A. No, sir ; 1 never saw it. 
 
 Q. If I understood you, you did not know that the Credit Mobilier had 
 any connection with the Union Pacific Railroad Company "?— A. I ua- 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIER. 131 
 
 * 
 
 derstoodfrom the statement of Mr. Train that its objects were connected 
 witli the lands of the Union Paciiio liailioa<l (Jomuany and the develop- 
 ment of settlements along tluit load ; but that it had any relation to 
 the Union Pacific Railroad, other than that, I did not know. I think I 
 did hear also that the company was investing some of its earnings in 
 the bonds of the road. 
 
 Q. Ho stated it was for the purpose of purchasing land and building 
 houses 1 — A. That was the statement of Mv. Train. I think he said in 
 that connection that he had already been doing something of that kind 
 at Omaha, or was going to do it. 
 
 Q. You did not know that the object was to build the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad? — A. No, sir; I did not. 
 
 Washington, D.. C, January li, 1873. 
 
 Benjamin F. Ham sworn and examined. 
 By the Ohaikman : 
 
 Question. State your residence and occupation. Answer. I reside in 
 the State of New Jersey. My business is iu New York. I am engaged, 
 passively, iu building railroads. 
 
 Q. Have you been in any way connected with the Union Pacific Rail- 
 road Company or the Credit Mobilier ? — A. Yes, sir; as auditor of the 
 Union Pacific Ilailroad Company and assistant secretary of the Credit 
 Mobilier. 
 
 Q. How long have j'ou been auditor of the Union Pacifi^c Eailroad 
 Compuny? — ;A. From January, 1807, until October, 1870. 
 
 Q. You do not hold that po.sitiou now ? — A. No, sir ; I do not. 
 
 Q. How early were you connected with the Credit Mobilier? — A. 
 Eiirly in 1807. 
 
 Q. Do you hold that' position still? — A. I hold it now, but have not 
 held it, during all that time. I resigned the position in December, 1808, 
 and received the appointment again in May, 1870. 
 
 Q. During that period of time, were you in any way connected with 
 that company "J — A. Simply as clerk. • 
 
 Q. You were in the ofiice of that company? — A. No, sir; the office 
 was removed from place to place during that time. 
 
 Q.,Hav« you now the custody of the books of the company 1 — A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you brought here such as the committee directed you to 
 bring? — A. They have been brought to the city, aad I expect the Ex- 
 press Company to deliver them here every moment. 
 
 Q. I am requested by Mr. Alley to inquire whether a portion of the 
 books were not in Philadelphia? — A. A portion of them were iu Phila- 
 delphia, and it was iiecessary for me to telegraph to have them sent 
 here. A portion of them I brought with me from New York. 
 
 Q. State whether you are familiar with the list of the stockholders of 
 that company. — A, Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you know Charles H. Neilson of New York ? — A. I have met 
 Mr. Neilson. I do not kuow whether I would recognize him if 1 would 
 meet hiiu now. 
 
 Q. Do you or not know whether his name appears as one of the share- 
 hohlers of the company? — A. It does for one hundred and fifty shares. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge of the actual ownership of these shares, 
 as to whether they belonged to Mr. Neilson or anybody else? — A. I 
 
132 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 supposed they belonged to Mi\ Neilson. I know of uotUiug to the con- 
 
 trmy. . , . ,, 
 
 Q. Have you ever known Mr. Brooks to have any interest m these 
 shares? — A. 1 have no such personal knowledge. ; 
 
 Q. Have you ever kuown Mr. Brooks to have anything to do with 
 these shares?— A. 1 do not know distinctly that he ever had, 
 
 Q. Have you ever known of any negotiations between Mr. Brooks and 
 any officer of the company in reference to these shares?— A. I have no 
 personal knowledge of any such negotiations. 
 
 Q. Do you know to whom the dividends declared upon these shares 
 have been paid 1—A. To Mr. Neilson. 
 
 Q. Wliat are the books you have present?— A. I Lave the stock- 
 ledger, the live certificate- books, and the letter-book. 
 
 Q. Is this the only stock-ledger the company has ^-^A. It is the only 
 stock-ledger. 
 
 Q. Turn to the entry of Mr. Neil son's stock and state what it shows.— 
 A. It shows the date of issue December 26, 1SG7. It shows tlie num- 
 ber of the certificates, the number of shares, and the receipt for the 
 certificate of Mr. Neilson. It shows also that it was transferred to him 
 by Mr. Thomas 0. Durant. 
 
 Q. Then this stock before that time stood in the name of Mr. Durant, 
 and was transferied by him to Mr. Neilson?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. "VVbat does the stock-ledger show in regard to the fifty shares in- 
 crease 'I \\ hat do the words " new subscription" mean ?— A. That means 
 that he bought fifty shares additional of new stock, which was issued to 
 liim directly. Tiiat stock had not i»reviously been in the name of any 
 one ; he took it directly Irom the company. 
 
 Q. Did you understand that he was entitled t« take fifty shares of new 
 stock in c msequence of his ownersliip of the previous one hundred 
 shnres? — A. That was my understanding. 
 
 Q. VViieu was the new stock authorized ? — A^ In February, 1867. 
 
 Q. And this issue of fifty shares was in March, 1868. It has been 
 statid here tliat the time for taking this new stock was limited ; tluit 
 tiieri' was s me sliort period' of time withiu which the owners of original 
 stock had the right to takeatlditional shares, and that that time had ex- 
 piieu lonj; before this traJisaction ? — A. The resolution adopted allowed 
 tlie stoi kh.>iders to take additional shares, as I recollect, within ninety 
 days, but, after that period had expired, by general consent, it was ex- 
 tended. Tliere were several large stockholders who bad not then paid for 
 their subscriptions. 
 
 Q. You nu an, then, that the resohition was not regarded in its limita- 
 tion, but that every man who was the owner of original stock was 
 a lowed to take, even at a later period, additional stock? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Ml'. Ne.lsDU was in that way allowed to take these fifty shares? — 
 A. Yes sir. 
 
 Q. It is stated here that he paid something in addition to the par 
 vabie of this stock; that he paid $5,233 for the fifty shares. Can you 
 explain what that premium was for? — A. This stock was issued the 
 1st of July, 1867, and every mati who took stock subsequent to that 
 date paid interest on this additional, and the $5,000 paid by Mr. 
 iJeilson was to adjust his interest account. 
 
 Q. This certificate of stock is dated February 29, 1868; how comes it 
 that the date on the stock-ledger is the 3d of March ? — A. I cannot ex- 
 plain, although the entries are in my handwriting. 
 
 Q. The entry on the ledger is su|tposed to correspond with the date 
 of traaser? — A. Yes, sir, with the transfer of the certificate; there 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 133 
 
 must have been some mistake ia the entries. I cannot account for it 
 myself. 
 
 Q. Was this first one hundred shares, which stood in the name of 
 Mr. Durant and then transferred to Mr. Neilson, really the stock of 
 Mr. Durant, or did it belong to the company ? — A.. Mr. Duraut had paid 
 for it. • 
 
 Q. Then you suppose that Mr. Neilson, or whoever paid for that 
 stock, paid Mr. Durant instead of paying the company? — A. I suppose 
 so ; I know they did not pay the company. 
 
 Q. There is nothing, then, on your books to show that the payment 
 was made by hiin; the p lyineut wis mide at the time tlie stock was 
 transferred to Mr. Neijs )n '? — A.. No, Sir; the stock stood in the name 
 of Thomas C. Durant, and the certificate came to ma with the request 
 that I would transfer it to Mr. Neilson. 
 
 Q-. Yon have no knowledge by wbom thepavment was made, whether 
 by Mr. Neilson or by anybody for him ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. In relation to the payment of the last lifty shares of stock, was 
 that payment made to you ? — A. Yes, sir. • 
 
 Q. Have you the book here that shows in reference to them ? — A. The 
 cash-book, which I expect hefre every moment, will nob show who I re- 
 ceived it from, but it will show the date of its reception. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Neilson paid it himself or whether 
 anybody paid it for him? — A. I do not remember anything ab()ut it; 
 when the cash-book is here it will show the date, and will show the 
 money as coming from Mr. Nerlson ; whether it was really received 
 from him I cannot say. 
 
 Q. Turn now to the name of Mr. Darant, as trustee, in the stock- 
 ledger. — A. I do not think any of that stock was taken by Mr. Durant 
 as trustee; I think it was taken in his own name, or in the name of H. 
 G. Crane as trustee. Here is Mr. Durant's individaal account. One of 
 the certificate- books seems to be gone. I thought they were all here. I 
 can show you, however, the particular certificate From which this stock 
 was taken. I see that one certificate for three hundred and fifteen 
 shares was canceled ; of that, two hundred and fifteen shares were 
 issued to Mr. T. 0. Darant, and on the same day one hundred to Mr. 
 Neilson. 
 
 Q. Do you say there was no stock standing in Mr. Durant's name as 
 trustee? — A. I think none of it was issued to Mr. Durant as trustee. 
 
 Q. Then two pages are all there is on the stock-ledger, referring to 
 Mr. Durant's account of stock? — A. Yes, sir ; some of the stock appor- 
 tioned to Mr. Durant was issued to H. 0. Crane. Mr. Crane is private 
 secretary, and that stock was issued to him as trustee. 
 
 Q. Then the stock held in the name of Mr. Crane was held for Mr. 
 Durant? — A. That was the understanding; I do not know anything 
 about it. 
 
 Q. Turn now to the page containing the entries of Mr. Crane's stock. 
 — A. Yes, sir; the only stock that now stands in his name is one hun- 
 dred and fifty-three shares; twenty-five shares appear to have been 
 issued to B. M. Boyer, as trustee of Mrs. Boyer, and the balance was 
 issued to Mr. Crane under date of Set)tember 12, 18(16. 
 
 Q. Now, turn to the account of stock of Oakes Ames, as trustee, and 
 state how much appears on that account. — A. Three hundred and 
 thirty shares now appear in his name ; three hundred and forty-three 
 shares was the amount originally stated, but thirteen shares have been 
 transferred ; ten shares were transferred to H. J. Gilbert, of Boston, 
 and three shares to K. D. Bush, trustee. 
 
134 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 Q. Do you IvDOW ^^ bo Le is ! — A. Yes, sir ; be lives in New York. 
 
 Q. Do>ou know for wbom he is trustee? — A. That belongs to mj 
 eon ; Mr. Bush holds these three shares as trustee ibr nij- son. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether or not a portion of the stock standing in the 
 name of Mr. Ames, as trustee, has ever been sold to anybody, except the 
 thirteen shares ? — A. I do not. . 
 
 Q. Have jou ever had any information from him that anybody was 
 the owner of any portion of that stock, except as to these thirteen 
 shares? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge in relation to bis having contracts for 
 any portion of it with anybody ? — A. Nothing except a general know!-, 
 edge, such as people would get from the papers and from his own pub- 
 lished t^estimony, ' 
 
 Q. I mean knowledge derived from your personal knowledge ? — A. No, 
 sir ; 1 have no personal knowledge. 
 
 Q. Have dividends been declared upon this stock standing in the 
 name of Mr. Ames, as trustee, the same as upon other stock of the com- 
 pany ? — A. Tliey have. 
 
 Q. Can you state to whom these dividends have been paid ? — A. They 
 have been paid to Mr. Ames, as trustee. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge as to what was done with the money ? — 
 A. No, sir; 1 have not. 
 
 Q. Oau you state bow this stock came to stand in the name of Mr. 
 Ames, As trustee, or who he is trustee for ? — A. I have no personal 
 knowledge on that subject. 
 
 Q. Do you know, from your connection with the business, why it was 
 that this amount of stock was different from the rest of the stock Mr. 
 Ames held, and why it was put in his name as trustee ? — A. Because he 
 requested it to be issued in that way ; if he had requested it to be issued 
 to Oakes Ames I should have issued it to him. 
 
 Q. Was this stock paid for to the company by Mr. Ames at the time 
 he received the certificates ? — A. Yes, sir, except that some of it was 
 paid for before be received the certificates. 
 
 Q. The stbck has all been paid tor to the company by Mr. Ames and 
 he has received all the dividends upon it? — A. Yes, sir, all the dividends 
 the Credit Mobilier ever made. 
 
 Q. Have you here a book showing the dividends that were made?— 
 A. That book will be here shortly ; however, there was but one dividend 
 made by the Credit Mobilier. I paid that myself. 
 
 Q. When was that made'?— A. I should prefer to take the books as 
 the dates. It was 6 per cent, interest each year for two years, made in 
 Union Pacific Eailroad Company stock at $30 a share. 
 
 By Mr. BLACK : 
 
 Q. Payable in gold, was it not, or in stock at $30 a share, at the option 
 of the stockholders? — A. No, sir; in stock only. 
 
 Q, That is the only dividend that appears upon the books of the 
 Credit Mobilier ?— A. Yes, sir, this is the only one. 
 
 By Mr. Merrick : 
 Q. I see that three hundred and forty-three shares were transferred to 
 Kr. Ames in small parcels of ten and twenty share certificates ; can you 
 explain why it was not transferred in gross in one certificate?— A. 
 Because Mr. Ames requested it, and I always issued at the request of 
 parties in such amounts as they desired. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 135 
 
 By the ChAIEMAN : 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether ho gave any reason for that request?— 
 A. No, sir. ^ 
 
 Q. Did you understand why he wished to transfer it in small sums ?— 
 A. f supposed he held the stock for different parties and that it was in 
 that way and for that reason, so that he might give them their certifi- 
 cates. 
 
 Q. Do you not know whether Mr. Ames said so 1 — A. No, sir ; that is 
 what I presumed. I presume that he had the certificates issued in small 
 lots, so that he could give the stock to the parties for whom he held it. 
 
 Q. But you do not know it from him ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. This is the only stock-ledger of the company ! — A. It is^ the only 
 stock-ledger. 
 
 Q. It will show the name of every person who has been, an owner of 
 stock in the Credit Mobilier ? — A. 1 think it will show the name of every 
 person to whom certificates of stock have been issued. 
 
 By Mr. Mekric?: : 
 
 Q. I suppose this stock was like othei; stocks of incorporated com- 
 panies, transferable upon indorsement and powerof attorney ? — A. Yes, 
 sir; I think that is the usual mode of transfer, with the name in blank. 
 
 Q. And the parties to whom it passes intermediately are not noticed 
 at all in your certificate-books, although it may have passed from hand 
 to hand a dozen times'? — A. No, sir ; we should have no knowledge of 
 that. I think the stock is seldom transferred on the books of the com- 
 pany in New York, except when dividends are to bo declared or for the 
 purpose of an election. The parties in whose name the stock stands 
 when the books are closed for the dividends are the parties to whom the 
 dividend is paid. 
 
 Q. So that the man whoso name appears on your stock ledger when 
 the dividend is declared is the man to whom you pay the dividend, al- 
 though another person may be the owner of the stock '? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Suppose he gives a blank power of attorney to the party who owns 
 it ; will you not transfer the stock to him ? — A. The party in whose name 
 the certificate stands on our books is the party who will collect the divi- 
 dends. For instance, I sold the other day one hundred shares ot North- 
 western stock standing in my name, and the party to whom Isold it had 
 to come to me to get his dividend or a power of attorney from me to col- 
 lect the money. 
 
 Q. Do I understand you if A holds twenty shares, upon which a 
 dividend will be declared next July, and those twenty sLiares are tians- 
 ferred a half a dozen times, that tlie ultimate holder must hunt up the 
 man in whose name it stood on the books and get his autiiority before 
 he can draw the dividends? — A. Yes, sir. He must get his authority 
 or a power of attorney, unless he has had it transferred before the 
 books were closed. If that has been done, it will appear upon the 
 stock-ledger in the name of the proper owner, but the certificate must- 
 have been surrendered. He can then draw the dividend in his own 
 name. 
 
 Q. How much time does the letter -book which you have produced here 
 cover? — A. It is the only letter-book I have in my possession, and the 
 only one I know of. 
 
 Q. This seems to commence February 23, 18C7. Does it extend to the 
 present time? — A. Yes, sir.. 
 
 Q. Are you in the habit of keeping copies of your letters ?— A. Yes, 
 
136 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 sii'; but we seldom write any letters. Tbe company is not doing any 
 business. 
 
 Q. Then tbis book embraces all the letters that have been written for 
 the company from its commencement to the present time? — A. Item- 
 braces all written by me and all handed down to iiie by my predecessors. 
 It is the only letter-book 1 have, or have ever seen, belonging to the 
 company. 
 
 Q. Who has the custody of the books and papers which show the 
 transactions in the Oakes Ames contract? — A. I presume Oliver Ames 
 has charge of them. That, however, is a presumption on my part. 1 had 
 nothing to do with that. 
 
 Q. Do you know who originally kept the account under that contract! 
 — A. Mr. Crane did origi.nallj'-, but 1 i)resume they have been turned 
 over to Oliver Ames, as chairman of the trustees. 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Q. The dividends that have been made, except the one you referred 
 to, have been made through the intervention of these trustees, and do 
 not appear at all upon the books of the Credit Mobilier ? — A. No, sir; 
 they do not appear upon their books. 
 
 Q. All the letters in this book, except a few of the earliest, were 
 writen by yourself? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Was there anything in this correspondence that relates to the 
 transactions in regard to these shares that stand in the name of Neil- 
 son ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Was there anything in any of them in reference to the shares 
 issued to Mr. Ames in his name as liustee ? — A. There may be something 
 of that kind. I frequently wrote letters to Mr. Aines. 
 
 Q. I see here notices sent to various parties that they must come in 
 by a certain time and take their additional 50 ])er cent, of stock or 
 it would be canceled ? — A. Yes, sir ; but, as I stated, that uotice was 
 not enforced. 
 
 Q. The name of Mr. Brpoks does not appear on your books as a holder 
 of stock t — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Does the name of Mr. Dawes, of Massachusetts; Mr. Garfield, of 
 Ohio ; Mr. Scofield or Mr. Kelley, of Pennsylvania ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Mereick : 
 
 Q. Can you explain how it was that these fifty shares appear dated 
 February 29, and not paid for until the 3d of March ?— A. I do noS 
 know. This book may be in error. Mr. Neilson did not get the stock 
 until he paid for it. There is some mistake in these entries which I 
 cannot now account for. 
 
 Q. Is it in accordance with the course of yonr business that tbe stock 
 should be issued before it wa,s paid for ?— a\ No, sir ; he did not get it 
 until he i)aid lor it. Perhaps when I get the cash-book I will be able to 
 explain the discrepancy. It may have been issued on the 29th of Feb- 
 ruary, and not delivered until he paid for it on the 3d of March. Some- 
 tiiues the president of the company was absent when I had directions 
 to issue stock, and the certificate may have been written, dated, and 
 remained two or three days for the signature of the president. I canuot 
 tell where the discrepancy occurred. 
 
 Q. You may have delivered it at a subsequent date, I suppose, while 
 thecertificateitself was antedated?— A. Yes; that might be done it it 
 had been issued as I said, and kept in my possession waiting for it to 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 137 
 
 be paid for, or for the signature of the president, it would appear to be 
 aii,tedated. 
 
 By Mr. McCraey : 
 
 Q. Tou issued these additional fifty shares j^ourself ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did Sidney Dillon have anything to do with it? — A. I presume as 
 president of the company ho directed it and he signed the certificate. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether he furnished the money to pay for it? — A. 
 No, sir; that would bo a personal matter, of which I would know 
 nothing. 
 
 Q You do not know of any loan he uiado to Neilson at that time? — 
 A. Ko, sir; that would bo a personal matter that I should not know 
 about. 
 
 Q. You know nothing personally about the dividends paid after the 
 Ames contract was entered into? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you know that the profits wore divided among the holders of 
 the Credit Mobllior stock? — A. For a time they were. Afterward 
 they were divided among certain individuals. 
 
 Q. Were these certain individuals the same as the holders of the 
 Credit Mobilier stock ? — A. They were the same as the holders at that 
 date. The transfer of stock on the books of the Credit Mobilier, after 
 that date, did not convey any interest to the Oakes Ames contract. 
 
 Q. Why was the Credit Mobilier abandoned after the Ames contract 
 was entered into? — A. Mr. Durant can tell you the whole history of 
 thafbetter than I can. Any statement I could make about it would be 
 merely from hearsay. 
 
 Q. Do you know how many dividends were made after you went into 
 the Credit Mobilier ?-^A. No, sir; I do not recollect. 
 
 Q. This one, declared by the Credit Mobilier as a corporation, you paid 
 yourself? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. And jou say you paid Neilson his share in person ? — A- The cer- 
 tificates of the Uuicn Pacific Railroad stock were issued to Mr. Neilsou 
 on the comiwny's books, I presume, and their books will show who re- 
 ceipted for them. 
 
 Q. You do not remember the particular transaction, then, of paying 
 that dividend to Neilson ? — A. No ; I do not. 
 
 By Mr. Nielack : 
 
 Q. You had no ofiicial or personal connection with the trustees of the 
 Ames contract? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Have not many persoas confounded in their minds the profits made 
 npon that contract and the profits made upon the Credit Mobilier 
 stock 1 — A. 1 presume so. 
 
 Q. Who can best inform the committee in regard to the operations 
 of the trustees of the Oakes Ames contract? — A. Mr. Crane can inform 
 yitu in regard to that. 
 
 Q. Was the change made from the Credit Mobilier, as the contractor, 
 to the trustees for the purpose of avoiding the payment of the 
 Pennsylvania State tax? — A. Yes, sir; I believe so. 
 
 Q. But the stockholders continued to receive the same dividends they 
 would have received if the Credit Mobilier had been the contractor? — 
 A. That is involved in the history of the Ames contract, which Mr. 
 Alley or Mr. Ames can tell you better about than 1 can. 1 know simply 
 in regard to the transactions of the Credit Mobilier corporation. Mr. 
 Crane, or Mr. Ames, or Mr. Alley can give you the facts in regard to 
 the execution of the Ames contract. 
 
138 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Do your stock-books show that any members of Congress are 
 stockhohfers of the Credit Mobilierl — A. Yes, sir; they show that 
 Samuel Hooper was interested as a member of the firm of SamuQl 
 Hooper & Co. ; that B. P. Boyer was interested, and Mi\ Grimes and 
 Mr. Alley were. 
 
 Q. Was Mr. Boyer an original subscriber to the stock, or did he pur- 
 chase the certificate afterward? — A. He purchased afterward. Mr. 
 Grimes, Mr. Hooper, and Mr. Alley were among the original sub- 
 Bcribers. 
 
 li. JNone of these received any part of the stock that stood in the 
 .name of Mr. Ames, as trustee, to your knowledge? — A. No, sir; that 
 stock Mr. Ames still holds in his own name, as trustee, except the two 
 small certificates to which I have referred. 
 
 Q. You stated that the time during which parties holding original 
 stock were allowed to take additional stock was extended by common 
 consent; is there any ofticial action on record making the extension? — 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did anybody besides NeilsoQ get stock after the time had ex- 
 pired? — A. I think several parties did. 
 
 Q. Will you give us the names of any others f — A. I think Mr. G. G. 
 Bray received his, and he was a very heavy stockholder. 
 
 Q. How long after the time had expired elapsed before Neilson took 
 his additional stock ? — A. It was over six months. 1 see several parties 
 on the books who took their additional stock after the expiration of the 
 ninety days. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Q. I see in the letter-book, here, a letter from yourself to Mr. Ames, 
 dated January 20, 1868, which letter is as follows : 
 
 "January 20, 
 "Dear Sir: Your letters of the 14th and 18th were received this 
 p. m. The one of the 14th was addressed Boston instead of New York. 
 Draft of $3,105 is' received, as stated. I have transferred to Cakes 
 Ames, trustee, the remainder of the Credit Mobilier stock of $22,000; 
 have made two certificates of thirty each, six of twenty each, and four 
 of ten each. I inclose herewith one of twenty and one of ten, as desired 
 h^ you, and will forward others wiien desired. There is no stated time 
 for the meetings of the Credit Mobilier of America. There will be one 
 whenever Mr. Hazzard and Mr. Alley are both hero. I wrote yon Satur- 
 day in regard to bonds, &c. Our sales to-day amount to 105. We have 
 $350,000 cash on hand ; are paying our paper when we can get 7 per 
 cent, off; have used over half of the first thousand bonds as collateral. 
 " Respectfully, 
 
 " BENJAMIN F. HAM. 
 
 "Hon. Oake;::! Ames, M. C, 
 
 " Washington, D. 6'.'" 
 
 What explanation have you to the reference here made to dividing 
 this stock up into small certificates ?— A. It was at Mr. Ames's request. 
 
 Q. Does this letter give you any further information in relation to 
 why that was done ?— A. No, sir. I suppose he was about to dispose 
 of it. 
 
 Q. Then you made the certificates in that way by Mr. Ames's direc- 
 tion, and, as you supposed, for couvenience of delivery?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 139 
 
 I supposed for the purpose of enabling liim to deliver it to different 
 individuals. 
 
 Q. 1 see another letter in this letter-book, dated January 31, 18G8, 
 which reads as follows : 
 
 " January 31. 
 " Dear Sir : Tour letter of the l-'Tth is received, with contents as 
 stated. The parties should pay 7 per cent, from July 1, 1867, to date of 
 payment. I iuclose herewitli certificates for ten shares, as desired by 
 you. The transfer of 300 to H. S. McComb, I do not understand what 
 it is for. If it is on account of the 500 Oredit Mobilier, you will know. 
 " Respectfully, 
 
 *'BBI^JAMIN P, HAM, 
 " Assistant Secretary Credit Mobilier of America. 
 
 " Hon. Oakes AsiES, 
 
 '' Washington^ J). GP 
 
 Do you preserve all the letters you receive '1 — A. No, sir ; this Credit 
 Mobilier during the time 1 was out of ofQce was pushed around from 
 one place to another, and many of the papers were lost. During the 
 James Fisk raid, the company was transferred to New Jersey, Penn- 
 sylvania, and to other places, and many of the papers were lost. 
 
 Q. Do you suppose you could produce the letter of Mr. Ames, under 
 the date 29th January '? — A. No, sir ; 1 do not. 
 
 Q. Have yQu any recollection whether he stated in that letter what 
 he wanted the certificates for ? — A. 1 know that he did not state what 
 they were for. I suppose he wanted to dispose of them from the fact 
 that I wrote him that he ought to collect 7 per cent, from July I, 1867. 
 
 Q. And that interest you suppose made up the premium on the fifty 
 shares of Neilson's stock ? — A. Yes, sir; *he paid interest from the Jst 
 of July, 1867, iu the same way. 
 
 Q. Do you know anything iu relation to how these shares stood in the 
 market iu December, 1867, and January, 1868 ? — A. After this subscrip- 
 tion was first made, the stock could have been bought at 90 ; 1 could 
 have bought it at 90 myself. 
 
 Q. How long did it remain at ninety? — A. I think for two or three 
 months — from January until May, 1867 ; still it was not upon the market. 
 
 Q. In December, 1867, arid January, 1868, what was it selling for i — 
 A. There were no sales that I knew of, and knew the price. The rates 
 ■were so high that parties who sold and the parties who purchased would 
 not state what was paid. 
 
 Q. Do you know that any sales were madeT — A. Some transfers were 
 made, but not to exceed a thousand shares. 
 
 Q. Can you give any opinion as to the value that holders of this 
 stock placed upon it iu December, 1867, and January, 1868 ? — A. They 
 considered it very valuable. 
 
 Q. Was there any general opinion among them as to how valuable it 
 was ? — A. They all considered it valuable, aud did not wish to part 
 with it. 
 
 Q. Do you know what Mr. Ames or Mr. Alley considered it worth ? — 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. What did you consider it worth yourself? — A. I should not have 
 wanted to pay the i)rices at which it was held by various parties. 
 
 Q. What prices ! — A. Prom two to three hundred. 
 
 Q. Do jou think you would have lost anything if you had purchased 
 
140 CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 at tliat price?— A. I think if I had held on to all the dividends received 
 until this time, with the stock and securities, I should not have made 
 anything. 
 
 Q. The value of the stock itself has gone down, you mean ?— A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. The first-mortgage bonds of the Union Pacific Railroad Company 
 have not depreciated iu value 1 — A. They were selling at 85 yesterday. 
 
 By Mr. Black : 
 
 Q. It seems that a number of the stockholders or directors of th» 
 Credit Mobilier authorized Mr. Ames to receive two hundred and fifty 
 shares at one time and ninety-three shares at another time. Were you 
 present at the time when tliat was done on either occasion? — A. I do 
 not- think it was done at a meeting of the stockholders. 
 
 Q. Were you present when it was done by a cer.taiu number of stock- 
 holders, who were directing the affairs of the company If — A. I think it 
 ■was (lone by signing an agreement to that effect. I may have seen some 
 of the signatures put on. 
 
 Q. -Did you .ever hear any of the conversation which led to it?— A. 
 No, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Ames, or anybody else there present, 
 agreed that the shares thus given to hiui as trustee should be distrib- 
 uted ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you know of any intention of their being distributed at Wash- 
 ington, among members of Congress or other persons h.ere, or whetlier 
 he was to distribute them elsewhere? — A. There was nothi,ng said tome 
 on that subject. 
 
 Q. Nor for what parties they were put into his hands? — A. No, sir; 
 I was sim])ly a clerk iu the transaction. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Ames pay anything for these shares at that time? — A. Ho 
 paid for them before he took tliem. He paid for them at different times. 
 
 Q. When the entry was made upon tlie books of the Credit Mobiiier 
 ot the transfer to Cakes Ames of the three hundred and forty-three 
 shares — two hundred and fifty and ninety-three — was he put dowa 
 generally as the owner of that gross amount, or was there any entry 
 made as to who was the owner of the different lots of ten, twenty, 
 thirty shares, &o. ? — A. No, sir. And there was no entry made until 
 the cash was received. 
 
 Q. And the cash was not received until he directed them to divide 
 them in that way? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. And he took them there at different times? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Was there ever a list of stockholders made out? — A. Certainly; 
 several lists. Every year one. 
 
 Q. Wherever he is put down as a trustee for other stockholders, he ia 
 put down for that amount of three hundred and forty -three shares?— 
 A. Yes, sir; except that in November, 1863, he transferred the ten and 
 three shares, as I have stated. With that exception the three hundred 
 and forty-three shares have remained on the stock-list in his name as 
 trustee. 
 
 Q. Then he is supposed to have disposed of these different lots before 
 he took the certificates for them, and he took the certificates only to get 
 the money from the persons he had sold them to? — A. I presume not. 
 I suppose he put them into his own pocket. He gave me his own checks 
 for the moiiey, and usually upon Boston banks. 
 
 Q. Of cour e it was his own money when he got it, no matter how he 
 got it. Did Oakes Ames receive all the dividends made, or allotments 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIER. 141 
 
 divided to the different stockholders, the same as anybody else did? 
 That is, did these three hundred and forty-three sliaies receive the same 
 amount of dividend that anybody else got on the same number of shares? 
 — A. They received the same number of dividends that any other like 
 amount of Credit Mobilier stock received. 
 
 Q. Did any other stockiiolders of the (Jredit Mobilier receive a larger 
 share in proportion out of the profits of the railroad compiiny ? — A. Tho 
 profits of the Oakes Ames contract Mr. Crane can explain fully to you. 
 He can state whether Mr. Ames received the same prolits as any one 
 else. I had nothing to do with it. 
 
 Q. Can you state whether Mr. Ames received all the profits that ac- 
 crued upon these three hundred and forty -three shares of Credit Mobilier 
 stock ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether he had been receiving the dividends which 
 had previously accrued on the three hundred and forty-three shares? — 
 A. He had ; yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You say that Mr. Durant was the owner of the stock which was 
 assigned to Neilson, and that he held it in the name of Crane? — A. No, 
 sir. The stock was in Mr. Durant's name. The stock was never in the 
 name of Crane. 
 
 Q. Do you know how he got that stocli ? — A. The identical certificate 
 from which it was transfened was a i)art' of the original suliscription. 
 
 Q. Do you know by what authority, or for what reason, or in pursu- 
 ance of what agreement the fifty shares were directed to be transferred 
 from Mr. Duraut to Neilson ? — A. They were never translerred at all; 
 they were new sto(;k. They had never been issued to an;^ body. 
 
 Q. By what authority were they given to Neilson, by whose direc- 
 tion ? — A. By tlie authority of the parties in interest. I certainly would 
 not have issued the stock without authority. 
 
 Q. Who were the parties in interest ? — A. The heavy stockholders. 
 
 Q. Did they direct it to be done in writing? — A. 1 think they did. 
 
 Q. Haveyou that writing with you? — A. I have not. As I said, many 
 of the papers, during the time while 1 was not secretary — when they 
 ■weie lost, — they were scattered. The books were iu the office of Mr. 
 Barnes, some of the time, in Philadelphia. They were kept there quite 
 a time. 
 
 Q. Kept there to avoid judicial process? — A. To avoid judicial process 
 in the State of New York. 
 
 Q. Who were the signers of that paper? — A. I cannot remember. 
 
 Q. Have you any idea whose names were affixed to it? — A. I think . 
 Mr. McComb was one. [Mr. McCoMB. 1 was not.] I do not recollect 
 positively what names were on it. 
 
 Q. Was Oakes Ames's name on it? — A. I do not think he signed it, 
 and 1 do not think Oliver Ames siRHfd it. 
 
 Q. Who were the heavy stockholders? — A. Mr. Dnrant was one of the 
 heaviest. I think Oliver Ames was second ; and Oakes Ames was a very 
 heavy stockholder. 
 
 Q. Is the paijer you now refer to the one which specifically authorized 
 the transfer of the fifty shares ? — A. Yes, sir ; that is as 1 understand. 
 
 Q. When these shares were issued, which were accretions of the stock 
 which had been previously taken, were they not accompanied with a 
 bond of $1,000 for every ten shares ? — A. They were ordinarily ac- 
 companied with a bond; that is, the parties holding orijiinal stock, 
 who received the 50 per cent, additional, received a $1,000 bond for 
 every $1,000 of shares. 
 
142 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. Which bond would pay foe stock? — A. Not quite, because the 
 bonds were not worth par. Tlie bonds at par would pay for the stock. 
 Q. They were the flrst-mortgas'e bonds of the company ? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. "Who were at that time the executive committee of the Credit Mo- 
 bilier ? — A. I shouhl prefer to looli at the records. I think Mr, Alley, 
 Mr. Hazzard, and Mr. Dillon were the eKecutive committee. 
 
 Q. Do you take your directions iu your official conduct from them ? — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Would you have considered yourself authorized to issue any stock, 
 or doing anything else of as much importance as to issue this stock, 
 ■withont their direction? — A. Not without the direction of the executive 
 committee or the direction of the president. I would have done any- 
 thing Mr. Dillon, the president of the company, directed. 
 
 Q. Was that after the Credit Mobilier ceased to be used as a corpo- 
 ration by tiie Union Pacidc Railroad, or belbre? — A. It was after the 
 Cre<lit Mobilier had anything to do with the construction of the road. 
 
 Q. Tlien what antiiority would Mr. Dillon, as president of the com- 
 pany, have to direct you, when the whole business was in the hands of 
 the seven trustees i — A. The business of the Credit Mobilier was never 
 iu the hands of the seven trustees. The contract made with Oakes 
 Ames was in the hands of seven trustees. The business of the Credit 
 Mobilier was not iu their hands; it was conducted by itself, and by its 
 proper ofiicers. 
 
 Q. Had these corporate officers any control in the Pacific Euilroad 
 afterward ? — A. It had control over the issue of its own stock. 
 
 Q. What value had that stock apart from the profits it would mako 
 out of that contract? — A. It had no value except that the assets were 
 worth something. 
 
 Q. Tlie assets amounted to the par value of the capital ? — A. No, sir; 
 a portion of that par value had been divided ; it had not all been re- 
 tained. In taking this new subscrii)tion the company had to buy these 
 bonds of the Union Pacific Railroad Company and pay for them with 
 their own money. Tbey paid tbeiri out to their new stockholders; con- 
 sequently the new stock did not net the Credit Mobilier anything. They 
 bought tliem, and paid 85, the market price. 
 
 Q. Tlie bonds tiiey divided under the new subscription was not called 
 a dividend, was it? It was based on the new subscription ? — A. Yes; 
 it was not called a dividend. 
 
 . Q. Whom did they buy the bonds from? — A. From the Union Paoifie 
 Railroad Company. 
 
 Q. And paid for them out of the capital stock? — A. Paid for them 
 out of the money they received for the new subscription. 
 
 Q. They divided these bonds, after baying them out of their own cap- 
 ital ? That was a corporate act done by'the Credit Mobilier? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. And yet the Credit Mobilier has made no dividend except two of 
 6 per cent, each ?— A. They did not make the allotment of bonds under 
 the new subscription as a dividend; it was a part of the subscription- 
 There was an agreement in the subscription that these parties who took 
 the stock should receive the bonds. There was- no regular dividend 
 resolution passed by the company. 
 
 Q. Was it not iu fact a dividend, regular or irregular? — A. Yoa 
 might call it so. 
 Q. Do you say that the assets of the company have been exhausted 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 143 
 
 1 this way ? — A.. Jfo, sir ; I do not say that the assets of the company 
 ave been exiiausted. 
 
 Q. How uearly have they been exhausted ? How much of the capital 
 as been disposed of in this way ? — A. It would be difficult to say what 
 lie assets of the company amount to now. 
 
 Q. Let me ask yon whether you could or could not have issued that 
 fty shares of stock to Neilson without special direction or instruction 
 ither from the president of the Credit Mobilier or the executive com- 
 littee of that institution "! — A. 1 could not have issued it without the 
 ignature of the president. All the stock-certificates bear his sig- 
 lature. 
 
 Q. Had you, or any other subordinate of the company, a right to sell 
 hat stock to anybody? Was it up for sale? Were the books open for 
 eceiving subscription ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Then any issue of these fifty shares must have been the result of 
 ome special agreement between the authorities of the company and 
 he person who received them? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. But yon say you do not know what the nature Ijf the agreement 
 ras? — A. No, sir; the agreement might have been made known to me 
 it the time. 
 
 Q. Do you say it was, or was not, made known to you ? — A. It may 
 lave been made known to me, and I may have been instructed to issue 
 t on account of the desire of tlie princi[)al stockholders. 
 
 Q. Who would give you such instructions ? — A. Mr. Dillon, the pres- 
 deut, or Mr. liazard, or any one else having authority. 
 
 By Mr. Meekick : 
 
 Q. Let ra6 ask whether, when you delivered this stock to Neilson, 
 'ou delivered to him also the bonds of the Union Pacific Eailroad Com- 
 )any, according to the general arrangement under the new subscrip- 
 ion? — A, I will state that as soon as I receive the cash-book of the 
 loinpany. This was four or five years ago, and [ do not remember. 
 
 Q. It would have been in accordance with tlie course of dealing of the 
 lompany in this matter to have issued such bonds to Neilson at tlie 
 uomenti of delivering to him the certificate of his stock ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Black : 
 
 Q. When it was concluded to discard the corporate machinery of the 
 jredit Mobilier in this business and substitute the seven trustees, did 
 hat make any diiftirence in the right of the stockhohlers of the Credit 
 Hobilier to receive the same dividends- which they would have been 
 mtitled to if no such transaction had taken place? — A. I presume it 
 lid not. 
 
 Q. The stock of the Credit Mobilier continued to bo transferable as 
 lefore ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And the transferring of stock carried with it, of course, the right 
 ;o receive the dividends which would ©therwise be received ou the 
 ilock? — A. The dividends were paid upon stock-lists furnished by me. 
 
 Q- Just as they would have been if they had been declared by the 
 iorporate authorities of the Credit Mobilier? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Was there any difference in the arrangement of the whole matter, 
 'xcept in the mere personal material by which it was done, the mere 
 trganism of the association ? — A. Yes, sir; there was adecided difference. 
 
 was assistant secretary of the Credit Mobilier, keeping these books 
 rnd accoimta, and they had nothing whatever to do with the Oakes 
 Lmes contract 
 
144 CRKDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 Q. Was Mr. Alley generally at tlie meetings of the executive commit- 
 tee 1! — A. Not necessarily. It only took two to make a majority of the 
 executive committee. 
 
 Q. Was Mr. Alley generally one of the majority ? — A. No, sir; some- 
 times Mr. Hazard and Mr. Dillou acted, and sometimes Mr. Dillon and 
 Mr. Alley. 
 
 Q. Was Mr. Alley the principal man or the leading man among 
 them ? — A. Mr. Alley had a good deal of influence. 
 
 Q. Do you kuow whether he did not take such a supervision of the 
 affairs of the ci>ra[)any there as to make it almost necessary for him to 
 know everything that took placje, at least in regard to every important 
 transaction that took place? — A. No, sir; I do not know that it did 
 become necessar'y. 
 
 Q. Was it not his duty, as a member of the executive committee, to 
 see to everything ot veiy great injportance? — A. The duties of the ex- 
 ecutive committee were to transact all the business that the board of 
 directors co'uld transact. They were not required to do it, but they had 
 the power and the authority to do it. 
 
 Q. Did not the possession of that power and authority require them 
 to exercise it properly and carefully ^. — A. That is a legal question, and 
 I am not a legal man. 
 
 Q. You might know enough of law for that without being hurt. Did 
 you ever see Mr. Alley-looking over the books ? — A. Not very frequently. 
 
 Q, Did he ever ask you when he came back what had been done ? — 
 A. These things occurred six years ago, and I can hardly remember 
 every circumstance. 
 
 Q. Did he call upon you for an account of your stewardship 1 — A. An 
 aceouiit of my stewardship was annually rendered at the annual meet- 
 ing of the corporation. 
 
 Q. Was that all ? — A. If he asked me for information, I always gave 
 it to him. I do not think Mr. Alley ever required of me any specific 
 information in writing. 
 
 Q. Did he not take a very lively interest in all these transactions? — 
 A. He took a lively interest in the Credit Mobilier. He was, a heavy 
 stockholder, and I suppose he took more interest because Oakes Ames 
 and Oliver Ames were among the heaviest stockholders. 
 
 Q. Whatbasiuess was the Credit Mjbilier interested in besides this? — 
 A. It never had any other business, except that it is just now trying to 
 dissolve its corporation capacity, and surrender its cjbiarter. 
 
 Q. You referred to a paper, signed by certain of the heavy stock- 
 holders, authorizing these titty shares to be issued to Mr. Neilson. Now, 
 I want you to recall, if you possibly can, the names sent to that paper. 
 State the names. of some of the other signers. — A. That is beyond my 
 recollection. I cannot recollect. 
 
 Q Did you recall what was contained in the body of the paper? — A. 
 My .idea of it was, that it was simply a request that the stock should he- 
 issued. 
 
 Q. Was not the reason stated there why it should be issued, the con- 
 sideration for its being issued, and for wiiose benefit it was ; was it not 
 there set forth that it was to be for the benefit of Mr. Brooks ?— A. I 
 do not think it was. It may have been. I cannot tell without seeing 
 the paper. 
 
 Q. Was there any recital in that paper of a previous contract between 
 Mr. Durant and Mr. Brooks, or between Mr. Alley and Mr. Brooks?— 
 A. There was no contract between Mr. Alley and Mr. Brooks recited ;. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 145 
 
 there may have been between Mr, Durant and Mr. Brooks, or Mr. Durant 
 and Mr. Neilson. There was nothing between Mr, Alley and Mr. Brooks. 
 
 Q. How long had you the custody of these papers? — A. I had them 
 ■ until December, 1868. 
 
 Q. Why, among other things ordered to be produced before this com- 
 mittee, did not you produce that paper? — A. I could not produce any- 
 thing that was not in my hands. 
 
 Q. Would you not have been bound to produce it if you had had it? — 
 A. I would have produced everything in my possession. 
 
 Q. Why did you not produce these ? — A. Because I had not posses- 
 sion of it. 
 
 Q. Did you look and search for it ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Where is it ? — A. That I cannot say. , 
 
 Q. Where are the letters and other papers of the company gener- 
 ally ? — A. As I have said, many of the papers were lost. At the time 
 of the Fisk suit, some of the books were lost, and I cannot reproduce 
 them. 
 
 Q. How lost and when? — A. I cannot state how. i surrendered them 
 in December, 1868, to Mr. Dillon, the president of the company. They 
 were removed from the ofQce to the Uuiorv Pacific Eailroad, at 20 Nas- 
 sau street, and what became of them I cannot say. 
 
 Q. Do you know by whose order they were removed "I — A. They were 
 removed by order of Mr. Dillon. 
 
 Q. Where? — A. That I cannot say. They went traveling. Apart 
 of them went to Mr. Barnes, in Pennsylvania. 
 
 Q. That was because others wanted to get a sight of these papers? 
 They went traveling to avoid letting those who were interested in them 
 see what they were ? — A. ISo, sir ; they went traveling to avoid letting 
 people who had no interest in them see what they were. 
 
 Q. Did not a court of justice order them to be produced ? — A. ]!^o, • 
 sir ; not while they were in Naw York. If there was an order, they were 
 out of the jurisdiction of the State when the order' was made. 
 
 Q. Was it you who locked up the safe, and carried away the combi- 
 nation ? — A. Yes, sir ; but they were not iu the safe. 
 
 Q. You had carried off the papers before you carried away the combi- 
 nation ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. These papers, and a good many papers, are running before the 
 same pursuit still ? — A. No, sir ; Mr. Fisk is dead. 
 
 Q. But the public is said to have about as lively an interest now in 
 getting at these papers as it had then. Is not this paper concealed 
 now for the same reason it was concealed then? — A. In the first place, 
 I deny that the public has a lively interest in this matter. I think it is 
 only a few newspapers who take a lively interest in it. 
 
 The Chairman suggested this was getting too elementary for the 
 purposes of this investigation. 
 
 Q. Do you not know that Mr. Dillon has these papers or has the con- 
 trol of them ? — A. No, sir; I do not. I do not thmk Mr. Dillon could 
 tell you anything about where they were. 
 
 Q. Were they not taken and destroyed, that they might never be seen 
 by anybody 1 — A. No, sir ; I do not think they are destroyed. 
 
 Q. They' were taken and taken care of, then ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Then does not somebody know where they are? — ^A. That I can- 
 not state. I have no knowledge. 
 
 Q. Do you know where the stock transfer-book is ? — No, sir ; I do 
 not. That is one of tbe books that disappeared. 
 
 Q. Disappeared bow? — A. I do not know how. 
 
 10 X 
 
146 CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. You mean to say you saw it disappear 1 — A. I mean to say that I 
 saw it in December, 1868, and have never seen it since. 
 
 Q. Yon knew where it went to ? — A. No, sir ; I did not. 
 
 Q. Did you destroy it ? — A. Ko, sir ; I did not. 
 
 Q. Do you know who did? — A. No, sir; I do not think it has ever 
 been destroyed, but I do not know where it is. 
 
 Q. What do you think has become of it ? — A. I never have an opinion 
 in regard to a matter I have no opinion about. I do not speculate. 
 
 Q. Did you keep a blotter ? — A. No, sir ; there never was any blotter 
 kept in the office. 
 
 Q. No such thing 1 — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Never any blotter or scratcher or journan^ — A. We kept a jour- 
 nal 
 
 Q. Or book of any kind, in which you put down the daily proceedings 
 of the company as they occurred ? — A. We kept a journal, in which we 
 enter the records of the company. That journal I purpose producing 
 here within a few minutes. That is a book of original entry. 
 
 By the Chaieman: 
 
 Q. You think there was a paper signed by somebody, authorizing 
 the issue of fifty shares of stock to Neilson! — A. That is my impres- 
 sion, sir. 
 
 Q. You refer only to these fifty shares 1 — A. I would not say it refer- 
 red only to these fifty shares. It may have had several items. 
 
 Q. What is your judgment about it ? — A. I should say it had several 
 things. For instance, there was some stock issued to General Dodge 
 about that time, and that may have been in it. 
 
 Q. Do you think it was ? — A. That I do not know, and I should hesi- 
 tate to state what I do not know. 
 
 Q. What I want to know is, whether the best memory you have about 
 it is, that it applied only to these fifty shares of stock issued to Neilson, 
 or whether it applied to other stock 1 — A^ I think it applied to some 
 other things ; that is my recollection about it. 
 
 Q. And to stock of other people? — A. Yes, sir.' 
 
 Q. Did this agreement or partition which the comiiany made to every 
 man who signed for any number of shares of the increased Credit Mo- 
 bilier stock, giving them an equal amount of Pacific Eailroad bonds, 
 apply also to the original subscription of stock? — A. It did not apply 
 to the original stock, only to the increase. The original stockholders 
 did not have a bond for each thousand dollars of stock. It was only 
 the persons who had the 50 per cent, increase who received the bonds. 
 
 Q. Was all this fifty per cent, increase taken by the men who held the 
 stock originally'? — A. They either took it or sold it to other parties 
 whom they procured to take it. 
 
 Q. If a man holding original stock transferred that stock to some- 
 body else, it was understood as transferring the he himself would 
 
 nave had? — A. Yes, sir. Men who were stockholders at the time the 
 50 per cent, subscription was made were the men who received the 
 increase of stock and the bonds accompanying. 
 
 Q. It seems that Mr, Durant was the owner of these one hundred 
 shares of stock Mr. Neilson first had in December, 1867, Did Mr, Du- 
 rant ever receive the 60 per cent, increase for that stock ? — A. I presume 
 he did. I do not know how that is, 
 
 Q, If Mr, Durant had already received the 50 per cent, on this stock, 
 would Neilson or anybody else acquire the right from him to receive it 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. ' 147 
 
 over again? — A. He would not acquire any right except such as the 
 parties in interest might choose to confer. 
 
 Q. If Mr. Darant had received the additional stock, and received the 
 one thousand dollars for each ten shares of it, what right would he have, 
 by transferring a portion of the stock, to give somebody else authority 
 to take as many more shares, and for as many more bonds ? — A. There 
 might be no right in it, and yet it might have been done for the parties 
 in interest. ' 
 
 Q. Then it would have been a mere piece of favoritism if it was — if 
 it was not a proceeding growing out of the original understanding? — 
 A. It would be, unless the parties in interest considered that Mr. Durant 
 had the right to make that arrangement. 
 
 Q. Suppose this hundred shares which Durant transferred to Neilson 
 had been all the stock he owned, he would have received on that the 50 
 per cent, increase of the bonds ? — A. Yes, sir. • 
 
 Q. And then, when he sold that one hundred shares of original stock 
 to Neilson, Neilson, in virtue of this arrangement of the company, would 
 not be entitled to take any additional stock or bonds? — A. Xo, sir. 
 
 A. And you would not be authorized to issue it to him ? — A. 'So, sir. 
 
 Q. What right would anybody, except the stockholders, have to 
 authorize Neilsou to receive fifty additional shares and five additional 
 bonds? — A. None, until they obtained the consent of the stockholders. 
 If they could get the consent of the larger stockholders, the stock would 
 be issued. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether, in point of^ fact, Durant had received ad- 
 ditional stock upon all the original stock he owned ? — A. I presume he 
 did. 
 
 Q. In the case where a man who was a stockholder, and who had 
 neglected, within the time fixed, to take his additional stock, was it 
 not treated as a matter of course to issue it to him afterward, without 
 requiring the special consideration of the president of the board? — A. 
 There was no resolution of the executive committee in regard to that 
 matter. 
 
 Q. You say that really this vote, limiting the time within which the 
 increase of stock could be taken to ninety days, was practically annulled, 
 and that the old stockholders were allowed to take this additional stock 
 whenever they called for it? — A. Yes,. sir. 
 
 Q. In a case of that sort, where a man did not receive his additional 
 stock, would you have required the special direction of the president or 
 executive committee to allow him to take it whenever he called for it? — 
 A. Yes, sir. I could not have issued it without the certificate of the 
 president. 
 
 Q. Would you have issued it and received the money from him ? — A. 
 No, sir. I should have refused the money without the direction of the 
 president, 
 
 Q. You would not have required it as a ma.tter of course that he was 
 to take it? — A. No, sir; not after the time given in the notice had ex- 
 pired. 
 
 Q. Do you mean to say that, after the time did expire, it was by the 
 special license of the men who controled the company that the addi- 
 tional stock was allowed to be taken ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you know of any other case,. except this one, in which a man 
 was allowed to take fifty per cent, increase of stock for which fifty per 
 cent, had already been taken by somebody else ? — A. No, sir ; I do not. 
 The stock-list was not full, and they were willing the stock should be 
 issued to the full limit of $3,750,000. 
 
148 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Was not the original $2,500,000 all taken ?— A. No, sir ; it was 
 not all taken at the beginning. 
 
 Q. Therefore, if every man holding stock took his fifty per cent, ad- 
 ditional, there would still be stock remaining? — A. Yes, sir ; there would 
 still be stock remaining. These ninety-three shares given to Mr. Ames 
 were the remainder left over of the $2,500,000 which had not been 
 taken. 
 
 Q. I understand you, then, that when Neilson took these last fifty 
 shares, he took them directly from the company, and received $5,000 of 
 Union Pacific Railroad bonds'? — A. No, sir; I do not understand that. 
 I say he may have received the bonds. When I get the books here, I 
 can tell you positively. 
 
 Q. According to the course of business he would have received it i — 
 A. I presume he did not receive it. 
 
 . Q. Do you remember of any case where a subscriber did not receive 
 the bonds ? — A. No, sir ; I do not. 
 
 Q. How would the cash-book say anything about that? — A. Every 
 time the parties took stock and bonds, I had to buy the bonds. 
 
 Q. Then there would be a corresponding entry, under the date of issu- 
 ing the stock, of the purchase of the bonds ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. He would pay over his money for the stock in the same way, ' 
 whether he received his bonds or not? But if he received his bonds, 
 yon would have some account on your books of getting the bonds for 
 him ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Alley : 
 
 Q. You have spoken of bonds being given with this stock, and stated 
 that the market-price of this stock was 85 cents on the dollar of its par 
 value. Do you remember that when the subscrijition was made for the 
 increase of the capital stock to $3,750,000, that the company were very 
 much embarrassed ; that there was no market value for the bonds; and 
 that, if sold at all, it would have been at a rate far less than 85? — A, 
 The bonds had not been upon the market. They were pledged as col- 
 lateral for money the company was borrowing. at the rate of 50 cents on 
 the dollar; that is, two for one. 
 
 Q. What do you think they would have brought in cash at that 
 time? — A. They would not have brought 85 cents, because they were 
 not known. 
 
 Q. At the time the capital stock -was increased, were all the stock- 
 holders, or nearly all of them, willing to take it even upon these favor- 
 able terms ? — A. Some of them did not take it for a long tim«. I think 
 Mr. McComb refused to take his at the time, and I do not think he ever 
 took it in his own name. He probably procured somebody else to take 
 his stock. 
 
 Q. Do you remember that I declined for some time to take mine?^— 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you remember that it was in consequence of the afftiirs of the 
 company taking a more favorable turn some time afterward that some 
 of the stockholders did come and take their stock, and that the com- 
 pany determined that it would be unjust to those stocljholders who had 
 not availed themselves of their privilege not to be allowed to take their 
 stock, and therefore the arrangement was that they should all be served 
 alike? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Are you the custodian of the books, and have yon been all the 
 time since I have had any particular connection with the Credit Mobilier? 
 — A. Not all the time. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 149 
 
 Q. Were you not, with the exception of the period during the Fisk 
 raid, when the office of the company was removed?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. It has been stated here that one gentleman was refused by me the 
 right to look at the books — that he never, by my consent, could get a 
 sight at them. Did you ever know me to oppose at any time anybody 
 seeing the books'? — A. I have no recollection of it. 
 
 Q. Were the books, to your knowledge, ever refused access to by any 
 stockholder of the company who asked to look at them f — A. That I 
 cannot tell. There may have been such instances. 
 
 Q. But certainly not by my direction? — A. Certainly not by your 
 personal direction. There may have been a general direction. 
 
 Q. In relation to this stock that was issued to Neilson, you have stated, 
 I believe^ that it was issued to him by virtue of the right which he had 
 to the increase of the 50 per cent. Is that so 1 — A. I suppose that was 
 the case. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether it was done by my direction in any way, or 
 that I knew anything about it ? — A. I cannot say that you knew any- 
 thing about it at the time. 
 
 Q. Have you no knowledge that I ever knew anything about it? — A. 
 No, sir ; I have not. 
 
 Q. Do you think I ever knew anything about it? — A. That I could 
 not say. I would not want to answer in that way. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether my name was on that paper requesting 
 the president to issue that stock to Mr. Neilson ? — A. I do not think it 
 was. 
 
 Q. At the time of this raid, when these books were concealed, was it 
 in consequence of the Fisk suits, and the breaking open of the safe for 
 the purpose of putting the property of the company into the custody of 
 Jud^'e Barnard, that that proceeding took place ? — A. It was previous 
 to the appointment of Mr. Tweed as receiver. 
 
 Q. Was it not in anticipation of that? — A. Tes, sir; it was entirely 
 on account of that Suit. 
 
 Q. It was not to keep the books or papers from any of the stock- 
 holders or from any proper suit ? — A. No, sir ; it was not. 
 
 Q. That was a suit which was so annoying and perilous to the rights 
 and interests of the company as to induce them to come to Congress for 
 relief from these New York courts, and get their authority to remove 
 the office of the company to Boston ? — A. It was. 
 
 By Mr. BlACK : 
 Q. Was this increase of stock before or after you became treasurer? — 
 A. It was before. 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Q. At what time was it that these books and papers were removed 
 from New York ?— :A. I think it was in December, 1868. I could not 
 state positively. 
 
 Q. From that time you had not the custody of the books or papers 
 until 1870 ?— A. Not until 1870. 
 
 Q. Do you know in whose custody the books and papers were kept 
 during that period of time ? — A. A portion of the time they were in the 
 custody of the secretary, O. W. Barnes. 
 
 Q. He lived in Philadelphia ? — A. A part of the time, and a part of 
 the time in New York. 
 
 Q, What portion of them were in Philadelphia ? — A. I do not know 
 but they were all there. I did not know where they were. I know that 
 
150 CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 I had hard work to get them again, and that 1 did not succeed in get- 
 ng all of them. 
 
 Q. Do you know where any of these missing books and papers of the 
 company, which you have not produced here, are? — A. No, sir; if they 
 were in my possession, I should have produced them. 
 
 Q. Have you no information as to where they are ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you any belief where they are ? — A. No, sir ; I have not. 
 
 Q. Can you give to the committee any clue, of whom they shall in- 
 quire, or where they shall make search for them ? — A. No, sir ; I do not 
 know anything about them. 
 
 Q. Have you endeavored to find them all ? — A. Yes, sir; I have made 
 inquiry and examination in various places. 
 
 Q. Have you made examinatiou in all the places where you supposed 
 there was any likelihood that you would find them? — A. Yes, sir; I 
 have. 
 
 Q. And you protest here, that you are unable to get them, and do not 
 know where they are '? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And that you are not able to give any information as to where 
 they can be obtained other than you have stated ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. McCeary : 
 
 Q. Do you say they went into Mr. Dillon's hands? — A. Yes, sir; but 
 he would not know anything about them. He paid very little attention 
 to the matter. 
 
 Q. Did you ever inquire of him 1 — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do I understand that most of the papers in the case of the Oakes 
 Ames contract have passed into the hands of Oliver Ames ? — A. I think 
 so. Mr. Crane can answer that. 
 
 By Mr. BLACK : 
 
 Q. When you parted with these books, did you lake a receipt for 
 them ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you pass them over into the formal custody of any one! — A. 
 No, sir ; they were in the safe which was handed right over. 
 
 Q. The same safe that was broken open? — A. No, sir; it was the 
 vault that was broken open. This was just an iron safe that was not 
 in the vault. 
 
 Q. Do I understand you that this increase of stock was ordered before 
 you took possession ? — A. This increase of stock was ordered in Feb- 
 ruary, 1867. My appointment was in May, 1807. 1 had nothing to do 
 with the books of the Credit Mobilier previous to that. 
 
 Q. Had you everything to do with making a settlement with Mr. Mc- 
 Comb for the increase of the stock ? — A. I could tell you that by refer- 
 ring to my cash-book. I cannot tell now. If he paid his subscription 
 previous to me, it did not come to me. 
 
 Q. Did he pay everything that you ever demanded from him ? — A. I 
 do not know that I ever demanded anything at all. It would not be 
 necessary to demand it. It was his option to take it or not as he saw 
 fit. 
 
 Q. State whether these books were -demanded by the court in Penn- 
 sylvania in the case of McComb against the Credit Mobilier.— A. I be- 
 lieve they Mere. 
 
 Q. Where were they at the time the demand was made ?— A. They 
 were in New York. 
 
 Q. Where they have been since that time ?— A. In Pennsylvania a 
 portion of the time. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 151 
 
 Q. Did you make any answer in the case of that demand for the 
 books ? — A. Yes, sir ; I made answer in that case. 
 
 Q. In which you stated what?— A. The main point of the answer was 
 that they would be unsafe in the hands of the referee. Anotljier answer 
 was that we expected to be required to produce the books in another 
 case. We expected to have to use them here. 
 
 Q. Did you state that you were using them every day and could not 
 spare them "? — A. That may have been in the notes ; but it was not a 
 prominent point. 
 
 Q. That you could not spare them from your every day's use ? — A. I 
 would not say whether that was in the answer or not. 
 > Q. Were they not then in the city of Philadelphia? — A. They were 
 not then in the city of Philadelphia. They were taken there some time 
 afterward. I took them there myself. 
 
 By Mr. Meeeick : 
 
 Q. Can you tell us who were the directors or managers of the Credit 
 Mobilier in 1867 and 1868?— A. Mr. Dillon, Mr. Hazard, and Mr. Alley 
 were the principal managers from May, 1867. There were four other 
 directors in Pennsylvania. 
 
 Q. Was Mr. Oliver Ames a director and manager ? — A. No. sir ; he 
 never has been. 
 
 Q. Was Oakes Ames? — A. He never has been. 
 
 Q. ^as T. 0. Durant ?— A. Not since May, 1867. 
 
 Q. Was John J. Cisco ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. H. S. McComb ?— A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Was Sidney Dillon ?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q, WasB. E. Bates?— A. No,. sir. 
 
 Q. Was John B. Alley?— A. I'es, sir. 
 
 Q. Was Charles A. Lambard ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Was Ebenezer Cook? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Was, John Duff?— A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Can you state who were the other directors ? — A. I remember Mr. 
 Barnes, Mr. Stewart, and Mr. Neilson. 
 
 Q. Were these persons, who were directors and managers, necessarily 
 stockholders? — A. No, sir; not necessarily. A man might be a director 
 and not a stockholder. 
 
 Q. What was the fact in regard to that ? — A. These men were gen- 
 erally stockholders at the time. At the present time some of the 
 directors do not hold any stock. 
 
 Q. Do you know who were the directors of the Union Pacific Rail- 
 road at that time ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. What entries have you in regard to the issuing of the ninety-three 
 shares of stock to Mr. Ames as trustee? — A. I have here an entry of 
 $9,300 received from Oakes Ames as trustee. 
 
 Q. Which shows that he paid for the ninety-three shares? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. You stated that you could tell by reference to the books whether 
 Mr. Neilson, at the time he received the last fifty shares of stock, re- 
 ceived bonds at the same time. You will please turn to your entry 
 and state what the fact is. — A. The entry shows that Mr. Neilson 
 received fifty shares of stock, for which he paid $5,000, and also two 
 hundred and forty-odd dollars, which was carried to the interest account. 
 He received no bonds with that stock. 
 
 Q. Did he receive the bonds subsequently ? — A. No, sir ; nor subse- 
 quently. 
 
152 CEEDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. You stated, I thiuk, that if he had received the bonds there would 
 be an entry of your purchase of them from the Uuion Pacific Rail- 
 road ?-^A. Yes, sir; but there is no entry of any having been received 
 on that day, nor from the 27th of February to the loth of October, 1868. 
 This bond account closed the 15th of October, 1868, and it appears 
 there is no entry anywhere of his having received these bonds. 
 
 Q. I notice that the name of Charles H. Neilson is written over an 
 erasure in this entry"? — A. Yes, that is written over an erasure, and that 
 is my own handwriting. Something has been written there and erased, 
 but I do not know what it was. 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection whatever in relation to it ? — A. No, 
 none whatever, 
 
 Q. The erasure is in the name in both cases where it appears^?— A. 
 Yes, there is an erasure, and the name of Charles H. Neilsou is written 
 over the erasure. 
 
 Q. Are these entries posted on some other book ? — A. Yes, posted 
 upon the book called the capital-stock book. 
 
 , Q. Have yon that book here f — A. Yes, sir ; it shows simply that 
 $5,000 cash was received March 11. No name is given. I want to ex- 
 plain that these books were not written up by me as the transactions 
 occurred. They were written up subsequently, at my leisure. 
 
 Q. Were they written from other memoranda ; and if so, what ? — A^ 
 Yes, from the check-book. 
 
 Q. Will the check-book show what was written and erased '? — A. No, 
 sir. It will show whether I received a check or currency. 
 
 Q. How can this entry have been made from the check-book, if the 
 check-book will not show that? — A. It was written from the check-book 
 and from memoranda. It was written up very close to the time the 
 transaction occurred. 
 
 Q. Would you carry transactions of this sort in your memory ? — A. I 
 had the check deposited or the money deposited, whatever it was, and 
 I had the certified entry here. 
 
 Q. Any other memoranda ? — A. No, sir. Let me explain that during 
 most of this time I had other business, and that I would have gladly 
 been out of this concern if it had not been for some of the gentlemen 
 connected with It. 
 
 Q. You have no recollection at all in reference to these erasures?— 
 A. None whatever. 
 
 Q. As that erasure was in the place where the name should be writ- 
 ten, would not you naturally infer that some other name was written 
 in the place of Neilson ? — A. No, sir ; I would not. I might have writ- 
 ten in something else. 
 
 Q. But it would have been a name, would it not? — A. No, sir; I 
 might have written in a description there by mistake. 
 
 Q. Would you have written the description in the place where the 
 name belongs ? — A. Yes, I might have done so. 
 
 Q. Do you not think it was probable, if you made a mistake, that it 
 was in writing in some other name?— A. No, sir ; I do not think so. It 
 may have been that. 
 
 Q. Would you not infer from the appearance of this that the name 
 Neilson was not written at the same time that the other portions of the 
 entry were ?— A. It is very likely ; it riiay not have been. 
 
 Q. And you thiuk you would not naturally have written some other 
 name in that place ?— A. It is very probable it may have been some 
 other name. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 153 
 
 Q. Is not that the only explanation you can give of the erasure? — 
 A. The appearance is that I did write some other name there. 
 
 Q. lu your entries of this sort, that is the place for the name ? — A.. 
 That is the way I have written these entries. There were very few 
 transactions in the course of the month, and a man who is not in the 
 habit of writing up these books except occasionally, would be very likely 
 to make mistakes. 
 
 Q. The other portions of the writing upon these lines seem to be a 
 part of the original entry. — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And the erasure, aud the writing of the name of Neilson, seem to 
 have been at a subsequent period to the original entry. — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And you are sure you have no memory upon the subject ? — A. No, 
 wir ; I have not. 
 
 Q. All you can state about it is what appeared upon the face of the 
 entry ?— A. That is all. 
 
 Q. You have no idea what was written there, prior to the name of 
 Charles H. Keilsou? — A. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Black : 
 
 Q. You do not know when the erasure was made? — A. It was very 
 soon after the original was written. 
 
 Q. Why do you say that ? — A. Because I have not written anything 
 in those books for two years at least. My brother has been keeping 
 them. 
 
 Q. Do you find any other place where a name has been erased and a 
 new name put in these books ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Were you in the habit of making mistakes of that kind, and doing 
 it over again? — A. Yes ; I did not pretend to keep these books as nicely 
 as I would have done if it had been my principal business. Here is an 
 " entry in which G. M. Dodge was originally written. The name was 
 erased, and Anna Dodge was substituted, because the stock was issued 
 in her name. 
 
 Q. There is good reason for that change. General Dodge, I suppose, 
 was the owner of the stock, and wanted it placed in his wife's name, 
 and therefore had the change made ? — A. Yes, it was changed to the 
 wife of General Dodge. 
 
 Q. Didn't the same reason cause you to make the other erasure? — A. 
 I do not think it was. 
 
 Q. Did you not originally put in the name of Mr. Brooks ? — A. I 
 cannot say ; I may have done so. I do not recollect it. 
 
 Q. And did you not make the change by the direction of somebody 
 else? — A. If I wrote in the name of James Brooks, 1 had no authdrity 
 to do it, for the stock was issued to Charles H. Neilson. I did not make 
 the change by the direction of anybody. I put in Mr. Neilson's name 
 as a matter of course, when the stock was issued to him. 
 
 Q. You are satisfied you made the change without the instructions of 
 anybody? — A. Without the instructions of anybody. 
 
 Q. Why would you change the books of the company without instruc- 
 tions from anybody ? — A. Because I kept the books. 
 
 Q. Is not the erasure of a name and the sub§,titution of another name 
 the falsification of your record '1 — A- That depends altogether upon how 
 the courts would take such things, I siij)posi>. I am not legal enough 
 to know what the courts would do. 
 By Mr. Bkooks: 
 
 Q. Did I ever gi\'e you any request or direction to make anj- entry in 
 that book in any'form ?— A. No, sir. 
 
154 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 Q. Did you ever know me as the owner of any stock in the Credit 
 Mobilier? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. If I had given you any direction to make any such erasure as 
 that, would you have made it ?— A. I think I would have made it if you 
 had given me any instructions. I made the erasure because it was 
 entered wrong. 
 
 Q. Is it possible that you could have entered my name as the owner 
 and then have substituted Mr. Neilsou's for itf— A. It is possible, of 
 course, that I might have done so. 
 
 Q. Have you the least recollection of having done it I — A. JSTo, sir; I 
 have not. 
 
 Q. Everything is possible ; is it probable that you would have done 
 it? — A. From Mr. Neilson's intimate connection with you it may even 
 be probable ; I would not say it was not. 
 
 Q. Would you have changed the entries in that record if you had put 
 in my name there instead of that of Mr. Neilson 2 — A. I should have 
 made a mistake if I had wi-itten your name there, because the stock was 
 issued to Neilson. 
 
 Q. Would you not have been as likely to have written some other 
 name as to have written mine? — A. I cannot say whether I should or 
 not. 
 
 Q. Is it not probable that Mr. Neilson's name being often ])ronounced 
 i^elson you may have misspelled the name and corrected it 1 — A. I do 
 not think that is possible. That would have required very little erasure 
 to have done that. In this case the whole name is erased. 
 
 Mr. Eeooks. I want to say that is the first time I ever heard of thp 
 thing in any form. 
 
 By Mr. McCeaky : 
 
 Q. Do your books show the persons who received first-mortgage bonds 
 in connection with the addition of stock that was issued 1 — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And they show that Mr. Neilson did not receive his ? — A. They 
 show he did not receive his. 
 
 Q. Do they show that any other one received first-mortgage bonds on 
 that stock at as late a date as that 1 — A. No, sir ; nobody received first- 
 mortgage bonds upon that particular stock at all. He must have taken 
 the stock just as it was and paid for it. 
 
 Q. Had Mr. Durant any first-mortgage bonds to dispose of in connec- 
 tion with the stock he controlled ? — A. Mr. Durant took the first-mort- 
 gage bonds on all his subscriptions and the increase, the same as every 
 other stockholder. 
 
 Q. Was the fifty shares of Neilson considered a part of Durant's in- 
 crease ? — A. I cannot say as to that. 
 
 Q. 1 understood Mr. Crane to say- that Mr. Neilson got his first-mort- 
 gage bonds and fifty shares of additional stock from Durant. Do the 
 books show that? — \. No, sir; the books do not show his transaction 
 in regard to his original subscription, because he got the stock from Mr. 
 Durant. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 14, 1873. 
 Henry C. Ckank sworn and examined. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. State your residence. — Answer. . I reside at Yonkers, but do 
 basiness in the city of New York. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 155 
 
 Q. State if you have been connected in aay way with the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad Company?— A. I was director for a short time. 
 
 Q. For what period of time ?— A. The books will show. I do not rec- 
 ollect. 
 
 Q. During the time the road was being built.?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Were you a shareholder of that company ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And a stockholder of the Credit Mobi'lier?— A. Yes; I bought 
 some of the stock ; I did not subscribe for it. 
 
 Q. At what time did you become the owner of shares in the Credit 
 Mobilier? — A. Shortly after the company removed to New York. The 
 books will show. 
 
 Q. As early as it had anything to do with the Pacific Eailroad ?— A. 
 About the time of the commencement. 
 
 Q. Were you an offlcer of that company ! — A. I was assistant treas- 
 urer of the Credit Mobilier, 
 
 Q. From what time to what time? — ^^A. From about the date of its 
 removal to New York until the time Mr. Ham took possession of the 
 ofSce. 
 
 Q. Then you preceded him inofQce, occupying the same position that 
 he did ? — A. I was assistant treasurer. I was not secretary. 
 
 Q. Do you know anything in relation to Mr. Neilson becoming the 
 owner of one hundred shares of that stock in December, 1867 ? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. State what you know about it. — A. The 24th of December, 1867, 
 James Brooks paid a check of $7,000, and a draft, due the 22d of Janu- 
 ary, 1868, for $3,000, and my impression is that I delivered to Mr. 
 Brooks, or somebody for him, $5,000 iirst-mortgage bonds of the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad Company, and transferred to Mr. Neilson two hundred 
 shares of the Union Pacific Eailroad stock and one hundred shares of 
 Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
 Q. Now, state to the committee all you know in reference to the nego- 
 tiation for that stock. How did it come to you ? — A. That is all I know 
 about it. I received, as I stated, $10,000, and at the request of Mr. 
 Brooks transferred to Mr. Neilson one hundred shares Credit Mobilier 
 stock and two hundred shares Union Pacific Eailroad stock, and on the 
 same day, December 24, gave to Mr. Brooks five bonds of the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad stock. 
 
 Q. Was this the stock that belonged to Mr. Duraiit? — A. It was. I 
 was Mr. Durant's attorney and confidential clerk. This was his stock ; it 
 was not mine. 
 
 Q. Do you know anything in connection with the negotiation for the 
 purchase of that stock? — A. I do not know anything aljout it. 
 
 Q. Did you hear any conversation between Mr. Durant and Mr. 
 Brooks on that subject? — A. I have no recollection of any conversation 
 at all about it. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Brooks say anything in relation to the ownership of this 
 stock, whether it was for himself or Mr. Neilson ? — A. I have no recol- 
 lection about it. I have told you all I know about it. 
 
 Q. You say that you received Mr. Brooks's check and draft for the 
 aggregate sum of $10,000? — A. -Yes. I find by reference to my deposit- 
 book that Mr. Brooks gave me a check on -the Fourth National Bank for 
 $7,000. I have no recollection about it otherwise. 
 
 Q. You say you delivered to him $5,000 first-mortgage bonds of the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad, and two hundred shares Union Pacific Eailroad 
 stock. What was that for? — A. My memorandum says it was earnings 
 on the one hundred shares of Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
156 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Was that accrued dividends ? — A. I should say so. 
 
 Q. These one hundred shares received then was no part of the in- 
 crease of 50 per cent. ?— A. Not at all. I transferred the stock by Mr. 
 Durant's direction. I was told to receive from Mr. Brooks $10,000, and 
 he gave uie his check and draft, as I have stated ; and by Mr. Brooks's 
 direction I transferred it to Mr. Neilson— the one hundred shares of 
 Credit Mobilier stock and the other securities, as I have stated. 
 
 Q. What was the value of Union Pacific Eailroad stock then ?— A. 
 There was none in the market. I know nothing about its value. I 
 have no recollection of its price. 
 
 Q. What was the value of the bonds then ?— A. The Credit Mobilier 
 paid 85 for bonds. I think they had not been marketed at all then. 
 
 Q. They were worth at least 85 1 — A. I think they were worth 85. 
 
 Q. Was the $10,000 paid by Mr. Books considered by the company 
 an equivalent for the one hundred shares of Credit Mobilier stock, 
 $5,000 Union Pacific Eailroad bonds, and $20,000 Union Pacific Rail- 
 road stock ?— A. Mr. T. C. Durant gave them ; the company had nothing 
 to do with it. 
 
 Q. Did you have anything to do with Mr. Neilson about it ? — A. I 
 transferred the railroad stock to Mr. Neilson, who went to the Credit 
 Mobilier and got his stock. I had nothing to do with it. 
 
 Q. Was Mr. Neilson present the 24th of December when the drafts 
 were delivered to you? — A. T do not think he was. 
 
 Q. He subsequently got his stock from both companies'? — A. The 
 books will show. I do not think I saw him at all. I do not think he 
 was there when Mr. Brooks gave the check. 
 
 Q. All you know in reference to it, then, is that the books show that 
 the stock was transferred to him 1 — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you know anything in relation to the fifty shares of stock Mr. 
 Neilson subsequently received? — A. I know nothing about it. 
 
 Q. Nothing in reference to the payment of it? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Had you anything to do with the business of the Credit Mobilier 
 after Mr. Ham came into the office ? — A. Nothing at all. That ended 
 my connection with the company. 
 
 Q. But after that you were connected with Mr. Durant? — A. All the 
 time, and am still. 
 
 . Q. Have you any knowledge in relation to this assignment of stock to 
 Oakes Ames, which stands on the books in 'his name as trustee ? — A. 
 Nothing except that I know it stands there. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge how it came to be there in his name as 
 trustee? — A. I cannot tell you anything about it. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge of his disposing of any of that stock, or 
 agreeing to dispose of any? — A. 1 know nothing about it. 
 
 Q. This draft or check you had from Mr. Brooks you received from 
 him personally? — A. My impression is that I received it from Mr. 
 Brooks himself. 
 
 By Tilr. Meesick : 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge of any transfer of Credit Mobilier stock 
 by Mr. Durant to any other person, or to any member of Congress? — 
 A. I do not think I have. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge of any member of Congress being the 
 owner in trust or otherwise of Union Pacific Eailroad or Credit Mobi- 
 lier stock ? — A. I only know, and that by the books, of but one case I 
 believe the books show that I had some stock in my name as trustee, 
 and that I transferred twenty-five shares of that to Mr. Boyer, who I 
 believe was a member of Congress. 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEK. 157 
 
 Q. You did not hold stock as trustee for any other member of Con- 
 gress ? — A. No, sir ; nor for him. 
 
 Q. Ton do not know whether Mr. Durant held, as trustee, for any 
 member of Congress, or transferred stock to any member of Congress ? 
 — A. I cannot tell you. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. This stock which stood in your name was really Mr. Durant's 
 stock? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. When it was transferred to Mr. Boyer it was really transferred 
 from Mr. Durant ? — A. Of course. It was not my stock. 
 
 Q. You never did own it? — A. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. McCrakt : 
 
 Q. What was your ofiQcial qonnection with the Credit Mobilier ? — A. 
 Assistant treasurer in New York. 
 
 Q. This transaction with Mr. Brooks was dated when? — A. December 
 24, 1867. 
 
 Q. I understood you to say that you were transacting business for 
 Mr. Durant personally. — A. AH this business of Mr. Durant's has been 
 done by me for years. 
 
 Q. You mean, then, that in this transfer you were directed by Mr. 
 Durant ? — A. I suppose so. Of course it was his business, not mine. 
 
 Q. What were one hundred shares of Union Pacific Railroad stock 
 worth at that time ? — A. That I cannot tell you. 
 
 Q, Give us the best estimate of its value you can. — A. I have no way 
 of estimating what it was worth. It may have been worth 50 and it 
 may have been 30. 
 
 Q. What were the first-mortgage bonds, Union Pacific Eailroad, 
 worth ?— A. They sold at 85. 
 
 Q. What was the Credit Mobilier stock worth ? — A, I should say it 
 was worth considerable about that time; there was a dividend to make 
 on it then. 
 
 Q. And these other securities, given to Mr. Brooks, were a part of 
 that dividend ? — A. The memorandum I have says $20,000 stock ; 
 $5,000 bonds were given as the earnings for those one hundred shares 
 of Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
 Q. How much was Mr. Durant receiving for the $10,000 paid by Mr. 
 9rooks ? — A. Ten thousand dollars. 
 
 Q. Nothing more? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. How much did Mr. Brooks receive in return ? — A. One hundred 
 shares Credit Mobilier stock ; $25,000 securities of the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad Company. 
 
 Q. Total how much?^ — A. That depends on the value of the securities. 
 If the Union Pacific Eailroad stock was worth 50, the amount for two 
 hundred shares would be $10,000. If the bonds were worth 85, the 
 amount for them would be $4,250. 
 
 Q. What, then, would be the profit to the purchaser of those one 
 hundred shares of stock ? — A. The amount received would be $25,000 
 Union Pacific Eailroad securities, and the market-value of one hundred 
 shares of Credit Mobilier stock. ' I do not know how much, but I think 
 it was a pretty good trade. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Durant make many trades of that kind ? — A. I do not 
 think he did. 
 
 Q. Do you know of any particular reason why he made this one ? — 
 A. No, sir ; I know nothing about it. ^I only know I had directions to 
 do what I did. ' 
 
158 CREDIT MOBILIEE, 
 
 Q. You had direction to transfer the stock to Mr. Neilson ?— A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. Did you get this direction from Mr. Durant ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Eromwhora? — A. From Mr. Brooks. ' 
 
 Q. Who directed you to make the transaction in the first place ? — A. 
 Mr. Durant. 
 
 Q. He directed you to receive from Mr. Brooks $10,000, and to transfer 
 all these securities? — A. Yes; and afterward, by Mr. Brooks's direction, 
 I transferred the stock to Mr. Neilson. 
 
 Q. Can you tell us how many dividends have been paid upon this 
 Credit Mobilier stock iu all 1 — A. I could not without reference to the 
 books. • 
 
 Q. Were any paid in 1869 ? — A. I am not certain. The books will 
 tell all about that. 
 
 Q. What books ? — A. The books of the contractors for the Oakes 
 Ames contract. 
 
 Q. Where are they t— A. I do not know where they are ; I suppose in 
 Boston. 
 
 Q. Have you not a pretty distinct recollection about the number of 
 dividends paid ? — A. I have not. I know there were several dividends, 
 amounting to quite a large sum. 
 
 Q. You hold some of the stock? — A. Yes, sir. \ 
 
 Q. Have you no recollection as to how much you collected ? — A. No ; 
 I know 1 got as much as everybody else. I was careful to know that, I 
 can tell you. I cannot give you the details. . They are all on the books 
 in plain writing. There was no secret about it. There were several 
 dividends ; one made iu January, 1868 ; I remember this. They came 
 along pretty thick. 
 
 Q. Kefer to the list of dividends now shown you, and see if you re- 
 member them as there stated. — A. I cannot tell anything about that. 
 If I had the books I could tell you exactly how many dividends were 
 made. I know the last one named in this list is right. 
 
 Q. Do you remember any since the last date in that list ? — ^A- No ; 
 not since the last date. 
 
 By the Ohaikman : 
 
 Q. Do you know whether this stock, transferred from Mr. Durant to 
 Mr. Neilson, was really Mr. Durant's stock ? — A. I think it really was. 
 I think he paid for it. 
 
 Q. Can you give us any reason why he should sell this stock at par, 
 with all its accretions, at that time ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. What I want to get at is, whether this was Mr. Durant's property 
 which he was selling for the best price he could get, or really the stock 
 of the company which they chose to let somebody have. — A. It was Mr. 
 Durant's stock, which he had a right to do what he pleased with. I do 
 not know anything about it. 
 
 Q. Do you know any reason why he should give so large a return for 
 that $10,000 ?— A. I do not know of any reason. Mr. Brooks and he 
 were on friendly terms. I do not know of any reason why he should 
 have given him that chance. 
 
 Q. 1)0 you know anything about the relations between Mr. Durant 
 and Mr. Neilson ? — A. I do not know whether Mr. Durant knew Mr. 
 Neilson. I do not think I had ever seen him until that transaction. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 Q. In speaking of the dividends which the Credit Mobilier made, you 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 159 
 
 refer to the Credit Mobilier proper, and not to the trustees of the Ames 
 contract?— A. I am speaking of the dividends which came from the 
 Ames contract. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Mr. Ham has said there never was but one dividend made by the 
 Credit Mobilier to his knowledge. Did you hear what he stated upon 
 that subject ? — A. I did. 
 
 Q. Did he state correctly ? — A. I think it very likely he did. You 
 may call it an allotment or a dividend ; it makes no difference as to what 
 term you use. They got the securities. I think his statement is cor- 
 rect. 
 
 Q. The issuing of one bond for every thousand dollars of additional 
 stock of the Credit Mobilier does not appear on the books as a dividend? — 
 A. 'So ; it was a resolution on the books by which parties were induced 
 to take the increase of stock. 
 
 Q. It was to sharpen the appetite of the subscribers? — A. Their ap- 
 petite did not need much sharpening. 
 
 By Mr. Smithees : 
 
 Q. You speak of a draft having been given by Mr. Brooks in- part 
 payment for the one hundred shares of stock. Was that draft paid at 
 maturity ? — A. It was in this way : Mr. Brooks had made a loan to Mr. 
 Dnrant, which matured the 22d of January, and this draft was applied 
 in part payment of the loan. 
 
 Q. On whom was the draft drawn ? — A. That I have not said ; my 
 impression is that the draft was made on himself. I think I paid $6,000 
 on the loan, $3,000 of which was covered by this draft. 
 
 By Mr. Bkooks : 
 
 Q. Do you know how much money I loaned Mr. Durant? — A. Yes, 
 sir; October 19, 1867, you loaned him $25,000 for three months. This 
 obligation matured the 22d of January. You had as security for it four 
 hundred and fifty shares of Credit Mobilier stock collateral, and we 
 paid you 10 per cent, interest for 'the money. When that matured, or 
 rather two days beforematurity,wereduced that $25,000 loan to $19,000 
 and gave three hundred and ninety shares Credit Mobilier stock as col- 
 lateral. That matured the 23d of April, and 1 paid 10 per cent, interest 
 on that. The 30th of January we had $43,000, for which you had seven 
 hundred and fifty shares of Credit Mobilier stock as collateral. This 
 matured the 3d of May, 1868, and you had 10 per cent, interest; I then 
 reduced the amount to $40,000, and paid a thousand dollars as commis- 
 sion, and 10 per cent, interest. That matured August 5. The 5th of 
 August the amount was made $45,000, for which you had 7 per cent, 
 interest and commission. That matured October 7. October 7 the 
 note was renewed at $45,000, at 11 per cent, interest, running until 
 January 8, 1869, when I think it was paid off. 
 
 Q. Was that anything beyond the current rates of interest on Mr. 
 Durant's paper ? — A. It was fully as much as we paid any one. 
 
 Q. You paid that to others ? — A. I do not recollect. We may have ; 
 we used a great deal of money. 
 
 Q. Was there anything unnatural, considering Dr. Durant's great 
 want of money, that he should sell one hundred shares of Credit Mo- 
 bilier stock at par ? — A. I do not think he was obliged to sell it at par. 
 I should say he could have got a good deal more for those one hundred 
 shares of stock. 
 
 Q. It may have been worth more at the time of delivery ; was it not 
 
160 CEEDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 contracted for some time before? — A. I know nothing about that. I 
 recollect that about that time we sold two hundred and fifty shares at 160. 
 Q. Let me ask you, in connection with that if, in the testimony of Mr. 
 Durant taken in the Fisk suit, he does not swear that the highest he 
 ever sold this stock was 136 ?— 'A. I know nothing about that. I have 
 testified in regard to a sale that I do know about. 
 
 By the Chaiemabt : 
 Q. Can you state the name of the party to whom the sale was made 
 at 160?' — A. It was made tb John B. Alley. That was in January, 1868. 
 I think the stock was really worth 200 at that time. 
 
 By Mr. Brooks : 
 Q. Was not Dr. Durant very desirous to obtain money on his paper ? — 
 A. We have always used a great deal of money ; his transactions were 
 very large. 
 
 By Mr. Meeeick : 
 
 Q, Was there any difiiculty in getting purchasers of Credit Mobilier 
 stock at rates above par? — A. I should not think there would be for 
 parties who knew anything about it. 
 
 By ]\Ir. Beooks : 
 
 Q. Tou spoke of a check of mine of December 24, for $7,000, and a 
 draft of $3,000 ; how do you know that was not in payment of the loans 
 I had made ? — A. I made the entries myself. They state what the 
 checks were for. 
 
 Q. Have you the books here ? — A. I^To, sir; but I know that this check 
 and draft were in payment of Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
 Q. Tou are sure that was not in payment of the Joan ? — A. I am very 
 sure. 
 
 Q. Tou say I received five bonds at that time ? — A. That is my im- 
 pression. 
 
 Q. Did you get a receipt for them ?— A. Fo,, sir; it did not require 
 any receipt. 
 
 Q. Are you in the habit of delivering bonds to a third party without 
 taking a receipt ? — A. If you paid the money I considered the stock as 
 belonging to you. It was, by your direction, transferred to Mr. Neilson ; 
 I know nothing about that. I have stated the transaction simply as 1 
 know it. < 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Neilson ever give you any receipts for his dividends ?— A. 
 O, yes. All the dividends that were paid out of the Oakes Ames con- 
 tract I paid and took receipts from the parties. 
 
 Q. Tou always took receipts from Mr. Neilson ?— A. I did, unless the 
 dividends were paid on his order. 
 
 Q. Did you ever give them to me ?— A. No ; I had nothing to do with 
 you on this stock. It being in Mr. Neilson's name prevented you from 
 collecting it anyhow. It was impossible for you to collect the dividends 
 while the stock was in Mr. Eeilson's name. 
 
 Q. What creates the impression on your mind that I received five 
 bonds — what could the five bonds have been received for? — A. I find in 
 my cash-book that I was to transfer two hundred shares of Union Pa- 
 cific Ka'ilroad stock to Neilson and one hundred shares of Credit Mobilier 
 stock to Neilson and deliver "five bonds. There was no need of any re- 
 ceipt, and there would be no record except in the cash-book. 
 
 Q. With whom were your transactions in behalf of Mr. Durant with 
 me injegard to these loans?— A. With Mr. Kingsley, your book-keeper 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 161 
 
 Most generally you came with him if you were in town. The trans- 
 actions were done with you and the checks for interest given to your 
 order. 
 
 Q. Then my indorsement musrt have been on them! — A. Not always. 
 When you were out of town, Mr. Kingsley would take them. I have 
 some checks to your order and some to Mr. Kingsley's. 
 
 Q. These five bonds were ])art and parcel of the delivery of the one 
 hundred shares of Credit Mobilie'r stock? — A. Yes; they are so entered 
 on my book. I took a copy of the entry, and if you want me to I will 
 read it. 
 
 Q. I understand that you delivered one hundred shares, and also de- 
 livered two hundred shares of stock and the bonds, but the why and 
 wherefore you do not know'? — A. I do not, except tbat it was part of 
 the trade between you and Dr. Durant. 
 
 y. Are you quite sure you were cognizant of the transactions between 
 Dr. Durant and myself! — A. I know the transactions— yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Are you very sure of that! — A. 1 have had charge of his business 
 for sixteen years or eighteen years. All the money that has been paid 
 ui^on the checks I have drawn. 
 
 Q. May he not have made contracts without your knowledge! — A. 
 There may have been matters outside of his legitimate business, of 
 course, that 1 do not know about. 
 
 Q. You only know in )egard to real money transactions, but nothing 
 of the circumstances surrounding them ' — A. Nothing at all. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Q. If you have a copy of the entry in the books to wliich you refer 
 with you, you will please read it to the committee. — A. 1 have it here, 
 and it reads as follows: 
 
 Memorandum of loans. 
 
 October 19, 1867, $25,000, 10 per cent., 450 Credit Mobilier of America, due January 
 22, 1868. 
 
 January 20, 1868, $19,000, 10 per cent., 390 Credit Mobilier of America, duo April 23, 
 1868. 
 
 January 30, 1868, $43,000, 10 per cent., 750 Credit Mobilier of America, due May 3, 
 1868. 
 
 May 2, 1868, $44,000, 7 per cent., $1,000 conimisaion, 750 Credit Mobilier of America, 
 due August 5, 1868. 
 
 August 5, 1668, .$45,000, 7 per cent., (certificatee,) 50 Union Pacific bond.s, due October 
 7, 1868. 
 
 October 7, 1868, .$4o,000, 11 per cent., (certificates,) 50 Union Pacific bonds, due Jan- 
 uary 8, 1869. 
 
 Cash-book : 
 
 December 24, 1867.— Stock account Credit Mobilier of America for transferring to J. 
 Brooks's son-in-law one hundred hhares stock at par, with the five bouds Union Pacific 
 Railroad Company, and two hiindred Uuiou Pacific stock as earnings on the stock, 
 ,$7,000 cash ; draft, due 22d January, |3,000=$10,000. 
 ^tf<; T Check-book : 
 (^Deposit, December 24, 1867, Fourth National Bank, James Brooks, $7,000. 
 
 Check-book, Fourth National: 
 Bills payable, January 20, 1868.— J. Brooks on account note due this day, cash. $3, 000 
 Draft... -• 3,000 
 
 6,000 
 
 Renewed for $19,000. 
 
 January 20, 1868.— To interest account on J. Erooks's note $474 74 
 
 Charge bills payable 25,000 00 
 
 Credit bills payable l^*. OOP "» 
 
 January 20, 1868, 3 months. 
 1 1 -t- 
 
162 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 By Mr. Beooks : 
 Q. You say the draft for $3,000 was drawn on myself ?— A. I think it 
 was, but have nothing to show. It was paid in settlement of the loan 
 iti January. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Were the rates of interest paid by Mr. Durant to Mr. Brooks upon 
 these loans as high as the ordinary rates of interest for money in New 
 York ■? — A. I should think they were. I have not examined, however, 
 to asccitaiii that fact. I looked over the books to see what I paid. 
 
 Q. Was Mr. Duraut using very considerable amounts of money about 
 that time, and paying as good rates of interest to others ? — A. I pre- 
 sume so. 
 
 Washington, D. 0., January 14, 1873. 
 Thomas 0. Dueant sworn and examined. 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Question. State your residence and occupation. — Answer. I reside in 
 New York, and I am railroad contractor and builder. 
 
 Q. Were you a stockholder of the Union Pacific Eailroad '? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. One of the original stockholders ? — A. I was an original stock- 
 holder and a subscriber to a very large amount of the stock of that 
 company. 
 
 Q. "Were you also a director of that company? — A. I was also a 
 director. 
 
 Q. Have you been ever since its organization ? — A. I was director 
 and vice-president of the company from the time of its organization 
 until the last rail was laid. 
 
 Q. Can you state the time when you ceased to be a director? — A. I 
 think it was in May or June, 1869. 
 
 Q. Since that time have you had any connection with the Union 
 Pacific Railroad as an officer? — A. No. 
 
 Q. Were you a stockholder of the Credit Mobilier? — A. I was. 
 
 Q. One of the largest? — A. The largest, and president from the 
 time it took an interest in the Hoxie contract until the contract was 
 executed. I was president until May, 1867. 
 
 Q. You were president of that company from the time of its organi- 
 zation as a contractor of the Union Pacific Eailroad until May, 1867 ! — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you continue to be an officer of that company in any capacity 
 after that time? — A. No, sir. The connection of that corporation with 
 the Union Pacific Eailroad Company ceased at that time, except to guar- 
 antee the Oakes Ames contract. 
 
 Q. Were you one of the board of trustees to whom the Ames contract 
 was iissigned? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you continue to be one of those trustees up to the present 
 time ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did these trustees keep books and records of their proceedings in 
 regard to these transactions? — A. They did. 
 
 Q. Have you these books? — A. 1 have not; I have certified copies of 
 them. 
 
 Q. Of everything?— A. I do not know whether I have of everything. 
 I think the books were sent to Boston. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 163 
 
 Q. In wliosfe custody are they? — A. They were sent to the president 
 •of the board of trustees, Oliver Ames. 
 
 ' Q. Is he now president of that board "? — A. He is chairman of the 
 board. I think he gave an order for them to be sent there. I am not 
 positive about that. 
 
 Q. It seems that at one time there was a quantity of this Credit Mo- , 
 bilier stock assigned to Oakes Ames, three hundred and forty-three 
 shares. Do you know anything in reference to that transaction? — A. 
 I think there is a resolution on the books of the railroad bureau of the 
 Credit Mobilier, or of the board of directors, giving a certain amount 
 of the stock to Mr. Ames and myself. 1 have here that resolution 
 autho4zing the transfer of $65,000 of the Credit Mobilier sfock to Mr. 
 Ames and myself, at par and interest, in accordance with the request 
 of a large majority of the stockholders. This resolution is dated Jan- 
 uary 4, 1868. 
 
 Q. That resolution was adopted at that date, was it? — A. It was 
 adopted at that date, and passed by the committee of the Credit 
 Mobilier, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Alley, and Mr. Hazard being present. 
 
 Q. Do Mr. Dillon, Mr. Alley, and Mr. Hazard constitute the whole of 
 that executive committee ? — A. I do not know who the executive com- 
 mittee were. 
 
 Q. Who was president of the company at that time f — A. Sidney 
 Dillon. 
 
 Q. This resolution refers to stock held in trust by Mr. Ames with 
 various parties. Can you tell us what that means? — A. I cannot. I 
 suppose it refers to the stock of the company. I had nothing to do with 
 the company at that time, and I never saw the resolution till sometime 
 afterward. 
 
 <J. Who the various parties were he held it for you do not know ? 
 A. I do not know. 
 
 ■Q. Did you have anything to do with these transactions, or were you 
 present at the time the transfer was made? — A. No, sir; I was not. 
 
 Q. What does the expression " as agreed upon by Thomas C. Diirant 
 and Oakes Ames" mean"? — A. That, I presume, refers to the agreement 
 previously made to distribute the stock on hand to certain parties. 
 
 Q. Were you present when that paper was executed ? — A. I think it 
 was presented to me, and that I signed it, to distribute some of the 
 stock on hand. 
 
 Q. Have you any record or copy of that paper? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You do not know where it is? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you ever had the custody of it? — A. I never had. 
 
 Q,. After that resolution was there some stock transferred to you? — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What amount? — A. I do not recollect ; I suppose one-half of it. 
 
 Q. For what purpose was it transferred ? — A. To enable me to fulfill 
 engagements I had made before that time to let various parties have 
 stock. Most of them I agreed with before I left the presidency of the 
 company, in 1867. 
 
 Q. Can you name any persons you had such engagements with? — A. 
 I think I had engagements for seventy-five or eighty thousand dollars' 
 worth of stock, which I had to carry out to a large extent from my own 
 stock. I transferred to Mr. Lockwood, I think, five hundred shares, and 
 to Mr. Barton Jenks, of Philadelphia, I think, some three hundred. I 
 had engagements which I was obliged to comply with, and which I did 
 out of my own stock, as I stated. 
 
 Q. Do you know what amount of stock w is transferred to Mr. Ames 
 
164 CltKDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 under that ariangement? — A. I do not know. lean easily ascertain. 
 I think some $30^000 worth. 
 
 Q. Do you know anything in relation to the persons to whom Mr. 
 Ames was to transfer that stock ; for whom he received it ? — A. I do not 
 know. It was his own stock, his own matter. 
 
 Q.- Did you learn anything from him, Mr. Ames, in reference to whom 
 it was for"?— A. I heard Mr. Ames speak of it two or three times; I 
 heard him say that he had offered it to different parties ; he had a list 
 of names that I remember ; Mr. Colfax was one ; I do not know who 
 else ; I did not pay any attention to it. 
 
 Q. Do you remember any other names besides that of Mr. Colfax'? — 
 A. 1 do not ; Mr. Colfax's name struck me, he being a prominent man ; 
 that is how I came to remember that name. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether the list contained the names of other 
 members of Congress ? — A. I think it did. 
 
 Q. But you do not remember who they were 2 — A. No ; I was under 
 the impression at the time that there were several gentlemen he talked 
 with, but that he was getting the stock for himself. 
 
 Q. State whether on or about the 2Gth of December, 1867, you sold or 
 transferred one hundred shares of stock. — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. "Will you state whether Mr. Neilson was one of the men with 
 whom you had engagements? — A. I never had any conversations with 
 Mr. Neilson. 
 
 Q. Did you know him T — A. I may have known him by sight; I do 
 not know whether I should recognize him if I were to see him to-day. 
 
 Q. Had you any arrangement with Mr. Brooks ? — A. I had, but this 
 was entirely a business arrangement between Mr. Brooks and myself, 
 which was settled between us in that way, and settled without any re- 
 gard to his being a member of Congress ; in fact, 1 had no idea of any 
 further legislation ever being wanted at that time, and no idea of any 
 service that was to be rendered, orhad been rendered, in Congress by 
 him. 
 
 Q. State what the transaction was between you and Mr. Brooks. — A. 
 In the early part of 1867, or late in 1866, the Credit Mobilier executive 
 committee made propositions to the Union Pacific Railroad. At that 
 time the Union Pacific Railroad was owing some money. The Credit 
 Mobilier proposed to take securities of the railroad company to the 
 amount of $6,000,000, embracing some of their first-mortgage bonds, 
 which had never been sold in the market, and some land-grant bonds, 
 and I think some stock, for which thQ company was to go on building a 
 portion of the road. At that time they had no contract with the Union 
 Pacific Railroad. They proposed having an increase of capital stock of 
 50 per cent, on the amount of original stock, and giving the different 
 stockholders the right to come in within a given time and subscribe for 
 the stock. These bonds were taken from the Union Pacific Company at 
 85. In order to get subsci'iptions for this additional stock, as the Credit 
 Mobilier had no contract on hand, (it had finished its contract,) all its 
 assets were not sufficient to furnish much inducement to new stock- 
 holders to come in, they agreed to give for each two thousand dollars of 
 new stock a thousand-dollar bond, for which they paid 85. Or it may 
 be a thousand-dollar bond for each thousand dollars, or ten shares of 
 the stock. I always reg?rded it as virtually watering their stock so 
 much. The stock was increased 50 per cent., and the amount paid on 
 the increase was returned less 15 per cent., taking the bonds at 85, 
 Avhich the Credit Mobilier ]iaid for it. That was the first sale of bonds, 
 I think, the Union Pacific Railroad Company made. About that time 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 165 
 
 many partiesiu interest were desirous of placing a portion of the stock, 
 and it was about that time I had my first conversation with Mr. Brooks 
 relati ve to the affairs of the Credit' Mobilier. Mr. Brooks thought he 
 would be able to place four or five hundred thousand dollars of these 
 securities, and I offered him, if he would do so, or could do so, a com- 
 mission of 5 per cent. I went with him, I know, to one party, 0. K. 
 •Garrison. ^h\ Brooks told me at various times that he was trying to 
 place it, and said that he would like to take fifteen or twenty thousand 
 dollars of it himself. Afterward he spoke of having devoted consider- 
 able time to the matter, and asked me if I could not give him this stock 
 so that it would date back. That 1 could not do under the circum- 
 stances. The stock had become valuable. Still he wanted his fifteen 
 or twenty thousand dollars of it, and it was pretty' difficult to get hold 
 of it then. Everybody who had ever talked about it wanted it then. 
 I finally arranged it with Mr. Brooks to give hiai one hundred shares 
 of Credit Mobilier stock at par, and with the one hundred shares to 
 give $20,000 Union Pacific Kailroad stock and 85,000 Union Pacific 
 Eailroad bonds. I ])referred to do that rather than to give him what 
 he claimed, two hundred shares of stock. About that time be had been 
 appointed Government director, and very properly suggested that he 
 -could not and would not hold the stock, being a Government director; 
 in fact, I think an act of Congress prohibited the Government directors 
 from holding any of the stock of the Union Pacific Company, and it 
 ■was transferred to Mr. jS^eilson, by his instructions, without ever being 
 in his own name. 
 
 Q. Have you had any negotiation with Mr. Neilson on the subject ? — 
 A. O, no. 
 
 Q. The whole transaction was with Mr. Brooks? — A. The whole trans- 
 action was with Mr. Brooks. At that time I had no idea that we should 
 ever be before Congress for anything; and the transfer of this stock 
 "had nothing whatever to do with any past or future services in Congress. 
 
 Q. From whom did you receive payment for the one hundred shares ? — 
 A. Mr. Brooks made the payment to Mr. Crane, I think. Mr. Brooks 
 made no concealment of the matter at all. He mentioned Mr. Neilson, 
 ■and stated that he did not wish to have it transferred to his own name. 
 
 Q. Did you understand that this was really to be transferred to Neil- 
 -son as Neilson's stock, or that it was to be transferred to the name of 
 Neilson for the benefit of Mr. Brooks'? — A. I knew nothing of it, except 
 that it was transferred to Mr. Neilson. 
 
 Q. From the negotiation you had with Mr. Brooks did you under- 
 stand that the stock really became the stock of Mr. Brooks when you 
 made this transfer? — A. I did not know whether he had sold it, or what 
 he had done with it. 
 
 Q. You had nothing to do with Neilson? — A. O, nothing at all. I 
 did not see Neilson. 
 
 Q. Did you ever have anything to do with Neilson ' — A. The only 
 time I ever had anything to do with Neilson was after 1 had returned 
 from Europe, when he came and asked about the dividends on the fifty 
 shares. I asked him what fifty shares; that he had uo business with 
 any fifty shares; that I had settled up everything he was entitled to. 
 
 Q. Upon the one.hundred shares you transferred to Mr. Brooks had 
 you taken the 50 per cent, addition to which you were entitled ? — A. I 
 think so. I transferred my own stock — stock that was transferred to 
 me from the company in the same way tiiat my other stock was. I 
 bave a copy of the transfer-books here, 1 think. 
 
 Q. What I want to get at is whether each original stockholder was 
 
166 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 entitled to take 50 per cent, additional stock ?— A. Yes, sir, within a 
 certain time. 
 
 Q. Had you taken all the additional stock to which you were entitled 
 on the stock you had ? — A. 1 think so ; on all the stock that stood in my 
 name. 
 
 Q. When you transferred the one hundred shares to Mr. Neilson, did 
 he acquire any right "to purchase fifty additional shares ! — A. No : the- 
 time had passed. 
 
 Q. And you had received the increase also 1 — As If it stood in ray 
 name I had. 
 
 Q. But it did stand in your name, did it not T — A. It did. 
 
 Q. So that no right passed over to him to have that additional 
 stock 'I — A. O, no. 
 
 Q. Do you know anything in regard to his receiving fifty shares of 
 stock subsequently ? — A. I do not. I was absent in Europe when he- 
 received it. 
 
 Q. Mr. Neilson did subsequently receive fifty shares of stock °S — A. I 
 saw one hundred and fifty shares in his name on the books, instead of 
 one hundred. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether, when he received that fifty shares of stocky 
 he received an equal amount at par uf Pacific Railroad bonds 1 — A. I 
 do not. I presume he did not. 
 
 Q. Why do you presume that? — A. Because I think they had paid 
 out all the bonds. I suppose the fact can be very easily stated from the 
 books. 
 
 Q. Tou suppose he did not receive it, then, because he was not enti- 
 tled to receive it, not receiving the stock as an increase on the one 
 hundred shares ? — A. He would not be entitled to it ordinarily. I do- 
 not know what promises Mr. Ames may have made to him. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Brooks say anything to you iu relation to this, when he- 
 paid for the stock, that he was advancing it as a loan to Mr. Neilson ! — 
 A. He said nothing about it. 'I was under the impression that Mr. 
 Brooks intended to take the stock in his own name, but that afterward 
 his oflicial relations to the company changed, and he had to dispose of 
 it, so that when he came to the office of the company to pay for it, it 
 was not placed in his name. 
 
 Q. Until the negotiation was completed the only knowledge you had 
 was that Mr. Brooks was taking it for himsblf? — A. That was all. 
 When the transaction commenced between us, I would have been very 
 glad to have had him take it, and offered him 5 per cent, to place it. 
 But the value of the stock increased very suddenly. The moment the 
 Oakes Ames contract was executed, there were $4,000,000 of profits on 
 liand. The stock of the Credit Mobilier suddenly became very valu- 
 able, and everybody who had any sort of claim for it came forward and' 
 wanted it. 
 
 Q. But to outsiders, who had no claim, you would not have sold the 
 stock at par ? — A. No ; but everybody I had ever talked with came for- 
 ward Hnd wanted it then. 
 
 Q. How much did you consider the stock worth then ? — A. I do not 
 know what it was worth at that time. I think I made a sale or option.- 
 about that time at 160, and it was worth a much higher price then, as I 
 supposed. 
 
 Q. Was that the stock you sold to Mr. Alley ? — ^A. Yes, sir. 
 ' Q. The transfer of that was on the 20th December, according to the 
 books? — A. Yes. It carried with it a dividend which was made on the 
 12th or 13th of December. The books were about to be closed, and 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 167 
 
 ivery body wanted to get the stock ia his own name in order to draw 
 he dividend. 
 
 Q. Do I understand, that you sold this stock to Mr. Alley at 160 ! — A. I 
 rave him a call for it at 160. I think it was worth 200 at the time, or 
 norc, when the traiisfer was made. 
 
 Q. You understood that .you parted with that stock to Mr. Brooks ? — 
 1. Yes, and simply to settle what he claimed as ah obligation. There 
 A'as some difference of opinion as to how much he was entitled to, and 
 [ preferred to give him less stock and give him a bonus with it. 
 
 Q. Can you state from memory the amount of dividends which had 
 been paid upon theCrebit Mobilier stock in all? — A. I cannot; no, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you books here that will show that? — A. I have the trus- 
 tees' receipts for dividends, which will show. These books contain the 
 dividends made upon the Ames contract, and give the receipts of each 
 party receiving the dividends. 
 
 Q. This book shows the first d'ividend was December 13, payable the 
 3d January, 1868. That was a dividend upon those one hundred shares 
 of stock. you transferred to ISTeilson on the 26tli December? — A. The 
 receipt will show. 
 
 Q. The book shows that Mr. Neilson received this 12th of December 
 dividend of $6,000 Union Pacific Railroad bonds on one hundred shares, 
 and $3,000 Union Pacific Eailroad bonds on fifty shares 1 — A. Yes ; he 
 was entitled to whatever dividends there were on the stock standing 
 in his name before the books were closed. I repeat that this was a set- 
 tlement in the nature of a compromise with Mr. Brooks, by which I 
 gave him fifteen or twenty thousand dollars in value rather than all the 
 stock he ^•laimed. The stock was worth intrinsically twice its par value, 
 from the fact that it carried with it the right to participate in the profit 
 of the Ames contract. 
 
 Q. The next dividend seems to ha.ve been declared Januai'y -3, 1868, 
 payable the same day ? — A. Yes. The stockholders in the Credit Mo- 
 bilier were, by virtue of an agreement signed by them, entitled to share 
 in the profits of the Ames contract. After they had signed the agree- 
 ment, they all came in as co-partners, every man being liable for the 
 entire amount,,although he may have had but a single ^hare of stock. 
 
 Q. On the 3d of January Mr. l!Teilson seems to have received $2,000 
 Union Pacific Eailroad bonds on his one hundred shares, and $1,000 on 
 the fifty shares. The other dividends following were on the 10th of 
 January, the 8th of April, and the 17th of June, when he received a 
 cash dividend of $9,000 i.—A. Yes ; by the terms of agreement between 
 the" Oakes Ames contractors and the'Pacific road, the Credit Mobilier 
 was to guarantee the contract and receive 2J per cent, commission on 
 its advances of money to the trustees in case they wanted it. The 
 trustees pushed forward the road pretty rapidly, and soon called upon 
 the Credit Mobilier for a million dollars. Thej' did not respond, and 
 the agreement was canceled with the Credit Mobilier. 
 • Q. This paper dated October 15,1867, agreeing to the Ames contract, 
 you understand to have been signed by Mr. jSTeilson? — A. Yes; it was 
 aissented to by all the stockholders. 
 
 Q. You understand that the stock represented by these signers em- 
 braced the entire stock ? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. State whether the dividend declared December 29, 1868, paya- 
 ble January 1, 1869, for three hundred shares, was Union Pacific Kail- 
 road stock. — A. That is Union Pacific Railroad stock. 
 
 Q. Was this the last dividend?— A. That is the last divideiid ever 
 made. 
 
168 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. Were all tbese dividends made by the trustees of the Ames con- 
 tract"? — A. Yes; and they embrace more than the actual iirofits on the 
 Ames contract. 
 
 Q. I understand that considerable work had been performed before 
 the Ames contract was executed ? — A. There v.-as a contract known as 
 the Hoxie contract, which the Credit Mobilier extended to the one him- 
 dredlli meridian, 249 miles. The Oakes Ames contract was for 0(57 miles. 
 The Oakes Ames contract was assigned, it I remember, in October, 
 1867. I think the road had then 500 miles built. 
 
 Q. Had there been dividends upon the Credit Mobilier stock before it 
 went into the hands of the trustees ? — A. The Credit Mobilier took a 
 contract, I think, at $50,000 a mile, but were obliged to take a larger 
 portion of the stock than was specified under the contract, because 
 the Union Pacific Eailroad had not money to carry it on. 1 think on 
 the first of that stock which they took. they paid 30 per cent., and sold it 
 to the stockholders at 71 ; the arrangement being that they M'ould 
 pay 1 per cent, on it and be subject to a call of 70 per cent. Afterward 
 , the arrangement was that the parties who had taken stock should pay 
 for their stock in full. I think there were two dividends on the Credit 
 Mobilier stock at 6 per cent. Then, if I recollect, there was an adjust- 
 ment of interest. After they put in Mr. Dillon as president they made 
 an ndjustment. Some of the stockholder's had come in late, and it was 
 not considered fair that they should come in at the full rate, and they 
 adjusted the rate of interest at 12 or 14 per cent, from the time they put 
 their money in, so as to give them a starting point. 
 
 Q. D!d the stock you sold to Mr. Neilson or Mr. Brooks have the 
 benefit of all these dividends? — A. That was all long passed. They 
 only got what this book shows. It was the Ames contract which made 
 the stock valuable; but it was always supposed that they would get 
 some sort of a .contract. 
 
 Q. You have spoken of j^our obligation to Mr. Brooks. It was your 
 understanding that by virtue of that obligation he was to have some 
 stock ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Something has appeared in reference to money transactions be- 
 tween you and Mr. Brooks. Had it any reference to this 'i—A. None at 
 all. At one time I was using considerable money, and borrowed from 
 Mr. Brooks. Afterward the company were paying much higher rates 
 than I could pay, and Mr. Brooks loaned his money to the company. 
 
 Q. The obligation you felt under to Mr. Brooks had no reierence to 
 your money dealings with him 1—A: Not at all. I could not have told 
 whether there was $5,000 or $75,000 between us. All that was in the 
 hands of Mr. Crane. 
 
 By Mr. Mereick : 
 
 Q. This was, then, a personal sale of yours to Mr. Brooks to enable 
 you to raise money?— A. No, sir; I could, have taken a very much 
 larger amount for the stock and securities which went with it. 'it was 
 simply an unsettled account. Mr. Brooks had been very active in try- 
 ing to place stock, and I preferred to give him this stock and securities 
 rather than to give him the stock he claimed. 
 
 Q. Do you know of any Credit Mobilier stock having been transferred 
 by any person whatever to members of Congress ?— A. No, sir; except 
 as shown on that list. 
 
CItEDIT MOBII^IEE. 169 
 
 Washington, D. C, Jannnry 15, 1873. 
 
 Examiuatiou of Thomas C. Dueant continued. 
 By the CJhahjman : 
 
 Question. State whether the Pacific Railroad stock and raih'oad bonds 
 vere to go with these one hundred shares of stock which jou made a 
 iontract for with Mr. Brooks. — Answer. That was entirely in conse- 
 quence of the contract. 
 
 Q. You made the contract ? — A. Yes, and I gave less Credit Mobilier 
 stock than was claimed. 
 
 Q. If you had sold him or sold anybody one hundred- shares of that 
 5tock, and there had been no special agreement for bonds or railroad 
 stock, they would not have gone with it? — A. O, no, sir; the time had 
 gone past for all that. 
 
 Q. It was entirely, then, by virtue of your contract with Mr. Brooks 
 that this- railroadstock and the bonds went .with the Credit Mobilier 
 stock? — A. Yes, sir ; Mr. Brooks claimed more stock, and, as a compro- 
 mise of a disputed claim between us, I agreed to give him that. The , 
 bonds and stock were not a dividend of the Credit Mobilier ; they were 
 simply a compromise of a disputed claim. It was pretty dilficult then 
 cogetlhe stock, and I preferred he should have more securities and less 
 stock. This was not any dividend. The dividend-books will show the 
 iividends. 
 
 Q. Do you know anything with reference to the original suVjsoriptions 
 to the Credit Mobilier stock ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have j-ou a list of the early sabscribers — the first subscriptions 
 made? — A. Before I answer that question, I will make a statement 
 which will enable you to understand the answer better. The Credit 
 Mobilier was a charter for what was called the Pennsylvania Fiscal 
 Agency ; some parties had subscribed for stock enough to organize the 
 3ompany, and had paid, I think, 1 or 3 per cent, on the stock, but 
 there had never been anything done until the charter passed into 
 aew hands, at the time we made the second subscription, which em- 
 braced all the stock. I think I can give you from the books of the con- 
 pany the first subscription, and also the second, which is probably what 
 ^'ou want. 
 
 Q. I mean the subscription after it was contemplated to have some 
 jonuection with the Union Pacific Eailroad "? — A. Yes, sir ; 1 have that 
 bere. I have a notarial copy of it, but this will answer the same thing 
 here. This gives the conditions of the subscription — the original sub- 
 scription by virtue of which the Credit Mobilier had anything to do with 
 the road. The conditions of that subscription were that the railway por- 
 tion of the company should be managed by a railway bureau to consist 
 af five members. After these subscriptions were made it was suggested 
 to increase the number to a committee of seven. 
 
 Q. Do you know a man by the name of Alexander E. Laingf — A. I 
 think there is a man by the name of Laing in 'New York. 
 
 Q. Do you know him? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Had he any connection with this matter in any way ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 ■Q. Do you know whether he was a subscriber to this stock in any 
 tvay ? — A. I think I can explain what there is about him. Some par- 
 ses were interested in this Pennsjdvania Fiscal Agency when I first 
 ivent into the Credit Mobilier. They had taken a few'shares of stock 
 jefore the branch was established in New York, under the amended 
 jharter. I sent Mr. Train to Philadelphia. We wanted it for a stock 
 )peration, but we could not agree what was to be done with it. Mr. 
 
170 CKEDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Train proposed to go ou an expanded scale, but I abandoned it. I 
 think Mr. Train got some subscriptions ; wliat tliey were I do uotlinow ; 
 they were never collected and returned to the company. These are all 
 the subscribers to the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 Q. That paper gotten up by Train you have not? — A. No, sir; it) 
 never amounted to anything ; he may have got some subscriptions 
 priorto theone you have, but he never returned them to the company; he 
 placed some stock afterward. All the connection the Union Pacific 
 liailroad had with the Credit Mobilier through the contract was an ac- 
 cidental matter entirely; the company attempted to build the road 
 themselves until they exhausted their means. They then made what 
 was known as the.Hoxie contract, but that soon exliausted the means 
 of the friends of the enterprise. They then started a subscription 
 paper to see if they could raise $1,000,000 to enable them to carry on 
 the contract, as a margin to complete the first section of the road. 
 The subscription reached the amount of $1,600,000, and 25 per 
 cent, was paid in. On the next call for an installment on the subscrip- 
 tion the parties would not pay up. They were generally capitalists, and 
 while they were willing to risk the money they had put in, they would 
 not risk their whole fortunes, and it was then suggested that we would 
 get some corporation in which the individual liability would only reach 
 the amount subscribed. We fell upon this corporation, and the parties 
 transferred their subscriptions to it. I have a list here somewhere of 
 the original subscriptions, with the Hoxie contract and all. 
 
 Q. Have you anything here which will show the dividends declared 
 by the Credit Mobilier prior to the Ames contract ? — A. I think we have 
 the books of the company, or copies of them, here, and if you have an 
 expert he can make them up in half an hour. Their dividends were 
 light. 
 
 Q. If you have a book, showing precisely what the dividends were, 
 the committee would be glad to get it. — A. The original book is in the 
 other committee-room. 
 
 By Mr. MeeriCK : 
 
 Q. Be good enough to tell me what other directors, officers, and princi- 
 lial stockholders of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company, besides your- 
 self, were also directors, stockholders, or managers of the Credit Mobi- 
 lier. — A. I think there was none, unless it was Mr. Bushnell and Mr. 
 McComb. The Hoxie contract extended 247 miles, to the one hundredth 
 meridian. That the Credit Mobilier guaranteed to complete in the fall 
 of 1866. Through the Credit Mobilier taking some of their stock at a 
 low price, and dividing or selling it to its stockholders, other parties 
 became interested as stockholders in the Union Pacific liailroad Com- 
 pany. They Avere not original subscribers, but through their interest in 
 the contract with the Credit Mobilier they became stockholders in the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad Company. After that contract was completed 
 they claimed, beiug then large stockholders in the railroad contpany, the 
 right of sitting in the board, and several of these parties were elected 
 as members of the board. 
 
 Q. Can you state which were so elected "I — A. I think Oliver Ames, 
 Mr. Duff, and Mr. Dillon were, and several others whose names I do not 
 recollect. Mr. Oakes Ames was a stockholder in the Credit Mobilier, 
 and also a stockholder in the Union Pacific road. At the time of this 
 election there was a collusion between these parties who were in both 
 corporations. I perhaps should not say collusion, but they became a 
 majority ot the directors. At first there was no contract ; the contract 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 17X 
 
 of the Union Piicific Eailroad Company with Mr. Hoxie was transferred 
 to the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 Q. After the transfer of the Hoxie contract, and before the Ames 
 contract, a majority of the directors and principal stockholders of the 
 Credit Mobilier became also directors of the Union Pacific liailroad 
 Company ?— A. I do not know that I can say a majority ; several of 
 them did. It was subsequent to the Hoxie contract and anterior to the 
 Oakes Ames contract. They made no contract with the Credit Mobi- 
 lier afterward. They passed a resolution shortly after these gentlemen 
 came iu, extending the Hoxie contract at $50,000 a mile, and ordered 
 the Union Pacific Railroad Company to pay that sum to the Credit Mo- 
 bilier. I put an injunction on them on the ground that we were the in- 
 terested party in both companies, and had no right to make a contract 
 with ourselves. That resolution was rescinded and they afterward 
 made a contract with J. M. S. Williams, of Boston. Mr. Williams 
 agreed to transfer the contract to the Credit Mobilier if ho got it. I 
 put an injunction on that arrangement, which has never been dissolved. 
 Then came the contract with (Jakes Ames. In the complaint I made, 
 I, as a matter of policy, agreed to consent to anything that all the 
 stockholders would agree to, and that contract was made provisional 
 on its receiving the assent of all the stockholders of the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad Company. 
 
 Q. Was Oakes Ames a director at that time, or a largo stockholder 
 of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company? — A. He was a stockholder, 
 »ot a director. 
 
 Q. And also a stockholder in the Credit Mobilier ? — A. He was ; he 
 was not a director. This contract was not let to the Credit Mobilier ; 
 it was let to Oakes Ames, and assigned to seven trustees. 
 
 Q. I will ask you if you can state to the committee what was the 
 original contract between you and Mr. Brooks out of which this ulti- 
 mate settlement grew, resulting in the transfer of 100 shares, to which 
 you deposed yesterday. — A. It was in the fore part of 1867— in the 
 spring of 1867. The Union Pacific Eailroad were considerably in debt. 
 I think they owed then four or five million dollars. The Credit Mobi- 
 lier made a proposition to them through their executive committee, to 
 take about $6,000,000 of their securities. I will read the proposition if 
 you wish. It is as follows : 
 
 To the exeeuiire committee of tlie Union Paoijio Railroad Company : 
 
 Gkntlemes: The Credit Moljilksr of America pvopoae to purchase of your company 
 $3,000,000 of land-grant bonds at 80 per cent, of their par value ; l$2,060,000 of iirst- 
 mortgage bonds at 85 per cent, of their par value ; SJ7,50,000 of the certificates of the 
 company convertible into first-mortgage bonds, at 80 per cent, of their face, the said 
 certificates to bear G per cent, interest until the first-mortgage bonds are issued and 
 exchiinged. 
 
 They will loan, or procure to be loaned to the company, $1,250,000 on fonr months' 
 timg, at the rate of 7 per cent, interest per annum, and 2^ per cent, commission, with 
 first-mortgage bonds as collateral security at 66f per cent, of their par value. 
 
 Paynients on purchase and loans to be made as follows, viz : 25 per cent, on or be- 
 fore February 22, l'-<67 ; 25 per cent, on or before March 15, 1867 ; 25 per cent, on or 
 hefore April 5, 1867 ; 25 per cent, on or before April 26, 1867. 
 
 The company to proceed at once to issue the said land-grant bonds ; and if requested 
 so to do by the Credit Mobilier, sh.all issue certificates convertible into the said bonds 
 prior to their being issued. 
 
 This proposition is made on the express condition that your company pay as soon as 
 practicable the balance due on account of contract east of the one hundredth meridian, 
 T)ut which time shall not extend beyond the time of the several payments herein speci- 
 fied in the purchase of bonds, and the further condition that the present contract for 
 "which this company is tlie agent shall be extended so as to include 100 miles west- 
 "ward from the one hundredth meridian as follows : The said 100 miles to be completed 
 to the acceptance of the Government commissioners for the sum of $42,000 per mile. 
 
172 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 The same quantity and kind of material to 1)6 used and tin' work to be of the same 
 general cbaracter as the work on the last 100 niilea east of the one hundredth meridian, 
 with the same guarantee as to cost of iron and price for Buruettiziug timber or ties. 
 
 Turnouts, side-tracks, and station-buildings to be made adequate for the present 
 business of the company as now proposed by the engineer in charge ; should more bo 
 required, the company to pay for iron and superstrncture. 
 
 The hotel at North Platte station to be completed according to the plans and speci- 
 fications adopted. 
 
 Turn-table, engine-house, with ten stalks, blacksmith and repair shop, with station- 
 ary engine suitable for the purpose, two lathe.?, and other tools in proportion, which 
 have been decided as necessary for the immediate requirements of the company; 
 water-tanks at the points heretofore designated by the engineer in charge; also two 
 locomotives and fifty flat cars. 
 
 The running of trains on the road to be under the control of the contractors' super- 
 intendent ; the contractors to pay the cost of transporting material used in construc- 
 tion. 
 
 Payments to be made on the monthly estimate of the chief engineer, which estimates 
 are to be made as in the former coutrait ; contractors to assume all liabilities iiicurred 
 by the company on account of the couhtructiou of said 100 miles. 
 
 By order of the committee: 
 
 BENJ. F. BUNKER, 
 Asuisiant Sccretarij Credit Mohilicr of America. 
 
 ~S\.y7 Yoi!K, Fchruary 13, V6S7. 
 
 The executive committee of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company 
 accepted that proposition of the executive committee of the Credit 
 Mobilier, and the Credit Mobilier, in order to carry it out, immediately 
 increased their capital stocli to $1,200,000, and in order to induce tJieir 
 old subscribers to come iu and put in more money, they otfered a portion 
 of these bonds which they had purchased to each shareholder to come 
 in. The entire proposition was never carried out fully, 
 
 Q. I am not asking you about that. I am asking you for the dale of 
 this contract with Mr. Brooks. — A. It was about the date of the one I 
 am speaking of, tlie payments on which were due between February and 
 April, I should say, of 18C7. At that time the stock was of doubtful 
 value. 
 
 Q. Tou need not go into these matters; I want you to answer the 
 specific question. The original contract out of which this arrangement 
 with Mr. Brooks grew was between February and April, 18071 — A. Yes, 
 sir; perhaps earlier. Mr. Brooks took a great deal of interest in the 
 enterpri.se, and began by looking about to see what could be done. He 
 did not succeed in raising much money among his friends, but he spent 
 a good deal of time, and fluallj' said he thought he would take some of 
 the stock, say from $15,000 to .$25,000. The stock afterward suddenly 
 became valuable. 
 
 Q. Then, if I understand you, Mr. Brooks took an active interest in 
 carrying out the proposition or arrangement which you have read from 
 this paper, and thereupon he claimed from you the privilege of becom- 
 ing a stockholder in the Credit Mobilier? — A. You may call it a privi- 
 lege if you choose; we were very anxiou.s to get anybody to take it then 
 at par. 
 
 (i>. Upon that request of his, was there any specific arrangement on 
 your part to let him have any of your stock'/ — A. He wanted to take 
 between $15,000 and $20,000. 
 
 Q. There was no agreement, then, as to any specific amount 1 — A. 
 Except for $15,000 or $20,000. 
 
 Q. Was tljat all that occurred at that time 1 — A. On several occasions 
 he referred to it. 
 
 Q. Tliat was the basis of his claim? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You and he differed about his demand, and this settlement was 
 the compromise 1 — A. A compromise by giving him this bonus. He 
 
CKEDIT MOBILIER, 173 
 
 wanted $20,000, and claimed he was entitled to $20,000 of tbe Credit 
 Mobilier stock. 
 
 Q. And what did you do ? — A. I do not know. I had several conver- 
 sations with him, and finally made a settlement as I have stated. 
 
 Q. Did you concede his claim or deny it?— A. I conceded his claim, 
 by compromising it. 
 
 Q. Did you before the compromise ? — A. I thought he did not fix a. 
 sum sufficiently definite. 
 
 Q. "What was your position ? — A. My position was to get off with let- 
 ting him have just as little as I could. 
 
 Q. He claimed that he was entitled to $20,000 of stock, and out of 
 that grew the compromise ? — A. I gave him a bonus, as I have stated, 
 and ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
 Q. Was his claim such that he looked to you to give it to him indi- 
 vidually, or was the contract you made to be liquidated between hiuL 
 and the company "? — A. 1 was president of the company at the time it 
 was first talked of, and, I supposed, was tlie only one to dispose of any 
 stock, if there had been any to sell, for the company. 
 
 Q. How did it happen, if you were president of the company, and 
 acted ouly in the character of ijresident of the company, that you made 
 a promise by which you in your individual character made this ultimate 
 adjustment with him ? — A. I had to settle most of these agreements 
 put of my own stock. I was not president at time of settlement. . I 
 got from the company what they would allow me, and had to make it 
 up out of my own stock. 
 
 Q. Did you consider yourself as personally obligated for this arrange- 
 ment made by you as i)resident of the company? — A. Certainly I did. 
 I had taken $600,000 of the stock, which was increased to $900,000. I 
 had spoken to a'great many parties, and most of them were willing ta 
 take it after it had got to be a good thing. 
 
 ,Q. Were there any other members of Congress than Mr. Brooks, within 
 your knowledge, concerned in the stock of the Credit Mobilier? — A. 
 Here is a list of the stockholders and the dividend book. 
 
 Q. I do not suppose their names appear upon the dividend-book at 
 all. Were they interested iu any way ? — A. If they were interested, 
 they must appear, unless they held in the name of others, of which I 
 would have no knowledge. 
 
 Q. Had you any such knowledge, directly or indirectly ? — A. No, sir, 
 except what appears on the books. 
 
 Q. Have you any information from other sources which would enable 
 the committee to arrive at a knowledge of sach transactions'? — A. 1 am 
 sure I do not know where Mr. Ames placed his stock. 1 only know 
 what I saw on the books. 
 
 Q. You have no information, as I understand, from other sources, 
 which you could communicate to the committee that would enable them 
 to ascertain any connection on the part of any other member of Con- 
 gress with the Credit Mobilier? — A. The stock that stands in the name 
 of Mr. Ames, as trustee, I claim belongs to the company yet, and 1 have 
 a summons in a suit iu my pocket waiting to catch him iu IScw York, to 
 sierve the x)apers. 
 
 By Mr. ISTiBLACK: ' 
 
 Q. It seems that B. M. Boyer, a former member of Congress from the>- 
 
 State of Pennsylvania, was one of the stockholders whose name appears 
 
 on the books. How did he become a stockholder'? — A. 1 met Mr. Boyer 
 
 on an excursion over the road in 1800, abjut tbe time we were finishing 
 
174 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 up the first contract-. Mr. Boyer said he thought he would like to in- 
 vest a few thousand dollars in the enterprise if he could make more 
 than his interest out of it; that he had some Government bonds that 
 he could dispose of to raise the mouey. I promised him some stock. 
 He applied several times for it. I rather hesitated in giving it to him, 
 fearing that as he was CKiharking in it on my advice, and as things 
 looked rather blue at that time, he might be disappointed. At any rate, 
 I did not give it to him till several months afterward. 
 
 Q. How much did you let him have eventually ?— A. I think it was 
 fifty shares. He took it at the same price we were then trying to sell it 
 at to other parties. 
 
 Q. At about what period did he become the owner of this stock which 
 was transferred to him 1 — A. He was virtually the owner from the time 
 I promised it to him. He made arrangements to send me the securities 
 as soon as I notified him I wanted them. 
 
 Q. About what time did you transfer this stock to him ? — A. I think 
 it was transferred to him in Decembef, 1867. I am not positive of that. 
 We closed up all our obligations as far as we could as soon as the Oakes 
 Ames contract was made. 
 
 By Mr. McCeaey : 
 
 Q. How much stock in all was put into your bauds to distribute ? — 
 A. I thiuk about a quarter of what I had pi'oinised. When the first in; 
 junction was put on the Union Pacific Eailroad against letting a con- 
 tract to themselves, I was vice-president of one company and president 
 of the other. Of course after that they had no further use for me in 
 the Credit Mobilier Company. I had promised this stock at that time, 
 a portion of it, in fact all of it. There was a balance of my subscription 
 unissued, and, though it was paid for, they issued these six hundred or 
 seven hundred shares, and the certificates were left with the assistant 
 treasurer to be used to fill my contracts. After I left the presidency of 
 the company, the new officers demanded of him the certificates, and 1 
 wastherefore unable to meet my obligations with it. I allowed the stock 
 to be transferred. I told the assistant treasurer in my telegr^im to let 
 them do anything they wanted to, and he wrote a letter, which is here 
 in this book. 
 
 Q. Can you state the amount? — A. I forget the amount. 
 
 Q. Was there any other stock left in your hands besides that $60,0-00 ?— 
 A. None for that purpose. 
 
 Q. You say you had not promised any of that stock to any member 
 of Congress except Mr. Brooks and Mr. Boyer '? — A. Is^ot that I know 
 of ; everything is on this list ; whenever I delivered or settled for any 
 stock, this list covers the entire matter. 
 
 Q. Did you make any promise to any of tlie members of Congress 
 besides these two?— A. I do not remember of any. If 1 did, it will ap- 
 pear on some of the books. 
 
 Q. You did not hold in your own name stock for any member of Con- 
 gress ?— A. No, sir ; I held no stock as trustee, I am 'quite positive. I 
 think 1 should recollect it if I had. We were through with legislation 
 long before the Credit Mobilier came up. We had no idea we should 
 ever come to Congress for anything again. 
 
 Q. Were you not apprehensive of a congressional investigation '?— A. 
 I was not. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether any of the parties interested were?— A. At 
 the time we had these injunctions I insisted on not going into a con- 
 tract unless it was assented to by every stockholder. There was some 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEH. 175 
 
 difference of opinion abont requiring the assent of every stockholder, 
 ■which -grew into quite a little quarrel, when I made the remark that I 
 was tired of law, and that I proposed to go to Congress, and get them 
 to say whether they would allow this company to contract with them- 
 selves without the assent of stockholders. I had written such a letter, 
 and mailed it to Mr. Washburn. Several gentlemen then said they 
 would not go into a contract without the consent of all the stockholders, 
 •and they received my order to go to the post-office and get my letter. 
 I think Mr. McComb, Mr. Bushnell, and Mr. Crane went and saw the 
 postmaster. They ransacked the mail and ^ot the letter out. 
 
 Q. Was it regarded by the gentlemen connected with the Union Pa- 
 cific Eailroad and the Credit Mobilier as exceedingly important that 
 there should be no inyestigation by Congress'? — A. I think not; we 
 were advised by eminent counsel that we had vested rights, and we had 
 no reason to fear any interference on the part of Congress. We had no 
 reason to fear anything except little quarrels among ourselves. 
 
 Q. Tou appear, however, to have induced the parties to come to your 
 terms by a threat of congressional investigation ? — A. No ; I am simply 
 stating the history of this matter. I believe at that time Mr. Washburn 
 offered some resolution in the House. This was in 1807. An investiga- 
 tion would not have amounted to anything. It only raised the question 
 as to whether the board should protect the minority as well as the ma- 
 jority of stockholders. That was the only question that would have 
 been raised. 
 
 Q. What was the value of the securities you let Mr. Brooks have be- 
 sides the Credit Mobilier stock"? — A. I considered it in the light of a 
 business transaction. It was just the same as letting him have a hun- 
 dred shares and buying the other hundred at about 200 per cent. ; that 
 was about the way I figured it. 
 
 Q. I will understand you better if you will give the value of the 
 securities in dollars and cents. — A. I considered that if he took two hun- 
 dred shares they were worth double their par value, and I preferred to 
 ^ive him these securities, which then had only a nominal value, and in 
 place of giving him two hundred shares to give him one hundred of the 
 <3redit Mobilier. 
 
 Q. I would like to know what the securities were worth. — A. The 
 bonds were worth 85 ; it is difficult to tell what the stock was worth. 
 
 Q. How much was two hundred shares of Union Pacific Eailroad stock 
 worth'? — A. Credit Mobilier was worth $200 per share. 1 have been 
 told that a good deal of the Union Pacific stock has been since sold as 
 low as 9. I know of no sale at that time. I think the Credit iMobilier 
 did once make a price, and got their stockholders to take it when it 
 could not have been done outside at 30. 
 
 Q. That would be $6,000 for the Union Pacific Eailroad stock. What 
 would be the value of $5,000 first-mortgage bonds at 85 ? — A. At 80 — 
 Sbnd they have sold at about 80 — the amount would be $4,000. Taking 
 an average price for the stock, it would be $9,000 altogether, and a 
 thousand dollars better for me than if I had given him the two hundred 
 shares of stock. 
 
 Q. Doyouk'nowof any property among the assets of the Union Pacific 
 Railroad Company, or the Credit Mobilier, being used in any way to in- 
 fluence legislation in Congress? — A. No, sir; none of the assets. 
 
 Q. Do you know of money being so used? — A. Nor money. 
 
 Q. Do you know of any influence being procured in that way? — A. 
 We consented to give up a valuable portion of our franchise. I did not 
 know at the time how that could influence members of Congress, but 
 
176 CREDIT MOBXLIER. 
 
 we found tbat we were meeting with opposition. iAIr. Auies came to me 
 and told me we could not carry the bill with that branch ou it, and we 
 waived the Sioux City branch and consented to lose it. 
 
 Q. That was not in the interest of any particular member of Con- 
 gress? — A. I do not know anything about that. I think you will find 
 that the Credit Mobilier is made a scape-goat for other things. 
 
 Q. Do you know of any other person besides Mr. Brooks who received 
 a similar bonus for taking stock in the Credit Mobilier '? — A. It was not 
 a bonus for taking stock; it was a bonus to settle a claim for stock. 
 The subscribers to the $1,200,000 additional stock received the bonds. 
 
 Q. The same bonds thafMr. Brooks received f — A. The same kind of 
 bonds. They received a bond for every ten shares. They paid for the 
 stock at par, and loaned the Credit Mobilier an equal amount on, four 
 months' time, which enabled the Credit Mobilier to pay two and a half 
 millions to the Union Pacific Eailroad Company, and help them out of 
 their diflficulty at the time. 
 
 Q. What you did with Mr. Brooks was substantially what the com- 
 pany had done with other parties before, was it not"? — A. If Mr. Brooks 
 had been a subscriber, and had taken originally one hundred shares of 
 stock, he would have been entitled to tea bonds of that stock. If he 
 had had one hundred shares of the increased stock he would have had 
 ten bonds with it; but this transaction with Mr. Brooks was a matter 
 of settlement, having nothing to do with what he would have been en- 
 titled to in the Credit Mobilier. Mr. Brooks wanted two hundred 
 shares; I did not want to give him but one hundred; I gave him one 
 hundred, and gave him $9,000 Avorth of securities, according to your 
 estimate of them. 
 
 Q. Can you explain why the first five mortgage-bonds and two hun- 
 dred shares of Union Pacific Eailroad stock are entered in your book as 
 earnings of the stock of the Credit Mobilier ? — A. That is simply a terra 
 used to identify the stock. It must be credited to something. I had 
 received the bonds under my right acquired by the increase of stock 
 in the Credit Mobilier, and you may call it earnings or call it what 
 you like ; the object was simply to keep track of the investment on the 
 books. 
 
 Q. Do you not think it vs-'ould have been more correct to have entered 
 it as given, in settlement of a compromise with Mr. Brooks in accordance 
 with the facts f — A. The paper you have is a niemoraudum. It amounts 
 to the same thing nearly, and it is about what he would have received 
 if he had held the original stock and purchased the same amount of 
 Union Pacific stock other shareholders did. I discover now, for the 
 first time, that in my estimates for compromising I made a mistake of 
 $500, which made him $500 better off than if he had received the 
 original stock and the securities he would have had turned over to him 
 in consequence. 
 
 By Mr. BuoOKS : 
 
 Q. Do you remember how far back our business acquaintance com- 
 menced? Have you any memorandum to which you can refer? — A. I 
 have no memorandum which will show that. 
 
 Q. What is your impression as to the date!— A. I think in 1866 or 
 1867. 
 
 Q. Do you' remember the date of our going out on an excursion over 
 the load?— A. That was in 1866. I had forgotten yoH were on that 
 excursion. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 177 
 
 Q. You knew me at that time ? — A. I had known yon many years 
 before that. I thought you referred to these transactions. 
 
 Q. I mean general business transactions ; did they commence in 1866 
 or before 1 — A. O, yes ; they commenced as early as 1864. I could not 
 tell you the date without looking at the books. 
 
 Q. You spoke, or rather the chairman did, of contracts with me in 
 1866 or 1867 ; what kind of contracts do you mean, verbal or conversa^ 
 tional ? — A. Conversational contracts. 
 
 Q. Talks'?— A. Talks in 1866 and 18G7. 
 
 Q. Did I or not make a great effort with you among capitalists in 
 New York to get the stock of the Credit Mobilier taken, in order to go 
 on ivith the work on that road"? — A. I so stated. You thought you 
 could place $500,000 of the stock — that was when we had the increase. 
 
 Q. Did I not go with you to see Commodore Garrison on that sub- 
 ject"? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. And George Law ? — A. Xo. 
 
 Q. Did not your engineer go w-ith me to see George Law ? — A. I do 
 not know. I know you made great efforts to place that stock. 
 
 Q. Did I not send representatives of Mr. Vanderbilt to see you? — A. 
 I do not know. You made efforts to have the stock taken, and devoted 
 considerable time to it. 
 
 Q. Did anybody at the time take it ! — A. E"o ; I do not believe you 
 got a dollar taken. 
 
 Q. Did they give any reason why they did not take it ? — A. I did 
 not converse with any of them except Mr. Garrison. 
 
 Q. Did they not say it was too distant an enterprise, among savages, 
 in an unknown country '? — A. That was the objection made everywhere 
 nine times out of ten. 
 
 Q. Was it essential that the Credit Mobilier stock should be taken, 
 in order to carry on the Union Pacific Eailroad ? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Were not the finances of the railroad company in such a condition 
 that, if the Credit Mobilier had not come forward and advanced the 
 money, the road would have gone to the wall? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Would you deem it patriotic or unpatriotic on the part of a public 
 man to exercise all his influence among capitalists to induce them to 
 invest their money for that purpose ? — A. Certainly ; and that was the 
 feeling of everybody. Everybody wanted the road to go on. 
 
 Q. I made great efforts to induce capitalists to do that, did I not f — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. I could have had any amount of the stock of the Credit Mobilier 
 if I had chosen to take it at that time? — A. You could have had 
 $500,000 at that time. That was the amount you tried to place. 
 
 Q. Having done all that I did, was it not natural, when the stock 
 becaiue valuable, that I should prefer to have some of it? — A. Yesj but 
 if you had not said anything about it before, you would not have got it. 
 
 Q. Would the capitalists of New York touch the Credit Mobilier or 
 Union Pacific Eailroad stock at all in 1866 ? — A. Some of them did and 
 some of them did not. A majority would not touch it, from the time of 
 its taking the contract up to that time, and it was up-hill work all of 
 that time. 
 
 Q. What was the nature of the Government surveys which had been 
 made? — A. The Government surveys were of no use whatever. Their 
 estimates and their routes were almost impracticable. The road would 
 have cost so much that nobody would have touched it then. 
 
 Q. Did or did not their surveys exhibit almost insurmountable obsta- 
 cles in carrying on the road ? — A. They did. 
 12 X 
 
178 CREDIT MOBILIER. . 
 
 Q. Did not these Government surveys frighten most of the capitalists 
 in 'Sevr York from engaging in the enterprise at the time ? — A. Yes, 
 sir. I am as venturesome as anybody, but I would not liave invested a 
 dollar if I had not known a better route. 
 
 Q. How was a better route discovered ? — A. I made surveys at my 
 own expense. 
 
 Q. What were the discoveries you made in that unknown country ? — 
 A. In the last year of Mr. Jefferson Davis's term as Secretary of War 
 a party was sent out. 
 
 The Chairman suggested that this had not much to do with the 
 investigation. 
 
 Witness. I will only say, then, that an examination eight oi* ten 
 years previous satisfied me that there was a good route through the 
 mountains. Previous to the organization of this party, I dispatched five 
 parties of engineers to survey the mountain passes. 
 
 Q. Did or did not the pass over the Laramie Mountains largely lessen 
 the expense of constructing the road? — A. The iuformation I got gave 
 me more confidence than I could inspire in anybody else ; that is the 
 amount of it. 
 
 Q. The chairman has used the word " contracts." Was there ever any 
 general understanding on the subject, and did you or did you not feel 
 that I had rendered services to the public in all the efforts I had made 
 to induce capitalists to embaf'k in it ? — A. You certainly did ; you did 
 not succeed in placing the stock, but you created a favorable impression 
 among gentlemen who would not otherwise have taken the subject into 
 consideration. 
 
 Q. Was there any contract other than that sort of transaction 1 — A. 
 There was no contract. 
 
 By Mr. NiblACK: 
 . Q. State whether the Union Pacific Kailroad, or men connected with 
 that enterprise, were called upon to assist in the senatorial election in 
 1866 in the State of Iowa. — A. I do not recollect. I did assist myself. 
 I had a lai'ge interest in Iowa, personally, and during the canvass I 
 assisted. 
 
 Q. It has been stated to me that you gave a check for $10,000 to 
 assist in that election. — A. No, sir ; I did not. I gave two checks of 
 $5,000 each to assist in that election. 
 
 Q. Can you explain the history of these checks, and state for what 
 purpose they were given T — A.. For the purpose of securing the election. 
 
 Q. Whose election 1 — A. Mr. Harlan's ; for the purpose of securing 
 the influence of some newspapers. I do not know how it was applied. 
 Moses H. Grinnell subscribed in my name, during my absence, to the 
 general republican committee, $5,000, to aid iu Grant's election. That 
 seemed to be pretty well past, to object when I returned, and I paid the 
 subscription. 
 
 Q. It has been suggested to me, also, that it had been urged upon 
 you very strongly to give Senator Carpenter an interest for congres- 
 sional influence; do you know anything about that? — A. No, sir; I do 
 not recollect. I am sure I did not do it. Mr. Harlan had been an old 
 personal friend. My personal intercourse with him had continued fifteen 
 or twenty years. He lived on a rival line of railroad through Iowa to 
 one in which I had long been interested, to be sure, but he understood 
 the wants of the State, and, besides, he had been in Washington long 
 enough to know how to care for the interests of the State here. 
 
 Q. He was at that time Secretary of the Interior ? — A. I believe so ; 
 he was not in Congress at that time. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 179 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 15, 1873. 
 
 0. S. BusHNELL, having been duly sworn, made the following state- 
 ment : 
 
 I come here voluntarily, without a summons, for the purpose of offer- 
 ing the information 1 have, in the interests of all parties, and especially 
 of the stockholders of the Credit Mobilier, who are entitled to the in- 
 formation I can give. I was a trustee under the Oakes Ames contract. 
 I was, with Mr, Durant, a managing director of the bureau of the Credit 
 Mobilier. I was an original incorporator of the Union Pacific Railroad 
 Company,, was connected with its original organization, and know its 
 whole history down to the present time. 
 
 During 1865 and 1866 the principal management of the Credit Mo- 
 bilier was in the hands of Dr. Durant, myself, and J. M. S. Williams, 
 our treasurer. We succeeded in completing the road to the one hun- 
 dredth meridian in the fall of 1806, but it left us in debt three or four 
 million dollars, which we were carrying, with our friends, at a large and 
 expensive rate of interest. We had repeated meetings of the parties in 
 interest, and consultations as to how we could raise the money to pay 
 off this debt and go on with the road. Finally, in the sping of 1867, at 
 the Fifth Avenue Hotel, the parties in interest of the Credit Mobilier 
 settled on a plan which has been prosecuted. We called upon the stock- 
 holders of the Credit Mobilier to increase their subscriptions 50 per cent. 
 A part of them were willing to take it. Others would not take it or have 
 anything to do with it. 
 
 There was placed in my hands about $500,000 of this stock, to place 
 with outside parties.' I went to work very vigorously to place it, be- 
 cause of our financial necessities. In New Haven I appealed to the direct- 
 ors of the banks and to the heaviest capitalists there, and succeeded in 
 placing about a hundred thousand dollars ; not, however, without first 
 giving them a personal written guarantee against loss if they would 
 take it. In this way I induced the Trowbridges and other parties in 
 IJTew Haven to take a hundred thousand dollars' worth of stock. I suc- 
 ceeded in placing in New York one hundred and fifty thousand dollars 
 more of the stock. The company gave it to me at 95 to place, and it 
 was placed at 97J, and in some instances at par. 
 
 While I was thus engaged, Mr. Ames was doing his best to place stock, 
 and did place a large amount of it. Where he was placing it I did not 
 inquire, so long as he turned tbe money into the treasury of the company. 
 
 That, however, was not sufiicient to help us out of our difficulties. 
 That twelve hundred and fifty thousand dollars only went a small way 
 toward helping us out, and the question came up, what could we do? 
 They finally referred to the matter of selling the bonds we had on hand. 
 We had sold the Government bonds at 90, and had four or five millions 
 of first-mortgage bonds on hand, which we had sold none of. I thought 
 we could sell some of these bonds. Most of the others thought we could 
 not sell the bonds until a portion of the road had been finished and was 
 doing a paying business. I insisted that the bonds could be sold to help 
 us out of our difficulties, and they finally appointed me an agent to sell 
 the bonds. As I said before this, the stock of the Credit Mobilier was 
 sold from 95 to 97J to par, and they wanted me to take it for almost any 
 price. We appointed advertising agents, and advertised largely in all 
 the leading papers in the United States. I sent advertisements to every 
 leading city, and the result was tha;t in five or six months we succeeded 
 in selling ten millions of the bonds, which placed our finances in a very 
 different condition. 
 
180 CKEDIT MOBILIEB. 
 
 In the mean time ^ve bad discovered tbat, instead of the route where 
 Tve had expected to build the roajl, by crossing the Black Hills we conld 
 save millions of dollars in expense. 
 
 So that, within a few months, from these two causes, the stock of the 
 Credit Mobilier came right up from less than par to 100, then 200, and 
 then a great deal higher. 
 
 The work was pushed on, and that fall it was completed to the base of 
 the Black Hills. 
 
 We came together again, and Mr. Ames met us, and discussed the 
 question of dividends. We had made a great deal of money. He said 
 that he had promised, during the spring, in our dark days, some two or 
 three hundred shares of stock, and that the parties were fairly entitled 
 to it. I knew that he had done it. During the spring he had placed a 
 great deal of it, and I had done the same. He asked us to sign a paper 
 or an agreement that he might have this stock and fulfill his promises 
 made in the spring. I had no hesitation in signing that agreement. 
 The view I took of it was, that if parties in Congress or out of Congress 
 had taken that stock they ought to be proud of it. If these parties had 
 agreed in the dark days of the spring of 1867 to take the stock, I held 
 that after we had sold eight or ten millions of dollars, and the expense 
 of construction hatl been reduced four, live, or six million dollars by the 
 change of route, these parties were entitled to the stock. I justify my 
 act in the signing of that agreement, authorizing Mr. Ames to fulfill his 
 pledges, which he said he had made to deliver tliis stock, just as unhes- 
 itatingly as I did when I got Mr. Ames in 18G5 to help us. I did not 
 think there was any delicacy in asking Mr. Ames in 1865 to advance a 
 million or two of dollars, and when he got other friends in Congress to 
 aid in the enterprise, I thought he had induced them to do an act that 
 every man in Congress or out of Congress ought to be proud of. There 
 is no act of my life which I look upon with so much satisfaction, and I 
 think my children will be proud of it to the last generation. And when 
 I see my stock, through a misapprehension, depreciated to almost noth- 
 ing, I think it is time to set forth the true history of the case. 
 
 I have now a letter in my pocket from one of our banks, where I had 
 sent fifty thousand dollars of that stock as collateral, within a week, 
 saying they will have nothing to do with the iniquity. The stock of the 
 Credit Mobilier is worth to-day, or should be, 75 or 80, and yet you could 
 not borrow five thousand dollars on a hundred thousand' of it, simply 
 because there has been a misunderstanding of what certain parties have 
 done or agreed to do. I say that members of Congress vrho agreed 
 to take this stock in the spring of 1867 were entitled to take it, and if I 
 -were a member of Congress, and had received such a pledge, I would 
 demand it. 
 
 By the ChaiejiAn : 
 
 Question. At the time this stock was put in the hands of Mr. Ames 
 to fulfill his promises or agreements in reference to these shares, did you 
 learn of any persons he had made these arrangements with, or was under 
 obligations to ? — Answer. I do not think I did. It is possible he may 
 have given me names ; I do not remember. I believed his word when 
 he said he had promised it, and it was nothing to me whom he had 
 promised it to. 
 
 Q. Do you remember the name of any member of Congress with 
 whom he had made arrangements? — A. I have no doubt the names 
 ■were mentioned. I do not remember them. 
 
 Q. You may have seen in the newspapers the names of Mr. Colfax, 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEl^ 181 
 
 Mr. Blaine, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Kellej-, Mr. Scofield, Mr. Garfield, Mr, 
 Bingham, and others. Do you remember whether any of these per- 
 sons were named ? — A. I do not remember that he gave me the names 
 at all ; and if he did not, I should not have asked him for them. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge whether Mr. Ames did, in point of fact, 
 distribute any stock to any of these gentlemen, or to any member of 
 Cdngress 1 — A. 1 have not. 
 
 Q. It seems that Charles H. Neilson, of i^Tew York, a son-in-law of Mr. 
 Brooks, liad some of this stock. Are yon acquainted with him? — A. No, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. It seems that in December, 1SG7, he became the owner of one 
 hundred shares, which were transferred lo him by Mr. Durant. Have 
 you any knowledge in reference to that transaction ? — A. Not in refer- 
 ence to the immediate transaction, t know that Mr. Brooks did all he 
 could to place the stock; that he did all he could to help us along in 
 our emergencies. 
 
 Q. Did you, or not, know anything in relation to conversations which 
 took place between Mr. Durant and Mr. Bi'ooks in relation to his be- 
 coming a stockholder '? — A. No ; I was not present at all at any such 
 conversation that I remember. 
 
 Q. Among the stock that was distributed, do you know of any that 
 went to a member of Congress 1 — A. No, sir. I distributed more than 
 anybody else, but it was mostly in New Haven and New York. 
 
 Q. Did you have any conversation yourself with Mr. Brooks in rela- 
 tion to his becoming a stockholder in the company, or taking stock 
 himself? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You knew he was actively at work in getting stock taken ? — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. But you know of no arrangement or conversation in relation to his 
 becoming a stockholder? — A. Nofa word. 
 
 Q. Subsequently' Mr. Neilson became the owner of fifty shares more 
 by direct subscription to the company itself, in February, 1868. Have 
 you any knowledge in reference to that? — A. Nothing except what I 
 have seen in the testimony. 
 
 Q. You had no knowledge at the time in reference to it? — A. No. 
 
 Q. And you have now no knowledge except such as you have derived 
 •from the public prints '? — A. That is all. 
 
 Q. Did the stock you placed at 97 carry any bonds with it ? — A. No, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. How far out was the road built before the Ames contract was 
 made ? — A. Before the Ames contract was executed, the road was con- 
 structed beyond Sidney a considerable way. 
 
 Q. Was it or not built out beyond the Black Hills you speak of ? — ■ 
 A. O, no, sir. It was built a little over 300 miles from Omaha. 
 
 Q. Was it not built to the summit of Black Hills? — A. No, sir. I 
 went out on the line of the road to Sidney in the month of July, 1867 . 
 I came home, and was sick about four months. While I was sick, the 
 Oakes Ames contract was executed, and they could not have gone more 
 than fifty or sixty miles beyond Sidney at the time this contract was 
 executed. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 Q. I understand, then, your proposition to be that these members of 
 Congress who had taken or agreed to take Credit Mobilier stock made 
 a mistake when they denied that they had any interest in this com- 
 pany 1 — A. I would like to make that a little clearer. We were placing 
 
182 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 that stock during the spring of 1867. This increase of stock of which I 
 have spoken came before Congress met iu the fall. When these gentle- 
 men met in the fall the stock had gone up to 160 or 170. In the mean 
 time, we had got into a pretty sharp contest between Mr. Duraat and 
 ■our Boston interest. It is barely possible that these parties whom Mr. 
 Ames "had promised stock were frightened about some trouble growing 
 •out of a lawsuit. If they were not, I think they were very foolish gen- 
 tlemen for not taking the stock, and requiring or allowing Mr. Ames to 
 fulfill his obligation to them. 
 
 Q. You think that, instead of denying that they ha'd an interest in the 
 ■company, they ought to be proud of having taken an interest ? — A. Cer- 
 tainly I do. Mr. Hooper and Mr. Ames had taken their stock two years 
 before. I do not think they are ashamed of having taken that interest 
 and of being prominently connected with building the Pacific railroad, 
 and why members should be, who agreed to assist two years afterward, 
 I cannot comprehend. 
 
 By Mr. McCeary : 
 
 Q. You reside in Chicago ? — A. l^o, I reside in New Haven. 
 
 Q. You were not subpoenaed here ? — A. Ko ; I came here voluntarily, 
 for the purpose of doing what I could to get rid of the prejudice in regard 
 to this Credit Mobilier interest. I hold over $100,000 worth of it, which 
 is being depreciated to nothing by this unfounded prejudice against it. 
 
 Q. The refusal of the bank to take your stock as collateral was what 
 occasioned your coming here? — A. No : that was a mere incident. 
 
 Q. You think the holder of stock in the Union Pacific Eailroad Com- 
 pany, or the Credit Mobilier Company, would be a disinterested party 
 in legislation affecting the interests of the company 1 — A. We never 
 wanted any legislation after 1864. We got a bill through then which gave 
 us all the legislation we required, and we only asked to be let alone. 
 
 Q. You considered it rather important to be let alone, did you not? — 
 A. Yes, I did; and I thought we had a right to be let alone; we had 
 fulfilled our part under this legislation faithfully. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 Q. According to your statement, as a holder of Credit Mobilier stock, 
 you are entitled to damages for depreciating your stock? — A. I do not 
 think of bringing any suit for that purpose. This is not the first time 
 we have suffered. We have suffered seriously both before and since 
 we have fulfilled our obligation. 
 
 By Mr. McCraet : 
 
 Q. Did you not solicit some legislation in regard to moving your offices 
 from New York to Boston ?— A. I did not ; I was for fighting it out on 
 that line in New York, as we have done since, and won. 
 
 Q. Was there not some legislation in regard to the decision of Secre- 
 tary Boutwell concerning the interest in which you were largely inter- 
 ested? — A. I beUeve there was; I believe Congress set Secretary Bout- 
 well right. 
 
 Q. Do you think a stockholder in your. company would be acompetent 
 person to decide that question ?— A. I do ; the same as the holder of 
 national bank stock would be to decide a bank question, or as a dealer 
 in wool would be to decide a tariff" question. 
 
 Q. Was there not a good deal of trouble about the terminus of the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad Company, which had to be settled by Congress ? 
 A. I never asked anything of Congress. I was in favor of adjusting the 
 difSculty between ourselves. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 183 
 
 Q. There was trouble, however, which was settled by Congress ? — A. 
 Tes, sir. 
 
 Q. The two companies had built their roads side by side, for some dis- 
 tance, had they not ? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. That was a serious question, involving serious consequences to 
 the company 1 — A. It cost us a good deal of money in constructing the 
 extra line of road. 
 
 Q. You think a stockholder in either company would be entirely dis- 
 interested upon that question ? — A. I do not think the question should 
 have come to Oonf^ess at all. I proposed to settle it without coming 
 to Congress, and I think we never should have come to Congress on 
 the subject. 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Q. Did the stock of the Credit Mobilier go above par prior to the 
 execution of the Ames contract ? — A. I do not think its rise was based 
 alone on the Ames contract. There was a distinct understanding that 
 the contract was to be given to Oakes Ames a considerable time prior 
 to the execution of the contract. 
 
 Q. Then, in point of fact, the contract had been agreed upon some 
 time before it was redu-ced to writing. Did that stock go above par 
 until that agreement was made which resulted in the Ames contract ? — 
 A. It was about that time that the stock appreciated. 
 
 Q. Was it not true that the making of that contract, and a knowledge 
 of the profit to be derived from building the road under that contract, 
 was the cause of the stock suddenly advancing in value ? — A. 'So, sir ; 
 it was distinctly understood, long before that time, that the parties who 
 had put their money into the Credit Mobilier were, in some shape, to 
 have the profits of building the road. It was that fact, and it was also 
 the prior fact that we had sold ten million dollars of bonds, and found 
 an easier route over the mountains, that appreciated the stock. 
 
 Q. How early in the fall of 1867 was the stock above par ? — A. Early 
 in the fall. 
 
 Q. What do you think was the fair market-value of the stock ; what 
 would it have sold for among people who understood about it in Decem- 
 ber, 1867 1— A. I remember one sale at $165, in the fall of 1867. I do 
 not remember the exact date. 
 
 Q. To whom was that stock sold ? — A. I understood it was sold by 
 Mr. Alley at $165. I think it was sold by Mr. Alley to Peter Butler 
 for account, as I understood, of Mr. Bardwell. 
 
 Q. You understood that this stock, which was put into the hands of 
 Mr. Ames for the purpose of fulfilling engagements, was to comply with 
 the obligations made by him as far back as the spring of 1867 ? — A. 
 Yes, sir ; when we were placing this stock. 
 
 Q. Did you understand Mr. Ames was going to part with that stock 
 to members of Congress, or anybody else, with whom he had no previous 
 understanding, at par, as late as December, 18C7 1 — A. Not at all — not 
 a share of it. He distinctly stated that he simply wanted to fulfill 
 engagements he had made in the spring of 1867. 
 
 Q. It was no part of the understanding of stockholders who put this 
 stock into his hands, that he was to make sales of it to persons with 
 whom he had no interest of that kind ? — A. Not the least. 
 
 Q. The object was to enable him to fulfill contracts and obligations 
 he had made as far back as the previous spring? — A. Yes, sir ; I would 
 not have consented to have given it to him on any other terms than 
 that. 
 
184 CEEDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. Do you suppose the other stockholders would?— A. Icaunotspeak 
 for others. 1 do not think Mr. McComb would have consented to give 
 it to him. on any other terms. 
 
 Q. At the time this stock was put into the hands of Mr. Ames, while 
 he was getting the consent of Mr. McOomb and others for that purpose, 
 was it then known that the stock was worth more than i^ar '? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. And they would have consented that Mr. Ames, should have it to 
 sell to parties with whom he had no contract at par °! — A. Certainly 
 not. 
 
 Q. The company could have realized more for it °? — A. Certainly ; a 
 part of it would have belonged to me, and I would not have parted with 
 my share of it on any such terms. 
 
 By Mr. Meerick : 
 
 Q. What right in tlie interests of the company would any one have 
 had to allow gentlemen to take this stock at its par value, in the siiring 
 of 1868, where there had been no previous contract made for it ? — A. I 
 cannot see Avhat possible object Mr. Ames or anybody else could have 
 had in parting with the stock, if there had been no prior obligation. I 
 cannot understand any motive or consideration for such a proceeding. 
 
 Q. No motive connected with the general advancement of the legiti- 
 mate interests of the road ? — A. I felt something like the expression in 
 one' of Mr. Ames's letters to Mr. McComb, that if a hona-fide promise 
 had been made for the stock to Congressmen, and we did not comply 
 with it, they might go back on us, if any question came up affecting 
 our interest. 
 
 By Mr. Beooks : 
 Q. Do you know whether I loaned the cjinpany considerable money 
 to enable them to go on with the road ? — A. You always stood by us 
 in our dark days, when you were a member of Congress and when not 
 a member of Congress. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 16, 1873. 
 J. W. Patterson, a Senator of the United States, from the State of 
 New Hampshire, having been duly sworn, made the following state- 
 ment : 
 
 Gentlemen of the Couimittee : I have had no transactions with 
 the Union Pacific Railroad, or with Mr. Ames, which, in my judgment, 
 call for investigation, or which any respectable business man would 
 think of criticising ; still, I am glad to respond to your invitation to be 
 present this morning, and with your permission will give you a brief, 
 but complete, statement of all there is to this matter, so far as I am 
 concerned. 
 
 I entered Congress after all the land-grants and subsidies to the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad had been made. The only legislation which has arisen 
 since in respect to it, the wisdom and policy of which any one ques- 
 tions so far as I know, is the act of 1864, which passed during my first 
 session in Congress. I was not as well informed in respect to the merits 
 of this great work as I am now, but I have never regretted the vote I 
 gave at that time. I then had but a slight acquaintance with Mr. 
 Ames, having never seen him before I entered Congress. At a later 
 period we were thrown together and brought into the relations of a 
 somewhat intimate friendship. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 185 
 
 iN'ear the close of 1867, when no man could have auticipated any fur- 
 ther legislation upon this subject, and since when, if we except the 
 transfer of the ofttce of the company to Boston, there has been none, 
 unless giving a construction to a previous act, on a question raised un- 
 expectedly by the Secretary of the Treasury, may be so considered, 
 Mr. Ames came over to the Senate and proposed to sell me thirty 
 shares of stock in the Credit Mobilier. He represented at the time that 
 he did this as a friend, looking to my interest. 
 
 I asked him to explain to me what the Credit Mobilier was, and he 
 did so. I then asked him if it was proper stock for a member of Con- 
 gress to hold. He said he thought it was, as they did not expect to 
 ask for any further legislation ; and, to give strength to his view, he 
 mentioned several distinguished gentlemen of acknowledged integrity 
 who had either taken or proposed to take stock in the company. I then 
 inquired if he thought it would be a profitable investment. He replied 
 that he did, or he should not have offered it to a friend. I said I should 
 be glad to take some of the stock, but could not then, as I had no money. 
 " When you get some money which you wish to invest,'' said Mr. Ames,. 
 " come to me, and you shall have the stock." 
 
 At that time I purposed to take the stock, and doubtless Mr. Ames 
 expected I should; but I never found it convenient to take it before I 
 concluded it was not best to take it, and so the purchase was not con- 
 summated, and I never received, directly or indirectly, nor did any one 
 ever hold for me in trust, one penny's worth of stock of the Credit Mo- 
 bilier. 
 
 1 have been thus explicit because T have been misrepresented in 
 respect to this thing, and not because I see any breach of propriety or 
 personal integrity in a Congressman's purchasing or holding this more 
 than paper, wool, legal-tenders, bonds, bank-notes, bank-stock, or any 
 other species of property liable to be affected by legislation, but upon 
 which legislation was not anticipated at the time of the purchase. 
 
 On two occasions, subsequently, I purchased of Mr. Ames stock and 
 bonds in the Union Pacific Eailroad, which were placed in the hands of 
 a friend in New York for sale. My friend sold them at a fair profit. 
 For this stock and bonds I paid the full market price in money hon- 
 estly earned by myself. These transactions were hona-fide i^urchases, 
 and not exchanges of stock or distributions of dividends. It was a 
 small investment, but reasonably profitable, and I regret it was not 
 larger, as it was both honest and honorable. 1 doubt if there is any 
 member of Congress who would deny the right or the propriety of such 
 purchase to-day. 
 
 This is the whole of my connection with Mr. Ames or with the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad. 
 
 I have never purchased or received any property of any kind which 
 had any connection, direct or indirect, with my vote or political influ- 
 ence. 
 
 By the Chaikman: 
 
 Question. Can you state the time you made the purchase of the Union 
 Pacific securities spoken of? — Answer. At two different times, as nearly 
 as I can recollect. One was some time in the summer of 1869, and the 
 other, if I remember correctly, in 1871. 
 
 Q. In about what amount, substantially ? — A. I purchased, all told, 
 about three hundred shares of stock. I cannot recollect the exact 
 amount of bonds. I placed them in the hands of my friends to sell them. 
 
 Q. You never held, I understand you, any of this Credit Mobilier 
 stock?— A. iTever. 
 
186 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Were you ever treated as being the owner of it by Mr. Amos ? — 
 A. I did uot so regard it. 
 
 Q. The stock whicli came into your possession was not received as 
 dividends ? — A. I do not so regard it. I bought the stock with my own 
 money. 
 
 Q. How long were you the holder of it ? — A. A very short time. I put 
 it into the hand of my friend in New York, who sold it. - 
 
 Q. Upon the stock you held, did you receive any dividends, during 
 the time you held it? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Whatever you made on that was a profit on the sale of it. Do 
 you remember at what price Union Pacific Eailroad stock was held when 
 you purchased it 1 — A. I cannot remember ; it was quite low. The last 
 time I purchased of Mr. Ames was about the time they undertook to 
 injure his credit, and the stock went down. Mr. Ames can remember 
 the date probably better than I can. That was about the time I made 
 the last purchase. 
 
 Q. Before it was sold the stock was in better credit ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Can you state somewhere near the variations in price between the 
 purchase and sale? — A. It was sold for 37, I think, or somewhere in 
 that region. What it was worth at the time I bought it I do not recol- 
 lect. I know I bought it at the market price, whatever it was selling 
 for at the time, but I do not recollect what that was, nor do I suppose 
 it material that I should, as I state that I had the stock. 
 
 Q. The negotiation in relation to your becoming an owner of Credit 
 Mobilier stock was broken off by you ? — A. It was never consummated 
 by me. 
 
 Q. If you had insisted upon that stock, Mr. Ames would have let you 
 have it ? — A. I have no doubt about that. 
 
 Q. Can you state what the considerations were which led you to think 
 it best not to become the owner of it ? — A. I had not the money to buy 
 it, was the trouble about it. If I had had the money within any reason- 
 able time after this conversation, I have no doubt I should have got it, 
 but I did not happen to have the money. 
 
 Q. Do you know of any dealings between Mr. Ames and any other 
 member of Congress in relation to the stock of the Credit Mobilier ?— A. 
 No, sir ; otherwise than at the time Mr. Ames came to see me as I stated. 
 He mentioned the names of two or three gentlemen who, he said, either 
 had or he expected would take stock. 
 
 Q. Do you remember who they were ? — A. I think he mentioned Mr. 
 Colfax, Mr. Wilson, and I think' Mr. Boutwell. 
 
 Washington, January 16, 1873. 
 
 Henry Wilson, United States Senator from Massachusetts, sworn 
 and examined. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. The committee wish you to state in reference to any nego- 
 tiations or transactions between you and Mr. Ames, in relation to the 
 Credit Mobilier.— Answer. I have no written statement to make. I re- 
 ceived your invitation yesterday. I came here this morning in response 
 to it, and am ready to answer any questions or make any statement of 
 the facts in the case. Mr. Ames did not come to me to offer any of his 
 stock. We boarded at the same house, and often sat at the same table. 
 I had some time before purchased of him two railroad mortgage bonds 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 187 
 
 of Iowa roads ; one was a bond of the Cedar Eapids road, and the 
 other, I think, was the Chicago and Nebraska road. They paid 7 per 
 cent, interest, and were bought for 90 cents on the dollar. They were 
 purchased for my wife, and with her money, which had been presented 
 to her on the 27th of October, 1865, the twenty-fifth anniversary of our 
 wedding. During my absence from home, and without my knowledge, 
 my neighbors and acquaintances in the eastern portion of my State 
 made extensive arrangements to celebrate our silver wedding. I was 
 sent for to come home. There was a large gathering from my town, 
 from Boston, and other portions of the State. Many small presents 
 and testimonials were presented to my wife, and a silver service was 
 presented by my townsmen to myself. Before the company separated, 
 a package was presented to my wife, I think by Governor Claflin, which 
 was found to contain $3,800, with a letter and list of subscribers, con- 
 taining a request that she would accept it as a gift to herself. The 
 subscriptions ranged from fifty to two hundred dollars each, and were 
 made by such men as Governor Claflin, Mr. Sumner, and Amos A. Law- 
 rence. Mr. Ames was down for $200 and Mr. Alley for $100. 
 
 This money, given to my wife, I determined should be sacredly hers, 
 and that I would never receive a dollar of it. I was the more resolved 
 on this course because a paper in New York had criticised its accept- 
 ance. One thousand dollars of it had been invested by my wife on my 
 advice, where it was all lost. At the time I was in debt several hun- 
 dred dollars, but as soon as I could 1 refunded the money she had lost 
 through my advice. In December, 1867, or early in 1868, my wife or 
 myself spoke to Mr. Ames about purchasing one or two more of the Iowa 
 Bailroad bonds. Mr. ^mes had not then any more of those bonds to 
 sell, but could sell her stock that he believed would be of more value, 
 which he said was the stock of the Credit Mobilier. I knew nothing of 
 its origin, its history, or its value, and would not have given fifty cents 
 on the dollar for it. Itold Mr. Ames that I believed that much of the 
 money put into the Pacific Eailroad would be lost ; that I had, years 
 before, spoken and voted in favor of building the road, as a measure of 
 great national importance, though I believed much money would be lost 
 in its construction. Mr. Ames said that he would guarantee the stock, 
 and that it should pay ten per cent, on condition that he- should have 
 one-half of the excess if any, and that Senator Grimes had bought some 
 of the stock on the same conditions. I asked Mr. Alley's advice. Mr. 
 Alley said that Mr. Ames valued the stock higher than he did, but that 
 it was a safe investment with his guarantee. My wife and myself con- 
 cluded that $2,000 of her money should be so invested ; and a few weeks 
 afterward the money was paid to Mr. Ames, and a receipt or jjaper was 
 taken, with the promise that he would sell her twenty shares of the 
 stock. The stock was never delivered, and neither myself nor wife ever 
 received or saw a share of it. 
 
 Before accepting Mr. Ames's olfer, I asked him if any more legislation 
 for the Pacific Eailroad would be required, and he assured me that there 
 would not be. I told him I had made it an inflexible rule of action 
 never to buy any property that might be affected by legislation, nor to 
 use any information I had, as a public man, in making investments. I 
 do not say it is wrong for other members of Congress to own stocks in 
 banks, railroads, manufactories, or to purchase land or the public secu- 
 rities. Every one must judge for himself in those matters. My posi- 
 tion was a peculiar one. Having learned in early life that a poor man 
 cannot do what a rich man can, and that a lawyer can do what an un- 
 professional man cannot do, I made up my mind, when I came here, that 
 
188 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 I would purcliase no propertj- tliat cauld be affected by legislation. I knew, 
 when elected, that I should come here, if not under temptation, under the 
 liability of being watched and criticised. I came into the Senate from a 
 mechanic's shop. I had a home that cost me about $4:,000. I was doing a 
 small business, and soon found that 1 must leave the Senate or abandon 
 it. I closed my business, paid my debts, gave my wife a deed of my 
 home, and had less than $1,000 left, Avith no profession, no capital, no 
 business, no partnership. Compelled to live with the strictest economy, 
 I applied rules of action to myself that I did not apply to others who 
 had professions, or capital, or business associations ; and during nearly 
 eighteen years, the only investment I have made has been the purchase 
 of a house-lot in the town I live in, for $150, which I sold four or five 
 years afterward for $400. 
 
 Some months after Mr. Ames received the money, I saw something 
 in the papers concerning differences among the managers of the Credit 
 Mobilier and of the Pacific Eailroad. I aslied Mr. Alley and one 
 or two other gentlemen what those reports meant, and whether legis- 
 lation would not grow out of those controversies. I told him that I 
 should regard the transaction as incomplete ; that I should have the re- 
 ceipt given up and the money returned. I- said the same to Mr. Ames. 
 He laughed at me, and thought I was doing a very foolish thing, but 
 said he would take the receipt and return the money. A short time 
 afterward he did so. The amount of profit on the transaction, including 
 interest and dividend, was $814. This, with the original investment, be- 
 longed to my wife. That amount, on settlement, was allowed by me to Mr. 
 Ames, so that in reality there was received from him the amount which 
 was originally paid him. The $814 my wife received came from 
 my own earnings. Mr. Ames said there would be due, he thought, 
 some stock dividends when the account was made up, but I declined 
 receiving it, and would have declined had the dividends amounted to 
 $10,000. I regarded the bargain as incomplete, and resolved not to 
 consummate it. I did not know or suspect that there was anything 
 wrong in the transaction ; but I was as resolved to have nothing to do 
 with it as I should have done had 1 known it to be an infamous trans- 
 action. 
 
 Q. i understand you your wife received from Mr. Ames $2,000 and ten 
 per cent, interest ? — A. My wife, who was present when the settlement 
 was made, received $814 more than was paid, but the profits came from 
 me rather than from Mr. Ames, and I am, therefore, $814 poorer, and 
 shall be till I die, for advising my wife to purchase that stock, as I never 
 received any part of the $3,800 given at our silver wedding, or the in- 
 come from it. When she died, in May, 1870, she gave this money to her 
 own kindred, and $1,000 to the church- of which she was a member, for 
 the benefit of poor women. She lost $1,000 of the money given at the 
 silver wedding by an investment which she made in accordance with 
 my advice. That amount, as I said, I made up to her out of my own 
 earnings, and the profit also she received from the transaction with Mr. 
 Ames ; so that I am now, and ever shall be, $1,814 poorer than I should 
 have been had nothing been given her, and the investment with Mr. 
 Ames had not been made. 
 
 Q. At the time you settled up this business with Mr. Ames and the 
 money was paid back, you mean that the dividends from the Credit Mo- 
 bilier were $814 I — A. I mean that the dividends and interest amounted 
 to $814. 
 
 Q. Mr. Ames only paid the money and interest to your wife, and you 
 made up the additional sum, so that she should lose nothing by failing 
 
CEEDIT MOUILIEE. 189 
 
 to receive the dividends ? — A. I made it up to her by making the 
 account square with Mr. Ames at the time of settlement, so that, in the 
 aggregate, nothing was received from him, and what she made came 
 from me. When this transaction had been completed, I do not think I 
 was the possessor of property to the amount of $1,000. 
 
 Q. Doyou remember thetime when this transaction was closed with Mr. 
 Ames ? — A. I am not certain to a day, but I think it was in the month 
 of ]!^ovember or Deoember, 1868 ; it might have been a few weeks later. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect what it was about the Credit Mobilier which 
 disturbed you ? — A. I cannot ; I saw something in the newspapers 
 which gave me anxiety, and made me think that there might be some- 
 thing that J did not understand about it, or that might bring the road 
 before Congress for legislation. I did not know anything about the 
 Credit Mobilier, how it transacted its business or made its money. I 
 had no doubt of my moral or legal right, or the moral or legal right of 
 my wife, to invest the little she had in Government securities, bank, rail- 
 road, or manufacturing stocks, or in any other property in which others 
 invested. I have no doubt, either, of the legal and moral right of any 
 member of Congress to do so. But, as I have stated, my own circum- 
 stances and situation were peculiar. Entering Congress a poor man, 
 with no capital, no business, no profession, and no occupation out ofCon- 
 gress by which I could make anything beyond my salary, I felt sensi- 
 tive in regard to money transactions. I came into Congress in the 
 beginning of 1855, and when the war opened 1 had saved, by the most 
 rigid economy, about $3,000 ; and when the war closed my liabilities 
 were many hundred dollars greater than my assets. I raised two regi- 
 ments and two batteries at considerable expense j I had served several 
 months with General McClellen, always paying my own expenses; I 
 was chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, and my rooms were 
 continually thronged by officers and soldiers, and 1 can truthfully 
 say that no soldier ever asked me for money who did not receive some- 
 ,thing, unless he was intoxicated. So that when my wife's money was 
 given to Mr. Ames I was not worth a thousand dollars ; and I would 
 sell all I have today, my humble home excepted, for $3,500, and that I 
 have earned during the last fonr years in writing for the New York In- 
 dependent. In this transaction with Mr. Ames, I hav^e done nothing 
 which I did not feel that, as a member of Congress and a man, I had a 
 perfect right to do ; notjiing to be palliated or excused ; nothing I am 
 called upon to apologize for to my fellow-men or my country ; nothing I 
 mu^t take into my closet and ask God's forgiveness for. In making the 
 investment with Mr. Ames, though the money was not mine and its 
 profits would not be mine, 1 was actuated by no improper motives ; and 
 the moment I saw there was a bare possibility I might have made a 
 mistake, the transaction was canceled, and that, too, at a sacrifice of 
 $814. I am not regardless of the good opinion of my fellow-men ; nor 
 am I insensible, though I have been in public life for a third of a century, 
 to the criticism of a portion of the public press. Conscious of my inno- 
 cence, I feel outraged at the charges which have been made against me, 
 and I believe no greater wrong was ever perpetrated than has been per- 
 petrated on many honorable gentlemen, who could not be influenced by 
 the Pacific Eailroad, or all the railroads of the country. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 
 Q. Let me ask whether this odium which has been created in the 
 public mind has not, to some extent, arisen from mistakes which some 
 
190 CEEDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 gentlemen have made in endeavoring to conceal their connection with 
 it. — A. I cannot say as to others, but I will speak for myself. When 
 the charges first appeared in the papers, I was iu Hartford attending a 
 public meeting, and a statement was put in my hands to the eft'ect that 
 I had been given by Mr. Ames two thousand shares of the stock of the 
 Credit Mobilier, which was said to be worth, when I received it, $560,000 ; 
 that I was a very rich man, and could afford to vote for the Pacific Rail- 
 road. A statement was made on my authority that I never owned a dol- 
 lar's interest in the Pacific Eailway or any of the Pacific Eailways, either 
 in stocks, bonds, contracts, &c. That statement was absolutely true, for 
 I had had none of the stock of the Credit Mobilier given me, never saw 
 any of the stock, and never had any interest in it, or benefits from it. 
 I intended at once to publish an explanation, like the one I have made 
 to-day. Before doing so, I consulted one or two gentlemen connected 
 with the road, who said that I had done nothing demanding an explana- 
 tion ; that there was a lawsuit pending, and that, under those circum- 
 stances, I should say nothing, as it might injure them. 
 
 Q. On the supposition that it was an entirely innocent transaction, 
 was it not a mistake for the persons whose names were mixed up with it 
 to attempt to cover it up ? — A. Every gentleman must judge of that 
 for himself. I was never more innocent of wrong motive and intent 
 than in this transaction ; and it may have been a mistake for me to have 
 acted on the advice of others rather than on my own judgment. I think 
 mistakes have been made iu this matter. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Ames.) Did you not ask me, when I suggested this stock 
 to you, if we expected to want any legislation in Congress upon the sub- 
 ject, and did I not answer that we did not want any? — A. I have stated 
 that I was very explicit on that point. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Ames.) I recollect that you were verj- particular about 
 making the inquiry. — A. You told me that you wanted nothing ; that all 
 the legislation your road required had been passed years before. If 
 there had been any question on that point, I should never liave consent- 
 ed that my wife's money should have been so invested. You told me 
 that you had sold some of the stock to Mr. Grimes, and that you had 
 guaranteed it; but I did not then know that any other members of Con- 
 gress had purchased any. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Alley.) I have heard it stated that the Washington corre- 
 spondent of the Boston Traveller has published in his correspondence 
 that it was believed here that I was carrying some stock for Senator 
 Wilson ; will you be good enough to state whether there is any truth in 
 such an intimation? — A. I saw that statement in the papers. I seldom 
 complain of any criticism I see in the press, but when I saw this impu- 
 tation I went to this young man and asked why he should write such a 
 thing of me. He replied that he had heard some one state some such 
 thing, and he had sent it as a matter of news to his jiaper. Neither you 
 nor Mr. Ames, nor any other human being, holds now or ever held any- 
 thing for me in regard to the Credit Mobilier or the Union Pacific Eail- 
 road. Mr. Ames told me, when the settlement was made, that there 
 would be, he thought, some stock coming; but I told him I would not 
 receive it ; that I considered the bargain an unconsummated one, and 
 would back square out of it without receiving any benefit from it ; and 
 I did so, as I have already stated, at a personal sacrifice. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 191 
 
 WASHiNaTON, D. C, January 16, 1873. 
 
 John A. Bingham, a member of the United States House of Eepre- 
 seutatives from Ohio, having been duly sworn, made the following- 
 statement : 
 
 It is due to myself and to the House that I state all my transactions 
 with Mr. Ames. The first of these was in March or April, 186C. Con- 
 tiding in the integrity and financial judgment of Mr. Ames, and after 
 consulting and advising with him, 1 at that time paid as capital stock 
 into the Hubbard Silver Mining Company, of which Mr. Ames was the 
 president and John B. Alley treasurer, $3,000. This companj' was or- 
 ganized under the laws of Massachusetts, and had no connection with 
 the Credit Mobilier or the Union Pacific Eailroad Company, nor with 
 congressional legislation. The investment has returned me nothing, 
 and is a total loss. In December, 1867, Mr. Ames advised me to invest 
 in stock of the Credit Mobilier, assuring me it would return me my 
 money with profitable dividends. I told him I knew nothing of the 
 company nor did I know anything about dealing in stocks. He pro- 
 posed to invest my money for me in the stock and account to me for 
 the dividends. I agreed to invest $2,000, and about the 1st of Febru- 
 ary, 1868, paid him $2,000, for which he then gave me his written agree- 
 ment to account to me for the dividends and proceeds of twenty shares 
 of Credit Mobilier stock, stating therein the nominal value of Union 
 Pacific Railroad stock then represented by it and to be accounted for 
 by him. Afterward, in 1868, and upon his advice, I agreed with Mr. 
 Ames for $1,000 of the stock of the Iowa Palls and Sioux» City Con- 
 struction Company, on account of which I paid him $650, and for which 
 he gave me a written agreement to account to me for the same. 
 
 1 never received or held any stock of the Credit Mobilier or of the 
 construction company or of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company from 
 Mr. Ames or any one else. Mr. Ames was the only person known to 
 me in these contracts. I contracted with him in good faith, as I then 
 believed and still believe I lawfully might, and upon his assurance that 
 the investment would return me large profits. I had then no question 
 of my right to contract and to take the proceeds of my contracts. I no 
 more doubted my right so to do than before that, in 1865, 1 doubted my 
 right'to buy, as I did then buy and pay for, thirty shares of the stock 
 of the Harrison National Bank, located at the place of my residence. 
 
 In 1868, and a short time after I had paid Mr. Ames the money in 
 consideration of which he gave me the Credit Mobilier agreement, he 
 delivered to me two bonds of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company, 
 $1,000 each, at 95 cents on the dollar, and on account of which I paid him 
 $300, and for the residue thereof, $1,600, he indorsed a credit on his 
 agreement held by me. All subsequent dividends or payments were in 
 money or the Union Pacific Eailroad stock, the stock being charged 
 by Mr. Ames to himself, at its nominal value, on the face of his agree- 
 ment held by me, and the money indorsed thereon as a payment. In 
 the summer session of 1870, I requested Mr. Ames to close these con- 
 tracts with me, as I wished to use my money. He consented to settle, 
 and did settle in December, 1870, as I recollect, the Credit Mobilier con- 
 tract, and took it up, accounting to me for the Union Pacific stock divi- 
 dends therein stated at their nominal value, and which nominal value 
 was stated at about $8,500. He estimated the stock at not more than 
 19 cents on the dollar, or $190 to the $1,000, making in all $1,615, for 
 which sum he gave me a memorandum, and which sum he paid about 
 February or March, 1871, amounting, with interest, to $1,630.14. I wish 
 to say here that I accept Mr. Ames's statement made to the committee, that 
 
192 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 he in his settlement with me in December, 1870, adjusted the value of the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad Company stock at 19 cents, or $190 on the $1,000. 
 My recollection was and is that he adj usted it upon the basis of 18 cents, or 
 $180 upon the $1,000, but I accept his statement in that regard. Since 
 that settlement, 1 have had no interest, direct or indirect, in the Credit 
 Mobilier stock, or in the stock of tlie [Jnion Pacific Eailroad Company. I 
 sold the two railroad bonds, as my bank account shows, 23d August, 
 1869, at 88^ cents on the dollar. In February, 1872, Mr. Ames settled 
 and took up the construction contract and paid the balance thereon of 
 $728.07. I have had no further transactions with Mr. Ames. Owing 
 to the fact that all payments by Mr. Ames, before the settlements, were 
 indorsed upon the contracts held by me and the account thereof not 
 otherwise kept, I cannot state the payments with any greater accu- 
 racy than I have, but I do not hesitate to say that the aggregate 
 amount received on these two contracts was about $6,500, and I am 
 certain that on the final settlement of both contracts as above stated, 
 I received in all $2,358.21, and that this sum is more than one- 
 third of all that 1 realized in all my transactions with Mr. Ames. 
 From the inception to the close of my business with Mr. Ames, I had 
 no intimation that any other member of Congress had any contracts or 
 dealings with him in relation to Credit Mobilier or railroad stocks ; nor 
 that any other member had any interest therein, except Mr. Hooper, of 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 I did not, at any time during the continuance of those contracts, 
 hear of any controversy between Mr. Ames and Mr. McComb, or any 
 other person, about the distribution of the stocks of Credit Mobilier. 
 I never heard any intimation that Mr. Ames was dealing in this stock 
 corruptly, until September and October last, when such charges ap- 
 peared in the public press. I never supposed Mr. Ames contracted 
 with me for corrupt purposes, or on account of auj person but himself. 
 I know that I had no corrupt purpose in contracting with Mr. Ames. I 
 never gave a vote for or against any measure in Congress, but as I 
 believed to be just and right and in strict accordance with my sworn 
 duty. I never made or authorized any publication denying or explain- 
 ing any of these transactions. 1 had done nothing that in ray judg- 
 ment required either apology or explanation. When the accusation 
 was made that the stock was a reward for votes for the act of 1864, 
 which subordinated the United States lien on the Pacific Eailroad to 
 the lien of the company's bonds, &c., I knew that my answer was 
 in the records of Congress, which show that I was not a member 
 of Congress at that time. I had nothing to do with the passage of the 
 act of 1864. When the accusation was made that the act of 1869 
 was only "a good done'" the Union Pacific Eailroad Company, I 
 knew that the act would repel the slander. I make it part of my testi- 
 mony. I supported it. After sixteen years of service in Congress, I 
 leave it with no more property than I had when I entered it, save what 
 I legitimately earned during the term of the Thirty-eighth Congress, 
 and when I was not a member. 
 
 I have inquired of one of the members of the committee whether there 
 is in the room a copy of the statute of 1869 to which I have referred. I 
 desire that it may be incorporated into my testimony, that I may stand 
 upon it before the people of the country. I desire that it may be so 
 incorporated for the purpose of repelling the malicious slanders of a 
 licentious press. The act in question, I think, is to be found" in 16 
 Statutes at Large, page 56. I may say now in general that this statute 
 provides for the continued organization of the Union Pacific Eailroad 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 193 
 
 Company by authorizing an election of a board of directors at Boston, 
 and having, so provided, it saves expressly the rights of the United 
 States. It provides that the President of the United States shall with- 
 hold subsidy bonds to a sufficient amount to secure to the United States 
 the full completion of said road as a tirst-class road. It further pro- 
 vides that if the subsidy bonds remaining were not sufficient security, 
 that requisition shall be made on the company for a sufficient amount 
 of bonds to insure the full completion of the road, and that the Attorney- 
 General shall take the necessary steps to enforce the requisition in the 
 courts of the United States if need be. It further provides that inquiry 
 shall be made by the Attorney-General whether either of these companies 
 have forfeited their charters and franchises, and that he shall also make 
 inquiry whether these companies have issued illegal dividends upon 
 their stock ; and also to investigate whether any of the directors or 
 agents of these companies have violated any penal law, and, if so, insti- 
 tute proceedings. 
 
 I believe that I have now stated all that occurs to me which it is pos- 
 sible for me to state to put the committee in possession of the whole 
 matter touching this business. I am, however, ready to answer any 
 questions they may please to ask me. I ought to state before going- 
 further that in what I said upon the impulse of the moment in charac- 
 terizing the press I did not intend to include the general press of the 
 country, and perhaps very few of the journals of the country would 
 come within the designation I gave. I referred to such journals of the 
 country as had originated the false charge that a price had been p,aid 
 to me as a bribe for my congressional action, and fixed it at $20,000. 
 There is no color of truth in it. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Q. In your statement you say about the 1st of February, 1808, you 
 agreed to invest $2,000, and that you paid Mr. Ames $2,000 ; that he 
 gave you a written agreement to account to you for all the dividends 
 and profits of twenty shares of Credit Mobilier stock. Have ^ou that 
 agreement ? — A. Ko, sir. The agreement was a continuing contract by 
 which Mr. Ames was bound to account to me, and on which the pay- 
 ments from time to time by him made were indorsed. When it was 
 settled he took it up. I have no copy of it. It was exactly ■o-'-i'^t I have 
 stated. 
 
 Q. Ton have stated in your manuscript all you can sta^ . , regard to 
 the stock 1 — A. I have, and I have not a doubt that I have also stated 
 substantially the legal effect of the agreements with Mr. Ames. 
 
 Q. Did you understand from Mr. Ames at that time whether there 
 were already declared dividends upon the stock ? — A. I understood 
 nothing from Mr. Ames in regard to it, except what was necessarily 
 implied from the statement incorporated in the agreement to which I 
 have referred in my written statement. He was to account for the value 
 of the amount then received in Union Pacific Railroad stock therein 
 stated at its nominal value. 
 
 Q. Do you now know whether there had been prior to this agreement 
 dividends declared upon the Credit Mobilier stock, and in the stock or 
 bonds of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company? — A. I do not except 
 what you might infer from the transaction. I have no recollection of it. 
 I had entire confidence in Mr. Ames's statement that the investment 
 would return large dividends, and I have stated that some short time 
 after the contract was entered into he had given as a dividend bonds 
 which represented, as I understand, a larger amount than was due, and 
 he required me to pay back $300, which I did I ought to sky further that 
 
I'D 4 • CEEDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 what has been stated in the papers, of this stock beiug worth 300 per 
 •cent, premium, is a statement that by my experience and settlement is 
 ■without any foundation in truth. Anybody who will take the trouble to 
 compute the money I paid Mr. Ames from the first transaction I had 
 with him in the mining stock, and compute the amount I received on 
 both contracts as I have stated, will see that I received very little, if 
 any, more than a return of the actual money ventured in these several 
 transactions, with 10 per cent, interest. I do not intend, however, to 
 take anything from the statement I have just made further than to no- 
 tice that the statement I have heard of 200, 300, 400, and I think at one 
 time 700 per cent, premium, or dividends, is not in accordance with my 
 experience. 
 
 Q. In the settlement you made with Mr. Ames did he take back the 
 mining stock which you purchased of him 1 — A. I hold the certificate 
 for that yet, but there is nothing of any value in it. 
 
 Q. You own all in that investment that anybody owns, do you not? — 
 A. I own all anybody does; if it is of any service to Mr. Ames he is 
 welcome to it. It is not worth a farthing, and never was. 
 
 Q. When you made this settlement, was there any reckoning in any 
 way about the mining stock? — A. Nothing. There was nothing in it to 
 reckon. 
 
 Q. You did not include the money you had paid for it! — A. Certainly 
 not. I do not mean to be understood that these two contracts had any- 
 thing to do with the mining contract. 
 
 Q. How much did you actually receive from Mr. Ames in your settle- 
 iment, or at any time, out of the $2,000 you paid him ? — A. I have stated 
 exactly the amount received on the final settlement of Credit Mobilier 
 contract. It was $1,630.1J:. I have stated that I received in all, on the 
 Credit Mobilier contract and the Construction Company's contract, about 
 $6,500. That statement is substantially correct.' 
 
 Q. For the Union Pacific Railroad stock; Mr. Ames kept the stock and 
 paid you for it? — A. Certainly ; he was bound by his contract to account 
 to me for it. He entered it, from time to time, upon the face of the agree- 
 ment, at its nominal value. At one time he took up that agreement on 
 account of its interlineations, rewrote it, put upon the new one the 
 amount already indorsed, and took up the old one. 
 
 Q. We have learned from the books and papers which are here that 
 at one time there was a money dividend declared upon this stock; was 
 that paid to you !— A. I have said distinctly in my statement to the 
 committee that he accounted to me for dividends in money and Union 
 Pacific Eailroad stock and bonds. The money dividends were reported 
 to me and indorsed by Mr. Ames on the contract held by me. The 
 stock dividends were also charged on the face of the contract to be 
 accounted for by him. 
 
 Q. Do you mean that Mr. Ames kept the money dividends himself 
 and indorsed it upon the face of the contract? — ^^A. No, sir; I never 
 intimated that Mr. Ames kept any money dividends. I intend to make 
 myself explicit upon that point. The money that was paid to me was 
 indorsed on the contract as a payment by him to me, as already stated 
 by me. What he paid me is ail 1 know of money dividends. 
 
 By Mr. Mekeick : 
 Q. You say that you paid him $2,000 in money originally, and that 
 the aggregate received from all sources connected with this Credit Mo- 
 bilier business was about $6,500?— A. I stated that I afterward invested 
 in a contract with him for $1,000 stock of the Iowa Falls and 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. ' 195 
 
 Sioux City Constructiou Company. I stated in addition that I settled 
 for the Construction Company contract in the winter of 1872, and that 
 I received for that on that settlement a balance of $728.07, and I stated 
 that all the money I received from Mr. Ames on both these contracts 
 was about $6,500. 
 
 Q. That is, upon the investment of $2,C50, you received in the aggre- 
 gate about $6,500? — A. That is just 'what I believe to be the truth as to 
 the amount received on both contracts in all. The payments were in- 
 dorsed upon the contract just as I would indorse payment upon the back 
 of a promissory note. 
 
 Q. Were, you the draughtsman of this act of April, 18G9, which has 
 been referred to"? — A. I think not. My recollection is that I either re- 
 j)orted from the committee or ofl'ered a resolution in the House for the 
 purpose of enabling the railroad company to continue its organization, 
 substantially, as 1 remember. Whether that passed the House I do not 
 know. My recollection now is, that the joint resolution to which j^ou 
 refer came from the Senate, in lieu of the one I have referred to, and 
 that I called it up in the House and urged its passage, as I then be- 
 lieved, and now believe, it was my duty to do, in the interest of the 
 United States. 
 
 Q. You advocated and supported the measure, and it was passed ? — 
 A. I most undoubtedly supported it; there was not much advocacy 
 about it. There was a little excitement in the House, as there always 
 is when any bill is proposed to be passed, and you understand, as I do, 
 that under such circumstances the best thing to do is to stop debate and. 
 I^ass the bill, if it be just and needful. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge of any dealings by Mr. Ames with any 
 other person, or with other members of Congress, relating to this Credit 
 Mobilier stock ? — A. My recollection is that I stated that during the 
 continuance of my contracts with Mr. Ames I had no information from 
 any source that I can recollect that he had any dealings with any member 
 of Congress about the stock except myself. I had no knowledge of any 
 other member of Congress being concerned in the Credit Mobilier ex- 
 cept Mr. Hooper. Since this noise made in the papers about the affair, 
 I have heard from Mr. Ames that he had dealings with other members. 
 All this information has come to me since the publications in September 
 last, and since Congress met. I had no communication with him on the 
 subject, or other members charged, until Congress met in December 
 last. 
 
 By Mr. McOeary : 
 Q. I understand that Mr. Ames induced you to take the silver-mining 
 stock ^ — A. Yes. I do not wish to cast any reproach on Mr. Ames about 
 that business. I think he wanted to do me a kindness. I said that 
 after consultation and advice with Mr. Ames, in whom I had entire 
 confidence, both as to his integrity and financial judgment, I did invest 
 in that stock ; and I had greater confidence in it from the fact that he 
 was president of the company. 
 
 By Mr. Ames : 
 Q. I did not advise you to take it, did I ? — A. I cannot say whether 
 you did formally or not. The fact that you consulted with me about it 
 I have stated, and the fact that you had embarked in it yourself, and 
 .was president of the company, I considered very strong advice. 
 
 By Mr. McOrary : 
 Q. When he offered you this Credit Mobilier stock, had you the im- 
 pression that it was to enable you to make up for your loss on the sil- 
 
196 ■ CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 ver-mining operation?— A. I cannot say that. 1 will not say that Mr. 
 Ames did it with that view. I will state he said it would not be right 
 that I should lose the money I had invested in that. But I did not 
 hold Mr. Ames responsible at all for the loss in the silver-mining opera- 
 tion. 
 
 Q. Was it not, however, one of the objects you had in going into 
 this Credit Mobilier transaction to get even for the loss sustained 1 — 
 A. I Cannot say that I formed any opinion of that sort in my mind. 
 He vrould be a very bold man who, five years afterward, would under- 
 take to recall the Secret operations of his own mind. I think it would 
 be a very natural reflection, having lost $2,000 and intei'est, that, if I 
 had an opportunity afforded me of making up that loss, I had better be 
 about it. Still, I will not swear that that was the course of reasoning 
 in my mind five years ago. 
 
 By Mr. Niblace: : 
 Q. It is suggested that this enterprise of yours in the mining stock 
 originated from Mr. Alley rather than from Mr. Ames. — A. As to that, 
 I do not know. I recollect generally that Mr. Alley was very active 
 about it. As to how it originated I do not know. Mr. Ames boarded 
 at the house with me, and I had the most unlimited confidence in his 
 integrity and financial judgment. I asked him about it, and he thought 
 it was a wise thing for me to do, and, considering that he was president 
 of the company and was taking stock himself, 1 thought it was safe for 
 me to do it. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Q. You do not consider yourself now as. having any interest in the 
 Credit Mobilier 1 — A. I have sworn to the committee, and I repeat it, 
 that, from the time of the settlement in December, 1870, and of the 
 taking up of the obligation by Mr. Ames, I had no interest at all in the 
 Credit Mobilier; I never held or received a certificate of stock, and, by 
 the terms of the contract, was not entitled to any. We closed the whole 
 matter, and it became merely a money-balance represented by a written 
 memorandum which he gave me, and afterward paid me, as already 
 stated. 
 
 By Mr. McCraky : 
 Q. You regarded the act of 1869 as not in the interest of the Pacific 
 Eailroad Companies ? — A. I certainly did consider that it was in the. 
 interest of both the companies, and it is very clear on its face that it was 
 in the interest of the United States. I may just as well add here, from 
 information I had at the time, without iiltending to reflect upon any 
 tribunal, that the interests of the United States, without some sort of 
 legislation, could not then have been protected, for the reason that the 
 State courts would intervene to prevent the Union Pacific Company 
 from re-organizing. 
 
 By Sir. Merrick : 
 
 Q. Did the Attorney-General institute a proceeding under the fourth 
 section of that resolution ? — A. I do not know. It is reasonable to pre- 
 sume that what the law required to be done was done. 
 
 The act of April 10, 1869, above referred to by the witness, is as 
 follows : 
 
 JOINT EESOLTJTION for the protection of the interests of the United States in the Union Pacific 
 Railroad Company, the Central Paciiic Railroad Company, and for other purposes. 
 
 Be it resolved iy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
 in Congress assenxbled, That the stockholders of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, at 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 197 
 
 a meeting to be held on tlie twenty-second day of April, eighteen hundred and sixty- 
 nine, at the city of Boston, (with power to adjourn from day to day,) shall elect a board 
 of directors for the ensuing year ; and said stockholders are hereby authorized to es- 
 tablish their general ofdoe at such place in the United States as they may select at said 
 meeting : Provided, That the passage of this resolution shall not confer any other right 
 upon said Union Pacific Eailroad Company than to ho],d such election, or be held in 
 any manner to relinquish or waive any rights of the United States to take advantage 
 of any act or neglect of said Union Pacific Eailroad Company heretofore done or omitted 
 ■whereby the rights of the General Government have been or may be prejudiced: And 
 provided further, That the common terminus of the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific 
 Eailroads shall be at or near Ogden ; and the Union Pacific Eailroad Company shall 
 build, and the Central Pacific Eailroad Company pay for and own, the railroad from the 
 terminus aforesaid to Promontory Summit, at which point the rails shall meet and con- 
 nect and form one continuous line. 
 
 Sec. 2. And beit further resolved, That to ascertain the condition of tfie Union Pacific 
 Railroad and the Central Pacific Eailroad, the President of the United States is author- 
 ized to appoint a board of eminon* citizens, not exceeding five in number, and who 
 shall not be interested in either road, to examine and report upon the condition of, and 
 what sum or sums, if .any, will be required to complete each of said roads, for the entire 
 length thereof, to the said terminus as a first-class railroad, in compliance with the 
 several acts relating to said roads ; and the expense of such board, including an allow- 
 ance of ten dollars to each for their services for each day employed in sucli examina- 
 tion or report, to be paid equally by said companies. 
 
 Sec. 3. And be it further resolved, That the President is hereby authorized afid required 
 to withhold from each of said companies an amount of subsidy bonds authorized to be 
 issued by the United States under said acts sufficient to secure tlie full completion as a 
 first-class road of all sections of such road upon which bonds have already been issued, 
 ■or in lieu of such bonds he may receive as such security an equal amount of the first- 
 mortgage bonds of such company ; and if it shall appear to the President that the 
 amount of subsidy bonds yet to be issued to either of said companies is insuffioient to 
 insure the full completion of such road, he may make requisition upon such company 
 for a sufficient amount of bonds already issued to said company, or in his discretion of 
 their first-mortgage bonds, to secure the full completion of the same. And in default 
 of obtaining such security as [is] in this section provided, the President may authorize 
 and direct the Attorney-General to institute such suits and proceedings on behalf and in 
 the name of the United States, in any court of the United States having jurisdiction, 
 -as shall be necessary or proper to compel the giving of such security, and thereby, or 
 in any manner otherwise, to protect the interests of the United States in said road, 
 and to insure, the full completion thereof as a first-class road, as required by law and 
 the statutes in that case made. 
 
 Sec. 4. And be it further resolved, That the Attorney-General of the United States be, 
 .and he is hereby, authorized and directed to investigate whether or not the charter 
 and all the franchises of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company have not been forfeited, 
 and to institute all necessary and proper legal proceedings; also to investigate whether 
 or not said companies have or have not made any illegal dividends upon their stock, 
 and if so, to institute the necessary proceedings to have the same re-imbursed ; and 
 also to investigate whether any of the directors or any other agents or employes of said 
 •companies have or not violated any penal law, and if so, to institute the proper .orimi- 
 • nal proceedings against all persons who have violated such laws. 
 
 Approved, April 10, 1869. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 16, 1873. 
 Hon. William D. Kelley, a member of the United States House of 
 liepresentatives from Pennsylvania, sworn and examined. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. Will you state to the committee, in your own way, whether 
 you had any negotiations or dealings with Oakes Ames in reference to 
 the stock of the Credit Mobilier ? — Answer. I have no written memoran- 
 , dum and am here simply to answer such .questions as the committee may 
 put to ine. I met Mr. Ames casually. I know it was casually for I came 
 out of the hotel at which I was boarding, and found him waiting appar- 
 ently for a car, which was also my business, on the P street line. We 
 fell into conversation ; he congratulated me upon having become rich 
 ■enough to have a thousand dollars to waste, which led to some conver- 
 
198 ■ CEEDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 sation about my financial affairs, not then in the most flourishing con- 
 dition. They are very much better now, I am happy to say. 
 
 In that conversation I stated that my name had been improperly ad- 
 vertised as a subscriber to the stock of the Credit Foncier which was 
 about to be organized -by George Francis Train, to which subscription 
 Mr. Ames had referred. 
 
 At this distance of time I do not pretend to repeat the conversation 
 verbatim, but I remember the substance of it pretty accurately. Mr. 
 Ames said to me that while that was a speculative thing, he felt disposed 
 to let me have an investment which would be of a better character, and 
 spoke of the Credit Mobilier, of which I thought I knew something from 
 the fact that it was chartered by my own State some years before I be- 
 came a member of Congress, and the provisions of the charter of which 
 I had discussed somewhat with my professional brethren, both in my 
 office and in the court-room while waiting for trials or arguments. I 
 had never discussed it before the bench of judges, but in that informal 
 ■way. He said to me that the dividends had been pretty large ; he did 
 not know whether they would be so large in the future, but he regarded 
 it as a good investment, and having heard a statement of the condition 
 of my affairs, he proposed to carry ten shares, or a thousand dollars of 
 it, on these terms, viz, that I should allow him seven per cent, interest 
 on a thousand dollars, and any dividends the stock might earn would be 
 carried to my account, and if it should pay for itself with seven per cent. 
 down to the time at which it should so pay for itself the stock should 
 become mine. If it should not pay for itself, but pay more than seven 
 per cent., the difference should be mine. I said to him I did not see how 
 I could lose anything by that 'operation. I regarded it as one between 
 two friends, one of wbom was in affluent circumstances and the other 
 seriously embarrassed, while holding property which, if he could hold 
 on to, would insure a competence ; and when we parted it was with the 
 understanding that tne arrangement had been assented to by both par- 
 ties. 
 
 Now, as to the date of that conversation : When this investigation 
 arose, I challenged my memory in vain for an occurrence by which to 
 fix it, even approximately. The 14th of last month I received a printed 
 circular which I have upon my person, from New York, signed by John 
 J. Cisco, John A. Dix, and others, reminding me that I was a subscri- 
 ber to the stock of the Credit Foncier, and requesting my attendance at 
 a meeting of the subscribers, Friday, the 20th of December. The post- 
 mark shows that it was mailed at New York, the 14th. I immediately 
 addressed Mr. Cisco a note, of which the following is an extract : 
 
 "Now, my d ar sir, may I ask you to do me what, at this moment, 
 will be a marked personal favor, inasmuch as it will enable me to fix, 
 approximately, another date which it may be important to fix, aM 
 which I have no other means of ascertaining ? Will you have the kind- 
 ness to furnish the date of the subscription to the Credit Foncier ob- 
 tained by Mr. Train in this city? Aa immediate compliance wUl 
 oblige," &c. 
 
 I have never received an answer to that communication, but if it is 
 desirable that the committee should learn, they will probably be able 
 to be more fortunate than I in that behalf. The conversation between 
 Mr. Ames and myself was subsequent to the publication of that subscrip; ' 
 tion, because it began by his reference to it. There is only one other 
 date in the whole affair that I am able to fix approximately, and I will 
 come to that directly. 
 
 After the interview in question some time, how long I do not know^ 
 
CEKDIT MOBILIER. 199 
 
 Mr. Ames said to ine, ou the floor of the House of Eepreseutatives, that, 
 owing to some embarrassments, which he did not explain, that contract 
 could not be carried out. I think he said the embarrassment arose from 
 the fact that the whole matter was in litigation. 
 
 Thus ended all connection of mine with the matter. During that 
 time, nor subsequently, have I received directly or indirectly any money, 
 stock, or bonds as dividends of the Credit Mobilier, or any interest in 
 stock of Union Pacific Eailroad or bonds. I have never to my knowl- 
 edge seen a share of the stock in Credit Mobilier or in the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad Company. I have never owned but one Union Pacific Eail- 
 road bond, and that was purchased for me by my attorney as a tempo- 
 rary investment, with the balance of a fund awarded me by the city of 
 Philadelphia as compensation for damage done me on opening Huttou 
 street, not due to the mortgage creditor, and which 1 instructed him in 
 my absence from the city to put into a ten per cent, income bond of 
 the Union Pacific Eailroad, as an investment until the next mortgage or 
 judgment creditor should come around for something that I was not 
 ready to pay. 
 
 I had previously to this, on the basis of my personal credit, borrowed 
 from Mr. Ames $500, stipulating to pay him up about a certain time in 
 which I did pay him. I subsequently borrowed from him a thousand 
 dollars. This was before this Pacific Eailroad or Credit Mobilier ques- 
 tion had brought Mr. Ames into temporary embarrassment, and I fix 
 that fact by this other one, that when, after a temporary absence from 
 the House, he returned to" it, 1 said to him that it grieved me to have 
 to say that I could not return him that thousand dollars, and was 
 very glad to hear him say that it would not distress him to with- 
 hold it; that he had been pretty seriously embarrassed, but that he had 
 something else than that thousand dollars to look to. 
 
 I have given you, as nearly as I can remember, all that I know on 
 this question. 
 
 You have put a question to other witnesses which makes it proper, 
 at this point, for me to say that Mr. Ames did not intimate to me that 
 any other member of Congress or any Senator had invested in or pro- 
 posed to hold any of this stock. When I i^arted with him that evening, 
 I supposed the conversation to have been a purely personal one, touch- 
 ing his interest and mine, and involving no question of legislation, and 
 further that, knowing that the Credit Mobilier had been chartered, as I 
 thought improvidently if not unconstitutionally, by the State of 'Penn- 
 sylvania, although I believe the courts have decided otherwise in the 
 interim, and that it was"chartered, not for the construction of the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad, but of railroads in the South and "West, I did not sus- 
 pect that it had confined its operations to one enterprise generally. In 
 the course of the conversation with Mr. Ames, he spoke in general terms, 
 imparting no definite information, as to past dividends, but said they 
 might not be so good in the future. My recollection is that he intimated 
 that the value of the stock vould depend upon future contracts. Now, 
 whether I knew it was for the construction of the Union Pacific Eail- 
 road, I»am not able to say. I do not know what I did, but I do say 
 this, that if I had known the fact, I should not have felt any hesitation 
 or any doubt as to my right, or any doubt as to the propriety of my 
 making that purchase ; and I go further and say that, after what Mr. Ames 
 sjiid to me, that if I had had the ability to draw a check for one thousand 
 dollars, I would, perhaps, have made more definite inquiry than 1 made 
 when the offer came to me on such terms ; but I have no doubt I would 
 have drawn my check and taken- the certificate for a thousand dollars 
 
200 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 of stock. I would doubtless have regretted it, iu view of the facts that 
 have since been disclosed ; but, in reviewing the whole field, I cannot see 
 that any member of Congress was precluded from making a purchase 
 of that stock more than he would be from buying a flock of sheep, the 
 value of which could be affected by a change of the tariff on wool or 
 woolen goods. You cannot get a Congress of which none of the mem- 
 bers shall be interested in any of the votes that must be taken. You 
 cannot touch legislation that will increase or retard immigi'ation without 
 affecting the poor interest I hold in land that was, when purchased, sub- 
 urban, but is rapidly becoming the central portion of Philadelphia. 
 
 My self-respect will not permit me to believe it was proposed to buy 
 my legislative action with the profits I should make on an investment 
 of a thousand dollars ; nor can I believe that such an investment would 
 be made suggestive of any such result, as it is widely known that it is 
 now largely more than one-fourth of a century since I began, under the 
 Impulse of Asa Whitney, to agitate the question of a Government grant 
 for a railroad across the continent. 
 
 I have with me in Washington a copy of a petition that I am known 
 by the old residents of Philadelphia to have circulated in the early 
 period of my professional life in 1845-'46, and to have- spent much time 
 in procuring signatures to, asking Congress to grant a strip of land sixty 
 miles wide in aid of the construction of a railroad from the base of 
 Lake Michigan to the waters of the Columbia Eiver and Paget Sound. 
 
 In the year 184G I entered upon a movement for the purpose of con- 
 vening a meeting which became respectable and influential, but which 
 required six months' labor to give it character — which meeting was 
 held at the Chinese Museum, over which the then mayor of the city 
 presided, at which Josiah Eandall, esq., the father of my colleague, 
 (Samuel J. Eandall, spoke with me in favor of the Government making- 
 such a grant, at which Asa Whitney also presented his views; all of 
 which, in the month of June, 1871, I brought to the attention of the 
 people of Philadelphia in an address at the Academy of Music, several 
 of the officers of which meeting had, more than a quarter of a century 
 ago, acted as officers on the occasion to which I have referred. 
 
 I therefore say that neither my self-respect will permit me to believe 
 that I was sought to be bought by that operation which I believed was 
 purely personal, having no reference to any such thing, or that Mr. 
 Ames was stupid enough to iiivest his money with any such view in 
 one who, for more than a quarter of a century, had been an enthusiast 
 in the work for the promotion of which he was supposed to be pur- 
 chased. 
 
 Q. This conversation you had with Mr. Ames in regard to your be- 
 coming the owner of ten shares of the Credit Mobilier stock was during 
 the session of Congress? — A. I think so. I have no doubt of the fact. 
 I was leaving the Ebbitt House or one of the newspaper offices — I can- 
 not tell which — and joined him at the junction of F and Fourteenth 
 streets, to take a car. • 
 
 Q. Have you an idea in relation to the time of the year it was, whether 
 it was winter or summer ?— A. My impression is that it was cold weather. 
 I remember very well the place and the incident. I remember having 
 the thought for a time that 1 was to become the owner of ten shares of 
 this stock; but I cannot fix the date or any approximate date by any 
 circumstance that occurs to me except the one to which I have referred. 
 
 Q. The conversation grew out of the fact that you had subscribed to 
 this Credit Foucier?— A. That I had subscribed, or that it was alleged 
 that I had subscribed. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 201 
 
 Q. The Stock of this company, before its charter was transferred to 
 New York, was rather faucy stock than otherwise, was it not ':?— A. I 
 think it was, under the auspices of its commencement ; I do not know 
 what it may become under its present managers. 
 
 Q. The conversation you had with Mr. Ames resulted in the agree- 
 ment on your part to take ten sliares? — A. Yes, sir; and I wish it to be 
 distinctly understood that it was not my fault that I did not get it. I 
 supposed I had contracted for ten shares of stock. 
 
 Q. Were any dividends ever paid to you on it ? — A. No, sir ; I received 
 nothing from it. 
 
 Q. The result of the money transaction in reference to the Credit Mo- 
 bilier stock, then, was that you neither paid Mr. Ames anything uor 
 received anything on that account? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. The question has been raised by somebody in regard to that thou- 
 sand dollars; I understand that you had borrowed $500, which you 
 repaid, and that subsequently to that you borrowed $1,000 of Mr. 
 Ames 1 — A. Yes, sir. I assume it to be subsequent, because that puts 
 the case most strongly against me. 
 
 Q. State whether the borrowing of that thousand dollars from Mr. 
 Ames had any connection in any manner with the Credit Mobilier 
 stock. — A. I am here reminded of what Judge Bingham said on the 
 uncertainly of speaking of what may have been passing in a person's 
 mind so long ago, and of all the considerations that may have entered 
 into his motives. 
 
 Q. I, am simply inquiring whether it was any part of that transaction 
 in reference to the Credit Mobilier. — A. No ; I was pressed for money ; 
 I went to Mr. Ames and asked him to loan me $1,000. I explained to 
 him my embarrassment to a sufficient extent to induce the loan. It 
 had, so far as I can remember; in my mind no possible reference to the 
 Credit Mobilier; while I think it not impossible it may have had in his. 
 If he still supposed I was to get the stock, he may have supposed the 
 loan would be adjusted ultimately in connection with it. How that was 
 I cannot say. I did not propose anything of the kind. 
 
 Q. To your recollection, was anything said between you and Mr. Ames 
 at the time you borrowed the thousand dollars in regard to the contract 
 of the Credit Mobilier? — A. No, sir; when the publication in regard to 
 this matter first came to my attention, I was away from the excitement 
 of Congress, in the Eocky Mountains. I have challenged my memory 
 in vain for anything as being connected with the obligation of the loan 
 and the receipt of the money. If I had received it in connection with 
 the Credit Mobilier transaction, I should not, when Mr. Ames fell into 
 what seemed to me financial misfortune, have gone to him to express 
 my regret at being unable to repay him then. 
 
 Q. If you had received that as a payment upon the Credit Mobilier 
 stock, you would not have been troubled about your inability to pay it 
 backs — A. No, sir. Ihavetested that matter in my own mind in another 
 way. I have asked myself the question, if that fund were garuishoed 
 by a creditor of Oakes Ames, and on the other hand by a creditor of the 
 Credit Mobilier, what would be my answer in court, as between the two, 
 which I owed the money to. It would be a negative answer to the inter- 
 rogatories of the creditors of the Credit Mobilier. It would be an affirm- 
 ative answer to the interrogatories of the creditors of Oakes Ames. In 
 that case the parties would be indifi'erent to me. 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection how long it was after this arrangement 
 or contract between you and Mr. Ames before you learned from Mr. 
 Ames that for some reason he could not fulfill the agreement to let you 
 
202 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 have the stock"? — A. Upon my word, I have not. I have given you the 
 only two points by which I can fix any approximate dates in the trans- 
 action. 
 
 Q. Do you remember what Mr. Ames said in regard to the probable 
 earning or dividends of the Credit Mobilier"? — A. I think he said they 
 had been pretty large in the past; that they would not be likely to be so 
 large in the future. I am confident he said it would be very good stock. 
 
 Q. Do you remember any particulars in regard to this statement of 
 dividend to you! — A. There was nothing definite between us. It was a 
 conversation at a casual meeting on the curbstone. I had no money to 
 invest. I was really assuming no responsibility, and I did not inquire 
 with that particularity I should have done under other circumstances. 
 I supposed the whole transaction to be a friendly one. But as to my 
 right to' make the purchase, being a member of Congress, no question 
 occurred to me ; and I claim, as I have said, that I had a perfect right to 
 make it. 
 
 Q. You say that in that conversation there was no reference made to 
 any action of Congress upon the action of the Uiiion Pacific Eailroad ! — 
 A. Not the slightest. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge in relation to any transaction between 
 Mr. Ames and any other member of Congress ?^A. None except what 
 I have gathered since these publications have been made, and the matter 
 had almost passed from my mind until, on the I2th of September, when 
 between Cheyenne and Fort Saunders, a Chicago paper was put into my 
 hands on the train, which contained a statement from the New York Sun 
 in regard to this matter, in which I was put down as having received 
 two thousand shares of stock in the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 By Mr. Meeriok : 
 Q. Did yon vote for a joint resolution, which has been referred to, of 
 April 10, 1869 ? — A. I was unfortunately out of the House when it passed. 
 I certainly should have voted for it. It was one of those acts which, 
 strange to say, had the support of both sides. While it continued the 
 organizations of the railroad company, it gave additional guarantees to 
 the Government. I supposed the measure would not be passed without 
 some discussion, and had gone to the Senate for a short period; when 
 I returned the resolution had passed. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 
 Q. Let me ask, inasmuch as this loan has not been paid, whether it is 
 your habit to allow loans to run for that length of time without any 
 settlement f — A. I am very much obliged to you for asking that ques- 
 tion. When I was elected to Congress I believed myself to be in very 
 easy circumstances. I soon found myself in extreme embarrassment, 
 arising from three causes. 
 
 [The witness here stated in detail the circumstances of his own finan- 
 cial embarrassment, extending through several years of time, in which, 
 but for the indulgence of friends in permitting interest to run into 
 principal, he must have been stripped of all his property.] 
 
 By Mr. McCraey: 
 
 Q. You were to pay Mr. Ames nothing on the stock he agreed to fur- 
 nish you, except the dividends that should accrue? — A. No; in case the 
 dividends amounted to but 7 per cent., he was to receive and retain them ; 
 but if they amounted, in addition to the 7 per cent., to the par value of 
 the stock, the stock was to be transferred to mie as a compliment on the 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. , 203 
 
 part of Mr. Ames. I had no suspiciou of the trausactiou having any 
 political significance, or of its being connected in any way with public 
 affairs. 
 
 Q. There was no obligation to pay anything at all to Mr. Ames "? — A. 
 No, sir ; nor was there any obligation on his part to deliver anything 
 to me unless the stock should earn more than 7 per cent. After the 
 earnings amounted to more than 7 per cent., they were to be applied in 
 payment of this stock until it was all paid for, if they should be suf- 
 ficient. 
 
 Q. If it had been stated to you that the purpose of Mr. Ames was to 
 place that stock with members of Congress, in order to have friends in 
 Congress and prevent investigation by Congress, would it have pre- 
 sented a different question for your consideration ? — A. If any such con- 
 sideration had been presented, that would have concluded me, of course, 
 but I took it for granted that a man who has been here through all this 
 railroad legislation, advocating almost every measure which has been 
 adopted for the encouragement of railroad enterprise, standing upon 
 such a record for more than a quarter of a century as a uniform and 
 ■fast friend of railroad extension, and who never has owned a share of 
 railroad stock, except some five shares in a Pennsylvania railroad and 
 a small interest in a street railroad in Baltimore — I say, the idea that a 
 man with such a record was to have his integrity assailed by a contin- 
 gent interest in ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock did not occur to me. 
 During allthis period of railroad legislation, if I had been disposed to 
 have perv^ted my position to a source of relief from my embarrass- 
 ment, I think I might have done so successfully, and have covered it up. 
 Certainly, if it had been suggested to me that this stock was being put 
 into the hands of members of Congress for any such purpose, I should 
 have spurned it and the man who offered it. 
 
 Q. Have you read the letters of Mr. Ames to Mr. McComb which 
 have been published ? — A. Yes, sir ; but until I read them, I did not 
 conceive it possible that any suspicion of my integrity could be sug- 
 gested by this operation. 
 
 Q. It you had known the character of these letters, would you have 
 purchased the stock"? — A. If Ihadreadtheletters, I certainly would not 
 have purchased the stock ; at the same time, I do not think Mr. Ames, 
 (I cannot believe it of him,) and I do not believe Mr. Ames meant to 
 imply that he was buying gentlemen in Congress to the support of any 
 proposition by the possible gain they might have on ten or twenty shares 
 apiece. The idea of drawing strength to the company by such proposi- 
 tion implies a depth of stupidity that I cannot attribute to Mr. Ames. 
 
 Q. You do not mean to be understood that it is immaterial whether 
 members have a personal interest in matters of legislation or not ? — A. 
 Not at all. I mean to say you cannot get a Congress in which all the 
 members will have no such remote interest in legislation as I have re- 
 ferred to. 
 
 Q. You refer to cases where the interest of the Government is also 
 the interest of the individuals particularly concerned. You do not mean 
 to say where the private interest of individuals might not come in con- 
 tact with their duties as members of Congress? — A. Certainly not ; I 
 could mention one instance in which my own personal interest was very 
 palpably in opposition to the legislation which I advocated. I am the 
 owner, to a certain extent, of an interest in the street railroads of Balti- 
 more, which have a hard contract with the city of Baltimore. Under 
 the internal-revenue law, assessing a Government tax of 2^ per cent, 
 upon the gross earnings of 'the company, they were permitted to re- 
 
204 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 imburse themselves by charging an additional cent for each passenger, 
 which, in this instance, was receiving a cent on their part to re-imburse 
 an outlay of a sixteenth part of a cent. During the existence of that 
 law, they paid me dividends, but regarding, as 1 did, the tax on trans- 
 portation as most prejudicial to the interest of the country, I was active, 
 as the members of the Committee of Ways and Means will bear witness, 
 to the extent of my ability, in laboring for its repeal. The result is, 
 unhappily for my interest in the Baltimore street-railroads, that, having 
 paid dividends during the existence of the tax, it does not pay any for 
 the last six months. There is none for January. It seems to me, there- 
 fore, that the natural tendency of a personal interest in a matter of 
 legislation would be to induce members to lean against their personal 
 interest than otherwise. 
 
 By Mr. Meeeiok : 
 Q. Does not a rule of the House forbid a member voting upon a meas- 
 ure in. which he has a personal interest ? — A. Yes ; but as inasmuch as 
 my personal interest was against the course I took, I did not feel myself 
 bound by the rule. 
 
 By Mr. MoCeARY : 
 Q. Would you regard a stockholder in the Union Pacific Eailroad or 
 Credit Mobilier competent to vote upon that bill which subordinated the 
 Government loan to the first-mortgage loan of the company ? — A. This 
 question as to what should be the standard of action in such cases is 
 one that each member must decide for himself, and I think !t should be 
 left, as it is by parliamentary law, to the judgment of each member, sub- 
 ject to the criticism of his peers and his responsibility to his constituents. 
 I can only say that, for myself, if I had held such an interest at the time 
 the bill you referred to passed, I certainly should not have felt free to 
 vote in favor of it. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January IG, 1872. 
 Glenni W. Scopibld, a member of the United States House, of Eep- 
 resentatives from Pennsylvania, having been duly sworn, made the 
 following statement : 
 
 For many years I have been in the habit of investing in bonds or 
 stocks whatever surplus, however small, I might have from year to year. 
 In December, 1866, I bought of Mr. Ames some bonds on the Cedar 
 Eapids and Missouri Kaliroad. In December, 1867, I spoke to him 
 about getting more. He suggested that I should take this Credit Mo- 
 bilier stock. He explained that it was a contracting company, incorpo- 
 rated by the legislature of my State, and he would like to have some 
 Pennsylvanians in it. In a brief way he explained its object. He said 
 he would sell me some at par, with interest from some former period, at 
 my own risk, or he would guarantee that it would pay 8 per cent, if I 
 would give him half it earned above that sum. I told him I thought I 
 would take one thousand dollars of it. I told him I would get the money 
 and see him again. Before anything was done, however, I was called 
 home by severe illness in my family, and did not return until some days 
 after Kew Year's. Some time after, when I met Mr. Ames and spoke about 
 getting him the money, he said he thought I was too late ; as I did not 
 give him the money he supposed I had abandoned it, and he thought it 
 was all sold, but I could give liim the money then, and he would ascer- 
 tain and get it if he could. I ga — '' " , . . -. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 205 
 
 This was the last of January. He subseqiifently iaformed me that- he 
 could get the stock, but it was in a larger block, and he would have to 
 get it divided. 
 
 Either at thistime or soon after, I told him I had concluded not to 
 take the stock. We talked the matter over, and I finally agreed to take 
 some of his railroad securities instead. Some balance was settled in 
 money, and 1 gave him his receipt. This was daring that same session 
 of Congress, more thaq four years ago. 
 
 I do not -recollect of any legislation pending or in prospect at this 
 time that Mr. Ames was interested in. I was not in Congress when the 
 subsidies to the Pacific roads were granted, and I voted against the act 
 of 1864 giving the company's mortgage priority. The legislation that 
 came up two or three years after was based upon facts subsequently 
 developed, and could not, therefore, have been anticipated by me. 
 Nothing was said about legislation, and certainly it was not thought of 
 by me. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Will you state the time when this matter was adjusted be- 
 tween you andMr.Amesfinally? — Answeh I have stated that it was during 
 that session of Congress. I fix it as during that session of Congress, 
 and I fix it at that date from two or three facts which I could state. 
 
 Q. WhatwerethesecuritiesthatyouflnallyreceivedfromMr. Ames! — 
 A. I think ten shares of Union Pacific stock and a bond of a thousand 
 dollars, and that I paid him $230 in addition to the one thousand dol- 
 lars he had received. In fact, I paid him more than the thousand 
 at first. There was a small premium charged upon the stock. I am 
 able to fix the amount which I first paid definitely. . It was $1,041. 
 
 Q. Was that sum made up by the interest spoken of from some pre- 
 vious date ? — A. I cannot say whether it was in the shape of interest 
 or premium. I know from my accounts that that was the amount. 
 
 Q. Were any dividends received on this stock by you ? — A. During 
 the time he had my money, I think no dividends were declared by the 
 company. If there were any, I have no recollection of receiving them 
 in that form. I got back no more than I gave Mr. Ames, and I think 
 there was no dividend paid me. If there was any, it was allowed in 
 the final adjustment. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether, in this conversation or negotiation 
 between you and Mr. Ames, he said anything in relation to the then 
 market-value of this Credit Mobilier stock 1 — A. [ do not think he did. 
 If the value now talked about was correct, I had no idea of it at any 
 time. 
 
 Q. Ton had no idea then that the stock was worth two or three times 
 its value ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge in relation to Mr. Ames's dealings with 
 other members in reference to stock in the Credit Mobilier? — A. He 
 told me in December, as an evidence that the investment would be a safe 
 one, that Mr. Hooper, Mr. Grimes, and Mr. Alley were interested in 
 it. 
 
 Q. Did you understand from him that these gentlemen were men who 
 were early in the enterprise — who went into it at or about the time he 
 did "? — A. I do not know that he told me that. 
 
 Q. Did you learn anything from him in relation to the efforts he was 
 then making to dispose of any of the stock to members of Congress ? — A. 
 I did not. This conversation was accidental. It began on the street, 
 I think, while walking down from the Capitol — we boarded together — 
 
206 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 and was coutiuued at the table. I had boarded with Mr. Ames con- 
 siderably since I had been in Congress. 
 
 By Mr. Merrick : 
 
 Q. Tou say that finally an arrangement was made between you and, 
 Mr. Ames, by which, instead of taking the Credit Mobilier stock, you 
 were to take certain bonds. What bonds were they ? — A. The bonds of 
 the Union Pacific Eailroad Company. I took one bond of a thousand 
 dollars, and ten shares of Union Pacific Eailroad stock, and paid him 
 the difference. I paid him $230, 1 think, over and above what I had 
 paid before. That is my recollectibn. I think I paid him $200 in 
 money, and cut off one of the coupons on the bond. I never had the 
 Credit Mobilier stock at all, and never considered myself ashavingany 
 interest in the corporation. I gave him $1,041 to see if lie could get ine 
 some, but he never did get me any. He gave me a receiptfor my money, 
 which 1 returned him when I took the railroad securities. 
 
 Q. These railroad securities amounted to how much ? — A. At par they 
 amounted to $1,000 stock and $1,000 bonds. 
 
 Q. Do you still retain them? — A. No, sir; the next spring I had some 
 stores burned, and began in the summer following to rebuild. I also 
 began to sell my bonds and stock piecemeal, as I had bought them 
 at different times, and I sold the bonds and the stock during that season. 
 
 Q. You say that Mr. Ames explained to you the object of the Credit 
 Mobilier ? — A. Very briefly. 
 
 Q. Did he cxx^lain to you that the Credit Mobilier was owned chiefly 
 by the men who were directors and most largely interested in the Union 
 Pacific road? — A. No; he told me that they had a contract from the 
 Union Pacific. 
 
 Q. Were you not aware that the members and directors of the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad Company were also engaged in the management of the 
 Credit Mobilier, and were making contracts with themselves, through 
 the form of a corporation called the Credit Mobilier? — A. I do not know 
 that he did or did not. 
 
 Q. If you had known that the directors of the Union Pacific Eailroad 
 were making contracts with themselves in the character of stockholders 
 and managers of the Credit Mobilier, would you have become a partici- 
 pant in that transaction? — A. I cannot say that I had then an idea that 
 such was the fact, and I cannot say now what my course would have 
 been. " Avoid the appearance of evil," is an injunction that, I think, 
 sometimes rogues are more careful to observe than honest men. 
 
 Q. You had none of this stock in your own name ? Was any of this 
 stock assigned to any member of your family ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Do you remember what was the value of the Union Pacific Eail- 
 road stock at the time you received the ten shares from Mr. Ames 1 — A. 
 1 remember about what we called them. My impression is that the stock 
 had no market-value. The bond had. I think we called the bond worth 
 97 and the stock 30. 
 
 Q. The money you had paid him to obtain Credit Mobilier stock you 
 used to purchase these securities? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. MoCrart : 
 
 Q. You sold the stock in 1869 ?— A. I cannot say positively when I 
 sold the stock. It was in 1869 that I commenced selling my securities. 
 I have no memorandum of the sales. It was about that time. 
 
 Q. There was no legislation in Congress while you held it concerning 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 207 
 
 the Pacific Eailroad ? — A. I do not thiuk of any. If there had been 
 any, the interest was too small a matter, $200 or $300 of it — it might go 
 up or down a little in price — to iuflueuce anybody's vote. I do not think 
 the idea would ever have occurred to me. 
 
 By Mr. MeBeick : 
 Q. You do not remember when the resolatiou of Mr. Washburn was 
 introduced, somewhere in 1867 or 1868, looking to an investigation into 
 the affairs of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company ? — A. I do not 
 remember. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 
 Q. You stated, I think, that Mr. Ames wanted to get prominent Penn- 
 aylvanians into the enterprise? — A. I thiuk he wanted to have some 
 Pennsylvania men in it, because it was incorporated in our State and 
 must have its headquarters iu our State. 
 
 Q. Did he assigu any other reason than that it was a Pennsylvania 
 corporation ? — A. I do not remember that he did. 
 
 Q. Did he mention any other prominent Pennsylvania men who were 
 interested in the corporation? — A. I do not know that he mentioned the 
 name of anybody holding stock. He mentioned, I think, the names of 
 two men by way of inquiring of me something about them. They were 
 men unknown to me, and not in public life. I think the name of one of 
 them was Stewart, but I have forgotten. 
 
 Washington, January 18, 1872. 
 
 B. F. BoYBK, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, having been duly sworn, 
 made the following statement : 
 
 I appear voluntarily before the committee without a summons, be- 
 cause I have been mentioned in the testimony as the owner of stock in 
 the Credit Mobilier while I was a member of Congress. I desire that 
 I may be examined in relation to my purchase of that stock. I have 
 nothing to conceal concerning it. I took the stock in my own name and 
 have so held it ever since, as the books will show. I held seventy-flve' 
 shares as my own and twenty-five shares as trustee for my wife, making- 
 one hundred shares in all. I always regarded it as a legitimate stock 
 operation, and never denied having made the investment. It did not 
 interfere with my duties as a member of Congress. I entered Congress 
 in 1865, and retired four years afterward. During that time neither the 
 Credit Mobilier nor the Union Pacific Railroad required any legislation 
 by Congress that I know of. The land-grants and subsidies to the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad had all been voted before I became a member of 
 Congress, and the legislation relating to the postponement of the pay- 
 ment of interest on the Government bonds took place after I had left 
 Congress. I am not conscious of ever having voted, while in Congress, 
 for any measure in the interest of either the Credit Mobilier or the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad. I invite the most critical examination of my record. 
 The investment in Credit Mobilier stock was recommended to me by 
 Dr. Thomas C. Durant, who was my personal friend, and with whom I 
 agreed for the purchase of one hundred shares at par, at a time when 
 the success of the enterprise and the profits dependent thereupon were 
 by no means certain. This was in the winter of 1866. The stock was 
 not actually transferred to me until long after I had agreed to take it. 
 There was some difficulty and delay in obtaining all I had agreed to 
 
208 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 take. At lirst seventy-five shares were paid for and transferred to me 
 in December, 1867, and, some time afterward, the additional twenty-five 
 shares, which I had transferred to me as trustee for my wife. This 
 completed the original contract between Dr. Duraut and myself. 
 
 I had no idea of wrong in the matter. Nor do I now see how it con- 
 cerns the public. No one connected with either the Credit Mobilier or 
 the Union Pacific Eailroad ever directly or indirectly expressed, or in 
 any way hinted, that my services as a member of Congress were ex- 
 pected in behalf of either corporation in consideration of the stock I 
 obtained, and certainly.no such services were ever rendered. I was 
 much less embarrassed as a member of Congress by the ownership of 
 Credit Mobilier stock than I should have been had I owned stock in a 
 national bank, or in an iron-furnace, or a woolen-mill, or even a holder 
 of Government bonds; for there was important legislation while 1 was 
 in Congress affecting all these interests, but no legislation whatever 
 concerning the Credit Mobilier. I can therefore find nothing in my con- 
 duct in that regard to regret. It was, in my judgment, both honest and 
 honorable, and consistent with my position as a member of Congress. 
 And as the* investment turned out to be profitable, niy only regret is 
 that it was no larger in amount. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Was this a purchase by j'ou from Dr. Durant, or did yon 
 understand yourself to be a subscriber to the stock of the company ? — 
 Answer. I did not inquire particularly in what way, or from whom, I 
 was getting the stock. I (Contracted to purchase it, and I was satisfied 
 when it was transferred to me in a regular way. 
 
 Q. The negotiation you made for it was wholly with Dr. Durant ? — 
 A. It was wholly with Dr. Durant. 
 
 Q. And this arrangement, or contract for it, was made early in the 
 winter of 1 866 ? — A. Yes, sir ; as early as 1866. I was ready to pay for 
 it long before the stock was ready to be transferred. 
 
 Q. You understood that this Credit Mobilier was in some way con- 
 nected with the Union Pacific Eailroad ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. That they were really contractors for building the road? — A.. I 
 understood they were contractors fot building the road. 
 
 Q. And that its dividends of money, if made at all, would be upon 
 the profits of building the road ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you remember at what time the seventy-five shares of stock 
 were transferred to you? — A. Yes, sir; it was in December, 1867. 
 
 Q. And the form of your getting that was by transfer from Dr. Da- 
 rant? — A. I do not precisely remember how that was. I remember the 
 stock was transferred to me through Dr. Durant. 
 
 Q. That is, you understood that the stock you received had stood in 
 his name before that ? — A. Yes, sir ; that was my understanding. 
 
 Q. In your negotiations with Dr. Durant in reference to this, did you 
 understand it was a purchase from him, or that he was acting on behalf 
 of the company ? — A. I was not very particular about that. So I got 
 the stock in a legitimate way, I thought it did not matter whether I 
 received it from him, as a part of the stock standing in his name, or 
 whether I received it directly from the company, and at this time I can- 
 not precisely say how the certificates read. I thought at the time it 
 made no material difference. 
 
 Q. When did you pay for the stock "?— A. I paid for the stock at the 
 time it was transferred. 
 
 Q. You paid for seventy-five shares at the time you got the certificate 
 for the seventy-five shares ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 209 
 
 ,Q. Your agreemeut was for one hundred shares?— A. My agreement 
 was for one hundred shares. 
 
 Q. How did it come to pass that only seventy-five were transferred 1— 
 A. It was explained to me at the time that there had been more stock 
 promised than there was stock to supply, and it was not until a consid- 
 erable time afterward that Dr. Durant transferred to me twenty-five 
 shares. 
 
 Q. So that the original contract, made between Durant and you, 
 was made more than a year before it was executed fully ?— A. Yes sir. 
 
 Q. Do you remember the time of the transfer of the twenty-five 
 shares ?— A. I do not remember the precise time of the transfer of the 
 twenty-five shares, but I think it was not until 1868. 
 
 Q. Had you received any dividends upon the twenty-five shares prior 
 to the time you got a certificate for them "?— A. No, sir ; I think not. 
 
 Q. Do you remember at what time in 18G8 it was? — A. No, sir; I 
 cannot state at this time at what period in 1868 it was ; but if that is 
 important, I have memoranda to which I could refer, and inform the 
 committee, I think, with precision. I have not it with me. 
 
 Q. This twenty -five shares you subsequently received to make up the 
 one hundred you got as a fulfillment of the original agreement'?— A. 
 YeSj sir ; and in no other way. 
 
 Q. Did you receive the same dividends upon the twenty-five shares as 
 upon the seventy -five? — A. I think the dividends were accounted for 
 and paid to me, and I was charged with interest on the par value of 
 the stock. 
 
 Q. That is, you paid interest upon the price of the stock, so as -to 
 make it the same as if you had taken it at the time it was contracted 
 for ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 • Q. You understand in point of fact that you got the same dividends 
 upon the twenty-five shares as upon the seventy -five f — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Can you state the gross amount of dividends you received upon all 
 the stock? — A. 1 cannot just now state the gross amount of dividends 
 which I received altogether. I have no doubt that I received the regu- 
 lar dividends as other stockholders did, and I presume the committee 
 have information before them which will enable them to say how much 
 that was. It may not be improper for me here, however, to state that 
 the actual value of the dividends received was not as great as it seemed to 
 be, or as it has been ciphered up to be, in the newspapers. I sold all 
 the Union Pacific Railroad stock which I received as dividends at 
 about thirty-one dollars a share. The stock previously to that had been 
 down, I think, as low as nine or ten dollars in the market. 
 
 Q. Did you sell the bonds you received ? — A Yes, sir ; I sold the 
 bonds, I think, for less than par. 
 
 Q. Do you remember at about what price you got for the bonds ? — 
 A. I sold the bonds at different times and for the current prices in the 
 market at the time. 
 
 Q. Can you state at about the range of prices you got for them ?— A. 
 I think for the first bonds I sold I received par or nearly so. I think 
 that other bonds were sold for considerably less. 
 
 Q. Did you know anything in relation to the sales of stock or con- 
 tracts for stock between Mr. Durant and any other men who were in 
 Congress ? — A. No, sir ; I do not, except from hearsay. 
 ' Q. What source of information do you refer to as hearsay ? — A. I 
 refer to what I saw in the newspapers and what I heard in conversation 
 with persons professing to know something about the Credit Mobilier 
 
 14 X 
 
210 CREDIT JIOBILIEK. 
 
 transactions. But I have no information which comes from such ,a 
 source as to make it reliable as testimony before this committee. 
 
 Q. Had you any information about the time you were making a con- 
 tract with Mr. Durant of any dealings he had with others'? — A. I under- 
 stood there was a transaction between Mr. Brooks and Dr. Durant, but 
 I have no knowledge of Mr. Brooks ever having taken any stock in his 
 own name. 
 
 Q. Did you know about that, or had you information about it, before 
 this became a matter for public comment"? — A. Yes, sir; I Mad informa- 
 tion at the time that Mr. Brooks had obtained some stock for his son- 
 in-law. 
 
 Q. Did you get it from ]^^r. Brooks or from Mr. Durant ? — A. I think 
 I got it from both. 
 
 Q. If you heard Mr. Brooks say anything in reference to it, we would 
 be glad to have you state it. — A. I remember when Mr, Brooks was 
 appointed a Government director in the Union Pacific Eailroad Com- 
 pany that I asked him how he could consistently accept that position, 
 and he informed me that he did not hold any stock in the road. 
 
 Q. Did he go on then, in reference to the stock he took, and state to 
 you how it was done? — A. No, sir; except that he did not own a share 
 of stock in the road. This was at the time of his appointment as a 
 Government director. 
 
 Q. Do you remember at what time it was that he was appointed ? — 
 A. It was during the administration of President Johnson. I have some 
 occasion to remember the occurrence, because there were some parties 
 who suggested to me the propriety of having me appointed a Govern- 
 ment director in the Union Pacific Eailroad Company, and I declined, 
 on the ground, I thought it was incompatible with my position, and that 
 I would not transfer my stock in the Credit Mobilier for the purpose of 
 putting myself in a position to take an appointment. 
 
 Q. In that conversation, did Mr. Brooks say anything in reference to 
 how he had qualified himself? — A. No, sir; he simply said that he was 
 not the owner of any stock so as to disqualify him for the place. 
 
 Q. Did he say anything in reference to his sou-in-law, Neilsou ! — A. 
 He did say his son-in-law, Neilson, held stock. 
 
 Q. Did he go into auy explanation of how it was done! — A. No, sir. 
 I did not solicit and he did not volunteer it. 
 
 Q. Do you know of any other member of Congress who received stock 
 from Mr. Durant, either in his own name or iu the name of anybody 
 else ■? — A. No, sir. I have no reason to think that any other persons 
 didlhan myself and Mr. Brooks, if Mr. Brooks did. 
 
 Q. Did you know anything in relation to the dealings of Oakes Ames 
 with members of Congress iu reference to stock 1 — A. No, sir ; upon 
 that subject I have no knowledge whatever. I had no negotiations 
 with Mr. Ames for any stock myself, and I do not think I ever con. 
 versed with Mr. Ames upon the subject until after I had become a 
 stockholder. 
 
 Q. Did you then learn anything in relation to his having made con- 
 tracts or sales of stock to members ■? — A. No, sir ; I was not curious 
 upon that, subject. I asked no questions and Mr. Ames did not volun- 
 teer any' statement. 
 
 Q. Never, at any time, did you get any information from him ! — A. 
 No, sir ; not that I remember. 
 
 By Mr. Meeeick : 
 Q. You stated that you had no information directly which would be 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 211 
 
 evidence before this committee such as you have detailed. Have you 
 any iuformation which would, if communicated to the committee, put 
 tliem upon the track of ascertaining direct legitimate evidence touching 
 this matter 1 — A. No, sir ; I have no knowledge which would shed any 
 further light upon the transaction than I have learned by the published 
 testimony which you already have before you. 
 
 Q. When did you leave Congress ? — A. I left Congress in 1869, at 
 the close of the Fortieth. I was in Congress four years during the 
 Thirty-ninth and Fortieth Congress. The Fortieth Congress expired 
 the 4th of March, 1869. 
 
 Q. You were not in Congress at the time of the introduction of the 
 joint resolution of April 10, 1869, affecting the relations of the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad Company with the United States ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you remember any agitation in Congress prior to that time in 
 1868, looking toward an investigation into the affairs of the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad? — A. I remember that there was some agitation — I 
 think the introduction of some resolutions, which were referred to the 
 Pacific Eailroad Committee. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect at what time these resolutions were introduced, 
 and by whom ! — A. No, sir ; I do not ; they never seemed to amount to 
 much. 
 
 Q. Do yon remember Ivhether they were introduced by Mr. Wash- 
 burn ? — A. I do recollect now, that Mr. Washburn, of Wisconsin, made 
 a raid in Congress, on one occasion, on the Union Pacific Eailroad, 
 and introduced some resolutions. That was in 1868, and while I was 
 in Congress. 
 
 Q. At about what time was the transfer of these twenty-five shares of 
 Credit Mobilier stock to you ? — A. I do not remember the time. I do 
 remember very distinctly that I never voted to smother any investiga- 
 tion in reference to the Union Pacific Eailroad. I may say here that I 
 do not altogether approve of some of the management connected with 
 the Credit Mobilier, as well as the Union Pacific Eailroad, but being a 
 director in neither, I considered myself as having nothing to do with it. 
 
 Q. Was there any attack of notoriety, in connection with that road, 
 while you were in Congress in 1868 1 — A. I do not remember much 
 attack outside of Congress. 
 
 Q. I mean in Congress. — A. I do not think it created much excite- 
 ment. 
 
 Q. I do not speak of it as a matter of excitement, but as a matter of 
 notoriety, that such a movement was in agitation ? — A. It could not 
 help but be notorious iu Congress, because it was in the published pro- 
 ceedings. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 18, 1873. 
 
 Jambs F. Wilson, having been duly sworn, made the following state- 
 ment: 
 
 Having noticed iu the papers that my name has been connected with 
 the Credit Mobilier stock, I am now prepared, with the consent of the 
 committee, to make a statement. I wish to state here that probably 
 my case is somewhat peculiar. Both Mr. Ames and Mr. McComb are 
 present, and I desire them to pay attention to the statement I now 
 make, inasmuch as when I have concluded what I have to say I wish to 
 ask each, of them a question. 
 
 I once bought and paid for ten shares of the capital stock of the Credit 
 
212 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Mobilier of America. The par value of the shares was $100 each — in 
 all, $1,000, 
 
 The purchase of said stock came about in this way : When Mr. Oakes 
 Ames was engaged in soliciting subscriptions to the stock of said com- 
 pany he asked me to subscribe $5,000 of it, which I declined to do. 
 I heard nothing more of this stock until some time in the year 1868 — 
 the exact time I cannot state, but certainly not earlier than Maj^ — when 
 I met in this city Mr. H. S. McComb, (with whom I had been acquainted 
 for several years, and against whose character I never had- heard any 
 reproach,) who, during a conversation had between us, asked me if I 
 held any Credit Mobilier stock. I told him that I did not ; that Mr. Ames 
 had once asked me to subscribe for $5,000 of it, but that I had declined 
 the offer. Mr. McComb replied that 1 could get that stock yet, and 
 that he wished I would do* so. I told him that I knew but little about 
 it, and inquired its value. He said that would depend somewhat on 
 circumstances, but that I need not hesitate because of that ; that he 
 thought I could get it at par, and that he would take it, furnish the 
 money to pay for it, and allow me an advance which would have been a 
 liberal compensation for the negotiation. He then related the circum- 
 stances under which he had subscribed for a number of shares ; that he 
 had made the subscription in good faith ; that the company refused to 
 recognize his subscription, and were trying to cheat him oat of hiS 
 rights under it ; that he was determined to have the stock, and that, if 
 he could not get it quietly and peacefully, he should enforce his rights 
 at law ; that he did not want to have or make any unnecessary trouble 
 about it, but that he would not be cheated out of it ; that he was will- 
 ing to dp anything for peace short of surrendering his rights ; that to 
 go to law would lead to strife, delay, and expense ; but that he would 
 go through with it all if driven to it. The impression which he made 
 on my mind was that if he could get the stock, even by indirection, he 
 would rather do that than resort to the courts ; and in this connection 
 he said that there was other stock in the same position as that which 
 he said I could get, and that therefore there was no reasonable excuse 
 for the company treating him as they had done. 
 
 As a result of this conversation, I had an interview with Mr. Oakes 
 Ames. I inquired of him if there were not $5,000 of Credit Mobilier 
 stock that I could have. He said, " ^o ; you declined to subscribe for 
 it, and it has been disposed of." I replied that I had been informed that 
 that amount or more was undisposed of, and that I could have fifty 
 shares. He repeated that the stock was disposed of, and that whoever 
 told me what I had stated was mistaken. 
 
 I communicated the result of this interview to Mr. McComb, who saifl 
 that it was just like Ames; that if he could take care of himself and 
 his friends, everybody else might whistle for their rights ; and said, 
 "See Ames again, and tell him that there is no mistake about the mat- 
 ter, and that I (McComb) know there is not." . 
 
 I did see Mr. Ames again, who said that Mr. McComb's statement was 
 not true, and repeated his former statements. I then asked him if it 
 could not" be arranged so that I could get the stock. He replied that he 
 did not believe that it could be, but that he was soon going to Kew 
 York and would see what could be done. 
 
 Some time afterward Mr. Ames told me that he had arranged for ten 
 shares for me at par and 7 per cent, interest ex prior dividends; that that 
 was the best and most he could do then, but he would see if he could do 
 any more. I took the ten shares and asked him to arrange for the rest 
 if he could. But no more was arranged for, and when I subsequently 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 213 
 
 told Mr. McOomb lie said, " Well, that is another of his tricks; he don't 
 want to do any better, but if you insist on it he will ;" and that he (Mr. 
 McGomb) wanted the stock on the "ground-floor," just as the rest had 
 had theirs. I had talked so much to Mr. Ames that I concluded to await 
 his movements ; that anything further would look too much like impor- 
 tunity. But, as I have stated, he never arranged for any more stock, 
 and the ten shares were on my hands. I held the stock until some time 
 in the winter of 1869, when I sold it, the reasons for which I will state. 
 
 A good deal of contention had sprung up among the parties interested 
 in the Union Pacific Eailroad Company and the Credit Mobilier relative 
 to the management of the affairs of said company, and an effort was to 
 be made at the meeting of the stockholders of the Union Pacific Eail- 
 road Company in March, 1869, to change a part of the board of directors. 
 My opinion was asked for concerning the rights of stockholders in the 
 Union Pacific Company to vote shares held by them regardless of a 
 proxy, which was said to run with the stock under the terms of the con- 
 tracts and agreements existing between said company, the Credit Mo- 
 bilier, and certain parties designated as trustees. In order to enable me 
 to understand the question submitted, copies of certain papers were 
 placed in my hands, (some of which I have now in my possession,) 
 and among which was the contract between Oakes Ames, of the first 
 part, T. C, Durant, Oliver Ames, John B. Alley, Sidney Dillon, 0. S. 
 Bushnell, Henry S. McComb, and Benjamin S. Bates, of the second part, 
 and the Credit Mobilier of America, of the third part ; an agreement 
 between the aforesaid parties of the second part, in which they bound 
 themselves to vote their own stock and that for which they held or 
 should hold proxies, (which was represented to embrace all issued or to 
 be issued under the Oakes Ames contract,) in the manner provided in 
 the agreement, and- some other papers not bearing directly on the ques- 
 tion submitted. 
 
 I examined the question, and gave an opinion to the effect that 
 holders of Union Pacific stock could A-ote their own shares, regardless 
 of the proxy running with it ; that the affairs of the corporation could 
 not be tied up in the hands of a few individuals in the way attempted 
 by the terms of said contracts and agreements ; and that the scheme of 
 the Credit Mobilier was one which might render every officer and director 
 of the Union Pacific Company, who was a party to it, accountable to the 
 latter company for the profits accruing to him from the construction 
 contracts. 
 
 Down to the time these papers were placed in my hands, I knew 
 almost nothing of the organization and the details of the Credit Mo- 
 bilier, or of the value of its stock, but then saw that there was abundant 
 ground for future trouble and litigation ; and as one of the results, sold 
 out my interest, and have at no time since been in any manner interested 
 in the Credit Mobilier, nor did I at any time or in any manner have any 
 interest of any kind or character in said company other than as herein- 
 before stated. 
 
 So far as Mr. Ames is concerned, his action was the result of my ap- 
 plication to him for the purchase of the stock. My action was induced 
 solely by the «onversatjon had with Mr. McOomb, who was actuated, as 
 I understood, by what he denounced as a gross injustice practiced on 
 him by the company; and it was well known to both of them, as it was 
 to everybody, that my connection with Congress would end with my 
 then term. 
 
 The reports of the testimony gi%'en before this committee, as published 
 in the newspapers, show that Mr. McComb has testified that he had re- 
 
214 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 quested Mr. Ames to let me have some Credit Mobilier stock. Not ouo 
 ■word of this ever came to my kno^yledge from him, Mr. Ames, or any 
 other person, except as I have related in this statement. 
 
 And I desire here to recall the fact that -when the transaction above 
 related occurred, the whole country resounded with praises of the energy- 
 manifested by the constructors of the Union Pacific Eailroad. They had 
 pushed the work with great vigor, and under great difficulties. In 
 March, 1868, the chief engineer, iu reviewing the difficulties attending 
 the construction, told the country that, " During the past two years 
 the road had been built through an Indian country .with all the tribes 
 banded together and hostile ; our best and ablest men had been killed ; 
 our cars, stations, and ranches burned ;-our men driven off, and our stock 
 stolen ; graders and track-layers, tie-men and station-builders, have had 
 to sleep under guard, and have gone to their work in the day-timo with 
 their picks and shovels and their mechanical tools in one hand and the 
 rifle in the other, and they have often to drop the one and use the 
 other." * * * " The graders went to their work as soldiers, stacked 
 their arms by the cuts, and worked all day with hostile bands of In- 
 dians in view, ready to pounce upon, kill, and scalp any unlucky or neg- 
 ligent person who gave them an opportunity." Down to this time the 
 interest on the bonds advanced by the Government had been paid by 
 the company ; and with only about four hundred miles of road com- 
 pleted there had been saved to the Government iu the cost of transporta- 
 tion, for the year 1867, over $1,500,000. Every person seemed satisfied 
 with what was being done, and astonished at the results produced. 
 These facts, together with the recognized high character of most of the 
 gentlemen connected with the enterprise, were sufficient to justify any 
 person unlearned in the data which those versed in the secrets of the 
 Credit Mobilier, in purchasing stock in either company. And it will be 
 remembered that the praises of what was being done swelled on until 
 they burst forth in the ringing of bells and the tiring of cannon all over 
 this country, when, in the spriug of 1869, it was announced that the 
 last spike had been driven, and that the tracks of the Union Pacific 
 and Central Pacific Eailroads had been united, and that an iron way 
 spanned the continent from ocean to ocean. 
 
 The completion of the road brought to the surface the contentions and 
 quarrels among the parties who held the power and the secrets of the 
 Credit Mobilier. These developed the facts which now give direction 
 and tone to the public judgment; but they are not those with which to 
 measure the motives and actions of men who acted under the former 
 state of facts. What I did was under the former state of facts, with no 
 suspicion that they were not true and would not continue true to the 
 end. The very fact that Mr. McComb threatened to carry his claim to 
 the courts for adjudication was of itself calculated to prevent any suspi- 
 cion of fraud or wrong in the affairs of the company ; for such a suit 
 would of necessity bring to light the whole history of the operations of 
 the company. 
 
 I wish to say, in conclusion, that when I entered Congress, in 1861, 1 
 did so as the Eepresentative of a constituency unanimously in favor of 
 the construction of a railroad to the Pacific. My predeces.sor had been 
 chairman of the Committee on the Pacific Railroad. To his efforts in 
 favor of the construction of subh a road, more than to any other one 
 thing, he owed his last election to Congress. My district at that time 
 embraced nearly one-half of the State of Iowa, and extended from the 
 Mississippi to the Missouri Eivers. I desired to secure the location of 
 the road so as to have it commence on the western boundary of my dis- 
 
CKEDIT MOBILIEE. ' 115 
 
 trict, and thus secure connection with it for the Iowa roads then project- 
 ed and in course of construction. The bill of 1862 secured this result,, 
 and I supported it earnestly. I supported the bill of ISGi, believing the 
 representations made as to its necessity to be true ; I worked as effi- 
 ciently as I could to promote the interests of the section of the country 
 I was representing. T was the pronounced friend of such legislation as. 
 would, tend to develop that great western country. I regarded the Pa- 
 cific Railroad as the greatest of all measures proposed to effect that re- 
 sult. I believed that it would hasten the construction of the several 
 roads projected through Iowa, and thus secure to our people at an early 
 day the facilities for transportation so much needed to i)romote the 
 growth, settlement, and prosperity of the State. The result proves that 
 my, judgment in this respect was not at fault. Consider what that coun- 
 try was a decade ago in comparison with what it is now, and I ask for 
 no more perfect justification of the support which I gave to the meas- 
 ures of legislation which-have produced the result. 
 
 I now wish to ask Mr. Ames, who I believe is under oath, whether the 
 statement I have made, so far as it relates to him personally, is true. 
 
 Mr. Ames. It is true. You told me that I had promised you live 
 thousand dollars. I replied that I had given you the opportunity, and 
 you refused to take it. So far as relates to me, the statement is correct. 
 
 Mr. Wilson. I now wish to ask Colonel McComb, who is also under 
 oath, whether the statement I have made in reference to him is cor- 
 rect. 
 
 Mr. McCoMB. Emphatically so, so far ds I have any knowledge. 
 
 Examination of Mr. Wilson. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do I understand that you claimed of Mr. Ames that he was 
 under any obligation to you in consequence of his promise ? — Answer. 
 O, no ; none whatever. I supposed Mr. McComb was talking to me 
 about the $5,000 stock which Mr. Ames had asked me to take when he 
 was getting the original subscriptions. 
 
 Q. All there was of that transaction was, that Mr. Ames wanted you 
 to subscribe §5,000 of that stock, and you declined? — A. I declined 
 then. 
 
 Q. You did not consider Mr. Ames under any obligation, legal or 
 moral ■? — A. None whatever. 
 
 Q. And you did not in your subsequent conversation with him, which 
 resulted in your getting ten shares, claim that he was under any obli- 
 gation in consequence of that first promise ? — A. None whatever. I 
 wish to state here — it is recalled to my mind by a question put by Judge 
 Merrick in regard to action in Congress — it is recalled to my mind, that 
 I proposed two amendments which were embodied in the act of 1864. 
 I do not think after a while, when the benefits to be derived from this 
 great improvement shall be fully understood by the country, that my 
 action, or the action of any gentleman who supported that measure, is 
 going to.hurt his reputation. When the bill of 1864 was pending in the 
 House, I had reason, as I supposed, to suspect there was an intention 
 of constructing the Kansas line and leaving out the construction of the 
 Omaha route. 
 
 I prepared the amendment to that bill, which I placed in the hands of 
 one of my colleagues, Mr. Allison, and asked him to introduce it, pro- 
 viding th%t the company should not receive bonds for the road west of 
 the one hundredth meridian until it should be completed to the one 
 
216 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 liundredtli meridian. My object was to secure a coniiectiou witli the 
 Omaha line for the Iowa roads, and it did secure that object. 
 
 Another amendment was to secure the Government lieu for' transpor- 
 tation, and if I had the act here I would call your attention particularly 
 to that provision. An amendment was oflfered by me for that purpose, 
 providing that notwithstanding there might be a foreclosure under the 
 first mortgage, the lien of the Government for transportation should still 
 remain and be enforced under the act of 1862. That amendment was 
 adopted, and became a part of the bill, and so far as the act of 18G4 is 
 concerned, that is the only thing which saves the Government lien for 
 transportation in case of the foreclosure of the first mortgage. 
 
 Q. What do you mean by a transportation lien? — A. There is a sec- 
 tion in the act of 1862 that gives the Government, for its transportation 
 over the road, the right to retain out of the money earned for transpjjr- 
 tation by the company the sum earned by transportation for the Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Q. The substance of what you want the committee to understand is 
 that i)rovided the first mortgage is foreclosed, and the road should go 
 into the hands of the mortgagees, the Government would still retain 
 that right ? — A. Yes, sir ; that was my purpose, and if you will notice 
 the debate in the House, when Mr, Washburn ]nade his very bitter 
 speech in 18C8, to which reference has been made, he referred to this 
 amendment of mine in 1804 as saving to the Government its transpor- 
 tation then. 
 
 Q. Do you, or did you know, at the time you had this negotiation 
 with Mr. Ames, the value of Credit Mobilier stock ? — A. I did not; and 
 I wish to state here, in regard to that, that it was a very diificult thing 
 to ascertain what was the value of the stock. Those who, as I say in 
 my statement, possessed the secrets of the Credit Mobilier, kept them to 
 themselves; and I never was able to get any definite information as to 
 what the value of the stock was. 
 
 Q. This conversation you had with Mr. McComb was about what 
 time 1 — A. In 1868, and I think not earlier than May, according to my 
 best recollection. It was after this alleged distribution of stock, that 
 I have seen published in the papers, to other gentlemen in Congress. I 
 think it was months after that. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. McComb say anything in regard to the value of it? — A. 
 No, sir; I asked him about it, but, as I said in my statement, he replied 
 that that would depend upon circumstances. He said to me, "You 
 need not hesitate about the stock; I will pay you for it, and pay you 
 an advance, which will compensate for your negotiation." 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Ames in the conversation you had, which resulted in your 
 getting ten shares, say anything about it ? — A. ifo, sir. 
 
 Q. You had that stock at par 1 — A. iSTo, sir. I had it at par and 7 
 per cent, interest ; and my recollection is that 1 paid interest on it for 
 seven or eight months, probably from the fall o/ 1867 until the time I 
 got it. I have here, as I state, the contract between the parties and 
 the assignment of the Ames contract. The contract is dated October 15, 
 1867, and I suppose the interest I paid must have been from the date 
 of the contract until I paid for the stock, or it may have been even 
 further back from the first of July. 
 
 Q. Was anything said by Mr. McComb or Mr. Ames to you in rela- 
 tion to any dividends that had been declared on it?— A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you afterward learn what dividends had been declared?— A. 
 No, sir; I did not. I learned of one, because there was one dividend 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 217 
 
 that when I paid for the stock he acconnted to me for. I do not remem- 
 ber what that was. 
 
 Q. Yoil did not receive any dividends that had been declared to the 
 time you purchased ? — A. No, sir ; except as I have stated. 
 
 Q. Do you remember what dividends you did receive prior to the time 
 you purchased ? — A. I received none of the others, because, as I have 
 stated, this negotiation ran on pretty close to the close of the session of 
 1868, and when I came back my attention was called to the questions 
 in reference to which I stated that I gave an opinion. I therefore re- 
 ceived none of the dividends, but just sold the ytock carrying the divi- 
 dends with it. . 
 
 Q. Do you remember what price you sold it for ? — A. J^o ; I do not 
 remember. I authorized a gentleman to sell the stock, and it was after- 
 ward accounted for to me in a statement of accounts between us, the 
 other matters of the account having nothing to do with the Credit Mo- 
 bilier or the Union Pacific Eailroad Company. 
 
 Q. Have you any memory in regard to it? — A. My impression is that 
 that stock made me a profit in all of about $3,000. 
 
 Q. Do I understand you that you received no dividend at all, but sold 
 it with the right to the purchaser to receive all the dividends? — A. Yes, 
 sir; it carried all the dividends there were with the stock after my pur- 
 chase, except as I have already stated. 
 
 Q. So that what you got out of it you got by the sale ? — A. Yes, sir; 
 that is it. 
 
 Q. Did you happen to know anything in relation to the holding of 
 stock by any other members? — A. No, sir; I did not; my knowledge in 
 this respect is all secondary. The first. I heard of it was the charge 
 published in September last in the political campaign, published origin- 
 ally in the New York papers. 
 
 There is one thjng I want to say here, and I do not know that I shall 
 have a better opportunity. I Iiave been Government director of the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad for three years, and I wish to put in now my pro- 
 test against the impression which seems to be getting over the country, 
 that the investment the Government has made in this road is a loss 
 On that question I have given my views and the views of the other Gov- 
 ernment directors in the report filed in the Interior Department. In 
 that report we make some recommendations as to some change in the 
 management of the affairs of the company, and I believe that with those 
 changes made that road has sufficient capacity to pay back to the Gov- 
 ernment every dollar the Government has invested. This report is in 
 my own handwriting, signed by myself and my co-directors, and I pro- 
 test against the impression being made in the minds of the people of the 
 country that the Government is to lose all the money it has put into 
 that road, leaving out of the question the benefit it has already derived 
 and is to derive in the future from the reduction of the cost of trans- 
 portation. . 
 
 Q. You had a certificate of ten shares ? — A. No, sir. When I settled 
 with Mr. Ames for the stock, I told him to send me a certificate, and he 
 said he would do so. But it had not been sent to me before the winter 
 of 1868-'69, when this question arose on which I gave my opinion, as 
 above stated, and I said to Mr. Ames, "Just let it stand, and I will sell 
 it as it is standing on the books of the company," and it was so sold. 
 
 Q. You never did have a certificate? — A. No, sir; for if it was ever 
 made out in my name, it never came to me. 
 
 Q. You never transferred it to anybody ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You suppose that if it had been transferred to you it would have 
 
218 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 been necessary for you to re-transfer it? — A. Of conrse it would have 
 been necessary. 
 
 Q. And if it had been so transferred your name would appear on the 
 books of the company ? — A. If it had I should have re-transferred it ; 
 but I never did. 
 
 By Mr. NiblACK : 
 
 Q. How could you sell it if you had no certificate — what evidence of 
 ownership had you ? — A. I sold it through G-eneral G. M. Dodge. Gen- 
 eral Dodge was the chief engineer of the company. He was going to 
 New York in the winter of 1869. I authorized him to sell my interest 
 in this ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock. The sale was made and the 
 statement returned to me in our settlement of accounts afterward. 
 
 Q. You suppose that somebody in whose name the stock previously 
 stood made the transfer ? — A. I suppose sq. I requested to have the 
 certificate of stock made out and sent to me, but it was never done — 
 neglected, as I suppose a good many other things are neglected, by 
 Mr. Ames. 
 
 Q. Did you understand whether it was a personal sale by Mr. Ames, 
 or whether he was acting on behalf of the company 1 — A. I knew noth- 
 ing beyond this ; when Mr. Ames came back from New York, as I have 
 said, he told me he had arranged for these ten shares of stock, and I re- 
 quested him to have the certificate made out and sent to me. It was 
 then, as I recollect, pretty far along in the session of the last Congress 
 I was a member of. I did not have any idea in the whole transaction 
 that Mr. Ames, Mr. McComb, or anybody else was trying to influence 
 my action as member of Congress. They knew, everybody knew, that 
 I was -a friend of this enterprise. Under the same ,state of facts I 
 would do over again everything I did in connection with it. 
 
 Q. When did you become a Government director ? — A. Some time in 
 1869, 1 think in the fall of 1869. 
 
 Q. Your sale of stock was not made with a view to that appoint- 
 ment? — A. Not in any way whatever. It had not the remotest relation 
 to it. When I got an insight into the secrets of the Credit Mobilier, I 
 did sell out and had no other connection with it. 
 
 By Mr. McCeAEY : 
 
 Q. Do you remember what time it was that Congress adjourned in 
 the summer of 1868? — A. My recollection is that it was some time in 
 July ; I do not remember the exact date. 
 
 Q. Your conversation, with Mr. McComb was then a month or more 
 before the adjournment f- — A. It may have been. I said it was certainly 
 not earlier than May ; that is my belief. It may have been in June. I 
 am confident, from circumstances that I can bring to my mind, it could 
 not have been earlier than that, and therefore I said in my statement, 
 not earlier than May, 1868. 
 
 Q. Was your investigation into the affairs of the Credit jMobilier at 
 the time you gave your opinion '? Was it in the course of the vacation 
 or after your return to Washington ? — A. After my return to Washing- 
 ton, when they were organizing the movement made for the March 
 meeting of 1869, when they changed the directors of the company. The 
 whole thing was a mere matter of legal opinion. Some of the ' stock- 
 holders were restless under that proxy, and they wanted to know what 
 X)ower they had over their stock regardless of the proxy. 
 
 Q. You refer to the stockholders who had signed that paper to which 
 reference has been made ? — A. I do not know as to that. They were 
 stockholders in the Union Pacific Eailroad Company, and claimed the 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 219 
 
 right to vote their stock regardless of the power of the seven trustees 
 and the proxy given to them. 
 
 Q. Have you any means of fixing the date of that opinion "2— A. No, 
 I have not. It was in the winter of 1868-'G9. 
 
 Q. Do I understand you to say that you considered yourself as ob- 
 taining these ten shares of stock from Mr. ;^cComb 1 — A. Yes, sir ; that 
 was the purpose for which I went into the negotiation. I was negotiat- 
 ing the stock for Mr. McOomb, and I suppose this is the first intima- 
 tion Mr. Ames has had of that fact. 
 
 Q. What was the reason Mr. McComb did not take it ? — A. He said 
 to me, " If you will insist you can get the whole of it, and I want the 
 stock on the ground-floor ; that is, carrying all the dividends and every- 
 thing." And this the ten shares did not do, as I understood. 
 
 Q. And you made your profit on it ? — A. Yes, sir ; much to my grati- 
 fication. I did not know really when the stock was left on my hands 
 whether I had made a profit or loss, but I had made the contract with 
 Mr. Ames in my own name, without bringing in Mr. Mct'omb at all, 
 and I was not going to play the part of the amateur sportsman, who, on 
 being taunted with shooting at a calf and missing it, replied that he 
 was nob .certain whether it was a calf or a deer, and that he shot to hit 
 if it was a deer, and to iniss if it was a calf. 
 
 Q. Then you said nothing to Mr. Ames that you were getting it for 
 Mr. McComb ? — A. jS^o, ^ir ; that would have closed the whole transac- 
 tion, of course. Mr. Ames, as I have said,, acted solely on my statement. 
 If he was around bribing anybody, I do not suppose it would have en- 
 tered his mind to bribe a person who, from the start, was as true a 
 friend to the Pacific Eailroad legislation as a person could be. 
 
 Q. There was no legislation in Congress concerning the Pacific Eail- 
 road while you held that stock "? — A. None that I recall. 
 
 By Mr. McComb : 
 
 Q. I want to ask the witness whether he thought I had backed down 
 from my contract. — A. I thought that you considered I had not obtained 
 the stock on the terms you wanted it. You insisted that you wanted it 
 on the ground-floor, carrying everything with it. The negotiation had 
 failed in anything further than the ten shares, which were not obtained 
 on those terms. 
 
 Q. It was no bad faith on my part 1 — A. No ; no particular bad faith. 
 I would have been very glad at the time if you had taken the stock off 
 from my hands, for I did not know whether there was profit or loss in 
 it. You said if I would insist on it with Mr. Ames I could get it all. I 
 do not think you and I met again until the latter part of the winter of 
 1869. Of course if I could have known all that everybody knows now 
 I should not have had anything to do with the stock. I did not know 
 it, and I still insist that, under the facts I had in my possession, I would 
 do the same- thing over again. 
 
 By Mr. McCeaet : 
 
 Q. I understand you that Mr. McComb insisted that he should have 
 the prior dividends, but that he did not make claim to them until you 
 had your interview with Mr. Ames 1 — A. He may have supposed I knew 
 all ,'about it. I knew nothing about dividends or anything else as to 
 what the stock was worth. 
 
 Q. Do you mean- to be understood that, when you made your arrange- 
 ment with Mr. Ames, resulting in the ten shares — that you understood 
 that you were getting them for Mr. McComb ? — A. Undoubtedly I un- 
 derstood that. 
 
220 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 By Mr. AiiES : 
 Q. And you understood that you were getting all the dividends you 
 would be entitled to have on the ten shares of stock ? — A. As I stated 
 to you when you came back from New York and said you had .arranged 
 for ten shares at par, with the stock-dividends, and^whcn I reported 
 that to Mr. McConib, it was the first idea I had about the stock as to 
 whether there had been any dividends or anything of that sort. 
 
 By Mr. McOeaky : 
 
 Q. Tou discovered there had been a misunderstanding with Mr. 
 McComb — perhaps a mistake — that he understood it one way and you 
 another ? — A. That was all. It was a mere business blunder ; that was 
 all there was of it. 
 
 Q. Do yoa know anything about the original subscription made by 
 Senator Grimes to the Credit Mobilier stock ? — A. Tes, sir ; I do know 
 about that. I was in Senator Grimes's room when Mr. Oakes Ames 
 came in and requested Senator Grimes to make a subscription to the 
 Credit Mobilier stock. I do not remember the amount. I think it was 
 twenty or twenty-five thousand dollars he wanted him to take. Mr. 
 Grimes said he would not do it. That while he had money, he did not 
 want to go into anything he did not know about. They talked about it 
 probably for half an hour, and it was in this same talk that Mr. Ames 
 asked me to take five thousand. Mr. Ames said, we have got to have 
 good people to go into it. We have got to raise the money, and I 
 want you to go in. If you will go in I will agree that you shall have 
 your money back and at least 10 per cent, interest if you will divide 
 with me the profit there is over 10 per cent. Mr. Grimes replied, " I 
 am satisfied with 10 per cent, for my money, and if you will guarantee 
 that rate of interest I will take it, and divide the profits above that with 
 you." I thereupon understood Mr. Grimes took the stock. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether Senator Grimes declined to vote upon ques- 
 tions touching the Pacific Railroad 1 — A. No ; I have no knowledge on 
 that subject at all. 
 
 Mr. Smithees stated that during the absence of Judge Black, and 
 of any one representing Mr. McOomb, Mr. Alley had presented to the 
 committee a statement which he (Mr. Smithers) had not seen, but which, 
 as he understood, Mr. Alley had submitted to counsel before presenting, 
 and which contained personal reflections upon Mr. McOomb, having no 
 proper connection with the matters before the committee for investiga- 
 tion. The committee had very properly declined to permit Mr. Brooks 
 to place before them the matters to which he alluded in the War De- 
 partment, and he had understood that the statement first presented by 
 Mr. Ames to the committee was, on motion of Judge Black, returned to 
 Mr. Ames and a portion of it stricken out. He submitted now to the 
 committee, as a matter of justice to Colonel McComb, the .propriety of 
 supervising the statement of Mr. Alley and erasing from it matters 
 purely personal to Mr. McComb, and which are unjust to him. ■* 
 
 The Chaieman stated that the committee would take the matter 
 under consideration. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 18, 1873. 
 Geoege W. Kennedy sworn and examined. 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 Question. State your residence and occupation. — Answer. I reside at 
 Easton, Massachusetts, and I am book-keeper for Oliver Ames & Sons. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEK. 221 
 
 Q. For bow mauy years have you been with that firm ? — A. Nearly ten 
 years. 
 
 Q. Are you, and have you ever been, the owner of stock in the Credit 
 Mobilier I'-^A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Is there any stock in that company standing in your name? — A. 
 Not that I am aware of. 
 
 Q. Had you never any information that there was stock standing in 
 your name on the books of that company ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Not from Mr. Ames "? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Ames never inform you at any time that there was a quan- 
 tity of stock standing in your name ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You have never received the dividends from any such stock 1 — A. 
 No, sir ; 1 think I should have remembered that. 
 
 Q. You were aware that both Oakes Ames and Oliver Amos were 
 stockholders in that company ? — A. Yes, sir; I believe so. . 
 
 Q. Do you know anything in relation to sales of stock or disposition 
 of stock by them ! — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear Oakes Ames say anything upon that subject 
 as to whom he sold stock "? — A. Not that I know of. 
 
 Q. By tlie books of the company that have been produced here it seems 
 that thirty shares of tbe stock of that company stand in your name. You 
 have never known that fact ! — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Mr. Ames never asked your permission to be a nominal holder of 
 stock? — A. Not that I know of. It may be possible. 
 
 Q. If it does appear upon the books that thirty shares of stock 
 were standing in your name, you do not know how it came to be there ? — 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. If the books show shares standing in your name, they belong to 
 somebody else besides yourself ? — A. I suppose so. I have no objection 
 to taking it. 
 
 Q, You never purchased any, nor paid for any, and have no knowl- 
 edge now that any was transferred to you"? — A. No. 
 By Mr. Mekeick : 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge at all of transactions of Mr. Ames in his 
 dealings with the Credit Mobilier stock f — A. No, sir ; I do not know 
 that I have any positive knowledge. 
 
 Q. You seem to discriminate as to positive knowledge and other sort 
 of knowledge. What knowledge have you at all, whether positive or 
 otherwise ? — A. I do not know that I have any knowledge. 
 
 Q. Are you sure you have no knowledge ?— A. I do not. know that I 
 have any knowledge. 
 
 Q. Are you certain about that ? — A. I do not know whether I am cer- 
 tain or not. 
 
 Q. Can you call to your mind anything in relation to transactions of 
 Mr. Ames in connection with the Credit Mobilier stock ? — A. No, sir ; I 
 do not know that I can in any special case. 
 
 Q. Do you know of any general case ? — A. No, sir ; I do not know of 
 any. 
 
 Q. Nothing either general or special ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Ames. I do not think the witness understands your question. 
 My idea is that he thinks you are asking about stock as trustee. He 
 had no knowledge about any such stock. 
 
 Q. I asked you very distinctly if you knew of any dealings with Mr. 
 Ames in reference to the stock of the Credit Mobilier with other per- 
 sons, or any contracts or engagements with Mr. Ames to transfer stock 
 
222 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 to other persons, or to hold it for them. — A. I do not know that I have 
 any positive knowledge of any such transaction. 
 
 Q. Have you. any knowledge, positive or otherwise ? — A. I have an 
 impression that I have seen certificates of his for amounts of stock in 
 the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 Q. Is that all you know about his dealings in Credit Mobilier stock — 
 the possibility that you have seen certificates in his name ? — A. All I 
 know about it is this : that a number of years ago Mr. Ames wished me 
 to assist him in his accounts. I was at that time employed by the firm, 
 and I had not much time to devote, but I did a little for him. In fact, 
 I attempted to keep some books, but I found it was more than I could 
 attend to, and I gave it up. I kept his note accounts for him. I think 
 I have seen, on some of his books, transactions, but I do not remember 
 positively what they were. 
 
 Q. Transactions in reference to what ? — A. Transactions in reference 
 to Credit Mobilier stock. It was a long while ago ; I have had noth- 
 ing to do with these books for two years or more, and it has passed my 
 memory. 
 
 Q. Can you recollect anything whatever, in reference to these entries 
 and accounts that you saw in his books, touching the Credit Mobilier 
 stock? — A. Ko, sir; nothing that I am sure about, at all. I never trust 
 these things to memory. "What I do I put in black and white. 
 
 Q. Have you any memory at all touching it ? — A. No, sir ; no posi- 
 tive memory ; nothing that I could swear to, at all. 
 
 Q. State the best of your impressions of his dealings in Credit, Mo- 
 bilier stock, and transactions with other persons. — A. I think I saiw, 
 on his books, two or three entries made, of parties I supposed to be 
 inembers of Congress ; I am not sure of it. 
 
 Q. State to the committee what you can recollect about your impres- 
 sions touching these entries. — A. I remember but very little about it. 
 
 Q. Be good enough to tell what you remember. — A. I remember 
 nothing that I can swear to. 
 
 Q. You have just how stated that you had some recollection in con- 
 nection -with persons who were members of Congress. — A. I have seen 
 so much in the newspapers about this matter that I have got it mixed 
 up ; I do not think I could separate it. 
 
 Q. You cannot separate your business trafisactions as a clerk for Mr. 
 Ames from what you have read recently in the newspapers? — A. I 
 never understood myself to be a clerk for Mr. Ames ; I did a little writ- 
 ing for him ; I kept his note-book. 
 
 Q. Do I understand that to be your answer, that there is nothing you 
 can swear to 1 — A. Nothing that I can swear to positively. 
 
 Q. Have you any impression whatever, and if so, what is that im- 
 pression, derived from the books as to the Credit Mobilier stock ? — A. My 
 impression is that some members of Congress, or people I supposed by 
 the entries were members of Congress, had some of the stock. 
 
 Q. Be good enough to state, so far as your impressions enable you to 
 state at all, -who these members of Congress or any of them were. — ^^A. 
 I think Mr. Patterson was one. 
 
 Q. Can you state any impressions you have derived from those en- 
 tries touching Mr. Patterson ?— A. I think he paid some money for some 
 stock; I should judge so from the entries. I did not see him pay the 
 money. 
 
 Q. What other entries did you see in reference to any other member 
 than Mr. Patterson ?— A. Well, sir, I do not remember. I think I have 
 seen three or four names that have been circulated in the papers, but 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 223 
 
 ;he only one I seem to remembec distinctly, and 1 do not remember cer- 
 ;ainly about liim, was Mr. Patterson. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect seeing Mr. Garfield's name '! — A» Not that I 
 mow of. 
 
 Q. Have you any impression at all in reference to Mr. Garfield? — A. 
 [jTo, I do not think I have. 
 
 Q. Have you any impression or recollection in reference to the name 
 jf Mr. Colfax ? — A. I think I saw something I supposed was intended 
 bo refer to him. 
 
 Q. Can you tell us what that something was, so far as you recollect 
 it ? — A. No, sir ; I remember only generally, that I recall to my memory 
 having seen their names in the papers — that I saw three or four of 
 them. 
 
 Q. Did you see anything in reference to Mr. Dawes, of Massachu- 
 setts? — A. No, sir ; I think not. I am not sure of it. 
 
 Q. Did you see anything in reference to Mr. Wilson, of Massachu- 
 setts ?— A. I think I did. 
 
 Q. What did you see there ? — A. I do not remember. I only recol- 
 lected generally that I saw some of those names. 
 
 Q. In what sort of books were these entries that you saw ? Have 
 you no impression where these entries were made, in what character of 
 book, and what ' character of entry? — A. I think it was in some small 
 book that Mr. Ames carried, that he took memoranda of notes from. 
 
 Q. What sort of a book? — A. I think it was a little memorandum- 
 book in which he kept an account of his notes. 
 
 Q. Notes that were due to him? — A. Notes that he got discounted. 
 
 Q. In the book, then, in which he kept an account of the notes he had 
 discounted from time to time, there were entries of names of these gen- 
 tlemen of whom you spoke, to the best of your recollection ? — A. I think 
 I saw something of that kind. 
 
 Q. Can you give us any idea of the character of the entries ? — A. No, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. Were they brief memoranda ? — A. Very brief. 
 
 Q. Did they contain the name and the amount of stock opposite the 
 name? — A. I do not remember ; I have simply an idea of seeing some- 
 thing of that sort. My business does not make any calls upon my mem- 
 ory ; I put down whatever I have in black and white. 
 
 Q. You say that your memory is so defective that you cannot dis- 
 tinguish between knowledge you had some years ago, derived immedi- 
 ately from your connection with Mr. Ames, and that received from the 
 papers yon have read ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Tou think you are certain that none of this Credit Mobilier stock 
 stood in your name ? — No, sir ; it did not. 
 
 Q. You have never received a certificate ? — A, Not that I know of. 
 
 Q. Do you know where those books of memoranda are now, which 
 you had charge of, and kept at that time ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. They were Mr. Ames's private books? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you seen, in the course of your employment as clerk of 
 Oliver Ames & Sons, any books or accounts, or papers, relating to the 
 Credit Mobilier ?— A. There is an account on the books of O, Ames 
 & Sons, representing Oliver Ames's subscription to the Credit Mobilier, 
 amounting to some four thousand or five thousand shares. 
 
 Q. Or any books or accounts relative to Mr. Ames's contract in the 
 Credit Mobilier ? — A. No, sir ; not that I know of. 
 
 Q. You have no knowledge in reference to that subject? — A. Only 
 
224 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 that I had charge of the stock-certificates. That is all I remember to 
 
 have seen. , ^. .,, ,, 
 
 Q. Have you ever derived any information by conversation with Mr. 
 Ames, or heard him say to others in your presencfe anything touching 
 contracts of members of Congress, or others, in regard to the Credit 
 Mobilier or Union Pacific Kailroad ?— A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Then I understand you to say, under the obligation you have taken 
 to tell the truth and the v/hole truth touching this entire matter, that 
 you have no knowledge, direct or indirect, in regard to Mr. Ames's deal- 
 ings with members of Congress, or other persons involved in the Credit 
 Mobilier, besides what you have told ?— A. I do not remember anything 
 more than I have stated. 
 
 By Mr. Smithees : 
 
 Q. You spoke of a book in which these entries were made. What sort 
 of a book, as near as you can describe it ; was it a small book ' — A. It 
 was a small book. 
 
 Q. Was it a book which 5Ir. Ames carried in his pocket ?— A. I should 
 think he could. 
 
 Q. Was it a pocket memorandum, containing the matters of which 
 you have spoken? — A. My impression is that it was something of that 
 kind. 
 
 Q. It was such a book, then, as Mr. Ames carried in his pocket, in 
 which he noted bills and notes to be discounted and other matters of 
 that kind. It was in a book of this description that you say these en- 
 tries in relation to members of Congress you have spoken of were 
 made ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. The committee have inquired of you especially in relation to whether 
 you had any shares of Credit Mobilier stock. Will you be good enough 
 to say whether you had any shares of Union Pacific Eailroad stock 
 standing in your name °i — A. Yes, sir ; there were some. 
 
 Q. . By whom were they transferred to you ? — A. By Mr. Ames, 1 think. 
 
 Q. Were they your own — or what was the character of the transfer ? 
 Did you pay any consideration for it ? — A. Fo, sir ; I did not. 
 
 Q. Do you remember how many shares of Union Pacific Railroad stock 
 stood in your name? — A. I think there were between six and seven 
 hundred. 
 
 Q. They were transferred to you by Mr. Ames without consideration ? 
 — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Be good enough to state whether they were transferred in one 
 parcel or in various parcels to you. — A. My recollection was that there- 
 were a number of smaller certificates put into one and transferred to me. 
 
 Q. Your recollection is, the stock which before stood in his name, in 
 small certificates was consolidated into one certificate and transferred to 
 you ?^A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you or not retransfer that stock to Mr. Ames? — A. I did. 
 
 Q. You say that this large number of shares were transferred by Mr. 
 Ames to you, without consideration, in one transfer or block? — A. I 
 think so. 
 
 Q. Upon the retransfer to him were they transferred in one block or 
 in smaller lots? — A. I do not remember; in fact, I am not certain that 
 it was transferred to me all in one certificate. 
 
 Q. You had no interest in the matter as I understood ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. While they stood in your name it was really the stock of "Mr. 
 Ames 1 — A. So I understood it. 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 225 
 
 Q. Aud subject directly to his order. You acted under his direction? — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. When you transferred it to him was it in one lot or in smaller par- 
 cels "? — A. I am not certain about that at all. I remember I transferred 
 it back. 
 
 Q. Does your memory serve you whether you transferred it to Oakes 
 Ames individually or to Oakes Ames trustee ? — A. I am not certain ; I 
 do not remember at all. 
 
 Q. Do you know for what purpose this stock was thus transferred to 
 you and retrausferred by you to Mr. Ames ? — A, No, sir ; I do not. 
 
 Q. Then your knowledge as to that is simply confined to the fact that 
 such stock was transferred and retrausferred, but what the object was 
 and for what purpose it was done you do not know 1 — A. I do not 
 know. 
 
 Washin&ton, D. C, January 18, 1873. 
 C. K. Garrison sworn and examined. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. You live iu New York ? — Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Had you ever any connection with this company called the Credit 
 Mobilier of America 1 — A. Not to the amount of $1, directly or indi- 
 rectly. 
 
 Q. Or with the Union Pacific Eailroad Company? — A. Not to the 
 amount of $1, directly or indirectly, in stock or otherwise. , 
 
 Q. The subject thiu committee are investigating is in reference to deal- 
 ings with members of Congress in stock of the Credit Mobilier, by Mr. 
 Ames or anybody else. Do you know of any members of Congress be- 
 ing the holders of the stock of the Credit Mobilier? — A. No, sir ; I do 
 not. I have no personal knowledge on the subject. I am entirely ig- 
 norant, so far as any dealings with members of Congress are concerned, 
 in either of these stocks. 
 
 Q. Do you know anything in reference to James Brooks, of New 
 "York, in this connection?— A. 1 know nothing of my own knowledge in 
 regard to any member of Congress or any Senator or any Government 
 officer in this conneeeion. 
 
 Q. Had you ever any conversation with Mr. Brooks, or did you hear 
 Mr. Brooks say anything in reference to shares iu that company ? — A. Mx. 
 Brooks brought Mr. Durant to me and introduced him to me. Mr. Du- 
 rant desired me to take an interest in the Union Pacific Eailroad, iu its 
 stock, or in this company. I had also been api>roached before that by 
 another party — no one connected with the Government. After cousid- 
 ering the matter I declined to go into it. I utulerstood tlieii that Mr. 
 Durant wished to dispose of a cerlain interest to New Yorkers, aud 
 visited me for that purpose. 
 
 Q. Can you state about the time when this interview occurred ? — A. 
 I cannot. It was about the time the Credit Mobilier was created, as I 
 understand it. I may be mistaken, bpt that is as I understand it. 
 
 Q. Was there ever any ap|)lication mudetoyou by Dr. Durant to take 
 stock in this Credit Mobilier ? — A. I l)elieve not, to the best of my recol- 
 lectio'i. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Brooks make apj)lication to you to take stock in it? — A. 
 No ; he simply introduced Mr. Durant to me. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear him saving anything iu reference to his having 
 
 15 X 
 
226 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 stock himself, or his sonin-law having stock? — A. No; the only infor- 
 mation I have on that subject is the publications purporting to come 
 from this investigation. 
 
 Q. With Mr. Brooks you never had any conversation, and never heard 
 him say anything on that subject f — A. Mr. Brooks may have said some 
 time subsequently that he thought I made a mistake in not going in 
 and taking that interest I v,as solicited to take. 
 
 Q. Did he tell you why °! — A. 'So ; he took it for granted, I suppose, 
 that I knf-w it had turned out to be a good thing. 
 
 Q. In that connection, did he say anything in relation to the stock 
 that he had, or that his son-in-law had 1 — A. ISTo; the first information 
 1 bad about Mr. Brooks or his son-in-law (I did not even know he had 
 a son in-law by that name) was the information I have from this inves- 
 tigation in the public journals. 
 
 Q. You are not aware that either he or his son-in-law held or con- 
 templated holding any such interest? — A. No; I had no such knowl- 
 edge from Mr. Brooks or anybody else. 
 
 Q. You had no knowledge in relation to any member of Congress hav- 
 ing that stock ? — A. No ; the only information I have is from the news- 
 papers since this investigation. I made up my mind not to go into the 
 investment for reasons satisfactory to me. 
 
 By Mr. Mebeigk : 
 
 Q. You have been familiar with Mr. Brooks for many years ? — A. 
 Yes, sir ; I know him very well, personally. 
 
 Q. Did he or not ever endeavor to induce you to become the owner 
 of Credit Mobilier stock apart from this introduction of Durant? — A. 
 I think not. I had been approached during the presidency of General 
 Dix, originally, to go into the Pacific Eailroad, not by General Dix, but 
 by a man named Stewart, who came to me several times, as I suppose, 
 on the solicitation of somebody. I declined, and I had good reasons 
 for declining, to go into the Credit Mobilier. My reasons were simply 
 that I supposed if there was any money made in it, the chances were 
 that it would be taken away from the parties, and that if they had any 
 loss we would have to stand it. That was the real reason I did not go. 
 into it. 
 
 Q. What was the reason you supposed it would be taken away! — A. 
 I merely supposed that if the parties who were going into it in the man- 
 ner they went into it made anything, they would be liable to suits and 
 annoyances, and perhaps might become personally responsible. 
 
 Q. Suits from whom ? — A. From different individuals who might be 
 holders of the stock. This was my reason. I did not at my time of 
 life wish to hazard what I had for the purpose of possibly making a little 
 gain. 
 
 Q. Had you any information of any probable suits ? — A. No, sir ; noth- 
 ing more than a mere suspicion on my part. 
 
 Q. Why should there be any suits in this more than any other corpo- 
 ration ? — A. I thought that the parties going into the Credit Mobiher 
 might be liable in consequence of being the same parties connected with 
 the Union Pacific Eailroad Company. 
 
 Q. You remember knowing the fact that they were the same ? — A. I 
 suppose that was the general understanding. I had that impression, and 
 consequently I did not think I could afford to take the chances. I did 
 not know that that would be the case, but at my time of life I thought 
 1 could not afford to take the chances. 
 
 Q. 1 understand you to state very distinctly that you have no iufor- 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 227 
 
 mation, direct or otherwise, by coaversation witli Mr. Brooks, or otlier- 
 'Wise, touching his connection with the Credit Mobilier, or Union Pacific 
 Eailroad Company? — A. Nothing further than I have said. The show- 
 ing I had was very good, but I thought I could not afford to take the risk. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 20, 1873. 
 
 Sidn:ey Dillon sworn and examined. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. You reside in New York ? — Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have yon been connected with the Union Pacific Eailroad Com- 
 pany as a stockholder or as an officer ? — A. Yes, sir ; I have been a 
 director of the Union Pacific Eailroad, and I was on the executive com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Q. Are you still a director ? — A. I am. 
 
 Q. Have you been connected also with the Credit Mobilier as a stock- 
 holder ? — A. 1 have. 
 
 Q. And as an officer ? — A. As president. 
 
 Q. Are you now president of the company % — A. I am. 
 
 Q. And a director ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you been connected with the company since it had any con- 
 nection with the Union Pacific Eailroad Comj)any ?— A. I think I was 
 not connected with it in its first stages. 
 
 Q. Not connected with it when it first began to have any connection 
 with the railroad- company t — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. How early had you any connection with the Credit Mobilier ! — A. 
 I can hardly give dates ; it might be a year after its organization. 
 
 Q. Were you a stockholder in that company prior to the time when 
 they increased the stock 50 per cent, f— -A. I was. 
 
 Q. And you owned some of the original stock 1 — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. To how large an amount? — A. Not very large. I am sorry to say 
 that this morning I cannot give you the exact amount. T was not one 
 of the large stockholders. 
 
 . Q. Do you know anything in rplation to the transaction by which a 
 considerable number of shares were put into the hands of Mr. Durant 
 and Mr. Ames for the purpose of enabling them to fulfill arrangements 
 they had made in reference to the stock of that company ? — A. I know 
 that was done. 
 
 Q. Were you present at the time it was done ? — A. I think I was. 
 
 Q. Do you remember that a paper was drawn up and signed by some 
 of the principal shareholders, authorizing that to be done ? — A. I do. 
 
 Q, VVere you one of the signers of that paper ? — A. I think I was. 
 
 Q. Do you remember what was said on that occasion by Mr. Ames 
 and others, in reference to who the persons were that he was under ob- 
 ligations to, or that he desired stock to fulfill his obligations with? — A. 
 I do not. I only understood that they had made certain agreements or 
 obligations, and that this amount of stock was required to fulfill that 
 obligation. 
 
 Q. Do you remember any persons that Mr. Ames said he was under 
 obligation to ? — A. I do not think that question came up at that time. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether anything was said in relation to there 
 being members of Congress with whom he had any negotiations for 
 stock ? — A. I think. he said there were some members of Congress. I 
 am not certain ; it was a thing that I did not attach any consideration 
 
228 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 to at the time, except that there was that amount of stock that he 
 called for to fiilfiU his engagements. I think there was some allowance 
 made, but who or what or how, I do not remember any names. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether the names of Mr. Wilson or Mr. Colfax 
 or Mr. Garfield were mentioned? — A. 1 do not think there _were any 
 names mentioned to me at the time at all. 
 
 Q. Do you remember to whom any of this stock was given by Mr. 
 Diirant, or to whom he was under obligation, that he wanted the stock 
 to enable him to fulfill f — A. I do not know, unless he may have said to 
 me, and I am not positive of that. I have been trying to recall to my 
 memory about these things since they begun to be talked of, but it 
 seems to me that he said he was under obligations to Mr. Brooks. I 
 will not swear positively that he did, but it just runs in my mind that 
 he did. 
 
 Q. Is it your impression that Mr. Brooks was one of those named? — 
 A. It is my impression, but I would not swear positively. 
 
 Q. Do you remember what he said in relation to the extent of his 
 obligation to Mr. Brooks; for how large a number of shares? — A. No, 
 sir; I do not. 
 
 Q. Do you kno.w anything in relation to the negotiations between 
 him and Mr. Brooks at that time? — A. NO, sir. 
 
 Q. Had you known that Mr. Brooks had any connection with the enter- 
 prise, or of liis making efforts to get people to take stock in the com- 
 pany? — A. I had not. 
 
 Q. You had known nothing in relation to Mr. Brooks's efforts in con- 
 nection with the company ? — A. I always knew that Mr. Brooks was a 
 firm friend. He would come into the office occasionally, back and forth. 
 That is all I know about it. 
 
 Q. What you knew was that he was a supporter and advocate of the 
 Pacific Railroad ?^A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Had you any knowledge in reference to the transfer of these 100 
 shares to Mr. Durant ? — A. I have no knowledge. 
 
 Q. It seems that 100 shares were transferred to Mr. Durant, which he 
 had transferred to Mr. Neilson, Mr. Brooks's son-in-law. Do you know 
 Neilson ? — A. Yes, sir. , 
 
 Q. You say you have no knowledge of how it was done, or why they 
 were transferred to Neilson instead of Mr. Brooks ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you hear anything said by Mr. Brooks, or by Mr. Durant, in 
 reference to that ? — A. I never changed a word with Mr. Durant about 
 it, if I recollect right, except I think I heard him make mention that he 
 had got to let Mr. Brooks have some stock. That is my impression. 
 
 Q. Had yon any knowledge in relation to the subsequent transaction 
 by which 50 shares were transferred or issued directly by the company 
 to Mr. Neilson ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Will you state what you know in reference to that transaction ? — 
 A. About the time of the transfer of the 50 shares, Mr. Durant went to 
 Europe. He was formerly the president of the Credit Mobilier and the 
 vice-president of the Union Pacific Railroad Company. After his leav- 
 ing for Europe, Mr. Brooks came in one day and said to me, "Mr. Neilson 
 has received of Durant a certain amount of stock." I think he named 100 
 shares, and there was an increase on the Credit Mobilier stock at a cer- 
 tain time. (That is the only way I knew how these things took place.) If 
 Mr. Neilson got 100 shares prior to that time, he would be entitled to 50 
 shares more. Mr. Brooks said to me that he considered him entitled 
 to those 50 shares. After talking some little time with hira, I said to him 
 I would consult a majority of the stockholders of the Credit Mobilier, 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIER. 229 
 
 aud, if they thought well of it, I would recommend, according to his 
 statement, that he should get it. I did consult with quite a number of 
 the stockholders, and I not only consulted, but I took tbe precaution to 
 ^et up a paper whereby quite a number of the stockholders of the Credit 
 3Iobilier sanctioned the proposition to issue the 50 shares more. 1 
 made thilt fact known to Mr. Brooks, when he said to me — I cannot 
 word the exact phrase he used — the substance of it was that lie would 
 transfer any interest he had to Mr. JSTeilson. That was the purport of 
 it. The stock was so transferred to Mr. Neilson, and in due time he 
 ■came to get the 50 shares. This occurred a long time ago, and I had 
 forgotten it entirely. If I had been asked by the committee at the first 
 stages of the talk on this subject, I would have said I had no recollection 
 aboift it. But, upon due reflection, it seems to me that when Mr. Neilson 
 came for the stock he borrowed some money of lue, I think about 
 -$5,000, to pay for the additional stock. As far as keeping any account, 
 it is all on the books of my clerk. I am in a large business, in railroad 
 business generally. I will say to the committee, at the present time, 
 they must pardon me if I do not give the dates, for the reason that I 
 never take care of them. I have men I trust all these things to, to 
 bring them up when the proper time arrives. 1 leave it for them to take 
 «are of the details. 
 
 Q. Now, to go back alittle ; did Mr. Durant pay for the stock which 
 was transferred to him by the company? — A. He did, as I understand it. 
 
 Q. I understand the one hundred shares of stock arranged for, and 
 which was, in point of fact, transferred to Neilson, was first transferred 
 to Mr. Durant ? — A. That is as I understand it. 
 
 Q. Do you understand now, that, by Mr. Neilson becoming the holder 
 ■of one hundred shares, he was, in point of fact, entitled to fifty shares 
 additional 1 — A. I did understand it so, and I understand it so now, that 
 he was entitled to fifty shares. 
 
 Q. Did you also understand that, upon these same shares Mr. Durant 
 had, he had had the privilege of taking the additional 50 per cent. ? — 
 A. I did not understand it so at the time I had this conversation with 
 Mr. Brooks. About the fifty shares, I think he said there had been 
 ^ome little talk between him and Durant, he asking Durant for it, or 
 something of that sort ; that there was some misunderstanding. I had 
 made up my mind, when he came for the fifty shares, that it was a 
 small matter not fully understood, and that, when Durant returned 
 from Europe, the thing would be fixed up satisfactorily all around. 
 That is the way 1 felt at the time. 
 
 Q. If Mr. Brooks or Mr. Neilson was entitled, by the ownership of the 
 •one hundred shares, to the 50 per cent, increase, what was the neces- 
 sity of getting up a paper, and getting the authority of the principal 
 shareholders? — A. The necessity was that, while Mr. Brooks said, (and 
 I took his statement,) that Mr, Neilson was entitled to this, 1 felt that 
 if I got a majority of the shareholders to agree to it I should be sustained 
 in what I did ; that I was pretty near right. 
 
 Q. If you had been entirely clear that he was entitled to fifty shares, 
 you would not have supposed there was any necessity to get the consent 
 of the stockholders ? — A. If the one hundred shares had been bought 
 from the Credit Mobilier, and held as stock belonging to him, I would 
 mot have been obliged to have gone to the stockholders to get their 
 consent. But, as it came from prior stock, which, as I understood, 
 Mr. Durant had laid aside, or called his, to distribute among others, I 
 "Considered it discretion upon my part to do what I did. 
 
 Q. The point is, if you had supposed it to be clear that he was entitled 
 
230 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 to fifty shares, you would have issued them to him as a matter of 
 course"? — A. Exactly so. 
 
 Q. Have you that paper which was gotten up and signed at the 
 time? — A. I have not. 
 
 Q. Or any copy of it ? — A. I have not. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge in relation to what has become of the 
 paper? — A. I do not know where it is. I say again, although I am 
 president of the Credit Mobilier at the present time — tliat noble Credit 
 Mobilier — yet I have not a paper belonging to it. I have trusted them, 
 entirely to our secretary to get whatever there was ; there were not a 
 great many papers. 
 
 Q. The proper place for this paper, if it is in existence, would be in 
 the possession of Mr. Ham, your secretary ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Was the paper ever in your possession ? — A. I think it was in my 
 possession at one time, and that it was either sent or I took it to Boston- 
 to get the names of parties who were interested — some of the Bostom 
 stockholders. 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection what you did with the paper? — A. I 
 think it was placed, with the other papers, in the hands of the secre- 
 tary. 
 
 Q. Have you ever made any search among your own papers, and had 
 your attention called to it to look for it? — A. I had my attention called 
 to it by my s'limmons to this jilace, but I find I have no papers of the 
 Credit Mobilier in my possession. 
 
 Q. Have you looked among your papers to be satisfied? — A. I am 
 satisfied I have not got it.- 
 
 Q. State as well as you can from memory what the substance was. — 
 A. I cannot word it, and I cannot recollect the substance, except that it 
 was a paper by which they conceded or agreed that Mr, Brooks was en- 
 titled to have fifty shares. I cannot say how it was, for I have not seen 
 it for several years. 
 
 Q. It was giving their consent to your allowing this claim of Mr. 
 Brooks for fifty shares? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. How much did Mr. Neilson pay for that stock ? — A. My impres- 
 sion is that he paid par and interest, whatever it was. 
 
 Q. Interest from the previous July ? — A. I think interest from the 
 time ; the interest whiph had accrued upon it. 
 
 Q. Do you remember the time when the certificate of stock was issued 
 to Neilson ? — A. I cannot tell from memory ; I have nothing to refresb 
 my recollection with ; I have not seen the books. 
 
 Q. Was it as late as the 26th February, 1868?— A. The books will 
 show; I cannot say. You must not ask me for dates. 
 
 Q. Before the 26th February, 1868, various dividends had been de- 
 clared on the Credit Mobilier stock. Did they not begin to declare large- 
 dividends on that stock as early as December, 1867 ? — A. I never knew 
 they ever did declare large dividends on the Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
 Q. Dividends under this trusteeship of the Ames contract ? — A. There 
 were dividends under the trustees. 
 
 Q. The point I want to get at is this : was Mr. Brooks or Mr. Neilson,. 
 or whoever became the owner of the fifty shares transferred to Neilson, 
 to be entitled to all the dividends that had been previously declared, or 
 only the dividends declared after it was issued ? — A. I cannot tell you 
 now. 
 
 Q. Do you know wl^at was the value of this Credit Mobilier stock — 
 what it sold for in the market, or what any had been sold for ii)rior to- 
 
CREDIT MOBILISE. 231 
 
 that time? — A. I could not say what it sold for prior to that time. It 
 sold at different times for different prices. 
 
 Q. Do you remember what prices it bore at any time ? — A. I think it 
 has been sold for 140, and I think some has been sold as high as 200. 
 
 Q. Do you think that was as early as the winter of 18G7-'G8 ? — A. I 
 cannot give you the dates; you will pardon me. 
 
 Q. At the time the negotiation you had in relation to the issue of 
 these 50 shares, was all with Mr. Brooks 1 — A. Yes, sir ; and Mr. Neilson. 
 
 Q. Did you have any negotiation at all with Neilson or on that sub- 
 ject until he came to pay for it ? — A. Nothing at all that I recollect. 
 
 Q. Had you seen Neilson or had any conversation with him until he 
 came to get the stock ? — A. I think not. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Brooks say anything to you as to who would pay for it, 
 or how it was to be paid for, and when ? — A. I think he did not at first ; 
 when it was decided that he was to have fifty shares I think he then 
 said to me that he gave his option or interest, or whatever you might 
 call it — that he transferred it or gave it to Neilson. 
 
 Q. Did you know then, or did he tell you then, that the one hundred 
 shares had been transferred to Neilson ? — A. I did not then know whether 
 it stood in Neilson's name or in Brooks's name. 
 
 Q. Did you suppose Mr. Brooks was negotiating with you on his own 
 account or in his own behalf? — A. I did not suppose anything about it ; 
 I took it as he said that it was thus and so; 1 supposed he was telling 
 me what was true at the time. 
 
 Q. Atthetimethispaper wassigneddoyouknowwhether Mr. Brooks's 
 name or Mr. Neilson's name was used in the paper? — A. I do not. 
 
 Q. Did you write the paper yourself? — A. No, sir; I did not. 
 
 Q. Do you know who did ? — A. I should think it was written by the 
 secretary, Mr. Ham ; still, it may have been written by our attorney. 
 Judge Emmett, or by Mr. Hammond, or Mr. Pomeroy. I would some- 
 times — whenever a paper was wanted — go to our attorney and ask him 
 to draw up something that would answer the purpose, but who wrote 
 this I db not know. 
 
 Q. It was. not a paper that required much legal formality ? — A. No ; 
 it was not. 
 
 Q. State as well as you remember whose names were attached to that 
 paper. — A. I think Oliver Ames's name was. I will not swear posi- 
 tively. I think Mr. Atkins and Mr. Glidden, of Boston, signed it, and 
 Mr. Williams. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Alley ? — A. I do not think Mr. Alley's name was on it, or 
 that Oakes Ames's name was on it. There were several in Boston. I 
 cannot recall their names. If I could see a list of the Boston stockhold- 
 ers I could give you their names. There were quite a number. 
 
 Q. Were these gentlemen privy to the negotiation, or did they sign 
 it on your representation ? — A. They signed it on my recommendation. 
 
 Q. You say that when Mr. Neilson came to get the certificate of stock 
 he then wanted to borrow the money to pay for it? — A. He asked me 
 to loan him some money. i 
 
 Q. Was that the first that you heard in reference to his wanting to 
 borrow money ? — A. That was the first time I had heard of it. 
 
 Q. Mr. Brooks said nothing to you in relation to paying for it, or how 
 you were to pay for it? — A. Not that I recollect. 
 
 Q. You loaned the money to Mr. Neilson, $5,000 and the interest ? — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did he give you a note or obligation for themoney ? — A. I hardly 
 know what he did give me at the present time. He gave me something 
 
232 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 whicli was satisfactory to mo ; I canuotnow say ■what. Almost all these 
 traasactioos I make ia loauing money or borrowing money are doue 
 directly through my secretary. If I say I want to borrow $5,000 or 
 $oO,000, if I can get it, I place the securities in liis hands, and he goes 
 and gets it. And if 1 loan $5,000 or 50,000, I say to hira, get such and 
 such collaterals and give the money. I may not be right; but I trust 
 a great deal to" my subordinates. 
 
 Q. Do you remember what was said between you and ISTeilson in 
 reference to security to you for the money ? — A. I think this, that I 
 ordered my secretary to let him hav^e $5,000, or about that amount, and 
 that he offered to give me — it is just in my mind at this time — some 
 Union Pacific Eailroad securities, or Oiedit Mobilier securities, or 
 something like that; 1 cannot tell just what the security was. 
 
 Q. Has that money been repaid to you? — A. I cannot say. I think 
 it hs^s. I could tell by an examination of my accounts. I cannot tell 
 now. 
 
 Q. Did you look at your books or accounts before you' came here tO' 
 see if that loan was still outstanding? — A. I did not. 
 
 Q. Is it your belief now that it has been paid ? — A. It would be very 
 strange if it has not been paid. I think it has. 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection when, how, or by whom it was paid 1 — 
 A. That would not come to my knowledge unless I made special in- 
 quiry. It would come to my ofBce if it was paid ; my secretary would 
 say to me that the negotiation had been closed ; but I should not keep 
 it in my head all this time ; I would not tiy ; on the contrary, I would 
 try to keep it out of my head as much as possible. I wish to state to 
 the committee all I know about it; but, as I have stated, I am very for- 
 getful about dates and such things, and you must pardon me for it. 
 
 By Mr. NiblACK : 
 
 Q. Is there not somebody in your ofQce who could tell ? — A. I think I 
 can j5nd it in due time. I could ascertain when it was paid, or whether 
 it was paid at all, or not. 
 
 Q. You could ascertain more from your books than from memory? — 
 A. Yes, sir; I think I can ascertain, and I will endeavor to do so. 
 
 Q. In relation to this increase of stock, we have understood from wit- 
 nesses that when the increase was made, every stockholder who sub- 
 scribed to the increase was entitled to the same amount in Pacific Rail- 
 road bonds. If he took a thousand dollars of stock he was entitled to 
 a thousand dollars of bonds? — A. I think that was the case. 
 
 Q. How was it in relation to these fifty shares which Mr. Brooks or 
 Mr. Neilson had ? — A. Well, sir, I cannot tell you how it was in rela- 
 tion to that. If either had those one hundred shares prior to the 
 time the increase was made, he would be entitled to the fifty shares 
 increase. 
 
 Q. That is, if Mr. Brooks or Mr. Neilson was entitled to come in and 
 take the fifty shares increase, he would also be entitled to the same 
 amount of Union Pacific Eailroad bonds ?• — A. If it showed so on the 
 books. It would if Mr. Durant had the stock standing in his own 
 name at the time the increase was made. He would be entitled to the 
 increase of stock and to the bonds; I say, "if" — I do not know, and 
 do not say, whether he was or not. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether in the talk or negotiation thftt occurred 
 when you got up this paper for the signatures of the stockholders that 
 point came up ? Whether it was talked of that Mr. Brooks and Mr. 
 Neilson were or Avere not entitled to the additional fifty shares, and 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEK. 233 
 
 Avhether they were also entitled to the $5,000 of railroad bouds? — A. I 
 do not think it was discussed. I do not remember that it was talked 
 of at the time. 
 
 Q. But y.ou say if he was entitled to ha^-e the stock by virtue of his 
 being the owner of the one hundred shares when the stock was in- 
 creased, he would have been entitled to the Union Pacific bonds"? — A. 
 In other words, if that one hundred shares had been placed on the 
 books in the name of Mr. Brooks or Mr. Neilsou prior to the time of the 
 increase, he would have been entitled to take that increase and to have 
 the bonds ; but if it was in the name of Durant at that time, and Durant 
 had come in and taken that increase, and I had let him have the fifty 
 shares, then the question comes up whether Mr. Brooks would have 
 had the bonds, or whether he would not have to fall back on Mr. Durant 
 for the bonds. That is all there is of it, for they could not both h<ave 
 had the same bonds and the same stock. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether in point of fact Neilson did receive $5,000 
 Union Pacific Railroad bonds with the fifty shares ? — A. I do not know ; 
 I cannot tell you. 
 
 Q. Have you any further knowledge of Mr. Ames parting with any 
 «of those shares assigned to him^ — A. I have not. 
 
 Q. You do not know to whom he sold them, or transferred them ? — A. 
 No, sir. 
 
 Q. You have no knowledge from him on that subject? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. I understand that in the negotiation you had with Mr. iJrooks 
 in regard to the proposed increase of stock which he claimed that 
 he was entitled to, you do not remember whether Brooks, jSTeilson, 
 or anybody else's name was mentioned! The question in negotiation 
 was whether they should have the stock? — A. When Mr. Brooks 
 came to me he said he was entitled to so much stock, but when he found 
 that it was going to be given to him by the majority of the stockholders 
 of the Credit Mobilier, he then said directly in substance that it was to 
 go to his son-in-law, and not to him. 
 
 By Mr. Banks : 
 
 Q. Let me ask you if, when the claim was made for the increase of 
 Credit Mobilier stock by anybody else, that claim was decided by you 
 as president, or by a majority of the board of directors'? — A. It would 
 be decided generally by the executive committee. 
 
 Q. Then the paper you speak of was a substitute for the order of the 
 executive committee. If they had been present you would have sub- 
 mitted it to them, and you would have had no occasion to go to the 
 stockholders'! — A. Probably in order to save myself from possible censure 
 I would have still gone to the stockholders of the Credit Mobilier. Al- 
 though the executive committee have the power of the board of direct- 
 ors, it has always been my course in life to consult the stockholders as 
 far as possible — the large stockholders, particularly — to avoid, seeming 
 to take an arbitrary course which would be distasteful to them. I there- 
 fore took this precaution to get a large number of the stockholders to sign 
 this paper, so that in case it should be not in strict accordance with the 
 regular course of proceeding I would have something to fall back upon. 
 
 Q. Then if the board of directors had been iu session when the claim 
 was made you would have submitted the matter directly to them? — A. 
 I do not know. I might have got a i^aper signed whether there was a 
 meeting of the board of directors or not. That was my general way of 
 doing things. 
 
234 CREDIT MOBILIER 
 
 Bj- Mr. McCrary : 
 
 Q. You were president of the board of directors at tlie time the stock 
 was called for by Mr. Brooks ? — A. I tbink so. 
 
 Q. Did he or you suggest getting up tlie paper? — A. I cannot tell; 
 I think Mr. Brooks had uot anything to do with it. I do not know that 
 he did. I don't recollect that there was any conversation between him 
 and me in regard to the matter at all. 
 
 Q. He applied to .you, as I understand, for fifty shares additional to 
 the amount of the whole, and you declined to issue it until this paper 
 was signed ? — A. Tes, sir ; I think I took it into consideration after his 
 talk with me, and after due consideration I took this course upon my 
 own suggestion. 
 
 Q. Did you announce to him that you had come to the conclusion to 
 have the signatures of a majority of the stockholders ? — A. I do not 
 -recollect that I had any conversation with Mr. Brooks about it. 
 
 Q. Did you take the paper yourself to the stockholders ? — A. I can- 
 not say for certain whether I did, or whether I sent my secretary. I 
 got the names of certain parties on it. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Brooks applied to any of the stock- 
 holders, urging them to sign 'J-r-A. I do not. T do not know that he» 
 knew what I was trying to do. 1 think I said I would consult either 
 the executive committee or the stockholders, or somebody, and see him 
 again. I think 1 passed him off in some such way. 
 
 Q. I understood you to say that it was after you had obtained the 
 consent of a majority of the stockholders that Mr. Brooks told you that 
 he had assigned the stock toNeilson? — A. I think it was. I would not 
 be confident, it was so long ago. It was, I think, after he knew that he 
 was to get it. 
 
 Q. If that be the case, then, Mr. Neilson's name was probably in the 
 paper which was signed? — A. I do not recollect that it was in it at all. 
 I want you to understand that I am not explicit or certain whether it 
 was before or after the paper was signed. 
 
 Q. You don't know, then, whether that paper was an agreement that 
 fifty shares might be issued to Mr. Brooks or Mr. Neilson ? — A. I think 
 it was to Mr. Brooks ; that is my recollection. I think Mr. Brooks said 
 that was his right, and when he found he could get what he called his 
 rights, it was then stated to me that it was for Neilson. I cannot give 
 his exact words. 
 
 Q. Was there not a good deal of discussion and controversy as to the 
 right of Mr. Brooks to these fifty shares, about the time of getting up 
 that paper f — A. No; I do not think there was. 
 
 Q. Did not stockholders object to it and refuse to sign the paper ? — 
 A. I do not think any one refused that I talked with about it. 
 
 Q. Did you know of anyone refusing? — A. I do not know; there 
 may have been a refusal. I do not know whether there was or not. 
 
 Q. You did not hear Mr. Alley make any objections to issuing the 
 fifty shares ? — A. I did not ask Mr. Alley about it. 
 
 Q. You do not know of any conversation between him and Mr. Brooks 
 about it? — A. No, sir; I do not. 
 
 Q. You do not know in whose name the original one hundred shares 
 stood on the books I — A. No, sir ; I do not. 
 
 Q. You must have supposed it stood in the name of Mr. Brooks at 
 the time when he applied for the additional fifty shares ? — A. I do not 
 know whether it was in Mr. Brooks's name, or Neilson's name, or in 
 anybody else's name. I took him to be the first owner. I supposed 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 235 
 
 tbe statement he had made was true, but I went about getting it fixed 
 up. 
 
 Q. And that statement was, that by virtue of his holding one hun- 
 dred shares he was entitled to fifty additional shares ? Did you look at 
 the books to see whether there were one hundred shares standing in his 
 name? — A. I do not think I did. 1 never looked at the books. What- 
 ever I took, I took from my secretary in words. 
 
 Q. Would you have taken the steps you did to secure Mr. Brooks the 
 additional fifty shares if you had not believed at the time that he held 
 the one hundred original shares ? — A, I would not have taken the steps 
 I did if I had not considered he was entitled to fifty shares. 
 
 Q. If the books at that time showed that the one hundred original 
 shares stood in the name of Neilson, you would have considered Neilson 
 entitled to the additional fifty shares? — A. I should have been required 
 to find out whether Mr. Brooks had transferred that stock to Neilsou 
 before I should have done anything. 
 
 Q. Tou do not know whether that stock stood in Mr. Brooks's name 
 on the book, and whether it has since been changed ? — A. l^To, sir ; I 
 don't. 
 
 Q. If the books should show that some name had been erased where 
 the name of Neilson appears, the ISTeilson substituted, would you say 
 that it had probably been done since the fifty shares were Issued to Mr. 
 Brooks or Neilson ? — A. I could not say that. There might have been 
 a mistake on the books, and there might have been erasures. 
 
 Q. Would you not have remembered it, if you had looked at the books 
 and found the stock at that time standing in the name of Neilson ? — A. 
 I say I never looked at the books to see whether Mr. Brooks's or Neilson's 
 name was there. I took the statements made verbally to me by my 
 secretary. 
 
 Q. If your secretary had told you that the stock stood in the name of 
 Brooks, and that Mr. Brooks applied for the fifty shares to be issued 
 in the name of Neilson, would not that fact have made an impression 
 on your mind that you would have remembered? — A. I could not say 
 that it would. In the hundreds of thousands of dollars of business we 
 were doing then, I do not think the details of a little transaction of 
 fifty shares would have impressed itself upon my mind so that I should 
 be likely to remember it. 
 
 Q. How did Mr. Brooks apply for the stock '! — A. I do not remember 
 that. 
 
 Q. Do you remember you took steps to secure it for him ? — A. I do. 
 
 Q And do you remember that you got up a paper in order that he 
 might obtain it, and got the names of the stockholders on the paper ? — 
 A. I do. 
 
 Q. Tou remember the ground on which he was entitled to it was be- 
 cause he owned one hundred shares, or because he said he owned them, 
 and if your secretary had told you that Mr. Brooks was applying for 
 fifty shares as an increase of stock standing in the name of Neilson,. 
 another man altogether, would you not have remembered it ? — A. I sup- 
 pose I would. 
 
 Q. Then the presumption is that the stock stood in the name of Mr. 
 Brooks, and not in the name of Neilson, at that time? — A. l^To; I do 
 not presume that. If I knew I \wuld tell you. 
 
 By Mr. Mereick : 
 Q. Do you recollect whether the jiaper which was drawn up in refer- 
 ence to the fifty shares, which you have just spoken of, included the 
 
236 CKEIJIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 transactions of any other parties than this specific one of Keilson ? — A. 
 I do not think it did. 
 
 Q. It applied explicitly to this ti'ausaction in reference to these fifty 
 shares, and embraced no other ? — A. I think that is the fact ; I am not 
 
 certain. 
 
 E V the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Did you have more than one -interview with Mr. Brooks on the 
 snbject of these fifty shares? — A. I might have had; I almost think I 
 had two; I am not certain. 
 
 Q. Where were these interviews? — A. I think the first interview was 
 in the Union Pacific Kailroad office. 
 
 Q. Was that and the Credit JMobilier office kept together ? — A. They 
 were in the same building, in adjoining rooms. 
 
 Q. Have you any special memory as to the room it was in ! — A. I 
 think I met him in the hall or entry-way between the two rooms; I am 
 not certain about that. I know it was in the building at one time 
 when we had a conversation on the subject. I think he asked me at 
 another time what I thought about it, or if I had done anything about 
 it, or something of that sort. 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection who were present in the rooms at the 
 time of either of the interviews'? — A. I do not. I think it likely the 
 proper officers and clerks about the building. 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection whether Mr. Alley was about there on 
 either occasion ? — A. He was not there. Ttiat is to say, that he was 
 not there that I recollect. 1 do not recollect seeing him there, and I do 
 not think he was there. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect whether Mr. McComb was there either time? — 
 A. I do not recollect whether he was there or not. 
 
 Q. In these conversations that you had with Mr. Brooks, did he say 
 anything in relation to what he could or would do provided he had 
 these fifty shares ? Did he say anything about his connection with 
 Congress, or about his being a Government director ? Did he hold out 
 any inducement to you to let him have the stock as to any supposed in- 
 fluence he could exert ? — A. 'Ho, sir ; there was no talk of that kind 
 at all at the time. He got it wholly upon the ground that it was his 
 right. 
 
 Q. He said nothing in, regard to any influence he could exert in favor 
 of the company, either in Congress or as a Government director, in any 
 way ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether any argument of that sort was used by him 
 or anybody else to any of the shareholders ? — A. I do not. 
 
 By Mr. Brooks : 
 
 Q. If I had not held the one hundred shares, but they had been in 
 the name of Neilson, to whom would the fifty shares be transferable by 
 right ? — A. At the time of the increase, if the one hundred shares had 
 been on the books in the name of ISTeilson, the fifty shares wouldhave 
 been issued by right to Neilson. 
 
 Q. When I made some remark about this one hundred shares carrying 
 with it the right to the additional fifty shares, did I not put it ou the 
 ground that it was involved in an agreement with Mr. Durant; that it 
 was part of the legacy of the one hundred shares purchased? — A. I 
 considered it so, and you did say that the onp hundred shares carried 
 with it the right to fifty shares. 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 237 
 
 By tbe Chairman : 
 Q. You stated that Mr. Brooks assigned tbese shares to Neilsoii. 
 Were these shares in the possession of Mr. Brooks ? — A. I did not mean 
 that. I meant to be understood that the rigLts were assigned or trans- 
 ferred to Neilson. I am not a lawyer, and I cannot give the phraseology 
 I wish to. What I meant was, that the right to these iifty shares had 
 been in some way transferred to Keilson. 
 
 By Mr. Beooks : 
 Q. Did you ever know of Mr. Brooks receiving any dividends from 
 any of the shares entered upon the books of the company * — A. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Smithers : 
 
 Q. What is the name of the secretary who you say is familiar with 
 the monetary part of this transaction 1 — A. B, P. Ham. 
 
 Q. Was Mr. Ham your private secretary and tne secretary of the 
 Credit Mobilier °? — A. For this specitic purpose, he was. 
 
 Q. Then, the facts of which you speak and of which you are ignorant, 
 you suppose to be in the possession of Mr. Ham 1 — A. Yes, sir ; I do. 
 
 Q. Do you mean us to understand that Mr. Ham attends to your pri- 
 vate business"^ — A. I mean you to understand that in the early part of 
 the Credit Mobilier transactions he did some of my private business. I 
 was not in my own offlce; my ofiice being in another street and in an- 
 other place. I now believe and understand that the transaction of that 
 business was done by Mr. Ham, by my order, for me. 
 
 By the CHAIRMAN : 
 Q. You stated, when I inquired what securities you got for the money 
 you loaned Mr. Neilson, or whether you had any, that your secretary 
 "would know; did you mean Mr. Ham ? — A. He is now my secretary in 
 the office! occupy at Ko. 50 Wall street ; that is, he is one of my sec- 
 retaries ; I have two or three. If I have a railroad contract, I have a 
 secretary to attend to that. If I have a little contract, or bond trans- 
 action in the city, I have another man who attends to that expressly, and 
 they have quite enough to do. Mr. Ham has to attend to that branch of 
 my business. 
 
 By Mr. Smithers : 
 Q. The object of my question was to specify in relation to this infor- 
 mation as to the persons who could give it. — A. IthinkB. F. Ham is the 
 person could give you that information. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 Q, Mr. Ham testified the other day that he did not know about this. — 
 A. He might not know it here; but he might know it after looking over 
 my papers in New York. I have stated, as far as I understand, all 
 about it. 
 
 By Mr. Smithers : 
 
 Q. Your impression is, if I understand you, that if this money was 
 repaid, which you loaned, Mr. Ham would be the i)roper jjprson to give 
 the inlormaticu in answer to that question? — A. That ismy impression at 
 this moment. It was repaid, no doubt. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether, at the time the loan was made, there' 
 were any other papers executed between you and Mr. Neilsou ? — A. I 
 do not. 
 
 Q. Do you remember Avhether, in fact, he pledged Union Pacific bonds 
 
238 CREDIT MOBILIER 
 
 in security for the loau ? — A. I think there was some hypothecation 
 of some sort; I cannot tell what it was. 
 
 Q. These are matters which would be in the possession of your sec- 
 retary? — A. He may have transferred that transaction over to my other 
 secretary. I don't know how that is, and I cannot answer, as the mat- 
 ter stands, any further now on that point. 
 
 Q. Bo you remember whether at the time you executed or gave to 
 Neilson a receipt for the money which he paid you for these shares of 
 stock"? — A. I do not rpcollect the transaction ; I caunot recollect it. 
 
 By Mr. McCrary : 
 
 Q. You do not know what has become of the Credit Mobilier ? — A. I 
 do not know, except that they are in the office of the secretary. There 
 was, as perhaps some of you have known, quite a raid made on our 
 books and papers for a year, or two. 
 
 Q. Yon do not know who made way with them and got them out of 
 the New York courts? — A. If there are any lost I do not know where 
 they are. My secretary has been sick; I telegraphed to him on Satur- 
 day to know if he could come on with me here. I desired he should be 
 here and straighten this thing up to your satisfaction. He replied that 
 he was sick in bed. I should have been here last week if my own fam- 
 ily had not been sick, and another reason was that I wanted him here 
 with me. 
 
 Q. What was your business originally 1 — A. I am a contractor of 
 railroads. 
 
 Q. On what railroads have you been a contractor ? — A. I noticed some 
 time ago a history of my life, in which I see I have been a contractor 
 on about thirty railroads. 
 
 Q. Mention some of the largest of them. — A. I was on the Western 
 Eailroad, from Boston to Albany. . 1 had some large contracts on that 
 road, which I finished up in 184C. I was on the Eutland and Burling- 
 ton Eailroad, the Vermont and Massachusetts Railroad, the Connecticut 
 Eiver Eailroad, the Philadelphia and Erie, the Hartford and Springfield 
 Eailroad, and several large railroads in that section. I am now inter- 
 ested strongly in a road called the Canada Southern, running from Buf- 
 falo to near Detroit, with an extension to Chicago, and likewise with an 
 extension from Detroit to Toledo. I have just now taken a contract in 
 the city of New York with Mr. Vanderbilt for sinking track, to the 
 amount of about $5,000,000. I was also a contractor on the Northern 
 Central Eoad. 
 
 Q. State whether in your connection with these railroads at different 
 times you had any different book-keepers and secretaries. — A. I had 
 different men for the different works I was engaged on. 
 
 Q. Is ic, then, in your power, or would it be in the power of any 
 man, to keep the run of these transactions in detail ? — A. I am not a 
 detail man. I have some secretaries who have ':een with me ten or fif- 
 teen years. I get good men ; pay them well for it, and they keep my 
 accounts up pretty close, and bring my dealings into such shape that I 
 can understand very easily whether they are about right without going 
 into the exact details. I have no time, and I cannot do it. 
 
 Q. In relation to the Credit Mobilier operations, I understand Mr. 
 Ham was your secretary 1 — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Alley : 
 
 Q. Had I anything to do with that transaction with Mr. Brooks in 
 any shape or manner? Did lever give him any information or have 
 any conversation with him in reference to it to your knowledge? — A. I 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 239 
 
 don't know -what conversations you may have had with hiai ; you did 
 not in my hearing. 
 
 Q. Were you ever spoken to ilpon the subject by me? — A. I do not 
 thiuk I was. 
 
 Q. You have no recollection of my ever having said anything or done 
 anything about it? — A. I have not. 
 
 Q. You feel quite sure that my name is not on that paper ? — A. I can- 
 not say certainly ; I do not thiuk it is. 
 
 Q. It has been stated here that! had a great deal to do in the Credit 
 Mobilier — more than anybody else; in fact, that I was captain, mate, 
 and all tands. Was I as frequently present at the ofQce iu New York, 
 and did I have as much to do with it, as Mr. Hazard? — A. Whenever 
 I could catch you and Mr. Hazard together, I consulted you both. I 
 considered that one was the same as the other. I think as Mr. Hazard 
 was in New ifork oftener than you, I met him oftener than you, or than 
 with both of you together. 
 
 Q. Was he not in New York much more frequently ; in fact, three 
 times oftener than I was ? — A. I tlo not know ; I think he was there 
 oftener at that time. 
 
 Q. So'that you thiuk he had more to do with these matters than I, 
 for the reason that I was less frequently there? — A. I think we met 
 oftener together and consulted. The committee of three were not very 
 often together, if you recollect; when any two, yourself or either of us, 
 met, we constituted a majority to do any business. 
 
 Q. It was a committee of three? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Had the executive committee anything to do at all with this mat- 
 ter of Mr. Brooks as far as you remember ? — A. I do not think it had. 
 
 The Chairman. We wish you to make such an examination that will 
 enable us to have all the light you can give us in relation to the fifty 
 shares of stock, the security you took, and when and by whom the loan 
 was paid. 
 
 The Witness. I will endeavor to furnish it so far as I can. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 21, 1873. 
 
 Thomas C. Dukant recalled and examined. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. I think you stated the other day that you had copies of the 
 books kept by this trusteeship of the Oakes Ames contract ? — Answer. 
 I had up to the time of the last dividend. 
 
 Q. Have you a co[>y of any of the books of the Credit Mobilier ? — A. 
 I have copies of them up to 1867. The original books are, however, 
 here in Washington. 
 
 Q. It was said by Mr. Ham that the transfer-book had been lost? — A. 
 I have a copy of the transfer-books up to 1867 or 1868. 
 
 Q. Was the stock that was put into your hands at the same time Mr. 
 Ames had a certain number of shares given to him, to enable you and 
 him to fulfill engagements which you had made — was this the stock 
 which you had to distribute, and transfer to the persons with whom you 
 had engagements? — A. Certainly it was, I think with one exception; 
 and I thiuk I settled that one claim. 
 
 Q. Do you remember these transfers appeared upon this copy of the 
 book you have ? — A. All the transfers I made appear upon that book. 
 
 Q. Th^ book you have will show all the transfers that were made by 
 you ? — A. Yes. sir. 
 
240 . CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Do you kuow whether any of the persons to whom you made these 
 transfers held the stock for the benefit of any member of Congress ? — 
 A. I think not; I have no idea they did. 
 
 Q. You had no reason to suppose or believe that any member of 
 Congress had any interest in any of the stock you parted with, except 
 in the eases you have named ? — A. I had not. 
 
 Q. Have you a list of the persons to whom you transferred stock ? 
 
 A. Here is a list of persons to whom I transferred this stock. 
 
 Q. Do yo.u remember the time this stock was assigned to yon ? — A. I 
 do not ; 1 claimed the stock early in 1867, on my promises. 
 
 Q. You received the stock for the purpose of enabling you to fulfill 
 
 your engagements, at the same time this was assigned to Mr. Ames ? 
 
 A. My engagemeTits were to the extent of some seventy or eighty 
 thousand dollars. I transferred much of it from my own stock, and 
 when they gave me this, it was some of it used to replace the stock I 
 had transferred. 
 
 Q. Was the portion you received from the company transferred to 
 you at the same time the assignment of shares was made to Mr. Ames 
 for the same purpose? — A. Yes, I presume it was at the same time. 
 They were closing up their books then. 
 
 Q. Do you remember when that was? — A. 1 think these transfers 
 were made in the month of December, 1867. 
 
 Q. Then all the transfers you made of that stock to fulfill your en- 
 gagements would be subsequent to that date? — A. Not necessarily, be- 
 cause it was to replace the stock I had previously delivered. The books 
 will not show the dates of the transfer on my part. It is customary in 
 New Y^ork, among brokers, to receive certificates of one hundred shares 
 of my stock transferable' and payable on the indorsement of a blank 
 power of attorney, and the certificates may pass from hand to hand to 
 half a dozen owners before any transfer will be made on the books of 
 the company. 
 
 Q. The paper you have given me shows that the only transfer after 
 January 1, 1868, is to Henry Blood. Here is J. B. Johnston, who, un- 
 der date of December 11, is down for two hundred shares. — A. That 
 was collateral for a loan ; it was not a sale. 
 
 Q. December 20, J. B. Alley two hundred and fifty shares. — A, That 
 was the Same call given on December 12 or 13. The circumstances 
 under which that was made were these : When the trustees were dis- 
 cussing the matter of declaring the first dividend, Mr. Ames was very 
 anxious the dividend should be made, but Mr. Alley was for delay. Mr. 
 Bushnell remarked to me that Mr. Alley had sold out his stock pretty 
 largely, and that Mr. Ames had promised stock; that they were short 
 of stock ; that they had sold at high prices ; that nothing could be done 
 with Alley until he had got his stock back again. We adjourned the 
 trustees for twenty minutes, and I sold Mr. Alley a call at 160. When 
 the trustees met again, Mr. Alley voted for the dividend. 
 
 Q. Was that intended to be a real sale ? — A. O, yes. He called for 
 the stock, and it was transferred to him the 20th December. 
 
 Q. It was, then, a real sale? — ^A. It was a real sale, under the circum- 
 stances that I have mentioned. 
 
 (J. B. M. Boyer's name is given here at seventy-five shares; you have 
 already spoken of that. The next, under date of December 26^^ is C. H. 
 Neilson, one hundred shares. We also have an account of that. Th;B 
 next is, December 27, H. C. Crane. That also you have testified to.— 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Was that a sale of the number of shares given from you to Mr; 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. . 241 
 
 Crane?— A. My impression is now that I had it transferred to him for 
 the purpose of enabling me to transfer it to meet some of these obliga- 
 tions I had incurred. I had transferred them all out of my own stock, 
 and he held this stock for me. 
 
 Q. Is it still standing in his name ? — A. I think it has been trans- 
 ferred to me. 
 
 Q. This was not a sale, then '! — A. Ko. 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection of the purpose for which this transfer 
 was made to Mr. Crane ? — A. I think he took it in the way I have stated. 
 If any obligations had not been fulfilled he would have transferred the 
 proper amount of stock to the parties. The transfer-books will show to 
 whom it has been transferred. 
 
 Q. Did he hold it for the benefit of any member of Congress? — A. 
 No one whatever. 
 
 Q. The next on the list is J. Bardwell, two hundred and fifty shares. — 
 A. Yes ; Mr. Bardwell, of Boston. I sold it to him. 
 
 Q. That was a real sale ''. — A. That was a real sale ; yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you any reason to suppose that Mr. Bardwell did not make 
 the purchase for himself on his own account? — A. I am not positive, 
 but he told me Mr. McComb had an interest in it. 
 
 Q. Had any member of Congress any interest in it? — A. O, no; it 
 was his own investment. 
 
 Q. He holds it yet, as you suppose ! — A. I suppose he does. I know 
 nothing to the contrary. 
 
 Q. The next on the list is December 20, J. Hedden, one hundred 
 shares. — A. He is a broker in Wall street. He holds the stock yet. 
 
 Q. Do you suppose or believe him to be the real owner of it? Was 
 it a purchase for himself? — A. Certainly; he has always had his divi- 
 dends. He has been unfortunate iu business, and I understand it is 
 among the assets of his creditors. 
 
 Q. December 31, J. B. Piggot, one thousand shares. — A. That was 
 collateral security on a loan. That has been returned to me. 
 
 Q. That is now your stock ? — A. That is my stock ; yes, sir. 
 
 Q. January 9, Henry Blood, seven shares. — A. That was an interest 
 Mr. Blood had, with I don't know whom. He was one of the original 
 subscribers, and some of his stock stood in my name. He is a Wall- 
 street man. 
 
 Q. This list covers all that appears on this copy of your transfer- 
 book ? — A. I think so. I had it made from the original book. " 
 
 Q. You believe this covers all the transfers you have made to any- 
 body ; and you believe you have made no transfers since then ? — A. 
 No, sir ; I think I have not. 
 
 Q. At the same time this stock was assigned by the company to you 
 and Mr. Ames, and divided between you, to enable you to fulfill your 
 engagements, did that assignment to you cover all the stock of the 
 company except what was held by private stockholders ? — A. I think 
 it did. I have the names of the stockholders. I think it covered 
 nearly all. This is that six hundred and fifty shares of stock which, in 
 May, 1807, after I put the injunction on the Union Pacific Eailroad 
 against contracting with the Credit Mobilier, by direction of the Credit 
 Mobilier, was changed, to carry out the obligations I had made. They 
 had credited me for the money paid for the stock, and they owed me 
 these six hundred and fifty shares to carry out my obligations. I left 
 the transfer with the assistant treasurer, with instructions to issue the 
 certificates to meet these obligations. After the administration was 
 changed, it- was surrendered to the company, and notice given in writing 
 
 16 X 
 
242 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 that it was subject to the obligations I had already made. That was in 
 May, 1867. 
 
 Q. This increase was voted when? — A. The increase was voted either 
 late in 1866 or early in 1867. The first payment was payable in Febru- 
 ary, 1867. 
 
 Q. Do you believe that the shares assigned to you and to Mr. Ames 
 covered all the stock the company had after the increase was made, ex- 
 cept what was held by private shareholders at the time ? — A. I have no 
 means of knowing of my own knowledge. At the time I understood it 
 covered the entire amonnt within, perhaps, one hundred and fifty shares. 
 Of that 1 think one hundred shares was assigned to General Dodge, and 
 I do not know but Neilson had the other fifty. I am not sure that he 
 did. I asked the question once, and was informed he did. I don't know 
 of my own knowledge. 
 
 Q. At the time of the negotiations between you and Mr. Brooks, 
 which resulted in this agreement that he should have one hundred 
 shares, was anything said between you and Mr. Brooks in reference to 
 whether that one hundred shares would be entitled to fifty shares ad- 
 ditional?— A. At the time I commenced talking with Mr. Brooks it was 
 before the increase. At the time I made the settlement with Mr. Brooks, 
 it was after the increase had all gone by. 
 
 Q. This last time was when you had the talk with him which resulted 
 in settling upon the one hundred shares. Was anything said in that 
 settlement with Mr. Brooks whether after obtaining the one hundred 
 shares he would be entitled to 50 per cent, increase? — A. I do not 
 recollect that there was. It was, as I supposed, a settlement of the 
 whole thing. 
 
 Q. You did not understand that he was to have another fifty shares 
 at all 1 — A. I did not so understand. 
 
 Q. Whether Mr. Brooks understood it so or not, you do not know ?— 
 A. I do not know what Mr. Brooks understood ; 1 certainly understood 
 distinctly that it was a compromise of the whole matter, and the time 
 had gone by for the increase. 
 
 Q. Do you think Mr. Brooks so understood it at the time? — A. I sup- 
 posed he wfis satisfied at the time with what was done. 
 
 Q. From the negotiation, or from what was said between you and Mr. 
 Brooks upon the subject, had Mr. Brooks any right to understand that 
 he was entitled to fifty shares additional ? — A. I do not think he had. 
 Hff had previously claimed more stock; he had talked of a larger amount, 
 I suppose for the purpose of getting the best compromise he could. 
 
 Q. You understood that compromise ended that claim ? — A. I did, so 
 far as I was concerned. 
 
 Q. And you understood that he had no claim on the company for more 
 stock ">. — A. I did. 
 
 By Mr. MoCraey : 
 
 Q. Was General Dodge chief engineer of the Union Pacific Eail- 
 road? — A. He was chief engineer; yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And had been for how long f — A. I do not recollect. I think since 
 1805. I can tell yoil by reference to the dates. 
 
 Q. Do you know anything about his having contracted for some stock 
 while he was chief engineer, and before he was a member of Con- 
 gress ? — A. I do not. 
 
 Q. You do not know anything of a contract under which he got this 
 stock ? — A. I do not. 
 
 Q. The only members of Congress on .your list were Mr. Boyer and 
 Mr. Alley ?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 243 
 
 « 
 
 Q. When did you make your oiiginal contract with Mr. Boyer !— A. 
 In the fall of 1866. 
 
 Q. Was he then a member of Congress ''—A. I suppose so. It was on 
 the excursion in the fall of 1866, to which I have referred. 
 
 Q. He was a member of Congress at the time of this excursion "? — A. 
 He was. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether he was a member of the Pacific Rail- 
 road committee! — A. I do not think he was. 
 
 Washington, January 21, 1873. 
 
 James Brooks, a member of the House of Eepresentatives, having 
 been duly sworn, made the following statement : 
 
 Mr. McComb having sworn in the early part of this investigation that 
 I was the only member of Congress within his knowledge to whom had 
 been given Credit Mobilier stock to influence or bribe other members, 
 and that fifty shares had been thus given me without consideration, I, 
 naturally enough, when thus outraged, felt indignant and denounced 
 him as a perjurer. Mr. Alley having since sworn that there is not one 
 word of truth in this part of Mr. McComb's fabrication, and this having 
 been confirmed by Mr. Ames's testimony, I ought, perhaps, to let the 
 case rest, and I should let it thus rest, but for persistent efforts here to 
 impair the testimony of both. 
 
 The following letter from the Acting Secretary of the Interior shows, 
 my first official relations with that board : 
 
 " Washington, January 20, 1873. 
 " Sir : Hon. James Brooks, of JSTew York, was commissioned a Govern- 
 ment director of the Union Pacific Eailroad for the term of one year 
 from the 3d day of October, 1867, and the oath of office filed by him in 
 this Department was taken March 23, 1868. 
 " Respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 " B. R. COWEX, 
 
 ^'■Acting Secretary. 
 " Hon. L. P. Poland, 
 
 " Chairman, (fee, (fee, House of RepresentaticesP 
 
 It will thus be seen that for nearly six months I declined to take the 
 oath of office. My hesitation arose mainly from the fact that there was 
 discord in the board, and while that existed I did not want to be in it. 
 When this discord was over, in compliance with a promise I had made 
 to act, I took my seat in the board, to the apparent satisfaction of all the 
 hitherto discordant parties. The sacrifice was something to me, for, in 
 this official position, I could not be a stockholder in the Union Pacific 
 , road, and if I became a stockholder in the Credit Mobilier, though an- 
 other corporation, in another State, I subjected myself to misconstruc- 
 tion. Hence, I was compelled to renounce a right to purchase at par 
 from T. C. Durant two hundred shares in the Credit Mobilier, a right 
 belonging to me, as testified by him, in 1866, or early in 1867, before I 
 was a member of Congress, and which did not become valuable until 
 December, 1867. I said, therefore, to Mr. Durant, as he has already 
 testified, that, as a Government director, I could not, and would not, 
 exercise my right to purchase the two hundred shares, then above par, 
 but would transfer the right to 0. H. Neilson, my son-in-law, to whom , 
 
244 ^ . CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 « 
 
 as a stock operator, tlie right would be valaable. Mr. Durant made uo 
 objection, save as to the uumber of shares to be transferred, and has 
 stated that he compromised on that by selling to Mr. Keilsou one 
 hundred shares, with live Union Pacific bonds in addition, and a cer- 
 tain number of shares of Union Pacific stock, which were immediately 
 entered upon the books, as seen by the record, ia Mr. Neilson's own 
 name. I did not then receive, and have never since received, one cent 
 of profit from the transaction, in my own or in another name. I have 
 never receipted for, or had any dividend, or allotment, in any form, 
 from any shares entered on the book in Mr. Neilson's name, either di- 
 rectly or indirectly. I did not give Mr. Neilson the money to purchase 
 the stock, deeming it wiser to make him pay me back than to give it ' 
 to him. I advanced the purchase-money as a loan, as he testifies, and 
 only as a loan, and held him responsible for paying it back as soon as 
 he could. Hence, probably, as Mr. Crane testifies, although I have 
 entirely forgotten the transaction, I acted for Mr. Neilson in paying 
 Mr. Durant, in part, three thousand dollars, by a draft, to be deducted 
 from a loan due me January 22 by Mr. Durant, and, in part, seven 
 thousand dollars, by a check. If there be any error or wrong in so 
 public and natural an act, I am incapable of seeing it. If I had been 
 plotting for concealment, as insinuated, I certainly should not have 
 given my right to purchase to a son-in-law, but to some "dummy," to 
 some " Jolin Doe," or " Eichard Roe," whose connection by marriage 
 could not be traced to me in all the books of a great national corpora- 
 tion. 
 
 The fifty additional shares purchased by Mr. Neilson himself, on or 
 about February 29, 1868, were necessarily sold to him by virtue of my 
 agreement with Mr, Durant, and upon a statement of the fact to the 
 companj', it was conceded that the fifty shares belonged to him, upon 
 his paying for them the par value, with interest from July 1, 1867. I 
 never spoke to Mr. Alley, nor he with me, upon this subject, as sworn 
 by Mr. McComb. Our relations were never confidential, and he never 
 gave me these fifty, nor any other shares, with or without consideration, 
 either for myself, or to influence or bribe democratic members of Con- 
 gress. Now, in setting forth this statement of facts, I do not wish 
 apologetically to convey the idea that I declined the ownership of Credit 
 Mobilier stock because I w*as a member of Congress, for if I had never 
 been named a Government director, I should probably have been the 
 owner of a large amount of that stock up to this day. I have as much 
 right to own paper stock as live stock — as sheep, or spindles, or lead, 
 or iron mines, or barley, or lumber, or steam-engines, or founderies, with 
 two or three thousand tariffed articles, largely endowed by congressional 
 legislation; and no constitutional quorum can ever be got in either 
 House of Congress, if members are to own no species of stock, alive or 
 dead — agricultural, manufacturing, or commercial — when these interests 
 are to be legislated upon. 
 
 From April 6, 1866, to March 4, 1867, I was not in Congress, and dur- , 
 ing that time, as a private citizen, whenever I had leisure, I exerted all 
 the influence tongue or pen could give me to interest capitalists in the 
 building of the Pacific liailroad, borrowing money for it, and loaning it 
 money, at great risks, too, which led then, when I was not a member of 
 Congress, as Mr. Durant shows, to his promising me the right to pur- 
 chase some of his shares in the Credit Mobilier ; and what he states I 
 here reiterate, that the business transactions between us were in no 
 way to influence Congress or legislation, but were the natural business 
 transactions between man and man. Now, I have only to add that 
 
CKEDIT MOBILIEE. 245 
 
 I have never been asked to give or have given a vote in Congress 
 that was unjust to the Government, or for the profit of the Union Pa- 
 cific Railroad. Nor have I, as charged by Mr. McComb, asked demo- 
 cratic members of Congress to vote for the road, and I do not remem- 
 ber ever to have spoken to any democratic member upon any legislation 
 relating to the road. 
 
 All I have done was, when not a member of Congress, to accept an 
 offer Mr. Dnrant made, to sell me, at par, certain shares of the Credit 
 Mobilier stock, and, when not a Government director of the road, to 
 transfer to Mr. Neilson the offer made me when not a Congressman. 
 
 If this be a wrong, moral, social, political, or constitutional, it is not 
 written in any code I have ever read or heard of. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Were you a stockholder in the Union Pacific Railroad? 
 
 The Witness. When! 
 
 The Chairman. Ever. > 
 
 Answer. I am now. I was obliged to be a stockholder when I became 
 a stock director. 
 
 Q. How early was that? — A. I do not now remember ; the records 
 will show. It was six months or a year after I was removed as a Gov- 
 ernment director. I can tell you by a memorandum which I have here. 
 I was removed as a Government director July 15, 1869. The election 
 of directors occurred, I think, in March,' 1870, and I must have then be- 
 come a stockholder, as the laws of the company did not allow anyone 
 to become a director unless he wag owner of stock. 
 
 Q. You purchased stock for the purpose of having the necessary 
 qualifications to be a director ? — A. I did. 
 
 Q. Prior to that you had not been a stockholder in the company ? — 
 A. So, never ; not a share. 
 
 Q. How early was the conversation between you and Mr. Durant, 
 when you were promised two hundred shares of stock? — A. Jt was in 
 1866. My impession is, early in 1866. 
 
 Q. Tou do not kno~w when the connection of the Credit Mobilier and 
 the Pacific road commenced ? — A. I do not know when that connection 
 commenced ; the records will show the date. 
 
 Q. Did you have a conversation with anybody else except Mr. Du- 
 rant in reference to taking stock in the Credit Mobilier ? — A. I made 
 great efforts with capitalists in New York. 
 
 Q. I mean in reference to taking stock yourself; did you have a con- 
 versation with any .one upon that subject- other than Mr. Durant? — A. 
 I co-operated with Mr. Durant. I worked with him and others to in- 
 duce capitalists to take stock in the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 Q. In regard to taking stock yourself in the Credit Mobilier, did you 
 _have any conversation witlt anybody except Mr. Durant on that sub- 
 ject ? — A. I do not remember anybody else. Mr. Durant was the prin- 
 cipal head of the road, or, perhaps, up to nearly that time, was almost 
 the road himself. 
 
 Q. He was then president of the company? — A. Vice-president. I 
 think John A. Dix was president; but Mr. Durant was the principal 
 man at the head. 
 
 Q. Did you understand that you had a definite contract with him for 
 a specific number of shares which you were to take ? — A. I might have 
 had any number of shares of Credit Mobilier stock prior to December, 
 1867. 
 
 Q. The great difSculty then was to get anybody to take it, was it 
 
246 CREDIT MOIJILIER. 
 
 not? — A. I could not get anybody to take it. 1 could have had any 
 number of shares I wanted. 
 
 Q. Did you understand that you had a distinct agreement with him 
 that you were to take a particular number of shares 1 — A. It was my 
 option to take the shares or not. If the shares were under par, as they 
 were a large proportion of the time, some of the time selling as low as 
 92, 1 did not want them, but when the stock went above par I did want 
 some; before that I could have bought 1,000 shares at any time at 92. 
 
 Q. You were under no obligations to Mr. Durant to take any of the 
 stock unless you wanted it'l — A. No; it was what is called in Wall 
 street on " option." 
 
 Q. You understood that your agreement with him was such that you 
 liad a right to take a specific number of shares agreed upon ; did you, 
 or was there simply a general talk ? — A. I think it was two hundred 
 shares. Mr. Durant's memory is better than mine. I seldom have any 
 such things on my mind when not in New York. I have no reason to 
 doubt the accuracy of his testimony that it was two hundred shares. 
 
 Q. When did the negotiations take place between you and Mr. Durant 
 in reference to settling this matter 1 — A. It must have been before he 
 went to New York, in December, I think, in 1867. 
 
 Q. You then claimed the fulfillment of this contract? — A. I claimed 
 the fulfillment of it at that time ; for the first time the shares went 
 above par ; I think early in December, 
 
 Q. How early'do you think the shares began to be above par ? — A. I 
 think, as near as I can recollect, that on the 1st of December, 1867, it 
 would have been- difficult to borrow money on these shares, they were 
 below par ; but for some reason I never very well understood, perhaps 
 the Oakes Ames contract: — and let me say here I never heard as much 
 about the Oakes Ames contract before as I have here — for some reason 
 they became rapidly more and more valuable about this time. 
 
 Q. At the time you had this negotiation, which ended in the settle- 
 ment of one hundred shares, what was your idea in regp.rd to the value 
 of the stock ? — A. I think they were worth then about 130 or iJtO ; that 
 was my impression at the time. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether that question was discussed between 
 you and Mr. Durant 1 — A. I do not remember ; Mr. Durant is a man of 
 large business, and does not talk much in making his settlements. 
 
 Q. Did you learn at the time that for some reason it had become for 
 your interest to call for this option ! — A. I did. 
 
 Q. Yon learned from your conversation with him that the stock had 
 for some reason become suddenly valuable, and that people were more 
 anxious to take it than they had been 1 — A. I did. 
 
 Q. How early in that conversation with Mr. Durant did Mr. Neilson's 
 name come in 1 — A. At the very start ; as I have already stated, my 
 official relations with the Government, if I accepted the position which- 
 had been tendered me, would give rise to misunderstanding and misap- 
 prehension if I were the owner of stock in this company. I thought I 
 had the right, being a Government director, to hold this stock, but as 
 I could not have done so without danger of being misunderstood and 
 misrepresented, I would not hold it. 
 
 Q. The law prohibited a Government director from holding stock in 
 the Union Pacific Eailroad, did it not ? — A. It did not prohibit me from 
 holding stock in this company. I think I had the legal right, as I said, 
 to hold it ; but I was a journalist, and I did not want to subject myself 
 to misconstruction as a public man, and therefore I threw away the 
 right to hold the stock. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEK. 247 
 
 Q. You knew the Credit Mobilier had some, connection with the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad?— A. Yes,, sir, and that was the motive that 
 made me refuse to hold the Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
 Q. And you think this was announced to Mr. Durant from the begin- 
 ning of your negotiations with him, which resulted in this settlement 'I — 
 A. It must have been. I see, by the entries that have been made, Mr. 
 Neilson's name is not only upon the Credit Mobilier books, but upon the 
 «tock-books of the Union Pacific Railroad Company ; that his name was 
 there originally, and that the stock was issued directly to Mr. Neilson. 
 
 Q. It is undenied that the stock when transferred from Mr. Durant 
 was transferred to Mr. Neilson. What I desire to know is, when Mr. 
 IJJeilson's name came into the negotiations you had with him "? — A. It 
 must have been when we were talking on this subject. If I had not 
 been a Government director, I probably should have been the owner of 
 a large amount of Credit Mobilier stock. I said to him that I would 
 not subject myself to misconstruction by owning a single share of it, 
 ■and in accepting the position as Government director, I renounced my 
 right to own any of the stock of the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 Q. You agreed with Mr. Durant that the result of this settlement 
 between you and him was, that you were to take, one hundred shares 
 instead of the two hundred that you claimed ? — A. Yes, sir ; that was 
 the result of the settlement. It was not a settlement which was satis- 
 factory to me. 
 
 Q. And in order to compensate for not having one hundred more, he 
 put in twenty- five thousand nominal value of the Union Pacific Eailroad 
 securities ? — A. Five thousand of bonds, I think it is; he swears to it. 
 
 Q. And two hundred shares of Union IPaciflc Railroad stock in addi- 
 tion to the five thousand bonds? — A. Yes, the stock at a nominal value. 
 I do not remember what its value was, because it never came into my 
 hands; it passed immediately to Mr. IsTeilson. 
 
 Q. I am not talking about the value of it. The question I ask is, 
 whether that was a part of the settlement between you and Mr. Durant, 
 in connection with these one hundred shares! — A. It was, I presume. 
 
 Q. Was the receiving of these bonds and shares of stock what in- 
 duced you to forego any claim to the additional one hundred shares I 
 — A. It was. in the power of Mr. Durant to do what he thought was 
 right ; I had only to accept what he thought was proper. I had no 
 written contract or obligation from him. 
 
 Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Neilson upon the subject^ 
 jjrior to this time ■? — A. Yes, I had told him what I should do. 
 
 Q. Do you remember how long prior to this statement or agreement ? 
 — A; I do not remember ; it must have been on or about that time. 
 
 Q. The conversation in connection with this transaction was that, 
 whatever this contract or privilege was worth in purchasing, the one 
 hundred shares of stock with the other securities at par was a gift 
 from you to Mr. Xeilson ?-^A. Yes. I had nob at the time any idea of 
 its value; I had no conception when they were being transferred to 
 him ; I did not form an idea of this jjrospective value. 
 
 Q. You did understand at the time that the stock was worth more 
 than par'? — A. It was worth about 130, as I supposed, at the time, but 
 it rose to all sorts of value; it went up as the Northwestern stock did 
 the other day, from 100 to 300, up and down in all directions. 
 
 Q. Do you recall any conversation with any of these gentlemen — with 
 Mr. Ames or Mr. Alley — in regard to the value of the stock at that time? 
 — A. I never had any conversation with Mr. Ames or Mr. Alley about 
 it ; they were not my political friends. I felt angry and excited against 
 
248 ■ CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 them both at that time, because they had both just voted to turn me out 
 of Congress. 
 
 Q. Do you remember in relation to hearing of sales of stock about 
 that time? — A. I never gave it the least attention. After the stock was 
 transferred to Mr, Neilson, I knew nothing about it. 
 
 Q. Did you before ? — A. No ; nothing. 
 
 Q. Did you hear of the sale from Mr. Darant to Mr. Alley? — A. 
 Nothing, until it was mentioned here the other day. 
 
 Q. Did you make any inquiry to ascertain in relation to the value of 
 it otherwise than in the conversation you had with Mr. Durant ? — A. 
 No; I knew it was above par, and that was all 1 wanted to know. 
 
 Q. When was it that the arrangement was made between you and 
 Mr. Neilson, by which you were to advance the money to pay for this 
 stock ? — A. It was on or about the time of this transfer to him. 
 
 Q. Was anything said between you and him in regard to the security 
 he was to give you for advancing the money, or whether you were to be 
 secured at all f — A. I do not think there was. He was a man of prop- 
 erty; he is my son-in-law; I have loaned him $10,000 or more very fre- 
 quently. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether you took any obligation from him in 
 any way, showing that you advanced the money? — A. I do not think I 
 did ; he was my son-in-law ; if he behaved badly I had him in my power, 
 in the benefit he might or might not receive from my will. I knew that 
 he had every motive to act properly, toward me, and we have had the 
 same sort of transaction frequently since. 
 
 Q. Did you make any charge of this money on your books, or keep 
 any memorandum of it, as you remember ? — A. 1 do not remember ; my 
 business is done pretty much in this loose kind of way. I cannot say 
 whether I did or did not. 
 
 Q. Are you not in the habit of having some books in which you keep 
 your business affairs? — A. Not my own affairs. 
 
 Q. What I want to kno^i" is, whether you have the account charged 
 in any form. — A, T do not know. I do not think I have. It is a thing 
 I should not be very apt to recollect if -I had. 
 
 Q. Have you made any search or any examination to see whether you 
 have anything of the kind ? — A. No, sir ; I have not. 
 
 Q. Did you say to Mr. Neilson that you should require some security 
 or collateral from him for the payment of the money? — A. I do not re- 
 member that 1 did. I did not deem it necessary, and I do not suppose 
 I did. 
 
 Q. Did he give you any security? — A. I do not remember whether he 
 did or did not. 
 
 Q. If he did, you have no memory what it was? — A. 1 have not any 
 memory what it was, and no memorandum. 
 
 Q. Has this $10,000 which you advanced to pay for the stock been re- 
 paid to you by Mr. Neilson ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Can you state when ? — A. A large portion of it was soon after the 
 transaction. It must have been in February, March, or April, that a 
 large portion was repaid to me. 
 
 Q. Was it paid at one time? — A. No, not at one time. 
 
 Q. Do you remember how much was paid at one time? — A. I do not. 
 
 Q. Can you tell when the balance was paid ? — A. I do not remember. 
 
 Q. Did you have any other money transaction with Mr. Neilson ? — A. 
 Several others. 
 
 Q. Do you know if there was an account kept between you and him ?- 
 —A. I have never kept any account beyond a general record, from the 
 
CREDIT MOBILISE. 249 
 
 mere fact that I look upon him as my son-in-law, and I have always been 
 very loose in keeping my accounts with him. 
 
 Q. You think you are not able to produce any account that existed 
 between you and him in reference to this other money transaction? — A. 
 I think I might be able if I were at home, by looking and searching 
 among my papers. 
 
 Q. Have you made any such search in reference to that ? — A. I have 
 not. We have unsettled accounts, loose accounts, I think, in regard to 
 other things. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether this stock transaction between you and 
 him was settled up and treated as a distinct transaction, or did it sim- 
 ply go into your general accounts ? — A. 1 think it was settled up, or 
 nearly settled up, eighteen months or two years ago. 
 
 Q. In a general settlement between you ■? — A. No, I think as to that 
 particular transaction. There may have been some balance. 1 gave 
 but very little attention. I never draw a check if I can avoid it. 
 
 Q. Was the first payment made by Mr. Neilson toward the $10,000 
 you advanced him $9,000 ? — A. He states that it was, and he is prob- 
 ably correct. 
 
 Q. Did you learn from him that it was the sum of $9,000 he had just 
 drawn as a dividend upon the stock'? — A. I never asked him upon the 
 subject. It would not have come to me, but would have been deposited 
 with my cashier, and put in the bank. 
 
 Q. Do you remember about the transaction ? — A. I remember that he 
 got a large sum soon after. 
 
 Q. You do not suppose the payment was made personally to you! — 
 A. I know it was not made to me. 
 
 Q. You have no recollection that you received from him anything to 
 hold as collateral for this payment ? — A. I may, and may not; I do not 
 recollect. I should not have demanded collateral. 
 
 Q. If you did receive any collateral at all from him, it was something 
 voluntarily proffered. You required no collateral? — A. I required no 
 collateral. I never have required it, and should not for any loan to Neil- 
 son, unless 1 was apprehensive that he was engaged in some dangerous 
 speculations ; and then I would require double, triple, enough to prevent 
 him from going in. He is a stock-broker, and I have assisted him from 
 time to time. 
 
 Q. Have you any memoranda as to whether these 5,000 of Union 
 Pacific Railroad bonds was together with the 20,000 Union Pacific Rail- 
 road stock, and whether either was ever in your hands 1 — A. 1 passed 
 everything over to Mr. Neilson. I never touched a cent of the proceeds 
 of the transaction. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether these bonds were actually in your pos- 
 session ? — A. If they were, it would have been only long enough for 
 him to go to my place, or for me to go to his place. 
 
 Q. Do you think these bonds could have been placed with you as 
 security for the payment of the amount you advanced to Mr. Neilson? — 
 A. My impression is that they were not. I never asked him for any 
 collateral. 
 
 Q. Do yon believe you ever held them at all? — A. No ; I believe I never 
 held them at all. 
 
 Q. And that you never had a certificate for Union Pacific Eailroad 
 stock ? — A. I know I never did. I speak confidently in regard to that. 
 I would not touch it. I was about to accept the position of Govern- 
 ment director, and I would not touch a share of the stock of the rail- 
 road company. 
 
250 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. What I want to ask is, whether you. ever had in your possession a 
 certificate for Union Pacific Railroad stock, withoijt its being transferred 
 on the book ? — A. I do not think I did. lam quite sure of that. I could 
 never have had any in my possession, because, when I made the trans- 
 action with Mr. Duraut, nothing was given on the stock-book. Mr. Neil- 
 son nnist have gone to the officer in 'charge and got it. I am confident 
 it was never in ray hand. 
 
 Q. Now, sir, as to the fifty shares of Credit Mobilier stock ; at the time 
 of this negotiation and settlpment between you and Mr. Durant, was 
 there anything said between you and him in relation to your being en- 
 titled, or Neilson being entitled, to fifty shares additional stock? — A. I 
 knew very little of what was doing in the interior of the Credit Mobilier. 
 When I arranged with Mr. Durant for these one hundred shares, I be- 
 lieved they carried with them whatever privileges or rights anybody else 
 had ; that these shares carried the same rights that any other stock had. 
 
 Q. You thought the fi,fty shares was an accretion that belonged to 
 the original stock ?^A. I learned at that time or soon afterward that 
 this accretion was made, and that whoever held t^e early shares, the 
 shares in the first issue of the Credit Mobilier stock, was entitled to one- 
 half in addition. 
 
 Q. Did you understand at the time you were having your negotiation 
 with Mr. Durant, that the negotiation ended in the adjustment by which 
 one hundred shares were to be given? — A. The adjustment only related 
 to what was on the face of it. 
 
 Q. Did you understand at that time that it would entitle you to fifty 
 shares more? — A. I do not think I knew at the time anything about the 
 accretions. 
 
 Q. Therefore you did liot think, and there was no conversation in re- 
 gard to any additional stock °? — A. I do not think there was any conver- 
 sation between Mr. Durant and myself on the subject. I think he is 
 right in that. I do not know anything about the Credit Mobilier, and 
 did not know what its interior operations were. 
 
 Q. Can you tell from whom, and when, you did learn in reference to 
 these fifty shares additional? — A. I learned it from a conversation with 
 Mr. Dillon. 
 
 tj. Did you inform Mr. Dillon how Neilson came to get the one hun- 
 dred shares °l — A. 1 did. 
 
 Q. You understood at that time that the shares were not directly 
 from the company to Neilson, but from Durant ? — A. I thought they 
 ought to come from Mr. Durant ; that it was an inheritance from him 
 from my agreement with him. 
 
 Q. Did you explain that to Mr. Dillon ? — A. I did. 
 
 Q. Do 1 understand that Mr. Dillon said that the manner in which 
 you or Neilson came by that stock carried with it the fifty additional 
 shares ? — A. Mr. Dillon thought so, and his only hesitation was whether 
 they were to come from Mr. Durant's portion or from the company. Mr. 
 Dillon never doubted the right ; it was only as to what source it was to 
 come from. 
 
 Q. Did you have any conversation with others upon the subject? — 
 A. I do not remember having any conversation with any human being 
 upon the subject, except the president of the company, Mr. Dillon. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Dillon say whether the company had more stock or other 
 stock in its possession?— A. I did not enter into particulars with him, 
 nor he with me. 
 
 Q. Did he make any question or scruple in regard to your right ? — 
 A. I do not think he did. I never understood that he did. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 251 
 
 Q. Did he say anything to you about gettiug a paper aud getting 
 people to sign it "?— A. .Nothing to me. I never heard ofthere being any 
 such paper till I heard of it here for the first time. 
 
 Q. Did he say anything about the necessity of getting a number of 
 the stockholders of the company to agree to it! — A. Nothing. JMr. 
 Dillon was a man of immense business, aud spent very little time in 
 talking. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether you had more than one interview on 
 the subject! — A. I do not remember more than one. There may have 
 been two. I would not swear positively as to the number of conversa- 
 tions. 
 
 Q. Where were they 'I — A. It may have been in the of&ce of the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad Company. 
 
 Q. You say that you had no conversation with anybody else connected 
 with the company about it, except Mr. Dillon! — A. I do not recollect 
 any conversation with anybody else. I certainly had none with Mr. 
 Alley, for reasons I have given before. I never had any conversations 
 with him on the subject, nor with Mr. Ames. 
 
 Q. Do you remember when you had this conversation, whether one or 
 more, with Mr. Dillon, in the office, as to who was present, or whether 
 anybody was present ! — A. I do not remember. 
 
 Q. Do you remember seeing Mr. McComb about there at any time 
 when you were there? — A. I never talked freely before McComb. I 
 always guarded my tongue in his presence. 
 
 Q. Ton knew McComb !— A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Had you known him for some time ! — A. I have known him about 
 the Pacific Eailroad. 
 
 Q. So that if Mr. McComb had been present, and you had seen him, 
 you would have known who he was! — A. O, yes. 
 
 Q. Have you any memory whether you did see him about the office on 
 this occasion ! — A. I never saw him when I was talking with Mr. Dillon 
 on that subject — never. 
 
 Q. You say the only question between you and Mr. Dillon upon this 
 subject was as to where the additional stock should come from ! — A. He 
 did not dispute the right to it at all. He did not make any issue even 
 as to where it was to come from. I only inferred from his conversation 
 that the trouble in his mind was as to what fund the accretion should 
 come from. 
 
 Q. Did you learn from Mr. Dillon that those persons who were enti- 
 tled to this additional stock were also entitled to receive bonds of the 
 Union Pacific Railroad to the same amount! — A. I knew nothing about 
 the Credit Mobilier after I became a Government director of the road, 
 or made up my mind to become one. I knew nothing of its dividends 
 transactions. 
 
 Q. Did you ever know that the persons who were entitled to take fifty 
 per cent, additional stock were entitled to have the same amount of 
 Union Pacific Eailroad bonds ! — A. I did not know the particulars. I 
 knew it brought a large profit; in what form I did not know, and I 
 carefully avoided knowing. 
 
 Q. We have learned that there was such a right. — A. And I have also 
 learned it with you here for the first time. 
 
 Q. The only idea you had was that the stock was worth more than 
 you paid for it! — A. That was the only idea 1 had about it. 
 
 Q. After you had this conversation with Mr. Dillon, how did you first 
 learn that these fifty shares had been transferred to Mr. Neilson ! — A. I 
 do not rememember how I first learned it. 'It may have been from the 
 
252 CREDIT JIOBILIER. 
 
 general conversation about the office. My impression is that it was 
 from some of the subordinate officers of the company, some of the 
 clerks, that I first learned it. 
 
 Q. Was there anything said between you and Mr. Dillon as to how 
 these shares wei'e to be paid for ? — A. 1 understood they were to be 
 paid for at par. 
 
 Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Dillon as to how that 
 payment was to be made at par ? — A. I did not. I had no interest in 
 the payment. I had no conversation upon the subject. 
 
 Q. Had you any conversation with Mr. Neilson in relation to the fifty 
 shares of stock prior to the conversation with Mr. Dillon about it ? — A. 
 I told Mr. Neilsou he had that right in connection witti his original one 
 hundred shares. 
 
 Q. Was that before your conversation with Mr. Dillon, or afterward? 
 — A. Probable before, 
 
 Q. How did you learn that fact yourself? — A. I probably learned it 
 from the clerks of the company, who gave me the first information as 
 to the hundred shares being entitled to fifty additional. 
 
 Q. You think you told Mr. Neilson of his right iu this respect before 
 you had this conversation with Mr. Dillon ? — A. That is my impres- 
 sion. 
 
 Q. Was Mr. Neilson aware that he had such a right until you told 
 him ? — A. I do not think he was ; I do not think he knew much about 
 the stock in any form or waj'. Let me remark here that stock operators 
 frequently buy stock without knowing anything about it in any form ; 
 they have all sorts of transactions without knowing anything about the 
 details. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Neilson had any connection with the 
 Credit Mobilier stock in contemplation until you made this arrangement 
 for him in regard to the one hundred shares '? — A. I do not. I think he 
 had some conversation with me before upon the subject. I do not re- 
 member what it was. He is a stock operator, and is constantly con- 
 versing upon the subject of stocks of almost every kind, so that 1 have 
 no doubt he talked about the Credit Mobelier. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether he had ever had any dealings in the Credit 
 Mobilier stock as a broker ? — A. I do not know. I know but very little 
 of his stock operations except when he comes to me for information or 
 advice. 
 
 ^ Q. Did you have any knowledge as to how these fifty shares of stock 
 were paid for ? — A. No ; I only knew they were paid for. 
 
 Q. Did you have anything to do with the payment yourself ? — A. I 
 had nothing whatever to do with the payment, and do not know in what 
 manner the stock was paid for. 
 
 Q. Did you say anything to Mr. Dillon in relation to his letting Neil - 
 son have the money to pay for it'? — A. Not at all. 
 
 Q. When did you first learn that Mr. Dillon had advaucedthe money 
 to pay for it! — A. Not until after this investigation commenced here. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Dillon has ever been repaid that 
 money"? — A. I do not. I think he has; not to my knowledge, however. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether you paid him ? — A. I never did pay him. 
 
 Q. If nobody has paid him but you, he has not got his pay ? — A. I do 
 not know that. 
 
 Q. Mr. Neilson says he has never paid him. — A. Mr. Dillon says he 
 thinks he did. It is a question of memory, therefore, between the two. 
 
 Q. You think you never had any connection in any way with making 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 253 
 
 that payiueut! — A. I am sure I never did. I kuow I never did person- 
 ally. 
 
 Q. Do you think if the payment had been made out of your funds, 
 so that Neilsou would have to account to you for it, it would* have come 
 to your knowledge? — A. I think so. If that were tlie case, I should 
 think he must have paid him out of that $9,000. 
 
 Q. I understood Neilson to say that $9,000 was paid to you.— A. He 
 says so. It is a question between him and Mr. Dillon. I know nothing 
 about it. 
 
 Q. Do you think Xeilson was mistaken in saying he paid that $9,000 
 to you ? He could not have paid it to you and Mr. Dillon both. — A. I 
 cannot say. I have not my cash-book here. I expected to have re- 
 ceived it by express this morning. 
 
 Q. You think some of your books may give you more definite infor- 
 mation upon this subject than you now have ? — A. JVIy cash-book would 
 show what was received by my cashier. I never transact any such 
 business personally unless in exceptional cases. 
 
 Q. You feel very confident that the $5,000 which Mr. Dillon advanced 
 to pay for this stock has never been repaid by you ? — A. Yes, sir. The 
 securities Mr. Dillon got from Mr. Neilson were worth more than $5,000, 
 and it may be that he has paid himself out of them. I do not know 
 anything about it. I did not pay it personally, and I know nothing 
 about it. 
 
 Q. And you have no clerk who would have paid it out of your funds 
 without your knowledge '? — A. I do not think he did. I say, again, that 
 my cashier attends to all this business for me. He makes the entries and 
 draws the checks., so that, without my cash-book and check-book, I 
 speak very blindly upon the subject. 
 
 Q. We do not question your jnemory ; we only want to know what 
 the facts are from your memory. — A. Mr. Dillon has promised the com- 
 mittee that he will ascertain. It was entirely a transaction between 
 him and Mr. l^Teilson. 
 
 Q. I understood you to say j^ou have never derived any advantage or 
 benefit from the one hundred shares or the fifty shares ? — A. Not one 
 cent, in any form or shape, directly or indirectly. 
 
 Q. And that neither money, stock, nor bonds came to you as divi- 
 dends ? — A. Nor allotments, nor advances, nor anything whatever. 
 
 Q. If any bonds went with the fifty shares' accretions, they never 
 came to you 1—A'. They never came to me. I am so exj)licit upon that 
 X5oint because, when I started, out, or made up my mind to accept the 
 position of Government director, 1 made up my mind to have nothing 
 to do with the stock or securities of the road, or the Credit Mobilier, in 
 any way whatever, and I never did. 
 
 Q. Then the entire benefit or advantage to be derived from that stock, 
 in bonds, railroad stock, money, or in whatever form the dividends were 
 made, beyond the amount you advanced to pay for it, was intended by 
 you as a gift to your son-in-law "! — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you ever know of any transaction between Mr. Durant and 
 any member of Congress f — A. I never knew of any. 
 
 Q. Did you ever know of any transaction or dealings between Mr. 
 Ames and any member of Congress in regard to this Credit Mobilier 
 stock'? — A. I never did, and I never heard of his having any until I 
 read the publication last fall in the New York Sun. 
 
 Q. You have no knowledge in any form upon that subject except what 
 has been published in the newspapers"? — A. None whatever. 
 
254 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 By Mr. Meerick : 
 
 Q. You spoke of the value of this stock as about 130 ; did you include 
 in that valuation or exclude from it the bonds and Union Pacific Eail- 
 road stock" which accompanied it? — A. The whole of it. I think I heard 
 through the testimony in the Fisk case of some sale at 136. That iu- 
 cluded all dividends and allotments as I understood ; and that I sup- 
 posed to be about its value at the time. I had no conception of the 
 magnitude of the transfer when I handed this stock over to Neilson, 
 and I never did have any until I got it here. 
 
 Q. At the time of this adjustment between you and Mr. Durant, had 
 you received the appointment of Government director of the Union Pa- 
 cific Eailroad Company"? — A. Yes; I had been tendered the appoint- 
 ment. I had not then accepted it, as I stated. 
 
 Q. You say you did not take your oatti of ofQce as such until the 
 March following?— :A. Not until the March following. 
 
 Q. I understood you to say you had made up your mind not only not 
 to have anything to do with Union Pacific Railroad securities, to touch 
 or handle them, but also to know nothing in reference to Credit Mobi- 
 lier stock ? — A. Yes, after I became a Government director, I say that 
 so far as these transactions through my son-in-law were concerned, cer- 
 tainly. 
 
 Q. Did you make up your mind both in regard to Union Pacific 
 Eailroad stock and Credit Mobilier stock ? — A. Yes. Let me say right 
 here, that in 1867, and until the first of 1868, I felt that the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad had gone to the wall. Mr. Durant had put into the 
 enterprise $800,000 which he had made as a contractor on Iowa roads, 
 and he had gone to the length of his tether; but little help could be 
 got in New York for it. Nobody else would touch it. He went to Bos- 
 ton, and in Boston found Mr. Ames and Mr. Alley and some other gen- 
 tlemen there, who were rich men. They went into it, for the first time, 
 and increased the means and resources of the enterprise materially ; 
 but they were soon exhausted. I saw drafts coming from the contractors 
 which were only met with the utmost difficulty and at high ratesof inter- 
 est. The first-mortgage bonds of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company 
 were held nominally at 85, but you could not borrow money on them from 
 the banks at 40. The banks would throw them out as having little or 
 no value, and the whole concern was supposed to be gone up, until the 
 establishment of the Credit Mobilier, and until these gentlemen put 
 their capital into it in that form, because they would not be liable as in- 
 dividuals forthe drafts that might be made by contractors or speculators. 
 They mjist have some machinery to intervene between the railroad and 
 the personal liability. For some time scarcely anybody would touch 
 the Credit Mobilier stock in New York. It was under par. Money 
 could not be borrowed on it; and it was only in December, 1867, that it 
 began to have character among moneyed men. Then it went up to 
 double; it went up and down with all sorts of valuations. I was de- 
 sirous of seeing the road built, I cared not at what expense. My only 
 purpose as a Government director was to see that a good road was 
 built, that the money of the Government was expended properly, and 
 that the company got no more of the bonds of the Government than 
 they were entitled to for the road built. At that time, what these gen- 
 tlemen made or lost out of the transaction did not concern me. I was 
 interested as a Government director, to see that a good road was built, 
 and that the interests of the Government were properly protected in it. 
 
 Q. You considered it no part of your duty to ascertain whether proper 
 prices were being paid for the work done ? — A. I had nothing to do 
 
CREDIT jyjOBILER. 255 
 
 with the prices. My ouly care as a Government director was to see that 
 the road was built, and that the money or lands received from the Gov- 
 ernment were properly and faithfully expended on the road. 
 
 Q. Did yoii, or not, know that those gentlemen were making contracts 
 with themselves?— A. I did not; I knew nothing of the contracts, nor 
 of the nature of them. 
 
 Q. Did you, or not, as a Government director, regard it as a part of 
 your duty to see that the contracts for building this railroad were made 
 with proper and resiDonsible parties and for fair prices ? — A. I know at 
 the time that the contracts were for what you might term fair and 
 reasonable prices. There could be no contracts made at such prices 
 as railroads are built for in 'the East. There was great doubt and 
 trouble as to whether the coutractors would get their pay, and they 
 charged high prices for everytliing, and had to pay high prices. Ten, 
 twentj, and thirty per cent, was charged for money obtained from New 
 York banks. I think the bank at Omaha must have realized twenty or 
 thirty per cent, for the drafts cashed there, because they were uncer- 
 tain whether the drafts would be cashed in New York. The prices paid 
 for material that I heard of staggered me. There was a desperate 
 struggle between the Union and (Jentral Pacific, as to which should 
 make their road the farthest ; they worked at unseasonable periods of 
 the year. Sections of the road were built, when they never ought to have 
 been built, in mid-winter. Sometimes they built temporary tracks upon 
 the snow, which would go down, of course, with the approach of mild 
 weather. Sixty dollars a bushel was paid for corn, aud five dollars 
 apiece for ties. They paid enormous sums of money for iron. They 
 were compelled to buy all the iron to build the road in our own market, 
 and they were compelled to buy it of Pennsylvania companies, and give 
 Pennsylvania prices for it, under the law of Congress. They paid ten- 
 and twenty dollars a ton more for iron than they could have purchased 
 it for elsewhere. Everything was on an enormously large scale of ex- 
 penditure, necessarily, in order to make the road. My associates in the 
 Government directorship were Mr. Williams, of Pittsburgh, George Ash- 
 mun, of Massachusetts, and the late Vice-President Wade, of Ohio. All 
 our efforts were expended in endeavoring to see that the money of the 
 Government and that derived from the mortgage of the road, author- 
 ized by the Government, was used in good faith to construct the road. 
 They got the bonds from the Government, and issued their own bonds, 
 and from the proceeds of these they built the road. 
 
 Q. You did not consider it any part of your duty to protect the inter- 
 ests of the stockholders of the Union Pacific Erailroad Company, and to 
 secure for them the cheapest possible construction of the road, consist- 
 ent with its being properly and well done ?— A. I think, as far as I knew 
 at the time, their contracts were let at as favorable rates as they could 
 get to build a road in that wilderness country. There was no timber 
 from Omaha to the Platte. The ties had to be brought from some point 
 on the Missouri. They were cottonwood ties, and had to be burnetized. 
 The expense of transportation was enormous. There was no railroad 
 transportation across the State of Iowa, and everything had to be 
 brought up and down the Missouri Elver, and the iron by way of New 
 Orleans. Everything was done on the most extravagant scale of ex- 
 penditure, and the road could not otherwise have been built. They had 
 exhausted all their resources and all their means, at the time of which 
 I speak, from the sale of Government bonds and of their own first-mort- 
 gage bonds. With the Central Pacific Company the case was somewhat 
 different. The Central Pacific had double subsidies ; they had subsi- 
 
256 CREDIT JIOBILIEE. 
 
 * 
 
 (lies from tiie Federal GoverHmeut, and tbey had subsidies from the 
 State of California. But the Central Pacific was compelled to transport 
 its rails for building its road via the Panama Railroad at an im- 
 mense expense, or to send them by way of Cape Ilorn. In their 
 struggle to build the road quick, both companies made the work 
 more than it otherwise would have cost, but the Government gained 
 by its rapid completion. The road was, iu fact, completed seven 
 years before the time limited by Congress; and large amounts of 
 money were saved to the Government in consequence, in the transpor- 
 tation of troops, munitions of war, and supplies to feed the soldiers 
 iu Montana, New Mexico, and everywhere through all that country. 
 Large sums were also saved on the enormous prices before paid by 
 the Government for the transportation of the mails ; so that the addi- 
 tional amount paid for the construction of the road, under the circum- 
 stances I have stated, will have been saved to the Government in the 
 matter of its transportation. This was the reasoning of the Govern- 
 ment directors — of such men as Ashmun, Williams, and Wade, and the 
 other gentlemen who occupied these positions, and was the reason on 
 their part for not criticising these contracts in detail. 
 
 Q. In your explanation in the House, the 18th of December, if I re- 
 member correctly, you allude only to the transaction in regard to the 
 fifty shares, making no reference to the transaction of the one hundred 
 shares ; can you suggest to us why that was ? — A. Because Mr. McOomh 
 had specially charged before the committee that Mr. Alley had specially 
 given me these fifty shares. I therefore alluded to that, and that only. 
 In the same speech I promised, if I remember right, to allude to the sub- 
 ject again hereafter. I consamed the whole hour, if you remember. I 
 would very gladly, if the rules had permitted me, have gone into the 
 whole transaction. 
 
 Q. Was it your purpose at that time to have made a full explana- 
 tion ! — A. Certainly. There never was any secret about it. The fact 
 was notorious to Mr. McComb and everybody else. In the Pennsylvania 
 suit the one hundred shares had been set down to Mr. Neilson. There 
 was no concealment about it. Why I confined myself to the fifty shares 
 in that explanation was in order to make the issue in the House where 
 he had made the issue in committee. He spoke only of the fifty shares 
 given to me, and I therefore confined myself to the fifty shares'. 
 
 Q. Was not that speech made to produce the impression upon the 
 House and in the country that -that was your entire vindication ? — A. 
 No. I should have been a great fool, with the records of the Pennsyl- 
 vania suit and the records of the Union Pacific Railroad Company ac- 
 cessible to everybody, to have sought to do any such thing. In that 
 speech I say, " I might dwell upon this, as I shall perhaps, at some time 
 hereafter, take occasion to do." I expected at the proper time, here in 
 this committee or elsewhere, to unfold the whole transaction, and for that 
 purpose I challenged investigation, and asked the committee to riddle 
 me from beginning to end. 
 
 Q. You had already in your mind then, in your speech in the House, to 
 have gone into the whole matter of the one hundred shares? — A. Yes, 
 but I did not want then to bring any other issue into the discussion 
 than the distinct issue made by Mr. McComb. I did not want to make 
 any other issue than to pronounce what he had said in committee, in re- 
 gard to the transaction of the fifty shares, untrue. 
 
 Q. Was not substantially the issue before the committee, your 
 entire relations in relation to the purchase of and dealings in this Credit 
 Mobilier stock "? — A. No ; the issue was in reference to the fifty shares. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 257 
 
 That had been reported iu the newspapers, and was the only issue then 
 presented. I therefore limited myself exclusively to the fifty shares. 
 
 Q. The committee had been raised to inquire into all the dealings of 
 members in this stock? — A. I knew the committee would bring me be- 
 fore them, and that the whole transaction of the one hundred shares would 
 necessarily be gone into. There was never any concealment about the 
 one hundred shares. It was all set out, as I stated in the Pennsylvania 
 suit two years before. It was as accessible to the public then as now. 
 I could not have had any motive of concealment, then, iu refraining 
 from going into it in my explanations in the House. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 
 Q, You say that, having transferred your right to the one hundred 
 shares to Neilson, you resolved to know no more of it, and to take no 
 more interest in it ; did you take any interest in it afterward in secur- 
 ing for him the additional fifty shares ? — A. To get his rights. 
 
 Q. Tou therefore did feel interest enough in the matter to see that he 
 got the fifty shares he was entitled to? — A. Yes ; what I mean is, that 
 I took no interest in the dividends or allotments or payment of bonds. 
 
 Q, Do you remember, when you talked with Mr, Dillon upon the sub- 
 ject, whether yon claimed that you had a right to the additional fifty 
 shares, or that your son-in-law had that right? — A. I claimed that my 
 son-in-law had the right, through my settlement with Mr. Durant, when 
 the one hundred shares were given, that it was a hereditary right that 
 went with the one hundred shares. 
 
 Q. Inasmuch as you placed that right in your son-in-law, under the 
 circumstances of your being appointed a Government director, you 
 relinquished a very great advantage to yourself '? — A. I did ; I had not 
 any conception of how much I did relinquish ; I had no idea of its 
 magnitude. 
 
 Q. Do you not now think, under all the circumstances, it would have 
 been better to have relinquished your claims on Mr. Durant entirely, 
 and to have foregone all the right you had in regard to your option 
 to take the stock ? — A. It is true that reputation, even when unjustly 
 assailed, is worth more than money. I therefore answer, certainly, if 
 that is what you mean by your question. 
 
 Q. What I meant is this : is it not better to do directly what you 
 attempt to do, than to do what seems to have some indirection about it ? 
 — A. I asked myself at the time,' shall I sell this stock for what I sup- 
 posed it to be worth and take my profits now ? And I said, no ; they will 
 say you have made this money out of the Credit Mobilier. Shall I 
 leave it in the company ? I did not think it was just to me. I deemed 
 it wise, therefore, to transfer it to my son-in-law. My first impulse was 
 to sell it and to receive the profits myself. I did not do that. I thought 
 it would subject me to more imputation than to take the course I have 
 taken. 
 
 Q. Placing it upon that ground, do you not think that transferring 
 the stock to your son-in-law, and at the same time giving your checks 
 and drafts for the payment of the stock, would be likely to give rise to 
 as much suspicion as though you had taken it in your own name ? — A.^ 
 It never occurred to me when I made so plain a transaction as that ; as 
 to the question of being a member of Congress, I considered 1 had a 
 right to be interested in stock of any kind. 
 
 Q. The point ii; the public mind, as far as we are able to gather it, is 
 that the appearance of this transaction indicates that it was done in 
 
 17 X 
 
258 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 the name of your son-iu-law, for your benefit. — A. That is the turn it 
 takes, and it has the plausibility of the stock being in Mr. Neilson's name. 
 
 Q. And that, at the time you became a Government director, you had 
 paid for the stock out of your funds, which seems to furnish a fair basis 
 for the theory, at least, that Mr. Neilson held the stock for your own 
 benefit. — A. It I had not supposed I was honorable and upright in the 
 transaction, I should have placed the stock in the name of some unknown 
 man instead of my son-in-law. I felt that 1 was doing right, and I did 
 not care what sort of an investigation Congress or anybody else made 
 of me; and I care nothing now. I know that it was a just transaction, 
 an open transaction. As I have said, I considered m.yself as having a 
 perfect right, as a member of Congress, to own stock in the Credit Mo- 
 bilier, but that I could not as a Government director of the Union Pacific 
 Railroad Company ; after I accepted the appointment, I thought I could 
 not hold the stock without giving just cause for suspicion. 
 
 Q. Do you not think now under all the circumstances it would have 
 been better for you to have taken the stock in your own name than to 
 have taken it as you did ? — A. The Credit Mobilier had so close a con- 
 nection with the Union Pacific Eailroad, that as a Government director 
 of the Union Pacific Eailroad I would not own the stock at all. Let me 
 ask you, was it right or wrong for me to hold United States stocks dur- 
 ing the war? 
 
 Mr. NrBLACK. That is a question I will not go into now. There is 
 some question as to the propriety of a member of Congress holding any 
 securities which are likely to be affected by the legislation of Congress. 
 That is a thing we cannot very well determine here. I am free to say 
 that as a member of Congress I have refrained from holding any na- 
 tional-bank stock or Government bonds as an investment. 
 
 The Witness. Do you suppose it is democratic for a man to own 
 nothing 1 If that is to be the doctrine, I am afraid the democratic party 
 M'ill never get any more votes. 
 
 Mr. NiBLACK. I do not know that the democratic party will get any 
 more votes anyhow. 
 
 The Witness. I have been the owner of bank stock and am now ; 
 and yet my whole record shows that 1 have always voted against those 
 institutions in every form. 
 
 Mr. NiBLACK. I do not want to go into that. I simj)ly want to afford 
 you the opportunity of making whatever explanation you desire of the 
 transaction, in which there seems to be question in the mind of the 
 public as to good faith on your part. 
 
 The Witness. What would you have done if you had had a right 
 like that, which had suddenly become very valuable 1 
 
 Mr. NiBLACK. I do not know. I have never been placed in that posi- 
 tion. 
 
 The Witness. I could have given it to Mr. Ames, Mr. Durant, and 
 others, by leaving it in the company. I could have taken it out when I 
 became a Government director and sold it for thirty or more per cent, 
 profit. Instead of that, Mr. Neilson has sworn, as I have sworn, that I 
 had nothing whatever to do with the dividends, allotments, or accretions 
 from the stock. I suppose I have done my share of abusing people, in 
 my day, through the newspapers; but it does not pay, ahd the news- 
 paper men who descend to this sort of abuse, through misstatements of 
 facts, will find they will lose in the end in character more than they 
 will gain. Let me add here that I have property which I must invest in 
 something. I cannot allow it to remain idle. I have invested it at 
 various times, lu stocks and bonds of railroads, a iiortion in coal mines 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEH. 259 
 
 in Iowa, and in various securities. I could not allow it to lie idle. If 
 it did not earn more than two per cent, it would be better to let it go on 
 increasing. What am I to do 1 I invested in Government bonds dur- 
 ing the war. Some people thought that patriotic. I did not. I did it 
 as a business matter. If I bought Government securities when they 
 were depressed, and made a profit on them when they advanced, was I 
 right or was I wrong 1 
 
 Mr. IJI'iBLACK. What I wanted was simply to ask you whether you 
 now deemed it wise to have transferred this stock, under the circum- 
 stances, to your son-in-law ? 
 
 The WiTiSESS. It would have been more prudent, if I had intended 
 anything wrong, to have placed it in the name of John Doe or Eichard 
 Koe ; I did what I did as an honest, open transaction. I have never de- 
 sired to conceal anything ; I have never concealed anything. My duty 
 to myself was never personally to receive any profit from the transaction, 
 and I never have. 
 
 By Mr. McOeaet : 
 
 Q. Tour objection to holding stock was your appointment as a Gov- 
 ernment director, and not because of your being a member of Con- 
 gress ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You are not aware that this $10,000 of stock ever stood in your 
 name on the books ? — A. I am sure it never stood in my name ; I never 
 heard of its being in my name, and I never had any suspicion of its 
 being in my name on tile books of the company. 
 
 ■ Q. . Did Mr. Neilson ever turn over to you anj' bonds or receive any 
 dividends? — A. HfTo. ' . 
 
 Q. Do you know that he repaid you the $10,000 you advanced for 
 the purchase of the stock ? — A. He swears that he gave me $9,000 in 
 cash, and $1,000 afterward. I do not recollect how that was. We have 
 running accounts and running memoranda of accounts. 
 
 Q. You have no recollection of his turning over any first-mortgage 
 bonds in payment of the loan ? — A. I have not. 
 
 Q. You have no particular recollection of anything, except the pay- 
 ment of a large sum of money, which he paid you at one time — $9,000? — 
 A. I do not think he paid me that personally ; he paid it when I was 
 absent in Washington here. 
 
 Q. You have no book from which you can tell precisely when and 
 how he paid you for that loan 1 — A. I do not know. I keep a sort of 
 book — a pocket memoranda-book — like the one I have in my hand, and 
 "at the end of the year, if there is anything valuable in it unadjusted, so 
 far as my personal matters are concerned, I put it into another one. 
 
 Q, You are confident you never received any more than $10,000 and 
 interest on that transaction ? — A. I never did. 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Q. The commiftee would be glad to have you examine your cash-book, 
 bank-book, and. any memoranda you have which wiU show anything in 
 reference to dealings between you and Mr. IsTeilson bearing upon this 
 subject. — A. I will do so. It has been charged that this stock was 
 given me to influence my vote in Congress. Sometimes I voted on the 
 matters affecting the Pacific Eailroad, and sometimes I did not ; I have 
 generally refrained from voting in regard to every matter in which I had 
 a personal interest. I desire to call the attention of the committee 
 to an act that has been talked of a good deal in connection with 
 
260 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 this matter. On December 16, 1867, I made a speech in the Eonse 
 against the bjll for changing the time for the annual meeting of the 
 stockholders of the Union Paciiic Eailroad Company,' which speech is 
 published in the Congressional Globe. The bill was introduced, as was 
 understood, in reference to a raid Fisk was makibg on the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad Company. He got an injunction, through Judge Barnard, to 
 prevent the directors from being elected. It has been stated here that 
 the company came here and desired to change the time of the annual 
 meeting of the stockholders. If you look at the Congressional Globe 
 of December 16, 1867, you will find that I opposed that action with all 
 the vigor and force I could at the time. I called the attention of the 
 committee to this particular item, in order to show that any interest 
 people supposed me to have did not influence my action, having made 
 a speech against a bill the company wished to have passed. 
 
 By Mr. Meerick : 
 Q. Tou were then a member of Congress at the time you received 
 and transferred to Mr. Neilson the one hundred shares ! — A. I was at 
 the time, but not when I first had the right to have one hundred shares. 
 I was not a Government director. I was out of Congress for nearly a 
 year before that. There are other statements, as regards my action, 
 which I will volunteer here now, having hope that the committee would 
 put some question to me, to bring out facts in connection with the Fisk 
 raid, out of which grew the act changing the annual meeting of the 
 stockholders. It will be remembered that Piek had broken up the 
 board of directors in New York. While they were in session, Pisk,, 
 with a deputy sheriff, came in with an injunction froip Judge Barnard, 
 by virtue of which, if discharged, all were to be put in prison. I advised 
 them to go to prison and take the consequences of it, and hot to pay the 
 least attention to his injunction. I think they would have followed my 
 advice but for the impression they had that I had privileges from arrest 
 such as are supposed to belong to a member of Congress. This was not 
 true. I would have gone to Ludlow street jail with them if they had 
 taken my advice. I think they made a great mistake in not going to 
 jail. This transaction, this raid upon their money-chest, I know cost 
 the road a million, some of them think as much as $3,000,000. It cer- 
 tainly injured their credit very much. 
 
 By Mr. Smithers : 
 
 Q. I find in the Globe of December 18, 1872, a portion of the speech 
 to which you referred, delivered in the House of Eepresentatives in 1867, . 
 referring to this transaction, in which is this sentence : " I have asked of 
 him to let me have the use of his shares of Credit Mobilier, and that he 
 has done." I ask whether that is correctly reported? — A. The phrase 
 " to let me have" should be " to loan me." You will find the expression 
 is correct in that way. 
 
 Q. The sentence is correctly reported, then, except that the word " let" 
 should be " loan ?"— A. Yes. 
 
 Q. I wish to ask you what that transaction was in which he loaned 
 you these shares 1 — A. He simply loaned me his certificate of fifty shares, 
 which I exhibited in the House. 
 
 Q. Then the loan that you refer to of the shares was simply a loan of 
 the certificate, for the purpose of exhibiting it to members in debate? — 
 A. That is all. I asked Mr. ISTeilson to loan me the certificate made in 
 his name, all these fifty shares. There was, of course, no transfer to me 
 bn the books, or anything of the sort. 
 
CKEDIT MOBILIEE. 261 
 
 Q. You meant, then, his certificate, which constitutes his evidence of 
 ownership ; you do not mean to loan these shares themselves ?— A. Only 
 the evidence of ownership. I did not mean to loan the sliares. I sent 
 to him in New York, and asked him to send me the certificate, for the 
 purpose of exhibiting it in the House, which he did. 
 
 Washington, January 21, 1873. 
 Senator J. W. Patterson, having been recalled at his own request, 
 made the following statement : 
 
 Gentlemen : A committee of the Senate would have the right and 
 would be obligated, when there were snflicierit grounds of suspicion, to 
 investigate my conduct and satisfy itself whether or not I had been im- 
 properly or corruptly influenced in my oflScial conduct ; but here I ap- 
 pear by courtesy, aud must plead, as my excuse for troubling you, the 
 necessity of defending myself against an unjust suspicion of having 
 been improperly influenced in my legislative action. This, as I under- 
 stand it, is the legitimate and the only legitimate inquiry before your 
 committee. What property, and how much property, I may purchase is 
 a private matter, not open to legislative investigation unless the circuni- 
 stances of that transaction indicate that I have been improperly influ- 
 enced by it as a legislator. 
 
 When last before you, I stated that on two occasions I bought stock 
 and bonds in the Union Pacific Eailroad. I should with as little hesita- 
 tion have stated that I had bought stock in the Credit Mobilier if I had 
 understood that to be the fact, for I see no reason why a member of 
 Congress might not with equal iiropriety own stock in either, or be 
 corrupted as readily with one as the other. 
 
 Members of the House have owned stock in the Credit Mobilier frOm 
 the first, and drawn their dividends upon it, whose integrity and ofQcial 
 propriety have never been questioned, though they have exercised their 
 right to vote whenever the Pacific Eailroad has been before them. They 
 who purchased this stock after all legislation had passed, and whose 
 votes and influence could not have been affected in a solitary instance, 
 cannot be less innocent, and should have been saved the cruel humilia- 
 tion of this public scandal. 
 
 My object in coming before the committee this morning is to state or 
 explain a little more fully than I did when first before you a point on 
 which I find I differ from Mr. Ames's present position. 
 
 In my testimony of Wednesday, I stated that I made two purchases 
 "of stock and bonds of Mr. Ames, and I read that statement to him be- 
 fore presenting it to the committee. He said it was correct except in a 
 single point. I believed it correct in every point, and therefore gave it 
 to the committee. 
 
 I will state the case. It is in relation to the first purchase. We are 
 agreed on the second. 
 
 More than a year after I had been offered stock in the Credit Mobilier, 
 having some money to invest, I placed it- in the hands of Mr. Ames, 
 without a thought that the stock of the Credit Mobilier, represented as 
 so profitable, was in the market, and with the understanding, on my part 
 certainly, that he was to secure for me stock or bonds in the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad, and dispose of the same in such time and way as he 
 could realize the most for them. On one occasion, and I have no recol- 
 lection of any other, he paid me some money, which I then supposed, 
 and now believe, came from the sale of stock or bonds which he had 
 i>urchased and held for me. A day or two since he came to my room 
 
262 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 and said he had again been called before the committee, and showed 
 me for the first time a memorandum, in which he had credited me with 
 thirty shares of stock in the Credit Mobilier and two dividends on the 
 same. 
 
 Supposing I was to receive stock or bonds, or their proceeds, and 
 never having received anything else, I thought I had got what I paid 
 for ; but Mr. Ames, it seems, not wishing me to suffer from my ignorance 
 of the mysteries of Pacific Eailroad management, had put me down for 
 stock in the Credit Mobilier, and assigned me what I received as divi- 
 dends on the same. 
 
 So far as this investigation is concerned, it is a matter of indifference 
 to me whether his understanding or mine is correct, for, in either case, 
 it was simply an investment for profit, and had no connection, in thought 
 or act, with legislation ; but if he is right, somebody owes me a few 
 thousand dollars, which if they will have the goodness to cash, I shall 
 find my venture hiore profitable than I had any reason to expect. 
 
 I have volunteered this statement, because, if Mr. Ames is correct and I 
 am wrong, it is due to myself that I, and not another, should make the 
 correction. 
 
 I still maintain, however, that my understanding of the transaction is 
 the correct one, and have reason to think that Mr. Ames at one time 
 entertained the same view. 
 
 I have two letters, gentlemen, which I had not thought to make pub- 
 lic, but, as they seem to confirm my position, I am sure Mr. Ames will 
 justify me in making them a part of my statement. 
 
 Before reading the letters, let me give a word of explanation. 
 
 ITear the close of the last session of Congress, a gentleman came to 
 me and said that Hon. E. H. Eollins, who was a competitor for my 
 place in the Senate, was reporting that I was an owner in the Credit 
 Mobilier, and that he should use it against me in the canvass. Meeting 
 Mr. Ames, I repeated what I had heard. He wrote a letter to Mr. Eol- 
 lins, in which he denied that I owned stock in that company, and came 
 over to the Senate and showed it to me. I said it was entirely satisfac- 
 tory. On reaching Concord I found that, among other false and mali- 
 cious stories concocted to injure my public reputation, this was afloat. 
 I denied, as I do to-day, that I had ever owned any of the stock, but 
 stated, as I have testified to you, that I had bought stock and bonds in 
 the road. To confirm my statement, I telegraphed to Mr. Ames, at his 
 home, to send me a copy of his letter to Mr. Eollins. My telegram 
 reached him in Washington. ISTot hearing from him as quickly as I 
 desired, I wrote him, and at length received replies, both to my telegram 
 and my letters, which, with your permission, I will now read, so far as 
 they relate to this subject : 
 
 " Washington, D. C, June 9, 1872. 
 
 " Deae Sie : I have your telegram asking me to give you the sub- 
 stance of the letter I wrote Eollins. Ton saw the letter ; I added noth; 
 ing to it after you saw it, and it is the only letter I have written him. 
 
 " The substance of it was that I heard he was making charges against 
 you, or representing you as holder or owner of stock in the Credit 
 Mobilier, and that there were wrong and improper influences in relation 
 to it. 
 
 "I wrote him that I did not tMnlc you ever had any of the stock; and if 
 you had, there was no more impropriety in it than owning bank stock. 
 " Yours truly, 
 
 " OAKES AMES. 
 
 "Hon. J. W. Patteeson." 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 263 
 
 " NOETH Easton, Jime 12, 1872. 
 
 " Dear Sir : I wrote you from "Wasbington in reply to your telegram. 
 
 " I have your letters of the 8th aud 12th this evening here on my ar- 
 rival home from Washington.- 
 
 " I stated in that letter the substance of my letter to Rollins. 
 
 " You saw the letter I wrote him, and there was nothing in that but 
 the truth ; and that Mr. Eollius should say that the Credit Mobilier,of 
 America was a fraudulent concern, and that those engaged in it perpe- 
 trated a fraud on the country, community, or its stockholders, is simply 
 an untruth. The stockholders of that company contained some of the 
 best men of the country, and Mr. Eollins knows it. Such men as John 
 J. Cisco, General Dix, William H. Macy, M. Dillon, McCormick, James 
 Brooks, and many others of New York, Glidden & Williams, Ezra Baker, 
 Elisha Atkins, John Duff, Samuel Hooper, F. Gordon Dexter, Hon. 
 John B. Alley, Oliver Ames, and myself, and many others, and I am 
 proud to say that I was a stockholder in it, and that there is and was 
 nothing wrong in holding the stock, any more than in owning bank or 
 railroad stock, and Mr. Eollius should be ashamed to make such charges 
 if you had been a stocJcholder and manager in the company, as you was not. 
 If Mr. Eollins can find nothing against you worse than being a stock- 
 holder in the Credit Mobilier, you must be the purest man in New 
 Hampshire or in the United States Senate. 
 
 " Trusting that you will not suffer because you are accused of being a 
 stockholder with me, and not realizing the profits, I am yours, truly, 
 
 " OAKES AMES. 
 
 "Hon. J. W. Patterson." 
 
 I have only to add that I have never received any certificate of stock 
 or other evidence of ownershipin the Credit Mobilier, and am not enough 
 of a lawyer to know how I could draw dividends on Avhat I did not 
 own. 
 
 With this explanation I am done with this examination. Of the out- 
 rage done to the fair fame of men who have lived without reproach for 
 half a century, by drivin g them into the gaze of the public with a scourge 
 of epithets which shoiald be laid upon the lowest criminals with caution; 
 of the torture inflicted upon men, sensitive of their good name, by sub- 
 jecting them to legislative inquisition without sufficient reason, I may 
 take occasion to speak elsewhere ; but here I close, simply remarking, 
 if such things are to continue, all decent men will leave public life, as I 
 do, with pleasure, and not with regret. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. If I understood the substance of your statement the other day, it 
 was that you never purchased any stock of the Credit Mobilier, but that 
 you did purchase stock and bonds in the Union Pacific Eailroad Com- 
 Ijany ? — A. Certainly, I say that now. 
 
 Q. What was the precise form of the dealings between you and Mr. 
 Ames ? How was the business done ? — A. The conversation of which I 
 spoke about the Credit Mobilier was in 1867. More than a year after 
 that I went to Mr. Ames, having some money, not bfeing a business man 
 myself, and asked him to invest it for me. He being a business man, I 
 gave him the money to invest. My understanding was that he was to 
 invest it in the stock and bonds of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company, 
 and to make the most of it he could for me. 
 
 Q. What was the amount ? — A. Three thousand dollars. 
 
264 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Was anything said at the time about the Credit Mobilier f — A. 
 No, sir ; I have no recollection of a word being said. 
 
 Q. Was anything said about the stock and bonds of the road? — A. 
 Tes. He thought the bonds would appreciate in value, and also that 
 the stock would be a good investment. 
 
 Q. The amount of money you let him have was to be invested in the 
 stock and bonds of the Union Pacific Eailroad. Did you ever have any 
 bonds delivered to you ? Did you ever receive any bonds ? — A. Yes, sir ; 
 and at one time I put my bonds into the hands of a friend in New York, 
 and also the stock I had, except the stock which Mr. Ames sold for me. 
 
 Q. You had, then, a certificate for some stock? — A..1 had a certifi- 
 cate for three hundred shares of stock. I do not remember the amount 
 of bonds. My friend in New York did all the business for me ; I had 
 very little to do with it. 
 
 Q. Have you kept any money-account of the dealings between you 
 and Mr. Ames 1 — A. No, sir ; I generally put down such things in a 
 little pocket memorandum-book, which is frequently destroyed. I do 
 not know whether I have anything of that kind or not. If I have, it is 
 at my home in New Hampshire ; it is not here. 
 
 Q. The sales that were made by this gentleman in New York were by 
 a member of the firm of Morton, Bliss & Co. ? — A. »That was the firm 
 that made the sales for me. 
 
 Q. And whatever you put iu their hands to sell was Union Pacific 
 Eailroad securities 1 — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did yoii ever have a certificate of stock iu the Credit Mobilier ? — 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You never received any transfer of it or made any transfer? — A. 
 I never received it, haven't got it, and never transferred it. 
 
 Q. And you never supposed you had any sort of interest in the 
 stock? — A. No, sir; I supposed I had stock and bond's in the railroad ; 
 not any in this company. 
 
 Q. Can you give an idea of the gross amount, nominal value, Of the 
 stock and bonds you received for your $3,000 '? — A. As I stated before, 
 I can give you the amount of stock. As to the bonds I cannot state it, 
 because, except what. Mr. Ames sold, I put it in the hands of friends. 
 
 Q. And you do not know what amount they sold for you ? — A. I do 
 not now. I could easily ascertain. There is no question about the fact ; 
 I had it, and it was sold. 
 
 Q. And they never sold any Credit Mobilier stock for you ? — A. No, 
 sir; they did not. 
 
 By Mr. Niblaok : 
 
 Q. While I recognize the seeming indelicacy of asking in regard to 
 private transactions, they have been so often referred to iu the state- 
 ments gentlemen have voluntarily submitted, that it seems necessary in 
 order to explain the entire transaction. I want to ask you whether you 
 did not borrow the money you ga,ve Mr. Ames to invest from a friend 
 in this city. Ex- Mayor Emery?— A. Never ; not a penny of it. 
 
 Q. Do you remember having a conversation with Mr. Emery in regard 
 to this investment ?— A. Not iu the least ; no, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Merrick : 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Ames pay any dividends on this investment? — A. He 
 states that he paid dividends ; I understand that he accounted to me 
 for Union Pacific Eailroad stock he had bought and sold; he under- 
 stands it differently. 
 
CREDIT MOBXLIEK. 265 
 
 Q. Can you state what amount you received ? — A. It was five or six 
 years ago. I should think it was $2,000 or $3,000. 
 
 Q. Did he pay you more than once"?— A. I have no recollection now 
 of more than one payment. He says he paid me twice. 
 
 Q. What was the character of the subsequent investment you speak 
 of? — A. Simply that I bought some bonds and some stock. 
 
 Q. What sort of bonds and stock ?— A. The bonds and stock of the 
 Union Pacific Railroad. 
 
 Q. What was the amount of them? — A. I have just stated to the 
 chairman that 1 could not give the amount of bonds. 
 
 Q. I mean the amount of money you invested in the purchase? — A. 
 I think $4,000. 
 
 Q..Was that money had of your own, or of money yon borrowed for 
 investment ? — A. I have no recollection of borrowing any money for the 
 purchase of bonds. 
 
 Q. Tou would know it, if you had borrowed money for that pur- 
 pose ? — A. I would be very likely to remember it. This is a matter, 
 however, that occurred four or five years ago. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Q. In this last transaction, you say that you invested so much money 
 and that you received so much in bonds and stock coming from that pur- 
 chase ? — A. I did. 
 
 Q. Mr. Ames had nothing to do- with the negotiation or sales of these 
 securities? — A. jSfo, sir. 
 
 Q. The difference between you grows out of the first transaction ? — 
 A. Entirely. 
 
 Q. You say that you let him have some money, which he invested in 
 some way, and that he disposed of the securities ? — A. Of the bonds 
 and stock; yes. 
 
 Q. Tou did not understand then, and do not now, so far as you have 
 any knowledge or memory about it, that that had anything to do with 
 the Credit Mobilier ? — A. No, sir ; not as I understood it. Mr. Ames 
 understands it differently. He thinks that it was the stock of the 
 Credit Mobilier I bought, and that what he paid me was the dividends 
 on that stock ; that is the reason for my explanation here to day — I 
 thought I would rather do it than to have him to do it. I want a correct 
 understanding of the matter. 
 
 By Mr. Ames : 
 
 Q. You paid me $3,000 in January, 1868 ? — A. I do not recollect the 
 date. 
 
 Q. February 14, 1 paid you $2,223, proceeds of a dividend on the 
 $3,000 1 invested for you in January; is not that correct ? — A. It is your 
 statement. I understood it to be a sale of bonds, as I said before. 
 
 Q. And I delivered to you thirty shares of Union Pacific stock at the 
 same time ? — A. I have no recollection about that. 
 
 Q. January 19, 1 paid you a dividend of $1,800, which was a div- 
 idend of 60 per cent, cash upon $3,000 invested in Credit Mobilier stock ; 
 I suppose that is correct ? — A. That is the memorandum you showed 
 me, and which I have just been""explaining. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Q. Do you make any question but that you received the amounts of 
 
 money from Mr. Ames ? — A. I have stated that I received money from 
 
 him once. I do not recollect about the other occasion referred 
 
 to. I do not contradict Mr. Ames's statement. I say that I do 
 
266 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 not recollect it. AVlien I received it, I supposed the money had (ioino 
 from a sale of tlie Union Pacific Eailroad securities, imrcliascd for 
 me. 
 
 By Mr. Ames : 
 
 Q. What I want to got at is whether you deny having received of ino 
 these amounts for some purpose or other t — A. Noj 1 do not deny it nor 
 afBrm it. 
 
 Q. Do you mean us to understand that yon Ikuc any doubt as to tlio 
 fact of receiving these sums, as noted down by me? — A. I mean lo Lave 
 It understood precisely as 1 stated it ; I do not recollect it. That I re- 
 ceived some money of you once, I admit. J do not recollect the other. 
 
 Q. But how it was derived is the issue between us. What I want to 
 understand is whether you deny having received these amounts i;-^ A. I 
 do not deny it, because I do not recollect it. 
 
 Mr. Ames. The difference, as I undei'stand, between Hriiator Patter- 
 son and myself is, that, as 1 stated in my testimony, my understanding 
 was that Mr. Patterson purchased thirty shares of Credit Mobilier stock 
 and received the dividends that I have mentioned in my testimony. Mr. 
 Patterson in his testimony stated that he never purchased any Credit 
 Mobilier stock of me and received no dividends. That is the only diC- 
 ference between us. If Mr. Patterson admits that he purchased the 
 stock, or bargained for it, and received the dividends, that makes my 
 statement correct. If he does not admit that, there is the i)oiut on which 
 we differ. 
 
 . By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Mr. Patterson says that he had at f)ne, time, but long before the 
 payment of this money, some talk about, purchasing some Credit Mo- 
 bilier stock. I understand him now to say tJiat, at the tim(! he paid over 
 the $3,000 in money, he did not understand it was for Credit Mobilier 
 stock, or that he was to receive dividends on it. ITe thought it was for 
 the purchase of, or investment in, the stock and bonds of the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad. Now what was that transaction'? What was said 
 between you, Mr. Ames, and Mr. Patterson, when he received the 
 money"? 
 
 Mr. Ames. My understanding was that I took the $3,000 to buy stock 
 of the Credit Mobilier for him. That was my understanding. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. What was Mr. Patterson's understanding 1 — A. I suppose ho un- 
 derstood it in the same way. 
 
 Q. What was the talk between you*? — A. We did not talk anything 
 about the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 Mr. Patterson. What did we talk about at that time '? 
 
 Mr. Ames. We didn't talk about anything of that sort. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. What was the date of this transaction 1 — A. January, 18C8. 
 
 Q. You had had a conversation before upon that subject? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. How recently before 1 — A. I cannot tell you. 1 cannot remember 
 dates. 
 
 Q. That transaction was here in Washington? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Do you remember any conversation, and can you tell the committee 
 what was said between you and him at that time in reference to Credit 
 Mobilier stock ? — A. I cannot remember anything further than that I 
 ■was to get $3,000 of Credit Mobilier stock for him, at par^ with, interest 
 
CREDIT JIOBILIEK. 267 
 
 charged from July 1, 1867, to the time he took the stock, which interest 
 amounted to $105. He paid me $3,000. When I received the first div- 
 idend of 80 per cent., the 14th February, I sold the bonds at 97, making 
 $2,380. I deducted the $105 interest, and paid Mr. Patterson over the 
 balance of the dividend, $2,223. 
 
 Q. Was the stock ever transferred to him ? — A. I think none of the 
 stock -n-as transferred. It is my recollection that I handed him a cer- 
 tificate of stock. He says I did not, and "his memory is better than 
 mine. If I did not, then I have lost one certificate of thirty shares. 
 
 Q. I understand that, to make up the account of stock you should 
 have, these thirty shares are gone ? — A. Yes. I do not know that Mr. 
 Patterson had it. 1 do not wish to insinuate that he had it at all. 
 
 Q. Have you now any memory of delivering it to Mr. Patterson ? — 
 A. It is my recollection that I delivered thirty shares of stock and thirty 
 shares of Union Pacific Eailroad stock at the same time I paid the 
 first dividend. 
 
 Q. Have you examined the books of the company to see if that trans- 
 fer was made ? — A. I do not think the certificate of stock given to me as 
 trustee has been transferred on the books. I held over two hundred 
 shares, that I now have in my pocke^book in small certificates. 
 
 Q. Upon the books which were before the committee no stock appears 
 to stand in Mr. Patterson's name ! — A. I do not think any of that stock 
 held by me as trustee has been transferred, except the ten shares I 
 referred to, to Mr. Gilbert, and three shares to Mr. Ham. 
 
 Q. Tour supposition is that you delivered a certifi,cate of stock to Mr. 
 Patterson, and that he has it yet ? — A. That is my impression ; I do not 
 say that I did. I do not pretend to recollect. I may be mistaken. 
 
 Q. Do you feel certain, or anything like certain, in reference to it ? — 
 A. That is my impression. I do nob want to say I am certain when 
 Mr. Patterson says the contrary. 
 
 Q. Is that your belief ? — A. That is my belief. 
 
 Q. Where was it done? — A. Done here in Washington. 
 
 Q. Tou think that was delivered to him at the time the thirty shares 
 of Union Pacific Eailroad stock were transferred to him ? — A. Tes, I 
 believe so, at the same time with the thirty shares of Union Pacific 
 Eailroad stock. 
 
 Q. What was the date of that ? — A. I think it must have "been some 
 time in February, 1868. 
 
 Q. You claim that you received the money from him in Janiiary ? — 
 A. The $3,000 were received by me in January. 
 
 Q. Have you the date ? — A. I have not it here ; no, sir. 
 
 Q. Now, what was it understood that money was to be invested in ; 
 and how much, and what precisely did you pay or deliver to Mr. Pat- 
 terson ? — A. 1 delivered, on February 14, $2,223 in money, as I have 
 stated. 
 
 Q. How was the money received by you ? — A. I got it from the sale 
 of his bonds. 
 
 Q. And these bonds were dividends on his stock ? — A. These bonds 
 were dividends. 
 
 Q. They were paid over to you because the stock stood in your name ? — 
 A. I collected the dividends on the whole amount that stood in my 
 name. 
 
 Q. Go on and state just how much you received, and how much you 
 paid to Mr. Patterson. — A. I have stated that the first payment that I 
 received was SO per cent, in bonds, which on $3,000 would be $2,400. 
 I sold the bonds at 97, netting $2,380. I paid to Mr. Patterson, the 14th 
 
268 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 February, $2,223j which, with the amount of $105 for interest on the 
 $3,000 from July, makes up the amount of the dividend. Then in June 
 I paid him a dividend of 60 per cent, in cash, $1,800. 
 
 Q. That was declared as a cash dividend ? — A. That was declared as 
 a cash dividend. I received the money and paid it over to him. 
 
 By Mr. Meeeick: 
 Q. In addition to that you delivered to him the thirty shares, on the 
 14th February, of Union Pacific Eailroad stock 1 — A. Yes ; it was the 
 first dividend on the Credit Mobilier. I am not sure about the date 
 when I delivered the stock, but it was about that time. It might have 
 been when he paid me for the stock in January. 
 
 By the Ohaieman : 
 
 Q. The stock was received as a dividend? — A. The TJni6n Pacific 
 Eailroad stock was received as a dividend on the stock which he pur- 
 chased. * 
 
 , Q. Is that all you received on that $3,000 1 — A. When this suit of 
 McOomb was brought up I think I held most of the dividends in Union 
 Pacific Eailroad stock belonging to the different certificates held by me 
 for various parties, and that I consolidated a large number of them, six 
 hundred odd shares, belonging to these different parties, in one certifi- 
 cate, which I put in the name of Mr. Kennedy, as trustee. A year or 
 more afterward he transferred it back to me, and I hold it now. Then 
 something like a year and a half ago I settled with Mr. Patterson, and 
 paid him what dividends in Union Pacific Eailroad stock belonged to 
 his thirty shares of Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
 Q. How much did you pay him then, do you remember? — A. I think, 
 as near as I can recollect, his thirty shares gave him about one hundred 
 shares of Union Pacific Eailroad stock in all. I paid him this, and the 
 balance of what was due beyond the thirty shares already referred to. 
 
 Q. Have you any idea what the amount was ? — A. I gave him the 
 stock. 
 
 Q. Did you ever pay him any more money than you have stated? — 
 A. I cannot recollect that I ever did. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Patterson receive the full amount of the dividend declared 
 on the thirty shares of Credit Mobilier stock ? — A. It is my impression 
 that he did. 
 
 Q. When you settled with him was it understood that he was the 
 owner of these thirty shares or that you were to have them ? What 
 was your understanding? — A. I thought they belonged to him. I had 
 purchased them for him. 
 
 Q. You think that he was the owner of $3,000 of the Credit Mobilier 
 stock upon which you drew the dividends and accounted to him for ? — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You understood that he was the owner of thirty shares ? — A. That 
 was my idea. If I have not delivered to him all the dividends I am 
 bound to account to him for it. 
 
 Q. Now, in this subsequent transaction, whatever may have been 
 said, you supposed he understood it in that way? — A. I judged he did. 
 
 Q. Can you tell anything that was said between you and him upon 
 the subject during this period ? — A. I do not know that I can, now, 
 anything in particular. I settled with him and gave him the divi- 
 dends. 
 
 Q. You did not suppose there was any question between you but 
 that it was Credit Mobilier stock : that he purchased thirty shares and 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 269 
 
 received the dividends. Yon supposed that was clearly understood be- 
 tween you ? — A. I did. I do not know that I had any conversation with 
 him as to how it stood. I now suppose that Mr. Patterson, from his 
 stand-point, understood it differently. 
 
 Q. When did you first learn there was any misunderstanding between 
 you in reference to this transaction ? — A. Not until recently. 
 
 Q. Mr. Patterson has shown some letters here from you last summer? — 
 A. There were charges made against Mr. Patterson that he was the 
 holder and owner of Credit Mobilier stock. My letter simply was that 
 he never appeared upon the books of the company as the holder of 
 stock. 
 
 Q. That is the way you reconciled the statement of your letter with 
 the facts !-^A. That is the way my letters read. 
 
 Q. You did not mean to say, or to be understood as saying, that he 
 never had any interest in Credit Mobilier stock ? — A. Ko, sir. 
 
 Q. But simply that his name did not appear upon the books as a 
 stockholder ? — A. Yes, sir ; that it did not appear as a stockholder. 
 
 Q. Do you think that is a fair, gospel interpretation of your letter? — 
 A. That is as I understood it. Mr. Patterson was very anxious that I 
 should write him something to repel the slanderous abuse heaped upon 
 him, and what I wrote I understood to be strictly true, 
 
 Q. It was literally, as a formal statement, true, I suppose *? — A. Yes, it 
 was literally true. 
 
 Q. Do you think a man would understand from these letters exactly 
 what the transaction was"? — A. He would by inquiring further. 
 
 Q. He would not understand exactly without inquiring further ? — A. 
 That would depend upon how much he knew before. 
 
 Q. You say yon wrote that for what reason 1 — A. I wrote that to 
 repel the charges made against Mr. Patterson of his owning improperly 
 that Credit Mobilier stock. I did not think there was anything improper 
 in- owning it. I never felt ashamed of owning it. I never felt that I 
 had done anything wrong, or that anything wrong could be made out 
 of it. 
 
 Q. You did it out of consideration of the tenderness of his con- 
 science? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Patterson about the time 
 of writing these letters as to what the facts were ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Was anything said between you to the effect that you were to 
 write a letter that would be literally true and still not be in spirit in 
 accordance with the facts ? — A. What I said was that his name would 
 not appear upon the books of the company as a stockholder, and that is 
 all there is of it. 
 
 Q. If he could make anything out of that statement you had no objec- 
 tion 1 — A. I had no objection. 
 
 By Mr. Meerick : 
 Q. Did you suppose at the time that you and he thoroughly under- 
 stood each other on the subject '? — A. I did suppose he knew ail about 
 it. I did not know that there was anything lacking in his information. 
 I did not suppose there was; it seems there was. Of course, Mr. Pat- 
 terson had nothing to do with it, except from what I told him, and he 
 may have got a wrong impression from my statement. It seems that 
 I make statements that are not wholly understood, and write letters that 
 are not understood. I did not suppose there was anything wrong in 
 saying in my letter, " four shares to Massachusetts," and I do not un- 
 derstand yet what there is. 
 
270 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 
 Q. If I understand, according to your interpretation, you received 
 from him $3,000, and delivered to him thirty shares of Credit Mobilier 
 stock, with the dividends and proceeds of the stock, amounting at the 
 time of delivery to thirty shares of Union Pacific Eailroad stock and 
 80 per cent, in bonds; that you afterward delivered a cash dividend in 
 June, and an additional dividend in Union Pacific Kailroad stock, a 
 year and a half ago? — A. Yes, sir; when we settled up the matter. 
 
 Q. What do you say the additional dividend of Union Pacific Eail- 
 road stock was? — A. I think he had in all one hundred shares. 
 
 Q. About seventy shares iu addition to the thirty ?^A. Yes, sir ; to 
 close up the transaction. 
 
 Q. I understand you to say, and to have said from the start, that you 
 regarded the Credit Mobilier stock as legitimate for any one to invest 
 in, as a fair, honest corporation, for legitimate purposes? — A. I do. 
 
 Q. Then why the necessity of covering up any such investment ? — 
 A. There was no necessity ; I do not know that I have covered up any- 
 thing. 
 
 Q. Why, then, the necessity of carrying the stock in your name, 
 instead of transferring it to those yon sold it to ? — A. There was no neces- 
 sity of doing that ; it did not make any difference. It was a matter of 
 convenience for the parties holding these small amounts, some living in 
 Iowa, some in New Hampshire, and some in New York, to have tlie 
 dividends drawn and paid over to them. It would be very inconven- 
 ient for them to come to New York to draw personally the dividends on 
 the little amounts held by them. 
 
 Q. Where, then, the necessity of apparently concealing the ownership 
 and allowing the public to infer that these small owners did not own 
 the stock ; why not let it be understood that the stock stood in the name 
 of the proper owners, if it was a fair, just, and honest transaction ? — A. 
 I certainly so considered it; and in this matter I did what Mr. Patter- 
 son wanted. I wrote these letters covering a certain point, and saying 
 nothing more about it. 
 
 Q. In your letter to Mr. McComb you did not give the names, but 
 simply gave the names of the States ? — A. He did not ask for names ; 
 he said I was giving too much to eastern men. 
 
 Q. Still the letter seems to have an air of mystery connected with 
 it? — A. That is what my friends say ; that I never ought to be trusted 
 to write a letter ; that I never conceal anything. 
 
 Mr. Patterson. As I have already stated, so far%s I am concerned, 
 I would just as soon have it understood with the public that I own stock 
 in the Credit Mobilier as that I owned any other stock. I have no feel- 
 ing on that subject at all. I think it was equally honorable as a busi- 
 ness transaction. I simply state the matter as I understood it. I never 
 did receive — and I say it under the most solemn oath — one share of 
 Credit Mobilier stock in my life. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. And you did not understand that Mr. Ames was holding it for 
 your benefit? — A. No, sir; I understood I was buying the stock and 
 bonds of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company. 
 
 Q. You did not understand really that you were equitably entitled to 
 the earnings on this Credit Mobilier stock ? — A. No, sir ; Mr. Ames says 
 it ; if that were the truth, I do not care a fig about it. I would just as 
 lief it should be stated in that as in any other way. 
 
 Q. But you did not understand it so ! — A. I did not understand it so, 
 
CKEDIT MOBILIER. 271 
 
 and that is all there is in reference to these thirty shares of stock. I 
 have no recollection of ever receiving thirty shares, and I do not believe 
 I ever did at the time he speaks of. 
 
 Q. It was in January or February, 1868, then, that you received the 
 shares of railroad stock of which you speak? — A. I received the shares 
 in this last transaction ; there is no doubt about that. There is no ques- 
 tion between Mr. Ames and myself about that. 
 
 Q. You have no recollection of ever disposing of the thirty shares of 
 Credit Mobilier stock ? — A. I never did that, I know ; I am absolutely 
 positive about it. 
 
 Q. Have you made any examination to see whether thirty shares of 
 Credit Mobilier stock were efatered on the books of the comjjany in your 
 name ? — A. No, sir ; I have never examined about it. I have taken no 
 pains about and care nothing about it. 
 
 Q. You have no recollection of receiving thirty shares of Union Pacific 
 Eailroad stock as far back as 1868 ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you any account of sale of it from Morton, Bliss & Co. 1 — 
 A. No, sir. I want to say one word further in relation to these letters. 
 I went to Mr. Ames and saw him in the House and stated to him the 
 charge which was in circulation. I said to him, "You know that it is not 
 true ;" and I asked him to write a letter. I did not indicate to him what 
 to write. A little after that I was in my seat in the Senate, when Mr. 
 Ames came over and showed me a letter he had written at his own op- 
 tion and in such language as he pleased. I said to him that it was 
 satisfactory. 
 
 Q. You supposed the letter expressed the honest truth as you under- 
 stood it ? — A. I did, and that is my understanding now. I did not sug- 
 gest at all what he was to write. I did not understand that he held in 
 trust any stock for me. 
 
 Q. That letter of Mr. Ames you understood to be simply and literally 
 true upon the face of it, honestly and substantially true ? — A. True in 
 every sense. 
 
 By Mr. Ames : 
 Q. In your final settlement of Union Pacific Eailroad stock you re- 
 ceived all your dividends on the Credit Mobilier stock; if not at the 
 time they were declared, you received them afterward ? — A. I received 
 all that I understood to be my due for the money I had paid ; that I do 
 not question at all. I put that stock into the hands of Mr. Morton, who 
 sold it. I am now speaking of the thirty shares you say I received in 
 February, 1868. I never received in February, 1868, shares in the 
 Credit Mobilier or shares in the Union Pacific Eailroad Company. That 
 I am positive about. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Whatever you did receive, in money, bonds, or anything else, you 
 did not understand it was a dividend upon the Credit Mobilier stock ? — 
 A. No, sir; I supposed Mr. Ames had very kindly bought the stock and 
 sold it for me, and had made for me a little money in the transaction. 
 
 Q. You supposed it was an investment in the stock and bonds of the- 
 Union Pacifice Eailroad, and had no idea there was any Credit Mobilier 
 in it ? — A. I have said that several times. 
 
 Q. You are not the owner now, as I understand you, of any Union 
 Pacific Eailroad stock ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. And if you did receive thirty shares in 1868, you never sold it 1 — 
 A. No, sir. 
 
272 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Bj-- Mr. Merrick : 
 Q. Is Mr. Ames still the owner of certain stock for you 1 — A. Not to 
 my knowledge; all our transactions have been settled up. He has 
 nothing for me ; if he has I should be very glad to accept it. 
 
 By the Chairman: 
 Q. I understand, Mr. Ames, that the -second purchase was a regular 
 purchase of Union Pacific Eailroad securities ! — A. There was no Credit 
 Mobilier about it. 
 
 Ee-examination of Mr. Ames : 
 
 Mr. Ames. There is a statement in one of these letters which I wish 
 to correct. I said, in one of the letters, that General Dix and Mr. Cisco 
 were stockholders in the Credit Mobilier. I have been informed since 
 writing the letter that they never were stockholders. I supposed they 
 were stockholders from the fact that one was president and the other 
 treasurer of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company. It seems I was mis- 
 taken, and I wish to make this correction. 
 
 . By Mr. Niblack : 
 
 Q. If I have understood you, Mr. Ames, you have insisted from the 
 beginning of this investigation that this Credit Mobilier was an honest 
 corporation ; that there was no impropriety in a member of Congress, or 
 anybody else, holding stock in it? — A. I hold there is no more, iinpro- 
 priety in it than holding property iu anything else. 
 
 Q. Then I will ask you what is your explanation of the sensitiveness 
 which has been shown by members of Congress and others on the sub- 
 ject of having any connection with if? — A. It was in consequence of 
 the slander and abuse heaped upon the Credit Mobilier. They became 
 frightened; they thought it might affect their re-election, and they 
 wanted to slip out of it the easiest way they could ; I know of nothing 
 else. I cannot see anything wrong in the transaction, and I do not think 
 any of these gentlemen did. 
 
 Q. If there is nothing wrong in it, why not come out boldly and make 
 an exj)licit acknowledgment to the country of their connection with it! 
 Why this apparently general effort to conceal? — A. That I cannot ex- 
 plain. Here are Mr. Boyer, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Bingham, who have 
 come forward and stated frankly their connection with the Credit Mo- 
 bilier, and who did not appear to feel ashamed of it. 
 
 Q. Why, without referring to individuals, have others taken a difl'erent 
 course ? — A. I do not know other than I have stated. 
 
 Q. Why did not this letter of yours to Mr. McComb state the names 
 of individuals °? — A. I do not know what the letter was in reply to. If 
 a man sends you, or any member of Congress, a document in relation to 
 which you have no particular interest, you throw it in the waste-basket; 
 we cannot preserve all the letters we receive. 
 
 Q. Why could you not naturally, as you would in speaking of any 
 other transaction almost, say you had given Mr. Patterson so much, or 
 Mr. Bingham so much, without referring to them by their States'? — A. 
 I might have done that just as readily as to have written what I did, 
 but it would have taken me longer to write it. Mr. McComb was talk- 
 ing about the location of it. He thought I was placing too much in 
 one locality. He did not call for names, I was showing him that I had 
 scattered the stock over several of the States, as I had been trying to do 
 from the beginning. I was endeavoring to get people everywhere to 
 invest in it. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 273 
 
 Q. I understand you to say that you understood Senator Patterson to 
 be a holder in this stock last June, when you wrote these letters? — A. 
 That was my impression ; he denies it. 
 
 Q. Would not the reading of these letters carry the impression that 
 he was not the holder of shares in it, although you regarded it as a per- 
 fectly legitimate transaction? — A. I wrote these letters to help Mr. 
 Patterson, and put it in that shape for that purpose. He says he had 
 not any stock, and it did not stand in his name. 
 
 Q. Was not that an admission, on your part, of impropriety ? — A. It 
 was a little sort of a dodge, I admit, but there is no admission that 
 there is any impropriety in holding the stock, and I never considered 
 that there was. These gentlemen were so sensitive about fbe slanders 
 heaped by everybody on the Credit Mobilier that they wanteA- to dodge 
 and avoid it all they could. I did not consider it anything wrong, and 
 never have. 
 
 By the ChaibmAN : 
 Q. You considered it a kind of skulking on their part 1 — A. I did. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 Q. Why did you consent to help them, then"? — A. Because I am kind 
 hearted, and want to help everybody. 
 
 testimony of Mr. Asies. 
 By the Chaurman : 
 
 Q. Now, Mr. Ames, let me put one general question to you. In your 
 letter of January 25 or 28 you speak of "Washburn's move" here, 
 which, I suppose, means in Congress. Can you tell us what it was you 
 referred to i — A. Mr. Washburn, if I recollect right, was complaining, 
 and said there was complaint in jfebraska about the rates of freight on 
 the U nion Pacific Eailroad, and he wanted to fix a rate by congres- 
 sional legislation — something like that. I know that it was for our in- 
 terest while the road was being built, and before it was completed. 
 We required all the transportation we had to carry our railroad-iron 
 and other material. All the freight we carried for private parties was a 
 damage and a nuisance to us. We were building the road rapidly, and 
 we wanted all the transportation we had to send forward our iron, ties, &c. 
 The rates he proposed to fix, let me say, were a great deal higher than 
 we are now charging. That was the substance of this " move ;" there 
 was nothing else. 
 
 Q. The " Washburn's move " that you refer to in this letter was his 
 proposition, in some form to have Congress fix the price of freights? — 
 A. That was my impression. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether he had inroduced a bill or a resolu- 
 tion before that? — A. I dq not remember. 
 
 Q. Which Mr. Washburn do you refer to! — A. C. C. Washburn. 
 He is in the city now ; I met him this morning. You can call him, and 
 he can tell you himself what his "move" was. 
 
 Q. Was this Mr. Washburne the Mr. Washburne who offered the reso- 
 lution for investigation ? — A. I am not sure. I think I have that res- 
 olution here. It is as follows : 
 
 " UNION PACIFIC EAILROAD. 
 
 " Mr. Washburne, of Illinois, by unanimous consent, offered the 
 following resolution ; which was read, considered, and agreed to : 
 
 18 X 
 
274 CSEDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 '^ Besolved, That the President be requested to transmit to this House 
 the report of the special commissioners to examine into the character of 
 the work on the Union Pacific Eailroad, and to inform the House what 
 attempts, if any, have been made on the part of said railroad company 
 to obtain money from the Government for building said road without 
 having constructed the same in conformity to existing law ; and also to 
 further inform the House the amount of bonds issued to said railroad 
 company, and if a sufficient amount has been retained in the hands of 
 the Government to guarantee its completion as a first-class road, in fur- 
 ther accordance with the existing law." 
 
 There is nothing in this, however, in regard to an investigation by 
 Congress, and this I notice was offered by Mr. Washburne, of Illinois, 
 and not by 0. 0. Washburn. 
 
 Q. This, then, is not the resolution you, refer to ? — A. No ; and I do 
 not know as I can tell you just what I did refer to. I have no recollec- 
 tion what it was. 
 
 Q. At" what time was it that Mr. Washburn introduced his bill to reg- 
 ulate the fares of the Pacific Eailroad ? — A. I cannot tell you. I think 
 the resolution he introduced was prohibiting the railroad charging more 
 than twi-ce the rates of roads east of the Mississippi. 
 
 Q. Can you tell whether that was what you referred to in your letter ! 
 — A. I cannot tell you; one of these resolutions probably. 
 
 Q. Do you now remember anj communication between you and Mr. 
 McComb, whether you said anything or wrote anything to Mr. McOomb 
 about Mr. Colfax ? — A. I am very sure I did not. If he has any letters 
 on that subject let him produce them. I have no recollection of any- 
 thing of the sort, and I never heard anythiug of the sort until I heard 
 his testimony. 
 
 Q. Did you ever, in your own mind or judgment, see any such bene- 
 ficial working of your stock in Mr. Colfax ? — A. I never did. 
 
 Q. Did you ever have any idea that Mr. Colfax, in his action as 
 Speaker, was influenced by any such motives ? — A. No, sir ; I never 
 saw anything of the sort, and never believed anything of the sort, and 
 I do not believe I ever said a word of anything of the sort to anybody. 
 I repeat that if Mr. McComb has any of my letters, he can produce 
 them. He is at perfect liberty to produce any letters I ever wrote him, 
 and I would be glad if he would produce all I ever wrote him. I am 
 not aware of writing or doing anything wrong or dishonorable at any 
 ime. 
 
 Mr. McCOJViB. All I want to say in reply is, that I have a perfectly 
 distinct recollection of a conversation with Mr. Ames explanatory of 
 that expression in that lettter ; that I asked what it meant, and that Mr. 
 Ames replied, in substance, as I have stated. If I can find another 
 letter on the subject I will bring it. 
 
 Mr. Ames. Produce the letter. 
 
 Mr. Brooks. Before the committee adjourns I wish to say that I have 
 received my check-book from the express company. 
 
 The Chairman, (after examining the book.) The important fact to be 
 got at from this check-book is whether you paid the $10,000. I see here 
 no check for that amount. 
 
 Mr. Brooks. I stated in my testimony that I did not recollect it, but 
 I accepted the statement of Mr. Crane. He is an accurate, reliable 
 man, but on getting my check-book I do not find any such checks re- 
 ferred to by him. 
 
 The Chairman. I understood Mr. Neilson to state that you paid it 1 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 275 
 
 Mr. Brooks. He says I advanced it to him. He paid it himself. I 
 have no personal recollection about it myself, but the check-book shows 
 there was no such amount drawn. 1 had no doubt when Mr. Crane made 
 the announcement that it was my transaction, although he knew noth- 
 ing of my affairs with Mr. Duraiit. He is a man of truth, and I would 
 not impugn in any way any statement made by him,but my check-book 
 shows an entirely different state of things. It is a question merely of 
 who paid the amount, and there is no check for $1,000, no check for 
 $5,333, and no check of $7,000. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 21, 1873. 
 
 H. S. McCoMB recalled and examined. 
 By the Ohaikman : 
 
 Question. In your testimony before the committee on a former occa- 
 sion, in answer to some question which does not appear in this account 
 of it, (I think published in the N"ew York Tribune,) you are made to 
 state as follows : 
 
 " Tou asked me if I could remember anything else. I do now ; 1 
 remember something else very distinctly loMch I would like to state ; refer- 
 ence is made in one of Mr. Ames's letters to Duraut's action in New 
 York and Washburne's move here ; Mr. Ames wrote to me — I am not 
 sure but he told me — that E. B. Washburne, of Illinois, in his place in 
 the House, had moved some kind of an investigation into the affairs of 
 the Union Pacific Eailroad ; I do not recollect the precise point ; Mr. 
 Colfax was in the chair as Speaker of the House, and by some parlia- 
 mentary maneuver they blocked the game and defeated it; Mr. Ames 
 called my attention to it, and asked me if I did not think that, in Mr. 
 Colfax's case, the investment had i)aid ; reference to the records of Con- 
 gress would fix about the day, and show what Mr. Washhurne's motion was, 
 and what Mr. Colfax said.'''' 
 
 That purports to be your testimony before the committee ; is it cor- 
 rectly stated ? — Answer. That is substantially what I stated, according 
 to my recollection. 
 
 Q. I want now to ask you whether you have made examination to see 
 if you have a letter from Mr. Ames that contains anything on that sub-, 
 ject. — A. I have looked over his letters and made a selection of some 
 important ones, which were placed in one parcel, and some unimportant 
 ones, which were placed in another. I handed both packages to my 
 wife, and as I was leaving home to come to Washington, on Sunday 
 night, she handed me the bundle of unimportant ones, which I brought 
 along and have here with me. 
 
 Q. Have you examined the letters you received from Mr. Ames suffi- 
 ciently to be able to say now whether you saw this statement in writing 
 and whether Mr. Ames wrote it to you ? — A. I have not the package of 
 important letters here. I have letters dated July 13, July 17, and July 
 18. I remember to have had a conversation with Mr. Ames upon that 
 subject. 
 
 Q. At the time you made this inspection, and selection of letters re- 
 ceived from Mr. Ames for the purpose of bringing on such as you 
 regarded important, did you read them all ? — A. I did not. I avoided 
 reading them. 
 
 Q. How could you tell whether they were worth bringing until you 
 had read them ? — A. When I saw a remark in one of them that I did 
 
276 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 not care to speak of here I avoided reading the letter. I simply saw a 
 name and I did not care to look any further into the letter. 
 
 Q. That may not be exactly fair treatment to us, although there 
 might be something in it that we ought not to know. — A. I think, per- 
 haps, that is the case — not affecting myself, however. 
 
 Q. Did you look over the letters you have from Mr. Ames enough to 
 satisfy yourself whether the declaration of Mr. Ames about Mr. Colfax 
 was in a letter to you ? — A. I did not, and I have not since I made the 
 statement originally to the committee. 
 
 Q. Have you any clearer recollection about it now than then as to 
 whether this communication was in writing or verbal? — A. I remember 
 a verbal communication. I have no better recollection as to the written 
 one than I had when I made the other statement. 
 
 (The chairman stated that these questions were propounded to the 
 witness in consequence of a letter received from Mr. Colfax requesting 
 that he might be further examined in regard 4;o the statement in his 
 former testimony referi-ed to.) 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 
 Q. Were you not mistaken in the reference you made in that extract,, 
 which has been read, to B. B. Washburne, of Illinois; was it not C. C. 
 Washburn, of Wisconsin? — A. If I recollect, in my original statement 
 I gave the name of E. B. Washburne, as my impression. It was the 
 Washburn to whom Mr. Durant wrote that letter which was taken out 
 of the postofBce in New York. 
 
 Q. They were both in Congress, but I presume it was C. C. Washburn 
 to whom you referred. Can you tell us any better now than you could 
 then the precise thing Mr. Ames referred to, either in his letter or con- 
 versation ? — A. The reference I gave then is the best I can give. I 
 said then that if you will refer to the records of Congress of the spring 
 of 1868 you will see what the jiroceeding is that I refer to. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. We are asking you now what you refer to. — A. I referred to the 
 statement in Mr. Ames's letter. I did not read the congressional pro- 
 ceedings. 
 
 Q. Can you state any more fully what Mr. Ames said about Mr. Col- 
 fax and what was done in Congress than you did before ? — A. I think 
 it was on a bill called the rate bill, prescribing something in reference 
 to the rates of -freight on the Pacific Eailroad ; that is my recollection 
 about it. It was something in regard to a proposed investigation, or 
 upon the subject of rates. 
 
 Q. Is it your impression that it was some bill in relation to the price 
 charged for fares 1 — A. My impression is that it was a subject before 
 Congress which the Union Pacific Eailroad Company felt to be of con- 
 siderable importance to them. 
 
 Q. Do you think it was upon the subject of making some reduction in 
 their fares or rates! — A. I would not be certain about the particular 
 thing. 
 
 Q. We want to ascertain if you can tell us what it was that Mr. Ames 
 referred to in regard to Mr. Colfax, and which needs to be investigated 
 for the vindication of Mr. Colfax as a fair presiding officer. — A. 1 should 
 be very glad to assist in vindicating him or any other gentleman whose 
 name is brought into this investigation. This is no contest between 
 any of these gentlemen and myself. My recollection of Mr. Ames's 
 statement was this: that in speaking of "Mr. Washburne's move," he 
 said that by some parliamentary rule or move Mr. Washburn was 
 
/ 
 
 CREDIT MOBILIEE 277 
 
 choked off from offering his resolution, or by which the bill was gotten 
 out of the way. That is the substance of my recollection, and whether 
 it was the rate bill or some other bill or resolution, I cannot answer. 
 
 Q. I want to get what Mr. Ames said to you. I want to ascertain 
 fully, if possible, what it was Mr. Ames referred to in that conversation. 
 — A. Perhaps Mr. Ames may have some recollection himself. He wrote 
 in his letter what it was best to do in view of "Washburne's move." 
 Perhaps he can tell what move he referred to. 
 
 Mr. Ames. That will not prove that I said anything about Mr. Colfax. 
 If Mr. McOomb has any letters I hope he will produce them. I wish 
 every letter I ever wrote to Mr, McOomb may be produced. 
 
 The Chairman, (to Mr. McComb.:) 
 
 Q. If I understand you right these letters which you understood to 
 have some reference to this business you did not bring ? — A. As I stated, 
 I handed two packages of letters to my wife, as I frequently did when I 
 came home iu that way. You observe that I have not been in my of&ce 
 to transact business since the commencement of this investigation. I 
 have gone home Saturday night and returned Sunday night. When I 
 came away I asked her to give me the package of letters, and she 
 handed me one of the packages. I did not look at the package until 
 two or three flays after I reached here, when it turned out she had given 
 me the wrong one. I will look for the other when I go home. 
 
 Q. Cannot you send for it before you go home? — A. I can send on 
 my clerk. 
 
 Q. Have you now any clear impression as to whether thia communica- 
 tion from Mr. Ames was in writing, or a mere verbal statement ? — A. I 
 won't under the solemnity of an oath say that the statement was in 
 writing. I recollect the original statement, and I think it was both 
 written and verbal. I remember very distinctly the verbal one. 
 
 Q. ISTow state that conversation just as fully as you remember it. Let 
 us know just what the statement was. — A. My recollection is this : that 
 Mr. Ames met me in M"ew York, and that he referred to this " move" in 
 a conversation we had. I asked him what "Washburne's move" was. 
 Mr. Ames replied, in regard to Mr. Colfax, "Didn't that pay," or " Didn't 
 that stock pay;" some such expression as that. That was about the 
 substance of it. I will not pretend to tell the identical words. 
 
 Q. Give us all that Mr. Ames indicated to you ; of course you cannot 
 remember his words. — A. That is just about the substance; my recol- 
 lection is very general of the conversation that took place ; the impres- 
 sion made upon me being that it referred to the rate bill, but I am not 
 positive about that. 
 
 Q. Have you any idea of the time when that was 1 — A. Ko, sir ; only 
 that it was in the spring of 1868 ; taking in the months in which this 
 correspondence was occurring, of January, February, and March, I could 
 not give a nearer approximation to the date than that. We were meet- 
 ing very frequently. We were having pretty lively times in our Union 
 Pacific affairs. It was in the spring following our entrance upon the 
 Oakes Ames contract, and the organization of trustees. We were get- 
 ting our contracts out fot iron and other material for the rapid prose- 
 cution of the work. There was a very busy time. 
 
 Q. But what was it Mr. Colfax had done or decided as Speaker ; can 
 you state it with^'any more definiteness ? — A. I cannot give it with any 
 more definiteness. 
 
 Q. You understood it was something that headed off Mr. Washburne. 
 — A. That was my understanding. 
 
278 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. And the idea of Mr. Ames was, that the interests of the company 
 might be advanced by the distribution of stock ? — A. Yes; bat this mat- 
 ter of Mr. Washbnrne was more particularly impressed upon my mind 
 ■when Dr. Durant threatened to write to Washburne and have a general 
 expose of the whole affair, and did actually write the letter. 
 
 Q. Can you tell when it was 1 — A. I cannot. I know that with Mr. 
 Bushnell and Mr. Crane I thought it was not wise to create any greater 
 storm, and we went to the post-office and got the letter out. 
 
 Q. That was after the quarrel growing out of entering into contracts 
 and getting an injunction "1 — A. No, sir; it was in the spring of 1868. 
 
 Q. What was that quarrel of Mr. Durant about ? — A. It was a gen- 
 eral distrust" of each other. That was about the substance of it. Mr. 
 Durant was not pleased with Mr. Ames and his friends particularly. 
 Mr. Durant and myself always considered Mr. Alley the mar-plot of the 
 concern. 
 
 Q. What did you differ about ? 
 
 The Witness. Who differ about I 
 
 Q. Tou that disagreed ? — A. I had nothing to do with any congres- 
 sional action in any way. I did not come here to see anybody in con- 
 nection with any Union Pacific Eailroad interest. Mr. Ames would 
 come on to New York fresh from Congress, and there had .been wrang- 
 lings between him and Dr. Durant, which finally became of sufficient 
 importance to induce Dr. Durant to write that letter to Mr.' Wash- 
 burne. 
 
 Q. Was there discussion among these parties in New York in refer- 
 ence to anytlling which might take place in Congress ? — A. I think it 
 "was in reference to some preliminary action in New York as well. 
 
 Q. Was not the quarrel, as Mr. Durant says, about making a contract 
 for building the road ? He says he objected to the stockholders of the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad Company contracting with themselves to build 
 the road, and that he got them enjoined on that account. — A. No; I 
 will tell you what I thinly it was. I think it was in reference to the 
 change which was proposed in the election for directors for the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad Company, and the disposition of what was known as 
 the Ames party to go back on their agreement. I think the election of 
 directors was fixed by the charter of the company for October. Mr. 
 Alley had come down here to AVashington and procured a change of 
 time of holding the election until March, or had threatened to come, or 
 something of that kind. 
 
 Q. What I want to know is when it was that Mr. Ames said this to- 
 you ? — A. It was immediately after he wrote that letter which has been 
 placed in evidence. If you will tell me the date of that letter I will tell 
 you the time. 
 
 ,_ Q. That letter is dated the 25th or 28th of January, 1868.— A. Then 
 it was some time in February. It was subsequent to the writing of that 
 letter. 
 
 Q. You think it was pretty soon after that date 1 — A. I think it was- 
 within a month or six weeks after. 
 
 Q. And did you understand him to refer to something that had just \ 
 taken place? — A. I did in his letter and in his conversation. I think 
 his conversation was explanatory of the letter. 
 
 Q. You put the two things together, and think it was something about 
 "Mr. Washburne'smove" which was mentioned in the letter ? — A. Yes,, 
 sir; it was that, whatever that was. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 279 
 
 By Mr. Ames : 
 Q. Was this conversation in New York ? — A. I think it was. 
 Q. In Febrnary, 1868 ? — A. I think it was in February or March, 
 1868. I do not recollect the exact time. 
 
 WASHmaTON, D. C, January 22, 1873. 
 
 Oakes Ames recalled and examined. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. The committee wish to inquire a little more in detail in 
 relation to these various gentlemen in Congress whose names have been 
 connected with this matter. We will begin at the beginning. Will you 
 state to the committee in reference to the conversation that took place 
 between you and Mr. Colfax in regard to the Credit Mobilier stock? — 
 Answer. I cannot recollect the exact conversation. I agreed to get 
 for Mr. Colfax twenty shares of Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
 Q. Do you remember what time that agreement was 1 — A. No, sir ; I 
 do not. 
 
 Q. Do you think it was about the commencement of the session of 
 Congress of 1867-'68 "?— A. I think it was. 
 
 Q. You agreed to get for him twenty shares Credit Mobilier stock ; 
 what further was done ? — A. I got the stock and received a dividend 
 on it of 80 per cent, in bonds. I went to Mr. Colfax and he gave me a 
 check for the balance to pay for the stock 'account and for the bonds. 
 He gave me a check for $534 and some odd cents. 
 
 Q. Did you sell the bonds ? — A. I sold the bonds. 
 
 Q. He was to have the stock at par °i — A. Yes, at par and interest. 
 
 Q. Can you give us the date of his check ? — A. I think I can j I think 
 the check was dated March 5, 1868, and was for $534.72. 
 
 Q. How did you keep your accounts ? — A. I kept them on scraps of 
 paper. 
 
 Q. And this paper you have in your hand is the original memoran- 
 dum made at the time ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. What is that taken from? — A. From my memorandum made at 
 the time. The check I got from the Sergeant-at-Arms. He gave me a 
 check on the Sergeant-at-Arms for $534.72. 
 
 Q. Did you deliver the stock certificate ? — A. No, sir ; I don't think I 
 delivered to him any stock, either the railroad or Credit Mobilier. 
 
 Q. This check which he gave you paid for the Credit Mobilier stock ? — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Were there dividends on that stock afterward ? — A. There was 
 one dividend. There were other dividends in stock which I never' 
 delivered to him. There was a dividend in cash, in June, which I did 
 pay to him. 
 
 Q. How large was that ? — A. Twelve hundred dollars. 
 
 Q. Have you any receipt or voucher for that "? — A. No, sir ; I gave 
 him a check'on the Sergeant-at-Arms, and it is charged to me there. 
 
 Q. And you got this date from the Sergeant-at-Arms' book ? — A. Yes ; 
 I never delivered to Mr. Colfax anything else, and never received any- 
 thing from him except that time. He paid me for the balance of the 
 stock, and I paid him a cash dividend. 
 
 Q. Have you ever offered him the railroad stock you received as a 
 dividend? — A. Never. 
 
280 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Has there ever been a conversation between you and him on the 
 subject? — A. None at all. 
 
 Q. Did you hear Mr. Colfax's statement when he was before the com- 
 mittee the other day 1 — A. I did. 
 
 Q. What do you say in reference to that statement about his making 
 a present to you of $500, saying that you might keep the $500 he paid 
 you ? — A. He made some remark of that sort to me. 
 
 Q. Will you state what was, the whole conversation"? — A. I cannot 
 remember that at all. He made some such statement, that he was 
 sorry for my misfortune, or something like that. 
 
 Q. How late was that ? — A. That was about two years ago — about 
 1871. 
 
 Q. What is the amount of the stock you held that you received as 
 dividends'? — A. I cannot tell you. I have never footed it up. I have 
 never done anything about the stock since these suits were brought up 
 by McComb. I hold it for all these parties until that suit shall have 
 been determined. 
 
 Q. Why was not this certificate of stock delivered to Mr. Colfax, when 
 the adjustment was made in which he paid for it? — A. I do not know 
 of any reason at all. 
 
 Q. Do you remember any conversation between you and him about 
 if? — A. E"o, sir. I supposed, as I have stated, that the dividends on 
 these small amounts would be paid in New York, and that it would be 
 inconvenient for the parties holding the stock to collect them in person. 
 I am only stating that, however, as my supposition. 
 
 Q. At the time you had this conversation with Mr. Colfax, two years 
 ago or thereabouts, was anything said between you and him in refer- 
 ence to the ownership of the stock? — A. Not a word to my recollection. 
 
 Q. What did you understand him to mean by not calling on you ? 
 Did you understand that he had no right to call upon you for ■ the 
 $534'? — A. I do not know. If I did not deliver him the stock, cer- 
 tainly I should pay him back again. 
 
 Q. Did he call upou you to deliver the stock'? — A. ]S"o,"sir ; I do not 
 think he did. 
 
 Q. Have you ever refused in any way to deliver it to him '? — A. No, 
 sir. 
 
 , Q. You have held the stock ready for him at any time, if he wanted 
 it?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have there ever been any dividends upou this Union Pacific Eail- 
 road stock ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. There was nothing to pay anybody upon that stock ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You have had no conversation with Mr. Colfax in reference to 
 that stock, as to whether he wanted it or did not want it ? — A. No, sir ; 
 not to my recollection. 
 
 Q. There was nothing said about the stock at the time you had this 
 conversation with him two years ago? — A. I do not recollect of it at 
 all. I do not think there was. 
 
 Q. At the time you paid him $1,200, or gave him a check upon the 
 Sergeant at- Arms for that amount, did Mr. Colfax understand that this 
 was a dividend on this Credit Mobilier stock ? — A. I supfJose so ; I do 
 not know ; I so understood it. That is what it was ; whether he under- 
 stood the matter is more than I know ; I do not know that 1 gave him 
 any explanation. I gave him the check. 
 
 <J. Have you any doubt that you told him what it was ? — A. I cannot 
 remember. When I suppose a man knows a thing I don't tell him over 
 again. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 281 
 
 Q. Do yon remember whether he made any inqniry as to what it was ? 
 — A. I don't remember anything about what was said at all. 
 
 Q. You supposed that it was understood that it was a dividend you 
 had received upon that stock ? — A. I supposed so. 
 
 Q. Has he ever repaid you that $1,200 "? — A. Not to my knowledge. 
 It did not belong to me. 
 
 Q. You never made any claim upon him for it, ami did not suppose 
 you had any right to? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. These $534 that were paid you, you did not suppose he had any 
 right to call upon you to pay back ? — A. I did not suppose so ; I un- 
 derstood that I sold him $:3,000 worth of stock. The first dividend, 80 
 per cent, in bonds, and that check for $534, paid for the stock. That 
 was my supposition. 
 
 By Mr. Meeeick : 
 
 Q. In what order of time were these two dividends paid, of $1,200 and 
 $500"?— A. He paid me $500 in March, and I paid him $1,200 in the 
 June following. 
 
 Q. Were there any other different transactions between you and Mr. 
 Colfax to which these payments could refer at all, except this Credit 
 Mobilier ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. What memoranda or entries have you in reference to this transac- 
 tion 1 — A. I made a little memorandum at the time, I suppose, which I 
 handed him ; when I don't remember. 
 
 Q. Have you any memorandum with you ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you made a memorandum of it at all 1 — A. Yes ; I took a copy 
 of the memorandum I made and brought with me. When I went home 
 you asked me to look over my books. I did, and found I had received 
 $534 from Mr. Colfax, and I found I had charged him-with $1,200 in 
 June. 
 
 Q. Have you the memorandum made at the time ? — A. No, sir ; not 
 here; I have a memorandum which I took from that. 
 
 Q. What was the character of the book in which the memorandum 
 was made? — A. It was in a small pocket-memorandum, and some of it 
 on slips of paper. 
 
 Q. It was not entered in journal form ? — A. No ; it was simi>ly a small 
 memorandum-book. These things were closed up at the time here, and 
 they were not entered upon my books at home. 
 
 Q. Is what you have here a copy of your memorandum made at the 
 time? — A. Yes, sir ; that contains the names I took from my books. 
 
 Q. The only entry in this in reference to Mr. Colfax is the $534. The 
 $1,200 was not put on this memorandum? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. The extracts you have here from your memorandum-books are from 
 the memorandum-book referred to by Mr. Kennedy in his testimony? — 
 A. I presume so. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Q. Both these entries were made in this book, the $500 to pay the 
 balance of the stock, and the $1,200 which were paid in June by a check 
 on the Sergeant-at-Arms ? — A. Yes ; they were both on that book. I 
 have looked it over to see, and I have looked over the Sergeant-at- 
 Arms' book to see if my entries were correct, and I find they are. 
 
 By Mr. McCbaet 
 Q. Did Mr. Colfax tell you at any time that he had concluded not to 
 take the stock? — A. I have no recollection of it, unless it was in that 
 conversation to which he has referred. I have no recollection of it. 
 
282 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection of informing him of the litigation that 
 had sprung up in regard to it 1 — A. I think I did ; I think I told them 
 all. 
 
 Q. You do not remember what he said when you informed him of 
 that?— A. K"o, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you not understand that this sale of stock to Mr. Colfax was 
 rescinded ; that the trade was given up, and that he relinquished 
 the stock to you 1 — A. Not unless he meant to be understood so in the 
 conversation when I came back. I did not consider it given up. I did 
 not consider that I had any right to withhold it. 
 
 Q. Was there anything of the kind said between you ? — A. I cannot 
 recollect ; it might have been said, but I cannot recollect it. 
 
 Q. Have you ever been re-imbursed for that $1,200 ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Colfax : 
 
 The chairman of the committee states that I may examine the witness 
 in reference to these accounts between us, as when I gave my testimony 
 I asked him to examine me. I want to give notice in advance that 
 although it is difficult to prove a negative, yet I think I will be able to 
 prove that I did not receive the $1,200 referred to. I assert that no 
 such amount and no dividend was given to me. I desire the fact to be 
 borne in mind while I am asking these questions. In my testimony I 
 spoke of your asking me to take the stock ; that you explained to me 
 you thought it was a good and safe investment ; tlaat I said to you I 
 could not pay then ; that you replied I could have the twenty shares at 
 par, if I would agree to pay interest until it was paid for — is that cor- 
 rect ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. This was about the opening of the session of 1867-'68, as you stated 
 to the chairman to-day, and as you previously stated in your examina- 
 tion in general ? — A. I think so. 
 
 Q. That was December. My recollection is that it was just before the 
 holiday recess. Then you say that on the 5th March I paid you $534.72. 
 That is the time — the 5th March 1 — A. That is my recollection. 
 
 Q. Did I offer to pay you, or did you give to me, or ask me to pay 
 you that ? — A. That I cannot tell you. I suppose I handed you a state- 
 ment showing the balance due, and that you gave me the check. 
 
 Q. Do you swear that you did hand me a statement ? — A. No ; I will 
 not swear to it.. 
 
 Q. Did you not tell me at the time that there were more dividends 
 that had been earned but which were unadjusted 1 — A. I told you there 
 had been a dividend of 80 per cent, in bonds, and I gave you the pro- 
 ceeds of that in part payment of the stock. There had been also a divi- 
 dend of 100 percent. Union Pacific Railroad stock, which I did not give 
 you. 
 
 Q. When was that dividend of stock declared ? — A. In February, I 
 believe. 
 
 Q. Did I ask you to buy bonds and pay for them ? — A. No. sir. 
 
 Q. Why, then, did you prefer to buy bonds and not buy stock 1 — A. 
 I did not buy bonds. I received the bonds as dividend on your stock 
 and sold them. 
 
 Q. You sold the bonds without asking me anything about it, although 
 they were mine? — A. I sold the bonds at 97. 
 
 Q. Without any authority from me ? — A. I suppose so. 
 
 Q. Why did you sell stock without authority from me ? — A. I have not 
 sold it. 
 
 Q. That $534.72 which you say I paid you included interest on $2,00(^ 
 
CKEDIT MOBILIER, 283: 
 
 from December to March, about three months? — A. I charged you in- 
 terest on the $2,000 Credit Mobilier stock, $86.72. 
 
 Q. That is interest from when to when ? That is the first I have 
 heard of that aaiount of interest. — A. It is interest from July, 1867, 
 when the stock was assigned, until you paid the money. 
 
 Q. Yet my contract for the stock was in December? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And you say I paid you interest on the stock back to July, and 
 you so state to the committee? — A. I do not know that I have so stated 
 to the committee. I have made no statement in your case in regard to 
 that before. 
 
 Q. Can you show me this private memorandum-book in which you 
 have these amounts charged against me? — A. No; I cannot; I have 
 not it here. 
 
 Q. Did you show it to me? — A. No; I think I showed you a state- 
 ment, showing that the balance to pay for the stock was $534.72, and 
 that you gave me a check for that amount, which check is now charged 
 to you on the books of the Sergeant-at-Arms, $534.72; and I have it on 
 my memorandum-book, crediting you that amount. 
 
 Q. My recollection in regard to that matter is exactly as I stated 
 then. It appears that interest on the $2,000 was charged to me from 
 July until March. — A. Until you paid for the stock — yes. 
 
 Q. And you sold the bonds, although they did not belong to you, 
 and without asking my consent? — A. Yes; as I stated. 
 
 Q. You did not sell the stock? — A. IsTo, sir. 
 
 Q. And , you regarded me as the proprietor of -that Credit Mobilier 
 stock? — A. Certainly; you paid me for it; it belongs to you; it has 
 never been returned. 
 
 Q. You stated in your first testimony, " I cannot remember which of 
 us first mentioned the subject, but I know he wanted to get some stock, 
 and I am pretty confident he has paid me for it, though it was never 
 transferred to him, nor can I remember having paid over to him any 
 dividend. At the next session he said something about that thing 
 being off." Please state what I said to you tlie next session about that 
 thing being off, and how it happened to come up in conversation? — A. 
 I cannot remember anything further than I have stated. 
 
 Q. What did you say when I said something to you about that thing 
 being off? — A. 1 don't recollect that I said anything. I do not remem- 
 ber the conversation any farther than that you said vou called the thing 
 off. 
 
 Q. Why was it to be off? — A. I don't know. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether you said anything to me that there 
 was t6 be a litigation in regard to the stock? — A. I do not remember. 
 I guess I informed you some time before that about litigation. I think 
 so. 
 
 Q. You cannot remember what it was- 1 said to you about the thing 
 being off? — A. I cannot. 
 
 Q. And you cannot remember what you said ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Then, if that is the case, why in your cross-examination d'id you 
 say you did not know whether you or I owned that stock? — A. I do not 
 think I said so. 
 
 Q. Did you say that you sold me the stock, and that I paid you the 
 balance on it>? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. But you cannot remember what I said to you about being " off,'^ 
 or What you said. Yet you testified in your cross-examination that you 
 did not know whether you or I was the owner of that stock; and subse- 
 quently you said you thought I was the equitable owner ? — A. All I 
 
284 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 know is what you said about it there in your testimony. I do not recol 
 lect any such conversation, but I was willing to have it go as you stated. 
 IP Q. Mr. Ames says that he derived that information from my testimony, 
 yet I read his statement from a paper published Tuesday morning, Jan- 
 uary 7, and I testified on the morning of January 7". Mr. Ames, 
 therefore, must have obtained the information before I testified, and I 
 think he will correct that now. I do not think he will say he had that 
 information from my testimony before this committee. — A. I do not 
 know. You may have said it to me before. I got it from you. 
 
 Q. I testified before this committee: "The very day I heard this re- 
 mark I told Mr. Ames that no profits, present or prospective, could 
 induce me to buy into a lawsuit ; that I must therefore recede entirely 
 from the transaction between us, as I did not want stock of any kind, 
 on any terms, that would make me a party to litigation. He assented 
 to this, and nothing was said as to the money paid, my interest being 
 not to get into a lawsuit." Do you remember anything of that trans- 
 action? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Ton do not remember my saying that I did not want to buy into 
 a lawsuit ? — A. I do not now. 
 
 Q. Tou don't remember that, when I said I wanted to be "oif !" — A. 
 No, sir. 
 
 Q. Is it not probable that I based my desire to be off upon 'this liti- 
 gation ? — A. I cannot tell ; you may have said so. I cannot remember. 
 I do not say that you did not base it on that. 
 
 Q. Now, after I had testified, I asked you to cross-examine me. You 
 said that you did not desire to do so. I ask you now whether you did 
 not state, that afternoon, to a gentleman, after you had heard me testify, 
 that you believed my statement was substantially correct ? — A. I don't 
 remember saying that. 
 
 Q. Will you testify that you did not say that 1 — A. I do not recollect 
 that I did. 
 
 Q. Mr. Crounse, Washington correspondent of the New York Times, 
 telegraphed to the Times that Mr. Ames had said to him my testimony 
 was substantially correct, and Mr. Orounse stated to me that Mr. Ames 
 so told him. 
 
 The Witness. When was that 1 
 
 Mr. Colfax. The 7th of January. Now, when I testified on the 7th 
 of January, and asked you to cross-examine me, if the statement I made 
 was not correct, why did not you contradict me then ? — A. I had not ex- 
 amined the records then ; I had not refreshed my recollection. 
 
 Q. The subject had been discussed all over the country, and your 
 attention must have been called to it. — A. My minutes were at home, 
 and I had not examined them until I went back home. 
 
 Q. You say that you paid me $1,200 by a check on the Sergeant-at- 
 Arms ? — A. I did. 
 
 Q. Where was I when you paid me ? — A. I do not know ; I cannot 
 say. The check is in the Sergeant-at- Arms' room. 
 
 Q. Now, when I asserted, in iny.testimony, that I had never received 
 a dollar from you, why did not you contradict me then, and say to the 
 committee that you had paid me a check of $1,300 ? — A. I was not in a 
 position to contradict you, because I had not examined my minutes and 
 refreshed my recollection. 
 
 Q. Did I not tell you the first of the present session that I wanted 
 you to tell the whole truth about the matter 1 — A. Well, I think I have 
 done so. 
 
 Q. Why not have done so at first ? Why didn't you tell it when I 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 285 
 
 was here and gave my testimony ? Why didn't you state that you had 
 paid me $1,200 1 — A. I did not want to dispute you. 
 
 Q. You say that was the only cash dividend in 1868 upon this stock'? 
 — A. I think the only cash dividend. 
 
 Q. In Mr. Durant's testimony there is a statement that there was^a 
 cash dividend of 30 per cent., July, 18C8. — A. I think not. 
 
 Q. Mr. Durant states also.that there was a bond dividend during that 
 session. What did you do with the bonds belonging to me ? — ^A. There 
 are bonds belonging to you now. 
 
 Q. You did not sell all the bonds then ? — A. No ; there are bonds that 
 belong to you now, bonds that belong to your stock, and that you are 
 entitled to. 
 
 Q. Where is what I am entitled to now ? — A. I hold it. 
 
 Q. Have you ever oiJered it to me ? — A. No, sir ; I am waiting for the 
 result of this suit. 
 
 Q. Have you ever told me anything about it ? — A. I suppose I told 
 you about it in 1868, when I told several others. 
 
 Q. You do not think you told me, do you ? — A. I do not know whether 
 I did ; I suppose I gave you a statement.' >»7s»«(i 
 
 Q. Now, in regard to this thing being off, you say you got that from 
 my testimony ? — A. It must have been from a conversation with you 
 since we .have been here the present session. I called upon you at 
 your room. 
 
 Q. Did you not, at the time I said I wanted this thing to be off, learn, 
 as the reason, that I did not want to buy into a lawsuit ; and did not 
 you say that you would buy it back 1 — A. I do not recollect. 
 
 Q. Did you not proffer me some small sum of money, and say to me, 
 "Take it, and consider it bought back?" — A. I may have done so. 
 
 Q. Did I not tell you I wanted the whole thing off ; that I did not 
 want to buy into a lawsuit ? — A. I do not remember. 
 
 Q. Do you not remember that you stated to me that you would regard 
 it as bought back ? — A. I do not remember that I did. 
 
 Q. You testified a few moments ago that there was some remark made 
 by me about my giving up these $500 ? — A. That you told nue at your 
 room before I- testified. 
 
 Q. You testified in answer to a question of Judge Poland about your 
 recollection of that fact that there was some such remark as giving up 
 $500, and of my being sorry for your misfortune. Do you remember 
 where this conversation occurred '! — A. I think it was at Wormley's. 
 
 Q. I mean the conversation about giving up the $500, and that I was 
 sorry for your misfortune. — A. You told me that you said so, and I pre- 
 sume you did or I would not have so stated. 
 
 Q. You believe I said so. Did I not say it to you on the floor of the' 
 Senate after you had failed ? — A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. Did you not tell me that the stock had gone down to 10 cents on 
 the dollar, and that you had had an extension by your creditors ? — A. 
 Everybody knew that. 
 
 Q. You remember that conversation ? — A. It is very likely. I recol- 
 lect seeing you over there in the Senate, but what was said I do not re- 
 member. I do not dispute that you said so. 
 
 Q. You understood that I said this $500 could go ? — A. I do not 
 know that I understood that till this winter. 
 
 Q. Then why did you state to Judge Poland that you did ? — A. I sup- 
 posed so ; I got it from you. 
 
 Q. Then you were testifying partly from^uy recollection and partlj'- 
 from your own. Did you have any other checks on the Sergeant-at- 
 
286 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Arms at the same time you gave me this one for $1,200 ? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. You do not remember where you paid me this $1,200 check ?— A. 
 I suppose it was in the House. The Sergeant-at-Arms paid it. 
 
 Q. Was it paid to my order ? — A. ft was payable to " S. 0. or 
 bearer." 
 
 Q. Paid to me by the Sergeaut-at-Arms ? — A. I think so. It is in 
 his possession as a voucher for the money, and my books show that I 
 gave you the check at that time for $1,200. 
 
 Q. Is it not more probable that you got the money on that check 
 yourself, as we had had this talk about being off? — A. This check was 
 given a long while before I had any talk about being off. The check 
 was given in June, 1868. 
 
 Q. My recollection is that the talk we had about being off was in the 
 summer of 1868, at the same session at which you say the check was 
 given. — A. There had been no litigation then. 
 
 Q. Was it not in regard to prospective litigation that we were talk- 
 ing ? — A. No ; I did not know anything about any litigation or suit 
 until after June. 
 
 Q. You are positive that you paid me this check for $1^300 ? — A. I 
 am positive I gave you the check. 
 
 Q. And then I ask you again, why did you not say so when you testi- 
 fied in December 1 — A. I testified that I had paid you the dividends. 
 
 Q. You stated in your first examination that you could not remem- 
 ber having paid me any divideuijs. Then, in your cross-examination, 
 you said that possibly you might have paid me, but you were not cer- 
 tain. — A. Yes ; now I am certain. 
 
 Q. Then this transaction had passed out of your mind, so that you 
 were not certain then f — A. I could not remember the amount at all 
 until I had examined my books. I examined my books when I went 
 home, and when I returned to Washington I compared my memoran- 
 dums with the checks the Sergeant-at-Arms had on file ; and I found 
 my check for $1,200 filled out " S. C," which corresponded with the 
 memorandum I had on my book. 
 
 Q. You have stated in your testimony that two of the gentlemen you 
 have referred to, J. F. Wilson and Judge Bingham, got all of their 
 dividends, stock, and bonds ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Why did I not get mine ? — A. I settled with them a year after- 
 ward, and 1 am ready to settle with you. 
 
 Q. Did you ever tell me you were ready 1 — A. No ; I did not tell you ; 
 I was waiting for the decision of this suit by McComb. I did not want 
 to be mixed up with anybody else in that suit. 
 
 Q. After this conversation, in which I told you to never mind the 
 $500, did you not regard it as off ? — A. No, sir ; I supposed I had to 
 pay the $500. I did not know who had the certificate, you or I. 
 
 Q. You knew very well that you had it in your possession, did you 
 not ? — A. I do not know that I did. I find now that I have it in my 
 possession, and after my return home. 
 
 Q. Did I ever see a certificate of the stock ? — A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. Did you ever give me one? — A. I think not. 
 
 Q. Did you ever give me a share of Union Pacific Eailroad stock ? — 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you ever give me a bond of the Union Pacific Eailroad Com- 
 pany 1 — A. No, sir : I sold the bonds and accounted to you for them. 
 
 Q. You sold them withoift my authority ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. I want again to state to the committee, as I before 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 287 
 
 stated, that I do not remember ever having received one dollar from Mr. 
 Ames, and 1 hope to be able to prove that fact. I think there is a mis- 
 take in the statement Mr. Ames makes. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Are we to understand, in relation to this matter between you and 
 Mr. Colfax — and we want you to testify from your recollection, whether 
 you understand — that this contract about the Credit Mobilier stock was 
 ever rescinded ? — A. I do not recollect it. 
 
 Q. Do you now remember anything in connection with any conversa- 
 tion between you and Mr. Colfax in relation to putting an end to it, or 
 being off? — A. Nothing except a casual remark. There never has been 
 any negotiation about having it off, or any agreement about it. 
 
 Q. What do you think that remark was — -just what he said 1 — A. I 
 have no particular recollection of it. 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection ? — A. I do not think I have. I think 
 what I did was what I got from him this winter. 
 
 Q. Then you yourself have not now any recollection of this thing ? — 
 A. E"o distinct recollection ; no, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you any impression of any such thing being said between you 
 and him ? — A. I do not think I have until this winter. I am willing to 
 have it go any way Mr. Colfax pleases, to call it off or call it on. 
 
 Q. The question is as to what occurred at the time. State again the 
 whole transaction. — A. All I can state is, that I agreed to sell Mr. Colfax, 
 or get for him, twenty shares of Credit Mobilier stock, at par and interest 
 from July, 1867. In February we had a dividend of 80 per cent, in 
 bonds, which I sold at 97 and paid Mr. Colfax the proceeds, which left 
 a balance due of $534.72, for which he gave me his check. 
 
 Q. You do not mean that you paid the money over to him that you 
 got from the bonds 1 — A. No ; I deducted that from the price of the 
 stock. 
 
 Q. Ton deducted from the price of the stock the proceeds of the 
 bonds, and he gave you a check for the balance ; that is that transac- 
 tion?— A. That is the transaction. 
 
 Q. And subsequently when you got the money dividend you paid that 
 money by a check on the Sergeant-at- Arms ? — A. That is what my books 
 show. 
 
 Q. Have there been any other money dividends on that stock at any 
 time'? — A.. No, sir; there has been a certificate for bonds. 
 
 Q. But the amount you paid Mr. Colfax in June was the money 
 dividend 1 — A. Yes, sir ; it was Ms dividend in money. The stock 
 dividend I still hold ; the Credit Mobilier stock I also hold, although he 
 has paid me for it. 
 
 Q. Inhere has been no conversation between you and him, that you 
 know of, as to whether you were to keep the stock or deliver it to 
 him ? — A. No, sir ; unless he considers this casual remark of calling the 
 thing off" as rescinding the contract. 
 
 Q. That remark you say you have no remembrance of!^A. I had not 
 when I testified before. 
 
 Q. Have you now "? — A. No, sir ; except what I heard here. 
 
 Q. We have heard that ; we want to know what you remember about 
 it. — A. I have no recollection about it. 
 
 Q. I have here, which has been handed me, a printed list, taken from 
 a New York paper, in one column of which, under date of July 8, 1868, 
 there is a cash dividend of $3,000 ; was any cash dividend declared in 
 
288 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 July, 1868, upon the stock of the Credit Mobilier ? — A. Not that I know 
 of. I do not think that is correct ; still it may be. 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection that there was any cash dividend de- 
 clared upon this stock— ^one in June of 60 per cent. ? — A. I have not. 
 I think the other was in bonds or certificate for bonds. The bonds were 
 not delivered, and they were afterward changed to income bonds. The 
 company never had the bonds. That is my impression. I think the 
 statement in that printed list is a mistake. 
 
 By Mr. Colfax : 
 Q. Do you remember this conversation with Mr. Crounse in which 
 you stated that I was substantially correct when I testified the 7th 
 January ? — A. I have no recollection of it. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Do you remember any conversation with Mr. Crounse upon that 
 subject ?— A. I do not. 
 
 Q. Do you remember saying to him or anybody that the account 
 given by]Vfr. Colfax was a correct account of the transaction ? — A. No, 
 sir. 
 
 By Mr. McCraky : 
 
 Q, You do not recollect anything about talking with Mi'. Colfax in 
 regard to repurchasing the stock fromhim for anominal consideration ? — 
 A. I do not know that I remember it; still I may have done so. It 
 would be difficult to remember everything I have said to gentlemen in 
 the last six years. 
 
 Q. You held the stock as his trustee?— A. I have that stock in my 
 own name as trustee ; it was in a certificate with other stock. I do not 
 consider myself as a trustee for anybody. The stock belongs to these 
 parties, and they can have it whenever they ask for it. 
 
 Q. Do you desire to have it in your individual capacity and not as 
 trustee? — A. No, sir; the stock I have taken back has never been 
 changed. I have never transferred any stock on the books of the com- 
 pany since I took it for these parties. 
 
 Q. You might be called on to account for this stock in your name as 
 trustee if it remains in that way. — A. I cannot help that. 
 
 Mr. Colfax stated that he desired the committee to call one or two 
 witnesses in regard to some points in the above testimony. 
 
 The following is the memorandum from which the witness testified in 
 ralation to Mr. Colfax : 
 
 S. C, Db. 
 1868. 
 
 To 20 shares stock C. M. 
 
 of A $2,000 00 
 
 To interest 86 72 
 
 June 19. To cash 1,200 00 
 
 3,286 72 
 
 Cr. 
 
 1868. 
 
 March 5. By cash $534 72 
 
 Feb. 14. Dividends of bonds : U. 
 P. E. $2,000.80,, $1,600, less 3 per 
 cent 1,552 00 
 
 June 17. By dividend coUeoted 
 for his account 1,200 00 
 
 3, 286 72 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. I now wish to ask you in regard to Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts. 
 — A. That statement heretofore made by me is correct. As I said be- 
 fore, I took the stock back from him and settled with him. , 
 
 Q. You have heard Mr. Wilson's statement here ? — A. Yes, sir ; and. 
 
CREDir MOBILIEE. 289 
 
 it is substantially correct. My*recollection is that my books show that 
 I settled with him, took the stock back, and squared it up as he says. 
 
 Q. Mr. Wilson says that $2,000 of the money given to his wife he 
 paid over to you for twenty shares of that stock I — A. Yes, sir ; that is 
 correct. 
 
 Q. That during that time, and during the time I held it, and before it 
 was given up, there was a dividend? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. That he refused to receive that dividend and only received back 
 $2,000 with 10 per cent, interest ? — A. I think he received thedividend 
 in the first place, and that in the settlement he paid it back. 
 
 Q. I understood him to say that the only amount he received in the 
 settlement was the $2,000 and 10 per cent, interest ? — A. Yes, sir ; that 
 was correct. 
 
 Q. I do not know but you stated before, when the transaction was 
 closed up and the money paid back f — A. I think it was some time dur- 
 ing that same year ; in the last of that year or the first of the year fol- 
 lowing ; that is my recollection. 
 
 Q. The statement of Mr. Wilson upon that subject, you say, is sub- 
 stantially the truth ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. In relation to Mr. Patterson, of the Senate, I believe all your trans- 
 actions with him were an gone over yesterday 'i — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. The name of William B.Allison has been mentioned in connection 
 with these transactions. Mr. Allison was then a member of the House, 
 and is now a member elect to the Senate. Since your former testimony 
 Mr. Allison has sent a telegram upon that subject stating what was his 
 understanding in regard to it. Will you now state, in detail, the trans- 
 action between you and Mr. Allison in connection with that stock? — A. 
 Mr. Allison, as I st.'ited in my testimony, agreed to buy ten shares of 
 Credit Mobilier stock. I received his dividends of 80 per cent, bonds 
 on that stock, which sold at 97, and he paid me the difference in cash. 
 In June he received a dividend of $600. 
 
 Q. You sold the bonds that you received on his stock as a dividend 1 — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What did they amount to ? — A. They amounted to $800, less 3 per 
 cent., $776. 
 
 Q. He paid you the balance 1 — A. He paid me the balance. 
 
 Q. Have you some memorandum of what that balance was '? — A. The 
 balance was $271. 
 
 Q. What is the date of that payment? — A. The date is April 24, 
 1868. 
 
 Q. That settled the balance of the stock ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. He had the stock at par, and interest from July previous? — A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What was the amount of stock and interest? — A. One thousand 
 and forty -seven dollars. 
 
 Q. The amount you received on the bonds was $776. He paid you 
 the balance in money, $271. .Where did you get this memorandum from 
 which you are now testifying? — A. I got that from the entries on my 
 books at home, and I find, in the olflce of the Sergeant-at-Arms here, 
 the check indorsed by Mr. Allison. 
 
 Q. Did you say it was indorsed by him ? — A. I am not sure about 
 that. I found in his account, charged to him on that date, the balance 
 covering the amount due on that stock, and the check for that amount. 
 
 Q. The balance which was due Mr. Allison for this stock I understand 
 he gave you a check for on tiie Sergcant-at-Arms? — A. Ko. He drew 
 the money himself, I suppose, and paid me the money. 
 
 19 X 
 
290 CKEDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. You got this entry at that date frtom your books at home ? — A. 
 Yes, sir ; when I received that dividend from the Credit Mobilier I 
 deposited $10,000 with the Sergeant-at-Arms here, and drew it out to 
 pay these separate dividends. 
 
 Q. When was this money dividend jiaid to Mr. Allison 1 — A. About 
 the middle or 30th of January, or somewhere thereabout. 
 
 Q. You paid that money dividend to him by check on the Sergeant- 
 at-Arms, and you found the check of the Sergeant-at-Arms and the 
 amount charged to you in your account in his office? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Was this stock ever transferred to Mr. Allison ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. It still rem"ains in your name ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What has become of the stock received afterward as dividends 
 upon it ? — A. I have not given anybody any stock since July, except to 
 Mr. Patterson, Mr. Bingham, and Mr. Painter. I held on to the rest, 
 waiting for the result of this suit. It is due, and will be accounted for, 
 but I have kept it in my possession until 1 know how this suit results. 
 
 Q. Has this contract between you and Mr. Allison ever been rescinded, 
 or ever been given up and settled in any way "? — A. He returned me the 
 stock some time ago ; his Union Pacific Eailroad stock and Credit Mo- 
 bilier stock. 
 
 Q. You gave him the certificates then? — A. I gave him the certificates, 
 both the ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock and ten shares of Union 
 Pacific Railroad stock. I thought it was returned this last fall, and I 
 so stated in my testimony in answer to Mr. Merrick, I think. But I found 
 that the letter of Mr. Allison, inclosing the stock, is mailed March 31. 
 
 Q. When did he receive the stock °! — A. He received it at the time he 
 paid me for it. 
 
 Q. He then took a certificate ? — A. He then took a certificate. 
 
 Q. And kept it until last March 1 — A. 1 suppose so. That is the letter 
 returning it; it has that date in the postmark. 
 
 Q. Is that letter here ? — A. There was no letter ; the envelope merely 
 contained the certificates of stock. I do not know that it came from Mr. 
 Allison ; all I know is that it was mailed at Dubuque. 
 
 Q. You received it in that envelope, which you have retained 1 — A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. When did he receive his certificate of Union Pacific Eailroad 
 stock ?-:-A. At the same time he received his Credit Mobilier stock. 
 There was a dividend of 100 per cent, on Union Pacific Railroad stock 
 at the same time of the first bond dividend. I received the dividend 
 and handed it over to him. 
 
 Q. Does the envelope in which the stock was returned show the 
 year? — A. No; that is all there is of it. It is postmarked Dubuque, 
 March 31. The envelope I hand you is the one it came in. 
 
 Q. Are you confident it was last March! — A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. When do you think it was ? — A. 1 thought it was later. Still I 
 presume the postmark is correct. 
 
 Q. Are you confident that it was not earlier — further back than last 
 March? — A. I simply give you my impression. I cannot remember 
 certainly at all. 
 
 Q. Do you know that it was Mr. Allison who sent the certificate back 
 to you ? — A. No, sir ; there was no letter inclosed, and nothing to show 
 that it came from him. I did not know there was anybody else in 
 Dubuque who owned Credit Mobilier stock, and took it for granted that 
 it came from him, but I do not know that it did. It was not indorsed 
 with any name. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 291 
 
 Q. Do yoa know Mr. Allison's handwriting ?— A. I do not know that 
 I would. 
 
 Q. You would not be willing to swear that the address on this en- 
 velope is his handwriting ?— A. No. 
 
 Q. The certificate of stock, I understand, you delivered to him in 
 person "? — A. That is my impression. 
 
 Q, That was in 1868 ?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. These certificates were returned to you, as you believe, last March, 
 without any explanation accompanying them ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Was there ever any conversation between you and Mr. Allison in 
 reference to the contract being rescinded ? — A. I do not know that 
 there was. 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection of any such conversation? — A. No, sir. 
 I suppose he might have considered the returning of the stock as ex- 
 planation enough. 
 
 By Mr. McCrAEY : 
 
 Q. Did he return you any of the money that you had paid him in 
 connection with that transaction'? — A. i have no recollection that he 
 did. I do not know of any. 
 
 Q. Have you examined to ascertain whether you received from him 
 a check or a cash-draft on New York ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You do not know whether that is the case or not? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You are sure you gave him the stock in person. Might you not 
 have sent it by mail to him 1 — A. I am not sure. I do not know that 
 that would make any difi'erence. He got it. 
 
 Q. Can you recollect any conversation you had with him when he 
 told you he had concluded not to take the stock, and that you insisted 
 on a repurchase on your part for a nominal sum 1 — A. There was some- 
 thing of that sort said after he found the suit was commenced. 
 
 Q. Did you offer him some little sum of money as payment for it, he 
 to return his stock ? — A.' I do not know but I did. 
 
 Q. Do you know when that was ? — A. No ; I do not. 
 
 Q. What did Mr. Allison say at that time about it? — A. There was 
 something said about a lawsuit, and my recollection is that it was 
 after the suit was commenced. 
 
 Q. Was not the stock returned after the renomination of Mr. Allison, 
 in the fall of 1868? — A. I do not recollect. It was some time ago. 
 
 Q. You understood from him at that time that he proposed to cancel 
 the transaction, did you not ? — A. Yes, sir ; that was the idea. 
 
 Q. And you proposed to call it a repurchase by you of the stock ? — 
 A. I do not recollect how the thing was to be. 
 
 Q. Did he say he did not care what you called it, so that he got 
 the thing entirely off his hands ? — A. I think I recollect something of 
 that sort. He did not want to have anything to do with the Credit 
 Mobilier after the lawsuit was commenced. 
 
 Q. You do not know whether he has received any dividends that have 
 not been returned to you ? — A. He has had no dividends except what I 
 have stated. 
 
 Q. That is $600, and he had previously paid you $1,000 !— A. Yes, 
 including the bonds I sold for him. 
 
 Q. What would be his profit if he had not returned you anything, 
 provided it was canceled at the time? — A. He paid me $271 and re- 
 ceived $600; that \\ as all. 
 
 Q. You do not know whether he returned you that sum by. draft to 
 New York or not ? — A. I do not think he did. 
 
292 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Did you understand that this contract between you and this sale 
 of stock to Mr. Allison was really rescinded and put an end to? — A. 
 My idea was that he did not want to hold any Credit Mobilier stock 
 after the suit was commenced, and proposed selling it back for a nomi- 
 nal sum ; something like that. ♦ 
 
 Q. What we want to get at is, whether this was a real transaction, a 
 real sale of it to you ; did you so understand it ? — A. I did not. 
 
 Q. How did you understand it? — A. I understood it to go just as he 
 was a mind to have it. 
 
 Q. Did you pay him anything? — A. I think I did. 
 
 Q. How much? — A. I do not recollect. Some small sum; a mere 
 nominal sum. 
 
 Q. Did you throw down a five-cent piece, or something like that ? — 
 A. Somewhere iu that neighborhood ; not a very big sum. 
 
 Q. Have you any idea when that was ? — A. I think it must have been 
 in the summer of 1868, after this suit was brought. 
 
 Q. Why did he not return you the certificates then ? — A. I did not 
 ask him. I think he had not them here. I supposed so; I do not know 
 anythi)ig about it. 
 
 Q. Was anything said about his returning them to you ? — A. I do not 
 remember. I supposed if 1 bought it he ought to return it to me. 
 
 Q. Did yon state that you bought it? — A. Yes, sir; if he was a mind 
 to give it to me, and it seems he decided to, by inclosing it to me. 
 
 Q. What I want to know is whether this transaction between you and 
 him had any real significance at all or whether it was a mere sham ? — A, 
 I think the amount of it was that if the lawsuit with McComb should 
 amount to anything he would not own the Credit Mobilier stock; that 
 he could call it mine or his, as he pleased. 
 
 Q. When tliese certificates were returned to you by mail, was it some- 
 thing that astonished you, or was it something you were expecting ? — 
 A. No; I was not expecting it. 
 
 Q. You say this transaction, when this nominal sum was repaid, was 
 as far back as 1868?— A. I think so. 
 
 Q. And you did not receive the certificates until March, 1872 ? — A. 
 That is my recollection. 
 
 ■ Q. Had you not pretty much given up expecting them? — A. I did not 
 look for them with a great deal of anxiety. 
 
 By Mr. Merrick : 
 
 Q. Do I understand you to mean to convey the idea that this form of 
 sale, for five cents, or whatever it was, was a mere nominal transaction, 
 and that you considered yourself really as still holding the stock in his 
 behalf? — A. I guess the receipt I gave hina was that he was to hold the 
 stock for me at the time the money was paid. 
 
 CJ. Was it understood between you that in case the suit should prove 
 disastrous you would be the holder of that for him ? — A. That was my 
 imi)iessi(m. 
 
 Q. It was therefore a device to avoid his being responsible for your 
 lawsuit? — A. I think it was mixed up with these malicious charges of 
 bribery which are made iu the suit of McComb. That is the origin of 
 this scandal. 
 
 (^. Do you mean that Mr. Allison demurred at the pecuniary respon- 
 sibility which might be involved in it, or to some charge of iinproi)riety ? — 
 A. Some charge ut impropriety, I supi)ose. 1 do not know his ideas any 
 further than that. 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 293 
 
 Q. Did this envelope in whicli you received the certificates by mail- 
 not also contain a check on 'New York ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you believe that this money dividend that had been paid to 
 Mr. Allison was ever repaid to you ?— A. I do not think it was. I have 
 no knowledge of it. 
 
 Q. I think his telegram says that he sent a check on New York with 
 the certificate ; was there any such check sent ? — A. Not in that en- 
 velope. 
 
 Q. Did you ever receive a check from him ? — A. Yes, sir ; but that 
 was in another matter. 
 
 Q. What was that ? — A. An operation I went into with him in 1865, 
 in Iowa, in the purchase of the stock and bonds of a failed road in 
 Iowa. 
 
 Q. And the check you received was to close that transaction ? — A. It 
 was on account of that transaction 
 
 Q. Had it any reference to this money paid to him as a dividend ? — 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 • Q. Have you any recollection or belief that that was ever repaid to 
 you in any form ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 The following memoranda from which witness testified in regard to 
 Mr. Allison was here placed in evidence : 
 
 W. B. A. 
 
 Dr. 
 1868. 
 April 24. To ten sliares Credit Mo- 
 
 T)ilier of America stock.. $1,000 
 Interest on same 47 
 
 Juno 19. To check 
 
 1,047 
 600 
 
 1,647 
 
 Cr. 
 1868. 
 Apiii 24. By dividend of Union Pa- 
 cific bonds, 80 per cent., 
 $800, at 97 per cent ... . $77G 
 
 April 24. By cash of him 271 
 
 June 17. By dividend received for 
 
 his account 600 
 
 1,647 
 
 Q. I think you stated before in your testimony that neither Mr. 
 Conkling, Mr. Fowler, nor Mr. Bayard, whose names have been men- 
 tioned in connection with this business, were ever holders of this stock? — 
 A. Not to my knowledge. I had nothing to do with it. 
 
 Q. Neither of them ever paid you anything, or ever received anything 
 from you ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Neither of them were ever holders of the Credit Mobilier stock to 
 your knowledge ? — A. Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Q. You have no information that they were"? — A. No, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman: 
 
 Q. In your letter of the 30th January, 1868, to Mr. McComb, you say, 
 " I have placed some in New York, or have agreed to ; " what was that 
 you placed in New York ? — A. Ilet Mr. Ham have some. 
 
 Q. The secretary of the Credit Mobilier 1 — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Is that all you refer to ? — A. That is all I did. 
 
 Q. You stated somewhere, I think, that there was one going to New 
 York ; who was that one you refer to ? — A. I did not let any go to New 
 York, except to Mr. Ham. 
 
 Q. You testified before in relation to the matter between you and 
 Speaker Blaine. You heard his statement, did you ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you wish to make any further statement in reference to the 
 transaction between you and him 1 — A. No, sir. 
 
294 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. Did he ever pay you anything ? — A. No, sir. « , 
 
 Q. You never paid him anything ? — A. I did not ; his name is not on 
 my books at all. 
 
 Q. There was a conversation between you, in reference to his becom- 
 ing the purchaser of Credit Mobilier stock, but it never amounted to 
 anything? — A. It did not. I looked the accounts over the other day, 
 and I do not find his name on my books at all. 
 
 Q. Then whatever was the talk between you in reference to this trans- 
 action, he never made any investment? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. And never derived any advantage from the conversation, or in 
 connection with Credit Mobilier stock in anyway? — A. No, sir; only 
 the advantage of being abused. 
 
 Q. Mr. Dawes, of Massachusetts, you stated, took some stock and 
 settled for it; if I understand you right, he paid you $1,000? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. Have you some memoranda of the date of that ?-^A. It was about 
 the time of the rest of them. 
 
 Q. Have you a memorandum of it ? — A. No, sir ,• I have not. I had 
 quite an account with Mr. Dawes ; he bought some bonds of me. I rec- 
 ollect he paid me four or five thousand dollars at one time. I invested 
 $1,500 in the Iowa Falls and Sioux City road for him. 
 
 Q. Did you ever receive any more than $1,000 from him to invest in 
 Credit Mobilier stock? — A. Not in Credit Mobilier stock; he had ten 
 shares of that. 
 
 Q. Did yon pay him any dividends ? — A. I think I did. 
 
 Q. Have you some memorandum account of that ? — A. I paid him 
 that $600 dividend in money. I paid him in part. He was owing me,, 
 and I paid him about $400, in settlement. 
 
 Q. The rest was applied to some other dealings between you and 
 him ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Can you tell us when it was that this' matter was adjusted and 
 ended between you and Mr. Dawes? — A. It was in December, 1868. 
 
 Q. He had already received his money from you by your accounting for 
 the balance of the $600 dividend; did he receive anything more ? — A. 
 He received the bond dividend, I suppose, like the rest of them. 
 
 Q. Were the bonds delivered over to him ? — A. I do not recollect. I 
 probably sold them, or delivered them over ; I do not know which. 
 
 Q. What became of the stock dividend of ten shares? — A. He did 
 not take it; he got frightened about Mr. Larned and the Duff Green 
 suit. 
 
 Q. That was to get the charter away ? — A. Yes, sir ; I settled with 
 him on the 9th December, 1868. 
 
 Q. If I understand you, in this conversation, or settlement, so far as 
 the Credit Mobilier stock was concerned he paid back his dividends, 
 receiving ten per cent, interest on his money. Do you agree that that 
 was the basis of the settlement? — A. That is my impression. 
 
 Q. I see, on this memorandum which you have here, $600 is charged 
 to Mr. Dawes; that is a dividend? — A. That is a dividend. 
 
 Q. It says less $200. — A. That he owed me on some other transaction. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Dawes receive any more on this investment except to 
 get his money ba'ck and ten per cent, interest on it ? — A. I think not. 
 I had a memorandum, but I destroyed the memorandum, I kept this 
 piece of paper, on which there is a note, which he gave me in the settle- 
 ment, in 1868. 
 
 Q. That settlement embraced other things besides this ? — A. Yes, sir.. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 295 
 
 Q,. And there was a balance due you on the settlement for which he 
 gave you his note ? — A, Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Please read the note.— A, It reads : '' Washington, December 9, 
 1868. For value received, I promise to pay Oakes Ames, or order, 
 $263.06, on demand, with interest. H. L. Dawes." 
 
 Q. Had you any detailed memoranda of the transaction between you 
 and Mr. Dawes ? — A. I had, but I gave it to him when I made the set- 
 tlement. 
 
 Q.* You believe that so far as your dealings are concerned with Mr. 
 Dawes, you settled, giving him 10 per cent, interest upon his invest- 
 ment, and nothing more "? — A, Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you any memoranda by which you can give us the date 
 when you received this $1,000 of Mr. Dawes? — A. I think in the mem; 
 oranda which I gave him he paid me about $800 on the 11th January, 
 1868, and the balance on the 14th or 15th of the same month, some four 
 or live days after. 
 
 Q. Was that the $1,000 you got, you think, in January, 1868, and 
 not all in one sum ? — A. K"o, sir ; in two sums. 
 
 Q. In regard to Mr. Garfield, state to the committee the details of the 
 transactions between you and him in reference to Credit Mobilier 
 stock. — A. I got for Mr. Garfield ten shares of the Credit Mobilier stock, 
 for which he paid par and interest. 
 
 Q. When did you agree with him for that ? — A. That agreement was 
 in December, 1867, or January, 1868 ; about that time ; about the time 
 I had these conversations with all of them. It was all about the same 
 time. 
 
 Q. State what grew out of it. — A. Mr. Garfield did not pay me any 
 money. I sold the bonds belonging to his $1,000 of stock at 97, making 
 $776. In June I received a dividend in cash on his stock of $600, which 
 left a balance due him of $329, which I paid him. That is all the trans- 
 action between us. I did not deliver him any stock before or since. 
 That is the only transaction, and the only thing. 
 
 By Mr. Merrick : 
 
 Q. The $329 which you paid him was the surplus of earnings on the 
 stock above the amount to be paid for it, par value ? — A. Yes, sir ; he 
 never had either his Credit Mobilier stock or Union Pacific Railroad 
 stock. The only thing he realized on the transaction was the $329. 
 
 Q. I see in this statement of the account with General Garfield, there 
 is a charge of $47; that is interest from the July previous, is it? — A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And the $776 on the credit side of the account is the 80 per cent, 
 bond dividend sold at 97 1 — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And the $600 on the credit side is the money dividend ? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. And after you had received these two sums, they in the aggre- 
 gate overpaid the price of stock and interest $329, which you paid 
 him ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. How was that paid 1 — A. Paid in money, I believe. 
 
 Q. Did you make a statement of this to Mr. Garfield ! — A. I presume 
 so ; I think I did with all of them ; that is my impression. 
 
 Q. When you paid him this $329, did you understand it was the bal- 
 ance of his dividend after paying for his stock ? — A. I supposed so ; 
 I do not know what else he could suppose. 
 
 Q. You did not deliver the certificate of stock to him? — A. No, sir; 
 he said nothing about that. 
 
296 CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Why did he not receive his certificate ? — A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. Do you remember any conversation between you and him in the 
 adjustnieut of these accounts ? — A. I do not. 
 
 Q. You understood that you were a holder of his ten shares ? — A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did he so understand it ? — A. I presume so. It seems to have gone 
 from his mind, however. 
 
 Q. Was this the only dealing you had with him in reference to any 
 stock ? — A. I tbiuk so. 
 
 Q. Was it the only transaction of any kind 1 — A. The only transaction. 
 
 Q. Has that $3l.'9 ever been paid to you"? — A. I have no recollection 
 of it. 
 
 Q. Have you any belief that it ever has ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you ever loan General Garfield $300 ? — A. Not to my knowl- 
 edge; except that he calls this a loan. 
 
 Q. You do not call it a loan ? — A. I did not at the time. I am willing 
 it should go to suit him. 
 
 Q. What we want to get at is the exact truth. — A. I have told the 
 truth in uiy statement. 
 
 Q. When you paid him $329, did he understand that he borrowed 
 that money from you 1 — A. I do not suppose so. 
 
 Q. Have you any belief now that he supposed so? — A. No; only from 
 what he said the other day. I do not dispute anybody. 
 
 Q. We want your judgment of the transaction. — A. My judgment of 
 the transaction is just as I told you. There was but one thing about it. 
 
 Q. That amount has never been repaid to you ? You did not suppose 
 that you had any right to it, or any claim to it ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You regarded that as money belonging to him after the stock was 
 paid for "! — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. There were dividends of Union Pacific Eaili-oad stock on these ten 
 shares'? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did General Garfield ever receive these ? — A. No, sir ; never has 
 received but $329. 
 
 Q. And that he has received as his own money ? — A. I suppose so ; it 
 did not belong to me. I should not have given it to him if it had not 
 belonged to him. 
 
 Q. You did not understand it to belong to you as a loan ; you never 
 called for it, and have never received it back ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Has there been any conversation between you and him in reference 
 to the Pacific stock he was entitled to 1 — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Has he ever called for it ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you ever offered it to him 1 — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Has there been any conversation in relation to it ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Has there ever been anything said between you and him about 
 rescinding the purchase of the ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock ? Has 
 there anything been said to you of its being thrown up, or abandoned, 
 or surrendered ? — A. No, sir; not until recently. 
 
 Q. How recently? — A. Since this matter came up. 
 
 Q. Since this investigation commenced? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Meeeick : 
 Q. Did you consider at the commencement of this investigation thaf 
 you held these other dividends, which you say you did not pay to him', 
 in his behalf? Did you regard yourself as custodian of these dividends 
 for him ? — A. Yes, sir; he paid for his stock and is entitled to his divi- 
 dends. 
 
CEEDIT MOBIUEE. 297 
 
 Q. Will the dividends come to liim at any time on his demand? — A. 
 Yes, sir, as soon as this suit is settled. 
 
 Q. You say that $329 was paid to him ; how was it paid ?— A. I pre- 
 sume by a check on the Sergeant-at- Arras. I find there are some checks 
 filed Y'ithout any letters or initials indicating who they were for. 
 
 Q. Have you had any correspondence, since this dividend was paid, 
 with him in regard to this matter ? — A. I do not know what matter you 
 refer to. 
 
 Q. If you had any correspondence between you I would like to see it. 
 — A. I have no copy of it. 
 
 Q. Have you the original ? — A. No, sir. Mr. Garfield showed me a 
 letter which he said he intended to inclose with some money sent me. 
 I did not know who the money came from. He showed me a letter 
 which he said he intended to have put in. I indorsed on the back of 
 that letter my reply. I just turned over the letter and wrote what I 
 wrote on the back of it, and let him have it. 
 
 Q. Your answer indorsed on the back of the letter was published in 
 the newspapers! — A. Y^es, sir. He published the letter, I believe. 
 
 Q. As published did they correspond with your recollection of the 
 papers as written ? — A. Yes, sir. I wrote it off hastily. He came to my 
 room and said he had been accused of all kinds of crimes and misde- 
 meanors. I told him I had made no such statement as he represented. 
 He wanted me to say in writing that I had not. I took his letter, which 
 he said he intended to have inclosed with the money, and wrote on the 
 back' of it that I had made no such statement. 
 
 Q. The published correspondence in the morning papers of the nexb 
 day is your recollection of what occurred "? — A. It agrees with my recol- 
 lection, except that he says he left a letter for me at the Arlington. I 
 never received that letter. I only saw the letter on which I indorsed 
 my answer. 
 
 Q. Did he inclose the money ? — A. Some money came to me inclosed 
 in an envelope which he said he had sent. I gave it back- to him. 
 
 Q. How much money was in that envelope '? — A. Four hundred dollars. 
 
 The following memorandum refered to by witness as a statement ot 
 his account with Mr. Garfield was placed in evidence : 
 
 J. A. G., Dr. 
 
 1868. To 10 shares stock Credit Mobiler of A $1, 000 00 
 
 Interest - - - 47 00 
 
 June 19. To cash - 329 00 
 
 1,376 00 
 
 Cr. 
 1868. By dividend bonds. Union Pacific Eailroad, $1,000, 
 
 at 80 per cent, less 3 per cent $776 00 
 
 June 17. B V dividend collected for your account 600 00 
 
 1, 376 00 
 
 Q. Do you desire to make any additional statement in regard to Mr- 
 Kelley ?-r-A. No. Mr. Kelley's transaction was about the same as that 
 of Mr. Garfield. 
 
298 CREDIT SIOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Give the details of it and whether he agreed to take some stock. — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What amount 1 — A. One thousand dollars. 
 
 Q. Was that about the beginning of this same session of 1867 or 
 ISfjS?— A. I think so. 
 
 Q. Did he pay you anything ? — A. No, sir ; it was the same as Mr. 
 Garfield's — the same transaction precisely; he was to have ten shares. 
 
 Q. Tou received the bonds and sold them, and did you receive the 
 mohey dividends also ■? — A. Yes, sir, and paid him over $329. 
 
 Q. The transaction in the amount and in its detail was the same as 
 that of General Garfield ? — A. Precisely. 
 
 Q. Can you give us the date of that? — A. I saw the check for that, 
 with the initials " W. D. K." written, in the Sergeant-at- Arms' room. 
 I put in the initials of his name in the check which is dated the 23d of 
 June, and it was for the payment of that money dividend. 
 
 Q. He had the money for it ? — A. I suppose so. I found it then taken 
 up by the Sergeant-at- Arms and charged to me. ' 
 
 Q. You delivered the check to Mr. Kelley? — A. I presume so. 
 
 Q. When he received that check from j'ou did he understand that 
 that was the balance of his dividend after paying for his stock 1 — A. I 
 suppose I gave him him a statement as 1 did the others. 
 
 Q. Did you think he understood that that was a loan from youtohim, 
 that he borrowed it of you? — A. I do not think so ; still, I have loaned 
 money to Mr. Kelley several times. He said the other day that I loaned 
 him $1,000. I loaned him $750 the 27tli September, and I think it 
 probable he put that with this $329, to make the $1,000. I think he 
 has it in his mind that he owes me $1,000. 
 
 The memorandum from which witness testified in regard to Mr. Kel- 
 ley is as follows : 
 
 W. D. K., Dr. 
 
 1868. To 10 shares stock Credit Mobilier of A $1, 000 00 
 
 Interest 47 00 
 
 January 19. To cash 329 00 
 
 1, 376 00 
 
 Cr. 
 
 1868. By dividend of bonds Union Pacific Eailroad 
 
 $1,000, at 80 per cent, less 3 per cent $776 00 
 
 June 17. By dividend collected for your account " 600 00 
 
 1,376 00 
 1868, September 29. To cash loan 700 00 
 
 Q. Do you think Mr. Kelley understood, when he received that check 
 from you, that that was the money he was borrowing from you 1 — A. I 
 did not think so ; you can judge as well as I can of it. 
 
 Q, Was anything said about its being a loan ? — A. Not that I know 
 of. 
 
 Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Kelley after that in refer- 
 ence to this transaction in Credit Mobilier stock? — A, Yes, sir; he in- 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 299 
 
 quired about the dividends, whether there were any more. I told him 
 there would not be any more until this suit was settled. 
 
 Q. Did you understand from that conversation that he considered 
 himself entitled to further dividends if there were any more made f — 
 A. I suppose so. 
 
 Q. Ton contiue to hold that stock for him ? — A. I do, and that is all 
 Mr. Kelley has received out of it, the $329. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Do you remember the date of that cash dividend? — A. About the 
 middle of June, 1 think. I deposited the iponey with the Sergeant-at- 
 Arms the 17th June, on which I drew these checks. 
 
 Q. That was the June dividend of 60 per cent, in cash ; where was it 
 paid ? — A. I received it in New York. 
 
 Q. Do you remember precisely when you received it? — A. The 17th 
 or 18th June. I presume one day before I brought it here. 
 
 Q. Will you now state the entire transaction with Mr. Scofield ? — 
 A. Mr. Scofield got frightened in some way, as he states, in relation to 
 his personal liability, and I settled the matter with him in the same 
 way. 
 
 Q. You had a conversation ^J'ith him about his taking some of this 
 stock ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. "Was this about the first of this same session do you think? — A. 
 Yes, sir: he gave me money and I gave him a receipt for it, and was 
 to get stock for him— $1,000. 
 
 Q. Can you give the date of that receipt? — A. I cannot ; it was about 
 the same as the rest, or a few days later ; I think it was in January that 
 he stated it, if I. recollect right. 
 
 Q. Did .you receive the bond dividend on that ten shares? — A. Yes, 
 sir ; I suppose so. 
 
 Q. How did you settle the matter with Mr. Scofield ? — A. I do not 
 recollect exactly how I did settle it ; I settled it up and we squared the 
 transactions. 
 
 Q. Mr. Scofield says you agreed to abandon thi§ contract about the 
 Credit Mobilier shares, and that he took other securities and invested 
 his money in them ? — A. Yes, he took some other bonds; he took some 
 Cedar Eapids bonds. 
 
 Q. We want to know just what this transaction was. — A. I do not 
 know that I can recollect accurately ; I think he received his first divi- 
 dends, an(\ that he never took his Credit Mobilier stock ; I gave him a 
 receipt for the money but he never had his stock ; I think I paid him 
 his dividend of $300, and that after that we settled up the matter and 
 I took it off his hands. 
 
 Q. How much did he make out of the $1,000 you received from him ? — 
 A. I don't recollect. I think he gave back the Credit Mobilier stock, 
 I think he kept the ten shares of Union Pacific Railroad stock. 
 
 Q. That he had received as a dividend ? — A. Yes, I think he kept that. 
 I think he did not make much more than that out of it. He may have 
 made' a part of the June dividend ; I do not recollect. He settled it up 
 and we squared the account. He agreed to take the stock originally 
 and gave me money to pay for it, but afterwards he declined to take it. I 
 think he took his bond dividends. I do not recollect how it was closed 
 up. There was no great deal of profit made by him beyond the ten 
 shares of Union Pacific Eailroad stock. 
 
 Q. HaVe you some memorandum of the dealings between you and 
 
300 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Mr. Scofield ! — A. I do not find any. I find the check wliicli I gave 
 him foi' ."i^GOO was dated the 22d of June. 
 
 Q. That you supposed to be a money dividend 1 — A. A money divi- 
 dend; yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You think you paid him the balance of the bond dividend? — A. I 
 think so, but how we settled up I not remember. 
 
 Q. And that he also received the $600 ? — A. Yes, I think he received 
 that ; my memorandum says so. 
 
 Q, But he concluded that he did not want the Credit Mobilier stock, 
 and the thing was closed up between you and him. Did he retain the 
 ten shares of Pacific Railroad stock? — A. I think so. 
 
 Q. Did he take more Pacific Railroad stock and Pacific Railroad 
 bonds? — A. No, sir; I do not think he did. 
 
 Q. Do you remember what amount of money he paid you, or you paid 
 him, when the thing was finally adjusted? — A. I do not. "We had other 
 transactions. I sold him other bonds — sold tiim bonds several times. 
 
 Q. In your settlement, you accounted ti rthe money you received from 
 him, and he accounted for the dividends he had received from you? — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Can you state whether he had the same advantage or benefit of 
 these dividends as though he had bee*i the owner of the stock, and 
 ■whether you accounted to him for them in the settlement you finally 
 made 1 — A. I know it was settled satisfactorily to both of us. I am 
 very sure he received Union Pacific Railroad stock, and that his return- 
 ing me the receipt for Credit Mobilier stock was considered the same as 
 paying me back the thousand dollars and interest. I do not recollect 
 how we did settle it. I know he returned me the receipt. 
 
 Q. You say you have no memoranda of this transaction ? — A. No, 
 sir; I have not. I looked for it but I could not find it. All I could find 
 in relation to this matter was the money he paid me to get the stock 
 with, and the getting of this dividend of $600. 
 
 Q. Have you looked in the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms to see 
 whether the matter was finally adjusted between you and him by check 
 through that office ?^A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you think it would be done in that way? — A. I have no recol- 
 lection what the balance was or how it was paid, whether I paid him or 
 he me. I have no recollection. I know we settled it up. 
 
 Q. The settlement with Mr. Scofield was on a different basis, then, 
 from your settlement with Mr. Kelley and Mr. Garfield which you pro- 
 duced here? — A. Yes, sir; Mr. Scofield paid me the monejj to get the 
 stock with, and in the settlement he did not take the stock and re- 
 turned the receipt. 
 
 Q. You considered that this ended all right and claim on his part to 
 the stock — that it was your stock ? — A. Yes, sir ; it was my stock. 
 
 Q. And he took something else in lieu of his money ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Can you tell when this final settlement occurred between you and 
 Mr. Scofield ? — A. I cannot. I think it was before the adjournment of 
 that session of Congress, or else it was immediately after we came to- 
 gether the next session. I think we did not adjourn until late in July, 
 1868, and I think it was closed before that session ended. 
 
 Q. Mr. Bingham gave you the details of a transaction between you 
 and him in regard to the Credit Mobilier stock; was his statement sub- 
 stantially accurate? — A. Yes, sir; his statement was substantially cor- 
 rect, and 1 have nothing to say in relation to it, except that he, got me 
 mixed up with his Nevada Mining Company, which I had nothing to 
 do with. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 301 
 
 Q. You received $2,000 from him to invest in Credit Mobilier stock •?— 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. He received the entire dividends on that stock? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. The statement he gave of the account between you in his testi- 
 mony is astatement of all that he received ? — A. He has received all that 
 he was entitled to, and his statement is correct, except in one particular, 
 and that I do not suppose he claims he did not receive. 
 
 Q. What is'that? — A. When I came back here he wanted the stock 
 sold. 1 advised him not to sell it ; that it would bring more. He said 
 he wanted it closed up. We looked at the price-current in New York, 
 (I refer now to the Union Pacific Eailroad stock which he had received, 
 or was to, as dividends on his Credit Mobilier stock.) I told him I would 
 keep his stock until it brought a better price, and that whenever I did 
 sell it I would pay him the difference. 1 think our settlement was made 
 at 19 for the stock. When I sold it it had risen in price, so that I made 
 for him about $800 more, which I paid to him as the difference. I did 
 this at my own instance. I did not want him to sacrifice the stock, and 
 kept it for him. 
 
 Q. When you sold his stock, you accounted to him for $800 more? — 
 A. Yes, sir; that was something like a year later. 
 
 Q. Who do you consider the 20 shares you received back from Mr. 
 Bingham' in your settlement with him as now belonging to ? — A. The 
 stock belongs to me. 
 
 Q. It was understood, when you made the settlement, that he had no 
 further claim onthestock? — A. Yes, sir; that was the end of it. Ibought 
 his stock back of him, and settled the whole thing. 
 
 Q. But he had the benefit of all the dividends between the time you 
 received this money and the time the thing was settled ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Were you present when J. F. Wilson made a statement before the 
 committee the other day ? — A. I was. 
 
 Q. Have you anything to say in reference to that statement of Mr. 
 Wilson, in which you differ from it? — A. No, sir; that agrees with me 
 exactly. 
 
 Q. You wish to make no qualification of it? — A. None whatever. 
 
 Q. The whole transaction was stated by him as it occurred ? — A. Yes, 
 sir ; that is all square. 
 
 Q. There is one gentleman whose name appears on this list about 
 whom as yet no inquiry has been made ; that is Mr. Painter. — A. I sup- 
 pose Mr. Painter had a right to buy it if I chose to sell it to him. He 
 was not a member of Congress. 
 
 Q. Did he buy it ?— A. Yes. 
 
 Q. And paid for it ? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. And got the dividends ? — A. Yes, 
 
 Q. And owns it now? — A. I suppose so. I hope he has sold it at a 
 good i)nce. 
 
 Q. At the time of this transaction, when you were making these con- 
 tracts for the sale of Credit Mobilier stock to various members of Con- 
 gress, was there anything pending before Congress, on which legislation 
 was desired or expected in reference to the interests of the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad Company ? — A. No, sir. Nothing was expected, and nothing- 
 wanted, and nothing asked for. 
 
 Q. In one* of your letters there is some allusion to "Washburn's 
 move." That letter, I think, was late in January, 1808. What move of 
 Washburn did you refer to? — A. I gave jou a little slip yesterday ; that 
 I suppose was what I referred to. C. 0. Washburn made a move some- 
 where about that time to regulate the rates of traffic over the road. 
 
302 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Have you examined to see when that subject was started in Con- 
 gress ? — A. No, sir ; I have not. 
 
 Q. Is that the thing you refer to in your letter as " Washburn's 
 move 1 " — A. I presume so ; I do not know of anything else. 
 
 Q. Was that resolution or bill of Mr. Washburn's, looking to the pas- 
 sage by Congress of some law regulating the rate of charges of the 
 Union Pacific Railroad, introduced or pending in Congress at the time 
 of this transaction ? — A. It may have been ; I dou't know. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether it was or not? — A. I do not know. I 
 wish the resolution of Mr. Washburn had been passed ; we could then 
 get a great deal larger rates over the road than we do now. 
 ! Q. Did you want it passed then? — A. No, I thought it was improvi- 
 dent and impolitic. 
 
 Q. You did not vote for it ? — A. I do not know whether I did or not. 
 I have given some foolish votes since I have been here, and I may have 
 voted for as foolish a thing as that. 
 
 Q. Have you examined to see how early in that session either of the 
 Washburns introduced anything into Congress with reference to the 
 Union Pacific Railroad ? — A. No, sir ; I have not. 
 
 Q. You think it was C. C. Washburn's resolution, or bill, about regu- 
 lating the freights or fares referred to in your letter to Mr. McComb ? — 
 A. I think so. 
 
 Q. You infer from that that it had been introduced earlier than the 
 date of that letter ? — A. Probably, or else I should not have written 
 about it. 
 
 Q. Was nothing said between you and any of these gentlemen, in any 
 of these negotiations, about that matter of Mr. Washburn? — A. No, 
 sir; with none of them. 
 
 Q. Had they any reference to it ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Was that a matter about which you who were interested in the rail- 
 road felt an interest, to pass it? — A. Not much; no, sir. I did not care 
 much about it. The road was being constructed then very rapidly. We 
 were employing all our means for the transportation of iron, ties, sup- 
 plies, and every kind of material, and it was very dangerous to take 
 freight or passengers over the road, and we did not want them. 
 
 Q. Can you tell whether the men who were regarded as the friends of 
 the Union Pacific Railroad voted for or against this resolution of Mr. 
 Washburn ? — A. I do not know anything about it. I don't think it ever 
 came to a vote. 
 
 By Mr. Mereick : 
 
 Q. In regard to these transactions with Mr. Painter, you say you let 
 him have how much Credit Mobilier stock? — A. Thirty shares. 
 
 Q. Was that on his application or your proffer ? — A. He said he had 
 been promised by parties fifty shares, and he claimed fifty shares instead 
 of thirty, but I hadn't it to give him. 
 
 Q. Did he say what parties had promised him ? — A. I understood him 
 that Mr. Durant, McComb, and Bushnell were some of these parties. 
 He was not promised by me. 
 
 Q. Did he say anything of the reasons why it had been promised ? 
 Did he say what he was to do ? — A. No, sir ; I have no knowledge of 
 that at all. ^ 
 
 Q. Your knowledge is the simple fact that he had been promised fifty 
 shares? — A. Yes; I think Mr. Painter stated that he had been promised 
 fifty shares ; but I could not give it to him. I had not enough to fill as 
 much stock as had been promised. I gave him thirty shares. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 303 
 
 . Q. He had the promise originally from Mr. Bushnell? — A. I think 
 from Mr. Bushnell and from Mr. Duraut, and I don't know but Me- 
 Conib. 1 know 1 did not promise it. 
 
 Q. Did he assign any reasons to you why you should give it to him, 
 beyond the naked fact that it had been promised 1 — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Was anything said in reference to his being concerned in or around 
 Congress, so as to make it desirable that he should be the owner of 
 this stock 1 — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did he pay you for it in the same way as those other gentlemen 
 did ?— A. He did. 
 
 Q. Did he advance any money, or pay it out of the dividends ? — A. I 
 do not know but he advanced some money, perhaps before he got the 
 $1,800 dividend. I presume he did. I should not have given him a 
 check for $1,800 unless he had previously paid me the difference be- 
 tween the 80 per cent, of the dividend and the par of the stock and 
 interest. 
 
 Q. Your transaetion with him was identical, in point of time, with 
 that of these other parties ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Had you ever any reason to suppose Mr. Painter held this stock 
 for the benefit of anybody else except himself? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You think, the transaction was on his own account and for his own 
 benefit ? — A. Yes ; that is my supposition ; I never heard anything else 
 suggested. 
 
 Q. Have you any reason to suppose he held it for anybody else ? — 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. NiblACK : 
 
 Q. In your letter of January 25, 1868, to Mr. McComb, produced in 
 his original testimonj^, to which reference has been made, you speak in 
 detail of the manner in which you were to distribute this stock by 
 States, and you say " One to Tennessee." Be good enough to state to 
 whom you had reference. — A. To Senator Fowler. 
 
 Q. You have stated this morning that he did not take any stock. — 
 A. No, sir ; he did not. 
 
 By Mr. Mbeeick : 
 
 Q. What is the aggregate of all the shares apportioned by you among 
 these gentlemen ? — A. I do not know. Mr. Wilson had twenty, Mr. Sco- 
 field ten, Mr. Patterson thirty, Mr. Painter thirty, Mr. Dawes ten, Mr. 
 Bingham twenty, Mr. Colfax twenty, Mr. Kelley ten, Mr. Wilson of 
 Iowa ten, Mr. Allison ten, Mr. Garfield ten. 
 
 Q. That foots up one hundred and eighty shares ; what did you do 
 with the residue of those shares which had been assigned to you and 
 Mr. Durant by the company ? — A. I let other people have them outside 
 of Congress. • 
 
 Q. Did anybody else from Tennessee take any of this stock before or 
 since ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You say that other parties outside of Congress have it 1 — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. Are there any other Government officials who had any ? — A. No, 
 sir; and I don't think I would ever sell anything to any Government 
 official or member of Congress again if I know it. 
 
 Q. You had not your experience at that time? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Mr. Boutwell's name was mentioned at one time; did you ever 
 have any negotiations with him ? — A. I had some talk with him. 
 
304 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. Did you make any arrangement with bim in regard to this stock ? — 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. How was the negotiation broken oil? — A. He declined to take it y 
 that is how it was broken off. 
 
 Q. Did he at any time agree to take it ? — A. No, sir ; he talked about 
 it, and I supposed at one time he would take it, but he declined taking it. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 22, 1873. 
 
 William B. Allison, United States Senator-elect from the State of 
 Iowa, having been duly sworn, made the following statement: 
 
 1 desire to state my recollection of my connection with the Credit 
 Mobilier. Mr. Ames aud myself had several conversations — perhaps 
 three or more — concerning the stock, I think beginning early in 1867. 
 He was very largely interested in Iowa railways at the time, and I had 
 frequent conversations with him about general railway matters in Iowa. 
 I said to him at one time, in some of these conversations, that I did not 
 know but I would take an interest in the Credit Mobilier, if he was at 
 liberty to sell me the same number of shares I had in what was origi- 
 nally an authorized branch of the Union Pacific Eailroad, and afterward 
 called the Sioux City and Pacific Eailroad, in Iowa, being fifty shares, 
 of $100 each. Mr. Ames said to me that, if I desired it, he thought there 
 would be no trouble in getting the stock. The matter passed along, 
 without anything more than casual conversations, until, I should say, 
 the winter or spring of 1868, when he told me he thought he could let 
 me have either ten or twenty shares. I said to him that I would see 
 further about it. 
 
 After some time, Mr. Ames sent me ten shares of Credit Mobilier 
 stock and ten shares of Union Pacific stock, with some memorandum 
 containing a statement showing that the stock was nearly full-paid by 
 the proceeds of sales of bonds which were accretions upon the stock. 
 This statement disclosed, I think, a small balance due upon the stock. 
 How this balance was paid, I do not now remember. I received a divi- 
 dend of $600 in June, 1868, in the form of a check on the Sergeant-at- 
 Arms of the House, which seems to have been placed to my credit with 
 him on the 28th day of June, and dated June 20. About this time, I 
 think, I stated to Mr. Ames that I was not certain whether I would 
 hold the stock. He said, " Very well ; if you do uot wish to hold it, you 
 can return it to me at any time." 
 
 Mr. Ames seems to have some statement here which, I think, is not 
 correct in one particular ; it may be in others. Very little more, if any- 
 thing, was said until the winter of 1868, when I returned to Washing- 
 ton. I then said to Mr. Ames that I would not hold the stock, aud 
 gave my reasons therefor, which he mtiy recollect, or may not. This 
 was when I returned to Washington, in the fall session of 1868-69; at 
 least when I saw him on my letnrn, perhaps not the first day or the 
 first week of the session. He s^id, very well ; that I could return it to 
 him. The matter was not finally adjusted, however, until February, I 
 think, 1869, when 1 included what was the dilference between the divi- 
 dend and the amount unpaid on the stock when sent to me in a check, 
 which I drew to his order on New York, which also included another 
 matter, and which was paid to him. 
 
 1 have had a conversation with Mr. Ames in relation to this, and he 
 says he does not recollect that the dividend was included. I recollect 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIER. 305 
 
 very distinctly that it was so intended by me, and, I think, so stated to 
 him at the time. My recollection is very distinct, because in that check 
 I made up to Mr. Ames all the money that he had at any time paid me. 
 At this time the stock, with other papery, was in the city of New York. 
 I offered to give him an order for it. He said that was not necessary, 
 as the stock was already in his name, and he could draw dividends upon 
 it without reference to whether he had the certificates in his possession, 
 and that I could return him the certificates at my convenience. He has 
 stated to me that I then gave him a receipt that I held the stock for 
 him. That I have forgotten. He m^y be correct. From that time 
 forward I have no recollection of paying any attention whatever to this 
 stock, and I did not consider that I had any interest in it. After con- 
 siderable time, I returned the original certificates to Mr. Ames. I know 
 1 must be right in reference to this date when it was finally understood 
 that I should have nothing more to do with the shares, and I think Mr. 
 Ames must have so understood it, because, although there were frequent 
 dividends on the stock, Mr. Ames did not notify or say to me that there 
 were such dividends, or make any further allusion to the transaction, 
 and I never received but one dividend, which I have already referred to, 
 of $600, Mr. Ames has some account about the stock, of which I know 
 nothing. 
 
 I desire to say, in addition to this, that, having made this adjustment 
 with Mr. Ames, I received no i)rofits, and realized nothing whatever 
 from the transaction in any manner. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 Question. Mr. Ames produced this morning the envelope in which the 
 certificates were inclosed to him by you, and stated that his recollection 
 was that he received the certificates at a later date, some time last fall, 
 instead of March 31, when the envelope was post-marked. — Answer. I 
 do not know what Mr. Ames's impression is about it. I should have 
 said it was in 1871. If he has the envelope post-marked the 31st of 
 March, I presume that is the date. It was after I went out of Congress. 
 I had a number of papers relating to other matters in New York, and 
 when I returned home I carried them on with me. Some time afterward, 
 in looking them over, I found these certificates, and I immediately re- 
 turned them to Mr. Ames. I have no recollection of sending any other 
 letter to Mr. Ames since March, 1871, and I presume, therefore, that 
 date is correct. The committee will understand my statement that, since 
 1869, I have had no interest in or interest to inquire about this Credit 
 Mobilier in any manner, or in the Union Pacific Eailroad stock arising 
 therefrom. ^ 
 
 By Mr. MERRICK : 
 
 Q. Your original arrangement with Mr. Ames was in January, 1868 ? 
 — A. No ; I should say now, having the dateS, that it was at a later 
 period. I had no particular arrangements with Mr. Ames. I should 
 say that the ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock were sent to me in April 
 or May, 1868. 
 
 Q. While you were here in Congress?— A. Yes ; I was here in Con- 
 gress ; but in April and the first half of May engaged in the Treasury 
 Department nearly all the time with a sub-Committe of Ways and Means, 
 preparing tax-bill, and seldom in the House. 
 
 Q. You then received the two dividends spoken of ? — A. No, sir ; I 
 never received but one dividend. 
 
 Q, Was that a money dividend?— A. That was a money dividend. 
 20 X 
 
306 CREDIT MOBILIEB. 
 
 Q. That was in June, 1868 ? — A. It seems to be ; Mr. Ames's check is 
 dated Juno 20 ; I see his memorandum makes it the 19 th ; I must have 
 received it between the 20th and 25th of June ; I do not precisely un- 
 derstand the memorandum of Mr. Ames; there seems to have been an 
 omission of a dividend ; there was a dividend made between January, 
 1868, and the time when that memorandum was made, as I under- 
 stand it. 
 
 Q. A dividend in money ? — A. No, sir ; in stock and bonds. 
 
 Q. Here is a statement of the first stock dividend on the credit side 
 of your account with $776, the net proceeds of the bonds. — A, The com- 
 mittee may call that a dividend ; I do not so call it, because I did not 
 receive it ; Mr. Ames sent me this Credit Mobilier stock, but he did 
 not hand me any dividend, except the one I have spoken of. 
 
 Q. Did you pay him any money except the $271 on account of that 
 stock ? — A. I have no recollection of paying him the difference ; that I 
 should rather have said I did not pay him ; but he says I did, and there- 
 fore I will not say that 1 did not, but do not knOw the amount. 
 
 Q. This account of his, corresponding with his accounts given in re- 
 lation to others, was in substance that he contracted for $1,000 of Credit 
 Mobilier stock, which he sold to you for par and interest from July, 
 $1,047 ; that he credited you with the bond dividend of 80 per cent., 
 which he sold at 97, netting $776 ; and that he received from you cash 
 $271; that he then paid you in June afterward a dividend of $600, 
 cash, and paid you the first dividend by way of crediting it on your 
 purchase- money"? — A. I understand that to be his statement. That 
 statement of course I know nothing about. I only mention the fact that 
 these two classes of stock were sent to me. It may be that I paid Mr. 
 Ames $271. Until to-day I should have stated that my belief was that 
 the balance due in the purchase of the stock was taken out of the $600 
 dividend, but he may be correct, and I think now he is, except as to 
 amount. 
 
 Q. Did you apply to him originally for stock, or did he propose to 
 you to take it? — A. I could not say in reference to that. Senator 
 Grimes and myself were living together at the time. Senator Grimes 
 had considerable interest in it, and Mr. Ames and 1 had frequent con- 
 versations about Iowa roads, and undoubtedly about this. I could not 
 say whether he proposed to me to take it, or whether I asked him. At 
 that time, I mean in 1867, I did not conceive there was anything im- 
 proper in my holding it. 
 
 Q. Were you cognizant of any agitation in Congress, during that 
 winter, in regard to the Union Pacific Eailroad Company 1 — A. No, sir, 
 I was not. 
 
 Q. "Were you aware of any movement by Mr. Washburn 1 — A. There 
 may have been movements made by Mr. Washburn, but I do not remem- 
 ber when they were made; certainly not at the time we were having 
 these conversations. 
 
 Q. Was your mind ever directed to the fact that his movements bore 
 upon the Credit Mobilier stock ; that the interests of the stockholders 
 were involved in any way in his movements or contemplated move- 
 ments 1 — A. It may have been. I cannot say whether it was so or not 
 at this distance of time. 
 
 Q. You do not know whether these matters were presented to your 
 mind at that time ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did these agitations in Congress, and agitations in reference to this 
 supposed lawsuit, have any influence, controlling or otherwise, in your 
 abandonment of the purchase ? — A. No, sir. I think they had no in- 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 307 
 
 fluence over my inind at the time. I do not think I knew that Mr. 
 McComb had a lawsuit until I saw the publication in the newspapers 
 during the campaign last fall. 
 
 Q. Why did you abandon the purchase ? — A. The chief reason was 
 that I owned a little stock in a branch road, the Sioux City and Pacific 
 Railroad, in my own State, and was for a time a director. Friends and 
 enemies criticised my owning stock in that company, and 1 thought it 
 was not worth while to have this little matter of ten shares of stock in 
 this company. I know very little about it, especially in reference to 
 its profits. That was the motive that influenced me chiefly. 
 
 Q. It was public criticism upon your ownership in another company 1 — 
 A. It was brought immedi ately to my attention in that way. My con- 
 stituents seemed to think that it was better for me not to hold any 
 of that sort of stock. 1 therefore desired to obey them in this regard, 
 as they had just re-elected me to Congress. 
 
 Q. Your attention had not been called to any positive actual impro- 
 priety in holding this stock ^nring the session of Congress, commencing 
 December, 1867 1 — jA. No, sir ; I do not think it had. I do not think 1 
 regarded it as improper. I will say, as you have reached that point, 
 that the only legislation I know of in leference to the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad during that period was in 1869, when I was a member of Con- 
 gress, and that I understood to be in the nature of restrictive legisla- 
 tion. I know that those who had criticised the management of the 
 Unipn Pacific Eailroad voted for this legislation, as well as the friends 
 of the road. 
 
 Q. You had parted with your interest in the Credit Mobilier at that 
 time? — A. Entirely. I had no interest whatever. I remember that 
 Mr. Washburn, who was not understood to be especially friendly to this 
 road, voted for that proposition. The legislation which occurred in 
 1871, to which I haves seen reference made, passed the House while I 
 was out on a conference committee, in connection with Mr. Eandall, 
 of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio, so that I did not vote 
 upon that proposition. 
 
 By Mr. McCeary : 
 
 Q. You told Mr. Ames that you would return him the stock. At the 
 time you told him that, you had concluded not to take it ? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Can you give us the conversation that occurred at the time! 
 Can you state what Ames said about it, and whether he said anything 
 about buying it back from you 1 — A. He did. He said, " I will buy 
 the stock back again." I said to him that I did not wish to sell it ; 
 that I would return it. 
 
 Q. Please state all that occurred in that conversation. — A. I remem- 
 ber it very well. He threw down something of mere nominal value, 
 and said, " I will buy it of you." I replied, " You may call it what you 
 please, Mr. Ames." 
 
 Q. Did you suggest to him the propriety of the re-sale, or did he 
 suggest it to you 1 — A. I am entirely sure that he suggested it to me- 
 I had no idea of a re-sale, because I had never considered that I ha4 
 the stock. 
 
 Q. Mr. Ames has left the impression, perhaps, that that was a mere 
 ruse, so that; the stock might be considered yours in c^se the litigation 
 turned out favorably to the Credit Mobilier, but not otherwise. I want 
 to ask you about that.' — A. That could not be true, and Mr. Ames could 
 not have so understood it, I think, from anything that was said. 
 
 Q. What was said about that litigation at the time? — A. I do not re- 
 
308 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 member. Mr. Ames may have said to me that there was some litigation 
 about the stock, or about the railroad, but it made no impression upon 
 me as having anything to do with our transaction. It had nothing to 
 do with my resolution to return the stock in any way. 
 
 Q. You had made up your mind after your re-nomination to return 
 it ? — A. Yes. 1 had a contest in my re-nomination, and a contest in 
 my re-election, in which the whole matter of the Sioux City Railroad 
 was the chief topic of discussion. I held debates during the canvass 
 with my competitors, in which that was the chief topic ; and, believing 
 that it was a wise thing not to be interested in any matter that would 
 be questioned before my constituents, this stock was never taken nor 
 held by me, except as stated heretofore. This contest, I will say, began 
 early in 1868, when the newspapers began to assail me as to the impro- 
 priety of my holding an interest in the Sioux City and Pacific Eailroad. 
 I thought, as I said, that it was a prudent thing to have no interest in 
 these matters ; and I want to say that I have no interest in any matter 
 covertly that I am not willing the public, at any time, should know all 
 about. 
 
 Q. Your recollection is distinct that that contest and the matters 
 growing out of it, and not the litigation with Mr. McComb, instigated 
 and induced you not to take the stock? — A. lam very clear in that 
 statement. 
 
 Q. And I understand, also, that your recollection is very clear that 
 you did not intend to hold on to this stock in any event, after the con- 
 versation you had with Mr. Ames ?— A. Very clear, if you allude to''the 
 conversation in 1869. ' 
 
 Q. Was anything said by you, or by Mr. Ames, to that effect? — A. 
 Nothing in any way to indicate any intention that I should hold the 
 stock, either by him or by me. On the contrary, I must have given him 
 distinctly to understand that I had no desire to be connected with it ; 
 and he must have so understood it, I think, at the time. 
 
 Q. I do not know whether you have stated the date of that conversa- 
 tion between you and Mr. Ames or not, in which you would not take 
 the stock ? — A. We had more than one conversation in reference to that 
 subject. I could not give the exact date. The last one was about the 
 time this check was given, in February, 1869. 
 
 Q. Why did you not return the certificates to him at that time ? — A. 
 The certificates had been transmitted to New York, and were in New 
 York with a considerable number of other papers. As I stated, I 
 offered to give Mr. Ames an order for these certificates, and he said 
 that was Bot necessary, as the stock was already in his name on the 
 books of the company, and he could draw the dividends; that I could 
 hand him the stock at my convenience. 
 
 Q. The certificates remained there until you returned with your pa- 
 pers to Dubuque ? — A. Yes ; when I left Congress I took all the papers 
 to my home, and afterward returned this stock to Mr. Ames. 
 
 Q. You seem not to have written him any letter at the time you re- 
 turned the stock. — A. I am not certain about that. I do not recollect 
 whether I wrote him anything or not. I should say there was some 
 memorandum connected with it, but I would not be certain with refer- 
 ence to that. I should say that I wrote him a note suggesting the fact 
 that I returned him the stock. What I have stated in relation to this 
 whole affair is from memocy, without memoranda before me, except as 
 to the check, and not having charged my mind with the details, I may 
 be in error as to some of them. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 309 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 22, 1873. 
 K, G. Oedway sworn and examined. 
 By Mr. Colfax : 
 
 Q. Ton are Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives ? — A. 
 Tes, sir. 
 
 Q. You have accounts with members from time to time ? — A. I keep 
 an account of their pay and mileage, which is a record of the Govern- 
 ment. I also keep a set of . books for deposits, in which I enter the 
 accounts of money which members may have in my possession — a pub- 
 lic and a private account. 
 
 Q. Have you examined my account during the year 1868? — A. I 
 glanced over it this morning. 
 
 Q. In your public account did you find any entry besides salary and 
 mileage ? — A. The public account books are filed in the Treasury Depart- 
 ment at the close of every Congress. 
 
 Q. In your public account there could not be anything except pay and 
 mileage'? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. In my private account do you find any deposit of $534? — A. I 
 glanced over your account to see if there was anything except your sal- 
 ary and mileage, but I did not find anything else. 
 
 Q. That is an account of my private deposits ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Mr. Ames deposited in 1868 a large sum of money with you, upon 
 which he drew checks ? — A. I have not looked at Mr. Ames's accounts 
 carefully enough to know that. I understand there was some amount 
 deposited. 
 
 Q. There have been some checks on that deposit signed by Mr. 
 Ames? — A. Yes; he drew more than his salary and mileage considera- 
 bly that session. 
 
 Q. Are these checks generally indorsed by the person who is to get 
 the money ? — A. Some of them are indorsed. Where one member gives 
 a check to another, we do not require usually an indorsement, when it 
 comes directly from the hall. When it comes through an outside party, 
 we always require an indorsement. 
 
 Q. Mr. Ames testified to-day in regard to a check given by him to Mr. 
 Allison; was that check indorsed? — A. My impression is that it was 
 not. I looked them over twice with Mr. Ames and once with Mr. 
 Allison. 
 
 Q. Did you see any of those checks drawn in June, 1868, that were 
 indorsed ? — A. I noticed one or more that were indorsed. 
 
 Q. By members ? — A. By members ; one was by a Senator. 
 
 Q. Did you see any check there to me ! — A. I saw a check with the 
 letters " S. C," which Mr. Ames wrote down on a memorandum or piece 
 of paper, opposite your name. 
 
 Q. "S. 0. or bearer?"— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. How much was that check for? — A. My recollection is that it was 
 for $1,200. 
 
 Q. Is there any indorsement on it? — A. I think not. 
 
 Q. Do you remember ever having paid me any draft or check from 
 Mr. Ames f — A. I have no such recollection, and I would not be likely 
 to have, because I do not usually pay out the money or receive it 
 myself. 
 
 Q. Who does pay it out generally ? — A. The paying-teller. The ar- 
 rangement in my ofSce is, now, that he receives*all the money aud pays 
 it oat. . 
 
 Q. What is the name of your paying- teller? — A. N. A. Fuller. 
 
310 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. Was he your paying- teller in 1868 ?^A. Not in 1868. 1 think 
 Thomas P. Cheney was then acting in that capacity, with my son, 
 George L. Ordway, as assistant. 
 
 Q. Were there any other checks drawn by Mr. Ames, payable by ini- 
 tials? — A. I think there were some. 
 
 Q. What vrere the initials 1 — A. I do not recall any of them now ; I 
 know there were initials on others. 
 
 Q. This amount was not placed to my credit as a private deposit, 
 and, therefore, if paid, must have been deposited or gone elsewhere? — 
 A. Yes, sir; I looked specially at your account this morning, for the 
 purpose of ascertaining that fact. My attention was called to the sub- 
 ject only a few moments ago. I have not looked at the day-book; noth- 
 ing of the sort appears upon the ledger. 
 
 Q. Who is your book-keeper ? — A. Moses Dillon. He has occupied 
 that position ever since I have occupied mine, except for a few months. 
 
 Q. Has he said anything to you on this subject! — A. He did say 
 something when I came in this morning ; I do not remember what it 
 was. It was nothing to your injury, I can assure you. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. You have no personal recollection about these matters? — A. Not 
 the least. 
 
 Q. This check would not have been likely to have been paid by you, 
 whoever it was paid to? — A. No, sir; I refrain from handling money. 
 I think it is better that one person should do it, and be responsible. 
 
 By Mr. Colfax : 
 
 Q. Do you know where Mr. Cheney is now ? — A. He has charge of the 
 special railway mail-service of the New England States, with his head- 
 quarters at Boston. 
 
 Q. You never heard from him that he paid me any money ? — A. No, 
 sir; the subject was never called to my attention until recently. 
 
 By Mr. McOrary : 
 
 Q. A check of that kind would be paid to whoever presented it ? — 
 A. If it was an outside person who presented it, we should require an 
 indorsement or an identification. All we want is to be sure that we are 
 paying the money to the right person. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. This check which you looked at is payable to " S. C. or bearer?" — 
 A. Yes, sir ; it is one of our ordinary checks, sighed by Oakes Ames. It 
 was filed away after the close of the business of that session with all 
 the other checks, and has so remained until within a few days. 
 
 Q. And is charged to Mr. Ames on his account ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. COLFAX : 
 
 Q. If he had drawn it himself, it would be charged to his account in 
 the same way ! — A. If he had drawn it, it would be charged in the same 
 yfaj. It is a common thing for parties drawing a check to pay for a 
 draft to write in some,thing to indicate the purpose for which it is 
 drawn. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 311 
 
 Washington, January 22, 1873. 
 
 John B. Alley recalled and examined. 
 By Mr. COLPAX : 
 
 Question. Ton may remember that I said last September in a speech 
 at South Bend that I had never received a dollar of dividends of any 
 kind from the Credit Mobilier. Now, I would like you to state what 
 Mr. Ames has said to you as to his recollection and mine in regard to 
 this matter; whether. they agree or disagree. — Answer. Mr. Ames stated 
 to me before he went home — I think it was — that your statement was 
 substantially in accordance with his. Upon reflection, I find that your 
 statement was made on the 7th of January, after his return here. He, 
 therefore, could not have alluded at that time to your statement before 
 this committee. He must have alluded to your statement to him in 
 conversation. 
 
 Q. But that the statement I made in conversation accorded substan- 
 tially with his 1 — A. I understood there was no substantial disagree- 
 ment. I am not quite certain now whether it was before or immediately 
 after you made your statement here. I supposed he had conferred with 
 you. I had never had any conference with you upon the matter. 
 
 Q. Mr. Ames testifies that he had some conversation with me early 
 in the session, and that he made some statement before this committee 
 based upon this conversation. He told you that the statement made 
 to him accorded substantially with his recollection ? — A. That is my 
 impression. I do not know particularly about it. 
 
 By the Ghaieman : 
 
 Q. That was before the recess ? — A. It must have been, because there 
 certainly was a disagreement afterward. I did not regard it, and I did 
 not suppose he regarded it, however, as any substantial disagreement 
 even after the recess. 
 
 Q. There appears to be a substantial disagreement now ? — A. Yes ; 
 quite different from what I supposed. 
 
 Q. Did Mr, Ames on that occasion go on to make his statement to 
 you of the facts in relation to his dealings with Mr. Colfax ^ Did he 
 undertake to narrate how the thing was? — A. ISTo, sir. 
 
 Q. He merely said that he had had a conference with Mr. Colfax, and 
 that they substantially agreed 1 — A. Yes, sir. It must have been pre- 
 vious to the recess, because I remember now that it was in the presence 
 of his counsel, Mr. McMurtrie, who came here to look after his interests 
 in connection with the Pennsylvania suit, and he has not been here 
 since the holidays. 
 
 By Mr. Meeeick : 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Ames, when speaking of the substantial agreement be- 
 tween himself and Mr. Colfax, refer to any special statement in which 
 there was this coincidence, so that you could identify the special cor-- 
 respondence he referred to ! — A. I do not think he did. He was talking 
 with the counsel and myself, speaking of the gentlemen who were im- 
 plicated, and I remember his making that remark. Mr. Ames has told 
 me since that when he went home and refreshed his recollection by his 
 memoranda-books, &c., he found some things a little different from 
 what he supposed when he gave his testimony. Whether that included 
 Mr. Colfax or not, I do not think he stated. 
 
 Q. His first statement was given from general recollection, without 
 reference to memoranda ? — A. I understand so. 
 
312 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 22, 1873. 
 'Matthew G. Emery sworu and examined. 
 By Mr. Merrick : 
 
 Question. I will ask you if you had any communication with Senator 
 Patterson in reference to any purchases or negotiations that he was 
 making, or proposed to make, of stock of the Credit Mobilier? — Answer. 
 Some two or three years since, perhaps two years, he called to see me 
 to procure my indorsement of a note to enable him to raise money, as 1 
 understood, to purchase stock of Mr. Ames in the Union Pacific Rail- 
 road. I cannot recollect the exact time. By reference to our tickler, 
 the note-book of the bank, I notice that I indorsed a note for $4,000 for 
 him, which was discounted the 19th of February, 1870, and which he 
 paid on maturity. 
 
 Q. Was that the only negotiation or loan ? — A. I think I have in- 
 dorsed notes for him two or three times before; I am not sure. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect the amounts of these notes or indorsements ? — 
 A. About the same amounts, perhaps from $2,000 to $4,000. I am not 
 sure of the amounts. 
 
 Q. Did you make any indorsement for any such sum of money in the 
 year 1868 ? — A. That was prior to the date I named, and I do not think 
 that note was discounted in our bank. He may have used it in Mr. 
 Kelly's bank. When it was I cannot tell you. 
 
 Q. Did he afterward speak with you in reference to the disposition 
 he had made of that loan? — A. Some months afterward, perhaps a 
 year, on his return to the next Congress, I asked him how his specula- . 
 tion in railroad stock had turned out. He said "Very well ;" that " it 
 was a very good thing." 
 
 Q. Did he speak of having received dividends ? — A. It is my impres- 
 sion that he did not ; I am not sure ; I know he told me it resulted very 
 well. 
 
 Q. Can you give us now, or hereafter by reference to any memoranda, 
 the date of the earlier loan of which you speak ? — A. If it was dis- 
 counted in the Metropolitan Bank, I might ; I do not know that I could 
 by any record of my own, 
 
 Q. Was anything said between you and him with reference to Credit 
 Mobilier stock at alH — A. Not at that time. 
 
 Q. At any time ? — A. Since this investigation has been going on, I 
 met him, and he asked me if I had any recollection of his ever saying 
 anything in regard to his owning Credit Mobilier stock ; I told him I 
 had not ; my impression at the time he borrowed the money was, that it 
 was to purchase Union Pacific Eailroad stock. 
 
 Q. As I understand you, both ,of these loans had reference, as you 
 understood, to the purchase of railroad securities ? — A. No, sir ; I do 
 not know in reference to that, and I cannot say whether the one I have 
 named was for that purpose, or the previous one. 
 
 Q. Did you negotiate a loan in the National Bank of the Republic for 
 $3,000 f— A. No ; I did for $4,000, the 19th of February, 1870. 
 
 Q. The other you suppose to have been negotiated at the National 
 Metropolitan Bankf — A. I presume so. 
 
 Q. Did he or not inform you at the time he negotiated the first loan 
 that he wanted to purchase of Oakes Ames stock in a company for 
 building the Union Pacific Railroad? — A. My recollection is that he 
 said Union Pacific Railroad stock. At that time I did not know that 
 there was any other company for the purpose of building that road. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 313 
 
 Q. Did he mention to you at any time the amount of dividends that 
 he had received ?— A. I do not know that he ever did. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect what Mr. Patterson said to you when he first ap- 
 proached you in reference to this loan of $3,000 1—A. I do not know 
 that he gave any intimation of what it was for. 
 
 Q. Did he mention Oakes Ames's name in connection with it 1 — A. He 
 stated, in connection with one of the loans, that it was to purchase some 
 railroad stock of Mr. Ames. 
 . Q. Did he say anything about Mr. Ames having made a good invest- 
 ment for him ? — A. I do not recollect as to that. 
 
 Q. Did he s^y anything to you about being able to get more than the 
 cost of the stock within a short time 1 — A. No, sir. I have heard from 
 him or somebody else — perhaps since this thing has been broached — 
 within a year, that- he received dividends upon the stock. I do not 
 know that he did. I have no personal knowledge at all. I never saw 
 him with any of the stock, or with anything pertaining to it. 
 
 Q. Of the two loans you aided him in, one was negotiated at the Bank 
 of the Metropolis in 1571, and the other at the National Bank of the 
 Republic in 1871 ? — A. I do not know the date of the one at the National 
 Bank of the Metropolis. 
 
 Q. And you cannot, from your memory, state whether it was Credit 
 Mobilier stock or stock to build a. railroad that was mentioned? — A. No, 
 sir ; I recollect nothing of the kind at all as to the Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 24, 1873. 
 
 Oakes Ames recalled and examined. 
 
 By Mr. Kelley : 
 
 Question. I understand from your testimony day before yesterday that 
 you hold as my property ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock? — Answer. 
 Tes, sir. 
 
 Q. Will you be good enough to tell me when that became my prop- 
 erty ? — A, That became your property when you paid for it. When I 
 paid you $329 in June, 1868. That is the way I considered it. 
 
 Q. About what date was that ? — A. About the middle of June. 
 
 Q. Have tfiere been any dividends declared upon these shares since 
 June, 1868?— A. ~5r:es. 
 
 Q. Will you be good enough to state in their chronological order 
 what dividends have been declared? — A. I cannot. They were in certi- 
 ficates, in bonds, and in Union Pacific Eailroad stock. 
 
 Q. Have yoi;t them to my credit ? — A. I hold them for you. 
 
 Q. Then you cannot tell me what property of mine you have in your 
 bands ? — A. I can state that I have ten shares of Credit Mobilier and 
 ten of Union Pacific Eailroad stock. 
 
 Q. At Avhat time did they come into your hands as my property ? — A. 
 The ten shares of Union Pacific Eailroad stock came into my hands 
 some time in February, 1868 — in January or February of that year. 
 
 Q. If there are any assets, and if there have been dividends declared 
 since then, in stocks or bonds, please give them to me in their chronolo- 
 gical order. — A. I cannot tell you just what they are now. I have not 
 the record here. There are two or three dividends, I think. 
 
 Q. Can you swear that you hold property for me, and yet cannot tell 
 
314 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 what it is ? — A. I cannot tell you without looking at my memoranda 
 showing when I received the stock. 
 
 Q. State as near as you can from memory, to be corrected frgm your 
 memoranda. — A. I should say I hold forty or fifty shares Union Pacific 
 Railroad stock for you and ten shares Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
 Q. Anything else? — A. I think 1 also have some certificates for first- 
 mortgage bonds. The company were not able to get the bonds and ex- 
 changed them for income-bonds about a year afterward. 
 
 Q. About how much ? — A. 1 cannot recollect the amount. 
 
 Q. Has there been any interest paid on any of this property of mine'? 
 — A. No, sir ; it is drawing no interest. 
 
 Q. Is there interest due you ? — A. No ; you paid for your stock and 
 there is no interest due me. 
 
 Q. Is there any interest due to me ? I want to know, simply, what 
 I am worth in this world. — A. I cannot state to you now what is due 
 you. I will give you a statement. 
 
 Q. How soon can you furnish that list to the chairman of this com- 
 mittee — a list of property of mine now in your hands ! — A. I think I can 
 get the data to furnish it to-day or to-morrow. 
 
 Q. How did I pay for this Credit Mobilier stock 1 — A. In the first 
 place, you were to pay me $1,000, and interest from 1st July, 18G7, for 
 the stock. 
 
 Q. Did I ever offer to pay you a dollar of money ? — A. No, you never 
 offered to pay me a dollar of money, but I did you. Do you deny it ? 
 
 Q. Did I ever ask you for an investment in Credit Mobilier stock or 
 anything else, or did you invite me to accept it ? — A. I do not remem- 
 ber which way it was originally. I know you agreed to take it, and did 
 take the dividends up to June. 
 
 Q. Do you remember meeting me in front of the Ebbitt House, on 
 the south side of F street, near 14th, where I joined yon casually that 
 evening, as you seemed to be waiting for a car; wheo you rallied me 
 about having become rich enough to throw away $1,000 for a subscriiJ- 
 tion to the Credit Poncier? — A. No, sir; I do not remember that. 
 
 Q. Do you remember saying to me, after explaining that that would 
 be a losing investment, and after being assured by me that I had no 
 money to invest in any way, do you remember saying you could, as a 
 friend, put me in the way of an investment that would probably be 
 real, and have some profit in if? — A. I remember having some such 
 conversation about it. I cannot tell where it was. I ki^w there was 
 a conversation. 
 
 Q. Were not you and I members of the n.ational republican executive 
 committee, meeting together as such frequently that year ? — A. I be- 
 lieve so. 
 
 Q. Did I ever ask you for an investment, or about any investment ? — 
 A. I have no recollection of any investment except this thing. 
 
 Q. What I want to ask is, whether I was seeking for an investment 
 and whether I suggested it? — A. I do not know whether you came to 
 me or I to you. 
 
 Q. Then I want to ask you whether you ever loaned me any money ? 
 
 The Witness. At what time ? 
 
 Mr. Kellet. At auv time preceding this transaction ? 
 
 A. I think I did. 
 
 Q. Did you not loan it to me because I told you of my extreme em- 
 barrassment? — A. I do not recollect. I loaned you $500 previous to 
 this, and you repaid it. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 315 
 
 Q. Did you loan uie any other sum ?— A. I have let you have some 
 since. 
 
 Q. Did you not swear day before yesterday that you had also let me 
 have $7001— A. I said I let you have $750. 
 
 Q. And $700 ?— A. No ; $750. 
 
 Q. I was not here to hear your statement, but I understood that you 
 stated both $700 and $750.— A. No; $750 ; nothing else. That was the 
 27th September. 
 
 Q. Ton state that you loaned me $500 previously. Did you subse- 
 quently let me have the amount of $1,000 1 — A. No. 
 
 Q. You were mistaken, then, on the 16th December last, in saying that 
 you had loaned me $1,000? — A. I took it from you. You thought it 
 was $1,000. You told me previous to this investigation that you had a 
 thousand-dollar loan from me. I was willing to have it go in that way. 
 I could not remember. I thought your memory must be better than 
 mine. 
 
 Q. How soon can you deliver me the ten shares of Credit Mobilier 
 stock which you say are mine 1 — A. I am ready to deliver it now, and 
 you can have the dividends. (Witness here laid upon the table a certifi- 
 cate for ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock.) 
 
 Mr. Kblley. You will please hand that to the chairman of the com- 
 mittee to be retained by him for my use, and please make me a state- 
 ment of the dividends due me as soon as you can. — A. Very well. But 
 if you do not own this stock, I do not see that you are entitled to any 
 dividends. 
 
 Q. But you say I do own it, and am entitled to the dividends, and 1 
 wish to have a list of them as soon as you can furnish it. — A. Very 
 well ; that is what I agree to perfectly. (Certificate of stock referred to 
 was then indorsed for transfer and handed to the chairman.) 
 
 Q. Then when I shall have received, or the chairman shall have re- 
 ceived for me, all the dividends due me, will I, or will I not, be your 
 debtor, in any sum or any account whatever ? — A. Then $750 you owe 
 me will be in part payment of what I am to deliver, I suppose. 
 
 Q. That is what I want you to state. I want to know whether, when 
 I have received all the dividends due on my stock, I shall be your debtor, 
 personally. — A. If you receive all the dividends you will owe me $760. 
 
 Q. Do I understand that the ten shares Credit Mobilier stock are paid 
 for?— A. Yes. 
 
 Q. How paid? — A. Paid by the profits of the bond-dividend of Feb- 
 ruary, 80 per cent., and by the cash dividend of June, leaving $329 due 
 you, which I paid you. 
 
 Q. You appropriated these two dividends, then, for the payment of 
 the stock 1 — A. Certainly ; did you not so understand ? 
 
 Q. That is what I want to understand; that is what' I am trying to 
 get at now in the presence of witnesses. You have sold the bonds which 
 you say were mine, and have appropriated a certain amount of cash 
 which you say was mine. Do I understand you that I still owe you for 
 the stock"? — A. No, you do not owe me for the stock. The stock has 
 been paid for out of these dividends, as I stated. When all of the divi- 
 dends shall have been turned over to you, you will then owe me the $750" 
 loan. 
 
 (The chairman here explained to Mr. Kelley his understanding of the 
 witness's statement.) 
 
 Q. I think I now understand it, then. If you turn over all the divi- 
 dends except that which was applied to the purchase of that Credit 
 
316 CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Mobilier stock, I will, according to your account, then owe you $750 ? — 
 A, Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Mr. Ames, did you ever baud me a check marked " W. D. K. ?" — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You did"?— A. Yes, sir; I did. 
 
 Q. Did you hand these other gentlemen whose names have been men- 
 tioned as receiving them such checks ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Were there other checks in which the initials were written in other 
 than those of W. D. K. and S. C, to which you have sworn ? — A. Yes, 
 sir ; I think so. ■ 
 
 Q. How many were marked with the initials 1 — A. I cannot tell you 
 how many were marked ; I think J. F. Wilson indorsed his check ; I 
 think Mr. Patterson indorsed his, and I do not know but some others. 
 
 Q. Did I indorse mine? — A. No, sir; I don't say you indorsed yours ; 
 you don't deny getting the $329 1 
 
 Mr. Kelley. I am not denying anything now ; I am asking you 
 questions. 
 
 The Witness. What, then, is the use of disputing about it, if you 
 don't deny it 1 
 
 Testimony of Mr, Kelley : 
 
 Mr. Kelley. I want to state to the committee that I do deny ever 
 having received such a check, and I deny it under the responsibility 
 of the oath I gave the other day, with a new affirmation, if you desire 
 it. I say, in reference thereto, that I don't believe I received it; I can- 
 not remember having received it ; to the best of my knowledge and be- 
 lief I did not receive it; and I add that I always thought it strange 
 that, whatever I did receive from Mr. Ames, which I regarded in the 
 shape of loans, was received in money, and not by check to my order 
 or payable on demand. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. In your statement to the committee, if I remember right, Mr. 
 Kelley, you stated you had borrowed a thousand dollars of Mr. Ames, 
 and that you still owed him 1 — Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 I Q. Is it your recollection that you received the whole of the $1,000 at 
 one time? — A. Ou the contrary, I have said, in the presence of other 
 persons, that Mr. Ames gave me a round sum, which purported to be 
 the money that he had about him, and that on the next day, or a few 
 days thereafter, he handed me the remainder of the $1,000. 
 
 Q. Have you any memorandum of the transaction in any way 1 — A. I 
 have not. I relied on Mr. Ames as a creditor keeping the account. 
 Unhappily, I keep no books of my own. 
 
 Q. I think you stated the other day that you had no recollection about 
 the time f — A. I cannot tell you about the time. I said the other day 
 substantially this : The question was put to me whether the loan had 
 any reference to the Credit Mobilier transaction. I replied that I would 
 not undertake to state what was passing in my mind at a time so far dis- 
 tant ; that if it was between the period at which Mr. Ames had proposed 
 to carry ten shares of this stock for me, and the time he gave me notice 
 that it was off — that it could not be done ; it probably had reference to 
 that transaction — that if it was after that, it could not have hacl any 
 reference to it. I think that will be found to be substantially the an- 
 swer I gave to that question, and so I say to-day. Of course, I do not 
 undertake to judge what may have been passing in Mr. Ames's mind 
 on the subject. 
 
 Q. You think the amount of money you received from Mr. Ames was. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 317 
 
 in all, a round thousand dollars ? — A. It was a round thousand dollars ; 
 that is what I believe 1 had from him, and I have stated that I received 
 it from him on two different occasions, and I now think I received these 
 amounts on two successive days. 
 
 Q. Can you state, in reference to the division of the amount, as to 
 how much you received at one time and how much on the other ? — A. 
 My recollection is that the amounts received were $700 and $300. 
 
 Q. Can you state which amount you received first ? — A. Seven hun- 
 dred dollars first. 
 
 The chairman inquired of Mr. Ames whether he desired to further 
 examine Mr. Kelly. 
 
 Mr. Ames here handed to Mr. Kelley what seemed to be a written 
 momorandum. 
 
 Mr. Kelley. Mr. Ames asks me, on this paper, whether he shall put 
 certain questions to me. It is not for me to say what he shall or shall 
 not ask. 
 
 Mr. Ames. You have made it very important for me to ask you fur- 
 ther questions. I have made my testimony heretofore as favorable to 
 you as I could. I now ask you whether you have not come to me re- 
 peatedly, often, and wanted to know when you should get any more 
 dividends on that stock ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did I not give you the $750 on account of dividends received on 
 your stock ? — A. I did not so understand it. 
 
 Q. Did you give me any receipt or voucher for that $750 ? — A. I do 
 not think I did. 
 
 Q. Did you for the $329 °^— A. I think not ; nor for the $500 1 received 
 previously. 
 
 Mr. Ames. Yes, you did ; you gave me a note for it, which matured, 
 and you paid it off before this tran-saction. You do not recollect any of 
 these circun'istances ? — A. No, I do not recollect it. My recollection is 
 very distinct, as I stated the other day, of going to Mr. Ames after his 
 failure and expressing to him my regret that, as I was as much embar- 
 rassed as I had been when I borrowed it, I was unable to return him 
 that $1,000, and of his saying that that $1,000 would not affect him 
 much ; that although they had squeezed him pretty tight, he thought 
 he would not be seriously injured. 
 
 Q. You say now that you recollect no conversation in which you 
 wanted to know when you were to get any more dividends on that 
 stock ? — A. In such conversations I recollect asking you in regard to 
 your personal assets, as to how they were coming on. 
 
 Q. You have no recollection, then, of asking me when you were to 
 get other dividends on that stock ? — A. No, sir ; not in reference to my 
 interests. 
 
 Q. What was said when you asked me for $750 1 — A. Upon my word 
 I cannot tell. I had asked you a little while before to loan me $1,000,* 
 and you gave me what you had about you, and, I think the next day, or 
 within a few days afterward, you gave me the balance of it. 
 
 " Q. I gave you $750 ?— A. $750, you say ; $700, 1 say. 
 
 Mr. Ames. I do not know that this is at all important, but you asked 
 me when there would be more dividends on that stock, and I told you 
 that there had been dividends, but that they were tied up with the 
 McComb suit. 
 
 Ee-examination of Mr. Ames. 
 
 By the ChAIKMAN : 
 Q. Let me ask you a question in relation to your interrogatories to 
 
318 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Mr. Kelley. They seem to imply that he called on you from time to 
 time to know if there were more dividends on his Credit Mobilier 
 stock ? — A. Yes, sir ; he did. 
 
 Q. At what time was that ; was it after the $329 was paid 1! — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. Subsequently to that date you say Mr. Kelley came to .you and 
 made these inquiries 1 — A. He did ; yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And more than once, you say 1 — A. Yes, sir. On one of these 
 occasions, when he asked me, I told him there was a dividend declared, 
 and I let him have $750, which I considered on account of the dividends; 
 and I took from him no note, voucher, or receipt. 
 
 Q. You kept a memorandum of it ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. The $329 you let him have was the balance due him after paying 
 for the Credit Mobilier stock, and you say that was paid by a check 
 on the Sergeant-at-Arms ? — A. Yes, sir ; payable to W. D, K., or bearer. 
 , Q. Was that the only check you gave him on the Sergeant-at-Arms ? 
 — A. 1 thinkit was. 
 
 Q. The other payments were directly to him in money ? — A. I think 
 so ; it may be by check on some bank, I do not know what bank ; and 
 I do not know whether on some bank or on the Sergeant-at-Arms ; I 
 have no recollection. 
 
 Q. When he called on jon to know if there were more dividends and 
 stock, did you tell him there were dividends on the Union Pacific flail- 
 road stock, &c. ? — A. Yes, sir ; I presume so. The reason they were 
 not turned over to him was in consequence of this suit. 
 
 Q. From your statement Mr. Kelley must have understood that he 
 was the owner of the stock and entitled to dividends on it ? — A. He so 
 considered it; at least I presume he did. I never heard anything to the 
 contrary until the other day. I had always considered it as his stock. 
 
 Q. How recently do you think you had any conversation with Mr. 
 Kelley on this subject before the present session ? — A. At every session 
 since, and a number of times he has asked me when that thing was 
 going to be settled, and when we could get our dividends. 
 
 Q. He knew, then, from your statement that you were holding some 
 Union Pacific Eailroad stock for him 1 — A. I presume so ; I have no 
 reason to think he did not. 
 
 Q. i)id jou tell him so ? — A. I told him so when I made the first 
 statement, and he knew that subsequent dividends were made. 
 
 Q. When he spoke to you about dividends did you tell him there had 
 been stock ^dividends upon the Credit Mobilier stock ? — A. Yes, sir ; 
 tlie stock dividends were within a few months of that first transaction 
 when I paid him the $329. 
 
 By Mr. Mbkeiok : 
 Q. The payment of the $329 was before the $750 ?— A. Yes, sir ; the 
 $750 was in September afterward. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 24, 1873. 
 
 L. L. Ckounse sworn and examined. 
 
 By Mr. Colfax : 
 Question. You are acquainted with Mr. Ames ? — Answer. Yes, sir. 
 Q. Have you had any conversation with him in reference to the charges 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIER. 319 
 
 growiug out of this investigation "?— A. Yes, sir; quite a number of 
 conversations. 
 
 Q. How many altogether ?— A. I would not like to state the exact 
 number, because it is my habit, in "pursuit of information under difti- 
 culties," to confer with him almost every day. 
 
 Q. Would you say five or six at least during the session '? — A. Yes, 
 sir ; I would say at least that. 
 
 Q. Do you remember having any conversation with Mr. Ames about 
 the time of the holiday recess, or when Congress re-assembled f — A. I 
 remember having had a conversation with him ; I think it was the 7th 
 of January. 
 
 Q. In that conversation, did you allude to the statement sent by the 
 Associated Press in regard to the testimony given by me on the 7th of 
 January? — A. The circumstances of that conversation were about these: 
 The House ordered the testimony taken by this committee to be made 
 public. The order was made Monday, the 6th of January. I believe it 
 was the next day that you made your statement. I think it was the 
 afternoon of that day, afteryour statement had been made, that I had a 
 casual conversation with Mr. Ames at his seat in the House. 
 
 Q. Did he say he had heard the statement made by me under oath ? — 
 A. I think he did; my recollection is not absolutely distinct as to 
 whether he said he had heard your statement ; but, as I alluded to it, I 
 naturally inferred that he had. 
 
 Q. You are certain it was the afternoon of the next day, after the 
 House re-assembled, on the 6th of January 'i — ^A. Yes, sir ; I am quite 
 certain as to tliat. 
 
 Q. What did Mr. Ames say about the matter in regard to my state- 
 ment? — A. We had a general conversation about your statement, and 
 there were other matters that entered into the conversation. I called 
 his attention to the fact that your statement did not entirely agrecwith 
 his testimony in the beginning. In response to that, he made a general 
 remark that he had made no record of these matters ; that he had always 
 carried them in his head, as it vrere, and that Mr. Colfax was probably 
 correct. These were about the words I understood him to use. 
 
 Q. He said he had no record in this matter at all ! — A. He said this, 
 as I recollect now : that he had never kept any record ; that was the 
 point, as I understood him — that he carried thefee things in his head. 
 
 Q. You are certain that he used the remark that he carried these 
 things in his head ? — A. He certainly did. He used these words, that 
 he " carried these things in his head, largely." 
 
 Q. Did he say anything. about having heard this testimony of mine? — 
 A. No, sir ; I do not think he did. 
 
 Q. What were the words he used ? — A. I cannot say that with abso- 
 lute positiveness; my recollection is that he stated Mr. Colfax was 
 " probably correct." I think " probably correct" were the two words 
 he did use. 
 
 Q. Did he say anything about the mistake in regard to the $1,200 
 dividend he had paid me '? — A. No, sir ; he did not say anything about it. 
 
 By Mr. AMES : 
 
 Q. Do you say I said that Mr. Colfax's statement was substantially 
 correct ; did I tell you anything of that sort I — A. I think you did, or 
 that his statement was probably correct. That is what I understood. 
 
 Mr. AjMBS. I said nothing of the kind. 
 
 The Witness. Then I must say I shall have to withdraw my confi- 
 dence in some statements made in regard to others. I so understood 
 
320 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 you, and the statement made such an impression upon my mind that I 
 alluded to the fact that night in my dispatches. 
 
 Q. In the dispatches you sent to the Times the other night, did you 
 state what had transpired in this committee ? — A. I do not know which 
 dispatch you refer to. 
 
 Q. I refer to the dispatch of the Washington correspondent in yester- 
 day's paper. They are in direct contradiction tp the testimony before 
 this committee. If that is the character of your statements they ought 
 not to have any authority with anybody. — A, There may possibly be 
 an error there. I have only to say, if you impugn that dispatch, that 
 only yesterday you were kind enough to say that my dispatches in the 
 Times had been very fair. 
 
 Mr. Ames. Some of them, I think, have been, but that one yesterday 
 is very unfair and very untruthful. And as to my saying that Mr. Col- 
 fax's testimony was correct, it is utterly untrue ; I could not have said so. 
 
 By Mr. Colfax : 
 
 Q. Was it in consequence of that dispatch sent the 7th of January 
 that I asked you in a casual conversation what Mr. Ames had said ; and 
 did I not show yoa that dispatch in the Times a few days afterward ? — 
 A. I think, about a week after that, when I called with a friend at your 
 room, after my friend had finished his call upon you, you directed my 
 attention to this dispatch. 
 
 Q. Have you that dispatch with you? — A. I have a dispatch cut 
 from the Times, sent the evening after my conversation with Mr. Ames. 
 
 Q. Will you present it to the committee ? — A. I will read the para- 
 graph to which you refer, and which alone has reference to Mr. Colfax, 
 without reading the whole dispatch. It is as follows : 
 
 " Mr. Colfax appeared before the committee to-day, and made a very 
 clear and explicit statement regarding his part in the matter, by which 
 it appears that he pocketed a loss of $500 as the result of his negotia- 
 tions, and that when he found the company was likely to be involved 
 in a lawsuit he thought the matter one in which he ought to have no 
 part. Mr. Ames's testimony, as published, does not accord in all re- 
 spects with this statement of Mr. Colfax ; but the former, in conversa- 
 tion to-day, says that his own memory is not clear in regard to this 
 transaction, and he has no doubt Mr. Colfax is entirely right." 
 
 Q. That was sent the evening after your conversation with Mr. 
 Ames ? — A. Yes, sir ; the conversation occurred in the afternoon. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. This conversation was at Mr. Ames's seat in the House. Did you 
 understand Mr. Ames to say that he had no memorandum in regard to 
 these matters, or that he did not have any when he testified 1 — A. He 
 did not make any explicit statement in regard to that, except that he 
 had carried these things in his head ; that he did not have any record, 
 by which I inferred that he did not make them a matter of absolute 
 record as he, would general business transactions. 
 
 Q. In what he said to you about vouchers did you understand Mr. 
 Ames to mean that he had none, or that he had none when he gave his 
 .testimony before "? He had already testified some time before. — A. I did 
 not use the wordi" vouchers." 
 
 Q. Memorandum, then ? — A. I am not sure about " memorandum." 
 I think the word " record " was used. - 
 
 Q. Did you understand it to refer to his not having kept any, or his 
 not having any with him, when he made his statement "? — A. I inferred 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 321 
 
 from what he said that he had not kept any record of the transaction , 
 that is, any general positive record, such as he would in dealing with 
 somebody he had not entire confidence in. 
 
 Q. You understood that this transacton rested very largely in his 
 memory ? — A. Yes, sir ; that is my impression. 
 
 Q. What is your best recollection of the precise words Mr. Ames used 
 in speaking of Mr. Colfax's statement? — A. My best recollection -of the 
 precise words is, that he used the words "probably correct;" he con- 
 veyed the impression upon my mind that he yielded the uncertainties 
 which were in his mind upon the subject to the positive statement of 
 Mr. Colfax. 
 
 By Mr. Banks : 
 Q. Did Mr. Ames say that he believed Mr. Colfax's statement was 
 substantially correct as to the facts of the case, or as Mr. Colfax under- 
 stood the facts ? — A. I cannot say whether I drew the one inference or 
 the other from what he said in regard to that. 
 
 By. Mr. Ames: 
 
 Q. You knew I had testified before I went home, and that I then tes- 
 tified I thought Mr. Colfax had taken 20 shares of stock, paid for it, and 
 received the dividends; that I stated that without reference to any 
 memorandum, before I went home °l — A. I had read your testimony ; I 
 so understood it. 
 
 Q. Did I say my testimony was wrong, and that Mr. Colfax was right, 
 or anything of that sort 1 Did I give you to. understand that I changed 
 my testimony at all ? — A. If I recollect rightly your testimony in regard 
 to several of the members was much less clear than it appears to be 
 now, and yet I will say that I was not aware at the time of this conver- 
 sation that you thought you had any new evidence upon the subject, or 
 that you had refreshed your memory in anyway. It did not seem from 
 anything you said to me that you had received any new light, but, on 
 the contrary, you expressed a good deal of doubt upon the subject, as 
 you did in several other conversations. 
 
 Q. Did you infer from anything I said that I wished to change in any 
 respect my statement made in relation to Mr. Colfax before I went 
 home? — A. No; I cannot say that your conversation conveyed that 
 impression to me, but that, there beiug some discrepancy between you 
 and Mr. Colfax, you were willing, api)arently, to waive your recollection 
 for his. 
 
 Ee-examination of Mr. Ames, : 
 
 Mr. Ames. I had not any conversation with Mr. Crounse such as he 
 states. I did not say any such thing as he says I stated. 
 
 . By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Do you think there was anything said to you about Mr. Colfax's 
 statement that day? — A. I do not recollect that there was. I do not 
 think there was a word said about Mr. Colfax. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect where that conversation was, whatever it was ? — 
 A. He has spoken to me several times about the testimony here. I 
 have refrained from saying much about it to anybody outside. As well 
 as I can remember, I said nothing to him of the kind he has stated 
 here at all. 
 
 Q. You knew that Mr. Crounse was a newspaper reporter ? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 21 X 
 
322 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 By Mr. Kelley : 
 
 Q. Do the ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock, which you have placed 
 with the chairman of the committee, subject to my order, bear any pro- 
 portion to the dividends on what has been spoken of here as the Oakes 
 Ames contract? — A. Yes, sir; your stock draws the dividends of the 
 OaTies Ames contract, and nothing else. 
 
 Q. These shares are entitled to whatever dividends were made on any 
 stock 1 — ;A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Then the statements you are to send to the chairman in my behalf 
 will be the inventory of the dividends declared on the Oakes Ames con- 
 tract, of my stock 1 — A. It will. I shall take great pleasure in sending it. 
 
 Mr. Kelley. Mr. Chairman be kind enough to retain them subject 
 to my order, as I do not wish them ever to come into my hands. 
 
 Ee-examination of John B. Alley. 
 
 By Mr. Colfax : 
 
 Q. Day before yesterday you stated that in a conversation with Mr- 
 Ames he said to you that his recollection and mine accorded substan- 
 tially, but that you thought that was before the time I gave my testi- 
 mony the 7th of January. Can you tell me about thetime it was you 
 had this conversation ? I do not mean the exact day, but as near as 
 possible, within a week or ten days. — A. I could tell you, of course, 
 within a week. It was near the time of the adjournment for the holi- 
 days. I think it was in the presence of the counsel of Mr. Ames. 
 
 Q. "Will you repeat again, as near as you can, what he said at the 
 time ! — A. He said his impression was — of course he depended very 
 much upon his memory at that time — but his impression was that there 
 was no such irreconcilable difference ; that was the idea conveyed to my . 
 mind — no such irreconcilable difference or conflict in the testimony that 
 it could not be reconciled. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Mr. Ames was speaking to you of a conversatiou with Mr. Colfax,, 
 not about his testimony? — A. Yes, sir; of a conversation. 
 
 Q. I will read your statement on the subject yesterday. You say "Mr. 
 Ames stated to me before he went home, I think it was, that your state- 
 ment was substantially in accordance with his. Upon reflection, I find 
 that your statement was made on the 7th of January, after his return 
 here ; he therefore could not have alluded at that time to your statement 
 before this committee. He must have alluded to your statement 
 in conversation." You do not there use the words "irreconcilable dif- 
 ference," but you said that his statement was substantially in accordance 
 with your recollection now ? — A. Yes, sir; that is about what he said. 
 
 Ee-examination of Oakes Ames. 
 
 By Mr. CoLFAX : 
 ■ Q. When I testified the 7th of January, and had closed all my state- 
 ment, and asked Mr. Ames to cross-examine me, why did not you cross- 
 examine me then in regard to ray statement that I had received no divi- 
 dend? — A. I did not want to contradict you. I was in hopes the thing 
 would never be brought up again. I did not want to have it appear that 
 there was any conflict between your testimony and mine if I could 
 avoid it. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 323 
 
 Q. Yon knew that I had received your $1,200 check ! — A. I did know 
 it. 
 
 Q. Why did yon not at that time expose me ? — A. You knew of the 
 check. 
 
 Q. I stated in my examination the 7th of Jannary that " a few weeks 
 or months after this I heard a rumor that unpleasant controversies ex- 
 isted among the largest stockholders, which were certain to involve 
 the organization in prolonged litigation. The very day I heard this 
 rumor I told Mr. Ames that no profits present or prospective could in- 
 duce me to buy into a lawsuit ; that 1' had never been, during all my 
 life, a plaintiff or a defendant in a court of justice." 
 
 What do you say in regard to that statement ? — A. I do not know 
 whether you said that or not. I cannot say. You might have said it. 
 You certainly received the $1,200. Didn't you receive it? 
 
 Q. I did not. Did you not tell me that very session there were un- 
 pleasant differences existing among the larger stockholders? — A. I 
 think it very likely. That suit of McOomb's was probably what I re- 
 ferred to. 
 
 Q. At what time was that suit brought '? — A. I think it was probably 
 btought in July. 
 
 Q. Mr. McComb testifies thai; it was brought in November. — A. Then 
 it was in November. I do not know whether Mr. McComb testified 
 correctly about that or not. My impression is that it was in July. If 
 it was in November, then the conversation must have been after Novem- 
 ber. I had no controversy with any one but McComb. 
 
 Q. Here is what Mr. Blaine testifies to on that subject: "I desire 
 further to state that, some time in the spring of 1868 — the precise date 
 I will not affirm — Mr. Oakes Ames asked me, one day, if I would like 
 to purchase some stock in the Credit Mobilier. He said it would prove 
 a good investment, and he could sell me ten shares of the stock at a 
 rate somewhat above par ; I think some $1,060 for the ten shares. We 
 had some conversation in regard to the matter, and Mr. Ames told me 
 very frankly that, in regard to these shares, there was a lawsuit either 
 pending or threatened, though he said his right to sell the shares was 
 perfect and undoubted. I concluded that I did not desire to purchase 
 the stock, and therefore declined Mr. Ames's offer." You stated here, 
 to the chairman, that you agreed, substantially, to Mr. Blaine's state- 
 'ment? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Was it correct, as he states, that, in 1868, you told Mr. Blaine 
 this lawsuit was pending ! — A. I cannot say as to that. 
 
 Q. But you say you did not state that to me until t^e next session ? — 
 A. I did not say anything of the sort to you. 
 
 Q. Do you now say that the memorandum from which you testified 
 day before yesterday, in regard to your transactions with me, is an ex- 
 act copy of your private memorandum-book 1 — A. I think so. 
 
 Q. Do you know that you saw that memorandnm-book when you 
 went home f — A. Y^es. 
 
 Q. And you refreshed your memory from it ? — A. I did. 
 
 Q. (Eeferring to the memorandum.) That is all the entry there is in 
 regard to the amount for which you said you were trustee for me ? — A. 
 I do not know that I said I was trustee for you. It is the amount of 
 stock I sold you, and the money I received from you, and the money I 
 paid you ; that is the whole of it. 
 
 Q. You told me, as I understood you to say, that I was to pay par 
 and interest; what was the rate of interest ? — A. Seven per cent. 
 
 Q. From what time ?— A. From July 1, 1867. 
 
324 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 " Q. And 1 paid you that rate from July, 1867, till March 5 ? — A. Your 
 check is dated March 5, 1 believe. > 
 
 Q. Will you be kind enough to produce that private memorandum- 
 book? — A. I cannot now; I have not it here. 
 
 Q. Is it at home ? — A. It is at home. 
 
 Q. Does it contain an account with all the members with whom you 
 had dealings ? — A. No ; some of them I settled with, and the memoranda 
 /were destroyed. 
 
 Q. Tou did not put them all down in your book ? — A. No, sir, 
 
 Q. You put a part of them down ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And you refreshed your memory by referring to them during the 
 recess ? — A. Yes. 
 
 - Q. Why didn't you bring the private memorandum-book with you? — 
 A, I brought all 1 thought was necessary. I brought enough .to refresh 
 my memory. I have here a list of the names that are on that private 
 memorandum-book, taken from it. 
 
 Q. When you conversed with Mr. Alley, and stated to him that my 
 recollection and yours were in accord, did you say anything to him 
 about that .'i<l,200 check"? — A. My statement was not that my recollec- 
 tion accorded with your statement. , 
 
 Q. You stated tlieu that it accorded with a conversation we had at 
 Wormley's early in the present session 1 — A. I do not know as I under- 
 stand you. 
 
 Q. Mr. Alley stated day before yesterday that you told him your rec- 
 ollection substantially agreed with mine "? — A. I do not recollect saying 
 so anywhere. My recollection is very different. 
 
 Q. In that conversation I had with you at Wormley's, before which 
 you called three times and did not find me, did I not tell you that I had 
 received no dividends ? — A. Not that I know of. 
 
 Q. Did I not tell you that I had never received a dividend from you ? 
 A. I do not know, but you may have said so. 
 
 Q. Then when you told Mr. Alley, afterwards, before the recess, that 
 your recollection of our conversation agreed with mine, why did you not 
 add, except that you had paid me $1,200 °? — A. I do not think I said to 
 Mr. Alley they agreed. 
 
 Q. In this private memorandum-book, which, I trust, the committee 
 will have brought down here, have you down the names of all those to 
 whom you sold stock and who received their dividends 1 — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. All of them? — A. I do not know whether they are all there or not; 
 a. part of them are. 
 
 Q. Have you the names of the persons you have testified to here who 
 are not owners of stock ? — A. No, sir ; their names would not be on it 
 if they were not owners of stock ? 
 
 Q. Now, sir, will you tell me why you made the check which you say 
 you gave to me, that had the initials S. C. written in, while the check 
 you gave to Mr. Allison had the full name of W. B. Allison written in 1^- 
 A. I cannot give you an answer to that, only that I happened to write 
 it so. In some cases I -did not put in any initials at all ; some I did, and 
 others I put in the full name. 
 
 Q. Did I receipt to you ibr this check ? — A. No ; and there was no 
 reason why you should; it did not belong to me ; it belonged to you as 
 a dividend. 
 
 Q. You state that you gave it to me? — A. Certainly I did. I did not 
 deposit $10,000 to pay the dividends due here, and cheat some one out 
 of $1,200; you do not suppose I would be guilty of fraud, do you ? 
 Q. Have you ever told me, within the last four years, that I was the 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 326 
 
 ownerof this stock ? — X. I do not know whether I have or not; I do 
 not know that anybody has told me, within the last four years, that I 
 owned my own hat. 
 
 Q. You testified a few moments a^o that there was some remark made 
 by me about my giving up these $500 ! — A. That yoii told me at your 
 room before I testified. 
 
 Qi You testified, in answer to a question of Judge Poland about your 
 recollections of that fact, that there was some such remark as giving up 
 $500, and of my being sorry for your misfortune. Do you remember 
 where this conversation occurred ? — A. I think it was at Wormley's. 
 
 Q. I mean the conversation about giving up the $500, and that I was 
 sorry for your misfortune i — A. You told me that you said so, aud I pre- 
 sume you did, or I would not have so stated. 
 
 Q. You believe I said so"? Did I not say it to you on the floor of the 
 Senate after you had failed ? — A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. Did you not tell me that the stock had gone down to 10 cents on 
 the dollar, and that you had an extension by your creditors ? — A. Every- 
 body knew that. 
 
 Q. You remeniber that conversation? — A. It is very likely. I recol- 
 lect seeiug you over there in the Senate, but what was said I cannot 
 remember. I do not dispute that you said so. 
 
 Q. Finally, after several questions, you remember that I spoke to you 
 about the $500. liow, wlien I said to you that I was sorry for your mis- 
 fortunes, and that I would not require you to return the $500 that I had 
 paid you, why did you not state to me that you had paid me $1,200 
 against that, and that there was nothing to return ? — A. I do not under- 
 stand your version of the matter at all. When you spoke to me about 
 that matter, you kuew you had the $1,200, and so did I ; there is proof 
 of that on the books, and what is the use of trying to get round it ? 
 There is no getting round it or over it. The record shows for itself that 
 I gave you the check. 
 
 Q. Where was I when you gave me the check ? — A. I do not remem- 
 ber ; in the House of Representatives, I suppose. 
 
 Q. Where was it — in the Speaker's chair or on the floor ? — A. How can 
 I remember six years ago where I was when I gave a man a check ? 
 That is ridiculous. I do not remember. I remember I gave it to you. 
 
 Q. Do you remember \?here it was that you gave it ? — A. No, sir ; I 
 do not. 
 
 Ee-examination of Mr. Colfax : 
 
 Mr. Colfax. I wish to repeat exactly what 1 stated day before yes- 
 terday : that I never received from Mr. Ames a dollar on any account 
 whatsoever. I never saw this check. I never knew until I saw this 
 check this morning, whether Mr. Ames sigaed his name O. Ames or 
 Oakes Ames. . Why, if the check was for me, he should have filled it 
 out with S. C. or bearer, I cannot imagine. If I had seen a check so 
 filled out, it would have struck me very forcibly. ISTow, I could not have 
 had $1,200 added to my income without remembering it very positively. 
 I could not have talked with Mr. Ames afterward about sympathizing- 
 with him in his misfortunes, and proposed to remit to him the $500 I 
 *had paid him, if I had received $1,200 from him. 
 
 During the whole four years, as he himself states, he has never pro- 
 posed to pay me any of the dividends on the stock, although he recog- 
 nized me as the owner of the stock ; because when I said I told him I 
 would not buy into a lawsuit, it must have occurred in the session of 
 1868, and which, as I have shown the committee, -Mr. Blaine testifies to 
 
326 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Mr. Ames telling bim the same in the summer of 1868, the committee 
 will probably remember that I asked Mr. Ames a question before Mr. 
 McOrary asked about Mr. Allison — whether •! did not tell him I would 
 not buy into a lawsuit, and that he then" took a small piece of money 
 out of his pocket, threw it down, and said I was to consider that it was 
 bought back. I told him, " No, sir; I will have nothing to do with it, 
 whatever.'' 
 
 By Mr. Ames : 
 
 Q. You told me that you paid the $534? — A. I stated originally to 
 the committee that it was about $500, and that you then told me there 
 were some dividends, but they were unadjusted. Mr. Ames has testified 
 that there was a bond dividend which he sold for me without my 
 authority, and he says there was a stock dividend which was unad- 
 justed. 
 
 Q. You would not have given me a check for $534.72 unless it com- 
 pleted the i)urchase of the $2,000 stock ? — A. I gave a check for the 
 amount which Mr. Ames furnished to me. 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Q. Mr. Ames says the amount he received from you was $534.72 ; do 
 you concede that that was the amount ? — A. I think it was. I supposed 
 I had given him a check on a bank, and I had been to the bank for the 
 Ijurpose of ascertaining what the amount was. It did not occur to me 
 that I had given a check on the Sergeant-at-Arms. I paid Mm the 
 amount which he told me to pay. 
 
 Q. What was the precise conversation between you and Mr. Ames at 
 that time, and how did you understand that this sum was made up la 
 dollars and cents 1 — A. Mr. Ames told me the amount I was to pay was 
 $534.72 ; he said there were some dividends that had accrued upon this 
 stock ; that they were not paid in cash, and that they were yet unad- 
 justed ; he did not offer any of them to me. 
 
 Q. Did you understand from Mr. Ames that this $534.72 was a bal- 
 ance from you to complete the jiayment for this stock? — A. I supposed 
 it was a conjectural balance. He said I was to pay $534.72. I never 
 saw his private memorandum-book. I never knew anything about his 
 disposing of bonds, which he says belonged to me, at 3 per cent. off. 
 
 Q. You understood that it was at least an approximate balance ? — A. 
 I supposed that was to pay 25 per cent, of the purchase-money and 
 interest. 
 
 Q. You say that you did not understand that it completed the pay- 
 ment of the stock ? — A. I understood that there were dividends earned 
 but unadjusted, which would probably make up the balance. 
 
 Q. You did not understand that this amount finished the payment of 
 your stock, but you did understand that dividends had been earned 
 which would probably amount to the price of it ? — A. Yes, according to 
 his statement, enough to pay and overrun the amount. 
 
 Q. You say that nothing was said to you by Mr. Ames of his having 
 sold your bonds ? — A. ^No, sir. 
 
 Q. Or of his having received the bonds ? — A. Yes, I think he said 
 the dividend was not in cash ; that it was in bonds and stock. 
 
 Q. Do you remember his having said anything about having sold the 
 bonds'? — A. No, sir. I supposed he was holding them. My impression 
 was that the bonds and stock would .substantially cover this balance of 
 75 per cent. I syipposed I was giving $500, and interest on the pur- 
 chase, and, as I supposed, interest from the time I made the contract for. 
 the purchase. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 327 
 
 Q. This sum, however, you did pay, and you did pay it by a draft ou 
 the Sergeant-at-Arms? — A. I suppose so. 1 have no doubt he is correct 
 about that. I could not .remember the exact amount. I stated in 
 private conversation, as Mr, Niblack knows, that I thought it was 
 about $530, as near as I could remember. (Mr. Niblack assented to 
 the statement.) 
 
 Q. The $1,200 Mr. Ames said he paid you, you do not admit. You say 
 you never received any such sum? — A. I am confident I never received 
 a check from Mr. Ames, certainly never a check payable to " S. 0. or 
 bearer" for $1,200, or for any other sum. I have no recollection of it ; 
 not the slighest. It is utterly incredible. We could not have had thai: 
 conversation in regard to returning the $500 if I received the $1,200. 
 The only solution I can think of to reconcile the misunderstanding 
 between us on that point is, that the initials were put in to distinguish, 
 in his own mind, between dividends drawn for Oakes Aines, trustee, 
 and for Oakes Ames personally, and that this " S. C." check was a mem- 
 orandum for himself after I had informed him that the thing was off, 
 and that I would notrbuy into a law-suit. 
 
 Q. When do you say that conversation' occurred ? — A. It was in the 
 summer of 1868. 
 
 Q. Tou did not understand that you sold the stock back ? — A. I un- 
 derstood that I gave it up. I had no certificate ; I had no proceeds from 
 it. I had made a payment on it, and I wanted to get out of it. 
 
 Q. Have you been in the habit of keeping a cash account yourself of 
 your own disbursements "1 — A'. Tes ; I have endeavored, sinde I have 
 been Speaker and Vice-President, to make my salary with my income pay 
 my bills ; and every month, or every two months, I have been in the 
 habit of making a statement of my finances, to see how I was getting 
 along. 
 
 Q. Have you preserved these memoranda so far back as 1868 ? — A. 
 No, sir; I am sorry to say I have not preserved them even for the last 
 session. I may say that I have fallen into the haj^it of always indorsing 
 every check I drew. If yoii will examine the checks of the Sergeant- 
 at-Arms or in the Prst National Bank, where I keep my account, "you 
 will find that, although they are payable to bearer, I always write my 
 name on them. It has been a uniform habit with me. 
 
 Q. So that, if this check had been received by you, you would have 
 made your indorsement upon it ? — A. I call the attention of the com- 
 mittee to the fact that, except my own, there is but one of those checks 
 payable to the initials or bearer. 
 
 By Mr. AMES : 
 
 Q. Did I not render you a statement of the price of the Credit. Mobi- 
 lier stock and interest, "and give you a statement showing the dividends 
 of 80 per cent, of bonds, which covered the price of your stock in it, 
 $534.72, stowing that balance, and did you not give me a check for that 
 balance 1 — A. No, sir ; I remember you told me I was to pay $534.72, 
 and I will not be certain that you did not give me that amount on a slip 
 of paper. 
 
 Q. You had' more confidence in my statements then than you have 
 now. I ask you if I did not make a statement to you at that time, giv- 
 ing you a balance of $534.72, showing you the amount of your $2,000 
 'Credit Mobilier stock, with interest up to that date, giving you credit 
 on the proceeds of 80 per cent, in bonds, and did you not give me a 
 •draft on the Sergeant-at-Arms for $534.72 to make up that balance ; do 
 you deny that ? — A. 1 do deny that. 
 
 Mr. Ames. I am sorry for it. 
 
328 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 The Witness. You gave me a slip of paper -with tbe amount of the 
 balance, $534.72, on it, and told me there were some dividends which had 
 not been adjusted. 
 
 The Chairman, (to Mr. Ames :) 
 Do you wish to propound any more questions to Mr. Colfax? 
 Mr. Ames. If he denies that I made him this statement, I do not 
 want to ask him any other question. 
 
 Ee-esaminatiou of Mr. Ames. 
 By Mr. COLFAX : 
 
 Q. In the cross-examination of Mr. Ames on the 17th December, in 
 response to the question, " Is he still the owner of that stock V he re- 
 plied, " It has never been transferred to him ; I do not know whether he 
 or I- own that stock ;" what did you mean by that 1 — A. There it is ; you 
 must draw your own inference. I understood that you owned it, but 
 that you wanted me to own it. 
 
 Q. When did I tell you I wanted you to own it °? — A. I cannot remem- 
 ber what you said about it. I have had several conversations with you. 
 I called once or twice on you at Wormley's, and on one occasion I went 
 down to your private room and talked the matter over. You told me 
 you thought it very singular what I had said about the interest; that 
 you did not understand it, and that you had, often thought of what I 
 had said about the interest. 
 
 Q. You say you called at my room and talked the matter over this 
 winter? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. At Wormley's ? — A. I called once or twice at Wormley's. I called 
 on you the night before I testified last, and talked the matter over with 
 you, to see if we could understand each other. I wanted to see whether 
 we could understand each other. You said I must testify to the truth. 
 I replied, " Certainly, 1 am going to do that." I left, and I suppose you 
 thought, from your couversation with Mr. Crounse, that I was going to 
 sweaf to what you testified the other day. You got the impression, from 
 what you saw in the ISTew York>Times, that I was going to swear to that, 
 and so you wanted me to tell the truth. 
 
 Q. I have not said anything of that kind. — A. It is an inference I 
 draw, that you thought I was going to testify to that from what Mr. 
 Crounse told you I had said about your testimony. 
 
 Q. In your testimony given on the 17th December, which was 
 submitted to Mr. McMurtrie, and reduced to writing before you gave 
 it, you state, " I am pretty confident he has paid me for it, though it 
 was never transferred to him, nor can I remember having i)aid over to 
 him any dividends ;" how could you swear to that, if you knew j ou 
 had paid me $1,200 dividends'? — A. I can swear to it now, having re- 
 freshed my memory from my private memorandum-book, and your check 
 on the Sergeant-at-Arms proves it. I do not think you can swear hard 
 enough to'get out of it. You stand in the same position with the rest 
 of them. All the rest of them took their checks ; that is the honest 
 truth. You don't think I would be mean enough to cheat you out 
 of $1,200? 
 
 Q. Yet you testified on the 17th December, " nor can I remember 
 having paid over to him any dividends ?" — A. I remember it now, and 
 have got a voucher for it. 
 
CKEDIT MOBILIEE. 329 
 
 WASHiwaTON, January 24, 1873. 
 H, G-. Ordway, Sergeant-at-Arms, having been recalled, made the 
 following statement : 
 
 I wish to say that in my statement the other day, I perhaps did not 
 make myself sufficiently clear in respect to the manner in which the 
 business is transacted in my office. I have seen in the newspapers 
 some criticisms in regard to it, and I desire to state again that this 
 book upon which these matters are kept is a private book, such as is 
 kept by every bank, and is not the Government book in which the 
 accounts of the members for pay and mileage are kept. That book is 
 filed in the Department at the end of every Congress. This one, which 
 is a private banker's book, has nothing to do with my official duties as 
 Sergeant-at-Arms ; it is a private account between myself and the mem- 
 bers of Congress. I will ask the committee, inasmuch as this book 
 is placed in their possession, that the examination of it may be confined 
 to such matters simply as are before the committee. 1 make this re- 
 quest in justice to myself and these depositors. 
 
 By Mr. MoCrAEY : 
 
 Question. You sometimes received the deposits of members in excess 
 of their pay % — Answer. Yes, sir ; members are constantly receiving 
 drafts from home, and are remitting drafts for their families, which 
 formerly required a messenger going backwards and forwards constantly 
 to and from my office and the up-town banks. I arranged with General 
 Spinner, United States Treasurer, to give drafts upon all parts of the 
 country for large and small sums, and often as small as three or four 
 dollars ; and I also arranged with the banks to receive drafts from mem- 
 bers and cash them. All the accounts for drafts and checks are entered 
 in this book. Almost every member deposits his surplus money with 
 me, which goes into his account, and is checked out by him as deposits 
 are checked out of a bank. 
 
 Q. In other words, you kept just such an account as is kept in every 
 bank? — A. I do. My books are balanced every night, so that any mem- 
 ber may ascertain at any moment just how his account stands. 
 
 Q. Ifow turn to Oakes Ames's account on this book. — A. I have it 
 here, commencing March, 1867, and going on to March 5, 18C0. (Wit- 
 ness explained from the book the- manner in which accounts are kept.) 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Mr. Ames stated in his testimony the other day, that, in June, 
 1868, he made a deposit witlx jou of $10,000. Do yon find an entry of 
 that"? — A. Yes; that is correct. I find here $10,000 deposited under 
 date of June 20, 1868. I stated the other day, and repeat, that I do 
 not know anything personally in regard to this deposit. This amount 
 was not deposited with me ; it was deposited with my book-keeper. I 
 knew very little personally in regard to any of these matters. My 
 book-keeper, however, knows all about the matter. 
 
 Q. The entry upon the books, however, satisfies you that it was 
 made ? — A. I have no doubt it was. ' 
 
 Q. l^ow, let me ask you whether the entries in this book are original 
 entries, or whether they are taken from another book ! — A. I am unable 
 to state that; my book-keeper will give you all that information. 
 
 Q. Do you keep anything like a general cash-book ? — A. The office of 
 paying-teller was established two or three years ago. He keeps a daily 
 ibiotterof all his transactions. Up to that time I had no ijaying-teller . 
 n my oifice; I had simply a book-keeper, messenger, and page. 
 
330 CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. As far back as the summer of 1868, was there auy entry of these 
 transations except iu this book ? — A. I do not recollect whether there 
 was or not. My book-keeper will have to answer that. 
 
 Q. Upon this book, under date of June 24, 1868, in Mr. Ames's account, 
 there is charged "W. D. K. $329 ; to what do the figures in the column 
 I am now pointing to relate 1 — A. I am not familiar with the books, but 
 presume that they relate to the pages of the day-book. 
 
 Q. In whose handwriting are these entries? — A. In the handwriting 
 of Moses Dillon. Every entry in these books for more than ten. years 
 is in his handwriting. 
 
 Q. Can you produce this check of June 24, payable to W. D. K. or 
 bearer 1 — A. I wish to say that about two weeks ago Mr. Ames came to 
 my office, and asked me if I kept ray old vouchers ; I told him I thought 
 I did, unless they were called for by the member to whom they belonged. 
 We looked over the flies, and I found this bundle of vouchers. He ex- 
 amined them, passed them to me, and they have been locked up in my 
 safe since that time. I believe this is the check to which you refer. It 
 reads as follows : 
 
 " Washington, June 23, 1868. 
 *' Ser&eant-at-Akms, Z7. S. Souse of Bejpresentatives : 
 
 " Pay W. D. K. or bearer, $329." 
 
 Q. In whose handwriting is that check filled up ? — A. I do not know. 
 I never saw it until within a few days, to the best of my recollection. 
 
 Q. Do you know Mr. Ames's handwriting? — A. I judge that is his 
 signature ; I presume it was filled up by him ; I am not considered an 
 expert in handwriting. 
 
 Q. At that time (June, 1868) who was the man that actually paid out 
 the money on checks in j^our office °i — A. At that time my book-keeper 
 did what he could. Thomas P. Cheney, the messenger, paid a large 
 proportion of the money. My son was also a page in the office, and 
 sometimes would make payments to members. I seldom ever pay these 
 vouchers myself, excejjt in an exceptional case. 
 
 By M. McCeAET : 
 Q. Is it your practice that sometimes a member of Congress sends iu 
 a page with a check drawn by himself, and the money is returned by 
 the page? — A. I presume so; still I have no knowledge upon that sub- 
 ject. I do not pay enough myself to know exactly what the practice is. 
 During the session of Congress I attend to the wants of congressional 
 oommittees and other duty, leaving other office- work to the book-keeper 
 and paying- teller. Mr. Dillon and Mr. Cheney are both here, and ■w'ill 
 be glad to explain these transactions so far as they are disclosed by 
 the books. 
 
 By Mr. Kblley : 
 Q. Is that the only check drawn to " W. D. K?"— A. I think that is 
 the only one. 
 
 By Mr. McCrAET : 
 Q. I want you, in this connection, to state again whether it would 
 be/a common practice for a check to be made payable to "A. B.," " C. 
 D.," or bearer, and for the member drawing it to send in a page for the 
 money, receiving the money himself, and the letters indicating to him the 
 purpose for which money was drawn 1 — A. I should consider that as 
 . legitimate. I have no ' recollection of such practice. I can conceive 
 that the practice might very well be for such checks, given by one 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEK. 331 
 
 member to auothcr, comiug directly from tlie hall, aiul payable to bearer 
 to be paid to the party who drew the check; the letters, or whatever is 
 written in, beiug intended simply to indicate to the person drawing the 
 check the purpose for which he intended to appropriate the money. 
 
 Q. (Mr. NiBLACK to Mr. Ames.) Was there any particular reason in 
 your mind why you should put in the initials " W. D. K.," instead of 
 writing Mr. Kelley's name in full!— A. (Mr. Ames.) No, sir; I have no 
 recollection about it. I see that in some cases I put in the initials ; in 
 others I put in the names; and in somenothing is written in. I drewthem 
 in all ways. If I had considered it a bribe, of course I would not have 
 put in either the name or the initials. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. MoCeaey.) Did you draw up the checks the same day in 
 paying out that dividend? — A. (Mr. Ames.) No, sir. 
 
 Washington, January 24, 1873. 
 
 Thomas P. Cheney sworn and examined. 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Question. State your residence.-^Answer. Ashland, New Hampshire. 
 
 Q. Were you employed in the office of the Sergeant-afc-Arms, House 
 of Eepresentatives, in 1868? — A. I was, as messenger. 
 
 Q. Had you anything to do with paying out money in that office to 
 members — A. That was a part of my duty. 
 
 Q. Was it your exclusive duty, or did others pay out money to mem- 
 bers? — A. Perhaps I paid more than any others. Mr. Dillon, however, 
 paid checks; and occasionally a son' of the Sergeant-at-Arms, George 
 Ordway, who was then in the office, would pay out money. 
 
 Q. Had you anything to do with keeping the books'? — A. Wo, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you any idea how they were kept ? — A. I have some general 
 idea. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether there was a book from which the entries iu 
 this ledger were taken? — A. The first entries were made in the journal. 
 
 Q. Do you know what the column of figures I now point to in this 
 ledger refer to ? — A. I think that refers to the page in the journal. 
 
 Q. Here is an entry in this account of Oakes Ames, charging him, 
 June 24, 1868, with a check payable to W. D. K., $329, and a check has 
 been produced for $329, signed by Mr. Ames, payable to W. D. K. or 
 bearer; have you any recollection in relation to the payment of that 
 check? — A. None whatever. I could not have paid it ; I was not in the 
 office that day; I know I was away from about the lObh of June to about 
 the 3d or 5th of July. 
 
 Q., You knew nothing about the payments made during that time ? — 
 A. No, sir ; I had leave of absence, and was iu New Hampshire during 
 that time. 
 
 By Mr. COLFAX : 
 Q. Do you know anything of a check drawn by Mr. Ames payable to 
 S. C. or bearer"? — A. I never saw the check that I know of; that was 
 paid, at any rate, while I was away in New Hampshire, and I knf)w 
 nothing about it. 
 
332 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 WAsnrNGTON, January 24, 1873. 
 
 Moses Dillon sworn and examined. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. In 1868 were you employed in the office of the Sergeant-at- 
 Arms, House of Representatives, and in what capacity ?— Answer. Yes, 
 .sir ; as cashier and book-keeper. 
 
 Q. You remain there in tlie same capacity still ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Was this book kept by yon! — A. Yes, sir; every entry is in my 
 liandwriting. 
 
 Q. What is this book? — A. This is the deposit-ledger. 
 
 Q. I see a credit to Mr. Ames of $10,000, received June 17, 1868, by 
 fheck on the Bank of Commerce, Boston. — A. Yes, sir ; that is in my 
 handwriting. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect anything about that transaction "'. — A. jSfo, sir ; 
 there were a large number of transactions of tbat sort almost every day; 
 I do not recollect that particular one. 
 
 Q. Can you state from'wlint book this entry was taken ? — A. It was 
 posted from the journal. 
 
 Q. Is that jonrnal in your office now ' — A. I have it here. 
 
 Q. Mr. Cheney has stated that he ordinarily paid out money to'mem- 
 bers ; that you also made such payments ; but he says that from the 10th 
 June until some day in July he was awaj'. Were all the payments made 
 during that time by you? — A. ]S"ot all of them; George Ordway some- 
 times would make payments. 
 
 Q. In this account of Mr. Amcy, under d:'.te of June 2-1, there is a 
 charge to W. D. K. of $320 ; have you any recollection in reference to 
 the payment of that sum? — A. No, sir; not at all. I do not recollect 
 to whom it was paid, and I do not recollect whether I paid it myself. I 
 have no recollection at all of the transaction. 
 
 Q. Would you learn from the books to \\hom it was paid"? — A. No, 
 sir ; not at all. 
 
 Q. You have no doubt it was i^aid, because the entry is in your book; 
 but to whom it was paid you do not know ? — A. I have no doubt it was 
 paid, but I have no recollection about it, and nothing to show to whom 
 it was paid. 
 
 Q. Turn now to the original entry in the journal. — A. Here it is. under 
 date of June 24, $329 to W. D. K. 
 
 Q. What do you understand the letters W. D. K. to refer to ? — A. I 
 have no understanding at all about it. I suppose it was made in that 
 way to identify the cheek. It indicates that that amount was paid on 
 Oakes Ames's check to somebody; who that was, or what was the pur- 
 pose of the letters, of course I know nothing about. 
 
 Q. Was there any other book in which you keep office-accounts ? — A. 
 No, sir; I keep a Government ledger — a pay and a mileage account; but 
 this is the account of the private transactions of members ; precisely 
 such an account as is kept in every bank. 
 
 Q. There would not be another entry as a cash account ? — A. No, sir; 
 only this. 
 
 Q. So that if Mr. Ames gave a check on the Sergeant at- Arms it 
 would only appear in these two books ? — A. It would appear upon the 
 journal, and then upon the ledger. 
 
 By Mr. Kellet : 
 Q. If Mr. Ames appeared before the counter with his own check, 
 marked " W. D. K. or bearer," would you have paid the check to him ? 
 — A. Certainly. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 666 
 
 By Mr. MoGkaey : 
 Q. Is there anything to indicate whether the check was paid on that 
 date?— A. The date of payment is here the 25th June ; the date of the 
 check is the 24th. I was in the habit, however, sometimes, when there 
 were many checks, of charging the checks of two days under the same 
 date. It may be, therefore, that this was paid on the 24th ; I think very 
 likely it was ; it seems to be so posted. 
 
 By Mr. McCkARY : 
 
 Q. State if it was .a custom for members frequently to draw cheeks in 
 their seats in the House, and send a page over to your office and get the 
 money. Suppose his check was payable to order, would you pay it in 
 that way'? — A. Not without his iadorsement, if it was payable to his 
 order. If payable to bearer, we should. 
 
 Q. If a member brought you a check payable to bearer, or with simply 
 the initials of his name, would you require him to indorse it? — A. Not 
 at all. 
 
 Q. Under date of June 20th, ia Mr. Ames's account, there is put down 
 a charge to S. C, $1,200, and another to J. F. Wilson, $329. Do these 
 entries read in the same way "? — A. In the same way. 
 
 Q. These entries are both in your handwriting. Have you any recol- 
 lection of the transactions ? — A. I have not. 
 
 Q. And the entry gives no information as to whom the checks were 
 paid ! — A. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. OrdwAT : 
 Q. I wish to ask the book-keeper whether, to his knowledge, there has 
 ever been any money received and disbursed in any way in the ofllce of 
 the Sergeant-at-Arms, and entered upon these books, except in this open 
 wayf— A. There never has been to my knowledge. 
 
 By Mr. Colfax : 
 
 Q. At the time this payment was made on the S. C. check, there seems 
 to have been another to J. F. Wilson, $329, entered in the same line. 
 Would that indicate that the two checks came in together ? — A. No ; 
 only that they came in the same daj^ They were both put upon one 
 line as a matter of economy. 
 
 Q. Mr. Cheney says that he was away, and that you probably paid 
 both these checks ? — A. Probably I did. 
 
 Q. But you do not recollect anything in relation to paying them, or to 
 whom they were paid ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you not think it would have attracted your attention if I had 
 come in with a check payable to S. C. instead of S. Colfax ? — A. It might 
 at the time ; I don't know. 
 
 Q. Is it usual to give checks in this way with initials written in 1 — A. 
 Some members come in and get the money themselves, and frequently 
 put some marks upon them to identity the checks to refresh their mem- 
 ory as to what they used the money for. 
 
 Q. Here are several pages of checks ; I don't see any others with the 
 initials ? — A. No, sir; that is the only one. 
 
 Q. Can you produce that check ? (Check produced by Mr. Ordway.) 
 Bo you remember, in looking over this book, any other checks from 
 Mr. Ames with initials entered upon them ? — A. I did not notice any 
 other. 
 
 Q. Now, if Mr. Ames had sent his check by a page, would you have 
 
 paid it? A. Yes, sir; or I would have paid it to Mr. Ames himself. 
 
 , Q. Do you remember a check alluded to in the testimony day before 
 
334 CREDIT :\10BIL1ER. 
 
 yesterday, given by ^Ir. Ames to Mr. Allison ; have you seen that 
 check? — A. I presume so. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether that is payable to TV. B. A. or bearer ? — 
 A. I think it is W. B.Allison. I think the name is written in full. 
 There is no general rule on the subject. There are some written with 
 the full names, and some with the initials. 
 
 Q. These seem to be exceptional, however, in your entries ? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 By Mr. A31ES : 
 
 Q. You will see that these checks are written, some payable to order, 
 some without names, and some with initials. These books are correct ? — 
 A. I presume so. 
 
 Q. Do you make your entries the same day checks are paid ? — A. Not 
 always ; sometimes the day afterwards. They are made at the same 
 time substantially. Sometimes during the holidays they are not posted 
 for four or five days. * 
 
 Q. You received $10,000 on deposit from Mr. Ames the day of this 
 entry for that amount ?— A. I received the deposit of $10,000, and the 
 checks show how it was drawn out. 
 
 By Mr. Colfax : 
 
 Q. Have you ever figured to see whether that entire amount was 
 drawn out by these mysterious checks ? — A. No, sir; it was a running 
 account. 
 
 Q. Please turn to the account of William B. Allison, and see if that 
 check was passed tojiis credit. — A. Yes, I find here the check of Oakes 
 Ames, $600, to his credit. 
 
 Q. Now turn to the account of Mr. Colfax, and see if the check of 
 $534.72 is charged to me. — A. Yes, sir ; it is charged to you and marked 
 " draft." There is nothing credited to you, except your mileage and 
 salarj^; no special item. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. You have no recollection whether this check of Mr. Colfax, March 
 5, 1868, which is marked "draft," was obtained for himself or Mr. 
 Ames I — A. Of course I do not know anything about that. 
 
 Q. Have you anything in your office that will show? — A. No, sir; at 
 that time we did not keep any memorandum of drafts from the Treas- 
 ury; we do now. 
 
 By Mr. NiBLAOK: 
 Q. Turn to Mr. Kelley's account and see if there is anything credited 
 from him to Mr. Ames. — A. No, sir; there is nothing of his credited 
 except his mileage and salary. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 25, 1873. 
 Oakes Ames recalled and examined. 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 Question. Upon the books of the Sergeaut-at-Arms x>roduced yester- 
 day, in the list of checks charged to you there was one of $329, to John 
 A. Logan. The committee desire to ask you what that was for. — 
 Answer. That seems to be a fashionable amount about these davs. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 335 
 
 although, accorcliug to the testimony yesterday, a check does not prove 
 anything. 
 
 Q. Will you state what the transaction was between you and Mr. 
 Logan, out of which that check grew 1 — A. Yes. Mr. Logan agreed to 
 take ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock. I made up a statement to him, 
 showing a balance of $.'329 due him, and gave him a check for it. Awhile 
 after that he paid me back the money and interest. I should jirefer that 
 you would call General Logan, as everything I say is disputed. Let us 
 have the other side. 
 
 Q. We will hear you first. — A. That is iny statement. 
 
 Q. At what time was the arrangement made between you and j\lr 
 Logan for this purchase? — A. I think in December, 1867. 
 
 Q. He paid you nothing? — A. No, sir; not originally. He paid me 
 the money back with interest. 
 
 Q. You received the 80 per cent, dividend in bonds and sold them as 
 you did for the others, at the same amount of 97 ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You afterward received 60 per cent., money dividend! — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. Deducting from the dividend $1,000 and interest upon it from 
 July, left a balance of $329 ?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You paid that to Mr. Logan by check ? — A. I suppose so, by his 
 name appearing on the check. 
 
 Q. Do you not remember that ? — A. I remember that the same as I 
 did in regard to all the rest. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Logan ever receive anything more from you"? — A. No, sir; 
 and he paid me back, as I have stated, with interest — $329 with interest. 
 
 Q. When' was that repayment made to youf — A. I think the interest 
 amounted to only two or three dollars on it. 
 
 Q. Then it was soon after he received the $329 ?— A. Yes. My mem- 
 ory is so defective as to dates that I should prefer that you would call 
 General Logan. 
 
 Q. You think it was within a few months ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What was the occasion of rescinding this contract? — A.. I do not 
 know what was in his mind about it at all. 
 
 Q. He just paid you back, and that was the end of it ?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. When he paid back the $329, it was understood that the ten shares 
 of stock remained yours '? — A. Yes ; I never paid him anything but the 
 
 Q. So that Mr. Logan really made nothing out of the transaction ? — A. 
 Nothing at all. All he got from me he paid back as I stated. He was 
 neither the better nor the worse for it except in the name of having 
 
 Q. That has not affected him until now ? — A. Not that I know of. 
 Q. That is all there is of this transaction with Mr. Logan ? — A. That 
 is all. 
 
 By Mr. Meeeick : 
 Q. What first brought you to Mr. Logan, or him to you, in connection 
 with this transaction ? — A. I think they came to me generally. As I 
 stated originally, I received this stock to fulfill prior engagements. A 
 great many people, after they thought there was going to be a profit in 
 the enterprise, wanted to get stock. I promised a great many parties 
 that if I could get the stock for them I would do so. In the latter part 
 of October, 1867, there happened to be some stock in the hands of Dr. 
 Durant, who had not paid for it, which was returned to the company. 
 Of that stock I was assigned two hundred and fifty shares to enable me 
 
336 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 to fulfill engagmeuts I had previously made. I fouud I had made so 
 many that I could not begin to fulfill them. I gave some to parties with 
 whom I had previously made no engagement. You heard the statement 
 of Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, that he wanted $5,000, and I could not give him 
 but $1,000. Mr. Painter had the promise of Dr. Durant that I should 
 give him $5,000, and I only gave him $3,000. Mr. McComb wanted 
 that I should give Senator Bayard $5,000, and I could not give him 
 anything. Mr. Allison wanted more than he got ; and so all through 
 the list. 
 
 Q. Eight there in regard to these engagements, I believe every one 
 of the parties who have appeared here have stated the negotiations as 
 occurring not earlier than December, 1867. — A. I guess Mr. Scofield said 
 that he had talked about it a year before. 
 
 Q. That is just what I want to inquire about, whether any of these 
 gentlemen, and, if so, which of them, made a prior engagement for any 
 of this stock ; whether you were under obligations to any of these mem- 
 "bers in consequence of conversations you had had with them prior to 
 tl\at session of Congress which commenced December, 1807. — A. 1 must 
 say again that as to remembering dates I cannot do. it ; as I have before 
 stated in my testimony, I had always been trying to get people interested, 
 in the Union Pacific Eailroad and Credit Mobilier from the time I took 
 an interest in it myself; I went so* far as in a considerable number of 
 instances to guarantee tlie parties against loss and 10 per cent, profit ; 
 I did this to Senator Grimes, to Mr. Gamaliel Bradford, of Boston, and 
 Mr. Dana, of Boston, to Mr. Alley, and I offered to do it for Mr. 
 Hooper, and for various other parties. My anxiety to get men into the 
 enterprise was such as to induce me to make every effort, but I cannot 
 remember all these conversations which occurred five or six years ago. 
 
 Q. This stock was put into your hands to enable you to fulfill engage- 
 ments you had made before that time; now, what I want to get at is 
 how many of these men in Congress, who received this stock, had made 
 any engagements or had had any previous conversations with you ou 
 the subject? — A. My answer to that is simply this : I did not know be- 
 fore October that I could get any stock ; 1 had talked with a great many 
 liarties, promising them that I would get them stock if I could. 
 
 Q. How early was it that it began to be understood that this was 
 valuable stock and likely to pay a large profit ? — A. I think not until 
 about October ; not until this contract was made which was assigned to 
 trustees ; we had not been able to sell our bonds previous to that. 
 
 Q. Can you state whether you had had any conversation with Mr. 
 Colfax in reference to his taking any of that stock prior to the session 
 which commenced in 1867 1 — A. I cannot positively. 
 
 Q. Can you in respect to Senator Wilson '?^— A. I think he did not have 
 any money to invest until that money of his wife's alluded to. 
 
 Q. How in regard to Senator Patterson ? — A. Senator Patterson says 
 he talked with me on the subject long ago, when we were on an excur- 
 sion or expedition to the northeastern frontier during the war, in 1864. 
 I have no recollection of it. 
 
 Q. Not about the stock of this company ? — A. So he says. 
 
 Q. There was then no connection between this company and the 
 Pacific Eailroad Company ? — A. I do not know anything about it. I 
 did not become interested in the Credit Mobilier until August, 1865. 
 
 Q. You remember no such thing ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether you had any conversation prior to De- 
 cember, 1867, with Mr. Bingham, of Ohio ?— A. I think I did. I think 
 I talked with him about it the spring before. 
 
CEEIJIT MOBILIEK. 337 
 
 Q. You thiiik you had with Mr. Scofleld ; how was it with Mr. Gar- 
 field 1 — A. I cannot remember that I did. 
 
 Q. Did you with Mr. Kelley ? — A. I cannot say ; it is not fixed in my 
 mind whether I did or not. 
 
 Q. I understood you to state that you had some other papers in refer- 
 ence to this transaction between you and Senator Patterson. Will you 
 be good enough to produce them ? — A, Senator Patterson testified that 
 he never receivetl any dividend from this stock, and that he had no 
 money from me on account of it. Here is a receipt which I present to 
 the committee. 
 
 (The j)aper referred to was placed in evidence, and is as follows :) 
 
 " Washington, Jmie 22, 18C8. 
 "Eeceived of Oakes Ames $1,800, on account of dividend received 
 by him as trustee on stock held for mv account. 
 
 " J. W. PATTERSON." 
 
 Q. Did you see him sign this paper 1 — A. Yes. He gave it to me at 
 the time. I wrote the receipt and he signed it. The receipt is in my 
 writing, and the signature is his. 
 
 Q. And made at the time of the date ? — A. Yes, sir. I also hand to 
 the commit|;ee another i^aper. 
 
 (Paper placed in evidence as follows :) 
 
 " Boston, May 6, 1871. 
 " Eeceived of Oakes Ames, two hundred shares Union Pacific Eail- 
 road stock, seven hundred and fifty -seven dollars and twenty-four cents 
 in cash, on account of Credit Mobilie'r stock, aud there are still due on 
 the transaction thirty shares of stock in the Credit Mobilier of America, 
 and two thousand in the income-bonds of the Union Pacific Eailroad. 
 
 "J. W. PATTEESOX." 
 
 Q. Was that signed by him in your ijresence and given to you? — A. 
 Yes. 
 
 Q. And at the date it bears ? — A . I presume so. 
 
 Q. The paper'itself is in your own handwriting? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. This was the paper given at the time of the settlement made be- 
 tween you and him, of which you spoke iu your testimony ? — A. Yes, that 
 $1,800 is the check I gave him on the Sergeant-at-Arms, for which he 
 gave me the receipt. That is the final settlement. 
 
 Q. Have you still another paper ? — A. I have a letter Mr. Patterson 
 wrote me in relation to this matter. He wrote me several which I have 
 destroyed. I found this last night in looking over my papers. It is a 
 letter from Mr. Patterson. 
 
 Q. You received it through the mail ? — A. I do not recollect how I re- 
 ceived it. The letter is written here, and I received it here. I received 
 several others, which, as I stated, I have torn up. This is all I have. 
 This letter is written this winter since the present investigation com- 
 menced. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether it is in Mr. Patterson's own writing ? — A. I 
 do not know that I can swear it is. 
 
 Q. Have you had any conversation with him in reference to this let- 
 ter? — A. I have had several interviews with him since the letter was 
 written. 
 
 Q. In reference to the letter f — A. Not iu reference to the letter, but 
 in reference to matters the letter alludes to. 
 
 Q. In any of the conversations you have had with him, has the fact 
 22 X 
 
338 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 that he bad written such a letter been mentioned? — A. I do not know 
 that it has. I do not know whether it has or not. I think he asked me 
 if I had got the letter he wrote me. 
 
 Q. Is this the only one you have received from him this winter? — A. 
 No, sir ; I have received several and torn them up. I did not know that 
 1 had this until last evening. 
 
 ^Q. Was there any envelope with it? — A. I destroyed the envelope 
 which I received it in. 1 received it when I got back from home the 7th 
 or 8th of January. 
 
 (The letter referred to was placed in evidence, and is as follows :) 
 
 " Washington, D. 0., January 4, 1873. 
 
 " My Dear Sir : The facts in respect to the Credit Mobilier, so far as 
 I had any connection with it, were as follows : 
 
 "You came to me one day, knowing that a want of means was a 
 chronic evil with me, and said, ' Patterson, if you would like, I can let 
 you have thirty shares of stock in the Credit Mobilier, which I think 
 will be a profitable investment, and will be a good thing for you.' 
 
 " My reply, in substance, was that if you had anything which I could 
 properly invest in, and out of which I could make some money, I should 
 be glad to take it, but that I had not the money at that time, and must 
 defer it until I could get it. 
 
 " Your reply was that you pi'esumed I could have it later, when it 
 might be convenient, and you regarded it a perfectly legitimate transac- 
 tion. ' At that time you did not and could not anticipate you should 
 ever ask for further legislation from Congress in respect to the road, and 
 you never did except when it was forced upon you by the Secretary. 
 
 "After this conversation with me, you may have had the impression 
 that I should take the stock some time, but for some reason or other, 
 perhaps for a want of funds, I never took any of the stock. If I never 
 had any stock in the company, I could not, as I did not have, its divi- 
 dends. 
 
 " If pressed to know if I purchased at any time any bonds or stock of 
 the road, you can saj' I did at the time they attempted to embarrass you 
 when the value of the stock was depressed, and I paid you the full 
 market value for it. I paid you $7,000 in money for stock and bonds. 
 
 " The stock I put into the hands of Mr. Morton immediately to sell as 
 soon as it should go up reasonably in the market, which he did. 
 
 "I saw Mr. Morton on my way through, and he said he had never 
 held any stock in the Credit Mobilier for any one, but did not wish to 
 have his name brought into the examination if it could be avoided. I 
 am going to Ohio. I s\'\\\ see you on my return. BonH fail to correct 
 your original statement before the committee. It must not he reported as it 
 note stands. 
 
 "Very trulj', 
 
 " Hon. Oakes Ames." 
 By the CHAIRMAN : 
 
 u 
 
 J. W. PATTEESON. 
 
 Q. Some days ago I gave you notice in writing to produce all the 
 memorandum-books and papers that you had containing any entries 
 relating to the dealings between you and these various gentlemen who 
 have been named and have been examined here. You have produced 
 what purports to be copies of some of these entries. Have you the 
 original memorandum-books from which you made these copies? — A. 
 No, sir ; I have not. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 339' 
 
 Q. Where are they ? — A. I suppose at Easton. 
 
 Q. The committee think these origiual memorandum-books must be 
 produced. — A. Very well, sir ; I will send for them. 
 
 Q. The committee desire that all the original jjapers and correspond- 
 ence regarding this subject, in your possession, shall be produced. — A. 
 I do not think 1 have any correspondence in relation to it. 
 
 By Mr. Merrick : 
 
 Q. Have you refreshed your memory in relation to your dealings with 
 any other members of Congress? — A. There is no other. The reason I 
 did not name Mr. Logan before was that Mr. Blaine stated that this 
 committee had nothing to do with Senators. You asked for any other 
 member of the House. There was no other member of the House. 
 I only allude to such names outside of the House as Mr. McComb 
 and others had mentioned, such as were included in his litigation. 
 General Logan is the only name in the Senate that has not been men- 
 tioned before, and there is now no other in either branch of Congress. 
 
 Q. Neither at that time nor any other time '! — A. No other. 
 
 By Mr. McCrary : 
 
 Q. Did General Logan give you any reason for returning the money 
 and canceling the contract '? — A. I do not rettiember that he did. 
 
 Q. Is it not probable that he would have given you some reason for 
 doing so? — A. I don't know that ; it may be probable. I don't recol- 
 lect any. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether he spoke of any lawsuit in connection with 
 it? — A. 1 do not remember. I want to say further to the committee 
 that I have been asked by them several times and by some of these par- 
 ties why I held this stock and did not give it to them. The Credit Mo- 
 bilier stock was not entitled to any dividends. The stockholders in 
 that company who signed the stipulation making themselves personally 
 liable under the Oakes Ames contract were the only parties who could 
 draw dividends on account of having been stockholders in the Credit 
 Mobilier; these parties holding stock here not having signed that stip- 
 ulation could not draw dividends, and that was probably the reason why 
 1 retained the stock. It would not have been of any use to them, for 
 they could not have drawn the dividends. 
 
 By Mr. Merrick : 
 
 Q. You drew them in behalf of the parties, you having signed the 
 stipulation of the Oakes Ames contract? — A. Yes; that was an aftef 
 consideration, however. 
 
 By Mr. NiBLACK : 
 
 Q. Do I understand that, having signed the stipulation referred to 
 under the Oakes Ames contract, you could draw the dividends belonging 
 to these various members of Congress as their trustee, while they could 
 not draw them without signing that paper and becoming personally re- 
 sponsible, and that, therefore, you retained their stock in your posses- 
 sion ? — A. Yes, sir ; I held on to it. 
 
 Q. You were trustee, then, for these persons ? — A. My attorneyin Bos- 
 ton said I was not trustee iu any sense. I took this stock originally iu 
 my own name, and I put it in my name as truste"e to distinguish it from 
 my original stock. It was not the vote of the company at all that I 
 should hold it as trustee. It was a whim of mine after I took it. 
 
340 CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 By Mr, Banks : 
 
 Q. In answer to the question of the chairman as to whether you ap- 
 plied to General Logan or he to you, you said they generally applied 
 first, and subsequently you stated that you made efforts to get people 
 interested in the Union Pacific Eailroad at an earlier period. What is 
 your recollection of the reasons you gave to these different parties, some 
 of whom you spoke to and others who spoke to you ? — A. I cannot give 
 you any particular reason for that. I thought it was going to be a very 
 good thing, and that if I gave stock to any to whom I had not spoken 
 before it was to give them the advantage of a good investment. 
 
 Q. You remember the fact clearly in regard to certain persons that 
 you first spoke to them, and in regard to others that they had spoken 
 toyou? — A. Most of them had spoken tome. I do not remembet speak- 
 ing to any of them first on the subject; still it may have been the fact, 
 as they say. 
 
 By Mr. McOeaey : 
 Q. When the stock was below par you were trying to get people to 
 take it, and you spoke to them generally, but after it got to be very val- 
 uable they spoke to you. — A. Yes, sir; there was a change of position 
 in that regard. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack: 
 
 Q. This was a transaction which seemed not to be very generally i)ub- 
 lic. How did these members ascertain that the stock was getting to be 
 more valuable ? — A. I do not know ; I suppose they found it out. When 
 stock becomes more valuable men are very likely to find it out. 
 
 Q. I suppose there will be no impropriety in saying here that I never 
 had my attention called to the fact that there was that sort of thing 
 going about at the time; I therefore wanted to know how others found 
 It out. — A. I can let you have some now if you want; when anything 
 becomes valuable you cannot keep the secret long. 
 
 Q. The idea that this stock was becoming valuable— a good thing to 
 hold — was well understood, and you had no difficulty at that time in 
 disposing of it "? — A. USTone at all. 
 
 Q. There were plenty of people who would be willing to take it at 
 par and interest? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. It would have been easy for you to have sold all of this stock at 
 some advance above par at that time"? — A. Very likely; my object in 
 getting the stock, and the reason I gave for it, was to enable persons 
 with whom I had previous contract-s to get it ; that is, I had told them 
 I would try and get it for them if I could. 
 
 Q. It wonld appear by the testimony that most of the men in Congress 
 who received some of this stock did not seem to understand that there 
 was any previous engagement?— A. I think it very likely that there 
 was not, with some of them. 
 
 Q. How did they come to have the stock at par and interest when no 
 engagement had been made for it? — A. I always let everybody in on 
 the ground floor. I used them all alike. 
 
 Q. Was there any special reason why men in Congress should have 
 this favor more than people out of Congress? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you receive. a greater price for any of this stock that you dis- 
 posed of to anybody than par and interest, from the preceding July? — 
 A. No, sir ; I served every man alike, in Congress and out. 
 
 Q. There was no distinction between men who were in Congress and 
 
CREDIT MOEILIEE. 341 
 
 those -who were out, in tlie price they had to pay for it ?— A. Xone at 
 all. 
 
 Q. ¥0 part of this stock, which was assigned to you to enable you to 
 fulfill contracts or engagements, received any greater price than par and 
 interest? — A. No, sir; no part of it. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 28, 1873. 
 Henry C. Swain sworn and examined. 
 
 By the Ghaie3ian : 
 
 Question. Are you the cashier of the First National Bank of Washing- 
 ton? — Answer. lam. 
 
 Q. How long have you been cashier '1 — A. Since last April ; since the 
 death of Mr. Huntington. 
 
 Q. How long have yon been connected with the bank in any capaci- 
 ty ?— A. Since May, 1809. 
 
 Q. You were not in the bank in 1868 ? — A. I was not. 
 
 Q. Have you access to, and are you familiar with, the books of the 
 bank? — A. I have control of them. 
 
 Q. Have you made any examination of the books of the bank to see 
 whether Mr. Colfax kept his account there in 1S6S t—X. I think he did 
 keep an account at the bank in 1868. 
 
 Q. Have you brought the books of the bank whicli show his account 
 in 1868 ? — A. I have the books ; yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Will you produce them, and turn to the account of Mr. Golfax for 
 the month of June, 1808! — A. I would like to answer any question you 
 may ask by referring to the books. 
 
 Q. Will yoa state from the ledger which is open before you, whether 
 it appears that Mr. Colfax made a deposit on the 22d of June, 1868? — 
 A. It does. 
 
 Q. What is the amount ? — A. By reference to the books I find it was 
 11,968.63. 
 
 Q. From that entry you understand that'that amount of money was 
 deposited to his credit either by him or by somebody for him? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. State the various deposits made to his credit from that time during 
 the month of July.— A. July 7, $400; July 8, $150; July 13, $1,543.87. 
 
 By Mr. Ajies : * 
 
 Q. Can you state whether that deposit on the 22d June was in money 
 or checks ? — A. It is entered as " cash items." It may have been money ; 
 it may have been checks. 
 
 By the CHAinaiAN : 
 
 Q. Your entries on that book do not show whether the aaiounts were 
 received in money or checks? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Nor on the journal either? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Are these items entered upon an earlier book than either of 
 these? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you produced that book ? — A. These items are tlie aggregate 
 of items in the other book. 
 
 Q. Will you produce the blotter, or scratcher, or whatever you call it, 
 the book of original entry? 
 
 The Witness, lieferring to what dates? 
 
342 CHEDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 The Chairman. We want you to produce all the entries aud papers 
 you have touching the deposits made by Mr. Colfax from the middle of 
 June until the end of July, 1868.— A. I will have to send to the bank 
 for a part of them. I can produce a part of them now. 
 
 Q. Can you produce the papers referring to that particular item of 
 the 22d of June?— A. I can. 
 
 Q. Have you the deposit ticket with you ? If so, you will please read 
 it.— A. It reads : " Deposited iu the First National Bank by Schuyler 
 
 Colfax, June 22, 1808. United States and bank notes $1, 200 00 
 
 Checks as follows. . . ' 250 00 
 
 18 63 
 500 00 
 
 Total 1,968 63 
 
 Q. Will you look at your ledger and see when the last deposit of Mr. 
 Colfax was made prior to the 22d June"? — A. That was June 1st. 
 ■ Q. There is no deposit made by him after that until June 22,? — A. 
 liTone. 
 
 Q. Do you know in whose handwriting this ticket is! — A. I should 
 say it was in Mr. Colfax's handwriting. I am not much of an expert 
 in handwriting. 
 
 Q. You are somewhat familiar with Mr. Colfax's handwriting? — A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Ame's : 
 Q. You cannot tell where that money came from, of conrse '! — A. No > 
 I know nothing about it. 
 
 Washixuton, January 2S, 1873. 
 Benjamin F. Ham recalled aud examined. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. When Mr. Dillon was on the stand be testified in relation to 
 a loan by him to Mr. Neilson of $5,000 for fifty additional shares of Credit 
 Mobilier stock ; that he could not tell in reference to its repayment ; that 
 you kept his accounts at that time, and would probably be able to state 
 the particulars; can you state whether that loan has been repaid? — 
 Answer. I do not think he stated i)0sitively that I kept his accounts ; he 
 thought perhaps I did. I did not keep his accounts at that time. I have 
 since kept track of some of his matters. At that time I was in the em- 
 ploy of the railroad company and of the Credit Mobilier. I was fully 
 occupied, and had nothing to do with his private transactions. 
 
 Q. Have you -had since ? — A. Yes, sir, I have. 
 
 Q. Have you made any search among Mr. Dillon's books and papers 
 for the purpose of ascertaining whether and how that $5,000 was repaid 
 to Mr. Dillon ? — A. Mr. Dillon does not, at the present time, keep any 
 general books. He is engaged in three or four railroad contracts and 
 has a book-keeper for each one, and a clerk who has charge of that par- 
 ticular matter, and I should not know where to look for any such thing. 
 
 Q. Has he not since you have known about his private affairs kept 
 any books in reference to any private transactions of his? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Are you familiar enough with his books to know whether he at 
 that time, in February, 1868, kept any books of that description ? — A. 
 I do not think he did. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 343 
 
 Q. Have you made any search among his books and papers to sec 
 whether anything can be found bearing upon that $5,000 transaction 1 — 
 A. There is nothing to be found among the papers in my possession. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge in relation to that $5,000 ? — A. Nothing- 
 more than I stated in my former testimony. 
 
 Q. Any iuformation about it ". — A. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Meeuick : 
 
 Q. You were secretary of the Credit Mobilier at that time ? — A. Yes, 
 sir ; assistant secretary. 
 
 Q. You cannot recall to mind anything that occurred in regard to 
 this matter, independent of the books ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Did you issue the certificate of these' fifty shares to Neilson ? — A. 
 Yes, sir, 
 
 Q. Did you know in reference to the loan by Mr. Dillon, that Mr. 
 Dillon loaned him the money to pay for it f — A. No, sir ; I did not. 
 
 Q. Was the money paid to you ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Who paid it to you 1 — A. That I do not know. These matters 
 occurred in 1867, six years ago. My mind has been taken up with other 
 business matters of my own sin^e that time, and it has entirely escaped 
 my memory. 
 
 Q. You have no.recollection about the payment of this mouey, whether 
 it was paid by Mr. Dillon, IVIr. Neilson, or who paid if? — A. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Merrick : 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection apart from the entries upon the books 
 of the transfer of the stock ? — A. No, sir ; I was not in the habit of rec- 
 ollecting things. I was in the habit of keeping my accounts on the 
 books in order to refer to them. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. It has been stated that a paper was drawn up and signed by sev- 
 eral of the principal stockholders, authorizing the issue of these fifty 
 shares to Neilson or Mr. Brooks. Do you know anything in reference 
 to that paper ? — A. Yes, sir ; there was such a paper. 
 
 Q. Have you such a paper ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 (Paper handed to the committee.) 
 
 Q. The name of Oakes Ames, here written in pencil, was not written 
 by Oakes Amf^s ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. The paper had no date to it '! — A. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Banks : 
 
 Q. Was the name of Oakes Ames authorized to be appended ? — A. I 
 judge not ; it looks as if Oliver Ames and Oakes-Ames had been written 
 in pencil to indicate that their signatures should be at the head. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Do you know in whose handwriting the pencil signature of Mr. 
 Ames is ? — A. The signature in pencil, I do not know who wrote ; the 
 signature of Oliver Ames was first written in pencil, and afterward writ- 
 ten by Oliver Ames himself in ink. 
 
 Q. The pencil-signature is not in the handwriting of Oliver Ames ? — 
 A. I think not. I do not think he would spell Oakes Ames without an 
 e in the fii'st name. 
 
 Q. Do you know anything about how this paper was gotten up, how 
 it came to be made, and what was its object or purpose °i — A. I do not 
 
344 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 I presume the object was to sell Mr. Brooks fifty shares on account of 
 Ms agreement with Mr. Durant. 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection about the getting up of that paper, as 
 to who suggested it, or how it was to be made! — A. No, sir; none at 
 all. I have no recollection of it. 
 
 Q. Did you hear any talk among persons connected with the company 
 as to whether Mr. Brooks was entitled to two hundred and fifty addi- 
 tional shares 1 — A. I do not recollect of any discussion. It was nonebf 
 my business to know anything about these things. I was simply a 
 clerk; although I was styled assistant secretarj-, my business was 
 simply to execute the wishes of parties in charge. 
 
 Q. Where did you find the paper ? — A. This paper M'as in the hands 
 of one of the attorneys of the company. 
 
 Q. You procured it from him recently '? — A. Since I was here before. 
 
 Q. Do jou know whether it' was ever in your possession before! — 
 A. I presume it was. 
 
 Q. How did it come to be in the attorney's hands ; have you any 
 knowledge ? — A. I do not know. I presume it was handed to him for 
 some purpose. 
 
 By Mr. Meekiok : 
 
 Q. Having that paper before you and referring to the erasure ih the 
 entry of the fifty shares to Mr. Neilson in your books, in regard to which 
 you testified on a former occasion, are you enabled to recollect any of 
 the circumstances connected with that erasure? — A. No, sir; nothing 
 more than I stated before. 
 
 Q. Are you enabled to say whether or not, looking at that paper and 
 recollecting the circumstances, that the name as originally entered for 
 these fifty shares was the name of James Brooks and that it was 
 changed to Neilson ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Your mind is a blank upon that subject 1 — A. It has escaped my 
 memory entirely. It is not improbable that Mr. Brooks's name was orig- 
 inally written there. 
 
 Q. Might that not have been naturally done in consequence of his 
 name being used on this paper ? — A. It might have been done for that 
 reason. , 
 
 By Mr. McCeaky : 
 Q. Can you tell anything about the time that paper was written and 
 signed ! — A. It must have been written not long previous to the issue 
 of the stock — which was the 29th of February, I think. Undoubtedly 
 the paper was not all signed on one day, because some of these gentle- 
 men resided in New York and some in BostQU. 
 
 By the Ohaikman : 
 
 Q. You know the signatures of many of these men ; that they are 
 genuine ? — A. I consider them genuine. 
 
 Q. Have you any doubt at all as to this being a genuine paper? — A. 
 None at all except to the pencil-signature of Oakes Ames. I do not 
 consider that genuine. 
 
 By Mr. McCeaby : 
 
 Q. Can you recollect now, in seeing that paper, anything as to the 
 reasons given for issuing that stock in the name of Mr. Neilson instead 
 of Mr. Brooks *? — A. No, sir ; except that I was instructed to do so. 
 
 Q. I believe you stated before that you were instructed by Mr. Dillon 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEK. 345 
 
 to do SO? — A. Yes, sir ; I was simply acting in a clerical capacity and 
 the reasons were not given to me. 
 
 Q. I understand you to repeat that you know nothing of the repay- 
 ment of this money by Mr. Neilson or by Mr. Brooks ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you know that it has ever been repaid? — A. No, sir; I do not. 
 
 Q. Have you examined the accounts of Mr. Dillon to see if you could 
 find anything about the repayment of that loan by Mr. Neilson 1 — A. As 
 I have stated before, he keeps no books, and has kept no books since I 
 have had charge of his private matters. He keeps books of his different 
 railroad companies. 
 
 Q. You know of no book account or mcmoranduni of this transaction 
 with Neilson ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You think it might appear in some of the railroad- books? — A. It 
 might ; I do not know. 
 
 Q. Would Mr. Dillon be able to state where the account would ap- 
 pear? — A. I doubt if Mr. Dillon would know. 
 
 Q. Was he in the habit of making loans of $5,000 without any account 
 of the matter in his books? — A. I do not know anything about that. I 
 had nothing to do with him at that time, any more than I had with Mr. 
 Alley or any other member of a railroad company. 
 
 By Mr. Banks : 
 
 Q. Do you have charge of Mr. Dillon's private aiiairs now, and have 
 you had since that time? — A. Yes, a portion of the time. 
 
 Q. If such an incident as this had occurred to you at any time since 
 you have had charge would you remember it ? — A. Yes, sir. If I had 
 received it I could find it on my books. I have received no such sum of 
 money on his account. 
 
 (The paper produced by witness in the above testimony is as follows :) 
 
 We, the undersigned, stockholders in the Credit Mobilier of America, 
 consent to the sale of one hundred shares of its stock at par to General 
 Gr. M. Dodge, chief engineer of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company, 
 and also to the sale to Hon. James Brooks of the balance he is entitled 
 to under his agreement with T. C Durant, the said Brooks to pay par 
 value for the same. 
 
 OLIVER AMES. 
 [Pencil :] 0AKE8 AMES. 
 
 (Not his, I believe.) 
 -JOHN E. DUFF. 
 S. HOOPER & CO. 
 W. T. GLIDDEN. 
 
 E. H. BAKER. 
 
 F. NICKERSON. 
 JOS. NICKERSON. 
 R. E. EOBBINS. 
 THO. NICKERSON. 
 ISAAC THACKER. 
 HORATIO GILBERT. 
 HORATIO J. GILBERT. 
 T. W, ANDREWS. 
 
 S. H. FESSENDBN. 
 GAML. BRADFORD. 
 E. W. GILMORE. 
 O. S. CHAPMAN. 
 
 G. G. GRAY, 
 
 Per H. W. GRAY, Attorney. 
 
346 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 28, 1873. 
 John A. Looan, United States Senator from the State of Illinois, 
 sworn and examined. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Have you seen the testimony of Mr. Oakes Ames in which 
 your name is mentioned in connection with the purchase of Credit Mo- 
 bilier stock 'I — Answer. I have. 
 
 Q. Will you state to the committee your recollection in relation to the 
 transaction between you and him in regard to the matter referred to ? — 
 A. I wish to say this at the commencement of my statement : 1 have 
 nothing whatever to conceal in reference to this transaction as far as I 
 am connected with it. Mr. Ames has stated that I agreed to purchase 
 certain stock from him. I did so, as a mere business transaction, in the 
 winter of 18G7-'68, during the session of Congress. Mr. Ames, in a con- 
 versation with me, recommended this stock as valuable, and I agreed 
 with him to purchase ten shares of it at par. I paid nothing to Mr. 
 Ames <at any time. He delivered to me no stock and no certificate of 
 stock. 
 
 In June, 1868, following, on the 20th day, as my memorandum shows, 
 and as, I suppose, the books will show, Mr. Ames came to me and said 
 this stock was entitled to a dividend, or. that there was a dividend on 
 the stock. He made up a statement, and handed it to me, which 
 showed that the dividends on the stock had paid for the i^urchase of 
 $1,000, and that there was an amount coming to me, in excess, of $329. 
 He handed me a check for the $329. I had paid Mr. Ames, as I say, 
 no money, and he had delivered no certificate of stock to me, or to any- 
 body else for me. I took the check, and said to Mr. Ames I would take 
 it Avith the understanding that if 1 did not want to receive the stock I 
 would let him know; that it was a matter I would consider about. 
 Three or four days afterward, perhaps, I presented the check to the 
 Sergeant-at Arms, or some one who was in his olBce, and received the 
 money on it, $329. I retained the money a few days. In the mean 
 time 1 had received from a friend, with whom I was in communication, 
 some letters which caused me to doubt whether ic was good stock, or 
 Avhether there would not be difficulty about it, and I said to Mr. Ames 
 I believed I would not take the stock. Mr. Ames replied, " Very well," 
 remarking that it was good stock, and that he thought it was a good 
 investment, and that a man was very foolish, or something of that 
 kind, not to retain it. I paid him back $329, and, I think, two dollars 
 for interest. Mr. Ames hesitated about taking the small amount of 
 interest, but I insisted on it, and paid him the amount, with interest, 
 covering the whole transaction. That is all there is of it. I have ex- 
 amined my memorandum in regard to the transaction, and am able to 
 give the date, which I could not do from memory. I received the check 
 on the 20th June, and returned the money to Mr. Ames on the 10th July 
 following. 
 
 I do not say this by way of excuse or covering up anything in this 
 transaction, but simply to state the facts as they were. During the 
 whole of this time I never received a share of this stock ; I never had it 
 in my possession ; it was never delivered to me, or to anybody for me ; 
 nor did I ever receive anything from it, directly or indirectly, except as 
 I have stated to the committee. And I wish to state further, inasmuch 
 as the country is alarmed or excited about this matter, tfiat I had no 
 hesitation in making the agreement with Mr. Ames at the time,'so far as 
 any suggestion of corruption or wrong in the matter was concerned. I 
 
CREMT MOBILIER. 347 
 
 (lid not think of such ii thing, and I had no suspicion that Mr. Ames 
 thought of anything of the kind. Tliere was no. legislation before Con- 
 gress at the time in connection with the Union Pacific Eailroad, nor do 
 I recollect any legislation occurring during the time this negotiation was 
 going on between Mr. Ames and myself; if there was I do not remember 
 it. 1 only say that so far as iniiuence was concerned, in reference to the 
 Union Pacific Railroad, it was entirely unnecessary for Mr. Ames or 
 anybody else, if they had a desire, to have made any bargain with me 
 out of which I could make profit to obtain my influence for that road. 
 My constituency were immediately interested in its being constructed ; 
 I was entirelj'^ friendly to it, and have always aided and sustained it, 
 because I thought it was right to do so in all proper things, and would 
 just as willingly do so to-day, irrespective of this investigation, as I ever 
 did. Whenever any matter for the benefit of the road has been before 
 Congress which I considered proper I have always voted for it. I want 
 how to ask Mr. Ames if any legislation, or proposed legislation, was 
 pending during the period of which I have spoken ? 
 Mr. Ames. I do not recollect anything. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Q. You were a member of the House at that time ? — A. I was. 
 
 Q. Can you state about how early in the winter it was that you first 
 had any negotiation upon the suTojecf? — A. I do not remember the first 
 conversation, because I kept no memorandum of it. I stated at the 
 beginning the time I. agreed to take this stock. I might have had fre- 
 quent conversations with Mr. Ames prior to that agreement. I remem- 
 ber one conversation in reference to the stock in which he spoke of it 
 as being good stock. This was some time along in the first part of that 
 session of Congress. Afterward, on his recommendation, I agreed to 
 purchase it. I cannot give you the date of these first conversations I 
 had with him. The date at which I agreed to purchase was the 10th 
 . February, 1868. I then told him I would take ten shares of stock. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether Mr. Ames had ever proposed to you to 
 become a shareholder in the company prior to tliat session of Congress"? — 
 A. Ko, sir; I never had any conversation with him upon the subject 
 prior to that session. We had some preliminary conversations, as I 
 .stated, prior to the 10th February, when I agreed to take ten shares. 
 
 Q. In the June following, aS I understand you, he gave you a state- 
 ment of the dividends and amount due you 1 — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. There had been a bond dividend which he had sold and given you 
 the benefit of, and also a cash dividend? — A. Yes, sir; he had received 
 the dividends himself, and in his statement to me he accounted" for the 
 dividends, and stated that there was $329 due to me after paying for 
 the stock. 
 
 Q. When you received the check from him you expressed some doubt 
 as to whether you desired to make the contract complete, and stated that 
 yon would take the check and consider of it ? — A. I did. 
 
 Q. And about the 10th July following you made up your mind, for 
 some reason, that it was not desirable for you to go further in the trans- 
 action and returned him the money 1 — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. I do not know whether it is very important for the committee to 
 know the reasons that influenced you, but 1 would inquire whether it 
 was some question in relation to the value of the stock that influenced 
 you not to take it, or other considerations ? — A. I had, as I said, my 
 ideas in reference to the organization and matters in regard to the con- 
 tract for building the road from the communications 1 had received from 
 
048 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 that friend wbo was entirely outside of tbis matter. It was from a con- 
 tractor on the road. He had been writing to me, and had stated a good 
 deal about the matter of these contracts, and the statements he made 
 suggested to my mind that there might possibly be trouble atead. If I 
 had not received these letters perhaps I should have retained the money. 
 If I had, I should certainly have come here and said so if the committee 
 had sent for me. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Ames, in the preliminary conversations you had with him 
 prior to February, say anything as to the value of the stock, or how 
 much you would realize on it ! — A. Pie said it would be good stock; he 
 did not make any extravagant statements to me about it. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether he made any specific statement to you 
 about its value ? — A. 1 think he merely made general representations. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 
 Q. At that session of Congress 1 believe you were a member of the 
 Pacific Railroad Committee ? — A. I believe I was; I do not remember. 
 
 Q. Was it in consequence of your being a member of that committee 
 that you had this correspondence with this friend of j'ours ? — A. It may 
 possibly have been; I do not remember the particular reasons that 
 suggested it. I had several letters on the subject; I cannot say now 
 what first gave me the suggestion thatled me to reflect upon the sub- 
 ject, the result of which was that I concluded not to take the stock, I 
 may say I had no reason to suppose there would be legislation, although 
 I did not know but what there might be at some future time legis- 
 lation in connection with the road. I saw nothing in the transaction 
 on the part of Mr. Ames that showed anything more than a mere busi- 
 ness matter. 
 
 By the Ciiaiema.x : 
 Q. Do you remember whether in the conversations you had with Mr. 
 Ames about it there was anything said as to there being any likelihood 
 of the matter coming before Congress in any shape or form f — A. I do 
 not remember that there was. I looked upon it simply as a transaction 
 between him and myself as business men. He and I were good friends. 
 He said to me that he was seeking prominent influential men in the 
 country to invest in this stock. I mentioa that as a part of the conver- 
 sation, because I desire to state everything. 
 
 By Mr. Merkick : 
 
 Q. Were you or not advised of a resolution introduced by C. 0. Wash - 
 burn, 4tli February, 1868, into the House, inquiring whether these roads 
 had complied with the provisions of the twentieth section of the law 
 incorporating them '! — A. Probably I was advised at the time if it took 
 place ; I do not now remember it. 
 
 Q. You did not know that at the time you were making this contract 
 with Mr. Ames? — A. It had no .reference to it. I had had, conversa- 
 tions with Mr. Ames long prior to that. This was the time I told him 
 I would purchase. 
 
 Q. Suppose your attention had been called on the 10th of February, 
 when you made your contract with him, to the fact that C. C. Wash- 
 burn, on the 4th of February, had introduced a re3olution inquiring as 
 to whether these roads had complied with their obligations under the 
 law? — A. I would have made the purchase just the same, because I did 
 not look at it iu any improper light. 
 
 Q. Would the fact of your being a member of the Pacific Railroad 
 Committee, and this resolution being introduced the 4th of February, 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 349 
 
 to inquire iuto tlie iiiaimor in which these roads had complied with their 
 obligations, have been a sufficient iudncemeiit to have withheld you 
 from the investment'? — A. It might have been if I had thought any- 
 thing about it. I had nothing in my mind at that time in reference to 
 any such matter. In fact, I presume Mr. Ames proffered me the stock 
 about which we had had prior conversations, and I said I was willing 
 to make the purchase. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. You had learned from Mr. Ames that there was some connection 
 between the Credit Mobilier and the Union Pacific Eailroad? — A. I 
 had learned this — and I dislike to confess my ignorance in the matter — 
 I had learned that it was the stock of a company which was construct- 
 ing the Union Pacific Eailroad, but the details of the relations between 
 them I did not know anything about, and really do not now thoroughly, 
 for 1 have never investigated it. 
 
 [To Mr. Ames : Q. I wish to ask Mr. Ames whether the statement I 
 have made accords with his recollection of the facts ? — A. Substantially.] 
 
 The witness subsequently returned to the committee-room and said : 
 
 In my testimony this morning a statement was made which I desire 
 to be corrected. In answer to the question of Mr. Niblack whether I 
 was not a member of the Pacific Eailroad Committee at the time, I re- 
 plied that I did not know, perhaps I was. I went immediately and ex- 
 amined the Journal, and find that I was not a member of that commit- 
 tee at that time. I was not a member of the Pacific Eaih'oad Commit- 
 tee during the 40th Congress. In 1869, in the ilst Congress, the Jour- 
 nal states the committee as follows: William A. Wheeler, chairman; 
 John A. Logan ; and so on. This was nearly a year after the transac- 
 tion occurred. T was not appointed a member of that committee until 
 March, 1869. 
 
 ^ Washington, D. C, Jamumj 29, 1873. 
 
 Sidney Dillon recalled and examined. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. You stated the other day that you loaned $5,000 to Mr. Neilson 
 to pay the fifty shares Credit Mobilier stock, and that you thought the 
 money had been repaid to you, but was not clear by whom ; your infor- 
 mation then was that Mr. Ham was the man who had charge of 
 the transaction, and could tell us. Mr. Ham has since been before the 
 committee, and says he had nothing to do with matters of that sort for 
 you. State whether you have yourself made any further examination 
 since you were before the committee on a former occasion, for the pm*- 
 pose of ascertaining by whom that $5,000 was repaid to you, if it has been 
 repaid. — Answer. I have made all the examination that is in my power 
 to make, and I find no trace of it. When I referred the committee to 
 Mr. Ham, I supposed he was my clerk at the period of this transaction, 
 but I find he was not until some time afterward. The way my business 
 has been done is this : I had some two or three different railroad con- 
 tracts going on at the same time, one in New Hampshire and one in 
 Massachusetts, and so on. I had an office in each place, -where my 
 business was done for that separate contract. I had no general office 
 in New York until a comparatively recent date, when I employed Mr. 
 Ham, Finding my different matters were getting mixed up in New 
 York, and that I must keep an office there, I employed Mr. Ham to do 
 
350 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 my business. Before theu, if a party came to me aud wanted to borrow 
 $5,000, or I wanted to borrow $5,000, or if I was in any trade in stock 
 or bonds, it had been my custom to attend to the business mys&lf, and 
 keep the run of it in my head. All my railroad business I did with my 
 clerks, as I 'have stated, but for these individual transactions I never 
 kept any books and never kept any memorandum ; I kept them all in 
 my head. Such a matter as this with Neilson was a personal and 
 private transaction, and there would be no record of it. I have no 
 doubt it has been paid, but I have no knowledge on the subject. I can- 
 not find the stock or bonds, and I think Mr. Neilson must have paid 
 me. I maj' have sold the securities for his account, as they were about 
 the same amount ; if not, I must have returned them to him when I got 
 my money back. I know of no other way to account for them unless 
 they have been stolen from me, and I can tell you nothing further 
 about it. 
 
 Q. You remember making the loan to Mr. Neilson — you remember 
 that transaction as being with Mr. Neilson and not with Mr. Brooks ? — A. 
 It was with Mr. Neilson. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether he gave you any note or obligation, or 
 whether you made any memorandum of it? — A. I took no note and 
 made no memorandum. I took collaterals from him. 
 
 Q. Would you be likely to loan the amount of $5,000 without having 
 a note ? — A. O, yes, I often do it ; it is customary in New York. A man 
 comes in, and wants five, ten, or twenty thousand dollars; " Here is my 
 money ; there are the collaterals ; keep the collaterals until the money is 
 paid." That was about the way of it when Mr. Neilson borrowed this 
 money. He handed me his collaterals and I gave him the money. I 
 think that is the fact; 1 am not sure. And he must have returned me 
 the money and taken his collaterals without taking up the receipt. 
 
 Q. The receipt you gave for collaterals would state the amount of 
 collaterals? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You remember loaning the money ; do you remember whether yon 
 did actually receive the collaterals?: — A. I did receive collaterals at the 
 time. • , 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection what they were? — A. They consisted of 
 Union Pacific Eailroad stock and bonds ; none but Pacific Eailroad 
 securities. 
 
 Q. Do you remember the amount? — A. I cannot state the amount; it 
 is not in my mind. I know it was satisfactory at the time to secure the 
 return of the money. 
 
 Q. You have made search, and are not able to find any such securities 
 belonging to Neilson in your possession now? — A. I have searched my 
 entire papers, and had Mr. Ham search. I supposed at the time I was 
 here, that Mr. Ham could trace the thing. I have employed him during 
 the past year as a special clerk to look after things, such as I have been 
 speaking of, for me. 
 
 Q. But the fact as to whether you have retained or surrendered these 
 securities is entirely out of your memory? — A. I cannot remember; 
 I do not remember the transaction.- 
 
 Q. Then you have no personal recollection of this transaction between 
 you and Neilson at all, except the fact that you loaned him the money ? — 
 A. That is the only recollection I have. 
 
 Q. So that you are utterly unable to say by whom the money was re- 
 paid, if it was repaid? — A. I am unable to say anything except that it 
 would be natural that 1 should receive the money from the person who 
 borrowed it. I cauhot tell you as to the fact. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 351 
 
 Q. Do you kuow anything in regard to the paper being gotten up and 
 signed for the consent of the stockholders to Mr. Neilson's receiving 
 the additional shares ? You stated the other day that it referred only 
 to this transaction of Neilson's. — A. I had forgottou that it referred 
 to any other. • I had not seen the paper for a long time. 
 
 Q. Can you state whj' the name of Mr. Brooks was put into that pa- 
 per instead of Neilson's ? — A. lean only state that as Mr Brooks's name 
 had been identified with the transaction in the form in which it has been 
 represented here, his name appeared by mistake in the paper instead of 
 thatofBeilsou's. That is my impression now. 1 cannot state certainly. 
 
 Q. Can you state whether or not Mr. Brooks is the party who negoti- 
 ated with you, or claimed that the thing should be done f — A. I think 
 in my testimony I stated that Mr. Brooks talked with me about that. 
 
 Q. And that it was done upon his application and not upon the appli- 
 cation of Neilson ? — A. I think Mr. Brooks said the transaction was so 
 and so, as has been represented here, and that, on consideration, of my 
 own motion, 1 got up that paper to have Neilson get the fifty shares. 
 
 Q. Then I understand that it was upon the application of Mr. Brooks 
 and not upon the ^pi)lication of Mr. Neilson that that transaction oc- 
 curred ? — A. I think it was brought to me in the first instance by Mr. 
 Brooks. 
 
 Washington, D. C., January 29, 1873. 
 
 Eobert S. Hale, esq., appeared before the committee in behalf of Mr. 
 Colfax, and stated that it was the desire of Mr. Colfax to bring wit- 
 nesses and adduce proof to rebut the testimony l)efore the committee in 
 regard to his connection, with the Credit Mobilier. He wished now to 
 recall a witness for the purpose of asking him a single question. 
 
 Permission having been granted by the committee, Henry C. Swain 
 was recalled and examined by Mr. Hale. 
 
 Question. Will you state whether the books of the First National Bank 
 show debits to Mr. Colfax op the day of the credits of which you spoke 
 in your testimony yesterday — the22d June, 1868 ? — Answer. They do. 
 
 Q. What are those debits"? — A. I cannot state fully. Among them 
 was a check of $1,000, paid on that day. 
 
 Q. Have you that check"? — A. I have it here. 
 
 Q. Will you produce it '! — A. This is the check referred to. It reads : 
 
 " Washington, D. C, June 22, 1868. , 
 
 " First National Bank, pay to self or bearer $1,000. 
 
 " SCHUYLER COLFAX." 
 Q. State if you know how that was paid. — A. I think it was paid by 
 a draft on New York, to the order of Mr. Colfax. 
 Q. Have you that draff? — A. I have. 
 
 Q. Produce it. — A. It is a draft of our bank on the Continental Na- 
 tional Bank of New York, for $1,000, drawn to. the order of Mr. Colfax, 
 and signed by H. S. Flint, assistant cashier. It is indorsed : 
 " Pay to the order of A. H. Connor, Indianapolis. 
 
 "SCHUYLEE COLFAX. 
 " A. H. Connor : 
 
 " Pay Winslow Lanier, or order. 
 
 " S. A. FLETCHER & CO." 
 
 Q. It was subsequently paid by the drawee, in New York ? — A. Yes, 
 sir. • 
 
352 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. Are there any other debits to him on that day! — A. There may 
 be. I cannot tell without referring to the books. 
 
 Q. Will you have the kindness, on returning to the bank, to examine 
 the books, and advise the chairman if you find any other ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Ames : 
 
 Q. Was this deposit of $1,200,' and these checks referred to yesterday, 
 the 22d June, 186S 1—A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. He made the deposit, and then drew out $1,000, and sent it, in a 
 draft, to Xew York ? — A. We gave him a check on New York. 
 
 Washington, I). C, January 29, 1873. 
 
 Ec-examination of Oakes Ames. 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Q. Among the checks the Sergeaut-at-Arms has laid before the com- 
 mittee dated in the month of June, 1868, drawn by you, is one payable 
 to J. W. Patterson or bearer, $1,800, indorsed by Mr. Patterson ; did 
 you give that check to Mr. Patterson ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. For what was this $1,800 paid? — A. It was a dividend of GO per 
 cent, on $3,000 of Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
 Q. It was a cash dividend °! — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you take a receipt from him 'i — A. I did. ^ 
 
 Q. Have you that receipt? — A. I think you have it. 
 
 Q. Have you any other receipt from Mr. Patterson that you have not 
 produced here ? — A. Yes, sii'. 
 
 Q. Will you produce it? — A. Hereitis. Itreads: " Washington, Feb- 
 ruary 14, 1868. Eeceived of Oakes Ames $2,328 for three bonds of 
 Union Paciiic Eailroad Company sold for me, being a dividend of 80 
 per cent, in bonds on the stock of the Credit Mobilier of America, held 
 by him as trustee on my account. J. W. Patterson." 
 
 Q. This was made at the time of the date ? — A. I presume so ; there 
 would be no object in making it auy other date. 
 
 Q. What are the figures at the bottom ? — A. I think the figuring 
 there is mine. 
 
 Q. The receipt, then, is written by you? — A. Yes, sir; and signed by 
 Mr. Patterson. 
 
 Q. And the figures at the bottom show the transaction ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 I paid him $2,223, and deducted $105, which, I think, was the amount 
 due for interest or on the purchase-money. Mr. Patterson would like 
 to appear before you and make some explanation. He thinks there is 
 some misunderstanding about the matter, and would like to have an 
 opportunity to explain. 
 
 Q. The other daj' we examined the books of the Sergeant- at- Arms, and 
 inquired of you in regard to all the names appearing upon the books 
 except that of Mr. Logan, who was subsequently examined. In look- 
 ing over the drafts, however, there are some which do not indicate in 
 themselves by whom they were drawn, or for what purpose, and there- 
 fore we desire to inquire in reference to these. Here is a check drawn 
 by you on the Sergeant-at-Arms, dated June 22, 1868 : " Sergeant-at- 
 Arms, House of Eepresentatives, pay Oakes Ames." Then there is a 
 letter S and some other filling, " [$600,] and charge to my account. 
 Oakes Ames." — A. .That was given to Mr. Scofield. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 353 
 
 Q. The letters then are Sc. ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. These letters were put there to indicate that this, therefore, was for 
 Mr. Scofield '? — A. Yes, sir ; I had forgotten all about it until 1 saw it 
 the other day. I suppose I must have put it there for that purpose. 
 
 Q. Did you draw a check for Mr. Scofield for that dividend "I— A. Yes, 
 sir ; my memorandum, which 1 showed the other day, says I did. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Scofield receive this check from you, and get the money 
 on it, as you supposed 1 — A. I suppose so. 
 
 Q. What was that dividend for ? — A. Sixty per cent, dividend on the 
 stock held. 
 
 Q. Did you receive a bond dividend on that stock prior to this? — A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You sold the bonds ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What was done with the money you received for the bonds ? — A. 
 1 paid it out to these parties, as I have said. 
 
 Q. Did you pay the money to Mr. Scofield, or was it credited to him ! — 
 A. I do not recollect which it was ; it was in the statement that I gave 
 him. 
 
 Q. Had you paid over to Mr. Scofield the money you received for his 
 bonds prior to June 22 ? — A. Yes, sir ; I paid it over to him. 
 
 Q. You paid^the proceeds of the bond divideud, and also this cash 
 dividend ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. At what time do you think it was this transaction was rescinded 
 between you and him ? — A. I think it was the last part of that session 
 of Congress or the first of the next. 
 
 Q. He concluded not to keep the stock ? — A. He concluded not to 
 keep the stock. 
 
 Q. Was that after the McOomb suit was brought, do you think 1 — A. 
 I think so. 
 
 Q. Is it your understanding that it was in consequence of that that 
 he became alarmed about the transaction and did not choose to keep 
 the stock ? — A. I cannot tell you about that. He said something about 
 personal liability. I cannot tell you what his ideas were. 
 
 Q. Please state what passed between you and him on that subject ; 
 do you remember it? — A. He wanted to sell and close up the matter, 
 and we settled up in that way. 
 
 Q. These dividends were all he had received. Did he keep them or 
 were they repaid to you? — A. I think they were repaid to me; all 
 except ten shares of Union Pacific Eailroad stock that he kept as profit. 
 
 Q. So that you got back the money and he made ten shares of Union 
 Pacific Eailroad stock ? — A. I think so ; I don't wish to state positively ; 
 his memory is probably better than mine up -n that subject. 
 
 Q. But we want you to state your memory! — A. My memory is that 
 he got ten shares of stock ; I cannot say positively ; but that is my re- 
 membrance of it. 
 
 Q. Here is another check upon the Sergeant-at- Arras of the same 
 date, June 22, 1868 : "Pay O. A. or bearer $329, and charge to my ac- 
 count. Oakes Ames." That seems to have been paid to somebody and 
 taken up by the Sergeant- at- Arms. These initials are your own ? — A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you know who had the benefit of that check 1 — A. I cannot 
 tell you. f . 
 
 Q. Do you think you received the money on it yourself? — A. I have 
 no idea, I may have drawn the money and handed it to another per- 
 23 X 
 
354 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 son. It was paid on that transaction. It may have been paid to Mr. 
 Garfield. There were several sums of that amount. 
 
 Q. Have you any memory in reference to this check ? — A. No, sir ; I 
 have no memory as to that particular check. I found these checks in 
 the package which the Sergeant-at-Arms gave me, and I find them on 
 the Sergeant-at-Arms' books. 
 
 Q. You have some memory in regard to some of these men receiving 
 payment of their dividends f — A. They all received payments of their 
 dividends. There is no question of that in my mind. There may be 
 in the minds of , others. 
 
 Qc Is there any other gentleman here in Congress who received 
 $329 dividend except those who have already been named by you? — A. 
 I dou't think of any other. 
 
 Q. In regard to Mr. Garfield, do you know whether you gave him a 
 check or paid him the money? — A. I think I did not pay him the 
 money. He got it from the Sergeant-at-Arms upon a check. 
 
 Q. You have testified to the check of $1,200, payable to S. C. or 
 bearer ; also to one $329 to Mr. Allison ; also $329 to W. D. K. ; the 
 same amount to Mr. Wilson ; and the same amount to John A. Logan, 
 whose names appear here. These are all the names that appear on 
 the books of the Sergeant-at-Arms of persons in Congress on that day. 
 Are you satisfied that this check of $329, in which your own initials 
 are written, was to pay some one a dividend on that stock? — A. Yes, 
 sir. I don't know why I should draw a check for $329, except for that 
 purpose. 
 
 Q. On the next day, June 23, there is a check given by you on the 
 Sergeant-at-Arms for $272.79, without any name in it, payable to blank 
 or bearer ; have you any memory in reference to that check ? — A. No, 
 sir ; I don't know that I can give you any information in regard to that. 
 
 Q. It does not correspond to any memorandum you have there ? — A. 
 No, sir. 
 
 Q. Would you infer from the sum and the manner in which the check 
 is drawn that you drew the money? — A. I cannot say, I had no par- 
 ticular form of drawing my checks, There are quite a number drawn 
 for other purposes having no reference to the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 Q. If j-ou had wanted to draw out the money for yourself to use, would 
 you be very likely to make a check for the fractional sum of $272.79? — 
 A. That I cannot say ; it might be for some remittance to pay some bill 
 for board, or something like that. 
 
 Q. The fact, then, that there is no payee inserted in the check does 
 not indicate to your mind that you received the money or did not re- 
 ceive it ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. If you drew out the money for yourself, would yon not have been 
 likely to draw a round sum, unless it was to pay some particular bill you 
 had ? — A. Unless it was to pay some bill or draft, or something of that 
 sort. It may have been in settlement of some of these matters ; I can- 
 not say. 
 
 Q. Here is another check, July 3, 1867, for $1,200, which says, "Pay 
 to draft." — A. That may be for a draft on Boston ; I was in the habit of 
 getting drafts on Boston and New York to send away. 
 
 Q. Have you any dflubt, from the inspection of that check, that it 
 was to get a draft to use for your own purposes? — A. No, sir; I don't 
 suppose there is ajiy doubt about that. I guess we adjourned about 
 that time; but I may have wanted to remit it home for some purpose. 
 
 Q. Have you any memory in relation to this draft of $722, for what 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 355 
 
 it was drawn ? — A. None whatever. I may be able to find some memo- 
 randa ; I have nothing here that will throw any light upon it. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Dawes receive any money from you paid by check on the 
 Sergeant-at-Arms ? — A. I think he did. 
 
 Q. About what time "?— A. 1 think about the same time' with the rest 
 of them. 
 
 Q. Have yoii examined all the checks that you gave the Sergeant-at- 
 Arms 1 — A. I think I have. 
 
 Q. Did you find any check that you think was given to Mr. Dawes ? — 
 A. I do not know. Let me look over the checks again. My memoran- 
 dum, that I have here, says I gave Mr. Dawes $600, less $200 ; there 
 was a balance due me on some other matter. 
 
 Q. And you think jou paid him $400, and that you paid it by check 
 on the Sergeant-at-Arms ? — A. I think T did, judging from this memo- 
 randa. The amount was $600, and $200 was deducted, and I must have 
 given him $400. I had receipts from Mr. Dawes, but I settled with him 
 as I stated, gave him the receipts and papers, and he gave me his note 
 to balance the account. 
 
 Q. This $400 you think you paid Mr. Dawes as a portion of the money 
 dividend on his ten shares '? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Who was W. W. Dungan ? — A. He is a resident of this city. 
 
 Q. Has this check with his name anything to do with Credit Mobilier 
 stock ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Among these checks I do not find any for the sum of $400. — A. 
 No, sir ; I do not see any here. It might have been applied on account 
 in our settlement. 
 
 Q. You think the check in which you wrote nothing to indicate the 
 payee must have been for Mr. Garfield? — A. Yes, sir; that is my judg- 
 ment. 
 
 Q. In relation to the dividends, you say you held the stock and certifi- 
 * cates for bonds, and that you have drawn the dividends on these Credit 
 Mobilier shares which have been transferred ! — A. Yea, sir. 
 
 Q. If there had been any dividend paid upon any Union Pacific 
 stock, that has not been divided ? — A. No, sir, 
 
 Q. So that nothing has been received either by you, or could have 
 been received by any of these gentlemen, on that account "? — A. N(^ 
 sir. 
 
 Q. You say you received certificates for bonds in payment of divi- 
 dends ; what kind of bonds were they ? — A. They were dividend cer- 
 tificates for first-mortgage Union Pacific Railroad bonds, but the com- 
 pany did not have the bonds to make the dividend on, and they never 
 were delivered. 
 
 Q. Would they have been delivered if they had been called for 1 — 
 A. No, sir ; the company had not the bonds to give. 
 
 Q. Did all the shareholders of the Credit Mobilier who were entitled 
 to draw dividends receive an equal percentage of these certificates I — 
 A. I presume so. 
 
 Q. If you had delivered the certificates for bonds to these gentle- 
 men, would they have received the bonds ? — A, No ; and these gen- 
 tlemen could not have drawn dividends at all. The dividends were 
 not made, as I have before explained, upon the Credit Mobilier stock, 
 but in consequence of the Oakes Ames contract, as it was called, and 
 they were made to the shareholders of the Credit Mobilier who had 
 signed the agreement making themselves personally responsible. These 
 gentlemen had not signed that agreement, and therefore could not them- 
 selves receive the dividends. 
 
356 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. Suppose the parties declined to take the stock before this last divi- 
 dend, and you had continued to be the owner of the stock itself, and 
 had received cerfciflcates for the bonds, could you have got the bonds 
 upon these certificates ? — A. No, sir. About a year afterward we re- 
 ceived what are called income bonds in payment of the certificates. 
 
 Q. Have these income bonds drawn any dividend? — A. Tes, sir. 
 The receipts which I have from Mr. Patterson, Mr. Bingham, Mr. Pain- 
 ter, and others, show that I have given them dividends upon the bonds, 
 and that I had accounted to them for all I had received, 
 
 Q. How was it in relation to Mr. Kelley and Mr. Garfield ? — A. They 
 have had nothing but the $329. 
 
 Q. Have you ever offered to deliver to them the other dividends ? — A, 
 No, sir. 
 
 Q. You say that Mr. Scofield, Mr. Dawes, Mr. Logan, and others with 
 "whom you made an adjustment, they having declined to take the shares 
 of Credit Mobilier stock, did not receive these dividends? — A. No, sir; 
 they went out after the 60 per cent, dividend ; they had no more to do 
 with it, and they were not entitled to anything more. 
 
 Q. But Mr. Kelley, you suppose, was entitled to receive the dividends, 
 and will receive them when you settle with liim ? — A. Yes, sir ; I expect 
 to pay over to Mr. Kelley everything I have received on his stock. 
 
 Q. And in relation to Mr. Garfield ? — A. The same in relation to him, 
 if it is not borrowed money. I consider that I sold him the stock, and 
 that he holds it. 
 
 Q. You have accounted to Mr. Patterson for his ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You consider Mr. Colfax entitled to whatever you have on his 
 stock?— A. I do. 
 
 Q. And the same with Mr. Allison? — A. Mr. Allison sent his stock 
 back, and called the thing canceled. 
 
 Q. How did you call it ? — A. If he sent his stock back and declined , 
 to have anything to do with it, I suppose the thing is oflf, as Mr. Colfax * 
 said. 
 
 Q, Is it ofif in consequence of the agreement you had with him ; or, 
 when he sent the certificate of stock back, did you treat that as an aban- 
 donment of the transaction ? — A. I think Mr. Allison's idea was that 
 he was in an excited political contest, and resolved to have nothing to 
 do with it, so that it should not be brought up against him. I pre- 
 sume that is the fact. He knows his own motives ; I cannot explain 
 them. 
 
 Q. What we want to know is whether that was a real transaction or 
 a nominal transaction which you described in regard to the resale of the 
 stock to you ? — A. I suppose he considered it a real transaction. 
 
 Q. Did you consider it so? — A. If you refer to the nickel, I did not 
 consider that it amounted to anything ; but when he returned it, I sup- 
 posed the thing was canceled, and that that was an end of the transac- 
 tion. 
 
 Q. Have you come to any other understanding or agreement with him 
 at any other time except this small coin transaction ? — A. No, sir ; he 
 returned the stock, and 1 suppose considered that as an end of it. 
 
 Q. Did you accept that as an end of the matter between you and 
 him ? — A. I so considered it, or he would not have retur-ned it. 
 
 Q. He received the bond 'dividend and the cash dividend ? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. Did he ever receive anything more upon his shares ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. The stock and the certificate for bonds you received afterward, 
 and hold still ?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 357 
 
 Q. And you consider yourself entitled to these ? — A. Tes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you think that Mr. Allison ever returned to you in any way 
 any part of the jnoney you paid over to him 1 — A. He returned me the 
 stock of the Credit Mobilier, and returned the $1,000 paid for it by re 
 turning the stock. 
 
 Q. He paid nothing for the stock ? — A. He paid me something, or else 
 he would not have received his $600 dividend. 
 
 Q. How much money did he pay you, and when 1 — A. I do not now 
 remember how much. He must have paid it before the $600 dividend, 
 of course. 
 
 Q. Do you remember how that was ? — A. I remember he paid me for 
 it, or I should not have given him the $600 dividend. 
 
 Q. Did he pay you for these ten shares of stock before the bond divi- 
 dend? — A. No, sir; I received the bond dividend, and accounted for it 
 toward the payment of the stock, and he paid me the balance in money. 
 Afterward he received $600 cash dividend. 
 
 Q. Did he ever pay you back any part of the $600 ? — A. I did not so 
 understand it. 
 
 Q. Do you so understand it 1 — A. He so understands it. When I gave 
 my testimony before, I did not consider that he ever paid me back. 
 
 Q. Do you believe now that he ever paid you back 1 — A. Ifo ; I do not 
 believe he did. 
 
 Q. Have you any doubt upon tliat subject "? — A. Not much. Mr. Alli- 
 son returned me his stock, but he has never paid me back any money, as 
 I understand. 
 
 Q. Ton understand that Mr. Kelley and Mr. Garfield have each been 
 bettered $329 by their transactions '! — A. That is all there is of it. I 
 have not seen Mr. Allison for a long time, until this winter. I cannot 
 remember all these transactions, or everything that everybody says to 
 me, very well. 
 
 Q. You heard Mr. Allison's statement upon that subject f — A. Tes, 
 sir ; he says he inclosed a draft on New York to me, to be applied on 
 another transaction. I have no recollection of it. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect any transaction or any conversation by which it 
 was agreed that he should pay you back this money 1 — A. I do not. 
 
 Q. And you do not believe he has paid if? — A. I do not recollect it. 
 
 Q. Have you had any correspondence with any of these gentlemen 
 whose names have been brought in here, except Mr. Patterson, whose 
 letter you have produced*? — No, sir; I think not. 
 
 Q. You have had no communication with them? — A. No, sir; Mr. 
 Patterson is the only one. 
 
 Q. How many of them have you had conversations with ? — A. I have 
 had conversations with almost all of them. 
 
 Q. What the committee want to learn is, whether, in conversations 
 with any of these gentlemen, they have stated or admitted the matter 
 to be different from what they have testified to before the committee. — 
 A. I hardly know how to answer that question. 
 
 Q. Take any one that occurs to you; Mr. Merrick suggests Mr. Gar- 
 field. — A. Mr. Garfield has been to see me about the matter, and we 
 have talked it over. A part of the time he thinks it was a loan ; some- 
 times he thinks he has repaid me ; and then again he is in doubt about it. 
 
 Q. You may state whether, in conversation with you, Mr. Garfield 
 claims, as he claimed before us, that the only transaction between you 
 was borrowing $300. — A. No, sir; he did not claim that with me. 
 
 Q. State how he does claim it with you; what was said? State all 
 
358 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 that occurred in conversation between you. — A. I cannot remember 
 half of it. I have had two or three interviews with Mr. Garfield. He 
 wants to put it on the basis of a loan. He states that when he came 
 back from Europe, being in want of funds, he called on me to loan him 
 a sum of money. He thought he had repaid it. I do not know. I can- 
 not remember. 
 
 Q. What did you say to him in reference to that state of the case? — 
 A. I stated to him that he never asked me to lend him any money ; that 
 I never knew he 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; that, deducting the bond dividend and the cash divi- 
 dend, 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 had made that statement, what did he state in reply ? — 
 A. He wanted to have it go as a loan. 
 
 Q. Did he claim that it was in fact a loan? — A. No, sir; I do not 
 think he did. No, he did not. 
 
 Q. Go on and state, then, what was said — all the discussion that took 
 place. — A. I cannot tell you all ; we had three or four talks. I cannot 
 remember all that was said. 
 
 Q. How long after that transaction did he go to Europe? — A. I be- 
 lieve it was a year or two. 
 
 Q. Did you have any conversation in reference to the influence this 
 transaction would have upon the election last fall ? — A. Yes ; he said it 
 would be very injurious to him. 
 
 Q. What else in reference to that ? — A. I am a very bad man to re- 
 peat conversation; I cannot remember. 
 
 Q. State all that you know in reference to it. — A. I told him he knew 
 very well that that 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 1 can remember, that there was $2,400 due him in stock and 
 bonds. He made a little memorandum of $1,000 and $1,400, and, as I 
 recollect, said there was $1,000 of Union Pacific Railroad stock, $1,000 
 of Credit Mobilier stock, and $400 of stock or bonds, 1 do not recollect 
 what. 
 
 Q. When was that memorandum made? — A. It was made in my 
 room ; I cannot remember the date. It was since this . investigation 
 commenced. 
 
 Q. Was it in that conversation that he referred to the influence this 
 matter would have upon the election in his district ? — A. I do not recol- 
 lect whether it was in that one or some other. I have had two or three 
 conversations with him. 
 
 Q. Tell us, as nearly as you can, precisely the remarks he made in 
 that connection. — A. It was that it would injure his reputation ; that 
 it was a cruel thing. He felt very bad, was in great distress, and hardly 
 knew what he did say. 
 
 Q. Did .he make any request of you to make no statement in reference 
 to it? — A. I am not positive about that. 
 
 Q. What is your best recollection in reference to it f — A. My impres- 
 sion is, that he wanted to say as little about it as he could, and to get 
 off as easily as he could- That was about the conversation I had with 
 him, about the long and short of it. 
 
 Q. Have you the memorandum that Mr. Garfield made ? — A. I have 
 the figures that he made. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 359 
 
 Paper showa to the committee, containiag figures as follows : 
 " $1, 000 
 1,400 
 
 2,400" 
 
 Q. You say these figures were made by Mr. G-arfield ! — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. "What do these sums represent 1 How did he put them down ? — 
 A. $1,000 Union Pacific Eailroad stock, $1,000 Credit Mobilier stock, 
 and $400 which he could not remember whether it was to be in cash, 
 stock, or bonds. 
 
 Q. Is that what he had received, or what he was entitled to'? — A. 
 What he was entitled to. 
 
 Q. That was his idea of what was coming to him? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Was that about what he would have been entitled to 1 — A. He 
 would have been entitled to the $1,000 in stock, and he would have been 
 entitled to more than that. The $400 I think he is in error about. I 
 gave him $329 ,• I do not know whether the $400 referred to that. 
 
 Q. Did he put this down as his recollection of the statement you made 
 to him I — A. I so understood it. 
 
 By Mr. Merrick : 
 
 Q. It was in this conversation that these figures were made — that he 
 deprecated the effect of the matter upon his election ? — A. I do not know 
 about his election ; it was about his prospects, his reputation, &c. 
 
 Q. I understand that, in substance, he desired you to say as little as 
 possible about it ? — A. Yes, sir ; and that is my desire. 
 
 Q. Will you repeat just about what he did say ? — A. I cannot remem- 
 ber the conversation well enough to repeat it. 
 
 Q. Y"ou can repeat the substance of it ? — A. I have given you the 
 substance of it. 
 
 Q. How did you happen to retain that little stray memorandum ? — A. 
 I do not know. I found it on my table two or three days afterward. I 
 did not pay any attention to it at the time, until I found there was to 
 be a confiict of testimony, and I thought that might be something worth 
 preserving. 
 
 Q. This conversation was in your room and the figures made there ? — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do I understand you that this loan which Mr. Garfield claims to 
 have been made was in reference to a trip to Europe taken by him a 
 year or two afterward'? — A. I do not know when he took his trip. I 
 know he did not go during that session of Congress. This payment 
 was made to him during that session of 1867-'68. 
 
 • Q. Do you know whether he went during that recess following ? — A. 
 I cannot say. I do not know. 
 
 Q. Do you not know that he did not go to Europe for nearly two 
 years afterward ? — A. No, I do not. It is my impression it was two 
 years afterward, but I cannot remember dates. Peopla ask me about 
 things that occurred a year ago, and I cannot tell whether it was ten 
 years ago or one. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Q. Did you understand in this conversation you had with General 
 Garfield that you detailed to him the history of this matter as to how 
 the statement you had let him have was made up ; and did you under- 
 stand him to concede your statement about it to be the truth '? — A. 
 Well, I cannot say. He would not have been very apt to recollect the 
 amount there was due him if he had not acceded to my statement. 
 
360 CREDIT MOBILISE. • 
 
 Q. From the whole conversation — from what he said and the figures 
 that he made, did you understand him to concede the statement you 
 had made to him as about the truth 1 — A. Yes ; I so understood hiui. 
 
 Q. That statement you made to him was in substance the statement 
 you have made to us in reference to him ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you had any conversations with Judge Kelley upon this sub- 
 ject during this investigation? — A. I have had some conversations with 
 him — yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Will you state what they were ? 
 
 The Witness. When do you mean ? before his testimony, or since, 
 or both ? 
 
 The Chaieman. Both.' 
 
 A. Mr. Kelley spoke to me about this matter, and said he called it 
 a loan ; he said he had stated it was a loan, and then wanted to pay 
 me the amount. I told him that I did not so consider it — that I had 
 let him have $750 on account of the dividends that 1 held. He wanted 
 to call it a loan and wanted to repay me. He said he would give me 
 a check on his bank, and wanted to know when he should date it. I 
 told him that I did not know that it would make any difference, and he 
 gave me a check for $1,000. That was before any testimony had been 
 given, but after the investigation was ordered. I tore the check in 
 two and handed it back to him and called it a payment. 
 
 Q. Did you understand that Mr. Kelley wanted to give you a check 
 for $1,000 that he wished you to retain! — A. I did not consid«r that I 
 had any business to retain it. 
 
 Q. Did you consider that the proposition made to you was that you 
 should really get the money on that check ? — A. 1 do not know but he 
 may have so understood it. I did not consider that it belonged to me, 
 and I tore it up and handed it back to him. 
 
 Q. What did he say when you did that ? — A. We both appeared to be 
 satished with the transaction. 
 
 Q. Do you say that he called the loan repaid after you did that ? — A. 
 I did not talk with him about it afterward. 
 
 Q. Was this thing done in a passion between you ■? — A, O, no, sir ; it 
 was done in no unfriendly spirit. If a man is in a passion with me I do 
 not generally give him a check of $1,000. 
 
 Q. He gave you one ? — A. That was in payment of a loan. 
 
 Q. We want to know precisely what that transaction was ? — A. I have 
 told you what it was. I suppose it was so that Mr. Kelley could say 
 that he had paid that $1,000. 
 
 Q. Did you understand when he gave that check to you that he gave 
 it with the expectation that you should return it to him ? — A. I cannot 
 say, 
 
 Q. Did you so understand it when that was done ? — A. I have told 
 you what was said. 
 
 By Mr. Meurick : 
 
 Q. Did you receive it as a hona-fide check, which was to be paid in 
 canceling the transaction between you ? — A. I did not consider that he 
 owed me anything. I had no business with Mr. Kelley's check of 
 $1,000. 
 
 Q. You told him so ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did he deny the transaction being as you claimed it ? — A. No, sir. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. He wanted to call it something else ? — A. That is my idea. I may 
 be mistaken. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 361 
 
 Q. Is that the way you understood him 1 — A. He wanted to be clear 
 from this transaction. That was the idea ; so that he could say he had 
 not any interest in it. 
 
 Q. You did, however, .state to him what the transaction was, 'and 
 give- a history of it as you gave it to us? — A. No, sir; 1 did not state 
 that to him. He knew the history of it as well as I did. 
 
 Q. You stated -to him that it was not a loan ? — A. Yes, sir. He might 
 call the $750 a loan. I gave him the money without taking any note or 
 receipt for it. When a man loans money he usually takes a note or re- 
 ceipt. 
 
 Q. When you paid him that $750, did you understand that it was to 
 be considered on account of his dividends ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you state to him in this conversation that you had not loaned 
 Mm any money, but that you had paid it over to him on his stock ? — 
 A. I do not know whether I did or not. 
 
 Q. Did he not understand that that was what you claimed 1 — A. I 
 suppose he did. 
 
 Q. You told him he did not owe you anything, and he understood 
 that was the claim you made ? — A. I suppose so, and he never disputed 
 it. 
 
 Q. You can say whether when he drew this check and handed it to 
 you, you think he did it with any serious expectation that you were going 
 to keep the check and get the money f — A. I do not think he did, and 
 still I did not ask him. I expect he did it for the purpose of being able 
 to say that he did not own any of this stock when called on to testify 
 before this committee. 
 
 Q. He did not express any surprise when you tore up the check, but 
 was apparantly satisfied ? — A. He did not say he was not ; he evinced 
 no astonishment. 
 
 Q. And you think the transaction, taking place as it did, was one he 
 expected to call a payment of the loan ? — A. I supposed so ; that was 
 my supposition. 
 
 By Mr. Mereiok : 
 
 Q. In this conversation with Mr. Garfield, was anything said by him 
 to you about your being an old man near the end of your career, and 
 of his being comparatively a young man? — A. No, sir; nothing of that 
 sort. 
 
 By Mr. McCraet : 
 
 Q. You had an envelope the other day in which, you stated, Mr. Alli- 
 son returned his stock, and the postmark on which shows it was mailed 
 in Dubuque in March ; the year was not given ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You were in error then, in your first statement, in saying that he 
 returned his stock last fall? — A. Yes, sir; according to the postmark. 
 As I told you, I cannot remember, dates. It may have been three years 
 ago, and ^till I might have thought it was last fall. 
 
 Q. You have no reason to doubt the correctness of the postmark on 
 the envelope ? — A. No, sir ; I do not expect, of course, that that was a 
 forgery. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 29, 1873. 
 James Brooks, recalled at his own instance, read the following state- 
 ment : 
 
 Mr. Brooks desires to make record of the fact — 
 
 That in the printed exhibit of the supreme court of Pennsylvania, 
 
362 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 January term, 1868, (iJJ'o. 19, equity,) in the suit McComb vs. the Credit 
 Mobilier of America, was filed a sworn list of the Credit Mobilier 
 stockholders, dated December, 12, 1867, and that in the list is Charles 
 H. Neilson, one hundred shares, and Charles H. Neilson, fifty shares; 
 .and that therefore nearly three months before Mr. Brooks became 
 Government director it was a matter of notoriety in the highest court 
 of Pennsylvania that Mr. Keilson owned one hundred and fifty shares 
 in his own name and right. 
 
 Mr. Brooks also desires to make matter of record the names of 
 all the Government directors, when he was one of them, such 
 names as Hon. George Ashman, of Massachusetts; Hon. James 
 S. Eollins, of Missouri; Hon. Jesse L. Williams, of Indiana; Hon. 
 Ben. Wade, of Ohio, and others; and to the facts on the record of 
 the Union Pacific Eailroad books, that these directors generally, if not 
 always, were in accord with him (Mr. Brooks) as to the duties they owed 
 to the Government and to the road ; and that during that time Hon. 
 John A. Dix, governor of New York, was president of the road, and 
 the late United States Senator, Hon. E. D. Morgan, of New York, one 
 of the trustees of the bonds of said company. 
 
 Mr. Brooks also calls attention to his resolution in the October meet- 
 ing, 1872, of the Union Pacific Railroad directors, in which he demands 
 the revocation of the Wyoming Coal Company .contract, and that his 
 resolution prevailed, with but one dissenting voice. 
 
 By. Mr. Meerick : 
 
 Question. What was the duration of your commission, which you 
 received as Government director 1 — Answer. I was appointed 1st Octo- 
 ber, 1867, but I was not sworn in until March 23, 1868, and my com- 
 mission expired October 1, 1868. 
 
 Q. You stated at your former examination that your commission was 
 in October, 1867 ; that you were not sworn in till March 23, 1868 ; did 
 you not receive another commission the 11th March, 1868, under which 
 you were sworn in ? 
 
 The Witness. Commission from whom 1 
 
 Mr. Merrick. Under the Government, from the same authority un- 
 der which you were first commissioned. — A. I am quite sure there 
 could not have been such a commission. I was searching the books of 
 the Interior Department, the other day, to find out everything in con- 
 nection with that subject, and I recollect seeing no such thing. 
 
 Q. I understand, then, that you were not commissioned twice, but 
 that your first commission was anterior to the date of your being 
 sworn in ? — A. I recollect no commission except that of October, 1867 ; 
 I do not see why there should have been another. I may have had no- 
 tice that I must either accept or not accept; that I must either be 
 sworn in or not be sworn in, or something of that sort. 
 
 Q. I have been advised that there was a commission on the 11th 
 March, as well as on the 1st October, 1867, and I therefore asked tlie 
 question. — A. The records of the Department at which I have looked 
 show that I was sworn in 23d March, and I have a letter from Mr. 
 Cowan, Acting Secretary of the Interior, to that effect, after a thorough 
 search of all the papers. , 
 By Mr. Nibla.CK : 
 
 Q. Why were you not duly qualified, under your commission of Octo- 
 ber 1, before March ? — A. I stated in my first examination that there 
 was discord in the board, and that I did not want to get into a row. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 363 
 
 Q. Were yoti not recom missioned in October, 1868? — A. No; 1 was 
 never recommissioned. The Government directors held on until their 
 successors were appointed. I held on until soon after General Grant 
 came in, ^i^hen my successor was appointed. I have already stated 
 that I was very much disinclined to go into the board as a Government 
 director, but that I went In because I had promised to go. I made great 
 sacrifices, personally, in going in. 
 
 Ey the Chaieman : 
 
 Q. If I remember your testimony you stated that'you had no knowl- 
 edge in reference to this paper that was gotten up and signed by the 
 shareholders of the Credit Mobilier authorizing the issuiug of these fifty 
 shares? — A. I never heard of it until since this investigation com- 
 menced. 
 
 Q. You never saw the paper ? — A. I never saw it and never heard of 
 it, and never knew of the existence of such a y)aper. 
 
 Q. Have you ever seen that paper"? — A. Not until yesterday, when 
 the reporter showed me a copy of it. 
 
 Q. How your name came to be used in it you have no knowledge? — 
 A. Not the least, except as a matter of guess-work, and you can guess 
 as well as I from the testimony that has been elioited here. I have not 
 the least idea, unless from the general conversation in the ofSce, and 
 the constant talk, in which it may have been stated that Durant's shares 
 were Brooks's shares ; in the haste of preparation the clerks drawing up 
 such a paper may have inserted my name instead of that of Neilsou. 
 But there is nothing in that, I repeat again. It is demonstrated by this 
 record of the court of Pennsylvania that Neilson at that time had one 
 hundred shares standing in his name, and fifty additional shares stand- 
 ■ ing in his name. 
 
 Q. I did not understand that the books show Neilson as becoming 
 the owner of the fifty shares until some time late in February. — A. Feb- 
 ruary 29, 1868 ; and he got his other shares, the one hundred shares, 
 December 26, 1867. 
 
 Q. This printed paper purports to give a list of the shareholders the 
 12th December. That was ijrior 'to the transfer to Neilson of the one 
 hundred shares °! — A. I can account for that by supposing, which would 
 not be at all unusual, that the records of the Credit Mobilier would show 
 the transaction when it was agreed upon, although the stock might not 
 have been actually transferred until a later period. Sometimes a man 
 does not actually get his stock for months after he is the owner of it. 
 
 Q. At the time of the negotiation which ended in th& adjustment of 
 your claim, by which you or Neilson was to have the hundred shares, 
 was there nothing said in relation to fifty additional shares "! — A. No ; 
 he was to have all the rights the one hundred shares were entitled to. 
 There was nothing said specifically upon that subject that I remember. 
 I know I was very much dissatisfied with the settlement; I thought that 
 I ought to have, or that Neilson ought to have, two hundred shares in- 
 stead of the one hundred. 
 
 Q. Did you not receive as compensation for the additional shares 
 $25,000 of the Union Pacific Eailroad securities ? 
 
 The Witness. What $25,000? 
 
 The Chaieman. Two hundred shares Union Pacific Eailroad stock 
 and $5,000 bonds?— A. No, sir; Mr. Neilson did— not I. 
 
 Q. That was by special agreement? — ^A. That was by special agree- 
 ment. 
 
 Q. It was not because these securities went with the stoek as belong- 
 
364 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 ing to it? — A. Doctor Darant settled the matter in his own way; I re- 
 member very little of the transaction. 
 
 Q. In the transaction between you and Mr. Durant, which resulted in 
 this adjustment or settlement, was it understood that you were entitled 
 to fifty shares additional upon the one hundred shares? — A. I do not 
 recollect any conversation between us on that subject. In point of fact, 
 I was extremely ignorant of the affairs of the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 Q. Mr. Durant says there was nothing of that kind understood; that 
 the one hundred shares were not entitled to the accretion of fifty addi- 
 tional shares. — A. -It seems, by the testimony that has been given, 
 that there was no question on the part of the company as to Mr. Neil- 
 son's right to the fifty shares. The only question was whether it should 
 come from Mr. Durant or from the company, and that was a point in 
 dispute of which I knew nothing, but it seems to have led to the sign- 
 ing of this paper. 
 
 Q. Have you made any examination of your papers, so as to give any 
 further information in relation to the money you advanced Mr. Neilson, 
 or as to whether you did advance it for him ? — A. I loaned him money ; 
 there is no doubt of that. I showed my check-book the other day, in 
 which it appeared that there must be some mistake in the statement of 
 Mr. Crane about my check of $7,000. I am quite sure I advanced the 
 money, but it may have been in the form of some other person's check. 
 It is very unimportant whether it was or not. I loaned Neilson the 
 $10,000. 
 
 Q. Can you state anything more in relation to the $5,000 which Mr. 
 Iffeilson says he borrowed from Mr. Dillon to pay for the fifty shares? — 
 A. I never knew anything of the transaction. 
 
 Q. Have jon examined your papers so as to be able to state whether 
 you paid that money to Mr. Dillon ? — A. I have looked over everything ' 
 I had, and have seen no symptom of it; nothing in mj check-book, and 
 nothing in my memorandum-book. As I testified the other day, I am 
 very sure I never paid it to Mr. Dillon. 
 
 Q. Do you keep no account between yourself and Z^Teilson ? — A. It is 
 a very rough, slovenly account. We have a general understanding in 
 regard to our dealings, but it is a rough, slovenly account. I have a 
 great many transactions with him and he with me. I have transactions 
 of this sort, if you will allow me to state them: On the night of October 
 4, after I had gone home, very late at night, (I had been addressing 
 some of my constituents,) a man, who is the money- writer of my paper, 
 stated to me that he had news from Washington which would enable 
 me to make any amount of money the next day, if I acted early in the 
 day, before the information became known in Wall street. The informa- 
 tion was that on the Monday following an order would be issued from 
 the Treasury Department inflating the currency, I think, four or five 
 millions, increasing the sales of gold four or five millions, and increasing 
 the purchase of bonds four or five millions, making about thirteen 
 millions in all of inflation, which would go into the Bank of Commerce 
 and the Fourth National Bank of New York. Everybody knew that if 
 the currency of New York was to be inflated the Monday following 
 thirteen millions of dollars, to be deposited in two banks, that stocks 
 must go up any amount. In point of fact, the stocks on Wall street 
 did go up in the aggregate $40,000,000 within a few days. I said to the 
 money-writer of my paper that I could not go down town in the morning, 
 but that he might take to my son-in-law, Mr. Neilson, blank checks of mine 
 for a limited amount, and that with that he could make any amount of 
 money he pleased. Until the other day when he was here, I supposed 
 he had made four or five thousand dollars out of it, which anv man 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 365 
 
 who had the information I had could very easily have done. Any 
 man using a large amount of capital could have made tens of thousands 
 and hundreds of thousands. I was very sorry he did not act upon that 
 information, as he certainly would have done if I had gone down town 
 the next morning. 
 
 Q. With these large dealings between you and Mr. Neilson, do you 
 keep no account of them ? — A. I keep little books like this memorandum- 
 book I showed you the other day. 
 
 Q. Nothing that you have found on your books or papers gives you 
 any information of having paid $5,000 to Mr. Dillon to cancel this 
 loan? — A. Nothing whatever. 
 
 Q. And you have no recollection or belief that you did? — A. I know 
 I did not. There is no reason why I should. 
 
 Washington, January 30, 1873. 
 Thomas 0. Dtjrant, having been recalled at his own instance, made 
 the following statement : 
 
 Mr. John B. Alley prefaced his testimony on the 7th day of .January 
 instant, in his examination before your committee, with what he calls a 
 " few observations." His statements are so at variance with the actual 
 facts as to the two corporations, and so untrue and unjust to individuals, 
 both living and deceased, that I avail myself of the privilege you have 
 granted me of replying to the same, which I do, supported by the 
 records, to which I shall constantly make my appeal, in the belief that 
 these rash statements should not be suffered to go out to the world 
 without the refutation which the record of the history of the Union Pa- 
 cific Eailroad abundantly furnishes. 
 
 This company was organized by the election of a board of thirty di- 
 rectors, on the 29th day of October, 1863, upon a subscription to its 
 stock of $2,180,000, on which an installment of 10 per cent, was paid. 
 In the following spring its charter was amended by Congress. In the 
 fall of the year 1863, the company commenced operations by breaking 
 ground at Omaha, and prosecuted the work until its resources were ex- 
 hausted, and contracted large obligations. Finding it impossible, to 
 proceed in the work on their own part, a committee was appointed on the 
 12th day of May, 1864, to negotiate a contract for the construction of 
 one hundred miles of their railway. On the 8th day of August, 1864, 
 H. M. Hoxie proposed to build the same for $50,000 per mile, subscrib- 
 ing for a portion of the stock. This proposition was accepted. A copy 
 of this contract I submit, marked A. 
 
 Unable to secure the assistance of gentlemen of sufficient capital to 
 enable him to execute the contract, he was about to abandon it, when I 
 proposed to guarantee him against loss, and find those who were able 
 and willing to take up the work and carry it forward. A subscription was 
 circulated to obtain names of parties willing to take an interest in the 
 contract, fixing the aggregate amount to be furnished at $1,600,000, 
 
 I submit a copy to you, marked B. 
 
 The subscribers paid 25 per cent, of their subscriptions, and this 
 amount was expended on the work. The ,«econd installment being 
 called for, many failed to respond, being doubtful of the success of the 
 enterprise, and of a return. of their investment, and fearful lest, acting 
 as copartners, they would individually incur large liability. It there- 
 fore became necessary to devise some measure for limiting the liability of 
 
366 1 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 these parties to the amount they were willing to risk in the enterprise. 
 For this purpose the Credit Mobilier of America, a Pennsylvania cor- 
 poration of ample powers, was made use of. On the 15th daj' of 
 March, 1865, that corporation, by an agreement in that behalf, assumed 
 to carry out and guarantee the performance of Hoxie's contract. That 
 contract was by him assigned to a trustee, who afterward assigned it to 
 said corporation. 
 
 Copies are submitted, marked C. 
 
 The parties who had taken interest in the Hoxie contract transferred 
 their subscriptions, and others were procured, amounting to upward of 
 $2,000,000, to that corporation, and it proceeded with the work. At 
 the time of making this contract the country was involved in civil war ; 
 iron was high, labor difficult to obtain, the Indians troublesome, trans- 
 portation expensive, the only means of communication being by the 
 tedious and uncertain navigation of the Missouri Eiver, and no railroad 
 communication through the State of Iowa, the price of gold being 145. 
 
 Government bonds to be- issued to the company, being payable in 
 currency, were of doubtful market-value, and the company's securities 
 were unsalable. The company was not in a position to hold the con- 
 tractors to their agreement, having failed on its part to comply with 
 the requirements of the same, and the parties interested in the Hoxie 
 contract were largely in advance. Thus it was by force of unforeseen 
 circumstances that the Credit Mobilier became connected with the con- 
 struction of the road, and built two hundred and forty-seven miles. 
 Without the aid of this company, or some other formed for similar pur- 
 poses, the railroad could not have been built at that time. Such con- 
 struction companies have since been used in all important railway ope- 
 rations. 
 
 Mr. Ames, Mr. Alley, and their friends were not original subscribers 
 in the Union Pacific, their only interest in the said company being ac- 
 quired by them as contractors or as stockholders in the Credit Mobilier. 
 At the October election of directors, in 1866, of the Union Pacific Rail- 
 road Company, and after the completion of the Hoxie contract, several 
 of these gentlemen were elected into its direction. On the 5th day of 
 January, 1867, at a meeting of the directors of the railroad company, 
 the following resolution was passed : 
 
 " Besolved, That the Union Pacific Eailroad Company will, and do 
 hereby, consider the Hoxie contract extended to the point already com- 
 pleted, viz, 305 miles west from Omaha, and that the officers of this 
 company are hereby authorized to settle with the Credit Mobilier at fifty 
 thousand dollars per mile for the additional fifty-eight miles." 
 
 Against this I entered the following protest : 
 
 " To the board of directors of the Union Pacific Railroad Company : 
 
 " Gentlemen : I protest against the passage of the resolution, appear- 
 ing on your minutes as passed January 5, 1867, purporting to treat and 
 consider the Hoxie contract as extended to the point already completed, 
 namely, three hundred and five (305) miles west of Omaha, and author- 
 izing the ofiicers of the company to settle with the Credit Mobilier at 
 fifty thousand dollars per mile for the additional fifty-eight miles. Said 
 resolution was moved and adopted while I was absent from the meeting 
 of the board on necessary business of the company. I make this protest 
 on the ground that said fifty-eight miles has been constructed at much 
 less cost than fifty thousand dollars per mile, and has been accepted by the 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 367 
 
 United States Government as complete, and tliat it was not constructed 
 under the Hoxie contract, and that a; considerable i^ortion of the cost 
 thereof had been paid by the company before the adoption of said reso- 
 lution, and that said resolution does not provide any compensation or 
 advantage to the company by requiring stock subscriptions or stipula- 
 tions for the construction of additional portions of the company's rail- 
 road, or by any other means or stipulations whatsoever, but leaves the 
 company to sustain a very great and unrequited loss. 
 "Eespectfully, yours, 
 
 "THOMAS 0. DUEANT." 
 
 I also obtained an injunction from the New York supreme court, re- 
 straining the board of directors from carrying out the said resolution ; 
 whereupon they rescinded it. On the 1st of March, 1867, Mr. J. M. S. 
 Williams presented a proposition to build a portion of the road, com- 
 mencing at the 100th meridian, covering the said fifty-eight miles ; also, 
 an additional number of miles already built. The board accepted the 
 same by resolution, and on the 27th of March I again protested against 
 their action, as appears by the following : 
 
 "Union Pacific Eaileoad Company, 
 "President's Oepice, No. 20 Nassatj Street, 
 
 ^^New TorTc, March 27, 1867. 
 " To the directors of the Union Pacific Railroad Company : 
 
 "Gentlemen: I i>rotest against the resolution of the board of direct- 
 ors passed at your last meeting, which proposes to give the contract of 
 the road of this comijany, commencing at the 100th meridian of longi- 
 tude, for the reason that a section of the road already accepted is in- 
 cluded in the contract, and it does not appear that this company derives 
 any benefit adequate to the price paid over the cost of construction, by 
 the purchase of securities or otherwise, and does not in the future re- 
 quire, as an essential point in the contract, the completion of the road 
 within the shortest possible time ; and for other reasons named in a 
 previous protest relative to the extension of the 'Hoxie contract,' at the 
 rate of fifty thousand dollars per mile for thar portion of the road com- 
 pleted and accepted by the Government commissioners. 
 
 "I beg to call your attention again to the fact that a part of this road 
 has been done for months, and contracts made and materials delivered 
 for nearly 150 miles of road which the company have paid for, as will 
 be shown by the books. 
 " Eespectfully, 
 
 "T. C. DUEANT." 
 
 On motion of Mr. McOomb, my protest was ordered to be received and 
 filed, but not entered on the minutes. 
 
 Mr. Williams had agreed to assign his contract, when made, to the 
 Credit Mobilier. Again I sued out an injunction from the New York 
 supreme court, restraining the board from making said contract. That 
 injunction still stands undissolved. 1 filed an amended complaint in the 
 action, stating "that I was willing to conseilt to such a contract as is 
 proposed only upon the consideration that the same is approved by all 
 the stockolders of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company," some of whom 
 were not members of the Credit Mobilier. As I have already stated, at 
 the October election persons holding a large amount of stock iu the 
 Credit Mobilier became directors in the Union Pacific, so that contracts 
 
368 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 between the two corporations were, in fact, contracts of one person with 
 himself. 
 
 I deemed it my duty, as an ofBcer of the Union Pacific, to do all in my 
 power to protect the interests of those of the stockholders who were not 
 stockholders in the Credit Mobilier. I knew my course was not ap- 
 proved by Mr. Alley and his friends. They seemed to consider all sums 
 saved to the Union Pacific as robbed from them, as stockholders in the 
 Credit Mobilier ; and here was the issue joined between us. Of course 
 I was not a popular candidate at their next election in May, and I do 
 not object to Mr. Alley's term, "ousted," in that connection. Since that 
 day the Credit Mobilier has had nothing to do with the construction of 
 the Pacific Eailway. 
 
 Mr. Alley, in his statement, says : " That Duraut, Mc(3omb, and their 
 supporters believed that everything that could be made must be made in 
 the construction of the road," &c. 
 
 In this statement he has, with unparalleled impudence, attributed to 
 Mr. Ames and his party the views and policy of their opponents. My 
 protests and complaints before the courts, made to protect the interests 
 of the stockholders, are the best evidence of what my views and actions 
 were at the time. I strenuously resisted their efforts to make an enor- 
 mous sum of money on the construction of the work, rather than to 
 secure an investment profitable in the legitimate earnings of the road. 
 These gentlemen, soon after they had acquired a voice in the direction, 
 developed several plans which increased the cost of construction to the 
 railroad company. 
 
 One of these plans was the payment of large commissions to them- 
 selves for loans to the company, or procuring for it such loans, Loco- 
 motives which had been purchased at Government sale of condemned 
 property, and being repaired, were forced upon the company by Oakes 
 Ames. 
 
 They well knew that the one hundred and fifty miles of the road 
 next west of the one hundredth meridian was being built for about 
 $20,000 per mile, exclusive of equipment and station-houses. This ap- 
 pears from the Boomer contract, Gesuer, agent, under which the work 
 was done, of which contract I furnish a copy, marked D. This con- 
 tract, made by me, but never formally recognized by the board, except 
 by payments under it, shows my anxiety to secure the construction of 
 the road at a low figure, in which I was sustained by the advice of Gen- 
 eral Dix, the president, and John J. Cisco, the treasurer, and other con- 
 servative members of the board. 
 
 Mr. Alley testifies to what he calls great irregularities in management 
 by me of the affairs of the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 The facts are simply these: In order, as I suppose, to influence the 
 next election of the board' of directors of the Union Pacific Railroad 
 Company, an account was stated by them, improperly charging me with 
 many items, and neglecting to credit me with others to which I was en- 
 titled, so that they placed me in a false position. 
 
 Mr. Hazard, one of their number, instituted a suit in the courts of 
 Ehode Island, based upon said accounts. In refutation of these charges, 
 and to show how outrageous was the account, as stated by them, I in- 
 troduce afiidavits filed in said suit of Sidney Dillon, their president, Mr. 
 Ham, their assistant treasurer, and Henry C. Crane, of which the fol- 
 lowing are copies : 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 369 
 
 ''In the supreme court of the State of Ehode Islaucl — in equity. 
 ''■Isaac P. Hazard vs. Tliomas G. Burant et al. Suits Nos. 1 and 2. 
 
 "AFFIDATIT OP SIDNEY DILLON. 
 
 " Oity and County of New York, ss : 
 
 " Sidney Dillon, being duly sworn, says : That lie was president of the 
 Credit Mobilier of America, from May, 1867, to the present time, and a 
 member of the railway bureau of said corporation from July 27, 1865 ; 
 that deponent has examined Schedule E, in above suit No. 2, annexed 
 to the bill of complaint therein. 
 
 "That, according to his knowledge and belief, all the items in said 
 Schedule E were payments by, for, or on account of, the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad Company, and none of them for or on account of the Credit 
 Mobilier of America, and that all said items were charged by the Credit 
 Mobilier of America to the Union Pacific Eailroad Company, and were 
 acknowledged by said railroad company, and allowed in a general set- 
 tlement and adjustment of accounts between said two corporatipns, and 
 said Credit Mobilier of America has no charge or claim against any 
 other person therefor. 
 
 "That the Gesner drafts in said bill of complaint mentioned were 
 never in the accounts of the Credit Mobilier of America, and never be- 
 longed there, and that said drafts were paid by the Union Pacific Eailroad 
 Company, and, when paid, were charged by the last-named company to 
 
 said Gesner, agent. 
 
 "SIDNEY DILLON. 
 
 "In the supreme court of Ehode Island — in equity. 
 " Jsaac P. Hazard et al. vs. Thomas G. Purant et al. Nos: I'-and 2. 
 
 "AFFIDAVIT OF HENEY C. CEANE. 
 
 ^^City and Gounty of New YorJc, ss : 
 
 "Henry C. Crane, being duly sworii, says : That Le was assistant treas- 
 urer of the Credit Mobilier of America, from the time of its establish- 
 ment m New York until May, 1867, and was well acquainted with the 
 affairs of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company until 1869; that depo- 
 nent has seen a copy of Exhibit E, attached to the bill in suit No. 2 ; 
 that all the items in said Exhibit E, under date of 1864, were payments 
 made by the Union Pacific Eailroad Company on demands against it, 
 and not by or for the Credit Mobilier of America, and that the last- 
 named corporation had not, at any of said dates, money or means to 
 any such amounts ; that the books of the Credit Mobilier of America 
 do not contain any entry showing that said Thomas C. Durant 
 received of said, corporation any of the sums mentioned in said Ex- 
 hibit E, and that, in fact, said Thomas C. Durant did not receive the 
 samCj nor, any part thereof; that said T. C. Durant had no interest in 
 the $46,000 mentioned in the bill of complaint in suit No. 2; that de- 
 ponent received that sum as trustee, and disposed thereof according to 
 the direction of the board of directors of said corporation, in discharge 
 of claims upon it for preliminary expenses, and it was paid out by de- 
 l)onent under said .authority, and said Durant had nothing to do with 
 such disbursement thereof; and that the said sum came to deponent's 
 hands by virtue of a resolution of the board of directors of said company, 
 24 X 
 
370 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 at a meeting thereof in Philadelphia, October 20, 1864, at which meet- 
 ing the said Durant was not present, of which resolution the following 
 is a copy : 
 
 " ' On motion, the treasurer of the company, or assistant treasurer, be, 
 and he is hereby, authorized to pay forty-six thousand dollars to H. 0. 
 Crane, trustee, K^ew York, for preliminary expenses of the company.' 
 
 "That a large amount was earned by Mr. Hoxie, on his contract, for 
 labor and materials, prior to December 31, 1864, and the same appears 
 by the estimate of the Uniou Pacific Eailroad Company's engineer in 
 charge, of which a copy is hereto annexed ; that all whicli was so earned 
 and remained unpaid to that date was allowed by the Credit Mobilier 
 of America to said Hoxie, and paid pursuant to the agreement between 
 said corporation and said Hoxie, and was collected by said corporation 
 from the Union Pacific Eailroad Companj^ 
 
 "That Thomas C. Durant at various times advanced money to said 
 Uniou Pacific Eailroad Company, and also to said Credit Mobilier of 
 America, from time to time, as each required it, and said several corpo- 
 rations, from time to time, made payments on said loans. 
 
 " That the $35,000 of bonds mentioned in the bill came to Thomas C. 
 Durant from the Credit Mobilier of America as collateral security upon 
 a loan of $25,000 made thereto by said Durant, and he received the 
 same as such pledge in good faith, and rightfully controls the same as 
 security for said loan, which remains unpaid. 
 
 " That the item $25,000, in Exhibit E of bill in suit No. 2, was money 
 paid to Cornelius S. Buslinell by the Credit Mobilier of America, and 
 for which said Bushnell's receipt was taken at the time, and still is held 
 therefor ; and the same was so paid to said Bushnell on account of 
 interest and commissions on a loan of $1,000,000. 
 
 "H. C. CEANiD. 
 
 " Sworu to before me this 8th day of August, A. D. 1870. 
 [SEAL.] ' " EDWIN F. COEEY, 
 
 " Commissioner for the State of Rhode Island in Netv YorJ;. 
 
 [Copy.] 
 
 "UNION PACIFIC EAILROAD COMPANY. 
 " THIRD MONTHLY ESTIMATE. 
 
 " To the contractors for huilding the first hundred miles. 
 "December 31, 1804. 
 
 " Tea miles grading and bridging completed east of the Elkboru 
 
 River, at $50,000 .fCOO, 000 
 
 " 19, 500 ties, at 50 cents •- 9, 750 
 
 ■ $509, 750 00 
 
 " Deduct for unfinished work, as follows : 
 
 " Station-buildings, equipments, &o., per mile 5, 000 
 
 " Iron ties, spikes, chains, and track-laying 15, 700 
 
 ' ' Ten miles deducted, at $20,700 per mile ; 207, OdO 
 
 " Two miles' bridging deducted, at $7,000 per mile 14, 000 
 
 " Disbursements made by com pany 47, 17(5 
 
 2G8, 170 00 
 
 241,574 00 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 371 
 
 " WEST OF BLKHOEN RIVER. 
 
 '' G miles completed, at |50,000 , $300, 000 
 
 " Deduct for statiou-buUdings, equipments, iron, ties, 
 
 spikes, chains, and track-laying, as above .$20, 700 
 
 "Bridging 1,800 
 
 " DiiTerence iu grading ■west of Elkhorn 5, 500 
 
 28, 000 
 
 "C miles deducted, at $28,000 per mile 168,000 
 
 — — — &132, 000 00 
 
 "10 miles nearly completed, at Sr50,000 500, 000 
 
 " Deduct for station-buildings, equipments, iron, ties, 
 spikes, chains, traok-layiug, bridging, and extra 
 
 costs for grading 28,000 
 
 " Amount required to finish 1, 000 
 
 29, 000 
 
 " 10 miles at amount required to (in;, sfa, at $29,000 per mile 290,000 
 
 210, 000 00 
 
 583,574 00 
 " Add for extra work, as directed by tbe hp-cial commitreo of the board . . .' 168, 874 45 
 
 752, 448 45 
 ■' Deduct November esti mate 544, 954 45 
 
 207. 494 00 
 
 " Omaha, Becemher 31, 1864. 
 " I hereby certify tliat the above estimate to the' contractors for build- 
 ing, the first hundred miles of the Union Pacific Eailroad, amounting to 
 two hundred and seven thou,sand four hundred and ninety -four dollars, 
 is correct. 
 
 "J. B. HOUSE, 
 
 '■'■Division Engineer. 
 " H. 0. Geane. 
 
 " In the supreme court of the State of Ehode Island. 
 
 " Isaac P. Hazard vs. Thomas C. Burant et al. In Equity. Suits Nos. 1 
 
 and 2. 
 
 " City. AND County of ISTbv/ Yoee, ss: 
 
 " Benjamin F. Ham, being duly sworn, says : That he was assistant 
 secretary and assistant treasurer of the Credit Mobilier of America, 
 and auditor of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company, from May, 1867, 
 to May, 1869 ; that during that period deponent had charge of the books 
 of account of both said corporations; that deponent has examined 
 Schedule E in above suit No. 2, annexed to the bill of complaint therein. 
 
 " That all the items in said Schedule E were payments by, for, or on 
 account of, the Union Pacific Eailroad Company, and none of them for 
 or on account of the Credit Mobilier of America, and that all said items 
 were charged by the Credit Mobilier of America to the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad Company, and were acknowledged by said railroad company 
 and allowed in a general settlement and adjustment of accounts be- 
 tween said two corporations ; and said Credit Mobilier of America has 
 no charge or claim against any other person therefor. 
 
 " That the Gesner drafts in said bill of complaint mentioned were 
 never in the accounts of the Credit Mobilier of America, and never be- 
 longed there, and that said drafts were paid by the Union Pacific Eail- 
 road Company, and, when paid, were charged by the last-named company 
 to said Gesner, agent. 
 
 " BENJAMIN F. HAM. 
 
372 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 ■ " Subscribed and sworu to this Sdtli day of August, 1870. 
 
 "In -witness whereof I have hereto signed my name and affixed my 
 official seal, the day and vear first above written. 
 
 [SEAL.] "GEOEGE W. COLLES, 
 
 " Commissioner for Rhode Island, in New York.^^ 
 
 Mr. Alley states that McComb and friends, finding themselves ousted 
 from the Credit Mobilier, associated themselves with Jim Fisk in a 
 scheme to wrest the road from the rightful owners, and that, to thwart " 
 such scheme, they had to raise the enormous sum of fifteen millions of 
 dollars in a single day. 
 
 The facts are these : 
 
 Mr. Ames, then acting president of the company, gave directions to 
 the treasurer to receive no subscription for stock except when accom- 
 panied with payment of the full par value thereof. Thereafter Mr. 
 Alley and his friends proceeded to subscribe for stock. On the first 
 subscription being made, a parcel of greenbacks was produced by the 
 party making subscription, stating to the treasurer that it was a tender 
 of iifty-fivb per cent, of the amount of the par value of his subscription, 
 which was, of course, refused by the treasurer, as the party well knew 
 it would be. The amount thus pretended to be tendered was not, as I 
 understand, ever counted by the treasurer, but was retained by the 
 party so offering to subscribe, to be used the next minute on another 
 subscriptioti. Among the subscriptions made in such a way at this 
 time are three in the name of John B. Alley, and John B. Alley trustee, 
 amounting in the aggregate to $28,500,000. This farcical subscription 
 and tender thereon was continued for the period of about ten minutes 
 in time, and reached in amount the sum of about sixty millions of 
 dollars. Not a dollar of this money passed into the hands of the com- 
 pany, nor was it intended it should so pass. All this took place about 
 five days before the election of directors. The by-laws of the company 
 provided that no stock could be voted on which had not stood on the 
 books of the company, in the name of the person offering to vote thereon, 
 for ten days previous to the election. 
 
 On the day of the election Mr. Alley and his friends, with General B. 
 F. Butler present as their counsel in the stockholders' meeting, passed 
 a resolution amending these by-laws to suit their desire, appointed new 
 inspectors, and opened the polls, the duly- appointed inspectors having 
 previously opened the polls and commenced receiving votes. All parties 
 were enjoined from voting upon subscriptions for stock on which no 
 money had been paid at this election, but I understand General Butler 
 succeeded in some way in getting one of the injunctions modified; the 
 election being carried on in two polls, with two sets of inspectors, in the 
 same room ; one ticket representing the old board, and the other that of 
 Mr. Alley and his friends. Each board of inspectors declared their 
 ticket elected. An injunction restraining Mr. Alley's bogus board from 
 acting was at once procured and served on them, to which they grace- 
 fully submitted and never moved to dissolve the same. 
 
 At the first meeting thereafter of the regular board of directors of 
 the Union Pacific Railroad Company, 
 
 Mr. McComb offered the lollowiug resolution, which was adopted 
 unanimously : 
 
 "Whereas the Hon. John A. Dix, heretofore elected a director and 
 l^resident of this company, has accepted the office of minister plenipo- 
 tentiary at the court of the Emperor of the French, and is now, and has 
 been for several months past, absent at the post of his duty as such 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 373 
 
 minister, and we are thereby deprived of bis valuable aid and services 
 in tjie management of the company ; and 
 
 "Whereas, also, C. H. McCormick, of Illinois, and Charles A. Lam- 
 bard, of Massachusetts, heretofore directors of this company, have also 
 left the country on their necessary and proper business unconnected 
 ■with the affairs of this coiuiiany : Therefore 
 
 " Resolved, That while Ave deeply regret the loss whicli we have sus- 
 tained, and must continue to sustain, from the absence of the gentle- 
 men named, and particularly from the want of the able and wise coun- 
 sels which General Dix would give, if he were hete with us, in the 
 present condition of our affairs, the necessity of having a full board of 
 directors compels us to fill the places made vacant bj' the absence of 
 the persons mentioned." 
 
 On motion of Mr. McComb, Mr. John B. Alley was elected a director 
 of this company, to fill one of the vacancies existing. 
 
 On motion of Mr. McOomb, Mr. Frankliu Gordon Dexter was elected 
 a director of this company, to fill one of the vacancies. 
 
 On motion, Benjamin B. Bates was elected a director of the com- 
 pany, to fill one of the vacancies. 
 
 Mr. Tuttle here tendered his resignation as a member of the board of 
 -directors. 
 
 Mr. McComb offered the following resolution, which was adopted : 
 
 " Resolved, That the resignation of Mr. Tuttle be accepted, and'this 
 board tender to Mr. Tuttle their parting regrets, and express their ap. 
 preciation of his services and his uniformly kind and gentlemanly de- 
 portment." 
 
 On motion, it was voted that William T. Glidden be elected a director 
 of this company, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of 
 Mr. Tuttle, and the board thus con4tituted transacted the business of 
 the company until the next election. 
 
 So much for the statement that Durant, McComb, and friends were 
 turned out of the direction and some of them finally re-instated upon a 
 compromise. 
 , Another statement which Mr. Alley makes, the reverse of the facts, 
 is that he was opposed to a distribution of the profits arising under the 
 Ames contract. In contradiction to that, I herewith submit a transcript 
 •of the resolution of the board of trustees relative to the said dividend, 
 -and showing the vote thereon : 
 
 " New York, Becemher 12, 1867. 
 
 "Present: Messrs. Ames, Durant, Dillon, McComb, Bushnell, Alley, 
 and Bates. 
 
 "Mr. Bushnell offered the following resolution: That the treasurer, 
 Benjamin E. Bates, be authorized and instructed to procure from the 
 Union Pacific Railroad Company at least $2,000,000 of their first-mort- 
 gage bonds, and purchase an equal amount of full-paid stock] of said 
 company : Provided, Said amount shall be found due on account of the 
 contract, and whenever the owners of full-paid stock in the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad company shall have signed a written approval of the contract 
 between said company and Oakes Anies, then a division shall be made 
 to the holder of the stock of the Credit Mobilier of America, say CO per 
 -cent, in said bonds and 60 per cent, in said Union Pacific Eailroad stock. 
 
 " Aye and nay vote being called, carried, six voting aye ; Mr. Mc- 
 >Oomb, TOO." 
 
 Subsequently it was deemed advisable by the conservative element 
 
374 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 ia the trusteeship that the Uaion Pacific Eailroad Ooinpaay should have 
 the advantage of keeping all their first-mortgage bonds on hand for the 
 time being, in order to meet their requirements and enable them to ra;ise 
 money, and that the trustees should receive from them in lieu thereof, 
 for division under their trust, certificates entitling the holder to receive 
 first-mortgage bonds from the Union Pacific Eailroad Company at some 
 future time, when it might be more convenient for the company to de- 
 liver them. 
 
 Upon a resolution to adoi)t this proposition being brought before the 
 trustees, Mr, Alley was the only one who voted nay. 
 
 Subsequently, at a meeting held on the 3d of January, at which were 
 present Messrs. Ames, Durant, Dillon, McOomb, Bushnell, Bates, and 
 Alley, a resolution was offered that a supplemental dividend be made 
 of twenty per cent., in bonds, of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company; 
 which resolution was adopted, Mr. Bushnell being the only one voting 
 against it. 
 
 Uponjthe occasion of declaring the first dividend, Mr. Alley, in a gen- 
 eral conversation, before any resolution was offered, suggested a delay 
 of a few days in making a dividend. I was informed that he was at 
 that time short of stock, having sold, as 1 have since learned, at about 
 200, that standing in his own name, in which Mr. Oakes Ames had 
 half interest. 
 
 Upon being advised of this circumstance, I gave him a refusal for ten 
 days of 250 shares, at 160. His receipt therefor is already put in before 
 your committee as testimony. Thereupon, a resolution being offered 
 declaring a dividend, Mr. Alley voted in favor of the same, as the record 
 will show. I think the change of views which he experienced shows 
 that his claims for his patriotic and unselfish course, in connection with 
 this enterprise, are as baseless as many of his other statements have 
 been by the record shown to be. This and other transactions of his 
 before the eyes of the other trustees so disgusted the majority of them 
 that his resignation was insisted upon ; and it was under such circum- 
 stances that he was permitted to put upon the record his letter of resig- 
 nation, enabling the trustees, in filling the vacancy, to avail themselves 
 of the counsel and advice of Mr. John Duff, a gentleman of great rail- 
 way experience. 
 
 So far from desiring to exclude me from the direction of the road in 
 consequence of any extravagance or mismanagement on my part, the 
 letter which 1 here present from Oakes Ames to Mr. McComb, dated 
 17th September, 1867, (at which time I •was insisting that every stock- 
 holder should assent to any contract for construction which might be 
 made with themselves,) shows the real object of these gentlemen in 
 seeking to exclude me from the direction : 
 
 " N. Easton, September 17, 1867. 
 
 " H. S. McCOMB, Esq.: 
 
 " Dear Sir : I have called on Governor John A. Andrew, and got his 
 consent to act as one of the Government directors, if he should be ap- 
 pointed ; and it is our wish to have him. 
 
 " I wish you to put the matter in the hands of Judge Black, if that is 
 the best channel to do it. 
 
 " I don't suppose the change will be made until October. 
 
 " Hope you will get everything ready to run smooth on the contract. 
 
 " 1 don't feel that we should do right to put Durant in as director, unless 
 he withdraws his injunction suits, and submits to the will of the major- 
 ity. He cannot hurt us half so badly out of the direction as he can in ; 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 375' 
 
 and there is no pleasure, peace, safety, or comfort witli him, unless ho 
 agrees to abide the decision of the majority, as the rest of ns do. 
 " Yours, truly, 
 
 "OAKES AMES.'' 
 
 On the ICth of August, 1867, Mr. Oakes Ames made to the company 
 a written proposition, of which the Ibllowing is a copy : 
 
 " New York, Augtist 10, 1867. 
 " To the president and board of directors of the Union Pacific Railroad 
 
 Company : 
 " Gentlemen : I propose to construct for your company 667 miles of 
 your road, commencing at the 100th meridian westward, fbr the follow- 
 ing prices, viz : First 100 miles, at $43,000 per mile ; second 167 miles, 
 at $45,000 per mile; third 100 miles, at $96,000 per mile ; fourth 100 
 miles, at $80,000 per mile ; fifth 100 miles, at $90,000 per mile ; sixth 
 100 miles, at $96,000 per mile ; provided the details of a contract can 
 bC' arranged by a committee of your board and myself satisfactory. 
 " Eespectfully, 
 
 "OAKES AMES." 
 
 On the same day this proposition was accepted, and referred to the 
 executive committee by the following resolution : 
 
 '■'■Resolved, That the contracts adopted this day be referred to the 
 executive committeie, with authority to settle the details ; and when the 
 same is approved by said executive committee, that the president pro 
 tern, and secretary are hereby authorized to execute the same in the 
 name of the company." 
 
 At the time that this proposition was accepted, it was generally under- 
 stood that in some way the contract would be placed in other hands for 
 execution, for the benefit of all interested, Mr. Ames's name being used 
 merely as that of John Doe, or Eichard Eoe, or that of any irresponsible 
 person might have been inserted. And of these facts Mr. Alley must 
 have been aware, for a similar proposition had been made for a contract 
 in which the names of Mr. Alley and Mr. Crane were used ; but some 
 objection being made to Mr. Alley, by persons better acquainted with 
 him than I was at that time, his proposition was withdrawn at the same 
 time that Mr. Ames's proposition was made, as the records of the com- 
 pany will show. It was further understood that the assent of all the 
 stockholders in the company should be secured to the execution of the 
 contract ; and this alone placed^it in their power to dictate how it should 
 be used, although Mr. Ames was not called upon to make any promise 
 as to what he should do with it. The form of a contract was carefully 
 drawn up, and submitted to several of the members of the executive 
 committee for approval as to the details, in order that the several copies 
 of the same might be prepared for execution, ready to be submitted to the 
 whole committee at their first meeting. Amongthesignersofthatapproval 
 were Springer Harbaugh and myself. Mr. Harbaugh appended on the 
 same paper, below his signature, to be used in case he was not present 
 at the first meeting, a note addressed to the executive committee, of 
 which the following is a copy : 
 
 " To tlie Executive Committee : 
 
 "As one of the executive committee, I herewith accompany its ac- 
 ceptance *on my part with a letter reserving an option, as expressed in 
 
 said letter. 
 
 "SPKINGER HAEBAUGH, 
 
 ^'■Government Director, and one of the Executive Committee.'" 
 
376 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 I also append a note, of which the following is a copj' : 
 
 "AtiauST 18, 18G7. 
 "I recommend tlie above with the understanding that the assent of 
 all the stockholders is to be obtained. 
 
 "T. C. DUEANT." 
 
 At the first meeting of the executive committee, October 1, 1867, I 
 found upon the books of the company the contract, already executed, 
 between Mr. Oliver Ames, as president of the corporation, and Mr. Oakes 
 Ames, his brother, with our names appended to the same, as being ap- 
 l">roved loitliout reservation or eondition. A resolution was immediately 
 offered to approve the contract as above ; which resolution was lost. 
 The following resolution Avas then offered and adopted : 
 
 " Besolved, That the foregoing contract between the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad Company and Oakes Ames, referred to the executive .committee 
 by a resolution of the board, August 10, 1867, to settle the details, be 
 approved, and that the i)roper officers of the company be instructed to 
 execute the same, subject, however, to the written approval of the 
 stockholders of the company, as understood by the board of directors 
 when the same was voted upon." 
 
 These records of the executive committee were on the same day sub- 
 mitted to the board, and by the board, by resolution, approved. 
 
 Subsequently, and on the 15th of October, Mr. Ames assigned the 
 said contract to seven trustees — the terms of which assigJiment, and 
 other papers relative thereto, I submit herewith, marked F. 
 
 Previous to such assignment of said contract, the board, by resolution, 
 agreed to recognize said assignment, and accepted the guarantee of the 
 Ci'edit Mobilier Company, and to release the said Oakes Ames from all 
 liabilities under the same, referring the details of such assignment to 
 the executive committee. A full release from all liabilities under the 
 contract was duly executed by the proper officers of the company. 
 
 The enormous responsibility which Mr. Ames had assumed — amount- 
 ing, as Mr. Alley says, to $17,000,000 — was thus completely wiped out. 
 The risk would have been somewhat modified by the fact that between 
 two and three hundred miles of this road, embraced in this contract, 
 bad been actually completed; the difference in price betweai the actual 
 cost of which and the contract price amounted to upwards of $3,000,000. 
 
 In reference to Mr. Alley's testimony relative to the resolution of J uly, 
 1868, conferring upon me, as vice-iwesident, full authority to act upon 
 the line of the road, amenable only to the executive committee, and 
 practically ignoring the president and chief engineer, and also his let- 
 ter ])urporting to have been written July 25, expressing dissatisfaction 
 with such resolution, and his reference therein to General Dodge, the 
 chief engineer, and the pretended pledges which he and that officer and 
 Mr. Ames have made, I have this to say : 
 
 That upon examining the condition of the work, I found that the 
 president had never been on that portion of the line then being con- 
 structed ; that the chief engineer, under a salary of $10,000 per annum, 
 was also a member of Congress, at that time in Washington, instead of 
 being on the road ; and upon my remonstrating against this, I was in- 
 formed that he could do more good in Washington, where he had great 
 influence. I further found that his wife was the owner of one hundred 
 shares of Credit Mobilier stock, and was, therefore, a large participant 
 in the profits to be made by the contractors. I also found that with the 
 large force of men and teams then employed on the line, (some 20,000 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 377 
 
 meu and 6,000 or 8,000 teams,) the company were liable to be called upon 
 for damages for not having the road located in time for the construc- 
 tion. I issued to the engineers an order, designated as General Order 
 No. 1, in which I instructed the consulting engineer of the company, 
 Colonel Silas Seymour, (a man of large experience in locating railroads,) 
 to go over the line in connection with the division engineer, to deter- 
 mine some points as to location, giving him power of chief engineer 
 while that official was absent from duty. 
 
 I do not mean to insinuate that 1 thought that the chief engineer 
 would be unduly influenced in his duties or estimates by any interest 
 which his wife might have in the construction contract. Subsequently, 
 and in the early part of 1869, on my return from the line of the road, I 
 found that $11,000,000 had been paid to the Oakes Ames contractors 
 on account of construction ; and I called, by resolution, in the executive 
 committee, upon the treasurer of the company to know by what author- 
 ity such payment was made. 
 
 The following is a transcript of said resolution : 
 
 "New York, February 25, 1869. 
 
 " On motion of Mr. Durant, 
 
 " Resolved., That the treasurer report to this committee the authority 
 on which a check for $50,000, dated July 27, 1868, was paid; also, 
 whether there is any deficiency in the cash or bond account of the com- 
 pany; the authority on "which the payment of $11,000,000, or there- 
 abouts, was made contractors in January; and also an explanation of 
 the check for $3,000, said to be given for a commission on a loan which 
 was not received.'' 
 
 On the next day, February 20, 1869, the committee received the fol- 
 lowing report from the treasurer : 
 
 " Unioiit Pacific Eailroad Office, 
 
 "iVewi Yorli^ February 26, 1869. 
 
 " In reply to the questions propounded by the executive committee of 
 the company, February 25, 1869, I have to report : 
 
 " 1. The check for $50,000 referred to, was given on the order of Mr. 
 Ames, president, and Messrs. Bushnell and Alley ; said to be for legal 
 expenses. 
 
 " 2. A deficiency is reported by the accountant, in the cash, said to be 
 the result of an overpayment on a loan. The auditor is now engaged 
 in trying to correct the same. There is also a deficiency 6f $110,000 in 
 Government bonds; but whether lost, stolen, or in the hands of some 
 party from whom loans have been made, the accountant or assistant 
 treasurer are as yet unable to determine. 
 
 " 3. The payment of $11,000,000 to the contractors was done by order 
 of the president, on the following certificate of the chief engineer of the 
 amount due the contractors. 
 
 " 4. The check for $3,000 Was given by the assistant treasurei-; as he 
 says, by the direction of Mr. Ames, president. 
 
 "As to the resolution relating to the bonds, I have given instructions 
 to have the statement made up in full, which I hope to be able to lay 
 before you in a short time. 
 
 " Eespectfully submitted. 
 
 " JOHN J. CISCO, Treasurer:' 
 
 A copy of the engineer's certificate, referred to in said report, I sub- 
 mit herewith, marked E; 
 It will be seen by this estimate that the chief engineer had included 
 
378 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 ia the amount due, uuder the Oakes Ames contract, a large amount of 
 work done beyond GG7 miles, and for which the board had approved no 
 contract, or submitted the same to the stockholders. At their first 
 meeting, beiug March 9, 1869, 1 submitted the following communication: 
 
 "New York, March i, 18G9 
 " To the ejcccuiive committee, or the hoard of directors, of the Union Pacific 
 
 Railroad Company : 
 
 "Gentlemen: I learn that while I was absent on business of the 
 company, payments were made to the assignees of the Oakes Ames con- 
 tract out of funds of the company for the construction or equipment, or 
 both, on the lines of the road west of the 667 miles mentioned in that 
 contract. As no assent of the stockholders has been given to 'any con- , 
 tract, or the extension of any contract for construction west of said 667 
 miles, and no authority exists for such payments, I protest against the 
 same, and demand that all such payments, if made, be recalled, and the 
 sums so paid be restored to the company. 
 " Respectfully, yours, 
 
 "THOMAS 0. DURANT." 
 
 I also, ou the 8th of March, sent the following telegram to the chief 
 engineer : 
 
 " March 8, 1869. 
 " General G. M. Dodge, 
 
 " Chief Engineer, Washington, I). C. : 
 " Yon have so largely, overestimated the amount due contractors that 
 it becomes my duty to suspend your acting as chief engineer until yon 
 give a satisfactory explanation of the same. A mistake of a trifling 
 amount might occur ; but when it gives contractors hundreds of thou- 
 sands of dollars it creates the suspicion that all is not right. Your im- 
 mediate attention is requested, in order that if you have an explanation 
 to give, it maj' be done before the report becomes public. 
 
 "T. C. DfJRANT, Vice-President." 
 
 In reply to which I received the following : 
 
 Washington, D. C, March 8, 1869. 
 " To T. 0. DuRANT, 20 Nassau Street : 
 
 " The last estimate was made up by data furnished by Mr. Eeed and 
 Mr. Crane. If there is any mistake in it I could not detect it, as all of 
 my estimates are made from data furnished by^them. I will be in New 
 York to-morrow. 
 
 "G. M. DODGE." 
 
 It is only necessary here to state that Mr. Reed and Mr. Crane were 
 not in the employ of the railway company, but were both in the employ 
 of the contractors, to show how closely Mr. Ames, Mr. Alley, and the 
 chief engineer were looking after the interests of the road. This esti- 
 mate was not made by the chief engineer with the intent (as I believe) to 
 defraud the company, but is introduced to show how little he knew of 
 the affairs of the company, when he went beyond the Oakes Ames con- 
 tract, before any extension thereof or additional contract was approved. 
 
 I am aware that I expended more money in building the road than 
 some thought advisable. This I did in order to secure good work. The 
 railroad company was not the loser, for it was to pay a fixed sum per 
 mile, and by my action the contractors only were deprived of a portion 
 of their profits by the increased expenditure. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 379 
 
 And iu order tiiat tbere might be no cause of complaint on the part 
 of the public or the Government, 1 did, upon one occasion, Avhen I 
 heard of the appointment of a new commissioner, send the following 
 telegram to the President of the United States : 
 
 " U. P. li. E. Co., 
 ""J?n(Z of tracks October 29, 1868. 
 
 " To the President of the United States, Washington, D. C. ; 
 
 " One of the commissioners appointed to re-examine the Union Pa- 
 cific Eailroad, now completed, and also to examine the location of the 
 line west thereof, has been for some time in the employ of this company 
 as civil engineer, and located that portion of the line above referred to. 
 I would, therefore, most respectfully suggest, that the commission be 
 composed entirely of disinterested persons, believing their decision will 
 be more sati'sfactory to the Government, the stockholders, and the pub- 
 lic, and relieve all parties from unfriendly criticism. 
 " Respectfully, yours, 
 
 " THOS. C. DUEANT, 
 " Vice-President U. P. B. B. Co." 
 
 Although at some time previous, Mr. Ames, the president, by virtue 
 of a resolution of the board, had appointed an auditor for the accounts 
 in New York, and the details of payment were not in my department, I 
 still considered it my duty, aS vice-president, acting under resolution, to 
 inquire occasionally as to their "doings. 
 
 At a meeting of the executive committee, on the same day on which 
 the treasurer made his report referred to, I offered the following resolu- 
 tion : 
 
 " Resolved, That the treasurer be called upon to report whether there 
 are any certificates outstanding for Government bbnds, on completed 
 sections of the road, for which the company has received the Govern- 
 ment bonds, and also if the bonds so received are in the possession of 
 the company, or in any manner disposed of. 
 
 " Whether there is not a large amount of our securities remaining in 
 the hands of brokers or other parties on which the loans have been paid. 
 
 " That he also be called upon for a statement of the certificates for 
 Government bonds, to whom sold, and the difference between price 
 obtained and the price of Government certificates on the date of sale. 
 
 " That he also report whether it has been the habit of the company 
 to give refusals at a price, for any length of time, for the sale of Gov- 
 ernment bonds, to whom, and by what authority. 
 
 "And further, what rates of interest and commissions have been i^aid 
 on loans, the securities given for the same, and whether such rates or 
 commissions are paid by the contractors or the company, including the 
 amount of loans now outstanding, and the securities now hypothecated 
 for the same." • 
 
 Mr. McComb offered the following amendment, which was adoped : 
 
 "That the treasurer also report the amount of loans carried for indi- 
 vidual or individuals, on the bonds of the company, or otherwise, for 
 what length of time the same have been carried, and what amount is 
 now due on such loans." 
 
 My resolution was then adopted with the amendment. 
 
 At a meeting of the board, March 11, 1869, the road being completed 
 within a few miles, I addressed to it the following communication : 
 
380 CREDIT MOBILIER. ' 
 
 "New York, 3[arch 11, 1S69. 
 ^' To the hoard of directors of the Union Pacific Railroad Comjjany : 
 
 " Gentlemen : The object of the resolution of the executive committee 
 adopted July 3, 1868, having been fully accomplished, I therefore resign 
 all authority conferred by said resolution or by any Tesolution of the 
 board. 
 
 " Yours, &c., 
 
 "T. C. DUEANT." 
 
 My resignation was accepted, and the following resolutions were 
 passed virtually annulling the powers of the executive committee : 
 
 " On motion of Mr. Alley, 
 
 " Resolved, That the executive committee shall have no power to make 
 any of its actions final and binding upon the company until reported to 
 and ratified by the board, and any vote or resolution heretofore passed 
 inconsistent herewith is hereby rescinded." 
 
 In order still to get at the report, I offered tlie following resolution : 
 
 " On motion of Mr. Durant, 
 
 " Resolved, That the treasurer be required to furnish the information 
 to this board called for by the executive committee by its resolutions of 
 February 25 and 26, 1869, and that a committee of two be appointed 
 to investigate the matters therein mentioned." 
 
 The president appointed Mr. Alley and Mr. Harris said committee. 
 
 I have never been able *to learn that this committee made a report, 
 although in the settlement of the OakSs Ames contract and the con- 
 tract known as the Davis contract in extension, the matters of differ- 
 ence on the payments for construction were adjusted, and the company 
 suffered no loss thereby. I submit a copy of the Davis contract, 
 marked " G." 
 
 In reference to the accounts mentioned by John B. Alley, as between 
 the Union Pacific Eailroad Company and myself, and the suits of I. P. 
 Hazard, I will simply refer to the affidavits filed in said suit of Sidney 
 Dillon, Benjamin F. Ham, and Henry C. Crane, which I have before 
 read in another connection, as well as the affidavits of John J. Cisco, 
 treasurer, John A. Dix, Oliver Ames, the president, Josiah Bard well, 
 and Cornelius's. Bushnell, which I now submit: 
 
 " In the supreme court of the State of Ehode Island. 
 
 *' Isaac P. Hazard et al. vs. Thomas C. Durant et al. — In equity, 
 
 JSTOS. 1 AND 2. 
 
 '■''Affidavit of Oliver Ames. 
 
 " I, Oliver Ames, of North Easton, in the county of Bristol, and Com- 
 monwealth of Massachusetts* on oath depose and say that I am the 
 president of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company ; that in January, 
 1867, 1, together with John J, Cisco, the treasurer of said corporation, 
 was appointed a committee under a resolution of the board of directors 
 of said corporation, a copy of which is hereto annexed, marked A ; 
 that prior to the 11th day of September, of that year, I, together with 
 the said Cisco, made all the investigations required by said board of 
 directors, in a manner and to an extent which enabled us satisfactorily 
 to make a report of our doings to said board of directors, a copy of 
 which is hereto annexed, marked B, and that I believe the facts 
 set forth in said" report to be true; that upon an examination of 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 381 
 
 Schedule B, annexed to the bill in equity of Isaac P. Hazard 
 against Thomas G. Darant and others, now pending in the supreme 
 court of the State of Ebode Island, and of Schedule E, annexed to the 
 bill in equity of said Hazard against the said Durant and myself and 
 others, and Credit Mobilier of America and the Union Pacific jEailroad 
 Company and Eowland G. Hazard as defendants, 1 find each of the 
 sums in said schedules to be the same, or in part the same, which 
 formed the suspense-account set forth in our report as such committee, 
 saving and excepting that the item in said suspense-account under date 
 of 1865, December 29th, T. C. Durant $112,000, is in said Exhibit B, 
 attached to said bill of said Hazard, carried out $120,000 ; further 
 saving and excepting two items in said Exhibit E, annexed to the bill 
 of said Hazard, the one under date of January 25th, 1867, of $30,081, 
 the other under date of March 9, 18G7, of $25,000. 
 
 "The report thus made by me and Mr. Cisco was accepted by the 
 board of directors. 
 
 "OLIVEE AMES. 
 
 " Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 12th day 
 of July, 1870. 
 
 [L. S.] ■ " JOHN E. DUFF, 
 
 " Notary PuUic." 
 
 Mr. Lambard offered the following resoluti(jii, which was adopted : 
 '•'■Resolved, That Oliver Ames, presi(^ent j;ro tem., and John J. Cisco, 
 treasurer, be a committee to inform themselves iu regard to the details 
 of the so-called suspense-account of this company ; also to audit any 
 further claims on this account, and fhat their statement to this hoard that 
 the facts in the premises are satisfactory to them shall end all further dis- 
 cussion, and that the accounts shall be closed and charged to con- 
 struction. 
 
 "Meeting of board of directors, January 4, 1SC7." 
 
 [Copy.] 
 
 Messrs. Ames & Cisco, a committee appointed by virtue of a resolu- 
 tion passed at a meeting of the board of directors of January 4, 1867,. 
 report as follows : 
 
 '■'■Statement of suspense-account. 
 
 T. C. Durant $44, 549 45- 
 
 T. C. Durant 4, 000 00 
 
 T. C. Durant 66, 326 00- 
 
 T. C. Durant 13, 128 13 
 
 T. C. Durant 6,500 00 
 
 C. S. Bushnell 5, 751 63 
 
 G. T. M. Davis 3, 000 00 
 
 James C. Kennedy 2, 000 00 
 
 Alexander Hay 4, 000 00 
 
 T. C. Durant ■ 50, 000 Oft 
 
 T. C. Durant 8, 000 00 
 
 T. C. Durant 30, 000 00 
 
 T. 0. Durant 5,500 OO 
 
 H. S.McComb 1, 000 00 
 
 1864 
 
 ;, 
 
 August 1. 
 
 u 
 
 25. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 1. 
 
 u 
 
 14. 
 
 i( 
 
 14. 
 
 (( 
 
 21. 
 
 u 
 
 26. 
 
 li 
 
 29. 
 
 u 
 
 29. 
 
 li 
 
 30. 
 
 u 
 
 30. 
 
 March 21. 
 
 u 
 
 21. 
 
 u 
 
 21. 
 
382 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 1865. 
 Dec. 129. T. C. Durant U12, 000 00 
 
 1866. 
 
 March 30. Special committee 50, 000 00 
 
 May 10. Special committee : 20, 000 00 
 
 435, 754 21 
 
 " To the hoard of directors of the Union Pacific Railroad Company : 
 
 "The undersigned special committee, appointed by the resolution of 
 this board passed January 4, 1867, respectfully report : That we have 
 informed ourselves as to the details of the accounts of which the fore- 
 going is a settlement, and have found that the several amounts were 
 paid, as above contained, upon proper authority, and that the facts in 
 the premises are satisfactory to us. 
 
 (SiQ-ned) "OLIVER AMES. 
 
 " JOHN J. CISCO. 
 
 " New Yoek, September 11, 1867. 
 
 "On motion of Mr. McOomb, 
 
 '■'■Resolved, That the report of the special committee in respect to cer- 
 tain suspense-accounts be approved and adopted, and that said accounts 
 be closed and charged to-construction." 
 
 " In the supreme court of Rhode Island, county of Newport. 
 
 " Isaac P. Hazakd et al. vs. Thomas 0. Dxjeant et al. — In Equity. 
 
 " Affidavit of John A. Di.v. 
 
 "John A. Dix, of the city, county, and State of New "York, on oath 
 deposes and says, that he was president of the Union Pacific Railroad 
 Company from its first organization under its act of incorporation on 
 the 30th day of October, 1863, until November, 1866, and exercised a 
 general supervision over the affairs of said comj)any and the conduct of 
 its business during the whole of said period ; that John J. Cisco was 
 treasurer of said company during said period and' subsequently ; that 
 this affiant never knew of any sums of money paid by said treasurer out 
 of the funds of said company except upon proper vouchers and under 
 proper authority, according to the rules and regulations of the board of 
 directors, and in the legitimate and proper business of the company ; 
 that Thomas C. Duraut was vice-president of said company during the 
 whole of said period, and was actively engaged in the construction of 
 said railroad ; that this afHant never knew of any sums of money in- 
 trusted to said Durant for disbursement which were not fully andsatis- 
 ■ factorily accounted for, and that the treasurer had no authority to pay 
 to the vice-president, or to any other person, any sums of money unless 
 upon satisfactory vouchers, approved as required by the regulations of 
 the board of directors ; that this affiant was never informed of any claim 
 on behalf of said company against said Thomas C. Durant for moneys 
 not accounted for, and does not believe any such claim ever existed ; 
 that no request was ever made to him as president, and none to the board 
 of directors, to his knowledge, to prosecute any such claim by Isaac P. 
 Hazard, or by any other person ; and this affiant believes the said 
 Durant to be a man of large means, and amply able to respond to all 
 claims against him. 
 
 "JOHN A. DIX. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 383 
 
 " OOJIMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, BAENSTABLE, SS, 
 
 " Chatham Toivn, August 24, 1870 : 
 " There personally appeared John A. Dix and made oath to this, the 
 within written instruineut, before m<3. 
 
 [SEAL.] " WARREN ROGERS, 
 
 "N'otary Public." 
 
 "In the supreme court of the State of Rhode Island, for the county of 
 
 iSTewport. . 
 
 " Isaac P. Hazard et al. vs. Thomas C. Durant et al, — In Equity, 
 
 NOS. 1 AND 2. 
 
 '^Affidavit of John J. Cisco. 
 
 "John' J. CisLO, of the city, county, and State of New York, on oath 
 deposes and says that he was treasurer of the Union Pacific Railroad 
 Company from its organization until the removal of the office of the 
 corporiition from New York to Boston, in the year 1869 ; that during 
 that period all sums of money disbursed by said corporation were paid 
 by this affiant, and that no sums were paid without proper vouchers 
 and under proj)er authority, produced and verified to me as treasurer 
 at the time of such payment ,- that I have examined the items in the 
 statement, "Exhibit B," annexed to the bill of complaint in the case 
 known as No. 1, and know that the sums therein set forth as having 
 been delivered to Thomas C. Durant were paid at the dates annexed, 
 upon proper vouchers then produced to me, audited by the proper com- 
 mittee, and were entered as having been paid in the proper and legitimate 
 business of said corporation ; that subsequently the said items were car- 
 ried into what was known as a suspense-account, created for the purpose 
 of having the items contained in it apportioned to the divisions of the 
 road to which they were properly chargeable in construction-account ; 
 that in January, 1867, Oliver Ames, president of said corporation, and 
 this affiant were appointed a committee to audit and settle said items, a 
 copy of which resolution is hereto annexed ; that said committee exam- 
 ined said items, and the vouchers therefor, and found the same satisfac- 
 torj^, and directed the same to be charged to the proper construction- 
 account, and made their report to that effect, bearing date September 
 11, 1867, a copy of which is hereto annexed ; that there was no such 
 item as that of $120,000 in such statement, but under the same date 
 there was an item of $112,000, which is probably the item referred to ; 
 that no one of said sums was at any time a proper charge against said 
 Durant, and after said final adjustment they did not appear on the books 
 of said company as claims against any person. 
 
 "And he further states that, according to his knov/ledge, information, 
 and belief, said Thomas C. Durant r^as never liable to pay any one of 
 said sums to said corporation. And he further states that, in the early 
 ■ history of the corporation, the said Thomas C. Durant, from time to 
 time, loaned large sums of money to the corporation, which were repaid 
 to him by me, as treasurer, in the same manner and upon the same au- 
 thority that other loans for borrowed money were repaid. 
 
 "JOHN J. CISCO. 
 " State of New York, 
 
 " City and County of New Yorh > 
 
 ." Sworn to before me this 27th August, 1870. 
 
 [I,. S.J "EDWIN F. COREY, 
 
 " GommiHuioner for Rhode Island in Ifew TorJ^." 
 
384 credit mobilier. 
 
 "Exhibit B. • 
 
 " Statement of moneys received hy Thomas G. Burant, or hy others, on Ms 
 orders, from the Union Pacific Railroad Company. 
 
 " August 25, 1864. $4, 000 00 
 
 "September 14, 1864 13, 128 13 
 
 "September 14, 1864 6,500 00 
 
 "December 29, 1865 120, 000 00 
 
 "March 30, 1866 ' 50,000 00 
 
 " May 10, 1866 20, 000 00 
 
 " a. T. M. Davis 3, GOO 00 
 
 " James C.Kenuedy 2,000 00 
 
 "Alexander Hay 4, 000 00 
 
 " (Indorsed :) Exhibit B. I. P. Hazard et ul. vs. T. C. Durant et al. 
 "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. 
 
 " Office cleric supreme court, county of Newport, ss : 
 
 " I, Thomas W. Wood, clerk of the court aforesaid, for and within the 
 State and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing one 
 page contains a true and correct copy of the Exhibit B, filed in cause 
 I. P. Hazard et al. vs. T. (3. Durant et al., No. 1, as compared by me this 
 day with the original filed In this oflice on the 22d day of August, A. 
 D. 1869. 
 
 " In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed the 
 seal of said court, this 22d day of August, A. D. 1869. 
 , SEAL.] "THOMAS W. WOOD, Cleric.'^ 
 
 Stamp. J 
 
 " In equity. 
 
 "Isaac P. Oazaed et al. vs. T. (J. Dueant et al. 
 
 " Affidavit of Josiah Banlwell. 
 
 " Josiah Bardwell, of the city of Boston, Commonwealth of Massa- 
 chusetts, being duly sworn, says that he was a director of the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad Company during the time covered by the complain- 
 ants' bills in equity, and also a stockholder in the Credit Mobilier of 
 America, and thoroughly conversant with all the transactions of said 
 Thomas C. Durant set forth in said bills; that he does not, according 
 to the best of his knowledge and belief, consider any of the allegations 
 in each and either of said bills that the said Durant fraudulently or 
 otherwise appropriated the moneys of either or each of said compa- 
 nies to his own use or benefit, or that said Durant is or was at the 
 .filing of said bills indebted to either of said companies ; but he says 
 that all of said moneys set forth in said bills and schedules were paid 
 by the properly authorized officers of said companies, and were duly 
 audited and settled by the j)roperly constituted oflicers and commit- 
 tees of the said respective companies. He further says that he be- 
 lieves that there is no foundation either in law or fact for said bills in 
 equity, and that the same are instigated and are prosecuted by said 
 Eowland G. Hazard from malice and ill-feeling towards said Durant. 
 He further says that he believes the said Durant to be of ample. and 
 sufficient means to pay at any time any and all charges and damages 
 claimed and recovered against him. 
 
 H, in^T « TT T' A T>T-\-!71TT7IT T 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 385 
 
 ■" State op Massachusetts, 
 
 " County of Suffolk, City of Boston, ss : 
 " Subscribed and sworn to this 12th day of July, A. D. 1870, before me. 
 [SEAL.] "CHARLES B. F. ADAMS, 
 
 " Commissioner of State of Rhode Island. 
 
 " Isaac P. Hazard et al. ) 
 
 vs. > In equity. 
 
 Thomas 0. Due ant et al. ) 
 
 '■'Affidavit of Cornelius S. Bushnell. 
 
 ■" Cornelius S. Bushnell, of the city of Kew Haven, State of Con- 
 necticut, being duly sworn, says that he was, during all the period of 
 time during which the complainants' bill alleges certain transactions to 
 have taken place on the part of Thomas C. Durant, a director of the 
 Credit Mobilier of America, of the railway bureau of said company, 
 also a director in the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and a member 
 of the executive committee, and is thoroughly conversant with all the 
 transactions covered by both of said bills of complaint ; that to the best 
 of his knowledge, information, and belief, the said Thomas C. Durant 
 is not indebted to either of said corporations, nor has he ever, fraudu- 
 lently or otherwise, appointed or expended any of the funds or moneys 
 of each or either of said corporators to his own use or benefit. 
 
 " The sum charged against said defendant in each of said bills, and 
 the schedules annexed thereto, was expended for the benefit of each and 
 ■either of said corporations by their properly and duly appointed officers, 
 ■or were subsequently audited and allowed by duly appointed committees 
 of each and both of said corporations, and allowed, charged off, and 
 settled formally and duly. 
 
 " Tour affiant further says that he believes that both of said suits are 
 instigated and maintained by said Rowland G. Hazard from malice and 
 Ill-feeling towards said Durant, and that the said Durant is possessed 
 of large and ample substantial means to pay any and all charges and 
 damages i^roperly claimed and recovered from him. 
 
 "C. S. BUSHNELL. 
 
 " Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 12th dav 
 i July, 1870. 
 
 " JOHN R. DUFF, 
 
 " Notary Public.'" 
 
 As to' Mr. Alley's statement that a committee was appointed, on behalf 
 of the Credit Mobilier, to examine my accounts, I will state that at my 
 instance a committee was appointed, when I ceased to have any con- 
 nection with the company, consisting of Mr. McComb and Mr. Williams. 
 That committee not acting promptly, I invited several gentlemen, who 
 were large stockholders, to examine my accounts with the Credit Mo- " 
 bilier ; and on the day following Mr. Alley and Mr. Oakes Ames, a self- 
 constituted committee, called on me. How far these gentlemen went 
 into the investigation I do not recollect. I was willing to show them 
 all my accounts connected with the Credit Mobilier; but when they 
 came as a self-constituted committee on the part of that corporation to 
 inquire into my accounts as an officer of the Union Pacific Railroad 
 Company, with such railroad company, as to those matters, I have no 
 doubt that I treated them cavalierly, and gave them very little informa- 
 tion ; but I deny ever having stated to Mr. Alley that I paid Mr. Thad- 
 25 X 
 
386 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 deus Stevens any money whatever. I deny ever having quarreled with 
 that gentleman, never having seen him, except on one occasion, from 
 the time the bill passed to the time of his death. I now state that I 
 never paid or promised to pay Mr. Stevens any sum of money whatever, 
 or any stock, bonds, or other property. I may have stated that a sec- 
 tion introduced by Mr. Stevens, and insisted upon by him in his com- 
 mittee, in the amendment of 1864, had cost this company even a larger 
 sum of money than that named. In regard to that section, not under- 
 standing why it was in, I once called upon Mr. Stevens, in company with 
 Mr. Alexander Hay, and was informed that the affairs of the Leaven- 
 worth, Pawnee, and Western Eoad, (since called the Union Pacific, 
 Eastern Division,) were in such shape that, if the amendment passed, 
 as was proposed, without the said section, the lien prior to the Govern- 
 ment lien would amount to a larger sum than the issue of Government 
 bonds, per mile, to the road, to which the said prior lien was to be re- 
 stricted; that the company, having already issued bonds, and also in 
 its various negotiations incurred other liens and complications, so that 
 there was even a doubt as to what parties controlled its franchise. 
 
 Mr. Stevens distinctly asserted that unless these matters were so 
 arranged as to convince him that the Government lien would be what it 
 purported to be, in theproposed amendment, he should insist upon a 
 clause that would protect the Government, and recommended that those 
 matters be adjusted among ourselves. It was in consequence of this 
 interview that matters in dispute were, to a certain extent, arranged 
 between the parties interested before the bill passed, in accomplishing 
 which a large amount of money was used. At that time the Pacific 
 Eailroad was a popular measure, and there was no difQculty in passing 
 any reasonable amendment in Congress which would insure the comple- 
 tion of the road. The difficulties we encountered were from the parties 
 interested in the several companies named in said bill of 1862, growing, 
 in a great measure, out of their own complications and local rivalries as 
 to location of the termini and control of the franchises. In addition to 
 the money ex]3ended in this effort, the comjDany did part with a valuable 
 portion of its franchise, on the representations of Mr. Oakes Ames that 
 Iowa, and jjerhaps Massachusetts Representatives, would oppose this 
 amendment of 1804, unless the Sioux City branch was given up to other 
 corporations. This also I supposed was done to conciliate local interests. 
 
 As to the 650 shares referred to in Mr. Alley's statement, the facts are 
 these: That amount made up my full subscription to the Credit Mobilier 
 stock. At that time, if my just credits had been entered in the books 
 of the company, the stock would have been more than paid for. When 
 the said certificate was issued, instead of taking it from the office 
 of the company, it was transferred, by power of attorney on the 
 back of the same, and left in the hands of the assistant treasurer of 
 the company, and the certificate had never been taken from the office 
 of the comj)any. The assistant treasurer, as I was absent from New 
 York most of the time, was instructed to deliver said stock to the par- 
 ties to whom I had promised stock, and who might call in my absence 
 to receive and pay for the same. At the time I ceased to be an officer 
 of the company, and the general administration of the Credit Mobilier 
 was changed, and while I was absent on the road, that certificate was 
 in the possession of the assistant treasurer ; and, upon being asked for 
 it by the new administration,"it was surrendered, with a letter stating 
 the fact that he held it in trust for the parties to whom it had been 
 promised. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 387 
 
 In reference to Mr. Alley's statement as to tlie connection of Mr. Mc- 
 Comb and myself with the Pisk suit, in justice to Mr. McOomb, I will 
 state that, after the date of Mr. Ames's letter, which has been given in 
 evidence on this examination, it was proposed that several parties- be- 
 come subscribers to the stock of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company. 
 
 Among them, Mr. McComb and myself proposed to subscribe. When 
 we met at the office to make our subscriptions, and tender the amount 
 which we supposed the company were entitled to, (55 per cent, then be- 
 ing the amount that had been called by the board of directors,) we found 
 that the treasurer had been ijistructed to receive nothing less than par. 
 We were provided with certified checks to pay for subscriptions amount- 
 ing to $500,000. While ofi'ering these subscriptions, Mr. Fisk came into 
 the office to inquire relative to certain parties from Boston, who ex- 
 pected to be in town that day, and who, he said, proposed to subscribe 
 to stock in the Union Pacific Eailroad Company, and during that time 
 made, subscriptions himself. On Mr. McOomb stating that he intended 
 making a subscription for the account of a Mr. Turner, Mr. Fisk re- 
 marked, " I will make it for you," and made the subscription referred 
 to ; and that was all the subscription that Mr. McComb had any connec- 
 tion with. 
 
 After Mr. Fisk commenced bis suit against the company, Mr. Turner, 
 through his attorneys, notified the company that Mr. Fisk was not his 
 agent, and forbid their settling with him for said subscription. This is 
 all the connection that I know of Mr. McComb having with the matter. 
 
 I have made this statement as brief as I could. A full and detailed 
 statement of all the facts connected with the matter upon which Mr. 
 Alley testifies would exhaust your patience. Those who know the his- 
 tory of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company do not need to be informed 
 that the claim which Mr. Alley puts forward for Mr. Ames and his other 
 friends, that this great national enterprise owes its success entirely to 
 them, is utterly unfounded. But many are uninformed upon the facts. 
 At the risk of seeming to magnify my services, I beg to take this op- 
 portunity to say one word on that subject. 
 
 As I have stated, Mr. Ames, Mr. Alley, and their friends were not 
 original stockholders in the company. They came into it by virtue of 
 their character as contractors and their interest in the Credit Mobilier,and 
 did not come into the direction until after several hundred miles of road 
 had been completed, and nearly five hundred miles had been completed 
 at the time of the execution and assignment of the Oakes Ames con- 
 tract. The claim of patriotism and of a far-seeing, intelligent, and 
 honest policy, put forward in their behalf, is ridiculous. In fact, so un- 
 informed were they of the mode of conducting the entire business, that 
 they did not distinguish and at times seemed incapable of distinguish- 
 ing between the railroad company and the Credit Mobilier. And I may 
 here state that it does not seem to me strange that gentlemen, members 
 of Congress, to whom Mr. Ames sold interests, mistook the company in 
 which they held stock, for I do not think Mr. Ames himself could 
 hardly have given them a clear idea on the subject. 
 
 Early in 1856, while in connection with 0. W. Duraut and Henry 
 Farnham, engaged in constructing a railroad in Iowa, we employed en- 
 gineers to make examinations for a favorable point for crossing the Mis- 
 souri Eiver, and to make observations as to a general route for a rail- 
 way to the Eocky Mountains. In the fall of 1863, and prior to the or- 
 ganization of the company, at my private expense, I sent engineering 
 parties into the field to explore the whole country to be traversed- by 
 the road. Lines were run through Cheyenne, Bridge, and all the other 
 
388 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 principal passes in the mountains, wliile five different lines from the 
 Missouri were run to a common point in the Platte Valley. I did this 
 before the company had obtained subscriptions enough to enable them, 
 to organize, so that when it should be ready to commence work, valuable 
 time which would be required to make surveys and run lines might be 
 saved ; and I also sent a geologist to make examinations as to coal and 
 iron lands on the line and in the vicinity. I submitted a report of my 
 action to the company at the first meeting of the board of directors. 
 
 So, too, in respect of taking the stock. The matter long languished 
 in the hands of men of the highest character, until the time limited for 
 organization had nearly expired. Believing the enterprise would ulti- 
 mately succeed, I made my own subscription, and, finding it impossible 
 to induce capitalists to engage in the enterprise, I succeeded in obtain- 
 ing subscriptions for the requisite amount only by Inducing my friends 
 to subscribe, I advancing the money to pay their first installment of ten. 
 per cent, thereon, giving them the option to retain the stock by return- 
 ing me my advances, or I would find parties to take the stock off their 
 hands. All of this stock, amounting to three-fourths of the whole stock 
 ($2,000,000) required to be subscribed, was subsequently transferred to 
 me, the parties not choosing, even after the amendment in 1864, to take 
 any risk in the enterprise. 
 
 While conducting personally the actual construction of the road, I 
 often found it imperatively necessary fearlessly to assume responsibility 
 in con-ecting errors in any department, and still more fearlessly to op- 
 pose those who were ready to sacrifice ultimate success for immediate 
 profit. 
 
 So placed and acting, it is not strange that I met the malignant op- 
 position of a few persons' whose calumnies I should never have noticed, 
 had not the statement of Mr. Alley being placed on record seemed to 
 demand a refutation on my part. 
 
 I would also add, with reference to the general belief that extraor- 
 dinary profits were realized from the construction of this road, that, 
 taking the cost of the road from its eastern terminus to that point to 
 which the estimates were made, and upon which the last dividends 
 were paid, as shown by the schedule given your committee, compris- 
 ing a distance of more than 900 miles, on an expenditure of about 
 $74,000,000, the entire profits, estimating the average market value of 
 the securities divided, would amount only to between sixteen and 
 eighteen per cent, on the sum paid — a profit less than is generally an- 
 ticipated in all railroad contracts. The estimates for the cost of the re- ' 
 maining 140 miles, or thereabouts, embraced in the Davis contract, are 
 not included in this estimate of cost, my connection with the company 
 having ceased upon the laying of the last rail, and prior to the accounts 
 being finally closed. 
 
 The rapidity with which the work was completed, being in less than 
 one-fourth of the time ordinarily required for such work, makes this , 
 profit appear larger than if the construction had extended for the period 
 usually required. 
 
 The company, while they complied on their part with the requirements 
 of the law, felt they had cause to complain of want of good faith on the 
 part of the Government, by which their securities were depreciated and 
 the cost otherwise increased. 
 
 First. By its passing an act allowing the Union Paciflc, Eastern Di- 
 vision, which was, by the acts of 1863 and 1864, to have been a branch 
 connecting with the main line at or near the 100th meridian, to construct 
 their road up the Smoky Hill Fork, thereby not only making it a rival 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 389 
 
 line for a long distance, but depriving the Union Pacific Company of the 
 benefits of a connection with the Central Branch from Atchison. 
 
 Second. By allowing the Central Pacific Railroad Company to extend 
 its road eastward to a point beyond that designated in the acts of 1862 
 and 1864. 
 
 Third. By fixing arbitrarily the junction of the two roads at or near 
 Ogden. 
 
 Tourth. By delaying the work of construction, in neglecting promptly 
 to establish the point at the base of the Kocky Mountains where the 
 increased issue of bonds should commence. 
 
 Fifth. By neglecting and refusing in some instances to accept the 
 location of the road made by the company until in one case after the 
 track was actually laid on the same for a distance of upward of two 
 hundre'd miles, though the maps had been filed in the proper department 
 of the Government. This deprived the company of the use of the bonds 
 to be issued on said portion, comi)elling them to raise large sums of 
 money at ruinous rates. 
 
 Sixth. By their neglect to certify to the company large portions of 
 land to which they were entitled. 
 
 Seventh. To the action of Government in retaining the money due in 
 accordance with the act for the transportation of Government freights, 
 mails, and troops, at a time when the company was greatly in debt, 
 and depending on the sale of their securities, thereby causing, on the 
 part of capitalists, a general distrust in the good faith of the Govern- 
 ment toward the company; and compelling the company to make sacri- 
 fices, thus increasing the apparent cost of the road. 
 
 New Yoeb:, August 8, 1864. 
 
 To the president and committee on contracts of the Union Pacific Railroad 
 
 Company : 
 
 Gentlemen: I propose to enter into a contract to build and equip 
 one hundred miles of your railroad and telegraph, commejacing at Oinaha 
 City, complying as far as practicable to the general specifications here- 
 unto annexed, upon the following terms and conditions, viz : 
 
 To proceed at once with the grading and bridging, and complete the 
 same within the time required by the acts of Congress specified, and in 
 such manner as will comply with the same; to assume all your contracts 
 for ties, iron, and equipment, the company reserving the right, if they 
 elect, to dispose of what iron they have, with the exception of, say, five 
 hundred tons, which may be required to facilitate the grading, and also 
 to dispose of the equipment not needed this season, except three loco- 
 motives and ten platform -cars; but, in case they elect to do so, shall 
 give me written notice of their intention prior to the first day of Octo- 
 ber next. 
 
 To build all necessary side-track not exceeding six per cent, in length 
 of the main line, the contractor to have the right to change grades, 
 provided the maximum grade shall not exceed that of, the New York 
 Central Railroad. Also to have the right to enter upon all lands belong- 
 ing to said company, for the purpose of obtaining material used iu the 
 coustructiou of the road. 
 
390 CREDIT MOBILIEE, 
 
 Should the company decide to Burnetize the Cottonwood used for ties, 
 they shall pay in addition sixteen cents for each tie, and for all other 
 timber in like proportion. 
 
 The contractor shall not be required to expend, in the construction of 
 any one bridge, over eighty-five thousand dollars, nor shall he be re- 
 quired to expend for the erection of station-buildings, machinery, 
 machine-shops, tanks, equipments, &c., more than five thousand dollars 
 per mile, or five hundred thousand dollars in the aggregate, but the 
 same shall be expended as directed by the engineer. The contractor to 
 have the use of the road until the contract is completed. The work on 
 the sections near Omaha, which have been let by tire company, or which 
 have been commenced, to be continued by them or transferred to me as 
 may be agreed upon hereafter, and the cost of the same to be charged 
 to me in final settlement. Any excess in the cost of iron above one 
 hundred and thirty dollars jper ton at Omaha to be allowed by the com- 
 pany. Eight of way to be furnished by the company. The expense of 
 engineers engaged in the construction to be paid by the contractor. 
 The company to pay for the same at the rate of fifty thousand dollars 
 for each and every mile so completed. Payments to be made as the 
 work progresses, upon the estimate of the engineers, in making whic h 
 the engineer shall deduct from each section its proportion of the cost of 
 equipment not then furnished, station-buildings, superstructure, and 
 cost of telegraph ; but all material delivered or in transit for the account 
 of the company may be estimated for. The contractor to furnish money 
 upon the securities of the company, as hereinafter provided for in the 
 construction of each section of the length required by the acts of Con- 
 gress hereinbefore referred to, viz : 
 
 The company shall proceed to mortgage the land acquired from the 
 Government at not more than sixteen thousand dollars per mile, bearing 
 seven per cent, interest, payable semi-annually in the city of New York, 
 which bonds shall be receivable as the bonds of the company at such 
 prices as may be fixed upon from time to time as the cash price of the 
 lands. The company to proceed to the preparing of the first-mortgage 
 bonds, as provided for under the act, made and put on record, the 
 mortgage securing the same, so that the bonds may be ready for use as 
 soon as the x)rovisions of the law are complied with ; aiud shall do 
 everything necessary and requisite to obtain the Government bonds at 
 an early day. In the mean time, if required, the company to execute 
 certificates of an amount to correspond to the first-mortgage and Gov- 
 ernment bonds, chargeable for the same upon the company's obtaining 
 the United States bonds. Said certificates to bear interest, payable 
 semi-annually, at the rate of six per cent. On these certificates I will 
 advance, or procure to be advanced, the necessary funds to the company 
 at the rate of eighty per cent, of their par value, and on the land-grant 
 bonds seventy per cent., reserving the right to dispose of them whenever 
 the amount so advanced, includingwhatmay be due on construction, shall 
 exceed five hundred thousand dollars, or whenever said advance shall 
 . have been made over four months, but not to do so for less than the prices 
 above named. The company in their option to decide whether I take 
 the bonds, or any portion of them, at the prices above named, in pay- 
 ment for advances and interest, if called upon to do so within thirty 
 days thereafter. I will also subscribe, or cause to be subscribed, to the 
 capital stock of your company five hundred thousand dollars. I will 
 assume and pay such obligations or accounts as may have been certified 
 to by the committee appointed by your board or executive committee 
 for services and expenses, the company paying me the amount of the 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE, 391 
 
 obligation so certified to and assumed. In making this proposition it 
 maybe well to state that I am connected with and agent for parties 
 who have machines, oxen, and necessary outfit for prosecuting the work, 
 and are prepared to commence at once, having sent cattle and tools to 
 Nebraska. 
 
 n. M. noxiE, 
 
 By H. 0. CEANE, 
 
 Attorney. 
 H. M. HoxiB, Es<|. : 
 
 Deae Sir : You will please go on Avith the work under the above 
 proposition, and if the company do not accept it before the first day of 
 October next, they will pay you upon the same terms and conditions for 
 what work may be done, as shown by the estimates of the engineers, 
 made as provided in this proposition, first giving you thirty days' notice 
 that they do not accept. 
 
 GEOEGB T. M. DAVIS, 
 
 Specicd Committee. 
 
 Above contract is approved aiid ratified. 
 
 JOHN A. DIX. 
 [SEAL.] 0. S. BUSHNELL. 
 
 GEORGE T. M. DAVIS. 
 September 23, ISCi. 
 
 New York, October i, 1864. 
 To the j)resident and executive committee of the Union Pacific Railroad 
 
 Company : 
 On condition that your railroad company will extend my contract 
 from its present length for one hundred miles, so as to embrace all that 
 portion of the road between Omaha and the one hundredth meridian of 
 longitude, I will subscribe, or cause to be subscribed, for five hundred 
 thousand dollars of the stock of your company. 
 Eespectfully, yours, 
 
 H. M. HOXIE, 
 ByH. C. CEANE, 
 
 Attorney. 
 
 The above proposition is hereby accepted for and on behalf of tbe 
 Union Pacific Eailroad Company. 
 
 JOHN A. DIX, 
 C. S. BUSHNELL, 
 GEO. T. M. DAVIS, 
 
 Special Committee. 
 October 3, 1864. 
 
 B. 
 
 New York, October 7, 1864. 
 Whereas H. M. Hoxie, esq., of the State of Iowa, has a certain con- 
 tract, bearing date the 8th day of August, 1864, for the construction of 
 a portion of the road of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, which, 
 contract the said Hoxie has agreed to assign to Thos. C. Durant, esq., 
 of the city of New York, or to such party or parties as he may designate, 
 by agreement bearing date the 30th day of September, 1864, the terms 
 of which assignment form a part of this agreement : 
 
392 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Now, therefore, we, the undersigned, hereby agree to take an interest 
 in the said contract to the extent set opposite our respective names, de- 
 positing at the same time, in the hands of said Thos. 0. Durant, 25 per 
 centum in cash on the interest so subscribed. And the parties hereto 
 agree, one with the other, that should default be made in payment of 
 the balance of the interest so subscribed as required, the party so de- 
 faulting shall not be entitled to any further interest in said contract than 
 the amount paid bears to the amount subscribed. It is understood that 
 the amount subscribed for the carryi,ug out of this contract shall be 
 $1,600,000. 
 
 Thos. C. Durant, $000,000; C. S. Bushnell, $400,000; Chas. A. Lam- 
 bard, $100,000; H. S. McOomb, $100,000; H. W. Gray, $200,000, &c. 
 
 0. 
 
 Know all men by these presents, that I, Herbert M. Hoxie, for and in 
 consideration of one dollar to nie in hand paid, the receipt whereof is 
 hereby acknowledged, and for divers other good and valuable consider- 
 ations me thereunto moving, do hereby sell, assign, transfer, and make 
 over unto John Duff, trustee, all and singular the agreements, between 
 theUnion Pacific Eailroad Company and myself, made by and contained in 
 a certain proposition in writing, signed by me, and dated August 8, 1864, 
 and an acpeptance thereof by said company, under its seal, dated Sep- 
 tember 23, 1864, both which proposition and acceptance are hereto 
 annexed; and also all my rights under said agreement,, and all moneys, 
 property, privileges, payments, benefits, and advantages to me or to my 
 heirs, representatives, or assigns by said agreement provided for or se- 
 cured, with full power to use my name whenever necessary or proper for 
 obtaining, receiving, or enforcing the said rights, moneys, property, 
 privileges, payments, benefits, and advantages, as fully as I myself could 
 do the same; subject, nevertheless, to my agreemeat with the Credit 
 Mobilier of America, dated the 15th of March, 1865, and all my rights 
 thereunder. 
 
 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 15th 
 day of March, 1805. 
 
 [SBAJO.] HEEBERT M. HOXIE. 
 
 [United States internal-revenue stamp, $1, canceled.] 
 
 N. B. — 1. 24, "March," written on erasure before execution. 
 Witness : Benjabiin F. Bunker. 
 
 Whereas Herbert M. Hoxie and the Union Pacific Eailroad Company 
 have entered into an agreement by means of the foregoing writings,, 
 (namely, a proposition from said Hoxie, dated August 8, 1864, and an 
 acceptance thereof, dated September 23, 1864:) 
 
 l?ow these presents witness, that the Credit Mobilier of America, in 
 consideration of one dollar to them in hand paid, the receipt whereof is 
 hereby acknowledged, and for divers other good and valuable considera- 
 tions them thereunto moving, do hereby covenant and agree to guar- 
 antee, and hereby do guarantee, to and with the eaid Union Pacific 
 Eailroad Company, that the said Herbert M. Hoxie, or his representa- 
 tives or assigns, shall, and will, well, truly, and perfectly perform and 
 fulfill the said agreement in all things on his part to be done or performed 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 393^ 
 
 according to the terms and true intent of said agreement, as in said fore- 
 going writings contained. 
 
 In witness whereof, tbe said Credit Mobilier of America have caused 
 these presents to be sealed with their corporate seal and signed by 
 their president, this 15th day of March, 1865, at their agency in the city 
 of New York. 
 
 [SEAL.] THOMAS C. DUEANT, 
 
 President. 
 
 Attest : B. F. Bunker, . 
 
 Assistant Secretary. 
 
 Memorandum of an agreement made the 15th day of March, 1865,, 
 between the Credit Mobilier of America, a corporation organized under 
 the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, of one part, and Herbert M. 
 Hoxie, of tbe other part: 
 
 Whereas, by certain writings hereto annexed, and forming part of 
 these presents, a contract has been made by and between the Union 
 Pacific Railroad Company and said Hoxie ; and whereas said Hoxie has 
 partly performed the same : 
 
 Now, in consideration of the premises, and of the mutnal grants and 
 agreements herein contained, the parties to these presents grant and 
 agree as follows: 
 
 Said Credit Mobilier agrees to execute to said company a guarantee of 
 the performance of said contract by said Hoxie, and also to make to said 
 Hoxie all advances of money which may be necessary to provide and pay 
 for labor, materials, services, and all other expenses and charges in the 
 construction of the railroad, and other performance of said contract on 
 said Hoxie's part ; and also to provide for, secure', and obtain all sub- 
 scriptions to capital stock required by said contract from said Hoxie. 
 Said Hoxie agrees to, and hereby does, assign to said Credit Mobilier . 
 all his right to have and receive from said company securities, stocks,. 
 moneys, profits, and payments due or to become due for constructing 
 the railroad, or other performance of said contract, upon said Hoxie's 
 being paid for all work done and materials furnished, as by adjustment 
 certificates of the engineer or settlement made in December last; and 
 he hereby appoints said Credit Mobilier his lawful attorney, irrevocable, 
 to take, collect, and receive for their use all the matters and things so 
 assigned. 
 
 And for the better securing said Credit Mobilier against being made 
 chargeable on said guarantee by any default of said Hoxie, and against 
 any loss of the matter and things above assigned, said Hoxie hereby , 
 appoints said Credit Mobilier his lawful attorney, irrevocable, to name, 
 constitute, employ, and at tlieir pleasure remove, all agents and sub- 
 agents which said Credit Mobilier may deem necessary or proper to- 
 conduct, manage, and do the business of constructing the railroad, other- 
 wise performing said contract, and to pay out and apply the moneys so 
 to be advanced to the uses for which the same are to be advanced, and 
 does hereby pledge and transfer to said Credit Mobilier the said contract 
 and all his rights under the same, as collateral security for the perform- 
 ance of said contract on his part, with full power to enforce such pledge 
 on default without' notice. 
 
 The said Credit Mobilier agrees to save said Hoxie harmless and in- 
 demnified against all claims under said contract, and to pay the said 
 Hoxie five thousand dollars in cash and ten thousand dollars in the stock 
 of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and to carry out the conditions. 
 
394 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 relating to a construction bureau, as shown by specifications hereto 
 anne'xed. 
 
 In witness whereof said Credit Mobilior has executed this memoran- 
 dum, under its seal and signature of its president, and said Hoxie has 
 signed and sealed the same the day and year first above written, at 
 their agency in the city of ISTew York. 
 
 T. (J. DUEANT, 
 
 President. 
 H. M. HOXIE. 
 Witness : 
 
 B. P. BuOTvER. 
 
 D. 
 
 Kew York, Xoxemher 10, 1866. 
 
 SiE : Eeferring to our informal agreement for the construction of a 
 portion of the Union Pacific Railroad, I hand you the following memo- 
 jrandum of contract, which, if in accordance with your understanding as 
 to details, you will please indorse as accepted, aud return me one copy, 
 retaining the other for yourself. 
 
 1st. You to assume such existing contracts for material, grading, 
 bridging, &c., as may properly belong or appertain to the construction 
 of one hundred and fifty miles of the road westward from the 100th 
 meridian of longitude, including an agreement for the grading and 
 superstruction of that portion of the road between the 100th meridian 
 of longitude and the west bank of the North Platte Eiver, at the rate 
 of nineteen thousand five hundred dollars per mile, exclusive of the 
 bridge over the said river, which bridge is to be paid for at the actual 
 cost of construction. 
 
 2d. All the present employes on construction are to be retained and 
 employed under this contract, unless discharged for inefficiency or other 
 good reasons. That the work shall be under my supervision, or that of 
 the engineer or person designated by the comx^any, and through the 
 superintendents, engineers, agents, and contractors now on the work, in 
 order that the present effective organization may not be impaired or 
 changed until the railroad company decide whether they let the contract 
 for building and equipping the balance of the road to parties who may 
 wish to have the advantage of the present organization or do the work 
 themselves as a corporation ; but nothing in this shall be construed to 
 prevent the employment of other agents, if thereby the work can be 
 'more expeditiously and economically prosecuted. 
 
 3d. The grading, bridging, and superstructure to be completed to the 
 satisfaction of the company's engineer and the acceptance of the Govern- 
 ment commissioners, and of the same character as to workmanship, 
 materia], and kind of iron, &c., as in the constraction of the one hun- 
 dred miles east of the 100th meridian of longitude. 
 
 ^th. Work on station-buildings, depot-grounds, tank-houses, or any- 
 thing appertaining thereto, or equipment and rolling-stock, to be an 
 additional charge, but all such work is to be done with the sanction and 
 under the direction of the engineer in charge. The side-track and turn- 
 outs necessary for the immediate requirements of the company, at the 
 several stations established on the line, as indicated by the engineers at 
 the present time, to be constructed at the expense of the contractor. If 
 more should be required, the same is to be constructed at the expense 
 of the company. 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIER. ddo 
 
 3tli. The cost of iron, delivered at Omaha, is guaranteed not to exceed 
 one hundred and thirty dollars per ton ; and if ties or bridge-material 
 are burned or destroyed, the company to pay the actual cost of the 
 same. The transportation of men and material, &c., used for the con- 
 struction, to be free of charge to the contractor over the completed por- 
 tion of the road. 
 
 6th. The work to be pushed with the same rapidity as heretofore, and, 
 if required, to be completed at the rate of two miles for each pleasant 
 working-day, provided the company deliver and transport the necessary 
 material therefor over the completed portion of the road without caus- 
 ing detention. 
 
 In case the engineer in charge is of the opinion the grading, &c., is 
 not progressing as fast as required to comply with the contract, he shall 
 be at liberty to place more men on the work, at the cost of the con- 
 tractor ; but the company shall not require grading to be done while 
 the ground is frozen, unless at their own cost and expense ; neither 
 shall the contractor be liable for delays from high water or causes en- 
 tirely beyond his control. 
 
 7th. In consideration of the faithful jierformance on your part of the • 
 above work, you shall be paid twenty thousand dollars per mile for each 
 and every mile so completed west of the North Platte Eiver bridge to 
 the termination of the fourth hundred miles westward from Omaha, and 
 nineteen thousand five hundred dollars per mile, and the cost of the 
 ]S"orth Platte Eiver bridge, for each and every mile between the one 
 hundredth meridian and the west bank of the North Platte Eiver, as 
 hereinbefore referred to. Payments to be made as the work progresses, 
 on the monthly estimates of the engineer in charge of the work, and 
 that material delivered or in transit may be estimated when the same 
 has been shipped for account of the company. 
 
 THOS. C. DUEANT, 
 
 Agent. 
 
 L. B. BooMEE, Esq., 
 
 Chicago, Illinois. 
 
 I hereby accex)t the above. 
 
 L. B. BOOMEE. 
 
 I hereby become personally responsible for the payment to you of the 
 above. 
 
 THOS. 0. DUEANT. 
 
 The within contract may be terminated by giving me ten days' notice, 
 in writing, and the payment, according to the terms thereof, of all sums 
 that may be due for work performed and material furnished. 
 
 L. B. BOOMEE. 
 
396 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 E. 
 
 CERTIFICATE OF ENGINEER, REFERRED TO IN ABOVE REPORT OF THE 
 TREASURER OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. 
 
 Estimate to contractors for huild'mg road west of 100th meridian, December 
 
 31, 1868. 
 
 100 miles, at $42,000 per mile $4, 200, 000 
 
 167 miles, at $45,000 per mile 7, 515, 000 
 
 100 miles, at $96,000 per mile 9,600,000 
 
 100 rniles, at $80,000 per mile 8, 000, 000 
 
 100 miles, at $90,000 per mile 9, 000, 000 
 
 100 miles, at $96,000 per mile 9,600,000 
 
 46 miles, at $90,000 per mile 4, 140, 000 
 
 400, 000 ties, at $1 each 400, 000 
 
 10, 875 tons iron, at $110 per ton 1, 196, 250 
 
 30 tons splice-bars, at $185 per ton 6, 550 
 
 100 frogs and switches, at $100 each 10, 000 
 
 1, 000 telegraph poles, at $2 each '. 2,. 000 
 
 100 miles wire, at $50 per mile 5, 000 
 
 500, 000 P. M. B. bridge- timber, at $50 per M 25, 000 
 
 100, 000 P. M. V. lumber, at $45 per M , 4, 500 
 
 100 miles grading, at $20,000 per mile 2, 000, 000 
 
 Equipment: 
 
 103 locomotives, at $14,000 each 1, 442, 000 
 
 16 first-class passenger cars, at $4,000 each 96, 000 
 
 8 second class passenger cars, at $3,500 each 28, 000 
 
 14 baggage and express cars, at $2,800 each 39, 200 
 
 81 caboose-cars, at $2,000 each 162, 000 
 
 949 box freight-ears, at $900 each 444, 600 
 
 1, 58!) platform-ears, at $767 each 1, 218, 763 
 
 54 station-houses, at $2,500 each 135, 000 
 
 60 tank-honses, at $1,500 each 90, 000 
 
 70 wind-mills, at $1,500 each 105, 000 
 
 10 coal-houses, at $1,800 each 18, 000 
 
 12 turn-tables, at $1,500 each 18, 000 
 
 North Platte round-house 80, 000 
 
 North Platte shops 150, 000 
 
 North i'latte eating-house 15, 000 
 
 Sidney round-house 20, 000 
 
 Cheyenne round-house 80, 000 
 
 Oheyenne shops 100, 000 
 
 Cheyenne eating-house 22, 000 
 
 Sherman round-house 20, 000 
 
 Laramie round-house 80, 000 
 
 Laramie shops 200, 000 
 
 Laramie eating-house 45, 000 
 
 Medicine Bow round-house 20, 000 
 
 Eawlings Springs round-house 40, 000 
 
 Eawlings Springs shops , 150, 000 
 
 Rawlings Springs eating-house 27,000 
 
 Bitter Creek roundhouse 40, 000 
 
 Machinery for Bryan shops 150, 000 
 
 60, 738, 863 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 397 
 
 Deduct unfinished work, as follows : 
 713 miles ec|.uipment, per contract, at $7,500 per mile.. $5,347,500 
 
 55, 391, 363 
 Amount received from company 43, 725, 000 
 
 11, 666, 363 
 
 G. M. DODGE, 
 
 Chief Engineer. 
 
 F. 
 
 THE "OAKES AMES CONTEACT," AJfD THE TEANSFEES OF THE SAME. 
 
 ■Copy of contract U. P. B. B. G. with Odkes Ames, and transfer to T. C, 
 
 Durant and others. 
 
 Agreement made this sixteenth day of August, one thousand eight 
 hundred and sixty-seven, between the Union Pacific Railroad Company, 
 party of the first part, and Oakes Ames, party of the second part, wit- 
 nesseth : 
 
 That the party of the first part agrees to let and contract, and the 
 party of the second part agrees to contract, as follows, to wit : 
 
 First. The party of the second part agrees and binds himself, his 
 heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, to build and equip the fol- 
 lowing-named portions of the railroad and telegraph line of the party of 
 the first part, commencing at the 100th meridian of longitude, upon the 
 following terms and conditions, to wit: 
 
 1st. 100 miles at and for the rate of $42,000 per mile. 
 
 2d. 167 miles at and for the rate of $45,000 per mile. 
 
 3d. 100 miles at and for the rate of $96,000 per mile. 
 
 4th. 100 miles at and for the rate of $80,000 per mile. 
 
 5th. 100 miles at and for the rate of $90,000 per mile. 
 
 6th. 100 miles at and for the rate of $96,000 per mile. 
 
 Second. At least three hundred and fifty miles shall be, if possible, 
 completed and ready for acceptance before the first day of January, 
 1868, provided the Union Pacific Eailroad Company trjinsport the ma- 
 terial. The whole to be constructed in a good and workmanlike man- 
 ner, upon the same general plan and specifications as adopted east of the 
 "100th meridian of longitude. The party of the second part shall erect 
 all such necessary depots, machine-shops, machinery, tanks, turn-tables, 
 and provide all necessary machinery and rolling-stock, at a cost of not 
 less than $7,500 per mile, in cash, and shall construct all such necessary 
 side-track as may be required by the party of the first part, not exceed- 
 ing six per cent, of the length of the road constructed, and to be con- 
 structed, under this contract. The kind of timber used for ties, and in 
 the bridges, and in its preparation, shall be such as from time to time 
 may be ordered or prescribed by the general agent, or the company, 
 under the rules and regulation, and standard, as recommended by the 
 Secretary of the Interior, of the date of February — , 1866. 
 
 Third. Whenever one of the above-named sections of the road shall 
 be finished to the satisfaction and acceptance of the Government com- 
 missioners, the same shall be delivered into the possession of the party 
 of the first part, and upon such portions of the road, as well as on that 
 
398 CREDIT MOBILISE. 
 
 part east of the 100th meridian now completed, the party of the first part 
 shall transport, without delay, all men and material to be used in con- 
 struction, at a price to be agreed upon by the party of the second part, 
 his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, and the general agent, 
 but not less than cost to the party of the first part. 
 
 Fourth. The party of the second part, his heirs, executors, adminis- 
 trators, or assigns, shall have the right to enter upon all lands belonging 
 to the company, or upon which the company may have any rights, and 
 take therefrom any material used in the construction of the road, and 
 may have the right to change the grade and curvature within the limits 
 of the provisions of the act of Congress, for the temporary purpose of 
 hastening the completion of the road, but the estimated cost of reducing 
 the same to the grade and curvatures, as established by the chief engi- 
 neer, or as approved from time to time by the company, shall be de- 
 ducted and retained by the party of the first part, until such grade and 
 curvature is so reduced. 
 
 ' Fifth. The party of the second part, his heirs, executors, administra- 
 tors, or assigns, is to receive from the company and enjoy the benefit of 
 all existing contracts, and shall assume all such contracts and all lia- 
 bilities of the company accrued or arising therefrom for work done or 
 to be done, and material furnished or to be furnished, for or on account 
 of the road west of the 100th meridian, crediting, however, the party 
 ■ of the first part on this contract all moneys heretofore paid or expended 
 on account thereof. 
 
 Sixth. The party of the second part, for himself, his heirs, executors, 
 administrators, and assigns, stipulates and agrees that the work shall 
 be prosecuted and completed with energy and all possible speed, so as 
 to complete the same at the earliest practicable day, it being under- 
 stood that the speed of construction and time of completion is the 
 essence of this contract, and at the same time the road to be a first- 
 class road, with equipments ; and if the same, in the opinion of the chief 
 engineer, is not so prosecuted, both as regards quality and dispatch, 
 that then the said party of the first part shall and may, through its gen- 
 eral agent or other officer detailed for that purpose, take charge of said 
 work, and carry the same on at proper cost and expense of the party of 
 the second part. 
 
 Seventh. The grading, bridging, and superstructure, to be completed 
 under the supervision of the general agent of the company, to the satis- 
 faction of the chief engineer, and to be of the same' character as to the 
 workmanship and materials as in the construction of the road east of 
 the one hundredth meridian. 
 
 It is, however, understood that all iron hereafter jjurchased, or con- 
 tracted for, shall be of the weight of not less than fifty-six pounds to 
 the yard, and to be fish-bar joints. 
 
 Eighth. All the expenses of the engineering are to be charged and 
 paid by the party of the second part, except the pay and salary of the 
 chief engineer and consulting engineer, and their immediate assistants, , 
 and the expenses of the general survey of the route. 
 
 Ninth. The depot buildings, machine-shops, water-tanks, and also 
 bridges, shall be of the most approved pattern, and they, as well as the 
 kind of masonry and other material used, shall be previously approved 
 by the general agent and chief engineer of the company, and all tunnels 
 shall be of the proper width for a double track, and shall be arched 
 with brick or stone, when necessary for the protection of the same. 
 
 Tenth. Payments to be made as the work progresses, upon the esti- 
 mates of the chief engineer — in making which the engineer shall deduct 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIER. 399 
 
 from each section its proportion of the cost of equipment not then fur- 
 nished, station-buildings, superstructure, and cost of telegraph, but all 
 materials delivered or in transit for the account of the company may be 
 estimated for. 
 
 Eleventh. Payments hereon shall be made to the party of the second 
 part, his heirs, executors^ administrators, or assigns, in cash ; but if the 
 Government bonds received by the company cannot be converted into 
 money at their par value net, and the first-mortgage bonds of the com- 
 pany at ninety cents on the dollar net, then the said pariy of the second 
 part, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns shall be charged 
 hereon the difference between the amount realized and the above- 
 named rates ; provided the first-mortgage bonds are not sold for less 
 than eighty cents on the dollar; and if there shall not be realized from 
 the sale of such bonds an amount sufficient to pay the party of the sec- 
 ond -part, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, for work as. 
 stipulated in this contract, according to the terms thereof, then such 
 deficiency shall, from time to time, be subscribed by said party of the 
 second part, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, to the capi- 
 tal stock of said comjpany, and proceeds of such subscription shall be 
 paid to said party of the second part, his heirs, executors, administra- 
 tors, or assigns, on this contract. 
 
 Twelfth. On the first 100 miles on this contract there shall be added 
 to the equipment now.provided for, and intended to apply on this sec- 
 tion, as follows, viz : six locomotives, fifty box-cars, four passenger-cars, 
 two baggage-cars, and a proportionate amount of equipment of like 
 character be supplied on the second section of 100 miles after the same 
 is completed. 
 
 Thirteenth. The amount provided to be expended for equipment, sta- 
 tion-buildings, &c., shall be expended under the direction of the party 
 of the first part, and in such proportion for cars, locomotives, machine- 
 shops, station-buildings, &c., and at such points as they may determine. 
 The party of the first part to have the full benefit of such expenditures 
 without profit to the contractor, or they may, in their option, purchase 
 the equipment, and expend any portion of said amount provided at any 
 point on the road where they may deem the same most advantageous 
 to the company, whether on the section on which said reservation occurs 
 or not. 
 
 Fourteenth. The telegraph line is included herein under the terra 
 "railroad," and is to be constructed in the same manner and with simi- 
 lar materials as in the line east of the one hundredth meridian. 
 
 The said parties hereto, in consideration of the premises and of their 
 covenants herein, do mutually agree, severally, to perform and fulfill 
 their several and respective agreements above written. 
 
 This contract having been submitted to the executive committee by 
 resolution of the board of directors, August 16, 1867, and we having 
 examined the details of the same, recommend its execution by the proper 
 officers of the company with Hon. Oakes Ames, the party named as the 
 second part. 
 
 (Signed) OLIVEE AMES, 
 
 C. S. BUSHNELL, 
 SPEINGEE HAEBAUGH, 
 THOMAS C. DUEANT, 
 Executive Committee Union Pacific Bailroad Company. 
 
 At a meeting of the executive committee, held on the 1st day of Octo- 
 ber, 1867, a resolution was offered to approve the foregoing contract. 
 
400 CEEDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 ■which was lost. Thereupon the following resolutions were offered and 
 adopted : 
 
 Resolved, That the foregoing contract between the Union Pacific Eail- 
 road Company and Oakes Ames, referred to the executive committee 
 by a resolution of the board, August 16, 1867, to settle the details, be 
 approved, and that the proper officers of the company be instructed to 
 execute the same, subject, however, to the written approval of the stock- 
 holders of the company, as understood by the board of directors when 
 the same was vpted upon. 
 
 Resolved., That the option to extend this contract to Salt Lake be re- 
 ferred to the board, with recommendation that said option be accepted. 
 
 Assignment of contract to T. C. Durant and others. 
 
 Memorandum of agreement, in triplicate, made this fifteenth day of 
 October, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven, between Oakes 
 Ames, of North Easton, Massachusetts, party of the first part ; Thomas 
 0. Durant, of the city of New York ; Oliver Ames, .of North Easton, Mas- 
 sachusetts; John B. Alley, of Lynn, Massachusetts; Sidney Dillon, of the 
 city of New York; Cornelius S. Bushnell, of New Haven, Connecticut; 
 Henry S. McComb, of Wilmington, Delaware, and Benjamin E. Bates, 
 of Boston, Massachusetts, parties of tlxe second part, and the Credit 
 Mobilier of America, party of the third part : 
 
 That whereas the party of the first part has undertaken a certain 
 large contract for the construction of a certain portion therein named 
 of the railroad and telegraph line of the Union Pacific Railroad Com- 
 pany over the plains and through and over the Rocky Mountains, which 
 will require a very large and hazardous outlay of capital, which capital 
 he is desirous to be assured of raising, at such times and in such sums 
 as will enable him to complete and perform the said cjntract according 
 to its terms and condiditions; 
 
 And whereas the Credit Mobilier of America, the party of the third 
 part, a corporation duly established by law, is empowered by its char- 
 ter to advance and loan money in aid of such enterprises, and can con- 
 trol large amounts of capital for such purposes, and is willing to loan 
 to said party of the first part such sums as may be found necessary to 
 complete said contract, provided sufficient assurance may be made to 
 said party of the third part therein that said sums shall be duly ex- 
 pended in the work of completing said railroad and telegraph line, and 
 that the payments for the faithful performance of said contract by said 
 railroad company shall be held and applied to reimburse said party of 
 the third part for their loans and advances, together with a reasonable 
 interest for the use of the money so loaned and advanced ; 
 
 And whereas said party of the third part fully believes that said con- 
 tract, if honestly and faithfully executed, will be both profitable afid 
 advantageous to the parties performing the same, are therefore willing 
 to guarantee the performance and execution of the same for a reasona- 
 ble commission to be paid therefor ; 
 
 Ahd whereas both parties of the first and third part have confidence 
 and reliance in the integrity, business capacity, and ability of the seve- 
 ral persons named as parties of the second part hereto, and confidently 
 believe that said persons have large interests as well in the Union Pa- 
 cific Railroad Cotopany as in the Credit Mobilier of America, they will 
 execute and perform the said contract, and faithfully hold the proceeds 
 thereof to the just use and benefit of the parties entitled thereto ; 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 401 
 
 Therefore it is agreed by and between the said parties of the first, 
 second, and third part hereto, as follows, that is to say: 
 
 That said Oakes Ames, party of the first part hereto, hereby, for and in 
 consideration of one dollar lawful money of the United States, to him 
 duly paid by the party of the second part, and for divers other good and 
 Valuable considerations herein thereunto moving, doth hereby assign, 
 set over, and transfer unto the said Thomas 0. Durant, Oliver Ames, 
 John B. Alley, Sidney Dillon, Cornelius S. Bushuell, Henry S. McComb, 
 and Benjamin E. Bates, parties of the second part, all the right, title, 
 and interest of, in, and to the said certain contract heretofore made and 
 executed by and between the Union Pacific Eailroad Company and the 
 said Oakes Ames, bearing date the 16th day of August, 1867, for the 
 construction of portions of the railroad and telegraph line of said rail- 
 road company, to which contract reference is herpin made, for them, 
 the said parties of the second part, to have and to hold the same to them 
 and their survivors and successors forever in trust. 
 
 Nevertheless, upon the following trusts and conditions and limitations, 
 to wit : 
 
 First. That they, the said parties of the second part, shall perform , 
 all the terms and conditions of the said contract so assigned, in all re- 
 spects, which in and by the terms and conditions thereof is undertaken 
 and assumed and agreed to be done and performed by the said party of 
 the first part herein named. 
 
 Second. That they, the said parties of the second part, shall hold all 
 the avails and proceeds of the said contract; and therefrom shall re- 
 imburse themselves and the party of the third part hereto all moneys 
 advanced and e:^pended by them, or either of them, in executing or per- 
 forming the said contract, with interest and commission thereon as here- 
 inafter provided. 
 
 Third. Out of the said avails and proceeds, to pay unto the parties 
 of the second part a reasonable sum as compensation for their services 
 as such trustees for executing and performing the terms and conditions 
 of this agreement, which compensation shall not exceed the sum of three 
 thousand dollars per annum to each and every one of the parties of the 
 second part. 
 
 Fourth. To hold all the rest and residue of the said proceeds and 
 avails for the use and benefit of such of the several persons holding 
 and owning shares in the capital stock of the said Credit Mobilier of 
 America, on the day of the date hereof, in proportion to the number 
 of shares which said stockholders now severally hold and own, and for 
 the use and benefit of such of the several assignees and holders of such 
 shares of stock at the times herein set forth, for the distribution of said 
 residue and remainder of said avails and proceeds, who shall comply 
 with the provisions, conditions, and limitations herein contained, which 
 are on their part to be complied with. 
 
 Fifth. To pay over,on or before thefirstWednesdayof June andDecem- 
 ber in each year, or within thirty days thereafter, his just share and 
 proportion of the residue and remainder of the said proceeds and avails as 
 shall be justly estimated by the said trustees to have been made and 
 earned as net profit on said contract, during the preceding six months, 
 to each shareholder only in said Credit Mobilier of America, who being 
 a stockholder in the Union Pacific Eailroad, shall have made and exe- 
 cuted his power of attorney or proxy, irrevocable, to said several parties 
 of the second part, their survivors and successors, empowering them, 
 the said parties of the second part, to vote upon at least six-tenlhs of all 
 the shares of stock owned by said shareholders of the Credit Mobilier of 
 
 26 X 
 
402 . CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 America in the capital stock of the Union Pacific Railroad Couipany, 
 on the day of the date hereof, and six-tenths of any stock in said Union 
 Pacific Eailroad Company he may have received as dividend, or other- 
 wise, because or by virtue of having been a stockholder in said Credit 
 Mobilier of America, or which may appertain to any shares in said Union 
 Pacific Eailroad Company which had been so assigned to him ^t the 
 time or times of the distribution of the said profits as herein provided; 
 and this trust is made and declared upon the express condition and 
 limitation that it shall not inure in any manner or degree to the use or 
 benefit of any stockholder of the Credit Mobilier of America who shall 
 neglect or refuse to execute and deliver unto the said jjarties of the 
 second part his proxy or power of attorney, in the manner and for the 
 purpose hereinbefore provided, or who shall in any way, or by any pro- 
 ceeding, knowingly hinder, delay, or interfere with the execution or per- 
 formance of the trust and conditions herein declared and set forth. 
 
 And the above transfer and conveyance of said contract is made upon 
 these further trusts and conditions, to wit: 
 
 First. The said parties of the second part, their survivors and succes- 
 sors, trustees as aforesaid, in all their acts and doings in the execution 
 and performance of said contract, and in the execution of their sevei^al 
 trusts and conditions herein set forth, shall act by the concurrent assent 
 of four of their number, expressed in writing, or by yea and nay vote, 
 at a meeting of said trustees, either or both of which shall be recorded 
 in a book of proceedings of said trustees, kept for the purpose by their 
 secretary, and not otherwise. 
 
 Second. Said parties of the second part shall keep an office in the city 
 of New York for the transaction of the business incidental to said trust.. 
 Meetings of said trustees may be held on call of the secretary, on re- 
 quest of any two of their number; such call may be made personally or 
 by mail. 
 
 Third. The said trustees shall appoint a competent person as secre- 
 tary, who shall keep a faithful record of all their acts, proceedings and 
 contracts, in books to be provided for that purpose, and shall cause to 
 be kept suitable books of accounts and vouchers of all their business 
 transactions, which books shall at all times be open to the inspection of 
 any of said trustees. 
 
 Fourth. The said trustees shall cause a monthly statement to be made, 
 showing the amount due from the Union Pacific Eailroad Company on 
 account of work done, or equipment or material furnished under the con- 
 tract according to the estimates of the engineer of the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad Company, as provided in said contract, a copy of which state- 
 ment shall be furnished to the Credit Mobilier of America. 
 
 And the above transfer and conveyance of said contract is made upon 
 the further trust and condition : 
 
 First. That in case of death, declination, disability, by reason of sick- 
 ness or absence from the country for the space of six months, or neglect 
 to fulfill the duties and obligations of said trust for the same time, by 
 either of said trustees, the remaining or surviving trustees may declare 
 the place of such trustee to be vacant, and fill such vacancy by vote in 
 manner aforesaid. 
 
 Second. That in case any one of said trustees shall willfully neglect 
 or evade the performance of his duties as such trustee, or shall willfully 
 attempt to hinder, delay, obstruct, or interfere with the execution or per- 
 formance of said contract, or the due execution and performance of said 
 trust and conditions, according to the true intent tliereof, or shall ap 
 propriate to his own use or benefit any money or other valuable thing 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 403 
 
 belonging to or appertaining to said trust, fund, or property, lie shall 
 not be entitled further to act as such trustee, or to receive any of the 
 benefits of said trusts, either as shareholder in said Credit Mobilier of 
 America, or otherwise. 
 
 The parties of the second part do hereby accept the said trust, and 
 agreefaithfuUy to execute and perform the same according to the terms,- 
 conditions, and limitations herein set forth. 
 
 The party of the third part, in consideration of the premises, hereby 
 agree to advance, as tipon a loan, to the said parties of the second part, 
 their survivors and successors, all such sums of money, and at such times 
 as may be necessary, to enable said trustees economically and promptly 
 to execute and perform the conditions of said contract, upon the call of 
 said parties of the second part, their survivors and successors, such sums, 
 never to exceed in the whole the amount provided for in said contract, 
 to be paid by the Union Pacific Railroad Company for the execution and 
 performance thereof, and to receive therefor interest at the rate of seven 
 per centum per annum, payable semi-annually, on each sum so advanced, 
 until the same are repaid. 
 
 And said party of the third part do further agree, for the considera- 
 tion aforesaid, and for an amount equal to two and one-half per cent, on 
 the amount to be by them advanced, to be paid to them as commission, 
 to, and do hereby, guarantee unto the parties of the first and second 
 part the due performance and execution of the sa,id contract, according 
 to its terms and conditions, and to indemnify and hold harmless the said 
 parties of the first and second part, of and from all costs, liability, loss, 
 or damage to them, or either of them, arising from or on account "of said 
 contract, and to the faithful performance of the agreements, contracts, 
 and conditions hereinabove specified to be done and performed by each. 
 And this conveyance and transfer is made upon the further trust and. 
 condition that the trustees shall adjust and pay over to the Credit Mo- 
 bilier of America such portion of the net profits of the work done and 
 material furnished on the first 100 miles west of the one hundredth me- 
 ridian as was done and performed prior to January 1, 1867. 
 
 In witness whereof, the party of the first part, the several parties of 
 the second part, in their own proiier persons, have hereunto set their 
 hands and seals, and the party of the third part has caused these presents 
 to be executed by its president, attested by its secretary with the seal 
 of the said company, on the day and year above written. 
 (Signed) ' OAKES AMES. 
 
 THOS. C. DUEANT. 
 
 OLIVEE AMES. 
 
 JOHN B. ALLEY. 
 
 SIDNEY DILLON. 
 
 COENELIUS S. BUSHNELL. 
 
 H. S. McCOMB. 
 
 BENJAMIN E. BATES. 
 Signed, sealed, and delivered in presence of — 
 Claek Bell. 
 
 (Signed) The CEEDIT MOBILIEE. OF AMEEICA, 
 
 By its president, SIDNEY DILLON. 
 Attest : BENJAMIN P. HAM, 
 
 Assistant Secretary. 
 
404 CEEDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 G. 
 
 New York, February 26, 1809. 
 The executive committee of the board of directors of the Union Pa- 
 cific Erilroad Company, pursuant to adjournment, met this day at the 
 office of the company. 
 
 Present : Messrs. Ames, Durant, McComb, Duff, and Bnshnell. 
 • The following communication was then received from the vice-presi- 
 dent, ilr. Durant : 
 
 New York, November 27, 1868. 
 
 To the hoard of directors of the Union Pacific Railroad Company : 
 
 Gentlemen : I hand you herewith copy of contract and an assign- 
 ment of the same in trust to the same parties who are trustees for the 
 assignees of the Ames contract, the whole subject to the approval of 
 th§ stockholders of the Union Pacific Railroad Company. I found it 
 absolutely necessary, in order to carry out the wishes of the board, to 
 commence work of this portion of the road at once. The present organ- 
 ization, with its lai'ge outfit of teams, tools, and men, presented the 
 most available means of doing the same. To have created an entirely 
 new organization would cause so much delay that the programme of the 
 company for the year would have been endangered. Should your stock- 
 holders not sanction the contract, you will have to make some fair ar- 
 rangement with the trustees of the Ames contract for the use of their 
 outfit. On the other hand, if approved, the work can go on under the 
 same organization as heretofore. 
 Referring the whole subject of your action, 
 I remain, very respectfully, yours, &c., 
 
 THOMAS C. DURANT, 
 Yice-Fresident and General Agent. 
 
 There having been no meeting of your board since the date hereof, I 
 hand the report to your executive committee. You will perceive I have 
 taken the terms of the Cakes Ames contract as a base, believing that 
 to be the wishes of the stockholders who approved said contract. 
 
 Weber, November 1, 1868. 
 Sir : I will build and equip, according to the specifications of the 
 contract made by your company with Cakes Ames, esq., all that por- 
 tion of your road not embraced in the said contract and west of the 
 same, upon the conditions and terms embraced in said contract, for the 
 pro rata price per mile according to the amount of work to be done, 
 which rate shall be established by competent engineers, or in such 
 manner as your board shall determine. ' 
 
 (Signed) "' ' JAMES W. DAVIS. 
 
 Thomas C. Durant, 
 
 Vice-President and General Agent, Union Pacific Railroad Company. 
 
 Accepted, subject to approval of all the stockholders of November 1. 
 (Signed) ' • THCMAS C. DURANT, 
 
 Y ice-President and General Agent. 
 
 Weber, November 6, 1868. 
 Know all men by these presents, that I, J. W. Davis, do hereby, in 
 consideration of one dollar lawful moiiey of the United States to me in 
 liand paid, and for other considerations to me satisfactory, do hereby 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIER. 405 
 
 assign, transfer, and set over to Oliver Ames, Thomas C. Durant, Jolrn 
 Duff, Sidney Dillon, H. S. McOomb, B. E. Bates, and 0. S. Bushnell, 
 trustees for the stockholders of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company, 
 the contract made with me for building a portion of their road, dated 
 November 1, to have and to hold the same, as trustees aforesaid, and all 
 benefits and profits accruing from the same, they assuming and paying 
 all losses and liabilities of every kind ; said profits, if any, to be divided 
 j)ro rata according to the amount of stock held by each stockholder, or 
 to which he was entitled on the Ist day of Kovember. This assignment 
 and the contract referred to being subject to the approval of the afore- 
 said stockholders. 
 
 (Signed) JAMES W. DAYIS. 
 
 Witness : 
 
 (Signed) C. L. Fkost. 
 
 By resolution, my action as to this contract was approved, and a com- 
 mittee appointed to obtain the assent of the stockholders. 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 30, 1873. 
 
 John B. Alley, having be^n recalled at his own request, made the 
 following statement : 
 
 I wish to make a statement and have it go upon your record in rela- 
 tion to this matter of the Credit Mobilier. There has been some misap- 
 prehension in regard to the exact position of the case, I judge from the 
 statements that I see in some of the Massachusetts papers, which repre- 
 sent that there is a great discrepancy between Mr. Ames's statements 
 and mine before this committee and those made by us before the court 
 of Pennsylvania. I wish to say that there is not the slightest discrep- 
 ancy. The statements made by Mr. Ames and myself before this com- 
 mittee may not have been as full or explanatory as they were before that 
 court, and for very obvious reasons to the committee. The committee 
 sibting in another room in this Capitol will probably go more fully into- 
 that subject than this committee. 
 
 IsTow, the statement which was in some of the Massachusetts papers — 
 the Springfield Eepublican and one or two others — represents that we 
 both stated before the courts of Pennsylvania that there had been but 
 one dividend, or two small dividends, made by the Credit Mobilier cor- 
 poration ; that Mr. Ames was asked by this committee how many and 
 what was the character of the dividends that were made by the Credit 
 Mobilier, and without explanation it apj)ears from the testimony, as pub- 
 lished in this paper, that he went on to treat all the dividends made 
 under the Oakes Ames contract as having been made by the Credit 
 Mobilier. It is my recollection, however, that Mr. Ames stated to the 
 committee distinctly, as I certainly did, that these dividends I'eferred 
 entirely to the Oakes Ames contract, and were not dividends of the 
 Credit Mobilier, but were to be treated as dividends under the Oakes 
 Ames contract alone. Now, the facts are just these : In this suit in 
 Pennsylvania we both stated, as did all the officers of the company, I 
 believe, and several of the large stockholders, and I believe it is the 
 concurrent opinion of all the ofQcers and stockholders of both com- 
 panies, with a single exception, perhaps, of Mr. McComb, that these 
 'dividends were made by the trustees under the Oakes Ames contract. 
 
406 CREDIT JIOBILIEE. 
 
 and had nothing whatever to do with the Credit Mobilier as a corpora- 
 tion. 
 
 The Chairman stated that this whole subject had been very fully gone 
 into ; that the facts were before the committee, who could form their 
 own judgment in regard to them. 
 
 Witness. I desired only briefly to allude to it, taking it for granted 
 that the committee have the records before them, and understand the 
 case just as -Well as I do ; and I think it w^as under that impression that 
 Mr. Ames referred to the dividends without making this explanation on 
 each occasion. I merely wished to call attention at this point to the 
 parties who have misapprehended or misrepresented the facts. I ought 
 to be charitable enough, I j)resume, to believe they misapprehended f he 
 point. Certainly there is no variation in the slightest degree in the 
 testimony we have given before this committee from that which was 
 given to the court. 
 
 By the Chaiejian : 
 Q. There is one subject I wish to make an inquiry of you about. When 
 this stock was assigned to Mr. Ames — these 650 shares — Mr. Ames 
 claimed that he wanted it for the purpose of fulfilling engagements that 
 he had made with various persons to let them have stock. Now, will 
 you state what you know in reference to any negotiations or conversa- 
 tions between Mr. Ames and any of these gentlemen in Congress, who 
 afterward received stock, about letting them have it prior to December, 
 1867. From the testimony of nearly all these gentlemen it would seem 
 that their negotiations began about December, 1867, a considerabe time 
 after the stock had been assigned to Mr. Ames. — A. I never knew any- 
 thing about any negotiation, except with the three gentlemen I have 
 named. At a meeting of the executive committee at Kew York, or at 
 least a meeting of quite a large number of the stockholders and officers, 
 of both companies, the statement was made by him that he wanted this 
 stock to fulfill engagements he had made; in some instances partial 
 promises, in others full promises. He said he did not think he ought to 
 take it out of his own stock ; that he had promised to get stock for vari- 
 ous parties. If he told who the parties were I do not remember ; I do 
 not think he did ; and the only ones in Congress that I happen to know 
 about were Senator Wilson, Mr. Boutwell, and Mr. Dawes; and I am 
 not certain about Mr. Dawes. Senator Wilson spoke to me some time 
 before that in regard to stock for his wife ; I think it must have been as 
 early as the July previous, and may have been even earlier than that ; 
 but we did not ascertain until June, 1867, that these 650 shares of stock 
 was held in the manuer we found it was. When the new direction came 
 in, in May, 1867, we found soon afterwards that 650 shares stood in Mr. 
 Durant's name, unpaid for, and was soon after transferred to Mr. Dillon, 
 the new president, from Mr. Durant, who stated that he held it intrust, 
 and that he had engaged it, or. most of it, to other parties. Then it was 
 that Mr. Ames, as I understood it, tried to dispose of it to insiders and 
 to outsiders without much success. I know that about the first of July, 
 while I was in Washington, though not then a member of Congress, 
 Mr. Winthrop Gray, of ]S"ew York, said to me that he had 50 shares 
 which he would like' to sell, and offered it at 95. Mr. Ames turned to 
 me and said, " I have no money ; I wish you would buy this." I replied, 
 " I do not want it; I am not largely interested, but still I have as much 
 as I want." He then ■ said to me, " If you will buy it I will agree to 
 guarantee you against loss, and ten per cent, for your money, and we_^ 
 will share the profits on it." I said, " Vei'y well, if you will do that I' 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 407 
 
 will take it ;" and I did take it upon those terms. He was very anxious 
 that other stock should be sold, and he exerted himself to place it, as 
 he called it. I refer to these 650 shares. I am very sure that Mr. Wilson, 
 spoke to me in July on this subject. Mr. Ames thinks it was in Decem- 
 ber, but I think he is mistaken, for I called his attention to the fact 
 that it was while I was here, and that J was not here in December ; he 
 acknowledged that he must be mistaken. His attention was not then 
 called to the fact that there had been two extra sessions of Congress in 
 1867. There was one from the 1st of July nntil the 20th, and another 
 from the 20th of November ; and the conversation I had with Mr. Dawes 
 may have been in that November session. Mr. Dawes thinks it was not 
 earlier than the Xst of December. 
 
 Q, What I want to get at is your knowledge of any negotiations had 
 with any of these gentlemen prior to the time stated by them. — A. I 
 have no knowledge except as I have said. I do not know anyting about 
 any members of Congress except these three gentlemen I have named. 
 
 Q. You are confident now that he had conversations with Mr. Wilson 
 and Mr. Boutwell, prior to the commencement of the session of 1867-'68 ? 
 — A. O, yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And what is your belief as to Mr. Dawes ?— A. My belief would 
 have been that my conversation with him was in the July session. But 
 Mr. Dawes is very confident that it was not until the commencement of 
 the session in November. 
 
 Q. Laying aside his recollection, what is your recollection! — A. I 
 have no recollection about it, more than this : I think it could not have 
 been in December, for I was not here in December, and I am certain 
 that the conversation between us took place here. 
 
 Q. W^ere you here in November? — A. I was here at the commence- 
 ment of the session in November, and I was here again in January. 
 
 Q. The point of this, if there is any point about it, is, how many of 
 these men had negotiations with Mr. Ames prior to the time of getting 
 the stock! — A. He stated there in New York that he had made nego- 
 tiations for even more than the amount of stock which was then assigned 
 to him. There was considerable opposition to letting him have it, be- 
 cause the stock at that time was worth more than it had been before. 
 He may have designated the parties with whom he had made engage- 
 ments, but I do not remember it; he regarded them as obligations. I 
 do not think he said he had positively promised but very few, and I do 
 not know that he stated the name of anybody. I happened to know of 
 the parties I have mentioned, because of my conversations with them. 
 
 Q. You do not know, then, that Mr. Ames at any time previously 
 mentioned the names of any of these men in Congress to you ? — A. No, 
 sir ; I do not. I remember that he said afterward to me that he was 
 very much embarrassed by his promises ; that he made more promises 
 than he could fulfill. 
 
 Q. Did he think that some of them claimed promises where he had 
 not made them! — A. I do not know about that; they claimed more 
 than he had stock to give. I do not think he referred to members of 
 Congress particularly, more than to others. He had some outside pur- 
 chasers. 
 
 Q. If I recollect aright, at the time this transfer was made to Mr. 
 Ames, Mr. McOomb was there and objected to it ? — A. Mr. McOomb 
 said there was no reason why Mr. Ames should have his promises car- 
 ried oat any more than Mr. McComb should his ;' that he (McComb) had 
 made promises. 
 
408 CEEDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. Wlmm did Mr. McGomb say be had made obligations with for 
 stock °? — A. He said, I think, that he had promised stock to Mr. Bayard, 
 Mr. Fowler, and some other gentlemen. I think he said he had promised 
 Mr. AVilson, of Iowa, thirty or fifty shares ; 1 had forgotten it until Mr, 
 Wilson named it the other day. 
 
 Q. Did he say anything about> Mr. Allison ? — A. Mj^ impression is 
 that he did. Mr. Allison was one of the parties that he had promised 
 stock to. He denied Mr. Ames's right to promise stock, and finally Mr. 
 Ames said he would do the best he could to help Mr. McComb with any 
 promises he had made. That was about his reply. 
 
 WAsniNGTOjs^, D. (J., January 30, 1S73. 
 
 Benjamin F. HA3i recalled and examined. 
 By Mr. Alley : 
 
 Question. In your cross-examination the other day, by Judge Black, 
 I notice by the record that he asked you if you knew anything about 
 the arrangements of the assignment of the Oakes Ames contract to 
 trustees. You said you did know something about it, but not much. 
 He asked you further, if that was not done for the purpose of evading 
 the taxes in Pennsylvania. Your reply, as it stands upon the record, 
 was that you did not know, but you supposed so. Am I correct in 
 that '? — Answer. I have tried to get access to the record, so that 1 
 might see in regard to that, but have not been able to see the printed 
 record. If I was so reported, I should like to have it corrected. My 
 information upon that subject was from other sources, and so far as I 
 knew anything about it, it was for other purposes that the assignment 
 was made to trustees rather than to the Credit Mobilier direct. 
 
 Q. I wish to ask you if you ever heard an intimation from the officers 
 of either company, or from any party in interest in that Oakes Ames 
 contract, that there was any such design or purpose or thought upon 
 the part of anybody 1 — A. I did not. 
 
 Washington, January 31, IS73. 
 
 Charles H. Xeilson recalled and examined. 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Question. Do you keep an account of the transactions between you 
 and Mr. Brooks in the dealings you have with each other ? — Answer. I 
 have not kept any formal account — any book-account. 
 
 Q. Do you keep any account at all in any way in writing or any memo- 
 randum of the dealings between you and him "? — A. I have no memo- 
 randum made out in my own handwriting of it. 
 
 Q. Has it been your habit, whenever you have paid him any money, 
 or received money from him, to keep no record of if. — A. When I have 
 paid him any money, it has been by check. 
 
 Q. Have you not kept any memorandum or account of your dealings 
 between yourself and him ?— A. No, sir ; not formal memoranda. 
 
 Q. I don't know what you mean by formal. Have you kept anything 
 by which you could show the transactions between you ? — A. I have 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 409 
 
 given Mr. Brooks a clieck for $9,000 oa accoimt of a loau that was 
 given in a check. 
 
 Q. He advanced $10,000 to pay for one hundred shares ; was it just 
 $10,000 ?— A. Just $10,000. 
 
 Q. Did you have any account of that, or any menioranda of it ; any- 
 thing in writing ? — A. I have nothing iu writing to show. 
 
 Q. Did you at any time make any memorandum of it ? — A. IS'o. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Brooks made any ? — A. Not to my 
 knowledge. 
 
 Q. Did you give him any note or any obligation '? — A. I gave him no 
 note. 
 
 Q. There was nothing iu writing on his part, or your part, as far as 
 you tnow ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. I have forgotten whether you stated that you gave him any 
 security for the $10,000 1 — A. I gave him collateral security for it in 
 Union Pacific first-mortgage bonds. 
 
 Q. The same bonds you received with the stock ? — A. They were 
 bonds I received from the company. 
 
 Q. At the time you* received these 100 shares of stock, there went 
 with it $5,000 in bonds, and $20,000 in stock of the Union Pacific Eail- 
 road Company, if I remember right. Did you have that ? — A. That 
 was given to me. 
 
 Q. Was that the security you gave to Mr. Brooks ? — A. I gave the 
 bonds as a part of the security to Mr. Brooks ; I hypothecated them 
 with him ; I did not give them to him ; they were mine ; I merely 
 hypothecated them. 
 
 Q. Did he receive from you the same seciirities, bonds and stock, that 
 you received at the time j'ou got the 100 shares 1 — A. When I got the 
 100 shares I received at the same time 200 shares Union Pacific Eail- 
 road stock and five first-mortgage bonds ; I gave him the five first- 
 mortgage bonds. 
 
 Q. Did you give him the stock ? — A. I do not think I did ; the shares 
 were made out in my name and I did not transfer them. 
 
 Q. He did not receive the 200 shares and never had that stock I — A. 
 I always retained the stock. 
 
 Q. But the $5,000 in bonds were given over to him as collateral secu- 
 rity? — A. Yes, sir; as a part of the collateral security I gave him. 
 
 Q. Did you give him other bonds than these ? — A. Not at the time I 
 received the Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
 Q. Did you at any time to secure that loan ? — A. Afterward, as I re- 
 ceived bonds from the company as an allotment, I gave him some bonds, 
 enough to cover the loan. 
 
 Q. But these ^ere bonds you subsequently received as dividends 
 upon the stock ? — A. Bonds that I received from the company, ten first- 
 mortgage bonds. 
 
 Q. Did you receive them from the company as dividends upon the 
 stock ? — A. I received them as dividends, or allotments, whatever you 
 may call it. 
 
 Q. So that all the collateral security you gave him were bonds which 
 you received as dividends or allotments on the 100 shares of Credit 
 Mobilier stock? — A. Not quite; I think the $5,000 1 first received were 
 dividends upon that stock ; those I gave him subsequently I received 
 from the company by virtue of holding the 100 shares. 
 
 Q. Soon after receiving the 100 shares there was a bond dividend ? — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And you then delivered these bonds to Mr. Brooks as security ?— 
 
410 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 A. Yes, sir ; I delivered them to him as 1 would do to auy Now York 
 man from whom I borrowed money. 
 
 Q. Soon after you received the 100 shares there was a cash dividend ? 
 — A. There was a cash dividend that I received on the 100 shares, how 
 soon I cannot say now. 
 
 Q. Do you know when you received that cash dividend? — A. Yes; the 
 18th of June, 1868, 1 received $9,000 In cash. 
 
 Q. That is 60 per cent, on the 150 shares I — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. That you paid over to Mr. Brooks ? — A. That I gave to Mr. Brooks 
 as part payment of the money I owed him. 
 
 Q. Did you pay him anything before that? — A. Not any money; I 
 xiad merely hypotlaecated the bonds I had received previously. 
 
 Q. Had you other loans from Mr. Brooks ? — A. I have borrowed 
 money from time to time as I required it. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether you were then indebted to him for any loans 
 of money at that time '? — A. I do not think I was ; I may have been for 
 some small sum of one hundred dollars or something of that sort which 
 he had loaned me. This $10,000 was the only sum of any amount that 
 I owed him. • 
 
 Q. Had jrou repaid any part' of this loan prior to the check of 
 §9,000 ? — A. I had not repaid him anything. 
 
 Q. You paid it over to him at the time or about the time you received 
 it ? — A. The same day. I gave it in at his office to his cashier ; he was 
 not then in town. I left with his cashier a check to his order and took 
 a receipt from Mr. Kingsland, his cashier, for it. 
 
 Q. Have you that receipt here? — Ar I have. 
 
 The following receipt was handed to the committee : 
 
 " New Yoek, January 18, 1868. 
 
 " lieceived from Mr. Charles H. Neilson his check for $9,000, to order 
 ~ ' ' ' ' ' Brooks's accounts. 
 
 JAMES B. KINGSLAND." 
 
 of Mr. James Brooks, and on said James Brooks's accounts, 
 
 Mr. Brooks also handed to the chairman his check-book, showing a 
 deposit in his bank to his credit of that amount at the date referred to. 
 
 Q. Have you paid Mr. Brooks the balance of the $10,000 1—A. No ; 
 I have not paid him any money ; I have given him this collateral se- 
 curity for it. 
 
 Q. The same collateral you have spoken of! — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Does he hold all these collaterals yet? — A. I owe Mr. James 
 Brooks in the aggregate now. about $15,000; he has let me have other 
 moneys since that time. » 
 
 Q. Does he still hold all the securities that you put into his-hands, or 
 has any part of them been returned to you 1 — A. They have not been 
 returned to me, for I have not settled my account with him. 
 
 Q. What was the entire amount of security you put into the Lauds of 
 James Brooks "? — A. Sixteen first-mortgage bonds. 
 
 Q. He has them yet ?— A. Yes, sir ; he holds them yeb. 
 
 Q. Since the advancement of this first amount you have received 
 other loans from him to what amount? — A. To the amount of $14,000, 
 about the value of the security he holds as collateral. 
 
 Q. The only cash payment you have made him is the $9,000, which 
 you received as a dividend on the stock '?^A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. The fifty shares you afterward received Mr. Dillon advanced the 
 money to pay for ? — A. He advanced me the money. 
 
 Q. Has that been repaid to Mr. Dillon'? — A. Mr. Dillon says it has 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 411 
 
 been paid. I find no memorandum on my check-book, nor any evidence 
 of it. I have examined Mr. Brooks's check-book and And that he has 
 not yet paid it. Mr. Dillon must have sold the securities and repaid 
 himself, as he was justified in doing under the circumstances. 
 
 Q. You have never paid him in any other way ? — A. In no way. 
 
 Q, What was the security you gave to Mr. Dillon ?— A. Four first- 
 mortgage bonds, and fifty shares Union Pacific Eailroad stock. 
 
 Q. "Were these bonds and stock the same you received by way of div- 
 idends upon these shares "?— A. I received them as dividends upon the 
 one hundred shares of Credit Mobilier stock.- I got ho dividends upon 
 the fifty shares until I had paid for them. 
 
 Q. The securities you gave Mr. Dillon were the same you received by 
 way of dividends lipon the one hundred shares ?— A. Upon the one hun- 
 dred shares ; yes, sir. 
 
 Q. If Mr. Dillon has been paid at all, it must have been by a sale of 
 these securities ?— A. I think he must have sold them. The loan has 
 been running a, long time. It was a small loan to him. I think he just 
 sold the securities on account of the loan and paid himself in that way. 
 I do not know that to be a fact ; it is my theory, from all I can gather. 
 
 Q. Have you ever had any conversation with Mr. Dillon about it ? — 
 A. Not until this question came up ; he assures me that the loan has 
 been paid or has been settled — probably in that way. 
 
 Q. Have you ever received back from him any of the securities ? — A. 
 I never received any of the securities back. 
 
 Q. Has he ever paid you anything 1 — A. He never has paid me any- 
 thing beyond the $5,000, and th§ small amount in addition for interest. 
 
 Q. Has he ever paid you anything of the proceeds of the securities 
 you put into his hands ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You let him have $4,000 of bonds and 500 shares of stock ; the 
 bonds were worth par, were they not '? — A. No. They Jiever have been 
 sold at par in the market that I am aware of. 
 
 Q. What was the market price of these bonds at the time"? — A. I 
 could not tell you ; they have no fixed price ; they were fluctuating. 
 
 Q. Were they not nearly at par ? Mr. Ames has reported sales at about 
 that time at 97. — A. I do not know of their being sold in the market for 
 any such price ; they may have been ; I do not know whether they were 
 or not. 
 
 Q. What was the stock worth at that time? — A. I do not know 
 whether the stock was on the market generally at that time ; I do not 
 recollect any sales. 
 
 Q. You have never had any settlement or adjustment in any way with 
 Mr. Dillon '? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. It would be a little remarkable, would it not, if a sale of these 
 securities should exactly balance your loan "? — A. I have a right to go to 
 Mr. Dillon now and give him my check for the amount of the loan and 
 interest to the present date and demand back my securities. 
 
 Q. Had he any authority for selling them '? — A. No authority, except 
 that he could easily replace them at any time if demanded. 
 
 Q. Was there any conversation in regard to replacingthe securities? — 
 A. No conversation. 
 
 Q. Has there been anything said between you and Mr. Dillon upon 
 that subject from the time you got that money and put these securities 
 into his hands until this winter ? — A. Nothing at all. J saw Mr. Dillon 
 about a week ago ; he told me he thought the loan had been paid ; that 
 he had not the securities; in other words, thathe must have sold the 
 securities in order td pay the loan. 
 
412 CKEMT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. That is a mere conjecture of his, because he has no such securities 
 iu his possession ? — A. A mere conjecture. 
 
 Q. Did you ask him how muck he sold them for ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You never made any inquiry about it ? — A. He was very busy at 
 the time, and 1 did not talk long with him about it. 
 
 Q. This loan was made five years ago? — A. Yes. It has always been 
 my custom when I have made a loan on favorable terms to wait until I 
 am notified to take it up. 
 
 Q. Did yoti not suppose that the securities you put into his hands 
 were of greater value than -the amount of the loan ? — A. No, sir ; I sup- 
 pose they are of less value now than the loan and interest. 
 
 Q. At that time did you not suppose the securities put into his hands 
 were worth more than the amount of the loan ? — A. I supposed they were 
 worth just about the amount. I considered the bonds worth about 80. 
 
 Q. We have no evidence as to the value of the bonds, except that Mr. 
 Ames sold his at that time for 97. — A. I never sold any of my bonds at 
 that price, and never had any such offer. 
 
 Q. Did you make any effort to sell your bonds at that time! — A. No, 
 sir; a man may make a private sale at a certain price which he could 
 not get in open market at all. 
 
 Q. You have never called on Mr. Dillon for any adjustment of the 
 loan? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. And have never inquired of him f — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you not regard it as somewhat out of the ordinary course of 
 business that a matter of this sort should go on four or five years with- 
 out some effort at adjustment ? — A. No, sir ; I do not think it is. I have 
 known loans to lie as long as that where a security was satisfactory to 
 the person who had loaned the money. 
 
 Q. The securities that you put into Mr. Brooks's hands you suppose 
 he still retains, or has he sold them 1 — A. I presume he retains them. 
 •He has assured me of that fact — that he has them, yet — and holds them 
 as collateral security for the money I still owe him. 
 
 Q. Do you still hold the stock you received by way of dividends on 
 your Credit Mobilier stock 1 — A. I hold some of it. 
 
 Q. Some you have sold "? — A. I have sold some. 
 
 Q. How high a price has that stock ever brought in the market, to 
 your knowledge ? — A. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 42 or 43. I 
 have not heard of any higher than that. 
 
 Q. Do you know what its value is in the market? — A. I do not know 
 what it is to-day. Somewhere iu the neighborhood of 35. It may be a 
 little higher or a little lower. 
 
 Q. In any of the conversations you have had with Mr. Dillon, has he 
 given, any account of what he got for the securities you put into his 
 hands? — A. No, sir; he cannot give any account of them. 
 
 Q. He does not claim there is anything due from you to him ? — A. He 
 does not claim there is anything due. 
 
 Q. Is this the only transaction between you and him I — A. It is the 
 only transaction. 
 
 Q. Whether there is any balance between you and him you do not 
 know ? — A. I do not know. I do not see how it can be. 
 
 Q. That depends upon how much he sold his securities for. — A. If he 
 owes me the money he will pay it, I have no doubt. If I owe him I will 
 pay him. 
 
 Q. .Does he admit that he owes you money ? — AT He says the loan has 
 been settled, but he does not know how. 
 
 Q. He infers that from the fact that he does not find any securities in 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. . 413 
 
 his hands ; he does uot profess to have any knowledge about it ?— A. No, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. Did you receive more bonds by way of dividends upon this stock 
 than those you placed in the hands of Mr. Brooks and in the hands of 
 Mr. Dillon ?— A. No more. 
 
 Q. All the bonds were received by way of dividends, which went into 
 Mr. Brooks's hands and into Mr. Dillon's hands, and all went either as 
 security or payment for the stock received '?— A. Yes, sir ; I hypothe- 
 cated the bonds and paid Mr. Brooks $9,000 on the loan. 
 
 Q. I think you have stated when you were here before all you knew 
 in reference to obtaining the fifty shares ; that when you received the 
 one hundred shares you did not know that you were entitled to fifty 
 shares more ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. But subsequently you were informed by Mr. Brooks that you were 
 entitled to fifty shares more? — A. I heard 1 Vas entitled to fifty shares 
 more. 
 
 Q. You made no effort yourself about the fifty shares, except to go and 
 call for them'? — A. I went and called for them. 
 
 Q. You had no knowledge in relation to the paper that was gotten up 
 and signed by the stockholders ! — A. No, sir ; 1 knew nothing about 
 that. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear of such a paper '? — A. I never heard of it. 
 
 Q You had no such paper at the time? — A. No, sir; I had no such 
 paper. 
 
 Q. You presented no such paper? — A. No, sir; I simply went and 
 demanded my rights. 
 
 Q. If there was anything done — any eifort made in any way to get 
 these shares more than going and calling for them — it was not done by 
 you? — A. I was not a party to anything that was done. 
 
 Q. Mr. Brooks told you that you were entitled to them, and could get 
 them by going after them ? — A. He told me I was entitled to fifty more 
 shares. 
 
 Q. Can you tell how long after you got the one hundred shares before 
 you received your fifty others ? — A. It was in the latter part of Febru- 
 ary, 1868. 
 
 Q. You went and got the fifty shares after you received this informa- 
 tion from Mr. Brooks ? — A- Very shortly afterward. 
 
 Q. At that time you did not know you were entitled to fifty shares? — 
 A. I did not know that I was entitled to any more. 
 
 By Mr. Niblick : 
 
 Q. You say it was your habit when you had a favorable loan not to 
 repay it until you were called upon. When the loan was secured by 
 collaterals why did you not apply this principle in regard to your loan 
 of Mr. Brooks ? Why were you so particular to take this cash dividend 
 to him as soon as you received it ? — A. Because I wished to obtain some 
 other money from him afterward. 
 
 Q. Could you not just as well have retained this and allowed the loan 
 to run on Avith the collaterals as security ? — A. I do not know but I 
 might. 
 
 Q. Why did you not retain this money instead of applying it on the 
 loan from Mr. Brooks while he had your collaterals as security ? — A. 
 Because I had the money there, and I thought it was better to repay 
 him that loan. 
 
 Q. Do you think he was any more entitled to that particular money 
 
414 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 than any other money you. might receive? — A. I was not in the habit 
 of receiving checks for $9,000 every day. 
 
 Q. Did yoix turn over the identical check you received ? — A. No, sir ; 
 I deposited the check I received in my own bank, and deposited with 
 his cashier my check for the amount. 
 
 Q. You gave him a large part of the bonds you received as collateral 
 for the $10,000 ? — A. He held these bonds as collateral before I gave 
 him the $9,000. 
 
 Q. After you gave him the $9,000 you allowed liim to still continue 
 to hold the collaterals ? — A. I did: but I subsequently borrowed of him 
 $14,000 more. 
 
 Q. And he still holds the bonds as collateral? — A. He stills holds 
 them. 
 
 Q. Do these bonds draw interest ? — A. They do. 
 
 Q. Who receives the interest upon them 1 — A. Mr. Brooks has given 
 me, from time to time, a portion of the interest coupons. 
 
 Q. Does he charge you interest upon the loan ? — A. I expect to pay 
 him interest upon it when the account between us is settled. 
 
 Q, You have not closed your account with him during the last five 
 years ? — A. No, sir ; it was natural, I presume, that I should obtain 
 money from Mr. Brooks when I needed money. 
 
 Q. Yet you did not keep any formal books with him ? — A. I do not 
 keep any formal books with him. 
 
 By the Ohaieman : 
 
 Q. What evidence has Mr. Brooks of this loan? Does he hold any 
 note or other obligation from you? — A. No; I presume Mr. Brooks 
 keeps a memorandum of the money he has let tne have. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether he does or not ? — A. I do not know that he 
 does. All the money I have received of him lately I have a memoran- 
 dum of. 
 
 Q. He has no obligations signed by you ? — A. No obligations. Be- 
 ing my father-in-law, I did not; suppose it was necessary to be as for- 
 mal in regard to these things as would otherwise be required. 
 
 Q. Do you keep in any form a memorandum of the money youVre- 
 ceive from Mr. Brooks ?— A. I deposited in my bank the money I re- 
 ceived from him — $14,000. There is an entry in my check-book that I 
 deposited at one time $13,750, and subsequently $350 additional. This 
 transaction had nothing to do with the $10,000 for the Credit Mobilier 
 stock. 
 
 Q. How does this entry come to be in your check-book? — A. I re- 
 ceived his individual check, deposited it in the bank, and made a 
 memorandum of it upon my check-book as a deposit. 
 
 Q. Have you that memorandum here ? — A. I have not my check-book 
 here. 
 
 Q. Is there any reason why such a memorandum as that should be 
 in your check-book? — A. Certainly ; because I received his check for it 
 and deposited it in my own bank — the Leather Manufacturers' Bank. 
 
 (qj. Your check-book is a book of checks that you draw yourself, is it 
 not ? — A. It is a book in which I keep on one side the money deposited 
 in the b^nk, and on the other side a memorandum of the checks I draw. 
 It is the ordinary form of check-book. 
 
 Q. That is the only written evidence you have that shows anything 
 of these transactions between you and Mr. Brooks? — A. That is the 
 only evidence I have. 
 
nCredit mobilier. 415 
 
 By Mr. McCeAEY : 
 
 Q. You have received from Mr. Brooks $14,000 since you paid him 
 $9,000 ; was that all received at one time, or at different times'? — A. I 
 liave stated that $13,750 was received at one time, and $350 at another 
 time. 
 
 Q. Can you tell when you received the 813,750 I— A. I think it was 
 this, last summer. I cannot tell you the exact date— probably about 
 August. 
 
 Q. When was the $350 received "? — A. About that time. 
 
 Q. The $14,000 was received during the last summer, more than four 
 years after you paid him the 89,000 ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And daring all that time he held your collaterals? — A. He held 
 them. 
 
 Q. Why did you leave so 'large amount of collaterals in his i)ossession 
 when you had but $1,000 of the loan remaining ? — A. I was living in 
 the same house with Mr. Brooks at that time. I kept sundry articles 
 in Mr. Brooks's safe in which these bonds were deposited, and they were 
 lying right alongside. If I had received them back from Mr. Brooks, I 
 should have deposited them in the same place. 
 
 Q. There were, then, about as much yours as his ? — A. They were 
 lying right alongside of some silver I had in the same safe. 
 
 Q. The loan you obtained from Mr. Dillon was simply by the deposit 
 of collaterals without giving any note or obligation ; is it customary 
 for transactions of that sort to keep a note-book account of it 1 — A. There 
 is no fl-xed custom about it. This thing was done hastily with Mr. 
 Dillon. 
 
 Q. Would it not be a very unusual transaction if you had received 
 these collaterals and just sold them without making any account of the 
 amount for which they were sold 1 — A. Mr. Dillon does not acknowledge 
 that he has sold them. He does not recollect anything more than that he 
 had the securities, and does not now And them in his possession. Prom ' 
 that he infers that the loan was canceled in some waj', and I think it 
 was not unnatural, as the securities held as collateral would have sold 
 for just about the amount of the loan and interest. 
 
 Q. Would not almost any business man have an account of the pro- 
 ceeds of the sale somewhere, according to your custom'j in Few York f — 
 A. If these securities were sold by Mr. Dillon, I can call upon him to 
 give a bill of sale of them ; but he does not yet acknowledge that they 
 have been sold. 
 
 Q. If they have been sold there is no account of the transaction. Is 
 not that something unusual as a business matter ? — A. I do not know 
 whether it is unusual with Mr. Dillon. He gave me a receipt for the 
 bonds, which is sufficient proof to me thfit he had my bonds. 
 
 By Mr. Meeeick : 
 
 Q. Did you not keep a book in which you made entries of these various 
 transactions 1 — A. My regular business is not that of a stockholder. My 
 regular business is of a different nature, in connection with insurance. 
 1 keep regular books in my regular business ; but for my private trans- 
 actions the record is kept by my broker. I receive nothing more than 
 notices that he has bought or sold for me such securities at such prices, 
 and occasionally he renders an account showing my balance. That is 
 the custom of doing that kind of business, I think. I am not a banker 
 Or broker. 
 
 Q. If I understand you, you dealt very frequently in stock opera- 
 tions ?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
416 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Yet you never kept any regular account of them ? — A. Nothing 
 beyond the bills of sale and purchases and the orders I gave. The 
 accounts are kept by the broker. You will find that is customary for 
 persons doing business as I do. I am not a member of the brokers' 
 board myself, and I do not operate for other people. 
 
 By the Chairman: 
 
 Q. The interest upon the bonds Mr. Brooks holds is iu part drawn 
 by you ? — A. He has given me some coupons. He has given me the 
 coupons from five of the bonds, as per agreement. The coupons on the 
 other ten bonds he draws himself. 
 
 Q. Then he has had the interest on the ten thousand dollar bonds? — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And the other six thousand you have had the interest ou ? — A. 
 No ; I have only had interest on five thousand, 
 
 Q. Then he has had interest on eleven thousand ? — A. Yes ; Mr. 
 Brooks from time to time has made me some presents of five hundred 
 dollars about Christmas or New Year's. 
 
 Q. That had no reference to the transactions of the bonds ? — A. It 
 has. He receives the money, and T suppose thinks it prudent to pay it 
 over to me occasionally. 
 
 Q. Do you understand the interest he receives on these bonds to be 
 a matter of account between you? — A. A matter, of account between us. 
 
 Q. Then, the payments he has made were not presents- at all? — A. 
 Not all. I wish to correct that. He has given me the money to go into 
 our general account. 
 
 Q. Would he be any more likely to give it at Christmas or New Year's 
 than at any other portion of the year ? — A. No ; he did not always give 
 it at New Year's. 
 
 Q. Was the interest on the bonds payable at either of these dates ? — 
 A. The interest ou the bonds is payable the first of January, and that 
 is the way I got the coupons the first of January. 
 
 Q. You got it, then, not because it was New Year's, but because the 
 interest was due ? — A. Because the interest was then due. 
 
 Q. Have you kept any account of what you have received from Mr. 
 Brooks in that way ? — A. No, sir. I have not kept any book-account. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether he does ? — A. I presume he has some 
 evidence of it. I do not know whether he has or not. 
 
 Q. Can you tell us what amount you have received by checks in that 
 way ? — A. I cannot. 
 
 Q. Can you give some approximate impression of the amount you 
 have received from these coupons ? — A. Yes, sir ; I have obtained iu 
 the aggregate from Mr. Brooks about $24,000, and I have given him 
 securities that would not sell for that in the market in the aggregate. 
 
 Q. In ascertainiug the sum you owe Mr. Brooks do you add in it the 
 checks you have received from him in this way ? — A. Yes, sir ; I shall 
 consider them as added into our general account. 
 
 Q. Have you done it 2 — A. I shall reckon it into the general account. 
 *Q. Was that reckoned into the two loans of $13,750 and $350 ?— A. 
 No, sir ; I received checks from him for these specific amounts, $350 or 
 §375, I think perhaps the latter was. 
 
 Q. Do these two sums make up the entire amount you are indebted 
 to Mr. Brooks ? — A. I owe him a thousand dollars still on the Credit 
 Mobilier matter. 
 
 Q. AVhat becomes of these checks you have received from time to 
 time ; have you reckoned them iu to make up the aggregate sum ? — A. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 417 
 
 Not to make up the aggregate sum I owe him. These checks were for 
 coupons on the bonds. 
 
 Q. You say now you do not suppose they were presents, but that 
 they were received by you on account from Mr. Brooks ?— A. Yes ; to 
 be accounted for in our general settlement. 
 
 Q. You have kept no account of them?— A. I may have a memoran- 
 dum deposited in my check-book ; I probably have not, however, in 
 full, because I have probably taken them sometimes to the bahk, drawn 
 the money myself on them, and put them in my pocket, so that they 
 would not go on to my check-book. 
 
 Q. Have you any idea of the whole amount you have received in that 
 way from him ?— A. I should think it must be in the aggregate $3,500 
 in all that I have received from him on account of these coupons, in 
 the checks he has given me. 
 
 Q. What is the rate of interest on these bonds ? — A. Six per cijnt. In 
 gold. 
 
 Q. You have received coupons of $5,000 for this whole period of time; 
 do you regard the money you got in that way as yours, or as belonging 
 to Mr. Brooks'?— A. Simply as mine; it is money he paid me as 
 interest. 
 
 Q. Were you to account to Mr. Brooks for it? — A. I consider that as 
 so much to go against the collaterals, when we come to settle up the 
 account. 
 
 By Mr. Brooks : 
 Q. Have you any memorandum of the transactions you had with Mr. 
 Ham, in regard to the dividends in your Credit Mobilier stdck?— A. I 
 have some notices which I received. I have a couple of notices of divi- 
 dends which are all I happen to have with me when I left New York ; £ 
 was hurried off toward the end. The first is dated March 3, 1868, noti- 
 fying me there are some dividends due me on one hundred shares of 
 Credit Mobilier stock standing in my name. It is signed by Benjamin 
 P. Ham, assistant secretary! The other is dated the next day, March 
 4, 1868, stating there are still some dividends due, and asking uie to call 
 that afternoon and receive them. i; 
 
 Q. What does the notice of. March 3 refer to ? — A. It refers to divi- 
 dends due me on one hundred shares Credit Mobilier stock 'which I 
 owned at that time. 
 
 Mr. Brooks stated that he introduced this evidence for the purpose of 
 showing that the stock was recorded at the office aS belonging to Mr. 
 Neilsou. The notice was directed to Mr. I^Teilson's place of business, 42 
 Pine street, showing that the transaction was Mr. Neilson's and not his. 
 
 Q. What were the dividends which you received in pursuance of the 
 notice of March 3 ? — A. I think one hundred shares of railroad stock. 
 
 Q. Why did you receive another notice the next day '? — A. Because 
 March 3 I purchased from the company fifty shares, and paid for them ; 
 and on the 4th I received a notice that there were some dividends due 
 me on the fifty shares. ,^,n ,\^ -r. 
 
 By the Chairman: a-j fsV/ .0 
 
 Q. You got just the same dividends pro rata on the fifty shares that 
 you did on the one hundred shares? — A. The same ^n-oroita, 1 presume. 
 
 Q. The same per cent, in bonds, money, and stock ?— A. The books 
 will show what I received ; that was my understanidjug. i)'i . • ' > 
 
 Q. I understand you to say that the coupons on som6 of these bonds 
 you received and collected yourself? — A. 1 collected them myself. ■%> 
 
 ' ' ..ijsa -^iff ul: '_'.-i .<J 
 
418 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Wliy did you allow this loan from Mr. Dillon to run so long? — 
 A. Because it was a favorable loan to me ; and I should probably have 
 to raise the money somewhere else, if I had paid it off. Mr. Dillon never 
 notiiied me to take it up. It was satisfactory to both parties apparently 
 to allow it to run. 
 
 By Mr. Brooks : 
 
 Q. Ton were speaking of an unsettled account between you and Mr. 
 Brooks; will your check-books, or any memoranda you have, show how 
 that account stands ? — A. My check-books will probably show on ray 
 side, and his check-books will show on his, when we come to a final 
 settlement. 
 
 Q. Any check you have received from me will be entered in your 
 check-book ; and anything received by me will be entered in my check- 
 book? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. So that there is a basis of settlement whenever we come to a final 
 settlement? — A. Yes, sir ; there is no doubt about that. 
 
 Q. Have you ever dealt in any other Pacific Eailroad securities be- 
 sides those that have been spoken of here ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. In what form 1 — A. I have bought them for a rise of one or two 
 per cent., and sold them through my broker. 
 
 Q. This, then, is not the only ^transaction you ever had in Union 
 Pacific securities? — A. Ko, sir; I have dealt in almost every stock on 
 the list, at different times. 
 
 Q. Tou have not kept any more private memoranda in your dealings 
 in stock for yourself with others than you have with me? — A. No; I 
 have not kept them. My broker has kept them for me., I have, as I 
 stated, never dealt as a broker. 
 
 Q. Tell me what is the practice on Wall street, especially in exciting 
 times, in the matter of call loans, like this with Mr. Dillon. Suppose 
 there was a great movement in stocks, and there should be a decided 
 fall or rise, what would a man holding collaterals for a loan be likely to 
 do in such a time of excitement?— A. He would be likely, if he could 
 not find the man to whom the money was loaned, to sell the securities 
 and take care of himself; I think I should do it. 
 
 Q. Is that at all an uncommon thing in Wall street? — A. No, sir; it 
 is very often done, when a man's margin has run down. 
 
 Q. Would it have been natural for Mr. Dillon to have paid himself 
 in that way in 1S71 ; for instance, when the suspension of Oakes Ames 
 took place, and all the securities of the Union Pacific Railroad Com- 
 pany went down as they did ? — A. 1 don't think it would have been 
 unnatural for him to have paid himself at all. 
 
 Q. Is it unnatural that you, holding a favorable loan, should let it 
 run five, six, or seven years, if the person loaning the money to you did 
 not demand it ? — A. No ; that would not be unnatural. 
 
 By the Chaieman: 
 
 Q. What -was the rate of interest you were to pay Mr. Dillon ? ^A. 
 
 Seven per cent, 
 
 Q. Was there any special agreement about the interest?— A. That is 
 the ordinary rate that I should expect to pay ; that is the rate I have 
 always paid to my brokers. I think probably there was no rate fixed 
 between us. That was the current rate of interest at that time. 
 
 Q. Was there anything said at the time about the rate of interest you 
 ■were to pay ? — A. There was nothing said that I recollect. 
 
 Q. Was there anything said about the length of time you would be 
 likely to want the money ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Nothing said when he wmiiH wqt,+ u ^p -rr^,, • a -xt- ^--^ ,-. .^ 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEB. 419 
 
 w.as a call loan ; it was not a loan on time. He had tlie riglit to call 
 on ine the next day to paj^ the money back. He had the ri|?ht to call 
 for it at any time he wanted it, and I had the right to pay whenever I 
 got ready. 
 
 Q. Do yon mean to say that it is customary or usual for loans made 
 in that way to run live years ?— A. I have known them to run longer 
 than that. I think it is a usual thing ; at least it is not an unusual or 
 extraordinary thing. 
 
 Q. Do you think a large proportion of the loans made in this way, 
 which you call call loans in New York, run five j^ears 1 — A. A large pro- 
 portion do not, I presume; but there are instances where they do. 
 
 Q. There are some instances where they are never paid, are there 
 not*? — A. Yes, sir; there are Some instances where the security turns 
 out to be valueless. 
 
 Q. You do not think it strange or odd that Mr. Dillon should not call 
 on you for all that long period of time? — A. It is a matter that seems 
 to liave been neglected by Mr. Dillon. He never called on me to pay 
 it; and I did not go to him. I did not think anything more about it. 
 I had my stock. I recollected it was there, and that I held Mr. Djllou's 
 receipt for the securities.. I knew I could get them at any time. 
 
 Q. These securities are fluctuating, more or less, are they not? — A. 
 Yes ; if they had gone up very much, I should have called for them', 
 and paid the loan; if they had gone down, he would have sold them 
 and paid himself. 
 
 Q. Did you keep that in mind, and watch the market in reference to 
 these securities ? — A. In reference to my general speculations, I did. 
 
 Q. There was no time when, the state of the market made it for your 
 interest to go and take them ? — A. No. If I had taken the securities 
 from Mr. Dillon, I should have had to borrow the money somewhere 
 else, and I could not have obtained as favorable a loan. 
 
 Q. I think you stated the other day that if this money had been paid 
 to Mr. Dillon, it must have been paid by Mr. Brooks f — A. That was 
 merely an assumption. I am sure now, since I have looked over Mr. 
 Brooks's checkrbook, that he never paid it. 
 
 Q. Had yon then any idea that Mr. Brooks had iiaid it 1 — A. I had 
 no proof in my possession that he had paid it. 
 
 Q. Had you any idea in your mind that he had paid it? — A. I had no 
 ground for thinking that he had paid it ; my remark was that I had not 
 paid it. Mr. Dillon claimed that it had been paid, and L said that if 
 anybody had paid it it must have been Mr. Brooks. 
 
 Q. Did you know, prior to the time you testified before, that Mr. 
 Dillon said it had been paid 1 — A. I had not seen Mr. Dillon previous to 
 that. Since then I have seen him, and he says he has not got the secu- 
 rities. ' 
 
 Q. So that what you testified on that subject when you were before 
 the committee at a former period was mere supposition on your part ?^ 
 A. My supposition was that the loan was still due to Mr. Ddlonj^^ the 
 impression on my mind was that it had never been settled. 
 
 Q. You supposed that you held the money for Mr. Dillon, and that 
 he held the securities; but you have since learned, in some way, that 
 the securities have gone out of his hands, so that he has got his pay, 
 and you infer that simply from the fact that he has not the securities ?^^ 
 A. That is all. 
 
 Q. You have never received them ?— A. I have never received them. 
 
420 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 By Mr. Mbeeick : 
 
 Q. You say you had a couversation with Mr. Dillon the other day, iu 
 which Mr. Dillou stated that the loan had been paid ; did you state to 
 hiui that you held the receipt for the collaterals ? — A. I told him. He 
 said he wanted to investigate it further; that he could not find the 
 securities, but was going to npake further examination. Since then I 
 have not talked to him about it. 
 
 Q. Did you notify him that you were in j)ossession of the receipt? — 
 A. I did. 
 
 Q. Did you oifer to return it to him ? — A. I did not have it at the 
 time. If he is satisfied the loan has been paid, and wants the receipt, 
 I will give it to him at any time. I am perfectly willing to acquiesce 
 in the settlement of the loan in that way ; it is to my advantage to con- 
 sider that it has been settled. 
 
 Q. Then why not return the receipt? — A. If he wants it I will give 
 it to him. He has not stated that the loan has been canceled yet; he 
 merely infers it from the fact that he cannot find the securities. 
 
 Q. Then you consider it an open question between you and himself 
 whether the loan has been paid or not? — A. Yes, sir; until we arrive 
 at some positive conclusion. 
 
 By Mr. Beooks : 
 
 Q. Were not these Union Pacific Railroad stocks and mortgage-bonds, 
 while you were living in my house and using my safe, as much in your 
 possession as mine? — A. I could have got them at any time by paying 
 you $1,000. I did not take them because I owed you still $1,000, and 
 expected I would be obliged to borrow more money on them. 
 
 Q. Were they permitted to lie there as a place of better security than 
 any other you could put them in? — A, Yes, sir; under my own obser- 
 vation. 
 
 Washington, D. C, Junmry 31, 1873. 
 
 John B. Allbt, recalled at his own request, made the following state- 
 ment : . 
 
 I only wish to say a word iu reference to what was said the other 
 day, and not reply at length to the paper which Dr. Durant has just 
 read. I supposed, when 1 made some, remarks the other day, that this 
 committee, as the other had not been appointed, would go into a more 
 thorough investigation than now appears to be its purpose. I therefore 
 took occasion then to say that if a thorough and complete investigation 
 of all the transactions connected with the Union Pacific Eailroad (Jom- 
 pauy and the Credit Mobilier could be had, the American people would 
 discover that the cry of "stop thief" was raised by the thieves them- 
 selves. I do not expect now that this committee will go into that inves- 
 tigation ; but I hope the other committee, known as the " Wilson com- 
 mittee," will make a thorough investigation of this whole matter. 
 
 It seems necessary that I should say a word or two upon some of the 
 points presented by Dr. Durant to-day. He says, with regard to the 
 statement I made the other day, that we found great irregularities wh( n 
 I caine into the direction of that company; that large sums of money 
 had been exp<3nded and unaccounted for, that it is false. Hehas-sworn 
 before this committee and before the other committee that $435,000 has 
 thus been spent by him. There has been no satisfactory account given, 
 certainly to me, and the testimon y o f 01iver_Ajues. ihe oresident of the 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 421 
 
 company, before tlie other committee, fully corroborates. With regard 
 to that matter I will farther remark, that the individual who is charged 
 ■with having received $250,000 of that money is now confined in jail by 
 order of the House of Eepresentatives for contempt in refusing to state 
 where this money went to. That is the answer I have to make to his 
 remarks upon that point, and no reports or affidavits of others can make 
 it right. 
 
 With regard to Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, I stated distinctly that 
 when Mr. Durant told me that story I did not -believe a word of 
 it. I never beMe'ved a word of it. I stated then that Mr. Stevens's 
 character and position forbid its belief. Mr. Oliver Ames has tes- 
 tified before the other committee the same thing precisely; so that 
 upon that point I am corroborated. Mr. Oakes Ames told me, 
 and I suppose he will testify before that committee also, that Mr. 
 Durant told him the same. So far as that is concerned, it is un- 
 necessary for me to say another word. Dr. Durant has spoken of a 
 large subscription by myself aad others in that connection upon that 
 day. He does not state directly, but the inference would be from his 
 statement, that that subscription preceded, instead of followed the 
 Fisk-Duraut-McOomb subscription. As a matter of fact, it was sub- 
 sequent to that subscription, grew out of it, and was necessitated by it. 
 As I stated the other day, it occasioned our raising immense sums of 
 money in order to effect that subscription ; and having stated that 
 fact, it is unnecessary for me to go any further into the matter, as the 
 whole transaction will come out, probably, before the other committee. 
 Now, in regard to Mr. McComb's and Mr. Durant's connection with 
 Fisk. The doctor speaks of it as accidental, when it is notorious to 
 those who were connected with the company, and knew about it, that 
 these three gentlemen undertook by that movement to get possession of 
 the road. The only excuse Fisk had for appearing in the matter, as he 
 himself admitted to me, was an interest of $240 ; and the only excuse he 
 could give for making the demand he did of the company, which 
 was„that unless the company paid him $100,000 he would injure 
 them a million; to which 1 replied that, so far as I was con- 
 cerned, the company should never pay him a single dollar, no matter 
 what might be the consequences. 1 denounced it before him as a 
 black-mailing operation. He replied that Dr. Durant and McComb, 
 finding they did not succeed, had gone back upon him, as he expressed 
 it; and that was the reason, and the only reason, he gave for making 
 this outrageous demand upon the company. And subsequently Durant 
 made these affidavits against him. With regard to the statement which 
 has been made here to-day about General Dodge, all I have to say is 
 that General Dodge is well known to the country, and I need not say a 
 word about him. He is certanlywell known to one of the gentlemen 
 who sits at this table as a member of this committee, as a very able and 
 true man, and an honest man. I do not think there is a man of good 
 character and reputation in that company who has not always had the 
 utmost faith and confidence in General Dodge. The insinuations the 
 gentleman has made against him here I deem very unjust. In regard to 
 my position in all these controversies, and my view of these men and 
 their purposes, my letter to Oliver Ames, the president of the company, 
 of July 25, 1868, in which I stated what 1 thought was due to the Gov- 
 ernment, to the stockholders, and to all parties in interest, fully ex- 
 plained. The views therein expressed furnish my own vindication. You 
 will remember that in that letter I cautioned Oliver Ames against these 
 very things. The chairman suggests that this is a matter entirely col- 
 
422 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 lateral to this investigation, and I will not say another word upon that 
 point. 
 
 I wish to make this additional statement in respect to the payment 
 of the dividends upon the Oakes Ames contract. As I stated before 
 the other committee, it was not becanse I was opposed to it upon the 
 ground that any wrong was done to anybody, because all the stockhold- 
 ers of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company were to receive substantially 
 their proportionate share of the profits ; but it was on account of the 
 personal peril to Oakes Ames and those associated with him, who were 
 my friends, that I opposed the contract, as he will slate to you. Dr. 
 Durant has said that I did not oppose the payment of the dividend, and 
 he has copied from the record to show that. His statement is true so 
 far as the record goes ; but it will be in proof, and it was perfectly 
 notorious to those gentlemen, that it was something which I thought 
 should not be done, as I deemed it improper in a business point of view. 
 Still, I said to both the Ameses, from first to last, that my inferest was 
 so small, so trifling as compared to theirs, and indeed to almost any- 
 body's, that while my judgment was against it, and my feelings adverse 
 to it, if they finally decided that it was best, and I could not convince 
 them by fair argument, I should ^not be factious and an obstacle in the 
 way ; that I should not vote against the contract or the dividends. And 
 they will testify that from first to last I constantly expressed that opinion 
 both in regard to the contract and the dividends. 
 
 Dr. Durant has alluded to giving me a call for two hundred and fifty 
 shares of stock as an inducement for me to vote as he desired — in other 
 words, that he purchased my vote for that price; that is what it means. 
 Now, what are the facts 1 It is true, as he says, that he gave me a call 
 for two hundred and fifty shares at 160; he first oflfered to sell because 
 he wanted to increase my interest, and he gave, of course, other reasons ; 
 I did not then suppose that he had any improper motive in it ; I declined 
 to buy at his offer, as I thought I could purchase of another party at 
 the same or a less price ; I did not, therefore, choose to take it ; he then 
 said he would give me a call for ten days ; at the expiration of ih,e ten 
 days it was worth considerably more than 160, and I took it, of course. 
 So far as his attempt to purchase me in that way, all that he says may 
 be true ; I do not doubt it ; it was his habit to buy votes when needed 
 by inducing them to make some operation by which it would be for 
 their interest to go for him ; that was the constant complaint I think of 
 all parties in interest, that he would always do these things; fortunately 
 for me I shall be able to show, and so show it before the other commit- 
 tee, if a thorough investigation is had, that from first to last I stated to 
 Oliver Ames and to Oakes Ames that I should go for these dividends, 
 and that I should vote for the contract if, after full consideration, they 
 really desired it. Dr. Durant's statement that he said there would be 
 no difficulty in getting my vote because he had done what he had, I 
 have heard of before to-day Oakes Ames could have told him, in reply, 
 that he had made a great mistake if he had given me the right to pur- 
 chase any stock for less than its real value, because I had given him 
 my word that, if he and his brother desired it, I should vote for what 
 •they deemed to be their interest, inasmuch as my interest was so trifling 
 in comparison with theirs. Mr. Oakes Ames will testify to that fact ; so 
 that if there was any wrong in this matter it seems to be with Dr. 
 Durant entirely, who does not pretend, of course, that I knew anything 
 about his purpose in giving me this call. 
 
 I do not suppose it is necessary for me to claim the attention of the 
 committee further upon this subject, except for a single word in regard 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 423 
 
 to the report of the committee on which Oliver Ames and Mr. Cisco were 
 appointed in regard to this expenditure of four or five hundred thou- 
 sand dollars. All this occurred long before we had auvthing to do with 
 the company. Oliver Ames has testified that, upon a further knowledge 
 of the facts, he did not believe the money was spent, although Durant 
 told him that he gave, indirectly, some sixty or eighty thousand dollars 
 to Thaddeus Stevens by way of purchasing a foundery ; that he did not 
 believe the story, and that will be corroborated so far as my testimony 
 goes. 
 
 In regard to the $50,000 which was paid or charged as counsel-fees in 
 the Fisk suit, I have already gone fully into the subject in the other 
 committee ; and I only desire now to say that the matter is there fully 
 explained; that it is shown conclusively that 1 had nothing whatever 
 to do with it ; that when a knowledge of it came to me I denounced it : 
 and that I had no connection whatever with it in any shape. 
 
 Washington, February 1, 1873. 
 H. S. McCojvib rfe-called and examined. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. At the time of your former examination you proposed to 
 produce some further letters from Mr. Ames. — Answer. 1 have made 
 search for *hem and have found some, but some I have not found. 
 
 Q. Will you produce such as you have found? — A. I have some un- 
 important ones here, some that I have not before referred to. I have not 
 examined all of them, and I do not know very well what is in them. 
 
 Q. Are they all the letters from Mr. Ames you have ? — A. These are 
 all I can find. I find here in Mr. McMurtrie's letter to Mr. Gowen, he 
 refers to one that I put in as an exhibit in the Pennsylvania case, dated 
 April 13. I cannot find anything but that letter. I have one of March, 
 one of September, and one of November, 1868, and also one of February/, 
 1868 ; but 1 cannot find the one referred to in Mr. McMurtrie's letter to 
 Mr. Gowen. I took all these letters back from the examiner and left 
 copies. I do not know what this letter contained; I do not recollect it 
 at all. 
 
 Q. Were the letters you had mentioned that you did not find filed as 
 exhibits in the Pennsylvania case? — A. That one of April 13 was the 
 only one. 
 
 Q. And the letters you produce here now are all the letters you have 
 from Mr. Ames ? — A. They are all the letters I can find. My house has 
 been a perfect pell-mell for the past six months. I put a new mansard 
 roof on it, and had from ten to thirty men at work on it. These papers 
 were carried to my house, and my things have been moved and shifted 
 about and knocked about so that they are in great confusion. I have 
 made very diligent search for these letters. (The letters referred to were 
 examined by the committee and not placed in evidence, as having no 
 reference to this transaction.) 
 
 Q. You did not produce this letter of April 13, 1867 ?— A. I think I 
 did, but I cannot find it. 
 
 Q. You think that letter was not. left with the master ? — A. No, sir ; 
 that was produced before the examiner. All my papers that were pro- 
 duced have been marked as exhibits. I took the originals all back, be- 
 cause I was afraid to leave them there. 
 
 Q. You have looked among your papers enough to satisfy you that 
 
424 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 you have not that letter ?— A. I have looked over my papers enough to 
 satisfy myself that I cannot lay my hand upon that letter. 
 : Q. Can you state the contents of the letter 1 — A. I can state some- 
 thing of its contents, but I would rather n'ot speak of the substance of 
 it, because I have not the letter to produce. I have already testified in 
 substance what was in it, and the substance of my personal conversa- 
 tion on the same subject, as well as what was in the letter. I might 
 say that there is a letter herefrom General Dodge, iu which reference 
 is made to a resolution before Congress. He was a member of Con- 
 gress at that time. This letter was written to me as chairman of the 
 bridge committee, and the postscript refers to defeating the rate bill. 
 I would like to have Mr. McMurtrie's letter to which I have referred 
 placed in evidence, because it shows, as I have-said, that Mr. McMurtrie 
 refused, to go on with my cross-examination unless these original letters 
 of Mr. Ames were put in. 
 
 Q. Did you say you could state the substance of this letter of Mr. 
 Ames to you of April 13, 1867? — A. It was not thatletterl saidi could 
 state the substance of, but another one. I have not the remotest idea 
 of the contents of that letter any more than if I had never seen it. My 
 only recollection of having seen it is by reference to. the McMurtrie let- 
 ter to Go wen. 
 
 Q. What letter do you refer to that you can state the substance of ?— 
 A. The letter of Mr. Ames of some tiaie in February, I think 1868 ; that 
 is the letter that I have searched for and been particularly desirous to 
 find. • 
 
 Q. State what was said in that letter. — A. I have already repeated 
 about the substance of it. 
 
 Q, Have you rejieated the substance of it as being in that letter 1 — 
 A, I stated it as having been said to me, and as having been written 
 by Mr. Ames. 
 
 Q. State, as nearly as you can remember, what the letter said. — A. 
 The letter said in substance, (I do not give you the phraseology,)' " Did 
 not ;the stock transferred to Colfax pay ?" referring to some ruling he 
 had made in regard to some legislation ; that is the substance of the 
 letter ; they are not the words ; it was a letter written, I should say, 
 the latter part of February, 1868. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether it was about the time you received this 
 letter from General Dodge! — A. I think so; that is what induced me 
 to look up General Dodge's letter ; I thought I had something from 
 somebody else on the same subject. 
 
 Q. The conversation you speak of with Mr. Ames in reference to Mr, 
 Colfax was before or after you received the letter ? — A. I think it was 
 very nearly the same time ; there was not many days' difference. 
 
 Q. You received the letter from Mr. Ames here at Washington? — A. 
 O, yes ; it was written from Washington to me, at Wilmington. 
 
 Q. Do you think Mr. Colfax was named in the letter ; that he was 
 referred to by name by Mr. Ames °? — A. I think he was either referred 
 to by name, or as Speaker ; I think the letter referred to him by name ; 
 that is my recollection about it. 
 
 , Q. Ton are satisfied, from your examination, that you have no fur- 
 ther letters or documents!^ — A. Not that I can find; I have no idea that 
 anything is destroyed; I cannot put my hand upon them; I have 
 looked very diligently for them ; I should have brought them, most 
 unquestionably, if I could have found them. 
 
 By Mr. McGeaey : 
 Q. You have referred to some ruliner of the Sneaker. — A. Vps. ssir- 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 425 
 
 that is my recollection. The substance of it was, did not I think the 
 stock which had been placed in that direction had paid in that instance. 
 Q. Do yon know what ruling the Speaker had made ?— A. 'No, sir; I 
 do not ; 1 have no knowledge of the congressional proceedings referred 
 to, and have not read anything in reference to it. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 Q. I understood you, when you were before the committee on another 
 occasion, that he had made some ruling in reference to some move of 
 Mr. Washburne's ?— A. I think that relates to Mr. Ames's letter of the 
 30th of January ; that letter relates to Washburne's move and Durant's 
 action in New York. He said nothing could be done here, and he did 
 not care, or did not know, what Durant might do in New York. That 
 was the reference made to Washburne's move. The other was a per- 
 sonal conversation, and the letter which I stated the substance of. 
 
 By Mr. McCeaey : 
 
 Q. You have not examined the Globe to see what that ruling was ? — 
 A. I have not; nor any other congressional record. 
 
 Q. Perhaps I misunderstood you. I understood that you were on the 
 floor of the House when some ruling was made? — A. You must have 
 mistaken me ; I don'b know that I was ever on the floor of the House 
 when the House was in session. 
 
 Q. The letter you cannot find you think is dated February 28th °! — A. 
 i did not give that date ; I said it was dated in February. 
 
 Q. Does not the letter of Mr. McMurtrie refer to that date ? — A. No, 
 sir ; it does not. 
 
 Q. Does Mr. McMurtrie's letter refer to the letter you speak of ? — A. 
 No, sir ; it gives no date of any letter except that of April ] 3th, 1867. 
 
 .Q. Did you receive any letter touching the matter referred to. about 
 the distribution of gifts or shares to members of Congress, except the 
 letters you have filed ?^A. No, sir ; only the two filed. 
 
 Q. That expression, then, must have referred to one or the other of 
 these ■? — A. It must have referred to one of the two ; I subsequently 
 produced another letter of February 22, which Mr. McMurtrie did not 
 refer to ; I had furnished Mr. McMurtrie before with copies of these 
 letters over my own signature ; I had originally not intended to have 
 these letters made any part of the record; I did not desire that they 
 should be made public ; but furnishing him with the copies seemed to 
 whet his appetite and induced hitn to bring out the originals, and when 
 the originals were produced they got into the newspapers. 
 
 Q. I understand the letter you refer to was dated some time in Feb- 
 ruary, 1868, but that you do not know the date ? — A. No, sir ; I do not 
 know the date, and I would rather not speak of a letter when I cannot 
 give the date. My recollection of the conversation between us is more 
 fresh in my mind. 
 
 Q. What had the Speaker done that, in the estimation of Mr. Ames, 
 made the transaction with him " pay °?" — A. I could not tell you. It ■ 
 was something relating to the proceedings of Congress. 
 
 Q. What did Mr. Ames tell you? — A. No specific thing; nothing 
 more than something that had been up. 
 
 Q. Did you infer that it was some ruling he had made as Speaker ; did 
 Mr. Ames say something of that kind ? — A. I inferred from his expres- 
 sions that it was some parliamentary maneuver which a presiding officer 
 
426 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 could perliaps judiciously use, find which resulted iu beueflting the com- 
 pauy in some wuy. That is the inference I drew. 
 
 Q. The reason I desire to be particular is that if there was any such 
 ruling it will appear in the Globe 1 — A. Yes, that is the reason that I 
 am very careful in speaking about it. I am not certain that Mr. Colfax's 
 name was used, or whether he was referred to as Speaker. 
 
 By Mr. BANKS : 
 Q. Is it not possible that another member might have been referred 
 to? — A. Such things are possible. 
 
 By Mr. MoCrAEY : 
 Q. The transaction must have occurred in January or February? — A- 
 Yes, that is my idea. Mr. Ames's letter evidently had reference to no 
 particular day, but to quite a space of time. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. The idea you had from Mr. Ames about it was that this ruling had 
 been in some way influenced by his distribution of stock ? — -A. Yes, 
 most emphatically. That I am very decided about. One fact I wanted 
 to bring out this morning especially was a conversation with a gentle- 
 man with whom I sat at table this morning, and who recollects a conver- 
 sation between himself and mj-self in reference to what 1 said of a con- 
 versation between Mr. Brooks and Mr. Alley, during Mr. Duraut's absence. 
 If he were present I would like to call upon him this morning to state it. 
 
 Q. Is it merely what you said that you want him to testify to ? — A. 
 Yes, during Mr. Duraut's absence in Europe. 
 
 Q. And before the subject was agitated in public ? — A. Yes, sir; that 
 gentleman is Mr. Crane ; he said he would be here, aud if he is I would 
 like to ask him one or two questions. There is one other matter that I 
 want to state, if the committee will allow me. I have examined a copy 
 of the minutes of the executive committee of the Union Pacific Eailroad 
 Company, owned by Mr. Dnrant. I saw in that book, on the 2d January, 
 1868, that James Brooks acted as member of the executive committee 
 of that company. This was two days before that large dividend was de- 
 clared, aud six days after he had received his first hundred shares 
 Credit Mobilier stock. I want to state further that on the 9th of March, 
 1868, two days before his appointment, as is stated, as Government di- 
 rector, he acted as inspector of the board of directors ; at least he was 
 so appointed by the board as one of the committee of inspectors. If 
 you will ask for the production of these record-books you will see that 
 that is the fact. 
 
 Q.' These were the proceedings in the election of directors of tbe 
 Union Pacific Eailroad ? — A. Y'es. I have this morning asked, iu the 
 other committee-room, to see a copy of the original minute-book of the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad Company of that date. They tell me that book 
 is missing ; that the original minutes are missing from October, 1867, to 
 March, 1868 ; that they cannot get them. Mr. Durant has a copy of 
 . that book, aud I saw what I have stated on his copy of the minutes ot 
 the execntive committee. I had myself a personal recollection of the 
 fact, and I looked over these minutes to refresh my recollection. 
 
 Q. Do you think Mr. Brooks's right to act in the capacity of a Gov- 
 ernment director would be affected by his being the holder of Credit 
 Mobilier stock ? — A. Yes, sir ; the point I make is that Mr. Brooks 
 produced a letter from the Interior Department, stating that he did not 
 qualify as Government director until March 23, 1868 ; and I want to 
 show tliat, notwithstanding, he acted as a director before then — at least 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 427 
 
 that he acted as a member of the executive committee, which he could 
 only do by virtue of his appointment as a Government director. 
 
 Q. Do you say that prior to the time of his taking the oath he acted 
 as Government director ? — A. Yes. He was on the executive committee 
 as Government director of the Union Pacific Railroad Company. 
 
 By Mr. N'iblack : 
 
 Q. From what books do you derive that information ? — A. From Mr. 
 Durant's copy of the executive committee's minute-books. 
 
 Q. The copy Mr. Darant has purports to be taken from, the original 
 book 1 — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Banks : 
 Q. Bj whom was that copy made? — A. I do not recollect. It has a 
 notarial seal on it ; it is a notarial copy. 
 
 By Mr. JSTiblACK : 
 
 Q. I have learned, more from testimony taken in the other committee 
 than this, that there was some money missing, or not accounted for, 
 which it is claimed was expended here in Washington for the procure- 
 ment of certain legislation. Have you any knowledge in regard to that 
 matter ? 
 
 Witness. What do you refer to ? 
 
 Mr, NiBLACK. I cannot very well define it. I think the allegation was 
 that at the time the legislation in Congress in the interest of the Union 
 Pacific Railroad Company was obtained in 1864, some expenditures were 
 made or credits claimed for such exijeuditures, about which there was 
 some difficulty in producing vouchers for the items. There has also 
 aijpeared some statement about a large amount of money having been 
 paid at Wiliard's Hotel at one time. — A. I only paid my own bills at 
 Willard's Hotel. I can answer for that. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge of this transaction by men connected 
 with the Union Pacific Railroad"? — A. I have no knowledge myself, per- 
 sonally, of the expenditure of a dollar in Washington for any such pur- 
 pose. I was on a committee in conjunction with Josiah Bardwell, of 
 Boston, and John B. Alley, to examine Mr. Durant's accounts for four 
 or five hundred thousand dollars. Mr. Bardwell and myself were ready 
 to proceed with the examination. Mr. Alley wanted to have Oakes 
 Ames present before we should join in making the examination, and 
 telegraphed for him to come on. Mr. Durant produced his vouchers. 
 Mr. Bardwell and myself took a minute of them, and checked off every 
 voucher produced. They were either certified to by J. F. M. Davies and 
 Mr. Bushnell jointly, or by one of them. They were authorized by the 
 resolution of the board to make these certificates. We examined the 
 vouchers in conformity with the resolutions of the board authorizing 
 them to be certified. We took a minute of them and checked them o&, 
 as I said. I prepared a report upon the subject and presented it to Mr. 
 Alley to sign, telling him that they were all right. His reply was that 
 if it was all right they must not let the people know it ; that Mr. Du- 
 rant must not be relieved from the odium placed upon him by the state- 
 ment that these vouchers were for the expenditures of money that he 
 could not account for. That remark struck me with very great force. 
 I remember saying that if Mr. Alley was that stripe of a man he and I 
 must be two people from that time on. 
 
 Q. Did you pass on all the items of Mr. Durant's account in that way 1 
 — A. Yes; and Mr. Bardwell made a meniorandum of them. 
 
 Q, Y'ou have heard of two $5,000 checks which Dr. Durant says he 
 
428 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 gave to influence the election in Iowa in 1867 ; do yon recollect about 
 those checks or vouchers 1 — A. I recollect seeing the checks. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect whether he claimed them as vouchers for money 
 expended for the Union Pacific Eailroad? — A. 1 think not; I think 
 that was his individual expenditure. They were not included among 
 the vouchers presented to us to audit. My recollection is that they 
 were not vouchers submitted to us to be audited. 
 
 By Mr. Alley : 
 
 Q. Do you say that Oakes Ames was on this committee ? — A. No, sir 5 
 I did not say any such thing. 
 
 Q- Do you say that he was present ? — A. I did' not say any such 
 thing. 
 
 Q. I know you did not; I ask you the question now. — A. I say he 
 was not present at our interview when we had this talk. 
 
 Q. Was there any one present with us Avhen I made the declaration 
 you have alluded to ? — A. Nobody who could hear you, because their 
 ears would be closed for anything you said that, was not according to 
 your view. 
 
 Q. I thought there would be nobody present to hear that conversa- 
 tion. — A. That was a conversation between you and myself. 
 
 Q. Did you not swear in Philadelphia that I was the only person who 
 refused to sign that report, and the reason 1 gave was that Mr. Durant 
 was a dishonest man : that these vouchers were not satisfactory, and I 
 utterly refused to sign that report 1 — A. I did testify to that, and I re- 
 peat that testimony now. You were one of the three men appointed on 
 that committee, you were a tacitly-appointed member. I do not know 
 whether you were regularly appointed or not. You and Mr. Ames came 
 in subsequently and examined the vouchers for yourselves. What con- 
 clusions you came to for your own edification I do not know. 
 
 The following are the letters placed in evidence by witness in the 
 above testimony, May 21, 1872. 
 
 McCoMB vs. The Credit Mobiliee. 
 
 Dbae SiE : On Thursday, December 23d, you have appointed to close 
 the cross-examination of Mr. McOomb, and to proceed with your evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Allow me to remind you of promises made by your client at the prior 
 meetings, many months since, to furnish or produce the papers or 
 documents, from copies of which he spoke or referred to, or to memo- 
 randa taken from them. Some, at least, were to be sent me next day. 
 None have been sent. He stated the other day they had been with- 
 held for a purpose. I must ask that you will require him to produce, at 
 the meeting on Thursday, if you desire me to cross-examine, the follow- 
 ing letter from Oakes Ames in reference to the disposing 375 shares as 
 gifts to members of Congress. His books showing the original entries 
 of dividends or sums stated to have been received as dividends : 
 
 April 1866 
 
 July 1866 
 
 September 1866 
 
 December : 1866 
 
 January 1868 
 
CREBIT MOBILIER. 429 
 
 I would also like to have a copy of Mr. Ames's letter of April 13, 1867. 
 Exhibit No. 2, Awn. 
 Very truly, 
 
 E. 0. McMUETiilB. 
 Jas. B. Gowen, Esq. 
 
 [Private.] 
 
 Fortieth Congress United States, 
 House of Eepresentatives, 
 
 Washington, D. C, February 17, 1868. 
 H. S. McCoMR, Y^asUngton : 
 
 I write Tracy to-day. Wheu you go to Kew York, get my report to 
 you and let him read it. It is important that he should take a decided 
 stand for the Uhilds' Mill crossing; also for the 0. B. transfer grounds. 
 If we swing away south we will be virtuallj' in the wilderness with our 
 transfer — no train or accommodation near — and will strike a fatal blow 
 to the interests of Western Iowa. The 0. E. 1. & P. E. E. certainly 
 do not want to add Ave to eight miles to the distance to Chicago for 
 benefit of B. & Mo. E. E., when most of the southern trade will leave us 
 at Kearney and go by the Atchison Branch, which will finish their road 
 to Kearney this year. 
 Truly, 
 
 G. M. DODGE. 
 P. S. — "We beat the rate resolution to-day, 61 to 73 ; close vote. 
 
 John B. Alley, having been recalled at his own instance, made the 
 following statement : 
 
 I will merely state that, so far as having made any declaration of the 
 kind sated by Mr. McComb, in regard to the reasons which I gave for 
 not signing that report, providing for the expenditure, by Dr. Du- 
 . rant, of $435,000, it is utterly false in every particular. It is a sheer 
 fabrication, without any foundation whatever. I wish to say that my 
 interest in the Union Pacific Eailroad at the time of the Oakes Ames 
 contract was in the neighborhood of one thousand one hundred shares. 
 The capital, at that time, was about six millions. My interest in the 
 Credit Mobilier corporation at the time this contract went into operation 
 ■was two hundred and ninety shares, the capital being $3,750,000; 
 showing that if any one was wronged by that contract it was myself, 
 as my interest in the Union Pacific Eailroad Company was relatively 
 and proportionately nearly three times as much as in the Credit Mo- 
 bilier. 
 
 I will say, further, in relation to my position on the subject of declar- 
 ing dividends, that I stated it fully yesterday. I might mention this 
 fact, that Oakes Ames in his letter, as you will all remember, complained 
 of me as being the only person opposed to their making these dividends. 
 That was some time subsequent to the sale of the two hundred and fifty 
 shares to me by Durant, and the conversation I narrated yesterday. 
 My judgment and my feeling were in perfect consistency from 'first to 
 last in regard to that matter. 
 
 Henry C. Crane recalled and examined. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 i[^uestioh. Do 'j^^oii know anything in reference to the conversation be- 
 
430 CREDIT MOBILTEE. 
 
 tween Mr. BroolvS and Mr. Alley in regard to Sir. Brooks having fifty 
 shares .of Credit Mobilier stock ? — Answer. I know nothing about it. 
 
 Q. Did you have any information on the subject at the time "? — A. No, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. Did YOU hear anybody say anything about it ? — A. 1 do not think 
 Idid. 
 
 Q. Did you hear Mr. McComb say anything about it ? — A. I do not 
 think I did. 
 
 Q. Mr. McComb informed us that he had some conversation in regard 
 to it about the time. You had no information from Mr. McComb on the 
 subjects — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. McComb, about the time of the issuing of these fifty shares 
 to Neilsoii, say anything to you in relation to Mr. Brooks's action or in 
 regard to what Mr. Brooks did 1 — A. Mr. Durau't was in Europe then. 
 I was in correspondence with him. Mr. Brooks was always suj^posed to 
 be a friend of Mr. Durant. Mr. McComb came to me and wanted me to 
 keep my own counsel, saying that Mr. Brooks had showed himself out 
 to the other parties. 
 
 Q. That is all he said? — A. He gave me to understand that I had 
 better keep my own counsel ; keep my matters to myself; that in case 
 I wanted to consult him on anything I was to meet him at the Fifth 
 Avenue Hotel. 
 
 Q. Was anything said in relation to this Credit Mobilier stock 1 — A. 
 I think not. I have no recollection of it. 
 
 By ]\rr. McCrary : 
 
 Q. Did Mr. McComb tell you he had heard a conversation between 
 Mr. Alley and Mr. Brooks about the matter "? — A. I have no recollection 
 of any such thing, t know there were meetings being held there all the 
 while between the parties. Mr. McComb was keeping me posted in what 
 I could not pick up for myself. He knew, I supposed, that Mr. Brooks's 
 relations were friendly to Mr. Durant, and so he gave me this warning, 
 which it was very satisfactory for me to have. 
 
 Q. You do not remember that he told you he heard any conversatiou 
 between Mr. Alley and Mr. Brooks 1 — A. No, sir ; 1 do not. 
 
 Q. Did you ever make any report of this conversation you had with 
 Mr. McComb in writing to Mr. Durant 1 — A. I did, either by letter or 
 telegram. I do not know what it was. I was writing to him very often. 
 1 was looking after his business. 
 
 Q. You either wrote to Dr. Durant or telegraphed him to that effect ? — 
 A. I think so. I kept posted on these matters and kejit him posted.' I 
 do not know what I did say to him. 
 
 Washington, D. C, February 6, 1873. 
 
 Horace F. Clark sworn and examined. 
 By Mr. Brooks : 
 
 Question. Please state whether you had any interest in the Credit Mo- 
 bilier ? — Answer. I have not, and never had at any time. I had no con- 
 nection of any sort or description with the Union Pacific Railroad Com- 
 pany until March 7, 1872. 
 
 Q. And you have had no interest in the Credit Mobilier since that 
 time, direct or indirect ? — A. Never, at any time. I never purchased a 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 4dl 
 
 share of Union Pacific Eailroad stock until after January, 1872. I not 
 only have no interest in the Credit Mobilier, but in fact my interest is 
 adverse to that corporation. 
 
 Q. Will you define in plain English the meaning of the French words 
 Credit Mobilier, when applied to the building of a railroad in this coun- 
 try under the circumstances attending the buildiUg of the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad ? — A. Premising that all I know of the Credit Mobilier is de- 
 rived from the public history of the times and from such examination 
 as it has been my duty to make, as president of the Union Pacific Eail- 
 road Company since my election in 1872, I will say that the Credit Mo- 
 bilier, in this case, was a construction company to build this road and 
 make money by the construction. 
 
 Q. Were you invited in 1866 or 1867 to take an interest in this con- 
 struction company 1 — A. I was ; some time about 1866 the matter was 
 called to my attention. I declined because I deemed the venture too 
 hazardous — beyond the limits of ordinary prudence. 
 
 Q. Why did you deem it too hazardous ? — A. Without, perhaps, 
 judging correctly as to the future, I thought the road if built would be 
 worthless as property, and 1 saw no temptation to invest money in an 
 enterprise where the whole capital, in my judgment, would be lost. 
 
 Q. Did you or not hear at the time that the surveyors who were 
 making reconnaissances of this road were obliged to be accompanied by 
 troops of cavalry ; that they could not venture among the Indians 
 without armed escorts 'I — A. Being considerably connected with rail- 
 loads I gave some general attention to the subject which 1 suppose 
 every intelligent man is more or less familiar with, and I came to the 
 conclusion that the whole enterprise except as a Government measure 
 w^as beyond the range of ordinary prudence. 
 
 Q. Did you found that opinion upon the extreme danger the builders 
 of the road would incur '! — A. I thought that no reliable estimate could 
 be made of the cost of construction under the circumstances, and that 
 when constructed the property itself would probably be worthless ; 
 that is, that the road could not be so managed, when built, that it 
 could pay its running expenses. The reasons which impelled me to 
 that conclusion were the character of the country, and the whole cir- 
 cumstances surrounding the case. I, therefore, let it go by, notwith- 
 standing all the promises of successful speculation ; and, as I said, never 
 became interested in it until after the act of March, 1871, was passed 
 by Congress, and then became interested in it by reason of the very 
 large interest I then had and now have in its eastern connections. 
 
 Q. Were you aware, from general information, or from reading the 
 reports of the engineers, that the construction trains for that road had 
 to be armed with light artillery. Sharp's rifles, and outlying guards, 
 against the savages infesting that country? — A. It was well under- 
 stood by railroad men that a part of the force were armed to guard the 
 remainder at work. To invest money in a railroad to be built under 
 such circumstances appeared to me preposterous ; perhaps I was mis- 
 taken. 
 
 Q. Did you ever know any railroad in the United States to be built 
 under such trying or difficult circumstances ? — A. Nothing compared 
 with it in the history of this country. 
 
 Q. Have you or not been largely engaged in the construction of rail- 
 roads in different parts of the United States ? — A. I have been inter- 
 ested in the construction of a very considerable number of railroads, 
 and am now interested in the construction of several railroads, but not 
 of that character. The railroads, the construction of which 1 have been 
 and am connected with, are branches extending from main trunk lines, 
 
432 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 in Tsrhich I am largely interested. I am president of tbe Lake Shore and 
 Michigan Southern Eailroad Company, a railroad extendiug from Buffalo 
 to Chicago. I am interested in the construction of several feeders or 
 lateral branches leading to the main line. The purpose of their con- 
 struction and of my interest in them is 'to add to the business of the 
 main line, but in all these cases, when constructed, a fair amount of traffic 
 is insured. In case of the Union Pacific Kailroad Company, unless fin- 
 ished to the Pacific, there would probably have been no traffic, and I had 
 no anticipation of any settlement of the country which would ins^ure it. 
 
 Q. Is it not also true that when the construction of the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad was commenced there were no termini east or west, and no 
 connections with if? — A. There was no line of railroad from Chicago to 
 the Missouri Eiver ; it impressed me as a wild adventure. 
 
 Q. In the construction of such a road as that through a savage wilder- 
 ness, over an unexplored country, what should be the difference of profit 
 on its construction from that in constructing railroads in Ohio, Michigan, 
 Illinois, New York, or any of the older States ? — A. The ordinary tests 
 cannot be applied. The amount of reasonable profits depends upon the 
 character of the risk. As I said before, I saw no inducement, because 
 of any probable amount of profit, to invest money in an enterprise where 
 the capital might possibly, and, in my judgment, would probably, be ut- 
 terly lost. 
 
 Q. You would not, therefore, go into it ,at all ?— A. I declined to go 
 into it at all. 
 
 Q. There have been two modes of building railroads since you have 
 been upon the stage. The first was by subscription of the stock, and 
 the next by construction companies. Will you give us a little history, 
 as an. expert, of the difference in the two modes of building? — A. In the 
 early history of railroads in this country, subscriptions were made to 
 the capital stock and the roads were constructed for account of the 
 stockholders. It resulted, in almost every instance, that the money 
 invested by the stockholders was a total loss. For many yeai's past, I 
 should say ten or more, few roads have been built except by means of 
 construction companies ; and by construction companies I mean by par- 
 ties associating themselves together, with or without tlie protection of 
 a charter, who take all the securities and all the stock for better or for 
 worse, and provide the means for the construction. 
 
 Q. What is the difference, then, between such a company and the 
 Credit Mobilier? — A. The only difference is, that in this case the 
 directors of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company — some of them — were 
 also the directors and managers of the Credit Mobilier. They, there- 
 fore, dealt with themselves, and became subject to the rules of equity 
 urisprudence affecting the relations of trustees and cestui que trusts. I 
 have nevef been connected with any construction company which sus- 
 tained the technical relation of directors of the company whose rail- 
 roads were being constructed. In this particular case, it may be said, 
 perhaps justly, that these men bargained with themselves, and perhaps 
 are liable to have The question raised upon them under the general 
 rules of equity jurisprudence to which I have referred, the result of 
 which is that if a profit is realized they must surrender it, and if a loss 
 is incurred they must sustain it. 
 
 Q. Were or were not the contracts for building the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad entered into with the assent of all the stockholders of that 
 company ^ — A. It is so alleged. It is alleged that there are upon the 
 records of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company evidence showing that 
 that corporation, Government directors and all, assented to these deal- 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIER. 433 
 
 ings with the Credit Mobilier. Thei'e is also upon the records evidence 
 going to show that the stockholders of the Union Pacific Eailroad 
 Company, who were the parties ultimately interested in this matter, 
 assented to this scheme of construction. The question remains whether, 
 when the stock was subsequently sold and passed, as it has passed into 
 the hands of bona-fide purchasers, it was received shorn of its claims to 
 the large and, as some allege, inordinate profits made by the construc- 
 tion company, or whether they can enforce the rights which the prior 
 owners of the stock could enforce in case there has been a violation of 
 the proper relations between trustees and cestui que trusts. I am one of 
 the new class of bona-fide purchasers of stock who came in in 1872, and 
 ascertained that these large dividends have been received by other par- 
 ties in the course of construction ; and whether we have or have not 
 claims 'against such of the directors of the Credit Mobilier as sustained 
 the technical relations of directors of the Union Pacific Eailroad Com- 
 pany, is a legal question which may or may not arise ; and it is a ques- 
 tion that has not perhaps been adjudicated, as to what right stockholders 
 purchasing stock in the open market acquire in respect to past trans- 
 actions which may be subject to criticism. 
 
 Q, About how large a percentage of profit have you known to be 
 made by railroad credit mobiliers or large construction companies for 
 building railroads in the old and settled States?— A. It is the practice 
 nowadays, as I have stated, for the construction companies to take all 
 the securities, bonds, stocks, and everything, for better or for worse, 
 and the profit which ought to be made of course depends upon the 
 character of the risk. No profit, as I said before, would tempt me to 
 the possible hazard of the principal. I have never been engaged in 
 any enterprise where there was not a reasonable expectation that the 
 property would not be worth something. 
 
 Q. What is the largest profit you have known to be made on the con- 
 struction of a railroad in one of the old States ? — A. I was connected 
 with a railroad from the State of New York into the interior of the State 
 of Vermont, in which I believe we took the bonds at par and an equiv- 
 alent amount of the stock, and we"expected to make 100 per cent, out of 
 the transaction ; but 1 am under the impression that the entire amount 
 of the investment is a total loss. I am now speaking of the Harlem 
 extension. In the construction of lateral roads connecting with the 
 great trunk lines east and west, the laterals extending, for instance, 
 into coal-fields, over which roads, when finished, there must be a greater 
 or less amount of traffic, 100 per cent, has not been regarded as an ex- 
 cessive or inordinate profit. Nobody is wronged in any event, because 
 the enterprise itself and the results of it belong to the parties who 
 hazard their money, and who take the results for better or for worse. 
 
 Q. Have you heard of a larger profit than 100 per cent. ?— A. It so hap- 
 pens that the development of business may bring about a larger profit. 
 Any profit commensurate with the risk incurred would not be regarded 
 by railroad men as unreasonable. 
 
 Q. Can capitalists in New York be tempted to go into northwestern 
 railroads or southwestern railroads without the promise of very large 
 
 profits ? A. Of course not. In a new country the future of a railroad 
 
 enterprise is always more or less uncertain, because there is no local 
 traffic to sustain it insured in advance. 
 
 Q. As a Government director, associated with such men as ex- Vice- 
 President Wade, George Ashmum, now dead, Mr. Williams, of Indiana, 
 and others with whom I was associated, I want to ask you two ques- 
 tions. First, what time this Credit Mobilier was organized'?— A. From 
 
 28 X 
 
434 CREUIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 my examination of its history I believe the Credit Mobilier was a charter' 
 granted by the State of Pennsylvania in the year 1859, under the 
 name of the Pennsylvania Fiscal Agency. Its name was changed by 
 authority of the legislature of Pennsylvania to the Credit Mobilier of 
 America about 1863. The charter is one of a class of charters which 
 had been granted by several of the legislatures of the Northern States, 
 and which are supposed to confer powers and franchises sufficient to 
 enable the companies organized under them to do business in any part 
 of the world, and to protect the stockholders against personal responsi- 
 bilities. The State of Connecticut has a general law under which en- 
 terprises are being conducted in various parts of the world. Mining 
 companies are organized under the general laws of New York, which 
 carry on their operations in Colorado, Utah, and even in Australia. It 
 has been supposed that these State charters give the protection against 
 personal responsibility which the Credit Mobilier charter assumed to 
 give. This Credit Mobilier charter was no better than half a dozen 
 thers for oil production, pipe-lines, and many mining operations con- 
 ducted in various parts of the country under State charters. The Pan- 
 ama Eailroad was built under a charter from the State of New 
 York. In the case of the Union Pacific Eailroad there was an absolute 
 necessity for the intervention of a corporation to protect against per- 
 sonal responsibility the men engaged in an enterprise of so much mag- 
 nitude and hazard. If the gentlemen sitting around this table combine 
 to build a railroad, they are liable, in solido, for its contracts. Where the 
 enterprise is especially hazardous, or the amounts larger than the ordi- 
 nary means of capitalists, no man of prudence would embark in itjex- 
 cept where his liability was limited by the extent of his subscription 
 under a charter limiting personal responsibility. In case of a small en- 
 erprise, not extra hazardous and promising well, parties of responsi- 
 bility may be willing to invest without the intervention of such a cor- 
 poration. It the other case it would be hardly considered as within the 
 limits of ordinary prudence. 
 
 Q. Under that presentation of facts, on the 2d of January, 1868, some 
 two or three years after the creation of this company, would you deem it 
 the duty of a Government director to break up its contract and dissolve 
 its connection with the railroad company °? — A; It is my understanding 
 from the history of this matter that the Government directors had pre- 
 A'ious to that time assented to a contract of this corporation with the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad Company. There was no opposition at any time 
 manifested against these proceedings on the part of the Government 
 directors, so far as I am aware. 
 
 Q. What, in your judgment, was my duty as a Government director, 
 on the 2d of January, 1868, in regard to this Credit Mobilier proceed- 
 ing; was it to break up its relation to the Union Pacific Eailroad, and 
 risk the road not being built, or not? — A. If it was for the interest of 
 the Government to kill the enterprise, perhaps that was your duty ; if it 
 ■was the object of the Government fo secure the construction of the road, 
 means must be resorted to to accomplish the result. I do not know 
 whether you were a Government director under the scheme of 1862 or 
 that of 1864. 
 
 Mr. Brooks. I was a Government director under the law of 1864. 
 
 Witness. Under the law of 1862, the scheme of organization was 
 this: There were thirteen directors elected by the stockholders, and two 
 additional directors were appointed by the President. That law of 1862 
 contained a provision directory upon the President of the United States 
 to appoint two Government directors, persons who were not stockholdersi 
 
CREDIT MOBTLIER. 435 
 
 of the company. The law of 1864 cbaiiged that scheme, and provided 
 for twenty directors, fifteen to be elected by the stocl^holders, and five 
 to be appointed by the President; but it does not contain a provision 
 directing that the President shall appoint the five Government directors 
 from persons who were others than stockholders ; the act of 1864 is 
 silent upon that point. The act of 1863 does not contain any provision 
 that the acquisition of stock in the Union Pacific Eailroad shall void 
 their seats ; but directs the President to appoint as I have said. You 
 seem to have assumed that there is a disability upon the part of Govern- 
 ment directors, under the scheme of 1864, to hold stock; I have not been 
 able to construe the law in that light. I have supposed it to be a gen- 
 eral rule of statutory construction that when the subject-matter of an 
 old law is covered by the new, and new regulations are made in relation 
 to the same subject, there is a repeal, by implication, of the old; and I 
 do not find in the law of 1864 any inhibition against a Government di- 
 rector owning stock in the Union Pacific Railroad Company. If you are 
 to presume that Congress, in the law of 1864, meant to retain the pro- 
 visions as to Government directors which are not repealed by the law 
 of 1862, then I am mistaken ; but I have supposed otherwise. 
 
 Q. The number of directors was increased under the act of 1864 ? — A. 
 The number of Government directors was increased from two to five. 
 
 Q. And the new law was made applicable to the five? — A. The act is 
 entirely silent as to the qualifications of the five. It ought, perhaps, 
 to be stated that the same reason existed in 1864 as in 1862 why this 
 class of Government directors should be parties adverse, if you please, 
 to the interests of the stockholders of the Union Pacific Eailroad ; but 
 there is entire silence in the law upon that question. I do not know 
 what the views were, or what the policy of Congress. It is. certain that 
 there appears upon the records no objection on th'e part of the Govern- 
 ment directors, at any time, to that Credit Mobilier scheme of construc- 
 tion. 
 
 Q. 1 am asking these questions because it is alleged that the use of 
 my son-in-law's name was a mere cover for me to own the stock myself. 
 What I want to ask you is, whether there was anything in the contract 
 of the Credit Mobilier which made it necessary that a man owning 
 stock in that corporation should also own stock in the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad Company ? — A. By the scheme adopted, as I understand it, 
 a stockholder in the Credit Mobilier might or might not become a stock- 
 holder in the Union Pacific Eailroad Company. As a matter of fact 
 the stock of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company was divided among 
 the stockholders of the Credit Mobilier, and the division of such stock 
 was anticipated in the evept of the Government securities and the 
 first-mortgage bonds not realizing from their sale a sufficient amount to 
 cover the sum embraced in the contract. 
 
 Q. Let me ask you whether the profit realized by the Credit Mobilier 
 on the construction of the Union Pacific Eailroad was larger than in the 
 construction of the Panama Eailroad, or of the Z^icaragua route, judging 
 by sales of stock ?— A. I think that stock has been as high as 240, and 
 down as low as 50 ; the depreciation resulting from the change in the 
 course of trade, by reason of the construction of the Pacific Eailroad. 
 The earnings of the Panama Eailroad were very large during the early 
 emigration to California, and during the gold excitement. I do not feel 
 ableto say what would be regarded as an inordinate or extravagant profit, 
 considering the hazards of this enterprise. There can be no rule ap- 
 plied to it. Practically the directors of this road had to build the road 
 east through the State of Iowa. After that road was built they had to 
 
436 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 bridge the chasm of the Missouri Eiver. They were compelled to goii" 
 struct their road over a country furnishing no timber, no trafiic, no fuel; 
 ^nd no water. That was too much for me. I do not know what profits 
 those engaged in the construction of this road realized ; I never heaj-d 
 of any profit sufiicient to tempt me to incur the hazard of inves'tiflg in it. 
 
 Q. Would you, or would the public, have justified me and my asso- 
 ciate directors if we had prevented the construction of this road by 
 breaking up or denouncing the contracts of the company with the 
 Credit Mobilier ? — A. If it could have been possible to have built it for 
 less money I think you would have discharged your duty better, and 
 that the present stockholders would have been in a better condition if 
 it ha,d cost half as much. 
 
 Q. Was it possible ? — A. I think not. I think you could not have 
 obtained subscriptions to build that road. If there was no road now I 
 do not think you could, although the promises for the next year are that 
 the trafflc will reach ten. million dollars ; I do not think you could raise 
 the capital to build it to-day. 
 
 Q. State what peculiar difidculties and dangers the road encountered 
 in consequence of snow-storms during the last winter. — A, I came in 
 as ' president in March, 1872 ; the road was blockaded with snow for 
 about two months. We were deprived of a revenue of one million 
 dollars, and we have expended between five and six hundred thousand 
 dollars the present year in order to prevent the recurrence of similar 
 snow-blockades this winter. 
 
 By Mr. BANKS : 
 
 Q. You have been president of the Union Pacific Bailroad Company 
 since March 6, 1872, and you know, naturally, what the interests of the 
 company are now "? — A. I am the executive ofBcer of the Union Pacific 
 Railroad Company, which is a corporation entirely distinct from the 
 Credit Mobilier. 
 
 Q. If there has been any irregularity in connection with the Credit 
 Mobilier organization ; if they have deprived anybody of their rights, 
 upon whom has that injury fallen, in your judgment? — A. Upon the 
 stockholders of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company. 
 
 Q. Upon them rather than the Government of the United States ■? — 
 A. The position of the Government in regard to this road is that of a 
 second-mortgage bondholder ; the Government is the creditor of tbe 
 road to tbe extent of twenty-seven millions of dollars, which originally 
 was the first mortgage on the road. In 1864b the Government subordin- 
 ^,ted that lien to a mortgage on the road for an equal amount. The Gpv- 
 ernment is, therefo;re, a creditor with that lien upon the property for 
 $27^000,000. The wrong, if wrong there wa!S — and upon that subject I do 
 not wish to be understood as having expressed any opinion, because my 
 interest is adverse to the parties in interest in the Credit Mobilier^ — I 
 say the wrong, if wrong there was, has fallen upon the stockholders of 
 Ahe Union Pacific Railroad Company. The Governnjent is interested in 
 the maintenance of the road, in its being kept in a condition to do the 
 services for which the corporation was created. It holds the position, 
 pimply, of a creditor with a debt not yet due, and not that of a creditor 
 at large.. 
 
 Q. You have stated that as it was your duty as president, you have 
 looked into the history of the company ; was that before or since you 
 took charge of the company as president 1 — A. Since. 
 
 Q. Then you have learned its history from the records 1 — A. I have. 
 Q. As the representative of the company, how have you regarded the 
 
CREDIT JIOBILIEE. 437' 
 
 transactions of the Credit Mobilier ?— A. It has seemed to me that there 
 has been a technical violation of the rule of equity jurisprudence to 
 which I have referred. I have doubted whether there might not be a 
 remedy, provided inordinate prodts had been derived in the course of 
 that construction. 
 
 Q. How have you regarded it yourself as a practical business man 
 having a practical interest in the matter ? — A. It is only recently that 
 developments have been made as to the whole history of the construc- 
 tioti of the road. We have waited for such a development of the facts 
 as inight disclose to us our remedy on the one hand, or which on the 
 other might show circumstances to exonerate the parties constructing 
 the road from responsibility. 
 
 Q. What I desire is a statement of your own opinion. — A. My own 
 opinion is that some time or other, as between gentlemen sustaining the 
 technical relations to which I have referred, there might be such a 
 state of facts as to justify a court of equity in looking at the question 
 as to whether the profits were or were not unreasonable under all the 
 circumstances. 
 
 Q. You have not, then, yourself pronounced any opinion upon the 
 matter as president of the company ? — A. No ; I should not be justified 
 in saying what would be the action of the company. So far as I am 
 concerned I should endeavor to be just. I would not insist that men 
 should take such hazard as this for six, seven, or eight per cent. I do 
 not even know how much they got. I have stated my opinion of the 
 law as applicable to such enterprises. 
 
 Q. Since your official relation with the company have you known Mr. 
 Oakes Ames in connection with its affairs and as a business man 1 — A. 
 I know Oakes Ames very well ; I iirst met him in 1872. I have had 
 business relations with him since that time; he has always attended 
 the meetings of the board, and has always exhibited a very deep in- 
 terest in the affairs of the company. 
 
 Q. Are you perinitted to state your views of his action or connection 
 with the company in regard to its interests ? — A. Certainly ; I have no 
 secrets in that respect. 
 
 Q. What is your idea of his character as a business man in connection 
 with the affairs of the company ? — A. Mr. Ames is a peculiar man ; he 
 has impressed me as a thoroughly honest man, without that accuracy, 
 and without, perhaps, that peculiar culture which some men have ac- 
 quired. 
 
 Q. I ask for his general character as a business man ? — A. I think 
 very well of Mr. Ames ; I should not regard him as the most accurate 
 man ; I should not regard him as a full man in his explanations. He is, 
 not a man of many words ; I believe him to be a thoroughly honest man. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. I supposed the stockholders of the Uniou Pacific Eailroad Com- 
 pany and of the Credit Mobilier were to a large extent the same per- 
 sons ? — A. That being true might relieve the caseof diflaculty, except 
 as to the non-assenting stockholders. 
 
 Q. If, the stockholders had been identically the same there could be 
 no question as to the propriety of this proceeding! — A. No, sir; butthat 
 was not the case. 
 
 Q. I understand it to have been not absolutely the ease, but that the 
 great mass of the stockholders of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company 
 were also stockholders of the Credit Mobilier ?— A. I think they either 
 were or had the opportunity to become so. I ought to have stated that 
 
438 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 it is asserted, in behalf 'of these geutleineu, that the stockholders of the 
 Union Pacific Railroad Company who did not become stockholders of 
 the Credit Mobilier sold out their stock. • 
 
 Q. As you understand it, the stockholders of the Union Pacific Eail- 
 road were all allowed to come in aod become stockholderST of the Credit 
 Mobilier? — A. It is so alleged, and I believe it was aJia matter of fact. 
 
 Q. And the great mass of them did so ? — A. They did. 
 
 Q. So that if there was any exorbitant price i>aid for the construction 
 of the road, the profit on it was divided substantially among the stock.- 
 holders of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company itself ? — A. I am satis- 
 fied that was done. The question I have been discussing was whether 
 the present stockholders received their stock sliorn of that right, and 
 that is a view of the case which has not, I think, been presented. 
 
 Q. Have you examined so as to be able to give us any opinion as to 
 the quantity of Union Pacific stock that was not represented in the 
 Credit Mobilier? — A. From the best inquiries I have made, I supposie 
 about 20,000 shares were not. I thinlc 300,000 shares were issued. But 
 it is claimed by these gentlemen, and that ought not to be suppressed, 
 that the holders of this stock either sold it or else acquired the right to 
 participate in the contracts with the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 Q. It was one of the conditions that the stockholders should sign the 
 Oakes Ames contract in order to participate in its benefits ? — A. The 
 condition was that the dividends should only be paid to such stockhold- 
 ers of the Credit Mobilier as, being owners of the stock of the Union 
 Pacific Railroad Company, should give a i^erpetual proxy. 
 
 Q. Your first connection with the road was less than a year ago; had 
 you any knowledge at all in reference to the distribution of the stock of 
 the Credit Mobilier prior to that time '?^A. I had not. I ought to say 
 that when I purchased a large amount of stock in 1872, I knew there 
 had been a construction company, and that their profits had been large ; 
 precisely how large I did not then and do not now know. 
 
 Q. Did you know to whom that stock went ? — A. I did not. My first 
 information was derived during the late political canvass, when it was 
 published in the newspapers. I fouud it out as the public generally did 
 as one of the scandals of the day. 
 
 Ey Mr. Beooks : 
 Q. If this railroad is allowed to be conducted as other railroads are 
 what is your opinion as to its power to pay the debt it will owe the Gov, 
 ernment at the time when the second mortgage becomes due? — A- 
 With friendly relations on the part of the Government to the company, 
 and not otherwise, because it is in the power of the Government to de- 
 stroy it, as it is in the power of a State government to destroy a fran- 
 chise of its own creation — I say, assuming friendly relations with the 
 Government, with the present expectations as to lands, and as to coal- 
 lands particularly; assuming that the transportation of supplies for the 
 Government does not fall off to any great extent, I should think that 
 without some special calamity befalling the enterprise the Government 
 is secure enough. We are all astonished at the growth of settlements 
 along the road. We are carrying every year an army which guards the 
 line, the effect of which is to diminish the transportation for the (jroveru- 
 ment, except as to the mail-service, which is increasing. Under the 
 circumstances, I think there is a reasonable hope that the second mort- 
 gage of the Go\ernment is good, with friendly relations, but not other- 
 wise. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 439 
 
 By Mr. McGrABY : 
 
 Q. Suppose the statute to be construed as you construe it, not to pro- 
 hibit the holder of Union Pacific Railroad stock from acting as Govern- 
 ment director, do you think the same construction would prohibit the 
 owner of Credit Mobilier stock from acting in that capacity ? — A. I did 
 not mean to assert positively the opinion that a Government director 
 was not inhibited from holding Union Pacific Eailroad stock. I think 
 the policy and purpose of the provision of the law of 18G2 might be held 
 to apply to the law of 1864. That would be a question of construction. 
 
 Q. Suppose the law of 18G4 had expressly stated that a Government 
 director should not be the holder of Union Pacific Eailroad stock, then 
 the question is whether the spirit of that would not apply equally to 
 the Credit Mobilier ? — A. In other words, as a holder of Credit Mobilier 
 stock might acquire stock of the Union Pacific Eailroad as a dividend 
 iu the event provided for, which event did happen, the position of the 
 Government director holding Credit Mobilier stock would be attended 
 with some embarrassment. The same general rule which applies to 
 directors dealing with themselves would, of course, apply. 
 
 Q. The holder of stock in the Credit Mobilier would be equally in- 
 terested against the Government? — A. ISrot until he acquired Union 
 Pacific Eailroad stock. Of course, as the holder of Credit Mobilier 
 stock, he was engaged iu a speculation to make money out of the cou- 
 structioa of the road. 
 
 By Mr. Merrick : 
 
 Q. Do you think a Government director could be engaged in a specu- 
 lation to make money out of the construction of an enterprise in which 
 he was Government director, with propriety? — A. Perhaps not; but 
 referring, if I may do so, to his position as a member of Congress, the 
 holder of an interest either in the Credit Mobilier or the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad Company might practically be disqualified from voting in any 
 case where a direct interest ought to disqualify him. So that Mr. Ames, 
 in the distribution of this stock, practically incapacitated his friends 
 from sustaining the road in case of a Government raid upon it. 
 
 Q. That is, provided they took that view ! — A. Let me say that there 
 is no better rule of law than that there is a presumption of the correct 
 performance of oflicial duty. Whenever a question arises in which a 
 member of Congress has an interest different from that of the world at 
 large, and peculiar to himself, he will be compelled to withhold his 
 vote. 
 
 Washington, D. C, February G, 1873. 
 
 Ja*ies Brooks, recalled at his own instance, made the following 
 statement : 
 
 I desire to make a correction in my former testimony iu regard to -my 
 appointment and commission as a Government director of the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad Company. I stated that my appointment was dated 
 October 1, 1867, and that I took the oath as such on the 23d of March 
 following. Not having formally accepted the appointment, I supposed 
 it had not been renewed before I qualified for the position by 'taking the 
 oath. I depended upon the records of the Interior Department for these 
 dates. I find now that the appointment was renewed March 21, 1868. 
 Since testifying before the committee I have seen what I presume is an 
 accurate copy of the books of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company, from 
 
440 • CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 •which I find that I acted at Government director, the 2d of Jannary, 
 1868, prior to my qualification as such, and prior to taking the oath. I 
 am willing to accept the statement that I did so act January 2, 1868, as 
 correct. I repeat that the only guide I have had in regard to these 
 dates has been the records of the Department. This seems to be an 
 ofiScial record, and I accept it as such. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. It appears, by this extract from the minutes of the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad Company, that you acted ag a director at a meeting 
 held 2d of January, and at another meeting held 6th of February. — 
 Answer. I presume that is correct, and I desire so to correct and shape 
 my testimony in the conflicting dates of the Interior Department and 
 the Union Pacific Eailroad Company. 
 
 Q. These minutes also show that on the 11th of March you acted as 
 one of the inspectors of election t^A. Yes. I might have done that, I 
 presume, without having been even a director. I do not know how it is, 
 but I presume they have the right to call anybody as an inspector of 
 election. 
 
 I want, also, to make record of the fact here, so as to make the con- 
 sistency of my statement appear, that it was December 26, 1867, when 
 Mr. Neilson received his shares from Dr. Dnrant. This was prior to 
 January 2, 1868, and therefore I was perfectly accurate in stating that 
 I had no interest, direct or indirect, in the Credit Mobilier when I be- 
 came a Government director. That was the only issue in the case. I 
 want to bring these dates into consistence as much as possible', and I 
 want to impress upon the committee that I was led into the inaccuracy 
 I have referred to by the records of the Interior Department, to which 
 alone I had access when that statement was made by me. 
 
 The following papers, referred to in the above testimony, were placed 
 in evidence : 
 
 "Department op the Interior, 
 
 " Wasliington, D. C, March 21, 1868. 
 
 " Sir : I have the honor to transmit herewith a commission from the 
 President of the United States, apijointing you to be a Government 
 director of the Union Pacific Railroad Company. 
 
 " If you accept the appointment, please signify the samej and take, 
 subscribe, and return the inclosed oath to this Department. 
 " I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 "O. H. BEOWNING, 
 
 " Secretary. 
 
 " Hon. James Brooks, 
 
 " Wcic Yorl:"' 
 
 Kew York, January 2, 1868. 
 
 Pursuant to the call of Mr. Oliver Ames, president j)ro tern., the board 
 of directors of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company met this day at the 
 office of the company. Present: Messrs. Ames, Alley, Bushnell, Duff, 
 Durant, Dexter, Cook, Cisco, Glidden, McComb, Macy, Ashman, McKee, 
 Brooks, and Bardwell. 
 
 Pursuant to adjournment the board of directors of the Union Pacific 
 Eailrpad Company met this third day of January, 1868. Present: 
 Messrs. Ames, Alley, Bushnell, Bates, Dillon, Dexter, Durant, Cisco, 
 Cook, Glidden; McComb, Ashman, McKee, and Brooks. 
 
 New York, February 6, 1868. 
 Board met pursuant to call of president. Present : Messrs. Ames,. 
 
CBGDIT MOBILIEE. 441 
 
 Alley, Bushnell, Bardwell, Bates, Duff, Dillon, Dexter, Cisco, Gliddeu, 
 McComb, Ashman, McKee, Williams, and Brooks. 
 
 Mr. Ashman offered resolution that a committee of three be appointed 
 to negotiate in relation to franchise, &c., of telegraph line, and that 
 Messrs. Dillon, Bushnell, and Brooks he such committee, and that they 
 report to this board. Passed. 
 
 Extract from the minutes of the hoard of directors of the Union Pacific 
 Railroad Company at a meeting held March 11, 18G8. 
 
 Mr. John J. Cisco reported to the meeting that the board of directors 
 of the company had designated the following persons as inspectors of 
 election to i)reside at the election of directors at this meeting of stock- 
 holders, viz : John J. Cisco, John B. Alley, and James Brooks. 
 
 Mr. James Brooks, from the inspectors, reported as the result of the 
 election, that the following-named gentlemen were duly elected direct- 
 ors of the company for the ensuing year, having a majority of all the 
 votes cast, vi/ : Thomas 0. Durant, Ohver Ames, H. S. McOomb,, 
 Charles A. Lambard, John Duff, John J. Cisco, C. S. Bushnell, Josiah 
 Bardwell, John F. Tracy, Sidney Dillon, W. H. Macy, F. G. Dexter,, 
 Benjamin E. Bates, John 13. Alley, and Henry C. Crane. 
 
 State of New Tobk, 
 
 City and County of New YorJc, ss : 
 This may certify that I, Merritt A. Potter, a notary public in and for 
 said county and State, duly commissioned and sworn, and residing in 
 said city, have compared the foregoing extracts from the book of min- 
 utes of the board of directors of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company 
 with the original thereof, and that the same are true copies of said 
 original. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the- 
 fourth day of February, 1873. 
 
 M. A. POTTEE, 
 Notary Public, N. Y. Co. 
 
 Washington, D. C, February 6, 1873. 
 
 Augustus Schbll sworn, and examined by Mr. Brooks: , 
 
 Question. I want to ask you if in 1866, or the early part of 1867, I 
 came to you and desired to interest you and your associates in railroad 
 matters in the stock of the Credit Mobilier ?— Answer. Some time in 
 1867 or' 1868, you called upon me and called my attention to my becom- 
 ing interested in the Union Pacific Eailroad. 
 
 Q. What makes you think it was in 1868 1—A. I am not sure about 
 the time ; I said in" 1867 or 1868; I was over a part of the road in 1866 ;. 
 I think this was in the summer of 1867. 
 
 Q. Do you remember the substance of the conversation that occurred 
 between us 1—A. You called my attention to it as being a very impor- 
 tant enterprise, or one that gentlemen associated in railroads would find 
 it'advantageous to themselves to become connected with. You asked 
 me to examine into it, and if I thought well of it to take an interest in 
 it, and to interest those who were associated with me in other enter- 
 prises to take an interest in it. I replied that I would examine into 
 the matter, and at your suggestion I went to the office of the Union 
 Pacific Eailroad Company in New York, and had an interview with Dr. 
 Durant, who was at the head of the enterprise. He explained to me 
 the condition of the affairs of the company and the arrangements for 
 
442 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 the construction of the road. I reflected upon the matter and declined 
 to interest myself in it. 
 
 Q. Have you any objection to stating the general reasons why you 
 declined to enter into it 1 — A. It was a great enterprise, involving very 
 large amounts of money, and although the profits and advantages 
 seemed to be desirable, yet I was unwilling to embark my own money in 
 it and take the risk incident upon so large an enterprise. 
 
 Q. With some few exceptions, did any of the capitalists of New York 
 come into it at that time 1 — A. Very few with whom I was associated, 
 
 Q. Did it or not seem to be too hazardous an exterprise to put money 
 in it °? — A. It seemed to me the risk would be very great for the profits 
 and advantages which were to be derived from it. ] 
 
 Q. Do you recollect anything about the value of the stock at that 
 time ; would you have gone into the Credit Mobilier at par or not at 
 that time ? — A. I do not know that it was dealt into any considerable 
 extent in the market. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Did you understand from Mr. Brooks whether he was a stockholder 
 or not ? — A. I did not. 
 
 Q. Did you understand that Mr. Brooks was acting in behalf of this 
 Credit Mobilier corporation ? — A. I understood tliat he was a friend of 
 the enterprise. 
 
 Q. Did you know at that time that the stock of the company was re- 
 garded as very valuable, and was selling at very much above par"? — A. 
 No, sir ; I never had ajiy interest in it, and did not watch it at all. 
 
 Q. You knew •nothing in relation to the ppce of the stock at any 
 time f — A. No, sir. 
 
 Washington, D. C, February C, 1873. 
 Jambs B. Beck, a member of the United States House of Eepresent- 
 atives from the State of Kentucky, sworn, and examined by Mr. Brooks: 
 
 Question. Having been charged by Mr. McComb with receiving fifty 
 shares of Credit Mobilier stock for the purpose of bribing or influenc- 
 ing members of Congress, my first inclination was to call the entire on® 
 hundred democratic members on that subject ; 1 thought that would in- 
 cumber the record too much, and therefore I have called two who have 
 been in oflicial relations with this Union Pacific Eailroad question, Mr. 
 Voorhees, a member of the Pacific Eailroad Committee, and Mr. Beck, a 
 member of the committee of conference in which this matter of interest 
 was decided. I wish to ask whether I have had any conversation with 
 you at any time in regard to the Union Pacific Eailroad when any matter 
 affecting its interest was before Congress for adjudication? — Answer. 
 When 1 was summoned a few moments ago to appear before this com- 
 mittee, I could not imagine what the purpose was. I have been en 
 terms of intimacy with Mr. Brooks for several years. We served 
 together during one Congress upon the Committee on Eeconstruction, 
 and were very intimate, especially because in the Fortieth Congress I, 
 with the other Kentucky men, had put our cases in his charge when 
 we ourselves were kept out six months because of some doubt as to 
 our loyalty ; and during all the time I have been in Congress our rela- 
 tions have been more than usually intimate. I have no recollection 
 that Mr. Brooks ever spoke to me on the subject of the interests 
 of the Union Pacific Eailroad in Congress at any time, in any shape or 
 
CKEDIT MOBILIER. 443 
 
 form, directly or indirectly. The question in regard to the payment of 
 interest was brought before the Committee on Appropriations, by, I 
 think, Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. A very full discussion of the legal ques- 
 tions involved in relation to it took place in that committee, and my rec- 
 ollection is that, aftei' a full investigation, I, with a majority of the com- 
 mittee, came to the conclusiou that the law was in favor of the railroads. 
 I knew nothing about the Credit Mobilier, and had no idea there was any 
 question of this sort involved in it. The question was simply discussed 
 as to the rights of parties under the law of 1862 as modified by the law 
 of 1864, to wit, whether it gave the Secretary of the Treasury the right 
 to collect more than one-half the transportation over the Pacific Rail- 
 roads. I know I was very anxious that the United States should sue the 
 companies, and so test the legal question. I had not much faith in Mr. 
 Akerman's opinion ; I did not thiuk it was sound law ; and upon a full 
 investigation of the subject, the committee came to that conclusion. I 
 did not want this question to come up ou an appropriation bill, and I 
 preferred that it should be discussed ou its own merits and in connec- 
 tion with no other question. . The question was reported on and decided, 
 iu spite of my protest, when the conference report was adopted, as you 
 know, and so far as Mr. Brooks was concerned, I have not the slightest 
 recollection that he ever mentioned the matter to me in any shape or 
 form. 
 
 Washington, J). C, February C, 1873. 
 
 Daniel W. Vooehmes, a member of the United States House of 
 Representatives from Indiana, sworn, and examined by Mr. Brooks : 
 
 Question. Were you a member of the Pacific Railroad Committee 
 during the Fortj'-first Congress ? — Answei'. Yes, sir.^ 
 
 Q. Did. you have questions before you often affecting the interests of 
 the Union Pacific Railroad and the Central Pacific Railroad Companies, 
 and their various branches 1 — A. We had ; at least I so understood. I 
 remember more distinctly than anything else the question which arose 
 in regard to the junction between the Union Pacific and the Central 
 Pacific at or near Ogden, in which there was quite a spirited contro- 
 versy before us between the two roads. 
 
 Q.' Did I ever appear before that committee to advocate, as member 
 of Congress, in any way or manner, the interests of the Union Pacific 
 Railroad f — A. I will state to the committee that during that Congress 
 my relations with Mr. Brooks were quite intimate ; we were democrats 
 together on the same side of the House ; he never spoke to me on the 
 subject of the Union Pacific Railroad ; he never came before that com- 
 mittee, so far as I have any I'ecollection ; and he never approached me or 
 spoke to me in any way on the subject. 
 
 Washington, D. C, February 11, 1873. 
 
 The Chaikman stated that Mr. Oakes Ames had been notified to be 
 
 present this morning for further examination ; as he had not yet reached 
 
 the committee-room, and Mr. Colfax was present, if he had any further 
 
 statement to make or testimony to adduce the committee were ready to 
 
 hear it. , , , 
 
 Mr. Robert S. Hale stated in behalf of Mr. Colfax that he deemed 
 
444 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 it due to Lim that the testimony of Mr. Ames in relation to him, which 
 was now incomplete, should be completed, and the original memoranda 
 referred to by him be produced, before Mr. Colfax should adduce any 
 testimony. 
 
 The Chairman said the committee would delay further proceedings 
 until Mr. Ames's arrival. 
 
 Ee-examination of Oakes Ames. 
 
 Mr. Ames subsequently appeared and was examined as follows : 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Have you the original of the memorauda that you produced 
 before the committee iu your former examination ? — Answer. 1 have it ; 
 but I understand there is evidence to be put in to impeach my testimony 
 in relation to Mr. Colfax, and my friends say I should have that in and 
 know what to reply to before I produce my book. 
 
 The Chairman. The committee- think yoiir evideuce cannot be con- 
 sidered as complete with only copies of your memoranda before them. 
 These copies cannot be considered strictly as legal evidence at all. Tke 
 originals ought to be produced, not only in relation to Mr. Colfax but 
 all the others concerning whom you have testified from memoranda, and 
 the committee think they should be produced now. 
 
 Witness. I have left my book with a friend, who has legal knowledge 
 in the matter, to examine. 
 
 The Chairman. You will please send for it. The committee must be 
 guided by their own judgment as to the course they should legally 
 pursue. 
 
 Witness. My advisers say I should have the testimony of Mr. Colfax 
 before I should be called on to produce the book. 
 
 The Chairman. The committee are so unfortunate as to differ with 
 that gentleman, whoever he may be, and they direct that you send for 
 the book, or the coiiimittee will send for it if you will tell them whom to 
 send to. 
 
 Witness. Horace F. Clark has the book, at the Arlington Hotel. 
 
 (A messenger was therefore dispatched to the Arlington with an order 
 from Mr. Ames to bring the book referred to.) , 
 
 Q. Have you the originals of any of the others of these memoranda 
 now with you"? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. The committee want the originals of all the copies you have given 
 them, and they will go. on with such as you have. — A. I have not much 
 in the books I have here. Mr. Clark has the book for 1868, which con- 
 tains most of the entries I have referred to. 
 
 Q. Do those you have here contain the original of any of the entries 
 of which you have given the committee copies ? — A. I do not recollect 
 whether 1 gave you copies or not. I have tried to get the printed testi- 
 mony in this case. I seut to the Printing-Ofiice twice for it, but was un- 
 able to get it. I would like to have an opportunity of looking over the 
 printed testimony, and of seeing what has been testified to before going 
 on with my testimony. I think it is important that I should have it. 
 The book I have here contains three entries relating to this matter. 
 One is that on May 10, 1867, I sold Gamaliel Bradford one hundred 
 shares Credit ^lobilier stock, giving him a discount of 5 per cent., mak- 
 ing it 95. There is another entry, which is different from what I sup- 
 posed when I gave my testimony ; I find that Mr. Patterson x>aid me 
 $3,000 for Credit Mobilier stock on the 31st of August, 1867. My mem- 
 cry when I testified was, that it was in the December following. That 
 is what there is on this book relating to this matter. It is a private 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 445 
 
 memorauduin-book, and relates to a great many of my private transac- 
 l^ops. i desire, therefore, that the committee will retain it in their own 
 pxjssession and not allow others access to it. 
 
 The book referred to was handed to the chairman, who, after exam- 
 ination, read the following entries : 
 
 Satukday, August 31, 18G7. 
 
 J. W. Patterson, credit by check for 0. M. of A $3, 000 00 
 
 May 4, 1867. 
 
 Sold G. Bradford 100 C. M. at par , . $10 000 00 
 
 Interest to Ms^y 4 ' gi qt 
 
 Less 5 per cent, commission 500 00 
 
 9, 561 67 
 
 Q. Did you make these entries at the time '—A. Yes, sir ; these are 
 the only two. entries in this book that relate to this matter in anv way. 
 
 Q. Have yon looked it all through to ascertain that fact ?— A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. These items you have given us are all that relate to this matter in 
 any way ?— A. Yes, sir ; the book of 1868 contains most of tke memo- 
 randa I have testified to. 
 
 The memorandum-book referred to was subsequently brought to the 
 committee-room by Horace F. Clark, who, with the permission of the 
 committee, acted as counsel for Mr. Ames, on his examination as to the 
 entries in the memorandum-book of 1868. 
 
 Mr. Claek. I wish, if the committee will allow me, to ask at whose 
 instance this memorandum-book was called out in evidence. 
 
 The Ohaiemaw. At the instance of the committee. I gave Mr. Ames 
 notice, verbally, to produce the book before he went home for the Christ- 
 mas holidays, but he seemed to think that copies would answer as well, 
 and I subsequently gave him written notice to produce the original 
 rnenLoranda. 
 
 Mr. Claek. If the chairman will permit me to say a few words, 
 I will state the circumstances under which I appear as counsel for 
 Mr. Ames on this examination to-day. I may say that friendly 
 relations have existed between Mr. Ames and myself, but there have 
 been no professional relations between us, and with respect to the mat- 
 ter of the Credit Mobilier we are in adverse relations and interests. 
 Mv- -4oies said to ine that he would regard it as a favor if I would 
 advise him as to his legal rights and duties touching the production of 
 the memorandum-book, which I now have in my hand, and which I 
 produce and now deliver to him in the presence of the committee. I 
 bavp given some consideration to the subject, and if the committee will 
 grant me a few moments' indulgence I will give to Mr. Ames, in the 
 presence of the committee, the advice which I think I ought to give him 
 iipon the request he has made. This memorandum-book was, as I am 
 informed, referred to by Mr. Ames, or rather extracts from it produced 
 before the committee, were referred to by Mr. Ames for the purpose- of 
 refreshing his recollection as to the circumstances in respect of which 
 the committee saw fit to make inquiries. I have to say to him that in 
 my opinion this memorandum-book is not evidence per se. It cannot 
 speak irrespective of him. Produced, examined, and read, it would not 
 
446 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 afford even prima-fade or presumptive eyidence of the tnitli of its en- 
 tries. But he has produced alleged extracts from it, or certain state- 
 ments which he alleges embody the substance of extracts from it, for 
 the purpose of refreshing his recollection. Inasmuch, therefore, as this 
 memorandum-book and its entries are evidence standing alone, I think 
 it is his private property. You will find, if you examine it, that it has 
 referenpe to transactions having no relation whatever to the subject- 
 matter of your inquiry. It embraces transactions with other parties not 
 members of Congress, but private citizens, residing in various States, 
 and is, for the most part, a memorandum in respect of transactions with 
 which you have no concern, and which are not in anywise material or 
 pertinent to the subject-matter of your inquiry; and I may add the ex- 
 pression of my opinion that you would not be at liberty to institute in- 
 quiries in relatioil to these transactions under the order of the House, 
 by virtue of which you are empowered. 
 
 This being but a memorandum made by the witness, (and you may 
 assume it to have been made contemporaneously,) by which he has re- 
 freshed his recollection, it seems to me that, under the well-settled laws 
 of evidence, it cannot be used except for the purpose of impeachment of 
 the witness. It cannot be used, I think, in corroboration of any state- 
 ment he has made or may make. As I understand the rule of evidence, 
 the adverse party to the witness'who has made the memorandum which 
 refreshes his recollection can use it for the purpose of impeaching the 
 witness in respect of his statement. If, referring to his memorandum, 
 he alleges a particular transaction, and states that his recollection of it 
 is refreshed by it, I suppose the adverse party, if he can get hold of that 
 memorandum, can use it for the purpose of impeachment, but not for 
 the purpose of corroboration. 
 
 The book is Mr. Ames's private property, and in respect of its custody, 
 and in respect of any developments not material to your inquirj^, which, 
 might result from its exhibition, he is protected by law against any un- 
 reasonable search. I think no court would require a witness to pro- 
 duce his private papers for the purpose of showing whether a statement 
 he has made is true or untrue ; but the adverse party to him, if he pro- 
 duces it, may refer to it for the purpose of showing that the statement 
 he has made is not sustained by the memorandum by which he has re- 
 freshed his recollection. 
 
 Now, this book was not before the committee when Mr. Ames gave 
 his testimony, and that testimony stands or falls irrespective of the 
 memorandum. I think, therefore, the committee cannot require him to 
 produce these memoranda for the purposes of corroboration without dis- 
 regarding those rules of evidence which human experience has shown 
 are best calculated to elicit the truth. I think it is only by the 
 voluntary action of Mr. Ames that you can enforce the production of 
 this book. 
 
 But there are considerations connected with this case — and, Mr, 
 Ames, I wish you to understand that this is my advice to you — which 
 take it out of the ordinary course of judicial proceeding, and which in- 
 cline me to advise you to withhold no fact which the committee may deem; 
 material to the investigation they are authorized to make, 
 
 I have to advise you, Mr. Ames, that if the Vice-President, or any 
 other gentleman whose name has been connected with these transactions,, 
 or whose name may rightfully be connected with these investigations, de- 
 sires that this memorandum-book may be produced for the purpose of 
 impeachment of any statement you may make, or for the purpose of 
 corroboration of any statement he has made or may make, I would 'ad- 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 447 
 
 vise you to produce all that part of it -which relates to any such indi- 
 vidual, or to any transaction with which his name may be associated. 
 
 I understand that collateral issues have arisen in the course of the 
 investigation, and that this memorandum-book bears upon such col- 
 lateral issues rather than upon the main issue. The main question sub- 
 mitted to you for inquiry by the House was, if I mistake not, as to the 
 ownership of stock in the Credit Mobilier by members of Congress. 
 I think that is the point of the investigation, and that the particular 
 examinations In respect of which reference is sought to be had to this 
 book bears upon the question whether there has or has not been pre- 
 varication upon the part of gentlemen whose names have been associated 
 with these transactions. 
 
 l^Tow, I have examined this memorandum-book and am able to say that 
 the great bulk of it relates to matters utterly foreign to this inquiry ; 
 but I would advise Mr. Ames that he should produce it for the private 
 inspection of the committee, feeling satisfied that they have no desire 
 to indulge any prurient taste on the part of the public ; that they are not 
 inclined to enlarge the area of scandal and calumny which has already 
 attended the investigation of this case ; and I would suggest to him that 
 at the request of any of the gentlemen whose names have been asso- 
 ciated with the Credit Mobilier transaction lie should furnish a sworn 
 copy of any entry relating to them which may tend to the ascertain- 
 ment of the real truth. Mr. Ames is here as a witness, aud has cer- 
 tainly not lost all his rights because of his being a member of the hon- 
 orable body to which you, gentlemen of the committee, belong. He is 
 protected by that bill of rights which was intended to protect as well 
 the right of private papers as the right of home, and he ought not to be 
 forced to spread in detail all his private transactions for the past few 
 years before the public, which seems to me are looking rather for 
 calumny than for truth. 
 
 I now return to Mr. Ames the book, advising him that he oug^t to 
 withhold from the committee no evidence which bears upon the case of 
 any one of the gentlemen whose names are connected with these trans- 
 actions, but that when he goes beyond and exposes through the press, 
 or otherwise, his transactions with other j)arties, who have never had 
 any relations with Congress, he surrenders rights as a private citizen, 
 which, it seems to me, he ought not to surrender except to superior 
 force. 
 
 The Chairman. The committee do not entertain precisely the same 
 view of the law of evidence that has been expressed. I understand that 
 ' when a question arises between two men, one of whom claims to have 
 paid a sum of money to the other, that the man claiming to have made 
 the payment, if^ he has made an entry in some book contemporaneous 
 with the transaction itself, 'may produce that entry, and it will be re- 
 ceived as the strongest kind of corroborative testimony. The committee 
 think that such a memorandum is admissible, not only for the purpose 
 of impeachment, but for the purpose of corroborating the statement of 
 the witness himself, aud that it is very strong competent evidence to 
 that end. 
 
 Mr. Clark. Does the committee take the ground that Mr. Ames could 
 produce this book for the purpose of corroborating his own evidence ? 
 
 The Chairman. Certainly ; that is well settled in the law of evidence, 
 as 1 understand it. In a suit for the recovery of money, if the party 
 produce his memorandum-book, and it appears upon its face that the 
 entries were fairly made in due course of business, these entries would 
 be strongly corroborative of his testimony. 
 
448 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Mr. Claek. Tlie entries made in books kept in tbe ordinary course of 
 business would be received as evidence ^^er se, but I think there is no 
 such rule in regard to a private memorandum. 
 
 The Chairman stated that the rule was extended in the case of a 
 congressional investigation, and that the committee had decided the 
 memorandum-book in question must be produced. 
 
 Mr. Clark stated that Mr. Ames had exhibited no reluctance to pro- 
 ducing the book, but that he had advised him that he owed it to the 
 public interest not to extend the range of scandal beyond what had 
 already grown out of this investigation, by exhibiting, unless for the 
 private inspection of the committee, the entire book, with all its entries 
 of private matters having no relation to this inquiry, unless compelled 
 to do so by the superior power of the House. 
 
 Mr. Ames thereupon produced the memorandum-book in question, 
 and was directed to read the first entry he found relating to any of the 
 persons named. 
 
 Witness. The first entry I find is the following : 
 
 1868. 
 
 Tuesday, January lUh. 
 
 Henry Wilson, cr. for cash on act. of C. M. of A , 70 00 
 
 I will say that I had several other matters with Mr. Wilson, which 
 are referr^^d to in this book, and which do not relate to the Credit 
 Mobilier at all. 
 The next entry I find referring to Mr. Wilson is the following : 
 
 1868. 
 
 Monday, February 10th. 
 For $1,600 bonds. 
 
 Paid H. Wilson 548 00 
 
 In Scofield check 195 33 
 
 D. P. R. E. check 308 72 
 
 Sergt.-of-Arms 44 00 
 
 548 05 
 
 Mr. Clark stated that he was informed by the witness that these 
 memoranda were not in every instance made at the time, but that they 
 referred back to the true dates of the transactions. 
 
 By the CHiilRMAN : 
 
 Q. Do you remember anything in relation to this entry, except what 
 appears upon the face of the entry itself? — A. No, sir ; I do not. 
 
 Q. These various items go to make up the sum of $548 ? — A. Yes ; 
 these items are correct. 
 
 Q. The amount seems to be made ui) of three items": Scofield check. 
 Union Pacific Eailroad check, and check on the Sergeant-at-Arms ? — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do these items refresh your recollection so that you are able to 
 state whether this sum which you paid him was a dividend on the Credit 
 Mobilier stock 1 — A. No, sir, I cannot remember ; 1 might ascertain by 
 looking further at the book. (After examination.) I think that must 
 have been on this transaction. It is for $1,600 of bonds. 
 
 Q. You suppose that $1,600 to be a dividend on 20 shares ? — A. I 
 think so. Schofield's check was a check which he gave me for $195.33 in 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIER. 449 
 
 settlement of this bond dividend. He took the bond and gave me a 
 check for that amount. 
 
 Q. Is that Mr. Scofield of the House ?— A. Tes, sir ; and this amount 
 is transferred to his account. 
 
 Q. You suppose that transaction to have been at the time ? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. And you suppose this entry to have been made at the time ?— A. 
 Yes, sir ; under date of March 5, I find an entry of a transaction with 
 Mr. Henry Wilson, which refers to a Cedar Eapids bond, and has noth- 
 ing to do with the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 The Chairman. You need not read that. 
 
 Witness. Under date of June 22 I find the following entry : 
 
 1868. 
 
 Monday, June 23. 
 Hon. Henrv Wilson. 
 
 By div. from"!!. P. R. E • 1, 200 
 
 Cash 223 00 
 
 10. E. & M. R. bd 950 
 
 Intst. from Feb. 1 27 1,200 
 
 Bond to be ded. 
 Check on Bk. of Commerce 223 
 
 Q. Have you any further memoranda in reference to Mr. Wilson ? — 
 A. I think there is no other. 
 
 Q. Have you anything to state in reference to the final settlement of 
 this transaction with Mr. Wilson difierent from your former testimony ? — 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Now turn to the earliest memoranda you have in reference to any 
 one of the other persons named ? — A. I find, under the date of January 
 11, 1868, the following : 
 
 1868. 
 
 Saturday, January 11. 
 Eecd. of Hon. H. L. Dawes. 
 Cash on acct. of stock in 0. M. of A. 
 $800, Jany. 11th. 
 235 " 14th. $1,035. 
 
 Q. That was the par value of 10 shares of stock with interest upon 
 it up to that time, and these sums paid by him to you were for the 
 10 shares of stock ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you any further entries in relation to Mr. Dawes ? — A, I 
 presume ^o. 
 
 Mr. Claek. Do I understand the committee to claim the right to ex- 
 amine every memorandum relating to this matter on this book, whether 
 it has been referred to in testimony or not, and whether it is asked for 
 or not, either for the purpose of the impeachment of Mr. Ames, or for 
 the purpose of corroboration 1 
 
 The Chairman. Certainly. We are not trying a case between any- 
 body. This is a proceeding in rem., if I may so express it. It is more iu 
 the nature of an inquisition than a trial. 
 
 Mr. NiBLACK suggested that the circumstances under which the 
 transaction took place were the most important part of the transaction. 
 
 WiTiiiESS. There is the check on the Sergeant-at-Arms given to Mr. 
 Dawes ; there is also in the cash account the entry, " Henry L. Dawes, 
 by cash $1,035." 
 
 Q. That is the $1,035 you have before referred to ?— A. That is the 
 
 29 X 
 
450 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 $1,035 before referred to. The entire entry to whicli I refer is a state- 
 ment of the whole transaction as it then stood, as follows : 
 
 by Cash .>>s^. . .^^^-^ 1, 035 
 
 by am't due o^^jb^ud 195 ii3 
 
 to bond ^^,-lfOOO\. 
 
 G.u ^-^rCT 1, 000 \. 
 
 u. p ^.^.=<rT..-.'. 1,000 \. 
 
 Q. Can you state when this entry was made 1—A. That was made, I 
 suppose, previous to the June dividend, as the June dividend does not 
 ap])ear there. This was a statement of accounts as they stood after 
 deducting the bond dividends. 
 
 Q. The entry " by cash $1,035," as I understand, is the amount he 
 paid for ten shares of stock"? — A.' Yes, sir; instead of my selling the 
 bond for him he took the bond itself for the 80 per cent., and paid me 
 the difference. 
 
 Q. That was equivalent to taking his 80 per cent, dividend in bonds ? — 
 A. Yes sir. 
 
 Q. Then this entry says, " to bond- 1,000." — A. That is the bond he 
 paid for. 
 
 Q. That is intended to signify the same transaction ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. The next entry is " C. M. 1,000."— A. That is the stock he paid 
 for. 
 
 Q. The next is "U. P. 1,000."— A. That was. the dividend he was 
 entitled to in the Union Pacific Kailroad stock. 
 
 Q. I see it printed at the toi) of this page " cash account, March." — 
 A. That does not signify anything. This was a vacant page that did 
 not come into my records, and I made my memorandum there for the 
 purpose of convenience. 
 
 Q. The fact that the heading is printed March is no indication that 
 it was in March ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. On the contrary you think this entry was made before June 1 — A. 
 Yes, sir ; because it does not embrace the cash dividend for June ; it only 
 shows what he was entitled to then. 
 
 Q. Is there any further entry in reference to Mr. Dawes 1 — A. Noth- 
 ing further except that I gave him a check on the Sergeant-at-Arms for 
 $600, in payment of his dividend in June, 1868. That you will iind 
 with the Sergeaut-at-Arms. 
 
 Q. Your book shows no entry of that? — A. I have no entrjj of that. 
 
 Q. At the top of the page containing these cash entries of dividends, 
 the date is printed Saturday, January 2, 1869. — A. This book runs a 
 day or two over into the next year. The date has nothing to do with 
 the entry. This is simply an account of the transactions between my- 
 self and the different individuals who were entitled to receive their 
 dividends. This was the list of names. The following is the entry 
 referred to : 
 
 1868. 
 
 Satitrdat, January 2, 1869. 
 
 H. L. Dawes , X 600 
 
 Scofleld X 600 
 
 Patterson X 1, 800 
 
 Painter X 1,800 
 
 Wilson X 1. 200 
 
' CREDIT MOBILIEE. ' 451 
 
 Colfax ^ 1^ 200 
 
 Bingham ^ 1^200 
 
 Allison X 600 
 
 Kelley x 329 
 
 Wilson X 329 
 
 Garfield : x 329 
 
 Q. You put down in this list what was to be paid to these men ; it is 
 not an entry of the payment you had actually made ! — A. It is a list of 
 payments to be made and which were made in different ways, some iu 
 one way and some in another. 
 
 Q. Is there anything further in that book in regard to your dealings 
 with Mr. Dawes, in reference to these 10 shares of stock f — A. Ifo, sir, 
 I do not think there is. 
 
 Q. Having examined the sevarious entries in your memorandum-book, 
 have you any alteration to make in your statement before made as to 
 the ultimate terms of settlement, or as to the time when you settled 
 with Mr. Dawes and took the stock back 1 — A. ISo, sir, none whatever. 
 
 Q. Now state the nexb entry you have in regard to any one of the 
 others whose names have been mentioned. — A. I find the following in 
 regard to Mr. Colfax : 
 
 1868. 
 
 Thuesday, March 5. 
 
 Eec'd of Schuyler Colfax check balance 534 72 
 
 Q. You made this entry? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You think it was made at this date ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You have already stated in your testimony that, after applying 
 the proceeds of the sale of the 80 per cent, bond dividend to the par- 
 chase of the stock, it left a balance due you of $534.73, which Mr. Oolfax 
 paid you ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. "And this is the entry of it ? — A. This is the entry. My next entry 
 in regard to Mr. Colfax is the check of the Sergeant-at-Arms for $1,200. 
 
 Q. In this list, before referred to under the printed date of January 
 2, 1869, Mr. Colfax's name appears with $1,200 opposite. This list, I 
 understand you, shows the amount these parties were entitled to from 
 the cash dividend you received iu June? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You put down this list, as you say, to show what you were to pay 
 to each one whose name appears on it 'I — A. Yes, sir; it shows the par- 
 ties to whom I was responsible for the GO per cent, dividend of June 
 and which I was to pay. 
 
 Q. This entry is, " S. Colfax, $1,200."— A. Yes, sir. The next entry 
 in regard to Mr, Oolfax is the following, which is a general statement, 
 such as I made out in each case : 
 
 Oolfax : 
 
 20 shares Credit M. cost 2, 000 00 
 
 7 mos. 10 days' int'st 86 72 
 
 2,086 72 
 Less 80 pr. ct. bds. at 97 "---•- 1, 552 00 
 
 Paid, March 5 634 72 
 
 2, 000 U. P. stock. 
 2, 000 0. M. stock. 
 
 Q. When was this entry made ?— A. It was made previous to Jane. 
 It was made after I had received the bond dividend, and shows the 
 condition of the account after receiving that dividend. 
 
452 ■ CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. You made up a statement with each of these individuals and put 
 it down in j'our book ? — A. Tes, sir. Here is the original statement 
 which I found among my papers, and which was shown to each man. 
 (Paper handed to chairman.) 
 
 Q. This is a calculation you made out, showing how you stood with 
 any man having 30 shares, or 20 shares, or 10 shares ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 The paper referred to is as follows : 
 
 30 shares of Credit Mobilier, at 100 3,000 
 
 7 mos. 10 days' int'st, at 7 pr. ct 130 08 
 
 3,130 08 
 
 Less div. in bonds, 80 pr. ct 2, 400 
 
 Less 3 pr. ct 72 2, 328 00 
 
 802. 08 
 $3, 000 or 30 shares U. JP. E. Ed. 
 3, 000 or 30 shares Credit Mobilier. 
 
 20 shares Credit Mobilier 2, 000 
 
 7 mos. 10 days' int'st 86 72 
 
 2,086 72 
 
 Div. in bonds, 80 pr. ct 1, 600 
 
 Less dis. 3 pr. ct 48 00 
 
 1,552 00 
 
 1, 552 00 
 
 534 72 
 
 10 shares of Credit Mobilier of America 1, 000 
 
 7 mos. 10 days' int'st 43 36 
 
 1, 043 36 
 
 80 pr. ct. div. in bonds 800 
 
 Less discount of 3 pr. ct 24 00 776 
 
 267 36 
 10 shares 1, 000 U. P. E. stock, 1, 000. 
 10 Credit Mobilier stock, 1, 000. 
 
 Q. This is a calculation you made up before you made any of the 
 entries in this book? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And bj reference to it, if a man had thirty shares you could state 
 his account without making a separate calculation. If he had twenty 
 shares you could state his account, and if he had ten shares you could 
 state his account ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. This was not made out with reference to the account of any par- 
 ticular individual ? — A. ISo, sir, but it shows the account of any one 
 having ten, twenty, or thirty shares. It was a formula made for that 
 purpose. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether you showed that paper to any one of these 
 gentlemen 1 — A. I showed it or a copy of it. I think I made up a little 
 statement for each man, or at least that I did it generally. 
 
 Q. Have you any other entry on that book referring to Mr. Colfax 1 — 
 A. Nothing except the $1,200 check on the Sergeant-at-Arms. 
 
 Q. I notice that opposite each of the names on this list with the 
 printed heading of January 2, 1869, you have put a little cross or check ; 
 what does that signify °>.—A. That the amount was paid. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 453 
 
 Q, You put that cross or check opposite Mr. Colfax's name when you 
 made a settlement with him 1 — A. Yes, sir, I did. 
 
 Mr. Clark suggested that on the next page of the memorandum- 
 book would be found the same names, with statement of accounts, some 
 of which are and others are not crossed off, the explanation of which is 
 that in some cases there had been no final settlement with the parties. 
 
 Q. Where you made out a statement of the account of each man I 
 
 notice that some of them are marked across the entire account ; that 
 
 indicates, as I understand, that the transaction is closed, and where the 
 
 account is not so crossed out the indication is that it has not been finally 
 
 . closed 1 — A. Y es, sir ; that is the explanation of it. 
 
 Q. This account with Mr. Colfax which I have read is not crossed 
 oflf?— A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you any further entry on this book of dealings with Mr. 
 Colfax? — A. I have this. (Handing to chairman.) The entry referred to 
 is as follows : 
 
 1868. 
 
 Sunday, June 31. 
 
 Checks on commerce, deposited with Sergeant-at-Arms 10, 000 
 
 P'd S. Colfax ; 1, 200 00 
 
 " James F. Wilson 329 00 
 
 " H. L. Dawes 600 
 
 " William B. Allison 600 
 
 " G. W. Scofield ; 600 
 
 '' J.W.Patterson 1,800 
 
 " John A. Logan 329 
 
 " James A. Garfield 329 
 
 " William D. KeUey 329 
 
 " Henry Wilson 1, 200 
 
 " .John A. Bingham 1, 200 
 
 Q. This entry, " Paid S. Colfax $1,200," is the amount which you paid 
 by this check on the Sergeant-at-Arms ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Was this entry upon this page of these various names intended 
 to show the amount you were to pay or that you had paid ; was that 
 made at this date 1 — A. I do not know ; it was made about that time. 
 I would not have written it on Sunday ; it is not very likely. It was 
 made on a blank page. It is simply a list of names. 
 
 Q. Were these names put down after you had made the payments or 
 before, do you think ? — A. Before, I think. 
 
 Q. You thinlj you made this list before the parties referred to had 
 actually received their checks, or received the money ? — A. Yes, sir ; 
 that was to show whom I had to pay, and who were entitled to receive 
 the 60 per cent, dividend. It shows whom I had to pay here in Wash- 
 ington 
 
 Q. It says " paid."— A. Yes, sir ; well, I did pay it. 
 
 Q. What I want to know is, whether the list was made out before or 
 after payment?— A. About the same time, I suppose; probably before. 
 
 Q. Have you any entry in this book or any other book in reference 
 to Mr. Colfax? — A. I have one of a later date in another book which I 
 will- show you when you have got through this. 
 
 The Chairman. You will please produce it now. 
 
 Mr. Clark said that Mr. Ames was of opinion he should not be 
 compelled to bring forward, one by one, his corroborations in respect to 
 each individual. He desired, before producing this other book, to know 
 what Mr. Colfax himself says, so that he might be able to apply the cor- 
 
454 CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 roboratiug circumstances from entries in the book as they should be 
 required. 
 
 The Chairman said the committee required the book referred to to 
 be produced at this time. 
 
 (Book produced by witness.) 
 
 Q. Thisds the memorandum-book you kept for 1869 ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. The entry to which you direct attention is — 
 
 " Friday, January 22, 1869. 
 
 " Paid S. Colfax $60.75 for interest on $1,500, certificate of U. P. E. E." 
 You made this entry ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you think it was made on that day ? — A. I thiuk the entry was 
 made on that day, and I presume the payment was. 
 
 Q. What were these certificates of the Union Pacific Eailroad ? — A. 
 The trustees of the Oakes Ames contract made a dividend of 75 per 
 cent, first-mortgage bonds. They did ilot have the bonds, and never had 
 them. This was, I think, m July, 1868. On the January following they 
 paid the interest on the certificates the same as they would liave done 
 on the bonds. Mr. Colfax was entitled to the interest on $1,500, the 
 same as if the bonds themselves had actually been divided. I collected 
 the interest' and paid it to Mr. Colfax. 
 
 Q. The certificate itself was a dividend on the Credit Mobilier stock? — 
 A. Yes, sir; or rather a dividend On the Oakes Ames contract. The two 
 seemed to get mixed up. 
 
 Q. The interest on that certificate was $60.75, which was due Mr. 
 Colfax, and you paid it to him ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And you think the payment was made on this day ? — A. I think 
 so. 
 
 Q. Do you remember that it was so paid ? — A. It was paid here in 
 Washington. 
 
 Q. In what way ? — A. In money. 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection as to whether it was by check or cash ? — 
 A. It was cash. They were small items. I made a list of these gentle- 
 men's names, and the amounts they were entitled to, the amount of in- 
 terest each one was entitled to on these certificates. I did that on a slip 
 of paper; and I paid them all off in that way. It was a small slip of 
 paper. The amount twenty shares was entitled to was $60 and odd cents. 
 The amount thirty shares was entitled to was $90, and so on. 
 
 Q. That amount you paid to Mr. Colfax ? — A. I did. 
 
 Q. And you entered it upon this book at the time of payment? — A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you any further entry in any book in regard to Mr. Colfax ? 
 — A. I have not looked over them very carefully. I do not think there 
 is any other for Mr. Colfax. 
 
 Q. Have you been able to find any receipt signed by Mr. Colfax for 
 money you paid him ! — A. I have not looked very particularly. 
 
 Q. Have you been able to find any receipt signed by Mr. Colfax ? — A. 
 I am having my papers looked over to see if I can find anything. 
 
 Q. You have not found anything yet ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You think the memoranda you have given us are all you have seen 
 on your books ? — A. They are all I can find on the books. 
 
 Mr. Clark inquired whether the committee desired the entries in this 
 book in reference to parties whea there was no discrepancy of statement 
 between them and Mr. Ames. 
 
 The Chairman replied that the committee did not feel absolutely 
 certain even when Mr. Ames and the parties themselves agreed. They 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 455 
 
 wanted all the memoranda Mr. Ames had in regard to these trans- 
 actions. 
 
 Witness next produced the folIo\^;ing entry from his memorandum- 
 book : 
 
 1868. 
 
 Wednesday, January 29. 
 Eec'd of Glenui W. Scofield, check on Serg't-of-Arms . 708 50 
 
 10 coupons, 350 East 350 
 
 Less5p'rc't ;;.".■; 17 50 33250 
 
 1,041 GO 
 
 to be invested in 10 shares of the Credit Mobilier of America, as trustee 
 by me. No. 346. 
 
 Q. This transaction was the payment by Mr. Scofleld for 10 shares 
 of stock ?— A. Yes, sir. I was to get him his stock, and I gave him 
 my receipt. 
 
 Q. What were the 10 coupons referred to?— A. I think, on Cedar 
 Eapids bonds which I had sold him before. I am not positive about 
 that. 
 
 Q. Tou took them as money ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. I find on your memorandum-book, right below the entry just given, 
 the following : 
 
 . " Peb'y 1st, 1868.— Del'd to Hon. Glenni W. Scofield certificate 
 Ifo. 346, for 10 shares of stock on Credit Mobilier, bot. for his account." 
 
 That certificate of 10 shares was delivered to Mr. Scofleld ? — A. I guess 
 it was afterwards ; I cannot remember. 
 
 Q. Do you think you gave him the certificate at that time 1 — A. I 
 think not. I think I did not have the certificate at that time. I think 
 I gave him a receipt for the money. 
 
 Q. That was the 29th of January, as your first entry shows. This 
 entry, dated the 1st of February, is written immediately underneath, 
 and states that you delivered him the certificate. Do you remember 
 whether yon did or not ? — A. No, sir ; but I presume I should not have 
 made the entry if I had not. 
 
 Q. You presume you did give him the certificate f — A. I do not know 
 that; but I should not have made the entry if I had not. 
 
 Q. When the matter was adjusted between you and him you returned 
 the certificate ? — A. Yes, sir ; I think I did. 
 
 Q. Is there any other entry in relation to Mr. Scofield ? — A. I think 
 there is. I find the following : 
 
 1868. 
 
 Sunday, February 9. 
 Eeached Washington from N. Y. 
 
 D'Fd Glenni W. Scofield one bond. . . .• 1, 000 
 
 10 shares stock 1, 000 
 
 Eec'd of G. W. Scofield, for balance due on his bond over his div., 
 $195.33, & endorsed the same on my receipt. 
 
 Q. He took $1,000 bond and the difference between the bond and the 
 eighty per cent, he paid you ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. So that it was equivalent to his taking his eighty per cent, divi- 
 dend ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
456 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Have you any further entry in relation to Mr. Scofleld? — A. There 
 was a check for $600 on the Sergeant-at-Arms. His name is on the list 
 which you already have of the dividends paid in June, 1868. There is 
 also the same detailed statement in the back of the book, as follows : 
 
 G. W. Scofleld. 
 
 By cash -X; y^- 1, 041 
 
 On bond X X- 195 33 
 
 1,236 33 
 Dl'd him one Bond . . .- ^. . . X^ 1, 000 
 
 236 33 
 1, 000 Credit. 
 1, 000 U. P. E. E'd 
 
 Q. That entry is crossed out, which indicates, I presume, that the 
 transaction was settled, and closed up between you ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Mr. Scofleld thought he had only received his money back in his 
 final settlement of the matter. Your statement differed with his in that 
 respect ; you thought he made out of it his ten shares of Union Pacific 
 Eailroad stock ? — A. That was my impression. 
 
 Q. Is that your impression now? — A. Only from memory; and I, 
 perhaps, ought not to put my memory against his. 
 
 Q. You now think that he made ten shares of Union Pacific Eailroad 
 stock out of the transaction % — A. That is my memory. I am not cer- 
 tain. 
 
 Q. Now give us your next entry. 
 
 Witness. Is there any necessity of going through with all these 
 names ? They amount, substantially, to the same thing. 
 
 The Chairman. The committee prefer to have all the entries. Which 
 is the next name you have % — A. The next is that of Mr. Painter. 
 
 The Chairman. We do not care anything about the entries relative 
 to Mr. Painter. We have heard Mr. Painter's case as much as is 
 necessary. 
 
 Witness. I do not see why Mr. Painter should be neglected. The 
 next is in relation to Mr. Allison, and the following is the first entry : 
 
 1868. 
 
 Fkidat, Aj)r%l 24. 
 Eec'd of Wm. B. Allison 271 00 
 
 for balance due on stock sold him, 1,000 in Credit Mobilier, 
 and 1,000 in Union Pacific E. road. 
 
 Q. You received the bond dividend of 80 per cent., and sold the 
 bonds ? — A. Yes, sir ; and he gave me his check for the balance. 
 
 Q. The $271 was the balance in payment of the stock, after deducting 
 the bond dividend ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. The ten shares Union Pacific Eailroad stock was what belonged to 
 him as a dividend on his Credit Mobilier stock ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Is that what your memorandum signifies % — A. Yes, sir ; that is 
 stock which he returned to me afterward. 
 
 Q. Have you any other entry, in regard to Mr. Allison % — A. Yes, sir ; 
 there is the $600 check for the June dividend, and the same general 
 enumeration at the back of the book. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 457 
 
 Q. That $600 was paid by check on the Sergeant-at-Arms?— aT Yes, 
 sir ; and a corresponding entry made in the list of June dividends, which 
 you have. The general statement is as follows. 
 
 \. Wm. B. Allison. /^ 
 
 10 shares Credit M /v /\ 1 OOO 
 
 Int'st to May ^x . . . .'x.. 46 
 
 >< 1, 046 
 
 Div. in Bonds 80 pr. ct. X \ 
 sold at 97 .y<. \. 776 
 
 Cash to balance .y/i. ^\ 270 
 
 1, 000 C. M. X \ 
 
 1, 000 U. P. // \ 
 
 It is crossed off, which shows that the matter has been finally settled. 
 The next is James F. Wilson, and I find the following general state- 
 ment of his account, corresponding with that made out for the others : 
 
 James F. Wilson. 
 
 10 shares CM .V y^. 1, 000 
 
 7 mos. 10 days . . . X .y^. 43 36 
 
 1,043 36 
 80 pr. cent. Div. at 97 X/^ 776 
 
 ^/\ 
 
 267 36 
 Int'st to June 20 . . -X- \ 3 64 
 
 1,000U. P. 
 
 1,000 CM. 
 
 271 00 
 
 Q. That is crossed off, showing that it was settled? — A. Yes, sir. 
 This statement left a balance due him of $379, for which I gave him a 
 check on the Sergeant-at-Arms. 
 
 Q. Afterward he sold his stock, and there the matter ended so far as 
 you were concerned! — A. Yes, sir. The next on the list is J. W. 
 Patterson. I gave you this morning the first entry I had in his case, 
 from my memorandum-book of 1867. The first I find in this is the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 1868. 
 
 Friday, February 14. , 
 
 Paid J. W. Patterson, for 2,400$ bonds of Union Pacific E. E. 
 
 Co., as dividend, less 3 pr. ct $2,328 
 
 Less interest paid 105 
 
 P'dcash $2,223 
 
 Per receipt. 
 
 Q. That you paid him and took his receipt, which has already been 
 before us? — A. I think that receipt has been shown. There is there 
 the same general enumeration at the end of the book, as follows : 
 
458 
 
 CEEOIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Eec'd of J. W. Pa 
 
 Cash and Intei-tJ&h ^ ./... ..A. 3^ 105 00 
 
 Eec'd for 3 Bonds. /X /^\ /. 2,328 
 
 Feb'y 14, to Cash 
 
 3, 000 U. P. stock 
 3, 000 C. M, A. " 
 
 Q. That is crossed off to indicate that it has been settled? — A. Yes, 
 sir. I gave him afterward a check on the Sergeant-at-Arms, for which 
 I produced his receipt. 
 
 Q. Have you any further receipts from Mr. Patterson than those 
 which you have already shown to the committee? — A. I have not. I 
 think 1 have produced three. 
 
 Q. This account, as I said, seems to have been crossed off. Have you 
 anything more to say in reference to the dealings between you and Mr. 
 Patterson than you stated before? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. He had thirty shares of the stock and the dividends accruing from 
 it? — A. Yes, sir. The next on the list is Mr. Bingham. I do not believe 
 I have any special entry in reference to Mr. Bingham, except the general 
 statement at the end of the book. We kept receipts and memorandums. 
 We boarded together, and occasionally we would change oft' receipts 
 and burn them up. The general statement is as follows : 
 
 by Cash 
 
 " Note 
 
 to bonds 
 
 Stock..,. 
 
 CM 
 
 2,086 72 
 399 32 
 
 He took two bonds and paid me the difference at par. 
 
 The Chairman. There does not seem to be any necessity of taking 
 any time with Mr. Bingham. He admits having the stock, and admits 
 that he had the benefit of it. This account is crossed off? — A. Yes, 
 sir ; it is crossed off. 
 
 Q. Now show us the first entry you have in reference to Mr. Kelley. — 
 A. I do not think there is anything except the general statement and 
 this cheek for $329. His general statement is as follows : 
 
 Wm. D. Kelley. 
 
 10 shares C. M. A 1, 000 
 
 7 mos. 10 days' int'st 43 36 
 
 SOp'rc't bond div., at 97 . 
 Int'st to June 20 
 
 1, 043 36 
 776 
 
 267 36 
 3 64 
 
 271 00 
 
 1,000 U. P. Stock, 
 1,000 C. M. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEK. 459 
 
 Q. You received his money dividend in June?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And paid him his balance of $329?— A. Yes, sir; that I gave him 
 by a check on the Sergeant-at-Arms, which has been shown to the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Q. His name is on this list and when it was paid it was checked off? — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. This general statement of his is not marked across?— A. Xo, sir; 
 I delivered his Credit Mobilier stock to you the other day. His Union 
 Pacific Railroad, stock I have not yet delivered. 
 
 Q. This cross' opposite the $329 indicates that he received his check ? 
 — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you an entry on your books of the $750 which Mr. Kelley 
 received of you subsequently ? — A. Yes, sir ; I find the following : 
 
 1868. 
 
 Tuesday, September 29. 
 
 William D. Kelley, on com $750 
 
 Q. Have you anything more to say in reference to the purpose of that 
 payment than you said before? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Now turn to any entries you may have in reference to Mr. Gar- 
 field. — A. Mr. Garfield's payments were just the same as Mr. Kelley's. 
 
 Q. I find Mr. Kelley's name on the list of June dividend payments for 
 $329. That I understand you to be the amount of the June dividend 
 after paying the balance due on his stock ? — A. Yes, sir ; the general 
 statement made up for Mr. Garfield is as follows : 
 
 Garfield. 
 
 10 shares Credit M. 1, 000 
 
 7 mos. 10 days 43 36 
 
 1, 043 36 
 80 per ct. bd. div., at 97 776 
 
 267 36 
 Int'st to June 20 3 64 
 
 271 00 
 
 1,000 C. M. , 
 1,000 U. P. 
 
 Q. You received $600 cash dividend on his ten shares ?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And, as you say,'paid him $329, as the balance of the dividend 
 due him ? — A. I think I did. 
 
 Q. This general statement is not crossed olf ?— A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. In this list of names for the June dividend, Mr. Garfield's name is 
 down for $329.— A. That would be the balance due. 
 
 Q. The cross opposite his name indicates that the money was paid to 
 him ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Clark remarked that Mr. Ames was not certain whether this 
 amount was paid Mr. Garfield by check or in currency. 
 
460 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 The Witness. If I drew the check I may have paid him off in currency, 
 as I find no check with initials corresponding to his. 
 
 Q. We find three checks for the amount of $329 each ; one is in blank ; 
 there are no initials written in. There are, however, the same num- 
 ber of checks for that amount as are called for by the names on this list 
 for that amount. — A. I am not sure how I paid Mr. Garfield ; I paid 
 him in some form. 
 
 Q. This statement of Mr. Garfield's account is not crossed off, which 
 indicates, does it, that the matter has never been settled or'adjusted? — 
 A. No, sir ; it never has. 
 
 Mr. Clark remarked that he supposed it was understood that no one 
 of these gentlemen had ever seen the entries in this book. 
 
 Q. Can you state whether you have any other entry in your book 
 relating to Mr. Garfield? — A. No, sir. I want to explain one item. 
 You questioned me very closely when I was before you the other day 
 in reference to a check for $272.79 on the Sergeant-at-Arms. I find in 
 the memorandum I have here of the payments I made to Mr. Painter, a 
 check on the Sergeant-at-Arms for just that amount in payment of a 
 balance due him on the $1,800 cash dividend, which accounts for this 
 check which I could not then explain. 
 
 Q. Have you found on your memorandum book any entry in reference 
 to Speaker Blaine? — A. No, sir ; 1 have had nothing of Mr. Blaine, and 
 his name does not appear on my book at all. 
 
 Q. There is one other gentleman whose name appears here — that of 
 General Logan ; what entry have you in regard to him ? — A. I have his 
 general statementj as follows : 
 
 Logan. 
 
 10 shares C. M. A. . . .X , yX. 1, 000 
 
 7 mos. 10 days . . . X.- -/■ ^^ ^^ 
 
 1. 043 36 
 80 pr, ct. Div. at 97 ^X - 776 
 
 267 36 
 Tnt'st to June 20 -X X- 3 64 
 
 271 00 
 1, 000 U. P. ' 
 
 1, 000 C. M. 
 
 Q. You gave him a check for $329? — A. I gave him a check for 
 $329. 
 
 Q. This account of General Logan has been crossed Off, showing that 
 it has been adjusted ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you found in looking over your memorandums or papers any 
 entries showing any dealings between you and any other member of 
 Congress in regard to the Credit Mobilier, in addition to those you have 
 named? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. These are all ? — A. These are all. 
 
 Q. You believe you have now shown us all the entries you have in 
 regard to all the gentlemen named? — A. These are all, 1 believe. I 
 may have failed to give the general statement, for Mr. Henry Wilson. 
 It is as follows : 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 461 
 
 Henry Wilson. 
 
 Eec'd of Mm .>^. "X^. .../.../. 1, 000 
 
 two bonds l,r"" 
 
 Less 3 pr. cent . r\- ">sX ■■/. 1, 552 
 
 Cash X A>^ 70 
 
 2,G22 
 p'd Cash & Int'st. ./.. y^ X^ 1, 548 
 
 1,074 
 2, 000 Credit. 
 2, 0(10 U. P. stock. 
 
 Q. That includes all who were then in Congress with whom you had 
 dealings in reference to this stock ? — A. Tes, and all who were ever in 
 Congress, so far as I now remember, except Mr. Grimes, who was in the 
 company originally, and therefore, I suppose, had the right to have stock 
 ill the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 Q. If there is anything you wish to say relative to any of the matters 
 in reference to which you have been inquired of, you may now have the 
 opportunity of doing so. — A. Mr. Garfield understands this matter as a 
 loan ; he says I did not explain it to him. 
 
 Q. You need not say what Mr. Garfield says ; tell us what you think. 
 — A. Mr. Garfield might have misunderstood me. 
 
 Q. Mr. Garfield has told us how he understood it ; what the committee 
 desire to know of you is your understanding of the matter. — A. I sup- 
 posed it was like all the rest; but when Mr. Garfield says he mistook it 
 for a loan ; that he always understood it to be a loan ; that I did not 
 make any explanation to him and did not make any statement to him, 
 I may be mistaken. I am a man of few words, and I may not have 
 made myself understood to him. 
 
 Q. We do not want you to mix up your recollection with that of Mr. 
 Garfield. — A. I have stated it as I remember it ; but I may be mistaken. 
 
 Q. Do you remember it so now % — A. I think I do. 
 
 By Mr. Niblack : 
 
 Q. Tou told me privately the other morning, while coming up in the 
 cars, before you went home, that you had taken receipts from nearly all 
 these gentlemen, and that when you went home you would be able to 
 find receipts from nearly all of them. State whether you have searched 
 for these receipts, and whether you have found any that you have not 
 produced. — A. I have found none that amount to anything ; I found a 
 receipt from Mr. Allison that he had bought ten shares of stock from 
 me. There is no date to it. 
 
 Q. Have you searched for receipts among your papers % — A. I have 
 somewhat. I told my clerk to search for papers relating to this matter, 
 and be is doing it. 
 
 Q. Tour examination is not exhausted, then ?— A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. How soon will you be able to know whether you have any such 
 receipts or not? — A. I think I ought to be able to know this week. If 
 he finds any, he will advise me. If he does not, he will not. The re- 
 ceipt from Mr. Allison is as follows : 
 
 Keceived of Oakes- Ames ten shares of the stock of the Credit 
 Mobilier of America, which I hold subject to his order. 
 
 WM. B. ALLISON. 
 
462 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 That is the receipt Mr. Allison alluded to. 
 
 Q. When was that given ? — A. I do not know ; it has no date. 
 
 Q. Upon what occasion was it given ? Was it at the time of the talk 
 you had about the nickel ? — A. Yes ; it was part of that transaction. 
 
 Q. Did you say you thought you had made a similar arrangement 
 with Mr. Colfax, in reference to the repurchase of his stock ? — A. Yes, 
 sir. I thought I had such a paper from him, but I could not find it. 
 Mr. Colfax alluded to the transaction in his testimony, and I do not 
 know but such a receipt may have been given, but I did not find it. 
 
 By Mr. Hale : 
 
 Q. You first testified before this committee the 17th of December last 
 or in December, did you not 1 — A. I do not remember the date. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether it was in December ? — A. -I think it 
 was in December. 
 
 Q. After that you went home? — A. I did. 
 
 Q. When did you go home? — A. I do not remember the precise 
 date. 
 
 Q. Did you go home before Christmas? — A. I think I did. 
 
 Q. How long were you at home ? — A. I went home about the time 
 Congress adjourned, and returned about the time Congress reconvened, 
 
 Q. When did you return home again ? — A. I went home the 29th or 
 30th of January. 
 
 Q. And remained at home about how long then ? — A. I tbink I got 
 back yesterday morning. 
 
 Q. During your visit home, in the holidays, did you examine your 
 memorandum-books which have now been produced here ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you make up from them certain statements which you pre- 
 sented to the committee after your return ? — ^A. My book-keeper pre- 
 pared them, and I presented them. 
 
 Q. Then, you did not prepare them ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Your book-keeper prepared them ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Were they prepared under your eye, you reading and knowing 
 they were correct "? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. In all cases ? — A. I think so. 
 
 Q. Are you sure you looked over and compared the copy made by 
 your book-keeper with your original entries ? — A. I did. 
 
 Q. In every instance ? — A. I think I did. 
 
 Q.' So that when you testified on your return, from the copies you 
 presented, you testified of what you knew of your own knowledge ? — 
 A. I think so. 
 
 Q. What did you do with these memorandum-books at the time you 
 returned to Washington ? — A. I left them in my ofhce. 
 
 Q. Where ?— A. At Easton. 
 
 Q. You left all three you have presented here ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did none of those books come back to Washington when you re- 
 turned, after the holidays? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Was neither of these books in Washington between the time you 
 returned, after the holidays, and your coming back on the 29th Jan- 
 uary ? — A. Yes, sir; one of them was. 
 
 Q. Which one?— A. That of 1868. 
 
 Q. When did that come back to Washington ? — A. I do not know as 
 I can tell you the exact date. 
 
 Q. As nearly as you can tell ? — A. I cannot tell you exactly. 
 
 Q. How did it come to Washington ? — A. I think my son brought it 
 on his way to New Orleans. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 463 
 
 Q. And delivered it to you?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And was it in your possession from that time to the present?— A. 
 No, sir. 
 
 Q. Was it in your possession from that time until you returned to 
 Washington? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Where was it?— A. It went back- to Easton with Mr. Kennedy, 
 after being copied. 
 
 Q. With George W. Kennedy ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did he carry it back to Easton ?— A. I think he did. 
 
 Q. By your request ?— A. Ido notknowaboutthat; I had got through 
 with it ; I did not suppose anybody wanted it further. 
 
 Q. That was your presumption ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Mr. Kennedy is your book-keeper ?— A. He is the book-keeper of 
 Oliver Ames & Sons ; he is not my. book-keeper. 
 
 Q. The book-keeper of the firm of which you are a member ? — A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. Can you tell what day your son arrived in Washington, on his way 
 to New Orleans ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. ..Have you any means of telling ?— A. I do not know whether I have 
 or not. 
 
 Q. Will you ascertain from any memoranda which you have, and in- 
 form the committee, what day he arrived here ? — A. I do not know that 
 I can tell you. He went through here. If you can tell the day Mr. Ken- 
 nedy came down to be examined, I can tell you when my son came. They 
 came together. I cannot tell you now what day they arrived. 
 
 Q. .Then the memorandum which you presented to this committee as 
 made from these books was not made at your home in Easton during the 
 holidays? — A. No, sir ; they were made by Mr. Kennedy, and presented 
 here. 
 
 Q. You understand me to refer, to the copies or statements which you 
 presented to the committee as copied from these memorandum-books ; 
 do you mean to say that they were made here, and not at Easton? — A. 
 Yes, sir; they were in Mr. Kennedy's handwriting; they were made by 
 him while he was here. 
 
 Q. Have ^ou not said that during your visit home for the holidays 
 these copies were there made from these books by your book-keeper, 
 under your own eye, and that you left the books at Easton when you 
 came back ? — A. I do not think I said any such thing ; if I did, I misun- 
 derstood your question. They were made here from the book here. 
 
 Q. When did this committee first call upon you to jiroduce these memo- 
 randum-books ? — A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. Can you not tell ? — A. No, sir ; I cannot tell. 
 
 The Chairman stated that written notice to Mr. Ames was given after 
 Mr. Kennedy testified before the committee. 
 
 Mr. Hale. That was after verbal notice. 
 
 The Chairman said that when Mr. Ames went home for the holidays 
 he notified him verbally that the committee would want all his books 
 and papers showing this transaction ; and that written notice was served 
 after Mr. Kennedy had testified. 
 
 Witness. When that call was made for all my memorandum books, 
 large books, and everything else, I asked you whether, if I brought you 
 a statement in relation to these cases, that would not be satisfactory, 
 and you- replied it would. Then Mr. Colfax afterward called for the 
 books, and you re-ordered them. 
 
 The Chairman said the witness must have misunderstood him in that 
 regard. 
 
464 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 By Mr. Hale : 
 
 Q. Have you now on this cross-examination for the first time dis- 
 closed to the committee that either of these memorandum-books had 
 been in Washington during this investigation until since you last re- 
 turned ? — A. I do not know whether I have or not. I do not know that 
 they asked me. ^ 
 
 Q. Do you say upon your oath that you do not know whether you 
 have or not disclosed that fact ? — A. I do not remember whether I said 
 anything about it or not. 
 
 Q. Do you mean that you have or have not disclosed the fact that 
 you had that book when Mr. Kennedy's testimony was taken ? — A. I 
 do not know whether I did or not. 
 
 Q. I am asking for your recollection, whether you made that state- 
 ment or not ? — A. I do not know that I did. 
 
 Q. Do you khow whether you did or not ? — A. I do not know that I 
 have stated anything about it. 
 
 Mr. Claek suggested that if there was any material issue upon 
 which the counsel was endeavoring to show the witness had made con- 
 tradictory statements in his former evidence, such evidence should be 
 first read to him. 
 
 The Chairman said the counsel was entitled to an answer to his 
 question whether Mr. Ames recollected the fact inquired about. 
 
 Witness. I do not remember it. 
 
 Q. I am asking the witness whether he has any remembrance of hay- 
 ing developed that fact ? — A. I do not know that I have ; I do not think 
 I have. 
 
 Mr. Hale. I do not think that is quite an answer to my question. 
 
 Witness. Well, see if you can get it any different. 
 
 Mr. Hale. I wish to ask the chairman whether I am entitled to a 
 square answer to that question. 
 
 The Chairman said he understood the witness to have answered sub- 
 stantially that he could not remember whether he had stated anything 
 about it. 
 
 Q. I want to ask the witness again to answer me the question, if he 
 does or does not know whether he has or has not so stated^ 
 
 Witness. I have answered it to the best of my ability ; if you can 
 get anything more out of it you may try to. 
 
 Mr. Hale. That answer I will take. There is no more of a cat than 
 her skin. In your testimony, before your last visit home, on the 22d of 
 January, you were asked where these original memorandums were from 
 which your statement was taken, and you answered that it was in a 
 small pocket memorandum-book, and some of it on slips of paper. 
 Have you produced here all the slips of paper which you referred to as 
 a part of the foundation of your statement ? — A. 'So, sir ; I have not 
 been able to find them. 
 
 Q. Where are they ? — A. I suppose they were destroyed when the 
 transactions were ended. I had a slip of paper containing a list of the 
 names of persons who were entitled to interest on the certificates, but 
 when I came to search for them, I found they had been destroyed. 
 
 Q. Tou think they were destroyed in 1868 ? — A. Yes, sir ; or 1869. 
 
 Q. What did you mean, then, when you said these memorandums 
 were made up in part from slips of paper ? — A. 1 did not say from slips 
 of paper ; I said they were made up from this memorandum -book ; and 
 they all sbow that they were made from this book. These slips of paper 
 were in 1868. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEK. 465 
 
 Q. Then these slips of paper were not before you and Mr. Kennedy 
 when you made up the statements that you produced here iu January?— 
 A. No ; the statements were made from the book. 
 
 Q. And from the book alone?— A. I think so. 
 
 Q. Please refer to page 288 of the printed testimony, on which appears 
 what-purports to be a memorandum, or printed copy of a memorandum, 
 which you produced to the committee. Now, will you show me on your 
 memorandum-book the original entry of which this is a copy? — A. 
 (Handing memorandum-book to Mr. Hale.) That is the first item. 
 
 Q. I want the original entry from which this statement is a copy. — A. 
 Well, that is the first item. 
 
 Q, What I want is the original statement on your book handed in 
 here, from which this copy, as it purports to be', on page 288 of the 
 printed testimony, was taken. 
 
 Witness. I expect the reporter has that copy. 
 
 Q. I asked you to point me on this memorandum the original state- 
 ment, of which the paper you handed in here was a copy, and which 
 paper is in print on page 288 ? — A. I made that statement up from items 
 in the book as memoranda, and I have shown you the first item, which 
 gives the payment of the $534.72. 
 
 Q. Where does that appear? — A. Under date of March 5. The 
 memorandum says, " Received of Schuyler Colfax check for balafice, 
 $534.72." 
 
 Q. Have you read everything that appears there iu relation to Mr. 
 Colfax? — A. That is the entire entry under that date. 
 
 Q. There are no other words, figures, or letters? — A. Not there. 
 
 Q. I now ask you for the next entry. — A. I do not find here the 
 entry of the bonds. Bat I made a statement to Mr. Colfax, and if you 
 have that statement there you can see it. 
 
 Q. I am not asking you about any statement. I am asking you about 
 what is iu this book. — A. I made up an account which shows that 
 $534.72 was the balance due me for $2,000 of Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
 Q. That is not an answer to my question. — A. This sum makes up 
 the amount from the data and figures I have shown. Mr. Colfax does 
 not dispute that he gave me the balance on his account, does he ? 
 
 The Chairman. The Chair understands that this is an account which 
 Mr. Ames made up for Mr. Colfax. 
 
 Mr. Hale. If the chairman will turn to page 323 of the printed testi- 
 mony, he will see that the witness used this language: 
 
 "Q. Do you now say that the memorandum from which you testified 
 day before yesterday, in regard to your transactions with me, is an exact 
 copy of your private memorandum-book? — A. I think so. 
 
 " Q. i)o you know that you saw that memorandum-book when you 
 went home ? — A. Yes. 
 
 "Q. And you refreshed your memory from it?— A. I did." 
 
 My question is, do you now say that you can find on your memo- 
 randum-book, or on any memorandum-book that you have i)i'oduced, 
 tlie original entry from which this statement on page 288 is a coi>y?— A. 
 That is a copy of the transaction, sir. I made up that statement from 
 these item's in this book. lam not a , book-keeper, but I understand 
 that to be a correct statement. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Do you mean to say that in your books the statement which is 
 here printed is set down in the form in which it is here, and that you 
 30 X 
 
466 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 copied it from auy of the books in tbat form ? — A. No, sir ; 1 did not 
 have on any of my memorandum-books an account drawn oil' in that 
 way. This statement was prepared in that way to show what I have 
 paid to and received from Mr. Colfax. 
 
 By Mr. Hale : 
 
 Q. Then, instead of beinjf a copy of an original entry, it is a statement . 
 of account made up by yourself derived from various entries aud vari- 
 ous sources'? — A. The original entries are in the memorandum-book. 
 Mr. Colfax would not have gi\ en me the $534.72 unless 
 
 Mr. Hale. I do not want that to go in as a part of my cross-examina- 
 tion. The witness is a man of few words I know, but they come in 
 sometimes at improper places. 
 
 Witness. That is very probable. 
 
 Q. In regard to the statements which you j)roduced of your transac- 
 tions with some of these other gentlemen, as, for instance, in Mr. Gar- 
 field's case, printed on page 297, and Mr. Kelley's, on page 298, were 
 they of the same character? Were they copies of original entries,-or 
 statements made up from various entries'? — A. They were statements 
 made up from entries of diii'erent transactions, occurring on different 
 dates ; some were fi'om books, and some from other memoranda. 
 
 Q. I'ray tell me what other memoranda they were from ?— A. I made 
 memoranda of all these transactions, and handed them to these parries 
 at different times. I made one for Mr. Colfax when he paid me the 
 balance of $534.72. 
 
 Q. Do you mean that these statements were made up from memoranda 
 which you had delivered to the parties to be used before ? — A. No ; they 
 were made up irom memoranda that I had. 
 
 Q. Where are all these memoranda ? — A. I do not know where they 
 are now. 
 
 Q. Do you mean the memoranda from which Mr. Jvennedy made 
 the statement '? — A. Yes, sir; from the books and from the facts where I 
 had delivered to parties bonds, and the parties admitted it. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Kennedy make that statement from any other vvfritten doc- 
 uments than from the books "i' — A. We had written documents showing 
 that the papers were received and that the bonds were received. 
 
 Q. I am now inquiring of you of the statements Mr. Kennedy made 
 up and which you presented here: what did he make them from? — A. 
 I think mostly from this book. 
 
 Q. What else? — A. We had these statements here to make them 
 from. 
 
 Q. Did you have any papers besides the book to make them from ? — 
 A. I think not. 
 
 Q. Does the book contain all the items embraced in these statements, 
 or were they made in part from memory ? — A. I think this includes all 
 the items. 
 
 Q. Were these statements made up in jiart from memory, as to the 
 transactions of these parties ? — A. No, sir; these statements were made 
 up from this book of 1868. 
 
 Q. Turn now to page 298, and give me in your book the entry that 
 is copied in your statement on that page of the printed testimony. — A. 
 Here is the entry [handing book to Mr. Hale] of the various items mak- 
 ing up Mr. Kelley's account. 
 
 Q. Is that the'whole of the entry'?— A. That is the whole of it. 
 
 Q. And do you say that the statement made by Mr. Kennedy, which 
 is printed here, is a correct transcript of that eiitr\- ? — A. It is correct, 
 is it not '? 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEK. 467 
 
 Q. Take this item of $47 for interest.— A. There are two items on the 
 memorandum-book which- make up that amount. 
 
 Q. Now tell me what there is on the debit side in your memorandum- 
 book.— A. There is nothing on the debit side of this entry. 
 
 y. This statement contains two items on the debit side and one on 
 the credit side, showing a balance of $271. Where are the other entries 
 that make up the statement printed on page 298 ?— A. The other entries 
 are the 80 per cent, bond dividend collected for his account, amounting 
 to $77G. 
 
 Q. 1 ask you whether that is in your memorandum-book?— A. The 
 memorandum-book does not come up so far as this cash dividend of 
 June, from which he received $C00. 
 
 Q. Is there any entry in your memorandum-book, under date of June 
 19, "To cash, $329?"— A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. That is not in the memoraudum-book! — A. No. 
 
 Q. Is there any entry on your memoT'anduui-book of ''Dividend col- 
 lected for your account, $000, June 17 !" — A. Yes, sir ; hero it is. 
 
 Q. That is on the list you describe ? — A. It is on the list of parties 
 who were entitled to dividends. 
 
 Q. Is that tbfe only place where it appears in your book? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Where else? — A. Upon this other list, under date of June 21. 
 
 Q. In both these cases the memorandum was made by you of amounts 
 due the i^arties, and not amouuts you had paid them? — A. They were 
 paid. 
 
 Q. I did not ask you that. I ask you what the entry was intended to 
 indicate? — A. The entry showed that the parties were entitled to receive 
 dividends, and I paid them the dividends. 
 
 Q. I did not ask you that. 
 
 Witness. What do you ask ? 
 
 Q. I will now ask you another question. Turn to the entry in this 
 printed book, of the payment of $329 to Mr. Kelley, and show me where 
 you find that entry ? — A. Not on this book ; the Sergeaut-at-Arms will 
 show it to you. 
 
 Q. It is not, then, on your book ? — A. Yes'; and there is an entry of 
 $329. 
 
 Q. But that is the amount to be paid ? — A. It was to be paid before 
 it was paid, and it has been paid since. 
 
 Q. But you say that is not an entry of actual payment ? — A. I say it 
 is, if it is crossed otf. It was an entry to be paid, and when it was paid 
 it was crossed off. 
 
 Q. Now I want to ask Mr. Ames, who comes here and says he pre- 
 sents to the committee a statement which is a transcript of his book, to 
 point me the place on his book where that entry is made. 
 
 Witness. I have shown you where. 
 
 The Chairman stated that the committee had gone over all these 
 matters until they understood them very thorougldy ; and unless it was 
 necessary for the counsel for his own enlightenment to go over them 
 again, the committee would not be receiving any additional information 
 from it. If there was any inconsistency in Mr. Ames's statements the 
 committee had already all the means of ascertaining it. 
 
 Mr. Hale said the witness had sworn to certain statements as having 
 been copied from his memorandum-book, and he was asking him to 
 point out the entries from which the copies were made. 
 
 The Chairman said he understood the witness to state that he had 
 produced all the memoranda he had. If the object of the counsel was 
 to find further memoranda, he might proceed with his examination. 
 
468 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 But if the object was simply to prove iuconsisteiicy of statements, the 
 committee liad all the means which any farther examination would be 
 likely to elicit. 
 
 Mr. Hale said that if the committee were satisfied Mr. Ames was 
 telling two widely different stories, he had no desire to proceed iurther. 
 
 The Ohaikman said the counsel was not anthorizcd to draw any con- 
 clusions ou that subject. His object in interrupting him was to save 
 time. 
 
 Q. Please show me where the entry is on your memorandum-book of 
 "By dividends for your account, six hundred dollars!" — A. I collected 
 the dividend. 
 
 Q. Where is the entry on your memorandum-book showing it? — A. 1 
 do not know much about book-keeping, but I am not so stupid that J. 
 cannot make such a calculation as will show that 271 from GOO will leave 
 329. I can explain that, as big a fool as I am, and if you will allow me 
 I will do so. Mr. Kelley owed $271. Then he was entitled to a divi- 
 dend of $000. Taking 271 from GOO leit a balance of 329 due, which I 
 paid. That, I think, is a plain statement of book-keeping. 
 
 Q. Very likely that is so; but what I ask you for is to state where 
 you find such an entry' on tliat book ? — A. Yes ; I find that he was en- 
 titled to $329, the balance due him ou the $600 dividend after deduct- 
 ing $271 wliich he owed. 
 
 Tiie Chaieman said the committee had traveled all over this ground 
 until they were entirely familiar with it, and that the counsel was appar- 
 ently not so familiar with it, or he would not desire to go over it again. 
 
 Mr. Hale said he would not dispute that statement, although inclined 
 to think that ai)pearances did not fully warrant it. He would, however, 
 loroceed no further in this lii|e of examination. 
 
 Q. Lid you take any receipt, voucher, or acknowledgment from Mr. 
 Colfax in payment of the $1,200 which you stated you gave him in 
 June'? — A. 1 do not think 1 did. 1 gave him a check and he drew the 
 money. 
 
 Q. The last part of your answer is not responsive to my question. — 
 A. It is true, nevertheless. 
 
 Q. Have you t.tated within the last month repeatedly to different per- 
 sons in tlie city of Washington that you had such a receipt from Mr. 
 Colfax"? — A. j^o, sir; 1 have not. 
 
 Q. Have >ou not stated to different persons that you were very sure 
 you had such a receipt ? — A. I do not think I have. I know I have not. 
 1 did not su|>pose 1 was entitled to a receipt for the $1,200 belonging to 
 Mr. Colfax, as a dividend on his stock. He paid me for the stock, and 
 why should I take a recciiit from him for bis own money ? 
 
 Q. Did you not state to John B. Alley that you had such a receipt ? 
 — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you not state to different persons in this city that you had 
 such a receipt from Mr. Colfax'? — A. How many times "do you want me 
 to answer that queslion"? I say I did not to anybody. 
 
 Q. You have not said that to Judge Niblack, Judge Poland, or any 
 member of this committee< — A. I do not think I have. I must have 
 been asleep when I did it. 
 
 Q. That is very possible.— A. I was in hopes 1 should find one when 
 I went home, but I did not. I did not suppose anybody would dispute 
 the payment alter the evidence that has been present e J. 
 
 Q. The payment you have now testified to of $00.75, made on the 22d 
 of January, 1809 — ilid you take any voucher or receipt for that"? — A. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 469 
 
 No, sir; it was his money. It was a dividend on a, certiflcate for bonds 
 which I held for him, and which belonged to him. 
 
 Q. Yon do not think yon were entitled to a receipt ?— A. Ko, sir, 
 
 Q. You took a receipt from some gentlemen to whom you paid 
 money 1 — A. I did from two or three. I do not know why I did. 
 
 Q. Can you give any reason why you took a receipt from Mr. Patter- 
 son and none from Mr. Colfax ? — A. No ; I did not know that 1 had Mr. 
 Patterson's receipts when this investigation commenced. He paid me 
 $3,000 in August, and I got the stock from him afterward. Of course 
 I should give him a receipt for the money. 
 
 Q. You have said several times that you paid $1,200 to Mr. Colfax ? — 
 A. I said I gave him a check for that amount. 
 
 Q. Do you make that statement from any recollection you have ? Do 
 you remember giving Mr. Colfax a check for $1,200 ? — A. I do. 
 
 Q. Where did you give it to him "? — A. I do not J^now. 
 
 Q. When did you give it to him ? — A. Probably at the time ; the date 
 of the check will show. 
 
 Q. Can j-ou state when from memory ? — A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. Who was present and under what circumstances did you give it 
 to him ? — A. I gave it to him because I owed it to him. That is the cir- 
 cumstance. 
 
 Q. Can you state all the circumstances ? — A. No. 
 
 Q. Do you mean to say you can remember a fact as occurring and 
 not remember any circumstance or incident connected with that fact ? — 
 A. Sometimes I could. This was simply the fact of giving him a check.. 
 He was entitled to receive $1,200. I held the money and gave him a 
 check for the amount. 
 
 Q. Do you remember giving the check ? — A. I remember that. 
 
 Q. Did you hand it to him in person ? — A. 1 did. 
 
 Q. That you know? — A. There has never been any person between 
 us. What we have done we have done ourselves in person. There were 
 no go-betweens. 
 
 Q. How long has your memory been so positive on that subject ? — A. 
 There are some things I can remember positively. 
 
 Q. How long has your memory been positive iu regard to this ': — A. 
 Ever since I gave him the check. 
 
 Q. You have had no lapse of memory iu regard to that ?— A. No, sir; 
 and I gave a check to all the rest of them, too. 
 
 Q. On the 17th day of December, when you testified before this com- 
 mittee, you produced a written statement and read it to the committee, 
 in which, on page 20, appear these words : "Mr. Colfax is one mentioned. 
 1 cannot remember which of us first mentioned the subject, but I know 
 he wanted to get some stock. I am pretty confident he has paid me for 
 it, though I have never transferred to him, nor can 1 remember having 
 paid to him any dividends." Was that a written statement carefully 
 prepared and brought in by you before this committee, as your evi- 
 dence ■? A. Yes, sir. He cannot say he has received no dividends. 
 
 Q. I want you to answer the question.— A. I will answer the question 
 •in my own way- This statement was made up iu December without 
 any memoranda, or anything to refresh ray memory with. It relates to 
 transactions which occurred four or five years ago, of very little conse- 
 quence, as I then considered it, and, with the immense amount of busi- 
 ness I have had on hand, it would not be strange that all these details 
 would not at the moment be very clear in my mind. I made up the 
 statement to the best of ray recollection then. 
 
 Q. Ou page 23 the chairman p,ut to you this question : "Is the com- 
 
470 CfiEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 mittee to uDderstand that you put tliis in as your testimony, and swear 
 to the truth of it V To which the answer given is, " Yes, sir." That 
 is true ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Now, then, did you, when that paper was prepared, and when it 
 was read by yon before this committee, and when you swore to the truth 
 of it in answer to this last question, remember to have paid $1,200 to 
 Mr. Colfax ? — A. I supposed I had paid him dividends. I conld not 
 remember without data things that took place four or five years ago. 
 My impression was, as I stated in that testimony, that I had paid him 
 dividends. 
 
 Q. Did you remember that you had paid him dividends ? — A. That. 
 was my impression. 
 
 Q. Is that your only answer? — A. That was my impression, and that 
 is my only answer. 
 
 Q. When you said in this testimony " nor can I remember of having 
 paid over to him any dividends," did you intend to speak the truth or 
 speak a lie"? 
 
 Mr. Olaeice submitted to the committee, in justice to the witness, that 
 the question propounded by counsel was not a respectful one. 
 
 Mr. Hale said, although the question might be a little more polite- 
 he thought the question was a proper one. 
 
 Mr. Meeetck remarked that, to do justice to the witness, his whole 
 stateincnt should be ijresented to him. In the same examination, on 
 page 26, in answer to the question, "Do you know whether he has re- 
 ceived any dividends on it?" the witness answers, " It is my impression 
 that he has ; but I am not certain." 
 
 Mr. Hale. The committee will remember I do not charge falsehood ; 
 I am quite willing to change the phraseology of the question, and to 
 put it in this form : Did you intend to speak tiae truth or not 1 — A. I will 
 not answer that question ; it is an impudent question. I have rights 
 here as well as you. I am not to be bullied here by any man. 
 
 Mr. Hale. I accept that as an answer, that you will not ansv/cr my 
 question. — A. No; not in that form. 
 
 Q. Do you now say, in answer to my question a few minutes ago, that 
 you have always remembered, ever since you gave that check for $1,200, 
 that you gave it? — A. I should have remembered it at any time, upon 
 looking at my memoranda. 
 
 Q. My question is this : Do you now say that you did remember when 
 you testified before? — A. I said it was my impression when I testified. 
 The answer I gave in my first examination was right enough. I in- 
 tended to make it as favorable as I could to Mr. Colfax, but when I 
 heard it was said they intended to break me down I could not do other- 
 wise than state everything. 
 
 Q. Do you now say that when you testified before, fi^om this prepared 
 statement, that you knew that you had given him dividends ? — A. I 
 stated in that examination that 1 presumed I had given him dividends,, 
 did I not? 
 
 Q. You will please answer my question. 
 
 Witness. I said so, did I not ? 
 
 The Chaieman remarked that it was admitted iu presence of the 
 committee that the statement referred to was prepared by counsel of Mr» 
 Ames, and portions of it were objected to by counsel. 
 
 Mr. Hale. Is that true, that the statement given as your testimony 
 was prepared by your counsel, or by yourself? — A. Mr. MacMurtrie pre- 
 I)ared it. 
 
 Q. Was it prepared from your dictation? — A. Partly. 
 
CEEDIT MOBILIEIt. 471 
 
 The GHAIE3IAN said that course of inquiry oeed uot be pursued. 
 The witness was cautioned that no part of the statement would be 
 accepted as testimouy unless its truth was sworu to by him. 
 
 Q. Is there any reason why you remember giving this check to Itfr. 
 Colfax, and do not remember giving other checks to other parties'? — A. 
 I do remember, and my memorandum shows that I gave checks to 
 others, and when I see these entries in my book I know they are true, 
 and 1 know that I paid these amounts. 
 
 Q. I want to call your attention, to page 20, to this testimony given 
 by you : 
 
 " Q. Did you pay him the dividends yourself? — A. I can not recollect. 
 
 " Q. If this stock stood in your name ou the books, the dividends 
 would have been paid to you, I suppose ? — A. That would be a natural 
 consequence. 
 
 " Q. And cau you recollect, do you recollect, whether ;you paid divi- 
 dends to Mr. Colfax"? — A. 'So, sir; I do uot recollect ; it is my impres- 
 sion that I did.'' 
 
 Q. Is that statement true i' — A. That was my impression. 
 
 Q. Do you now modify the answers you then gave, to any extent"? — 
 A. I make them stronger now. I did pay the dividends. 
 
 Q. That is what I supposed. Yon do now modify these answers'? — 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. In testifying in Mr. Garfield's case you say you may have drawn 
 the money on the check and paid him ; is uot that answer equally ap- 
 plicable to the case of Mr. Colfax ! — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Why not ? — A. I put Mr. Colfax's initials in the check, while I 
 put no initials into Mr. Garfield's check, and I may have drawn the 
 money myself. 
 
 Q. Do you say that if you put any initials before the words " or 
 hearer" into a check, that is evidence that you gave him the check, and 
 that he drew the money on it 1 — A. I am satisfied that I gave him the 
 check any way, because it belonged to him. 
 
 Q. Did not Mr. Garfield's check belong to him '? — A. Mr. Garfield had 
 not paid for his stock. He was entitled to $329 balance ; but Mr. Col- 
 fax had paid for his stock, and I had no business with his $1,200. 
 
 Q. Is your recollection in regard to this payment to Mr. Colfax any 
 more clear than your recollection as to the payment to Mr. Garfield '? — 
 A. Yes, sir, I think it is. Do you doubt that I gave him, Colfax, the 
 check.? 
 
 Q. That is not a proper question for me to answer ; if it -were I should 
 answer it very frankly. Do you say that you have never presented to 
 the Sergeant-at- Arms', and drew money on, checks payable to initials or 
 bearer, or to a fictitious name or bearer, or to somebody's name or 
 bearer f — A. I do not think I have. 
 
 Q. Can you so testify from your knowledge?— A. I cannot say that I 
 have or have not. I have drawn a great many checks on the Sergeaut- 
 at-Arms within the last ten years, and I cannot remember how 1 have 
 drawn every check. 
 
 Q. On the 29th day of December, in this room, as reported on page 
 353 of the printed testimony, is the. following: 
 
 "■Q Here is another check upon the Sergeant-at-Arms of the same 
 date June 22, 1868 : ' Pay O. A. or bearer, $329, and charge to my 
 account. Oakes Ames.' That seems to have been paid to somebody 
 and taken up by the Sergeaut-at-Arms. These initials are your own 1— 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
472 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 "Q. Do you kuow who had the benefit of that check '! — A. I cannot 
 tell you. 
 
 "Q. Do you think you received the money on it yourself? — A. I have 
 oq^idea. I may bave drawn the money and handed it to another per- 
 son. It was paid on that transaction. It may have been paid to Mr. 
 Garfield. There were several sums of that amount." 
 
 Do you think that was possibly the case as to the $329 and not 
 possibly the case as to the $1,200? — A. I have no recollection of draw- 
 ing any of them myself. 
 
 Q. That is your answer? — A. Yes, it is. I have no recollection of 
 drawing any one of them. But I could not have drawn the money on 
 one of those containing the initials without remembering it. I do not 
 think I drew any of them myself. 
 
 Q. Is there any reason why your memory should be any clearer in 
 regard to the $1,200 check than in regard to the $329 check?— A. I 
 should not have put Mr. Colfax's initials into the $1,200 check if I had 
 been going to draw the money myself. 
 
 Q. Do you remember positively that you gave Mr. Colfax a statement 
 showing the condition of his account? — A. I gave him one, or showed 
 him one. I exhibited one to him ; I am sure of that. 
 
 Q. That you are positive of"? — A. I am. 
 
 Q. On page 282, in your examination of the 22d January, I find this 
 report : 
 
 "Q. Did I offer to pay you, or did you give to me, or ask me to pay 
 you that? — A. That I cannot tell you. I sui:)pose I handed you a state- 
 ment showing the balance due, and that you gave me the check. 
 
 " Q. Do you swear that you did hand me a statement ? — A. No ; I will 
 not swear to it." 
 
 A. Well, I exhibited one to him, if I did not give him one ; and he 
 gave me a check for the balance. It is not very likely he would have 
 given me a check for $534.72 without knowing what it was for. I do 
 not think he was as green as that. 
 
 Q. Again, on page 285 : " You do not think you told me that, do you ? — 
 A. I do not know whether I did; I suppose I gave him a statement." — 
 A. Well, I suppose I did. 
 
 Q. Do you now modify that answer ? — A. No ; I think I did give him 
 a statement. 
 
 Q. Do you mean to say that all you can say is that you suppose you 
 gave him one? — A. I do suppose I gave him one; I do not think there 
 is any doubt of it. 
 
 Q. Do you mean to say you remember positively that you gave him 
 one, or showed him one? — A. I gave him one, or showed him one; there 
 is no doubt about that; does anybody question that fact? 
 
 Q. Now, then, on page 327, while Mr. Colfax was under examination, 
 you asked him this question: 
 
 "You had more confidence in my statements then than you have 
 now. I ask you if I did not make a statement to you at that time, giv- 
 ing you a balance of $534.72, showing you the amount of your $2,000 
 Credit Mobilier stock, with interest up to that date, giving you credit 
 on the proceeds of 80 per cent, in bonds, and did you not give me a 
 draft on the Sergeant-at-Arms for $534.72 to make up that. balance; do 
 you deny that? — A. I deny that. 
 
 " Mr. Ames. I am sorry for it. 
 
 "The WiTJNESS. You gave me a slip of paper with the amount of the 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 47 ;> 
 
 balance, $534.72, on it, and told mo there were some dividends wliicli 
 had not been adjusted. 
 
 " The Chairman, (to Mr. Ames :) 
 "Do you wish to propound any more questions to Mr. Colfax ? 
 " Mr. Ames. If he denies that I made him this statement, 1 do not want 
 to ask him any other question." 
 
 These remarks made to you by Mr. Colfax were based on your former 
 testimony that you supposed you had given him the statement? — A. 
 Yes, sir ; I supposed I had given him one ; I know I gave him one or 
 exhibited one to him ; I am sure of that. 
 
 Q. ISTow go back to page 4 of this testimony, on which appears your 
 letter to Mr. McComb, in wliicli you say, " I have assigned as far as I 
 have gone to 4 from Mass., 1 from N. H., 1 Delaware, 1 Teun., 1 Ohio, 2 
 Penn., 1 Ind., 1 Maine, & I have 3 to place, which 1 shall put where 
 they will do most good to us." Will you state to me what transactions 
 you intended by those from each State there enumerated 1 
 
 ^be Chairman stated that all this matter had been gone over thor- 
 oughly, and the committee understood what Mr. Ames's explanation of 
 that letter was. 
 
 Mr. Hale desired an answer to this question, for the purpose of show- 
 ing that it was a falsification on the part of the witness ; that when he 
 stated he had placed stock with certain persons designated, his own 
 testimony before this committee proved that he had never 'transferred 
 stock to them or to several'of them. 
 
 The Chairman said the committee had determined they had all the 
 light they were likely to get upon that subject, and declined to allow the 
 counsel to maiie further inquiries in regard to it. 
 
 Q. On page 40 appears a list of dividends declared by the Credit Mo- 
 bilier, numbering twelve in all, which you say you think are correct, ex- 
 cept as to the first three, which were not dividends. To what dividends 
 do you claim Mr. Colfax to be entitled "? — A. He was entitled to 80 per 
 cent, first-mortgage bonds that I gave to him. He was entitled to 100 
 per cent. Union Pacific Railroad stock. He was entitled to 60 per cent, 
 in cash, that i paid him; and to 40 percent, in Union Paeifio Eailroad 
 stock. Then he was entitled to 75 per cent, flrst-mortgag-e bonds, which 
 were never received, but for which a certificate was given, and I paid 
 the interest on tliat certificate to Mr. Colfax. He was entitled to his 
 interest on that $1,500 of bonds, and 1 paid it to him. Then he was en- 
 titled to 100 per cent. Union Pacific Eailroad stock. I think there is a 
 mistake in this list. I think this dividend of 75 per cent, first-mortgage 
 bonds is repeated in July and September, where it should only be stated 
 once. He also was entitled to 200 per cent. Union Pacific Eailroad Com- 
 pany stock, in his dividend declared December 19, 1868. 
 
 Q. Was Mr. Colfax entitled to all these dividends?— A. Yes, he was, 
 and is, as far as he has not received them. That is my impression. 
 
 Q. Are you sure the 75 per cent, bond dividend, to which you refer, is 
 an error as printed in this testimony ? — A. I think so. I cannot tell 
 now; my books will show. 
 
 Q. Have you drawn all these dividends '?— A. I think I have. 
 
 Q. Have you paid over any of them to Mr. Colfax?— A. None, except 
 those I have mentioned. I^gave him the stock when'he made his first 
 payment; 1 mean the 100 per cent. Union Pacific Eailroad stock. At 
 least that is my impression. His recollection is probably better than 
 mine as to that. 
 
 Q. You have no recollection of paying him any dividends except 
 
474 (;i;kdit jioiulier. 
 
 the three you have mentioned i — A. No, sir; 1 have paid uo others, 
 excepting the 80 per cent, bond dividend, the 100 per ceut. Union 
 Pacihc Eaih'oad stock, and the 60 per cent, in cash. 
 
 Q. On the 75 per cent, first-mortgage-boud dividend yon paid hira the 
 interest in January"? — A. I coUectefl the iiiterest in New York, and paid 
 it over to him. That is my recollection. 
 
 Q. Where did you pay him that $60 and odd cents :' — A. Here in 
 Washington. 
 
 Q. By check? — A. No; in money. 
 
 Q. Can you not tell the place ? — A. No. 
 
 Q. Nor any circumstances connected with itt — \. Only this entry on 
 my book. I should not have charged Mr. Colfax with tlie money if I 
 had not let him have it. 
 
 Q. Do you mean to say that you remember it as you have it on your 
 book? — A. I do not mean to say anything of the sort. 
 
 Q. Then you have no recollection of it! — A. 1 did not have until 1 
 saw it on the books. 
 
 Q. Have you now any recollection of it? — A. Not except that 1 know 
 I paid it, as I entered it on the books as paid. Do you suppose I would 
 cheat Mr. Colfax out of $60 f 
 
 Q. You say you do remember paying these $60 to Mr. Colfax? — A. I 
 cannot state the circumstance. I found the entrj' on my book. 
 
 Q. Now, will you show me the entry on your book of $60.75 ? — A. Yes ; 
 you shall have all the entries. Here it is : " Paid Schuyler Colfax $00.75 
 for interest on 1,500 certificates of U. P. K. E." 
 
 Q. That is all your knowledge in relation to it ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You testified on your former examination that you had no recol- 
 lection of paying him any money on account of these dividends except 
 $1,200? — A. Excepting the $1,200; I did not remember this interest 
 then. 
 
 Q. And do not remember it now? — A. No; except that I have it 
 entered on my book. 
 
 Q. You are confident of the correctness of your book-keeping ? — A. 
 Yes, sir. I do not think I should charge Mr. Colfax with $60, if I had 
 not paid it. 
 
 Q. On page 279 you say, " I never delivered to Mr. Colfax anything 
 else, and never received anything from him exce|)t that time. He paid 
 me for the balance of the stock, and I paid him a cash dividend." That 
 is your testimony, is it ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you ever given him any information that he was entitled to 
 these dividends ? — A. I do not know. I think I must have. This suit 
 of McComb was brought against the company, and I have been holding 
 these dividends until the result of that suit. 
 
 Q. You have no knowledge of giving 14m information as to his being 
 entitled to this large amount of dividends ? — A. I have no recollection 
 except of having given him a statement when he paid jne the $534. 
 
 Q. I now call your attention again to page 35 : 
 
 "Q. Did you pay them a dividend declared June 17, 1868, of 00 per 
 cent., cash currency, and the same day one of 40 per cent. Union Pacific 
 Eailroad stock ? — A. I cannot tell you. I presume I did to those who 
 had paid for their stock. Some of them never paid for their stock, and 
 were therefore not entitled to the dividends." 
 
 A. That was my recollection at the time.- 
 
 Q. Do you modify that answer in any respect now ". — A. I say I did 
 pay them the cash dividend. 
 
 Q. Again on the same page I read as follows : 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 476 
 
 " Q. The same question is asked you in reference to a dividend de- 
 clared September 3, 1868, of 100 per cent. Union Paciiic Kailroad stock, 
 and the same day 75 per cent, fitst-mortgage bonds Union Pacific Rail- 
 road Company!— A. It is my impression that I did. I do not recollect. 
 It depended on the conditions ou which they took the stock. Some gave 
 up their stock, and some did not pay, and, therefore, did not get their 
 dividends, of course." 
 
 Q. Do you modify that answer now ?— A. I think I hardly understood 
 the question asked. I am a little hard of hearing, and some of these 
 questions were put to me which I did not hear distinctly. I know I did 
 pay them to Mr. Patterson and to James P. Wilson, and several others. 
 Some of them I have not settled with, and some I had settled with 
 before, and taken back the stock. 
 
 Q. Do you modify that part of the answer in which you say that some 
 gave up their stock, and some did not pay, and therefore did not get 
 their dividends, of course ! — A. Those who did not pay for their stock 
 did not get their dividends, of course. 
 
 Q. Did not Mr.-Colfax give up his stock ? — A. Not that I know of. 
 
 Q. Did not Mr. Colfax notify you that he would not take his stock, and 
 did not you testify to that on a former occasion 1 — A. I think not. 
 
 Q. You never understood that he gave up his stock ? — A. Not until 
 this investigation. I never before heard anything about its being given 
 up ; at least I do not think I did. I have no recollection of it. 
 
 Q. Ou page 20 of your former testimony did not you say ih regard to 
 Mr. Colfax that at the next session he said to you something about that 
 thing being off, when he came on here? — A. There were a good many 
 people, when this matter became public, in connection with McComb's 
 suit and the canvass of last fall, who came to me and wanted to know 
 how I understood the matter, and among others Mr. Colfax. , I had 
 none of my books here with me, and nothing to refresh my recollection 
 with, and I was inclined to let it go as they wanted it, as far as I could. 
 I did not know but their recollection might be better than mine. I 
 stated it as well as I could for their side generally, and if my recol- 
 lection differed from theirs I would rather lean to their opinions, sup- 
 posing they might be right instead of myself. I had no recollection of 
 Mr. Colfax saying anything about it being off until after I came back 
 this winter.. 
 
 Q. You state that you have no recollection of Mr. Colfax saying any- 
 thing about being off until this investigation commenced? — A. jSo, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you in your former testimony state that Mr. Colfax said some- 
 thing to you about $500 you owed him" in 1870 or 1871 '?— A. No, sir ; I 
 did not say anything about any $500 I owed him in 1870 or 1871, or ever, 
 to mj' recollection. 
 
 Q. On page 286 of this testimony, in answer to Mr. Colfax's question, 
 •'After this conversation in which I told you to never mind the $500, 
 did you not regard it as off?" you said, "No, sir; I supposed I had to 
 pay the $500. I did not know who had^the certificate, you or I." Do 
 you modify that answer now?— A. Well, sir, I do not know. I do not 
 recollect hearing Mr. Colfax ask the question. Mr. Colfax speaks very 
 rapidly and rather low. I am a little hard of hearing. I did not catch 
 a great many of his questions, and it is very likely that I did not under- 
 stand that question. 
 
 Q. Do you say now that you did not mean to say you had to pay him. 
 the $500 back ? — A. I do not see how I could ever make such an answer as 
 that. 1 did not pay any $500 back, and I do not remember the question 
 he asked at all. 
 
476 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Q. Again, on page 2S0 there is this question by the chairman of the 
 committee: " What do you say in reference Co that statement about his 
 making a present to you of $500, sayiii* that you might keep the $500 
 he paid you 1 — A. He made some remark of that sorb to me. 
 
 "Q. Will you state what was the whole conversation? — A, I can- 
 not remember that all; he made some such statement that he was sorry 
 for my misfortune, or something like that. 
 
 "Q. How late was that? — A. That was about two years ago — 
 about 1871." 
 
 Q. Did you fully understand these questions when they were put to 
 yoii ? — A. I said he made some such statement to me as that he was 
 sorry for my misfortunes, or something like that ; that was my answer 
 to one of tlie questions, and when he asked me the date of it I said it 
 was about two years ago ; that was all right. 
 
 Q. Do you modify your answer in any respect? — A. I do not, except 
 that I do not know that he ever offered to pay me $500. 
 
 Q. Do you modify your answer, then ? — A. I do not know that I do ; 
 I should want to examine precisely what I am reported as saying ; my 
 answer was that he made some such statement, that he was sorry for 
 my misfortune ; I think that is right ; and then the question is put 
 about the time when he was sympathizing with me about my misfor- 
 tunes, which I said was about two years ago; that answer is correct; 
 I do not know that he ever offered to pay me $500. 
 
 Q. Did you understand the question of the chairman when he asked, 
 "What do you say in reference to that statement about his making a 
 present to yon of $500, saying you might keep the $500 he paid you ?" 
 Is your answer correctly reported ? — A. The answer given is, "He made 
 some remark of that sort to me." He did make some statement of that 
 sort to me this winter. 
 
 Q. Your answer is that he made some statement to yOu of that sort 
 this winter, but never before to your knowledge? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you understand the question put to yon by the chairman, "How 
 late was that," to which you answered "TUat was about two years 
 ago — about 1871?" — A. My understanding was that it was about the 
 time of my misfortune— about two years ago. That is the way 1 under- 
 stood the question, and it is the way I understand it now. The question 
 refers to my misfortune, and my answer that it was about two years ago 
 is correct. 
 
 Q. Now turn back to Mr. Colfax's statement when he testified that 
 this conversation did take place in 1870 or '71, which statement yon 
 heard. Take that with the question first put to you by the chairman — 
 "Did you hear Mr. Colfax's statement when he was before the commit- 
 tee the other day," to which you replied, "I did," and the question im- 
 mediately following, "What do you say in reference to that statement 
 about his making a present to you of $500, saying you might keep the 
 present until he paid you?" to which your answer is, " He made some 
 remark of that sort to me?" — A. That is the statement he made here 
 the other day in his testimony before the committee. 
 
 Q. And that statement yon understood ? — A. I heard him make that 
 statement. 
 
 Q. And your answer, in reference to that particular statement, that 
 "He made some remark of that sort to me," is correct? — A. Yes; that 
 was this winter. 
 
 Q. Then, in answer to that question, you now say that you understood 
 it to refer to a conversation with Mr. Colfax this winter? — A. No; I did 
 not say any such thing. I say that I do not recollect hearing him say 
 
CREDIT MOBILIKR. 477 
 
 auytliing about the $500 I owed him until this winter ; but I said that 
 my inistortunes, about which he inquired, went back to 1870 or 1871. 
 
 Mr. Hale. 1 will simply ask the atteution of the committee to the 
 statement of Mr. Colfax on this subject, on page 82. He says, " The 
 next year, or the year after, Mr. Ames suspended payment, in conse- 
 quence, as was said, of financial involvements connected with the 
 Pacific Kailroad, and his creditors gave him an extension on his liabili- 
 ties. But regretting his failure and its cause, I voluntarily told him 
 to dismiss from his mind the small amount of money between us." 
 
 Q. Will you please turn now to the entry in ,\our private memoran- 
 dum-book of the payment of $1,200 to Mr. (Jolfax ! — A. Yes, sir. Hei-e 
 are the three entries 1 have already placed iu evidence. 
 
 Mr. Hale then inquired of Mr. Dillon, book-keeper for the Sergeant- 
 at-Arms, who at his request had brought the bookKS of his office for 1868, 
 what was the meaning of the letter "G" placed iu the ledger account 
 ' of two checks, one dated May 15, and the other May 23. 
 
 Mr. Dillon replied that the entry meant cash, and that where the 
 letter was iuserted iu the ledger account the check was usually payable 
 to self. 
 
 February 13, 1873. 
 
 Mr. Ames appeared before the committee and asked leave to make 
 the following exjilanation, which was allowed to be made: 
 
 Wheiever in my testimony I have used the words "dividends of or 
 to the Credit Mobilier," I mean the dividends made to tlie parties inter- 
 ested in the Oakes Ames contract, viz, the trustees to whom it was 
 assigned, and the persons who in writing made themselves liable upon 
 the Oakes Ames contract. 
 
 Washington, D. C, February 11, 1873. 
 Moses Dillon recalled and examined by Mr. Hale. 
 
 Question. Have you any recollection, distinct or indistinct, as to how 
 you i)aid this $1,200 check, having the initials S. C. written in it? — 
 Answer. When I was before the committee the other day, I said I had 
 no recollection, although I had an impression. I supposed an impres- 
 sion would not be evidence. I had a very positive impression as to 
 how that and several of the other checks out of this teu-thousauddol- 
 lar (leposit were paid— that they were paid to Mr. Auies. 
 
 Q. is that your impression now as to this $1,200 check 1—A. It is 
 my impression now. Still 1 was not certain or clear in my own mind 
 about it. 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection as to the amount of the bills you gave 
 for this $1,200 check f— A. Yes, sir; I think I paid him two $500 bills 
 and two $100 bills. Tliat was my impre sion when I was before the 
 tomniitteo the other day; and I will state that, within the last thirty 
 hours, I asked Mr. Ames if he did not think I paid the check to him ; 
 and he replied he thought it very likely. 
 
 Ey thfr Chairman : 
 Q. Do you think that you recollect that you paid that particular 
 $1,_'00 check to Mr. Ames"? — A. Not with sufficient distinctness to say 
 that I refcollect it. It . is my impression. A uiau has a right to hvive 
 aa impressiou without beiug able to recollect distinctly. My recollec- 
 tion does not go that far. 
 
478 CEEDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Do you think you remember that you paid that to Mr. Ames ? — 
 A. I cannot say as an act of memory that I do. My impression was the 
 other day, and has been ever since, that I paid the money to Mr. Ames 
 himself. 
 
 Q. You mean to say that is your recollection 1 — A. Ton may call it 
 so ; I would not make oath to it, because it is too far off to testify to dis- 
 tinctly. 
 
 Q. You mean the committee to understand that it is your recollection 
 that you paid it to him ?— A. That is my impression. 
 
 Q. Do you mean to say that is your recollection, either positive or 
 less than positive? — A. I do not know how to put my answer into better 
 language; it is my impression. 
 
 Q. I do not know how a man can know anything of a past transac- 
 tion except by recollection ; and what I waut to get at is whether it is 
 your recollection, whether you remember that it was so 1 — A. I cannot 
 say that I remember it. That is an impression I have. 
 
 Q. How do you get any impression about it except from memory ? — A. 
 Of course you must attribute it to memory, and nothing else. 
 
 Q. Then you wish the committee to understand that you remember 
 you paid that $1,200 to Mr. Ames? — A. Not with sufficient distinctuess 
 to swear to. I say again, that that is my impression, and I have no 
 doubt in my own mind about it. 
 
 Q. Is your I'ecoUcctionsufticieiitly distinct to enable? you to say that 
 you remember having paid it to ^h\ Ames himself? — A. I think I paid 
 it to him. 
 
 Q. You say you think you paid other checks to Mr. Ames ". — A. There 
 were several of these checks I think I paid. 
 
 Q. Be good enough to name any one in particular that you think you 
 paid. — A. I do not know that 1 could name any except this larger oue. 
 
 Q. Is there any circumstance in your memory by which you can fasten 
 upon the fact that this $1,200 check was paid to Mr. Ames? — A. iSTo, 
 sir; only asl have stated it as my impression. 
 
 Q. Do you now remember it ? Does your memory go back to the pay- 
 ment of that $1,200 to anybody ? — A. Only to the extent I have stated. 
 1 think I paid it to Mr. Ames; and my impression that I did is very 
 strong. 
 
 Q. Was the circumstance recalled to your memory on seeing the 
 check payable to the order of S. 0. or bearer? — A. That was in my 
 memory wheu the check was first produced ; when Mr. Ames first asked 
 to see it; and I so stated to Mr. Ordway ; but wheu I was brought be 
 fore the committee under the sanctity of an oath I could not say posi- 
 tively that I had done it. 
 
 Q. These checks were paid four or five years ago, and hav^e remained on 
 file in the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms ever since. You have had no 
 occasion to look them up since, have you, until the other day ! — A. Not 
 until called for by Mr. Ames. 
 
 Q. Mr. Ames was the man who came to get you to look them up "? — A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you look them over with him ? — A. Mr. Ordway did. 
 
 Q. Did you look them over yourself? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you see this one, payable to S. 0. or bearer f — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did it occur to your memory then that you had paid it to any- 
 body? — A. It occurred to me that I had paid it to Mr. Ames himself. 
 
 Q. Do'you remember now that you ever saw that check before ? — A. 
 Not to give legal evidence, perhaps, that T recollect it ; that is my im- 
 pression. 
 
CREDIT AtOKILIER. 479 
 
 Q. Do yoti remember the circumstauce of a clieck being- presented 
 by anybody payable to S. C. 1—A. No, sir; I could not recollect the cir- 
 cumstance that It was payable to S. C. After inquiries were made 
 about It my mind was led to the idea that I had paid that check for 
 $1,200 to Mr. Ames himself, without remembering that S. 0. or any 
 other initials were in Ifc. I had no doubt about it in my own mind. 
 
 Q. Is there any circumstance which connects it with any other trans- 
 action in your mind— which fastens the fact upon your mind ?— A. No, 
 sir ; I had a strong impression upon my mind of the $10,000 having 
 been deposited by Mr. Ames as chairman of a committee, and that he 
 was paying it out for the expenses of the committee. That was on my 
 mind ^t the time. I could not account for it in any other way than 
 that. I supposed Mr. Ames had deposited this money to pay it 
 out to persons entitled to it. • Several checks wore payable [>> individu- 
 als who indorsed them; the others I think ho got 'himself— most of 
 them. 
 
 Q. There were several checks given by Mr. Ames imyiible to some 
 person by name; do you thinlc all these persons drew the sums them- 
 selves ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you any memory whether tliey did or not :' — A. No, sir ; i 
 presume they did. 
 
 Q. You judge of that fiom what they would be likely to do in the 
 ordinary course of business? — A. Yes, sir: 1 judge of itVroni the ordi- 
 nary course of business. 
 
 Q. There is a check payable to O. A. or bearer; have you any recol- 
 lection of that? — A. That was paid to himself. 
 
 Q. Have you any memory that it was, or do you judge of that by the 
 form in which the check is drawn! — A. No; I have no distinct memory 
 about it. I have no doubt myself that I paid that to Mr. Ames. 
 
 Q. Have you any- other reason for your belief that you did, excei>t 
 that it is payable to O. A. or bearer ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you any other reason whatever for supposing you paid it to 
 him than that? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. There is another, payable to W. D. K. or bearer; have you any 
 memory about the payment of that? — A. No, sir; only I presume 
 I paid that to Mr. Ames himself. I think I paid all these fchecks paya- 
 ble to initials to Mr. Ames. 
 
 Q. Have 3-ou any memory about that? — A. No, sir; no distinct 
 memory. 
 
 Q. Have you any memory at all ? — A. Yes ; I think I have a very 
 good one, generallj-. » 
 
 Q. Whatever a man knows about a transaction, ho knows from 
 memory. I want to ascertain just precisely how well and how strongly 
 you remember these facts. — A. I do not remember them well, and that 
 was the reason I stated that I had merely an impression ; but it is a 
 very strong impression. 
 
 Q. If you supposed a man could not testify to his recollection, unless 
 it was a positive and absolute recollection, you did not understand 
 the law on that subject. What we want to know is, how firm your 
 memory is in this regard. — A. Well, sir, I would not swear that I paid 
 it to Mr. Ames, or to Mr. anybody else. 1 can only repeat again, that it 
 is my impression I did. I cannot state that I recollect it positively. 
 
 Q. Do you mean to say that you have no recollection about it? — A. 
 Yes, sir ; I have. 
 
 By JMr. Hale : 
 Q. Do you mean to say that you have a recollection, but that it is not 
 
480 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 a positive recollection upon the subject ? — A. That is it precisely ; that 
 is whut I do mean to say. 
 
 Q. You use the word " impression" to denote an imperfect recollection? 
 — A. That is it; not to be too positive about it. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. In this account of Mr. Ames, on the 29th June, there is an item 
 of $1,800 1— A. That was payable to Mr. Patterson, was it not ? 
 
 The Chairman, Your ledger does not say. 
 
 Witness. It says J. W. P., does it not? 
 
 Tlie Chairman. No ; it does not say anything. 
 
 Witness, [after examining the journal of the ISergeaut-at- Arms' office.] 
 Yes, sir ; that $1,800 was paid to Mr. Patterson. 
 
 Q. That was a draft payable to him ? — A. No, sir ; that was a check 
 on the ISergeantat-Arms payable to him, as I see by the original entry. 
 
 Q. Do you remember what kind of money you paid him in "? — A. No, 
 sir. ' 
 
 Q. Have you no impression on that subject? — A. No, sir; I do not 
 think I have. 
 
 Q. You seem to have some idea of the denomination of the bills which 
 you paid for the $1,200 ? — A. An indistinct recollection. Mr. Ames, 
 when he drew large checks, always got large money. 
 
 'Q. Was there anything peculiar to Mr. Ames about that? — A. I do 
 not know. He always drew notes of large denominations. 
 
 By Mr. Ames : 
 
 Q. Did I not get drafts when I wanted large ampuuts '? — A. You gen- 
 erally did. 
 
 Q. Did you ever know me to take a large amount in bills? — A. Yes, 
 sir, I have; particularly when you were purchasing iron down about 
 Alexandria. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Under date of June 29 there is an entrj' of $1,000 to Mr. Ames's 
 account ; what is that? — A. That was cash, I presume. 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection what sort of money he got that in? — 
 A. No, sir ; I have no doubt he got a thousand- dollar note if he got it 
 himself. 
 
 Q. What I want to ascertain is, how you have the impression that 
 Mr. Ames drew the $1,200 in two $500 notes aad two $100 notes; now 
 do you i-emember any such thiqg? — A. I have an indistinct memory of 
 such a thing. 
 
 Q. Is there any circumstance which recalls it to your mind ?-— A. Only 
 that he was in the habit of getting bills of large denominations. 
 
 Q. Can you give any other reason' except that he usually got large 
 bills ?— A. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. BANKS : 
 
 Q. At what time was this purchase of iron ? — A. After the war he 
 was purcliasing iron, I believe; I do not know anything about his busi- 
 ness ; 1 only heard so. 
 
 By Mr. Ames : 
 
 Q. This check of June 29, of $1,000, was given on the Sergeant-at- 
 Arnis to Bldridge & Co., of Alexandria; I did not draw the bills at 
 all? — A. I guess you did; otherwise I should have paid the check to 
 Eldridge »& Co., and should have so put it down in the book. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 481 
 
 By Mr. Banks : 
 
 Q. When you saw this check tlie other day, did you recognize it as 
 one you had seen before ?— A. I said I had an indistinct recollection of 
 having seen it; I could not state when, or anything about it, 
 
 Q. What was there about it that led you to think you had seen it 
 before ?— A. Nothing further than the size of the check, and the initials 
 ia it, without knowing for whom they were intended. I did not know 
 it was intended for Mr. Colfax until it was brought out recently. 
 
 Q. Did you observe the initials at first 1—A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You remember the initials 1— A. No, sir ; I do not remember them 
 distinctly. 
 
 By Mr. Haie : 
 Q. You say that Mr. Ames, within the last twenty-four hours, told 
 you he thought it very likely he drew the money. State the whole con- 
 versation that occurred between you and Mr. A.mes. — A. Mr. Ames was 
 at the ofiice looking over the different checks this morning or yesterday 
 afternoon. I said to Mr. Ames, " Did 1 not pay you that check?" And 
 he replied, " I think it very likely." 
 
 By Mr. Ames : 
 
 Q. Did you not tell me you could not tell.f — A. I did not tell you any- 
 thing about it. 
 
 Q. Have you not been before this committee and testified that you 
 could not recollect who you paid the checks to 1 — A- I said so under the 
 sanctity of an oath. My mind was not sufficiently clear tO' state under 
 oath tliat I recollected to whom 1 had paid it, but my impression was as 
 strong then as it is now. 
 
 Q. Can you remember who you paid checks to four or five years ago ? — 
 A, No, sir ; not often. 
 
 Q. Why do you remember this so distinctly; has anything refreshed 
 your memory? — A. My memory has not . been refreshed ; I supposed I 
 would not be allowed to state a general impression in evidence, and 
 therefore I stated in my testimony that I could not recollect. 
 
 Q. You have not examined your memorandum-book since, have you? — 
 A. No, sir ; I have not. 
 
 By Mr. McCeaey : 
 
 Q. Did you pay all the checks drawn on the Sergeant-at-Arms ?— A. 
 Not all of them. 
 
 Q. Did you pay most of them about that time?— A. I did most of 
 them about that time. 
 
 Q. Was this an nnusually large check?— A. Yes, sir; we very seldom 
 had a check for $1,200. The- salary of a member was $416 a month, 
 and they mostly drew it out every month ; sometimes they would allow 
 it to ruii up to $1,000, but it was something unusual. 
 
 * Washington, February 11, 1873. 
 SOHUYLBR Colfax recalled at his own instance and examined. 
 
 By Mr. Hale : 
 Question. You will please make in your own language such statement 
 to the committee as you desire.— Answer. The chairman of the com- 
 mittee will remember that after Mr. McComb had testified, and his testi- 
 31 X 
 
482 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 mony had been printed to the effect that Mr. Ames had written and 
 said to hiiu that I had made some ruling or parliamentary maneuver by 
 which Mr. Washburn's move against the Union Pacific Kailroad bad 
 been thwarted, and the stock proffered to me made to pay, I addressed 
 a letter to the chairman of this committee asking that Mr. McComb 
 should either produce the letter or else designate the particular ruling 
 to which he referred, so that it could be examined by a parliamentary 
 expert and its correctness tested. Upon further examination Mr. 
 McComb did not point out the ruling nor give any date, except that it 
 must have been in the winter of 1867-"68. 
 
 The Chairman stated that he had received the letter referred to, and 
 had made the inquiries, as requested, of Mr. McComb. 
 
 The Witness. Yes, sir ; but in the same testimony Mr. McComb 
 reiterates his statement of a conversation with Mr. Ames, and a letter- 
 which he could not find in which Mr. Ames stated that by some parlia- 
 mentary maneuver I had thwarted some move of Mr. Washburn against 
 the Pacific Kailroad. Not being able, therefore, to obtain any satisfac- 
 tory or precise statement of what ruling was alluded to, 1 took the 
 liberty of asking a gentleman, who I suppose the members of the com- 
 mittee will recognize as one of the ablest parliamentarians in the country, 
 the journal-clerk for twenty -five yefirs of the House of Eepresentatives, 
 to examine every ruling made by me on the subject of the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad during the winter of 1867-68. Mr. Barclay was in ill-health, 
 and made the examination from the Globe at his own house and sent 
 me the following reply, which is dated from the Clerk's office in the 
 Capitol : i 
 
 " Clerk's Office, 
 " House of Eepresentatives United States, 
 
 February 10, 1873. 
 
 " Dear Sir: At your request Ihave examined the proceedings of the 
 House of Eepresentatives for the session of Congress commeucing De- 
 cember, 1867, and ending July, 1868, as reported iu the Congressional 
 Globe. 
 
 "I have examined all your rulings as Speaker on every proposition 
 made during the entire session by Hon. B. B. Washburne aud Hon. C. 
 C. Washburn in relation to the Union Pacific Eailroad, aud find no 
 ruling made by you that was not (in my judgment) commanded and 
 justified by parliamentary law. 
 
 " Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 "JOHN M. BARCLAY, 
 " Journal- Clerk, House of Representatives. 
 " Hon. Schuyler Colfax," 
 
 Last fall I was one of a number of persons in public life charged with 
 having been bribed with gifts of stock in the Credit Mobilier, from 
 which enormous dividends had been secured, aud for which certain leg- 
 islation had been exacted. I replied to these charges in a speech at 
 South Bend, Indiana, September 25, 1872, in which, after showing that 
 the most important of this legislation had been enacted four years before 
 the alleged bribery, I responded to the personal attack as follows, which 
 I now read from the Chicago Inter-Ocean of the next day: 
 
 " Never having had in my life a dollar of stock of any kind I did not 
 pay for, I claim the right to purchase stock in the Credit Mobilier or 
 credit immobilier, if there is one; nor do I know of any law prohibit- 
 ing it. * ♦ . * * m 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. '483 
 
 "Bo I need to add that neith'er Oakes Ames nor any other person 
 ever gave me, or offered to give me, one share or twenty shares or two 
 hundred shares in the Credit Mobilier, or any other railroad stock, and 
 tnat, untortunately, I have never seen nor received the value of a far- 
 thing out ot the 270 per cent, dividends, nor the 800 per cent, dividends 
 in cash, stock, or bonds, you have read about for the past inonth, nor 
 100 per cent., nor the tenth part of one per cent. I have said that if 
 twenty shares of it could be purchased at par without buying into a 
 prospective lawsuit, it would be a good investment, if as valuable a 
 stock as represented. # * * But never having been 
 
 plaintiff nor defendant in a court of justice, I want no stock at any 
 price, with a lawsuit on the top of it." 
 
 It will be seen from these extracts that I publicly claimed, last fall 
 the right^ to purchase the stock, and avowed frankly that 1 would have 
 been willing to pay par for twenty shares if I did not buy into a pros- 
 pective lawsuit, but that no possible profits could induce me to involve 
 myself in litigation. Having over four years before this speech volun- 
 tarily abandoned a contract to purchase at the rate I had stated and on 
 the very ground that I had stated, and having no certificate nor own- 
 ership of stock in it, my answer to the charges then made are the exact 
 truth. And then I frankly accepted also whatever odium there might 
 attach to willingness to purchase and to hold its stock, as I then under- 
 stood it. I will add that what I thus said last September, " that Oakes 
 Ames, nor any other person, ever gave or offered to give me any of 
 this stock," has been repeatedly printed during this session with the 
 essential word " give" entirely omitted, entirely changing its sense. 
 
 Mr. Ames having sworn, December 17, in his original statement be- 
 fore the committee, which he declared (see page 21 of the evidence) em- 
 bodied the, exact facts, that he could not remember having paid me any 
 dividends, now declares that in June, 1868, a check payable to the ini- 
 tials " S. C. or bearer," for $1,200, but not indorsed by me nor any one 
 else, was paid by him to me as a cash dividend of the Credit Mobilier. 
 
 In answer to this charge I repeat again that I have not the slightest 
 knowledge, recollection, or belief that I ever saw this check or any 
 other check of Mr. Ames till he presented it before this committee, nor 
 that I have ever been paid or proffered by him, directly or indirectly, 
 in check, stock, or bonds, $1,200, or $100, or $1, or any amount what- 
 ever. I farther state that I have not the slightest knowledge, recollec- 
 tion, or belief that I ever heard there was or could be any cash dividend 
 on the Credit Mobilier till the discussion of last fall ; and I am as posi- 
 tive as as I can be of any fact in the past, that Mr. Ames never spoke to 
 me of this last dividend, and never paid or proffered to me, in person 
 or through any other channel, any check, or money, or bonds on that or 
 any other account. 
 
 It seems to me impossible and incredible that I should have received 
 the check without remembering that addition to my income, and es- 
 pecially in a check drawn so siugularly to initials, and not containing 
 my name at ail. Nor could I have talked to hiro when he failed, as I 
 did, about letting the $500 go, which I had paid him on the dividend 
 stock, if he had paid me an overplus of $700. 
 
 I must add that till to-day I have never heard of the certificate for 
 fifteen hundred dollars of Union Pacific bonds, sixty dollars interest on 
 which Mr. Ames says he paid me in January, 1869, and I would not 
 have been more astounded to have been charged by him with the assas- 
 sination of one of his own family than I have betn by his charges that 
 
484 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 he paid me either twelve hundred dollars, or sixty dollars, on any other 
 account -whatever on the stock thaf; I had abandoned. 
 
 I will add that for over four years I have spoken in my family of this 
 transaction exactly as I described it in my testimony of January 7, 
 namely : that I had contracted to purchase, had paid about $500, had 
 heard of threatened and acrimonious litigation among its principal 
 stockholders, and had therefore abandoned it without receiving any 
 dividend or certiiicate, but at a loss of the money I had paid upon it, 
 and of the fact of these conversations I will produce evidence. 
 
 I come now to the bank deposit of $1,200 in bills from June 22, 1868, 
 and the committee will remember that I really invited the examination 
 of my bank-accounts, by stating to them unasked that I kept my accounts 
 at the first National Bank, where all my checks would be found indorsed 
 by me, whether payable to order or bearer. 
 
 DiflQcult as it is to recall all the transactions of five years of a public 
 man's life, I will state to the committee where all the money came from 
 deposited from June 22, 1868, and will add that it was the month im- 
 mediately succeeding my nomination for the oflQce I now hold. 
 
 The total deposit was $1,968.63, and there being no previous deposit 
 later than the 1st of June, it shows that this amount was the accumula- 
 tion of money paid to me during most of the intervening time. This is 
 also proven by the dates of the checks deposited. One check was for 
 $18.63, dated June 13, signed by J. !N". Seymour, since deceased ; one for 
 $250, dated June 12, signed by E. C. Cowdin, and one for $500, dated 
 June 17, signed by T. Denny & (Jo., none of them having the slightest 
 connection with the subject of investigation before this committee. 
 
 Of the deposit of bills, two hundred dollars, 1 am positive, were paid 
 me by my step-father, Mr. Matthews, on account of a debt which he 
 owed me. In December, 1867, 1 paid $455 for a piano bought of Stein- 
 way & Co., through W. G. Metzerott, for his daughter, the check for 
 which is in the bank, and agreed to wait for the most of it till the summer, 
 when he expected to be better able to pay me. After my nomination, in 
 May, 1868, 1 had numberless appeals for contributions for political ex- 
 penses in various localities, processions, bands, charity, religious aid, &c., 
 and I had promised to contribute as promptly and largely as possible 
 to the legitimate expenses of the canvass in my own sharply contested 
 State of Indiana, and I often paid out $50, and sometimes as high as $100, 
 per day, as friends were unexpectedly liberal in their contributions to me. 
 I therefore asked Mr. Matthews to pay me his indebtedness as soon as he 
 could raise it, to assist me in meeting these demands incident to my 
 new position. During the month of June, 1868, and, as nearly as 1 can 
 fix the time, about the middle of the mouth, he paid me $200 in bills on 
 account, and early the next month hepaid me another installment, com- 
 I)leting the whole payment before Congress adjourned, late in July, 1 
 am very confident that this $200 formed part of this $1,200 deposit, 
 being part of my cash receipts previous to the deposit of June 22. 
 
 About the time of this payment, and, as near as I can fix the date, 
 about the middle of the month of June, and very soon after the pay- 
 ment by Mr. Matthews, I was opening my letter-mail at the breakfast- 
 table, in accordance with my usual custom, and found an envelope 
 within another envelope postmarked New York. On opening the inner 
 envelope I found it contained a letter written by George F. Nesbitt con- 
 gratulating me most cordially and warmly on my nomination for the 
 Vice-Presidency, and saying that the writer desired to send me con- 
 fidentially the remittance inclosed to aid me in the heavy expenses of 
 the canvass, but wished it kept a secret, as neither his family nor any 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER 485 
 
 one else would ever know of it unless I told tliem. Inclosed in this 
 letter was a greenback or national bank bill of $1,000. It was as grat- 
 ifying as it was liberal, and holding ud the letter and the bill I asked 
 the attention of all my family to it, and then read them the letter. The 
 tact of sending so large a bill by mail was commented on, and the mag- 
 nitude of the gift was discussed, when Mr. Matthews remarked that it 
 came in good time, eiftier he or I then referring specially to the appeal 
 of Mr. Conner, chairman of the Indiana republican committee, for 
 money to aid in arranging for the canvass already in active progress 
 there. The bill was then passed around from hand to hand, and exam- 
 ined. I am sure I deposited it with the $200 I had received from Mr. 
 Matthews, and purchasing on the very same day, as the bank-books 
 show, a draft for the exact amount of this remittance, and in exact 
 accordance with the donor's wish, and exactly as discussed at my table 
 at the time, sent it at once to the chairman of the republican committee 
 at Indianapolis. 
 
 Fortunately, this does not rest on my own testimony alone. Living 
 witnesses will tell the committee that they remember the receipt 
 of this bill, and the contents of the letter in which it was inclosed, 
 and that it was at once discussed how it could be used to carry out Mr. 
 Nesbitt's desire ; and the draft presented and sworn to by the cashier of 
 the bank proves that the very day I deposited $1,200 in bills I bought 
 and remitted out of my deposit "a draft for $1,000 to the chairman of 
 the Indiana State committee. The draft, indorsed by Mr. Conner, was 
 found in the bank here and laid before your committee the next day 
 after the bank deposit was testified to, my counsel at the time promising 
 to connect it with my evidence. 
 
 My family at the time consisted of my mother, since deceased, my 
 step-father, Mr. Matthews, and my half-sister, Mrs. Hollister, whose' res- 
 idence is in a distant Territory beyond the Eocky Mountains. 
 
 I said it Was fortunate there were living witnesses to this besides my- 
 self, for, on a thorough examination of the accounts and papers of Mr. 
 Nesbitt, made by his executor at my request, (Mr. Nesbitt having died 
 the next year,) no trace of it is there found. He had carried out what 
 he wrote, that it was intended to be confidential, unknown even to his 
 family, aind if it was revealed it would have to be by me ; and he evi- 
 dently sent it in a bill the more surely to accomplish the object. 
 
 During the last eight or ten year^ the accumulation of my letters has 
 been so extraordinary that it has been my regular habit to destroy fully 
 nine-tenths of them. Those that are not destroyed are not filed, but 
 kept in their envelopes until they crowd my drawers and tables, and are 
 then tied up, but not chronologically, to be stowed away wherever room 
 for them can be found. Indeed,.Mr. Chauncey, one of the House em- 
 ployes, after I had left that wing of the Capitol for the Senate wing in 
 1869, happened to find a box full of old letters thus tied up, the loss of 
 which I had entirely overlooked. I have gone three times over all the 
 letters I have preserved, and have not fonnd this letter, or any political 
 letters for June, 1868. The acknowledgment of this draft of $1,000, 
 sent to Indiana, cannot be found, though, fortunately, the bank was 
 able to find the draft itself. The letters accompanying the three checks 
 deposited on the 22d of June have also been destroyed, so that I am 
 unable to produce either of the five letters relating to the transactions 
 of that day. 
 
 I remember distinctly that after ray ■nomination my mail increased 
 enormously, amounting to fifty if not sometimes one hundred letters per 
 day, and their preservation seemed so impossible that I remember, as 
 
4.86 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 others do, luore thau. once almost filling a waste-basket with the frag- 
 ments of destroyed letters. But, as I have said, besides the draft, 
 which testifies for itself, there are living witnesses here to prove that I 
 received at that time the $1,000 bill, one of them having made a three 
 thousand mile midwinter journey alone to tell this committee her recol- 
 lection of it. When my bank account was examined here the cashier 
 Avas asked what the forty-five thousand footings meant, and he replied 
 to the inquiry that it was the amount of the debits and credits when 
 the accounts were finally balanced. It was telegraphed to the New 
 York Tribune that night that the books showed I deposited $45,000 in 
 one year, and the inference was that I could therefore easily have for- 
 gotten the $1,200 in question. As my general accounts have thds been 
 made a subject of public discussion, and as I have no secrets in regard 
 to them, I feel it my right now to correct this misstatement. 
 This total was for three years, not one year, namely, from December, 
 
 1865, to October, 1868, inclusive, and embraced, besides other cash ac- 
 counts, the changes made in my investments, the avails of a laborious 
 life, and which changes were mainly on the advice of valued friends in 
 New York, Baltimore, and the West. On the debtor side are purchases 
 of $5,000 seven-thirties of the bank, between December, 1865, and April, 
 
 1866, mainly from the receipts for lecturing; one share of New York 
 Tribune stock, at $6,000, in January, 1867 ; a present of $1,000 in the 
 early part of the same year to my mother, then the head of my family; 
 an investment of $5,000 in an iron company of Lake Superior ; an in- 
 vestment of $5,000 in bonds of the Pennsylvania Steel Company ; a 
 house and lot in South Bend, near the post-office, which I am glad to state 
 is worth now nearly double the $2,200 I paid for it ; a loan of $455 to 
 Mr. Matthews, as stated ; an investment of $5,000 in a western rolling- 
 mill; and a payment of |l,750 to Eicketson Burroughs, for money bor- 
 rowed of him. This amounts to $30,000 out of the $45,000 transactions 
 of those three years. 
 
 The deposits on the credit side that enabled me to pay these amounts 
 were as follows : During these years 1 was lecturing on my stage-coach 
 ride of 1865 across the. continent — during November, the holiday recess, 
 Saturdays, in the early part of the session, and during the spring when 
 Congress adjourned in March — receiving $100 to $200 per lecture. I 
 received in all over $13,000 from this source, of which I estimate about 
 $10,000 was deposited here. I sold^he $5,000 seven-thirties, and also 
 sold the Tribune share at $6,100, and Mr. Matthews returned me the 
 $455 he owed me. Besides these items, 1 sold sixty-two shares of Adams- 
 Express at 72|, and $6,000 in second-mortgage bonds of the Alton and 
 Terre Haute Eailroad for $4,920, making about $31,000 in all, which 
 offsets the $30,000 of investments charged against them. 
 
 Of course, the committee understand that in bank-accounts where 
 changes of investments are made the same money often figures three 
 or four times over. Thus, I deposited my lecturiug-money, bought 
 seven-thirties, sold them at an advance, and used the proceeds for 
 another investment. I bought a Tribune share mainly out of similar 
 receipts, sold it at an advance, and again invested the proceeds. A large 
 part of the money I drew from the Sergeant-at-Arms for my salary was 
 deposited in the bank, as I paid my housekeeping expenses there. It 
 has taken all my dividends, besides my salary, to pay my expenses for 
 the past half dozen years, and hence my willingness to follow the coun- 
 sel of better financiers than myself to investments and changes of in 
 vestments. 
 
 Q. State whether in your own mind, as well as in conversation with- 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 487 
 
 Others witli whom you spoke upon the subject, from the time of your 
 leaving or abandoning this investment, yon considered yourself, spoke 
 of yourself, and betteved yourself a loser to the extent of $500 by the 
 operation, instead of being a gainer to tUe extent of $700.— A. I will 
 state that all the transactions of which I have spoken were understood 
 by and made a matter of conversation in my family as early as the sum- 
 mer of 1868 ; I say as early as the summer of '68, because my recollec- 
 tion is that it was in the spring of 1868 that M-r. Ames states he told 
 M*-. Blaine frankly a lawsuit was pending, or threatened. I told my 
 family that I had abandoned this contract of purchase, and therefore 
 when I spoke to Mr. Ames, after his failure, failing as he did on account 
 of his Pacific Eailroad investment, resulting in an extension from his 
 creditors, the supposition being at the time, as it has not turned out since, 
 that the failure was an unfortunate one pecuniarily, it would have been 
 iinpossible that I could have offered to relieve him from the payment of 
 the $500 he owed me if he had paid me the $1,200 to which he' testifies. 
 He would of course have replied, " You have already got your money 
 back and $700 more." From that time in the spring or summer of 1868, 
 with all the persons in and out of my family to whom I have spoken on 
 the subject, I have spoken of the contract as abandoned by me. I made 
 no claim upon him for dividends, I received no certificates from him, 
 and he proffered me no certificates. 
 
 Q. Has it been a matter of conversation in your family that you were 
 a loser by that amount in the investment ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you ever had any knowledge, information, or suspicion that 
 there were bonds, stocks, or dividends to any amount whatever, to 
 which you were entitled, in the hands of Mr. Ames, as coming from that 
 source ? — A. I hav6 not ; I mean since the time I abandoned the contract, 
 which was when I heard of the threatened litigation, or of the prospect- 
 ive lawsuit to which I referred in my speech at South Bend. 
 
 Q. About what time was that? — A. I cannot fix the time to a day. 
 
 Q. Are you sure it was before the adjournment of Congress ? — A. 
 Certainly I am. It was the subject of discussion in my family during 
 the trip made to Colorado, immediately after the adjournment, and it 
 was because of that prospective lawsuit, I said in my speech that " if 
 twenty shares of it could be purchased at par, without buying into a 
 prospective lawsuit, it would be a good investment, if it was as valuable 
 a stock as represented," but that I wanted " no stock of any kind, at 
 any price, with a lawsuit on top of it." 
 
 Q. State right there where you went immediately after the adjournment 
 ofCongressinl868.— A. Congress adjourned Monday, the27thofJuly,and 
 my family and myself left either on Monday or Tuesday, I cannot now re- 
 call to mind which.' We arrived at South Bend, and left there the ensu- 
 ing Monday, or within a day or two thereafter. I think about the 4th 
 of August I went with ray mother, my half-sister, the lady who is now 
 my .wife, then unmarried, and who went with my mother at her request, 
 and other persons outside of my family, to Colorado. We were in the 
 mountains and on the plains during the month of August, arriving 
 home about the middle of September. I think the trip occupied alto- 
 gether about six weeks. On that trip this matter was talked about in 
 my family. The abandonment of the contract was spoken of, the matter 
 was talked of a great deal by the person who was then the head of 
 my family, and who is now deceased, who spoke of it to others. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Q. Can you state whether this conversation between you and Mr. 
 
488 CREDIT JIOBILIER. 
 
 Ames, with refereuce to the rescinding of this purchase of stock, was 
 earlier than the 20th of June ?— A. I think so decidedly. As I said, my 
 impression is that it was late in the spring. The payment of the $534.72 
 was made the 5th of March. I looked for that check in the bank, be- 
 cause I intended to present it to the committee, and had forgotten it 
 was drawn on the Sergeant-at-Arms. I then stated to Mr. jSTiblack my 
 recollection that the sum was about $530. I could not call to mind the 
 exact amount, and that I thought it was in March. It was soon after 
 that I heard there was great difficulty between the principal stockhol^I- 
 ers of the company. 
 
 Q. Do you know now from whom you had that information ? — A. I 
 cannot now recollect. It seems to me I heard it as a ruixior, and that I 
 then asked Mr. Ames as to its truth. I cannot now distinctly state from 
 whom I heard it. Mr. Ames admits the truth of Mr. Blaine's statement, 
 that in the spring of 1868 they had some conversation about the matter, 
 and that Mr. Ames told him there was a lawsuit citber pending or 
 threatened. That confirms me in my recollection thitt this information 
 came to me in the spring of that year. Still, I have no means by which 
 I can iix the exact date, except that it was in that session of Congress. 
 
 Q. Did you hear anything in relation to Mr. McComb ? — A. No, sir ; I 
 do not think I heard his name mentioned. I heard that the principal 
 stockholders had quarreled. I understood that it was a difficulty that 
 would involve the company itself in prolonged litigation. The impres- 
 sion upon my mind is that I heard there was a possibility it would all 
 be tied up in expensive litigation. 
 
 Q. Who was the Mr. Nesbitt to whom you referred ? — A. He was a 
 gentleman in ISTew York in the stationery business, originally a printer.. 
 
 Q. Ton are not able to find this letter ? — A. 1 am not. I cannot find 
 any political letter of June, 1868, at all. I have made a thorough search 
 three times over, including this box full of letters found by Mr. Chaun- 
 cey, and brought to me, as I stated, in 1869. 
 
 Q. You have made such a search among your papers as to be satisfied 
 that you have not possession of the letter now ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether you received this $1,000 before or after 
 you received the $200 from Mr. Matthews ? — A. My impression is that 
 it was after — I should say a day or so after — and this impression I have 
 i3 deepened from the fact that when I showed the letter and bill, Mr. 
 Matthews, whom I had asked to pay me, at once said that it came in 
 very excellent time for me, as he had beard of the need I had for money, 
 and the promise I had made that I would send a large contribution to 
 Indiana. My impression is that he had heard of the specific promise I 
 had made that 1 would send $1,000. 
 
 Q. Had you ever any conversation with Mr. Ames from the time you 
 had this talk with him in the spring of 1868, when you understood this 
 matter was ended between you and him, upon the subject of that stock 
 up to the time of this conversation after his embarrassment ? — A. None 
 that I remember; I have no recollection of his addressing me a word 
 upon the subject, or of my addressing him upon the subject. I re- 
 garded it as a rather poor financial investment upoo my part, but 
 thought I had saved the money I would have had to pay a lawyer if I 
 had continued my interest and the company had been involved in liti- 
 gation. This conversation with Mr. Ames was in 1870. 
 
 Q. That was two years after your last preceding conversation ? — A. I 
 think it was about two years afterward. 
 
 Q. And you have no memory of any conversation between yourself 
 and Mr. Ames during this period ? — A. Not on this subject. We were 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 48^ 
 
 ia the Capitol together, and probably had conversations in regard tO' 
 other matters. I may add, that when I said to Mr. Ames that I must 
 
 did not want to be in any lawsuit. 
 
 Q. What did he say to that?— A. He assented to that; I cannot call 
 to mind his words; he did not dissent; I understood that he assented, 
 but that he had his way of paying me something so as to regard it as^ 
 bought back ; my idea was that I had no certificate and no dividends, 
 and I wanted to get out of the concern altogether. 
 
 Q. That conversation was not very long after you paid the $534? — 
 A. It was not longer than that season ; this payment was at the open- 
 ing of spring, and the conversation to which I have referred could not 
 have been later than the latter part of spring ; it must have been befoi-e 
 June; that is my very best recollection. 
 
 Q. Between that time and June you think this conversation took 
 place about the trade being at an end ? — A. Yes, sir; and that I heard 
 the same thing he told Mr. Blaine of, that there was to be a lawsuit. 
 
 Q. Ton understood him to assent to bringing the trade to a close? — 
 A. I did. 
 
 Q. Was anything said to him on that occasion about the $534 you 
 had paid ? — A. There was not. 
 
 Q. Nothing by you nor by him ? — A. By me nor by him ; I said to 
 him that I must be off; that "I must be out of this thing." 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether in your own mind you had any idea 
 about this sum of $534? You had received nothing? — A. I had re- 
 ceived nothing. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether you were to receive it from Mr. Ames ? — 
 A. I had this impression about that ; I thought Mr. Ames had come 
 to me as a friend to give me an opportunity to make an investment 
 which would be a valuable investment, and that he had done it out of 
 friendship to me. He had said nothing to me about any legislation. I 
 had nothing in my own mind about any legislation ; on the contrary, I 
 supposed there could not be any. When I heard of this lawsuit, 1 had 
 always had an instinctive dread of having anything to do with a law- 
 suit. I had carried on the printing business for twenty years, with a 
 great many men failing to pay me what they owed, and I had never 
 sued a man in my life. I had paid this amount of money to Mr. Ames 
 in a mp,tter which I understood as a friendly act on his part to me, and 
 when I made up my mind to get out of it I also made up my mind to 
 say nothing to him on the subject of the payment I had made. If I 
 withdrew from a bargain that proved distasteful, I did not feel I had 
 any right to make any conditions. I had made up my mind to get out 
 of it, and I think the events of the last year have showed that I was 
 wise in trying to get out of it. 
 
 Q. Did he make any mention of the money you had paid?— A, He 
 did not, except by the single expression that he wanted me to consider 
 he had bought it back. 
 
 Q. The amount he offered would not have made it much more, evea 
 if you had taken it?— A. No, sir; it would not. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether you had heard at that time anything 
 in relation to the vulue of this stock, by rumor or in any way ?— A. No,, 
 sir ; except so far as Mr. Ames had told me of the possible profits. 
 
 Q, Are you able to say that you had any just idea that this stock, if 
 vou had held on to it, and there had been no liability of getting into 
 
490 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 litigation, was to earn for you the large profits wbicli have been stated ? — 
 A. Notliing like so large as have been stated since that time. I had 
 traveled across the country in a stage-coach, having previously made 
 numberless speeches in favor of a Pacific railroad, for the purpose of en- 
 deavoring, with the gentlemen who accompanied me, to make a public 
 opinion in favor of the road being promptly built for the proffer of the 
 •Government. We had decided in our own minds, from the observations 
 we made, that the road could be built for this proffer of the Government, 
 and a profit realized upon it. I understood from Mr. Ames, when he 
 spoke to me about the purcha.se of the stock, that the gentlemen of cap- 
 ital who had gone into the Pacific road, instead of letting the work out 
 to contractors wha would receive large profits for their risk, were to 
 build it themselves, and thereby would realize themselves the profits 
 which would otherwise go to contractors, and that that would amount 
 to a considerable sum. I have the impression that I thought it would 
 probably .amount to 100 per cent. I think there was something said 
 about 100 per cent, on some three millions of stock. 
 
 Q. What I want to get at is whether from what you had then heard 
 of the probable earnings of the stock, you supposed Mr. Ames would 
 in any way be the loser, even if he paid back the money he had received 
 from you i — A. No, sir ; 1 should suppose not. I really did not know 
 anything about what dividends might be made upon it, or how the 
 threatened legislation would affect the concern. The road was at that 
 time being jjushed forward as rapidly as possible. 
 
 Q. What I want to get at is, whether from what you then understood 
 in reference to this stock, you did not suppose Mr. Ames could very well 
 afford to take back the stock without any reference to this $534 you 
 had paid ? — A. I should suppose so ; but did not ask any such con- 
 "dition. 
 
 Q. Did you then suppose so ? — A. I do not remember whether I did 
 or not. My only object then was to get out of the scrape. 
 
 Q. From what you learned about It you were willing to get out of it 
 with the loss of $534? — A. I would have been. If I had paid twice as 
 much I would have rather lost it than to be compelled to go into court 
 'or into a lawsuit. 
 
 Q. The interest upon the $500, a memorandum, of which Mr. Ames 
 has now produced as being entered upon his book, you have no memory 
 of having received 1 — A. Not the slightest of any money received from 
 him, or anything else, whether as interest, dividends, certificates, stock, 
 or bonds. 
 
 Q. The date Mr. Ames gives of the payment of interest is in January, 
 1869. That would have been between the time when you say the con- 
 tract was rescinded or thrown up, and the time when you had this con- 
 versation with him, after his failure or embarrassment ; you have no 
 recollection of any transaction between you in reference to this stock 
 <luring that period of time? — A. I have none. My recollection coincides 
 exactly with his testimony of January 22, except so far as the $1,200 is 
 -concerned on the 22d of June. He swore then " he has no recollection 
 of having delivered to me anything else." He did not deliver any check 
 •or money to me, to the best of my knowledge, recollection, and belief, 
 and why it was drawn payable to " S. C, or bearer," I cannot imagine, 
 ■except upou the supposition that it was some memorandum for his own 
 use. I do not impute to him or to anybody else an intention to state 
 falsely. 
 
 Q. The ^60 which Mr. Ames states was paid to you, not in a check, 
 iJiut in money, would not be likely to be deposited by you, or any so small 
 
CSEDIT MOBILIEE. 491 
 
 amount if you liad received it?— A. I do not kno\y. I cannot tell whether 
 if I received a small amount of money like that I would deposit it or not. 
 Sometimes I did not go to the bank for weeks at all. I frequently passed 
 there in the morning on my way to the Capitol before the bank was 
 opened for regular business. 
 
 By Mr. Hale: 
 
 Q. You have not examined your bank account for 1869 ?— A. I have 
 not. 
 
 Q. You heard for the first time to-day in regard to that $60, and there- 
 ■fore have had no opportunity of examining it?— A. 1 never heard of it 
 until to-day. 
 
 By Mr. MoOrAEY : 
 
 Q. Have you any means of fixing the date of the receipt of that $1,000 
 from-New York ?— A: Only that it was about or a little after the middle 
 of the month. It was the month succeeding my nomination. Eeference 
 was made directly in the letter tothe nomination, and his congratulation 
 upon it seemed the impelling cause of sending the money. It was to be 
 used by me for political purposes. I think ft was about the middle of 
 the month, or it may possibly have been a very few days later. 
 
 Q. The nomination was the 21st of jMay ?— A. The 21st or 22d ; I 
 think it was the 21st. 
 
 Q. It was your custom to deposit always amounts as large as that you 
 received from New York ? — A. U, yes, sir. 
 
 Q. If you had received $1,000 from New York and $1,200 from Mr. 
 Ames, you would have deposited both 1 — A. I would have deposited 
 both. 
 
 By Mr. Hale : 
 Q. Do you remember whether the $1,000 from New York was received 
 before or after the payment of the $200 by Mr. Matthews?— A. Lam 
 very clear it 'was afterward, because the impelling cause of Mr. Mat- 
 thews's remark about it seemed to be based on the money he had paid 
 me at my request. 
 
 By Mr. McCkAKT : 
 Q. I believe you have stated, as nearly as you can remember, the date 
 of your conversation with Mr. Ames when he proposed a nominal resale 
 of this. Credit Mobilier stock ? — A. Yes, sir ; I should say it was late in 
 the spring, but I will state frankly that I have not the data by which I 
 can fix the exact date. 
 
 By Mr. Meerick : 
 
 Q. Do you remember any other occasion when you kept so large a 
 sum as $1,200 for so long a period before depositing it? — A. I do not 
 know how long this was kept; probably less than a week ; i^erhaps but 
 two or three days. 
 
 Q. You have stated that it was about the middle of the month you 
 received it ? — A- I said about or soon after the middle. I cannot fix it 
 perhaps so accurately as other witnesses here can. My recollection is 
 tiiat it was about the middle that Mr. Matthews paid "me, and that it 
 was within a day or so after that 1 received this money. I made no de- 
 posit from the 1st until the 22d of June, and out of this $1,200 I sent 
 the check for the $1,000 in accordance with the talk we had at its re- 
 ceipt, and in accordance with the donor's wish. 
 
492 CEEDIT SIOBILIEE. 
 
 By Mr. HALE : 
 
 Q. At that time where did you live '? — A. I lived ia a two-story white 
 house on the left side of Lafayette Square. 
 
 Q. Your duties called you to the Capitol, and you were in the Capitol 
 daily °! — A. I was, with the exception of when I was sick. I always left 
 as soon as breakfast was over. My correspondence was immense, and 
 my duties somewhat laborious, and I therefore passed the bank on my 
 way to the Capitol early in the morniug, and did not go into the bank 
 frequently for a considerable time. 
 
 Q. You usually came to the Capitol before the bank opened in the 
 morning and returned after it closed? — A. I used sometimes to go in, 
 and they would take my deposits, because they knew my habits and my 
 necessities as to time, although the bank was not regularly opened. 
 
 Q. State whether at that time you were particularly occujned with 
 the duties of your oflBce and with your correspondence? — A. Yes, sir; 
 my time is very much engrossed ; and the calls I had were numberless, 
 commencing before I got up in the morning, and not ceasing till after I 
 went to bed ; and with the calls, correspondence, and duties of my posi- 
 tion, my time was entirely occupied and engrossed. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Do you know at what timQ the bank ordinarily opens i — A. It 
 opens for business purposes at 10 o'clock ; but a little after 9 I would 
 go in, and they always received my deposits. Sometimes the cashier 
 would not be there to sign a draft if I wanted one, and then they would 
 send them up by messenger to me at the Capitol. 
 
 Q. You do not mean, then, that you made fewer deposits because yon 
 could not get into the bank on your way up to the Capitol? — A. No, 
 sir. I could generally get into the bank if I had the time to spare ; but 
 I very often would get iuto the carriage and drive directly to the Capitol. 
 
 Washington, February 11, 1873. 
 
 Geoege W. Matthews sworn and examined by Mr. Hale. 
 
 Question. You are the step-father of Vice-President Colfax ? — An- 
 swer. I married his mother. 
 
 Q. She is now deceased ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You are a clerk in the office of the House of Eepresentatives, and 
 have been for some years ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. In 1868, during the session of Congress, where did you reside in 
 Washington, and who made up your household "! — A. I lived on the 
 west side of Lafayette Square, No. 7. The household consisted of my 
 wife, her son, (Mr. Colfax,) my daughter, and myself. My daughter, 
 now Mrs. Hollister, was then unmarried. 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection in regard to your payments of money 
 to Mr. Colfax in the summer of 1868 ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. State as definitely and particularly as you can what they were. — A. 
 Mr. Colfax has stated the contract made by him at my desire about the 
 piano. I think it was about the 12th or 13th day of June that Mr. Colfax 
 said to me, one day, "Mr. Conner is here and wants to raise money for 
 the campaign in Indiana. I would be glad if you woald raise all the 
 money you can in the next few days, because I desire to send him some 
 money." I told him I would do so. I had about $125 in my pocket, and 
 on the 15th, when my month had half expired, I went in and asked the 
 privilege to draw on my salary for the month, which I did; and on the 
 16th June I paid him $200. That was all I was able to pay him at that 
 time. At the time of the purchase of the piano 1 paid him $50, which, 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 493 
 
 with five flollars he had borrowed of his mother, made the payment of 
 fitty-flve dollars. About the 3d or 4th day of July, I do uot remember 
 ■which— I am pretty certain it was not the 1st or 2d— I realized for some 
 coupons or bonds I had, and paid him another $100 ; and when Con- 
 gress adjourned, which I think was the 23th or 26th of July, if I remem- 
 ber correctly, I drew my pay for that month, and paid him the other 
 $100. I went home pretty well strapped, but out of debt. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge in regard to the receipt of moneys through 
 the mail, by Mr. Colfax, in June, 1868 ?— A. Yes, sir ; I remember it 
 very well. 
 
 _ Q. State fully and distinctly all your recollection of that transac- 
 tion. — A. According to my memory, from the way I see it now before 
 me, I think it must have been three or four days after I paid Mr. 
 Colfax this $200. At the breakfast-table one morning, as usual, Mr. 
 Colfax had spread out his letters and papers at <;he table, and was 
 opening them while the meats were being brought on. I remember 
 that by the time the servant had finished bringing on the meats he 
 had broken open several letters and read them. I noticed that he 
 seemed to be. particularly engaged with one. letter — that he seemed 
 to be very much * interested in it. He nodded to the servant to 
 step aside, which he did. After the servant went out he opened the 
 letter, which was written on ordinary letter-paper, and held it tip, 
 with his thumb pressed upon a bank-bill, as I now hold this sheet of 
 paper, (illustrating.) He held it up for a moment or two so that we could 
 look at it, and said, "A thousand-dollar bill from a gentleman who is 
 almost a stranger ; this is the scjond letter I have received from him." 
 I remarked, " That comes in good time." " Yes," says he, " this will 
 help me fix out Ham Conner, for he is clamorous for money." This was 
 the very remark he made at the time. His mother said, "Eead the let- 
 ter, Schuyler." He laid down the bill and read the letter. It was a 
 short letter, written on one page of letter-paper. I remember some of 
 the contents of it. It was a pleasant, congratulatory letter. Mr. Nes- 
 bitt said he had great regard for Mr. Colfax as a public man ; seemed 
 to be greatly delighted that the convention selected him, one of the 
 craft, as one of its standard-bearers. He supposed that Mr. Colfax had 
 not a great amount of money, and he begged him to accept the inclosed. 
 He did not mention any amount except the inclosed. He said Mr. Col- 
 fax might feel delicate about receiving it, but that he had no political 
 favors to ask, and as no member of his family knew or would know of 
 his sending the money, they could not claim -anything on account of it. 
 That was about all there was in the letter. It was a very friendly let- 
 ter. My wife and I spoke of it a great many times, for it was an un- 
 common thing for a letter containing a thousand-dollar bill to come 
 into the family. It gratified her very much. We talked about it fre- 
 quently. 
 
 Q. That is the substance of your knowledge of the transaction ?— A. 
 That is all I know about it. I think it was about three days after I 
 paid him the $200 I have mentioned. 
 
 Q. Do you remember the subject of hearing an interest Mr. Colfax 
 had in Credit Mobilier being talked over in the family ?— A. We talked 
 it over several times in the family. I have heard much said upon the 
 subject. It was spoken of several times, to my recollection. Of course 
 .you will understand there has been a good deal said about it this 
 
 winter. ^ , , -, o^o o a 
 
 Q. I am now speaking of what was said as far back as 1808 f— A. 
 We had some conversation on the subject. «■ 
 
494 CREDIT MOBILIEK. 
 
 Q. Will you state wliat was said as to his being a loser or gainer 
 in that transaction ? — A. Early in the spring of 1808, Mr. Colfax re- 
 marked to his mother, and to the family, that he thought he should 
 take a trip on the Union Paeliio Kailroad to the end of the track, 
 as he had a pass, or could get a pass, to go over the road. I jokingly 
 told him that I would take the trip too, as I had an interest in tbe road, 
 and they ought to give me a pass also. He asked me what interest I 
 had; I told him I had purchased a bond when they had first offered 
 their bonds in the market ; our bank advertised them, and I purchased a 
 bond at 90, which I thought was a pretty good investment. I told Mr. 
 Colfax I had purchased this bond. He remarked to me, " I expect to 
 have something better than that." I asked him what he expected to get. 
 He said he was about to contract for some stock in the Credit Mobilier. 
 I asked him what they proposed to do. He said they proposed to pay 
 good dividends. 1 made some little further inquiries about the institu- 
 tion, and the conclusion, I think, was, that there was a little rivalry be- 
 tween us as to our investment. I told him it looked to me like the place 
 where the big iish eat up the little ones, and I did not think much of it. 
 I thought I had the best investment. This was in the winter or early 
 in the spring of 1868. In the course of perhaps a couple of months after 
 that, I asked him how about the Credit Mobilier ; I wanted to know 
 whether he had as good an opinion of it as I had of my bond, and 
 whether 1 had not made the best investment. He said, "That thing has 
 gone up." I asked him how it had gone up. He said there was a pros- 
 pect of a lawsuit, and, as he had never been in one, he backed out ; 
 that he did not have any interest in it. That was about all he said at the 
 time. Some time after that, perhaps a year or two, I do not know how 
 long, my wife read in the newspapers something which she was very 
 much distressed about; that it was probable Mr. Ames had met with 
 reverses and would have to suspend payment. My wife and Mrs. Ames 
 were very intimate. She sympathized very much with Mrs. Ames. Mrs. 
 Matthews always expressed great love and affection for Mrs. Ames ; so 
 much so that she used to say, " My Mrs. Ames, she is so good and so 
 kind;" she spoke of her always in a very affectionate way. Her son 
 remarked, "Never mind; Mr. Ames owes me a little, and I will never 
 ask him for it until ho gets able to pay it," He mentioned the amount 
 of $500. This is all I ever heard at the time of the Credit Mobilier or 
 of his stock in it. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. This is all the conversation you had with Mr. Colfax or heard in 
 his family in reference to his owning stock; did he say anything then 
 in relation to how much he. had paid? — A. No, sir; I understood him 
 that he was about to make a contract for some shares; he did not say 
 how much. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear anything from him in relation to the $500, until 
 this conversation you had about Mr. Ames's failure? — A. I do not think 
 lever heard him mention it; 1 think he never mentioned, to my knowl- 
 edge, how much stock he owned, or anything about the terms of it. It 
 was just a little pleasant rivalry between us, about our investment. 
 That was the conversiition we had upon the subject. 
 
 Q. In this dealing between j^ou and Mr. Colfax, did any note or obli- 
 gation pass between you for the money you owed him? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. There was nothing in writing about it? — A. No, sir; nothing. 
 
 Q. There was no memorandum kept by you 1 — A. I kept a little mem- 
 orandum of my payments. I had very little cash balance except simply 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 495 
 
 the receipt of my salary, which I generally gave to my wife and daugh- 
 ter to use for their purposes, and, being' in society, they could easily 
 dispose of it. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether you made any memorandum of the $200- 
 payment by you "?— A. I think I put it down in a little memorandum- 
 book I had. 
 
 Q. Do you think you now have that?— A. I could not say, indeed^ 
 whether I have or not. 
 
 Q. Were you in the habit of carrying such a memorandum-book? — A. 
 I always do carry a little memorandum-book, in which I have occasion 
 sometimes to put down any such little transaction. 
 
 Q. Do you think that memorandum which you kept in 18C8 is in ex- 
 istence now ? — A. I have not the least idea whether it is or not. 
 
 Q. You have made no search for it ? — A. No, sir ; I have not. 
 
 Q. If you have that memorandum-book now, it probably shows this 
 entry of $200 ?— A. I think probably it does. 
 
 Q. If you have preserved it at all, it is x^robably here in Washington 1 — 
 A. No, sir; I have no memorandum-book in Washington of any date 
 longer ago than last fall. 
 
 Q. You do not spend your time here except during the session ! — A.. 
 That is all. All the transactions that I had in money beyond the ordi- 
 nary receipt of my salary was the payment of this $4,00 which I owed to 
 Mr. Colfax. 
 
 Q. In this conversation in which Mr. Colfax spoke of Mr. Ames hav- 
 ing become embarrassed, and of his owing him $500, did he say what it 
 was for? — A. He did not that I remember. 
 
 Q. He did not make any explanation 1 — A. No, sir ; his conversation 
 was with his mother ; he did not speak to me about it. 
 
 Q. Did he speak of owing it to Mr. Ames, or of Mr. Ames owing it to- 
 him ? — A. He said, " Mother, Mr. Ames owes me $500, and I shall never 
 ask him for it until he is able to pay it." It was iu reply to her ex- 
 pression of sympathy. 
 
 Q. Shewasafriendof Mr. Ames's wife?— A. Yes, sir. The ladies were 
 very intimate. I know my wife regarded Mrs. Ames very well, as a 
 lady; she was always asking aboat Mrs. Ames; and iu speaking oi 
 her, as I have said, spoke of her as " My Mrs. Ames ;" she did it in that 
 way to designate her as Mrs. Oakes Ames. 
 
 Washington, D. C, February 11, 1873. 
 Mrs. Caroline Hollisteb sworn and examined. 
 
 By Mr. Hale : 
 
 Question. Where do you now reside?— Answer. In Utah.. 
 
 Q. What is your husband's name?— A. Ovando. 
 
 Q. You are the half sister of Mr. Colfax?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. In the summer of 1868 ■^ve you unmarried ?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Mr. Colfax was also unmarried ?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q Where did you reside?— A. With him in Washington. 
 
 Q You have come from Utah here for the purjjose of giving your 
 testimony in this case, on the request of your brother ?— A. Yes. 
 
 Q State if you have any recollection or knowledge of the receipt of a 
 letter by him, inclosing a thousand-dollar bill, in June, 1868 ; if so, state- 
 iTullv all vour knowledge in relation to it.— A. I remember he received 
 a thousand-dollar bill in June, and that he said it came from Mr. Nesbitt,. 
 
496 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 of New York. It was iaclosed in a letter which he read to us. It was 
 a letter congratulating him upon his success at Chicago. He seemed to 
 be delighted, and wanted to do something for Mr. Oolfax, and begged 
 tim to accept the thousand-dollar bill, which he sent in a bill, as I re- 
 naember it, so that there could be nd record of it. He did not wish his 
 family even to know about it. Mr. Colfax was rather doubtful or the 
 propriety at first of receiving it, lest the gentleman might want his in- 
 fluence in some way. My mother thought he was too sensitive about 
 such things ; that is just as I remember it. 
 
 Q. Can you fix the time any more definitely than you have 1 You 
 say you think it was in June ; do you know that it was after the nomina- 
 tion ? — A. Yes, sir ; it was during the first excitement after the nomina- 
 tion, when he was receiving congratulations from every one. 
 
 Q. How long did that excitement last ? — A. He was receiving con- 
 gratulations three or four weeks. 
 
 Q. After you left Washington, at the close of the session, you took a 
 journey to Colorado with your brother, your father, and your mother, 
 and several others, and among them Miss Wade, who is now Mrs. 
 Colfax ! — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you remember at that time, on tha't journey, that this $1,000 
 was spoken of, and of conversing with any person in relation to it ? — A. 
 i do not remember distinctly ; I have the impression that I talked about 
 it witli my friends. 
 
 Q. Can you say with whom 1 — A. Not positively. I should think, 
 likely, I talked with Miss Wade, and, perhaps, with my cousin ; it was 
 natural that I should. 
 
 Q. Of that you are not positive? — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You have stated all your knowledge of the matter as fully as you 
 Temember it? — A. Yes, sir ; just as I recollect it. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. Did you state the name of the gentleman from whom this letter 
 •came? — A. It was from Mr. Nesbitt, of New York. 
 
 Q. Was he a person you had ever heard of before ? — A. Yes, sir ; I 
 liad heard of him. 
 
 Q. You did not know him ? — A. No, sir ; I did not know him then. 
 
 Q. Did you happen to know in relation to your father paying Mr. 
 Colfax $200 about that time ? — A. No, sir ; I did not. I knew he had 
 loaned my father money, and I presumed he did pay him about that 
 time. I have thought of it, but I do not know certainly. 
 
 Q. You knew of this arrangement about the purchase of a piano be- 
 tween them ? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you now remember of hearing or knowing anything in relation 
 to your father's paying Mr. Colfax $200 anywhere about the time of the 
 receipt of the letter containing the $1,000? — A. No, sir; I do not re- 
 member. ' 
 
 Q. You saw the money that came in the letter ? — A. I cannot posi- 
 tively say that I saw it. I knew of it, and I think I must have seen it. 
 I know that I heard the letter read. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether Mr. Colfax exhibited the money that 
 was in it so that you could see it ? — A. I could not say as to that. 
 
 Q. You remember more distinctly as to the contents of the letter ?^ 
 A. I remember the letter distinctly, and the bill, and that it was in June. 
 
 Q. Is there any circumstance by which you can fix the date any. 
 nearer than that as to what part of June it was ? — A. No, sir ; nothing. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEB. 497 
 
 ^A^r;rft^L^*^*®'^^*'i^* ^l^- ^^^^^^^ ^^s present, and if the committee 
 desired to inquire of her she would be able to testify iu regard to con 
 yersations about the thousand dollars during the trip referred to to 
 Colorado. As the counsel of Mr. Colfax, he did not wish to offer he? as 
 sirTd^^^^' ^^^^^ '* ^""'^ *^^ committee to call her if they so de- 
 
 The Chairman stated that the committee would not call Mrs. Colfax 
 of their own motion as a witness. 
 
 •TwJ^l'*'T-^°^ ^^**^'' "^^^ directed by the committee to be incorporated 
 with the testimony : '■ 
 
 " Washington, D. C, February 8, 1873. 
 
 " In my statement of facts heretofore made, I submitted a letter from 
 the Interior Department, showing that I was appointed a Government 
 director October 3, 1867, but did not qualify until March 3, 1868. Bely- 
 ing upon this record, the only one then before me to refresh my mem- 
 ory, and having then no access to the Union Pacific Eailroad records 
 copies of which I have just seen, it is now due to your committee, and 
 to myself, to add, that January 2, 1868, I began to act as director, prior 
 to the qualification March 23d, as I should have stated at the start if I 
 had known it. 
 
 " It will be seen, however, in Mr. Durant's, Mr. Crane's, and Mr. Ham's 
 testimony, and from the Credit Mobilier certificates of Mr. Neilson, that 
 December 26, 1867, before 1 acted as Government director, I dispossessed 
 myself of every possible interest in the Credit Mobilier, and hence, when 
 I acted, I had no interest, direct or indirect, in that property. 
 " Tours, respectfully, 
 
 " JAMES BROOKS. 
 " Hon. L. P. Poland, Chairman, &g., &c., &c:' 
 
 The following is the certificate and indorsement handed by Oakes 
 Ames to the chairman, by request of Mr. Kelley, as set forth iu the tes- 
 timony: 
 
 Incorporated under a special act of the State of Pennsylvania. 
 
 The Credit Mobilier of America., 
 „ 1^0. 373. 10 Shares. 
 
 
 t This certifies that Oakes Ames, Trustee, is .entitled to Ten 
 
 ;^ Shares in the Capital Stock of the Credit Mobilier of America, "^ 
 
 5) transferable on the books of the company in person or by g 
 
 Attorney at the ofQce of the Treasurer, in the city of Phila- " 
 r^ delphia, or at any Transfer Agency established by the Com- 
 f pany, only upon surrender of this certificate. S § 
 5 £ Witness the signatures of the President and Secretary of o g- 
 S^s the company, Dated at the Transfer Agency in the City of g ^ 
 S Q New York, this thirteenth day of March, 1868. g -g 
 
 1 SIDNEY DILLON, | S 
 
 President. S" g 
 
 Benjamin F. Ham, |Sg 
 
 AssH Secretary. •§ " 
 
 ^9 
 
 ,a 
 
 *" [Stamped as follows :] Credit Mobilier of America, Phila- 
 
 ^ delphia, 1859. 
 32 X 
 
 I— ( •"* 
 
498 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 [Indorsed on the back as follows :] 
 
 For value received the undersigned hereby asssign and transfer unto 
 
 Shares 
 of the capital stock of the Credit Mobilier, and do hereby 
 
 constitute and appoint Oakes Ames Trustee, 
 
 true and lawful Attorney, irrevocably, for and in name and behalf, 
 to make and execute all necessary acts of assignment and transfer re- 
 quired by the regulations and by-laws of said company. 
 
 In witness whereof ha hereunto set hand and seal 
 
 this day of , 186 . 
 
 OAKES AMES, Trustee. 
 
 Sealed and delivered in the presence of — 
 
 Ee-examiuation of Oakes Ames. 
 By Mr. Merrick : 
 
 Question. Have you any knowledge in reference to any money being 
 used or advanced to aid in the election of Senator Carpenter to the 
 Senate of the United States ? — Answer. No, sir ; I have not. 
 
 Q. Have you any knowledge whether he was employed ostensibly as 
 counsel for the Union Pacific Railroad Company, prior to his election '> — 
 A. I think he never was ; not to my knowledge. 
 
 Q. Were any overtures made to you by any person, or suggestion 
 made to you, to pay him any sum of money, or to retain him as coun- 
 sel for the Union Pacific Eailroad Coihpany, and pay him any sum of 
 money in that capacity ? — A. Yes, sir ; there was. 
 
 Q. By whom ? — A. General Butler recommended that we should em- 
 ploy Mr. Carpenter as counsel for the road. 
 
 Q. Did you employ him in consequence of General Butler's recom- 
 mendation? — A. No, sir; I did not know that' we wanted any counsel. 
 I wrote to my brother, who was then president of the road, abont it. 
 It was about the time Mr. Carpenter Was a candidate for the Senate. 
 My brother declined to employ him ; said he thought, under the circum- 
 stances, it seemed highly improper that we should employ him as coun- 
 sel, or spend any money for any such purpose ; we were not a political 
 corporation, and had no right to meddle with political affairs. 
 
 Q. Was there any suggestion made to employ him especially as coun- 
 sel and pay him a compensation as an electioneering fund, to aid him in 
 his election ? — A. 1 cannot say that that was the intention ; it might 
 look like that. 
 
 Q. Was that suggestion or any suggestion of that sort made ! — A. I 
 am not clear enough about it to state that. . 
 
 Q. You say he was not employed 1 — A. He was not employed to my 
 knowledge; I do not think he was; I have no reason to suppose he 
 was. 
 
 Q. Have you any recollection as to whether the sum of $10,000 was 
 paid to him nominally as counsel by the Union Pacific Eailroad Com- 
 pany '>. — A . No, sir ; not to my knowledge. I never knew of anything 
 of the sort, or heard of it. It was suggested and nothing more. 
 
 Q. Did you not refuse in the first instance, and afterward, being 
 pressed, consent to have him so employed? — -A. No, sir; I did not. I 
 told General Butler I would refer it ; that I had no authority in the 
 matter. I was not a director at the time. I told him I would write to 
 my brother about it, as I did, but he declined to do it. 
 
 Q. Did you not make a statement in the hearing of Mr. BufiQnton, to 
 the effect that when the application was first made it was rejected, but 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 499 
 
 that afterward it was acquiesced in ?— A. No, sir; it never was acqui- 
 esced m to my knowledge. The suggestion was made, as I said, about 
 his Demg employed as counsel, and it was at the time when he was a 
 candidate for the Senate. 
 
 Q. Did you not make a statement to Mr. Buflnton of what trans- 
 pired in that connection?— A. I could not have made any statement to 
 him that Mr. Carpenter was so employed, for it was not a fact to my 
 knowledge. 
 
 Q. As far as you know there was no money given to him as counsel, 
 which was charged up against the Union Pacific Eailroad Company ?— 
 A. I dv") think there was. 
 
 Q. You made no payment? — A. No, sir; the suggestion was made 
 that we should employ him as counsel, and pay him $10,000. 
 
 Q. That suggestion was made by General Butler I Was there any rea- 
 son given, such as that it would be important to have his influence in 
 the Senate as a friend of the Union Pacific Eailroad ? — A. I am inclined 
 to think there was ; I do not think he stated distinctly that that was 
 what it was for ; that was my inference. 
 
 Q. You have no recollection of making any statement in the presence 
 or hearing of Mr. BufQnton of its having been done ? — A. No, sir ; I 
 could not have done it ; I may have said that Mr. Butler made such an 
 application ; that is very likely. 
 
 Q. But you stated that you refused to acquiesce in it, and that it was 
 not done ? — A. My brother refused to acquiesce in it. I told General 
 Butler I would refer it ; that I had no authority in the matter. 
 
 Q. Have you any other knowledge in reference to that siibject? — A. 
 No, sir ; I have not. 
 
 Q. Have you had any communication with Mr. Alley in connection 
 with that subject ? — A. I do not know. I may have mentioned it to Mr. 
 Alley at the time. He was a director then, I think. 
 
 Q. Have you or Mr. Alley, or any others, acted upon that direction 
 and caused the thing to be done? — A. No, sir; I do not think it was 
 done. I am very sure it was not ; if it was, it was without my knowl- 
 edge. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. At the time of this conversation between you and General Butler, 
 was General Butler the counsel for the company ? — A.. No, sir ; I did not 
 80 consider him. 
 
 Q. Was this conversation between you and General Butler prior to 
 Mr. Carpenter's election to the Senate? — A. Yes, sir; it was prior to 
 that. 
 
 Q. Was this advice of General Butler given in view of the expecta- 
 tion that Mr. Carpenter was coming to the Senate ?— -A. I supposed he 
 wanted to have him elected from that conversation. 
 
 Q. You understood that this advice was given upon the basis that 
 Mr. Carpenter was coming to the Senate ?— A. I drew that inference ; I 
 do not know whether I had any right to draw it or not, but I did draw 
 that inference. 
 
 By Mr. Merrick : 
 Q. Did General Butler make any such remark, or assign any such 
 reason as that it was important that there should be some man there 
 who could talk in behalf of the road, or who had a mouth ?— A. No, 
 sir • I think the expression was that Mr. Carpenter had a tongue in his 
 head • I think that was the reason assigned ; I am not positive, but that 
 
500 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 is my impression. I am a very bad hand to repeat conversation, but 
 that is my recollection of it. 
 
 By Mr. McCeart : 
 
 Q. Do you know whether an application was made to the Central 
 Pacific Eailroad to retain Mr. Carpenter? — A. No, sir; I have no 
 knowledge of it. I never heard of it until within a few days. I have 
 heard it mentioned here in this committee-room or the other ; I never 
 heard of it until quite recently. 
 
 Washington, D. C, February 11, 1873. 
 Jaiies Bxjffinton, a member of the United States House of Rep- 
 resentatives from the State of Massachusetts, sworn and examined. 
 
 By Mr. Merrick : 
 
 Q. Did you have any conversation with Oakes Ames, or hear any 
 conversation with Oakes Ames, relating to the employment of Mr. Car- 
 penter as counsel for the Union Pacific Railroad Company? — A. No, 
 sir ; I never heard him speak of it. 
 
 Q. Did you have any conversation or hear any conversation, with 
 General Butler, with reference to any application or suggestion he had 
 made to Mr. Ames in regard to his employment as counsel ? — A. It was 
 some time ago, I think as long ago as the winter of 1868-'69, that I heard 
 Oeneral Butler state that an ofi'er had been made for the Union Pacific 
 Eailroad Company to retain Mr. Carpenter as counsel ; this was before 
 lie was Senator. 
 
 Q. State all the facts and all that was said in reference to it. — A. 
 Well, it would be impossible for me to state particularly all that was 
 said. General Butler stated that Mr. Carpenter's friends, as near as I 
 can recollect, had sent down here to have Mr. Carpenter retained for a 
 certain sum of money, and he'named the sum. 
 
 Q. What was the sum ?— A. I think it was $10,000. 
 
 Q. What else was said ? — A. He said that Mr. Alley, of my State, 
 objected to its being paid. I do not mean to be understood as quoting 
 his exact words ; I cannot remember them ; that was the substance. 
 
 Q. Did he state whether or not it had been paid ? — A. It had not up 
 to that time ; that was the inference I drew. 
 
 Q. Did he make a statement that he had suggested or urged it upon 
 Oakes Ames ? — A. I could not say as to that ; I do not remeimber that 
 he did ; he remarked that Mr. Alley objected to the payment of the 
 $10,000. 
 
 , By Mr. NiblaCK : 
 
 Q. What reason was assigned, if any, why Mr. Carpenter should be 
 employed? — A. I could not say there was any reason given. 
 
 By Mr. Merrick : 
 
 Q. You stated that he said the suggestion had come down from the 
 friends of Mr. Carpenter that a fund should be provided to promote his 
 election ? — A. I so understood it. 
 
 Q. Was anything said in regard to the importance of having Mr. Car- 
 jicnter in the Senate as a friend of the Union Pacific Railroad 1 — A. 
 iSothing, to my knowledge. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 501 
 
 Q. Then, why should the Union Pacific EaUroad furnish a fund for 
 his election?— A. I do not know that they did. 
 
 Q. Why should, it have been suggested that they should '?— A. That 
 is impossible for me to say. 
 
 Q. Of course it is, so far as it may have been spoken of by others ; I 
 ask the question to see whether it recalls your memory of the conversa- 
 tion.— A. I do not think that General Butler, in any conversation I had 
 with him or he with me, stated any reason why it should be given. 
 
 Q. Did he or not say that he made an overture to Mr. Ames? — A. I 
 do not recollect his saying anything of that kind ; the overture was made, 
 as I understood, not by Mr. Butler but by Mr. Carpenter's friends to the 
 railroad company, for funds to assist in his election. 
 
 Q. Do you or not recollect whether it was stated that the overture 
 was at first refused, but afterward acquiesced in 1 — A. I'Jo, sir; I do not 
 think it was at the time of the conversation I had with him ; I inferred 
 that nothing had been given at all ; he remaxked that the thing was 
 objected to by Mr. Alley. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Q. When was this conversation with General Butler? — A. I cannot 
 fix the precise date ; my impression is that it was four years ago ; prob- 
 ably in the month of February, before the meeting of the Forty-iirst 
 Congress. 
 
 By Mr. McCrary: 
 'Q. It was before Mr. Carpenter's election to the Senate?— A. It was 
 before Mr. Carpenter's election to the Senate. ^ 
 
 By Mr. Merrick : 
 Q. The only person with whom you conversed upon the subject 
 was General Butler? — A. Only with General Butler at that time. I 
 never exchanged a word with Oakes Ames upon the subject, that I re- 
 member ; and I do not wish to be understood that General Butler pre- 
 sented this proposition to retain Mr. Carpenter as counsel at all, or that 
 he advocated its acceptance by the Union Pacific Eailroad Company. 
 His statement to me was simply that such a proposition had been made 
 by Mr. Carpenter's friends, but was objected to by Mr. Alley. 
 
 Washington, D. C, February 19, 1873. 
 , The committee met. Present : the chairman, and Messrs. McCrary, 
 Mblack, and Merrick. . ^, , , 
 
 Mr. Schuyler Colfax again appeared before the committee, attended 
 by his counsel, Kobert S. Hale. , ., , ■, ^ ^^ 
 
 The Chairman remarked that the committee had learned from Mr. 
 Colfax that he desired to make some further statement. 
 
 Mr Hale I wish to state to the committee that when Mr. Colfax 
 was on the stand, (on the 11th, I think,) the immediate question before 
 the committee on which he was called upon for an explanation related 
 to the deposit of $1,200 on the 22d of June, in the First National Bank. 
 I examined him only in relation to the source from which that money 
 came, understanding that to be the question as to which testimony was 
 desired. At that time I had full knowledge of the letters and remit- 
 tances at other times made by Mr. Nesbitt to him, which Mr. Coliax will 
 explain this morning; (producing the letters before the committee ;) but 
 
502 CREDIT MOBILIEK. ' 
 
 I advised him, as his counsel, that I did not see how he could properly 
 go into that subject, (his relations with Mr. Nesbitt, and his remittances 
 to him at other times,) unless it should be called out by inquiries from 
 the committee or from other parties. • I advised him that his testimony 
 should be confined to the point at issue, and that it seemed to me that 
 that was entirely outside. Of course, if any question had been raised 
 as to his acquaintance with Mr. Nesbitt, and receiving remittances from 
 him at any other time, that would have been fully stated. In that 
 opinion I was influenced mainly by my desire to confine the testimony 
 to the point in issue, but I also saw, from the nature of the letters them- 
 selves and from the injunctions contained in them, thatthey were of a 
 confidential character, and certainly ought not to be, voluntarily and with 
 out any sufficient reason, brought before the public. Since Mr. Colfax tes- 
 tified I have learned that the committee had been instituting inquiries 
 concertiing his bank-account, deposits, and transactions at other times, 
 outside the immediate connection with the deposit of June 22, 1868 ; and, 
 on that fact, I advised Mr. Colfax to lay the whole matter before the 
 committee; and he accordingly communicated to the committee the letter 
 of last Monday. He desires now to lay before the committee those letters 
 from Mr. Nesbitt, not as having any connection with the transaction, 
 but as explaining fully all his connection with Mr. Nesbitt and everything 
 connected with his receipts from him during that whole session of Con- 
 gress, and as far beyond that as the committee may desire. The letters 
 will speak for themselves, and the transaction throughout will speak 
 for itself. Now I will ask Mr. Colfax to proceed and give to the com- 
 mittee the narrative of his entire connection, correspondence, acquaint- 
 ance, and transactions with Mr. Nesbitt during the whole year. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. On the 18th of April, 1868, over a month before I was 
 nominated for the vice-presidency, I receivedthefollowingletter, inclos- 
 ing a check for $1,000 : 
 
 " New York, A^ril 17, 1868. 
 " Dear Sib : I beg your acceptance of the inclosed to assist in defray- 
 ing jonr personal expenses during the present political campaign. 
 
 " I beg to say that I am ever ready to forward the interest of a deserv- 
 ing member of the craft, and as I am pleased with you, (though person- 
 ally unacquainted,) and knowing that to occupy a desirable position in 
 politics is expensive, I have taken the liberty of offering my trifle, with 
 the assurance that if the matter is known beyond ourselves it will be 
 through you, and against my wish. 
 
 " Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 "GEORGE F. NESBITT. 
 " Hon. Schuyler Colfax, 
 
 " Speaker House of Representatives, Washington, D. C." 
 
 At the foot of the letter is the following paragraph, written in pencil, 
 as part of the letter : 
 
 "I inclose a check for safety; if you had rather receive it in another 
 way, please name your wish." 
 
 This letter I received on the morning of the 18th of April. It came 
 from a gentleman whom I knew by reputation, but who was personally 
 an entire stranger to me. I thought over it a good deal as to what I 
 should do in relation to it. It struck me as surprising and needing ex- 
 planation. I was struck with the pencil memorandum at the end of the 
 letter, as if it had been the original intention of the writer to send the 
 money in some other way — by bill or otherwise — but had finally decided 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 503 
 
 ou sending it in a check for safety. In the afternoon of that day I 
 replied to this letter. I have no copy of my letter, for it was not my 
 habit to preserve copies. This was a personal gift. It was not to be 
 put into a general fund for politipal purposes. The letter said that it 
 was to assist in defraying your personal expenses during the present 
 political campaign." ' 
 
 I replied to the gentleman, as nearly as I can recollect, as follows : That 
 I was surprised at the receipt of this large gift from him, but that I 
 could not aiccept it if it involved any obligation on my part for any 
 favor, express or implied, personal or official. That was the substance 
 of my answer. In the mean time I held the check. It did not pass 
 through the bank till the 2d of May. To that letter I received the fol- 
 lowing reply : ' 
 
 " New York, April 20, 1868. 
 " Dear Sir : Your favor of the 18th was duly received, 
 " I beg to assure you that in presenting the affair referred to, I had 
 no idea of placing myself in a position where I could ask or expect a 
 favor. "When I ask in my note of the 17th that the matter may be con- 
 fined to ourselves, I mean it. If it should be known that we correspond, 
 I should probably be annoyed beyond anything I desire. 
 
 " I have my party predilections and personal preferences for men, and 
 I am ever ready to contribute to the success of either or both, and in 
 doing so I. usually adopt the course I have in this instance, with the only 
 condition f hat it may be known only by the parties interested. I think 
 it better to contribute in this way than through a committee, where much 
 is lost by friction. 
 
 " Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 "GEOEGE P. NESBITT. 
 " Hon. Schuyler Colfax, 
 
 " Washington, D. 0." 
 
 The reason why I desire to submit these letters first privately to the 
 committee, and then — if considered necessary for the ends of justice — to 
 be made public, was for the reason that they all exhibit the same desire 
 that the matter should be strictly between ourselves. His generosity to 
 ome was lavish; his regard for me. was very great; and I desired, in behalf 
 of a deceased friend, not to say anything in reference to this transaction 
 except so far as was necessary for my own vindication. But, after I found 
 that my bank-account was examined in relation to other dates than the 
 22d of Jiine, and that an unfavorable impression was sought to *)e cre- 
 ated out of it, I felt that if this friend could come back, he would say that 
 for my vindication he would have no objection to publicity. 
 
 Mr. Hale, (to Mr. Colfax.) You heard my statement as to the advice 
 given you as counsel ? 
 
 Mr. Colfax. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Hale. Was that correct "? 
 
 Mr. Colfax. That was correct. I showed Mr. Hale these letters, and 
 I told him that perhaps the best course was to allude to them or to state 
 them. He advised me very decidedly against it, ou the ground that it 
 was not relevant; and when the $45,000 of deposits was pointed out in 
 my bank-account as for one year, (but which afterward turned out to 
 be for three years,) I felt, contrary to his advice, that it was better to 
 state to the committee the changes in investments which I had made, 
 and that these changes in investments during three years accounted 
 for $30,000 of that $45,000. Mr. Hale advised me against doing that ; 
 
504 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 but I felt disposed that the committee should know everything. I had 
 had no disguises about it, nor about any transaction in my life. 
 
 The next letter that I received was the one inclosing the $1,000 bill, 
 which was deposited on 22d June. That was the letter which was read 
 at the breakfast table, and the circumstances in relation to which have 
 been described by myself and by others. It was received very soon after 
 the middle of the month, (I cannot fix the exact day,) and was deposited 
 on Monday morning the 22d. I suppose it was received during the pre- 
 ceding week, and toward the latter part of the week. The conversation 
 at the table has been spoken of by other witnesses as well as by my- 
 self — about its coming at an opportune time to send to Mr. Conner, 
 chairman of the Indiana republican committee, who was anxious for 
 money, and to whom I had promised to send money to assist in organ- 
 izing the campaign, which was already in progress, (for the Indiana 
 campaign opens in the spring always.) The check which I drew for 
 the $1,000 draft to Mr. Conner has been exhibited here. It is payable 
 to self or bearer. Attached to it is the draft purchased by it. The 
 draft is dated June 22, 1868. It is issued by the First National Bank 
 of Washington, and is payable to my order. It is indorsed by me, " Pay 
 to the order of Hon. A. H. Conner, of Indianapolis ;" is indorsed by 
 him, and has passed through the banking-house of Winslow, Lanier & 
 Co. At this time I sometimes received from fifty to one hundred letters 
 a day. That was during the month after my nomination. lu the letter 
 from Mr. Nesbitt inclosing the $1,000 bill he said that it was to be con- 
 fidential between ourselves ; that it was not known to any of his family. 
 I cannot recollect certainly whether or not he said that the letter was to 
 be destroyed. I have stated that I could not find that letter, and could 
 not find, on an examination of Mr. Nesbitt's accounts, any trace of it. 
 I do remember, however, very distinctly, that the matter was frequent- 
 ly talked of between myself and my mother, now deceased. Since the 
 committee closed its public testimony I received a telegram from my 
 sister in Iowa, who might be here, but that, unfortunately, she has a 
 child who is in a very dangerous condition of health. I have received 
 from her a letter which I will read to the committee simply as corrobor- 
 ative of what others have testified to : 
 
 " Kellogg, February 12, 1873. 
 " My Dakling Brother : I received your telegram on Tuesday and 
 answered immediately, because of remembering circumstances that it 
 brought up in my mind, and fully believing I could find the letter, but 
 on searching find I have not a -letter in the house back of 1872. I gen- 
 erally destroy all old letters and papers once a year, as I have no way 
 of keeping them without lying around. I am very, very sorry about it. 
 I remember mother writing about the nomination. In the niext letter,, 
 she wrote about a friend sending Schuyler a $1,000 hill, and says at 
 the same time, ' Who can say they don't appreciate my boy f , In the 
 same letter she told about your all going to Denver, and I distinctly re- 
 member how I felt, for I thought, well, I am glad my friends can run 
 around and have a good time if we do have bad luck on the farm, and 
 told Elijah that $1,000 was more than we could make from our farm in 
 four years." 
 
 Carrying out the conversation at the breakfast table between Mr. 
 Mathews and myself, carrying out the wish of the gentleman who sent 
 me the money, and carrying out my pledge to Mr. Conner, 1 sent him 
 this money to assist in the campaign. On the very same day that I made 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 505 
 
 the deposit, I turned the bill into this draft which is here. On the 11th of 
 "Jiiiy> just after the New York papers had announced that the Mississippi 
 election, the first election of the canvass, had been carried by the repub- 
 , beans, and when Congress was expected to adjourn in a few days, I re- 
 ceived a letter from Mr. Nesbitt, inclosing a check for $1,000. I speak of 
 the New York papers having announced the result of the Mississippi elec- 
 tion because, in the first place I remember the incident, and in the 
 second place I think it important to state it in this connection. The 
 letter which I received is as follows : 
 
 " New York, July 11, 1868. 
 
 "Dear Sir: Allow me to congratulate you upon the result of the 
 first battle of the political campaign, and to predict a satisfactory result 
 at its close. As you are about to leave your present occupation for the 
 more active and expensive one of a canvass for the approaching elec- 
 tion, I beg to offer the inclosed to assist in paying the cost. You need 
 have no fear that I shall trouble you for office, as lam better calculated 
 for business than political position. Nor do I desire that it shall be 
 known that we correspond. If it should be, I would probably be im- 
 portuned for letters of introduction to an extent that would be anything 
 but pleasant to you or myself. I, like yourself, am a New Yorker born, 
 and am ever ready to contribute to the honor of New York or her sons. 
 I, like yourself, was at an early age sent forth to earn a living and es- 
 tablish a character. In the first I have succeeded to my utmost deserv- 
 ing ; for the latter I refer to those who know me best. Your career has 
 been different from mine. You aimed to be a statesman, a position more 
 full of honor than profit. Thus far your friends must be satisfied with 
 your position and reputation. In a pecuniary point of view I doubt if 
 it can be very satisfactory. Observation has taught me to know that it 
 is, almost impossible for a poor boy to become prominent as a states- 
 man unless he has friends who will assist him in his financial necessities. 
 If not assisted he must remain in the back-ground, and the places of 
 statesmen be filled in many instances by persons having more money 
 than ability. Where would have been our Webster, Clay, and many 
 others if it had not been for friends who came forward to help them 
 during financial embarassment *? I hope and believe you may have many 
 friends who will assist you to attain to the high position your character 
 and ability so fully entitle you, and you will not accuse me of flattery, I 
 hope, when I say there is no position under our Government for which 
 I think you unqualified. The present campaign will be an expensive 
 one, and if you find you are in want of funds, you are at liberty to call 
 upon me, with the assurance that if I have money to spare you shall 
 have it. If I have not I will so inform you, and in either case the mat- 
 ter will there terminate. 
 
 " I have the honor to be your obedient servant, 
 
 "GEORGE P. NESBITT. 
 
 " Hon. Schuyler Colfax, Washington:' 
 
 ■ This letter, as the committee will see, not only inclosed the check for 
 $1,000, but gave me a carte MancJie to draw on him for any amount of 
 money I wanted. I need scarcely say to the committee that I did not 
 draw upon him for anything. Whatever he sent was sent voluntarily. 
 I beg also to state how it was that these letters were found. I remem- 
 ber that when Congress adjourned my table was filled with letters. I 
 had barely time at the close of the session to read' all the letters that I re- 
 ceived, muchless to answer all of them. When Congress adjourned I took 
 
506 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 all the letters that were on my table, tied thein up, threw them into a 
 trunk, and did not see them again from that day till the time that this 
 committee commenced its investigation. 
 
 I wish to say furthermore that Mr. Nesbitt never asked a favor of me 
 of any kind, personal or official, political or relating to any contract or 
 business whatever. He never asked me for a favor. We met that fall 
 at his house, and he with his family at my house ; and when I said to 
 him, with a heart full of gratitude, "What can I do to show you my ap- 
 preciation of your generosity toward me f he said to me, in my own 
 house, " If you will get tickets for myself and family so that we can see 
 you inaugurated, I shall be amply repaid." 
 
 Mr. Hale. Is that the only favor he asked of you ? 
 
 Mr. OoLPAX. That is the only favor he ever asked of me. In conver- 
 sation he told me that he believed in administering on his own estate. 
 He told me that he had assisted six other persons, and that what he 
 did for me had given him more gratification than what he did for the 
 rest. He made a great many other kind remarks ; but I do not think 
 that even the scrutiny into private matters, which this committee per- 
 mitted, renders it necessary for me to repeat them. I acknowledged 
 the receipt of this third thousand dollars with a great deal of gratitude 
 on my part toward him, scarcely knowing how to express myself, be- 
 cause I never had found such a large-hearted friend in all my life; and 
 to that letter he replied as follows : 
 
 " Keav Yoek, July 18, 1868. 
 " My Deae Sik : Tour favor of the 12th was duly received. I fear 
 it is too late for you to think of engaging in business unless you are 
 defeated in the coming election, which is not probable. The opposition 
 will resort to all and any means to elect their ticket, and they have 
 an untold amount of money to back them. But with all these we will 
 beat them — not by remaining idle, however, for we have much aud 
 hard work to do, and the party will require money, but the furnish- 
 ing of this must be left to the political organizations. Persons who 
 are in office will pay in the hope tha.t they will be retained, and others 
 who ai'e out will pay in the hope that they may get in. Between the 
 two I think the party will be supplied. Not so with you. Your friends 
 must supply you, and the money must come without auy promises on 
 your part, either expressed or implied. I have but little experience in 
 political matters and may not be a safe adviser, but I might be allowed 
 to suggest that your reputation is sufficient for present purposes, and 
 would not probably be improved by letter- writing or speaking in public. 
 1 think if you were put away somewhere it would be about as well. If you 
 should be coming North, and wish to spend a few days quietly and out of 
 the way, I would like you to get in one of the cars of the New Haven 
 Eailroad and take atrip to the quiet little town of Stamford; there land, 
 and ask the first hackman you see to take you to my summer home. I 
 am about one and one-half iniles from the depot, in a very quiet neighbor- 
 hood, and live very plainly. My family make no fuss when friends call, 
 They are therefore allowed to and do feel at home. I am at home at all 
 times, except Wednesdays and Saturdays, when I am in New York, and 
 would have my carriage at the depot to meet you, if I knew when to 
 expect you. You shall not be annoyed by company, unless there should 
 be some friend of yours in the town whom you would like to see. The 
 Sabbath is a delightful day with us. I regret that we are not per- 
 sonally acquainted, I never having seen you except from the gallery of 
 
CKEDIT MOBILIEE. 507 
 
 1^1 i^k'L" f- ' ^°1P" •^eyer Slaving seen me at all. I feel that I am tak- 
 mg liberties with you, but I do assure you I am anxious only for your 
 success, in the tirst place because you are a son of New York, but more 
 particularly because you have shown conspicuously that, though born 
 ot humble parentage, you have been tendered almost the highest honor 
 la the power of your fellow-citizens to bestow, without resorting to the 
 low devices of the politician, but rather exhibiting all those Christian 
 virtues so well becoming a true gentleman of honor. About the 1st of 
 JSovember next I shall have another one thousand dollars for your use, 
 and will require your address at that time. Yon do not probably fully 
 ■understand me, but in order that you may I will explain. 
 
 " I have made, it a rule to inform my children as soon as they were old 
 enough to understand me, that it was my intention, if I had the means 
 at the time of my death, to leave them suflacient to provide them with 
 the necessaries of life. As for the luxuries, they must work for them as I 
 . had done, if they required them. This rule I am preparing to carry out. 
 It enables me to do some good while living, and probably will save some 
 •of my children from the disadvantages too often attending the acquisition 
 of money not earned. My children are being educated to earn their living 
 at such occupation as seems best adapted to the disposition of each. I 
 have written more than I meant to, and more probably than will be in- 
 teresting to you. I will close as I began. It is too late for you to think 
 ■of being anything but a statesman. If that does not pay, your friends 
 must make up the difference. While I can, I will contribute. When I 
 can do it no- longer some other friend will appear to take my place. 
 Please believe me, when I say I desire most particularly that our cor- 
 respondence should be private, and when a discontinuance would appear 
 ■desirable by you, you are only to notify me and your wish shall be re- 
 spected. 
 
 " Very respectfully^ your obedient servant, 
 
 "GEOEGE F. NESBITT. 
 " Hon. Schuyler Colfax, Washington, D. G." 
 
 This letter alludes to a remittance which the writer intended to make 
 about the 1st of November, and which 1 have- no doubt he did make. 
 The letter, however, cannot be found, although I have made search for 
 it among all my letters at home. I have no doubt that I received it. In 
 fact, I have a distinct recollection pf it. 
 
 The Chairman. You mean the letter inclosing the $1,000 check in 
 the fall afterward ? 
 
 Mr. Colfax. Yes, sir ; I am certain that I received that $1,000, but the 
 letter itself cahnot be found ; so that, for two of these remittances only 
 <'an I produce the letters. As to the other two I can only produce the 
 circumstantial facts bearing on them. And now before handing these 
 letters to the reporter of the committee, I desire to make one remark. 
 Those letters of July 11 and July 18 are from a gentleman who had 
 surely shown a very great interest in me. Although written after my 
 nomination to the vice-presidency, neither of them contains the slight- 
 est allusion to that nomination. But as I have testified to the commit- 
 tee, and as my family has testified, the letter which I am unable to 
 produce, and which contained the one thousand, dollar bill, was a con- 
 gratulatory letter, warmly so, one which I might expect from a man who 
 would lavish four thousand dollars upon me in a single year. This gen- 
 tleman died very soon after I was inaugurated. 
 
 Mr. Hale. These letters are all inclosed in the original envelopes, 
 and some of them are postmarked 1 
 
508 credit' MOBILIER. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. Yes, sir ; and the committee will recollect that I said 
 that the letter inclosing the thousand dollar bill, came in an envelope 
 inclosed in another envelope. One of these letters came in the same 
 way. 
 
 It will be seen, therefore, by the committee, that in April, 1868, 1 
 received $1,000 from Mr. Nesbitt as a personal gift. It will be also seen, 
 from my testimony, that I received $2,000 afterward, before the session 
 of Congress closed, and $1,000 at the close of the campaign, in Novem- 
 ber ; but that has no bearing on this matter. These three amounts of 
 $1,000 each, received during the session, were all deposited in the bank. 
 The 11th of April check was not deposited until the 2d of May. I am 
 reminded by a gentleman here that I promised at a meeting of Indian- 
 ians, to contribute $2,000 to the political canvass in Indiana, if I could. 
 
 This matter about Mr. Nesbitt I kept as confidential as I could. I did 
 speak of it to a few friends ; but Mr. Nesbitt had desired it to be kept 
 so secret that I avoided reference to it as much as I could. It appears, 
 however, that there were a few persons with whom I did converse on the 
 subject. 1 have here an affidavit which was received by me, first' through 
 the telegraph, and afterward through the mail, and which I will read to 
 the committee. It was sworn to by a gentleman who is on intimate 
 terms with me. He came into the town of South Bend and heard a good 
 deal said about Colfax's statement before this committee. He did not 
 read my statement, as he swears, but he immediately made an affidavit 
 containing 393 words and sent it to me by telegraph. The original affi- 
 davit has since come by mail. The gentleman who made this has lived 
 for thirty years or more at South Bend. He is a gentleman of promi- 
 nence, whose character is unquestionable, whose veracity nobody would 
 dispute ; who has occupied positions of trust there, and would occupy 
 more if he was willing to accept them, and about whose credibility the 
 committee may consult General Packard, who, I believe, knows him 
 personally. 
 
 The affidavit is as follows : 
 State of Indiana, Saint Joseph County, ss : 
 
 Eicketson Burroughs, a citizen of South Bend, in said county and 
 State, being duly sworn, deposes as follows : " During the summer of 
 1868, after the return of Mr. Colfax from Washington, in consultation 
 about the approaching political campaign, he (Colfax) related to me the 
 circumstance of his having made the acquaintance of an old gentleman 
 in ]S"ew York City by the name of Nesbitt ; that he (Nesbitt) stated to Mr. 
 Colfax that neither he nor his friends wanted any office ; in common 
 parlance, ' He had no axes to grind,' and he had abundance of means 
 for himself and family, and wished, if Mr. Colfax would accept, to be- 
 stow a part of his wealth in such manner as would assist Mr. Colfax in 
 defraying his increasing expenses incident to said campaign, and then 
 offered him (Colfax) the Sum of $1,000 or $2,000, 1 am not certain- now 
 which sum, but it was either $1,000 or $2,000, for such purpose, and that 
 all the favor he (Nesbitt) would ask in return was that he (Colfax) would 
 call on him (Nesbitt) and take tea with him. I have frequently spoken 
 of said conversation to many of my neighbors and friends in South 
 Bend during the last few weeks, and having just been informed this 
 evening that Mr. Colfax had recently made a statement in relation to 
 said matter before an investigation committee in Washington, (although 
 I have not seen said statement yet,) I take pleasure in making this affi- 
 davit in proof of that transaction about receiving said money from said 
 Nesbitt, in hope that it may in some measure serve the cause of truth, 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 509 
 
 arid help to vindicate the character of a just and truthful man whom I 
 have intimately known for more than thirty years, against the malicious 
 aspersions with which his good name is assailed, and I will add further 
 that Mr. Colfax informed me, during the conversation above referred to, 
 that said Nesbitt did give him $1,000 or $2,000, (I am not certain which 
 sum,) and that he (Golfax) soon after sent the amount so received to the 
 chairman of the central committee at Indianapolis. 
 
 EICKBTSON BUEROUGHS. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of February, A.D..1873. 
 [SEAL.] GEOEGE H. ALWAED, 
 
 Notary Puhlio. 
 
 The committee will notice that although my testimony was confined, 
 the last day I appeared before it, to the thousand dollars received on 
 the 22d of June, and the draft which was sent to the Indiana central 
 committee, and although that was all that was talked about at South 
 Bend and all over the country, yet Mr, Burroughs, three or four times in 
 the affidavit," speaks of my having told him of one or two thousand 
 dollars, evidently recollecting two thousand, without any prompting 
 from my statement, or in any way whatever. The committee will 
 also remember that I stated that I received one thousand dollars in 
 April as a personal gift, and two thousand dollars in June and July to 
 be used for political purposes. This check was in the letter of the 11th 
 of July, and'was received here on the 12th of July. I was then engaged 
 in paying up the expenses of the session of Congress, and in closing up 
 my affairs before leaving for home. I had given twenty or thirty 
 dinner-parties during the session; my expenses had been very large, 
 and I was paying the bills. I took the thousand-dollar check of Mr. 
 Nesbitt's, and deposited it on the 13th of July to my account in the 
 bank. I remembered his desire that that should be used for political 
 purposes, and I was faithful to the trust, as I have been faithful to 
 every trust. Five days after that time, on the 18th of July, I went to 
 the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and drew the amount in cash which 
 the chairman will find there, (handing a memorandum to the chairman,) 
 $1,044.49. 
 
 Mr. Hale. That was drawn on account of salary? 
 
 Mr. Colfax. On account of salary. What the $44.49 is for I am una- 
 ble to tell the commitee. I have endeavored to find out everything in 
 relation to my financial matters ; but this $44.49 I will frankly say I 
 cannot explain. The second thousand dollars from Mr. Nesbitt was 
 sent, on the same day that I drew the money from the Sergeaut-at-Arms, 
 to Mr. Conner, in this draft, (handing it to the chairman.) 
 
 The Chairman stated that the draft was dated July 18, 1868, for one 
 thousand dollars, was payable to the order of Mr. Colfax, was indorsed 
 by Mr. Colfax, " Pay to the order of Hon. A. H. Conner, of Indianap- 
 olis," was indorsed by Mr. Conner, and passed through the banking- 
 house of Winslow, Lanier & Co. 
 
 Mr. Hale, (to Mr. Colfax.) State when the present existence of this 
 draft first came to your knowledge. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. I have examined everywhere to find this draft, but, as it 
 was purchased with cash, received from the Sergearit-at-Arms, and not 
 with a check, I could not find it. Since the committee met this morning 
 it has been found by the merest accident at the bank. It is now here 
 and speaks for itself. 
 
 Mr. Hale. It has been brought here this morning by your secretary, 
 Mr. Todd. 
 
510 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. Yes, sir. Not being connected with a check, it was dif- 
 ficult to trace it. I presented the account of the Sergeant-at-Arms to 
 show that I drew that very day $1,04^.49 in cash. There are a good 
 many other items in my cash account of that year that I am not able to 
 account for. If the committee would like to know how much money I 
 spent that year, 1 can show all my politicar experiences, my personal ex- 
 penses, and my gifts ; and I will saj' frankly to the committee that I de- 
 sire this to be done. These experiences are, of course, unpleasant, but if 
 there is a further examination desired into my accounts, I will state all 
 of them, and show what I expended politically, personally, and for house- 
 hold expenses. 
 
 The Chairman. I do not see that the committee has any desire to 
 inquire into that. The reason that we inquire at all was to try and settle 
 this difference between yourself and Mr. Ames, which Mr. Ames claimed 
 that you had. That is the point of the inquiry, and it would not be 
 likely to be elucidated by what you propose. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. I would like to state it, however. 
 
 Mr. Hale. O, I would not touch it. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. All the money that I sent to Indiana, and I expended 
 still more in that State than this, was for legitimate expenses of the 
 campaign, and was all furnished by friends. I have l^een blessed with 
 good friends. I remember that once in a congressional campaign a 
 gentleman, who was not worth over twenty thousand dollars, gave me a 
 thousand dollars, which was five per cent, of his whole fortune. What 
 friends offered for political purposes, I felt no hesitation in receiving. 
 My hesitation about the first thousand dollars from Mr. Nesbitt was 
 because it was a personal gift. I accepted other sums for political use 
 in that campaign, and used them for legitimate and honorable political 
 purposes. 
 
 The Chairman. The point of all our inquiry is to ascertain whether 
 any of these sums were paid by the money received from Mr, Ames ; 
 and as some allusion has been made to the action of the committee, 
 I think I can say for myself and all my associates, that our only 
 desire has been to ascertain the precise and exact truth ,iu regard 
 to everything which we were undertaking to inquire about. After 
 the statement of Mr. Colfax on the last occasion, which was finished 
 pretty late in the evening, and after a long and severe day's work, I re- 
 membered that there appeared on Mr. Colfax's bank-book, on the 1st 
 day of June, a deposit of $1,200, and it occurred to me that any one might 
 say, in looking over our proceedings, that we were remiss in not having 
 inquired about that $l,:iO0, because the time of its being paid was not 
 precisely indefinitely stated, and because it was possible that the thou- 
 sand dollars received from Mr. Nesbitt might have gone in those $1,200. 
 lu conversation and consultation with the committee, we thought that, 
 in order to justify ourselves, it might be well to ascertain about that 
 $1,200 which was deposited on the 1st of June, and so, by the direction 
 of the committee, I obtained a copy of the deposit certificate of that 
 day. We had some conversation with Mr. Ames on the subject, and 
 Mr. Ames said that some of the subsequent deposits he thought were 
 of a larger amount than $1,200, and that the thousand dollars which 
 Mr. Colfax received from New York might have gone into the subse- 
 quent deposits. We could see that it might be important to determine 
 and to know precisely what each of these deposits was made up of, and 
 accordingly I have procured from the bank the copies of all the deposit 
 checks. Our purpose was to satisfy ourselves whether or not that thou- 
 sand dollars had gone into some other deposits; and if we found any- 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 511 
 
 thing which made for one side or the other in the controversy about this 
 twelve hundred dollars, we intended at the proper time to have put it 
 on the record. 
 
 Mr. Hale. It was in view of that action of the committee that I said 
 to Mr. Colfax that it was evidently his duty now to present those letters 
 in reference to the other transactions. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. I desire to state, in reference to the twelve hundred dol- 
 lars of the 1st of June, that I was informed at the bank that a gentle- 
 man had called there, and stated that he represented the Poland com- 
 mittee, and that he desired to examine Mr. Colfax's account of the 1st 
 of June for twelve hundred dollars. The cashier told him that he would 
 like to have some authority from the committee before he would let him 
 examine the books, (although it appears that my bank-account is very 
 accessible, and has been the subject of a good deal of scrutiny.) I said 
 to the cashier, " Why did you not show it '?" He said, " Because it is 
 not our way." The deposit of the 1st of June was composed of a seven- 
 hundred-dollar draft or check from Mr. Sinclair, one of the payments on 
 the New York Tribune stock, of a one-hundred-dollar check which I re- 
 ceived from the First National Bank of South Bend, and of a four-hnn- 
 dred-dollar check which I think was perhaps on account of my salary. 
 The check which I received from Mr. Nesbitt on the 11th of July, I de- 
 posited on the 13th of July. Five days afterward I got $1,044 in cash 
 from the Sergeant-at-Arms, and, on that very same day, I sent this sec- 
 ond draft for a thousand dollars, in compliance with my promise, to Mr. 
 Conner. I must evidently have stated to Mr. Burroughs that I received 
 two thousand dollars from Mr. Nesbitt, and sent it to the chairman of 
 the republican committee in Indiana. 
 
 Mr. NiBLACK. What was Mr. Nesbitt's business 1 
 
 Mr. Colfax. He was a large stationer — one of the old-time stationers 
 of New York. Years before his relations with me, he obtained a con- 
 tract for Government envelopes, and held it until the time of his death. 
 He never spoke to me about his contract ; never asked me to do any- 
 thing about it ; but, on the contrary, told me that he had instructed his 
 family never to ask a favor of me. 
 
 Mr. NiBLACK. Had you any connection with him before that as a Gov- 
 ernment contractor? 
 
 Mr. Colfax. Never. 
 
 Mr. NrBLACK. It has been suggested to me that he had contracts 
 under the Government while you were chairman of the Post-Office Com- 
 mittee of the House ? 
 
 Mr. Colfax. That is entirely beyond my knowledge. 
 
 Mr. NiBLACK. It has also been intimated that he had received favors 
 from you in that way? 
 
 Mr. Colfax. The first acquaintance that I ever had with him was in 
 1868, five years after I became Speaker, and of course five years after I 
 was chairman of the Post-Office Committee. I did not make his personal 
 acquaintance till the fall of 1868. Let me say furthermore (as it has 
 been stated that I had forgotten this draft of the 13th of July) that I can 
 never forget the generosity of this man toward me. I can never forget 
 the manner in which he spoke of me to myself and my family. And as 
 I have been so misrepresented, I desire to say to these "gentlemen report- 
 ers that, as I have been speaking freely of a deceased mother, 1 trust 
 there will be no misrepresentation in regard to that. 
 
 The Chairman. I would like to say in reference to our communica- 
 tions with the bank that I never sent anybody to the bank, and that I 
 do not know what Mr. Colfax refers to or what the bank cashier refers to. 
 
512 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. I liave no doubt that that was a canard. Mr. Swain, 
 cashier, said to me that he thought that this was an enterprising re- 
 porter. 
 
 The OHArBMAN. So far as I know, no person knew anything of our 
 
 purpose except the members of the committee and the cashier of the 
 
 ^ bank ; and, in order to satisfy the cashier, I assured him that whatever 
 
 ' communication should be made to us would be made no use of unless it 
 
 was thought fit to go on the record of the committee ; and that, if so, 
 
 we should call him publicly before us to state it. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. I have no complaint to make on any point. 
 
 The Chairman. I desire that the action of the committee should not 
 be misunderstood. We desire to do no disfavor to anybody. 
 
 Mr. Hale. There is no disposition on our part to criticise in the least 
 the action of the committee. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. If the committee has any questions to ask I am ready 
 to answer them. 
 
 The Chairman. I have here a deposit-check, of 22d of June, and I 
 have copies of all the deposit-checks from June 1. I think it would be 
 just all around if those deposit-checks were put on the record. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. Certainly, sir. 
 
 Mr. Hale. I wish to inquire the extent of time covered by these 
 deposit-checks ? 
 
 The Chairman. June and July. ■ 
 
 Mr. Hale. I would be glad also to include May. 
 
 The Chairman. We were satisfied that those sums which Mr. Colfax 
 received were received after his nomination, so that we did not inquire 
 for any earlier date. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. If it would not be lumbering up the records too much, 
 I should like to have the deposit-checks of the entire session put in. 
 
 The Chairman. There is no need of that. I learned that there was 
 no deposits between the 21st of May and the first of June, so that these 
 deposit checks already copied give the details of all the deposits made 
 after the nomination of Mr. Colfax to the end of that session, and until 
 he left Washington. (To Mr. Colfax.) Do you recollect whether, in 
 Mr. Nesbitt's letter inclosing the thousand-dollar bill, there was any 
 reference to the fact of his sending money instead of a check ? 
 
 Mr. Colfax. I do not think there was. My impression is that there 
 was not, because I did not discover the bill until I read the letter 
 through. It was inclosed in the inside of the sheet, and the whole let- 
 ter was on the first page. The letter was inclosed in two envelopes. It 
 was a letter of congratulation on my nomination,, a very cordial and 
 earnest letter of congratulation and of good wishes for my success. 
 
 The Chairman. That was the first letter you received from him after 
 you were nominated ? 
 
 Mr. Colfax. Yes, sir ; and the only one received until the letter of 
 July, which contained no reference to my nomination at all, showing 
 that there must have been some intervening letter. 
 
 The Chairman. Had you ever had any correspondence with Mr. Nes- 
 bitt before the first lettei: of April ? 
 
 Mr. Colfax. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman.* So far as you know, it was the first letter that you 
 received from him ? 
 
 Mr. Colfax. I am quite positive it is the first letter I received from 
 him, because I was so surprised at receiving it. 
 
 Mr. McCrary. I take it from your statement that Mr. Kesbitt's gen- 
 erosity made a very distinct impression upon your mind ? 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER. 513 
 
 Mr. Colfax. It did; very distinct, indeed. He told me afterward 
 about his habit of giving money— that his wife and himself gave money 
 often withQut consultation with each other. 
 
 Mr. MoOeaey. Have you now any distinct recollection as to the total 
 sum which you received from him ? 
 
 Mr. Colfax. I received $4,000 in 1868. I have a distinct recollection 
 of it, for I have often spoken of it. 
 
 Mr. McCeaey. You have no question that it was $4,000— not $3,000 ! 
 
 Mr. Colfax. Yes ; it was $1,000 before my nomination, as a personal 
 gift, (as he stated,) $2,000 after my nomination and before I left here, 
 and $1,000 in the fall. There were three remittances during the session. 
 
 Mr. McCeaey. You do not think there was any possibility of your 
 being mistaken, and that the total was not $3,000, but $4,000? 
 
 Mr; Colfax. No, sir; I am positive about it being $4,000 during 
 1868. The affidavit which I have presented corroborates that I received 
 the $2,000 from him after my nomination, and during the session of 
 Congress, because when I went home I told this confidential friend, Mr. 
 Burroughs, about it, and about my having received from him (as Bur- 
 roughs says) $1,000 or $2,000, and he evidently thinks it was $2,000, 
 showing the impression that was made on his mind, and about my hav- 
 ing sent the money to the chairman of the central committee ; and I 
 have presented the two drafts corresponding in time. 
 
 By Mr; Oakes Ames : 
 
 Question. You say that you received a check from Mr. Nesbitt on the 
 18th of April ? — Answer. Yes ; the check is dated the 17th, and it ar- 
 rived on the 18th. 
 
 Q. A check for $1,000 ?— A. Yes. 
 
 Q. And you say that on the bottom of the letter is a paragraph in 
 pencil asking whether you wished the money sent in any other way 1 — 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you instruct him to send the next money in a bill ? — A. I made 
 no reference to the matter in my reply, because I made no claim for any 
 money whatever.- Whatever he sent, he sent voluntarily. 
 
 Q. Can you account for his sending the next remittance in a bill, 
 while he sent all the other remittances in checks ? — A. I do not know 
 whether the one sent in November was a check or a bill. This postscript 
 in i)eucil seems to show that he thought first of sending a bill in April. 
 
 Q. You say that the remittance of the 22d June was in a bill 1 — A. 
 Yes. 
 
 Q. And you say that it was often talked about in the family, and that 
 it excited a good deal of comment and surprise that so liberal a dona- 
 tion should be made by a man who was comparatively a stranger 'i — 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Can you account for so much being said about that thousand dol- 
 lars when the other three thousand dollars excited no attention at all ? — 
 A. When I opened my mail at the breakfast-table and saw this one 
 thousand dollar bill I was very much surprised. It was a bill which 
 had evidently been somewhat worn, because I remember it had none of 
 the ciispness of a new bill ; the rattle was all out of it. I held it up, 
 and we talked of it. 
 
 Mr. Ames. It made a rattling sensation at the breakfast-table which 
 the checks did not make. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. It lacked the rattling sensation. 
 
 Q. That $1,000 bill which you received— did you deposit it on the 22d 
 or 23d of June ?— A. On the 22d of June. 
 33 X 
 
514 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 Q. Wbj' was it so important to make that deposit of just $1,200, the 
 same amount as Mr. Ordway's check ? Why did you have to get $200 
 . from somebody else to make it up ? — A. I never saw Mr. Ord\vay's check 
 or $1,200 'till i saw it here in the committee-room. 
 
 Mr. Ames. All right ; there is no use in discussing that any further. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. I have not alluded to it. 
 
 Q. And you received another thousand-dollar check on July 11 ? — A. 
 Yes. 
 
 Q. And another one in INovemberf — A. I have not got the letter in- 
 closing it, but I have no doubt I received the thousand he promised to 
 send then. 
 
 Mr. Ames. And these three checks excited no comment and made no 
 impression on your mind, while the thousand-dollar bill was a subject of 
 conversation atthebreakfast-table, and all the way to Colorado and back ? 
 
 Mr. Colfax. Indeed they did; they made a very decided impression. 
 
 Q. Was not this Mr. Nesbitt a contractor with the Post-Office Depart- 
 ment for furnishing envelopes ? — A. So I understand. 
 
 Q. For four or five years, while you were chairman of the Post-Office 
 Committee ■? — A. I have no recollection of it ; I had no connection with 
 it. It was a contract giveii to the lowest bidder. He never spoke to 
 me in 1868, or in any year preceding 1868, or up to the day of his death, 
 in 1868, in reference to a post-office contract. He never asked me to do 
 anything directly or indirectly in regard to it at any time. 
 
 Mr. Ames. It seems that this man always got the contract every year^ 
 whether he was the highest or the lowest bidder. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. That I know nothing about. 
 
 Mr. Ames. So I am informed, and I did not know but that these do- 
 nations may have been something as bad as Credit Mobilier stock. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. As I have said, they were accepted with a distinct un- 
 derstanding that they would not involve any obligation, expressed or 
 implied, personal or official; and it was so acquiesced in, and Mr. I^Tes- 
 bitt so instructed his family. The only favor he ever asked me was to 
 get tickets for his family to see the inauguration. 
 
 Mr. Ames. He must have been a singular man. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. He was a very large-hearted man. 
 
 Mr. Ames. No doubt of it. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. His letters show that very conclusively. 
 
 By Mr. McCeAET : 
 
 Q. Do you know how the contracts were let for supplying those en- 
 velopes ? — A. I believe by receiving bids, which are decided by the 
 Postmaster-General on the recommendation of a board of some of his 
 officials, which he creates. He has two or three officials who examine 
 the specimens. I know nothing of it personally. I never saw any let- 
 ting of any envelope contracts, and I have no personal knowledge how 
 envelope contracts are let. 
 
 Q. They were let to the lowest bidder? — A. There has been a question, 
 as I understand it, sometimes as to who was the lowest bidder, because 
 there was some difference as to the quality of the specimens. But I 
 repeat again that Mr. Nesbitt never asked me anything about it. On 
 the contrary, it was a distinct understanding that no favor should ever 
 be asked of me by him. 
 
 The Chairman. This contract .was a contract with the Post-Office 
 Department"? 
 
 Mr. Colfax. Yes, sir. Mr. aSTesbitt had it for a number of years. 
 
 Mr. Ames. You were chairman of the Posfc-Office Committee during 
 this contract 1 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 515 
 
 Mr. Colfax. I do not know whether I was or not, for I do not know 
 when, the contract began. The Postmaster-General never asked me any- 
 thing about such contracts while I was chairman of that committee. 
 
 The Chaikman. Was Mr. Nesbitt a contractor to supply the House 
 with stationery ? 
 
 Mr. Colfax. Not that I know of. The contract he had was for fur- 
 nishing stamped envelopes. 
 
 Mr. Hale. I am very confident that the stamped envelopes were not 
 introduced until a later date than Mr. Ames mentions, and until Mr. 
 ■Colfax became Speaker of the House. 
 
 Mr. Colfax. Let me repeat. I never had a word with Mr. l^esbitt, 
 by letter, by paper, by personal interview, before April 11, 1868. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Nesbitt never, as far as you know, had any con- 
 tract to supply the House with stationery ? 
 
 Mr. Colfax. No, sir ; never, so far as I know. 
 
 The following are the deposit-checks, and summary thereof, that were 
 put in evidence : 
 
 Deposited with First National Bank, by , June 1, 1868 : 
 
 Checks, as follows .' $400 00 
 
 700 00 
 100 00 
 
 1,200 00 
 SCHUYLER COLFAX. 
 
 Deposited with the First National Bank, by , July 7, 1868 : 
 
 United States and bank notes ■ 
 
 Checks, as follows $100 00 
 
 200 00 
 100 00 
 
 400 00 
 (Signed) SCHUYLEE COLFAX. 
 
 Deposited with the First National Bank, by Schuyler Colfax, July 8 : 
 United States and bank notes . 
 
 3,i 
 
 Checks, as follows $1^0 00 
 
 Deposited with the First National Bank, by Schuyler Colfax, July 
 13, 1868 : 
 
 United States and bank notes 
 
 ■Checks, as follows - '500 on 
 
 43 88 
 
 1, 543 88 
 
 Deposited with the First National Bank, by Schuyler Colfax, July 
 27, 1868 : 
 United States and bank notes 
 
 ■Checks, as follows fin nn 
 
 ' . » 100 00 
 
 174 22 
 
516 CREDIT MOBILIEE. 
 
 June 1, 1868. C. W. Guthrie, Cas. on Merchants' 
 
 Nat., K Y $100 00 
 
 S. Sinclair, Park 700 00 
 
 (Oheck noted, and dep. ticket don't find) 400 00 
 
 June 22, 1868, E. 0. Cowdin, Metro., N. Y 250 00 
 
 T. Denny & Co., Am. Ex., N. Y 500 00 
 
 I. K Seymour, tr 18 63 
 
 July 7, 1868. J. L. Everett, Cas., note, Broadway. .. 100 00 
 
 C. W. Guthrie, Cas., Merchants', N. Y., 200 00 
 
 S. M. Pettingill & Co., Nassau 100 00 
 
 July 8, 1868. (Don't find) .'. . . $150 00 
 
 July 13, 1868. I. N. Seymour, leather man 43 88 
 
 G. E. Nesbitt, man. co ' 1,000 00 
 
 Thomas Cornell, Eirst N. Y 500 00 
 
 July 27, 1868. W. Orton, Comm 74 22 
 
 Devlin & Co., Broadway 100 GO 
 
 Washington, D. C, February 19, 1873. 
 
 .J, S. Fowler, formerly Senator from Tennessee, appeared before the 
 committee and made the following statement under oath : 
 
 Some time in 1867, toward the close of the year, I met Mr. McComb, 
 a friend of mine, and aftejc the usual compliments had passed, he re- 
 marked to me that Oakes Ames had some stock of the Credit Mobilier 
 to dispose of, and he said, " I want -my friends to have some of that 
 stock, and not his have all. I want you to have some, and I want 
 Mr, Bayard, of Delaware, to have some," He made a few remarks 
 about the stock, as that it would be very valuable, &c., and he said, 
 " I am going to let both of you have some." That is about all that 
 occurred between us, of any importance, pertaining to. that subject. 
 Some time afterward, I do not know how long, I met Mr. Ames, I met 
 him very frequently ; we were members of the same committee ; I mean 
 the national union republican committee. I think I remarked to him, 
 " Mr. Ames, what about that Credit Mobilier stock, that Mr. McComb 
 has been speaking to me about I " (Mr. McComb had also spoken to 
 Mr. Ames about letting me have it.) Mr. AmeS remarked, that he had 
 had some of that stock to dispose of, but that he did not think that he 
 had any then. That was all that took place of any importance at 
 that time. A day or two afterward I met Mr. Ames, and we con- 
 versed over that matter, and over Pacific Eailroad matters generally. 
 Mr, Ames never offered me any of the stock. I do not know that I 
 ever owned a dollar's worth of stock in any institution, until last De- 
 cember, when I purchased a little stock in an insurance company, I 
 certainly never received a cent in dividends from any stock ; if I did, 
 it is to be discovered yet by me. Mr. Ames never proposed anything 
 to me in this matter. It was altogether through Mr. McComb that my 
 name was connected with it, and the first that I knew of it was by the 
 publication in the New York Sun last summer. I had no chance then 
 to give an explanation of it. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Q. Was this conversation between you and McComb, when the matter 
 was first spoken of, after the commencement of the session of Congress 
 
CREDIT 4I0BILIER. 517 
 
 in December, 1867 ?— A. I think it was during that session. I am satis- 
 fied that it was here at Washington, and it must have been during that 
 session of Congress, because I met him in the Capitol. Thf reason why 
 I did not charge my memory with the date was, that I did not attribute 
 any particular importance to what he said on the occasion. He, how- 
 ever, seemed to be very earnest in the matter. * 
 
 Q. And he told you that Mr. Ames had some of that stock to distrib- 
 ute ?— A. Not to distribute, bat to dispose of. 
 
 Q. And he wanted some of his friends to have some of it? — A. Yes, 
 sir ; he said, I want you, and Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, to have some. 
 
 Q. Mr. Bayard was then in the Senate, and you were also in the 
 Senate? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Can you tell about what time it was that you had the first conver- 
 sation with Mr. Ames about it ? — A. It may have been ten days or two 
 weeks after our conversation with McComb. 
 
 Q. Was it in the early part of that winter? — A. I think so; it was 
 immediately following the conversation I had with Mr. McOomb. 
 
 Q. What do you say was Mr. Ames's answer to you ? — A. He spoke 
 about the stock, and said that he had had some of it, but he did not 
 think he had any then. I remember his saying that he had let Mr. 
 Patterson have $3,000 worth of the stock, 
 
 Q. Do you recollect whether he named anybody else in connection 
 with it ? — A. Ko, sir ; I remember that very distinctly. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. McComb name any other person to you except yourself 
 and Senator Bayard? — ^A. Not to the best of my recollection. He said 
 that he wanted his friends to have some of that stock, and I recollect 
 that he mentioned Mr. Bayard by name. I did not understand Mr. 
 McComb as meaning that stock was to be distributed, but that it was to 
 be purchased. 
 
 The Chateman. When I used the word " distributed" I did not mean 
 that the stock was to be given away. 
 
 The Witness. I understood the same idea to be conveyed by Mr. Ames 
 in relation to Mr. Patterson's stock. Mr. Ames spoke of it as having 
 sold the stock to Mr. Patterson. 
 
 Q. You did not understand from Mr. 5IcComb that Ames had stock 
 to give away ? — A. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Mbkbick : 
 
 Q. Did you understand that stock was to be transferred at anything 
 less than its fall market- value ! — A. No, sir ; there was no understand- 
 ing about it. I did not know what its value was. 
 
 Q. There was . nothing said with reference to its value ?— ^A. No, sir, 
 not then; because I did not press the inquiry in the matter at all. Mr. 
 McComb said it would be valuable. 
 
 Q. Did they describe to you the exact relations between the Credit 
 Mobilier and the Union Pacific Kailroad Company, as they are now 
 understood and developed ? — A. No, sir ; Mr. McComb did not. Mr. 
 Ames and I had a full conversation about those relations. 
 
 Q. Tell what description he gave you about these relations — what im- 
 pression was left on your mind ? — A. He stated that the Credit Mobilier 
 was a company which had been formed for the purpose of. building, the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad, and I understood from him that they were to 
 receive their pay from the subsidies given the Union Pacific Eailroad 
 Company ; that the dividends were all to come from the profits on the 
 contract. Mr. Ames did not seem anxious to dispose of any of the 
 stock. 
 
 Q. Did yoa understand that those dividends were to consist in whole 
 
518 CREDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 or in part of the stock of the Union Pacific Eailroacl Company itself? — 
 A. I did not. 
 
 Q. Was tbere anything in the account and description which he gave 
 to you of the Credit Mobilier, and its operations in connection with the 
 Union Pacific Eailroad Company, that would suggest to your mind or to 
 the mind of any other intelligent gentleman any antagonism that might 
 arise between the relations of the holder of that stock and his duties as 
 a disinterested law-maker of the country ? — A. There was such a possi- 
 bility. 
 
 Q. And they were incompatible, as you understood 1 — A. Of course, 
 they might be. Mr. Ames did not state that any legislation would be 
 required by the company, but I, myself, could see such a contingency. 
 
 Mr. Merrick. Yes ; I speak of what you derived from his statement. 
 
 The Witness. My conclusion was that this question might come before 
 Congress, and that if I held the stock I might be required to vote on 
 measures affecting it ; no more from his statement than from my own 
 knowledge of the matter. 
 
 Q. Influencing your private interests'? — A. Possibly; I would consider 
 it about the same as a vote on the question of national banks, in which 
 I might hold stock, or something of that kind. I should regard the in- 
 terests of the national bank in which I held stock, if I held any, as plac- 
 ing me in precisely the same attitude as I would have been placed in 
 if I held this stock. I did not understand that either Mr. McComb or 
 Mr. Ames kept back any explanation. 
 
 Q. Do I understand from you that you declined to take the stock ? — 
 A. No, sir ; I did not. Mr. Ames did not offer me any. 
 
 ■Q. If stock had been offered to you, would you have taken it with 
 the knowledge which yon had of the possible complications which might 
 arise between your private interests and your public duty? — A. That is 
 a question, of course, which goes to my motive, and if I were to answer, 
 it might be only a vindication of myself and self-laudation. I would 
 prefer that the country should judge what I would have done from my 
 character. It would be easy for me to say now that I would not have 
 taken the stock. 
 
 Q. It is easy for you to say whether you would or not ? — A. Through- 
 out my whole life I never had received any consideration for duty per- 
 formed by me, except legitimate fees for professional service. 
 
 Mr. NiBLACK. As a matter of fact you ought to state what was your 
 impression and the motives that operated on you. 
 
 The Witness. I would state that it has been a rule of my life never 
 to place myself in an attitude in which my private interests would con- 
 flict with my public duties. 
 
 Mr. Merrick. And the conversation was sufficient to indicate to your 
 mind that that complication might arise in certain contingencies. 
 
 The Witness. Unquestionably there was such a possibility. 
 
 By Mr. McCrart : 
 
 Q. Was any of your conversations with Mr. Ames during the summer 
 of 1868 and during the presidential campaign ? — A. I think not ; and 
 for this reason, that in 1868 I became isolated from the members of the 
 republican party, and I do not think we conversed on the subject after 
 that. 
 
 ■Q. Tour latest conversation, then, with Mr. Ames was probably in 
 the latter part of the winter of 1867-'68 ? — A. Perhaps so. I do not 
 know that my relations with Mr. Ames were materially affected, but the 
 impeachment trial came on and isolated me from the republican jiarty. 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. ■ 519 
 
 Mr. McCraey. I want to fix the date of Your last negotiations with 
 Mr. Ames. 
 
 The Witness. I did not have any negotiations with him about it. 
 
 Mr. McCrary. Well, your conversation. 
 
 The Witness. I presume that if I say in 1808, it will cover the 
 ground ; possibly I may in 1869. 
 
 Q. And he gave you to understand that he had none of this stock to 
 dispose of? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. I suppose that was prior to June, 1868!— A. There may have been 
 some conversation in 1868 ; if there was i$ was very early in the year, 
 because the impeachment trial came on and then 1 had no conversation 
 with Mr. Ames on the subject — certainly not until after June. 
 
 Q. What time did you leave the Senate! — A. In 1871. 
 
 Mr. Ames. Did I say anything to you about wanting any legislation, 
 or did I try to influence you or to affect your vote in any way ! 
 
 :The Witness. Not in the slightest degree. I considered Mr. Ames's 
 statement suflSciently full and explicit to satisfy me in regard to this 
 whole matter. If it was as full to others there would be no trouble in 
 coming to a knowledge of the whole matter. 
 
 Mr. Ames. You spoke to me about the matter in consequence of Mr. 
 McComb's recommending you to come to me about it ! 
 
 The Witness. Yes, sir ; and only on that account. 
 
 LETTER FROM 3IE. BROOKS. 
 
 The following letter from Mr. Brooks was handed to Mr. Poland, the 
 chairman of the committee, on the morning of the 17th, complaining of 
 the exclusion of testimony in his favor : 
 
 ' Yv'ASHiNGTON, February 17, 
 
 Before the Committee-Boom^ 
 Monday, a. m., 10 o^clock and 5 minntes. 
 
 Hon. LuEE P. Poland, Chairman, &c. : 
 
 Finding your door closed, I demand, before you reach any conclusion 
 on my case, what the greatest criminal has a. right to demand — a sight 
 of the indictment against me. The onlj"- public charge made against 
 me, and upon which I had reason to think the whole case turned, was 
 the charge of McComb that Mr. Alley gave me fifty shares of Credit 
 Mobilier stock to bribe or influence democratic members of Congress. 
 This has been proven by no one, but on the contrary disproved by Alley, 
 Dillon, Ham, ifeilson, and Brooks. If there be any other charge, I de- 
 mand the right of defense upon it and to see the charge, and when it 
 is presented I will undertake to prove negatives to the entire satisfac- 
 tion of the court. I will show by all or nearly all the clerks in the 
 TlJnion Pacific Eailroad office, and in the Credit Mobilier office, and by 
 others, that all my transactions were open and above-board, and in 
 nothing under cover. It is cruel, in secret committee, then, without 
 notice, to damn a man's unstained record of twenty years of public 
 life, without a full and fair trial. I have asked you to summon the 
 Government directors, to show my uprightness and co-ordinate action 
 with them. It has not been done. I have asked you to call for Gov- 
 ernment records within a mile of your court-room, to show that 31c- 
 Comb was not a good witness. It has not been done. I have been 
 
520 CREDIT 'mOBILIER. 
 
 permitted to have but Messrs. Voorhees and Beck as my witnesses, 
 against the dozen or more called by you during the ten days you were 
 arraigning me. 
 
 I most respectfully submit that this is unjust, illegal, and partial, and 
 before any conclusion is reached, I respectfully demand such an oppor- 
 tunity for defense as would be given a criminal in a common police 
 court. 
 
 Yours respectfully, but iu haste, 
 
 JAMES BKOOKS. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Alley John B. ' 
 
 Testimony of 74-80, 84-109, 311, 322, 405-408, 
 
 420-423, 429 
 
 Statement of 112 \ 
 
 Allison, William B. 
 
 Testimony of 304-308 
 
 in relation to 9, 21, 29, 34, 41, 111, 215, 289-293, 
 
 303, 334, 354, 356, 357, 408, 456, 457, 461 
 Ames, Oakes. 
 
 Testimony of 15, 266-270, 273-275, 279-304, 313-318, 
 
 321, 322, 328, 334, 341, 351-365, 443-477, 498-500 
 
 Letters of 4, 5, 262, 263 
 
 Bayaed, James A. 
 
 Testimony in relation to- 4, 9, 15, 30, 33, 293, 336, 408 
 
 ' Letter of 74 
 
 Beck, James B. 
 
 Testimony of 442 
 
 Bingham, John A. 
 
 Testimony of 191-197 
 
 in relation to 6, 20, 27, 32, 34, 35, 40, 181, 
 
 272, 290, 303, 356, 458 
 Blaine, James G. 
 
 Testimony of 1, 2 
 
 in relation to 6, 10, 31, 181, 293, 323, 339 
 
 BoiiTWELL, George S. 
 
 Testimony in relation to 6, 21, 28, 32, 80, 92, 103, 186, 303, 
 
 304, 406 
 BOYEK, B. M. 
 
 Testimony of . . , 207-211 
 
 in relation to 133, 138, 173, 174, 240, 243, 272 
 
 Bkooks, James. 
 
 Testimony of ■. 243-261, 439-441, 361 
 
 in relation to 11, 12, 42, 69-76, 102, 103, 110, 111, 
 
 115-128, 133, 144, 153, 155-161, 164^169, 171-176, 181, 
 210, 225-227, 228-239, 242, 342-345, 349-351, 408-420, 
 
 426, 430, 441-443 
 
 Letter of - 519 
 
 BuPFiNTON, James. 
 
 Testimony of - •• 500-501 
 
 BUSHNELL, C. S. 
 
 Testimony of 179-184 
 
 Oakpentbr, Matthew H. 
 
 Testimony in relation to 178 
 
 Cheney, Thomas P. 
 
 Testimony of 331 
 
 (Jlaek, Horace F. 
 
 Testimony of 430 
 
 34 X 
 
522 CEEDIT MOBILIER. 
 
 Colfax, Schuyler. 
 
 Testimony of 81-84, 325-328, 481-492, 501-516 
 
 in relation to. 6, 9, 13, 20, 26, 27, 31, 32, 40, 92, 164, 186, 223, 
 228, 274, 275-279, 288, 303, 309-311, 318-325, 
 331, 333, 341, 342, 351, 356, 424, 425, 444, 451, 
 
 454, 465-481 
 Crane, Henry C. 
 
 Testimony of 154-162, 429, 430 
 
 Ceotjnsb, L. L. ' > 
 
 • Testimony of 318-321 
 
 Dawes, Henry L. 
 
 Testimony of 112-115 
 
 in relation to 6, 20, 27, 32, 34, 35, 36, 80, 103, 104, 136, 
 
 223, 294, 295, 303, 355, 406, 407, 449 
 
 Letter from .' 114 
 
 Dillon, Moses. 
 
 Testimony of 332, 334, 477-481 
 
 Dillon, Sidney. 
 
 Testimony of 227-239-349-351 
 
 DURANT, Tiiomas C. 
 
 Testimony of 162-178, 239-243, 36S-405 
 
 Elliott, . 
 
 Testimony in relation to 6, 21, 28, 32 
 
 Emert, Matthew G. 
 
 . Testimony of 312, 313 
 
 EoVler, Joseph S. 
 
 Testimony of 516-519 
 
 in relation to , 4, 6, 9, 21, 29, 30, 33, 293, 303, 408 
 
 Garfield, James A. 
 
 Testimony of 128-121 
 
 in relation to 6, 21, 28, 40, 92, 136, 181, 223, 228, 
 
 295-298, 300, 303, 362, 355-361, 471 
 Garrison, C. K. 
 
 Testimony of 225-227 
 
 Grimes, J. W. 
 
 Testimony in relation to 10, 19, 20, 21, 39, 205, 220, 306 
 
 Ham, Benjamin P. 
 
 Testimony of 131-154, 342-345, 408 
 
 Letters from .' 138, 139 
 
 Harlan, James. 
 
 Testimony in relation to .' 178 
 
 HoLLiSTER, Mrs. Caroline 
 
 Testimony of , „ 495-497 
 
 Hooper, Samuel. 
 
 Testimony in relation to 12, 19, 21, 39, 103, 138, 182, 195, 205 
 
 Interrogatories and answers in the Pennsylvania suit 49 
 
 Kelley, William D. 
 
 Testimony of 197-204 
 
 in relation to 6, 21, 28, 40, 136, 181, 297-299, 300, 308, 
 
 313-318, 322, 330, 332, 356-357, 360, 459, 466-468, 479 
 Kennedy, George W. 
 
 Testimony of 220-225 
 
 Logan, John A. 
 
 Testimony of 346, 347 
 
 in relation to 335, 339, 352-353, 460 
 
CREDIT MOBILIEE. 52 
 
 McCOMB, Henry S. 
 
 Testimony of 2-1^, 68-74, 109-112, 275-279, 423-429 
 
 Matthews, George W. 
 
 Testimony of 492-495 
 
 JTbilson, Charles H. 
 
 Testimony of 115-128, 408-420 
 
 Oedway, N. G. 
 
 Testimony of i 309, 329-331 
 
 Patterson, J. W. 
 
 Testimony of 184-186, 261-266, 270-273 
 
 in relation to 6, 20, 20, 31, 32, 35, 40, 262, 226-270, 
 
 289, 290, 303, 313, 336-337, 352, 356, 457-458, 480 
 
 SCHELL, Augustus 
 
 Testimony of . . . .■ 441_442 
 
 SCOFIELD, Glenni W. 
 
 Testimony of 204-207 
 
 in relation to 6, 19, 21, 28, 29, 32, 39, 40, 80, 136, 181, 
 
 299, 300, 303, 333, 352, 455-456 
 SwAiN, Henry C. 
 
 Testimony of 341, 342, 351, 352 
 
 Stockholders of Credit Mobilier. 
 
 List of 59-67 
 
 YooRHEES, Daniel W. 
 
 Testimony of 443 
 
 Wilson, Henry 
 
 Testimony of 186-190 
 
 in relation to 6, 9, 10, 20, 26, 32, 78-80, 92, 103-104, 
 
 181, 186, 223, 228, 272, 288-289, 303, 336, 354, 406, 448, 46 L 
 Wilson, James P. 
 
 Testimony of 211-220 
 
 in relation to , 21, 29, 30, 38, 40, 41, 303, 333, 336, 
 
 408, 457 
 
 I 
 
 O